[DOCID: f:sr148.110]
From the Senate Reports Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
Calendar No. 336
110th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 110-148
======================================================================
VETERANS BENEFITS ENHANCEMENT ACT OF 2007
_______
August 29, 2007.--Ordered to be printed
Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of August 3, 2007
_______
Mr. Akaka, from the Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS
[To accompany S. 1315]
The Committee on Veterans' Affairs (hereinafter, ``the
Committee''), to which was referred the bill (S. 1315), to
amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance life insurance
benefits for disabled veterans, and for other purposes, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, and recommends that
the bill, as amended, do pass.
Introduction
On May 7, 2007, Committee Chairman Daniel K. Akaka
introduced S. 1315, the proposed ``Disabled Veterans Insurance
Improvement Act of 2007.'' S. 1315 would amend title 38, United
States Code, to enhance life insurance benefits for disabled
veterans, and for other purposes. The bill was referred to the
Committee.
Earlier on January 4, 2007, Senator Inouye introduced S.
57, the proposed ``Filipino Veterans Equity Act of 2007.''
Later, Chairman Akaka and Senators Boxer, Brown, Cardin,
Cantwell, Clinton, Feinstein, Lautenberg, Menendez, Mikulski,
Murray, Obama, Reid, Schumer, and Stevens were added as
cosponsors. S. 57 would deem certain service performed before
July 1, 1946, in the organized military forces of the
Philippines and Philippine Scouts as active military service
for purposes of eligibility for veterans benefits through the
Department of Veterans Affairs. This bill would also repeal
certain provisions discounting such service as qualifying
service.
On January 9, 2007, Ranking Republican Member Craig
introduced S. 225, with Chairman Akaka. Later, Senator Brown
was added as a cosponsor. S. 225 would expand the number of
individuals qualifying for retroactive benefits from traumatic
injury protection coverage under Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance.
On February 15, 2007, Chairman Akaka introduced S. 643, the
proposed ``Disabled Veterans Insurance Act of 2007.'' S. 643
would increase from $20,000 to $40,000 the maximum amount of
supplemental service disabled veterans' insurance for totally
disabled
veterans.
On March 13, 2007, Senator Murray introduced S. 847. Later,
Senators Brown and Sanders were added as cosponsors. S. 847
would extend the period of time during which a veteran's
multiple sclerosis is to be considered to have been incurred
in, or aggravated by, military service during a period of war.
On March 13, 2007, Senator Murray introduced S. 848, the
proposed ``Prisoner of War Benefits Act of 2007.'' Later,
Senators Brown and Sanders were added as cosponsors. S. 848
would add diabetes and osteoporosis to the list of diseases
presumed to be service-connected for former prisoners of war.
On April 11, 2007, the Committee held a hearing on S. 57.
Testimony was offered by: The Honorable H.E. Willy C. Gaa,
Philippine Ambassador to the United States; Mr. Ronald R.
Aument, Deputy Under Secretary for Benefits, U.S. Department of
Veterans Affairs; Ms. Luisa Maria Antonio, Executive Director,
Veterans Equity Center; Mr. Sidath Viranga Panangala, Analyst
in Social Legislation, Congressional Research Service; Ms.
Jenah Yangwas, granddaughter of a Filipino World War II veteran
and member of Student Action for Veterans Equity; Mr. Manuel
Braga, Commander, Filipino WW II Veterans Federation of San
Diego County; Mr. Artemio Caleda, President, WW II Filipino
American Veterans and Ladies Auxiliary of Hawaii; Mr. Patrick
Ganio, Sr., President, American Coalition for Filipino
Veterans, Inc., whose testimony was presented by Mr. Avelino
Asuncion; and Mr. Benito Valdez, Filipino Community of Seattle.
Mr. Edwin Ramsey, who fought alongside Filipino veterans during
World War II, testified via
videotape.
On April 12, 2007, Senator Cornyn introduced S. 1096, the
proposed ``Veterans' Housing Benefits Enhancement Act of
2007,'' with Chairman Akaka, Ranking Republican Member Craig,
and Senator Hutchison as cosponsors. Later, Senators Bunning
and Martinez were added as cosponsors. S. 1096 would provide
certain housing benefits to disabled members of the Armed
Forces and expand certain benefits for disabled veterans with
severe burns.
On April 25, 2007, Chairman Akaka introduced S. 1215.
Later, Senator Sanders was added as a cosponsor. S. 1215 would
raise the cap on funds for State approving agencies, extend
authority for a pilot program for on-the-job claims adjudicator
training, update various reporting requirements, and provide
for other purposes.
On May 2, 2007, Ranking Republican Member Craig introduced
S. 1265. S. 1265 would expand eligibility for veterans'
mortgage life insurance to include members of the Armed Forces
receiving specially adapted housing assistance from the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
On May 3, 2007, Ranking Republican Member Craig introduced
S. 128, the proposed ``Veterans' Justice Assurance Act of
2007.''
S. 1289 would modify the salary and terms of judges of the
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims and modify
authorities for the recall of retired judges of such court.
On May 3, 2007, Ranking Republican Member Craig introduced
S. 1290. S. 1290 would provide additional discretion to the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs in contracting with State
approving agencies.
On May 3, 2007, Ranking Republican Member Craig introduced
S. 1293, the proposed ``Veterans' Education and Vocational
Benefits Improvement Act of 2007.'' S. 1293 would improve
educational assistance for members and former members of the
Armed Forces.
On May 7, 2007, Senator Feingold introduced S. 1313, the
proposed ``Servicemembers' Cellular Phone Contract Fairness Act
of 2007.'' Later, Senator Isakson was added as a cosponsor. S.
1313 would provide relief for servicemembers with respect to
contracts for cellular phone service.
On May 7, 2007, Senator Feingold introduced S. 1314, the
proposed ``Veterans Outreach Improvement Act of 2007,'' with
Senator Burr as a cosponsor. S. 1314 would enhance the outreach
activities of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
On May 8, 2007, Senator Sanders introduced S. 1326, the
proposed ``Comprehensive Veterans Benefits Improvements Act of
2007.'' S. 1326 would improve and enhance compensation and
pension, health care, housing, burial, and other benefits for
veterans.
On May 9, 2007, the Committee held a hearing on benefits
legislation at which testimony on S. 1315, among other bills,
was offered by: the Honorable Daniel L. Cooper, Under Secretary
for Benefits, Department of Veterans Affairs; Ms. Meredith
Beck, National Policy Director, Wounded Warrior Project; Mr.
Carl Blake, National Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans
of America; Mr. Eric A. Hilleman, Deputy Director, National
Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United
States; Mr. Kimo S. Hollingsworth, National Legislative
Director, AMVETS; Mr. Brian E. Lawrence, Assistant National
Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans; Col. Robert
F. Norton (Ret.), Deputy Director, Government Relations,
Military Officers Association of America; and Mr. Alec S.
Petkoff, Assistant Director, Veterans Affairs and
Rehabilitation Commission, The American Legion.
On May 17, 2007, Chairman Akaka introduced S. 1421. S. 1421
would maintain, manage and keep available assets of the Air
Force Health Study, Ranch Hand.
Committee Meeting
After carefully reviewing the testimony from the foregoing
hearings, the Committee met in open session on June 27, 2007,
to consider, among other legislation, an amended version of S.
1315, consisting of provisions from S. 1315 as introduced and
from the other legislation noted above. The Committee voted
unanimously to report favorably S. 1315 to the Senate.
Summary of S. 1315 as Reported
S. 1315, as reported (hereinafter, ``the Committee bill''),
consists of eight titles, summarized below.
TITLE I--INSURANCE MATTERS
Section 101 would provide level-premium term life insurance
for veterans with service-connected disabilities.
Section 102 would provide for the administrative costs of
service disabled veterans' insurance.
Section 103 would modify Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance coverage.
Section 104 would provide additional supplemental insurance
for totally disabled veterans.
Section 105 would expand the number individuals qualifying
for retroactive benefits from traumatic injury protection
coverage under Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance.
Section 106 would direct the Secretary to consider the loss
of a dominant hand in prescription of schedule of severity of
traumatic injury protection under Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance.
Section 107 would allow servicemembers to designate a
fiduciary for traumatic injury protection coverage under
Traumatic Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance in case of lost
mental capacity or extended loss of consciousness.
Section 108 would enhance Veterans' Mortgage Life
Insurance.
TITLE II--HOUSING MATTERS
Section 201 would provide eligibility for VA-provided home
improvement and structural alteration payments to totally
disabled members of the Armed Forces before discharge or
release from the Armed Forces.
Section 202 would provide eligibility for certain specially
adapted housing benefits to members of the Armed Forces with
service-
connected disabilities and individuals residing outside the
United States.
Section 203 would provide eligibility for specially adapted
housing assistance to individuals with severe burn injuries.
Section 204 would extend until December 31, 2011, authority
to assist severely disabled servicemembers temporarily residing
in housing owned by a family member with housing adaptation
grants.
Section 205 would provide supplemental specially adapted
housing benefits for disabled veterans.
Section 206 would require a report on the adequacy of
existing specially adapted housing grant and assistance
authorities for disabled individuals.
Section 207 would require a report on the need for
specially adapted housing assistance for individuals who reside
on a permanent basis in housing owned by a family member.
TITLE III--LABOR AND EDUCATION MATTERS
Section 301 would require the Department of Veterans
Affairs to coordinate with the Departments of Labor and
Education to reduce overlap and duplication with respect to
approvals of programs of education and to report to Congress on
establishing outcome-
oriented performance measures for State approving agencies.
Section 302 would restore the funding cap for State
approving agencies to $19 million.
Section 303 would permit waiver of a residency requirement
for State Directors of Veterans' Employment and Training.
Section 304 would update a special unemployment study to
include veterans of the Post-9/11 Global Operations period and
require an annual report.
Section 305 would temporarily extend an increase in
benefits for individuals pursuing apprenticeship or on-job
training programs.
TITLE IV--FILIPINO WORLD WAR II VETERANS MATTERS
Section 401 would deem certain service before July 1, 1946,
in the organized military forces of the Philippines and the
Philippine Scouts as active military service for purposes of
eligibility for veterans benefits.
Section 402 would provide that the children of deceased or
totally-disabled service-connected Filipino veterans who
qualify for educational benefits would be paid at the same rate
and under the same conditions as the children of other
veterans.
TITLE V--COURT MATTERS
Section 501 would modify the rules governing service and
payment of retired judges performing recall service for the
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
Section 502 would grant the United States Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims additional discretion in the imposition of
practice and registration fees.
Section 503 would require the United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims to submit annual reports to
Congress on its
workload.
Section 504 would require the General Services
Administration to study and report on the feasibility of
expanding the facilities of the United States Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND PENSION MATTERS
Section 601 would add osteoporosis to the disabilities
presumed to be service-connected in former prisoners of war
with post-
traumatic stress disorder.
Section 602 would provide an annual cost-of-living increase
for additional dependency and indemnity compensation paid to
certain surviving spouses with dependent children under the age
of 18.
Section 603 would restore parity between elderly and
disabled low-income pensioners with respect to receipt of
special monthly compensation.
TITLE VII--BURIAL AND MEMORIAL MATTERS
Section 701 would authorize supplemental benefits for
veterans for funeral and burial expenses.
Section 702 would authorize supplemental plot allowances.
TITLE VIII--OTHER MATTERS
Section 801 would provide automobile and adaptive equipment
assistance to disabled veterans and servicemembers with severe
burn injuries.
Section 802 would provide supplemental assistance for
providing automobiles and other conveyances to certain disabled
veterans.
Section 803 would designate the National Guard and Reserve
as integral targets of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs'
outreach program and would establish a definition of the term
``outreach''.
Section 804 would terminate or suspend, upon request, the
cellular telephone contracts of servicemembers undergoing
deployment outside the United States.
Section 805 would authorize funding for the Medical Follow-
Up Agency for the maintenance and management of the Air Force
Health Study specimens.
Section 806 would require a National Academies study on the
risk of developing multiple sclerosis as a result of certain
service in the Persian Gulf War and Post-9/11 Global Operations
theaters.
Section 807 would require a Comptroller General report on
the adequacy of dependency and indemnity compensation to
maintain survivors of veterans who die from service-connected
disabilities.
Background and Discussion
TITLE I--INSURANCE MATTERS
Sec. 101. Level-premium term life insurance for veterans with service-
connected disabilities.
Section 101 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
1315 as introduced, would establish a new program of insurance
for service-connected disabled veterans that would provide up
to a maximum of $50,000 in level premium term life insurance
coverage.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (hereinafter, ``VA'')
offers a variety of life insurance options for servicemembers,
veterans, and their families. Most notable among these is the
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance (hereinafter, ``SGLI'')
program, which offers low-cost group life insurance for
servicemembers on active duty, ready reservists, members of the
National Guard, members of the Commissioned Corps of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Public
Health Service, cadets and midshipmen of the four service
academies, and members of the Reserve Officer Training Corps.
SGLI coverage is available in $50,000 increments up to the
maximum of $400,000. SGLI premiums are currently $.07 per
$1,000 of insurance, regardless of the insured individual's
age.
Veterans' Group Life Insurance (hereinafter, ``VGLI'') is a
post-separation insurance that allows members to convert their
SGLI coverage to renewable term insurance. Members with full-
time SGLI coverage are eligible for VGLI upon release from
service. VGLI is issued in multiples of $10,000 up to a maximum
of $400,000. A member's coverage amount cannot exceed the
amount of SGLI they had in force at the time of separation from
service. VGLI premiums are based upon the separating member's
age. The advantage of exercising a conversion option is that a
servicemember, irrespective of health status, is not
disqualified on the basis of pre-existing condition.
Veterans who have a service-connected disability may be
eligible for life insurance coverage under the Service-Disabled
Veterans Insurance (hereinafter, ``S-DVI'') program. Policies
are issued for a maximum face amount of $10,000. Under certain
conditions, the basic S-DVI policy provides for a waiver of
premiums for policyholders with total disabilities.
Policyholders who carry the basic S-DVI coverage and who become
eligible for a waiver of premiums due to total disability can
apply for and be granted additional Supplemental S-DVI of up to
$20,000. Waiver of premiums due to total disability is not
provided on Supplemental S-DVI coverage. At present, the S-DVI
program bases premium rates on a 1941 mortality table--thus not
offering favorable rates to disabled veterans. However, VA does
provide subsidy payments to keep premiums lower than they
otherwise would be.
Under the new program of insurance proposed by section 101
of the Committee bill, service-disabled veterans would be able
to purchase up to $50,000 worth of level-premium term life
insurance coverage, in $10,000 increments. The premium rates
for the new insurance program would be based on the 2001
Commissioners Standard Ordinary Basic Table of Mortality rather
than the 1941 mortality table, thus offering veterans a more
favorable insurance premium rate. This new program would be
available to service-
connected disabled veterans who are less than 65 years of age
at the time of application. When an insured veteran reaches age
70, two things would occur under this new program of insurance.
First, the amount of insurance would be reduced to 20 percent
of the amount of insurance in force prior to the veteran's 70th
birthday. Second, the veteran would cease making premium
payments. This means that during those years when the family's
financial obligations would be commensurately higher because of
children, mortgages, and the potential impact of any loss of
income, the veteran would be able to purchase up to $50,000 of
term life insurance. At age 70, when resources are likely to be
more restricted and the need for substantial insurance to take
care of a family's needs after the veteran's death have
lessened, the veteran would no longer have an obligation to
continue to pay any insurance premiums and would have reduced
coverage. Finally, the proposed program would waive all
premiums for veterans with service-connected disabilities rated
as total.
Under the proposed new program, an eligible veteran would
have to submit an application for this insurance within two
years from the date on which VA establishes that a service-
connected disability exists, but not later than ten years after
a veteran's release from active duty. It would also provide
that during the first year of the program, any eligible veteran
who is presently insured under the S-DVI program could convert
that insurance coverage to a policy under this new program.
Sec. 102. Administrative costs of service disabled veterans'
insurance.
Section 102 of the Committee bill, which is derived from
S. 1315 as introduced, would allow administrative costs for the
S-DVI program to be paid for by premiums, as is done with all
other National Service Life Insurance sub-funds. This would
allow administrative costs to be provided from Veterans
Insurance and Indemnities and not General Operating Expenses in
Function 700 of the Budget of the United States Government.
Sec. 103. Modification of servicemembers' group life insurance.
Section 103(a) of the Committee bill, which is derived from
S. 1315 as introduced, would amend section 1967(a)(1) of title
38, United States Code, with regard to Family Servicemembers'
Group Life Insurance (hereinafter, ``FSGLI'') to extend
coverage to members of the Individual Ready Reserve
(hereinafter, ``IRR''). FSGLI is a life insurance program
extended to the spouses and dependent children of
servicemembers insured under the SGLI program. FSGLI provides
up to a maximum of $100,000 of insurance coverage for spouses,
not to exceed the amount of SGLI the insured member has in
force, and $10,000 for dependent children. Spousal coverage is
issued in increments of $10,000.
Public Law 107-14 provided FSGLI to all servicemembers on
active duty and to members of the IRR who are eligible for
full-time SGLI coverage. However, the legislation did not
extend this coverage to a small group of reservists who are
also eligible for full-time SGLI coverage, that is reservists
who volunteer for assignment to a mobilization category in the
IRR, as defined in section 1965(5)(C) of title 38, United
States Code.
Section 103(b) of the Committee bill would amend section
1968(a)(5)(B)(ii) of title 38, United States Code, which
provides that SGLI policies, with respect to an insurable
dependent of a servicemember, will cease on the earliest of:
(1) 120 days after the servicemember's death; (2) 120 days
after the date of termination of insurance on the
servicemember's life; or (3) 120 days after termination of the
dependent's status as an insurable dependent.
The second criterion in the current law effectively gives
many insurable dependents 240 days of coverage after the
servicemember separates from service because a servicemember's
SGLI coverage extends for 120 days after separation. Section
103(b) of the Committee bill would change the second criterion
to refer to the date of the servicemember's separation or
release from service, rather than the date of termination of
insurance on the servicemember's life.
Sec. 104. Supplemental insurance for totally disabled veterans.
Section 104 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
643, would increase the amount of supplemental life insurance
available to totally disabled veterans under the Service-
Disabled Veterans' Insurance (hereinafter, ``S-DVI'') program
from $20,000 to $30,000. Many totally disabled veterans find it
difficult to obtain commercial life insurance. These are the
veterans this program aids by providing them with a reasonable
amount of life insurance coverage.
S-DVI was established during the Korean War to provide life
insurance for veterans with service-connected disabilities. The
$10,000 base benefit has never been increased. In comparison,
the SGLI and VGLI benefits, which were $10,000 and $20,000
respectively at their inception, have been increased over time
to $400,000.
In 1992, in Public Law 102-568, Congress increased the
amount of life insurance available to S-DVI policyholders by
offering $20,000 worth of supplemental coverage to those who
are considered totally disabled. Forty percent of the veterans
enrolled in the S-DVI program are considered totally disabled
and are eligible for a premium waiver for their basic coverage.
According to VA, in fiscal year 2006, 32 percent of veterans
granted new policy waivers also opted to pay for this
supplemental coverage. However, even with $30,000 in coverage,
the amount of life insurance available to disabled veterans
falls well short of the death benefits available to
servicemembers and veterans enrolled in the SGLI and VGLI
programs.
The Congressionally-mandated study completed in 2001,
entitled ``Program Evaluation of Benefits for Survivors of
Veterans with Service-Connected Disabilities,'' found the
lowest area of veteran satisfaction to be the maximum amount of
S-DVI insurance coverage that veterans were authorized to
purchase. Section 104 of the Committee bill would begin to
address this area of need by increasing the amount of life
insurance available to totally disabled veterans by allowing
them to purchase an additional $10,000 in supplemental
insurance coverage.
Sec. 105. Expansion of individuals qualifying for retroactive benefits
from traumatic injury protection coverage under Servicemembers'
Group Life Insurance.
Section 105 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
225, would expand the number of individuals qualifying for
traumatic injury protection coverage under the Servicemembers'
Group Life Insurance program (hereinafter, ``TSGLI'').
Section 1032 of Public Law 109-13, the ``Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on
Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005'' (hereinafter, ``Supplemental
Appropriations Act'') established traumatic injury protection
coverage under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance
program. TSGLI provides coverage against qualifying losses
incurred as a result of a traumatic injury event. In the event
of a loss, VA will pay between $25,000 and $100,000 depending
on the severity of the qualifying loss. A key factor in
analyzing the severity of a particular traumatic injury is the
impact it has on the length of hospitalization and
rehabilitation. Currently, servicemembers and reserve component
members with any amount of SGLI coverage are automatically
covered under TSGLI. A premium (currently $1 monthly) is
collected from covered members to meet peacetime program
expenses; the Department of Defense (hereinafter, ``DOD'') is
required to fund TSGLI program costs associated with the extra
hazards of military service.
TSGLI went into effect on December 1, 2005. Thus, all
insured servicemembers under SGLI from that point forward are
also insured under TSGLI and their injuries are covered
regardless of where they occur. In order to provide assistance
to those servicemembers suffering traumatic injuries on or
between October 7, 2001, and November 30, 2005, retroactive
TSGLI payments were authorized under section 1032(c) of the
Supplemental Appropriations Act to individuals whose qualifying
losses were sustained as ``a direct result of injuries incurred
in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom.''
Under section 501(b) of Public Law 109-233, the Veterans'
Housing Opportunity and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006, this
definition was amended to allow retroactive payments to
individuals whose qualifying losses were sustained as ``a
direct result of a traumatic injury incurred in the theater of
operations for Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi
Freedom.''
Testimony given by Meredith Beck, National Policy Director
at the Wounded Warrior Project, at the Committee's May 9, 2007,
hearing revealed that limiting retroactive TSGLI payments to
those who served in the Operation Iraqi Freedom (hereinafter,
``OIF'') or Operation Enduring Freedom (hereinafter, ``OEF'')
theaters of operations was both inconsistent with other
retroactive payments approved by Congress and, more important,
an obstacle to providing needed assistance to servicemembers
traumatically wounded in the line of duty:
Without corrective action, brave men and women who were
traumatically injured after October 7, 2001, but before
December 1, 2005, will continue to be denied the same
retroactive payment given to their wounded comrades
even though the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance
for which TSGLI is a rider was made retroactive--brave
men and women like Navy Seal Toshiro Carrington who was
injured in a training accident at Camp Pendleton on
December 15, 2004. He was holding a charge in his left
hand when another servicemember accidentally detonated
it. SO1 Carrington was left with a traumatically
severed left hand, a severed right tip of his thumb and
his remaining fingers all fractured. Unfortunately,
Toshiro's severe injuries did not qualify him for a
payment under TSGLI. . . .
Section 105 of the Committee bill would remove the
requirement that limits retroactive TSGLI payments to those who
served in the OIF or OEF theaters of operations. Thus, section
105 of the Committee bill would authorize retroactive TSGLI
payments for qualifying traumatic injuries incurred on or after
October 7, 2001, but before December 1, 2005, irrespective of
where the injuries
occurred.
Sec. 106. Consideration of loss of dominant hand in prescription of
schedule of severity of traumatic injury under Servicemembers'
Group Life Insurance.
Section 106 of the Committee bill would allow VA to
consider the loss of a dominant hand when determining severity
of loss under the TSGLI program. TSGLI provides coverage
against qualifying losses incurred as a result of a traumatic
injury event. In the event of a qualifying loss, VA will pay
between $25,000 and $100,000 depending on the severity of the
qualifying loss. In prescribing payments, VA does not account
for the effect, if any, that the loss of a dominant hand has on
lengthening hospitalization or rehabilitation periods. TSGLI
provides payment for injuries dating back to October 7, 2001.
Since that time, there have been 97 single hand amputations.
This includes amputations that are a part of the entire arm as
well as just the hand. There have also been 12 thumb and index
finger of the same hand amputations. These receive the
equivalent payment under the TSGLI program as amputations of
the entire arm or hand. The Committee seeks to compensate
members appropriately for the greater loss, if any, of a
dominant hand by giving VA the authority to distinguish in
specifying payments for qualifying losses of a dominant hand
and a qualifying loss of a non-dominant hand.
Sec. 107. Designation of fiduciary for members with lost mental
capacity or extended loss of consciousness for Traumatic
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance.
Section 107 of the Committee bill would require the
development of a form for the designation of a recipient for
the purpose of managing TSGLI funds in case of lost mental
capacity or extended loss of consciousness. This form would be
required to be completed by servicemembers who would be
required either to elect an individual as a fiduciary or to
have a court of jurisdiction determine the
recipient.
Section 1032 of Public Law 109-13, the Supplemental
Appropriations Act, amended title 38, United States Code, to
add a new section 1980A that provides traumatic injury
protection coverage under the Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance program. TSGLI provides coverage against qualifying
losses incurred as a result of a traumatic injury event.
TSGLI is meant to aid servicemembers and their loved ones
while the servicemember is recovering from a traumatic injury.
According to an April 21, 2005, floor statement by Committee
Ranking Republican Member Senator Craig, sponsor of the
provision in Public Law 109-13, TSGLI's purpose is to help
servicemembers and their families cope with the financial
burden of extended
rehabilitation:
It is during this rehabilitation period at military
hospitals that the need for additional financial
resources is most acute. For many Guard and Reserve
members at Walter Reed, they already have foregone
higher paying civilian jobs prior to their deployment.
Lengthy recovery periods simply add to the financial
strain they bear. In addition, family members of
injured soldiers bear the burdens necessary to travel
from great distances to provide the love and emotional
support that is absolutely essential for any successful
rehabilitation. Spouses quit jobs to spend time with
their husbands at the hospital. Parents spare no
expense to be with their injured children.
When a servicemember is mentally incapacitated or
experiencing an extended loss of consciousness, and previously
no provision had been made to designate a Power of Attorney
(hereinafter, ``POA''), TSGLI's intent cannot be met because
the servicemember is unable to file a TSGLI claim.
The branches of service encourage, but do not require,
servicemembers to prepare a will and POA when they first
enlist. Prior to deployment, servicemembers are even more
strongly encouraged to take such steps. The Judge Advocate
General (hereinafter, ``JAG'') Legal Assistance offices assist
with such preparation. The military POA that the JAGs prepare
is valid under federal law.
If there is no prior POA on file and the servicemember is
injured and incapacitated, a JAG officer is usually available
to assist family members who wish to petition a local court of
jurisdiction for a court-appointed guardianship. However, JAG
officers are usually prohibited from appearing in court with a
family member.
Section 107 of the Committee bill would require DOD, in
consultation with VA, to develop a form for the designation of
a fiduciary to administer TSGLI funds distributed under section
1980A of title 38, United States Code, in cases where the
servicemember is mentally incapacitated or experiencing an
extended loss of consciousness. Determinations of mental
incapacity would be determined by Secretary of Defense in
consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. The
Committee expects that having servicemembers make this
designation will prevent their families from having to shoulder
the undue burden of obtaining court-
appointed guardianship over their loved ones in order to access
needed TSGLI funds.
Sec. 108. Enhancement of veterans' mortgage life insurance.
Section 108 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
1315 as introduced, would increase the maximum amount of
Veterans' Mortgage Life Insurance (hereinafter, ``VMLI'') that
a service-
connected disabled veteran may purchase from the current
maximum of $90,000 to $150,000, then from $150,000 to $200,000
on January 1, 2012.
The VMLI program was established in 1971 and is available
to service-connected disabled veterans who have received
specially adapted housing grants from VA. In the event of the
veteran's death, the veteran's family is protected because VA
will pay the balance of the mortgage owed up to the maximum
amount of insurance purchased.
In today's housing market where, according to the Federal
Housing Finance Board, the average mortgage loan in the United
States in June 2007 is $234,200, the current maximum is not
adequate. Section 108 of the Committee bill would ensure that
this important benefit, which helps secure the financial future
of many veterans and their families, keeps pace with changes in
the economy.
TITLE II--HOUSING MATTERS
Sec. 201. Home improvements and structural alterations for totally
disabled members of the Armed Forces before discharge or
release from the Armed Forces.
Section 201 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
1096, would allow VA to provide home improvements and
structural alterations to permanently disabled members of the
Armed Services before discharge or release from the Armed
Forces.
Under current law, VA may furnish financial assistance of
up to $4,100 home improvements and structural alterations to
the homes of certain veterans with service-connected
disabilities as part of the continuing medical services
available under chapter 17 of title 38, United State Code. The
improvements and structural alterations covered include all
those that VA deems appropriate to ensure the effective and
economical continuation of the veteran's treatment once he or
she is discharged from care at a VA facility. Typical examples
are lifts, therapeutic and rehabilitative devices and any
alterations the veteran may need to access the entrance of his
or her home or essential lavatory and sanitary facilities.
Under current law, this benefit is only available to those
discharged from active service.
The Committee recognizes that there are a growing number of
active duty members of the Armed Forces, especially those who
have served in OEF and OIF, who are receiving ongoing treatment
for disabilities directly related to their service. Thus,
despite the fact that they have not been discharged from
service and are not yet legally considered ``veterans,'' these
servicemembers may be in need of the same benefits and
assistance provided to veterans under title 38. The purpose of
this section of the Committee bill is to make critical
readjustment benefits available to servicemembers when they
need them, rather than forcing them to wait until they transfer
to the appropriate status.
Section 201 of the Committee bill would add a new
subsection to section 1717, title 38, United States Code, which
would permit VA to make certain active duty members of the
Armed Forces with disabilities permanent in nature eligible for
home improvements and structural alterations financial
assistance from VA. VA would be required to determine that the
permanent disability was incurred or aggravated by an active
member of the Armed Forces while in the line of duty. In
addition, the servicemember would have to be hospitalized or
receiving medical care, services, or treatment with the
likelihood that he or she will be discharged or released from
the Armed Services for such disability. The amount of
assistance available would be limited to the same amount
currently available to veterans under section 1717.
Sec. 202. Eligibility for specially adapted housing benefits and
assistance for members of the Armed Forces with service-
connected disabilities and individuals residing outside the
United States.
Section 202 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
1096, would make members of the Armed Forces with certain
severe service-connected disabilities and such disabled
individuals residing outside the United States eligible for
specially adapted housing benefits and assistance.
Section 2101 of title 38, United States Code, permits VA to
assist veterans with certain permanent and total service-
connected disabilities acquire housing with special features or
adapt their existing residences with special features. These
special features are those which are deemed appropriate by VA
to assist the veteran in living independently with the
qualifying service-connected disability. Under current law,
veterans and members of the Armed Forces with certain severe
service-connected disabilities, including: loss, or loss of
use, of both lower extremities such as to preclude locomotion
without the aid of braces, crutches, canes, or a wheelchair;
blindness in both eyes, having only light perception, plus loss
or loss of use of one lower extremity; loss, or loss of use, of
one lower extremity together with residuals of organic disease
or injury, or the loss, or loss of use, of one upper extremity
which so affect the functions of balance or propulsion as to
preclude locomotion without the aid of braces, crutches, canes,
or a wheelchair; or loss, or loss of use, of both upper
extremities such as to preclude use of the arms at or above the
elbows, are eligible to receive grants of up to $50,000
pursuant to sections 2101(a), title 38, United States Code.
Veterans or members of the Armed Forces with service-
connected blindness only or who have suffered the anatomical
loss or loss of use of both hands are eligible to receive
grants of up to $10,000 pursuant to section 2102(b).
