U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

94–457PDF 2004

H.R. 241, H.R. 533, H.R. 761, H.R. 850, H.R. 966,

AND H.R. 1048

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BENEFITS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHT CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

APRIL 10, 2003

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Serial No. 108–7

(
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama

STEVE BUYER, Indiana

JACK QUINN, New York

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

JEFF MILLER, Florida

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire

BOB BEAUPREZ, Colorado

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida

RICK RENZI, Arizona

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

LANE EVANS, Illinois

BOB FILNER, California

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California

TIM RYAN, Ohio

PATRICK E. RYAN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BENEFITS

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

JACK QUINN, New York

JEFF MILLER, Florida

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

(II)
(III)

C O N T E N T S

April 10, 2003

Page

H.R. 241, H.R. 533, H.R. 761, H.R. 850, H.R. 966, AND H.R. 1048 ................... 1

OPENING STATEMENTS

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

Hon. Michael H. Michaud ....................................................................................... 2

Prepared statement of Congressman Michaud .............................................. 58

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

Affairs .................................................................................................................... 3

WITNESSES

Blake, Carl, Associate Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America ..... 21

Prepared statement of Mr. Blake .................................................................... 90

Cooper, Daniel L., Under Secretary for Benefits, Department of Veterans

Affairs; accompanied by John H. Thompson, Deputy General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs; and Ronald J. Henke, Director, Compensation

and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits Administration .................................. 7

Prepared statement of Admiral Cooper .......................................................... 61

Gaytan, Peter S., Principal Deputy Director, National Veterans Affairs and

Rehabilitation Commission, The American Legion ........................................... 15

Prepared statement of Mr. Gaytan ................................................................. 75

Hayden, Paul A., Deputy Director, National Legislative Service, Veterans

of Foreign Wars of the United States ................................................................. 19

Prepared statement of Mr. Hayden ................................................................ 87

Jackson, Leslie H., Executive Director, American Ex-Prisoners of War ............. 19

Prepared statement of Mr. Jackson ................................................................ 96

Simpson, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State of Idaho .... 4

Prepared statement of Congressman Simpson .............................................. 54

Surratt, Rick, Deputy National Legislative Director, Disabled American

Veterans ................................................................................................................ 17

Prepared statement of Mr. Surratt ................................................................. 79

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Bills:

H.R. 241, a bill to amend Title XXXVIII, USC, to repeal the two-year

limitation on the payment of accrued benefits that are due and unpaid

by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs upon the death of a veteran

or other beneficiary under laws administered by the Secretary ............... 37

H.R. 533, a bill to amend Title XXXVIII, USC, to provide for health

benefits and certain other benefits to be furnished by the Department

of Veterans Affairs to any individual who has spina bifida and is

the natural child of a veteran who, while in military service, was

exposed to a herbicide agent ........................................................................ 39

H.R. 761, a bill to amend Title XXXVIII, USC, to authorize the Secretary

of Veterans’ Affairs to provide adapted housing assistance to disabled

members of the Armed Forces who remain on active duty pending

medical separation ........................................................................................ 42

H.R. 850, a bill to amend Title XXXVIII, USC, to provide special compensation for former prisoners of war, and for other purposes ................. 45
Page

IV

Bills—Continued

H.R. 966, a bill to amend Title XXXVIII, USC, to reinstate the vocational

training program of the Department of Veterans Affairs for certain

low-income veterans in receipt of pension from that Department ............ 49

H.R. 1048, a bill to amend Title XXXVIII, USC, to increase the amount

of assistance for certain disabled veterans for specially adapted housing

and automobile and adaptive equipment .................................................... 52

Data submitted by Congressman Michaud re benefits to children with spina

bifida and other covered disabilities, number of veterans who served during

the Vietnam era, and different information from Institute of Medicine concerning herbicides and spina bifida 24,25,27

Statements:

American Ex-Prisoners of War ........................................................................ 96

AMVETS ........................................................................................................... 97

Mrs. Matilda Bonny ......................................................................................... 100

Mrs. Dorothy Brasher ...................................................................................... 103

Mr. Michael Ruzalski ....................................................................................... 107
(1)

H.R. 241, H.R. 533, H.R. 761, H.R. 850, H.R. 966,

AND H.R. 1048

THURSDAY, APRIL 10, 2003

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON BENEFITS, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, Washington, DC

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in room

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Henry Brown (chairman

of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Brown, Bradley, Brown-Waite, Davis,

Evans, Michaud, Miller, and Reyes.

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BROWN

Mr. BROWN. Good morning. The hearing will now come to order.

Welcome to our first legislative hearing of the 108th Congress.

Many of you were here yesterday for the oversight hearing on the

Troops to Teachers program. I expect today’s meeting will be just

as informative.

We have a full plate, so we’ll highlight each bill briefly before

turning to our ranking member, Mr. Michaud, for his comments.

H.R. 241, the Veterans Beneficiary Fairness Act of 2003, would

repeal current law restricting a surviving spouse to no more than

2 years of accrued benefit if a veteran dies while a claim for VA

monetary benefit is being processed.

H.R. 533, the Agent Orange Veterans’ Disabled Children’s Benefits Act of 2003, would extend benefits to a veteran’s child born

with spina bifida when the parent can establish that he or she was

exposed to the type of herbicide used in Vietnam. Currently, these

benefits are accorded to those eligible children whose parents

served in the Republic of Vietnam.

H.R. 761, the Disabled Servicemembers Adapted Housing Assistance Act of 2003, would permit severely disabled servicemembers

to apply for a VA special adapted housing grant prior to separating

from the military.

H.R. 850, the Former Prisoners of War Special Compensation Act

of 2003, would establish a three-tier special monthly pension based

on the length of the former POW’s captivity. The bill would also repeal a 2001 federal appeals court decision permitting compensation

for a substance abuse illness or injury when it is caused by a primary service-connected disability.

In a few minutes, we will be hearing from the chief sponsor of

this bill, the former chairman of the Benefits Subcommittee, Representative Mike Simpson.
2

H.R. 966, the Disabled Veterans’ Return-to-Work Act of 2003,

would reinstate a pilot program which ended in 1995 to provide vocational rehabilitation to veterans receiving non-service-connected

pension benefits.

Finally, H.R. 1048, the Disabled Veterans’ Adapted Benefits Improvement Act of 2003, would increase the amounts for both specially adapted automobile and housing grants.

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses on the broad

range of bills. At this time, I’d like to welcome the ranking member, Mr. Michaud, for any remarks that he might make.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL H. MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I also

would like to welcome Mr. Simpson. Glad to see you’re going to be

still interested in veterans and family issues.

We have six bills to consider today. I’m pleased to support most

of these bills before us. I hope that we will also consider amendments to some of these bills to address issues of additional concerns.

I support the removal of the 2-year limit on accrued benefits, but

believe we should not stop there. I hope that we will also be able

to consider amendments to allow family members to continue the

claims when veterans, or other beneficiaries die—to allow family

members of a deceased veteran to claim benefits which have not

been paid.

For example, in my district in Maine, there is a veteran whose

most recent claim was filed in July of 1989. It’s been pending for

almost 14 years. The claim was remanded by the United States

Court of Appeals for a veterans’ claim in 1992. Since that time

there has been continued failure to comply with the remand orders

of the court in the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.

Fortunately, this veteran is not terminally ill, but the failure to

comply with the various orders for specialist examinations and

opinions has resulted in extraordinary delays of the claim.

After the most recent remand, in November of 1999, the entire

C-file was lost. Luckily, the attorney for the veterans had a copy

of that file. If this veteran were to die while his claim is pending,

I believe that his family should be able to continue the veteran’s

claim. If justice delayed is justice denied, a veteran’s claim should

not be extinguished because it was not properly adjudicated in a

timely manner.

