U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

28–132 PDF 2007

S. HRG. 109–516

THE LEGISLATIVE PRESENTATIONS OF THE FLEET

RESERVE ASSOCIATION, THE AIR FORCE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION, THE RETIRED ENLISTED

ASSOCIATION, THE GOLD STAR WIVES OF

AMERICA, INC., AND THE MILITARY OFFICERS

ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 2, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho, Chairman 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Ranking Member 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JAMES M. JEFFORDS, (I), Vermont 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BARACK OBAMA, Illinois 

KEN SALAZAR, Colorado

LUPE WISSEL, Majority Staff Director 

D. NOELANI KALIPI, Minority Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

MARCH 2, 2006

SENATORS 

Page

Craig, Hon. Larry E., Chairman, U.S. Senator from Idaho ................................. 1

Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., Ranking Member, U.S. Senator from Hawaii ............... 3

Thune, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from South Dakota ........................................... 51

WITNESSES 

Barnes, Joseph L., National Executive Secretary, Fleet Reserve Association; 

accompanied by Chris Slawinski, National Veteran Service Officer, Fleet 

Reserve Association .............................................................................................. 5

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7

Holleman, Deirdre Parke, National Legislative Director, the Retired Enlisted 

Association ............................................................................................................ 13

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 15

Brown, Morgan D., Manager, Military and Government Relations, Air Force 

Sergeants Association .......................................................................................... 20

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22

Norton, Colonel Robert F. (Ret.), U.S. Army; Deputy Director, Government 

Relations, Military Officers Association ............................................................. 30

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31

Lee, Rose Elizabeth, Chairman, Legislative Committee, Gold Star Wives of 

America, Inc.; accompanied by Edith Smith, Member, Legislative Committee, Gold Star Wives of America, Inc. ........................................................... 39

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42

(1)

THE LEGISLATIVE PRESENTATIONS OF THE 

FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION, THE AIR 

FORCE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION, THE RETIRED ENLISTED ASSOCIATION, THE GOLD 

STAR WIVES OF AMERICA, INC., AND THE 

MILITARY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF 

AMERICA 

THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2006

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in room 

106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Larry E. Craig, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Craig, Thune, and Akaka. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, CHAIRMAN

U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO 

Chairman CRAIG. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The Committee on Veterans’ Affairs will now come to order. 

Good morning to all of our presenters. It is a great honor to have 

you before the Committee and a pleasure to welcome each of you 

to this second opportunity that we have had this week to receive 

legislative presentations from our veterans and military service organizations. We are looking forward to your comments. 

I would like to extend a very special welcome to the organization 

members who have traveled here, and we have not filled the room, 

but we know that all good intentions are out there. My guess is we 

are probably competing a little bit. The Secretary is on the other 

side of Capitol Hill at this time. So the House and the Senate are 

competing for attention. That will not stop us from focusing on 

your testimony and that which you have to present to us. 

You presenters are not merely important to us, but you will help 

us shape what is going to be an awfully important year. This is a 

unique opportunity for us to give our thanks for your dedication 

and for all of the work on behalf of the veterans and their families. 

We have mutual goals, mutual responsibilities, and your presentation in these hearings will help us tackle the difficult task of appropriately handling a myriad of very important issues in this session. 

2

Before I turn it over to the panel, I would like to say a few words 

about the Committee’s activities last year and some important 

challenges that we will undertake this year. 

By any measure, this Committee had a busy and productive first 

session, convening 23 hearings here in Washington, 9 field hearings, and 4 markups. Despite the depth and breadth of these issues 

and the many challenges we encountered, we accomplished many 

good things together: the enactment of legislation to increase disability compensation and survivor payments, to provide traumatic 

injury insurance protection to seriously wounded servicemembers, 

to increase the maximum amount of veterans’ and servicemembers’ 

life insurance coverage, and to close the parole loophole that allowed certain capital offenders to receive burial and funeral honors. 

In addition, the Committee also worked to fill a gap in VA health 

care funding which resulted in 6 consecutive years that VA’s health 

care system has outranked the private sector for customer satisfaction. 

We also approved legislation to improve housing and PTSD and 

bereavement services, readjustment counseling, blindness rehabilitation, and other enhancements to health care programs. In the 

coming year, we will continue to work on issues of this magnitude. 

In your testimony, many of you have expressed interest in improving upon the seamless transition from military servicemember 

to civilian veteran. With the aid of pace-setting electronic medical 

records and world-class health care, I believe we have the necessary tools to make great strides. But through the spring, the 

Committee’s focus must be on the President’s fiscal year 2007 

budget proposal. For the Department of Veterans Affairs, this is 

important. 

As I have stated at a hearing earlier this month and again earlier this week, I believe this record budget request is extraordinary 

and shows that in this fiscally austere climate, the President has 

chosen to make veterans a top budget priority. 

That said, I am concerned that at present spending rates, VA 

spending will double almost every 6 years and will soon collide 

with spending demands in other areas of Government. Although we 

may wish that veterans funding existed in a vacuum, it simply 

does not. It is a reality of our budget processes here, and we may 

face some important decisions about how to deal with these realities sooner than we would like. 

As I am sure everyone here is aware, the President has proposed 

one way for us to respond to these fiscal realities by asking Priority 

7 and 8 veterans with no service-related disabilities to contribute 

$21 a month to enroll in the VA health care system and pay $15 

for a 30-day supply of medicine. Although I personally find these 

proposals to be reasonable, I know some organizations have voiced 

strong opposition. 

I will reiterate my hope that your organization and others will 

engage this Committee in serious and candid discussion, if not 

about the President’s proposal, then about other options. It is our 

collective responsibility and our collective obligation to sustain the 

incredible VA health care system into the future. If we begin addressing these issues now, we can help ensure that future veterans 

3

will not be faced with even bigger challenges and more radical 

changes to meet those challenges. 

Personally, I do not want to pass this issue on to the next guy. 

I want to pass on to tomorrow’s veteran what we have collectively 

created, a health care system that provides quality care, that is accessible to those who need it, but affordable to those who want it. 

I hope you would agree with me about the goals that we are willing to work for, and if you will work with me, somehow we can accomplish these rather difficult tasks. 

Again, thank you all for joining us today. I think that the next 

few years will be ones of progress and wisdom in handling veterans’ issues. I look forward to hearing your testimony and to continuing a dialogue with your organizations about the important 

issues concerning today’s veterans. 

In that spirit, let me extend a warm welcome to the members of 

this panel. Joe Barnes is the national executive secretary of the 

Fleet Reserve Association. We welcome Deirdre Parke Holleman, 

the national legislative director for the Retired Enlisted Association, and also retired Master Sergeant Morgan Brown, the manager 

of Military and Government Relations of the Air Force Sergeants 

Association. Representing the Military Officers Association of 

America is the deputy director of Government Relations, Colonel 

Robert Norton, United States Army, retired. Finally, a warm welcome to Rose Lee, chairman of the Legislative Committee of the 

Gold Star Wives of America. 

Just this past year, Ms. Lee, you talked with us about the challenges that survivors face in accessing necessary benefits information, and we did something about it, and I intend to hold a hearing 

later this year to further evaluate the VA survivor benefits homepage. This is work in progress, and we will stay with it until it is 

usable, easily accessed, and understandable by all. 

It is a pleasure to work with all of you and to continue that work 

as we set our targets on the good and true service to our country’s 

veterans. 

With that, let me turn to our Ranking Member Danny Akaka for 

any opening statements he would like to make, and then we will 

move on. 

Edie, I guess I didn’t say hello to you. Accompanying Rose Lee, 

of course, is Edie Smith. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL K. AKAKA, RANKING MEMBER,

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to add my welcome and greetings to all of you here. As 

the Chairman pointed out, we have a full house of panelists. We 

don’t have any empty chairs at the table, and I am so glad to see 

all of you here. 

I want to thank you veterans for being here and representing the 

service organizations. There are five of them that you are representing here, and we are delighted to have all of you here. I 

know some of you have made this journey to our Nation’s Capital, 

to express your concerns. 

Your being here at this hearing is truly democracy in action. 

Your organizations have a long and proud tradition, and this ComVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:42 Jan 17, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\RD41451\DOCS\28132.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
4

mittee relies heavily on your concerns and agendas for the coming 

year. 

At this time, I would like to share some concerns that I have. 

During this time last year—let’s go back to that—many of us here 

in Congress were sounding the alarm that the VA budget was facing a crisis situation. Many months later, the Administration acknowledged this fact, and Congress took action, this Committee 

took action, to provide emergency funding. 

This year, I remain dedicated to ensuring that VA has the resources it needs to care for all veterans. 

We must learn a lesson from last year’s budget crisis and do everything we can to ensure that veterans and their family members 

have access to health care and benefits they have earned. 

We cannot fund the VA system out of the pocket of middle-income veterans, as many of these men and women make as little as 

$26,902 a year. Higher copayments and enrollment fees are not justified. 

Caring for servicemembers when they return home, in addition 

to veterans already in this system, must be considered part of the 

continuing cost of war. To date, a quarter of a million veterans 

have been excluded from VA health care. Over 700 veterans in Hawaii have knocked on the doors of VA for care, only to be denied, 

and I am sure this has happened in other States. We must work 

to overturn this Administration’s decision and open the VA system 

up to those who need it. 

I also am concerned about the VA research program being slated 

for a cut under this budget. Since its inception, the VA research 

program has made landmark contributions to the welfare of not 

only veterans, but the entire Nation, illustrating the unique importance of keeping it adequately funded. 

With thousands of military personnel engaged in conflict overseas, it is vital that Congress invest in research that could have a 

direct impact on their post-deployment quality of life. 

With regard to the VBA budget, I am concerned whether or not 

this budget provides an adequate level of staffing for compensation 

claims rating. Whatever the reason for the increase in compensation claims, VA must be ready to adjudicate claims in a timely and 

accurate manner. 

I will continue to monitor VA’s workload and rating output because our veterans deserve nothing less than their claims rated accurately and in a reasonable amount of time. 

I will continue to oppose efforts to reduce veterans’ compensation, as we saw with the ill-fated PTSD review. Now the Institute 

of Medicine and the Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission are 

reviewing veterans’ disability compensation. It is my hope that 

these groups will recommend new ways for Congress to improve 

benefits, not call for cuts in current benefits. In this time of conflict 

abroad, a reduction in benefits would send the wrong message to 

veterans, servicemembers, and their families. 

My last priority is near and dear to my heart. As a veteran of 

World War II, I owe a great deal of where I am today to the GI 

bill, educational benefits I used as a young man. With this in mind, 

I will continue to look for ways to enhance and modernize eduVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:42 Jan 17, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 H:\RD41451\DOCS\28132.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
5

cational benefits to more adequately prepare veterans for new challenges of our economy. 

In closing, I would like, once again, to thank the panelists for 

their testimony and all members of the organizations here today. 

Your service and your dedication to this Nation and its veterans is 

unquestionable. 

I also want to apologize that I will not be able, Mr. Chairman, 

to stay for the entire hearing this morning. My presence is required 

at another committee. 

I look forward to your presentation and working with you in the 

future. 

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CRAIG. Danny, thank you very much, and we certainly 

understand this is a busy time here on the Hill as we are trying 

to hear all aspects of the budget and begin the processes of an 

early portion of a session. So thank you for being here, and thank 

you for those opening remarks. 

Now, let us turn to our panelists. Joe Barnes, national executive 

secretary, Fleet Reserve Association, and he is accompanied by 

Chris Slawinski, a national veteran service officer, Fleet Reserve 

Association. 

Joe, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. BARNES, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE 

SECRETARY, FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION; ACCOMPANIED 

BY CHRIS SLAWINSKI, NATIONAL VETERAN SERVICE

OFFICER, FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BARNES. Mr. Chairman, Senator Akaka, thank you for the 

opportunity to present FRA’s recommendations on the fiscal year 

2007 Department of Veterans Affairs budget. 

As you noted, accompanying me today on my right is Chris 

Slawinski, our national service officer. 

FRA appreciates the increased funding in the fiscal year 2007 

budget, particularly for VA health care, long-term care, mental 

health, and other key accounts. This marks significant progress 

over last year’s budget request and follows emergency supplemental appropriations that were necessary at the end of the last 

fiscal year, and I would note we sincerely appreciate your leadership in addressing this emergency funding shortage. 

Our members are very concerned about the discovery of inaccurate projections and faulty models used to prepare the previous 

budgets and GAO findings about the methods used to project management efficiency savings. 

FRA is also concerned about the assumptions used to prepare the 

budget which assumes congressional approval of a $250 enrollment 

fee and significantly higher prescription copays for Priority 7 and 

8 beneficiaries. This is not a new proposal, and FRA strongly opposes the establishment of these increases. 

VA health care funding must be adequate to meet the needs of 

the growing number of veterans seeking services, many from Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, and the budget must 

be based on realistic projections. 

6

FRA believes that adequately funding health care and other programs for veterans, their families and survivors, is part of the cost 

of defending our Nation and ensuring our freedoms. 

The VA suspended enrollments in Priority Group 8 in 2003, and 

FRA urges the sufficient resources be authorized to allow resumption of enrollment for all veterans. 

FRA supports the authorization of Medicare reimbursements as 

an alternative to the enrollment fee in higher pharmacy copays. A 

significant number of veterans enrolled in the VA health care system have paid into Medicare. Yet, the VA is not authorized to receive reimbursements for providing services to these veterans. 

Injured combat veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan should be 

immediately processed into the VA system. This is also important 

for personnel retiring from military service with service-connected 

disabilities. Electronic medical records, plus expanded and improved coordination between DOD and VA, will ensure the seamless transitions of these personnel. 

FRA believes DVA’s efforts in decreasing the backlog of initial 

disability claims are commendable, but the backlog of veterans 

waiting for decisions on their claims has grown significantly. Increased staffing levels within the VBA claims processing system 

would be a positive step toward reducing this backlog. 

FRA strongly supports adequate funding for medical and prosthetic research and is concerned about the budget for these programs and its reliance on partnering initiatives with other institutions. Ensuring sufficient funds to maintain VA’s world-class research program is very important. 

FRA supports the modernization of the MGIB to include muchneeded changes to Guard/Reserve benefits. The association believes 

MGIB benefits should cover the average cost of a 4-year public college or university education. 

FRA also believes that Congress should restore and sustain education benefits to members of the selected Reserve to 47 percent of 

basic benefits, as authorized when the MGIB was established in 

1984. 

The Reserve MGIB should also be transferred from title 10 to 

title 38 to allow better accountability and improved processing. 

There are thousands of senior enlisted personnel who entered service during the Veterans Education Assistance Program period, or 

VEAP era, from 1977 to 1985. They are seeking an opportunity to 

sign up for the MGIB. Included in this total are about 14,000 Navy 

personnel and nearly 5,000 Marines. 

FRA urges authorization of an open enrollment period to provide 

an opportunity for them to sign up for the MGIB. This is a major 

issue within the career senior enlisted communities. 

Finally, some additional priority concerns for our members, these 

include full concurrent receipt of military retired pay and VA disability for all disabled retirees, support for shifting the effective 

paid-up date for SBP from 2008 to 2006 for participants who have 

paid premiums for 30 years and are 70 years of age, and last, FRA 

strongly supports needed reform of the Uniformed Services Former 

Spouses’ Protection Act. 

Mr. Chairman, in closing, allow me to again express the appreciation of the association for what all the Members of the Veterans’ 

7

Affairs Committee and the professional staff do for our Nation’s 

veterans. Our legislative team stands ready to assist you and your 

staff at any time, and I stand ready to answer any questions you 

may have. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barnes follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. BARNES, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, 

FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman, and distinguished Members of the Committee, the membership of 

the Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) appreciates this opportunity to present the Association’s fiscal year 2007 legislative goals. On behalf of more than 110,000 shipmates, I extend sincere gratitude for the concern, active interest and progress to 

date generated by the Committee in protecting, improving, and enhancing benefits 

that are truly deserved by our Nation’s veterans. We look forward to working with 

you to further enhance the quality of life for over 25 million of our Nation’s veterans, their families and survivors. 

FRA was established in 1924 and its name is derived from the Navy’s program 

for personnel transferring to the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine Corps Reserve after 

20 or more years of active duty, but less than 30 years for retirement purposes. During the required period of service in the Fleet Reserve, assigned personnel earn retainer pay and are subject to recall by the Secretary of the Navy. 

As a congressionally chartered association, FRA’s mission is to act as the premier 

‘‘watch dog’’ organization in maintaining and improving the quality of life for Sea 

Service personnel and their families. FRA is a leading advocate on Capitol Hill for 

enlisted active duty, Reserve, retired and veterans of the United States Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard. 

THE FISCAL YEAR 2007 DVA BUDGET

FRA appreciates the Administration’s proposed record $80.6 billion fiscal year 

2007 budget, representing an $8.8 billion increase over the DVA’s 2006 budget. And 

the 11.3 percent increase for veterans’ health care, totaling $34.3 billion, is a step 

in the right direction toward maintaining the highest quality care for our Nation’s 

veterans. 

However, the Association also questions the assumptions used to determine these 

amounts, particularly in shifting part of the cost burden on to veterans’ shoulders. 

FRA strongly opposes the plan to impose a $250 enrollment fee for veterans in 

Priority Groups 7 and 8. The Administration’s request also includes a recommendation to nearly double prescription drug copayments from $8 to $15, for a 30 day supply—a plan FRA also opposes. 

According to DVA estimates, 200,000 veterans would be discouraged from seeking 

VA health care, and more than a million veterans currently enrolled in Priority 

Groups 7 and 8 would drop out of the system if this fee structure were implemented. 

Beneficiaries in these Priority Groups are veterans, and FRA adamantly opposes 

shifting costs to them. 

Fortunately, the House Veterans Affairs Committee rejected the proposed enrollment fees, and increased copays in its Budget Views and Estimates. Instead, the 

Committee called for a $795.5 million increase to the budget, the amount of revenue 

projected from the fees and increased copays. 

PERSISTENT SHORTFALLS

This past year is perhaps the most unique ever in the debate over the Department 

of Veterans’ Affairs (DVA) budget. The Department acknowledged that it did not 

have the resources necessary to meet the growing demands being placed on its 

health care system due primarily to Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). 

During the past year, DVA acknowledged that it was facing a shortfall of approximately $1 billion for veterans’ health care funding for fiscal year 2005. During a 

subsequent hearing conducted by this distinguished Committee, Under Secretary for 

Health, Jonathan Perlin, MD, stated that because of flaws with its health care 

model, DVA would be transferring approximately $1 billion from other health care 

accounts in order to continue to meet the demand for care. During subsequent hearings, Secretary of Veterans Affairs James Nicholson explained that it would be necessary to transfer approximately $600 million from operations and non-recurring 

8

maintenance accounts, and approximately $400 million from fiscal year 2006 funding. 

FRA appreciates your leadership and the Committee’s immediate response to this situation by authorizing additional appropriations totaling $1.2 billion to cover the 

shortfall. 

However, despite these actions, DVA still faces the real possibility that it will not 

receive adequate resources in future budgets, and funds may not become available 

until after the start of each fiscal year. These factors place enormous stress on the 

system and will leave the DVA struggling to provide care that all veterans have 

earned and deserve. 

Assumed management efficiency savings also places a heavy burden on the Department to cut corners and do more with less which may lead to another shortfall 

and associated reductions to care for our Nation’s veterans. 

Research by the Government Accounting Office (February 1, 2006) on methodology used by DVA, found that unrealistic assumptions, estimate errors, insufficient 

data, and inaccurate budget models resulted in the 2005 DVA budget shortfalls. 

Hopefully these issues were taken into account in the preparation of the proposed 

fiscal year 2007 DVA budget. 

DISCRETIONARY VERSUS MANDATORY FUNDING

Currently only the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) portion of the DVA 

budget is designated as mandatory spending, while the entire Veterans Healthcare 

Administration (VHA) part of the DVA budget is discretionary spending. Unfortunately the budgetary process has become more and more politicized and continues 

to fail veterans who depend on DVA for all or part of their healthcare. 

FRA concurs with, and endorses recommendations that the Committee on the 

Budget convert the veterans’ health care account from discretionary to mandatory 

spending. FRA understands the jurisdictional and other challenges associated with 

this issue and believes that veterans’ health care is as important as other Federal 

benefits funded in this manner. Regardless of the method used, the Association supports any efforts to help ensure full funding for VA Healthcare to ensure care for 

all beneficiaries. 

VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION

VA–DOD Collaboration 

The Departments of Defense (DOD) and Veterans Affairs have made great 

progress in sharing information and resources, but much more is needed, particularly with regard to access standards, to truly provide a ‘‘seamless transition’’ from 

military service to veteran status. 

This came to light during the January 2006 meeting of the Veterans Disability 

Benefits Commission (VDBC). Commissioners heard testimony of the real life stories 

from combat injured personnel returning from the front lines. The most compelling 

story came from Sarah Wade, wife of retired U.S. Army Sergeant Edward Wade who 

suffered a traumatic brain injury. He had his right arm amputated above the elbow, 

broke his right foot and suffered shrapnel wounds. While still in a coma, Wade was 

medically ‘‘retired’’ and shifted to the DVA. In her presentation to the Commission, 

Mrs. Wade reflected how her husband was pushed back and forth between the two 

departments to receive proper care. Unfortunately, this is not unique and there are 

other examples of personnel encountering challenges in moving from the military to 

DVA. 

Some OEF/OIE combat-injured servicemembers are being discharged or medically 

retired and transferred to VA without adequate consideration of family needs for adjustment counseling and seamless follow-up services. 

The Final Report of the ‘‘President’s Task Force (PTF) to Improve Health Care 

Delivery for Our Nation’s Veterans’’ (June 2003) addressed these and other issues 

that would smooth the transition of servicemembers to veterans’ status and speed 

the development of their claims. 