Section 2101 also includes authority to grant these
benefits to members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty.
Eligibility of members of the Armed Forces is subject to the
same criteria and conditions as the eligibility of veterans.
However, the other sections of chapter 21, title 38, United
States Code, do not contain language that explicitly makes
these provisions applicable to members of the Armed Forces.
Most notably, section 2102A, which provides certain assistance
to veterans residing temporarily in housing owned by a family
member, is not currently available to members of the Armed
Forces.
Section 202 of the Committee bill would eliminate this
disparity by adding a new subsection to 2101A, which would
stipulate that any reference to a veteran or eligible
individual in chapter 21 be treated also as a reference to a
member of the Armed Forces.
In addition, section 202 of the Committee bill would give
VA discretionary authority to provide benefits and assistance
under chapter 21 to eligible disabled individuals who reside
outside of the United States.
Current law is silent on whether chapter 21 specially
adapted housing benefits are available to eligible individuals
who reside outside of the United States. Section 36.4411 of
title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, limits assistance under
chapter 21, title 38, United States Code, to properties
situated within the United States, including all territories
and possessions thereof. Thus, VA is prohibited from providing
assistance to otherwise eligible individuals who would use the
assistance to acquire or adapt housing outside of the specified
geographical limits unless the regulatory requirement is waived
by the Secretary.
Section 202 of the Committee bill would explicitly grant VA
the authority to provide chapter 21 specially adapted housing
benefits and assistance to eligible individuals living outside
of the United States, subject to the laws of the country or
political subdivision where the housing is located. The sole
exception to this extension of authority is section 2106,
Veterans' Mortgage Life Insurance. These benefits are exempted
because their inclusion would require VA to navigate the
property laws of any foreign country where an applicant might
wish to use his or her housing assistance. The Committee
believes this would create an undue burden on VA.
Sec. 203. Specially adapted housing assistance for individuals with
severe burn injuries.
Section 203 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
1096, would provide specially adapted housing assistance for
individuals with severe burn injuries.
Under current law, eligibility for specially adapted
housing benefits in chapter 21, title 38, United States Code,
is restricted to individuals with certain permanent and total
service-connected disabilities due to blindness or the loss, or
loss of use, of a limb or limbs, or some combination of the
two. Other disabled veterans, including those with severe burn
injuries, are not currently eligible for these benefits.
Advancements in battlefield medicine are ensuring that more
burn victims survive and have the need for special living
accommodations once they return home. Staff at the Brooke Army
Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas, which is the DOD's
leading center for the treatment and rehabilitation of burn
victims, have reported the need for adaptive housing for burn
victims.
Section 203 of the Committee bill would expand eligibility
for benefits under sections 2101(a) and 2101(b), title 38,
United States Code, to include individuals with service-
connected disabilities due to severe burn injuries. The scope
and definition of what constitutes a ``disability due to a
severe burn injury'' would be determined pursuant to
regulations prescribed by VA.
Sec. 204. Extension of assistance for individuals residing temporarily
in housing owned by a family member.
Section 204 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
1096, would extend VA's authority to provide specially adapted
housing assistance to individuals residing temporarily in
housing owned by a family member.
Under current law, section 2102A of title 38, United States
Code, disabled veterans residing temporarily in housing owned
by a family member are eligible for the specially adapted
housing assistance authorized by subsections (a) and (b) of
section 2101 of title 38, United States Code. Section 2101A was
enacted as part of the Veterans' Housing Opportunity and
Benefits Improvement Act of 2006 on June 15, 2006. The
authority to provide assistance under that section terminates
after the end of the five-year period beginning on the date of
enactment.
Section 204 of the Committee bill would amend section
2102A(e), of title 38, United States Code, to extend the period
of authorization for specially adapted housing assistance to
individuals residing temporarily in housing owned by a family
member until December 31, 2011.
Sec. 205. Supplemental specially adapted housing benefits for disabled
veterans.
Section 205 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
1326, would authorize supplemental specially adapted housing
benefits to disabled veterans.
Under current law, veterans and members of the Armed Forces
with certain severe service-connected disabilities, including:
loss, or loss of use, of both lower extremities such as to
preclude locomotion without the aid of braces, crutches, canes,
or a wheelchair; blindness in both eyes, having only light
perception, plus loss or loss of use of one lower extremity;
loss, or loss of use, of one lower extremity together with
residuals of organic disease or injury, or the loss, or loss of
use, of one upper extremity which so affect the functions of
balance or propulsion as to preclude locomotion without the aid
of braces, crutches, canes, or a wheelchair; or loss, or loss
of use, of both upper extremities such as to preclude use of
the arms at or above the elbows, are eligible to receive grants
of up to $50,000 pursuant to sections 2101(a), title 38, United
States Code. Veterans or members of the Armed Forces with
service-connected blindness only or who have suffered the
anatomical loss or loss of use of both hands are eligible to
receive grants of up to $10,000 pursuant to section 2102(b).
Section 205 would create a discretionary program to provide
supplemental benefits to individuals who are already eligible
to receive these benefits. A new section 2101B would be added
to title 38, United States Code, which would authorize VA to
disburse supplemental assistance to eligible individuals in
addition to the capped amounts currently specified in sections
2102(d)(1) and 2102(d)(2). Disbursement of these supplemental
funds would be subject to their specific availability through
an appropriation Act. VA would be prohibited from making
supplemental payments if all funds specifically provided for
that purpose in an appropriations act have already been
expended.
Section 205 would authorize VA to pay up to an additional
$10,000 to those eligible for assistance pursuant to section
2101(a), increasing the total amount of funds available per
grant, from both the mandatory and discretionary accounts, to
$60,000. Individuals eligible for assistance pursuant to
section 2101(b) would be able to receive up to an additional
$2,000 in assistance, increasing the total amount of funds
available per grant to $12,000.
Section 205 would also direct VA to provide for an annual
adjustment of the maximum available supplemental funds. VA
would be required to establish a residential home cost-of-
construction index upon which this adjustment would be based.
The supplemental funds would increase, effective October 1 of
each fiscal year, by the same percentage by which the
residential home cost-of-construction index increased in the
preceding calendar year.
In order to assess the adequacy of the supplemental funds
provided in this section to meet the demand of eligible
beneficiaries, section 205 would require VA to provide
estimates to Congress at least three times a year. VA would be
required to provide an estimate of the amount of funding
necessary to provide supplemental assistance to all eligible
recipients for the remainder of that fiscal year and an
estimate of the amount of funding Congress would need to
appropriate to provide all eligible recipients with
supplemental assistance for the next fiscal year. These
estimates would equip the appropriate committees of Congress
with the information needed to enable the Congress to fund
fully the needs of all eligible recipients through future
appropriations should they so choose.
Section 205 of the Committee bill is a result of the
Committee's observation that increases in housing and home
adaptation grants have been infrequent, despite the fact that
real estate and construction costs are continually on the rise.
Unless the amounts of the grants are periodically adjusted,
inflation erodes the value and effectiveness of these benefits,
making it more difficult for beneficiaries to afford the
accommodations they need. This section would allow Congress to
exercise the option to appropriate additional discretionary
funds for this purpose.
Sec. 206. Report on specially adapted housing for disabled
individuals.
Section 206 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
1096, would require VA to conduct an assessment of the adequacy
of the existing legal authorities available to VA to assist
disabled veterans and members of the Armed Forces in acquiring
specially adapted housing. VA would be required to submit the
report to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and
the House of Representatives no later than December 31, 2008.
Section 206 would require that the report focus on both the
nature and extent of the assistance provided, and the scope of
eligibility for such assistance. VA would be required to
address various types of special features, including wheelchair
ramps, doorways and hallways of ample width, grab bars,
additional lighting fixtures, and other features for which
assistance is available and explore in what areas the breadth
of assistance may be lacking. VA would also be required to
explore whether these benefits should be offered to veterans
with disabilities other than those stipulated in the existing
eligibility criteria.
Sec. 207. Report on specially adapted housing assistance for
individuals who reside in housing owned by a family member on a
permanent basis.
Section 207 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
1096, would require VA to issue a report on the advisability of
providing specially adapted housing assistance for individuals
who reside in housing owned by a family member on a permanent
basis.
Under current law, section 2101A of title 38, United States
Code, disabled veterans who are residing temporarily in housing
owned by a family member are eligible for specially adapted
housing assistance of either $14,000 or $2,000, depending on
the nature of disability involved. Prior to enactment of this
authority, a veteran or member of the Armed Forces had to
intend to reside permanently in the residence for which he or
she was seeking assistance in adapting. Section 2102A makes it
possible, during a five-year period, for a veteran to obtain
specially adapted housing assistance from VA while living on a
temporary basis in a residence owned by a family member.
Section 207 of the Committee bill would require VA to
submit a report to Congress on the advisability of extending
the assistance provided under section 2102A to those
servicemembers and veterans residing permanently in housing
owned by a family member. The report would be due to the
Veterans' Affairs Committees of the Senate and House of
Representatives by December 31, 2008.
TITLE III--LABOR AND EDUCATION MATTERS
Sec. 301. Coordination of approval activities in the administration of
education benefits.
Section 301 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
1290, would require VA to coordinate with the Departments of
Labor and Education to reduce overlap and duplication with
respect to approvals of programs of education. It would also
require VA to submit to the House and Senate Committees on
Veterans' Affairs a report on the actions taken to establish
outcome-oriented performance standards and a tracking and
reporting system for resources for State approving agencies,
together with any recommendations for legislative action
considered necessary.
Under provisions of chapter 36 of title 38, United States
Code, VA contracts for the services of State approving agencies
(hereinafter, ``SAAs'') for the purpose of approving programs
of education at institutions of higher learning, apprenticeship
programs, on-job training programs, and other programs that are
located within each SAAs' State of jurisdiction. Generally, SAA
approval of these programs is required before beneficiaries may
use their educational assistance benefits to pay for them. SAAs
are also tasked with assisting VA with various outreach
activities to inform eligible VA program participants of the
educational assistance benefits to which they are entitled. The
Departments of Education and Labor also assess education and
training programs for various purposes, primarily for awarding
student aid and providing apprenticeship assistance.
In a March 2007, report prepared by the General Accounting
Office (hereinafter, ``GAO'') at the request of Ranking
Republican Member Craig entitled, ``VA Student Financial Aid:
Management Actions Needed to Reduce Overlap in Approving
Education and Training Programs and to Assess State Approving
Agencies'', the GAO identified some overlap in approval efforts
across agencies and concluded that ``[i]t is important that VA
work with other federal agencies . . . to reduce overlap and
ensure that federal dollars are spent efficiently.''
The GAO further recommended that VA should ``require SAAs
to track and report data on resources spent on approval
activities . . . in a cost efficient manner.'' Finally, the
report recommended that ``the Secretary establish outcome-
oriented performance measures to assess the effectiveness of
SAA efforts.'' In its comments on the report, VA concurred with
each of the GAO recommendations and noted that the agency is
working toward establishing the reporting system and
performance measures ``with a goal of implementation in the
FY08 budget cycle.''
Therefore, section 301 would require VA to coordinate with
these Departments to reduce overlap and duplication and to
submit within 120 days a report on actions taken toward these
goals, together with any recommendations for legislation if
necessary to implement them fully.
Sec. 302. Modification of rate of reimbursement of State and local
agencies administering veterans education benefits.
Section 302 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
1215, would modify the rate of reimbursement of State and local
agencies administrating veterans education benefits.
As discussed above, VA contracts for the services of SAAs
for the purpose of approving programs of education at
institutions of higher learning, apprenticeship programs, on-
job training programs, and other programs. SAAs are also tasked
with assisting VA with various outreach activities to inform
eligible VA program participants of the educational assistance
benefits to which they are entitled.
Since 1988, VA payment for the services of SAAs has been
made only out of funds available for readjustment benefits, a
mandatory funding account, and is thus subject to funding caps.
Section 3674(a)(4) of title 38, United States Code, states as
follows: ``The total amount made available under this section
for any fiscal year may not exceed $13,000,000 or, * * * for
fiscal year 2007, $19,000,000.'' Thus, under existing law, the
cap on the amount of funds that could be made available in
fiscal years 2008 and beyond would revert to funding levels
applied prior to fiscal year 2000--or a reduction of more than
32 percent.
Section 302 of the Committee bill would restore the cap on
the amount that may be funded from readjustment benefits for
SAAs to $19 million beginning in fiscal year 2008 and each
subsequent fiscal year.
Sec. 303. Waiver of residency requirement for State Directors of
Veterans' Employment and Training.
Section 303 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
1215, would permit the Secretary of Labor to waive, on a case-
by-case basis, a residency requirement for State Directors for
Veterans' Employment and Training (hereinafter, ``SDVET'').
Current law, section 4103(a)(2) of title 38, United States
Code, requires that each SDVET have been, at the time of
appointment, a bona fide resident of the State for at least two
years. The legislative history of this provision has been
obscured by the passage of time, and the need for such a
requirement is not documented. In a modern economy
characterized by a mobile work force, as the Department of
Labor (hereinafter, ``DOL'') testified, ``the current
durational residency requirement runs counter to merit
principles and should not, in and of itself, be a condition for
employment.''
By providing the Secretary of Labor the ability to waive
this requirement when it is determined to be in the public
interest, this section would help ensure that the best
qualified individuals from any state may apply for, and fill,
an SDVET vacancy. DOL notes that it believes that ``choosing
from a greater pool of talent would lead to better management
at the state level and better services provided to veterans and
servicemembers.''
Sec. 304. Modification of Special Unemployment Study to cover veterans
of Post 9/11 Global Operations.
Section 304 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
1215, would modify the Special Unemployment Study required to
be submitted by the Secretary of Labor to the Congress to cover
veterans of Post 9/11 Global Operations. It would further
require the report to be submitted on an annual, rather than a
biennial, basis.
Under current law, section 4110A of title 38, United States
Code, requires the Secretary, through the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, to submit a report every two years on the
employment and unemployment experiences of Vietnam-era
veterans, Vietnam-theater veterans, special disabled veterans,
and recently separated veterans. This reporting requirement was
added to the law by section 9(a) of Public Law 100-323, which
was signed into law on May 20, 1988. As noted in S. Rpt. 100-
128 that accompanied the legislation from which this provision
was derived, the Committee had a continuing concern with rates
of unemployment among these groups of veterans and with
assessing the extent to which the employment-
related needs were addressed.
The Committee believes that there is continued value in
collecting this information but that the inclusion of data on
more recent groups of veterans--those who served and are
serving in the Gulf War and Post 9/11 Global Operations--would
better help the Committee assess the needs of current veterans
entering the work force and develop appropriate responses.
Sec. 305. Extension of temporary increase in benefits for
apprenticeship and on-the-job training.
Section 305 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
1215, would extend for two years the increase authorized by
section 103 of Public Law 108-454 in the monthly educational
assistance allowance payable for apprenticeship or other on-
the-job training under the various educational benefit programs
administered by VA. The current authority for this increased
rate, which is ten percentage points greater than that which
would otherwise apply, expires on December 31, 2007. The
increase proposed by this provision would apply to months
beginning on or after January 1, 2008, and before January 1,
2010.
Eliminating the temporary increase would have the effect of
imposing a monthly benefit rate cut on trainees enrolled in
this type of training. An employer is only required to pay a
trainee in an apprenticeship or other on-the-job training
program 50 percent of the journeyman wages at the beginning of
training and the educational assistance provided by VA helps
supplement the lower wages. Under the existing temporary
increase, instead of being paid 75 percent of the amount paid
for full-time institutional training during the first six-month
period, trainees are paid 85 percent of the amount. Although VA
has not seen a significant increase in the number of
individuals pursuing apprenticeship and on-the-job training
programs, the Committee believes, and VA concurs, that the
higher monthly educational assistance supplement provides a
marketable incentive to encourage individuals to accept trainee
positions they might not otherwise consider.
TITLE IV--FILIPINO WORLD WAR II VETERANS MATTERS
Sec. 401. Expansion of eligibility for benefits provided by Department
of Veterans Affairs for certain service in the organized
military forces of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the
Philippine Scouts.
Section 401 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
57, would deem certain service in the organized military forces
of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines to be
active military, naval, or air service for purposes of benefits
provided under title 38, United States Code, and other
provisions of law which use the title 38 definition. These
organized military forces are those who were in the service of
the Armed Forces of the United States pursuant to the military
order of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, dated July 26, 1941,
and include organized guerilla forces under the authority of
the United States or the Philippine Scouts under section 14 of
the Armed Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945
(hereinafter, ``Filipino veterans'').
Filipino veterans who were granted benefits prior to the
enactment of the so-called Rescissions Acts of 1946 (Public
Laws 79-301 and 79-391) currently receive full benefits under
laws administered by VA. However, under current law, section
107 of title 38, United States Code, the service of certain
other Filipino veterans is deemed not to be active service.
Thus, these Filipino veterans only receive certain benefits
prescribed in Title 38 and, depending on where they legally
reside, are paid at a reduced rate. These benefits include
service-connected compensation benefits paid under chapter 11
of title 38, United States Code, dependency indemnity
compensation (hereinafter, ``DIC'') survivor benefits paid
under chapter 13 of title 38, United States Code, and burial
benefits under chapters 23 and 24 of title 38, United States
Code. These benefits are paid to beneficiaries at the rate of
$0.50 per dollar authorized, unless they lawfully reside in the
United States. Dependents' educational assistance under chapter
35 of title 38, United States Code, is also paid at the rate of
$0.50 per dollar authorized, regardless of residency.
The purpose of deeming the service of the Filipino veterans
as active service is to recognize generally that their service
occurred at time when the Philippines were a possession of the
United States and subject to the laws of the United States.
These Filipino veterans were recruited into service by the
United States government or otherwise worked with and under the
command of the United States Armed Forces during and shortly
after World War II. As noted by Sidath Viranga Panangala,
Analyst in Social Legislation, Congressional Research Service,
Library of Congress, during testimony before the Committee on
April 11, 2007, these Filipino veterans were considered by the
Veterans' Administration (the predecessor of VA) to be veterans
of the United States military, naval and air service until that
status was revoked by the Rescission Acts of 1946.
Under the Committee bill, Filipino veterans who receive
service-connected compensation due to disabilities incurred or
aggravated during military service would receive the same
benefit amounts regardless of where they reside. Currently,
Filipino veterans lawfully residing in the United States who
receive VA service-connected compensation are paid at the full
dollar rate. However, approximately 2,500 of these veterans
living outside the United States are currently paid benefits
under chapter 11 of title 38, United States Code, at a reduced
rate of 50 cents per $1.00 authorized. The committee intends
that all benefits paid under Chapter 11 for disabilities
incurred or aggravated during military service should be paid
at the same rate regardless of the residence of the Filipino
veteran. As Senator Inouye testified during the Committee's
April 11 hearing on the proposed ``Filipino Veterans Equity Act
of 2007'', ``an injury is just as painful in the Philippines as
it is in the United States.''
The Committee bill would, however, maintain the reduction
of benefits paid to survivors of Filipino World War II veterans
who live outside of the United States and receive DIC at the
reduced amount of $0.50 for each dollar authorized. DIC
recipients who reside in the United States would continue to be
paid at the full rate, as authorized under current law. Since
DIC payments are not based upon need and are paid to the
survivors of veterans who die of a service-connected
disability, the Committee recognizes that the survivors of
Filipino veterans who reside outside the United States should
receive DIC paid at the same rate as other survivors. However,
the Committee was not able to identify sufficient funding
offsets to finance the cost of an increase in this benefit.
The Committee bill would enable Filipino veterans with
service-connected disabilities who reside outside the United
States to receive medical care under the criteria specified in
section 1724 of title 38, United States Code, including care at
the VA out-patient clinic in the Phillipines. The Committee
bill does not provide any other changes to current law
regarding eligibility for health care outside of the United
States. As no veteran, with certain exceptions, is furnished
hospital, domiciliary care or medical services outside the
United States, Filipino veterans without service-
connected disabilities would not generally be eligible for
health care benefits if residing outside of the United States.
Filipino veterans residing in the United States would continue
to qualify for health care in the same manner as any other
veteran.
Severely disabled service-connected Filipino veterans
would, under the Committee bill, be able to qualify for
specially adapted housing grants under chapter 21, title 38,
United States Code, under the same terms and conditions
applicable to other veterans. The Committee notes that such
benefits are not available outside of the United States, but
that the Secretary has the authority to waive compliance with
this regulation, since the statute is silent as to eligibility
outside of the United States. (Section 202 of the Committee
bill addresses the Secretary's authority to provide benefits
outside the United States.)
Under the Committee bill, Filipino veterans who qualify for
burial benefits under title 38, United States Code, would
qualify for the same benefits paid at the same rate provided to
other United States veterans. Filipino veterans would also
qualify for burial in a national cemetery under the same terms
and conditions as provided for other veterans. The Committee
bill does not change the limitations on payment of
transportation of the remains of a deceased veteran. Generally,
in order to receive payment of transportation costs, the
veteran must have died while hospitalized by VA and burial must
occur in the United States or in the Canal Zone. In cases where
the veteran died in the United States, transportation may be
authorized to the border of Mexico or Canada.
Under the Committee bill, the children of deceased or
totally disabled service-connected Filipino veterans would
qualify for benefits paid under chapter 35 of title 38, United
States Code, and would be paid at the same rate and under the
same conditions as the children of other veterans. The
Committee bill does not alter the provision of current law,
section 3532, title 38, United States Code, which provides for
payment of educational benefits at the rate of $0.50 for each
dollar authorized for children of veterans who are pursuing a
program of education at an institution located in the
Philippines.
Filipino veterans and survivors would, under this section
of the Committee bill, qualify for housing and small business
loans provided under chapter 37, title 38, United States Code,
under the same terms and conditions applicable to other
veterans. Under current law, the VA home-loan program does not
provide for loans outside of the United States. Likewise, small
business loans provided to disabled veterans are not available
unless the entity is subject to the examination or supervision
of the United States or a state. Thus, these benefits would
only be available to veterans, including Filipino veterans,
residing within the United States.
Finally, the Committee bill would define ``United States''
to mean the States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico,
Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of
the Northern Mariana Islands and any other possession or
territory of the United States. The term ``United States'' has
a number of different definitions throughout the United States
Code. All of the jurisdictions included in this provision of
the Committee bill are listed in some or all of the
definitions. The Committee's intent is to indicate clearly
jurisdictions considered a part of the United States for
purposes of benefits paid under this bill.
The Committee bill would result in eligibility for non-
service-
connected pension and death pension benefits as provided in
chapter 15 of title 38, United States Code. However, Filipino
veterans and their survivors who reside outside of the United
States would be paid pursuant to a new special service pension,
rather than the VA pension benefits provided to veterans and
survivors who reside in the United States.
In the case of Filipino veterans and survivors who reside
outside the United States, the Committee bill would provide for
a flat-rate pension for veterans and survivors. Unlike veterans
and survivors residing in the United States, veterans residing
the Philippines would not be required to document income,
assets or medical expenses in order to receive this flat-rate
pension. All beneficiaries residing in the Philippines would
receive the same amount of non-service-connected pension
benefits, depending on their status as single, married or
survivor--single Filipino veterans would be eligible to receive
$3,600 per year, married Filipino veterans would receive $4,500
per year and survivors would receive $2,400 per year.
The Committee believes that the responsibility for Filipino
veterans residing in the Philippines should be a shared
responsibility. Therefore, under the Committee bill, these
special pension benefits would only be paid to persons residing
in the Philippines if current Philippine law barring receipt of
Philippine government benefits for persons who receive a
monetary benefit from the United States is repealed.
During the Committee's April hearing, in response to a
question from Chairman Akaka, the Honorable H.E. Willy C. Gaa,
the Philippine Ambassador to the United States, acknowledged
that under current Philippine law, a veteran or survivor who
receives a benefit from the United States government based on a
Filipino veteran's military service is not eligible to receive
benefits normally paid to Filipino veterans by the Philippine
government. Ambassador Gaa noted his support for changing this
Philippine law so that the Philippine grants would be continued
if VA pension benefits were granted. The Committee appreciates
the commitment made by the President of the Republic of the
Philippines, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, in an April 5, 2007,
letter to President George W. Bush stating that ``we will
continue to provide these veterans with pension benefits and
medical care even after legislation is passed in the United
States granting them pension.'' The text of the letter
follows:
Malacanan Palace,
Manila, Philippines, April 5, 2007.
His Excellency, George W. Bush,
President, United States of America,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear President Bush: Our continuing cooperation in the war
against terror had led to significant victories. Working
closely and with the support of your military, security forces
have captured or neutralized key al-Qaeda linked terrorists in
Mindanao. We have blocked the spread of terror to the rest of
the region and quashed terrorist hopes of establishing an
extremist pan-Asian Islamic caliphate in Southeast Asia.
The sacrifices made by the brave men and women from both
our countries in winning the war on terror remind me of the
uncommon courage and valor of another group of brave soldiers
that fought together with American soldiers--our Filipino World
War II veterans.
Over the decades, many efforts have been made to address
the great inequity suffered by the Filipino World War II
veterans.
Today, thanks to strong bipartisan support from both Houses
of the U.S. Congress, the few remaining veterans, many in their
80s and 90s, are poised to receive what was rightfully theirs.
These living symbols of the very liberties and freedoms that we
now enjoy are close to finally seeing justice and equity.
Given their contributions to preserving democracy and given
that our historic and strategic cooperation continues in
fighting challenges to the values and ideals that we all share
and hold dear, it is my hope that you will support these
efforts in Congress to pass legislation that would allow our
Filipino veterans to obtain the benefits they have long sought
for and truly deserve.
On our part, we will continue to provide these veterans
with pension benefits and medical care even after legislation
is passed in the United States granting them pension.
I look forward to your kind support on this issue and to
our continued cooperation in pursuing the war against terror.
Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,
President of the Republic of the Philippines.
Therefore, the Committee anticipates that the current
Philippine law would be repealed if this bill is enacted.
The Committee recognizes the lack of available systems such
as the Social Security Administration and Internal Revenue
Service data matches used in the United States to verify income
and assets of veterans in the Philippines. Without access to
comparable systems, it would be extremely difficult, if not
impossible, to administer the pension and death pension
programs in the same manner as is done in the United States.
The Committee also acknowledges the difficulty which veterans
and survivors in the Philippines would experience if required
to establish the amount of annual income and provide
verification of financial eligibility and medical expenses.
Therefore, Filipino veterans and survivors would be exempt from
the income and asset tests used in the United States. The
Committee expects that the flat rate pension will reduce
administrative costs and result in more timely payments to
these elderly beneficiaries.
In establishing the flat rate payment, the Committee took
into consideration a number of factors, including those
identified by witnesses at the Committee's hearing on S. 57.
Among the factors considered was the feasibility of
administering a needs-based program to thousands of
beneficiaries residing outside of the United States, the
difficulty of verifying income and assets of persons residing
outside of the United States, the difference in the amount of
money needed ``to live in dignity and without welfare'' (the
purpose of the VA pension program as described in the 2004
report, ``Evaluation of the VA Pension Program: Final Report'')
in the Philippines where many of these veterans and survivors
reside, and the desire to provide benefits to these elderly
veterans and survivors in a timely manner. During the Committee
hearing, Ambassador Gaa indicated that he personally would
``support legislation that would recognize the different
economic conditions but that also recognizes the sacrifices''
of our Filipino veterans.
VA's witness, Ronald R. Aument, Deputy Under Secretary for
Benefits, opposed providing pension benefits to veterans and
survivors residing in the Philippines at the same rate as paid
to veterans residing in the United States and expressed concern
that such a proposal would disproportionately favor Filipino
veterans over U.S. veterans. In response to questioning by
Chairman Akaka, Mr. Aument indicated that taking into
consideration the difference in the cost of living in the
United States and the Philippines would address ``one of the
most significant hurdles and barriers to this bill,'' but noted
that he was not prepared to state what the Administration could
support.
The Committee also heard testimony from Filipino veterans
and advocates Maria Luisa Antonio, Executive Director, Veterans
Equity Center; Jenah Yangwas, Student Action for Veterans
Equity; Manuel B. Braga, Commander, Filipino World War II
Veterans Federation of San Diego County; Artemio A. Caleda,
President, World War II Filipino-American Veterans and Ladies
Auxiliary of Hawaii; Avelino Asuncion, Chairman San Diego
Chapter, American Coalition for Filipino Veterans, Inc.; Benito
Valdez, Filipino Community of Seattle; and Lieutenant Colonel
Edwin Price Ramsey, U.S. Army (Retired) who urged that veterans
residing in the Philippines receive benefits identical to those
provided to veterans residing in the United States. These
witnesses noted that Filipino veterans and their survivors are
of advanced age and that many are ill and infirm and living
well below the minimum subsistence level needed to live in
dignity and without welfare.
Taking into account all of these various factors and the
testimony provided, the Committee bill would provide a special
service pension for Filipino veterans and their survivors which
would be higher than the $820 per year which the VA suggested
would provide a comparable benefit, but lower than the amounts
paid to veterans residing in the United States or to Filipino
veterans residing outside the United States who qualify for
benefits under title VIII of the Social Security Act. The
amount established recognizes that Filipino World War II
veterans residing in the Philippines have been denied
eligibility for pension benefits for more than 60 years, would
not be provided additional benefits if they are housebound, in
need of aid and attendance or have additional dependents other
than a spouse, and would not have medical expenses deducted
from other income in determining eligibility.
The Committee believes that, taking into account the cost
of living in the Philippines, the benefits proposed under the
Committee bill should ensure an income level above the minimum
subsistence level and allow Filipino veterans and survivors to
live in the Philippines with dignity. The Committee intends
that death pension benefits be made available to surviving
spouses and dependent children who would have that status if
the benefits were being provided in the United States.
Therefore, under the Committee bill, a surviving spouse who had
not remarried since the death of the veteran and who would be
otherwise eligible for benefits or a surviving unmarried child
who is not in the custody of the surviving spouse and who would
otherwise be eligible for benefits (including an adult disabled
child) would be eligible for a flat rate benefit of $2,400 per
year. These flat rates would be subject to the same annual
adjustment of pension amounts provided to other pension
beneficiaries under section 5312 of title 38, United States
Code.
Because income and assets would not be considered in
determining eligibility for the special service pension
provided to Filipino veterans and survivors residing in the
Philippines, the Committee bill would exempt those
beneficiaries from the requirements of subsection (a) of
section 1503 and from sections 1506, 1522 and 1543 of title 38,
United States Code. The Committee intends that the Secretary
would continue to use the procedures authorized by law in
determining eligibility for the special service pension
provided to married veterans, including any requirements for
reporting the termination of the marriage. In the event that a
veteran who receives the higher amount paid to a married
veteran is overpaid as the result of failing to report the
termination of a marriage in a timely manner, the Committee
intends that the Secretary would exercise available authority
to collect any overpayments resulting from such failure.
The Committee notes that approximately 2,300 Filipino World
War II veterans residing in the Philippines receive special
benefits based upon need from the Social Security
Administration under title VIII of the Social Security Act, 42
U.S.C. 1001 et seq. In order to qualify for these needs-based
benefits, a Filipino veteran must, as of December 14, 1999,
have been 65 years of age or older, been a World War II
veteran, been eligible for Supplemental Security Income
(hereinafter, ``SSI''), and had income less than 75% of the SSI
benefit level (reduced by the amount of the veteran's income).
The veteran must currently reside outside of the United States.
