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

99–788PDF 2005

H.R. 348, H.R. 843, H.R. 1735, H.R. 2206, H.R.

2612, H.R. 3936, H.R. 4065, H.R. 4172, H.R.

4173, AND A DRAFT BILL

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BENEFITS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 29, 2004

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Serial No. 108–39

(
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

JACK QUINN, New York 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire 

BOB BEAUPREZ, Colorado 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

RICK RENZI, Arizona 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

LANE EVANS, Illinois 

BOB FILNER, California 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

TIM RYAN, Ohio

PATRICK E. RYAN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BENEFITS 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina, Chairman 

JACK QUINN, New York 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

(II) 
(III)

C O N T E N T S 

April 29, 2004

Page

H.R. 348, H.R. 843, H.R. 1735, H.R. 2206, H.R. 2612, H.R. 3936, H.R. 4065, 

H.R. 4172, H.R. 4173, and a Draft Bill .............................................................. 1

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Chairman Brown ..................................................................................................... 1

Hon. Michael H. Michaud ....................................................................................... 2, 7

Prepared statement of Congressman Michaud .............................................. 35, 37

Hon. Lane Evans, ranking democratic member, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs ....................................................................................................................... 3

Prepared statement of Congressman Evans .................................................. 38

Hon. Susan A. Davis ................................................................................................ 3, 9

Prepared statement of Congresswoman Davis ............................................... 42

Hon. Michael Bilirakis, prepared statement of ..................................................... 40

WITNESSES 

Blake, Carl, Associate Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America ..... 26

Prepared statement of Mr. Blake .................................................................... 89

Brown-Waite, Hon. Ginny, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Florida ................................................................................................................... 8

Calvert, Hon. Ken, a Representative in Congress from the State of California . 5

prepared statement of Mr. Calvert, with attachments .................................. 55

Carr, William, Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy, Department of Defense ................................................................ 14

Prepared statement of Mr. Carr ...................................................................... 81

Dallas, F. Paul, National Commander, American Ex-Prisoners of War ............. 23

Prepared statement of Mr. Dallas ................................................................... 115

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative in Congress from the State of California ..................................................................................................................... 9

Prepared statement of Congresswoman Davis ............................................... 42

Epley, Robert J., Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program 

Management, Veterans’ Benefits Administration, accompanied by John H. 

Thompson, Deputy General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs ........... 12

Prepared statement of Mr. Epley .................................................................... 65

Jones, Richard, National Legislative Director, AMVETS .................................... 24

Prepared statement of Mr. Jones .................................................................... 84

Kramer, Hon. Kenneth B., Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals 

for Veterans Claims, accompanied by Hon. Frank Nebeker and Hon. Bruce 

Kasold, Judges, United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims ............ 4

Prepared statement of Judge Kramer, with attachment .............................. 52

Lawrence, Brian E., Assistant National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans ........................................................................................................ 30

Prepared statement of Mr. Lawrence ............................................................. 105

McNeill, John, Deputy Director, National Veterans Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ........................................................................... 28

Prepared statement of Mr. McNeill ................................................................ 97

Michaud, Hon. Michael H., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Maine ................................................................................................................ 7

Prepared statement of Congressman Michaud .............................................. 37

Reyes, Hon. Silvestre, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas .. 10

Prepared statement of Congressman Reyes ................................................... 44
Page

IV

Wiblemo, Cathleen, Deputy Director, Veterans’ Affairs and Rehabilitation 

Division, The American Legion ........................................................................... 32

Prepared statement of Ms. Wiblemo ............................................................... 110

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Statements: 

Mortgage Investors Corporation ...................................................................... 118

Mortgage Bankers Association ........................................................................ 120

National Association of Realtors ..................................................................... 124

Written committee questions and their responses: 

Chairman Brown to Department of Defense .................................................. 129

Congressman Michaud to Department of Veterans Affairs .......................... 131
(1)

H.R. 348, H.R. 843, H.R. 1735, H.R. 2206, H.R. 

2612, H.R. 3936, H.R. 4065, H.R. 4172, H.R. 4173, 

AND A DRAFT BILL 

THURSDAY, APRIL 29, 2004

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BENEFITS, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Henry E. Brown, Jr. 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Brown, Brown-Waite, Michaud, Reyes, 

and Davis. 

Ex officio present: Representative Evans. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BROWN 

Mr. BROWN. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to order. 

I wish everyone a good morning. We don’t usually have such a 

lengthy agenda, but we are operating on a tight legislative schedule this year, and I appreciate everyone’s participation and cooperation. 

If you notice this morning, they said we won’t have any votes 

today, and when that happens, generally a lot of folks go home. We 

are some short this morning. We certainly appreciate the members 

who are here. 

Because we have such a full plate, I will briefly explain each bill 

before us this morning before turning to my good friend, Mr. 

Michaud. 

H.R. 348, the Prisoners of War Benefits Act of 2003, was introduced by this committee’s vice chairman, Representative Bilirakis. 

The bill would add five new diseases to the list of those presumed 

to be service-connected for former prisoners of war, as well as 

eliminate the 30 day internment requirement for all diseases and 

establish standards for future presumptions. 

H.R. 843, the Injured Veterans Benefits Eligibility Act of 2003, 

was introduced by Representative Reyes, Ranking Member Evans, 

Representative Brown of Florida, Representative Filner, and Representative Abercrombie. The bill would extend full VA benefits to 

veterans who are injured or die due to neglect at a VA hospital or 

during VA sponsored rehabilitation. 

H.R. 1735 was introduced by Representative Davis of California. 

The bill would increase from $60,000 to $81,000 the maximum 

amount that VA can guarantee on a home loan. 
2

H.R. 2206, the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action National Memorial Act, was introduced by Representative Calvert and other 

members of the California delegation. The bill would designate a 

POW/MIA Memorial at Riverside National Cemetery in California. 

I am pleased Mr. Calvert will be appearing before the subcommittee this morning. 

H.R. 2612, the Veterans Adapted Housing Expansion Act of 2003, 

was introduced by Ranking Member Michaud and Ranking Member Evans. The bill would extend eligibility for specially adapted 

housing grants to veterans with permanent and total service-connected disabilities due to the loss or loss of use of both arms above 

the elbow. 

H.R. 3936 was introduced by Chairman Smith and Ranking 

Member Evans, as well as Representative Skelton. The bill would 

authorize the principal office of the United States Court of Appeals 

for Veterans Claims to be at any location in the Washington, DC 

metropolitan area. We are pleased to have the Chief Judge of the 

Court with us this morning. 

H.R. 4065, the Veterans Housing Affordability Act of 2004, was 

introduced by Representative Brown-Waite. The bill would index 

the maximum VA home loan amount to 90 percent of the Freddie 

Mac conforming loan rate. The VA loan rate would be $300,330 in 

2004 and would continue to be adjusted annually. 

H.R. 4172 was introduced by Ranking Member Evans and Ranking Member Michaud. The bill would codify VA regulations which 

adds five cancers to the list of those presumed to be associated with 

exposure to ionizing radiation, as well as permit certain veterans 

to receive VA benefits concurrently with those they receive under 

the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. 

H.R. 4173 was introduced by Ranking Member Michaud, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Evans and myself, and would direct 

the VA Secretary to contract for a report on employment placement, retention, and advancement of recently separated 

servicemembers. 

The final piece of legislation on the agenda is a draft bill to create an open period for certain active duty servicemembers to participate in the Montgomery GI Bill. 

I now turn to the ranking member for his opening statement, 

Representative Michaud. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate your scheduling all these bills today, and we do have a 

very ambitious schedule today. With that, I would request unanimous consent to submit my opening remarks for the record, and I 

also want to thank and give everyone a warm welcome. Thank you 

very much for taking time out of your busy schedule to come here 

this morning to give testimony to the committee. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Michaud appears on p. 

35.] 

Mr. BROWN. We are also pleased to have in attendance the ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Evans. I understand you 

would like to make a statement. 
3

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LANE EVANS, RANKING 

DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

Mr. EVANS. Yes. I would like to thank you and the ranking member for the work you have done on these and several other bills. 

I want to thank the witnesses, as well. 

Today, the subcommittee will consider H.R. 4172, a bill that I’ve 

introduced with Mr. Michaud. This legislation is another small step 

in recognizing the sacrifices and service of our military personnel 

who are exposed to ionizing radiation during their term in the military. 

For many years, civilian weapons workers and military personnel 

alike suffered in silence because their government did not respond 

to their claims for compensation for injuries and diseases they contracted from their Service experiences. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues to improve the 

treatment of our veterans and others. 

I would like to submit my statement for the record, Mr. Chairman. I thank you again for your time and service on the subcommittee. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Evans appears on p. 

38.] 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Mr. Evans. 

Ms. Davis, do you have an opening statement, or would you just 

like to submit it for the record? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to thank 

you all for your hearing, you and ranking member Michaud. I also 

want to thank all the distinguished veterans who are here today 

to hear about some of the pieces of legislation that we have before 

us today, because I know how significant and how important they 

are. 

We are going to be looking at a number of concerns and benefits 

for those who were held as prisoners of war, and new assistance 

to veterans with specific types of disabilities. 

The other issue that is close to my heart is VA’s home loan program and its limitations. I will be very pleased to join with my colleagues to introduce a piece of legislation in that arena. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Ms. Davis. 

Our first witness this morning is the distinguished Chief Judge 

of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, Judge Kramer. 

Judge Kramer, we are certainly glad to have you with us this 

morning. 

If you would, before you begin your opening statement, please introduce the other members that you brought with you. 

