[Senate Report 110-148]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



                                                       Calendar No. 336
110th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                    110-148

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



 
               VETERANS BENEFITS ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2007

                                _______
                                

                August 29, 2007.--Ordered to be printed

  Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of August 3, 2007

                                _______
                                

          Mr. Akaka, from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                           SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 1315]

    The Committee on Veterans' Affairs (hereinafter, ``the 
Committee''), to which was referred the bill (S. 1315), to 
amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance life insurance 
benefits for disabled veterans, and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute, and recommends that 
the bill, as amended, do pass.

                              Introduction

    On May 7, 2007, Committee Chairman Daniel K. Akaka 
introduced S. 1315, the proposed ``Disabled Veterans Insurance 
Improvement Act of 2007.'' S. 1315 would amend title 38, United 
States Code, to enhance life insurance benefits for disabled 
veterans, and for other purposes. The bill was referred to the 
Committee.
    Earlier on January 4, 2007, Senator Inouye introduced S. 
57, the proposed ``Filipino Veterans Equity Act of 2007.'' 
Later, Chairman Akaka and Senators Boxer, Brown, Cardin, 
Cantwell, Clinton, Feinstein, Lautenberg, Menendez, Mikulski, 
Murray, Obama, Reid, Schumer, and Stevens were added as 
cosponsors. S. 57 would deem certain service performed before 
July 1, 1946, in the organized military forces of the 
Philippines and Philippine Scouts as active military service 
for purposes of eligibility for veterans benefits through the 
Department of Veterans Affairs. This bill would also repeal 
certain provisions discounting such service as qualifying 
service.
    On January 9, 2007, Ranking Republican Member Craig 
introduced S. 225, with Chairman Akaka. Later, Senator Brown 
was added as a cosponsor. S. 225 would expand the number of 
individuals qualifying for retroactive benefits from traumatic 
injury protection coverage under Servicemembers' Group Life 
Insurance.
    On February 15, 2007, Chairman Akaka introduced S. 643, the 
proposed ``Disabled Veterans Insurance Act of 2007.'' S. 643 
would increase from $20,000 to $40,000 the maximum amount of 
supplemental service disabled veterans' insurance for totally 
disabled 
veterans.
    On March 13, 2007, Senator Murray introduced S. 847. Later, 
Senators Brown and Sanders were added as cosponsors. S. 847 
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.
    On March 13, 2007, Senator Murray introduced S. 848, the 
proposed ``Prisoner of War Benefits Act of 2007.'' Later, 
Senators Brown and Sanders were added as cosponsors. S. 848 
would add diabetes and osteoporosis to the list of diseases 
presumed to be service-connected for former prisoners of war.
    On April 11, 2007, the Committee held a hearing on S. 57. 
Testimony was offered by: The Honorable H.E. Willy C. Gaa, 
Philippine Ambassador to the United States; Mr. Ronald R. 
Aument, Deputy Under Secretary for Benefits, U.S. Department of 
Veterans Affairs; Ms. Luisa Maria Antonio, Executive Director, 
Veterans Equity Center; Mr. Sidath Viranga Panangala, Analyst 
in Social Legislation, Congressional Research Service; Ms. 
Jenah Yangwas, granddaughter of a Filipino World War II veteran 
and member of Student Action for Veterans Equity; Mr. Manuel 
Braga, Commander, Filipino WW II Veterans Federation of San 
Diego County; Mr. Artemio Caleda, President, WW II Filipino 
American Veterans and Ladies Auxiliary of Hawaii; Mr. Patrick 
Ganio, Sr., President, American Coalition for Filipino 
Veterans, Inc., whose testimony was presented by Mr. Avelino 
Asuncion; and Mr. Benito Valdez, Filipino Community of Seattle. 
Mr. Edwin Ramsey, who fought alongside Filipino veterans during 
World War II, testified via 
videotape.
    On April 12, 2007, Senator Cornyn introduced S. 1096, the 
proposed ``Veterans' Housing Benefits Enhancement Act of 
2007,'' with Chairman Akaka, Ranking Republican Member Craig, 
and Senator Hutchison as cosponsors. Later, Senators Bunning 
and Martinez were added as cosponsors. S. 1096 would provide 
certain housing benefits to disabled members of the Armed 
Forces and expand certain benefits for disabled veterans with 
severe burns.
    On April 25, 2007, Chairman Akaka introduced S. 1215. 
Later, Senator Sanders was added as a cosponsor. S. 1215 would 
raise the cap on funds for State approving agencies, extend 
authority for a pilot program for on-the-job claims adjudicator 
training, update various reporting requirements, and provide 
for other purposes.
    On May 2, 2007, Ranking Republican Member Craig introduced 
S. 1265. S. 1265 would expand eligibility for veterans' 
mortgage life insurance to include members of the Armed Forces 
receiving specially adapted housing assistance from the 
Department of Veterans Affairs.
    On May 3, 2007, Ranking Republican Member Craig introduced 
S. 128, the proposed ``Veterans' Justice Assurance Act of 
2007.'' 
S. 1289 would modify the salary and terms of judges of the 
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and modify 
authorities for the recall of retired judges of such court.
    On May 3, 2007, Ranking Republican Member Craig introduced 
S. 1290. S. 1290 would provide additional discretion to the 
Secretary of Veterans Affairs in contracting with State 
approving agencies.
    On May 3, 2007, Ranking Republican Member Craig introduced 
S. 1293, the proposed ``Veterans' Education and Vocational 
Benefits Improvement Act of 2007.'' S. 1293 would improve 
educational assistance for members and former members of the 
Armed Forces.
    On May 7, 2007, Senator Feingold introduced S. 1313, the 
proposed ``Servicemembers' Cellular Phone Contract Fairness Act 
of 2007.'' Later, Senator Isakson was added as a cosponsor. S. 
1313 would provide relief for servicemembers with respect to 
contracts for cellular phone service.
    On May 7, 2007, Senator Feingold introduced S. 1314, the 
proposed ``Veterans Outreach Improvement Act of 2007,'' with 
Senator Burr as a cosponsor. S. 1314 would enhance the outreach 
activities of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
    On May 8, 2007, Senator Sanders introduced S. 1326, the 
proposed ``Comprehensive Veterans Benefits Improvements Act of 
2007.'' S. 1326 would improve and enhance compensation and 
pension, health care, housing, burial, and other benefits for 
veterans.
    On May 9, 2007, the Committee held a hearing on benefits 
legislation at which testimony on S. 1315, among other bills, 
was offered by: the Honorable Daniel L. Cooper, Under Secretary 
for Benefits, Department of Veterans Affairs; Ms. Meredith 
Beck, National Policy Director, Wounded Warrior Project; Mr. 
Carl Blake, National Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans 
of America; Mr. Eric A. Hilleman, Deputy Director, National 
Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United 
States; Mr. Kimo S. Hollingsworth, National Legislative 
Director, AMVETS; Mr. Brian E. Lawrence, Assistant National 
Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans; Col. Robert 
F. Norton (Ret.), Deputy Director, Government Relations, 
Military Officers Association of America; and Mr. Alec S. 
Petkoff, Assistant Director, Veterans Affairs and 
Rehabilitation Commission, The American Legion.
    On May 17, 2007, Chairman Akaka introduced S. 1421. S. 1421 
would maintain, manage and keep available assets of the Air 
Force Health Study, Ranch Hand.

                           Committee Meeting

    After carefully reviewing the testimony from the foregoing 
hearings, the Committee met in open session on June 27, 2007, 
to consider, among other legislation, an amended version of S. 
1315, consisting of provisions from S. 1315 as introduced and 
from the other legislation noted above. The Committee voted 
unanimously to report favorably S. 1315 to the Senate.

                     Summary of S. 1315 as Reported

    S. 1315, as reported (hereinafter, ``the Committee bill''), 
consists of eight titles, summarized below.

                       TITLE I--INSURANCE MATTERS

    Section 101 would provide level-premium term life insurance 
for veterans with service-connected disabilities.
    Section 102 would provide for the administrative costs of 
service disabled veterans' insurance.
    Section 103 would modify Servicemembers' Group Life 
Insurance coverage.
    Section 104 would provide additional supplemental insurance 
for totally disabled veterans.
    Section 105 would expand the number individuals qualifying 
for retroactive benefits from traumatic injury protection 
coverage under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance.
    Section 106 would direct the Secretary to consider the loss 
of a dominant hand in prescription of schedule of severity of 
traumatic injury protection under Servicemembers' Group Life 
Insurance.
    Section 107 would allow servicemembers to designate a 
fiduciary for traumatic injury protection coverage under 
Traumatic Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance in case of lost 
mental capacity or extended loss of consciousness.
    Section 108 would enhance Veterans' Mortgage Life 
Insurance.

                       TITLE II--HOUSING MATTERS

    Section 201 would provide eligibility for VA-provided home 
improvement and structural alteration payments to totally 
disabled members of the Armed Forces before discharge or 
release from the Armed Forces.
    Section 202 would provide eligibility for certain specially 
adapted housing benefits to members of the Armed Forces with 
service-
connected disabilities and individuals residing outside the 
United States.
    Section 203 would provide eligibility for specially adapted 
housing assistance to individuals with severe burn injuries.
    Section 204 would extend until December 31, 2011, authority 
to assist severely disabled servicemembers temporarily residing 
in housing owned by a family member with housing adaptation 
grants.
    Section 205 would provide supplemental specially adapted 
housing benefits for disabled veterans.
    Section 206 would require a report on the adequacy of 
existing specially adapted housing grant and assistance 
authorities for disabled individuals.
    Section 207 would require a report on the need for 
specially adapted housing assistance for individuals who reside 
on a permanent basis in housing owned by a family member.

                 TITLE III--LABOR AND EDUCATION MATTERS

    Section 301 would require the Department of Veterans 
Affairs to coordinate with the Departments of Labor and 
Education to reduce overlap and duplication with respect to 
approvals of programs of education and to report to Congress on 
establishing outcome-
oriented performance measures for State approving agencies.
    Section 302 would restore the funding cap for State 
approving agencies to $19 million.
    Section 303 would permit waiver of a residency requirement 
for State Directors of Veterans' Employment and Training.
    Section 304 would update a special unemployment study to 
include veterans of the Post-9/11 Global Operations period and 
require an annual report.
    Section 305 would temporarily extend an increase in 
benefits for individuals pursuing apprenticeship or on-job 
training programs.

            TITLE IV--FILIPINO WORLD WAR II VETERANS MATTERS

    Section 401 would deem certain service before July 1, 1946, 
in the organized military forces of the Philippines and the 
Philippine Scouts as active military service for purposes of 
eligibility for veterans benefits.
    Section 402 would provide that the children of deceased or 
totally-disabled service-connected Filipino veterans who 
qualify for educational benefits would be paid at the same rate 
and under the same conditions as the children of other 
veterans.

                         TITLE V--COURT MATTERS

    Section 501 would modify the rules governing service and 
payment of retired judges performing recall service for the 
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
    Section 502 would grant the United States Court of Appeals 
for Veterans Claims additional discretion in the imposition of 
practice and registration fees.
    Section 503 would require the United States Court of 
Appeals for Veterans Claims to submit annual reports to 
Congress on its 
workload.
    Section 504 would require the General Services 
Administration to study and report on the feasibility of 
expanding the facilities of the United States Court of Appeals 
for Veterans Claims.

               TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND PENSION MATTERS

    Section 601 would add osteoporosis to the disabilities 
presumed to be service-connected in former prisoners of war 
with post-
traumatic stress disorder.
    Section 602 would provide an annual cost-of-living increase 
for additional dependency and indemnity compensation paid to 
certain surviving spouses with dependent children under the age 
of 18.
    Section 603 would restore parity between elderly and 
disabled low-income pensioners with respect to receipt of 
special monthly compensation.

                 TITLE VII--BURIAL AND MEMORIAL MATTERS

    Section 701 would authorize supplemental benefits for 
veterans for funeral and burial expenses.
    Section 702 would authorize supplemental plot allowances.

                       TITLE VIII--OTHER MATTERS

    Section 801 would provide automobile and adaptive equipment 
assistance to disabled veterans and servicemembers with severe 
burn injuries.
    Section 802 would provide supplemental assistance for 
providing automobiles and other conveyances to certain disabled 
veterans.
    Section 803 would designate the National Guard and Reserve 
as integral targets of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs' 
outreach program and would establish a definition of the term 
``outreach''.
    Section 804 would terminate or suspend, upon request, the 
cellular telephone contracts of servicemembers undergoing 
deployment outside the United States.
    Section 805 would authorize funding for the Medical Follow-
Up Agency for the maintenance and management of the Air Force 
Health Study specimens.
    Section 806 would require a National Academies study on the 
risk of developing multiple sclerosis as a result of certain 
service in the Persian Gulf War and Post-9/11 Global Operations 
theaters.
    Section 807 would require a Comptroller General report on 
the adequacy of dependency and indemnity compensation to 
maintain survivors of veterans who die from service-connected 
disabilities.

                       Background and Discussion


                       TITLE I--INSURANCE MATTERS

Sec. 101. Level-premium term life insurance for veterans with service-
        connected disabilities.

    Section 101 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
1315 as introduced, would establish a new program of insurance 
for service-connected disabled veterans that would provide up 
to a maximum of $50,000 in level premium term life insurance 
coverage.
    The Department of Veterans Affairs (hereinafter, ``VA'') 
offers a variety of life insurance options for servicemembers, 
veterans, and their families. Most notable among these is the 
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (hereinafter, ``SGLI'') 
program, which offers low-cost group life insurance for 
servicemembers on active duty, ready reservists, members of the 
National Guard, members of the Commissioned Corps of the 
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Public 
Health Service, cadets and midshipmen of the four service 
academies, and members of the Reserve Officer Training Corps. 
SGLI coverage is available in $50,000 increments up to the 
maximum of $400,000. SGLI premiums are currently $.07 per 
$1,000 of insurance, regardless of the insured individual's 
age.
    Veterans' Group Life Insurance (hereinafter, ``VGLI'') is a 
post-separation insurance that allows members to convert their 
SGLI coverage to renewable term insurance. Members with full-
time SGLI coverage are eligible for VGLI upon release from 
service. VGLI is issued in multiples of $10,000 up to a maximum 
of $400,000. A member's coverage amount cannot exceed the 
amount of SGLI they had in force at the time of separation from 
service. VGLI premiums are based upon the separating member's 
age. The advantage of exercising a conversion option is that a 
servicemember, irrespective of health status, is not 
disqualified on the basis of pre-existing condition.
    Veterans who have a service-connected disability may be 
eligible for life insurance coverage under the Service-Disabled 
Veterans Insurance (hereinafter, ``S-DVI'') program. Policies 
are issued for a maximum face amount of $10,000. Under certain 
conditions, the basic S-DVI policy provides for a waiver of 
premiums for policyholders with total disabilities. 
Policyholders who carry the basic S-DVI coverage and who become 
eligible for a waiver of premiums due to total disability can 
apply for and be granted additional Supplemental S-DVI of up to 
$20,000. Waiver of premiums due to total disability is not 
provided on Supplemental S-DVI coverage. At present, the S-DVI 
program bases premium rates on a 1941 mortality table--thus not 
offering favorable rates to disabled veterans. However, VA does 
provide subsidy payments to keep premiums lower than they 
otherwise would be.
     Under the new program of insurance proposed by section 101 
of the Committee bill, service-disabled veterans would be able 
to purchase up to $50,000 worth of level-premium term life 
insurance coverage, in $10,000 increments. The premium rates 
for the new insurance program would be based on the 2001 
Commissioners Standard Ordinary Basic Table of Mortality rather 
than the 1941 mortality table, thus offering veterans a more 
favorable insurance premium rate. This new program would be 
available to service-
connected disabled veterans who are less than 65 years of age 
at the time of application. When an insured veteran reaches age 
70, two things would occur under this new program of insurance. 
First, the amount of insurance would be reduced to 20 percent 
of the amount of insurance in force prior to the veteran's 70th 
birthday. Second, the veteran would cease making premium 
payments. This means that during those years when the family's 
financial obligations would be commensurately higher because of 
children, mortgages, and the potential impact of any loss of 
income, the veteran would be able to purchase up to $50,000 of 
term life insurance. At age 70, when resources are likely to be 
more restricted and the need for substantial insurance to take 
care of a family's needs after the veteran's death have 
lessened, the veteran would no longer have an obligation to 
continue to pay any insurance premiums and would have reduced 
coverage. Finally, the proposed program would waive all 
premiums for veterans with service-connected disabilities rated 
as total.
    Under the proposed new program, an eligible veteran would 
have to submit an application for this insurance within two 
years from the date on which VA establishes that a service-
connected disability exists, but not later than ten years after 
a veteran's release from active duty. It would also provide 
that during the first year of the program, any eligible veteran 
who is presently insured under the S-DVI program could convert 
that insurance coverage to a policy under this new program.

Sec. 102. Administrative costs of service disabled veterans' 
        insurance.

    Section 102 of the Committee bill, which is derived from 
S. 1315 as introduced, would allow administrative costs for the 
S-DVI program to be paid for by premiums, as is done with all 
other National Service Life Insurance sub-funds. This would 
allow administrative costs to be provided from Veterans 
Insurance and Indemnities and not General Operating Expenses in 
Function 700 of the Budget of the United States Government.

Sec. 103. Modification of servicemembers' group life insurance.

    Section 103(a) of the Committee bill, which is derived from 

S. 1315 as introduced, would amend section 1967(a)(1) of title 
38, United States Code, with regard to Family Servicemembers' 
Group Life Insurance (hereinafter, ``FSGLI'') to extend 
coverage to members of the Individual Ready Reserve 
(hereinafter, ``IRR''). FSGLI is a life insurance program 
extended to the spouses and dependent children of 
servicemembers insured under the SGLI program. FSGLI provides 
up to a maximum of $100,000 of insurance coverage for spouses, 
not to exceed the amount of SGLI the insured member has in 
force, and $10,000 for dependent children. Spousal coverage is 
issued in increments of $10,000.
    Public Law 107-14 provided FSGLI to all servicemembers on 
active duty and to members of the IRR who are eligible for 
full-time SGLI coverage. However, the legislation did not 
extend this coverage to a small group of reservists who are 
also eligible for full-time SGLI coverage, that is reservists 
who volunteer for assignment to a mobilization category in the 
IRR, as defined in section 1965(5)(C) of title 38, United 
States Code.
    Section 103(b) of the Committee bill would amend section 
1968(a)(5)(B)(ii) of title 38, United States Code, which 
provides that SGLI policies, with respect to an insurable 
dependent of a servicemember, will cease on the earliest of: 
(1) 120 days after the servicemember's death; (2) 120 days 
after the date of termination of insurance on the 
servicemember's life; or (3) 120 days after termination of the 
dependent's status as an insurable dependent.
    The second criterion in the current law effectively gives 
many insurable dependents 240 days of coverage after the 
servicemember separates from service because a servicemember's 
SGLI coverage extends for 120 days after separation. Section 
103(b) of the Committee bill would change the second criterion 
to refer to the date of the servicemember's separation or 
release from service, rather than the date of termination of 
insurance on the servicemember's life.

Sec. 104. Supplemental insurance for totally disabled veterans.

    Section 104 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
643, would increase the amount of supplemental life insurance 
available to totally disabled veterans under the Service-
Disabled Veterans' Insurance (hereinafter, ``S-DVI'') program 
from $20,000 to $30,000. Many totally disabled veterans find it 
difficult to obtain commercial life insurance. These are the 
veterans this program aids by providing them with a reasonable 
amount of life insurance coverage.
    S-DVI was established during the Korean War to provide life 
insurance for veterans with service-connected disabilities. The 
$10,000 base benefit has never been increased. In comparison, 
the SGLI and VGLI benefits, which were $10,000 and $20,000 
respectively at their inception, have been increased over time 
to $400,000.
    In 1992, in Public Law 102-568, Congress increased the 
amount of life insurance available to S-DVI policyholders by 
offering $20,000 worth of supplemental coverage to those who 
are considered totally disabled. Forty percent of the veterans 
enrolled in the S-DVI program are considered totally disabled 
and are eligible for a premium waiver for their basic coverage. 
According to VA, in fiscal year 2006, 32 percent of veterans 
granted new policy waivers also opted to pay for this 
supplemental coverage. However, even with $30,000 in coverage, 
the amount of life insurance available to disabled veterans 
falls well short of the death benefits available to 
servicemembers and veterans enrolled in the SGLI and VGLI 
programs.
    The Congressionally-mandated study completed in 2001, 
entitled ``Program Evaluation of Benefits for Survivors of 
Veterans with Service-Connected Disabilities,'' found the 
lowest area of veteran satisfaction to be the maximum amount of 
S-DVI insurance coverage that veterans were authorized to 
purchase. Section 104 of the Committee bill would begin to 
address this area of need by increasing the amount of life 
insurance available to totally disabled veterans by allowing 
them to purchase an additional $10,000 in supplemental 
insurance coverage.

Sec. 105. Expansion of individuals qualifying for retroactive benefits 
        from traumatic injury protection coverage under Servicemembers' 
        Group Life Insurance.

    Section 105 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
225, would expand the number of individuals qualifying for 
traumatic injury protection coverage under the Servicemembers' 
Group Life Insurance program (hereinafter, ``TSGLI'').
    Section 1032 of Public Law 109-13, the ``Emergency 
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on 
Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005'' (hereinafter, ``Supplemental 
Appropriations Act'') established traumatic injury protection 
coverage under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance 
program. TSGLI provides coverage against qualifying losses 
incurred as a result of a traumatic injury event. In the event 
of a loss, VA will pay between $25,000 and $100,000 depending 
on the severity of the qualifying loss. A key factor in 
analyzing the severity of a particular traumatic injury is the 
impact it has on the length of hospitalization and 
rehabilitation. Currently, servicemembers and reserve component 
members with any amount of SGLI coverage are automatically 
covered under TSGLI. A premium (currently $1 monthly) is 
collected from covered members to meet peacetime program 
expenses; the Department of Defense (hereinafter, ``DOD'') is 
required to fund TSGLI program costs associated with the extra 
hazards of military service.
    TSGLI went into effect on December 1, 2005. Thus, all 
insured servicemembers under SGLI from that point forward are 
also insured under TSGLI and their injuries are covered 
regardless of where they occur. In order to provide assistance 
to those servicemembers suffering traumatic injuries on or 
between October 7, 2001, and November 30, 2005, retroactive 
TSGLI payments were authorized under section 1032(c) of the 
Supplemental Appropriations Act to individuals whose qualifying 
losses were sustained as ``a direct result of injuries incurred 
in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom.'' 
Under section 501(b) of Public Law 109-233, the Veterans' 
Housing Opportunity and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006, this 
definition was amended to allow retroactive payments to 
individuals whose qualifying losses were sustained as ``a 
direct result of a traumatic injury incurred in the theater of 
operations for Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi 
Freedom.''
    Testimony given by Meredith Beck, National Policy Director 
at the Wounded Warrior Project, at the Committee's May 9, 2007, 
hearing revealed that limiting retroactive TSGLI payments to 
those who served in the Operation Iraqi Freedom (hereinafter, 
``OIF'') or Operation Enduring Freedom (hereinafter, ``OEF'') 
theaters of operations was both inconsistent with other 
retroactive payments approved by Congress and, more important, 
an obstacle to providing needed assistance to servicemembers 
traumatically wounded in the line of duty:

        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. SO1 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. . . . 

    Section 105 of the Committee bill would remove the 
requirement that limits retroactive TSGLI payments to those who 
served in the OIF or OEF theaters of operations. Thus, section 
105 of the Committee bill would authorize retroactive TSGLI 
payments for qualifying traumatic injuries incurred on or after 
October 7, 2001, but before December 1, 2005, irrespective of 
where the injuries 
occurred.

Sec. 106. Consideration of loss of dominant hand in prescription of 
        schedule of severity of traumatic injury under Servicemembers' 
        Group Life Insurance.

    Section 106 of the Committee bill would allow VA to 
consider the loss of a dominant hand when determining severity 
of loss under the TSGLI program. TSGLI provides coverage 
against qualifying losses incurred as a result of a traumatic 
injury event. In the event of a qualifying loss, VA will pay 
between $25,000 and $100,000 depending on the severity of the 
qualifying loss. In prescribing payments, VA does not account 
for the effect, if any, that the loss of a dominant hand has on 
lengthening hospitalization or rehabilitation periods. TSGLI 
provides payment for injuries dating back to October 7, 2001. 
Since that time, there have been 97 single hand amputations. 
This includes amputations that are a part of the entire arm as 
well as just the hand. There have also been 12 thumb and index 
finger of the same hand amputations. These receive the 
equivalent payment under the TSGLI program as amputations of 
the entire arm or hand. The Committee seeks to compensate 
members appropriately for the greater loss, if any, of a 
dominant hand by giving VA the authority to distinguish in 
specifying payments for qualifying losses of a dominant hand 
and a qualifying loss of a non-dominant hand.

Sec. 107. Designation of fiduciary for members with lost mental 
        capacity or extended loss of consciousness for Traumatic 
        Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance.

    Section 107 of the Committee bill would require the 
development of a form for the designation of a recipient for 
the purpose of managing TSGLI funds in case of lost mental 
capacity or extended loss of consciousness. This form would be 
required to be completed by servicemembers who would be 
required either to elect an individual as a fiduciary or to 
have a court of jurisdiction determine the 
recipient.
    Section 1032 of Public Law 109-13, the Supplemental 
Appropriations Act, amended title 38, United States Code, to 
add a new section 1980A that provides traumatic injury 
protection coverage under the Servicemembers' Group Life 
Insurance program. TSGLI provides coverage against qualifying 
losses incurred as a result of a traumatic injury event.
    TSGLI is meant to aid servicemembers and their loved ones 
while the servicemember is recovering from a traumatic injury. 
According to an April 21, 2005, floor statement by Committee 
Ranking Republican Member Senator Craig, sponsor of the 
provision in Public Law 109-13, TSGLI's purpose is to help 
servicemembers and their families cope with the financial 
burden of extended 
rehabilitation:

        It is during this rehabilitation period at military 
        hospitals that the need for additional financial 
        resources is most acute. For many Guard and Reserve 
        members at Walter Reed, they already have foregone 
        higher paying civilian jobs prior to their deployment. 
        Lengthy recovery periods simply add to the financial 
        strain they bear. In addition, family members of 
        injured soldiers bear the burdens necessary to travel 
        from great distances to provide the love and emotional 
        support that is absolutely essential for any successful 
        rehabilitation. Spouses quit jobs to spend time with 
        their husbands at the hospital. Parents spare no 
        expense to be with their injured children.

    When a servicemember is mentally incapacitated or 
experiencing an extended loss of consciousness, and previously 
no provision had been made to designate a Power of Attorney 
(hereinafter, ``POA''), TSGLI's intent cannot be met because 
the servicemember is unable to file a TSGLI claim.
    The branches of service encourage, but do not require, 
servicemembers to prepare a will and POA when they first 
enlist. Prior to deployment, servicemembers are even more 
strongly encouraged to take such steps. The Judge Advocate 
General (hereinafter, ``JAG'') Legal Assistance offices assist 
with such preparation. The military POA that the JAGs prepare 
is valid under federal law.
    If there is no prior POA on file and the servicemember is 
injured and incapacitated, a JAG officer is usually available 
to assist family members who wish to petition a local court of 
jurisdiction for a court-appointed guardianship. However, JAG 
officers are usually prohibited from appearing in court with a 
family member.
    Section 107 of the Committee bill would require DOD, in 
consultation with VA, to develop a form for the designation of 
a fiduciary to administer TSGLI funds distributed under section 
1980A of title 38, United States Code, in cases where the 
servicemember is mentally incapacitated or experiencing an 
extended loss of consciousness. Determinations of mental 
incapacity would be determined by Secretary of Defense in 
consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The 
Committee expects that having servicemembers make this 
designation will prevent their families from having to shoulder 
the undue burden of obtaining court-
appointed guardianship over their loved ones in order to access 
needed TSGLI funds.

Sec. 108. Enhancement of veterans' mortgage life insurance.

    Section 108 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
1315 as introduced, would increase the maximum amount of 
Veterans' Mortgage Life Insurance (hereinafter, ``VMLI'') that 
a service-
connected disabled veteran may purchase from the current 
maximum of $90,000 to $150,000, then from $150,000 to $200,000 
on January 1, 2012.
    The VMLI program was established in 1971 and is available 
to service-connected disabled veterans who have received 
specially adapted housing grants from VA. In the event of the 
veteran's death, the veteran's family is protected because VA 
will pay the balance of the mortgage owed up to the maximum 
amount of insurance purchased.
     In today's housing market where, according to the Federal 
Housing Finance Board, the average mortgage loan in the United 
States in June 2007 is $234,200, the current maximum is not 
adequate. Section 108 of the Committee bill would ensure that 
this important benefit, which helps secure the financial future 
of many veterans and their families, keeps pace with changes in 
the economy.

                       TITLE II--HOUSING MATTERS

Sec. 201. Home improvements and structural alterations for totally 
        disabled members of the Armed Forces before discharge or 
        release from the Armed Forces.

    Section 201 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
1096, would allow VA to provide home improvements and 
structural alterations to permanently disabled members of the 
Armed Services before discharge or release from the Armed 
Forces.
    Under current law, VA may furnish financial assistance of 
up to $4,100 home improvements and structural alterations to 
the homes of certain veterans with service-connected 
disabilities as part of the continuing medical services 
available under chapter 17 of title 38, United State Code. The 
improvements and structural alterations covered include all 
those that VA deems appropriate to ensure the effective and 
economical continuation of the veteran's treatment once he or 
she is discharged from care at a VA facility. Typical examples 
are lifts, therapeutic and rehabilitative devices and any 
alterations the veteran may need to access the entrance of his 
or her home or essential lavatory and sanitary facilities. 
Under current law, this benefit is only available to those 
discharged from active service.
    The Committee recognizes that there are a growing number of 
active duty members of the Armed Forces, especially those who 
have served in OEF and OIF, who are receiving ongoing treatment 
for disabilities directly related to their service. Thus, 
despite the fact that they have not been discharged from 
service and are not yet legally considered ``veterans,'' these 
servicemembers may be in need of the same benefits and 
assistance provided to veterans under title 38. The purpose of 
this section of the Committee bill is to make critical 
readjustment benefits available to servicemembers when they 
need them, rather than forcing them to wait until they transfer 
to the appropriate status.
    Section 201 of the Committee bill would add a new 
subsection to section 1717, title 38, United States Code, which 
would permit VA to make certain active duty members of the 
Armed Forces with disabilities permanent in nature eligible for 
home improvements and structural alterations financial 
assistance from VA. VA would be required to determine that the 
permanent disability was incurred or aggravated by an active 
member of the Armed Forces while in the line of duty. In 
addition, the servicemember would have to be hospitalized or 
receiving medical care, services, or treatment with the 
likelihood that he or she will be discharged or released from 
the Armed Services for such disability. The amount of 
assistance available would be limited to the same amount 
currently available to veterans under section 1717.

