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

95–607PDF 2005

H.R. 886, H.R. 1167, H.R. 1500, H.R. 1516, H.R.

2163, H.R. 2164, H.R. 2285, AND H.R. 2297

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON BENEFITS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 11, 2003

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Serial No. 108–16

(
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 

June 11, 2003

Page

H.R. 886, H.R. 1167, H.R. 1500, H.R. 1516, H.R. 2163, H.R. 2164, H.R. 

2285, AND H.R. 2297 .......................................................................................... 1

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

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

Hon. Bob Filner, prepared statement of ................................................................ 52

WITNESSES 

Bradley, Hon. Jeb, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

Hampshire ............................................................................................................ 10

Prepared statement of Congressman Bradley ................................................ 70

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

Management, Veterans Benefits Administration; accompanied by John H. 

Thompson, Deputy General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs; and 

Dick Wannamacker, Senior Advisor, National Cemetery Administration ...... 18

Prepared statement of Mr. Epley .................................................................... 88

Gerlach, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania ...................................................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement of Congressman Gerlach ................................................ 62

Holden, Hon. Tim, a Representative in Congress from the State of Pennsylvania ...................................................................................................................... 5

Prepared statement of Congressman Holden ................................................. 53

Juarbe, Jr., Frederico, Assistant Secretary for Veterans’ Employment and 

Training Service, Department of Labor, accompanied by Gordon Burke, 

Director of Operations, Veterans’ Employment and Training Service ............ 11

Prepared statement of Mr. Juarbe .................................................................. 82

Larsen, Hon. Rick, a Representative in Congress from the State of Washington, on behalf of Hon. Adam Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of Washington ...................................................................................... 8

Prepared statement of Congressman Smith of Washington State ............... 64

Molino, John M., Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Military, Community, and Family Policy ........................................................................................ 13

Prepared statement of Mr. Molino .................................................................. 85

Simpson, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the State of Idaho .... 3

Prepared statement of Congressman Simpson .............................................. 50

Wilson, Hon. Heather, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

Mexico ................................................................................................................... 9

Prepared statement of Congresswoman Wilson ............................................. 66

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Bills: 

H.R. 886, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for 

the payment of dependency and indemnity compensation to the survivors of former prisoners of war who died on or before September 

30, 1999, under the same eligibility conditions as apply to payment 

of dependency and indemnity compensation to the survivors of former 

prisoners of war who die after that date .................................................... 25
Page

IV

Bills—Continued

H.R. 1500, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize 

veterans to select the appraiser for housing loans for which they apply 

that are to be guaranteed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs ............... 29

H.R. 1516, a bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish 

a national cemetery for veterans in southeastern Pennsylvania .............. 32

H.R. 2163, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to exclude 

the proceeds of life insurance from consideration as income for purposes 

of determining veterans’ pension benefits, and for other purposes .......... 36

H.R. 2164, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide 

for an extension in the period of eligibility for survivors’ and dependents’ education benefits for members of the National Guard who are 

involuntarily ordered to full-time National Guard duty ............................ 38

H.R. 2285, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to require 

the Secretary of Labor to provide staffing at military installations 

overseas to carry out employment counseling under the Transition 

Assistance Program for persons separating from active duty in the 

Armed Forces ................................................................................................ 40

H.R. 2297, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to modify and 

improve certain benefits for veterans, and for other purposes ................. 43

Letter to Chairman Brown from Department of Labor re implementation 

of overseas TAP, June 16, 2003 .......................................................................... 72

Letters of support: 

To Congressman Holden from Military Order of the Purple Heart ............. 55

To Congressman Holden from Jewish War Veterans .................................... 56

To Congressman Holden from AMVETS ........................................................ 57

To Congresswoman Brown from Portsville Joint Veterans .......................... 58

To Congresswoman Brown from The American Legion ................................ 59

To Congresswoman Brown from Department of Veterans Affairs ............... 60

To Congresswoman Wilson from Veterans of Foreign Wars ......................... 69

Statements: 

The American Legion ....................................................................................... 94

Veterans of Foreign Wars ................................................................................ 97

Appraisal Institute and American Society of Appraisers .............................. 100

AMVETS ........................................................................................................... 108

Disabled American Veterans ........................................................................... 114

National Association of Realtors ..................................................................... 118

Paralyzed Veterans of America ....................................................................... 122

Written committee questions and their responses: 

Congresswoman Brown to Hon. J.W. Nicholson, Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs ......................................... 126
(1)

H.R. 886, H.R. 1167, H.R. 1500, H.R. 1516, H.R. 

2163, H.R. 2164, H.R. 2285, AND H.R. 2297

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 2003

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

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in room 

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

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Brown of South Carolina, Michaud, 

Bradley, Brown of Florida, and Davis. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BROWN 

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

Welcome to today’s hearing on various pieces of legislation that 

touches on a great many subjects related to veterans’ benefits. 

We’re fortunate today to have the chief sponsors of some of the bills 

on today’s agenda to testify on their legislation. There’s a lot on our 

agenda, so I’ll highlight each bill briefly before turning to our 

Ranking Member, Mr. Michaud. 

On H.R. 886, introduced by Congressman Holden, would provide 

that a surviving spouse of a former prisoner of war is eligible for 

dependency and indemnity compensation, known as DIC, if one 

year prior to death the veteran was rated permanently and totally 

disabled. Under current law, this applies only to those veterans 

who died after September 30, 1999. 

H.R. 1500, the Veterans’ Appraiser Choice Act, sponsored by 

Congressman Adam Smith, would authorize veterans who apply for 

a VA housing loan to select the appraiser when an appraisal is required. This measure stipulates that if a veteran declines to select 

an appraiser when one is required, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs will do so. 

H.R. 1516 would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish a national cemetery for veterans in southeastern Pennsylvania. This legislation was introduced by Congressman Gerlach of 

Pennsylvania. 

H.R. 1167, sponsored by Congresswoman Heather Wilson, would 

allow a remarried surviving spouse of a veteran to be eligible for 

burial in a VA national cemetery. Current law does not permit the 

surviving spouse to be buried in a national cemetery if he or she 

is remarried and the surviving spouse dies before the new spouse. 

