[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON
H.R. 156, H.R. 585, AND H.R. 704
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE
AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 19, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-28
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRITNING OFFICE
37-466 WASHINGTON : 2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
BOB FILNER, California, Chairman
CORRINE BROWN, Florida STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking
VIC SNYDER, Arkansas CLIFF STEARNS, Florida
MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine JERRY MORAN, Kansas
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana
Dakota HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona Carolina
JOHN J. HALL, New York JEFF MILLER, Florida
PHIL HARE, Illinois JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
Malcom A. Shorter, Staff Director
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
JOHN J. HALL, New York, Chairman
CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado, Ranking
PHIL HARE, Illinois MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
June 19, 2007
Page
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 156, H.R. 585, and H.R. 704.......... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairman John J. Hall............................................ 1
Prepared statement of Chairman Hall.......................... 30
Hon. Doug Lamborn, Ranking Republican Member, prepared statement
of............................................................. 31
Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis............................................ 3
Prepared statement of Congressman Bilirakis.................. 31
Hon. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin................................... 4
WITNESSES
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Jack McCoy, Associate Deputy
Under Secretary for Policy and Program Management, Veterans
Benefits Administration........................................ 25
Prepared statement of Mr. McCoy.............................. 41
______
American Ex-Prisoners of War, Norman Bussel, National Service
Officer........................................................ 7
Prepared statement of Mr. Bussel............................. 33
American Legion, Steve Smithson, Deputy Director for Claims
Services, Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission....... 12
Prepared statement of Mr. Smithson........................... 36
American Veterans (AMVETS), Jim King, Executive Director......... 9
Prepared statement of Mr. King............................... 34
Gold Star Wives of America, Inc., Vivianne Cisneros Wersel,
Member, Government Relations Committee......................... 13
Prepared statement of Ms. Wersel............................. 37
Holden, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Pennsylvania................................................... 5
Prepared statement of Congressman Holden..................... 32
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Todd Bowers, Director
of Government Affairs.......................................... 18
Prepared statement of Mr. Bowers............................. 40
Vietnam Veterans of America, Sharon Hodge, Associate Director of
Government Affairs............................................. 10
Prepared statement of Ms. Hodge.............................. 34
Wounded Warrior Project, Meredith Beck, National Policy Director. 16
Prepared statement of Ms. Beck............................... 38
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Paralyzed Veterans of America, statement......................... 42
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, Eric A. Hilleman,
Deputy Director, National Legislative Service, statement....... 43
Walenchok McElhaney, Patricia, Niceville, FL, statement.......... 44
MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Newspaper Article:
``Mistreated Casualties,'' The Washington Post, June 19, 2007
(Editorial Section, p. A16)................................ 46
Post-Hearing Questions and Responses for the Record, and
Administration Views:
Hon. John J. Hall, Chairman, Subcommittee on Disability
Assistance and Memorial Affairs, to Jack McCoy, Associate
Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program Management,
Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs, questions dated June 19, 2007............ 47
Hon. Gordon H. Mansfield, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs, to Hon. Bob Filner, Chairman,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs, letter dated October 26,
2007, transmitting Administration's views and estimates for
H.R. 704, H.R. 2259, and H.R. 1824......................... 50
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON
H.R. 156, H.R. 585, AND H.R. 704
----------
TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 2007
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance
and Memorial Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John J. Hall
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Hall, Hare, Rodriguez, Lamborn,
Bilirakis.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HALL
Mr. Hall. Good morning, or should I say good afternoon,
everyone.
I would ask for us to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance.
Flags are in the front and the back of the room.
[Pledge of Allegiance.]
The Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial
Affairs is called to order. We will be holding a legislative
hearing on
H.R. 156, H.R. 585, and H.R. 704.
We have one unanimous consent request which is that, when
she arrives, Representative Herseth Sandlin be allowed to
testify from the dais if that is okay. She is on the full
Committee, but not on this Subcommittee, and she is not able to
actually be here for a little while yet due to a double
booking.
Several of us have more than one Committee meeting
happening at the same time, so we will be coming and going, but
that does not mean that we are not anxious to hear your
testimony on these noncontroversial but critical bills.
I want to thank Mr. Holden for appearing before our
Subcommittee to present testimony on his bill, H.R. 156, which
would change the date of eligibility for Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation (DIC) payments to survivors of former
prisoners of war
(POWs) to include those POWs who died before September 30, 1999.
Current DIC payments for survivors of POWs are only payable
to these POWs who died after September 30, 1999. This bill
would correct this inexplicable inequity.
I am proud to have one of my constituents from my district
here today, Mr. Norman Bussel, past President of the American
Ex-Prisoners of War Service Foundation, to testify in support
of this legislation.
Welcome, Mr. Bussel, and thank you again for being here to
offer your insight as a former POW. Thank you for your service
to our country.
As with all mandatory spending, we will have to find the
offsets to pay for this change in order to comply with PAYGO
rules adopted at the beginning of this Congress. However, as
the number of qualifying spouses has dwindled, I hope that we
will be able to work in a bipartisan manner to help find the
funding to assist this population of mostly widows.
The second bill under consideration today, H.R. 704,
sponsored by Mr. Bilirakis also would affect the DIC programs.
His bill would change the age of remarriage for surviving
spouses from 57 to 55. Currently, if a surviving spouse
remarries before age 57, the DIC payments cease automatically.
This is a harsh result for surviving spouses who have
sacrificed and lost so much.
As Mr. Bilirakis will surely point out, changing the age of
remarriage from 57 to 55 will also bring this provision in line
with several other Federal survivors programs, particularly the
Military Survivor Benefit Plan.
Here he is, Mr. Bilirakis himself. Good to see you, sir. I
know this bill enjoys wide support and I certainly support its
concept of allowing love to flourish for these survivors in
their later years without penalty.
And lastly we will consider H.R. 585, sponsored by
Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin, Chair of the Economic
Opportunity Subcommittee, which would change the retroactive
provisions of the Traumatic Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance (TSGLI) program to allow those servicemembers injured
outside of Iraq and Afghanistan between October 7, 2001, and
November 30, 2005, to qualify for coverage.
Currently, only those who physically served in these combat
areas qualify. Since December 1, 2005, all servicemembers who
participate in the SGLI program are automatically covered with
TSGLI no matter where they physically served and, thus, no fix
is needed for these servicemembers at this time.
The TSGLI program is intended to provide short-term help to
the families of severely injured servicemembers to help with
incurred expenses and to help them and their families recover
from their injuries.
In my own State of New York, 118 servicemembers have
benefited from this program and the average payment is $61,229.
In Colorado, 112 servicemembers received payment which averaged
$58,482.
To date, the total number of TSGLI cases paid is 3,266
totaling $206,230,000. The average payout is $63,158. Surely
many qualifying servicemembers and their families would benefit
from this legislative fix and I wholeheartedly support it.
During times of war, all servicemembers offer the same gift
to our country, their selfless service in our Armed Forces to
defend our Nation. Each of their lives is valuable and
potentially at risk no matter what or where the duty assignment
may be. This bill, by making this small but substantive change,
would recognize that truth.
Lastly, I look forward to hearing from the U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA) on its updated views on these bills.
I would now like to recognize Mr. Bilirakis to make a
statement for himself or for Ranking Member Lamborn.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Hall appears on p. 30.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GUS M. BILIRAKIS
Mr. Bilirakis. Actually, this will be for Ranking Member
Lamborn. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it
very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me. I look forward
to hearing the views of our witnesses and our colleagues on the
legislation before us.
Our first bill is H.R. 156 and it provides Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation payments to the survivors of veterans
rated totally disabled at the time of death who were former
prisoners of war.
This bill lifts the payment restriction on families of
those veterans who died after September 30, 1999. I know my dad
worked on this piece of legislation for years and I strongly
support it.
In reading some of the testimony, it seems that there are
less than 850 families that would qualify for this legislation,
thus making it the least costly of the three.
Our second bill, which is H.R. 585, would extend
retroactive payments under the Traumatic Servicemembers' Group
Life Insurance program to those servicemembers who were wounded
outside of the theater of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
This legislation has merit because any time a servicemember
is seriously injured and would otherwise qualify for TSGLI, it
should not matter where the traumatic injury occurred. And I
certainly agree with that.
Our last bill, H.R. 704, of which I am the sponsor, would
dispense with the restriction of DIC payments to survivors who
remarry before age 57 and allows them to keep their DIC payment
if they remarry after age 55.
So, Mr. Chairman, that is my explanation. I believe Doug
does too, but I do not want to speak for him, but I personally
support all three bills strongly.
[The prepared statement of Congressman Bilirakis appears on
p. 31.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis.
And before we go on to hear from Mr. Holden, who is our
first panel--he is so powerful, he can be a whole panel by
himself--I just wanted to offer into the record as part of our
ongoing discussions the editorial from the Washington Post
today, headlined Mistreated Casualties, about their analysis of
the current functioning and/or dysfunction at the Department of
Veterans Affairs and how it can be improved. And I think some
of the things that we are working on right now are all designed
to do that. So it is on the first editorial page.
[The article referenced by Chairman Hall, ``Mistreated
Casualties,'' The Washington Post, June 19, 2007, appears on p.
46.]
Ms. Herseth Sandlin is present now and we will recognize
her for a statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Well, thank you very much, Chairman
Hall, and to the Ranking Member, for the opportunity to be part
of your hearing today. I thank you for the hearing and
including H.R. 585 in today's hearing. It is a bill that I
introduced January 19, 2007, to expand the Traumatic
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance program to certain
servicemembers who do not currently qualify for the program's
retroactive payments.
Implemented on December 1, 2005, the TSGLI is a traumatic
injury protection rider under the Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance program that provides for payment to any member of
the uniformed services who sustains a traumatic injury that
results in certain severe losses.
In addition to covering all active-duty servicemembers who
incur injuries after December 1, 2005, the program makes
retroactive payments to servicemembers who incurred injuries
since October 7, 2001, in Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and
Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
In most cases, the insurance program operates as the
intended financial link from the time of injury until the
soldier is eligible for VA benefits. However, by defining ``in
Operations Enduring Freedom or Iraqi Freedom'' as a requirement
for retroactive benefits, the regulation has disqualified a
number of traumatically injured servicemembers from payment
based solely on their location at the time of their injury.
An example of a servicemember who would benefit from H.R.
585 is Seaman Robert Roeder who was injured in January 2005
when a cable on the aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk removed his
leg below the knee. The USS Kitty Hawk was training for
missions in Iraq or Afghanistan. However, because his injury
occurred before the TSGLI legislation was passed and outside of
OIF or OEF, he does not qualify for payment.
In addition to Seaman Robert Roeder, approximately 700
other veterans would benefit from passage of H.R. 585. These
service men and women have been denied the same retroactive
payment given to their wounded comrades simply because they
were wounded outside OEF or OIF.
My legislation would ensure that all servicemembers wounded
since the beginning of the War on Terrorism will receive
payments for their injuries.
I would like to thank the Wounded Warrior Project for their
work in helping bring this problem to my attention and for
their work on behalf of our Nation's wounded veterans.
I also want to thank Senator Craig who has been a leading
advocate of this issue and has introduced companion legislation
in the Senate.
So thank you again, Chairman Hall and Ranking Member
Bilirakis, for allowing me the opportunity to speak today, and
I look forward to working with you as we move this important
bill forward.
Mr. Hall. Thank you very much, Congresswoman.
I would ask our other Members if you would not mind, since
we have Mr. Holden waiting to testify, if you could wait for
statements or questions, so that we can move to his testimony.
I now recognize the Honorable Tim Holden from Pennsylvania,
17th District, to testify on H.R. 156.
Mr. Holden, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HOLDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. Holden. Thank you, Chairman Hall and Mr. Bilirakis and
Members of the Subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify
before you today in support of H.R. 156 which seeks to correct
the inequity or, as the Chairman said, inexplicable inequity in
the awarding of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation benefits
to surviving spouses of qualifying former prisoners of war.
Current law provides DIC benefits for surviving spouses of
former prisoners of war who were rated as totally disabled for
service-connected disability at the time of death so long as
that former POW passes away after September 30, 1999.
However, surviving spouses of qualifying former POWs who
passed away before or on September 30, 1999, do not qualify for
any DIC benefits unless the former POW died of a service-
connected disability or was 100 percent service-connected for
at least 10 years prior to their death.
Prior to 1999, all surviving spouses of qualifying former
POWs were eligible for DIC benefits so long as the former POW
was rated 100 percent disabled for a minimum of 10 years prior
to his or her death.
Since many POWs had difficulty in establishing their
eligibility for service-connected compensation benefits until
after Congress established certain presumptions, many POWs died
while being 100 percent service-connected for less than 10
years. That problem was addressed by the ``Veterans Millennium
Healthcare Act of 1999'' which allowed surviving spouses to
qualify if their POW spouse was service-connected for 1 year
before death and died after September 30, 1999.
Not too long after the ``Veterans Millennium Healthcare
Act'' was enacted, Mr. Leigh Tallas, a veteran and advocate
from one of the county VA offices in my congressional district,
contacted me to express his concern with the consequence of
limiting the awarding of benefits only in the case where the
qualifying former POW died after September 30, 1999. He told me
about an active case he was working on where the surviving
spouse was being penalized due to this provision.
Following my meeting with Mr. Tallas, I first introduced
this legislation you are considering today in the 107th
Congress and reintroduced it in each subsequent Congress.
Mr. Chairman, the change my bill seeks to do is very simple
and straightforward. This bill will amend Title 38 of the U.S.
Code to treat all surviving spouses of qualifying former POWs
equally, granting them DIC benefits regardless of when their
former POW spouse passed away.
While I was unable to secure a score from the Congressional
Budget Office (CBO) in the 110th Congress, CBO estimated in
2003 that about 480 survivors would be newly eligible for DIC
under an identical bill. This would have cost $15 million
during the 10-year period from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal
year 2013. The cost would be slightly greater today as DIC
payments are adjusted annually for increases in the cost of
living.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to come
before you today and testify on this legislation that I think
is very important to our veterans, but particularly to
surviving spouses of POWs. And I would be willing to answer any
questions that the Chair or the Members of the Subcommittee
might have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Holden appears on p. 32.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Holden.
It seems to make eminent sense to me as your statement says
to treat surviving spouses of all qualifying former POWs
equally.
I have no questions, other than the figure of 480 survivors
that was given by CBO in 2003. You say that no more than a
third or about 160 of these would be eligible under the bill. I
assume that for every year that goes by that number drops. What
we are talking about here is catching the last of those who
have been unjustly
ignored so far and providing for them for the remainder of their
lives.
Mr. Holden. You are correct, Mr. Chairman, that number
would decrease. But the cost of living adjustments would make
the number not 100 percent accurate from the last time we had
it scored.
Mr. Hall. Right. Okay.
Mr. Bilirakis, would you like to ask Mr. Holden any
questions?
Mr. Bilirakis. I do not really have any questions, but I am
strongly behind this bill. As a matter of fact, we had some
constituents, actually my dad's constituents at the time, but I
was also representing that area in the legislature, and I
believe Wayne Hitchcock was the National Commander of the POWs
and his wife who had just passed away, let us pass this in
their memory. Thank you.
Mr. Hall. Mr. Hare, do you have a statement or question?
Mr. Hare. No questions. I just want to thank you, Mr.
Holden, for your tenacity and staying with this. It is a great
bill.
All three of these are from our perspective. What we have
been trying to do here, and I think very well, is to honor the
sacrifice and commitment our veterans have made.
And this bill certainly goes a long way toward helping the
spouses. It is just too bad it has taken us this long to get
here, but I promise you we will do everything we can to get
this bill out and
get it on the floor, get it passed, and get some fairness back i
nto this.
So thanks very much.
Mr. Holden. Thank you.
Mr. Hare. Thank you very much, Mr. Bilirakis, for your
bill. I think it is a tremendous piece of legislation. And,
again, we just have to keep plugging hard here, but I think we
have made great progress for our Nation's veterans, but we have
a lot more work to do.
So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hall. Thank you.
Mr. Rodriguez.
Mr. Rodriguez. Let me just say that I am elated because I
have been on this Committee for some time now and for the
longest time, we could not pull these off. So I want to
congratulate you for staying there and doing the right thing.
And hopefully we will get this thing out there and some of the
other bills that are online that we should have done a long
time ago.
Congratulations, Congressman.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Holden. I appreciate your work on
this bill. There are no further questions.
Mr. Holden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hall. You are excused.
Mr. Holden. Thank you, Members of the Subcommittee, for
your attention. Thank you.
Mr. Hall. Our pleasure.
And panel two will now be invited to the table, recognizing
Norman Bussel, National Service Officer of the American Ex-
Prisoners of War Service Foundation; Jim King, Executive Direc-
tor of the American Veterans, AMVETS; Sharon Hodge, Associate
Director of Government Affairs, Vietnam Veterans of America;
Steve Smithson, Deputy Director for Claims Services, Veterans
Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission from the American Legion;
Vivianne Cisneros Wersel, Member of the Government Relations
Committee, Gold Star Wives of America; Meredith Beck, National
Policy Director for the Wounded Warrior Project; and Todd
Bowers, Director of Government Affairs for the Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans of America. Thank you all for being here
and the Chair first recognizes Mr. Norman Bussel, who happens
to be from my district and I welcome you here, sir. Thank you.
Thank you all for your service. We will recognize Mr. Bussel
for 5 minutes. Your written statement will be entered in the
record if you want to deviate. Push the button on that
microphone and get close to it if you can, please.
STATEMENTS OF NORMAN BUSSEL, NATIONAL SERVICE OFFICER, AMERICAN
EX-PRISONERS OF WAR; JIM KING, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN
VETERANS (AMVETS); SHARON HODGE, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA; STEVE
SMITHSON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR CLAIMS SERVICES, VETERANS AFFAIRS
AND REHABILITATION COMMISSION, AMERICAN LEGION; VIVIANNE
CISNEROS WERSEL, MEMBER, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS COMMITTEE, GOLD
STAR WIVES OF AMERICA, INC.; MEREDITH BECK, NATIONAL POLICY
DIRECTOR, WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT; AND TODD BOWERS, DIRECTOR OF
GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA
STATEMENT OF NORMAN BUSSEL
Mr. Bussel. Chairman Hall and Members of the Subcommittee,
I am a National Service Officer accredited by the Department of
Veterans Affairs and I represent the American Ex-Prisoners of
War organization. I am a volunteer and I assist veterans who
wish to file claims for service-connected disabilities.