Sec. 202. Eligibility for specially adapted housing benefits and 
        assistance for members of the Armed Forces with service-
        connected disabilities and individuals residing outside the 
        United States.

    Section 202 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
1096, would make members of the Armed Forces with certain 
severe service-connected disabilities and such disabled 
individuals residing outside the United States eligible for 
specially adapted housing benefits and assistance.
    Section 2101 of title 38, United States Code, permits VA to 
assist veterans with certain permanent and total service-
connected disabilities acquire housing with special features or 
adapt their existing residences with special features. These 
special features are those which are deemed appropriate by VA 
to assist the veteran in living independently with the 
qualifying service-connected disability. Under current law, 
veterans and members of the Armed Forces with certain severe 
service-connected disabilities, including: loss, or loss of 
use, of both lower extremities such as to preclude locomotion 
without the aid of braces, crutches, canes, or a wheelchair; 
blindness in both eyes, having only light perception, plus loss 
or loss of use of one lower extremity; loss, or loss of use, of 
one lower extremity together with residuals of organic disease 
or injury, or the loss, or loss of use, of one upper extremity 
which so affect the functions of balance or propulsion as to 
preclude locomotion without the aid of braces, crutches, canes, 
or a wheelchair; or loss, or loss of use, of both upper 
extremities such as to preclude use of the arms at or above the 
elbows, are eligible to receive grants of up to $50,000 
pursuant to sections 2101(a), title 38, United States Code. 
Veterans or members of the Armed Forces with service-
connected blindness only or who have suffered the anatomical 
loss or loss of use of both hands are eligible to receive 
grants of up to $10,000 pursuant to section 2102(b).
    Section 2101 also includes authority to grant these 
benefits to members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty. 
Eligibility of members of the Armed Forces is subject to the 
same criteria and conditions as the eligibility of veterans. 
However, the other sections of chapter 21, title 38, United 
States Code, do not contain language that explicitly makes 
these provisions applicable to members of the Armed Forces. 
Most notably, section 2102A, which provides certain assistance 
to veterans residing temporarily in housing owned by a family 
member, is not currently available to members of the Armed 
Forces.
    Section 202 of the Committee bill would eliminate this 
disparity by adding a new subsection to 2101A, which would 
stipulate that any reference to a veteran or eligible 
individual in chapter 21 be treated also as a reference to a 
member of the Armed Forces.
    In addition, section 202 of the Committee bill would give 
VA discretionary authority to provide benefits and assistance 
under chapter 21 to eligible disabled individuals who reside 
outside of the United States.
    Current law is silent on whether chapter 21 specially 
adapted housing benefits are available to eligible individuals 
who reside outside of the United States. Section 36.4411 of 
title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, limits assistance under 
chapter 21, title 38, United States Code, to properties 
situated within the United States, including all territories 
and possessions thereof. Thus, VA is prohibited from providing 
assistance to otherwise eligible individuals who would use the 
assistance to acquire or adapt housing outside of the specified 
geographical limits unless the regulatory requirement is waived 
by the Secretary.
    Section 202 of the Committee bill would explicitly grant VA 
the authority to provide chapter 21 specially adapted housing 
benefits and assistance to eligible individuals living outside 
of the United States, subject to the laws of the country or 
political subdivision where the housing is located. The sole 
exception to this extension of authority is section 2106, 
Veterans' Mortgage Life Insurance. These benefits are exempted 
because their inclusion would require VA to navigate the 
property laws of any foreign country where an applicant might 
wish to use his or her housing assistance. The Committee 
believes this would create an undue burden on VA.

Sec. 203. Specially adapted housing assistance for individuals with 
        severe burn injuries.

    Section 203 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
1096, would provide specially adapted housing assistance for 
individuals with severe burn injuries.
    Under current law, eligibility for specially adapted 
housing benefits in chapter 21, title 38, United States Code, 
is restricted to individuals with certain permanent and total 
service-connected disabilities due to blindness or the loss, or 
loss of use, of a limb or limbs, or some combination of the 
two. Other disabled veterans, including those with severe burn 
injuries, are not currently eligible for these benefits.
    Advancements in battlefield medicine are ensuring that more 
burn victims survive and have the need for special living 
accommodations once they return home. Staff at the Brooke Army 
Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas, which is the DOD's 
leading center for the treatment and rehabilitation of burn 
victims, have reported the need for adaptive housing for burn 
victims.
    Section 203 of the Committee bill would expand eligibility 
for benefits under sections 2101(a) and 2101(b), title 38, 
United States Code, to include individuals with service-
connected disabilities due to severe burn injuries. The scope 
and definition of what constitutes a ``disability due to a 
severe burn injury'' would be determined pursuant to 
regulations prescribed by VA.

Sec. 204. Extension of assistance for individuals residing temporarily 
        in housing owned by a family member.

    Section 204 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
1096, would extend VA's authority to provide specially adapted 
housing assistance to individuals residing temporarily in 
housing owned by a family member.
    Under current law, section 2102A of title 38, United States 
Code, disabled veterans residing temporarily in housing owned 
by a family member are eligible for the specially adapted 
housing assistance authorized by subsections (a) and (b) of 
section 2101 of title 38, United States Code. Section 2101A was 
enacted as part of the Veterans' Housing Opportunity and 
Benefits Improvement Act of 2006 on June 15, 2006. The 
authority to provide assistance under that section terminates 
after the end of the five-year period beginning on the date of 
enactment.
    Section 204 of the Committee bill would amend section 
2102A(e), of title 38, United States Code, to extend the period 
of authorization for specially adapted housing assistance to 
individuals residing temporarily in housing owned by a family 
member until December 31, 2011.

Sec. 205. Supplemental specially adapted housing benefits for disabled 
        veterans.

    Section 205 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
1326, would authorize supplemental specially adapted housing 
benefits to disabled veterans.
    Under current law, veterans and members of the Armed Forces 
with certain severe service-connected disabilities, including: 
loss, or loss of use, of both lower extremities such as to 
preclude locomotion without the aid of braces, crutches, canes, 
or a wheelchair; blindness in both eyes, having only light 
perception, plus loss or loss of use of one lower extremity; 
loss, or loss of use, of one lower extremity together with 
residuals of organic disease or injury, or the loss, or loss of 
use, of one upper extremity which so affect the functions of 
balance or propulsion as to preclude locomotion without the aid 
of braces, crutches, canes, or a wheelchair; or loss, or loss 
of use, of both upper extremities such as to preclude use of 
the arms at or above the elbows, are eligible to receive grants 
of up to $50,000 pursuant to sections 2101(a), title 38, United 
States Code. Veterans or members of the Armed Forces with 
service-connected blindness only or who have suffered the 
anatomical loss or loss of use of both hands are eligible to 
receive grants of up to $10,000 pursuant to section 2102(b).
    Section 205 would create a discretionary program to provide 
supplemental benefits to individuals who are already eligible 
to receive these benefits. A new section 2101B would be added 
to title 38, United States Code, which would authorize VA to 
disburse supplemental assistance to eligible individuals in 
addition to the capped amounts currently specified in sections 
2102(d)(1) and 2102(d)(2). Disbursement of these supplemental 
funds would be subject to their specific availability through 
an appropriation Act. VA would be prohibited from making 
supplemental payments if all funds specifically provided for 
that purpose in an appropriations act have already been 
expended.
    Section 205 would authorize VA to pay up to an additional 
$10,000 to those eligible for assistance pursuant to section 
2101(a), increasing the total amount of funds available per 
grant, from both the mandatory and discretionary accounts, to 
$60,000. Individuals eligible for assistance pursuant to 
section 2101(b) would be able to receive up to an additional 
$2,000 in assistance, increasing the total amount of funds 
available per grant to $12,000.
    Section 205 would also direct VA to provide for an annual 
adjustment of the maximum available supplemental funds. VA 
would be required to establish a residential home cost-of-
construction index upon which this adjustment would be based. 
The supplemental funds would increase, effective October 1 of 
each fiscal year, by the same percentage by which the 
residential home cost-of-construction index increased in the 
preceding calendar year.
    In order to assess the adequacy of the supplemental funds 
provided in this section to meet the demand of eligible 
beneficiaries, section 205 would require VA to provide 
estimates to Congress at least three times a year. VA would be 
required to provide an estimate of the amount of funding 
necessary to provide supplemental assistance to all eligible 
recipients for the remainder of that fiscal year and an 
estimate of the amount of funding Congress would need to 
appropriate to provide all eligible recipients with 
supplemental assistance for the next fiscal year. These 
estimates would equip the appropriate committees of Congress 
with the information needed to enable the Congress to fund 
fully the needs of all eligible recipients through future 
appropriations should they so choose.
    Section 205 of the Committee bill is a result of the 
Committee's observation that increases in housing and home 
adaptation grants have been infrequent, despite the fact that 
real estate and construction costs are continually on the rise. 
Unless the amounts of the grants are periodically adjusted, 
inflation erodes the value and effectiveness of these benefits, 
making it more difficult for beneficiaries to afford the 
accommodations they need. This section would allow Congress to 
exercise the option to appropriate additional discretionary 
funds for this purpose.

Sec. 206. Report on specially adapted housing for disabled 
        individuals.

    Section 206 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
1096, would require VA to conduct an assessment of the adequacy 
of the existing legal authorities available to VA to assist 
disabled veterans and members of the Armed Forces in acquiring 
specially adapted housing. VA would be required to submit the 
report to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and 
the House of Representatives no later than December 31, 2008.
    Section 206 would require that the report focus on both the 
nature and extent of the assistance provided, and the scope of 
eligibility for such assistance. VA would be required to 
address various types of special features, including wheelchair 
ramps, doorways and hallways of ample width, grab bars, 
additional lighting fixtures, and other features for which 
assistance is available and explore in what areas the breadth 
of assistance may be lacking. VA would also be required to 
explore whether these benefits should be offered to veterans 
with disabilities other than those stipulated in the existing 
eligibility criteria.

Sec. 207. Report on specially adapted housing assistance for 
        individuals who reside in housing owned by a family member on a 
        permanent basis.

    Section 207 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
1096, would require VA to issue a report on the advisability of 
providing specially adapted housing assistance for individuals 
who reside in housing owned by a family member on a permanent 
basis.
    Under current law, section 2101A of title 38, United States 
Code, disabled veterans who are residing temporarily in housing 
owned by a family member are eligible for specially adapted 
housing assistance of either $14,000 or $2,000, depending on 
the nature of disability involved. Prior to enactment of this 
authority, a veteran or member of the Armed Forces had to 
intend to reside permanently in the residence for which he or 
she was seeking assistance in adapting. Section 2102A makes it 
possible, during a five-year period, for a veteran to obtain 
specially adapted housing assistance from VA while living on a 
temporary basis in a residence owned by a family member.
    Section 207 of the Committee bill would require VA to 
submit a report to Congress on the advisability of extending 
the assistance provided under section 2102A to those 
servicemembers and veterans residing permanently in housing 
owned by a family member. The report would be due to the 
Veterans' Affairs Committees of the Senate and House of 
Representatives by December 31, 2008.

                 TITLE III--LABOR AND EDUCATION MATTERS

Sec. 301. Coordination of approval activities in the administration of 
        education benefits.

    Section 301 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
1290, would require VA to coordinate with the Departments of 
Labor and Education to reduce overlap and duplication with 
respect to approvals of programs of education. It would also 
require VA to submit to the House and Senate Committees on 
Veterans' Affairs a report on the actions taken to establish 
outcome-oriented performance standards and a tracking and 
reporting system for resources for State approving agencies, 
together with any recommendations for legislative action 
considered necessary.
    Under provisions of chapter 36 of title 38, United States 
Code, VA contracts for the services of State approving agencies 
(hereinafter, ``SAAs'') for the purpose of approving programs 
of education at institutions of higher learning, apprenticeship 
programs, on-job training programs, and other programs that are 
located within each SAAs' State of jurisdiction. Generally, SAA 
approval of these programs is required before beneficiaries may 
use their educational assistance benefits to pay for them. SAAs 
are also tasked with assisting VA with various outreach 
activities to inform eligible VA program participants of the 
educational assistance benefits to which they are entitled. The 
Departments of Education and Labor also assess education and 
training programs for various purposes, primarily for awarding 
student aid and providing apprenticeship assistance.
    In a March 2007, report prepared by the General Accounting 
Office (hereinafter, ``GAO'') at the request of Ranking 
Republican Member Craig entitled, ``VA Student Financial Aid: 
Management Actions Needed to Reduce Overlap in Approving 
Education and Training Programs and to Assess State Approving 
Agencies'', the GAO identified some overlap in approval efforts 
across agencies and concluded that ``[i]t is important that VA 
work with other federal agencies . . . to reduce overlap and 
ensure that federal dollars are spent efficiently.''
    The GAO further recommended that VA should ``require SAAs 
to track and report data on resources spent on approval 
activities . . . in a cost efficient manner.'' Finally, the 
report recommended that ``the Secretary establish outcome-
oriented performance measures to assess the effectiveness of 
SAA efforts.'' In its comments on the report, VA concurred with 
each of the GAO recommendations and noted that the agency is 
working toward establishing the reporting system and 
performance measures ``with a goal of implementation in the 
FY08 budget cycle.''
    Therefore, section 301 would require VA to coordinate with 
these Departments to reduce overlap and duplication and to 
submit within 120 days a report on actions taken toward these 
goals, together with any recommendations for legislation if 
necessary to implement them fully.

Sec. 302. Modification of rate of reimbursement of State and local 
        agencies administering veterans education benefits.

    Section 302 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
1215, would modify the rate of reimbursement of State and local 
agencies administrating veterans education benefits.
    As discussed above, VA contracts for the services of SAAs 
for the purpose of approving programs of education at 
institutions of higher learning, apprenticeship programs, on-
job training programs, and other programs. SAAs are also tasked 
with assisting VA with various outreach activities to inform 
eligible VA program participants of the educational assistance 
benefits to which they are entitled.
    Since 1988, VA payment for the services of SAAs has been 
made only out of funds available for readjustment benefits, a 
mandatory funding account, and is thus subject to funding caps. 
Section 3674(a)(4) of title 38, United States Code, states as 
follows: ``The total amount made available under this section 
for any fiscal year may not exceed $13,000,000 or, * * * for 
fiscal year 2007, $19,000,000.'' Thus, under existing law, the 
cap on the amount of funds that could be made available in 
fiscal years 2008 and beyond would revert to funding levels 
applied prior to fiscal year 2000--or a reduction of more than 
32 percent.
    Section 302 of the Committee bill would restore the cap on 
the amount that may be funded from readjustment benefits for 
SAAs to $19 million beginning in fiscal year 2008 and each 
subsequent fiscal year.

Sec. 303. Waiver of residency requirement for State Directors of 
        Veterans' Employment and Training.

    Section 303 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
1215, would permit the Secretary of Labor to waive, on a case-
by-case basis, a residency requirement for State Directors for 
Veterans' Employment and Training (hereinafter, ``SDVET'').
    Current law, section 4103(a)(2) of title 38, United States 
Code, requires that each SDVET have been, at the time of 
appointment, a bona fide resident of the State for at least two 
years. The legislative history of this provision has been 
obscured by the passage of time, and the need for such a 
requirement is not documented. In a modern economy 
characterized by a mobile work force, as the Department of 
Labor (hereinafter, ``DOL'') testified, ``the current 
durational residency requirement runs counter to merit 
principles and should not, in and of itself, be a condition for 
employment.''
    By providing the Secretary of Labor the ability to waive 
this requirement when it is determined to be in the public 
interest, this section would help ensure that the best 
qualified individuals from any state may apply for, and fill, 
an SDVET vacancy. DOL notes that it believes 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.''

Sec. 304. Modification of Special Unemployment Study to cover veterans 
        of Post 9/11 Global Operations.

    Section 304 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
1215, would modify the Special Unemployment Study required to 
be submitted by the Secretary of Labor to the Congress to cover 
veterans of Post 9/11 Global Operations. It would further 
require the report to be submitted on an annual, rather than a 
biennial, basis.
    Under current law, section 4110A of title 38, United States 
Code, requires the Secretary, through the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, to submit a report every two years on the 
employment and unemployment experiences of Vietnam-era 
veterans, Vietnam-theater veterans, special disabled veterans, 
and recently separated veterans. This reporting requirement was 
added to the law by section 9(a) of Public Law 100-323, which 
was signed into law on May 20, 1988. As noted in S. Rpt. 100-
128 that accompanied the legislation from which this provision 
was derived, the Committee had a continuing concern with rates 
of unemployment among these groups of veterans and with 
assessing the extent to which the employment-
related needs were addressed.
    The Committee believes that there is continued value in 
collecting this information but that the inclusion of data on 
more recent groups of veterans--those who served and are 
serving in the Gulf War and Post 9/11 Global Operations--would 
better help the Committee assess the needs of current veterans 
entering the work force and develop appropriate responses.

Sec. 305. Extension of temporary increase in benefits for 
        apprenticeship and on-the-job training.

    Section 305 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
1215, would extend for two years the increase authorized by 
section 103 of Public Law 108-454 in the monthly educational 
assistance allowance payable for apprenticeship or other on-
the-job training under the various educational benefit programs 
administered by VA. The current authority for this increased 
rate, which is ten percentage points greater than that which 
would otherwise apply, expires on December 31, 2007. The 
increase proposed by this provision would apply to months 
beginning on or after January 1, 2008, and before January 1, 
2010.
    Eliminating the temporary increase would have the effect of 
imposing a monthly benefit rate cut on trainees enrolled in 
this type of training. An employer is only required to pay a 
trainee in an apprenticeship or other on-the-job training 
program 50 percent of the journeyman wages at the beginning of 
training and the educational assistance provided by VA helps 
supplement the lower wages. Under the existing temporary 
increase, instead of being paid 75 percent of the amount paid 
for full-time institutional training during the first six-month 
period, trainees are paid 85 percent of the amount. Although VA 
has not seen a significant increase in the number of 
individuals pursuing apprenticeship and on-the-job training 
programs, the Committee believes, and VA concurs, that the 
higher monthly educational assistance supplement provides a 
marketable incentive to encourage individuals to accept trainee 
positions they might not otherwise consider.

            TITLE IV--FILIPINO WORLD WAR II VETERANS MATTERS

Sec. 401. Expansion of eligibility for benefits provided by Department 
        of Veterans Affairs for certain service in the organized 
        military forces of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the 
        Philippine Scouts.

    Section 401 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
57, would deem certain service in the organized military forces 
of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines to be 
active military, naval, or air service for purposes of benefits 
provided under title 38, United States Code, and other 
provisions of law which use the title 38 definition. These 
organized military forces are those who were in the service of 
the Armed Forces of the United States pursuant to the military 
order of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, dated July 26, 1941, 
and include organized guerilla forces under the authority of 
the United States or the Philippine Scouts under section 14 of 
the Armed Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945 
(hereinafter, ``Filipino veterans'').
    Filipino veterans who were granted benefits prior to the 
enactment of the so-called Rescissions Acts of 1946 (Public 
Laws 79-301 and 79-391) currently receive full benefits under 
laws administered by VA. However, under current law, section 
107 of title 38, United States Code, the service of certain 
other Filipino veterans is deemed not to be active service. 
Thus, these Filipino veterans only receive certain benefits 
prescribed in Title 38 and, depending on where they legally 
reside, are paid at a reduced rate. These benefits include 
service-connected compensation benefits paid under chapter 11 
of title 38, United States Code, dependency indemnity 
compensation (hereinafter, ``DIC'') survivor benefits paid 
under chapter 13 of title 38, United States Code, and burial 
benefits under chapters 23 and 24 of title 38, United States 
Code. These benefits are paid to beneficiaries at the rate of 
$0.50 per dollar authorized, unless they lawfully reside in the 
United States. Dependents' educational assistance under chapter 
35 of title 38, United States Code, is also paid at the rate of 
$0.50 per dollar authorized, regardless of residency.
    The purpose of deeming the service of the Filipino veterans 
as active service is to recognize generally that their service 
occurred at time when the Philippines were a possession of the 
United States and subject to the laws of the United States. 
These Filipino veterans were recruited into service by the 
United States government or otherwise worked with and under the 
command of the United States Armed Forces during and shortly 
after World War II. As noted by Sidath Viranga Panangala, 
Analyst in Social Legislation, Congressional Research Service, 
Library of Congress, during testimony before the Committee on 
April 11, 2007, these Filipino veterans were considered by the 
Veterans' Administration (the predecessor of VA) to be veterans 
of the United States military, naval and air service until that 
status was revoked by the Rescission Acts of 1946.
    Under the Committee bill, Filipino veterans who receive 
service-connected compensation due to disabilities incurred or 
aggravated during military service would receive the same 
benefit amounts regardless of where they reside. Currently, 
Filipino veterans lawfully residing in the United States who 
receive VA service-connected compensation are paid at the full 
dollar rate. However, approximately 2,500 of these veterans 
living outside the United States are currently paid benefits 
under chapter 11 of title 38, United States Code, at a reduced 
rate of 50 cents per $1.00 authorized. The committee intends 
that all benefits paid under Chapter 11 for disabilities 
incurred or aggravated during military service should be paid 
at the same rate regardless of the residence of the Filipino 
veteran. As Senator Inouye testified during the Committee's 
April 11 hearing on the proposed ``Filipino Veterans Equity Act 
of 2007'', ``an injury is just as painful in the Philippines as 
it is in the United States.''
    The Committee bill would, however, maintain the reduction 
of benefits paid to survivors of Filipino World War II veterans 
who live outside of the United States and receive DIC at the 
reduced amount of $0.50 for each dollar authorized. DIC 
recipients who reside in the United States would continue to be 
paid at the full rate, as authorized under current law. Since 
DIC payments are not based upon need and are paid to the 
survivors of veterans who die of a service-connected 
disability, the Committee recognizes that the survivors of 
Filipino veterans who reside outside the United States should 
receive DIC paid at the same rate as other survivors. However, 
the Committee was not able to identify sufficient funding 
offsets to finance the cost of an increase in this benefit.
    The Committee bill would enable Filipino veterans with 
service-connected disabilities who reside outside the United 
States to receive medical care under the criteria specified in 
section 1724 of title 38, United States Code, including care at 
the VA out-patient clinic in the Phillipines. The Committee 
bill does not provide any other changes to current law 
regarding eligibility for health care outside of the United 
States. As no veteran, with certain exceptions, is furnished 
hospital, domiciliary care or medical services outside the 
United States, Filipino veterans without service-
connected disabilities would not generally be eligible for 
health care benefits if residing outside of the United States. 
Filipino veterans residing in the United States would continue 
to qualify for health care in the same manner as any other 
veteran.
    Severely disabled service-connected Filipino veterans 
would, under the Committee bill, be able to qualify for 
specially adapted housing grants under chapter 21, title 38, 
United States Code, under the same terms and conditions 
applicable to other veterans. The Committee notes that such 
benefits are not available outside of the United States, but 
that the Secretary has the authority to waive compliance with 
this regulation, since the statute is silent as to eligibility 
outside of the United States. (Section 202 of the Committee 
bill addresses the Secretary's authority to provide benefits 
outside the United States.)
    Under the Committee bill, Filipino veterans who qualify for 
burial benefits under title 38, United States Code, would 
qualify for the same benefits paid at the same rate provided to 
other United States veterans. Filipino veterans would also 
qualify for burial in a national cemetery under the same terms 
and conditions as provided for other veterans. The Committee 
bill does not change the limitations on payment of 
transportation of the remains of a deceased veteran. Generally, 
in order to receive payment of transportation costs, the 
veteran must have died while hospitalized by VA and burial must 
occur in the United States or in the Canal Zone. In cases where 
the veteran died in the United States, transportation may be 
authorized to the border of Mexico or Canada.
    Under the Committee bill, the children of deceased or 
totally disabled service-connected Filipino veterans would 
qualify for benefits paid under chapter 35 of title 38, United 
States Code, and would be paid at the same rate and under the 
same conditions as the children of other veterans. The 
Committee bill does not alter the provision of current law, 
section 3532, title 38, United States Code, which provides for 
payment of educational benefits at the rate of $0.50 for each 
dollar authorized for children of veterans who are pursuing a 
program of education at an institution located in the 
Philippines.
    Filipino veterans and survivors would, under this section 
of the Committee bill, qualify for housing and small business 
loans provided under chapter 37, title 38, United States Code, 
under the same terms and conditions applicable to other 
veterans. Under current law, the VA home-loan program does not 
provide for loans outside of the United States. Likewise, small 
business loans provided to disabled veterans are not available 
unless the entity is subject to the examination or supervision 
of the United States or a state. Thus, these benefits would 
only be available to veterans, including Filipino veterans, 
residing within the United States.
    Finally, the Committee bill would define ``United States'' 
to mean the States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 
Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands and any other possession or 
territory of the United States. The term ``United States'' has 
a number of different definitions throughout the United States 
Code. All of the jurisdictions included in this provision of 
the Committee bill are listed in some or all of the 
definitions. The Committee's intent is to indicate clearly 
jurisdictions considered a part of the United States for 
purposes of benefits paid under this bill.
    The Committee bill would result in eligibility for non-
service-
connected pension and death pension benefits as provided in 
chapter 15 of title 38, United States Code. However, Filipino 
veterans and their survivors who reside outside of the United 
States would be paid pursuant to a new special service pension, 
rather than the VA pension benefits provided to veterans and 
survivors who reside in the United States.
    In the case of Filipino veterans and survivors who reside 
outside the United States, the Committee bill would provide for 
a flat-rate pension for veterans and survivors. Unlike veterans 
and survivors residing in the United States, veterans residing 
the Philippines would not be required to document income, 
assets or medical expenses in order to receive this flat-rate 
pension. All beneficiaries residing in the Philippines would 
receive the same amount of non-service-connected pension 
benefits, depending on their status as single, married or 
survivor--single Filipino veterans would be eligible to receive 
$3,600 per year, married Filipino veterans would receive $4,500 
per year and survivors would receive $2,400 per year.
    The Committee believes that the responsibility for Filipino 
veterans residing in the Philippines should be a shared 
responsibility. Therefore, under the Committee bill, these 
special pension benefits would only be paid to persons residing 
in the Philippines if current Philippine law barring receipt of 
Philippine government benefits for persons who receive a 
monetary benefit from the United States is repealed.
    During the Committee's April hearing, in response to a 
question from Chairman Akaka, the Honorable H.E. Willy C. Gaa, 
the Philippine Ambassador to the United States, acknowledged 
that under current Philippine law, a veteran or survivor who 
receives a benefit from the United States government based on a 
Filipino veteran's military service is not eligible to receive 
benefits normally paid to Filipino veterans by the Philippine 
government. Ambassador Gaa noted his support for changing this 
Philippine law so that the Philippine grants would be continued 
if VA pension benefits were granted. The Committee appreciates 
the commitment made by the President of the Republic of the 
Philippines, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, in an April 5, 2007, 
letter to President George W. Bush stating that ``we will 
continue to provide these veterans with pension benefits and 
medical care even after legislation is passed in the United 
States granting them pension.'' The text of the letter 
follows:

                                          Malacanan Palace,
                                Manila, Philippines, April 5, 2007.
His Excellency, George W. Bush,
President, United States of America,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
    Dear President Bush: Our continuing cooperation in the war 
against terror had led to significant victories. Working 
closely and with the support of your military, security forces 
have captured or neutralized key al-Qaeda linked terrorists in 
Mindanao. We have blocked the spread of terror to the rest of 
the region and quashed terrorist hopes of establishing an 
extremist pan-Asian Islamic caliphate in Southeast Asia.
    The sacrifices made by the brave men and women from both 
our countries in winning the war on terror remind me of the 
uncommon courage and valor of another group of brave soldiers 
that fought together with American soldiers--our Filipino World 
War II veterans.
    Over the decades, many efforts have been made to address 
the great inequity suffered by the Filipino World War II 
veterans.
    Today, thanks to strong bipartisan support from both Houses 
of the U.S. Congress, the few remaining veterans, many in their 
80s and 90s, are poised to receive what was rightfully theirs. 
These living symbols of the very liberties and freedoms that we 
now enjoy are close to finally seeing justice and equity.
    Given their contributions to preserving democracy and given 
that our historic and strategic cooperation continues in 
fighting challenges to the values and ideals that we all share 
and hold dear, it is my hope that you will support these 
efforts in Congress to pass legislation that would allow our 
Filipino veterans to obtain the benefits they have long sought 
for and truly deserve.
    On our part, we will continue to provide these veterans 
with pension benefits and medical care even after legislation 
is passed in the United States granting them pension.
    I look forward to your kind support on this issue and to 
our continued cooperation in pursuing the war against terror.
                                   Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,
                      President of the Republic of the Philippines.

