[Senate Report 107-86]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 194
107th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 107-86
======================================================================
VETERANS' BENEFITS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2001
_______
October 15, 2001.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Rockefeller, from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1080]
The Committee on Veterans' Affairs, to which was referred
the bill (S. 1088) to amend title 38, United States Code, to
facilitate the use of educational assistance under the
Montgomery GI Bill for education leading to employment in high
technology industry, and for other purposes, having considered
the same, reports favorably thereon with an amendment in the
nature of a committee substitute and recommends that the bill,
as amended, do pass.
Introduction
On June 22, 2001, Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV
introduced S. 1088, with the cosponsorship of Ranking Committee
Member Arlen Specter. Committee members Bob Graham and Larry E.
Craig joined later as cosponsors. S. 1088, as introduced, would
have amended provisions of title 38, United States Code,
concerning the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB), to allow eligible
veterans to elect to receive accelerated payment of educational
assistance under the MGIB for education leading to employment
in high technology industries, and included certain private
technology entities in the definition of educational
institution.
Earlier, on January 22, 2001, S. 131 was introduced by
Senator Tim Johnson, with the cosponsorship of Senator Susan M.
Collins. Committee members Graham and Y. Tim Hutchinson later
became cosponsors. The bill was also cosponsored after
introduction by Senators Joseph R. Biden, Jr., Jeff Bingaman,
Max Cleland, Jon Corzine, Thomas A. Daschle, Byron L. Dorgan,
James M. Inhofe, Edward M. Kennedy, John F. Kerry, Mary L.
Landrieu, Joseph I. Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Trent Lott,
Olympia J. Snowe, and Robert G. Torricelli. S. 131 would have
modified the annual determination of the rate of the basic
benefit of active duty educational assistance under the MGIB.
On January 31, 2001, S. 228 was introduced by Committee
member Daniel K. Akaka. Committee member Craig, Senators
Bingaman and Daniel K. Inouye later cosponsored the bill. S.
228 would have made permanent the Native American veterans
housing loan program.
On February 28, 2001, S. 409 was introduced by Committee
member Kay Bailey Hutchison and cosponsored by Senator Richard
J. Durbin. The bill was later cosponsored by Senators George
Allen, Cleland, Kent Conrad, Ernest F. Hollings, Johnson,
Barbara Boxer, Collins, Dorgan, Russell D. Feingold, Inouye,
and Kennedy. S. 409 would have clarified standards for
compensation for Persian Gulf veterans suffering from certain
undiagnosed illnesses.
On March 29, 2001, S. 662 was introduced by Senator
Christopher J. Dodd and cosponsored by Senators Conrad,
Feingold, Herb Kohl, Robert C. Byrd, Dorgan, Patrick J. Leahy,
Rick Santorum, and George Voinovich. The bill was later
cosponsored by Committee members Craig and Zell Miller, and
Senators Bingaman, Mike DeWine, Lieberman, Jeff Sessions, Ted
Stevens, Johnson, Kerry, Lincoln, and Deborah Ann Stabenow. S.
662 would have authorized the Secretary of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) to furnish headstones or markers for
marked graves of, or to otherwise commemorate, certain
individuals.
On April 26, 2001, S. 781 was introduced by Committee
member Akaka and cosponsored by Committee member James M.
Jeffords. The bill was later cosponsored by Committee member
Craig and Senators Christopher S. Bond, Conrad, Mark Dayton,
DeWine, Dorgan, Johnson, Lott, and Sessions. S. 781 would have
extended authority for housing loans for members of the
Selected Reserve.
On May 17, 2001, S. 912 was introduced by Senator Barbara
A. Mikulski and cosponsored by Committee member Hutchison. The
bill was later cosponsored by Senator Snowe. S. 912 would have
increased burial benefits for veterans.
On May 23, 2001, S. 937 was introduced by Senator Cleland
and cosponsored by Senators Bingaman, Jean Carnahan, Dayton,
Kennedy, Landrieu, Lieberman, Jack Reed, and John W. Warner.
The bill was later cosponsored by Committee members Graham and
Miller and Senator Carl Levin. S. 937 would have permitted the
transfer of entitlement to educational assistance under the
Montgomery GI Bill by members of the Armed Services to their
dependents.
On June 19, 2001, the Committee's Chairman, Senator
Rockefeller, introduced S. 1063, with the cosponsorship of
Committee member Craig. S. 1063 would have improved the
administration of the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims.
On June 22, 2001, Chairman Rockefeller introduced S. 1089
with the cosponsorship of Committee member Craig. S. 1089 would
have expanded temporarily the United States Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims in order to further facilitate staggered
terms for judges on that court, and for other purposes.
On June 22, 2001, Chairman Rockefeller introduced S. 1091
with the cosponsorship of Ranking Committee Member Specter and
Senator Daschle. Committee member Graham later cosponsored the
bill. S. 1091 would have modified and extended authorities on
the presumption of service connection for herbicide-related
disabilities of Vietnam-era veterans, and for other purposes.
On June 22, 2001, Chairman Rockefeller introduced S. 1093.
The bill was later cosponsored by Committee members Craig and
Graham. S. 1093 would have excluded certain income from annual
income determinations for pension purposes, limited provision
of benefits for fugitive and incarcerated veterans, increased
the home loan guaranty amount for construction and purchase of
homes, modified and enhanced other authorities relating to
veterans' benefits, and for other purposes.
On June 25, 2001, S. 1095 was introduced by Senator Fred
Thompson and later cosponsored by Senators Chuck Hagel and
Kerry. S. 1095 would have extended MGIB eligibility to certain
Vietnam-era veterans.
On June 27, 2001, Ranking Committee Member Specter
introduced S. 1114. The bill was later cosponsored by Senators
Thad Cochran and Snowe. S. 1114 would have increased MGIB
monthly rates over 3 years by $150 each year.
On June 28, 2001, the Committee held a hearing, chaired by
Senator Rockefeller, to receive testimony on S. 131, S. 228, S.
409, S. 662, S. 781, S. 912, S. 937, S. 1063, S. 1088, S. 1089,
S. 1091, S. 1093, and S. 1114.
Testimony was heard from Senator Hutchinson; the Honorable
Leo S. Mackay, Jr., Ph.D., Deputy Secretary for Veterans
Affairs; Mr. John Vitikacs, Deputy Director, National Economics
Commission, The American Legion; Mr. Sid Daniels, Deputy
Director, National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign
Wars; Rick Surratt, Deputy National Legislative Director,
Disabled American Veterans; and David Tucker, Senior Associate
Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America.
Testimony was submitted for the record by: Senator Biden;
Senator Collins; Senator Durbin; Senator Johnson; Senator
Mikulski; Representative Donald Manzullo; the National Veterans
Legal Services Program; the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims; the National Organization of Veterans
Advocates; the Vietnam Veterans of America; the Department of
Veterans Affairs Inspector General's Office; the Tennessee
Education Association of Veterans Program Administrators; and
the National Vietnam and Gulf War Veterans Coalition.
After carefully reviewing the testimony from the foregoing
hearing, the Committee met in open session on August 2, 2001,
and voted unanimously to report favorably S. 1088, as amended
to include provisions from S. 131, S. 228, S. 409, S. 662, S.
781, S. 912, S. 937, S. 1063, S. 1088, S. 1089, S. 1091, S.
1093, S. 1095, and S. 1114. Present were Senators Rockefeller,
Miller, Wellstone, Murray, Nelson, Specter, Thurmond and
Hutchison. Speakers included Senators Rockefeller, Wellstone,
Specter, and Hutchison. The vote to pass the Committee's bill
was unanimous.
Summary of the Committee Bill as Reported
S. 1088 as reported (herein referred to as the Committee
bill) contains various amendments to title 38 of United States
Code and other freestanding provisions that would:
(a) increase the rate of the basic Montgomery GI Bill
(MGIB) benefit to $700 in FY 2002, $800 in FY 2003, and
$950 in FY 2004;
(b) allow MGIB participants to receive their
otherwise monthly payment as an accelerated lump-sum
payment at the beginning of a course period;
(c) allow acceleration for payment of 60 percent of
the cost of an approved program that leads to
employment in a high technology industry if the program
exceeds 200 percent of the monthly MGIB benefit;
(d) extend eligibility for the MGIB to certain
Vietnam-era veterans;
(e) expand the definition of educational institution
for VA purposes to include private entities that offer
or contract to offer courses that lead to certification
and are generally recognized as necessary to obtain or
maintain employment in a high technology occupation;
(f) restore a presumption, previously eliminated by a
court decision, that in-country Vietnam veterans were
exposed to Agent Orange;
(g) expand the definition of ``undiagnosed
illnesses'' to include multisymptom illnesses for the
purpose of authorizing compensation to Gulf War
veterans with such illnesses;
(h) exclude certain nonrecurring income from
countable income for determination of VA non-service-
connected death pension eligibility;
(i) modify the time limitation on receipt of claim
information;
(j) modify the requirement for pensioners to report
changes in income from the end of the month, to the end
of the year;
(k) prohibit veterans and dependents from receiving
VA benefits while fugitives;
(l) eliminate future compensation for veterans who
were incarcerated in 1980 and have remained
incarcerated, because veterans incarcerated before 1980
were grandfathered out of prior compensation reductions
due to now defunct technological barriers;
(m) repeal the limitation on payment of benefits to
incompetent veterans because treatment has changed and
incompetent veterans now move between hospitalization
and outpatient treatment more frequently;
(n) extend the effective date of certain Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act provisions by 3 years, from
2008 to 2011;
(o) increase the home loan guaranty amount from
$50,750 to $63,175;
(p) extend the Native American Veterans Housing Loan
Program for 4 years as this benefit continues to be
necessary as homes on tribal land fall under different
foreclosure and resale rules than general real estate;
(q) extend authority for housing loan guaranties for
members of the Selected Reserve for 4 years in order to
advertise the home loan guaranty as a recruiting
incentive;
(r) increase the VA burial benefits for service-
connected deaths of veterans from $1,500 to $2,000;
(s) authorize VA to furnish bronze markers for
already privately marked graves;
(t) eliminate the cap on veteran participants in the
VA's Vocational Rehabilitation ``Independent Living''
program that assists veterans who are too disabled to
retrain for employment to achieve and maintain
independent living and reduce reliance on others;
(u) create a plan to address problems related to the
possible retirement of a majority of judges at the
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
(CAVC) within a short period of time;
(v) repeal the requirement for a judge of the CAVC to
provide written notice regarding acceptance of
reappointment as a precondition to retirement from the
court;
(w) terminate the post-November 17, 1988, Notice of
Disagreement as a requirement for jurisdiction in the
CAVC;
(x) impose a periodic registration fee on persons
admitted to practice before the CAVC; and
(y) make available to the CAVC the same management,
administrative, and expenditure authorities currently
available to Article III courts.
Committee Bill
Sections 101 through 105: Education Matters
The original ``GI Bill of Rights'' was created at the end
of World War II to, among other things, give returning
soldiers, airmen, and seamen compensation for educational
opportunities lost while serving in the war and to ease their
transition back into civilian life. The World War II GI Bill
was succeeded by veterans' education benefits programs for
Korean conflict veterans and veterans of the Vietnam war. In
1976, in Public Law 94-502, the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans
Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) was enacted to provide
the first veterans' education benefit for peacetime veterans of
an all-volunteer military. VEAP created an educational matching
fund account for servicemembers who entered active duty between
December 31, 1975, and July 1, 1985. Participants could
contribute up to $2,700 and the Department of Defense (DOD)
would match the contributions on a 2 to 1 basis. Thus,
servicemembers could accumulate a college fund worth up to
$8,100 while in service. Recognizing a need to increase
educational benefits to assist former servicemembers and
recruit high quality individuals to the services, Congress
enacted the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB), in 1984, in Public Law
98-525. The MGIB retained the servicemember contribution
feature of VEAP, though at the reduced level of $1,200. Under
the MGIB, participating members accept a reduction in their
base pay of $100 per month for the first 12 months of service.
In exchange, they become entitled to 36 months of educational
benefits, which are currently set at $650 per month.
The Committee is very committed to ensuring that the MGIB
continues to assist veterans and servicemembers in accessing
desired educational opportunities so that they may
realistically compete in today's changing job market. To that
end, and with the support of Committee members, the Budget
Resolution for FY 2002 allocates $228 million for MGIB
enhancements. The Committee bill would increase the rate of the
basic MGIB benefit and augment the coverage and flexibility of
the benefit so as to increase use of the benefit, in
recognition of the fact that, according to VA, only 45 percent
of eligible beneficiaries who entered active duty after 1988
have utilized their MGIB benefit.
Section 101: Increases the rate of the basic MGIB benefit
Background
Today, one of the best tools for Armed Forces recruiting is
the MGIB, because it provides higher education opportunities to
qualified men and women who might not otherwise be able to
afford post-secondary schooling. However, the effectiveness of
the MGIB as a recruiting incentive is compromised because
individuals seeking financial assistance to attend college may
find funds available from many sources. As an example, a
preliminary analysis by the Government Accounting Office
indicates that the total Federal aid available to low income,
independent nonveterans attending 4-year public universities is
$9,750 per year; while aid to low income veterans (including
earned MGIB benefits) is just over $1,500 per year higher. The
Committee believes that the MGIB, as has been the intent since
its enactment, should be sufficient to offset the commitment
and sacrifices that individuals make to serve in our Nation's
military, thus providing an attractive package that stands out
among other options and encourages the furtherance of
education.
Tuition at the average 4-year public institution went up
4.4 percent, to $3,510, for the 2000-2001 academic year.
Tuition and fees at the average 4-year private institution were
$16,332 up 5.2 percent from the year before. Over a 10-year
period ending in 1999-2000, tuition and fees rose 49 percent at
public 4-year universities and 32 percent at private 4-year
universities. These costs are in addition to room and board,
books and supplies, transportation, and other miscellaneous
items.
According to a program evaluation of the MGIB done by VA in
2000, MGIB benefits only cover half of the typical out-of-
pocket expenses for a 4-year college education. In fact,
students who use the MGIB benefit for a bachelors degree tend
to have a higher debt load than students who pay for college in
other ways. The same study found that only about 45 percent of
veterans eligible for MGIB benefits who entered active duty
after 1988 have taken advantage of MGIB benefits.
According to the College Board, $1.487 billion in student
aid was available specifically to veterans in 1999-2000.
However, in the past 10 years, veterans' educational benefits
have not kept pace with rising tuition costs. While tuition has
increased by 50 percent this decade, educational aid to
veterans has only increased by about 41 percent, after
adjusting for inflation.
The Veterans Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act of
2000, Public Law. 106-419, raised the monthly MGIB benefit from
$528 to the current $650 for individuals whose original service
obligation was for 3 years and from $429 to $528 for those with
a 2-year obligation period of service. Public Law 106-419 also
provided servicemembers with an opportunity to ``buy up'' their
MGIB benefit by up to $180 per month by making a $600
contribution toward that end.
Committee Bill
Section 101 of the Committee bill, based on S. 131 and S.
1114, would supplement the recent improvement in the benefit
rate by increasing the monthly benefit, for veterans whose
original service obligation was 3 or more years, to $700 in FY
2002, $800 in FY 2003, and $950 in FY 2004. For veterans whose
original service obligation was 2 years, the monthly
educational benefit is increased to $569 in FY 2002, $650 in FY
2003, and $772 in FY 2004. This provision should aid military
recruiting, by making the MGIB more competitive with other
forms of financial aid, and ease a veteran's transition back
into civilian life. Thus, after full phase-in of the MGIB
amounts in this section, and together with the ``buy up''
benefit, the potential exists for a total monthly benefit of
$1,100 for servicemembers who serve at least 3 years.
Cost: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the
total cost of section 101 would be $53 million in 2002, $1.8
billion over the 5-year period, 2002-2006, and $5.3 billion
over the 10-year period, 2002-2011.
Section 102: provides authority for accelerated payments of basic
educational assistance under the MGIB
Background
Current law provides that the MGIB benefit be disbursed in
36 equal monthly amounts. However, according to VA's MGIB
program evaluation, the payments do not arrive at the same time
every month. Some colleges and universities want students'
tuition paid at the beginning of the term. Many schools also
impose substantial up front costs at the beginning of each
course, term; or semester. Thus, veterans are often forced to
pay for their tuition, supplies, books, and other educational
costs out of their own pocket and then recoup those costs with
the MGIB benefit. Many veterans cannot borrow sufficient funds
in order to await reimbursement.
The Committee notes that the 1999 Report of the
Congressional Commission on Servicemembers and Veterans
Transition Assistance recommended that the Congress enact
legislation providing for accelerated payments. An accelerated
payment benefit would also provide a greater incentive for
veterans who are eligible for MGIB benefits to actually use the
benefit. As part of the VA program evaluation, 564 veterans
were asked to cite the factors which would encourage them to
use their MGIB entitlement. Twenty six percent responded that
the ability to receive lump-sum payments would be the primary
encouraging factor.
Committee Bill
Section 102 of the Committee Bill, derived from S. 937,
would allow MGIB participants to receive their otherwise
monthly payment as an accelerated lump-sum payment for the
month in which the course begins, plus up to 4 months worth of
educational assistance allowance, or in the case of a term,
quarter, or semester, the amount of the aggregate monthly
educational assistance allowance payable for the entire term,
quarter, or semester. The remainder of the MGIB entitlement
would be reduced by the same amount as it would have been
charged had payments been made on a monthly basis.
Cost: CBO estimates that this provision would increase
direct spending by $100 million in 2002, $300 million over the
5-year period, 2002-2006, and $365 million over the10-year
period, 2002-2011.
Section 103: accelerates payments of MGIB benefit by 60 percent of the
cost of an approved program that leads to employment in a high
technology industry
Background
The payment structure of the MGIB was designed to provide
assistance to veterans pursuing traditional 4-year degrees at
universities by offering benefits, distributed monthly for up
to 36 months. Last year, in Public Law 106-419, Congress
extended MGIB benefits to cover the costs of certification
exams that technical systems training courses prepare veterans
to take.