As a member of a B-17 bomber crew, I bailed out over Berlin
on April 29, 1944. Four members of my crew, as close to me as
my brother, died on that mission and I became a POW for just
over 1 year.
I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My
comments will focus on H.R. 156 because time is so crucial to
those whom this bill will affect. H.R. 156 is designed to
correct an oversight that results in a hardship for some
survivors of former prisoners of war.
Prior to September 30, 1999, a POW must have died of a
service-connected disability or have been rated 100 percent
disabled for a minimum of 10 years, before his death for his
spouse to qualify for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
benefits (DIC).
When a bill was passed lowering the qualification period
from 10 years to 1 year, it did not retroactively include those
survivors of POWs who died before September 30, 1999. This is
an inequity that passage of H.R. 156 will correct.
What this involves is the plight of POW widows who are
presently ineligible to file for DIC benefits because of a
technicality, so let me explain why these survivors are so
deserving of your consideration.
When POWs return home, they left behind the barbed-wire
fence that confined them, but they could not shake off the
emotional baggage that would reshape their lives. Physical
wounds heal--psychic wounds are forever. These are the wounds
that plague our days, the wounds that haunt our nights, the
wounds that torment our dreams.
Our hope of picking up our lives where we left off was very
difficult, because we were not the same people. Nobody
understood what it was like to be beaten, starved, constantly
threatened. Our families, neighbors, coworkers, even our mental
health counselors couldn't comprehend the horrors we had
endured.
So we didn't talk about our problems, about our feelings.
We sucked it up and tried to lead productive lives.
The VA was not prepared to treat post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) back then. In fact, the term PTSD was not even
coined until 1980. The sophisticated psychotropic drugs that
help patients now were still waiting to be invented. For many
POWs, the medication of choice became alcohol, which offered
temporary relief today but even deeper depression tomorrow.
Most of us went back to work or returned to school, got
married and raised families. But we could not escape the POW
curses of hypervigilance, flashbacks, nightmares, and
irritability. And who was most affected by our aberrant
behavior? Our wives, of course. At times, living with a POW can
be a tremendous challenge. A POW friend calls POW wives ``Our
Angels.'' And they are indeed. Without them, many of us would
not have reached our eighties.
Like all other husbands, POWs desire to leave their wives
financially secure, but this is not always possible. Many of us
were liable to achieve our earning potential because we could
not control our psychological demons. POW wives often became
the primary income producers in the household and because of
the difference in earning power, some families lived from
paycheck to paycheck.
It wasn't until a few years ago, when I became a National
Service Officer and began filing benefit claims for veterans
and the survivors of veterans, that I became aware that some
POW widows were in dire financial circumstances. A number of
them had to swallow their pride and apply for food stamps.
Being approved for DIC benefits is not winning the lottery and
$1,067 per month will not permit extravagance. But, along with
Social Security, it might just be enough to bridge the gap
between poverty and peace of mind.
When compared with almost every other line item in the VA
budget, the cost of correcting this error is trivial. In 2003,
based on the number of survivors the VA reported were awarded
DIC upon the death of a former POW spouse after September 30,
1999, CBO extrapolated that about 480 survivors would be
eligible for compensation with the amendment of Title 38. CBO
further estimated that no more than one-third, or about 160 of
those eligible, would apply for DIC.
In 2003, the CBO estimated it would cost $15 million in the
10-year period from FY 2004 through FY 2013 if the bill was
enacted that year. Because the number of surviving spouses who
were denied DIC under the 10-year rule has dwindled over the
past 4 years, the cost of H.R. 156 is now likely to be less
than $1.5 million a year, decreasing to about zero by 2015.
In October 2004, then VA Secretary Anthony Principi was
instrumental in adding two POW presumptives to illnesses which
the VA considered service-connected: heart disease and stroke.
These illnesses were presumed to have resulted from the rigors
of being a POW. Since heart disease ranks as the Number 1
killer in America, widows who were previously ineligible to
receive DIC under the 10-year clause now become eligible to
file if their husbands died of heart disease or stroke. Today,
4 years later, that CBO estimated number of 160 widows has
obviously dropped even more, since some of them would already
be eligible under the new heart disease presumptive and some
widows, of course, would have passed away in the meantime.
This bill cries out for passage because these widows, whose
POW husbands, in the throes of PTSD, were unable to provide for
their future, cannot survive on Social Security. DIC benefits
of $1,067 per month will never build a portfolio that will make
them wealthy, but it can help them pay the light bill or the
rent and maybe live out their final years without constant
anxiety.
POWs suffered enough anxiety when they were captured while
fighting for their country. They would be happy to know that
their government is fulfilling Abraham Lincoln's pledge: ``To
care for him whom shall have borne the battle and for his widow
and his orphan.''
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bussel appears on p. 33.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you very much, Mr. Bussel, for your
eloquent and moving testimony.
I now recognize Mr. King for 5 minutes, and your written
statement is also in the record.
Mr. King.
STATEMENT OF JIM KING
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I am pleased to
offer testimony on behalf of the American Veterans (AMVETS)
regarding pending benefits legislation before this
Subcommittee.
AMVETS appreciates the Subcommittee's work to ensure the
Department of Veterans Affairs can fulfill its obligation to
provide benefits and services to veterans and/or their
survivors.
The Department of Veterans Affairs Servicemembers' Group
Life Insurance Traumatic Injury Protection program is designed
to provide financial protection with payments that range from
$25,000 to $100,000 to servicemembers who have suffered certain
traumatic injuries while on active duty.
Though the insurance program started December 1, 2005,
benefits are payable retroactive to October 7, 2001, for
servicemembers and veterans who suffered certain traumatic
injuries while serving in Operation Enduring Freedom and
Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose and intent of any insurance
program is to provide some type of financial security for
either an individual or surviving family members in the event
of injury, disability, or death. When or where deaths or
injuries occur is usually not an impediment to the distribution
of benefits.
Service personnel are on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week. Equally important, service personnel serve where they are
directed to serve and are not given a choice on how or where
they will serve.
AMVETS believes the guiding principles and purpose that
govern Servicemen's Group Life Insurance or providing full
coverage regardless of duty location should also be used as a
basis for administering the TSGLI program. We support H.R. 585.
H.R. 156 would provide survivor benefits to family members
of all servicemembers who were held as prisoners of war and
whose death is viewed as a service-connected death and were
rated totally disabled for a period of no less than 1 year
prior to their death.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation would provide survivor
benefits to family members of prisoners of war who became rated
100 percent disabled for 1 year prior to death. This
legislation removes an arbitrary date allowing families to
receive benefits they were previously denied, and AMVETS
supports this legislation.
H.R. 704 would reduce the age from 57 to 55 when a
surviving spouse of a deceased veteran can remarry and not lose
their Dependency and Indemnity Compensation.
AMVETS believes DIC should not be viewed only as a source
of income to replace the wage that was being provided by the
servicemember. DIC is a compensation for a loss that was
suffered by the survivors. It should continue to be paid
regardless of the marital status of a surviving spouse.
Mr. Chairman, AMVETS supports this legislation, and this,
sir, concludes my testimony, and thank you for your time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. King appears on p. 34.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. King.
And the Chair now recognizes for her testimony Sharon Hodge
from Vietnam Veterans of America.
STATEMENT OF SHARON HODGE
Ms. Hodge. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Lamborn, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank
you for giving Vietnam Veterans of America the opportunity to
testify to you today on the benefits legislation that would
enhance the lives of men and women in the current theater
operations and those who have left loved ones behind.
You have our statement in front of you and our support of
all three bills. I just am quite moved by Mr. Bussel's
testimony that I am kind of lost for words, you know. It is so
uplifting.
H.R. 585 would amend Title 38 and expand the TSGLI
benefits. VVA fully supports the bill.
We know that when Congress passed important legislation
last year, it did not take into consideration that even
training for war is a dangerous business in itself and whether
you are stationed in an active combat zone should not exclude a
servicemember from the most important benefit.
Nonbattle wounds can range from injuries in vehicles,
accidents, to illness. We feel that whenever the injury or
death of servicemembers occurs, the effect on the
servicemembers' families is the same. And the impact in terms
of the fighting force and future demands on the VA is also the
same. VVA is in favor of removing the restrictions on this
legislation.
Regarding H.R. 156, we support providing the DIC indemnity
of survivors of former prisoners of war who died before
September 30th. We support removing the restriction on the
current law that provides DIC benefits only to surviving
spouses of eligible POWs who died after September 30th.
We feel that the establishment of this date left many
widows with unresolved cases penalized due to this cutoff. This
legislation would treat all surviving spouses of POWs equally
and grant them DIC benefits regardless of when their POW
spouses passed away.
Mr. Chairman, these former POWs and their families have
clearly sacrificed greatly for our Nation and easing the
financial burdens of the surviving spouses is a very
appropriate means of trying to repay this debt. And, again, VVA
fully supports this legislation.
H.R. 704 would reduce the age of 57 to 55 for the
remarrying of the surviving spouses of deceased veterans. VVA
commends this Committee for previous legislation which allowed
retention of DIC burial benefits, burial entitlements, and VA
home loan eligibility for surviving spouses who remarry after
age 57.
We strongly recommend the age 57 DIC remarry provisions be
reduced to age 55 to make it consistent with all Federal
survivor benefit programs, and we fully support passage of H.R.
704. We testified strongly for this when Congress lowered the
age to 57 and VVA still believes that this is the appropriate
age.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee,
that concludes my formal statement. I will welcome your
comments and will be pleased to answer any questions.
I also would like to personally thank the Gold Star Wives
of America for all their advocacy on the part of the widows and
their spouses. I know that without all of their hard advocacy,
a lot of the age restrictions and requirements regarding our
widows would not be enacted if it were not for their hard-
thought advocacy.
Again, thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Hodge appears on p. 34.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Ms. Hodge, for your testimony. I echo
your words about Mr. Bussel's testimony. I was trying to
remember to get him to repeat for us the line about physical
wounds heal, but psychological wounds last forever as I have
never heard it put exactly that way before.
It is now my pleasure to recognize Mr. Steve Smithson, the
Deputy Director for Claims Services, Veterans Affairs and
Rehabilitation Commission of the American Legion, for 5
minutes. And your written remarks are entered into the record.
STATEMENT OF STEVE SMITHSON
Mr. Smithson. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of
the Subcommittee. The American Legion appreciates the
opportunity to present our views on the three bills being
considered by the Subcommittee today.
It is the position of the American Legion that the bills
being considered, H.R. 156, H.R. 585, and H.R. 704, if enacted,
would help to correct shortcomings in current law that have
adversely affected certain groups of veterans and their
survivors.
Currently, as established by Public Law 109-13, only those
who suffered a qualifying traumatic injury while serving in
active duty in Operations Enduring Freedom or Iraqi Freedom
during the period of October 7, 2001, through November 30,
2005, are eligible to receive retroactive benefit payments
under the Traumatic Injury Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance
program.
H.R. 585 would eliminate the requirement that only those
traumatic injuries and losses occurring from service directly
in OIF or OEF would qualify for such retroactive benefits and
would open this group to all servicemembers on active-duty
status during the retroactive period regardless of where the
traumatic injury occurred.
The American Legion fully supports the intent of H.R. 585.
It has always been the position of the American Legion that
veterans benefits entitlements should apply equally to all
those with honorable military service. Military service is
inherently dangerous and the very nature of such service often
exposes members to hazard of life and limb regardless of the
circumstances or location of such service.
The American Legion does not support the creation of
different classes of veterans for purposes of different levels
or types of veterans benefits. We, therefore, believe that H.R.
585 should proceed successfully through the legislative process
and be enacted into law.
H.R. 704 would reduce from age 57 to age 55 the age after
which the remarriage of the surviving spouse of a deceased
veteran shall not result in termination of Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation otherwise payable to that surviving
spouse. The American Legion fully supports removing the bar on
the payment of DIC benefits to surviving spouses who remarry
after age 55.
Public Law 108-83 provided that DIC benefits would not be
terminated if the surviving spouse remarried at age 57. It is
the position of the American Legion that the use of age 57 was
not based on any objective data, but was simply a budget
savings tool rather than opting for age 55.
The American Legion has continued to support legislation to
remove the remarriage penalty for those surviving spouses age
55 or older who would otherwise have been entitled to DIC. This
would better align DIC benefits with similar benefits provided
by other government programs.
The American Legion also supports a provision that would
allow surviving spouses who remarried at age 55 or older prior
to the enactment of the law and whose benefit had been
terminated the opportunity to apply for reinstatement of
benefits.
We understand that it is the intent to provide the
aforementioned individuals the opportunity to apply for
reinstatement under the application for benefits section of
this bill and we ask that the appropriate technical correction
be made in order for this to happen.
The American Legion also urges the inclusion of a provision
that directs VA to conduct specific outreach to inform those
eligible for reinstatement of DIC benefits under this law of
the opportunity to apply for reinstatement.
We also recommend providing at least a 2-year period after
the enactment of the law in which such individuals may apply
for reinstatement. Limiting the reinstatement period to only 1
year is overly restrictive and would prevent otherwise eligible
individuals from reestablishing entitlement to DIC because of
missing an overly restrictive and arbitrarily imposed deadline.
Under the current law, survivors of former POWs who died
after September 30, 1999, and were continually rated totally
disabled due to a service-connected disability for a period of
not less than 1 year immediately preceding death are eligible
to receive DIC benefits.
Survivors of such former POWs are not eligible to receive
DIC benefits if the former POW died on or before September 30,
1999.
The American Legion fully supports H.R. 156 as it would, if
enacted, eliminate the arbitrary delimiting date currently in
place and establish eligibility to DIC benefits for survivors
of former POWs who were totally service-connected disabled for
at least a year prior to death no matter the date of the
individual's death.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy
to answer any questions you or Members of the Subcommittee may
have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smithson appears on p. 36.]
Mr. Hall. Thank you very much, Mr. Smithson.
And as I mentioned before, I have a double booking and I am
going to have to leave to go to another Committee meeting, but
I will ask my colleague, Mr. Hare, to assume the chairmanship
for the remainder of the hearing, and he will recognize Ms.
Wersel.
Thank you all very much for your service and for your
presence and testimony.
STATEMENT OF VIVIANNE CISNEROS WERSEL
Ms. Wersel. Hi. Can you hear me?
Mr. Hare [presiding]. I sure can. Thank you very much.
Ms. Wersel. Good. Yes. I am an audiologist. I just need to
make sure everyone can hear.
Before I start, I would like to recognize my children,
Richard, age 16, and Katie, age 14, who accompanied me today
from Emerald Isle, North Carolina. They are here in the
audience.
Mr. Hare. Would you have them stand, please. Would you mind
standing for a second?
Ms. Wersel. Can you stand?
Mr. Hare. Can you stand for a second?
Ms. Wersel. Also, the Gold Star Wives of America that are
here for my support, thank you.
Mr. Hare. Thank you for coming.
Ms. Wersel. Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
submit testimony on behalf of all Gold Star Wives regarding
H.R. 704.
This bill amends Title 38 to reduce from age 57 to 55 the
age after which a surviving spouse may remarry and still retain
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation.
My name is Vivianne Wersel. I am the widow of United States
Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel Rich Wersel who died February
4, 2005, a week after returning from his second tour in Iraq.
My husband's unexpected and untimely death at the age of 43
was a tragedy for my children, Richard, then age 14, Katie, age
12, and me. I have spent the past 2 years grieving, helping my
children with their grief, and working to end survivor
inequities so that we as military survivors can move on with
our journeys in life.
Presently remarriage before the age of 57 results in the
termination of the DIC benefit for surviving military spouses.
I have been employed as an audiologist since 1989, yet I have
not earned a retirement since I have had to change jobs with
each of the nine duty stations we were assigned during our 15
years of marriage.
To maintain my profession, I have been forced to take
grueling licensure examinations in five States when this is
typically only done once in one's career. My limited time with
each job kept me from accruing significant leave, obtaining
seniority, and earning tenure.
At times, I could not work because we lived out of the
country and at times was forced to resign the most perfect job
so that I could accompany my husband and support him at our
next duty station. These sacrifices apply to all military
spouses widowed or not.
My primary job, however, was with the Marine Corps as a
good Marine Corps wife, maintaining family unity and family
readiness. There was never a question about staying behind when
a new assignment arose simply so I could continue working to
earn a retirement package.
The Marine Corps was our life. We were a team. I considered
myself vested in the Marine Corps when I left my job after job
to follow my husband after we married. The Marine Corps is
still my family.
My husband's pension would have been based on his hard work
as a Marine Corps officer and also mine as a supporting spouse
who raised our family when he was so often deployed.
Lieutenant Colonel Rich Wersel paid for these benefits with
his life and after serving his country for 20 years, why would
they be taken away prematurely?
After I buried my husband, my daughter asked me if I would
ever marry again. I knew even then I would lose my benefits and
could not afford it for the sake of the family.
I choose to stay alone as remarrying would cost me my DIC.
It is not fair that a law dictates whether someone can remarry
and still retain her survivor benefit or not. A military widow
has given so much and should not be precluded from remarrying
based on financial circumstances.
It has been 2 years since my husband's death and I am now
out of my fog of grief. I reflect on how bizarre it is that
anyone should have to wait until a certain age to find a
partner again and remarry. In other words, choose financial
security or an emotional one. We should not have to choose.
My children will still be in college when I am 55 and with
no Social Security, I will still need to provide for them.
Losing my DIC will have an adverse effect on my family's
optimal well-being. I will still be the mother of his children
raising them as Wersels if I should remarry before 57.
Excuse me. My husband would never have thought a second
marriage would compromise the quality of our lives. His advice
to me in the event of his death was go straight to the VA
because there are good benefits available to me. The quality of
life for my children should not be diminished simply because of
a decision I might make to remarry.
