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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

37–478 2008

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 674, H.R. 1273, 

H.R. 1900, H.R. 1901, H.R. 2346, H.R. 2696, AND 

H.R. 2697 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND 

MEMORIAL AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 31, 2007 

Serial No. 110–40 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
ii 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

BOB FILNER, California, Chairman 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, South 

Dakota 

HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado 

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

JOE DONNELLY, Indiana 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana, Ranking 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana 

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina 

JEFF MILLER, Florida 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

VERN BUCHANAN, Florida 

Malcom A. Shorter, Staff Director 

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs 

JOHN J. HALL, New York, Chairman 

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas 

PHIL HARE, Illinois 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado, Ranking 

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records 

of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs are also published in electronic form. The printed 

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to 

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting 

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process 

is further refined. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
iii 

C O N T E N T S 

July 31, 2007 

Page 

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 674, H.R. 1273, H.R. 1900, H.R. 1901, H.R. 

2346, H.R. 2696, and H.R. 2697 .......................................................................... 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Chairman John J. Hall ............................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement of Chairman Hall ........................................................... 30 

Hon. Doug Lamborn, Ranking Republican Member ............................................. 16 

Prepared statement of Congressman Lamborn .............................................. 31 

Hon. Shelley Berkley ............................................................................................... 15 

WITNESSES 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Bradley G. Mayes, Director, Compensation and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits Administration .......................... 22 

Prepared statement of Mr. Mayes ................................................................... 40 

American Legion, Alec S. Petkoff, Assistant Director, Veterans Affairs and 

Rehabilitation Commission ................................................................................. 14 

Prepared statement of Mr. Petkoff ................................................................. 38 

American Veterans (AMVETS), Raymond C. Kelley, Legislative Director ......... 13 

Prepared statement of Mr. Kelley ................................................................... 37 

Hon. Vito Fossella, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

York ....................................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of Congressman Fossella ............................................... 32 

International Cemetery, Cremation and Funeral Association, Robert M. Fells, 

External Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel ................................... 12 

Prepared statement of Mr. Fells ..................................................................... 36 

Paralyzed Veterans of America, Carl Blake, National Legislative Director ....... 10 

Prepared statement of Mr. Blake .................................................................... 33 

Hon. Nick J. Rahall II, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

West Virginia ........................................................................................................ 3 

Prepared statement of Congressman Rahall .................................................. 31 

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the Untied States, Eric A. Hilleman, Deputy 

Director, National Legislative Service ................................................................ 11 

Prepared statement of Mr. Hilleman .............................................................. 35 

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Disabled American Veterans, Brian Lawrence, Assistant National Legislative 

Director, statement, Hon. Luis V. Gutierrez, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Illinois, statement .................................................................. 42 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Hon. James B. Peake, Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, to 

Hon. Bob Filner, Chairman, Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, letter dated 

July 7, 2008, transmitting Administration views on H.R. 156, H.R. 1273, 

H.R. 1900, and H.R. 1901 .................................................................................... 43 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 674, H.R. 1273, 

H.R. 1900, H.R. 1901, H.R. 2346, H.R. 2696, AND 

H.R. 2697 

TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2007 

U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE

AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:30 p.m., in Room 

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. John J. Hall [Chairman 

of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Hall, Rodriguez, Hare, Berkley, and 

Lamborn. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN HALL 

Mr. HALL. Okay. Sorry for the extra long delay. Welcome back. 

The Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs 

will come to order. 

Good afternoon. First would everybody please rise and join me in 

the Pledge of Allegiance. Flags are at either end of the room. 

[Pledge of Allegiance.] 

Mr. HALL. I would like to thank the witnesses for taking time to 

appear today and for their patience with our voting schedule and 

also for presenting testimony on these important measures, H.R. 

674, H.R. 1273, H.R. 1900, H.R. 1901, H.R. 2346, H.R. 2696 and 

H.R. 2697, all of which we will be considering today. 

H.R. 674, introduced by Congressman Gutierrez which would repeal the sunset of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans 

(ACMV) slated to occur December 31, 2009, if there is no intervening congressional action. 

As I stated during our joint hearing with the Health Subcommittee, I am especially concerned about the pending expiration 

of this authorization. In light of the June 2007 report from the U.S. 

Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA’s) Health Services Research 

and Development Service entitled, ‘‘Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

in the VA Healthcare System: A Systematic Review,’’ which found 

that racial disparities exist in all clinical areas and that the disparities in healthcare delivery are contributing to measurable differences in health outcomes, this Committee is definitely still necessary. It also found that the disparate treatment in the VA appears to affect African-American and Hispanic veterans more significantly. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
2 

With minorities comprising 20 percent of all of our Nation’s veterans, I, like Mr. Gutierrez, believe the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans plays an essential and indispensable role for the 

VA and should be made into a permanent fixture. 

We will also receive testimony on three bills regarding veterans’

memorial benefits, H.R. 1273, H.R. 2346, H.R. 2696 by Ms. Berkley, Mr. Fossella and Mr. Lamborn, our Ranking Member. Mr. 

Lamborn will be here sometime soon, we hope. He is currently in 

another hearing that hopefully will allow him to leave and come 

over here. 

In the meantime, the minority side is represented by Counsel, 

Kingston Smith. Mr. Lamborn and Ms. Berkley’s bills, among other 

things, seek to increase the plot and headstone or marker allowance for veterans who choose to be laid to rest in State or private 

cemeteries. Mr. Fossella’s bill, H.R. 2346, is intended to improve 

the process for determining where our National cemeteries are located. I know that because of changing migration patterns and simple geographic configurations, the current criteria of a 170,000 veteran population in a 75-mile radius is not always a workable paradigm. I am also aware that the VA is currently evaluating its memorial benefits plan, and I look forward to hearing testimony on 

its progress in this area before the April 2008 targeted completion 

date. 

We will also hear from Mr. Rahall on two bills that he sponsored, 

which would expand the category of those veterans eligible to receive pensions for nonservice-connected-disability death or service. 

H.R. 1900 would do so by providing this pension to veterans receiving expeditionary medals, and H.R. 1901 would do so by including 

those veterans who served in the Korean Peninsula, Lebanon, Panama and Grenada. I look forward to receiving testimony on these 

two important measures. 

Lastly, H.R. 2697, also sponsored by Mr. Lamborn would expand 

the eligibility for veterans’ mortgage life insurance to include Members of the Armed Forces receiving specially adaptive housing. I 

know it is often difficult for these servicemembers to acquire commercial insurance policies. This bill would close that gap between 

the military and VA military benefits. This change is now more 

necessary than ever for our returning Operation Enduring Freedom/Operations Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF) veterans. I will allow 

Mr. Lamborn, our Ranking Member, to read his opening statement 

when he is able to join us. 

And if it is okay, we will go right ahead to our first panel, which 

has shrunk from three to two. Welcome, the Honorable Nick Rahall. Mr. Gutierrez apparently is not able to join us, and the Honorable Vito Fossella. Your written statements will be entered into 

the hearing record so feel free to deviate from them. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Hall appears on p. 30.] 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Rahall, we will start with your testimony and you 

are recognized for 5 minutes. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
3 

STATEMENTS OF THE HON. NICK RAHALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; 

AND THE HON. VITO FOSSELLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. NICK RAHALL 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you very much, Chairman Hall and Ranking 

Member soon to be here, and my good friends and colleagues Mr. 

Rodriguez and Ms. Berkley. It is very nice to be with you today. 

I thank you and the Members of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee 

for what you have done in recent months to honor our brave men 

and women in uniform. 

The Committee knows that for centuries, we have witnessed the 

personal courage and sacrifice made by millions of Americans who 

have served our country. They have done so proudly without hesitation to protect our freedoms and our way of life and to help ensure peace in various regions worldwide. These individuals represent the best of America and I believe it is imperative that we 

in the Congress do everything in our power to honor them when 

they return home from their service. 

Too often when these young men and women do return, as the 

Committee is very well aware, we do not always honor their bravery with the full measure of respect and gratitude that it deserves. 

I believe we should take this opportunity to help ensure that our 

veterans regardless of the timeframe of their service receive appropriate recognition and benefits. Under current law, veterans may 

only meet eligibility requirements to draw a full pension if they 

have served in combat during a declared period of war. While this 

method was sufficient for the majority of veterans who served in 

America’s 20th century engagements, America’s evolving role in the 

world has necessitated the expansion and adaptation of our veterans benefit programs, including those pertaining to pensions. I 

believe this Subcommittee would agree that the veterans who put 

their lives on the line and suffer losses during undeclared times of 

conflict are no less admirable or deserving of thanks than those 

who serve in declared conflicts. 

My first bill, H.R. 1900, would expand eligibility for pension benefits through the VA to veterans who have received the Armed 

Forces Expeditionary Medal. This medal was established in 1961 

by John F. Kennedy to recognize the service of American veterans 

in light of the expanding involvement of the U.S. in conflicts outside the scope of a ‘‘period of war.’’

This medal is still awarded today to those men and women who 

serve in hostile regions, but not all of these courageous veterans receive full benefits. My second bill, H.R. 1901, would provide the 

guarantees of a pension to veterans who served in Korea, Lebanon, 

Grenada, and Panama. The bill specifically extends benefits to the 

following: Veterans who served in Korea from February 1, 1955, 

through August 4, 1964, and from May 8, 1975, through 1990; veterans who served in Lebanon and Grenada from August 24, 1982, 

through July 31, 1984; and finally veterans who served in Panama 

from December 20, 1989, through January 31, 1990. This bill would 

benefit those qualifying veterans who facilitated the overthrow of 

General Noriega in Panama as well as those who served in the conVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:42 Jul 27, 2008 Jkt 037478 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\37478.XXX 37478

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
4 

flict in Lebanon in 1983 when Americans, as we all know, lost 241 

Marines to a suicide attack on our barracks in Beirut. 

Though the soldiers and those who served during additional conflicts covered by this bill were clearly at risk, they are currently not 

eligible to receive veterans’ pensions. Nonetheless, in these cases, 

danger was faced. I think we all would agree with that. Bravery 

was shown. I think we all would agree with that. And unfortunately American lives were lost. 

So Mr. Chairman, I believe these bills would closely align the 

sacrifices made by these men and women with the compensation 

they deserve. As President Reagan said in his remarks to the Nation on the conflict in Lebanon and Grenada, and I quote: ‘‘They 

gave their lives in defense of our National security every bit as 

much as any man who ever died fighting in a war.’’ These sentiments apply to every man and woman who has stood 

in harm’s way to protect our freedoms. It is time that we recognize 

that fact and extend pension benefits to those veterans who have 

exemplified the courage and bravery of service in our Armed 

Forces. Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the Members 

of the Subcommittee and I thank the full Committee, under Chairman Bob Filner’s leadership for the excellent work each of you do 

for our Nation’s veterans. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Rahall appears on p. 

31.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Rahall. Mr. Fossella, you are now recognized for 5 minutes and your statement is also entered into the 

record. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. VITO FOSSELLA 

Mr. FOSSELLA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. 

Rodriguez, Ms. Berkley, thank you for your attendance here. And 

rather than repeat, let me just echo what my colleague, Mr. Rahall, 

has said not only about this Committee but also the great sacrifice 

and service of our men and women in uniform. And let me talk specifically about the legislation I have introduced. For years, I joined 

the Staten Island veterans in a battle to establish a veterans cemetery in our borough. The closest veterans cemetery in the area is 

the Calverton National Cemetery in Long Island. But transportation demands have made it practically inaccessible for too many 

of the 28,000 veterans in my district. It can be a grueling 3- to 5- 

hour roundtrip commute, making traveling there terribly difficult, 

particularly for disabled and older veterans. 

There are three primary obstacles preventing the establishment 

of a veterans’ cemetery on Staten Island. First, the New York State 

law passed in the eighties prohibits the State from funding a veterans cemetery. Currently, I, along with Staten Island’s local representatives, are working on a legislative solution to fix that problem. Second, Staten Island lacks the necessary available acreage 

for a cemetery. As you might know, there is a minimum requirement of about 175 acres. And due to the land shortage, many local 

veterans have united around the idea of a mausoleum because it 

requires the least amount of land and is the most cost effective way 

to achieve their long-sought goal. Real estate prices are high, and 

real estate itself is limited. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
5 

Third, the Department of Veterans Affairs would call the threshold of 170,000 veterans living within a 75-mile area to necessitate 

the establishment of a national veterans cemetery. Due to the fact 

that Calverton on Long Island falls within the 75-mile radius and 

therefore is ineligible under current law. For an aging, often disabled veteran population, the 3- to 5-hour commute to Long Island 

is unreasonable, and simply does not serve the veteran population 

nor their families on Staten Island. 

In addition, as I have mentioned, we have the 75-mile rule, 175 

acres as well. As I mentioned earlier, many local veterans have 

come to agree the idea of a mausoleum instead of an actual cemetery is acceptable and appropriate. I believe that the threshold requirements used by the VA are a blunt instrument when applied 

to determining cemetery eligibility. To refine the process, I offered 

H.R. 2346, a bill which would improve the process by adding additional variables for the VA to consider when siting a national cemetery. The bill would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a process for determining whether geographic areas are efficiently served by the veterans cemeteries located in the area. The 

process will take into account the following variables for each of 

the geographic areas: One, total number of veterans; two, the average distance residents must travel to reach the nearest national 

cemetery; three, the population density; four, the average amount 

of time it takes a resident to travel to the nearest national cemetery; and five, the availability of public transportation for purposes 

of traveling to the cemeteries. 

And finally, the average amount of fees charged to an individual 

travelling on the major roads leading to the national cemeteries. 

And this sort of encapsulates it all. As you might know, Mr. 

Chairman, being from New York, congestion and traffic is a problem getting from point A to point B. In addition, tolls and the 

Verrazano Bridge alone going on and off Staten Island right now 

round trip is $9, and is scheduled to rise to perhaps $10 or $11 

roundtrip. 

So there is significant costs and time constraints placed upon any 

veteran or family Member wanting to visit the cemetery. 

Finally, in the case of a geographic area in which sufficient land 

is not available for the establishment of a cemetery, we ask and 

allow the Secretary to consider establishing alternatives like a 

mausoleum. It is worth noting that the VA, as you mentioned, is 

currently conducting a study regarding its requirements for establishing a national veterans cemetery. A focus of the study is an examination of whether current thresholds are feasible and not overly 

simplistic in ensuring veteran access. The VA knows there is a 

problem, and I hope my legislation can help fix it. 

In closing, Staten Island has one of the highest veterans populations in the State, yet it remains underserved, I believe, by a veterans cemetery. It is my hope that if adopted, perhaps with your 

support, the legislation would provide for a place of remembrance 

for so many of my constituents who deserve such a site closer to 

home. 

Thank you very much for your time, to the Committee and you, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Congressman. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
6 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Fossella appears on p. 

32.] 

Mr. HALL. If you have a minute to answer questions, both to Mr. 

Rahall and Mr. Fossella, what I will do, since I made an opening 

statement, is ask Mr. Rodriguez if he would like to go first. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you very much. 

Chairman Rahall, let me ask you, do you know the number you 

anticipate you might be looking at that would fall under the category that you specify? Do you have a rough number. 

Mr. RAHALL. The number of individuals serving in the war. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. That would fall under that category. 

Mr. RAHALL. I am currently requesting that information from 

each branch of the military, and the DoD, in an effort to gather the 

records for the amount of medals that had been awarded on the 

first bill, the expeditionary medal. I don’t have the numbers yet on 

the second bill, the pension benefits. Wait just a second. Let me 

see. I might have those. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I have been informed by the staff, I think——

Mr. RAHALL. The same response, Mr. Rodriguez. We have the requests in to DoD and we don’t have those numbers returned yet. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I think it is definitely a good idea and just wanted to see in terms of how many we were referring to. 