Therefore, the Committee anticipates that the current 
Philippine law would be repealed if this bill is enacted.
    The Committee recognizes the lack of available systems such 
as the Social Security Administration and Internal Revenue 
Service data matches used in the United States to verify income 
and assets of veterans in the Philippines. Without access to 
comparable systems, it would be extremely difficult, if not 
impossible, to administer the pension and death pension 
programs in the same manner as is done in the United States. 
The Committee also acknowledges the difficulty which veterans 
and survivors in the Philippines would experience if required 
to establish the amount of annual income and provide 
verification of financial eligibility and medical expenses. 
Therefore, Filipino veterans and survivors would be exempt from 
the income and asset tests used in the United States. The 
Committee expects that the flat rate pension will reduce 
administrative costs and result in more timely payments to 
these elderly beneficiaries.
    In establishing the flat rate payment, the Committee took 
into consideration a number of factors, including those 
identified by witnesses at the Committee's hearing on S. 57. 
Among the factors considered was the feasibility of 
administering a needs-based program to thousands of 
beneficiaries residing outside of the United States, the 
difficulty of verifying income and assets of persons residing 
outside of the United States, the difference in the amount of 
money needed ``to live in dignity and without welfare'' (the 
purpose of the VA pension program as described in the 2004 
report, ``Evaluation of the VA Pension Program: Final Report'') 
in the Philippines where many of these veterans and survivors 
reside, and the desire to provide benefits to these elderly 
veterans and survivors in a timely manner. During the Committee 
hearing, Ambassador Gaa indicated that he personally would 
``support legislation that would recognize the different 
economic conditions but that also recognizes the sacrifices'' 
of our Filipino veterans.
    VA's witness, Ronald R. Aument, Deputy Under Secretary for 
Benefits, opposed providing pension benefits to veterans and 
survivors residing in the Philippines at the same rate as paid 
to veterans residing in the United States and expressed concern 
that such a proposal would disproportionately favor Filipino 
veterans over U.S. veterans. In response to questioning by 
Chairman Akaka, Mr. Aument indicated that taking into 
consideration the difference in the cost of living in the 
United States and the Philippines would address ``one of the 
most significant hurdles and barriers to this bill,'' but noted 
that he was not prepared to state what the Administration could 
support.
    The Committee also heard testimony from Filipino veterans 
and advocates Maria Luisa Antonio, Executive Director, Veterans 
Equity Center; Jenah Yangwas, Student Action for Veterans 
Equity; Manuel B. Braga, Commander, Filipino World War II 
Veterans Federation of San Diego County; Artemio A. Caleda, 
President, World War II Filipino-American Veterans and Ladies 
Auxiliary of Hawaii; Avelino Asuncion, Chairman San Diego 
Chapter, American Coalition for Filipino Veterans, Inc.; Benito 
Valdez, Filipino Community of Seattle; and Lieutenant Colonel 
Edwin Price Ramsey, U.S. Army (Retired) who urged that veterans 
residing in the Philippines receive benefits identical to those 
provided to veterans residing in the United States. These 
witnesses noted that Filipino veterans and their survivors are 
of advanced age and that many are ill and infirm and living 
well below the minimum subsistence level needed to live in 
dignity and without welfare.
    Taking into account all of these various factors and the 
testimony provided, the Committee bill would provide a special 
service pension for Filipino veterans and their survivors which 
would be higher than the $820 per year which the VA suggested 
would provide a comparable benefit, but lower than the amounts 
paid to veterans residing in the United States or to Filipino 
veterans residing outside the United States who qualify for 
benefits under title VIII of the Social Security Act. The 
amount established recognizes that Filipino World War II 
veterans residing in the Philippines have been denied 
eligibility for pension benefits for more than 60 years, would 
not be provided additional benefits if they are housebound, in 
need of aid and attendance or have additional dependents other 
than a spouse, and would not have medical expenses deducted 
from other income in determining eligibility.
    The Committee believes that, taking into account the cost 
of living in the Philippines, the benefits proposed under the 
Committee bill should ensure an income level above the minimum 
subsistence level and allow Filipino veterans and survivors to 
live in the Philippines with dignity. The Committee intends 
that death pension benefits be made available to surviving 
spouses and dependent children who would have that status if 
the benefits were being provided in the United States. 
Therefore, under the Committee bill, a surviving spouse who had 
not remarried since the death of the veteran and who would be 
otherwise eligible for benefits or a surviving unmarried child 
who is not in the custody of the surviving spouse and who would 
otherwise be eligible for benefits (including an adult disabled 
child) would be eligible for a flat rate benefit of $2,400 per 
year. These flat rates would be subject to the same annual 
adjustment of pension amounts provided to other pension 
beneficiaries under section 5312 of title 38, United States 
Code.
    Because income and assets would not be considered in 
determining eligibility for the special service pension 
provided to Filipino veterans and survivors residing in the 
Philippines, the Committee bill would exempt those 
beneficiaries from the requirements of subsection (a) of 
section 1503 and from sections 1506, 1522 and 1543 of title 38, 
United States Code. The Committee intends that the Secretary 
would continue to use the procedures authorized by law in 
determining eligibility for the special service pension 
provided to married veterans, including any requirements for 
reporting the termination of the marriage. In the event that a 
veteran who receives the higher amount paid to a married 
veteran is overpaid as the result of failing to report the 
termination of a marriage in a timely manner, the Committee 
intends that the Secretary would exercise available authority 
to collect any overpayments resulting from such failure.
    The Committee notes that approximately 2,300 Filipino World 
War II veterans residing in the Philippines receive special 
benefits based upon need from the Social Security 
Administration under title VIII of the Social Security Act, 42 
U.S.C. 1001 et seq. In order to qualify for these needs-based 
benefits, a Filipino veteran must, as of December 14, 1999, 
have been 65 years of age or older, been a World War II 
veteran, been eligible for Supplemental Security Income 
(hereinafter, ``SSI''), and had income less than 75% of the SSI 
benefit level (reduced by the amount of the veteran's income). 
The veteran must currently reside outside of the United States. 
These beneficiaries currently receive an average of $525 per 
month. If VA pension were to be provided to such veterans, they 
would not receive any additional income, since the VA pension 
benefits would be counted in determining eligibility for, and 
the amount of benefits paid, under the Social Security Act. 
Therefore, the Committee bill provides that persons who are 
eligible for benefits under title VIII of the Social Security 
Act would not be eligible for VA pension.
    The Committee recognizes that some Filipino veterans and 
survivors who would qualify for pension benefits under the bill 
may currently qualify for federal or federally-assisted 
benefits based upon need, such as food stamps, SSI, a state 
plan for medical assistance (Medicaid) or subsidized housing. 
In order not to disturb benefits currently relied upon, the 
Committee bill provides that, notwithstanding any other 
provision of law, persons who are receiving such benefits as of 
the date of enactment of the bill, may not be required to apply 
for VA pension benefits, if doing so would make the individual 
ineligible for existing benefits or reduce the amount of 
benefits received under these federal or federally-assisted 
programs. Under the Committee bill, Filipino veterans and their 
survivors who currently receive federal or federally-assisted 
benefits would be able to choose whether or not to apply for 
pension, based upon their personal assessment of the benefits 
and burdens of doing so. The Committee intends that this 
transitional provision will protect the established rights and 
benefits of such veterans and their survivors.
    The special rates for pension and death pension benefits 
paid to veterans and survivors residing outside of the United 
States would apply to claims filed on or after May 1, 2008. 
This effective date should enable the VA to develop policies 
and procedures to implement the special pension program. The 
Committee expects that given the advanced age of the 
beneficiaries and the simplified program provided that the VA 
will act expeditiously to provide benefits to these veterans. 
In the event that applications are submitted to VA before the 
effective date, the Committee expects that such applications 
would be considered filed as of May 1, 2008. Further, it is the 
Committee's intent that what constitutes residency for purposes 
of benefits paid outside of the United States will be 
determined by the Secretary by regulation and that brief travel 
into or outside the United States would not result in a change 
of residency status.

Sec. 402. Eligibility of children of certain Philippine veterans for 
        educational assistance.

    Section 402 of the Committee bill would amend section 
3565(b) of title 38, United States Code, relating to education 
benefits for children of certain Filipino veterans, so as to 
modify those benefits.
    Under current law, children of those veterans whose service 
during World War II is being deemed by the changes in section 
401 of the Committee bill to be active military service for 
purposes of veterans benefits, are paid educational benefits 
under chapter 35 of title 38, United States Code, at the rate 
of $.50 for each dollar authorized, regardless of where they 
might undertake a qualifying course of study.
    Section 402 of the Committee bill would provide that these 
children of deceased or totally disabled service-connected 
Filipino veterans qualify for benefits under chapter 35, and 
would be paid at the same rate and under the same conditions, 
as the children of other veterans.
    The Committee notes that based upon information received 
from VA, no children of Filipino veterans residing in the 
United States were paid benefits under this provision during 
the last fiscal year, which suggests that it is unlikely that 
there will be any children living in the United States who will 
qualify for this benefit. In the event, however, that such a 
child would become eligible at some future point, the benefits 
provided would recognize the status of Filipino veterans 
provided by section 401 of the Committee bill.
    Finally, the Committee notes that the Committee bill does 
not alter the provision of current law, section 3532(d) of 
title 38, United States Code, which provides for payment of 
educational benefits at the rate of $0.50 for each dollar 
authorized for children of veterans who are pursuing a program 
of education at an institution located in the Philippines.

                         TITLE V--COURT MATTERS

Sec. 501. Recall of retired judges of the United States Court of 
        Appeals for Veterans Claims.

    Section 501, which is derived from S. 1289, would eliminate 
the current restrictions on how many days per year a retired 
judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 
(hereinafter, ``CAVC'' or ``Court'') may voluntarily serve in 
recall status; would modify the retirement pay structure for 
CAVC judges appointed on or after the date of enactment; and 
would exempt retired judges from involuntary recall once they 
have served an aggregate of five years of recall service.
    Under current law, retiring CAVC judges make an election 
whether to be recall-eligible. The CAVC Chief Judge has the 
authority to recall involuntarily a retired judge who chooses 
recall-
eligible status for up to 90 days per calendar year or, with 
the consent of the judge, for up to 180 days per calendar year. 
A recall-eligible retired judge receives annual pay equal to 
the annual salary of an active judge (pay-of-the-office), 
without reference to how much recall service is performed 
during a year.
    Section 501 of the Committee bill would modify the 
authorities for the recall of retired judges and the retirement 
pay structure. First, this section would repeal the 180-day 
limit on how many days per calendar year a recall-eligible 
retired judge may voluntarily serve in recall status. In 
addition, for judges appointed on or after the date of 
enactment, it would create a three-tiered retirement pay 
structure. Specifically, pay-of-the-office would be reserved 
for judges who are actively serving, either as a judge of the 
Court or as a retired judge serving in recall status. When not 
serving in recall status, a recall-eligible retired judge would 
receive the rate of pay applicable to that judge as of the date 
the judge retired, as increased by periodic cost-of-living 
adjustments. A retired judge who is not recall eligible would 
receive the rate of pay applicable to that judge at the time of 
retirement. Finally, section 501 would exempt current and 
future recall-eligible retired judges from involuntary recall 
once they have served an aggregate of five years of recall 
service.
    By removing the cap on voluntary recall service and 
exempting recall-eligible judges from involuntary recall once 
they have served a cumulative total of five years of recall 
service, the Committee intends to provide both the authority 
and an incentive for recall-
eligible judges to serve longer or more frequent periods of 
recall service. By reserving pay-of-the-office for those 
retired judges actually performing recall service, there will 
be an incentive for retired judges to continue offering their 
expertise in a time of need.

Section 502. Additional discretion in imposition of practice and 
        registration fees.

    Section 502, which is derived from S. 1289, would modify 
the Court's authority to impose certain registration fees.
    Under section 7285 of title 38, United States Code, the 
CAVC is authorized to impose a periodic registration fee on 
individuals admitted to practice before the Court. The maximum 
amount of any such fee is currently capped at $30 per year, an 
amount significantly lower than other federal courts generally 
charge. The Court is also authorized to impose a registration 
fee on individuals participating in the Court's judicial 
conference.
    Section 502 would strike the $30 cap on the amount of 
registration fees that may be charged to individuals admitted 
to practice before the Court. It would also clarify that any 
registration fee charged by the Court, either for those 
admitted to practice before the Court or those participating in 
the judicial conference, must be reasonable.

Section 503. Annual reports on workload of United States Court of 
        Appeals for Veterans Claims.

    Section 503 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
1289, would establish an annual reporting requirement for the 
CAVC. Specifically, it would require the CAVC to submit to the 
Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House of 
Representatives an annual report summarizing the workload of 
the Court. The reporting requirements would include information 
regarding the number of appeals filed, the number of petitions 
filed, the number of applications for fees under the Equal 
Access to Justice Act, the number and type of dispositions 
issued by the Court, the median time from the filing of a case 
or application with the Court to the Court's disposition of 
that filing, the number of oral arguments held by the Court, 
the number and status of appeals and petitions that remain 
pending, and a summary of any service performance by recalled 
retired judges.
    In the view of the Committee, this information would be 
helpful in monitoring whether the Court has sufficient judicial 
resources to provide veterans with an appropriate level of 
service.

Section 504. Report on expansion of facilities for United States Court 
        of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

    Section 504 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
1289, would require the General Services Administration 
(hereinafter, ``GSA'') to provide to Congress a report 
regarding expansion of the CAVC's office space.
    The CAVC is currently housed in a commercial office 
building in the District of Columbia. For several years, the 
CAVC and GSA have been studying the feasibility of constructing 
or obtaining a dedicated Veterans Courthouse and Justice 
Center, which would potentially be occupied by the Court and 
other entities that work with the CAVC. In February 2006, GSA 
provided Congress with a preliminary feasibility study 
regarding that project. Thereafter, the CAVC notified Congress 
that the most cost-effective alternative appeared to be leasing 
additional space in the Court's current location. However, the 
February 2006 feasibility report from GSA did not include an 
analysis of whether it would be feasible or desirable to locate 
a Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center at the Court's current 
location.
    Section 504 would require GSA to submit to the Committees 
on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the House of 
Representatives, within 180 days after the date of enactment, a 
report addressing the feasibility of the CAVC leasing 
additional space within its current building and using the 
entire building as a Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center.

               TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND PENSION MATTERS

Sec. 601. Addition of osteoporosis to disabilities presumed to be 
        service-connected in former prisoners of war with post-
        traumatic stress disorder.

    Section 601 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
848, would add osteoporosis to the list of disabilities 
presumed to be service-connected in former prisoners of war 
whom VA has previously determined suffer from post-traumatic 
stress disorder (hereinafter, ``PTSD'').
    Section 1112(b) of title 38, United States Code, contains 
two lists of diseases that are presumed to be related to an 
individual's experience as a prisoner of war. The first 
presumptive list requires no minimum internment period and 
includes diseases associated with mental trauma or acute 
physical trauma which could plausibly be caused by even a 
single day of captivity. That list includes psychosis, any of 
the anxiety states, dysthymic disorder (or depressive 
neurosis), organic residuals of frostbite (if the Secretary 
determines that a veteran was interned in conditions consistent 
with the occurrence of frostbite), and post-traumatic 
osteoarthritis. The second list has a 30-day minimum internment 
requirement and includes avitaminosis, beriberi, chronic 
dysentery, helminthiasis, malnutrition, pellagra, any other 
nutritional deficiency, cirrhosis of the liver, peripheral 
neuropathy, irritable bowel syndrome, peptic ulcer disease, 
atherosclerotic heart disease or hypertensive vascular disease, 
and stroke and its complications.
    VA's Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War 
(hereinafter, ``POW Advisory Committee''), in its March 13, 
2007, report to VA, recommended that osteopenia/osteoporosis 
should be established as a presumptive disorder for former 
Prisoners of War with post-traumatic stress disorder because it 
meets the criteria for establishing presumptions according to 
the guidelines found in title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, 
parts 1 and 3. In section 1.18(b) of the Code of Federal 
Regulations, VA is given authority ``to establish a presumption 
of service-connection for a disease when the Secretary finds 
that there is at least limited/suggested evidence that an 
increased risk of such disease is associated with service 
involving detention or internment as a prisoner of war and an 
association between such detention or internment and the 
disease is biologically plausible.'' Further, in section 
1.18(b)(1), ``limited/suggestive evidence'' is defined as 
evidence that is medically or scientifically sound and is 
``reasonably suggestive'' of an association between prisoner of 
war experience and the disease, ``even though the evidence may 
be limited because matters such as change, bias, and 
confounding could not be ruled out with confidence or because 
the relatively small size of the affected population restricts 
that data available for study.'' [Emphasis supplied.]
    The POW Advisory Committee's report references original 
research conducted by the Robert E. Mitchell Center for 
Prisoner of War Studies (hereinafter, ``Mitchell Center''), 
located in Pensacola, Florida, as providing a statistically 
significant link between PTSD and the increased risk of 
osteopenia/osteoporosis. According to studies conducted by the 
Mitchell Center, PTSD ``causes'' the adrenal gland to make 
excessive amounts of cortisol. High amounts of cortisol leads 
to low amount of calcium. Low amounts of calcium may lead to 
osteopenia/osteroporosis in later years.
    Section 601 of the Committee bill would add osteoporosis to 
the list of disabilities presumed to be service-connected in 
former prisoners of war with PTSD who were detained for any 
period.

Sec. 602. Cost-of-living increase for temporary dependency and 
        indemnity compensation payable for surviving spouses with 
        dependent children under the age of 18.

    Section 602 of the Committee bill would establish a cost-
of-living increase for temporary DIC payable to surviving 
spouses with dependent children under the age of 18.
    Under section 1310 of title 38, United States Code, VA 
provides DIC to surviving spouses if a veteran's death resulted 
from: (1) a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the 
line of duty while on active duty or active duty for training; 
(2) an injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty while 
on inactive duty training; or (3) a service-connected 
disability or a condition directly related to a service-
connected disability.
    In a May 2001, report, Program Evaluation of Benefits for 
Survivors of Veterans with Service-Connected Disabilities 
(hereinafter, ``DIC Report''), a recommendation was made to 
increase DIC by $250 per month for DIC surviving spouses with 
dependent children during the five-year period after the 
veteran's death. It was noted in the DIC Report, ``while the 
DIC program provides increased benefits for survivors that vary 
according to the number of dependent children, the evidence 
suggests a need for even greater benefit allowances for these 
survivors. Furthermore, this additional need is affected more 
by the presence of dependent children in the household than by 
number of children.''
    Section 301 of Public Law 108-454 amended section 1311, 
title 38 United States Code, to authorize VA to pay a $250 a 
month temporary benefit to a surviving spouse with one or more 
children below the age of 18, during the two years following 
application for the benefit. This provision was enacted in 
response to the DIC Report's recommendation on the need for a 
transitional DIC benefit.
    Section 602 of the Committee bill would authorize a 
permanent, automatic, cost-of-living adjustment for this 
temporary dependency and indemnity benefit so that the value of 
the benefit does not erode over time.
    This cost-of-living increase would occur whenever there is 
an increase in benefits amounts payable under title II of the 
Social Security Act, section 401 et seq., title 38, United 
States Code.

Sec. 603. Clarification of eligibility of veterans 65 years of age or 
        older for service pension for a period of war.

    Section 603 of the Committee bill would amend section 1513 
of title 38, United States Code, relating to VA pension 
benefits for veterans 65 years old and older, so as to clarify 
the scope of that provision. The Committee bill would overturn 
a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans 
Claims in Hartness v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 216, 217 (2006), 
so as to reaffirm that certain VA pension benefits are only 
provided to veterans who are significantly disabled and not 
merely on the basis of age.
    The provision of pension benefits to wartime veterans has a 
long history in American and English law. Officers of the 
Revolutionary War who served for the full term of the war were 
entitled to receive pay without regard to disability; service 
pensions were also provided to those who served for at least 
fourteen days in the War of 1812. Browning, Arthur, A Treatise 
on the Laws Relating to Pensions, Patents, Bounties and Other 
Applications Before the Executive Departments, (Washington 
D.C.: Gibson Bros., Printers and Bookbinders, 1893), at 73 
(hereinafter ``Browning''). Veterans of the Mexican War also 
were eligible for a service pension (Browning at 78), as were 
veterans of the Indian Wars (Browning at 82).
    According to A Report to the President by The President's 
Commission on Veterans' Pensions, chaired by General Omar N. 
Bradley (April 1956) (Bradley Report) at 351:

        Stripped of all passing considerations, the main 
        concern of pension legislation for veterans has been to 
        keep them and their kin from want and degradation. . . 
        . Even where need was not required to be shown, it was 
        presumed to exist by reason of old age. We have been 
        unwilling as a Nation ever to see the citizen-soldier 
        who had rendered honorable service reduced to the 
        dishonorable status of ``pauper.'' Pensions were 
        provided to them as an ``honorable'' form of economic 
        assistance.

    Prior to World War I, financial need was not an explicit 
basis for all pension benefits. Pension for veterans of the 
Indian Wars and Spanish American Wars were not based upon need. 
However, there are benefits, such as housebound and aid-and-
attendance benefits, which have been based on a finding of 
disability. ``Invalid pensions'' were paid to Revolutionary War 
veterans and to Civil War veterans (Browning at 5 et seq.).
    Current law continues the longstanding practice of 
providing pension benefits to veterans of wartime service. 
Under section 1521 of title 38, there are three elements that a 
veteran must establish to qualify for basic VA disability 
pension--service during a period of war, an annual income below 
specified levels (depending on the number of the veteran's 
dependents), and disability, total and permanent in nature.
    Each of these elements is integral to fulfilling the 
purpose of the basic disability pension benefit--service in a 
period of war so as to place the veteran in the special 
category of those who are seen to have a particular claim on 
the Nation's gratitude, limited income so as to demonstrate the 
veteran's need for financial assistance, and permanent and 
total disability so as to establish that the veteran's status 
is not the result of some minor or temporary disability from 
which recovery can be expected.
    While these three elements have been adjusted over the 
years--the amount of service required during a period of war, 
for example, or a change in what assets are included in 
determining a veteran's income--one aspect that has been 
particularly challenging has been the relationship between 
finding a qualifying state of permanent and total disability 
and a veteran's age.
    In 1967, shortly after the enactment of the Medicare 
program, which uses age 65 as the point at which someone 
qualifies for the benefits of that program, the Congress passed 
legislation, enacted as Public Law 90-77, which provided that, 
at age 65, a veteran would be considered totally and 
permanently disabled for purposes of VA pension.
    Later, in 1990, Congress again acted with respect to the 
question of age and disability, this time passing legislation, 
enacted as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1990, Public Law 101-508, which repealed the automatic 
presumption of permanent and total disability at age 65.
    Most recently, in 2001, the issue of age and disability was 
again before the Congress. As noted in the joint explanatory 
statement accompanying final passage of H.R. 1291, which was 
enacted as Public Law 107-103, the compromise legislation that 
dealt with this issue, the legislation was in response to an 
action taken by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to address a 
looming backlog of claims.
    The Veterans' Affairs Committees had learned that the 
Veterans Benefits Administration had advised VA adjudicators to 
presume that veterans age 65 and older were totally and 
permanently disabled for VA pension purposes and, on that 
basis, to not require a physical exam before finding 
eligibility for pension.
    While the Committee did not then, and does not now, believe 
that there is a rationale based in medical science for equating 
age 65 with permanent and total disability, it did recognize 
that there was merit to providing a service pension to older 
veterans, similar to that provided to veterans of the Indian 
and Spanish American Wars, so as to allow VA to avoid using 
scarce resources to carry out examinations on impoverished, 
wartime veterans age 65 and over.
    In enacting the legislation which added section 1513 to 
title 38, so as to provide a service pension to older wartime 
veterans, the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs 
noted their disapproval of the Secretary's failure to follow 
existing law, but agreed, as stated in the explanatory 
statement accompanying the legislation, that

        A policy of requiring proof of disability for an aged 
        wartime veteran with incomes (sic) below the pension 
        benefit amount involves use of scarce agency resources 
        without a commensurate return. The Committees have 
        determined that aged wartime veterans should be 
        provided a needs-based pension under conditions similar 
        to that provided for veterans of the Indian Wars and 
        the Spanish-American War. Joint Explanatory Statement 
        on P.L. 107-103, Explanatory Statement on House 
        Amendments to Senate Amendment to H.R. 1291, 147 
        Congressional Record December 13, 2001 at S13239 
        (hereinafter, ``JES'').

    As noted above, the Committee bill would overturn a 
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans 
Claims in Hartness v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 216 (2006) 
(hereinafter, ``Hartness'') which interpreted a reference to 
section 1521 in subsection (a) of section 1513 of title 38 to 
mean that veterans age 65 and older who applied for a service 
pension under that section would also be eligible to receive 
benefits on the basis of being housebound without meeting the 
disability criteria of section 1521.
    The Hartness decision has resulted in disparate benefits 
for similarly situated veterans who differ only in whether they 
are 65 or older or younger than 65. As a result of this ruling, 
veterans who are 65 years of age and older are eligible to be 
paid at the higher housebound rate even if they have only one 
disability rated at 60 percent, a benefit which veterans who 
are under 65 years of age are not eligible to receive.
    In Hartness, the Court was confronted with what it 
described as a question of first impression--the relationship 
between sections 1513 and 1521 of title 38. The question, as 
articulated by the Court, was whether section 1513 operated to 
remove the requirement that a veteran age 65 or older have both 
a total and permanent disability as well as the additional 
disabling conditions set forth in section 1521(e) in order to 
qualify for the additional 
benefits.
    According to the Court's opinion, Mr. Hartness was a World 
War II veteran, over the age of 65 who originally sought a 
special monthly pension under section 1521 of the basis of both 
needing aid and attendance and being housebound. On appeal to 
the Court, Mr. Hartness dropped the aid and attendance element 
of his claim, focusing only on his meeting the criteria for the 
special benefit on the basis of being housebound. Also on 
appeal to the Court, Mr. Hartness shifted the focus of his 
argument from being entitled to pension under section 1521 and 
instead argued, for the first time, that he was entitled for 
this special benefit under section 1513.
    The Court ruled that ``the Board [of Veterans Appeals] 
failed to apply section 1513 when considering whether Mr. 
Hartness was entitled to a special monthly pension under 38 
U.S.C. Sec.  1521(e)'' and that ``a wartime veteran is awarded 
a special monthly pension if, in addition to being at least 65 
years old, he or she possesses a minimum disability rating of 
60 percent or is considered permanently housebound.'' [Emphasis 
supplied.] Hartness at 221-22.
    It is the Committee's view that the Court, in ruling that 
VA must apply the age criteria of the service pension paid 
under section 1513 to non-service-connected disability benefits 
paid under section 1521, misunderstood the intent of the 
service pension provided to older veterans under section 1513 
and, in particular, subsection (b) of that section.
    In its decision, the Court did not discuss the difference 
between service pensions and disability pensions; rather, the 
Court appeared to treat the two provisions in a similar 
fashion, understanding section 1513 to mean that older veterans 
could obtain significantly higher benefits, with their age 
substituting for the permanent and total disability requirement 
of section 1521(e).
    The Committee recognizes the difficulty faced by the Court 
in Hartness in interpreting the two provisions and their 
relationship. The legislative history of section 207 of H.R. 
1291, which added section 1513 to title 38, is sparse. In 
addition, the Court was hampered in its analysis by the 
apparent failure of VA to address in its brief the criteria for 
benefits under section 1513, including the limitation of 
subsection (b), and the ambiguous nature of the record with 
regard to Mr. Hartness' eligibility for benefits under section 
1521. Hartness at 222. Finally, the Court noted that VA's 
regulations, at 38 CFR Sec.  3.3, do not distinguish between 
the service pension paid under section 1513 and the non-
service-connected disability pension paid under section 1521. 
Hartness at 221.
    Based on the Court's decision, it appears that VA 
apparently argued that ``as a matter of law, Mr. Hartness is 
not entitled to a special monthly pension because he does not 
have a disability that is rated as permanent and total. . . .'' 
[Emphasis supplied.] As a result, VA claimed that ``Mr. 
Hartness does not meet the threshold requirements of 38 C.F.R. 
Sec.  3.351 (d).'' Hartness at 218.
    The factual basis for VA's position is not articulated in 
the decision. As the Court notes, ``the record on appeal is 
ambiguous as to Mr. Hartness' eligibility for non-service-
connected pension and special monthly pension under section 
1521.'' Hartness at 222.
    Under VA's regulations, the criteria for permanent total 
disability are met ``when the impairment is reasonably certain 
to continue throughout the life of the disabled person.'' 38 
CFR Sec.  4.15. Total disability for pension purposes may be 
found when the veteran has a single disability rated at 60 
percent and is unemployable. 38 CFR Sec. Sec.  4.16 and 4.17.
    Mr. Hartness was rated at 70 percent for one disability 
described as permanent. The Court cited, without disagreement, 
a physician report that ``Mr. Hartness was permanently and 
legally blind because of age-related macular degeneration of 
the retina.'' [Emphasis supplied.] Hartness at 217. The Court's 
decision indicates that he relied on Social Security benefits 
for income and made no reference to any evidence suggesting 
that the veteran was employable. Hartness at 217. On these 
facts, it is unclear why VA believed Mr. Hartness did not meet 
the permanent and total disability criteria of section 1521.
    In light of these ambiguous factual matters, and given the 
prohibition on paying benefits under section 1513(b) to 
veterans who also qualify for benefits under section 1521, it 
is the Committee's view that the Court misconstrued the intent 
of section 1513, which is to provide only a service pension 
without any special monthly pension to older veterans who are 
not disabled under the criteria set forth in section 1521.
    As noted above, the Court did not discuss the difference 
between service pensions and disability pensions. Rather, the 
Court apparently understood the prohibition against paying 
benefits under section 1513(b) if the veteran was eligible for 
benefits under section 1521 to mean that older veterans could 
obtain significantly higher benefits under section 1521(e) with 
their age substituting for the permanent and total disability 
requirement of that section. As a result, following Hartness, 
older veterans who have only one 60% disability may receive 
$202 per month because they would be eligible for benefits paid 
at the housebound rate under section 1521(e) while younger 
veterans rated at 60% would only qualify for the basic pension 
amount. There is nothing in the legislative history of section 
1513 to suggest that Congress intended such a disparate 
result.
    In establishing a service pension for older veterans under 
section 1513, the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate 
and House ``determined that aged wartime veterans should be 
provided a needs-based pension under conditions similar to that 
provided for veterans of the Indian Wars and the Spanish 
American Wars.'' JES at S13239. Thus, section 1513 was placed 
in the ``Service Pension'' part of ``Subchapter II. Veterans 
Pensions'' of chapter 15, the portion of the chapter under 
which veterans of the Indian Wars and the Spanish American War 
were entitled to pension benefits without regard to disability 
by sections 1511 and 1512, rather than in the ``Non-Service-
Connected Disability Pension'' part of that subchapter where 
section 1521 is located.
    Service benefits based upon age, and limited means, are 
provided under section 1513 to low-income wartime veterans who 
are 65 years of age or older. There is no requirement that 
veterans who receive a pension based upon age suffer from any 
disability, although some of these veterans may also have 
disabilities.
    Under sections 1511 and 1512, the provisions under which 
older veterans who served during the Indian and Spanish 
American Wars were eligible for a service pension, veterans who 
were also disabled and thereby also eligible for a pension 
under section 1521, could make an irrevocable election to 
receive disability pension benefits under that section rather 
than service pension benefits. In enacting section 1513, 
however, the Congress did not provide such an option. Under 
section 1513(b), if a veteran is age 65 or older and also 
disabled, that veteran can only receive benefits under the non-
service-connected disability pension of section 1521 and is not 
eligible to receive benefits under the service pension program 
provided by section 1513.
    Section 1513 is silent with regard to any specific 
provision for housebound or aid-and-attendance benefits. The 
formal legislative history of section 207 of Public Law 107-103 
contained in the JES is likewise silent. However, while not 
reflected in the JES, the Committee notes that the language of 
section 1513 is identical to the language contained in H.R. 
3087 of the 107th Congress, the proposed ``Veterans' Pension 
Improvement Act of 2001,'' as introduced by Congressman Lane 
Evans, the then-Ranking Democratic Member of the House 
Committee on Veterans Affairs. In introducing this legislation, 
Mr. Evans stated that, if the bill were enacted, ``VA would 
only be required to obtain a medical examination and a finding 
of disability for those veterans over age 65 who seek 
additional benefits based upon a disability which renders them 
homebound or in need of aid and attendance.'' [Emphasis 
supplied.] 147 Congressional Record October 12, 2001 at E1859 
(hereinafter, ``Evans Introduction'').
    Like H.R. 3087, section 1513(b) as enacted specifically 
provides that a veteran who qualifies for a pension based upon 
age who also meets the disability criteria of section 1521 is 
to be paid only under section 1521. There was no suggestion in 
Representative Evans introduction or in the enactment of the 
legislation that added section 1513 to title 38 that the age 
requirements of a service pension under section 1513 were 
intended to serve as a substitute for the total and permanent 
disability requirements for housebound or aid and attendance 
benefits paid under title 1521, as the Hartness decision holds.
    Subsection (a) of section 1513 does require that the rates 
used to pay service pensions paid under that section will be 
``the rates prescribed by section 1521 of this title and under 
the conditions (other than the total and permanent disability 
requirement) applicable to pension paid under that section.'' 
Benefits paid under section 1513, while paid by reference to 
the rates used in section 1521, are not and may not be paid 
under section 1521. In discussing the section 1521 cross 
reference, the JES explained that these

        veterans must still meet the nondisability requirements 
        of section 1521 of title 38, United States Code, such 
        as income and net worth. In determining that benefits 
        will be provided at age 65 without regard to employment 
        status, the Committees noted that any veteran employed 
        full-time and receiving at least a minimum wage would 
        not qualify for pension based on the pension income 
        limitation. JES at S13239 (Compare, the JES language to 
        the Evans Introduction at E1859).