According to VA, in cases when this situation has arisen, the veteran’s children and grandchildren, and often the current spouse, 
2

support the burial of the decedent with the original veteran-spouse 

in a VA national cemetery. 

H.R. 2163, introduced by Congressman Jeb Bradley, would exclude life insurance proceeds from consideration of income for pension purposes, and repeal the 45-day rule for the effective date of 

death pension. These provisions go hand-in-hand, as VA will explain in their testimony. 

H.R. 2164, also introduced by Congressman Bradley, would 

amend the law to provide that individuals who qualify for survivors’ and dependents’ education benefits and are involuntarily ordered to full time National Guard duty under Title 32 after September 11, 2001, would have the time to use the benefit extended 

by the amount of time equal to that period of full-time duty plus 

4 months. 

H.R. 2285, the Servicemembers Overseas Outreach Act, would 

mandate the Department of Labor place staff in veterans’ assistance offices at overseas military installations not later than 90 

days after date of enactment. This legislation is sponsored by the 

former chairman of this subcommittee, Mike Simpson. 

And lastly, H.R. 2297 would modify and improve certain benefits 

for veterans. These provisions are derived from the Administration’s proposed legislation for this year. The bill would expand the 

Montgomery GI Bill for self employment, extend VA’s Education 

Advisory Committee, repeal a VA education loan program, make 

permanent the State Cemetery Grants Program, expand the list of 

crimes which would result in a forfeiture of veterans’ benefits, and 

extend VA’s authority to maintain a regional office in the 

Philippines. 

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

range of bills. At this time, I’d like to recognize our Ranking Member, Mr. Michaud. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL H. MICHAUD 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I’d like to welcome all members’ testimony here this morning. And I also want 

to thank the chairman for an ambitious schedule we have this 

morning. We have eight bills to consider today during this hearing. 

H.R. 2163 would exclude the proceeds of life insurance from consideration as income for purposes for determining veterans’ pension 

benefits. Surviving spouses who qualify for the death pension program live on about $500 per month. They should not be further impoverished by having life insurance proceeds counted against that 

income. 

H.R. 2164 would extend the delimiting date under the Chapter 

35 education assistance program for members of the National 

Guard who are involuntarily called to active duty. The National 

Guard is part of our total force. We need to assure that they receive appropriate benefits when serving the Nation. 

And I’m very disappointed that we again are faced with cost estimates from VA, which does not appear to be supported by any 

data, only by assumptions and guesstimates. As we have seen in 

several other recent proposals, the VA’s cost estimates for H.R. 866 

is astronomically higher than that provided by the CBO. And 

again, VA has offered testimony that I would describe as ludicrous. 
3

In contrast to the 157 surviving spouses who qualify for DIC benefits based on the death of a former POW who was rated at 100 

percent disability for a service-connected disability for at least one 

year before the death of veterans, VA estimated that it would require an additional 703 surviving spouses to come forward and be 

awarded benefits in the first year after the enactment of this. I believe the number is unbelievable. And given VA’s pattern of absurd 

cost estimates, I’m beginning to question the reliability of cost information provided by the VA. 

There are several other bills that I do support that we’re going 

to hear today. And in regards to the national cemetery, while 

southeastern Pennsylvania meets their relevant criteria to do so, I 

think a number of cemeteries also do, and that we do have a process that we should go through. I’ll be interested in hearing the testimony on that. 

And I do regret the lack of cooperation from the Department of 

Labor requires us to consider legislation to mandate assistance to 

separating servicemembers at overseas locations. Such assistance 

is sorely needed, and should be gladly provided to our grateful 

Nation. 

I also support the provisions contained in H.R. 2297 to improve 

education benefits and make the state veteran cemetery program 

permanent. 

I understand that we’ll be receiving testimony today on all these 

bills. I’m looking forward to your testimony, particularly as well as 

from the Department of Veterans Administration. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Michaud. Our first panel today consists of our distinguished colleagues: Mr. Simpson of Idaho, Mr. 

Holden of Pennsylvania, Mr. Larsen of Washington, Mr. Bradley of 

New Hampshire, Mr. Gerlach of Pennsylvania, and Ms. Wilson of 

New Mexico. Mr. Bradley, a member of the subcommittee, has chosen to testify from the rostrum. We’ll hear from you later, Mr. 

Bradley. 

Mr. Simpson, we’ll start with you. Thanks for coming. We always 

welcome you back, a former chairman of this subcommittee. You 

did a great job, and we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENTS OF HON. MIKE SIMPSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO; HON. TIM HOLDEN, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

PENNSYLVANIA; HON. JIM GERLACH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA; HON. RICK 

LARSEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE 

STATE OF WASHINGTON, ON BEHALF OF HON. ADAM SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

WASHINGTON; HON. HEATHER WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO; AND HON. 

JEB BRADLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM 

THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE SIMPSON 

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

Michaud, and members of the subcommittee. I’m pleased to be be-
4

fore you again. As the chairman said when I walked in, ‘‘How can 

we miss you if you won’t go away?’’ It is always nice to be back 

here, and today to discuss my bill, H.R. 2285, the Serviceman’s 

Overseas Outreach Act. 

Before I tell you what it is, let me tell you what it is not. 2285 

is not a bill to give the Department of Labor the authority to staff 

overseas transition assistance positions in overseas installations. It 

is a mandate that they do so. They already have the authority to 

do so, and have chosen not to do so to this point in time. 

As I said, H.R. 2285 mandates that the Department of Labor 

place staff and overseas veterans’ assistance offices which are on 

military installations in accordance with the VA model. VA has six 

employees at overseas locations in Europe and southeast Asia, 

where they visit up to 25 bases during a 3-month period. These employees are sent overseas for 6-month periods. 

On July 18, 2002, while I was chairman of this subcommittee, 

Ranking Member Reyes and I held a hearing on the Transition Assistance Program. I asked the Assistant Secretary for Veterans’ Employment at that hearing for the Department of Labor to station 

staff in military transition centers in western Europe and the Far 

East to help separating servicemembers line up jobs in the United 

States before they came home. 

