[Senate Report 111-71]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                       Calendar No. 155
111th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                     111-71

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



 
               VETERANS' BENEFITS ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2009

                                _______
                                

               September 2, 2009.--Ordered to be printed

  Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of August 7, 2009

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                          [To accompany S.728]

    The Committee on Veterans' Affairs (hereinafter, ``the 
Committee''), to which was referred the bill (S.728), to amend 
title 38, United States Code (hereinafter, ``U.S.C.''), to 
enhance veterans' insurance benefits, 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 March 26, 2009, Committee Chairman Daniel K. Akaka 
introduced S.728, the proposed ``Veterans' Insurance and 
Benefits Enhancement Act of 2009.'' S.728 as introduced would 
amend title 38 to enhance veterans' insurance benefits, and for 
other purposes.
    Earlier, on January 15, 2009, Senator Casey introduced 
S.263, the proposed ``Servicemembers Access to Justice Act of 
2009,'' which would amend title 38 to improve the enforcement 
of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights 
Act of 1994 (hereinafter, ``USERRA''). Senators Burris, 
Kennedy, and Wyden are cosponsors.
    On January 29, 2009, Senator Ensign introduced S.347, which 
would allow the Department of Veterans Affairs (hereinafter, 
``VA'') to distinguish between the severity of a qualifying 
loss of a dominant hand and a qualifying loss of a non-dominant 
hand for purposes of traumatic injury protection under 
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (hereinafter, ``SGLI''). 
Senator Rockefeller is a cosponsor.
    On March 3, 2009, Chairman Akaka introduced S.514, the 
proposed ``Veterans Rehabilitation and Training Improvements 
Act of 2009,'' to enhance vocational rehabilitation benefits 
for veterans. Senator Burris is a cosponsor.
    On April 2, 2009, Senator Sanders introduced S.820, the 
proposed ``Veterans Mobility Enhancement Act of 2009.'' S.820 
would increase the automobile assistance allowance for veterans 
from $11,000 to $22,500 and provide for an annual adjustment to 
an amount equal to 80 percent of the average retail cost of new 
automobiles for the preceding calendar year.
    On April 21, 2009, Senator Kerry introduced S.842, which 
would reinforce VA's authority to purchase a VA-guaranteed home 
loan from a mortgage holder, if the loan is modified during 
bankruptcy.
    On April 21, 2009, Senator Webb introduced S.847, which 
would provide that utilization of survivors' and dependents' 
educational assistance shall not be subject to the 48-month 
limitation on the aggregate amount of assistance available 
under multiple veterans-related educational assistance 
programs.
    On April 28, 2009, Chairman Akaka introduced S.919, the 
proposed ``Clarification of Characteristics of Combat Service 
Act of 2009.'' S.919 would clarify the additional requirements 
for consideration to be afforded time, place, and circumstances 
of service in determination of service-connection.
    On April 29, 2009, the Committee held a hearing on the 
above-referenced bills and other benefits-related legislation. 
Testimony was offered by: Bradley G. Mayes, Director, 
Compensation and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits 
Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs; Robert Jackson, 
Assistant Director, National Legislative Service, Veterans of 
Foreign Wars of the United States; Raymond Kelley, Legislative 
Director, AMVETS; R. Chuck Mason, Legislative Attorney, 
Congressional Research Service; Ian de Planque, Assistant 
Director for Claims Service, Veterans Affairs and 
Rehabilitation Commission, The American Legion; and Rebecca 
Noah Poynter, Director, Military Spouse Business Organization.
    On May 11, 2009, Committee Ranking Member Richard Burr 
introduced S.1015, which would enhance disability compensation 
for certain disabled veterans with difficulties using 
prostheses and disabled veterans in need of regular aid and 
attendance for residuals of traumatic brain injury 
(hereinafter, ``TBI''). Senators Durbin and Isakson are 
original cosponsors.
    On May 11, 2009, Ranking Member Burr introduced S.1016, 
which would modify the commencement of the period of payment of 
original awards of compensation for veterans who are retired or 
separated from the uniformed services for catastrophic 
disability.

                           Committee Meeting

    After carefully reviewing the testimony from the foregoing 
hearing, the Committee met in open session on May 21, 2009, to 
consider, among other legislation, an amended version of S.728, 
consisting of provisions from S.728 as introduced, provisions 
from the other legislation noted above, and several 
freestanding provisions. The Committee voted, without dissent, 
to report favorably S.728 as amended.

                      Summary of S.728 as Reported

    S.728, as reported (hereinafter, ``the Committee bill''), 
which consists of six titles, would make numerous enhancements 
and expansions to veterans benefits, services, and rights and 
would amend the title of the original bill.

                       TITLE I--INSURANCE MATTERS

    Section 101 would provide additional supplemental insurance 
for totally disabled veterans.
    Section 102 would adjust the coverage of dependents under 
SGLI.
    Section 103 would expand the number of individuals 
qualifying for retroactive benefits from traumatic injury 
protection coverage under SGLI (hereinafter, ``TSGLI'').
    Section 104 would permit VA to consider the loss of a 
dominant hand in prescription of the schedule of payments for 
TSGLI.
    Section 105 would enhance the amount of insurance provided 
an individual under the Veterans' Mortgage Life Insurance 
(hereinafter, ``VMLI'') program.

               TITLE II--COMPENSATION AND PENSION MATTERS

    Section 201 would establish a cost-of-living increase for 
temporary dependency and indemnity compensation (hereinafter, 
``DIC'') payable to surviving spouses with dependent children 
under the age of 18.
    Section 202 would clarify the eligibility of veterans 65 
years of age or older for service pension for a period of war.
    Section 203 would require VA to issue regulations 
recognizing circumstances in which lay evidence does not 
require confirmatory official documentary evidence.
    Section 204 would extend, through the end of fiscal year 
2014, provisions that reduce VA pension for certain VA 
beneficiaries with no dependents who are covered by Medicaid 
plans for services furnished by nursing facilities.
    Section 205 would enhance disability compensation for 
certain disabled veterans who have difficulties using 
prostheses and disabled veterans in need of regular aid and 
attendance for the residuals of TBI.
    Section 206 would modify the commencement of the period of 
payment of original awards of compensation for veterans who are 
retired or separated from the uniformed services for a 
catastrophic disability.
    Section 207 would treat adult-disabled children of veterans 
who receive pension in nursing homes in the same manner as 
veterans and surviving spouses.
    Section 208 would provide for the payment of DIC to the 
survivors of former prisoners of war (hereinafter, ``POWs'') 
who died on or before September 30, 1999, on the same basis as 
survivors of former POWs who die or have died after that date.

          TITLE III--READJUSTMENT AND RELATED BENEFIT MATTERS

    Section 301 would repeal the annual cap of 2,600 on the 
number of veterans that may enroll each year in the VA program 
of independent living services and assistance.
    Section 302 would expand eligibility for automobile and 
adaptive equipment to disabled veterans and members of the 
Armed Forces with severe burn injuries.
    Section 303 would increase the automobile assistance 
allowance for certain disabled veterans and members of the 
Armed Forces.
    Section 304 would reinforce VA's authority to purchase a 
VA-guaranteed home loan that is modified by a bankruptcy judge.

    TITLE IV--EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF THE 
                           UNIFORMED SERVICES

    Section 401 would waive sovereign immunity of a State under 
the 11th Amendment to the Constitution with respect to 
enforcement of USERRA.
    Section 402 would clarify the definition of ``successor in 
interest'' under USERRA.
    Section 403 would clarify that USERRA prohibits wage 
discrimination against members of the Armed Forces.
    Section 404 would require Federal agencies to notify 
contractors of their potential USERRA obligations.
    Section 405 would direct the Comptroller General of the 
United States to conduct a study on the effectiveness of the 
Federal government's USERRA education and outreach programs.
    Section 406 would make technical and conforming amendments.

                  TITLE V--BURIAL AND MEMORIAL MATTERS

    Section 501 would authorize supplemental benefits for 
funeral and burial expenses.
    Section 502 would authorize supplemental plot allowances.

                        TITLE VI--OTHER MATTERS

    Section 601 would require the National Academies to review 
the best treatments for Gulf War Illness.
    Section 602 would extend the National Academies' reviews 
and evaluations regarding illness and service in the Gulf War.
    Section 603 would extend the authority for the VA Regional 
Office in the Republic of the Philippines from December 31, 
2009, to December 31, 2011.
    Section 604 would increase the aggregate amount of 
educational assistance available to individuals who receive 
both survivors' and dependents' educational assistance and 
other veterans and related educational assistance.

                       Background and Discussion


                       TITLE I--INSURANCE MATTERS

Sec. 101. Increase in amount of supplemental insurance for totally 
        disabled veterans.

    Section 101 of the Committee bill, which is derived from 
S.728 as introduced, would provide additional supplemental 
insurance to totally disabled veterans under the Service-
Disabled Veterans' Insurance (hereinafter, ``S-DVI'') program.
    Background. 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 Veterans' 
Group Life Insurance (hereinafter, ``VGLI'') benefits, which 
were at their inception $10,000 and $20,000 respectively, have 
been increased over time to $400,000.
    In 1992, in Public Law 102-568, the Veterans' Benefits Act 
of 1992, 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-five 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, 
27 percent of veterans with a premium waiver currently have a 
supplemental S-DVI policy. 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.
    Committee Bill. Section 101 of the Committee bill would 
amend section 1922A(a) of title 38 so as to increase the amount 
of life insurance available to totally disabled veterans by 
allowing them to purchase an additional $10,000 in supplemental 
insurance coverage.

Sec. 102. Adjustment of coverage of dependents under Servicemembers' 
        Group Life Insurance.

    Section 102 of the Committee bill, which is derived from 
S.728 as introduced, would amend current law so that no 
insurable dependent could be covered under SGLI for more than 
120 days after the member's separation or release from service 
or assignment.
    Background. Before the passage of Public Law 110-389, the 
Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2008, SGLI coverage of a 
servicemember's insurable dependent ended either 120 days after 
the servicemember elected to end coverage or the earliest of 
three dates: (1) 120 days after the servicemember died; (2) 120 
days after the date the servicemember's coverage ended; or (3) 
120 days after the dependent ceased to be an insurable 
dependent.
    Section 403(b) of Public Law 110-389 amended the second of 
the three listed dates to be the date the servicemember's 
coverage ended. The purpose was to provide that an insurable 
dependent's coverage would end when the servicemember's 
coverage ended, generally 120 days after separation or release 
from active service, rather than 120 days after the member's 
coverage ended, or 240 days after the member's separation or 
release from active service.
    However, Public Law 110-389 unintentionally allowed 
insurable dependents of servicemembers on active duty, or Ready 
Reservists who are totally disabled on the date of separation 
or release from service or assignment, to continue receiving 
insurance coverage long after the servicemembers' separation or 
release from service. Servicemembers on active duty are 
potentially eligible for continued coverage for up to 2 years 
after the date of separation or release from service; Ready 
Reservists are potentially eligible for an additional 1 year of 
coverage after separation or release from an assignment. 
Therefore, the insurable dependents of covered servicemembers 
on active duty are also potentially eligible for continued 
coverage for up to 2 years after the date of separation or 
release from service or, in the case of an insurable dependent 
of a Ready Reservist, up to 1 year after the date of separation 
or release from an assignment.
    Committee Bill. Section 102 of the Committee bill would 
amend section 1968(a)(5)(B)(ii) of title 38 so that no 
insurable dependent, not even those of servicemembers who 
remain covered for up to 1 or 2 years after service or 
assignment, could remain covered under SGLI for more than 120 
days after the servicemember's separation or release from 
service or assignment.
    In the interest of equity, the Committee intends that all 
insurable spouses of servicemembers, whether those who are 
disabled or not, would have the same time period in which to 
obtain private insurance.

Sec. 103. Expansion of individuals qualifying for retroactive benefits 
        from traumatic injury protection coverage under Servicemembers' 
        Group Life Insurance.

    Section 103 of the Committee bill, which is derived from 
S.728 as introduced, would expand the number of individuals 
qualifying for retroactive benefits under TSGLI.
    Background. 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 SGLI 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.''
    Without corrective action, men and women who were 
traumatically injured on or between October 7, 2001, and 
November 30, 2005, but were not in the Operation Iraqi Freedom 
(hereinafter, ``OIF'') or Operation Enduring Freedom 
(hereinafter, ``OEF'') theaters of operation, will continue to 
be denied the same retroactive payment given to their wounded 
comrades, even though the SGLI for which TSGLI is a rider was 
made retroactive.
    Committee Bill. Section 103 of the Committee bill would 
amend section 501(b) of Public Law 109-233 so as to remove the 
requirement that limits retroactive TSGLI payments to those who 
served in the OIF or OEF theaters of operation. Thus, this 
section 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. 104. Consideration of loss of dominant hand in prescription of 
        schedule of severity of traumatic injury under Servicemembers' 
        Group Life Insurance.

    Section 104 of the Committee bill, which is derived from 
S.728 as introduced, would allow VA to consider the loss of a 
dominant hand in developing the schedule of payments for TSGLI.
    Background. TSGLI provides for payment to servicemembers 
who suffer a qualifying loss 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.
    Committee Bill. Section 104 of the Committee bill would 
amend section 1980A(d) of title 38 to authorize VA to 
distinguish in specifying payments for qualifying losses of a 
dominant hand and a non-dominant hand.

Sec. 105. Enhancement of veterans' mortgage life insurance.

    Section 105 of the Committee bill, which is derived from 
S.728 as introduced, would enhance the amount of insurance 
provided a service-connected disabled veteran under the VMLI 
program.
    Background. 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 May 2009 was $221,200, the current maximum of $90,000 
in VMLI insurance protection is not adequate.
    Committee Bill. Section 105 of the Committee bill would 
amend section 2106(b) of title 38 to increase the maximum 
amount of insurance that may be purchased under the VMLI 
program from the current maximum of $90,000 to $150,000 and 
then, on January 1, 2012, from $150,000 to $200,000.
    The Committee believes that these changes will help ensure 
that this important benefit, which helps secure the financial 
futures of many veterans and their families, keeps pace with 
changes in the economy.

               TITLE II--COMPENSATION AND PENSION MATTERS

Sec. 201. Cost-of-living increase for temporary dependency and 
        indemnity compensation payable for surviving spouses with 
        dependent children under the age of 18.

    Section 201 of the Committee bill, which is derived from 
S.728 as introduced, would establish a cost-of-living increase 
for temporary DIC payable to surviving spouses with dependent 
children under the age of 18.
    Background. Under section 1310 of title 38, VA provides DIC 
to a surviving spouse 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 for 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 5-year period after the veteran's 
death. It was noted in the DIC Report that, ``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, the Veterans Benefits 
Improvement Act of 2004, amended section 1311 of title 38, to 
authorize VA to pay a $250 per month temporary benefit to a 
surviving spouse with one or more children below the age of 18, 
during the 2 years following the date on which entitlement to 
DIC began. This provision was enacted in response to the DIC 
Report's recommendation on the need for transitional DIC.
    Committee Bill. Section 201 of the Committee bill would 
amend section 1311(f) of title 38 by authorizing a permanent, 
automatic, cost-of-living adjustment for this temporary DIC 
payment 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 benefit amounts payable under title II of the 
Social Security Act, section 401 et seq., title 42, U.S.C.

Sec. 202. Eligibility of veterans 65 years of age or older for service 
        pension for a period of war.

    Section 202 of the Committee bill, which is derived from 
S.728 as introduced, would amend section 1513 of title 38, 
relating to VA pension for veterans age 65 and over, 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) (hereinafter, ``Hartness''), 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.
    Background. 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 14 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 73 (Gibson Bros., Printers and Bookbinders 1893) 
(hereinafter, ``Browning''). Veterans of the Mexican-American 
War also were eligible for a service pension (Browning at 78), 
as were veterans of the Indian Wars (Browning at 82).
    A Report to the President (April 1956) by The President's 
Commission on Veterans' Pensions, chaired by General Omar N. 
Bradley, provided this assessment on page 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 in wartime 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 War 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.
    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 total and permanent disability.
    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, 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 Congress. As noted in the joint explanatory 
statement accompanying final passage of H.R. 1291, which was 
enacted as Public Law 107-103, the Veterans Education and 
Benefits Expansion Act of 2001 (the compromise legislation that 
dealt with this issue), the legislation was in response to an 
action taken by VA to address a looming backlog of claims.
    The Veterans' Affairs Committees 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 examination before finding eligibility for 
pension.
    While the Committee did not then, and does not now, believe 
that there is a rationale basis 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 that 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 VA'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.

147 Cong. Rec. S13239 (daily ed. Dec. 13, 2001) (Joint 
Explanatory Statement on Public Law 107-103) (hereinafter, 
``JES'').

    As noted above, the Committee bill would overturn a 
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans 
Claims (hereinafter, ``Court'') in Hartness v. Nicholson, 20 
Vet. App. 216 (2006), 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 
have reached 65 years of age. 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 automatically 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 had originally sought a 
special monthly pension under section 1521 on 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 to 
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 
section 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% or is considered permanently housebound.'' Hartness, 20 
Vet. App. at 217, 221-22 [emphasis added].
    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, 38 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 3.3 and 3.351, 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 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 * * *.'' Hartness at 218 
[emphasis added]. As a result, VA claimed that ``Mr. Hartness 
does not meet the threshold requirements of 38 C.F.R. 
Sec. 3.351(d).'' Id.
    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 
C.F.R. 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 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 4.16, 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.'' Hartness at 217 [emphasis added]. 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. Id. 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 and disability pensions. Rather, the Court 
apparently understood the prohibition against paying benefits 
under section 1513(b) if the veteran were 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 percent disability would be 
eligible for benefits paid at the housebound rate under section 
1521(e) while younger veterans rated at 60 percent 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 War.'' 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, by section 1511 and 1512, without 
regard to disability, 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 age 65 and 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 service pensions, veterans who 
were also disabled and thereby also eligible for pensions 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 added.] 
147 Cong. Rec. E1859 (extension of remarks Oct. 12, 2001) 
(statement of Rep. Evans) (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 
the 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 section 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 permanent and total 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:

        [t]hese 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 JES language to 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.
    Committee Bill. Section 202 of the Committee bill would 
amend section 1513 of title 38 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 would exclude the 
rates related to special monthly 
pension, namely housebound benefits and aid and attendance 
benefits contained in subsections (d), (e), (f)(2), (f)(3), and 
(f)(4) of section 1521.
    These changes 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.
    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 bill would affect primarily those veterans who are 
age 65 and older and who are not significantly disabled.
    The Committee bill provides that the proposed modification 
to section 1513 would be effective with respect to claims for 
pension filed on or after the effective date of the Committee 
bill.

Sec. 203. Clarification of additional requirements for consideration to 
        be afforded time, place, and circumstances of service in 
        determinations regarding service-connected disabilities.