These beneficiaries currently receive an average of $525 per
month. If VA pension were to be provided to such veterans, they
would not receive any additional income, since the VA pension
benefits would be counted in determining eligibility for, and
the amount of benefits paid, under the Social Security Act.
Therefore, the Committee bill provides that persons who are
eligible for benefits under title VIII of the Social Security
Act would not be eligible for VA pension.
The Committee recognizes that some Filipino veterans and
survivors who would qualify for pension benefits under the bill
may currently qualify for federal or federally-assisted
benefits based upon need, such as food stamps, SSI, a state
plan for medical assistance (Medicaid) or subsidized housing.
In order not to disturb benefits currently relied upon, the
Committee bill provides that, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, persons who are receiving such benefits as of
the date of enactment of the bill, may not be required to apply
for VA pension benefits, if doing so would make the individual
ineligible for existing benefits or reduce the amount of
benefits received under these federal or federally-assisted
programs. Under the Committee bill, Filipino veterans and their
survivors who currently receive federal or federally-assisted
benefits would be able to choose whether or not to apply for
pension, based upon their personal assessment of the benefits
and burdens of doing so. The Committee intends that this
transitional provision will protect the established rights and
benefits of such veterans and their survivors.
The special rates for pension and death pension benefits
paid to veterans and survivors residing outside of the United
States would apply to claims filed on or after May 1, 2008.
This effective date should enable the VA to develop policies
and procedures to implement the special pension program. The
Committee expects that given the advanced age of the
beneficiaries and the simplified program provided that the VA
will act expeditiously to provide benefits to these veterans.
In the event that applications are submitted to VA before the
effective date, the Committee expects that such applications
would be considered filed as of May 1, 2008. Further, it is the
Committee's intent that what constitutes residency for purposes
of benefits paid outside of the United States will be
determined by the Secretary by regulation and that brief travel
into or outside the United States would not result in a change
of residency status.
Sec. 402. Eligibility of children of certain Philippine veterans for
educational assistance.
Section 402 of the Committee bill would amend section
3565(b) of title 38, United States Code, relating to education
benefits for children of certain Filipino veterans, so as to
modify those benefits.
Under current law, children of those veterans whose service
during World War II is being deemed by the changes in section
401 of the Committee bill to be active military service for
purposes of veterans benefits, are paid educational benefits
under chapter 35 of title 38, United States Code, at the rate
of $.50 for each dollar authorized, regardless of where they
might undertake a qualifying course of study.
Section 402 of the Committee bill would provide that these
children of deceased or totally disabled service-connected
Filipino veterans qualify for benefits under chapter 35, and
would be paid at the same rate and under the same conditions,
as the children of other veterans.
The Committee notes that based upon information received
from VA, no children of Filipino veterans residing in the
United States were paid benefits under this provision during
the last fiscal year, which suggests that it is unlikely that
there will be any children living in the United States who will
qualify for this benefit. In the event, however, that such a
child would become eligible at some future point, the benefits
provided would recognize the status of Filipino veterans
provided by section 401 of the Committee bill.
Finally, the Committee notes that the Committee bill does
not alter the provision of current law, section 3532(d) of
title 38, United States Code, which provides for payment of
educational benefits at the rate of $0.50 for each dollar
authorized for children of veterans who are pursuing a program
of education at an institution located in the Philippines.
TITLE V--COURT MATTERS
Sec. 501. Recall of retired judges of the United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims.
Section 501, which is derived from S. 1289, would eliminate
the current restrictions on how many days per year a retired
judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
(hereinafter, ``CAVC'' or ``Court'') may voluntarily serve in
recall status; would modify the retirement pay structure for
CAVC judges appointed on or after the date of enactment; and
would exempt retired judges from involuntary recall once they
have served an aggregate of five years of recall service.
Under current law, retiring CAVC judges make an election
whether to be recall-eligible. The CAVC Chief Judge has the
authority to recall involuntarily a retired judge who chooses
recall-
eligible status for up to 90 days per calendar year or, with
the consent of the judge, for up to 180 days per calendar year.
A recall-eligible retired judge receives annual pay equal to
the annual salary of an active judge (pay-of-the-office),
without reference to how much recall service is performed
during a year.
Section 501 of the Committee bill would modify the
authorities for the recall of retired judges and the retirement
pay structure. First, this section would repeal the 180-day
limit on how many days per calendar year a recall-eligible
retired judge may voluntarily serve in recall status. In
addition, for judges appointed on or after the date of
enactment, it would create a three-tiered retirement pay
structure. Specifically, pay-of-the-office would be reserved
for judges who are actively serving, either as a judge of the
Court or as a retired judge serving in recall status. When not
serving in recall status, a recall-eligible retired judge would
receive the rate of pay applicable to that judge as of the date
the judge retired, as increased by periodic cost-of-living
adjustments. A retired judge who is not recall eligible would
receive the rate of pay applicable to that judge at the time of
retirement. Finally, section 501 would exempt current and
future recall-eligible retired judges from involuntary recall
once they have served an aggregate of five years of recall
service.
By removing the cap on voluntary recall service and
exempting recall-eligible judges from involuntary recall once
they have served a cumulative total of five years of recall
service, the Committee intends to provide both the authority
and an incentive for recall-
eligible judges to serve longer or more frequent periods of
recall service. By reserving pay-of-the-office for those
retired judges actually performing recall service, there will
be an incentive for retired judges to continue offering their
expertise in a time of need.
Section 502. Additional discretion in imposition of practice and
registration fees.
Section 502, which is derived from S. 1289, would modify
the Court's authority to impose certain registration fees.
Under section 7285 of title 38, United States Code, the
CAVC is authorized to impose a periodic registration fee on
individuals admitted to practice before the Court. The maximum
amount of any such fee is currently capped at $30 per year, an
amount significantly lower than other federal courts generally
charge. The Court is also authorized to impose a registration
fee on individuals participating in the Court's judicial
conference.
Section 502 would strike the $30 cap on the amount of
registration fees that may be charged to individuals admitted
to practice before the Court. It would also clarify that any
registration fee charged by the Court, either for those
admitted to practice before the Court or those participating in
the judicial conference, must be reasonable.
Section 503. Annual reports on workload of United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims.
Section 503 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
1289, would establish an annual reporting requirement for the
CAVC. Specifically, it would require the CAVC to submit to the
Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House of
Representatives an annual report summarizing the workload of
the Court. The reporting requirements would include information
regarding the number of appeals filed, the number of petitions
filed, the number of applications for fees under the Equal
Access to Justice Act, the number and type of dispositions
issued by the Court, the median time from the filing of a case
or application with the Court to the Court's disposition of
that filing, the number of oral arguments held by the Court,
the number and status of appeals and petitions that remain
pending, and a summary of any service performance by recalled
retired judges.
In the view of the Committee, this information would be
helpful in monitoring whether the Court has sufficient judicial
resources to provide veterans with an appropriate level of
service.
Section 504. Report on expansion of facilities for United States Court
of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
Section 504 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
1289, would require the General Services Administration
(hereinafter, ``GSA'') to provide to Congress a report
regarding expansion of the CAVC's office space.
The CAVC is currently housed in a commercial office
building in the District of Columbia. For several years, the
CAVC and GSA have been studying the feasibility of constructing
or obtaining a dedicated Veterans Courthouse and Justice
Center, which would potentially be occupied by the Court and
other entities that work with the CAVC. In February 2006, GSA
provided Congress with a preliminary feasibility study
regarding that project. Thereafter, the CAVC notified Congress
that the most cost-effective alternative appeared to be leasing
additional space in the Court's current location. However, the
February 2006 feasibility report from GSA did not include an
analysis of whether it would be feasible or desirable to locate
a Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center at the Court's current
location.
Section 504 would require GSA to submit to the Committees
on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the House of
Representatives, within 180 days after the date of enactment, a
report addressing the feasibility of the CAVC leasing
additional space within its current building and using the
entire building as a Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center.
TITLE VI--COMPENSATION AND PENSION MATTERS
Sec. 601. Addition of osteoporosis to disabilities presumed to be
service-connected in former prisoners of war with post-
traumatic stress disorder.
Section 601 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
848, would add osteoporosis to the list of disabilities
presumed to be service-connected in former prisoners of war
whom VA has previously determined suffer from post-traumatic
stress disorder (hereinafter, ``PTSD'').
Section 1112(b) of title 38, United States Code, contains
two lists of diseases that are presumed to be related to an
individual's experience as a prisoner of war. The first
presumptive list requires no minimum internment period and
includes diseases associated with mental trauma or acute
physical trauma which could plausibly be caused by even a
single day of captivity. That list includes psychosis, any of
the anxiety states, dysthymic disorder (or depressive
neurosis), organic residuals of frostbite (if the Secretary
determines that a veteran was interned in conditions consistent
with the occurrence of frostbite), and post-traumatic
osteoarthritis. The second list has a 30-day minimum internment
requirement and includes avitaminosis, beriberi, chronic
dysentery, helminthiasis, malnutrition, pellagra, any other
nutritional deficiency, cirrhosis of the liver, peripheral
neuropathy, irritable bowel syndrome, peptic ulcer disease,
atherosclerotic heart disease or hypertensive vascular disease,
and stroke and its complications.
VA's Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners of War
(hereinafter, ``POW Advisory Committee''), in its March 13,
2007, report to VA, recommended that osteopenia/osteoporosis
should be established as a presumptive disorder for former
Prisoners of War with post-traumatic stress disorder because it
meets the criteria for establishing presumptions according to
the guidelines found in title 38, Code of Federal Regulations,
parts 1 and 3. In section 1.18(b) of the Code of Federal
Regulations, VA is given authority ``to establish a presumption
of service-connection for a disease when the Secretary finds
that there is at least limited/suggested evidence that an
increased risk of such disease is associated with service
involving detention or internment as a prisoner of war and an
association between such detention or internment and the
disease is biologically plausible.'' Further, in section
1.18(b)(1), ``limited/suggestive evidence'' is defined as
evidence that is medically or scientifically sound and is
``reasonably suggestive'' of an association between prisoner of
war experience and the disease, ``even though the evidence may
be limited because matters such as change, bias, and
confounding could not be ruled out with confidence or because
the relatively small size of the affected population restricts
that data available for study.'' [Emphasis supplied.]
The POW Advisory Committee's report references original
research conducted by the Robert E. Mitchell Center for
Prisoner of War Studies (hereinafter, ``Mitchell Center''),
located in Pensacola, Florida, as providing a statistically
significant link between PTSD and the increased risk of
osteopenia/osteoporosis. According to studies conducted by the
Mitchell Center, PTSD ``causes'' the adrenal gland to make
excessive amounts of cortisol. High amounts of cortisol leads
to low amount of calcium. Low amounts of calcium may lead to
osteopenia/osteroporosis in later years.
Section 601 of the Committee bill would add osteoporosis to
the list of disabilities presumed to be service-connected in
former prisoners of war with PTSD who were detained for any
period.
Sec. 602. Cost-of-living increase for temporary dependency and
indemnity compensation payable for surviving spouses with
dependent children under the age of 18.
Section 602 of the Committee bill would establish a cost-
of-living increase for temporary DIC payable to surviving
spouses with dependent children under the age of 18.
Under section 1310 of title 38, United States Code, VA
provides DIC to surviving spouses if a veteran's death resulted
from: (1) a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the
line of duty while on active duty or active duty for training;
(2) an injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty while
on inactive duty training; or (3) a service-connected
disability or a condition directly related to a service-
connected disability.
In a May 2001, report, Program Evaluation of Benefits for
Survivors of Veterans with Service-Connected Disabilities
(hereinafter, ``DIC Report''), a recommendation was made to
increase DIC by $250 per month for DIC surviving spouses with
dependent children during the five-year period after the
veteran's death. It was noted in the DIC Report, ``while the
DIC program provides increased benefits for survivors that vary
according to the number of dependent children, the evidence
suggests a need for even greater benefit allowances for these
survivors. Furthermore, this additional need is affected more
by the presence of dependent children in the household than by
number of children.''
Section 301 of Public Law 108-454 amended section 1311,
title 38 United States Code, to authorize VA to pay a $250 a
month temporary benefit to a surviving spouse with one or more
children below the age of 18, during the two years following
application for the benefit. This provision was enacted in
response to the DIC Report's recommendation on the need for a
transitional DIC benefit.
Section 602 of the Committee bill would authorize a
permanent, automatic, cost-of-living adjustment for this
temporary dependency and indemnity benefit so that the value of
the benefit does not erode over time.
This cost-of-living increase would occur whenever there is
an increase in benefits amounts payable under title II of the
Social Security Act, section 401 et seq., title 38, United
States Code.
Sec. 603. Clarification of eligibility of veterans 65 years of age or
older for service pension for a period of war.
Section 603 of the Committee bill would amend section 1513
of title 38, United States Code, relating to VA pension
benefits for veterans 65 years old and older, so as to clarify
the scope of that provision. The Committee bill would overturn
a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims in Hartness v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 216, 217 (2006),
so as to reaffirm that certain VA pension benefits are only
provided to veterans who are significantly disabled and not
merely on the basis of age.
The provision of pension benefits to wartime veterans has a
long history in American and English law. Officers of the
Revolutionary War who served for the full term of the war were
entitled to receive pay without regard to disability; service
pensions were also provided to those who served for at least
fourteen days in the War of 1812. Browning, Arthur, A Treatise
on the Laws Relating to Pensions, Patents, Bounties and Other
Applications Before the Executive Departments, (Washington
D.C.: Gibson Bros., Printers and Bookbinders, 1893), at 73
(hereinafter ``Browning''). Veterans of the Mexican War also
were eligible for a service pension (Browning at 78), as were
veterans of the Indian Wars (Browning at 82).
According to A Report to the President by The President's
Commission on Veterans' Pensions, chaired by General Omar N.
Bradley (April 1956) (Bradley Report) at 351:
Stripped of all passing considerations, the main
concern of pension legislation for veterans has been to
keep them and their kin from want and degradation. . .
. Even where need was not required to be shown, it was
presumed to exist by reason of old age. We have been
unwilling as a Nation ever to see the citizen-soldier
who had rendered honorable service reduced to the
dishonorable status of ``pauper.'' Pensions were
provided to them as an ``honorable'' form of economic
assistance.
Prior to World War I, financial need was not an explicit
basis for all pension benefits. Pension for veterans of the
Indian Wars and Spanish American Wars were not based upon need.
However, there are benefits, such as housebound and aid-and-
attendance benefits, which have been based on a finding of
disability. ``Invalid pensions'' were paid to Revolutionary War
veterans and to Civil War veterans (Browning at 5 et seq.).
Current law continues the longstanding practice of
providing pension benefits to veterans of wartime service.
Under section 1521 of title 38, there are three elements that a
veteran must establish to qualify for basic VA disability
pension--service during a period of war, an annual income below
specified levels (depending on the number of the veteran's
dependents), and disability, total and permanent in nature.
Each of these elements is integral to fulfilling the
purpose of the basic disability pension benefit--service in a
period of war so as to place the veteran in the special
category of those who are seen to have a particular claim on
the Nation's gratitude, limited income so as to demonstrate the
veteran's need for financial assistance, and permanent and
total disability so as to establish that the veteran's status
is not the result of some minor or temporary disability from
which recovery can be expected.
While these three elements have been adjusted over the
years--the amount of service required during a period of war,
for example, or a change in what assets are included in
determining a veteran's income--one aspect that has been
particularly challenging has been the relationship between
finding a qualifying state of permanent and total disability
and a veteran's age.
In 1967, shortly after the enactment of the Medicare
program, which uses age 65 as the point at which someone
qualifies for the benefits of that program, the Congress passed
legislation, enacted as Public Law 90-77, which provided that,
at age 65, a veteran would be considered totally and
permanently disabled for purposes of VA pension.
Later, in 1990, Congress again acted with respect to the
question of age and disability, this time passing legislation,
enacted as part of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of
1990, Public Law 101-508, which repealed the automatic
presumption of permanent and total disability at age 65.
Most recently, in 2001, the issue of age and disability was
again before the Congress. As noted in the joint explanatory
statement accompanying final passage of H.R. 1291, which was
enacted as Public Law 107-103, the compromise legislation that
dealt with this issue, the legislation was in response to an
action taken by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to address a
looming backlog of claims.
The Veterans' Affairs Committees had learned that the
Veterans Benefits Administration had advised VA adjudicators to
presume that veterans age 65 and older were totally and
permanently disabled for VA pension purposes and, on that
basis, to not require a physical exam before finding
eligibility for pension.
While the Committee did not then, and does not now, believe
that there is a rationale based in medical science for equating
age 65 with permanent and total disability, it did recognize
that there was merit to providing a service pension to older
veterans, similar to that provided to veterans of the Indian
and Spanish American Wars, so as to allow VA to avoid using
scarce resources to carry out examinations on impoverished,
wartime veterans age 65 and over.
In enacting the legislation which added section 1513 to
title 38, so as to provide a service pension to older wartime
veterans, the House and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs
noted their disapproval of the Secretary's failure to follow
existing law, but agreed, as stated in the explanatory
statement accompanying the legislation, that
A policy of requiring proof of disability for an aged
wartime veteran with incomes (sic) below the pension
benefit amount involves use of scarce agency resources
without a commensurate return. The Committees have
determined that aged wartime veterans should be
provided a needs-based pension under conditions similar
to that provided for veterans of the Indian Wars and
the Spanish-American War. Joint Explanatory Statement
on P.L. 107-103, Explanatory Statement on House
Amendments to Senate Amendment to H.R. 1291, 147
Congressional Record December 13, 2001 at S13239
(hereinafter, ``JES'').
As noted above, the Committee bill would overturn a
decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims in Hartness v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 216 (2006)
(hereinafter, ``Hartness'') which interpreted a reference to
section 1521 in subsection (a) of section 1513 of title 38 to
mean that veterans age 65 and older who applied for a service
pension under that section would also be eligible to receive
benefits on the basis of being housebound without meeting the
disability criteria of section 1521.
The Hartness decision has resulted in disparate benefits
for similarly situated veterans who differ only in whether they
are 65 or older or younger than 65. As a result of this ruling,
veterans who are 65 years of age and older are eligible to be
paid at the higher housebound rate even if they have only one
disability rated at 60 percent, a benefit which veterans who
are under 65 years of age are not eligible to receive.
In Hartness, the Court was confronted with what it
described as a question of first impression--the relationship
between sections 1513 and 1521 of title 38. The question, as
articulated by the Court, was whether section 1513 operated to
remove the requirement that a veteran age 65 or older have both
a total and permanent disability as well as the additional
disabling conditions set forth in section 1521(e) in order to
qualify for the additional
benefits.
According to the Court's opinion, Mr. Hartness was a World
War II veteran, over the age of 65 who originally sought a
special monthly pension under section 1521 of the basis of both
needing aid and attendance and being housebound. On appeal to
the Court, Mr. Hartness dropped the aid and attendance element
of his claim, focusing only on his meeting the criteria for the
special benefit on the basis of being housebound. Also on
appeal to the Court, Mr. Hartness shifted the focus of his
argument from being entitled to pension under section 1521 and
instead argued, for the first time, that he was entitled for
this special benefit under section 1513.
The Court ruled that ``the Board [of Veterans Appeals]
failed to apply section 1513 when considering whether Mr.
Hartness was entitled to a special monthly pension under 38
U.S.C. Sec. 1521(e)'' and that ``a wartime veteran is awarded
a special monthly pension if, in addition to being at least 65
years old, he or she possesses a minimum disability rating of
60 percent or is considered permanently housebound.'' [Emphasis
supplied.] Hartness at 221-22.
It is the Committee's view that the Court, in ruling that
VA must apply the age criteria of the service pension paid
under section 1513 to non-service-connected disability benefits
paid under section 1521, misunderstood the intent of the
service pension provided to older veterans under section 1513
and, in particular, subsection (b) of that section.
In its decision, the Court did not discuss the difference
between service pensions and disability pensions; rather, the
Court appeared to treat the two provisions in a similar
fashion, understanding section 1513 to mean that older veterans
could obtain significantly higher benefits, with their age
substituting for the permanent and total disability requirement
of section 1521(e).
The Committee recognizes the difficulty faced by the Court
in Hartness in interpreting the two provisions and their
relationship. The legislative history of section 207 of H.R.
1291, which added section 1513 to title 38, is sparse. In
addition, the Court was hampered in its analysis by the
apparent failure of VA to address in its brief the criteria for
benefits under section 1513, including the limitation of
subsection (b), and the ambiguous nature of the record with
regard to Mr. Hartness' eligibility for benefits under section
1521. Hartness at 222. Finally, the Court noted that VA's
regulations, at 38 CFR Sec. 3.3, do not distinguish between
the service pension paid under section 1513 and the non-
service-connected disability pension paid under section 1521.
Hartness at 221.
Based on the Court's decision, it appears that VA
apparently argued that ``as a matter of law, Mr. Hartness is
not entitled to a special monthly pension because he does not
have a disability that is rated as permanent and total. . . .''
[Emphasis supplied.] As a result, VA claimed that ``Mr.
Hartness does not meet the threshold requirements of 38 C.F.R.
Sec. 3.351 (d).'' Hartness at 218.
The factual basis for VA's position is not articulated in
the decision. As the Court notes, ``the record on appeal is
ambiguous as to Mr. Hartness' eligibility for non-service-
connected pension and special monthly pension under section
1521.'' Hartness at 222.
Under VA's regulations, the criteria for permanent total
disability are met ``when the impairment is reasonably certain
to continue throughout the life of the disabled person.'' 38
CFR Sec. 4.15. Total disability for pension purposes may be
found when the veteran has a single disability rated at 60
percent and is unemployable. 38 CFR Sec. Sec. 4.16 and 4.17.
Mr. Hartness was rated at 70 percent for one disability
described as permanent. The Court cited, without disagreement,
a physician report that ``Mr. Hartness was permanently and
legally blind because of age-related macular degeneration of
the retina.'' [Emphasis supplied.] Hartness at 217. The Court's
decision indicates that he relied on Social Security benefits
for income and made no reference to any evidence suggesting
that the veteran was employable. Hartness at 217. On these
facts, it is unclear why VA believed Mr. Hartness did not meet
the permanent and total disability criteria of section 1521.
In light of these ambiguous factual matters, and given the
prohibition on paying benefits under section 1513(b) to
veterans who also qualify for benefits under section 1521, it
is the Committee's view that the Court misconstrued the intent
of section 1513, which is to provide only a service pension
without any special monthly pension to older veterans who are
not disabled under the criteria set forth in section 1521.
As noted above, the Court did not discuss the difference
between service pensions and disability pensions. Rather, the
Court apparently understood the prohibition against paying
benefits under section 1513(b) if the veteran was eligible for
benefits under section 1521 to mean that older veterans could
obtain significantly higher benefits under section 1521(e) with
their age substituting for the permanent and total disability
requirement of that section. As a result, following Hartness,
older veterans who have only one 60% disability may receive
$202 per month because they would be eligible for benefits paid
at the housebound rate under section 1521(e) while younger
veterans rated at 60% would only qualify for the basic pension
amount. There is nothing in the legislative history of section
1513 to suggest that Congress intended such a disparate
result.
In establishing a service pension for older veterans under
section 1513, the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate
and House ``determined that aged wartime veterans should be
provided a needs-based pension under conditions similar to that
provided for veterans of the Indian Wars and the Spanish
American Wars.'' JES at S13239. Thus, section 1513 was placed
in the ``Service Pension'' part of ``Subchapter II. Veterans
Pensions'' of chapter 15, the portion of the chapter under
which veterans of the Indian Wars and the Spanish American War
were entitled to pension benefits without regard to disability
by sections 1511 and 1512, rather than in the ``Non-Service-
Connected Disability Pension'' part of that subchapter where
section 1521 is located.
Service benefits based upon age, and limited means, are
provided under section 1513 to low-income wartime veterans who
are 65 years of age or older. There is no requirement that
veterans who receive a pension based upon age suffer from any
disability, although some of these veterans may also have
disabilities.
Under sections 1511 and 1512, the provisions under which
older veterans who served during the Indian and Spanish
American Wars were eligible for a service pension, veterans who
were also disabled and thereby also eligible for a pension
under section 1521, could make an irrevocable election to
receive disability pension benefits under that section rather
than service pension benefits. In enacting section 1513,
however, the Congress did not provide such an option. Under
section 1513(b), if a veteran is age 65 or older and also
disabled, that veteran can only receive benefits under the non-
service-connected disability pension of section 1521 and is not
eligible to receive benefits under the service pension program
provided by section 1513.
Section 1513 is silent with regard to any specific
provision for housebound or aid-and-attendance benefits. The
formal legislative history of section 207 of Public Law 107-103
contained in the JES is likewise silent. However, while not
reflected in the JES, the Committee notes that the language of
section 1513 is identical to the language contained in H.R.
3087 of the 107th Congress, the proposed ``Veterans' Pension
Improvement Act of 2001,'' as introduced by Congressman Lane
Evans, the then-Ranking Democratic Member of the House
Committee on Veterans Affairs. In introducing this legislation,
Mr. Evans stated that, if the bill were enacted, ``VA would
only be required to obtain a medical examination and a finding
of disability for those veterans over age 65 who seek
additional benefits based upon a disability which renders them
homebound or in need of aid and attendance.'' [Emphasis
supplied.] 147 Congressional Record October 12, 2001 at E1859
(hereinafter, ``Evans Introduction'').
Like H.R. 3087, section 1513(b) as enacted specifically
provides that a veteran who qualifies for a pension based upon
age who also meets the disability criteria of section 1521 is
to be paid only under section 1521. There was no suggestion in
Representative Evans introduction or in the enactment of the
legislation that added section 1513 to title 38 that the age
requirements of a service pension under section 1513 were
intended to serve as a substitute for the total and permanent
disability requirements for housebound or aid and attendance
benefits paid under title 1521, as the Hartness decision holds.
Subsection (a) of section 1513 does require that the rates
used to pay service pensions paid under that section will be
``the rates prescribed by section 1521 of this title and under
the conditions (other than the total and permanent disability
requirement) applicable to pension paid under that section.''
Benefits paid under section 1513, while paid by reference to
the rates used in section 1521, are not and may not be paid
under section 1521. In discussing the section 1521 cross
reference, the JES explained that these
veterans must still meet the nondisability requirements
of section 1521 of title 38, United States Code, such
as income and net worth. In determining that benefits
will be provided at age 65 without regard to employment
status, the Committees noted that any veteran employed
full-time and receiving at least a minimum wage would
not qualify for pension based on the pension income
limitation. JES at S13239 (Compare, the JES language to
the Evans Introduction at E1859).
It is the Committee's view that, by placing the benefits
for aged veterans in the service pension part of chapter 15 of
title 38, with the service pension for Indian and Spanish
American War veterans, the intent was for benefits under
section 1513 to be considered a separate and distinct benefit
from the disability pension provided by section 1521, as was
true for service pensions provided under sections 1511 and
1512.
It is the Committee's further view that subsection (b) of
section 1513 is intended to prohibit a veteran who is both aged
and disabled from receiving benefits under section 1513.
Section 603 of the Committee's bill would clarify that
veterans who qualify for service pension benefits based upon
age under section 1513 are not eligible to receive special
monthly pension under the same criteria applied in that
section. Instead, older veterans must qualify for special
monthly pension benefits under all of the criteria of section
1521, the same criteria applied to younger disabled veterans,
if they are so disabled as to be housebound or require aid and
attendance.
This clarification would be effected by amending section
1513 so as to list the separate provisions of section 1521 that
are to be used in connection with determining eligibility for a
service pension under section 1513 and the amount of benefits
to be paid under that section. The provisions in the Committee
bill exclude the rates related to special monthly pension,
namely housebound benefits and aid-and-attendance benefits
contained in subsections (d), (e), and (f)(2), (f)(3) or (f)(4)
respectively of section 1521.
Because veterans who are actually housebound or in need of
aid and attendance are likely to qualify for benefits under the
criteria set forth in section 1521 under any circumstances, the
Committee's bill would affect primarily those veterans who are
age 65 and older and who are not significantly disabled.
The Committee intends that the proposed modification to
section 1513 will be effective with respect to claims for
pension filed on or after the effective date of the Committee
bill.
TITLE VII--BURIAL AND MEMORIAL MATTERS
Sec. 701. Supplemental benefits for veterans for funeral and burial
expenses.
Section 701 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
1326, would authorize supplemental benefits for veterans for
funeral and burial expenses.
Our country has long been concerned that veterans have a
proper burial. In 1862, President Lincoln signed legislation
that authorized national cemeteries to ensure a proper burial
for soldiers who died in the service of the country. Congress
expanded burial benefits with the War Risk Insurance Act
Amendments of 1917 so as to avoid a potter's field burial for
war veterans. That act provided a cash payment, of no more than
$100, to pay for funeral and burial expenses for deaths
occurring prior to separation from military service.
In 1923, the burial allowance was extended to veterans who
died without sufficient assets to pay for burial. The asset
limitation requirement was removed in 1936. In addition,
eligibility for cash payments was extended to veterans who
served during a war or died in the line of duty. In 1946,
Public Law 79-529 increased the burial allowance from $100 to
$150 for war veterans. The increase was justified by the
increase in cost of a funeral and the many costly associated
expenses. In 1958, Public Law 85-674 increased the burial
allowance from $150 to $250. This increase was justified by
increases in the cost of living. In 1973, Congress, in Public
Law 93-43, set the amount of service-connected and non-service-
connected burial expenses at $800 (covering 72 percent of an
average adult funeral) and $250 (22 percent of the total cost),
respectively. Congress intended to make veterans' burial
benefits in line with the then-existent system of Federal
civilian employees burial benefits. The increase also showed a
clear recognition by the Federal Government of its
responsibility to veterans who suffered a service-
connected death. In 1978, the burial allowance for a service-
connected death was raised to $1,100 (80 percent of the total
cost). The non-service-connected death allowance rose from $250
to $300 where it has remained since that time.
Public Law 97-35, signed into law in 1981, restricted
burial benefits to veterans who were in receipt of or entitled
to receive compensation or pension at the time of death for
non-service-connected deaths. The basis for the restriction was
to impose some limitation on who was entitled to non-service-
connected veterans benefits as the death rates among WW II
veterans began to climb. By restricting the burial benefit,
Congress was focusing the benefits so only the neediest of
veterans were entitled to burial aid. A straight ``needs test''
was rejected because of the difficulty it would present to VA
to administer a program that used such tax terms as ``net
estate'' and ``adjusted gross income.'' Congress thought it was
hard enough for the Internal Revenue Service to decipher such
terms and believed it to be beyond the then-capacity of the VA.
Congress subsequently adopted an ``eligible to receive pension
or other compensation from VA'' test. Congress thought this
would be easier for the VA to administer with its then existing
pension and compensation program.
In 2001, in Public Law 107-103, the service-connected
burial benefit was raised from $1,500 to $2,000 for burial and
funeral expenses for a service-connected death. Legislation at
that time was spurred by the issuance of a VA report in
December 2000, which showed the effect of inflation on the
burial benefit. In 1973, the average cost of an adult funeral
was $1,116. In 1999, the average cost for an adult funeral had
increased to $5,157. Funeral costs were rising faster than the
cost of inflation.
According to the National Funeral Directors Association,
the average cost of a funeral, as of July 2004, was $6,500.
Section 701 is intended to increase the burial benefit to fight
the erosion of this important benefit.