In today's fast-paced, high technology economy, in which
many students work and support families, traditional degrees
may not be the chosen option for every veteran. According to
the VA's 2000 MGIB program evaluation, many eligible
beneficiaries surveyed said that they are not able to enroll in
choice programs because they are over burdened with other
responsibilities. Among all MGIB users who dropped out of a
college or training program, ``job responsibilities'' was the
most cited reason. The proportion of women among the active
duty forces has increased by more than 4 percent between 1985
and 1998, and there was also an increase in the average number
of dependents per family of active duty members. Female users
most often quit because of ``family/personal'' reasons.
With heightened job, financial, and family
responsibilities, many veterans wish to pursue training with
condensed schedules. Also, many veterans could benefit from
training in the computer and technical skills that are highly
sought-after in today's high technology marketplace. In these
fields, certification is often a prerequisite for employment.
Microsoft, Cisco, and other technical training for
certification is offered through training centers, private
contractors to community colleges, or by the companies
themselves. These courses often last just a few weeks or
months, and can cost many thousands of dollars. Under current
law, the MGIB is paid out in monthly disbursements which are
ill-suited for the payment structure that these sorts of
courses demand. For example, in the case of a 2 month
certification course that might cost $10,000, the MGIB would
pay only $1,300.
During the Committee's June 28th hearing, Dr. Leo Mackay,
Deputy Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs,
testified that ``providing educational benefits for pursuit of
these [technology] courses is fully consonant with MGIB
purposes.'' David Tucker, Senior Associate Legislative Director
of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, also testified that, ``If
the MGIB is to be used not only for recruitment purposes, but
also as a means of enabling a veteran to make a smooth
transition back to civilian life, then S. 1088 [allowing
veterans to use their MGIB benefits in courses leading to
certification in technical fields] is a vital means to
accomplish these goals.''
Committee Bill
Section 103 of the Committee bill, derived from S. 1088,
takes the next logical step after last year's expansion to
include coverage of certification exam costs by authorizing
payment for a portion of these courses. This provision would
allow an accelerated payment of MGIB benefits to accommodate
the compressed schedule of courses that lead to employment in a
high technology industry. Veterans would be eligible to receive
an accelerated payment equal to 60 percent of the costs. The
dollar value of the accelerated payment would be deducted from
the veteran's remaining MGIB entitlement.
The Committee bill would not specify which technology
fields are covered by this section. Instead, it authorizes the
Secretary to determine which courses are applicable, thus
ensuring flexibility to keep pace with emerging fields and
courses.
Cost: CBO estimates the cost of section 103 would be $4
million in 2002, $140 million over the 5-year period, 2002-
2006, and $440 million in the 10-year period, 2002-2011.
Section 104: extends eligibility for the MGIB to certain Vietnam-era
veterans
Background
Current law provides that, if a Vietnam-era veteran had
eligibility for Vietnam-era GI Bill benefits as of December 31,
1989, was on active duty on October 19, 1984, and served 3
continuous years, the veteran could convert his or her Vietnam-
era benefit to the MGIB educational benefit. There are,
however, some veterans who served during the Vietnam era and
left the service in the early 1980's, only to reenlist and
serve again on active duty after October 19, 1984. Rejoining
active duty after October 19, 1984, precluded them from
converting prior benefits to MGIB and effectively eliminated
their ability to use their Vietnam-era GI Bill. Thus, someone
who served honorably at least twice is left with no educational
benefits under current law because they did not reenlist for
active duty before the October 19, 1984, statutory deadline.
Committee Bill
Section 104 of the Committee bill, derived from S. 1095,
would allow a Vietnam-era veteran to convert Vietnam-era GI
Bill benefits to MGIB benefits if the veteran had eligibility
for the Vietnam-era GI Bill benefits as of December 31, 1989,
was not on active duty on October 19, 1984, and served 3
continuous years in the Armed Forces after July 2, 1985.
Cost: CBO estimates the cost will be less than $500,000 in
2002, $9 million over the 5-year period, 2002-2006, and $18
million over the 10-year period, 2022-2011.
Section 105: includes high technology entities in the definition of
educational institutions
Background
Under current law, course providers must be approved for VA
purposes as an educational institution in the state where the
course is offered in order for MGIB funds to be released. If a
provider operates in multiple states, it must be approved
separately in each state where MGIB beneficiaries are enrolled
for veterans to receive benefits in each state. Courses offered
by Novell, Microsoft, and other technology companies are
offered through some VA-recognized educational institutions as
well as designated business centers or other private providers.
When the courses are offered through private providers, they
often do not undertake the process of becoming a VA-approved
educational institution. Even if classes are identical, only
those veterans at a VA-recognized educational institution are
able to receive educational assistance.
Committee Bill
Under Section 105 of the Committee bill, derived from S.
1088, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs would be given
authority, for MGIB purposes, to establish requirements for
private entities to qualify for MGIB payments because their
educational services to veterans fulfill requirements for the
attainment of a license or certificate generally recognized as
necessary to obtain, maintain, or advance a veteran's
employment in a profession or vocation in a high technology
occupation. This would enable veterans, regardless of where
they take their high technology classes, to apply for MGIB
benefits.
Cost: CBO did not estimate any cost to be associated with
section 105.
Section 201: restores the VA presumption of Agent Orange exposure for
Vietnam veterans and extends scientific studies into its long-term
health effects
Background
Questions about the health consequences of exposure to the
herbicide Agent Orange in Vietnam arose at the inception of its
use in 1962, and continue long after the return of American
servicemembers. In 1969, research showed that the herbicide
component of Agent Orange could cause birth defects in
laboratory animals. Subsequent studies into the adverse effects
of dioxin, a contaminant of Agent Orange, heightened public
fears that diseases manifested by Vietnam veterans and their
children resulted from wartime exposures. In the absence of
conclusive evidence for or against specific health effects of
Agent Orange exposure, many veterans and public interest groups
expressed frustration with the Federal response to Vietnam
veterans' concerns.
In order to address these concerns, Congress passed Public
Law 102-4, the Agent Orange Act of 1991. This act modified
title 38, chapter 11, to establish presumptions of service
connection for diseases associated with exposure to herbicide
agents of the kind used in the Republic of Vietnam. Section
1116 of title 38 states that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
may determine which diseases warrant presumption of a service
connection based on an association with exposure to an
herbicide agent in the case of a veteran who served in Vietnam
between January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975.
Service connection for a disability ``means that the facts,
shown by evidence, establish that a particular injury or
disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with
service in the Armed Forces, or if preexisting such service,
was aggravated therein.'' 38 C.F.R. Sec. 3.303(a), 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 501. Direct service connection is established by showing
that the disability was ``coincident'' with service. Direct
service connection can be established by showing a causal
relationship between the current disability (manifesting after
service) and some injury or disease during service. Presumptive
service connection requires no causal relationship, but merely
relies on the presumption that the disability was present or
caused by service or some special circumstance during service.
A 1999 U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC)
decision, McCartt v. West, 12 Vet. App. 164 (1999), held that a
presumption of exposure to Agent Orange can only apply when the
veteran's disease is included in the list of enumerated
diseases in 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1116(a) or 38 C.F.R. Sec. 3.309(e).
McCartt had a skin condition which he claimed was
attributable to his service in Vietnam, but which was not on
the list of diseases. The CAVC held that, if McCartt had none
of the enumerated diseases in either 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1116(a) or
38 C.F.R. Sec. 3.309(e), then he was not entitled to a
presumption of exposure to Agent Orange under the language of
the law. Section 1116(a)(3) of title 38 states that a veteran
who served in Vietnam and has one of the enumerated diseases
will be presumed to have been exposed.
[A] veteran who, during active military, naval, or
air service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during
the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on
May 7, 1975, and has [one of the enumerated diseases]
shall be presumed to have been exposed during such
service to an herbicide agent containing dioxin or 2,4-
dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), and may be presumed
to have been exposed during such service to any other
chemical compound in an herbicide agent, unless there
is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran
was not exposed to any such agent during that service.
38 U.S.C. Sec. 1116(a)(3) (emphasis added).
Therefore, the court held that McCartt had the burden of
submitting evidence to justify his claim of exposure to
herbicides.
VA practice prior to the McCartt decision had been to
presume exposure for anyone who had served in Vietnam during
the statutorily defined period of war, that is, from January 9,
1962, to May 7, 1975, unless there was affirmative evidence to
the contrary. After McCartt, VA practice was changed to presume
exposure to herbicide agents only if the veteran had one of the
presumptive diseases listed in 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1116(a) or 38
C.F.R. Sec. 3.309(e), unless there was affirmative evidence to
the contrary.
Addressing this issue, Rick Surratt, Deputy Legislative
Director of the Disabled American Veterans, stated before the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs on June 28, 2001:
From 1980 to 1999, VA presumed exposure to herbicides
in the case of any Vietnam veteran who claimed
exposure, in recognition that circumstances make it
near impossible to prove or rule out exposure in
individual cases and in observance of the benefit-of-
the-doubt rule. Following [McCartt] in which the court
had no cognizance of the presumption and did not
recognize it, VA conveniently abandoned the
presumption, although no circumstances responsible for
this policy and its legal premises had changed. Now,
the only veterans entitled to the presumption of
exposure to herbicides are those who claim compensation
for disabilities subject to the statutory presumption
of service connection. Others are left with the often
impossible burden of proving exposure even though
existing records are insufficient to document
individual exposure in most instances.
In the Agent Orange Act of 1991, Congress sought to address
skepticism about VA's objectivity by requiring the Secretary to
rely upon an independent assessment of health effects suspected
to be linked to herbicide exposures. Section 3 of the Agent
Orange Act of 1991 required the Secretary to contract with the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review the scientific and
clinical evidence regarding the health effects of exposure to
the components of herbicides used in Vietnam, and to report to
the Congress and VA every 2 years for 10 years. Section
1116(c)(1) of title 38 then requires the Secretary to determine
whether a presumption of service connection is warranted for
each disease covered in the NAS report, and to propose
regulations for each disease if necessary. These reviews have
led to the recent addition of type 2 diabetes as a service-
connected disease, and understanding of the possible long-term
effects of herbicide and dioxin exposure continues to grow.
Committee Bill
Section 201 of the Committee bill, derived from S. 1091,
would restore the VA practice, eliminated by the McCartt
decision, to presume that veterans who served in Vietnam during
the time specified in law were exposed to herbicides such as
Agent Orange regardless of the disease the veteran seeks to
have service connected. Thus, VA would be mandated to resume
the practice of presuming exposure for anyone who served on
active military, naval, or air service, in the Republic of
Vietnam from January 9, 1962, to May 7, 1975. Claimants will
still need to submit evidence sufficient to show that a disease
is related to Agent Orange exposure if the disease is not on
the list. The Committee bill also directs VA to contract with
NAS so NAS will continue to review scientific evidence on
effects of dioxin or herbicide exposure for 10 more years (five
reports), and extends authority of the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to presume service connection for additional diseases
as based on future NAS reports for 10 more years.
Cost: CBO estimates that the cost of extending the
production of the report on Agent Orange and veterans that is
produced biennially would be $4 million over the 10-year
period, 2002-2011, assuming appropriation of the necessary
amounts.
Section 202: expands the definition of service-connected ``undiagnosed
illnesses'' and extends the presumptive period for Gulf War veterans
Background
Following the Gulf War in 1991, returning servicemembers
began to report a range of unexplained illnesses characterized
by symptoms such as chronic fatigue, muscle and joint pain,
loss of concentration and forgetfulness, headaches, and skin
rashes that many attributed to their service. Subsequent review
revealed that men and women who served in the war might have
been exposed to multiple biological and chemical agents,
including, among others, smoke from oil well fires, pesticides,
organic solvents, the drug pyridostigmine bromide, numerous
vaccinations, and sarin nerve gas.
Efforts to determine what hazards might be linked to
specific symptoms have been limited by inconclusive data on the
long-term effects of low-dose exposures, and by poor
documentation of troop location during the conflict. In
response to concerns about the health of Gulf War veterans,
Congress passed Public Law 102-585--authorizing health
examinations, tasking the NAS to evaluate scientific evidence
regarding potential Gulf War exposures, and establishing the
Gulf War Veterans Health Registry--and Public Law 102-310,
authorizing VA to provide health care services on a priority
basis to Gulf War veterans. However, the inability of clinical
and scientific evidence to link the symptoms that have been
labeled collectively ``Gulf War Syndrome'' directly to specific
wartime exposures proved a barrier to establishing service
connection for Gulf War veterans' disabilities.
In 1994, Congress passed the Persian Gulf War Veterans'
Benefits Act as title I of Public Law 103-446, to provide
compensation to Gulf War veterans disabled by illnesses that
could not be diagnosed or defined at that time, and for which
no other causes could be identified. Among other things, this
law amended chapter 11 of title 38 so as to add a new section,
section 1117, which authorized the Secretary to pay
compensation to any Gulf War veteran suffering from a chronic
disability resulting from an undiagnosed illness (or
combination of undiagnosed illnesses) that became manifest
during service in the Gulf War theater or to a degree of 10
percent or more within the presumptive period set by the
Secretary in regulations.
VA has interpreted this authority to limit service
connection only to conditions for which no clinical diagnosis
can be made. Since the passage of this law, many Gulf War
veterans have received diagnoses for chronic conditions whose
causes cannot be identified conclusively, but which preclude
them from eligibility for benefits under the current law. Over
the last decade, the medical community has increasingly
accepted diagnoses such as chronic fatigue syndrome,
fibromyalgia, and irritable bowel syndrome to describe
multisymptom chronic illnesses without known cause. Under VA's
interpretation of its authority, a veteran with a diagnosis of
``chronic fatigue of unknown etiology'' is eligible for
benefits under the current law, but a veteran with a diagnosis
of ``chronic fatigue syndrome'' is not eligible, despite the
fact that their symptoms may not differ in any significant way.
This situation results not from advances in understanding the
causes of symptoms manifested by Gulf War veterans, but from
changes in medical terminology in the past decade.
Because current scientific research has not determined the
etiology of veterans' symptoms or the long-term health
consequences of Gulf War-era exposures, and because the
Department of Defense recently released new estimates of the
number and locations of service personnel exposed to nerve
agents, extension of this presumptive period beyond the
scheduled termination date of December 31, 2001, as set forth
in the Federal Register of April 29, 1997, 62 FR 23138-23139,
is warranted. Although section 1117 of title 38 authorizes the
Secretary to extend the period for presumption of service
connection by regulation, the Secretary has not yet acted on
this authority.
Committee Bill
Section 202 of the Committee bill, derived from S. 409,
would correct this unintended exclusion of veterans with poorly
defined diagnosed illnesses from the ``undiagnosed illnesses''
provisions in section 1117 of title 38 by adding to the list of
conditions that can be service connected ``poorly defined
chronic multisymptom illnesses of unknown etiology, regardless
of diagnosis,'' characterized by the symptoms already listed in
VA regulations. Section 202 does not define Gulf War Syndrome,
but authorizes the Secretary to offer compensation to veterans
with diagnoses such as chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia,
and irritable bowel syndrome, which are diagnosed in Gulf War
veterans more frequently than in age-matched control
populations. This section also extends the presumptive period
for health care and benefits for Gulf War veterans for 10 more
years.
Cost: Section 202 would take effect on April 1, 2001, and
because VA takes an average of 6 months to adjudicate reopened
claims, CBO expects that no payments would be made in 2002. CBO
estimates that enacting section 202 would increase direct
spending by $46 million in 2003, $168 million in the 4-year
period from 2003 through 2006, and $400 million over the 9-year
period, 2003-2011.
Section 203: excludes life insurance from countable income for non-
service-connected death pension
Background
Non-service-connected death pension is paid to low income
surviving dependents, mainly spouses, of wartime veterans. All
VA pension programs have complex rules relating to effective
dates and what types of income are not counted in VA's
determination of the claimant's income.
Under current law, section 5110(d)(2) of title 38, a claim
for non-service-connected death pension received within 45 days
of the veteran's death is effective on the date of death.
Claims received more than 45 days after the veteran's death are
effective on the date of the claim. This distinction was
created in Public Law 98-369, as a cost-cutting measure.
However, this provision created a loophole that has led to
unequal treatment for surviving spouses applying for death
pension. The effect of Public Law 98-369 was to exclude life
insurance proceeds from countable income for claimants who file
more than 45 days after the date of the veteran's death. The
effective dates for those who wait more than 45 days are the
dates the claims were filed, regardless of their insurance
proceeds. However, the life insurance of those spouses who file
within 45 days of death is counted as income for the following
12 months and may result in making them ineligible for pension
for a full year.
Committee Bill
Section 203 of the Committee bill, derived from S. 1093,
would exclude life insurance proceeds and other nonrecurring
income from countable income for VA death pension. This income
will still be accounted for in VA's net worth calculations,
when appropriate. The Secretary is given authority to set an
appropriate limit on the amount of insurance and nonrecurring
income that are to be excluded as income for pension purposes,
in order to maintain fairness if a survivor were to receive an
unusually large windfall.
Cost: CBO estimates that enacting this provision would cost
$3 million in 2002, $17 million over the 5-year period, 2002-
2006, and $62 million over the 10-year period, 2002-2011.
Section 204: modifies the time limitation for receipt of claim
information
Background
On November 9, 2000, the President signed Public Law 106-
475, the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), which
reinstated and clarified the VA's duty to assist veterans with
their claims for benefits. The VCAA's primary purpose was to
substantially return VA claims assistance practice to what it
traditionally had been throughout VA's modern history prior to
the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
in Morton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 477 (1999). In Morton, the
court held that VA does not have the authority to assist
claimants prior to the submission of a well-grounded claim. As
a consequence of Morton, VA directed regional offices to
subject all claims to an initial review to determine whether
they are well-grounded before proceeding to assist the claimant
in fully developing the claim. Section 3 of the VCAA defines
the responsibilities that both VA and claimants have at two
distinct points of the claims process: submitting information
to complete an incomplete application for benefits and
submitting evidence necessary to substantiate a claim for
benefits based on a complete or substantially complete
application.
Prior to the VCAA's enactment, section 5103(a) of title 38,
United States Code, provided that if a claimant's application
for benefits was incomplete, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
was required to notify the applicant of the evidence needed to
complete the application. If such evidence was not received
within 1 year of the Secretary's notification, section 5103(a)
prohibited benefits from being furnished or paid based on the
incomplete application. Section 3 of the VCAA created a new
section 5102(b) that retained the language of prior section
5103(a) requiring the Secretary to notify an applicant of the
evidence required to complete an application, but omitted the
language requiring the evidence to be submitted within 1 year
of the Secretary's notice. Instead, the VCAA placed the 1 year
time limitation language in a new section 5103(b), which
governs the receipt of information and evidence necessary to
substantiate a claim for benefits based on a complete or
substantially complete application.