My personal situation is simply an example. A surviving
spouse should not have to be forced to hide relationships or
perhaps live in sin based on inequity unique only to surviving
military spouses.
I believe if military spouses had a union, we would mirror
other Federal programs that allow survivors to maintain their
DIC benefits at age 55. Actually, we fall into a category of
our own which denies us the right to remarry before 57 without
losing our DIC benefit.
I am not asking for anything more than you offer in other
Federal survivor benefits of nonmilitary employment. The CIA
offers their survivors continued annuity and remarriage at age
55. Our survivor benefits should align with other Federal
agencies.
I work diligently with Gold Star Wives to assure that our
fallen heroes' survivors are not left behind or forgotten. We
support
H.R. 704 which allows widows to remarry at age 55 without
suffering the loss of the survivor benefit which allows you to
continue with your DIC.
Please show these survivors you care and will not forget
their sacrifice. Those who would benefit from this bill are
those who are retired or preparing to retire, those living on a
fixed income, those like me who have foregone continuous
careers in which to build their own retirement in order to
support the military spouses and family.
We urge you to do what is right and get this legislation
enacted into law. I wish to thank the Subcommittee for having
this hearing and allowing me to testify in support of H.R. 704.
And I am happy to answer any questions you may have about this
important piece of legislation. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Wersel appears on p. 37.]
Mr. Hare. Thank you very much for some very compelling and
difficult testimony. And let me assure you that Chairman Hall
and I think everybody on this Subcommittee shares the concerns
that you have expressed and we are going to do our very best to
see that we get this corrected and corrected quickly. It is
very discriminatory.
Our next witness is--just want to make sure I have
everybody's title correct. This is what you get when you are
the designated hitter--is Meredith Beck who is National Policy
Director for the Wounded Warrior Project. Did I get that
correct?
Ms. Beck. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hare. Thank you, Ms. Beck
STATEMENT OF MEREDITH BECK
Ms. Beck. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to
testify before you today. My name is Meredith Beck and I am the
National Policy Director for the Wounded Warrior Project, a
nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to assisting the
men and women of the United States Armed Forces who have been
severely injured during the War on Terrorism in Iraq,
Afghanistan, and other hot spots around the world.
Beginning at the bedside of the severely wounded, WWP
provides programs and services designed to ease the burdens of
these heroes and their families, aid in the recovery process,
and smooth the transition back to civilian life. We strive to
fill the vital need for a coordinated, united effort to enable
wounded veterans to aid and assist each other and to readjust
to civilian life.
As a result of our direct, daily contact with these wounded
warriors, we have gained the unique perspective on their needs
and the obstacles they face as they attempt to reintegrate into
their respective communities.
I would like to specifically address H.R. 585, introduced
by Representative Herseth Sandlin to expand the number of
individuals qualifying for retroactive benefits under the
Traumatic Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance.
One of our finest achievements as an organization was the
role we played in the creation of this insurance program which
pays up to $100,000 to severely wounded servicemembers for
immediate expenses following their injuries.
WWP is still amazed by the speed with which this
legislation was introduced and passed, approximately 5 weeks,
and we are especially pleased the program has paid over $200
million to injured servicemembers.
Once the original legislation was enacted creating the
program, the lion's share of the work done on developing and
implementing it was done by the Department of Veterans Affairs
Office of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance as well as by
the Department of Defense.
WWP cannot speak highly enough of all the time and effort
that has gone into creating this program, and I would like to
publicly thank all of the involved agencies on behalf of the
severely injured servicemembers and their families who, in
their time of greatest need, have had many of their financial
fears allayed as a result of these insurance payments.
While WWP is very pleased with the overall implementation
of the TSGLI program, H.R. 585 would correct one major
inequity. As currently written, the regulation dictates that
those injured after December 1, 2005, are covered regardless of
where their injuries occurred. In order for a retroactive
injury to be covered, however, it must have occurred in
Operations Enduring Freedom or Iraqi Freedom.
It then defines ``in Operations Enduring Freedom or Iraqi
Freedom'' to mean that the servicemember must have been injured
while deployed outside the United States on orders in support
of Operations Enduring or Iraqi Freedoms or served in a
geographic location that qualified the servicemember for the
combat zone Tax Exclusion.
By defining the terms as such, the regulation has
disqualified a number of traumatically injured servicemembers
from payment based solely on their location at the time their
injury was incurred.
WWP believes that the same criteria that apply to
prospective injuries should also apply to retroactive injuries
to October 7, 2001. It is inequitable to deny retroactive
payments to those who have suffered the same grievous injuries
based solely on the location where the traumatic event took
place.
Without corrective action, brave men and women who were
traumatically injured after October 7, 2001, but before
December 1, 2005, will continue to be denied the same
retroactive payment given to their wounded comrades even though
the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance for which TSGLI is a
rider was made retroactive--brave men and women like Navy Seal
Toshiro Carrington who was injured in a training accident at
Camp Pendleton on December 15, 2004, after having returned from
Iraq. He was holding a charge in his left hand when another
servicemember accidentally detonated it.
SO 1 Carrington was left with a traumatically severed left
hand, a severed right tip of his thumb, and his remaining
fingers all fractured. Unfortunately, Toshiro's severe injuries
did not qualify him for a payment under TSGLI due to the date
on which the accident occurred.
As mentioned by Representative Herseth Sandlin, another
servicemember, Seaman Robert Roeder, was injured on January 29,
2005, when an arresting wire on aircraft carrier USS Kitty Hawk
severed his left leg below the knee. Seaman Roeder was on his
way to the Gulf of Arabia when his injury occurred during
flight training operations. Although the ship was on the way to
the Gulf and the training exercises being conducted were in
preparation for action in either Operation Enduring or Iraqi
Freedom, Robert's injury does not qualify for payment under the
law as written.
Robert was hospitalized at Brooke Army Medical Center in
San Antonio, Texas, for over a year and his recovery and
rehabilitation has been just as strenuous as it would have been
had his ship made it to the Gulf of Arabia prior to this
injury.
SO 1 Carrington and Seaman Roeder are not the only wounded
servicemembers being impacted by this inequity in the
regulation. Therefore, we applaud Representative Herseth
Sandlin for her recognition of this inequity and strongly urge
Congress to quickly act on H.R. 585 so that Seaman Roeder, SO 1
Carrington, and other wounded warriors like them will not be
deprived of this vitally important insurance program.
I would also like to point out separate from my testimony
that these servicemembers are paying for the insurance program.
A dollar is taken out of their paycheck every month along with
their SGLI payments. So ultimately the program will pay for
itself as we reduce the number of wounded.
Again, WWP is very pleased with the overall implementation
of the TSGLI program and is very grateful for all of the hard
work that has gone into making this program a reality. I cannot
overstate how many people and families have benefited from this
insurance at a time in their lives when they needed all the
assistance they could get.
The Wounded Warrior Project is honored to have played a
role in its creation and I thank you again for giving us the
opportunity to testify.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Beck appears on p. 38.]
Mr. Hare. Thank you very much, Ms. Beck, for taking the
time out and coming before the Subcommittee today.
Our next witness is Todd Bowers, the Director of Government
Affairs for the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
Welcome, Mr. Bowers, to the Subcommittee and I look forward
to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF TODD BOWERS
Mr. Bowers. Thank you for having me.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, and my fellow
veterans and their families, it is both an honor and privilege
to be here today. Let me begin by thanking the Committee for
your continued support in ensuring that our Nation's newest
veterans continue to receive the support they have rightfully
earned.
My name is Todd Bowers. I am a Sergeant in the Marine Corps
Reserves stationed here in Washington, D.C. Previously, I have
served two tours voluntarily in Iraq. I am now Director of
Government Affairs for the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of
America, also known as IAVA.
IAVA is the Nation's first and largest organization for
veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. IAVA believes
that the troops and the veterans who have served and are
currently serving on the front lines are uniquely qualified to
speak about the realities of war.
Veterans are in a position to educate the public and our
Nation's leaders regarding the health of our military and its
implications on national security.
I have been invited here today to discuss three pieces of
legislation, H.R. 585, H.R. 156, and H.R. 704. All three are
directed toward benefiting the lives of veterans and, just as
importantly, their families.
H.R. 585 expands the number of people who qualify for
retroactive benefits from the traumatic injury protection
coverage under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance.
Currently, a traumatic injury must have happened in the OEF/OIF
theater of operations for it to be covered. This means that
injuries that occur in the line of duty but not in theater are
not covered.
My research has shown me that members of the Armed Services
have been injured in over 18 countries in addition to Iraq and
Afghanistan and I assume this number is larger. H.R. 585 is
clearly a sensible fix.
But H.R. 585 raises a larger issue and one that I would
like to take some time to address. The requirement that
veterans show the precise source of their traumatic injuries is
often a daunting task. Many traumatic injuries involve closed
head wounds and are often difficult to connect to one
particular event among many.
For example, on October 17, 2004, on the outskirts of
Fallujah, I was shot in the face while conducting a security
patrol. The sniper's round penetrated the scope I was using and
sent fragmentation into the left side of my face. The impact of
the bullet was strong enough to throw me backward approximately
3 feet.
Though this incident may sound severe, I assure you it was
one of the more minimal wounds seen in theater. For this
incident, I only received a one-page, handwritten piece of
paper documenting my injuries. The rest of the proof is in the
form of metal lodged in my cheekbone. I was lucky. Many are far
worse off than I am.
Some of these individuals who may have a more difficult
time properly documenting and identifying their injuries are
those who suffer from traumatic brain injuries (TBI), the
signature wounds of the Iraq War. TBI can accumulate when
troops are exposed to multiple blasts during their deployments.
Often there is little or no physical trace of mild to moderate
TBI and the symptoms, such as difficulties with memory or
emotional problems, are only recognized months or years later.
As a result, although veterans' advocates believe that
between 10 and 20 percent of Iraq veterans, or between 150,000
to 300,000 people, have some level of TBI, their injuries often
go undiagnosed and untreated.
More disturbing is the fact that many veterans do not
understand the importance of documenting any traumatic incident
they may have endured.
I recently spoke to a Marine that was involved in two
improvised explosive device (IED) blasts while serving in Iraq
on a second tour. When I asked him if he had any paperwork or
documentation regarding these incidents, he told me that he
thought the military would take care of it. Unfortunately, they
have not.
I would like to move on now to H.R. 156. The most common
flags seen when walking the halls of Congress other than Old
Glory are the prisoner of war, POW, and missing in action, MIA,
flags. These flags represent a deeply held sentiment of the
American people. We will never forget our brothers in arms who
have spent and will spend long months and years away from their
families in order to serve our Nation.
It is our duty to ensure that we take care of these
families as if they were our own. H.R. 156 is a step in the
right direction and I am pleased to see this legislation
updating the current benefit system to include more families of
veterans.
Taking care of families is a vital part of taking care of
those who have served. Those who make the ultimate sacrifice
for our country should rest assured that their spouses will be
provided for in their absence.
Benefits given to surviving spouses are paid for in
immeasurable grief and represent a small part of the debt we as
a nation owe to the families of veterans. That is why I am
pleased to see legislation such as H.R. 704 receiving the
appropriate attention.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to speak before you
today regarding these very important issues. I am prepared to
answer your questions to the best of my ability at this time.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bowers appears on p. 40.]
Mr. Hare. Thank you all very much for taking the time to
come this afternoon. Just maybe a statement and a couple
questions.
You know, I am a new Member here. I do not know if you know
that. But, I think we share a common goal. I have listened
sometimes to people say how are we going to afford this. And
from my perspective, I say that should not be the question. The
question is how can we afford not to do this?
How can we afford to not do the types of things, whether it
is for POWs, whether it is for widows, whether it is for people
who were injured and just because they did not happen to be in
the place that somebody says they should have been in in order
to get the benefits, I find it mind boggling.
And, you are absolutely right. There is a lot of rhetoric
sometimes about supporting the troops and their families, but I
think that really the proof is in the pudding. It is up to this
Committee and I think we have done a great job of doing it. But
as I said earlier, I think we have a very long way to go.
Mr. Bussel, I want to just thank you again for your
testimony and for your service to the country. I was wondering
if you could give your views on why surviving spouses of POWs
who died before September 30, 1999, most married to World War
II POWs, were left out of the original bill.
Mr. Bussel. I am sorry, sir. I did not hear your question.
Mr. Hare. I was just wondering if you had any views on why
you thought the surviving spouses of POWs who died before
September 30th, who were mostly married to World War II POWs,
were left out of the original bill. Do you know why that might
be?
Mr. Bussel. The number, of course, has dropped. It was 160.
And over the last 4 years, it has dropped more than that.
Mr. Hare. Ma'am?
Ms. Rolen. I am Mary Rolen.
Mr. Hare. Do you want to come up and use the microphone,
Mary? You are more than welcome to.
This is what is nice about not being the full-time
Chairman. I guess I can do anything I want to do here, right,
within reason?
Ms. Rolen. I am Mary Rolen, Legislative Co-Chairman of the
American Ex-Prisoners of War and the widow of Bill Rolen, past
Executive Director.
When this bill was worked on, the Executive Director, Bill
Rolen, and our Commander at the time had a few hours. Mr.
Bilirakis and a couple of them called. We had, I think, 4 hours
to make the decision. Either we take the September 29th day or
we did not get anything because money was the thing. Rebecca
can tell you. So we took what we could get.
Mr. Hare. Thank you very much. I knew somebody had the
answer to this one.
Mr. King, do you have any concerns with the overall process
of applying for the TSGLI benefits that you think we need to
address or that needs to be addressed from your perspective?
Mr. King. I am sorry, sir. Could you repeat the question,
please.
Mr. Hare. Do you have any concerns with the overall process
of applying for the TSGLI benefits that you see that need to be
addressed or that we need to be mindful of here?
Mr. King. No, sir, I do not.
Mr. Hare. Thank you.
Ms. Wersel, you stated that losing your DIC would have a
tremendous effect on you and your family. I am sure that it
would. If someone like yourself were to lose the DIC benefits,
could you tell us what would be your financial alternatives, if
any?
Ms. Wersel. What would I do if I lost my DIC?
Mr. Hare. Right. If you lost your DIC, what would your
financial alternatives be?
Ms. Wersel. It is hard to tell because I am predicting.
Today or when I turn 55 or 57?
Mr. Hare. Either.
Ms. Wersel. Because as I age, I have no predictive value,
what prediction, what is going to become of me, whether or not
I can continue working or what my costs are going to be.
Children turn 18. When they are 18, I no longer receive the
Social Security and that payment drops off completely. And so,
therefore, my pay does go down. My SBP is already offset by my
DIC, but my benefits would change at 55 and 57.
Mr. Hare. So it would be a significant impact on you and
your family?
Ms. Wersel. It is. And I think the hardest part about being
a widow is when you have a partner, you can predict two people.
I am not the person that has to hold on to all the weight as
far as the future. When you have a partner, you go, okay, if
something happens, at least I am not on a fixed income.
I do not have a position. Even though I am well educated, I
left every position to have a retirement. I am now looking at
my husband's retirement to be my retirement and that was not in
the plan. But because we moved, there was no opportunities for
that. So now I am, yes, on a fixed income.
Mr. Hare. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bilirakis?
Mr. Bilirakis. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
I do have a couple questions regarding the DIC, but I would
like to, if it is okay, I think we need to keep repeating this
until we get this bill passed. I want to go ahead and read my
opening statement regarding H.R. 705, if that is okay.
Mr. Hare. No objection.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Thank you.
First of all, I would like to thank Chairman Hall and
Ranking Member Lamborn for including this bill on our agenda,
and now we have to get it done.
H.R. 704 provides that the remarriage of the surviving
spouse of a veteran after age 55 shall not result in
termination of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, DIC. As
my colleagues know, Dependency and Indemnity Compensation is
the benefit accorded to the surviving dependents of those
members of the Armed Forces who died while on active duty or of
a service-connected cause.
Until recently, DIC was the only Federal annuity program
that did not allow a widow who is receiving compensation to
remarry at an older age and retain her annuity.
My father, Congressman Mike Bilirakis, began work on this
issue in 1987 when he introduced DIC remarriage legislation in
the 100th Congress. So we have been working on it for this
long. He worked on this issue for some time before achieving
success in 2003 when a slightly modified version of the bill
was enacted into law.
Due to funding constraints, Congress enacted legislation
that allowed spouses who remarried after age 57 to retain their
DIC benefits. Surviving spouses who remarried after attaining
age 57 prior to enactment of the compromise legislation were
given 1 year to apply for reinstatement of their DIC.
My father continued his efforts to restore DIC benefits to
those widows who remarry after age 55 until he retired from
Congress last year. I am pleased to be continuing his efforts
on this important issue in the 110th Congress.
I think it is a wonderful thing if an older person finds
companionship, falls in love, and decides to marry. I do not
think we should be discouraging such marriages by making them
financially burdensome.
And, Vivianne, you said it so well. I could not say it
better.
For those remarrying after the age of 55, it is often the
case that both partners are living on fixed incomes. The
prospect of one partner losing financial benefits as a result
of the marriage is a real disincentive. And I see that every
day. Before this career, I used to practice estate planning, so
I went through this with my clients.
And this bill would resolve that. It makes a simple change
that could mean a great deal to those who find themselves in
this predicament. The bill would allow a widow to remarry at
age 55 and retain her DIC benefits. It prohibits retroactive
benefits.
But like the previously enacted DIC remarriage law, the
intent of my legislation is to give widows who remarry after
reaching the age of 55 before the bill was enacted an
opportunity, give them an opportunity to apply for the
reinstatement of their DIC benefits.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you once again
for including my bill in today's hearing and I hope that you
and other colleagues on this Subcommittee will join me in
supporting this change. And I look forward to the markup.
Thank you very much. And I do have a couple questions if
that is okay.
Mr. Hare. Absolutely.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you.
First of all, Vivianne, can you estimate how many of your
members or how many spouses, surviving spouses are in this
predicament? How many would take advantage of this opportunity
if H.R. 704 were passed into law?