Congressman, on the cemeteries, let me also congratulate you for 

bringing that forward, because I know that right now the life expectancy—that doesn’t sound too good for a cemetery—but the life 

expectancy of the existing cemeteries, even the ones we have now, 

are very low. By maybe creating additional ones, that might enhance their life expectancy. 

I wanted to look at it because I have a district that spans 650 

miles across west Texas and we don’t have any cemeteries out 

there. There is no doubt that we don’t have a population of 175,000 

people. There is a need for maybe some smaller cemeteries in conjunction where the counties can participate in helping in those 

areas. 

So I just want to congratulate you on bringing forth this effort 

here because there is no doubt that we need to look at different options versus just going into urban areas. Because basically, that is 

what this does, it just establishes cemeteries in urban areas despite 

the fact that I know you have an urban area that still allows options to look at different kinds of areas. I want to just thank you 

and congratulate you for that. 

Mr. FOSSELLA. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. As I see it, there are 

some rigid rules that the VA has. I think what we all would like 

to get to is some degree of flexibility, whether it is in west Texas 

or in Staten Island, to recognize that there may be a veterans population that may be underserved. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. For a cost. Later on, we have to be careful about 

setting specifics because a lot of people will say I qualify for one. 

We probably maybe need to look for some kind of process for determining some kind of assessment as to what is needed nationwide, 

so we get a feel as to what is more appropriate. Would that be okay 

to kind of look at a study that would look at the whole country as 

a whole. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
7 

Mr. FOSSELLA. I always believe that this should be an American 

model for determining and assessing the need. So I would be open 

to that as well. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Because I know that some of the local communities and counties would be willing to donate the property and 

those kinds of things to help in this process or in sharing the cost. 

Mr. FOSSELLA. I would be happy to look at that. 

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FOSSELLA. Thank you. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. And Ms. Berkley, would 

you like to ask some questions? 

Ms. BERKLEY. Yes. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First, 

I want to thank the two of you very much for being here. I appreciate it very much and support all three pieces of legislation. Chairman Rahall, the fact that veterans from Korea, Lebanon, Grenada, 

Panama have not been recognized and are not eligible for the veterans pension benefits I think is absurd. I am delighted that you 

have brought this to our attention. I have a question for you 

though, because the State of Nevada has no national veterans cemetery. We have two State cemeteries: one in Reno, Nevada, which 

services the northern part of our State; one in Boulder City, which 

services southern Nevada, primarily the Las Vegas-Henderson 

area. But my question to you is, I thought I heard a snippet where 

you said that State law prohibits you from having State cemeteries 

as well? 

Mr. FOSSELLA. Yes. New York is—I don’t know if it is exclusive 

but it is somewhat unique in the fact that it actually had a law 

passed in the 1980s, to prohibit the establishment of State cemeteries, similar to what you have in Nevada. And we have spent the 

last several years of trying to undo that, within understanding that 

there may not be a straight out Federal cemetery, but at least we 

would have the option that you have in Nevada to establish a State 

cemetery for veterans, and we are working on a legislative fix to 

try to undo that to allow that option. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Well, I am very supportive of your legislation as 

well. I thank you both for coming in and spending time with us. 

Mr. FOSSELLA. Thank you. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Ms. BERKLEY. In a minute, we will give 

you a chance, if you would like, to make a statement about your 

legislation, H.R. 1273. 

Ms. BERKLEY. I look forward to the opportunity. 

Mr. HALL. And so do we. But first, I just have a couple of brief 

questions, Mr. Rahall. I am curious about the genesis of your legislative efforts on H.R. 1900 and H.R. 1901, how they came to pass. 

You seem to have identified something that maybe many of us 

thought about or many of us might have missed. 

Mr. RAHALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The bill came about 

based on resolutions introduced by the American Legion. They actually had a resolution containing almost the exact same language. 

They certainly have recognized the oversight that exists in our efforts in providing both of these pieces of legislation. I might add 

as well that the Congressional Budget Office has not scored these 

bills, so I cannot give you an estimate yet on what it might cost. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
8 

But again, that is not a major, nor I think, even a contributing factor to a decision on this legislation. 

Mr. HALL. I would agree with that. Since there hasn’t been a declaration of war involved with many of our military activities since 

1941. Since World War II, the last time we declared war, it has 

been some other instrument that has legislatively given the power 

to engage in military conflicts to the executive branch. Some might 

say we should go back to having a declaration of war so the entire 

country is involved in a full debate about the wisdom of the undertaking. But in the meanwhile, those who have served in all these 

conflicts that you cover in your legislation certainly deserve the 

same pension and the same benefits as veterans who served in 

prior wars. 

Congressman Fossella, I just wanted to ask you, I am curious 

about the New York State law. What do you think the intent was 

behind that law? And would it need to be repealed? 

Mr. FOSSELLA. It would be great to get a State law passed similar to many States, whether it is Nevada or many across the country. My understanding, if my recollection is correct, it was more of 

a financial situation that the State of New York was in. If I am 

not mistaken, they were looking for every way possible to save 

money, for lack of a better phrase. And I think it was rooted in 

that. I think it was misguided. But in the meantime, it has taken 

more than 20 years to try to undo. 

Mr. HALL. And do you have a cost estimate or ballpark idea of 

the costs associated with either a cemetery or a mausoleum on 

Staten Island? 

Mr. FOSSELLA. Well, it is a function, Mr. Chairman, of how big 

it would ultimately be. There are estimates of the mausoleum, anywhere from $20 million to $30 million to construct. But as you can 

imagine, to have vacant land for a cemetery is a little different 

than constructing a mausoleum up front, because that is more of 

a fixed cost, and therefore, I think it is an up front cost that not 

necessarily share it as just a cemetery would be. But there could 

be a partnership between the Federal and the State Government, 

whereby veterans would get compensation for being buried or interred at the mausoleum. 

So it is, in large part, how big is the house and how much is the 

house going to cost. It would be a function of what the local veterans organizations would deem to be sufficient. There are some 

sketches, some renderings. But roughly the numbers have been 

thrown around of $20 million or $30 million. 

Mr. HALL. Well, given the cost of real estate in any of the boroughs, Staten Island included, I would guess that you are probably 

at least competitive with, if not a lower final figure than a cemetery. 

Mr. FOSSELLA. Well, it was very, very difficult. We had a task 

force created a few years ago to just search the island for land that 

would meet the Federal criteria. And with the exception of just the 

outlying areas of the Fresh Kills Landfill, there wasn’t really anything which led to the veterans agreeing to a smaller parcel of 

property than the mausoleum, because I think if we did not have 

the mausoleum option, it would not be possible at all. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
9 

Mr. HALL. Was there any opposition from veterans to the idea of 

a mausoleum? 

Mr. FOSSELLA. No. I asked the veterans organizations, every one 

of them on Staten Island, represented wonderfully by the flags behind you I see for the most part, to join together and come up and 

let them drive the process, let them come to an agreement as to 

what they could live with and support. And it is as a result of that 

that we are pushing for not just this legislation, but specifically for 

a mausoleum. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much. Mr. Smith, do you have anything you would like to ask? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lamborn may have 

questions when he arrives or for the record. 

Mr. HALL. Very good. We will make sure they are entered in the 

record as far as these two witnesses are concerned. 

Congressman Rahall, Congressman Fossella, thank you again for 

your testimony, and you are now excused. I am sure you have a 

busy day yet ahead of you. 

Mr. RAHALL. I am going back to my Committee where Mr. 

Lamborn is my Ranking Member right now. 

Mr. FOSSELLA. Thank you. 

Mr. HALL. We hear Mr. Lamborn is on his way. So we are looking forward to seeing him. 

And now we will invite our second panel to the witness table. Mr. 

Carl Blake, National Legislative Director of Paralyzed Veterans of 

America; Mr. Eric Hilleman, Deputy Director of the National Legislative Service for the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW); Mr. Robert 

Fells, External Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel, International Cemetery and Cremation and Funeral Association; Mr. 

Raymond C. Kelley, Legislative Director for the American Veterans 

(AMVETS); and, Mr. Alec S. Petkoff, Assistant Director for Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission for the American Legion. 

Very good. Thank you all for staying with us and for your service, and your work and your patience. 

Mr. Blake, I will recognize you for 5 minutes. Your statement is 

entered in the record already. 

STATEMENTS OF CARL BLAKE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA; ERIC A. 

HILLEMAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE 

SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED 

STATES; ROBERT M. FELLS, EXTERNAL CHIEF OPERATING 

OFFICER AND GENERAL COUNSEL, INTERNATIONAL CEMETERY, CREMATION AND FUNERAL ASSOCIATION; RAYMOND 

C. KELLEY, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN VETERANS 

(AMVETS); AND ALEC S. PETKOFF, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, 

VETERANS AFFAIRS AND REHABILITATION COMMISSION, 

AMERICAN LEGION 

STATEMENT OF CARL BLAKE 

Mr. BLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Members 

of the Subcommittee, on behalf of Paralyzed Veterans of America, 

I would like to thank you for the opportunity to be here today to 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
10 

testify on this important legislation. PVA generally supports all of 

the legislation being considered here today. With this in mind, I 

will limit my comments to only a couple of the bills on the agenda. 

H.R. 1900 will extend eligibility for pension benefits from the VA 

to veterans who receive an expeditionary medal during a period of 

military service other than a period of war. Likewise, H.R. 1901 

will expend eligibility for pension benefits for veterans that served 

in the military during specified periods of military engagement. 

Expeditionary medals were awarded to a servicemember who 

participated in or was in support of one of the many operations of 

the U.S. military. Operations such as the invasion of Grenada in 

1983 or the invasion of Panama in 1989 and many other special operations missions involved performance of duties that sometimes 

resulted in serious injury or loss of life. 

However, these operations were not a declared period of war. 

PVA supports the extension of benefits as defined in H.R. 1900 and 

1901. However, we would like to see these pension benefits extended to all active military that served during those periods, not 

just those individuals who served in the specific theater. The expeditionary medal was awarded to participants of a military operation but all military personnel may have been called upon to serve 

during these critical periods. We feel that all Members of the military serving during one of those periods should receive this pension 

if they meet the other qualifications of the benefit. 

PVA supports H.R. 2697. This legislation will complement legislation enacted during the 109th Congress. At that time the specially adapted housing grant was made available to 

servicemembers that were severely injured and still in the military 

so that they might begin taking steps to modify their homes even 

before being discharged. This legislation will allow servicemembers 

awaiting discharged to be eligible for mortgage life insurance. This 

provision is perfectly reasonable, as these men and women will be 

eligible for the benefit once they are a veteran anyway. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I would like 

to, once again, thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I would 

be happy to answer any questions that you might have. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Blake. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blake appears on p. 33.] 

Mr. HALL. Now we will recognize Mr. Hilleman for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC A. HILLEMAN 

Mr. HILLEMAN. Thank you Chairman Hall, Congressman 

Rodriguez, Congresswoman BERKLEY. Thank you for today’s hearing. And thank you for allowing the Veterans of Foreign Wars to 

present our views on the legislation pending today. Today it is my 

distinct pleasure to be accompanied by my father, Edward A. 

Hilleman. He taught me about service to community and to Nation. 

He is a Vietnam veteran, having served two tours as a Marine in 

Chu Lai. He received an honorable discharge in 1968 and returned 

to St. Louis, Missouri, joining our family business, a local funeral 

home. For nearly 40 years, he has been active in organizations 

such as the VFW and the American Legion. Through the family 

business, he has seen the rising cost of medical expenses and funerals take their toll on families. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
11 

The benefit bills we are discussing today are a small cost toward 

the dignity and the memory of those who have sacrificed so much 

for our Nation. The VFW’s views on the pending legislation are as 

follows: We support H.R. 674. This bill would repeal the sunset 

date for the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans scheduled 

for December 31 of 2009. We support H.R. 1273, a restoration of 

plot allowance eligibility for veterans. This bill allows for $300 plot 

allowance for service-connected disabled veterans or period war 

veterans. It grants the authority to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to reimbursed deceased veterans families for nongovernment 

headstone marker, or in lieu of furnishing a Government marker. 

The VFW fully supports H.R. 1900, which extends the eligibility for 

veterans pension benefits to veterans who receive an expeditionary 

medal for a period of service other than a period of war. This law 

recognizes the change in use of the military in past and future conflicts, such as our Nation’s involvement in Somalia from 1992 to 

1993, Bosnia from 1992 to 2002, and current operations in the 

Horn of Africa. 

Under current law, these servicemembers and their families do 

not receive benefits that aid families through great periods of 

stress. The VFW supports H.R. 1901. This bill would extend the 

eligibility for pension benefits under the laws administered by the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to servicemembers that have risked 

life and limb in the Korean Peninsula, Lebanon and Grenada. 

The next bill, H.R. 2346, would direct the VA Secretary to establish a process for determining whether a geographic area is sufficiently served by the national cemeteries located in the geographic 

area. The work envisioned under, H.R. 2346, is accomplished by 

the National Cemetery Administration. Under Public Law 106–117 

and Public Law 108–109, the NCA is required to report annually 

to Congress for establishment of additional cemeteries. 

A strategic plan is formulated, serving areas determined for appropriate cemeteries. The site selection process takes into account 

population centers and travel distances. It weighs the views of 

State and local veterans organizations and solicits other information and views that the Secretary considers are knowledgeable in 

these matters. We believe the current process sufficiently addresses 

the needs of veterans and their families. And as such, we view this 

legislation as duplicative of the efforts already in place by the National Cemetery Administration. We support H.R. 2696 Veterans’

Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007. This bill increases the plot 

allowance to $400. As a coauthor of the Independent Budget (IB), 

we have strongly advocated increasing the burial plot allowance. 

We believe moving the amount closer to the IB recommendations 

of $745 would better serve veterans and their families to settle the 

affairs of a departed loved one. 

This legislation also includes a provision to abolish grant filing 

deadlines for veterans State cemeteries. The VFW has no position 

on this provision of this proposed legislation. The VFW supports 

H.R. 2697, legislation to expand eligibility for veterans mortgage 

life insurance to include Members of the armed services receiving 

specialty adapted housing assistance from VA. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I look forward to 

any questions from the Subcommittee. Thank you. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
12 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hilleman appears on p. 35.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Hilleman. Now the Chair 

will recognize Mr. Fells for 5 minutes. Once again, your statement 

is already in the record. So feel free to adapt it as you wish. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT M. FELLS 

Mr. FELLS. Thank you very much, Chairman Hall, Members of 

the Subcommittee. We appreciate your invitation to have us here 

today. And I will just summarize. I am not going to read my printed statement, just make a few points. First of all, I really would 

like to commend and applaud Congresswoman Berkley on her leadership on H.R. 1273. I hate to become autobiographical, but this 

issue goes back with both my association, even myself for so many 

years. My association was actually instrumental back in 1973 when 

the National Cemeteries Act was being debated here in Congress 

in advocating the plot allowance be added because we knew there 

was were so many veterans and their families that already had 

burial spaces in private or religious cemeteries and that is where 

they wanted to be buried. We felt the choice should be up to the 

veterans if they wanted to opt for burial in national cemeteries or 

State veterans cemeteries, fine. But if they would prefer interment 

for personal or ethnic or religious reasons in private and religious 

cemeteries, they should also get a certain modicum of burial benefits as well. 

Later, as you know, the marker allowance was enacted for many 

people who preferred to purchase their own style and type of monument or marker other than the Government issued marker. They 

wouldn’t really get anymore than anyone else because the allowance was based on the Government’s wholesale cost of providing 

the VA markers, minus, in fact, an administrative fee. When it 

ended around 1990, it was only up to $88. But it helped. It helped 

a lot of people. In some cases, families already had a monument, 

but there were costs involved with the last dates and things like 

putting the deceased’s name on the marker. 