In testimony submitted to the Committee on June 28, 2001,
VA Deputy Secretary Leo Mackay testified on behalf of VA
regarding the effect of the change in law concerning the 1-year
time limitation, noting that, under the VCAA:
. . . if a claimant were to submit an application for
benefits and receive notification from VA that the
application is incomplete, it does not appear that VA
would be authorized to close or deny the claim based on
an applicant's failure to respond. Further, if the
claimant submits the requested information at any time
in the future, and if a benefit were granted, VA would
be required to establish an effective date for an award
of benefits based on the date the incomplete
application was filed without regard to whether the
applicant responded to VA's request for further
information to ``complete'' the application in a timely
fashion. We do not believe this result was intended by
the Congress.
The Committee concurs with VA's assessment of Congressional
intent.
Committee Bill
Section 204 of the Committee bill, derived from S. 1093,
would, through a technical correction, restore the law on this
matter as it was prior to the VCAA by making the 1-year time
limitation applicable to evidence necessary to complete an
application and not applicable to evidence necessary to
substantiate a claim based on a complete or substantially
complete application.
Cost: CBO estimates that this provision would have little
or no net effect on direct spending.
Section 205: modifies the requirement for pensioners to report changes
in income from the end of the month to the end of the year
Background
VA pension is a needs-based program payable to low income
wartime veterans who cannot work due to permanent and total
disability. Death pension is payable to low income surviving
dependents of wartime veterans. Pension amounts are offset
dollar-for-dollar with income from other sources (unless
specifically excluded by statute).
Under current law, section 5112(b)(4)(A) of title 38 (the
``end of the month rule'') requires VA pension to be reduced or
discontinued effective the first day of the month following the
month in which the pensioner's net income is increased, even if
it is a one-time increase. This can lead to multiple
adjustments per year and an increased probability of errors.
These reporting requirements are burdensome for pensioners
and call for very exacting income matching and accounting
procedures by VA, which in turn leads to a disproportionate
percentage of time being spent by VA on pension as compared
with the number of people receiving pension, and is one of the
greatest sources of errors in claims processing. In fiscal year
2000, VA's quality review program, STAR, showed that effective
date errors were made roughly one out of nine times when
effective date issues were reviewed. Of those, 54 percent were
related to pension income calculations. VA states that the
errors occur most often in the end-of-the-month adjustments.
These adjustments also affect the basic security of the
pensioners, who by definition have low incomes. When VA creates
a debt through overpayments, until the adjustment is processed
(which occurred 107,000 times in fiscal year 2000), the
pensioner frequently seeks a waiver of the debt under section
5302 of title 38 and is often successful because of their
limited means. In FY 2000, 15,730 requests for waiver of
pension debt were received and 10,027 of those were granted.
Committee Bill
Section 205 of the Committee bill, derived from S. 1093,
would modify the requirement for pensioners to report changes
in income from the end of the month to the end of the year.
This would reduce the number of times that VA has to adjust
pension, reducing administrative overhead and opportunities for
mistakes.
Cost: CBO estimates that this provision would have little
or no net effect on direct spending.
Section 206: bars veterans from receiving benefits while fugitives
Background
In 1996, Congress enacted Public Law 104-193. This law was
designed to cut off the means of support that allows fugitive
felons to continue to flee. It barred fugitive felons from
receiving Supplemental Security Insurance from the Social
Security Administration and food stamps from the Department of
Agriculture. However, under current law, there is no bar to
prevent veterans who are fugitives from justice from receiving
VA benefits.
Committee Bill
Section 206 of the Committee bill, derived from S. 1093,
would bar veterans and eligible dependents from receiving
veterans benefits while fugitive, which is defined as fleeing
to avoid prosecution, or custody or confinement after
conviction, for an offense, or an attempt to commit an offense,
which is a felony under the laws of the place from which the
veteran flees. The benefits which would be barred include those
for service-connected disabilities; dependency and indemnity
compensation for service-connected deaths; non-service-
connected disability/death pension; hospital, nursing home,
domiciliary and medical care; insurance; educational
entitlements; training and rehabilitation benefits for veterans
with service-connected disabilities; post-Vietnam era veterans'
educational assistance; survivors' and dependents' educational
assistance; and, housing and small business loans.
Cost: CBO estimates that this provision would have little
or no net effect on direct spending.
Section 207: eliminates compensation for veterans who were incarcerated
prior to 1980 and have remained incarcerated
Background
One of the purposes of VA benefits is to help disabled
veterans who have a service-connected disability maintain a
standard of living, determined by lost average earnings
capacity, that has been compromised by the service-connected
disability. If a veteran is incarcerated, then the government
provides a minimum standard of living.
In 1980, Congress enacted legislation to reduce
compensation to incarcerated veterans to the equivalent to the
rate of compensation paid for a 10-percent disability (or, if
they only receive ten percent, to the equivalent dollar amount
of 5 percent). The policy underlying this provision is that
many of the veteran's basic needs, such as food, clothing, and
shelter, are already being met by the entity which is
incarcerating the veteran. The remainder of the veteran's
compensation can be apportioned and sent to the veteran's
dependents (if any).
Veterans who were already incarcerated in 1980 were not
covered by this change in law. One reason was that VA did not
believe that it would be able to identify those veterans.
However, technological changes now make this possible and VA
has indicated that is only a small number of veterans who were
incarcerated in 1980 who have remained continuously
incarcerated.
Committee Bill
Section 207 of the Committee bill, derived from S. 1093,
would eliminate compensation for veterans who were incarcerated
in 1980 and have remained incarcerated, by stopping their
future payments. It would not affect any payments they have
received between 1980 and enactment of this provision. Further,
this provision would not impede these veterans' ability to
apportion their benefits to any dependents they may have. The
provision furthers VA's program integrity by treating similarly
situated veterans alike now that technology provides the
ability to do so.
Cost: CBO estimates that this provision would result in an
annual savings of about $2 million.
Section 208: repeals the limitation on payment of benefits to
incompetent veterans
Background
A reduction of benefits to incompetent veterans dates back
to 1933, when incompetent people would be institutionalized for
years. The ``$1,500'' rule prohibited compensation and pension
benefits from being paid to incompetent veterans with assets of
$1,500 or more and no dependants, if the veteran was being
provided institutional health care by the government. The rule
was created by Congress to prevent the accumulation of large
estates of Federal benefits which would be inherited by persons
who had no original entitlement to those benefits during the
veteran's lifetime. It was also felt that a large estate based
on the veteran's benefits should not be allowed to build up
just to escheat to the state upon the veteran's death.
In addition, this provision was intended to guard against
misuse of accumulated benefits for long-term hospitalized
incompetent veterans. An unintended result was that veterans
with financial obligations (e.g. a home mortgage) lost the
income to meet their debts. Now, treatment for the mentally ill
has changed and veterans do not generally remain hospitalized
for years at a time. Instead, they are more likely to cycle in
and out of treatment, resulting in virtually constant
suspension and reinstatement of their benefits.
In 2000, Congress addressed this prohibition against paying
compensation and pension benefits to an incompetent veteran who
had no dependents and who had assets of $1,500 or more, if the
veteran was being provided institutional health care by the
government. Although the Committee sought to fully eliminate
this disparate and discriminatory treatment of incompetent
veterans, because of funding restraints it was only able, in
Public Law 106-419, to raise the dollar amount of the cutoff
from $1,500 to five times the 100 percent compensation rate.
Committee Bill
Section 208 of the Committee bill would fully repeal the
limitation on payment of benefits to incompetent
institutionalized veterans who have no dependents, treating
these veterans the same as any other veteran receiving
disability compensation.
Cost: CBO estimates that the cost of Section 208 would be
about $4 million in 2002, $22 million over the 5-year period,
2002-2006, and $47 million over the 10-year period, 2002-2011.
Section 209: extends certain Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act
provisions
Background
In 1990, Public Law 101-508 authorized VA to use income
information received from other agencies, such as the
Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of
the Treasury, to determine the level of a VA beneficiary's
income. VA may use this information as part of its process to
determine continuing eligibility for receipt of VA means-tested
benefits. This authority expired on September 30, 1992, and has
since been extended through 1997 in Public Law 102-568, through
1998 in Public Law 103-66, through 2002 in Public Law 105-33,
and through 2008 in Public Law 106-419.
Public Law 101-508 also reduced the VA pension amount for
certain veterans receiving 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, through 1998 in Public Law 103-66, through
2002 in Public Law 105-33, and through 2008 in Public Law 106-
419.
Committee Bill
Section 209(a) of the Committee bill, extends the income
information verification from September 30, 2008 to September
30, 2011.
Section 209(b) of the bill extends the authority for
limitation of VA pension to $90 per month for certain veterans
receiving Medicaid-covered nursing home care from September 30,
2008 and inserting September 30, 2011.
Cost: CBO estimates that 209(a) would lower direct spending
by $5 million over the 3-year period, 2009-2011, and that
209(b) would result in a net spending reduction of $631 million
over the same period.
Section 301: increases the home loan guaranty amount from $50,750 to
$63,175
Background
VA does not generally provide a direct home loan for
servicemembers and veterans. Instead, it provides a guaranty to
mortgage lenders should the borrower veteran be unable to meet
the payments and go into foreclosure. A VA guaranty allows a
veteran to buy a home for up to four times the guaranty amount,
with a current maximum of $203,000. In 2000, VA guaranteed
175,000 housing loans. While a popular benefit, its value has
decreased in recent years as the price of homes in major
metropolitan areas has increased significantly, while the VA
guaranty amount has not increased since 1994. Rick Surratt,
Deputy Legislative Director of the Disabled American Veterans,
stated before the Committee on June 28, 2001:
A recent survey by the Federal Housing Finance Board showed
average home prices [are] higher than $203,000 in several areas
of the Nation. Several years have passed without any adjustment
in the maximum home loan guaranty, and the erosion of the
benefit in the face of increasing housing costs has put housing
beyond the reach of veterans living in these several areas of
the Nation.
Committee Bill
Section 301 of the Committee bill, derived from S. 1093,
would increase the home loan guaranty to $63,175 to keep pace
with the FHA home loan guaranties supporting a loan of up to
$252,700.
Cost: CBO estimates this provision would increase direct
spending by $6 million in 2002, $33 million over the 5-year
period, 2002-2006, and $87 million over the 10-year period,
2002-2011.
Section 302: extends the Native American veterans housing loan program
for 4 years
Background
Public Law 102-547 authorized the Secretary of VA to
establish and implement a pilot program under which VA could
make direct housing loans to Native American veterans. The
purpose of such loans was to permit Native American veterans to
purchase, construct, or improve dwellings on trust land. The
pilot program was established after it was brought to the
Committee's attention that there was no documented case of a
Native American veteran using the VA home loan guaranty
program. This was attributed to the Native American veteran's
inability to use trust lands as collateral, poor economic
conditions on reservations, and private lenders discriminatory
attitudes toward Native Americans.
VA undertook a study on the use of the VA home loan
guaranty program by Native American veterans living on trust
lands. The study, completed in 1991, calculated that 21,204
Native American veterans lived on Federal reservations and
trust lands. The study found that only 15 Native Americans
living on trust land had used VA home loan benefits of any
kind. Their participation rate was 0.07 percent compared with
an overall veteran participation rate of 0.67 percent almost 10
times greater than the participation rate of Native Americans.
The 15 home loan guaranties made were for specific adapted
housing renovations for totally disabled veterans with certain
mobility impairments, and none of the loans were VA-guaranteed
home loans. The Committee concluded that the VA home loan
programs were not responsive to the needs of those veterans who
reside on trust lands and passed Public Law 102-547. In 1997,
in Public Law 105-114, the program was extended through
December 31, 2001.
Committee Bill
Section 302 of the Committee bill, derived from S. 228,
would extend the Native American veterans housing loan program,
set to expire on December 31, 2001, by 4 years to December 31,
2005.
Cost: CBO estimates that this provision would result in an
annual direct spending cost of $250,000 and that VA's
administrative expenses, a discretionary cost, would be roughly
$500,000 annually.
Section 303: extends for 4 years the authority for housing loan
guaranties for members of the Selected Reserve and other expiring
authorities
Background
When members of the Selected Reserve were extended
eligibility for home loans in 1992, Congress recognized the
expanded responsibilities of reservists in this Nation's
defense. Congress acknowledged that reservists responded
willingly to the call of duty during the Gulf War, but also
that the call up disrupted lives and caused economic hardship.
It was felt that whether or not reservists continued to serve
depended partially on the benefits that were made available to
them. With the reduction of the active duty military force,
reservists will be increasingly relied upon to provide an
adequate portion of the total military force. Incentives to
recruit will become increasingly important, especially in light
of the personal sacrifices required of recently recalled
reservists.
In 1992, in Public Law 102-291, Congress granted the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs enhanced loan asset sale
authority that was set to expire in December 31, 2002. This
authority was extended several times, most recently through
December 31, 2008, in Public Law 106-419.
In 1982, Congress required VA to charge a loan fee for VA
home loan guaranties in Public Law 97-253. This authority and
the amount of the fee have been modified and extended numerous
times, until section 3729 of title 38 of the United States Code
was completely rewritten to clarify the various loan fees and
combine them into one table in Public Law 106-419. At that
time, the authority of VA to charge loan fees was extended
through October 1, 2008.
Section 3732 of title 38 defines the procedures for a
liquidation sale in the event of a default on a VA-guaranteed
home loan. The authority for these procedures is currently set
to expire on October 1, 2008.
Committee Bill
Section 303(a) of the Committee bill, derived from S. 778,
would extend for 4 years the authority for housing loan
guaranties for members of the Selected Reserve. Reservists must
serve 6 years in order to become eligible for a VA-guaranteed
loan. In order for the home loan to be advertised as a
recruiting incentive now, the benefit must be authorized beyond
6 years.
Section 303(b) of the bill would extend VA's loan asset
sale authority through December 31, 2011.
Section 303(c) would extend the VA's home loan fee
authorities through October 1, 2011.
Section 303(d) would extend the effectiveness of the
procedures applicable to liquidation sales on defaulted home
loans guaranteed by VA through October 1, 2011.
Cost: CBO estimates that loan fees charged for extended
home loan benefits for reservists would lower net spending by
$2 million annually over the 4-year period, 2008-2011. CBO
estimates that the subsections of section 303 that extend
provisions affecting housing would reduce direct spending by
$778 million over the 3-year period, 2009-2011.
Section 401: increased VA burial benefits for service-connected deaths
of veterans from $1,500 to $2,000
Background
Efforts to ensure veterans a proper burial have along
history in our country. In 1862, President Lincoln signed
legislation that authorized national cemeteries to ensure a
proper burial for soldiers who died in the service of the
country. Congress expanded burial benefits with the War Risk
Insurance Act Amendments of 1917, so as to avoid a potter's
field burial for war veterans. That act provided a cash
payment, of no more than $100, to pay for funeral and burial
expenses for deaths occurring prior to separation from military
service.
In 1923, the burial allowance was extended to veterans who
died without sufficient assets to pay for burial. The asset
limitation requirement was removed in 1936. In addition,
eligibility for cash payments was extended to veterans who
served during a war or died in the line of duty. The 1940's and
1950's represented a period of increase in the burial
allowances to veterans. The increases were justified by the
rise in cost of burial expenses and a rise in the cost of
living. Opponents of the increases said that a large proportion
of veterans had other resources sufficient to meet burial
costs, such as Social Security old-age lump sum benefits, or in
some cases, private resources.
In 1973, Congress set the amount of service-connected and
non-service-connected burial expenses at $800 (covering 72
percent of an average adult funeral) and $250 (22 percent of
the total cost) respectively. Congress intended to make
veterans' burial benefits in line with the then existent-system
of Federal civilian employees burial benefits. The increase
also showed a clear recognition by the Federal Government of
its responsibility to veterans who suffered a service-connected
death. In 1978, the burial allowance for a service-connected
death was raised to $1,100 (80 percent of the total cost). The
non-service-connected death allowance rose from $250 to $300.
In 1981, non-service-connected burial benefits were
restricted to veterans who were in receipt of or entitled to
compensation or pension at the time of death to impose some
limitation on who was entitled to non-service-connected
benefits. By restricting the burial benefit, Congress attempted
to return to the original purpose of the benefit and make
certain that only the neediest of veterans were entitled to
burial aid. In 1982, the non-service-connected burial allowance
was extended to wartime veterans (1) who were discharged for a
service-incurred or aggravated injury, (2) whose bodies were
held by the state unclaimed, (3) who had no next of kin, or (4)
when there were insufficient resources to cover burial and
funeral expenses.
VA currently pays up to $1,500 for burial and funeral
expenses for a service-connected death and $300 for burial and
funeral expenses for a non-service-connected death.
In addition, VA provides a $150 plot allowance for purchase
of a burial plot and internment for veterans not buried in
national cemeteries. To be eligible, the veteran must have: (1)
been discharged due to a disability incurred or aggravated in
the line of duty; (2) been eligible for compensation or pension
at the time of death; (3) died in a VA facility; or (4) been a
reservist discharged or released under circumstances other than
dishonorable.
Legislation on this issue 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 was $5,157. Funeral costs have risen faster than
the cost of inflation.
Committee Bill
Section 401 of the Committee bill, based on S. 912, would
raise the burial allowance to $2,000 for service-connected
deaths, covering 39 percent of the cost for the average adult
funeral.
Cost: CBO estimates that this provision would cost $5
million in 2002, $25 million over the 5-year period, 2002-2006,
and $49 million over the 10-year period, 2002-2011.
Section 402: authorizes VA to furnish bronze markers for already marked
graves
Background
VA is restricted by statute from providing a headstone or
marker for an already marked grave. VA policy on headstones is
based on the principle that the Nation wants to ensure than no
veteran lies in an unmarked grave. Section 2306(a) of title 38
requires VA to furnish, upon request, markers or headstones for
the unmarked graves of veterans eligible to buried in national
and post cemeteries. An exception to this policy exists in
section 2306(b)(1) of title 38 which authorizes VA to furnish a
headstone or marker for an individual whose remains are
unavailable for internment. Once VA provides a marker, a
veteran's family can get a private marker later. However,
because of existing law, if a veteran's family obtains a
private marker first, VA may not furnish a headstone or marker.
