[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2355, H.R. 2996, H.R. 4299, H.R. 5735, H.R.
5880, H.R. 5881 AND H.R. 2720
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE
AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-66
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
74-592 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BOB FILNER, California, Ranking
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado CORRINE BROWN, Florida
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
BILL FLORES, Texas BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio JERRY McNERNEY, California
JEFF DENHAM, California JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan JOHN BARROW, Georgia
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
ROBERT L. TURNER, New York
Helen W. Tolar, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado JERRY McNERNEY, California,
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York Ranking
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana JOHN BARROW, Georgia
ROBERT L. TURNER, New York MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
June 6, 2012
Page
Legislative Hearing On H.R. 2355, H.R. 2996, H.R. 4299, H.R.
5735, H.R. 5880, H.R. 5881 and H.R. 2720....................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairman Jon Runyan.............................................. 1
Prepared Statement of Chairman Runyan........................ 42
Hon. Jerry McNerney, Ranking Democratic Member................... 3
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jerry McNerney.................... 43
Hon. Steve Stivers, U.S. House of Representatives (OH-15)........ 4
Prepared Statement of Hon. Stivers........................... 44
Hon. Vicky Hartzler, U.S. House of Representatives (MO-04)....... 5
Prepared Statement of Hon. Hartzler.......................... 44
Hon. Larry Kissell, U.S. House of Representatives (NC-08)........ 7
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kissell........................... 45
Hon. John Culberson, U.S. House of Representatives (TX-07)....... 8
Prepared Statement of Hon. Culberson......................... 45
Executive Summary of Hon. Culberson.......................... 47
WITNESSES
Mr. Raymond Kelley, National Legislative Director, Veterans of
Foreign Wars................................................... 10
Prepared Statement of Raymond Kelley......................... 48
Mr. James Young, President, National Association of County
Veterans' Service Officers..................................... 12
Prepared Statement of James Young............................ 49
Executive Summary of James Young............................. 51
Mr. Jeff Hall, Assistant National Legislative Director, Disabled
American Veterans.............................................. 13
Prepared Statement of Jeff Hall.............................. 51
Ms. Debbie Lee, Founder, America's Mighty Warriors............... 22
Prepared Statement of Debbie Lee............................. 54
Ms. Lisa Ward, Widow to Major Richard Ward, U.S. Army, Persian
Gulf War....................................................... 24
Prepared Statement of Lisa Ward.............................. 55
Mr. Kelly Shackelford, President, The Liberty Institute.......... 25
Prepared Statement of Kelly Shackelford...................... 56
Executive Summary of Kelly Shackelford....................... 60
Mr. Jay Sanders, Senior Vice Commander, Veterans of Foreign Wars,
District 4..................................................... 26
Prepared Statement of Jay Sanders............................ 61
Ms. Kathryn Condon, Executive Director, Army National Cemeteries
Program........................................................ 35
Prepared Statement of Kathryn Condon......................... 62
Mr. Thomas Murphy, Director of Compensation and Pension Service,
United States Veterans Administration.......................... 36
Prepared Statement of Thomas Murphy.......................... 63
Accompanied by:
Richard Hippolit, Office of the General Counsel, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs
STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD
Hon. Ted Poe, U.S. House of Representatives (TX-02).............. 66
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2355, H.R. 2996, H.R. 4299, H.R. 5735, H.R.
5880, H.R. 5881 AND H.R. 2720
----------
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance
and Memorial Affairs,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:20 p.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jon Runyan
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Runyan, Stutzman, McNerney,
Barrow, and Walz.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JON RUNYAN
Mr. Runyan. Good afternoon. This legislative hearing on
H.R. 5881, H.R. 5880, H.R. 2355, H.R. 2996, H.R. 4299, H.R.
5735, and H.R. 2720 will come to order. I know we have a few
other Members that are on their way. So if we do have to go out
of order we will do so. But we are here today because we have
several important pieces of legislative on our agenda. Due to
the high level of interest in some bills before us I am going
to forego a lengthy statement and just touch on some of the
bills on today's agenda, two of which I have introduced and
another of which I have co-sponsored with the Ranking Member,
Mr. McNerney.
H.R. 5881, the Access to Veterans Benefits Improvement Act,
provides certain local government employees and certain
employees of Congress with access to case tracking information
throughout the Department of Veterans Affairs. We have a
responsibility to serve our veterans by ensuring that every
effort is made to simplify the claims process. Key actors of
this effort are county veterans service officers whose
expertise in claim development benefits veterans in many
communities across America. Their assistance is especially
critical to many thousands of veterans who live in rural areas,
hours away from a VA regional office. Many veterans are
overwhelmed as they try to navigate their way through the
claims process and they are further frustrated when they ask
for help from their county VSO or their member of Congress and
that person cannot access even the most basic information about
the status of their claim. This bill would allow these local
government officials to check on the status of a veteran's
claim and ensure that VA has all of the information needed to
process claims in the most efficient manner possible.
H.R. 5880, the Disability Examination Improvement Act,
extends the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
enter into contracts with private physicians to conduct mental
disability examinations. With the passage of this bill, the
successful program that allows physicians outside of the VA to
conduct contract examinations would continue. This would allow
the VA to more quickly evaluate veterans' disabilities and
facilitate access to the care they need.
Again, I have also co-sponsored with Ranking Member
McNerney H.R. 4299, the Quality Housing for Veterans Act. It
amends Title 38 of the U.S. Code to extend the authority of the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide specially adapted
housing assistance to veterans who are residing in temporary
housing owned by a family member. Our disabled heroes face many
challenges as they adapt to their new lives after service.
Maneuvering their way through their place of residence should
not be one of them. Furthermore, many veterans have found that
living in an environment in which they are surrounded by the
care and support of family is a critical component to their
successful recovery. This bill will ensure that our disabled
veterans can live in housing that is adapted to their needs,
whether they choose to live with family or elsewhere, better
equipping them to return to the civilian world and move forward
with their lives.
We will also be discussing the following bills: H.R. 2355,
the Hallowed Grounds Act, which would prohibit the burial of
certain categories of sex offenders in national cemeteries;
H.R. 2996, the Gulf War Presumptive Illness Act, which would
change the date by which veterans must present symptoms of
illness covered under the service connected presumption from
December 31, 2016 to December 31, 2018; H.R. 5735, which would
provide a tomb of remembrance at Arlington National Cemetery
for the purpose of proper interment of remain fragments of our
deceased heroes which are otherwise unidentifiable or
unclaimed; and finally, H.R. 2720, which would clarify the role
of the Department of Veterans Affairs in providing a benefit or
service related to interment or a funeral of a veteran, and for
other purposes.
Again, in the interests of time I would like to reiterate
my request that the witnesses abide by the decorum and rules of
the hearing and summarize your statements to five minutes or
less during your oral testimony. We have a large number of
individuals ready to testify on the legislation today and I
want to make sure that everyone is heard in a timely manner.
And I would also like to remind all present that without any
objection your written testimony will be made part of the
hearing record. I appreciate everyone's attendance here today
and would like to now call on the Ranking Member, Mr. McNerney,
for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Jon Runyan appears in
the Appendix]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MCNERNEY,
RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER
Mr. McNerney. I thank the Chairman. Today we have a full
schedule. That includes seven bills before us that address some
of the unique needs of our Nation's veterans. The bills pertain
to issues ranging from burial eligibility to monuments, from
claims processing, and C&P exams, to presumptive illnesses, and
from adaptive housing benefits to freedom of speech issues.
H.R. 2996, the Gulf War Syndrome Presumptive Illness
Extension Act of 2011, sponsored by Mr. Kissell of North
Carolina, would extend the period of time in which the VA
presumes the service connection of certain disabilities of
veterans who served in the Persian Gulf War as well as
Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation
New Dawn, and Afghanistan. The regulation establishing the
period of time that the VA has for identifying presumptive
illnesses relating to certain veterans' military service will
now expire according to current law on December 31, 2016 thanks
to the VA's recent rulemaking. H.R. 2996 would extend this
period to December, 2018, which would allow these veterans to
file for a set of conditions that may arise years after their
services, as we have seen in veterans following the Vietnam
War. This bill would also extend the qualifying service area to
include Afghanistan and other supporting areas for Operations
Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and New Dawn.
I understand that the VA opposes these extensions. But I
think we need to look at whether expanding to these areas makes
sense. I think H.R. 2996 reinforces Congress' intent that all
veterans who served in these combat areas, and those serving in
nearby areas, should be entitled to these presumptions as we
await further scientific study on their illnesses.
Also included in today's hearing is H.R. 4299, the Quality
Housing for Veterans Act, a bill which I introduced. And I
thank the Chairman for his support of that bill. The bill seeks
to provide specially adapted housing assistance to veterans
residing temporarily in housing owned by a family caregiver.
Mr. Chairman, we have several other bills on the agenda
today, including H.R. 5880 and H.R. 5881. While I support the
bill H.R. 5880, which would extend the VA's contract authority
with private providers of C&P exams, I also want to ensure that
we remain vigilant in our oversight of this authority.
Your other bill, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5881, would grant
county veterans service officers and other state and local
employees, as well as staff members of Congress, with greater
access to veterans' claims information for tracking purposes. I
wholeheartedly support the mission of this bill, and of our
county veterans service officers who serve my constituents back
home. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
the benefits of this bill and how we may improve upon it to
avoid the privacy and security concerns voiced in the past by
the VA and currently by the VSOs.
I also look forward to hearing from our other stakeholders
on the potential impacts of 2720 and H.R. 2355 will have on our
Nation's veterans. Again, I wholeheartedly support the goals of
H.R. 5735 and hope we can make any necessary changes to be able
to move this measure forward.
Finally, I look forward to hearing the VA's views on these
bills and I thank the Members for their thoughtful legislation,
all the Members in front of us. And I thank our other esteemed
witnesses for joining us today. And I look forward to hearing
your testimonies. Thank you, and I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Jerry McNerney appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank the gentleman. We will introduce our
first panel quickly. First we will hear from the Honorable
Steve Stivers from Ohio, who is sponsoring H.R. 5735. And then
we will hear from the Honorable Vicky Hartzler from Missouri,
who is sponsoring H.R. 2355. And then we will hear from the
Honorable Larry Kissell from North Carolina, who is sponsoring
H.R. 2996. And finally we will hear from the Honorable John
Culberson from Texas, who is sponsoring H.R. 2720. I would like
to welcome you all to this legislative hearing. And all of your
complete and written statements will be entered into the
hearing record. And Congressman Stivers, we will start with
you. You are now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENTS OF HON. STEVE STIVERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF OHIO; HON. VICKY HARTZLER, A REPRESENTATIVE
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI, LARRY KISSELL, A
REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA;
AND HON. JOHN CULBERSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE
STATE OF TEXAS
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE STIVERS, (OH-15)
Mr. Stivers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
the Chairman and the Ranking Member for holding this hearing on
important legislation today, including my Place of Remembrance
Act. This bill would create a Place of Remembrance at Arlington
National Cemetery for veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan
conflicts and all contingency operations moving forward.
I was shocked and horrified like everybody else when I read
in the Washington Post on December 7th that Dover Air Force
Base Mortuary Affairs had been sending unidentified remains of
soldiers to Prince George's County Landfill. They actually
uncovered that 976 fragments from 274 military personnel were
cremated and then taken to a landfill between 2004 and 2008. I
think this is an outrage and we have got to fix it permanently.
Creating a proper memorial as a place of remembrance for these
remains and a final resting place with honor for those who
serve I think would ensure that a tragedy like this never
occurs again.
I understand that the Department of Defense has changed the
procedures to ensure that those cremated unidentified remains
are now, the ashes are spread at sea. However, while this may
be a satisfactory temporary measure, as an Army officer and
veteran I believe in the warrior ethos which, you know, says
never leave a fallen comrade behind. And I think bringing home
those unidentified remains and putting them in a place of
remembrance, of honor, is the proper long term solution.
So on May 10th I introduced H.R. 5735 that authorizes the
Secretary of the Army to establish an appropriate location at
Arlington National Cemetery as a place of remembrance for
interring those cremated remains. And it will make sure that
any unclaimed remains or unidentified DNA has an appropriate
final resting place.
I understand that there is the significance associated with
the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. This legislation is not
intended to detract from that honored memorial. And that is why
we are going to be renaming it the Place of Remembrance as
opposed to the Tomb of Remembrance to avoid any conflict.
My bill would allow for new and future generations of
heroes to, you know, have a Place of Remembrance for each
conflict moving forward for fallen, identified patriots from
those conflicts. Those who have given their final measure of
devotion in the service of our great Nation deserve a final
resting place worthy of their dedication, commitment, and
devotion.
So I hope that you will favorably consider this bill and
give it every consideration. I appreciate you holding the
hearing and look forward to working with you on any issues
associated with the legislation. I do want to thank Debbie Lee,
a Gold Star Mother, coming for the second panel to testify in
favor of this legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Steve Stivers appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Congressman Stivers. Congresswoman
Hartzler, you are now recognized for five minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. VICKY HARTZLER, (MO-04)
Mrs. Hartzler. Thank you very much, Chairman Runyan, and
Ranking Member McNerney, and distinguished Members. Thank you
for this opportunity to present to you the bill H.R. 2355,
which we are calling the Hallowed Grounds Act.
During a town hall that I held in my district last year a
women stood up and asked for my help, and relayed a heart
wrenching story of her childhood and the sexual abuse that she
endured at the hands of her father. He was a veteran, and when
he passed away he was buried in a national cemetery with full
honors. And she asked me to please stop this injustice and do
everything we can to prevent this from happening again.
He received a distinction afforded to war heroes despite
violating his family's trust, abusing his child, and committing
a violent crime. To honor this man with reverence and fanfare
is a disgrace.
Under current law military veterans are entitled to burial
in a veterans or national cemetery and to the receipt of
honorary emoluments, including a military honor guard, a U.S.
flag, and a certificate from the President. These honors
rightly honor the Americans who have given of themselves so all
in our Nation can live in safety and in peace.
However, there is a noteworthy exception. Following the
Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh, Congress passed and
President Clinton signed S923 on November 21, 1997, which
prohibits veterans convicted of a capital crime, such as murder
and treason, from receiving military honors. Prior to this
legislation McVeigh, a veteran of the First Gulf War, would
have been eligible to be buried in a national cemetery such as
Arlington.
While veterans guilty of capital crimes justly have been
denied the right to rest among our national heroes under this
bill, veterans convicted of sexual abuse of children still
remain entitled to these honors. During my research on the need
to introduce the Hallowed Grounds Act after my constituent
shared her story, I discovered that almost identical
legislation called Jenny's Law was introduced by Representative
John Shattuck during the last Congress and included in the
National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011 that
passed in the House. Regrettably, that legislation was stripped
from the final bill due to the lame duck session in 2010 and
need to pass quickly the MDAA before the end of the year.
I thank Representative Shattuck for his work in the past,
and the House past support for the idea on this important
issue. But while knowing that my constituent's case is not an
isolated case is a terrible realization, this reality
highlights the fact that work must be done to prevent the
burial of serious sexual offenders in our treasured national
cemeteries.
Current law affording military honor to veterans convicted
of sexual abuse is an affront to decency and results in victims
and their families being victimized all over again. It demeans
of all those who have served this Nation to allow a child
abuser to be buried alongside America's war heroes in a
veterans cemetery.
Because I believe that no victim of sexual abuse should
suffer the pain of knowing their abuser has received the honor
befitting one who selflessly served others, I introduce the
Hallowed Grounds Act. The Hallowed Grounds Act will prohibit an
individual who is classified as a tier three sex offender under
the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act from being
buried at a veterans or national cemetery. The Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act divides offenses into three
tiers, and has various levels within those tiers. The most
serious offenses are grouped in tier three.
These individuals have committed horrendous crimes against
children accompanied by brutality and violence. These offenders
behave in a manner that violates everything for which a soldier
in our country fights, justice, the rule of law, and safety of
our citizens. I believe these offenders have surrendered their
right to be honored by victimizing and oppressing others.
During my time in Congress I am committed to ensuring that
those veterans who have fought honorably in defending our great
Nation receive the utmost respect and care they deserve.
Veterans put their lives on the lines to preserve our Nation's
freedom and we owe them an immeasurable debt of gratitude. The
Hallowed Grounds Act will continue that work by making certain
every man and every woman buried in our veterans our national
cemeteries will not share their final resting place with
someone who has committed such horrific crimes.
I appreciate your interest in the importance of this bill,
and I ask for your support. It is vital that the final resting
place of our heroes, our national cemeteries, remain hallowed
grounds for our veterans who have served so valiantly and for
the families who hold them dear. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Vicky Hartzler appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Congresswoman Hartzler. Congressman
Kissell, you are now recognized for five minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY KISSELL, (NC-08)
Mr. Kissell. I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking
Member, and the Members of this Subcommittee for allowing me to
testify today on H.R. 2996, a bill that has been offered by my
colleague from Tennessee, Phil Roe, and myself, the Gulf War
Presumptive Illness Act of 2011.
Back when I worked in textiles I had a lady who I worked
with whose husband was in the Gulf War action from the very
beginning, came home, and there were things wrong. And he could
not figure out what it was. And he would go to the VA, and they
could not figure out what it was. As time went forward we came
to know that many of our veterans coming back were suffering
from a lot of different symptoms and not being able to assign
it to a specific disease.
The Veterans Administration in 1994 started taking these
actions seriously. And on March 18, 2010 there were nine
specific diseases that were declared to be presumptive diseases
for anyone serving in Southwest Asia in the military from
September 19, 2001 on. And presumptive diseases means that if
you have these symptoms of this disease, and you served there,
then you do not have to prove what you did. You do not have to
make the connection. There is a presumption that you came into
contact with whatever that gave you the diseases.
There is also 13 undiagnosed symptoms that they have
assigned. Things such as fatigue, muscle and joint pain, skin
disorders, that also are under this presumption of have come in
contact during this time period.
There are also three medically undiagnosed chronic
multisymptom illnesses that they have also put into this
statement of March 18, 2010.
It is interesting to note that approximately 250,000,
estimated 250,000 of the 750,000 veterans that served in
Southwest Asia have come in contact with whatever and had these
presumptive illnesses.
It was mentioned by the Ranking Member that the VA is
opposing this. I would like to also, what we are wanting to do
is move the time period of this presumption to continue to
2018. I would like to point out that the VA was going to end
this program in 2012 until Congressman Roe and myself entered
this bill. Then they moved it to 2016.
I very much believe that those who have served for us, and
continue to serve for us, we cannot predict what additional
situations these folks may encounter as they move forward. We
need to keep this situation a presumptive so that they can move
forward without having to prove what they were doing. We saw
this being true so much with Agent Orange and Vietnam. Here we
are 40 to 50 years later still dealing with this, and we
finally got to the point where we said you do not have to prove
what you were doing. There is a presumption if you have certain
symptoms that you were exposed to Agent Orange. Our veterans
should not have to worry about this.
We should keep this presumption going at least until 2018,
and we should move this decision to Congress. It should be a
legislative decision so that we make sure that our veterans, as
we continue to have them come home, as we continue to see these
symptoms maybe take on different versions, that we take care of
our veterans. And I thank you for your consideration of this
bill.
[The prepared statement of Larry Kissell appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Congressman Kissell. Congressman
Culberson, you are now recognized for five minutes for your
testimony.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CULBERSON, (TX-07)
Mr. Culberson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
I appreciate very much the Committee's consideration of H.R.
2720, which Congressman Ted Poe and I filed and bring to you
today to make certain that a veteran's funeral is absolutely
private and sacred, as it always should be, between the family,
the funeral director, and the veteran who made the arrangements
for the funeral. We, and the legislation I find is
unfortunately necessary because the VA, as recently as two
months ago, has continued to deny that they ever interfered
with the veteran's funeral, in my case in Houston, Texas, which
I witnessed for myself.
We have, as I know in every one of our districts, either if
you have the privilege of having a veterans cemetery in your
district or nearby, the local VFW chapter always handles the
ritual, the beautiful ritual that is performed over the grave
of their fallen comrade at the time of the funeral service. The
VFW also of course can provide a rifle team to do the 21-gun
salute, which is also a marvelous and a very moving ceremony.
And that has of course always been handled privately, with the
family and the funeral director in direct contact and
consultation with the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
Unfortunately until this happened in Houston. We had a
funeral director at the, cemetery director at the cemetery, who
repeatedly and deliberately interfered with the funeral
service. I do not know, there is no telling how many veterans
were buried in the Houston cemetery without the benefit of the
ritual or a prayer being said over their grave by their
comrades because of the interference of the director, the
cemetery director. It went on for some time before we
discovered it. She denied a prayer being said at the Memorial
Day service last year. And a lawsuit resulted. The VA of course
continued to deny it.
I got involved, of course, representing Houston and
chairing the Veterans and Military Construction Subcommittee on
Appropriations and I wanted to make certain that this never
happened again. The VA continued to deny it. So frankly one
afternoon I had, in Houston, Texas air conditioning is
essential and my air conditioner died at our house in Houston.
And I could not make it back in time for votes that evening. So
I stayed behind to take care of the air conditioning, several
thousand of dollars I did not have to get the air conditioner
fixed. And while the guy was working on the air conditioner I
found out there was a funeral going on that day at noon. So I
drove out to the cemetery, met with the honor guard, and
frankly just feathered in with them to go in and see for
myself. And sure enough, the honor guard commander came into
the funeral home. And I had already been getting stories from
the other members of the honor guard about the repeated
interference. And he came in and said it has happened again.
The cemetery director just told me that I cannot perform, we
cannot perform the ritual for the service of our comrade here
whose funeral is about to take place. And I said well you all
just go ahead and do it. Let me see her do it right in front of
us.
They backed off. The funeral director, the cemetery
director did not interfere with that particular funeral. But
the problem continued for some time. Another example of how
fouled up the Federal government is, is it was impossible to
get the cemetery director removed, virtually impossible. All we
could do was get her transferred.
Ultimately the lawsuit was resolved with a settlement. The
VA agreed in a 22-page, 20-page settlement agreement to stop
doing all the things they said they had not been doing, that I
witnessed with my own eyes they were doing. So I filed this
legislation, Mr. Chairman and Members, to ensure that the
funeral is absolutely private. The legislation before you makes
it clear that the responsibility of the VA is limited to
providing the plot of American earth that the veteran has
earned by their service; to providing a headstone that the
veteran has earned by their service; to providing security,
maintenance, making sure they mow the lawn and keep the place
clean and reverent and that they--she also closed the chapel,
by the way. Closed the chapel and used it to store boxes.
Padlocked the chapel, took out the Star of David, the cross,
the Bible, used it to store boxes. Locked out the veterans.
Closed their coffee room. Would not let these wonderful old
gentlemen, two of whom had landed on Normandy Beach, fought in
Patton's Third Army, all the way to Czechoslovakia. These 80-
year-old gentlemen had never complained once, because they are
military. They were not going to fuss. And they just did what
she asked them to do.
So this legislation ensures the funeral is private between
the family, the funeral director, and the VA's responsibility
is to provide security, maintain the lawn, and otherwise stay
out of the way. And make sure that the Veterans of, the VFW
organizations are provided access to the cemeteries, and to
ensure that there is that absolute zone of privacy around every
American that the government cannot penetrate, including the
right to conduct a funeral in the way that you see fit between
you and your God. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of John Culberson appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you very much. And I will add, Mr.
Culberson, on a personal note, and to the Committee also, I
believe you said you were there July 8th for that specific
incident. I can tell you my father-in-law was buried in the
exact same cemetery 12 days later. And I had the very inverse
experience that you had. It was straightforward, most likely
because of your oversight of the situation. And I thank you for
that. And I did actually hang around afterwards and have a
conversation with the color guard. And everybody was
straightforward and said we do what the family asks of us. And
I think that, the interference is the one thing that we are
trying to tackle here. And I thank you for that. It was a
trying battle and a long battle with cancer from actually his
service in Vietnam, and he was a Purple Heart recipient also.