So the marker allowance was also very helpful in facilitating 

these. I remember I was here in this room, in 1990, when the hearing was held to curtail the plot allowance from the wartime veterans and to totally eliminate the marker allowance. And the individuals who sat up where you are sitting today said, we have to 

do this to help balance the Federal budget. I don’t think anyone believed that then. And today it looks even more preposterous. 

So I will just conclude by saying that the thing to remember 

about H.R. 1273, all the bills here today are fine and ought to be 

acted upon favorably. But H.R. 1273 is unique in that it is not attempting to create or expand any new benefits. It is attempting to 

restore two benefits that never should have been taken away from 

veterans, particularly the veterans serving during times of war, 

never should have been taken away in the first place. So we would 

urge you to act very favorably on this. Thanks very much, and I 

will be happy to answer any questions. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Fells. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fells appears on p. 36.] 

Mr. HALL. The Chair will now recognize Mr. Kelley for 5 minutes. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
13 

STATEMENT OF RAYMOND C. KELLEY 

Mr. KELLEY. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, Members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for providing AMVETS the opportunity 

to testify regarding pending legislation on minority veterans, memorial affairs and disability pension benefits. Over the past 12 

years, the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, with their 

unique insight, has provided timely accurate information and recommendations on potential barriers which are unintentionally in 

place, often causing minority veterans a lower quality of care. Although these barriers are not limited to minorities, the Advisory 

Committee’s perspective provides an ability to identify the root of 

the problem and submit recommendations, which often develop into 

legislative proposals and inevitably helps all veterans. AMVETS 

wholly supports H.R. 674’s repeal of the sunset provision, maintaining the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans. 

Mr. Chairman, it should be at the root of our Nation’s conscience 

to honor those servicemembers who are willing to stand in harm’s 

way at our Government’s request. And the highest request we can 

pay is to honor the lives of our veterans after they have passed 

away. H.R. 1273, H.R. 2696 and H.R. 2346 promote this honor as 

well as offset the cost incurred by the families when the loved one 

passes on. AMVETS supports H.R. 1273 in restoring veterans plot 

allowance eligibility and headstone and marker allowance, but 

would encourage an amendment to include eligible veterans, not 

just veterans who served during wartime. AMVETS also supports 

an increase in burial assistance for $300 to $400. However, Mr. 

Chairman, the amount should be increased to $745. This increased 

amount would make current payments proportionally equal to the 

amount paid when the benefit was initially provided in 1973. 

AMVETS wholly supports H.R. 2346, as it assists VA in meeting 

the spirit of its goal of providing 85 percent of veterans with burial 

options within 75 miles of their residences. AMVETS supports H.R. 

1900 and H.R. 1901, as they update and clarify veterans who are 

eligible for pension benefits. In the same light, Mr. Chairman, 

AMVETS supports H.R. 2697. 

However, due to Title 38’s definition of veteran, administrative 

amendments may need to be enacted to include Members of the 

Armed Forces throughout Chapter 21, Title 38, to clarify 

servicemembers’ eligibility for adaptive housing assistance, which 

this resolution will ensure. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Kelley appears on p. 37.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Kelley. I think we are all getting into 

the spirit of this week by keeping our testimony short. The green 

light stays on. And Mr. Petkoff, now you are recognized for 5 minutes. Your statement is in the written record. 

STATEMENT OF ALEC S. PETKOFF 

Mr. PETKOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to be able to present the 

American Legion’s views on this important pending legislation. The 

American Legion gives its full support to H.R. 674, which will repeal the provision of the law requiring termination of the Advisory 

Committee on Minority Veterans, H.R. 1273, which restores plot alVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:42 Jul 27, 2008 Jkt 037478 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\37478.XXX 37478

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
14 

lowance eligibility for veterans of any war and restores the headstone or marker allowance; and H.R. 2697, which addresses the expansion of the veterans mortgage life insurance. 

Whether it be transitioning out of the military or mourning a 

loved one, these bills impact veterans and their families at their 

most vulnerable moments. As long as there is the military, and as 

long as we have minority populations who are serving who have 

particular needs and sensitivities, we will always need the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans. The plot allowance and 

headstone or marker allowance that was once for all veterans who 

served in the time of war should be restored. And if a 

servicemember has been awarded a grant for the VA benefit of especially adaptive housing, then it makes sense that they should 

also be eligible for the veterans mortgage life insurance. 

Now the American Legion does support the intent of H.R. 1901, 

which extends eligibility for pension benefits to veterans who 

served during certain periods of time and specified locations. With 

the exception of Vietnam for the period of February 28, 1961, to 

August 4, 1964, wartime service was wartime service, and location 

was not an issue. The inclusion of location requirements seems 

overly restrictive and contrary to spirit and intent of nonservice 

connected pension benefits. Eligibility for benefits for all other periods require one day of active duty during a time of war with no 

location requirements. American Legion recommends removing location requirements from the bill. H.R. 2346, the American Legion 

supports the intent of that bill as well, which establishes process 

for determining whether geographic areas sufficiently served by the 

national cemeteries located in geographic area. While the American 

Legion fully supports the intent of the bill, it does have some concern about the addition of mausoleums to VA’s national cemeteries. 

The main concerns being how would they conform to the national 

shrine commitment? 

And more importantly, is the idea what most veterans want and 

approve of. And the American Legion recommends that, of course, 

that continues to be further studied. And finally, H.R. 2696, the 

Veterans’ Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007, while some increase to the burial plot allowance is better than no increase, the 

suggested amounts offer only a small improvement to the current 

costs involved in paying for a funeral. The American Legion recommends that an increase that better reflects the current costs of 

a funeral be instated. The American Legion also supports the intent of section 2(b), which would repeal the time limitation for filing for that reimbursement. Thank you for allowing the American 

Legion to present its views on the testimony. And I would be happy 

to try to answer any questions the Committee may have. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much, Mr. Petkoff. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Petkoff appears on p. 38.] 

Mr. HALL. Before we go to questions, I would like to turn to Representative Berkley and ask her if she would tell us about H.R. 

1273. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY BERKLEY 

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. I 

want to thank you and the Subcommittee for considering this plot 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
15 

and marker allowance restoration bill today. I also want to thank 

Bob Fells. This is not a mutual admiration society, but I appreciated your kind words. I appreciate the assistance you have given 

me in the last few years on this important legislation. 

As veterans from previous wars age and countless national heroes continue to serve our country, paying for the burial expenses 

of veterans is a serious concern for many families. We are in the 

position today to ease the burden on veterans’ families during this 

most difficult time when they are burying a loved one. When I first 

ran for Congress back in 1998, when I started meeting with veterans’ families just to learn about the issues, I was astounded 

when one family after another brought up the fact that the cost of 

burying their loved one, their veteran, was so difficult for them and 

such a terrible challenge. I vowed back then, 10 years ago in 1997, 

that I would try to do something about it. H.R. 1273 would expand 

the veterans plot allowance eligibility and reinstate the headstone 

marker allowance for use in private and religious cemeteries. 

In 1990, Congress curtailed the eligibility of wartime veterans to 

receive the plot allowance unless they were receiving VA compensation or pension benefits or died of service-connected injuries. Congress also eliminated the marker allowance which provided a cash 

reimbursement to veterans and their families who preferred to purchase their own marker or headstone for placement in a private 

cemetery. I can only imagine how you felt sitting here in 1990 and 

watching this unfold before your eyes. My bill would restore the $300 plot allowance for burial in a private or religious ceremony to a veteran of any war regardless of 

whether or not they were receiving veterans benefits. It would also 

provide a cost-based reimbursement for a headstone or marker to 

veterans and their families who prefer to purchase their own for 

placement in a private ceremony. As we have heard from our veterans service organizations (VSO) representatives, they support the 

bill. They also believe that the plot allowance should be increased 

beyond the $300 amount. Unfortunately, my timing wasn’t perfect, 

but I have reintroduced legislation that does exactly this. 

While I know Mr. Lamborn’s legislation calls for going from $300 

to $400, I quite agree with you, that isn’t where we need to be. We 

need to go back to the original intent of the legislation and keep 

up with the current costs. That $300 should be $745. That is in a 

companion piece of legislation, and when we move toward the floor, 

I would like to incorporate the two pieces of legislation. This should 

not pass with the $300 allowance. It has got to be the $745. 

I introduced it this morning, as a matter of fact. So we can start 

moving that along as well. While I was in the cloakroom in the last 

series of votes, there was a flash on the television saying that we 

are now offering a $20,000 signing bonus for people that are willing 

to go to Iraq immediately. 

Certainly, if we can afford a $20,000 signing bonus to get people 

into the theater of war, for those that do not return from the theater of war alive, we can find $745 to take care of their burial 

needs. I urge all of my colleagues to not only support these pieces 

of legislation but to cosponsor these pieces of legislation. We have 

had a difficult time getting cosponsors. I think we ought to all be 

signing onto each other’s bills. I want to thank all of you for being 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
16 

here. I appreciated your testimony and I yield back whatever time 

I have left. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Ms. BERKLEY. We are now happy to have 

been joined by Ranking Member Mr. Lamborn, who I will now recognize for his opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I couldn’t 

be here earlier because I was finishing another Committee hearing 

going on at the same time. In fact, I left that one early. But thank 

you for holding this hearing, and in my July 10th letter to you, 

asking for this hearing, I asked also that we have a hearing on 

H.R. 3047, the ‘‘Veterans Claims Processing Innovation Act of 

2007,’’ which is developing broad bipartisan support. This bill will 

bring VA’s compensation and pension system into the 21st century. 

By increasing accountability and leveraging technology at the 

Veterans Benefits Administration, this bill would improve the accuracy and speed of benefits claims. And I recommend it to the attention of my colleagues. While I was disappointed that testimony on 

H.R. 3047 will not be heard today, I am encouraged by your promise, Mr. Chairman, to hold another hearing on this bill when Congress comes back in September. It would go without saying that I 

also anticipate the opportunity to review your own legislation to reduce the backlog once that is offered. 

This afternoon, we are in the middle of considering several pieces 

of legislation, all of which are of interest and potential value. Two 

of these bills bear my name, H.R. 2696 and H.R. 2697. A third, 

H.R. 2346, introduced by Mr. Fossella directly, addresses how we 

determine the location of a national cemetery and it is most timely. 

I look forward to working with Mr. Fossella on H.R. 2346. This is 

an important bill that will help provide veterans and their families 

with greater access to national cemeteries. 

And I believe it will help the VA create an even better and more 

accurate and beneficial selection process. The two bills I introduced 

support similar bills introduced by Senator Larry Craig of Idaho 

over in the Senate. H.R. 2696, the ‘‘Veterans’ Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007,’’ which has been mentioned earlier will increase the burial and plot allowance for veterans’ burial in a private cemetery from $300 to $400. That is an issue that we are looking at from a couple of different angles. The bill also repealed the 

current time limitation for State reimbursement for interment costs 

by VA. From time to time, a State locates the remains of veterans 

who were not interred. When States inter these veterans, they cannot be reimbursed by VA because of the time limit on reimbursement costs, and this bill would repeal that limitation. The last provision of the bill would authorize the VA Secretary to make additional grants to States for improving and expanding States’ veterans cemeteries. 

States would have to submit an application to the Secretary and 

could receive up to $5 million. H.R. 2697 would extend eligibility 

for veterans mortgage life insurance or VMLI to Members of the 

Armed Forces. VMLI is a special type of life insurance that is only 

available to veterans who qualify for specially adapted housing 

grants. Many of our Nation’s injured active-duty servicemembers 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
17 

will eventually qualify for VMLI and would benefit by having this 

eligibility. These are just three of the bills before us today. I look 

forward to the remainder of the testimony and our discussion of the 

other legislation before us today. My thanks to my colleagues and 

the witnesses for their testimony. And Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Lamborn appears on p. 

31.] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. Let me just ask a couple 

of quick questions myself. Mr. Blake, in your testimony, you stated 

that you would like to see pension benefits that would be provided 

under H.R. 1900 extended to all active military that served during 

the given periods, not just in the specific year. Do you know approximately how many veterans this would be? 

Mr. BLAKE. I certainly don’t know. I think it was made evident 

when the question was posed to the previous panel that they didn’t 

know either. I would be curious to know what the answer is, actually. 

Mr. HALL. Okay. We could probably find that out. You also stated, regarding H.R. 2346, that a projection of future needs could 

provide helpful information to the States as they decide whether or 

not to participate in the VA cemetery program. Could you elaborate 

more on the specifics of what should be entailed in these projections? 

Mr. BLAKE. I would prefer to do it in writing, if I could, sir. It 

is kind of a broad question, I think, with a lot of considerations. 

Mr. HALL. You are welcome to submit further thoughts along 

those lines in writing. 

Mr. Fells, I was curious about whether you would consider the $300 plot allowance sufficient or whether you would join Mr. 

Petkoff and Ms. Berkley in going for some higher number for this 

benefit. 

Mr. FELLS. A higher number would be much more realistic. The 

$150 plot allowance back in 1973 had a lot more purchasing power 

than $300 does today. As a practical matter, we are willing to take 

baby steps and get the eligibility back to receive the benefits. But 

yes, to be practical, the higher amounts are much more helpful. 

Mr. HALL. From your viewpoint, is the cost for a mausoleum 

typically more or less, as far as maintenance, construction and 

other costs, than a cemetery? 

Mr. FELLS. Good question, sir. With a mausoleum, you are maintaining a building. But you really have to add up all the factors. 

For example, with ground burial, typical ground burial, you have 

opening and closing costs, you have the addition of a vault or outer 

burial container, you have the addition of a monument or marker 

that needs to be maintained. Frequently they will sink or tilt especially in the first 6 months or years. You don’t have the costs I just 

mentioned with mausoleum entombment. 

So depending on what your costs are, it could be six of one, half 

dozen of another. Mausoleum entombment should not be looked at 

as necessarily cost savings, but it is not necessarily cost prohibitive 

either. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. Mr. Kelley, in your testimony, you stated 

that AMVETS supports H.R. 1900 and H.R. 1901, but you have 

concerns on the need to update and clarify the eligibility of vetVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:42 Jul 27, 2008 Jkt 037478 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\37478.XXX 37478

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
18 

erans. Could you further explain that concern? And what sorts of 

updates and clarifications do you think are needed? 

Mr. KELLEY. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. The concern is in H.R. 2697 

with inclusion of Members of the Armed Forces. It includes in legislation in H.R. 2102 to include those personnel. But if you look in 

H.R. 2103, the Secretary has the authority to provide veterans 

plans for housing units and things along those lines. And as it 

reads, those would not be afforded to the Members of the military. 

So just administrative amendments to update those also. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you for that clarification. Mr. Petkoff, there 

seems to be a disconnect between the recommendations provided by 

ACMV in its reports and the implementation of these recommendations even when they are accepted by the VA Center for Minority 

Veterans. Given that 28 percent of all OEF/OIF veterans are minorities and given that the VA reports minorities comprised approximately 20 percent of all veterans, do you believe that the VA 

has adequate resources in place to address the needs of minority 

veterans? 

Mr. PETKOFF. Well, I think that they are best advised by the 

Council. And that is why I think we need to keep that Council in 

place. They are the experts in that field, and I know they are working with VA and with VSOs to make sure that minority veterans 

are serviced and are reached. I think outreach is a critical factor 

that is involved. And I think they have over 300 centers to help 

reach minority veterans and actually to help faculty administration 

in the sensitivities of and nuances of reaching minority veterans. 

And so that needs to be maintained. And if necessarily increased, 

I think that would be up to the Council to decide. 

Mr. HALL. Okay. Thank you very much. 

Mr. BLAKE. Mr. Chairman, could I go back and address one of 

your questions? Having had a couple of minutes to think about it, 

your question about the State cemeteries, the PVA along with the 

organizations that have participated in the Independent Budget 

have always sort of supported the idea of the State cemeteries 

grants program and encourages States to get involved in this process to maybe alleviate some of the pressure on the National Cemetery Administration. However, some States have been hesitant to 

participate in those programs because there is still a lot of associated costs with the States when they develop these State cemeteries that they will have to manage. 