The Committee recognized the inequity of this situation and
the need to permanently commemorate a veteran's service.
Committee Bill
Section 402 of the Committee bill, derived from S. 662,
would allow the Secretary of VA to furnish bronze markers for
already privately marked graves in order to more permanently
commemorate a veteran's military service. It does not authorize
a second marker if the veteran already received a VA marker or
headstone. The marker must be put in an appropriate place,
determined by the cemetery concerned, within the grounds of the
cemetery. Eligibility for these grave markers will apply to
deaths occurring after the date of enactment of the Act. This
provision will also apply to a death before the enactment, but
after November 1, 1990, so long as the request for the marker
is made within 4 years after the date of the enactment of this
measure.
Cost: CBO estimates that enacting this provision would
result in an increase in spending for burial benefits of $2
million in 2002, $13 million over the 5-year period, 2002-2006,
and $20 million over the 10-year period, 2002-2011.
Section 501: repeals the fiscal year limitation on the number of
veterans in VA's program of independent living services and assistance
Background
VA's Vocation Rehabilitation and Employment Service
maintains an independent living program. The goal of the
program is to assist service-disabled veterans who are too
disabled to retrain for employment to achieve and maintain
defined independent living outcomes and reduce reliance on
others.
The Independent Living program was initially developed as a
pilot program in 1986 in Public Law 96-466. The program was to
run through fiscal years 1982 to1985 and have no more than 500
veteran participants. The authority for the program was
extended through 1989, and in Public Law 101-237, the program
was made permanent. However, the cap on the number of
participants has never been modified. While VA has not turned
away any veteran seeking services, it has exceeded the
statutory cap over the last several years. VA projects that
demand for the program will continue to rise as the large
Vietnam-era veteran population ages.
Committee Bill
Section 501 of the Committee bill, derived from S. 1093,
would eliminate the 500-veteran cap for participants of the
independent living program, and would retain first priority to
veterans for whom there is a reasonable feasibility of
achieving a vocational goal but for their service-connected
condition.
Cost: CBO expects the cost of section 501 would be $6
million in 2002, about $60 million over the 5-year period,
2002-2006, and $230 million over the 10-year period, 2002-2011.
Section 601: creates a succession plan to address judges retiring from
the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Background
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, originally
named the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals, was created in 1988
in the Veterans' Judicial Review Act to provide judicial review
of veterans' claims for benefits from the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
At the court's inception, the terms for judges were not
staggered by Congress. The original chief judge and six
associate judges were appointed to 15-year terms within 16
months of one another in 1989-1991. A new judge was appointed
in 1997 to fill a vacancy created by the death of one of the
originally appointed judges. The chief judge retired in 2000,
and his seat has not yet been filled. By 2005, the terms of
five of the remaining judges will have ended.
Because the judges' terms were not staggered, it is very
likely that there will be at least four simultaneous vacant
seats. Recognizing this, in Public Law 105-368, Congress
attempted to avoid the crisis preemptively that would be
created if the court had only two or three sitting judges and
the resulting enormous backlog of cases, by offering some of
the original judges early retirement. However, no judges
accepted early retirement and the likelihood of multiple,
simultaneous vacancies persists.
Committee Bill
Section 601 of the Committee bill, derived from S. 1089,
would address the problem by allowing two additional judges to
be appointed, in order to bridge the retirement of the original
judges. Specifically, this bill would temporarily expand the
membership of the court by two seats until August 2005, when
the last of the seven original judges' terms will expire. Under
the Committee bill, by that time, two seats would be eliminated
to restore the court to seven judges. The Committee believes
that this temporary expansion will give ample time for the
President to nominate, and the Senate to confirm, judges for
the court, and avoid the potentially damaging effects of a
court with only two or three judges.
Cost: CBO estimates that an extra judge in 2004 would
result in an increase in discretionary spending of $1 million
for 2004, assuming the availability of appropriated funds.
Section 602: repeals the requirement for a judge to provide written
notice regarding acceptance of reappointment as a precondition to
retirement from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Background
Currently there are three ways for a judge to retire from
the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. First,
under section 7296(b)(1) of title 38 of the United States Code,
if the age of the judge and the years served on the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims add up to 80, then
the judge may retire (the so-called Rule of 80). For example, a
judge who has served on the court for 12 years and has attained
the age of 68 could retire from the court. Second, under
section 7296(b)(2), a judge who has not been reappointed
following the expiration of the term for which the judge was
appointed must advise the President, in writing, that the judge
is willing to accept reappointment, and if not reappointed, the
judge may retire. Last, under section 7296(b)(3), a judge who
becomes permanently disabled may retire.
Committee Bill
Section 602 of the Committee bill would repeal the
requirement set forth in section 7296(b)(2) that a judge
provide written notice regarding acceptance of reappointment,
as a precondition to retirement from the United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims, in order to provide a smooth
transition of judges under section 601 of the Committee bill.
Cost: CBO did not estimate a cost to be associated with
section 602.
Section 603: terminates the post-November 17, 1988, Notice of
Disagreement as a prerequisite to jurisdiction for the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and for charging attorney fees for
representation of veterans
Background
The Notice of Disagreement (NOD) begins the appellate
process within the Department of Veterans Affairs. The veteran
submits an NOD to a regional office of the Department of
Veterans Affairs, indicating disagreement with the regional
office's original decision, in whole or part. When Congress
created the United States Court of Veterans Appeals in 1988,
the law required claims to have an NOD filed on or after
November 18, 1988--the date of enactment of the Veterans'
Judicial Review Act (VJRA)--in order to be reviewed by the
court. This provision was enacted so as to prevent the new
court from becoming overwhelmed with appeals.
However, many difficulties have arisen with this
jurisdictional requirement, due to the complexity of the VA
appellate process. Problems arose in determining what is the
applicable NOD when there were multiple agency decisions and
extensive correspondence by the claimants. Also, many cases
originated before November 18, 1988, adding to the difficulty
of determining which NOD conferred jurisdiction to the court.
In addition, much litigation has occurred to determine what
type of writing constitutes an NOD and the type of language
that must be used to construe disagreement over the VA's
decision. Then-Chief Judge Frank Q. Nebeker commented,
``[T]here appear to be countless possible permutations of the
NOD issues.'' Frank Q. Nebeker, Jurisdiction of the United
States Court of Appeals: Searching Out the Limits, 46 Me. L.
Rev. 5 (1994).
While many veterans have brought appeals to the court, the
flood of appeals that was anticipated when the court was
created has not occurred, nor does the Committee anticipate
that repealing the NOD will create a significant increase in
cases before the court. The Committee notes that, last year,
the court decided 1,556 claims out of 2,442 cases filed. Ten
percent of these cases were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction,
although no data is available on what portion of these cases
received NOD-related dismissal.
Committee Bill
Subsection (a) of section 603 of the Committee bill would
eliminate the post-November 17, 1988, NOD as a prerequisite to
jurisdiction at the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
set out in section 402 of the VJRA. It would not affect the
requirement of an NOD to trigger agency appeal of a decision.
It would not eliminate other requirements for a case to be
heard by the court, such as a timely Notice of Appeal. It is
the intent of the Committee to free up the court to determine
appeals on their merits. The appellate process for veterans'
claims is long enough without a veteran being additionally
burdened to argue over NODs. It is also important to note that
this provision would not confer jurisdiction upon the court on
any matter not currently within its jurisdiction.
Subsection (b) of this provision would repeal section 403
of the VJRA that limits payment of attorney fees to cases with
a post-November 17, 1988, NOD, as a conforming change to
subsection (a) of the Committee bill. This would ensure that
veterans can secure representation for any appeal previously
barred by section 403 of the VJRA that may be filed once
section 603 of the Committee bill becomes effective. It would
not modify any other requirement for a veteran to hire or pay
an attorney.
Cost: CBO did not estimate a cost to be associated with
section 603.
Section 604: permits expanded use of the periodic registration fee paid
by persons admitted to practice before the United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims
Background
Currently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
collects a $30 practice fee that may be imposed periodically on
those admitted to practice before the court. In addition, the
court collects registration fees that are paid at the court's
periodic Judicial Conference that is carried out under section
7286 of title 38. The court has amassed approximately $55,000
from registration fees at the periodic conferences. It has
expended a small amount on hiring an ethics speaker for the
last four Judicial Conferences. Currently, under section
7285(b), the court is authorized to make expenditures
``implementing standards of proficiency for practice before the
court'' only.
Committee Bill
Section 604 of the Committee bill, derived from S. 1063 and
requested by the court in a May 24, 2001, letter by Chief Judge
Kenneth Kramer to then-Committee Chair Specter, would amend
section 7286 of title 38 of the United States Code so that
registration fees paid to the court may be used for purposes in
addition to ``implementing standards of proficiency for
practice before the court,'' including expanded disciplinary
proceeding activities and employing independent counsel. The
provision would also make funds available for support
activities, such as the preparation, procurement, use, display,
or dissemination of appropriate court materials. The
legislation also would allow the use of registration funds to
foster and support bench and bar activities or the study,
understanding, commemoration, or improvement of veterans law or
the work of the court.
Cost: CBO did not estimate a cost to be associated with
section 604.
Section 605: makes available to the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims the same management, administrative, and expenditure
authorities available to Article III courts
Background
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, established
by the Congress under Article I of the Constitution to exercise
judicial power, has unusual status as an independent tribunal
that is not subject to the control of the President or the
executive branch. Pursuant to section 7282 of title 38, the
court submits its budget directly to and receives its
appropriations directly from Congress. Because of its
standalone status, the court does not have available to it the
same general management, administrative, and expenditure
authorities that are available to Article III courts of the
United States (under the Administrative Office of the U.S.
Courts), or to other courts that are part of other
administrative structures, such as the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Armed Forces (under the Department of Defense).
Over the years since its establishment, the court has
requested the enactment of various gap-filling statutory
provisions, which are described by Chief Judge Kramer in a May
24, 2001, letter to then-Committee Chairman Specter:
. . . for example, in 1990, the Congress specifically
added to title 5 U.S.C. App. Sec. Sec. 109(8) and
109(10) a reference to this Court so that financial
disclosure reports by its judges and certain
nonjudicial personnel would be filed with and reviewed
by the [Administrative Office] (Pub. L. No. 101-280,
Sec. 3, 104 Stat. 152, 155 (1990) (amendments to Ethics
in Government Act of 1978, as amended by Ethics Reform
Act of 1989)); in 1991, the Congress added subsection
(g) to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7253 to provide that a process
comparable to that prescribed by 28 U.S.C. Sec. 372(c)
for consideration of complaints of judicial conduct
would apply to the Court's judges (Pub. L. No. 102-82.
Sec. 3, 105 Stat. 375 (1991)); in 1991, the Congress
added subsection (c) to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7264 to make
applicable to the Court's judges 28 U.S.C. Sec. 455
relating to the disqualification of judges (Pub. L. No.
102-82, Sec. 4, 105 Stat. 375, 376 (1991)); also in
1991, the Congress added subsection (i) to 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 7281 to give the Court specific authority to
accept and utilize voluntary services (Pub. L. No. 102-
82, Sec. 7, 105 Stat. 375, 377 (1991)).
The court's special standalone nature is also reflected in
the provisions of section 7281(a) through (g) of title 38,
United States Code, which permit it to develop its own
personnel and job classification system for its judicial and
nonjudicial personnel.
Committee Bill
Section 605 of the Committee bill, derived from S. 1063 and
as requested by the court, would provide a generic authority
for it to use court-related management, administrative, and
fund-expenditure authorities that are appropriate for its
efficient operation. This would preclude the need for gap-
filling provisions. For example, there are two recently enacted
authorities that the court is lacking, but that seem to be
generally available to the rest of the Federal Government, to
reduce the risk of personal liability for official actions (5
U.S.C. subchapter IV note found preceding 5 U.S.C. Sec. 5941;
28 U.S.C. Sec. 613; 31 U.S.C. Sec. 3529). Under the proposed
new section, the court would have these types of authorities
available to it. However, the court would not have available
any provision of law that is inconsistent with any provision of
chapter 72 of title 38. Moreover, the court would have to
exercise the new authority in accordance with all limitations
with respect to the underlying authorities themselves, subject,
as with all authorities, to the availability of appropriations
provided for its operation.
Cost: CBO did not estimate a cost to be associated with
section 605.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, August 23, 2001.
Hon. John D. Rockefeller IV,
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. 1088, the Veterans'
Benefits Improvement Act of 2001.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Sunita
D'Monte.
Sincerely,
Dan L. Crippen, Director.
Enclosure.
S. 1088--Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2001 (As ordered
reported by the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs on August 2,
2001)
SUMMARY
S. 1088 would affect several veterans' programs, including
education, compensation, pensions, burial benefits, and
housing. CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would
raise direct spending by $180 million in 2002, $2.6 billion
over the 2002-2006 period, and almost $5.6 billion over the
2002-2011 period. Because the bill would affect direct
spending, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply.
In addition, CBO estimates that implementing S. 1088 would
increase spending subject to appropriation by $1 million in
2002 and $6 million over the 2002-2006 period, assuming
appropriation of the necessary amounts.
S. 1088 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal
governments.
ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
The estimated budgetary impact of S. 1088 is shown in Table
1. This estimate assumes the legislation will be enacted near
the start of fiscal year 2002. The costs of this legislation
fall within budget functions 550 (health) and 700 (veterans
benefits and services).
Table 1.--Estimated Budgetary Impact of S. 1088
[By Fiscal Year, in Millions Dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Estimated Budget Authority...... 180 407 631 656 723
Estimated Outlays............... 180 407 631 656 723
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO
APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization Level... 1 1 2 1 1
Estimated Outlays............... 1 1 2 1 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BASIS OF ESTIMATE
Direct Spending
The legislation would affect direct spending in veterans'
programs for education, compensation, pensions, burial
benefits, and housing. Table 2 summarizes those effects, and
individual provisions that would affect direct spending are
described below.
Veterans' Readjustment Benefits. Several sections of the
bill would affect veterans' education and rehabilitation
benefits. In total, these provisions would increase direct
spending by $161 million in 2002, by $2.3 billion over the
2002-2006 period, and by $6.3 billion over the 2002-2011 period
(see Table 3).
Basic Benefit. Under current law, participants in the
Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) program who serve at least three
years on active duty are entitled to receive $650 a month if
they are full-time students. That stipend is available for a
total of 36 months. For part-time students, the monthly benefit
is reduced proportionately, but can be spread over a larger
number of months up to the equivalent of 36 months of full-time
training. Similarly, individuals who serve two years on active
duty are entitled to a monthly stipend of $528 for 36 months.
In all cases, the benefits increase by an annual cost-of-living
allowance (COLA) and expire 10 years after the end of military
service.
Table 2.--Estimated Direct Spending Under S. 1088
[By Fiscal Year, Outlays in Millions of Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VETERANS' READJUSTMENT BENEFITS
Spending Under Current Law................................ 1,693 1,880 2,000 2,107 2,238 2,341
Proposed Changes.......................................... 0 161 341 574 594 659
Spending Under S. 1088.................................... 1,693 2,041 2,341 2,681 2,832 3,000
COMPENSATION, PENSIONS, AND BURIAL BENEFITS a
Spending Under Current Law................................ 21,173 24,501 25,562 26,698 29,736 28,357
Proposed Changes.......................................... 0 13 60 51 55 56
Spending Under S. 1088.................................... 1,173 4,514 5,622 6,749 9,791 28,413
HOUSING
Spending Under Current Law................................ -991 262 275 283 288 294
Proposed Changes.......................................... 0 6 6 6 7 8
Spending Under S. 1088.................................... -991 268 281 289 295 302
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a One provision affecting veterans benefits would also increase spending under the federal Medicaid program, but
those costs would not begin to occur until 2009.
Section 101 would increase the monthly stipend of
participating veterans who served at least three years on
active duty to $700 in 2002, $800 in 2003, and $950 in 2004.
Participating veterans with at least two years of active duty
would be eligible for a maximum monthly benefit of $560 in
2002, $650 in 2003, and $772 in 2004. The COLAs scheduled for
the 2002-2004 period would not occur. Thus, the monthly benefit
would increase by 5 percent in 2002, 17 percent in 2003, and 35
percent in 2004.
Table 3.--Estimated Changes in Education Benefits Under S. 1088
[By Fiscal Year, Outlays in Millions of Dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2*1Description of provision 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic Benefit................... 53 205 472 518 568
Accelerated Payments............ 98 107 61 19 18
Training for Technological 4 18 27 39 51
Occupations....................
Independent Living Services..... 6 10 12 15 19
Enrollment of Vietnam-Era a 1 2 3 3
Veterans.......................
Total Changes in Education 161 341 574 594 659
Benefits.......................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Less than $500,000.
Based on current and past usage rates provided by the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), CBO estimates that this
substantial increase in the MGIB benefit would increase not
only the number of veterans who use the program, but also the
number of veterans who will choose to attend school on a full-
time rather than part-time basis. In 2000, 266,000 veterans
received an average annual MGIB benefit of $3,200. Under
current law, CBO predicts that in 2011, 335,000 veterans will
receive an average annual benefit that will have grown by
annual cost-of-living increases to $4,615.
Under section 101, CBO estimates that the number of
veterans training under MGIB would rise only slightly in the
first couple years, but the number of participants would
eventually grow to about 360,000 in 2011, an 8 percent increase
over the current-law (or baseline) estimate. CBO estimates
that, over the next 10 years, the average annual benefit paid
by VA would increase by about 3 percent because more veterans
would choose to attend school full time, and by 35 percent
because of the benefit increase. CBO estimates the average
annual benefit in 2011 would be about $6,400.
MGIB benefits are also available to active-duty members of
the armed forces who have completed two years of service. When
these servicemembers use MGIB benefits, they receive an amount
no greater than the cost of tuition. In many cases, therefore,
servicemembers do not receive the full MGIB benefit, and would
not be affected by an increase in the benefit levels. Over the
last few years, the number of active-duty servicemembers using
MGIB has been gradually declining, down to about 14,000 in
2000. Under current law, CBO expects the number to continue to
decline to about 11,800 by 2011. CBO estimates that this
provision would partially stem the decline, so that by 2011
there would be about 12,000 servicemember trainees, an increase
of 2 percent above the baseline estimate. In 2000, these
servicemember trainees received an average annual benefit of
$2,200. Under section 101, we estimate the average benefit
these trainees would receive would increase to $3,500 in 2011,
almost 35 percent above the current projection.