FRA urges the Committee to review these recommendations, and due to the ongoing war on terror and the heightened importance of sharing services between departments, recommends hearings to review progress in implementing major PTF 

recommendations. This may also be beneficial to establishing outcome measures 

after assessing CARES, BRAC actions and other DOD Military Treatment Facilities 

initiatives. 

Waiting Times 

FRA is encouraged by the goal of DVA to schedule 93.7 percent of all appointments within 30 days of a patient’s desired date. The Association welcomes a deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:42 Jan 17, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\RD41451\DOCS\28132.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
9

tailed clarification on waiting times for appointments for veterans rated less than 

50 percent service connected either on their first visit or those veterans who are already in the VHA system. FRA believes that a 30–day maximum wait is reasonable 

for routine care and will require that VA Medical Center directors monitor all appointments and make any necessary changes in a timelier manner. 

DVA Medicare Subvention 

In 2003, then DVA Secretary Principi suspended enrollment in Priority Group 8. 

According to Congressional estimates, more than 260,000 veterans who do not have 

illnesses or injuries incurred during military service and earn more than the average wage in their community have been prevented from enrolling. Although termed 

‘‘temporary’’ at the time, it appears that this suspension will continue with no end 

in sight. FRA urges sufficient funding be authorized and appropriated to allow resumption of the enrollment process for all veterans. 

As previously stated, FRA opposes the imposition of a ‘‘user’s fee’’ and an increase 

in copayments for prescriptions. A much better alternative would be the full and immediate implementation of DVA Medicare Subvention. The funds recovered from the 

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and specifically the Centers for 

Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), for health care provided to those eligible 

veterans, would go a long way in ensuring adequate health care for more veterans. 

But it would be incumbent that Congress mandate any funds recovered from CMS 

be provided to the VA and not put in the General Fund. It is puzzling to our members why this program has not been given serious consideration and enacted long 

ago. 

VA+Choice 

In 2003, DVA also announced that a VA+Choice program would be established for 

veterans unable to enroll in the VA Health Care System. Subsequently, DVA’s 

Health Services Research and Development Service conducted a study in 2005 to investigate the potential of developing a program now known as ‘‘VA Advantage’’ and 

how it would impact veterans’ care to VA beneficiaries. 

FRA urges Congress to closely examine the report from this study before ‘‘VA Advantage’’ is fully implemented. There are numerous problems with Medicare+Choice 

programs in the country and it is becoming more difficult for Medicare-eligible beneficiaries to locate plans and doctors willing to accept new Medicare insured patients. 

Nursing Homes, Long-Term Care, and Other Health Care Programs 

The Veterans Millennium Health Care Act, Public Law 106–117, Section 101, 

made great strides in providing long-term care for our veterans. However, this program is only authorized for a 4-year period, and only for veterans who need care 

for a service-connected disability, and/or those with service-connected disability ratings of 70 percent or more. This program should be extended, and expanded to include veterans with service-connected disability ratings of 50 percent or more. 

World War II and Korean veterans are in their late 60’s and older, as are some 

Viet Nam veterans, and many require a greater level of long-term care. No one can 

argue that as veterans age, more and more of them will become dependent upon 

the VA to provide the necessary care in nursing homes, domiciles, state home facilities, and its underused hospital beds. The Nation can ill afford to wait for out-year 

funds before it expands nursing or long-term care. 

Congress and the Administration must ensure sufficient funding for the construction of new facilities and renovation of existing hospitals outlined by the CARES 

plan. Funding intended for implementation of CARES initiatives should not be diverted to other projects and CARES-based construction should be allowed to proceed 

as planned. 

In implementing the CARES plan, DVA must ensure that mental health services 

and long-term care are made part of the full continuum of care for veterans. FRA 

commends DVA for moving forward on implementing the national strategic plan for 

mental health services, and progress on this plan should be incorporated into DVA’s 

reporting to Congress on its capacities to care for veterans. 

Medical and Prosthetic Research 

DVA is widely recognized for its effective research program and FRA continues 

to strongly support adequate funding for medical research and for the needs of the 

disabled veteran. The value of both programs within the veterans’ community cannot be overstated. Noteworthy is the fact that the fiscal year 2007 proposed DVA 

Budget for Medical and Prosthetic Research shows a slight 1 percent increase ($17.3 

million) in one of the most successful aspects of all VA Medical Programs. Even the 

DVA CARES Commission recommends the improvement and expansion of VA Medical Research Facilities. 

10

VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION

Total Force Montgomery GI Bill 

The Montgomery GI Bill is important and aids in the recruitment and retention 

of high-quality individuals for service in the active and Reserve forces; assists in the 

readjustment of service men and women to civilian life after they complete military 

service; extends the benefits of higher education (and training) to service men and 

women who may not be able to afford higher education; and enhances the Nation 

by providing a better educated and productive workforce. 

Double-digit education inflation is dramatically diminishing the value of MGIB. 

Despite recent increases, benefits fall well short of the actual cost of education at 

a 4-year public college or university. In addition, thousands of career 

servicemembers who entered service during the Veterans Education Assistance Program (VEAP) era, but declined to enroll in that program (in many cases, on the advice of government education officials) have been denied a MGIB enrollment opportunity. 

Unfortunately, not all of MGIB objectives are being achieved, particularly for mobilized members of the National Guard and Reserve forces. Specific concerns include: 

• Delayed implementation of MGIB benefits for mobilized Reservists authorized 

under Chapter 1607 of Title 10 USC. Few educational benefits claims have been 

processed for the more than 500,000 personnel who have served on active duty 

under contingency operation orders since 9/11/01. 

• Mobilized Reservists lack of a readjustment benefit. They must leave behind remaining MGIB benefits upon separation unless the separation is for disability. 

• During the early years of the MGIB, benefits earned by Guard and Reserve 

members amounted to 47 cents to the dollar compared to active duty MGIB participants. Since 9/11/01, the ratio has dropped to 29 cents to the dollar. 

• Reserve MGIB programs are under Title 10, whereas basic MGIB benefits for 

active duty servicemembers are codified under Title 38. There are major challenges 

in coordinating the oversight and management of MGIB programs. Outmoded information management and information technology is part of this. 

The Nation’s active duty, Guard and Reserve forces are effectively being integrated under the Total Force concept, and educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill should be re-structured accordingly. 

FRA, along with its partners in The Military Coalition, the American Legion, the 

Veterans Independent Budget for fiscal year 2007, and major higher education associations, support enactment of a ‘‘Total Force Montgomery GI Bill’’ for the 21st century. The integration of active and Reserve force MGIB programs under Title 38 is 

very important and will provide equity of benefits for service performed, enable improved administration, and facilitate accomplishment of statutory purposes intended 

by Congress for the MGIB. 

Disability Compensation Claims Processing 

DVA can promptly deliver benefits to entitled veterans only if it can process and 

adjudicate claims in a timely and accurate fashion. Given the critical importance of 

disability benefits, DVA has a paramount responsibility to maintain an effective delivery system, taking decisive and appropriate action to correct any deficiencies as 

soon as they become evident. However, DVA has neither maintained the necessary 

capacity to match and meet its claims workload nor corrected systemic deficiencies 

that compound the problem of inadequate capacity. 

Rather than making headway and overcoming the chronic claims backlog and consequent protracted delays in claims disposition, DVA has lost ground on the problem, with the backlog of pending claims growing substantially larger. 

FRA believes DVA’s efforts in decreasing the backlog of initial disability claims 

are commendable but the backlog has swelled, increasing the lists of veterans waiting for decisions on their claims. FRA commends the Chairman for his statements 

at the December 8, 2005 hearing on VBA claim processing and agrees that ‘‘the increase in disability claims can be directly related to the increase in U.S. military 

operations abroad. Doing more with less is not a strategy of success.’’ An increase 

in staffing levels within the VBA claims processing system is essential to moving 

forward to reduce this backlog. 

Separation Pay 

Under current law, servicemembers released from active duty who fail to qualify 

for veterans’ disability payments, and are not accepted by the National Guard or 

Reserve, never have to repay any portion of separation pay. However, if qualified 

for either, it’s time for payback. FRA has difficulty understanding why the indiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:42 Jan 17, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\RD41451\DOCS\28132.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
11

vidual willing to further serve the Nation in uniform, or is awarded service-connected disability compensation, should have to repay the Federal Government for 

that privilege. 

FRA is opposed to the repayment requirement and recommends the repeal of, or 

the necessary technical language revision, to amend the applicable provisions in 

Chapters 51 and 53, 38 USC, to terminate the requirement to repay the subject benefits. (Also requires an amendment to 1704(h)(2), 10 USC.) 

Court-Ordered Division of Veterans Compensation 

The intent of service-connected disability compensation is to financially assist a 

veteran whose disability may restrict his or her physical or mental capacity to earn 

a greater income from employment. FRA believes this payment is that of the veteran and should not be a concern in the states’ Civil Courts. If a Civil Court finds 

the veteran must contribute financially to the support of his or her family, let the 

court set the amount allowing the veteran to choose the method of contribution. 

FRA has no problem with child support payments coming from any source. However 

VA disability should be exempt from garnishment for alimony. If the veteran chooses to make payments from the VA compensation award, then so be it. The Federal 

Government should not be involved in enforcing collections ordered by the states. 

Let the states bear the costs of their own decisions. FRA recommends the adoption 

of stronger language offsetting the provisions in 42 USC, now permitting Federal 

enforcement of state court-ordered divisions of veterans’ compensation payments. 

NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION

Cemetery Systems 

The National Cemetery Administration (NCA) has undergone many changes since 

its inception in 1862. Currently, the administration maintains almost 2.5 million 

gravesites at 124 national cemeteries in 39 states, the District of Columbia, and 

Puerto Rico. 

VA estimates that about 24.4 million veterans are alive today. They include veterans from World War I, World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Gulf 

War, and the global war on terrorism, as well as peacetime veterans. Nearly 

688,000 veteran deaths are estimated to occur in 2006 and it is expected that one 

in every six of these veterans will request burial in a national cemetery. 

FRA is grateful to Congress for funding new cemetery sites and urges authorization of funding for new cemeteries in Bakersfield, California, Birmingham, Alabama, 

Columbia/Greenville, South Carolina, Jacksonville, Florida, Southeastern Pennsylvania, and Sarasota, Florida. The NCA needs initial funding for these cemeteries 

in order to meet the expected demand over the next several decades. The NCA is 

doing much to meet resource challenges and the demand for burial spaces for aging 

veterans. With additional resources, the NCA will hopefully be able to meet the demand. FRA urges increased funding, which is fenced for the purchase of land, preparation, construction and operation of new cemeteries, the maintenance of existing 

cemeteries, and the expansion of grants to States to construct and operate their own 

cemeteries. 

As part of the Veterans Education and Benefits Act of 2001, the government is 

to provide grave markers for veterans whenever requested, even if there is another 

marker on the grave. However, as written, the law only applies to burials after December 27, 2001. FRA believes the grave-marker rule should be amended to include 

the thousands of families denied grave markers in the past decade. 

OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION

Concurrent Receipt 

FRA continues its advocacy for full concurrent receipt of military retired pay and 

veterans’ service-connected disability payments as envisioned in H.R. 303, introduced by Representative Michael Bilirakis of Florida. 

The fiscal year 2006 Defense Authorization Act reduced the phase in period for 

disabled military retirees deemed ‘‘individual unemployable’’ (IU) from 2014 to 2009, 

and FRA appreciates this progress. However, our members are extremely disappointed and perplexed that such undeserved discrimination will be allowed to continue for three more years. 

FRA urges the Committee to end the disability offset to retired pay immediately 

for otherwise-qualifying members rated as ‘‘individual unemployable’’ by the DVA. 

Progress has been made in recent years to expand Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) to all retirees with combat-related disabilities and authorize concurrent receipt of retired pay and veterans’ disability compensation for retirees with 

disabilities of at least 50 percent. 

12

While the concurrent receipt provisions enacted by Congress benefit tens of thousands disabled retirees, an equal number are still excluded from the same principle 

that eliminates the disability offset for those with 50 percent or higher disabilities. 

The fiscal challenge notwithstanding, eliminating the disability offset for those with 

disabilities of 50 percent is just as valid for those with 40 percent and below, and 

FRA urges the Committee to be sensitive to the thousands of disabled retirees who 

are excluded from current provisions. 

As a priority, FRA asks the Committee to consider those who had their careers 

cut short solely because they became disabled by combat or combat-related events, 

and were forced into medical retirement before they could complete their careers. 

Under current law, a member who is shot in the finger and retires at 20 years 

of service with a 10-percent combat-related disability is rightly protected against 

having that disability compensation from his or her earned retired pay. But a member, who is shot through the spine, becomes a quadriplegic and is forced to retire 

with 19 years and 11 months of service, suffers full deduction of VA disability compensation from his or her retired pay. This is grossly unfair. 

For chapter 61 (disability) retirees who have more than 20 years of service, the 

government recognizes that part of that retired pay is earned by service, and part 

of it is extra compensation for the service-incurred disability. The added amount for 

disability is still subject to offset by any VA disability compensation, but the serviceearned portion (at 2.5 percent of pay times years of service) is protected against 

such offset. 

FRA believes strongly that a member who is forced to retire short of 20 years of 

service because of a combat disability must be ‘‘vested’’ in the service-earned share 

of retired pay at the same 2.5 percent per year of service rate as members with 20+ 

years of service, as envisioned in H.R 1366, also introduced by House Representative Michael Bilirakis of Florida. This would avoid the ‘‘all or nothing’’ inequity of 

the current 20-year threshold, while recognizing that retired pay for those with few 

years of service is almost all for disability rather than for service and therefore still 

subject to the VA offset. 

Veterans Disability Benefits Commission 

FRA understands that many in Congress are looking to the Veterans Disability 

Benefits Commission (VDBC) for recommendations on this and other issues, and we 

fully expect the Commission will validate the principle that a military retiree should 

not forfeit any portion of earned retired pay simply because he or she also had the 

misfortune of incurring a service-connected disability. 

But FRA is concerned that the recent extension of the Commission’s work can 

only delay an equitable outcome further. In the meantime, FRA believes action is 

needed on the critical areas which we believe there should be little question as to 

their propriety. 

Uniformed Former Spouses Protection Act (USFSPA) 

The USFSPA was enacted over 20 years ago; the result of Congressional maneuvering that denied the opposition an opportunity to express its position in open public hearings. With one exception, only private and public entities favoring the proposal were permitted to testify before the Senate Manpower and Personnel Subcommittee. Since then, Congress has made 23 amendments to the Act: eighteen benefiting former spouses. All but two of the amendments were adopted without public 

hearings, discussions, or debate. Since adoption, opponents of the USFSPA or many 

of its existing inequitable provisions have had opportunities to voice their concern 

to a Congressional panel. The last hearing, in 1999, was conducted by the House 

Veterans Affairs Committee and not the Armed Services Committee that has the 

oversight authority for amending the USFSPA. 

One of the major problems with the USFSPA, of its few provisions protecting the 

rights of the servicemember, none are enforceable by the Department of Justice or 

DOD. If a State court violates the right of the servicemember under the provisions 

of USFSPA, the Solicitor General will make no move to reverse the error. Why? Because the Act fails to have the enforceable language required for Justice or the Defense Department to react. The only recourse is for the servicemember to appeal to 

the court, which in many cases gives that court jurisdiction over the member. Another infraction is committed by some State courts awarding a percentage of veterans’ compensation to ex-spouses, a clear violation of U.S. law, yet, the Federal 

Government does nothing to stop this transgression. 

FRA believes Congress needs to take a hard look at the USFSPA with a sense 

of purpose to amend the language therein so that the Federal Government is required to protect its servicemembers against State courts that ignore provisions of 

the Act. More so, a few of the other provisions weigh heavily in favor of former 

13

spouses. For example, when a divorce is granted and the former spouse is awarded 

a percentage of the servicemember’s retired pay, this should be based on the member’s pay grade at the time of the divorce and not at a higher grade that may be 

held upon retirement. The former spouse has done nothing to assist or enhance the 

member’s advancements subsequent to the divorce; therefore, the former spouse 

should not be entitled to a percentage of the retirement pay earned as a result of 

service after the decree is awarded. Additionally, Congress should review other provisions considered inequitable or inconsistent with former spouses’ laws affecting 

other Federal employees with an eye toward amending the Act. 

Survivor Benefit Plan 

FRA appreciates recent enhancements to the military’s Survivor Benefit Plan 

(SBP) to increase benefits for survivors over several years. Unfortunately, there is 

another inequity to the program that is a major concern for our membership. 

FRA strongly supports an amendment to the program to accelerate from 2008 to 

2006 the time the military retiree will be a paid-up participant after paying premiums for 30 years and is at least 70 years of age. This is an equity issue for participants who’ve paid premiums since the program was established in 1972. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, in closing, allow me to again express the sincere appreciation of 

the Association’s membership for all that you and the Members of the Veterans Affairs Committee do for our Nation’s veterans. 

Our Legislative Team stands ready to meet with you, other Members of the Committees or their staffs at any time, to work together to improve benefits and entitlements for all veterans.

Chairman CRAIG. Joe, thank you very much for that very 

thoughtful testimony. 

Now let’s turn to Deirdre Parke Holleman. I think I misused that 

last name a little bit when I introduced you. 

Ms. PARKE HOLLEMAN. That is fine. 

Chairman CRAIG. National legislative director, the Retired Enlisted Association. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF DEIRDRE PARKE HOLLEMAN, NATIONAL

LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, THE RETIRED ENLISTED ASSOCIATION 

Ms. PARKE HOLLEMAN. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. 

May I ask that our full written testimony be made part of the 

record? 

Chairman CRAIG. Thank you for asking. It certainly will be. All 

of your full written statements and any accompanying material will 

be a part of the official record. 

Ms. PARKE HOLLEMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, it is always an honor for TREA to speak on the 

issues and concerns facing today’s and tomorrow’s veterans and 

their families. 

As we all know, this is a crucial time for our country. We are 

waging a war on terror, both at home and abroad. There are additional servicemembers deployed in numerous hot spots throughout 

the world, and the veterans who have protected us throughout history, in both hot and cold wars, are getting older and in more need 

of their Nation’s help. 

TREA is a nationwide organization whose members have served 

a career in the enlisted ranks or of our military or are doing so at 

this time. The services and benefits, that they are the provenance 

of the Department of Veterans Affairs and this Committee, are crucial for them to be able to live the life in their retirement years 

14

that they have so justly earned. TREA is grateful to everyone who 

has worked to create these benefits and to make sure that they are 

implemented in an efficient and fair way. 

We should start with the statement that TREA was pleased and 

relieved at the realistic figure that the Administration put in its 

budgetary request for VA health care this year. It is a far more 

sensible and workable amount than what had previously been requested and what you had to repair. 

We are also pleased that the President exempted the VA from 

the across-the-board cuts that most of the Federal Government is 

dealing with. During this time of increased medical needs, it is 

clear that returning veterans need more focus, not less, on the VA 

health care system. 

Of course, we do not agree with all of the Administration proposals for the last several years. TREA, as well as other organizations, has been firmly opposed to the proposed imposition of a $250 

enrollment fee for those veterans presently enrolled in Category 7 

and 8, and we are opposed to it again this year. 

This proposal is unwise and unfair for several reasons. First of 

all, this was not what these veterans were promised when they enrolled at the urging of the VA. 

Second, the veterans in 7 and 8 do not have priority to be seen 

or access standards for care. Therefore, they are the equivalent of 

‘‘Space A,’’ space available. There is no guarantee of care. However, 

everyone in this large room knows that if you start charging a 

yearly fee, the beneficiaries will predictably and rightly demand 

the care that they are paying for. Rather than lessening the work 

requirements of the VA, it will most likely increase them. 

The VA predicts that 325,000 beneficiaries will leave Categories 

7 and 8 in the coming fiscal year. We presume that number is 

based on the expectation that many present enrollees will drop out 

rather than pay the yearly fee, but that is not an appropriate way 

to lessen one’s caseload, and we believe the ones who remain will 

be predictably more demanding. So it is not even an effective way. 

Additionally, the VA states in their proposal that they expect to 

collect $3 billion, more or less, in third-party insurance claims, 

OHI. We are doubtful that they will be able to reach that heady 

goal. In the past, they have had trouble. They have not been very 

successful in collecting private insurance claims, but if this is a serious goal for them, these beneficiaries in Categories 7 and 8 

should be the main source of such insurance. These veterans cannot depend on the VA for all their health care and so are much 

more likely to have plans that the VA may look to for collections. 

Numerous people, both in this Committee and at the VA, believe 

that veterans choose to enroll in the Categories 7 and 8 to get the 

drug benefit. If that is correct, the new Medicare Part D benefit, 

once it settles down, should cause a drop in enrolled veterans looking to obtain service. The new drug plan will have several advantages for them. They can use their civilian doctor scripts. They can 

have them filled near their homes, et cetera. If we are correct, the 

concerns about the cost of Categories 7 and 8 should subside without unfair and unpopular steps being taken. 

TREA is also firmly against the Administration’s proposal to 

raise the pharmacy copays to $15 for a 30-day prescripton for 7s 

15

and 8s. This year, the VA raised its copay from $7 to $8, and I assure you, it caused great consternation in many of our members. 

These veterans are not being petty or cheap. They are on fixed incomes, and many have many daily medications. 

TREA assures you that practically doubling the copay would be 

disastrous to many of our members, and we hope you will oppose 

that proposal. 

These proposals, as well as the draconian proposed increases in 

enrollment fees and deductibles in TRICARE Prime and TRICARE 

Standard on the DOD side are meant, we believe, not primarily to 

raise money, but rather to disabuse veterans and military retirees 

from using the benefits that they have earned and deserve due to 

their brave and dedicated service. This is not the way to try and 

save money, and we hope and expect that Congress will also find 

it unacceptable. 