Ms. Wersel. That is going to be an independent variable
because every 2 years, it is going to change. So there is about
60,000 that are eligible right now for SBP DIC; is that
correct, Mary? It is about 60,000.
But, remember, it will not be 60,000 all at once getting
married. It will not be a mass marriage.
Mr. Bilirakis. True. True.
Ms. Wersel. So it is very hard to give a predictive value
as of this year.
I do want to add I have a letter from another Gold Star
widow here that I would like to just enter and leave for you
all.
Mr. Hare. Without objection.
[The letter has been included in Submissions for the
Record, and appears on p. 44.]
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. And one last question, Vivianne.
As far as when the compromise bill, allowing remarriage
after the age of 57, was passed a couple years ago, I know that
it says that the spouses, surviving spouses are given 1 year to
apply for their DIC to be reinstated. How much outreach was
there on behalf of the VA?
Ms. Wersel. You know, I am a fairly new widow, but I have a
colleague that I work with whose husband was killed in Beirut
and she was telling me that one day she received a phone call
from a friend. And if it was not for her friend, she never
would have known she could have, you know, reapplied to get her
benefits back.
But the problem is that was the past. And I think the VA
has done a really good job right now. They are doing great with
communication. They have improved a lot. So I sort of cannot go
and look in the rearview mirror, but I think right now the VA
is doing an excellent job reaching spouses or making an effort
to get the word out. And communication has changed immensely in
10 years, so that would be a hard question to answer honestly.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Well, we can look forward and when
this legislation passes, we want to make sure we get the good
word out because we can pass all the good bills on the books
and then if people do not know about it, it does not do any
good.
Ms. Wersel. No.
Mr. Bilirakis. Well, thank you very, very much for your
testimony. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Hare. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis, and thank you for your
wonderful piece of legislation. I look forward to cosponsoring
it. I think I am already doing that, but hopefully we can get
this bill moving quickly.
Mr. Bowers, first of all, I want to thank you for your
service to this country. I have three questions I would like to
ask you because I think they are very important not just for
the record but to help me understand this a little bit.
In your testimony, you state that the requirement that the
veteran show the precise source of their traumatic injuries is
often a daunting task. Given the rise in these TBIs in OIF and
OEF, what do you believe is the best course of action to deal
with the requirement that soldiers show the precise source of
injury?
Mr. Bowers. I would recommend more precise paperwork in
regards to that. When people are admitted to a treatment
facility, where they are actually injured is usually found in
what is called the sit-rep, their situational report, which is
essentially the story as to what has occurred for them to have
this injury. That is separate from their medical records. Their
medical record begins from their treatment center.
So, for example, I was wounded in a certain area when I
made it to Bala Surgical at Camp Fallujah. That is where my
paperwork was documented. My instance was not that great, but
there are people who have to be medivac'd and/or helo'd and
sometimes through the paperwork, it is lost.
Also, the SDAP, which is the military statistical
information site, shows where many injuries occur and in some
instances, it can be on the Red Sea. They sort of fall back on
what their orders are calling them for.
Mr. Hare. So, generally speaking, do you think there is a
better way that we can inform injured soldiers as to what needs
to be done to get the benefits to which they are entitled?
Mr. Bowers. I do believe. But I think, just as importantly,
it needs to be conveyed to the soldiers and/or their leaders
that no matter how minor the incident may seem, if they were
the third vehicle back in an IED, it needs to be documented and
it needs to be placed somewhere in their medical field jacket.
Mr. Hare. Given that, you also said that many veterans do
not understand the importance of documenting those injuries or
any traumatic incident that they may have endured. Does the
military or the VA do outreach to educate servicemembers on the
importance of documenting injuries?
Mr. Bowers. I believe it is in its early phases right now,
but the difficult part is for the 19-year-old Lance Corporal on
the front lines. He cannot envision himself having an injury 10
years down the road. So it is very difficult to convey. It is
something that needs to be done from the top all the way down
to the bottom that they can sort of convey these messages.
Ms. Beck. Sir, can I actually respond to a partial portion
of that one?
Mr. Hare. Thank you, Ms. Beck. Sure.
Ms. Beck. One thing that we have suggested is in
recognizing the limitations of paperwork sometimes in the 19-
year-old who never thinks he is going to be injured, we have
actually requested that there be the adoption of a pre- and
post-deployment cognitive screening that regardless of the
paperwork that is available, there would be a baseline test
that is done. This falls a little bit outside of TSGLI because
nine times out of ten, it is going to be a very traumatic
injury that actually affects their activities of daily living
and their abilities to perform those.
But for the mild to moderate TBIs, having that kind of
baseline screen can prove very beneficial when they come back
and suddenly do not understand why they cannot remember
anything if they have been involved in a series of concussive
events. It can explain behavioral differences and problems and
it can also then facilitate their efforts to receive treatment
for it.
Mr. Hare. Thank you.
Let me thank you all very much for taking the time out of I
know busy schedules and also thank you for the people that you
represent. You do a wonderful job. So thank you for coming
before the Subcommittee today. We will push these as fast as we
can. Thank you very much for coming.
Our next panel is Mr. Jack McCoy. He is the Associate
Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program Management.
Welcome, Mr. McCoy. Thank you for coming this afternoon.
Mr. McCoy. Thank you.
Mr. Hare. At this time, we are ready for your testimony.
And did you want to introduce the persons with you in case I do
not have it here in my notes, which I do not think I do?
STATEMENT OF JACK MCCOY, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR
POLICY AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, VETERANS BENEFITS
ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS;
ACCOMPANIED BY DAVID BARRANS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL,
PROFESSIONAL STAFF GROUP II, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. McCoy. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today on
the three bills under consideration.
I am accompanied today by Mr. David Barrans from the Office
of General Counsel.
H.R. 585 would remove the geographic requirements for
eligibility to retroactive Traumatic Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance, TSGLI, benefits. It would extend eligibility for
retroactive benefits for traumatic injury protection coverage
under TSGLI to all members of the uniformed services who
sustained a qualifying loss from a traumatic injury between
October 7, 2001, and November 30, 2005, regardless of
geographic location.
Section 1032 of Public Law 109-13 authorized the payment of
TSGLI to any servicemember insured under Servicemembers' Group
Life Insurance who sustains a serious traumatic injury that
results in certain losses.
Under section 1032(c) of Public Law 109-13, TSGLI also was
authorized for a member of the uniformed services who incurred
a qualifying loss between October 7, 2001, and December 1,
2005, provided the loss was a direct result of injuries
incurred in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi
Freedom.
Section 501(b)(1) of the ``Veterans' Housing Opportunity
and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006,'' Public Law 109-233,
subsequently narrowed eligibility for retroactive TSGLI to
apply only to servicemembers who suffered scheduled losses as a
direct result of traumatic injury incurred in the theater of
operations for OEF or OIF beginning on October 7, 2001, and
ending November 30, 2005.
Section 1 of H.R. 585 would amend section 501(b)(1) by
extending eligibility for retroactive TSGLI to servicemembers
whose injuries occurred between October 7, 2001, and December
1, 2005, outside the OEF or OIF theater of operation.
VA estimates the enactment of section 1 would result in 695
additional TSGLI claims and would cost $47.7 million. VA defers
to the Department of Defense (DoD) on the merits of the
proposed bill because DoD will bear the costs associated with
its enactment.
H.R. 156. Chapter 13 of Title 38, United States Code,
currently provides for the payment of Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation to survivors of former prisoners of war who died
after September 30, 1999, and who were rated as totally
disabled due to service-connected disability for at least 1
year immediately preceding death.
H.R. 156 would amend Chapter 13 to authorize payment of DIC
to survivors of former POWs who died on or before September 30,
1999, under the same eligibility conditions applicable to
payment of DIC benefits to the survivors of POWs who died after
September 30, 1999.
We regret that due to the short notice we received
concerning this hearing, we do not yet have cleared views and
estimates concerning H.R. 156, but we will be providing them
for the record.
[Administration views on H.R. 156 were not provided from
the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.]
H.R. 704, section 1(a) of H.R. 704, would amend eligibility
requirements for certain survivor benefits for remarried
surviving spouses. Under current law, a surviving spouse who
remarries is not eligible for DIC, medical care, educational
assistance, or housing loans based on a prior marriage to a
deceased veteran unless the surviving spouse remarries after
age 57, after age 55 in the case of medical care.
Section 1(a) of H.R. 704 would reduce from 57 to 55 the age
after which a surviving spouse may remarry without losing
eligibility for DIC, educational assistance, and housing loans.
Section 1(b) would specify that this amendment shall take
effect on the later of the first day of the first month that
begins after the date of enactment of the bill or the first day
of the fiscal year that begins in the calendar year of
enactment of the amendment.
Section 1(c) would prohibit the payment of any benefits
based on the amendment for any period before the effective date
of the amendment.
Section 1(d) would permit an individual who remarried
before the bill's enactment and after age 57 to apply for
reinstatement of benefits before the end of the 1-year period
beginning on the date of enactment.
We regret that due to the short notice we received
concerning this hearing, we do not yet have cleared views and
estimates concerning H.R. 704, but we will be providing them
for the record.
[Administration views from the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs on H.R. 704 were received on October 26, 2007, and
appear on p. 50.]
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCoy appears on p. 41.]
Mr. Hare. Thank you, Mr. McCoy, for being here this
afternoon. Actually, I have about six or seven questions and I
do not want to keep you too long.
But to clarify for everyone, can you walk the Subcommittee
through the process for a soldier suffering a traumatic injury
seeking to utilize the Traumatic Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance.
Mr. McCoy. The initial process takes place on the DoD side.
DoD actually certifies to the insurance center that someone is
eligible for Traumatic Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance.
And then the insurance center in Philadelphia, through
Prudential Insurance, administers the benefit.
Mr. Hare. This is sort of a four-part question, so bear
with me here. How does the average claim present itself to the
VA would be the first part and then what type of medical
evidence or documentation does the VA require to support the
claim and grant the life insurance for traumatic injury?
Mr. McCoy. We require the certification from the Department
of Defense that the person has incurred one of the number of
traumatic injuries and we make the payment based on the
certification from DoD.
Mr. Hare. Why must a servicemember survive 7 days from the
day of the traumatic event to qualify for the TSGLI?
Mr. McCoy. That I cannot answer.
Mr. Hare. If you could try.
Mr. McCoy. I can, yes, sir.
Mr. Hare. I would appreciate that.
[The following was subsequently received from Mr. McCoy:]
Issue
The enacting legislation for the TSGLI program provided
authority for the Secretary to set out, by regulation, a
delimitating period that a member must survive after sustaining
a traumatic injury in order to qualify for a benefit under the
TSGLI program. Under 38 CFR, 9.20, published in December 2005,
that period was established as seven days. Information on the
origin and logic of this period has been requested.
Background
In commercial insurance design, if a payment is made for
accidental dismemberment, the amount of the award is deducted
from any future death award. While the intent of TSGLI was not
to reduce the amount of the typical $400,000 death benefit for
SGLI neither was it intended that the TSGLI program be a
supplemental benefit for a traumatic death.
TSGLI was designed to provide severely injured servicemembers
who suffer a loss as a direct result of a serious traumatic
injury with monetary assistance to help the member and the
member's family through an often long and arduous treatment and
rehabilitation period. TSGLI is modeled after commercial
Accidental Death and Dismemberment (AD&D) insurance coverage,
specifically, the ``dismemberment'' portion of the coverage,
but deviates in some respects from the commercial AD&D model,
to account for the unique needs of military personnel.
Discussion
When formulating the program design for the TSGLI program, we
selected a seven day period based on a review of data gathered
by DoD concerning traumatic injuries incurred in Operations
Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom. That data showed that it
usually takes a minimum of seven to ten days following a
traumatic injury to stabilize the injured member and transport
the member back to the United States for further treatment and
to begin the rehabilitation process. During this initial
period, the service department pays most if not all major
expenses that are incurred by an injured member and/or the
member's family relating to travel by the family to be at the
member's side. As a result, TSGLI benefits are not needed
during the initial period following a traumatic injury.
Once the member's condition is stabilized and doctors and the
member decide on a course of treatment, TSGLI benefits are
needed and are available to help pay for expenses incurred
after the initial period. Furthermore, if the insured member
dies within seven days after a traumatic injury, although no
TSGLI benefit is payable, the basic SGLI death benefits, up to
$400,000 plus the military death gratuity of $100,000 are
available and are paid to the beneficiary designated by the
member or other eligible beneficiary.
Mr. Hare. And can you tell us specifically what TSGLI does
not cover?
Mr. McCoy. It would be easier to tell you, I mean, there
are 40--actually, 44 different categories of injuries that are
covered. I guess to answer your question, it would be something
that is not a severe injury. I do not know a better answer than
that.
Mr. Hare. Does that include PTSD?
Mr. McCoy. It does in the sense of if someone cannot
function with the activities of daily living, but PTSD in
itself is not a listed disability for TSGLI.
Mr. Hare. Do you know why that is?
Mr. McCoy. Pardon me?
Mr. Hare. Do you know why that is, why it is not?
Mr. McCoy. No, sir. But I can assure you that it is
something we are looking at very closely. From an insurance
standpoint of the TSGLI program, we are actually getting very
close to the end of our first year review of the program and
this is something that we are looking at.
Mr. Hare. Okay. The TSGLI program has paid about 3,266
cases totaling about $206 million with an average claim payment
of about $63,000 plus. Is this an expense to the Department of
Defense and, if not, how does the VA pay for the claims? Is
that through mandatory or discretionary spending?
Mr. McCoy. Sir, I do not have the cleared views of the
Department on that.
Mr. Hare. Could you get that for the Committee?
Mr. McCoy. Yes, sir.
[The answer is included in the response to Question 3 in
the post-hearing questions for the record, which appears on p.
48.]
Mr. Hare. I appreciate that.
As the VA works to improve this processing of the TSGLI and
have undertaken a year one review, what have you learned that
is going to help improve this processing time to speed payments
to servicemembers and their families?
Mr. McCoy. I really cannot answer that until we see the
results of that first-year review.
Mr. Hare. And when is that due to occur?
Mr. McCoy. I will have to get that to you also. It is very
soon.
[The following was subsequently received from Mr. McCoy:]
We intend to brief the Committee staffs in August and a
complete written report will be available in September.
Mr. Hare. Okay.
Mr. McCoy. We visited with, or insurance has visited with
all the service departments to look at exactly what we are
doing and how we are doing it.
Mr. Hare. Can the VA provide the population figures with
regard to H.R. 156?
Mr. McCoy. Yes, sir.
[The answer is included in the response to Question 6 in
the post-hearing questions for the record, which appear on p.
49.]
Mr. Hare. Okay. I appreciate that.
Mr. McCoy. That will be in part of the estimate.
Mr. Hare. Okay. And my last question with regard to H.R.
704, could the VA also provide the Subcommittee the population
figures for that legislation?
Mr. McCoy. Absolutely.
[The answer is included in the response to Question 7 in
the post-hearing questions for the record, which appears on p.
49.]
Mr. Hare. Thank you, Mr. McCoy.
Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. McCoy.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks for coming. Regarding H.R. 704, you stated that the
Department has not had time to prepare its response, yet the VA
has encountered this issue before and had a definite response.
In fact, the Subcommittee conducted a hearing on DIC
remarriage legislation in the 107th Congress, H.R. 1108, and
this bill also allowed for the retention of DIC benefits if a
surviving spouse remarried after age 55.
At the hearing on April 11, 2002, Under Secretary Cooper
testified, and I quote, ``the VA supports enactment of this
legislation.'' And Admiral Cooper also said in that testimony
that the use of the age 55 would align DIC benefits with
benefits provided to surviving spouses of military retirees
under DoD's Survivor Benefit Plan and to surviving spouses
under the Social Security program.
A couple questions. What has changed if you can----
Mr. McCoy. I cannot answer that, sir.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Can you take this testimony under
consideration or the VA, can you look into this, take this
testimony, the prior testimony under consideration when they
take a----
Mr. McCoy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bilirakis [continuing]. Position on this bill?
Mr. McCoy. Absolutely.
Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. I
appreciate it.
Mr. Hare. Just one other question, Mr. McCoy. Do you know
when the VA may develop a position on these bills?
Mr. McCoy. Very shortly. I mean, it is fair to say we are
doing it as we speak. So it will be very soon.
[Administration views from the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs on H.R. 704 were received on October 26, 2007, and
appear on p. 50. Administration views on H.R. 156 were not
provided from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.]
Mr. Hare. Well, it is my hope that the VA will look
favorably upon these three bills because they are tremendous
pieces of legislation that will help veterans and spouses. And,
it is my hope that the VA will get back to the Committee with a
position so we can work together to get these through.
Mr. Bilirakis, anything else?
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A great hearing and
I look forward to the markup on all three bills. Thanks very
much.
Mr. Hare. Thank you, Mr. McCoy.
Are there any other Members? We are it, Gus.
I just want to thank you all for your statements this
afternoon. This concludes our hearing.
And, as I said to everybody on the panel, please be assured
that this is a bipartisan effort and we are going to work very
hard to get these bills through.
So, with that, this Committee meeting stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Opening Statement of the Honorable John J. Hall, Chairman,
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs
I would first like to thank all of the witnesses for their
testimonies on these three noncontroversial but critical bills.
I want to thank Mr. Holden for appearing before our Subcommittee to
present testimony on his bill, H.R. 156, which would change the date of
eligibility for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) payments to
survivors of former POWs to include those POWs that died before
September 30, 1999. Current DIC payments for POWs only cover those
qualifying POWs that die after September 30, 1999. This bill would
correct this inexplicable inequity. I am proud to have one of my
constituents from New York, District 19, here today, Mr. Norman Bussel,
past President of the American Ex-Prisoners of War Service Foundation,
to testify in support of this legislation.
Welcome, Mr. Bussel. Thank you again for being here to offer your
insight as a former POW and thank you for your service to our country.
As with all mandatory spending, we will have to find the offsets to
pay for this change in order to comply with PAYGO rules adopted at the
beginning of this Congress. However, as the number of qualifying
spouses has dwindled, I pray that we will be able to work in a
bipartisan manner to find the funding to help this small population of
mostly widows.
