<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:27515.wais]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 23, H.R. 601,
H.R. 2188, H.R. 2963, H.R. 4843, H.R. 5037,
AND H.R. 5038
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE
AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
one hundred ninth congress
second session
-------
April 6, 2006
------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Serial No. 109-44
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
27-515 WASHINGTON : 2006
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Legislative hearing on H.R. 23, H.R. 601, H.R. 2188, H.R. 2963,
H.R. 4843, H.R. 5037, and H.R. 5038
Thursday, April 6, 2006
U.S. House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and
Memorial Affairs,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m., in 334
Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Miller [Chairman of the
Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Buyer, Miller, Berkley, Moran,
Udall, Bradley, and Brown-Waite of Florida.
Mr. Miller. If I could get everybody to take their seats,
please. Thank you very much. This hearing will come to order. I
want to welcome all of you to our first legislative hearing of
this year. We do have a full plate on the agenda and so I am
going to highlight each bill briefly for you before recognizing
Ms. Berkley, if she is able to arrive in time because
unfortunately she is over at an International Relations Committee
hearing as well.
H.R. 23, the Belated Thank You to the Merchant Mariners of
World War II Act of 2005, would direct the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to pay a monthly, tax-free benefit of $1,000 to certain
honorably discharged veterans of the U.S. Merchant Marine or to
their survivors.
H.R. 601, the Native American Veterans Cemetery Act, would
authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make grants to
tribal organizations to assist them in establishing, expanding, or
improving veterans' cemeteries on trust lands.
H.R. 2188 would authorize the placement of memorial markers
in a Department of Veterans Affairs national cemetery for the
purpose of commemorating servicemembers or other persons whose
remains are interred in an American Battle Monuments Commission
cemetery.
H.R. 2963, the Dr. James Allen Disabled Veterans Equity Act,
would allow certain veterans who receive disability compensation
of at least ten percent for impairment of vision in one eye to be
eligible to receive such compensation for impairment of vision in
the other eye that is deemed not related to their military
service.
H.R. 4843, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living
Adjustment Act of 2006, would increase effective December 1, 2006,
the rates of disability compensation and dependency and indemnity
compensation.
H.R. 5037, the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, would
prohibit demonstrations within 500 feet of a national cemetery and
Arlington National Cemetery during a funeral service. Violation
of the prohibition would be punishable by up to a year
imprisonment under title 18 of the United States Code.
And finally, last on the agenda would be H.R. 5038, the
Veterans Memorial Markers Act of 2006. This bill provides
government markers for veterans who died between November 1, 1990
and September 10, 2001, and who are interred in a private
cemetery. It would extend through December 31, 2007 the current
authorization for government markers for veterans interred in a
marked grave at a private cemetery. It would also authorize the
placement in a national cemetery of a memorial marker for
dependent children who would otherwise be eligible for burial but
whose remains are unavailable.
Ms. Berkley is not with us at this time. Mr Udall, do you
have a statement for the record?
Mr. Udall. No. Ms. Berkley is trying to make it. And we
would just put her statement in the record, Chairman Miller.
Mr. Miller. Very good. I would like to recognize
Congressman Moran for an opening statement.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciate
the opportunity to be here on all these issues. I particularly
wanted to point out the legislation introduced by the gentleman
from Michigan, Mr. Rogers and Chairman Buyer, the respect for
America's Fallen Heroes Act. This is an issue that we have
encountered in Kansas many times. And I am interested in hearing
the testimony and the story of your legislation.
And I would also like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that as a
response to the protests that are occurring at funerals across the
country, a group of military retirees and veterans have created
beginning in Mulvane, Kansas the Patriot Guard. And these are
motorcyclists, motorcycle riders who have traveled the country at
the request of families of fallen soldiers to provide a shield or
a buffer between the protesters and the family and those who are
attending the services.
And I have introduced a resolution commending the Patriot
Guard and would welcome Mr. Rogers' and others support of that
resolution. We hope to have that legislation on the House floor
in the near future, again, just recognizing a group of Americans
who have responded to what in many circumstances have become a
very difficult circumstance. I have been to funerals in Kansas in
which the protests have occurred and which the Patriot Guard has
been there. And it is a wonderful sight to see the hundreds, if
not thousands, of motorcycles, flags flying, and see their
response of revving their motors to drown out the sound of the
protesters really in tribute to soldiers and their
families.
So I commend you for your efforts in trying to correct a
situation we face in our State --
Mr. Buyer. Would you yield?
Mr. Moran. -- and states across the country. And I happily
yield to the gentleman from Indiana.
Mr. Buyer. I want to thank you for bringing up the Patriot
Guard, the riders. I also want to thank Mr. Miller, Mr. Rogers,
and Mr. Reyes. You know someone could also interpret whether
these, under the law, whether those riders could also be
considered demonstrators. And so we wanted to make sure that the
law is drafted in a manner whereby these individuals who come to
the defense of the family could not be subject to penalty under
the legislation.
So I just wanted to point out they have been very thoughtful
in the drafting of the legislation. I yield back to the
gentleman.
Mr. Moran. Thank you. I appreciate you pointing that out.
I was aware of that and pleased with that. And, again, the
Patriot Guard only arrive at the request of the families of these
soldiers. And I am honored to have with us today two of my
constituents, Loren and Lynette Stenzel from Ness City, Kansas,
who are members of the Patriot Guard. And I recognize them and
hundreds and really thousands of other Kansans and Americans who
have responded to this circumstance. And I yield back the balance
of my time.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Moran. Your continued
presence and work on this Committee is greatly appreciated. I do
want to recognize, for those in the audience who may not recognize
him, the Chairman of the full Committee, who is going to be with
us this afternoon, Chairman Steve Buyer. I take it from nodding
your head a minute ago you do not have an opening statement. But
I think you will be participating in some of the questioning that
will take place a little later on.
What we will do is we will give Ms. Berkley an opportunity,
when she gets here, to have her statement either entered into the
record or give her a chance to give it.
Testifying first are the chief sponsors of many of the bills
that we have on the agenda today; they are sitting at the front
table. I would like to take a minute and recognize everybody that
is up there and then we will begin testimony. Mr. Rogers has led
the bipartisan effort to restrict demonstrations at national
cemeteries and introduced H.R. 5037 on March 29th. He represents
the 8th congressional district in Michigan.
Mr. Chabot of the First Congressional District in Ohio will
be testifying on H.R. 5037. He is the Chairman of the
Subcommittee on the Constitution at the Judiciary Committee. He
and his staff have been invaluable to Mr. Rogers and the Veterans'
Committee in helping to draft this piece of legislation. We thank
you.
We also thank Mr. Silvestre Reyes, a member of this
Committee. He represents the Sixteenth Congressional District in
Texas and is a chief sponsor of H.R. 5037.
Mr. Filner, a member of this Committee for 13 years,
represents the Fifty-First Congressional District in California,
and will be testifying on H.R. 23.
Ms. Baldwin will be testifying on H.R. 2963, and she
represents the Second Congressional District in the State of
Wisconsin.
Mr. Langevin, good to see you here. Representing the Second
Congressional District in Rhode Island, he will be testifying on
his bill, H.R. 2188.
And, finally, Mr. Udall, who is also a member of this
Committee representing the Third Congressional District in New
Mexico, and a member of the Subcommittee is going to be testifying
on H.R. 601.
Mr. Rogers we will begin with you, please. And Mr. Udall, if
you do not mind, we will wrap up this panel with your testimony.
All of your full statements will be printed in the record of the
hearing. And we will hold our questions until each of you has
testified. So, Mr. Rogers, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much, Chairman Miller. I
appreciate this opportunity. And let me thank you and Chairman
Buyer and your staffs for the endless time and questions and
talent and energy that you have dedicated to get this bill, and
get this bill right. Mr. Chabot has helped us certainly from his
judiciary perspective. And Silvestre Reyes has been a real
champion in this effort and been very, very helpful. Silvestre,
who has been a friend in Congress, and we do not always agree, but
we came together on this. And thank you for your effort.
I think it has led in this bipartisan way to get here today
on something that I think is incredibly important. And that is
really the dignity of the individuals who are grieving for their
loved ones for a fallen soldier, Marine, airman, woman or sailor,
who has given their life in the defense of the United States of
America and really what that means.
And this bill, Mr. Chairman, protects the First Amendment.
But it also protects the family. And really what this is
America's chance to put our arms around these families and tell
them we love them, we appreciate it, we certainly appreciate their
sacrifice. And we will allow you the dignity and peace to lay to
rest your loved one and have a celebration of their life and their
sacrifice for their country.
I happened to witness that personally in a town called
Flushing, Michigan. At a very small town, where Sergeant Joshua
Youmans was going to his final resting place. And to see the vile
hatred, the taunting, the jeering, of these families goes beyond
the pale of any sense of decency I have ever seen. And when you
look at what the family is going through to get to that part of
their life; and certainly the grief and all of the emotions they
are going to have to deal with, the one thing they should not have
to deal with in this country are people trying to steal their
ability for a peaceful service and ceremony. And they
accomplished exactly that when they showed up that day.
And here was in contrast this young-20's mother of a very
young baby, who Sergeant Youmans got to hold one time in his arms
when he died just a few days later, give the eulogy for her
husband in a room packed with National Guard soldiers, friends and
family, mourners, supporters, great Americans and patriots. The
courage that she showed in the pulpit that day talking about her
soul mate, her loved one, her husband, the pride that she was
going to instill in their young child and what their father had
done and the service he had given to his country.
And to juxtapose that courage, Mr. Chairman, with what was
happening outside, the jeers, and the taunting, and the songs that
are not fit for public consumption, it did not take long to come
to the conclusion that we have to do better by these families in
America. And we can do better by these families in America. And
I think this bill represents that.
You know, just since we started this, just in my office
alone, and I know other members here got e-mails in support, we
have over 25,000 e-mails of support just since we started talking
about this. That is just in my office, Mr. Chairman. That does
not count all the other members. And the comments are very
touching and very powerful and very strong in support of these
families, of these military members who have given their lives,
and what we need to do to give them their dignity back at these
services.
And, for the record, I brought about, I do not know, there is
about 5,000 here, I think, in paper form. We stopped printing
them off and said I do not think the Chairman might appreciate
25,000 individual sheets. So we have gone ahead and put it on a
CD, sir. And without objection, I would like to submit that to
the Committee on behalf of lots of Americans from Brighton,
Michigan to Iraq to every state in the union celebrating what you
are going to do here today.
Mr. Miller. And without objection, it is submitted to the
Committee, but not for the printed record.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Believe me take some
time and read just a few of these and you will be moved to tears
before it is over. And I just wanted to read a couple that we had
pulled out, including one, sir, where I know you escorted the body
back of this fine patriotic American. And it was his mother,
also, wrote in support of this. And I am just going to read these
two if I may, sir, for the record.