I support the bill to allow the children, such as Michael Ruzalski,

whose father was exposed to Agent Orange at the DMZ in Korea,

to receive the same benefits for spina bifida as the children whose

parents were exposed in Vietnam.

The VA claims that over 3,000 additional children would be eligible for spina bifida benefits in fiscal year 2004 if this bill were to

pass. This claim is extraordinary. I would—it would also require an

additional 9 million veterans to have been exposed in locations outside of Vietnam—3 million more than those who served during the

Vietnam era.

I have seen no evidence that there are such widespread use of

herbicides associated with spina bifida. How can we continue to

deny benefits to children with spina bifida simply because their
3

parents were exposed to Agent Orange in a country other than

Vietnam?

I support the changes made by Mr. Evans’ bill, H.R. 761, and Mr.

Brown’s bill, H.R. 1048, to improve the program for especially

adaptive housing and automobiles for our most severely disabled

veterans.

H.R. 966 will allow wartime veterans with non-service-connected

disabilities to receive vocational rehabilitation services from the

VA. I support this bill and want to thank the subcommittee chairman for introducing it.

While I support our former prisoners of war, along with many

other witnesses testifying today, I am opposed to taking away benefits from veterans with service-connected disabilities by reversing

the court’s decision in Allen v. Principi. Once a man or woman has

been disabled by service to our nation, I believe that it is our obligation to compensate them for all disabilities which flow from that

service-connected disability.

I understand that we will be receiving testimony today on all

these bills; and I welcome Admiral Cooper and all of our witnesses

from the veterans service organizations. And, Mr. Chairman, I

want to thank you and am looking forward to the testimony today.

Thank you.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Michaud. And let me tell you, I’m

real pleased to have you as the ranking member of this subcommittee and look forward to working with you through the balance of

this Congress.

Our ranking member of the full committee, Mr. Evans, is with

us today. And, Mr. Evans, we’re pleased to have you and look forward to your opening statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LANE EVANS, RANKING

DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

Mr. EVANS. All right, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m proud that

you’re hosting this hearing today. We’ve got a lot of work to do, this

is an important step forward.

I want to thank our colleague Mike Simpson. We’ve lost him

from this committee, but he’s going over to the Appropriations

Committee. It’s good to know that he has sought out the subcommittee on Veterans’ Affairs. He’ll be very helpful to us, I know,

as this legislation proceeds.

I support the provisions of H.R. 850, providing access to dental

care for former prisoners of war. Whenever a servicemember is disabled, our nation should compensate that veteran for all serviceconnected disabilities. I therefore oppose the repeal of the Allen

decision.

And I want to thank the Chairman of the committee, and the

subcommittee ranking member, for considering several other bills

that I’m introducing, most recently in the last few days.

I’m impressed by Michael Ruzalski. He wrote to me last Congress. He expressed the unfairness of the VA denying benefits to

him for spinal bifida because his parent’s exposure to Agent Orange occurred in the Republic of Korea.

We have men and women fighting across the world today. The

VA’s testimony tells Michael, and those servicemen, that when our
4

nation places members in harm’s way, they should not expect our

nation to compensate their children for harm which results.

This is morally and ethically wrong. We should not deny benefits

to the children of veterans just because their parents were exposed

to Agent Orange in the wrong country. I encourage the subcommittee to act favorably on this legislation.

I support H.R. 241, to eliminate the time limitation for payment

of accrued benefits. I would hope that we would go further, as H.R.

1681 does, which I’ve also introduced, allowing surviving members

and family members to continue the claims of a veteran who dies

while that claim is pending.

With over 14,000 claims in remand status for over 15 months— many claims have been pending for many years—we should not penalize the families of our nation’s veterans because our veterans

die while awaiting action on a claim.

Now this is a problem with the perception of a lot of veterans out

there that in many cases they think that the VA is just waiting for

them to pass on. That’s why we think this legislation is so valuable. And I hope we will treat our nation’s veterans fairly—at least

as fairly as Social Security beneficiaries.

I support the remainder of bills under consideration today. I welcome all of our witnesses, and look forward to your testimony.

I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

for your indulgence.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Evans, and thank you for your dedication to veterans for such a long, long period of time. I’m certainly

pleased to have your testimony this morning—with us and to look

forward to continue working with you through the 108th Congress.

We’re pleased this morning to welcome our first witness, Mr.

Mike Simpson, who used to chair this same subcommittee. Mike,

I think it’s fitting that we welcome you as the first witness as we

discuss legislative matters. We did have a hearing yesterday, but

we weren’t discussing legislative matters—the Troops to Teachers

program, which was a great hearing.

But thank you for being with us this morning and thank you for

your dedication to being sure that the veterans receive their proper

due—and as with all of us on the Veterans’ Committee, we’re advocates for the veterans, particularly during this time when so many

of our young men and women are over in harm’s way. I know we

always continue to offer them up in our prayers.

But anyway, thank you for being here, and thank you for your

service.

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE SIMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be

here and back before this committee. It seems like we have some

competition from the construction outside, but we’ll get through

that. But I do appreciate the opportunity to be back before this

committee. This was always one of my favorite committees. I enjoyed serving on this probably more than any other committee, and

ultimately had to make the decision of whether to be on the authorizing committee or the one that appropriates the money for this

committee. And, as you all know, being able to get the money for
5

the programs for the veterans that we think is important is just

as important as the authorizing.

So having this background on this committee is very important

to me as I sit on the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee.

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am pleased to

appear before you today to discuss my bill, H.R. 850, the Former

Prisoners of War Special Compensation Act. This legislation, which

I introduced last year, establishes a special compensation for

former prisoners of war. I believe there are currently 30 Republican

and Democratic co-sponsors of this legislation.

As you know, I was privileged to serve as chairman of this subcommittee in the last Congress and I can tell you from my experience as chairman, this subcommittee plays a vital role in authorizing and protecting the federal benefits that American veterans and

their dependents receive for their service to this nation.

Today, I want to talk about a group of veterans who are truly

America’s heroes—former prisoners of war. There are approximately 40,000 surviving former POWs, a majority of whom served

during World War II. The average age of surviving former POWs

is 80 years old. Eighty years old. Most endured inhumane treatment and conditions during an average captivity of 161⁄2 months.

Many were subjected to interrogation and forced slave labor. The

physical and psychological effects on these individuals persist

throughout their lifetimes, impacting their health, their families,

and their social relationships.

In conversations with my good friend, Secretary Principi, veterans’ groups, and others, I came to realize that there is a gap in the

benefits with respect to former POWs. I strongly believe a special

compensation program is warranted for these American heroes.

Although we can never hope to fully compensate these brave men

and women for their suffering, H.R. 850 recognizes and pays tribute, in some small way, to the real sacrifices by our former prisoners of war who were forcibly detained by our enemies of the

United States.

Specifically, the bill establishes a three-tiered special monthly

pension. Those who were detained between 30 and 120 days would

receive $150 a month; those detained between 121 and 540 days

would receive $300 per month; those who were detained for 540 or

more days would receive $450 per month. The pension would be delivered through the Department of Veterans Affairs.

In addition, the bill contains provisions to provide outpatient

dental care—being a former dentist, that’s important to me—outpatient dental care for all former POWs. Current law requires a period of internment of not less than 90 days in order to qualify for

this benefit.

It is important to note that my legislation would apply to exPOWs from all wars—not from any specific war, but from all

wars—including more than 39,700 surviving POWs from World

War II, 2,400 from the Korean War, 601 former POWs from the

Vietnam War, three from Kosovo; and one from Somalia.