VA has had benefits counselors stationed overseas since 1992, 

and I felt it important that DOL have a presence there also. After 

all, many of these servicemembers have been stationed overseas for 

2 or 3 years, and they cannot even talk with a U.S. employer during the business day due to time differences. 

Lastly, throughout the fall of 2002, the bipartisan leadership of 

the Veterans’ Affairs Committee sent two letters to Secretary Chao 

asking that DOL simply go to where its customers are. At the April 

10, 2003, Labor-HHS Appropriations Subcommittee hearing, I 

again asked Secretary Chao about this issue. 

I am sad to report that as I look through the budget overview 

from the Department of Labor, and as I look through the annual 

performance plan for the Department of Labor, I see no request in 

their budget for additional officials to be sent overseas, nor do I see 

a... request for additional funding for stationing these individuals at overseas installations. In their annual performance plan, I 

see no plans addressing this issue. It seems to me that they have 

let this sit on the back burner for far too long, and that’s why this 

legislation is before you. 

Mr. Chairman, this is not responsive government, especially 

since Congress gives the DOL 200 million per year to help 

servicemembers and vets get jobs. I am embarrassed at the glacial 

speed at which DOL has proceeded on this matter. And by ‘‘glacial 

speed,’’ I guess to describe that, if the rest of government acted this 

efficiently and effectively, I’m surprised that we don’t have hitching 

posts on which to tie our horses instead of parking lots on which 

to put our cars. 

It is time for the Department of Labor to step up to the plate and 

fulfill their responsibilities to our servicemen and women who are 

separating from the service while stationed overseas. 

The DOL could make this legislation unnecessary tomorrow by 

taking up their responsibility and stationing these officials over-
5

seas today. All they have to do is do what we’ve requested of them, 

and as the secretary has suggested, make the DOL more userfriendly by staffing overseas veterans officials. I’d be happy to pull 

this bill if they were to do so. 

I hope this gets their attention. I hope it lets them know two 

things. One, that I am serious about this issue, and two, that I am 

damn tired of sending letters back and forth between this committee and the Department of Labor and seeing no response from 

it. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, thank you once 

again for allowing me to appear before you today. I’d be happy to 

try and answer any questions that you might have. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Simpson. What we’ve been planning 

to do is just to continue with the opening remarks, and then we’ll 

have questions when it’s all over, Mr. Simpson. Mr. Holden. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIM HOLDEN 

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

Michaud, and members of the subcommittee. I wanted to thank you 

for the opportunity to testify before you today in support of H.R. 

886, which seeks to correct an inequity in the awarding of dependency and indemnity compensation benefits to surviving spouses of 

qualifying former prisoners of war. 

Current law provides DIC benefits for surviving spouses of 

former prisoners of war who are rated as totally disabled for a 

service-connected disability at the time of death, so long as that 

former POW dies after September 30, 1999. However, surviving 

spouses of former POWs who died before or on September 30, 1999, 

do not qualify for any DIC benefits unless the former POW died of 

a service-connected disability, or was 100 percent service connected 

for at least 10 years prior to death. 

Prior to 1999, all surviving spouses of qualifying former POWs 

were eligible for DIC benefits, so long as the former POW was 

rated 100 percent disabled for a minimum of 10 years prior to his 

or her death. 

Since many POWs had difficulty in establishing their eligibility 

for service-connected compensation benefits until after Congress established certain presumptions, many POWs died while being 100 

percent service-connected for less than 10 years. That problem was 

addressed by the Veteran’s Millennium Health Care Act of 1999, 

which allowed surviving spouses to qualify if their POW spouse 

was service-connected for one year before death, and died after 

September 30, 1999. 

Not too long after the Veteran’s Millennium Health Care Act was 

enacted, Mr. Leigh Tallas, a veteran and advocate for one of the 

county VA offices in my congressional district, contacted me to express his concern with the consequences of limiting the awarding 

of benefits only in the case where the qualifying former POW died 

after September 30, 1999. He told me about an active case he was 

working on where the surviving spouse was being penalized due to 

this provision. 

Following my meeting with Mr. Tallas, I first introduced this legislation you are considering today in the 107th Congress, and reintroduced it in the 108th Congress. 
6

Mr. Chairman, the change my bill seeks to do is very simple and 

straightforward. This bill will amend Title 38 of the U.S. Code to 

treat all surviving spouses of qualifying former POWs equally, 

granting them DIC benefits regardless of when their former POW 

spouse passed away. 

H.R. 886 has been scored by the Congressional Budget Office, who estimates it will cost $15 million in the 10-year period from 

fiscal year 2004 to fiscal year 2013, assuming the bill is enacted 

this year. The average DIC benefit in fiscal year 2002 was $12,244. 

Such payments are adjusted annually for increases in the cost of 

living. 

CBO estimates that about 480 survivors would be newly eligible 

for the DIC benefits under this bill. Because many of these deaths 

occurred over the last 50 years or more, during which survivors 

may have lost touch with veterans’ organizations that could inform 

them about the new benefit, and considering that some survivors 

may have remarried, making them ineligible for DIC, CBO also assumes that no more than one-third, or about 160, of these eligible 

survivors would apply for DIC under the bill. CBO assumes that 

these new DIC cases would phase in over a 5-year period, as eligible survivors learn about their eligibility and complete the process 

of applying for the benefits from the VA. 

Mr. Chairman, in the third panel this morning, you will hear 

from Administration representatives who will testify that the Office 

of Management and Budgets just estimated the cost of my bill 

would be astronomical, $210 million in a 10-year period from 2004 

to 2013. The VA shared this OMB score with me late yesterday 

afternoon, and I am at a loss to explain why their cost estimate is 

14 times the CBO estimate. As far as I can see, OMB has no statistical basis for such an increase in cost. To date, there has only been 

one case where a person would benefit from this legislation, to my 

knowledge. 

Thus far, OMB has failed to provide any evidence to support its 

numbers, so I’m very anxious to hear an explanation from the third 

panel. 

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, our Nation’s POWs sacrificed their 

liberty for the freedom we enjoy. Their surviving spouses deserve 

to receive dependency and indemnity compensation. The unequal 

eligibility criteria should be eliminated, and this bill does that. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit with my testimony letters of support of the legislation. 