The VA, as you well know, is tasked not only to care for those 

who have borne the battle, but also widows and orphans. TREA 

was very pleased and grateful that Congress increased the top 

amount of SGLI to $400,000 as well as increasing the death gratuity to $100,000. Thank you so much for these improvements. 

As you well know, TREA and all the members of the Coalition 

Alliance have also worked hard last year to try and end the SBP/

DIC offset. Of course, we are well aware that is not your Committee of jurisdiction, but we also know of your focus and concern 

for military widows and that many of you are also on the Armed 

Services Committee. Therefore, we urge all of you to convince your 

colleagues that this is the time to finally correct this unfair situation. 

Although we know it is a great task, TREA also hopes that this 

Committee will take on more work. It is crucial to look toward improving and modernizing the Montgomery GI bill. As stated by Mr. 

Barnes, the split between title 10 and title 38 makes the coordination and improvements of the bill that you have done much harder 

to accomplish, and we hope that joining them together, this bill will 

no longer be the stepchild in the title 10 for Guard and Reserve, 

but rather be in its proper place here. 

There are more suggestions in our written testimony, and we 

would be grateful if you would consider them all. We all share a 

love and admiration for our servicemembers, our veterans, our 

military retirees and their families and survivors. Because they 

have served and dared, we can live in freedom and argue public 

policy. 

TREA is grateful for all the efforts and time the Members of this 

Committee and their staff has dedicated to making the VA the best 

that it can be. We believe that adoption of our suggestions would 

make its service even more effective. 

We thank you for your time and attention. I would be honored 

to try and answer any questions you may have, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Parke Holleman follows:]

16

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEIRDRE PARKE HOLLEMAN, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE

DIRECTOR, THE RETIRED ENLISTED ASSOCIATION

DISCLOSURE OF FEDERAL GRANTS OR CONTRACTS

The Retired Enlisted Association does not currently receive, nor has it received 

during the current fiscal year or either of the two previous years any Federal money 

for grants or contracts. All the Association’s activities and services are accomplished 

completely free of any Federal funding. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Akaka and Members of the Committee: It is always an 

honor for The Retired Enlisted Association to testify about the needs and concerns 

of America’s veterans and their families and survivors. 

The Retired Enlisted Association is a Veterans Service Organization founded over 

40 years ago to represent the needs and points of view of enlisted men and women 

who have dedicated their careers to serving in all the branches of the United States 

Armed Services active duty, National Guard and Reserves, as well as the members 

who are doing so today. 

Today there are hundreds of thousands of enlisted men and women serving in war 

zones and dangerous locations throughout the world. While they protect our freedom, we all embrace the duty to make sure that when they return they will find 

all the care and benefits they need and were promised. This includes health care 

and education and much more. The Nation also has a sacred duty to provide for 

the survivors of those who will not be coming back. We also have a duty never to 

forget those who protected us in past years and conflicts and to make sure that they 

are properly cared for and treated. It is an honor for TREA to be a part of the noble 

work that Congress, the VA and our brother and sister organizations do to make 

sure that these goals are reached. 

VA HEALTH CARE

As always when appearing before you our first concern is to make sure that first 

rate and adequately funded healthcare is available for our Veterans. Last year was 

a shambles that no one wishes to occur again. We are happy and relieved that the 

Department has requested $80.6 billion for its budget for fiscal year 2007. This includes $34.3 billion for Health care. This is a reasonable and rational number and 

TREA is pleased. However there are calculations and proposed income sources that 

we are opposed to or do not believe will materialize. Additionally, there are some 

programs that we are still concerned will not be adequately funded. The GAO report 

requested by Congress, ‘‘VA Health Care: Preliminary Findings on the Department 

of Veterans Affairs Health Care Budget Formulation for Fiscal Years 2005 and 

2006’’ GAO–06–43OR February 2, 2006, indicated that the ‘‘VA’s internal process for 

formulating the medical programs funding requests were informed by, but not driven by projected demand.’’ We hope that this Committee will carefully oversee the 

funding levels needed for several crucial programs that are likely to see large increases in needs of services. These include the 2 year qualification for healthcare 

that all returning veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan are entitled to have at the 

VA as well as the need to increase the number and size of the ‘‘politrauma centers’’ 

dealing with the large numbers of severely and multiple injured veterans who are 

returning home and looking to the VA for hope in their future lives. There are presently 4 of these centers but we may very well need more as the War on Terror continues. There is also likely to be a substantial increase in the necessity of mental 

health services (both outpatient and in patient) for Veterans returning from the 

War. And for older Veterans there will be growing need for nursing home care. 

TREA is concerned that the budgetary calculations have not been sufficiently increased. We hope this Committee will again exercise its oversight function to make 

sure as the next year goes on that sufficient funds have been requested and will 

be obtained. It is critical that the VA’s healthcare service is fully funded. And that 

that this full funding is predictable so the VA can truly make sensible long term 

plans rather than living from year to year’s budget with no ability to predict the 

next several year’s finances. 

We are also deeply concerned that a segment of the VA’s increased health care 

budget, once again, rests in part on an expectation on proposed increases in enrollment fees and prescription drug copayments. In the past year the Department 

raised the copay for drugs from $7 to $8. This may not sound like a great deal at 

first glance but that is when you are looking at 1 prescription. Many veterans are 

not taking 1 medication a day but 10 or 15. Even a small increase in the copay can 

have a harsh affect on a veteran on a fixed income. But the proposed budget calls 

for a copay of $15. This almost doubles the present copay. This proposal could be 

17

truly financially crippling to many TREA members and we are strongly opposed to 

it. 

TREA is also firmly opposed to the proposal of a $250 enrollment fee. Categories 

7 and 8 members would be required to pay the proposed enrollment fees while they 

would have no guarantee that they will be served. While those Veterans who are 

50 percent or more disabled or are being treated for the service connected disability 

get priority others are inevitably pushed to the back of the line. Veterans in Categories 7 and 8 have no guarantee that they will be seen at all. Additionally those 

that are 50 percent disabled or are being treated for their service connected disability have an access standard. They will be seen at the VA within 30 days for 

their primary care appointment or the VA will arrange for outside care. But again 

Category 7 an 8 Veterans have no such guarantee. They will be seen when an appointment becomes available. So these men and women who served our Country so 

well are not overwhelming the system; they are simply waiting for an appointment 

to become available. It is a space available system for them now. But we all know 

well that if the government starts charging a yearly fee for their status there will 

be a much greater push for the VA to provide guaranteed service. And there is no 

reason to believe at this time that it is a service they will be able to provide. Rather 

than lessening the pressure on the VA due to its waiting lists, this proposal will 

in all likelihood increase the pressure and discontent. This proposal has been made 

for the last several years and each time Congress has refused to implement it. We 

hope that you will once again take that wise path. 

The VA’s proposed budget also includes an expected increase of 3rd party insurance collections (OHI). The Department of Veterans Affairs predicts that they will 

collect $3 billion this year. While we can hope that this is true none who has 

watched the VA try to collect civil insurance claims in the past has a great deal 

of faith that they will be successful. 

TREA indeed doubts that the VA will be able to reach their goal. However it is 

obvious that the VA enrollees who are most likely to have other health insurance 

are those who are enrolled in Categories 7 and 8. These are the people who cannot 

completely rely on the VA for their everyday care and will therefore have insurance 

plans. These are the people that the VA could look to for the 3rd party collections. 

TREA knows that the VA, and indeed, some members of this Committee have been 

worried that the VA would be overwhelmed by elderly Veterans looking for a pharmacy benefit. The VA predicts that membership in Categories 7 and 8 will decline 

by 235,000 this coming year. Clearly they hope that the proposed enrollment fee and 

increased copayments will force many to leave. But that is unnecessary. For those 

7 and 8 enrollees who are on Medicare a new drug benefit has been put into effect 

since the last time TREA testified. While the standup of Medicare Part D has been 

a bit rocky that group of Veterans now have a plan that is not limited to the VA 

formulary. They can use it for prescriptions that their civilian doctor has written 

and they can use it at their local pharmacy or many mail order programs. So this 

previous concern should no longer be as worrisome. 

TREA have argued for years that the VA should be able to collect from Medicare 

for non service connected treatments provided to Veterans who are enrolled in and 

pay premiums for Medicare Part B. This would put the Department of Veteran Affairs in the same position that Indian Health Care Service is in under Title 25 Section 1645. The CBO has indicated that about half of all enrolled veterans are also 

enrolled in Medicare. This would be a large and fair income flow to VA health care. 

Obviously, this proposal would not be under your Committee’s jurisdiction but it is 

an idea that should be considered. 

TREA urges this Committee to exercise your oversight to make sure that VA’s 

crucial healthcare programs continue to be adequately funded throughout the budgetary year. 

TREA urges Congress to reject the proposed increases in drug copays and the proposed $250 yearly user fee for Categories 7 and 8 enrollees. 

TREA urges the Committee Members to support legislation to allow the VA to become a Medicare provider. 

IMPROVEMENTS IN THE MONTGOMERY GI BILL (MGIB)

One of the most important benefits that this Nation provides to its Veterans is 

the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) for both its active duty and its National Guard and 

Reserve members. It serves as a crucial recruiting tool and as a way for patriotic, 

disciplined and intelligent men and women to move up in the civilian world. However, with all its virtues the MGIB has structural flaws that should be changed. The 

Active Duty MGIB is sensibly under Title 38, Veterans Benefits and under this 

Committee’s authority. However, Selected Reserve Programs are still under Title 10, 

18

the Armed Forces Code. Your many improvements to the Montgomery GI Bill have 

not been reflected in the Selected Reserve Program. With the massive call ups of 

the Guard and Reserve and the future outlook that this will not change, it’s time 

to properly coordinate the two programs. TREA feels strongly that it is time, for the 

long term good of the program that the SR MGIB should be placed under Title 38 

and the jurisdiction of this Committee. Needed modifications and improvements 

could then be made in tandem in both programs. These include increasing the monetary benefit (as you have for the Active Duty plan) and allowing Guard and Reserve members to be allowed to continue using their benefits after they leave the 

Guard and Reserves. Since 9/11 the role the Guard and Reserve plays in our National Defense has changed dramatically. Additionally, with the increased pace of 

call ups and our increasing reliance on the Guard and Reserve (a reliance that 

TREA doubts will change in the foreseeable future) the benefit itself should be readjusted and increased. With your focus on the whole program this is the Committee 

with both the focus and the expertise necessary to properly coordinate the two programs. 

When looking at the Active Duty program TREA, along with our fellow members 

of the Partnership for Veterans Education, has called for the Montgomery GI Bill 

to cover the average costs of a 4-year education at a State University. When hundreds of thousand of members of the military are stationed throughout the world 

fighting the War on Terror this would show our gratitude as a Nation and would 

make a huge improvements in these servicemembers’ lives when they return home. 

It would also be a wonderful recruitment tool at this difficult time. The original GI 

Bill after World War II transformed the Nation. This change would also improve 

the future for the entire Nation, not just the servicemembers and their families who 

it will directly help. We also urge this Committee to broaden the types of education 

programs that can be paid for by the MGIB. This is a new world—this is a new 

world where a great deal of critical higher education is presented in non-four year 

degree programs. These changes would reflect the changes in America’s changing 

Education System. 

TREA urges this Committee to attempt to move the SR Montgomery GI Bill under 

its jurisdiction in Title 38. 

TREA urges that the SR MGIB benefit be readjusted to both reflect the improvements in the Active Duty MGIB program and to reflect the added duties and burdens that are being placed on the Reserve Components. 

TREA urges this Committee to move toward having the Active Duty Montgomery 

GI Bill cover the costs of a four (4) year Public University education. 

VA CLAIMS BACKLOG

This is a perennial concern and worry. With all the best efforts and motives in 

the world the VA disability claims backlog has not improved. According to the Department of Veteran Affairs submission in 2005 it took 167 days to process a claim 

as compared to 166 days in 2004. In 2005 the number of filed claims increased to 

788,298 up from 771,115 in the year before the VA states that they are expecting 

a 3 percent increase in filings to 811,947 (with an additional approximate 100,000 

cases resulting from the new outreach program created in the fiscal year 06 Appropriation Act). This means that the average case is taking almost half a year. Furthermore as the cases become more complicated from injuries returning from Iraq 

and Afghanistan the delays may grow even larger. This is just too long. Desperate 

people are anxiously waiting so they can know how they can move on with their 

lives. TREA is sure that all Members of this Committee are extremely concerned 

about this continuing back log. Hopefully, correcting this problem will remain a top 

priority of the VA. 

TREA urges the Committee to closely monitor the Department of Veterans Affairs 

on their efforts to increase both the speed and the accuracy of their claim decisions. 

CAPITAL ASSET REALIGNMENT FOR ENHANCED SERVICES (CARES)

While there certainly has not been as much public discussion about CARES as 

there has been about BRAC this year, this program is still proceeding apace. And 

it is still a major concern for TREA. We certainly agree with the stated goal of 

CARES to modernize the VA plant and make their operations more efficient. However we are still greatly concerned that the needs analysis for CARES did not take 

into account the VA’s future Mental Health and Long term health care (nursing 

home care) requirements. The Department of Veteran Affairs is obligated to provide 

nursing home care for Veterans with a 70 percent or over disability rating or for 

those Veterans who require Nursing Home care due to their service connected disability. We are all aware of the Nation’s demographics and the growing number of 

19

citizens that will need Nursing Home care. There is no reason to believe that the 

Veterans population will require less such care than the general population. So 

when planning for CARES this important and predictably growing duty of the VA 

should have been analyzed. The CARES needs analysis also failed to consider mental health needs. If anything, 4 years of War has made this omission more serious 

than it was before the War. Of course it is a treatment goal of mental health practitioners to have as much care be conducted outpatient as possible. However there 

are times when inpatient treatment is clearly necessary. When dealing with Post 

Traumatic Stress Disorder (PDSD) and other war related conditions there is no institution that has more experience and skill than the VA. And there is no place 

where Veterans would feel more at home. Before the VA takes irreversible steps 

they should make sure that these future needs are factored into the calculation. 

During this dramatic time of War and returning Veterans, it seems unwise to dramatically destabilize the plant structure. And it is certainly unwise to do so based 

on a plan that did not take into account two of the VA’s important and growing missions. 

TREA urges that no additional steps in the CARES process occurs until a full 

study on the future needs of the VA for both long term health care and mental 

health facilities are studied and incorporated into any future plans. 

MILITARY RETIREES AND THE VA

This Committee knows well that all Military Retirees are Veterans. The combination of their military retiree benefits and their Veterans benefits make it possible 

for them to achieve the quality of life they deserve in their retirement years. They 

have served their Nation for at least 20 years. Many of these Military Retirees are 

daily patients in the VA Health Care system. It is already true that 30 percent of 

all enrollees in Categories 1–3 (Service Connected Disabilities) are Military Retirees. 

They have been found to have been wounded, injured or developed illnesses and conditions while serving their Country. But many other retirees have also lived the 

hard and wearing life of a career servicemember. But this health care needs that 

are caused by this life have not been acknowledged by the VA. They deserve and 

need to be able to get the expert care for their service connected conditions from 

the VA while receiving normal healthcare near their homes through DOD’s 

healthcare programs. They deserve to be seen as a special category of patients. To 

place retirees in Category 3 would acknowledge the lifetime of service they have 

provided to the military and their special medical needs. 

TREA urges Congress to place military retirees into Category 3 of the VA Health 

Care System. 

DOD–VA COLLABORATION/SEAMLESS TRANSITION

Another goal for all of us who are concerned with the well being of America’s Veterans is to create a seamless transition between the status of a member of the military to that of a Veteran. This is another area where this Committee’s oversight 

function is critical. We need to know whether the much praised VA electronic health 

record program will be able to speak to DOD’s new ALHTA electronic health record 

program. We need to know when both Departments will be able to create an electronic health care record that all TRICARE and VA health care patients can carry 

with them wherever they are throughout the world for their entire lives. We need 

to know when will DOD and the VA be able to stand up throughout the country 

on a single separation exam? This would be a boon to the Veteran, and both the 

VA and DOD. Years have gone by and only partial implementation has occurred. 

Now is the time Congress should insist that the Government improve the hand off 

from DOD to the VA for the future. 

TREA hopes your Committee will continue to monitor the progress in this crucial 

area. 

SURVIVORS BENEFITS

Everyday in this time of our War on Terror wives, husbands and children are becoming survivors. We are presently in the exact situation that President Lincoln 

faced at when he gave the Nation’s its call: With malice toward none; with charity 

for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive 

to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him that 

has borne the battle, his widow and orphan . . .’’ from his glorious Second Inaugural address. TREA is very grateful to all of Congress, and especially this Committee for last year’s significant improvements in the SGLI coverage. When combined with the new $100,000 death gratuity passed last year, the families of those 

‘‘who gave their full measure of devotion’’ for this Nation will be able to try to reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:42 Jan 17, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\RD41451\DOCS\28132.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
20

start their lives without the extreme and immediate financial difficulties that they 

had to deal with in the past. 

In the first half of the 109th session of Congress TREA along with many of our 

other Veterans Service and Military Service Organizations worked very hard to end 

the Survivor Benefit Plan Dependency and Indemnity Compensation Program (SBP/

DIC) Offset. (The program often referred to as the widow’s concurrent receipt.) And 

we intend to work just as hard again this year. We are well aware that the VA pays 

the full DIC amount to the surviving widow and thus any change to this program 

will have to go through the Committee on Armed Services. But this Committee has 

always shown great interest in Veterans’ survivors and we hope that you can work 

with your colleagues to pass Senator Bill Nelson’s S. 185 and finally end this unfair 

practice. 

S. 185 would also move up the paid up provisions for SBP (Another subject under 

the jurisdiction of the Armed Service Committee). This would help elderly couples 

who have paid into SBP for at least 30 years and whose servicemember is at least 

70 years old. 

Both provisions would help survivors who have served our Nation faithfully but 

have not been touched by recent improvements this Congress has enacted. 

Additionally we hope that you will all support the concept in the House encompassed in Representative Michael Bilirakis’s H.R. 1462 and allow survivors to retain 

DIC if they remarry at the age of 55 or older. At this time the age for retention 

of DIC is 57. However the age to retain CHAMPVA upon remarriage is the normal 

Federal program age of 55. The difference is because the two benefits were reinstated in different years and during different Congressional negotiations. There are 

no policy reasons for this awkward and unequal distinction and we hope that this 

year it can finally be corrected. 

TREA urges Congress to finally end the SBP/DIC dollar for dollar offset and urges 

this Committee to support S185 and allow surviving spouses to retain their DIC if 

they remarry after reaching the age of 55. 

CONCLUSION

The members of TREA are grateful for the opportunity to speak about the needs 

and concerns of our members and the needs of all American Veterans, their families 

and survivors. Veterans and their families need and deserve all the benefits and 

services—healthcare, education and others—that the VA provides and that you oversee. During this critical time for our Nation it is crucial that the VA has the money 

and expertise that is necessary to accomplish its duty. TREA is sure that this dedicated Committee will strive to make sure that our veterans, whether young or old, 

and their families are provided that they receive the quality care and benefits services that we owe them for the dedicated service they have given to their Country.

Chairman CRAIG. Thank you very much, Deirdre. 

Now let’s turn to Morgan Brown, manager, Military and Government Relations, Air Force Sergeants Association. 

STATEMENT OF MORGAN D. BROWN, MANAGER, MILITARY 

AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, AIR FORCE SERGEANTS

ASSOCIATION 

Mr. BROWN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and thank you again 

for the opportunity to appear before this Committee. 

I am honored to represent the leadership of the Air Force Sergeants Association and its 130,000 members as you work on legislation for this coming fiscal year. 

I would like to begin by letting you know that we sincerely appreciate your leadership to overcome last year’s health care funding 

shortfalls and in particular increases in SGLI coverage. On behalf 

of the Air Force enlisted community, we thank you. 

Having listened to my colleagues and having spoken with others 

who will appear before you, we, too, are concerned about some of 

your primary focus items such as VA health care funding, seamless 

transition efforts, and the accelerated adjudication of the claims 

process. I have covered these and other items in my full written 

21

statement, and therefore, this morning, I will restrict my comments 

strictly to educational benefits, primarily the Montgomery GI bill 

because of its importance to the well-being of noncommissioned 

members. 

As a member of the Partnership for Veterans Education, AFSA 

supports a restructuring of the Montgomery GI bill, which Congress intended to support military recruitment, as well as transition. As such, we urge this Committee’s support for educational enhancements. This includes increasing the amount of the benefit to 

cover the actual cost of a 4-year education at a public institution 

and indexing future increases to prevent further reduction of the 

benefit. 

Currently, the Montgomery GI bill does not keep up with the inflation that affects educational programs. According to the college 

board reports, in order to cover the cost of books, tuition, and fees 

at an average State college or university for a commuter student, 

the program should be worth about $1,700 per month. It is now 

worth $1,034 per month. 

The fix is to increase the value of the benefit and then tie the 

value of this important program to the college board’s reports annual cost assessment to reflect educational inflationary increases 

and base it on a nonresident commuter student. 

Many of the rules relating to the application of the GI bill discourage its use. For instance, young servicemembers are given a 

one-time irrevocable decision to enroll in the Montgomery GI bill 

at basic military training. They are automatically enrolled unless 

they identify themselves to the TIs or the DIs and say they don’t 

want the program. At this point in their careers, they are making 

the least pay, and to a young enlisted recruit that has a family and 

other financial obligations, expecting them to give $100 out of an 

$1,100 monthly paycheck seems unreasonable. 