    Section 203 of the Committee bill, which is derived from 
S.919, would require VA to promulgate regulations that direct 
how certain circumstances of a claimant's military service 
should be considered when determining service-connection.
    Background. 
A number of precedential decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for Veterans Claims, such as Suozzi v. Brown,\1\ have 
recognized that corroboration of every detail of a claimed 
combat exposure or event by official military documents is not 
required for the resolution of VA claims. Nonetheless, some VA 
claims adjudicators have continued to read the requirement of 
corroboration narrowly. For example, in Falk v. West,\2\ the 
Court found that a veteran's presence on a ship involved in 
combat was adequate to corroborate that a veteran assigned to 
that particular ship was in combat. VA had earlier denied the 
veteran's claim of service-connection for Post-Traumatic Stress 
Disorder (hereinafter, ``PTSD''), after finding that the record 
did not demonstrate that veteran had served in combat or had 
been exposed to the claimed stressors. The decision in 
Pentecost v. Principi \3\ noted that a veteran's presence in a 
specific unit during a combat event is sufficient corroboration 
of exposure to that event. In this case, unit records 
corroborated the veteran's assertion that enemy rocket attacks 
occurred during the time period he was stationed at the 
airbase. The Court found that the veteran's unit records were 
credible evidence that the rocket attacks that the veteran 
alleged did occur. However, VA had earlier determined that the 
veteran had not corroborated his alleged in-service stressor 
with independent evidence. Despite these precedents, recent 
Court decisions, such as Castle v. Mansfield \4\ and Bobby King 
v. Peake,\5\ consistently demonstrate that proper consideration 
of lay evidence is still not being accorded by VA when the 
place and conditions of military service are generally 
documented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Suozzi v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 307 (1997).
    \2\Falk v. West, 12 Vet. App. 402 (1999).
    \3\Pentecost v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 124 (2002).
    \4\Castle v. Mansfield, No. 05-3010, 2007 U.S. App. Vet. Claims 
LEXIS 1938 (U.S. App. Vet. Cl. Dec. 13, 2007).
    \5\Bobby King v. Peake, No. 08-0033, 2008 U.S. App. Vet. Claims 
LEXIS 1177 (U.S. App. Vet. Cl. Nov. 6, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Committee Bill. Section 203 of the Committee bill would 
direct VA to promulgate regulations that direct how VA should 
generally consider lay evidence that is consistent with the 
place, conditions, dangers, or hardships associated with a 
particular veteran's military service. The Committee intends 
that the requirement to consider lay evidence in assessing the 
place, conditions, dangers, and hardships of service not be 
limited to combat service, but also include other types of 
exposures, including environmental conditions. For example, in 
assessing lay testimony concerning a claimant's exposure to 
sub-freezing conditions, the regulation may acknowledge that 
lay evidence, such as weather reports or contemporaneous 
newspaper accounts of sub-freezing conditions, may provide 
corroboration of exposure to the cold when a servicemember was 
assigned to an area when sub-freezing conditions were present. 
Another example: In a claim alleging hearing loss or tinnitus, 
although an individual's service record might not include 
details of exposure to improvised explosive devices 
(hereinafter, ``IEDs''), the individual may have been assigned 
to a particular unit at a particular location where lay 
evidence shows that the unit was repeatedly exposed to IEDs.
    The Committee expects that the regulations required by this 
section would encourage the development of common-sense 
guidance to claims adjudicators, from the Department, about how 
the circumstances of a claimant's military service should be 
considered when evaluating a claim for service-connection.

Sec. 204. Extension of reduced pension for certain veterans covered by 
        Medicaid plans for services furnished by nursing facilities.

    Section 204 of the Committee bill would extend, from the 
end of fiscal year 2011 to the end of fiscal year 2014, the 
expiration date for provisions that reduce VA pension for 
certain beneficiaries with no dependents who are covered by 
Medicaid plans for services furnished by nursing facilities.
    Background. Public Law 101-508, the Omnibus Budget 
Reconciliation Act of 1990, reduced VA pension for certain 
veterans in receipt of Medicaid-covered nursing home care to no 
more than $90 per month, for any period after the month of 
admission to the nursing care facility. This authority expired 
on September 30, 1992, and was extended through 1997 in Public 
Law 102-568, the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992; through 1998 
in Public Law 103-66, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
1993; through 2002 in Public Law 105-33, the Balanced Budget 
Act of 1997; through 2008 in Public Law 106-419, the Veterans' 
Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act of 2000; and through 
2011 in Public Law 107-103, the Veterans' Education and 
Benefits Expansion Act of 2001.
    Committee Bill. Section 204 of the Committee bill would 
amend section 5503(d)(7) of title 38 to extend, from September 
30, 2011, to September 30, 2014, the authority for limitation 
of VA pension to $90 per month for certain beneficiaries 
receiving Medicaid-covered nursing home care.

Sec. 205. Enhancement of disability compensation for certain disabled 
        veterans with difficulties using prostheses and disabled 
        veterans in need of regular aid and attendance for residuals of 
        traumatic brain injury.

    Section 205 of the Committee bill, which is derived from 
S.1015, would provide higher levels of VA compensation to 
certain veterans who experience difficulty using prostheses or 
who have a severe TBI.
            Subsec. 205(a). Veterans suffering anatomical loss of 
                    hands, arms, or legs.
    Section 205(a) of the Committee bill would allow veterans 
who suffer certain severe anatomical losses and are impeded 
from using prosthetic devices, for any reason, to qualify for 
higher levels of VA compensation.
    Background. Under subsections (a) through (j) of section 
1114 of title 38, VA pays disability compensation to a veteran 
based on the rating assigned to the veteran's service-connected 
disabilities. Under subsections (m), (n), and (o) of section 
1114, higher levels of monthly compensation are paid to 
veterans with severe disabilities if certain criteria are 
satisfied.
    The criteria for compensation under section 1114(m) include 
``the anatomical loss * * * of both legs at a level, or with 
complications, preventing natural knee action with prostheses 
in place'' or ``the anatomical loss * * * of one arm and one 
leg at levels, or with complications, preventing natural elbow 
and knee action with prostheses in place.'' The criteria for 
compensation under section 1114(n) include ``the anatomical 
loss * * * of both arms at levels, or with complications, 
preventing natural elbow action with prostheses in place''; 
``the anatomical loss of both legs so near the hip as to 
prevent the use of prosthetic appliances''; or ``the anatomical 
loss of one arm and one leg so near the shoulder and hip as to 
prevent the use of prosthetic appliances.'' The criteria for 
compensation under section 1114(o) include ``the anatomical 
loss of both arms so near the shoulder as to prevent the use of 
prosthetic appliances.''
    Committee Bill. Section 205(a) of the Committee bill would 
amend subsections (m), (n), and (o) of section 1114 to remove 
the provisions conditioning higher monthly compensation on the 
site of, or complications from, an anatomical loss. Instead, if 
the other requirements are satisfied, it would allow the higher 
rates to be paid if any factors prevent natural elbow or knee 
action with prostheses in place or prevent the use of 
prosthetic appliances.
            Subsec. 205(b). Veterans with service-connected 
                    disabilities in need of regular aid and attendance 
                    for residuals of traumatic brain injury.
    Section 205(b) of the Committee bill would allow veterans 
suffering from severe TBIs to receive the highest level of aid 
and attendance benefits from VA.
    Background. Under subsections (a) through (j) of section 
1114 of title 38, VA pays disability compensation to a veteran 
based on the rating assigned to the veteran's service-connected 
disabilities. Currently, the monthly compensation ranges from 
$123 per month for a single veteran with no dependents rated 10 
percent to $2,673 per month for the same single veteran rated 
100 percent. Under section 1114(l) of title 38, VA provides a 
higher amount of compensation, currently $3,327 per month for a 
single veteran, if the veteran is ``in need of regular aid and 
attendance.''
    A veteran who requires regular aid and attendance may be 
entitled to an additional $2,002 per month, under section 
1114(r)(1) of title 38 if the veteran suffers from severe 
service-connected physical disabilities. Also, under section 
1114(r)(2), a higher level of aid and attendance compensation, 
currently an additional $2,983 per month, is provided to 
certain veterans with severe service-connected disabilities who 
need ``a higher level of care'' in addition to regular aid and 
attendance. Under section 1114(r)(2), this higher level of 
compensation generally is provided only to a veteran who has 
suffered a severe anatomical loss, who needs ``health-care 
services provided on a daily basis in the veteran's home,'' and 
who would require institutionalization in the absence of that 
care.
    In 2007, the Veterans' Disability Benefits Commission 
provided its views on these aid and attendance provisions: 
``[T]he primary focus is on physical impairments and 
locomotion. Very little emphasis is placed on cognitive (e.g., 
TBI) or psychological impairments and the needs of those 
conditions for supervision and management as well as aid and 
attendance.'' When asked whether VA agreed with that 
assessment, a VA representative testified at the Committee's 
April 29, 2009, hearing that the higher level of aid and 
attendance compensation ``doesn't focus on the cognitive 
disabilities.''
    In connection with the Committee's April 29, 2009, hearing, 
the Committee also received written testimony from Sarah Wade, 
the wife of a veteran, Ted Wade, who suffered a severe TBI 
while serving in Iraq. In part, Mrs. Wade provided this 
assessment of the current law:

        Though veterans with severe TBI may require 24-hour 
        care, supervision for safety, or assistance with most, 
        or all, higher level activities, they are not always 
        provided the same level of compensation as a veteran 
        with a severe physical disability. Though a veteran 
        with a severe TBI may be able to perform some 
        [independent activities of daily living], they may 
        require prompting to do them or it may take much longer 
        to complete these tasks than it would have pre-injury. 
        These veterans not only need assistance with tasks they 
        can no longer perform, but also someone to facilitate, 
        or to accomplish ones they cannot keep up with. Without 
        the aid of a family member with additional resources, 
        although having no major physical disabilities, these 
        veterans are not able to reside in their own homes, and 
        therefore, will require residential care. A veteran who 
        requires a greater amount of assistance, in the home or 
        out in the community, medical or non-medical, should be 
        considered for compensation under 1114(r)(1) and 
        1114(r)(2). We believe all veterans should be given 
        access to the community whenever medically possible, 
        not homebound, and [aid and attendance] should be 
        changed to allow that.

    Committee Bill. Section 205(b) of the Committee bill would 
add a new subsection (t) to section 1114, which would provide 
that, if a veteran is in need of regular aid and attendance due 
to the residuals of TBI, is not eligible for compensation under 
section 1114(r)(2), and, in the absence of regular aid and 
attendance, would require institutional care, the veteran will 
be entitled to a monthly aid and attendance allowance 
equivalent to the allowance provided under section 1114(r)(2). 
This change would take effect on August 31, 2010.
    The Committee believes that these changes would provide 
veterans suffering from severe TBIs with the resources to 
arrange whatever services they may need to live as 
independently as possible in their own homes and to integrate 
as fully as they can into their communities.

Sec. 206. Commencement of period of payment of original awards of 
        compensation for veterans retired or separated from the 
        uniformed services for disability.

    Section 206 of the Committee bill, which is derived from 
S.1016, would eliminate the statutorily-required delay in how 
soon after discharge from service a catastrophically injured 
veteran may begin to receive VA disability compensation.
    Background. In general, if a servicemember is injured 
during service, the servicemember may go through the disability 
evaluation process at DOD to determine whether the individual 
is fit for duty and, if found to be unfit, to determine what 
rating, between 0 and 100 percent, should be assigned to the 
disabilities that render the servicemember unfit. If the 
servicemember is assigned a rating of 30 percent or higher by 
DOD, the servicemember will be medically retired from the 
military. Then, the injured veteran may go through the 
disability evaluation process at VA to be assigned a disability 
rating, which will determine the level of monthly disability 
compensation the veteran will receive from VA.
    Because of concerns about the delays and complexities of 
this disability evaluation system, DOD and VA have taken steps 
to reduce the time it takes to navigate the system and to 
create a smoother transition from military to civilian life. 
For one thing, DOD and VA recently created an expedited 
disability evaluation process for servicemembers who have 
suffered catastrophic injuries as a result of armed conflict. 
That expedited process will allow the injured servicemember to 
receive an automatic 100 percent rating from DOD and begin 
directly with the VA disability rating process.
    Although this and other actions taken by VA and DOD may 
help speed up the disability evaluation process, transitioning 
servicemembers still may experience a delay in receiving their 
VA disability compensation because of statutory mandates. 
Specifically, under section 5110(b)(1) of title 38, if a 
veteran files a claim for VA disability compensation within 1 
year after being discharged from military service, the 
effective date of an award of service connection will be the 
day after the date of discharge. However, under section 5111(a) 
of title 38 the effective date for payment of compensation 
based on that award will not be until the first day of the 
month following the month in which the service-connection award 
is effective.
    As a result, if a servicemember suffered catastrophic 
injuries during service, there may be a delay in the veteran's 
receipt of VA disability compensation, even if VA is prepared 
to award the veteran service connection immediately upon his or 
her discharge from service. For example, if an individual is 
medically retired from the military on June 30, the veteran's 
effective date for the award of service connection would be 
July 1, the effective date for the payment of compensation 
would be August 1, and the first VA disability compensation 
check would be sent on September 1, paying for August but not 
for July.
    Committee Bill. Section 206 of the Committee bill would 
amend section 5111 of title 38 to provide that, if a veteran is 
retired from the military for a catastrophic disability or 
disabilities, payment of disability compensation based on an 
original claim for benefits will be made as of the date on 
which the award of compensation becomes effective. 
``Catastrophic disability'' would be defined as a permanent, 
severely disabling injury, disorder, or disease that 
compromises the ability of the veteran to carry out the 
activities of daily living to such a degree that the veteran 
requires personal or mechanical assistance to leave home or 
bed, or requires constant supervision to avoid physical harm to 
self or others. These changes would take effect on the date of 
enactment and would apply with respect to awards of VA 
compensation based on original claims for benefits that become 
effective on or after that date.
    These changes will allow a catastrophically disabled 
veteran to leave military service at whatever time best suits 
his or her needs, without the stress and financial burden that 
may be caused by a delay in receiving VA disability 
compensation.

Sec. 207. Applicability of limitation to pension payable to certain 
        children of veterans of a period of war.

    Section 207 of the Committee bill, which is derived from 
S.728 as introduced, would treat surviving adult-disabled 
children of veterans, who receive VA death pension and are 
Medicaid recipients residing in nursing homes, in the same 
manner as veterans and surviving spouses.
    Background. As described in connection with section 204 of 
the Committee bill, under current law, a veteran with no 
dependents who is entitled to receive pension under section 
1521 of title 38 cannot be paid more than $90 per month if the 
veteran is in a nursing facility where services are covered by 
a Medicaid plan. In instances where a veteran's surviving 
spouse is entitled to receive pension under section 1541 of 
title 38, the surviving spouse also cannot be paid more than 
$90 per month if the surviving spouse has no dependents and is 
in a nursing facility where services are covered by a Medicaid 
plan. The $90 pension benefit may not be counted in determining 
eligibility for Medicaid or the patient's share of cost. It is 
to be available to the pensioner and may be used to meet his or 
her personal needs not provided under Medicaid, such as 
clothing and personal care items.
    Under section 101(4)(A) of title 38, a child is defined as 
a person who is unmarried and under the age of 18 years; before 
reaching the age of 18 years, became permanently incapable of 
self-support; or, after attaining the age of 18 years and until 
completion of education or training, but not after attaining 
the age of 23 years, is pursuing a course of instruction at an 
approved educational institution. Such a child is entitled to 
pension under section 1542 of title 38 if the income of the 
child is less than the statutory benefit amount payable to the 
child. If such a child is admitted to a nursing facility where 
services are covered by a Medicaid plan, the pension benefits 
for the child are not currently reduced to $90.
    Committee Bill. Section 207 of the Committee bill would 
amend section 5503 of title 38 so that adult-disabled children 
of veterans who receive pension under section 1542 of title 38 
and are covered by a Medicaid plan while residing in nursing 
homes, would have their pension benefits reduced in the same 
manner as veterans and surviving spouses.

Sec. 208. Payment of dependency and indemnity compensation to survivors 
        of former prisoners of war who died on or before September 30, 
        1999.

    Section 208 of the Committee bill would provide for the 
payment of DIC to the survivors of former POWs who died on or 
before September 30, 1999, under the same rules as applied to 
survivors of former POWs who die or have died after that date.
    Background. Under chapter 13 of title 38, DIC is paid to 
the surviving spouse or children of a veteran when the 
veteran's death is a result of a service-connected disability. 
In addition, VA provides DIC to the surviving spouses and 
children of veterans who have died after service from a non-
service-connected disability if the veteran had been totally 
disabled due to a service-connected disability for a continuous 
period of 10 or more years immediately preceding death or for a 
continuous period of at least 5 years after the veteran's 
release from service.
    Prior to Public Law 106-117, the Veterans' Millennium 
Health Care and Benefits Act, the survivors of former POWs were 
eligible for DIC under the same rules as all other survivors. 
However, there were concerns that many former POWs died before 
they met the 10-year statutory requirement and their surviving 
spouses were therefore not eligible for DIC. Section 501 of 
Public Law 106-117 extended eligibility for DIC to the 
survivors of former POWs who died after September 30, 1999, 
from non-service-connected causes if the former POWs were 
totally disabled due to a service-connected cause for a period 
of 1 or more years, rather than 10 or more years, immediately 
prior to death.
    Committee Bill. Section 208 of the Committee bill would 
amend section 1318(b)(3) of title 38 to make all survivors of 
former POWs eligible for DIC if the veteran died from non-
service-connected causes and was totally disabled due to a 
service-connected condition for a period of 1 or more years 
immediately prior to death, without regard to date of death.

          TITLE III--READJUSTMENT AND RELATED BENEFIT MATTERS

Sec. 301. Repeal of limitation on number of veterans enrolled in 
        programs of independent living services and assistance.

    Section 301 of the Committee bill, which is derived from 
S.514, would repeal the limitation on the number of veterans 
who are authorized to enroll annually in a program of 
independent living services and assistance conducted under 
chapter 31 of title 38, U.S.C.
    Background. Under current law, individual veterans for whom 
a determination is made that a program of rehabilitation 
leading to employment is not reasonably feasible may be 
eligible for enrollment in a program of independent living 
services, which is designed to help the veterans achieve a 
maximum level of independence in daily life. However, the 
number of veterans who in any 1 year may enroll in these 
programs is capped at 2,600.
    VA's Independent Living (hereinafter, ``IL'') Program was 
first established in 1980 by Public Law 96-466, the Veterans' 
Rehabilitation and Education Amendments of 1980. Initially, 
that law provided for the establishment of a 4-year pilot 
program designed to provide independent living services for 
severely disabled veterans for whom the achievement of a 
vocational goal was not reasonably feasible. The number of 
veterans who could be accepted annually into the IL pilot 
program was capped at 500. In 1986, the program was extended 
through 1989 and then, in 1989, it was made permanent by Public 
Law 101-237, the Veterans' Benefits Amendments of 1989. In 
2001, the 500 annual cap on enrollees was increased to 2,500 by 
Public Law 107-103, the Veterans Education and Benefits 
Expansion Act of 2001. Last year, Public Law 110-389, the 
Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2008, further increased 
the cap to 2,600.
    In earlier years, as a pilot project, the cap may have been 
appropriate in order to provide VA with an opportunity to 
manage the program in the most effective manner possible. In 
2001, it made sense to increase that cap in light of the 
increased demand and need for the program. Now, however, since 
this important program is designed to meet the needs of the 
most severely service-connected disabled veterans and more of 
those returning from combat have suffered the kind of 
devastating injuries that may make employment not reasonably 
feasible for extended periods of time, it makes sense to lift 
the cap altogether.
    In a report issued in December 2007, VA's Inspector General 
found that ``[T]he effect of the statutory cap has been to 
delay IL services to severely disabled veterans.'' This delay 
happens because VA has developed a procedure that holds 
veterans in a planning and evaluation stage when the statutory 
cap may be in danger of being exceeded.
    Committee Bill. Section 301 of the Committee bill would 
amend section 3120 of title 38 so as to strike subsection (e) 
to eliminate the cap on the IL program entirely.
    The Committee is concerned that the effect of any cap is to 
put downward pressure on VA's enrollment of eligible veterans 
in this very important program. This is of particular concern 
when so many of today's returning servicemembers suffer from 
disabilities that may require extensive periods of 
rehabilitation and assistance in achieving independence in 
their daily lives that can result from such conditions as TBI 
or PTSD.
    VA, which has testified in the past that this enrollment 
cap does not present any problem for the effective conduct of 
the program, has now also testified in support of the 
elimination of the annual enrollment cap.