We will also receive testimony on a bill sponsored by Mr. Bilirakis
that would affect the DIC, H.R. 704. His bill would change the age of
remarriage for surviving spouses from age 57 to 55. Currently, if a
surviving spouse remarries before age 57, the DIC payments cease
automatically. This is a harsh result for surviving spouses who have
sacrificed and lost so much as a mate to these veterans. As Mr.
Bilirakis will surely point out, changing the age from 57 to 55 will
also bring this provision in line with several other Federal survivors
programs, particularly the Military Survivor Benefit Plan.
I know this bill enjoys wide support and I certainly support its
concept of allowing love to flourish for these survivors in their later
years without penalty even earlier.
Lastly, we will consider H.R. 585, sponsored by Congresswoman
Herseth Sandlin, Chair of the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee, which
would change the retroactive provisions of the Traumatic
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (TSGLI) program to allow those
servicemembers injured outside of Iraq and Afghanistan between October
7, 2001, and November 30, 2005, to qualify for coverage. Currently,
only those who physically served in these combat areas qualify. Since
December 1, 2005, all servicemembers who participate in the SGLI
program are automatically covered with TSGLI no matter where they
physically served and, thus, no fix is needed for these servicemembers
at this time.
The TSGLI program is intended to provide short-term help to the
families of severely injured servicemembers to help with expenses
incurred in helping them and their families recover from their
injuries. In my own State of New York, 118 servicemembers have
benefited from this program and the average payment is $61,229. In
Colorado, 112 servicemembers received payment which averaged $58,482.
To date, the total number of TSGLI cases paid is 3,266 totaling
$206,235,000. The average payout is $63,158. Surely many qualifying
servicemembers and their families would benefit from this legislative
fix and I wholeheartedly support it.
During times of war, all servicemembers offer the same gift to our
country, their selfless service in our Armed Forces to defend our
Nation. Each of their lives is valuable and potentially at risk no
matter what the duty assignment. This bill, by making this small but
substantive change, would recognize that truth.
Lastly, I look forward to hearing the VA's updated views on these
bills.
Opening Statement of the Honorable Doug Lamborn, Ranking Republican
Member, Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me. I look forward to
hearing the views of our witnesses and our colleagues on the
legislation before us.
Our first bill, H.R. 156, provides Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation (DIC) payments to the survivors of veterans, rated totally
disabled at the time of death, who were former prisoners of war. This
bill lifts the payment restriction on families of those veterans who
died after September 30, 1999.
In reading some of the testimony it seems that there are less than
850 families that would qualify for this legislation, thus making it
the least costly of the three.
Our second bill, H.R. 585, would extend retroactive payments under
the Traumatic Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (TSGLI) program to
those servicemembers who were wounded outside of the theater of
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This legislation has merit because
any time a servicemember is seriously injured and would otherwise
qualify for TSGLI, it should not matter where the traumatic injury
occurred.
Our last bill, H.R. 704, would dispense with the restriction of DIC
payments to survivors who remarry before age 57 and allows them to keep
their DIC payment if they remarry after age 55.
This brings the DIC program in line with other survivor programs
such as Social Security and DoD's Survivors Benefit Plan (SBP) when it
comes to the continuance of payments after remarriage.
Mr. Chairman, while in principle I support all of the bills before
us, I do understand that all of them have mandatory funding issues. My
question to you is whether any offsets for these bills have been
identified?
If there are no offsets then perhaps this hearing is premature. It
would be my hope that a legislative hearing would be part of a
deliberate process that would lead to a markup of legislation for the
Full Committee's consideration. I know everyone's time is at a premium
and I share with you a desire to make the most of it.
That being said, I hope that we can find offsets to move these
bills forward and I look forward to working with you and your staff to
make sure we do this.
My thanks to my colleagues and the witnesses for their testimony
and I yield back.
Opening Statement of the Honorable Gus M. Bilirakis,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida
I want to thank Chairman Hall and Ranking Member Lamborn for
including my legislation, H.R. 704, on today's hearing agenda. H.R. 704
provides that the remarriage of the surviving spouse of a veteran after
age 55 shall not result in termination of Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation (DIC).
As my colleagues know, Dependency and Indemnity Compensation is the
benefit accorded to the surviving dependents of those members of the
Armed Forces who died while on active duty or of a service-connected
cause. Until recently, DIC was the only Federal annuity program that
did not allow a widow who is receiving compensation to remarry at an
older age and retain her annuity.
My father, former Representative Mike Bilirakis, began work on this
issue in 1987 when he introduced DIC remarriage legislation in the
100th Congress. He worked on this issue for some time before achieving
success in 2003 when a slightly modified version of his bill was
enacted into law.
Due to funding constraints, Congress enacted legislation that
allowed spouses who remarried after age 57 to retain their DIC
benefits. Surviving spouses who remarried after attaining age 57 prior
to enactment of the compromise agreement were given 1 year to apply for
reinstatement of their DIC.
My father continued his efforts to restore DIC benefits to those
widows who remarry after age 55 until he retired from Congress in 2006.
I am pleased to be continuing his efforts on this important issue in
the 110th Congress.
I think it is a wonderful thing if an older person finds
companionship, falls in love and decides to marry. I don't think we
should be discouraging such marriages by making them financially
burdensome. For those remarrying after the age of 55, it is often the
case that both partners are living on fixed incomes. The prospect of
one partner losing financial benefits as a result of the marriage is a
real disincentive.
My bill, H.R. 704, makes a simple change that could mean a great
deal to those who find themselves in this predicament. The bill would
allow a widow to remarry at age 55 and retain her Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation (DIC) benefits. It prohibits retroactive
benefits, but like the previously enacted DIC remarriage law, the
intent of my legislation is to give widows who remarried after reaching
age 55 before the bill was enacted an opportunity to apply for the
reinstatement of their DIC benefits.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you once again for
including my bill in today's hearing. I hope that you and our other
colleagues on the Subcommittee will join me in supporting this change.
I look forward to hearing the testimony from today's witnesses.
Statement of the Honorable Tim Holden,
a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania
Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Lamborn, and Members of the
Subcommittee,
I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today in
support of
H.R. 156, which seeks to correct an inequity in the awarding of
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) benefits to surviving
spouses of qualifying former prisoners of war.
Current law provides DIC benefits for surviving spouses of former
prisoners of war who were rated as totally disabled for service-
connected disability at the time of death--so long as that former POW
dies after September 30, 1999. However, surviving spouses of qualifying
former POWs who died before or on September 30, 1999, do not qualify
for any DIC benefits unless the former POW died of a service-connected
disability or was 100% service-connected for at least 10 years prior to
death.
Prior to 1999, all surviving spouses of qualifying former POWs were
eligible for DIC benefits so long as the former POW was rated 100
percent disabled for a minimum of 10 years prior to his or her death.
Since many POW's had difficulty in establishing their eligibility for
service-connected compensation benefits until after Congress
established certain presumptions, many POW's died while being 100%
service-connected for less than 10 years. That problem was addressed by
the Veteran's Millennium Healthcare Act of 1999, which allowed
surviving spouses to qualify if their POW spouse was service-connected
for 1 year before death and died after September 30, 1999.
Not too long after the Veteran's Millennium Healthcare Act was
enacted, Mr. Leigh Tallas, a veteran and an advocate from one of the
county VA offices in my congressional district, contacted me to express
his concern with the consequence of limiting the awarding of benefits
only in the case where the qualifying former POW died after September
30, 1999. He told me about an active case he was working on where the
surviving spouse was being penalized due to this provision.
Following my meeting with Mr. Tallas, I first introduced this
legislation you are considering today in the 107th Congress and
reintroduced it in each subsequent Congress.
Mr. Chairman, the change my bill seeks to do is very simple and
straightforward. This bill will amend Title 38 of the U.S. Code to
treat all surviving spouses of qualifying former POWs equally, granting
them DIC benefits regardless of when their former POW spouse passed
away.
While I was not able to secure a score by the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO) on H.R. 156 during the first part of the 110th Congress,
CBO estimated in 2003 that about 480 survivors would be newly eligible
for DIC under an identical bill. Because many of these deaths occurred
over the last 50 years or more, during which survivors may have lost
touch with veterans' organizations that could inform them about the new
benefit, and considering that some survivors may have remarried making
them ineligible for DIC, CBO assumed that no more than one-third, or
about 160, of these eligible survivors would apply for DIC under the
bill. CBO also assumed that these new DIC cases would phase in over a
5-year period as eligible survivors learn about their eligibility and
complete the process of applying for benefits from VA.
Our Nation's POWs sacrificed their liberty for the freedom we
enjoy. Their surviving spouses deserve to receive Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation. The unequal eligibility criteria should be
eliminated. This bill does that.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you and the Subcommittee for considering this
bill and urge you to report it favorably.
Statement of Norman Bussel,
National Service Officer, American Ex-Prisoners of War
Chairman Hall and Members of the Subcommittee, I am a National
Service Officer accredited by the Department of Veterans Affairs and I
represent the American Ex-Prisoners of War organization. I am a
volunteer and I assist veterans who wish to file claims for service-
connected disabilities. As a member of a B-17 bomber crew, I bailed out
of my burning plane 7 seconds before it exploded over Berlin on April
29, 1944. Four members of my crew, as close to me as my brother, died
on that mission and I became a POW for just over 1 year.
I want to thank you for this opportunity to bring to your attention
legislation that is of vital importance to a small, but select group of
American citizens: widows of former prisoners of war, in their
eighties, and in need of assistance now. I was President of American
Ex-Prisoners of War Service Foundation for 4 years and I'm pleased to
be their spokesman.
POWs have always faced obstacles in filing claims because we had no
medical records to document our wounds and illnesses upon capture, or
while in prison camp. The subject of POW medical care is an oxymoron,
since it was nonexistent unless your wounds were life-threatening and
too often, even severe injuries were ignored, leading to unnecessary
fatalities.
Then, about 10 years ago, this inequity was addressed by the
Congress and bills began to be passed acknowledging ``presumptives.''
The premise was that certain illnesses suffered by POWs, even though
undocumented, obviously resulted from their confinement and
maltreatment, therefore, they must be presumed service-connected. For
example, peripheral neuropathy can be a result of frostbite; irritable
bowel syndrome can be caused by harsh diet; and PTSD can be provoked by
the total barbed wire environment.
My statement will focus on H.R. 156 because its passage is so time-
critical to these survivors of POWs who died on or before September 30,
1999. Prior to September 30, 1999, a POW must have died of a service-
connected disability, or have been rated 100 percent disabled for a
minimum of 10 years before his death in order for his spouse to qualify
for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation benefits (DIC).
When a bill lowering the qualification period from 10 years to 1
year became law, it did not retroactively include all those who should
have become eligible under the new legislation: specifically survivors
of POWs who died before September 30, 1999. Comprised almost entirely
of POW widows with an average age of at least eighty, many of these
unfortunate spouses are existing below the poverty level because under
the present law, they are not eligible for DIC.
The purpose of H.R. 156 is: To amend Title 38, United States Code,
to provide for the payment of DIC to the survivors of former prisoners
of war who died on or before September 30, 1999, under the same
eligibility conditions as apply to payment of DIC to the survivors of
former prisoners of war who die after that date.
In 2003, based on the number of survivors the VA reported were
awarded DIC upon the death of a former POW spouse after September 30,
1999, CBO extrapolated that about 480 survivors would be eligible for
compensation with the amendment of Title 38. CBO further estimated that
no more than one-third, or about 160 of those eligible, would apply for
DIC.
In October 2004, then VA Secretary Anthony Principi was
instrumental in adding two new POW presumptives to illnesses which the
VA considered service-connected: heart disease and stroke. These
illnesses were presumed to have resulted from the rigors of being a
POW. Since heart disease ranks as the Number 1 killer in America,
widows who were previously ineligible to receive DIC under the 10-year
clause, now became eligible to file if their husbands died of heart
disease or stroke. Today, 4 years later, that CBO estimated number of
160 widows has obviously dropped even more, since some of them would
already be eligible under the new heart disease presumptive and some
widows, of course, would have passed away in the meantime.
World War II veterans, at an average age of 84, are dying at the
rate of about 1,200 per day. Of the nearly 140,000 POWs captured during
World War II, only 20,000 are now alive. Actuarial tables predict that
80-year-old females have a life expectancy of almost 9 years. Surviving
spouses of POWs who died on, or before, September 30, 1999, must not be
denied this entitlement which can make their lives easier. As a
National Service Officer, I am saddened because a number of the widows
I assist have had to resort to food stamps in order to survive. It is
heartbreaking to see a POW's surviving spouse spend her remaining days
in destitution.
In the scheme of things, the amount of funds needed to correct this
injustice is trivial. Because the number of surviving spouses who were
denied DIC under the 10-year rule has dwindled over the past 4 years,
the cost of H.R. 156 is now likely to be less than $1.5 million a year,
decreasing to about zero by 2015.
This bill deserves your approval because POW widows cannot survive
on Social Security. No one will live lavishly on DIC benefits of $1,067
per month, but to POW widows, it can mean the difference between
worrying about paying the light bill or the rent, and living out their
final years without constant anxiety. POWs suffered enough anxiety when
they were captured while fighting for their country. They would be
happy to know that their widows were being taken care of. Please, pass
H.R. 156--in their memory. Thank you.
Statement of Jim King,
Executive Director, American Veterans (AMVETS)
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to offer testimony on behalf of American Veterans
(AMVETS) regarding pending benefits legislation before this
Subcommittee. AMVETS appreciates the Subcommittee's work to ensure the
Department of Veterans Affairs can fulfill its obligation to provide
benefits and services to veterans and/or their survivors.
H.R. 585 would expand the number of individuals qualifying for
retroactive benefits from traumatic brain injury coverage under the
Service Group Life Insurance program. The Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Traumatic Injury
Protection (TSGLI) program is designed to provide added financial
protection with payments that range from $25,000 to $100,000, to
servicemembers who have suffered certain traumatic injuries while on
active duty. Although the insurance program started December 1, 2005,
benefits are payable retroactively to October 7, 2001, for
servicemembers and veterans who suffered certain traumatic injuries
while serving in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Mr. Chairman, the purpose and intent of any insurance program is to
provide some type of financial security for either an individual or
surviving family members in the event of injury, disability or death.
When and where deaths or injuries occur are usually not an impediment
to the distribution of benefits. Service personnel are on duty 24 hours
a day and 7 days a week. Equally important, service personnel serve
where they are directed to serve and are not given a choice on how or
when they will serve. AMVETS believes that the guiding principles and
purpose that govern Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance or providing
full coverage regardless of duty location should also be used as the
basis for administering the TSGLI program. AMVETS supports this
legislation.
H.R. 156 would provide survivor benefits to family members of all
servicemembers who were held as prisoners of war and whose death is
viewed in the same manner as a service-connected death as outlined in
section 1318(b) Title 38 U.S.C., and were rated totally disabled for a
period of no less than 1 year prior to their death.
Mr. Chairman, this legislation would provide survivor benefits to
family members of prisoners of war who became rated 100% disabled for 1
year prior to death. This legislation removes an arbitrary date,
allowing approximately 850 families to receive benefits they were
previously denied. AMVETS supports this legislation.
H.R. 704 would reduce the age from 57 to 55 when a surviving spouse
of a deceased veteran can remarry and not lose their Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation (DIC).
Mr. Chairman, AMVETS supports this legislation. AMVETS believes DIC
should not be viewed only as a source of income to replace the wage
that was being provided by the servicemember. DIC is a compensation for
a loss that was suffered by the survivors, and should continue to be
paid regardless of the marital status of the surviving spouse.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony.
Statement of Sharon Hodge,
Associate Director of Government Affairs, Vietnam Veterans of America
Good afternoon, Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Lamborne and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for giving Vietnam
Veterans of America (VVA) the opportunity to offer our comments
regarding pending benefits legislation that would enhance the lives of
the men and women serving in the current theater of operations and
those who have left loved ones behind in previous wars.
H.R. 585, to amend Title 38, U.S. Code, to expand the number of
individuals qualifying for retroactive benefits from traumatic injury
protection coverage under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance.
P.L. 109-233, the Veterans Housing Opportunity and Benefits
Improvement Act of 2006, mandated that the Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance (TSGLI) be retroactive to October 7, 2001, for members who
incur a qualifying loss as a direct result of injuries incurred on or
after October 7, 2001, through and including November 30, 2005, in
Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) or Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). This
means that the servicemember must have been deployed outside the United
States on orders in support of OEF or OIF or serving in a geographic
location that qualified the servicemember for the Combat Zone Tax
Exclusion under the Internal Revenue Service Code. However, when
Congress passed this important legislation last year they did not take
into consideration that even training for war is a dangerous business
in itself. Whether or not you are stationed in an active combat zone
should not exclude a servicemember from this most important benefit.
Non-battle wounds can range from injuries in vehicle accidents to
illnesses. As an example, an Air Force pilot was killed last week in
simulated close air combat over Alaska. Every time a unit goes to 29
Palms to train in desert warfare someone is seriously injured because
training for war is sometimes almost as dangerous as war itself.
Wherever the injury or death of a servicemember occurs, the effects
on the servicemember's families are the same. And the impact in terms
of the current fighting force and future demands on the VA are also the
same. VVA is in favor of removing the restriction on this legislation.
H.R. 156, to amend Title 38, U.S. Code, to provide payment of
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation to the survivors of former
prisoners of war who died on or before September 30, 1999, under the
same eligibility conditions as apply to payment of Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation to the survivors of former prisoners of war who
died after the date.
Current law provides DIC benefits only to surviving spouses of
eligible POWs who died after September 30, 1999. Before 1999, surviving
spouses of POWs were eligible for DIC benefits providing the POW was
rated 100% disabled for a minimum of 10 years prior to the POW's
passing. Due to unresolved eligibility issues, many POWs passed away
prior to being considered 100% disabled for 10 years. This problem was
addressed by enactment of the Veteran's Millennium Healthcare Act of
1999, which allowed surviving spouses to qualify for DIC benefits if
their POW spouse was rated 100% disabled for at least 1 year and died
after September 30, 1999. However, establishment of this date left many
widows with unresolved cases penalized due to this cutoff. This
legislation would treat all surviving spouses of POWs equally and grant
them DIC benefits regardless of when their POW spouse passed away.
