[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON: H.R. 3936, 4087, 4757, 4758, 4759, 4782, 3715;
A DRAFT BILL ENTITLED ``MEDAL OF HONOR LEGACY ACT''; A DRAFT BILL
ENTITLED ``LOVE LIVES ON ACT OF 2016''; A DRAFT BILL ENTITLED ``TO
AMEND TITLE 38, U. S. CODE, TO IMPROVE THE CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE BY
BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS''; AND, A DRAFT BILL ENTITLED ``TO AMEND
TITLE 38, U.S. CODE, TO PAY SPECIAL COMPENSATION TO CERTAIN VETERANS
WITH THE LOSS OR LOSS OF USE OF CREATIVE ORGANS''
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2016
__________
Serial No. 114-62
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-125 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado CORRINE BROWN, Florida, Ranking
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Vice- Minority Member
Chairman MARK TAKANO, California
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee JULIA BROWNLEY, California
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan DINA TITUS, Nevada
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas RAUL RUIZ, California
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana KATHLEEN RICE, New York
RALPH ABRAHAM, Louisiana TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
LEE ZELDIN, New York JERRY McNERNEY, California
RYAN COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, American
Samoa
MIKE BOST, Illinois
Jon Towers, Staff Director
Don Phillips, Democratic Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
RALPH ABRAHAM, Louisiana, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado DINA TITUS, Nevada, Ranking Member
LEE ZELDIN, New York JULIA BROWNLEY, California
RYAN COSTELLO, Pennsylvania RAUL RUIZ, California
MIKE BOST, Illinois
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
----------
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Page
Legislative Hearing On: H.R. 3936, H.R. 4087, H.R. 4757, H.R.
4758, H.R. 4759, H.R. 4782, H.R. 3715; A Draft Bill Entitled
``Medal Of Honor Legacy Act''; A Draft Bill Entitled ``Love
Lives On Act Of 2016''; A Draft Bill Entitled ``To Amend Title
38, United States Code, To Improve The Consideration Of
Evidence By Board Of Veterans' Appeals''; And, A Draft Bill
Entitled ``To Amend Title 38, United States Code, To Pay
Special Compensation To Certain Veterans With The Loss Or Loss
Of Use Of Creative Organs''.................................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Honorable Ralph Abraham, Chairman................................ 1
Honorable Dina Titus, Ranking Member............................. 2
Honorable Jeff Miller, Full Committee Chairman................... 3
Honorable Corrine Brown, Full Committee Ranking Member........... 5
Prepared Statement........................................... 35
Honorable Ryan Costello, Member.................................. 6
Honorable Mia Love, U.S. House of Representatives, 4th
Congressional District; Utah................................... 8
WITNESSES
Mr. David R. McLenachen, Deputy Under Secretary for Disability
Assistance..................................................... 9
Prepared Statement........................................... 35
Accompanied by:
Mr. Matt Sullivan, Deputy Under Secretary of Finance and
Planning and CFO, National Cemetery Administration, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Patrick K. Hallinan, Executive Director, Army National
Military Cemeteries, Department of the Army.................... 11
Prepared Statement........................................... 43
Mr. Carl Blake, Associate Executive Director for Government
Relations, Paralyzed Veterans of America....................... 21
Prepared Statement........................................... 44
Mr. Aleks Morosky, Deputy Director, National Legislative Service,
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States.................. 23
Prepared Statement........................................... 47
Mr. Paul R. Varela, Assistant National Legislative Director,
Disabled American Veterans..................................... 25
Prepared Statement........................................... 51
Ms. Elizabeth Davis, Advocate for Survivors' Benefits............ 26
Prepared Statement........................................... 54
Mr. Edward G. Lilley, Team Leader for Health Policy, National
Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Division, The American
Legion......................................................... 28
Prepared Statement........................................... 56
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON: H.R. 3936, H.R. 4087, H.R. 4757, H.R. 4758,
H.R. 4759, H.R. 4782, H.R. 3715; A DRAFT BILL ENTITLED ``MEDAL OF HONOR
LEGACY ACT''; A DRAFT BILL ENTITLED ``LOVE LIVES ON ACT OF 2016''; A
DRAFT BILL ENTITLED ``TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO IMPROVE
THE CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE BY BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS''; AND, A
DRAFT BILL ENTITLED ``TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO PAY
SPECIAL COMPENSATION TO CERTAIN VETERANS WITH THE LOSS OR LOSS OF USE
OF CREATIVE ORGANS''
----------
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
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 10:07 a.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Ralph Abraham
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Abraham, Titus, Lamborn, Brownley,
Zeldin, Ruiz, Costello, and Bost.
Also Present: Representatives Miller, and Brown.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RALPH ABRAHAM, CHAIRMAN
Mr. Abraham. Good morning. This hearing will come to order.
Before we begin, I would like to ask unanimous consent that
Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Brown be allowed to sit at
the dias, speaking on their bills and ask questions.
Hearing no objections, so ordered.
I want to thank you all for joining us today to discuss
legislation pending before the Subcommittees. The eleven bills
on the agenda address important issues for veterans and their
families, including providing additional compensation benefits,
honoring deceased veterans, and finding new ways to improving
claims and appeals processing.
I would like to focus my remarks on the bill I am proud to
have introduced, H.R. 4782, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-
Living Adjustment Act of 2016. I would also like to thank my
colleague Ranking Member Titus for being an original cosponsor.
H.R. 4782 would authorize a cost-of-living increase as of
December 1st, 2016 for veterans and their families who receive
VA disability compensation or other benefits. Veterans earn
these benefits as a result of their service to our Nation. They
and their families depend on these payments to help make ends
meet.
The amount of the increase would be based on the Consumer
Price Index, which is also used to determine the cost-of-living
adjustment for Social Security beneficiaries.
Last year, veterans and Social Security beneficiaries did
not receive a COLA, but cost of living may go up this year.
Therefore, it is absolutely essential that we pass H.R. 4782 to
ensure that veterans' benefits keep up with the rate of
inflation.
With that said, I look forward to productive and meaningful
discussion on each of the eleven pieces of legislation before
us today. I appreciate the work of my colleagues who introduced
these bills, and I also want to express my gratitude to the
witnesses for being here to discuss them with us.
I will now yield to my colleague Ranking Member Titus for
any opening statement she may have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF DINA TITUS, RANKING MEMBER
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
for holding this hearing today, so we can discuss some of this
important legislation that affects our veterans.
I want to thank you also for including my bill, the Medal
of Honor Legacy Act.
We have heard estimates from Arlington National Cemetery
that they are going to be at capacity within two decades, so we
need to have a plan for what we are going to do there at the
cemetery, and we certainly need to include in that plan our
Medal of Honor recipients.
In the history of our country, we have awarded more than
3,400 Medal of Honors since the decoration's creation 155 years
ago. Three hundred and sixty one of these recipients are buried
at Arlington and there are 77 living recipients still with us
today. So the purpose of this legislation would be to ensure
that they have a place at Arlington for these very few, very
special servicemen and women who have received this highest
honor.
We worked with the Army and VSOs in guiding our language,
and we thank them for their help, and we have tried to redraft
the bill so that it includes their suggestions. I understand,
though, that they would like to lower the number of places that
we are going to set aside in the bill and to use this as an
opportunity to plan future uses of Arlington. I think that is
all fine and planning is good, but I don't want that to become
an excuse for not getting it done. Too often when we say we are
going to do a study, that means we are going to put it on the
shelf, and we don't know when anything will happen. So we don't
want that to be the case here.
I also am very supportive of the policy to help veterans
who have lost the use of a reproductive organ. These are
veterans who have put everything on the line for the country
and now IEDs have made the injury more prevalent. So we want to
do all we can to help them start a family. I don't want us to
do it kind of in a halfway manner, though. If we are going to
do it, we should do it right, and we should do it so it covers
the problem and provides a benefit that really does make a
difference and can be taken advantage of to address this
challenge.
Also, I would just like to point out that since there is
not a lot of discussion between the two sides prior to the
legislative meetings, two issues that I hope that we will
consider in the future, one that I have talked about for
several years, and that is how to address the appeals process
to get ahead of it, so that we don't have the serious backlog
problem that we have now with just the application for
benefits. I know that the VSOs are working on this, the VA has
said it is a priority. I hope that we will have a real
substantive hearing on some of the ways to address that
legislatively.
And finally, once again, and I will say this as long as I
am here, I am disappointed that the legislation I requested
that we would consider today, H.R. 1598, which is the Veterans'
Spouses Equal Treatment Act, was not included. This is simply
to bring the VA in line with the Supreme Court decision, so
that we recognize spouses of all genders, that we don't say a
spouse has to be a member of the opposite sex. This is just
outdated legislation or language in legislation that needs to
be updated. It doesn't extend any kind of rights, it doesn't
impose on states' rights, it doesn't say you support gay
marriage, it simply brings the language up to date.
So I hope that at some point, since there is bipartisan
support for that, and the VA supports it and VSOs have said
they support it, that we will consider that legislation.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Ms. Titus.
Chairman Miller, I appreciate you taking time to be here
today. You are now recognized to discuss your bills.
OPENING STATEMENT OF JEFF MILLER, CHAIRMAN, FULL COMMITTEE
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
pleasure to be here.
Ms. Titus, thank you for your hard work on this
Subcommittee as well.
As Members already know, our priorities must include
ensuring that those who have been injured as a result of their
service are fairly compensated for that injury, and that
veterans who have passed on receive the honor and the respect
that they deserve.
My bill, which was noticed for this hearing as a draft bill
entitled To Amend Title 38, United States Code, to Pay Special
Compensation to Certain Veterans with the Loss or Loss of Use
of Creative Organs, that is introduced as H.R. 4892, would
ensure that veterans who have suffered a traumatic injury to
their creative organs would receive appropriate compensation
for those injuries.
In addition to regular compensation payments, VA provides a
special monthly compensation or SMC to service-disabled
veterans due to circumstances such as the loss of a limb. For
veterans who have suffered an anatomical loss or loss of use of
a creative organ as a result of a service-connected disability,
SMC currently pays approximately $100 a month.
Although veterans appreciate this benefit, it does not
adequately compensate the veteran for the unique nature of the
injury that prevents the ability to have a family. According to
the Department of Health and Human Services, private adoption
fees can cost anywhere between $5,000 and $40,000.
The bill would provide two separate special monthly
compensation payments or SMC payments of $10,000 each. Veterans
would be able to use this money however they see fit, and to
meet the needs of that veteran's specific circumstance.
For example, a veteran could choose to use this benefit to
defray adoption fees or to buy a house large enough to take
care of foster children that they may bring into their home.
However, a veteran may also choose to use these funds in other
ways, as is typical for compensation payments.
If a veteran does decide to use this benefit to raise a
family, the real winner in fact is the children. Who better to
teach our Nation's children the important values like
patriotism and service than the men and women who have served
in the armed forces.
As we consider proposals that would provide fair
compensation for our wounded warriors, it is also important to
ensure that veterans who have passed away receive the deference
and respect that they are due.
But before I discuss my other bills that are on today's
agenda, I want to comment on VA's opposition to the important
legislation that I just described.
According to testimony, VA opposes my bill because it would
create an inequitable benefit favoring some veterans over
others. Really? Further, VA argues that the benefit would add
an undue level of complexity to the claims process.
Mr. Chairman, I am stunned at best. Once again, we have a
situation where VA is more inclined to support the status quo
than to address a real-world issue, the inability to start a
family because of a service-related injury.
Further, to argue this would add a level of complexity to
the claims process is offensive to me. As VA testifies, these
individuals already get a very minimal amount of compensation
for a creative organ loss. Would it really be that difficult to
identify and provide a meaningful benefit to those who have
lost the biological ability to start a family?
What I would ask today is the Department go back to the
drawing board and reconsider its position on this particular
piece of legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I have also introduced three other pieces
that help our Nation to better honor the deceased men and women
who have sacrificed so much in defense of our freedom.
One bill, H.R. 4757, would authorize the VA to furnish a
special headstone or medallion to adorn the graves of those who
were awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor and who are
buried in a private cemetery. Currently, the VA does not have
the authority to do so if the veteran passed away prior to 1990
and is buried at a private cemetery in a marked grave.
H.R. 4757 would allow Medal of Honor recipients, some of
our Nation's most treasured veterans, to receive the
recognition they deserve by providing a government headstone,
marker and medallion for privately buried Medal of Honor
recipients who served on or after April 6th of 1917. This
ensures that as a Nation, we are appropriately honoring those
veterans regardless of where they are laid to rest.
I have also introduced H.R. 4758, which would authorize the
issuance of the Presidential Memorial Certificate to deceased
members of the Reserve or Reserve Officers Training Corps who
are eligible for burial in a national cemetery. A Presidential
Memorial Certificate is signed by the President and expresses
the country's gratitude for that individual's service. I hope
that the families who receive this certificate will understand
how appreciative we as a Nation are for their loved one's
service and their sacrifice.
And finally, I authored H.R. 4759, which would authorize VA
to pay the burial transportation costs to state or tribal
veterans' cemeteries. Currently, the law only allows
transportation costs to a national veterans' cemetery. This
bill will ensure that families are not financially penalized if
they choose to have the veteran buried in a state or a tribal
cemetery.
And I would ask all of my colleagues to support this
legislation when it comes up for a vote, and I yield back my
time.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Chairman Miller.
Ranking Member Brown, thank you for joining us. You are now
recognized to discuss your bills.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CORRINE BROWN, RANKING MEMBER, FULL
COMMITTEE
Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to
speak on behalf of the important bills under consideration
today.
I am particularly pleased that we will be considering the
bill H.R. 3715, the Final Farewell Act, that is of great
importance to my constituents. While VA has the authority to
provide weekend services to veterans and their families, they
rarely do. This has been a particular challenge for various
religions and cultures who bury their loved ones on Saturdays.
Just two weeks ago, I attended a funeral service on a
Saturday, then had to wait along with the family until Monday
to bury their loved one because the cemetery would not bury the
servicemembers on Saturdays. This compound stress from losing a
loved one and being forced to break with tradition is
unnecessary.
My legislation, the Final Farewell Act, will make it easier
for families with religious and cultural traditions to bury
their loved ones at a time that works for the family. And I am
going to include some additional language there, because I want
to make it clear, it is not just a cultural issue, it is also a
serious financial burden to have to leave the bodies over to
Monday, it is an additional cost that the families have to
incur. Our veterans deserve to have their commonsense
convenience.
Thank you for considering H.R. 3715 and the support of this
commonsense change.
Another bill I am very proud to have introduced is the
Loved and Lives On Act.
And there are ten surviving spouses in the audience. Can
you just stand up?
So if it's ten here, you know it's thousands in the
community. Thank you all for being here today.
I had the opportunity to host our surviving spouses at a
roundtable last November. I heard them loud and clear, follow
the United Kingdom's lead by eliminating the age restriction on
remarrying.
What many may not know is that our current law is
discouraging widowed spouses of our most valiant servicemen
from remarrying. The U.K. noted that many of these spouses are
in committed relationships, but refrain from marrying to retain
their income. The right thing to do is clear, and I hope to
have my colleagues' support on this matter.
Lastly, I would like to voice serious concerns for the
legislation proposed from Chairman Miller that would pay two
lump sum payments of $10,000 for those who lose their use of a
creative organ. This legislation is trying to address a health
issue by offering cash instead of needed timely treatment, and
I strongly oppose it.
I believe a better alternative and compromise is the
language that's been agreed to in a bipartisan manner in the
agreement struck by the Senate to provide these veterans with
health care. This language is very similar to language proposed
last year by Chairman Miller and in concept, I support that.
Being able to have a family is an important step toward
healing our veterans and their families. I am committed to find
a way to make this happen.
And I want to mention one last thing as I close. This
Committee passed a bill a long time ago, it is important to
have institutional memory, that we forbid fertility treatment
for veterans, female veterans, and I think we need to take a
look at that, and this is something that we need to rescind,
because this should be an option for those veterans that want
this additional service. And the reason why we did it is
because sometimes these treatments lead to abortion because
something is wrong with the servicemember. So we need to take a
look at what we have done from this Committee's standpoint.
I want to thank you for bringing these bills up and I am
looking forward to working with them as they move to the Floor.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Corrine Brown appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Ranking Member Brown.
Are there any other Members that would like to speak about
their bills?
Representative Costello.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RYAN COSTELLO
Mr. Costello. Mr. Chairman, thank you for including my
legislation today and for the opportunity to speak in support
of H.R. 3936, The Veteran Engagement Team Act, also known as
the VET Act.
This legislation would offer a solution for the veteran who
needs assistance navigating the VA claims process. That
solution, bring professionals into the community for our
veterans to talk face-to-face with a real person who can offer
them help in realtime. Many veterans, unfortunately, struggle
to navigate the VA's bureaucracy to submit their disability
claims and receive the benefits they are due.
To further complicate the process, our veterans are often
subject to preventable delays that plague our current system.
Lost paperwork, a lack of communication, and an extensive
claims backlog.
This past summer, a Vietnam veteran asked my office for
assistance with the VA and his disability claim. He initially
applied for disability benefits years ago based on medical
conditions he believed were service-connected, but his request
was declined. Several months later, he reapplied. While he was
ultimately approved for some benefits, the process took well
over a year.
Soon after in March, 2015, the veteran applied for an
increased disability rating due to diabetic neuropathy, PTSD
and Parkinson's, and again in June, 2015 for cancer. After
contacting my office, my staff discovered that the VA facility
incorrectly listed the veteran as having filed a cancer claim
in March, 2015. The VA then informed him they could not process
the July claim as they already had one from the spring.
However, this veteran was only diagnosed with the cancer in
June, proving the claim was grossly misfiled by the VA.
Thankfully, my office was able to resolve this situation and
prevent a further delay of the veteran's benefit.
Sadly, stories like this have become far too common for our
veterans. They submit their disability claims to never hear of
them again, while they sit idle in a box for months or even
years, and sometimes having been misfiled. Clearly, there is a
claims processing problem.
In an effort to ensure our veterans' claims are timely
processed and do not suffer as a result of a growing claims
backlog, I introduced the VET Act, a three-year pilot program
that streamlines the process by creating a one-stop shop for
veterans. The legislation will bring VA employees into the
community, providing veterans with direct access to physicians,
claims raters and other personnel to facilitate the completion
and adjudication of claims. And if the request is not completed
during the allotted time period, the VA is required to give the
veteran a clear explanation of the next steps necessary to
complete the claim.
That last piece I think is a frustration for many veterans,
not knowing or having that clear explanation of what they must
do next in order to fully have the claim completed so that it
can be processed.
The VET Act will undoubtedly reduce wait times,
miscommunication and lost paperwork that plague the system
today. In addition, this method has been tested and proven
successful by the American Legion's Veterans Benefits Centers,
as well as the VA's Claims Clinic at two regional offices. H.R.
3936 will continue upon the success and ensure veterans across
the Nation are receiving this one-on-one assistance in their
communities.
Importantly, this would be a major step in restoring the
trust that for many has been broken between the VA and the
veterans they serve.
I would encourage all my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to
support this bill, and I yield back the remainder of my time.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Costello.
It is an honor then to be joined by our colleague Mrs. Love
from Utah at the witness table today. Thanks for being here.
You have got a proposal bill, H.R. 4087, the Fair Treatment for
Families of Veterans Act.
You are now recognized, Mrs. Love.
STATEMENT OF MIA B. LOVE
Mrs. Love. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member Titus, and thank you, Ranking Member Brown, and the
Committee for granting me the opportunity to appear today.
I am here today to speak on behalf of H.R. 4087, the Fair
Treatment for Families of Veterans Act. This bipartisan
legislation currently has 66 cosponsors, including four Members
of the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs. It has garnered
the support from both sides of the aisle, because while it is
simple and straightforward, it is extremely important to
veterans and their families.
Presently, Federal law stipulates that recipients of VA
benefits are not entitled to compensation, dependency or
indemnity for compensation or pension benefits for the month of
their death. Instead, the effective date of reduction or
discontinuance of these benefits is the last day of the month
before a marriage, remarriage or death occurs. This can be
problematic for families of beneficiaries who may unexpectedly
be required to pay living expenses for the last month of a
loved one's life.
Compounding the problem, there are instances in which the
VA has paid benefits in arrears for the months during which an
individual died, only to require that those benefits be repaid
after the payment has been made. Unfortunately, those benefits
have frequently already been used for necessary living
expenses.
I know of several families of deceased benefit recipients
that are required to pay back benefits that were already used.
One family in my district received a letter six months after a
relative's death requiring them to repay money that has already
been paid to them and for the relative's care. A Texas family
received a letter asking them to pay back money that had been
received and used for care seven months earlier.
Families like these have had to take money out of their
personal accounts, sometimes retirement saving accounts, to
cover unexpected costs. This has added stress and financial
hardships to what has already been a challenging situation for
them.
The Fair Treatment for Families of Veterans Act would help
families avoid this problem by changing the date of benefit
reduction or discontinuance. The effective date would be
adjusted from the last day of the month before, to the last day
of the month during which the death, marriage or remarriage of
the beneficiary occurs.