Sec. 302. Eligibility of disabled veterans and members of the Armed 
        Forces with severe burn injuries for automobiles and adaptive 
        equipment.

    Section 302 of the Committee bill, which is derived from 
S.728 as introduced, would provide automobile and adaptive 
equipment assistance to disabled veterans and servicemembers 
with severe burn injuries.
    Background. Under current law, section 3901 of title 38, 
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.
    During an oversight visit to the Brooke Army Medical Center 
(hereinafter, ``BAMC'') in San Antonio, Texas, Committee staff 
learned that victims of severe burn injuries also experience 
great difficulty operating standard automobiles. BAMC is 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, like amputees 
and the vision impaired, severe burn victims frequently need 
vehicles with special adaptations. Due to the severe damage 
done to their skin, burn victims often require special 
adaptations for assistance in and out of the vehicle, seat 
comfort, and climate control.
    Committee Bill. Section 302 of the Committee bill would 
amend section 3901 of title 38 so as to include individuals 
with a service-connected disability due to a severe burn 
injury, effective October 1, 2010. 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. 303. Enhancement of automobile assistance allowance for veterans.

    Section 303 of the Committee bill, which is derived from 
S.820, would increase and provide an index for an existing VA 
grant program, which provides funds to assist severely disabled 
veterans in purchasing automobiles or other conveyances that 
can accommodate their disabilities.
    Background. In 1946, when VA's automobile assistance 
program began, the $1,600 automobile allowance represented 85 
percent of the average retail cost of an automobile. Currently, 
the $11,000 benefit represents only 37.8 percent of the cost of 
a new automobile. A benefit of $22,500 would equal 77.4 percent 
of the March 2009 average new vehicle cost, which is $29,061, 
and even that figure may be inadequate as many severely 
disabled veterans require larger and more expensive vehicles to 
accommodate their disabilities.
    Committee Bill. Section 303 of the Committee bill would 
amend section 3902 of title 38 to increase the maximum 
authorized automobile assistance allowance from $11,000 to 
$22,500, effective October 1, 2010. Section 303 would also 
direct VA to establish a method of determining the average 
retail cost of new automobiles for the preceding calendar year. 
The maximum allowance would increase, effective October 1 of 
each fiscal year, beginning in 2011, to an amount equal to 80 
percent of what VA determined to be the average retail cost of 
new automobiles for the preceding calendar year.
    The Committee notes that increases in automobile and 
adaptive equipment grants have been infrequent, despite the 
fact that the market prices of these items continue to 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 legislation aims to help 
veterans live independently and recognizes that transportation 
is a crucial part of independent living.

Sec. 304. Payment of unpaid balances of Department of Veterans Affairs 
        guaranteed loans.

    Section 304 of the Committee bill, which is derived from 
S.842, would reinforce VA's authority to purchase a VA-
guaranteed home loan from the mortgage holder, if the loan is 
modified by a bankruptcy judge under the authority of section 
1322(b) of title 11, U.S.C., by paying the unpaid balance of 
the loan, plus accrued interest, as of the date a bankruptcy 
petition is filed. The mortgage holder would first have to 
assign, transfer, and deliver to VA all rights, interest, 
claims, evidence, and records with respect to the housing loan.
    Background. The mission of the VA Home Loan Guaranty 
program is to help veterans and active duty personnel purchase 
and retain homes in recognition of their service to the Nation. 
In addition, the unmarried surviving spouse of a veteran who 
died on active duty or as the result of a service-connected 
disability is also eligible for the home loan benefit.
    Since its inception, the VA Home Loan Guaranty program has 
guaranteed over $1 trillion which accounts for 18.6 million 
loans to veterans. The Committee recognizes that this program 
has been successful. The VA home loan program has made mortgage 
credit available to many veterans whose loans otherwise would 
not have been made. In this connection, although VA borrowers 
have been directly favored by the more liberal terms on those 
loans, it is possible that these terms have induced a 
competitive liberalization of the terms on conventional 
mortgages, whose recipients have benefited as well. As a 
result, the impact of the VA home loan programs on the economy 
and on the mortgage market may exceed the actual volume of VA 
home loans.
    While section 3732 of title 38 provides default procedures 
for VA home loans and illustrates the actions VA may take to 
preserve the loan before suit or foreclosure, it does not 
address what would occur in the event an individual files for 
bankruptcy and a loan is modified under the authority provided 
under section 1322(b) of title 11.
    In the last 20 years, through its supplemental services, VA 
has assisted over 158,000 veterans, with VA-guaranteed loans at 
risk of foreclosure, retain their homes. These efforts have 
saved an estimated $3.2 billion. Amending the default 
procedures to include actions to be taken in the event a loan 
is modified under title 11 gives lenders more confidence in 
approving loans to veterans, which is advantageous to 
individuals during hard economic times.
    Committee Bill. Section 304 of the Committee bill would 
amend section 3732(a)(2) by adding a new subparagraph that 
would authorize additional default procedures for VA home loans 
in the event that a VA home loan is modified under the 
authority provided under section 1322(b) of title 11. This new 
authority would allow VA to pay the holder of the obligation 
the unpaid balance of the obligation due as of the date of the 
filing of the petition under title 11 plus accrued interest, 
but only upon the assignment, transfer, and delivery to VA in a 
form and manner satisfactory to VA of all rights, interest, 
claims, evidence, and records with respect to the housing loan.

    TITLE IV--EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF THE 
                           UNIFORMED SERVICES

Sec. 401. Waiver of sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment with 
        respect to enforcement of USERRA.

     Section 401 of the Committee bill, which is derived from 
S.263, would limit the ability of state employers to thwart 
enforcement of their employees' USERRA rights by asserting 
their immunity from individual suit under the 11th Amendment of 
the U.S. Constitution.
    Background. Under existing law, USERRA provides a number of 
important and substantive rights to an individual who leaves 
civilian employment when called to active duty military 
service--including the right to be reemployed by his or her 
pre-service employer after the completion of military service, 
the right to reenroll in employee-sponsored health care plans, 
and the right to continue to accrue seniority in a civilian 
position during a period of military service. The term 
``employer'' for USERRA purposes is broadly defined and 
specifically includes state governments. The inclusion of 
states as employers, however, has become a problem of 
constitutional dimensions when it comes to the enforcement 
mechanisms that are available.
    As originally enacted in 1994, section 4323 of USERRA 
permitted an individual to sue a State in Federal court, with 
private counsel or through the assistance of Department of 
Justice (hereinafter, ``DOJ''). In 1996, however, the Supreme 
Court decided Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 
(1996), which held, among other things, that Congress cannot 
abrogate 11th Amendment sovereign state immunity based on 
powers that predate the 11th Amendment. USERRA is based upon 
the ``war powers'' clauses of Article I, Section 8 of the 
Constitution, which predates the 11th Amendment by 8 years, and 
therefore the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in 
applying Seminole Tribe, held that USERRA did not override 
state sovereignty. Velasquez v. Frapwell, 160 F.3d 389 (7th 
Cir. 1998).
    Congress responded to Velasquez by amending USERRA later in 
1998 to authorize the Attorney General of the United States to 
bring a USERRA action against a State as an employer in the 
name of the United States as a plaintiff in the action. See 38 
U.S.C. Sec. 4323(a)(1). This addressed the 11th Amendment 
problem, because the 11th Amendment precludes suits against 
States in Federal court brought by individuals, but does not 
preclude a lawsuit against a State brought by the Attorney 
General in the name of the United States as plaintiff. Congress 
also amended USERRA in 1998 to replace the authority for 
private individuals to sue State employers in Federal court 
with authority to bring such suits in a State court of 
competent jurisdiction. McIntosh v. Partridge, 540 F.3d 315, 
321 (5th Cir. 2008); Townsend v. University of Alaska, 543 F.3d 
478, 482 (9th Cir. 2008). Since the Supreme Court decided 
Seminole Tribe and Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S.706 (1999) (States 
retain a residual sovereign immunity to private suits in their 
own courts that is similar to States' immunity to private suits 
in Federal courts), however, courts have held that Federal 
statutory provisions permitting private, individual suits 
against States are prohibited by the 11th Amendment in the 
absence of a waiver of sovereign immunity by the State. See, 
e.g., Larkins v. Department of Mental Health, 806 So.2d 358 
(Ala. 2001).
    Thus, while under existing law DOJ has the authority, and 
has exercised its authority, to bring actions against States in 
Federal district court on behalf of individuals in the name of 
the United States, individual State employees represented by 
private counsel or by themselves are not able to pursue 
important USERRA protections unless their State has waived its 
sovereign immunity.
    Committee Bill. Section 401 of the Committee Bill would 
amend section 4323 of title 38, by conditioning a State's 
receipt or use of Federal financial assistance on its waiving 
State sovereign immunity to lawsuits brought under the USERRA 
protections by individuals who are or were employees or who 
apply for employment or reemployment in programs or activities 
that receive or use Federal financial assistance. The bill also 
restores the ability of private plaintiffs to bring USERRA 
suits against State employers in Federal court.

Sec. 402. Clarifying the definition of ``successor in interest.''

    Section 402 of the Committee bill, which is derived from 
S.263, would amend section 4303 of title 38 to clarify the 
definition of ``successor in interest'' by incorporating 
language that mirrors the regulatory definition adopted by the 
Department of Labor (hereinafter, ``DOL'').
    Background. Section 4303 of title 38 uses a broad 
definition of the term ``employer'' for purposes of USERRA, 
which includes in subsection (4)(A)(iv) a ``successor in 
interest.'' In regulations, DOL has provided that an employer 
is a ``successor in interest'' where there is a substantial 
continuity in operations, facilities, and workforce from the 
former employer. Section 1002.35 of title 20, C.F.R., further 
stipulates that the determination of whether an employer is a 
successor in interest must be made on a case-by-case basis 
using a multifactor test.
    One Federal court, however, in a decision made prior to the 
promulgation of that regulation, held that an employer could 
not be a successor in interest unless there was a merger or 
transfer of assets from the first employer to the second. See 
Coffman v. Chugach Support Services, Inc., 411 F.3d 1231 (11th 
Cir. 2005); but see Murphree v. Communications Technologies, 
Inc., 460 F. Supp. 2d 702 (E.D. La 2006) (applying section 
1002.35 of title 20, C.F.R., and rejecting the Coffman merger 
or transfer of assets requirement).
    Committee Bill. Section 402 of the Committee bill would 
clarify the definition of ``successor in interest'' by 
incorporating into USERRA DOL's multifactor test for successor 
in interest.

Sec. 403. Clarifying that USERRA prohibits wage discrimination against 
        members of the Armed Forces.

    Section 403 of the Committee bill, which is derived from 
S.263, would clarify that USERRA prohibits wage discrimination 
against members of the Armed Forces.
    Background. Under current law, section 4311(a) of title 38, 
employers may not deny any ``benefit of employment'' to 
employees or applicants on the basis of membership in the 
uniformed services, application for service, performance of 
service, or service obligation. However, the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held in 2002 that USERRA does 
not prohibit wage discrimination because ``wages or salary for 
work performed'' are specifically excluded from the law's 
definition of ``benefit of employment.'' Gagnon v. Sprint 
Corp., 284 F.3d 839, 853 (8th Cir. 2002).
    Committee Bill. Section 403 of the Committee bill would 
amend section 4303(2) of title 38 to make it clear that wage 
discrimination is not permitted under USERRA. This is not 
intended, however, to require the payment of wages or salaries 
for work not performed while on military service.
    The Committee is concerned that the Gagnon decision could 
lead employers to believe that they may pay their employees 
less because they are members of the military or because they 
have military obligations, and section 403 aims to prevent any 
such mistaken belief.

Sec. 404. Requirement that Federal agencies provide notice to 
        contractors of potential USERRA obligations.

    Section 404 of the Committee bill, which is derived from 
S.263, would require Federal agencies to notify government 
contractors of their potential USERRA obligations.
    Background. The protections required to be provided by the 
provisions of USERRA apply to all employers in the private and 
public sectors, including the Federal government. Under various 
provisions of existing law, Federal agencies are permitted to 
enter into contracts with non-governmental entities for a 
variety of reasons.
    Committee Bill. Section 404 of the Committee bill would 
amend the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 
1949 (41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.) to provide that each contract for 
the procurement of property or services entered into by a non-
military agency of the Federal government must contain a notice 
that the contractor may have obligations under USERRA. Section 
404 would similarly amend title 10, U.S.C., to provide that 
contracts entered into by military agencies of the Federal 
government must contain such a notice.
    The Committee believes that it should be clear to all 
Federal agencies and their contractors that they have and share 
responsibilities for protecting the USERRA rights of returning 
servicemembers who work on Federal contracts.

Sec. 405. Comptroller General of the United States study on 
        effectiveness of Federal programs of education and outreach on 
        employer obligations under USERRA.

    Section 405 would require a Comptroller General study on 
the effectiveness of outreach and education initiatives.
    Background. Under existing policies and procedures, the 
Federal government conducts a variety of initiatives designed 
to outreach to and educate employers, veterans, and 
servicemembers about the protections and obligations provided 
under USERRA.
    Committee Bill. Section 405 of the Committee bill would 
require the Comptroller General to conduct a study on the 
effectiveness of the variety of outreach and education 
initiatives conducted. This section also sets forth specific 
assessments and evaluations that would be required to be 
addressed in the report, which would be required to be 
submitted not later than June 30, 2010.

Sec. 406. Technical amendments.

    Committee Bill. Section 406 of the Committee bill would 
make three technical and conforming changes to various 
provisions of law in order to correct cross references to 
various USERRA provisions contained in chapter 43 of title 38 
and clarify existing language in the USERRA.

                  TITLE V--BURIAL AND MEMORIAL MATTERS

Sec. 501. Supplemental benefits for veterans for funeral and burial 
        expenses.

    Section 501, which is derived from S.728 as introduced, 
would authorize supplemental benefits for veterans for funeral 
and burial expenses.
    Background. Our country has long been concerned that 
veterans have a proper burial. In 1862, President Lincoln 
signed legislation that authorized the establishment of 
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, the National Cemeteries Act, set the amount of 
service-connected and non-service-connected burial expenses at 
$800 (covering 72 percent of an average adult funeral) and $250 
(covering 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, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 
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 World War 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 capacity of VA. Congress subsequently adopted an 
``eligible to receive pension or other compensation from VA'' 
test. Congress thought this would be easier for VA to 
administer with its then-existing pension and compensation 
program.
    In 2001, in Public Law 107-103, the Veterans' Education and 
Benefits Expansion Act of 2001, 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 December 31, 2006, was 
$7,323. Section 501 is intended to increase the burial benefit 
to fight the erosion of this important benefit.
    Committee Bill. Section 501 would authorize supplemental 
benefits for both service-connected and non-service-connected 
allowances. Disbursement of these supplemental benefits would 
be subject to the availability of funds specifically provided 
for that purpose 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. 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-
death supplemental benefit would be $900 in addition to the 
current $300, for a total of $1,200 in authorized burial 
benefits. Finally, section 501 would also provide for an annual 
increase in the authorized supplemental allowance in both 
categories to preserve the purchasing power of the benefit.

Sec. 502. Supplemental plot allowances.

    Section 502, which is derived from S.728 as introduced, 
would authorize supplemental plot allowances.
    Background. 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. In 1978, Public Law 95-476, the 
Veterans' Housing Benefits Improvement Act, increased this 
allowance to $300.
    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 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 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 he/she was not 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.
    Committee Bill. Section 502 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 benefits would be subject to 
the availability of funds specifically provided for that 
purpose 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 502 would maintain the current $300 plot allowance 
and authorize a new supplemental plot allowance of $445. 
Section 502 would also provide for an annual increase in the 
authorized supplemental plot allowance to preserve the 
purchasing power of the benefit.

                        TITLE VI--OTHER MATTERS

Sec. 601. National Academies review of best treatments for Gulf War 
        Illness.

    Section 601 of the Committee bill would require VA to 
contract with the Institute of Medicine (hereinafter, ``IOM'') 
of the National Academies to conduct a comprehensive review of 
the best treatments for Gulf War Illness.
    Background. The term ``Gulf War Illness'' means a medically 
unexplained chronic multisymptom illness, such as chronic 
fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and irritable bowel syndrome, 
that is defined by a cluster of signs or symptoms relating to 
service in the Persian Gulf War in the Southwest Asian theater 
of operations or the Post-9/11 Global Operations theaters.
    After receiving research reports for more than 15 years on 
Gulf War Illness, the Committee seeks to ensure that veterans 
are provided the best forms of treatment for this condition.
    Committee Bill. Section 601 would require VA to contract 
with IOM to gather a group of medical professionals, who are 
experienced in treating individuals diagnosed with Gulf War 
Illness, in order to conduct a comprehensive review of the best 
treatments for this illness. The individuals these medical 
professionals must have experience treating must have served 
during the Persian Gulf War in the Southwest Asia theater of 
operations, or in Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other theater in 
which the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal is 
awarded for service.
    The final report on the review required by this section 
must be submitted to VA and the House and Senate Committees on 
Veterans' Affairs by December 31, 2011, and include 
recommendations for legislative or administrative actions as 
IOM considers appropriate in light of the results of that 
review.

Sec. 602. Extension of National Academy of Sciences reviews and 
        evaluations regarding illness and service in Persian Gulf War.

    Section 602 of the Committee bill would extend the National 
Academy of Sciences' reviews and evaluations regarding 
associations between illnesses and exposures, and health 
effects, as a result of Persian Gulf War service.
    Background. Public Law 105-277, the Omnibus Consolidated 
and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999, required 
VA to enter into an agreement with the National Academy of 
Sciences to review and evaluate the available scientific 
evidence regarding associations between illnesses and exposure 
to toxic agents, environmental or wartime hazards, or 
preventive medicines or vaccines associated with Persian Gulf 
War service. Congress extended these reviews and evaluations in 
Public Law 107-103, the Veterans Education and Benefits 
Expansion Act of 2001. This requirement will expire on October 
1, 2010.
    Public Law 105-368, the Veterans Programs Enhancement Act 
of 1998, required the National Academy of Sciences to examine 
the scientific and medical literature on the potential health 
effects of chemical and biological agents related to the 1991 
Gulf War. The requirement for this examination ends this year.
    The Committee believes that these reports are valuable to 
its understanding of the associations between illness and 
exposure, and health outcomes, of Persian Gulf War veterans as 
a result of the Persian Gulf War.
    Committee Bill. Section 602(a) would extend until October 
1, 2015, the mandate for the National Academy of Sciences to 
review and evaluate scientific evidence regarding associations 
between illnesses and exposure. Section 602(b) would extend 
until October 1, 2018, the requirement for the National Academy 
of Sciences to report on the health effects of exposure.

