Thank you for allowing me this important opportunity to speak before you today. There are currently 25 million living American veterans. I am one of them. And every day more and more servicemembers, including those returning home from Iraq and Afghanistan, leave military service and become new members of that elite group of citizens.

These heroic Americans freely offer their lives to protect those they leave behind, and those they have never even met. For this sacrifice, we owe them our continued support and care.

As a member of both the Armed Services Committee and Veterans' Affairs Committee, I have a special interest in the outcome of this Commission's efforts.

I thank the Commissioners for agreeing to serve in this very important effort. My staff and I will be monitoring the conduct of this Commission and are very eager to see its outcome.

And when I say "outcome" I mean results of your effort, whether it be improved dialogue about these issues, recommendations, or otherwise. Do not feel compelled to come up with all of the answers here.

The veterans' disability compensation system is complex. I was pleased to hear that General Scott said that if your Commission needed additional time to complete its task that he would ask for it. This is important.

And I thank General Scott for recognizing that your monumental task may not be finished in 17 months and that our veterans deserve no less than appropriate recommendations after much dialogue and reflection.

You should be aware that changes to the disability compensation system could affect not only compensation, but also vocational rehabilitation, insurance, and health care to name a few.

And it must be understood that if we plan on making any changes to the disability compensation system, then we must additionally be prepared to make an appropriate investment in the Department of Veterans Affairs to see changes through from conception to fruition.

It must be said that the Veterans Benefits Administration does not always absorb changes in law and court decisions easily, so it would be wise to keep in mind that changes to the compensation system should not be taken lightly and will have real impact on a sometimes struggling system.

I want to also stress that any proposal that scales back existing benefits in the name of fiscal responsibility cheapens the service of today's servicemembers and those who came before them.

I, for one, will not tolerate any weakening in the definition of service-connection or a system of compensation that differentiates between those injured while in combat and those who are not. Our nation's servicemembers are on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

When our young people join the military they are virtually ours for the duration of their enlistment. We cannot then differentiate between injuries that occur while on duty and off duty because we expect them to always be on duty, available to protect us around the clock, everywhere and anywhere.

I want to talk just a bit about congressional intent and disability compensation. Congressional intent was three-fold:

First, to provide compensation for loss of earnings capacity based on "average" impairment capacity resulting from injuries in civil occupations. This compensation system is fair because it does not tailor compensation benefits to specific occupations that the veteran had been engaged in while in the military or as a civilian, and this system makes no distinction between officer and enlisted servicemembers.

Second, to account for quality of life reduction due to a service-connected disability. I would also want to clear up a misconception-- let us also not make false assumptions that every disabled person is content to work in a hi-tech career or behind a desk all day. Our disabled veterans have a variety of interests and skills. Yes, some disabled veterans would be happy with a so-called "desk" job. But many would not. The quality of a veteran's life changes with injury. We must continue to recognize this important point.

The third point I would like to make about Congressional intent is that we intended to assure military recruits that compensation for the risk inherent in military service would be provided and that their government will be there for them if they are injured.

I have a special fondness for the words of George Washington from so long ago. He said, "The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation."

I find President Washington's statement especially appropriate today when so many of our young people are in harm's way.

If we want to continue our all-volunteer military, we must assure our recruits that the veterans that came before them and those of their own generation will be cared for in the event of injury.

Thank you once again for your participation in this process. It is important and will affect the lives of millions of veterans.