Section 701 would authorize supplemental benefits for both
service-connected and non-service-connected allowances.
Disbursement of these supplemental funds would be subject to
their availability in advance in an appropriations act. The
Secretary would be prohibited from making the supplemental
payments if all funds specifically provided for this purpose in
an appropriations act have already been expended. The
supplemental benefit for those dying from service-connected
disabilities would be $2,100 above the current $2,000 benefit,
bringing the total authorized benefit to $4,100. The non-
service-connected supplemental benefit would be $900 in
addition to the current $300, for a total of $1,200 in
authorized burial benefit. Finally, section 701 would also
provide for an annual increase in the authorized supplemental
allowance in both categories to preserve the purchasing power
of the benefit.
Sec. 702. Supplemental plot allowances.
Section 702 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
1326, would authorize supplemental burial plot allowances for
veterans.
A growing problem caught the attention of the Committee in
1972 and helped lead to the establishment of maximum plot
allowances. According to testimony given by Dead Giveaway, a
group of law students, at a 1972 Committee hearing, cemeteries
advertised ``free'' or a ``one time only perpetual care
charge'' to veterans in an attempt to sell veterans plot space
on a ``pre-need basis.'' According to Dead Giveaway's
testimony, the practice of cemetery owners was less of a
patriotic gesture than a business venture. The cemetery
operators charged veterans up to $1,400 for a burial plot when
the national average cost for a plot at that time was $122. In
1972, the Pre-Arrangement Internment Association of America
(PIAA) adopted a resolution stating that if Congress provided a
plot allowance, then PIAA members would accept the sum provided
by Congress as payment in full for America's veterans.
Public Law 93-43, the same law that formally established
the National Cemetery System in VA, authorized payment of not
more than $250 as a plot or interment allowance in connection
with the burial of deceased veterans who die while properly
admitted to a hospital, nursing home, or domiciliary
administered or paid for by VA. Public Law 95-476 increased
this allowance to $300 in 1978.
Public Law 93-43 also authorized payment of not more than
$150 in connection with the burial of deceased veterans who
choose to be interred at a cemetery not under the jurisdiction
of the United States government. Public Law 107-103 increased
this allowance to $300 in 2001. Thus, as of 2001, plot
allowances authorized in section 2303 of title 38, United
States Code, were uniformly set at $300.
While the increase in the plot allowance to $300 in 2001
was significant, it has not been adjusted since, although this
amount represents a fraction of what it was worth when the
government began paying the plot allowance in 1973. The 1973
limits were developed as a means of protecting veterans from
being overcharged for interment costs.
Public Law 97-35 limited, effective October 1, 1981,
veterans' burial and funeral benefits under sections 2302 and
2303 of title 38, United States Code, to burials of deceased
veterans who were entitled to receive VA compensation or
pension. Previously, the plot allowance had been available to
any honorably discharged wartime veteran.
Under current law, VA will pay a $300 plot allowance when a
veteran is buried in a cemetery not under U.S. government
jurisdiction if--the veteran was discharged from active duty
because of a disability incurred or aggravated in the line of
duty; the veteran was receiving compensation or pension, or
would have been if they weren't receiving military retired pay;
or the veteran died in a VA facility. The plot allowance may be
paid to the state for the cost of a plot or interment in a
state-owned cemetery reserved solely for veteran burials if the
veteran was buried without charge. The plot allowance cannot be
paid to a deceased veteran's employer or a state agency.
Section 702 of the Committee bill would create a program to
authorize supplemental benefits to individuals who are already
eligible to receive these benefits. Disbursement of these
supplemental funds would be subject to their availability in
advance in an appropriations act. VA would be prohibited from
making the supplemental payments if all funds specifically
provided for this purpose in an appropriations act have already
been expended.
Section 702 would maintain the current $300 plot allowance
and authorize a new supplemental plot allowance of $445.
Section 702 would also provide for an annual increase in the
authorized supplemental plot allowance to preserve the
purchasing power of the
benefit.
TITLE VIII--OTHER MATTERS
Sec. 801. Eligibility of disabled veterans and members of the Armed
Forces with severe burn injuries for automobiles and adaptive
equipment.
Section 801 of the Committee bill would provide eligibility
for automobiles and adaptive equipment assistance to
individuals suffering from the same disabilities due to severe
burn injuries. Section 801 is meant to complement section 203
of the Committee bill, which would provide eligibility for
specially adapted housing benefits to veterans and
servicemembers suffering from disabilities due to severe burn
injuries.
Under current law, chapter 39, title 38, United States
Code, veterans and members of the Armed Forces are eligible for
assistance with automobiles and adaptive equipment if they
suffer from one of three qualifying service-connected
disabilities: loss or permanent loss of use of one or both
feet; loss or permanent loss of use of one or both hands; or a
central visual acuity of 20/200 or less, or a peripheral field
of vision of 20 degrees or less. Individuals with these
disabilities experience great difficulty operating a standard
automobile not equipped to accommodate their disabilities.
It has come to the Committee's attention during an
oversight visit to the Brooke Army Medical Center (hereinafter,
``BAMC'') in San Antonio, Texas, that victims of severe burn
injuries also experience great difficulty operating standard
automobiles. BAMC is the DOD's leading center for the treatment
and rehabilitation of burn victims and the home of the U.S.
Army's Institute of Surgical Research Burn Unit. Staff at BAMC
indicated that severe burn victims frequently need vehicles
with special adaptations, as do amputees and the vision
impaired. Due to the severe damage done to their skin, these
individuals often require special adaptations for assistance in
and out of the vehicle, seat comfort, and climate
control.
Section 801 of the Committee bill would expand eligibility
under section 3901 of title 38, United State Code, to include
individuals with a service-connected disability due to a severe
burn injury. The scope and definition of what constitutes a
``disability due to a severe burn injury'' would be determined
pursuant to regulations prescribed by VA.
Section 802. Supplemental assistance for providing automobiles and
other conveyances to certain disabled veterans.
Section 802 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
1326, would authorize supplemental assistance with automobiles
and other conveyances to certain disabled veterans. Under
current law, veterans and members of the Armed Forces with
certain severe service-connected disabilities are eligible for
assistance of up to $11,000 for the purchase of an automobile
or other conveyance pursuant to section 3902 of title 38,
United States Code.
Section 802 would authorize a program to provide
supplemental benefits to individuals who are already eligible
to receive assistance for automobiles and other conveyances. A
new section 3902A would be added to title 38, United State
Code, authorizing VA to disburse supplemental assistance to
eligible individuals in addition to the capped amount currently
specified in section 3902. Disbursement of these supplemental
funds would be subject to their availability in advance of an
appropriations act. VA would be prohibited from making the
supplemental payments if all funds specifically provided for
this purpose in an appropriations act have already been
expended.
Section 802 would authorize VA to pay up to an additional
$11,484 to those eligible for assistance pursuant to section
3902, increasing the total amount of funds available per grant,
from both the mandatory and discretionary accounts, to $22,484.
Section 802 would also direct VA to enact an annual
adjustment of the maximum available authorized supplemental
funds. VA would be required to establish a method of
determining the average retail cost of new automobiles for the
preceding calendar year. The authorized supplemental funds
would increase, effective October 1 of each fiscal year, by an
amount equal to 80 percent of what VA determined to be the
average retail cost of new automobiles for the preceding
calendar year.
In order to assess the adequacy of the authorized
supplemental funds provided in this section to meet the demand
of eligible beneficiaries, section 802 would require VA to
provide periodic estimates to Congress. VA would be required to
provide an estimate of the amount of funding necessary to
provide supplemental assistance at the authorized level to all
eligible recipients for the remainder of that fiscal year; and
an estimate of the amount of funding Congress would need to
appropriate to provide all eligible recipients with
supplemental assistance at the authorized level for the next
fiscal year. This measure would equip the appropriate
committees of Congress with the information needed to fully
fund the needs of all eligible recipients through future
appropriations, should they so choose.
Section 802 of the Committee bill is a result of the
Committee's observation that increases in automobile and
adaptive equipment grants have been infrequent, despite the
fact that the market prices of these items are continually on
the rise. Unless the amounts of the grants are periodically
adjusted, inflation erodes the value and effectiveness of these
benefits, making it more difficult for beneficiaries to afford
the accommodations they need. Section 802 would allow Congress
to exercise the option to appropriate additional discretionary
funds for this purpose.
Sec. 803. Clarification of purpose of the outreach service program of
the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Section 803 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
1314, would amend section 6301 of title 38, United States Code,
to clarify the scope of outreach efforts provided by VA.
Under current law, section 6301(a)(1) of title 38, United
States Code, the purpose of VA's outreach program is to ensure
that all veterans, especially those who have been recently
discharged from active military, naval or air service and those
who are eligible for readjustment or other benefits and
services are provided timely and appropriate assistance to aid
and encourage them in applying for and obtaining such benefits
and services in order that they may achieve a rapid social and
economic readjustment to civilian life and to obtain a higher
standard of living for themselves and their dependents. It
currently contains no comprehensive definition of the term,
``outreach.''
Section 803 of the Committee bill would facilitate
consistent implementation of VA's outreach responsibilities by
modifying the ``purpose section'' of chapter 63 to include
specific mention of the National Guard and Reserve. It would
also create a statutory definition of the term ``outreach'' as
it applies to VA. The definition would include VA's efforts to
reach out in a systematic manner to provide information,
services, and benefits to veterans, spouses, children, and
parents and to ensure that all eligible individuals are fully
informed about and assisted in applying for benefits and
services for which they are eligible.
Sec. 804. Termination or suspension of contracts for cellular telephone
service for servicemembers undergoing deployment outside the
United States.
Section 804 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
1313, would allow servicemembers to terminate or suspend
cellular telephone service when deployed outside of the United
States.
Congress has long recognized that the men and women of our
military services should have civil legal protections so they
can devote their entire energy to the defense needs of the
United States. These protections, which are commonly known as
the ``Servicemembers Civil Relief Act'' (hereinafter, ``SCRA'')
are currently found in the appendix to title 50, United States
Code, beginning at section 501.
With over 1.2 million servicemembers deployed since the
start of OEF and OIF, the Committee believes that the SCRA,
previously the Soldiers' and Sailors' Civil Relief Act of 1940
(hereinafter, ``SSCRA''), is in need of further amendment to
take into account a modern form of technology--the cellular
telephone.
As stated by Representative Overton Brooks in 1942, the
SSCRA reflected ``the desire of the people of the United States
to make sure as far as possible that men in service are not
placed at a civil disadvantage during their absence. It springs
from the inability of men who are in service to properly manage
their normal business affairs while away. It likewise arises
from the differences in pay which a soldier receives and what
the same man normally earns in civil life.''
The earliest recognition of the need to provide civil
protections for servicemembers in the United States dates back
to the ``stay laws'' promulgated by Louisiana during the War of
1812. Louisiana suspended all proceedings in civil cases for
four months as the British were advancing on New Orleans. The
experience of people serving in the military during the Civil
War led the Federal government and some states to enact stay
laws, which had the effect of suspending legal actions to which
the soldier or sailor was a party. Following the decision of
the United States to enter World War I in 1917, the first
modern version of SSCRA was enacted. These first provisions
covered default judgments, stays of proceedings, evictions,
mortgage foreclosure, insurance, and installment contracts.
However, this Act self-terminated six-months after the
cessation of World War I hostilities. In 1940, with the looming
involvement of the United States in World War II, Congress re-
enacted the SSCRA almost verbatim in Public Law 76-861.
Various amendments were made to the SSCRA between 1942 and
2003. In 2003, the SSCRA was re-written, and re-named the
Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. The bill was signed into law
on December 19, 2003, as Public Law 108-189. According to
Senate Report 108-197, the report accompanying S. 1136, the
purpose
was to:
[P]rovide for, strengthen, and expedite the national
defense through protections extended by this Act to
servicemembers of the United States to enable such
persons to devote their entire energy to the defense
needs of the nation; and to provide for the temporary
suspension of judicial and administrative proceedings
and transactions that may adversely affect the civil
rights of servicemembers during their military service.
These purposes are the same as those which the Congress
contemplated when it enacted SSCRA in anticipation of
potential war in 1940.
The Committee recognizes, however, that while the
Congress' purposes remain as they were in 1940, there
now exist business and social circumstances that did
not exist when SSCRA was enacted. These changed
circumstances need to be addressed to better reflect
the requirements of today's servicemembers. The
Committee bill would address these needs by restating
and clarifying the language of SSCRA. But it would also
modernize SSCRA by providing protections that address
situations--e.g., the leasing of automobiles--not
anticipated when SSCRA was enacted.
The amendment to SCRA that would be made by section 804 of
the Committee bill would further reflect changes in American
life by allowing a servicemember who receives orders to deploy
outside of the continental United States for not less than 90
days to request the termination or suspension of any contract
for cellular telephone service entered into before that date if
the servicemember's ability to satisfy the contract or to
utilize the service will be materially affected by that period
of deployment.
Section 805: Maintenance, management, and availability for research of
assets of Air Force Health Study.
Section 805 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S.
1421, would ensure that the assets from the Air Force Health
Study (hereinafter, ``AFHS'') are transferred to the Medical
Follow-up Agency (hereinafter, ``MFUA'') and maintained,
managed and made available to researchers. In order to ensure
that sufficient funds are made available for this purpose,
funding in the amount of $1,200,000 would be made available
from VA accounts available for Medical and Prosthetic Research
in each fiscal year from 2008 through 2011. In addition,
funding from the same source would be provided in the amount of
$250,000 for each year to conduct additional research using the
assets of the AFHS. Finally a report would be provided to the
Congress by March 31, 2011, concerning the feasibility and
advisability of conducting additional research using these
assets or disposing of them.
In the late 1970's, Congress urged the DOD to conduct an
epidemiologic study of veterans of ``Operation Ranch Hand,''
the military units responsible for aerial spraying of
herbicides during the Vietnam War. In response, the AFHS was
initiated in 1982 to examine the effects of herbicide exposure
and health, mortality, and reproductive outcomes in veterans of
Operation Ranch Hand. The study is noteworthy for the amount of
data and biological specimens collected. It cost over $143
million and was concluded in 2006.
Prior to the conclusion of the AFHS, Congress directed VA
to enter into an agreement with the then National Academy of
Sciences (hereinafter, ``NAS''), now the National Academies, to
report on the scientific merit of retaining AFHS data after the
study was concluded. A Committee formed by the Institute of
Medicine (hereinafter, ``IOM'') of NAS issued its report
entitled, ``Disposition of the Air Force Health Study,'' in
March of 2006. IOM concluded that the AFHS data assets were
unique and of high quality and that the specimens were well
preserved. IOM also found that analysis of the AFHS data had
enhanced the understanding of the health of Vietnam veterans.
The IOM Committee recommended that AFHS data assets be
transferred to a custodian, such as MFUA, so that they could be
made available for future research. The report also recommended
that funding be made available for the preservation and marking
of the research material.
Legislation enacted as section 714 of the John Warner
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, Public
Law 109-364, authorized the Air Force to transfer custody of
the data and biological specimens to MFUA. Funding from DOD was
authorized to effect the transfer in fiscal year 2007.
The Committee agrees that the resources of the AFHS should
be preserved and made accessible to researchers. Therefore,
section 805 would require VA to provide funding during fiscal
years 2008 through 2011 for the purposes recommended by IOM in
the Disposition of the AFHS report.
Sec. 806. National Academies study on risk of developing multiple
sclerosis as a result of certain service in the Persian Gulf
War and Post-9/11 Global Operations theaters.
Section 806 of the Committee bill would require VA to
contract with the National Academies to conduct a comprehensive
epidemiological study to identify any increased risk of
developing multiple sclerosis, and other diagnosed neurological
diseases, as a result of service in the Southwest Asia theater
of operations or in the Post 9/11 Global Operations theaters.
Under current law, veterans gain eligibility for disability
benefits by demonstrating a link between their disability and
their active military, naval, or air service. To establish such
a link, the veteran must show, generally, that his or her
disability resulted from an injury or disease that was incurred
or aggravated during the time of military service.
In addition to disabilities that can be directly linked to
service, certain diagnosed diseases are presumed, as a matter
of law, to be service-connected if they manifest under
conditions specified by statute. For example, section 1112,
title 38, United States Code, provides a presumption for
certain chronic diseases if manifested to a degree of
disability of 10 percent or more within one year of separation
from service, for certain tropical diseases if manifested to a
degree of disability of 10 percent or more, generally, within
one year of separation from service, and for active
tuberculosis or Hansen's disease if manifested to a degree of
disability of 10 percent or more within three years of
separation from service.
In 1962, Public Law 87-645 extended the period of time
after separation from service that a diagnosis of multiple
sclerosis may be presumed to be service-connected from three to
seven years for veterans with wartime service. The extension
was made in response to the fact that multiple sclerosis often
takes many years to manifest in diagnosable symptoms. The
course of multiple sclerosis is highly variable and makes
studies of etiology and possible mechanisms of treatment
challenging. The disease often begins with a relapsing-
remitting pattern with episodic exacerbations of neurological
dysfunction, which remit partially or completely.
Based on testimony at the Committee's May 9, 2007, hearing
and subsequent research and analysis, the Committee has
concluded that, despite suggestions that veterans who served in
the Persian Gulf War theater of operations exhibit a higher
prevalence of multiple sclerosis than the general population,
there remains a dearth of scientific or medical justification
to explain a direct connection between military service and the
contraction of the disease. Thus, rather than eliminate the
current presumptive period, the Committee decided that further
scientific research is necessary before additional reforms, if
any, are made. In particular, the Committee believes the
connection between multiple sclerosis and service during the
Persian Gulf War and Post-9/11 Global Operations periods merits
further investigation.
Section 806 of the Committee bill would require VA to enter
into a contract with IOM to conduct a comprehensive
epidemiological study to identify any increased risk of
developing multiple sclerosis, and other diagnosed neurological
diseases, as a result of service in the Southwest Asia theater
of operations or in the
Post 9/11 Global Operations theaters. The Southwest Asia
theater of operations is defined in section 3.3317 of title 38,
Code of Federal Regulations. The Post 9/11 Global Operations
theater is defined as Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other theater
for which the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal is
awarded for service.
The mandated study would examine the incidence and
prevalence of diagnosed neurological diseases, including
multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis, and brain cancers, as well as central nervous
abnormalities, in members of the Armed Forces who served during
the Persian Gulf War period and Post-9/11 Global Operations
period. The study would also collect information on possible
risk factors, such as exposure to pesticides and other toxic
substances. IOM would be required to submit a final report to
VA and the appropriate committees of Congress by December 31,
2010.
Sec. 807. Comptroller General report on adequacy of dependency and
indemnity compensation to maintain survivors of veterans who
die from service-connected disabilities.
Section 807 of the Committee bill, which is drawn from S.
1326, would require the Comptroller General to report on the
adequacy of DIC to maintain survivors of veterans who die from
service-
connected disabilities.
DIC is a benefit that is paid to survivors of certain
veterans. To be eligible, the veteran's death must have
resulted from: a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in
the line of duty or active duty for training; an injury
incurred or aggravated in the line of duty while on inactive
duty training; or, a service-connected disability or a
condition directly related to a service-connected disability.
DIC may also be paid to survivors of veterans who were
totally disabled from service-connected conditions at the time
of death, even if the death was not cause by their service-
connected disabilities. To be eligible for the benefit under
this circumstance, the veteran must have been rated totally
disabled for the ten years preceding death; rated totally
disabled from the date of military discharge and for at least
five years immediately preceding death; or, a former prisoner
of war who died after September 30, 1999, and who was rated
totally disabled for at least one year immediately preceding
death.
Surviving spouses of veterans who died on or after January
1, 1993, receive a basic rate, plus additional amounts for
dependent children. Surviving spouses of veterans who died
prior to January 1, 1993, receive an amount based on the
deceased veteran's military pay grade.
Section 807 would require the Comptroller General to
submit, to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate
and House of Representatives, a report regarding the adequacy
of the benefits to survivors in replacing the deceased
veteran's income. The Comptroller General would be required to
include a description of the current system of payment of DIC
to survivors, including a statement of DIC rates; an assessment
of the adequacy of DIC in replacing a deceased veteran's
income; and any recommendations that the Comptroller General
considers appropriate in order to improve or enhance the
effects of DIC in replacing the deceased veteran's income. The
Comptroller General would be required to submit the report not
later than ten months after the date of enactment of the
provision.
Committee Bill Cost Estimate
In compliance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee, based on
information supplied by the CBO, estimates that enactment of
the Committee bill would, relative to current law, increase
discretionary spending by $178 million in 2008 and by $1
billion over the 2008-2012 period, assuming appropriation of
the necessary amounts. The Committee bill would decrease direct
spending by $4 million in 2008, and by $44 million over the
2008-2012 period. Enactment of the Committee bill would not
affect receipts, and would not affect the budget of state,
local or tribal governments.
The cost estimate provided by CBO, setting forth a detailed
breakdown of costs, follows:
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, August 28, 2007.
Hon. Daniel K. Akaka,
Chairman,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed revised cost estimate for S. 1315, the
Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007. This estimate
supersedes the initial cost estimate transmitted on August 23,
2007.
This revised estimate corrects CBO's summary of current law
regarding veterans' pension benefits. The estimated budgetary
impact of enacting S. 1315 is unchanged.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Dwayne
Wright, who can be reached at 226-2840.
Sincerely,
Peter R. Orszag,
Director.
Enclosure
cc: Honorable Larry E. Craig, Ranking Member.
S. 1315, Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007
Summary: S. 1315 would affect several veterans programs,
including disability compensation, pension, burial, life
insurance, and readjustment benefits. CBO estimates that
implementing this legislation would incur discretionary costs
of $178 million in 2008 and $1 billion over the 2008-2012
period, assuming appropriations of the necessary amounts. Also,
the bill contains provisions that would both increase and
decrease direct spending for veterans benefits. CBO estimates
that enacting S. 1315 would decrease direct spending by $4
million in 2008, $44 million over the 2008-2012 period, and $56
million over the 2008-2017 period. Enacting the bill would have
no effect on federal revenues.
S. 1315 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA); any costs to state,
local, or tribal governments would be incurred voluntarily.
S. 1315 contains a private-sector mandate, as defined in
UMRA, because it would require cellular telephone contractors
to allow certain servicemembers to terminate or suspend
cellular telephone service contracts without termination or
reactivation fees. CBO estimates that the annual cost of the
mandate would probably be below the threshold established in
UMRA for private-sector mandates ($131 million in 2007,
adjusted annually for inflation).
Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated
budgetary impact of S. 1315 is summarized in Table 1. The costs
of this legislation fall within budget function 700 (veterans
benefits and services).
Table 1. Estimated Budgetary Impact of S. 1315
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
------------------------------------------------------
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION
Estimated Authorization Level............................ 178 191 205 215 225
Estimated Outlays........................................ 178 191 205 215 225
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDINGa
Estimated Budget Authority............................... -4 25 -16 -29 -22
Estimated Outlays........................................ -4 25 -16 -29 -22
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
aIn addition to the direct spending effects shown here, enacting S. 1315 would have additional effects on direct
spending after 2012 (see Table 3). The estimated net changes in direct spending sum to -$44 million over the
2008-2012 period and -$56 million over the 2008-2017 period.
Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that S.
1315 will be enacted near the start of fiscal year 2008 and
that the necessary funds for implementing the bill will be
provided each year.
Spending subject to appropriation
S. 1315 contains several provisions that would affect
benefits provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA),
including increasing veterans burial benefits, expanding
benefits for Filipino veterans, and increasing benefits for
severely disabled veterans. CBO estimates that implementing S.
1315 would result in discretionary outlays of $178 million in
2008 and $1 billion over the 2008-2012 period, subject to
appropriation of the necessary amounts (see Table 2).
Supplemental Funeral and Burial Expenses. Under current
law, VA pays funeral expenses up to $300 for deceased veterans
who had been receiving compensation or pension benefits and for
whom no next of kin can be located. VA also pays up to $2,000
for burial expenses to the survivors of veterans who die as a
result of their service-connected disability. Section 701 would
increase the maximum payments for funeral and burial expenses
to $1,200 and $4,100, respectively, and would increase these
amounts annually by a cost-of-living adjustment.
Table 2. Components of Discretionary Spending Under S. 1315
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
------------------------------------------------------
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONa
Supplemental Funeral and Burial Expenses:
Estimated Authorization Level........................ 112 117 125 132 140
Estimated Outlays.................................... 112 117 125 132 140
Supplemental Plot Allowance:
Estimated Authorization Level........................ 32 32 35 37 39
Estimated Outlays.................................... 32 32 35 37 39
Supplemental Automobile Grants for Disabled Veterans:
Estimated Authorization Level........................ 19 20 21 22 23
Estimated Outlays.................................... 19 20 21 22 23
Medical Care for Filipino Veterans:
Estimated Authorization Level........................ 5 11 13 13 13
Estimated Outlays.................................... 5 11 13 13 13
Supplemental Specially Adapted Housing Benefits:
Estimated Authorization Level........................ 7 8 9 9 10
Estimated Outlays.................................... 7 8 9 9 10
Reports:
Estimated Authorization Level........................ 2 2 1 1 *
Estimated Outlays.................................... 2 2 1 1 *
Assets of Air Force Health Study:
Estimated Authorization Level........................ 1 1 1 1 0
Estimated Outlays.................................... 1 1 1 1 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Estimated Authorization Level.................. 191 205 215 225
Estimated Outlays.............................. 178 191 205 215 225
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: * = less than $500,000.
aComponents may not add up to totals because of rounding.
Based on information from VA regarding veteran mortality,
CBO expects about 89,000 grants to be made for funeral expenses
in 2008 increasing to about 96,600 by 2012. For service-
connected burial expenses, CBO expects about 15,000 grants to
be made in 2008 increasing to about 17,500 in 2012. CBO
estimates that implementing section 701 would cost $112 million
in 2008 and $626 million over the 2008-2012 period, assuming
appropriation of the necessary amounts.
Supplemental Plot Allowance. Under current law, VA pays a
$300 plot allowance for veterans who died in a VA facility or
who are to be buried in a state or private cemetery. Section
702 would increase the plot allowance to $745 and would adjust
the payment annually by a cost-of-living index. Based on
information from VA on veterans mortality rates, CBO expects
about 72,000 grants to be made for plot allowances in 2008,
increasing to about 77,000 grants by 2012. CBO estimates that
implementing section 702 would increase the cost of this
program by $32 million in 2008 and by $176 million over the
2008-2012 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary
amounts.
Supplemental Automobile Grants for Disabled Veterans. The
Department of Veterans Affairs currently provides grants of
$11,000 for the purchase of an automobile or other vehicle to
seriously disabled veterans who, as the result of a service-
connected injury or disease, have lost the use of one or both
hands (or feet) or have suffered a severe vision impairment.
While these grants are mandatory payments made from the
Readjustment Benefits account, section 802 would require VA to
provide grant recipients an additional payment, subject to the
availability of appropriations, such that the grant and
supplemental payment total $22,484 in 2007 (more than doubling
the existing benefit) and would increase that amount annually
by a cost-of-living adjustment. Based on current usage rates
and assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO
estimates that implementing section 802 would cost about $17
million in 2008 and $96 million over the 2008-2012 period.
Medical Care for Filipino Veterans. Section 401 would
qualify Filipino veterans for VA medical care if they served in
the organized military forces of the Commonwealth of the
Philippines or the Philippine Scouts while they were in the
service of the U.S. Armed Forces between July 26, 1941, and
July 1, 1946. Based on information from VA, CBO estimates that
there will be about 30,000 eligible veterans living in the
Philippines in 2008, and that their numbers will decline to
about 24,000 by 2012. In 2006, the VA's average annual cost of
providing medical care to veterans in the Phillippines was
about $1,700 per person and, after accounting for inflation,
CBO estimates that average would increase to about $2,100 per
person by 2012.
According to VA, about 25 percent of all eligible veterans
use VA medical care. Assuming a three-year phase-in of new
users, CBO estimates that implementing section 401 would
increase VA health care costs by $5 million in 2008 and by $55
million over the 2008-2012 period, subject to appropriation of
the necessary amounts.
Supplemental Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) Benefits. VA
currently administers two grant programs to assist severely
disabled veterans in acquiring housing that is adapted to their
disabilities or in modifying their existing housing
accordingly. While those grants are mandatory payments made
from the Readjustment Benefits account, section 205 would
require VA to provide grant recipients with an additional
payment, subject to the availability of appropriations. Under
current law, veterans who are classified by VA as totally
disabled and who have certain mobility limitations are entitled
to receive grants of up to $50,000 toward the acquisition of
suitable housing. Totally disabled veterans who are blind or
have lost the use of their hands are entitled to receive grants
of up to $10,000 to adapt their residences to accommodate their
disabilities.
Section 205 would require VA to provide an additional
payment such that the total received by any individual would be
a subject to a maximum of $60,000 and $12,000, respectively (a
20 percent increase). Based on current usage rates and assuming
appropriation of the necessary amounts, CBO estimates that
implementing section 205 would cost $7 million in 2008 and $43
million over the 2008-2012 period.
Reports. S. 1315 would require VA to prepare or to enter
into contracts for the completion of several reports. The
topics would include: specially adapted housing for disabled
individuals, specially adapted housing for individuals residing
in homes owned by other family members on a permanent basis, a
modification of a special unemployment report for veterans of
post-9/11 global operations, annual workload reports for the
Court of Appeals of Veterans Claims (CAVC), expansion of
facilities for the CAVC, and an Institute of Medicine study on
the risk of developing multiple sclerosis as a result of
service in the Persian Gulf or post-9/11 global operations. CBO
estimates that completing the required reports would cost $2
million in 2008 and $6 million over the 2008-2012 period,
subject to the availability of appropriated funds.
Assets of Air Force Health Study. Section 805 would
authorize the appropriation of $1.5 million for the 2008-2011
period to ensure that the assets transferred to the Medical
Follow-Up Agency from the Air Force Health Study are
maintained, managed, and made available as a resource for
future research for promoting healthy veterans.
Recall of Retired Judges for CAVC. Section 501 would modify
the way that judges who are eligible to be recalled after
retirement are paid upon recall to the Court of Appeal for
Veterans Claims work. Under current law, recall-eligible,
retired judges who return to the bench are paid at the same
rate as a judge of the court. Under section 501, judges
appointed to the court after the date of enactment of S. 1315
who opt to be available for recall would be paid at their
retirement-pay rate (with cost-of-living increases) upon return
to the bench. Because very few judges are recalled, CBO
estimates that section 501 would have an insignificant impact
on discretionary costs.
Direct Spending
S. 1315 contains provisions that would both increase and
decrease direct spending. CBO estimates that enacting S. 1315
would decrease net direct spending by $4 million in 2008, by
$44 million over the 2008-2012 period, and by $56 million over
the 2008-2017 period (see Table 3).
Special Monthly Pension (SMP). VA provides pension benefits
for low-income, totally disabled, war veterans whose
disabilities are unrelated to their service. Eligible veterans
who have more than one disability may receive a higher payment
in the form of a SMP at either the aid and attendance (A&A)
level or the lower housebound level. Those whose second
disability is rated at 100 percent are eligible to receive the
A&A SMP; those whose second disability is rated at 60 percent
to 90 percent are eligible for the housebound SMP.