Sec. 603. Extension of Authority for Regional Office in Republic of the 
        Philippines.

    Section 603 of the Committee bill would extend until 
December31, 2011, VA's authority to operate a Regional Office 
in the Republic of the Philippines.
    Background. Section 315(b) of title 38 authorizes VA to 
maintain a regional office in the Republic of the Philippines 
until December 31, 2009. Congress has periodically extended 
this authority, most recently in Public Law 108-183, the 
Veterans Benefits Act of 2003.
    Were VA to close the Manila regional office, veterans' 
assistance activities would still be needed in the Philippines. 
A Federal Benefits Unit would have to be attached to the 
Department of State, and under such an arrangement, VA's 
control of costs and quality of service would be limited. 
Because a Federal Benefits Unit would assume responsibility 
only for disseminating information and assistance, but not 
processing benefits, there could be no assurance that the 
extensive fraud-prevention activities currently performed by 
the Manila regional office would continue. VA has determined 
that it would be more costly, and less effective, to administer 
veterans' assistance activities in the Philippines through a 
Federal Benefits Unit attached to the Department of State than 
to maintain a VA regional office.
    Committee Bill. Section 603 would authorize VA to maintain 
a regional office in the Republic of the Philippines until 
December 31, 2011.

Sec. 604. Aggregate amount of educational assistance available to 
        individuals who receive both survivors' and dependents' 
        educational assistance and other veterans and related 
        educational assistance.

    Section 604 of the Committee bill, which is derived from 
S.847, would amend section 3695 of title 38 to modify the 
maximum 
number of months of educational assistance available to certain 
individuals.
    Background. Under chapter 35 of title 38, certain survivors 
and dependents of individuals who die or are disabled while on 
active duty are eligible for educational assistance benefits. 
Section 3511(a)(1) provides that each eligible person is 
entitled to the equivalent of 45 months of full-time benefits.
    Under chapter 33 of title 38, the new program of 
educational assistance for individuals who served on active 
duty after September 11, 2001, the Post-9/11 Veterans 
Educational Assistance Act of 2008, establishes a program of 
educational assistance in which individuals may earn up to a 
maximum of 36 months of full-time benefits.
    Section 3695 of title 38 further provides that an 
individual who is eligible for assistance under two or more 
programs may not receive in excess of the equivalent of 48 
months of full-time benefits. This means that an eligible 
dependent who is entitled to receive benefits under the chapter 
35 program and who uses all 45 months of those benefits to 
obtain a college education, and who then subsequently decides 
to enter the military, would only be able to earn the 
equivalent of three months of benefits under the new Post-
9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008.
    Committee Bill. Section 604 of the Committee bill would 
amend section 3695 of title 38 to provide that an individual 
entitled to benefits under chapter 35 will not be subject to 
the 48-month cap. However, the maximum aggregate months of 
benefits an individual may receive under chapter 33 (or any 
other education program administered by VA) and chapter 35 
would be capped at 81. In part, this would allow individuals 
who use their dependents' educational assistance benefits to 
also establish in their own right entitlement to the full range 
of benefits under the new Post-9/11 Veterans Educational 
Assistance Act of 2008.

                      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 $150 million in 2010 and by $772 
million over the 2010-2014 period, assuming appropriation of 
the necessary amounts. The Committee bill would decrease net 
direct spending by $2 million in 2010, and by $28 million over 
the 2010-2019 period. S.728, as amended, would impose 
intergovernmental and private-sector mandates as defined in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) because it would require 
governmental and private-sector employers to comply with new 
federal protections under the Uniformed Services Employment and 
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). CBO estimates that the costs 
of the mandates would fall below the annual thresholds 
established in UMRA.
    The cost estimate provided by CBO, setting forth a detailed 
breakdown of costs, follows:

                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                   Washington, DC, August 25, 2009.
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 cost estimate for S.728, the Veterans' 
Benefits Enhancement Act of 2009.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Dwayne M. 
Wright.
            Sincerely,
                                      Douglas W. Elmendorf,
                                                          Director.

  Enclosure.

S.728--Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2009

    Summary: S.728 would affect several veterans programs, 
including disability compensation, pension, burial, life 
insurance, and readjustment benefits. CBO estimates that 
implementing this legislation would cost $772 million over the 
2010-2014 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary 
amounts. The bill also contains provisions that would both 
increase and decrease direct spending for veterans benefits. 
CBO estimates that enacting S.728 would decrease net direct 
spending by $28 million over the 2010-2019 period. Enacting the 
bill would have no effect on revenues.
    S.728 would impose intergovernmental and private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
because it would require governmental and private-sector 
employers to comply with new federal protections under the 
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act 
(USERRA). CBO estimates that the costs of the mandates would 
fall below the annual thresholds established in UMRA ($69 
million for intergovernmental mandates and $139 million for 
private-sector mandates in 2009, adjusted annually for 
inflation).
    Pursuant to section 311 of S. Con. Res. 70, CBO estimates 
that S.728 would not cause a net increase in deficits in excess 
of $5 billion in any of the four 10-year periods beginning 
after 2019.
    Estimated cost to the Federal government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of S.728 is summarized in Table 1. The costs 
of this legislation fall within budget function 700 (veterans 
benefits and services).
    Basis of estimate: For the purposes of this estimate, CBO 
assumes that S.728 will be enacted near the start of fiscal 
year 2010.

                                  Table 1.--Estimated Budgetary Impact of S.728
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2010       2011       2012       2013       2014    2010-2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Estimated Authorization Level.................        150        155        153        155        159        772
Estimated Outlays.............................        150        155        153        155        159        772

                                           CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

Estimated Budget Authority....................         -2         47       -100       -141       -146       -340
Estimated Outlays.............................         -2         47       -100       -141       -146       -340
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: In addition to the direct spending effects shown here, enacting S.728 would have additional effects on
  direct spending after 2014 (see Table 3). CBO estimates that net direct spending over the 2010-2019 period
  would decrease by $28 million.
Details may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Spending Subject to Appropriation

    S.728 contains provisions that would increase discretionary 
spending for several benefits provided by the Department of 
Veterans Affairs (VA). CBO estimates that implementing those 
provisions would cost $772 million over the 2010-2014 period, 
assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts (see Table 2).
    Supplemental Funeral and Burial Expenses. Under current 
law, VA pays funeral expenses of up to $300 for certain 
deceased veterans. VA also pays up to $2,000 for burial 
expenses to the survivors of veterans who die as a result of a 
service-connected disability. Section 501 authorize 
supplemental payments--subject to availability of funds 
provided for that purpose--that 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.
    Based on information from VA regarding veteran mortality, 
CBO expects about 86,000 grants to be made for funeral expenses 
in 2010 increasing to about 92,200 by 2014. For burial 
expenses, CBO expects about 16,000 grants to be made in 2010 
increasing to about 18,000 in 2014. We estimate that 
implementing this section would cost $582 million over the 
2010-2014 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary 
amounts.

                           Table 2.--Components of Discretionary Spending Under S.728
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   2010       2011       2012       2013       2014    2010-2014
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

Supplemental Funeral and Burial Expenses
    Estimated Authorization Level.............        111        114        116        119        122        582
    Estimated Outlays.........................        111        114        116        119        122        582
Supplemental Plot Allowances
    Estimated Authorization Level.............         31         32         33         34         35        165
    Estimated Outlays.........................         31         32         33         34         35        165
Regional Office in the Philippines
    Estimated Authorization Level.............          5          6          2          0          0         13
    Estimated Outlays.........................          5          6          2          0          0         13
Review of Illnesses Related to Service in the
 Persian Gulf War
    Estimated Authorization Level.............          2          2          2          2          2         10
    Estimated Outlays.........................          2          2          2          2          2         10
Reports
    Estimated Authorization Level.............          1          1          *          0          0          2
    Estimated Outlays.........................          1          1          *          0          0          2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Changes
        Estimated Authorization Level.........        150        155        153        155        159        772
        Estimated Outlays.....................        150        155        153        155        159        772
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: * = less than $500,000.

    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 
502 would increase the plot allowance to $745 and adjust the 
payment annually by a cost-of-living index. Based on 
information from VA on veterans mortality rates, CBO expects 
about 71,000 grants to be made for plot allowances in 2010, 
increasing to about 76,000 by 2014. We estimate that 
implementing section 502 would increase the cost of this 
program by $165 million over the 2010-2014 period, assuming 
appropriation of the necessary amounts.
    Regional Office in the Philippines. Section 603 would 
extend--through December 31, 2011--VA's authority to operate a 
regional office in the Republic of the Philippines. Under 
current law, that authority expires on December 31, 2009. 
Currently, the cost to operate that office is about $6 million 
per year. After accounting for inflation, CBO estimates that 
enacting section 603 would cost $13 million over the 2010-2012 
period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts.
    Review of Illnesses Related to Service in the Persian Gulf 
War. Section 602 would extend the deadlines for completing two 
studies by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) regarding 
illness associated with service in the Persian Gulf War. The 
NAS review of toxic drugs and illnesses associated with the 
Persian Gulf War would be extended by five years, from October 
1, 2010, to October 1, 2015. The NAS review regarding health 
problems associated with service in the Persian Gulf would be 
extended from September 30, 2009, to October 1, 2018. Based on 
information from NAS, CBO estimates that extending the 
deadlines for completing those studies would cost $10 million 
over the 2010-2014 period, assuming appropriation of the 
necessary amounts.
    Reports. S.728 would require both VA and the Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) to prepare and submit reports to 
the Congress. Section 601 would require VA to enter into a 
contract with the Institutes of Medicine to conduct a review of 
the best treatments for Gulf War illness and to submit a report 
by December 31, 2011. Section 405 would require GAO to prepare 
a report by June 30, 2010, on the effectiveness of programs 
intended to educate employers on their obligations under the 
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. CBO 
estimates that completing the required reports would cost $2 
million over the 2010-2012 period, assuming availability of the 
necessary amounts.

Direct Spending

    S.728 contains a number of provisions that would both 
increase and decrease direct spending. CBO estimates that 
enacting those provisions would decrease net direct spending by 
$340 million over the 2010-2014 period and $28 million over the 
2010-2019 period (see Table 3).
    Pensions for Veterans in Medicaid Nursing Homes. Section 
204 would extend from September 30, 2011, to September 30, 
2014, the expiration date of a provision of current law that 
sets a $90 per month limit on pensions paid to any veteran 
without a spouse or child, or to any survivor of a veteran, who 
is receiving Medicaid coverage in a Medicaid-approved nursing 
home. The law also allows the beneficiary to retain the pension 
instead of having to use it to defray nursing home costs. Using 
data provided by VA, CBO estimates that in 2010 about 15,000 
veterans and 19,000 survivors would be affected by this 
provision and that the average savings to VA would total about 
$18,600 per veteran and $11,600 per survivor in that year. 
Extrapolating from this estimate to account for mortality and 
new nursing home patients, CBO estimates the provision would 
save VA $1.5 billion over the 2012-2014 period. Higher Medicaid 
payments to nursing homes would offset some of those savings. 
We estimate that those costs would total about $920 million 
over the 2012-2014 period, resulting in a net savings of $545 
million over the period.
    Enhanced Automobile Assistance. Seriously disabled veterans 
who have lost the use of one or both hands or feet or who have 
suffered a severe vision impairment as the result of a service-
connected injury or disease are eligible to receive a grant of 
$11,000 to purchase an automobile. Those veterans are also 
entitled to receive the adaptive equipment necessary for them 
to safely operate their vehicles, and to have that equipment 
repaired or replaced as necessary.
    Section 303 would increase the amount of the automobile 
grant from $11,000 to $22,500 in 2011. As the average retail 
cost of new automobiles increases in future years, the benefit 
would be adjusted to cover 80 percent of that cost. CBO 
estimates that doubling the benefit would cause the number of 
veterans receiving automobile grants to increase by 10 percent 
to approximately 1,600 veterans annually. CBO estimates that 
section 303 would increase the cost of automobile grants by 
$170 million over the 2010-2019 period.
    The additional grantees also would be provided with the 
adaptive equipment necessary for them to safely operate the 
vehicles. Based on the level of current grant payments, CBO 
estimates that section 303 would increase the cost of adaptive 
equipment grants by 
$19 million over the 2010-2019 period. In total, CBO estimates 
that section 303 would increase direct spending for automobile 
and adaptive equipment grants by $189 million over the 2010-
2019 
period.
    Remove Cap on Independent Living. Section 301 would remove 
the cap on the number of veterans allowed to participate in the 
Independent Living program. Under current law, participation is 
capped at 2,600 veterans each year. The Independent Living 
program provides services to maximize independence in daily 
living for veterans who are too severely disabled to pursue 
employment. Based on information from VA, CBO estimates that 
this section would raise participation in the program by about 
200 veterans in 2010 and by over 2,000 veterans annually by 
2019 at a cost of approximately $13,000 per participating 
veteran in 2010. Accounting for inflation, CBO estimates that 
enacting section 301 would increase direct spending by $181 
million over the 2010-2019 period.

                                                   Table 3.--Components of Direct Spending Under S.728
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   Outlays in millions of dollars, by fiscal year--
                                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2010   2011   2012   2013   2014   2015   2016   2017   2018   2019  2010-2014  2010-2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDINGa

Pensions for Veterans in Medicaid Nursing Homes.............      0      0   -153   -196   -196      0      0      0      0      0     -545       -545
Enhanced Automobile Assistance..............................      0     17     19     21     21     21     22     22     23     23       78        189
Remove Cap on Independent Living............................      2      4      8     12     16     21     24     28     31     35       42        181
Enhanced VMLI...............................................      0      3      5      5      6      6      6      7      7      7       19         52
Expansion of Retroactive Benefits for T-SGLI................      0     19     14     10      2      2      0      0      0      0       45         47
Special Monthly Pension.....................................     -4     -4     -4     -4     -4     -4     -4     -4     -4     -4      -20        -42
Enhanced Disability Compensation for Veterans with TBI......      0      5      5      5      4      4      4      4      4      4       19         39
Exemption of Survivors and Dependents from 48-month               0      2      2      2      2      2      2      3      3      3        8         21
 Limitation on Educational Benefits.........................
Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for Individuals with           0      *      3      2      1      1      *      *      1      1        6          9
 Severe Burns...............................................
Supplemental Service-Disabled Insurance.....................      *      *      *      1      1      1      1      1      1      1        2          7
Payments to Survivors of Former POWs........................      *      1      1      1      1      1      1      1      *      *        4          6
Commencement of Period of Payment for Veterans with               *      *      *      *      *      *      *      *      *      *        1          3
 Catastrophic Disabilities..................................
Cost-of-Living Adjustment for Surviving Spouses.............      0      0      0      *      *      *      *      *      *      *        *          3
Consideration of Dominant Hand as Qualifying Loss for T-SGLI      *      *      *      *      *      *      *      *      *      *        *          2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Changes...........................................     -2     47   -100   -141   -146     55     56     62     66     70     -340        -28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: VMLI = Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance; T-SGLI = Traumatic Servicemembers Group Life Insurance; TBI = Traumatic Brain Injury; POWs = Prisoners of
  Wars; * = less than $500,000.
aDetails may not sum to totals because of rounding.