Other young recruits turn down enrollment because they just 

joined the military, deciding to forego education for the time being, 

and, of course, many of them later regret that decision and tell us 

they would enroll if given the opportunity. However, the program, 

as currently administered, does not offer a second chance, not even 

at a penalty for late enrollment. 

Basic training is a tumultuous time. Young recruits leave the familiar and secure environment they are accustomed to and are 

thrust into an intense fast-paced environment as designed to ensure they can physically and mentally withstand the rigors of military service. 

Considering all the demands of basic training, is it really necessary to have these young recruits make this important decision 

during basic training? Keep in mind, it takes 2 years of active-duty 

service to be able to use the basic entitlement. Why do we ask 

them to make this decision in a matter of a day or two? 

Our recommendation would be to move the decision out of basic 

training and allow new recruits the ability to enroll in the Montgomery GI bill at any point during their first 18 months of service. 

Additionally, once enrolled, allow them to have the $1,200 payroll 

deduction spread out over a period of 18 months. This change alone 

would greatly improve the program without significant additional 

obligation of funds. 

22

The primary purpose of the Montgomery GI bill is to help 

servicemembers readjust to civilian life after their separation from 

military service, and therefore, I would be remiss if I also didn’t 

mention those currently serving that turned down the old Veterans 

Educational Assistance Program, otherwise known as VEAP. 

VEAP was the educational program in place from 1977 to July 

1985. It was poorly counseled and a relatively inadequate program. 

Thousands of military members chose not to enroll in VEAP, and 

many were even advised not to enroll in VEAP because a better 

program was coming along, the current Montgomery GI bill. Unfortunately, when that happened, they were not allowed to enroll into 

that program. 

Several years ago, Congress afforded VEAP participants two enrollment opportunities, but VEAP decliners were not included. 

Today, less than 50,000 servicemembers in all branches, primarily 

noncommissioned members, are getting ready to end their military 

careers without that transitional education benefit. Fairness alone 

would suggest they deserve a similar opportunity to enroll in the 

GI bill. 

In closing, I ask this Committee to seriously consider these items 

mentioned in my testimony, and again, adjusting the initial participation decisionmaking point and extending the payroll deduction 

period would have no or minimal additional obligation to the American taxpayer. However, both changes would be a large step toward 

making the Montgomery GI bill a more user friendly, sincere, and 

equitable benefit for the noncommissioned men and women serving 

today. 

Chairman Craig, on behalf of the association and noncommissioned members for whom you work so very hard, I thank you 

again for the opportunity to present our views, and I too am ready 

to respond to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MORGAN D. BROWN, MANAGER, MILITARY AND

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, AIR FORCE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Committee Members, on behalf of the 130,000 

members of the Air Force Sergeants Association, thank you for this opportunity to 

offer the views of our members on the fiscal year 2007 priorities of the Department 

of Veterans Affairs. This hearing will address issues critical to those serving and 

who have served our Nation. AFSA represents active duty, Guard, Reserve, retired, 

and veteran enlisted Air Force members and their families. Your continuing effort 

toward improving the quality of their lives has made a real difference, and our 

members are grateful. In this statement, I will list several specific goals that we 

hope this committee will pursue for fiscal year 2007 on behalf of current and past 

enlisted members and their families. The content of this statement reflects the 

views of our members as they have communicated them to us. As always, we are 

prepared to present more details and to discuss these issues with your staffs. 

How a nation fulfills its obligation to those who serve reflects its greatness. How 

we treat them also influences our ability to recruit future servicemembers since a 

significant percentage of those wearing the uniform today were once members of 

military families. They watched to see how their moms and dads were treated as 

they put their lives on the line for America. And that trend continues. People observe how the servicemember is taken care of during service and after they have 

served. Simply speaking, if we want to keep good people in the military, it is important that our country live up to the commitments made to our veterans—the role 

models for today’s and tomorrow’s force. 

It is important that this committee view America’s veterans as a vital national 

resource rather than as a financial burden. As you deliberate on the needs of America’s veterans, this association is gratified to play a role in the process and will work 

23

to support your decisions as they best serve this Nation’s veterans. We believe this 

Nation’s response for service should be based on certain principles. We urge this 

committee to consider the following principles as an underlying foundation for making decisions affecting this Nation’s veterans. 

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

1. Veterans Have Earned a Solid Transition Back Into Society. This country owes 

its veterans dignified, transitional, and recovery assistance. This help should be provided simply because they served in the most lethal of professions. 

2. Most Veterans Are Lower-Paid Enlisted Members. Enlisted veterans served with 

lower pay, generally re-entered the civilian populace with non-transferable military 

skills, probably had relatively little civilian education, and most likely served in 

skills that are less marketable. We should factor in the unique circumstances of enlisted veterans, especially in the area of transitional education; i.e., the Montgomery 

G.I. Bill. 

3. Decisions on Veterans’ Funding Primarily Should be Based on Merit. Funding 

for military veterans must, of course, be based on fiscal reality and prudence. However, Congress and, in turn, the VA must never make determinations simply because ‘‘the money is just not there’’ or because there are now ‘‘too many’’ veterans. 

Funding for veterans’ programs should be viewed as a national obligation—‘‘must 

pay’’ situation. 

4. Remember That Reservists Are Full-Fledged Veterans. In Iraq, Afghanistan, and 

around the world, reserve component members are valiantly serving, ready to sacrifice their lives if necessary. Record numbers have been called up to support operations since September 11, 2001. By spring of this year, nearly half of U.S. forces 

serving in Iraq will be guardsmen and reservists. Without question, enlisted guardsmen and reservists are full-time players as part of the ‘‘Total Force.’’ Differences between reserve component members and the full-time force, in terms of VA programs 

or availability of services, need to be critically examined. 

5. The VA Must Openly Assume the Responsibility for Treatment of the Maladies 

of War. We are grateful for VA decisions in recent years that show a greater willingness to judge in favor of the servicemember. The VA focus on health care conditions 

caused by battle should be on presumption and correction, not on initial refutation, 

delay, and denial. It is important that the decision to send troops into harm’s way 

also involves an absolute commitment to care for any healthcare condition that may 

have resulted from that service. Many veterans call and write to this association 

about our government’s denial, waffling, then reluctant recognition of illnesses 

caused by conditions during past conflicts. We applaud past decisions of this committee toward reinforcing a commitment to unconditional care after service, and encourage the committee to do the same in the future. 

This statement will focus on three main areas: education, health care, and general 

issues that we hope you will consider as you deliberate the fiscal year 2007 VA 

budget and policies. 

EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Frankly speaking, this is an enlisted, non commissioned officer issue. Unlike commissioned officers, few enlisted members enter the service with a college degree. 

Relatively few of them are able to achieve one while in the service. 

Prior to 9/11 this committee did a good job of increasing the value of the Montgomery G.I. Bill (MGIB), but very little has been done since. There’s no escaping 

the fact that college costs are rising and last year the average public school tuition 

rates jumped 10.5 percent. As the gap between the cost of an education and value 

of the MGIB widens, the significance of the benefit becomes less apparent. Without 

an overhaul to reinvigorate the MGIB, this benefit will lose its effectiveness when 

it comes to recruiting this Nation’s finest young men and women into service. As 

a member of the Military Coalition and Partnership for Veterans’ Education, we 

strongly recommend you transform the program to something similar to the postWW II G.I. Bill. We ask this committee to work toward funding a program that pays 

for books, tuition, and fees, and that the benefit be annually indexed to reflect the 

actual costs of education, especially for enlisted members. 

When young enlisted men and women opt for military service, they should know 

that this ‘‘company’’ will provide them with a no-cost, complete education, as do numerous companies in the private industry. But our government does not do this in 

the way that it should. It gives them a one-time chance to enroll in the MGIB during basic training. It charges them $1,200 to enroll at a time when they can least 

afford it. It limits the use of the benefit to a designated monthly amount which prevents its use for all educational expenses as needed, or in amounts to support accelVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:42 Jan 17, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\RD41451\DOCS\28132.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
24

erated programs, or courses with lab requirements, or advanced programs; and it 

imposes a benefit-termination clock that starts ticking when the servicemember separates from military duty. Each of these provisions suggests the government’s lack 

of sincerity toward providing a user-friendly benefit that may be fully used to benefit the servicemember and this Nation. Remember, enlisted initially make about 

half that a new commissioned officer makes. Enlisted members who actually need 

the MGIB, must proportionally agree to pay twice the portion of their initial pay 

as commissary officers do. This is just plain unfair. 

Despite the extremely commendable, fairly recent value increases in the MGIB (which, in October 2005 increased to $1,034 per month for 36 months), more needs 

to be done. If this Nation is going to have an effective, beneficial military educational benefit program, it should mirror the comprehensive ones provided by civilian industry. Recent studies show that the average costs for colleges and universities are approximately $1,770 per month—a figure that reflects the cost of books, 

tuition, and fees at the average college or university for a commuter student (based 

on the annual ‘‘College Board’’ report). That means that despite the recent increases 

in the MGIB, it will only cover about 58 percent of the average cost of a 4–year 

public college or university for academic year 2005–2006. As educational costs rise 

and if Congress does not increase funding, the value of the MGIB will continue to 

deteriorate. Without automatic indexing for inflation, MGIB purchasing power continues to erode, thereby negating the previous hard work of this committee. We ask 

that you look toward further increases in the MGIB program by legally indexing the 

MGIB benefit to annual increases in ‘‘educational’’ inflation. 

We are aware of recent interest among some Members of Congress to ‘‘renovate’’ 

the MGIB. Specific characteristics that a new comprehensive benefit should include 

are as follows: 

Provide an MGIB Enrollment Opportunity for All Currently Serving Enlisted 

Members Who Declined Enrollment in the Old Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP). We are mindful that VEAP was intended to be a transitional benefit 

which enabled departing servicemembers to secure necessary skills as they transition back into the civilian workforce. It’s only in more recent years that the MGIB 

has evolved into a recruiting incentive. That being the case, and without question, 

one of the greatest needs cited by our members is to provide a second chance for 

those who turned down their initial opportunity to enroll in the Veterans Educational Assistance Program (VEAP). VEAP was the program in place for those who 

were serving immediately prior to the July 1985 initiation of the Montgomery G.I. 

Bill. VEAP was a far less beneficial program than the MGIB. 

Hundreds of thousands of military members chose not to enroll in the VEAP program. Many were advised not to enroll in VEAP because a better program was coming along. Unfortunately, when the MGIB program began, those who turned down 

the VEAP program were not allowed to enroll in the MGIB program. So many 

turned down their one-time opportunity (during the 1980’s) to enroll in the VEAP 

program that approximately 50,000 military members who declined VEAP enrollment are still serving. 

Approximately 15,000 still-serving commissioned officers turned down VEAP; by 

definition they already have at least bachelor’s degrees when they enter service—

most have graduate and higher degrees by the time they reach retirement. For that 

reason, and considering funding challenges, AFSA would contend that the MGIB enrollment opportunity should be limited to still-serving enlisted (noncommissioned) 

members who turned down the old VEAP program. 

Rep. Dave Camp has introduced H.R. 269 which would provide an MGIB enrollment opportunity to the estimated less than 50,000 currently serving who turned 

down the old VEAP program—including commissioned officers. In evaluating this 

same legislation in the 108th Congress, CBO scored this bill at $173 million over 

10 years (figure based on the 96,000 plus eligible active duty personnel at that time) 

Taking into consideration that the number of eligibles is now halved, estimated 

costs of implementation would now be in the range of $86 million. However, if we 

limit the enrollment opportunity to enlisted members only, it will reduce the number by more approximately one-fourth and, therefore, the cost by 25 percent. The 

projected scoring would then be reduced to somewhere in the neighborhood of 65 

million over 10 years if limited to enlisted members only. 

Time is running out for Congress to provide these deserving individuals an MGIB 

enrollment opportunity; unfortunately many have already retired. As of July 1, 

2005, all actively serving members who enlisted in this era were eligible to retire. 

We urge these committees to act quickly before it is too late to at least provide a 

transitional education assignment to the remaining VEAP-era enlisted members. 

Remember these citizens served a full career of dedicated service and sacrifice fighting this Nation’s wars and preserving the peace. 

25

Provide a Second Chance for Those Currently Serving Enlisted Members Who Declined Enrollment in the MGIB. Since the end of the VEAP program, tens of thousands more have declined enrollment in the MGIB. Most enlisted members did so 

because they were (and still are) given only a one-time, irrevocable enrollment opportunity at basic military training when many simply could not afford to give up 

$100 per month for the first 12 months of their career. While this may not apply 

to all accessions, it certainly applies to enlisted members. 

In fact, in the Air Force alone, there are now over 25,000 on duty who came in 

during the MGIB era but who declined to enroll in the MGIB. Hundreds of noncommissioned members tell us that they want a second chance to get into the 

MGIB, now that they can afford to do so. This is particularly a serious problem 

among enlisted members—those who generally enter military service without a college degree and with prospects of relatively little income. As we said earlier, thanks 

to the fine work of these committees, the MGIB value has been significantly increased in recent years. Although more work needs to be done, the benefit is now 

a comparatively ‘‘lucrative’’ benefit—a far cry from that which most VEAP and 

MGIB non-enrollees turned down. For that reason alone, fairness would dictate an 

enrollment opportunity for any military member not currently enrolled in the 

MGIB. They have made freedom possible during their service; now let’s say ‘‘Thank 

You’’ to them! H.R. 3195 by Rep. Peter Visclosky specifically calls for an enrollment 

opportunity for these deserving individuals. Eliminate the $1,200 MGIB Enrollment Fee. The Montgomery GI Bill is the one 

of the only company-provided educational programs in America that requires a student to pay $1,200 (by payroll deduction during the first 12 months of military service) in order to establish eligibility. This $1,200 DOD payroll cost-avoidance method 

amounts to little more than a tax penalty on a benefit that must be paid before it 

is received. 

Sadly, this fee causes many young noncommissioned servicemembers to decline 

enrollment simply because they are given a one-time, irrevocable decision when they 

are making the least pay and under the pressure of initial training. Those who decline enrollment—many due to financial necessity—do not have a second chance to 

enroll in the program. This is probably the biggest complaint we get from the lowest-ranking airmen. They feel that, in a sense, it is a ‘‘dirty trick’’ to offer such an 

important program only when it is clearly a financial burden for enlisted members 

to enroll in the program. After all, because of lower pay, enlisted members must sacrifice a significantly higher percentage of their income (in relation to new commissioned officers) in order to be eligible for the program. Further, it sends a very poor 

message to those who enter service expecting a world-class educational benefit. 

We would imagine that a good case could be made to show that eliminating the 

fee will not be as expensive as estimated since the administration of the fee (tracking and collection) most likely costs nearly as much as, if not more than, the fee 

itself. To our knowledge, this has never been explored, and we encourage these committees to investigate this matter further. S. 43, by Sen. Chuck Hagel, and its companion bill, H.R. 786, by Rep. Lee Terry, would eliminate the $1,200 user fee for 

those serving during the period of Executive Order 13235. Both bills would also give 

a second MGIB enrollment opportunity for those serving during this period. AFSA 

maintains that both elimination of the $1,200 payroll reduction and a second MGIB 

enrollment opportunity should be permanently provided for enlisted 

servicemembers. 

Allow Enlisted Military Members to Enroll in the MGIB Later During Their Careers. As I explained above, the one-time enrollment opportunity at Basic Training 

is a problem. Of course, abolishing the $1,200 fee would eliminate the non-enrollment problem while simultaneously reintroducing some honesty into the recruitment promises made concerning educational benefits. This would alleviate the need 

for young recruits to make a monumental financial decision under the pressure of 

Basic Military Training when they are making very little money. Another option 

would be to allow them to enroll at any time during their first or subsequent enlistments. In the 108th Congress, H.R. 3041, which was introduced by House Veterans 

Affairs Committee Vice Chairman Congressman Michael Bilirakis, would have allowed individuals to make an election to participate in the MGIB at any time during 

the first 2 years of service. AFSA would strongly encourage the committee to incorporate this legislation as they look to revamp the benefit. 

Extend or Eliminate the Ten-Year Benefit Loss Clock. Once an MGIB enrollee separates or retires, they have 10 years to use their benefit or they lose any unused 

portion. Transitioning from a military career to civilian life requires a period of readjustment and satisfying survival needs—especially for enlisted members. These 

include relocation, job and house hunting, and family arrangements, just to name 

a few. For many, using their ‘‘earned’’ educational benefit (for which they paid 

26

$1,200), must be delayed a few years—or their education must be pursued piecemeal 

(e.g., a class at a time) due to conflicting work and family obligations. However, the 

benefit self-destruct clock is ticking as the government prepares to take the benefit 

away. We urge you to extend that 10-year clock to 20 years, or repeal the ‘‘benefitloss’’ provision altogether. The benefit program has been earned, the Federal computer program that tracks the MGIB usage is not earmarked to go away, and extending the 10–year benefit loss clock would have negligible cost implications. 

Provide ‘‘Portability’’ (Transferability) of MGIB to Family Members. ‘‘Critical 

skills’’ portability for family members was signed into law in the fiscal year 2002 

NDAA. To date, this powerful retention incentive has gone largely unused as only 

a very small percentage of personnel were ever provided this opportunity. Part of 

the problem is the service secretaries get to determine just what ‘‘critical’’ means. 

For example, in the Air Force, less than 500 personnel in a dozen career fields were 

provided this opportunity despite the fact that over 60 career fields were considered 

critical enough to require Selective Reenlistment Bonuses. The vast majority of 

MGIB enrollees, many of whom have been told their jobs are ‘‘critical,’’ find it unfair 

that they have not also been afforded this opportunity. As an issue of fairness, we 

urge that the portability feature be extended to all MGIB enrollees. 

Portability would be an important career incentive for the vast majority of military members and, if we are wise, a good retention tool across the board. For enlisted members, in particular, it could mean the ability to offer greater educational 

opportunities to their children. A career-promoting alternative would be to offer the 

option to transfer (at least a portion of) the benefit to family members once the individual has served 12 to 15 years. This would make the option available in time to 

help send their kids to college, and it would serve as an incentive to stay in the 

service. Please work to extend the ‘‘portability’’ option across the board to all military enrollees (enlisted ones in particular). 

MEDICAL CARE

The health care system administered by the Veterans Administration impacts, in 

one way or another, all of those who served. As reported, the Administration’s fiscal 

year 2007 budget proposal provides an 8 percent or $2.65 billion increase in discretionary funding for VA health care, which gives Congress a much better starting 

point in the appropriations process than in previous years. AFSA, like most military 

and veterans associations remain concerned that the requested levels of funding and 

the calculations utilized to arrive at these figures may not reflect the true needs of 

this department. We recommend the committee scrutinize the Administrations proposals closely so as to avoid previous It is critical that those fighting wars today 

receive care when needed, while at the same time, full funding is provided to cover 

past veterans. Recent practice is that in order to keep funding down we progressively redefine the categories of eligibility to exclude a portion of currently eligible 

veterans. 

Once again the Administration is proposing to increase prescription copayments 

and create an annual ‘‘enrollment fee’’ of $250 for almost two million Category 7 

and 8 veterans who do not have service-connected disabilities. The copayment would 

jump 88 percent—from $8 to $15—per 30-day supply, per prescription. AFSA feels 

these two proposals are unacceptable and urges Congress to reject it in similar fashion to last year’s proposed $250 ‘‘enrollment fee.’’ Our feeling is that such an enrollment fee should only be applied prospectively. Current veterans should not be 

charged a fee for access which earlier Congresses determined was not appropriate. 

One would have to wonder what the next Congress is going to add or eliminate as 

the policies relative to veterans health care change based on the changing economy 

and personal preferences and interpretations. Upon what can veterans depend when 

it comes to national provision of benefits and services? 

The fiscal year 2007 VA Budget should be sufficient to provide full health care 

and program needs for those who are currently defined as eligible for care. Funding 

should not be based on additional redefinitions of who is eligible and on a proposed 

institution of additional copayments and enrollment usage fees. 

I wish to briefly touch on some issues that have been reflected in the many letters 

and phone calls that AFSA has received from the field. As a general rule, we tend 

to hear most loudly (and frequently) from those who are not happy with the adjudication of their claims or the treatment they have received. I am not going to go 

into isolated problems, because anecdotal information is just that. Rather, I want 

to briefly touch on some specific health-related situations/conditions that we feel 

need to be addressed. 

Work Toward Mandatory Funding and Program Permanence. This association believes that the parameters of who will be served, what care will be provided, the 

27

facilities needed, and the full funding to accomplish those missions should be stabilized as mandatory obligations. If that were so, and Congress did not have to go 

through redefinition drills as economic philosophies change, the strength of the 

economy fluctuates, and the numbers of veterans increases or decreases—these committees and this Nation would not have to re-debate obligations and funding each 

year. We believe that these important programs should be beyond debate and should 

fall under mandatory rather than discretionary spending. 

Policy Consistency Needed. The pervading feeling among veterans is that the Administration’s approach to providing adequate service to an ever-growing number of 

veterans is to shrink the number of patients by excluding increasing classes of veterans. These veterans who are being excluded were expressly included in earlier 

congressional legislation. In other words, rather than funding for increased needs, 

the VA’s allowable clientele definition is changed by adding an increasing number 

of ‘‘Priority’’ groups, raising copays, and charging fees for use. The VA’s ‘‘temporary’’ 

moratorium on Priority Group 8 enrollment has now assumed a ‘‘permanent’’ status. 

Seek Proactive Cost-Saving Approaches. Provisions in the fiscal year 2005 budget 

proposal allowed the VA to pay for emergency room care at non-VA facilities. This 

proactive approach prevented delays in treating life-threatening conditions, thereby 

saving the lives of veterans who do not reside in close proximity to a VA medical 

facility. Periodically the VA has agreed to a change in policy and filled prescriptions 

written by non-VA providers under very specific circumstances. These are excellent 

examples of how the VA can enhance the care provided to veterans at a modest cost 

through using new approaches! 