Offsets to this bill would come from the repeal of a 2001 court

decision, Allen v. Principi, which some of you have mentioned as

opposing in your opening statements.
6

The court clarified, in this decision, that VA may pay compensation for an alcohol or drug abuse condition when it is secondary to

a primary service-connected condition, such as, in Mr. Allen’s case,

post-traumatic stress disorder. An article published in the New

England Journal of Medicine in 1995—let me repeat—this was an

article that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine

in 1995—concluded, and I quote: ‘‘The cyclical pattern of drug use strongly suggests that it is influenced by the monthly receipt of disability payments.’’ Let me repeat that: ‘‘The cyclical pattern of drug use strongly

suggests that it is influenced by the monthly receipt of disability

payments.’’ I do not believe that the VA should compensate for a service-connected condition and abusing oneself with illegal drugs or narcotics. Further, such behavior should be treated medically, not rewarded financially. We should treat these individuals medically,

not reward them with additional benefits. That’s why the repeal of

this, I think, is necessary.

This special pension that we recommend in House Resolution 850

is similar to the pension that the VA pays to Medal of Honor recipients, recognizes the hardships faced by the veterans during his or

her captivity, and would be paid without regard to any other payment made under the laws of the United States. We must never

forget their sacrifices.

Mr. Chairman, with our military now engaged in Iraq, and with

the war on terrorism, this committee has a special responsibility to

our future veterans. As I noted earlier, former U.S. POWs have

often experienced inadequate food and medical care and physical

and psychological trauma. As a result, I strongly believe the time

is right for a program of special compensation for POWs.

This job oftentimes places us in a position where we have to decide on any given issue whether to be on the right side or the winning side. And I can tell you, with your support, this is one of the

times that we can be on both the right side and the winning side.

I can’t tell you how strongly I believe that this is the right time

to pass this piece of legislation.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to testify on H.R. 850, and

I’d be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Congressman Simpson appears on p.

54.]

Mr. BROWN. Thank you very much, Mike. We appreciate very

much your coming. I don’t have any questions at this time. Mr.

Michaud, do you have any?

Mr. MICHAUD. I just want to thank you again, Mr. Simpson, for

coming today. I’ve heard a lot about you, being a freshman. Try to

find out members who’ve been there before. So I want to thank you

for what you’ve done for veterans in the past.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you.

Mr. BROWN. All right, thank you very much for coming. Thanks

for all you do.

Mr. SIMPSON. Thank you.

Mr. BROWN. Will the second panel come forward?

Good morning, Admiral. I’m especially pleased to welcome you

this morning to this hearing, and we appreciate very much all you
7

do for the veterans at the Veterans Benefits Administration as the

Under Secretary.

Also with you is Mr. John Thompson and Mr. Ron Henke; we certainly welcome you all this morning. Admiral, we normally allow

5 minutes, but we’ll waive that rule this morning. Thanks for

coming.

STATEMENT OF DANIEL L. COOPER, UNDER SECRETARY FOR

BENEFITS, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY JOHN H. THOMPSON, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; AND RONALD J.

HENKE, DIRECTOR, COMPENSATION AND PENSION SERVICE,

VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION

Mr. COOPER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate

the opportunity to testify today on several bills of great interest to

veterans.

I sincerely apologize for the late submission of our statement.

Unfortunately, as you may guess, it was a catalyst for much discussion.

Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request that my full statement be

entered into the record.

Mr. BROWN. Yes, so moved.

Mr. COOPER. VA supports enactment of H.R. 761, the Disabled

Servicemembers’ Adapted Housing Assistance, which would permit

VA to provide the specially adapted housing assistance to disabled

veterans of the Armed Forces who remain on active duty pending

medical separation.

This bill would enable veterans to move into an adapted house

as soon as they are separated from active duty, which will improve

their quality of life and independence immediately.

We oppose H.R. 1048, the Disabled Veterans’ Adaptive Benefits

Improvement Act, which would increase the maximum amounts for

specially adapted housing and automobile grants. These rates were

increased 16 months ago. We will make recommendations for increases if it appears that inflation significantly erodes these

benefits.

We support Section 4 of H.R. 850, the Former Prisoners of War

Special Compensation Act, which would require VA to provide outpatient dental services to former POW veterans. However, we oppose Section 2 of H.R. 850, which would authorize special compensation for former POWs. This benefit is not in the President’s

budget. We are sensitive to the contributions and needs of the exPOWs, and will consider additional benefits for them as we formulate the future budget requests.

Secretary Principi believes very strongly that there is no group

more deserving of our nation’s gratitude than our ex-POWs. Last

year I was with him as he hosted the ex-POWs from the Philippines who had been interned there during World War II.

We support H.R. 241, the Veterans Beneficiary Fairness Act,

which would allow dependents to receive all accrued benefits of deceased veterans, once the veterans’ claims are adjudicated. The law

currently limits the award to 2 years even though the veteran

might have received larger amounts if he or she were still alive.
8

H.R. 241 would remove that 2-year limit for accrued benefits and

allow the survivor to receive the entire amount of benefits. We estimate the cost as $5 to $6 million in the first year, and $65 million

in the following years.

We strongly support Section 3(a) of H.R. 850, which would prohibit payment of compensation for a disability resulting from a veteran’s personal abuse of alcohol or drugs if the abuse were secondary to service-connected disability. By law, VA pays compensation

for disabilities resulting from injury or disease incurred or aggravated in the line of duty in active service, and also for secondary

disabilities caused by the original service-connected disability.

Because the law currently states that, ‘‘No compensation shall be

paid if the disability is the result of the veteran’s own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs,’’ VBA did not pay compensation for such secondary disabilities prior to fiscal year 2002.

In February 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the

Federal Circuit, in a decision, Allen v. Principi, interpreted the law

to allow compensation for an alcohol or drug abuse-related disability if it arose secondary to a service-connected disability.

It also held that VA must consider whether an alcohol or drug

abuse itself is evidence of the increased severity of the service-connected disability. This bill would amend the language of that statute to make it clear that compensation is not payable for disabilities resulting from veterans’ abuse of alcohol and drugs.

We support this bill because we’re concerned that payment of

compensation on this basis is contrary to congressional intent and

is clearly not in the veterans’ best interests if payment removes an

incentive to veterans to refrain from debilitating and self-destructive behavior.

The federal circuit’s interpretation in Allen v. Principi could also

dramatically increase the amount of compensation that VA pays for

service-connected disabilities. Under the court’s interpretation, any

veteran with a service-connected disability who abuses alcohol or

drugs is potentially eligible for an increased amount of compensation if he or she can offer evidence that the abuse is the result of

service-connected disability. That is, if the substance abuse is a

way of coping with the pain or the loss the disability causes.

Once alcohol or drug abuse is service-connected, then service connection could be established for any disability that is a result of

that abuse—for instance, cirrhosis of the liver. We estimate that

this provision could result in benefit cost savings of $127 million

over the first year; and possibly up to $4.5 billion over 10 years;

with administrative cost savings of $97 million over that 10-year

period.

VA does not support H.R. 533, the Agent Orange Veterans’ Disabled Children’s Benefits Act. Since 1979, Congress has enacted

laws to ensure that the Federal Government compensates Vietnam

veterans for disabilities they suffer as a result of exposure to herbicides containing dioxins, such as Agent Orange.

In 1996, Congress enacted legislation to provide a monetary allowance and other benefits to the children of Vietnam veterans who

were born with spinal bifida, as well as to children with certain

other birth defects born to women Vietnam veterans.
9

H.R. 533 would amend that law to authorize VA to provide the

same monetary allowance and other benefits to natural children

born of non-Vietnam veterans who have spinal bifida, provided the

parent had performed ‘‘qualifying herbicide risk service.’’

Through prior legislation, Congress has recognized the unique

circumstances of service in Vietnam, including the special sacrifices

made by veterans in that war. It recognizes the dangerous effects

of exposure to aerially applied herbicides. H.R. 533 would extend

those benefits to the children of veterans who did not serve under

those same circumstances.

In addition, I’m concerned that H.R. 533 language is so vague as

to make it extremely difficult to write the regulations to establish

qualifications for entitlement.

We estimate that 9.1 million veterans are the potential veteran

population this change in law could affect, particularly because

there is no definitive information on the numbers of veterans who

could have been exposed to Agent Orange-like herbicides.