Judge KRAMER. To my left is the court’s founding chief judge, 

Frank Nebeker, long known in the judicial community and in 

Washington, DC, and to my right is one of the court’s newest members, Judge Kasold. I hope you will forgive his former staff work 

in the other body, but we are straightening him out now, and he’s 

a member of the court’s legislative committee. 
4

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KENNETH B. KRAMER, 

CHIEF JUDGE, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 

VETERANS CLAIMS, ACCOMPANIED BY THE HONORABLE 

FRANK NEBEKER AND THE HONORABLE BRUCE KASOLD, 

JUDGES, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS 

Judge KRAMER. I am here to speak on behalf of 3936. I want to 

thank the Chairman of the full committee and the Ranking Minority Member of the full committee, Congressman Smith and Congressman Evans, for introducing this bill, as well as Congressman 

Skelton, who is the Ranking Minority Member of the Armed Services Committee. 

I also want to extend my appreciation to committee staff who 

worked very hard on this bill, Pat Ryan, Kingston Smith, and Mary 

Ellen McCarthy. Without their help, we wouldn’t be having this 

hearing today. 

In sum, the Court wants, needs, and believes it should have its 

own courthouse. Not for its own purposes, but to symbolize the importance of veterans’ law and judicial review for our nation’s veterans. 

Since the Court’s founding, some 16 years ago, we have been 

housed in several commercial office buildings in Washington, DC. 

There is nothing certainly wrong with the quarters we are presently in, except that they do not send the right message to our nation’s veterans, who at least in terms of what the Court is all 

about, are concerned that they are getting full, independent, and 

fair evaluation of the cases that they bring to the Court. 

There has been tremendous confusion over the years as to the 

Court’s role, whether indeed we are a part of the Department of 

Veterans Affairs, or we are indeed an independent, free-standing 

Federal court. 

Every Federal court that we have studied is housed in its own 

dedicated courthouse, except the Veterans Court, and we believe 

that the veterans of our country really deserve better. 

I gave you a fairly lengthy prepared statement. I won’t take your 

time up and read it, but let me just hit a few of the highlights, if 

I might, in preparation for any questions you might have. 

For almost four years now, we have been on the search for a successor facility. We have looked at a variety of places, locations, 

most of them in the District of Columbia. For a variety of reasons, 

we concluded that those simply would not work out. 

It is about this time, maybe about a year and a half to two years 

ago, that it was called to our attention that there are three parking 

lots on the Pentagon Reservation. For those of you who are familiar 

with Pentagon City, this is Army-Navy Drive here, and what a lot 

of people call Macy’s parking lot, which is really used primarily by 

the Pentagon, there is a parcel here, and then two succeeding parcels, each a little bit smaller in size, as you move down the drive 

towards the District of Columbia. 

We learned that the Pentagon was considering developing these 

properties. In fact, as we sit here, there is an ongoing study commissioned by the Pentagon to determine the highest and best possible use for these parking lots, with a view towards using enhanced leasing authority to enter into agreement with a private de-
5

veloper who would develop these properties, and then in turn lease 

them to suitable tenants, and of course, I imagine, although not 

told specifically, the purposes that would be of gain to the Pentagon from doing this would be the construction of underground 

parking by a private developer and perhaps some revenue stream. 

This study was supposed to be completed at the end of February. 

It has not been finished yet. There are two issues that are really 

preventing it from having been concluded in February. 

Those reasons are that there is a commercialization clause somewhere in the property documents that might restrict the Pentagon’s 

use of this property. That is one thing that is being studied. Secondly, enhanced leasing authority is only available to the services 

and not to the Department of Defense, so they are trying to work 

out the issues with that. 

I see you have the same type of timing device we have in our 

court. I can stop and take questions or just try to finish, if you 

would prefer me to do that. 

[The prepared statement of Judge Kramer, with attachment, appears on p. 52.] 

Mr. BROWN. We appreciate very much your coming and bringing 

this petition to us. I certainly support H.R. 3936. I don’t have a 

question. Mr. Michaud, do you have a question? Thank you very 

much for coming, and we certainly will proceed on this bill during 

the markup session. We will hope we can get approval on this 

major project. 

Mr. MICHAUD. No, thank you. 

Thank you very much. We feel the veterans deserve it, too. 

Thank you, sir. 

Judge KRAMER. Thank you. 

Mr. BROWN. Will the second panel please come forward? We are 

pleased to welcome for the first time to our subcommittee Representative Ken Calvert, who will share his views on H.R. 2206. 

Vice Chairman Bilirakis had a change in his schedule, so he will 

be submitting a statement for the record. 

[The statement of the Honorable Michael Bilirakis appears on p. 

40.] 

STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE KEN CALVERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; THE HONORABLE MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MAINE; 

THE HONORABLE GINNY BROWN-WAITE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA; THE 

HONORABLE SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AND THE HONORABLE SILVESTRE REYES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS 

FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KEN CALVERT 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the subcommittee, 

for giving me the opportunity to speak in support of my legislation, 

H.R. 2206, the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action National Memorial Act of 2003. Introduced on May 27, 2003, H.R. 2206 would designate the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action Memorial presently 
6

being built at the Riverside National Cemetery, Riverside, California, as the national POW/MIA memorial. 

Currently, no national memorial exists to honor both prisoners of 

war and those missing in action, nor is there a designated POW/

MIA statute. 

Andersonville National Historic Site in Andersonville, Georgia, in 

fact is the only park in the National Park system to serve as a memorial specifically for American prisoners of war throughout the 

nation’s history, but it does not include recognition of those missing 

in action. 

Congress stated in the authorizing legislation that this park’s 

purpose is to provide an understanding of the overall prisoner of 

war story of the Civil War to interpret the role of prisoner of war 

camps in history, to commemorate the sacrifice of Americans who 

lost their lives in such camps, and to preserve the monuments located within the site. In 1998, a museum was dedicated at Andersonville for men and women of this country who have suffered captivity. 

The POW/MIA Memorial at Riverside National Cemetery would 

stand to fulfill the existing need of our nation for monuments and 

memorials that pays respect to all Armed Services veterans by one, 

recognizing and honoring all veterans who in service to this nation 

sacrificed their physical and mental well being as prisoners of war, 

and recognize the plight of more than 89,000 veterans who did not 

return home, missing in action. 

Two, creating accessibility to the millions of Americans living 

west of the Mississippi to visit a national memorial and monument 

in honor of men and women of the Armed Services, specifically for 

POWs and MIAs. Presently, most national memorials and monuments lie east of the Mississippi. 

And three, continuing the Riverside National Cemetery’s effort to 

memorialize our nation’s veterans at the national cemeteries 

throughout the country, and through the incorporation of the memorial park concept. 

Moreover, the Riverside National Cemetery provides the ideal location for this national memorial, given its status as the secondlargest resting place in our national cemetery system, with 125,000 

men and women of our armed forces standing silent vigil. 

In fact, in less than five years, it is expected to be the largest 

cemetery in the national system. In six decades, it will have more 

than 1.4 million honored veterans, making Riverside National 

Cemetery larger than Arlington National Cemetery, the most widely recognized. What better place to have a national memorial, a national shrine, in honor of American POWs and MIAs? 

The POW/MIA Memorial would depict a one and one-half scale 

life sculpture of a prisoner of war on his knees with his arms 

pinned behind his back by a bamboo/wooden rod and his head defiantly lifted towards heaven. He has not lost hope. He is not defeated. The statue is surrounded by columns of black granite and 

rests a few yards from the black and white flag, the national symbol of the POW/MIA cause. It was sculpted by the renowned California artist, Lewis Lee Millet, Jr., son of the Congressional Medal 

of Honor recipient, Colonel Lewis Millet, Sr., U.S Army Retired. 
7

The design has received approval from the National Cemetery Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Finally, at Riverside National Cemetery, the POW/MIA National 

Memorial would proudly join the National Medal of Honor Memorial at the Riverside National Cemetery, and like the Congressional 

Medal of Honor Memorial, will be paid for and maintained by private dollars. 

For this reason, the Congressional Budget Office has given H.R. 

2206 a score of zero; zero cost to the American taxpayers, making 

both memorials true representations of the people and by the people of the United States of America. 

Clearly, this project’s funding shows that it has been given the 

stamp of approval by the American public, including our American 

veterans and their families. Additionally, H.R. 2206 legislation has 

received wide support from veterans’ organizations, including the 

Veterans of Foreign Wars. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and to the whole Subcommittee 

on Veterans’ Benefits, for letting me speak on behalf of this legislation, H.R. 2006, the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action National 

Memorial Act of 2003. 

I look forward to working with you all and seeing that H.R. 2206 

becomes law, giving our American prisoners of war and those missing in action the long overdue national memorial they deserve. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Calvert, with attachments, appears on p. 55.] 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you for your leadership in Congress and for 

your support of this major endeavor here. I know that you have 

spent a lot of time not only with the idea but also raising the 

funds, and it is a tribute to those who have given so much for our 

country. I really appreciate you and your leadership and your 

friendship. Thank you for being here today. 

I don’t have any questions. Mr. Michaud, do you have a question? 

Mr. MICHAUD. No. I, too, want to thank you very much for taking 

your time. I do like the cost is zero. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Mr. BROWN. Thanks for coming. Thank you. 

Mr. Michaud is here in support of H.R. 2612; Ms. Brown-Waite 

is here on her bill, H.R. 4065; Mr. Reyes is here for his bill, H.R. 

843; and Ms. Davis is here on her bill, H.R. 1735. 

I now recognize Mr. Michaud. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHAEL H. MICHAUD 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for agreeing 

to consider H.R. 2612, the Veterans Adapted Housing Expansion 

Act of 2003. 

It is a great pleasure for me to speak on this bill, which was introduced in response to the request of a severely disabled veteran, 

Mr. James Moore of Nebraska. Mr. Moore brought this to my attention, that a small number of veterans, Mr. Moore included, have 

lost not only both their hands, but both their arms, including loss 

of function, and above both elbow joints. 