Mr. BROWN. Without objection. 

Mr. HOLDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

(See pp. 55 to 60.) 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Holden. Mr. Gerlach. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM GERLACH 

Mr. GERLACH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member Michaud. I appreciate very much the opportunity allowing 

me to testify today with regard to H.R. 1516. 

I’ve introduced H.R. 1516 to establish a new veterans cemetery 

in southeast Pennsylvania. This legislation will require the United 

States Department of Veterans Affairs to establish a new and 

much-needed cemetery within 4 years of enactment. It would also 
7

provide for local involvement in selecting the site for that cemetery. 

Under my bill, the Commonwealth’s Governor would be able to appoint a blue ribbon commission of state and local leaders, including 

representatives from local veterans groups, to recommend a suitable site for a veterans cemetery to the Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

The need for a new veterans cemetery in our community is welldocumented and long overdue. The Philadelphia National Cemetery 

is virtually closed, with the exception to cremated remains, to nearly 400,000 veterans that reside in the five counties that make up 

the metropolitan Philadelphia area. 

While cremation may be an alternative to traditional burial for 

some, it is not the preference of most. But unfortunately, it’s the 

only option that the Philadelphia area veterans currently have if 

they want to have their remains reposed at a veterans cemetery 

close to home. 

The only other national cemetery in our region is Indiantown 

Gap National Cemetery, which is a long drive from Philadelphia 

area, and can be a very difficult trip for widows, widowers, and 

other family members who want to visit the graves of their loved 

ones. I would note that more than 290,000 area veterans live over 

65 miles from the Indiantown Gap National Cemetery. 

During a recent field hearing of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs 

Committee chaired by Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi expressed his support 

for the establishment of a new cemetery in southeastern Pennsylvania after analyzing two factors that were not taken into account 

in a previous VA Department study. 

The Beverly National Cemetery in nearby Burlington County, 

New Jersey, is filling up faster than expected, and is only available 

to New Jersey veterans. Additionally, the department recently 

added Monroe County to the greater Philadelphia service area, 

thereby increasing the number of veterans in need to over 170,000, 

the statistical benchmark for the establishment of a new cemetery. 

Secretary Principi also acknowledged that the Indiantown Gap 

National Cemetery in Lebanon County, Pennsylvania, is at least 80 

miles from Philadelphia, which contrasts the department’s guideline of having a veterans cemetery within 75 miles of a veteran’s 

home. Consequently, the secretary expressed his support for a new 

cemetery to honor those who would be laid to rest there. This legislation will both provide for its establishment within a specified period of time, and allow for the input of our local officials and veterans to determine its specific site. 

The importance of a veterans cemetery in southeastern Pennsylvania has already been recognized. The 37th Congress created the 

Philadelphia National Cemetery when they initially established 

what had become a large network of national cemeteries across the 

United States. Southeastern Pennsylvania veterans of today, as 

those of the past, should likewise have the opportunity to be buried 

close to home after providing the same level of heroic service and 

sacrifice to our Nation. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member, and members of 

this subcommittee, thank you very much for the opportunity to 
8

speak on behalf and in favor of H.R. 1516, and I ask that you favorably report the bill to the full committee. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Gerlach appears on p. 

62.] 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Gerlach. Mr. Larsen. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LARSEN 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Members 

Michaud and other members of the committee. You might note that 

I’m not the prime sponsor of this bill. Congressman Adam Smith 

is. And he is back in Washington State awaiting the imminent 

birth of his second child. And so I certainly wish him and his wife 

congratulations on that. I am here on his behalf to express his support and my support for H.R. 1500, the Veterans’ Appraiser Choice 

Act. 

I’d like to start by giving you a bit of background on the current 

process a veteran goes through when applying for VA home loan. 

The veteran’s first step is to find a home, then select a lender and 

present their VA certificate of eligibility from the Department of 

Veterans Affairs. 

The lender will then usually develop the credit information and 

request the VA to assign and approve an appraiser to determine 

the reasonable value for the property. In most instances, the veteran pays for the credit report and application. Either the VA or 

the lender will then issue a value for the property based on that 

application. 

The department requires a home being bought with a VA loan 

to have this application to insure the worthiness of the home. They 

also state that ‘‘the property application is performed by a designated VA fee appraiser assigned from the list of approved appraisers. These appraisers have been determined to be knowledgeable of proper real estate application techniques and standards, 

have had sufficient real estate appraisal experience, and have satisfied VA requirements for appraiser designation.’’

In current law, the pre-approved appraiser is picked in a rotating 

system that automatically allows the appraiser to receive a job 

with no regard as to how well he or she performs. I believe that 

this is unfair to the consumer. If the Department of Veterans Affairs has an application process, the appraiser must pass in order 

to join this pre-approved list, and the veteran, as a consumer, 

should be allowed to pick the appraiser of their choice to insure the 

appraisal market remains competitive and timely. If the veteran 

isn’t happy with the first appraisal, they are allowed, at their expense, to have a second appraisal done by another VA-approved appraiser. The VA must consider both appraisal reports. It is my proposal that you only strip current law of the automatic rotating system, and instead allow the veteran his or her choice of the pre-approved appraisers. 

I believe the original intent of the Veterans Loan Guarantee Program was to make home-buying easier for the veteran. Unfortunately, in recent years, we’ve seen that they actually make it harder, because many home sellers will not choose to sell to a veteran 

with a VA home loan due to how difficult the process can be. A 

very small number of appraisers are giving the whole system a bad 
9

name by taking too long in the appraisal process, and holding up 

loans or giving appraisals which are strikingly different from other 

appraisers for the same property. 

In the current system, there’s no incentive for the appraisers to 

do their best, because they are guaranteed a job if they are on the 

approved list. If this was a competitive market, like in other home 

loan systems, the appraisers would week themselves out by not delivering a quality service. 

Some have argued that allowing a veteran to chose an appraiser 

from the VA-approved list will result in pressure being put on appraisers to provide an appraisal which is not independent and unbiased. I do now believe that most appraisers will compromise their 

professional responsibilities. Those that do should be removed from 

the VA list. Since VA retains control over which appraisers are 

qualified to perform appraisals for VA home loans, I believe that 

veterans and servicemembers should be allowed to select an appraiser from VA’s approved list. 