CBO estimates the total cost of section 101 would be $53
million in 2002, about $1.8 billion over the 2002-2006 period,
and $5.3 billion over the 2002-2011 period.
Accelerated Payments. Section 102 would permit veterans to
receive a lump-sum payment for benefits they would normally
receive monthly over a term of their training--for example, a
semester in college or, for other forms of training, the period
of a course's instruction. CBO estimates that this provision
would increase direct spending by about $100 million in 2002,
$300 million over the 2002-2006 period, and $365 million over
the 2002-2011 period. Increased costs would occur initially as
payments from one fiscal year are made instead in the preceding
year. The effect would be much smaller in later years when
benefit rates would increase mostly from COLAs, because
payments shifted to the preceding year would be largely offset
by payments shifted from the following year. CBO estimates that
about 30 percent of MGIB beneficiaries would elect to receive
an accelerated payment in 2002 and that a total of 60 percent
would make that election in 2004 and subsequent years.
Training for Technological Occupations. Section 105 would
expand education allowed under MGIB to include training
required for certification in technological occupations.
Section 103 would allow payment of 60 percent of the tuition
and fees for such training, when the total cost of the training
was more than double the amount that could otherwise be paid
under MGIB. The payment would be made in a lump sum and the
trainee's remaining months of MGIB entitlement would be reduced
accordingly. Based on information from a number of technical
training schools about the number of individuals in the general
population who undergo training for technological occupations,
CBO estimates that about 25,000 veterans a year would
eventually participate in such training. Assuming that half of
these veterans would have used MGIB benefits even in the
absence of this provision, CBO estimates the cost of section
103 would be $4 million in 2002, about $140 million over the
2002-2006 period, and $440 million in the 2002-2011 period.
Independent Living Services. Section 501 would repeal the
annual limit on the number of veterans in programs of
independent living services and assistance. Although the
current annual limit on veterans in these programs is 500, VA
reports that 1,987 veterans were enrolled in independent living
programs last year, at an average cost of $4,000. VA expects
sharp growth in the eligible population, due to the aging of
the Vietnam-era veteran population and new rules regarding
presumptive disabilities. Absent this provision, CBO assumes
that VA will reduce their caseload to come into compliance with
the current limitation by 2003. Under section 501, we estimate
the caseload for these programs would be about 2,400 in 2002
and would grow to about 8,700 in 2011. CBO estimates the
average cost would be about $4,250 in 2002 and would grow to
over $5,300 in 2011. Based on these projections, CBO expects
the cost of section 501 would be $6 million in 2002, about $60
million over the 2002-2006 period, and $230 million over the
2002-2011 period.
Enrollment of Vietnam-Era Veterans. Section 104 would grant
MGIB eligibility to certain Vietnam-era veterans who were not
on active duty during the 1985 conversion to MGIB, but later
rejoined the armed forces. Based on information from the
Department of Defense, CBO estimates that almost 9,000
servicemembers and veterans would qualify. Because this is an
older population and many of these veterans have been out of
the service for some time, we assume that only 25 percent would
become trainees and that they would, on average, train at one-
quarter time over a period of four years. Assuming individuals
would initiate training over a period of years, as they leave
the military or hear about their new eligibility, CBO estimates
the cost will be less that $500,000 in 2002, $9 million over
the 2002-2006 period, and $18 million over the 2002-2011
period.
Compensation, Pensions, and Burial Benefits. Several
sections of the bill would affect spending for veterans'
disability compensation, pensions, and burial benefits (see
Table 4). In total, the bill would increase spending for these
programs by $13 million in 2002 and $235 million over the 2002-
2006 period. Over the 2002-2011 period, the bill would reduce
net direct spending by $78 million because of the extension of
provisions affecting pensions and Medicaid.
Compensation Related to Undiagnosed Illnesses. Section 202
would expand the definition of undiagnosed illness for the
purpose of granting service-connected disability compensation
to more Persian Gulf War veterans. It also would extend until
the end of 2011 the time during which a veteran must exhibit
and document signs of an undiagnosed illness. Under current
law, veterans who served in the Persian Gulf anytime between
August 2, 1990, and the present can be presumed to have a
compensable disability if they exhibit symptoms that cannot be
attributed to any diagnosable illness before December 31, 2001.
This section would expand eligibility to those Gulf War
veterans who are diagnosed with any chronic multisymptom
illness that cannot be clearly defined and is characterized by
two or more of certain signs or symptoms, which include joint
pain, headaches, sleep disorders, and respiratory problems. For
the purpose of this estimate, CBO assumes that diseases for
which veterans could receive service-connected disability
include chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), fibromyalgia, irritable
bowel syndrome, multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS), and
autoimmune disorder since these diseases are regularly
identified in articles and reports regarding ``Persian Gulf War
Syndrome.''
CBO obtained data from the VA on the number of Gulf War
veterans who have been diagnosed with ill-defined illnesses
like CFS and fibromyalgia and have had their claims for
compensation denied. VA was unable to provide similar data for
MCS or chronic multisymptom illness because it does not have
diagnostic codes for these illnesses. CBO used data from a
comprehensive study of Gulf War veterans' health to estimate
the incidence of MCS within that population. Because chronic
multisymptom illness often exhibits similar symptoms as CFS or
fibromyalgia, CBO assumed that most veterans with this illness
are likely to have already been diagnosed as having these other
diseases. From the data provided by VA, CBO could not estimate
the prevalence of autoimmune disorders that might be attributed
to service in the Gulf War. VA does not have a single
diagnostic code for this illness but, instead, classifies over
a dozen widely varying diseases as autoimmune disorders.
Table 4.--Estimated Changes in Compensation, Pensions, and Burial
Benefits Under S. 1088
[By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Provision 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compensation Related to 0 46 38 41 43
Undiagnosed Illnesses..........
Extension of Provisions 0 0 0 0 0
Affecting Pensions and Medicaid
a .............................
Burial Allowance................ 5 5 5 5 5
Incompetent Institutionalized 4 4 4 5 5
Veterans.......................
Excluded Income for Pension 3 3 3 4 4
Purposes.......................
Grave Markers................... 3 4 3 2 1
Limited Compensation for -2 -2 -2 -2 -2
Incarcerated Veterans..........
Other Provisions................ b b b b b
Total Changes in Compensation, 13 60 51 55 56
Pensions, and Burial Benefits..
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The extensions of provisions affecting veterans' pensions and Medicaid
would have no budgetary impact until 2009.
b Less than $500,000.
Assuming that some of the diagnoses are overlapping and
that some previously denied cases would likely be resubmitted,
CBO estimates that enacting this bill would result in about
3,000 additional veterans being granted compensation for a
service-connected disability in the first year. CBO estimates
that extending this deadline for another 10 years would allow
an additional 3,700 claims to be granted over that time. This
number is based on recent historical data on the rate of
undiagnosed illness claims that have been granted by VA.
Because this section of the bill would take effect on April
1, 2002, and since VA takes an average of six months to
adjudicate reopened claims, CBO expects that no payments would
be made in 2002. Based on payment data from VA for approved
claims for CFS, fibromyalgia, and similar illnesses, CBO
estimates the average annual benefit for such illnesses would
be about $8,000 in 2003. As a result, CBO estimates that
enacting section 202 would increase direct spending by $46
million in 2003, $168 million from 2003 through 2006, and $400
million over the 2003-2011 period. (Under current law, we
estimate that disability compensation payments to veterans will
total $254 billion over the 10-year period.)
Extension of Provisions Affecting Pensions and Medicaid.
Section 209 would extend through 2011 the sunset dates on
provisions affecting pensions and Medicaid. One of these
provisions would reduce direct spending for veterans' pensions
and increase spending for Medicaid, resulting in a net spending
reduction of $631 million over the 2009-2011 period. The other
provision would lower direct spending by $5 million over the
same time period.
Veterans in Medicaid nursing homes. Subsection 209(b)
would extend from September 30, 2008, to September 30,
2011, the expiration date on a provision of law that
sets a $90 per month limit on pensions for any veteran
without a spouse or child, or for any survivor of a
veteran, who is receiving Medicaid coverage in a
Medicaid-approved nursing home. There are currently
about 19,000 veterans and 27,000 survivors who are
affected by this provision of law. The average savings
is $14,000 per veteran and $9,000 per survivor. Based
on these numbers, CBO estimates there would be gross
savings for VA of $1.6 billion over the 2009-2011
period. Higher Medicaid payments to nursing homes would
offset some of the savings credited to VA. CBO
estimates that those costs would total $969 million
over the 2009-2011 period, resulting in a net savings
of $631 million over the same period.
Income verification. Current law authorizes VA to
acquire information on income reported to the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) to verify income reported by
recipients of VA pension benefits. This authorization
will expire on September 30, 2008. Subsection 209(a)
would extend the expiration date to September 30, 2011.
CBO's estimate is based on VA's recent experience,
which has shown that about $9 million in new savings is
achieved annually through this income match. However,
the provision of law that allows the IRS to provide the
information to VA will expire on September 30, 2003.
Because the act does not extend both provisions,
savings would be limited to the continuing effects of
the current program. Thus, CBO projects a $5 million
savings over the 2009-2011 period.
Burial Allowance. Section 401 would increase the allowance
to help cover burial and funeral expenses for veterans whose
deaths are attributed to a service-connected disability. This
benefit would increase from the current rate of $1,500 to
$2,000. Based on information from the VA, CBO estimates that
this provision would apply to about 9,700 burials per year and
would cost $5 million in 2002, $25 million over the 2002-2006
period, and $49 million over the 2002-2011 period.
Incompetent Institutionalized Veterans. Section 208 would
eliminate the requirement that VA withhold benefit payments
from certain incompetent veterans who are institutionalized at
the government's expense and whose estates are valued above
$10,180. These veterans cannot have their benefits reinstated
until the value of their estates falls to no more than $5,090.
Data from VA indicates that about 1,900 veterans covered by
this provision have estates valued over $10,180 and would thus
begin receiving benefits under this provision. In 1999, the
average length of time for which veterans lost their benefit
payments was 45 days. Data from VA indicates these veterans
have neither a spouse nor a child and receive an average
monthly benefit of $1,604. CBO estimates that the annual added
costs for veterans' entitlements would be about $4 million in
2002, $22 million over the 2002-2006 period, and $47 million
over the 2002-2011 period.
Excluded Income for Pension Purposes. Section 203 would
exclude life insurance proceeds and other nonrecurring income
from determination of eligibility for a survivors' pension.
Under current law, VA considers various forms of income to
determine if a surviving spouse of a wartime veteran is
eligible to collect a pension, including any life insurance
funds. Based on information provided by VA, CBO estimates that
an additional 700 survivors would be eligible for a pension in
2002. By 2011, that number would grow to about 2,000 survivors.
In addition, survivors who are currently counseled by veterans
service organizations to delay applying for a pension to avoid
having insurance proceeds considered would be able to collect
benefits sooner following the veteran's death. This would
result in an additional half a month's benefit. CBO estimates
there will be about 14,000 survivors who collect this extra
benefit in 2002, with the number growing to about 40,000 in
2011. With an average annual benefit of $3,600 in 2001, CBO
estimates that enacting this provision would cost $3 million in
2002, $17 million over the 2002-2006 period, and $62 million
over the 2002-2011 period.
Grave Markers. Section 402 would allow VA to provide a
bronze marker to be placed on the grave or other appropriate
location in a cemetery to commemorate a veteran's military
service. Under current law, veterans buried in a private
cemetery may only receive a commemorative headstone or marker
from VA if the gravesite is not marked. Veterans buried in
national or state veterans' cemeteries automatically receive a
commemorative headstone or marker. This bill would allow
families of deceased veterans who have already provided their
own headstone or marker to request a second marker from VA. For
those veterans who died before enactment of this bill but after
November 1, 1990, (the date when the law was changed to
prohibit a second marker), the families have four years from
enactment in which to request the marker. Based on information
provided by VA about the number of veterans who have already
died, projections about future deaths, and the number of
headstones and markers already provided, CBO estimates that
about 365,000 requests for bronze markers would be made over
the next 10 years. The estimate reflects information from a VA
study that showed only 27 percent of private cemeteries allow
second markers and an assumption that only half of those
eligible will participate in this program. With an average cost
of about $50 for each marker, CBO estimates that enacting this
provision would result in an increase in spending for burial
benefits of $3 million in 2002, $13 million over the 2002-2006
period, and $20 million over the 2002-2011 period.
Limited Compensation for Incarcerated Veterans. Section 207
would reduce compensation payments to veterans who were
incarcerated on October 7, 1980, for a felony committed before
that date and remain incarcerated for conviction of that
felony. Current law allows for reduced payments to veterans who
were convicted and incarcerated after October 7, 1980.
Incarcerated veterans who have a service-connected disability
rating of 20 percent or more are paid at the 10 percent rate.
Incarcerated veterans who are rated at 10 percent receive
payments of half that amount. VA has identified 230 veterans
who were incarcerated prior to enactment of the legislation
that provided for these reductions and who meet the criteria
stipulated in section 207. Based on information provided by VA
on the average annual payment to incarcerated veterans, CBO
estimates that this provision would result in an annual savings
of about $2 million.
Other Provisions. CBO estimates that the following
provisions would have little or no net effect on direct
spending: Claims Handling. Section 204 would modify legislation
enacted last year that directed VA to assist veterans in
establishing their claims for benefits. This section would
allow VA to close claims after a year if the veterans has not
cooperated in providing needed information.
Income Reporting for Pensions. Section 205 would
change the requirement that veterans and survivors
receiving pensions report changes to their income from
once a month to once a year. This provision would
simplify the administrative process for VA but would
have no real savings effects.
Eliminate Benefits for Fugitives. Section 206 would
add VA benefits to the list of federal benefits for
which fugitive felons are prohibited from receiving.
Based on information provided by VA, CBO estimates that
any savings that result from this provision would be
negligible. Housing. Title III of the bill would affect
direct spending on veterans housing programs; in total
these provisions would increase direct spending by $6
million in 2002 and by $34 million over the 2002-2006
period (see Table 5). Over the 2002-2011 period,
however, the bill would reduce direct spending by $698
million.
Table 5.--Estimated Changes in Housing Under S. 1088
[By Fiscal Year, Outlays in Millions of Dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of Provision 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extension of Provisions 0 0 0 0 0
Affecting Housing a ...........
Increase in Loan Guarantee 6 6 6 7 8
Amount.........................
Housing for Members of the 0 0 0 0 0
Selected Reserves a ...........
Housing for Native American b b b b b
Veterans.......................
Total Changes in Housing........ 6 6 6 7 8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a These provisions would have budgetary effects for 2009 through 2011.
b Less than $500,000.
Extension of Provisions Affecting Housing. Section 303
would extend through 2011 three provisions that affect housing
programs for veterans, thus reducing direct spending by $778
million over the 2009-2011 period.
Loan fees. Subsection 303(c) would reduce the VA loan
subsidy by charging veterans a fee surcharge of 0.75
percent of the loan amount at the time the loan is
made. CBO estimates this provision would affect 170,000
new loans a year and raise collections by an average of
$182 million a year. Under current law, veterans can
reuse their home loan guarantee benefit if their
previous debt has been paid in full. Subsection 303(c)
would require VA to collect a fee of 3 percent of the
total loan amount from veterans who reuse their
benefit. CBO estimates this provision would affect
roughly 22,800 new loans a year and raise collections
by an average of $59 million a year for 2009 through
2011.
Resale losses. Subsection 303(d) would extend a
provision of law that requires VA to consider losses it
might incur when selling a property acquired through
foreclosure. Under current law, VA follows a formula
defined in statute to decide whether to acquire the
property or pay off the loan guarantee instead. The
formula requires appraisals that might be valid at the
time they are made, but does not account for changes in
market conditions that might occur while VA prepares to
dispose of the property. The bill would require VA to
take account of losses from changes in housing prices
that the appraisal does not capture. Losses of this
type might be prevalent when housing prices are
particularly volatile or if appraisals are biased for
other reasons. Based on information from VA, CBO
estimates this provision would save $10 million a year
over the 2009 through 2011 period.
Loan sales. Subsection 303(b) would extend VA's
authority to guarantee the real estate mortgage
conduits that are used to sell certain direct loans on
the secondary mortgage market. Without this authority,
VA could market direct loans under other provisions of
current law, but by guaranteeing the certificates
issued on a pool of loans, VA obtains a better price
for the loans sold. CBO estimates this provision would
save VA $8 million a year for 2009 through 2011.
Increase in Loan Guarantee Amount. Section 301 would
increase the maximum loan guarantee amount on VA home loans
from $50,750 to $63,175, thereby raising the maximum loan
amount from $203,000 to $252,700. (For large loan amounts, VA
can guarantee no more than 25 percent of the loan amount.) CBO
estimates this provision would increase direct spending by $6
million in 2002, $33 million over the 2002-2006 period, and $87
million over the 2002-2011 period.
Based on information from VA, CBO estimates that the bill
would result in 8,000 new loans a year over the 2002-2011
period. In addition, roughly 3,000 loans each year would now be
made with higher loan amounts--these would not be new
borrowers, but veterans who would no longer need a downpayment
(or as large a downpayment) to qualify for the VA loan
guarantee. By boosting participation in the VA home loan
program, the bill would increase direct spending in three
different ways. First, added subsidy costs for 11,000
guaranteed loans a year (8,000 new loans and 3,000 loans with
larger loan amounts) would average $6.5 million a year over the
2002-2011 period. Second, some of those 11,000 loans will
become delinquent and go to foreclosure. When a guaranteed loan
goes into foreclosure, VA often acquires the property and
issues a new direct loan (called a vendee loan) when the
property is sold. CBO estimates that the subsidy cost of these
vendee loans would be less than $500,000 each year until 2011.
Finally, VA sells most vendee loans on the secondary mortgage
market and guarantees their timely repayment. Based on
information from VA, CBO estimates the subsidy cost of such
guarantees would be less than $500,000 each year until 2005,
but would eventually reach $4 million a year by 2011.