But I thank all the Members. I know they have a long list
of things to do today. We will have plenty of questions for our
stakeholders. But I thank all of you for your leadership in
bringing all these bills forward. And, I know several of you
asked to amend the bills. And we will get through that, through
that process, both before and during the mark up process. So I
look forward to working with each of you to make these good
pieces of legislation that truly honor our veterans and their
service to this great country. And with that, you are all
excused. And I will call the second panel forward.
I call the second panel forward, Raymond Kelley, James
Young, and Jeff Hall. First, we will hear from Mr. Raymond
Kelley, the National Legislative Director for Veterans of
Foreign Wars on behalf of H.R. 2355, H.R. 2996, H.R. 4299, H.R.
5735, H.R. 5880, H.R. 5881, and H.R. 2720. And next we will
hear from Mr. James Young, President of the National
Association of County Veterans Service Officers on behalf of
H.R. 5881. And then we will hear from Mr. Jeff Hall, the
Assistant National Director for Disabled American Veterans who
will testify on H.R. 2996, 4299, 2355, 5735, 5880, 5881, and
2720. Thank you all for your testimony today. Welcome. And we
will begin with Mr. Kelley.
STATEMENTS OF MR. RAYMOND KELLEY, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS; MR. JAMES YOUNG, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY VETERANS SERVICE OFFICERS; AND
MR. JEFF HALL, ASSISTANT NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS
STATEMENT OF RAYMOND KELLEY
Mr. Kelley. On behalf of the two million members of the
Veterans of Foreign Wars and our auxiliary, thank you, Mr.
Chairman, for the opportunity to testify today.
In 1997 Congress recognized that veterans convicted of the
most violent crimes should lose their right to be interred in
national cemeteries. The logic was commission of capital crimes
should trump veterans' burial benefits. Burial in a national
cemeteries is a privilege, a place where service and sacrifice
can be honored by the American public on sacred ground. The
most violent and reprehensible crimes break faith with society
and our servicemembers and veterans who have been laid to rest.
The VFW believes in this law and believes it should be
expanded to include the most predatory and violent sex
offenders. The VFW fully supports H.R. 2355, which would
exclude tier three sex offenders from burial in our national
cemeteries.
Despite decades of research on Gulf War Illness we do not
yet have a definitive answer on its causality. Though some
encouraging research is showing signs of hope, it is imperative
that treatment of the men and women with illness related to
their Gulf War service continue without interruption. This
legislation will provide presumption for veterans of current
conflicts who may be struggling with conditions that VA cannot
diagnose, a provision the VFW strongly supports. Granting
presumption for undiagnosed illnesses is critically important
in ensuring that these veterans receive the care that they have
earned while science catches up with these illnesses. We
encourage the Committee to pass H.R. 2996.
The VFW supports the reauthorization of H.R. 4299. Through
VA's adaptive housing grant program hundreds of the most
severely injured veterans have been given the opportunity to
ease back into civilian life without making them choose between
future and current needs. By expanding the grant program
through 2014 you will maintain flexibility and make a
difference in the quality of life for many disabled veterans
and their families.
The VFW supports H.R. 5735, which would ensure fragmented
remains of American servicemembers killed in Iraq, Afghanistan,
and any subsequent conflicts be treated with the dignity and
honor worthy of their sacrifice. Never again should a family be
left to wonder whether their fallen hero's remains end up in a
landfill. This bill will set a new standard for honoring the
sacrifices of the fallen by memorializing the brave men and
women on sacred ground in Arlington National Cemetery.
Congress gave VA the authority to contract with non-VA
doctors to perform disability examinations. This authority will
expire at the end of this year. This has been a useful tool for
VA to provide timely evaluation exams without taking VA doctors
away from direct patient care. The VFW strongly supports H.R.
5880.
The VFW cautiously supports H.R. 5881, which would grant
certain congressional staffs and local government agency
employees access to VA's case tracking information. However, we
have some concerns. There is no provision that will ensure that
employees are properly trained in privacy issues, nor is there
any oversight or reporting back to VA on who has access and
what prompted the employee to look into that particular case.
This provision will greatly improve the responsiveness to
veterans' requests and it should be pursued. But assurances
must be made to protect privacy and limit searches to only
those who make formal requests. Also, state and county service
officers currently have access to case tracking information by
virtue of a power of attorney. The VFW believes it would be
wise to continue to limit these employees' access to only
veterans with whom they hold a power of attorney.
The VFW supports the intent of H.R. 2720, which will
provide clarity for both National Cemetery Administration staff
and families and estates of deceased veterans on what is
statutorily available and allowable at NCA funerals, memorial
services, and cemeteries. This legislation will give clear
guidelines for VA employees to follow and provide piece of mind
for veterans families who are planning funeral arrangements.
The VFW agrees that every effort and preference should be made
to ensure VA cemetery directors are veterans. But requiring
veteran status to fill vacancies could keep VA from filling
positions, which could have a greater adverse effect on
cemetery operations than hiring a non-veteran.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify
today and I look forward to any questions from the Committee.
[The prepared statement of Raymond Kelley appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Kelley. Mr. Young, you are now
recognized for five minutes for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JAMES YOUNG
Mr. Young. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee, and staff. It is truly my honor to be here for this
hearing. As President of the National Association of County
Veterans Service Officers, I am here today to comment on the
proposed bill to grant access of Veterans Administration
information to governmental veterans service officers.
The National Association of County Veterans Service
Officers is an organization made up of local government
employees. Local government employees that believe we can help
the Department of Veterans Affairs reduce the number of the
backlog benefit claims that veterans are currently waiting to
have adjudicated by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Our
members work in local government offices as an arm of
government, if you will, in 37 states, and currently are
comprised of 2,400 full time employees in 700 communities. We
are not like veterans service organizations. We are not dues
driven, nor membership driven. Every veteran, their dependents,
and their survivors who live in our respective jurisdictions
are all our clients. We serve them at no cost to the client. We
are equipped to handle and ready to assist veterans one on one
with every Department of Veterans Affairs benefit, state and
local benefits. And the reason we are here today, to assist
them in tracking their claims.
There are over 22 million honorably discharged veterans of
the armed forces of the United States. During the course of
their life after the military they may have the occasion to
file a benefits claim for pension or compensation. To the
citizens of our communities, we are the Veterans
Administration.
The main issue we are here to talk about today is the lack
of cooperation by the Department of Veterans Affairs in
recognizing our members as an arm of government. We are treated
as if we are a service organization rather than who we are. As
governmental employees we are not unlike the VA itself. There
is just a failure to recognize us in that light.
Let us say that a veteran comes into my office to file a
claim for a knee injury that occurred while the veteran was on
active duty in the Army. We first have to determine eligibility
based on war time or peace time service, and a number of other
factors established by the VA. We help the veteran select a
veterans service organization to represent the veteran through
a power of attorney. This is done so that the veteran may have
representation at the VA regional office and for any subsequent
appeals that may occur. Our local government veterans service
officers may hold the power of attorney, but many are just too
far away from the regional offices to adequately represent
their clients.
Then after about three months the veteran comes back to my
office and asked what the status of his claim is, as he has
heard nothing. I have no way to gain access to this knowledge,
even though the claim originated in my office. I have to refer
him to the VA's 1-800 number and hope he can ask the right
questions, or to the veterans service organization that holds
his power of attorney and who he does not know and probably
will not call.
We are asking in this bill under consideration is to allow
the governmental veterans service officers to have read only
access to their client's information. This would allow the
local governmental veterans service officer to properly track
and provide follow up for their clients. Sometimes the veteran
will file a claim or an appeal on a denied claim, and go to
another veterans service office in another jurisdiction and
file another claim for the same thing. This ultimately adds to
the backlog and unnecessarily bogs down the system.
If enacted this bill would avoid duplication of claims and
which in turn will assist in reducing the current backlog of
the claims itself. We know there is much consternation on the
part of Veterans Affairs regarding this issue. They have had
some problems in the past in keeping secure the information
that the veteran must give to the government to claim benefits
that they have earned.
And in closing, we ask in this day and age in our great
Nation it is unthinkable that a young man or woman enters into
military service honorably and upon discharge finds
difficulties in obtaining the rights and the benefits that they
earned through service and sacrifice. It is our responsibility,
the people of the United States, to live up to the promise of a
better and brighter future. The promise that includes a myriad
of veterans benefits should the servicemember become injured in
defense of our freedom, but also the underlying promise that
says if you serve your country with honor your country will be
there to serve you, not with a handout but with a hand up.
NACVS has been in existence since 1990 and we believe that
we can reverse the growing backlog of claims, Mr. Chairman, by
enacting this legislation. Thank you very much for the
privilege of being here today. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of James Young appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you for your testimony, Mr. Young. Mr.
Hall, you are now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF JEFF HALL
Mr. Hall. Thank you. Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member
McNerney, and Members of the Subcommittee. On behalf of DAV and
its membership of 1.2 million wartime service disabled veterans
we appreciate the opportunity to be here today to offer our
views regarding pending legislation being considered by this
Subcommittee. My full written statement has been submitted for
the record so in the interest of brevity my oral remarks will
be limited only to a couple of bills being considered.
Initially DAV supports H.R. 2996 as it is consistent with
our long standing resolution to extend the presumptive period
for service connection for certain disabilities incurred by
veterans who served in the Persian Gulf War, Operations Iraqi
and Enduring Freedom, and Operation New Dawn. Countless
veterans who have served in these conflicts and many who are
still not home suffer from chronic unexplained illnesses. These
illnesses are still not fully understood while answers and
proper treatment remain elusive. Vigilant research must
continue until all of these brave men and women are compensated
and cared for appropriately.
Additionally, DAV supports H.R. 4299 to extend the
authority of the Secretary to provide temporary residence
adaptation, or TRA grants, to the seriously disabled veterans
who are eligible for specially adaptive housing grants from the
VA. However, consistent with our resolution DAV believes the
TRA grant amount should be a separate and distinct, stand alone
benefit and not deducted from the full amount of the specially
adaptive housing grant, which they will assuredly need when
they are ready to move into their own residence.
Mr. Chairman, DAV also has a long standing resolution to
reform the VA's disability claims process which we believe
provides a reasonable corollary for us to support H.R. 5880,
which extends the Secretary's authority for the utilization of
privately contracted disability compensation examinations. We
believe this could improve the disability claims process,
specifically the amount of time VA spends coordinating and
accomplishing these examinations. As such, DAV supports H.R.
5880.
And lastly, H.R. 5881 is intended to improve the access to
veterans benefits by providing certain employees of members of
Congress or local government agencies, such as county veterans
service officers or CVSOs, with access to VA's case tracking
system. Clearly the intent of the bill is for covered employees
to be able to expand their assistance to veterans by obtaining
the status of a veteran's pending claim through direct and
remote access into VA's case tracking system. DAV supports the
intent of H.R. 5881 as we believe this would be beneficial to
all parties considered. However, we have concerns about the
language of the bill and recommend that the Subcommittee
broaden the language to ensure our veterans' privacy and
personal information is safeguarded. Allowing an individual,
such as a CVSO, to obtain private information, even the status
of a pending claim, for any veteran without the need for a
properly executed power of attorney from the veteran poses
serious concerns.
Mr. Chairman, DAV NSOs who are highly trained experts in
claims representation are accredited by the VA and have the
ability to access a veteran's records in any format. However,
DAV, like other VSOs, can only access the records for those
veterans we represent by way of a properly executed power of
attorney. While we do see the benefits for a CVSO to be able to
ascertain the status of a pending claim and inform the veteran
as such, we do not agree to a covered employee being able to
access the VA's system without first obtaining a written
request and consent from the veteran to do so, and then before
access is given electronic certification must be completed by
the covered employee verifying the veteran's written request
and consent have been obtained.
Additionally Mr. Chairman, we think the bill should plainly
state that access to the VA's case tracking system be limited
only to the status of a pending claim and the specific issues
contained therein. Likewise, the bill should also contain a
provision specific to the penalties for any violation, such as
accessing or attempting to access the status of any pending
claim without the written request and consent from the veteran
or claimant.
And lastly, we believe the Subcommittee should consider
incorporating into the bill an additional safeguard provision
wherein the veteran is notified by the VA when his or her
record is being accessed by a covered employee. As you know,
this is done by many companies when something such as changing
an account information occurs online, an individual is notified
of such activity. We feel this would offer further assurance to
the veteran, especially those without representation, that has
authorized this action and is aware of its occurrence, as well
as alerting VA to any unauthorized accessing attempts.
As stated, Mr. Chairman, DAV supports the intent of H.R.
5880. We simply want to ensure that proper security measures
are in place to protect the privacy of our veterans. Although
DAV is unable to support the bill at this time we would be
pleased to work closely with the Subcommittee to make these
recommended changes to the bill language. This concludes my
remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions from you or
the Subcommittee.
[The prepared statement of Jeff Hall appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you very much. I will begin the first
round of questioning. I think we all agree that being able to
access veterans' claims is a sensitive area, and we do have to
work on that. I think both Mr. Hall and Mr. Kelley raised that,
and we will continue to work on that. I know when veterans
approach my office for assistance, they do have to sign consent
forms for us to actually access their files and provide any
kind of assistance, whether it is with the VA or social
security. So those type of things are in place.
My first question is for Mr. Young. Why do you believe that
the VA is reluctant to grant access to county veterans service
officers?
Mr. Young. Based on experience, Mr. Chairman, like these
two gentlemen alluded to, access and privacy, we totally agree
with that. A person comes to my office, as an example,
inquiring about the status of his or her claim. I can log on to
Virtual VA and I get a message that says I do not hold the POA.
Not a problem. Then that person, we get on the phone, and call
the 1-800. And we get through. First we get an automated
message that says that due to the large volumes of calls please
leave a call back number, and these are the available times
that the VA can call you back. Normally it is 72 hours out or
longer. The person is sitting across from me and we are waiting
on this. Before we do any action in our offices at all, I do
not know if these gentlemen are aware of this or not, but our
officers are the ones who assign the POAs to DAV, VFW, or any
other service organization.
Additionally we have an additional document giving our
office permission from the veteran to do that. And that person
signs that, and we send that documentation along with the 2122
to the service organization, and ultimately to the Veterans
Administration. All we are trying to do is ensure that person
gets a proper and speedy representation. But having to wait
four or five days for a call back, and sometimes the person
will call us, not physically come into the office. But call and
want to know, ``Jim, can you check on the status of my claim?''
He or she is not physically sitting there, and if we do not
hold POA, and I hold five cross accreditations, if I do not
hold a POA for that person I cannot help them. So the best I
can do is call back and tell them, ``I am sorry. I cannot help
you. These are your options.''
And we are in the business at the county level to assist
the veterans in whatever endeavor it is that they are pursuing
within the Veterans Administration. That is what we are trained
to do. That is our mission in life. The veteran.
Mr. Runyan. So do you think from the VA's perspective it is
more of a legal situation?
Mr. Young. Correct.
Mr. Runyan. Okay. A couple of questions for Mr. Kelley. In
dealing with 5735, which is the The Tomb of Remembrance bill,
are we precluding future heroes from being included in the Tomb
of the Unknown Soldier with starting something like that?
Mr. Kelley. I do not think so. They are two separate, two
separate issues. The Tomb of the Unknown are remains of people
that we do not know who they were. This is we know who they
were, but because of circumstances, whether they just could not
identify a specific body part, or that the family has said we
no longer want you to pursue anything further, we are trying to
close a chapter in the book. But there still needs to be
respect given to those remains. So we see them completely
separate. And we feel that the legislation should move forward.
Mr. Runyan. Mr. Hall, and maybe Mr. Kelley if you want to,
pertaining to Mr. Culberson's legislation, I think we all agree
on the aspect that if we only hire veterans as NCA cemetery
directors, it shrinks our talent pool. I think we are all on
the same page with that. For the record, I want everybody to
know that the National Cemetery Administration is one of the
leading agencies in the Federal government that hires veterans.
I believe they are at about 80 percent. So they are one of the
leaders in that. And, I think you brought it up in your
testimony, Mr. Kelley, that, if there is not a qualified
veteran to do that and the agency is forced to hire a veteran
anyway, you are not going to get the best director in there to
do the best job. And I think we can all agree on that.
Mr. Kelley. I think thinking long term as well, that right
now less than one percent of folks serve in the military. In 20
years from now our Vietnam era veterans, and all our veterans
who were forced into service, are going to be at a retirement
age. And we are going to be trying to draw from a pool that is
very, very minute. And so thinking long term, yeah, sure today
we might be able to find cemetery directors who are veterans.
But 20 years from now we may have a struggle on our hands, with
finding veterans to fill these types of jobs.
Mr. Runyan. I will recognize the Ranking Member Mr.
McNerney. I will probably have a few more questions. But the
gentleman from California is recognized.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is a large
number of bills so it can be kind of confusing. The bill which
I introduced, 4299, Mr. Hall, you commented that you had a
modification you would like to see on that. And basically that
means that what you are suggesting is that if those benefits
are applied to a family that is caring for a veteran, that they
should not be deducted from that veteran's sort of allocation.
Is that correct? Is that what you are advocating?
Mr. Hall. That is correct. We have a resolution, we have
had it for quite some time, that essentially if you have an
overall amount allowed for a special adaptive housing grant, I
think the amount is $60,000 at the present time, the temporary
residence assistance grant means $14,000 is deducted from that,
as we understand it. And so when the individual in the
temporary state, and they might need to be in that state for a
while, when they are ready to finally move on to their own
residence, they are $14,000 short of what their full amount
would be. And we would like to see those be separate amounts,
or separate benefits rather.
Mr. McNerney. Okay, that is a good suggestion. I also found
your suggestions on 5881, the Access to Veterans Information,
to be helpful. I guess what I am concerned is how burdensome
will those recommendations end up being for the VA to
implement? So what I would like to do is work with you on
looking at those. Let us not create a whole new bureaucracy but
let us see what we can do that make that happen.
Mr. Hall. We agree. We are not trying to create a
cumbersome situation here. We want, again at the center of it
we want to ensure the, you know, the privacy is protected from
just random access. And so in doing so I guess we can envision
if a veteran were to come in to see Mr. Young where they did
not have a power of attorney executed in that situation that
essentially they would have a form, and I think the Chairman
had alluded to that, where you simply, this acknowledges that
you are requesting us to access this information and giving us
consent to do so. That signature alone on a form like that
would be something simple that could be executed. And then when
they go to access it electronically, to go into the VA system,
I do not know if VA has this particular aspect of it or how
hard it would be, or difficult, for them the first thing that
would come up is an acknowledgment that you have this type of
consent and authorization to do so. And by clicking that any
violations thereafter, should there be, you know, could be
dealt with within the law.
Mr. McNerney. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Kelley, on 2720, my
reading of your oral testimony was that VA supports the intent.
And I think I do, too. What I am concerned about is how, again,
how burdensome is that going to be in implementing that? I
mean, do we want to have the VA that disconnected from the
process? There may be a need to have the VA involved to make
sure, or other entities involved, to make sure that people's
desires are met. In other words, if a family wants a certain
sort of a ceremony that they can have a right to have that
ceremony. If they do not want a certain kind of a ceremony,
that they would also have the right to not have that kind of
ceremony?
Mr. Kelley. I think that is what this piece of legislation
is trying to do, is prevent any outside influence. Allow that
family member, or those family members, to have complete
control over the process without interference or influence. And
there was a very unfortunate case in the Houston cemetery that
showed a light on something that needs to be statutorily
changed, or codified I guess. I think that it was out there, it
just was not being followed so making it statute would go a
long way to ensuring that VA employees understand what they are
supposed to do, and as a member of a family of a veteran they
can look and say, ah, this is what my expectations can be and
what I can ask of and work with the service organizations who
are providing the ceremony.
Mr. McNerney. Do you think there is, that the VFW, the VFW
normally handles these sorts of----
Mr. Kelley. All the, most service organizations have color
guards. So the American Legion, AMVETS, and I am sure a lot of
the other----
Mr. McNerney. Are there specific guidelines within the VFW
in particular that requires them to make sure that the family's
wishes are met?
Mr. Kelley. That is, yes, I do not know if it is something
in some statute that we have in our constitution and bylaws.
And that is the, just the precedent that we have set. That we
ask the family what they want and that we abide by that.
Mr. McNerney. All right. I will yield back.
Mr. Runyan. Mr. Walz is now recognized.
Mr. Walz. Thank you, Chairman, and Ranking Member, and
thanks for bringing up these good pieces of legislation. To all
of our witnesses, thank you for being here and helping us out.
Mr. Hall, I absolutely hear you on this issue. I think this
privacy issue on accessing data is absolutely critical. And it
is nonnegotiable. And I think Mr. Runyan who put this out, and
we have been talking about this for quite some time, is
certainly open to making this stronger. I do think though an
all hands on deck attitude towards getting these claims
backlogs off, making more access especially in the areas, the
rural areas, the more experts we have and the better ability to
move these claims is better.
My experiences have been that the CVSOs do a fabulous job
of protecting those. We can make sure those safeguards are in
there. But I do believe and have been a strong believer that
this is just one more asset to assisting the veterans and
processing these claims. And I think it is an evolving process
but I am certainly glad to have you, and Mr. Kelley sort of
cautiously supports for the same exact reason. You need to be
watchdogs on that. You need to dog this thing. And you need to
make sure as this is written that we close every potential
loophole for that. So very appreciative of where you work
there.
And I think on many of these, I too wanted to make segue on
2720. I think Mr. Culberson's intent is exactly where it should
be. This sacred ability of bearing someone the way the family
wants it is absolutely critical. And this is maybe where the
rub is on this. The situation in Houston, as you said, I think
unfortunate is probably a light term for it. You had, if a
family has a problem on the day of a burial that is absolutely,
you cannot rectify that. It is a memory that is burned. And you
have to get that right. I clearly understand that.
And I say this, that I think we have to be thoughtful in
how we do this. I have unfortunately been part of too many
honor guards for this. I am honored to do it, but it is always,
it is heart breaking when you go to it. And these are your
fellow warriors. So the one thing I have noticed is, though, it
is hard to get honor guards, especially in rural areas. It is
hard to get information when our warriors are being interred
and maybe the funeral home or the local post do not have the
ability to notify them. I think it is VA again, to make sure
that they are maintaining the plot, as Mr. Culberson said, and
doing everything there. But we have got to ensure, I said, as
my team that went around, we had to be conscious of what the
family wanted. And I was parts of burials where they wanted
very little reference to religion in it. That was their
personal choice. Whether that was my belief or not was up to
them. And I have also been part of elaborate rituals that I
thought was appropriate for us to be part of, the 13 folds, for
example. That can be that. I am very proud of that. That was my
job as the team leader to make sure we did that. And I think
that is, for the families that want the 13 folds said over them
they should have that ability.
I think the thing that I am, we are trying to figure out is
how do we get to that point to make sure we do not
inadvertently put something into a service that that family
does not want? Or pull it back out? And I think the indelicate
nature of the default position was to pull all references out
and make it difficult for the family was the wrong approach. I
think maybe the default position is there, as long as that
family, this is a tough time for them though. It is a tough
time to get good information. It is a tough time to understand
where those are at. And I think having folks who are there to
listen and the folks who will say if they tell us. Because it
is a challenge when somebody tells you, it is hard to
understand, well we want this type of ceremony, or we want this
type of ceremony if it does not mesh strictly with you. So I
want to make sure we get that right. And make sure that, again,
it has been expressed by the author of the legislation that the
intent was to ensure that the family's rights were honored at
that point and that is absolutely the way it should be.
I am pleased to say, like Chairman Runyan said, the ones I
have been to that has seemed to have been the case. But whether
we had an overzealous or a personal agenda on someone there,
that needs to be protected against to make sure that does not
happen. So I think we can get this thing right, making sure it
is there, and still adhering to those religious liberties,
whatever that denomination may be and that choice. So I
appreciate the thoughtfulness on this. I think we can certainly
take a look at it more.
And again, Mr. Chairman, I congratulate you. This is, this
is certainly how governance should be done and legislation
should be written. Constituents bring up things, they bring it
to their member of Congress, they are brought with experts to
testify on this, we look at them, we are willing to make the
changes, and we come back again and start moving through the
process. So thanks for keeping regular order in here. And I
yield back.