These veterans suffer an even more severe disability than those 

who retain function of the elbow joint. They suffer from balance 
8

problems and are less effectively able to use prosthetic devices. As 

a result, they require more extensive adaptions to their homes than 

those needed because they lost both hands. 

While this bill will provide much needed assistance, the consideration of this bill also tells all American veterans that they can 

bring their concerns to the attention of this committee and that we 

will act on those concerns. 

I hope that as veterans risk the loss of life and limb in service 

to our country, that this subcommittee will mark up H.R. 2612. 

Passage of this legislation will enable veterans who have lost their 

arms to obtain a suitably adapted home when they return. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Mr. Michaud. 

I recognize Ms. Brown-Waite for her bill, H.R. 4065. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GINNY BROWN-WAITE 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am very pleased 

to be able to discuss this legislation, because I think it will provide 

a great benefit to all veterans. 

The Veterans Housing Affordability Act, H.R. 4065, is a good 

government solution which will assist veterans across the nation at 

a very minimal cost to the taxpayers. 

As members of the committee know, home ownership is one of 

the main building blocks of a strong community, and also of a 

strong economy. 

A home is the largest financial investment most American families will ever make, and allows them to build financial security as 

the equity in their home increases. Moreover, this tangible asset 

provides a family with borrowing power to finance important needs, 

such as the education of their children. 

VA has been providing home loan guarantees to men and women 

who served our country since 1944. Under this program, the veteran purchases a home through a private lender and the VA guarantees to pay the lender a portion, usually 25 percent, of the loss 

if the veteran defaults on the loan. Because of this benefit, millions 

of veterans have been able to realize the great American dream of 

home ownership. 

Since its inception in 1944, the VA has guaranteed $748 billion 

in loans for 16.9 million veterans. In 2002, the VA guaranteed 

more than $40.1 billion in loans to finance the purchase or refinance 317,250 homes. This program has been a tremendous asset 

to veterans. 

However, the first decade of the 21st Century has been one of the 

most expansive growth in home values. For homeowners, this has 

been a tremendous boom because our values went up and our property values went up substantially. In some regions, however, home 

values have almost doubled in the last five years. Those not fortunate enough to already be a homeowner are facing daunting prices 

for entry level homes. 

In New Jersey, for example, the median housing prices hover in 

the $300,000 to $400,000 range, and in Connecticut, California, 

Washington, Virginia, Maryland, Illinois and Florida, as well as 
9

many other states, and certainly in the DC area, we know how 

much housing is here. 

Many soldiers postpone home ownership until they are out of the 

service. In very real terms, as median housing prices rise, the VA 

home loan benefit decreases. There is no current mechanism in 

place for the maximum loan amount to adjust to reflect prevailing 

market conditions. That is exactly what my bill does. 

The rising housing market erodes the purchasing power of the VA home loan. Depending on where the veteran lives, $240,000 is 

simply insufficient to meet their housing needs when they do decide to purchase. This is simply wrong. At the very least, we owe 

our veterans the same chance at the American dream after their 

service as they had the day they enlisted. 

H.R. 4065 preserves the VA home loan guarantee benefit because 

it indexes a maximum VA guarantee amount to 25 percent of 90 

percent of the Freddie Mac loan rate. If my bill were to pass, the 

prevailing VA loan limit would be $300,330 in 2004 and it would 

continue to adjust to the market and to the housing needs of veterans. It would be an automatic adjustment. 

We are all very proud of the young men and women who serve 

our nation, past and present. I hope that you will agree that the 

value of their benefit should not vary depending on where they live 

or where they decide to purchase a home. 

This legislation is important and timely, and I hope that the 

committee will support this bill, because it does have the added 

benefit of the fact that we won’t ever have to do this again because 

it is self-adjusting. 

Mr. Chairman and members, I will be very happy to answer any 

questions if you have any. I know that the bill is very similar to 

Ms. Davis’ bill, and the major difference is my bill is self-adjusting. 

While Congress has many things to do, this will not be an issue 

that we will have to take up again. 

Thank you. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Ms. Brown-Waite. We will hold questions until all have had a chance to address their bills. 

At this time, we will hear from Ms. Davis on H.R. 1735. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SUSAN A. DAVIS 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you for 

bringing this issue to the forefront and also thank my colleague, 

Ms. Brown-Waite, for her legislation, as well. 

As we know, this is a crucial issue to any veteran seeking to purchase a home, and I’m committed to giving America’s retired military personnel new opportunities for home ownership. 

The lowering of interest rates in recent years has pushed up 

housing costs to record highs. In Southern California, for example, 

the average price has reached $375,000. In San Diego, housing 

costs are even higher, averaging well over $400,000. As you can 

imagine, I have heard from plenty of my veterans on the VA’s 

home loan program and its limitations. 

Simply put, veterans living in high cost areas cannot use the VA 

home loan because of the current limit of $240,000. Instead of taking advantage of the benefits that come with the VA home loan, 

our retired military personnel must rely on traditional lenders. 
10

I have always been deeply concerned that many veterans won’t 

ever have the opportunity to buy a home without a subsidized VA 

loan. 

When a dramatic shift occurs in the housing market, I feel we 

have a responsibility to respond and to make the VA home loan 

compatible with current conditions. We have failed to make the 

necessary adjustments in recent years and America’s veterans are 

paying the price. 

Because of my determination to give the veterans in San Diego 

and veterans across the United States the opportunity to own a 

home, I introduced legislation to increase the VA home loan limit 

when I was first elected to Congress, over three years ago. I was 

quick to re-introduce the same legislation in the 108th Congress, 

and I am honored to have bipartisan support today for this legislation. 

My bill, H.R. 1735, increases the current limit from $240,000 to $324,000, an amount comparable to the limit set by Freddie Mac 

and made to the general public. 

It is my goal to improve the VA’s home loan program this session. I also support efforts to index the VA home loan program to 

the Freddie Mac criteria in Congresswoman Brown-Waite’s bill, 

H.R. 4065, also before the subcommittee today, and I want to 

thank her once again for raising the issue. 

We should seriously consider addressing the maximum amount 

to guarantee that the VA limit increases consistently with the 

Freddie Mac level. 

However, I do feel it is important that we set the index to match 

the Freddie Mac amounts so that our veterans are on an equal 

footing with the general public in today’s difficult real estate market. When I introduced H.R. 1735 one year ago, it would have set 

the VA limit slightly above the Freddie Mac amount. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, I am committed to giving our active duty 

and our retired military personnel new opportunities for home ownership and to improving the VA home loan. 

Thank you for recognizing the need and for bringing this crucial 

issue to the forefront. I hope the subcommittee will mark up this 

legislation increasing the home loan limit, and thank you once 

again for consideration of the bill. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Ms. Davis. 

I now recognize Mr. Reyes. I know you have been attending another meeting, and we are glad that you would come and take the 

time to work on this particular legislation. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SILVESTRE REYES 

Mr. REYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member. I 

appreciate your indulgence. As you know, this term, I sit on the Intelligence and Armed Services. It seems like every time we schedule a hearing here, there is a competing hearing there. In fact, we 

are hearing very important testimony on the situation in Afghanistan right now. I appreciate the opportunity and the leeway you 

have given us to do both. 

I wanted to thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member for 

allowing the subcommittee to hear H.R. 843. I introduced this legislation during the 107th Congress as Ranking Member of the Ben-
11

efits Subcommittee. Because of budget restraints and other priorities, the legislation did not receive any consideration. 

With the leadership of the current Ranking Member, Mr. 

Michaud of Maine, and his subcommittee staff, this issue remained 

on the forefront of the subcommittee’s agenda. Amid the current 

budget situation, this bill may have easily have been overlooked, 

and I thank you, Mr. Chairman and my good friend, the Ranking 

Member, for recognizing the importance and significance of its consideration to our veteran community. 

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 843, the Injured Veterans Benefits Eligibility Act of 2004 is an important piece of legislation. This bill is 

intended to provide additional service-connected disability benefits 

for persons disabled by medical treatment or vocational rehabilitation provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs. This bill 

would also cover survivors of persons dying from such disabilities. 

When veterans are disabled by medical treatment or vocational 

rehabilitation activities, they and their families suffer the same 

kind of economic loss as veterans who are disabled by similar medical conditions during military service. But for their military service, these veterans would not be disabled. It is only right that they 

and their families receive the same benefits as veterans disabled 

during military service. 

Under current law, these veterans and their survivors are eligible for VA service-connected cash compensation and survivors dependency and indemnity compensation benefits, but not other ancillary benefits provided to service-connected veterans. 

These ancillary benefits include health care for dependents under 

the CHAMPVA program, and a $10,000 policy of life insurance provided under the service-disabled veterans insurance program, and 

education benefits for their children. 

The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that about 1,800 

veterans and about 1,200 spouses, which also include surviving 

spouses, would qualify for these additional benefits. 

I don’t think we should ask veterans and their families to bear 

the financial burden of negligence on the part of VA or perhaps 

even carelessness. 

That is why, Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge you and the Ranking 

Member and all my fellow colleagues of the subcommittee to favorably consider this legislation. Thank you, again, for allowing me to 

testify. 

[The statement of Hon. Silvestre Reyes appears on p. 44.] 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you for coming over. I know about juggling 

all those committee meetings. Thank you very much for your support of this legislation and also for your dedication to helping our 

veterans, who certainly give us the freedom we enjoy, by being here 

this morning. 

I thank the other members for bringing attention to these issues 

through these other bills. 

Mr. Michaud, do you have a question for any member of the 

panel? 