    It is the Committee's view that, by placing the benefits 
for aged veterans in the service pension part of chapter 15 of 
title 38, with the service pension for Indian and Spanish 
American War veterans, the intent was for benefits under 
section 1513 to be considered a separate and distinct benefit 
from the disability pension provided by section 1521, as was 
true for service pensions provided under sections 1511 and 
1512.
    It is the Committee's further view that subsection (b) of 
section 1513 is intended to prohibit a veteran who is both aged 
and disabled from receiving benefits under section 1513.
    Section 603 of the Committee's bill would clarify that 
veterans who qualify for service pension benefits based upon 
age under section 1513 are not eligible to receive special 
monthly pension under the same criteria applied in that 
section. Instead, older veterans must qualify for special 
monthly pension benefits under all of the criteria of section 
1521, the same criteria applied to younger disabled veterans, 
if they are so disabled as to be housebound or require aid and 
attendance.
    This clarification would be effected by amending section 
1513 so as to list the separate provisions of section 1521 that 
are to be used in connection with determining eligibility for a 
service pension under section 1513 and the amount of benefits 
to be paid under that section. The provisions in the Committee 
bill exclude the rates related to special monthly pension, 
namely housebound benefits and aid-and-attendance benefits 
contained in subsections (d), (e), and (f)(2), (f)(3) or (f)(4) 
respectively of section 1521.
    Because veterans who are actually housebound or in need of 
aid and attendance are likely to qualify for benefits under the 
criteria set forth in section 1521 under any circumstances, the 
Committee's bill would affect primarily those veterans who are 
age 65 and older and who are not significantly disabled.
    The Committee intends that the proposed modification to 
section 1513 will be effective with respect to claims for 
pension filed on or after the effective date of the Committee 
bill.

                 TITLE VII--BURIAL AND MEMORIAL MATTERS

Sec. 701. Supplemental benefits for veterans for funeral and burial 
        expenses.

    Section 701 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
1326, would authorize supplemental benefits for veterans for 
funeral and burial expenses.
    Our country has long been concerned that veterans have a 
proper burial. In 1862, President Lincoln signed legislation 
that authorized national cemeteries to ensure a proper burial 
for soldiers who died in the service of the country. Congress 
expanded burial benefits with the War Risk Insurance Act 
Amendments of 1917 so as to avoid a potter's field burial for 
war veterans. That act provided a cash payment, of no more than 
$100, to pay for funeral and burial expenses for deaths 
occurring prior to separation from military service.
    In 1923, the burial allowance was extended to veterans who 
died without sufficient assets to pay for burial. The asset 
limitation requirement was removed in 1936. In addition, 
eligibility for cash payments was extended to veterans who 
served during a war or died in the line of duty. In 1946, 
Public Law 79-529 increased the burial allowance from $100 to 
$150 for war veterans. The increase was justified by the 
increase in cost of a funeral and the many costly associated 
expenses. In 1958, Public Law 85-674 increased the burial 
allowance from $150 to $250. This increase was justified by 
increases in the cost of living. In 1973, Congress, in Public 
Law 93-43, set the amount of service-connected and non-service-
connected burial expenses at $800 (covering 72 percent of an 
average adult funeral) and $250 (22 percent of the total cost), 
respectively. Congress intended to make veterans' burial 
benefits in line with the then-existent system of Federal 
civilian employees burial benefits. The increase also showed a 
clear recognition by the Federal Government of its 
responsibility to veterans who suffered a service-
connected death. In 1978, the burial allowance for a service-
connected death was raised to $1,100 (80 percent of the total 
cost). The non-service-connected death allowance rose from $250 
to $300 where it has remained since that time.
    Public Law 97-35, signed into law in 1981, restricted 
burial benefits to veterans who were in receipt of or entitled 
to receive compensation or pension at the time of death for 
non-service-connected deaths. The basis for the restriction was 
to impose some limitation on who was entitled to non-service-
connected veterans benefits as the death rates among WW II 
veterans began to climb. By restricting the burial benefit, 
Congress was focusing the benefits so only the neediest of 
veterans were entitled to burial aid. A straight ``needs test'' 
was rejected because of the difficulty it would present to VA 
to administer a program that used such tax terms as ``net 
estate'' and ``adjusted gross income.'' Congress thought it was 
hard enough for the Internal Revenue Service to decipher such 
terms and believed it to be beyond the then-capacity of the VA. 
Congress subsequently adopted an ``eligible to receive pension 
or other compensation from VA'' test. Congress thought this 
would be easier for the VA to administer with its then existing 
pension and compensation program.
    In 2001, in Public Law 107-103, the service-connected 
burial benefit was raised from $1,500 to $2,000 for burial and 
funeral expenses for a service-connected death. Legislation at 
that time was spurred by the issuance of a VA report in 
December 2000, which showed the effect of inflation on the 
burial benefit. In 1973, the average cost of an adult funeral 
was $1,116. In 1999, the average cost for an adult funeral had 
increased to $5,157. Funeral costs were rising faster than the 
cost of inflation.
    According to the National Funeral Directors Association, 
the average cost of a funeral, as of July 2004, was $6,500. 
Section 701 is intended to increase the burial benefit to fight 
the erosion of this important benefit.
    Section 701 would authorize supplemental benefits for both 
service-connected and non-service-connected allowances. 
Disbursement of these supplemental funds would be subject to 
their availability in advance in an appropriations act. The 
Secretary would be prohibited from making the supplemental 
payments if all funds specifically provided for this purpose in 
an appropriations act have already been expended. The 
supplemental benefit for those dying from service-connected 
disabilities would be $2,100 above the current $2,000 benefit, 
bringing the total authorized benefit to $4,100. The non-
service-connected supplemental benefit would be $900 in 
addition to the current $300, for a total of $1,200 in 
authorized burial benefit. Finally, section 701 would also 
provide for an annual increase in the authorized supplemental 
allowance in both categories to preserve the purchasing power 
of the benefit.

Sec. 702. Supplemental plot allowances.

    Section 702 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
1326, would authorize supplemental burial plot allowances for 
veterans.
    A growing problem caught the attention of the Committee in 
1972 and helped lead to the establishment of maximum plot 
allowances. According to testimony given by Dead Giveaway, a 
group of law students, at a 1972 Committee hearing, cemeteries 
advertised ``free'' or a ``one time only perpetual care 
charge'' to veterans in an attempt to sell veterans plot space 
on a ``pre-need basis.'' According to Dead Giveaway's 
testimony, the practice of cemetery owners was less of a 
patriotic gesture than a business venture. The cemetery 
operators charged veterans up to $1,400 for a burial plot when 
the national average cost for a plot at that time was $122. In 
1972, the Pre-Arrangement Internment Association of America 
(PIAA) adopted a resolution stating that if Congress provided a 
plot allowance, then PIAA members would accept the sum provided 
by Congress as payment in full for America's veterans.
    Public Law 93-43, the same law that formally established 
the National Cemetery System in VA, authorized payment of not 
more than $250 as a plot or interment allowance in connection 
with the burial of deceased veterans who die while properly 
admitted to a hospital, nursing home, or domiciliary 
administered or paid for by VA. Public Law 95-476 increased 
this allowance to $300 in 1978.
    Public Law 93-43 also authorized payment of not more than 
$150 in connection with the burial of deceased veterans who 
choose to be interred at a cemetery not under the jurisdiction 
of the United States government. Public Law 107-103 increased 
this allowance to $300 in 2001. Thus, as of 2001, plot 
allowances authorized in section 2303 of title 38, United 
States Code, were uniformly set at $300.
    While the increase in the plot allowance to $300 in 2001 
was significant, it has not been adjusted since, although this 
amount represents a fraction of what it was worth when the 
government began paying the plot allowance in 1973. The 1973 
limits were developed as a means of protecting veterans from 
being overcharged for interment costs.
    Public Law 97-35 limited, effective October 1, 1981, 
veterans' burial and funeral benefits under sections 2302 and 
2303 of title 38, United States Code, to burials of deceased 
veterans who were entitled to receive VA compensation or 
pension. Previously, the plot allowance had been available to 
any honorably discharged wartime veteran.
    Under current law, VA will pay a $300 plot allowance when a 
veteran is buried in a cemetery not under U.S. government 
jurisdiction if--the veteran was discharged from active duty 
because of a disability incurred or aggravated in the line of 
duty; the veteran was receiving compensation or pension, or 
would have been if they weren't receiving military retired pay; 
or the veteran died in a VA facility. The plot allowance may be 
paid to the state for the cost of a plot or interment in a 
state-owned cemetery reserved solely for veteran burials if the 
veteran was buried without charge. The plot allowance cannot be 
paid to a deceased veteran's employer or a state agency.
    Section 702 of the Committee bill would create a program to 
authorize supplemental benefits to individuals who are already 
eligible to receive these benefits. Disbursement of these 
supplemental funds would be subject to their availability in 
advance in an appropriations act. VA would be prohibited from 
making the supplemental payments if all funds specifically 
provided for this purpose in an appropriations act have already 
been expended.
    Section 702 would maintain the current $300 plot allowance 
and authorize a new supplemental plot allowance of $445. 
Section 702 would also provide for an annual increase in the 
authorized supplemental plot allowance to preserve the 
purchasing power of the 
benefit.

                       TITLE VIII--OTHER MATTERS

Sec. 801. Eligibility of disabled veterans and members of the Armed 
        Forces with severe burn injuries for automobiles and adaptive 
        equipment.

    Section 801 of the Committee bill would provide eligibility 
for automobiles and adaptive equipment assistance to 
individuals suffering from the same disabilities due to severe 
burn injuries. Section 801 is meant to complement section 203 
of the Committee bill, which would provide eligibility for 
specially adapted housing benefits to veterans and 
servicemembers suffering from disabilities due to severe burn 
injuries.
    Under current law, chapter 39, title 38, United States 
Code, veterans and members of the Armed Forces are eligible for 
assistance with automobiles and adaptive equipment if they 
suffer from one of three qualifying service-connected 
disabilities: loss or permanent loss of use of one or both 
feet; loss or permanent loss of use of one or both hands; or a 
central visual acuity of 20/200 or less, or a peripheral field 
of vision of 20 degrees or less. Individuals with these 
disabilities experience great difficulty operating a standard 
automobile not equipped to accommodate their disabilities.
    It has come to the Committee's attention during an 
oversight visit to the Brooke Army Medical Center (hereinafter, 
``BAMC'') in San Antonio, Texas, that victims of severe burn 
injuries also experience great difficulty operating standard 
automobiles. BAMC is the DOD's leading center for the treatment 
and rehabilitation of burn victims and the home of the U.S. 
Army's Institute of Surgical Research Burn Unit. Staff at BAMC 
indicated that severe burn victims frequently need vehicles 
with special adaptations, as do amputees and the vision 
impaired. Due to the severe damage done to their skin, these 
individuals often require special adaptations for assistance in 
and out of the vehicle, seat comfort, and climate 
control.
    Section 801 of the Committee bill would expand eligibility 
under section 3901 of title 38, United State Code, to include 
individuals with a service-connected disability due to a severe 
burn injury. The scope and definition of what constitutes a 
``disability due to a severe burn injury'' would be determined 
pursuant to regulations prescribed by VA.

Section 802. Supplemental assistance for providing automobiles and 
        other conveyances to certain disabled veterans.

    Section 802 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
1326, would authorize supplemental assistance with automobiles 
and other conveyances to certain disabled veterans. Under 
current law, veterans and members of the Armed Forces with 
certain severe service-connected disabilities are eligible for 
assistance of up to $11,000 for the purchase of an automobile 
or other conveyance pursuant to section 3902 of title 38, 
United States Code.
    Section 802 would authorize a program to provide 
supplemental benefits to individuals who are already eligible 
to receive assistance for automobiles and other conveyances. A 
new section 3902A would be added to title 38, United State 
Code, authorizing VA to disburse supplemental assistance to 
eligible individuals in addition to the capped amount currently 
specified in section 3902. Disbursement of these supplemental 
funds would be subject to their availability in advance of an 
appropriations act. VA would be prohibited from making the 
supplemental payments if all funds specifically provided for 
this purpose in an appropriations act have already been 
expended.
    Section 802 would authorize VA to pay up to an additional 
$11,484 to those eligible for assistance pursuant to section 
3902, increasing the total amount of funds available per grant, 
from both the mandatory and discretionary accounts, to $22,484.
    Section 802 would also direct VA to enact an annual 
adjustment of the maximum available authorized supplemental 
funds. VA would be required to establish a method of 
determining the average retail cost of new automobiles for the 
preceding calendar year. The authorized supplemental funds 
would increase, effective October 1 of each fiscal year, by an 
amount equal to 80 percent of what VA determined to be the 
average retail cost of new automobiles for the preceding 
calendar year.
    In order to assess the adequacy of the authorized 
supplemental funds provided in this section to meet the demand 
of eligible beneficiaries, section 802 would require VA to 
provide periodic estimates to Congress. VA would be required to 
provide an estimate of the amount of funding necessary to 
provide supplemental assistance at the authorized level to all 
eligible recipients for the remainder of that fiscal year; and 
an estimate of the amount of funding Congress would need to 
appropriate to provide all eligible recipients with 
supplemental assistance at the authorized level for the next 
fiscal year. This measure would equip the appropriate 
committees of Congress with the information needed to fully 
fund the needs of all eligible recipients through future 
appropriations, should they so choose.
    Section 802 of the Committee bill is a result of the 
Committee's observation that increases in automobile and 
adaptive equipment grants have been infrequent, despite the 
fact that the market prices of these items are continually on 
the rise. Unless the amounts of the grants are periodically 
adjusted, inflation erodes the value and effectiveness of these 
benefits, making it more difficult for beneficiaries to afford 
the accommodations they need. Section 802 would allow Congress 
to exercise the option to appropriate additional discretionary 
funds for this purpose.

Sec. 803. Clarification of purpose of the outreach service program of 
        the Department of Veterans Affairs.

    Section 803 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
1314, would amend section 6301 of title 38, United States Code, 
to clarify the scope of outreach efforts provided by VA.
    Under current law, section 6301(a)(1) of title 38, United 
States Code, the purpose of VA's outreach program is to ensure 
that all veterans, especially those who have been recently 
discharged from active military, naval or air service and those 
who are eligible for readjustment or other benefits and 
services are provided timely and appropriate assistance to aid 
and encourage them in applying for and obtaining such benefits 
and services in order that they may achieve a rapid social and 
economic readjustment to civilian life and to obtain a higher 
standard of living for themselves and their dependents. It 
currently contains no comprehensive definition of the term, 
``outreach.''
    Section 803 of the Committee bill would facilitate 
consistent implementation of VA's outreach responsibilities by 
modifying the ``purpose section'' of chapter 63 to include 
specific mention of the National Guard and Reserve. It would 
also create a statutory definition of the term ``outreach'' as 
it applies to VA. The definition would include VA's efforts to 
reach out in a systematic manner to provide information, 
services, and benefits to veterans, spouses, children, and 
parents and to ensure that all eligible individuals are fully 
informed about and assisted in applying for benefits and 
services for which they are eligible.

Sec. 804. Termination or suspension of contracts for cellular telephone 
        service for servicemembers undergoing deployment outside the 
        United States.

    Section 804 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
1313, would allow servicemembers to terminate or suspend 
cellular telephone service when deployed outside of the United 
States.
    Congress has long recognized that the men and women of our 
military services should have civil legal protections so they 
can devote their entire energy to the defense needs of the 
United States. These protections, which are commonly known as 
the ``Servicemembers Civil Relief Act'' (hereinafter, ``SCRA'') 
are currently found in the appendix to title 50, United States 
Code, beginning at section 501.
    With over 1.2 million servicemembers deployed since the 
start of OEF and OIF, the Committee believes that the SCRA, 
previously the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940 
(hereinafter, ``SSCRA''), is in need of further amendment to 
take into account a modern form of technology--the cellular 
telephone.
    As stated by Representative Overton Brooks in 1942, the 
SSCRA reflected ``the desire of the people of the United States 
to make sure as far as possible that men in service are not 
placed at a civil disadvantage during their absence. It springs 
from the inability of men who are in service to properly manage 
their normal business affairs while away. It likewise arises 
from the differences in pay which a soldier receives and what 
the same man normally earns in civil life.''
    The earliest recognition of the need to provide civil 
protections for servicemembers in the United States dates back 
to the ``stay laws'' promulgated by Louisiana during the War of 
1812. Louisiana suspended all proceedings in civil cases for 
four months as the British were advancing on New Orleans. The 
experience of people serving in the military during the Civil 
War led the Federal government and some states to enact stay 
laws, which had the effect of suspending legal actions to which 
the soldier or sailor was a party. Following the decision of 
the United States to enter World War I in 1917, the first 
modern version of SSCRA was enacted. These first provisions 
covered default judgments, stays of proceedings, evictions, 
mortgage foreclosure, insurance, and installment contracts. 
However, this Act self-terminated six-months after the 
cessation of World War I hostilities. In 1940, with the looming 
involvement of the United States in World War II, Congress re-
enacted the SSCRA almost verbatim in Public Law 76-861.
    Various amendments were made to the SSCRA between 1942 and 
2003. In 2003, the SSCRA was re-written, and re-named the 
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The bill was signed into law 
on December 19, 2003, as Public Law 108-189. According to 
Senate Report 108-197, the report accompanying S. 1136, the 
purpose 
was to:

        [P]rovide for, strengthen, and expedite the national 
        defense through protections extended by this Act to 
        servicemembers of the United States to enable such 
        persons to devote their entire energy to the defense 
        needs of the nation; and to provide for the temporary 
        suspension of judicial and administrative proceedings 
        and transactions that may adversely affect the civil 
        rights of servicemembers during their military service.

        These purposes are the same as those which the Congress 
        contemplated when it enacted SSCRA in anticipation of 
        potential war in 1940.

        The Committee recognizes, however, that while the 
        Congress' purposes remain as they were in 1940, there 
        now exist business and social circumstances that did 
        not exist when SSCRA was enacted. These changed 
        circumstances need to be addressed to better reflect 
        the requirements of today's servicemembers. The 
        Committee bill would address these needs by restating 
        and clarifying the language of SSCRA. But it would also 
        modernize SSCRA by providing protections that address 
        situations--e.g., the leasing of automobiles--not 
        anticipated when SSCRA was enacted.

    The amendment to SCRA that would be made by section 804 of 
the Committee bill would further reflect changes in American 
life by allowing a servicemember who receives orders to deploy 
outside of the continental United States for not less than 90 
days to request the termination or suspension of any contract 
for cellular telephone service entered into before that date if 
the servicemember's ability to satisfy the contract or to 
utilize the service will be materially affected by that period 
of deployment.

Section 805: Maintenance, management, and availability for research of 
        assets of Air Force Health Study.

    Section 805 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 
1421, would ensure that the assets from the Air Force Health 
Study (hereinafter, ``AFHS'') are transferred to the Medical 
Follow-up Agency (hereinafter, ``MFUA'') and maintained, 
managed and made available to researchers. In order to ensure 
that sufficient funds are made available for this purpose, 
funding in the amount of $1,200,000 would be made available 
from VA accounts available for Medical and Prosthetic Research 
in each fiscal year from 2008 through 2011. In addition, 
funding from the same source would be provided in the amount of 
$250,000 for each year to conduct additional research using the 
assets of the AFHS. Finally a report would be provided to the 
Congress by March 31, 2011, concerning the feasibility and 
advisability of conducting additional research using these 
assets or disposing of them.
    In the late 1970's, Congress urged the DOD to conduct an 
epidemiologic study of veterans of ``Operation Ranch Hand,'' 
the military units responsible for aerial spraying of 
herbicides during the Vietnam War. In response, the AFHS was 
initiated in 1982 to examine the effects of herbicide exposure 
and health, mortality, and reproductive outcomes in veterans of 
Operation Ranch Hand. The study is noteworthy for the amount of 
data and biological specimens collected. It cost over $143 
million and was concluded in 2006.
    Prior to the conclusion of the AFHS, Congress directed VA 
to enter into an agreement with the then National Academy of 
Sciences (hereinafter, ``NAS''), now the National Academies, to 
report on the scientific merit of retaining AFHS data after the 
study was concluded. A Committee formed by the Institute of 
Medicine (hereinafter, ``IOM'') of NAS issued its report 
entitled, ``Disposition of the Air Force Health Study,'' in 
March of 2006. IOM concluded that the AFHS data assets were 
unique and of high quality and that the specimens were well 
preserved. IOM also found that analysis of the AFHS data had 
enhanced the understanding of the health of Vietnam veterans. 
The IOM Committee recommended that AFHS data assets be 
transferred to a custodian, such as MFUA, so that they could be 
made available for future research. The report also recommended 
that funding be made available for the preservation and marking 
of the research material.
    Legislation enacted as section 714 of the John Warner 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, Public 
Law 109-364, authorized the Air Force to transfer custody of 
the data and biological specimens to MFUA. Funding from DOD was 
authorized to effect the transfer in fiscal year 2007.
    The Committee agrees that the resources of the AFHS should 
be preserved and made accessible to researchers. Therefore, 
section 805 would require VA to provide funding during fiscal 
years 2008 through 2011 for the purposes recommended by IOM in 
the Disposition of the AFHS report.

Sec. 806. National Academies study on risk of developing multiple 
        sclerosis as a result of certain service in the Persian Gulf 
        War and Post-9/11 Global Operations theaters.

    Section 806 of the Committee bill would require VA to 
contract with the National Academies to conduct a comprehensive 
epidemiological study to identify any increased risk of 
developing multiple sclerosis, and other diagnosed neurological 
diseases, as a result of service in the Southwest Asia theater 
of operations or in the Post 9/11 Global Operations theaters.
    Under current law, veterans gain eligibility for disability 
benefits by demonstrating a link between their disability and 
their active military, naval, or air service. To establish such 
a link, the veteran must show, generally, that his or her 
disability resulted from an injury or disease that was incurred 
or aggravated during the time of military service.
    In addition to disabilities that can be directly linked to 
service, certain diagnosed diseases are presumed, as a matter 
of law, to be service-connected if they manifest under 
conditions specified by statute. For example, section 1112, 
title 38, United States Code, provides a presumption for 
certain chronic diseases if manifested to a degree of 
disability of 10 percent or more within one year of separation 
from service, for certain tropical diseases if manifested to a 
degree of disability of 10 percent or more, generally, within 
one year of separation from service, and for active 
tuberculosis or Hansen's disease if manifested to a degree of 
disability of 10 percent or more within three years of 
separation from service.
    In 1962, Public Law 87-645 extended the period of time 
after separation from service that a diagnosis of multiple 
sclerosis may be presumed to be service-connected from three to 
seven years for veterans with wartime service. The extension 
was made in response to the fact that multiple sclerosis often 
takes many years to manifest in diagnosable symptoms. The 
course of multiple sclerosis is highly variable and makes 
studies of etiology and possible mechanisms of treatment 
challenging. The disease often begins with a relapsing-
remitting pattern with episodic exacerbations of neurological 
dysfunction, which remit partially or completely.
    Based on testimony at the Committee's May 9, 2007, hearing 
and subsequent research and analysis, the Committee has 
concluded that, despite suggestions that veterans who served in 
the Persian Gulf War theater of operations exhibit a higher 
prevalence of multiple sclerosis than the general population, 
there remains a dearth of scientific or medical justification 
to explain a direct connection between military service and the 
contraction of the disease. Thus, rather than eliminate the 
current presumptive period, the Committee decided that further 
scientific research is necessary before additional reforms, if 
any, are made. In particular, the Committee believes the 
connection between multiple sclerosis and service during the 
Persian Gulf War and Post-9/11 Global Operations periods merits 
further investigation.
    Section 806 of the Committee bill would require VA to enter 
into a contract with IOM to conduct a comprehensive 
epidemiological study to identify any increased risk of 
developing multiple sclerosis, and other diagnosed neurological 
diseases, as a result of service in the Southwest Asia theater 
of operations or in the 
Post 9/11 Global Operations theaters. The Southwest Asia 
theater of operations is defined in section 3.3317 of title 38, 
Code of Federal Regulations. The Post 9/11 Global Operations 
theater is defined as Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other theater 
for which the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal is 
awarded for service.
    The mandated study would examine the incidence and 
prevalence of diagnosed neurological diseases, including 
multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, amyotrophic lateral 
sclerosis, and brain cancers, as well as central nervous 
abnormalities, in members of the Armed Forces who served during 
the Persian Gulf War period and Post-9/11 Global Operations 
period. The study would also collect information on possible 
risk factors, such as exposure to pesticides and other toxic 
substances. IOM would be required to submit a final report to 
VA and the appropriate committees of Congress by December 31, 
2010.

Sec. 807. Comptroller General report on adequacy of dependency and 
        indemnity compensation to maintain survivors of veterans who 
        die from service-connected disabilities.

    Section 807 of the Committee bill, which is drawn from S. 
1326, would require the Comptroller General to report on the 
adequacy of DIC to maintain survivors of veterans who die from 
service-
connected disabilities.
    DIC is a benefit that is paid to survivors of certain 
veterans. To be eligible, the veteran's death must have 
resulted from: a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in 
the line of duty or active duty for training; an injury 
incurred or aggravated in the line of duty while on inactive 
duty training; or, a service-connected disability or a 
condition directly related to a service-connected disability.
    DIC may also be paid to survivors of veterans who were 
totally disabled from service-connected conditions at the time 
of death, even if the death was not cause by their service-
connected disabilities. To be eligible for the benefit under 
this circumstance, the veteran must have been rated totally 
disabled for the ten years preceding death; rated totally 
disabled from the date of military discharge and for at least 
five years immediately preceding death; or, a former prisoner 
of war who died after September 30, 1999, and who was rated 
totally disabled for at least one year immediately preceding 
death.
    Surviving spouses of veterans who died on or after January 
1, 1993, receive a basic rate, plus additional amounts for 
dependent children. Surviving spouses of veterans who died 
prior to January 1, 1993, receive an amount based on the 
deceased veteran's military pay grade.
    Section 807 would require the Comptroller General to 
submit, to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate 
and House of Representatives, a report regarding the adequacy 
of the benefits to survivors in replacing the deceased 
veteran's income. The Comptroller General would be required to 
include a description of the current system of payment of DIC 
to survivors, including a statement of DIC rates; an assessment 
of the adequacy of DIC in replacing a deceased veteran's 
income; and any recommendations that the Comptroller General 
considers appropriate in order to improve or enhance the 
effects of DIC in replacing the deceased veteran's income. The 
Comptroller General would be required to submit the report not 
later than ten months after the date of enactment of the 
provision.

                      Committee Bill Cost Estimate

    In compliance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee, based on 
information supplied by the CBO, estimates that enactment of 
the Committee bill would, relative to current law, increase 
discretionary spending by $178 million in 2008 and by $1 
billion over the 2008-2012 period, assuming appropriation of 
the necessary amounts. The Committee bill would decrease direct 
spending by $4 million in 2008, and by $44 million over the 
2008-2012 period. Enactment of the Committee bill would not 
affect receipts, and would not affect the budget of state, 
local or tribal governments.
    The cost estimate provided by CBO, setting forth a detailed 
breakdown of costs, follows:

                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                   Washington, DC, August 28, 2007.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
Chairman,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed revised cost estimate for S. 1315, the 
Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007. This estimate 
supersedes the initial cost estimate transmitted on August 23, 
2007.
    This revised estimate corrects CBO's summary of current law 
regarding veterans' pension benefits. The estimated budgetary 
impact of enacting S. 1315 is unchanged.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Dwayne 
Wright, who can be reached at 226-2840.
            Sincerely,
                                           Peter R. Orszag,
                                                          Director.
    Enclosure
    cc: Honorable Larry E. Craig, Ranking Member.

S. 1315, Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007

    Summary: S. 1315 would affect several veterans programs, 
including disability compensation, pension, burial, life 
insurance, and readjustment benefits. CBO estimates that 
implementing this legislation would incur discretionary costs 
of $178 million in 2008 and $1 billion over the 2008-2012 
period, assuming appropriations of the necessary amounts. Also, 
the bill contains provisions that would both increase and 
decrease direct spending for veterans benefits. CBO estimates 
that enacting S. 1315 would decrease direct spending by $4 
million in 2008, $44 million over the 2008-2012 period, and $56 
million over the 2008-2017 period. Enacting the bill would have 
no effect on federal revenues.
    S. 1315 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined 
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA); any costs to state, 
local, or tribal governments would be incurred voluntarily.
    S. 1315 contains a private-sector mandate, as defined in 
UMRA, because it would require cellular telephone contractors 
to allow certain servicemembers to terminate or suspend 
cellular telephone service contracts without termination or 
reactivation fees. CBO estimates that the annual cost of the 
mandate would probably be below the threshold established in 
UMRA for private-sector mandates ($131 million in 2007, 
adjusted annually for inflation).
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of S. 1315 is summarized in Table 1. The costs 
of this legislation fall within budget function 700 (veterans 
benefits and services).

                                 Table 1. Estimated Budgetary Impact of S. 1315
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
                                                              2008       2009       2010       2011       2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated Authorization Level............................        178        191        205        215        225
Estimated Outlays........................................        178        191        205        215        225

                                           CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDINGa

Estimated Budget Authority...............................         -4         25        -16        -29        -22
Estimated Outlays........................................         -4         25        -16        -29        -22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aIn addition to the direct spending effects shown here, enacting S. 1315 would have additional effects on direct
  spending after 2012 (see Table 3). The estimated net changes in direct spending sum to -$44 million over the
  2008-2012 period and -$56 million over the 2008-2017 period.