And I think through this legislation maybe there will be some 

way of demonstrating to the State that there is a need for a cemetery of some sort to serve this population of veterans, where in previous—in the past, States might not have been willing to participate because they didn’t have maybe concrete enough or solid 

enough information to suggest that they should participate in the 

State cemetery grants program. I don’t know if maybe that answers 

your question a little. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Blake. Thank you very much. We 

will turn to Ranking Member Lamborn now for questions. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I just have three. Mr. 

Hilleman from the VFW, you stated that the process in H.R. 2346, 

which is a bill introduced by Mr. Fossella of New York, is duplicative. That bill would direct the VA to take some criteria into acVerDate Aug 31 2005 03:42 Jul 27, 2008 Jkt 037478 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\37478.XXX 37478

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
19 

count when deciding what are located national cemetery that I am 

not sure the VA does take into account right now, including the average amount of fees charged to an individual traveling on the 

major roads leading to a national cemetery, the availability of public transportation for purposes of traveling to a national cemetery, 

the average amount of time it takes someone to go to the nearest 

other national cemetery, population density and average distance 

someone must travel to reach the nearest national cemetery. Are 

those things that the VA is taking into account right now? Or do 

they have a lot more limited set of criteria? 

Mr. HILLEMAN. To be honest, sir, I am not intimately familiar 

with the mechanisms the VA uses to judge cemeteries. I know they 

are based on population centers and distances from population centers. In regards to travel time from point A to point B, I know 

there is a concern in areas like New York where cemeteries in 

heavy traffic might be 2 to 3 hours or 4 to 5 hours, when, in reality, the distance is quite near. We would be happy to work with 

your staff and the Committee staff and come to some sort of greater understanding of this bill together. The VFW is not opposed to 

working with the VA to reshape the mechanisms. But we want to 

make sure that it is not done haphazardly, sir. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Fells, a bill I have introduced, H.R. 2696, in section 2, repeals the limitation for State filing for reimbursement for interment costs. Have any of your Members been affected by the current law, which has a 1-year time limitation for reimbursements for interment costs to the State? 

Mr. FELLS. Sir, we represent the private cemeteries, the private 

and religious so they wouldn’t be—as far as I know—wouldn’t be 

affected by that itself. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay. Thank you. And on a different note, this 

isn’t a bill before us today. But the respect for America’s fallen heroes act that was passed last year, have you heard of demonstrations taking place where people are not following the requirements 

of that law and creating problems? 

Mr. FELLS. There have been incidents. Yes, there are. And occasionally, our Members call on us for help. Our Members are very 

good at sharing. We have a listserve, for example. So one Member 

could say yes, that happened with a funeral of burial interment we 

had a couple months ago, let me tell you what we did, how we got 

together with the police, et cetera. So yes, these things are definitely happening. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Do you think that that calls for a need for us to 

re-examine and maybe fine-tune that law? 

Mr. FELLS. I would say so because, again, we represent the private sector. So it just isn’t the national or the State veterans cemeteries that are affected by these protests, but all the cemeteries are 

affected by them. So yes, I would certainly urge that as well. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And do you have any specific suggestions on how 

to do that? 

Mr. FELLS. Not at this time. But if I could get back to you, I am 

sure we could propose some specifics. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you. We would like to hear from you. Thank you. I yield 

back, Mr. Chairman. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
20 

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HALL. Yes, Ms. Berkley. 

Ms. BERKLEY. I would like to ask Mr. Lamborn, because that is 

a concern of mine as well. I was actively engaged in the passage 

of that legislation. Forgive me for not remembering if there is an 

enforcement mechanism. I know in Congress, we pass a law and 

then we pass it again and again and again, because people are not 

complying with it. But is there no compliance? What is the mechanism by which we get people to comply? 

Mr. LAMBORN. Ms. Berkley, I would like to work with you on 

that. I was not here when Congress passed that. 

Ms. BERKLEY. I know. 

Mr. LAMBORN. However, in Colorado, we did a similar version of 

a State law. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Because it would seem to me, if we have got a Federal law and people are in violation of it, they would get themselves arrested and they would go to jail or at least they would 

have a trial and would go to jail. So I am not sure if we just need 

to enforce the laws we have already got on the books or if we would 

need to pass further legislation. I do not know what the enforcing 

mechanism is in the legislation, but like with so many other things, 

the law exists; it is a matter of enforcing the law. 

Mr. HALL. I think we can take a look at the existing law and see 

if the enforcement mechanisms or penalties are sufficient. 

Mr. BLAKE. I think the thing about the respect for the fallen heroes’ law, if I remember correctly, is that it principally applies to 

demonstrations, national cemeteries or State veteran cemeteries 

and not at all toward private cemeteries, which is another issue, 

and maybe that could be extended. I think the issue comes up 

again that Congressman Lamborn brought up as it relates to State 

law in some fashion too, but the reason that it does not apply in 

a lot of these cases is because that law was targeted at national 

and State veterans cemeteries, and that was it. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you for the clarification. 

Ms. BERKLEY. Thank you. 

Mr. HALL. If my colleagues on the other side would agree, I 

would recognize Mr. Hare now, since he joined us most recently, for 

questions or statements. 

Mr. HARE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be brief. I only have 

one question, and I thank you for your indulgence, and my apologies to the panel for getting here late. 

Mr. Blake, just one question here. In the testimony that you 

gave, you expressed support for all of the bills that are currently 

here before us today. I would like to know from your perspective 

what changes you would recommend to any of these bills or to expand the scope of them or to ensure that they are implemented effectively. 

So in other words, from your perspective, what do you think of 

these? I know you support them, but what could we do to make it 

better? I will ask anybody on the panel for that matter. 

Mr. BLAKE. Well, I think generally they are all good legislations. 

I spoke toward the suggestions we had with regards to H.R. 1900 

and H.R. 1901 in my oral statement. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
21 

The other bill that I would look at goes back to the plot allowance issue as it relates to the recommendations of the Independent 

Budget. We certainly support, I believe—one of the gentleman on the panel here mentioned that $400 does not quite address what 

we have. But as to no increase versus some increase, we will take 

some increase first. We certainly would like to see it raised to a 

level that is included in the Independent Budget, which is more 

than $400. Anything from here is just enhancing what has already 

been proposed. I do not think there is anything that is bad to begin 

with. 

Mr. HARE. Anybody else on the panel? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Rodriguez, no questions? 

Thank you very much, everybody, from the panel. I think we 

will, at this point, thank you for your testimony and for your service, and you are now excused. 

We are just hearing another vote being called. So let me just ask 

the panel here, do we want to have the third panel come and give 

their testimony? 

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Chairman, if I could suggest, if there is only 

one witness for the last panel and if he took up to the 5 minutes, 

we would still be able to get over and vote in time. 

Mr. HALL. That is correct, so that would be my thought as well. 

So we will ask our third panelist to join us, Mr. Bradley Mayes, 

Director of Compensation and Pension Service for the Veterans 

Benefits Administration, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 

accompanied by Ms. Lucretia McClenney, Director for the Center 

for Minority Veterans for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 

Mr. Richard Hipolit, Assistant General Counsel for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, and Mr. Ronald E. Walters, Director 

of the Office of Finance and Planning for the National Cemetery 

Administration of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Thank 

you all for your patience. 

Your statement, Mr. Mayes, is in the record, and you are now 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BRADLEY G. MAYES, DIRECTOR, COMPENSATION AND PENSION SERVICE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, ACCOMPANIED BY MR. RICHARD HIPOLIT, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

MS. LUCRETIA McCLENNEY, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR MINORITY VETERANS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND MR. RONALD E. WALTERS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE 

OF FINANCE AND PLANNING, NATIONAL CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

Mr. MAYES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Lamborn, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for having us here today. 

Mr. Chairman, we will address today only those bills for which 

the administration was able to coordinate its views in the time provided. We will address the remaining bills in a subsequent letter 

to the Subcommittee. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
22 

[The Administration views for H.R. 1273, H.R. 1900, and H.R. 

1901 appear on p. 43.] 

I will start with H.R. 674. 

This bill would repeal the current statutory requirement terminating the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans as of December 31, 2009. The Department of Veterans Affairs supports this 

bill. The Committee is composed of veterans of all ranks and services appointed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Members represent the five minority groups the Center for Minority Veterans 

is mandated to oversee. It advises the Secretary and Congress on 

VA’s administration of benefits and provision of healthcare to minority veterans, and assesses the needs of minority veterans and 

reviews programs. 

Among other things, the Committee meets with senior officials to 

discuss services and programs available for minority veterans, and 

receives briefings from all of the administrations and other staff offices. Finally, on this bill, the cost associated with enactment would 

be minimal, approximately $80,000 per year. 

Regarding H.R. 2346, this bill would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop a process for determining whether a geographic area is sufficiently served by the national cemeteries located in that geographic area. This bill would require that the process take into account the number of veterans in the area, the average distance a resident would have to travel, the population density, the amount of time it takes the resident to travel to the nearest cemetery, the availability of public transportation, and the average amount of any fees charged to an individual traveling on the 

major roads. If land sufficient to establish a national cemetery is 

not available to VA in a geographic area, then VA would be required under this bill to consider alternatives to establishing a 

cemetery, including establishing a mausoleum. 

Currently, the VA seeks to ensure that a national cemetery is located within a 75-mile radius of a deceased veteran’s residence. 

One of the criteria for selecting the site of a new national cemetery 

is a veteran population of 170,000 that is not served by a national 

cemetery or by a State veteran cemetery. 

The six new national cemeteries authorized by the National 

Cemetery Expansion Act of 2003, as well as the six cemeteries authorized by the Veterans Millennium Healthcare and Benefits Act, 

which was enacted in 1999, satisfy these criteria. VA is in the process of evaluating the entire memorial benefits program, and we expect to complete that program evaluation by April 2008. We believe 

that it would be prudent to consider the results of that program 

evaluation before developing this new process that the bill would 

require. 

Therefore, we do oppose this bill at this moment because the 

measures in the bill have not had the benefit of the program evaluation that is underway. Because we cannot know the full extent 

of the processes involved in this bill, we are unable to estimate the 

costs that would result. 

Regarding H.R. 2696, the ‘‘Veterans’ Dignified Burial Assistance 

Act of 2007,’’ this bill would increase from $300 to $400 the amount 

of reimbursement allowed for the cost of a burial plot or interment 

for a veteran who is eligible for burial in a national cemetery but 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
23 

who is buried in a State or in a private cemetery. This was last 

increased by public law 107–103 in 2001. 

Section 2(b) of the bill would nullify the 2-year time limitation 

for States to file claims for the plot or interment allowance as applied to claims in connection with the interment of deceased veterans’ unclaimed remains. section 2(b) would be retroactively effective as of October 1, 2006. 

For the same reason that we opposed H.R. 2346, we oppose this 

bill. That evaluation, the program evaluation that is underway, 

will assess the appropriateness of VA’s current burial benefits 

based on data obtained and beneficiary needs. We believe that it 

would be premature to take a position on section 2 of the bill until 

that program evaluation is completed, and accordingly we defer 

taking a position on that. The enactment of section 2(a) would result in costs of $7.2 million for the first year and $77 million over 10 years. The enactment 

of Section 2(b) would result in insignificant costs. Section 2(c) of the 

bill would authorize the VA to provide up to $5 million annually 

in grants to States or to tribal organizations for operating and 

maintaining—and that is key—operating and maintaining State 

veterans cemeteries or veterans cemeteries on trust land owned by 

or held in trust for tribal organizations. The grant program is intended to complement the national cemetery system in providing a 

dignified burial place reasonably close to where veterans live. 

Through the grant program, States establish, expand, or improve 

cemeteries in areas where there are no plans to create an open national cemetery. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Mayes, excuse me. I am very sorry to interrupt 

you, but the 5 minutes has expired. 

Mr. MAYES. Sure. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mayes appears on p. 40.] 

Mr. HALL. We are going to go across the street and take a 

quorum call vote, which our friends across the aisle have called, to 

make sure that we actually have a majority of Members present, 

and then we are going to come back and take questions after that. 

So if you would be patient with us, it is just one vote and one run 

across the street, and we will be back. 

Mr. MAYES. All right, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much. 

The Subcommittee stands recessed for what, we hope, is about 10 

minutes. 

[Recess] 

Mr. HALL. Thank you for staying with us, and I apologize for 

having your testimony interrupted. We are at this point going 

through, apparently, a series of delaying motions from the minority 

side and I just want to apologize to the witnesses and to the others 

here for these proceedings having to share in that delay, the calling 

of a quorum and motions to rise, apparently for no purpose but in 

taking up time. 

Nonetheless, I have questions, Mr. Mayes. I guess we will go first 

of all, to you and then to your colleagues. 

On H.R. 674, the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans 

seems to serve as a very useful and efficient tool in helping the VA 

in its mission to address the needs of minority veterans. Do you 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
24 

think there needs to be any improvement to the Advisory Committee? If so, what improvements would you suggest? 

Mr. MAYES. Mr. Chairman, I think the Advisory Committee is 

working well. They have made a number of recommendations, in 

particular, about outreach and things like that. We take those recommendations and act upon them, where possible and where appropriate. So I would suggest that we support the legislation or the 

bill, as proposed. Continuing to have that Committee working the 

way it is seems to, I think, work for us. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. 

The ACMV also recommended in its latest report that the VA 

should hire OEF/OIF minority veterans into the agency to ensure 

Departmental sensitivity to a new generation of minority veterans 

seeking services. 

What processes has the VA put into place to advance this recommendation? For instance, has the VA established processes at 

the Cabinet level to ensure that all applicable agencies are engaged? 

Mr. MAYES. I would like to provide that response Mr. Chairman. 

The only thing I can say for sure is that Admiral Cooper and 

Mike Walcoff from our Office of Field Operations have emphasized 

that we should be hiring OEF/OIF veterans and, of course, that 

would include minority OEF/OIF veterans. As far as having a formal process in place, I would like to respond to the Subcommittee 

in writing. 

Mr. HALL. We would appreciate that. Thank you. 

Mr. MAYES. Sure. 

[The following information was subsequently received from the 

VA.] 

VA launched an initiative to hire 10 Regional Veterans Employment Coordinators 

(RVEC) to assist the Department in providing employment opportunities to severely 

injured OIF/OEF veterans. Five of the 10 have been hired as of May 5, 2008. The 

RVECs will work with 160 local veterans employment coordinators to link veterans, 

especially severely injured veterans, to careers at the local level. 

VA’s National Veterans Employment Program (NVEP) has been in existence since 

2001. NVEP focuses on educating veterans and VA selecting officials on veterans’

preference statutes and how to use/apply statutes to gain access to career opportunities in VA. As a result of these efforts, VA has attained a workforce comprised of 

31 percent veterans. VA has showcased its NVEP to other Federal agencies and has 

assisted several agencies in their efforts to conduct outreach to veterans and employ 

veterans. The U.S. Office of Personnel Management tracks the achievement of all 

Federal agencies in hiring and promoting veterans. 

Mr. HALL. Maybe you could tell us in that same response how 

you identify minority veterans, what your outreach practices are to 

minority veterans and how they differ. 

How do they differ, if at all, from non-minority vets in terms of 

their needs or the type of outreach that you find most effective? 

You stated in your testimony that the enactment of H.R. 674 

would cost approximately $80,000 a year. Do you believe that is a 

sufficient level of funding for the ACMV? 

Mr. MAYES. I will turn the specific response over to my colleague. 

Mr. HALL. Ms. McClenney. 

Ms. MCCLENNEY. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. 

That covers the travel, honorarium and per diem of the Advisory 

Committee Members. That is adequate. 