I believe H.R. 1500 makes a very small change to the current law 

that will allow the veteran to have a very large voice in the process, and will ultimately make the list of approved appraisers more 

competitive, thus giving the veteran a better service. 

In closing, I’d like to thank you again for allowing me to testify 

in support of H.R. 1500, the Veterans Appraiser Choice Act. I’d like 

to ask the Subcommittee on Benefits for their support in passing 

this important piece of legislation. I also ask unanimous consent to 

have my full statement entered into the record, as well as to bring 

your attention to other statements that have been offered in support of this legislation that are in the record as well. 

Mr. BROWN. Without objection. 

Mr. LARSEN. Thank you. 

[The statement of Hon. Adam Smith appears on p. 64.] 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Larsen. And I hope that the birthing 

will come off well, and the family will do well. 

Mr. LARSEN. We’ll pass that on to Congressman Smith. Thank 

you. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you. Mrs. Wilson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. HEATHER WILSON 

Mrs. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for 

holding this hearing today. I’d like to ask your consent to enter my 

statement into the record, and to just speak more informally, if I 

could. 

Mr. BROWN. Sure. 

Mrs. WILSON. Behind most veterans is a husband or a wife who 

usually puts up with a lot more than most of us ask our husbands 

and wives to put up with. There’s a glitch in the current law on 

veterans’ burial in our national cemeteries that a bill I’ve introduced, H.R. 1167, intends to try to fix. And it’s probably best illustrated with a story. 

Kay Brown is one of my constituents. Her mom and dad, named 

the Gilkersons, E.T. and Francis Gilkerson, were married for 56 

years. E.T. was in the Air Force during World War II, and he died 

in 1993, and is buried at the national cemetery in Santa Fe. 
10

For several years, Francis lived a lonely life, and then she met 

another octogenarian in the same mobile home park where they 

lived. Francis wants to be buried with E.T., and they actually 

checked with the VA to make sure that even if she remarried that 

she could be buried with her first husband, her life’s partner. At 

the time, the VA gave them the wrong information and said she 

could, as long as they were married at the time of E.T.’s death. But 

that’s not the law. 

In 2000, Francis died. And when her daughter tried to make arrangements for her internment in the national cemetery at Santa 

Fe, the VA said no. If her non-veteran second spouse had died before her, she could be buried in Santa Fe with her first husband. 

But because she married a non-veteran who is living at the time 

of her death, she can’t be buried with E.T. 

Now, that doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. If Francis had died 

first and E.T. had remarried, both spouses could actually be buried 

in the national cemetery. If the second husband died first, she 

could be buried with E.T. in Santa Fe. This is a glitch in the law, 

and it needs to be changed so that veterans’ spouses who lose their 

life’s partners and choose to remarry in their sunset years can still 

be buried with the veteran that they loved. And that’s what our bill 

does. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would add that it is supported by the VFW, the VFW Auxiliary, 

and I’d like to ask to enter that letter into the record. And the administration informed us this morning that they also support the 

bill. 

[The prepared statement of Congresswoman Wilson appears on 

p. 66.] 

Mr. BROWN. Ms. Wilson, let me ask you a question, if I may. Is 

there retroactivity in this bill, or it just becomes effective the day 

that it passes? 

Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, we made it effective the 1st of January, 2000, and I will admit that the reason is because I’d like 

Francis to be buried with E.T. 

Mr. BROWN. Okay. I sensed that. Is there any—oh, I’m sorry. Mr. 

Bradley, I almost forgot about you. I recognize Mr. Bradley at this 

time. Thank you, Ms. Wilson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEB BRADLEY 

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for this opportunity to testify. And I just request permission to 

revise and extend my remarks, as we’ve submitted written testimony. Let me just, if I might, briefly summarize both H.R. 2163 

and H.R. 2164. 

Currently, under existing law, if a veteran dies and there are 

death benefits at time of death, and a claim is filed within 45 days, 

the surviving spouse is entitled to that death benefit immediately 

or at time of death. But if the filing is done later than 45 days, the 

death benefit starts at the time that the claim was filed. 

Not only that, the way life insurance figures into the situation 

can deprive the veteran of the ability either to file the earlier 

claim, or it’s counted as income, reducing the death benefit. 
11

So what this bill seeks to do is create a 1-year filing period and 

exclude life insurance lump sum penalties so that veterans and 

surviving spouses are not penalized. 

That’s H.R. 2163. And as I said, we have more extensive testimony filed. 

H.R. 2164 changes educational benefits. Currently, if you are a 

member of the National Guard and subject to a call-up, you don’t 

get the extension of those benefits. So what this bill 2164 does is 

allow that anyone who is called up post-9/11 to have their educational benefit dates extended by the length of the time of the callup and 4 months. The cost of this bill is $150,000 estimated in the 

first year, $5 million over 10 years. 

And I apologize for not having summarized the cost of H.R. 2163. That one is 650,000 in year one, and $12.8 million over 10 years. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Congressman Bradley appears on p. 

70.] 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Bradley. 

Mr. Michaud, do you have any questions to the panel? Do any 

members have any questions for the panel? 

Ms. BROWN. Not for the panel, but I do have a question for the 

staff about one of the bills later. 

Mr. BROWN. Okay. Thank you, Ms. Brown. Thank you, gentlemen and gentlelady, Ms. Wilson, for coming to be a part of this 

hearing today, and thank you all for the bills that you supported. 

Will the second panel come forward? 

Our second panel today is made up of representatives from the 

Administration: Mr. John Molino, the Deputy Assistant Secretary 

of Defense, Military, Community, and Family Policy; and Mr. 

Frederico Juarbe, Assistant Secretary for Veterans’ Employment 

and Training Service at the Department of Labor. Mr. Juarbe is accompanied by Mr. Gordon Burke, the Director of Operations at the 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service. 

Mr. Juarbe, I guess we’ll hear from you first. Thank you for coming. 