Support VA Subvention. With more than 40 percent of veterans eligible for Medicare, VA-Medicare subvention is a very promising venture, and AFSA offers support 

for this effort. Under this plan, Medicare would reimburse the VA for care the VA 

provides to non-disabled Medicare-eligible veterans at VA medical facilities. This 

funding method would, no doubt, enhance some older veterans’ access to VA health 

care. The VA has an infra-structural network to handle this, and we anticipate the 

effort would be successful. This is an opportunity to ensure that those who served 

are not lumped in with all those who have not, and would, no doubt, save taxpayer 

dollars by potentially reducing an overlap in spending by Medicare and the VA for 

the same services. 

Support Judicious VA–DOD Sharing Arrangements. We believe the enlisted force 

would be pleased with judicious use of VA–DOD sharing arrangements involving 

network inclusion in the DOD health care program, especially when it includes consolidating physicals at the time of separation. This decision alone represents a good, 

common sense approach that should eliminate problems of inconsistency, saves 

time, and takes care of veterans in a timelier manner. In that sense, such initiatives 

will actually save funding dollars. AFSA supports testing such program but recommends that the committee closely monitor the collaboration process to ensure 

these sharing projects actually improve access and quality of care for eligible beneficiaries. DOD beneficiary participation in VA facilities must never endanger the 

scope or availability of care for traditional VA patients, nor should any VA–DOD 

sharing arrangement jeopardize access and/or treatment of DOD health services 

beneficiaries. VA and DOD each have a lengthy and comprehensive history of agreeing to work on such projects but have yet to follow-through on most of them. A 

memorandum of understanding to renew their commitment to joint ventures was recently signed by the two departments. With this committees urging, perhaps this 

latest effort won’t go by the wayside as past ‘‘restarts.’’

Support State Veterans Homes. One hundred and thirty-three state-run veterans’ 

homes, serve about 30,000 former servicemembers. These homes are a good Federal 

investment since the states provide funding for two-thirds of total operating costs. 

Funding reductions in this area could be devastating and would force the closure 

of several facilities. We urge the committees to take a close look at the required 

level of support to protect these important national assets. We urge these committees to provide full funding for state veterans homes—building on levels established 

in the past with inflation factored in. If changes are to be made in the future, they 

should be announced for future implementation and should be applied prospectively 

without harming those who have come to depend on these facilities. 

Care for Women Veterans. We applaud the actions of these committees in recent 

years to directly address the issue of the unique health challenges faced by women 

veterans. Between 1990 and 2000, the women veteran population increased by 33.3 

percent from 1.2 million to 1.6 million, and women now represent approximately 7 

percent of the total veteran population. By the year 2010, the VA estimates that 

women veterans will comprise well over 10 percent of the veteran population. Currently women make up 15 percent of the active duty force and approximately 23 

percent of the Reserve force. Many of these female veterans have served in more 

28

recent years. Tens of thousands of female troops have been serving, or have already 

returned from service in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the number of women veterans 

increases, the VA must be funded to increasingly provide the resources and legal 

authority to care for female-specific healthcare needs. 

GENERAL ISSUES

Speedier Claims Processing and Improved Accuracy. For many veterans association with the VA begins with the claims process. Two years ago, the Veterans Benefit Administration announced they had reached a steady state of 250,000 claims 

in progress but recent numbers reflect a number three times that. Not mentioned 

in the Administrations fiscal year 2007 budget plan was how this agency intends 

to address a claims backlog that currently exceeds more than 800,000 cases! 

The key to sustained improvements in claims processing rests primarily on adequate funding to attract and retain a high-quality workforce of claims workers who 

are supported by full investment in information management and technology. This 

agency is facing a mass exodus of experience once the baby-boomer generation retires from Federal service over the next 5 years. It’s becoming more and more apparent that this particular section of the agency needs additional funding consideration verses funding reductions to overcome this growing backlog. Additionally, 

proper training impacts the quality and consistency of claims decisions. An infusion 

of funding specifically for this purpose could save the agency millions, if not more 

as errors in processing claims and the subsequent appeals they generate are reduced. Much of the past success of this agency can be directly attributed to the 

funding and support of this committee. The time to take a closer look is long overdue. 

‘‘Seamless,’’ Transferable Medical Records. The record numbers of veterans being 

generated by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq underscore the importance of accelerating DOD and VA plans to seamlessly transfer medical information and records 

between the two Federal departments. A lifetime DOD-VA service medical record 

could help veterans obtain early, accurate, and fair VA disability ratings, save the 

Department of Veterans Affairs funding, and facilitate pre- and post-deployment research that could advance standards of care. Additional savings would be realized 

by preventing the ‘‘doubling’’ of diagnostic testing which currently occurs when VA 

runs similar testing (MRIs/X-rays, etc) to validate DOD findings. Common sense 

and cross flow of information between the DOD and VA systems could save taxpayers a great deal of money. With thousands of servicemembers retiring each year, 

this amount could easily total several billion dollars. Accepting service connected 

diagnosis’s made by DOD providers and their accompanying documentation would 

help resolve another problem that plagues VA by freeing up thousands of doctors 

and specialists thereby reducing the wait list times for specialized care. According 

to recent VA statistics about 50,000 veterans can presently be expected to wait more 

than 6 months for care its increases in demand and expected changes in the intensity of service delivery. 

At an Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing in November 2003, it 

was pointed out that the technology already exists to accomplish the goal of a seamless record. We urge this committee to assume an oversight role and facilitate implementation of this important document as quickly as possible. 

Legitimate, Sincere Veterans’ Preference. In recent years, Congress has taken steps 

toward making ‘‘Veterans’ Preference’’ a reality. We have seen commendable moves 

in this Administration involving the VA and the Department of Labor to enhance 

the job preferences available to veterans. We continue to urge these committees to 

support any improvement that will put ‘‘teeth’’ into such programs so that those who 

have served have a ‘‘leg up’’ when transitioning back into the civilian workforce. 

Support of Survivors. AFSA commends this committee for previous legislation 

which allowed retention of DIC, burial entitlements, and VA home loan eligibility 

for surviving spouses who remarry after age 57. However, we strongly recommend 

the age 57 DIC remarriage provision be reduced to age 55 to make it consistent with 

all other Federal survivor benefit programs. H.R. 1462 introduced by Rep. Bilirakis 

would make this important change in law. We also endorse the view that surviving 

spouses with military Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuities should be able to concurrently receive earned SBP benefits and DIC payments related to their sponsor’s 

service-connected death. We regret that the 109th Congress felt it was unable to address this issue as it finalized the fiscal year 2006 National Defense Authorization 

Act. 

Protect VA Disability Compensation. Despite being clearly stated in law, veterans’ 

disability compensation has become easy prey for former spouses and lawyers seeking money. This, despite the fact the law states that veterans’ benefits ‘‘shall not 

29

be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process, 

whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary.’’ Additional legislation is 

needed to enforce the probation against court-orders or state legislation that would 

award VA disability dollars to third parties in divorce settlements. 

Provide a Written Guarantee. Many veterans are frustrated and disappointed because existing programs they thought they could depend on have been altered or 

eliminated due to changing budget philosophies. That creates a perception among 

servicemembers and veterans that the covenant between the Nation and the military member is one-sided, with the military member/veteran always honoring his/

her obligation, and hoping that the government does not change the law or the benefits upon which they depend. We urge this committee to support a guarantee in 

writing of benefits to which veterans are legally entitled by virtue of their service. 

This would demonstrate that the government is prepared to be honest and consistent with its obligation to its servicemembers. 

Veterans Disability Benefits Commission. AFSA remains concerned about the intent of the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission set up as part of recent years’ 

concurrent receipt legislation. We are encouraged that various military and veterans’ associations and individual veterans have had the opportunity to provide 

input into the panel’s deliberations and hope that trend continues. Congress recently granted the panel an extension that carries its reporting date into the latter 

part of 2007. Until then, and understanding the budgetary constraints faced by this 

committee, we simply ask that the following items be included in deliberations on 

the impact of future decisions as they will apply to current veterans. 

Obviously, budgetary parameters/limitations must be set by sound fiscal decisions. 

However, one dynamic of changing the definition of those who are to be served by 

the Department of Veterans Affairs in the future is that these decisions can have 

a life-altering affect on current veterans and their families. Many have already 

made decisions to purchase housing near a VA facility and have made other financial and life-altering decisions based on earlier decisions and philosophies of governmental decisionmakers. 

Whereas this committee has made ‘‘access’’ decisions in the past (as to who would 

be eligible for full access to VA programs) based on the urging of veterans groups, 

the voters, their fellow Members of Congress, or simply fiscal restraints, the ultimate decisions was made by Congress. As such, once the congressional decisions are 

signed into law, it is understandable that veterans would have a reasonable expectation that the VA programs available today will be available on the same terms 

in the future. Accordingly, these veterans make/made life-affecting decisions based 

on their faith and trust in the United States government. 

It is also understandable that significantly redefining the system, adding user 

fees, significantly increasing costs for certain categories of veterans who are already 

using the system, etc., lead to further mistrust, frustration, and in some cases significant financial hardship. In that sense, this association urges that future funding 

decisions and the implementation of the decisions of the blue ribbon panel be applied prospectively. That is, current veterans should not be significantly affected by 

the periodic and aperiodic changing decisions of governmental bodies; citizens ought 

to be able to depend on standing governmental decisions. 

As the government changes its decisions from Congress to Congress, because the 

economy changes or there are now too many veterans, we would hope that the members of the applicable committees will consider the impact on current veterans and 

set timetables or effective dates for future applications of its decisions. For that reason, we cannot endorse annual user fees and significantly increased pharmaceutical 

costs for certain categories of veterans—except prospectively. That is, these congressional decisions should most properly apply to new veterans entering the system. 

While this may seem unfair to new veterans, we believe that is the way the law 

generally and properly has been applied for changes to the military retirement system and other major benefit reductions—the changed laws were applied in such a 

way that they would not negatively affect the financial and family security of those 

to which the current law applies. 

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I want to thank you again for this opportunity to 

express the views of our members on these important issues as you consider the fiscal year 2007 budget. We realize that those charged as caretakers of the taxpayers’ 

money must budget wisely and make decisions based on many factors. As tax dollars dwindle, the degree of difficulty deciding what can be addressed, and what cannot, grows significantly. However, AFSA contends that it is of paramount importance for a nation to provide quality health care and top-notch benefits in exchange 

for the devotion, sacrifice, and service of military members, particularly while the 

Nation remains at war. So too, must those making the decisions take into consideration the decisions of the past, the trust of those who are impacted, and the negaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:42 Jan 17, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\RD41451\DOCS\28132.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
30

tive consequences upon those who have based their trust in our government. We 

sincerely believe that the work done by this committee is among the most important 

on the Hill. On behalf of all AFSA members, we appreciate your efforts and, as always, are ready to support you in matters of mutual concern.

Chairman CRAIG. Morgan, thank you very much, and I appreciate your focusing on the Montgomery GI bill. You make some 

very solid proposals. Thank you. 

Now, let me turn to Colonel Robert Norton who is retired, and 

currently the deputy director of Government Relations, Military Officers Association of America. 

Robert. 

STATEMENT OF COLONEL ROBERT F. NORTON (RET.), U.S. 

ARMY; DEPUTY DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, MILITARY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. 

I am pleased to have this opportunity to appear before you today 

on behalf of the 360,000 members of the Military Officers Association. 

At the beginning, Mr. Chairman, I want to echo, as my colleagues did, our great appreciation to you, to Senator Akaka, and 

to the Committee for setting a new standard for engaging veterans’ 

issues in this Committee. We greatly appreciate it. We also want 

to thank you for the work that the Senate in particular did last 

year on the traumatic injury insurance rider to SGLI and on raising SGLI coverage levels. These are very important benefits to our 

wounded servicemembers and their families, and it is a great show 

of the support of Congress to these great young Americans. 

MOAA is pleased to see a significant increase in the medical 

services budget in the VA for fiscal year 2007. This is an important 

first step in matching resources to the rising demand for care. 

We continue to support the President’s task force recommendation that the VA health care system should be fully funded either 

by mandatory means or by any other means that will accomplish 

that objective. 

MOAA is opposed to the $250 user tax for certain enrolled veterans. Instead, to avoid another VA medical budget shortfall, we 

recommend a $795 million increase to the VA health care budget. 

Less than 1 percent of the American population is fighting to 

protect the Nation in the War on Terror, and those who have 

served should not have to pay for their access to VA care. 

MOAA recommends that the Committee and Congress continue 

to press VA and the Department of Defense to speed up seamless 

transition initiatives. 

When Army Captain Mark Giammatteo returned home from Iraq 

with serious wounds to his right leg, he underwent 30 surgeries at 

Walter Reed. On convalescent leave, he had problems with his surgery and attempted to check into the local VA facility. There, he 

was turned away. VA officials said they couldn’t treat him because 

he was on active duty. Captain Giammatteo’s story illustrates the 

personal dimension of the importance of getting seamless transition 

right, and our statement goes into greater detail on the recVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:42 Jan 17, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\RD41451\DOCS\28132.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
31

ommendations we feel need to be pressed in terms of seamless 

transition. 

Advances in medical treatment and casualty management have 

raised the survival rates for our wounded warriors to unprecedented levels, what the medical folks call the ‘‘golden hour.’’ MOAA 

leadership has seen firsthand the need for polytrauma center upgrade and expansion. The need is not adequately addressed, however, in the budget request. MOAA strongly urges the Committee 

to restore the proposed $627 million cut in VA health care construction and to increase medical research funding to $460 million. 

Turning now to benefits, MOAA strongly recommends the Committee endorse needed increases in full-time-equivalent positions, 

training, and technology upgrades, so that the long and costly 

delays in processing disability claims can be fixed. 

I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Akaka and the 

Committee, for holding a hearing on the 2nd of February concerning the 15 percent unemployment rate among young veterans. 

MOAA believes that stronger transition assistance programs are an 

important tool to help attack this problem, and we recommend that 

the Committee support expanding and tailoring TAP services for 

all of our veterans, including the Guard and Reserve. 

Another issue related to potential veteran unemployment is the 

Montgomery GI bill. National Guard and Reserve servicemen and 

women who have been mobilized earn Montgomery GI bill benefits 

during their active-duty service under chapter 1607 of title 10. 

However, when they complete their Reserve contracts, they forfeit 

those benefits, and they don’t get an opportunity to use them to 

gain the skills and education they need to be competitive in the 

workforce and to avoid unemployment. 

Let me illustrate. According to the Defense Department, there 

are 579 citizen soldiers from Idaho currently on active duty from 

units in Boise, Gowen Field, Lewiston, and Pocatello. These great 

young Americans are serving in the War on Terror, defending the 

rest of us. They earn Montgomery GI bill benefits which range 

from about $15,000 to $29,600, depending on the length of their 

call-up. When they return home to Lewiston and Pocatello and 

someday complete their service commitment, they must forfeit 

every penny of those benefits unless they stay in the Guard and 

Reserve. That is not right, Mr. Chairman, and it must be fixed. 

Along with my colleagues, we recommend that the Montgomery 

GI bill be restructured so that a basic principle is underwritten, 

namely that service in the Armed Forces should be matched by appropriate benefits, including the Montgomery GI bill. So we also 

recommend that the title 10 Reserve programs be transferred to 

Title 38 and that a readjustment benefit be authorized for men and 

women who serve on active duty from the Guard and Reserve, so 

that they can take their benefits with them when they complete 

their service, avoid unemployment, and enable this great Nation of 

ours to be competitive in the marketplace. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to testify, 

and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Norton follows:]

32

PREPARED STATEMENT OF COLONEL ROBERT F. NORTON (RET.), U.S. ARMY; DEPUTY

DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, MILITARY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee, on behalf of the 

360,000 members of the Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), I am honored to have this opportunity to present the Association’s legislative agenda for veterans health care and benefits programs. 

MOAA does not receive any grants or contracts from the Federal Government. 

VETERANS HEALTH CARE

Health Funding Overview 

MOAA is grateful to Congress for addressing a woefully inadequate VA health 

care budget for the past (fiscal year 2005) and current fiscal year, fiscal year 2006. 

Since 9/11, we have been particularly concerned that VA demand projections have 

not properly accounted for the increased number of veterans from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts (OIF/OEF). In accordance with VA’s 2-year ‘‘open door’’ policy, 

more than 525,000 Guard and Reserve veterans are now eligible for VA care, in addition to the active duty veteran population. VA data show that greater numbers 

of active duty veterans than Guard/Reserve veterans are enrolled in the VA, but 

Guard-Reserve usage is higher. The GAO recently confirmed that the VA’s demand 

model is inadequate for estimating projected costs for the VA health care system. 

MOAA fully supports reforming the VA’s enrollment projection model used to justify the VA health care budget and strongly endorses the President’s Task Force recommendation that the VA health care system should be fully funded by mandatory 

spending or by some other means that will ensure the full-funding objective is met. 

The fiscal year 2007 VA Medical Care Budget includes $31.5 billion in discretionary appropriations and $2.8 billion in increased collections for a total of $34.3 

billion for VA medical care. The budget request recognizes the need to provide timely care to those who have served the Nation in uniform and is in range of the budget estimate set forth in the Veterans Independent Budget for fiscal year 2007, which 

MOAA endorses. Included in the spending plan is an estimated $795 million in collections that would come directly out of veterans’ pockets, not the Federal treasury. 

MOAA recommends that Congress provide $33 billion for veterans’ health care, 

an increase of $4.2 billion over the fiscal year 2006 appropriation, and approximately $1.5 billion over the administration’s fiscal year 2007 budget request, without collections. 

Usage Fees and Drug Copays 

MOAA is surprised and disappointed to note that after twice being rejected by 

Congress, the Administration is again seeking enactment of a $250 usage fee for 2.3 

million Priority Group 7 & 8 enrolled veterans. 

The Administration is also reviving its proposal to increase pharmacy copayments 

from $8 to $15 for these veterans. The fees would generate revenue of $251 million 

in fiscal year 2007. 

What’s wrong with this picture? First, under the VA’s 2–year open door policy for 

OIF / veterans, many thousands of veterans are completing their ‘‘trial’’ enrollment 

and, if they have not been determined to have a service-connected disability, are 

being assigned to PG–7 or 8 depending on income levels. We must ask if it is right 

that a Nation that sent these veterans into harm’s way in the War on Terror should 

now charge them a fee for their VA care? Second, the proposals fail to consider the 

lost revenue from PG 7 and 8 veterans who may have other health insurance (OHI). 

Third, attempts to correlate the fees with TRICARE Prime fees are fallacious: the 

VA is not a health insurance system with managed care standards. TRICARE Prime 

is a managed care (HMO) component of the military health system. TRICARE 

Prime fees are optional for those who choose this coverage over TRICARE Standard. 

Participants pay modest annual fees in order to obtain assured access to TRICARE 

providers under established access standards. The fees the Administration seeks 

bring no reciprocal benefit in terms of access to care in a timely manner. Their only 

purpose is to depress demand and save money by driving veterans away. 

MOAA is opposed to VA usage fees and higher drug copays. During this long and 

difficult war on terror, Congress would send the wrong signal to the Nation’s warriors and future veterans by endorsing usage fees for VA health care. 

Medical and Prosthetic Research 

The budget request shows a $17 million increase in the research budget above the 

2006 level. Additionally, the VA indicates that OIF/OEF research is a high priority 

and special research is being done concerning PTSD, traumatic brain injury, prostheses and injuries associated with blast injuries. However, we are concerned that 

33

the $17M increase appears to be due only to funds from other Federal and non-Federal resources that may or may not actually be available. 

MOAA strongly urges Congress to ensure a funding level of $460 million for medical research—including traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, prosthetic devices, and burn therapies. 

Polytrauma Centers Funding 

Advances in medical treatment and casualty management during the ‘‘golden 

hour’’ have raised the survival rates for our wounded warriors to unprecedented levels. But, unfortunately, the injuries often are much more severe and may involve 

multiple systems intervention and rehabilitation in highly advanced polytrauma 

centers. The VA has four such polytrauma centers throughout the United States and 

the DOD is planning to establish three more. Senior MOAA leaders have been privileged to visit some of these facilities. We have seen first hand the need for facility 

modification and expansion in order to keep up with demand and enable the most 

efficient use of modern technology. But the need is not adequately addressed in the 

budget request, which proposes a $627 million cut in minor and major construction 

dollars. 

MOAA strongly urges the Committee to reverse the $627 million cut in construction allocations and restore construction funding required for needed upgrades to 

VA polytrauma centers and for other critical construction needs. 

Seamless Transition Road Map 

MOAA appreciates the leadership of the Committee in keeping up the pressure 

on the VA and DOD to accelerate accomplishment of ‘‘seamless transition’’ policies, 

procedures, and supporting objectives for our Nation’s service men and women and 

their families. 

What is seamless transition? In its 2003 report, the President’s Task Force on 

DOD–VA health care collaboration outlined the following objectives: 

• Single separation physical: ‘‘The Departments [of Defense and Veterans Affairs] 

should implement by fiscal year 2005 a mandatory single separation physical as a 

prerequisite of promptly completing the military separation process.’’

• Electronic Medical records: ‘‘VA and DOD should develop and deploy by fiscal 

year 2005 electronic medical records that are interoperable, bi-directional, and 

standards based.’’

• Privacy: ‘‘The Administration should direct the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) to declare the two Departments to be a single health care 

system for the purposes of implementing HIPAA regulations.’’