Mr. HALL. Good. Thank you. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
25 

If the funding were increased, what else would this Advisory 

Committee be able to accomplish; for instance, providing followup 

reports, informing of the success rate of the VA’s implementation 

of those recommendations? 

Mr. MAYES. Well, Mr. Chairman, that is something I have not 

really thought through. Certainly increasing the funding would 

allow more frequent meetings, more interaction. I think that that 

is one thing that comes to mind. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. 

Ms. MCCLENNEY. May I add? 

Mr. HALL. Yes, please, Ms. McClenney. 

Ms. MCCLENNEY. The law requires—the congressional mandates 

say that our Advisory Committee is required to meet at least twice 

annually. One of those meetings is a site visit, and they generally 

choose an area where there is a high concentration of minority veterans, and also depending on the needs. For example, we chose Los 

Angeles because there are 500,000 minority veterans in the County 

of Los Angeles and approximately 1.5 million minority veterans in 

the State of California. 

The other visit is to Washington, to our headquarters here, 

where they actually receive briefings from the three administrations and other key staff offices and discuss their findings and recommendations. The VA has and does continue to listen to those 

recommendations, and I think it is making an active attempt to 

enact many of the recommendations the Committee has recommended. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Ms. McClenney. 

Are you aware, Mr. Mayes, or are any of your colleagues, of the 

current status of reform at the Chicago VA Regional Office (RO), 

for example, the number of additional employees that have been 

added? Can you apprise the Subcommittee of any lingering or ongoing problems? Is Illinois still ranked last in disability compensation 

benefits? 

Mr. MAYES. Mr. Chairman, I am not prepared to talk about Chicago. I do not have that information at hand. 

Mr. HALL. Well, if you could respond in writing, we would appreciate that. 

Mr. MAYES. Yes, sir, we can do that. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. 

[The information from VA follows:] 

The Chicago RO currently has 182 full-time employees (FTE) on board in the Veterans Service Center (VSC) dedicated to the processing of service-connected compensation claims. This represents an increase of 19 FTE since the beginning of 

March 2008. The additional staffing is expected to increase station productivity in 

the short term, with greater output in the future. In March 2007, the Chicago RO 

had a pending inventory of 14,273 disability claims. By March 2008, this number 

was reduced to 10,453, an improvement of 26.8 precent. 

In FY07, the Chicago RO brokered over 8,090 claims that were ready for a decision to other stations with the capacity to process this additional rating work. This 

brokering of work has allowed the RO to focus their attention on the oldest cases 

pending in their inventory. As a result of increased staffing and brokering, the Chicago RO has shown dramatic improvement in the average days pending (ADP) of 

a claim. Chicago’s ADP at the end of FY07 was 175 days; at the end of March 2008 

was 145.5 days. The Chicago RO has also shown significant improvement in ADP 

for Global War on Terror (GWOT) veterans. At the beginning of FY08, ADP for 

GWOT claims stood at 142.7 days, as of March 2008, ADP for GWOT claims was 

97.1 days. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
26 

In addition to this increased productivity, the Chicago RO has also shown improvement in station quality. Authorization quality at the RO at the end of March 

2007 stood at 83.3 precent and fiduciary quality was 79.7 percent. At the end of 

March 2008, authorization quality was 92 percent and fiduciary quality increased 

to 84.8 percent. 

Overall, the Chicago RO has made considerable improvement. At the end of FY02, 

the station was ranked 52nd nationwide in disability compensation benefit payments. 

The RO has jumped six spots and was ranked 46th nationwide at the end of FY06. 

This improvement is significant as it reflects the average payments made to all veterans on their rolls, and not just recent decisions. Preliminary data for FY07 indicates the positive trend continues although VA is still in the process of validating 

this data. 

Mr. HALL. I know you are intending to supplement your statements today and to provide written testimony regarding H.R. 1273 

after the hearing, but could you please explain what the current 

plot and marker headstone allowances are for veterans, who qualify, and how much that normally is? 

Mr. MAYES. Yes sir, I can talk about the plot allowance. The current plot allowance is $300 for a veteran who is buried at a nonnational cemetery, and to be eligible for the plot allowance the veteran had to have either died because of a service-related disability, 

have been receiving VA pension or compensation at the time of 

death, or have been entitled to receive VA pension or comp, but decided not to reduce his or her retirement or disability pay, or the 

veteran died in a VA hospital. If the veteran died in a VA hospital, 

we would pay transportation. 

One other sort of exception is we would pay the plot for any veteran who is entitled to burial in a national cemetery if they are 

buried in a State cemetery. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much. 

If I could just quickly ask you about H.R. 1900 and H.R. 1901. 

First of all I know, once again, you are planning to supplement testimony and provide written statements after the hearing; but could 

you explain the significance of the Expeditionary Medal to the VA, 

who qualifies and how it would impact benefits, for instance? 

Mr. MAYES. We are not prepared to talk about those particular 

bills. The Expeditionary Medal, however, does signify service. For 

example, in claims related to service in Vietnam, as an example, 

if a veteran had a Vietnam Expeditionary Medal, that would denote that they had service in Vietnam, and that is significant in 

claims for disabilities related to exposure to Agent Orange, as an 

example. So that is how we would use that information that is typically on the DD–214. 

With respect to the specific bills, we just are in the process of 

still formulating our views and costs on those. 

Mr. HALL. We would appreciate getting that opinion in writing 

as soon as we can. 

Mr. MAYES. Yes, sir. 

[The Administration views for H.R. 1900, and H.R. 1901 appear 

on p. 43.] 

Mr. HALL. I wanted to ask you, regarding H.R. 2346, you stated 

that the VA is currently evaluating the Memorial Benefits Program 

with hopes for completion by April of 2008. 

Can you give us any kind of update on where you are in that 

process? What is the definitive goal of the evaluation? 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
27 

Mr. MAYES. I will turn that over to my colleague Ron Walters 

from the National Cemetery Administration. He can give you a better feel. 

Mr. WALTERS. I would be happy to, Mr. Chairman. 

The study was brought about because periodic reviews of our programs are required by the Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993, and it is part of good management practice. We are 

currently working with an independent contractor to conduct an 

evaluation of the full array of burial benefits offered by the VA. We 

awarded that contract in December of 2006, and the contractor is 

currently developing survey protocols, focus group activities and 

mapping requirements. The contractor is also examining the extent 

of repair and maintenance that is required at our cemeteries. 

As I mentioned, the study will address the full range of VA burial benefits and activities. 

I might also add that in developing the statement of work for the 

evaluation, the VA consulted with major stakeholders such as 

Members of veterans service organizations, as well as staff of the 

House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committees—at a time that 

predates the arrival of current staff—regarding their perceptions of 

the challenges facing VA burial benefits in the future. 

The research framework that was adopted by the contractor, 

which we have seen, reflects stakeholder input and addresses access variables that are listed in H.R. 2346. We expect to have the 

final report from the contractor in the spring of 2008, and we will 

brief Congress and other stakeholders at that time about findings 

and recommendations. We would be happy, of course, to work with 

the Subcommittee to provide any information that you might need 

in the interim. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. 

Mr. MAYES. I would just add also that when I was preparing for 

this hearing today and went back and looked at the legislative history on many of the programs we offer to commemorate veterans 

service, you know anything that we do, if it is going to be a change, 

absolutely has to be done with your assistance. So we would be 

working with you, as we have, when I looked back through the legislative history, all the way back, really, before even 1973, but certainly since. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. I appreciate that and we look forward to 

working with you also. 

I know regarding H.R. 1901 that you are planning to supplement 

testimony with written testimony later, but could you venture an 

opinion as to the idea of expanding pension benefits to veterans 

who served during the named conflicts that were not declared 

wars? 

Mr. MAYES. Mr. Chairman, I have to reserve my comment at this 

point in time since we still are formulating the views. 

Mr. HALL. Okay. All right. I understand. 

Going back to H.R. 674 for a moment, do you think the authorization for the Advisory Committee for Minority Veterans should be 

allowed to sunset or, if it did, what the VA would do to replace this 

entity? 

Mr. MAYES. Well, sir, we support the bill because we do not want 

it to sunset. And if it were to sunset, I believe that the Department 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
28 

of Veterans Affairs would continue to engage minority veterans. I 

do not know what that engagement would look like or how it would 

work, but we feel there is a benefit in working with the Advisory 

Committee. So in some form or fashion, we would be working with 

minority veterans. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. I suspect that the Committee will be continued and not sunsetted, but I was just curious what your own 

opinion was on that. 

Lastly, I wanted to ask you, during the last visit, in 2006 to the 

Los Angeles VA facilities, the Advisory Committee observed that 

the staff diversity was not representative of the minority veteran 

population, especially with regard to higher pay grades and for African Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians. The ACMV 

noted that this appears to be a systemic problem throughout the 

VA. 

Could you advise us as to what the VA is doing to ensure staff 

diversity for these veterans? 

Mr. MAYES. Well, having been a regional office director before 

taking this position, I know that in my individual performance 

plan, I was required to ensure that there were hiring practices that 

promoted diversity. And, in fact, I reported it each year in my selfassessment. We tried to hire minorities. We looked at the statistical metropolitan area. I was in Cleveland, and our hiring practices mirrored the community in Cleveland. I can speak to what we 

were doing in the field at a regional office prior to my taking this 

position, sir. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you. That hopefully is the approach that most 

regional directors are taking. 

Once again, regarding State cemeteries, how would H.R. 2696 

change the way that the grant funding is provided for operational 

and maintenance costs? 

Mr. MAYES. You are talking about the provision to allow States 

to use grant funds for operation and maintenance costs. Right now, 

they do not. We get the cemeteries set up. We provide grants for 

the establishment of the cemetery, but the States are responsible 

for operation and maintenance costs. This would blur that line because it would allow grant funds to be used for those operation and 

maintenance costs, and it is not clear to us how that would occur 

in future outyears. 

Would there be a dependency set up between a State cemetery 

and Federal funding that might not be able to be perpetuated into 

the future? There is some concern about this. 

The other thing is that money could be used to fund additional 

cemeteries, and it certainly could be used to expand the plot program, of which the intent originally was to address the shortage of 

national cemeteries when the benefit was created. Those are some 

concerns that we would have. 

Mr. HALL. I thank you very much. I am looking forward to the 

written responses to the other questions. 

Would the minority counsel like to ask questions? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

All of our questions have been covered, and we have no further 

questions. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you very much, sir. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
29 

We would like to thank you all for being here. 

Mr. Mayes, Mr. Hipolit, Mr. Walters, and Ms. McClenney, thank 

you for your patience. I look forward to your correspondence and 

to seeing you again in the future. 

The meeting stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:25 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
(30) 

A P P E N D I X 

Prepared Statement of the Hon. John Hall, Chairman, Subcommittee on 

Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs 

Good Morning, 

I would ask everyone to rise for the Pledge of Allegiance—flags are located in the 

front and rear of the room. 

I would like to thank the witnesses for taking the time to appear today to present 

testimony on these important measures pending before the Committee. 

Today we will examine seven bills covering a broad spectrum of this Subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 

The first is H.R. 674, introduced by Congressman Gutierrez, which would repeal 

the sunset of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, slated to occur December 31, 2009 without Congressional action. As I stated during the Joint DAMA/ 

Health Subcommittee hearing, I am especially concerned about the pending expiration of this authorization in light of a June 2007 report from the VA Health Services 

Research & Development Service (HSR&D), entitled Racial and Ethnic Disparities 

in the VA Healthcare System: A Systematic Review. 

This report found that racial disparities exist in all clinical arenas and that the 

disparities in healthcare delivery are contributing to measurable differences in 

health outcomes. It also found that the disparate treatment in the VA appears to 

affect African-American and Hispanic veterans more significantly. With minorities 

comprising 20 percent of all of our Nation’s veterans, like Mr. Gutierrez, I believe 

the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans plays an essential and indispensable 

role for the VA and should be made a permanent fixture. 

We will also receive testimony on three bills regarding veterans’ memorial benefits, H.R. 1273, H.R. 2346, H.R. 2696, offered by Ms. Berkley, Mr. Fossella and Mr. 

Lamborn, the Ranking Member, respectively. Ms. Berkley’s and Mr. Lamborn’s bills, 

among other things, seek to increase the plot and headstone or marker allowances 

for our veterans who choose to be laid to rest in state or private cemeteries. 

Mr. Fossella’s bill, H.R. 2346, is intended to improve the process for determining 

where our National cemeteries are located. I know that because of changing migration patterns and just simple geographic configurations, the current criteria of a 

170,000 veteran population in a 75-mile radius, is not always a workable paradigm. 

I also am aware that the VA is currently evaluating its memorial benefits plan and 

I look forward to hearing testimony on its progress in this area—before the April 

2008 target completion date. 

We will also hear from Mr. Rahall on two bills that would expand the categories 

of those veterans eligible to receive pensions for non-service-connected disability 

death or service. H.R. 1900 would do so by providing this pension to veterans receiving expeditionary medals and H.R. 1901 would do so by including those veterans 

who served in the Korean peninsula, Lebanon, Panama and Grenada. I look forward 

to receiving testimony on these two important measures. 

Lastly, H.R. 2697, also sponsored by Mr. Lamborn, would expand the eligibility 

for veterans’ mortgage life insurance (VMLI) to include Members of the Armed 

Forces receiving specially adaptive housing. I know it is often difficult for these 

servicemembers to acquire commercial insurance policies and this bill would close 

that gap between the military and VA benefits. This change is likely more necessary 

than ever for our returning OIF/OEF veterans. 

Thank you. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
f 

31 

Prepared Statement of the Hon. Doug Lamborn, Ranking Republican 

Member, Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs 

Mr. Chairman, Thank you for holding this hearing in response to my July 10 letter to you. In that letter I asked that we also hold a legislative hearing on H.R. 

3047, the Veterans Claims Processing Innovation Act of 2007, which is developing 

broad bipartisan support. 

H.R. 3047 will bring VA’s compensation and pension system into the 21st century. 

By increasing accountability and leveraging technology at the Veterans Benefits Administration, this bill would improve the accuracy and speed of benefits claims; and 

I commend it to the attention of my colleagues. 

While I was disappointed that testimony on H.R. 3047 would not be heard today, 

I am heartened by your promise to hold another hearing on H.R. 3047 when Congress returns in September. 

Of course, Mr. Chairman, I would look forward to you joining the fifteen or more 

Members, from both sides of the aisle, already cosponsoring H.R. 3047. 

It should go without saying that I anticipate the opportunity to review your own 

legislation to reduce the backlog, once it is offered. 

This afternoon, we are considering several pieces of legislation, all of which are 

of interest and potential value. 

Two of these bills bear my name, H.R. 2696 and H.R. 2697. A third, H.R. 2346, 

introduced by Mr. Fossella, directly addresses how we determine the location of a 

national cemetery and is most timely. 

I look forward to working with Mr. Fossella on H.R. 2346. This is an important 

bill that will help provide veterans and their families with greater access to national 

cemeteries, and I believe it will help VA create an accurate and beneficial selection 

process. 

The two bills I introduced support similar bills introduced by Senator Craig. 

H.R. 2696, the Veterans Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007, has provisions 

that improve the VA burial benefit and state veterans cemeteries. The bill would 

increase the burial and plot allowance for a veteran’s burial in a private cemetery 

from $300 to $400. 

The bill would also repeal the current time limitation for state reimbursement for 

interment costs by VA. From time to time, a state locates the remains of veterans 

who were not interred. When states inter these veterans, they cannot be reimbursed 

by VA because of the time limit on reimbursement costs. 

My legislation would repeal this limitation. 

The last provision of the bill would authorize the VA secretary to make additional 

grants to states for improving and expanding state veteran cemeteries. States would 

have to submit an application to the Secretary, and could receive up to $5,000,000. 

H.R. 2697 would extend eligibility for Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance (V–ML–I) to Members of the armed forces. 