Mr. MICHAUD. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BROWN. Do any members have any questions on any of the 

issues? If not, we will go to the next panel. Thank you. 
12

Good morning, gentlemen. Mr. Robert Epley is the Associate 

Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program Management at 

the Veterans Benefits Administration. He is accompanied by Mr. 

Jack Thompson, the VA Deputy General Counsel. Testifying on behalf of the Department of Defense is Mr. William Carr, the Acting 

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy. 

Welcome, gentlemen. Mr. Epley, you may begin. Thanks. 

STATEMENTS OF ROBERT J. EPLEY, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY 

UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLICY AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN H. THOMPSON, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; AND WILLIAM 

CARR, ACTING DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. EPLEY 

Mr. EPLEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for inviting us here today to testify. We welcome the opportunity to present the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs on the various bills of great interest to our nation’s veterans. 

As you mentioned, I am accompanied by Mr. Jack Thompson, our 

Deputy General Counsel. 

You requested our views on two bills that would increase the 

maximum loan guaranty. We have already heard the nature of 

those two bills, H.R. 1735 and H.R. 4065, both would increase the 

maximum guaranty level. Both would result in savings. The distinction in H.R. 4065 is it would include a provision to adjust the 

maximum guaranty to the Freddie Mac loan rate. 

VA is currently reviewing the results of an independent program 

evaluation of our home loan program. The maximum home loan 

guaranty was an element of this evaluation. We support the concept of an increase, but we must reserve our opinion on these two 

bills until we can complete our analysis of that report. 

H.R. 2612 also relates to our loan program. This bill will authorize the Secretary to provide specially adapted housing grants of up 

to $50,000 to certain veterans with permanent and total serviceconnected disabilities due to the loss or loss of use of both upper 

extremities. Currently, these veterans are eligible for a lesser grant 

of up to $10,000. 

VA supports the proposed increase for this class of severely injured veterans. 

H.R. 348, the Prisoner of War Benefits Act of 2003, would add 

five conditions to the list of diseases for which a presumption of 

service connection is available to former POWs. 

It would also set up a new protocol under which the Secretary 

would consider association of additional diseases with the POW experience. 

Clearly, the stresses and privations endured by POWs take 

heavy tolls on their health in ways that may never be fully understood, and these veterans are particularly deserving of special consideration. 
13

VA strongly supports enactment of Section 2(c) of H.R. 348, provided that Congress can find offsetting savings. 

VA is also working administratively to address the needs of 

former POWs for full and fair compensation. The Secretary has 

tasked a work group to develop a methodology for the fair and balanced assessment of medical conditions associated with detention 

as a POW, and recommend to him any conditions that warrant designation as presumptively service-connected. 

This work group has met several times, and will be shortly recommending to the Secretary a proposed methodology for consideration of additional diseases. 

We pledge to work through these difficult issues as quickly as 

possible, and to keep this committee informed of our progress. 

H.R. 2206 also relates to former POWs. This is the bill which 

designates the memorial to be constructed at the Riverside National Cemetery as a prisoner of war/missing in action national memorial. 

We have no objection to designating this memorial as provided 

in the bill. However, we do note that the National Park Service 

maintains the museum in Andersonville, Georgia, with similar designation, and we recommend that the National Park Service have 

an opportunity to comment on the legislation. 

Also, we note that this bill would restrict the use of Federal 

funds to maintain the Riverside memorial. Without authority to 

use Federal funds for the care and maintenance of the memorial, 

we do not support the legislation. 

H.R. 4173 would require VA to enter into a contract to study employment placement, retention, and advancement of recently separated servicemembers. VA supports the goals of H.R. 4173. We believe it may be advantageous to broaden the scope of that study, 

and that there may be an ongoing need for such analyses which 

may require additional funding in the future. 

VA also believes it would be more appropriate to fund this study 

out of the readjustment benefits account. 

H.R. 4172 would codify two areas of existing regulation relating 

to radiation exposed veterans. It would also provide that a radiation exposed veteran who receives a payment under the Radiation 

Exposure Compensation Act, RECA, would be entitled to receive 

VA compensation after offset of the amounts received under RECA. 

That would also apply to EEOIC applicants. 

VA favors enactment of this provision provided that Congress 

can find an offset. 

H.R. 3936 addresses the location of the Court of Appeals for Veterans’ Claims, and VA defers to the Court on that bill. 

H.R. 843 would create eligibility for Section 1151 beneficiaries 

under various Title XXXVIII benefit programs. Each of these benefits might correspond to an element of the damages which could 

constitute a tort award against the Government under the Federal 

Tort Claims Act. Therefore, the bill might create an anomalous 

dual remedy for veterans with non-service-connected disabilities 

that is more advantageous than the remedy provided for veterans 

injured during their military service. 

VA does not support this bill. 
14

Mr. Chairman, you also requested our views on a draft bill entitled Veterans’ Education Opportunity Act of 2004. This bill would 

authorize certain individuals to convert their eligibility from the 

Chapter 32 post-Vietnam era education program to the Montgomery GI Bill. 

There have been two previous opportunities for similar conversions to the Montgomery GI Bill, and enactment of this bill would 

result in significantly increased costs. Therefore, we are unable to 

support this bill’s enactment. 

Mr. Chairman, that summarizes my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Epley appears on p. 65.] 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Epley. Let me go to Mr. Carr, and 

then we will come back to questions for the panel. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. CARR 

Mr. CARR. Mr. Chairman, thank you. The Department recognizes 

the contributions and the influence of the decisions and actions of 

this subcommittee and our colleagues at the Department of Veterans Affairs on the success of the defense enterprise. 

With regard to recruiting and retention, which are a by-product 

of those actions and decisions, they are both going well in the area 

which I oversee, which is the active military personnel policies. 

Recruiting is good. Retention is good. As having spent my adult 

life overseeing military personnel policy and being involved in it, 

I frankly didn’t expect it would be at this stage of success at this 

moment. 

We have watched the leading indicators in terms of survey results and asking a substantial number of soldiers and families 

what their retention intentions are. We ask young people and their 

parents how they feel about recruiting and having their child serve 

in the military. All of those are generally good indicators, and those 

are influenced in part by the education programs, for the specific 

matter for which defense representatives here today, the VEAP. 

We actually have opened that, as the subcommittee knows, a 

couple of times in the past. In 1996, about half of those who would 

have qualified under that legislation took advantage of the opportunity, and in 2000, about 20 percent took advantage of the opportunity. A substantial number already have made that conversion. 

For the active duty Montgomery GI Bill, it has a few different 

purposes. One is for recruiting, to incentivize that, but also for 

transition. 

In the case of recruiting, that is going well, as I’ve mentioned, 

although we are watchful. In the case of transition, those who are 

in that eligible cohort are also in the retirement eligible cohorts, 

where transition is eased. 

Therefore, the Department of Defense would agree with the priority and the position that is taken by the Department of Veterans 

Affairs on that particular initiative. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Carr appears on p. 81.] 

Mr. BROWN. The recruits that are coming into the services now, 

are we having more recruits than we have positions open? Are you 

having to do a lot of selecting? How is the recruiting coming? 
15

Mr. CARR. If we took the applicants that we are working with, 

the number that would be there, that we would convert to active 

duty, and many don’t choose in the end to enlist, but that density 

is about the same as it has been in years past. The density is not 

only sufficient to cover our needs both quantitatively and qualitatively, we are not relaxing any standards and we are still hitting 

the numbers, the numbers are where they should be. We are not 

lowering them just to make it easy. 

Against those parameters, recruiting is successful, but something 

that is especially surprising is through the delayed entry program, 

where the Department builds a bull pen of recruits for later entry, 

those are at historically high levels. 

As we look at whether or not in Armed Services there is some 

consideration of the Army adjustment to end strength, that could 

put an additional demand on recruiting. Major General Rochelle, 

the head of Army recruiting, has said that the Army Recruiting 

Command could cover that because their bull pen is so strong. 

Again, nothing taken for granted because the positive comments 

don’t suggest anything sanguine in every month. We are looking at 

the economic indicators. They are stronger. That is good news for 

the economy, bad news for recruiting. We have to be attentive to 

the direction those factors take as well, but the mix is solid on virtually any dimension that we want to cut it. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much. In reference to the POW/MIA 

monument, I noticed that you said in your statement that if the 

Department didn’t have responsibility for the maintenance, then 

you wouldn’t support it. 

Is that different from the normal policy? Why would that be the 

case? 

Mr. EPLEY. Our concern, Mr. Chairman, is it’s a wonderful idea, 

and we do not object to the establishment of the monument. In 

fact, our National Cemetery Administration is ready to proceed 

with the activity out at Riverside. 

We understand in the bill that private funding is intended to 

cover the maintenance. Our concern is we don’t want to see a 

shortfall in the private funding and allow that memorial or the 

grounds around it to deteriorate. We just want to be able to use 

our administrative funds to assure the high standards. 

Mr. BROWN. I don’t know the procedure or how all this works, 

but I would assume there would be some allocation of funding, or 

we believe the responsibility would still be on Riverside to maintain some quality of conditions there. 

That is why I was questioning about why the private funds 

couldn’t be used, as long as the conditions were being set and met 

by Riverside. I think it was the intent to make this revenue neutral. 

Mr. EPLEY. We would welcome that, Mr. Chairman. We want to 

maintain it to the highest standards that we can. It was our reading of the proposed legislation that it would be prohibited. If we 

misunderstood that, we would be happy to maintain it. 

Mr. BROWN. Let me ask you one further question. Regarding the 

two home loan bills, H.R. 1735 and 4065. I am respectfully not sure 

that waiting for completion of an independent program evaluation 

on the maximum home loan is necessary. 
16

The subcommittee already knows that housing prices have increased significantly since Congress last increased the VA maximum loan guarantees in December 2001, especially in metropolitan areas like Atlanta, Boston, Denver, Honolulu, Los Angeles, 

New York, San Diego and so forth. 