And I quote, "Over the last six months my unit has taken over
30 casualties in some of the most vicious areas south of Baghdad.
The thought of their families having to face protesters after
their memorials insights a rage I have never known before. These
'protesters' mock all that we have accomplished here. The lives
that have been forever changed and the lives that have been lost,
using our most valued doctrines of faith and freedom as their
defense. I can not thank you enough for your dedication to this
effort. I can only hope that the colleagues in Congress will join
in this battle." End quote. Sergeant Ashley A. Voss, Baghdad,
Iraq.
Just a second one, if I may, Mr. Chairman. And I quote,
"Thank you for creating and seeking to help grieving families of
our American Heros. My husband and I support this act 100
percent. Our son, Sergeant Trevor Blumberg, was killed in action
in Iraq on September 14, 2003. We know the pain and horror in
losing a heroic son; no less to have to face cruel, inhumane
people who cannot dignify your time of grief. Please continue to
place these families in America's hearts and America's minds.
Nothing less is deserved. Ms. Janet M. Blumberg, a proud parent
of an American hero."
Mr. Chairman, I do not know if we can say much more then that
of those families who have given so much and really are pleading
with us to please do something to allow them to have their dignity
at this -- you know, it is probably the most trying moment of
their lives. Let us show them that we appreciate this sacrifice.
That we will stand with them and we will proudly acknowledge their
sacrifice for the defense of the United States of America.
I will go ahead and submit a written statement, if I may, Mr.
Chairman. And I would yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Miller. Your statement will be entered in the record,
without objection.
[The statement of Michael Rogers appears on p. 44]
Mr. Miller. Mr. Chabot.
STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE CHABOT, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO
Mr. Chabot. Thank you much, Mr. Chairman and members of the
Committee. I am very pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R.
5037, the Respect for America's Fallen Heroes Act, and to have
helped author the bill along with Chairman Buyer and Chairman
Miller and Representative Rogers and many others that have been
involved in this. As the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on
the Constitution, my testimony today will focus on how the bill is
fully consistent with the Constitution while fully protecting the
respect and dignity of funerals held on and near national
cemeteries.
We are all painfully aware of the recent trend of
demonstrations and protests occurring near military funerals on
national cemeteries. Such demonstrations are not compatible with
the respect due to our nation's fallen heroes, and they should not
be permitted under our nation's laws. That is why I am here
today.
The first provision of H.R. 5037 prohibits demonstrations on
national cemetery grounds, unless such demonstrations are approved
by the cemetery director. This provision, in my opinion, is
clearly constitutional under judicial precedents, most recently
Griffin v. Secretary of Veterans' Affairs. In that case, the
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, just a few years ago, upheld as
constitutional an existing federal regulation providing that "any
service, ceremony, or demonstration, except as authorized by the
head of the facility or designee, is prohibited" on Veterans'
Affairs property. The first precedent -- excuse me. The first
provision of H.R. 5037 simply codifies that principle in statute.
The second provision of H.R. 5037 prohibits any demonstration
within 500 feet of national cemeteries, within 60 minutes before
or after a memorial service is held there, if the demonstration
includes "any individual willfully making or assisting in the
making of any noise or diversion that disturbs or tends to disturb
the peace or good order of the funeral or memorial service or
ceremony." This exact language has been upheld as constitutional
by the Supreme Court in the case of Grayned v. City of Rockford.
The Supreme Court, upholding this language in the Grayned
case, specifically cited and relied on Webster's definition of
diversion which is "the act or an instance of diverting as the
mind or attention from some activity." Consequently, under this
language, any demonstration that includes anyone whose conduct so
much as tends to turn the heads of those participating in a
funeral ceremony can be prohibited.
At the same time, this language does not unconstitutionally
draw distinctions regarding what demonstrations are allowed, and
are not allowed, based on the content of the speech. The Supreme
Court, again in the Grayned case, upheld this precise language as
constitutional because the language "contains no broad invitation
to subjective or discriminatory enforcement." Also, as the court
stated in the Griffin case, "Because the judgments necessary to
ensure that cemeteries remain sacred to the honor and memory of
those interred or memorialized there may defy objective
description and may vary with individual circumstances, the
discretion vested in VA administrators is reasonable in light of
the characteristic nature and function of national cemeteries."
Judicial precedents also make clear that H.R. 5037 is
constitutional because it is a reasonable time, place, and manner
restriction. As the Supreme Court in the Grayned case stated,
"Reasonable time, place and manner regulations may be necessary to
further significant governmental interests, and are permitted."
The 500 foot, 60 minutes before and after prohibition of any
diversionary protest in H.R. 5037 is clearly a reasonable time,
place and manner regulation that furthers the significant
governmental interest of protecting the sanctity of national
cemeteries. The significance of this governmental interest is
clear in existing federal law. Congress, by express statutory
command, has long provided that national cemeteries shall be
considered national shrines as a tribute to our gallant dead.
Section 2(b) of the bill defines the term demonstration to
include picketing, speeches, the use of sound amplification
equipment, the display of placards, the distribution of leaflets,
and similar conduct, unless they are an official part of the
funeral ceremony. This definition is sufficiently clear in my
view and will not be struck down on the grounds that it is
unconstitutionally vague. Indeed, the Supreme Court has upheld
laws using terms like demonstration, standing alone, without any
definition whatsoever.
In conclusion, let me say that all supporters of H.R. 5037
are asking is that the families and friends of our nation's fallen
heroes be given a few hours of peace within which to honor their
loved ones' ultimate sacrifice. A few hours to pay respect to a
selfless life devoted to protecting others. That is not
unconstitutional. That is not even an imposition. That is the
least we can do for those who have fought and given their life to
uphold the Constitution.
I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill,
which will give the families of those who have died the comfort of
knowing that they will be able to pray in peace and thank the
fallen on and near the sacred ground where they will rest forever
so that we can live free today. I yield back the balance of my
time.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chabot. Mr. Reyes.
[The statement of Steve Chabot appears on p. 46]
STATEMENT OF HON. SILVESTRE REYES, A REPRESENT-
ATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Reyes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to speak on H.R. 5037, Respect for America's Fallen
Heroes Act. I have a statement for the record that, if you would
enter it.
Mr. Miller. Without objection.
Mr. Reyes. And I will try to just summarize some of the
major points. Before I get into my comments I want to thank you,
Mr. Chairman. As you mentioned, I am a proud member of this
Committee. Have been since I have been in Congress. This is my
tenth year. And I first heard about this issue and I can remember
the day because we were taking testimony when Chairman Buyer made
mention of this on the issue of the IT System for the Department
of Veterans' Affairs. And, frankly, when I was hearing our
Chairman talk about this, I was sitting there incredulous that --
I was saying to myself this cannot be right. I mean this
information just does not register either as a parent, as a
grandparent, or as an American. It cannot be possible that there
are those among us in this country that would use their First
Amendment guarantees to prey on grieving families like this.
But, sure enough, as we looked into it, it was everything
that our Chairman said was facts. In fact, I think the Chairman
announced that day that he was going to a funeral and be there to
help the parents of the soldier.
Ironically enough, six days ago, Mr. Chairman, we in our
community suffered our 22nd casualty. Sergeant Israel DeVora of
Clint, Texas in my District was killed in Baghdad on April 1st.
This is what I think is most important in this legislation. And I
appreciate my colleagues articulating what the legislation says.
But, the important point to remember for us is that when people
are at their most vulnerable, and certainly those who have lost a
loved one are, I can remember when one of my brothers was killed
by a hit and run driver many, many years ago, seeing my mom cry.
My mom passed away two years ago, and up until her death for some
35 years, she cried for my brother, Eduardo.
So losing a son or a daughter is a tremendous blow to a
parent. Having people exploit that for political purposes or for
whatever purposes they may try to justify these actions is, for
me, a most despicable, lowest form of preying that there is on the
vulnerabilities and the misfortune of others.
I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank my good
friend and colleague, Mike Rogers, because as he said sometimes we
do not agree on the politics of everything here. But I can tell
you that there has not been a single member of Congress that I
have approached to cosponsor this legislation that has turned me
down. I think that speaks volumes about the outrage that we all
share on this particular issue.
So I am proud to be here this afternoon to lend my support.
And I am proud to be the lead Democrat on this legislation because
while there may be other pieces of legislation that affect more
people that we pass here in Congress, this legislation speaks to
those that have made, in their own way, their own ultimate
sacrifice on behalf of our freedoms. And ironically enough,
guarantee that these misguided individuals can take those freedoms
to an extreme that most of us find so despicable and distasteful.
And so with that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be
here and share those comments. And I yield back my time.
[The statement of Silvestre Reyes appears on p. 52]
Mr. Miller. Thank you for your service, Mr. Reyes. Mr.
Chairman do you have questions that you would like to pose?
Mr. Buyer. Were you going to go with the entire panel first?
Mr. Miller. I would like to go between these individuals.
Mr. Buyer. I would, but I would yield to all the members
without objection.
Mr. Miller. I would like to recognize you as the Chairman.
Mr. Buyer. All right. One question I have, it is
unfortunate that Mr. Chabot has left. It deals with the issue on
proportionality with regard to the sentencing. Let me just turn
to you, Mr. Rogers, because you are a former FBI agent. You have
devoted a lot of your life to title 18 and the enforcement of the
federal code. So with regard to making this a Class A
misdemeanor, you have looked at the issue of proportionality. If
you could testify to that issue, please.
Mr. Rogers. Sure. One of the reasons that we establish
sentencing, and the difference between class A misdemeanors and
felonies, and other distinctions in the law when it comes to
punishment for conviction, is hopefully for deterrence. And you
hope that the sentence at some point reaches the level of
deterrence for that particular crime. Trafficking of liquor
across interstate lines is a class A misdemeanor. And fraudulent
farm bonds is a class A misdemeanor. Because it has a year in
prison, up to a year in prison, which is a significant loss of
freedom. And equally as important is the $100,000 fine that can
go with it. That can be pretty devastating. And sometimes the
financial part of it can be as devastating as the time in jail.
And in this case when we looked at what this means and what
this crime ought to hold in relation to other crimes on the book,
class A misdemeanor, a year in jail and a $100,000 fine, we felt
fit the needs and the proportionality to cause a deterrence for
people violating the law.
Mr. Buyer. A Class B misdemeanor would be what?
Mr. Rogers. It could be --
Mr. Buyer. Six months, $10,000.
Mr. Rogers. Six months to $1,000. There are some three --
Mr. Buyer. $10,000 fine?
Mr. Rogers. -- month conditions under a class B
misdemeanors and likely would not, quite frankly, in a federal
system would be very difficult to find a class B misdemeanor where
you would actually do jail time or get the maximum fine. So this
would at least leave the judge with, obviously when you argue the
severity of what this does to the family, to give that year in
jail.
Mr. Buyer. So these are individuals prosecuted by the U.S.