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S. 
1315 will be enacted near the start of fiscal year 2008 and 
that the necessary funds for implementing the bill will be 
provided each year.

Spending subject to appropriation

    S. 1315 contains several provisions that would affect 
benefits provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), 
including increasing veterans burial benefits, expanding 
benefits for Filipino veterans, and increasing benefits for 
severely disabled veterans. CBO estimates that implementing S. 
1315 would result in discretionary outlays of $178 million in 
2008 and $1 billion over the 2008-2012 period, subject to 
appropriation of the necessary amounts (see Table 2).
    Supplemental Funeral and Burial Expenses. Under current 
law, VA pays funeral expenses up to $300 for deceased veterans 
who had been receiving compensation or pension benefits and for 
whom no next of kin can be located. VA also pays up to $2,000 
for burial expenses to the survivors of veterans who die as a 
result of their service-connected disability. Section 701 would 
increase the maximum payments for funeral and burial expenses 
to $1,200 and $4,100, respectively, and would increase these 
amounts annually by a cost-of-living adjustment.

                           Table 2. Components of Discretionary Spending Under S. 1315
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
                                                              2008       2009       2010       2011       2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONa

Supplemental Funeral and Burial Expenses:
    Estimated Authorization Level........................        112        117        125        132        140
    Estimated Outlays....................................        112        117        125        132        140
Supplemental Plot Allowance:
    Estimated Authorization Level........................         32         32         35         37         39
    Estimated Outlays....................................         32         32         35         37         39
Supplemental Automobile Grants for Disabled Veterans:
    Estimated Authorization Level........................         19         20         21         22         23
    Estimated Outlays....................................         19         20         21         22         23
Medical Care for Filipino Veterans:
    Estimated Authorization Level........................          5         11         13         13         13
    Estimated Outlays....................................          5         11         13         13         13
Supplemental Specially Adapted Housing Benefits:
    Estimated Authorization Level........................          7          8          9          9         10
    Estimated Outlays....................................          7          8          9          9         10
Reports:
    Estimated Authorization Level........................          2          2          1          1          *
    Estimated Outlays....................................          2          2          1          1          *
Assets of Air Force Health Study:
    Estimated Authorization Level........................          1          1          1          1          0
    Estimated Outlays....................................          1          1          1          1          0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Total
          Estimated Authorization Level..................                   191        205        215        225
          Estimated Outlays..............................        178        191        205        215        225
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: * = less than $500,000.
aComponents may not add up to totals because of rounding.

    Based on information from VA regarding veteran mortality, 
CBO expects about 89,000 grants to be made for funeral expenses 
in 2008 increasing to about 96,600 by 2012. For service-
connected burial expenses, CBO expects about 15,000 grants to 
be made in 2008 increasing to about 17,500 in 2012. CBO 
estimates that implementing section 701 would cost $112 million 
in 2008 and $626 million over the 2008-2012 period, assuming 
appropriation of the necessary amounts.
    Supplemental Plot Allowance. Under current law, VA pays a 
$300 plot allowance for veterans who died in a VA facility or 
who are to be buried in a state or private cemetery. Section 
702 would increase the plot allowance to $745 and would adjust 
the payment annually by a cost-of-living index. Based on 
information from VA on veterans mortality rates, CBO expects 
about 72,000 grants to be made for plot allowances in 2008, 
increasing to about 77,000 grants by 2012. CBO estimates that 
implementing section 702 would increase the cost of this 
program by $32 million in 2008 and by $176 million over the 
2008-2012 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary 
amounts.
    Supplemental Automobile Grants for Disabled Veterans. The 
Department of Veterans Affairs currently provides grants of 
$11,000 for the purchase of an automobile or other vehicle to 
seriously disabled veterans who, as the result of a service-
connected injury or disease, have lost the use of one or both 
hands (or feet) or have suffered a severe vision impairment. 
While these grants are mandatory payments made from the 
Readjustment Benefits account, section 802 would require VA to 
provide grant recipients an additional payment, subject to the 
availability of appropriations, such that the grant and 
supplemental payment total $22,484 in 2007 (more than doubling 
the existing benefit) and would increase that amount annually 
by a cost-of-living adjustment. Based on current usage rates 
and assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO 
estimates that implementing section 802 would cost about $17 
million in 2008 and $96 million over the 2008-2012 period.
    Medical Care for Filipino Veterans. Section 401 would 
qualify Filipino veterans for VA medical care if they served in 
the organized military forces of the Commonwealth of the 
Philippines or the Philippine Scouts while they were in the 
service of the U.S. Armed Forces between July 26, 1941, and 
July 1, 1946. Based on information from VA, CBO estimates that 
there will be about 30,000 eligible veterans living in the 
Philippines in 2008, and that their numbers will decline to 
about 24,000 by 2012. In 2006, the VA's average annual cost of 
providing medical care to veterans in the Phillippines was 
about $1,700 per person and, after accounting for inflation, 
CBO estimates that average would increase to about $2,100 per 
person by 2012.
    According to VA, about 25 percent of all eligible veterans 
use VA medical care. Assuming a three-year phase-in of new 
users, CBO estimates that implementing section 401 would 
increase VA health care costs by $5 million in 2008 and by $55 
million over the 2008-2012 period, subject to appropriation of 
the necessary amounts.
    Supplemental Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) Benefits. VA 
currently administers two grant programs to assist severely 
disabled veterans in acquiring housing that is adapted to their 
disabilities or in modifying their existing housing 
accordingly. While those grants are mandatory payments made 
from the Readjustment Benefits account, section 205 would 
require VA to provide grant recipients with an additional 
payment, subject to the availability of appropriations. Under 
current law, veterans who are classified by VA as totally 
disabled and who have certain mobility limitations are entitled 
to receive grants of up to $50,000 toward the acquisition of 
suitable housing. Totally disabled veterans who are blind or 
have lost the use of their hands are entitled to receive grants 
of up to $10,000 to adapt their residences to accommodate their 
disabilities.
    Section 205 would require VA to provide an additional 
payment such that the total received by any individual would be 
a subject to a maximum of $60,000 and $12,000, respectively (a 
20 percent increase). Based on current usage rates and assuming 
appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that 
implementing section 205 would cost $7 million in 2008 and $43 
million over the 2008-2012 period.
    Reports. S. 1315 would require VA to prepare or to enter 
into contracts for the completion of several reports. The 
topics would include: specially adapted housing for disabled 
individuals, specially adapted housing for individuals residing 
in homes owned by other family members on a permanent basis, a 
modification of a special unemployment report for veterans of 
post-9/11 global operations, annual workload reports for the 
Court of Appeals of Veterans Claims (CAVC), expansion of 
facilities for the CAVC, and an Institute of Medicine study on 
the risk of developing multiple sclerosis as a result of 
service in the Persian Gulf or post-9/11 global operations. CBO 
estimates that completing the required reports would cost $2 
million in 2008 and $6 million over the 2008-2012 period, 
subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
    Assets of Air Force Health Study. Section 805 would 
authorize the appropriation of $1.5 million for the 2008-2011 
period to ensure that the assets transferred to the Medical 
Follow-Up Agency from the Air Force Health Study are 
maintained, managed, and made available as a resource for 
future research for promoting healthy veterans.
    Recall of Retired Judges for CAVC. Section 501 would modify 
the way that judges who are eligible to be recalled after 
retirement are paid upon recall to the Court of Appeal for 
Veterans Claims work. Under current law, recall-eligible, 
retired judges who return to the bench are paid at the same 
rate as a judge of the court. Under section 501, judges 
appointed to the court after the date of enactment of S. 1315 
who opt to be available for recall would be paid at their 
retirement-pay rate (with cost-of-living increases) upon return 
to the bench. Because very few judges are recalled, CBO 
estimates that section 501 would have an insignificant impact 
on discretionary costs.

Direct Spending

    S. 1315 contains provisions that would both increase and 
decrease direct spending. CBO estimates that enacting S. 1315 
would decrease net direct spending by $4 million in 2008, by 
$44 million over the 2008-2012 period, and by $56 million over 
the 2008-2017 period (see Table 3).
    Special Monthly Pension (SMP). VA provides pension benefits 
for low-income, totally disabled, war veterans whose 
disabilities are unrelated to their service. Eligible veterans 
who have more than one disability may receive a higher payment 
in the form of a SMP at either the aid and attendance (A&A) 
level or the lower housebound level. Those whose second 
disability is rated at 100 percent are eligible to receive the 
A&A SMP; those whose second disability is rated at 60 percent 
to 90 percent are eligible for the housebound SMP.
    As of 2001, low-income war veterans over age 65 are 
eligible to receive the basic pension benefit without a 
determination of total disability. Until a recent court 
holding, however, they had to meet the same requirements as 
younger veterans to receive SMPs.\1\ Veterans over age 65 were 
required to have two disabilities rated at 100 percent each, or 
one disability rated at 100 percent and one rated at 60 percent 
or greater to receive the A&A or housebound SMPs, respectively. 
The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims found that otherwise 
eligible veterans over age 65 did not need the initial 
disability rating of 100 percent, significantly expanding the 
number of veterans who are eligible to receive the more costly 
SMP. Pursuant to that holding, VA has recently begun to pay the 
A&A SMP to veterans over age 65 who have one disability rated 
at 100 percent and to pay the housebound SMP to veterans over 
65 with a single disability rated at 60 percent to 90 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Robert A. Hartness v. R. James Nicholson, VA 20 Vet. App. 216 
(2006).

                                                  Table 3. Components of Direct Spending Under S. 1315
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Outlays in millions of dollars, by fiscal year--
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2008   2009   2010   2011   2012   2013   2014   2015   2016   2017  2008-2012  2008-2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDINGa

Special Monthly Pension.....................................    -63    -90   -112   -111   -109   -105   -101    -96    -91    -87     -485       -965
Expansion of Benefits for Filipino Veterans.................     24     50     46     42     37     33     30     27     24     21      198        332
Service-Connected Term Life Insurance.......................      3     10     17     23     30     36     42     49     55     61       83        326
State Approving Agencies....................................      6      6      6      6      6      6      6      6      6      6       30         60
Enhanced Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance...................      3      3      3      3      6      6      6      7      7      7       18         51
Expansion of Retroactive Benefits for T-SGLI................      5     24     14      2      2      0      0      0      0      0       47         47
Extension of Increased Job Training Benefits................     12     15      4      *      *      *      *      *      *      *       31         31
Supplemental S-DVI..........................................      2      2      3      3      3      2      2      3      3      3       13         26
Specially Adapted Housing Grants for Individuals with Severe      2      2      2      2      1      *      *      *      *      *        9         11
 Burns......................................................
Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for Individuals with           2      2      2      1      1      1      1      1      1      1        8         11
 Severe Burns...............................................
COLA for Surviving Spouses..................................      *      *      *      1      1      1      1      2      2      2        1          9
Consideration of Dominant Hand as Qualifying Loss to T-SGLI.      1      1      *      *      *      *      *      *      *      *        3          5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................................     -4     25    -16    -29    -22    -21    -13     -2      6     15      -44        -56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: T-SGLI = Traumatic Servicemembers Group Life Insurance; S-DVI Supplemental Service-Disabled Insurance.
* = less than $500,000.
aComponents may not add up to totals because of rounding.

    Section 603 would change the eligibility requirements for 
SMPs to those in force before the court ruling, reducing the 
number of veterans eligible for SMP and thereby reducing the 
cost of the pension program. Based on data from VA, CBO 
estimates that, over the next three years, of the 20,570 
veterans over age 65 who are receiving the basic pension 
without a requirement of disability, 75 percent--or 15,400--
will apply for and receive a SMP. Based on disability data from 
VA, CBO estimates that about 12,800 of those qualifying 
pensioners will be found eligible for the A&A SMP and that the 
remaining 2,600 will receive the housebound SMP.
    In addition, CBO estimates that each year about 3,000 new 
pension recipients will qualify for the SMPs because of the 
court ruling and that half of them will be paid at the A&A rate 
and that half will receive the housebound rate. Thus, CBO 
estimates that under current law a total of 10,350 additional 
veterans will receive SMPs in 2008, and, using normal mortality 
rates for that population and adding in each year's cohort of 
new pensioners, CBO estimates that by 2017, an additional 
13,700 pensioners will receive SMPs because of the court 
ruling.
    The maximum annual pension rate for a veteran with no 
dependents is $10,929. Similar rates for A&A and housebound 
SMPs are $18,234 and $13,356, respectively. After adjusting for 
cost-of-living increases, by 2017 the difference between the 
maximum annual pension rate and both the A&A and housebound SMP 
rates would be about $9,000 and $3,000, respectively. Using 
those increases in benefit levels and the populations specified 
above, CBO estimates that the court ruling will increase direct 
spending on veterans pensions by $485 million over the 2008-
2012 period and $965 million over the 2008-2017 period. 
Enacting section 603 would undo that increase expected under 
current law, resulting in an equal amount of savings.
    Expansion of Benefits for Filipino Veterans. Section 401 
would qualify Filipino veterans for expanded VA benefits if 
they served in the organized military forces of the 
Commonwealth of the Philippines and the Philippine Scouts while 
they were in the service of the U.S. Armed Forces between July 
26, 1941, and July 1, 1946. Enacting this provision would 
increase direct spending for disability compensation, pensions, 
and readjustment benefits. In total, CBO estimates that 
enacting section 401 would increase direct spending by $24 
million in 2008, $198 million over the 2008-2012 period, and 
$332 million over the 2008-2017 period. (Section 401 also would 
increase the number of Filipino veterans who are eligible for 
VA medical care. The cost of providing that care is discussed 
above under ``Spending Subject to Appropriation.'')
    Compensation. While Filipino veterans residing in the 
United States are eligible for full disability compensation, 
Filipino veterans residing in the Philippines receive 
compensation at one-half of the full rate. Section 401 would 
grant Filipino veterans residing in the Philippines full 
disability compensation, effective as of January 1, 2008.
    About 3,000 Filipino veterans received reduced disability 
compensation from VA in 2006. Using VA mortality rates for 
compensation recipients, CBO estimates that under section 401 
about 2,700 Filipino veterans would receive an increase in 
compensation in 2008, decreasing to about 1,300 by 2017. CBO 
assumes that all veterans who are eligible for compensation are 
currently receiving a disability payment, and that there would 
be no new accessions to the disability compensation rolls. 
Based on information from VA, CBO estimates that in 2008, the 
average disability compensation payment will be about $9,600--
resulting in an increase of $4,800 for Filipino veterans. After 
adjusting for cost-of-living increases, CBO estimates that 
enacting section 401 would increase direct spending for 
disability compensation by $59 million over the 2008-2012 
period and $101 million over the 2008-2017 period.
    Pensions. Under current law, Filipino veterans are not 
eligible for disability pensions, and their surviving spouses 
are not eligible for a death pension. Section 401 would make 
both Filipino veterans and their surviving spouses eligible for 
those pensions at specified rates. Under section 401, single 
veterans would be eligible for an annual payment of $3,600 and 
married veterans would be eligible for $4,500. The annual 
payment for surviving spouses would be $2,400. All payments 
would be increased annually by a cost-of-living adjustment. 
Veterans applying on or after May 1, 2008, would be eligible.
    To become eligible for a disability pension, a veteran must 
have an income below a certain threshold, have served during a 
period of war, and have a permanent and total non-service-
connected disability. Veterans over age 65 are presumed totally 
disabled for pension purposes. The income threshold for 
veterans without any dependents is about $11,000. According to 
the Central Intelligence Agency Factbook, the average annual 
income in the Philippines is about $5,000 as of 2006.
    In 2001, VA issued a report on Filipino veterans. As of 
September 2000, about 41,800 Filipino veterans resided in the 
Philippines and were not receiving disability compensation. 
Based on the low average annual income and the income threshold 
for disability pensions, CBO expects that under this provision, 
80 percent of Filipino veterans would apply for and be granted 
a pension. Based on information from the Department of Defense 
(DOD), CBO estimates that 30 percent of Filipino veterans are 
married. Using VA mortality rates for pensioners, CBO estimates 
that under section 401 about 14,200 Filipino veterans would be 
granted a disability pension in 2008, of which about 1,500 
would survive to 2017.
    Based on information from VA and DOD, CBO estimates that 
about 120 surviving spouses would apply for and be granted a 
pension in 2008. After accounting for accessions to the 
dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) rolls over the 
2008-2017 period, CBO estimates that about 2,900 surviving 
spouses would receive such pensions by 2017.
    After accounting for cost-of-living adjustments, CBO 
estimates that enacting section 401 would increase outlays for 
pensions by $133 million over the 2008-2012 period and $221 
million over the 2008-2012 period.
    Readjustment Benefits. Section 401 would also make some 
Filipino veterans eligible for certain readjustment benefits, 
including dependent education, specially adapted housing 
grants, and automotive and adaptive equipment. Based on 
information from VA on the Filipino veteran and survivor 
population, mortality rates, and usage rates, CBO estimates 
that enacting section 401 would increase direct spending for 
readjustment benefits by $7 million over the next five years 
and by $11 million over the next 10 years.
    Service-Connected Term Life Insurance. Section 101 would 
create a new life insurance program for veterans under age 65 
with a service-connected disability. Eligible veterans would be 
able to obtain up to a maximum of $50,000 of insurance in 
increments of $10,000. As participating veterans reached the 
age of 70, the insurance would be reduced to 20 percent of its 
original value. Veterans would pay premiums for this insurance 
program as determined by VA. However, veterans aged 70 or 
older, or those who have a permanent and total service-
connected disability would not be required to pay premiums. The 
premiums would not cover the full costs of the program.
    Veterans would be required to apply for this term life 
insurance program within two years of being notified of having 
a service-
connected disability or within ten years of being separated 
from the Armed Forces, whichever is earlier. Also, any veteran 
who is currently insured under the Service-Disabled Veterans 
Insurance program would be allowed to exchange that insurance 
for the new term life insurance during the period of June 1, 
2008, to May 31, 2009.
    Based on VA's actuarial projections of future policy 
holders, premium payments, and death claims, CBO expects about 
9,800 veterans would wish to obtain policies in 2008, 
increasing to about 82,000 in 2017. Therefore, CBO estimates 
that enacting section 101 would increase direct spending by $83 
million over the 2008-2012 period and $326 million over the 
2008-2017 period.
    State Approving Agencies. VA is currently authorized to 
reimburse the state approving agencies from amounts available 
for the payment of readjustment benefits. The state approving 
agencies provide verification that various educational 
institutions are qualified to provide courses of education so 
that eligible veterans, survivors, and dependents may receive 
veterans education benefits while attending those institutions. 
Section 302 would increase the amount of such reimbursements 
that could be provided from $13 million to $19 million per 
year. CBO estimates that enacting this provision would increase 
direct spending for veterans readjustment benefits by $30 
million over the 2008-2012 period and by $60 million over the 
2008-2017 period.
    Enhanced Veterans' Mortgage Life Insurance (VMLI). VMLI is 
insurance coverage intended to pay off or make payments on a 
veteran's home mortgage in the event of the veterans death. 
VMLI is restricted to those eligible veterans who receive 
grants for specially adapted housing and it ceases once a 
veteran reaches age 70. Under current law, the maximum amount 
of VMLI is $90,000. Section 108 would increase the amount of 
VMLI coverage from $90,000 to $150,000 through December 31, 
2011, and further increase it to $200,000 on January 1, 2012.
    Based on VA's actuarial projections of current and future 
policy holders, premium payments, and death claims, CBO expects 
about 2,300 policyholders to take advantage of the increased 
coverage in 2008, decreasing to about 1,900 by 2017. Based on 
the current cost of the program, CBO estimate that enacting 
section 108 would increase direct spending by $18 million over 
the 2008-2012 period and $51 million over the 2008-2017 period.
    Expansion of Retroactive Benefits for Traumatic 
Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (T-SGLI). VA began offering 
T-SGLI in December 2005. This program provides a payment to 
eligible servicemembers who suffer a traumatic injury 
including, but not limited to, the loss of a hand or foot. When 
the program was established, it provided retroactive coverage 
only to veterans who suffered a traumatic injury as a result of 
their service in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi 
Freedom (OEF/OIF). Section 105 would extend that retroactive 
benefit to all veterans who suffered a traumatic injury 
resulting in a qualifying loss during the period of October 7, 
2001, to November 30, 2005.
    CBO assumes that retroactive claims for non-OEF/OIF 
traumatic injuries will be similar to non-OEF/OIF claims made 
since the beginning of the program. Between December 2005 and 
September 2006, 390 veterans made nonretroactive T-SGLI claims 
for traumatic injuries. Of that number, about 22 percent were 
for non-war-zone injuries. Based on claims made in the first 
year of the program, CBO expects that 2,500 war-related claims 
will be made for the period of October 7, 2001, to November 30, 
2005. Therefore, CBO estimates that under section 104 an 
additional 700 non-war related claims would be made. According 
to VA, the average size of a non-war-zone claim for T-SGLI was 
$68,700. Therefore, CBO estimates that enacting section 105 
will increase direct spending by $5 million in 2008 and $47 
million over the 2008-2017 period.
    Extension of Increased Job Training Benefits. Participants 
in apprenticeship and on-the-job-training programs usually 
receive wages that increase as the trainees progress through 
their training program. Consequently, veterans education 
programs provide benefits for job training that offer higher 
payments at the start of a program and reduced payments in the 
program's later stages. Since October 1, 2005, veterans in 
apprenticeship or on-the-job-training programs have received 85 
percent of their program's full-time 
benefit during their first six months of job training, 65 
percent of the full-time benefit for the second six months, and 
45 percent of the full benefit thereafter--temporarily 
increased from statutory limits of 75, 55, and 35 percent, 
respectively. Dependents in the Survivors' and Dependents' 
Educational Assistance Program (SDEAP) have also received 
elevated monthly job training benefits since that time. Those 
increases will expire on December 31, 2007, and benefits will 
return to the previous levels.
    Section 305 would delay such reinstatement of the lower 
benefits for two years, from January 1, 2008, until January 1, 
2010. Based on current levels of spending for these programs, 
CBO estimates that enacting this section would increase direct 
spending for veterans education benefits by $12 million in 2008 
and $31 million over the 2008-2017 period.
    Supplemental Service-Disabled Insurance (S-DVI). Section 
104 would increase the amount of supplemental S-DVI insurance 
coverage available from $20,000 to $30,000. This provision 
would be effective as of January 1, 2008.
    S-DVI is a life insurance program for veterans with 
service-
related disabilities. They must apply for S-DVI within two 
years of notification that a service connection has been 
established for a disability. Supplemental S-DVI is available 
to current S-DVI policyholders who qualify for a waiver of 
premiums because of a total disability that began after the 
insured's application for insurance, while the insured was 
paying premiums for S-DVI, and before the insured's 65 
birthday.
    Based on VA's actuarial projections of current and future 
policy holders, premium payments, and death claims, CBO expects 
about 19,000 policyholders would take advantage of the 
increased coverage in 2008, increasing to about 23,400 by 2017. 
Therefore, CBO estimates that enacting section 104 would 
increase direct spending by $13 million over the 2008-2012 
period and $26 million over the 2008-2017 period.
    Specially Adapted Housing Grants for Individuals with 
Severe Burns. VA currently administers two grant programs to 
assist severely disabled veterans in acquiring housing that is 
adapted to their disabilities or modifying their existing 
housing. Under current law, veterans who are classified by VA 
as totally disabled and who have certain mobility limitations 
are entitled to receive grants of up to $50,000 toward the 
acquisition of suitable housing. Totally disabled veterans who 
are blind or have lost the use of their hands are entitled to 
receive grants of up to $10,000 to adapt their residences to 
accommodate their disabilities. Section 203 would allow totally 
disabled individuals with severe burn injuries to be eligible 
for both grants.
    Based on information from the services, CBO estimates that 
under section 203 nearly 100 existing veterans would newly 
qualify for such housing grants immediately, and that an 
additional 25 veterans would become eligible for housing 
adaptation grants in 2008. Assuming this rate of eligibility 
would change together with projections of wartime deployments, 
CBO estimates that under section 203 nearly 250 individuals 
would become newly eligible for housing grants over the 2008-
2017 period, increasing direct spending by $9 million over the 
2008-2012 period and $11 million over the 2008-2017 period.
    Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment Grants for Individuals 
with Severe Burns. Seriously disabled individuals who, as the 
result of a service-connected injury or disease, have lost the 
use of one or both hands (or feet) or have suffered a severe 
vision impairment are eligible to receive a grant of $11,000 to 
purchase an automobile or other vehicle. Individuals who 
receive automobile grants are also entitled to receive the 
necessary adaptive equipment to enable them to safely operate 
their vehicles, and to have that equipment repaired or replaced 
as necessary. Section 801 would expand eligibility for such 
grants to include totally disabled individuals with severe burn 
injuries.
    Based on the projected population described above (in the 
section on SAH for individuals with severe burns), CBO 
estimates that enacting section 801 would result in VA awarding 
automobile and adaptive equipment grants to an additional 250 
individuals over the 2008-2017 period. Based on current benefit 
levels in this program, we estimate that the additional 
automobile grants would increase annual outlays by around 
$500,000, and that providing adaptive equipment for those extra 
vehicles would increase annual outlays by about $1 million, 
with projected reductions in the eligible population somewhat 
offset by repeated grants to update adaptive equipment in the 
later years. Thus, under section 801, CBO estimates direct 
spending for automobile grants and adaptive equipment would 
increase by $8 million over the 2008-2012 period and $11 
million over the 2008-2017 period.
    Cost-of-Living Adjustment for Surviving Spouses. Surviving 
spouses who are eligible for DIC may receive an extra $250 a 
month for up to two years if they have one or more children 
under the age of 18. Section 602 would increase the $250 
benefit by the same annual cost-of-living adjustment payable to 
Social Security recipients. CBO estimates that this provision 
would increase the monthly benefit to $255 (after rounding down 
to the next lowest dollar) for 2008 and to $305 by 2017, 
relative to current law and CBO's baseline. CBO estimates that 
enacting section 602 would increase direct spending for 
veterans compensation by $1 million over the 2008-2012 period 
and $9 million over the 2008-2017 period.
    Consideration of Dominant Hand as Qualifying Loss for 
T-SGLI. Section 106 would allow VA to consider the loss of a 
dominant hand in determinations of severity of traumatic loss 
when making payments to servicemembers under the T-SGLI program 
and would make the payments retroactive to the beginning of the 
T-SGLI program. As of July 2007, 95 servicemembers have 
received payments of $50,000 for the loss of a hand for a total 
of $5 million for such losses. CBO estimates that through the 
end of fiscal year 2007, about 110 claims will have been made 
for the loss of a hand--this includes war-related claims for 
injuries incurred as far back as October 7, 2001--and that over 
the 2008-2017 period, about 25 additional claims per year will 
be made for the loss of a hand.
    Absent information on whether or not claims paid to date 
under this program represent the loss of a dominant hand, CBO 
assumes that half of those individuals who have received a 
payment would return for an increased payment under this 
provision. Similarly, CBO assumes that half of the new claims 
for loss of a hand will be for a dominant hand and will be paid 
at a higher rate. All 
T-SGLI payments are made in increments of $25,000, so CBO 
assumes that the loss of a dominant hand would result in a 
payment increase of $25,000. Therefore, CBO estimates that 
enacting section 106 would increase direct spending by $3 
million over the 2008-2012 period and $5 million over the 2008-
2017 period.
    Presumption of Service Connection for Prisoners of War 
(POWs) with Osteoporosis and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder 
(PTSD). Section 601 of the bill would add osteoporosis in POWs 
with PTSD to the list of disabilities that VA assumes are 
service-connected for former POWs. Thus, under section 601, 
former POWs with PTSD who also have osteoporosis would be 
eligible for an increase in disability compensation. CBO 
estimates that fewer than 50 veterans might be eligible for a 
small increase in their disability compensation under this 
provision. Therefore, CBO estimates that enacting section 601 
would increase direct spending by less than $500,000 over the 
2008-2017 period.
    Other provisions. The following provisions would have 
insignificant impact on mandatory spending:
     Section 202 would expand eligibility for all 
specially adapted housing benefits to include servicemembers on 
active duty (living either permanently in their own residence 
or temporarily with a family member) and certain otherwise 
eligible veterans residing outside the United States.
     Section 204 would extend by just over six months a 
program providing SAH grants to individuals who reside 
temporarily with a family member.
     Section 402 would eliminate the requirement that 
children of certain Filipino veterans of World War II who 
receive dependents' education benefits from the VA be paid 50 
percent of the amount to which they would otherwise be 
entitled. Though this would double the amount paid to such 
individuals, CBO estimates that because of the small size of 
the population involved, any increase in direct spending would 
be insignificant.
    Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments: 
S. 1315 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in 
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. State, local, and tribal 
governments that participate in the program to provide 
education benefits to veterans would benefit from funds 
authorized in the bill. Any costs they might incur to comply 
with the conditions of this federal assistance would be 
incurred voluntarily.
    Estimated impact on the private sector: Section 606 of S. 
1315 would allow servicemembers who receive orders to deploy 
outside of the continental United States for not less than 90 
days to request the termination or suspension of any contract 
for cellular telephone service entered into by the 
servicemember before that date. Servicemembers would be 
protected against any penalties arising from such a termination 
or suspension of a cellular telephone service contract. This 
would be a mandate upon the cellular telephone service 
contractors that would be required to grant the requested 
relief without imposition of an early contract termination fee 
or a reactivation fee. Furthermore, the servicemember would not 
be required to extend a contract as a condition of suspension 
or otherwise.
    Based on historical deployment numbers and average contract 
termination and reactivation fees, CBO estimates that the costs 
to cellular telephone service contracts to comply with this 
mandate would likely be below the threshold established in UMRA 
for private-sector mandates ($131 million in 2007, adjusted 
annually for inflation).
    Previous CBO estimate: On August 21, 2007, CBO transmitted 
a cost estimate for H.R. 760, the Filipino Veterans Equity Act 
of 2007, as ordered reported by the House Veterans Affairs 
Committee on July 18, 2007. Several sections of S. 1315 are 
similar to sections of H.R. 760, as ordered reported. 
Differences in the estimated costs reflect differences in the 
two bills.
    On August 23, 2007, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S. 
1315 as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs on June 27, 2007. This revised estimate corrects CBO's 
summary of current law regarding veterans' pension benefits. 
The estimated budgetary impact of enacting the bill is 
unchanged.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Veterans' 
Compensation--Dwayne Wright (226-2840); Veterans' Readjustment 
Benefits--Mike Waters and Sarah Jennings (226-2840); Military 
Personnel--Matthew Schmit (226-2840).
    Impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Lisa 
Ramirez-Branum (225-3220); Impact on the Private Sector: 
Victoria Liu (226-2900).
    Estimate approved by: Theresa A. Gullo, Chief, State and 
Local Government Cost Estimates Unit, Budget Analysis Division.