I personally think that H.R. 1735 and H.R. 4065 represent steps 

in the right direction. If VA were to implement only one of them, 

which would you prefer and why? 

Mr. EPLEY. Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned in my testimony, the 

VA requests deferring a position on that as an agency until we get 

that study. 

If you were asking me for my personal opinion on that, the argument that we heard earlier about aligning the loan maximum to 

the market and having an automatic indexing is a compelling argument in H.R. 4065. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you. Mr. Michaud, do you have any questions? 

Mr. MICHAUD. I have a couple of questions for the VA. It is my 

understanding that if an offset applies, the VA deducts the entire 

amount of a FTCA award, including attorney fees, from the benefit 

otherwise payable to a veteran receiving compensation under 38 

USC, Section 1151, regardless of how the elements of the awards 

were calculated. 

My second question is would you describe the circumstances 

under which VA does not offset the FTCA award against serviceconnected compensation benefits? 

Mr. EPLEY. Mr. Michaud, your question gets into some detail. I 

will try to address it briefly, and then I will ask Mr. Thompson to 

give a little more detail on it. 

Our understanding of the law and RECA is passage of the law 

might put non-service-connected veterans who are—I’m sorry. I 

meant 1151. It might place them in an advantageous position relative to those veterans who are service-connected as a result of 

their direct military service. That’s the major concern that we have. 

Regarding more detail on when we offset and when we don’t, sir, 

I’d like to ask Mr. Thompson to address that. 

Mr. THOMPSON. Mr. Michaud, the Department has a couple of 

concerns about this bill and the way the offset would work. 

First of all, for the treatment-injured veterans, they have a remedy available to them that service-injured veterans do not, under 

the Federal Torts Claim Act, under which either through an administrative claim or later through a suit, there is a potential for 

a large up-front lump sum payment. 

If in addition to this remedy, which service-injured veterans do 

not have, you were to confer eligibility for all ancillary service-connected benefits, you would in fact just be increasing the disparity 

between these two classes of veterans. 

With regard to offset, the way the bill is written, there is no requirement that a veteran even apply for compensation under 1151, 

in order to qualify for ancillary service-connected benefits. If he 

doesn’t apply for 1151 compensation, and the same purpose for the 

ancillary benefits has been met in the lump sum tort award the 

veteran gets, then in applying for and receiving the ancillary benefits, there would in fact be a double recovery. 
17

There would be no offset at all unless there is VA compensation. 

Mr. MICHAUD. It’s my understanding they could not get the ancillary benefits—I think it treats them both equally under the bill. I 

will have to re-read that language. Mr. Chairman, if I could submit 

further written questions for clarification. 

Recruiting and retention costs, it’s my assumption they are increasing, just to keep up barely with meeting the DOD’s goals. Is 

that correct? 

Mr. CARR. It is. In the past ten years, the costs per recruit, when 

everything is thrown in, in constant dollars, has roughly doubled. 

The investment still is an efficient, effective investment because 

when we consider the productivity, as defended by the National 

Academy of Sciences, it is a terrific buy relative to the alternative 

of conscription, and that is the reason the Department and the 

Congress believes the All Volunteer Force works as well as it does. 

It is a cost-effective force, notwithstanding those more substantial 

investments, and it is those investments that make sure that we 

do have the number and quality objectives, and there are few 

things, I think, among defense leadership, military or civilian, that 

get attention quicker than a blip in recruiting. This is a manifestation of that. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Have you taken the time to look at recruiting 

guides, what effect that is having on a State like Maine, that has 

a higher percentage of National Guards overseas, what effect that 

is having on small businesses? 

Mr. CARR. On the small businesses, I am sorry, I am just not 

qualified to comment, that is over in our Reserve Affairs. I would 

have to take that for the record. 

[The information follows:]
18
19

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Michaud. 

Mr. Carr, does the Department have a position on H.R. 3936 to 

build and construct the veterans’ courthouse on the Pentagon Reservation? 

Mr. CARR. Not that I’m aware of, Mr. Chairman. I can again answer that for the record. I didn’t anticipate that. 

[The information follows:]
20
21

Mr. BROWN. All right. Do any other members have a question? 

Ms. Davis? 

Mrs. DAVIS. This is probably a question we would both want to 

ask. When do you expect to have the report out on the bills for the 

VA loans? 

Mr. EPLEY. Ma’am, we have received preliminary briefings from 

them, almost all of the research is done and the report is being 

drafted. I expect that we should receive it within a month. 

Mrs. DAVIS. That would be helpful. It was my understanding 

that perhaps as they have looked at the bills, there was actually 

more savings in 1735? 

Mr. EPLEY. That’s correct. I think both bills save money. I believe 

1735 would result in about $82 million over ten years, and I believe 

4065 is $71.3 million over ten years. They both result in savings. 

Mrs. DAVIS. They both result in savings. Could you clarify just 

briefly whether or not the VA provides home loans for multi-family 

units or duplexes? How does it accommodate that kind of housing? 

Mr. EPLEY. I do not know the answer to that. I have the director 

of the Loan Guaranty Program. Is my answer correct? 

Mr. PEDIGO. We do have provisions for providing guaranty loans 

for multi-family housing up to four units per veteran. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, just a question or two. 

You mentioned the idea of indexing, and actually, I think that is 

also a good idea. Our interest was in trying to bring the index to 

at least match what the Freddie Mac opportunities are that people 

have that are not necessarily for veterans, and that was important 

to bump it up to a point that people actually could take advantage 

of the housing market in their areas. 

If in fact we didn’t index it necessarily to the 25 percent of the 

Freddie Mac standard, is there another index that you had thought 

about that might be comparable or a different national standard 

you would have in mind? 

Mr. EPLEY. Actually, ma’am, we would use the same index if we 

were considering such a thing in the FHA programs that are similarly constructed. We think if we are looking to index, Freddie Mac 

is the right way to go. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Great. Thank you. Obviously, there are savings if we 

increase it somewhat. Are you seeing that the VA home loan has 

been useful with the current limit to veterans, or in fact are they 

really not able to access that today? 

Mr. EPLEY. The program is successful. One of the members, perhaps yourself, quoted numbers for the last couple of years. Last 

year in 2003, we had a record year. I think it was the third highest 

number of guarantees in the last 50 years. It is a very active and 

robust program. 

As stated earlier in testimony, we are finding that the maximum, 

$240,000, is eroding, compared to some of our larger city markets. 

We don’t want to see our veterans locked out of those markets, and 

I know that is the impetus for the bill. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you very much. We look forward to the report. Thank you. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Ms. Davis. 

Ms. Brown-Waite? 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 
22

Along the lines of the questions that Ms. Davis was asking, we 

got initial figures from CBO which, what a surprise, are different 

than the figures that you cited, Mr. Epley, in your statement. 

For example, the initial CBO figure for the first year of my bill 

would be $37 million, as opposed to, I think you all showed it as 

$20.5 million in 2005. Again, these are the estimated CBO figures. 

We don’t have it formally in writing. A ten year amount for the bill 

as currently drafted would be about $280 million. They are substantially higher than the figures you showed, and I’m sure we will 

come together with a figure that everybody can hopefully agree 

upon. 

In light of this substantial amount, what I most likely will do is 

have the bill amended to remove the 25 percent figure, or rather, 

holding it to the 90 percent of the Freddie Mac, so that it would 

be 100 percent of the Freddie Mac amount. 

Is this going to throw a monkey wrench into your estimates, first 

of all, and would the elimination of the 90 percent and going to the 

100 percent be supported? 

Mr. EPLEY. I still have to defer to a statement in support on behalf of the agency. Please excuse me for that. We do want to see 

the results of the study. In relative terms, raising the index up to 

the full amount, the loan program as it is currently constructed, is 

doing very well financially, and indexing that would not have a detrimental effect relative to us. 

It would raise the overall maximum and be more inclusive of veterans in more expensive markets. It would be hard to say that 

would throw a monkey wrench into it. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. One other question, Mr. Chairman. Isn’t the 

program going to be self-sustaining in 2005? That was the information that I had. 

Mr. EPLEY. Currently, we have a negative subsidy rate. We are 

doing very well financially, and we have considered legislation ourselves to see if we can make use of those funds, ma’am. It is very 

healthy financially. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Great. Certainly, Ms. Davis’ bill and my bill, 

I think, should in some way be combined. Our goals clearly are the 

same. I look forward to certainly working with her and working 

with the VA, as well as the chairman, to accomplish that. 

Mr. EPLEY. We would be happy to work with you on that, ma’am. 

We support the concept, clearly. 

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BROWN. If there are no further questions, Mr. Carr, Mr. 

Epley, and Mr. Thompson, we thank you for being with us today. 

We look forward to hearing from the next panel. 

Mr. CARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BROWN. We are pleased to have as the lead witness on panel 

four the National Commander of the American Ex-Prisoners of 

War, Mr. F. Paul Dallas. Mr. Dallas, it is not often that we have 

a national commander testify at the subcommittee level. Thank you 

for being here. 

Following Mr. Dallas will be Mr. Richard Jones, National Legislative Director of AMVETS, and Mr. Carl Blake, Associate Legislative Director of the Paralyzed Veterans of America. 
23

Welcome, gentlemen. Mr. Dallas, we will hear from you at this 

time. 

STATEMENTS OF F. PAUL DALLAS, NATIONAL COMMANDER, 

AMERICAN EX-PRISONERS OF WAR; RICHARD JONES, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMVETS; AND CARL 

BLAKE, ASSOCIATE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, PARALYZED 

VETERANS OF AMERICA 

STATEMENT OF F. PAUL DALLAS 

Mr. DALLAS. Thank you. Chairman Brown, members of the Subcommittee on Benefits, thank you for the opportunity to comment 

on behalf of the American Ex-Prisoners of War on legislation, H.R. 