Attorney's office into U.S. Magistrate's court or referred to U.S.
District Court if they choose.
Mr. Rogers. That is correct.
Mr. Buyer. On the -- the other question I have is when
Chairman Chabot testified with regard to time, place, and manner
restrictions to further a significant government interest. I
would like to ask the two lead cosponsors, in your belief, what
would be the significant government interest?
Mr. Rogers. Well, two things. First, I think the most
obvious is how we treat the fallen soldiers who have defended the
United States of America. Our government interest is to provide
that buffer of peace, decency, dignity, and respect. They have
the right to bury their loved ones in peace and dignity.
And the interest in this is saying we believe that that
bubble ought to exist. And we do it in other places in the law.
We believe that bubble ought to exist for this very -- special is
probably the wrong word, Mr. Chairman. But this unique event in
someone's life that they have to go through this, God forbid, and
bury a loved one who is a military fallen hero.
We also protect that significant government interest in the
First Amendment by laying down a framework of place, time, and
manner. An hour before. If you want to circle the cemetery an
hour before at a 500 foot distance and spew your hate and
discontent, you can do that under the United States Constitution,
and we preserved that right in this bill.
But you cannot do it in a manner that does not allow these
families that peace and that dignity. And I think that is a
compelling government interest.
Mr. Buyer. Mr. Reyes.
Mr. Reyes. I also think that a compelling government
interest in this speaks to the fact that there are -- the conduct
of these people is so reprehensible that there are hundreds of
thousands of Americans that are outraged, including veterans
organizations. And they are looking for us to show some
leadership and to show an effort to protect those families.
Because in the minds and eyes of our veterans community, it could
be their families sitting there were circumstances different.
So like my colleague, Mr. Rogers, we have gotten hundreds and
hundreds of e-mails and letters. I have been contacted in my
district by not just veterans groups, but by individuals and non-
veterans that are outraged that this is going on and that the
possibility that they may have to take some action locally, as I
just mentioned our 22nd casualty on April 1st. And so they look
to us to be able to take some action to provide that protection
for the families.
Mr. Buyer. Thank you. Chairman Miller and Mr. Reyes and Mr.
Chabot, I think that you have narrowly tailored your legislation
to further the significant government interests in setting the
standards of decency with regard to our federal lands. The
federal government owns those lands. And so you have not been --
you are not overreaching with regard to veterans state cemeteries
and I want to applaud your actions to encourage states to act and
set those standards. I yield back my time.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We
appreciate your leadership and guidance at the full Committee
level. Mr. Udall, do you have any questions? Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Bradley.
Mr. Bradley. I would just thank the sponsors of the
legislation and in particular salute you for your bipartisan
approach on this very important issue. And I look forward to
being a cosponsor of this bill, Mr. Rogers, this afternoon,
please.
Mr. Rogers. Sure. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Bradley. Thank you. So it is on the record, it will be
done.
Mr. Miller. Ms. Brown-Waite.
Ms. Brown-Waite of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have
a veterans cemetery in my area and I think any one of us who have
attended a service either back at a veterans cemetery or here at
Arlington know the absolute need for it to be a moment for the
family. And a moment for every American to thank those who gave
the ultimate sacrifice. I commend you for this bill and I am
going to contact the members of the state legislature and ask them
to implement the same kind of rules. They are still in session
right now and I think that it is a logical follow through. And I
thank you for your leadership on this. And I have already said I
would cosponsor.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you. If I may respond as well. And one
of the reasons that we called for the states to do this is because
there has been so much work by so many on the counsel and the
Committee and others, the members, Mr. Chabot and Mr. Reyes and
Mr. Buyer and Mr. Miller, on the constitutionality of this. To
encourage the states to pass something that looks a lot like this
will stand the test. We have noticed some states have over
reached a little bit. They are going to be taken to court. And
our worry is they will be struck down. If they follow what we
have done here and take advantage of all of the effort that has
been put into this bill, we will have a 50 state -- all 50 states
will have legislation that protects these families at the funeral
homes, national cemeteries, at other cemeteries as well. And I
encourage you to do that and thank you very much. And I think
that is an important part of this bill we did not get a chance to
talk about today.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much. We will move to the next
bill by Mr. Filner, who is next up. You are recognized. And if I
could, also, while we are moving to Mr. Filner, make note that a
member of our Subcommittee is not with us today. Mr. Evans, as
everybody knows, has made an announcement that he will be leaving
Congress after the end of his term. I would ask that each of our
members keep him in our thoughts and in our prayers as he goes
through a very difficult time in his life. His service is to be
commended not only to this nation, but to this Congress and this
Committee. Mr. Filner.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB FILNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for those
words for Mr. Evans. And thank you for giving us the opportunity
to talk about our respective bills. Mine is H.R. 23, the "Belated
Thank You to the Merchant Mariners of World War II Act." Mr.
Chairman, you have Democrats and Republicans here at the table.
These are all bipartisan bills, and I appreciate the spirit in
which you allow us to participate with you. I certainly, as a
member of this Committee, will pledge that we will try to continue
that spirit of bipartisanship that you have exemplified here
today.
The story of the World War II United States Merchant Marines
is a story of patriotism, of youthful exuberance, of dedication to
duty, of pride in a job well done, of bravery in the midst of
battle, and sadly, of a nation who forgot these heroes for over 40
years after the war's end.
World War II Merchant Mariners suffered the highest casualty
rate of any of the branches of service while they delivered
troops, tanks, food, airplanes, fuel and other needed supplies to
every theater of the war. Troops were trained and supplies,
ammunition, and equipment were manufactured in the U.S. and used
overseas. The Merchant Mariners were the necessary link between
the two. Without them, we would not have been able to win the
war. It is as simple as that.
The Merchant Mariners took part in every invasion, from
Normandy to Okinawa, often becoming sitting ducks for enemy
submarines, mines, bombers, and kamikaze pilots. Fighting was
particularly fierce in the Atlantic, where German submarines and
U-boats prowled the ocean, destroying Merchant Marine ships in an
attempt to isolate Great Britain.
Compared to the large numbers of men and women serving in
World War II, the numbers of the Merchant Marines were small, but
their chance of dying during service was extremely high.
Estimates range up to 1,500 for the number of ships that enemy
forces sank; 9,300 Mariners lost their lives; 600 were POWs;
11,000 were injured.
Yet an injustice was inflicted on this group of World War II
veterans. All volunteers, once approximately 230,000 strong, the
number of those currently living is estimated to be approximately
10,000.
This group of brave men was denied their rights under the GI
Bill of Rights that Congress passed in 1945. All those who served
in the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Coast Guard were
recipients of benefits under the GI Bill. Only the United States
Merchant Marine was not included.
The Merchant Marines became the forgotten service. For four
decades no effort was made to recognize their contribution. The
fact that these seamen had borne arms during wartime in the
defense of their country seemed not to matter.
After years of fighting the system and a court battle, some
World War II Mariners finally received a watered down bill of
rights in 1988. But some portions of that GI Bill have never been
made available to veterans of the Merchant Marine.
What did this mean in practical terms? First and probably
most important, it meant no GI Bill educational benefits. Instead
of studying to become a lawyer, a teacher, a doctor, or a number
of other life-long professions that require a higher education,
many Merchant Mariners had to rely on their high school education
to get them a job. Lost opportunities, lost careers, lost wages
were the results for the Merchant Mariners.
No low interest home loans were available to Merchant
Marines. No lifetime compensation for related war injuries and
disabilities, no use of VA hospitals, no priority for local,
state, or federal jobs, no social security credit for wartime
service.
I know many of us, Mr. Chairman, have been able to achieve
and become members of the middle class because of the GI Bill. I
had my first home when my father got back from World War II, and
it was a dream come true for a family that had lived with
relatives for most of their lives.
I would say there is overwhelming support now in the Congress
for this bill. At last count this morning, a bipartisan list of
248 Members of Congress had endorsed it. There is support from
coast to coast, from the City of Los Angeles, California to the
City of New Bedford, Massachusetts, who have passed resolutions in
support of H.R. 23. Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska has introduced
the companion bill in the Senate. A letter from Transportation
Secretary Norman Mineta expressed gratitude for the service that
these Mariners gave during World War II. And I just received a
letter this morning from a group of labor unions, the
International Organization of Masters, Mates, and Pilots, the
Marine Engineers' Beneficial Association, the American Maritime
Officers, and the Seafarers International Union of North America,
who have also endorsed this bill. I would like to put that letter
in the record, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller. Without objection.
[The attachment appears on p. 63]
Mr. Filner. While it is impossible for us to make up for
over 40 years of unpaid benefits, I propose that this bill will
acknowledge the service of the Veterans of the Merchant Marines
and offer compensation for years and years of lost benefits.
H.R. 23 will pay eligible veteran a monthly benefit of $1,000
and that payment would also go to their surviving spouses. Their
average age is now 82. Many have outlived their savings. A
monthly benefit to compensate for the loss of nearly a lifetime of
ineligibility for the GI Bill would be of comfort and would
provide some measure of security for veterans of the Merchant
Marines.
In the words of General of the Army and former President,
Dwight D. Eisenhower, "When final victory is ours, there is no
organization that will share its credit more deservedly than the
Merchant Marine." Franklin Roosevelt said, "The Mariners have
written one of its most brilliant chapters of the war. They have
delivered the goods when and where needed in every theater of
operations and across every ocean in the biggest, the most
difficult, and most dangerous job ever undertaken." And Douglas
McArthur said about the liberation of the Philippines, "With us
they have shared the heaviest enemy fire. On these islands I have
ordered them off their ships and into fox holes when their ships
became untenable targets of attack. At our side they have
suffered in bloodshed and death. They have contributed
tremendously to our success. I hold no branch in higher esteem
than the Merchant Marine service."
So, Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for allowing us to bring
this bill for hearing today. As everyone on the platform has
cosponsored the bill, it is time to finally fix the injustices
endured by our nation's Merchant Marines. Thank you, sir.
[The statement of Bob Filner appears on p. 54]
Mr. Miller. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Moran, do you
have any questions?
Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. I just
commend the gentleman from California, Mr. Filner. He has been an
advocate for veterans of all services, all branches, for a long
time. And this is just one or more of his many efforts in regard
to making certain that no one is left out in the recognition to
the service to our country. And I too am pleased to be a sponsor
of this legislation. I thank Mr. Filner for his efforts.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Udall.
Mr. Udall. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Bradley.
Mr. Bradley. Ditto Mr. Moran's comments. Thank you, Mr.
Filner.
Mr. Filner. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Miller. Ms. Brown-Waite.
Ms. Brown-Waite of Florida. Whenever I am meeting with
veterans throughout my district inevitably this issue comes up.