In other words, these beneficiaries would be entitled to
monthly benefits until they die instead of until the month
before their death. This way veterans and their families will
experience greater peace of mind and avoid unexpected,
burdensome expenses.
Our veterans and the families that support them deserve
some degree of financial certainty in exchange for the
sacrifices they have made for our Nation. I believe that this
is the right thing to do, and I encourage the Committee to
enthusiastically support this important bipartisan piece of
legislation.
Thank you.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you for bringing this bill forward and
speaking of it at today's Subcommittee hearing.
We will forgo a round of questioning for Mrs. Love and any
questions that any one of us may have, may be submitted for the
record.
Now I invite our second panel to the table.
Thank you for being here. We are joined by David
McLenachen, the Deputy Under Secretary for Disability
Assistance of the Veterans Benefits Administration. He is
accompanied by Mr. Matt Sullivan, the Deputy Under Secretary of
Finance and Planning and CFO of the National Cemetery
Administration. Mr. Patrick Hallinan, the Executive Director of
the Army National Military Cemeteries. In his role, Mr.
Hallinan is in charged with overseeing Arlington National
Cemetery. Thanks for all being here.
Mr. McLenachen, it is good to see you again, and you are
now recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID R. MCLENACHEN
Mr. McLenachen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Titus, Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to present the
views of the Department of Veterans Affairs on several bills
that are pending before the Subcommittee.
Joining me today is Mr. Matthew Sullivan, Deputy Under
Secretary for Finance and Planning for the National Cemetery
Administration.
Mr. Chairman, VA supports H.R. 4782, the Veterans'
Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2016. This draft
bill would express the Nation's gratitude to service-disabled
veterans and their surviving spouses and children, and would
show that the value of their benefits keep pace with inflation.
VA also supports the general intent of H.R. 4757 to
identify the grave sites of Medal of Honor recipients buried in
private cemeteries. However, the extraordinary service that the
Medal of Honor represents should be memorialized for all
recipients regardless of their date of death or burial
location.
We would be happy to work with the Subcommittee to amend
the bill to authorize a separate and distinct marker for the
grave site of any Medal of Honor recipient.
Although VA supports the proposal on H.R. 4758 to expand
the eligibility for Presidential Memorial Certificates, we
strongly recommend amending the bill to allow issuance of
certificates regardless of the date of death of the
individuals, and to allow VA to provide eligible next of kin,
relatives or friends of Reservists and retirees with a
meaningful symbol of remembrance.
VA supports the concept contained in H.R. 4759, subject to
the availability of funds. We especially support expanding the
transportation allowance to state and tribal cemeteries for the
unclaimed remains of veterans who die without next of kin, as
there are no costs associated with this expansion, and it would
ensure the availability of a dignified burial option for these
veterans.
VA has concerns with several of the bills that remain. For
example, VA does not support H.R. 3715, which would require VA
to provide interments, funerals, memorial services, and
ceremonies at national cemeteries during most weekends if
requested for religious or cultural reasons. This draft bill
would inadvertently disrupt VA's current flexibility to
accommodate these very requests. VA already conducts committal
services and interments on weekend days on a case-by-case
basis.
VA does not support H.R. 3936 for the reason being that we
are currently piloting a program that is similar to the events
described in this bill. These claims clinics, while successful
for some of the participating veterans, have not reduced the
overall processing time for veterans' claims. We have
determined that event-oriented processing is more costly and
resource-intensive than VA's traditional claim processing.
VA likewise does not support H.R. 4087, which would adjust
the effective date of reductions and discontinuances of VA
benefits due to marriage, remarriage or death. This amendment
is ambiguous, would significantly increase VA's accrued
benefits caseload, and increase mandatory benefit expenditures
resulting from an additional month of entitlement after a
beneficiary's death, and it might also complicate VA and the
Department of Treasury's efforts to meet the requirements of
the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act.
VA cannot support the draft bill to pay lump-sum special
monthly compensation to veterans with service-connected loss or
loss of use of creative organs, because the compensation
program already provides additional compensation for these
veterans. The lump-sum payments would also be a departure from
VA's longstanding monthly benefit payment structure and
inequitable for veterans with other severe disabilities.
Although VA appreciates the intent of the bill to improve
consideration of evidence by the Board of Veterans' Appeals,
which is to expedite appeal processing, we cannot support it as
written.
The fiscal year 2017 President's budget observed that
improvements to the timeliness of appeals processing should be
achieved through comprehensive reform of the process that is in
current law. However, this bill seeks to address a single step
in the current multi-step process, while not addressing
significant defects in the overall statutory framework that
currently precludes efficiency in the process as a whole.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, VA cannot support the draft bill
that would modify the definition of surviving spouse to permit
entitlements to VA benefits when a surviving spouse of a
veteran remarries. The draft bill is overly broad, would be
very costly, and would overburden VA's survivor benefit
programs. However, VA does not oppose amending or appealing the
obsolete provisions in Section 5120.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. We are happy to
entertain any questions that you or the Committee may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of David R. McLenachen appears in
the Appendix]
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. McLenachen.
Mr. Hallinan, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK K. HALLINAN
Mr. Hallinan. Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus and
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to provide the Department of the Army's views on
the Medal of Honor Legacy Act.
Arlington National Cemetery is unique and an iconic place
devoted to those individuals who made a significant life
commitment of service to the defense of our Nation in the armed
forces. Arlington Cemetery was originally established as a
national cemetery for soldiers who die in service of the
country. Eligibility has changed through time, but always
honored individuals who made a significant life commitment of
service.
These heros served in every war or conflict since the
founding of our Nation. Arlington National Cemetery maintains
the honor and dignity of each graveside service while hosting
approximately four million guests annually. This duality of
purpose brings the sacrifices of those buried at Arlington
Cemetery closer to the American people.
On behalf of the cemetery, the Department of the Army, I
express our appreciation for the support Congress has provided
us over the years.
In May of 1864, Arlington National Cemetery was established
as one of the first of 12 national cemeteries as a place to
inter soldiers who die in service of the country. Eligibility
has significantly expanded over time to include all former
members of the armed forces whose last period of services
terminated honorably, as well as their eligible dependents.
The proposed Medal of Honor Legacy Act legislation as
drafted, would direct the Secretary of the Army to reserve a
certain number of burial plots at Arlington National Cemetery
for individuals who have been awarded the Medal of Honor and
for other purposes.
The Army understands the intent of the proposed legislation
is to honor the recipients of the Medal of Honor. However, the
legislation as drafted does not address the broader concerns of
eligibility to preserve the life of the cemetery well into the
future.
This bill would reestablish gravesite reservations that
were eliminated by Congress in December of 2010. Reservation of
gravesites for one specific group would ultimately exclude
persons who also went above and beyond in their service to our
Nation, including those who pay the ultimate sacrifice and die
in defense of the Nation.
Currently, there are a total of 3,497 Medal of Honor
recipients from all conflicts, 77 of those are living
recipients. At present, there are 409 Medal of Honor recipients
interred throughout the more than 70 sections of Arlington
National Cemetery. Burial decisions are ultimately the personal
preference of the deceased and their family. We should not
assume they will all choose interment at Arlington National
Cemetery. Based on past history, we are confident that if
asked, most living recipients would prefer to be buried among
the comrades with whom they served.
The present rate of interment and inurnment, coupled with
the current inventory of available gravesites and niches, which
includes the nearly complete Millennium project, but does not
include the unfunded Southern Expansion project, indicates that
Arlington National Cemetery will run out of space for first
interments or inurnments in the mid-2030s. The impact of this
legislation may result in unavailability of grave sites for
future servicemembers killed in action.
The Army understands the general intent of the legislation;
however, the bill does not address the broader question of how
long does our Nation want Arlington National Cemetery to remain
an open and active cemetery. The ability to redefine
eligibility with the possibility of extending beyond our
current borders to gain more contiguous space will allow the
Army to ensure that the cemetery remains available for first
interments for our Nation's heros well into the future. We must
take a holistic approach to solve this issue, which will
require extensive coordination with the military services, our
national Veterans' Service Organizations, the Advisory
Committee on Arlington National Cemetery, and the Congress.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Titus, this concludes my
testimony. I will gladly respond to any questions that you or
the Subcommittee Members may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Patrick K. Hallinan appears in
the Appendix]
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Hallinan.
I will begin the questioning. Mr. McLenachen, even though
there was no COLA last year across the Federal Government,
please explain why it is important for Congress to pass the
American Heros COLA Act of 2016.
Mr. McLenachen. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we
really have to prevent, both working together, VA and the
Congress, is to prevent our benefits from losing the value that
they have to veterans and survivors. And that is really the key
point for your bill, which is making sure that they have that
value and continue to increase with the cost of living
generally. It is a very important bill.
Mr. Abraham. Back to you, Mr. McLenachen. As you know, SMC
was originally devised to provide some additional compensation
to veterans who had suffered the actual loss of limbs in
service. Since its inception in the 1930s, however, SMC has
evolved to meet the changing needs of the veterans. For
example, SMCT was created because of the VA's Special Monthly
Compensation program did not adequately address the needs of
the veterans who experienced a severe traumatic brain injury.
For most veterans who receive SMC, VA provides health care
such as expensive prosthetics at no cost to the veteran. And
since the VA does not provide adoption services, this bill
would instead authorize two lump sums to defray the cost of
adoption services, if the veteran so chooses. Therefore, we are
not creating a separate category for veterans, rather we are
responding to the unique needs of the veterans who rely on the
VA for their care.
So I guess the question is, why is the VA opposed to
assisting veterans who have suffered a catastrophic injury to
their creative organs?
Mr. McLenachen. Yes, thank you for the opportunity to
explain our position.
We are very sympathetic to the needs of these severely
disabled veterans and in fact, as I looked at the data before
the hearing, over the last three fiscal years we have granted
compensation for about 105,000 veterans for this very
disability. It is our position that Congress got it right when
Congress categorized certain severe disabilities in Section
1114(k). It is our position that all those veterans who have
those type of disabilities should be treated the same and that
is our main opposition to this particular bill.
I understand the concerns regarding in this particular
instance, individuals who have lost the use or lost creative
organs due to their service-connect, but there are other
individuals that are in that category that are also severely
disabled. For example, a veteran who has completely lost the
ability to speak. It is VA's position that all these veterans
with these severe disabilities should be treated the same.
Mr. Abraham. And we will have some follow-ups on that, if
that is okay.
Mr. Sullivan, how would you allow VA to pay the costs of
transporting deceased veterans to state or tribal cemeteries to
help veterans receive a dignified and proper burial?
Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, they would be eligible to apply
for the transportation allowance that those that are eligible
right now to apply for to our national cemeteries. It would be
a similar process.
Mr. Abraham. Okay. Mr. McLenachen, one last question. You
raised a technical concern with H.R. 4087 within your written
testimony, particularly the potential for survivors to receive
both the full amount of the veteran's compensation for the
month in which he or she died, as well as a DIC benefit for
that same month.
If an amendment were adopted, it would specify that a
survivor could only receive either compensation benefits for
the month of the veteran's death or DIC benefits for that
month, would the Department be more receptive to that
legislation?
Mr. McLenachen. Well, that would be a step in the right
direction to clarify some of the ambiguity that we identified
in the bill. So that would be one correction that would be
helpful.
I don't think that goes far enough. I think there would be
other corrections that would be necessary. For example, under
the bill, VA would still be required to pay a month of
additional benefits to others. Those payments could go to
anybody other than the spouse. So the heirs, it could even
accede to an estate, it could be passed on to others through
the estate of the veteran.
So we still have a lot of concerns about that bill.
Mr. Abraham. Okay. Thank you.
I now recognize Ranking Member Titus for any questions she
may have.
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would just ask Mr. McLenachen. You mentioned that this is
a very important bill, that we bring the benefits up to the
current rate considering the increase in the CPI. I have been
sponsoring or cosponsoring this measure for years now and, if
it is so great that we do it for one year, wouldn't it be
greater if we just did it for every year automatically like we
do Social Security, so that we don't have to come back and deal
with the vagaries of politics in Congress every year?
Mr. McLenachen. I know that that idea has come up in the
past, and I know the Department has taken a position on it in
the past. Although it is not before us here today, I am sure we
would be happy to provide you our views on that if you ask for
them.
Ms. Titus. Okay. You can't just tell me off the top of your
head, if this is great, that wouldn't be greater?
Mr. McLenachen. Well, one difficulty that we have with the
way that the law is structured now is, we come before you every
year to discuss the new COLA bill for this fiscal year.
Certainly, we would avoid that problem if there was legislation
that was entered. Whether the Department would support that
particular bill is something that we would have to get back to
you on.
Ms. Titus. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Hallinan, you mentioned that the bill that sets aside a
certain number of plots for our Medal of Honor recipients does
not address the whole problem of how we plan what is going to
happen to the cemetery over the next, I don't know, century, so
let me ask you this. How long do you think it would take you to
do a study of what we need, how we need to address the fact
that the cemetery is going to be full or how we expand it, or
how we have equal eligibility or how all the services and all
the wars are included? How long will it take you to do that
study and why don't you get busy doing it now?
Mr. Hallinan. It is a great question and I appreciate the
opportunity to respond to it.
We have already started down this path. We are looking at
how long can we maintain the full operational integrity of
Arlington National Cemetery well beyond 2050. We have met with
some of the national VSO organizations. Our advisory committee
that reports to the Secretary of the Army has been tasked with
this issue. So we are actively working the issue.
But to answer your question directly, I would estimate
approximately four to five months we should be able to come
back with a report to this Committee as to what we would think
would be good recommendations to extend the life of Arlington
National Cemetery.
Ms. Titus. Right. Well, that is shorter than I figured, but
in the meantime, are you opposed to setting aside any plots for
Medal of Honor winners or just the fact that there are too many
plots set aside in this legislation?
If we reduced it to, say, a hundred, would that still be a
problem for you?
Mr. Hallinan. It would not be a problem if there were a
hundred based on the amount that have been interred to date,
the 409. We have 95,000 plots available at Arlington National
Cemetery right now, I believe we would have to report back to
the Subcommittee and back to Congress in time to avert any
potential problems down the road in the future.
Our concern is with the actual reservation process since
Congress did away with reservations. There was a concern
about--do we reserve a certain section. The feeling is among
Medal of Honor recipients, most times they want to be buried
among comrades or even if they have family members interred at
Arlington National Cemetery previously, how do you accommodate
their wishes. Our goal is to always work with the families and
accommodate their wishes.
So we would not have a problem with a hundred. The bigger
issue for us, as you pointed out, is the concern about what
happens after 2030, because the Southern Expansion is unfunded.
If the Southern Expansion were funded and we were to implement
operations that would take us to the 2050s to be an open and
active cemetery.
And I think it is incumbent on us, we have the
responsibility and duty to say, does the American people want
the cemetery at Arlington to close the first interments after
2050 or 2030?
Ms. Titus. Okay, that is enough, that is enough.
I am just saying, out of 95,000, it looks like a hundred is
not too many to set aside for our Medal of Honor winners.
Mr. Hallinan. It is not.
Ms. Titus. So, I mean, despite all this study and all these
statistics and all this whatever it is you are talking about, I
don't think that is too many.
But okay, will you get back to us with that study in four
or five months? On the record, that is what you think it is
going to take?
Mr. Hallinan. Yes.
Ms. Titus. And we appreciate that.
I would like to go back then to Mr. McLenachen. You are
opposed to, as I am, the proposal put forth by Chairman Miller
with the lump sum, even though I am very supportive of the
notion of helping our veterans who have lost the ability to
have a family. Are you more supportive of the proposal that has
been put forth in the Senate that considers this more as a
health care issue than a lump sum that can be used for these
various purposes that the Chairman now is supporting, even
though originally he was more in line with the Senate bill?
Mr. McLenachen. I am not familiar with and I don't know
whether the Department has offered a position on the health
care bill for the Senate. Our main objection, as I mentioned,
was basically equity for severely disabled veterans.
You know, a second piece of that is the bill would have us
provide these lump-sum benefit payments to this subset of these
severely disabled veterans. VA generally pays benefits on a
monthly basis for compensation. So it would be a significant
change for us to have to start paying lump-sum benefit payments
and administering a completely different payment process for
veterans.
Ms. Titus. I don't believe that Senate bill includes that,
so maybe it would be more in line with what you support.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mrs. Titus.
Mr. Costello, five minutes, questions?
Mr. Costello. Yes, thank you.
Mr. McLenachen, good morning.
Mr. McLenachen. Good morning.
Mr. Costello. In reviewing your testimony, and all my
questions will relate to H.R. 3936, a couple questions. How
much does a claims clinic cost? Or how much, to use the term,
those event-based team concepts, which I guess we will call
claim clinics, how much does one cost?
Mr. McLenachen. What I would like to do is get back to you
when we are done with wrapping up our analysis of the pilot
that we have done, which we started in 2012.
That is a very good question, because our position is that
really we don't get the bang for the buck out of the claims
clinics. We can serve veterans better, we think, through the
processing that we currently do.
I don't want to really say too much more than that as far
as the cost, because we haven't fully analyzed the results of
the pilot that we have been doing.
Mr. Costello. When do you expect that you will issue
analytical documentation on that pilot program?
Mr. McLenachen. I believe that is expected to be wrapped up
next month, so we could get back to you then.
Mr. Costello. So the work product will be issued in a month
or your--
Mr. McLenachen. The work product. The analysis of the pilot
that we conducted since 2012.
Mr. Costello. Will be forthcoming in the next month or two?
Mr. McLenachen. Yes.
Mr. Costello. So you have done sort of a comparative
analysis, at least, I don't want to say philosophically, but I
know you don't want to commit to numbers, how do you know what
the number of claims that can be processed per work hour by an
employee?
In other words, you are comparing it to what is in place
right now, how do you know whether what is in place right now
is working as efficient as it should be?
And I will ask a follow-up after.
Mr. McLenachen. Well, I think, as you know, we have done a
lot of work over the past few years to become more efficient in
how we process claims. I think, you know, the idea of the
claims clinic or such as what is suggested in your bill--
Mr. Costello. Right.
Mr. McLenachen [continued]. --you know, it was first raised
back at a time when we had a very significant backlog of
disability claims that we were working. We have made a lot of
progress over the past few years and so we are at the point now
where the question is, do we devote resources to that type of
veteran-engagement scenario, which is important, and we are not
denying that that type of engagement with veterans is very
important.
I think our Secretary has made it clear with setting up
his, you know, Veterans' Experience Office in VA that that is a
very important role for the Department.
So we have to just find some balance between the resources
required to do a claims clinic and the resources required to
make sure we timely provide benefits to all veterans, and I
think that is the balance we are looking for.
Mr. Costello. And it seems to me another consideration
there is also whether a claims clinic ends up resulting in a
lower likelihood of appealing that decision. And so, will your
analysis or what we see forthcoming look at that aspect?
Because one of the frustrations is that you file a claim,
it is processed, it is incomplete, and you get bounced back and
forth. So you are there for a long, long time. Whereas with the
claims clinic, at least in theory and I am curious to see how
it works in practice, is by virtue of having everyone there
available you get a much more comprehensive, immediate
evaluation, so that you know what is needed and it is right
there and, if it is not there, then there is a clear
explanation on what is needed in order to ultimately file a
complete claim, so that it is not remanded or it is not
bouncing around.
And I think even more frustrating is when a claim is filed
and you don't know until nine months later or some arbitrary
period of time that it is incomplete. I mean, that is
maddening. I am not pointing the finger at you specifically.
So within the analysis of what it costs, it seems to me
that the ability to file a fully complete claim up-front, even
if it is more time-consuming for staff or more staff needs to
be allocated to that versus the traditional way of claims
processing, may over a period of years actually be more
efficient. That is a hypothesis.
And so I hope that what you do provide provides some
substance, some substantive analysis on that point.
Mr. McLenachen. I think it is a really good point. If we
can check to see whether, I guess you would call it our
customer service really aids in satisfaction for the veteran
when they are going through the claims process. So I will go
back and check and see if that is an element that we are
looking at in the analysis.
Mr. Costello. My final point, I know I am running out of
time--oh, I am out of time.
Mr. Abraham. Go ahead, sir.
Mr. Costello. The VA press releases relative to the claims
clinics indicate that they were a, quote, ``great success,''
and that, quote, ``attendance has greatly increased.'' And so
what I glean or gather from that is that they are successful
and that they do help individual veterans.
Your testimony seems to suggest, and so I am asking for you
to sort of provide some commentary, your analysis seems to
suggest that it is not the preferred method or at least you
have some concerns about seeing it expanded. So I am asking you
to reconcile that what I view as a little bit of a disparity.
Mr. McLenachen. Without a doubt, I think the veterans that
have participated in the claims clinics found it to be a good
experience. So we are not denying that. I think the question
is, though, how much resources do you put into something that
provides a few veterans a better experience versus processing
claims in a timely manner for all veterans. And that is the
balance I was mentioning.