    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 veteran's death. 
VMLI is restricted to those 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 105 would increase that amount to $15,000 as 
of October 2, 2010, and 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 2,200 policyholders to take advantage of the increased 
coverage in 2011, decreasing to about 1,900 by 2019. Based on 
the current cost of the program, CBO estimates that enacting 
section 105 would increase direct spending by $52 million over 
the 2010-2019 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 such injuries as a result of 
their service in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi 
Freedom (OEF/OIF). Section 103 would extend that retroactive 
benefit to all veterans who suffered a qualifying traumatic 
injury 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 (the most recent period for which data can be 
obtained), 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 about 2,500 war-related claims 
will be made for the period of October 7, 2001, to November 30, 
2005. Under section 103, we estimate that 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 103 would 
increase direct spending by $47 million over the 2010-2019 
period.
    Special Monthly Pension (SMP). VA provides basic pension 
benefits for war veterans with low incomes who are totally 
disabled and whose disabilities are unrelated to their service. 
A larger benefit is available to such veterans who have 
multiple disabilities. The SMP is payable at one level for 
veterans considered ``housebound'' and at a higher level, for 
those unable to care for themselves (known as the ``aid and 
attendance'' level).
    As of 2001, war veterans over age 65 with low incomes 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\ To qualify to receive the 
SMP at the housebound level, veterans over age 65 were required 
to have two disabilities; one disability rated at 100 percent 
and one rated at 60 percent or greater. The Court of Appeals 
for Veterans Claims (CAVC) 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 housebound SMP. 
Pursuant to that holding, VA has recently begun to pay that 
higher amount to veterans over 65 with a single disability 
rated at 60 percent or greater.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\Robert A. Hartness v. R. James Nicholson, VA 20 Vet. App. 216 
(2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Section 202 would change the eligibility requirements for 
SMPs to those in force before the court ruling, reducing the 
number of veterans eligible for SMPs and thereby reducing the 
cost of the pension program. Based on data from VA, CBO 
estimates that, of the veterans over age 65 (about 15,700) who 
are receiving the basic pension without a requirement of 
disability, about 1,000 are receiving an SMP due to the CAVC 
decision.
    In addition, CBO estimates that under current law about 300 
new pension recipients will qualify for the SMPs because of the 
court ruling each year. Thus, CBO estimates that a total of 
1,300 additional veterans will receive SMPs in 2010, and, using 
normal mortality rates for that population and adding in each 
year's cohort of new pensioners, that by 2019, about 1,400 
pensioners will receive SMPs because of the court ruling.
    The maximum annual pension rate for a veteran with no 
dependents in 2009 is $11,830. The similar rate for housebound 
SMPs is $14,457. After adjusting for cost-of-living increases, 
by 2019 the difference between the maximum annual pension rate 
and the housebound SMP rate would be about $3,000. Using those 
increases in benefit levels and the populations specified 
above, CBO estimates that under current law the effect of this 
court ruling will be to increase direct spending on veterans 
pensions by $42 million over the 2010-2019 period. Enacting 
section 202 would undo that increase, resulting in savings of 
that amount.
    Enhanced Disability Compensation for Veterans with 
Traumatic Brain Injuries (TBI). Section 205 would increase the 
amount of aid and attendance (A&A) that certain veterans are 
eligible to receive. Eligible veterans would be those who 
suffer from the residual effects of service-connected TBI and 
who, without the increased A&A payment, would require 
hospitalization, nursing home care, or some other form of 
institutional care. Section 205 would take effect on August 31, 
2010.
    Based on data from VA, CBO estimates that in 2010, 150 
veterans would qualify for an increased monthly payment under 
section 205. Given the age of the population and the severity 
of their disabilities, CBO expects that population to decrease 
to about 40 in 2019. Similarly, CBO assumes that an additional 
10 veterans per year with residual effects of TBI will become 
eligible for a higher rate of A&A under section 205. Assuming a 
similar mortality rate, CBO expects that by 2019 about 60 
veterans would be eligible for this enhanced benefit.
    Under section 205, in 2010, eligible veterans would receive 
a benefit increase of $2,923 per month ($35,076 annually). 
After adjusting for estimated cost-of-living increases, that 
amount would be $3,241 ($38,888 annually) in 2019. Based on our 
estimates of the affected population and the amount of the 
benefit increase, CBO expects that enacting section 205 would 
increase direct spending by $39 million over the 2010-2019 
period.
    Exemption of Survivors and Dependents from 48-month 
Limitation on Educational Benefits. Spouses and children of 
certain deceased or totally disabled veterans are eligible for 
up to 45 months of veterans' educational benefits. If the 
survivors and dependents are eligible for additional 
educational benefits due to their own military service or 
through the transfer of benefits, they are limited to a total 
of 48 months of benefits. Beginning October 1, 2010, section 
604 would allow such survivors and dependents to use a maximum 
of 81 months of benefits. Based on information from the 
Department of Defense (DOD), CBO estimates that approximately 
100 survivors each year would use the additional benefits. We 
estimate that section 604 would increase direct spending by $21 
million over the 2010-2019 period.
    Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for Individuals with 
Severe Burns. Beginning in October 2010 section 302 would 
expand eligibility for automobile and adaptive equipment grants 
for disabled veterans to include totally disabled veterans with 
severe burn injuries. Based on information from the services, 
CBO estimates that nearly 150 current veterans would qualify 
for automobile and adaptive equipment grants immediately under 
this expansion, and that, on average, an additional 15 veterans 
would become eligible annually.
    Through 2019, CBO estimates that a total of 270 additional 
veterans would receive grants under this section. Those 
veterans would be eligible for the automobile grant at the 
$22,500 level, as increased under section 303. They also would 
be eligible to receive the necessary adaptive equipment to 
operate their vehicles safely and to have that equipment 
replaced at intervals. Between 2010 and 2019, CBO estimates 
that section 302 would increase the cost for automobile grants 
by $6 million and the cost for adaptive equipment grants by $3 
million. In total, CBO estimates that section 302 would 
increase direct spending by $9 million over the 2010-2019 
period.
    Supplemental Service-Disabled Insurance (S-DVI). Section 
101 would increase the amount of supplemental S-DVI coverage 
available from $20,000 to $30,000.
    S-DVI is a life insurance program for veterans with 
service-related disabilities. They must apply for the program 
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 
65th birthday.
    Based on VA's actuarial projections of current and future 
policyholders, premium payments, and death claims, CBO expects 
about 2,000 policyholders would take advantage of the increased 
coverage in 2010, increasing to about 15,100 by 2019. Using 
mortality rates appropriate to this population, CBO estimates 
that enacting section 101 would increase direct spending by $7 
million over the 2010-2019 period.
    Payments to Survivors of Former Prisoners-of-War (POWs). 
Under current law, survivors of veterans who die as a result of 
a service-connected disability are eligible to receive 
dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC). Survivors of 
certain veterans who die from a nonservice-connected condition 
also can qualify to receive DIC, including former POWs who were 
rated totally disabled for at least one year prior to their 
death and who died after September 30, 1999.
    Section 208 would extend eligibility for DIC to survivors 
of such POWs who died before September 30, 1999.
    Based on data provided by VA, CBO estimates that about 285 
survivors would be newly eligible for DIC under section 208. 
Many of the affected veterans died many years ago and we expect 
that many of their survivors will have lost touch with 
veterans' organizations that could inform them about the new 
benefit. We also expect that some survivors will have 
remarried, making them ineligible for DIC. Given these factors, 
CBO assumes that only about one-third, (about 95) of the 
eligible survivors would apply for DIC under the bill. CBO also 
assumes that these new DIC cases would phase in over a five-
year period as eligible survivors learn about their eligibility 
and apply for benefits from VA.
    The average DIC payment in fiscal year 2008 was $13,676. 
Such payments are adjusted annually for increases in the cost 
of living. CBO estimates that enacting section 208 would 
increase direct spending by $6 million over the 2010-2019 
period.
    Commencement of Period of Payment for Veterans with 
Catastrophic Disabilities. Section 206 would enable veterans 
who are retired or separated from active-military service due 
to catastrophic disabilities (i.e., they are unable to carry 
out the activities of daily living or require supervision to 
avoid physical harm to self or others) to begin receiving 
disability compensation payments from VA as of their date of 
discharge. Under current law, such payments begin on the first 
day of the month immediately following the month for which a 
claim was filed.
    Based on information from the DOD on retirees, CBO expects 
about 200 veterans each year would be eligible for one 
additional payment for half a month. In 2008, the average 
monthly payment for a veteran rated at 100 percent disabled was 
about $2,900. These payments are adjusted annually for cost-of-
living increases, so the average benefit payment for such a 
veteran in 2010 will be about $3,390. Assuming that on average, 
each of the 200 veterans would receive half an additional 
payment, CBO assumes direct spending would increase by $3 
million over the 2010-2019 period.
    Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA) 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 201 would increase the 
$250 benefit by the same annual COLA applied to the regular DIC 
benefit for about 2,000 spouses per year. CBO estimates that 
this provision would not increase the monthly benefit for 2010 
because we do not estimate that there will be a COLA for 2010. 
By 2019, the monthly benefit payment is projected to be $277, 
relative to current law and CBO's baseline. CBO estimates that 
enacting section 201 would increase direct spending for 
veterans compensation by $3 million over the 2010-2019 period.
    Consideration of Dominant Hand as Qualifying Loss for T-
SGLI. Section 104 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 
that program. From the start of the T-SGLI program on December 
1, 2005, through February 2008, there were about 90 claims for 
the loss of one hand, representing claims made retroactive to 
the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003. CBO assumes that 
half of those cases were for the dominant hand--45 cases or 9 
per year--and would have qualified under section 104. Assuming 
a similar rate going forward of nine claims per year, with a 
payment of $25,000 per claim, CBO estimates that enacting 
section 104 would cost $2 million over the 2010-2019 period.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: The USERRA 
requires governmental and private-sector employers to grant 
employment and reemployment rights to members of the uniformed 
services. S.728 would expand benefits under the bill to include 
wage and salary protections; such an expansion constitutes a 
mandate as defined in UMRA. Based on discussions with agency 
officials, CBO estimates that most employers currently comply 
the new standards and thus the cost of complying with the 
mandates would fall below the annual thresholds established in 
UMRA for both intergovernmental and private-sector mandates 
($69 million and $139 million in 2009, respectively, adjusted 
annually for inflation).
    Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Compensation, Pension, 
and Burial Insurance--Dwayne M. Wright; Readjustment Benefits--
Camille Woodland; Impact on State, Local, and Tribal 
Governments: Lisa Ramirez Branum; Impact on the Private Sector: 
Elizabeth Bass.
    Estimate approved by: Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

                      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 May 21, 2009, meeting. The Committee, 
by voice vote, ordered S.728 reported favorably to the Senate, 
subject to amendment.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Yeas                                 Senator                                 Nays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      X (by proxy)   Mr. Rockefeller
                                 X   Mrs. Murray
                      X (by proxy)   Mr. Sanders
                                 X   Mr. Brown
                                 X   Mr. Webb
                                 X   Mr. Tester
                                 X   Mr. Begich
                                 X   Mr. Burris
                      X (by proxy)   Mr. Specter
                                 X   Mr. Burr
                                 X   Mr. Isakson
                      X (by proxy)   Mr. Wicker
                                 X   Mr. Johanns
                                     Mr. Graham
                                 X   Mr. Akaka, Chairman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                14   TALLY                                                                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                             Agency Report

    On April 29, 2009, Bradley G. Mayes, Director, Compensation 
and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, 
Department of Veterans Affairs, appeared before the Committee 
at a hearing on pending benefits legislation and submitted 
testimony on, S.263, S.347, S.514, S.728, S.820, S.842, S.919, 
S.1015, and S.1016, among other bills. Excerpts from this 
statement are reprinted below:

  PREPARED STATEMENT OF BRADLEY G. MAYES, DIRECTOR, COMPENSATION AND 
                       PENSION SERVICE, VETERANS 
      BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

    Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am pleased to 
be here today to provide the Department of Veterans Affairs' 
(VA) views on pending benefits legislation. I will not be able 
to address a few of the bills on today's agenda because VA 
received them in insufficient time to coordinate the 
Administration's position and develop cost estimates, but we 
will provide that information in writing for the record. Those 
bills are S.315, section 203 of S.728, S.847, the draft 
``Clarification of Characteristics of Combat Service Act of 
2009,'' and a draft bill to modify the commencement of the 
period of payment of original awards of compensation for 
veterans who are retired or separated from the uniformed 
services for disability.

         S.263 ``SERVICEMEMBERS ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT OF 2009''

    S.263, the ``Servicemembers Access to Justice Act of 
2009,'' would make several revisions to the Uniformed Services 
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, as amended. 
Because that Act is administered by the Department of Labor, VA 
defers to the Department of Labor concerning the 
Administration's position on S.263.
    Because this bill required extensive coordination among 
several VA components, we did not have sufficient time before 
this hearing to finalize a position. However, we will provide 
our position to the Committee in writing for the record.

                                 S.347

    The Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program includes 
protection for covered servicemembers from certain qualifying 
losses directly resulting from traumatic injury in service 
(known as Traumatic Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance or 
``TSGLI''). Current law requires that the qualifying losses 
prescribed by VA by regulation include ``[l]oss of a hand * * * 
at or above the wrist.'' Section 1(a) of S.347 would authorize 
VA, in specifying the amount of the payment to be made under 
the TSGLI program for each qualifying loss, to distinguish 
between the severity of a qualifying loss of a dominant hand 
and a qualifying loss of a non-dominant hand. Section 1(b) 
would require VA to issue regulations providing mechanisms for 
payments for such losses incurred before the date of enactment 
of this bill.
    VA does not support enactment of this bill because it is 
unnecessary. VA already has the authority to adjust the 
schedule of payments under the TSGLI program as needed. 
Furthermore, VA has previously considered, as part of its 
``Year-One Review'' of the TSGLI program, whether the payment 
for a qualifying loss of a dominant hand should be higher than 
the payment for a qualifying loss of a non-dominant hand and 
concluded that it should not, for the reasons discussed below.
    The TSGLI program is modeled after the accidental death and 
dismemberment programs in the commercial sector. In the 
commercial sector, there is no precedent for paying a higher 
benefit for a ``dominant'' hand. Furthermore, medical 
professionals we consulted on the issue of dominance of one 
hand or arm in the course of the Year-One Review commented that 
some individuals use the ``non-dominant'' arm as the primary 
arm for a few activities, i.e., there is some degree of 
variability with respect to which arm is dominant for different 
activities. They also pointed out that some individuals are 
ambidextrous. These factors would complicate the adjudication 
of such claims.
    The purpose of the TSGLI program is to provide short-term 
financial assistance to servicemembers and their families 
because the families often suffer financial hardship to be with 
the injured members during their treatment and recovery 
periods. The amount of a payment depends on the nature of the 
injury and the expected time needed for recovery. There is no 
evidence to date that loss of a dominant hand requires a longer 
recovery and rehabilitation period than loss of a non-dominant 
hand does.
    We are also concerned about the impact of this proposal on 
our ability to maintain a peacetime premium of $1.00 per month, 
as Congress intended. Although the relatively low incidence of 
amputation of the dominant hand alone would not likely affect 
the premium, it would open the door to requests for disparate 
treatment of other injuries, such as loss of a dominant foot or 
leg, the dominant eye, burns on the dominant side of the body, 
etc. The establishment of higher payments for other dominant-
side losses could result in the need to charge a higher premium 
for coverage.
    The law provides that covered members are covered against 
inability to carry out the activities of daily living resulting 
from traumatic brain injury and defines the term ``inability to 
carry out the activities of daily living'' as inability to 
independently perform 2 or more of 6 specified functions, such 
as bathing, dressing, and eating. We are also concerned that 
enactment of S.347 could result in requests for disparate 
treatment if it were alleged that traumatic brain injuries had 
a greater impact on the dominant side of the body than the non-
dominant side.
    Finally, VA's compensation program, not TSGLI, is designed 
to compensate for the long-term effects of injuries incurred in 
service. The compensation program does pay a greater benefit 
for loss of a dominant hand.
    VA estimates that enactment of S.347 would result in costs 
of $1.1 million over five years and $2.3 million over ten 
years.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


       S.514 ``VETERANS REHABILITATION AND TRAINING IMPROVEMENTS 
                             ACT OF 2009''

    S.514, the ``Veterans Rehabilitation and Training 
Improvements Act of 2009,'' would provide for an increase in 
the amount of subsistence allowance payable by VA to veterans 
participating in vocational rehabilitation programs under 
chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code, allow reimbursement 
of certain costs to those veterans, and remove the limitation 
on the number of veterans who may be provided programs of 
independent living.
    Specifically, section 2 of S.514 would increase the rates 
of subsistence allowance provided veterans under section 
3108(b) of title 38, United States Code. The amount of monthly 
subsistence allowance payable would be equal to the national 
average of the amount of basic allowance for housing payable 
under section 403 of title 37, United States Code, for a member 
of the uniformed services in pay grade E-5. The revision would 
increase the amount of subsistence allowance provided to 
veterans participating in training and employment services 
under chapter 31 to be roughly equivalent to the housing 
allowance veterans will receive under the chapter 33 Post-9/11 
GI Bill.
    Section 3 of the bill would authorize reimbursement of 
costs incurred by a veteran as a direct consequence of 
participation in a rehabilitation program under chapter 31. 
Such cost would include child-care expenses and clothing for 
employment interviews, as well as other costs VA would 
prescribe in regulations. Reimbursement of these costs could 
serve as an incentive for veterans to complete their 
rehabilitation programs.
    Section 4 of the bill would remove section 3120(e) from 
chapter 31, thereby removing the limitation on the number of 
veterans who may enter independent living programs each fiscal 
year.
    We support, in principle, efforts to facilitate successful 
completion of vocational rehabilitation programs under chapter 
31, and we recognize that increasing the subsistence allowance 
and reimbursements provided to veterans participating in 
training and employment services will encourage more veterans 
to continue their rehabilitation programs. Increased rates of 
subsistence allowance would allow veterans to pursue 
rehabilitation on a full-time basis, leading to entry into 
employment in a shorter period of time. However, we are unable 
to support sections 2 and 3 of S.514 at this time.
    Recent changes to VA education benefits, including the new 
Post-9/11 GI Bill, may affect chapter 31 participation and 
completion rates. In addition, as recommended by the Dole-
Shalala Commission on Wounded Warriors, VA is currently 
completing a review of its compensation program and proposed 
transition payments, which may have implications for the 
vocational rehabilitation program. Complete review of 
comprehensive benefits, including possible transition benefits 
and current subsistence allowance, is necessary before VA can 
fully evaluate the subsistence allowance and reimbursement 
increases proposed in S.514. The Department plans to evaluate 
its total benefit package and recommend necessary improvements. 
For these reasons, and due to the bill's large increase in 
direct costs without an identified offset, VA cannot support 
this bill. VA estimates that the costs for sections 2 and 3 of 
S.514 if enacted would be $361.4 million during the first year, 
$2.2 billion over five years, and $4.4 billion over ten years.
    Subject to the availability of offsets for additional costs 
associated with the expansion, VA does not object to the 
removal of the limitation on the number of veterans who may 
enter programs of independent living so that all veterans who 
need independent living services now and in the future may 
receive them. In 2007, in connection with a similar provision, 
VA estimated that costs would be $2.9 million in the first year 
and $104 million over ten years. We will provide for the record 
an updated cost estimate for section 4 of S.514.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


         S.728 ``VETERANS' INSURANCE AND BENEFITS ENHANCEMENT 
                             ACT OF 2009''