Finally, VA does not support H.R. 966, the Disabled Veterans Return-to-Work Act, which would re-instate a previously unsuccessful

program of vocational training for certain pension recipients.

The earlier program was in place for 10 years, from February

1985 through December 1995. That decade-long program required

that VA evaluate all pension recipients under the age of 50—and

later changed to age 45—to determine their potential for rehabilitation. If a veteran refused to participate in the evaluation, pension

benefits were suspended. Subsequent participation in the training

itself was voluntary.

In 1995, the program ended when it was not renewed by Congress. The results of the first 5 years were quite poor. We evaluated 9,400 veterans and determined that training was feasible for

about 2,800 of them—or about one-third. Four hundred and sixtyeight began training, 65 completed training, and 58 started employment. We know of only 22 of those 58 that left.

H.R. 966 would reinstate that program for a new 5-year period.

We estimate that VA would review approximately 1300 records

each year to determine feasibility; and approximately 144 veterans

would be expected to enter training. Additionally, it’s a voluntary

program for those over 45, which might add another 25. So we are

looking at approximately 169 cases per year.

Mr. Chairman, given VA’s disappointing experience in administering the original program during that 10-year duration—and

I’ve been assured that it was pushed very hard at that time—as

well as the small number of veterans who benefited from it, we believe that the finite resources available to us would be better used

to support our current program of vocational rehabilitation for

service-disabled veterans, especially in light of the current combat

activities in Iraq. Thus, the department does not support enactment of H.R. 966.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be pleased to

respond to any questions from the members of this committee.

[The prepared statement of Admiral Cooper appears on p. 61.]

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Admiral. We certainly appreciate your

sharing these thoughts with us this morning.
10

My first question would be, are you able to provide this subcommittee with the Secretary’s position on H.R. 850?

Mr. COOPER. As I stated earlier, sir, the Secretary is extremely

interested in the POWs and anything that we can do for them. This

was not in the President’s budget.

Mr. BROWN. So let me see if I can clarify. He would be in favor

of the repeal, but would he be willing to compensate some additional monies for the time served as a POW?

Mr. COOPER. I personally think it’s a good idea. However, as I

say, it was not in the President’s budget.

Mr. BROWN. I understand no money has been appropriated, but,

I guess, if the will of the Congress would be to set some funds aside

to provide funding for this, there certainly wouldn’t be any objection then?

Mr. COOPER. Absolutely not.

Mr. BROWN. Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Michaud, you have a question?

Mr. MICHAUD. Yes. Thank you once again, Admiral, for coming

here this morning.

Based upon the number of current children with spina bifida,

compared to the number of veterans who served during the Vietnam era, all 9,200,000 Vietnam-era veterans deployed worldwide,

plus an additional 3 million veterans of another time period, would

have been exposed to Vietnam-era herbicides, in order to obtain the

costs estimated provided in your testimony—my question is what

evidence does the department have that such massive exposure in

previously unreported use of these herbicides occurred?

Mr. COOPER. We had to take into consideration the potential for

exposure. We don’t know where it might have occurred. I have seen

information that indicates that herbicides were used in the DMZ

and some place else. We have gone back to OSD to ask for that information.

Our concern is that herbicides might have been used in other

places, but the further concern is trying to write regulations and

understand how we can determine whether a specific exposure

occurred.

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you. Yes, another question. According to

VA data, approximately 3.1 million veterans served in southeast

Asia. One thousand one hundred fifteen children born to these veterans following their service in Vietnam will receive VA benefits in

fiscal year 2004 for spina bifida, or, you know, another covered

birth defect.

Applying this same relationship to the maximum number of veterans the Department of Defense has identified as having been exposed in the DMZ in Korea, about five children with spina bifida

could be expected to qualify for benefits.

Your testimony also indicates that more than an additional 3,000

children would be expected to be eligible for these benefits in fiscal

year 2004 under the bill, provided each additional location you

have identified at which veterans were exposed and the number of

veterans exposed at the location—my question is, can you provide

your basis for the projected additional 2,995 eligible children that

you expect to be covered?
11

Mr. COOPER. I have no ability to tell exactly where veteran were

exposed. We used as a baseline the number of people that were in

the service in periods other than Vietnam. I have no reason to use

another J-factor. That’s the reason I’m very concerned about how

we can write a regulation and properly adjudicate these claims.

Frankly, sir, I do not question the fact that there are not going to

be 9,000. I do say that there are going to be a lot, but I can’t put

my finger on the number. I don’t know of a better J-factor that

would produce a more precise result.

But we will look into it very closely and we will write regulations

based on whatever legislation is enacted. I’m just saying it’ll be

very difficult.

Mr. MICHAUD. I guess my concern is that you’re using, you know,

figures that you really can’t justify with a high, you know, fiscal

note; and that’s, you know, what really concerns me with your

statement. And can you—you mentioned the J-factor, what is the

J-factor?

Mr. COOPER. What I mean is a factor that would reduce the potential number of claimants to a more precise figure. I don’t know

how to come up with a factor to get to that certain precise figure.

Any factor I pick would be an arbitrary one. We’re trying to say,

‘‘This is the maximum potential predicated on the spina bifida

across the country—or that results from exposure to Agent Orange.’’ I’m sorry, I can’t give you a better answer than that.

I understand the concern and I, too, am concerned. I’m not sure

how I can clarify that until we actually get a regulation that is

enforceable.

Mr. MICHAUD. Yes, but I guess my concern is it’s the United

States Government that sent these servicemen and women over

there, and I think we have an obligation to make sure that they’re

taken care of, and their children.

Mr. COOPER. I do not question that.

Mr. BROWN. Admiral, if I could help you out a little bit. I understand that CBO agreed that they couldn’t estimate the cost of the

bill at this time, so I guess there’s a lot of unknowns out there they

can’t identify.

Mr. COOPER. It’s a very difficult process, I agree. I’ve looked at

the assumptions. They’re as good as we can come up with without

reporting some kind of a factor over which I have no control and

don’t understand. So we stated it as a maximum potential. Common sense is not always common.

Mr. BROWN. Any further questions, Mr. Michaud?

Mr. Evans, do you have a question?

Mr. EVANS. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

When the VA was asked for technical review of H.R. 533, VA’s

Office of General Counsel indicated that they had no technical comments. When did the VA determine that the language of H.R. 533

was vague? And, for that matter, was your cost estimates developed by the Department or the Office of Management and Budget?

And could you explain what assumptions and calculations were

used in establishing your cost estimates?

Mr. COOPER. All right. Excuse me just a second, sir. Let me ask

Mr. Thompson to address us, please.
12

Mr. THOMPSON. Yes. Mr. Evans, my office did review this bill

when it was drafted. Our comments back then were that it appeared to be consistent with what the drafter intended. I don’t believe we were asked to comment with respect to the difficulty of applying it to particular claims.

I personally didn’t take part in those conversations. This was at

a sort of mid-level in my office, but I’m certain we did not communicate any opinion with respect to the merits of the provision.

Mr. EVANS. Basically, I’m asking that you develop a cost estimate

so that we can determine the dollars that may be available or not

for a meritorious claim.

Mr. THOMPSON. The difficulty with the legislation, obviously, is

that under current law you have a defined geographic area and a

defined period of time for service that qualifies individuals for eligibility. Under this bill, you have temporal and spatial standards

that are extremely vague, and I’m not sure how you would apply

them, as the admiral said.

For example, if we determine that a herbicide was used on a particular military installation, do you assume that anybody who

served on that installation at the time of application, was exposed,

or do you try to limit it to a certain area of the base where the application occurred? And, if so, how do you determine that area and

who was at the particular location on the base at a particular time?

With respect to the period of application of the herbicide, is it

only for the few minutes that the spraying actually occurred? Is

that the period of time we’re talking about? Is it some period of

time after that where the effects may have lingered? How do you

determine what is the period during which the herbicides were

used under the standards of this bill?