And we still thankfully do have a lot of veterans left who
did serve in the Merchant Marine. Certainly it is time to
recognize their service and their great contribution. And as you
said, every member up here is on the bill. And I think it is time
we move it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much. I would also like to ask
Mr. Filner, with your acknowledgment, if we could have any
veterans who were Merchant Marines and are here today, if you
would please stand.
Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Miller. Thank you for your service.
Mr. Filner. They are going to be testifying at a later
panel.
Mr. Miller. Very good. Just asking for you all to stand.
Mr. Miller. They listen to you. We do not. Thank you very
much, Mr. Filner. Ms. Baldwin, you are next testifying on H.R.
2963.
STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, A REPRESENTA-
TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Ms. Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, members
of the Subcommittee, I really appreciate this opportunity to
address the Subcommittee on H.R. 2963, the Dr. James Allen
Disabled Veterans Equity Act. The bill that I introduced along
with my co-author, Congressman Boozman, last year. This bill
addresses an inequity in the paired organ statute that has
resulted in the denial of appropriate disability compensation to
blinded veterans.
This Committee and this Congress have rightly recognized that
certain human organs or limbs are designed to work in pairs;
hands, legs, kidneys, lungs, ears, and of course, eyes. In the
instance of eyes, blindness in one eye profoundly affects depth
perception, even if sight is fully retained in the other eye. The
paired organ statute was written to assist those veterans who
experience a service connected loss of a paired organ or limb.
This statute recognizes the interdependency of paired organs and
endeavors to treat the combined disability created by a non-
service connected loss, injury, or degeneration of the remaining
paired organ or limb as though it were the result of a service
connected disability. In general, the paired organ statute
accomplishes this task, with the exception of its treatment of
loss of sight.
I want to begin by telling you the story of Dr. James Allen,
after whom this legislation is named. Dr. Allen is a Professor of
Ophthalmology at the University of Wisconsin Medical School in my
district. And he as worked at the Veterans' Affairs Hospital for
33 years and treated numerous eye patients, including veterans who
are blind. One such example is Mr. Donald May. Don is a World
War II veteran who lost his right eye in a hand grenade explosion.
A few years ago Mr. May became legally blind in the non-service
connected left eye. He applied to the Department of Veterans'
Affairs for help and was denied further benefits. He was told
that the current law in regard to paired organs did not apply to
him even though he was legally blind in his service connected
right eye.
After Dr. Allen brought the plight of his patients to my
attention, I began to research why these veterans were being
denied the benefits that I felt they deserved, benefits that I
believe Congress intended to grant them. Through my work with the
Blinded Veterans Association, we discovered that while the current
paired organ statute covers blindness, in practice few, if any,
veterans have been able to qualify for compensation under its
provisions.
In theory the statute provides that when a veteran who is
service connected for blindness in one eye could qualify for
additional disability compensation if they became blind in the
remaining eye for non-service connected reasons. However, the
statute does not define the term blindness, nor is any provision
made for impairment of vision in the non-connected eye short of
blindness.
Rather than using the visual acuity of 20 over 200, as the
definition of legal blindness that has been adopted by the way in
all 50 states and by the Social Security Administration and the
World Health Organization, the Department of Veterans' Affairs
uses an obscure and much more restrictive 5 over 200 acuity for
blindness, which is in rough layman's terms, the equivalent of
having an eye with light perception only, no ability to perceive
shapes, et cetera. As a result, few, if any, blinded veterans are
able to qualify for additional compensation under the paired organ
statute.
Consequently, I began to explore various options to address
this inequity in current law. H.R. 2963 allows veterans who
receive veterans disability compensation for impairment of vision
in one eye at the rate of at least ten percent to be eligible to
receive additional disability compensation for impairment of
vision in the eye that is not service connected.
This change in law would affect only a small percentage,
estimated to be roughly five percent of the some 13,100 veterans
who are service connected for loss of vision in one eye. Yet such
a change would send a powerful signal to our nation's blinded
veterans that the hardships they face are not forgotten.
Once again I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking
Member and Subcommittee for the opportunity to appear on behalf of
the Dr. James Allen Disabled Veterans Equity Act. It is certainly
a modest but important step in restoring fair treatment to those
blinded due to their service to our country and to further our
commitment to
them. Their sacrifices and service to this nation should be
matched by our desire to improve quality of life for them and for
their families. And I look forward to working with you to advance
this legislation. Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Tammy Baldwin appears on p. 65]
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much. Questions from the
Subcommittee. Mr. Udall.
Mr. Udall. No question.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Nothing other than to indicate to Ms. Baldwin my
appreciation for her bringing this interest -- this issue to my
attention. I had not thought about this particular topic and
appreciate being made aware. And I thank you for coming before
our Subcommittee.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Bradley.
Mr. Bradley. I am just echoing the words of Mr. Moran. Thank
you for your advocacy and I am pleased to be a cosponsor.
Mr. Miller. Ms. Baldwin, I understand that the Subcommittee
staff is currently working with you looking at the numbers as it
relates to the expense of the bill. And I would expect that we
would have an opportunity to re-enter dialogue after we hear back
for CBO. So, thank you for bringing this bill forward this
afternoon.
Ms. Baldwin. Thank you.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Langevin, with H.R. 2188.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN, A REPRESENT-
ATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the
Committee. And before I begin, I would just like to take a moment
to add my voice of support to, in particular Mr. Filner's bill.
Both my grandfather, John Barrett, and his brother, my great-uncle
after whom I was named, Jim Barrett, served in the Merchant
Marines during World War II. They have both since long passed
away, as well as their spouses. So my family, of course, there is
no surviving member that would benefit financially from this in an
effort for full disclosure. But it is the right thing to do to
honor our Merchant Marines and the sacrifice that they gave during
World War II.
But, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Berkley, who is also a
sponsor of 2188, and distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, I
want to thank you for having this important hearing today on all
of these bills, and especially for the opportunity to discuss H.R.
2188, a bill that would authorize memorial markers in a national
cemetery to commemorate service members buried in American Battle
Monuments Commission cemetery.
As Members of Congress we all have the great opportunity to
hear stories of duty and honor from our constituents. I had such
a chance right after Memorial Day in 2004, when I received a
letter from Henry Stad, a resident of Rhode Island and a U.S.
Airforce veteran of World War II. Mr. Stad asked that I sponsor a
bill that would allow family members of servicemembers that were
killed in action and buried overseas to be able to request a
burial plaque to be set in a family burial plot in the United
States. I was happy to look into this request from a man who gave
so much for our country.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, the United States currently has 24
permanent overseas burial grounds that are the final resting place
for nearly 125,000 of the brave men and women who died serving our
country. These sites are the responsibility of the American
Battle Monuments Commission and are a wonderful tribute to those
who sacrificed for our nation. However, the Department of
Veterans' Affairs maintains that because these graves can be
visited, there is no need to provide families at home with a
memorial marker for their deceased loved ones buried there.
Now as a result, I introduced a bill that will help families
memorialize those who died in service to our country and are
buried in cemeteries overseas. According to the Department of
Veterans' Affairs, those servicemembers whose remains are
classified as "unavailable for burial" are eligible for government
provided memorial markers or headstones. While this
classification includes those whose remains have not been
recovered, or who are buried at sea, there is one glaring
exception to this definition. Those who died fighting for freedom
abroad and were laid to rest there.
Now families are proud of these courageous men and women who
answered the call to protect our country and then paid the
ultimate sacrifice. Unfortunately for many families, a trip
abroad to visit their loved ones final resting place is not
possible due to finances or old age. A memorial marker is the way
to keep the memory of their loved ones alive, while also teaching
younger generations about sacrifice. We should not deny the
families of these courageous men and women the ability to obtain
memorial markers when we already do it for so many others.
To correct this my legislation will add overseas burials to
the VA's "unavailable for burial" classification and finally let
these men and women be memorialized by their families here at
home.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I urge you to help memorialize
those that accepted the call to protect our country. Thank you,
again, for this opportunity and I look forward to working with you
in serving our veterans. Thank you.
[The statement of James R. Langevin appears on p. 68]
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much. Mr. Udall, questions? Mr.
Moran? Mr. Bradley? Thank you for your testimony and bringing
this forward. And the last panelist is up here with us on the
Subcommittee. Mr. Udall, you are recognized to talk about your
bill, H.R. 601.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I very much
appreciate the testimony of my colleagues, Tammy Baldwin, Bob
Filner, and James Langevin.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for considering my
legislation today, H.R. 601, the Native American Veterans Cemetery
Act of 2005, and would like to personally thank Chairman Miller
for inviting me to testify today.
Providing the men and women of the U.S. Armed Services with a
final resting place is one of the missions of the Department of
Veterans' Affairs through the National Cemetery Administration.
NCA maintains 122 national cemeteries, including two in my home
state of New Mexico, one in Santa Fe and one in Fort Bayard. NCA
also provides grants to states for the construction of state
cemeteries with ongoing responsibility for the maintenance of the
cemetery.
However, one group lacks the opportunity to be buried close
to home in a veterans cemetery. Historically, Native Americans
have the highest record of service in the armed forces per capita
of any ethnic group. And New Mexico ranks fifth in the nation in
Native American veterans with a population of 9,800 veterans. Yet
under existing law, tribal governments are ineligible to apply for
a state cemetery grant. Thus, honorable soldiers are unable to
receive the dignity of burial in a veterans cemetery located on
their home land.
My legislation would change that. Under H.R. 601, tribal
governments would be put on the same footing as states, consistent
with tribal sovereignty by allowing them to apply for grants to
establish, expand, or improve tribal veterans cemeteries.
H.R. 601 enjoys broad support. A bipartisan group of 46
members of the House are cosponsors, six of whom are members of
the House Veterans' Affairs Committee. I would specifically like
to thank the Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, Congresswoman
Shelley Berkley for her support, as well as Congressman Tom Cole
of Oklahoma for his strong and early support. State legislatures
in both Arizona and New Mexico have passed resolutions in favor of
allowing tribal governments to apply for national veterans
cemeteries. The Navajo Nation, the largest federally recognized
tribe is a strong supporter, as is the National American Indian
Veterans Organization.
Furthermore, both former Department of Veterans' Affairs
Secretary Anthony Principi and current Secretary Jim Nicholson
have expressed strong support stating that H.R. 601 would create
another means of accommodating the burial needs of Native American
veterans who wish to be buried in tribal lands. I have included
with my testimony several letters of support and would like to ask
unanimous consent that these letters be made part of the record.
Mr. Miller. Without objection. So ordered.
[The attachment appears on p. 72]
Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee,
this bill would give no special treatment and make no special
arrangements for tribal governments. It would allow tribal
governments the same opportunities as state governments, and by
extension would grant Native American veterans the opportunity to
be laid to rest close to home. This bipartisan legislation is
strongly and widely supported, and I hope for your sincere
consideration. At this time I would be happy to take any
questions also.
[The statement of Tom Udall appears on p. 69]
Mr. Miller. Questions. Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. No, sir.
Mr. Miller. Mr. Bradley.