Mr. Chairman, these former POWs, and their families, have clearly
sacrificed greatly for our Nation. Easing the financial burdens of
their surviving spouses is a very appropriate means of trying to repay
this debt. VVA fully supports this legislation.
H.R. 704, to amend Title 38, U.S. Code, to reduce from age 57 to age 55
the age after which the remarriage of the surviving spouse of a
deceased veteran shall not result in termination of Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation otherwise payable to that surviving spouse.
VVA commends this Committee for previous legislation, which allowed
retention of DIC, burial entitlements, and VA home loan eligibility for
surviving spouses who remarry after age 57. The majority of the
surviving spouses are in fact women who are nearing retirement age, or
have been retired for some time if they ever worked outside the home.
In many cases, these women devoted themselves to taking care of their
spouse who was profoundly disabled, and therefore did not have the
opportunity to build a career as a result.
While DIC is frankly inadequate to be able to support an adult in
most of the country, these spouses deserve DIC to recognize their
sacrifice and service to their country by means of caring for
profoundly disabled veterans. We strongly recommend the age 57 DIC
remarriage provision be reduced to age 55 to make it consistent with
all other Federal survivor benefit programs, and fully support passage
of H.R. 704. VVA testified strongly for this when the Congress lowered
the age to 57, and VVA still believes this is the appropriate age.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, that
concludes VVA's formal statement. I welcome your comments, and will be
pleased to answer any questions you may have. Again, on behalf of VVA
National President John Rowan, the VVA National Board of Directors, and
our membership, thank you for allowing VVA to appear here today to
share our views.
Statement of Steve Smithson,
Deputy Director for Claims Services,
Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission, American Legion
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for this opportunity to present The American Legion's
views on the three bills being considered by the Subcommittee today.
The American Legion commends the Subcommittee for holding a hearing to
discuss these important bills.
H.R. 585
H.R. 585 seeks to amend Title 38, United States Code, to expand the
number of veterans qualifying for retroactive benefits from traumatic
injury protection coverage under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance.
This bill will enlarge the group of those who, while on active duty
status from October 7, 2001, through November 30, 2005, suffered a
traumatic injury and associated covered loss, and under certain
conditions of service qualified for retroactive benefits payments under
the Traumatic Injury Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (TSGLI)
program (as initially established by Public Law 109-13 in 2005) by
eliminating the requirement that only those traumatic injuries and
losses occurring from service directly in Operations Enduring Freedom
or Iraqi Freedom would qualify for such retroactive benefits. H.R. 585
would open this group to include all servicemembers on active duty
status during the retroactive period, regardless of where the traumatic
injury occurred. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has issued a
Final Rule to its Code of Federal Regulations, as published in the
Federal Register of March 8, 2007, that for purposes of TSGLI payments,
servicemembers did not have to actually be insured under the
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI) program in order to be
eligible for this benefit. Therefore, were H.R. 585 to be enacted into
law as currently presented, all such servicemembers, insured under SGLI
or not, who suffered a qualifying loss during the stated retroactive
period, would be eligible for payment of TSGLI benefits.
The American Legion fully supports the intent of H.R. 585. It has
always been the position of The American Legion that veterans' benefits
entitlements should apply equally to all those in service on active
duty. Military servicemembers serve under the command of their
respective service departments and it is not their prerogative to
determine the location of such service and the duties assigned. Such
service and duties may very well be located well outside a combat
theatre of operations, but it is military service to the nation
nonetheless, and the nature of such military service often exposes
members to hazard of life and limb. The American Legion does not
support the creation of different classes of veterans for purposes of
different levels or types of veterans' benefits. We believe, therefore,
that H.R. 585 should proceed successfully and be enacted into law.
H.R. 704
This bill would reduce from age 57 to age 55 the age after which
the remarriage of the surviving spouse of a deceased veteran shall not
result in termination of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC)
otherwise payable to that surviving spouse. The American Legion fully
supports removing the bar on the payment of DIC benefits to surviving
spouses who remarry after age 55.
Public Law 108-83 provided that DIC benefits would not be
terminated if the surviving spouse remarried at age 57. It is the
position of The American Legion that the use of age 57 was not based on
any objective data, but was simply a ``budget savings'' tool rather
than opting for age 55. The American Legion has continued to support
legislation to remove the remarriage penalty for those surviving
spouses age 55 or older who would otherwise have been entitled to DIC.
This would better align DIC benefits with benefits provided to
surviving spouses of military retirees under the Department of
Defense's Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), which uses age 55, and to
surviving spouses under Social Security, which uses age 60.
The American Legion also supports a provision that would allow
surviving spouses who remarried at age 55 or older prior to the
enactment of the law, and whose benefits had been terminated, the
opportunity to apply for reinstatement of benefits. We understand that
it is the intent to provide the aforementioned individuals the
opportunity to apply for reinstatement under (d) of this bill and we
ask that the appropriate technical correction be made in order for this
to happen. The American Legion also urges the inclusion of a provision
that directs VA to conduct specific outreach to inform those affected
by this change in law, and whose DIC benefits were terminated prior to
the enactment of the law, of the opportunity to apply for reinstatement
of benefits. We also recommend providing at least a 2-year period after
the enactment of the law in which those individuals who remarried at
age 55 or older prior to the enactment of the law, and whose DIC
benefits were previously terminated, may apply for reinstatement.
Limiting the reinstatement period to only 1 year is overly restrictive
and would prevent otherwise eligible individuals from re-establishing
entitlement to DIC because of missing an arbitrarily imposed deadline.
H.R. 156
This bill seeks to provide for the payment of DIC to the survivors
of former prisoners of war (POWs) who died on or before September 30,
1999, under the same eligibility conditions as apply to payment of DIC
to the survivors of former POWs who die after that date.
Under current law, survivors of former POWs who died after
September 30, 1999, and were continually rated totally disabled due to
service-connected disabilities for a period of not less than 1 year
immediately preceding death, are eligible to receive DIC benefits.
Survivors of former POWs who were continually rated totally disabled
due to service-connected disabilities for a period of not less than 1
year immediately preceding death are not eligible to receive DIC
benefits if the former POW died on or before September 30, 1999. The
American Legion fully supports this proposed legislation as it would,
if enacted, eliminate the arbitrary delimiting date currently in place
and establish eligibility to DIC benefits for survivors of former POWs
who were totally service-connected disabled for at least a year prior
to death no matter the date of the individual's death.
Conclusion
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for allowing The American Legion to
present comments on these important measures. As always, The American
Legion welcomes the opportunity to work closely with you and your
colleagues on enactment of legislation in the best interest of
America's veterans and their families.
Statement of Vivianne Cisneros Wersel, Member
Government Relations Committee, Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I would like to thank
you
for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of all Gold Star
Wives regarding
H.R. 704. This bill amends Title 38, U.S.C., to reduce from age 57 to
55 the age after which a surviving spouse may remarry and still retain
Dependency Indemnity Compensation (DIC).
My name is Vivianne Wersel and I am the widow of Marine Corps Lt.
Col. Rich Wersel. My husband's unexpected and untimely death, at age
43, 1 week after he returned from his second tour in Iraq on 4 February
2005, was a tragedy for my children, Richard, then age 14, Katie, then
age 12, and me. I have spent the past 2 years grieving my husband's
death, helping my children with their grieving, and working to end
survivor inequities so that we as military survivors can move on with
our journeys in life. Presently, remarriage before the age of 57
results in the termination of the DIC benefit for surviving military
spouses. At my present age and the age of my children, I cannot afford
to live without my DIC if I remarry before the age of 57. No other VA
benefit turns with remarriage at 57, but rather at 55. Equity alone
dictates that DIC should be categorized similarly.
I have been employed as an audiologist since 1989, yet I have not
earned a retirement since I had to change jobs with each of the nine
duty stations we were assigned during our 15 years of marriage. These
duty assignments resulted in limited part-time positions or some full-
time work in my field. While stationed in South America my career was
put on hold because audiology is very limited there. My primary job,
however, was with the Marine Corps as a good Marine Corps wife,
maintaining family unity and family readiness. There was never a
question about staying behind when a new assignment arose simply so I
could continue working to earn a retirement package. The Marine Corps
was our life; we were a team. I considered myself vested in the Marine
Corps when I left job after job to follow my husband after we married.
The Marine Corps is still my family. My husband's pension would have
been based on his hard work as a Marine Corps officer and also mine as
a supporting spouse who raised our family when he was so often
deployed. Now I find myself suddenly alone raising our two children and
working to end inequities in survivor benefits.
After I buried my husband, my daughter asked if I would ever marry
again. I knew even then that I would lose my benefits and could not
afford it for the sake of my family. I choose to stay alone as
remarrying would cost me my DIC. It is not fair that a law dictates
whether someone can remarry and still retain her survivor benefit or
not. A military widow has given so much and should not be precluded
from remarrying based on financial circumstances.
It has been 2 years since my husband's death and I am now out of my
fog of grief. I reflect on how bizarre it is that anyone should have to
wait until a certain age to find a partner again and remarry, in other
words, choose financial security or an emotional one. We should not
have to choose.
My children will still be in college when I am 55 and with no
Social Security, I will still need to provide for them. Losing my DIC
will have an adverse effect on my family's optimal well-being. My
husband would never have thought a second marriage would compromise the
quality of our lives. His advice to me in the event of his death was
``go straight to the VA because they would care for me and our
children.'' The quality of life for my children should not be
diminished simply because of a decision I might make to remarry.
My personal situation is simply an example. Gold Star Wives of
America supports legislation which allows widows to remarry at age 55
without suffering the loss of a survivor benefit. Marital decisions
often involve consideration of economic consequences and often those
consequences are different for older surviving spouses who live on a
fixed income, which includes DIC, to maintain a basic standard of
living regardless of whether they remarry or not. Those who would
benefit from this bill are those who are retired or are preparing to
retire, those living on a fixed income, and those, like me, who have
foregone continuous careers in which to build their own retirement in
order to support their military spouses and family. It should not be up
to the government to provide disincentives to marriage and particularly
not for widows of those who served their country. The choice to remarry
is one that should be left to the surviving military spouse. Her
service to our country has been great even though she was never
formally sworn into military service. Our government should not make
this decision for her. It is hers alone to make and should be made
without penalty.
I work diligently with Gold Star Wives to assure that our fallen
heroes' survivors are not left behind or forgotten. H.R. 704 is an
important piece of legislation which reduces the surviving military
spouse's remarriage age from 57 to 55 and allows her to continue to
retain DIC. Please show these survivors you care and will not forget
their sacrifice. We urge you to do what is right and get this
legislation enacted into law.
I wish to thank the Subcommittee for having this hearing and
allowing me to testify in support of H.R. 704. I am happy to answer any
questions you may have about this important piece of legislation to all
of our surviving military spouses.
Statement of Meredith Beck,
National Policy Director, Wounded Warrior Project
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify before you
today. My name is Meredith Beck, and I am the National Policy Director
for the Wounded Warrior Project (WWP), a nonprofit, nonpartisan
organization dedicated to assisting the men and women of the United
States Armed Forces who have been severely injured during the War on
Terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and other hot spots around the world.
Beginning at the bedside of the severely wounded, WWP provides programs
and services designed to ease the burdens of these heroes and their
families, aid in the recovery process and smooth the transition back to
civilian life. We strive to fill the vital need for a coordinated,
united effort to enable wounded veterans to aid and assist each other
and to readjust to civilian life. As a result of our direct, daily
contact with these wounded warriors, we have gained a unique
perspective on their needs and the obstacles they face as they attempt
to reintegrate into their respective communities.
I would like to specifically address H.R. 585, introduced by
Representative Herseth Sandlin to expand the number of individuals
qualifying for retroactive benefits under the Traumatic Servicemembers'
Group Life Insurance (TSGLI). One of our finest achievements as an
organization was the role we played in the creation of this insurance
program which pays up to $100,000 to severely wounded servicemembers
for immediate expenses following their injury. WWP is still amazed by
the speed with which this legislation was introduced and passed and we
are especially pleased that the program has paid over $200 million to
injured servicemembers, with an average payment of $67,000 per
individual.
Once the original legislation was enacted creating this program,
the lion's share of the work done on developing and implementing this
program was by the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance as well as by the Department of
Defense and the contact and claims certifying officials from the
individual Service branches. WWP cannot speak highly enough of all the
time and effort that has gone into creating this program, and I would
like to publicly thank all of the involved agencies on behalf of the
severely injured servicemembers and their families who, in their time
of greatest need, have had many of their financial fears allayed as a
result of these insurance payments. This program has, in most cases,
become the intended financial bridge from the time of injury until the
warrior is eligible for VA benefits.
While WWP is very pleased with the overall implementation of the
TSGLI program, H.R. 585 would correct one major inequity. As currently
written, the regulation dictates that those injured after December 1,
2005, are covered regardless of where their injuries occurred. In order
for a retroactive injury to be covered, however, it must have been
incurred ``in Operations Enduring Freedom or Iraqi Freedom.'' It then
defines ``in Operations Enduring Freedom or Iraqi Freedom'' to mean
that the servicemember must have been injured while deployed ``outside
the United States on orders in support of Operations Enduring or Iraqi
Freedoms or served in a geographic location that qualified the
servicemember for the combat zone Tax Exclusion under 26 U.S.C. 211.''
By defining ``in Operations Enduring Freedom or Iraqi Freedom'' as
such, the regulation has disqualified a number of traumatically injured
servicemembers from payment based solely on their location at the time
their injury was incurred. WWP believes that the same criteria that
apply to prospective injuries should apply to retroactive injuries to
October 7, 2001. It is inequitable to deny retroactive payments to
those who have suffered the same grievous injuries based solely on the
location where the traumatic event took place.
Without corrective action, brave men and women who were
traumatically injured after October 7, 2001, but before December 1,
2005, will continue to be denied the same retroactive payment given to
their wounded comrades even though the Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance for which TSGLI is a rider was made retroactive--brave men
and women like Navy Seal Toshiro Carrington who was injured in a
training accident at Camp Pendleton on December 15, 2004. He was
holding a charge in his left hand when another servicemember
accidentally detonated it.
SO 1 Carrington was left with a traumatically severed left hand, a
severed right tip of his thumb and his remaining fingers all fractured.
Unfortunately, Toshiro's severe injuries did not qualify him for a
payment under TSGLI due to the date on which the accident occurred.
Another servicemember, Seaman Robert Roeder, was injured on January 29,
2005, when an arresting wire on the aircraft carrier, the USS Kitty
Hawk, severed his left leg below the knee. Seaman Roeder was on his way
to the Gulf of Arabia when his injury occurred during flight training
operations. Although the ship was on its way to the Gulf and the
training exercises being conducted were in preparation for action in
either Operation Enduring or Iraqi Freedom, Robert's injury does not
qualify for payment under the law as written. Robert was hospitalized
at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas, for over a year
and his recovery and rehabilitation has been just as strenuous and
arduous as it would have been had his ship made it to the Gulf of
Arabia prior to his injury.
SO 1 Carrington and Seaman Roeder are not the only wounded
servicemembers being impacted by this inequity in the regulation.
Therefore, we applaud Senators Akaka and Craig for their recognition of
this inequity and strongly urge Congress to quickly act on S. 225 so
that Seaman Roeder, SO 1 Carrington, and other wounded warriors like
them will not be deprived of this vitally important insurance program.
Again, WWP is very pleased with the overall implementation of the
TSGLI program and is very grateful for all of the hard work that has
gone into making this program a reality. I cannot overstate how many
people and families have benefited from this insurance at a time in
their lives when they needed all the assistance they could get. The
Wounded Warrior Project is honored to have played a role in its
creation and I thank you again for giving us this opportunity to
testify.
Statement of Todd Bowers, Director of Government Affairs,
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee and my fellow veterans, it
is both an honor and a privilege to be here today. Please let me begin
by thanking the Committee for your continued support in ensuring that
our Nation's newest veterans continue to receive the support they have
rightfully earned. My name is Todd Bowers and I am a Sergeant in the
Marine Corps Reserves stationed here in Washington D.C. Previously, I
served in two voluntary tours in Iraq and I am now the Director of
Government Affairs for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, also
known as IAVA. IAVA is the Nation's first and largest organization for
veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. IAVA believes that the
troops and veterans who have served and are currently serving on the
front lines are uniquely qualified to speak about the realities of war.
Veterans are in a position to educate the public and our Nation's
leaders regarding the health of our military and its implications on
national security.
I have been invited here today to discuss three pieces of
legislation--H.R. 585, H.R. 156 and H.R. 704. All three are directed
toward benefiting the lives of veterans and, just as importantly, their
families.
H.R. 585 expands the number of people who qualify for retroactive
benefits from traumatic injury protection coverage under
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance. Currently, a traumatic injury
must have happened in the OEF/OIF theater of operations for it to be
covered. That means that injuries that occur in the line of duty but
NOT in theater are not covered. My research shows that members of the
Armed Services have been injured in over 18 countries in addition to
Iraq and Afghanistan. H.R. 585 is clearly a sensible fix.
But H.R. 585 raises a larger issue and one that I would like to
address. The requirement that veterans show the precise source of their
traumatic injuries is often a daunting task. Many traumatic injuries
involve closed head wounds that are often difficult to connect to one
particular event among many. For example, on October 17, 2004, on the
outskirts of Fallujah, I was shot in the face while conducting a
patrol. The sniper's round penetrated the scope I was using and sent
fragmentation into the left side of my face. The impact of the bullet
was strong enough to throw me backward approximately 3 feet. Though
this incident may sound severe, I assure you, it was one of the more
minimal wounds seen in theatre. For this incident, I only received a
one-page, handwritten piece of paper documenting my injuries. The rest
of the proof is in the form of metal lodged in my cheekbone. I was
lucky. Many are far worse off than I am.