                       TITLE I--INSURANCE MATTERS

    Section 101 of S.728, the ``Veterans' Insurance and 
Benefits Enhancement Act of 2009,'' would create a new life 
insurance program that would provide up to $50,000 of coverage 
to veterans who are less than 65 years old and have a service-
connected disability. A veteran would be able to elect an 
amount less than $50,000 that is evenly divisible by $10,000, 
but the amount of an insured's coverage would decrease by 80 
percent at age 70. To obtain coverage, an eligible veteran 
would have to apply for the insurance not later than 2 years 
after being notified by VA that he or she has a service-
connected disability or 10 years after separation from the 
Armed Forces, whichever date is earlier. Premiums would be 
based on the 2001 Commissioners Standard Ordinary Basic Table 
of Mortality and interest at the rate of 4\1/2\ percent per 
year, and they would not increase while the insurance is in 
force. Premiums would be waived for certain veterans who have a 
totally disabling service-connected disability or who are 70 
years of age or older.
    The insurance would be granted on a nonparticipating basis. 
All premiums would be credited to a revolving fund in the 
United States Treasury, from which any payments would be 
directly made. Appropriations to the fund would be authorized. 
Administrative costs for the program would be paid from 
premiums. Payments for claims in excess of the amounts credited 
to the fund would be paid from appropriations. There would be a 
one-year open season beginning on April 1, 2010, during which a 
veteran currently insured under Service-Disabled Veterans' 
Insurance (SDVI) who is under age 65 could exchange his or her 
SDVI for the new insurance. However, an insured's combined 
amount of coverage under SDVI, Supplemental SDVI, and the new 
program could not exceed $50,000.
    Currently, SDVI provides up to $10,000 in coverage, as 
either a permanent or term insurance plan, and premiums are 
based on an insured's age until the insured reaches age 70, 
when the premium rates are capped. SDVI insureds who become 
eligible for a waiver of premiums due to total disability can 
obtain Supplemental SDVI of up to $20,000, for a total 
available amount of SDVI coverage of $30,000. Current SDVI 
premium rates per $1,000 of coverage are higher than quotes for 
healthy individuals from commercial life insurance companies.
    Subject to Congress' enactment of legislation offsetting 
the increased costs that would be associated with the enactment 
of this section, VA supports section 101 because it would meet 
service-disabled veterans' needs by providing more adequate 
amounts of life 
insurance than currently available under the SDVI program at 
more reasonable rates that would be level for the life of the 
insured.
    However, VA does not support paying for administrative 
costs from premiums because the Administration believes that 
the cost of entitlements should be separate and distinct from 
the cost of administering those entitlements. Furthermore, we 
do not believe that supplementing a discretionary appropriation 
with mandatory receipts is an appropriate budgeting practice.
    VA estimates that enactment of section 101 would result in 
costs of $83.0 million over 5 years and $326 million over 10 
years.
    Section 102 would increase the maximum amount of 
Supplemental SDVI from $20,000 to $30,000.
    VA supports section 102, provided Congress identifies an 
offsetting source of funding. By increasing to $30,000 the 
amount of available supplemental SDVI, this provision would 
address a major concern of veterans, as reported in the study 
``Program Evaluation of Benefits for Survivors of Veterans with 
Service-Connected Disabilities.'' It would increase the 
financial security of disabled veterans by affording them the 
opportunity to purchase additional life insurance coverage 
otherwise not available to them.
    VA estimates that enactment would result in costs of $2.1 
million over 5 years and $7.3 million over 10 years.
    Section 103 would remove the geographic requirement for 
eligibility for retroactive TSGLI benefits. It would extend 
eligibility for retroactive benefits for traumatic injury 
protection coverage under TSGLI to all members of the uniformed 
services who sustained a qualifying loss from a traumatic 
injury between October 7, 2001, and November 30, 2005, 
regardless of geographic location.
    Section 1032 of Public Law No. 109-13 authorized the 
payment of TSGLI to any servicemember insured under 
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) who sustains a 
traumatic injury that results in one of certain losses. Under 
section 1032(c) of Public Law 109-13, TSGLI also was authorized 
for members of the uniformed services who experienced a 
traumatic injury between October 7, 2001, and December 1, 2005, 
provided the qualifying loss was a direct result of injuries 
incurred in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) or Operation Iraqi 
Freedom (OIF). Section 501 (b)(1) of the Veterans' Housing 
Opportunity and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006, Public Law 
109-233, narrowed eligibility for retroactive TSGLI to apply 
only to servicemembers who suffered a qualifying loss as a 
direct result of a traumatic injury incurred in the theater of 
operations for OEF or OIF during the period beginning on 
October 7, 2001, and ending at the close of November 30, 2005. 
Section 103 would eliminate the requirements that a qualifying 
loss directly result from a traumatic injury incurred in the 
theater of operations for OEF or OIF. The amendment would be 
effective on January 1, 2010.
    VA defers to the Department of Defense (DOD) on the merits 
of this section, because DOD would bear the costs associated 
with its enactment. VA estimates that enactment of section 103, 
which would provide retroactive eligibility for the period from 
October 7, 2001, through November 30, 2005, would result in a 
cost of $47.7 million for the entire period.
    Veterans' Mortgage Life Insurance (VMLI) is available to 
eligible individuals age 69 or younger with severe service-
connected disabilities who receive a specially adapted housing 
grant. Currently, the maximum amount of VMLI provided is the 
lesser of $90,000 or the amount of the loan outstanding on the 
housing unit. Section 104 would increase the $90,000 limitation 
to $150,000 and then $200,000 after January 1, 2012.
    Subject to Congress' enactment of legislation offsetting 
the increased costs that would be associated with the enactment 
of this section, VA supports section 104 because the percentage 
of total mortgage balances covered by the current amount of 
VMLI available has decreased over the past several years. The 
maximum VMLI amount was last increased from $40,000 to $90,000 
in 1992, but the percentage of total mortgage balances covered 
by VMLI has declined since then from 91 percent to 64 percent 
because of the increase in housing costs during that period. 
Section 104 would bring the program to a level of coverage more 
in line with today's mortgages.
    VA estimates that enactment of section 104 would result in 
benefit costs of $22.0 million over 5 years and $54.9 million 
over 10 years.
    Before last year, SGLI coverage of a covered 
servicemember's insurable dependent ended either 120 days after 
the member elected to end coverage or the earliest of three 
dates: (1) 120 days after the member died; (2) 120 days after 
the date the member's coverage ended; or (3) 120 days after the 
dependent ceased to be an insurable dependent. Section 403(b) 
of Public Law 110-389, at VA's request, amended the second of 
the three listed dates to be simply the date the member's 
coverage ended. The purpose was to provide that an insurable 
dependent's coverage would end when the member's coverage 
ended, generally 120 days after separation or release from 
active service, rather than 120 days after the member's 
coverage ended, or 240 days after the member's separation or 
release from active service. That amendment, however, 
inadvertently allowed certain insurable dependents' coverage to 
continue long after the members' separation or release from 
service--insurable dependents of persons on active duty or 
Ready Reservists who are totally disabled on the date of 
separation or release from service or assignment. Such insureds 
on active duty are potentially eligible for continued coverage 
for up to 2 years after the date of separation or release from 
service and such Ready Reservists are potentially eligible for 
an additional one year of coverage after separation or release 
from an assignment. Under the recent amendment, the insurable 
dependents of insureds on active duty are also potentially 
eligible for continued coverage for up to 2 years after the 
date of separation or release from service or in the case of an 
insurable dependent of a Ready Reservist up to 1 year after the 
date of separation or release from an assignment.
    Section 105 of the bill would correct the inadvertent 
omission of those insurable dependents from the scope of the 
recent amendment. Section 105 would amend the second of the 3 
dates listed above to be ``120 days after the date of 
separation or release from the uniformed services.'' Under that 
provision, no insurable dependent, not even those of members 
who remain covered for up to 1 or 2 years after service or 
assignment, could remain covered under SGLI for more than 120 
days after the member's separation or release from service or 
assignment.
    VA supports this provision. It would equitably provide that 
all insurable spouses of servicemembers, whether those members 
are disabled or not, would have the same time period in which 
to convert their SGLI coverage to a privately-obtained policy, 
consistent with the other conversion time periods specified in 
section 1 968(a)(5) of title 38 of the United States Code. 
However, section 105 would specify that a dependent's coverage 
would terminate within the specified period after the member is 
separated or released ``from the uniformed services.'' This 
phrase would not include Ready Reservists who are separated or 
released from an ``assignment'' rather than from the 
``uniformed services.''
    No costs are associated with this provision.

               TITLE II--COMPENSATION AND PENSION MATTERS

    Section 201 of S.728 would require VA to increase the 
monthly payment of temporary dependency and indemnity 
compensation (DIC) payable for a limited period under 38 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1311(f) to a surviving spouse with one or more dependent 
children under the age of 18 years, whenever benefit payments 
under title II of the Social Security Act are increased as a 
result of an increase in the cost of living. These DIC payments 
would be increased by the same percentage as Social Security 
benefits are increased, effective the same date as the Social 
Security benefit increase is effective.
    VA supports enactment of this provision, the benefit costs 
of which would be insignificant.
    Section 202 would clarify that veterans entitled to pension 
based on advanced age alone rather than on permanent and total 
disability do not qualify for special monthly pension under 
subsections (d), (e), or (f)(2)-(4) of section 1521, United 
States Code. Wartime veterans age 65 or older would continue to 
be eligible for rates of pension prescribed by subsections (b), 
(c), (f)(1) and (5), and (g) of section 1521. It would also 
clarify that pension based on age alone is subject to three 
limitations also applicable to pension based on permanent and 
total disability: (1) certain children's income is attributable 
to a veteran for purposes of determining the veteran's annual 
income; (2) a veteran is considered to be living with a spouse 
who resides elsewhere unless they are estranged; and (3) a 
veteran who is entitled to pension based on his or her own 
wartime service and based on someone else's service is entitled 
to receive only the greater benefit. These amendments would 
apply to pension claims filed on or after the date of 
enactment.
    VA supports enactment of section 202 because it would 
accomplish the same purpose for which VA proposed legislation 
to the last Congress. In 2001, Congress made wartime veterans 
age 65 years or older eligible for pension without regard to 
the permanent-and-total-disability requirement of the statute 
authorizing pension to veterans who are permanently and totally 
disabled. In 2006, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 
held that veterans age 65 or older are also eligible for the 
higher rate of pension authorized for veterans who are 
permanently housebound, without regard to the permanent-and-
total-disability requirement. Although the court's holding is 
arguably a plausible interpretation of the literal terms of the 
statutes, we believe it is inconsistent with Congress' intent 
because it results in inconsistent and illogical treatment of 
veterans' claims and subverts the primary purpose for 
authorizing the higher rate of pension--to provide additional 
pension to veterans with additional expenses due to their high 
degree of disability above and beyond permanent and total 
disability. Under the court's interpretation, elderly veterans 
who are not permanently and totally disabled could receive a 
higher pension rate than elderly veterans who are permanently 
and totally disabled. Believing that Congress did not intend 
such an inequitable result, we proposed legislation to overturn 
the court's interpretation, and we support enactment of section 
202.
    We estimate cost savings of $3.2 million the first year and 
$175.5 million over 10 years.
    Section 203(a) would increase monthly rates of DIC for 
disabled surviving spouses. Section 203(b) would increase the 
maximum and minimum monthly rates of DIC payable to parents and 
provide for an increased monthly payment for parents who, by 
reason of disability, are permanently housebound but do not 
qualify for parents in need of aid and attendance. Section 
203(c) would codify increases already made in the annual income 
limits applicable to parents' DIC. Section 203(d) would replace 
the obsolete term ``six months' death gratuity'' in 38 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1315(f)(1)(A) because the death gratuity paid by DOD under 
10 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1475-1 480 is a fixed amount, rather than 
the equivalent of six months of a servicemember's pay. Section 
203(e) would subject the new rate of DIC for a housebound 
parent and the minimum monthly amounts of parents' DIC to 
annual increases indexed to cost-of-living increases in Social 
Security benefits. The amendments made by section 203 would 
take effect on October 1, 2009, and would apply to DIC payable 
for months beginning on or after that date. However, there 
would be no cost-of-living increase in the minimum monthly DIC 
rates during fiscal year 2010.
    VA is committed to administering DIC payments that meet 
program goals. The 2001 ``Program Evaluation of Benefits for 
Survivors of Veterans with Service-Connected Disabilities''--
the same study that provides the basis for our support of the 
proposed increases to life insurance--found that DIC 
successfully meets the needs of beneficiaries. While our 
support for cost-of-living increases as proposed under S.407 
demonstrates our commitment to providing adequate and necessary 
increases over time, we believe that the increases to DIC 
proposed under section 203 are not necessary to achieve the 
goals of the program.
    In addition, the purpose of increasing the minimum monthly 
payment for parents' DIC from $5 to $100 and indexing that 
figure for inflation is not clear. Because paying parents an 
arbitrary minimum monthly amount of DIC that is higher than the 
payment computed under the need-based formula established in 
VA's implementing regulations at 38 C.F.R. Sec. 3.25 is a 
departure from the need-based principles underlying parents' 
DIC, any increase in the minimum rate would constitute a 
further departure from need-based principles, and indexing the 
minimum payment for inflation would amplify this departure.
    VA did not have sufficient time to prepare benefit cost 
estimates for this provision. No additional administrative 
costs are anticipated. With the Committee's permission, we will 
provide a cost estimate for the record.
    Section 204(a) would increase from $90 to $100 the maximum 
monthly pension amounts for spouse-less and childless veterans 
who are being furnished VA domiciliary or nursing home care or 
are covered by a Medicaid plan for services furnished by a 
nursing facility. These limits would be subject to annual cost-
of-living increases indexed to such increases to Social 
Security benefits. Section 204(b) would subject children in 
receipt of death pension to the limits currently applicable to 
institutionalized veterans and surviving spouses. Under section 
204(c), these amendments would be effective October 1, 2009, 
but no cost-of-living adjustment would be made during fiscal 
year 2010.
    VA does not object to these increases in maximum pension 
payments to affected individuals so long as Congress enacts 
offsetting savings. Application of the limits to children in 
receipt of death pension would be reasonable. And under the 
annual cost-of-living adjustment, these beneficiaries would 
receive benefit increases commensurate with those provided for 
other VA benefits.
    We estimate costs of $5.3 million over one year and $10.7 
million over 2 years.

             TITLE III--BURIAL AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS MATTERS

    Sections 301 and 302 would require VA to make supplemental 
payments in addition to currently required statutory payments 
for funeral and burial-related expenses, but if and only if 
funds are specifically appropriated in advance for that 
purpose. Specifically, those sections would require a 
supplemental payment of $900 for non-service-connected deaths, 
$2,100 for service-connected deaths, and $445 for the plot or 
interment allowance. Each supplemental payment would be subject 
to the availability of funds specifically provided for the 
particular type of allowance in advance by an appropriations 
act. These sections would require an annual adjustment to the 
supplemental payment amounts in relation to the Consumer Price 
Index, applicable to deaths occurring in subsequent fiscal 
years. They would require VA to periodically estimate the 
funding needed to provide supplemental payments for all 
eligible recipients for the remainder of the fiscal year in 
which such an estimate is made and the appropriations needed to 
provide all eligible recipients supplemental payments in the 
next fiscal year. VA would have to submit these estimates to 
the Committees on Appropriations and Veterans' Affairs of the 
Senate and House of Representatives four times a year. Finally, 
these sections would authorize appropriations for these 
purposes. These changes would be effective October 1, 2009, and 
apply to deaths occurring on or after that date.
    Veterans' advocates have argued for higher payments because 
the current allowances generally do not cover present-day 
burial and funeral costs or plot expenses. Advocates have also 
pushed for annual cost-of-living increases for funeral, burial, 
and plot benefits. However, VA cannot support the bill as 
drafted. The supplemental benefits would only be available up 
to the point at which discretionary funding is exhausted, which 
could lead to inequities in the level of benefits available to 
individuals. VA has not supported similar legislation in the 
past because funding a single benefit from multiple sources 
(e.g., from the mandatory Compensations, Pensions, and Burial 
account and a new discretionary account) can create numerous 
complications in administration and represents an unsound 
budgeting practice. Finally, the frequent reporting 
requirements to Congress would be administratively burdensome 
and would distract VA from providing Veterans with timely 
claims adjudication and payment.
    We estimate that enactment of section 301 of this bill 
would result in costs of $106.3 million during the first year, 
$569.2 million over 5 years, and $1.3 billion over 10 years. We 
estimate that enactment of section 302 of this bill would 
result in costs of $30.4 million during the first year, $162.5 
million over 5 years, and $367.7 million over 10 years. No 
administrative costs are associated with this bill.

                        TITLE IV--OTHER MATTERS

    Section 401(a) would add to the list of disabilities that 
qualify a compensation-receiving veteran or an active duty 
servicemember for assistance in obtaining an automobile or 
other conveyance or adaptive equipment an additional 
disability--a severe burn injury, as determined pursuant to VA 
regulations. Section 401(b) would make various stylistic 
changes to section 3901 of title 38, United States Code.
    Section 402(a) would require VA to make a supplemental 
payment in addition to the currently required statutory payment 
for the purchase of an automobile or other conveyance, but only 
if funds are specifically appropriated in advance for that 
purpose. Specifically, it would require the supplemental 
payment to equal the difference between the amount of payment 
that would be made if the maximum amount were $22,484 and the 
current $11,000 amount authorized by section 3902(a).
    Section 402(a) would also require VA to annually increase a 
specified adjusted amount ($22,484) to 80 percent of the 
average retail cost of new automobiles for the preceding 
calendar year. It would require VA to periodically estimate the 
funding needed to provide supplemental payments for all 
eligible recipients for the remainder of the fiscal year in 
which such an estimate is made and the appropriations needed to 
provide all eligible recipients supplemental payments in the 
next fiscal year and to submit these estimates to the 
Committees on Appropriations and Veterans' Affairs of the 
Senate and House of Representatives four times a year.
    Finally, section 402(c) would authorize appropriations for 
these purposes, and, under section 402(d), these changes would 
be effective October 1, 2009, and apply to payments made under 
section 3902 on or after that date.
    We plan to review the scope of our existing authority to 
determine if there are circumstances under which severe burn 
victims are not adequately covered. In any event, VA cannot 
support the bill as drafted. The supplemental benefits would be 
available only up to the point at which discretionary funding 
is exhausted, which could lead to inequities in the level of 
benefits available to individuals. VA has not supported similar 
legislation in the past because funding a single benefit from 
multiple sources can create numerous complications in 
administration and represents an unsound budgeting practice. 
Finally, the frequent reporting requirements to Congress would 
be administratively burdensome and would distract VA from 
providing Veterans with timely claims adjudication and payment. 
For an estimate of the costs associated with the increase 
section 402 would provide, please see our comments regarding 
S.820.

          S.820 ``VETERANS MOBILITY ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2009''

    S.820, the ``Veterans Mobility Enhancement Act of 2009,'' 
would increase from $11,000 to $22,500 the maximum amount of 
assistance VA is authorized to provide an eligible person to 
obtain an automobile or other conveyance. It would also require 
VA to increase that amount, effective October 1 of each year 
(beginning in 2010), to an amount equal to 80 percent of the 
average retail cost of new automobiles for the preceding 
calendar year. It would require VA to establish the method for 
determining that average retail cost and authorize VA to use 
data developed in the private sector if VA determines that the 
data are appropriate.
    We understand the importance of providing sufficient 
resources for vehicles or adaptive equipment to servicemembers 
and veterans who rely on them, but we cannot support this bill 
at this time. In order to best support the goals of this 
program, we will need time to review the appropriate amount to 
provide for this benefit payment.
    We estimate benefit costs of $16.2 million in the first 
year and $159.9 million over ten years.

                                 S.842

    Section 1 of this bill concerning mortgages and mortgage 
foreclosures relates to the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, a 
law primarily affecting active duty service personnel. 
Accordingly, VA defers to the views of DOD with regard to that 
section.
    Section 2 of this bill would authorize VA to purchase a VA-
guaranteed home loan from the mortgage holder, if the loan is 
modified by a Bankruptcy Judge under the authority of 11 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1322(b). Specifically, it would permit VA to pay the 
mortgage holder the unpaid balance of the loan, plus accrued 
interest, as of the date a bankruptcy petition is filed. In 
exchange, the mortgage holder would be required to assign, 
transfer, and deliver to the Secretary all rights, interest, 
claims, evidence, and records with respect to the loan.
    VA is aware of legislation that, if enacted, would 
eliminate the apparent incongruity between section 2 of this 
bill and the current Bankruptcy Code. Section 103 of H.R. 1106, 
as passed by the House of Representatives on March 5, would 
eliminate the prohibition against modifying mortgages on 
principal residences. Additionally, the section 2 provision 
appears duplicative of the authority that would be provided to 
VA in section 121 of H.R. 1106. VA cannot support any 
additional repurchasing authority until the budgetary impacts 
of such authority on existing and future cohorts of loans can 
be reviewed. Because VA cannot determine the effects of section 
2 as a stand-alone provision, VA cannot currently estimate the 
costs or savings associated with the provision.
    Section 103 of H.R. 1106, as passed by the House of 
Representatives on March 5, would eliminate the prohibition 
against modifying mortgages on principal residences. 
Additionally, the section 2 provision appears duplicative of 
the authority that would be provided to VA in section 121 of 
H.R. 1106. VA cannot support any additional repurchasing 
authority until the budgetary impacts of such authority on 
existing and future cohorts of loans can be reviewed. Because 
VA cannot determine the effects of section 2 as a stand-alone 
provision, VA cannot currently estimate the costs or savings 
associated with the provision.

                                 S.847

    We did not have sufficient time before this hearing to 
develop a position on this bill, but will provide our position 
to the Committee in writing for the record.

                                [S.919]

    We did not have sufficient time before this hearing to 
develop a position on this bill, but will provide our position 
to the Committee in writing for the record.