VMLI is a special type of life insurance that is only available to veterans who 

qualify for specially adapted housing grants. Many of our Nation’s injured active 

duty servicemembers will eventually qualify for VMLI and would benefit by having 

this eligibility. 

These are just three of the bills before us today; I look forward to the testimony 

and our discussion of the other legislation before us today. 

My thanks to my colleagues and the witnesses for their testimony and I yield 

back. 

f 

Prepared Statement of the Hon. Nick J. Rahall II 

Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Lamborn and Members of the Subcommittee, I 

thank you for the work you have done in recent months to honor our brave men 

and women in uniform. I also thank you for your courtesy in allowing me to testify 

before the Subcommittee today on two bills I have offered that would extend the 

benefits offered to our Nation’s veterans. 

Mr. Chairman, for centuries, we have witnessed the personal courage and sacrifice made by millions of Americans who have served our country. They have done 

so proudly and without hesitation, to protect our freedoms and our way of life, and 

to help ensure peace in various regions worldwide. These individuals represent the 

best of America, and I believe it is imperative that the U.S. Congress do everything 

in its power to honor them when they return home from service. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
32 

Too often, when these young men and women return, we do not always honor 

their bravery with the full measure of respect and gratitude that it deserves. I believe we should take this opportunity to help ensure that our veterans, regardless 

of the timeframe of their service, receive appropriate recognition and benefits. 

Under current law, veterans may only meet eligibility requirements to draw a full 

pension if they have served in combat during a declared period of war. While this 

method was sufficient for the majority of veterans who served in America’s 20th 

century engagements, America’s evolving role in conflicts abroad has necessitated 

the expansion and adaptation of our veterans benefits programs, including those 

pertaining to pensions. 

I believe this Subcommittee would agree that the veterans who put their lives on 

the line and suffer losses during undeclared times of conflict are no less admirable 

or deserving of thanks than are those who serve in declared conflicts. 

My first bill, H.R. 1900, would extend eligibility for pension benefits through the 

Department of Veterans Affairs to veterans who have received the Armed Forces 

Expeditionary Medal. This medal was established in 1961 by President John F. 

Kennedy to recognize the service of American veterans in light of the United States’

expanding involvement in conflicts outside the scope of a ‘‘period of war.’’ This 

medal is still awarded today to those men and women who have served in hostile 

regions, but not all of these courageous veterans receive full benefits. 

My second bill, H.R. 1901, would provide the guarantee of a pension to veterans 

who served in Korea, Lebanon, Grenada, and Panama. The bill specifically extends 

benefits to the following: 

• Veterans who served in Korea from February 1, 1955, through August 4, 1964, 

and from May 8, 1975, through 1990. 

• Veterans who served in Lebanon and Grenada from August 24, 1982 through 

July 31, 1984. 

• Veterans who served in Panama from December 20, 1989, through January 31, 

1990. 

This bill would benefit 27,000 veterans who facilitated the overthrow of General 

Manuel Noriega in Panama, as well those who served during the conflict in Lebanon, in 1983, where America lost 241 Marines to a suicide attack on the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. Though these soldiers, and those who served during the additional conflicts covered by this bill, were clearly at risk, they are currently not eligible to receive veteran’s pensions. Nonetheless, in these cases, danger was faced, 

bravery was shown, and American lives were lost. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe that these bills more closely align the sacrifices made by 

these men and women with the compensation they deserve. As President Ronald 

Reagan, in his remarks to the nation on the conflict in Lebanon and Grenada stated, 

‘‘They gave their lives in defense of our National security every bit as much as any 

man who ever died fighting in a war.’’ These sentiments apply to every man and 

woman who has stood in harm’s way for the protection of our freedom. It is time 

that the U.S. Congress recognized this fact and extended pension benefits to those 

veterans who have exemplified the courage and bravery of service in our Armed 

Forces. 

Again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for affording me this courtesy, and I look forward to working with you and the Subcommittee to appropriately honor our veterans. 

f 

Prepared Statement of the Hon. Vito Fossella 

For years, I have joined with Staten Island veterans in a battle to establish a veteran’s cemetery in the borough. The closest veteran’s cemetery in the area is the 

Calverton National Cemetery on Long Island, but transportation demands have 

made it inaccessible for many aging veterans. It can be a grueling 3 to 5 hour 

roundtrip commute, making traveling there terribly difficult for most of the 28,000 

veterans in my district. 

There are three primary obstacles preventing the establishment of a veteran’s 

cemetery on Staten Island. First, a New York State law passed in the mid 1980’s 

prohibits the state from funding a veteran’s cemetery. Currently, Staten Island’s 

local representatives are working on a legislative solution to fix this problem. 

Second, Staten Island lacks the necessary available acreage for a cemetery. Due 

to the land shortage, many local veterans have united around the idea of a mausoleum because it requires the least amount of land and is the most cost-effective 

way to achieve their long-sought goal. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
33 

Third, the Department of Veterans Affairs requires a threshold of 170,000 veterans within a 75 mile area to necessitate the establishment of a national veterans 

cemetery. Due to the Calverton National Cemetery on Long Island, Staten Island 

falls within a 75 mile radius and therefore is ineligible. For an aging, often disabled 

veteran population, the 3 to 5 hour commute to Long Island is unreasonable, and 

simply does not properly serve the veteran population, nor their families, on Staten 

Island. In addition to the 75 mile rule, the VA generally requires at least 175 acres 

to be available for a national cemetery. Currently, the existing land on Staten Island that has been offered by Mount Loretto is only 50 acres. But as I mentioned 

earlier, many local veterans have come to agree to the idea of a mausoleum instead 

of an actual cemetery. 

I believe that the threshold requirements used by the VA are a blunt instrument 

when applied to determining cemetery eligibility. To refine the process I authored 

HR 2346, a bill which would improve the process by adding additional variables for 

the VA to consider when citing a national cemetery. 

HR 2346 will direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a process for 

determining whether a geographic area is sufficiently served by the veteran’s cemeteries located there. The process will take into account the following variables for 

each geographic area: (1) total number of veterans; (2) average distance a resident 

must travel to reach the nearest national cemetery; (3) population density; (4) average amount of time it takes a resident to travel to the nearest national cemetery; 

(5) availability of public transportation for purposes of traveling to national cemeteries; and (6) average amount of fees charged to an individual traveling on the 

major roads leading to the national cemeteries 

Finally, In the case of a geographic area in which sufficient land is not available 

for the establishment of a cemetery, the Secretary shall consider alternatives such 

as establishing a mausoleum. 

It is worth noting that the VA is currently conducting a study regarding its requirements for establishing national veterans’ cemeteries. A focus of the study is an 

examination of whether current thresholds are feasible and not overly simplistic in 

ensuring veteran access. VA knows there is a problem, and I hope my legislation 

can help fix it. 

In closing, Staten Island has one of the highest veterans populations in the state 

yet it remains unserved by a veterans cemetery. It is my hope that if adopted, my 

legislation would provide for a place of remembrance for so many of my constituents 

who deserve such a site closer to home. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Carl Blake, National Legislative Director, Paralyzed 

Veterans of America 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today on H.R. 674; H.R. 1273; H.R. 1900; H.R. 1901; H.R. 2346; H.R. 2696, the ‘‘Veterans Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007;’’ and H.R. 2697. PVA appreciates the 

efforts of the Subcommittee to address these issues that will benefit today’s veterans 

and the veterans of tomorrow. 

H.R. 674 

PVA supports H.R. 674, a bill that will repeal the provision of law requiring termination of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans as of December 31, 2009. 

This Committee was established by Public Law 103–446 on November 2, 1994. The 

Committee has provided advice to the Secretary and to Congress on the VA’s administration of benefits, healthcare, and other services to minority veterans since that 

time. They have met with veterans’ service organizations and conducted townhall 

meetings to provide information and address the concerns of minority veterans. PVA 

believes that it is a beneficial working group and that it should be retained. 

H.R. 1273 

H.R. 1273 will amend Title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to restore plot allowance eligibility for veterans of any war, and restore the headstone or marker allowance for eligible veterans. Previously, Congress 

passed legislation to help pay for the burial plot and the headstone for a veterans 

buried in a non-government cemetery. This was intended to take some of the burial 

workload off of the National Cemetery Administration and allow a veteran to be 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
34 

buried in a family plot with other family members or in their particular religious 

burial site. 

In 1981, Congress eliminated the burial allowance for veterans with non-service 

connected disabilities. In 1990, Congress passed additional legislation eliminating 

the grave marker allowance. PVA supports this legislation that will restore both 

benefits to eligible veterans. 

H.R. 1900 

H.R. 1900 will extend eligibility for pension benefits from the VA to veterans who 

received an expeditionary medal during a period of military service other than a period of war. Expeditionary medals were awarded to the servicemember who participated in, or was in direct support of, one of the many operations of the U.S. military. Operations such as the invasion of Grenada in 1983 or the invasion of Panama 

in 1989 and many other special operations were periods of high tension within our 

military and involved performance of duties that sometimes resulted in serious injury or loss of life. These operations were not a declared period of war or the result 

of a presidential proclamation. PVA supports the extension of benefits as defined in 

H.R. 1900. 

However, we would like to see these pension benefits extended to all active military that served during those periods, not just those individuals who served in the 

specific theater. The expeditionary medal was awarded to participants of a military 

operation, but all military personnel may have been called upon to serve during 

these critical periods. We feel that all members of the military serving during one 

of those periods should receive this pension if they meet the other qualifications of 

this benefit. 

H.R. 1901 

PVA supports H.R. 1901 that will extend eligibility for pension benefits for veterans that served in the military during specified periods of military engagement. 

PVA believes that the restriction for eligibility in H.R. 1901 defined by the phrase 

‘‘service performed in’’ should be removed from the legislation so that all 

servicemembers that served during that time period would be included. As in H.R. 

1900, any active military personnel may have been called upon to serve in the Nation’s combat effort. We believe that anyone that served during that period should 

qualify. 

H.R. 2346 

PVA supports H.R. 2346. This legislation directs the Secretary to establish a process to determine whether or not a geographic area is sufficiently served by a national cemetery. As the VA plans the expansion of the cemetery system they must 

ensure that areas that may have been overlooked in that past, or have seen a substantial increase in the population, will be served by a VA cemetery. This projection 

of future need can also provide helpful information to the states as they decide 

whether or not to participate in the VA’s cemetery program. 

H.R. 2696, the ‘‘Veterans Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007’’

PVA supports H.R. 2696, the ‘‘Veterans Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007.’’ This bill contains three important components. First, the bill increases the plot or 

interment allowance from $300 to $400. This will be a welcome benefit for the family Members of deceased veterans. The amount was last increased to $300 with the 

passage of Public Law 107–103 enacted in 2001. 

Secondly, PVA approves of the provision to repeal the time limit that states have 

to file for reimbursement for interment costs. This provision seems to serve no other 

purpose than to potentially save the VA money. Last, PVA supports the provision 

for grants for operation and maintenance of state veterans’ cemeteries. This program will enhance the ability of states to provide veterans a local burial site in 

areas where a national cemetery may be many hours away. It will also provide for 

more burial capacity to the national cemetery system which has closed cemeteries 

for new burials in some locations. 

H.R. 2697 

PVA supports H.R. 2697. This legislation will compliment legislation enacted during the 109th Congress. At that time, the Specially Adapted Housing Grant was 

made available to servicemembers that were severely injured and still in the military so that they might begin taking steps to modify their homes even before being 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
35 

discharged. This legislation will allow servicemembers awaiting discharge to be eligible for mortgage life insurance. This provision is perfectly reasonable as these men 

and women will be eligible for the benefit once they are a veteran anyway. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, PVA would once again like to 

thank you for the opportunity to provide our views on this important legislation. We 

look forward to working with you to continue to improve the benefits and services 

available to veterans. 

Thank you again. I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Eric A. Hilleman, Deputy Director, National 

Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States 

Mr. Chairman and Members of this Committee: 

Thank you for allowing the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. (VFW) to 

present our views on the legislation pending before this Subcommittee. 

H.R 674: This bill would repeal the scheduled sunset date of December 31, 

2009 for the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans. 

We support this legislation. The Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans conducts site visits and meetings with VA officials, formulating opinions and recommendations, which serve minority veterans. Their input helps to improve access 

to care and further enhances VA’s service provided to minority veterans. The VFW 

strongly supports its reauthorization. 

H.R. 1273, Restoration of Plot Allowance Eligibility for Veterans 

We support S. 1273. This bill would make the $300 plot allowance available to 

service-connected disabled veterans or period-of-war veterans. It also grants the authority to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to reimburse the deceased veteran’s family for a non-government headstone or marker in lieu of furnishing a Government 

marker. Current law does not allow for the reimbursement of private markers in 

lieu of a Government-furnished marker. 

VFW has long supported legislation that will increase the burial plot allowance, 

as recent increases have not keep pace with the cost of final burial arrangements 

for those who honorably served our Nation. As co-author of the Independent Budget 

(IB), we have strongly advocated increasing the burial plot allowance. We would like 

to see the amount closer to the IB recommendation of $745, which would cover more 

of the costs associated with opening the grave. 

H.R. 1900: Extends the eligibility for veterans’ pension benefits to veterans 

who receive an expeditionary medal for a period of military service 

other than a period of war. 

The VFW fully supports the addition of this language to Chapter 15, U.S.C. Title 

38. This bill would add to the definition of what entitles a veteran to pension for 

non-service-connected disability, death and/or for service. It would expand eligibility 

from veterans serving in a defined ‘‘period of war’’ to all veterans with an expeditionary service medal. 

This change in the law would keep pace with the changing nature of use of the 

military force and warfare in past conflicts and military actions such as our Nation’s 

military involvement in Somalia from 1992 to 1993, Bosnia from 1992 to 2002, and 

current operations in the Horn of Africa from 2002 to present. Under current law, 

these servicemembers and their families do not receive benefits that aid families 

during great periods of stress. 

H.R. 1901: A bill to extend eligibility for pension benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to veterans who served 

during certain periods in specified locations. 

The VFW supports this legislation to extend pension benefits to servicemembers 

that have risked life and limb in the Korean peninsula, Lebanon, and Granada. 

These groups of veterans are ineligible for pension benefits available to veterans 

that served during dates prescribed by Presidential proclamation or concurrent resolution of the Congress. We urge passage of this legislation and ask that the Congress consider other groups of veterans that have served at considerable risk to life 

and limb, such as service in Somalia in 1992 to 1993 and U.S. military operations 

in the Balkans from the nineties to present. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
36 

H.R. 2346 would direct the VA Secretary to establish a process for determining whether a geographic area is sufficiently served by the national 

cemeteries located in that geographic area. 

The work envisioned under H.R. 2346 is already being accomplished by the National Cemetery Administration (NCA) under P.L. 106–117 and P.L. 108–109. The 

NCA is required to report annually to Congress on the establishment of additional 

national cemeteries. A strategic plan is formulated, surveying areas determined to 

be appropriate for new national cemeteries. The site selection process takes into account population centers and the travel distance between area cemeteries, weighs 

the views of state and local veterans’ organizations, and solicits others the Secretary 

considers knowledgeable in these matters. We believe that the current process sufficiently addresses the needs of veterans and their families; and as such, we view this 

legislation as duplicative of efforts already properly performed by the National Cemetery Administration. 

H.R. 2696, Veterans’ Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007’

VFW supports HR 2696. Current law allows a veteran who is not buried in a national cemetery, a plot allowance of up to $300. H.R. 2696 increases the plot allowance to $400. VFW has long supported legislation that will provide an increase in 

the burial plot allowance, as recent increases have not kept pace with the cost of 

purchasing a final resting place for those who have honorably served our Nation. 

As co-author of the Independent Budget (IB), we have strongly advocated increasing 

the burial plot allowance. We believe moving the amount closer to the IB recommendation of $745 would better serve veterans and their families to settle the 

affairs of a departed loved one. 