So it would be very, very difficult to apply this to the adjudication claims.

Mr. EVANS. Well, we’ve been down this road before in terms of

whether Agent Orange could be determined by unit diaries, for example. National Institute of Medicine looks into these issues and

reports to us every 2 years about the scientific information that’s

available. And at least that would be, I would think, some kind of

a basis for coming up with a realistic assessment.

Mr. COOPER. If I may address that for just a second. In trying

to determine where it was done, or how it was used, and so on, we

obviously are dependent on what information we can get from

DOD. We would have to go back to them and ask that questions

In the short tenure that I’ve had in this job, one of the things

I’ve become involved in is Project Shad. It was very difficult to get

information, although we’ve been working very closely with OSD on

that. We are making a lot of progress, but all the machinations we

have had to go through to ensure that we have the information and

the right names, and that sort of thing—I’m just saying it will be

a very difficult and very long process.

Mr. EVANS. Well, you know, we had the same problem going back

with the VA’s attitude toward offering realistic cost estimates to us.

They at one point said that, for Agent Orange costs—costs of the

program—that you would have to take every serviceman or woman

that served in southeast Asia during the period of 1968, I think,

until after the war ended, and—I guess, my feeling is every genera-
13

tion of veterans who served in southeast Asia has to basically prove

it themselves whether their exposure caused an illness. Because I

think they’ve been kept on the outside and not involved in the decision-making process. This also leads to a very cynical attitude

among Vietnam veterans, in particular.

We think there’s enough evidence to show, at least according to

the IOM studies, that there is at least a minimum amount of Agent

Orange that one can be exposed to and get disabilities from. That

changes every 2 years, so I wish we had something more concrete

to tell these veterans, more than just that we can’t come up with

the scientific approaches. We ought to be giving the veterans the

opportunities to show that there’s a reasonable assumption that

the person in, for example, the DMZ was exposed to Agent Orange.

My time is up. I didn’t leave you any time for response—— Mr. COOPER. Let me just mention one thing. I certainly understand what you’re saying and I agree. On the other hand, the thing

that concerns me is the Veterans Claims Assistance Act, which

says that VA must do everything we can to help veterans. I’m

merely saying it is a very difficult problem.

Mr. EVANS. All right, Admiral. Thank you.

Mr. COOPER. Thank you.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Evans.

Admiral, I have one final question. I reviewed the CBO estimates, as well as the department estimates for the savings that

would be garnered by repealing the Allen decision. The VA estimate far exceeds that of CBO. CBO stated in their methodology

that VA reported to them that most of the veterans who would

apply for increased compensation under Allen would be those with

mental health conditions.

Yet, VA then based the estimated savings on the service-connected pool, regardless of the disability—bad knees, bad back, bad

hearing, and so forth. Could you comment on the disparity in those

estimates?

Mr. COOPER. Yes, sir. I’d like Mr. Henke to actually comment,

but I would like to say something.

Again, I have looked specifically at the assumptions in this, and

the assumptions we’ve taken into account, and the primary difference is the number of people that we feel might apply predicated

on the Allen decision. The CBO says that they think just those who

have mental problems will apply. We are very concerned and think

that there are a lot of people out there who will apply because they

have other physical disorders and, therefore, have alcohol problems. So our estimate is a great deal higher than that.

The CBO also says that they came to VBA for a factor; and, unfortunately, I don’t know exactly to whom they came. I certainly

didn’t provide a factor for assuming that only veterans with mental

health conditions would apply. So I have a concern that they probably did call into my organization and ask for a factor; but, I think

using that factor is not quite correct.

So I would ask Mr. Henke to discuss the differences in estimates,

but I do think the basic assumptions we made are correct.

Mr. HENKE. Mr. Chairman, as Admiral Cooper said, we did consider far more veterans than the CBO estimate considered. And we

did that primarily based on the knowledge of previous history, that
14

there are many factors involved—not only mental disorders. Many

of the physical disabilities that we considered have a lot of pain associated with them, and very often, a veteran will self-medicate to

alleviate the pain.

We also took a higher claim rate based on our experience with

the diabetes cases. We also took a higher rate for Vietnam-era veterans based on the study by the National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Survey. We did take into account those that were not

Vietnam-era veterans and did have a lower rate. So we looked at

as many factors as we possibly could to come up with what we

thought was the very best estimate possible.

Mr. BROWN. Admiral, thank you very much for coming, and we

certainly look forward to working with you through this 108th Congress. And also, Mr. Thompson and Mr. Henke for being part of

this discussion.

Thank you so very much.

Mr. COOPER. Thank you.

Mr. BROWN. We’re joined by another Member of Congress, the

young lady from Florida, Ms. Brown-Waite. We’re happy to have

you as part of our panel.

On our third panel this morning is—and welcome, gentlemen—

Mr. Peter Gaytan, representing The American Legion; Mr. Rick

Surratt, representing the Disabled American Veterans; Mr. Paul

Hayden is with the Veterans of Foreign Wars; Mr. Leslie Jackson

is from the American Ex-Prisoners of War; and Mr. Carl Blake is

representing Paralyzed Veterans of America.

When you’re ready, we will begin with Mr. Gaytan, and members

will hold their questions until all witnesses have completed their

testimony.

Without objection, the witnesses’ full statements will be included

in the printed records of the hearing, so I’d appreciate you limiting

your remarks to 5 minutes, but certainly we’re not going to hold

you completely to that.

But let me tell you, thank you very much for your contribution

to the freedom of this great country. We appreciate very much your

service, and I know in light of what’s happening in America—everybody is watching TV 24 hours a day and seeing the effects of

some of the same, you know—positions you all were in some time

back.

But anyway, thank you all for being here today, and thank you

for all you do, and we’ll start with Mr. Gaytan.
15

STATEMENTS OF PETER S. GAYTAN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL VETERANS AFFAIRS AND REHABILITATION COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION; RICK SURRATT,

DEPUTY NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED

AMERICAN VETERANS; PAUL A. HAYDEN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES; LESLIE H. JACKSON,

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN EX-PRISONERS OF WAR;

AND CARL BLAKE, ASSOCIATE LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,

PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA

STATEMENT OF PETER S. GAYTAN

Mr. GAYTAN. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. I’d also like to thank you

for your leadership on this committee.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to present the

American Legion’s views on the legislation being considered by the

subcommittee this morning. The American Legion commends the

subcommittee for holding a hearing to discuss these important

issues.

H.R. 241, the Veterans Benefit Fairness Act of 2003, would repeal the 2-year limitation on the payment of accrued benefits to

which a deceased veteran would have otherwise been entitled to at

the time of the veteran’s death that’s currently set forth in Title

XXXVIII, USC, Section 5121.

The American Legion’s long-standing position has been that any

limitation on the payment of accrued benefits is unfair. The enactment of Public Law 104–275 in 1996, which extended entitlement

to accrued benefits from one year to 2 years, was a much-needed

step in the right direction; however, it still fell short of providing

appropriate compensation to the veteran’s family in a claim that

had been pending for more than 2 years prior to the veteran’s

death. VA currently has over 313,000 pending claims and another

134,000 cases requiring some type of action. Very often veterans filing these claims and appeals are very ill, and because of the long

processing times, many die before a final decision is ever made on

their claim. The delays they and their families experience can result in adverse health effects and financial hardships.

Regardless of how long the veteran’s case had been pending,

whether at the regional office level or the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, an eligible survivor can only receive 2 years of retroactive

benefits, rather than the full amount entitled to the veteran had

he or she lived.

Mr. Chairman, H.R. 241 would remove this inequity, and the

American Legion fully supports this measure.

H.R. 533, the Agent Orange Veterans’ Disabled Children’s Benefits Act of 2003, would amend the current definition of a child eligible for spina bifida benefits set forth in Title XXXVIII. It would

provide that any natural child of a veteran who performed qualifying herbicide risk service, and who has this disability, is eligible for

such benefits—not just those whose parents, or parents, served in

Vietnam between January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975.