• Occupational and Hazard Exposure Data: ‘‘VA and DOD should expand their 

collaboration in order to identify, collect, and maintain the specific data needed by 

both Departments to recognize, treat, and prevent illness and injury resulting from 

occupational exposures and hazards experienced while serving in the Armed Forces; 

and to conduct epidemiological studies to understand the consequences of such 

events.’’

• Joint Health Surveillance and Reporting: ‘‘The Departments [of Defense and 

Veterans Affairs] should: (1) add an ex officio member from VA to the Armed Forces 

Epidemiological Board and to the DOD Safety and Occupational Health Committee; 

(2) implement continuous health surveillance and research programs to identify the 

long-term health consequences of military service in high-risk occupations, settings, 

or events; and (3) jointly issue and annual report on Force Health Protection, and 

make it available to the public.’’

The record of accomplishment on these goals is mixed, though there is some 

progress. We offer the following observations on policy, procedures, and technologies 

supporting seamless transition objectives: 

• Transparency in oversight and policy coordination. MOAA commends Congress 

for enacting legislation that established a formal coordination process between the 

Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs. The DOD-VA Joint Executive Council 

(JEC) and its subordinate Benefits Executive Council (BEC) and Health Care Executive Council (HEC) have the potential to spearhead greater progress on seamless 

transition initiatives. 

MOAA recommends greater transparency and oversight of the DOD-VA Joint Executive Council activities. 

• Electronic Medical Records. The VA has fielded a standard-setting electronic 

medical records system for its hospital facilities and outpatient clinic networks. 

Known as VISTA, the VA system has received high marks in the medical community and is being adopted by a growing number of civilian provider networks. DOD 

is now fielding a military electronic medical records system called AHLTA. AHLTA 

34

is expected to be on line this year. The question, however, is whether VISTA and 

AHLTA can ‘‘talk to each other.’’

MOAA continues to strongly urge accelerated development of bi-directional, interoperable standards-based electronic medical records between DOD and the VA. 

• Medical Evaluation Board (MEB)/Physical Evaluation Board (PEB). 

MEBs are conducted to determine suitability for continued service following an injury, wound, or illness. MEBs follow a ‘‘period of observation’’ or ‘‘time to heal’’ for 

ill or injured service men and women. MEBs average 121 days, but can vary considerably depending on the medical condition and healing process. For example, Army 

MEBs currently take 67 days to complete. The PEB is charged with making personnel decisions based on the input from the MEB. DOD requires a PEB in peacetime to be completed within 40 days following an MEB. The average PEB completion time since OIF and OEF is 87–280 days. Taken together, the convalescence, 

MEB and PEB processes appear to average between nine and fifteen and a half 

months for Army soldiers. 

MOAA has recommended that the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission evaluate MEB–PEB policy and procedures to ensure fair treatment among the Services 

including members of the Guard and Reserve. 

• Single Separation Physical. MOAA remains concerned about known gaps in implementing a single separation physical. Some time ago, DOD and VA announced 

an agreement on a single separation physical protocol. Yet, at key medical treatment facilities like the Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the National Naval 

Medical Center neither facility has implemented a single, systematic process for a 

separation physical under a joint DOD-VA protocol. That being the case at the Army 

and Navy’s premier medical facilities, it’s unlikely that a single separation physical 

has been implemented elsewhere. 

MOAA continues to urges support for accelerated development of a single separation physical. 

• Seriously Wounded Transition Program. DOD and VA have made commendable 

progress in coordinating services for injured and ill servicemembers. DOD has established a joint center to oversee care and services for injured and ill OIF and OEF 

servicemembers. The VA has assigned caseworkers to major military medical facilities that are providing care and rehabilitation services to severely injured or ill 

troops. Last year, the GAO recommended improving information sharing between 

DOD and VA on seriously injured service men and women (Vocational Rehabilitation; More VA and DOD Collaboration Needed to Expedite Services for Seriously Injured Service Members (January 2005). 

MOAA recommends continued emphasis on improving the coordination of care 

and information sharing between DOD–VA for seriously wounded servicemembers. 

Expansion of Mental Health Services 

Recent studies project that 1 out of 6 servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan will need care for PTSD and other mental health conditions. The budget 

request increases funding for mental health services from $2.8 billion to $3.2 billion. 

We are pleased that the VHA Mental Health Strategic Plan Workgroup is developing a 5-year strategic plan to eliminate deficiencies and gaps in the availability 

and adequacy of mental health services. 

Retired Military Veterans Access to Earned DOD–VA Health Care Benefits 

Veterans who complete a full career in the Armed Forces earn lifetime entitlement to health care benefits in the Department of Defense TRICARE system, and 

eligibility for VA health care services. 

• About one out of eight enrolled veterans is a dual-eligible veteran. 

• One out of ten users (‘‘unique patients’’) of VA care is a dual-eligible veteran. 

• Enrollment of military retired veterans has increased by a little over one-third 

since June 2000 when VA began tracking the data (600,870 retired veteran enrollees 

to 970,549 as of Sept. 2005).

35

The more severe a disability, the more likely it is that a veteran would seek VA 

care: 

• 77 percent of dual-eligibles with disabilities rated at 50 percent or greater (PG–

1) used VA care last year. 

• 54 percent of dual-eligibles with disabilities rated 40–50 percent (PG–2) used 

VA care last year down. 

• 44 percent of dual-eligibles with disabilities rated 10–30 percent (PG–3) used 

VA care last year down. 

• By contrast, only 26 percent of PG–8 retired veterans used VA care last year 

down from 29 percent in 2004. 

In 2005, 53 percent of enrolled military retired veterans used VA health care in 

some way. 

Because many enrolled retired veterans have serious disabilities, it is imperative 

that they have assured access to the VA’s spectrum of health care services including 

its well-regarded specialty care capabilities. 

As we have noted in past testimony, military retired veterans often prefer to obtain their routine health care locally from the TRICARE network, but are willing 

to travel some distance to have access to VA specialty care services. 


28132.001
36

MOAA appreciates Congress’ continued support in opposing ‘‘forced choice’’ proposals that would compel dual-eligible veterans to relinquish access to earned DOD 

or VA health care services. 

Capital Assets for Enhanced Services (CARES) 

MOAA and other military and veterans organizations have noted that the CARES 

planning process does not include planning for mental health services and long-term 

care. MOAA continues to urge inclusion of mental health care and long term care 

services in ongoing facilities decisions resulting from the CARES process. 

VETERANS BENEFITS

Overview. The 2007 VA Budget Request includes $42.1 billion for entitlement 

costs associated with benefits administered by the Veterans Benefits Administration 

(VBA). The total includes an additional $4 billion for disability compensation for veterans and their survivors for disabilities or diseases incurred or aggravated in military service. 

Disability Claims: Quality and Process Improvements Needed 

The workload and complexity of VA disability claims continues to increase. The 

VA projects over 900,000 claims this year. The estimate includes almost 100,000 

claims from ‘‘special outreach’’ programs mandated by Congress last year. Disability 

claims processing time rose to 167 days on average in 2005. The VA’s performance 

goal for claims processing is 100 days. In addition to increased workload, a continuing challenge is replacing retiring claims workers with highly trained individuals and providing them with the tools, policies and procedures to improve the quality and timeliness of production. The VA ‘‘tiger team’’ model, which is used to adjudicate claims of WWII and other older veterans, should be used throughout the system. Additional investment in training, full time positions, and technology also will 

be needed to reach sustainable quality and timeliness goals. 

MOAA continues to urge additional claims-workers, technology upgrades, and 

training to reach and sustain the VA’s original strategic performance goal of 100 

days on average per VA claim. 

Seamless Transition—TAP/DTAP Programs and Related Issues. MOAA appreciates that this Committee held a hearing on 2 February 2006 to examine the issue 

of rising unemployment among veterans recently separated from military service. 

The rate of unemployment among veterans aged 20–24 is 15 percent, almost double 

that for non-veterans (8 percent unemployment). Since 2001 the active Armed 

Forces have separated an average of 200,000 service men and women each year. In 

addition, the call-up of more than 525,000 Guard and Reserve service men and 

women since 9/11 has increased the demand on transition assistance programs 

(TAP). MOAA believes there is a link between strong military TAP programs and 

the goal of reducing unemployment among young veterans. 

A GAO report issued last year stated that TAP resources have been ‘‘flat since 

fiscal year 1995’’ and that DOD’s budget has not taken into account the needs of 

separating veterans from the National Guard and Reserve. 

MOAA recommends that the Committee support policy and funding initiatives to: 

• Enable TAP services to be delivered in local communities for separating Guard 

and Reserve veterans. 

• Expand VA outreach to provide ‘‘benefits delivery at discharge’’ services in local 

settings convenient to de-mobilizing Guard and Reserve veterans. 

MOAA urges the Committee to support seamless transition initiatives that underwrite TAP/DTAP programs in order to reduce the potential of unemployment and 

homelessness among veterans of the war on terror. 

Total Force Montgomery GI Bill 

Congress intended that the all-volunteer force Montgomery GI Bill would support 

DOD recruitment and retention programs, enable a smoother readjustment to civilian life, and enhance the Nation’s competitiveness. 

But these goals are not being fully realized especially for mobilized members of 

the National Guard and Reserve forces. Ongoing challenges include: 

• Delayed implementation of MGIB benefits for mobilized reservists authorized 

under Chapter 1607 of Title 10 USC. Only a handful of educational benefits claims 

have been processed—and these, manually—for the more than 525,000 Guard and 

Reserve troops who have served on active duty under contingency operation orders 

since 9/11. 

• Lack of a readjustment benefit for mobilized reservists. After serving the Nation 

on active duty in the war on terror and successfully completing a Guard or reserve 

service commitment, reservists are not authorized any readjustment benefit. They 

37

must leave behind remaining MGIB benefits upon separation unless the separation 

is for disability. 

• Benefit disparities. For the first 15 years of the MGIB, benefits earned by individuals who initially joined the Guard or Reserve paid 47 cents to the dollar for active duty MGIB participants. Since 9/11, however, the ratio has dropped to 29 cents 

to the dollar. 

• Administrative difficulties. DOD and VA officials report enormous challenges in 

de-conflicting and coordinating the oversight and management of MGIB programs. 

Policy and procedural challenges are compounded by outmoded information management and information technology support for the MGIB. 

The Total Force MGIB for the 21st Century 

The Total Force MGIB has two broad concepts. First, all active duty and reserve 

MGIB programs would be organized under Title 38. (The responsibility for cash bonuses, MGIB ‘‘kickers’’, and other enlistment/re-enlistment incentives would remain 

with the Department of Defense under Title 10). Second, MGIB benefit levels would 

be structured according to the level of military service performed. 

The Total Force MGIB would restructure MGIB benefit rates as follows: 

• Tier one—Chapter 30, Title 38—no change. Individuals who enter the active 

Armed Forces would earn MGIB entitlement unless they decline enrollment. 

• Tier two—Chapter 1606, Title 10: MGIB benefits for initial entry into the 

Guard or Reserve. Chapter 1606 would transfer to Title 38. No other change is envisioned at this time. In the future, the Committee should consider adjusting benefit 

rates in proportion to the active duty program. Historically, Selected Reserve benefits have been 47–48 percent of active duty benefits. 

• Tier three—Chapter 1607, Title 10, amended—MGIB benefits for mobilized 

members of the Guard / Reserve on ‘‘contingency operation’’ orders. Chapter 1607 

would transfer to Title 38 and be amended. Mobilized servicemembers would receive 

1 month of ‘‘tier one’’ benefits (currently, $1034 per month) for each month of activation after 90 days active duty, up to a maximum of 36 months for multiple call-ups. 

A servicemember would have up to 10 years to use remaining entitlement under 

Tier One or Tier Three programs upon separation or retirement. A Selected Reservist could use remaining Second Tier MGIB benefits only while continuing to serve 

satisfactorily in the Selected Reserve. Reservists who qualify for a reserve retirement or are separated/retired for disability would have 10 years following separation to use all earned MGIB benefits. In accordance with current law, in cases of 

multiple benefit eligibility, only one benefit may be used at one time, and total 

usage eligibility extends to no more than 48 months. 

MOAA strongly supports enactment of a ‘‘Total Force Montgomery GI Bill’’. 

OTHER EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS ISSUES

Benchmarking MGIB Rates to the Average Cost of Education. Department of Education data for the 2005–2006 academic year show the MGIB reimbursement rate 

for full-time study covers 61 percent of the cost at the average public 4-year college 

or university. MOAA recommends the Committee increase MGIB benefit rates to 

keep pace with the average cost of education at a 4-year public college or university. 

Enrollment Option for Career Servicemembers who Declined ‘‘VEAP’’. Approximately 50,000 career servicemembers who continue to serve on active duty declined 

to enroll in the precursor to the MGIB known as ‘‘VEAP’’, the Post-Vietnam Era 

Veterans Education Assistance Program (Chapter 32, Title 38). Many declined 

VEAP on the advice of military counselors. They were told that they would do better 

to invest the VEAP enrollment fee of $2700 and wait to enroll in the coming Montgomery GI Bill. MOAA supports enactment of H.R. 269. 

Transferability of Benefits. About two-thirds of today’s force is married. Many reenlistment decisions are based on family needs. MOAA supports enactment of legislation to permit a servicemember to transfer up to one-half of remaining MGIB–AD 

entitlement to immediate family members in exchange for a career commitment 

(e.g., those who commit to serve at least 14 years normally will later complete 20 

or more years service). 

MGIB Eligibility for Certain Officers. Under current law, officers commissioned 

from a Service Academy or Senior ROTC scholarship program are ineligible for the 

MGIB. Most officers today are required to obtain advanced degrees for future assignments and promotion competitiveness. But Service tuition assistance programs 

are limited to a discrete number of designated specialties. MOAA recommends the 

Committee consider establishment of MGIB entitlement for officers commissioned 

from a Service Academy or Senior ROTC Scholarship program in exchange for extension of their active duty service commitment. 

38

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) 

MOAA is grateful to Congress for enacting legislation that requires the posting 

of USERRA rights and responsibilities in the workplace. 

We are also grateful for Veterans Affairs Committees’ past support in urging that 

the Department of Labor issue implementing regulations and guidance for the 

USERRA. The new USERRA rule explains the law using a ‘‘question and answer’’ 

format that is clear and understandable. 

Other adjustments to the USERRA are still needed, however. It is our understanding that mobilized reservists are treated as ‘‘severed employees’’ with respect 

to their employer-based retirement plans such as 401k or 403b programs. Consequently, they are not authorized to contribute to retirement plans during the period of activation. Although employers must match any 401k contributions that 

would have been made during the absence upon the return to the workplace, the 

reservist is prohibited from making personal contributions during the period of 

lengthy active duty. MOAA recommends the Committee endorse a change to the 

USERRA that would permit optional contributions to reservists’ 401k plans during 

a call-up. 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) 

MOAA has heard from active duty service families regarding tax problems that 

arise from changing duty stations. States of residence often treat military spouses 

differently than their sponsors with respect to the tax code and on matters such as 

the joint registration of vehicles at the new duty station. MOAA supports a review 

of these type issues with the goal of providing fair tax treatment of military families 

who are compelled to make frequent relocations. 

Arlington National Cemetery Interment Rules 

On multiple occasions since 1998 the House of Representatives by unanimous or 

near-unanimous vote favorably reported legislation that would codify the rules governing interment in our Nation’s most hallowed ground for its military heroes. In 

addition, this Committee has previously endorsed legislation that would authorize 

burial in ANC for reservists on inactive duty and for retired reservists eligible to 

retire but not yet 60 years of age. 

The most recent House-passed legislation would authorize an in-ground burial to: 

• Members of the Armed Forces who die on active duty. 

• Retired members of the Armed Forces, including Reservists who served on active duty. 

• Former members of the Armed Forces who have been awarded the Medal of 

Honor. Distinguished Service Cross, Air Force Cross, or Navy Cross, Distinguished 

Service Medal, Silver Star, or Purple Heart. 

• Former prisoners of war. 

• Members of the National Guard/Reserve who served on active duty and are eligible for retirement, but who have not yet retired. 

• Members of the National Guard/Reserve who die in the performance of inactive 

duty training. 

• The President or any former President. 

• The spouse, surviving spouse, minor child and at the discretion of the Superintendent of Arlington, unmarried adult children of the above categories. 

MOAA understands that many Members of the Senate support codification of 

these rules, but also want to maintain longstanding tradition and practice of considering certain exceptions in the case of individuals who have made extraordinary 

contributions to the Nation. 

MOAA continues to recommend codification of the rules governing interment in 

Arlington National Cemetery. 

Presumption of Service Connection for Hepatitis-C Infection 

Medical research has established that there is a significantly higher rate of Hepatitis-C (HCV) infection among veterans than in the general population. 

Before development of a reliable HCV screening test in the early 1990s, many 

thousands of servicemembers were exposed to HCV through air-gun inoculations, 

surgery, other medical procedures, and battlefield exposure. Accordingly, it is reasonable to presume service-connection for servicemembers exposed to the HCV virus 

prior to development of definitive screening tools. 

MOAA recommends legislation adding presumption of service connection for Hepatitis-C in servicemembers determined to have been exposed to this disease prior 

to development of definitive screening protocols in 1992. 

39

Survivors Issues 

MOAA is extremely grateful to the Committee and Congress for passage of legislation last year to raise Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) to $400K, enact 

a Traumatic Injury Insurance rider to SGLI, and affirm the ‘‘24–7’’ principle for 

service-connected disabilities. 

SBP–DIC Offset. MOAA was extremely disappointed that House and Senate conferees failed to make at least some progress in the fiscal year 2006 Defense Authorization Act to ease the unfair law that reduces military Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) 

annuities by the amount of any survivor benefits payable from the VA Dependency 

and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) program. 

Under current law, the surviving spouse of a retired member who dies of a service-connected cause is entitled to DIC from the Department of Veterans Affairs. If 

the military retiree was also enrolled in SBP, the surviving spouse’s SBP benefits 

are reduced by the amount of DIC (about $1,000 per month). A pro-rated share of 

SBP premiums is refunded to the widow upon the member’s death in a lump sum, 

but with no interest. The offset also affects all survivors of members who are killed 

on active duty. There are approximately 60,000 military widows/widowers affected 

by the DIC offset. 

MOAA believes SBP and DIC payments are paid for different reasons. SBP is purchased by the retiree and is intended to provide a portion of retired pay to the survivor. DIC is a special indemnity compensation paid to the survivor when a member’s service causes premature death. In such cases, the VA indemnity compensation 

should be added to the SBP the retiree paid for, not substituted for it. It’s also noteworthy as a matter of equity that surviving spouses of Federal civilian retirees who 

are disabled veterans and die of military-service-connected causes can receive DIC 

without losing any of their purchased Federal civilian SBP benefits. 

In the case of members killed on active duty, a surviving spouse with children 

can avoid the dollar-for-dollar offset only by assigning SBP to the children. But that 

forces the spouse to give up any SBP claim after the children attain their majority—

leaving the spouse with only a $1,000 monthly annuity from the VA. 

MOAA notes that most large city fire departments continue 100 percent of pay 

for survivors of firefighters killed in the line of duty, in addition to far larger lump 

sum payments than military members’ survivors receive. Military members whose 

service costs them their lives deserve fairer compensation for their surviving 

spouses. 

MOAA strongly supports legislation to repeal the SBP-DIC offset introduced by 

Sen. Nelson (D–FL) (S. 185). 

Retain DIC on Remarriage at Age 55. Legislation was enacted in 2003 to allow 

eligible military survivors to retain Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) 

upon remarriage after age 57. At the time, Congressional staff advised that age–

57 was selected only because there were insufficient funds to authorize age–55 retention of DIC upon remarriage. MOAA’s goal remains age 55 retention of DIC upon 

remarriage in order to bring this benefit in line with rules for the military SBP program and all other Federal survivor benefit programs. 

CONCLUSION

The Military Officers Association of America greatly appreciates the opportunity 

to present the Association’s legislative priorities on veterans’ health care and benefits issues for the second session of the 109th Congress.

Chairman CRAIG. Well, thank you very much. 

Now let’s turn to Rose Lee, chairman, Legislative Committee, 

Gold Star Wives of America. She is accompanied by Edith Smith, 

member, Legislative Committee, Gold Star Wives. 

Please proceed, Rose. 

STATEMENT OF ROSE ELIZABETH LEE, CHAIRMAN, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, GOLD STAR WIVES OF AMERICA, INC.;

ACCOMPANIED BY EDITH SMITH, MEMBER, LEGISLATIVE 

COMMITTEE, GOLD STAR WIVES OF AMERICA, INC. 

Ms. LEE. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you, and thank you for the opportunity to testify before you 

today on behalf of Gold Star Wives. 

40

In the audience, by the way, are a few Gold Star Wives members, 

I must add. 

Gold Star Wives was founded in 1945 and is a Congressionally 

chartered service organization comprised of surviving spouses of 

military servicemembers. We are the widows of those who died 

while on active duty or as a result of a service-connected disability. 

I will present to you the collective goals of the Gold Star Wives 

with the hope that they will alert you to certain discrepancies and 

inefficiencies that you may be able to alleviate in your deliberations 

this year. 

I want to thank the Members of this Committee and the staff for 

your continued support of programs that directly support the wellbeing of our servicemembers’ widows and their families. 

Too often, we feel that survivors, widows, and orphans, if you 

will, are overlooked. They shouldn’t be. A couple of years ago, I 

took this snapshot of the VA’s mission statement that is on the 

wall of the VA building. It is Lincoln’s statement, and it reads: ‘‘To 

care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and 

his orphan.’’

Last month, I attended the VA’s budget briefing, and at this 

briefing, I was glad to hear them say that they had convinced OMB 

and got the budget increase requested for 2007. 