                      Regulatory Impact Statement

    In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee on Veterans' 
Affairs has made an evaluation of the regulatory impact that 
would be incurred in carrying out the Committee bill. The 
Committee finds that the Committee bill would not entail any 
regulation of individuals or businesses or result in any impact 
on the personal privacy of any individuals and that the 
paperwork resulting from enactment would be minimal.

                 Tabulation of Votes Cast in Committee

    In compliance with paragraph 7 of rule XXVI of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, the following is a tabulation of votes 
cast in person or by proxy by members of the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs at its June 27, 2007, meeting. The Committee, 
by voice vote, ordered S. 1315 reported favorably to the 
Senate, subject to 
amendment.
    On that date, the Committee considered the Craig amendment 
on education and Filipino veterans. The Craig amendment was 
defeated by a 6 to 8 vote.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Yeas                                 Senator                                 Nays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Mr. Rockefeller                                                          X
                                     Ms. Murray                                                               X
                                     Mr. Obama                                                                X
                                     Mr. Sanders                                                              X
                                     Mr. Brown                                                                X
                                     Mr. Webb                                                                 X
                                     Mr. Tester                                                               X
                                 X   Mr. Craig
                      X (by proxy)   Mr. Specter
                      X (by proxy)   Mr. Burr
                                 X   Mr. Isakson
                                     Mr. Graham
                      X (by proxy)   Ms. Hutchison
                                 X   Mr. Ensign
                                     Mr. Chairman                                                             X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 6   TALLY                                                                    8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    The Committee then considered, en bloc, four amendments 
offered by Senator Sanders to authorize supplemental funding of 
certain veterans benefits programs. The Sanders amendments were 
accepted, en bloc, by a 9 to 5 vote.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Yeas                                 Senator                                 Nays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 X   Mr. Rockefeller
                                 X   Ms. Murray
                      X (by proxy)   Mr. Obama
                                 X   Mr. Sanders
                      X (by proxy)   Mr. Brown
                      X (by proxy)   Mr. Webb
                                 X   Mr. Tester
                                     Mr. Craig                                                                X
                                     Mr. Specter                                                   X (by proxy)
                                     Mr. Burr                                                      X (by proxy)
                                     Mr. Isakson                                                              X
                                     Mr. Graham
                                     Ms. Hutchison                                                 X (by proxy)
                                 X   Mr. Ensign
                                 X   Mr. Chairman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 9   TALLY                                                                    5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    The Committee then considered the Ensign amendment to give 
special consideration to the loss of the dominant hand in 
determining eligibility for traumatic injury protection under 
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance. The Ensign amendment was 
accepted by a 14 to 0 vote.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Yeas                                 Senator                                 Nays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 X   Mr. Rockefeller
                                 X   Ms. Murray
                      X (by proxy)   Mr. Obama
                                 X   Mr. Sanders
                      X (by proxy)   Mr. Brown
                      X (by proxy)   Mr. Webb
                                 X   Mr. Tester
                                 X   Mr. Craig
                      X (by proxy)   Mr. Specter
                      X (by proxy)   Mr. Burr
                                 X   Mr. Isakson
                                     Mr. Graham
                      X (by proxy)   Ms. Hutchison
                                 X   Mr. Ensign
                                 X   Mr. Chairman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                14   TALLY                                                                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                             Agency Report

    On April 11, 2007, Ronald R. Aument, Deputy Under Secretary 
for Benefits of the Department of Veterans Affairs, appeared 
before the Committee at a hearing on S. 57, the proposed 
``Filipino Veterans Equity Act of 2007,'' and submitted 
testimony of the Department's views of the bill. Excerpts from 
this statement are reprinted below:

               STATEMENT RONALD R. AUMENT, DEPUTY UNDER 
              SECRETARY FOR BENEFITS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 
                            VETERANS AFFAIRS

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for 
the opportunity to testify today on S. 57, a bill that would 
deem certain service in the organized military forces of the 
Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the 
Philippine Scouts to have been active service for purposes of 
benefits under programs administered by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (VA). VA does not support enactment of the 
bill.
    Regular, or ``Old,'' Philippine Scouts are currently 
eligible for VA benefits in the same manner as veterans of the 
U.S. Army. Therefore, the bill would not affect this group. 
However, S. 57 would extend full eligibility for VA benefits to 
veterans of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including those 
with recognized guerrilla service, and to veterans of the New 
Philippine Scouts. In my testimony today, I refer only to the 
groups affected by the proposed bill as ``Filipino veterans'' 
and do not refer to Regular Philippine Scouts.
    Section 107 of title 38, United States Code, generally 
limits the VA benefits to which Filipino veterans and their 
survivors are eligible to certain contracts of National Service 
Life Insurance, disability compensation, dependency and 
indemnity compensation (DIC), and monetary burial benefits. 
Furthermore, unless those veterans or survivors live in the 
United States and are U.S. citizens or are lawfully admitted 
for permanent residence in the United States, those veterans or 
survivors receive their disability compensation or DIC at the 
rate of fifty cents per U.S. dollar, which is commonly referred 
to as payment at a ``half-dollar rate.'' Payment of monetary 
burial benefits at more than the half-dollar rate requires, in 
addition to the legal residency requirement, that the veteran 
at the time of death be receiving disability compensation or be 
entitled to receive a disability pension but for the active-
service requirement. Eligibility for burial in a national 
cemetery and for hospital and nursing home care and medical 
services is limited to Filipino veterans living here in the 
United States who are either U.S. citizens or lawful residents. 
Filipino veterans and their survivors are not eligible for any 
other VA benefit with the exception of education benefits 
available under chapter 35 of title 38 to certain children of 
these veterans.
    We do not support the bill because it would 
disproportionately favor Filipino veterans over U.S. veterans. 
Mr. Chairman, in 2003 the average annual family income in the 
Philippines in U.S. dollars was approximately $2,864. In 
contrast, in 2006 the maximum annual pension rate for a veteran 
with no dependent was $10,929 U.S. dollars per year; the annual 
rate for a veteran with one dependent was $14,313; and the 
annual rate for a surviving spouse with no dependent was 
$7,329. Thus, Filipino veterans and their survivors receiving 
full-rate VA pensions while living in the Philippines would 
enjoy a much higher standard of living relative to the general 
population in the Philippines. At the same time, VA benefits 
paid to beneficiaries living in the United States, such as U.S. 
veterans, do not enable those beneficiaries to enjoy a standard 
of living higher than the general U.S. population. In fact, 
even when paid at the half-dollar rate, Filipino veterans and 
their survivors are receiving relatively higher rates of 
disability compensation, DIC, and burial benefits compared to 
beneficiaries receiving the full-dollar rate in the United 
States.
    As a direct result of S. 57, VA would have to double the 
monthly payments currently provided to the more than 7,000 
Filipino veterans and their survivors who now receive 
disability compensation or DIC at the half-dollar rate. In 
addition, we expect newly eligible veterans or their survivors 
to apply for pension benefits. Although precise numbers are not 
available, we have based our cost estimates on an estimate that 
more than 20,000 Filipino veterans reside outside the United 
States. We derived this figure by applying mortality rates for 
World War II veterans to an estimate of the Filipino veteran 
population that was calculated in 2000. The resulting 20,000 
figure is in line with an estimate used by the Congressional 
Research Service in 2006. Since it is very difficult to develop 
a firm estimate for the size of this population, we believe 
that that 20,000 figure is as reliable as we can establish at 
this date. Based on this figure, we estimate compensation, 
pension, and DIC costs in the first year will exceed $491 
million. Enactment of S. 57 may also likely require VA to 
provide to Filipino veterans memorial benefits such as 
interment, perpetual care of gravesites, government-furnished 
headstones or markers, and Presidential Memorial 
Certificates.
    S. 57 also would significantly affect VA's health care 
system. Currently, the VA Outpatient Clinic in Manila, 
Philippines, provides a wide range of ambulatory care services 
for U.S. veterans living in the Philippines as well as 
Compensation-and-Pension examinations for both U.S. and 
Filipino veterans. The Clinic has an annual operating budget of 
approximately $6.3 million and, in FY 2006, served 3,799 U.S. 
veterans. Under S. 57, all Filipino veterans in the Philippines 
with VA-adjudicated service-connected disabilities would become 
eligible for VA health care in the Philippines. As of February 
2007, the VA Manila Regional Office provided compensation for 
service-connected disabilities to 3,441 Philippine Service 
veterans, of which 2,726 resided in the Philippines. Based on 
the expected increase in the number of veterans eligible for 
care and an increase in the number of Compensation-and-Pension 
examination requests, we estimate an almost 100-percent 
increase in overall operating costs in the Philippines if the 
bill is enacted. We estimate a total additional expense of over 
$5 million in the first year. Moreover, this cost estimate does 
not fully account for the expected impact of S. 57. It is 
expected that the newly eligible Filipino veterans also would 
require a significant increase in the costs at the Manila 
Clinic for pharmacy, beneficiary travel, specialty exams, and 
fee basis costs.
    The bill would also impact VA's construction costs in the 
Philippines. Public Law 106-113 requires the Department of 
State (State) to locate diplomatic and other U.S. government 
offices to secure embassy grounds when it builds a new or 
replaces an existing embassy. State is replacing its embassy in 
Manila. In December 2006, Secretary Nicholson approved a 
recommendation to relocate the Manila VA Outpatient Clinic from 
its current leased site to U.S. Embassy property. State is 
planning to co-locate the Manila regional office and the 
Outpatient Clinic on embassy property at its Seafront compound. 
The facilities will be built and funded through a State major 
construction appropriation, and the new VA facilities are 
planned to be completed in 2010. VA will reimburse State for 
this project through Capital Security Cost-Sharing (CSCS) 
charges over a period of several years. VA's costs under that 
program are based on staffing levels. Any additional space and 
staffing required for this project due to the enactment of S. 
57 will significantly increase VA's costs.
    Additional health-care costs would have to be paid with 
existing health-care funds. Filipino veterans now residing 
outside the United States would be eligible for and could 
obtain health care in the United States by traveling to the 
United States to receive it. They would not, as now, have to 
reside in the United States and become U.S. citizens or 
permanent residents. We estimate that, if 10 percent of these 
newly eligible veterans (i.e., approximately 2,000 of the 
estimated 20,000 population of veterans) obtain health care in 
the United States, it will cost over $13 million in the first 
year.
    We estimate additional benefit costs (including medical 
benefits and memorial benefits) of approximately $510 million 
in the first year and more than $4 billion over ten years. Our 
cost estimate includes only expenses related to the three most 
significant monetary benefits, which are disability 
compensation, pension, and DIC, in our total estimate of 
benefit costs.
    Administrative costs are estimated at $8.8 million in the 
first year and $27 million over ten years. These estimates of 
administrative costs do not include the CSCS costs or 
administrative costs related to the provision of health care, 
and, as with the benefit costs, include administrative costs 
related to disability compensation, pension, and DIC, and not 
costs related to the administration of other monetary benefits.
    This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy 
to entertain any questions you or the other Members of the 
Committee may have.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    On May 9, 2007, Daniel L. Cooper, Under Secretary for 
Benefits of the Department of Veterans Affairs, appeared before 
the Committee at a hearing on pending benefits legislation and 
submitted testimony on, among other bills, S. 225, S. 643, S. 
847, S. 848, S. 1096, S. 1215, S. 1265, among other bills. 
Excerpts from this statement are reprinted below:
                                ------                                


               STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL L. COOPER, UNDER 
              SECRETARY FOR BENEFITS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 
                            VETERANS AFFAIRS

    Mr. 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. 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. 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 five years and $14.5 
million over 10 years with negligible administrative costs. 
With a one-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. 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 one year of separation from service, for 
certain tropical diseases if manifested to a degree of 
disability of 10-percent or more (generally) within one 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 three years of separation from service, and for 
multiple sclerosis if manifested to a degree of disability of 
10-percent or more within seven years of separation from 
service. S. 847 would eliminate the requirement that the 
manifestation of multiple sclerosis occur within seven years of 
separation from service to trigger the presumption.
    VA does not support enactment of this bill. First, the 
current presumptive period of seven 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 
ten 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. 
108-183, 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 ten 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 ten 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 ten 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 ten 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 
ten 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 ten years.
    We estimate administrative costs to be $2.4 million for 29 
full-time employees in the first year and $5.1 million over 
five 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. 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 five 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. 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 two 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 six months of training, $676; 
for the second six months of training, $527; and for the third 
six 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 five 
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 five 
years.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                 SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF MINORITY MEMBER 
                          HON. LARRY E. CRAIG

    I want to commend Chairman Akaka and all of our Committee 
Members for advancing a bill that contains many valuable 
provisions. S. 1315 as amended, the ``Veterans' Benefits 
Enhancement Act of 2007'' (hereinafter, ``S. 1315''), has as 
its predominant focus enhancing benefits and services for 
America's returning combat veterans and veterans with service-
connected disabilities. In particular, I am very pleased that 
S. 1315 includes provisions that directly impact benefits 
provided for today's active duty servicemembers fighting the 
War on Terror.
    First, section 105 would provide retroactive payments under 
the Traumatic Injury Protection under Servicemembers' Group 
Life Insurance program to those injured outside of the 
Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom theaters 
of operation on or between October 7, 2001, and December 1, 
2005. This change will benefit those like Seaman Robert Roeder, 
whose leg was severed by an arresting wire on board an aircraft 
carrier that was on its way to the Persian Gulf. Because his 
injury occurred outside of a war zone, under current law he is 
not eligible for assistance, a reality that S. 1315 would 
remedy.
    Several provisions within Title II of the bill would expand 
the array of housing grant assistance programs available to 
those who have severe burn injuries. The prevalence of severe 
burn injuries is a sad reality of the present conflict. These 
provisions are an example of our collective responsibility to 
modernize existing benefit programs to reflect the realities of 
the present conflict.
    Again, S. 1315 has many provisions which are commendable 
and worthy of immediate action. However, I do wish to provide 
additional information as to some provisions in the Committee 
Bill and, more importantly, to comment on several of the bill's 
provisions with which I am concerned. It is my sincere hope 
that the issues I am about to outline will be addressed prior 
to S. 1315 clearing the Senate.

                          Sections 301 and 302

    Sections 301 and 302 of the Committee bill include 
provisions pertaining to the administration and funding of 
``State approving agencies'' (hereinafter, ``SAAs''). Some of 
these provisions were derived from S. 1290, a bill I introduced 
to ensure that veterans and their families will have access to 
educational assistance benefits unimpeded by layers of 
bureaucracy and inflexible legal requirements. Although the 
Committee report provides a brief explanation of these 
provisions, I wish to discuss more thoroughly the reasons why 
current law should be modified and to explain key differences 
between the funding mechanism in my bill and the funding 
provision in S. 1315.
    Each year, VA provides educational assistance benefits to 
veterans, servicemembers, reservists, and their families to 
pursue a wide array of educational opportunities, including 
traditional college degrees, vocational training, 
apprenticeships, and on-the-job training programs. VA contracts 
with entities called SAAs to assess whether schools and 
training programs are of sufficient quality for individuals to 
receive VA education benefits while pursuing their programs. 
That SAA approval process was originally instituted after World 
War II to help stem abuses of veterans' education benefits, 
such as scam vocational and business schools profiting from 
those education benefits and then not providing veterans with 
an education of any value.
    Today, unlike 60 years ago, schools and educational 
programs of all types may be scrutinized by a number of 
different entities, including the Department of Education, the 
Department of Labor, various national and regional accrediting 
bodies, and state licensing agencies. In fact, in 1995 the 
General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability 
Office (hereinafter, ``GAO'')) found that a substantial portion 
of the approval activities performed by SAAs overlapped with 
work done by others. Several years later, the Commission on 
Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance concluded 
that veterans should be ``the primary judge of the 
appropriateness of accredited courses to their plans for the 
future'' and that ``[a]pproval of institutions accredited by 
accrediting bodies recognized by the Department of Education 
should suffice for veterans' training approval.''
    In the years since those findings, Congress has altered the 
responsibilities of SAAs by requiring them to perform 
additional functions, such as promoting the development of 
apprenticeship and on-the-job training programs, conducting 
outreach services, and approving licensing tests. However, the 
traditional approval functions performed by SAAs--which are 
specifically required by statute--have not been significantly 
modified. Thus, last year, I asked GAO to evaluate the extent 
to which SAA approval activities currently overlap with 
functions performed by the Departments of Labor and Education 
and what value is added by the services performed by SAAs.
    In its March 2007 report, GAO found that ``[m]any education 
and training programs approved by SAAs have also been approved 
by [the Departments of] Education or Labor and VA and SAAs have 
taken few steps to coordinate approval activities with these 
agencies.'' GAO stressed that ``[i]t is important that VA work 
with other federal agencies to determine how the scope of the 
approval process could be streamlined, such as to determine the 
extent to which SAAs could rely on recognized accreditors' 
assessments of institutions' policies on student achievement to 
reduce overlap and ensure that federal dollars are spent 
efficiently.'' To that end, GAO recommended that VA 
``collaborate with other agencies to identify any duplicative 
efforts and use the agency's administrative and regulatory 
authority to streamline the approval process.''
    In addition, GAO found that ``it is difficult to assess the 
effectiveness of SAA activities, in part because VA does not 
have outcome measures in place to fully evaluate SAA 
performance'' and ``does not require SAAs to collect 
information on the amount of resources they spend on specific 
approval activities.'' Thus, GAO concluded that VA ``does not 
have all relevant information for making resource allocation 
decisions and cannot determine if it is spending its federal 
dollars efficiently and effectively.''
    In view of these findings, I introduced S. 1290 to overhaul 
the statutory scheme regarding SAAs to help eliminate redundant 
administrative procedures, increase VA's flexibility in 
determining the nature and extent of services that should be 
performed by SAAs, and improve accountability for any 
activities they undertake. I am pleased that S. 1315 includes 
provisions that would require VA to coordinate with other 
entities in order to reduce overlapping activities and to 
report to Congress on its efforts to establish appropriate 
performance measures and tracking systems for SAA activities. 
However, I remain concerned that S. 1315 would leave in place 
the inflexible statutory provisions that mandate what 
activities SAAs must perform, how those functions must be 
carried out, and how VA must pay for them. As VA stated in 
response to GAO's findings, ``amending the agency's 
administrative and regulatory authority to streamline the 
approval process may be difficult due to the specific approval 
requirements of the law.'' Thus, I believe that, in order to 
effectively update and streamline this process, VA should be 
provided with the authority to contract with SAAs for services 
that it deems valuable and to determine how those services 
should be performed, evaluated, and compensated.
    Finally, I wish to draw attention to the funding provision 
in section 302 of the Committee bill, which would provide $19 
million in mandatory funding to pay for SAA services for each 
fiscal year hereafter. To the contrary, my bill (S. 1290) 
included a funding provision--similar to legislation that the 
Senate passed in 2006--that would provide a $19 million 
spending authorization for SAAs. This funding mechanism would, 
for now, continue to allow some funding to be drawn from 
mandatory spending accounts and would begin to transition SAA 
funding to a discretionary funding model. By relying on 
discretionary--rather than mandatory--funding, VA and the SAAs 
would have to justify budgeting and funding decisions based on 
need and performance outcomes, as with any private-
sector business or good-government business model.

                              Section 401

    Section 401 of S. 1315 would expand benefits to certain 
Filipino veterans residing both in the United States and 
abroad. I support improving benefits for Filipino veterans who 
fought under U.S. command during World War II. However, I 
believe the approach taken in this bill with respect to special 
pension benefits for non-U.S. citizen and non-U.S. resident 
Filipino veterans and surviving spouses is overly generous and 
does not reflect wide discrepancies in U.S. and Philippine 
standards of living.
    Pension benefits for veterans residing in the United States 
are paid at a maximum annual rate of $10,929 for a veteran 
without dependents, $14,313 for a veteran with one dependent, 
and $7,329 for a surviving spouse. When viewing these amounts 
in relation to U.S. average household income of $46,000, we 
find that the maximum VA pension represents anywhere from 16 to 
31 percent of U.S. household income. In contrast, when measured 
against the Philippine average household income of $2,800, the 
special pension for Filipino veterans in S. 1315 represents 
anywhere from 86 to 161 percent of Philippine household income.
    I think it is a mistake, and grossly unfair to U.S.-based 
pension recipients, to pay a benefit to veterans in the 
Philippines that far exceeds the relative value of the same 
benefit provided in the United States. Providing benefits for 
Filipino veterans in the name of equity should not be done in a 
manner that, in my opinion, creates a dramatic inequity for our 
U.S. veterans.
    Furthermore, the offset that S. 1315 uses to ensure that 
the bill is in compliance with Congressional budget rules would 
have the effect of reducing pension amounts to elderly, poor, 
and disabled veterans predominantly residing in the U.S. The 
extra pension amounts were established as a result of a 2006 
decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in 
Hartness v. Nicholson. In my opinion, these extra payments for 
certain categories of veterans were never contemplated by 
Congress and, therefore, are not justified. However, if 
presented with the choice of whether to provide extra pension 
assistance to low-income veterans in the U.S. or to provide 
extra pension assistance in the amounts contemplated in section 
401 of S. 1315, I would recommend to my colleagues that they 
choose the former.

                    Sections 205, 701, 702, and 802

    I also wish to comment on four additional provisions that 
were adopted as amendments at the Committee's June 27, 2007, 
markup. In doing so I want to make it clear that my comments 
have nothing at all to do with the substance of the proposed 
policy changes contained in these provisions. Rather, my 
comments will focus on the manner in which the policy changes 
in each provision are proposed to be financed; whether the 
proposed financing method is in consort with the spirit of 
sound budgeting principles; and whether the financing method 
may potentially result in an unwieldy and inequitable outcome 
for veterans.
    Each of the four provisions proposes to authorize the 
expenditure of discretionary appropriations as an ``overlay'' 
for the purpose of supplementing entitlement programs for 
veterans. Thus, beneficiaries of certain housing and auto grant 
programs, and burial-related programs, would be ``entitled'' to 
the amounts specified in the provisions, but only to the extent 
that annual appropriations bills provided the necessary 
discretionary funding that was in addition to the funding 
provided in regular mandatory entitlement spending.
    The problem with creating ``hybrid entitlement'' programs--
one part funded on a mandatory basis, the other funded through 
an annual discretionary appropriation--is both the ensuing 
problems that would exist in administering the programs and the 
implications such a model would have on how Congress controls 
spending of taxpayer dollars. We have budget rules referred to 
as Pay-As-You-Go or ``PAYGO'' that require the Congress to pay 
for new entitlement spending through a decrease in other 
entitlement spending, an increase in revenue, or a combination 
of both. Such a construct was created in order to keep budget 
deficits from growing. Yet the four provisions in question 
adopt none of these approaches.
    Rather, they provide a workaround which serves to frustrate 
the PAYGO rule's purpose. Instead of finding mandatory spending 
offsets for the new spending desired under the provisions, 
authority is given to simply provide supplemental discretionary 
money in annual appropriations bills.
    In the absence of any cap on overall VA discretionary 
appropriations, what we will have is a recipe for more 
spending. Under this financing construct, there is no 
prioritization required. There is no need to offset other 
authorized spending. Rather, the administration must simply 
request in annual appropriations bills the amount that would be 
required to meet the full entitlement amount. I am afraid that 
this approach turns sound budgeting principles on its head.
    If we say ``yes'' to this approach to fund entitlement 
programs, what then is next? It seems odd to me that the 
Committee would adopt these provisions to provide a workaround 
of the Congress's budget rules, while at the same time adhering 
strictly to the rules with respect to other spending in the 
bill. Why did the Committee not use the financing approach in 
these provisions to fund all the entitlement expansions in S. 
1315, rather than paying for them with reductions in mandatory 
spending? There is no clear answer to these questions. What is 
clear is that adoption of these provisions, while enticing, 
would be to undermine the very reason we have a PAYGO rule in 
the first place.
    Furthermore, how would this approach work? What would 
happen if the appropriations bill fully funded a program one 
year, but not the next? Would it be equitable to pay an 
entitlement to a veteran in one year, a different amount to 
another veteran the next year, then still another amount the 
year after? What would happen if funding ran out midyear? These 
are all questions that deserve more attention and analysis 
before we move forward.

                              Section 501

    I am pleased that S. 1315 includes many provisions from S. 
1289, The Veterans' Justice Assurance Act of 2007, a bill I 
introduced to help the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans 
Claims (hereinafter, ``CAVC'' or ``Court'') deal with its 
current caseload and help ensure that the Court has the 
judicial resources it needs to decide veterans' cases in a 
timely fashion. Although the Committee report provides a 
general overview of the Court-related provisions, I believe it 
would be useful to include a discussion of the history of the 
current law and the circumstances that demonstrate the need to 
revisit it. In my view, this background information also 
highlights the need for Congress to take additional measures to 
ensure that, in the long-term, veterans will not experience 
disruptions in service as judges' terms come to an end and they 
retire in clusters.
    By way of background, Congress created the Court in 1988 to 
provide judicial review of decisions rendered by the Board of 
Veterans' Appeals, a body within VA that decides appeals on 
claims for VA benefits. See Pub. L. 100-687 (1988); Pub. L. 
105-368 (1998) (renaming the Court). The CAVC was initially 
authorized to have seven judges (including one Chief Judge) 
appointed to serve 15-year terms. A judge was permitted to 
retire at the end of that term (or earlier if certain age and 
service requirements were met) and would thereafter receive the 
same annual pay that was in effect at the time of the judge's 
retirement.
    The original seven judges were confirmed between 1989 and 
1991 and, because their terms were not staggered, all of their 
terms would have expired between 2004 and 2005. In view of that 
possibility, the CAVC submitted a legislative proposal to 
Congress in 1997 ``to deal with [this] serious problem of judge 
turnover.'' 143 Cong. Rec. S.6916 (July 7, 1997). That proposal 
included a provision to permit ``the recall of retired judges 
in the event of judicial vacancies or increased workload.'' 143 
Cong. Rec. S. 6914. The Court requested that, ``[d]uring the 
period of recall service the retired judge would receive, in 
addition to the judge's retired pay, the difference between 
that pay and pay of an active judge of the Court.'' 143 Cong. 
Rec. S. 6915.
    Subsequently, both the Senate and House of Representatives 
Committees on Veterans' Affairs introduced bills based on the 
Court's proposals and ultimately passed legislation to provide 
for post-retirement service by retired CAVC judges. See Pub. L. 
106-117 (1999). Specifically, that new law permitted retiring 
judges to make an election at the time of retirement to be 
``recall eligible'' and provided the Chief Judge with authority 
to recall those judges for up to 90 days per calendar year or, 
with the consent of the judge, for up to 180 days per calendar 
year. In addition, recall-eligible retired judges became 
eligible to receive annual pay equal to the annual salary of an 
active judge (pay-of-the-office), regardless of how much, if 
any, recall service they performed during the year. As the 
House of Representatives Committee on Veterans' Affairs 
reported, these changes were intended ``to provide the Court 
and its retired judges the same authority and responsibilities 
as other federal court systems as an effective tool to prevent 
lengthening the time a veteran must wait for a decision on an 
appeal.'' H. Rep. 106-202, at 13-14 (1999).
    Following the enactment of those provisions, the original 
CAVC judges began to retire, with one judge retiring in 2000, 
another in 2002, and the remaining four in an 11-month period 
between 2004 and 2005.\1\ As a result, the CAVC was without a 
full complement of active judges for much of that period. 
During that same time, the CAVC's incoming caseload experienced 
significant increases, reaching over 2,500 incoming cases in 
2003, which at that time was the highest level in the Court's 
history, and then reaching over 3,400 new cases in 2005. In 
total, the CAVC received over 1,800 more cases than it decided 
from 2000 to 2005, and the number of cases pending at the Court 
grew from almost 2,300 in 1999 to over 4,600 in 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\One of the original judges, The Honorable Hart T. Mankin, died 
in 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In July 2006, I called a hearing--as then Chairman of the 
Committee--to discuss the challenges facing the Court. S. Hrg. 
109-694, Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, July 13, 2006, 
109th Cong., 2d Sess. At that time, the CAVC had over 5,800 
pending cases, which was more than double the number of cases 
pending just two years earlier. Yet, as was discussed at that 
hearing, the Court had never used its authority to recall 
judges, even though the six retired judges had all elected to 
be recall eligible. S. Hrg. 109-694, at 21.
    At the hearing, the Chief Judge of the CAVC testified that 
``[t]he critical piece in deciding to recall judges is to 
recall them at a time when their limited availability can be 
most useful.'' S. Hrg. 109-694, at 9. Also, as I stressed, 
judges from other courts routinely provide post-retirement 
service and a key difference from the CAVC appeared to be that 
``other courts generally pay retired judges the active judge 
salary only if they are actually performing the work.'' S. Hrg. 
109-694, at 22. As I mentioned at that hearing, recalling 
judges appeared to be ``a responsible decision . . . in dealing 
with this growing [backlog] problem.'' S. Hrg. 109-694, at 22-
23. I was thus very pleased that, less than two months after 
that hearing, the CAVC began to recall retired judges for the 
first time in the Court's history. See In Re: Recall of Retired 
Judges, 20 Vet. App. XL (2006).
    Based on this experience, I introduced S. 1289 to modify 
the authorities for the recall of retired judges and the 
retirement pay structure, and I am pleased that many of those 
provisions have been included in the Committee Bill. In 
proposing these changes, I wish to stress that the CAVC's 
recall system was explicitly requested by the Court as a means 
to deal with ``judicial vacancies or increased workload.'' 143 
Cong. Rec. S. 6914. However, no judge was recalled between 2000 
and 2005, even though both of those contingencies actually 
occurred--judicial vacancies and unprecedented increases in the 
Court's caseload. In my view, this experience has demonstrated 
that the recall system, as currently structured, does not 
provide a reasonable incentive for retired judges to serve in 
recall status and that the limited recall period constrains the 
usefulness of this tool.
    Removing the cap on voluntary recall service and exempting 
recall-eligible judges from involuntary recall once they have 
served five years of recall service, as the Committee Bill 
would do, should provide the authority and an incentive for 
recall-eligible judges to serve longer or more frequent periods 
of recall service. In the long term, the Committee Bill would 
make recall an even more robust resource by reserving the 
highest pay level (pay-of-the-office) for those retired judges 
actually performing recall service, thus creating a meaningful 
incentive for retired judges to return to work. At the same 
time, judges would still receive a generous retirement package 
of no less than 100 percent of their salary on the day they 
retire. In my view, these steps should help ensure that the 
services of experienced, retired judges will be available when 
needed and that the Court will be able to consistently provide 
timely decisions to veterans seeking justice from the Court.
    Although these provisions should significantly benefit 
veterans and the Court, I continue to believe that Congress 
should take additional steps to ensure that, in the long term, 
veterans will not experience disruptions in service as judges' 
terms come to an end. As described above, the CAVC struggled 
after six experienced judges retired between 2000 and 2005. 
Unfortunately, the Court will likely face an even more drastic 
turnover between 2015 and 2019, with six judges becoming 
eligible to retire and four potentially retiring in a single 
two-week period. To me, this suggests that Congress should take 
extraordinary measures, as my bill (S. 1289) would do, to break 
this cycle of en masse retirements and to ensure that the Court 
consistently has the judicial capacity it needs to provide 
veterans with the prompt Court decisions they deserve.