As of 2001, low-income war veterans over age 65 are
eligible to receive the basic pension benefit without a
determination of total disability. Until a recent court
holding, however, they had to meet the same requirements as
younger veterans to receive SMPs.\1\ Veterans over age 65 were
required to have two disabilities rated at 100 percent each, or
one disability rated at 100 percent and one rated at 60 percent
or greater to receive the A&A or housebound SMPs, respectively.
The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims found that otherwise
eligible veterans over age 65 did not need the initial
disability rating of 100 percent, significantly expanding the
number of veterans who are eligible to receive the more costly
SMP. Pursuant to that holding, VA has recently begun to pay the
A&A SMP to veterans over age 65 who have one disability rated
at 100 percent and to pay the housebound SMP to veterans over
65 with a single disability rated at 60 percent to 90 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Robert A. Hartness v. R. James Nicholson, VA 20 Vet. App. 216
(2006).
Table 3. Components of Direct Spending Under S. 1315
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Outlays in millions of dollars, by fiscal year--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2008-2012 2008-2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDINGa
Special Monthly Pension..................................... -63 -90 -112 -111 -109 -105 -101 -96 -91 -87 -485 -965
Expansion of Benefits for Filipino Veterans................. 24 50 46 42 37 33 30 27 24 21 198 332
Service-Connected Term Life Insurance....................... 3 10 17 23 30 36 42 49 55 61 83 326
State Approving Agencies.................................... 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 30 60
Enhanced Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance................... 3 3 3 3 6 6 6 7 7 7 18 51
Expansion of Retroactive Benefits for T-SGLI................ 5 24 14 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 47 47
Extension of Increased Job Training Benefits................ 12 15 4 * * * * * * * 31 31
Supplemental S-DVI.......................................... 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 13 26
Specially Adapted Housing Grants for Individuals with Severe 2 2 2 2 1 * * * * * 9 11
Burns......................................................
Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment for Individuals with 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 11
Severe Burns...............................................
COLA for Surviving Spouses.................................. * * * 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 9
Consideration of Dominant Hand as Qualifying Loss to T-SGLI. 1 1 * * * * * * * * 3 5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................................... -4 25 -16 -29 -22 -21 -13 -2 6 15 -44 -56
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: T-SGLI = Traumatic Servicemembers Group Life Insurance; S-DVI Supplemental Service-Disabled Insurance.
* = less than $500,000.
aComponents may not add up to totals because of rounding.
Section 603 would change the eligibility requirements for
SMPs to those in force before the court ruling, reducing the
number of veterans eligible for SMP and thereby reducing the
cost of the pension program. Based on data from VA, CBO
estimates that, over the next three years, of the 20,570
veterans over age 65 who are receiving the basic pension
without a requirement of disability, 75 percent--or 15,400--
will apply for and receive a SMP. Based on disability data from
VA, CBO estimates that about 12,800 of those qualifying
pensioners will be found eligible for the A&A SMP and that the
remaining 2,600 will receive the housebound SMP.
In addition, CBO estimates that each year about 3,000 new
pension recipients will qualify for the SMPs because of the
court ruling and that half of them will be paid at the A&A rate
and that half will receive the housebound rate. Thus, CBO
estimates that under current law a total of 10,350 additional
veterans will receive SMPs in 2008, and, using normal mortality
rates for that population and adding in each year's cohort of
new pensioners, CBO estimates that by 2017, an additional
13,700 pensioners will receive SMPs because of the court
ruling.
The maximum annual pension rate for a veteran with no
dependents is $10,929. Similar rates for A&A and housebound
SMPs are $18,234 and $13,356, respectively. After adjusting for
cost-of-living increases, by 2017 the difference between the
maximum annual pension rate and both the A&A and housebound SMP
rates would be about $9,000 and $3,000, respectively. Using
those increases in benefit levels and the populations specified
above, CBO estimates that the court ruling will increase direct
spending on veterans pensions by $485 million over the 2008-
2012 period and $965 million over the 2008-2017 period.
Enacting section 603 would undo that increase expected under
current law, resulting in an equal amount of savings.
Expansion of Benefits for Filipino Veterans. Section 401
would qualify Filipino veterans for expanded VA benefits if
they served in the organized military forces of the
Commonwealth of the Philippines and the Philippine Scouts while
they were in the service of the U.S. Armed Forces between July
26, 1941, and July 1, 1946. Enacting this provision would
increase direct spending for disability compensation, pensions,
and readjustment benefits. In total, CBO estimates that
enacting section 401 would increase direct spending by $24
million in 2008, $198 million over the 2008-2012 period, and
$332 million over the 2008-2017 period. (Section 401 also would
increase the number of Filipino veterans who are eligible for
VA medical care. The cost of providing that care is discussed
above under ``Spending Subject to Appropriation.'')
Compensation. While Filipino veterans residing in the
United States are eligible for full disability compensation,
Filipino veterans residing in the Philippines receive
compensation at one-half of the full rate. Section 401 would
grant Filipino veterans residing in the Philippines full
disability compensation, effective as of January 1, 2008.
About 3,000 Filipino veterans received reduced disability
compensation from VA in 2006. Using VA mortality rates for
compensation recipients, CBO estimates that under section 401
about 2,700 Filipino veterans would receive an increase in
compensation in 2008, decreasing to about 1,300 by 2017. CBO
assumes that all veterans who are eligible for compensation are
currently receiving a disability payment, and that there would
be no new accessions to the disability compensation rolls.
Based on information from VA, CBO estimates that in 2008, the
average disability compensation payment will be about $9,600--
resulting in an increase of $4,800 for Filipino veterans. After
adjusting for cost-of-living increases, CBO estimates that
enacting section 401 would increase direct spending for
disability compensation by $59 million over the 2008-2012
period and $101 million over the 2008-2017 period.
Pensions. Under current law, Filipino veterans are not
eligible for disability pensions, and their surviving spouses
are not eligible for a death pension. Section 401 would make
both Filipino veterans and their surviving spouses eligible for
those pensions at specified rates. Under section 401, single
veterans would be eligible for an annual payment of $3,600 and
married veterans would be eligible for $4,500. The annual
payment for surviving spouses would be $2,400. All payments
would be increased annually by a cost-of-living adjustment.
Veterans applying on or after May 1, 2008, would be eligible.
To become eligible for a disability pension, a veteran must
have an income below a certain threshold, have served during a
period of war, and have a permanent and total non-service-
connected disability. Veterans over age 65 are presumed totally
disabled for pension purposes. The income threshold for
veterans without any dependents is about $11,000. According to
the Central Intelligence Agency Factbook, the average annual
income in the Philippines is about $5,000 as of 2006.
In 2001, VA issued a report on Filipino veterans. As of
September 2000, about 41,800 Filipino veterans resided in the
Philippines and were not receiving disability compensation.
Based on the low average annual income and the income threshold
for disability pensions, CBO expects that under this provision,
80 percent of Filipino veterans would apply for and be granted
a pension. Based on information from the Department of Defense
(DOD), CBO estimates that 30 percent of Filipino veterans are
married. Using VA mortality rates for pensioners, CBO estimates
that under section 401 about 14,200 Filipino veterans would be
granted a disability pension in 2008, of which about 1,500
would survive to 2017.
Based on information from VA and DOD, CBO estimates that
about 120 surviving spouses would apply for and be granted a
pension in 2008. After accounting for accessions to the
dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) rolls over the
2008-2017 period, CBO estimates that about 2,900 surviving
spouses would receive such pensions by 2017.
After accounting for cost-of-living adjustments, CBO
estimates that enacting section 401 would increase outlays for
pensions by $133 million over the 2008-2012 period and $221
million over the 2008-2012 period.
Readjustment Benefits. Section 401 would also make some
Filipino veterans eligible for certain readjustment benefits,
including dependent education, specially adapted housing
grants, and automotive and adaptive equipment. Based on
information from VA on the Filipino veteran and survivor
population, mortality rates, and usage rates, CBO estimates
that enacting section 401 would increase direct spending for
readjustment benefits by $7 million over the next five years
and by $11 million over the next 10 years.
Service-Connected Term Life Insurance. Section 101 would
create a new life insurance program for veterans under age 65
with a service-connected disability. Eligible veterans would be
able to obtain up to a maximum of $50,000 of insurance in
increments of $10,000. As participating veterans reached the
age of 70, the insurance would be reduced to 20 percent of its
original value. Veterans would pay premiums for this insurance
program as determined by VA. However, veterans aged 70 or
older, or those who have a permanent and total service-
connected disability would not be required to pay premiums. The
premiums would not cover the full costs of the program.
Veterans would be required to apply for this term life
insurance program within two years of being notified of having
a service-
connected disability or within ten years of being separated
from the Armed Forces, whichever is earlier. Also, any veteran
who is currently insured under the Service-Disabled Veterans
Insurance program would be allowed to exchange that insurance
for the new term life insurance during the period of June 1,
2008, to May 31, 2009.
Based on VA's actuarial projections of future policy
holders, premium payments, and death claims, CBO expects about
9,800 veterans would wish to obtain policies in 2008,
increasing to about 82,000 in 2017. Therefore, CBO estimates
that enacting section 101 would increase direct spending by $83
million over the 2008-2012 period and $326 million over the
2008-2017 period.
State Approving Agencies. VA is currently authorized to
reimburse the state approving agencies from amounts available
for the payment of readjustment benefits. The state approving
agencies provide verification that various educational
institutions are qualified to provide courses of education so
that eligible veterans, survivors, and dependents may receive
veterans education benefits while attending those institutions.
Section 302 would increase the amount of such reimbursements
that could be provided from $13 million to $19 million per
year. CBO estimates that enacting this provision would increase
direct spending for veterans readjustment benefits by $30
million over the 2008-2012 period and by $60 million over the
2008-2017 period.
Enhanced Veterans' Mortgage Life Insurance (VMLI). VMLI is
insurance coverage intended to pay off or make payments on a
veteran's home mortgage in the event of the veterans death.
VMLI is restricted to those eligible veterans who receive
grants for specially adapted housing and it ceases once a
veteran reaches age 70. Under current law, the maximum amount
of VMLI is $90,000. Section 108 would increase the amount of
VMLI coverage from $90,000 to $150,000 through December 31,
2011, and further increase it to $200,000 on January 1, 2012.
Based on VA's actuarial projections of current and future
policy holders, premium payments, and death claims, CBO expects
about 2,300 policyholders to take advantage of the increased
coverage in 2008, decreasing to about 1,900 by 2017. Based on
the current cost of the program, CBO estimate that enacting
section 108 would increase direct spending by $18 million over
the 2008-2012 period and $51 million over the 2008-2017 period.
Expansion of Retroactive Benefits for Traumatic
Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (T-SGLI). VA began offering
T-SGLI in December 2005. This program provides a payment to
eligible servicemembers who suffer a traumatic injury
including, but not limited to, the loss of a hand or foot. When
the program was established, it provided retroactive coverage
only to veterans who suffered a traumatic injury as a result of
their service in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi
Freedom (OEF/OIF). Section 105 would extend that retroactive
benefit to all veterans who suffered a traumatic injury
resulting in a qualifying loss during the period of October 7,
2001, to November 30, 2005.
CBO assumes that retroactive claims for non-OEF/OIF
traumatic injuries will be similar to non-OEF/OIF claims made
since the beginning of the program. Between December 2005 and
September 2006, 390 veterans made nonretroactive T-SGLI claims
for traumatic injuries. Of that number, about 22 percent were
for non-war-zone injuries. Based on claims made in the first
year of the program, CBO expects that 2,500 war-related claims
will be made for the period of October 7, 2001, to November 30,
2005. Therefore, CBO estimates that under section 104 an
additional 700 non-war related claims would be made. According
to VA, the average size of a non-war-zone claim for T-SGLI was
$68,700. Therefore, CBO estimates that enacting section 105
will increase direct spending by $5 million in 2008 and $47
million over the 2008-2017 period.
Extension of Increased Job Training Benefits. Participants
in apprenticeship and on-the-job-training programs usually
receive wages that increase as the trainees progress through
their training program. Consequently, veterans education
programs provide benefits for job training that offer higher
payments at the start of a program and reduced payments in the
program's later stages. Since October 1, 2005, veterans in
apprenticeship or on-the-job-training programs have received 85
percent of their program's full-time
benefit during their first six months of job training, 65
percent of the full-time benefit for the second six months, and
45 percent of the full benefit thereafter--temporarily
increased from statutory limits of 75, 55, and 35 percent,
respectively. Dependents in the Survivors' and Dependents'
Educational Assistance Program (SDEAP) have also received
elevated monthly job training benefits since that time. Those
increases will expire on December 31, 2007, and benefits will
return to the previous levels.
Section 305 would delay such reinstatement of the lower
benefits for two years, from January 1, 2008, until January 1,
2010. Based on current levels of spending for these programs,
CBO estimates that enacting this section would increase direct
spending for veterans education benefits by $12 million in 2008
and $31 million over the 2008-2017 period.
Supplemental Service-Disabled Insurance (S-DVI). Section
104 would increase the amount of supplemental S-DVI insurance
coverage available from $20,000 to $30,000. This provision
would be effective as of January 1, 2008.
S-DVI is a life insurance program for veterans with
service-
related disabilities. They must apply for S-DVI within two
years of notification that a service connection has been
established for a disability. Supplemental S-DVI is available
to current S-DVI policyholders who qualify for a waiver of
premiums because of a total disability that began after the
insured's application for insurance, while the insured was
paying premiums for S-DVI, and before the insured's 65
birthday.
Based on VA's actuarial projections of current and future
policy holders, premium payments, and death claims, CBO expects
about 19,000 policyholders would take advantage of the
increased coverage in 2008, increasing to about 23,400 by 2017.
Therefore, CBO estimates that enacting section 104 would
increase direct spending by $13 million over the 2008-2012
period and $26 million over the 2008-2017 period.
Specially Adapted Housing Grants for Individuals with
Severe Burns. VA currently administers two grant programs to
assist severely disabled veterans in acquiring housing that is
adapted to their disabilities or modifying their existing
housing. Under current law, veterans who are classified by VA
as totally disabled and who have certain mobility limitations
are entitled to receive grants of up to $50,000 toward the
acquisition of suitable housing. Totally disabled veterans who
are blind or have lost the use of their hands are entitled to
receive grants of up to $10,000 to adapt their residences to
accommodate their disabilities. Section 203 would allow totally
disabled individuals with severe burn injuries to be eligible
for both grants.
Based on information from the services, CBO estimates that
under section 203 nearly 100 existing veterans would newly
qualify for such housing grants immediately, and that an
additional 25 veterans would become eligible for housing
adaptation grants in 2008. Assuming this rate of eligibility
would change together with projections of wartime deployments,
CBO estimates that under section 203 nearly 250 individuals
would become newly eligible for housing grants over the 2008-
2017 period, increasing direct spending by $9 million over the
2008-2012 period and $11 million over the 2008-2017 period.
Automobiles and Adaptive Equipment Grants for Individuals
with Severe Burns. Seriously disabled individuals who, as the
result of a service-connected injury or disease, have lost the
use of one or both hands (or feet) or have suffered a severe
vision impairment are eligible to receive a grant of $11,000 to
purchase an automobile or other vehicle. Individuals who
receive automobile grants are also entitled to receive the
necessary adaptive equipment to enable them to safely operate
their vehicles, and to have that equipment repaired or replaced
as necessary. Section 801 would expand eligibility for such
grants to include totally disabled individuals with severe burn
injuries.
Based on the projected population described above (in the
section on SAH for individuals with severe burns), CBO
estimates that enacting section 801 would result in VA awarding
automobile and adaptive equipment grants to an additional 250
individuals over the 2008-2017 period. Based on current benefit
levels in this program, we estimate that the additional
automobile grants would increase annual outlays by around
$500,000, and that providing adaptive equipment for those extra
vehicles would increase annual outlays by about $1 million,
with projected reductions in the eligible population somewhat
offset by repeated grants to update adaptive equipment in the
later years. Thus, under section 801, CBO estimates direct
spending for automobile grants and adaptive equipment would
increase by $8 million over the 2008-2012 period and $11
million over the 2008-2017 period.
Cost-of-Living Adjustment for Surviving Spouses. Surviving
spouses who are eligible for DIC may receive an extra $250 a
month for up to two years if they have one or more children
under the age of 18. Section 602 would increase the $250
benefit by the same annual cost-of-living adjustment payable to
Social Security recipients. CBO estimates that this provision
would increase the monthly benefit to $255 (after rounding down
to the next lowest dollar) for 2008 and to $305 by 2017,
relative to current law and CBO's baseline. CBO estimates that
enacting section 602 would increase direct spending for
veterans compensation by $1 million over the 2008-2012 period
and $9 million over the 2008-2017 period.
Consideration of Dominant Hand as Qualifying Loss for
T-SGLI. Section 106 would allow VA to consider the loss of a
dominant hand in determinations of severity of traumatic loss
when making payments to servicemembers under the T-SGLI program
and would make the payments retroactive to the beginning of the
T-SGLI program. As of July 2007, 95 servicemembers have
received payments of $50,000 for the loss of a hand for a total
of $5 million for such losses. CBO estimates that through the
end of fiscal year 2007, about 110 claims will have been made
for the loss of a hand--this includes war-related claims for
injuries incurred as far back as October 7, 2001--and that over
the 2008-2017 period, about 25 additional claims per year will
be made for the loss of a hand.
Absent information on whether or not claims paid to date
under this program represent the loss of a dominant hand, CBO
assumes that half of those individuals who have received a
payment would return for an increased payment under this
provision. Similarly, CBO assumes that half of the new claims
for loss of a hand will be for a dominant hand and will be paid
at a higher rate. All
T-SGLI payments are made in increments of $25,000, so CBO
assumes that the loss of a dominant hand would result in a
payment increase of $25,000. Therefore, CBO estimates that
enacting section 106 would increase direct spending by $3
million over the 2008-2012 period and $5 million over the 2008-
2017 period.
Presumption of Service Connection for Prisoners of War
(POWs) with Osteoporosis and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
(PTSD). Section 601 of the bill would add osteoporosis in POWs
with PTSD to the list of disabilities that VA assumes are
service-connected for former POWs. Thus, under section 601,
former POWs with PTSD who also have osteoporosis would be
eligible for an increase in disability compensation. CBO
estimates that fewer than 50 veterans might be eligible for a
small increase in their disability compensation under this
provision. Therefore, CBO estimates that enacting section 601
would increase direct spending by less than $500,000 over the
2008-2017 period.
Other provisions. The following provisions would have
insignificant impact on mandatory spending:
<bullet> Section 202 would expand eligibility for all
specially adapted housing benefits to include servicemembers on
active duty (living either permanently in their own residence
or temporarily with a family member) and certain otherwise
eligible veterans residing outside the United States.
<bullet> Section 204 would extend by just over six months a
program providing SAH grants to individuals who reside
temporarily with a family member.
<bullet> Section 402 would eliminate the requirement that
children of certain Filipino veterans of World War II who
receive dependents' education benefits from the VA be paid 50
percent of the amount to which they would otherwise be
entitled. Though this would double the amount paid to such
individuals, CBO estimates that because of the small size of
the population involved, any increase in direct spending would
be insignificant.
Estimated impact on state, local, and tribal governments:
S. 1315 contains no intergovernmental mandates as defined in
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. State, local, and tribal
governments that participate in the program to provide
education benefits to veterans would benefit from funds
authorized in the bill. Any costs they might incur to comply
with the conditions of this federal assistance would be
incurred voluntarily.
Estimated impact on the private sector: Section 606 of S.
1315 would allow servicemembers who receive orders to deploy
outside of the continental United States for not less than 90
days to request the termination or suspension of any contract
for cellular telephone service entered into by the
servicemember before that date. Servicemembers would be
protected against any penalties arising from such a termination
or suspension of a cellular telephone service contract. This
would be a mandate upon the cellular telephone service
contractors that would be required to grant the requested
relief without imposition of an early contract termination fee
or a reactivation fee. Furthermore, the servicemember would not
be required to extend a contract as a condition of suspension
or otherwise.
Based on historical deployment numbers and average contract
termination and reactivation fees, CBO estimates that the costs
to cellular telephone service contracts to comply with this
mandate would likely be below the threshold established in UMRA
for private-sector mandates ($131 million in 2007, adjusted
annually for inflation).
Previous CBO estimate: On August 21, 2007, CBO transmitted
a cost estimate for H.R. 760, the Filipino Veterans Equity Act
of 2007, as ordered reported by the House Veterans Affairs
Committee on July 18, 2007. Several sections of S. 1315 are
similar to sections of H.R. 760, as ordered reported.
Differences in the estimated costs reflect differences in the
two bills.
On August 23, 2007, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S.
1315 as ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Veterans'
Affairs on June 27, 2007. This revised estimate corrects CBO's
summary of current law regarding veterans' pension benefits.
The estimated budgetary impact of enacting the bill is
unchanged.
Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Veterans'
Compensation--Dwayne Wright (226-2840); Veterans' Readjustment
Benefits--Mike Waters and Sarah Jennings (226-2840); Military
Personnel--Matthew Schmit (226-2840).
Impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Lisa
Ramirez-Branum (225-3220); Impact on the Private Sector:
Victoria Liu (226-2900).
Estimate approved by: Theresa A. Gullo, Chief, State and
Local Government Cost Estimates Unit, Budget Analysis Division.
Regulatory Impact Statement
In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs has made an evaluation of the regulatory impact that
would be incurred in carrying out the Committee bill. The
Committee finds that the Committee bill would not entail any
regulation of individuals or businesses or result in any impact
on the personal privacy of any individuals and that the
paperwork resulting from enactment would be minimal.
Tabulation of Votes Cast in Committee
In compliance with paragraph 7 of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, the following is a tabulation of votes
cast in person or by proxy by members of the Committee on
Veterans' Affairs at its June 27, 2007, meeting. The Committee,
by voice vote, ordered S. 1315 reported favorably to the
Senate, subject to
amendment.
On that date, the Committee considered the Craig amendment
on education and Filipino veterans. The Craig amendment was
defeated by a 6 to 8 vote.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeas Senator Nays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Rockefeller X
Ms. Murray X
Mr. Obama X
Mr. Sanders X
Mr. Brown X
Mr. Webb X
Mr. Tester X
X Mr. Craig
X (by proxy) Mr. Specter
X (by proxy) Mr. Burr
X Mr. Isakson
Mr. Graham
X (by proxy) Ms. Hutchison
X Mr. Ensign
Mr. Chairman X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 TALLY 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee then considered, en bloc, four amendments
offered by Senator Sanders to authorize supplemental funding of
certain veterans benefits programs. The Sanders amendments were
accepted, en bloc, by a 9 to 5 vote.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeas Senator Nays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X Mr. Rockefeller
X Ms. Murray
X (by proxy) Mr. Obama
X Mr. Sanders
X (by proxy) Mr. Brown
X (by proxy) Mr. Webb
X Mr. Tester
Mr. Craig X
Mr. Specter X (by proxy)
Mr. Burr X (by proxy)
Mr. Isakson X
Mr. Graham
Ms. Hutchison X (by proxy)
X Mr. Ensign
X Mr. Chairman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9 TALLY 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee then considered the Ensign amendment to give
special consideration to the loss of the dominant hand in
determining eligibility for traumatic injury protection under
Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance. The Ensign amendment was
accepted by a 14 to 0 vote.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeas Senator Nays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
X Mr. Rockefeller
X Ms. Murray
X (by proxy) Mr. Obama
X Mr. Sanders
X (by proxy) Mr. Brown
X (by proxy) Mr. Webb
X Mr. Tester
X Mr. Craig
X (by proxy) Mr. Specter
X (by proxy) Mr. Burr
X Mr. Isakson
Mr. Graham
X (by proxy) Ms. Hutchison
X Mr. Ensign
X Mr. Chairman
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 TALLY 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency Report
On April 11, 2007, Ronald R. Aument, Deputy Under Secretary
for Benefits of the Department of Veterans Affairs, appeared
before the Committee at a hearing on S. 57, the proposed
``Filipino Veterans Equity Act of 2007,'' and submitted
testimony of the Department's views of the bill. Excerpts from
this statement are reprinted below:
STATEMENT RONALD R. AUMENT, DEPUTY UNDER
SECRETARY FOR BENEFITS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify today on S. 57, a bill that would
deem certain service in the organized military forces of the
Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the
Philippine Scouts to have been active service for purposes of
benefits under programs administered by the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA). VA does not support enactment of the
bill.
Regular, or ``Old,'' Philippine Scouts are currently
eligible for VA benefits in the same manner as veterans of the
U.S. Army. Therefore, the bill would not affect this group.
However, S. 57 would extend full eligibility for VA benefits to
veterans of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including those
with recognized guerrilla service, and to veterans of the New
Philippine Scouts. In my testimony today, I refer only to the
groups affected by the proposed bill as ``Filipino veterans''
and do not refer to Regular Philippine Scouts.
Section 107 of title 38, United States Code, generally
limits the VA benefits to which Filipino veterans and their
survivors are eligible to certain contracts of National Service
Life Insurance, disability compensation, dependency and
indemnity compensation (DIC), and monetary burial benefits.
Furthermore, unless those veterans or survivors live in the
United States and are U.S. citizens or are lawfully admitted
for permanent residence in the United States, those veterans or
survivors receive their disability compensation or DIC at the
rate of fifty cents per U.S. dollar, which is commonly referred
to as payment at a ``half-dollar rate.'' Payment of monetary
burial benefits at more than the half-dollar rate requires, in
addition to the legal residency requirement, that the veteran
at the time of death be receiving disability compensation or be
entitled to receive a disability pension but for the active-
service requirement. Eligibility for burial in a national
cemetery and for hospital and nursing home care and medical
services is limited to Filipino veterans living here in the
United States who are either U.S. citizens or lawful residents.
Filipino veterans and their survivors are not eligible for any
other VA benefit with the exception of education benefits
available under chapter 35 of title 38 to certain children of
these veterans.
We do not support the bill because it would
disproportionately favor Filipino veterans over U.S. veterans.
Mr. Chairman, in 2003 the average annual family income in the
Philippines in U.S. dollars was approximately $2,864. In
contrast, in 2006 the maximum annual pension rate for a veteran
with no dependent was $10,929 U.S. dollars per year; the annual
rate for a veteran with one dependent was $14,313; and the
annual rate for a surviving spouse with no dependent was
$7,329. Thus, Filipino veterans and their survivors receiving
full-rate VA pensions while living in the Philippines would
enjoy a much higher standard of living relative to the general
population in the Philippines. At the same time, VA benefits
paid to beneficiaries living in the United States, such as U.S.
veterans, do not enable those beneficiaries to enjoy a standard
of living higher than the general U.S. population. In fact,
even when paid at the half-dollar rate, Filipino veterans and
their survivors are receiving relatively higher rates of
disability compensation, DIC, and burial benefits compared to
beneficiaries receiving the full-dollar rate in the United
States.
As a direct result of S. 57, VA would have to double the
monthly payments currently provided to the more than 7,000
Filipino veterans and their survivors who now receive
disability compensation or DIC at the half-dollar rate. In
addition, we expect newly eligible veterans or their survivors
to apply for pension benefits. Although precise numbers are not
available, we have based our cost estimates on an estimate that
more than 20,000 Filipino veterans reside outside the United
States. We derived this figure by applying mortality rates for
World War II veterans to an estimate of the Filipino veteran
population that was calculated in 2000. The resulting 20,000
figure is in line with an estimate used by the Congressional
Research Service in 2006. Since it is very difficult to develop
a firm estimate for the size of this population, we believe
that that 20,000 figure is as reliable as we can establish at
this date. Based on this figure, we estimate compensation,
pension, and DIC costs in the first year will exceed $491
million. Enactment of S. 57 may also likely require VA to
provide to Filipino veterans memorial benefits such as
interment, perpetual care of gravesites, government-furnished
headstones or markers, and Presidential Memorial
Certificates.
S. 57 also would significantly affect VA's health care
system. Currently, the VA Outpatient Clinic in Manila,
Philippines, provides a wide range of ambulatory care services
for U.S. veterans living in the Philippines as well as
Compensation-and-Pension examinations for both U.S. and
Filipino veterans. The Clinic has an annual operating budget of
approximately $6.3 million and, in FY 2006, served 3,799 U.S.
veterans. Under S. 57, all Filipino veterans in the Philippines
with VA-adjudicated service-connected disabilities would become
eligible for VA health care in the Philippines. As of February
2007, the VA Manila Regional Office provided compensation for
service-connected disabilities to 3,441 Philippine Service
veterans, of which 2,726 resided in the Philippines. Based on
the expected increase in the number of veterans eligible for
care and an increase in the number of Compensation-and-Pension
examination requests, we estimate an almost 100-percent
increase in overall operating costs in the Philippines if the
bill is enacted. We estimate a total additional expense of over
$5 million in the first year. Moreover, this cost estimate does
not fully account for the expected impact of S. 57. It is
expected that the newly eligible Filipino veterans also would
require a significant increase in the costs at the Manila
Clinic for pharmacy, beneficiary travel, specialty exams, and
fee basis costs.
The bill would also impact VA's construction costs in the
Philippines. Public Law 106-113 requires the Department of
State (State) to locate diplomatic and other U.S. government
offices to secure embassy grounds when it builds a new or
replaces an existing embassy. State is replacing its embassy in
Manila. In December 2006, Secretary Nicholson approved a
recommendation to relocate the Manila VA Outpatient Clinic from
its current leased site to U.S. Embassy property. State is
planning to co-locate the Manila regional office and the
Outpatient Clinic on embassy property at its Seafront compound.
The facilities will be built and funded through a State major
construction appropriation, and the new VA facilities are
planned to be completed in 2010. VA will reimburse State for
this project through Capital Security Cost-Sharing (CSCS)
charges over a period of several years. VA's costs under that
program are based on staffing levels. Any additional space and
staffing required for this project due to the enactment of S.
57 will significantly increase VA's costs.
Additional health-care costs would have to be paid with
existing health-care funds. Filipino veterans now residing
outside the United States would be eligible for and could
obtain health care in the United States by traveling to the
United States to receive it. They would not, as now, have to
reside in the United States and become U.S. citizens or
permanent residents. We estimate that, if 10 percent of these
newly eligible veterans (i.e., approximately 2,000 of the
estimated 20,000 population of veterans) obtain health care in
the United States, it will cost over $13 million in the first
year.
We estimate additional benefit costs (including medical
benefits and memorial benefits) of approximately $510 million
in the first year and more than $4 billion over ten years. Our
cost estimate includes only expenses related to the three most
significant monetary benefits, which are disability
compensation, pension, and DIC, in our total estimate of
benefit costs.
Administrative costs are estimated at $8.8 million in the
first year and $27 million over ten years. These estimates of
administrative costs do not include the CSCS costs or
administrative costs related to the provision of health care,
and, as with the benefit costs, include administrative costs
related to disability compensation, pension, and DIC, and not
costs related to the administration of other monetary benefits.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy
to entertain any questions you or the other Members of the
Committee may have.
* * * * * * *
On May 9, 2007, Daniel L. Cooper, Under Secretary for
Benefits of the Department of Veterans Affairs, appeared before
the Committee at a hearing on pending benefits legislation and
submitted testimony on, among other bills, S. 225, S. 643, S.
847, S. 848, S. 1096, S. 1215, S. 1265, among other bills.
Excerpts from this statement are reprinted below:
------
STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL L. COOPER, UNDER
SECRETARY FOR BENEFITS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify today on several bills of great
interest to veterans. I will comment today only on the
provisions of the bills that affect the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA).