So I don't think the Department is taking the position that
there shouldn't be any claims clinics or that your bill is a
bad idea, it is just doing the analysis to figure out, well,
what is the best use of the resources that we have, that have
been given to us, and then determining what is the future of
these type of engagements.
Mr. Costello. And then I will conclude, I would also be
curious on what the satisfaction level is of those who go
through the claims clinic process, you know, 70-percent
favorable, 80-percent favorable. You know, if you go to your
local VA hospital, they get very high satisfactory rates.
Versus the satisfaction rate of those who go through the
traditional claims process. That seems to me to be a very
relevant consideration moving forward.
Thank you for your testimony and answering my questions.
I will yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Costello.
Ms. Brownley?
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to ask a few questions around Mr. Miller's
bills with regards to reproductive assistance for service-
connected disabled veterans. And, Mr. McLenachen, I think you
said earlier that one of your objections is that all veterans
should be treated the same; is that correct?
Mr. McLenachen. Within that category of special monthly
compensation, yes.
Ms. Brownley. Okay. Well, you know, my concern really
related to this is I agree that every veteran should be treated
the same, but not with regards to the up-front cost, but with
regards to the outcomes, which in this case is having children,
creating a family, that the outcomes should be the same, not
the investment up-front to get to that end. And so that
certainly is a concern certainly that I have.
And I also wanted to ask you with regards to, I know the
Department of Defense provides these services to our military
men and women. And obviously they serve in our military, they
leave the military, and then suddenly they receive their
benefits from the VA and they are not similar at all. In fact,
right now they are very, very different, one does and one
doesn't.
So I think Mr. Miller's bill in terms of payment is a step
in the right direction, but I think we need to go further in
terms of making sure that we have equal outcomes with regards
to our men and women who have served, who are disabled, who
want to have a family.
I also, with regards to the funding, and maybe you can
comment, but with regards to the lump-sum payments of two
$10,000 payments, if the VA was going to pursue this, do you
think that that cost is or that payment is enough to cover the
cost?
Mr. McLenachen. Well, I don't have an opinion on whether
the payment of this particular lump-sum benefit serves the
purpose that Chairman Miller had in mind. You know, I did
mention that approximately 106,000 grants over the last three
fiscal years is what we would be looking at here.
And unfortunately, if you are asking about costs, you know,
I apologize for not having the costs for some of these bills
available for the hearing, we are going to follow-up as soon as
possible with a separate views letter on the costs. But roughly
I just wanted to give you an idea of those, that is about
106,000, thirty some thousand a year that these benefits would
be going.
One thing that the Committee could look at is, rather than
lump sums, whether there is some other fit within the current
scheme of special monthly compensation that might be more
appropriate. There are higher levels of special monthly
compensation.
Ms. Brownley. Well, again, I would be looking in terms of
equity, in terms of outcome.
It is my understanding that if one chooses to pursue IVF
treatments, that that can cost approximately $12,500 per
treatment, sometimes it is going to take two, three, four, five
times is typical. If there is sperm extraction, that can cost
2,500 to $3,000. So I think, you know, to get to that outcome,
it is going to require more.
The other question I just wanted to ask is that in your
testimony you stated that a potential change that could be
helpful for surviving spouses in lieu of the Love Lives On Act
would be amending or eliminating 38 U.S.C. 5120. However, I am
having a hard time understanding how that would help surviving
spouses who are interested in remarrying and retaining their
pension benefits.
Mr. McLenachen. Thank you for that question, because we
didn't intend a misunderstanding there.
That would not be a helpful amendment or repeal. Simply our
position is that that is an obsolete provision that Congress
should repeal. It has to do with postal workers reporting
spouses that have remarried to the department. It is clearly an
obsolete provision and we have no objection to it being
repealed.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Ms. Brownley.
Dr. Ruiz?
Mr. Ruiz. Thank you, Dr. Abraham. My questions have been
asked, so I have no further questions.
Mr. Abraham. Okay. Well, I am going to open a second round
of questions just real quick, because there are a couple things
I want to get answered here.
This goes back to you, Mr. McLenachen. Why is the
Department opposing to paying DIC benefits to a surviving
spouse who remarries prior to the age of 57?
Mr. McLenachen. So, Mr. Chairman, let me begin with this,
that, you know, historically, going back a long time, the
purpose of some of our survivor benefit programs is to take
care of spouses who have lost the support of their spouse and
our programs have been very effective for that. I have
administered those programs for about the last five years now;
we take it very seriously.
It would be a very substantial change given the current
law, the current scheme that is in the law, and the exceptions
that are provided, and those exceptions are, you know, if a
spouse reaches the age of 57, that remarriage is not a bar.
Also, if at any time a remarriage is terminated or annulled, it
becomes void, automatically the spouse becomes eligible again
for DIC. So Congress constructed the current statutory
framework to ensure that spouses do have the support they need
if they do not remarry.
This would be a dramatic shift away from that policy, and
it would be an expensive change in policy, as well as burdening
our current survivor benefit programs, which are very important
that we process those quickly and get them to the spouses that
need them.
Mr. Abraham. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Hallinan, how would reserving a thousand grave sites,
or even a hundred, for recipients of the Medal of Honor impact
burial availability at Arlington National Cemetery for
servicemembers who are killed in action?
Mr. Hallinan. Mr. Chairman, it wouldn't have no immediate
impact. We view the intent of this legislation is to protect
those plots ongoing into the future so there is an
availability. It would have no immediate impact. Our concern,
as I raised in my testimony, is the broader issue of more
holistic approach as to keeping Arlington open and active in
the out years.
Mr. Abraham. Okay.
Mr. Sullivan, under what circumstances does the Department
currently provide committal services on weekends?
Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, as a matter of policy, we
provide commitments or interments on weekends for extraordinary
reasons. Those could include, potentially, cultural or
religious preferences. We do also provide weekend interments
for servicemembers killed in action. And as a matter of policy,
we do not go more than 48 hours without providing burial
services. So on three-day holiday weekends, we will ensure that
we provide burial services on one of those weekend days.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you. Ms. Titus?
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much.
I would just like to go back to the possibility of
remarrying for surviving spouses. And I know they stood up
earlier, but we didn't really give them their due. They made a
real effort to come here today, and we often talk about the
veteran's family and the sacrifices that they make, and how
extreme their sacrifices are, as well as those made by the
veteran themself, and I would just like to take a minute to say
again thank you all for your courage and for coming here to
discuss what I think is a very important issue. And you heard
the VA say we need to get rid of things that are antiquated. I
certainly think this is antiquated too. I mean look at the
veterans who are making the ultimate sacrifice, and you see how
very young so many of them are, the majority, and so thank you
again for coming.
I just wonder if the VA would be supportive if resources
were provided to cover these benefits, and also if you have
looked at how the UK did it to see if there are any kind of
parallels or why it would be so difficult for us to accommodate
this when they were able to do that? Mr. McLenachen, could you
address that?
Mr. McLenachen. Yes, Ranking Member Titus, I think you are
aware that we are always interested in improving our benefit
programs, and this is no exception. We are always looking for
ways to improve the DIC Program, the survivors' pension
program, burial benefit--monetary burial benefits, so we are
not opposed at looking at ways to improve our program. So, I
hope, you know, that addresses your question, that if there was
funding available for a particular program improvement, I am
sure the Department would take that into consideration in its
views for a bill.
Ms. Titus. I think we should look at how it has been done
in other places too, because I think that might provide some
guidance or some encouragement that if they can do it, we can
do it too. So let's look at that.
Then one last thing, I just can't resist mentioning this.
You said we should repeal--you mentioned a certain provision we
should repeal it because that language is really antiquated.
And I think the VA would agree that we need to repeal the
language, that it is equally antiquated, that refers to a
spouse as a member of the opposite sex, instead of realizing
that this is not our grandfather's military or VA anymore, and
that is an antiquated concept, not just in society, but in law,
and by the Supreme Court.
Mr. McLenachen. I believe that the Department has expressed
its views in support of that bill in the past.
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Ms. Titus. Ms. Brownley?
Ms. Brownley. I don't have any more questions, except I
just would like to also, as Ms. Titus did, say thank you to the
spouses that are here in the audience, and, you know, for their
commitment, and their courage and strength to be here with us
all today. And I think that it is frustrating, I think, to hear
from the VA, quite frankly, that the problem, you know, with
the Love Lives On Act is that it is just too cumbersome to
really handle, that we should have an attitude of ``This makes
sense, let's see how we can move towards this goal and let us
know how much it is going to cost so that we can wrestle with
that information and be able to assess our priorities,
understanding that we can't pay for everything, but let us make
those judgments and move forward.''
I yield back.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Ms. Brownley.
Thanks again for the panel, showing up. If there are no
other questions, you are excused.
I now recognize our final panel of witnesses.
We have today Mr. Carl Blake, the Associate Executive
Director of Government Relations for the Paralyzed Veterans of
America; Mr. Aleks Morosky, the Deputy Director of the National
Legislative Services at the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
United States; Mr. Paul R. Varela, the Assistant National
Legislative Director for Disabled American Veterans; Ms.
Elizabeth Davis, who will discuss her experience with
survivors' benefits; and Mr. Edward G. Lilley, the Team Leader
for Health Policy of the National Veterans Affairs and
Rehabilitation Division at the American Legion.
Again, thank you for being here, and for your hard work for
the advocacy of our veteran heroes. Mr. Blake, we will begin
with you. You are recognized for five minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF CARL BLAKE
Mr. Blake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Abraham, and
Ranking Member Titus, on behalf of Paralyzed Veterans of
America I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
testify today. You have my full written statement for the
record, so I will limit my comments to the one bill on the
agenda that has the greatest impact on PVA members.
Since 2001, more than 1,400 servicemembers have suffered
specifically a genitourinary injury. Over that same time
thousands of veterans have suffered catastrophic TBI and spinal
cord injury that have also precluded their ability to have
children naturally. Unfortunately, the VA is limited, and in
some cases prohibited, from providing health and financial
services that fully meet the needs of these veterans. When a
veteran has a loss of reproductive ability due to a service-
related injury, they bear the total cost to provide for their
family and to create a family. It is often the case that
veterans cannot afford these services and are not able to
receive medical treatment necessary for them to conceive
children. For many veterans, procreative services have been
secured in the private sector at great personal and financial
cost.
Let me say that PVA does support H.R. 4892, as introduced,
that would pay special compensation to certain veterans with
the loss or loss of use of creative organs. As stated, this
bill would provide up to a total benefit of $20,000.
Let me also say that we sincerely appreciate the work of
both this Subcommittee staff, and the Health Subcommittee
staff, to find a workable solution to what is the real problem.
But let me be clear: the legislation that was introduced serves
as a means to an end, but it is not the right means to the
right end. We believe there are two significant problems that
remain with this bill, even if it is enacted. First and
foremost we believe that reproductive services should
absolutely be part of the medical benefits package of the
Department of Veterans Affairs. If this country is willing to
send young men and women into harm's way, who will suffer
grievous injuries, then it is our responsibility to make them
whole again. If that means losing the ability to have children,
then it is incumbent upon this country to do what is necessary
to restore that possibility. The proposed legislation seems to
provide a way to get to that point, but it is working around
what the actual issue is.
The second flaw that we see with this legislation is the
value of the benefit and the inequity it creates between men
and women veterans. While the benefit seemingly affords
catastrophically disabled veterans, most of whom are men, the
opportunity to procure reproductive services, in particular
IVF, which is the hot button issue, it does not address the
financial burden for women who suffer a similar grievous
injury. IVF on average costs about $10,000 for one round of
treatment. So this bill would arguably provide for a couple of
rounds of that. That would benefit primarily men, who usually
use that as a service option outside of the VA because it is
not available if they choose to have children with their
spouse.
It is important to note that while the average cost of one
treatment of course of IVF is approximately 10,000, the average
cost of a domestic single child adoption ranges anywhere from
$15,000 to $40,000. Additionally, the cost of gestational
surrogacy can range anywhere from $60,000 to $120,000. And
those are the options that most often a woman veteran, with a
catastrophic injury that precludes their ability to have
children, has to rely upon. And so while this bill provides a
meaningful step to afford the opportunity for these types of
services, it doesn't come close to providing the option for
women veterans who often experience this. I know the
Subcommittee recognizes this and this is a challenge, but it is
something, I think, that needs to be considered if this bill is
going to be moved forward.
Again, let me reiterate that our priority is that
reproductive services should be made a part of the medical
benefits package. That is what is part of making whole the
veteran who has sacrificed so much. There is not any other,
that I am aware of, particular injury that a servicemember can
suffer while in service to this country that the VA doesn't
both compensate and provide health care services in some
setting to offset their loss. I recognize that this is a
complicated issue. This is not a complicated issue for PVA and
its members. We know what the right thing is to do; we hope
Congress will see what the right thing is and act upon that as
well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any
questions that you have.
[The prepared statement of Carl Blake appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Blake.
Mr. Morosky, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF ALEKS MOROSKY
Mr. Morosky. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Titus,
and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the Veterans of
Foreign Wars of the United States, I would like to thank you
for the opportunity to offer our thoughts on today's pending
legislation. The bills we are discussing today are intended to
improve many of the benefits that veterans need and deserve,
and we thank you for bringing them forward.
Mr. Chairman, the VFW supports the Final Farewell Act,
which would allow VA to permit weekend burials at national
cemeteries when requested by the veteran's family for religious
or cultural reasons. We believe this is a perfectly reasonable
accommodation.
The VFW supports H.R. 3936, the VET Act, which would
establish a three-year pilot program to carry out veteran
engagement team events at ten locations nationwide, to
adjudicate veterans' disability claims on the spot. Our VFW
service officers have witnessed similar claims clinics already
being held in select locations and have reported on how
successful they can be. In one extreme case, a homeless female
veteran from Winston-Salem, North Carolina, whose claim was
stalled in the local appeal process, was able to produce the
piece of evidence needed to grant, resulting in a retroactive
payment of over $100,000. Our only suggestion for the bill
would be to also hold the events on weekends, as well as normal
business hours, as many veterans who work full-time would
likely be unable to attend during the work week.
The VFW supports the Fair Treatment for Families of
Veterans Act, which would grant payments through the end of the
month when VA benefit is discontinued due to death or marriage.
We believe this is the right thing to do, so as not to burden
grieving families with unnecessary debt due to unforseen
overpayments.
VFW supports H.R. 4757, requiring VA to furnish to the
survivors of any deceased Medal of Honor recipient a headstone,
marker, or medallion signifying that veteran's status as a
Medal of Honor recipient. VFW fully supports this as the final
resting places of those who receive our Nation's highest award
for valor should be granted special recognition.
The VFW also supports H.R. 4758, which would authorize the
award of the Presidential Memorial Certificate to members of
the Guard and Reserve, as well as ROTC candidates who die in
the line of duty.
Likewise, we support H.R. 4759, which authorizes VA to
cover transportation costs for veterans interred in state and
tribal cemeteries similar to veterans interred at VA national
cemeteries.
We support the Veterans' COLA Act of 2016, which increases
VA compensation and other benefits, providing cost of living
adjustment beginning December 1 of this year; however, we
continue to oppose the rounding down of the COLA increase as we
believe this is a money saving device that comes at the expense
of veterans and their survivors.
The VFW supports the draft bill to grant two payments of
$10,000 as special compensation to veterans who have lost or
lost the use of their reproductive organs as a result of their
military service. Due to widespread use of improvised explosive
devices in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both male and
female servicemembers have suffered from spinal cord and
reproductive injuries. Many of these veterans hope to one day
start families, but their injuries prevent them from
conceiving. The funds provided by this bill could be used for
adoption or other expenses. And we see this bill as an
excellent complement to H.R. 2257 and H.R. 3365, which would
expand VA fertility treatment options for veterans who have
suffered similar injuries.
The VFW supports the draft bill to improve the
consideration of evidence by the Board of Veterans Appeals.
Under this bill, additional evidence received after the
submission of the Form 9 would be subject to initial review by
the Board by default. Veterans may still elect to have evidence
reviewed by the AOJ. This is important, as some veterans may
feel confident that the additional evidence they are submitting
will allow the AOJ to grant their claims in full without the
need to wait for their appeals to reach the Board.
The VFW further supports the provision of the bill that
would require additional evidence to be reviewed by the AOJ
within 180 days when the veteran makes that election. We also
support the intent of requiring the AOJ to certify the appeal
within 180 days after the review is completed, but would
suggest that that timeframe be shortened to, perhaps, 60 days.
In our view, one of the logjams in the appeal process is that
the AOJs take far too long to certify appeals once their work
is completed.
Lastly, we suggest a minor technical change to subsection
(a)(2)(b) of Section 1, by inserting at the beginning ``If such
review does not result in a fully favorable decision.''
The VFW supports the draft bill to reserve a thousand
burial plots at Arlington National Cemetery for individuals who
have been awarded the Medal of Honor. The 77 living Medal of
Honor recipients and those who may be awarded our Nation's
highest award for valor in the future should be granted a final
resting place in our Nation's most hallowed burial ground.
And finally, the VFW supports the Love Lives On Act, which
would allow surviving spouses who remarry to continue receiving
VA survivor benefits. We believe that surviving spouses, many
of whom are young, should not have to endure a life of
loneliness just so they can continue to receive the benefits
granted to them through the death of their spouses.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I am happy
to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Aleks Morosky appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Morosky.
Mr. Varela, five minutes, sir.
STATEMENT OF PAUL R. VARELA
Mr. Varela. Dr. Abraham, Ranking Member Titus, and Members
of the Subcommittee, good morning. On behalf of DAV, thank you
for the opportunity to discuss the merits of the bills before
us today.
I will focus my comments this morning on two pieces of
pending legislation and two bills in draft form that are of
particular interest to our organization. First, H.R. 3936, the
Veteran Engagement Teams Act, or VET Act. This bill would
require VA's Secretary to carry out a three-year pilot program
facilitating vet events in order to complete on-site processing
of claims for disability compensation and pension. DAV supports
the VET Act in accordance with our national resolution 001,
that calls for enhanced outreach to ensure that all wounded,
ill, and injured veterans receive all benefits they have
earned. We are pleased to support this bill, and look forward
to working together towards its enactment.
Second, H.R. 4782, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-
Living Adjustment, COLA Act of 2016. This bill would increase
the rates of disability compensation, clothing allowance, and
dependency indemnity compensation, effective on December 1st,
2016. Consistent with DAV resolution 013, which calls on
Congress to support legislation to provide a realistic increase
in disability compensation, we support this bill.
While Congress has customarily determined a COLA in parity
with Social Security recipients, it is important to note there
have been several years in which Social Security recipients did
not receive a COLA, as was the case this year. Likewise,
beneficiaries in receipt of VA compensation and survivor
benefits did not receive a COLA.
Furthermore, DAV believes Congress should consider a better
formula to compensate service-connected veterans, their
survivors, and dependents, for wounds, injuries, and illnesses
sustained during military service. DAV members passed
resolution number 059, which calls on Congress to support the
enactment of legislation to provide a realistic increase in VA
compensation rates to bring the standard of living of disabled
veterans in line with that which they would have otherwise
enjoyed had they not suffered their service-connected
disabilities.
DAV has always supported legislation that provides veterans
with a COLA. DAV is adamantly opposed to the practice of
rounding down COLAs to the nearest whole dollar amount, and we
oppose the round-down feature in this bill based on DAV
resolution 017.
Third, the discussion draft for special monthly
compensation, SMCU. If enacted, the legislation would pay SMCU
to veterans entitled to receive SMCK due to the loss of or loss
of use of creative organs. Seemingly, this bill contemplates
one possible option to provide some assistance in the form of
compensation to overcome reproductive challenges associated
with service-connected disabilities. DAV does not view this
proposal as a comprehensive measure to solve this problem, as
these veterans may require additional services beyond what the
two $10,000 payments would cover. More must be done to ensure
that veterans stricken with wounds, illnesses, and injuries
that impede upon their natural ability to procreate receive to
the maximum extent possible the full complement of services and
benefits required to achieve a desired outcome. DAV does not
have a resolution from its members pertaining to lump-sum
payments for the loss or loss of use of creative organs, but
would not oppose passage of this legislation. However, if
legislation were to be enacted to provide for these lump-sum
payments, it should not be used to supplement or offset other
forms of payments or services that would aid these veterans in
their procreative and adoptive pursuits.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the evidence development discussion
draft. If enacted, the legislation would affect consideration
of evidence before the agency of original jurisdiction AOJ, and
the Board of Veterans Appeals board. DAV opposes this
legislation as it would create artificial suspense dates,
limits an appellant's opportunity request for AOJ review of
evidence, unnecessarily routs un-investigated appeals directly
to the board, attaches finality due to a board's decision on
evidence reviewed in the first instance, and does not address
how appellants would be made aware of their evidence review
options.
Simply closing the record or limiting AOJ review of
evidence with the intention of getting the information before
the board in the first instance has several inherent
consequences as described in greater detail within our written
testimony. Because of the potential detrimental effects on the
due process rights of veterans, DAV would be opposed to this
legislation if it were to be enacted.