What bothered me is that nowhere in this briefing handout did 

the words ‘‘survivors’’ or ‘‘widows’’ and ‘‘orphans’’ appear. We seem 

to get lost in the shuffle. We hope that these oversights will be corrected and we are not forgotten. 

If there is one message I could leave with you today, it is that 

there is never enough good communication. The casualty assistance 

calls officers have a difficult mission in a difficult time, but they 

don’t always know about the benefits and entitlements managed by 

the VA or the DOD. 

Gold Star Wives sponsors a chatroom for new widows following 

9/11. New widows joined this chatroom and asked questions about 

benefits. Our widows do need our help. 

We need to examine the coordinating process between agencies 

more closely and work hard to prevent these widows and their children from encountering gaps in identifying benefits. 

The VA and DOD have cohosted meetings that focus on improving outreach to surviving family members. Thanks to you, Mr. 

Chairman, VA has created a survivors Web site that offers communications channels for all service widows and widowers. We participate in this outreach and applaud these efforts. However, often 

widows still do not even know where to turn simply to identify 

their benefits. 

Periodically, by the way, thanks to your chief of staff, Ms. Lupe 

Wissel, I sent e-mails to the chatroom to remind them of the survivor Web site. I also frequently provide them with contact information on the Military Services Headquarters Casualty Assistance 

offices. However, to enhance these efforts, Gold Star Wives asks 

your serious consideration of creating an oversight office for survivors across the VA and DOD to assure improved delivery of benefit information and benefits to survivors. 

41

Despite valiant efforts over the past year, the dollar-for-dollar 

offset of survivor benefit plans—that is the SBP—annuity payments from the VA’s DIC was not eliminated. 

To illustrate the bad publicity that this issue is getting, the New 

York Times op-ed published an article by Attorney Dan Shea on 

February 13, 2006, just last month, in which he wrote: ‘‘My brother 

LTC Kevin Shea was killed by a rocket attack in Falluja on September 14, 2004.’’ Dan Shea went on to describe the problem which 

prevents his brother’s wife to receive both SBP and DIC without 

offset. We do recognize you must act with your colleagues on the 

Committee on Armed Services on this issue. We thank Senator Bill 

Nelson for introducing S. 185 to eliminate the offset and encourage 

Congress to provide this real relief for our military surviving 

spouses. 

Current law provides for remarriage at age 57 to retain VA benefits. For those who remarried before the law was enacted, there 

was a 1-year period to apply for reinstatement. Lowering the age 

to 55 would bring this benefit in line with rules for SBP and other 

Federal survivors programs and open up the reinstatement period 

with renewed outreach efforts to make survivors aware of their eligibility. 

There are inequities for the child survivor that needs immediate attention. The additional monthly $250 child DIC payment per 

family only applies to survivors of deaths after January 1, 2005. 

This should be made retroactive to October 7, 2001. It makes no 

sense that the survivors of those who died first should be prohibited from accessing a benefit given to survivors of those who died 

later in the same war. 

The program evaluation of benefit study recommended that sur- viving spouses with dependent children receive the $250 for 5 years 

instead of 2 years that this has currently provided, and that 

amount should be indexed for inflation to avoid a devaluation of 

the benefit. 

Unfortunately, those recommendations were ignored. The $250 

child DIC is the only DIC benefit that doesn’t receive the cost-ofliving adjustment. We request that the Committee work on this 

until it is given the rightful COLA. 

CHAMPVA currently does not carry with it a dental plan. In 

order to increase beneficiaries’ access to dental care at a reasonable 

cost, Gold Star Wives seek the widows and all CHAMPVA beneficiaries the ability to purchase a volunteer dental insurance plan 

similar to the TRICARE program for military service retirees’ dental care. Gold Star Wives recommend Congress fix this and provide 

a dental plan for CHAMPVA beneficiaries. 

We request Congress to review how the DIC rate is established, 

which is currently a flat rate of $1,033. The SBP is calculated at 

55 percent of retired pay, as if the member had retired for total disability on the date of death. We recommend that the DIC be calculated in a similar manner at 55 percent of the disabled veteran’s 

100 percent disability compensation. We recognize that there are 

complexities in this, depending on rank of the deceased and on date 

of death, but we do believe this would help alleviate growing financial difficulties of widows from wars prior to this conflict who are 

receiving only DIC. 

42

In conclusion, we do not want our widows to be forgotten, whether they are experiencing their losses in the global war on terror or 

over the past 5 years, or whether they are members of the so-called 

‘‘greatest generation’’ and experienced their loss many years ago 

during World War II. 

I thank this Committee for using this hearing as one more avenue of awareness and education and for giving me an opportunity 

to share my thoughts and the goals of Gold Star Wives. 

We will be happy to work with the Committee on any of these 

initiatives. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lee follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROSE ELIZABETH LEE, CHAIR, LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE, GOLD STAR WIVES OF AMERICA, INC. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Akaka and Members of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on 

behalf of all Gold Star Wives regarding the importance of addressing critical services for America’s military widows and their children. 

My name is Rose Lee. I am a widow and I am here before you as the Chair of 

the Gold Star Wives (GSW) Committee on Legislation. I am also currently President 

of the Potomac Area Chapter. In the past, I have held the positions of National 

President and Chair, Board of Directors for GSW. For many years now I have been 

working to achieve the overall goals of the Gold Star Wives, and more specifically 

to assist our young, new widows, one by one, wind their way through the maze that 

lies before them with first notification of the death of their loved one. 

The Gold Star Wives of America, Inc. was founded in 1945 and is a Congressionally chartered service organization comprised of surviving spouses of military 

servicemembers who died while on active duty or as a result of a service-connected 

disability. We could begin with no better advocate than Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, 

newly widowed, who helped make GSW a truly national organization. Mrs. Roosevelt was an original signer of our Certificate of Incorporation as a member of the 

Board of Directors. Many of our current membership of over 10,000 are the widows 

of servicemembers who were killed in combat during World War II, the Korean War, 

the Vietnam War and the more recent wars including the one we are currently in, 

the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). 

In my testimony I will respond to your request for our legislative views on the 

past year, an assessment of the present, and a look ahead into 2008. In doing so, 

I will present to you the collective goals of the Gold Star Wives with the hopes that 

they will alert you to certain discrepancies and inefficiencies that you may be able 

to alleviate in your deliberations this year. 

I do want to thank the Members of this Committee and the staff for your continued support of programs that directly support the well-being of our servicemembers’ 

widows and their families. It is imperative that the difficulty of the sacrifice of our 

husbands’ lives should not be compounded by lack of information, confusing information and sometimes even erroneous information that prevent our widows from accessing the assistance she needs to begin the rest of her life without that core person who had been her most critical support. 

Too often, we feel that survivors—widows and orphans if you will—are overlooked, 

though they shouldn’t be. A couple of years ago, I took a snapshot of the VA’s Mission Statement that’s on the VA building—its Lincoln’s statement: ‘‘To care for him 

who shall have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan.’’ Last month, 

I attended the VA’s budget briefing. I was glad to hear them say, that they convinced OMB and got the budget increase requested for 2007. What bothered me is 

that nowhere in the briefing handout did the words ‘‘survivors or widows and orphans’’ appear. We seem to get lost in the shuffle—we hope that these oversights 

will be corrected and we are not forgotten. 

THE CHALLENGE

We are unmistakably in a time of war. Warriors are dying and leaving behind 

young families. If there is one message I could leave you with today it is that there 

is never enough good communication. The Casualty Assistance Calls Officers 

(CACOs) have a difficult mission in a difficult time. They act to assist survivors 

from the death notification to assistance with coordinating funeral arrangements to 

43

applying for benefits and entitlements. They do a valiant job but CACOs are not 

trained to be the subject matter expert for the benefits and entitlements managed 

by the VA or the DOD. 

Our widows need our help. We need to identify and reach out to them. In addition, we must coordinate with our counterparts in other agencies to ensure that the 

message given is thorough and consistent as they transition to their lives made forever different by the loss of a loved one. 

Gold Star Wives sponsors a chat room for new widows following 9/11. New widows 

join this chat room and ask questions about benefits. One recent example concerns 

a remarried widow with two children. She was told by her assigned Casualty Assistance Officer that upon her remarriage, her children are no longer covered by the 

Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP), but she couldn’t understand why and asked that question in the chat room. I sent her question to Mr. Brad Snyder, Armed Forces Services Corporation and to Mr. Mark Ward, Department of Defense (DOD). Mr. Snyder 

and Mr. Ward both agreed that the remarried widow’s children are indeed eligible 

for SBP. They instructed her to contact the Headquarters Casualty Assistance Office 

to get her records corrected and have her two children receive the SBP until age 

22 if in college. This is an example of wrong information provided by the assigned 

CAO. Just imagine if she didn’t question the reason why, her children would not 

have received their rightful SBP benefit throughout their childhood years. 

We need to examine the coordination process between agencies more closely and 

work hard to prevent these widows and their children from encountering gaps in 

identifying benefits. 

GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES

The Departments of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Defense (DOD), including the Military Services, have several on-going programs which merit attention as critical facets in serving widows in this most difficult time of their lives. These organizations 

together have cohosted meetings that focus on improving outreach to surviving family members. VA in collaboration with DOD and the Social Security Administration 

has created a Survivors Web Site that offers communication channels for all services 

widows and widowers who are entitled to and need to continue their daily living. 

Often widows do not even know where to turn simply to identify their benefits. We 

participate in this outreach and applaud these efforts. To enhance these efforts, 

GSW asks your serious consideration of creating an oversight office for survivors 

across the VA and DOD to assure improved delivery of benefit information and benefits to survivors. 

BRIDGING THE GAPS

Getting the right information to the right people at the right time is important. 

Getting the right benefit is important as well. There are gaps in the benefit for survivors that we have called for corrective action on over time. Most will not be new 

to you. It is time to act. 

1. Despite valiant efforts over the past year, the dollar for dollar offset of Survivor 

Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity payments by benefits from the VA’s Dependency and Indemnity Compensation program was NOT eliminated. The SBP was meant to provide income protection for survivors. This income is not protected when the DIC 

benefit offsets the SBP income to which a survivor is entitled, sometimes eliminating the entire SBP. To illustrate the bad publicity that this issue is getting, the 

NY Times Op Ed published an article by Attorney Dan Shea on February 13, 2006 

in which he wrote: ‘‘My brother LTC Kevin Shea was killed by a rocket attack in 

Falluja on Sept. 14, 2004. He knew the risks when he joined the Marine Corps in 

1989. But he also thought that if anything ever happened to him, the United States 

government would take care of his wife Amy and his two children. Sadly, that’s not 

the case.’’ Dan Shea went on to describe the problem which prevents his brother’s 

wife to receive both SBP and DIC without offset. We recognize you must act with 

your colleagues on the Committee on Armed Services on this issue. We thank Senator Bill Nelson for introducing S. 185 and encourage Congress to provide this real 

relief for our military surviving spouses now. 

2. The law currently allows for surviving spouses who remarry after age 57 to retain their VA DIC survivor benefit. For those who remarried before that law was 

enacted, there was a 1-year period to apply for reinstatement. Communication in 

the form of outreach was lacking during the retroactive period. We recommend that 

two equitable changes to the law are made: 

a. allow survivors to retain DIC on remarriage at age 55 in order to bring this 

benefit in line with rules for SBP and other Federal survivor programs; and 

44

b. open up the reinstatement period with renewed outreach efforts to make survivors aware of their eligibility. 

3. There are inequities among several payments for the child survivor that need 

immediate attention. The SBP child option applies now only to survivors of deaths 

after November 24, 2003. We seek this benefit to be linked to October 7, 2001, the 

beginning of the Global War on Terror as are other survivor benefits. Similarly, the 

additional monthly $250 child DIC payment per family only applies to survivors of 

deaths after January 1, 2005. This too should be linked to October 7, 2001. It makes 

no sense that the survivors of those who died ‘‘first’’ should be prohibited from accessing a benefit given to survivors of those who died later in the same war. There’s 

another grievous oversight concerning the $250 child DIC. The program evaluation 

of benefits study recommended that surviving spouses with dependent children receive the $250 for FIVE years instead of TWO years this is currently provided and 

that amount should be indexed for inflation, to avoid a devaluation of the benefit. 

Unfortunately, those recommendations were ignored. I want to note that the $250 

child DIC is the only DIC benefit that doesn’t receive the Cost of Living Adjustment 

(COLA). However, we wish to thank those of you who tried to include a COLA in 

legislation for the $250 child DIC. 

4. CHAMPVA, the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of 

Veterans’ Affairs, currently does not carry with it a dental plan. In order to increase 

beneficiaries’ access to dental care at a reasonable cost, GSW seeks for widows and 

all CHAMPVA beneficiaries the ability to purchase a voluntary dental insurance 

plan. We are in agreement that the model of the TRICARE program for military 

service retirees for dental care in which the payment of premiums or services is 

completely funded by the enrollee is an acceptable model. Beneficiaries are simply 

looking for affordable dental care, which can be accomplished through a group plan. 

Allowing for assignment of VA benefits to cover the cost of dental insurance premiums would be an additional benefit to ease the payment process. This would require a modification to Title 38, Chapter 53. 

5. We would like to begin the process of reviewing how the DIC rate is established, which is currently a flat rate of $1,033. The SBP is calculated at 55 percent 

of retired pay, as if the member had retired for total disability on the date of death. 

We recommend that the DIC be calculated in a similar manner at 55 percent of the 

disabled veterans 100 percent disability compensation amount. We recognize there 

are complexities in this depending on rank of the deceased and on date of death, 

but we do believe this would help alleviate growing financial difficulties of widows 

from wars prior to this conflict who are receiving only DIC. We would welcome the 

opportunity to work with the committee in determining how to implement these 

changes, which will provide more equitable compensation to our survivors. 

Finally, there are three other issues that we want to bring to your attention: 

1. Widows whose husband died in VA hospitals due to wrongful VA hospital care 

receive only DIC without any other VA benefits (Title 38 USC 1151). We urge the 

Committee to support the measures necessary to allow these widows to be entitled 

to the CHAMPVA benefit also. These wrongful deaths are not much different than 

those killed by friendly fire. 

2. We recommend that the Committee ensure that medical benefits be provided 

fairly and equitably include surviving spouses and eligible children (i.e., seek legislation to remove Part B penalties and interest for late enrollment and promote a 

feasibility study to convert VA facilities to Long Term Care facilities which would 

welcome widows/widowers). 

3. Education benefits for surviving spouses who are on active duty should be able 

to use the education benefit derived from her deceased husband while still serving 

on active duty. Currently, the active duty widow must resign from the military in 

order to use the derived educational benefit. GSWs urge this Committee to review 

and change this law. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we do not want our widows to be forgotten whether they are experiencing their losses in the Global War on Terror over the past 5 years or whether 

they are members of the so-called Greatest Generation and experienced their loss 

many years ago during World War II. Whenever the ultimate sacrifice is given, 

there is family left behind. In the same way we have asked some to give their lives, 

we have also asked some to continue their lives with a chasm so large it is difficult 

to transgress. Let us show the spirit of this Nation by not forgetting these widows, 

whose numbers grow daily. 

I thank this Committee for using this hearing as one more avenue of awareness 

and education and for giving me an opportunity to share my thoughts and the goals 

45

of the Gold Star Wives. We will be happy to work with the committee on any of 

these initiatives. Thank you.

Chairman CRAIG. Rose, thank you very much, and again, to all 

of you, thank you very much for your time here and your testimony. 

Before I run by a couple of questions—and I will offer some of 

them in kind of a generic way that you may all wish to respond 

to—it is fresh in my mind that you, Rose, had mentioned, if you 

will, the charge of the VA. 

I just finished a book in which Lincoln at that time in his life 

and on through to his assassination—well, I should say the book 

dealt with just that period. It is called ‘‘Manhunt.’’ I recommend it 

to all of you. It is a very good book, but what is coincidentally 

unique, that speech in which that statement is embodied was his 

second inaugural speech delivered on March 4, 1865. Today is 

March 2, so on Saturday, 141 years ago—I think, if my math is correct—and from that point forward, we have used that thought to 

remind ourselves of our responsibility as a Nation, appropriately so 

and I think necessary. I ran right into it again as I started this 

book, because that is about when the book starts, during that period from the second inaugural speech on to the collapse of the confederate capital in Richmond and then on down the road to his assassination and the 12 days in the effort to capture John Wilkes 

Booth. I highly recommend it, a good book to read, fascinating history. 

My question to all of you, because you have all spoken to it, as 

have I, is the challenge we have in front of us today—and it is not 

going to go away, it is going to continually increase—is if we do not 

use the President’s proposal or VA’s proposal and find no alternative source of revenue—and you have said it—we are looking at 

approximately for this budget about a $795 million shortfall. I don’t 

believe any VSO today has come out in favor of this proposal, and 

I understand that, and I understand the tough choices that are involved in here. 

So my challenge to you is, if not this, then what? I am not going 

to put this Congress through another emergency funding device 

and just stack it onto the deficit. I don’t think that is responsible 

for anyone, including the VA. 

The Chairman of the Budget Committee and I have had some 

talks with implementation already. He is very frustrated by this, 

as is Senator Hutchison, the Chair of the Appropriating Committee, because the Budget Committee is just beginning to sit down 

to put all of this together and to make the 302(b) allocations which 

must adhere to the budget framework. 

It is a tremendous challenge for all of us. There is no question 

about it. As I mentioned, we are looking at a VA budget that is 

nearly doubling now every 6 years. Good health and all of that says 

that. 

I chair a VA Committee in which we will look at our first $100 

billion budget in a relatively short time. We are almost on the 

threshold of that now, looking at the multiplier of just what is in 

the President’s budget of about 11.3 percent as it relates to health 

care. 

46

Visit with me, and I mean it just that way. Visit with me about 

what we do. Back when we reformed this program in the 1990s, almost every organization out there said, ‘‘No. The 7s and 8s certainly can afford to pay something to gain access.’’ It was reasonable. It was appropriate. 

Now, back in 1996 and 1997, we all know that VA health care 

was maybe not the health care of first choice for a lot of veterans 

it is today. We have improved it dramatically. We all know that. 

It has been written up and recognized nationwide as one of the top 

health care providers in the Nation today. Obviously, that sends a 

signal out to all, here is a program that you can qualify for if you 

are a veteran. 

For those that are not disabled, for those that are not serviceconnected, I understand the minimum income level. Maybe that is 

an adjustable proposition, but I would find it very difficult for 

someone out there who meets all of the qualifications, who has 

health care now—90-some percent of those in the 7s and 8s have 

health care now, access to insurance all of that—for $21 a month, 

to deny what they have got, to come to what they can get. 

I am not sure that is good policy if we don’t recognize all of the 

capability of our health care delivery system and the private and 

the public and work to resolve that because the true commitment 

we have, in my opinion, is truly to the disabled and the needy, and 

that has to have a priority in it that we just simply cannot deny. 

You have all described—and I have been there. I have seen it. 

I am spending time with these young men and women coming out 

of Iraq and Afghanistan, and they are unique, unique in spirit, but 

also unique in injury because of our phenomenal capabilities in the 

field today and our immediate response to delivering that. 

I flew out of Baghdad to Landstuhl, Germany, and I was walking 

through the hospital corridors, and the director of the hospital said 

to me, ‘‘Those who we will treat this evening have not yet been injured,’’ and I am in Germany, not Iraq. I found that statement that 

has stuck in my mind—because never have we applied that capability before, but we are today, and there they are, out at Bethesda 

and Walter Reed and other places across the country. They are surviving, and they are going to be, in time, productive citizens in 

most instances. Some will not be, and we have phenomenal obligations to them. 

Well, I have gone on long enough. Visit with me, if you would. 

I cannot, in a fiscally responsible way, turn my back on the need 

to look for alternative revenue measures in the totality of the VA 

budget. 

Deirdre. 

Ms. PARKE HOLLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Barnes did—I wasn’t 

here when the changes—the creation of 7s and 8s, occurred. I was 

here, however, when there was a large push to have Medicare subvention——

Chairman CRAIG. Yes. 

Ms. PARKE HOLLEMAN [continuing].—both on the DOD and the 

VA side, and it sort of frittered away. 

As Mr. Barnes said, these are people who have paid into Medicare. The Medicare budget is getting—and I know it is perhaps 

undiplomatic—a break on the cost there with what is being covered 

47

by the VA. A subvention of VA, subvention of Medicare to the VA 

budget, I think would go a long way, since so many of the 7s and 

8s are over 65 at this point, to paying for that. I know that would 

be a huge war because people protect their own budgets. I do understand the difficulties, Lord knows, in dealing with this, but I do 

think that would be an appropriate thing. 

And I did say, as you said, with the 90 percent of these folk having OHI, having other health care, they will be the people who do 

have the health care. A greater effectiveness in collecting from the 

private sector for the care, that is being provided, just as they 

would collect from another hospital. It would be totally appropriate. 

I would add something that has nothing to do with it. I haven’t 

gone to read ‘‘Manhunt’’ yet, but I understand Harrison Ford 

bought it to star in it. So, presumably, we will all see it pretty 

soon. 

Mr. BARNES. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CRAIG. I think you are right. I don’t think he is going 

to be John Wilkes Booth, though. 

Ms. PARKE HOLLEMAN. No. 

Chairman CRAIG. Yes, Joe. 

Mr. BARNES. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the challenge here as 

do our members. A couple of observations about the perception of 

priorities with regard to the entire budget process. With regard to 

funding veterans’ programs, our members question this in a time 

of incredible amounts of money being allocated for earmarks in the 

appropriations process. They look at this from outside—obviously, 

we are very involved in this process—and bring their concerns forward, but their perception is about the priorities—and this is very 

much the case on the active-duty side with regard to TRICARE—

and the proposed fees that are being—and were referenced by, I believe, Deirdre in her presentation. This is something that we are 

looking at very closely and we are very concerned about with regard to TRICARE, the amount of the GDP that is being allocated 

for Defense and, by association, Veterans Affairs is lower proportionately than it has been historically, particularly during times of 

war. 