* * * * * * *
S. 225
Current law provides to members of the uniformed services
who are insured under the Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance
program coverage against a traumatic injury sustained on or
after December 1, 2005, that results in a qualifying loss. In
addition, a member of the uniformed services who sustained a
traumatic injury between October 7, 2001, and November 30,
2005, that resulted in a qualifying loss is eligible for
coverage if the loss was a direct result of a traumatic injury
incurred in the theater of operations for Operation Enduring
Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom. S. 225 would eliminate the
requirement that the loss be the direct result of a traumatic
injury incurred in the theater of operations for Operation
Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom, thereby increasing
the number of individuals who could qualify for traumatic
injury coverage for injuries sustained before the general
effective date of the coverage.
VA defers to DOD on this bill because that department would
be responsible for additional costs associated with this
change.
S. 643
Under the National Service Life Insurance program, a
veteran with a service-connected disability may be provided
life insurance, known as Service Disabled Veterans Insurance
(SDVI). If such an insured veteran is totally disabled under
specified conditions that qualify him or her for waiver of
premiums under current law, he or she is eligible for
supplemental insurance of up to $20,000.
S. 643, the ``Disabled Veterans Insurance Act of 2007,'' would
increase the amount of available supplemental insurance from
$20,000 to $40,000.
Subject to Congress' enactment of legislation offsetting
the increased costs associated with the enactment of the new
authority, VA does not object to S. 643 because increasing the
amount of available supplemental SDVI to $40,000 would address
a concern of veterans as reported in an independent study
commissioned by Congress, ``Program Evaluation of Benefits for
Survivors of Veterans with Service-Connected Disabilities.''
This change would increase the financial security of disabled
veterans by affording them the opportunity to purchase
additional life insurance coverage otherwise not available to
them. The costs that would result from enactment would depend
on whether an open season would be provided for SDVI policy
holders to apply for the additional supplemental insurance.
Currently, approximately 75,500 SDVI policy holders qualify for
supplemental insurance. Without an open season, the additional
coverage would cost $4.3 million over five years and $14.5
million over 10 years with negligible administrative costs.
With a one-year open season, the additional coverage would cost
$25.7 million over 5 years and $50.9 million over 10 years with
administrative costs of approximately $100,000.
* * * * * * *
S. 847
Current law provides a presumption that certain diseases
manifesting in veterans entitled to the presumption were
incurred in or aggravated by service, that is, that the
diseases are service connected, even if there is no evidence of
such diseases in service. A presumption is provided for certain
chronic diseases if manifested to a degree of disability of 10-
percent or more within one year of separation from service, for
certain tropical diseases if manifested to a degree of
disability of 10-percent or more (generally) within one year of
separation from service, for active tuberculosis or Hansen's
disease if manifested to a degree of disability of 10-percent
or more within three years of separation from service, and for
multiple sclerosis if manifested to a degree of disability of
10-percent or more within seven years of separation from
service. S. 847 would eliminate the requirement that the
manifestation of multiple sclerosis occur within seven years of
separation from service to trigger the presumption.
VA does not support enactment of this bill. First, the
current presumptive period of seven years is already the most
generous one provided under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1112(a). Second, we
are aware of no scientific or medical justification for
presuming multiple sclerosis to be service connected, no matter
how long after service it first manifests, in light of the
medical literature indicating that there is genetic
susceptibility to this disease of unknown cause. Even if a
veteran cannot qualify for the current presumption, service
connection is not precluded under current law if the veteran
can establish that his current multiple sclerosis is in fact
related to his or her service. Further liberalization would
appear to undermine the purpose of providing compensation for
disabilities incurred in or aggravated by active service.
VA estimates that the benefit costs of this bill if enacted
would be $185.5 million in the first year and $4.9 billion over
ten years. We estimate administrative costs to be $4.7 million
for 68 full-time employees the first year and $85.3 million for
96 full-time employees over 10 years.
* * * * * * *
S. 848
Section 2(a) of S. 848, the ``Prisoner of War Benefits Act
of 2007,'' would eliminate the requirement that a veteran have
been detained or interned as a prisoner of war (POW) for at
least 30 days to be entitled to a presumption of service
connection for certain diseases currently listed in 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 1112(b)(3). Section 2(b) would add two diseases, diabetes
(type 2) and osteoporosis, to the list of diseases in section
1112(b) that may be presumed to be service connected for former
POWs.
VA does not support elimination of the 30-day minimum
internment requirement because it is not reasonable to assume
that extreme deprivation of the type that could cause diseases
listed in section 1112(b), such as those resulting from
nutritional deficiencies, would occur in less than 30 days.
Just a few years ago, section 1112(b) limited the presumption
of service connection for specified diseases associated with
the POW experience to veterans who were former POWs and were
detained or interned for not less than 30 days. However,
section 201 of the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003, Pub. L. No.
108-183, Sec. 201, eliminated the 30-day requirement for
psychosis, any anxiety state, dysthymic disorder, organic
residuals of frostbite, and post-traumatic osteoarthritis. In
implementing that amendment in its regulations, VA noted that
the diseases that remained subject to the 30-day requirement,
such as diseases associated with malnutrition, are generally
incurred over a prolonged period of internment. Interim Final
Rule, Presumptions of Service Connection for Diseases
Associated with Service Involving Detention or Internment as a
Prisoner of War, 69 Fed. Reg. 60,083, 60,088 (2004). Such a
requirement is appropriate for certain diseases if the evidence
indicates that they are associated only with prolonged
captivity, such as with maladies normally resulting from
nutritional deprivation. Accordingly, VA does not support
elimination of the 30-day minimum internment requirement.
With respect to adding diabetes (type 2) and osteoporosis
to the list of diseases that may be presumed to be service
connected for former POWs, VA is not aware of any sound
scientific or medical evidence of an association between these
diseases and internment as a POW. Accordingly, VA does not
support section 2(b) of S. 848.
Section 2(c) of S. 848 would authorize VA to establish a
presumption of service connection for former POWs for any
disease for which VA has determined, based on sound medical and
scientific evidence, that ``a positive association exists
between (i) the experience of being a [POW] and (ii) the
occurrence of [the] disease in humans.'' Section 2(c) would
also require VA to issue certain regulations and, in
determining whether a positive association exists, to consider
recommendations from the Advisory Committee on Former Prisoners
of War and all other available sound medical and scientific
information and analyses.
VA does not support the procedure in section 2(c) for
establishing presumptive service connection for diseases
associated with POW internment because more appropriate and
effective regulatory procedures for identifying diseases
associated with POW internment already exist. Pursuant to the
Secretary's authority provided by 38 U.S.C. Sec. 501(a) to
prescribe all rules and regulations necessary or appropriate to
carry out the laws administered by VA, including regulations
with respect to the nature and extent of proof and evidence, VA
has promulgated regulations, codified at 38 CFR Sec. 1.18,
establishing a new procedure for establishing POW presumptions.
VA's establishment of presumptive service connection for heart
disease and stroke, which was done under VA's regulatory
procedure, demonstrates that the new procedure is effective.
Section 2(c) of the bill would require VA, within specified
periods, to publish a notice or regulations in response to
recommendations received from the Advisory Committee on Former
Prisoners of War. Under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 541(a)(2), the
Committee comprises representatives of former POWs, disabled
veterans, and health care professionals. Under current law, VA
must regularly consult with the Committee and seek its advice
on the compensation, health-care, and rehabilitation needs of
former POWs. Not later than July 1 of each odd-numbered year
through 2009, the Committee must submit to VA a report
recommending, among other things, administrative and
legislative action. The procedure outlined in section 2(c) of
S. 848 would require VA, within 60 days of receiving a
Committee recommendation that a presumption be established for
a disease, to determine whether a presumption is warranted. If
VA determines that a presumption is warranted, we would have to
issue proposed regulations within 60 days following that
decision and issue a final rule within 90 days of issuing the
proposed rule. If VA determines that a presumption is not
warranted, we would have to publish a Federal Register notice
explaining the scientific basis for the determination within 60
days of making the determination.
This procedure is similar to the procedure that Congress
established for herbicide and Gulf War presumptions under 38
U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1116 and 1118, both of which generally
concern VA rulemaking following the receipt of a report from
the National Academy of Sciences. However, unlike the herbicide
and Gulf War procedures, S. 848 would require strict guidelines
for rulemaking in response to Committee recommendations, which
do not provide a thorough scientific review and analysis upon
which to establish presumptions. A determination as to whether
a disease should be added to the list of diseases warranting
presumptive service connection involves a lengthy process of
scientific study. Sixty days is not sufficient to conduct such
a process. Under current 38 CFR Sec. 1.18, the Secretary may
contract with the appropriate expert body, such as the National
Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, for the necessary
analysis of current science. We believe this regulation
provides a more scientifically sound basis for creation of
presumptions than that contemplated by S. 848.
Based on the amendments that would be made by section 2(a)
of S. 848, VA estimates that approximately 99 former POWs would
be affected by this legislation and would apply for benefits in
the first year and 1,102 would apply in the first ten years.
Assuming a 100-percent grant rate, we further estimate that
benefit costs would be $808,000 in the first year and $9.9
million over ten years.
Based on the amendments that would be made by section 2(b)
of S. 848, VA estimates that approximately 4,045 former POWs
would be affected by this legislation and would apply for
benefits in the first year and 44,855 in the first ten years.
Assuming a 100-percent grant rate, we further estimate that
benefit costs would be $36.3 million in the first year and
$442.9 million over ten years.
In addition, VA estimates that approximately 2,005
surviving spouses would be affected by the amendments that
would be made by section 2(b) of S. 848 and would apply for
benefits in the first year and 27,332 would apply in the first
ten years. Assuming a 100-percent grant rate, we estimate
further benefit costs of $27.5 million in the first year and
$392.6 million over ten years.
We estimate administrative costs to be $2.4 million for 29
full-time employees in the first year and $5.1 million over
five years.
Although section 2(c) would allow VA to add and remove
presumptive diseases, VA does not anticipate any regulatory
changes. Therefore, there are no benefits savings or costs
associated with this authority.
* * * * * * *
S. 1096
VA's opinion on the various sections of this bill follow.
Whenever VA supports or does not object to a particular section
of the bill, it is subject to Congress' enactment of
legislation offsetting the increased costs associated with the
enactment of the new authority.
Section 2 of S. 1096, the ``Veterans' Housing Benefits
Enhancement Act of 2007,'' would make certain members of the
Armed Forces eligible to receive grants for home improvements
and structural alterations (HISA) that are needed for the
continuation of treatment or to provide access to the home or
to essential lavatory and sanitary facilities. The cost of such
improvement and alterations would be subject to the statutory
dollar limits set forth in 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1717(a)(2)(A) and
(B). Section 2 would extend eligibility for HISA grants to
servicemembers: (1) who the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
determines have a total disability permanent in nature incurred
or aggravated in the line of duty in the active military,
naval, or air service; (2) who are receiving outpatient medical
care, services, or treatment for that disability; and (3) who
are likely to be discharged or released from the Armed Forces
for that disability, as determined by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs.
These grants would be one-time grants. If a covered
servicemember uses the HISA grant for a home located near his
or her military duty station, that individual would not qualify
for another grant if he or she relocates for any purpose after
discharge or release from service. VA has no objection to
section 2.
Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 2101, VA may provide Specially
Adapted Housing (SAH) assistance to eligible veterans and
active duty servicemembers who suffer from certain permanent
and total
service-connected disabilities. Section 3 of this bill would
add ``severe burn injuries'' to the types of specified
disabilities and would allow VA to determine what criteria
constitute such a burn injury. VA favors enactment of this
provision, but points out that as written it would exclude
active duty servicemembers as eligible recipients. Therefore,
VA recommends that the Committee amend the bill to revise
existing section 2101(c) to ensure that otherwise eligible
active duty servicemembers are not excluded from this important
benefit.
VA also recognizes that many burns, regardless of the
severity or extent of the injury, may not be considered
``permanent and total'' but, nevertheless, may require years of
special care and convalescence. As such, VA recommends that
section 2101 be amended so that severe burn injuries are
excepted from the permanent and total disability requirement
for SAH assistance.
VA currently cannot project costs for section 3 because the
number of qualifying severely burned servicemembers is unknown.
We do know from DOD data (April 2003-April 2005) that burns
constitute five percent of all Operation Iraqi Freedom or
Operation Enduring Freedom combat-related injuries, with an
average total burned body surface area of 22 percent. However,
we do not know the extent to which such burn victims would
qualify under section 3 of S. 1096.
Section 4 would require VA to report to Congress about
existing authorities for SAH assistance for disabled veterans.
The report would focus on veterans who have disabilities not
already described in 38 U.S.C. Sec. 2101 and would be
submitted to the Committees on Veterans' Affairs in the Senate
and House of Representatives no later than December 31, 2007.
VA does not oppose this provision, but the Committee may prefer
to revise subsection (a)(2) of this section by changing the
``or'' after the semicolon to ``and'', to clarify that the
Committees would like a report on all items specified. VA also
recommends that the Committee clarify whether VA should include
in the report data on active duty servicemembers.
Under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3901(1), VA may provide automobile
and adaptive equipment to eligible veterans and active duty
servicemembers. Section 5 of S. 1096 would add ``severe burn
injuries'' to the existing list of enumerated qualifying
injuries and would require VA to promulgate necessary
implementing regulations. VA favors enactment of this
provision, subject to Congress' enactment of legislation
offsetting the benefits cost of such enactment.
VA currently cannot project costs for section 5 because the
number of qualifying severely burned servicemembers is unknown.
As indicated above, we do know some information about burn
injuries. However, we do not know the extent to which such burn
victims would qualify under section 5 of S. 1096. We presume
the number would be small and note that the average cost of
adaptive equipment is approximately $4,000.
Section 6 would expand the categories of persons eligible
for SAH assistance provided under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 2102A to
include certain members of the Armed Forces residing
temporarily with family members. Until recently, VA was not
authorized to provide either a veteran or an active duty
servicemember with SAH assistance if the veteran or active duty
servicemember intended to reside temporarily with a family
member. This changed, in part, with the enactment of Public Law
109-233, which made veterans eligible for such assistance. Yet,
Public Law 109-233 did not include active duty servicemembers
as eligible recipients. VA supports the objective of this
section, which is to grant similar assistance to active duty
servicemembers. However, VA cannot support this section as
currently drafted because it would create a definitional
conflict in the statute that could potentially create different
classes of active duty servicemembers eligible for SAH
assistance. Section 6 also would require VA to report on
assistance for disabled veterans and members of the Armed
Forces who reside in housing owned by a family member on a
permanent basis. The report would need to be submitted to the
Committees on Veterans Affairs in the Senate and House of
Representatives no later than December 31, 2007. VA is not
opposed to this provision.
S. 1215
Section 1 of S. 1215 would authorize reimbursement from
VA's readjustment benefits account to state approving agencies
(SAAs) for certain expenses incurred in the administration of
VA education benefit programs, not to exceed $19 million in any
year. The current funding amount is $19 million for Fiscal Year
2007. However, that amount would revert to $13 million in
Fiscal Year 2008 and subsequent fiscal years without
legislative intervention.
VA, consistent with a recent Government Accountability
Office recommendation, is taking steps to coordinate its
approval activities with other agencies and is considering ways
to streamline the approval process. Regardless of any such
activities, we anticipate that funding at the reduced level
would cause SAAs to reduce staffing proportionately, severely
curtail travel and outreach activities, and perform fewer
approval/supervisory duties under their VA contracts. Some SAAs
might decline to contract with VA altogether, requiring that VA
employees assume their duties.
We have been asked to disregard section 2 of this bill.
Section 3 of S. 1215 would permit DOL to waive the current
requirement that state Veterans' Employment and Training
directors be residents of the state in which they serve for at
least two years prior to their appointment if the waiver is in
the public interest. VA defers to the DOL on this portion of
the bill since it is within that Department's subject matter
jurisdiction.
Section 4 of S. 1215 would modify the requirements for the
biennial study by DOL of unemployment among certain veterans to
include those who served during and after the Global War on
Terror. Studies of these groups would be completed in place of
the associated studies for Vietnam era veterans and in addition
to those of the other veteran populations also identified for
the study. VA also defers to DOL on this portion of the bill
since it is within that Department's subject matter
jurisdiction.
Section 5 would temporarily continue the 10-percentage-
point increase (authorized under section 103 of Public Law 108-
454; 118 Stat. 3600) of the monthly educational assistance
allowance payable for an individual pursuing apprenticeship or
other on-job training at the full-time program rate under the
Montgomery GI Bill or Active Duty and Selected Reserve programs
(chapter 30 of title 38 and chapter 1606 of title 10, United
States Code, respectively) and the chapter 32 Post-Vietnam Era
Veterans' Educational Assistance program. It would also
continue the increase in the educational assistance allowance
for such training under chapter 35 of title 38, United States
Code (currently, for the first six months of training, $676;
for the second six months of training, $527; and for the third
six months of training, $380). This amendment would be
effective for months beginning on or after January 1, 2008, and
before January 1, 2010.
If enacted, VA estimates S. 1215 would cost $6 million in
Fiscal Year 2008, approximately $44 million for the first five
years and $740 million over the 10-year period from Fiscal
Years 2008 through 2017.
Subject to Congress' enactment of legislation offsetting
the increased benefits costs of S. 1215, VA has no objection to
the enactment of this bill.
* * * * * * *
S. 1265
Current law provides eligibility for mortgage life
insurance to certain disabled veterans who have been granted
assistance in obtaining SAH. S. 1265 would extend this
eligibility to members of the Armed Forces who meet the same
eligibility criteria.
Subject to Congress' enactment of legislation offsetting
the increased costs associated with the enactment of the new
authority, VA supports the enactment of this bill because it
would correct an oversight made when eligibility for SAH was
extended to members of the Armed Forces. Mortgage life
insurance was available for veterans receiving SAH assistance
but was not available to the newly eligible Armed Forces
members. This bill would rectify that disparity. VA estimates
that enactment of this bill would cost $431,170 over five
years.
* * * * * * *
VA does not have comments on the other bills included on
the agenda for today's hearing because it did not receive them
in time to develop and clear views and estimate costs.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy
now to entertain any questions you or the other members of the
Committee may have.
* * * * * * *
SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF MINORITY MEMBER
HON. LARRY E. CRAIG
I want to commend Chairman Akaka and all of our Committee
Members for advancing a bill that contains many valuable
provisions. S. 1315 as amended, the ``Veterans' Benefits
Enhancement Act of 2007'' (hereinafter, ``S. 1315''), has as
its predominant focus enhancing benefits and services for
America's returning combat veterans and veterans with service-
connected disabilities. In particular, I am very pleased that
S. 1315 includes provisions that directly impact benefits
provided for today's active duty servicemembers fighting the
War on Terror.
First, section 105 would provide retroactive payments under
the Traumatic Injury Protection under Servicemembers' Group
Life Insurance program to those injured outside of the
Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation Enduring Freedom theaters
of operation on or between October 7, 2001, and December 1,
2005. This change will benefit those like Seaman Robert Roeder,
whose leg was severed by an arresting wire on board an aircraft
carrier that was on its way to the Persian Gulf. Because his
injury occurred outside of a war zone, under current law he is
not eligible for assistance, a reality that S. 1315 would
remedy.
Several provisions within Title II of the bill would expand
the array of housing grant assistance programs available to
those who have severe burn injuries. The prevalence of severe
burn injuries is a sad reality of the present conflict. These
provisions are an example of our collective responsibility to
modernize existing benefit programs to reflect the realities of
the present conflict.
Again, S. 1315 has many provisions which are commendable
and worthy of immediate action. However, I do wish to provide
additional information as to some provisions in the Committee
Bill and, more importantly, to comment on several of the bill's
provisions with which I am concerned. It is my sincere hope
that the issues I am about to outline will be addressed prior
to S. 1315 clearing the Senate.
Sections 301 and 302
Sections 301 and 302 of the Committee bill include
provisions pertaining to the administration and funding of
``State approving agencies'' (hereinafter, ``SAAs''). Some of
these provisions were derived from S. 1290, a bill I introduced
to ensure that veterans and their families will have access to
educational assistance benefits unimpeded by layers of
bureaucracy and inflexible legal requirements. Although the
Committee report provides a brief explanation of these
provisions, I wish to discuss more thoroughly the reasons why
current law should be modified and to explain key differences
between the funding mechanism in my bill and the funding
provision in S. 1315.
Each year, VA provides educational assistance benefits to
veterans, servicemembers, reservists, and their families to
pursue a wide array of educational opportunities, including
traditional college degrees, vocational training,
apprenticeships, and on-the-job training programs. VA contracts
with entities called SAAs to assess whether schools and
training programs are of sufficient quality for individuals to
receive VA education benefits while pursuing their programs.
That SAA approval process was originally instituted after World
War II to help stem abuses of veterans' education benefits,
such as scam vocational and business schools profiting from
those education benefits and then not providing veterans with
an education of any value.
Today, unlike 60 years ago, schools and educational
programs of all types may be scrutinized by a number of
different entities, including the Department of Education, the
Department of Labor, various national and regional accrediting
bodies, and state licensing agencies. In fact, in 1995 the
General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability
Office (hereinafter, ``GAO'')) found that a substantial portion
of the approval activities performed by SAAs overlapped with
work done by others. Several years later, the Commission on
Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance concluded
that veterans should be ``the primary judge of the
appropriateness of accredited courses to their plans for the
future'' and that ``[a]pproval of institutions accredited by
accrediting bodies recognized by the Department of Education
should suffice for veterans' training approval.''
In the years since those findings, Congress has altered the
responsibilities of SAAs by requiring them to perform
additional functions, such as promoting the development of
apprenticeship and on-the-job training programs, conducting
outreach services, and approving licensing tests. However, the
traditional approval functions performed by SAAs--which are
specifically required by statute--have not been significantly
modified. Thus, last year, I asked GAO to evaluate the extent
to which SAA approval activities currently overlap with
functions performed by the Departments of Labor and Education
and what value is added by the services performed by SAAs.
In its March 2007 report, GAO found that ``[m]any education
and training programs approved by SAAs have also been approved
by [the Departments of] Education or Labor and VA and SAAs have
taken few steps to coordinate approval activities with these
agencies.'' GAO stressed that ``[i]t is important that VA work
with other federal agencies to determine how the scope of the
approval process could be streamlined, such as to determine the
extent to which SAAs could rely on recognized accreditors'
assessments of institutions' policies on student achievement to
reduce overlap and ensure that federal dollars are spent
efficiently.'' To that end, GAO recommended that VA
``collaborate with other agencies to identify any duplicative
efforts and use the agency's administrative and regulatory
authority to streamline the approval process.''
In addition, GAO found that ``it is difficult to assess the
effectiveness of SAA activities, in part because VA does not
have outcome measures in place to fully evaluate SAA
performance'' and ``does not require SAAs to collect
information on the amount of resources they spend on specific
approval activities.'' Thus, GAO concluded that VA ``does not
have all relevant information for making resource allocation
decisions and cannot determine if it is spending its federal
dollars efficiently and effectively.''
In view of these findings, I introduced S. 1290 to overhaul
the statutory scheme regarding SAAs to help eliminate redundant
administrative procedures, increase VA's flexibility in
determining the nature and extent of services that should be
performed by SAAs, and improve accountability for any
activities they undertake. I am pleased that S. 1315 includes
provisions that would require VA to coordinate with other
entities in order to reduce overlapping activities and to
report to Congress on its efforts to establish appropriate
performance measures and tracking systems for SAA activities.
However, I remain concerned that S. 1315 would leave in place
the inflexible statutory provisions that mandate what
activities SAAs must perform, how those functions must be
carried out, and how VA must pay for them. As VA stated in
response to GAO's findings, ``amending the agency's
administrative and regulatory authority to streamline the
approval process may be difficult due to the specific approval
requirements of the law.'' Thus, I believe that, in order to
effectively update and streamline this process, VA should be
provided with the authority to contract with SAAs for services
that it deems valuable and to determine how those services
should be performed, evaluated, and compensated.
Finally, I wish to draw attention to the funding provision
in section 302 of the Committee bill, which would provide $19
million in mandatory funding to pay for SAA services for each
fiscal year hereafter. To the contrary, my bill (S. 1290)
included a funding provision--similar to legislation that the
Senate passed in 2006--that would provide a $19 million
spending authorization for SAAs. This funding mechanism would,
for now, continue to allow some funding to be drawn from
mandatory spending accounts and would begin to transition SAA
funding to a discretionary funding model. By relying on
discretionary--rather than mandatory--funding, VA and the SAAs
would have to justify budgeting and funding decisions based on
need and performance outcomes, as with any private-
sector business or good-government business model.
Section 401
Section 401 of S. 1315 would expand benefits to certain
Filipino veterans residing both in the United States and
abroad. I support improving benefits for Filipino veterans who
fought under U.S. command during World War II. However, I
believe the approach taken in this bill with respect to special
pension benefits for non-U.S. citizen and non-U.S. resident
Filipino veterans and surviving spouses is overly generous and
does not reflect wide discrepancies in U.S. and Philippine
standards of living.
Pension benefits for veterans residing in the United States
are paid at a maximum annual rate of $10,929 for a veteran
without dependents, $14,313 for a veteran with one dependent,
and $7,329 for a surviving spouse. When viewing these amounts
in relation to U.S. average household income of $46,000, we
find that the maximum VA pension represents anywhere from 16 to
31 percent of U.S. household income. In contrast, when measured
against the Philippine average household income of $2,800, the
special pension for Filipino veterans in S. 1315 represents
anywhere from 86 to 161 percent of Philippine household income.
I think it is a mistake, and grossly unfair to U.S.-based
pension recipients, to pay a benefit to veterans in the
Philippines that far exceeds the relative value of the same
benefit provided in the United States. Providing benefits for
Filipino veterans in the name of equity should not be done in a
manner that, in my opinion, creates a dramatic inequity for our
U.S. veterans.
Furthermore, the offset that S. 1315 uses to ensure that
the bill is in compliance with Congressional budget rules would
have the effect of reducing pension amounts to elderly, poor,
and disabled veterans predominantly residing in the U.S. The
extra pension amounts were established as a result of a 2006
decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in
Hartness v. Nicholson. In my opinion, these extra payments for
certain categories of veterans were never contemplated by
Congress and, therefore, are not justified. However, if
presented with the choice of whether to provide extra pension
assistance to low-income veterans in the U.S. or to provide
extra pension assistance in the amounts contemplated in section
401 of S. 1315, I would recommend to my colleagues that they
choose the former.
Sections 205, 701, 702, and 802
I also wish to comment on four additional provisions that
were adopted as amendments at the Committee's June 27, 2007,
markup. In doing so I want to make it clear that my comments
have nothing at all to do with the substance of the proposed
policy changes contained in these provisions. Rather, my
comments will focus on the manner in which the policy changes
in each provision are proposed to be financed; whether the
proposed financing method is in consort with the spirit of
sound budgeting principles; and whether the financing method
may potentially result in an unwieldy and inequitable outcome
for veterans.
Each of the four provisions proposes to authorize the
expenditure of discretionary appropriations as an ``overlay''
for the purpose of supplementing entitlement programs for
veterans. Thus, beneficiaries of certain housing and auto grant
programs, and burial-related programs, would be ``entitled'' to
the amounts specified in the provisions, but only to the extent
that annual appropriations bills provided the necessary
discretionary funding that was in addition to the funding
provided in regular mandatory entitlement spending.
The problem with creating ``hybrid entitlement'' programs--
one part funded on a mandatory basis, the other funded through
an annual discretionary appropriation--is both the ensuing
problems that would exist in administering the programs and the
implications such a model would have on how Congress controls
spending of taxpayer dollars. We have budget rules referred to
as Pay-As-You-Go or ``PAYGO'' that require the Congress to pay
for new entitlement spending through a decrease in other
entitlement spending, an increase in revenue, or a combination
of both. Such a construct was created in order to keep budget
deficits from growing. Yet the four provisions in question
adopt none of these approaches.
Rather, they provide a workaround which serves to frustrate
the PAYGO rule's purpose. Instead of finding mandatory spending
offsets for the new spending desired under the provisions,
authority is given to simply provide supplemental discretionary
money in annual appropriations bills.
In the absence of any cap on overall VA discretionary
appropriations, what we will have is a recipe for more
spending. Under this financing construct, there is no
prioritization required. There is no need to offset other
authorized spending. Rather, the administration must simply
request in annual appropriations bills the amount that would be
required to meet the full entitlement amount. I am afraid that
this approach turns sound budgeting principles on its head.
If we say ``yes'' to this approach to fund entitlement
programs, what then is next? It seems odd to me that the
Committee would adopt these provisions to provide a workaround
of the Congress's budget rules, while at the same time adhering
strictly to the rules with respect to other spending in the
bill. Why did the Committee not use the financing approach in
these provisions to fund all the entitlement expansions in S.
1315, rather than paying for them with reductions in mandatory
spending? There is no clear answer to these questions. What is
clear is that adoption of these provisions, while enticing,
would be to undermine the very reason we have a PAYGO rule in
the first place.
Furthermore, how would this approach work? What would
happen if the appropriations bill fully funded a program one
year, but not the next? Would it be equitable to pay an
entitlement to a veteran in one year, a different amount to
another veteran the next year, then still another amount the
year after? What would happen if funding ran out midyear? These
are all questions that deserve more attention and analysis
before we move forward.
Section 501
I am pleased that S. 1315 includes many provisions from S.
1289, The Veterans' Justice Assurance Act of 2007, a bill I
introduced to help the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims (hereinafter, ``CAVC'' or ``Court'') deal with its
current caseload and help ensure that the Court has the
judicial resources it needs to decide veterans' cases in a
timely fashion. Although the Committee report provides a
general overview of the Court-related provisions, I believe it
would be useful to include a discussion of the history of the
current law and the circumstances that demonstrate the need to
revisit it. In my view, this background information also
highlights the need for Congress to take additional measures to
ensure that, in the long-term, veterans will not experience
disruptions in service as judges' terms come to an end and they
retire in clusters.
By way of background, Congress created the Court in 1988 to
provide judicial review of decisions rendered by the Board of
Veterans' Appeals, a body within VA that decides appeals on
claims for VA benefits. See Pub. L. 100-687 (1988); Pub. L.
105-368 (1998) (renaming the Court). The CAVC was initially
authorized to have seven judges (including one Chief Judge)
appointed to serve 15-year terms. A judge was permitted to
retire at the end of that term (or earlier if certain age and
service requirements were met) and would thereafter receive the
same annual pay that was in effect at the time of the judge's
retirement.
The original seven judges were confirmed between 1989 and
1991 and, because their terms were not staggered, all of their
terms would have expired between 2004 and 2005. In view of that
possibility, the CAVC submitted a legislative proposal to
Congress in 1997 ``to deal with [this] serious problem of judge
turnover.'' 143 Cong. Rec. S.6916 (July 7, 1997). That proposal
included a provision to permit ``the recall of retired judges
in the event of judicial vacancies or increased workload.'' 143
Cong. Rec. S. 6914. The Court requested that, ``[d]uring the
period of recall service the retired judge would receive, in
addition to the judge's retired pay, the difference between
that pay and pay of an active judge of the Court.'' 143 Cong.
Rec. S. 6915.
Subsequently, both the Senate and House of Representatives
Committees on Veterans' Affairs introduced bills based on the
Court's proposals and ultimately passed legislation to provide
for post-retirement service by retired CAVC judges. See Pub. L.