Housing for Members of the Selected Reserves. Section 303
would extend home loan benefits for reservists and raise fees
charged for this benefit through 2011. Under current law, the
benefit expires in 2007, and the fees expire in 2008. CBO
estimates that enacting this provision would result in VA
guaranteeing an additional 7,000 loans a year over the 2008-
2011 period, with an average loan amount of $140,000. Because
loan fees would more than offset the subsidy cost of additional
loan guarantees, CBO estimates that the provision would lower
net spending by $2 million annually over the 2008-2011 period.
Housing for Native American Veterans. Section 302 would
extend the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Pilot Program
through December 31, 2005. Under the program, VA makes direct
loans to veterans living on trust lands for the purchase,
construction, or improvement of a home. In 1993, Public Law
102-389 provided appropriations of $4.5 million for the subsidy
cost of these loans. Since the program's inception, VA has made
about 200 loans at a subsidy cost of $2 million. CBO estimates
that under the bill, VA would subsidize about 30 loans a year
at an annual cost of about $250,000. Because the bill would
affect outlays from funds already appropriated and would not
depend on future appropriation action, these additional outlays
are considered direct spending for scorekeeping purposes. In
addition, CBO estimates that VA's administrative expenses, a
discretionary cost, would be roughly $500,000 each year.
Spending Subject to Appropriation
Table 6 shows the estimated effects of S. 1088 on
discretionary spending for veterans' programs, assuming that
appropriations are provided in the amount of the estimated
authorizations.
Extension of National Academy of Sciences Reports. Section
201(b) would extend for another 10 years the biennial report on
Agent Orange and veterans that is produced by the National
Academy of Sciences. This comprehensive literature review and
analysis of current laboratory studies categorizes specific
diseases as to whether they could be caused by herbicide
exposure. VA uses this information to establish an automatic
presumption of service connection, thereby making all Vietnam
veterans with these diseases eligible for compensation
benefits. Based on information about the current costs for
producing this report, CBO estimates that implementing this
section would cost $4 million over the 2002-2011 period,
assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts.
Housing for Native American Veterans. Section 302 would
extend the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Pilot Program
through December 31, 2005. As discussed above, this provision
would increase VA's administrative expenses by roughly $500,000
each year.
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. Section 601 would
allow two extra judges to be appointed to the Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims to compensate for the upcoming retirements
of most of the sitting judges. In 2004 and 2005, five of the
seven judges on the Court will retire. To ensure that the Court
would have enough judges to fill a three-person panel, this
section would authorize the appointment of two judges to the
Court before September 30, 2004. CBO assumes that one judge
will be nominated in 2002 and another in 2003. Since the last
appointment of a judge to the Court took 18 months, CBO assumes
that 2004 would be the only year in which an extra judge would
be on the Court. CBO estimates this would result in an increase
in discretionary spending of $1 million for 2004, assuming the
availability of appropriated funds. This estimate includes
salaries and benefits for the judge, a secretary, and three
clerks, plus some modifications to the current offices to
create additional office space.
Table 6.--Estimated Spending Subject to Appropriation for S. 1088
[By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spending Under Current Law
Estimated Authorization Level a ................................ 1,093 1,143 1,182 1,223 1,264 1,305
Estimated Outlays............................................... 1,079 1,138 1,178 1,219 1,260 1,301
Proposed Changes
Estimated Authorization Level................................... 0 1 1 2 1 1
Estimated Outlays............................................... 0 1 1 2 1 1
Spending Under S. 1088
Estimated Authorization Level a ................................ 1,093 1,144 1,183 1,225 1,265 1,306
Estimated Outlays............................................... 1,079 1,139 1,179 1,221 1,261 1,302
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The 2001 level is the amount appropriated for that year for General Operating Expenses, the Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims, and administrative expenses for the Native American Veteran Housing Loan Pilot Program.
Both the current program and the proposed changes for the Native American Veteran Hosing Loan Pilot program
are more than $500,000 but less than $1 million.
The other provisions relating to the Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims would have no net impact on discretionary
spending.
PAY-AS-YOU-GO CONSIDERATIONS
The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act sets
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct
spending or receipts. The net changes in outlays that are
subject to pay-as-you-go procedures are shown in the following
table. For the purposes of enforcing pay-as-you-go procedures,
only the effects in the current year, the budget year, and the
succeeding four years are counted.
Table 7.--Estimated Impact of S. 1088 on Direct Spending and Receipts
[By Fiscal Year, in Millions of Dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes in outlays................. 0 180 407 631 656 723 783 829 425 470 464
Changes in receipts *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Not applicable.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE-SECTOR IMPACT
S. 1088 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in UMRA and would impose no costs on state,
local, or tribal governments.
PREVIOUS CBO ESTIMATES
On July 20, 2001, CBO prepared a cost estimate for H.R.
2540, the Veterans Benefits Act of 2001, as ordered reported by
the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs on July 19, 2001.
Section 202 of S. 1088 is similar to section 202 of H.R. 2540,
though the Senate version extends for another 10 years the time
in which a Gulf War veteran can make a claim for undiagnosed
illnesses. As a result, the Senate version has a higher
estimated cost over the 2003-2011 period.
On July 5, 2001, CBO prepared a cost estimate for H.R.
1929, the Native American Veterans Home Loan Act of 2001, as
introduced in the House on May 21, 2001. Section 302 of S. 1088
is similar to H.R. 1929, and its costs are identical through
2008; other provisions of S. 1088 would lower costs over the
2009-2011 period.
On June 22, 2001, CBO prepared a cost estimate for H.R.
442, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to increase
the maximum amount of a home loan guarantee available to a
veteran, as introduced in the House on February 6, 2001.
Section 301 of S. 1088 is similar to H.R. 442, and its costs
are identical through 2008; other provisions of S. 1088 would
lower costs over the 2009-2011 period.
On June 15, 2001, CBO prepared a cost estimate for H.R.
1291, the 21st Century Montgomery GI Bill Enhancement Act, as
introduced in the House on March 29, 2001. Section 101 of S.
1088 is similar to H.R. 1291, but H.R. 1291 would provide a
larger increase in the MGIB benefit, and thus has a higher cost
over the 2002-2011 period.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: (Readjustment
Benefits) Sarah Jennings; (Housing) Sunita D'Monte.
Compensation, Pensions, and Other Programs: Michelle Patterson.
Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Elyse Goldman.
Impact on the Private Sector: Allison Percy.
Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis, Congressional Budget Office.
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 August 2, 2001, meeting. On that date,
the Committee, by unanimous voice vote, ordered S. 1088, with
the original purpose to facilitate the use of educational
assistance under the Montgomery GI Bill for education leading
to employment in high technology industry, and for other
purposes, reported favorably to the Senate.
Agency Report
On June 29, 2001, the Honorable Leo S. Mackay, Jr., Ph.D.,
Deputy Secretary for Veterans Affairs, appeared before the
Committee and submitted testimony on, among other things,
certain provisions of S. 1088, as amended. His statement is
reprinted below:
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE LEO S. MACKAY, JR., PHD, DEPUTY
SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Good Morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I
am pleased to appear before you today to provide the
Department's views on a number of pieces of legislation
currently before the Committee. With me this morning are the
Under Secretary for Benefits, Mr. Joseph Thompson, his
Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Program and Management,
Mr. Robert Epley, and our Deputy General Counsel, Mr. John
Thompson.
In the short time that I have available to me I would like
to provide highlights of the Administration's views on these
bills and would ask that my entire written statement be
submitted for the record.
We commend the Committee for holding this hearing and I
thank you and your staffs for the cooperation shown the
Department to include a number of provisions that will clarify
existing law and help improve the benefits that we provide to
our veterans and their dependents.
The Committee has before it, S. 1090, the ``Veterans'
Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2001.'' This bill
would authorize a cost-of-living adjustment in VA compensation
and dependency and indemnity compensation rates. The
Administration strongly supports this legislation and urges its
speedy adoption. This proposed increase is necessary and
appropriate to protect the benefits of affected veterans and
dependents from the eroding effects of inflation.
The Committee is also considering two pieces of legislation
that primarily impact the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
VA defers to the Court with regard to S. 1063, which deals with
administrative matters affecting the Court. S. 1089 would
expand temporarily the Court so as to facilitate staggered
terms for judges on that Court. VA defers to the Court with
respect to the merits of this change. S. 1089 would also
eliminate the requirement that appeals to the Board of
Veterans' Appeals must have been initiated before November 18,
1988, in order for there to be judicial review of the Board's
decisions. VA is assessing the impact of the provision and will
notify the Committee of our views once that assessment is
complete.
S. 1091 would modify current law regarding presumption of
service-connection for Vietnam veterans. VA is currently
studying the scientific merits of removing the 30-year
respiratory cancer presumption and we defer taking a position
pending the outcome of that review. We support the extension of
the National Academy of Sciences for providing biennial reports
to the Secretary on herbicide exposure.
S. 1088 would permit accelerated Montgomery GI Bill
payments for veterans training in high-tech courses. VA
supports the concept of acceleration of benefits for high cost/
short-term courses but we do not believe this should be limited
to veterans in high-tech courses.
S. 1093, the ``Veterans' Benefits Programs Modification Act
of 2001,'' contains a number of provisions that VA is pleased
to support. It would restrict compensation payments to
prisoners and fugitives. It would make needed clarifying
changes to the Veterans Claims Assistance Amendments of 2000.
It would remove the current 500-veteran cap on the number of
vocational rehabilitation participants in a program of
independent living. S. 1093 would also raise the maximum home
loan guaranty from $50,750 to $63,175. Finally, it would make
needed changes to the law regarding VA's need-based pension
program.
S. 131 would index monthly Montgomery GI Bill rates to the
average monthly cost of tuition and fees for commuter students
at 4-year colleges with annual adjustments. Mr. Chairman, VA
acknowledges that the monthly benefits need to be increased. We
prefer, however, the stepped increases found in H.R. 1291,
which recently was passed by the House of Representatives.
S. 228 would make permanent the Native American Home Loan
Program. This program is slated to expire at the end of this
year. We support an extension of the program through FY 2005.
S. 781 would extend through FY 2015 the authority to
guaranty home loans for members of the Selected Reserve. VA
supports this bill. Extending the benefit recognizes the role
the Reserves play in our National Defense and would provide
assurance to those entering reserve service today that this
benefit will be there for them when they need it.
S. 912 would increase various burial and plot allowances.
However, this bill would increase expenditures for this program
by more than three-fold and consequently we cannot support the
bill in its proposed form. We can, however, support an increase
from $1,500 to $2,000 for the burial allowance for service-
connected deaths.
S. 937 would amend the Montgomery GI Bill to permit
servicemembers to transfer their entitlement to their
dependents, permit a limited form of accelerated benefits, make
benefits available for technological occupations, and permit
separated reservists to use Montgomery GI Bill benefits. Since
the Department of Defense would pay for the transfer of
benefits and for reservists, we would defer to DoD on those two
issues. As I stated earlier, we support the concept of
accelerated benefits and it should not be limited to just the
payment for semester.
Mr. Chairman, there are three bills before the Committee
today that VA is unable to support.
S. 409 would statutorily extend until December 31, 2011,
the presumptive period for undiagnosed illnesses suffered by
Gulf War veterans. VA currently has the authority to extend
this period administratively and that is the preferred method.
This bill would also redefine ``undiagnosed illnesses'' to
include poorly defined illnesses such as fibromyalgia, and
chronic fatigue syndrome, among others. VA has adequate
authority under existing law to establish presumptions for
these conditions should scientific and medical evidence support
such action.
S. 457 would establish a presumption of service-connection
for hepatitis C for seven different categories of veterans. VA
opposes this because the presumption would be overly broad and
necessarily result in compensating many veterans whose
hepatitis is due to illegal intravenous drug use.
S. 662. would authorize VA to provide headstones or markers
for previously marked graves of veterans. VA opposes this
proposal. We believe that the purpose of providing a headstone
or a marker is to ensure that no veteran's grave goes unmarked.
And we are particularly concerned with the concept of placing a
marker at an ``area appropriate for the purpose of
commemorating'' an individual. This bill represents a departure
from the longstanding policy of providing headstones and
markers for ``graves'' of veterans.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my opening statement. We will
be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Committee Bill, As Reported
In compliance with rule XXVI paragraph 12 of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, the following provides a print of the
statute or the part or section thereof to be amended or
replaced (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in
black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law
in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 11--COMPENSATION FOR SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY OR DEATH
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--WARTIME DISABILITY COMPENSATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 11--COMPENSATION FOR SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY OR DEATH
subchapter i--general
Sec.
1101. * * *
* * * * * * *
subchapter ii--wartime disability compensation
* * * * * * *
[1116. PRESUMPTIONS OF SERVICE CONNECTION FOR DISEASES ASSOCIATED WITH
EXPOSURE TO CERTAIN HERBICIDE AGENTS]
1116. PRESUMPTIONS OF SERVICE CONNECTION FOR DISEASES ASSOCIATED WITH
EXPOSURE TO CERTAIN HERBICIDE AGENTS; PRESUMPTION
OF EXPOSURE.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1114. Rates of wartime disability compensation
For the purposes of section 1110 of this title--
* * * * * * *
(r) Subject to section [5503(e)] 5503(c) of this
title, if any veteran, otherwise entitled to
compensation authorized under subsection (o) of this
section, at the maximum rate authorized under
subsection (p) of this section, or at the intermediate
rate authorized between the rates authorized under
subsections (n) and (o) of this section and at the rate
authorized under subsection (k) of this section, is in
need of regular aid and attendance, then, in addition
to such compensation--
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 1116. Presumptions of service connection for diseases associated
with exposure to certain herbicide agents]
Sec. 1116. Presumptions of service connection for diseases associated
with exposure to certain herbicide agents;
presumption of exposure
(a)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(4)] (3) For purposes of this section, the term ``herbicide
agent'' means a chemical in an herbicide used in support of the
United States and allied military operations in the Republic of
Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and
ending on May 7, 1975.
* * * * * * *
(e) Subsections (b) through (d) shall cease to be effective
[10 years] 20 years after the first day of the fiscal year in
which the National Academy of Sciences transmits to the
Secretary the first report under section 3 of the Agent Orange
Act of 1991.
[(a)(3)] (f) [For the purposes of this subsection, a veteran]
For purposes of establishing service connection for a
disability or death resulting from exposure to a herbicide
agent, including a presumption of service-connection under this
section, a veterans who, during active military, naval, or air
service, served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period
beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, [and
has a disease referred to in paragraph (1)(B) of this
subsection] shall be presumed to have been exposed during such
service to an herbicide agent containing dioxin or 2,4-
dichlorophenoxyacetic acid, and may be presumed to have been
exposed during such service to any other chemical compound in
an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to
establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent
during that service.
Sec. 1117. Compensation for disabilities occurring in Persian Gulf War
veterans
(a) The Secretary may pay compensation under this subchapter
to any Persian Gulf veteran suffering from a chronic disability
resulting from an undiagnosed illness (or combination of
undiagnosed illnesses) or any poorly defined chronic
multisymptom illness of unknown etiology, regardless of
diagnosis, characterized by two or more of the signs or
symptoms listed in subsection (f) that--
* * * * * * *
(2) became manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more
[within the presumptive period prescribed under
subsection (b)] before December 31, 2011, or such later
date as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation.
[(b) The Secretary shall prescribe by regulation the period
of time following service in the Southwest Asia theater of
operations during the Persian Gulf War that the Secretary
determines is appropriate for presumption of service connection
for purposes of this section. The Secretary's determination of
such period of time shall be made following a review of any
available credible medical or scientific evidence and the
historical treatment afforded disabilities for which
manifestation periods have been established and shall take into
account other pertinent circumstances regarding the experiences
of veterans of the Persian Gulf War.]
[(c)](b)(1) Whenever the Secretary determines under section
1118(c) of this title that a presumption of service connection
for an undiagnosed illness (or combination of undiagnosed
illnesses) previously established under this section is no
longer warranted--
* * * * * * *
[(d)](c)(1) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations to
carry out this section.
* * * * * * *
[(e)] (d) A disability for which compensation under this
subchapter is payable shall be considered to be service
connected for purposes of all other laws of the United States.
[(f)] (e) For purposes of this section, the term ``Persian
Gulf veteran'' means a veteran who served on active duty in the
Armed Forces in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during
the Persian Gulf War.
(f) For purposes of this section, signs or symptoms that may
be a manifestation of an undiagnosed illness include the
following:
(1) Fatigue.
(2) Unexplained rashes or other dermatological signs
or symptoms.
(3) Headache.
(4) Muscle pain.
(5) Joint pain.
(6) Neurologic signs or symptoms.
(7) Neuropsychological signs or symptoms.
(8) Signs or symptoms involving the respiratory
system (upper or lower).
(9) Sleep disturbances.
(10) Gastrointestinal signs or symptoms.
(11) Cardiovascular signs or symptoms.
(12) Abnormal weight loss.
(13) Menstrual disorders.
Sec. 1118. Presumptions of service connection for illnesses associated
with service in the Persian Gulf during the Persian
Gulf War
(a)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) For purposes of this section, signs or symptoms that may
be a manifestation of an undiagnosed illness include the signs
and symptoms listed in section 1117(f) of this title.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 1503. Determinations with respect to annual income
(a) In determining annual income under this chapter, all
payments of any kind or from any source (including salary,
retirement or annuity payments, or similar income, which has
been waived, irrespective of whether the waiver was made
pursuant to statute, contract, or otherwise) shall be included
except--
(1) * * *
(9) in the case of a veteran or surviving spouse
pursuing a course of education or vocational
rehabilitation or training, amounts equal to amounts
paid by such veteran or surviving spouse for such
course of education or vocational rehabilitation or
training, including (A) amounts paid for tuition, fees,
books, and materials, and (B) in the case of such a
veteran or surviving spouse in need of regular aid and
attendance, unreimbursed amounts paid for unusual
transportation expenses in connection with the pursuit
of such course of education or vocational
rehabilitation or training, to the extent that such
amounts exceed the reasonable expenses which would have
been incurred by a nondisabled person using an
appropriate means of transportation (public
transportation, if reasonably available); [and]
(10) in the case of a child, any current-work income
received during the year, to the extent that the total
amount of such income does not exceed an amount equal
to the sum of--
(A) * * *
(B) if the child is pursuing a course of
postsecondary education or vocational
rehabilitation or training, the amount paid by
such child for such course of education or
vocational rehabilitation or training,
including the amount paid for tuition, fees,
books, and materials[.];
(11) proceeds (in an amount equal to or less than the
amount prescribed by the Secretary for purposes of this
paragraph, subject to subsection (c)) of any life
insurance policy of a veteran; and
(12) (12) any other non-recurring income (in an
amount equal to or less than the amount prescribed by
the Secretary for purposes of this paragraph, subject
to subsection (c)) from any source.