For the remaining bills, please see our written testimony
for our comments and organization's positions. Dr. Abraham,
Ranking Member Titus, and Members of the Subcommittee, I look
forward to your questions today, and thank you.
[The prepared statement of Paul R. Varela appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Varela.
Ms. Davis, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH DAVIS
Ms. Davis. Thank you. I would like to take a moment and
thank Chairman Abraham and Ranking Member Titus for this
opportunity to testify on behalf of the Love Lives On Act for
our military surviving spouse community. With me in attendance
today are several of the widows of our Nation's heroes.
Although I will only be speaking about my own personal
experience, each of these individuals has a heartbreaking story
of sacrifice for our Nation.
My name is Elizabeth Davis, and I am a 29-year-old mother,
nurse, and widow to my marine. My husband, First Lieutenant
Matthew Davis, was killed on 7 November 2014. While Matt was
serving as officer of the day on regimental duty, he was struck
and killed by a fellow 2-5 marine who was drunk driving and
evading the police. Matt was a selfless, gregarious, giant of a
man with a sense of humor as big as he was. Nothing will ever
change my feelings for him, even though I know he will not be
coming back.
The night I found out he was killed, I actually had a heart
attack when our best friend showed up in his dress blues to
deliver the news in the early hours of the morning. I quite
literally will bear the scars on my heart from this news for
the rest of my life.
After recovering from the shock of being widowed, I decided
I was going to honor my husband by devoting my time and energy
into making this rough journey easier in any way possible for
other military widows. I started looking for ways to help
widows provide for themselves and their families when I moved
back to Virginia. The first step was to ensure that Virginia
accepted the Department of Defense's definition of gold star
spouse, making sure that we honored the sacrifices of those
killed in the line of duty as well as those killed in action.
With the help of my delegate, House Bill 98 was introduced and
passed through the Virginia House of Delegates and Senate.
Recently, I was granted the opportunity to discuss with the
Commandant in the Marine Corps, General Neller, how the culture
of alcohol in the Marine Corps has impacted my family.
I have also remained active in the Stafford County Armed
Services Memorial Committee. My long-term goal is to ensure
that our widowed community, which has already given so much for
this great Nation, faces no additional or unnecessary hardship.
The next step, which I pray you will support, is to improve
the lives of this very small, but very important community. We
are seeking repeal and amendment to the age stipulation through
the Love Lives On Act. Currently, as the widow of a fallen
servicemember, you may remarry and retain your benefits after
the age of 57. With the vast majority of our heroes being young
and leaving behind spouses who are equally young, it is
unreasonable to expect a surviving spouse not to seek out
happiness and love again well before he or she is 57.
As it currently stands, I and the other survivors in this
room have no incentive to move on with our lives and rebuild
our families. Rather, we are strongly bound to remain single
parents with incomplete families in order to retain benefits
that our husbands earned by dying for this country. The full
impact of this, the current limitation is felt not only by the
surviving spouse, but also by the children of our fallen. These
benefits have been earned at the cost of loss of life for
country, and are necessary in maintaining the needs of the
spouse and all of the surviving children.
This program is vital because it provides the ability to
have a safe home and food on plate for the families who are
left behind. In almost every case of a widower or widow, our
Nation puts the draconian decision to choose to seek love again
over being pragmatic with our finances. This choice is
ultimately made for us, hindering the very freedoms our spouses
gave their lives for under the current guidelines.
Why would anyone in this room choose to remarry when we can
receive these benefits but date a new person in perpetuity?
Amending the statute would cement the belief in our
servicemembers that the United States cares what happens to
them as individuals. Not only is the sacrifice and commitment
that they made in dying for our country forever, but so too is
the commitment of the United States to their families should
they perish.
The risks and lifestyles associated with our Nation's
military can be unpredictable, but providing benefits for those
left behind should not be. We should not be punished for
seeking out love and happiness that our spouses would want us
to have. As a spouse, we deserve to try and heal and be happy,
and for the children left behind, they deserve a stable, loving
home, where both of their parents are legally recognized as a
family unit, without repercussion of the loss in necessary
income.
Through your vote, you can make a positive change for the
families of our fallen heroes. By continuing to provide
benefits to surviving spouses, families will heal and produce
children that will grow up knowing that service has meaning.
For us as widows, life truly is too short. We fully grasp that
concept, often in our 20s and 30s when our peers won't have to
face these kind of hardships for decades. Please enable us to
have a choice in marriage before the age of 57.
The widows and children of the fallen were handed a folded
flag on behalf of a grateful Nation. In that short moment of
handing the flag over, there is no if or but when it comes to
the commitment our husbands showed this great Nation. I have
the utmost faith that the men and women in this room will do
their best to honor that oath paid for in blood well before we
are 57.
[The prepared statement of Elizabeth Davis appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Ms. Davis. There are simply no
words to express what I know you and the ones behind you and
the thousands across the Nation in your shoes, unfortunately,
are feeling, but thank you for your service, and those behind
you for your service to this country, certainly your fallen
heroes that you no longer have.
Mr. Lilley, you are recognized for the American Legion for
five minutes.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD G. LILLEY
Mr. Lilley. Thank you, and good morning, Mr. Chairman,
Ranking Member Titus and Members of the Committee. On behalf of
National Commander Dale Barnett and the over two million
members of The American Legion, we are pleased to offer remarks
regarding pending legislation. The slate of bills covers a wide
range of topics, and proof that the impact of the Department of
Veterans Affairs and its benefits are due to the wide-ranging
needs of veterans community, many of whom have physical and
emotional scars related to their service in the armed forces.
There are several good bills up for discussion today, and you
have my full written remarks, but in the interest of time, I
would like to focus on four key bills.
First, I would like to start talking about the VET Act. In
response to a national crisis, The American Legion immediately
went to work in communities throughout the country, meeting
with veterans face to face, one at a time. American Legion
began setting up veterans benefit centers, or VBCs, throughout
the country by collaborating with VA staff, American Red Cross
volunteers, and other community partners to staff over a dozen
VBCs across the country within the first nine months of the
Phoenix scandal. During these VBCs, we were able to assist more
than 3,000 veterans and their families with scheduling
outpatient appointments, enrolling in the VA health care
system, and applying for compensation, pension, disability
indemnity compensation benefits, and other services veterans
and their families needed assistance with.
I would like to share two success stories on how veterans'
lives have been impacted by our VBCs. A homeless veteran who
came to the Fayetteville, North Carolina VBC looking for
assistance stated ``I didn't have a lot of faith in what was
going on, but someone did help me out and I want you all to
know that in my bank account this morning was my $11,000 retro
check. I can now move me and my son out of my vehicle and I can
buy my son a healthy meal.'' A veteran from Texas stated, ``I
had an appointment that was 120 days down the road with my
primary doctor. They took care of it and moved it up a month
and a half.''
The VBCs work in the same manner as this bill, putting all
the players in the community together to get the help to the
veterans. This bill would help veterans receive the benefits
they have earned by addressing the barriers between VA and the
veterans they serve within the community. Therefore, The
American Legion supports the VET Act.
The Medal of Honor is the United States of America's
highest military honor awarded for personal acts of valor above
and beyond the call of duty. The intent of the next two bills
is to expand benefits to Medal of Honor recipients. H.R. 4757
would direct the VA to furnish at a private cemetery a
headstone, marker, or medallion that signifies the status of an
eligible veteran as a Medal of Honor recipient. The Medal of
Honor Legacy Act would hold 1,000 of the remaining 60,000
burial plots at Arlington National Cemetery to be exclusively
assigned to Medal of Honor recipients should they choose to be
buried there. This would allow those who have received the
highest military honor to continue to have a place at the
Nation's most hallowed burial place. By resolution, The
American Legion supports any legislation that would expand the
benefits to Medal of Honor recipients.
Finally, I would like to discuss the Compensation Cost of
Living Adjustment Act of 2016, or COLA. This bill allows for a
COLA for VA disability benefits. However, within section 2 of
this bill, it is noted that each dollar amount increased under
paragraph 1, if not a whole dollar, shall be rounded to the
next lower whole dollar amount. In order for The American
Legion to support this bill, we ask Congress to remove section
2 and allow veterans to receive the full benefits awarded due
to their service without rounding down.
Again, on behalf of National Commander Dale Barnett, and
the members that comprise this Nation's largest wartime veteran
service organization, we appreciate the opportunity to speak
before you this morning to discuss these bills that could have
long-lasting effects upon the veteran community. I will be
happy to answer any questions the Committee may have. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Edward G. Lilley appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Lilley, and thank you all for
your testimony.
I will start with some questions, and this is for everyone
on the panel. Based on your organization's experience, how
would veterans and their families benefit, assuming that they
receive the COLA next year?
Mr. Blake?
Mr. Blake. Well, that is assuming that there is going to be
a COLA, particularly this year when we had zero percent. I
mean, I think it is a well-established fact that the cost of
living doesn't go down year after year despite what the COLA
statistics suggest. It impacts their ability to pay their
bills, you know, provide for their families, I mean we are
talking about not necessarily significant amounts, but it plays
into the way that many families budget for their daily living.
Without the COLA, you know, that has an impact.
Mr. Abraham. Mr. Morosky?
Mr. Morosky. I concur with that, Mr. Chairman. You know, in
addition, this year where there wasn't the COLA, we received a
lot of calls from our members talking about how they feel as
though cost of living has gone up. Food gets more expensive,
housing costs have gotten more expensive, you know, having
looked into it, you see that the reason why the CPI stayed flat
was because gasoline prices fell so much. But as has been
pointed out by others, some people who are severely disabled or
elderly people may not necessarily benefit as much from falling
gasoline prices, but they certainly feel the raising medical
costs, the raising housing costs, and the raising food costs.
So cost of living increases is critically important.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you. Mr. Varela?
Mr. Varela. Thank you, Dr. Abraham. I would align our
comments with that of PVA and VFW, but also add what the
representative from American Legion stated about eliminating
the round-down provision which I think is particularly
important this year if we are able to get a COLA passed, seeing
as one was not passed this year. And also, you know, we want
veterans who are receiving disability compensation to be able
to meet a basic standard of living, and we continue to erode
the potency of their disability compensation as it pertains to
their ability to maintain that standard of living.
Mr. Abraham. Ms. Davis, do you have a comment?
Ms. Davis. No, sir, I do not. Survivors do not receive a
COLA.
Mr. Abraham. I understand.
Mr. Lilley?
Mr. Lilley. Mr. Chairman, for these veterans and their
family members, COLA is not simply an acronym or a minor
adjustment in benefits, instead it is a tangible benefit that
meets the needs of the increasing costs of living in a Nation
that they bravely defended. By resolution, American Legion
supports any legislation to provide a periodic cost of living
adjustment increase, and to increase the monthly rates of
disability compensation. So we agree that it is an important
benefit that needs to be increased.
Mr. Abraham. All right. Thank you all.
Mr. Varela, this is for you, I guess. Why do you believe
that the current rate on special monthly compensation, SMCK, is
not sufficient for veterans who have received a catastrophic
injury to their creative organs?
Mr. Varela. If I am not mistaken, the rate that is paid for
SMCK is roughly $100 a month. I don't know that that is enough
to help somebody procreate. It is not enough to help somebody
procreate, and it wouldn't be enough to help with adoptive
services. So there has to be something else in place to help
overcome that barrier where that special monthly compensation
doesn't really achieve the particular outcome.
Mr. Abraham. Okay.
Mr. Lilley, the next question is for you. You indicate that
you support the draft legislation on development of evidence.
How do you think this proposed change would expedite the
appeals process?
Mr. Lilley. So Mr. Chairman, we have seen proof. So VA
issued Fast letters 13-21 and 14-02 in 2013 and 2014,
respectively, that directed its employees to proceed in the
manner directed by the drafted legislation. In July of 2015,
the VA included language from the Fast letters in M-21-1. While
preparing for this testimony, American Legion contacted one of
our seasoned accredited representatives in Detroit, and he
couldn't have been more empathetic and supportive of the
results of the Fast letters. Instead of veterans waiting for
nearly a year to have supplemental statement of the case, or
SSOC, the case could be forwarded to be certified by the BVA.
American Legion is supportive of the VA having efficient
manners to adjudicate claims and appeals through eliminating
the requirement of an SSOC, and veterans are not being punished
for submitting evidence following the filing of the substantial
appeal.
Mr. Abraham. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Lilley.
Mr. Morosky, please elaborate on what you believe that the
families of the reserve and the National Guard servicemembers
should be able to receive a presidential memorial certificate
commemorating their service to the country?
Mr. Morosky. Well, quite simply, Mr. Chairman, these are
servicemembers who have died in the line of duty. We already
grant it to active duty servicemembers who die in the line of
duty. We feel as though members of the Guard and Reserve as
well as ROTC cadets who die training in the line of duty, you
know, their families are equally deserving of that recognition.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you. I am out of time.
Ms. Ranking Member Titus?
Ms. Titus. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate Mr.
Blake, you mentioning how this whole compensation for loss of
creative organs also affects women. But it would be very nice
to have some women veterans at the table talking about it
themselves. So I hope, as this moves forward, we have those
representatives here to help us structure this in a way that
will truly be helpful.
It seems to me that somebody, some time, made an arbitrary
decision that an organ is worth a certain amount. You lose an
arm, you get a certain amount. You lose an eye, you get a
certain amount. You lose the ability to have children, you get
a certain amount. So we are saying that the inability to have
children is worth $100 a month. Is that kind of how it works,
Mr. Blake, or anybody?
Mr. Blake. I guess, theoretically speaking, that is
probably true.
Ms. Titus. Do you think it is worth more thank that?
Mr. Blake. Well, in my opinion, it is priceless.
Ms. Titus. Exactly, exactly. Thank you very much for saying
that. I mean, that says it all. But I would ask one specific
question about the bill that is before us that has to do with
this issue, which I agree with what many of you said is not the
way to go about addressing it and it is just kind of half-
assed, actually. But under this bill, where you get a lump sum
to pay for adoption, I don't believe there is anything in the
bill, and correct me if I am wrong, that says you have to be
married to get this, to use this money for adoption. And also
you could be a gay couple and use this money for adoption. Is
that accurate?
Mr. Blake. I don't think it makes any particular
distinction. I think you are eligible for the benefit, the
veteran is eligible for the benefit. The relationship they are
in is not contemplated in the context of the legislation.
Ms. Titus. Okay. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Ms. Titus.
Ms. Brownley?
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you Ms.
Davis for your testimony, particularly today. And we
appreciate, we are deeply sorry, and appreciate your husband's
service to our country and certainly your service to our
country as well, because we all know here that it really takes
a whole family to support the man or woman who is on the
battlefield. So thank you very much for that. And to all of the
other spouses that are here today standing with you on this
really important issue.
I just think it, you know, when we are talking about a
benefit to surviving spouses, when someone dies in a family, I
think everyone, their wishes for the surviving spouse,
particularly in this case for the surviving family members is
that they want to be, first make sure that their family is
taken care of, and secondly to wish them, you know, happiness
in their future life. And I think this is a really important
bill to try to meet that criteria, if you will.
And, you know, when someone who has served our country and
served our country so bravely, we need to make sure that, if
they die, that we are taking care of them and they don't have
to worry about their family once they are deceased. That they
need to know unequivocally that we are going to take care of
their family. And so I think this bill is extremely, extremely
important to make sure that we are taking care of the family
and wishing the spouse a quality of life and happiness in his
or her life, without question.
And I guess, Ms. Davis, I would just ask the question to
you based on your conversations and your advocacy with the
widowed community within the military, do you have
relationships with people who have absolutely postponed their
happiness and their pursuit of happiness because they have to
be 57 years or older?
Ms. Davis. Absolutely, particularly when there are children
involved, that monthly benefit is mandatory, just to keep the
household running and all of our basic necessities. We are
punished if we do get married. We are punished at a certain age
if we don't get married. We are punished with some of our
benefits if we choose to work. So we are kind of stuck in this
catch-22 where we have to postpone our lives. It is not really
a choice that we get to make. And it is extremely unfortunate
that we have these heroes who we are so proud of, who have
defended all these freedoms for everybody else, but nobody is
looking out for our freedoms and that is not okay. I hope that
answers your question.
Ms. Brownley. Yes, yes thank you. And I think, you know,
another point that I would just make on this particular issue
when we are talking about our younger men and women, surviving
spouses who are younger, if they choose to work, they are very
early in their career. And we know as we climb the career
ladder, we tend to make more as we pursue that career year
after year after year, so logic says when you are young and
early you just might be beginning that process. And that
compensation becomes even more important for our younger
spouses than those who might have been--may have been working
in their careers, and as they reach an earlier age, might be
yielding, you know, more significant income. That doesn't apply
to everyone, but it could apply to some.
So, anyway, I just want to thank you again, you know, for
your courage to be here, and for the other surviving spouses
who are here, thank you for being here, thank you for your
testimony, and thank you for your advocacy, and we hope very
much that we can succeed in this endeavor.
The last question that I would just ask very quickly of The
American Legion is that I noticed that you didn't make a
comment or don't have a recommendation on Mr. Miller's
reproductive assistance bill, and if you have an opinion,
specifically on the bill?
Mr. Lilley. Thank you, Congresswoman. We are very excited
about the effort to try and make veterans with service-
connected injuries whole again. We fully support parity between
the authorized services offered to DoD active duty members and
the veterans who have since left DoD with the exact same
complications. We do have some concerns over the language that
we believe would be easy to overcome, and we look forward to
working with the congressional staff to work through these
concerns.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Ms. Brownley.
If there are no further questions, this panel is excused.
I want to thank everybody for coming here today and sharing
your views on these 11 bills. Ms. Davis, again, thank you and
those behind you for your journey. I wanted to tell you that my
bill, cosponsored by Ms. Titus, does have COLA increases for
DIC benefits, so maybe a little ray of sunshine there.
I ask unanimous consent that written statement provided by
the Vietnam Veterans of America be placed in the hearing
record. Without objection, so ordered.
Finally, I ask unanimous consent that all members have five
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks, and
include extraneous material on any of these bills under
consideration this afternoon. Without objection, so ordered.
This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Corrine Brown, Ranking Member, Full Committee
Statement in Support of The Final Farewell Act and The Love Lives on
Act
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to speak on behalf of
the important bills under consideration today.
In particular I am pleased that we will be considering a bill H.R.
3715, The Final Farewell Act that is of great importance to my
constituents.
While VA has the authority to provide weekend services to veterans
and their families, they rarely do.
This has been a particular challenge for various religions and
cultures who bury their loved ones on Saturdays.
Just two weeks ago I attended a funeral service on a Saturday then
had to wait along with the family until Monday to bury the loved one
because the cemetery would not bury the service member on Saturday.
This compounded stress, from losing a loved one and being forced to
break with tradition, is unnecessary.
My legislation, The Final Farewell Act, will make it easier for
families with religious and cultural traditions to bury their loved
ones at a time that works for them.
Our veterans deserve to have this common sense convenience.
Thank you for your consideration H.R. 3715 and the support of this
common sense change.
Another bill that I am very proud to have introduced, is The Love
Lives on Act.
I had the opportunity to host our surviving spouses at a roundtable
last November.
I heard them loud and clear, follow the United Kingdom's lead and
eliminate the age restriction on remarriage!
What many may not know is that our current law is discouraging
widowed spouses of our most valiant servicemembers from remarrying.
The U.K. noted that many of these spouses are in committed
relationships but refrain from marriage to retain this income.
The right thing to do is clear and I hope to have my colleagues
support.
Lastly, I would like to voice serious concern for the legislative
proposal from Chairman Miller that would pay two lump sum payments of
$10,000 for those who lose their use of a creative organ.
This legislation is trying to address a health issue by offering
cash instead of needed timely treatment and I strongly oppose it.
I believe a better alternative and compromise, is the language that
has been agreed to in a bi-partisan manner, is the agreement struck by
the Senate to provide these veterans with healthcare.
This language is very similar to language proposed last year by
Chairman Miller and in concept I support that.
Being able to have a family is an important step toward healing our
veterans and their families. I committed to working to find way to make
that happen.
-------
Prepared Statement of David McLenachen
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Titus, and other
Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to be here
today to discuss legislation pertaining to the Department of Veterans
Affairs' (VA) programs, including the following: H.R. 3715, H.R. 3936,
H.R. 4087, H.R. 4757, H.R. 4758, H.R. 4759, H.R. 4782, a draft bill
``to pay special compensation to certain Veterans with the loss or loss
of use of creative organs,'' a draft bill ``to improve the
consideration of evidence by the Board of Veterans' Appeals,'' and a
draft bill entitled the ``Love Lives on Act of 2016.'' There is also a
draft bill under discussion today entitled ``Medal of Honor Legacy
Act,'' which would affect programs or laws administered by the
Secretary of the Army. Respectfully, we defer to the Secretary of the
Army's views on that draft bill. Accompanying me this afternoon is Mr.