Mr. Bradley. Thank you very much, Mr. Udall.
Mr. Udall. Thank you.
Mr. Miller: I understand how busy everybody's schedule is,
and I appreciate the panelists being here to testify on their
legislation that impacts the lives of our servicemembers,
veterans, and their survivors. On behalf of the Subcommittee let
me do say thank you again. We look forward to working with all of
you. Thank you. And with that we will move to the second panel.
If I could ask the second panel, which is VA and Arlington
Cemetery, I believe, to come forward please. Mr. Bill Tuerk is
the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs at the National Cemetery
Administration. Good to see you, sir. He is accompanied by Jack
McCoy, the Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program
Management at the Veterans Benefits Administration. And rounding
out this panel is Mr. Jack Metzler, the Superintendent of
Arlington National Cemetery.
And I would say to any member of this Subcommittee if you
have not availed yourself to a tour with Mr. Metzler at Arlington
Cemetery you should do so. I do not know of any person that is
more knowledgeable about a cemetery and a national shrine as he
is. I want to personally thank you for giving me the opportunity
to learn so much more about Arlington National Cemetery. I
understand your testimony last week was quite helpful to the
Subcommittee. I apologize, I was not here, as I was out of
Washington back in the district attending a funeral at Barrancas
National Cemetery in my congressional district. So with that, Mr.
Tuerk, you may begin.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM F. TUERK, UNDER SECRETARY
FOR MEMORIAL AFFAIRS, NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINI-
STRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY JACK McCOY, ASSOCIATE
DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLICY AND PROGRAM
MANAGEMENT, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Tuerk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Bradley, Mr. Udall, friends on the staff. I thank you for the
opportunity to testify today on a number of legislative items of
great interest to veterans.
As you noted, Mr. Chairman, I am accompanied by Mr. Jack
McCoy, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program
Management, Veterans Benefits Administration. I am also honored
to share the panel with my friend of many years, Mr. Jack Metzler,
Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery.
With the Committee's permission, Mr. Chairman, I will offer a
summary statement this afternoon and request that my written
testimony be submitted for the record.
Mr. Miller. Without objection.
Mr. Tuerk. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will proceed by
discussing each of the bills listed on the hearing agenda in the
order in which they appear. The first bill, H.R. 23, the proposed
Belated Thank You to Merchant Mariners of World War II Act of
2005, would require the Department of Veterans Affairs to pay
certain Merchant Mariners who served during World War II the sum
of $1,000 per month. It would, in addition, require VA to make
the same payment to the surviving spouses of eligible Merchant
Mariners after these Mariners' deaths.
VA opposes enactment of this bill for several reasons.
First, the Secretary of Defense has certified that Merchant
Mariner ocean-going service during World War II was active
military service for VA benefit purposes. Thus, World War II
Merchant Mariners are already eligible for the range of benefits
offered to all World War II veterans. This bill would provide
concurrent eligibility for an additional VA benefit, a cash
payment for Merchant Mariners, not made available to other
veterans.
It would also provide for a payment to Merchant Mariners,
even those who have not incurred a contemporary service-connected
disability, that is greater than the payment received by World War
II veterans who suffered a disability, and have recieved a
service-connected disability rating of 60 percent.
In our view, such preferential treatment to be afforded to
Merchant Mariners would not be fair. Fairness would dictate
equity, something that World War II Merchant Mariners already have
achieved. Further, VA believes the Social Security Administration
should be consulted on its views with respect to this legislation
and the interer
agency coordination that it would require.
H.R. 601, the proposed Native American Veterans Cemetery Act
of 2005, would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make
grants to Native American tribal organizations to assist them in
establishing, expanding, or improving veterans cemeteries on trust
lands in the same manner as such grants are made to States for
these purposes. H.R. 601 would thus create another means of
accommodating the burial needs of Native American veterans who
wish to be buried on tribal lands. We strongly support enactment
of this bill, as we have in years past.
H.R. 2188 would make servicemembers and others interred at
American Battle Monuments Commission cemeteries eligible for
placement of an additional memorial marker in a stateside
cemetery.
The Department of Veterans Affairs does not support enactment
of this bill. The fallen warriors who are interred in ABMC
cemeteries have been provided an honorable place of repose by the
United States government. To provide a second marker for those
whose remains are already interred in a federal cemetery would
significantly alter the purpose of the memorial marker benefit.
By statute, memorial markers have been issued solely to honor
those who cannot be interred either here or abroad, because their
remains are not available for burial due to non-recovery from the
battlefield, burial at sea, donation to science, or for other
reasons.
In short, we believe the honor of an "In Memory Of" headstone
should be reserved for those who are not, and who cannot be,
memorialized at a conventional gravesite. Those buried in ABMC
facilities are already so memorialized.
H.R. 2963, the proposed Dr. James Allen Disabled Veterans
Equity Act, would improve compensation benefits for veterans in
certain cases of vision impairment involving both eyes. This
legislation, which is consistent with prior Congressional action
pertaining to special consideration for hearing loss, would treat
vision impairment in both eyes similarly to hearing loss in both
ears. VA supports enactment of H.R. 2963, subject to offsetting
savings.
H.R. 4843, the proposed Veterans Compensation Cost of Living
Adjustment Act of 2006, would authorize a COLA adjustment
effective with payments received in January 2007 to the rates of
disability compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation,
and other VBA administered cash benefit payments. We believe a
COLA is necessary and appropriate to protect the benefits of
affected veterans and their survivors from the eroding effects of
inflation. We therefore support enactment of this legislation.
H.R. 5037, the proposed Respect for America's Fallen Heroes
Act, would prohibit non-approved demonstrations at cemeteries
under the control of VA's National Cemetery Administration and at
Arlington National Cemetery. We fully support the policy
objectives of this bill although, as I explain in my prepared
statement, we are concerned that the text of this bill, as
currently drafted, might inadvertently, we think, narrow the ban
already in effect on demonstrations in national cemeteries under
VA regulations. I look forward to working with Congress to avoid
this result, particularly if it is an unintended result, and to
ensure that the dignity and sanctity of our national cemeteries
are fully maintained.
The final bill on the agenda, H.R. 5038, the proposed
Veterans Memorial Marker Act of 2006, would change the
applicability date of VA's current authority to provide a
government headstone or marker for the private grave of a veteran,
regardless of whether the grave has already been marked at private
expense.
Under current law this authority extends only to veterans
whose deaths occurred on or after September 11, 2001. A provision
of the bill would authorize VA to furnish such markers for the
graves of veterans who died on or after November 1, 1990. We
support enactment of this provision of the bill.
In addition, this bill would extend VA's authority to furnish
the second marker benefit through December 31, 2007. We support
extension of this authority. Indeed, we would recommend that the
legal authority for this benefit be made permanent.
Additionally with respect to H.R. 5038, we support a series
of relatively minor statutory revisions, as outlined in my written
statement, to accommodate the practical needs of veterans'
families in obtaining government-furnished headstones and markers.
We request that the Committee consider adding these provisions to
H.R. 5038 prior to, or
at, its markup of this legislation. NCA's technical experts will
be made available to the Committee's staff to explain in depth our
proposed additions to this bill.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I appreciate the
opportunity to have appeared before you to explain the
administration's views on these important legislative matters.
And I would be pleased to entertain any questions you or the other
members of the Subcommittee may have. Thank you.
[The statement of William F. Tuerk appears on p. 77]
Mr. Miller. Thank you, sir. The Chair would now recognize
Mr. Metzler.
STATEMENT OF JOHN C. METZLER, JR., SUPERINTENDENT,
ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY
Mr. Metzler. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the
Subcommittee to present the Department of the Army's views on H.R.
5037, that would impact Arlington National Cemetery if enacted
into law. I am testifying today on behalf of the Secretary of the
Army, who is responsible for the operation and maintenance of
Arlington National Cemetery.
Arlington is our nation's premier military cemetery. It is
an honor for me to represent this national cemetery. And on
behalf of the Department of the Army I want to express our
appreciation for the support that Congress has provided over the
years.
In fiscal year 2005 there were over 6,500 funerals at
Arlington National Cemetery. In addition, we conducted 3,200
ceremonies. H.R. 5037 would prohibit certain demonstrations at
national cemeteries under the control of the National Cemetery
Administration and Arlington National Cemetery, to include
picketing, oration before assembled crowds, displaying of
placards, or distributing of certain forms or written materials on
cemetery property. This bill would also prohibit demonstrations
within 500 feet of a national cemetery one hour before and through
one hour after a memorial, a funeral, or a ceremony.
The Army fully supports this concept to this proposed
legislation as it pertains to Arlington Cemetery, because it would
help protect the sanctity of the cemetery and the dignity of the
funerals and ceremonies that are held upon this hallowed grounds.
Demonstrations at Arlington National Cemetery have been part
of the history of the cemetery since at least the Vietnam War.
Because of our urban location within the heart of our nation's
capital, Arlington frequently becomes a rallying point for groups
wishing to express their opposing views and opinions, particularly
regarding our nation's military policies.
For this reason, certain conduct with the cemetery grounds is
currently prohibited under Title 32 of the Federal Code of
Regulations. This prohibition also occurs for memorial services
and other ceremonies when our nation comes together at Arlington
to remember the deeds and sacrifices of the brave men and women
who served honorably in our armed forces.
This newly proposed law would help strengthen the sanctity
and preserve the dignity of Arlington Cemetery. Mr. Chairman,
this concludes my statement. I would be more than pleased to
respond to any of your questions.
[The statement of John C. Metzler, Jr. appears on p. 96]
Mr. Bradley. [Presiding] Thank you both, gentlemen. Let me
start out by just saying that Mr. Tuerk, because VA's testimony
was not received until the end of the day yesterday, Chairman
Miller and other members of the Subcommittee will be submitting
questions for the record. So let me just ask a couple of
questions.
You expressed some concerns in your testimony about H.R.
5037. That it would be less restrictive than current VA
regulations that limit demonstrations on VA property. While VA
regulations regulate within the grounds of a VA national cemetery,
what affect do they have on demonstrations near, but not on, VA
property?
Mr. Tuerk. Our regulations, Mr. Chairman, only extend to the
limits of our national cemetery property. They do not extend
beyond those limits 500 yards or otherwise. When I say that our
regulations are broader, I am not talking in terms of the scope of
the geographic coverage. I am talking about the scope of
activities that we have claimed the authority to regulate and
which the courts have affirmed that we in fact do have the
authority to regulate.
Mr. Bradley. Second question. When you exercise this
authority to maintain decorum and not have demonstrations on the
property, how do you go about informing people that may or may not
know that these restrictions are in place?