This legislation also includes a provision to abolish grant-filing deadlines for Veterans State Cemeteries. The VFW has no position on this provision. 

H.R. 2697: VFW supports HR 2697, legislation to expand eligibility for veterans’ mortgage life insurance (VMLI) to include Members of the 

Armed Forces receiving specially adapted housing assistance from VA. 

Current law allows those medically retired servicemembers to receive VA specially 

adapted housing benefits before leaving service but does not provide the same eligibility under the VA insurance program. This legislation closes that gap and allows 

those who may have difficulty getting commercial insurance the opportunity to receive reasonable coverage under VMLI. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Robert M. Fells, General Counsel, and External 

Chief Operating Officer, International Cemetery, Cremation and Funeral 

Association 

Chairman Hall and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We appreciate your invitation to testify today regarding H.R. 1273 and related 

bills to improve and enhance veterans’ burial benefits. The International Cemetery, 

Cremation and Funeral Association represents over 7,200 Members including nonprofit, for-profit, religious and municipal cemeteries, as well as funeral homes, 

crematories and related businesses primarily in the United States and in 24 foreign 

countries. Founded in 1887, the ICCFA promotes open competition, consumer 

choices, and prearrangement. I have served the Association since 1983 as general 

counsel, and also as External Chief Operating Officer since 2001. 

The ICCFA applauds the efforts of Congresswoman Shelley Berkley and appreciates her leadership in sponsoring H.R 1273, a bill to restore the veterans plot allowance eligibility and the headstone/marker allowance for use in private and religious cemeteries. These two cost-effective burial benefits were popular for many 

years with veterans and their families who preferred interment in non-government 

cemeteries for personal, ethnic or religious reasons. In 1990, Congress suddenly curtailed the eligibility of wartime veterans to receive the plot allowance unless they 

were receiving VA compensation, pension benefits, or died of service-connected injuries. At the same time, Congress abolished the marker allowance that provided a 

cash reimbursement, based on the Government’s wholesale costs of furnishing markers, to veterans and their families who preferred to purchase their own marker or 

headstone for placement in a private cemetery. 

When the VA’s National Cemetery Administration was formally organized in 1973 

as the result of Public Law 93–43, Congress implicitly acknowledged that national 

cemeteries did not operate in a vacuum, but complemented other forms of burial 

that used resources in private, religious, and municipal cemeteries. The ICCFA was 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
37 

instrumental in having included in that law a provision that authorized a plot allowance (then $150) to benefit the majority of veterans and their families who preferred interment in non-government cemeteries. This plot allowance was also viewed 

as a means to offset demands on national cemeteries and as a recognition of the 

personal, religious, and ethnic preferences of veterans. Subsequent legislation established additional forms of burial assistance, such as the marker allowance, to further avoid a forced reliance on national cemeteries. 

Since the November 1990 repeal of the marker allowance and the curtailment of 

the plot allowance, we believe that the VA eligibility requirements to receive forms 

of burial benefits has been inconsistent. The general availability of national cemetery interment to virtually all veterans and their immediate families contrasts 

sharply with the restricted benefits for veterans who wish to be buried in private 

cemeteries. In that sense, Congress has legislated against wartime veterans by cutting burial benefits to this group. The ICCFA has estimated that as many as 70 

percent of the veterans previously entitled to burial benefits in non-government 

cemeteries were made ineligible through Congressional actions in 1990 and earlier. 

For example, in October, 1981, P.L. 97–35 was enacted that disqualified wartime 

veterans from receiving the non-service connected basic burial allowance (then $300) 

in the absence of additional criteria. In November 1990, as mentioned above, Congress again discriminated against wartime veterans by restricting the plot allowance and eliminating the marker allowance. These modest, one-time payments not 

only reflected the wishes of veterans but would also result in long-term cost savings 

when compared to expense of maintaining graves in the national cemeteries in perpetuity. However, we feel that these factors were not given sufficient regard at the 

time. 

Hence, the importance of H.R 1273, a bill that does not create new burial benefits, 

but restores the veterans plot allowance eligibility and the headstone/marker allowance for use in private and religious cemeteries, benefits which never should have 

been eliminated. 

In conclusion, we appreciate your allowing us to testify today and we urge you 

to act favorably on H.R. 1273. I would be happy to answer any questions you may 

have. Thank you. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Raymond C. Kelley, Legislative Director, American 

Veterans (AMVETS) 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for providing AMVETS (American Veterans) the opportunity to testify 

regarding pending legislation on minority veterans, memorial affairs, and disability 

pension benefits. 

Over the past twelve years, the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans with 

their unique insight has provided timely, accurate information and recommendations on potential barriers, which are unintentionally in place, often causing minority veterans a lower quality of care. Although, these barriers are not limited to minorities, the advisory committee’s perspective provides an ability to identify the root 

of the problem and submit recommendations which often develop into legislative 

proposals and inevitably helps all veterans. AMVETS wholly supports H.R. 674’s repeal of its sunset provision, extending the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans. 

Mr. Chairman, it should be at the root of our Nation’s conscience to honor those 

servicemembers who are willing to stand in harm’s way at our Government’s request, and the highest respect we can pay is to honor the lives of our veterans after 

they have passed away. H.R. 1273, H.R. 2696, and H.R. 2346 promote this honor 

as well as offset the cost incurred by the families when a loved one passes on. 

AMVETS supports H.R. 1273 in restoring veterans’ plot allowance eligibility and 

headstone or marker allowance, but would encourage an amendment to include all 

eligible veterans, not just veterans who have served during wartime. AMVETS also 

supports the increase in burial assistance from $300 to $400; however, Mr. Chairman, the amount should be increased to $745. This increased amount would make 

current payments proportionally equal to the amount paid when this benefit was 

initially provided in 1973. AMVETS wholly supports H.R. 2346 as it assists VA in 

meeting its goal of providing 85 percent of veterans with burial options within 75 

miles of their residence. 

AMVETS supports H.R. 1900 and H.R. 1901 as they update and clarify veterans 

who are eligible for pension benefits. In the same light, Mr. Chairman, AMVETS 

supports H.R. 2697; however, due to Title 38’s definition of ‘‘veteran,’’ if H.R. 1315 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
38 

is not passed, administrative amendments may need to be enacted to include ‘‘mem- bers of the Armed Forces’’ throughout Chapter 21, Title 38, to clarify 

servicemembers’ eligibility for adaptive housing assistance which this resolution will 

insure. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Alec S. Petkoff, Assistant Director, Veterans Affairs 

and Rehabilitation Commission, American Legion 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for this opportunity to present The American Legion’s views on the 

issues being considered by the Subcommittee today. The American Legion commends the Subcommittee for holding a hearing to discuss these important topics. 

H.R. 674 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal the provision of law requiring termination of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans as 

of December 31, 2009. 

H.R. 674 seeks to repeal the provision of law requiring termination of the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans (ACMV) by December 31, 2009. The American 

Legion supports the repeal of the sunset provision for the ACMV. 

ACMV was created to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the administration of The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits and services for minority 

veterans. The Advisory Committee is responsible for reviewing reports and studies 

on compensation, health care, rehabilitation, outreach and other VA services. It also 

assesses the needs of minority veterans and makes recommendations to improve 

programs established to meet the identified needs. As VA continues to enhance and 

create new programs to better serve the needs of minority veterans, the need for 

the Advisory Committee will always remain relevant. 

Given the growing diversity of the veteran population, to include an increasing 

number of women veterans, ACMV has a profound role in ensuring that existing 

and future VA programs are sensitive to the needs of this diverse population and 

ensuring that VA is effective in its outreach efforts to make minority veterans 

aware of the benefits and services available to them. 

H.R. 1273 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to restore plot allowance eligibility for veterans of any war and 

to restore the headstone or marker allowance for eligible persons. 

H.R. 1273 seeks to restore plot allowance eligibility and to restore the headstone 

or marker allowance to reflect the criteria used before The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act 1990 (OBRA). OBRA limited the payment of a burial plot allowance 

only to veterans who are indigent or who are in receipt of VA disability compensation or pension. It also eliminated the headstone or marker allowance. 

The American Legion fully supports this legislation that would restore these benefits. The American Legion saw these cuts in benefits as a shameless cost saving 

measure that never should have happened. 

H.R. 1900 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend eligibility for pension benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 

veterans who received an expeditionary medal during a period of military service other than a period of war. 

This bill, if enacted, would amend title 38, United States Code, to extend eligibility for pension benefits to veterans who received an expeditionary medal during 

a period of military service other than a period of war. 

The American Legion does not have a position regarding this bill. 

H.R. 1901 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to extend eligibility for pension benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 

veterans who served during certain periods of time in specified locations. 

This bill, if enacted, would amend title 38, United States Code, to extend eligibility for pension benefits to veterans who served during certain periods of time in 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
39 

specified locations. Specifically, this bill would extend eligibility for non service-connected pension to those with active duty military, naval or air service in the Republic of Korea during the period of February 1, 1955 to August 4, 1964; in the Republic 

of Korea during the period of May 8, 1975 to August 1, 1990; in Lebanon or Grenada 

during the period of August 24, 1982 to July 31, 1984; in Panama during the period 

of December 20, 1989 to January 31, 1990. 

The American Legion supports the intent of this legislation but strongly recommends extending pension eligibility to those who served during the aforementioned periods regardless of the location of such service. The wartime service periods 

currently recognized do not (with the exception of Vietnam for the period of February 28, 1961 to August 4, 1964) have such service location requirements. The inclusion of such requirements is overly restrictive and contrary to the spirit and intent of the non service-connected pension benefit. 

H.R. 2346 

To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a process for determining whether a geographic area is sufficiently served by the national 

cemeteries located in that geographic area. 

The American Legion fully supports the intent of this legislation. The National 

Cemetery Administration (NCA) has a long tradition of providing burial and memorial services to veterans. The American Legion supported P.L. 108–109, the National 

Cemetery Expansion Act of 2003, authorizing The Department of Veterans’ Affairs 

(VA) to establish new national cemeteries to serve veterans in the areas of: Bakersfield, California; Birmingham, Alabama; Jacksonville, Florida; Sarasota County, 

Florida; southeastern Pennsylvania; and Columbia-Greenville, South Carolina. All 

six areas have veteran populations exceeding 170,000, which is the threshold VA 

has established for new national cemeteries. 

The American Legion supports the establishment of additional national and state 

veterans cemeteries and columbaria wherever a need for them is apparent and have 

petitioned Congress to provide required operations and construction funding to ensure VA burial in a national or state veterans cemetery is a realistic option for veterans and their eligible dependents. 

The American Legion does have some concern about section 1(b) Consideration of 

Alternatives. While we fully support innovative ways to provide burial space in 

areas where space is limited (islands, i.e. Puerto Rico) or where the environment 

is prohibitive to the traditional constructive designs for national cemeteries (deserts, 

i.e. southwest U.S.) we are concerned about the introduction of VA mausoleums. 

Our concern is that the veterans of an area being considered for a mausoleum be 

consulted first as to the fittingness of a mausoleum as a final resting place. A mausoleum would have to conform to the high standard of being a national shrine and 

of being a place that veterans want to be laid to rest in. 

H.R. 2696 

‘‘Veterans Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007’’

The American Legion supports the intent of section 2(a) to increase the burial plot 

allowance. Under the National Cemeteries Act (P.L. 95–73) 13 percent of the cost 

of a burial plot was covered. The current allowance of $300 covers on average 3 percent of costs. The American Legion suggests it be raised to $670 to bring the amount 

closer to the original 13 percent and that that amount be adjusted yearly for inflation by tying the increased allowances to the Consumer Price Index. 

The American Legion also supports the intent of section 2(b) that would repeal 

the time limitation for filing for reimbursement. 

The American Legion does not have a position on grants related to operating and 

maintaining a state veterans cemetery. 

H.R. 2697 

Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance Eligibility Expansion 

H.R. 2697 addresses the expansion of Veterans Mortgage Life Insurance (VMLI), 

a VA program offering $90,000 of mortgage life insurance to severely disabled veterans who are awarded grants by the VA for specially adapted housing, to include 

Members of the military service departments who meet similar disability requirements, yet who are still in an active duty status either due to a lengthy separation 

process for various reasons, or who are retained in such status due to their occupational specialties being needed by their service department or due to other manpower requirements. 

The American Legion supports this proposal as these individuals obviously meet 

the same criteria as is used for those presently insured under the VMLI program. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
40 

The only difference here is that this group is not yet separated from service, which 

is a requirement of the current statute. We believe the justification here is, in essence, the same and that these individuals should also have the option of being insured under the VMLI program. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my testimony. 

I appreciate the opportunity to present The American Legion’s views on these important issues. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Bradley G. Mayes, Director, Compensation and 

Pension Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of 

Veterans Affairs 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today on a number of bills of great interest to veterans. We will address 

today only those bills for which the administration was able to coordinate its views 

in the time provided. We will address the remaining bills in a subsequent letter to 

the Subcommittee. 

H.R. 674 

H.R. 674 would repeal the current statutory requirement terminating the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans (ACMV) as of December 31, 2009. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) supports H.R. 674. 

The ACMV is composed of veterans of all ranks and services appointed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Members represent the five minority groups the Center 

for Minority Veterans is mandated to oversee. It advises the Secretary and Congress 

on VA’s administration of benefits and provision of healthcareto minority veterans, 

assesses the needs of minority veterans, reviews VA programs and activities designed to meet those needs, and develops recommendations to address unmet needs. 

Among other things, the ACMV meets with senior officials to discuss services and 

programs available for minority veterans and receives briefings from all of the administrations and other staff offices. 

The ACMV’s reports and recommendations have highlighted many of the challenges confronting minority veterans, such as access to care, disparities in 

healthcarefor diseases that disproportionately affect minorities, homelessness, unemployment, lack of understanding of claims process, existence of limited medical 

research, and statistical data related to minority veterans. VA has accepted many 

of the ACMV’s recommendations and is moving forward to implement them. For example, VA is continually improving access to care by increasing the number of ambulatory care and outpatient clinics. In 1995, there were 102 such clinics; currently, 

there are 872. VA is also addressing homelessness by partnering with community 

stakeholders and expanding VA’s Grant and Per Diem Program. In short, the 

ACMV plays a vital role in helping VA assess and respond to the needs of minority 

veterans, and its efforts complement VA’s related outreach efforts. 

The cost associated with enactment of H.R. 674 would be insignificant, approximately $80,000 per year. 

H.R. 2346 

H.R. 2346 would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to develop a process for 

determining whether a geographic area is sufficiently served by the national cemeteries located in that geographic area. H.R. 2346 would require that the process take 

into account the: (1) number of veterans living in the geographic area; (2) average 

distance a resident of the geographic area must travel to reach the nearest national 

cemetery; (3) population density of the geographic area; (4) average amount of time 

it takes a resident of the geographic area to travel to the nearest national cemetery; 

(5) availability of public transportation for purposes of traveling to national cemeteries located in the geographic area; and (6) average amount of any fees charged 

to an individual traveling on the major roads leading to the national cemeteries located in the geographic area. If land sufficient to establish a national cemetery is 

not available to VA in a geographic area, VA would be required to consider alternatives to establishing a cemetery, including establishing a mausoleum. 

VA currently seeks to ensure that a national cemetery is located within a 75-mile 

radius of a deceased veteran’s residence. One of the criteria for selecting the site 

of a new national cemetery is a veteran population of 170,000 that is not served 

by a national cemetery or state veterans’ cemetery. The six new national cemeteries 

authorized by the National Cemetery Expansion Act of 2003, as well as the six 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
41 

cemeteries authorized by the Veterans Millennium healthcareand Benefits Act, 

which was enacted in 1999, satisfy these criteria. VA is currently evaluating VA’s memorial benefits program. We expect to complete this program evaluation by April 

2008. We believe it would be prudent to consider the results of this program evaluation before developing the new process H.R. 2346 would require. Therefore, we oppose H.R. 2346 because the measures outlined in the bill are premature at this 

time. 