STATEMENTS OF FREDERICO JUARBE, JR., ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING 

SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ACCOMPANIED BY GORDON BURKE, DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE; AND JOHN M. MOLINO, 

DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, MILITARY, 

COMMUNITY, AND FAMILY POLICY 

STATEMENT OF FREDERICO JUARBE, JR. 

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

other distinguished members of the House Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Benefits, the Department of Labor is pleased to have 

this opportunity to provide comments on H.R. 2285, the 

Servicemembers Overseas Outreach Act. 

The Department of Labor recognizes the importance of providing 

TAP services to servicemembers separating overseas. The Department of Labor and the Department of Defense are currently working together to provide these services worldwide. We believe that 
12

because the current legislation authorizing TAP already requires, 

indeed mandates, these services worldwide, additional legislation is 

not needed to accomplish this mission. Under current law, DOL is 

required to provide specific employment information in conjunction 

with the Department of Defense to separating servicemembers and 

their spouses through TAP workshops regardless of where they end 

their military career. Accordingly, we have already the authority to 

provide these services to overseas locations. 

We and our partners at DOD are continually working on ways 

to improve and standardize the delivery of TAP services, and to 

provide greater accessibility to this highly-effective program for 

separating servicemembers and their spouses. This cooperative effort includes a plan for DOL to assume responsibility for existing 

workshops which DOD currently provides to transitioning 

servicemembers overseas. 

Providing DOL-facilitated workshops overseas is a goal that requires the combined resources and close partnership of the Departments of Labor and Defense. As an example of this partnership, we 

recently provided TAP workshops on the USS Constellation during 

her return from action in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom, and 

in the next few days will provide workshops on the USS Kearsarge 

as she returns to port. Our objective is to insure that 

servicemembers are prepared and competitive as they transition 

from military service to careers in the 21st century. 

Both departments will continue their ongoing efforts to assure 

that all separating servicemembers receive meaningful transition 

assistance. To that end, the Veterans’ Employment and Training 

Service will continue to provide TAP materials to servicemembers 

separating overseas and to overseas facilitators. 

We will continue to update e–VETS, our web-based personalized 

Internet tool, which includes the electronic version of the TAP 

manual. And we will soon release a virtual one-stop web site that 

allows access to services and assistance from anywhere in the 

world. This was authorized under the Jobs for Veterans Act of 

2002, which this committee authored, which we presented also to 

your staff on Monday. These tools are in addition to the current 

overseas TAP workshops that will help insure that military members can seamlessly transition into civilian employment. 

We have turned the corner from planning to implementation. We 

are now ready to deploy immediately full-qualified professional 

facilitators who are available to travel to any overseas location, and 

to begin providing quality classes to separating servicemembers 

overseas. Before we began these deployments, however, we must 

first come to an agreement with our DOD partners to identify the 

initial sites. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this concludes my 

statement. I want to assure you that our servicemembers separating overseas are being provided TAP workshops, and we will 

continue working with DOD to assume implementation of the DOLfacilitated workshops. I’ll be happy to answer any questions that 

you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Juarbe appears on p. 82.] 

Mr. BROWN. All right, Mr. Juarbe. We’ll have questions at the 

conclusion of both panel members. Mr. Molino. 
13

STATEMENT OF JOHN M. MOLINO 

Mr. MOLINO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, and good 

morning to members of the panel. It’s a pleasure for me to be here 

representing the Department of Defense and to testify on this important issue. 

I want to begin by reemphasizing what Mr. Juarbe had said, that 

there is an excellent relationship that exists between the Department of Defense and the Department of Labor, and that we have 

cooperated since the inception of TAP in 1991. 

I also want to emphasize that TAP is ongoing overseas through 

a cooperative arrangement that we have, and we look forward to 

the more direct involvement now that we’ve entered the implementation phase with the Department of Labor. And I think that they 

have developed a creative and a workable plan to begin immediately to provide that service overseas. 

We have met at the leadership level, and we will continue to 

meet—in fact, a meeting is scheduled in a matter of days—so that 

we can work out the last details, the service concerns that might 

continue to exist, and then we can accommodate those concerns 

and then move forward with the plan. 

As Labor moves into the implementation phase of overseas TAP, 

(and as they were ready to move into it this last year,) and I think 

it’s important to put on the record, the fact that the world situation, the operations tempo of our troops otherwise assigned overseas, and the stop loss provisions that the Department of Defense 

exercised, frankly, made 2003 one of the worst years to try to implement TAP overseas. Many of our soldiers were not where they 

were primarily assigned because they were in a combat zone. And 

those who would have otherwise separated at the expiration of 

their term of service were, in fact, not separating. 

Now that we have some degree of stability and we are lifting the 

stop loss procedures for the most part, I think the time is right, 

and things are coming together so that we can move forward. 

Those decisions left to be made will also impact how this program moves forward. The Secretary is putting together recommendations to make to the President on overseas basing decisions for the future, and those decisions will bear greatly on where 

these overseas TAP programs might be delivered. However, that 

will not delay the implementation that Mr. Juarbe mentioned 

previously. 

As the decisions are made we reach stability, we’ll be able to 

have basing decisions, and this program will mature. So, I’m very 

optimistic, speaking for the department and for the 

servicemembers and their family members, that we have indeed 

turned the corner, as Mr. Juarbe said, that we are now in the implementation phase, and that we look forward to moving out with 

this program. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Molino appears on p. 85.] 

Mr. BROWN. All right, Mr. Molino. Mr. Juarbe, you heard Mr. 

Simpson’s testimony earlier, his concerns. He’s the major sponsor 

of this bill. We recognize some year ago, I think you all had made 

a commitment to implement this program overseas. And according 

to his testimony, this action is not taking place. I think you heard 
14

also his willingness to withdraw this bill, if, in effect, you know, 

some action was taking place. 

He also noted in his testimony that you did not budget for these 

particular slots. Could you explain exactly how the process is moving forward? 

Mr. JUARBE. Yes, Mr. Chairman. First of all, if I may give a little 

bit of background. The TAP program is not a static program. It’s 

a very dynamic program. As I came into office, the career staff had 

already been firmly committed to re-engineering TAP and continuing to improve it. That was accomplished in early 2002, and 

that’s when the new TAP manual, which is much more user-friendly, and the Internet accessible TAP manual, was provided. 