348, the Prisoners of War Benefits Act of 2003, and H.R. 2206, the 

Prisoner of War/Missing in Action National Memorial Act. 

There is an urgency, a great urgency, to take action on legislation affecting POWs. Most are World War II or Korean War veterans, and now dying at the rate of greater than ten a day. Legislation delayed is legislation denied. 

Long term damage to the health of POWs has been exhaustively 

studied for more than 50 years by the National Academy of 

Sciences and other appropriate bodies. They have documented beyond any reasonable doubt that there are long term health consequences. 

Presumptives simply take the burden off the individual POW of 

having to prove that his health conditions are the cause of the 

POW experience. They have made it possible to gain service connection for conditions shown by research to e causally related to 

the captive experience. H.R. 348 would add five such conditions. 

On July 10, 2003, Daniel L. Cooper, Under Secretary for Benefits, testified before the Senate Committee on Veteran’s Affairs. He 

stated that the extreme adversities common to the POW experience 

did have long term health consequences. He indicated that on 

merit, VA could support those same presumptives under consideration by the Senate. He emphasized that VA is committed to properly compensate POWs for their long term health consequences. 

H.R. 348 would add heart disease, stroke, and liver disease to 

the presumptive list, also osteoporosis and adult onset diabetes. 

Osteoporosis results from the fact that under extreme malnutrition, 

the human body takes calcium from the bones. To a large degree, 

calcium loss cannot be replaced. A greater vulnerability to diabetes 

is also a consequence of severe stress and extreme malnutrition 

common to the POW experience. 

While the VA administratively under Public Law 108–183 legislatively added cirrhosis of the liver to the presumptive list, the designation of chronic liver disease more accurately reflects the National Academy of Sciences’ findings. 

We urge the committee to add all of these conditions specified in 

H.R. 348 to the presumptive list. They are unquestionably warranted by the evidence and long time overdue. 

It is likely that the Budget Office over estimated the cost of this 

legislation by not considering the increasing mortality of current 

service-connected POWs dying and being taken off the compensation rolls as an offset against the costs. However, even if there was 
24

some additional costs, our nation has an obligation and an absolute 

obligation to these veterans who sacrificed health as well as freedom for their country. They have waited 50 years for their conditions to be made presumptives, and should not be held hostage to 

the budget process. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to add an addendum to this testimony, if I may. Veterans exposed to Agent Orange in Vietnam experienced high rates of certain disabilities, scientifically associated 

with exposure, Congress provided for presumptives for service connection. 

When veterans returning from Service in the Persian Gulf experience high rates of certain symptoms or clusters of symptoms then 

veterans without such Service, Congress provided for presumptives 

of service connection for diagnosed and poorly defined illnesses. 

America’s former prisoners of war have demonstrated higher 

rates of certain disabilities than other veterans, and Congress 

should likewise provide a presumption of service connection. It is 

unfair to place the higher burden of proof on ex-POWs than on the 

other groups. 

Congress should act now and address these injustices. 

I’d like to make one more comment concerning the costs, if I 

may. With the rates that the POWs are dying, it would be impossible to add—if this bill passed, it would be impossible to add more 

to the list receiving the compensation than are dying. I can’t understand how this bill would add any costs at all. Over 1,200 a year 

are dying right now. 

We have 400 POWs in less than 30 days. Some of those have already been able to get compensation. Between 100 and 200 of 

those, if my figures are correct, could possibly be added to the list 

if you pass this legislation, and even if only one was able to obtain 

the benefits he deserves, it’s worth the legislation being passed. 

Thank you, and we will receive questions if you have any. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dallas appears on p. 115.] 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Dallas. We will hold questions until 

all panel members have had a chance to testify. 

Mr. Jones, we will take testimony from you now. Thanks for 

being here. 

Thank you, Mr. Dallas, for your commitment to this great country. We will have questions later. Thank you. 

Mr. DALLAS. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD JONES 

Mr. JONES. Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Michaud, members of the subcommittee, on behalf of AMVETS National Commander John Sisler and the nationwide membership of AMVETS, 

I am pleased to offer our views on the legislation before you today. 

It is a pleasure to sit beside Commander Davis who speak about 

your commendable legislation, H.R. 348, the Prisoner of War Benefits Act. This measure was introduced by Vice Chairman Bilirakis, 

essentially to improve the benefits for former prisoners of war. 

AMVETS agrees that prisoners of war deserve our gratitude and 

respect for their sake and the sake of everyone who wears the military uniform. 
25

We need to do right for America’s sons and daughters held prisoner of war. AMVETS supports the bill. 

Regarding H.R. 843, the Injured Veterans Benefits Eligibility Act 

of 2003, introduced by Representative Reyes, this bill would expand 

full service-connected disability benefits for individuals disabled by 

treatment or vocational rehabilitation which had been provided by 

VA. 

While the benefit for service connection is generally related to a 

servicemember’s past military experience, AMVETS does not oppose service-connected coverage for individuals who are disabled as 

a result of their exposure to VA care. 

With regard to H.R. 1735, a bill to increase the maximum 

amount of home loan guarantee for veterans, this bill was introduced by Representative Davis. It would increase the maximum 

loan guarantee to $81,000 from the current level of $60,000. 

This change in guarantee will increase the no down payment VA 

home loan guarantee limit, and under the current formula, we understand the VA guarantees 25 percent of the available loan, up to 

the guarantee limit. This would allow veterans to look at homes in 

the market range of $324,000 and below with no down payment. 

With housing prices in certain parts of the country rising as 

quickly as they are, this bill would help veterans obtain a home 

through the VA home loan program, which was once the flagship 

of VA. 

This is a program that deserves your attention. We are pleased 

to have this bill before you, and AMVETS fully supports H.R. 1735. 

H.R. 26223, the Veterans Adapted Housing Expansion Act introduced by Ranking Member Michaud, would expand the VA Secretary’s authority to provide specially adapted housing assistance 

to veterans with permanent and total service-connected disabilities. 

AMVETS fully agrees that those who are severely disabled through 

their Service to their country deserve more generous and more liberal benefits than they currently receive. This would be one grand 

step in the right direction. 

With regard to the Prisoner of War/Missing in Action National 

Memorial Act, introduced by Representative Calvert, AMVETS supports this bill, and it is our hope that such a designation would 

continue the work that ensures that future generations understand 

the courage of these men and women who sacrificed so much for 

our freedom, and they did so in defense of the liberties we hold 

dear. 

With regard to H.R. 4065, the Veterans Housing Affordability 

Act, this bill compliments the earlier legislation we spoke of regarding VA’s home loan program. The one adjustment is that it is 

self adjusting and indexed. It might be a wise idea. We seem to 

stumble over this issue every few years as veterans begin to try to 

use that benefit and find that rather than no down payment, they 

are paying a 20 percent down payment like everyone else who has 

access to many Federal guarantee programs, but of course, the difference is they are servicemembers who have stood in military uniform. 

We think that an inflation adjustment would be a wise one, and 

we hope the VA can support it, too. 
26

Regarding the draft bill, codifying presumption of service connection diseases when occurring in veterans exposed to ionizing radiation, AMVETS supports this legislation. The bill was introduced 

by Ranking Member Evans, and AMVETS fully supports this section as it recognizes the serious adverse health consequences of 

these exposures during military service. 

With regard to H.R. 3936, locating the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims’ facility in a location in the metropolitan area, the 

District of Columbia, that is fine with AMVETS. We believe it 

should be upgraded. We look forward to your decision on this bill. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones appears on p. 84.] 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Jones. Mr. Blake. 

STATEMENT OF CARL BLAKE 

Mr. BLAKE. Chairman Brown, Ranking Member Michaud, we 

would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the 

proposed legislation. 

H.R. 348 would ease the difficulty associated with receiving a 

service connection for diseases occurring as a result of being a prisoner of war. It would also add several diseases to the list of presumptive conditions. 

PVA supports these provisions of the legislation. 

PVA fully supports providing a veteran or his or her family benefits if they are disabled by VA treatment services in accordance 

with the provisions of H.R. 843. 

PVA supports in concept H.R. 1735 and H.R. 4065, which would 

increase the home loan limit available from the VA. These proposals are in accordance with the proposal made by The Independent Budget for fiscal 2005, to increase the maximum VA loan 

guarantee. 

PVA also agrees with the provisions of H.R. 4065 that would 

allow the home loan guarantee amount to have an automatic annual adjustment. 

H.R. 2206 calls for the designation of a POW/MIA memorial located at Riverside National Cemetery in Riverside, California. PVA 

has no objections to the proposed memorial. As we have recommended in the past with respect to the authorization of national 

memorials, we urge the designers of this memorial to make every 

effort to ensure full accessibility for disabled veterans and citizens 

in the memorial design. 

H.R. 2612 authorizes the VA to provide the specially adapted 

housing grant to veterans with a total and permanent service-connected disability due to the loss or loss of use of both upper extremities, such as to preclude use of the arms at and above the elbows. 

PVA interprets this legislation to mean that a qualifying veteran 

who no longer has use of not only his or her lower arms, but specifically the elbow joint as well. Veterans who have loss of both 

upper extremities face not only obvious every day challenges, but 

also less obvious mobility impairments associated with balance. 

PVA supports H.R. 2612. We must, however, underline the importance of ensuring that the intent of the subcommittee be made 

clear, to guarantee that the broadest number of veterans be covered by this legislation. 
27

PVA supports H.R. 3936, which would authorize the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for Veterans’ Claims to be located anywhere in the 

Washington, DC metropolitan area. PVA is also pleased to see that 

Congress recognizes the need to have a dedicated veterans’ courthouse and justice center. 