106-117 (1999). Specifically, that new law permitted retiring
judges to make an election at the time of retirement to be
``recall eligible'' and provided the Chief Judge with authority
to recall those judges for up to 90 days per calendar year or,
with the consent of the judge, for up to 180 days per calendar
year. In addition, recall-eligible retired judges became
eligible to receive annual pay equal to the annual salary of an
active judge (pay-of-the-office), regardless of how much, if
any, recall service they performed during the year. As the
House of Representatives Committee on Veterans' Affairs
reported, these changes were intended ``to provide the Court
and its retired judges the same authority and responsibilities
as other federal court systems as an effective tool to prevent
lengthening the time a veteran must wait for a decision on an
appeal.'' H. Rep. 106-202, at 13-14 (1999).
Following the enactment of those provisions, the original
CAVC judges began to retire, with one judge retiring in 2000,
another in 2002, and the remaining four in an 11-month period
between 2004 and 2005.\1\ As a result, the CAVC was without a
full complement of active judges for much of that period.
During that same time, the CAVC's incoming caseload experienced
significant increases, reaching over 2,500 incoming cases in
2003, which at that time was the highest level in the Court's
history, and then reaching over 3,400 new cases in 2005. In
total, the CAVC received over 1,800 more cases than it decided
from 2000 to 2005, and the number of cases pending at the Court
grew from almost 2,300 in 1999 to over 4,600 in 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\One of the original judges, The Honorable Hart T. Mankin, died
in 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In July 2006, I called a hearing--as then Chairman of the
Committee--to discuss the challenges facing the Court. S. Hrg.
109-694, Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, July 13, 2006,
109th Cong., 2d Sess. At that time, the CAVC had over 5,800
pending cases, which was more than double the number of cases
pending just two years earlier. Yet, as was discussed at that
hearing, the Court had never used its authority to recall
judges, even though the six retired judges had all elected to
be recall eligible. S. Hrg. 109-694, at 21.
At the hearing, the Chief Judge of the CAVC testified that
``[t]he critical piece in deciding to recall judges is to
recall them at a time when their limited availability can be
most useful.'' S. Hrg. 109-694, at 9. Also, as I stressed,
judges from other courts routinely provide post-retirement
service and a key difference from the CAVC appeared to be that
``other courts generally pay retired judges the active judge
salary only if they are actually performing the work.'' S. Hrg.
109-694, at 22. As I mentioned at that hearing, recalling
judges appeared to be ``a responsible decision . . . in dealing
with this growing [backlog] problem.'' S. Hrg. 109-694, at 22-
23. I was thus very pleased that, less than two months after
that hearing, the CAVC began to recall retired judges for the
first time in the Court's history. See In Re: Recall of Retired
Judges, 20 Vet. App. XL (2006).
Based on this experience, I introduced S. 1289 to modify
the authorities for the recall of retired judges and the
retirement pay structure, and I am pleased that many of those
provisions have been included in the Committee Bill. In
proposing these changes, I wish to stress that the CAVC's
recall system was explicitly requested by the Court as a means
to deal with ``judicial vacancies or increased workload.'' 143
Cong. Rec. S. 6914. However, no judge was recalled between 2000
and 2005, even though both of those contingencies actually
occurred--judicial vacancies and unprecedented increases in the
Court's caseload. In my view, this experience has demonstrated
that the recall system, as currently structured, does not
provide a reasonable incentive for retired judges to serve in
recall status and that the limited recall period constrains the
usefulness of this tool.
Removing the cap on voluntary recall service and exempting
recall-eligible judges from involuntary recall once they have
served five years of recall service, as the Committee Bill
would do, should provide the authority and an incentive for
recall-eligible judges to serve longer or more frequent periods
of recall service. In the long term, the Committee Bill would
make recall an even more robust resource by reserving the
highest pay level (pay-of-the-office) for those retired judges
actually performing recall service, thus creating a meaningful
incentive for retired judges to return to work. At the same
time, judges would still receive a generous retirement package
of no less than 100 percent of their salary on the day they
retire. In my view, these steps should help ensure that the
services of experienced, retired judges will be available when
needed and that the Court will be able to consistently provide
timely decisions to veterans seeking justice from the Court.
Although these provisions should significantly benefit
veterans and the Court, I continue to believe that Congress
should take additional steps to ensure that, in the long term,
veterans will not experience disruptions in service as judges'
terms come to an end. As described above, the CAVC struggled
after six experienced judges retired between 2000 and 2005.
Unfortunately, the Court will likely face an even more drastic
turnover between 2015 and 2019, with six judges becoming
eligible to retire and four potentially retiring in a single
two-week period. To me, this suggests that Congress should take
extraordinary measures, as my bill (S. 1289) would do, to break
this cycle of en masse retirements and to ensure that the Court
consistently has the judicial capacity it needs to provide
veterans with the prompt Court decisions they deserve.
Changes in Existing Law
In compliance with rule XXVI paragraph 12 of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill,
as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be
omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in
italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in
roman).
TITLE 38--VETERANS' BENEFITS
* * * * * * *
PART I--GENERAL PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 1--GENERAL
* * * * * * *
Sec.
[107. Certain service deemed not to be active service.]
107. Certain service with Philippine forces deemed to be active
service.
* * * * * * *
[SEC. 107. CERTAIN SERVICE DEEMED NOT TO BE ACTIVE SERVICE.]
[(a) Service before July 1, 1946, in the organized military
forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of the
Philippines, while such forces were in the service of the Armed
Forces of the United States pursuant to the military order of
the President dated July 26, 1941, including among such
military forces organized guerrilla forces under commanders
appointed, designated, or subsequently recognized by the
Commander in Chief, Southwest Pacific Area, or other competent
authority in the Army of the United States, shall not be deemed
to have been active military, naval, or air service for the
purposes of any law of the United States conferring rights,
privileges, or benefits upon any person by reason of the
service of such person or the service of any other person in
the Armed Forces, except benefits under--
[(1) contracts of National Service Life Insurance
entered into before February 18, 1946;
[(2) chapter 10 of title 37; and
[(3) chapters 11, 13 (except section 1312(a)), 23,
and 24 (to the extent provided for in section 2402(8))
of this title.]
[Except as provided in subsection (c) or (d), payments
under such chapters shall be made at a rate of $0.50 for each
dollar authorized, and where annual income is a factor in
entitlement to benefits, the dollar limitations in the law
specifying such annual income shall apply at a rate of $0.50
for each dollar. Any payments made before February 18, 1946, to
any such member under such laws conferring rights, benefits, or
privileges shall not be deemed to have been invalid by reason
of the circumstance that such member's service was not service
in the Armed Forces or any component thereof within the meaning
of any such law.]
[(b) Service in the Philippine Scouts under section 14 of
the Armed Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945 shall not be
deemed to have been active military, naval, or air service for
the purposes of any of the laws administered by the Secretary
except--
[(1) with respect to contracts of National Service
Life Insurance entered into (A) before May 27, 1946,
(B) under section 620 or 621 of the National Service
Life Insurance Act of 1940, or (C) under section 1922
of this title; and
[(2) chapters 11, 13 (except section 1312(a)), 23,
and 24 (to the extent provided for in section 2402(8))
of this title.]
[Except as provided in subsection (c) or (d), payments
under such chapters shall be made at a rate of $0.50 for each
dollar authorized, and where annual income is a factor in
entitlement to benefits, the dollar limitations in the law
specifying such annual income shall apply at a rate of $0.50
for each dollar.]
[(c) In the case of benefits under subchapters II and IV of
chapter 11 of this title and subchapter II of chapter 13
(except section 1312(a)) of this title paid by reason of
service described in subsection (a) or (b) to an individual
residing in the United States who is a citizen of, or an alien
lawfully admitted for permanent residence in, the United
States, the second sentence of the applicable subsection shall
not apply.]
[(d)(1) With respect to benefits under chapter 23 of this
title, in the case of an individual described in paragraph (2),
the second sentence of subsection (a) or (b), as otherwise
applicable, shall not apply.
[(2) Paragraph (1) applies to any individual whose service
is described in subsection (a) and who dies after November 1,
2000, or whose service is described in subsection (b) and who
dies after the date of the enactment of the Veterans Benefits
Act of 2003, if the individual, on the individual's date of
death--
[(A) is a citizen of, or an alien lawfully admitted
for permanent residence in, the United States;
[(B) is residing in the United States; and
[(C) either--
[(i) is receiving compensation under chapter
11 of this title; or
[(ii) if the individual's service had been
deemed to be active military, naval, or air
service, would have been paid pension under
section 1521 of this title without denial or
discontinuance by reason of section 1522 of
this title.]
SEC. 107. CERTAIN SERVICE WITH PHILIPPINE FORCES DEEMED TO BE ACTIVE
SERVICE.
(a) In General.--Service described in subsection (b) shall
be deemed to have been active military, naval, or air service
for purposes of any law of the United States conferring rights,
privileges, or benefits upon any individual by reason of the
service of such individual or the service of any other
individual in the Armed Forces.
(b) Service Described.--Service described in this
subsection is service--
(1) before July 1, 1946, in the organized military
forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of the
Philippines, while such forces were in the service of
the Armed Forces of the United States pursuant to the
military order of the President dated July 26, 1941,
including among such military forces organized
guerrilla forces under commanders appointed,
designated, or subsequently recognized by the Commander
in Chief, Southwest Pacific Area, or other competent
authority in the Army of the United States; or
(2) in the Philippine Scouts under section 14 of the
Armed Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945 (59
Stat. 538).
(c) Dependency and Indemnity Compensation for Certain
Recipients Residing Outside the United States.--(1) Dependency
and indemnity compensation provided under chapter 13 of this
title to an individual described in paragraph (2) shall be made
at a rate of $0.50 for each dollar authorized.
(2) An individual described in this paragraph is an
individual who resides outside the United States and is
entitled to dependency and indemnity compensation under chapter
13 of this title based on service described in subsection (b).
(d) Modified Pension and Death Pension for Certain
Recipients Residing Outside the United States.--(1) Any pension
provided under subchapter II or III of chapter 15 of this title
to an individual described in paragraph (2) shall be made only
as specified in section 1514 of this title.
(2) An individual described in this paragraph is an
individual who resides outside the United States and is
entitled to a pension provided under subchapter II or III of
chapter 15 of this title based on service described in
subsection (b).
(e) United States Defined.--In this section, the term
`United States' means the States, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other
possession or territory of the United States.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 3--DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
* * * * * * *
Sec.
305A. Termination or suspension of contracts for cellular
telephone service.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 305A. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF CONTRACTS FOR CELLULAR
TELEPHONE SERVICE.
(a) In General.--A servicemember who receives orders to
deploy outside of the continental United States for not less
than 90 days may request the termination or suspension of any
contract for cellular telephone service entered into by the
servicemember before that date if the servicemember's ability
to satisfy the contract or to utilize the service will be
materially affected by that period of deployment. The request
shall include a copy of the servicemember's military
orders.
(b) Relief.--Upon receiving the request of a servicemember
under subsection (a), the cellular telephone service contractor
concerned shall, at the election of the contractor--
(1) grant the requested relief without imposition of
an early termination fee for termination of the
contract or a reactivation fee for suspension of the
contract; or
(2) permit the servicemember to suspend the contract
at no charge until the end of the deployment without
requiring, whether as a condition of suspension or
otherwise, that the contract be extended.
* * * * * * *
PART II--GENERAL BENEFITS
CHAPTER 11--COMPENSATION FOR SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY OR DEATH
Subchapter II--Wartime Disability Compensation
SEC. 1112. PRESUMPTIONS RELATING TO CERTAIN DISEASES AND
DISABILITIES.
* * * * * * *
(b)(1) * * *
(2) * * *
(F) Osteoporosis, if the Secretary determines that
the veteran was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD).
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 13--DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION FOR SERVICE-CONNECTED
DEATHS
Subchapter II--Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
SEC. 1311. DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION TO A
SURVIVING SPOUSE.
* * * * * * *
(f) * * *
(5) Whenever there is an increase in benefit amounts
payable under title II of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. 401 et seq.) as a result of a determination made
under section 215(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)),
the Secretary shall, effective on the date of such
increase in benefit amounts, increase the amount
payable under paragraph (1), as such amount was in
effect immediately prior to the date of such increase
in benefit amounts, by the same percentage as the
percentage by which such benefit amounts are increased.
Any increase in a dollar amount under this paragraph
shall be rounded down to the next lower whole dollar
amount.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 15--PENSION FOR NON-SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY OR DEATH OR
FOR SERVICE
* * * * * * *
Sec.
1514. Certain recipients residing outside the United States.
* * * * * * *
Subchapter I--General
SEC. 1508. FREQUENCY OF PAYMENT OF PENSION BENEFITS.
(a) Except as provided under subsection (b) of this
section, benefits under sections 1514, 1521, 1541, and 1542 of
this title shall be paid monthly.
(b) Under regulations which the Secretary shall prescribe,
benefits under sections 1514, 1521, 1541, and 1542 of this
title may be paid less frequently than monthly if the amount of
the annual benefit is less than 4 percent of the maximum annual
rate payable to a veteran under section 1521(b) of this title.
* * * * * * *
Subchapter II--Veterans' Pensions
Service Pension
SEC. 1513. VETERANS 65 YEARS OF AGE AND OLDER.
(a) The Secretary shall pay to each veteran of a period of
war who is 65 years of age or older and who meets the service
requirements of section 1521 of this title (as prescribed in
subsection (j) of that section) pension at the rates prescribed
[by section 1521 of this title and under the conditions (other
than the permanent and total disability requirement) applicable
to pension paid under that section] by subsection (b), (c),
(f)(1), (f)(5), or (g) of that section, as the case may be and
as increased from time to time under section 5312 of this
title.
(b) The conditions in subsections (h) and (i) of section
1521 of this title shall apply to determinations of income and
maximum payments of pension for purposes of this section.
[(b)] (c) If a veteran is eligible for pension under both
this section and section 1521 of this title, pension shall be
paid to the veteran only under section 1521 of this title.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1514. CERTAIN RECIPIENTS RESIDING OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Special Rates for Pension Benefits for Individuals
Serving With Philippine Forces and Survivors.--(1) Payment
under this subchapter to an individual who resides outside the
United States and is eligible for such payment because of
service described in section 107(b) of this title shall be made
as follows:
(A) For such an individual who is married, at a rate
of $4,500 per year (as increased from time to time
under section 5312 of this title).
(B) For such an individual who is not married, at a
rate of $3,600 per year (as increased from time to time
under section 5312 of this title).
(2) Payment under subchapter III of this chapter to an
individual who resides outside the United States and is
eligible for such payment because of service described in
section 107(b) of this title shall be made at a rate of $2,400
per year (as increased from time to time under section 5312 of
this title).
(3) An individual who is otherwise entitled to benefits
under this chapter and resides outside the United States, and
receives or would otherwise be eligible to receive a monetary
benefit from a foreign government, may not receive benefits
under this chapter for service described in section 107(b) of
this title if receipt of such benefits under this chapter would
reduce such monetary benefit from such foreign government.
(4) The provisions of sections 1503(a), 1506, 1522, and
1543 of this title shall not apply to benefits paid under this
section.
(b) Individuals Living Outside the United States Entitled
to Certain Social Security Benefits Ineligible.--An individual
residing outside the United States who is receiving or is
eligible to receive benefits under title VIII of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1001 et seq.) may not receive benefits
under this chapter.
(c) United States Defined.--In this section, the term
`United States' means the States, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any other
possession or territory of the United States.
* * * * * * *
PART II--GENERAL BENEFITS
CHAPTER 17-- HOSPITAL, NURSING HOME, DOMICILIARY, AND MEDICAL CARE
Subchapter II--Hospital, Nursing Home, or Domiciliary Care and Medical
Treatment
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1717. HOME HEALTH SERVICES; INVALID LIFTS AND OTHER
DEVICES.
* * * * * * *
(d)(1) In the case of a member of the Armed Forces who, as
determined by the Secretary, has a disability permanent in
nature incurred or aggravated in the line of duty in the active
military, naval, or air service, the Secretary may furnish
improvements and structural alterations for such member for
such disability or as otherwise described in subsection (a)(2)
while such member is hospitalized or receiving outpatient
medical care, services, or treatment for such disability if the
Secretary determines that such member is likely to be
discharged or released from the Armed Forces for such
disability.
(2) The furnishing of improvements and alterations under
paragraph (1) in connection with the furnishing of medical
services described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection
(a)(2) shall be subject to the limitation specified in the
applicable subparagraph.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 19--INSURANCE
Sec.
1922B. Level-premium term life insurance for veterans with
service-connected
disabilities.
* * * * * * *
Subchapter I--National Service Life Insurance
SEC. 1922. SERVICE DISABLED VETERANS' INSURANCE.
(a) Any person who is released from active military, naval,
or air service, under other than dishonorable conditions on or
after April 25, 1951, and is found by the Secretary to be
suffering from a disability or disabilities for which
compensation would be payable if 10 per centum or more in
degree and except for which such person would be insurable
according to the standards of good health established by the
Secretary, shall, upon application in writing made within two
years from the date service-connection of such disability is
determined by the Secretary and payment of premiums as provided
in this subchapter be granted insurance by the United States
against the death of such person occurring while such insurance
is in force. If such a person is shown by evidence satisfactory
to the Secretary to have been mentally incompetent during any
part of the two-year period, application for insurance under
this section may be filed within two years after a guardian is
appointed or within two years after the removal of such
disability as determined by the Secretary, whichever is the
earlier date. If the guardian was appointed or the removal of
the disability occurred before January 1, 1959, application for
insurance under this section may be made within two years after
that date. Insurance granted under this section shall be issued
upon the same terms and conditions as are contained in the
standard policies of National Service Life Insurance except (1)
the premium rates for such insurance shall be based on the
Commissioners 1941 Standard Ordinary Table of Mortality and
interest at the rate of 2\1/4\ per centum per annum; (2) all
cash, loan, paid-up, and extended values shall be based upon
the Commissioners 1941 Standard Ordinary Table of Mortality and
interest at the rate of 2\1/4\ per centum per annum; (3) all
settlements on policies involving annuities shall be calculated
on the basis of The Annuity Table for 1949, and interest at the
rate of 2\1/4\ per centum per annum; (4) insurance granted
under this section shall be on a nonparticipating basis and all
premiums and other collections therefor shall be credited
directly to a revolving fund in the Treasury of the United
States, and any payments on such insurance shall be made
[directly from such fund] directly from such fund; and (5)
administrative costs to the Government for the costs of the
program of insurance under this section shall be paid from
premiums credited to the fund under paragraph (4), and payments
for claims against the fund under paragraph (4) for amounts in
excess of amounts credited to such fund under that paragraph
(after such administrative costs have been paid) shall be paid
from appropriations to the fund. Appropriations to such fund
are hereby authorized. As to insurance issued under this
section, waiver of premiums pursuant to section 602(n) of the
National Service Life Insurance Act of 1940 and section 1912 of
this title shall not be denied on the ground that the service-
connected disability became total before the effective date of
such insurance.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1922A. SUPPLEMENTAL SERVICE DISABLED VETERANS' INSURANCE FOR
TOTALLY DISABLED VETERANS.
(a) Any person insured under section 1922(a) of this title
who qualifies for a waiver of premiums under section 1912 of
this title is eligible, as provided in this section, for
supplemental insurance in an amount not to exceed [$20,000]
$30,000.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1922B. LEVEL-PREMIUM TERM LIFE INSURANCE FOR VETERANS WITH
SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITIES.
(a) In General.--In accordance with the provisions of this
section, the Secretary shall grant insurance to each eligible
veteran who seeks such insurance against the death of such
veteran occurring while such insurance is in force.
(b) Eligible Veterans.--For purposes of this section, an
eligible veteran is any veteran less than 65 years of age who
has a service-connected disability.
(c) Amount of Insurance.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the
amount of insurance granted an eligible veteran under this
section shall be $50,000 or such lesser amount as the veteran
shall elect. The amount of insurance so elected shall be evenly
divisible by $10,000.
(2) The aggregate amount of insurance of an eligible
veteran under this section, section 1922 of this title, and
section 1922A of this title may not exceed $50,000.
(d) Reduced Amount for Veterans Age 70 or Older.--In the
case of a veteran insured under this section who turns age 70,
the amount of insurance of such veteran under this section
after the date such veteran turns age 70 shall be the amount
equal to 20 percent of the amount of insurance of the veteran
under this section as of the day before such date.
(e) Premiums.--(1) Premium rates for insurance under this
section shall be based on the 2001 Commissioners Standard
Ordinary Basic Table of Mortality and interest at the rate of
4.5 per centum per annum.
(2) The amount of the premium charged a veteran for
insurance under this section may not increase while such
insurance is in force for such veteran.
(3) The Secretary may not charge a premium for insurance
under this section for a veteran as follows:
(A) A veteran who has a service-connected disability
rated as total and is eligible for a waiver of premiums
under section 1912 of this title.
(B) A veteran who is 70 years of age or older.
(4) Insurance granted under this section shall be on a
nonparticipating basis and all premiums and other collections
therefor shall be credited directly to a revolving fund in the
Treasury of the United States, and any payments on such
insurance shall be made directly from such fund. Appropriations
to such fund are hereby
authorized.
(5) Administrative costs to the Government for the costs of
the program of insurance under this section shall be paid from
premiums credited to the fund under paragraph (4), and payments
for claims against the fund under paragraph (4) for amounts in
excess of amounts credited to such fund under that paragraph
(after such administrative costs have been paid) shall be paid
from appropriations to the fund.
(f) Application Required.--An eligible veteran seeking
insurance under this section shall file with the Secretary an
application therefor. Such application shall be filed not later
than the earlier of--
(1) the end of the two-year period beginning on the
date on which the Secretary notifies the veteran that
the veteran has a service-connected disability; and
(2) the end of the 10-year period beginning on the
date of the separation of the veteran from the Armed
Forces, whichever is earlier.
* * * * * * *
Subchapter III--Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance
SEC. 1967. PERSONS INSURED; AMOUNT.
(a)(1) * * *
(A) * * *
(C) In the case of any member of the Ready
Reserve of a uniformed service who meets the
qualifications set forth in [section 1965(5)(B)
of this title] subparagraph (B) or (C) of
section 1965(5) of this title.
* * * * * * *
(5) * * *
(C) The first day a member of the Ready
Reserve meets the qualifications set forth in
[section 1965(5)(B) of this title] subparagraph
(B) or (C) of section 1965(5) of this title.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1968. DURATION AND TERMINATION OF COVERAGE; CONVERSION.
(a) * * *
(5) * * *
(B) * * *
(ii) [120 days after] the date of
termination of the insurance on the
member's life under this subchapter; or
* * * * * * *
SECTION 1980A. TRAUMATIC INJURY PROTECTION
(d) [Payments under] (1) Payments under this section for
qualifying losses shall be made in accordance with a schedule
prescribed by the Secretary, by regulation, specifying the
amount of payment to be made for each type of qualifying loss,
to be based on the severity of the qualifying loss. The minimum
payment that may be prescribed for a qualifying loss is
$25,000, and the maximum payment that may be prescribed for a
qualifying loss is $100,000.
(2) As the Secretary considers appropriate, the schedule
required by paragraph (1) may distinguish in specifying
payments for qualifying losses between the severity of a
qualifying loss of a dominant hand and a qualifying loss of a
non-dominant hand.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 21--SPECIALLY ADAPTED HOUSING FOR DISABLED VETERANS
* * * * * * *
Sec.
[2101. Veterans eligible for assistance.]
2101. Acquisition and adaptation of housing: eligible veterans.
2101A. Eligibility for benefits and assistance: members of the
Armed Forces with service-connected disabilities;
individuals residing outside the United States.
* * *
[2102A. Assistance for veterans residing temporarily in housing
owned by a family member.]
2102A. Assistance for individuals residing temporarily in housing
owned by a family member.
2102B. Supplemental assistance.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2101. [VETERANS ELIGIBLE FOR ASSISTANCE.] ACQUISITION AND
ADAPTATION OF HOUSING: ELIGIBLE VETERANS.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(E) The disability is due to a severe burn
injury (as determined pursuant to regulations
prescribed by the Secretary).
(b) * * *
(2) A veteran is described in this paragraph if the
veteran is entitled to compensation under chapter 11 of
this title for a permanent and total service-connected
disability that meets [either] any of the following
criteria:
* * * * * * *
(C) The disability is due to a severe burn
injury (as so determined).
* * * * * * *
[(c) (1) The Secretary may provide assistance under
subsection (a) to a member of the Armed Forces serving on
active duty who is suffering from a disability described in
subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (D) of paragraph (2) of that
subsection if such disability is the result of an injury
incurred or disease contracted in or aggravated in line of duty
in the active military, naval, or air service. Such assistance
shall be provided to the same extent as assistance is provided
under that subsection to veterans eligible for assistance under
that subsection and subject to the requirements of paragraph
(3) of that subsection.
[(2) The Secretary may provide assistance under subsection
(b) to a member of the Armed Forces serving on active duty who
is suffering from a disability described in subparagraph (A) or
(B) of paragraph (2) of that subsection if such disability is
the result of an injury incurred or disease contracted in or
aggravated in line of duty in the active military, naval, or
air service. Such assistance shall be provided to the same
extent as assistance is provided under that subsection to
veterans eligible for assistance under that subsection and
subject to the requirements of paragraph (3) of that
subsection.]
[(d)] (c) Regulations. Assistance under this section shall
be provided in accordance with such regulations as the
Secretary may prescribe.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2101A. ELIGIBILITY FOR BENEFITS AND ASSISTANCE: MEMBERS OF THE
ARMED FORCES WITH SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITIES;
INDIVIDUALS RESIDING OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES.
(a) Members With Service-Connected Disabilities.--(1) The
Secretary may provide assistance under this chapter to a member
of the Armed Forces serving on active duty who is suffering
from a disability that meets applicable criteria for benefits
under this chapter if the disability is incurred or aggravated
in line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service.
Such assistance shall be provided to the same extent as
assistance is provided under this chapter to veterans eligible
for assistance under this chapter and subject to the same
requirements as veterans under this chapter.
(2) For purposes of this chapter, any reference to a
veteran or eligible individual shall be treated as a reference
to a member of the Armed Forces described in subsection (a) who
is similarly situated to the veteran or other eligible
individual so referred to.
(b) Benefits and Assistance for Individuals Residing
Outside the United States.--(1) Subject to paragraph (2), the
Secretary may, at the Secretary's discretion, provide benefits
and assistance under this chapter (other than benefits under
section 2106 of this title) to any individual otherwise
eligible for such benefits and assistance who resides outside
the United States.
(2) The Secretary may provide benefits and assistance to an
individual under paragraph (1) only if--
(A) the country or political subdivision in which the
housing or residence involved is or will be located
permits the individual to have or acquire a beneficial
property interest (as determined by the Secretary) in
such housing or residence; and
(B) the individual has or will acquire a beneficial
property interest (as so determined) in such housing or
residence.
(c) Regulations.--Benefits and assistance under this
chapter by reason of this section shall be provided in
accordance with such regulations as the Secretary may
prescribe.
SEC. 2102. LIMITATIONS ON ASSISTANCE FURNISHED.
(a) The assistance authorized by section 2101(a) of this
title shall be afforded under one of the following plans, at
the option of the [veteran] individual--
(1) where the [veteran] individual elects to
construct a housing unit on land to be acquired by such
[veteran] individual, the Secretary shall pay not to
exceed 50 percent of the total cost to the [veteran]
individual of (A) the housing unit and (B) the
necessary land upon which it is to be situated;
(2) where the [veteran] individual elects to
construct a housing unit on land acquired by such
[veteran] individual prior to application for
assistance under this chapter, the Secretary shall pay
not to exceed the smaller of the following sums: (A) 50
percent of the total cost to the [veteran] individual
of the housing unit and the land necessary for such
housing unit, or (B) 50 percent of the cost to the
[veteran] individual of the housing unit plus the full
amount of the unpaid balance, if any, of the cost to
the [veteran] individual of the land necessary for such
housing unit;
(3) where the [veteran] individual elects to remodel
a dwelling which is not adapted to the requirements of
such [veteran's] individual's disability, acquired by
such [veteran] individual prior to application for
assistance under this chapter, the Secretary shall pay
not to exceed (A) the cost to the [veteran] individual
of such remodeling; or (B) 50 percent of the cost to
the [veteran] individual of such remodeling; plus the
smaller of the following sums: (i) 50 percent of the
cost to the [veteran] individual of such dwelling and
the necessary land upon which it is situated, or (ii)
the full amount of the unpaid balance, if any, of the
cost to the [veteran] individual of such dwelling and
the necessary land upon which it is situated; and
(4) where the [veteran] individual has acquired a
suitable housing unit, the Secretary shall pay not to
exceed the smaller of the following sums: (A) 50
percent of the cost to the [veteran] individual of such
housing unit and the necessary land upon which it is
situated, or (B) the full amount of the unpaid balance,
if any, of the cost to the [veteran] individual of such
housing unit and the necessary land upon which it is
situated.
(b) Except as provided in section 2104(b) of this title,
the assistance authorized by section 2101(b) of this title
shall be limited to the lesser of--
(1) the actual cost, or, in the case of [a veteran]
an individual acquiring a residence already adapted
with special features, the fair market value, of the
adaptations determined by the Secretary under such
section 2101(b) to be reasonably necessary, or
(2) $ 10,000.
(c) The amount of assistance afforded under subsection (a)
for [a veteran] an individual authorized assistance by section
2101(a) of this title shall not be reduced by reason that title
to the housing unit, which is vested in [the veteran] the
individual, is also vested in any other person, if [the
veteran] the individual resides in the housing unit.
(d)(1) The aggregate amount of assistance available to [a
veteran] an individual under sections 2101(a) and 2102A of this
title shall be limited to $ 50,000.
(2) The aggregate amount of assistance available to [a
veteran] an individual under sections 2101(b) and 2102A of this
title shall be limited to $ 10,000.
(3) No [veteran] individual may receive more than three
grants of assistance under this chapter.
SEC. 2102A. [ASSISTANCE FOR VETERANS RESIDING TEMPORARILY IN HOUSING
OWNED BY A FAMILY MEMBER] ASSISTANCE FOR
INDIVIDUALS RESIDING TEMPORARILY IN HOUSING OWNED
BY A FAMILY MEMBER.
(a) Provision of Assistance.--In the case of a disabled
[veteran] individual who is described in subsection (a)(2) or
(b)(2) of section 2101 of this title and who is residing, but
does not intend to permanently reside, in a residence owned by
a member of such [veteran's] individual's family, the Secretary
may assist the [veteran] individual in acquiring such
adaptations to such residence as are determined by the
Secretary to be reasonably necessary because of the [veteran's]
individual's disability.
(b) Amount of Assistance.--The assistance authorized under
subsection (a) may not exceed--
(1) $14,000, in the case of [a veteran] an individual
described in section 2101(a)(2) of this title; or
(2) $2,000, in the case of [a veteran] an individual
described in section 2101(b)(2) of this title.
* * * * * * *
(e) Termination. No assistance may be provided under this
section [after the end of the five-year period that begins on
the date of the enactment of the Veterans' Housing Opportunity
and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006] after December 31, 2011
[enacted June 15, 2006].
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2102B. SUPPLEMENTAL ASSISTANCE.