Matthew T. Sullivan, Deputy Under Secretary for Finance and Planning
and Chief Financial Officer for the National Cemetery Administration.
H.R. 3715
H.R. 3715 would require VA to permit interments, funerals, memorial
services, and ceremonies of deceased Veterans at national cemeteries
during weekends, except weekends that include Federal holidays, if
requested for religious or cultural reasons. The bill would also
require that VA make any grant to a State to assist in establishing a
Veterans' cemetery conditioned upon the State permitting interments,
funerals, memorial services, and ceremonies during weekends, except
weekends that include Federal holidays, if requested for religious or
cultural reasons. The bill would require VA to provide notice to anyone
requesting burial of a decedent in a national cemetery that he/she may
request, for religious or cultural reasons, that the interment,
funeral, memorial service, and ceremony be conducted on a weekend,
except a weekend that includes a Federal holiday.
Although VA appreciates the intent of the bill, VA does not support
the bill because it could inadvertently disrupt VA's flexibility to
accommodate the very requests the bill is addressing. Across the
national cemetery system, VA conducts committal services and interments
on weekend days on a case-by-case basis to accommodate exceptional
circumstances, including religious or cultural reasons. VA also
provides weekend burials for Servicemembers who are killed in action.
As a long-standing policy, VA will not go more than two days without
offering national cemetery burial, so even when others may have a
three-day Federal holiday weekend, VA cemeteries will conduct burials
on at least one of those three days. VA is concerned that memorializing
this in statute may be interpreted as allowing weekend burials for only
religious and cultural reasons. VA believes that these operational
decisions are best left to VA to decide on a case-by-case basis, as a
matter of policy.
VA's current policy is designed to minimize the number of
interments during weekends to allow a peaceful time for families to
visit the gravesites of loved ones without the disruption of cemetery
burial and maintenance operations, or by special ceremonies that are
held to honor Veterans and Servicemembers. However, VA has requested
VA's Advisory Committee on Cemeteries and Memorials to review the
feasibility and resource requirement of offering weekend burials at VA
national cemeteries. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs is authorized by
Congress (38 U.S.C. Sec. 2401) to ``advise and consult'' with the
Advisory Committee on ``administration of the cemeteries.'' The
Advisory Committee was charged with making recommendations regarding
weekend burials, with its final recommendations to be presented at its
spring 2016 meeting.
Additionally, VA does not support the requirement in H.R. 3715 that
would mandate VA to condition a grant provided to a State under VA's
Veterans Cemetery Grants Program (VCGP) on the State's agreement to
permit weekend interments, funerals, memorial services, and ceremonies
of deceased Veterans. This provision would significantly increase the
supervision and control that VA has traditionally exercised over State
Veterans cemeteries funded through the VCGP. The VCGP allows VA to
partner with States and Tribal organizations to increase Veterans'
access to a burial option. The grants are not without conditions, but
those conditions are generally designed to ensure that the burial
option provided by the State or Tribal organization is of a quality
consistent with that available to Veterans at the national cemeteries.
The condition proposed in H.R. 3715 would involve VA in operational
decisions that we have left to the States since the inception of the
VCGP. VA codified this position in 38 C.F.R. Sec. 39.11, which
prohibits the Secretary or any employee of VA from exercising ``any
supervision or control over the administration, personnel, maintenance,
or operation'' of any Veterans cemetery operated by a State or Tribal
organization that receives a grant. Requiring, by statute, the addition
of weekend interments imposes a potentially serious resource burden on
the States' cemetery budgets, staffing, and resources. Making weekend
burials a condition of receiving a cemetery grant may cause States to
reconsider application for a grant, out of concern that they could not
meet the condition without significant resources. This could have a
negative impact on VA's initiative to provide burial options in
partnership with State cemeteries. These partnerships are a critical
element of VA's plans to ensure access to a burial option to the
greatest number of Veterans. Imposing an operational requirement, such
as weekend burials, may hinder States' ability or willingness to
partner with VA to open new cemeteries, which would constrain access to
underserved populations. We note, too, that the proposed provision
applies only to cemeteries operated by States, not those operated by
Tribal organizations. This could raise further concerns by the States
about conditions being imposed on them, but not other VA grantees. VA
would be happy to work with the Committee to address these issues.
An estimate of the costs that would be associated with enactment of
this bill is not available at this time.
H.R. 3936
H.R. 3936 would direct VA to carry out a three-year pilot program
of ``Veterans Engagement Teams events.'' During these events, VA would
be required to initiate, develop, and finalize any claims for
disability compensation and pension benefits received. The bill would
require VA to allocate sufficient personnel, such as claims processors
and medical personnel, to carry out this pilot program. During the
first year of the pilot, VA would be required to have monthly events at
ten regional offices. During the second and third years, VA would be
required to carry out monthly events at a minimum of fifteen regional
offices. The bill would not authorize additional funding to create or
support these events.
VA does not support the proposed bill. VA is currently piloting a
similar program (termed ``VA claims clinics'') to the event-based team
concept advocated in this bill. While VA has not completed its analysis
of the claims clinic pilots, preliminary analysis of this program has
found that it takes significantly more resources compared to VA's
current claims process to initiate, develop, and finalize a claim for
benefits all in one event. These clinics, while successful for some of
the individual Veterans who attend the clinics, have not resulted in an
overall reduction in processing time for Veterans' claims. The claims
clinics have demonstrated that event-oriented processing is vastly more
costly than VA's traditional claims processing methods.
An estimate of the costs that would be associated with enactment of
this bill is not available at this time.
H.R. 4087
H.R. 4087 would amend title 38, United States Code, to adjust the
effective date of certain reductions and discontinuances of
compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, and pension under
the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Section 2(a) of the bill would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5112(b)(1) by
striking ``last day of the month before'' and inserting ``last day of
the month during which.'' As a result, the statute would read, ``The
effective date of a reduction or discontinuance of compensation,
dependency and indemnity compensation, or pension . . . by reason of
marriage or remarriage, or death of a payee shall be the last day of
the month during which such marriage, remarriage, or death occurs.''
VA opposes the proposed bill. VA was provided the opportunity to
provide technical assistance on the proposed legislation earlier this
year. At that time, we were informed that the purpose of the amendment
is to prevent situations where families may be required to return VA
benefits that have already been paid.
The amendment is ambiguous in that it would either prevent payment
of a benefit to a Veteran's surviving spouse under 38 U.S.C. Sec.
5310(a) (``Payment of benefits for month of death''), or it would
result in a double payment for the month of death-one payment to the
surviving spouse under existing law and a second payment to the
Veteran's heirs under the amendment. Under section 5310, a Veteran's
surviving spouse is entitled to receive a benefit for the month of the
Veteran's death if the Veteran was receiving, or was entitled to
receive, compensation or pension under chapter 11 or 15 of title 38,
United States Code. The amount of the benefit to the surviving spouse
is the amount the Veteran would have received for the month of the
Veteran's death had the Veteran not died. 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5310(a)(2).
Pursuant to the amendment, the Veteran would still receive payment for
the month of death, and therefore the amendment would either override
section 5310 or it would result in double payment.
Similar to the Social Security Administration, VA pays benefits one
month in arrears. Therefore, the benefit that a beneficiary received on
December 1, 2015, for example, was the benefit owed for the month of
November 2015. If the Veteran passed away in December 2015, his
entitlement would cease as of November 30, 2015, under current 38
U.S.C. Sec. 5112(b)(1). VA would not recoup the benefits paid on
December 1, because the Veteran was entitled to that payment for the
month of November. The technical assistance request described a
situation in which a surviving spouse received two payments in December
2015 - one dated December 1, 2015, for the month of November and one
dated December 31, 2015, for the month of December (paid prior to
January 1, 2016, due to the holiday). The surviving spouse was not owed
a benefit for the month of December because she died during that month.
According to the technical assistance request, the bill is for the
purpose of preventing situations where families may be required to
return benefits that VA has already paid. The bill would not achieve
that purpose. Although the bill would potentially allow for an
additional month of benefits, current law ensures that survivors and
other individuals receive the accrued benefits to which they are
entitled. See 38 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 5121, 5121A, 5310(a). In the example
described in the technical assistance request, VA might still be
required to recoup the benefit paid to allow for proper determination
of entitlement under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5121.
The bill would increase mandatory benefit expenditures resulting
from the additional month of entitlement after a beneficiary's death.
Currently, only a Veteran's surviving spouse is entitled to the
Veteran's month-of-death benefit. See 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5310(a). The bill
would require VA to pay a Veteran's benefits for the month of death
irrespective of whether there is a surviving spouse, and such payments
could pass to an estate or other heirs, or might escheat to the State.
Finally, the bill would significantly increase VA's accrued benefits
caseload because the beneficiary's payment for the month of death could
be an accrued benefit (benefit due to the beneficiary at the time of
death).
This bill could also complicate VA and Treasury's efforts to meet
the requirements of the Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery
Improvement Act of 2012 (IPERIA). Pub. L. No. 112-248. The process
under current law (payment for the preceding month) furthers the IPERIA
requirement that VA prevent payments to individuals not entitled to the
benefit, including those who are deceased.
An estimate of the costs that would be associated with enactment of
this bill is not available at this time.
H.R. 4757
H.R. 4757 would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 2306(d) to authorize VA to
furnish, upon request, a headstone, marker, or medallion for recipients
of the Medal of Honor (MOH) who are interred in private cemeteries. The
bill also authorizes VA to replace, upon request, an existing
government-furnished headstone, marker, or medallion for a decedent if
the original headstone, marker, or medallion does not signify the
decedent's status as an MOH recipient. These changes would apply to
decedents who served in the Armed Forces on or after April 6, 1917; who
are eligible for a Government-furnished headstone, marker, or medallion
(or would have been eligible but for the date of death); and who
received the MOH (including posthumously). The bill impliedly requires
design of a new medallion for MOH recipients.
Currently, section 2306(d) allows VA to provide, upon request, a
government-furnished headstone or marker for the gravesite of a Veteran
in a private cemetery, even if that gravesite is marked with a
privately purchased headstone or marker, or, in the alternative, to
provide a medallion that may be affixed to the privately purchased
headstone or marker. These provisions allow families who elect private
cemetery burials and private memorialization to ensure that the
gravesites of Veterans appropriately signify the burial location of
someone who served our Nation. These ``supplemental marker'' benefits,
however, are available only for the gravesites of Veterans who died on
or after November 1, 1990. See Pub. L. 110-157, Sec. 203(b), 121 Stat.
1831, 1833 (Dec. 26, 2007). VA is not authorized to provide a
``supplemental'' headstone or marker, or a medallion, for Veterans who
died prior to November 1, 1990, who are interred in private cemeteries,
and whose gravesites are marked with privately purchased headstones or
markers, even if those Veterans were MOH recipients.
VA supports the general intent of H.R. 4757 to ensure that the
gravesites of MOH recipients buried in private cemeteries are
identifiable. However, the extraordinary and distinctive service that
the award of the MOH represents should be permanently and distinctively
memorialized for all MOH recipients, regardless of their date of death
or burial location. H.R. 4757 would limit VA's authority to provide a
MOH headstone or marker to those who died on or after April 6, 1917,
and only for those who are buried in private cemeteries. The bill also
fails to take into account concerns associated with replacing
government-furnished headstones and markers that may have been provided
decades ago and are therefore subject to historic preservation issues.
Historic preservation concerns could also arise when considering
affixing a medallion to a privately furnished headstone provided
decades ago.
VA would strongly support an amendment to H.R. 4757 to authorize
the provision of a separate and distinct MOH marker to be placed at any
marked gravesite of any MOH recipient in any cemetery, without regard
to the decedent's date of death. Allowing for marking MOH graves with a
separate marker would avoid concerns with removal or alteration of an
existing, and possibly historic, headstone that already marks the MOH
recipient's grave. It also would ensure consistent marking of those MOH
gravesites that were marked prior to VA's development and provision of
the distinctive MOH headstone that VA has provided since 1976. Finally,
it would eliminate the need to design a separate medallion for MOH
recipients. We are happy to work with the Committee to address these
issues and to ensure consistency in the manner in which VA honors and
memorializes all MOH recipients.
We estimate mandatory benefit costs associated with enactment of
this bill would be $33 thousand in 2018, $169 thousand over 5 years,
and $353 thousand over 10 years. While costs are identified, this would
reflect an insignificant cost to the compensation and pension benefits
account, as it does not meet the $500,000 annual threshold established
by OMB.
H.R. 4758
H.R. 4758 would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 112(a) to authorize VA to
furnish, upon request, a Presidential Memorial Certificate (PMC) for
decedents who are eligible for burial in a VA national cemetery based
on death while engaged in certain duty as members of the Reserve
components of the Armed Forces and members of the Reserve Officers'
Training Corps. These changes would apply to deaths occurring on or
after date of enactment of this bill.
The PMC program confers no entitlement for other VA benefits or
services but serves an honorary and ceremonial function for Veterans
who were discharged under honorable conditions, and for persons who
died while on active military, naval, or air service. H.R. 4758 would
extend eligibility for a PMC to two additional categories of
individuals and would align the categories of individuals eligible for
a PMC with the categories of individuals eligible for burial in a VA
national cemetery. First, H.R. 4758 would allow provision of a PMC to
any member of the Reserve components of the Armed Forces, and members
of the Army or Air National Guard, whose death, as defined in 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 2402(a)(2), occurred under honorable conditions while the member
was hospitalized or undergoing treatment at the expense of the United
States, for an injury or disease contracted or incurred under honorable
conditions while performing active duty for training, inactive duty
training, or while undergoing hospitalization or treatment at the
expense of the United States. Second, by referencing section
2402(a)(3), H.R. 4758 would allow provision of a PMC for members of the
Reserve Officers' Training Corps of the Army, Navy, or Air Force whose
death occurs under honorable conditions while the member is attending
an authorized training camp or on an authorized practice cruise,
performing authorized travel to or from that camp or cruise, or
hospitalized or undergoing treatment at the expense of the United
States.
Although VA supports the general proposal in H.R. 4758 to expand
eligibility for the PMC, we strongly recommend that the bill be amended
to include another category of individuals who are eligible under 38
U.S.C. 2402 for burial in a national cemetery. Section 2402(a)(7)
includes as eligible those individuals who, at the time of death, are
entitled to retired pay under chapter 1223 of title 10 or those who
would have been entitled to retired pay but who died before reaching
the age of 60. VA would strongly support an amendment to H.R. 4758 to
allow for provision of a PMC for these individuals who, like those
noted in the current bill, are eligible for burial in a national
cemetery. Such an amendment would ensure alignment of the categories of
individuals who are eligible for the PMC and for burial based on their
service and would allow VA to provide eligible recipients (next-of-kin,
relatives, or friends) of Reservists and retirees with a meaningful
symbol of remembrance of their loved one's honorable service and
sacrifice.
Finally, VA disagrees with the provision in H.R. 4758 that limits
availability of the PMC to recognize individuals in the newly added
categories who die after the effective date of the bill. The PMC
program issues certificates based on the military service, not the date
of death, of the individual who served. To include an effective date
based on the date of death would allow VA to provide a PMC to relatives
or friends of a Reservist who died after the effective date of the
provision, while denying a PMC to the family of a Reservist who died
before the effective date-even if the two served together. We recommend
that the provision be amended to allow issuance of the PMC regardless
of the date of death of the individual honored by the PMC.
If H.R. 4758 were enacted, VA anticipates no significant increases
in workload or cost to the Government given the low number of deaths
that occur in these groups each year, including the additional group of
individuals eligible for burial under section 2402(a)(7) noted above.
H.R. 4759
H.R. 4759 would extend the monetary allowance provision for
transport of remains of eligible Veterans to a State or Tribal
Veterans' cemetery. The current statutory provision provides the
transportation allowance only for transportation of eligible Veterans'
remains to a VA national cemetery. This bill would amend 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 2308 to allow payment of the monetary allowance for transport of
eligible Veterans' remains to covered Veterans' cemeteries. The bill
defines a covered Veterans' cemetery as a Veterans' cemetery owned by a
State or Tribal organization in which a deceased Veteran is eligible to
be buried. This bill increases the options of burial locations for
eligible Veterans including (1) a Veteran who dies as a result of a
service-connected disability; (2) a Veteran who dies while in receipt
of disability compensation (or would have received disability
compensation but for the receipt of retirement pay or pension); and (3)
Veterans whose remains are unclaimed.
The Dignified Burial and Other Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act
of 2012 expanded eligibility for the transportation allowance to ensure
the dignified burial in a VA national cemetery of unclaimed remains of
Veterans, who have no next of kin. This expansion was in recognition of
the sad fact that many Veterans die homeless or, for a variety of
reasons, do not have family or friends who are able or willing to claim
their remains and make burial arrangements. VA regularly collaborates
with organizations and volunteers who work to ensure these Veterans
receive proper burials. H.R. 4759 provides support for these efforts by
extending the allowance for transport of eligible Veterans remains to
State and Tribal Veterans' cemeteries.
VA supports the concept contained in H.R. 4759, subject to the
availability of funds. We especially support expanding the
transportation allowance to State and Tribal cemeteries for the
unclaimed remains of Veterans who die without next of kin, as there are
no costs associated with this expansion and it would ensure the
availability of a dignified burial option for these Veterans. VA has
developed strong partnerships with State and Tribal organizations that
operate cemeteries for Veterans and eligible dependents. We view the
additional option that this bill would provide for the unclaimed
remains of Veterans as another step toward ensuring the goal of
granting all eligible Veterans a dignified and proper burial, whether
it is at a n8ational, State or Tribal Veterans cemetery.
The Department has determined that as drafted the legislation would
have associated benefit costs. However, VA is still determining those
costs at this time.
H.R. 4782
This bill would increase, effective December 1, 2016, the rates of
compensation for Veterans with service-connected disabilities and the
rates of dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) for the survivors
of certain disabled Veterans and for other purposes.
H.R. 4782 would amend, effective December 1, 2016, each of the
dollar amounts under the following sections of title 38, United States
Code, for a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA):
Section 1114, Wartime Disability Compensation;
Section 1115(1), Additional Compensation for Dependents;
Section 1162, Clothing Allowance;
Section 1311(a) through (d), Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation to Surviving Spouse; and
Sections 1313(a) and 1314, Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation to Children.
This bill would provide that each dollar amount described above
would be increased by the same percentage as the percentage by which
benefit amounts payable under title II of the Social Security Act (42
U.S.C. Sec. 401 et seq.) are increased effective December 1, 2016, as
a result of a determination under section 215(i) of such Act (42 U.S.C.
Sec. 415(i)). Each dollar amount increased, if not a whole dollar
amount, would be rounded to the next lower whole dollar amount. This
would renew round-down provisions that had been allowed to expire at
the end of fiscal year 2013.
Because VA compensation and DIC payments are not indexed, Congress
generally enacts legislation on a yearly basis to adjust compensation
and DIC benefits to reflect the percentage of change in the consumer
price index relative to the prior year.
VA supports this bill because it would express, in a tangible way,
this Nation's gratitude for the sacrifices made by our service-disabled
Veterans and their surviving spouses and children and would ensure that
the value of their benefits will keep pace with increases in consumer
prices.
We estimate the cost of the COLA, effective December 1, 2016, would
be $490.8 million during the first year, $3.0 billion for five years,
and $6.6 billion over ten years. The FY 2017 President's budget assumes
annual COLA increases for disability compensation and DIC in its
baseline budget estimate. Therefore, there would be no increases to
costs above the current baseline budget associated with the COLA. There
would be no additional administrative costs.
Draft Bill ``to pay special monthly compensation to certain Veterans
with the loss or loss of use of creative organs.''
This bill would provide that Veterans who receive special monthly
compensation under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1114(k) (``SMC K'') for anatomical
loss or loss of use of one or more creative organs would be entitled to
receive two lump-sum payments, each in the amount of $10,000, to be
paid not less than one year apart. The lump-sum payments would be paid
in addition to SMC K payments, except for the month in which the
Veteran receives the lump-sum payments. The Veteran must submit a
separate, specific application for each $10,000 payment. This new
expanded authority would be added to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1114 and would be
placed in new subsection (u). This would apply only to Veterans who
receive disability compensation on or after the date of the enactment
of the bill.
VA cannot support this amendment. Expanding statutory authority to
pay increased benefit payments for one particular group of disabled
Veterans is inequitable. Moreover, administration of this benefit would
add an undue level of complexity to the claims process.
While sympathetic to Veteran cases involving anatomical loss or
loss of use of creative organs, VA is concerned that the creation of a
new type of benefit, in the form of lump-sum payment, would be
inequitable. First, it should be noted that the compensation program,
to include the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (38 C.F.R. Part 4)
and special monthly compensation provisions (contained in 38 C.F.R.
Part 3), already provides additional compensation to Veterans based on
impairment from certain significant losses, such as amputations and
loss of use of creative organs. Further, it could be argued that other
categories of service-disabled Veterans should also qualify for
additional lump-sum payments based on similar factors as experienced by
those with a loss of a creative organ. VA is amenable to working with
Congress and the Veteran community to further explore the
appropriateness of lump-sum payments and specifically the effects of a
loss of a creative organ and the monetary value that should potentially
be placed on this, as well as other types of losses.