Mr. Runyan. I thank the gentleman. I know Mr. Stutzman said
he will pass on his questions right now. But I do have two more
questions. Number one for Mr. Hall, and you brought this up in
your testimony, talking about the presumptives from the Persian
Gulf and needing the research to know really what is happening.
As we sit here right now, being four years out from that
expiring, is it appropriate to just tack on two years now? Or
do we wait another year or two and maybe tack on five, six, or
seven more years?
Mr. Hall. I think that is the way it has been going since
the first, the inception of it. You get to a sunset period and
legislation is introduced to extend it. Certainly it is not
wrong to do so, and we are not suggesting to make it
necessarily open ended. DAV's resolution calls for a reasonable
period, which can probably be defined by a lot. I mean,
extending it two years now, it is already to 2016, this is
extending it to 2018. So six years from now. I do not know if
that is acceptable, how that is going to account for it. I am a
Persian Gulf War veteran and I am still able to do so from my
discharge in 1992, so 20 years. That is a long time. But there
is a young soldier still on active duty serving in Afghanistan
that is not even home yet, you know, that may have or be
susceptible. And we just want to ensure that there is an
adequate period of time. And whether it is, we get to 2017 and
you introduce legislation that says to extend it beyond the
2018 date, that I cannot say. But we just want to make sure
that it is reasonable and it can accommodate those individuals.
Mr. Runyan. Thanks for that. Mr. Kelley, dealing with 2355,
which is Congresswoman Hartzler's legislation that deals with
preventing sex offenders from being buried in an NCA cemetery.
Obviously at the surface I think we all understand that. But
when we start to analyze it, traditionally, the government does
not take away benefits. And what if, for example, a veteran had
a traumatic brain injury that caused this person to behave like
that, something we caused, and now we are dishonoring them. Do
you have any insight on that?
Mr. Kelley. We struggled organizationally because I agree,
that benefits are something that you have earned. But there are
some behaviors that supercede that service. And tier three sex
offenders, whatever the causality, and I believe the
congresswoman that spoke to this gave an exceptional example of
why. That just the heartache that someone could go through for
having a veteran get that service. And it degrades the service
of other veterans, for whatever the rationale is. Hopefully VA
can work with people who have brain injuries or any other
psychological injuries, and work with them, and get them the
care and the help that they need to prevent them from having
that behavior. But we would prefer to side on the caution side
and say remove that benefit.
Mr. Runyan. I understand that. But again, there will be
ones that are going to slip through the cracks. And turning to
the issue of verifying tier III sex offender status, are we
looking at the state database? Is the state database wrong?
There are all those things that fall through the cracks, that
you may be punishing people for things that by statute, they
should be receiving treatment for. Not receiving necessary
treatment often results in unintended consequences a lot of
time, and that is why it is so important to ensure that
veterans receive any treatment that they are entitled to.
Mr. Kelley. Absolutely.
Mr. Runyan. That is all I have. Mr. McNerney, anything
else?
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just going to
follow up with a few comments on your concerns about 2355. Of
course the intent is absolutely correct. But uniform
application of a bill like that, when every state has its own
set of statutes that classified offenses of different kinds,
and then requiring the VA to go through state by state for
every veteran that has died and try to find offenses, the
application of it is the problem. I think the intent is good.
The devil is going to be in the details to get that right, in
my opinion. Mr. Kelley?
Mr. Kelley. I think it is harder for the capital crimes.
Because states have, the tier three sex offenders is a national
standard on that registry. The capital crimes, that each state
has its own list of things that are considered a state capital
crime, along with the Federal ones. So I see that the former
would have been a little harder than moving forward with this.
Because the tier three is a very set, finite set of violations.
So.
Mr. McNerney. Well yeah, I would like to, in my opinion we
need to look at that a little more carefully to make sure that
we are not hurting people that have earned benefits. Now Mr.
Young, I just wanted to ask you what your opinion was on the
sort of improvements that Mr. Hall suggested on the H.R. 5881?
Whether you think those are something that would benefit the
bill or not?
Mr. Young. There is a good possibility. But I think, Mr.
Hall I believe he does understand the fact that if I, if he
walked into my office and I do not hold POA, I can call the VA
until the cows come home. They are not going to tell me
anything about Mr. Hall. Nothing. Zero. Nada. They are going to
tell me, ``You do not hold POA.'' Now Mr. Hall can call himself
from my office and he, they will ask him certain questions
about himself for identification purposes, and does he give the
VA permission to talk to me about his particular issues. And if
he says yes, they will. If he says no, they will hang up on me.
Rightfully so. But yeah, I am all for that.
My livelihood is veterans. And so whatever it takes to make
that person's claim work a little faster, I am for it. And if
that needs to be relooked or tweaked, I am all for that. But
they just will not arbitrarily talk to me when I call, or log
onto that secure Web site. That does not happen. Those
safeguards are in place as we are speaking.
Mr. McNerney. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Runyan. Mr. Stutzman, do you have any questions? Mr.
Walz? No? Well, that being said I thank you all for your
testimony and look forward to working with you on moving these
pieces of legislation forward. And you are all excused. And we
will ask our third panel to come to the table.
First we will hear from Ms. Debbie Lee, a Gold Star Mother
and founder of Americas Mighty Warriors, who will testify on
H.R. 5735. Then we will hear from Ms. Lisa Ward, widow of U.S.
Army Ranger Richard Ward, who will testify on H.R. 2720. And
then we will hear from Mr. Kelly Shackelford, President of the
Liberty Institute, testifying on behalf of 2720. And finally we
will hear from Mr. Jay Sanders, Vice Senior Commander of VFW
District 4, testifying on behalf of H.R. 2720. Ms. Lee, you are
now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENTS OF MS. DEBBIE LEE, FOUNDER, AMERICA'S MIGHTY
WARRIORS; MS. LISA WARD, WIDOW TO MAJOR RICHARD WARD, U.S.
ARMY, PERSIAN GULF WAR; MR. KELLY SHACKELFORD, PRESIDENT, THE
LIBERTY INSTITUTE; AND JAY SANDERS, SENIOR VICE COMMANDER,
VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS, DISTRICT 4
STATEMENT OF DEBBIE LEE
Ms. Lee. Thank you for inviting me to speak today on behalf
of our fallen warriors who gave up their lives and their voices
defending you and I. The freedoms that you and I enjoy every
single day and often take for granted are paid for by the brave
men and women who for centuries have sacrificed greatly, many
giving their very last breath defending America. There is a
price for our freedom and our family knows it all too well.
My son Marc Alan Lee was the first Navy SEAL killed in Iraq
on August 2, 2006. Many of you may remember Ramadi in 2006 was
a bloody battlefield. The SEALs had been in intense firefight
for two hours in 120-degree temperatures. Four of the SEALs
were on a rooftop when Marc's buddy Ryan was shot and had
severe shrapnel injuries to the head. They could tell by
looking at him it did not look good. They did not know if he
would survive the next few moments. Two of the SEALs dropped to
their knees to help Ryan. Marc could have made the very same
choice, but he made the choice to stand up into the direct line
of fire hoping the enemy would fire on him and they could sneak
the medic up to the roof. They successfully got the medic up
there and he took one look at Ryan and said, ``We have got to
get him out of here immediately or there is no chance for
survival.'' So a second time Marc made the choice to stand up
into the direct line of fire to provide the cover so they could
get down off of that roof.
When they got down they sent Ryan off in Medevac and they
crawled back in their Bradleys. They headed back to the base,
which I am proud to tell you was named Camp Marc Lee in his
memory. And as they got in there they started to rip off their
gear and they got some water to refresh themselves.
You know, we have watched our Navy SEALs do some absolutely
amazing things lately. But that was Marc's final gift to me,
was his teammates. I know them very well. I know they were
exhausted emotionally, physically. And the Chief came in and he
said, ``We just found 30 insurgents that just attacked us.''
And without hesitation Marc looked at his Chief and he said,
``Roger that, let us go get them.'' So they climbed back in
their Bradleys and they headed back into Ramadi. They cleared
several houses and they went in the last house that Marc would
be in. They cleared the bottom of the house and started to
proceed up the steps when they heard Marc yell, ``On me.'' And
they knew that meant he was going to take the lead and they
were to follow. And as they went up those steps for the final
time they drew fire through a window. Marc made the choice
again to turn into that line of fire. He willingly gave his
life for you, for me, for this country that he so loved.
I have dedicated my life to our troops, to their families,
and especially to the families of the fallen. Marc successfully
completed his mission and I know where he is, and one day I
will see him again. He laid down his boots and his weapon. He
gave all of his tomorrows so that we could have today. In
response to Marc's last letter home I founded America's Mighty
Warriors and used my voice, and have dedicated my life to
honoring and supporting our troops, and defending our
defenders, and taking care of our Gold Star Families. They have
given their very best for this Nation.
So today I speak on behalf of our fallen heroes and their
families. When our loved ones signed to defend our country
against enemies foreign and domestic, they knew they could be
giving their lives for this country and for what they believed
in. They fought honorably and nobly. And I know that if you
asked them if they were to die in combat, their first request
would be to take care of my family.
As family members we entrusted our loved ones lives into
the hands of our military and our government. And we expect
that, God forbid, they did not make it back into our arms, that
as a Nation we would respect and honor them every step of the
way as the heroes they are, and bring them back home to a
proper and dignified burial. I have watched videos and heard
stories of how Marc was escorted home. From the moment he was
carried off the battlefield by his teammate who was a medic,
who administered CPR on Marc for 30 minutes until they got to
the hospital, knowing that Marc was already dead, hoping
somehow to revive him. To the honor line, as they loaded Marc
on his Angel Flight back home where all branches of the
military in Ramadi had gathered to pay respects to a fallen
hero. I cannot begin to imagine receiving the news that they
had found another fragment of Marc, and learning that instead
of bearing that part of Marc respectfully that he was sent to
the dump like 274 of our fallen heroes were.
These men and women gave their lives under horrific battle
conditions, many having been blown to pieces by IEDs or RPGs.
And for years their remains were carelessly sent to the dump
with the garbage. Just this past week it was brought to light
that a veteran had been found buried in a cardboard box in a
cemetery in Florida. We are still working on locating remains
in Vietnam. Why would we as a Nation not have an honorable and
dignified place to bury the remains of our war heroes?
Congressman Stivers has introduced a bill to have a place
of remembrance in Arlington, where the ashes of unidentifiable
or partial remains of our heroes could be laid to rest with
dignity. Thank you, Congressman Stivers, for standing for your
fallen brothers and choosing to be a voice when they have none.
I hope each one of you see the urgency to pass this bill, H.R.
5735, and guarantee our troops and their families and we will
continue to honor those who gave everything and ensure that we
will never forget them, their families, or the sacrifices that
have been made for our freedoms. Thank you, and hooyah, Marc
Lee.
[The prepared statement of Debbie Lee appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Ms. Lee. And thank you for your
sacrifice, and your testimony, and your heartfelt--I would say
story, but it is a reality. But thank you. Ms. Ward, you are
now recognized for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF LISA WARD
Ms. Ward. My name is Lisa Ward. I am the widow of Major
Richard Ward. I am also the Senior Vice Commander of the
Veterans of Foreign Wars Post 12075, the William Amundson
Memorial Post, which is located outside of Houston, Texas. I am
also a Gulf War veteran and served in the U.S. Army for six
years.
My husband Rick loved the Army and served in it for 30
years. He spent time serving our country overseas in the Gulf
War and in Korea. Rick and I served in Desert Storm together,
although we were not dating or married at the time. We were
married for 20 years and have one daughter, Brenda Ward, who is
currently a student in the College of Criminal Justice at Sam
Houston State University.
On May 27, 2011 I buried my husband Rick at the Houston
National Cemetery, although I wanted to have the funeral
service at the national cemetery. Because of the restrictions
the national cemetery director placed on the religious speech
contained in the traditional VFW burial ritual, I chose to hold
the service at a private chapel so the government could not
interfere with my husband's funeral. My daughter Brenda and I
arranged Rick's funeral service with Larry Matthews at American
Heritage Funeral Home. Earl Conley, a fellow veteran and good
friend of my family, was also present for support. During the
planning of the arrangements I told Mr. Matthews I wanted Rick
to have the military funeral because of his 30 years of
military service. My daughter Brenda and I previously decided
to have Rick's ashes buried at the national cemetery.
During the course of our discussion with Mr. Matthews he
informed us that the national cemetery would not allow the
traditional VFW burial ritual to be performed on national
cemetery grounds because it contained the word God. Mr.
Matthews further stated that the cemetery director had
implemented many new restrictions. In addition to disallowing
the traditional VFW burial ritual she was also limiting the
length of all funerals to 15 minutes and would not allow the
horse drawn caisson. I was shocked and confused. I could not
comprehend why my husband, who was a Gulf War veteran and
faithfully served our country for 30 years, would not be able
to have the honor of the VFW burial ritual at the national
cemetery.
After discussing it with my daughter we decided that we
wanted Rick to have the honor of the traditional VFW burial
ritual at his funeral. We therefore decided to have the service
held at the private chapel at American Heritage Funeral Home
instead of the national cemetery. American Heritage Funeral
Home opened the doors of the chapel so that those in attendance
could hear the rifle salute and the playing of the taps,
although they were not able to see them like they would have
had the service been held at the national cemetery.
About a week and a half after the funeral service Rick's
ashes were buried at the national cemetery. I had to incur
additional expenses to have the funeral held at the private
chapel instead of the national cemetery grounds. If the
national cemetery had allowed the traditional VFW burial ritual
I would have held Rick's funeral there.
For all of the years that my husband served, and all of the
time he spent overseas, he deserved to have the traditional VFW
burial ritual at the national cemetery. I felt very
disappointed and very broken hearted. I felt like something had
been taken away from me at the hardest point in my life. The
Houston National Cemetery director's policies took away the
traditional VFW burial ritual and I can never have it back
again. I cannot redo my husband's funeral.
What happened to my family is not fair. I do not want any
other family to have to go through what I have had to go
through.
[The prepared statement of Lisa Ward appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mrs. Ward. And also, sorry for your
loss. And thank you for your husband's service to this country.
That being said, Mr. Shackelford, you are now recognized for
your testimony.
STATEMENT OF KELLY SHACKELFORD
Mr. Shackelford. Chairman and honorable Committee, my name
is Kelly Shackelford. I am President and CEO of Liberty
Institute. Liberty Institute is the largest legal organization
in the country that focuses exclusively on religious freedom
issues.
Last year, about almost a year exactly, a little over, we
received a very disturbing call. It was from a pastor whose
name was Scott Rainey. And Scott told us that he had been
invited by a private veterans group to give the prayer at the
Memorial Day service. This private veterans group was in charge
of the service. It was held at a national cemetery. The next
thing he knew he was getting a call from the Federal
government, from the cemetery officials, asking him to submit
his prayer in writing. That was followed by them telling him
what he could and could not pray as a pastor at the Memorial
Day prayer. He was specifically told he could not pray in
Jesus' name.
When he contacted us to ask for assistance, because we
specialize in the First Amendment, we said we thought this
could be easily cleared up. And we realized we just had a few
days so we sent a letter immediately to the very top at the VA,
to Secretary Shinseki, and got actually a response from the
general counsel, the deputy general counsel for the entire VA.
And we were shocked by the response. The response was this is
our policy, this is our national policy, and we are not
budging. We actually had to file a lawsuit in Federal court, at
which the judge issued a temporary restraining order against
the VA. And specifically informed them that to his shock that
the Federal government in this country does not tell our
pastors how to pray, whether they are on a national cemetery
ground or anywhere else.
We thought that was the end of the matter but we were
wrong. There were more facts that were even more disturbing.
You just heard from Lisa. But one of the first thing we found
is that the national memorial ladies who go to all of the
veterans' funerals to make sure that someone is there to
remember, and they simply give a card, a condolence card to the
families and just say, ``God bless you.'' They were banned and
told that they could not do that anymore. We had the VFW burial
ritual, which has been used since 1914, it was being banned
because it had the word God in it. Nobleton Jones, who all he
would do as an honor guard was collect the shell casings from
the 21-gun salute, put those in a bag, and present those to the
families. And there are certain statements that are given that
have been given for many years. He ends that by saying, ``And
may God grant you and your family grace, mercy, and peace.'' He
was told that was prohibited from now on, he could not do that
anymore.
So we found the chapel that was there had actually been
converted into a storage facility. The cross, the Star of
David, and the Bible were thrown into a closet. And when
questioned the officials, the Federal officials specifically
stated that that was done because people who were not of faith
would feel more comfortable with the chapel being used in such
a manner. Of course, completely neglecting people who are of
faith who would want to use the chapel in connection with their
funerals.
So we at that point filed a lawsuit because we, obviously
this was the policy and they were not going to change the
policy. And at the end of the policy as Congressman Culberson
mentioned, we have a final consent decree, an order of the
court, 20 pages with 50 different orders to the VA changing not
only the national policies but the local policies as well, that
the director there said were based on the national policies,
and really enjoining them from interfering anymore with the
families who choose to have some sort of religious part of
their service, or choose the VFW burial ritual.
Look this, obviously this is outrageous. This should never
have happened to our veterans. They deserve better than this.
Our veterans and our active service military are risking
everything for our freedoms. And it is just unconscionable that
we would actually have stripped them of their religious
freedom, and their family of their religious freedom, at the
very moment of their death. So we are very much in support of
this bill, of 2720. And we will do everything we can to help.
And we have done that in the lawsuit. We will continue to do
that. If we can be of any assistance in any way, we think our
veterans deserve nothing less than that.
[The prepared statement of Kelly Shackelford appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Shackelford. Mr. Sanders, you
are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF JAY SANDERS
Mr. Sanders. Thank you, Chairman. My name is Jay Sanders. I
am the incoming Commander of the Veterans of Foreign Wars,
District 4. District 4 is a volunteer veterans organization
that oversees 17 VFW posts in Houston. Approximately 4,000
veterans are members of the VFW.
I am also currently serving as the Commander of VFW Post
912. I have served there through the ranks, Junior Vice on up,
and as the chaplain. I am a three-time winner of the National-
Aide-de-Camp, which is an award given for outstanding service
to the VFW.
For the last 20 years the VFW District 4 honor guard at the
request of family of the deceased has honored veterans by
performing the VFW ritual during private funeral services at
the Houston National Cemetery. VFW District 4 follows the
official VFW burial ritual, which was written and approved by
the VFW National Council of Administration. The VFW burial
ritual includes a pre-written prayer by the VFW, District 4
honor guard chaplain and religious speech by the VFW honor
guard commander, which includes references to God.
Prior to 2011 national cemetery officials never asked the
VFW District 4 honor guard to remove any parts of its ritual or
prohibited the honor guard from performing the entire ritual
unless the family requested, or required that special prayers
be submitted to the cemetery employees. Furthermore, the VFW
ritual was never before divided between so called core elements
and additions to the core elements. Prior to 2011 the
government never interfered with private decisions made between
the family, the funeral home, and the VFW District 4 honor
guard.
Early in 2011 the director of the Houston National Cemetery
met with VFW District 4 line officers in our office. I was one
of those. During the course of the meeting the national
cemetery director told us she wanted the Department of Defense
burial team to train the VFW burial team so that every burial
team was trained the same way. The national cemetery director
then stated that the VFW District 4 honor guard could not
longer perform the entire VFW ritual but could only do what she
described as the four core elements. Folding the flag,
presentation of the flag, the rifle salute, and the playing of
taps. This removed all of religious speech and references to
God from VFW ritual burial. The national director then stated
that the VFW district honor guards could not provide text of
prayer to the family for consideration. She stated that if a
family member wanted a certain prayer read they would have to
submit the prayer to the cemetery in writing and cemetery
officials would then give the prayer to the VFW District 4
honor guard to read.
In March of 2011 the national cemetery director issued a
policy entitled Houston National Cemetery Honor Guard
Guidelines. Among other things this policy stated that funeral
military honors should consist only of the core elements, the
folding of the flag, the presentation of the flag, the taps,
and the rifle salute. It further stated that additions to these
core elements can only be made at the request of the deceased's
survivors. The policy also stated that if the family has a
member of the clergy provide a religious service then the honor
guard team is not allowed to include religious elements, such
as readings from scripture or prayer. It also stated that
volunteer honor guards shall not provide the texts or any
recitations to the deceased's survivors for consideration.
On the same day the policy was issued the director held a
training in the chapel for the District 4 honor guard which
performs the burial ritual. During this, I noticed that the
chapel at that time was full of boxes. It had to be unlocked,
and it appeared as though it was being used for storage. During
this training, which had nothing to do with burial, Junior Vice
Commander of the Honor Guard, Nobleton Jones, asked if he could
recite the following while handing the shell cases to the
family. ``On behalf of a grateful United States of America, a
grateful Nation, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, I present
you these shell casings from the shots that were fired to honor
our departed comrade. We ask that God grant you and your family
grace, mercy, and peace.'' The national director stated no.
Junior Vice Commander Jones then asked if he was allowed to
hand the shell cases to the families. The national director
said no, unless the family specifically asks for the shell
casings. The national cemetery director further stated that Mr.
Jones was not allowed to have any direct contact with the
family.
A few weeks later the national director met with VFW line
officers in her office. During the course of the meeting she
instructed the VFW line officers that the VFW district honor
guard could not perform the entire ritual unless it was
requested in writing by the family. The national cemetery
director also stated that if a family wanted VFW honor guard to
read any special prayer during the service that the family
would have to submit the text of the prayer to her and then she
would provide the prayer to the national honor guard.
One of the VFW district line officers recognized that these
conditions are not included in the honor guard guidelines and
requested to see the policy in writing. She agreed to provide
the policies to us in writing but never produced a copy of
these.
These oral and written policies implemented in 2011 were
not only unprecedented by they substantially interfered with
the private funerals of our deceased veterans. What is spoken
during a private funeral is a very private and personal
decision that the government has no right to interfere with.
The families of the deceased veterans have been thankful and
touched by the VFW ritual. It is an honor for a veteran to have
the VFW ritual performed and the government has no business
removing the religious portions for this nearly 100-year-old
ritual. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Jay Sanders appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Sanders. And now we will begin
the round of questioning. My first question is for Mr. Sanders.
You stated that you were asked to remove the word God from your
name. Are there other words that were specifically asked to be
removed as well?
Mr. Sanders. Basically just God was it. Any reference to
it, but that is all we remember, was God. And we had it seven
times in our ritual and she wanted it out.
Mr. Runyan. Seven in that ritual?
Mr. Sanders. Seven.
Mr. Runyan. Is that ritual uniform throughout the VFW
nationwide?
Mr. Sanders. Yes, it is.
Mr. Runyan. And it has been for how long?
Mr. Sanders. Since it was wrote, years back. We have a
book. Every VFW member gets a book. And it is the same ritual
for every VFW post in the world. It is all the same.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you. Ms. Ward, besides the religious
aspect of it, were there any other factors that led you towards
having a private ceremony, as opposed to a ceremony at the
Houston Cemetery?
Ms. Ward. The limit of the time.
Mr. Runyan. The limit of the time?
Ms. Ward. She would only allow 15 minutes. And there would,
no one would be able to gather afterwards either. So if I
wanted to speak with Jay afterwards, since we are friends over
and above, we could not, we could not stay after the service,
you know, to discuss anything, or just, you know, share in any
type of friendship, or discussion, or anything.
Mr. Runyan. All right. I thank you for that. Because I
think that is the first time any of us have probably heard
that. That is shocking. Now, Mr. Shackelford, dealing with the
terms of the consent decree, do you think they were adequate to
address the problem we had?
Mr. Shackelford. Absolutely. A number of the policies were
changed permanently and it is a court order. So if they are
violated you can be held in contempt. So, I mean, there were 50
different provisions. Not all of those were policy changes.
Some of them were just injunctions that they would not
interfere in certain ways in the future. But it definitely took
care of all the violations that we saw by the consent decree.
Mr. Runyan. So moving forward, what does this piece of
legislation do?
Mr. Shackelford. You know number one, I mean, as somebody
who has been doing First Amendment cases for 23 years,
officials like statutes better. They can read those better.