Mr. Tuerk. Mr. Chairman, to be honest with you, I do not
know. I can certainly follow up on how we proactively get this
information out. Otherwise, I am prepared to say now that if
someone approaches us, and of course no one is going to come onto
our property without approaching us for some sort of permission,
at that point we would advise them of first, our proper role in
regulating conduct within the cemetery to maintain dignity and
decorum; and secondly review with them the sort of activities that
they have in mind; and lastly, inform them at that point of our
views with respect to those activities.
Mr. Bradley. So if someone were to gain access, for
instance, to Arlington and did not appear that this was part of a
protest and then unfurled banners and, you know, started a protest
and they were unaware of the restrictions, what would -- how would
you deal with that kind of a situation?
Mr. Tuerk. I will only speak for national cemeteries.
Mr. Bradley. Yes.
Mr. Tuerk. I won't speak for Arlington. But, if protestors
were to appear at our cemetery and start a demonstration without
our permission, we would inform them, irrespective of the subject
matter of their demonstration, that it is not allowed without
permission. Then we would ask them to vacate the premises. If
they did not vacate the premises, we would call the proper
authorities to compel them to vacate the premises.
Mr. Bradley. So if you gave them the opportunity to vacate
the premises, then no further action would be taken?
Mr. Tuerk. I think that is the way we operate now. Yes,
sir.
Mr. Bradley. All right. Good. Thank you.
Mr. Tuerk. I think that is a fair assessment.
Mr. Bradley. Generally that would be how you would handle
it?
Mr. Tuerk. As a general proposition, yes.
Mr. Bradley. Let me move to you, Mr. Metzler, and ask you
the same questions about informing the public and if somebody
legitimately did not know that there were restrictions during a
funeral from demonstrating, how would you handle that?
Mr. Metzler. We would inform these individuals, either
myself or one of my representatives would go up to them and ask
them politely, but firmly, that they needed to stop during this
funeral service. And at the same time we would call the United
States Park Police, who is our law enforcement authority for
Arlington Cemetery. And if the individuals left quietly that
would end the matter. If not, we would invoke the Park Police to
ensure that they left quietly.
Mr. Bradley. So in other words, as you said, if people left
and came back and demonstrated when it was appropriate to do so,
then that would be the end of the issue?
Mr. Metzler. Well, under the current Federal Code of
Regulations, we do not allow picketing in the cemetery, protester
demonstrations at all.
Mr. Bradley. At all. Okay.
Mr. Metzler. At all, anytime. I think the difference in
this new proposed legislation, which is strengthening, at least
for Arlington Cemetery, is that there is a restriction now of 500
feet to the boundary of the cemetery, which is a tremendous
benefit to us since we do not actually own the property outside
the --
Mr. Bradley. Right. I mean, there is a bike path, there is
a road, there is the bridge. I mean all of those I actually like
to, myself, run out there once in a while. It is a beautiful run
down the Mall and up to the Iwo Jima Memorial and along that bike
path. So, under Mr. Rogers' proposed legislation, then you would,
in fact, have authority to ensure that within that scope of area
around the cemetery during those times that you have the authority
to regulate.
Mr. Metzler. That is right. It would push them further away
from the entrance of the cemetery. Oftentimes they use the area
right in front of the cemetery, again which is not Arlington's
property, to start a demonstration to march into Washington.
This, again, would be ended under this new proposed legislation.
Mr. Bradley. Thank you. I am sure that the staff and
members of the Subcommittee, and the sponsors of the legislation,
especially H.R. 5037, look forward to working with you to make
sure that we technically get the language right to make sure that
there are no unintended consequences. And that the genuine
thoughts of Mr. Rogers and the other sponsors that testified here
today are what gets enacted into law. We look forward to working
with you. Mr. Udall?
Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These questions are for
Mr. Tuerk and Mr. McCoy, if he is able to answer them. Your
testimony objects to H.R. 23 because of the size of the benefit.
Would VA support a lesser monetary benefit for the Merchant
Mariners, such as the $200 per month provided to pensioners of the
earlier wars who did not receive educational and housing benefits?
Mr. Tuerk. I think, Mr. Udall, the basis for our objection
to this legislation is not necessarily the quantum of the payment
that would be made, but the fact that the payment would be made to
this class of veterans and not be made available to other classes
of veterans, and to these survivors and not to other survivors. I
think it is that principle, more than the $1,000 versus the $200
amount that you suggest here, that is the basis of our objection.
Beyond that, I will defer to Mr. McCoy, who has more expertise on
this matter, since it is a VBA matter.
Mr. McCoy. I would agree with that statement and just add
the fact that there are Merchant Mariners now that receive
benefits who would be getting an additional payment on top of
whatever benefit they might be receiving now.
Mr. Udall. Could you please explain the VA's rationale for
considering blindness for paired organs at a visual acuity of 5 to
200, rather than the level of 20 to 200, used by the Social
Security Administration and other government agencies to determine
legal blindness?
Mr. McCoy. No, sir. I can only explain it at this moment to
the extent that is what our rating schedule calls for. I
apologize, but I cannot answer your question in more detail. I
would be glad to get that to you.
[As indicated above, Mr. McCoy submitted the following
detailed response to Mr. Udall's question for the record: "The
current Rating Schedule and its predecessors used by the
Department of Veterans Affairs to evaluate visual impairment and
to define blindness as visual acuity of 5/200 have used the same
standard since 1924. A review of the history of the various
changes to the rating schedule with respect to visual acuity
reveals that this standard has not been challenged by anyone or
any entity since originally set out by VA. VA proposed revisions
to the schedule for eye disabilities and solicited comments in
1999. While there were numerous comments on other aspects of the
schedule, no individual or organization raised a concern about the
standard for blindness."]
Mr. Udall. That would be fine. Thank you. If you would
submit that, that would be great. The Administration's budget did
not include a COLA applicable to the additional $250 per month
paid to surviving DIC, Dependency Indemnity Compensation
beneficiaries with children for the first two years of
eligibility. Does VA believe that it is appropriate for the value
of this benefit to erode with the passage of time?
Mr. Tuerk. I am not prepared to speak for the administration
on that question. Since we did not propose a COLA to that
benefit, I think I am not free to state specifically that we
support it or that we should have proposed it. I think, however,
that the Administration would not take the point of view that any
benefit currently recieved by veterans should be eroded over time.
[Mr. Tuerk provided this additional response following the
hearing to Mr. Udall's question: "Question 2: Why does the COLA
bill not include a request to increase the $250 allowance for
dependent children? Aren't you concerned that the allowance will
be "devalued by inflation?"
Response: We agree that the additional $250 benefit due
surviving spouses with minor children during the first two years
of entitlement or until the last minor child reaches age 18,
whichever comes first, is an important benefit intended to address
transition issues for survivors. As survivors may be entitled to
additional benefits for dependents, the transitional benefit is
similar to other special or one-time payments such as automobile
allowances and burial benefits. Traditionally, Congress has
reserved to itself the decision to raise these benefits."]
Mr. Udall. And would you -- could you take a position then
if you do not think there should be erosion, then we should
somehow deal with it, shouldn't we?
Mr. Tuerk. Well, I cannot take a position here and now. But
I certainly could follow up with a position on behalf of not only
myself, but more significantly, on behalf of the administration.
Mr. Udall. That would be just fine. Thank you. Mr.
Metzler, does Arlington have space which would be unsuitable for
burial gravesites, but might be suitable for placement of a marker
of a veteran buried in an ABMC cemetery?
Mr. Metzler. We have limited space at this time for memorial
sections, as we refer to them. We are down to under about 300
spaces left in the cemetery. This proposed legislation, as I read
it, did not seem to affect Arlington Cemetery. It seemed to
affect the Veterans' Administration national cemeteries. If it
does eventually affect Arlington, it would concern me because the
numbers are so great.
Typically in a year's time we only receive about 20 to 30
requests for memorial markers. And they are mainly World War II
veterans whose remains have not been recovered and the families
have just now found out about the benefit of putting a memorial
marker up in lieu of not having their loved one recognized at all.
If this legislation gets enacted then there is a potential of
125,000 new requests for not only Arlington, but for national
cemeteries across the spectrum. This could have an impact on our
availability of space for the other veterans in the future.
Mr. Udall. Mr. Tuerk, could you answer that for the VA
national cemeteries, that same question?
Mr. Tuerk. I think we are not in the position that Mr.
Metzler is with respect to Arlington. We have 122 cemeteries,
some of which have no space available, some of which have several
hundreds of acres available yet that have not been developed. So
our position, unlike Arlington's, is -- or at least less premised
on the unavailability of space to provide this benefit then the
rationale that we expressed in both our prepared statement and my
oral statement.
Mr. Udall. In your testimony you indicate that the number of
requests for a headstone or marker for an already marked grave are
nominal. Veterans buried in ABMC cemeteries were generally single
and have been dead for over 50 years. In almost all cases, the
parents of the deceased veteran would also be deceased. On what
basis do you expect the request for a marker or a headstone for a
veteran buried in a ABMC cemetery would be more than nominal?
Mr. Tuerk. Well, I think there are next of kin, perhaps, of
many of those interred or other family members. I do not think
that we necessarily assume that all would request this. I think
our statement is premised on the outlying potential cost that this
would generate.
Mr. Udall. Thank you, all three of you. Thank you very
much. And I do not have any further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Tuerk. Thank you.
Mr. Udall. Thank you.
Mr. Bradley. I would like to close this panel and thank you
very much for your testimony. And as I said, Mr. Miller and other
members of the Subcommittee may well have questions for the record
and we will get them to you. And thank you again.
Mr. Tuerk. I understand, Mr. Chairman. I thank you.
Mr. Bradley. If you will be seated. Is Mr. Filner a
Merchant Mariner?
Mr. Filner. No, sir.
Mr. Bradley. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Congressman Filner,
I assume you are here for purposes of an introduction?
Mr. Filner. If I may?
Mr. Bradley. Absolutely.
Mr. Filner. All of us have had the experience, especially
those of us who have the privilege of serving on the Veterans'
Committee, of meeting members of the greatest generation. The
stories they tell, the courage they exhibited, the patriotism they
have, it is an inspiration to all of us. One of the people I have
had the privilege of meeting is Ian Allison, who is going to be
testifying on H.R. 23. He is the Chairman of the Just
Compensation Committee, which has been working on behalf of the
Merchant Mariners. He has a life that is filled with adventure,
and I just love to be with him. So I wanted to be here next to
him today and share in his attempt to convince everybody of the
virtue of H.R. 23.
Mr. Bradley. Thank you very much, Mr. Filner. Let me just
briefly introduce everybody. Mr. Ian Allison is the Co-Chair of
the Just Compensation Committee of the U.S. Merchant Marine Combat
Veteran. Mr. David Greineder is the Deputy Legislative Director
at AMVETS. Mr. Thomas Zampieri is the Director of Government
Relations at the Blinded Veterans Association. Mr. Quentin
Kinderman is the Deputy Director of the Veterans of Foreign Wars
National Legislative Service. I would like to just remind all of
you if you could do your utmost to keep your remarks to the five
minute limit. Your full statement, obviously, will be part of the
permanent record and will be printed as a result of the hearing.