In addition, VA is concerned about the increased complexity that
would be created in the claims process and benefit systems if this bill
were enacted. Lump-sum payments represent a departure from the
longstanding monthly payment structure, and initiating and managing the
required systemic changes for this single benefit would require
significantly increased resources that otherwise could be used for
providing faster and more efficient delivery of benefits and services
to Veterans.
In summary, VA does not support the draft bill, as the creation of
a lump-sum payment for this purpose would represent a departure from
the current benefits payment structure, would be inequitable to
Veterans, and would be complex to administer.
An estimate of the costs that would be associated with enactment of
this bill is not available at this time.
Draft Bill ``to improve consideration of evidence by the Board of
Veterans' Appeals''
This bill would allow the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) to
consider, in the first instance, evidence submitted or identified by
appellants or their representatives during the period beginning when
the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) receives a substantive appeal
and ending on the date the case is certified to the Board. If evidence
submitted or identified during said timeframe requires VA to gather
additional evidence, this bill would also subject such evidence to
initial review by the Board. Appellants or their representatives would
be permitted to elect to have the AOJ review evidence in the first
instance. In cases where such an election occurs, this bill would
require the AOJ to review the evidence submitted or identified within
180 days after the evidence is received or identified, and to certify
the case to the Board within 180 days of completing the review.
Although VA appreciates the intent of this bill to expedite
processing of appeals, VA does not support the bill as written.
Improvements to the timeliness of appeals processing should be achieved
through comprehensive reform of the multi-step, open-record appeal
process set in current law. However, this bill seeks to address a
single step in the multi-step process, while ignoring significant
defects in the overall statutory framework that currently preclude
efficiency in the process as a whole.
Under current law, an appellant may submit or identify additional
evidence at any point in the appeal process. Under its statutory duty
to assist, VA is required to consider such evidence and obtain any
additional evidence that may help the appellant substantiate the claim.
See 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5103A. This process is repeated each time the
appellant submits or identifies additional information. Therefore, in
many cases VA cannot control the time it takes for completion of a
particular stage in the appeal process. Therefore, this proposed
legislation would not be helpful without first reforming the overall
statutory scheme that governs the process, as VA requested in the FY
2017 President's Budget.
It should be noted that Congress has already provided some
legislative relief in this area by amending 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7105 to
allow the Board to consider evidence in the first instance when it is
received with or after a VA Form 9, substantive appeal. See 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 7105(e)(1). Transferring jurisdiction to the Board to consider in
the first instance evidence identified by appellants may provide some
additional relief in this area. However, as stated, such an incremental
measure as that proposed in this bill would fail to address the
multitude of existing defects in the current statutory framework.
Finally, a few technical issues should be noted. First, this bill
would establish a window - from the date the AOJ receives a substantive
appeal to the date the AOJ certifies the appeal - for the submission of
evidence that would be subject to review by the Board in the first
instance. As written, the proposed legislation would lead to absurd
results where evidence identified after certification to the Board
would require initial review by the AOJ, but evidence received prior to
certification would not. To avoid this result, the statutory language
could be clarified to apply to all evidence submitted or identified at
the time or after the AOJ receives a substantive appeal. In addition,
the bill would require the AOJ, upon election by the appellant for
initial review of new evidence by the AOJ, to review evidence within
180 days of either receiving or being notified of new evidence, and
certify the case to the Board within 180 days of completing this
review. However, these timeframes do not account for the time it may
take the AOJ to obtain or attempt to obtain evidence in accordance with
the duty to assist. To address this issue, the bill could be amended to
state that the AOJ should review new evidence and certify cases to the
Board within a certain timeframe of either receiving or gathering new
evidence, or of ``fulfilling its statutory duty under 38 U.S.C. Sec.
5103A.''
No mandatory costs would be associated with enactment of this bill.
An estimate of discretionary costs is not available at this time.
Draft Bill ``Love Lives on Act of 2016"
This bill would modify the definition of surviving spouse to permit
entitlement to VA benefits when a surviving spouse of a Veteran
remarries.
Currently, section 101(3) of title 38, United States Code, provides
that to be considered a Veteran's surviving spouse, a person must not
have remarried and must not have lived with another person and held
him/herself out as the spouse of that other person. Other statutes
provide exceptions. For example, a surviving spouse who remarries after
age 57 may continue to receive DIC under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 103(d) and,
under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 2402, a surviving spouse does not lose
eligibility for interment in a national cemetery due to remarriage.
Section 2(a) of the draft bill would modify the definition of
``surviving spouse'' for all VA purposes to remove the requirement that
a surviving spouse must not be remarried (or must not have lived with
another person and held him/herself out as a spouse).
Section 2(b) of the draft bill would make conforming amendments to
various provisions of title 38, including section 5120, which currently
provides that a postal worker may not deliver a benefit check to a
surviving spouse whom the postal worker believes has remarried. VA
cannot support this bill because it is overly broad, would be very
costly, and would overburden VA's survivor benefit programs. VA does
not oppose amending or rescinding 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5120 as it appears to
be largely obsolete; VA benefits are now directly deposited into
beneficiaries' bank accounts.
Removing the general requirement that surviving spouses must not be
remarried would have a significant workload and cost impact on all VA
survivor benefit programs (pension, DIC, Dependents Educational
Assistance, loan guaranty). For example, currently for survivors'
pension to be payable, the surviving spouse must not be remarried,
unless the marriage is voided or annulled. Because there is currently
no provision allowing surviving spouses to remarry and maintain
eligibility, the general definition at section 101(3) as well as the
provision for voided or annulled marriages at section 103(d)(1)
currently apply to such surviving spouses. Removing the requirement
rendering ineligible surviving spouses who have remarried would result
in significant increases in both mandatory and discretionary costs, and
the increased workload would pose major program implementation
challenges. There would be a similar impact on DIC workload and
entitlements. Currently, under section 103(d)(2)(B), surviving spouses
may remarry after age 57 and retain entitlement to DIC and ancillary
benefits. Surviving spouses who have not yet attained age 57 may regain
entitlement to DIC if the remarriage terminates by death or divorce. We
believe that these existing provisions strike the appropriate balance
between extending DIC benefits to survivors and maintaining program
viability.
An estimate of the costs that would be associated with enactment of
this bill is not available at this time.
-------
Prepared Statement of Mr. Patrick K. Hallinan
INTRODUCTION
Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus, and distinguished members
of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide the
Department of the Army's views on the Medal of Honor Legacy Act.
Arlington National Cemetery is a unique and iconic place devoted to
those individuals who made a significant life commitment of service to
the defense of our Nation in the armed services. Arlington National
Cemetery was originally established as a National Cemetery for
``Soldiers who die in the service of the country.'' Eligibility has
changed through time but always honored individuals who made a
significant life commitment of service. These heroes served in every
war or conflict since the founding of our Nation. Arlington National
Cemetery maintains the honor and dignity of each graveside service
while hosting approximately 4 million guests annually. This duality of
purpose brings the sacrifices of those buried at Arlington National
Cemetery closer to the American people. On behalf of the cemetery and
the Department of the Army, I express our appreciation for the support
that Congress has provided over the years.
THE CEMETERY'S ELIGIBILITY HISTORY
In May 1864, Arlington National Cemetery was established as one of
the first 12 National Cemeteries as a place to inter ``Soldiers who die
in the service of the country.'' Eligibility has significantly expanded
over time to include all former members of the Armed Forces whose last
service terminated honorably as well as their eligible dependents.
MEDAL HONOR OF LEGACY ACT
The proposed Medal of Honor Legacy Act legislation as drafted,
would direct the Secretary of the Army to reserve a certain number of
burial plots at Arlington National Cemetery for individuals who have
been awarded the Medal of Honor, and for other purposes.
The Army understands that the intent of the proposed legislation is
to honor the recipients of the Medal of Honor; however, the legislation
as drafted does not address broader concerns of eligibility to preserve
the life of the cemetery well into the future. This Bill will
reestablish gravesite reservations that were eliminated by Congress in
December 2010. Reservation of gravesites for one specific group will
ultimately exclude persons who also went above and beyond in their
service to our Nation, including those who pay the ultimate sacrifice
and die in the defense of our nation.
Currently there are a total of 3,497 Medal of Honor recipients from
all conflicts, 77 of those are living recipients. At present, there are
406 Medal of Honor recipients interred throughout the more than 70
sections of Arlington National Cemetery. Burial decisions are
ultimately the personal preferences of the deceased and their family;
we should not assume they will all choose interment at Arlington
National Cemetery. Based on past history, we are confident that if
asked, most living recipients would prefer to be buried among comrades
with whom they served.
The present rate of interment and inurnment coupled with the
current inventory of available gravesites and niches (which includes
the nearly complete Millennium project but does not include the
unfunded Southern Expansion project) indicates that Arlington National
Cemetery will run out of space for first interments or inurnments in
the mid-2030s. The impact of this legislation may result in
unavailability of gravesites for future servicemembers killed in
action.
CONCLUSION
The Army understands the general intent of the legislation,
however, the bill does not address the broader question of how long
does our Nation want Arlington National Cemetery to remain an open and
active cemetery. The ability to redefine eligibility, with the
possibility of extending beyond our current borders to gain more
contiguous space, will allow the Army to ensure the cemetery remains
available for first interments for our Nations heroes well into the
future. We must take a holistic approach to solve this issue, which
will require extensive coordination with the Military Services,
Veterans Service Organizations, Advisory Committee on Arlington
National Cemetery, and Congress.
Chairman Abraham and Ranking Member Titus, this concludes my
testimony. I will gladly respond to any questions that you or the
subcommittee members may have.
-------
Prepared Statement of Carl Blake
Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus, and members of the
Subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank
you for the opportunity to provide our views on pending legislation
before the Subcommittee.
Draft Bill: Special Compensation for Veterans with the Loss or Loss of
Use of Creative Organs
PVA supports the draft bill ``To amend title 38, United States
Code, to pay special compensation to certain veterans with the loss or
loss of use of creative organs.'' This bill would provide eligible
veterans with two lump-sum payments of $10,000. To be eligible a
veteran must already be in receipt special monthly compensation (SMC)
subsection (k). These payments would not be paid during the same fiscal
year.
When a veteran has a loss of reproductive ability due to a service-
connected injury, they must bear the total cost for any procedures they
attempt to have children. It is often the case that they cannot afford
family building services. For many veterans procreative services have
been secured in the private sector at great financial and personal
cost. For those wishing to adopt, or who may only have this option to
start a family, the prohibitive costs serve as further reminder that
the gravity of what was sacrificed in service is neither understood by
Congress nor truly compensated.
From 2001 to 2013, 1,367 service members suffered a genitourinary
injury. \1\ Thousands more suffered traumatic brain injuries (TBI) or
spinal cord injuries (SCI/D) that have compromised or ended the ability
to conceive children naturally. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
is limited, and in some cases prohibited, from providing health and
financial services that fully meet the needs of these veterans. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Dismounted Complex Injury Task Force, ``Dismounted Complex
Blast Injury: Report of the Army Dismounted Complex Injury Task
Force,'' I (June 18, 2011), pg 16, http://armymedicine.mil/Documents/
DCBI-Task-Force-Report-Redacted-Final.pdf
\2\ https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-106/pdf/STATUTE-106-
Pg4943.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We believe this bill will ease a veteran's financial burden and
make possible the use of assisted reproductive technologies (ART),
gestational surrogacy, and adoption. Veterans should have the option to
build a family by whatever means is right for them. A compensation
payment of $20,000 will be especially beneficial to veterans utilizing
ART. \3\ For many veterans ART is not an option, be it for medical
reasons or religious objections. Those building their families through
adoption or surrogacy will feel partial financial relief. It is
important to note that the average cost of a domestic single child
adoption is $15,000-$40,000. \4\ Additionally, the cost of gestational
surrogacy can range from $60,000-$120,000. \5\ Clearly, this
legislation will not offset this high cost, but it is a meaningful step
forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ American Society for Reproductive Medicine, www.asrm.org/
detail.aspx?id=3023
\4\ Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2011). ``Costs of
adopting.'' Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Children's Bureau.
\5\ ConceiveAbilities surrogacy agency, www.conceiveabilities.com/
parents/surrogacy-cost. U.S. News & World Report, http://
money.usnews.com/money/blogs/my-money/2013/10/21/surrogacy-financing-
how-to-afford-that-60k-price-tag
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PVA has long advocated that procreative services be included in the
medical benefits package of VA. If a veteran has a loss or loss of use
of reproductive organs due to service they ought to be restored to the
fullest extent possible. While the argument is made that the (k) award
covers this loss, it does not meet the underlying intent to make
veterans whole who have experienced this catastrophic injury. Veterans
with a reproductive injury occupy uncertain space at VA. Their quality
of life is not restored like a prosthetic leg for an amputee, or a
service dog for the blind. Their loss is, in part, identity. For most
young, newly injured veterans, the reality of compromised or limited
sexual health is a life changing loss. \6\ Years later, rehabilitated
and adjusted to a civilian life, veterans may desire for themselves
that which they served to protect for us-family.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Grady, D. (2015, December). The New York Times. http://
www.nytimes.com/2015/12/07/health/penis-transplants-being-planned-to-
heal-troops-hidden-wounds.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
PVA thanks the Subcommittee for considering this draft bill. We
appreciate the Subcommittee staff continuing to pursue solutions for
veterans who wish to start a family, but who are currently denied
options by law. This bill is a desperately needed step in addressing
the needs of veterans with reproductive injuries.
H.R. 3715, the ``Final Farewell Act of 2015"
PVA supports H.R. 3715, the ``Final Farewell Act of 2015.'' This
legislation would provide the ability to hold interment or funeral
services on weekends for religious or cultural reasons in national
cemeteries or State veteran cemeteries receiving federal grants. This
bill seems perfectly reasonable and should receive swift consideration
and approval.
H.R. 3936, the ``Veteran Engagement Teams (VET) Act''
PVA supports the pilot program proposed by H.R. 3936, the ``Veteran
Engagement Teams (VET) Act.'' Bringing veterans face-to-face with VA
employees and knowledgeable Veteran Service Organization (VSO)
representatives will better equip claimants with the knowledge and
information needed to submit accurate claims. Veterans often attempt to
navigate the claims process with little or no guidance. This
unfortunately leads many times to increased processing times and hold-
ups due to avoidable errors in the claim submission. Giving the
claimant the opportunity to engage with VA employees and determine what
exactly is preventing a final decision will greatly expedite
resolution. Additionally, events such as these held in the community
tend to capture veterans who otherwise might not realize they have a
potential claim or claims, such as homeless veterans. Recognizing that
not all claims can be resolved on the spot at a community event, this
program would at least help alleviate one of the biggest frustrations
claimants have by giving them an explanation of what he or she needs to
do next in order to resolve the claim.
H.R. 4087, the ``Fair Treatment for Families of Veterans Act''
PVA supports H.R. 4087, the ``Fair Treatment for Families of
Veterans Act.'' This bill provides for changes to the effective date of
reductions and discontinuances of certain compensation. Current law
requires that compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, or
pension benefits cease on the last day of the month before the
recipient marries, remarries, or dies. In the case of a recipient's
death, this circumstance creates a particular hardship for the next of
kin. When a payee passes away, the distribution for that month must be
paid back to VA. In most cases, that money has already been spent on
monthly bills, leaving the families scrambling to produce the cash owed
when VA sends the bill. This proposal would change the effective date
of a reduction or discontinuance of benefits to the last day of the
month during which the event occurs. Alleviating this unjust hardship
for families who recently lost a loved one is a positive change.
H.R. 4757, Eligibility for Headstones, Markers, and Medallions for
Deceased Individuals Awarded the Medal of Honor and Buried in Private
Cemeteries''
This bill requires the Secretary upon request to signify the
deceased's status as a Medal of Honor recipient when furnishing a
headstone, marker or medallion. This notation on the gravestone is
appropriate for those who receive our country's highest honor and will
undoubtedly be meaningful to the veteran's family and legacy. PVA
strongly supports this legislation and sees this as an appropriate
honor and recognition for those who have distinguished themselves with
such gallantry in combat.
H.R. 4758, Award of the Presidential Memorial Certificate to Certain
Deceased Members of the Reserve Components of the Armed Forces and the
Reserve Officers' Training Corps''
This proposal brings parity to all those eligible for internment in
our national cemeteries with regard to receiving a Presidential
Memorial Certificate. We see no reason why a person should be afforded
the honor of being buried in one of our national cemeteries and not
receive this corresponding symbol of our country's thanks. PVA supports
this legislation.
H.R. 4759, Transportation Costs for Certain Deceased Veterans to
Veterans' Cemeteries Owned by a State or Tribal Organization.''
H.R. 4759 proposes to expand the payment for transportation of a
deceased veteran's remains to not only include national cemeteries, but
also cemeteries owned by States or tribal organizations. PVA fully
supports the intent of this bill; however, we feel the way it is
structured may inadvertently limit the original benefit for transport
to a national cemetery.
The proposed amended language limits payment to the cost associated
with transporting a veteran to the closest cemetery to the deceased's
last place of residence, whether that be a State, Tribal, or national
cemetery. If a State or Tribal cemetery is closer than the national
cemetery for a particular veteran, he or she is no longer compensated
for the transport to a national cemetery. The scenario becomes more
problematic if the closest cemetery is owned by a Tribal organization,
and the veteran is in no way affiliated with such Tribe. The optimal
solution would be to remove Section 1(a)(2)(B) and leave the original
payment provision in 38 U.S.C. 2308(a) untouched.
H.R. 4782, the ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act
of 2016"
PVA fully supports H.R. 4782, the ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-
Living Adjustment Act of 2016,'' that would increase, effective as of
December 1, 2016, the rates of compensation for veterans with service-
connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity
compensation (DIC) for the survivors of certain disabled veterans. This
would include increases in wartime disability compensation, additional
compensation for dependents, clothing allowance, and dependency and
indemnity compensation for children.
However, consistent with our position in the past, PVA cannot
support the rounding down of increases in compensation. While our
economy has begun to improve, many veterans continue to struggle, their
personal finances affected by rising costs of essential necessities to
live from day to day and maintain a certain standard of living. Many
veterans and their families depend on their compensation. While this
may be a small amount, any reduction can have a critical impact,
especially when compounded over time, on low-income veterans.
Draft Bill: To Improve Consideration of Evidence by the Board of
Veterans' Appeals
We support this proposed legislation. Current law allows a claimant
to submit new evidence after submitting a substantive appeal. Unless
the claimant submits a request in writing to have the Agency of
Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) review it, the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) reviews it in the first instance. The effect of this
legislation would be to eliminate this choice after the appeal has been
certified to the Board. This change would help to prevent unnecessary
delays that result from claimants removing their claim from the Board
and returning it to the AOJ for further review.
We also support the 180-day turn around requirement for AOJ review
of the new evidence proposed in subsection (e)(2)(A). Ensuring that
when a veteran submits new evidence the claim does not languish ad
infinitum is important. We do offer, however, two modifications that we
believe would be helpful. With regard to the time frame discussed in
subsection (e)(2)(B), we propose that it be shortened to 60 days. Given
that the AOJ would have just completed a full review of the claim, it
is unreasonable to suggest that another 180 days is necessary to
complete certification. An additional provision should also be included
in this subsection indicating that the appeal need not be certified if
the issue on appeal is resolved by a favorable decision.
Draft Bill: The ``Medal of Honor Legacy Act''
As burial space in Arlington National Cemetery grows thin, this
bill would preserve an allocation of plots for Medal of Honor
recipients. PVA supports this legislation. We believe there are no more
deserving veterans to have dedicated space on the hallowed ground that
is Arlington than those who have been awarded the nation's highest
award for valor.
Draft Bill: The ``Love Lives On Act of 2016"
PVA fully supports this legislation, as we have consistently stated
that no eligible survivors should be penalized for remarriage. At the
very least, equity with beneficiaries of other federal programs should
govern Congressional action for this deserving group. This proposed
legislation eliminates completely the inequitable repercussions that
survivors endure when they choose to remarry. We also support the
bill's attempt to apply a consistent definition of surviving spouse
throughout Title 38 which does not contemplate the surviving spouse's
subsequent marital status.
This concludes PVA's statement for the record. We would be happy to
answer any questions for the record that the Committee may have.
Information Required by Rule XI 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives
Pursuant to Rule XI 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, the
following information is provided regarding federal grants and
contracts.
Fiscal Year 2016
Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of National Veterans Sports
Programs & Special Events - Grant to support rehabilitation sports
activities - $200,000.
Fiscal Year 2015
Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of National Veterans Sports
Programs & Special Events - Grant to support rehabilitation sports
activities - $425,000.
Fiscal Year 2014
No federal grants or contracts received.