They are easier to follow. The Constitution is a little more
difficult for them. So when you put something, yes we have
these provisions in a consent decree. But to put something in
statute, I think, really helps a lot of people know what their
rights are. It gives people guidelines as to what not to do,
and I think helps avoid a lot of these problems. You know, we
are certainly willing to represent people in this situation but
we would rather not have to. We would rather them to have a
statute in place which avoids this and hopefully, you know,
educates people into doing the right thing so that we never
have violations.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you. That is all I have. I now recognize
the Ranking Member, Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Lee, I certainly
want to thank you for the great sacrifice you have endured. And
it sounds like something that should be done, move forward
with. I cannot imagine disposing of remains in any way that
would be disrespectful. So I appreciate you coming and
testifying today.
Mr. Sanders, I just want a clarification. You said that
when, that the director required a family to submit prayers
that were to be used? Spoken?
Mr. Sanders. Yes. She wanted the family to submit their
prayers so she could look at them before she gave them to us,
is what it amounted to.
Mr. McNerney. Do you know if she approached, or the VA
approached the family in any way and asked them to submit
prayers? Or was it up to the family's initiative to submit a
prayer?
Mr. Sanders. I can tell you that on many occasions they
approached the family as they were coming out of the lead car,
and told them that, said we cannot use the VFW ritual. One of
our commanders right now stepped in when it happened to one of
his members and said we are using the VFW ritual, and they
backed away.
Mr. McNerney. So it seems to me that the core thing that we
want to accomplish here is making sure that the family's wishes
are----
Mr. Sanders. Correct.
Mr. McNerney. --in a delicate way. I mean, you do not want
to, you know, badger them, or you do not want to cause them
undo grief, you know, when they are getting out of a car, or
when they first hear the news. I mean, this needs to be done in
a way that protects the family's interests, and the, if the
deceased had a specific request as well that should be honored.
So what I would like to see is something that guarantees that
the family's wishes are honored in the most delicate way
possible. I am not sure that this would accomplish that, what
is proposed. But I think that is our goal, and that should be
our goal.
Mr. Sanders. What normally happens is the family, if they
know of it, they tell the funeral director where their loved
one has been taken to start out with, what their wishes are.
She asked us not to tell the family that the VFW has rituals.
To tell the funeral director that, it is up to him. That was
kind of bad. Then she, you know, when we get there with the
prayer, and she wants to eliminate it, that was terrible.
Terrible.
Mr. McNerney. Well I would certainly want to move forward
with legislation, if it is needed, that would guarantee the
family's discretion at the highest level, as the highest
priority.
Mr. Shackelford. One of the things I would mention is the
national memorial ladies who, I think there is an average of
about 60 a week, of funerals in this Houston cemetery alone.
They have done this so long that they actually have a process
where they know what the families want. I mean, if they, on the
condolence card there is no God bless you or anything if there
is no religious part of the ceremony that the family has
chosen. And if there is a prayer then they provide that. So
they, a lot of the groups, you know, have a process by which
they know how to respect the family's wishes. And typically, as
was mentioned, the family is talking to the funeral director.
And the problem in this case is that we saw a lot was the
interference by the, you know, cemetery director in that
process. And actually attempting to overrule family wishes. One
of the sworn statements was what Jay just mentioned here, which
was actually a family had chosen the full burial ritual and
they tried to stop it. And fortunately one of the honor guard
was a former judge who was not easily intimidated and he
overruled that somewhat. But typically it is the family going
to the funeral director and then working with the service
organizations so that the family's wishes are carried out.
Mr. McNerney. Well here is my concern, that the law as
written would allow people that do not have a good
understanding of the family to force prayers or something that
that family would find offensive. So I mean, I think we need,
if we move forward, we need to fine tune this to make sure that
that is not ultimately one of the unintended consequences.
Mr. Shackelford. Yes, I think the key is that the family
knows they have a choice and that they are aware of the
choices, like the VFW ritual, the American Legion ritual, or
one that does not have any reference to God at all. And I think
once they know that choice I think most families will move
pretty naturally towards the direction they want to go.
Mr. Sanders. If I may, when the hearse arrives the funeral
director or his employee comes with them. They come straight to
our honor guard. They tell us the wishes that the family wants
at that time. If they do not want, you know, if they are of
Jewish faith we are not going to embarrass them by saying the
wrong thing. We are going to eliminate that part. If it is a
certain part of any other religion, and they do not want God in
there, they do not want the prayer, we are not going to do it.
These guys have been doing this for a long time. Like they
said, there are two of them that are way up in their eighties.
They all volunteer. They are out there everyday, in the heat,
dressed up like this, it is hot. But they do it everyday
because they love doing that and they want to see our comrades
being shown respect, with dignity.
Mr. McNerney. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Runyan. I thank the gentleman. I just have one quick
question. Dealing with the funeral directors, were they being
influenced by the cemetery director? Or was it just that they
were being pushed aside?
Mr. Sanders. At one time it seemed like she was trying to
cut distance between them. We were not to have any contact with
the funeral directors. So it was a bad situation for us.
Mr. Runyan. And I think you just said it, because the
funeral director just by the nature of the job is the closest
one to the family.
Mr. Sanders. That is exactly right.
Mr. Runyan. And would understand what that family wants,
what their background is, what their religious background is
and everything.
Mr. Sanders. Correct.
Mr. Runyan. I just wanted to clarify that.
Ms. Ward. Well if I may, when I was speaking with Mr.
Matthews he had already been spoken to by his boss because Ms.
Ocasio had already called his supervisor. Because he was
telling the families you cannot have the traditional VFW ritual
at the cemetery. She did not want any, she did not want him
telling anybody that. So my question was, well when was I
supposed to find out about this? And when, I guess I was
supposed to find out as I was getting out of the car? I guess
they were going to stop the funeral at that time, I guess that
that is when I was supposed to find out. Was, you know, after
it was too late. So luckily I was, the former, or I guess the
current District 4 Commander Inga Conley, her husband had gone
with me to the funeral home. We have been friends since our
kids were in the first grade. They are both in college now. Her
husband had gone with me to the funeral home, and he had
confirmed, yes, you know, that there are issues with the whole
honor guard situation and she is not allowing it. So she, Ms.
Ocasio was already trying to prevent, she did not want the
families to know that she was not allowing it. But she did not
want anybody to know that. She was really cutting everyone out.
Mr. Runyan. Mr. Stutzman?
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being
here today. I just attended a funeral this past week of JaBraun
Knox, Sergeant JaBraun Knox in Auburn, Indiana. And obviously I
know this is a very, very difficult time for a family. And to
just sit here and listen to the stories and the experiences
that you had to go through just seems so unnecessary, that you
would have to experience that. And that people would not be
thinking about you and your loss and the family at a time of,
you know, that we are remembering American heroes. And also the
emotions that you all are dealing with. So thank you for being
here. It is, it is unfortunate that we have to even be
discussing something like this. But if it was happening and we
were not aware of it, that would be just as unfortunate. And so
thank you for your willingness to be here.
My question would be for Ms. Lee. First of all, sorry for
your son's loss. And I talk to young people back home after the
loss of the soldier just recently, that they are, I want to
remind them and to let them know to look up to people like
this, because they really are the heroes of our day. Because
they are, first of all the characteristics that they exhibit in
their time of service is what all of us should strive to
achieve.
We have been told that the Department of Mortuary Affairs
has affirmed that these sorts of acts, and procedures have
taken place, and that they would never happen again. It is, the
new process, or the new, the memorial that is being proposed
here, do you think that that is the appropriate way or
sufficient way that we can handle these sorts of ceremonies? Or
do you think that there are, the proposal by the Department of
Defense and the standardized practices that they have currently
put in place, are those sufficient? Which, you are here in
support of the bill----
Ms. Lee. Right.
Mr. Stutzman. --so I am guessing that, can you talk about
that a little bit more, and why that is more important?
Ms. Lee. And I think they are working, you know, and have
changed that so that it will not happen again.
Mr. Stutzman. Mm-hmm.
Ms. Lee. And the current policy is that they are dumping
the ashes at sea.
Mr. Stutzman. Mm-hmm.
Ms. Lee. I know that would not be what my son would have
wanted. He would not have wanted to be dumped at the sea. So I
think this gives an alternative, a place where people can go.
They can also recognize when they visit Arlington that war is
an ugly thing.
Mr. Stutzman. Mm-hmm.
Ms. Lee. And that we do have those that, you know, there is
pieces of them. There is not even a body to be buried
somewhere. And so to have a place where those families can go
and remember their loved ones, a place where as a Nation we can
stand proudly and honor those, and remember those, I think this
is a right place.
Mr. Stutzman. Mr. Chairman, I have got a quick question
about the bill. Does this give the families an option? I am
sorry I was not in here earlier for the testimony of the
authors of the bill. But does this give them an option where
they could allow for the Department of Defense to follow their
new procedure? Or it gives them the option to bury those ashes
at the memorial? Do you know? Does this bill, does it give the
families an option to allow for burial at sea, or for the
remains to be buried at the memorial?
Counsel. This bill as written deals primarily with
establishing the tomb. And I think Ms. Condon will testify to
this later, DoD would ask to have control over how the Place of
Remembrance is administered once it is put in place. So I think
that that would be a question that is more appropriate to ask
Ms. Condon when she testifies.
Mr. Stutzman. Okay. Okay. But Ms. Lee, would you agree that
it would be best for the families to have that option, if they
feel comfortable with allowing the burial at sea, the
Department of Defense could do that? But if they would rather
have the burial at the memorial that would be appropriate as
well?
Ms. Lee. I think this is the best place, to have a memorial
place where we have got it set aside. I cannot imagine what
these families go through when their loved one has been killed,
where there is, you know, pieces of them left over. And to keep
getting a phone call saying, ``We found another fragment. We
found another, you know, piece.''
Mr. Stutzman. Yeah.
Ms. Lee. And so that gives them a place then where each
time when they find it they do not have to, you know, go out to
sea again. It is right here. They know all of it is right
there.
Mr. Stutzman. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.
Ms. Lee. What they find.
Mr. Stutzman. I know my time is expired, but Ms. Ward thank
you for your service, and of course thank you for being here
today. And again, I am sorry for your loss as well. And it is
just hard to imagine that you would have to experience that. It
is ridiculous. And hopefully what we are doing today will
address that issue and no one else would have to experience
that. So thank you to you, and to Mr. Shackelford for the work
that you are doing as well. Thank you.
Ms. Ward. Thank you.
Mr. Stutzman. I yield back.
Mr. Runyan. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Walz?
Mr. Walz. Thank you, Chairman. And thank you all for your
service, and for being here and helping us out. And Ms. Lee,
thank you again. It is always, it is great to have people come
here as the conscience of this country and speak to the issues
that matter. And I think getting this right is critically
important. I think my colleague was asking some of the
questions.
I can tell you this, and I think it is important to say,
Representative Stivers has been a great voice on this issue. He
has spoken to me on many occasions on the floor as we have
talked back and forth on how to get this right. And he is very
personally invested. So I am appreciative of his work, as you
were too.
Again, Ms. Ward, as I said earlier, again you unfortunately
are the example I was giving. You do not get a redo on
something that important. And these are times of closure. They
are times of, while sadness, they are times of celebration of a
life. And when those of us who have military service, that is
how I hope to be buried someday. And I have participated in
many of these, as I was saying earlier. And I think being part
of an honor guard, the one thing is I was part of many that I
did not know the family. And because there is a shortage of us,
and they needed to get folks out there. And I think being
cognizant of those wishes is critically important.
So I think there is a sophisticated argument going on here.
It is one that does get, and Mr. Shackelford you talked about
statute over Constitution type of thing. I think there is a
clarification on that. We understand the Constitution has been
built on by precedence over time. But the issue here is
establishment clause versus that all going free expression. And
it is finding and striking that balance between establishment
clause and free expression. And I think many times, and it is
the most overused thing because common sense certainly is not
common nor is there sense sometimes in the things that happen.
But I think trying to come to that, I hope Mr. Sanders you
know. And I speak to you as a retired sergeant major on this,
when you say the government did this. We are all part of the
government. I certainly do not condone that behavior that
happened there. And you are going to see in a minute when you
hear Ms. Condon speak I think your faith in the people who work
for the Cemeteries Administration is going to be restored, when
you see someone and the work that has been done out at
Arlington. And what happened to your folks is unacceptable and
there has to be something done to that. There has to be, and
apparently, I cannot speak nor will I try an interpret what Ms.
Ocasio was thinking. But she was obviously not thinking of the
family's best interest at heart. She was obviously not thinking
perhaps there is a better time on this. I think maybe she
thought in her mind she was following the letter of the law and
the establishment clause, but there is two sides of that. There
is the free expression. And if you lean too far one way at the
expense of the other we lose that ability.
So I think all of us, and the Ranking Member was getting at
this, that default position. This chapel situation, I
understand we only have two. They are blessed to have one in
Houston. There are only two in our cemeteries. There are not
very many of these. But the issue that we know we are going to
deal with too is what the family's choice is. Is that if the,
and I have seen this happen, where the VFW has changed their
ritual on this. They have left the words out. I think that is
the key of getting this in. I have read through the court case
findings of what was there. I think it is very clear of where
they put it out.
And I have to tell you this. That I have never witnessed
this anywhere else. I have never seen this with another
cemetery. It certainly does not mean that it is not happening
more, and that we need to take a look at that. I understand
that. But I want to be very careful that we strike that perfect
balance. We allow to make sure Ms. Ward never goes through, or
anyone like her, ever goes through that again. That our heroes
at the VFW are there for the family, and if the family says no
that needs to be their right on how they do that. But the
default position cannot be to exclude that, to not make that
available to the families.
So I struggle with this. I am appreciative, Mr.
Shackelford, you spent a life of doing it, and it is complex.
Sometimes there is strange things on how we see this, and the
different groups that are involved. But if we never lose sight
of however Ms. Ward and her family chose to honor that warrior,
that is what matters, first and foremost. And that is, in my
opinion I think the courts would stand up to that, is striking
that proper balance between the establishment and the free
expression clause.
So I appreciate you bringing this forward. And Mr.
Culberson, thank you. We will spend time talking about it and
thinking about it. It makes us dig deeper. This is, this is,
yes it is an individual issue that is absolutely, is sacred, on
what happens with these families. But it is a broader issue for
the country to deal with. But thank you all for being here.
Thank you for helping us understand this.
I will reiterate again to the Chairman, this is the way I
hope you would think democracy should work and be done, where
people are advising their elected representatives and we get
this right. And if there is something that has been done as an
injustice, let us fix it and make sure it does not happen
again. So I yield back.
Mr. Runyan. I thank the gentleman. And on behalf of the
Subcommittee I thank all of you for your testimony, and for
your sacrifice. And you are now excused.
And I will ask the fourth panel to come forward. The first
witness we will hear from is Ms. Kathryn Condon, the Executive
Director of the Army National Cemeteries Program. And then we
will hear from Mr. Thomas Murphy, Director of Compensation and
Pension Service for the Department of Veterans Affairs. Ms.
Condon, you are now recognized for five minutes for your
testimony.
STATEMENTS OF MS. KATHRYN CONDON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ARMY
NATIONAL CEMETERIES PROGRAM, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE; AND
MR. THOMAS MURPHY, DIRECTOR OF COMPENSATION SERVICE, VETERANS
BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION
STATEMENT OF KATHRYN CONDON
Ms. Condon. Chairman Runyan and distinguished Members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the
Department of the Army's views on the proposed legislation as
it affects Arlington National Cemetery and our other national
cemeteries.
As it is written the Army supports the intent of H.R. 2355,
the Hallowed Grounds Act. But we defer to Veterans Affairs the
applicability and implementation of the proposed legislation on
their 131 cemeteries. But we support it at Arlington and those
cemeteries under Defense.
As it is written the Hallowed Grounds Act only precludes
convicted tier three sex offenders from burial and
memorialization at Arlington. There is no provision in the bill
for those accused but not yet convicted. And we would like to
work with the Subcommittee if we could, Mr. Chairman, to insert
suitable language in the bill that would address this concern
as we would have to apply that as well.
The Army supports fully H.R. 5735, the Tomb of Remembrance
Act. The final disposition of unidentifiable remains would be
executed with the same dignity, honor, respect, and reverence
that we exhibit everyday when conducting services for our
veterans and their loved ones at Arlington National Cemetery.
We would be honored to have the tomb at Arlington.
But as written the legislation does not stipulate how
eligibility for the interment of the remains at the Tomb of
Remembrance would be done. So we ask that that determination
remain with the Department of Defense, on who would be in the
Tomb or not.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that H.R. 2720 is before the
Subcommittee for consideration which stipulates that each VA
cemetery director be a veteran. The Department of the Army
supports veterans preference in hiring. However, the Army and
Veterans Affairs should always choose the best qualified
candidate to run their cemeteries. If that is a veteran, that
is who you should select. If it is not then you should select
someone else.
Lastly Mr. Chairman, in H.R. 2720 I appreciate the
opportunity to comment on the affirmation of every veteran's
right to have a religious service of their choice at their
interment. Arlington's practice and policy recognizes that
religion is indeed a deeply personal matter, and as is their
service. And as such we respect the wishes of each family. To
include those who request to have no religious service at all
at Arlington, because we only have one opportunity to get it
right for that family on the day that we are placing their
loved one for their final rest.
So that concludes my testimony and I look forward, Mr.
Chairman, I look forward to your questions on these
legislations.
[The prepared statement of Kathryn Condon appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Ms. Condon. Mr. Murphy, you are now
recognized for five minutes for your testimony.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS MURPHY
Mr. Murphy. Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney, and
Members of the Committee. I am accompanied today by Richard
Hipolit, Associate General Counsel, Department of Veterans
Affairs. At the outset I would like to offer the Committee an
apology for the tardiness of our written testimony.
I am pleased to be here to offer VA's views on bills
concerning disability compensation, on grants to provide
injured veterans with housing adaptation grants when they are
residing temporarily with family members, and matters affecting
VA's national cemeteries.
H.R. 2720, which would make significant changes to VA's
national cemetery system, was added to the Committee's agenda
May 31st and thus could not be addressed in my testimony today.
We will provide the Committee views on that bill, as well as
H.R. 5881, the Access to Veterans Benefits Improvement Act in a
follow up letter. However, I do want to reassure the Committee
that the will of the families and the veteran is of absolute
importance to the NCA, and that they will be respected, and
their religious freedoms will be upheld.
We defer to the Department of Defense and Department of the
Army on H.R. 5735, which would require establishment of a Tomb
of Remembrance at Arlington National Cemetery.
H.R. 4299, the Quality Housing for Veterans Act would
extend authority for VA to provide temporary residence adaption
grants for severely disabled veterans who reside temporarily
with family members. We strongly support this legislation and
appreciate your placing this bill on the agenda. Veterans
residing temporarily with family members instead of their own
residence have no less need for adaptations that will help them
in their day to day living.
VA strongly supports H.R. 5880, which would extend VA's
ability to contract for compensation and pension medical exams.
Having this authority allows VA flexibility in meeting
increased demands for these medical exams, and that is an
essential component in addressing the backlog. This flexibility
also allows the Veterans Health Administration to focus more of
its resources on providing medical care to veterans.
H.R. 2996 concerns authorities that govern the period and
scope of certain disability presumptions established for
Persian Gulf War veterans. VA recently by regulation extended
the period during which these presumptions will be in effect to
December 31, 2016. VA has no objection to this bill's mandate
that the presumption be in place at least until December 31,
2018.
The bill would also change the scope of these presumptions
to include service in Afghanistan or locations that supported
operations there. VA does not support that change because the
scientific organizations that examine the bases for
presumptives have simply not found an association of the same
hazards that led to the Persian Gulf War presumptions with
service in Afghanistan or supporting locations. We would be
glad to brief the Committee in more detail on this topic,
including the relevant scientific studies.
H.R. 2355 would prohibit the interment of remains of
convicted tier three sex offenders, which is a classification
used under the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act.
VA absolutely understands the depth of feeling that led to the
introduction of this bill and we support the goal of keeping
the most heinous sex offenders from receiving burial honors
that reflect the highest American ideals. There are detailed
practical issues with carrying out this law, however, that
merit discussion with the Committee, with veterans service
organizations, and the Department of Justice. For example,
there may be issues with the consistency and reliability of
information contained in the state databases. There also may be
issues with consistent application for similar offenses.
Finally, we want to make sure that the labor intensive searches
and reviews that would be required could reduce our ability to
provide timely decisions on burial requests. We look forward to
further discussion on this bill.
Mr. Chairman, I noted at the beginning of the beginning
that we would followup on the record of H.R. 2720, which was
placed on the agenda last week. We appreciate the opportunity
to report to the Committee soon in detail on the impact of this
bill. We can say now, however, that it would have a very
significant effect on the personal services to families and
honors to departed veterans that NCA now provides as a measure
of the Nation's gratitude for a veteran's service. We will have
those details views to the Committee very shortly.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear
before your Committee this afternoon, and I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Thomas Murphy appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you for your testimony. That is votes
being called, but we have plenty of time. Ms. Condon, you
alluded to this in your statement, and Mr. Stutzman asked the
question earlier, dealing with DoD regs. When you are dealing
with the Remembrance Memorial, to your knowledge, is there a
DoD reg that states if a remain is identified, say through DNA,
that those remains would have to be buried with that warrior?
Is there going to have to be a separate analysis of the DoD
regs in dealing with this or will they have the option to do
one or the other?
Ms. Condon. Sir, no, there is not, we would not want to,
there would not be a reg on that. But what it would be is we
would, as we do when we put up a group memorial at the
cemetery, you know, for remains. We just work with each and
every member of the family to respect their wishes. So that
would be, you know, what we would have to do is if, you know,
there were unidentified remains but we knew the incident that
happened is we would discuss with the next of kin on, you know,
that would be would you want to be in the Tomb of Remembrance?
Or would you want to be buried at sea? So it would be a policy.
It would not be a whole regulation thing that would have to be
written to address that.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you. I just want to touch on this,
because I think Mr. Walz alluded to it. Ms. Condon, your
expertise is doing Arlington very well, and I commend you for
the job you are doing over there to truly right the ship, if
you will. Your experience as a civilian director, has served
Arlington National Cemetery very well. But again, I think Mr.
Kelley testified that we have a declining pool of veterans to
work with as potential future cemetery directors. There is not
a question there, but I think much like you, there are many
civilians qualified to do it. And I think that is something we
really have to look at. So I applaud you on that aspect of it.
Mr. Murphy, in talking about identifying tier three sex
offenders, has there been any thought process as to what the
cost of doing that type of analysis would cost the VA?
Mr. Murphy. No, sir. There has not been a cost analysis. We
have got to get more detail of exactly what the requirements in
the bill are going to be before we are able to put down on
here. We have looked at it from the standpoint on what is the
impact going to be, not necessarily in cost in terms of dollars
and cents, but in productivity of the individual. How much time
is it going to take to make sure that when somebody is excluded
using this database that they are truly supposed to be excluded
from that?
Mr. Runyan. And Ms. Condon too, I know we have dealt with
it on several other levels, several other monuments, and the
issue of space at Arlington always comes up. Are we still
having that discussion and wondering where is the most
appropriate and best place to put a monument or memorial
without it affecting your ability to, have more interments out
there?
Ms. Condon. Sir, when the first notice that there could
potentially be an ossuary that we would build at Arlington
National Cemetery, we looked at locations around the cemetery,
to include even by the columbarium court where it would not
impact the burial space of a veteran. We would make sure that
it would be in a place that would be suitable for the honor and
dignity that we would need to place the ossuary if it is in
Arlington, but we would also not put it in a place that would
take up a place for an eligible veteran's burial.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you. With that I will recognize the
Ranking Member, Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Condon, would you
elaborate briefly please on why the DoD is not supporting H.R.
2355?
Ms. Condon. Sir, we are supporting 2355. I am sorry, the
one on----
Mr. McNerney. That is the Hallowed Grounds Act.
Ms. Condon. We are, in my statement I said we do support
the Hallowed Grounds Act. The only thing that we wanted to do
was to make sure that there was a clarification on, you know,
if a tier three sex offender is not yet convicted. But that was
the issue, that we just want clarification in the law on how we
would handle that.
Mr. McNerney. Okay. Do you have any involvement in H.R.