* * * * * * *
(c) In prescribing amounts for purposes of paragraph (11) or
(12) of subsection (a), the Secretary shall take into
consideration the amount of income from insurance proceeds or
other non-recurring income, as the case may be, that is
reasonable for individuals eligible for pension to consume for
their maintenance.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 2306. Headstones, markers, and burial receptacles
* * * * * * *
(c) A headstone or marker furnished under subsection (a) or
(b) [of this section] may be of any material, including but not
limited to marble, granite, bronze, or slate, requested by the
person entitled to request such headstone or marker if the
material requested is determined by the Secretary (1) to be
cost effective, and (2) in a case in which the headstone or
marker is to be placed in a national cemetery, to be
aesthetically compatible with the area of the cemetery in which
it is to be placed.
* * * * * * *
(f) In the case of the grave of an individual described in
subsection (a) that has been marked by a privately-furnished
headstone or marker, the Secretary may furnish, when requested,
a bronze marker to commemorate the individual's military
service. The bronze marker may be placed at the gravesite or at
another location designated by the cemetery concerned as a
location for the commemoration of the individual's military
service.
Sec. 2307. Death from service-connected disability
In any case in which a veteran dies as the result of a
service-connected disability or disabilities, the Secretary,
upon the request of the survivors of such veteran, shall pay
the burial and funeral expenses incurred in connection with the
death of the veteran in an amount not exceeding the greater of
(1) [$1,500] $2,000, or (2) the amount authorized to be paid
under section 8134(a) of title 5 in the case of a Federal
employee whose death occurs as the result of an injury
sustained in the performance of duty. Funeral and burial
benefits provided under this section shall be in lieu of any
benefits authorized under sections 2302 and 2303(a)(1) and (b)
of this title.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 30--ALL-VOLUNTEER FORCE EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
subchapter i--purposes; definitions
Sec.
3001. * * *
3014A. ACCELERATED PAYMENT OF BASIC EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR
EDUCATION LEADING TO EMPLOYMENT IN HIGH TECHNOLOGY
INDUSTRY.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3011. Basic educational assistance entitlement for service on
active duty
(a) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section,
each individual--
(1) who--
(A) after June 30, 1985, first becomes a
member of the Armed Forces or first enters on
active duty as a member of the Armed Forces
and--
(i) * * *
(ii) who serves in the Armed Forces
and is discharged or released from
active duty (I) for a service-connected
disability, for a medical condition
which preexisted such service on active
duty and which the Secretary determines
is not service connected, for hardship,
or for a physical or mental condition
that was not characterized as a
disability and did not result from the
individual's own willful misconduct but
did interfere with the individual's
performance of duty, as determined by
the Secretary of each military
department in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary
of Defense or by the Secretary of
Transportation with respect to the
Coast Guard when it is not operating as
a service in the Navy; (II) for the
convenience of the Government, if, in
the case of an individual with an
obligated period of service of two
years, the individual completes not
less than 20 months of continuous
active duty under that period of
obligated service, or, in the case of
an individual with an obligated period
of service of at least three years, the
individual completes not less than 30
months of continuous active duty under
that period of obligated service; or
(III) involuntarily for the convenience
of the Government as a result of a
reduction in force, as determined by
the Secretary of the military
department concerned in accordance with
regulations prescribed by the Secretary
of Defense or by the Secretary of
Transportation with respect to the
Coast Guard when it is not operating as
a service in the Navy; [or]
(B) as of December 31, 1989, is eligible for
educational assistance benefits under chapter
34 of this title and was on active duty at any
time during the period beginning on October 19,
1984, and ending on July 1, 1985, continued on
active duty without a break in service and--
(i) * * *
(ii) after June 30, 1985, is
discharged or released from active duty
(I) for a service-connected disability,
for a medical condition which
preexisted such service on active duty
and which the Secretary determines is
not service connected, for hardship, or
for a physical or mental condition that
was not characterized as a disability,
as described in subparagraph (A)(ii)(I)
of this paragraph; (II) for the
convenience of the Government, if the
individual completed not less than 30
months of continuous active duty after
that date, or (III) involuntarily for
the convenience of the Government as a
result of a reduction in force, as
determined by the Secretary of the
military department concerned in
accordance with regulations prescribed
by the Secretary of Defense or by the
Secretary of Transportation with
respect to the Coast Guard when it is
not operating as a service in the Navy;
or
(C) as of December 31, 1989, is eligible for
educational assistance benefits under chapter
34 of this title and--
(i) was not on active duty on October
19, 1984;
(ii) reenlists or reenters on a
period of active duty after the date
specified in clause (i); and
(iii) after July 1, 1985, either--
(I) serves at least three
years of continuous active duty
in the Armed Forces; or
(II) is discharged or
released from active duty (aa)
for a service-connected
disability, for a medical
condition which preexisted such
service on active duty and
which the Secretary determines
is not service connected, for
hardship, or for a physical or
mental condition that was not
characterized as a disability,
as described in subparagraph
(A)(ii)(I) of this paragraph,
(bb) for the convenience of the
Government, if the individual
completed not less than 30
months of continuous active
duty after that date, or (cc)
involuntarily for the
convenience of the Government
as a result of a reduction in
force, as determined by the
Secretary of the military
department concerned in
accordance with regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of
Defense or by the Secretary of
Transportation with respect to
the Coast Guard when it is not
operating as a service in the
Navy;
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3012. Basic educational assistance entitlement for service in the
Selected Reserve
(a) Except as provided in subsection (d) of this section,
each individual--
(1) who--
(A) after June 30, 1985, first becomes a
member of the Armed Forces or first enters on
active duty as a member of the Armed Forces
and--
(i) * * *
(ii) subject to subsection (b) of
this section and beginning within one
year after completion of the service on
active duty described in subclause (i)
of this clause, serves at least four
years of continuous duty in the
Selected Reserve during which the
individual participates satisfactorily
in training as required by the
Secretary concerned; [or]
(B) as of December 31, 1989, is eligible for
educational assistance under chapter 34 of this
title and was on active duty at any time during
the period beginning on October 19, 1984, and
ending on July 1, 1985, continued on active
duty without a break in service and--
(i) * * *
(ii) after June 30, 1985, subject to
subsection (b) of this section and
beginning within one year after
completion of such two years of
service, serves at least four
continuous years in the Selected
Reserve during which the individual
participates satisfactorily in training
as prescribed by the Secretary
concerned; or
(C) as of December 31, 1989, is eligible for
educational assistance under chapter 34 of this
title and--
(i) was not on active duty on October
19, 1984;
(ii) reenlists or reenters on a
period of active duty after the date
specified in clause (i); and
(iii) after July 1, 1985--
(I) serves at least two years
of continuous active duty in
the Armed Forces, subject to
subsection (b) of this section,
characterized by the Secretary
concerned as honorable service;
and
(II) subject to subsection
(b) of this section and
beginning within one year after
completion of such two years of
service, serves at least four
continuous years in the
Selected Reserve during which
the individual participates
satisfactorily in training as
prescribed by the Secretary
concerned;
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3014. Payment of basic educational assistance
* * * * * * *
(c)(1)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter
and subject to subparagraph (B), an individual entitled to
basic educational assistance under this subchapter may elect to
receive an accelerated payment of the basic educational
assistance allowance.
(B) The Secretary may not make an accelerated payment under
this subsection for a course to an individual who has received
an advance payment under section 3014A or 3680(d) of this title
for the same enrollment period.
(2)(A) Pursuant to an election under paragraph (1), the
Secretary shall make an accelerated payment to an individual
for a course in a lump-sum amount equal to the lesser of--
(i) the amount of the educational assistance
allowance for the month, or fraction thereof, in which
the course begins plus the educational assistance
allowance for each of the succeeding four months; or
(ii)(I) in the case of a course offered on a quarter,
semester, or term basis, the amount of aggregate
monthly educational assistance allowance otherwise
payable under this subchapter for the course for the
entire quarter, semester, or term; or
(II) in the case of a course that is not offered on a
quarter, semester, or term basis, the amount of
aggregate monthly educational assistance allowance
otherwise payable under this subchapter for the entire
course.
(B) In the case of an adjustment under section 3015(h) of
this title in the monthly rate of basic educational assistance
that occurs during a period for which an accelerated payment is
made under this subsection, the Secretary shall pay--
(i) on an accelerated basis the amount of the
allowance otherwise payable under this subchapter for
the period without regard to the adjustment under that
section; and
(ii) on the date of the adjustment any additional
amount of the allowance that is payable for the period
as a result of the adjustment.
(3) For each accelerated payment made to an individual under
this subsection, the individual's entitlement under this
subchapter shall be charged at the same rate at which the
entitlement would be charged if the individual had received a
monthly educational assistance allowance for the period of
educational pursuit covered by the accelerated payment.
(4) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations to carry out
this subsection. The regulations shall include the
requirements, conditions, and methods for the request,
issuance, delivery, certification of receipt and use, and
recovery of overpayment of an accelerated payment under this
subsection.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3014A. Accelerated payment of basic educational assistance for
education leading to employment in high technology
industry
(a) An individual described in subsection (b) who is entitled
to basic educational assistance under this subchapter may elect
to receive an accelerated payment of the basic educational
assistance allowance otherwise payable to the individual under
section 3015 of this title.
(b) An individual described in this subsection is an
individual who is--
(1) enrolled in an approved program of education that
leads to employment in a high technology industry (as
determined pursuant to regulations prescribed by the
Secretary); and
(2) charged tuition and fees for the program of
education that, when divided by the number of months
(and fractions thereof) in the enrollment period,
exceeds the amount equal to 200 percent of the monthly
rate of basic educational assistance allowance
otherwise payable to the individual under section 3015
of this title.
(c)(1) The amount of the accelerated payment of basic
educational assistance made to an individual making an election
under subsection (a) for a program of education shall be the
lesser of--
(A) the amount equal to 60 percent of the established
charges for the program of education; or
(B) the aggregate amount of basic educational
assistance to which the individual remains entitled
under this chapter at the time of the payment.
(2) In this subsection, the term ``established charges'', in
the case of a program of education, means the actual charges
(as determined pursuant to regulations prescribed by the
Secretary) for tuition and fees which similarly circumstanced
nonveterans enrolled in the program of education would be
required to pay. Established charges shall be determined on the
following basis:
(A) In the case of an individual enrolled in a
program of education offered on a term, quarter, or
semester basis, the tuition and fees charged the
individual for the term, quarter, or semester.
(B) In the case of an individual enrolled in a
program of education not offered on a term, quarter, or
semester basis, the tuition and fees charged the
individual for the entire program of education.
(3) The educational institution providing the program of
education for which an accelerated payment of basic educational
assistance allowance is elected by an individual under
subsection (a) shall certify to the Secretary the amount of the
established charges for the program of education.
(d) An accelerated payment of basic educational assistance
made to an individual under this section for a program of
education shall be made not later than the last day of the
month immediately following the month in which the Secretary
receives a certification from the educational institution
regarding--
(1) the individual's enrollment in and pursuit of the
program of education; and
(2) the amount of the established charges for the
program of education.
(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), for each
accelerated payment of basic educational assistance made to an
individual under this section, the individual's entitlement to
basic educational assistance under this chapter shall be
charged the number of months (and any fraction thereof)
determined by dividing the amount of the accelerated payment by
the full-time monthly rate of basic educational assistance
allowance otherwise payable to the individual under section
3015 of this title as of the beginning date of the enrollment
period for the program of education for which the accelerated
payment is made.
(2) If the monthly rate of basic educational assistance
allowance otherwise payable to an individual under section 3015
of this title increases during the enrollment period of a
program of education for which an accelerated payment of basic
educational assistance is made under this section, the charge
to the individual's entitlement to basic educational assistance
under this chapter shall be determined by prorating the
entitlement chargeable, in the matter provided for under
paragraph (1), for the periods covered by the initial rate and
increased rate, respectively, in accordance with regulations
prescribed by the Secretary.
(f) The Secretary may not make an accelerated payment under
this section for a program of education to an individual who
has received an advance payment under section 3014(c) or
3680(d) of this title for the same enrollment period.
(g) The Secretary shall prescribe regulations to carry out
this section. The regulations shall include requirements,
conditions, and methods for the request, issuance, delivery,
certification of receipt and use, and recovery of overpayment
of an accelerated payment under this section.''.
Sec. 3015. Amount of basic educational assistance
(a) * * *
(1) at the monthly rate of [$650 (as increased from
time to time under subsection (h))] $700, for months
beginning after September 30, 2001, but before
September 30, 2002, $800 for months beginning after
September 30, 2002, but before September 30, 2003, and
$950 for months beginning after September 30, 2003, but
before September 30, 2004, and as increased from time
to time under subsection (h) after September 30, 2004,
for an approved program of education pursued on a full-
time basis; or
* * * * * * *
(b) In the case of an individual entitled to an educational
assistance allowance under section 3011 or 3018 of this title
whose obligated period of active duty on which such entitlement
is based is two years, a basic educational assistance allowance
under this chapter shall (except as provided in the succeeding
subsections of this section) be paid--
(1) at the monthly rate of [$528 (as increased from
time to time under subsection (h))] $569, for months
beginning after September 30, 2001, but before
September 30, 2002, $650 for months beginning after
September 30, 2002, but before September 30, 2003, and
$772 for months beginning after September 30, 2003, but
before September 30, 2004, and as increased from time
to time under subsection (h) after September 30, 2004,
for an approved program of education pursued on a full-
time basis; or
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3031. Time limitation for use of eligibility and entitlement
(a) Except as provided in subsections (b) through (g), and
subject to subsection (h), of this section, the period during
which an individual entitled to educational assistance under
this chapter may use such individual's entitlement expires at
the end of the 10-year period beginning on the date of such
individual's last discharge or release from active duty, except
that such 10-year period shall begin--
(1) in the case of an individual who becomes entitled
to such assistance under clause (A) or (B) of section
3012(a)(1) of this title, on the later of the date of
such individual's last discharge or release from active
duty or the date on which the four-year requirement
described in clause (A)(ii) or (B)(ii), respectively,
of such section 3012(a)(1) is met; [and]
(2) in the case of an individual who becomes entitled
to such assistance under section 3011(a)(1)(B), on the
later of the date of such individual's last discharge
or release from active duty or January 1, 1990[.];and
(3) in the case of an individual who becomes entitled
to such assistance under section 3011(a)(1)(C) or
3012(a)(1)(C) of this title, on the date of the
enactment of this paragraph.
* * * * * * *
(e)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this
subsection, in the case of an individual described in [section
3011(a)(1)(B) or 3012(a)(1)(B)] section 3011(a)(1)(B),
3011(a)(1)(C), 3012(a)(1)(B), or 3012(a)(1)(C) of this title
who is entitled to basic educational assistance under this
chapter, the 10-year period prescribed in subsection (a) of
this section shall be reduced by an amount of time equal to the
amount of time that such individual was not serving on active
duty during the period beginning on January 1, 1977, and ending
on June 30, 1985.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3120. Program of independent living services and assistance
* * * * * * *
(e) [Programs of independent living services and assistance
shall be initiated for no more than five hundred veterans in
each fiscal year, and the first priority in the provision of
such programs] First priority in the provision of programs of
independent living services and assistance under this section
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.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3452. Definitions
For the purposes of this chapter and chapter 36 of this
title--
* * * * * * *
(c) The term ``educational institution'' means any public or
private elementary school, secondary school, vocational school,
correspondence school, business school, junior college,
teachers' college, college, normal school, professional school,
university, or scientific or technical institution, or other
institution furnishing education for adults. For the period
ending on September 30, 1996, such term includes any entity
that provides training required for completion of any State-
approved alternative teacher certification program (as
determined by the Secretary). Such term also includes any
private entity (that meets such requirements as the Secretary
may establish) that offers, either directly or under an
agreement with another entity (that meets such requirements), a
course or courses to fulfill requirements for the attainment of
a license or certificate generally recognized as necessary to
obtain, maintain, or advance in employment in a profession or
vocation in a high technology occupation (as determined by the
Secretary).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3501. Definitions
(a) For the purposes of this chapter and chapter 36 of this
title--
* * * * * * *
(6) The term ``educational institution'' means any
public or private secondary school, vocational school,
correspondence school, business school, junior college,
teachers' college, college, normal school, professional
school, university, or scientific or technical
institution, or any other institution if it furnishes
education at the secondary school level or above. Such
term also includes any private entity (that meets such
requirements as the Secretary may establish) that
offers, either directly or under an agreement with
another entity (that meets such requirements), a course
or courses to fulfill requirements for the attainment
of a license or certificate generally recognized as
necessary to obtain, maintain, or advance in employment
in a profession or vocation in a high technology
occupation (as determined by the Secretary).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3680. Payment of educational assistance or subsistence allowances
* * * * * * *
Determination of Enrollment, Pursuit, and Attendance
[(g) The Secretary may, pursuant to regulations which the
Secretary shall prescribe, determine and define enrollment in,
pursuit of, and attendance at, any program of education or
training or course by an eligible veteran or eligible person
for any period for which the veteran or person receives an
educational assistance or subsistence allowance under this
chapter for pursuing such program or course. Subject to such
reports and proof as the Secretary may require to show an
eligible veteran's or eligible person's enrollment in and
satisfactory pursuit of such person's program, the Secretary
may withhold payment of benefits to such eligible veteran or
eligible person until the required proof is received and the
amount of the payment is approximately adjusted. The Secretary
may accept such veteran's or person's monthly certification of
enrollment in and satisfactory pursuit of such veteran's or
person's program as sufficient proof of the certified matters.]
(g)(1) The Secretary may, pursuant to regulations which the
Secretary shall prescribe, determine and define with respect to
an eligible veteran and eligible person the following:
(A) Enrollment in a course or a program of education
or training.