                                [S.1016]

    We did not have sufficient time before this hearing to 
develop a position on this bill, but will provide our position 
to the Committee in writing for the record.
    Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be 
pleased to answer any questions you or the other members of the 
Committee may have.
                                ------                                

                         The Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
                                      Washington, DC, May 14, 2009.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
Chairman,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

    Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing to provide you with the 
views of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on the 
following bills: S. 315, S. 847, S. 919, and a draft bill to 
modify the commencement of the payment of original awards of 
compensation for veterans who are retired or separated from the 
uniformed services for disability. These bills were included on 
the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee agenda for the April 29, 
2009, hearing, but VA was unable to provide its views in time 
for that hearing. We are also providing cost estimates for 
S. 514 and section 203 of S. 728, as promised during the 
hearing.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                                 S. 847

    Currently, section 3695(a) of title 38, United States Code, 
limits the aggregate entitlement for any person who receives 
educational assistance under two or more of the programs listed 
in that section to 48 months. This limitation is applicable, 
most notably, to the Montgomery GI Bill Active Duty (MGIB-AD) 
program (chapter 30), the Vietnam Era Assistance Program 
(chapter 32), the Survivors' and Dependents' Educational 
Assistance (DEA) program (chapter 35), the new Post-9/11 GI 
Bill (chapter 33), the Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve 
program (chapter 1606 of title 10), and the Reserve Educational 
Assistance Program (chapter 1607 of title 10). Section 1(a) of 
S. 847 would remove the DEA program from this list of 
educational assistance programs with a 48-month-aggregate-
benefit limitation effective on the date of the enactment of 
the Act. This amendment would allow an individual who earns 
entitlement based on his or her own service in the Armed Forces 
not to have such entitlement reduced because they received 
benefits under the DEA program.
    Section 1(b) of S. 847 states that such law would not 
revive any entitlement to DEA or other assistance under the 
provisions of law listed under section 3695(a) that was 
terminated by that section prior to enactment of the Act. 
Section 1(c) of S. 847 would revive, however, any entitlement 
to assistance under the provisions of law listed under section 
3695(a) that was reduced because the individual used his or her 
DEA benefits if, the day before enactment of the Act, the 
individual had not used a total of 48 months entitlement.
    (We note that section 1(c) of S. 847 could be read to mean 
that those individuals who used 48 months of entitlement 
(including DEA benefits) before date of enactment and who are 
still within their delimiting period could also have their 
entitlement recalculated without consideration of their use of 
DEA benefits.)
    The President's Budget includes numerous programs to 
support our Veterans and their families. However, we are unable 
to support this measure at this time. VA has not yet begun to 
administer the new Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit, a generous new 
benefit for Veterans that includes authority for some 
servicemembers to transfer eligibility to their dependents. We 
need more time to study how this new program impacts usage of 
all VA education benefits before supporting any changes to the 
benefit package. In addition, VA cannot support this measure 
because no funding for such a proposal is included in the 
Administration's fiscal year 2010 budget.
    VA does not have the specific data necessary to cost this 
proposal. While VA can determine the number of participants who 
used prior VA training and the amount of entitlement used in 
previous programs, we cannot extract the specific DEA 
population. Further, VA has no way of determining how many 
servicemembers elected not to participate in the MGIB-AD 
program because of their prior use of DEA benefits or how many 
individuals potentially eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill are 
or were eligible for chapter 35 benefits.

      S. 919 ``CLARIFICATION OF CHARACTERISTICS OF COMBAT SERVICE
                             ACT OF 2009''

    S. 919, the ``Clarification of Characteristics of Combat 
Service Act of 2009,'' would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1154(a) to 
revise the requirements for VA regulations pertaining to 
service connection of disabilities. Currently, section 1154(a) 
mandates VA regulations requiring that, when adjudicating a 
claim for service connection, due consideration be given to the 
places, types and circumstances of a Veteran's service as shown 
by the Veteran's service record, official history of each 
organization in which the veteran served, the Veteran's medical 
records, and all pertinent medical and lay evidence. In 
addition to these regulations, S. 919 would require regulations 
requiring that, in the case of a Veteran who served in a 
particular combat zone, VA must ``accept credible lay or other 
evidence as sufficient proof that the veteran encountered an 
event that the Secretary specifies in such regulations as 
associated with service in particular locations where the 
veteran served or in particular circumstances under which the 
veteran served in such combat zone.'' Under S. 919, the term 
``combat zone'' would be defined in accordance with section 112 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or a predecessor provision 
of law.
    VA opposes enactment of S. 919 for the following reasons. 
S. 919 would require VA to implement a complex scheme under 
which VA would be required to specify in regulations ``events'' 
that are ``associated with service in particular locations'' or 
``in particular circumstances under which the veteran served 
in'' combat zones designated under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 112. The 
breadth of such a task would be mammoth. Although S. 919 refers 
to ``service in particular locations'' and in ``combat zones,'' 
hostilities can occur anywhere around the globe, overseas as 
well as on American soil, and thus, to be inclusive, the 
regulations required by S. 919 would have to cover the entire 
world. In addition, the language of the proposed amendment is 
too vague, offering no guidance on what would constitute an 
``event'' that is ``associated with service in particular 
locations where the veteran served or in particular 
circumstances under which the veteran served in  * * *  
combat.'' Further, VA does not have the expertise to define 
events associated with service in particular locations or 
particular circumstances of combat.
    We also oppose defining the term ``combat zone'' in 
accordance with 26 U.S.C. Sec. 112. Section 112(c)(2) of title 
26, United States Code, defines ``combat zone'' as any area 
that the President by Executive Order designates as an area in 
which U.S. Armed Forces are engaging or have engaged In combat. 
There are currently three combat zones designated by Executive 
Order (26 U.S.C. Sec. 112 note), including the airspace above 
each: (1) Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Gulf of Oman, certain portions 
of the Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, and total land areas of Iraq, 
Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Oman, Bahrain, Qatar, and United Arab 
Emirates, beginning January 17, 1991; 
(2) Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia/Montenegro), 
Albania, Adriatic Sea, and Ionian Sea north of the 39th 
parallel, beginning March 24, 1999; and (3) Afghanistan, 
beginning September 19, 2001. Two other Executive Orders (26 
U.S.C. Sec. 112 note) previously designated the following areas 
as combat zones: (1) Vietnam and adjacent waters within certain 
limits, for certain periods of service; and (2) Korea and 
adjacent waters, for service during certain 
periods.
    VA opposes defining ``combat zone'' in accordance with 26 
U.S.C. Sec. 112 because of the breadth of the title 26 
definition and implementing regulations and because it would 
exclude certain Veterans who served during other periods of 
hostilities. Combat activities have not been terminated by the 
President in three of the currently designated combat zones. 
For example, members who served in Bahrain after fighting 
ceased in the first Persian Gulf War and before fighting began 
in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) on October 6, 2001, or 
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) on March 20, 2003, are covered 
under one of these Executive Orders. If VA regulations 
promulgated pursuant to S. 919 provided a reduced burden of 
proof to all veterans covered by these Executive Orders, 
Veterans who served in Bahrain during a period of relative calm 
would have the same reduced burden of proof as Veterans who 
served in Bahrain during the first Persian Gulf War or OIF. 
Further, these Executive Orders do not cover service in World 
War II and certain smaller engagements, such as Grenada.
    Furthermore, 26 CFR Sec. 1.112-1(e), which implements 26 
U.S.C. Sec. 112, provides that a member who performs military 
service in an area outside the area designated as a combat zone 
under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 112(c)(2) is deemed to have service in 
that combat zone ``while the member's service is in direct 
support of military operations in that zone'' and the member is 
qualified for special pay under 37 U.S.C. Sec. 310. For 
example, the Department of Defense (DOD) has certified service 
in Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan beginning on October 1, 2001, and 
in Yemen beginning on April 10, 2002, as service in direct 
support of OEF and service in Israel between January 1, 2003, 
and July 2003 and service in Jordan, beginning March 19, 2003, 
as service in direct support of OIF.
    There is no termination date for service in certain areas 
designated by DOD as service in direct support of operations in 
a combat zone. If VA regulations provided a reduced burden of 
proof to all veterans covered by 26 CFR Sec. 1.112-1(e), 
veterans who served, for example, in Jordan in 2008 and 2009 
would have the same reduced burden of proof under the proposed 
rule as veterans who served in Jordan immediately after 
hostilities began in OIF.
    We also believe that S. 919 is unnecessary. Section 1154(b) 
of title 38, United States Code, already provides a relaxed 
evidentiary standard for service connection of disabilities 
that result from a veteran's engagement in combat with the 
enemy. The purpose of 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1154(b) is to recognize 
the hardships and dangers involved with military combat and to 
acknowledge that official documentation is unlikely during the 
heat of combat. As a result, Veterans who engaged in combat 
with the enemy and file claims for service-connected disability 
benefits related to that combat are not subject to the same 
evidentiary requirements as non-combat veterans but rather are 
afforded a relaxed evidentiary standard to ensure they are not 
disadvantaged by the circumstances of their combat service in 
proving their benefit claims. Many of the Veterans who served 
in the combat zones designated by Executive Orders likely 
qualify for the reduced evidentiary standard in section 
1154(b). On the other hand, there is no such need for a lowered 
evidentiary standard for veterans who did not engage in combat 
with the enemy but did serve in a combat zone designated by 
Executive Order because evidence necessary to establish service 
connection is likely to be more easily obtained through routine 
military record keeping. We believe that this approach is fair 
and equitable.
    VA cannot provide specific benefit costs associated with 
enactment of S. 919 due to its lack of clarity. There are no 
data available to assess the numbers of claims that would be 
granted based on application of regulations promulgated under 
this provision.

  A DRAFT BILL TO MODIFY THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PERIOD OF PAYMENT OF 
    ORIGINAL AWARDS OF COMPENSATION FOR VETERANS WHO ARE RETIRED OR 
          SEPARATED FROM THE UNIFORMED SERVICES FOR DISABILITY

    This unnumbered draft bill would require VA to pay 
compensation awarded based on an original claim to veterans who 
retired or separated from service for a disability as of the 
effective date of the award of compensation. Current law 
prohibits the payment of benefits based on an award or an 
increased award of compensation for any period before the first 
day of the calendar month following the month in which the 
award or increased award became effective. The draft bill would 
also provide that, in the case of Veterans retired or separated 
from active service due to disability who must provide a waiver 
of retired pay in order to receive VA benefits, the effective 
date of the waiver would be the effective date of the award of 
compensation if the waiver is filed not later than 30 days 
after retirement or separation from military service. 
Currently, under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5111(b)(2), if a person in 
receipt of retired or retirement pay would also be eligible to 
receive VA compensation upon the filing of a waiver, such 
waiver does not become effective until the first day of the 
month following the month in which such waiver is filed. The 
draft bill would apply to awards of compensation based on 
original claims that become effective on or after the date of 
enactment.
    VA does not support the draft bill because it would provide 
up to one additional month of VA compensation for only one 
group of Veterans, i.e., Veterans who retire or separate from 
service due to disability. Also, we are unaware of a need to 
expedite payment of VA compensation to this single group of 
disabled Veterans. Veterans who retire or separate from service 
because of disability currently begin receiving disability 
retirement pay shortly after discharge from service and then 
receive VA compensation after the military retired pay centers 
have processed waivers provided by the Veterans and military 
retirement pay has been reduced by an amount equal to the VA 
compensation to which the veterans are entitled. We note as 
well that many of the Veterans who would be entitled to 
additional VA compensation under this bill may also be entitled 
to combat-related special compensation under 10 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1413a and to concurrent receipt of military retired pay 
under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1414.
    VA estimates the cost associated with this draft bill, if 
enacted, would be $4.5 million for the first year and $49.2 
million over 10 years. Also, there would be substantial 
administrative cost to reprogram the VETSNET system to provide 
these payments.

      S. 514 ``VETERANS REHABILITATION AND TRAINING IMPROVEMENTS 
                             ACT OF 2009''

    Section 4 of S. 514, the ``Veterans Rehabilitation and 
Training Improvements Act of 2009,'' would remove the 
limitation on the number of veterans who may be provided 
programs of independent living. VA estimates that there would 
be no costs associated with this section if enacted. The 
current cap of 2,600 participants has not been reached in the 
past two fiscal years, and the number of participants has 
actually decreased from 2,115 cases in 2007 to 1,728 cases in 
2008. This trend indicates that the program is not growing at 
this time and removing the limit of 2,600 participants would 
not result in additional participants or cost. Therefore, VA 
believes this legislation to be unnecessary.

                         SECTION 203 OF S. 728

    Section 203 would increase monthly rates of dependency and 
indemnity compensation (DIC) for disabled surviving spouses, 
increase the maximum and minimum monthly rates of DIC payable 
to parents, provide increased monthly payments for parents who, 
by reason of disability, are permanently housebound but do not 
qualify for aid and attendance, and codify increases already 
made in the annual income limits applicable to parents' DIC. 
The new rate of DIC for a housebound parent and the minimum 
monthly amounts of parents' DIC would be subject to annual 
increases indexed to cost-of-living increases in Social 
Security benefits. The amendments made by section 203 would 
become effective on October 1, 2009, and would apply to DIC 
payable for months beginning on or after that date. However, 
there would be no cost-of-living increase in the minimum 
monthly DIC rates during fiscal year 2010. VA does not support 
section 203 because these proposed increases to DIC are not 
necessary to achieve the goals of the program.
    VA estimates the cost associated with this amendment, if 
enacted, to be $4.6 million in the first year and nearly $49.6 
over 10 years.
    The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there 
is no objection to the submission of this report from the 
standpoint of the Administration's program.
            Sincerely,
Eric K. Shinseki.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of Rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by 
the Committee 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 3--THE PRESIDENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 5--EXTENSION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS TO PRESIDENTIAL 
OFFICES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


           Subchapter II--Extension of Rights and Protections

Part A. Employment Discrimination, Family and Medical Leave, Fair Labor 
    Standards, Employee Polygraph Protection, Worker Adjustment and 
Retraining, Employment and Reemployment of Veterans, and Intimidation

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 416. RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS RELATING TO VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND 
                    REEMPLOYMENT

    (a) * * *
    (b) Remedy. The remedy for a violation of subsection (a) 
shall be such damages as would be appropriate if awarded [under 
paragraphs (1) and (2)(A) of section 4323(c) of title 38] under 
section 4323(d) of title 38.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                ------                                


                         TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

SUBTITLE A--GENERAL MILITARY LAW

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART IV--SERVICE, SUPPLY, AND PROCUREMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                   CHAPTER 137--PROCUREMENT GENERALLY

SEC.

2302. DEFINITIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


2335. NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS OF POTENTIAL OBLIGATIONS RELATING TO 
                    EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 
                    FORCES.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2335. NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS OF POTENTIAL OBLIGATIONS RELATING TO 
                    EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 
                    FORCES

    Each contract for the procurement of property or services 
that is entered into by the head of an executive agency shall 
include a notice to the contractor that the contractor may have 
obligations under chapter 43 of title 38.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                ------                                


                      TITLE 38--VETERANS' BENEFITS

PART I--GENERAL PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 3--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 315. REGIONAL OFFICES

    (a) * * *
    (b) The Secretary may maintain a regional office in the 
Republic of the Philippines until [December 31, 2009] December 
31, 2011.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                       PART II--GENERAL BENEFITS

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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subchapter II--Wartime Disability Compensation

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1114. RATES OF WARTIME DISABILITY COMPENSATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


          (m) if the veteran, as the result of service-
        connected disability, has suffered the anatomical loss 
        or loss of use of both hands, or of both legs [at a 
        level, or with complications,] with factors preventing 
        natural knee action with prostheses in place, or of one 
        arm and one leg [at levels, or with complications,] 
        with factors preventing natural elbow and knee action 
        with prostheses in place, or has suffered blindness in 
        both eyes having only light perception, or has suffered 
        blindness in both eyes, rendering such veteran so 
        significantly disabled as to be in need of regular aid 
        and attendance, the monthly compensation shall be 
        $3,671;
          (n) if the veteran, as the result of service-
        connected disability, has suffered the anatomical loss 
        or loss of use of both arms [at levels, or with 
        complications,] with factors preventing natural elbow 
        action with prostheses in place, has suffered the 
        anatomical loss of both legs [so near the hip as to] 
        with factors that prevent the use of prosthetic 
        appliances, or has suffered the anatomical loss of one 
        arm and one leg [so near the shoulder and hip as to] 
        with factors that prevent the use of prosthetic 
        appliances, or has suffered the anatomical loss of both 
        eyes, or has suffered blindness without light 
        perception in both eyes, the monthly compensation shall 
        be $4,176;
          (o) if the veteran, as the result of service-
        connected disability, has suffered disability under 
        conditions which would entitle such veteran to two or 
        more of the rates provided in one or more subsections 
        (l) through (n) of this section, no condition being 
        considered twice in the determination, or if the 
        veteran has suffered bilateral deafness (and the 
        hearing impairment in either one or both ears is 
        service connected) rated at 60 percent or more 
        disabling and the veteran has also suffered service-
        connected total blindness with 20/200 visual acuity or 
        less, or if the veteran has suffered service-connected 
        total deafness in one ear or bilateral deafness (and 
        the hearing impairment in either one or both ears is 
        service connected) rated at 40 percent or more 
        disabling and the veteran has also suffered service-
        connected blindness having only light perception or 
        less, or if the veteran has suffered the anatomical 
        loss of both arms [so near the shoulder as to] with 
        factors that prevent the use of prosthetic appliances, 
        the monthly compensation shall be $4,667;
          (p) in the event the veteran's service-connected 
        disabilities exceed the requirements for any of the 
        rates prescribed in this section, the Secretary may 
        allow the next higher rate or an intermediate rate, but 
        in no event in excess of $4,667. In the event the 
        veteran has suffered service-connected blindness with 
        5/200 visual acuity or less and (1) has also suffered 
        bilateral deafness (and the hearing impairment in 
        either one or both ears is service connected) rated at 
        no less than 30 percent disabling, the Secretary shall 
        allow the next higher rate, or (2) has also suffered 
        service-connected total deafness in one ear or service-
        connected anatomical loss or loss of use of one hand or 
        one foot, the Secretary shall allow the next 
        intermediate rate, but in no event in excess of $4,667. 
        In the event the veteran has suffered service-connected 
        blindness, having only light perception or less, and 
        has also suffered bilateral deafness (and the hearing 
        impairment in either one or both ears is service 
        connected) rated at 10 or 20 percent disabling, the 
        Secretary shall allow the next intermediate rate, but 
        in no event in excess of $4,667. In the event the 
        veteran has suffered the anatomical loss or loss of 
        use, or a combination of anatomical loss and loss of 
        use, of three extremities, the Secretary shall allow 
        the next higher rate or intermediate rate, but in no 
        event in excess of $4,667. Any intermediate rate under 
        this subsection shall be established at the arithmetic 
        mean, rounded down to the nearest dollar, between the 
        two rates concerned[;] .