Some of these individuals who may have a more difficult time
properly documenting and identifying their injuries are those who
suffer from Traumatic Brain Injuries, the signature wounds of the Iraq
War. TBI can accumulate if troops are exposed to multiple blasts during
their deployments. Often, there is little or no physical trace of mild
to moderate TBI, and the symptoms, such as difficulties with memory or
emotional problems, are only recognized months or years later. As a
result, although veterans' advocates believe that between 10% and 20%
of Iraq veterans, or between 150,000 and 300,000 people, have some
level of TBI, their injuries often go undiagnosed and untreated. More
disturbing is the fact that many veterans do not understand the
importance of documenting any traumatic incident they may have endured.
I recently spoke to a Marine who was involved in two Improvised
Explosive Device (IED) blasts while serving in Iraq on his second tour.
When I asked him if he had any paperwork or documentation regarding the
incidents, he told me that he thought the military would take care of
it.
The most common flags seen when walking the halls of Congress other
than Old Glory are Prisoner of War (POW) and Missing in Action (MIA)
flags. These flags represent a deeply held sentiment of the American
people: We will never forget our brothers in arms who have spent, and
will spend, long months and years away from their families in order to
serve our Nation. It is our duty to ensure that we take care of these
families as if they were our own. H.R. 156 is a step in the right
direction and I am pleased to see legislation updating the current
benefits system to include more families of veterans.
Taking care of families is a vital part of taking care of those who
have served. Those who make the ultimate sacrifice for our country
should rest assured that their spouses will be provided for in their
absence. Benefits given to surviving spouses are paid for in
immeasurable grief, and represent a small part of the debt we as a
nation owe to the families of veterans. That is why I am pleased to see
legislation such as H.R. 704 receiving appropriate attention.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today
regarding these very important issues. I am prepared to answer your
questions to the best of my ability at this time.
Thank you.
Statement of Jack McCoy, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy
and Program Management, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on three bills under consideration.
H.R. 585
H.R. 585 would remove the geographic requirement for eligibility
for retroactive Traumatic Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (TSGLI)
benefits. It would extend eligibility for retroactive benefits for
traumatic injury protection coverage under TSGLI to all members of the
uniformed services who sustain a qualifying loss from a traumatic
injury between October 7, 2001, and November 30, 2005, regardless of
geographic location.
Section 1032 of Public Law No. 109-13 authorized the payment of
TSGLI to any servicemember insured under Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance who sustains a serious traumatic injury that results in
certain losses. Under section 1032(c) of Public Law 109-13, TSGLI also
was authorized for members of the uniformed services who incurred a
qualifying loss between October 7, 2001, and December 1, 2005, provided
the loss was a direct result of injuries incurred in Operation Enduring
Freedom (OEF) or Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Section 501(b)(1) of
the Veterans' Housing Opportunity and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006,
Public Law 109-233, subsequently narrowed eligibility for retroactive
TSGLI to apply only to servicemembers who suffered scheduled losses as
a direct result of a traumatic injury incurred in the theater of
operations for OEF or OIF beginning on October 7, 2001, and ending at
the close of November 30, 2005. Section 1 of H.R. 585 would amend
section 501(b)(1) by extending eligibility for retroactive TSGLI to
servicemembers whose injuries occurred between October 7, 2001, and
December 1, 2005, outside of the OEF or OIF theater of operations.
VA estimates that enactment of section 1 would result in 695
additional TSGLI claims and would cost $47.7 million. This estimate is
based on the assumption that section 1 of this bill would authorize
TSGLI payments for claims pending on the date of enactment of the
provision as well as for claims for retroactive TSGLI that were
previously denied because the servicemember's injury occurred outside
of the OEF or OIF theater of operations.
VA defers to the Department of Defense (DoD) on the merits of the
proposed bill, because DoD will bear the costs associated with its
enactment.
H.R. 156
Chapter 13 of Title 38, United States Code, currently provides for
the payment of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) to survivors
of former prisoners of war (POWs) who died after September 30, 1999,
and who were rated as totally disabled due to service-connected
disability for at least 1 year immediately preceding death. H.R. 156
would amend Chapter 13 to authorize payment of DIC to the survivors of
former POWs who died on or before September 30, 1999, under the same
eligibility conditions applicable to payment of DIC benefits to the
survivors of POWs who died after September 30, 1999.
We regret that due to the short notice we received concerning this
hearing we do not yet have cleared views and estimates concerning H.R.
156, but we will be providing them for the record.
H.R. 704
Section 1(a) of H.R. 704 would amend eligibility requirements for
certain survivor benefits for remarried surviving spouses. Under
current law, a surviving spouse who remarries is not eligible for DIC,
medical care, educational assistance, or housing loans based on a prior
marriage to a deceased veteran unless the surviving spouse remarries
after age 57 (after age 55 in the case of medical care). Section 1(a)
of
H.R. 704 would reduce from 57 to 55 the age after which a surviving
spouse may remarry without losing eligibility for DIC, educational
assistance, and housing loans. Section 1(b) would specify that this
amendment shall take effect on the later of the first day of the first
month that begins after the date of enactment of this bill or the first
day of the fiscal year that begins in the calendar year of enactment of
the amendment. Section 1(c) would prohibit the payment of any benefit
based on the amendment for any period before the effective date of the
amendment. Section 1(d) would permit an individual who remarried before
the bill's enactment and after age 57 to apply for reinstatement of
benefits before the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of
enactment.
We regret that due to the short notice we received concerning this
hearing we do not yet have cleared views and estimates concerning H.R.
704, but will be providing them for the record.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy now to
entertain any questions you or the other Members of the Committee may
have.
Statement of Paralyzed Veterans of America
Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Lamborn, Members of the Committee,
Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank you for the
opportunity to present our views on this important legislation. PVA
appreciates the efforts of this Subcommittee to address the benefits
needs of veterans who are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and
who have previously served with distinction.
H.R. 156
PVA supports H.R. 156, a bill that would provide for payment of
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation to the survivors of former
prisoners of war who died on or before September 30, 1999. The current
statute states the Secretary shall pay benefits for the veteran who was
a former prisoner of war and their disability was continuously rated
totally disabling for a period of not less than 1 year immediately
preceding death. This benefit will be available for the surviving
spouse and to the children of former prisoners of war who die on or
after October 1, 1999. It seems fair to extend this benefit to earlier
years. These veterans may have sustained severe injuries as a result of
combat action or their subsequent internment. In many cases the spouse
of the 100 percent disabled former prisoner of war provided the
required daily care for the veteran 7 days a week for years before the
death of the veteran. This kept that spouse out of the workplace where
they could have pursued a career for their own economic survival.
PVA would also request that Congress require the VA to conduct an
aggressive outreach campaign to ensure that these spouses of deceased
former prisoners of war are aware of any change if made to the
regulations. PVA would like the VA to make their best effort to contact
all spouses that may qualify for this benefit. We also hope that in
implementing these changes the VA not place an arbitrary deadline on
the application process for these potential benefits.
H.R. 585
During initial consideration of the traumatic injury insurance
rider for Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (SGLI), PVA expressed
concerns about the proposal that eventually became law. The legislation
was meant to help servicemembers who incur a severe disability while
serving this country to overcome the financial hardship placed on them
and their families while they are undergoing medical treatment and
rehabilitation. Our principal concern that servicemembers should not
have to pay a premium for this coverage remains. We believe that
helping these severely injured men and women overcome the financial
strain of their situation is an obligation of the Federal Government.
However, the traumatic injury insurance has proven beneficial for
veterans who elected to have the coverage. We support the concept of
this legislation as it addresses an additional concern that we had with
the proposal in 2005. We believed then, as we do now, that a veteran
who incurs a service-connected severe disability that qualifies them
for this benefit should be able to receive the payment regardless of
where that disability was incurred. A servicemember should not be
denied this benefit simply because he or she was not injured while
serving in Iraq or Afghanistan. We believe that this legislation
corrects that particular inequity that exists in the current statute;
therefore, we support this legislation on those grounds.
H.R. 704
PVA has no objection to this bill that would reduce the age from 57
to 55 years after which the remarriage of the surviving spouse of a
deceased veteran would not result in termination of Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation.
PVA would like to thank you for allowing us to submit an official
statement for the record on these issues. We consider these very
important matters and we commend the Subcommittee for addressing them.
We would be happy to respond to any questions you may have.
Statement of Eric A. Hilleman, Deputy Director,
National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United
States
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE:
On behalf of the 2.4 million members of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the U.S. (VFW) and our Auxiliaries, I would like to thank you
for your invitation to testify at today's important hearing on
veterans' benefits legislation.
H.R. 585, a bill to expand the number of individuals qualifying for
retroactive benefits from traumatic injury protection coverage under
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance.
The VFW strongly supports H.R. 585. From inception the VFW has
supported the Wounded Warrior Bill as a way to provide immediate
financial assistance for severely injured servicemembers and their
families. This legislation would provide those not included in the
original legislation a chance to receive equal payment for their
serious injuries by allowing all injured servicemembers who served
between October 7, 2001, and December 1, 2005, to be eligible for TSGLI
payments regardless of where their injuries occurred. We applaud this
change and agree that all injured servicemembers, those inside and
outside the combat theatre, should be treated equally when it comes to
benefits afforded them.
H.R. 704 and H.R. 156 would expand the inclusion of Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation (DIC) to include more deserving widows and
addresses some of the inequities surrounding DIC. We fully support
these proposals.
H.R. 704 would amend Title 38, U.S.C., to reduce from age 57 to 55
the age after which the remarriage of the surviving spouse of a
deceased veteran shall not result in termination of Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation otherwise payable to that surviving spouse. No
other federally funded survivorship program, including Civil Service,
Social Security and Congress' own program, makes a distinction between
unmarried and remarried surviving spouses. DIC was created to replace
family income loss due to the servicemember or veteran's death and to
serve as compensation for his or her death. Our Nation has made a
promise to our veterans that their families will be taken care of
should they die for our country, or from a disability related to their
service.
In 2003, Congress passed a law that allows survivors who remarry
after age 57 to continue to receive DIC, but this was not enough.
We are pleased to see that H.R. 704 lowers the age at which a
remarried spouse may continue to receive DIC to 55. This change brings
the benefit in line with the remarriage requirements of similar Federal
programs. We fully support this change.
The VFW strongly supports H.R. 156. Current law awards DIC benefits
to those survivors of former POWs who were continuously rated totally
disabled for
at least 1 year prior to death and who died after September 30, 1999.
Enacting
H.R. 156 would expand eligibility to include those survivors of POWs
who died before September 30, 1999.
The number of former POWs that remain alive since the end of World
War II is less than 30,000 and a number of these veterans are leaving
us every day. We believe that those POWs from conflicts prior to 1999
suffered the same as those who came afterward, and providing a small
measure of financial relief to their survivors is the right thing to
do.
Thank you for this opportunity to present our views before the
Subcommittee.
Statement of Patricia Walenchok McElhaney, Niceville, FL,
and Member, Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.
Thank you, Chairman Hall, Representative Buyer, Members of the
Subcommittee, and my own Congressman, Representative Jeff Miller from
Florida, District 1. I
am grateful for the opportunity to submit my statement for the record
regarding
H.R. 704. I appreciate the efforts of Representative Gus Bilirakis,
also a Florida Congressman, to continue his father's efforts to correct
the injustice to surviving spouses of service-related death by allowing
us to remarry at age 55. It is right that widows of service-connected
deaths retain our much-deserved compensation that is paid by the
Department of Veterans Affairs as an indemnity payment in recognition
of our tragic loss and sacrifice when our husband and father died
serving our country. This legislation simply seeks equity with the
Federal survivor programs that permit remarriage at age 55 as provided
to civilians and military who did not die of causes related to military
service.
I am a member of the Gold Star Wives of America, Inc., and the
Military Officers' Association of America Auxiliary. I rely heavily on
these two organizations to keep me educated on current survivor
benefits.
In 2003, the Veterans Benefit Act, H.R. 2297, was passed at age 57
due to limitations of funding and the implied ``promise'' of a first
step which would be lowered to the age of 55 as the second step. I have
now waited 4 years for the equity age of 55. I remarried at age 56 and
1 month, so this ``penalty'' of 11 months has been a bitter pill to
swallow.
In 2002, I believe it is important to note that the Department of
Veterans Affairs expressed its support for enactment of legislation to
provide DIC payments with remarriage at age 55. Testimony presented by
Daniel L. Cooper, Under Secretary for Benefits, Department of Veterans
Affairs, to this very Subcommittee on Benefits, Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, on Thursday, April 11, 2002, supported enactment of H.R. 1108.
H.R. 1108, sponsored in the 108th Congress by Rep. Michael Bilirakis,
Florida, District 9, contained the language of H.R. 704 as introduced
recently in the 110th Congress by Representative Gus Bilirakis and the
subject of this hearing today. The Department's support of H.R. 1108 to
provide equitable DIC benefits with other DoD and civilian Federal
survivor benefits was contingent on funding to be made available by the
Congress. The President and the Congress has nearly doubled the funding
for the Department of Veterans Affairs over these past several years,
and yet, inclusion of the small amount needed to provide DIC with
remarriage at age 55 has not been made available.
I am a widow of a United States Air Force Officer who died from his
100% service-connected medical disability in 1970. At the time of his
illness, there was very little help or knowledge made available for
families in our situation. I am very grateful for the outstanding
medical care he received from Wilford Hall Hospital in San Antonio,
Texas. It meant relocating to that city many miles away from family and
friends back in Arizona who could have given us the help we so
desperately needed. My husband and I had two very young children for
whom I became the single caregiver; all the while providing the nursing
care responsibilities for my husband.
I took care of him in our home for 5 years during the times that he
did not require hospitalization. At that time there was no home
healthcare available from CHAMPUS or the VA. It was a 24/7 job. I was
never offered ``Aid and Attendance'' or a ``Housebound'' allowance by
the Veterans Administration as his sole caregiver. I learned about
those benefits after his death and they were not paid retroactive for
his circumstances. The burden was on me to discover the benefits;
certainly not on the DoD/VA employees to provide assistance to apply
for them. The VA furnished him a hospital bed and bedside commode for
home use. The Cancer Society would bring me lambskin pads for him to
lie on. He was on high doses of prednisone which robbed his bones of
all minerals, proteins and calcium causing them to weaken. The back
vertebras started to crush. There was not much that could be done. He
was put in a back brace. The pain got progressively worse. He finally
reached the point that he could not walk and was bedridden. He
developed severe bedsores no matter how often I changed his position
while in bed. His mind deteriorated to the point that he did not know
me as his wife and did not recognize his children. The prednisone made
him susceptible to fungal infections contracting cryptococcus
meningitis and T.B. while in the hospital. All this while, I had him
home, transporting him to Willford Hall Hospital at least twice a week
for blood and platelet transfusions. He hemorrhaged often and in the
end they could not stop the bleeding with the transfusions. He bled
into his brain on the final day.
My husband enlisted in the Air Force in 1954. He spent 4 years at
Nellis A.F.B. Nevada before being accepted into the Aviation Cadet
program. It was an extremely proud day for all of us and our families
when he received his commission as a Second Lieutenant in 1959. After
completing navigator training he was an Electronic Warfare Officer
flying B-52 missions during the Cuban Missile Crisis from a remote base
in northern Michigan. In 1963 he was selected to go to pilot training.
After receiving his wings he was assigned as an instructor pilot. In
1965 his health problems started and were diagnosed after 7 months of
testing at Wilford Hall Hospital with a rare bone marrow disease,
paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, thought to be from exposure to the
chemical benzene during the time he was stationed at Nellis A.F.B.
There was no other apparent reason as he was a pilot at the onset of
his illness. When I tried to check on this, I was told there had been a
fire in St. Louis and his records were lost. My husband survived for a
period of 5 years with intensive medical care provided by me as his
sole caregiver at home. I am proud to say he never saw the inside of a
nursing home! I cannot imagine how much his care would have cost the
government had I not volunteered to care for him. After his death, I
learned there was an additional special DIC allowance of $228 per
month. However, I did not qualify for this additional allowance because
of the requirement that he have lived 8 years at 100% disability after
medical retirement. Because of his illness he was prevented from
working. It was also impossible for me to work outside the home as he
required too much care. During the years since his death, I have met
many widows of the disabled retiree who qualify for this additional
allowance even though their husband did not require this same care and
they did not physically provide the similar intensive care for their
100% disabled husband.
When he passed away I wanted him to have the same quality funeral
that he would have been given had he still been active duty. I received
only a very small allowance, so I paid out of our own funds for the
casket and services of the funeral home. He was provided a gravesite at
Ft. Sam Houston National Cemetery where he now rests. I became a widow
alone with the lifelong responsibility of an 8-year-old and 4-year-old
when I was 29 years old. Not only had I lost my husband, my children
had lost their father, and their children will never know their
grandfather.
In 1996, I made a choice to remarry, giving up my DIC benefits. I
had developed some severe health problems and I really needed the
comfort, help, peace of mind and dignity that only a committed
relationship could give me. After all the years of saving the
government money with the care I gave my deceased husband, I missed
getting my DIC benefits reinstated by just 11 months because of the
compromise age of 57 in H.R. 2297 back in 2003.
I am very grateful for the years I was married to such a proud
American. This man even wrote a letter to President Nixon from his
death bed just 6 weeks before passing. In this letter he tells of his
deep desire to serve his country. As I sat at his beside that last day,
I could only repay him with my love, respect, and comfort.
I respectfully request that you consider H.R. 704 in the interest
of equity for all military widows who are age 55 with retention of
eligibility with remarriage. Passage of H.R. 704 is the right thing to
do!
NEWSPAPER ARTICLE SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
Mistreated Casualties
The Washington Post
Tuesday, June 19, 2007; Editorial Section, A16
Veterans with psychological wounds are getting shabby treatment
from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
JEANS CRUZ, a former Army scout who helped capture Saddam Hussein,
lives in a bullet-riddled Bronx housing project, addled by nightmares
about Iraq, voices in his head and the smell of dried blood in his
nostrils. As Post reporters Dana Priest and Anne Hull recently
described his situation, Mr. Cruz began cutting his arms and
extinguishing cigarettes on his skin after returning home from Iraq.
Mental health counselors characterized him as depressed and anxious,
and, shortly after he reenlisted in the Army, he was discharged because
of a ``personality disorder.'' A Department of Veterans Affairs
psychologist diagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder.