Mr. Allison, please.
STATEMENT OF IAN ALLISON, CO-Chairman, JUST COMPEN-
SATION COMMITTEE OF THE U.S. MERCHANT MARINE
COMBAT VETERAN
Mr. Allison. Chairman Bradley, and other Members of this
Subcommittee, esteemed Members I should say, my name is Ian
Allison. I strongly encourage the passage of H.R. 23. I
represent 6,300 Merchant Marine veterans of World War II, who are
seeking the recognition and their benefits under the 1944 GI Bill
of Rights. This group is a non-profit, unincorporated committee
of veterans registered with the Internal Revenue Service as a Just
Compensation Committee.
The committee has asked me to appear today before this
Subcommittee to represent their interests. The statements
made here today have been supplied to me by various members of our
committee for your enlightenment. I am requesting that the
statements of Stanley Wilner, (POW), Bruce Felknor, Perry Adams,
and Burt Young be introduced into the record. These written
statements have been delivered to the Subcommittee and I ask you
again to be sure they are introduced into the record.
[The attachments appear following Mr. Allison's written
statement]
Mr. Allison. Passage of H.R. 23 would be the final chapter
of what has been a ragged response by the government to men who
placed their lives in danger as they served their country. There
might be some members in Congress who are not historically
informed in what happened to some 230,000 seamen, both black and
white, from the end of World War II to the present. And perhaps I
can help present this issue. The Merchant Mariners of World War
II were the only service that was not segregated. We had black
and white both serving on the same ship.
It has been said that when one dies, so dies one's influence
and power. And so it was that when President Franklin Roosevelt
died, his directions to his advisors that the Merchant Seamen of
World War II should be accorded benefits like veterans of other
services also died. The influence of dissenting Members and some
of the animosities left over after the war from competing services
and civilian service groups prevented benefits being given to the
Merchant Seamen. Many service people who might have dug ditches
in Louisiana and never stepped outside of the United States got
the full GI Bill, GI loans, and much more. But those who sailed
the Murmansk Run, were sunk in burning oil, or frigid waters of
the North Atlantic got nothing. In fact, their pay, which has
been reviewed countless times, stopped the moment they went into
the water.
It was not until Senator Barry Goldwater in 1977 made the
effort to recognize the women pilots with veteran recognition did
the same bill, Public Law 95-202 permit Merchant Seamen to apply
for veteran recognition. Thus began the constant misinformation
and countless examples of hatred for the Merchant Seamen's efforts
to secure veterans recognition. There was a growing lack of
concern for Congress to do what was right, recognize the Merchant
Marine veterans of World War II.
The first stage of recognition efforts by the seamen came
after a bitter court battle between the Maritime Trades and the
Pentagon. A federal court judge, in 1986, ruled against the
Pentagon, stating that the Merchant Seamen have been discriminated
against. He wrote in his finding that the Navy and certain
veterans groups bitterly opposed any recognition. While the court
recognized the majority of Merchant Seamen as qualified, these men
only received a tombstone, a flag, and a discharge and limited
medical attention. Those who went to sea after August 15, 1945 to
December 31, 1946, the official end of the war, received nothing.
They became the denied seamen. The Defense Department went to war
against this group.
This started phase two of official Congressional denial. It
took ten years of effort on the part of the Merchant Mariners
Fairness Committee, through five sessions of Congress, until
finally H.R. 1126 with Representative Lane Evans as sponsor and
337 of his fellow members as cosponsors, to recognize the denied
seamen with veterans discharge. A discharge that they had to pay
$30 to buy and to pay for their own medals, and received only a
tombstone, a flag and a piece of paper. Nothing else as a
benefit. We are most fortunate many of the cosponsors of H.R.
1126 are still members of the House of Representatives, members of
the Veterans' Committee, and members of this Subcommittee.
They do not have the knowledge of how slanderous
misinformation was continually sent to House members by various
military liaison stating that Merchant Seamen were unqualified to
be veterans as they went on strike during the war. The story by
Walter Winchell about Merchant Seamen refusing to unload munitions
and cargo at Guadalcanal on a Sunday was repudiated and the
reporter was in disgrace. No ship was ever delayed in the war
because of labor problems. It is so hard to counter lies,
especially when many Members had no direct knowledge of the
history of the war. Today we call it "bad-mouthing" your
opposition.
Of the 230,000 men in the Merchant Marine in 1945, probably
less than 10,000 are still alive. The youngest who joined the
service in 1945 are now 78 to 79 years old, many in poor health.
The majority of the men in their mid-80's, as myself, I am 86,
dedicating 100 percent of my time to see the record set straight
by passage of H.R. 23. There is still a time for a grateful
nation to say thank you to a thinning rank of men.
We are now at stage three. Sixty years is a long time for
any service person to wait for proper recognition. Sixty years is
a long time to spend trying to correct history written to
denigrate what we thought was service to our country. They say
America is strong because of the will of the people and their
concern for each other. Passage of H.R. 23 will go a long way in
proving this to be so. Please recommend that H.R. 23 be passed
and let's clean up the record. These blemishes should not be part
of our country's record. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ian Allison appears on p. 99]
Mr. Bradley. Thank you very much, sir. Next, Mr. Greineder.
STATEMENT OF DAVID GREINEDER, DEPUTY LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR, AMVETS
Mr. Greineder. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee, AMVETS is pleased to present our views on the
legislation before the Subcommittee. And we are honored to join
our fellow veterans service organizations and veterans on the
panel.
Regarding H.R. 23, this bill would provide $1,000 monthly
payment to the Merchant Marines of World War II. If implemented,
this legislation would cost $120 million for the first year, and
$20 million in subsequent years. AMVETS has no official position
on the bill at this time, but I will say that we believe this bill
will be extremely costly to VA. AMVETS certainly recognizes the
sacrifices of the Merchant Marines during World War II and we are
proud of their accomplishments, but we would ask that you
seriously take a look at how this bill would affect VA.
H.R. 601 would allow Native American Tribes to apply for
state cemetery grants from VA. AMVETS believes cemeteries on
tribal lands would be an appropriate memorial and a reminder of
the sacrifices made by Native American men and women.
H.R. 2188 would allow memorial markers to be placed in a
national cemetery to commemorate service members whose remains are
interred in American Battle Monuments Cemetery. AMVETS share the
profound pride, admiration, and gratefulness associated with the
spirit of this legislation. We support the bill. But we do ask
that appropriate steps be taken to ensure that the land used for
these markers are not better intended for gravesites.
H.R. 2963 would allow veterans who have a complete loss of
sight in one eye due to a service connected injury to receive
increased disability compensation if they lose sight in the other
eye. AMVETS recognizes the need and importance of this
legislation. We support the bill.
H.R. 4843 would provide a cost of living adjustment to
veterans benefits effective December 1, 2006. AMVETS supports our
nation's commitment to care for the men and women who have served
in our military service. This legislation will increase current
rates of disability compensation to help meet rising costs. We
support the bill.
H.R. 5038 would allow veterans and their families to apply
and receive VA's official grave marker for an additional year.
AMVETS trusts that the Committee can locate the funds necessary to
incorporate these veterans and family members with an official
recognition. AMVETS supports the bill.
H.R. 5037 would restrict protests in national cemeteries
during military funeral honors. AMVETS whole heartedly supports
this legislation. We believe it is only appropriate that grieving
families be allowed to bury their loved ones in peace. AMVETS is
troubled, and quite frankly offended, that more than 100 military
funerals in the last nine months have been interrupted by
aggressive war protests. Families burying their husbands, wives,
sons, or daughters should not be subject to this kind of display.
AMVETS believes this bill is very timely and hope it receives
swift passage in the House floor. And Mr. Chairman, AMVETS wrote
a letter of endorsement for this bill and I would ask that it be
included in the record.
[The attachment appears on p. ]
Mr. Greineder. In closing, Mr. Chairman, AMVETS looks
forward to working with you and others in Congress to ensure the
earned benefits of all American veterans are strengthened and
improved. This concludes my testimony. Thank you again for
allowing us to present our views.
[The statement of David Greineder appears on p. 104]
Mr. Bradley. Dr. Zampieri.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS ZAMPIERI, DIRECTOR OF GOVERN-
MENT RELATIONS, BLINDED VETERANS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Zampieri. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, on
behalf of the Blinded Veterans Association we appreciate the
opportunity to testify here today on H.R. 2963. I will try to
make this very brief. I would like to have the full testimony
entered into the record.
There are basically four points here of interest that we
would like to stress. One is that BVA would like to remind the
Committee that this is not a new benefit or a new entitlement. We
are just trying to fix the paired organ statute, which
historically has been on the books since 1962. That is a real
long time to have something on the books with an error in it of
omission. And what we are concerned about and we want to stress
is, there has been, according to VHA records 13,109 veterans who
are service connected as of today for the anatomical loss of an
eye or blindness due to an injury or illness while they are in the
service and they searched the records to find out seven different
ways if there was any other missing people out there. And this is
the number that they kept coming up with.
I go out to Walter Reed frequently to visit with every
blinded soldier who has come back from Iraq since last June. And
I have talked with the Chief of Ophthalmology out there. And to
put a new face on this, there are currently 90 soldiers who have
come back from Iraq who have anatomically lost an eye due to an
IED explosion or to a gunshot wound. Two of those soldiers are
sitting out there today. And the concerned mother of one of those
soldiers talked to me yesterday. And she said, "Her son is doing
well recovering form other injuries, but he lays awake at night
worrying what will happen to me if I lose my vision in my other
eye?"
Under the current paired organ statute, which does not define
legal blindness, if an individual who is service connected for
loss of vision in one eye puts in a claim for service connection
under the paired organ statute, the VA refers to Section 1160,
paragraph (l), which defines legal blindness in a measurement form
of 5/200 in order to meet VA service connection compensation
standards.
Currently legal blindness is defined in all 50 states by the
Social Security Administration, by the World Health Organization,
is defined as 20/200 or less, or 20 degrees of central field of
vision or less. Basically, in researching this and actually
working with CBO, and I am going to cite their own figures,
according to the Journal of American Medical Association Archives
of Ophthalmology, and this is in the CBO report, "The prevalence
of age-related macular degeneration or other diseases that would
cause an individual in the U.S. population between the ages of 40
and 65 to lose their vision is 1.4 percent. The figure rises to
just five percent of the population between the ages of 65 to 80
years of age, and then does not increase until after age 80 to
about 15 percent of the population."
Therefore, if this paired organ statute is fixed concerning
the 13,109 veterans who have lost vision in one eye, you can
expect probably 600 claims. I talked to a VBA claims reviewer who
had 19 years of experience. And he knows of five cases in the
last six years. So we are not opening up the flood gates as long
as we look at this from the standpoint of those individuals who
served and lost an eye in service of their country.