2720? That is the clarification on the VA's role on conducting
funeral services?
Ms. Condon. Sir, no I do not.
Mr. McNerney. So you probably can give me sort of a non-
biased answer then, probably. Is it your estimate that the
incidents as described in Houston are the rule or the exception
to the rule in terms of how services are conducted and how the
VA gets involved in whether prayers are used or not in
services?
Ms. Condon. Sir, from my knowledge of how the NCA
cemeteries are run I think that was an exception to the rule
rather than the rule across the board. So I do not think that
that was something that was systemic across all the 131 VA
cemeteries.
Mr. McNerney. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Murphy, about the Gulf
War presumptive illness. What happens when the statute, when
the time of limitation expires and a veteran starts presenting?
What is the result to the veteran? What is the consequence to
the veteran?
Mr. Murphy. What we are talking about here is a presumptive
condition, which means we do not need to go out and prove that
there is a nexus between the symptoms and the service that the
veteran had. It is automatic under a presumptive. So if this
statute were to expire, and there was no longer a presumptive
condition, we would still rate each case on an individual based
and if warranted find that there is a service-connection and
still grant that veteran the same benefits they----
Mr. McNerney. So the veteran is not shut out?
Mr. Murphy. Exactly. Exactly.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. That is what I wanted to know.
Concerning the Quality Housing for Veterans Act, the DAV had a
suggestion that residence adaptation be a stand alone benefit.
Do you agree with that recommendation?
Mr. Murphy. I would say that we do not disagree with that
recommendation. The way it stands today Mr. Hall stated that
the authority was approximately $60,000. The exact dollar
figure is $65,000. And anything we do currently under this act
is subtracted from that amount, just like he stated. $14,000,
and the balance is brought forward. So VA would not object to
if you were to----
Mr. McNerney. Make that stand alone?
Mr. Murphy. Correct.
Mr. McNerney. Okay. Thank you. One last question. Have
there been any injuries that were not included that we should
be including in granting those temporary residence adaptation
grants?
Mr. Murphy. I am going to ask Dick on this one. I do not
believe that there is any specific conditions that are out
there.
Mr. Hipolit. This is on the housing adaptations. I think
there is a fairly specific list of what those conditions are
this statute. I have not heard commentary that that list is not
adequate. But we could certainly take a look at that and see if
there are any concerns about that out there.
Mr. McNerney. Okay.
Mr. Murphy. Yes, the same, exactly the same comment. I am
not hearing anything from any avenue telling us that we do not
have this adequately covered. If there is somebody that has got
that I would like to hear about it because I would be willing
to take it on.
Mr. McNerney. Okay, thanks. I yield back.
Mr. Runyan. Thank the gentleman. Mr. Walz is recognized.
Mr. Walz. I will go quickly here. Thank you all again for
your service. Thanks for being here helping understand this.
Mr. Murphy, the bill to allow a little more access from the
CVSOs, if we get the privacy side of that right, can those
folks be a force multiplier for you to help process and at
least ease some of the confusion amongst veterans? Or are you
nervous that it is another addition?
Mr. Murphy. I am very nervous from the standpoint of how do
we protect the confidentialities that other laws have put in
place for veterans and Americans in general, and allow the
accesses to expedite the process----
Mr. Walz. --everything else that goes with it.
Mr. Murphy. Exactly.
Mr. Walz. Very good.
Mr. Murphy. But along those same lines, I have been out to
see the county veterans service officers at their state
conference in Ohio. I am going up to speak with them later
today in New Jersey----
Mr. Walz. I appreciate that. They are good folks and they
have got the same mission as you.
Mr. Murphy. Yes.
Mr. Walz. They are just trying to figure out how to deliver
it.
Mr. Murphy. Exactly.
Mr. Walz. So, I appreciate that. Any advice or any input in
improving and looking at this bill Mr. Runyan has introduced
would be greatly appreciated. We want to make sure we get it
right for you, that is the intent. And again, Ms. Condon,
thanks for your work out there. I am always grateful for your
service and also appreciative of it. You heard the folks here
and you heard Ms. Ward. This is, the problem you have when a
situation like that happens, people move from a healthy
skepticism of government to a cynicism of government. And it
becomes kind of gross generalization. When you heard that
story, what did you think? I know that is a very subjective
question. But I know you know how to strike that balance
between establishment and free expression.
Ms. Condon. You know, sir, immediately my concern was that
it would have an impact across every veterans cemetery in this
country. You know? And the ramifications of that. Because it,
you know, could have been an isolated incident. But it probably
affected the, you know, every veteran and their loved one who
has someone buried in a national cemetery, of which Arlington
is one.
Mr. Walz. Well it is one of those stories that strikes you.
And then it takes on, I know, this one down in Houston, you
heard the real story, this was an issue that is unacceptable.
But it takes on a bigger story that it becomes that the whole
system is corrupt, someone is trying to deny freedoms and all
that. What are we doing, or what do you do, to ensure than when
these people with legitimate concerns, we have a bunch of
rightfully upset folks that testified here, what do you do? Is
it just doing it right over time after time after time that
takes that down?
Ms. Condon. And sir, that is exactly it. And the bottom
line is you can never let, it is the only chance to get it
right is the day that you bury someone's loved one. And what
you cannot do is to rush them at the time when they are the
most vulnerable.
Mr. Walz. Yeah, that is outrageous. That part about, I mean
the rest of this I think I could understand that. I do not even
have an explanation based on constitutional interpretation why
you are rushing somebody out from 15 minutes. And if they are
lucky enough to have a place of worship, then let them use it.
That part, you know, as long as we are giving them the
resources to upkeep it, or whatever it was. But, well I thank
you for that. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Runyan. I thank the gentleman. And on behalf of the
Subcommittee I thank each of you for your testimony, and I look
forward to working with you in the future on the wide range of
challenges facing our Nation's veterans.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members have five
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
extraneous material. Hearing no objection, so ordered. I thank
the Members for their attendance today and this hearing is now
adjourned.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Ted Poe appears in the
Appendix]
[Whereupon, at 4:37 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jon Runyan, Chairman
Good morning. This legislative hearing on H.R. 5881, H.R. 5880,
H.R. 2355, H.R. 2996, H.R. 4299, H.R. 5735 and H.R. 2720 will now come
to order.
Today we have several important pieces of legislation on our
agenda. Due to the high level of interest in some of the bills before
us, I am going to forgo a lengthy opening statement in the interest of
time.
Instead, I will just briefly touch on three bills on today's
agenda; two of which I have introduced and the other which I co-
sponsored with Ranking Member McNerney.
H.R. 5881 the Access to Veterans Benefits Improvement Act, provides
certain local government employees, and certain employees of Congress
access to case tracking information through the Department of Veterans'
Affairs.
We have a responsibility to serve our veterans by ensuring that
every effort is made to simplify the claims process. Key actors in this
effort are county veteran service officers, whose expertise in claim
development benefits veterans in many communities across America. Their
assistance is especially critical to many thousands of veterans who
live in rural areas, hours away from a VA regional office.
Many veterans are overwhelmed as they try to navigate their way
through the claims process, and they are further frustrated when they
ask for help from their county VSO, or their member of Congress, and
that person cannot access even the most basic information about the
status of their claim.
This bill would allow these local government officials to check on
the status of a veterans claim, and ensure that VA has all of the
information needed to process claims in the most efficient manner
possible.
H.R. 5880, The Disability Examination Improvement Act, extends the
authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to enter into contracts
with private physicians to conduct medical disability examinations.
With the passage of this bill, this successful program allowing
physicians outside of VA to conduct contract examinations would
continue. This would allow VA to more quickly evaluate veterans
disabilities, and facilitate access to the care they need.
I also co-sponsored H.R. 4299 with Ranking Member McNerney. The
Quality Housing for Veterans Act, amends title 38, United States Code,
to extend the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide
specially adapted housing assistance to veterans who are residing
temporarily in housing owned by a family member.
Our disabled heroes face many challenges as they adapt to their new
lives after service, but maneuvering their way through their place of
residence should not be one of them.
Furthermore, many veterans have found that living in an environment
in which they are surrounded by the care and support of family is a
critical component of their successful recovery.
This bill will ensure that our disabled veterans can live in
housing that is adapted to their needs, whether they choose to live
with family or elsewhere, better equipping them to return to the
civilian world and move forward with their lives.
We also will be discussing the following bills:
H.R. 2355, the Hallowed Grounds Act, which would prohibit the
burial of certain categories of sex offenders in national cemeteries;
H.R. 2996, The Gulf War Presumptive Illness Extension Act, which
would change the date by which veterans must present symptoms of
illnesses covered under the service-connected presumption from December
31st, 2016 to December 31st, 2018;
H.R. 5735, which would provide a tomb of remembrance at Arlington
National Cemetery, for the purpose of proper interment of remain
fragments of our deceased heroes, which are otherwise unidentifiable or
unclaimed.
And finally, H.R. 2720 which would clarify the role of the
Department of Veterans Affairs in providing a benefit or service-
related to the interment or funeral of a veteran, and for other
purposes.
Again, in the interest of time, I would like to reiterate my
request that today's witnesses abide by the decorum and rules of this
hearing and to summarize your statement to five minutes or less during
oral testimony. We have a large number of individuals ready to testify
on legislation today, and I want to make sure everyone is heard in a
timely manner. I would also remind all present that, without any
objection, your written testimony will be made part of the hearing
record.
I appreciate everyone's attendance at this hearing and I would now
call on the Ranking Member for his opening statement.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jerry McNerney,
Ranking Democratic Member
Thank you Mr. Chairman.
Today, we have a full schedule that includes seven bills before us
that address some of the unique needs of our Nation's veterans'
population. The bills pertain to a variety of issues ranging from
burial eligibility to monuments, from claims processing and C&P exams
to presumptive illnesses, and from adaptive housing benefits to freedom
of speech issues.
H.R. 2996, the Gulf War Syndrome `Presumptive Illness' Extension
Act of 2011, sponsored by Mr. Kissell of North Carolina, would extend
the period of time in which the VA presumes the service-connection of
certain disabilities of veterans who served in the Persian Gulf War, as
well as Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation
New Dawn, and Afghanistan.
The regulation establishing the period of time that the VA has for
identifying presumptive illnesses related to certain veterans' military
service will now expire on December 31, 2016 thanks to VA's recent
rulemaking. H.R. 2996 would extend this period to December 2018, which
would allow these veterans to file for a set of conditions that may
arise years after their service, as we have seen in veterans following
the Vietnam War. This bill would also extend the qualifying service
area to include Afghanistan and other supporting areas for Operations
Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, and New Dawn.
I understand that VA opposes these expansions but I think we need
to look at whether expanding to these areas makes sense. I think H.R.
2996 reinforces Congress's intent that all veterans who serve in these
combat areas and those serving in nearby areas should be entitled to
these presumptions as we await further scientific study on their
illnesses.
Also, included in today's hearing is H.R. 4299, the Quality Housing
for Veterans Act, a bill which I introduced. This bill seeks to provide
specially adapted housing assistance to veterans residing temporarily
in housing owned by a family caregiver.
According to the Department of Defense, more than 48,000
servicemembers have been wounded in action while serving in the recent
conflicts. In caring for our injured men and women in uniform, we must
continue to address their needs so they may live as independently and
comfortably as possible after their honorable military service.
Currently, the Temporary Residence Adaptation Grant is available to
eligible veterans temporarily residing in a home owned by a family
member, but this benefit is set to expire at the end of 2012.
I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, Members of this
Subcommittee and the other stakeholders to ensure that our most
critically wounded servicemembers and veterans are provided adequate
housing benefits and that this program will be extended until 2014.
Mr. Chairman we have several other bills on the agenda today,
including H.R. 5880 and H.R. 5881. While I support the bill, H.R. 5880,
which would extend VA's contract authority with private providers of
C&P exams, I want to ensure that we remain vigilant in our oversight of
this authority.
Your other bill, Mr. Chairman, H.R. 5881, would grant county
veteran service officers, other State and local employees as well as
staff of Members of Congress with greater access to veterans' claims
information for tracking purposes. I wholeheartedly support the mission
of this bill and our county veterans service officers, who serve my
constituents back home. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
today about the benefits of this bill and how we may improve upon it to
avoid the privacy and security concerns voiced in the past by VA and
currently by the VSOs.
I also look forward to hearing from our stakeholders on the
potential impact that H.R. 2720 and H.R. 2355 will have on our Nation's
veterans. Additionally, I wholeheartedly support the goals of H.R. 5735
and hope we make any necessary changes to be able move this measure
forward. Finally, I look forward to hearing VA's views on these.
I thank all of the Members for their thoughtful legislation. And, I
thank our other esteemed witnesses for joining us today and look
forward to receiving their testimonies.
Thank you and I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Steve Stivers (OH-15)
I want to thank Chairman Runyan for holding this important
legislative hearing today on my legislation, the Place of Remembrance
Act. The measure before the committee today would create a Place of
Remembrance at the Arlington National Cemetery for Iraq and Afghanistan
conflicts and all wars and contingency operations moving forward.
I have served over 26 years in the Ohio Army National Guard and
have been honored to serve with so many brave men and women over the
years. Our service members and veterans have protected the United
States at immense personal cost to themselves and their families - and
at times pay the ultimate sacrifice with their lives to defend our
nation and its ideals of democracy and freedom. They and their families
deserve our respect and our gratitude, and we owe a debt to them for
their service.
As a Member of Congress and service member I was as shocked and
horrified as everyone else by the stories late last year on the Dover
Air Force Base mortuary sending veterans' remains to the Prince
George's County landfill. The Washington Post in an article from
December 7, 2011 uncovered that ``976 fragments from 274 military
personnel were cremated, incinerated and taken to the landfill between
2004 and 2008.''
This is an outrage, a terrible injustice to our service members and
their families, and should not be allowed to stand. The first step to
address this issue is creating a proper memorial for these particular
remains of those who served, so a travesty like this can never occur
again.
I understand that the Department of Defense (DoD) has instituted a
new policy to continue to cremate these fragmented remains and spread
the service member's ashes at sea. However, while this may be
satisfactory to those in the Navy and Marines, as a member of the Army
- I believe some soldiers and their families would like a different
solution for their loved one.
That is why on May 10, 2012, I introduced H.R. 5735 that authorizes
the Secretary of the Army to establish at an appropriate location in
Arlington National Cemetery - a Place of Remembrance for the interment
of cremated fragments. Remains from members of the Armed Forces that
are unidentifiable by DNA or are unclaimed after a reasonable period of
time could be interred at the Place of Remembrance.
I understand and appreciate the significance of the Tomb of Unknown
Soldiers for our previous generations of veterans. This legislation is
not intended to overshadow or detracts from this time honored memorial.
This will allow a new and future generation of our heroes, families and
the public to come to Arlington Cemetery to honor these patriots.
Those who gave the final measure in their service to our great
nation deserve a final resting place worthy of their dedication,
commitment and devotion.
Again, I appreciate the Chairman for allowing me to testify today
and holding this hearing.
Prepared Statement of Vicky Hartzler (MO-04)
Executive Summary
H.R.2355, the Hallowed Grounds Act will prohibit an individual who
is classified as a Tier III sex offender under the Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act from being buried at a veteran's or
national cemetery.
Under current law, military veterans are entitled to burial in a
veteran's or national cemetery and to the receipt of honorary
emoluments including a military honor guard, a U.S. flag, and a
certificate from the President. These honors rightly honor the
Americans who have given of themselves so all in our nation can live in
safety and peace. However, there is a noteworthy exception.
Following the Oklahoma City bombing by Timothy McVeigh, Congress
passed and President Clinton signed S.923 on November 21, 1997 which
prohibits veterans convicted of a capital crime, such as murder and
treason, from receiving military honors. Prior to this legislation,
McVeigh, a veteran of the first Gulf War, would have been eligible to
be buried in a national cemetery such as Arlington National Cemetery.
While veterans guilty of capital crimes justly have been denied the
right to rest among our national heroes under S.923, veterans convicted
of sexual abuse of children still remain entitled to these honors.
Current law affording military honors to veterans convicted of
sexual abuse is an affront to decency and results in victims and their
families being victimized all over again. It demeans the honor of all
those who have served this nation to allow a child abuser to be buried
alongside America's war heroes in a veteran's cemetery. Because I
believe that no victim of sexual abuse should suffer the pain of
knowing their abuser has received the honor befitting one who
selflessly served others, I introduced the Hallowed Grounds Act.
The Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act divides offenses
into three tiers and has various levels within those tiers. The most
serious offenses are grouped in Tier III. These individuals have
committed horrendous crimes against children, accompanied by brutality
and violence. These offenders behave in a manner that violates
everything for which a soldier in our country fights--justice, the rule
of law, and the safety of our citizens. I believe these offenders have
surrendered their right to be honored by victimizing and oppressing
others.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Larry Kissell (NC-08)
As the son of a World War II veteran, I hold the deepest respect
for the sacrifice and dedication of the men and women who wear our
country's uniform. Before serving as Postmaster in my hometown of
Biscoe, my father served in the ``Old Hickory'' division, landing at
Normandy and continuing on across Europe, pushing back Hitler's forces
at the Battle of the Bulge. When folks stand up and wear our flag, in
combat or in peacetime, they deserve the honor and respect that they
themselves hold for our nation. My district is home to almost 100,000
veterans and active duty military members. Their safety, well-being and
continued care are of great concern to me, and the focus of my work on
the House Armed Services Committee.
In 2011, the Veteran's Administration considered and almost ended
the review period regarding Gulf War illnesses. As many of you may
know, Gulf War veterans continue to develop often unexplained illnesses
long after their military service to our nation ends. The VA has set a
December 31, 2016 deadline for the time in which ``unidentified
presumptive illnesses'' can surface that can be attributed to their
duty serving in the Gulf War. Twenty-two years after the start of the
war, many of these illnesses, symptoms, and causes still remain
unknown. Even to this very day, our Vietnam-era Veterans continue to
experience unexplained sickness and declining health. Some of these
Veterans served more than four decades ago, yet we're still fighting to
give them the care they so much deserve--including working to further
expand coverage for Agent Orange exposure and equally recognizing all
of our air, land and sea units for their sacrifices.
Illnesses do not recognize government statutes or regulatory time
tables. Therefore, to help allow for additional review time, I have
introduced the Gulf War Syndrome Presumptive Illness Extension Act of
2011, legislation to reinstate this review period for an additional 2
years, until December 31, 2018. Let's ensure that every single
consideration and element is considered. We need these additional 2
years because we cannot fully and immediately determine what illnesses
may arise over time from all that our soldiers have endured. Our
government exists today because of the sacrifices of those who came
before us, and I don't believe it is right to arbitrarily limit the
care of those who have made our freedom possible.
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Culberson (TX-07)
Statement of the Honorable John Culberson in support of HR 2720
The Houston National Cemetery holds an annual Memorial Day ceremony
to honor the service and sacrifice of our fallen soldiers. During last
year's ceremony a pastor from the Living Word Church of the Nazarene in
Houston, Texas, was invited to give the prayer. Prior to the service,
the cemetery director, Ms. Arlene Ocasio, requested that the prayer be
submitted to her for pre-approval. It included the Lord's Prayer and
closed by stating: ``in the name of Jesus.'' Ms. Ocasio asked the
pastor to remove this language because the prayer was written
``specific to one belief'' and ``on Memorial Day we will be
commemorating veterans from all cultures and religious beliefs.''
Therefore, ``the tone of all messages must be inclusive of all beliefs,
needs to be general, and its fundamental purpose should be . . .
nondenominational in nature.'' The pastor had said a prayer at this
same ceremony in both 2009 and 2010 and had not been subjected to such
religious censorship then.
Following this event, I began receiving reports from my
constituents and members of veteran's organizations concerning
additional and deliberate acts of religious censorship at the cemetery.
Censorship escalated to such a point that Veteran Service Organizations
(VSOs) filed a lawsuit against the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
They reported that Ms. Ocasio prohibited VSOs from including prayer or
religious speech in funeral rituals unless families submitted the
prayer or religious speech in writing to her prior to the committal
services. Also under Ms. Ocasio's direction, the cemetery chapel was
closed and used for storage and the carillon bells were no longer being
used. When questioned about these actions, Ms. Ocasio stated that she
was simply enforcing existing VA policy for funeral services. After
personally investigating their claims, I introduced H.R. 2720 to
clarify the role of the VA in providing funeral services for veterans.
Limiting the free speech of any American is outrageous and
unconstitutional, but it is especially offensive to restrict the First
Amendment rights of veterans when they have fought and sacrificed to
defend those rights.
I personally wrote to VA Secretary Shinseki to express my outrage
with the events and demanded that the VA remedy this problem
immediately. Additionally, I, along with 27 other members of Congress,
wrote a separate letter to Secretary Shinseki requesting the removal of
the Houston National Cemetery Director, Ms. Arlene Ocasio. Under her
direction, the cemetery restricted the free speech of patriotic members
of VSOs as they joined in mourning the loss of the service members. We
also requested assurance that the cemetery chapel remain open
permanently and that any religious objects or symbols that were removed
from the chapel be restored to their original location. Finally, we
asked for her assurance that the chapel's carillon remain in operation,
fulfilling its original purpose.
On July 8, 2011 I personally attended a funeral service at the
cemetery and was horrified to witness the censorship firsthand. Members
of the honor guard from the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) were there
performing the funeral ritual. Cemetery officials instructed the
commander of the honor guard to confront a grieving widow as she
approached her husband's grave site to reconfirm that she wanted the
word God mentioned during the service. He quite correctly said, as a
Texan and a man of honor and integrity, ``I'm not bothering that poor
woman at this most terrible time of her life. We're going to do the
ritual.'' Right in front of me, VA officials deliberately attempted to
prevent the VFW from doing their magnificent, spiritual ritual over the
grave of this fallen hero.
Ms. Ocasio denied these allegations and said she told the VA
Voluntary Services trainees that they needed to ensure that their
military funeral honors were reflective of the desires of the families
of the veterans being honored, that there is no ``do over'' for a
committal service, and that no veteran's family should ever leave
offended or unhappy with the services provided by the cemetery staff or
the registered VA volunteers. I agree that there is no ``do over'' for
a committal service, which is why I strongly believe that a veteran's
family should have the freedom to choose the language of the funeral
ritual. The family should also have the opportunity to hear from the
VSOs as to what ritual options are available so that they can
knowledgably choose what is best for them.
The VA has repeatedly declared that they did nothing wrong. In
fact, the VA Deputy General Counsel, John H. (Jack) Thompson, in a
letter to the Liberty Institute, wrote that directors of national
cemeteries can apply whatever limitations they deem reasonable. VA
officials strongly denied they banned any religious speech and offered
support for Ms. Ocasio. I vehemently disagree. I fail to understand how
this could possibly be the correct interpretation of VA policy when the
issues at Houston National Cemetery did not arise at any other veteran
cemetery in the country. No individual or government agency has the
authority to restrict the constitutional rights of American citizens.
In September 2011, the lawsuit was mediated between the VSOs and
the VA. Ms. Ocasio has since been removed as cemetery director.
However, this does not make up for the pain, suffering and religious
censorship the families endured during Ms. Ocasio's tenure. It is
deeply disappointing that it took a lawsuit and congressional action to
force the VA to do the right thing. H.R. 2720 ensures that no veteran
or veteran's family will ever suffer such religious censorship at the
behest of our federal government again.
This bill prohibits the federal government from interfering with
the content of funeral services. It will require that any new VA
Cemetery Director is a veteran and can therefore relate to the
circumstances of those interred there. It will limit the role of the VA
to provide only services that are supportive of veteran burials and
removes the risk of religious censorship. It will also require the VA
to ensure that a chapel is provided at the cemetery and accessible to
the deceased family and that any requested honor guard or other
nongovernmental group is provided access. I urge your support of H.R.
2720, a bill to clarify the role of the Department of Veterans Affairs
in providing a benefit or service related to the interment or funeral
of a veteran.
Executive Summary
Executive Summary of the Honorable John Culberson's Statement in
support of HR 2720
In the summer of 2011 I began receiving reports from my
constituents and members of Veterans Services Organizations (VSOs)
concerning religious censorship at the Houston National Cemetery.