PVA also believes that it is important to allow the individuals 

who regularly practice before the court to reside there as well. This 

would include representatives from the Veterans’ Consortium Pro 

Bono Program, the National Veterans’ Legal Services Program, and 

appellate attorneys from veterans’ service organizations. 

PVA, along with many other veterans’ service organizations, 

maintain a strong presence before the court, and it is important 

that they be allowed to continue to have easy unrestricted access. 

Under current law, servicemembers who first entered military 

service before June 30, 1985 and continue to serve are ineligible for 

the Montgomery GI Bill benefits. 

The proposed legislation would remove the restriction on eligibility for the MGIB for the military personnel who entered Service 

prior to June 30, 1985. In accordance with the recommendation of 

the TIB, PVA supports this legislation. 

PVA supports H.R. 4173 that directs the Secretary of VA to contract for a report on employment placement, retention and advancement of recently separated servicemembers. PVA has worked 

with many of the veterans’ service organizations to ensure that veterans’ preference rights in Federal hiring are protected. We remain 

concerned that the Federal Government is not doing enough to recruit new veterans to the workforce. 

The success of veterans seeking employment in the private sector 

is much less clear. Despite the reassurances of various business executives who recently testified before the full committee that they 

were hiring veterans, we have not seen hard facts on the number 

of men and women leaving the military and entering the workforce. 

This report would hopefully provide a better reflection of the hiring trends of businesses in this country. 

PVA supports H.R. 4172 that would add certain additional diseases to the list of diseases presumed to be service-connected for 

veterans exposed to ionizing radiation. Currently, radiation exposed veterans who have received a payment under the Radiation 

Exposure Compensation Act, RECA, are barred from receipt of VA 

compensation by 38 CFR 3.715. 

PVA also understands that the VA has taken interpretation of 

this regulation one step further. If a veteran currently receiving VA 

compensation is granted a RECA payment, the VA stops payment 

of compensation to that veteran. 

Section 2 of the proposed legislation would prohibit the VA from 

denying compensation to veterans exposed to radiation just because 

they received a payment under RECA. 

The bill would restore the original intent of the compensation 

program so that payments from VA or RECA would be offset 

against the other. This would prevent dual payment for the same 

disability. 

PVA would like to thank you for holding this hearing on this proposed legislation today, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. 
28

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blake appears on p. 89.] 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you. Mr. Michaud, do you have a question? 

Mr. MICHAUD. No questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BROWN. Gentlemen, thank you very much for coming today 

and giving us your insight to this important legislation, and thank 

you to your organizations for your service to our veterans. We are 

grateful for you all taking the time to come. Thank you so very 

much. 

Will the next panel come forward? 

Thank you all for waiting. This has been a long session. We have 

certainly received some great testimony. 

Mr. John McNeill is the Deputy Director of the National Veterans Service at the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Mr. Brian Lawrence is Assistant National Legislative Director of the Disabled 

American Veterans, and Ms. Cathleen Wiblemo is the Deputy Director of Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Division of The American Legion. 

Thank you all for being here today. We will begin with Mr. 

McNeill. 

STATEMENTS OF JOHN McNEILL, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL VETERANS SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS 

OF THE UNITED STATES; BRIAN E. LAWRENCE, ASSISTANT 

NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN 

VETERANS; AND CATHLEEN WIBLEMO, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

VETERANS’ AFFAIRS AND REHABILITATION DIVISION, THE 

AMERICAN LEGION 

STATEMENT OF JOHN McNEILL 

Mr. MCNEILL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Veterans of Foreign Wars supports all nine bills. I will elaborate. 

H.R. 348 completes the repeal started by Public Law 108–183 of 

the 30-day internment requirement for application of presumption 

requirements for certain disabilities associated with prisoners of 

war. 

This repeal has been the topic of past resolutions by the VFW, 

and we support the extension now to the remaining disabilities as 

indicated in section 1112 of the Code. 

We support H.R. 843 that will provide eligibility to ancillary benefits to veterans unintentionally injured while under the VA’s care. 

However, we would like to add that the same consideration should 

also be extended to those veterans who are ‘‘as if service-connected,’’ under the provisions of Section 1160 of the Code, which is 

commonly known as the ‘‘impaired organs law’’. 

The disabilities listed in Section 1160 would usually be more severe than those that are normally under Section 1151, but the current legislation will not cover Section 1160 veterans. Any possible 

consideration by the subcommittee would certainly be very much 

appreciated by us. 

Both H.R. 1735 and H.R. 4065 are excellent proposals, but particularly so for our young active duty soldiers attempting to purchase their first home. This latter group are quite often overlooked 

when it comes to realizing the value of the home loan guaranty 

program. 
29

The VFW’s Department of California and many of the local VFW 

posts in Southern California have labored extensively, including 

raising significant funds, for a national memorial to our prisoners 

of war and those missing in action. H.R. 2206 would now acknowledge these efforts to provide a fitting dedication to those who did, 

and actually are still doing, so much for our country. 

H.R. 2612 will now qualify those very severely disabled veterans 

with loss or loss of use at or below the elbows for special adaptive 

housing. This is a critical distinction and a commendable proposed 

extension of a very important entitlement that will extensively assist these very seriously disabled veterans in adjusting to a new 

way of life. 

We only have to recall all the recent news coverage concerning 

the extremity injuries involving our Iraqi Freedom and Enduring 

Freedom personnel, and you can see the potential impact of Congress’ support through this legislation. 

The draft Veterans Education Opportunity Act of 2004 is an opportunity finally now to provide a viable educational opportunity 

for those military who only had the inadequate Veterans’ Educational Assistance Program (VEAP). 

This legislation has been requested for many years, and action 

as directed in this draft bill is appropriate. 

By most measures, the Transition Assistance Program is very 

successful, and particularly so as part of the VA’s Benefits Delivery 

at Discharge program. H.R. 4173’s direction to contract for a report 

on employment placement, retention and advancement of recently 

separated servicemembers will make an excellent program even 

better. 

We previously testified on June 10, 1999 recommending the disabilities identified in H.R. 4172 for inclusion as presumption of 

service connection for exposure to ionizing radiation. Actually, in 

the 1999 testimony, we identified ten additional disabilities as our 

belief that of established as presumption would achieve equality to 

what has been historically provided to the Marshall Islanders. 

However, the differences here are for discussion at a later time 

because this proposed bill is over all exemplary in its purpose. 

We request one clarification as to whether cancers of the brain 

will incorporate cancer of the central nervous system. We feel it 

should with the close correlation of these cancers. 

We also have a suggestion that veterans who served in the nuclear submarine service and those who were nuclear weapons handlers service should likewise be included in the legislation, with 

their similar duties and responsibilities as the identified Department of Energy personnel. 

As stated by Chief Judge Kramer, a dedicated courthouse will 

maximize productivity and minimize labor resources by allowing 

the combined housing of not only the court but also VA general 

counsel and personnel and organizations involved directly in veterans’ jurisprudence work before the court. 

We strongly and emphatically support H.R. 3936. 

This concludes my comments on the legislation, but this also provides an opportunity for us to formally thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

and all the members for what you did for veterans in the first ses-
30

sion of the 108th Congress through the eventual enactment of Public Law 108–183. 

It seems, and for mostly for the right reasons, VA health care 

dominates the news, but there were significant legislative measures that germinated in this very subcommittee and received hardly any publicity, but through Congress’ hard work, are now altering 

lifestyles to the betterment of veterans and their families. 

We in the VFW regularly hear from individuals who have been 

positively impacted by what you did last year, and we are very 

quick to tell them that their thanks must be extended to you, the 

Congress. 

When you ever go home after a bad day at the office, please always remember there are veterans and their family members who 

are very quietly appreciating what you have accomplished for them 

as our legislative leaders. 

Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McNeill appears on p. 97.] 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. McNeill. We are going to invite you 

back at every meeting. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MCNEILL. I’m not sure the staff will. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Lawrence. 

STATEMENT OF BRIAN E. LAWRENCE 

Mr. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My written statement 

addresses all the legislation on today’s agenda, but for the sake of 

brevity, I will restrict my comments to the bills that are pertinent 

to DAV resolutions through The Independent Budget. 

H.R. 348 would eliminate the requirement for a minimum period 

of internment for eligibility for presumptive service connection, and 

it would also expand the list of diseases determined to be presumptively service-connected. 

The DAV fully supports this bill. As the subcommittee is aware, 

military personnel captured in war are often subjected to brutal 

psychological and physical treatment, inadequate nutrition and 

lack of medical care. 

Such deprivations and abuse often lead to diseases that manifest 

several years after relief of such activity. 

We urge that the proposals contained in the Prisoner of War 

Benefits Act of 2003 be favorably acted upon by the subcommittee. 

H.R. 843 would provide for service-connected disability benefits 

to veterans injured as a result of medical treatment or vocational 

rehabilitation provided by the VA. Title XXXVIII of the United 

States Code, Section 1151, provides that a disability sustained as 

a result of VA medical treatment or vocational rehabilitation shall 

be compensated ‘‘as if’’ service-connected. 

According to VA general counsel opinions, the words ‘‘as if’’ distinguish disabilities caused by these programs from disabilities incurred during active military service. The VA provides basic compensation but refuses to provide ancillary benefits, such as a grant 

for a specially adapted home or automobile. 
31

H.R. 843 would amend Section 1151 to make clear that a disability sustained as a result of these VA programs shall be considered fully service-connected. 

The DAV supports this bill. We believe all benefits associated 

with service connection are due under existing law. In our view, a 

disabled veteran who is denied an essential benefit such as s specially adapted housing grant, is not being treated as service-connected. 