                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with rule XXVI paragraph 12 of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, 
as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be 
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in 
italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in 
roman).

TITLE 38--VETERANS' BENEFITS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                       PART I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

CHAPTER 1--GENERAL

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec.
[107. Certain service deemed not to be active service.]
107. Certain service with Philippine forces deemed to be active 
            service.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[SEC. 107. CERTAIN SERVICE DEEMED NOT TO BE ACTIVE SERVICE.]

    [(a) Service before July 1, 1946, in the organized military 
forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of the 
Philippines, while such forces were in the service of the Armed 
Forces of the United States pursuant to the military order of 
the President dated July 26, 1941, including among such 
military forces organized guerrilla forces under commanders 
appointed, designated, or subsequently recognized by the 
Commander in Chief, Southwest Pacific Area, or other competent 
authority in the Army of the United States, shall not be deemed 
to have been active military, naval, or air service for the 
purposes of any law of the United States conferring rights, 
privileges, or benefits upon any person by reason of the 
service of such person or the service of any other person in 
the Armed Forces, except benefits under--
          [(1) contracts of National Service Life Insurance 
        entered into before February 18, 1946;
          [(2) chapter 10 of title 37; and
          [(3) chapters 11, 13 (except section 1312(a)), 23, 
        and 24 (to the extent provided for in section 2402(8)) 
        of this title.]
    [Except as provided in subsection (c) or (d), payments 
under such chapters shall be made at a rate of $0.50 for each 
dollar authorized, and where annual income is a factor in 
entitlement to benefits, the dollar limitations in the law 
specifying such annual income shall apply at a rate of $0.50 
for each dollar. Any payments made before February 18, 1946, to 
any such member under such laws conferring rights, benefits, or 
privileges shall not be deemed to have been invalid by reason 
of the circumstance that such member's service was not service 
in the Armed Forces or any component thereof within the meaning 
of any such law.]
    [(b) Service in the Philippine Scouts under section 14 of 
the Armed Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945 shall not be 
deemed to have been active military, naval, or air service for 
the purposes of any of the laws administered by the Secretary 
except--
          [(1) with respect to contracts of National Service 
        Life Insurance entered into (A) before May 27, 1946, 
        (B) under section 620 or 621 of the National Service 
        Life Insurance Act of 1940, or (C) under section 1922 
        of this title; and
          [(2) chapters 11, 13 (except section 1312(a)), 23, 
        and 24 (to the extent provided for in section 2402(8)) 
        of this title.]
    [Except as provided in subsection (c) or (d), payments 
under such chapters shall be made at a rate of $0.50 for each 
dollar authorized, and where annual income is a factor in 
entitlement to benefits, the dollar limitations in the law 
specifying such annual income shall apply at a rate of $0.50 
for each dollar.]
    [(c) In the case of benefits under subchapters II and IV of 
chapter 11 of this title and subchapter II of chapter 13 
(except section 1312(a)) of this title paid by reason of 
service described in subsection (a) or (b) to an individual 
residing in the United States who is a citizen of, or an alien 
lawfully admitted for permanent residence in, the United 
States, the second sentence of the applicable subsection shall 
not apply.]
    [(d)(1) With respect to benefits under chapter 23 of this 
title, in the case of an individual described in paragraph (2), 
the second sentence of subsection (a) or (b), as otherwise 
applicable, shall not apply.
    [(2) Paragraph (1) applies to any individual whose service 
is described in subsection (a) and who dies after November 1, 
2000, or whose service is described in subsection (b) and who 
dies after the date of the enactment of the Veterans Benefits 
Act of 2003, if the individual, on the individual's date of 
death--
          [(A) is a citizen of, or an alien lawfully admitted 
        for permanent residence in, the United States;
          [(B) is residing in the United States; and
          [(C) either--
                  [(i) is receiving compensation under chapter 
                11 of this title; or
                  [(ii) if the individual's service had been 
                deemed to be active military, naval, or air 
                service, would have been paid pension under 
                section 1521 of this title without denial or 
                discontinuance by reason of section 1522 of 
                this title.]

SEC. 107. CERTAIN SERVICE WITH PHILIPPINE FORCES DEEMED TO BE ACTIVE 
                    SERVICE.

    (a) In General.--Service described in subsection (b) shall 
be deemed to have been active military, naval, or air service 
for purposes of any law of the United States conferring rights, 
privileges, or benefits upon any individual by reason of the 
service of such individual or the service of any other 
individual in the Armed Forces.
    (b) Service Described.--Service described in this 
subsection is service--
          (1) before July 1, 1946, in the organized military 
        forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of the 
        Philippines, while such forces were in the service of 
        the Armed Forces of the United States pursuant to the 
        military order of the President dated July 26, 1941, 
        including among such military forces organized 
        guerrilla forces under commanders appointed, 
        designated, or subsequently recognized by the Commander 
        in Chief, Southwest Pacific Area, or other competent 
        authority in the Army of the United States; or
          (2) in the Philippine Scouts under section 14 of the 
        Armed Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945 (59 
        Stat. 538).
    (c) Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for Certain 
Recipients Residing Outside the United States.--(1) Dependency 
and indemnity compensation provided under chapter 13 of this 
title to an individual described in paragraph (2) shall be made 
at a rate of $0.50 for each dollar authorized.
    (2) An individual described in this paragraph is an 
individual who resides outside the United States and is 
entitled to dependency and indemnity compensation under chapter 
13 of this title based on service described in subsection (b).
    (d) Modified Pension and Death Pension for Certain 
Recipients Residing Outside the United States.--(1) Any pension 
provided under subchapter II or III of chapter 15 of this title 
to an individual described in paragraph (2) shall be made only 
as specified in section 1514 of this title.
    (2) An individual described in this paragraph is an 
individual who resides outside the United States and is 
entitled to a pension provided under subchapter II or III of 
chapter 15 of this title based on service described in 
subsection (b).
    (e) United States Defined.--In this section, the term 
`United States' means the States, the District of Columbia, 
Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other 
possession or territory of the United States.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 3--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec.
305A. Termination or suspension of contracts for cellular 
            telephone service.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 305A. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF CONTRACTS FOR CELLULAR 
                    TELEPHONE SERVICE.

    (a) In General.--A servicemember who receives orders to 
deploy outside of the continental United States for not less 
than 90 days may request the termination or suspension of any 
contract for cellular telephone service entered into by the 
servicemember before that date if the servicemember's ability 
to satisfy the contract or to utilize the service will be 
materially affected by that period of deployment. The request 
shall include a copy of the servicemember's military 
orders.
    (b) Relief.--Upon receiving the request of a servicemember 
under subsection (a), the cellular telephone service contractor 
concerned shall, at the election of the contractor--
          (1) grant the requested relief without imposition of 
        an early termination fee for termination of the 
        contract or a reactivation fee for suspension of the 
        contract; or
          (2) permit the servicemember to suspend the contract 
        at no charge until the end of the deployment without 
        requiring, whether as a condition of suspension or 
        otherwise, that the contract be extended.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                       PART II--GENERAL BENEFITS

   CHAPTER 11--COMPENSATION FOR SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY OR DEATH


             Subchapter II--Wartime Disability Compensation


SEC. 1112. PRESUMPTIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN DISEASES AND 
                    DISABILITIES.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (b)(1) * * *
    (2) * * *
          (F) Osteoporosis, if the Secretary determines that 
        the veteran was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress 
        disorder (PTSD).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 13--DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION FOR SERVICE-CONNECTED 
                                 DEATHS


          Subchapter II--Dependency and Indemnity Compensation


SEC. 1311. DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION TO A 
                    SURVIVING SPOUSE.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (f) * * *
          (5) Whenever there is an increase in benefit amounts 
        payable under title II of the Social Security Act (42 
        U.S.C. 401 et seq.) as a result of a determination made 
        under section 215(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)), 
        the Secretary shall, effective on the date of such 
        increase in benefit amounts, increase the amount 
        payable under paragraph (1), as such amount was in 
        effect immediately prior to the date of such increase 
        in benefit amounts, by the same percentage as the 
        percentage by which such benefit amounts are increased. 
        Any increase in a dollar amount under this paragraph 
        shall be rounded down to the next lower whole dollar 
        amount.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


 CHAPTER 15--PENSION FOR NON-SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY OR DEATH OR 
FOR SERVICE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec.
1514. Certain recipients residing outside the United States.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                         Subchapter I--General


SEC. 1508. FREQUENCY OF PAYMENT OF PENSION BENEFITS.

    (a) Except as provided under subsection (b) of this 
section, benefits under sections 1514, 1521, 1541, and 1542 of 
this title shall be paid monthly.
    (b) Under regulations which the Secretary shall prescribe, 
benefits under sections 1514, 1521, 1541, and 1542 of this 
title may be paid less frequently than monthly if the amount of 
the annual benefit is less than 4 percent of the maximum annual 
rate payable to a veteran under section 1521(b) of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                   Subchapter II--Veterans' Pensions


                            Service Pension


SEC. 1513. VETERANS 65 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER.

    (a) The Secretary shall pay to each veteran of a period of 
war who is 65 years of age or older and who meets the service 
requirements of section 1521 of this title (as prescribed in 
subsection (j) of that section) pension at the rates prescribed 
[by section 1521 of this title and under the conditions (other 
than the permanent and total disability requirement) applicable 
to pension paid under that section] by subsection (b), (c), 
(f)(1), (f)(5), or (g) of that section, as the case may be and 
as increased from time to time under section 5312 of this 
title.
    (b) The conditions in subsections (h) and (i) of section 
1521 of this title shall apply to determinations of income and 
maximum payments of pension for purposes of this section.
    [(b)] (c) If a veteran is eligible for pension under both 
this section and section 1521 of this title, pension shall be 
paid to the veteran only under section 1521 of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1514. CERTAIN RECIPIENTS RESIDING OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

    (a) Special Rates for Pension Benefits for Individuals 
Serving With Philippine Forces and Survivors.--(1) Payment 
under this subchapter to an individual who resides outside the 
United States and is eligible for such payment because of 
service described in section 107(b) of this title shall be made 
as follows:
          (A) For such an individual who is married, at a rate 
        of $4,500 per year (as increased from time to time 
        under section 5312 of this title).
          (B) For such an individual who is not married, at a 
        rate of $3,600 per year (as increased from time to time 
        under section 5312 of this title).
    (2) Payment under subchapter III of this chapter to an 
individual who resides outside the United States and is 
eligible for such payment because of service described in 
section 107(b) of this title shall be made at a rate of $2,400 
per year (as increased from time to time under section 5312 of 
this title).
    (3) An individual who is otherwise entitled to benefits 
under this chapter and resides outside the United States, and 
receives or would otherwise be eligible to receive a monetary 
benefit from a foreign government, may not receive benefits 
under this chapter for service described in section 107(b) of 
this title if receipt of such benefits under this chapter would 
reduce such monetary benefit from such foreign government.
    (4) The provisions of sections 1503(a), 1506, 1522, and 
1543 of this title shall not apply to benefits paid under this 
section.
    (b) Individuals Living Outside the United States Entitled 
to Certain Social Security Benefits Ineligible.--An individual 
residing outside the United States who is receiving or is 
eligible to receive benefits under title VIII of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) may not receive benefits 
under this chapter.
    (c) United States Defined.--In this section, the term 
`United States' means the States, the District of Columbia, 
Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other 
possession or territory of the United States.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                       PART II--GENERAL BENEFITS

   CHAPTER 17-- HOSPITAL, NURSING HOME, DOMICILIARY, AND MEDICAL CARE


Subchapter II--Hospital, Nursing Home, or Domiciliary Care and Medical 
Treatment

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 1717. HOME HEALTH SERVICES; INVALID LIFTS AND OTHER 
                    DEVICES.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (d)(1) In the case of a member of the Armed Forces who, as 
determined by the Secretary, has a disability permanent in 
nature incurred or aggravated in the line of duty in the active 
military, naval, or air service, the Secretary may furnish 
improvements and structural alterations for such member for 
such disability or as otherwise described in subsection (a)(2) 
while such member is hospitalized or receiving outpatient 
medical care, services, or treatment for such disability if the 
Secretary determines that such member is likely to be 
discharged or released from the Armed Forces for such 
disability.
    (2) The furnishing of improvements and alterations under 
paragraph (1) in connection with the furnishing of medical 
services described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection 
(a)(2) shall be subject to the limitation specified in the 
applicable subparagraph.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                         CHAPTER 19--INSURANCE

Sec.
1922B. Level-premium term life insurance for veterans with 
            service-connected 
            disabilities.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


             Subchapter I--National Service Life Insurance


SEC. 1922. SERVICE DISABLED VETERANS' INSURANCE.

    (a) Any person who is released from active military, naval, 
or air service, under other than dishonorable conditions on or 
after April 25, 1951, and is found by the Secretary to be 
suffering from a disability or disabilities for which 
compensation would be payable if 10 per centum or more in 
degree and except for which such person would be insurable 
according to the standards of good health established by the 
Secretary, shall, upon application in writing made within two 
years from the date service-connection of such disability is 
determined by the Secretary and payment of premiums as provided 
in this subchapter be granted insurance by the United States 
against the death of such person occurring while such insurance 
is in force. If such a person is shown by evidence satisfactory 
to the Secretary to have been mentally incompetent during any 
part of the two-year period, application for insurance under 
this section may be filed within two years after a guardian is 
appointed or within two years after the removal of such 
disability as determined by the Secretary, whichever is the 
earlier date. If the guardian was appointed or the removal of 
the disability occurred before January 1, 1959, application for 
insurance under this section may be made within two years after 
that date. Insurance granted under this section shall be issued 
upon the same terms and conditions as are contained in the 
standard policies of National Service Life Insurance except (1) 
the premium rates for such insurance shall be based on the 
Commissioners 1941 Standard Ordinary Table of Mortality and 
interest at the rate of 2\1/4\ per centum per annum; (2) all 
cash, loan, paid-up, and extended values shall be based upon 
the Commissioners 1941 Standard Ordinary Table of Mortality and 
interest at the rate of 2\1/4\ per centum per annum; (3) all 
settlements on policies involving annuities shall be calculated 
on the basis of The Annuity Table for 1949, and interest at the 
rate of 2\1/4\ per centum per annum; (4) insurance granted 
under this section shall be on a nonparticipating basis and all 
premiums and other collections therefor shall be credited 
directly to a revolving fund in the Treasury of the United 
States, and any payments on such insurance shall be made 
[directly from such fund] directly from such fund; and (5) 
administrative costs to the Government for the costs of the 
program of insurance under this section shall be paid from 
premiums credited to the fund under paragraph (4), and payments 
for claims against the fund under paragraph (4) for amounts in 
excess of amounts credited to such fund under that paragraph 
(after such administrative costs have been paid) shall be paid 
from appropriations to the fund. Appropriations to such fund 
are hereby authorized. As to insurance issued under this 
section, waiver of premiums pursuant to section 602(n) of the 
National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940 and section 1912 of 
this title shall not be denied on the ground that the service-
connected disability became total before the effective date of 
such insurance.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1922A. SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICE DISABLED VETERANS' INSURANCE FOR 
                    TOTALLY DISABLED VETERANS.

    (a) Any person insured under section 1922(a) of this title 
who qualifies for a waiver of premiums under section 1912 of 
this title is eligible, as provided in this section, for 
supplemental insurance in an amount not to exceed [$20,000] 
$30,000.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1922B. LEVEL-PREMIUM TERM LIFE INSURANCE FOR VETERANS WITH 
                    SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITIES.

    (a) In General.--In accordance with the provisions of this 
section, the Secretary shall grant insurance to each eligible 
veteran who seeks such insurance against the death of such 
veteran occurring while such insurance is in force.
    (b) Eligible Veterans.--For purposes of this section, an 
eligible veteran is any veteran less than 65 years of age who 
has a service-connected disability.
    (c) Amount of Insurance.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the 
amount of insurance granted an eligible veteran under this 
section shall be $50,000 or such lesser amount as the veteran 
shall elect. The amount of insurance so elected shall be evenly 
divisible by $10,000.
    (2) The aggregate amount of insurance of an eligible 
veteran under this section, section 1922 of this title, and 
section 1922A of this title may not exceed $50,000.
    (d) Reduced Amount for Veterans Age 70 or Older.--In the 
case of a veteran insured under this section who turns age 70, 
the amount of insurance of such veteran under this section 
after the date such veteran turns age 70 shall be the amount 
equal to 20 percent of the amount of insurance of the veteran 
under this section as of the day before such date.
    (e) Premiums.--(1) Premium rates for insurance under this 
section shall be based on the 2001 Commissioners Standard 
Ordinary Basic Table of Mortality and interest at the rate of 
4.5 per centum per annum.
    (2) The amount of the premium charged a veteran for 
insurance under this section may not increase while such 
insurance is in force for such veteran.
    (3) The Secretary may not charge a premium for insurance 
under this section for a veteran as follows:
          (A) A veteran who has a service-connected disability 
        rated as total and is eligible for a waiver of premiums 
        under section 1912 of this title.
          (B) A veteran who is 70 years of age or older.
    (4) Insurance granted under this section shall be on a 
nonparticipating basis and all premiums and other collections 
therefor shall be credited directly to a revolving fund in the 
Treasury of the United States, and any payments on such 
insurance shall be made directly from such fund. Appropriations 
to such fund are hereby 
authorized.
    (5) Administrative costs to the Government for the costs of 
the program of insurance under this section shall be paid from 
premiums credited to the fund under paragraph (4), and payments 
for claims against the fund under paragraph (4) for amounts in 
excess of amounts credited to such fund under that paragraph 
(after such administrative costs have been paid) shall be paid 
from appropriations to the fund.
    (f) Application Required.--An eligible veteran seeking 
insurance under this section shall file with the Secretary an 
application therefor. Such application shall be filed not later 
than the earlier of--
          (1) the end of the two-year period beginning on the 
        date on which the Secretary notifies the veteran that 
        the veteran has a service-connected disability; and
          (2) the end of the 10-year period beginning on the 
        date of the separation of the veteran from the Armed 
        Forces, whichever is earlier.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


          Subchapter III--Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance


SEC. 1967. PERSONS INSURED; AMOUNT.

          (a)(1) * * *
                  (A) * * *
                  (C) In the case of any member of the Ready 
                Reserve of a uniformed service who meets the 
                qualifications set forth in [section 1965(5)(B) 
                of this title] subparagraph (B) or (C) of 
                section 1965(5) of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) * * *
                  (C) The first day a member of the Ready 
                Reserve meets the qualifications set forth in 
                [section 1965(5)(B) of this title] subparagraph 
                (B) or (C) of section 1965(5) of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1968. DURATION AND TERMINATION OF COVERAGE; CONVERSION.

    (a) * * *
          (5) * * *
                  (B) * * *
                          (ii) [120 days after] the date of 
                        termination of the insurance on the 
                        member's life under this subchapter; or

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SECTION 1980A. TRAUMATIC INJURY PROTECTION

    (d) [Payments under] (1) Payments under this section for 
qualifying losses shall be made in accordance with a schedule 
prescribed by the Secretary, by regulation, specifying the 
amount of payment to be made for each type of qualifying loss, 
to be based on the severity of the qualifying loss. The minimum 
payment that may be prescribed for a qualifying loss is 
$25,000, and the maximum payment that may be prescribed for a 
qualifying loss is $100,000.
    (2) As the Secretary considers appropriate, the schedule 
required by paragraph (1) may distinguish in specifying 
payments for qualifying losses between the severity of a 
qualifying loss of a dominant hand and a qualifying loss of a 
non-dominant hand.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 21--SPECIALLY ADAPTED HOUSING FOR DISABLED VETERANS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec.
[2101. Veterans eligible for assistance.]
2101. Acquisition and adaptation of housing: eligible veterans.
2101A. Eligibility for benefits and assistance: members of the 
            Armed Forces with service-connected disabilities; 
            individuals residing outside the United States.
     * * *
[2102A. Assistance for veterans residing temporarily in housing 
            owned by a family member.]
2102A. Assistance for individuals residing temporarily in housing 
            owned by a family member.
2102B. Supplemental assistance.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2101. [VETERANS ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE.] ACQUISITION AND 
                    ADAPTATION OF HOUSING: ELIGIBLE VETERANS.

    (a) * * *
          (2) * * *
                  (E) The disability is due to a severe burn 
                injury (as determined pursuant to regulations 
                prescribed by the Secretary).
    (b) * * *
          (2) A veteran is described in this paragraph if the 
        veteran is entitled to compensation under chapter 11 of 
        this title for a permanent and total service-connected 
        disability that meets [either] any of the following 
        criteria:

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (C) The disability is due to a severe burn 
                injury (as so determined).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(c) (1) The Secretary may provide assistance under 
subsection (a) to a member of the Armed Forces serving on 
active duty who is suffering from a disability described in 
subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (2) of that 
subsection if such disability is the result of an injury 
incurred or disease contracted in or aggravated in line of duty 
in the active military, naval, or air service. Such assistance 
shall be provided to the same extent as assistance is provided 
under that subsection to veterans eligible for assistance under 
that subsection and subject to the requirements of paragraph 
(3) of that subsection.
    [(2) The Secretary may provide assistance under subsection 
(b) to a member of the Armed Forces serving on active duty who 
is suffering from a disability described in subparagraph (A) or 
(B) of paragraph (2) of that subsection if such disability is 
the result of an injury incurred or disease contracted in or 
aggravated in line of duty in the active military, naval, or 
air service. Such assistance shall be provided to the same 
extent as assistance is provided under that subsection to 
veterans eligible for assistance under that subsection and 
subject to the requirements of paragraph (3) of that 
subsection.]
    [(d)] (c) Regulations. Assistance under this section shall 
be provided in accordance with such regulations as the 
Secretary may prescribe.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2101A. ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS AND ASSISTANCE: MEMBERS OF THE 
                    ARMED FORCES WITH SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITIES; 
                    INDIVIDUALS RESIDING OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.

    (a) Members With Service-Connected Disabilities.--(1) The 
Secretary may provide assistance under this chapter to a member 
of the Armed Forces serving on active duty who is suffering 
from a disability that meets applicable criteria for benefits 
under this chapter if the disability is incurred or aggravated 
in line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service. 
Such assistance shall be provided to the same extent as 
assistance is provided under this chapter to veterans eligible 
for assistance under this chapter and subject to the same 
requirements as veterans under this chapter.
    (2) For purposes of this chapter, any reference to a 
veteran or eligible individual shall be treated as a reference 
to a member of the Armed Forces described in subsection (a) who 
is similarly situated to the veteran or other eligible 
individual so referred to.
    (b) Benefits and Assistance for Individuals Residing 
Outside the United States.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the 
Secretary may, at the Secretary's discretion, provide benefits 
and assistance under this chapter (other than benefits under 
section 2106 of this title) to any individual otherwise 
eligible for such benefits and assistance who resides outside 
the United States.
    (2) The Secretary may provide benefits and assistance to an 
individual under paragraph (1) only if--
          (A) the country or political subdivision in which the 
        housing or residence involved is or will be located 
        permits the individual to have or acquire a beneficial 
        property interest (as determined by the Secretary) in 
        such housing or residence; and
          (B) the individual has or will acquire a beneficial 
        property interest (as so determined) in such housing or 
        residence.
    (c) Regulations.--Benefits and assistance under this 
chapter by reason of this section shall be provided in 
accordance with such regulations as the Secretary may 
prescribe.

SEC. 2102. LIMITATIONS ON ASSISTANCE FURNISHED.

    (a) The assistance authorized by section 2101(a) of this 
title shall be afforded under one of the following plans, at 
the option of the [veteran] individual--
          (1) where the [veteran] individual elects to 
        construct a housing unit on land to be acquired by such 
        [veteran] individual, the Secretary shall pay not to 
        exceed 50 percent of the total cost to the [veteran] 
        individual of (A) the housing unit and (B) the 
        necessary land upon which it is to be situated;
          (2) where the [veteran] individual elects to 
        construct a housing unit on land acquired by such 
        [veteran] individual prior to application for 
        assistance under this chapter, the Secretary shall pay 
        not to exceed the smaller of the following sums: (A) 50 
        percent of the total cost to the [veteran] individual 
        of the housing unit and the land necessary for such 
        housing unit, or (B) 50 percent of the cost to the 
        [veteran] individual of the housing unit plus the full 
        amount of the unpaid balance, if any, of the cost to 
        the [veteran] individual of the land necessary for such 
        housing unit;
          (3) where the [veteran] individual elects to remodel 
        a dwelling which is not adapted to the requirements of 
        such [veteran's] individual's disability, acquired by 
        such [veteran] individual prior to application for 
        assistance under this chapter, the Secretary shall pay 
        not to exceed (A) the cost to the [veteran] individual 
        of such remodeling; or (B) 50 percent of the cost to 
        the [veteran] individual of such remodeling; plus the 
        smaller of the following sums: (i) 50 percent of the 
        cost to the [veteran] individual of such dwelling and 
        the necessary land upon which it is situated, or (ii) 
        the full amount of the unpaid balance, if any, of the 
        cost to the [veteran] individual of such dwelling and 
        the necessary land upon which it is situated; and
          (4) where the [veteran] individual has acquired a 
        suitable housing unit, the Secretary shall pay not to 
        exceed the smaller of the following sums: (A) 50 
        percent of the cost to the [veteran] individual of such 
        housing unit and the necessary land upon which it is 
        situated, or (B) the full amount of the unpaid balance, 
        if any, of the cost to the [veteran] individual of such 
        housing unit and the necessary land upon which it is 
        situated.
    (b) Except as provided in section 2104(b) of this title, 
the assistance authorized by section 2101(b) of this title 
shall be limited to the lesser of--
          (1) the actual cost, or, in the case of [a veteran] 
        an individual acquiring a residence already adapted 
        with special features, the fair market value, of the 
        adaptations determined by the Secretary under such 
        section 2101(b) to be reasonably necessary, or
          (2) $ 10,000.
    (c) The amount of assistance afforded under subsection (a) 
for [a veteran] an individual authorized assistance by section 
2101(a) of this title shall not be reduced by reason that title 
to the housing unit, which is vested in [the veteran] the 
individual, is also vested in any other person, if [the 
veteran] the individual resides in the housing unit.
    (d)(1) The aggregate amount of assistance available to [a 
veteran] an individual under sections 2101(a) and 2102A of this 
title shall be limited to $ 50,000.
    (2) The aggregate amount of assistance available to [a 
veteran] an individual under sections 2101(b) and 2102A of this 
title shall be limited to $ 10,000.
    (3) No [veteran] individual may receive more than three 
grants of assistance under this chapter.

SEC. 2102A. [ASSISTANCE FOR VETERANS RESIDING TEMPORARILY IN HOUSING 
                    OWNED BY A FAMILY MEMBER] ASSISTANCE FOR 
                    INDIVIDUALS RESIDING TEMPORARILY IN HOUSING OWNED 
                    BY A FAMILY MEMBER.

    (a) Provision of Assistance.--In the case of a disabled 
[veteran] individual who is described in subsection (a)(2) or 
(b)(2) of section 2101 of this title and who is residing, but 
does not intend to permanently reside, in a residence owned by 
a member of such [veteran's] individual's family, the Secretary 
may assist the [veteran] individual in acquiring such 
adaptations to such residence as are determined by the 
Secretary to be reasonably necessary because of the [veteran's] 
individual's disability.
    (b) Amount of Assistance.--The assistance authorized under 
subsection (a) may not exceed--
          (1) $14,000, in the case of [a veteran] an individual 
        described in section 2101(a)(2) of this title; or
          (2) $2,000, in the case of [a veteran] an individual 
        described in section 2101(b)(2) of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) Termination. No assistance may be provided under this 
section [after the end of the five-year period that begins on 
the date of the enactment of the Veterans' Housing Opportunity 
and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006] after December 31, 2011 
[enacted June 15, 2006].

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2102B. SUPPLEMENTAL ASSISTANCE.

    (a) In General.--(1) Subject to the availability of funds 
specifically provided for purposes of this subsection in 
advance in an appropriations Act, whenever the Secretary makes 
a payment in accordance with section 2102 of this title to an 
individual authorized to receive such assistance under section 
2101 of this title for the acquisition of housing with special 
features or for special adaptations to a residence, the 
Secretary is also authorized and directed to pay such 
individual supplemental assistance under this section for such 
acquisition or adaptation.
    (2) No supplemental assistance payment shall be made under 
this subsection if the Secretary has expended all funds that 
were specifically provided for purposes of this subsection in 
an appropriations Act.
    (b) Amount of Supplemental Assistance.--(1) In the case of 
a payment made in accordance with section 2102(a) of this 
title, supplemental assistance required by subsection (a) is 
equal to the excess of--
          (A) the payment which would be determined under 
        section 2102(a) of this title, and 2102A of this title 
        if applicable, if the amount described in section 
        2102(d)(1) of this title were increased to the adjusted 
        amount described in subsection (c)(1), over
          (B) the payment determined without regard to this 
        section.
    (2) In the case of a payment made in accordance with 
section 2102(b) of this title, supplemental assistance required 
by subsection (a) is equal to the excess of--
          (A) the payment which would be determined under 
        section 2102(b) of this title, and 2102A of this title 
        if applicable, if the amount described in section 
        2102(b)(2) of this title and section 2102(d)(2) of this 
        title were increased to the adjusted amount described 
        in subsection (c)(2), over
          (B) the payment determined without regard to this 
        section.
    (c) Adjusted Amount.--(1) In the case of a payment made in 
accordance with section 2102(a) of this title, the adjusted 
amount is $60,000 (as adjusted from time to time under 
subsection (d)).
    (2) In the case of a payment made in accordance with 
section 2102(b) of this title, the adjusted amount is $12,000 
(as adjusted from time to time under subsection (d)).
    (d) Adjustment.--(1) Effective on October 1 of each year 
(beginning in 2008), the Secretary shall increase the adjusted 
amounts described in subsection (c) in accordance with this 
subsection.
    (2) The increase in amounts under paragraph (1) to take 
effect on October 1 of any year shall be the percentage by 
which (A) the residential home cost-of-construction index for 
the preceding calendar year exceeds (B) the residential home 
cost-of-construction index for the year preceding that year.
    (3) The Secretary shall establish a residential home cost-
of-
construction index for the purposes of this subsection. The 
index shall reflect a uniform, national average increase in the 
cost of residential home construction, determined on a calendar 
year basis. The Secretary may use an index developed in the 
private sector that the Secretary determines is appropriate for 
purposes of this subsection.
    (e) Estimates.--(1) From time to time, the Secretary shall 
make an estimate of--
          (A) the amount of funding that would be necessary to 
        provide supplemental assistance under this section to 
        all eligible recipients for the remainder of the fiscal 
        year in which such an estimate is made; and
          (B) the amount that Congress would need to 
        appropriate to provide all eligible recipients with 
        supplemental assistance under this section in the next 
        fiscal year.
    (2) On the dates described in paragraph (3), the Secretary 
shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress the 
estimates described in paragraph (1).
    (3) The dates described in this paragraph are the 
following:
          (A) April 1 of each year.
          (B) July 1 of each year.
          (C) September 1 of each year.
          (D) The date that is 60 days before the date 
        estimated by the Secretary on which amounts 
        appropriated for the purposes of this section for a 
        fiscal year will be exhausted.
    (f) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this 
section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--
          (1) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee 
        on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate; and
          (2) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee 
        on Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives.