Censorship escalated to such a point that a lawsuit was filed against
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Ms. Arlene Ocasio, the
cemetery's director, had prohibited VSOs from including prayer or
religious speech in funeral rituals unless families submitted the
prayer or religious speech in writing to her prior to the committal
services. Also under Ms. Ocasio's direction, the cemetery chapel was
closed and used for storage.
I personally wrote to VA Secretary Shinseki to express my outrage
with the events and demanded that the VA remedy this problem
immediately. Additionally, I, along with 27 other members of Congress,
wrote a separate letter to Secretary Shinseki requesting the removal of
Ms. Ocasio and assurance that the cemetery chapel remain open
permanently.
On July 8, 2011 I personally attended a funeral service at the
cemetery and was horrified to witness the censorship firsthand. Members
of the honor guard from the Veterans of Foreign Wars were there
performing the funeral ritual. Cemetery officials instructed the
commander of the honor guard to confront a grieving widow as she
approached her husband's grave site to reconfirm that she wanted the
word God mentioned during the service. He quite correctly said, as a
Texan and a man of honor and integrity, ``I'm not bothering that poor
woman at this most terrible time of her life. We're going to do the
ritual.'' Right in front of me, VA officials deliberately attempted to
prevent the VFW from doing their magnificent, spiritual ritual over the
grave of this fallen hero.
The VA has repeatedly declared that they did nothing wrong. In
fact, the VA Deputy General Counsel, John H. (Jack) Thompson, in a
letter to the Liberty Institute, wrote that directors of national
cemeteries can apply whatever limitations they deem reasonable. VA
officials strongly denied they banned any religious speech and offered
support for Ms. Ocasio. I vehemently disagree. I fail to understand how
this could possibly be the correct interpretation of VA policy when the
issues at Houston National Cemetery did not arise at any other veteran
cemetery in the country. No individual or government agency has the
authority to restrict the constitutional rights of American citizens.
In September 2011, the lawsuit was mediated and Ms. Ocasio has
since been removed as cemetery director. However, this does not make up
for the pain, suffering and religious censorship the families endured
during Ms. Ocasio's tenure. It is deeply disappointing that it took a
lawsuit and congressional action to force the VA to do the right thing.
H.R. 2720 ensures that no veteran or veteran's family will ever suffer
such religious censorship at the behest of our federal government
again. Limiting the free speech of any American is outrageous and
unconstitutional, but it is especially offensive to restrict the First
Amendment rights of veterans when they have fought and sacrificed to
defend those rights.
This bill prohibits the federal government from interfering with
the content of funeral services. It will require that any new VA
Cemetery Director is a veteran and can therefore relate to the
circumstances of those interred there. It will limit the role of the VA
to provide only services that are supportive of veteran burials and
removes the risk of religious censorship. It will also require the VA
to ensure that a chapel is provided at the cemetery and accessible to
the deceased family and that any requested honor guard or other
nongovernmental group is provided access. I urge your support of H.R.
2720, a bill to clarify the role of the Department of Veterans Affairs
in providing a benefit or service related to the interment or funeral
of a veteran.
Prepared Statement of Raymond C. Kelley
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:
On behalf of the more than 2 million men and women of the Veterans
of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW) and our Auxiliaries, I would
like to thank you for the opportunity to testify on today's pending
legislation.
H.R. 2355, Hallowed Grounds Act:
In 1997, Congress recognized that veterans convicted of the most
violent of crimes should lose their right to interment in national
cemeteries. The logic was capital crime cases should trump veterans'
burial benefits that were granted to them for their service to our
nation. Burial in a national cemetery is a privilege - a place where
service and sacrifice can be honored by the American public on scared
ground. The most violent and reprehensible crimes break faith with
society and our service members and veterans who have been laid to rest
in our national cemeteries. That is why the VFW agrees with denying
burial to veterans convicted of capital crimes. It is also our belief
that the most predatory and violent sex offenses should be added to the
list of crimes that preclude veterans from interment. The VFW fully
supports H.R. 2355, which will exclude tier III sex offenders from
burial in our veterans' cemeteries.
H.R. 2996, Gulf War Syndrome ``Presumptive Illness'' Extension Act of
2011:
Despite decades of research into the causes of Gulf War Illness, we
do not yet have definitive answers on the cause or causes of these
conditions. Though some encouraging research is showing signs of hope,
it is imperative that treatment for the men and women with illnesses
related to their Gulf War service continue without interruption. Even
as we make investments in medical research to improve our diagnoses and
treatment options as we move forward, we have to do all we can to care
for these men and women using the best options currently available.
This legislation also provides presumption for veterans of
Operation Iraqi Freedom, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation New
Dawn who may be struggling with conditions that VA cannot diagnose - a
provision that VFW strongly supports. Granting presumption for
undiagnosed illnesses is critically important to ensuring that these
veterans receive the care they have earned, while science catches up
with these illnesses. We hope the committee will pass this bill without
delay.
H.R. 4299, Quality Housing for Veterans Act:
The VFW supports the reauthorization of this critical benefit.
Through VA's adaptive housing grant program, hundreds of our most
severely injured veterans have been given an opportunity to ease back
into civilian life, while gaining some sense of independence as they
recuperate under the care of a family member without making them choose
between current and future needs. With the ongoing war, it is important
to continue providing a benefit that significantly improves the lives
of our severely injured veterans. By extending the grant program
through December 31, 2014, you will increase the flexibility of the
benefit while making a difference in the quality of life for many
disabled veterans and their families.
H.R. 5735, providing for the establishment of a Tomb of Remembrance at
Arlington National Cemetery:
The VFW supports H.R. 5735, which would ensure fragmented remains
of American service members killed in Iraq, Afghanistan or any
subsequent conflict will be treated with the dignity and honor worthy
of their sacrifices. The VFW was an outspoken critic on the issue of
improper remains disposal from Dover Air Base last year, which is why
we will work to ensure that our fallen heroes' remains are properly
handled when either fragments cannot be identified through DNA testing,
when remains go unclaimed, or when grieving families request ``No
Further Pursuit'' after burying their loved ones. Never again should a
family be left to wonder whether their fallen hero's remains ended up
in a landfill. We as a nation owe a debt of gratitude to the men and
women who lay down their lives in defense of our nation, and we know
this bill will set a new standard for honoring the sacrifices of the
fallen by memorializing these brave men and women on the sacred grounds
of Arlington National Cemetery.
H.R. 5880, Veterans Disability Examination Access Improvement Act:
In 2003, Congress gave VA the authority to contract with non-VA
doctors to perform disability examinations. The authority was extended
again in 2009. This has been a useful tool for VA to provide timely
evaluation exams without taking VA doctors away from direct patient
care. In December of this year this authority will expire. Allowing
this provision to end would put added strain on VA's medical staff and
reduce accessibility for our veterans. The VFW strongly supports this
legislation and asks for its quick passage.
H.R. 5881, Access to Veterans Benefits Improvement Act:
The VFW cautiously supports this legislative proposal, which would
grant certain congressional staff members and local governmental agency
employees access to VA's case-tracking information. However, we have
some concerns. There is no provision that will ensure these employees
are properly trained in privacy issues, nor is there any oversight or
reporting back to VA on who has access and what prompted the employee
to look into a particular case. This provision will greatly improve the
responsiveness to veterans' requests and it should be pursued, but
assurances must be made to protect privacy and limit searches to only
those who make formal requests.
Also, state and county service officers currently have access to
case-tracking information by virtue of a power of attorney (POA). The
VFW believes it would be wise to continue to limit these employees'
access to only veterans for whom they hold a POA. Again, case-tracking
information is private information and every effort should be made to
protect that privacy.
H.R. 2720, to clarify the role of the Department of Veterans Affairs in
providing a benefit or service related to the interment or
funeral of a veteran, and for other purposes:
The VFW supports the intent of H.R. 2720. It will provide clarity
for both National Cemetery Administration (NCA) staff, and families and
estates of deceased veterans on what is statutorily available and
allowable at NCA funerals, memorial services and ceremonies. This
legislation will give clear guidelines for VA employees to follow and
provide peace-of-mind for veterans' families who are planning funeral
arrangements.
The VFW agrees that every effort and preference should be made to
ensure VA cemetery directors are veterans, but requiring veteran status
to fill vacancies could keep VA from filling positions, which could
have a greater adverse effect on cemetery operations than hiring a non-
veteran.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony and I will be happy to
answer any question you, or the Committee may have.
Information Required by Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives
Pursuant to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, VFW has
not received any federal grants in Fiscal Year 2012, nor has it
received any federal grants in the two previous Fiscal Years.
Prepared Statement of James P. Young
Good morning Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and staff, it
is truly my honor to be here for this hearing. As President of the
National Association of County Veterans Service Officers, I am here
today, to comment on the:
4 The proposed bill to grant access of Veterans Administration
information to Governmental Veterans Service Officers
The National Association of County Veterans Service Officers is an
organization made up of local government employees. Local government
employees that believe we can help the Department of Veterans Affairs
reduce the number of backlogged benefits claims that veterans are
currently waiting to have adjudicated by the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
Our members work in local government offices, an ``arm of
government'' if you will, in 37 States and currently are comprised of
2,400 full time employees in 700 communities. We are not like the
Veterans Service Organizations. We are not dues driven or membership
driven. Every veteran, their dependents and their survivors who live in
our respective jurisdictions are all our clients. We serve them at no
cost to the client. We are equipped to handle and ready to assist
veterans one on one, with every Department of Veterans Affairs benefit,
state and local benefits, and the reason we are here today, to assist
them in tracking their claim.
There are over 22 million honorably discharged veterans of the
armed forces of the United States. During the course of their life
after the military they may have occasion to file a benefits claim for
pension or compensation. Most veterans are not members of a Veterans
Service Organization, but chances are that they live within one of our
communities served by a State, County or City Veterans Service Officer.
To the citizens of our communities, we are the Veterans Administration.
The main issue we are here to talk about today is the lack of
cooperation by the Department of Veterans Affairs in recognizing our
members as an arm of government. We are treated as if we are a Veterans
Service Organization rather than what we are. As governmental employees
we are not unlike the VA itself. There is just a failure to recognize
us in that light.
Let's say that a veteran comes into my office to file a claim for a
knee injury that occurred while the veteran was on active duty in the
Army. We first have to determine eligibility based on war time/peace
time service and a number of factors established by the VA. Let's say
this veteran appears to be eligible. We then put together a claim for
compensation, gather up medical evidence, service medical records,
service records, buddy statements, and other pertinent information and
submit the claim to one of a number of Veterans Service Organizations.
We help the veteran select a Veterans Service Organizations to
represent the veteran through a Power of Attorney. This is done so that
the veteran may have representation at the VA Regional Office and for
any subsequent appeals that may occur. Our local Governmental Veterans
Service Officers may hold the Power of Attorney but many are just too
far away from the Regional Offices to adequately represent their
client.
Then after about 3 months the veteran comes back into my office and
asks what the status of his claim is as he has heard nothing. I have no
way to gain this knowledge even though the claim originated in my
office. I have to refer him to the VA's 1-800 number and hope he can
ask the right questions or to the Veterans Service Organization who
holds his Power of Attorney and who he does not know and probably won't
call. Hopefully he won't go to another jurisdiction and file another
claim which adds to the backlog.
What we are asking in this bill under consideration is to allow the
Governmental Veterans Service Officers to have ``read only'' access to
their client's information. This will allow the local Governmental
Veterans Service Officer to properly track and provide follow-up for
their clients. Sometimes a veteran will file an appeal on a denied
claim and go to another Veterans Service Officer in another
jurisdiction and file another claim for the same thing. This ultimately
adds to the backlog and unnecessarily bogs down the system. If enacted,
this bill will avoid duplication of claims which in turn, will assist
in reducing the current backlog of claims.
We know there is much consternation on the part of the Veterans
Administration regarding this issue. They have had some problems, in
the past, in keeping secure, that information that veterans must give
to the government to obtain the benefits that they earned. We
understand this and are held to the same standards as the VA already.
Remember that a majority of claims for compensation and pension
originate in local Governmental Veterans Service Offices. We are
required to keep secure that information that we supplied to the
Veterans Service Organization and ultimately to the Veterans
Administration. As a prerequisite to receive access to the VA
databases, the government employee must be accredited with the Veterans
Administration, must have attended and successfully completed Training,
Responsibility, Involvement and Preparation of Claims (TRIP) training
and must have had a background check performed on them as a condition
of employment.
There has been much cooperation between the Federal, State and
Local Government over many years. There are cooperative Memorandums of
Understanding (MOU) the Department of Agriculture, Department of
Justice and other Federal arms of government routinely sign every year.
The United States Forest Service cooperatively works with local
jurisdictions to safeguard the resources on the National Forest. The
FBI and Homeland Security work closely with local law enforcement
jurisdictions in an effort to safeguard local residents. A local law
enforcement officer can run a records check on a subject and get most
everything the FBI has on the subject in a few minutes. There are
safeguards in place to make sure the information is not released
improperly and it works very well. If the FBI treated local law
enforcement like the VA treats our members there would be anarchy in
the streets.
In this day and age of our great nation it is unthinkable that a
young man or woman enters the military service, serves honorably and
upon discharge finds difficulties in obtaining the rights and benefits
that they earned through service and sacrifice. It is our
responsibility, the people of the United States, to live up to that
promise of a better and brighter future. That promise that includes a
myriad of veterans benefits should the service member becomes injured
in defense of freedom; but also an underlying promise that says that if
you serve your country with honor your country will be there to serve
you, not with a hand out, but a hand up. Together we must develop a
mechanism for solutions, so that veterans are able to return and find
their part of the American Dream.
The National Association of County Veterans Service Officers has
been in existence since 1990, primarily as a vehicle to provide
continuing education and accreditation training in Department of
Veterans Affairs' procedures and regulations governing veterans'
benefits. The Association provides basic and advanced training for
County Veterans Service Offices and also serves as a vehicle for them
to obtain national accreditation with the Department of Veterans
Affairs.
The National Association of County Veterans Service Officers is
grateful for this opportunity to testify to this Committee. If we work
together, I believe that we can reverse the growing backlog of veterans
benefit claims and get our heroes what they earned and truly deserve.
In Closing, the National Association of County Veterans Service
Officers recommends that this committee move this bill along in the
legislative process. We believe that this bill has the potential to
make a significant difference in the lives of returning veterans and
will afford them a better opportunity to obtain their earned benefits.
Thank you for your time and attention.
Executive Summary
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the full House Veterans Affairs Committee hold hearings on a
proposed bill to grant Governmental Veterans Service Officers limited
access to Department of Veterans Affairs data bases.
That the House Veterans Affairs Committee enact legislation to
grant Governmental Veterans Service Officers limited access to
Department of Veterans Affairs data bases.
This is a no cost issue for congress. The National Association of
County Veterans Service Officers is an organization made up of local
government employees. Local government employees that believe we can
help the Department of Veterans Affairs reduce the number of backlogged
benefits claims that veterans are currently waiting to have adjudicated
by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Our members work in local government offices, an ``arm of
government'' if you will, in 37 States and currently are comprised of
2,400 full time employees in 700 communities. We are not like the
Veterans Service Organizations. We are not dues driven or membership
driven. Every veteran, their dependents and their survivors who live in
our respective jurisdictions are all our clients. We serve them at no
cost to the client. We are equipped to handle and ready to assist
veterans one on one, with every Department of Veterans Affairs benefit,
state and local benefits, and the reason we are here today, to assist
them in tracking their claim.
What we are asking in this bill under consideration is to allow the
Governmental Veterans Service Officers to have ``read only'' access to
their client's information. This will allow the local Governmental
Veterans Service Officer to properly track and provide follow-up for
their clients. Sometimes a veteran will file an appeal on a denied
claim and go to another Veterans Service Officer in another
jurisdiction and file another claim for the same thing. This ultimately
adds to the backlog and unnecessarily bogs down the system. If enacted,
this bill will avoid duplication of claims which in turn, will assist
in reducing the current backlog of claims.
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey C. Hall
Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) to
testify at this legislative hearing of the Subcommittee on Disability
Assistance and Memorial Affairs. As you know, DAV is a non-profit
veterans service organization comprised of 1.2 million wartime service-
disabled veterans focused on building better lives for America's
disabled veterans and their families. DAV is pleased to be here today
to present our views on the bills under consideration by the
Subcommittee.
H.R. 2996
H.R. 2996, the Gulf War Presumptive Illness Extension Act of 2011,
would extend the period of time through December 31, 2018, in which the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs presumes the service connection of
certain disabilities of veterans who served in the Persian Gulf War,
Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom, or Operation New
Dawn. Countless veterans who have served in Southwest Asia since the
first deployment of the Gulf War in 1990 still suffer from chronic
unexplained illnesses. The numerous symptoms experienced by these
veterans still are not understood, answers remain elusive, and
significant research is still needed. Extending this presumptive period
would allow for continued research for all who have and are still
serving in Southwest Asia. VA must be vigilant in their research and
treatment and Congress must not waiver in their oversight to ensure
these men and women are being cared for and compensated for their
illnesses. Therefore, H.R. 2996 being consistent with our longstanding
resolution, DAV supports this bill.
H.R. 4299
H.R. 4299, the Quality Housing for Veterans Act, would extend the
authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs through December 31,
2014, to provide specially adapted housing assistance to individuals
residing temporarily in housing owned by a family member. While DAV is
supportive of extending this program, we believe the grant amount of
$14,000 allowable for temporary residence adaptation (TRA) should be a
stand-alone benefit. As our current resolution seeks, we believe this
amount should not be deducted from the total amount of $60,000 allowed
for a specially adapted housing (SAH) grant. Although we do not have
the current statistics, we do know that in the four years following
inception of the TRA grant program, less than 20 applications had been
received by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In our opinion,
this number was extremely low due to the amount of the TRA grant being
subtracted from the SAH grant. The intent of this benefit is to afford
qualified, seriously disabled veterans the ability to make some
modifications to a residence they reside in temporarily, such as their
parents' home; however, as they move forward into their own residence
requiring adaptations they should not have less than the maximum
benefit available to them to accomplish such.
H.R. 2355
H.R. 2355, the Hallowed Grounds Act, would exclude individuals who
have been convicted of committing certain sex offenses from receiving
certain burial-related benefits and funeral honors that are otherwise
available to certain veterans, members of the Armed Forces who served
honorably, and related individuals. Specifically, this legislation
would expand title 38, United States Code, section 2411(b), to include
those who are tier III sex offenders under the Sex Offender
Registration Notification Act. Being outside the scope of our mission,
DAV has no resolution or position on this particular matter.
Of concern, however, is the treatment to be accorded veteran status
once earned through satisfactory fulfillment of service to the nation.
Veteran status is a legal status, which, as a practical matter, is
realized through the special rights created for veterans to enjoy as
restitution for the sacrifices of military service. Almost without
exception, this status, once accrued, is considered indefeasible. It is
conferred by the completion and honorable character of the recipient's
military service and is not conditioned upon subsequent conduct in
civilian life. Logically, that is as it should be. Veterans should be
secure in the knowledge that their veteran status, and benefits that
flow therefrom, is vested and will not be held hostage to irrelevant,
post-service factors. If veterans' rights are intended to remunerate
for disabilities incurred, opportunities lost, extraordinary rigors
suffered, or contributions made in connection with and during the time
of military service, such rights should, like wages earned, not be
withheld or recalled because of subsequent performance or unconnected
actions or events, even when such actions or events are of a character
that evoke very negative public sentiments. The special value of
service to one's country and the integrity of veteran status would be
defeated by departure from that tradition. Fidelity to this principle
admits exceptions for only the most highly exceptional circumstances.
H.R. 5735
H.R. 5735 would establish a Tomb of Remembrance at Arlington
National Cemetery for interment of cremated fragments of the remains of
members of the Armed Forces killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, or a
subsequent conflict when the fragments are unidentifiable by use of DNA
testing or other means, or are unclaimed, or are identified and
authorized by the person designated to direct disposition of the
remains for internment in such memorial. Although DAV has no resolution
on this particular matter, we support the intent of this legislation to
give proper respect and dignity to our servicemen and servicewomen in
cases such as this and would not oppose passage of this legislation.
H.R. 2720
H.R. 2720 would clarify the role of the VA in providing a benefit
or service being related to the interment or funeral, memorial service,
or ceremony of a deceased veteran. Additionally, this bill would
require that each VA cemetery director be a veteran themselves, while
also prohibiting officials of the Federal Government, including the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, from interfering with the content and
creed of a funeral, memorial service, or ceremony of a deceased
individual or veteran as expressed by the individual's last will and
testament or as determined by the family or agent of such individual or
veteran. Being outside the scope of our mission, DAV has no resolution
or position regarding this matter.
H.R. 5880
H.R. 5880, the Disability Examination Improvement Act, would extend
the authority of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs through December 31,
2017, to enter into contracts with private physicians to conduct
medical disability examinations. Although DAV has no specific
resolution on this particular matter, our resolution regarding
reforming the VA's disability claims process provides a reasonable
corollary for us to support the bill, as the utilization of privately
contracted disability examinations is intended to improve the
disability claims process.
H.R. 5881
H.R. 5881, the Access to Veterans Benefits Improvement Act, would
amend title 38, United States Code, to provide certain employees of
Members of Congress and certain employees of local governmental
agencies with access to case-tracking information of the VA. DAV
supports the intent of the bill; however, we have concerns about the
broad language, which would seemingly allow certain individuals to gain
unrestricted access to veterans' claims information without
accreditation or security permission. Clearly, the primary benefit in
this legislation will be for authorized individuals to gain remote
access to the VA's electronic database system for the single purpose of
determining the status of a veteran's pending claim for benefits;
however, Congress must consider making significant changes to the
language to ensure a veteran's privacy and personal information is
safeguarded from illegal or fraudulent activity.
DAV National Service Officers (NSOs) are accredited by the VA and
given access to veterans' records and computerized processing systems,
but only for those in which we hold power of attorney. DAV NSOs
regularly interact with certain local government employees, such as
County Veterans Service Officers (CVSOs), who provide local assistance
to veterans. When the assistance desired involves obtaining an update
as to the status of a pending claim, CVSOs generally are not able to
access the information and they must contact the accredited
representative of record, such as a veterans service organization (VSO)
to obtain a status of the pending claim, and then inform the veteran.
If the veteran does not have an accredited representative, such as a
VSO, the CVSO is very limited as to the information that may be
accessed. Likewise, an accredited representative only has access to
those cases for which they hold power of attorney.
Allowing certain covered employees of Members of Congress or local
government agencies to access the VA's case-tracking system to obtain a
status of a claim submitted by a veteran without a properly executed
power of attorney poses many serious questions. As a matter of privacy,
veterans or other claimants must be protected from anyone without
accreditation from being allowed to access VA's system and gain private
information on the veteran or other claimant.
This legislation sets out to amend title 38, United States Code, by
adding a new subsection 5906, which, as written, would allow virtually
any covered employee to gain access to any veteran's private
information; far greater access than afforded to an accredited
representative. First, the bill should contain the explicit language
contained in title 5, United States Code, section 552a(b), requiring
the covered employee to have the written permission of the veteran or
claimant requesting assistance from the covered employee. Without such
request and written permission, the covered employee has no proprietary
reason to access any veteran's information.
Secondly, before the covered employee is able to access the VA's
system, he or she should be required to complete an electronic
certification affirming that written consent from the veteran has been
obtained to access the status of the veteran's pending claim. Thirdly,
the access should be limited to only the status of a pending claim and
the specific issues contained therein. Lastly, the bill should plainly
set forth the penalties for any violations, such as accessing or
attempting to access the status of any pending claim without the
expressed written consent of the veteran or claimant.
Moreover, we believe the bill should also contain an additional
safeguard provision wherein the veteran or claimant is notified when
his or her record is being accessed by a covered employee. This would
further assure the veteran or claimant, especially those without
representation, has authorized the covered employee to perform such
action on their behalf and is aware when it is occurring. This would
also alert VA when a covered employee is attempting to gain access
without the express written consent of the veteran or claimant.