I will leave it on this note that why should a veteran who
served in the military and lost an eye and almost probably lost
his life in service to his country have to meet a higher standard
of blindness than a Social Security recipient. Mr. Chairman, I
appreciate the opportunity for Blinded Veterans Association to
testify today. And we are completely in support of H.R. 5037.
Thank you.
[The statement of Thomas Zampieri appears on p. 112]
Mr. Bradley. Thank you very much. Mr. Kinderman.
STATEMENT OF QUENTIN KINDERMAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE VETERANS OF FOR-
EIGN WARS
Mr. Kinderman. Thank you, Mr. Bradley. Mr. Chairman,
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting us to testify
here today. On behalf of the 2.4 million men and women of the
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States, we appreciate the
opportunity to present our views on legislation included in
today's hearing. Our views follow.
Regarding H.R. 23, Belated Thank You to the Merchant Mariners
of World War II Act of 2005, the bill seeks to expand the current
dates of service for World War II Merchant Mariners, who are
recognized as veterans, and pay a $1,000 monthly benefit to those
World War II Merchant Mariners, or to their surviving spouses.
The VFW recognizes the heroic service of Merchant Mariners during
World War II. Their sacrifices and heroic efforts were
instrumental in winning the Second World War.
We cannot, however, support this legislation to pay a monthly
benefit which would be in addition to any current veterans
benefits that would otherwise be payable. We believe this payment
would be disproportionate in terms of recognition or benefits to
what other veterans who have gone in harm's way in service to our
country currently receive.
With regard to their service as Merchant Mariners, and the
proposal that they should be recognized for this Merchant Marine
service by a special benefit, in addition to being recognized as
veterans, or for a period extending beyond the currently
recognized World War II dates, the VFW has not taken a position on
this matter.
H.R. 601, titled "Native American Veterans' Cemetery Act of
2005," would allow tribal organizations to apply for grants to
establish and maintain veteran cemeteries on tribal lands. We
fully support H.R. 601. We believe this is a logical extension of
the veteran cemetery grant program. This legislation will address
the needs of Native American veterans and their families which are
not fully met by the national and state veteran cemeteries.
H.R. 2188, titled "Authorization of Memorial Markers for the
Remains Interred in American Battle Monuments," proposes allowing
memorial markers to be placed in national cemeteries for remains
interred in cemeteries administered by the American Battle
Monuments Commission. The bill provides recognition on American
hallowed ground to the many servicemembers who made the ultimate
sacrifice to preserve our freedom, and never returned home. We
fully support this bill. And I might say, as probably anyone
would who has been to Normandy Beach and seen the memorial
cemeteries there, that these are sacrifices that I think should
remain in the consciousness of the American people. And I think
making these markers convenient here so people can see the
sacrifices made by the greatest generation is a good thing.
H.R. 2963 is titled "Dr. James Allen Veterans Equity Act."
The bill addresses the payment of service connected compensation
for service connected loss of vision in one eye in the event
vision is impaired in the other eye. I doubt I could explain that
anywhere near as well as Tom just has. We fully support this
legislation.
H.R. 4843, titled "Veterans Compensation Cost of Living
Adjustments Act of 2006," seeks to adjust compensation rates to
reflect the rising cost of living. We appreciate the Committee's
commitment to maintaining the integrity of the buying power of the
veterans' compensation program by providing periodic cost of
living increases, COLAs. We fully support this goal.
However, we note that this bill, once again, contains a
provision for rounding down any fraction of a dollar in the COLA
calculation. This works against the spirit of the bill. Over
time, and when combined with other adjustments made to meet
budgetary goals, this has cause erosion of the compensation
benefit and significant problems for America's veterans. We
believe it might be the underlying cause of some policy problems
that have been recognized by the Committee.
H.R. 5037 is titled "Respect for America's Fallen Heroes
Act." This legislation restricts demonstrations at or near
national cemeteries during funerals and requires approval by
cemetery authorities for other demonstrations. The intent is to
prevent hateful and offensive speech during a very difficult time
for a veteran or servicemember's family. We strongly support this
legislation, including provision that urge state and local
governments to enact legislation to protect funeral homes,
religious services, and memorial services from this dangerous and
damaging use of free speech.
And finally, H.R. 5038, entitled "Providing Government
Markers for Dependent Children," we fully support this bill as
well. Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the
Veterans of Foreign Wars.
[The statement of Quentin Kinderman appears on p. 118]
Mr. Bradley. Thank you all to the panel. Ms. Berkley, you
indicated you had a markup that you had to go back to. So I will
yield first to you for questions.
Ms. Berkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually, I had a
hearing at the International Relations Committee, which precluded
me from coming and listening to the entire hearing. But I am
awfully glad I came for this panel and was able to get away.
I want to thank all of you for your eloquent remarks. I am
supportive of all of the pieces of legislation that have been
discussed today and a cosponsor of most of them. But I
particularly want to thank all of you for your continued service
to our country. Not only did you serve in our nation's wars, but
you continue to serve the veterans of this country by your work
through your VSOs and this Congresswoman wants to tell you how
much I appreciate that.
And, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to submit my
written testimony -- my written opening remarks for the record,
since I am sure that everybody has sat through a lot of testimony.
And I do not want to burden anyone further. So thank you very
much for the opportunity.
[The statement of Shelley Berkley appears on p. 43]
Mr. Bradley. Mr. Udall.
Mr. Udall. I do not have any questions, but I also just want
to tell the panel I think you have given excellent testimony here
today and very much appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Bradley. In that case, I have a couple of quick
questions. Mr. Filner, since you are still here, can I impose on
you to ask you a question?
Mr. Filner. Please.
Mr. Bradley. Thank you. As you know, I am a cosponsor of
H.R. 23. Numerous others, and I would say that by virtue of the
fact that I agree with you on the -- what you are trying to
accomplish with regard to the Merchant Marine, I believe is
appropriate. But you heard the testimony from some of the other
witnesses today. Other groups have had -- other civilian groups -
- have had veterans' status conferred on them in accordance with
Public Law 95-202. Could you just testify as to why you think it
is appropriate to single out Merchant Marines for this special
monthly benefit and respond perhaps to some of the critiques from
other panelists have talked?
Mr. Filner. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I want to
defer to Mr. Allison on some of the more emotional kinds of
arguments. Let me say, that I heard about the amount of money.
We are talking about $120 million that goes down to,
unfortunately, zero in a relatively short time. $120 million is
0.2 percent of the VA budget, of the existing VA budget, not 2
percent, 0.2 percent.
There are myths about who deserves what at what time.
Remember that this is a benefit for just the remaining years of
life, not for a lifetime. As Ian was telling me, the few that do
get benefits for disability were denied the GI bill benefits. We
are just saying, "here is nominal sum, a belated thank you." We
can never make up for the loss of benefits. We cannot afford not
to do this. It is a moral imperative of our nation. Most
Mariners thought they were fighting for the nation as part of our
armed forces in World War II. I would like Ian, if he may, to
comment on your initial issue about why this group.
Mr. Allison. Can you repeat that question? I am a little
hard of hearing.
Mr. Bradley. Well, thank you, sir. I indicated to
Congressman Filner that while I agree with him about the
appropriateness of this bill and singling out members of the
Merchant Marine for this special benefit, there are those who do
not agree with that policy change. And so -- and the gentleman,
Mr. Kinderman from the VFW testified in essence to that before.
So I was in essence trying to give yourself and Congressman Filner
a chance to respond to that. Why you think it is appropriate for
singling out members of the Merchant Marine for this stipend at
this point in time?
Mr. Allison. I appreciate that question. And I like that
expression "singling out". I think that was the problem. Back in
1944 we were singled out and were dropped from the benefits that
everybody else got. I do not -- 14 million veterans were allowed
the GI Bill of Rights in 1944. And we were singled out. We did
not get those benefits. And we did not -- there are a dozen of
things in the testimony that were given by my fellow veterans of
what they -- experiences they had trying to get into college,
trying to get jobs, trying to make a living after the war when
they weren't veterans. And it was quite flagrant to these people.
It is dollars and cents. We were denied the college
education. I only went to the 12th grade in school. I hustled
and I did pretty good after. But that right of a college
education was worth a lot of money. And the DOT and some of the
Department of Labor said it was worth anywhere from $150,000 to
$300,000, in 1945 dollars or '44 dollars. In today it would be a
million dollars that we were denied. And I think most people who
are denied a million dollars would like to try to get some of it
back, especially when the get 80/85 years old.
Mr. Bradley. Well, just for the record, I want to make sure
you know I agree with you and I was just giving you a chance to
respond to that.
Mr. Allison. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. Bradley. Mr. Kinderman, do you -- I am going to give you
a chance to respond also.
Mr. Kinderman. Thank you, Mr. Bradley. It is very difficult
to sit here and oppose a popular bill, especially when in fact I
am a Merchant Mariner. I hold a Merchant Mariner's license, but
obviously not World War II.
I think Mr. Filner said it. He said "Who deserves what and
at what time?" This is, as you pointed out, not a unique group.
There are other groups who for various reasons have not received
veterans benefits at the time when they needed them either through
the controversy or the amount of time it took to make a
deliberation on eligibility.
World War II Merchant Mariners took a long time. You talk to
Vietnam veterans exposed to agent orange who suffered from cancer,
they will tell you it took a long time to get justice too. And
there seems to be a tradition of when you make the decision you
move forward, you do not look back. So we would have concerns
that if we do this monthly benefit without any constraints on
eligibility other than you were there, you served, and you are
alive today, or your spouse is alive, it would certainly open up
the possibilities that you would deal with many, many more groups.
I am old enough to remember that when I first came into this
business that the World War I veterans, they would always have a
bill, H.R. 1918, for a service pension. And there was always
great support for that, but it never came about. So I know this
is a very difficult situation for you.
Mr. Bradley. Thank you very much. I have no further
questions. If Mr. Udall or Ms. Berkley have no further questions,
I would like to thank the panel and thank all three of the panels
this afternoon. And state that, without objection, statements by
the following individuals and organizations will be entered into
the record: David Forte, Cleveland Marshall College of Law at
Cleveland State University; Lino Graglia, University of Texas Law
School; John Fee, Brigham Young University; the Disabled American
Veterans; The American Legion; the Paralyzed Veterans of America;
and the Vietnam Veterans of America.
[The statements appear on p. 121, p. 130, p. 131, p. 135, p.
136, and p. 149]
Mr. Bradley. I appreciate everyone's attendance this
afternoon. This Committee has a long tradition of bipartisanship,
which I think you have seen on display here this afternoon. On
behalf of the other members and Mr. Miller, we all look forward to
working with you to ensure a productive year. And once again we
thank you for your participation this afternoon. And with that
and with nothing further before this Subcommittee, I will adjourn
the hearing and thank you.
[Whereupon, at 3:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>