SEC. 2103. FURNISHING OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.

    The Secretary is authorized to furnish to [veterans] 
individuals eligible for assistance under this chapter, without 
cost to the [veterans] individuals, model plans and 
specifications of suitable housing units.

SEC. 2104. BENEFITS ADDITIONAL TO BENEFITS UNDER OTHER LAWS.

    (a) Any [veteran] individual who accepts the benefits of 
this chapter shall not by reason thereof be denied the benefits 
of chapter 37 of this title; however, except as provided in 
subsection (b) of this section, the assistance authorized by 
section 2101 of this title shall not be available to any 
[veteran] individual more than once.
    (b) [A veteran] An individual eligible for assistance under 
section 2101(b) of this title shall not by reason of such 
eligibility be denied benefits for which [such veteran] such 
individual becomes eligible under section 2101(a) of this title 
or benefits relating to home health services under section 
1717(a)(2) of this title. However, no particular type of 
adaptation, improvement, or structural alteration provided to 
[a veteran] an individual under section 1717(a)(2) of this 
title may be provided to [such veteran] such individual under 
section 2101(b) of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2106. VETERANS' MORTGAGE LIFE INSURANCE.

    (a) The United States shall automatically insure [any 
eligible veteran] any eligible individual age 69 or younger who 
is or has been granted assistance in securing a suitable 
housing unit under this chapter against the death of [the 
veteran] the individual unless [the veteran] the individual (1) 
submits to the Secretary in writing [the veterans'] the 
individual's election not to be insured under this section, or 
(2) fails to respond in a timely manner to a request from the 
Secretary for information on which the premium for such 
insurance can be based.
    (b) The amount of insurance provided [a veteran] an 
individual under this section may not exceed the lesser of 
[$90,000] $150,000, or $200,000 after January 1, 2012, or the 
amount of the loan outstanding on the housing unit. The amount 
of such insurance shall be reduced according to the 
amortization schedule of the loan and may not at any time 
exceed the amount of the outstanding loan with interest. If 
there is no outstanding loan on the housing unit, insurance is 
not payable under this section. If [an eligible veteran] an 
eligible individual elects not to be insured under this 
section, [the veteran] the individual may thereafter be insured 
under this section, but only upon submission of an application, 
payment of required premiums, and compliance with such health 
requirements and other terms and conditions as may be 
prescribed by the 
Secretary.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) Any amount of insurance in force under this section on 
the date of the death of [an eligible veteran] an eligible 
individual insured under this section shall be paid to the 
holder of the mortgage loan, for payment of which the insurance 
was granted, for credit on the loan indebtedness. Any liability 
of the United States under such insurance shall be satisfied 
when such payment is made. If the Secretary is the holder of 
the mortgage loan, the insurance proceeds shall be credited to 
the loan indebtedness and deposited in the Veterans Housing 
Benefit Program Fund established by section 3722 of this title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (h) The Secretary shall issue to [each veteran] each 
individual insured under this section a certificate setting 
forth the benefits to which [the veteran] the individual is 
entitled under the insurance.
    (i) Insurance under this section shall terminate upon 
whichever of the following events first occurs:
          (1) Satisfaction of [the veteran's] the individual's 
        indebtedness under the loan upon which the insurance is 
        based.
          (2) Termination of [the veteran's] the individual's 
        ownership of the property securing the loan.
          (3) Discontinuance of payment of premiums by [the 
        veteran] the individual.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 23--BURIAL BENEFITS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec.
2302A. Funeral expenses: supplemental benefits.
2303. Death in Department facility; plot allowance.
2303A. Supplemental plot allowance.
      *  *  *
2307A. Death from service-connected disability: supplemental 
            benefits for burial and funeral expenses.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2302A. FUNERAL EXPENSES: SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS.

    (a) In General.--(1) Subject to the availability of funds 
specifically provided for purposes of this subsection in 
advance in an appropriations Act, whenever the Secretary makes 
a payment for the burial and funeral of a veteran under section 
2302(a) of this title, the Secretary is also authorized and 
directed to pay the recipient of such payment a supplemental 
payment under this section for the cost of such burial and 
funeral.
    (2) No supplemental payment shall be made under this 
subsection if the Secretary has expended all funds that were 
specifically provided for purposes of this subsection in an 
appropriations Act.
    (b) Amount.--The amount of the supplemental payment 
required by subsection (a) for any death is $900 (as adjusted 
from time to time under subsection (c)).
    (c) Adjustment.--With respect to deaths that occur in any 
fiscal year after fiscal year 2008, the supplemental payment 
described in subsection (b) shall be equal to the sum of--
          (1) the supplemental payment in effect under 
        subsection (b) for the preceding fiscal year 
        (determined after application of this subsection), plus
          (2) the sum of the amount described in section 
        2302(a) of this title and the amount under paragraph 
        (1), multiplied by the percentage by which--
                  (A) the Consumer Price Index (all items, 
                United States city average) for the 12-month 
                period ending on the June 30 preceding the 
                beginning of the fiscal year for which the 
                increase is made, exceeds
                  (B) such Consumer Price Index for the 12-
                month period preceding the 12-month period 
                described in sub-
                paragraph (A).
    (d) Estimates.--(1) From time to time, the Secretary shall 
make an estimate of--
          (A) the amount of funding that would be necessary to 
        provide supplemental payments under this section to all 
        eligible recipients for the remainder of the fiscal 
        year in which such an estimate is made; and
          (B) the amount that Congress would need to 
        appropriate to provide all eligible recipients with 
        supplemental payments under this section in the next 
        fiscal year.
    (2) On the dates described in paragraph (3), the Secretary 
shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress the 
estimates described in paragraph (1).
    (3) The dates described in this paragraph are the 
following:
          (A) April 1 of each year.
          (B) July 1 of each year.
          (C) September 1 of each year.
          (D) The date that is 60 days before the date 
        estimated by the Secretary on which amounts 
        appropriated for the purposes of this section for a 
        fiscal year will be exhausted.
    (e) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this 
section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--
          (1) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee 
        on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate; and
          (2) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee 
        on Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2303A. SUPPLEMENTAL PLOT ALLOWANCE.

    (a) In General.--(1) Subject to the availability of funds 
specifically provided for purposes of this subsection in 
advance in an appropriations Act, whenever the Secretary makes 
a payment for the burial and funeral of a veteran under section 
2303(a)(1)(A) of this title, or for the burial of a veteran 
under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 2303(b) of this title, 
the Secretary is also authorized and directed to pay the 
recipient of such payment a supplemental payment under this 
section for the cost of such burial and funeral or burial, as 
applicable.
    (2) No supplemental plot allowance payment shall be made 
under this subsection if the Secretary has expended all funds 
that were specifically provided for purposes of this subsection 
in an appropriations Act.
    (b) Amount.--The amount of the supplemental payment 
required by subsection (a) for any death is $445 (as adjusted 
from time to time under subsection (c)).
    (c) Adjustment.--With respect to deaths that occur in any 
fiscal year after fiscal year 2008, the supplemental payment 
described in subsection (b) shall be equal to the sum of--
          (1) the supplemental payment in effect under 
        subsection (b) for the preceding fiscal year 
        (determined after application of this subsection), plus
          (2) the sum of the amount described in section 
        2303(a)(1)(A) of this title and the amount under 
        paragraph (1), multiplied by the percentage by which--
                  (A) the Consumer Price Index (all items, 
                United States city average) for the 12-month 
                period ending on the June 30 preceding the 
                beginning of the fiscal year for which the 
                increase is made, exceeds
                  (B) such Consumer Price Index for the 12-
                month period preceding the 12-month period 
                described in subparagraph (A).
    (d) Estimates.--(1) From time to time, the Secretary shall 
make an estimate of--
          (A) the amount of funding that would be necessary to 
        provide supplemental plot allowance payments under this 
        section to all eligible recipients for the remainder of 
        the fiscal year in which such an estimate is made; and
          (B) the amount that Congress would need to 
        appropriate to provide all eligible recipients with 
        supplemental plot allowance payments under this section 
        in the next fiscal year.
    (2) On the dates described in paragraph (3), the Secretary 
shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress the 
estimates described in paragraph (1).
    (3) The dates described in this paragraph are the 
following:
          (A) April 1 of each year.
          (B) July 1 of each year.
          (C) September 1 of each year.
          (D) The date that is 60 days before the date 
        estimated by the Secretary on which amounts 
        appropriated for the purposes of this section for a 
        fiscal year will be exhausted.
    (e) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this 
section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--
          (1) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee 
        on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate; and
          (2) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee 
        on Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2307A. DEATH FROM SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY: SUPPLEMENTAL 
                    BENEFITS FOR BURIAL AND FUNERAL EXPENSES.

    (a) In General.--(1) Subject to the availability of funds 
specifically provided for purposes of this subsection in 
advance in an appropriations Act, whenever the Secretary makes 
a payment for the burial and funeral of a veteran under section 
2307(1) of this title, the Secretary is also authorized and 
directed to pay the recipient of such payment a supplemental 
payment under this section for the cost of such burial and 
funeral.
    (2) No supplemental payment shall be made under this 
subsection if the Secretary has expended all funds that were 
specifically provided for purposes of this subsection in an 
appropriations Act.
    (b) Amount.--The amount of the supplemental payment 
required by subsection (a) for any death is $2,100 (as adjusted 
from time to time under subsection (c)).
    (c) Adjustment.--With respect to deaths that occur in any 
fiscal year after fiscal year 2008, the supplemental payment 
described in subsection (b) shall be equal to the sum of--
          (1) the supplemental payment in effect under 
        subsection (b) for the preceding fiscal year 
        (determined after application of this subsection), plus
          (2) the sum of the amount described in section 
        2307(1) of this title and the amount under paragraph 
        (1), multiplied by the percentage by which--
                  (A) the Consumer Price Index (all items, 
                United States city average) for the 12-month 
                period ending on the June 30 preceding the 
                beginning of the fiscal year for which the 
                increase is made, exceeds
                  (B) such Consumer Price Index for the 12-
                month period preceding the 12-month period 
                described in sub-
                paragraph (A).
    (d) Estimates.--(1) From time to time, the Secretary shall 
make an estimate of--
          (A) the amount of funding that would be necessary to 
        provide supplemental payments under this section to all 
        eligible recipients for the remainder of the fiscal 
        year in which such an estimate is made; and
          (B) the amount that Congress would need to 
        appropriate to provide all eligible recipients with 
        supplemental payments under this section in the next 
        fiscal year.
    (2) On the dates described in paragraph (3), the Secretary 
shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress the 
estimates described in paragraph (1).
    (3) The dates described in this paragraph are the 
following:
                  (A) April 1 of each year.
                  (B) July 1 of each year.
                  (C) September 1 of each year.
                  (D) The date that is 60 days before the date 
                estimated by the Secretary on which amounts 
                appropriated for the purposes of this section 
                for a fiscal year will be exhausted.
    (e) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this 
section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--
          (1) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee 
        on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate; and
          (2) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee 
        on Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


              PART III--READJUSTMENT AND RELATED BENEFITS

     CHAPTER 35--SURVIVORS' AND DEPENDENTS' EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE


   Subchapter VII--Philippine Commonwealth Army and Philippine Scouts


SEC. 3565. CHILDREN OF CERTAIN PHILIPPINE VETERANS.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Administrative Provisions.--The provisions of this 
chapter and chapter 36 shall apply to the educational 
assistance for children of Commonwealth Army veterans and New 
Philippine Scouts, [except that--
          [(1) educational assistance allowances authorized by 
        section 3532 of this title and the special training 
        allowance authorized by section 3542 of this title 
        shall be paid the rate of $ 0.50 for each dollar, and
          [(2) any reference to a State approving agency shall 
        be deemed to refer to the Secretary.] except that a 
        reference to a State approving agency shall be deemed 
        to refer to the Secretary.
    [(c) Delimiting dates. In the case of any individual who is 
an eligible person solely by virtue of subsection (a) of this 
section, and who is above the age of seventeen years and below 
the age of twenty-three years on September 30, 1966, the period 
referred to in section 3512 of this title shall not end until 
the expiration of the five-year period which begins on 
September 30, 1966.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


           CHAPTER 36--ADMINISTRATION OF EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS


Subchapter I--State Approving Agencies

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec.
[3673. Cooperation.]
3673. Approval activities: cooperation and coordination of 
            activities.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 3673. [COOPERATION] APPROVAL ACTIVITIES: COOPERATION AND 
                    COORDINATION OF ACTIVITIES.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (a) Cooperation in Activities.--The Secretary and each 
State approving agency shall take cognizance of the fact that 
definite duties, functions, and responsibilities are conferred 
upon the Secretary and each State approving agency under the 
educational programs established under this chapter and 
chapters 34 and 35 of this title. To assure that such programs 
are effectively and efficiently administered, the cooperation 
of the Secretary and the State approving agencies is essential. 
It is necessary to establish an exchange of information 
pertaining to activities of educational institutions, and 
particular attention should be given to the enforcement of 
approval standards, enforcement of enrollment restrictions, and 
fraudulent and other criminal activities on the part of persons 
connected with educational institutions in which eligible 
persons or veterans are enrolled under this chapter and 
chapters 34 and 35 of this title.
    (b) Coordination of Activities.--The Secretary shall take 
appropriate actions to ensure the coordination of approval 
activities performed by State approving agencies under this 
chapter and chapters 34 and 35 of this title and approval 
activities performed by the Department of Labor, the Department 
of Education, and other entities in order to reduce overlap and 
improve efficiency in the performance of such activities
    [(b)] (c) Availability of Information Material.--The 
Secretary will furnish the State approving agencies with copies 
of such Department of Veterans Affairs informational material 
as may aid them in carrying out chapters 34 and 35 of this 
title.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 3674. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES.

    (a)(1) * * *
    (4) The total amount made available under this section for 
any fiscal year may not exceed [$13,000,000 or, for each of 
fiscal years 2001 and 2002, $14,000,000, for fiscal year 2003, 
$14,000,000, for fiscal year 2004, $18,000,000, for fiscal year 
2005, $18,000,000, for fiscal year 2006, $19,000,000, and for 
fiscal year 2007,] $19,000,000. For any fiscal year in which 
the total amount that would be made available under this 
section would exceed the amount applicable to that fiscal year 
under the preceding sentence except for the provisions of this 
paragraph, the Secretary shall provide that each agency shall 
receive the same percentage of the amount applicable to that 
fiscal year under the preceding sentence as the agency would 
have received of the total amount that would have been made 
available without the limitation of this paragraph.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


  CHAPTER 39--AUTOMOBILES AND ADAPTIVE EQUIPMENT FOR CERTAIN DISABLED 
VETERANS AND MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec.
3902A. Supplemental assistance for providing automobiles or other 
            conveyances.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 3901. DEFINITIONS.

    For purposes of this [chapter--] chapter:
          (1) The term eligible person [means--] means the 
        following:
                  (A) [any veteran] Any veteran entitled to 
                compensation under chapter 11 of this title for 
                any of the disabilities described in subclause 
                (i), (ii), [or (iii) below] (iii), or (iv), if 
                the disability is the result of any injury 
                incurred or disease contracted in or aggravated 
                by active military, naval, or air service:
                          (i) The loss or permanent loss of use 
                        of one or both feet[;].
                          (ii) The loss or permanent loss of 
                        use of one or both hands[;].
                          (iii) The permanent impairment of 
                        vision of both eyes of the following 
                        status: central visual acuity of 20/200 
                        or less in the better eye, with 
                        corrective glasses, or central visual 
                        acuity of more than 20/200 if there is 
                        a field defect in which the peripheral 
                        field has contracted to such an extent 
                        that the widest diameter of visual 
                        field subtends an angular distance no 
                        greater than twenty degrees in the 
                        better eye[; or].
                          (iv) A severe burn injury (as 
                        determined pursuant to regulations 
                        prescribed by the Secretary).
                  (B) [any member] Any member serving on active 
                duty who is suffering from any disability 
                described in subclause (i), (ii), [or (iii)] 
                (iii), or (iv) of clause (A) of this paragraph 
                if such disability is the result of an injury 
                incurred or disease contracted in or aggravated 
                by active military, naval, or air service.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 3902A. SUPPLEMENTAL ASSISTANCE FOR PROVIDING AUTOMOBILES OR OTHER 
                    CONVEYANCES.

    (a) In General.--(1) Subject to the availability of funds 
specifically provided for purposes of this subsection in 
advance in an appropriations Act, whenever the Secretary makes 
a payment for the purchase of an automobile or other conveyance 
for an eligible person under section 3902 of this title, the 
Secretary is also authorized and directed to pay the recipient 
of such payment a supplemental payment under this section for 
the cost of such purchase.
    (2) No supplemental payment shall be made under this 
subsection if the Secretary has expended all funds that were 
specifically provided for purposes of this subsection in an 
appropriations Act.
    (b) Amount of Supplemental Payment.--Supplemental payment 
required by subsection (a) is equal to the excess of--
          (1) the payment which would be determined under 
        section 3902 of this title if the amount described in 
        section 3902 of this title were increased to the 
        adjusted amount described in subsection (c), over
          (2) the payment determined under section 3902 of this 
        title without regard to this section.
    (c) Adjusted Amount.--The adjusted amount is $22,484 (as 
adjusted from time to time under subsection (d)).
    (d) Adjustment.--(1) Effective on October 1 of each year 
(beginning in 2008), the Secretary shall increase the adjusted 
amount described in subsection (c) to an amount equal to 80 
percent of the average retail cost of new automobiles for the 
preceding calendar year.
    (2) The Secretary shall establish the method for 
determining the average retail cost of new automobiles for 
purposes of this subsection. The Secretary may use data 
developed in the private sector if the Secretary determines the 
data is appropriate for purposes of this subsection.
    (e) Estimates.--(1) From time to time, the Secretary shall 
make an estimate of--
          (A) the amount of funding that would be necessary to 
        provide supplemental payment under this section for 
        every eligible person for the remainder of the fiscal 
        year in which such an estimate is made; and
          (B) the amount that Congress would need to 
        appropriate to provide every eligible person with 
        supplemental payment under this section in the next 
        fiscal year.
    (2) On the dates described in paragraph (3), the Secretary 
shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress the 
estimates described in paragraph (1).
    (3) The dates described in this paragraph are the 
following:
          (A) April 1 of each year.
          (B) July 1 of each year.
          (C) September 1 of each year.
          (D) The date that is 60 days before the date 
        estimated by the Secretary on which amounts 
        appropriated for the purposes of this section for a 
        fiscal year will be exhausted.
    (f) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this 
section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--
          (1) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee 
        on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate; and
          (2) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee 
        on Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    CHAPTER 41--JOB COUNSELING, TRAINING, AND PLACEMENT SERVICE FOR 
                                VETERANS


SEC. 4103. DIRECTORS AND ASSISTANT DIRECTORS FOR VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT 
                    AND TRAINING; ADDITIONAL FEDERAL PERSONNEL.

    (a)(1) * * *
    (2) (A) 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 two years.
    (B) The Secretary may waive the requirement in subparagraph 
(A) with respect to a Director for Veterans' Employment and 
Training if the Secretary determines that the waiver is in the 
public interest. Any such waiver shall be made on a case-by-
case basis.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 4110A. SPECIAL UNEMPLOYMENT STUDY.

    (a)(1) The Secretary, through the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics, shall conduct [a study every two years] an annual 
study of unemployment among each of the following categories of 
veterans:
          (A) Veterans who were called to active duty while 
        members of the National Guard or a Reserve Component.
          [(B) Veterans of the Vietnam era who served in the 
        Vietnam theater of operations during the Vietnam era.]
          (B) Veterans who served in combat or in a war zone in 
        the Post 9/11 Global Operations theaters.
          (C) Veterans who served on active duty during the 
        [Vietnam era] Post 9/11 Global Operations period who 
        did not serve in [the Vietnam theater of operations] 
        the Post 9/11 Global Operations theaters.
          (D) * * *
          (E) * * *
          [(A)] (F) Special disabled veterans.
    (2) * * *
    (b) * * *
    (c) In this section:
          (1) The term `Post 9/11 Global Operations period' 
        means the period of the Persian Gulf War beginning on 
        September 11, 2001, and ending on the date thereafter 
        prescribed by Presidential proclamation or law.
          (2) The term `Post 9/11 Global Operations theaters' 
        means Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other theater in which 
        the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal is 
        awarded for service.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


               PART IV--GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

           CHAPTER 51--CLAIMS, EFFECTIVE DATES, AND PAYMENTS


                  Subchapter III--Payment of Benefits


SEC. 5123. ROUNDING DOWN OF PENSION RATES.

    The monthly or other periodic rate of pension payable to an 
individual under section 1514, 1521, 1541, or 1542 of this 
title or under section 306(a) of the Veterans' and Survivors' 
Pension Improvement Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-588), if not a 
multiple of $1, shall be rounded down to the nearest dollar.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


          CHAPTER 53--SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO BENEFITS


SEC. 5312. ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF CERTAIN BENEFIT RATES.

    (a) Whenever there is an increase in benefit amounts 
payable under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 
401 et seq.) as a result of a determination made under section 
215(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)), the Secretary shall, 
effective on the date of such increase in benefit amounts, 
increase each maximum annual rate of pension under sections 
1514, 1521, 1541, and 1542 of this title, the rate of increased 
pension paid under such sections 1521 and 1541 on account of 
children, and each rate of monthly allowance paid under section 
1805 of this title, as such rates were in effect immediately 
prior to the date of such increase in benefit amounts payable 
under title II of the Social Security Act, by the same 
percentage as the percentage by which such benefit amounts are 
increased.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (c)(1) Whenever there is an increase under subsection (a) 
in benefit rates payable under sections 1514, 1521, 1541, 1542, 
and 1805 of this title and an increase under subsection (b) in 
benefit rates and annual income limitations under section 1315 
of this title, the Secretary shall publish such rates and 
limitations (including those rates adjusted by the Secretary 
under subsection (b)(2) of this section), as increased pursuant 
to such subsections, in the Federal Register at the same time 
as the material required by section 215(i)(2)(D) of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)(2)(D)) is published by reason of 
a determination under section 215(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 
415(i)).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                    CHAPTER 63. OUTREACH ACTIVITIES


SEC. 6301. PURPOSE; DEFINITION.

    (a) Purpose. The Congress declares that--
          (1) the outreach services program authorized by this 
        chapter is for the purpose of ensuring that all 
        veterans (especially those who have been recently 
        discharged or released from active military, naval, or 
        air service or from the National Guard or Reserve, and 
        those who are eligible for readjustment or other 
        benefits and services under laws administered by the 
        Department) are provided timely and appropriate 
        assistance to aid and encourage them in applying for 
        and obtaining such benefits and services in order that 
        they may achieve a rapid social and economic 
        readjustment to civilian life and obtain a higher 
        standard of living for themselves and their dependents; 
        and
    (b) Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter--
          (1) the term `outreach' means the act or process of 
        reaching out in a systematic manner to proactively 
        provide information, services, and benefits counseling 
        to veterans, and to the spouses, children, and parents 
        of veterans who may be eligible to receive benefits 
        under the laws administered by the Secretary, to ensure 
        that such individuals are fully informed about, and 
        assisted in applying for, any benefits and programs 
        under such laws;
           [(1)] (2) the term other governmental programs 
        includes all programs under State or local laws as well 
        as all programs under Federal law other than those 
        authorized by this title; and
          [(2)] (3) the term eligible dependent means a spouse, 
        surviving spouse, child, or dependent parent of a 
        person who served in the active military, naval, or air 
        service.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


             PART V--BOARDS, ADMINISTRATIONS, AND SERVICES

CHAPTER 72--UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec.
7288. Annual report.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


              Subchapter I--Organization and Jurisdiction


SEC. 7257. RECALL OF RETIRED JUDGES.

    (a)(1) A retired judge of the Court may be recalled for 
further service on the Court in accordance with this section. 
To be eligible to be recalled for such service, a retired judge 
must at the time of the judge's retirement provide to the chief 
judge of the Court (or, in the case of the chief judge, to the 
clerk of the Court) notice in writing that the retired judge is 
available for further service on the Court in accordance with 
this section and is willing to be recalled under this section. 
[Such a notice provided by a retired judge is irrevocable] Such 
a notice provided by a retired judge to whom section 
7296(c)(1)(B) of this title applies is irrevocable.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (b)(1) * * *
    (2) A recall-eligible retired judge may not be recalled for 
more than 90 days (or the equivalent) during any calendar year 
without the judge's consent [or for more than a total of 180 
days (or the equivalent) during any calendar year].
    (3) If a recall-eligible retired judge is recalled by the 
chief judge in accordance with this section and (other than in 
the case of a judge who has previously during that calendar 
year served at least 90 days (or the equivalent) of recalled 
service on the court) declines (other than by reason of 
disability) to perform the service to which recalled, the chief 
judge shall remove that retired judge from the status of a 
recall-eligible judge.  This paragraph shall not apply to a 
judge to whom section 7296(c)(1)(A) or 7296(c)(1)(B) of this 
title applies and who has, in the aggregate, served at least 
five years of recalled service on the Court under this section.
    (4) * * *
    [(d)(1) The pay of a recall-eligible retired judge who 
retired under section 7296 of this title is specified in 
subsection (c) of that section.
    (2) A judge who is recalled under this section who retired 
under chapter 83 or 84 of title 5 shall be paid, during the 
period for which the judge serves in recall status, pay at the 
rate of pay in effect under section 7253(e) of this title for a 
judge performing active service, less the amount of the judge's 
annuity under the applicable provisions of chapter 83 or 84 of 
title 5.]
    (d)(1) The pay of a recall-eligible retired judge to whom 
section 7296(c)(1)(B) of this title applies is the pay 
specified in that section.
    (2) A judge who is recalled under this section who retired 
under chapter 83 or 84 of title 5 or to whom section 
7296(c)(1)(A) of this title applies shall be paid, during the 
period for which the judge serves in recall status, pay at the 
rate of pay in effect under section 7253(e) of this title for a 
judge performing active service, less the amount of the judge's 
annuity under the applicable provisions of chapter 83 or 84 of 
title 5 or the judge's annuity under section 7296(c)(1)(A) of 
this title, whichever is applicable.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                Subchapter III--Miscellaneous Provisions


SEC. 7285. PRACTICE AND REGISTRATION FEES.

    (a) The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims may impose a 
reasonable periodic registration fee on persons admitted to 
practice before the Court. The frequency and amount of such fee 
shall be determined by the Court[, except that such amount may 
not exceed $ 30 per year]. The Court may also impose a 
reasonable registration fee on persons (other than judges of 
the Court) participating at judicial conferences convened 
pursuant to section 7286 of this title or in any other court-
sponsored activity.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 7288. ANNUAL REPORT.

    (a) In General.--The chief judge of the Court shall submit 
annually to the appropriate committees of Congress a report 
summarizing the workload of the Court for the last fiscal year 
that ended before the submission of such report. Such report 
shall include, with respect to such fiscal year, the following 
information:
          (1) The number of appeals filed.
          (2) The number of petitions filed.
          (3) The number of applications filed under section 
        2412 of title 28.
          (4) The number and type of dispositions.
          (5) The median time from filing to disposition.
          (6) The number of oral arguments.
          (7) The number and status of pending appeals and 
        petitions and of applications described in paragraph 
        (3).
          (8) A summary of any service performed by recalled 
        retired judges during the fiscal year.
    (b) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this 
section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means 
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the 
Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


            Subchapter V--Retirement and Survivors Annuities


SEC. 7296. RETIREMENT OF JUDGES.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (c)[(1) An individual who retires under subsection (b) of 
this section and elects under subsection (d) of this section to 
receive retired pay under this subsection shall (except as 
provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection) receive retired 
pay as follows:] (1)(A) A judge who is appointed on or after 
the date of the enactment of the Veterans' Benefits Enhancement 
Act of 2007 and who retires under subsection (b) and elects 
under subsection (d) to receive retired pay under this 
subsection shall (except as provided in paragraph (2)) receive 
retired pay as follows:
          (i) In the case of a judge who is a recall-eligible 
        retired judge under section 7257 of this title, the 
        retired pay of the judge shall (subject to section 
        7257(d)(2) of this title) be the rate of pay applicable 
        to that judge at the time of retirement, as adjusted 
        from time to time under subsection (f)(3).
          (ii) In the case of a judge other than a recall-
        eligible retired judge, the retired pay of the judge 
        shall be the rate of pay applicable to that judge at 
        the time of retirement.
    (B) A judge who retired before the date of the enactment of 
the Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007 and elected 
under subsection (d) to receive retired pay under this 
subsection, or a judge who retires under subsection (b) and 
elects under subsection (d) to receive retired pay under this 
subsection, shall (except as provided in paragraph (2)) receive 
retired pay as follows:
          (i) In the case of a judge who is a recall-eligible 
        retired judge under section 7257 of this title or who 
        was a recall-eligible retired judge under that section 
        and was removed from recall status under subsection 
        (b)(4) of that section by reason of disability, the 
        retired pay of the judge shall be the pay of a judge of 
        the court.
          (ii) In the case of a judge who at the time of 
        retirement did not provide notice under section 7257 of 
        this title of availability for service in a recalled 
        status, the retired pay of the judge shall be the rate 
        of pay applicable to that judge at the time of 
        retirement.
          (iii) In the case of a judge who was a recall-
        eligible retired judge under section 7257 of this title 
        and was removed from recall status under subsection 
        (b)(3) of that section, the retired pay of the judge 
        shall be the pay of the judge at the time of the 
        removal from recall status.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f)(1) * * *
    (3)(A) A cost-of-living adjustment provided by law in 
annuities payable under civil service retirement laws shall 
apply to retired pay under this section only in the case of 
retired pay computed under [paragraph (2) of subsection (c)] 
paragraph (1)(A)(i) or (2) of subsection (c).



  

                                  