The American Legion strongly endorses the expansion of the

spina bifida program provided for by the enactment of H.R. 533.
16

H.R. 761, the Disabled Servicemembers’ Adapted Housing Assistance Act, would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide adapted housing assistance to disabled members of the Armed

Forces who are still on active duty and in the process of being separated for medical reasons.

Currently, this program of assistance is only available to those

service-disabled individuals who have already become veterans. Although we do not have a formal position on this proposal, the

American Legion believes this additional statutory authority will

enable VA to help better facilitate a service-disabled individual’s

transition to civilian life. This type of proactive approach is consistent with the concept of VA’s Benefit Delivery at Discharge Program

to reach out to service personnel prior to their separation and provide direct assistance, rather than waiting upon discharge from

service.

H.R. 850, the Former Prisoners of War Special Compensation

Act, proposes the establishment of a special compensation program

for former Prisoners of War based on the length of their confinement. In the absence of a mandate on the subject of special compensation, the American Legion takes no formal position on this

provision of the bill.

H.R. 850 also seeks to remove the current requirement in Title

XXXVIII that an individual had to have been detained or interned

for a period of not less than 90 days in order to be entitled to VA

outpatient dental treatment. The American Legion has no objection

to this provision. Studies have shown that there can be long-lasting

adverse health effects resulting from even a relatively short period

of confinement as a prisoner of war.

Given their experiences and hardships, access to dental care becomes an important factor in helping maintain these veterans’ over-all good health; and we support the proposed change.

Mr. Chairman, the American Legion is very concerned with Section 3 of this bill, which is entitled ‘‘Certification of Prohibition on

Payment of Compensation for Alcohol- or Drug-Related Disability.’’

It would amend Title XXXVIII to specifically state that disability

compensation will not be paid to a former prisoner of war, or any

other veteran, who is suffering from alcohol or substance abuse

which is secondary to a service-connected disability.

The American Legion has always held the position that veterans

who succumb to alcohol or drug abuse caused by their service-connected disability are indeed entitled to a level of compensation that

reflects all aspects of their disability. The American Legion believes

these veterans are in a very different category from those who engage in conscious, willful wrong-doing and become alcoholics and/

or drug abusers. The American Legion is therefore categorically opposed to any attempt to legislate away the rights of veterans who

are suffering from disabilities resulting from their military service.

Scientific studies over the years have highlighted the fact that

there is a higher incidence of substance abuse among veterans who

suffer from severe physical or psychiatric disabilities. A recent article by Dr. Andrew Meisler, ‘‘Trauma, PTSD, and Substance Abuse,’’

from the PTSD Research Quarterly, notes that ‘‘Studies of individuals seeking treatment for PTSD have a high prevalence of drug

and/or alcohol abuse. Research suggests that 60 to 80 percent of
17

treatment-seeking Vietnam combat veterans with PTSD also meet

the criteria for current alcohol and/or drug abuse.’’ Cited was a study of Persian Gulf War veterans that found a ‘‘PTSD diagnosis was strongly linked to problems with depression

and substance abuse, supporting earlier research on co-morbidity.’’ Section 3 of H.R. 850, if enacted, would penalize veterans whose

service-connected condition has caused them to develop an alcohol

or drug abuse disability.

The United States is again sending men and women into harm’s

way. As a consequence, some may sustain life-long physical or mental disability. Should they subsequently develop a substance abuse

problem, which VA recognizes as being related to a service-connected condition, there should be no question that this additional

disability is also service-connected. The American Legion believes

Congress should not be seeking ways to deprive these veterans of

their right to compensation benefits earned by virtue of their service to this nation.

H.R. 966, the Disabled Veterans’ Return-to-Work Act of 2003,

proposes to reinstate the program of entitlement to vocational

training for certain pension recipients that expired on December

31, 1995. It afforded disabled veterans who were awarded pensions

an opportunity to pursue vocational training with a goal of regaining employability or employment.

The American Legion supported this program during its 10 years

of existence and believes it would be worthwhile to now make this

type of training and employment assistance available to those individuals who are both interested and able.

H.R. 1048, the Disabled Veterans Adaptive Benefits Improvement Act of 2003, seeks to increase the special adapted housing assistance allowance and the allowance for acquiring residences with

existing disability modifications. The automobile and adaptive

equipment allowance would also be increased.

The American Legion has no objection to the proposed increases

since these allowances have not been regularly adjusted to reflect

rising building and automotive costs over the past several years. As

the conflict with Iraq continues, it is important for Congress to address these essential veterans programs that can assist these men

and women to transition back into the civilian world.

Again, I appreciate the opportunity to present testimony here

this morning, and the American Legion looks forward to working

with you and members of this subcommittee. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gaytan appears on p. 75.]

Mr. BROWN. Thank you Mr. Gaytan. Mr. Surratt.

STATEMENT OF RICK SURRATT

Mr. SURRATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the

subcommittee. Good morning.

We have good benefit programs for veterans, but the members

and staff of this subcommittee recognize that these programs can

be improved, and you’ve been receptive to the recommendations the

veterans organizations make.

Several of the bills under consideration today address recommendations of the Independent Budget. One of our top priorities

this year is repeal of the 2-year limitation on accrued benefits.
18

When a veteran, or other beneficiary, dies, the law operates to

reduce benefits of the veteran or beneficiary to only those covering

the 2 years immediately preceding death. We think that is arbitrary and unfair. We think eligible survivors should receive all benefits the government actually owed a deceased veteran, for

example.

Generally, a veteran is owed more than 2 years’ retroactive benefits only because of administrative delays or errors beyond the veteran’s control. In a mass adjudication system such as VA’s, some

delays and mistakes are inevitable. However, the detrimental effect

of such delays or mistakes should not be compounded by a statute

that reduces what would otherwise be due merely because the

delay was so long the veteran died before VA could properly finalize the claim and pay the veteran.

To the extent veterans awaiting decisions on disability benefits

suffer economic hardships, their family members suffer economic

hardships. Those hardships may be made worse by the veteran’s

death. H.R. 241 will correct this inequity and the DAV urges this

subcommittee to favorably report the bill.

H.R. 533 would also remove an inequity in current law. Current

law authorizes benefits for a child suffering from spina bifida related to a parent’s exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam, but not a

child suffering from spina bifida related to a parent’s exposure to

Agent Orange in Korea, for example. This disparate treatment of

two groups of children who are equally entitled to benefits is obviously an unintended consequence, but it is certainly unfair.

H.R. 761 will make the specially adapted housing program more

flexible to better serve the seriously disabled veterans who qualify

by allowing VA to provide assistance with specially adapted housing as soon as the need arises, rather than delaying until the entitled person technically attains veteran’s status upon military separation; this will improve the program.

The DAV fully supports H.R. 761, as it does H.R. 1048, which

would increase the amount of grants for specially adapted housing

and automobiles.

While the DAV believes that former POWs deserve special benefits because of the extraordinary sacrifices they have made, we

have concerns that the special compensation scheme provided in

H.R. 850 does not compensate former POWs proportionate to their

individual sacrifices.

We support its provision to make VA dental care available to all

former POWs; however, we strongly oppose its provision to prohibit

compensation to former POWs and disabled veterans who have innocently acquired alcohol or substance abuse secondary to a service-connected mental or other disorder. Such secondary substance

abuse must be distinguished from primary substance abuse that results from a person’s free choice to use alcohol or drugs for pleasurable effects.

A former POW who uses alcohol to escape the horrifying memories of torture, for example, is not choosing to use it for pleasure.

We urge you not to report H.R. 850 with this provision included.

We have no position on H.R. 966, which would reinstate a vocational training program for veterans receiving disability pensions.
19

We note, however, that its objective is a beneficial one for some of

our most disadvantaged veterans.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I’ll be happy to answer any questions you have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Surratt appears on p. 79.]