During those discussions, the re-engineering group had determined that it was time for the Department of Labor to play a bigger role personally in providing the TAP workshops overseas. There 

was a consensus that we should do that. 

When I came before this subcommittee last July, I came prepared to say yes, we are committed to doing it. And I think the demands and the logistical considerations required that it be done incrementally. In subsequent discussions between Secretary Chao 

and Chairman of the Full Committee Smith, it was agreed that it 

would be done incrementally. 

And I came before the committee, and I said what I can do immediately out of existing resources, one thing that I recognized was 

not being done previously was that we were not providing the TAP 

manuals. We were requiring the Department of Defense to replicate them or to fund them themselves. I recognize that was our 

responsibility. 

And we found the resources. We provided those TAP manuals. 

Over 20,000 were provided to all the sites overseas. And we immediately started exploring which are the best ways of doing it, of 

providing these services, and what resources we could have. 

We have determined that we have existing resources to initiate 

in the initial sites that we would go to. We determined that we 

would do it through a contractor as the most cost-effective fashion 

of doing it. But the initial program that we determined we would 

have of having a contractor doing it is that they would go overseas, 

they would establish their presence overseas as they transition 

with the personnel that is presently conducting it for DOD, and 

then they would recruit military spouses and train them to provide 

those TAP services overseas. 

Now, that meets two very clear goals that both the Department 

of Labor and the Department of Defense have. One is the goal of 

encouraging more spouses to participate in TAP workshops, which 

the numbers have not been very great. And the other is providing 

employment opportunity for military spouses, thereby supporting 

retention in military service. 

Now, we have a very specific plan, and that plan was to identify 

the locations, to secure the SOFA clearances through the Department of Defense, to coordinate with the commanders, to identify 

the personnel, and to train that personnel to send them overseas, 

and then to certify the sites based on standards that the Department of Defense and the Department of Labor would agree to, and 

then execute the transition. We’ve accomplished two of those steps. 
15

We’ve identified the personnel, and that personnel has been 

trained. 

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

Mr. MICHAUD. Yeah. To follow up on that, when will the additional sites—what’s the timing of this? I guess I heard Representative Simpson this morning, and I too am very concerned about it 

not being done. So what is your time frame of getting this done? 

Can it be done this week, as far as the sites? 

Mr. JUARBE. Congressman Michaud, you know, I would not want 

to speculate. It is a very complex issue that I would not want to 

oversimplify. 

There are a host of issues. In an ideal world, we would have been 

there right after last July. As my colleague, Deputy Assistant Secretary John Molino, indicated, conditions have not been ideal. 

Now, I, like Deputy Security Molino, am very optimistic that we 

can progress and be at a site. But that is all contingent on a host 

of issues that the Department of Defense will be helping us with, 

including the SOFA clearances and other logistical considerations. 

But as I said, and Deputy Secretary Molino indicated, we’re 

ready to move into implementation and identifying the sites, and 

we’ll be meeting very soon to do that. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Any estimate of what time? What’s the timing of 

that, though? Is it going to be a month, 2 months, a year? 

Mr. MOLINO. Well, sir, we literally have a meeting scheduled for 

Friday, when my service colleagues and I will sit down with Mr. 

Juarbe’s folks. He will be out of town; otherwise, he would be in 

attendance as well. It is not inconceivable that we could agree on 

those pilot locations, those first few locations, if you will, where 

Labor would be willing to move out. Then we would ideally identify 

a location where there’s enough of a troop concentration to make 

the effort worthwhile. Then, if we’re fortunate, that will also be a 

location where we do not have major SOFA considerations. 

If we find those locations with SOFA considerations, Pacific as 

well as western Europe, I don’t know when they would be ready 

to go. But with the identification of a good location, I think we 

jump soon. 

Mr. JUARBE. Yes. We’re ready to go as soon as the locations are 

identified, we get the clearances. And, in fact, I am prepared to 

personally go to the bases and discuss our presence there, along 

with Mr. Molino or his representative, with the base commanders 

to secure the locations and assure them of how we’re going to be 

doing it in transitioning. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Great. Thank you. My committee’s staff has informed me that over a year ago, the subcommittee held a hearing 

on TAP, among other things, where the joint administrators of 

DOD, DOL, and VA stated that they would begin to develop a tool 

that would allow them to follow up with former TAP participants. 

Has there been any progress on this action as of yet? 

Mr. JUARBE. Well, the development of our e–VETS web site is 

one of those tools that we have been using, and, of course, the development of the virtual one-stop that was a part of the mandate 

of the Veterans Employment Act of 2002, the Jobs for Veterans Act 

of 2002. 
16

Mr. MICHAUD. Is that—that’s one of the tracking tools that you— —

Mr. JUARBE. Oh, okay. Well, of course, under the Jobs for Veterans Act, now it’s required that we track. And yes, we are working 

with the Employment and Training Administration. We have modified the ETA 9002 so that the veterans who are provided services— or military personnel who are provided services through TAP will 

be identified, and they will be tracked. And that becomes effective 

July 1, which is the new program year for the Veterans’ Employment and Training and for the ETA. 

Mr. MICHAUD. The last question is Lane Evans has introduced 

legislation, H.R. 1906, that would make TAP mandatory throughout the military. It would also require the Department of Labor to 

include information about homelessness within its TAP workshop. 

Have you had a chance to look at that, and what’s your personal 

opinion? 

Mr. JUARBE. Well, it would seem to me that that is a responsibility that would call upon the Department of Defense. I would 

defer to the Department of Defense. Mandating that the services 

require all personnel to attend TAP, I don’t know that that would 

necessarily accomplish that mission. 

Mr. MOLINO. Sir, I have to confess I’m not familiar with the text 

of the bill. I think there might be implications that would border 

on the impractical. We strongly encourage attendance at the TAP 

sessions, but there are people who are separating from the services, 

who know precisely what they’re going to do, who are well aware 

of the benefits and don’t feel that they have the need to do that. 