But when Mr. Cruz applied for disability benefits, Veterans Affairs
refused, claiming, among other things, that he had not proved that he
had seen combat in Iraq--this despite his slew of combat awards and
high-profile recognition. Now Mr. Cruz is barely supporting his family
on a small income, and he is worried that he will lash out at those he
loves.
There are far too many survivors who, like Jeans Cruz, have been
mistreated upon their return. The intensity of the conflict in Iraq and
Afghanistan can leave deep emotional scars. Many soldiers are returning
home with mental wounds caused by traumatic head injuries or with post-
traumatic stress disorder. The Department of Veterans Affairs must care
for a large quotient of veterans with disabilities that were uncommon
or little understood decades ago.
But the military medical establishment has not prepared itself to
recognize, treat or compensate for these and even more traditional
ailments. The bureaucratic morass into which Mr. Cruz fell is only part
of the problem. According to the authors of a recent Institute of
Medicine report, the department's method of adjudicating disability
claims and even its terminology are outdated. The report blasted the
schedule for rating disabilities, a set of criteria for assigning
disability benefits: Veterans Affairs has no recent evidence that the
scores veterans get adequately relate to the earnings veterans lose
because of their disabilities, for example. Nor does the schedule
reflect contemporary notions of disability.
The Institute of Medicine stresses, for example, that Veterans
Affairs should consider more than just how much veterans lose in future
earnings. The schedule should be retooled to ``compensate for nonwork
disability and loss of quality of life.'' And, the report argues, the
department should hire additional staff members to regularly update the
rating schedule according to current medical practices. Either proposal
would help the next Jeans Cruz.
The first thing Veterans Affairs needs to do is simplify the
adjudication process, with a particular emphasis on easing the burden
on those with debilitating mental wounds. Next, the department should
attempt to answer some essential questions. How can it better diagnose
post-traumatic stress disorder? How can the agency measure ``quality of
life''? Do its guidelines account for disabilities that limit veterans'
physical and social functioning outside of work? All of these, and the
question of cost, should be promptly examined. Then Congress and the
Bush Administration must act to fund and implement the major changes
the Department of Veterans Affairs needs.
POST-HEARING QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES FOR THE RECORD, AND ADMINISTRATION
VIEWS
Questions from Hon. John J. Hall, Chairman, Subcommittee on Disability
Assistance and Memorial Affairs, to Jack McCoy, Associate Deputy
Under Secretary for Policy and Program Management, Veterans Benefits
Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, dated June 19,
2007
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 585, H.R. 156, and H.R. 704
Question 1: To clarify for everyone, would you briefly walk the
Subcommittee through the process for a soldier suffering a traumatic
injury seeking to utilize the Traumatic Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance (TSGLI) benefits?
Question 1(a): How does the average claim present itself to the VA?
Response: TSGLI claims are submitted to and processed by individual
branches of service (BOS). The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will
generally not see claims unless a BOS TSGLI office requests policy
guidance on an unclear or unusual case.
To begin the process, the injured servicemember or guardian needs
to complete Part A of the TSGLI claims form with his or her identifying
information. An attending medical professional must then complete Part
B of the form to describe the nature and extent of the servicemember's
injuries. The member's BOS TSGLI office approves or denies the claim
and determines the amount payable. The BOS TSGLI office then submits
the claim to the Office of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance
(OSGLI), the administrative office established by Prudential Insurance
Company of America, which issues the Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance (SGLI) policy. OSGLI pays the claim or releases the denial
letter based on the branch's decision.
Question 1(b): What type of medical evidence or documentation does
the VA require to support a claim and grant TSGLI?
Response: VA does not make the determination whether to approve or
deny the claim. The BOS evaluates the medical evidence submitted in the
application and renders a decision. OSGLI either makes a payment or
releases a denial letter in response to the BOS's decision.
Question 1(c): Why must a servicemember survive 7 days from the day
of the traumatic event to qualify for TSGLI?
Response: TSGLI was generally modeled after commercial accidental
death and dismemberment (AD&D) policies, which are riders to life
insurance policies. Like commercial AD&D riders, TSGLI is not intended
to be an additional life insurance payment. In the commercial model, if
an individual is paid an AD&D award and dies shortly thereafter, the
amount of the AD&D payment is deducted from the life insurance
proceeds.
We did not read the intent of TSGLI to include reducing a death
benefit to a beneficiary; nor did we see the intent to provide an
additional benefit if a servicemember's death was caused by a traumatic
event. Therefore, a timeframe between the traumatic event and the date
of death had to be established.
The 7-day period was based on a review of data gathered by the
Department of Defense (DoD) concerning traumatic injuries incurred in
Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, which showed 7 days to
be a representative time to stabilize the injured member and transport
the member back to the United States following a traumatic injury.
During this period, the service department pays most if not all
major expenses that are incurred by an injured member. Once the
member's condition is stabilized, TSGLI benefits are available to help
pay for expenses incurred after the initial 7-day period. If the
insured member dies within 7 days after a traumatic injury, although no
TSGLI benefit is payable, the basic SGLI death benefit will be paid to
the beneficiary designated by the member or to other eligible
beneficiaries.
Question 1(d): Please explain what TSGLI does not cover.
Response: TSGLI is modeled after commercial AD&D policies and, like
those policies, does not cover illnesses or minor injuries. The law
limits coverage to traumatic injuries and prescribes certain qualifying
losses.
Additionally, TSGLI does not cover injuries caused by any of the
following:
Attempted suicide.
Intentionally self-inflicted injury or an attempt to
inflict such injury.
Medical or surgical treatment of an illness or disease.
Willful use of an illegal or controlled substance, unless
administered on the advice of a medical doctor.
Injury sustained while in the act of committing a felony.
Mental disorder or a physical or mental illness or
disease, unless under very specific circumstances.
Question 2: Please explain the coordination between the Department
of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs to administer the
TSGLI program?
Response: VA has worked to ensure that TSGLI guidelines are
communicated clearly and that DoD personnel responsible for
implementing the program are properly trained and informed. VA has
developed channels of communication with the BOS TSGLI points of
contact through measures such as the following:
TSGLI Procedures Guide--The VA provides a detailed procedural guide
encompassing the entire TSGLI program.
Regular Conference Calls and Ongoing Guidance--VA insurance service
and BOS TSGLI points of contact meet regularly via conference call to
discuss TSGLI issues and provide ongoing guidance to BOS points of
contact on questions concerning certifying complex individual cases.
Training and Briefings--VA provided formal training and/or briefings
to the BOS TSGLI points of contact and medical personnel at various
military medical.
Question 3: To date, the TSGLI program has paid over 3,266 cases
totaling over $206 million with an average claim payment amount of
$63,158. Is this an expense to DoD? If not, how does the VA pay for
these claims, through mandatory or discretionary funds?
Response: All TSGLI costs are paid either by servicemember premiums
or by DoD. No VA funds are used in connection with the TSGLI program.
The required funding for the TSGLI program is comprised of three parts:
Retroactive Costs--The retroactive provision of the TSGLI
legislation provides that any servicemember who beginning on October 7,
2001, and ending at the close of November 30, 2005, sustains a
traumatic injury resulting in a qualifying loss is eligible for TSGLI
if the loss was a direct result of a traumatic injury incurred in the
theater of operations for Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi
Freedom. Each BOS pays for the cost of retroactive claims attributable
to that BOS. The great majority of retroactive claims (under current
law) have been paid.
Non-hostile Costs--A premium of $1 per month is charged to each
servicemember insured under SGLI in order to provide TSGLI coverage.
This premium is based upon the projected rate at which civilians suffer
traumatic injury similar to the injuries in the TSGLI schedule.
Extra Hazards Costs--The law provides that the branches of service
will pay any excess claims costs above the premiums collected. The
branches have paid extra hazard funds to VA in fiscal years 2006 and
2007. During periods where there are no large-scale hostilities it is
expected that DoD funds would not be needed.
Question 4: The VA Insurance Division informed the Committee that
45% of TSGLI claims submitted are disapproved. Would you explain why
the disapproval rate is so high? Can you explain how this disapproval
rate compares to similar programs in private industry?
Response: Although accurate, that statistic masks a major program
enhancement. The TSGLI legislation provided for payment for specified
losses such as amputations, loss of vision, hearing or speech,
paralysis, and so forth.
VA recognized that there were other traumatic injuries that members
incur, such as a serious injury to the torso, that would cause members
to undergo significant recovery and rehabilitation times and cause
financial hardships. To ensure that these severely injured members
would be covered by TSGLI, VA uses its regulatory authority to create
an additional category based on the inability to carry out activities
of daily living (ADLs) due to a loss directly resulting from a
traumatic injury other than an injury to the brain. The term
``inability to carry out activities of daily living'' means the
inability to independently perform at least two of the six following
functions: bathing; continence; dressing; eating; toileting; and
transferring in or out of a bed or chair with or without equipment. The
amount of TSGLI payable under the schedule depends upon the duration of
the member's inability to carry out ADLs.
This new category of loss has allowed payment of more than $112
million in additional benefits to 2,027 servicemembers. These payments
account for just over 50 percent of all TSGLI payments.
ADL loss is a standard used by the commercial industry for their
disability and long-term care policies.
About 80 percent of all disapprovals are for claims asserting an
inability to perform ADLs. There are two reasons for this statistic.
First, an assessment of whether a servicemember is unable to perform
the six functions is necessarily subjective rather than objective, as
in the case of an amputation. Second, the BOS are finding that the
medical evidence does not support the claimed loss.
Although generally modeled after commercial AD&D insurance, TSGLI
is significantly more expansive in its coverage to take into account
the unique circumstances associated with military service. Because of
this and other factors unique to commercial policies, we could not
determine an ``average'' AD&D policy with which to compare TSGLI
coverage. We are, however, investigating the manner in which commercial
insurance companies assess an insured's entitlement to proceeds based
upon inability to perform ADLs.
Question 5: As the VA works to improve TSGLI processing times and
have undertaken a ``Year One Review'' what have you learned that will
help improve TSGLI processing time to speed payments to these
servicemembers and their families?
Response: The year one review indicates that the practice of case
management improves the timeliness of processing before claims reach
the claims examiners in the branch of service, and the BOS have
therefore implemented this practice. The review also indicates that
some TSGLI claims cannot be paid until a member's eligibility for
combat injury pay is resolved.
The review also indicates that the need for additional medical
documentation delays adjudication of TSGLI claims.
Question 6: With regard to H.R. 156, can VA provide the population
figure(s) for this bill?
Response: Data show that approximately 12 percent of prisoners of
war (POWs) were rated 100 percent disabled and in receipt of
compensation in May 1999. We assume that 75 percent of POWs were
married. With this information, we estimate there were 3,560 surviving
spouses who would have been newly eligible in 1999 for Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation due to this proposal. Life expectancy was
applied to this population to estimate the current number of eligible
surviving spouses in 2008 and beyond.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY Caseload
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 1,535
2009 1,403
2010 1,270
2011 1,137
2012 1,008
2013 882
2014 761
2015 648
2016 543
2017 447
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 7: With regard to H.R. 704, can VA provide the population
figure(s) for this bill?
Response: In developing population and cost estimates for H.R. 704,
VA assumed that the intent of Congress was to state age 55 rather than
age 57 in section 1(d) of the bill. Based on that assumption, there are
two groups of spouses who would be affected by this proposal: spouses
in receipt of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) who would
lose benefits if they remarry in the future prior to turning 55 years
old, and spouses who have lost benefits in the past due to remarriage
prior to turning 57 years old. Based on available data and assumptions
about potential claimants, VA estimates that 2,349 spouses will apply
and be granted DIC benefits in 2008. This change would cost
approximately $23 million in the first year and $723.2 million over 10
years.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Future
FY Reopened Cases Cases
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 2,349 506
2009 2,323 1,027
2010 2,294 1,550
2011 2,263 2,080
2012 2,229 2,613
2013 2,192 3,149
2014 2,153 3,686
2015 2,110 4,233
2016 2,065 4,781
2017 2,015 5,329
------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, if Congress intended section 1(d) to be written as it is
currently, the table above would only include the ``future cases''
column. The first year cost would be approximately $6.9 million and the
cost over 10 years would be $423.0 million.
Letter from Hon. Gordon H. Mansfield, Acting Secretary, U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs, to Hon. Bob Filner, Chairman, Committee on
Veterans'
Affairs, dated October 26, 2007, Transmitting Administration's Views
and
Estimates for H.R. 704, H.R. 2259, and H.R. 1824
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Washington, DC
October 26, 2007
The Honorable Bob Filner, Chairman
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am pleased to provide the views of the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) on the following three bills: H.R. 704, H.R. 2259, and
H.R. 1824, 110th Congress. These bills were on the schedules of the
Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs and Economic Opportunity
Subcommittees' hearings of June 19 and June 21, respectively. At the
hearing, the Department stated that we were not able to comment on all
of the bills on the agenda because we did not have enough time to
coordinate the Administration's views and estimate costs. We can now do
so for the introduced version of these bills.
H.R. 704
Section 1(a) of H.R. 704 would reduce from 57 to 55 the age after
which a surviving spouse may remarry without losing eligibility for
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC), educational assistance and
housing loans. Section 1(b) would specify that this amendment will take
effect on the later of the first day of the first month that begins
after the date of enactment of this bill or the first day of the fiscal
year that begins in the calendar year of enactment of the amendment.
Section 1(c) would prohibit the payment of any benefit based on the
amendment for any period before the effective date of the amendment.
Section 1(d) would permit an individual who remarried before the bill's
enactment and after age 57 to apply for reinstatement of benefits
before the end of the 1-year period beginning on the date of enactment.
Under current law, a surviving spouse who remarries is not eligible
for DIC benefits, medical care, educational assistance, or housing
loans based on a prior marriage to a deceased veteran, unless the
surviving spouse remarries after age 57 (after age 55 in the case of
medical care).
Because the mandatory costs of the bill are not included in the
President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 Budget, we cannot support enactment.
VA estimates that enactment of H.R. 704 would result in a benefit cost
of $23 million in FY 2008 and $723.2 million over the 10-year period
from FY 2008 through FY 2017.
H.R. 2259
H.R. 2259 would require the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs to jointly submit to Congress a plan to maximize
access to the benefits delivery at discharge (BDD) program for members
of the Armed Forces reserve components who have been called or ordered
to active duty since September 11, 2001. The bill would require a
description of the efforts that would be taken to ensure that services
under this program are provided at specified locations, including
locations where servicemembers are separated or discharged from the
Armed Forces.
VA believes that this bill is not necessary for a number of
reasons. First, VA is already committed to working with DoD to produce
a plan to improve transition assistance for personnel in the National
Guard and Reserves.
Also, it is not feasible to offer the BDD program to most National
Guard and Reserve members. The BDD program is a joint VA and DoD
program that provides information, benefits and services to
servicemembers who are within 60 to 180 days of separation from service
and who wish to file a claim for VA benefits. At least 60 days of
remaining active-duty time is needed to process a servicemember for
effective BDD. Major requirements of the program, such as the physical
examination necessary to determine entitlement to VA pension or
compensation, present significant logistical difficulties if sufficient
time is not available. Although the BDD program is available to all
servicemembers on active duty, including National Guard or Reserve
members, as well as servicemembers undergoing medical evaluation board
or physical evaluation board proceedings, most mobilized National Guard
and Reserve members are released from active duty shortly after they
return from deployment. Because such members are eager to return to
their families and civilian lives, they are quickly processed through
demobilization sites, released from active duty, and returned to their
respective Reserve or National Guard command. Thus, there is not
sufficient time to accomplish BDD processing before they are released
from active duty.
In addition, all benefits claims from servicemembers who have
participated in the Global War on Terrorism, to include Operation
Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, receive priority
handling. This includes servicemembers from the Guard and Reserve.
These cases are permanently tagged to reflect priority status and are
processed expeditiously. However, veterans who require case management,
such as those who have sustained a serious injury or illness or have
lost a body part, do not participate in the BDD program.
There are no costs associated with this bill because National Guard
and Reserve members are already provided services at demobilization.
H.R. 1824
Section 1 of H.R. 1824 would amend Title 38, United States Code, to
expand the scope of programs of education for which accelerated
payments of Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) educational assistance may be
used, to include programs that lead to employment as an operator of a
commercial motor vehicle (as defined in section 31301 of Title 49,
United States Code).
Under current section 3014A of Title 38, an MGIB-Active Duty
participant pursuing high-cost courses leading to employment in a high
technology occupation in a high technology industry has the option of
receiving an accelerated benefit payment. This optional lump-sum
accelerated benefit payment covers up to 60 percent of tuition and
fees. Enactment of H.R. 1824 would lead to a slight increase in the
number of trainees enrolled in courses within the Heavy Equipment
Operation industry, which includes commercial driver training.
Section 2 of the bill would amend section 3015 of Title 38 by
adding a new subsection (h), to provide specifically that benefit
payments received by an individual under the MGIB-Active Duty program
shall not be considered as income for purposes of determining
eligibility of that individual for education grants or loans under any
other provision of Federal law.
The purpose of the existing accelerated payment authority is to
facilitate training and promote employment in high technology
occupations in high technology industry based on a demonstrated
national need for a highly trained and highly skilled workforce in that
sector of the economy. This bill would constitute a departure from that
purpose. We are not aware, however, that a similar need exists for
providing accelerated payment for the proposed commercial driver
training or that a basis exists to do so to the exclusion of other non-
high technology, high-cost programs. Absent such a demonstrated need,
as well as identification of cost savings to offset the cost of the
proposed accelerated payment provision expansion, we cannot support
H.R. 1824. Further, we note that this bill's provision excluding
benefits payable under the MGIB from consideration as income for
purposes of determining eligibility for education grants or loans is
unnecessary since these benefits are not currently counted as income
for such purposes.
We estimate that enactment of the H.R. 1824 provisions expanding
accelerated payment entitlement would result in a benefit cost increase
of $578,000 in the first year and approximately $6.1 million over 10
years.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no
objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint of the
Administration's program.
Sincerely yours,
Gordon H. Mansfield
Acting Secretary