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Surratt. Mr. Jackson. Welcome.

STATEMENT OF LESLIE H. JACKSON

Mr. JACKSON. Good morning. I’m Les Jackson, Executive Director

of the American Ex-Prisoners of War. My statement today will be

confined to pending bill H.R. 850, Former Prisoner of War Special

Compensation Act of 2003.

All former prisoners of war, whether from World War II, Korea,

Vietnam, or more recent conflicts, feel—and have always felt—a

great pride in serving our country in time of danger. We really understand and deeply value the freedom this country has always

guaranteed its citizens. We’ve never asked to simply be rewarded

for the privilege of serving our country.

We are well aware, however, that many who serve, whether they

be captured or not, have paid a significant price for living with immediate and long-term disabling consequences of that service. Like

all good Americans, we support any legislation now before your

committee which addresses these concerns, and urge that it be

granted the highest priority which it deserves.

We are puzzled and deeply concerned, however, that you have

not included our priority bill, H.R. 348, introduced by Congressman

Bilirakis, and a companion bill, S. 517, introduced by Senator Patty

Murray, that specifically addresses known, long-term disabling consequences of the brutal and inhumane captive experience. Since

POWs are now dying at a rate greater than 10 a day, and many

have had no help for more than 50 years, we urge your committee

to add it to the legislation that you are considering today.

We thank the committee for its continuing concern in providing

benefits for those whose service resulted in disabling consequences.

I’d be happy to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jackson appears on p. 96.]

Mr. BROWN. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Jackson. Mr. Hayden.

STATEMENT OF PAUL A. HAYDEN

Mr. HAYDEN. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, on

behalf of the 2.6 million members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars

of the United States and our Ladies’ Auxiliary, I would like to

thank you for the opportunity to present our views on this most important legislation.

In the interest of time, I would like to express our strong support

for H.R. 241, the Veterans’ Beneficiary Fairness Act of 2003, that

would repeal the inequitable 2-year limitation on accrued benefits;

H.R. 761, the Disabled Servicemembers’ Adapted Housing Act of

2003, as it will authorize adaptive housing assistance to members

of the Armed Forces who are on active duty pending medical separation; H.R. 966, the Disabled Veterans’ Return-to-Work Act of

2003, to reinstate a VA pilot program that expired in December

1995 to provide vocational training to newly eligible non-serviceconnected pension recipients; and finally, H.R. 1048, the Disabled
20

Veterans’ Adaptive Benefits Improvement Act of 2003, that would

increase the specially adaptive housing grant, and also increase the

one-time reimbursement VA may provide to certain severely disabled veterans to assist them in their purchase of an automobile.

I would respectfully refer the subcommittee to our written statement for a more in depth analysis of our position regarding the

aforementioned legislation.

With respect to H.R. 533, the Agent Orange Veterans’ Disabled

Children’s Benefit Act of 2003, it is our understanding that VA is

in the process of issuing regulations under the authority of Public

Law 102–4, the Agent Orange Act of 1991, that would extend the

presumption of exposure to veterans who served in locations other

than Vietnam which also involved the use of herbicides—primarily

Agent Orange.

For example, veterans serving in the demilitarized zone between

north and south Korea, and in Panama, may have been exposed to

the use of these agents in the late 1960s. That authority, however,

does not extend to those claimants under Chapter 18, Title

XXXVIII, because their entitlement was not established until after

Public Law 102–4 was enacted.

With this in mind, the VFW strongly supports this legislation

that would now equitably include the eligible child of any veteran

who was exposed to herbicides used in certain other locations during the veteran’s active military service on the same basis as veterans who are eligible under Chapter 11.

Finally, the VFW is pleased to support Section 2 of H.R. 850, the

Former Prisoners of War Special Compensation Act of 2003, that

would establish a three-tiered special monthly compensation to

former prisoners of war based upon their length of captivity.

While we support special monthly compensation, this section

highlights an injustice that has long bothered us. We have never

understood the delimiting factor of 30 days, which in this bill is

just a reflection of the definition stipulated in Title XXXVIII,

United States Code, Section 1112(b) for presumptions relating to

service-connected disabilities for POWs.

The VFW feels that all POWs should be included in this special

monthly compensation. Often the first hours and days of captivity

are the most difficult. For example, in a recent Washington Post

article, former POW and retired Marine, Maj. Joseph Small, described his captivity in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The first few

hours are the worst. Your senses are so overwhelmed by the physical and mental shock. Your environment has completely changed,

and you aren’t free anymore.

Maj. Small and others, like Pfc. Jessica Lynch, however, are not

eligible for compensation under this provision, or for any presumptions in Section 1112 of Title XXXVIII, because they were held for

less than 30 days.

We strongly suggest eliminating the 30-day requirement for eligibility—not just in this bill, but also as a part of Title XXXVIII, Section 1112(b). By eliminating the 30-day requirement in the first

year so that eligibility starts from the moment of capture, you will

include those POWs who have been held for shorter intervals but

have certainly suffered most of the same physical and psychological

trauma as other POWs.
21

The VFW objects to Section 3 of H.R. 850, which would amend

the clarification of payment of compensation for alcohol- or drugrelated disability to preclude service connection on a secondary

basis. Physicians often consider alcohol- and drug-related disabilities to be secondary conditions of post-traumatic stress disorder resulting from such situations as internment as a POW, or from severe combat war wounds, such as an amputation.

Many of these veterans use drug and alcohol to self-medicate

themselves in order to combat the depression caused by their war

experiences. This, coupled with their primary condition, impairs

their ability to manage day-to-day activities like holding a job. Accordingly, their earning potential is limited. Disability compensation was intended to compensate the veteran for that limited earning potential due to injuries suffered while defending this nation.

Further, restricting veterans from receiving these benefits, which

were granted in relation to a primary service-connected condition,

directly opposes the principles behind service-connected disability

compensation.

The VFW is pleased to support Section 4, that would extend outpatient dental care to all former POWs regardless of their length

of captivity.

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, this concludes

my statement, and I’ll be happy to answer any questions you may

have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hayden appears on p. 87.]

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Hayden.

And, Mr. Blake, before you begin, we have Mr. Bradley, from

New Hampshire, joining us. Thank you for coming.

Mr. Blake, after all the witnesses have given their testimony,

we’ll have a chance to have questions. Mr. Blake.

STATEMENT OF CARL BLAKE

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

subcommittee members, PVA would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the proposed benefits legislation. It is

important that we address much-needed benefits improvements at

a time when we will have new veterans coming home from war

soon to partake of these benefits.

Under current law, if a veteran dies while a claim is being processed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and before his or her

claim becomes final, the surviving spouse is entitled to no more

than 2 years of accrued benefits when the claim is decided in the

veteran’s favor. H.R. 241 repeals this 2–year limitation, and PVA

fully supports this bill.

H.R. 533 provides health care, vocational training and rehabilitation, and a monthly disability allowance from the VA to the natural

child suffering from spina bifida of a veteran who had active military service in an area in which a Vietnam-era herbicide agent was

used. PVA supports H.R. 533.

H.R. 761 has been an important initiative for PVA. This legislation authorized the VA to provide adaptive housing assistance to

military personnel on active duty who have a qualifying disability

such as the loss of certain extremities or sight which is the result

of an injury or disease aggravated or contracted in the line of duty.
22

This assistance is given primarily through grants to use either in

the construction of a new, accessible home, or in the remodeling of

an existing home for accessibility.

Currently, a servicemember must wait until he or she has been

separated from active duty before he or she can take advantage of

this benefit.

PVA fully supports H.R. 761. PVA would also like the record to

reflect our thanks to Ranking Member Evans for introducing H.R.

761.