(a) In General.--(1) Subject to the availability of funds
specifically provided for purposes of this subsection in
advance in an appropriations Act, whenever the Secretary makes
a payment in accordance with section 2102 of this title to an
individual authorized to receive such assistance under section
2101 of this title for the acquisition of housing with special
features or for special adaptations to a residence, the
Secretary is also authorized and directed to pay such
individual supplemental assistance under this section for such
acquisition or adaptation.
(2) No supplemental assistance payment shall be made under
this subsection if the Secretary has expended all funds that
were specifically provided for purposes of this subsection in
an appropriations Act.
(b) Amount of Supplemental Assistance.--(1) In the case of
a payment made in accordance with section 2102(a) of this
title, supplemental assistance required by subsection (a) is
equal to the excess of--
(A) the payment which would be determined under
section 2102(a) of this title, and 2102A of this title
if applicable, if the amount described in section
2102(d)(1) of this title were increased to the adjusted
amount described in subsection (c)(1), over
(B) the payment determined without regard to this
section.
(2) In the case of a payment made in accordance with
section 2102(b) of this title, supplemental assistance required
by subsection (a) is equal to the excess of--
(A) the payment which would be determined under
section 2102(b) of this title, and 2102A of this title
if applicable, if the amount described in section
2102(b)(2) of this title and section 2102(d)(2) of this
title were increased to the adjusted amount described
in subsection (c)(2), over
(B) the payment determined without regard to this
section.
(c) Adjusted Amount.--(1) In the case of a payment made in
accordance with section 2102(a) of this title, the adjusted
amount is $60,000 (as adjusted from time to time under
subsection (d)).
(2) In the case of a payment made in accordance with
section 2102(b) of this title, the adjusted amount is $12,000
(as adjusted from time to time under subsection (d)).
(d) Adjustment.--(1) Effective on October 1 of each year
(beginning in 2008), the Secretary shall increase the adjusted
amounts described in subsection (c) in accordance with this
subsection.
(2) The increase in amounts under paragraph (1) to take
effect on October 1 of any year shall be the percentage by
which (A) the residential home cost-of-construction index for
the preceding calendar year exceeds (B) the residential home
cost-of-construction index for the year preceding that year.
(3) The Secretary shall establish a residential home cost-
of-
construction index for the purposes of this subsection. The
index shall reflect a uniform, national average increase in the
cost of residential home construction, determined on a calendar
year basis. The Secretary may use an index developed in the
private sector that the Secretary determines is appropriate for
purposes of this subsection.
(e) Estimates.--(1) From time to time, the Secretary shall
make an estimate of--
(A) the amount of funding that would be necessary to
provide supplemental assistance under this section to
all eligible recipients for the remainder of the fiscal
year in which such an estimate is made; and
(B) the amount that Congress would need to
appropriate to provide all eligible recipients with
supplemental assistance under this section in the next
fiscal year.
(2) On the dates described in paragraph (3), the Secretary
shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress the
estimates described in paragraph (1).
(3) The dates described in this paragraph are the
following:
(A) April 1 of each year.
(B) July 1 of each year.
(C) September 1 of each year.
(D) The date that is 60 days before the date
estimated by the Secretary on which amounts
appropriated for the purposes of this section for a
fiscal year will be exhausted.
(f) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--
(1) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives.
SEC. 2103. FURNISHING OF PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS.
The Secretary is authorized to furnish to [veterans]
individuals eligible for assistance under this chapter, without
cost to the [veterans] individuals, model plans and
specifications of suitable housing units.
SEC. 2104. BENEFITS ADDITIONAL TO BENEFITS UNDER OTHER LAWS.
(a) Any [veteran] individual who accepts the benefits of
this chapter shall not by reason thereof be denied the benefits
of chapter 37 of this title; however, except as provided in
subsection (b) of this section, the assistance authorized by
section 2101 of this title shall not be available to any
[veteran] individual more than once.
(b) [A veteran] An individual eligible for assistance under
section 2101(b) of this title shall not by reason of such
eligibility be denied benefits for which [such veteran] such
individual becomes eligible under section 2101(a) of this title
or benefits relating to home health services under section
1717(a)(2) of this title. However, no particular type of
adaptation, improvement, or structural alteration provided to
[a veteran] an individual under section 1717(a)(2) of this
title may be provided to [such veteran] such individual under
section 2101(b) of this title.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2106. VETERANS' MORTGAGE LIFE INSURANCE.
(a) The United States shall automatically insure [any
eligible veteran] any eligible individual age 69 or younger who
is or has been granted assistance in securing a suitable
housing unit under this chapter against the death of [the
veteran] the individual unless [the veteran] the individual (1)
submits to the Secretary in writing [the veterans'] the
individual's election not to be insured under this section, or
(2) fails to respond in a timely manner to a request from the
Secretary for information on which the premium for such
insurance can be based.
(b) The amount of insurance provided [a veteran] an
individual under this section may not exceed the lesser of
[$90,000] $150,000, or $200,000 after January 1, 2012, or the
amount of the loan outstanding on the housing unit. The amount
of such insurance shall be reduced according to the
amortization schedule of the loan and may not at any time
exceed the amount of the outstanding loan with interest. If
there is no outstanding loan on the housing unit, insurance is
not payable under this section. If [an eligible veteran] an
eligible individual elects not to be insured under this
section, [the veteran] the individual may thereafter be insured
under this section, but only upon submission of an application,
payment of required premiums, and compliance with such health
requirements and other terms and conditions as may be
prescribed by the
Secretary.
* * * * * * *
(e) Any amount of insurance in force under this section on
the date of the death of [an eligible veteran] an eligible
individual insured under this section shall be paid to the
holder of the mortgage loan, for payment of which the insurance
was granted, for credit on the loan indebtedness. Any liability
of the United States under such insurance shall be satisfied
when such payment is made. If the Secretary is the holder of
the mortgage loan, the insurance proceeds shall be credited to
the loan indebtedness and deposited in the Veterans Housing
Benefit Program Fund established by section 3722 of this title.
* * * * * * *
(h) The Secretary shall issue to [each veteran] each
individual insured under this section a certificate setting
forth the benefits to which [the veteran] the individual is
entitled under the insurance.
(i) Insurance under this section shall terminate upon
whichever of the following events first occurs:
(1) Satisfaction of [the veteran's] the individual's
indebtedness under the loan upon which the insurance is
based.
(2) Termination of [the veteran's] the individual's
ownership of the property securing the loan.
(3) Discontinuance of payment of premiums by [the
veteran] the individual.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 23--BURIAL BENEFITS
* * * * * * *
Sec.
2302A. Funeral expenses: supplemental benefits.
2303. Death in Department facility; plot allowance.
2303A. Supplemental plot allowance.
* * *
2307A. Death from service-connected disability: supplemental
benefits for burial and funeral expenses.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2302A. FUNERAL EXPENSES: SUPPLEMENTAL BENEFITS.
(a) In General.--(1) Subject to the availability of funds
specifically provided for purposes of this subsection in
advance in an appropriations Act, whenever the Secretary makes
a payment for the burial and funeral of a veteran under section
2302(a) of this title, the Secretary is also authorized and
directed to pay the recipient of such payment a supplemental
payment under this section for the cost of such burial and
funeral.
(2) No supplemental payment shall be made under this
subsection if the Secretary has expended all funds that were
specifically provided for purposes of this subsection in an
appropriations Act.
(b) Amount.--The amount of the supplemental payment
required by subsection (a) for any death is $900 (as adjusted
from time to time under subsection (c)).
(c) Adjustment.--With respect to deaths that occur in any
fiscal year after fiscal year 2008, the supplemental payment
described in subsection (b) shall be equal to the sum of--
(1) the supplemental payment in effect under
subsection (b) for the preceding fiscal year
(determined after application of this subsection), plus
(2) the sum of the amount described in section
2302(a) of this title and the amount under paragraph
(1), multiplied by the percentage by which--
(A) the Consumer Price Index (all items,
United States city average) for the 12-month
period ending on the June 30 preceding the
beginning of the fiscal year for which the
increase is made, exceeds
(B) such Consumer Price Index for the 12-
month period preceding the 12-month period
described in sub-
paragraph (A).
(d) Estimates.--(1) From time to time, the Secretary shall
make an estimate of--
(A) the amount of funding that would be necessary to
provide supplemental payments under this section to all
eligible recipients for the remainder of the fiscal
year in which such an estimate is made; and
(B) the amount that Congress would need to
appropriate to provide all eligible recipients with
supplemental payments under this section in the next
fiscal year.
(2) On the dates described in paragraph (3), the Secretary
shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress the
estimates described in paragraph (1).
(3) The dates described in this paragraph are the
following:
(A) April 1 of each year.
(B) July 1 of each year.
(C) September 1 of each year.
(D) The date that is 60 days before the date
estimated by the Secretary on which amounts
appropriated for the purposes of this section for a
fiscal year will be exhausted.
(e) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--
(1) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2303A. SUPPLEMENTAL PLOT ALLOWANCE.
(a) In General.--(1) Subject to the availability of funds
specifically provided for purposes of this subsection in
advance in an appropriations Act, whenever the Secretary makes
a payment for the burial and funeral of a veteran under section
2303(a)(1)(A) of this title, or for the burial of a veteran
under paragraph (1) or (2) of section 2303(b) of this title,
the Secretary is also authorized and directed to pay the
recipient of such payment a supplemental payment under this
section for the cost of such burial and funeral or burial, as
applicable.
(2) No supplemental plot allowance payment shall be made
under this subsection if the Secretary has expended all funds
that were specifically provided for purposes of this subsection
in an appropriations Act.
(b) Amount.--The amount of the supplemental payment
required by subsection (a) for any death is $445 (as adjusted
from time to time under subsection (c)).
(c) Adjustment.--With respect to deaths that occur in any
fiscal year after fiscal year 2008, the supplemental payment
described in subsection (b) shall be equal to the sum of--
(1) the supplemental payment in effect under
subsection (b) for the preceding fiscal year
(determined after application of this subsection), plus
(2) the sum of the amount described in section
2303(a)(1)(A) of this title and the amount under
paragraph (1), multiplied by the percentage by which--
(A) the Consumer Price Index (all items,
United States city average) for the 12-month
period ending on the June 30 preceding the
beginning of the fiscal year for which the
increase is made, exceeds
(B) such Consumer Price Index for the 12-
month period preceding the 12-month period
described in subparagraph (A).
(d) Estimates.--(1) From time to time, the Secretary shall
make an estimate of--
(A) the amount of funding that would be necessary to
provide supplemental plot allowance payments under this
section to all eligible recipients for the remainder of
the fiscal year in which such an estimate is made; and
(B) the amount that Congress would need to
appropriate to provide all eligible recipients with
supplemental plot allowance payments under this section
in the next fiscal year.
(2) On the dates described in paragraph (3), the Secretary
shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress the
estimates described in paragraph (1).
(3) The dates described in this paragraph are the
following:
(A) April 1 of each year.
(B) July 1 of each year.
(C) September 1 of each year.
(D) The date that is 60 days before the date
estimated by the Secretary on which amounts
appropriated for the purposes of this section for a
fiscal year will be exhausted.
(e) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--
(1) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 2307A. DEATH FROM SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITY: SUPPLEMENTAL
BENEFITS FOR BURIAL AND FUNERAL EXPENSES.
(a) In General.--(1) Subject to the availability of funds
specifically provided for purposes of this subsection in
advance in an appropriations Act, whenever the Secretary makes
a payment for the burial and funeral of a veteran under section
2307(1) of this title, the Secretary is also authorized and
directed to pay the recipient of such payment a supplemental
payment under this section for the cost of such burial and
funeral.
(2) No supplemental payment shall be made under this
subsection if the Secretary has expended all funds that were
specifically provided for purposes of this subsection in an
appropriations Act.
(b) Amount.--The amount of the supplemental payment
required by subsection (a) for any death is $2,100 (as adjusted
from time to time under subsection (c)).
(c) Adjustment.--With respect to deaths that occur in any
fiscal year after fiscal year 2008, the supplemental payment
described in subsection (b) shall be equal to the sum of--
(1) the supplemental payment in effect under
subsection (b) for the preceding fiscal year
(determined after application of this subsection), plus
(2) the sum of the amount described in section
2307(1) of this title and the amount under paragraph
(1), multiplied by the percentage by which--
(A) the Consumer Price Index (all items,
United States city average) for the 12-month
period ending on the June 30 preceding the
beginning of the fiscal year for which the
increase is made, exceeds
(B) such Consumer Price Index for the 12-
month period preceding the 12-month period
described in sub-
paragraph (A).
(d) Estimates.--(1) From time to time, the Secretary shall
make an estimate of--
(A) the amount of funding that would be necessary to
provide supplemental payments under this section to all
eligible recipients for the remainder of the fiscal
year in which such an estimate is made; and
(B) the amount that Congress would need to
appropriate to provide all eligible recipients with
supplemental payments under this section in the next
fiscal year.
(2) On the dates described in paragraph (3), the Secretary
shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress the
estimates described in paragraph (1).
(3) The dates described in this paragraph are the
following:
(A) April 1 of each year.
(B) July 1 of each year.
(C) September 1 of each year.
(D) The date that is 60 days before the date
estimated by the Secretary on which amounts
appropriated for the purposes of this section
for a fiscal year will be exhausted.
(e) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--
(1) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives.
* * * * * * *
PART III--READJUSTMENT AND RELATED BENEFITS
CHAPTER 35--SURVIVORS' AND DEPENDENTS' EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE
Subchapter VII--Philippine Commonwealth Army and Philippine Scouts
SEC. 3565. CHILDREN OF CERTAIN PHILIPPINE VETERANS.
(a) * * *
(b) Administrative Provisions.--The provisions of this
chapter and chapter 36 shall apply to the educational
assistance for children of Commonwealth Army veterans and New
Philippine Scouts, [except that--
[(1) educational assistance allowances authorized by
section 3532 of this title and the special training
allowance authorized by section 3542 of this title
shall be paid the rate of $ 0.50 for each dollar, and
[(2) any reference to a State approving agency shall
be deemed to refer to the Secretary.] except that a
reference to a State approving agency shall be deemed
to refer to the Secretary.
[(c) Delimiting dates. In the case of any individual who is
an eligible person solely by virtue of subsection (a) of this
section, and who is above the age of seventeen years and below
the age of twenty-three years on September 30, 1966, the period
referred to in section 3512 of this title shall not end until
the expiration of the five-year period which begins on
September 30, 1966.]
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 36--ADMINISTRATION OF EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS
Subchapter I--State Approving Agencies
* * * * * * *
Sec.
[3673. Cooperation.]
3673. Approval activities: cooperation and coordination of
activities.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 3673. [COOPERATION] APPROVAL ACTIVITIES: COOPERATION AND
COORDINATION OF ACTIVITIES.
* * * * * * *
(a) Cooperation in Activities.--The Secretary and each
State approving agency shall take cognizance of the fact that
definite duties, functions, and responsibilities are conferred
upon the Secretary and each State approving agency under the
educational programs established under this chapter and
chapters 34 and 35 of this title. To assure that such programs
are effectively and efficiently administered, the cooperation
of the Secretary and the State approving agencies is essential.
It is necessary to establish an exchange of information
pertaining to activities of educational institutions, and
particular attention should be given to the enforcement of
approval standards, enforcement of enrollment restrictions, and
fraudulent and other criminal activities on the part of persons
connected with educational institutions in which eligible
persons or veterans are enrolled under this chapter and
chapters 34 and 35 of this title.
(b) Coordination of Activities.--The Secretary shall take
appropriate actions to ensure the coordination of approval
activities performed by State approving agencies under this
chapter and chapters 34 and 35 of this title and approval
activities performed by the Department of Labor, the Department
of Education, and other entities in order to reduce overlap and
improve efficiency in the performance of such activities
[(b)] (c) Availability of Information Material.--The
Secretary will furnish the State approving agencies with copies
of such Department of Veterans Affairs informational material
as may aid them in carrying out chapters 34 and 35 of this
title.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 3674. REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES.
(a)(1) * * *
(4) The total amount made available under this section for
any fiscal year may not exceed [$13,000,000 or, for each of
fiscal years 2001 and 2002, $14,000,000, for fiscal year 2003,
$14,000,000, for fiscal year 2004, $18,000,000, for fiscal year
2005, $18,000,000, for fiscal year 2006, $19,000,000, and for
fiscal year 2007,] $19,000,000. For any fiscal year in which
the total amount that would be made available under this
section would exceed the amount applicable to that fiscal year
under the preceding sentence except for the provisions of this
paragraph, the Secretary shall provide that each agency shall
receive the same percentage of the amount applicable to that
fiscal year under the preceding sentence as the agency would
have received of the total amount that would have been made
available without the limitation of this paragraph.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 39--AUTOMOBILES AND ADAPTIVE EQUIPMENT FOR CERTAIN DISABLED
VETERANS AND MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES
* * * * * * *
Sec.
3902A. Supplemental assistance for providing automobiles or other
conveyances.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 3901. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this [chapter--] chapter:
(1) The term eligible person [means--] means the
following:
(A) [any veteran] Any veteran entitled to
compensation under chapter 11 of this title for
any of the disabilities described in subclause
(i), (ii), [or (iii) below] (iii), or (iv), if
the disability is the result of any injury
incurred or disease contracted in or aggravated
by active military, naval, or air service:
(i) The loss or permanent loss of use
of one or both feet[;].
(ii) The loss or permanent loss of
use of one or both hands[;].
(iii) The permanent impairment of
vision of both eyes of the following
status: central visual acuity of 20/200
or less in the better eye, with
corrective glasses, or central visual
acuity of more than 20/200 if there is
a field defect in which the peripheral
field has contracted to such an extent
that the widest diameter of visual
field subtends an angular distance no
greater than twenty degrees in the
better eye[; or].
(iv) A severe burn injury (as
determined pursuant to regulations
prescribed by the Secretary).
(B) [any member] Any member serving on active
duty who is suffering from any disability
described in subclause (i), (ii), [or (iii)]
(iii), or (iv) of clause (A) of this paragraph
if such disability is the result of an injury
incurred or disease contracted in or aggravated
by active military, naval, or air service.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 3902A. SUPPLEMENTAL ASSISTANCE FOR PROVIDING AUTOMOBILES OR OTHER
CONVEYANCES.
(a) In General.--(1) Subject to the availability of funds
specifically provided for purposes of this subsection in
advance in an appropriations Act, whenever the Secretary makes
a payment for the purchase of an automobile or other conveyance
for an eligible person under section 3902 of this title, the
Secretary is also authorized and directed to pay the recipient
of such payment a supplemental payment under this section for
the cost of such purchase.
(2) No supplemental payment shall be made under this
subsection if the Secretary has expended all funds that were
specifically provided for purposes of this subsection in an
appropriations Act.
(b) Amount of Supplemental Payment.--Supplemental payment
required by subsection (a) is equal to the excess of--
(1) the payment which would be determined under
section 3902 of this title if the amount described in
section 3902 of this title were increased to the
adjusted amount described in subsection (c), over
(2) the payment determined under section 3902 of this
title without regard to this section.
(c) Adjusted Amount.--The adjusted amount is $22,484 (as
adjusted from time to time under subsection (d)).
(d) Adjustment.--(1) Effective on October 1 of each year
(beginning in 2008), the Secretary shall increase the adjusted
amount described in subsection (c) to an amount equal to 80
percent of the average retail cost of new automobiles for the
preceding calendar year.
(2) The Secretary shall establish the method for
determining the average retail cost of new automobiles for
purposes of this subsection. The Secretary may use data
developed in the private sector if the Secretary determines the
data is appropriate for purposes of this subsection.
(e) Estimates.--(1) From time to time, the Secretary shall
make an estimate of--
(A) the amount of funding that would be necessary to
provide supplemental payment under this section for
every eligible person for the remainder of the fiscal
year in which such an estimate is made; and
(B) the amount that Congress would need to
appropriate to provide every eligible person with
supplemental payment under this section in the next
fiscal year.
(2) On the dates described in paragraph (3), the Secretary
shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress the
estimates described in paragraph (1).
(3) The dates described in this paragraph are the
following:
(A) April 1 of each year.
(B) July 1 of each year.
(C) September 1 of each year.
(D) The date that is 60 days before the date
estimated by the Secretary on which amounts
appropriated for the purposes of this section for a
fiscal year will be exhausted.
(f) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means--
(1) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate; and
(2) the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 41--JOB COUNSELING, TRAINING, AND PLACEMENT SERVICE FOR
VETERANS
SEC. 4103. DIRECTORS AND ASSISTANT DIRECTORS FOR VETERANS' EMPLOYMENT
AND TRAINING; ADDITIONAL FEDERAL PERSONNEL.
(a)(1) * * *
(2) (A) Each Director for Veterans' Employment and Training
for a State shall, at the time of appointment, have been a bona
fide resident of the State for at least two years.
(B) The Secretary may waive the requirement in subparagraph
(A) with respect to a Director for Veterans' Employment and
Training if the Secretary determines that the waiver is in the
public interest. Any such waiver shall be made on a case-by-
case basis.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 4110A. SPECIAL UNEMPLOYMENT STUDY.
(a)(1) The Secretary, through the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, shall conduct [a study every two years] an annual
study of unemployment among each of the following categories of
veterans:
(A) Veterans who were called to active duty while
members of the National Guard or a Reserve Component.
[(B) Veterans of the Vietnam era who served in the
Vietnam theater of operations during the Vietnam era.]
(B) Veterans who served in combat or in a war zone in
the Post 9/11 Global Operations theaters.
(C) Veterans who served on active duty during the
[Vietnam era] Post 9/11 Global Operations period who
did not serve in [the Vietnam theater of operations]
the Post 9/11 Global Operations theaters.
(D) * * *
(E) * * *
[(A)] (F) Special disabled veterans.
(2) * * *
(b) * * *
(c) In this section:
(1) The term `Post 9/11 Global Operations period'
means the period of the Persian Gulf War beginning on
September 11, 2001, and ending on the date thereafter
prescribed by Presidential proclamation or law.
(2) The term `Post 9/11 Global Operations theaters'
means Afghanistan, Iraq, or any other theater in which
the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal is
awarded for service.
* * * * * * *
PART IV--GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS
CHAPTER 51--CLAIMS, EFFECTIVE DATES, AND PAYMENTS
Subchapter III--Payment of Benefits
SEC. 5123. ROUNDING DOWN OF PENSION RATES.
The monthly or other periodic rate of pension payable to an
individual under section 1514, 1521, 1541, or 1542 of this
title or under section 306(a) of the Veterans' and Survivors'
Pension Improvement Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-588), if not a
multiple of $1, shall be rounded down to the nearest dollar.
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 53--SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO BENEFITS
SEC. 5312. ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF CERTAIN BENEFIT RATES.
(a) Whenever there is an increase in benefit amounts
payable under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.
401 et seq.) as a result of a determination made under section
215(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)), the Secretary shall,
effective on the date of such increase in benefit amounts,
increase each maximum annual rate of pension under sections
1514, 1521, 1541, and 1542 of this title, the rate of increased
pension paid under such sections 1521 and 1541 on account of
children, and each rate of monthly allowance paid under section
1805 of this title, as such rates were in effect immediately
prior to the date of such increase in benefit amounts payable
under title II of the Social Security Act, by the same
percentage as the percentage by which such benefit amounts are
increased.
* * * * * * *
(c)(1) Whenever there is an increase under subsection (a)
in benefit rates payable under sections 1514, 1521, 1541, 1542,
and 1805 of this title and an increase under subsection (b) in
benefit rates and annual income limitations under section 1315
of this title, the Secretary shall publish such rates and
limitations (including those rates adjusted by the Secretary
under subsection (b)(2) of this section), as increased pursuant
to such subsections, in the Federal Register at the same time
as the material required by section 215(i)(2)(D) of the Social
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)(2)(D)) is published by reason of
a determination under section 215(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
415(i)).
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 63. OUTREACH ACTIVITIES
SEC. 6301. PURPOSE; DEFINITION.
(a) Purpose. The Congress declares that--
(1) the outreach services program authorized by this
chapter is for the purpose of ensuring that all
veterans (especially those who have been recently
discharged or released from active military, naval, or
air service or from the National Guard or Reserve, and
those who are eligible for readjustment or other
benefits and services under laws administered by the
Department) are provided timely and appropriate
assistance to aid and encourage them in applying for
and obtaining such benefits and services in order that
they may achieve a rapid social and economic
readjustment to civilian life and obtain a higher
standard of living for themselves and their dependents;
and
(b) Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter--
(1) the term `outreach' means the act or process of
reaching out in a systematic manner to proactively
provide information, services, and benefits counseling
to veterans, and to the spouses, children, and parents
of veterans who may be eligible to receive benefits
under the laws administered by the Secretary, to ensure
that such individuals are fully informed about, and
assisted in applying for, any benefits and programs
under such laws;
[(1)] (2) the term other governmental programs
includes all programs under State or local laws as well
as all programs under Federal law other than those
authorized by this title; and
[(2)] (3) the term eligible dependent means a spouse,
surviving spouse, child, or dependent parent of a
person who served in the active military, naval, or air
service.
* * * * * * *
PART V--BOARDS, ADMINISTRATIONS, AND SERVICES
CHAPTER 72--UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS
* * * * * * *
Sec.
7288. Annual report.
* * * * * * *
Subchapter I--Organization and Jurisdiction
SEC. 7257. RECALL OF RETIRED JUDGES.
(a)(1) A retired judge of the Court may be recalled for
further service on the Court in accordance with this section.
To be eligible to be recalled for such service, a retired judge
must at the time of the judge's retirement provide to the chief
judge of the Court (or, in the case of the chief judge, to the
clerk of the Court) notice in writing that the retired judge is
available for further service on the Court in accordance with
this section and is willing to be recalled under this section.
[Such a notice provided by a retired judge is irrevocable] Such
a notice provided by a retired judge to whom section
7296(c)(1)(B) of this title applies is irrevocable.
* * * * * * *
(b)(1) * * *
(2) A recall-eligible retired judge may not be recalled for
more than 90 days (or the equivalent) during any calendar year
without the judge's consent [or for more than a total of 180
days (or the equivalent) during any calendar year].
(3) If a recall-eligible retired judge is recalled by the
chief judge in accordance with this section and (other than in
the case of a judge who has previously during that calendar
year served at least 90 days (or the equivalent) of recalled
service on the court) declines (other than by reason of
disability) to perform the service to which recalled, the chief
judge shall remove that retired judge from the status of a
recall-eligible judge. This paragraph shall not apply to a
judge to whom section 7296(c)(1)(A) or 7296(c)(1)(B) of this
title applies and who has, in the aggregate, served at least
five years of recalled service on the Court under this section.
(4) * * *
[(d)(1) The pay of a recall-eligible retired judge who
retired under section 7296 of this title is specified in
subsection (c) of that section.
(2) A judge who is recalled under this section who retired
under chapter 83 or 84 of title 5 shall be paid, during the
period for which the judge serves in recall status, pay at the
rate of pay in effect under section 7253(e) of this title for a
judge performing active service, less the amount of the judge's
annuity under the applicable provisions of chapter 83 or 84 of
title 5.]
(d)(1) The pay of a recall-eligible retired judge to whom
section 7296(c)(1)(B) of this title applies is the pay
specified in that section.
(2) A judge who is recalled under this section who retired
under chapter 83 or 84 of title 5 or to whom section
7296(c)(1)(A) of this title applies shall be paid, during the
period for which the judge serves in recall status, pay at the
rate of pay in effect under section 7253(e) of this title for a
judge performing active service, less the amount of the judge's
annuity under the applicable provisions of chapter 83 or 84 of
title 5 or the judge's annuity under section 7296(c)(1)(A) of
this title, whichever is applicable.
* * * * * * *
Subchapter III--Miscellaneous Provisions
SEC. 7285. PRACTICE AND REGISTRATION FEES.
(a) The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims may impose a
reasonable periodic registration fee on persons admitted to
practice before the Court. The frequency and amount of such fee
shall be determined by the Court[, except that such amount may
not exceed $ 30 per year]. The Court may also impose a
reasonable registration fee on persons (other than judges of
the Court) participating at judicial conferences convened
pursuant to section 7286 of this title or in any other court-
sponsored activity.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 7288. ANNUAL REPORT.
(a) In General.--The chief judge of the Court shall submit
annually to the appropriate committees of Congress a report
summarizing the workload of the Court for the last fiscal year
that ended before the submission of such report. Such report
shall include, with respect to such fiscal year, the following
information:
(1) The number of appeals filed.
(2) The number of petitions filed.
(3) The number of applications filed under section
2412 of title 28.
(4) The number and type of dispositions.
(5) The median time from filing to disposition.
(6) The number of oral arguments.
(7) The number and status of pending appeals and
petitions and of applications described in paragraph
(3).
(8) A summary of any service performed by recalled
retired judges during the fiscal year.
(b) Appropriate Committees of Congress Defined.--In this
section, the term `appropriate committees of Congress' means
the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and the
Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of Representatives.
* * * * * * *
Subchapter V--Retirement and Survivors Annuities
SEC. 7296. RETIREMENT OF JUDGES.
* * * * * * *
(c)[(1) An individual who retires under subsection (b) of
this section and elects under subsection (d) of this section to
receive retired pay under this subsection shall (except as
provided in paragraph (2) of this subsection) receive retired
pay as follows:] (1)(A) A judge who is appointed on or after
the date of the enactment of the Veterans' Benefits Enhancement
Act of 2007 and who retires under subsection (b) and elects
under subsection (d) to receive retired pay under this
subsection shall (except as provided in paragraph (2)) receive
retired pay as follows:
(i) In the case of a judge who is a recall-eligible
retired judge under section 7257 of this title, the
retired pay of the judge shall (subject to section
7257(d)(2) of this title) be the rate of pay applicable
to that judge at the time of retirement, as adjusted
from time to time under subsection (f)(3).
(ii) In the case of a judge other than a recall-
eligible retired judge, the retired pay of the judge
shall be the rate of pay applicable to that judge at
the time of retirement.
(B) A judge who retired before the date of the enactment of
the Veterans' Benefits Enhancement Act of 2007 and elected
under subsection (d) to receive retired pay under this
subsection, or a judge who retires under subsection (b) and
elects under subsection (d) to receive retired pay under this
subsection, shall (except as provided in paragraph (2)) receive
retired pay as follows:
(i) In the case of a judge who is a recall-eligible
retired judge under section 7257 of this title or who
was a recall-eligible retired judge under that section
and was removed from recall status under subsection
(b)(4) of that section by reason of disability, the
retired pay of the judge shall be the pay of a judge of
the court.
(ii) In the case of a judge who at the time of
retirement did not provide notice under section 7257 of
this title of availability for service in a recalled
status, the retired pay of the judge shall be the rate
of pay applicable to that judge at the time of
retirement.
(iii) In the case of a judge who was a recall-
eligible retired judge under section 7257 of this title
and was removed from recall status under subsection
(b)(3) of that section, the retired pay of the judge
shall be the pay of the judge at the time of the
removal from recall status.
* * * * * * *
(f)(1) * * *
(3)(A) A cost-of-living adjustment provided by law in
annuities payable under civil service retirement laws shall
apply to retired pay under this section only in the case of
retired pay computed under [paragraph (2) of subsection (c)]
paragraph (1)(A)(i) or (2) of subsection (c).
<all>