We urge that the proposals obtained in this bill be favorably 

acted upon by the subcommittee. 

H.R. 1735 would increase the maximum amount of a VA home 

loan guarantee from $60,000 to $81,000, and H.R. 4065 would increase the maximum amount of the home loan guarantee and provide for an annual adjustment to that amount. 

The IB has recommended adjusting the home loan guarantee and 

it also recommended an annual indexing adjustment to 90 percent 

of the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac loan ceiling. 

We are pleased that the subcommittee recognizes the need for an 

increase, along with an annual adjustment, and in accordance with 

the IB, we support these bills. 

H,R. 2612 would expand specially adapted housing to veterans 

with loss or loss of use of both upper extremities. Again, we support this bill. 

We acknowledge the benefits this would provide to such catastrophically disabled veterans. Veterans who sacrifice severely in 

the name of freedom have earned any measure we can provide to 

make their lives as normal as possible. We urge the subcommittee 

to act favorably upon this bill. 

H.R. 3936 would authorize that the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims be at any location in the DC metropolitan area 

rather than only in the District of Columbia. The DAV fully supports this bill. Although the Court has existed for more than 14 

years, it does not have a building of its own. Since its inception, 

the Court has been a tenant in commercial office spaces. Expediency was a priority during the establishment of the Court, and 

leasing property allowed for greater expediency, but it does not 

offer a long term solution to the need for space. 

The needs of the Court and those it serves have increased since 

it was established. Rather than seek a larger facility, we urge that 

a Veterans Courthouse and Justice Center be provided to the Court 

and those it serves. 

H.R. 4173 would direct the VA to contract for a report on employment placement, retention and advancement of recently separated 

servicemembers. Feedback information is necessary to evaluate the 

success of any program and information obtained in this study 

could be used to guide future efforts to assist veterans. 

We acknowledge that this study could be helpful or an asset to 

the VA. DAV believes that any such study should involve the Veterans Employment and Training Service, and we also suggest that 

H.R. 4173 should be amended to make the contract a set aside for 

a disabled veteran owned business. 

Mr. Chairman, I will pass on addressing the remaining bills, and 

just thank you for this opportunity. You have our written testi-
32

mony. Again, thank you for this opportunity to present our views 

on these bills. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lawrence appears on p. 105.] 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Lawrence. Ms. Wiblemo, you have 

been patiently waiting for a long time. Thank you for being here, 

and we will hear your testimony now. 

STATEMENT OF CATHLEEN WIBLEMO 

Ms. WIBLEMO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

On behalf of the American Legion, I would like to thank the subcommittee for this opportunity to present our views today on these 

various bills and draft legislation of interest. 

The American Legion is pleased to support H.R. 348, the Prisoner of War Benefits Act. We have long supported improvements 

in benefits provided to these unique and brave individuals and 

their survivors. 

While we are heartened by the proposed additions to the presumptive list, the American Legion has a long-standing mandate 

calling for the inclusion of chronic pulmonary disease, where there 

was a history of forced labor in mines during internment and generalized osteoarthritis, as differentiated from the currently listed 

disability of ‘‘post-traumatic arthritis.’’ The American Legion will continue to advocate for the inclusion 

of these diseases to the presumptive list. 

Regarding H.R. 843, The Injured Veterans Benefits Eligibility 

Act of 2003, the American Legion believes Section 1151 should be 

interpreted broadly rather than narrowly as it relates to entitlement to additional benefits. 

Since this legislation would eliminate any question regarding 

congressional intent as to the extent of entitlement to VA benefits 

authorized under Title XXXVIII USC, Section 1151, the American 

Legion offers no objection to this bill. 

H.R. 1735 seeks to amend Title XXXVIII to increase the amount 

of the home loan guarantee available to a veteran from $240,000 

to $324,000. The American Legion supports this bill. This proposal 

is an appreciable increase and is commensurate with the American 

Legion’s mandates. 

H.R. 4065, The Veterans Housing Affordability Act of 2004, proposes increasing the maximum amount of a home loan guarantee 

to $333,700 effective January 1, 2004, and providing for annual indexing of the maximum amount of the home loan guarantee to the 

current year Freddie Mac limit. 

Home ownership is an increasingly elusive goal for veterans to 

realize. The rising housing costs in many of the metropolitan areas 

nationwide effectively places beyond their reach the chance to own 

a home. 

H.R. 4065 will help to considerably ease the burden of qualifying 

for home loans and indeed, make it more affordable for veterans to 

be home owners. 

Both H.R. 1735 and H.R. 4065 will achieve the objectives stated 

by National Commander John Brieden in his testimony before a 

joint session of the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees 

that the VA home loan guarantee of $240,000 should be raised to 

$300,000. 
33

H.R. 2612, The Veterans Adapted Housing Expansion Act of 

2003, seeks to provide specially adapted housing assistance to veterans with permanent and total service-connected disabilities due 

to loss of use of both upper extremities. Clearly, veterans who have 

suffered loss or loss of use of both upper extremities are very seriously disabled. Extending entitlement to specially adapted housing 

assistance under Title XXXVIII, which H.R. 2612 proposes, will undoubtedly improve the quality of life for these veterans, and we are 

pleased to support this bill. 

The American Legion offers no objections to H.R. 3936 that authorizes the relocation of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims. 

The American Legion is pleased to support The Veterans Educational Opportunity Act of 2004. This legislation will enable eligible veterans to take advantage of the Montgomery GI Bill benefit 

of $985 per month for 36 months for a total of $35,000. This bill 

widens the window of opportunity for affordable education for very 

deserving veterans. 

H.R. 4173 is a bill that directs the Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs 

to contract for a report on employment placement, retention and 

advancement of recently separated veterans. While the American 

Legion has no official position, the Veterans’ Employment and 

Training Service of the Department of Labor seems to be a more 

appropriate agency to carry out this study. VETS is already responsible for a number of programs regarding employment issues. 

Further, the Bureau of Labor Statistics cited in the scope of work 

as the primary source of data for this study is also a DOL agency. 

H.R. 4172 would codify certain additional diseases as establishing a presumption of service connection when occurring in veterans exposed to ionizing radiation during active military, naval or 

air service. The American Legion has long advocated for expansion 

of the definition of a radiation risk activity, and this proposed 

amendment would overcome the inequities that exist under Title 

XXXVIII and make it easier for these atomic veterans or their survivors to obtain the benefits to which they are rightfully entitled. 

Additionally, the proposed expansion of presumed radiation related diseases is a needed change. While the American Legion fully 

supports the draft bill, we would like to recommend that consideration be given to amending it to specifically add to the list of diseases cover under Title XXXVIII chronic beryllium disease and 

chronic silicosis. These diseases are currently covered under the 

Radiation Compensation Act of 1990. Inclusion of these diseases is 

necessary to ensure the statute reflects all of the environmental 

hazards associated with veterans’ participation in the nation’s nuclear weapons program. 

Considering H.R. 2206 authorizing a national prisoner of war/

missing in action memorial in the State of California, the American 

Legion supports efforts to recognize the sacrifices of our POWs and 

MIAs, and the memorial provides much needed recognition of the 

unique sacrifices made by these servicemembers. 

The American Legion has commented today on numerous bills 

and draft legislation regarding veterans’ benefits, all important to 

improving the welfare of our nation’s veterans, and I thank the 

subcommittee once again for this opportunity. 
34

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wiblemo appears on p. 110.] 

Mr. BROWN. Thank all of you for coming and expressing your 

concerns and opinions on these important bills. 

Mr. Michaud, do you have a question? 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Mr. Chairman, 

I would ask leave to submit a VA document concerning the FTCA 

awards for the record. 

(See p. 46.) 

Mr. MICHAUD. I would also like to thank all of the SOs for all 

that you do for the veterans here in this country. I am just amazed, 

having been a Member of Congress for a little over a year, of the 

amount of time and effort that you put into making sure that the 

Congress treats our veterans right. I really appreciate all the hours 

that you put into that effort. Without you, we would not be seeing 

some of the legislation that we see come out of Congress. 

I appreciate your keeping the Members of Congress on top of this 

very issue, and hopefully, ultimately, we will get mandatory funding so you can focus a lot of attention on bills that we have heard 

today, and we look forward to continuing to work with you. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for all your efforts and working in a bipartisan manner, not only here today with 

the selection of these bills we are hearing, but also for your long 

time efforts in supporting issues important to veterans all around 

the country. 

I really appreciate your efforts. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Michaud. I also would like to echo 

my appreciation for your involvement in the process. It’s a great 

process. I can certainly echo Mr. Michaud’s thoughts that this is a 

non-partisan committee, although we have ranking members, Republicans and Democrats, the veterans’ issues are bipartisan, and 

we certainly address those issues on a bipartisan manner. 

We appreciate those thoughts you have, although we recognize 

the gratitude to our veterans, and there is not enough that we can 

do for our veterans. We don’t necessarily look for a lot of praise 

ourselves, but we want to give praise to those that give us this 

right to be here, those who have defended the freedom of this country. 

I’m grateful to have the chance to serve and give as much support as possible. 

To conclude this meeting, hearing no objection, I would like to 

enter into the record statements by the Vietnam Veterans of America, the Mortgage Investors Corporation, the Mortgage Bankers Association, the National Association of Realtors, and United Spinal 

Association. 

(See pp. 118, 120, 124, and 126.) 

Mr. BROWN. With nothing further to come before the committee, 

we stand adjourned. Thank you all for coming. 

[Whereupon, at 11:46 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
35

A P P E N D I X 
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129

WRITTEN COMMITTEE QUESTIONS AND THEIR RESPONSES 

CHAIRMAN BROWN TO DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
130
131
132
133
134

Æ