H.R. 850 would allow the VA to pay a monthly special compensation to veterans who were prisoners of war. The amount of this

compensation would be based on the length of time that the veteran was actually held as a prisoner. The bill would also allow the

VA to provide dental care to all former prisoners of war, not just

those who were held captive for more than 90 days.

Although PVA supports these provisions of H.R. 850, we are

troubled by and see no need for Section 3 of this legislation, as

written. The narrowness of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals

holding in Allen v. Principi, a narrowness repeatedly referenced by

the court, would enable compensation only when there is ‘‘Clear

medical evidence establishing that an alcohol or drug abuse disability is indeed caused by veterans’ primary service-connected disability and where the alcohol and drug abuse disability is not due to

wilful wrongdoing.’’ We’re concerned that this section would erase the important distinction between wilful and involuntary acts—a concern also expressed by the federal court.

I would like to express our appreciation to Chairman Brown for

introducing H.R. 966, the Disabled Veterans’ Return-to-Work Act of

2003. The program would re-authorize a 5-year program of vocational rehabilitation for certain non-service-connected disabled pension recipients that was first established by the 98th Congress. The

program became effective on February 1, 1985, and was terminated

in December of 1995.

PVA felt strongly at that time that the VA failed to provide the

proper outreach and support to make this program fully successful.

We greatly appreciate language placed in this legislation providing

direct guidance to the VA in this regard.

H.R. 966, in reinstating this program, amends language in Title

XXXVIII, USC, that calls for an extension of pension benefits once

income has risen above the pension limitation, but for one year

only. We believe this time period is too short to give the newly

trained and newly employed former pension recipient the initial

confidence that financial support will be there for an adequate period of time while he or she is trying to achieve employment

security.

We have suggested in the past that a 3-year extension of benefits

would be ideal. However, we would like to work with the subcommittee to achieve some compromise or solution based on new or

existing models deemed to be successful in other federal programs.

H.R. 1048 would increase the one-time reimbursement the VA

may provide to certain severely disabled veterans to assist their

purchase of an automobile from $9,000 to $11,000. It would also increase the specially adapted housing grant from $48,000 to $50,000
23

for the most severely disabled veterans, and from $9,250 to $10,000

for other severely disabled veterans.

These are initiatives that PVA has worked on for many years,

along with the other Independent Budget veterans’ service organizations, to ensure that these grants keep pace with inflation, as

well as living up to their original intent. These grants are a necessary tool to allow the most severely disabled veterans to live

their lives in the most independent manner possible.

PVA fully supports the provisions of H.R. 1048 and, in

accordance with the recommendation of the Independent Budget, PVA would also like to encourage the subcommittee to consider including an automatic annual adjustment for inflation in this

legislation.

Mr. Chairman, PVA thanks you for making these benefits measures a priority. At a time when we have troops in the field and severely disabled soldiers returning home from combat as veterans,

we must insure that the benefits that they will be entitled to will

properly meet their needs.

PVA looks forward to working with the subcommittee on these

and other benefits issues, and I would be happy to answer any

questions that you might have.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Blake appears on p. 90.]

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

Mr. Michaud, do you have a question?

Mr. MICHAUD. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I ask my question, Mr. Chairman, I do have some data

I’d like to submit for the record. It deals with benefits to children

with spina bifida and other covered disabilities, the number of veterans who served during the Vietnam era, and different information from the Institute of Medicine concerning herbicides and spina

bifida.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Michaud. Without objection, we’ll

allow that to happen. And also, we’d like to report all members

have 3 days in order to submit additional reference material.

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

(The provided material follows:)
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35

Mr. MICHAUD. A couple questions and designed as so—I know

there are several different service organizations here, so it could be

a yes or a no answer—and I do appreciate each of the veterans’ organizations for coming here today to give your testimony. I appreciate all that you do for your members. I’ll bet the members really

appreciate that.

My first question—and I know some of you have already addressed it in your statement—is should the survivor of veterans

and other claimants who die while a claim is pending before the

Department of Veterans Affairs be permitted to continue the

deceased’s claim, including the ability to submit additional evidence in support of the claim?

And my second question would be are you aware of any massive,

widespread use of herbicides outside of Vietnam suggested by the

VA’s testimony?

Mr. SURRATT. On your first question, if I understand it—would

it be beneficial to allow a survivor to become the claimant in the

event of the death of the veteran, for example? The answer to that

is yes. If the claim were before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, or

before the court, it wouldn’t have to come back and start all over

to proceed to its end. It would seem to be efficient both for the system, and beneficial in the administrative system and the judicial

system, and it would certainly benefit the surviving claimant.

On the Agent Orange issue, Korea is the only place that I’ve

heard of. Perhaps one military base in the United States, I may

have read something about sometime, but nothing to the extent

that the VA has indicated.

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you.

Mr. GAYTAN. I’d like to add that the American Legion also supports the family continuing to pursue the claim of a deceased

veteran.

Also, the exposure question that you asked—adding to what Mr.

Surratt said—yes, Korea, there was an amount of exposure there;

and there were some facilities in the United States that had limited exposure to Agent Orange; and we would like for any

servicemembers who were exposed to Agent Orange to be considered in this legislation.

Mr. BLAKE. PVA would certainly support the surviving spouse

taking up the claim for the veteran that might have deceased before the claim was decided.

On the issue of the Agent Orange, outside of what my colleagues

have already added, I couldn’t add any additional information to

that.

Mr. HAYDEN. The VFW feels the surviving spouse should be allowed to continue the claim for benefits that otherwise the veteran

would have been entitled to.

In response to your second question we have attached in our testimony an article that we ran in the February 2000 Magazine of

the VFW on Agent Orange exposure—specifically in Korea. I am

also aware that Agent Orange was used in Panama in the late

1960s.

Mr. JACKSON. The Ex-POWs feel that the survivor should be able

to continue the same claim.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Michaud.
36

Mr. Bradley, do you have a question?

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Just so that

I’m clear with regard to H.R. 850, are all organizations urging that

we delete—I believe it’s Section 3?

Mr. GAYTAN. I can say that the American Legion is urging that

you delete Section 3.

Mr. SURRATT. DAV strongly opposes that and would like to see

you delete that.

Mr. JACKSON. We’re neutral, the Ex-POWs.

Mr. HAYDEN. The VFW strongly objects to that section.

Mr. BLAKE. PVA would also like to see that section deleted.

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you. That’s all I have.

Mr. BROWN. And I guess I might make a comment. I know

there’s been some differences of estimates on how much that section might save, or it would cost if we didn’t repeal it, right? Okay.

The CBO estimates that if you left it in there, it would cost $180

million over a 10-year period. The VA estimates it would cost $4.6

billion over that same 10-year period. We’re not quite sure exactly.

We’re still seeking the best estimate on that.

Gentlemen, thank you very much for coming and being a part of

this hearing this morning. Your information is valuable to this

committee and we certainly look forward, as we proceed further

with other issues, to have your testimony. And thank you very

much for coming.

Without objection, I’m submitting the following witness statements into the printed record of the hearing: Mr. Michael Ruzalski,

on behalf of House Resolution 533; Ms. Matilda Bonny, on behalf

of House Resolution 241; Ms. Dorothy Brasher, also on behalf of

H.R. 241; as well as Mr. Richard Jones of AMVETS; and Mr. Rick

Weidman of the Vietnam Veterans of America.

Members have copies of these statements in their folders.

(See pp. 96 to 107.)

Mr. BROWN. I appreciate your attendance this morning. This

committee has a long-standing tradition of bipartisanship, and we

look forward to working with each of you to ensure a productive

year.

I might also state that Admiral Cooper stayed with us throughout the hearing, gentlemen, just to identify that the Veterans Administration Under Secretary and the Secretary are concerned

about the issues and concerned about your thoughts. Admiral Cooper, thank you and your team for being with us through the whole

deliberation.

Without any other business to come before the committee, we

stand adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 10:53 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
(37)

A P P E N D I X
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108

Æ