Again, the intent of this bill is to help veterans by providing
these covered employees limited access to VA's electronic database
solely for the purpose of obtaining the status of a claim. DAV believes
this could be very beneficial to the veteran or claimant, the covered
employee, as well as our National Service Officers when DAV is the
accredited representative of record. DAV simply wants to ensure that
proper security measures are in place to protect the privacy of
veterans and claimants. As such, without changes in the bill's
language, DAV cannot offer our support for H.R. 5881. We feel the
bill's current language is not explicit enough to ensure the privacy of
a veteran or claimant is safeguarded; however, DAV would be pleased to
work with the Subcommittee to make these necessary changes in the
bill's language.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony and I would be happy to
answer any questions from you or members of the Subcommittee.
Prepared Statement of Debbie Lee
Thank you for inviting me to speak today on behalf of our fallen
warriors who gave up their lives and their voices defending you and I.
The freedoms that you and I enjoy every single day and often take
for granted are paid for by the brave men and women who for centuries
have sacrificed greatly, many giving their very last breath defending
America.
There is a price for our freedom and our family knows it all too
well.
My son Marc Alan Lee was the first Navy SEAL killed in Iraq 8-2-06.
Many of you may remember Ramadi, Iraq in 2006 was a bloody battlefield.
The SEALs had been in an intense firefight in 120 degree
temperatures for 2 hours. Four of the SEALs were on a rooftop when
Marc's buddy Ryan was shot and had severe shrapnel injuries to his
head. They could tell by looking at him it didn't look good.
Two of the SEALs dropped to their knees to help Ryan. Marc made the
choice to stand up into the direct line of fire laying down suppressive
fire and hoping the enemy would be focused on him and the medic could
sneak up to the roof.
The medic got up on the roof and took one look at Ryan and said we
have to get him down immediately or there was no chance for survival.
So a second time Marc made the choice to stand up into the direct line
of fire to provide cover so they could get down off of the roof.
They all successfully got down off of the roof and Medevac'd Ryan
out and climbed back into their Bradleys and headed back to the base,
which later was named Camp Marc Lee in his memory.
We have watched our Navy SEALs do some amazing things and at times
they seem superhuman. Marc's final gift to me was his teammates and I
know these young men well. I know they were exhausted emotionally and
physically. As they started to take off their gear and get some water,
the Chief came in and said ``We just found thirty of the insurgents who
just attacked us.'' Without hesitation Marc said ``Roger that let's go
get'em.''
They headed back into Ramadi and cleared several houses. They went
in to the last house Marc would be in and cleared the bottom of the
house. They started to go up the steps when they heard Marc yell ``On
me.'' The guys knew that meant Marc was going to take the lead. As they
went up the steps they drew fire through a window and for the last and
final time Marc made the choice to turn into the direct line of fire
and gave his life so his teammates could live.
Marc successfully completed his mission, and I know where he is and
one day I will see him again. He laid down his boots, his weapon. He
gave all of his tomorrows so that we could have today.
In response to Marc's last letter home I founded America's Mighty
Warriors and use my voice and have dedicated my life to honoring and
supporting our troops and defending our defenders and taking care of
our Gold Star families. They have given their very best to this nation.
So today I speak on behalf of our fallen heroes and their families.
When our loved ones signed to defend our country against enemies
foreign and domestic they knew they could be giving their lives for
this country and what they believed in. They fought honorably and nobly
and I know that if you asked them if they were to die in combat their
first request would be to take care of my family.
As family members we entrusted our loved ones lives into the hands
of our military and our government. We expect that, God forbid they
didn't make it back to our arms, that as a nation we would respect and
honor them every step of the way as the heroes they are and bring them
back home to a proper and dignified burial
I have watched videos and heard stories of how Marc was escorted
home. From the moment he was carried off the battlefield, by his
teammate, a medic, who administered CPR on Marc for 30 minutes until
they got to the hospital, knowing he was already dead, hoping somehow
to revive him, to the honor line as they loaded Marc on his Angel
Flight back home where all branches of the military in Ramadi had
gathered to pay respects to a fallen comrade.
I can't imagine receiving the news that they had found another
fragment of Marc and learning that instead of burying that part of Marc
respectfully, that he was sent to the dump like 274 of our fallen
heroes were?
These men and women gave their lives under horrific battle
conditions, many having been blown to pieces by IEDs or RPGs., and for
years their remains were carelessly sent to the dump with the garbage?
Just this past week it was brought to light that a Veteran had been
found buried in a cardboard box in Florida. We are still working on
locating remains in Vietnam. Why would we as a nation not have an
honorable, dignified place to bury the remains of our War Heroes!
Congressman Stivers has introduced a bill to have a ``Place of
Remembrance in Arlington'' where the ashes of unidentifiable or partial
remains of our Heroes can be laid to rest with dignity. Thank you
Congressman Stivers for standing for your fallen brothers and choosing
to be a voice when they have none.
I hope each one of you see the urgency to pass this bill HR 5735
and guarantee our troops and their families that we will continue to
honor those who gave everything and ensure we will never forget them,
their families or the sacrifices that have been made for our freedoms.
Thank you . . . .HOOYAH MARC LEE!
Prepared Statement of Lisa Ward
My name is Lisa Ward. I am the widow of Major Richard (``Rick'')
Ward. I am also the Senior Vice Commander of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars (``VFW'') Post 12075, the William ``Bill'' C. Amundson Memorial
Post, which is located outside of Houston Texas. I am a Gulf War
Veteran and served in the U.S. Army for 6 years.
My husband Rick loved the Army and served in it for 30 years. He
spent time serving our country overseas in the Gulf War and in Korea.
Rick and I served in Desert Storm together, although we were not dating
or married at the time. We were married for 20 years and have one
daughter, Brenda Ward, who is currently a student in the College of
Criminal Justice at Sam Houston State University.
On May 27, 2011, I buried my husband Rick at the Houston National
Cemetery (the ``National Cemetery''). Although I wanted to have the
funeral service at the National Cemetery, because of the restrictions
the National Cemetery Director placed on the religious speech contained
in the traditional VFW Burial Ritual, I chose to hold the service at a
private chapel so that the government could not interfere with my
husband's funeral.
My daughter Brenda and I arranged Rick's funeral service with Larry
Matthews at American Heritage Funeral Home. Earl Conley, a fellow
veteran and a good friend of my family, was also present for support.
During the planning of the arrangements, I told Mr. Matthews that I
wanted Rick to have a military funeral because of his thirty years of
military service. My daughter Brenda and I had previously decided to
have Rick's ashes buried at the National Cemetery. During the course of
our discussion with Mr. Matthews, he informed us that the National
Cemetery would not allow the traditional VFW Burial Ritual to be
performed on National Cemetery grounds because it includes the word
``God.'' Mr. Matthews further stated that the Cemetery Director had
implemented many new restrictions; in addition to disallowing the
traditional VFW Burial Ritual, she was also limiting the length of all
funerals to 15 minutes, and would not allow horse-drawn caissons. I was
shocked and confused. I couldn't comprehend why my husband, who was a
Gulf War Veteran and faithfully served our country for 30 years, would
not be able to have the honor of the VFW Burial Ritual at the National
Cemetery.
After discussing it with my daughter, we decided that we wanted
Rick to have the honor of the traditional VFW Burial Ritual at his
funeral. We therefore decided to have the service held at the private
chapel at American Heritage Funeral Home instead of at the National
Cemetery. American Heritage Funeral Home opened the doors of the chapel
so that those in attendance could hear the rifle salute and the playing
of Taps, although they were not able to see them like they would have
had the service been held at the National Cemetery. About a week and a
half after the funeral service, Rick's ashes were buried at the
National Cemetery.
I had to incur additional expenses to have the funeral service held
at the private chapel instead of on the National Cemetery grounds. If
the National Cemetery would have allowed the traditional VFW Burial
Ritual, I would have held Rick's funeral there.
For all of the years that my husband served, and all of the time
that he spent overseas, he deserved to have the traditional VFW Burial
Ritual at the National Cemetery. I feel very disappointed and
brokenhearted. I feel like something has been taken away from me at the
hardest point of my life. The Houston National Cemetery Director's
policies took away the traditional VFW Burial Ritual, and I can never
have it again. I cannot redo my husband's funeral. What has happened to
my family is not fair. I do not want another family to have to go
through what I had to go through.
Prepared Statement of Kelly Shackelford
Introduction
I am Kelly Shackelford, the President and Chief Executive Officer
of Liberty Institute. Liberty Institute is the largest non-profit law
firm in the nation dedicated solely to defending religious liberty in
America. It was our privilege and honor to represent Pastor Scott
Rainey, VFW District 4, The American Legion Post 586, the National
Memorial Ladies, and Lisa Ward, James Haycraft, and Geraldine Lakey,
family members of recently deceased veterans, in their lawsuit against
the United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Hon. Eric Shinseki,
Secretary of the VA, and Arleen Ocasio, Director of the Houston
National Cemetery, seeking to prohibit religious censorship and
discrimination at the Houston National Cemetery.
The claims in this lawsuit were supported by the sworn testimony of
25 veterans and their supporters who witnessed firsthand religious
hostility occurring at the Houston National Cemetery. This lawsuit was
resolved in October 2011, with the entry of a 20 page Consent Decree
that includes 50 specific court ordered requirements restoring the
religious liberty rights of our clients, other veterans across the
country and those who seek to serve and honor them.
What happened to our veterans is outrageous. They deserve better
than this. Our veterans and active service military have paid and are
paying the ultimate price for our freedoms. It is unconscionable to
strip their religious freedom from them and their families at the time
of their death.
Censorship of Prayer at Houston National Cemetery
This lawsuit began in May of 2011 when the Director of the Houston
National Cemetery attempted to edit and censor Pastor Scott Rainey's
prayer at a Memorial Day ceremony held at the cemetery by a private,
nonprofit organization. Pastor Rainey prayed at the ceremony the prior
two years without any governmental interference. Unlike previous years,
the Director of the Houston National Cemetery (overseen by the VA),
Arleen Ocasio, told Pastor Rainey that his prayer needed to be
submitted to her for prior approval and that its contents needed to be
``non-denominational.''
Pursuant to Director's Ocasio's instructions, Pastor Rainey
submitted to Director Ocasio a draft of his prayer in advance of the
Memorial Day ceremony. In response, Director Ocasio told Pastor Rainey,
``I must ask you to edit it.'' Director Ocasio further stated the
prayer cannot be ``specific to one belief'' and ``on Memorial Day we
will be commemorating veterans from all cultures and religious
beliefs.'' Therefore, ``[t]he tone of all messages must be inclusive of
all beliefs, need to be general, and its fundamental purpose should be
. . . non-denominational in nature.'' After receiving Director Ocasio's
email, Pastor Rainey contacted her by phone. Director Ocasio instructed
Pastor Rainey that if he did not remove the references in his prayer
that are specific to one religion (including praying in Jesus' name)
that he would not be allowed to deliver a prayer at the Memorial Day
ceremony.
On May 24, 2011, a demand letter was sent to VA Secretary Eric
Shinseki and Director Ocasio, informing them of the relevant law and
requesting that they inform Liberty Institute in writing by 5:00 p.m.
on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 that Pastor Rainey may provide a prayer at
the Memorial Day ceremony without removing references to his religion.
The following day, May 25, 2011, Jack H. Thompson, VA Deputy General
Counsel, responded to the demand letter via email. He stated that
``[c]ertainly, the decision to keep pastoral remarks non-
denominational--a viewpoint neural policy--is appropriate in this
instance.'' Mr. Thompson further stated that ``the ceremony will
commemorate veterans of all cultures and beliefs, and the tone of
remarks must therefore be inclusive.'' He went on to state that Pastor
Rainey must notify Director Ocasio by 3 p.m. the following day if ``he
agrees to modify the message he wishes to deliver in compliance with
[Director Ocasio's] directive to him dated May 19, 2011....''
On May 26, 2011, Pastor Scott Rainey filed a complaint and a motion
for a temporary restraining order in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, seeking that Defendants
Director Ocasio and the VA be enjoined from censoring the contents of
his prayer and religious expression at the May 30, 2011 Memorial Day
ceremony, hosted by the National Cemetery Council for Greater Houston.
On May 26, 2011, U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes enjoined
Defendants VA and Director Ocasio and all those acting in concert with
them from dictating the content of speeches, including prayer, at the
May 30, 2011 Memorial Day ceremony.
Restrictions Placed Upon Veterans Honor Guards at Houston National
Cemetery
While we were presenting the arguments to the Court about Pastor
Rainey, we learned of several other instances of religious hostility
occurring at the Houston National Cemetery, including religious
censorship directed at veterans honor guards.
For at least 30 years at Houston National Cemetery, families of
deceased veterans worked with private funeral homes to arrange military
honors. If the family requested that the VFW District 4 burial team, or
any other volunteer burial team such as The American Legion Post 586
burial team, perform military honors, the funeral home contacted VFW
District 4 or The American Legion Post 586 directly. If the funeral
home contacted the VFW District 4 Honor Guard, they would perform the
VFW Burial Ritual, a ritual that dates back to 1914. If the funeral
home contacted the American Legion Post 586, they would perform the
American Legion Burial Ritual. Both rituals include religious speech
and prayer and references to God.
It was only after Director Ocasio's arrival at the Houston National
Cemetery that the government inserted itself into this process and
began discriminating against religious speech and expression. Prior to
Director Ocasio's arrival at the Cemetery, the VFW District 4 and
American Legion Post 586 honor guards included religious speech and
prayer in their burial rituals without interference from any
representatives of the Cemetery. Cemetery officials never required that
the families of the deceased veteran submit requests to them, either
written or oral, before the honor guards performed their burial
rituals. Funeral arrangements were made through the private funeral
homes, not by Cemetery officials. These veterans groups never heard a
complaint about performing their burial ritual. To the contrary,
families praised these groups' honor guards.
During several meetings in 2011, Director Ocasio told the
leadership of VFW District 4 that its honor guard could no longer do
the entire VFW Burial Ritual. Instead, they could only do what she
described as the ``four core elements,'' the folding of the flag, the
presentation of the flag, the rifle salute, and the playing of Taps. At
these meetings, Director Ocasio stated that the VFW District 4 Honor
Guard members could not provide texts of prayer to the family for
consideration. She also stated that if family members wanted a certain
prayer read, they would have to submit the prayer to the cemetery in
writing and cemetery officials would then give the prayer to the VFW
District 4 Honor Guard to read.
Also, in 2011, a cemetery representative told the VFW District 4
Honor Guard that they were not allowed to do the entire VFW Burial
Ritual because the word ``God'' is forbidden. The cemetery
representative did state that they could say the Lord's Prayer and the
23rd Psalm since the word ``God'' is not included in those texts. When
questioned regarding the source of the authority for these
pronouncements, the cemetery representative responded ``by my
supervisor's orders.''
Further, in 2011, a cemetery employee instructed American Heritage
Funeral Home, which sits next to the Houston National Cemetery and
specializes in veterans' funerals, that the VFW District 4 Honor Guard
team is forbidden from including prayer or religious messages in its
ritual, and must only do the ``four core elements,'' unless the family
pre-submits the prayer or religious message that it would like in
writing prior to the funeral. Incredibly, the cemetery employee also
admittedly told the private funeral home that it was not allowed to
inform families that they could have the VFW Honor Guard team include
prayer or a religious message if they pre-submitted it in writing since
that would be trying to influence the families.
For approximately two and a half years, VFW District 4 Honor Guard
Junior Vice Commander Nobleton Jones recited to family members of the
deceased veteran as he handed them the discharged shell casings from
the gun salute: ``On behalf of the United States of America, a grateful
nation, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, I present you with these
shell casings from the shots that were fired to honor our departed
comrade. We thank him for his honorable service to our country. We
thank you and your family for your support. We ask that God grant you
and your family grace, mercy, and peace.''
At a meeting in 2011, Mr. Jones asked Director Ocasio if he was
permitted to make this recitation. Director Ocasio stated ``no.'' Mr.
Jones then asked if he was allowed to hand the shell casings to the
family. Director Ocasio again said ``no.'' Director Ocasio further
stated that Mr. Jones was prohibited from having any direct contact
with the family. Moreover, after a burial ceremony in 2011, a cemetery
employee, who was monitoring the funeral service, instructed Mr. Jones
that he was no longer allowed to recite his message as he hands the
discharged shells to the family, presumably because the message
includes the word ``God.''
In 2011, Director Ocasio implemented a policy entitled ``Houston
National Cemetery Honor Guard Guidelines'' (the ``Houston
Guidelines''). The Houston Guidelines required that the volunteer honor
guards delete all religious elements from their rituals, unless the
family specifically requests otherwise. The policy stated that
``funeral military honors should consist only of the core elements: the
folding of the United States Flag; presentation of the flag to the
veteran's family; playing of traditional Taps; and a rifle salute.
Additions to these core elements can only be made at the request of the
deceased's survivor(s).'' 4.a. The Houston Guidelines also stated that
if the family of the deceased veteran has a member of the clergy recite
a prayer or read from scripture that the volunteer honor guard may not
also read scripture or recite a prayer. para. 7. The Houston Guidelines
further restricted the speech of the honor guards by stating that they
are forbidden from providing the texts of optional recitations for the
committal service to the deceased's survivors for consideration. para.
8.b.
According to Director Ocasio, the Houston Guidelines were based
upon national VA policy. On November 1, 2007, Under Secretary for
Memorial Affairs William F. Tuerk issued a memorandum with the subject
``Policy on Recitations on the Meaning of Folds of an Honor Guard
Funeral Flags'' (the ``2007 National Policy''). The 2007 National
Policy provided that ``NCA employees, including VA-sponsored Volunteer
Honor Guards, may read such recitations at committal services, but only
if the recitation to be read is presented by the deceased's
survivor(s). NCA employees, including VA-sponsored Volunteer Honor
Guards, shall not provide texts of any such recitations to the
deceased's survivors for consideration.''
Restrictions Placed Upon The National Memorial Ladies at Houston
National Cemetery
The National Memorial Ladies (``NML'') is a private, nonprofit
organization that was founded in 2008. The NML's mission is to ensure
that no soldier is ever buried alone. The NML began attending veterans'
funerals at Houston National Cemetery in September 2008. To that end,
the group attends most veterans' funerals at Houston National Cemetery,
approximately 60 a week, to honor veterans and console their families.
Since 2008, NML volunteers have attended thousands of veterans'
funerals at the Houston National Cemetery.
If the family members of the deceased veteran attend the funeral,
the NML will hand them a condolence card with both a printed and
handwritten message. When handing the family members the card, the
volunteers will often orally thank them for their sacrifice.
Previously, NML volunteers would write ``God Bless You and Your
Family'' in their condolence cards and would sometimes say ``God Bless
You and Your Family'' or ``we're praying for you'' to the families of
the deceased veterans.
NML volunteers have always been sensitive to the religious
backgrounds of the families. NML volunteers can usually discern the
religious background of the family by observing what type of clergy
member is present. If the cemetery employee attending the funeral
informs a NML volunteer that the veteran or the veterans' family is
atheist, the volunteer will not mention ``God'' or say any other
religious message, and will not hand the family a condolence card with
``God'' or any other religious message. No one has ever complained
about a NML volunteer; to the contrary, many individuals have praised
the NML for their volunteer efforts.
In September 2010, Director Ocasio approached NML's President,
Cheryl Whitfield, and asked her what the NML volunteers write in the
condolence cards. Ms. Whitfield told her that the ladies write
something to the effect of ``On behalf of the people of the United
States of America, we are grateful to [name of deceased veteran] for
his [or her] selfless service he [or she] gave our country--our nation
is grateful. God bless you and your family, [name of NML volunteer].''
Director Ocasio then told Ms. Whitfield that the word ``God'' is
forbidden. Director Ocasio stated that ``God Bless You'' could no
longer be written in the condolence cards or spoken to the families,
and that the NML volunteers could no longer speak or write any
religious message. Director Ocasio instructed Ms. Whitfield that all
speech, both oral and written, has to be ``generic'' so that the NML
volunteers do not offend anyone.
Later that month, Director Ocasio met with Ms. Whitfield and five
other NML volunteers in the cemetery lunchroom/conference room. During
the meeting, Director Ocasio stated that NML volunteers could no longer
speak or write religious words or messages such as ``God,'' ``Jesus,''
or ``God Bless You.'' Director Ocasio stated that NML volunteers could
instead speak or write ``peace be with you'' or ``our thoughts are with
you.'' Director Ocasio stated that all speech needs to be ``generic.''
Director Ocasio explained that NML volunteers needed to remove
religious references from their speech because they are on government
property. Director Ocasio stated that the cemetery was trying to
achieve ``shrine status'' and that in order to do this, cemetery
employees and volunteers need to work on ``customer service.'' Director
Ocasio said that ``we can't take a chance of offending anyone'' so we
don't hurt ``customer service.'' She further stated that removing all
religion would make the cemetery ``neutral'' towards religion.
Closure of Houston National Cemetery's Chapel and Removal of its
Religious Symbols
The Houston National Cemetery chapel previously displayed religious
symbols, such as a large Bible, a cross and a Star of David. Before
Director Ocasio's arrival at Houston National Cemetery, the cemetery
chapel was open during Cemetery operating hours, it was not used for
storage, its carillon was tolling three times per day and playing hymns
at various times, and it was used for funeral services. In addition to
being used for funeral services, the cemetery chapel served as a place
for individuals to pray, reflect, or mediate on the sacrifices of our
veterans. Special events, such as a reception for the Gold Star
Mothers, an organization of mothers who have lost a son or daughter in
the service of our country, were also held at the cemetery chapel.
Sometime around the Fall of 2010, the cemetery chapel was closed.
The doors remained locked during Houston National Cemetery operating
hours, it was no longer used for funeral services, and the carillon was
no longer tolling. This occurred after Director Ocasio's arrival at the
Cemetery, approximately February 2010, and before Cemetery construction
commenced, approximately January 2011. Director Ocasio only unlocked
the chapel doors when Houston National Cemetery meetings or training
sessions were held in the building. Furthermore, Director Ocasio did
not refer to the building as a ``chapel'' but a ``meeting facility.''
The back pews were filled with boxes, making the building appear more
like a storage facility than the chapel for which it was originally
intended.
In January 2011, Director Ocasio confirmed to the leadership of VFW
Post 9182 that the chapel was closed and stated that she had closed it
to make the Houston National Cemetery more ``comfortable'' for people
of all faiths.
Sometime after June 27, 2011, when the First Amended Complaint was
filed in our lawsuit, the chapel was unlocked. However, the Bible, the
Cross, and the Star of David were still kept in storage until after the
entry of the Consent Decree,
Interference with the wishes of the families of deceased veterans at
Houston National Cemetery
At least on three occasions, cemetery officials interfered with
families of deceased veterans in their making arrangements for burial
service. James Haycraft, Geri Lakey and Lisa Ward are representatives
of families of deceased veterans, whom cemetery officials interfered
with and sought to, or in fact, precluded the families' wishes in
honoring their deceased loved one. As result of the cemetery's actions,
Mr. Haycraft's brother did not receive the burial service he desired,
being prohibited from having the VFW Honor Guard perform the entire VFW
Burial Ritual. In the case of Ms. Lakey, cemetery officials attempted
to stop her husband from receiving the entire VFW Burial Ritual. But
for the actions of her husband's VFW Post Commander (a former judge),
his final wishes would have been thwarted. Finally, with regard to Ms.
Ward, in light of the cemetery's practices and policies, Ms. Ward had
to have her husband's burial service at a private funeral home rather
than the Houston National Cemetery so that the honor guard could
perform the entire VFW Burial Ritual, as she desired. Nevertheless,
because of the cemetery's restrictions, her desire to have the service
at the cemetery was denied.
Entry of Consent Decree; Restoration of Religious Liberty at National
Cemeteries
During the course of the litigation, the VA revealed the national
policies it had in place authorizing Director Ocasio to engage in
religious discrimination. After almost five months of litigation, on
October 19, 2011, U.S. Federal District Judge Lynn Hughes entered a
consent decree resolving this litigation. This landmark consent decree
restores the religious liberty rights of our clients and ended the
religious hostility occurring at the Houston National Cemetery. This
Consent Decree not only impacts religious freedom at Houston National
Cemetery, but has national implications since the VA agreed to change
the national policies under which Director Ocasio acted.