(B) Pursuit of a course or program of education or
training.
(C) Attendance at a course or program of education
and training.
(2) The Secretary may withhold payment of benefits to an
eligible veteran or eligible person until the Secretary
receives such proof as the Secretary may require of enrollment
in and satisfactory pursuit of a program of education by the
eligible veteran or eligible person. The Secretary shall adjust
the payment withheld, when necessary, on the basis of the proof
the Secretary receives.
(3) In the case of an individual other than an individual
described in paragraph (4), the Secretary may accept the
individual's monthly certification of enrollment in and
satisfactory pursuit of a program of education as sufficient
proof of the certified matters.
(4) In the case of an individual who has received an
accelerated payment of basic educational assistance under
section 3014A of this title during an enrollment period for a
program of education, the Secretary may accept the individual's
certification of enrollment in and satisfactory pursuit of the
program of education as sufficient proof of the certified
matters if the certification is submitted after the enrollment
period has ended.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3702. Basic entitlement
(a)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(2) The veterans referred to in the first sentence of
paragraph (1) of this subsection are the following:
(E) For the period beginning on October 28, 1992, and
ending on [September 30, 2007] September 30, 2011, each
veteran described in section 3701(b)(5) of this title.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3703. Basic provisions relating to loan guaranty and insurance
(a)(1)(A) Any loan to a veteran eligible for benefits under
this chapter, if made for any of the purposes specified in
section 3710 of this title and in compliance with the
provisions of this chapter, is automatically guaranteed by the
United States in an amount not to exceed the lesser of--
(i)(I) in the case of any loan of not more than
$45,000, 50 percent of the loan;
* * * * * * *
(IV) in the case of any loan of more than $144,000
for a purpose specified in clause (1), (2), (3), (6),
or (8) of section 3710(a) of this title, the lesser of
[$50,750] $63,175 or 25 percent of the loan; or
* * * * * * *
(B) The maximum amount of guaranty entitlement available to a
veteran for purposes specified in section 3710 of this title
shall be $36,000, or in the case of a loan described in
subparagraph (A)(i)(IV) of this paragraph, [$50,750] $63,175,
reduced by the amount of entitlement previously used by the
veteran under this chapter and not restored as a result of the
exclusion in section 3702(b) of this title.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3720. Powers of Secretary
* * * * * * *
(h)(1) * * *
(2) The Secretary may not under this subsection guarantee the
payment of principal and interest on certificates or other
securities issued or approved after [December 31, 2008]
December 31, 2011.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3729. Loan fee
* * * * * * *
(b) Determination of Fee.--(1) * * *
(2) * * *
LOAN FEE TABLE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active duty Other
Type of loan veteran Reservist obligor
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A)(i) Initial loan described 2.00 2.75 NA
in section 3710(a) to
purchase or construct a
dwelling with 0-down, or any
other initial loan described
in section 3710(a) other than
with 5-down or 10-down
(closed before [October 1,
2008] October 1, 2011).......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A)(ii) Initial loan described 1.25 2.00 NA
in section 3710(a) to
purchase or construct a
dwelling with 0-down, or any
other initial loan described
in section 3710(a) other than
with 5-down or 10-down
(closed on or after [October
1, 2008] October 1, 2011)....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B)(i) Subsequent loan 3.00 3.00 NA
described in section 3710(a)
to purchase or construct a
dwelling with 0-down, or any
other subsequent loan
described in section 3710(a)
(closed before [October 1,
2008] October 1, 2011).......
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B)(ii) Subsequent loan 1.25 2.00 NA
described in section 3710(a)
to purchase or construct a
dwelling with 0-down, or any
other subsequent loan
described in section 3710(a)
(closed on or after [October
1, 2008] October 1, 2011)....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C)(i) Loan described in 1.50 2.25 NA
section 3710(a) to purchase
or construct a dwelling with
5-down (closed before
[October 1, 2008] October 1,
2011)........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(C)(ii) Loan described in 0.75 1.50 NA
section 3710(a) to purchase
or construct a dwelling with
5-down (closed on or after
[October 1, 2008] October 1,
2011)........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(D)(i) Initial loan described 1.25 2.00 NA
in section 3710(a) to
purchase or construct a
dwelling with 10-down (closed
before [October 1, 2008]
October 1, 2011).............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(D)(ii) Initial loan described 0.50 1.25 NA
in section 3710(a) to
purchase or construct a
dwelling with 10-down (closed
on or after [October 1, 2008]
October 1, 2011).............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3732. Procedure on default
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(11) This subsection shall apply to loans closed before
[October 1, 2008] October 1, 2011.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3761. Pilot program
* * * * * * *
(c) No loans may be made under this subchapter after
[December 31, 2001] December 31, 2005.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 3762. Direct housing loans to Native American veterans
* * * * * * *
(j) Not later than February 1 of each year through [2002]
2006, the Secretary shall transmit to the Committees on
Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House of Representatives a
report relating to the implementation of the pilot program
under this subchapter during the fiscal year preceding the date
of the report. Each such report shall include the following:
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5102. Application forms furnished upon request; notice to
claimants of incomplete applications
* * * * * * *
(c) Time Limitation.--(1) If information that a claimant and
the claimant's representative, if any, are notified under
subsection (b) is necessary to complete an application is not
received by the Secretary within one year from the date of such
notification, no benefit may be paid or furnished by reason of
the claimant's application.
(2) This subsection shall not apply to any application or
claim for Government life insurance benefits.
Sec. 5103. Notice to claimants of required information and evidence
[(a) Required Information and Evidence.--]Upon receipt of a
complete or substantially complete application, the Secretary
shall notify the claimant and the claimant's representative, if
any, of any information, and any medical or lay evidence, not
previously provided to the Secretary that is necessary to
substantiate the claim. As part of that notice, the Secretary
shall indicate which portion of that information and evidence,
if any, is to be provided by the claimant and which portion, if
any, the Secretary, in accordance with section 5103A of this
title and any other applicable provisions of law, will attempt
to obtain on behalf of the claimant.
[(b) Time Limitation.--(1) In the case of information or
evidence that the claimant is notified under subsection (a) is
to be provided by the claimant, if such information or evidence
is not received by the Secretary within 1 year from the date of
such notification, no benefit may be paid or furnished by
reason of the claimant's application.
[(2) This subsection shall not apply to any application or
claim for Government life insurance benefits.]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 51--CLAIMS, EFFECTIVE DATES, AND PAYMENTS
subchapter i--claims
Sec.
5100. DEFINITION OF ``CLAIMANT''.
subchapter ii--effective dates
* * * * * * *
5313B. PROHIBITION ON PROVIDING CERTAIN BENEFITS WITH RESPECT TO
VETERANS WHO ARE FUGITIVE FELONS.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5112. Effective dates of reductions and discontinuances
* * * * * * *
(b) The effective date of a reduction or discontinuance of
compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, or
pension--
* * * * * * *
(4) by reason of--
[(A) change in income shall (except as
provided in section 5312 of this title) be the
last day of the month in which the change
occurred; and]
(A) change in recurring income will be the
last day of the calendar year in which the
change occurred (with the pension rate for the
following calendar year based on all
anticipated countable income);
* * * * * * *
[(c) The effective date of a discontinuance under section
5503(b)(1)(A) of this title of pension, compensation, or
emergency officers' retirement pay by reason of hospital
treatment or institutional or domiciliary care shall be the
last day of the first month of such treatment or care during
which the value of the veteran's estate, as determined under
such section, equals or exceeds $1,500.]
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5313B. Prohibition on providing certain benefits with respect to
veterans who are fugitive felons
(a) A veteran described in subsection (b), or dependent of
the veteran, who is otherwise eligible for a benefit described
in subsection (c) may not be paid or otherwise provided such
benefit during any period in which the veteran is a fugitive as
described in subsection (b).
(b)(1) A veteran described in this subsection is a veteran
who is a fugitive by reason of--
(A) fleeing to avoid prosecution, or custody or
confinement after conviction, for an offense, or an
attempt to commit an offense, which is a felony under
the laws of the place from which the veteran flees; or
(B) violating a condition of probation or parole
imposed under Federal or State law.
(2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ``felony''
includes a high misdemeanor under the laws of a State which
characterizes as high misdemeanors offenses that would be
felony offenses under Federal law.
(c) A benefit described in this subsection is any benefit
under the following:
(1) Chapter 11 of this title.
(2) Chapter 13 of this title.
(3) Chapter 15 of this title.
(4) Chapter 17 of this title.
(5) Chapter 19 of this title.
(6) Chapters 30, 31, 32, 34, and 35 of this title.
(7) Chapter 37 of this title.
(d)(1) The Secretary shall furnish to any Federal, State, or
local law enforcement official, upon the written request of
such official, the most current address maintained by the
Secretary of a veteran who is eligible for a benefit described
in subsection (c) if such official--
(A) provides the Secretary such information as the
Secretary may require to fully identify the veteran;
(B) identifies the veteran as being a fugitive
described in subsection (b); and
(C) certifies to the Secretary that the location and
apprehension of the veteran is within the official
duties of such official.
(2) The Secretary shall enter into memoranda of understanding
with Federal law enforcement agencies, and may enter into
agreements with State and local law enforcement agencies, for
purposes of furnishing information to such agencies under
paragraph (1).
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5317. Use of income information from other agencies: notice and
verification
* * * * * * *
(g) The authority of the Secretary to obtain information from
the Secretary of the Treasury or the Secretary of Health and
Human Services under section 6103(l)(7)(D)(viii) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 expires on [September 30, 2008]
September 30, 2011.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5503. Hospitalized veterans and estates of incompetent
institutionalized veterans
* * * * * * *
[(b)(1)(A) In any case in which a veteran having neither
spouse nor child is being furnished hospital treatment or
institutional or domiciliary care without charge or otherwise
by the United States, or any political subdivision thereof, is
rated by the Secretary in accordance with regulations as being
incompetent, and the veteran's estate (excluding the value of
the veteran's home unless there is no reasonable likelihood
that the veteran will again reside in such home), from any
source equals or exceeds the amount equal to five times the
section 1114(j) rate, further payments of pension,
compensation, or emergency officers' retirement pay shall not
be made until the estate is reduced to one-half that amount.
[(B) The amount which would be payable but for this paragraph
shall be paid to the veteran in a lump sum; however, no payment
of a lump sum herein authorized shall be made to the veteran
until after the expiration of six months following a finding of
competency and in the event of the veteran's death before
payment of such lump sum no part thereof shall be payable.
[(C) The Secretary may waive the discontinuance under this
paragraph of payments to a veteran with respect to not more
than 60 days of care of the veteran during any calendar year if
the Secretary determines that the waiver is necessary in order
to avoid a hardship for the veteran. Any such waiver shall be
made pursuant to regulations which the Secretary shall
prescribe.
[(D) For purposes of this paragraph, the term ``section
1114(j) rate'' means the monthly rate of compensation in effect
under section 1114(j) of this title for a veteran with a
service-connected disability rated as total.
[(2) Where any benefit is discontinued by reason of paragraph
(1) of this subsection the Secretary may nevertheless apportion
and pay to the dependent parents of the veteran on the basis of
need all or any part of the benefit which would otherwise be
payable to or for such incompetent veteran. Paragraph (1) of
this subsection shall not prevent the payment, out of any
remaining amounts discontinued under that paragraph, on account
of any veteran of so much of the veteran's pension,
compensation, or retirement pay as equals the amount charged to
the veteran for the veteran's current care and maintenance in
the institution in which treatment or care is furnished the
veteran, but not more than the amount determined by the
Secretary to be the proper charge as fixed by any applicable
statute or valid administrative regulation.
[(3) All or any part of the pension, compensation, or
retirement pay payable on account of any incompetent veteran
who is being furnished hospital treatment, institutional or
domiciliary care may, in the discretion of the Secretary, be
paid to the chief officer of the institution wherein the
veteran is being furnished such treatment or care, to be
properly accounted for by such chief officer and to be used for
the benefit of the veteran.
[(c) Any veteran subject to the provisions of subsection (b)
shall be deemed to be single and without dependents in the
absence of satisfactory evidence to the contrary. In no event
shall increased compensation, pension, or retirement pay of
such veteran be granted for any period more than one year
before receipt of satisfactory evidence showing such veteran
has a spouse, child, or dependent parent.]
[(d)] (b) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section
or any other provision of law, no reduction shall be made in
the pension of any veteran for any part of the period during
which the veteran is furnished hospital treatment, or
institutional or domiciliary care, for Hansen's disease, by the
United States or any political subdivision thereof.
[(e)] (c) Where any veteran in receipt of an aid and
attendance allowance described in section 1114(r) 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' 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.
[(f)](d)(1) For the purposes of this subsection--
* * * * * * *
(7) This subsection expires on [September 30, 2008] September
30, 2011.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 72--UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS
subchapter i--organization and jurisdiction
Sec.
7251. * * *
* * * * * * *
subchapter iii--miscellaneous provisions
* * * * * * *
[7285. PRACTICE FEE.]
7285. REGISTRATION FEES.
* * * * * * *
7287. ADMINISTRATION.
Sec. 7253. Composition
* * * * * * *
(b) Appointment.--The judges of the Court shall be appointed
by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate, solely on the grounds of fitness to perform the duties
of the office. A person may not be appointed to the Court who
is not a member in good standing of the bar of a Federal court
or of the highest court of a State. Not more than the number
equal to the next whole number greater than one-half of the
number of judges of the Court may be members of the same
political party.
(c) Term of Office.--The term of office of the judges of the
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims shall be 15 years. A judge
who is nominated by the President for appointment to an
additional term on the Court without a break in service and
whose term of office expires while that nomination is pending
before the Senate may continue in office for up to 1 year while
that nomination is pending.
* * * * * * *
[(f)(1)] (f) Removal.--(1) A judge of the Court may be
removed from office by the President on grounds of misconduct,
neglect of duty, or engaging in the practice of law. A judge of
the Court may not be removed from office by the President on
any other ground.
* * * * * * *
(g)(1) Rules.--The Court shall prescribe rules, consistent
with the provisions of section 372(c) of title 28, establishing
procedures for the filing of complaints with respect to the
conduct of any judge of the Court and for the investigation and
resolution of such complaints. In investigating and taking
action with respect to any such complaint, the Court shall have
the powers granted to a judicial council under such section.
* * * * * * *
(h) Temporary Expansion of Court.--(1) Notwithstanding
subsection (a) and subject to the provisions of this
subsection, the authorized number of judges of the Court from
the date of the enactment of this subsection until August 15,
2005, is nine judges.
(2) Of the two additional judges authorized by this
subsection--
(A) only one judge may be appointed pursuant to a
nomination made in 2001 or 2002;
(B) only one judge may be appointed pursuant to a
nomination made in 2003; and
(C) if no judge is appointed pursuant to a nomination
covered by subparagraph (A), a nomination covered by
subparagraph (B), or neither a nomination covered by
subparagraph (A) nor a nomination covered by
subparagraph (B), the number of judges authorized by
this subsection but not appointed as described in
subparagraph (A), (B), or both, as the case may be, may
be appointed pursuant to a nomination or nominations
made in 2004, but only if such nomination or
nominations, as the case may be, are made before
September 30, 2004.
(3) The term of office and eligibility for retirement of a
judge appointed under this subsection, other than a judge
described in paragraph (4), shall be governed by the provisions
of section 1012 of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Amendments of 1999 (title X of Public Law 106-117; 113 Stat.
1590; 38 U.S.C. 7296 note) if the judge is one of the first two
judges appointed to the Court after November 30, 1999.
(4) A judge of the Court as of the date of the enactment of
this subsection who was appointed before 1991 may accept
appointment as a judge of the Court under this subsection
notwithstanding that the term of office of the judge on the
Court has not yet expired under this section.
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 7285. Practice fee]
Sec. 7285. Registration fees
[(a) The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims may impose a
periodic registration fee on persons admitted to practice
before the Court. The frequency and amount of such fee shall be
determined by the Court, except that such amount may not exceed
$30 per year.]
(a) The Count of Appeals for Veterans Claims may impose
registration fees as follows:
(1) Periodic registration fees on persons admitted to
practice before the Court, in such frequency and amount
(not to exceed $30 per year) as the Court may provide.
(2) Registration fees on persons (other than judges
of the Court) participating at judicial conferences
convened pursuant to section 7286 of this title, and at
other Court-sponsored activities.
(b) Amounts received by the Court under subsection (a) of
this section shall be available to the Court for the purposes
of (1) [employing independent counsel] conducting
investigations and proceedings, including the employment of
independent counsel, to pursue disciplinary matters, and (2)
defraying [administrative costs for the implementation of the
standards of proficiency prescribed for practice before the
Court] the expenses of judicial conferences convened pursuant
to section 7286 of this title, and of other Court-sponsored
activities covered by paragraph (2) of that subsection, and the
expenses of other activities and programs of the Court intended
to support and foster communications and relationships between
the Court and persons practicing before the Court, or the
study, understanding, public commemoration, or improvement of
veterans law or of the work of the Court.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 7287. Administration
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims may exercise, for purposes of
management, administration, and expenditure of funds of the
Court, the authorities provided for such purposes by any
provision of law (including any limitation with respect to such
provision of law) applicable to a court of the United States
(as that term is defined in section 451 of title 28), except to
the extent that such provision of law is inconsistent with a
provision of this chapter.
* * * * * * *
Sec. 7296. Retirement of judges
* * * * * * *
(b)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(2) A judge who is not reappointed following the expiration
of the term for which appointed may retire upon the completion
of that term if the judge has served as a judge of the Court
for 15 years or more. [In order to retire under this paragraph,
a judge must, not earlier than 9 months preceding the date of
the expiration of the judge's term of office and not later than
6 months preceding such date, advise the President in writing
that the judge is willing to accept reappointment to the
Court.]
* * * * * * *
AGENT ORANGE ACT OF 1991
* * * * * * *
SEC. 3. AGREEMENT WITH NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES.
* * * * * * *
(i) Sunset.--This section shall cease to be effective [10
years] 20 years after the last day of the fiscal year in which
the National Academy of Sciences transmits to the Secretary the
first report under subsection (g).
* * * * * * *
VETERANS' JUDICIAL REVIEW ACT
* * * * * * *
[Sections 402 and 403 are repealed.]
* * * * * * *