There is discussion that if TRICARE—if retirees pay a fee for 

TRICARE Prime, which they do now, 230/460, which is related to 

the fee proposals on the DOD side, that by association the Priority 

7s and 8s should also pay a fee, and I understand the rationale for 

that. 

However, there is a significant difference with regard to access 

standards. Military retirees in TRICARE by paying that fee have 

access, guaranteed access, to care. Whereas, if these fees were authorized and implemented in the Department of Veterans Affairs, 

these veterans would go on a long waiting list, and there is a significant difference with regard to the TRICARE fees. 

I will echo again may comments about Medicare subvention. Our 

membership is perplexed that this is not being looked at or that 

it is not possible. It is an issue that was addressed in the Presidential Task Force, which I am sure you are familiar with. I draw 

attention, perhaps renewed attention, to the recommendations that 

are there with regard to seamless transition, working smarter with 

the Department of Veterans Affairs health care program and DOD. 

48

There are authorizations, programs that have been authorized 

since I believe the early 1980s that have been really slow to be implemented. There are opportunities for cost savings, but I appreciate your concern and the challenge here, as do our membership. 

Hopefully, that sheds a little perspective from our members. 

Chairman CRAIG. Surely. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for I guess the additional opportunity to speak. 

First and foremost, ditto on the comments of my two colleagues 

here, and since you suggested looking within the entire VA budget 

for potential funding resources, I would like to take a moment first 

to begin with my own personal situation because I am a disabled 

veteran. 

You hear the VA, and I know the Administration routinely used 

the word as it relates to the VA, ‘‘management efficiencies,’’ improving management efficiencies. I would suggest that the Committee take a hard look at either policy or legislation to induce a 

change in behavior in the way that VA applies some of their management principles. 

As in my own situation, I retired from the military. I was facing 

the possibility of actually a third medical evaluation board. I have 

severe damage to my spine, relatively minor spinal cord injury and 

a lot of damage to my joints. So, essentially, I guess you could say 

my practical use toward the active-duty service—I was deemed 

used up and they suggested I retire. 

At my retirement physical, I went through an MRI. I had to go 

back to see the neurologist. I saw the neurosurgeon. I saw the orthopedic surgeon, the rheumatologist. I was poked and prodded by 

just about every specialist that you could possibly think of. They 

did an outstanding job for me in preparing my package and sent 

me on my way, and in turn, I turned that information over to the 

VA. 

About 6 months after I retired, the VA turned around and called 

me in, did another MRI, sent me to the same specialist and whatnot, presumably to establish service connection, despite the fact my 

medical records are actually about that thick and my condition is 

very well documented for about the past 14 years. 

My point here is this is a VA policy that they do this, and as part 

of the seamless transition process, if we could just get the VA to 

rely on the diagnosis and the establishment of service connection 

made by the DOD, we are not talking millions here. We are talking 

probably billions could be saved by that, by that change in focus 

alone. 

The second one is when I was called up to the VA, I came home. 

It was like 8, 9 at night, and I had a message on my answering 

machine at home saying this is a reminder about your appointment 

tomorrow. Nobody sent me a letter. Nobody called me. 

When I called the VA that following morning, come to find out, 

I had had an appointment the day prior that they failed to notify 

me, and I am told that this is a routine process in talking to a lot 

of our members. There are lots of instances where patients are 

scheduled for appointments. I am assuming the doctor is sitting 

there waiting. Yet, they haven’t notified the patient to make sure 

that they are there. 

49

Likewise, depending on the situation, when the VA calls you to 

the facility to do like an evaluation or a CMP exam, they are required to reimburse the individual, and in my case, I was called to 

the VA facility up here on Irving Street one time—I wasn’t even 

aware of the reimbursement part—and the doctors weren’t there. 

They had canceled the appointment, but they are still required to 

reimburse me. So there again, a change in those two policies would 

save some additional money. 

The last one would be in regard to the Priority Group 7 and 8 

folks, the ones that are currently in the system right now. VA at 

one time I know had a policy where if you were waiting for an appointment over 30 days, then you could have a prescription written 

by a civilian provider. They would fill that prescription. I might 

suggest that maybe we need to look at lowering that time frame 

because the reality of it is a lot of them are not going to be seen 

within 30 days, and even if they are, it is at the 29th day just to 

meet the bare minimum. If that is the only thing that they are 

going to use the VA for, why would we bring them in and have 

them come and see a doctor for an issue that we already know that 

they are required to receive medication for? 

Again, Mr. Chairman, that is just three thoughts, and hopefully, 

that will help. 

Chairman CRAIG. I appreciate that. 

Mr. NORTON. If I could just add a couple of brief comments, Mr. 

Chairman, I would like to second what my colleagues have said 

about VA Medicare subvention. 

As you probably know, a couple of years ago, the VA conducted 

an internal study of veterans enrolled in Priority 7 and 8 who are 

Medicare-eligible. They found in this study that in order to access 

VA health care, they have to go through the procedures, the tests, 

the screenings, blood tests and so forth in order to get access to 

prescriptions. 

At the same time, they are using Medicare on the outside and 

obtaining those services. So the reality is that in many cases for 

Medicare-eligible veterans enrolled in 7 and 8, the Government is 

paying twice for the same services. The VA demonstrated this in 

its internal study. 

The second point I would make is that I believe in this room a 

couple of years ago, your predecessor, Senator Specter, said that at 

the time—and I believe the Senate ultimately passed a VA Medicare subvention test. What Senator Specter said at the time—and 

I remember it so clearly—was that he hoped that a test would demonstrate the potential of a win-win-win situation, a win for veterans certainly, the pre-eminent objective, a win for the Government overall, and a win for the VA health care system. 

So, if overall VA Medicare subvention is beyond the realm of the 

possible right now, certainly the idea of a test in 10 facilities, 

which has already once passed the Senate and it has passed the 

House on a number of occasions, but never in both chambers in the 

same session, we believe that would be a way to get at this issue. 

Finally, I would reinforce the point that Morgan Brown made 

about cost efficiencies and cost savings. As you well know, the GAO 

just came out with a report fairly criticizing the VA for a lot of 

smoke and mirrors about how it calculates cost savings and cost efVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:42 Jan 17, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\RD41451\DOCS\28132.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
50

ficiencies. I think all of us here feel that there is a lot of lack of 

credibility in terms of the VA numbers. We would hope that the 

Committee would frankly get on top of the VA to be rigorous in 

terms of finding out where are the real numbers here, and what 

are we really talking about in terms of the actual cost of operating 

the system. Then from there, debate can begin about how we can 

go forward to cost out this situation and meet the very critical challenge that you so articulately laid out for us. 

Chairman CRAIG. Thank you. 

Yes, Rose, please. 

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you a little bit about 

something that I experienced quite a number of years ago. I was 

at a VA budget hearing in the early 1990s, and I was there just 

listening. All of a sudden, I heard that a particular benefit for widows was being eliminated. The reason it was being eliminated was 

because it has the least number of people affected and they were 

going to save money by just wiping out that one benefit on these 

widows. I think that is really unfair. 

In fact, as I talk with many of our widows, they agree with me. 

They say, ‘‘Because we are the smallest group that is in this budget, why shouldn’t they keep it instead?’’ That is what I think we 

should do. When there is anything that has to be cut, they 

shouldn’t have to cut the widows. 

Chairman CRAIG. I am not disagreeing with you at all, Rose. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you. 

Chairman CRAIG. Deirdre. 

Ms. PARKE HOLLEMAN. I just can’t contain myself. I was the caregiver where Morgan is entering his phase of dealing with disability. 

My husband and these ladies’ husbands were 100-percent disabled, 

and we were their care-givers. That means managing their care 

and paying the bills and all that. 

So my passion and real concern is those that are coming back 

that are young and returning from this war, in 29 months they will 

be Medicare-eligible, and then the financial incentive for the VA 

and the military treatment facility to treat the most expensive, the 

catastrophically ill, is not there. It is real easy to do this subtlely 

by—just appointments are difficult. These cases need more time 

and energy and skill, and so my husband, 100 percent disabled, 

never was able to access care in a VA. 

They did provide him with a battery-powered scooter with very 

little difficulty at all, but his access to care even got down to being 

when he refused to use the wheelchair where we could go to local 

doctor for cold and things where he could walk into the office, you 

know, with some ease. 

So I don’t pretend to know what your answer is, but I am aware, 

since I belong to a couple of these associations, that most of their 

membership is older, and I am really concerned that we are not 

even telling our young people, while the attitude is we don’t worry 

about it, you are here at X-military facility, and we are really going 

to take care of you. 

I would also like to point out there is supplemental insurance, 

to the best of my knowledge. While the supplemental insurance 

policies for Medicare are required at age 65 without pre-existing 

conditions that you can enroll, there is no law for those under 65 

51

to be included in supplemental insurance without pre-existing conditions. So some of them maybe can speak more to that, but I just 

didn’t want to see the youngsters left out. 

Chairman CRAIG. Well, thank you for those thoughtful comments. You all know the system very well, and many of you have 

been in it or accessed it. I think those are extremely valuable comments as we work our way through this. 

Let me recognize one of my colleagues that has joined us, Senator John Thune. 

John, do you have any opening comments you would like to make 

or questions you would like to ask of this group? 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN THUNE,

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH DAKOTA 

Senator THUNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me express 

my appreciation to you for holding this hearing to give our veterans 

service organizations an opportunity to weigh in on their legislative 

priorities before the Senate for this year and also to welcome the 

leaders of those service organizations and express my deepest appreciation to you for your very distinguished service to our country. 

As I have noted before, budgets are indicative of where a nation 

places its priorities, and clearly, veterans funding is a high priority 

for this Committee, for the Congress. I think in this budget request, it is one of the few areas of the budget that has been proposed to receive a generous increase in funding. 

I know there are organizations who have testified that it is still 

not sufficient to the need. Certainly, as we work through the budget and appropriations process up here, we will be listening closely 

to the input that we receive from your organizations and look forward to working through that process. 

Again, I want to just say thank you for your testimony today and 

for the record that you help us build in giving us some insights 

about what you believe are the highest needs. 

I have a couple of questions actually. Maybe I will submit one 

for the record because I can’t probably get them all answered right 

now, but I do have one in particular I would like to raise with all 

of you because it is something that we hear about. 

One of the problems that veterans have expressed to me is the 

laborious process of having to reconcile their military records with 

their VA medical records, and these are some cases for veterans 

who are affected by illnesses or injuries several years after their 

service, being able to prove that their injury is, in fact, service-connected. And I see it evidently that some of you had mentioned that 

in your testimony, and I guess what I would like to know is what 

steps need to be taken to make sure that the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Department of Defense can have seamless access to the servicemembers’ records, and how would you suggest 

that we alter the President’s budget to combat that problem. Also, 

a follow-up question to that, do you think that the Independent 

Budget fairly addresses that issue? 

Mr. BARNES. If I may. 

Chairman CRAIG. Joe. 

Senator THUNE. Go ahead. 

52

Mr. NORTON. Thank you, Senator. I think it is a very important 

question. 

From our perspective, the objective that you talk about, I think, 

can be achieved by the development of what we call a single separation physical, a common platform for capturing information on 

servicemembers while they are on active duty. 

We believe that a separation physical can and should be designed 

that would address both VA protocols, as well as essential military 

medical management requirements. 

It is really amazing that when these young men and women 

come home, many of them wounded, they arrive at Walter Reed 

and Bethesda. There is no common physical even between Walter 

Reed and Bethesda, and as a result, problems accrue years later. 

That accrual really comes home in terms of the growing complexity 

of the VA disability system. 

So there are tremendous long-term benefits about getting seamless transition right up front. We think this is a major priority, especially during this time of war, and coupled with the development 

of a single separation physical, we believe more needs to be done 

to deliver benefits at discharge, the BDD program, Benefits Delivery at Discharge. 

There are about 137 military separation transfer points throughout the world where VA people are located and where 

servicemembers can apply and actually get their rating before they 

even separate. Getting this right up front, not only is good for 

servicemembers and veterans, but potentially downstream, it saves 

the Government a lot of money because you have the clear evidentiary documentation for what ailments occurred to them while 

they served their country. 

So your leadership on this and that of the Committee would be 

extremely important in pressing DOD and VA to get together and 

get this thing done for the benefit of our serving men and women. 

Mr. BARNES. Senator, I would just add to Colonel Norton’s comments that on the DOD side, there is a project called the ALTA 

project which addresses this. We have been tracking this very, very 

closely. This was briefed at the recent TRICARE conference, and I 

would, as I said, echo his comments. 

The administrative challenge between the two Departments, 

while on the face of it, looks like that would be fairly simple, it is 

very, very complex. We appreciate your attention to that and encourage resourcing and questioning the respective Departments as 

opportunities allow as to how to enhance that. 

I can tell you firsthand from some of our members and some of 

the stories we hear—I think we have an example in our statement 

about individuals coming back from the war and what they have 

encountered—and I know that has been documented not just here, 

but in various, local newspapers, local members that have gone to 

serve and have come back, and they have had significant problems, 

as have, in the case if they expired, their widows with regard to 

benefits. 

Senator THUNE. Thank you all very much. I appreciate your answers and again your testimony, and we look forward to working 

with all of you to make sure that we are doing the appropriate 

53

things and the right things to ensure that our veterans get all the 

benefits, receive all the benefits that they deserve. 

Certainly, this Committee is intensely interested, as I think the 

Chairman demonstrated last year as we went through the budget 

process, in making sure that the VA is appropriately funded to 

meet the need that is out there. So thank you very much for your 

testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Chairman CRAIG. John, thank you very much. 

Let me ask this. Several of you have mentioned this, and I think 

you did, Colonel, the Montgomery GI bill and the character of how 

we are using the Guard and Reserve today and the change there 

that is upon us. 

As was mentioned, 500 folks from Idaho, at one time a year ago 

this time, we had the second largest contingency of Guard and Reserve on a per-capita basis of any State in the United States in 

Iraq out of Idaho—and Afghanistan. There is no question, the character of how we look at the Guard may well be changing. 

Vice Chief Cody, General Cody, is talking about a substantial realignment of forces in relation to that. I had lunch with him recently, and he is saying that at a minimum of every 6 years, Guard 

and Reserve will go active. Of course, that is a significant change 

from our historic perception of the Guard and Reserve and our reflection of them within policy. 

So you are right to ask the question and to challenge us to review that in relation to the commitment and what the Montgomery 

bill does for them because it is a phenomenal asset. 

Now that they have served—and, in this instance, they were active. The 116th from Idaho was active for a period of, I think, 13 

months and, of course, served in a foreign theater. They qualify, 

and yet you are right it extinguishes. That particular benefit does. 

I am going to be taking a look at that, to spread that out over what 

the new policy is, see how it fits, see what the realities of that are. 

It is an expensive item, but it is also a tremendously valuable 

asset, these young men and women who might find themselves finally at that point in their lives when they want to look at higher 

education for helping them out. 

Let me ask this question of you. I think I know what the answer 

is. I was amazed at an editorial published in The Washington Post 

last month which posed this question, and this is in relation to the 

current law that a veteran is not permitted to hire an attorney to 

assist in filing a claim for VA benefits. 

The quote was: ‘‘If American soldiers are mature and responsible 

enough to choose to risk their lives for their country, shouldn’t they 

be considered competent enough to hire a lawyer?’’ Does anyone 

want to react to that rather astute observation on the part of The 

Washington Post? 

Ms. PARKE HOLLEMAN. Well, as a lawyer, I always think we are 

of use. 

I think it would help a great deal of the repetitive nature of the 

filings that we have. So many people are not going to a veterans 

service offices. Some of the large groups have wonderful veterans 

services offices who, I am unhappy to concede, I am sure do it just 

as well as we do. 

54

However, the huge percentage are representing themselves. They 

are going pro se, and they don’t plead right. The aid is not, you 

know, the help, as good as it may be when the VA is not successful. 

So there are filings after filings after filings, and when you are 

talking about the backlog and an efficient professional filing of an 

appeal might help enormously not just for that person, the strain, 

it is hard for lawyers to remember how exhausting a lawsuit or filings or waiting for something to happen are to people. It upsets 

them enormously. So the pending matter is not just difficult to the 

VA, but it is difficult to the individual. 

Certainly, that was a long time ago. I don’t find any logic to it 

except history anymore that has barred that. I would think it 

would be a fine idea. 

Chairman CRAIG. Any disagreement with that statement? 

All right. Let me ask one last question because several of you 

have broached it, and probably what I am going to ask you to do 

is keep your eyes on it, and we will watch it and monitor it and 

see where we can nudge it along and insist that it get better from 

the physicals you talk about, the development of medical records. 

What I am talking about is the issue of smooth transition or seamless transition from servicemembers to veterans’ status. 

I agree with those of you who have spoken to it. The Committee 

shares your goals for this seamless transition. It sounds awfully 

good, but the test is how it works obviously and the smoothness 

with which it works and hopefully the efficiency that it produces 

and the ability to connect together medical records and all of those 

things electronically. 

I know that work is underway on that. We are going to watch 

it and monitor it very closely. As reports come in to all of you, let 

us know about them, because we are going to stay on top of it. This 

is a modern sophisticated world out there, and if we can’t get it 

right just simply because that isn’t the way it was done in the past, 

shame on us. 

Talking about the issue is one thing. Doing it is another, and 

monitoring it and staying on top of it and maybe causing DOD and 

VA to think out of the box is at best a challenge, but certainly one 

that we can tackle. 

Anyway, beyond what you have said, any other recommendations 

in that particular area? 

Yes, Rose. 

Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, there are three issues that I didn’t cover 

in my oral statement, but some of it I think overlaps. Well, it all 

concerns bucks, money. 

Chairman CRAIG. Sure. 

Ms. LEE. May I just list them off, please? We have a couple of 

widows that have been contacting me for quite sometime now, widows whose husbands die in a VA hospital, and their deaths were 

malpractice deaths. So they are given DIC, but no other VA benefit. 

The widows who have contacted me are requesting at least 

CHAMPVA as a benefit, in addition to just the DIC, and to us, we 

think it is similar to a wrongful death, killed by friendly fire. That 

is how we look at it. 

55

Then the other issue would be, we recommend that the Committee ensure that medical benefits be provided fairly and equitably, and that would include surviving spouses and eligible children. In other words, to seek legislation to remove Part B penalties 

and interest for late enrollment, and promote a feasibility study to 

convert VA facilities to long-term care facilities, which would welcome widows and widowers. 

The third one—and this is becoming very common from our experience on the chatroom—we have young widows who are on active 

duty themselves, and they are having difficulty with the education 

benefit. They are not able to use their derived education—derived 

from their deceased military husband’s education benefit while 

they are on active duty. They have to resign from the military service in order to use it, and these young ladies are also feeling this 

is terribly unfair. So that is another big issue that has come up, 

and it is really becoming quite common to have young widows who 

are still on active duty. There are other problems in that area, but 

this is one that has come to our attention over the past several 

months. 

Chairman CRAIG. Thank you. 

Ms. LEE. Yes, sir. 

Chairman CRAIG. We will take a look at that. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. BARNES. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman CRAIG. Yes, Joe. 

Mr. BARNES. If I could just respond and reiterate a point I was 

attempting to make in my oral statement. The final report of the 

Presidential Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for our 

Nation’s Veterans, I believe that was June 2003. It has a number 

of recommendations in there. 

Chairman CRAIG. Yes. 

Mr. BARNES. Something that has not been brought up is where 

we are heading with the CARES initiative, BRAC actions, and 

DOD’s re-basing initiatives, which are really significant and have 

major impact on personnel and many of the issues we are talking 

about today. So I just wanted to make that point. 

Chairman CRAIG. Yes. The point is well made. We have plenty 

of work to get done in this Committee. That is very true. 

Yes, Morgan. 

Mr. BROWN. Yes. I would just say, Mr. Chairman, if you don’t 

mind, I will swing back to the seamless transition issue real quick. 

Chairman CRAIG. All right. Please do. 

Mr. BROWN. I honestly believe you really hit the nail on the head 

as far as the Committee is going to need to, I guess you could say, 

exercise a very deliberate oversight between the DOD and the VA 

on this. 

The first time I heard about the seamless medical record or the 

medical record that would track me and my care in DOD, and then 

in turn be used by the VA, was 25 years ago when it went through 

the processing station at Lackland. Admittedly, at this time, I am 

not even sure we had computers in the military back then, but as 

the GAO indicated in a fairly recent study within the past couple 

of years, the technology exists. The potential for savings is tremendous, and I would certainly hope that the Committee will do everyVerDate 0ct 09 2002 07:42 Jan 17, 2007 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\RD41451\DOCS\28132.TXT SENVETS PsN: ROWENA
56

thing in its power to make sure that that happens, as I am sure 

we will. 

Chairman CRAIG. Thank you. 

Well, to all of you again, thank you very much. I don’t even have 

to ask you to stay tuned. I know you will as we work our way 

through these issues. We are a phone call away or a few steps 

down a hallway, but as all develops, please work with us to see 

where we get. As I say, we are looking at some of the challenges 

we will tackle this year beyond the budget. We will spend the next 

month probably resolving the budget issues before we get on with 

some of these oversight issues, but we will certainly stay very active and tackle them. There is a great deal of work to be done out 

there. 

Mr. BARNES. Thank you. 

Ms. PARKE HOLLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. LEE. Thank you. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. NORTON. Thank you. 

Chairman CRAIG. Thank you all very much. The Committee will 

stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

Æ