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (t) Subject to section 5503(c) of this title, if any 
        veteran, as the result of service-connected disability, 
        is in need of regular aid and attendance for the 
        residuals of traumatic brain injury, is not eligible 
        for compensation under subsection (r)(2), and in the 
        absence of such regular aid and attendance would 
        require hospitalization, nursing home care, or other 
        residential institutional care, the veteran shall be 
        paid, in addition to any other compensation under this 
        section, a monthly aid and attendance allowance equal 
        to the rate described in subsection (r)(2), which for 
        purposes of section 1134 of this title shall be 
        considered as additional compensation payable for 
        disability. An allowance authorized under this 
        subsection shall be paid in lieu of any allowance 
        authorized by subsection (r)(1).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subchapter VI--General Compensation Provisions

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1154. CONSIDERATION TO BE ACCORDED TIME, PLACE, AND CIRCUMSTANCES 
                    OF SERVICE

    [(a) The Secretary shall include in the regulations 
pertaining to service-connection of disabilities (1) additional 
provisions in effect requiring that in each case where a 
veteran is seeking service-connection for any disability due 
consideration shall be given to the places, types, and 
circumstances of such veteran's service as shown by such 
veteran's service record, the official history of each 
organization in which such veteran served, such veteran's 
medical records, and all pertinent medical and lay evidence, 
and (2) the provisions required by section 5 of the Veterans' 
Dioxin and Radiation Exposure Compensation Standards Act 
(Public Law 98-542; 98 Stat. 2727).]
    (a) The Secretary shall include in the regulations 
pertaining to service-connection of disabilities the following:
          (1) Provisions requiring that, in each case where a 
        veteran is seeking service-connection for any 
        disability, due consideration shall be given to the 
        places, types, and circumstances of such veteran's 
        service as shown by--
                  (A) such veteran's service record;
                  (B) the official history of each organization 
                in which such veteran served;
                  (C) such veteran's medical records; and
                  (D) all pertinent medical and lay evidence.
          (2) Provisions generally recognizing circumstances in 
        which lay evidence consistent with the place, 
        conditions, dangers, or hardships associated with 
        particular military service does not require 
        confirmatory official documentary evidence in order to 
        establish the occurrence of an event or exposure during 
        active military, naval, or air service.
          (3) The provisions required by section 5 of the 
        Veterans' Dioxin and Radiation Exposure Compensation 
        Standards Act (Public Law 98-542; 98 Stat. 2727).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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)(1) Subject to paragraphs (2) and (3), if there is a 
surviving spouse with one or more children below the age of 18, 
the dependency and indemnity compensation paid monthly to the 
surviving spouse shall be increased by $250 (as increased from 
time to time under paragraph (4)), regardless of the number of 
such children.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (4) 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.
    (5) [(4)] Dependency and indemnity compensation under this 
subsection is in addition to any other dependency and indemnity 
compensation payable under this chapter.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1318. BENEFITS FOR SURVIVORS OF CERTAIN VETERANS RATED TOTALLY 
                    DISABLED AT TIME OF DEATH

    (a) * * *
    (b) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) the veteran was a former prisoner of war [who 
        died after September 30, 1999,] and the disability was 
        continuously rated totally disabling for a period of 
        not less than one year immediately preceding death.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                   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.
    (c) [(b)] 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                         CHAPTER 19--INSURANCE

Subchapter I--National Service Life 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subchapter III--Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1968. DURATION AND TERMINATION OF COVERAGE; CONVERSION

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) With respect to an insurable dependent of the 
        member, insurance under this subchapter shall cease--
                  (A) * * *
                  (B) on the earliest of--
                          (i) 120 days after the date of the 
                        member's death;
                          [(ii) the date of termination of the 
                        insurance on the member's life under 
                        this subchapter; or]
                          (ii)(I) in the case of a member of 
                        the Ready Reserve of a uniformed 
                        service who meets the qualifications 
                        set forth in subparagraph (B) or (C) of 
                        section 1965(5) of this title, 120 days 
                        after separation or release from such 
                        assignment; or
                          (II) in the case of any other member 
                        of the uniformed services, 120 days 
                        after the date of the member's 
                        separation or release from the 
                        uniformed services; or
                          (iii) 120 days after the termination 
                        of the dependent's status as an 
                        insurable dependent of the member.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1980A. TRAUMATIC INJURY PROTECTION

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d)(1) Payments under [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 
nondominant hand.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 21--SPECIALLY ADAPTED HOUSING FOR DISABLED VETERANS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2106. VETERANS' MORTGAGE LIFE INSURANCE

    (a) * * *
    (b) The amount of insurance provided 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 individual elects not to be insured 
under this section, 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                      CHAPTER 23--BURIAL BENEFITS

SEC.

2301. FLAGS.

2302. FUNERAL EXPENSES.

2302A. FUNERAL EXPENSES: SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS.

2303. DEATH IN DEPARTMENT FACILITY; PLOT ALLOWANCE.

2303A. SUPPLEMENTAL PLOT ALLOWANCE.

2304. CLAIMS FOR REIMBURSEMENT.

2305. PERSONS ELIGIBLE UNDER PRIOR LAW.

2306. HEADSTONES, MARKERS, AND BURIAL RECEPTACLES.

2307. DEATH FROM SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY.

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

2308. TRANSPORTATION OF DECEASED VETERAN TO A NATIONAL CEMETERY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 2302. 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 2010, 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 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 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. 2303. DEATH IN DEPARTMENT FACILITY; PLOT ALLOWANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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 2010, 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. 2307. DEATH FROM SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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 2010, 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 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 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 31--TRAINING AND REHABILITATION FOR VETERANS WITH SERVICE-
CONNECTED DISABILITIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 3120. PROGRAM OF INDEPENDENT LIVING SERVICES AND ASSISTANCE

    (a) The Secretary may, under contracts with entities 
[described in subsection (f)] described in subsection (e) of 
this section, or through facilities of the Veterans Health 
Administration, which possess a demonstrated capability to 
conduct programs of independent living services for severely 
handicapped persons, provide, under regulations which the 
Secretary shall prescribe, programs of independent living 
services and assistance under this chapter, in various 
geographic regions of the United States, to veterans described 
in subsection (b) of this section.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(e) Programs of independent living services and assistance 
shall be initiated for no more than 2600 veterans in each 
fiscal year, and the first priority in the provision of such 
programs shall be afforded to veterans for whom the reasonable 
feasibility of achieving a vocational goal is precluded solely 
as a result of a service-connected disability.]
    (e) [(f)] Entities described in this subsection are (1) 
public or nonprofit agencies or organizations, and (2) for-
profit entities in cases in which the Secretary determines that 
services comparable in effectiveness to services available from 
such an entity are not available, or cannot be obtained cost-
effectively from, public or nonprofit agencies or through 
facilities of the Veterans Health Administration.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 36--ADMINISTRATION OF EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subchapter II--Miscellaneous Provisions

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 3695. LIMITATION ON PERIOD OF ASSISTANCE UNDER TWO OR MORE 
                    PROGRAMS

    (a) The aggregate period for which any person may receive 
assistance under two or more of the provisions of law listed 
below may not exceed 48 months (or the part-time equivalent 
thereof):

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4) Chapters 30, 32, 33, 34, [35,] and 36 of this 
        title, and the former chapter 33.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (b) * * *
    (c) The aggregate period for which any person may receive 
assistance under chapter 35 of this title, on the one hand, and 
any of the provisions of law referred to in subsection (a), on 
the other hand, may not exceed 81 months (or the part-time 
equivalent thereof).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 37--HOUSING AND SMALL BUSINESS LOANS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subchapter III--Administrative Provisions

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 3732. PROCEDURE ON DEFAULT

    (a)(1) * * *
    (2) (A) Before suit [Before suit] or foreclosure the holder 
of the obligation shall notify the Secretary of the default, 
and within thirty days thereafter the Secretary may, at the 
Secretary's option, pay the holder of the obligation the unpaid 
balance of the obligation plus accrued interest and receive an 
assignment of the loan and security. Nothing in this section 
shall preclude any forebearance for the benefit of the veteran 
as may be agreed upon by the parties to the loan and approved 
by the Secretary.
    (B) In the event that a housing loan guaranteed under this 
chapter is modified under the authority provided under section 
1322(b) of title 11, the Secretary may pay the holder of the 
obligation the unpaid balance of the obligation due as of the 
date of the filing of the petition under title 11 plus accrued 
interest, but only upon the assignment, transfer, and delivery 
to the Secretary (in a form and manner satisfactory to the 
Secretary) of all rights, interest, claims, evidence, and 
records with respect to the housing loan.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


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] in clause (i), (ii), 
                (iii), or (iv) of this subparagraph, if the 
                disability is the result of an 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] of the Armed 
                Forces serving on active duty who is suffering 
                from any disability described in [subclause 
                (i), (ii), or (iii) of clause (A) of this 
                paragraph] clause (i), (ii), (iii), or (iv) of 
                subparagraph (A) if such disability is the 
                result of an injury incurred or disease 
                contracted in or aggravated by active military, 
                naval, or air service.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 3902. ASSISTANCE FOR PROVIDING AUTOMOBILE AND ADAPTIVE EQUIPMENT

    (a) The Secretary, under regulations which the Secretary 
shall prescribe, shall provide or assist in providing an 
automobile or other conveyance to each eligible person by 
paying the total purchase price of the automobile or other 
conveyance (including all State, local, and other taxes) or 
[$11,000] $22,500 (as adjusted from time to time under 
subsection (e)), whichever is the lesser, to the seller from 
whom the eligible person is purchasing under a sales agreement 
between the seller and the eligible person.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e)(1) Effective on October 1 of each year (beginning in 
2011), the Secretary shall increase the dollar amount in effect 
under subsection (a) 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.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


   CHAPTER 43--EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF THE 
                           UNIFORMED SERVICES

Subchapter I--General

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 4303. DEFINITIONS

    For the purposes of this chapter--
          (1) * * *
          (2) The term ``benefit'', ``benefit of employment'', 
        or ``rights and benefits'' means any advantage, profit, 
        privilege, gain, status, account, or interest ([other 
        than] including wages or salary for work performed) 
        that accrues by reason of an employment contract or 
        agreement or an employer policy, plan, or practice and 
        includes rights and benefits under a pension plan, a 
        health plan, an employee stock ownership plan, 
        insurance coverage and awards, bonuses, severance pay, 
        supplemental unemployment benefits, vacations, and the 
        opportunity to select work hours or location of 
        employment.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (4)(A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (D)(i) Whether the term ``successor in interest'' 
        applies with respect to an entity described in 
        subparagraph (A) for purposes of clause (iv) of such 
        subparagraph shall be determined on a case-by-case 
        basis using a multi-factor test that considers the 
        following factors:
                  (I) Substantial continuity of business 
                operations.
                  (II) Use of the same or similar facilities.
                  (III) Continuity of work force.
                  (IV) Similarity of jobs and working 
                conditions.
                  (V) Similarity of supervisory personnel.
                  (VI) Similarity of machinery, equipment, and 
                production methods.
                  (VII) Similarity of products or services.
          (ii) The entity's lack of notice or awareness of a 
        potential or pending claim under this chapter at the 
        time of a merger, acquisition, or other form of 
        succession shall not be considered when applying the 
        multi-factor test under clause (i).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


      Subchapter III--Procedures for Assistance, Enforcement, and 
Investigation

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 4323. ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO A STATE OR PRIVATE 
                    EMPLOYER

    (a) * * *
    (b) Jurisdiction.--(1) In the case of an action against a 
State (as an employer) or a private employer commenced by the 
United States, the district courts of the United States shall 
have jurisdiction over the action.
    [(2) In the case of an action against a State (as an 
employer) by a person, the action may be brought in a State 
court of competent jurisdiction in accordance with the laws of 
the State.]
    (2) In the case of an action against a State (as an 
employer) by a person, the action may be brought in the 
appropriate district court of the United States or State court 
of competent jurisdiction.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (h) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (i) Waiver of State Sovereign Immunity.--(1) A State's 
receipt or use of Federal financial assistance for any program 
or activity of a State shall constitute a waiver of sovereign 
immunity, under the 11th amendment to the Constitution or 
otherwise, to a suit brought by--
          (A) a person who is or was an employee in that 
        program or activity for the rights or benefits 
        authorized the person by this chapter;
          (B) a person applying to be such an employee in that 
        program or activity for the rights or benefits 
        authorized the person by this chapter; or
          (C) a person seeking reemployment as an employee in 
        that program or activity for the rights or benefits 
        authorized the person by this chapter.
    (2) In this subsection, the term ``program or activity'' 
has the meaning given that term in section 309 of the Age 
Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6107).
    (j) [(i)] Definition.--In this section, the term ``private 
employer'' includes a political subdivision of a State.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 4324. ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO FEDERAL EXECUTIVE 
                    AGENCIES

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (b) * * *
          (4) has received a notification of a decision from 
        the Special Counsel under subsection (a)(2)(B) 
        declining to initiate an action and represent the 
        person before the Merit Systems Protection Board.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART IV--GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 51--CLAIMS, EFFECTIVE DATES, AND PAYMENTS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subchapter II--Effective Dates

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 5111. COMMENCEMENT OF PERIOD OF PAYMENT

    (a) (1) Notwithstanding section 5110 of this title or any 
other provision of law and except as provided [in subsection 
(c) of this section] in paragraph (2) of this subsection and 
subsection (c), payment of monetary benefits based on an award 
or an increased award of compensation, dependency and indemnity 
compensation, or pension may not be made to an individual for 
any period before the first day of the calendar month following 
the month in which the award or increased award became 
effective as provided under section 5110 of this title or such 
other provision of law.
    (2)(A) In the case of a veteran who is retired or separated 
from the active military, naval, or air service for a 
catastrophic disability or disabilities, payment of monetary 
benefits based on an award of compensation based on an original 
claim shall be made as of the date on which such award becomes 
effective as provided under section 5110 of this title or 
another applicable provision of law.
    (B) In this paragraph, the term ``catastrophic 
disability'', with respect to a veteran, means a permanent, 
severely disabling injury, disorder, or disease that 
compromises the ability of the veteran to carry out the 
activities of daily living to such a degree that the veteran 
requires personal or mechanical assistance to leave home or 
bed, or requires constant supervision to avoid physical harm to 
self or others.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 53--SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO BENEFITS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 5305. WAIVER OF RETIRED PAY

    Except as provided in [section 1414] sections 1212(d)(2) 
and 1414 of title 10, any person who is receiving pay pursuant 
to any provision of law providing retired or retirement pay to 
persons in the Armed Forces, or as a commissioned officer of 
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or of the 
Public Health Service, and who would be eligible to receive 
pension or compensation under the laws administered by the 
Secretary if such person were not receiving such retired or 
retirement pay, shall be entitled to receive such pension or 
compensation upon the filing by such person with the department 
by which such retired or retirement pay is paid of a waiver of 
so much of such person's retired or retirement pay as is equal 
in amount to such pension or compensation. To prevent 
duplication of payments, the department with which any such 
waiver is filed shall notify the Secretary of the receipt of 
such waiver, the amount waived, and the effective date of the 
reduction in retired or retirement pay.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 55--MINORS, INCOMPETENTS, AND OTHER WARDS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 5503. HOSPITALIZED VETERANS AND ESTATES OF INCOMPETENT 
                    INSTITUTIONALIZED VETERANS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (c) Where any veteran in receipt of an aid and attendance 
allowance described [in section 1114(r)] in subsection (r) or 
(t) of section 1114 of this title is hospitalized at Government 
expense, such allowance shall be discontinued from the first 
day of the second calendar month which begins after the date of 
the veteran's admission for such hospitalization for so long as 
such hospitalization continues. Any discontinuance required by 
administrative regulation, during hospitalization of a veteran 
by the Department, of increased pension based on need of 
regular aid and attendance or additional compensation based on 
need of regular aid and attendance as described in subsection 
(l) or (m) of section 1114 of this title, shall not be 
effective earlier than the first day of the second calendar 
month which begins after the date of the [veterans'] veteran's 
admission for hospitalization. In case a veteran affected by 
this subsection leaves a hospital against medical advice and is 
thereafter admitted to hospitalization within six months from 
the date of such departure, such allowance, increased pension, 
or additional compensation, as the case may be, shall be 
discontinued from the date of such readmission for so long as 
such hospitalization continues.
    (d)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (5) (A) The provisions of this subsection shall apply with 
respect to a surviving spouse having no child in the same 
manner as they apply to a veteran having neither spouse nor 
child.
    (B) The provisions of this subsection shall apply with 
respect to a child entitled to pension under section 1542 of 
this title in the same manner as they apply to a veteran having 
neither spouse nor child.
    (6) * * *
    (7) This subsection expires on [September 30, 2011] 
September 30, 2014.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                ------                                


                CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY ACT OF 1995

                           (2 U.S.C. 1316(b))

TITLE 2--THE CONGRESS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 24--CONGRESSIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


           SUBCHAPTER II--Extension of Rights and Protections

PART A--Employment Discrimination, Family and Medical Leave, Fair Labor 
    Standards, Employee Polygraph Protection, Worker Adjustment and 
Retraining, Employment and Reemployment of Veterans, and Intimidation

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1316. RIGHTS AND PROTECTIONS RELATING TO VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT AND 
                    REEMPLOYMENT

    (a) * * *
    (b) Remedy.--The remedy for a violation of subsection (a) 
shall be such remedy as would be appropriate if awarded [under 
paragraphs (1), (2)(A), and (3) of section 4323(c) of title 38, 
United States Code] under section 4323(d) of title 38, United 
States Code.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                ------                                


   VETERANS' HOUSING OPPORTUNITY AND BENEFITS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2006

(Public Law 109--233; 120 Stat. 414; 38 U.S.C. 1980A note)

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                     TITLE V--TECHNICAL AMENDMENTS

SEC. 501. TECHNICAL AND CLARIFYING AMENDMENTS TO NEW TRAUMATIC INJURY 
                    PROTECTION COVERAGE UNDER SERVICEMEMBERS' GROUP 
                    LIFE INSURANCE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (b) Applicability to Qualifying Losses Incurred [in 
Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom] Before 
Effective Date of New Program.--
          (1) Eligibility.--A member of the uniformed services 
        who during the period beginning on October 7, 2001, and 
        ending at the close of November 30, 2005, sustains a 
        traumatic injury resulting in a qualifying loss is 
        eligible for coverage for that loss under section 1980A 
        of title 38, United States Code[, if, as determined by 
        the Secretary concerned, that loss was a direct result 
        of a traumatic injury incurred in the theater of 
        operations for Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation 
        Iraqi Freedom].

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                ------                                


        FEDERAL PROPERTY AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ACT OF 1949

(41 U.S.C. 251 et seq.)

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE III--PROCUREMENT PROCEDURE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 316. MERIT-BASED AWARD OF GRANTS FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 318. NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS OF POTENTIAL OBLIGATIONS RELATING TO 
                    EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 
                    FORCES.

    Each contract for the procurement of property or services 
that is entered into by the head of an executive agency shall 
include a notice to the contractor that the contractor may have 
obligations under chapter 43 of title 38, United States Code.
                                ------                                


               VETERANS PROGRAMS ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 1998

                  (Public Law 105-368; 112 Stat. 3321)

TITLE I--PROVISIONS RELATING TO VETERANS OF PERSIAN GULF WAR AND FUTURE 
                               CONFLICTS

SEC. 101. AGREEMENT WITH NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES REGARDING 
                    EVALUATION OF HEALTH CONSEQUENCES OF SERVICE IN 
                    SOUTHWEST ASIA DURING THE PERSIAN GULF WAR.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (j) Sunset.--This section shall cease to be effective [11 
years after the last day of the fiscal year in which the 
National Academy of Sciences enters into an agreement with the 
Secretary under subsection (b)] on October 1, 2018.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                                ------                                


                 PERSIAN GULF WAR VETERANS ACT OF 1998

(Public Law 105-277; 112 Stat. 2681-745; 38 U.S.C. 1117 note)

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1603. AGREEMENT WITH NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


    (j) Sunset. This section shall cease to be effective on 
[October 1, 2010] October 1, 2015.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


[SEC. 1604. REPEAL OF INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS OF LAW.

    [In the event of the enactment, before, on, or after the 
date of the enactment of this Act, of section 101 of the 
Veterans Programs Enhancement Act of 1998, or any similar 
provision of law enacted during the second session of the 105th 
Congress requiring an agreement with the National Academy of 
Sciences regarding an evaluation of health consequences of 
service in Southwest Asia during the Persian Gulf War, such 
section 101 (or other provision of law) shall be treated as if 
never enacted, and shall have no force or effect.]
      

                                  