Disclosure of Foreign Payments
Paralyzed Veterans of America is largely supported by donations
from the general public. However, in some very rare cases we receive
direct donations from foreign nationals. In addition, we receive
funding from corporations and foundations which in some cases are U.S.
subsidiaries of non-U.S. companies.
-------
Prepared Statement of Aleks Morosky
WITH RESPECT TO
H.R. 3715, H.R. 3936, H.R. 4087, H.R. 4757, H.R. 4758, H.R. 4759, H.R.
4782, and Draft Legislation
MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:
On behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of
the United States (VFW) and our Auxiliaries, thank you for the
opportunity to offer our thoughts on today's pending legislation.
H.R. 3715, Final Farewell Act of 2015
The VFW supports this legislation, which would allow the Department
of Veterans Affairs (VA) to permit weekend burials at National Veterans
Cemeteries, when requested by the veteran's family for religious or
cultural reasons. Additionally, any grant to assist a state in
establishing a veterans' cemetery would require the same. We believe
this is a perfectly reasonable accommodation, and note that National
Veterans Cemeteries already permit weekend burials on weeks when a
federal holiday falls on a Monday or a Friday.
H.R. 3936, Veteran Engagement Teams (VET) Act
The VFW supports this legislation to establish a three year pilot
program to carry out Veteran Engagement Team events at ten locations
nationwide. At these events, VA would supply sufficient staff to
initiate, update, and finalize the completion and adjudication of
disability claims at locations that are at least 50 miles from VA
facilities. If the evidence is insufficient to complete the claim, the
veteran will be informed of what additional information is necessary.
We are aware that similar ``claims clinics'' are already being held
in select locations, including Winston-Salem, North Carolina. Our VFW
service officers at the Winston-Salem Regional Office report that these
events have been greatly successful. They find that having VA staff
explain veterans' claims to them in person helps them gain a better
understanding of the process, leading to higher customer satisfaction.
Often, claims can be granted on the spot. In one extreme case of how
valuable these events can be, a homeless female veteran from Winston-
Salem whose claim was stalled in the local appeal process was able to
produce the piece of evidence needed to grant, resulting in a
retroactive payment of over $100,000.
Our service officers were pleased to see that this bill provides
Veteran Service Organizations access to the events, as the assistance
we provide is critical to ensuring veterans understand what evidence is
needed for favorable decisions. Our only suggestion would be to hold
the events on weekends as well as normal business hours, as many
veterans who work full time would likely be unable to attend during the
work week. With this change, we believe this bill would significantly
improve VA customer service.
H.R. 4087, Fair Treatment for Families of Veterans Act
The VFW supports this legislation which would change the effective
date of a reduction or discontinuance of compensation or pension for
reason of marriage, remarriage, or death of a payee from the last day
of the month prior to when the event occurred to the last day of the
month in which the event occurred. Quite simply, it would offer an
extra month of benefits, and remove the possibility of unforeseen
overpayments in those cases. We believe this is the right thing to do,
so as not to burden grieving families with unnecessary debt.
H.R. 4757, To amend title 38, U.S.C., to expand the eligibility for
headstones, markers, and medallions furnished by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs for deceased individuals who were awarded the Medal of
Honor and are buried in private cemeteries.
This legislation would require VA to furnish upon request to the
survivors of any deceased Medal of Honor recipient a headstone, marker,
or medallion signifying that veteran's status as a Medal of Honor
recipient. The VFW fully supports this legislation, as final resting
places of those who receive our nation's highest award for valor should
be granted special recognition.
H.R. 4758, To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the
award of the Presidential Memorial Certificate to certain deceased
members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces and certain
deceased members of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps.
In 1962, President John F. Kennedy initiated the Presidential
Memorial Certificate to commemorate the memory of deceased veterans who
were honorably discharged. The certificates are engraved on paper and
signed by the president before they are made available by the
Department of Veterans Affairs for the families and loved ones of
deceased veterans. It has long been viewed as a sign of gratitude for
those who served their nation. Since President Kennedy began the
tradition, every President of the United States has continued it. These
certificates act as a simple form of recognition to provide comfort for
those who were close to them while acknowledging the sacrifices made by
veterans who have passed. It symbolizes a gracious appreciation of the
veteran by not only the president, but America as a whole. Currently
this certificate is only awarded to deceased veterans who served on
active duty and were discharged under honorable conditions.
The National Cemetery Administration permits Guard and Reserve
service members as well as Reserve Officers Training Corps candidates
who die in the line of duty, eligibility for burial at a national
cemetery. However, these Guard, Reserve and ROTC members are not
eligible for the Presidential Memorial Certificate. This legislation
would extend the honor of this certificate to these service members.
The VFW supports this legislation and believes Guard, Reserve and ROTC
members must also be properly recognized by our nation's president.
H.R. 4759, To amend title 38, U.S.C., to authorize the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to pay costs relating to the transportation of certain
deceased veterans to veterans' cemeteries owned by a State or tribal
organization.
The VFW supports this legislation, which expands burial benefits to
veterans interned in a State or tribal cemetery.
For more than 150 years, our nation has purchased and maintained
cemeteries to offer our veterans a final resting place that honors
their brave military service. Currently, VA maintains 133 national
cemeteries; only 75 of them, however, are able to accept new
internments. To ensure veterans have burial options within 75 miles to
their home, VA uses agreements and grants with states, United States
territories and federally recognized tribal organizations to establish,
expand, or improve veterans' cemeteries in areas where the National
Cemetery Administration has no plans to build or maintain a national
cemetery.
While VA covers all the transportation expenses for veterans who
are interred in the nearest national cemetery, VA is not authorized to
reimburse the next of kin of a veteran who is interred in a State or
tribal cemetery because the nearest VA national cemetery is not
accepting new interments or the veteran does not have a national
cemetery near their home. This bill rightfully expands VA's authority
to cover the cost of transporting a veteran's remain to their final
resting place in a State or tribal cemetery.
H.R. 4782, Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of
2016
The VFW supports this legislation which will increase VA
compensation for veterans and survivors, and adjust other benefits by
providing a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) beginning December 1,
2016.
Disabled veterans, along with their surviving spouses and children,
depend on their disability compensation plus dependency and indemnity
compensation to bridge the gap of lost earnings caused by the veteran's
disability. Each year, veterans wait anxiously to find out if they will
receive a cost-of-living adjustment. There is no automatic trigger that
increases these forms of compensation for veterans and their
dependents. Annually, veterans wait for a separate Act of Congress to
provide the same adjustment that is automatically granted to Social
Security beneficiaries.
The VFW continues to oppose the ``rounding down'' of the COLA
increase. This is nothing more than a money-saving device that comes at
the expense of veterans and their survivors.
Draft legislation, To pay special compensation to certain veterans
with loss or loss of use of creative organs.
The VFW supports this legislation, which would expand the monthly
special disability compensation benefits VA provides veterans who have
lost or lost the use of their reproductive organs as a result of their
military service.
Due to the widespread use of improvised explosive devices during
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both female and male service members
have suffered from spinal cord, reproductive, and urinary tract
injuries. Many of these veterans hope to one day start families, but
their injuries prevent them from conceiving.
Recognizing the significant impact the loss or loss of use of
reproductive organs has on veterans, Congress established a special
monthly compensation to provide additional financial compensation for
these veterans and for other special circumstances. Currently, veterans
who have lost or lost the use of their reproductive organs receive an
additional $103.23 in monthly disability compensation. This legislation
would increase the amount of financial compensation veterans receive
for losing the use of their reproductive organs due to their military
service.
However, the VFW does not believe financial compensation should be
offered in lieu of reproductive treatment. VA is currently prohibited
from providing certain fertility treatments. The VFW strongly supports
ending the VA ban on the use of assisted reproductive technologies,
including In Vitro Fertilization. Simply giving veterans compensation
for reproductive assistance is inadequate on its own to ensure they
have the care and supportive services they need to successfully achieve
their dreams of starting a family.
Additionally, the VFW believes that VA must have the authority to
provide veterans the fertility treatment options that are best suited
for their particular circumstances. For that reason, the VFW strongly
supports H.R., 2257 and H.R. 3365, which expands VA fertility treatment
options for veterans who have lost the use of reproductive organs as a
result of their military service.
Draft legislation, To amend title 38, United States Code, to
improve the consideration of Evidence by the Board of Veterans'
Appeals.
The VFW supports this legislation. Currently, when a veteran files
an appeal, but submits additional evidence before that appeal is
certified to the Board, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) must
review the evidence and, if still unable to grant in full, issue a
Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) before the appeal can be
certified. While issues are sometimes granted during this sequence,
continued denials can add many months to the total time a veteran must
wait to receive a decision from the Board.
Under this bill, additional evidence received after submission of
the Form 9 would be subject to initial review by the Board by default.
Veterans may still elect to have that evidence reviewed by the AOJ.
This is important, as some veterans may feel confident that the
additional evidence they are submitting will allow the AOJ to grant
their claims in full, without the need to wait years for their appeals
to reach the Board. If no election is made, however, the additional
evidence would be reviewed by the Board in the first instance.
The VFW further supports the provision of the bill that would
require additional evidence to be reviewed by the AOJ within 180 days
when the veteran makes that election. We also support the intent of
requiring the AOJ to certify the appeal within 180 days after the
review is completed, but would suggest that timeframe be shortened to
60 days. In our view, one of the logjams in the appeals process is that
the AOJs take far too long to certify appeals once their work is
completed. We believe that two months is a reasonable amount of time
for the AOJ to certify an appeal once it is ready.
Lastly, we would suggest a minor technical change to subsection
(a)(2)(B) of section 1, by inserting at the beginning, ``if such review
does not result in a fully favorable decision.''
Draft legislation, To reserve a certain number of burial plots at
Arlington National Cemetery for individuals who have been awarded the
Medal of Honor.
Medal of Honor recipients are held in the highest regard by the
veterans' and military community, and have certainly earned the
opportunity to be buried in our nation's most hallowed burial grounds--
Arlington National Cemetery. Despite the current expansion of 30,000
interment slots as part of the Millennium Project and the recent
acquisition of additional land for burial space, the Arlington National
Cemetery will eventually reach maximum capacity.
If that day comes, we must ensure those who are awarded our
nation's highest award for valor in action against an enemy force are
reserved a final resting place that honors their service to our nation.
This legislation rightfully ensures the 77 living Medal of Honor
recipients and the brave service members that may receive this
prestigious award in the future are offered that opportunity by setting
aside 1,000 plots specifically for them. The VFW fully supports this
legislation.
Draft Legislation, the Love Lives on Act of 2016
The Love Lives on Act will redefine the definition of ``surviving
spouse'' for the purposes of benefits administered by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs. In short this bill will eliminate the current
provisions in law that preclude surviving spouses of military service
members who remarry from receiving benefits through the Department of
Veterans Affairs. Currently, a surviving spouse must remain unmarried
until the age of 57 to qualify for the benefits that were granted to
them through the death of the service member.
Surviving spouses, many of whom are young, should not have to
endure a life of loneliness just so they can continue to receive the
benefits granted to them through the death of their spouse. The VFW
supports this legislation.
Information Required by Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives
Pursuant to Rule XI2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, the VFW
has not received any federal grants in Fiscal Year 2016, nor has it
received any federal grants in the two previous Fiscal Years.
The VFW has not received payments or contracts from any foreign
governments in the current year or preceding two calendar years.
Prepared Statement of Paul R. Varela
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting DAV (Disabled American Veterans) to testify
at this legislative hearing, and to present our views on the bills
under consideration. As you know, DAV is a non-profit veterans service
organization comprised of 1.3 million wartime service-disabled veterans
that is dedicated to a single purpose: empowering veterans to lead
high-quality lives with respect and dignity.
H.R. 3715, the Final Farewell Act of 2015
The bill would amend title 38 United States Code, sections 2404 and
2408 as they pertain to national cemeteries and memorials. The bill
would authorize the Secretary to conduct interments or funerals,
memorial services, or ceremonies of deceased veterans at national
cemeteries during weekends, other than on federal holiday weekends. The
request for these services would be made by next of kin, and requested
for religious or cultural reasons.
Furthermore, any grant made to states in establishing veteran
cemeteries would require that as a condition of such grants, these
cemeteries would permit interments or funerals, memorial services, or
ceremonies of deceased veterans at the cemetery during weekends, other
than federal holiday weekends.
DAV does not have a resolution relative to this issue, but would
not oppose passage of this legislation.
H.R. 3936, the Veteran Engagement Teams Act (VET Act)
This bill would require the Secretary Affairs to carry out a three-
year pilot program facilitating ``VET'' events in order to complete
onsite processing of claims for disability compensation and pension.
Each month during the first year, these VET events would be held within
the jurisdiction of 10 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional
offices (VARO). During the second and third years, the VET events would
be expanded to 15 VAROs each month. These events would also be
scheduled during normal business hours and take place at least 50 miles
away from designated VAROs, thus providing that veterans who live in
rural areas, who might not otherwise be able to access the VARO, can be
served.
The bill would require that a sufficient number of physicians (to
be available for medical opinions only), veteran service
representatives, rating veteran service representatives, and other
personnel be made available at these events to initiate, update, and
finalize the completion and adjudication of claims. Veterans service
organizations would also have access to the events for purposes of
providing assistance to veterans. Under this bill, veterans unable to
complete the adjudication of a claim at an event would be informed of
the additional information or actions needed to finalize the claim.
The bill also encourages collaboration between state, local
governments, nonprofit organizations and private sector entities to use
facilities as host sites for these events at no, or nominal cost.
Services by non-Department physicians in rendering medical opinions
relating to claims for compensation and pension would also be
encouraged on a non-compensation basis. Reports to Congress would be
required and customer satisfaction surveys would be taken to determine
the effectiveness of this VET pilot program.
DAV supports H.R. 3936, the Veteran Engagement Teams Act (VET Act),
in accordance with our National Resolution 001, calling for enhanced
outreach to ensure that all disabled veterans receive all benefits they
have earned.
We look forward to working with Congress toward enactment of this
legislation.
H. R. 4087, the Fair Treatment for Families of Veterans Act
This bill would change the effective date of reductions and
discontinuances and permit the payment of a full month of VA benefits
for the month in which a change in beneficiary status occurs.
If enacted, the effective date of a reduction or discontinuance of
compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, or pension would
commence on the last day of the month during which marriage,
remarriage, or death occurs, as opposed to the last day of the month
before such change in beneficiary status.
The bill would essentially provide for an additional month of
benefits, covering the entire period of a month for payment purposes
when there is a change in beneficiary status due to marriage,
remarriage or death.
DAV does not have a specific resolution relative to this issue, but
we look forward to enactment of this reasonable expansion benefiting
disabled veterans and their survivors.
H. R. 4757
The bill would expand eligibility for the issuance of headstones,
markers and medallions, furnished by the Secretary for deceased
individuals to signify their awards of the Congressional Medal of Honor
(MOH), to include those awarded the MOH posthumously.
In particular, this eligibility would apply to MOH recipients whose
remains are buried in private cemeteries and whose service commenced on
or after April 6, 1917.
DAV does not have a specific resolution relative to this issue, but
would not oppose passage of this legislation.
H. R. 4758
The bill would authorize the award of Presidential Memorial
Certificates to certain deceased members of the reserve components of
the armed forces and Reserve Officers' Training Corps. The bill would
also expand eligibility for internment in national cemeteries for this
group of individuals, dependent upon their military status at the time
of death.
The bill would establish eligibility for members of the Reserve
component of the armed forces, and any member of the Army National
Guard or the Air National Guard, whose death occurred under honorable
conditions while the member was hospitalized or undergoing treatment,
at the expense of the United States, for injury or disease contracted
or incurred under honorable conditions while the member was performing
active duty for training, inactive duty training, or undergoing
hospitalization or treatment at the expense of the United States.
The bill would also establish eligibility for members of the
Reserve Officers' Training Corps of the Army, Navy or Air Force when
death occurs under honorable conditions while the member was attending
an authorized training camp or on an authorized practice cruise;
performing authorized travel to or from that camp or cruise;
hospitalized or undergoing treatment, at the expense of the United
States, for injury or disease contracted or incurred under honorable
conditions while the member was attending that camp or on that cruise;
during associated travel; or undergoing hospitalization or treatment at
the expense of the United States.
DAV has no resolution relative to this issue, but would not oppose
passage of this legislation.
H. R. 4759
The bill would permit the Secretary to cover the costs associated
with the transportation of deceased veterans, not only to national
cemeteries, but also to other recognized veterans' cemeteries.
The bill would define ``covered veterans' cemeteries'' as those
owned by a state, or a tribal organization in which the deceased
veteran is eligible to be buried, consistent with the definition
currently codified in section 3765 (4), of title 38, United States
Code.
DAV does not have a resolution relative to this issue, but would
not oppose passage of this legislation.
H.R. 4782, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of
2016
This bill would increase the rates of disability compensation,
clothing allowance, and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC),
effective on December 1, 2016.
Consistent with DAV Resolution No. 013, which calls on Congress to
support legislation to provide a realistic increase in disability
compensation, we support this bill. This bill would authorize an
increase in the rates of compensation for wounded, ill and injured
veterans, their survivors and dependents, commensurate with increases
provided to Social Security recipients.
While it has become customary for Congress to determine a cost-of-
living adjustment (COLA) in parity with Social Security recipients, it
is important to note there have been several years in which Social
Security recipients did not receive a COLA as was the case for 2016.
Likewise, beneficiaries in receipt of VA compensation and survivor
benefits did not receive a COLA.
Furthermore, DAV believes Congress should consider a more accurate
formula to compensate service-connected veterans, their survivors and
dependents for wounds, injuries and illnesses sustained during military
service. DAV members passed Resolution No. 059, which calls on Congress
to support the enactment of legislation to provide a realistic increase
in VA compensation rates to bring the standard of living of disabled
veterans in line with that which they would have enjoyed had they not
suffered their service-connected disabilities.
Also, while DAV has always supported legislation that provides
veterans with a COLA, DAV is adamantly opposed to the practice of
rounding down COLAs to the nearest whole dollar amount, and we oppose
the round-down feature in this bill based on DAV Resolution 017.
Draft Bill - The Medal of Honor Legacy Act
If enacted into law, the Secretary of the Army would be required to
reserve 1,000 burial plots at Arlington National Cemetery (ANC) to
inter individuals who have been awarded the Medal of Honor (MOH). The
law would also require the Secretary of the Army to submit a report to
Congress describing the location of the in-ground burial plots that
have been reserved.
The MOH is the United States of America's highest military honor,
awarded for personal acts of valor above and beyond the call of duty.
Reserving adequate final resting places within ANC is a fitting and
commendable act that Congress has chosen to undertake. Our country must
do all that it can to enshrine, commemorate and preserve the legacy of
service and sacrifice endured by our MOH recipients.
DAV does not have a specific resolution from our members pertaining
to this issue, but would not oppose passage of this legislation.
Discussion Draft - Special Monthly Compensation (u)
If enacted, the legislation would pay Special Monthly Compensation
(SMC )(u), to veterans entitled to receive SMC(k) due the loss of, or
loss of use of creative organs.
It would direct the Secretary to pay to a veteran entitled to
SMC(k), two lump-sum special compensation payments, each in the amount
of $10,000. The second such payment would not occur less than one year
after the date of the first such payment.
This special compensation paid would be in addition to disability
compensation paid to a covered veteran pursuant to subsection (k),
except that in any month in which the veteran receives a payment of
SMC(u), the veteran may not also receive disability compensation
pursuant to subsection (k).
A covered veteran would be required to submit to the Secretary a
separate, specific application for each payment of this special
compensation.
Covered veterans would encompass those who are paid SMC(k) for the
anatomical loss of one or more creative organs, or the permanent or
static loss of use of one or more creative organs.
This new payment of SMC(u) would apply with respect to veterans who
receive disability compensation on, or after, the date of enactment of
this act.
The bill contemplates one possible option to provide some
assistance, in the form of compensation, to overcome reproductive
challenges associated with service-connected disabilities. This
proposal is not viewed as a comprehensive measure to solve this
problem. These veterans may require additional services, beyond what
the two $10,000 payments would cover. More must be done to ensure that
veterans stricken with wounds, illness and injuries that impede upon
their natural ability to procreate, receive, to the maximum extent
possible, the full complement of services and benefits required to
achieve a desired outcome.
DAV has no resolution from its members pertaining to lump sum
payments for the loss, or loss of use of creative organs, but would not
oppose passage of this legislation. However, if legislation were to be
enacted to provide for these lump payments, it should not be used to
supplement, or offset, other forms of payments, or services, that would
aid wounded, injured and ill veterans in their procreative, or adoptive
pursuits.
Discussion Draft - Evidence Development
This bill would affect consideration of evidence before the Agency
of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) and the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board).
The amendment to subsection (e), of section 7105 of title 38,
United States Code, would make several fundamental changes to evidence
submitted or disclosed to VA, upon receipt of a substantive appeal and
after an appeal has been deemed certified as ready for review by the
Board.