Because we cannot know the full extent of the process that H.R. 2346 would mandate until the process is developed, we are unable to estimate the costs that would 

result from enactment of the bill. 

H.R. 2696 

Section 2(a) of H.R. 2696, the ‘‘Veterans’ Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007,’’ would increase from $300 to $400 the amount of reimbursement allowed for the 

costs of a burial plot or interment for a veteran who is eligible for burial in a VA 

national cemetery but is buried in a state or private cemetery. This plot or interment allowance was last increased from $150 to $300 by Public Law 107–103 in 

2001. section 2(b) of the bill would nullify the 2-year time limitation in 38 C.F.R. 

§ 3.1604(d)(2) for states to file claims for the plot or interment allowance as it applied to claims in connection with interment of a deceased veteran’s unclaimed remains. Section 2(b) would be retroactively effective as of October 1, 2006. 

As explained above, VA is currently evaluating its memorial benefits program. 

That evaluation will assess the appropriateness of VA’s current burial benefits 

based on the data obtained and beneficiary needs. We believe that it would be premature to take a position on section 2 of the bill before we have completed our memorial benefits program evaluation. Accordingly, we defer taking a position on these 

provisions until we have had an opportunity to review the results of this program 

evaluation. 

Enactment of section 2(a) would result in costs of $7.2 million for the first year and $77 million over 10 years. Enactment of section 2(b) would result in insignificant costs. 

Section 2(c) of the bill would authorize VA to provide up to $5 million annually 

in grants to states or tribal organizations for operating and maintaining state veterans’ cemeteries or veterans’ cemeteries on trust land owned by, or held in trust 

for, tribal organizations. It would also require VA, not later than 180 days after enactment, to prescribe regulations to carry out the amendments. VA does not support 

using the State Cemetery Grant Program to operate and maintain state veterans’ cemeteries or tribal organization cemeteries. (For convenience, we refer below only 

to grants to states and state veterans’ cemeteries, but our rationale applies also to 

grants to tribal organizations and their veterans’ cemeteries.) 

The State Cemetery Grant Program is intended to complement the national cemetery system in providing a dignified burial place reasonably close to where veterans 

live. Through the grant program, states establish, expand, or improve cemeteries in 

areas where there are no plans to create an open national cemetery. Under current 

law, VA may fund 100 percent of certain costs related to the establishment, expansion, or improvement of a state veterans’ cemetery. 

Historically, states have been solely responsible for all operational and maintenance activities at state veterans’ cemeteries. Federal grants to operate and maintain state veterans’ cemeteries may create ambiguities in the states’ responsibility 

for the operation and maintenance of state cemeteries. Also, because operating costs 

are recurring, it is unclear upon what basis the grants would be awarded or how 

the grants would be distributed. Funds obligated for this new purpose could otherwise be used for state cemetery grants in the existing program or to help fund operation and maintenance costs for VA national cemeteries. Authorizing Federal grants 

to fund operation and maintenance could discourage states that have already received grants from fulfilling their commitments to operate and maintain their cemeteries, or could encourage future grant applicants to inadequately plan for funding 

the operation and maintenance of their cemeteries because of the availability of Federal grants to cover those costs. Enactment of section 2(c) of this bill would result in costs of $5 million for the 

first year and $50 million over 10 years. 

H.R. 2697 

Veterans’ Mortgage Life Insurance (VMLI) is available to severely disabled veterans who receive a specially adapted housing grant. Congress recently extended eligibility for specially adapted housing assistance to Members of the Armed Forces 

serving on active duty who have certain service-connected disabilities. H.R. 2697 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
42 

would extend the protection offered by VMLI to Members of the Armed Forces receiving specially adapted housing assistance from VA. VA supports this bill. 

VA estimates that 30 servicemembers would be eligible for VMLI if H.R. 2697 

were enacted. If all 30 servicemembers applied for VMLI, VA estimates that enactment of H.R. 2697 would result in total additional benefit costs of approximately 

$28,000 for the first year and $1.7 million over 10 years. Additional administrative 

costs would be minimal. 

f 

Statement of Brian Lawrence, Assistant National Legislative Director, 

Disabled American Veterans 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to submit for the record, the views of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) on the various bills under consideration today. In accordance with its 

congressional charter, the DAV legislative mission is focused on benefits and services provided to veterans on account of their service-connected disabilities. We are 

therefore pleased to support the bills insofar as they fall within that scope. The DAV 

has no mandate from its Membership on issues addressed within H.R. 674, H.R. 

1273, H.R. 1900, H.R. 1901, and H.R. 2346, but we have no objection to their favorable consideration. 

H.R. 2696 

The Veterans’ Dignified Burial Assistance Act of 2007 would increase plot or interment allowance from $300 to $400, for veterans interred in cemeteries other than 

national cemeteries. Overall, H.R. 2696 is beneficial as it helps to ensure, as its title 

implies, that veterans have access to a dignified burial that provides the level of 

honor they deserve. However, a concern arises regarding the provision that allows 

VA to make grants to States for the operation and maintenance of State veterans’

cemeteries. While this provision appears favorable because it would make more burial space available for veterans, the DAV wants to ensure that it would not have 

the unintended consequence of creating competition between State and National 

cemetery programs for funding. Should such certainty be made, we would welcome 

the provision. Last, along with the proposed increase for the burial plot allowance, 

the DAV would encourage the Committee to consider legislation to provide for automatic annual adjustments to the burial plot allowance indexed to the rise in the cost 

of living. During the most recent DAV National Convention, our Members voted to 

again adopt a long standing resolution calling for an increase for burial allowance, 

which seems worthy of mention considering the objective of this commendable legislation. This bill is consistent with the recommendation of the The Independent 

Budget (IB) on this issue. The IB is a budget and policy document that sets forth 

the collective views of the DAV, AMVETS, the Paralyzed Veterans of America 

(PVA), and the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW). 

H.R. 2697 

This legislation would expand eligibility for veterans’ mortgage life insurance to 

include Members of the Armed Forces receiving specially adapted housing assistance from the VA. Because this bill would provide additional coverage for severely 

disabled veterans who have sacrificed so much on behalf of the security of their fellow citizens, the DAV supports this commendable legislation. 

We appreciate the Committee’s interest in these issues, and we appreciate the opportunity to present the DAV’s views, which we hope will be helpful. 

f 

Statement of the Hon. Luis V. Gutierrez 

Good afternoon, Chairman Hall, Ranking Member Lamborn and members of the 

Subcommittee. Thank you for inviting me to be here today to discuss my bill, H.R. 

674, legislation to make the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans permanent. 

I have sponsored this legislation along Congresswoman Corrine Brown, who serves 

on this Committee. As most of you know, current law mandates the termination of 

the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans (ACMV) on December 31, 2009. This 

bill would simply repeal the provision of law that sunsets this important Committee 

so that its critical work on behalf of minority veterans can continue. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
43 

The Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans operates in conjunction with the 

VA Center for Minority Veterans. This Committee consists of Members appointed 

by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and includes minority veterans, representatives 

of minority veterans groups and individuals who are recognized authorities in fields 

pertinent to the needs of minority veterans. 

The Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans helps the VA Center for Minority 

Veterans by advising the Secretary on the adoption and implementation of policies 

and programs affecting minority veterans, and by making recommendations to the 

VA for the establishment or improvement of programs in the department for which 

minority veterans are eligible. 

The Committee has consistently provided the VA and Congress with balanced, forward-looking recommendations, many of which go far beyond the unique needs of 

minority veterans. In 2002, the Committee met in my hometown of Chicago and 

warned that in the Chicago regional office ‘‘it was mentioned that it was much easier to deny benefits than to grant benefits because of stringent requirements of VBA 

and Court of Appeal for Veterans Claims.’’

The Chicago Sun-Times later exposed that Illinois veterans ranked 50th in disability benefit compensation. That information sparked a campaign by the Illinois 

Congressional Delegation to rectify the situation. Since then, the VA Inspector General has issued his report and recommendations and the Secretary has pledged additional staff and resources to the Chicago regional office. 

The Committee will also be needed in the future since the unique concerns of minority veterans will become increasingly important for our Nation over the next decade. 

Currently, 17 percent of the troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan are AfricanAmerican, while 11 percent are Hispanic. The concerns of these veterans and others 

will not disappear on December 31, 2009, nor should the Committee that represents 

them. The Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans has helped our minority veterans from past wars with programs to address their concerns. We should not shortchange our newly returning soldiers by allowing this Committee’s tenure to expire. 

Many specific issues of concern to minority veterans need to be addressed further. 

Minority veterans confront the debilitating effects of post-traumatic stress disorder 

(PTSD) and substance abuse in greater numbers. Minority veterans suffer from a 

higher incidence of homelessness. Access to healthcare for Native American veterans 

is also a common problem. In addition, access to adequate job training is a difficulty 

for many minority veterans, a high percentage of whom qualify as low-income, category A veterans. 

Unfortunately, discrimination and cultural insensitivity remain problematic for 

minority veterans at many VA facilities. The Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans still has a lot of work to do, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation to make this important Committee permanent. 

f 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Washington, DC. 

July 7, 2008 

Hon. Bob Filner 

Chairman 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

I am pleased to provide the Committee with the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on four bills: H.R. 156, H.R. 1273, H.R. 1900, and H.R. 1901, 

110th Cong. We presented a summary of H.R. 156 to the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs during a hearing held on June 19, 2007, but 

did not present VA’s views at that time. VA’s statement to the Subcommittee for 

a hearing held on July 31, 2007, did not cover H.R. 1273, H.R. 1900, or H.R. 1901, 

which were on the agenda for that hearing. We are providing our views on these 

bills at this time. For the reasons explained below, we support enactment of H.R. 

156, contingent on Congress identifying offsets, but do not support enactment of 

H.R. 1273, H.R. 1900, or H.R. 1901. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
44 

H.R. 156 

H.R. 156 would provide dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) to the survivors of certain totally disabled former prisoners of war (POWs) who died on or before September 30, 1999. 

VA supports enactment of H.R. 156, subject to Congress finding offsets for the increased costs. Currently, DIC is payable to the survivors of former POWs who were 

rated totally disabled for at least 1 year immediately preceding death, but only if 

death occurred after September 30, 1999. The proposed amendment would remove 

the date-of-death temporal restriction and would authorize payment of DIC to the 

survivors of former POWs who died on or before September 30, 1999, subject to the 

same eligibility conditions that apply to payment of DIC to the survivors of former 

POWs who die after that date. We see no basis for distinguishing survivors of 

former POWs who died after September 30, 1999, from survivors of former POWs 

who died on or before that date. 

We estimate that the benefit costs would be $21.0 million for the first year, $89.1 

million over 5 years, and $137.4 million over 10 years. There would be no significant 

administrative costs associated with enactment of the bill. 

H.R. 1273 

Section 1(a) of H.R. 1273 would expand eligibility for the $300 plot allowance to 

any wartime veteran who is buried in a private cemetery. 

VA does not support enactment of section 1(a) of H.R. 1273. Currently, 38 U.S.C. 

§ 2303(b)(1) authorizes a plot allowance for any veteran who is eligible for burial in 

a national cemetery but is buried in a state veterans cemetery. Section 2303(b)(2) 

currently authorizes a plot allowance for any veteran who is eligible for burial in 

a national cemetery but is buried in a private cemetery and (1) was in receipt of 

compensation or pension at the time of death, (2) was either a wartime veteran or 

discharged from active service for a service-connected disability, and whose body 

was unclaimed, (3) was discharged from active service for a disability incurred or 

aggravated in line of duty, or (4) died in a VA facility, as described under section 

2303(a)(2). Although section 1(a) of H.R. 1273 would extend eligibility of the plot allowance to wartime veterans buried in a private cemetery, the bill would also, seemingly inadvertently, remove eligibility for the plot allowance for peacetime veterans 

buried in a state cemetery who were not discharged from service due to a disability 

incurred in service. 

We do not support this provision of the bill because it would add approximately 

400,000 claims each year to those currently received annually. 

Section 1(b) of H. R. 1273 would restore VA’s authority to provide a reimbursement allowance for the cost of a headstone or marker furnished at private expense. 

VA does not support enactment of section 1(b) of H.R. 1273. Current law authorizes VA to provide a Government-furnished headstone or marker for the private 

cemetery grave of an eligible veteran who died on or after November 1, 1990, regardless of whether the grave has been marked at private expense. We have found 

that the Government’s provision of a first or second headstone or marker is a benefit 

many families expect in order to recognize their loved one’s service to the Nation, 

and it is consistent with the National Cemetery Administration’s mission of honoring and memorializing our veterans. Current law also authorizes VA to provide, 

upon request, a medallion or similar device signifying veteran status in lieu of a 

Government-furnished headstone or marker for an eligible veteran’s grave in a private cemetery. This authority permits VA to recognize and honor veterans who are 

buried in a private cemetery that does not allow placement of a Government-furnished headstone or marker. 

For veterans who died between October 18, 1979, and October 31, 1990, VA is authorized to pay an allowance to families who purchased a private headstone or 

marker in lieu of obtaining a Government-furnished headstone or marker for a veteran’s grave in a private cemetery. In 1990, Congress terminated the allowance. Although the allowance helps offset the cost of acquiring a private headstone or marker, it does not serve to recognize a veteran’s service, as would a Government-furnished marker or a medallion that can be affixed to a private headstone or marker. 

VA believes that the second-marker benefit and the new medallion option eliminate 

the need to offer a subsidy to assist with the purchase of a private headstone or 

marker that does not honor the veteran’s service. Further, section 1(b) would provide for the reimbursement of the cost of privately furnished headstones or markers 

without any dollar limit, which would significantly increase mandatory spending. 

We estimate that the benefit costs associated with enactment of H.R. 1273 would 

be $96.2 million for Fiscal Year (FY) 2009, $466.3 million for the 5-year period from 

FY 2009 to FY 2013, and $881 million for the 10-year period from FY 2009 to FY 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING
45 

2018. We estimate that the administrative costs would be $12.1 million for FY 2009, 

$64.9 million over 5 years, and $135.7 million over 10 years. 

H.R. 1900 

H.R. 1900 would extend eligibility for pension to veterans who received an expeditionary medal for a period of active military, naval, or air service other than a period of war and to their survivors. 

VA does not support enactment of H.R. 1900. Historically, pension has been provided only to veterans with wartime service and their survivors. This change would 

be inconsistent with the longstanding policy of distinguishing between peacetime 

and wartime service for pension purposes. Providing both peacetime and wartime 

veterans with identical pension benefits implies that there is no distinction between 

the types of service. We do not support this bill because it would contradict the intended purpose for the pension program. 

We do not have adequate data to accurately estimate the costs that would result 

from enactment of this bill. 

H.R. 1901 

H.R. 1901 would extend pension eligibility to peacetime veterans who performed 

active service in the Republic of Korea between February 1, 1955, and August 4, 

1964, or May 8, 1975, and August 1, 1990; in Lebanon or Grenada between August 

24, 1982, and July 31, 1984; or in Panama between December 20, 1989, and January 31, 1990 (inclusive of each of the preceding dates). 

VA does not support enactment of H.R. 1901. Although the periods of service listed in this bill are known for having war-like conflicts, they have not been considered 

periods of war. This bill would therefore create inconsistency in benefit eligibility 

among peacetime veterans. It would also imply that the service of these veterans 

is more valuable than the service of other peacetime veterans. 

We estimate that the benefit costs associated with enactment of this bill would 

be $8.0 million for FY 2009, $42.0 million for the 5-year period from FY 2009 to 

FY 2013, and $89.8 million for the 10-year period from FY 2009 to FY 2018. 

We are sending a similar report to Ranking Republican Member Steve Buyer. 

The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to 

the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration’s program. 

Sincerely yours, 

JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D. 

Secretary 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with HEARING