In summary, the Court ordered the Government to:
1. Amend the VA's national policy (National Cemetery Directive
3170) that restricted free speech during special ceremonies and events
(e.g., Memorial Day, Veterans Day, etc.) at VA national cemeteries,
eliminating the requirement that invocations and benedictions be
``inclusive'' and ``nonderogatory.'' (para.7)
2. Amend the VA's national policy (November 1, 2007, National
Cemetery memorandum issued by Under Secretary William F. Turek on the
Meaning of Folds of an Honor Guard Funeral Flag) that restricted
volunteer honor guards from performing their entire burial ritual.
(para.18)
3. Rescind provisions of the Houston National Cemetery Honor Guard
Guidelines (para.para. 4.a., 7, 8.a., 8.b., and 8.c.) that restricted
volunteer honor guards from performing their entire burial rituals.
(para.para. 10, 14, 17)
4. Not edit, control or exercise prior restraints on the content
of private religious speech and expression by speakers during special
ceremonies and events (e.g., Memorial Day, Veterans Day, etc.) or
private committal services at Houston National Cemetery. (para.8)
5. Not ban, regulate or interfere with prayers, recitations or
words of religious expression absent family objections at veterans'
committal services. (para.1)
6. Allow veterans' families to hold committal services with any
religious or secular content they desire. (para.2)
7. Not ban religious speech or words, such as ``God'' and
``Jesus'' in oral and written communications at committal services.
(para.para.21, 22)
8. Not ban, regulate, or otherwise interfere with the giving of
gifts, including gifts that contain a religious message or viewpoint at
committal services. (para.23)
9. Keep the Houston National Cemetery chapel open and unlocked
during normal operating hours, allow its use for private committal
services, for prayer, or for reflection, and not use the public area of
the chapel for storage. (para.para.40, 41, 45)
10. Return the Bible, the Cross and the Star of David for display
in the chapel. (para.42)
11. Pay Plaintiffs' attorneys fees and expenses.
Conclusion
As our lawsuit demonstrates, there is a real threat to religious
liberty at national cemeteries. This legislation (H.R. 2720) will
further protect the religious freedom of veterans and those who seek to
serve and honor them. We support this effort and will do everything we
can do to stand with our veterans. They deserve nothing less.
Executive Summary
Kelly Shackelford is the President and Chief Executive Officer of
Liberty Institute, who represented Pastor Scott Rainey, VFW District 4,
The American Legion Post 586, the National Memorial Ladies, and Lisa
Ward, James Haycraft, and Geraldine Lakey, family members of recently
deceased veterans, in their lawsuit against the United States
Department of Veterans Affairs, Hon. Eric Shinseki, Secretary of the
VA, and Arleen Ocasio, Director of the Houston National Cemetery,
seeking to prohibit religious censorship and discrimination at the
Houston National Cemetery. The claims in this lawsuit were supported by
the sworn testimony of 25 veterans and their supporters who witnessed
firsthand religious hostility occurring at the Houston National
Cemetery. This lawsuit was resolved in October 2011, with the entry of
a 20 page Consent Decree that includes 50 specific court ordered
requirements restoring the religious liberty rights of our clients,
other veterans across the country and those who seek to serve and honor
them.
The religious hostility discovered during the lawsuit included: (1)
the attempted censorship of a pastor's prayer at a Memorial Day
ceremony held at the Houston National Cemetery by the cemetery's
director; (2) restrictions placed on veterans honor guards at the
Houston National Cemetery by the cemetery's director prohibiting the
entire veterans burial ritual, which mentions God; (3) restrictions
placed upon the National Memorial Ladies at Houston National Cemetery
by the cemetery's director prohibiting them from writing and saying
``God bless you'' to the families of deceased veterans; (4) closure of
the Houston National Cemetery's Chapel and removal of its religious
symbols, including a large Bible, a cross and a Star of David; and (5)
the interference with the wishes of the families of deceased veterans
at Houston National Cemetery by restricting religious content in burial
services.
During the course of the litigation, the VA revealed the national
policies it had in place authorizing the cemetery director to engage in
religious discrimination. After almost five months of litigation, on
October 19, 2011, U.S. Federal District Judge Lynn Hughes entered a
consent decree resolving this litigation. This landmark consent decree
restores the religious liberty rights of our clients and ended the
religious hostility occurring at the Houston National Cemetery. This
Consent Decree not only impacts religious freedom at Houston National
Cemetery, but has national implications since the VA agreed to change
the national policies under which the cemetery director acted.
Prepared Statement of Jay Sanders
My name is Jay Sanders. I am the incoming Commander for the
Veterans of Foreign Wars (``VFW'') District 4. The VFW District 4 is a
nonprofit, volunteer veterans organization that oversees the 17 VFW
Posts in Houston. Approximately 4,000 veterans are members of VFW
District 4. Previously, I served as the Senior Vice Commander and the
Junior Vice Commander of VFW District 4. I am also currently serving as
the Commander of VFW Post 912. I have also served as the Junior Vice
Commander of VFW Post 912 and as the Post Chaplain. I am a three-time
winner of the National-Aide-de-Camp, which is an award given for
outstanding service to the VFW.
I am a Navy Veteran; I served in the Navy from 1960 through 1964. I
served as a Machinist Mate 3rd Class and served on the U.S.S. Bonhommie
Richard CVA-31, an attack carrier. I received my eligibility for the
VFW from August through October of 1964 where I served in the Tonkin
Gulf Incident. I received the National Defense Citation Award from the
Navy. I also received the Expeditionary Ribbon from the Navy.
For at least 20 years, the VFW District 4 Honor Guard, at the
request of the family of the deceased, has honored veterans by
performing the VFW Burial Ritual during private funeral services at
Houston National Cemetery. VFW District 4 follows the official VFW
Burial Ritual, which was written and approved by the VFW National
Council of Administration. The VFW Burial Ritual includes a pre-written
prayer by the VFW District 4 Honor Guard Chaplain and religious speech
by the VFW Honor Guard Commander, which includes references to God.
Prior to 2011, National Cemetery officials never asked the VFW
District 4 Honor Guard to remove any parts of its ritual, prohibited
the honor guard from performing the entire ritual unless the families
requested it, or required that special prayers be submitted to cemetery
employees. Furthermore, the VFW ritual was never before divided between
so-called ``core elements'' and ``additions to the core elements.''
Prior to 2011, the government never interfered with private decisions
made between the family, the funeral home, and the VFW District 4 Honor
Guard.
In early 2011, the Director of the Houston National Cemetery met
with the VFW District 4 Line Officers in her office. During the course
of the meeting, the National Cemetery Director told us that she wanted
the Department of Defense burial team to train the VFW burial team so
that every burial team was trained the same way. The National Cemetery
Director then stated that the VFW District 4 Honor Guard could no
longer perform the entire VFW ritual, but could only do what she
described as the ``four core elements,'' the folding of the flag, the
presentation of the flag, the rifle salute, and the playing of Taps.
This removed all of the religious speech and references to God from the
VFW Burial Ritual. The National Cemetery Director further stated that
the VFW District 4 Honor Guard members could not provide texts of
prayer to the family for consideration. She stated that if family
members wanted a certain prayer read, they would have to submit the
prayer to the cemetery in writing and cemetery officials would then
give the prayer to the VFW District 4 Honor Guard to read.
In March 2011, the National Cemetery Director issued a policy
entitled ``Houston National Cemetery Honor Guard Guidelines.'' Among
other things, this policy stated that funeral military honors should
consist only of the core elements: the folding of the flag, the
presentation of the flag, the playing of Taps, and the rifle salute. It
further stated that additions to these core elements can only be made
at the request of the deceased's survivors. The policy also stated that
if the family has a member of the clergy provide a religious service,
then the honor guard team is not allowed to include religious elements,
such as readings from scripture or prayer. It also stated that
volunteer honor guards shall not provide the texts of any recitations
to the deceased's survivors for consideration.
On the same day the policy was issued, the National Cemetery
Director held training in the chapel for the VFW District 4 Honor
Guard, which performs the Burial Ritual during the funerals. I noticed
that the chapel was filled with boxes and appeared like it was being
used for storage. During the training, Junior Vice Commander of the
Honor Guard, Nobleton Jones asked if he could recite the following
while handing the shell casings to the family:
On behalf of the United States of America, a grateful nation,
and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, I present you with these shell
casings from the shots that were fired to honor our departed comrade.
We ask that God grant you and your family grace, mercy, and peace.
The National Cemetery Director stated ``no.'' Junior Vice Commander
Jones then asked if he was allowed to hand the shell casings to the
family. The National Cemetery Director said ``no'' unless the family
specifically asked for the shell casings. The National Cemetery
Director further stated that Mr. Jones was not allowed to have any
direct contact with the family.
A few weeks later, the National Cemetery Director met with VFW
District 4 line officers in her office. During the course of the
meeting, the National Cemetery Director instructed the VFW District 4
line officers that that the VFW District 4 Honor Guard could not
perform the entire ritual, unless specifically requested by the family
in writing. The National Cemetery Director also stated that if the
family wanted a VFW Honor Guard member to read any special prayer
during the service, that the family would have to submit the text of
the prayer to her, and then she would provide that prayer to the VFW
Honor Guard. One of the VFW District 4 line officers, recognizing that
these conditions are not included in the honor guard guidelines,
requested to see this policy in writing. The National Cemetery Director
agreed to provide these policies to us in writing, but never produced a
copy of these policies.
These oral and written policies implemented in 2011 were not only
unprecedented, but they substantially interfered with the private
funeral services of our deceased veterans. What is spoken during a
private funeral service is a very private and personal decision that
the government has no right to interfere with. The families of the
deceased veterans have been thankful and touched by the VFW Burial
Ritual. It is a great honor for a veteran to have the VFW Burial Ritual
performed, and the government has no business removing the religious
portions of this nearly 100-year old burial ritual.
Prepared Statement of Kathryn A. Condon
Introduction
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member McNerney and distinguished members of
the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the
Department of the Army's views on pending legislation.
Arlington National Cemetery is the preeminent national military
cemetery, a place on the world stage where hundreds-of-thousands of
American military service members lie in silent repose. At Arlington we
uphold appearance and operational standards that are second to none and
that are befitting the acts of bravery and sacrifice committed by those
who rest into eternity within these hallowed grounds. It is a distinct
honor to appear here before you and to testify as to the Army's
position on H.R. 2355, ``The Hallowed Grounds Act'' and H.R. 5735,
which encourages erecting ``The Tomb of Remembrance.''
In testifying before you this afternoon, I have the opportunity to
reinforce the ideals we have worked hard to implement and strengthen at
Arlington.
H.R. 2355
H.R. 2355 would amend Title 38, United States Code, to exclude
individuals who have been convicted of committing certain sex offenses
from receiving certain burial-related benefits and funeral honors which
are otherwise available to certain veterans, members of the Armed
Forces, and related individuals, and for other purposes.
Arlington National Cemetery's primary mission is to honor the
service of our nation's Veterans. The Army fully supports the intent of
the proposed legislation to keep the most heinous of sex offenders from
receiving the honor of interment or memorialization at Arlington
National Cemetery. The Army also defers to the Department of Veterans
Affairs on the applicability and implementation of the proposed
legislation within the 131 National Cemeteries as those cemeteries are
operated by that Department.
The Army cannot support H.R. 2355 as drafted. Specifically, the
bill only precludes convicted tier III sex offenders from burial or
memorialization at Arlington National Cemetery. There is no provision
in the bill to prevent the interment or memorialization of a person
found by an appropriate federal authority to have committed a tier III
sex offense, but not yet convicted.
The Army looks forward to the opportunity to work with the
Committee in an effort to resolve our concerns.
H.R. 5735
H.R. 5735 would provide for the establishment of a Tomb of
Remembrance at Arlington National Cemetery for interment of cremated
fragments of the remains of members of the Armed Forces killed in
Afghanistan, Iraq, or a subsequent conflict when the fragments are
unidentifiable by use of DNA testing or other means because of the
condition of the fragments, are unclaimed, or are identified and
authorized by the person designated to direct disposition of the
remains for interment in such memorial.
The Army supports passage of H.R. 5735. One of the most dignified
ways to affect the final disposition of unidentifiable remains is to
release them into an ossuary, a receptacle for burying human remains.
Arlington is the natural place to preserve the remains and memories of
our unknown service members, using funds from the Office of the
Secretary of Defense to erect an ossuary. We would execute these duties
with the same dignity, honor, respect and compassion that we exhibit
every day with all services conducted at Arlington.
As the capable staff at Arlington National Cemetery is well versed
in the complexities of burials, we recommend H.R. 5735 be amended to
allow the determination of burial eligibilities into the Tomb of
Remembrance to be left with the Department of Defense, rather than
articulated specifically in the legislation.
CONCLUSION
The Army fully supports the intent of H.R. 2355, however, passage
as currently drafted would fail to give the Department the full range
of options required to appropriately implement the intent of the
legislation, and we would appreciate the opportunity to confer with the
Committee.
Passage of H.R. 5735 would appropriately extend Arlington National
Cemetery's role in the proper disposition of service members' remains
in a way that presently is not practiced.
On behalf of Arlington National Cemetery and the Department of the
Army, I would like to express our appreciation for the support that
Congress has provided over the years.
Prepared Statement of Thomas Murphy
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to present the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) on several bills of interest to Veterans and VA. Accompanying me
today is Richard Hipolit, Assistant General Counsel. VA does not yet
have cleared views on H.R. 2720 or H.R. 5881, the ``Access to Veterans
Benefits Improvement Act.'' VA will forward views and estimated costs
on these bills as soon as they are available.
H.R. 2355
Section 2411 of title 38, United States Code, prohibits the
interment of the remains of certain persons in a cemetery in the
National Cemetery Administration or Arlington National Cemetery.
Section 2411 also prohibits honoring of the memory of those persons in
a memorial area in those cemeteries. These prohibitions apply to
persons who have been finally convicted of a Federal capital crime,
persons who have been finally convicted of a state capital crime, and
persons who have been found, in administrative proceedings, to have
committed a Federal or state capital crime but not to have been
convicted by reason of unavailability for trial due to death or flight
to avoid prosecution.
Section 2(a) of H.R. 2355, the ``Hallowed Grounds Act,'' would add
to section 2411 another category of persons subject to those
prohibitions. Under this amendment, a person ``who is a tier III sex
offender for purposes of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification
Act'' could not be interred or honored in a national cemetery. Tier III
is the most serious category of sex offenders in the Sex Offender
Registration and Notification Act. Although the caption of section 2(a)
refers to a bar to receiving certain funeral honors, section 2411 does
not pertain to the provision of funeral honors as such, as that term is
used to refer to ceremonial activities that accompany the interment of
remains. Under section 2(b) of the bill, these provisions would apply
to interments and memorializations that occur on or after the date of
enactment. VA defers to the Department of the Army on the applicability
of the proposed amendment to burial in Arlington National Cemetery,
which is operated by that Department, and defers to the Department of
Defense as to any effect on the provision of funeral honors, which the
Department of Defense provides to eligible Veterans.
VA supports the goal of keeping the most heinous sex offenders from
receiving the honor of interment or memorialization in VA cemeteries.
VA has concerns about some practical issues that implementation of H.R.
2355, as currently drafted, would raise. VA would like to confer with
the Committee, the Department of Justice (DOJ), and with VA's Veterans
Service Organization partners following the hearing regarding the
sensitive issues that it raises. VA would like to further investigate
specific concerns with DOJ about the accuracy and reliability of
information currently contained in State databases and whether those
databases contain the information VA needs to make eligibility
determinations and ensure consistent application for similar offenses
across the Nation. In addition to the current accuracy of the
databases, VA is also concerned by the fact that when sex offenders
die, States are not required to maintain their records. This could give
rise to circumstances that could necessitate labor-intensive searches
and review in the implementation of the prohibitions and could reduce
VA's ability to provide timely decisions on burial requests. VA will
work closely with the Committee, DOJ, and other partners to attempt to
resolve these questions.
H.R. 2996
Section 1117 of title 38, United States Code, authorizes VA to pay
compensation to Persian Gulf Veterans with a qualifying chronic
disability that became manifest during service on active duty in the
Armed Forces in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the
Persian Gulf War or during a presumptive period prescribed by VA, as
authorized by section 1117(b). Under current regulations, that
presumptive period will end December 31, 2016. Section 2(a) of H.R.
2996, the ``Gulf War Syndrome `Presumptive Illness' Extension Act of
2011,'' would prohibit the presumptive period prescribed by VA from
ending earlier than December 31, 2018. Section 1117(f) defines the term
``Persian Gulf veteran'' for purposes of section 1117 as ``a veteran
who served on active duty in the Armed Forces in the Southwest Asia
theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War.'' Section 2(b)(1) of
the bill would require VA to treat as a Persian Gulf Veteran eligible
for compensation authorized by section 1117 any ``veteran who served on
active duty in the Armed Forces during Operation Enduring Freedom,
Operation Iraqi Freedom, or Operation New Dawn in the Southwest Asia
theater of operations, Afghanistan, or other location that supported
such an operation, as determined by the Secretary.''
Section 1118(a) of title 38, United States Code, authorizes
presumptions of service connection prescribed by VA regulations for
certain illnesses found to have a positive association with exposure to
a biological, chemical or other toxic agent; environmental or wartime
hazard, or preventive medicine or vaccine known or presumed to be
associated with service in the Armed Forces in the Southwest Asia
theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War. Section 1118(a)(3)
requires VA to presume that a Veteran who served on active duty in the
Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War and
has a pertinent illness to have been exposed to the agent, hazard, or
medicine or vaccine associated with the illness in the prescribed
regulations unless conclusive evidence establishes that the Veteran was
not exposed to the agent, hazard, or medicine or vaccine. Section
2(b)(2) of the bill would require VA to treat as ``a veteran who served
on active duty in the Armed Forces in the Southwest Asia theater of
operations during the Persian Gulf War'' a ``veteran who served on
active duty in the Armed Forces during Operation Enduring Freedom,
Operation Iraqi Freedom, or Operation New Dawn in the Southwest Asia
theater of operations, Afghanistan, or other location that supported
such an operation, as determined by the Secretary.''
VA does not object to prohibiting the end of the section 1117
presumptive period before December 31, 2018, but does not support
extending the definition of ``Persian Gulf veteran'' to include service
in Afghanistan or other location that supported such operations. The
term ``Persian Gulf veteran'' as used in section 1117 was initially
associated with Veterans who served during Operation Desert Shield and
Operation Desert Storm in 1990-1991. Section 1117 was based on complex
of chronic symptoms that developed among those Veterans, and 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 1118 addresses environmental hazards associated with service in
that theater of operations. The National Academy of Sciences' Institute
of Medicine, whose studies VA uses to determine which disabilities are
associated with such service, has considered several hazards associated
with that service, but those hazards are generally not associated with
service in Afghanistan or in other locations supporting operations
there. Consequently, VA does not support expanding the scope of
sections 1117 and 1118 to include service in Afghanistan or in other
support locations.
VA did not have sufficient time to accurately estimate costs for
H.R. 2996 and will submit that information when it is available.
H.R. 4299
S. 4299, the ``Quality Housing for Veterans Act,'' would amend 38
U.S.C. Sec. 2102A(e) to extend through December 31, 2014, VA's
authority to make Temporary Residence Adaptation grants to severely
disabled Veterans who reside temporarily with family members.
Currently, this authority will expire on December 31, 2012.
VA strongly supports the extension of this specially adapted
housing authority. VA's legislative proposal submitted to Congress on
May 19, 2011, included a proposal to extend this authority for ten
years.
No benefit or administrative costs would result from enactment of
H.R. 4299.
H.R. 5735
H.R. 5735 would require the Secretary of Defense to establish in
Arlington National Cemetery a ``Tomb of Remembrance'' for the interment
of the cremated fragments of the remains of certain members of the
Armed Forces who were killed in Operation Enduring Freedom in
Afghanistan, Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation New Dawn in Iraq, or
any war or contingency operation designated after the date of
enactment. The bill would require the Secretary of Defense to transfer
the funds necessary to cover the costs to be incurred in establishing
the Tomb of Remembrance from the account of the Office of the Secretary
of Defense to the Account of the Secretary of the Army used to fund the
operation and maintenance of Arlington National Cemetery.
Because H.R. 5735 would not affect the operations of or programs
administered by VA, VA defers to the Department of Defense and the
Department of the Army as to the merits of the bill. Nevertheless,
because VA now provides the headstones and markers used at Arlington
National Cemetery for individual gravesites and columbaria niches and
the markers placed in memorial sections of the cemetery, VA could incur
a cost to provide a marker for placement on the Tomb of Remembrance.
However, VA cannot estimate the potential cost until a final design is
determined.
H.R. 5880
H.R. 5880, the ``Disability Examination Access Improvement Act,''
would extend for five years VA's authority to provide compensation and
pension examinations by contract examiners. Under current law, this
authority will expire on December 31, 2012.
VA strongly supports the extension of this authority, which is
essential for VA's ability to continue to provide prompt and high-
quality medical disability examinations. If this authority is allowed
to expire, VA will not be able to provide contracted disability
examinations, and VA's priority goal to eliminate the disability claims
backlog will be adversely affected. Extending the authority for another
five years would enable VA to effectively leverage discretionary
appropriations as part of our response to increasing demands for
medical disability examinations. Contracting for examinations is
essential to VA's objective of ensuring timely adjudication of
disability compensation claims and allows the Veterans Health
Administration to better focus its resources on providing needed heath
care to Veterans.
No benefit or administrative costs would result from enactment of
this bill. The Administration's Fiscal Year 2013 budget request
included this proposal.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to
entertain any questions you or the other Members of the Subcommittee
may have.
Statement For The Record
Hon. Ted Poe (TX-02)
Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney and other Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of HR
2720.
On June 28th of last year, constituents of mine came to meet with
me about a big problem at the National Cemetery in Houston. The
National Cemetery in Houston is the second-largest in the nation and
the place where four Medal of Honor winners were laid to rest. These
constituents were members of the VFW, American Legion, and the Houston
branch of the National Memorial Ladies who had been serving veterans
and their families as they laid their loved ones to rest. They said the
Director of the Cemetery was not letting them exercise their First
Amendment rights. They claimed the VA was censoring free speech and
preventing the free exercise of religion at the National Cemetery in
Houston. They said the chapel at the cemetery was closed. The Bible,
the cross, and the Star of David were removed, and the chapel became a
storage shed. They also said the Director of the cemetery, who was not
a veteran, censored prayers and prohibited the religious ceremony
during burial of veterans.
The Director defended herself by saying she was simply enforcing VA
regulations that all speech be ``inclusive.'' That meant this was not
just an isolated incident, but a problem at the very highest levels and
one that could be repeated unless a stop was put to it. The VFW sued
the VA, and the VA naturally denied the whole thing. Recently, a
Federal judge approved and agreed to an order requiring the chapel to
be reopened, the Bible, the cross, the Star of David to be returned,
and said that the VA must not interfere with free speech or the free
exercise of religion at burials. Since then, the VA refused to fire the
Director, instead choosing to transfer her back to Washington DC.
I am a cosponsor of HR 2720 because if passed, it would make sure
travesties like the one I just described do not happen again. The bill
is clear that the VA cannot limit the freedom of speech of our
veterans, must provide veterans a place where they can worship, make
sure that VSOs like the ones that came to me are allowed to serve
veterans, and require that all cemetery directors are veterans.
It is ironic that Americans who have gone to war and fought for the
principles of the Constitution, come home to face government hostility
and the denial of their First Amendment rights. To deny anyone of their
right to free speech or freedom of religion is unacceptable, but to
deny our veterans, those who fought for those very freedoms we enjoy
today, is inexcusable. The fact that this was done at funeral services,
when families were saying goodbye to loved ones, makes it even worse.
The First Amendment is sacred, funerals are sacred and when our
veterans are buried, that soil becomes sacred. It is the constitutional
duty of the federal government to protect speech and religion, not
prohibit it. I urge this subcommittee to support HR 2720. That's just
the way it is.