DAV opposes this legislation because it would create artificial
suspense dates; limit an appellant's opportunity to request AOJ review
of evidence; unnecessarily route uninvestigated appeals directly to the
Board, thus increasing the potential of otherwise avoidable Board
remands; attach finality due to a Board's decision on evidence reviewed
in the first instance, and it fails to address how appellants would be
made aware of their evidence review options.
First, the legislation would create artificial suspense dates when
a claimant, or claimant's representative, requests AOJ review of
evidence. There is no data to suggest that VA would be able to meet the
180 day requirement to complete the review of new evidence and also be
able to certify these appeals to the Board within 180 days after the
review has been completed. Creating such an arbitrary timeframe to
perform a review of evidence and certify an appeal back to the Board,
holds the potential for hasty and substandard processing of these
appeals by the AOJ to simply meet the standard set forth within this
proposal.
Second, the legislation would further limit the opportunity for
review of evidence that could be considered by the AOJ once an appeal
was certified to the Board. Appellants, or their representatives, could
only request AOJ review of evidence during the time when a substantive
appeal is received and before an appeal is certified to the Board.
This proposal has the potential to increase otherwise avoidable
Board remands when issues could have been resolved at the AOJ level.
Under current law, the appellant, or the appellant's representative,
may request AOJ review of evidence at any time, as long as the request
is done in writing. These AOJ reviews would be requested in instances
in which it is believed the evidence would result in a favorable
outcome locally, rather than relying on the Board's assessment and
ultimate determination, thus avoiding the need to continue the appeal.
Third, the legislation would force more uninvestigated appeals with
new evidence to the Board for its review in the first instance. Often,
evidence reviewed by the Board in the first instance is insufficient
for rating purposes and consequently, requires remand for further
development, prior to disposition of the appellate issue(s). Providing
a useful mechanism to seek AOJ review could save appellants
considerable processing time and unnecessary complications.
Fourth, the legislation attaches finality due to the Board's review
of evidence in the first instance. If the Board were to rule on an
issue based on new evidence, never before seen by the AOJ, assuming the
Board determined that a denial was in order, the decision on that issue
would become final, thus jeopardizing precious benefits that may
otherwise have been allowed at the AOJ level.
Fifth, the legislation fails to address how appellants would be
notified of their options and limitations for AOJ review, including
whether some form of notice would be required.
Simply closing the record, or limiting AOJ review of evidence with
the intention of getting the information before the Board in the first
instance has several inherent consequences as described. For these
reasons, DAV would be opposed to this legislation if it were to be
introduced, because of its potential detrimental effects on the due
process rights of veterans.
Draft Bill - the Love Lives On Act of 2016
This bill would modify the definition of a surviving spouse and
authorize entitlement to certain benefits, now precluded due to
remarriage. Under this proposal, remarriage would not impose an
outright bar to certain benefits, including service-disabled veterans
insurance; issuance of headstones, markers and burial receptacles;
interment in national cemeteries; and, receipt of survivor benefits.
DAV does not have a resolution specific to this issue; we would not
oppose passage of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes DAV's testimony. Thank you for
inviting DAV to testify at today's hearing. I would be pleased to
address any questions related to the bills being discussed in this
testimony.
Prepared Statement of Elizabeth Davis
I'd like to take a moment and thank Chairman Abraham and Ranking
Member Titus for this opportunity to testify on behalf of the Love
Lives on Act for our military surviving spouse community. With me in
attendance today are several of the widows of our nation's heroes.
Although I will only be speaking about my own personal experience, each
one of these individuals has a heartbreaking story of sacrifice for our
nation.
My name is Elizabeth Davis. I'm a 29 year old mother, nurse, and
widow to my Marine. My husband, 1STLT Matthew Davis, was killed on 7
November, 2014. While Matt was serving as the officer of the day on
regimental duty he was struck and killed by a fellow 2/5 Marine who was
drunk driving and evading the police. Matt was a selfless, gregarious,
giant of a man with a sense of humor as big as he was. Nothing will
ever change my feelings for him, even though I know he will never be
coming back. The night I found out he was killed I actually had a heart
attack when our best friend showed up in his dress blues to deliver the
news in the early hours of the morning. I quite literally will bear the
scars on my heart from this news for the rest of my life. After
recovering from the shock of being widowed I decided I was going to
honor my husband by devoting my time and energy into making this rough
journey easier in any way possible for other military widows. I started
looking for ways to help widows provide for themselves and their
families when I moved back to Virginia.
The first step was to ensure that Virginia accepted the DoD's
definition of Gold Star spouse, making sure that we honored the
sacrifices of those killed in the line of duty as well as those killed
in action. With the help of my Delegate, HB98 was introduced and passed
through the Virginia House of Delegates and Senate. Recently, I was
granted the opportunity to discuss how the culture of alcohol in the
Marine Corps impacted my family at a town hall with the Commandant of
the Marine Corps, General Neller. I've also remained active on the
Stafford County Armed Services Memorial Committee. My long term goal is
to ensure that our widowed community, which already has given so much
for this great nation, faces no additional or unnecessary hardship.
The next step, which I pray you will support, is to improve the
lives of this very small but important community. We are seeking repeal
and amendment of the age stipulation through the Love Lives On Act.
Currently, as the widow/widower of a fallen service member, you may
remarry and retain your benefits after the age of 57. With the vast
majority of our heroes being young and leaving behind spouses who are
equally young, it is unreasonable to expect the surviving spouse not to
seek out happiness and love again well before he or she is 57. As it
currently stands, I and the other survivors in this room have no
incentive to move on with our lives and rebuild our families. Rather,
we are strongly bound to remain single parents with incomplete families
in order to retain the benefits that our husbands earned by dying for
our country.
The full impact of the current limitations is felt not only by the
surviving spouse, but also the children of our fallen. These benefits
that have been earned at the cost of loss of life for country are
necessary in maintaining the needs of the spouse and all surviving
children. This program is vital because it provides the ability to have
a safe home and food on the plate for the families who are left behind.
In almost every case of a widow or widower, our nation puts the
draconian decision of choosing to seek love again or being pragmatic
with our finances. This choice is ultimately made for us, hindering the
very freedoms our spouses gave their lives for, under the current
guidelines.
Why would anyone in this room choose to remarry when we could
receive these benefits but date a new person in perpetuity? Amending
the statute would cement the belief in our service members that the
United States cares what happens to them as individuals. Not only is
the sacrifice and commitment that they made in dying for our country
forever, but so too is the commitment of the United States to their
families should they perish. The risks and lifestyle associated with
our nation's military can be unpredictable, but providing benefits for
those left behind should not be. We should not be punished for seeking
out the love and happiness that our spouses would want us to have. As
the spouse we deserve to try to heal and be happy, and for the children
left behind they deserve a stable loving home where their parents are
legally recognized as a family unit, without repercussion of the loss
of necessary income.
Through your vote you can make a positive change for the families
of our fallen heroes. By continuing to provide benefits to surviving
spouses, families will heal and produce children that will grow up
knowing that service has meaning. For us, as widows, life truly is too
short. We fully grasp that concept often in our twenties and thirties,
when our peers won't have to face these kinds of hardships for decades.
Please enable us to have a choice in marriage before the age of 57. The
widows and children of the fallen were handed a folded flag on behalf
of a grateful nation. In that short moment upon handing the flag over-
there is no ``if'' or ``but'' when it comes to the commitment our
husbands showed this great nation. I have the utmost faith that the men
and women in this room will do their best to honor that oath paid for
in blood, well before we are 57.
Prepared Statement of Edward G. Lilley
Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus, and distinguished members
of the Subcommittee on Disability and Memorial Affairs (DAMA), on
behalf of National Commander Dale Barnett and The American Legion; the
country's largest patriotic wartime service organization for veterans,
comprising over 2 million members and serving every man and woman who
has worn the uniform for this country; we thank you for the opportunity
to testify regarding The American Legion's position on the pending
veterans' legislation.
H.R. 3715: Final Farewell Act of 2015
To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to permit interments, funerals, memorial services, and
ceremonies of deceased veterans at national cemeteries and State
cemeteries receiving grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs
during certain weekends if requested for religious reasons.
Since World War I, the United States has been providing burial
benefits to eligible veterans and servicemembers who are on active
duty. This was created as a final tribute to those who have served
their country honorably. Today, many veterans' families are faced with
extreme hardship in meeting the requirements of a Monday to Friday
burial in a national cemetery. By expanding the days of interment for
veterans and their spouses in national cemeteries, the inconvenience of
added time and funding should be with the Government that drafted the
services of these veterans rather than to inconvenience the next-of-kin
of veterans' families by delaying interment on weekends.
H.R. 3715 would direct the Department of Veterans Affairs to allow
for the interment, funeral, memorial service, or ceremony of a deceased
veteran at a national cemetery during weekends, other than federal
holiday weekends, upon the request of the veteran's next-of-kin made
for religious or cultural reasons. The American Legion believes that
the National Cemetery Administration expand its interment schedule to
better accommodate the needs of deceased veterans' families. \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ American Legion Resolution No. 21 (2001): Expand The Interment
Capability Of The National Cemetery Administration
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports H.R. 3715.
H.R. 3936: The Veterans Engagement Teams Act
To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot
program under which the Secretary carries out Veteran Engagement Team
events where veterans can complete claims for disability compensation
and pension under the laws administered by the Secretary, and for other
purposes.
H.R. 3936 would dramatically help veterans receive the benefits
they have earned by addressing the barriers between the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) and the veterans they serve within the community
by sending VA employees into the field to assist with their claims
processing. This bill, much like The American Legion's Veterans
Benefits Centers (VBC's) established as a result of the VA health care
crisis in Phoenix, Arizona would allow VA to provide one-on-one
assistance to veterans and their families at community events.
During the VBC's, The American Legion assisted more than 3,000
veterans. Services included resolving problems such as veteran
homelessness, long-wait times for VA health care, and aiding veterans
who were not able to receive their earned benefits in a timely manner.
The American Legion urges VA to address all claims, to include its
growing inventory of appeals in an expeditious and accurate manner. \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ American Legion Resolution No. 28 (2015): Department of
Veterans Affairs Appeals Process
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports H.R. 3936.
H.R. 4087: Fair Treatment for Families of Veterans Act
To amend title 38, United States Code, to adjust the effective date
of certain reductions and discontinuances of compensation, dependency
and indemnity compensation, and pension under the laws administered by
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
H.R. 4087 would change a federal law that requires a veteran's
family to repay benefits dispensed during the month upon a veterans'
death, remarriage, or marriage. Currently, veterans' benefits cease on
the last day of the month before a veterans death. This bill would
extend the veterans benefits to the last day of the month during which
a veteran dies. This bill addresses a slight change in language with
respect to the discontinuance of VA benefits for veterans. The proposed
language adjustment would favor the recipient of VA benefits.
The American Legion urges the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
to address all claims, to include its growing inventory of appeals in
an expeditious and accurate manner. \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ American Legion Resolution No. 28: (2015): Department of
Veterans Affairs Appeals Process
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports H.R. 4087.
H.R. 4757
To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the eligibility
for headstones, markers, and medallions furnished by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs for deceased individuals who were awarded the Medal of
Honor and are buried in private cemeteries.
The Medal of Honor (MOH) is the United States of America's highest
military honor, awarded for personal acts of valor above and beyond the
call of duty. H.R. 4757 directs the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
to furnish at a private cemetery, and upon request, a headstone,
marker, or medallion that signifies the status of an eligible veteran
who served in the Armed Forces on or after April 6, 1917, as a Medal of
Honor recipient.
If the VA furnished a headstone, marker, or medallion for a
deceased veteran that does not signify his or her status as a Medal of
Honor recipient, the VA shall upon request replace that headstone,
marker, or medallion with one that signifies the deceased's status as a
Medal of Honor recipient. The American Legion fully appreciates the
service of those awarded the Medal of Honor and supports any
legislation that would expand the benefits to Medal of Honor
recipients. \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ American Legion Resolution No. 17 (2015): Honoring Those Who
Have Earned the Medal of Honor
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports H.R. 4757.
H.R. 4758
To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the award of
the Presidential Memorial Certificate to certain deceased members of
the reserve components of the Armed Forces and certain deceased members
of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps.
In March 1962, President John F. Kennedy began administering
Presidential Memorial Certificates (PMC's) and this program has been
continued by all subsequent Presidents. The PMC is a gold-embossed
paper certificate bearing the official signature of the President of
the United States. It honors the memory of a deceased honorably
discharged veteran and expresses the country's grateful recognition of
his or her service in the Armed Forces.
H.R. 4758 would amend Title 38, United States Code, Section 112 (a)
entitled Presidential Memorial Certificate Program by including any
member of a Reserve component of the Armed Forces, and any member of
the Army or Air National Guard, whose death occurs under honorable
conditions while such member is hospitalized or undergoing treatment
and the expense of the United States, for injury or disease contracted
or incurred under while such member is performing active duty training.
\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 38 U.S. Code Sec. 2402 - Persons eligible for interment in
national cemeteries
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion urges Congress and the Department of Defense to
extend allowances and privileges to the National Guard and Reserves
involved in homeland security and other missions so as to more closely
approximate those of the active force. \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ American Legion Resolution No. 182 (2014): Support for Military
Quality of Life Standards
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports H.R. 4758.
H.R. 4759
To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs to pay costs relating to the transportation of
certain deceased veterans to veterans' cemeteries owned by a State or
tribal organization.
Currently, the Secretary may pay, in addition to any amount paid
pursuant to Title 38, U.S.C., Section 2302 or 2307, the cost of
transportation of the deceased veteran described in subsection (b) for
burial in a national cemetery. Such payment shall not exceed the cost
of transportation to the national cemetery nearest the veteran's last
place of residence in which burial space is available. \7\
Nevertheless, this statute limits the payment to the transportation of
veterans to those being buried in National Cemeteries and The American
Legion supports action to provide, when an eligible veteran dies in a
state veterans hospital or nursing home, the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs shall pay for the cost of transporting the remains to the place
of burial determined by the family. \8\ This legislation expands
payment to those eligible veterans who are buried in State or tribal
cemeteries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ 38 U.S. Code Sec. 2308 - Transportation of deceased veteran to
a national cemetery
\8\ American Legion Resolution No. 22 (2014): National Cemetery
Administration
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports H.R. 4759.
H.R. 4782: The Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of
2016
To increase, effective as of December 1, 2016, the rates of
compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the
rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of
certain disabled veterans, and for other purposes.
H.R. 4782 will provide a Cost of Living Allowance (COLA) effective
December 1, 2016. Disability compensation and pension benefits awarded
by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) are designed to compensate
veterans for medical conditions due to service or who earn below an
income threshold. With annual increases to costs of living, it is only
appropriate that veterans' benefits increase commensurate with those
increases.
For nearly 100 years, The American Legion has advocated on behalf
of our nation's veterans, to include the awarding of disability
benefits associated with chronic medical conditions that manifest
related to selfless service to this nation. Annually, veterans and
their family members are subjects in the debate regarding the annual
cost of living adjustment (COLA) for these disability benefits. For
these veterans and their family members, COLA is not simply an acronym
or a minor adjustment in benefits; instead, it is a tangible benefit
that meets the needs of the increasing costs of living in a nation that
they bravely defended.
H.R. 4782 is designed to allow for a COLA for VA disability
benefits. During The American Legion's National Convention in August
2014, The American Legion adopted Resolution No. 18. Within this
resolution, The American Legion supports legislation ``to provide a
periodic cost-of-living adjustment increase and to increase the monthly
rates of disability compensation.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ American Legion Resolution No. 18 (2014): Department of
Veterans Affairs Disability Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within Section 2 of the bill, it is noted that ``each dollar amount
increased under paragraph (1), if not a whole dollar amount, shall be
rounded to the next lower whole dollar amount.'' The American Legion
does not support the rounding down of any benefit; through rounding
down the benefit, the veterans' benefits are diluted.
In order for The American Legion to support H.R. 4782, The American
Legion asks for Congress to remove Section 2 of the bill and allow for
veterans to receive the full benefits awarded due to their service.
Discussion Draft: Medal of Honor Legacy Act
To direct the Secretary of the Army to reserve a certain number of
burial plots at Arlington National Cemetery for individuals who have
been awarded the Medal of Honor, and for other purposes.
The Medal of Honor (MOH) is the highest award for valor in action
against an enemy force which can be bestowed upon an individual serving
in the Armed Services of the United States. Generally presented to its
recipient by the President of the United States of America in the name
of Congress. The MOH was created as a Navy version in 1861 named the
``Medal of Valor'', and an Army version of the medal named the ``Medal
of Honor'' was established in 1862 to give recognition to men who
distinguished themselves ``conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity''
in combat with an enemy of the United States. Since then there have
been 3,497 recipients of the MOH.
Arlington National Cemetery is the country's most sacred shrine
representing an embodiment of the ultimate sacrifices that were made to
uphold our nation's ideals and freedoms. It is the final resting place
for more than 400,000 active duty servicemembers, veterans, and their
families.
The Medal of Honor Legacy Act, would hold 1,000 of the remaining
60,000 burial plots to be exclusively assigned to MOH recipients. This
would allow those who have received the highest military honor to
continue to have a place at the nation's most hallowed burial place.
The American Legion urges Congress to codify eligibility criteria
for burial at Arlington National Cemetery and that such burial be
restricted to our most decorated veterans. \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ American Legion Resolution No. 164 (2014): Codify Burial
Eligibility for Arlington National Cemetery
The American Legion supports the Medal of Honor Legacy Act.
Discussion Draft: Love Lives On Act of 2016
To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify the definition of
``surviving spouse'' for purposes of the laws administered by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) is a tax free benefit
that is paid monthly to eligible survivors of military servicemembers
who died in the line of duty or eligible survivors of veterans whose
death resulted from a service-related injury or disease. Currently, the
law discourages widow spouses of servicemembers from remarrying. The
Love Lives on Act of 2016 focuses on allowing the spouse to continue on
with their lives by removing the disincentive to marriage. This draft
bill directly applies to modifying statutory language that governs
spousal benefits. The language in question intends to no longer
disqualify surviving spouses in the event of remarriage. Currently, as
the law stands, a surviving spouse is disqualified from DIC and various
other benefits if they remarry.
The American Legion supports the Love Lives On Act of 2016.
Discussion Draft
To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the consideration
of evidence by Board of Veterans' Appeals.
This draft bill intends to expedite the processing of claims in the
event of newly submitted evidence, by imposing a statutory deadline for
the agency of original jurisdiction (Regional Office) of not more than
180 days. There is no current time limit upon which new evidence
submitted in an appealed case must be reviewed by the Agency of
Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). The lack of any time limit, contributes to
the already arduous and prolonged appeal life cycle. The establishing
of time limits will directly address appealed claims languishing at the
AOJ, and will expedite the processing overall. The American Legion
urges the VA to address all claims, to include its growing inventory of
appeals in an expeditious and accurate manner. \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ American Legion Resolution No. 28 (2015): Department of
Veterans Affairs Appeals Process
The American Legion supports the discussion draft.
Conclusion
As always, The American Legion thanks this subcommittee for the
opportunity to explain the position of the over 2 million veteran
members of this organization. Questions concerning this testimony can
be directed to Warren J. Goldstein in The American Legion's Legislative
Division at (202) 861-2700 or wgoldstein@legion.org.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF EDWARD G. LILLEY, TEAM LEADER FOR HEALTH POLICY
H.R 3715: Final Farewell Act of 2015:
The American Legion Supports
H.R. 3936: The Veterans Engagement Team Act:
The American Legion Supports
H.R. 4087: Fair Treatment for Families of Veterans Act:
The American Legion Supports
H.R. 4757: To amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the
eligibility for headstones, markers, and medallions furnished by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs for deceased individuals who were awarded
the Medal of Honor and are buried in private cemeteries.
The American Legion Supports
H.R. 4758:
To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the award of
the Presidential Memorial Certificate to certain deceased members of
the reserve components of the Armed Forces and certain deceased members
of the Reserve Officers' Training Corps.
The American Legion Supports
H.R. 4759
To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs to pay costs relating to the transportation of
certain deceased veterans to veterans' cemeteries owned by a State or
tribal organization.
The American Legion Supports
H.R. 4782: The Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act
of 2016
To increase, effective as of December 1, 2016, the rates of
compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the
rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of
certain disabled veterans, and for other purposes.
In order for The American Legion to support H.R. 4782, The American
Legion asks for Congress to remove Section 2 of the bill and allow for
veterans to receive the full benefits awarded due to their service.
Discussion Draft: Medal of Honor Legacy Act
To direct the Secretary of the Army to reserve a certain number of
burial plots at Arlington National Cemetery for individuals who have
been awarded the Medal of Honor, and for other purposes.
The American Legion supports the Medal of Honor Legacy Act.
Discussion Draft: Love Lives on Act of 2016
To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify the definition of
``surviving spouse'' for purposes of the laws administered by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.
The American Legion supports the Love Lives On Act of 2016.
Discussion Draft
To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the consideration
of evidence by Board of Veterans' Appeals.
The American Legion supports the discussion draft.
[all]