There are others who, for practical reasons, wouldn’t be able to get 

to a session, although we’re making that even more possible with 

the on-line availability. I’d welcome the opportunity to study it, 

provide an opinion, but I don’t have one just now. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much. Actually, it’s my understanding the Marines do require it, but on the DOL. But what 

about the part about the homelessness in the DOL information? 

Mr. JUARBE. Mr. Michaud, if I may, I would like to submit an 

answer for the record. I know that we have addressed that, and we 

have discussed the inclusion of information that would identify the 

potential risks of homelessness to these individuals and provide it. 

And we feel that we can make that information available to all participants in TAP. 

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

Chair. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Michaud. Mr. Bradley. 

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have to 

admit not having a lot of familiarity with this issue, and I respect 

your leadership on this issue. 

In listening to the testimony both of the panel and the former 

panel, and Congressman Simpson in particular, he indicated that 

he was willing to withdraw the legislation, obviously, if it were appropriate, and that’s your testimony. 

And then you go back in the record, and we’re now 11 months 

later just talking about the possibility of pilot programs. And I 

guess the question is why? Why 11 months later have we not gotten any further than a few pilot programs? 
17

Mr. JUARBE. Well, I think some of the information that Mr. 

Molino provided before considering the op tempo in the Department 

of Defense and other considerations. But at the time that I testified 

in July, we were in the last quarter of our fiscal year. Our resources had been pretty much committed at that time. We had 

identified additional resources to provide the TAP manuals. We 

were operating under a continuing resolution from October 1 until 

March. 

Notwithstanding that, we were able to identify some very specific 

methodologies that we would develop and the best ways to do it as 

soon as the Department of Defense would be available to provide 

us the sites and negotiate the logistical and status of forces requirements that existed. And as Mr. Molino indicated before, there 

have been considerable impediments to that, but now we are both 

optimistic that we can move ahead. 

It hasn’t been a lack of will or a lack of interest. It’s been a firm 

commitment by this administration, by the Department of Defense 

and the Department of Labor to carry out this mission. 

We have in the meantime continued to provide TAP services 

through the Department of Defense and through their contractors 

also. 

Mr. BRADLEY. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I might suggest that prior 

to the subcommittee making any recommendation on this legislation to receive written assurances for the record as to exactly how 

they’re going to proceed and get this problem resolved. And quite 

frankly, if we’re not satisfied, then I think we should not accede to 

Congressman Simpson’s request, not drop the legislation and proceed with it, but allow them one, you know, very small window of 

opportunity with written assurances, with a plan, as to how to proceed. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Bradley. I think that’s the general 

consensus too. And I believe that message has been communicated 

pretty clear, Mr. Juarbe and Mr. Molino, and I hope that you all 

would be able to come back with a response that’s positive and assurance that it’s going to be implemented, so we can continue to 

proceed. But if no further questions——

Mr. JUARBE. If I may, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. JUARBE. I have the terrible sense of misgiving that there’s 

an impression that services are not being provided to the personnel 

overseas. And under the existing statute, when it says ‘‘Shall,’’ we 

see that as a mandate to provide those services, the services are 

being provided. They’re being provided by personnel who record the 

same level of training that is provided to the TAP facilitators stateside. 

Having said that, there is no lack of commitment. There are a 

number of circumstances that we have tried to describe, situations 

that mitigate the reasons why we have not been able to accomplish 

it. We’re, however, very optimistic that we can proceed and get it 

done. And hopefully, should we be able to negotiate the status of 

forces agreement clearances, then logistical requirements are met, 

that we will be able to meet the timing that this committee has 

and that Congressman Simpson desires. 
18

Mr. BROWN. Could you furnish me some kind of evidence of that, 

Mr. Juarbe, so we can have some assurance that these plans are 

going to move forward without having to move forward with the 

legislation? 

Mr. JUARBE. Okay. In fact, we will—we can provide you specifically the plan that we have, which is the plan that I cited before. 

And as we make progress in these meetings with the Department 

of Defense, we will keep you informed, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BROWN. Okay, very good. Thank you. Thank you very much, 

Mr. Juarbe. 

Mr. JUARBE. Thank you. 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Burke, we appreciate you coming in. And thank 

you, Mr. Molino. Now we’ll hear from the third panel. 

Good morning. Our final panel this morning is representing the 

Department of Veterans Affairs, Mr. Robert Epley. He is the Under 

Secretary for Policy and Program Management at the Veterans 

Benefits Administration. Mr. Epley is accompanied by Mr. John 

Thompson, Deputy General Counsel at the Department of Veterans 

Affairs, and Mr. Dick Wannamacker, with the National Cemetery 

Administration. 

Gentlemen, welcome, and we’ll hear from Mr. Epley. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT EPLEY, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY UNDER 

SECRETARY FOR POLICY AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, 

VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY 

JOHN H. THOMPSON, DEPUTY GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; AND DICK WANNAMACKER, 

SENIOR ADVISOR, NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION 

Mr. EPLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Michaud, members of 

the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today on 

several legislative items that are before us and are of interest to 

veterans. 

As you said, accompanying me are John Thompson and Dick 

Wannamacker from our General Counsel and the National Cemetery Administration. 

We’re pleased to be able to offer support for most of the proposals 

before the committee today. I will briefly summarize VA’s positions 

on those proposals. 

H.R. 886 would expand benefit eligibility for certain surviving 

spouses and children of former prisoners of war. Under current 

law, VA pays dependency and indemnity compensation benefits for 

the surviving spouse of a former POW who died after September 

30, 1999, and who is totally disabled due to a service-connected 

cause for a continuous period of at least one year immediately preceding death when that death is from a non-service-connected 

cause. 

This amendment would eliminate the date limitation governing 

that benefit eligibility, thereby authorizing payments regardless of 

the date of the veteran’s death. 

We feel that this proposal has merit, but it does result in additional mandatory benefits costs. And since it was not in the fiscal 

year 2004 President’s budget, we cannot support it without an offset. We would gladly work with committee staff to identify any offsets, however. 
19

H.R. 1167 would allow a veteran’s surviving spouse who married 

a non-veteran to be eligible for burial in a VA national cemetery 

based on his or her marriage to the veteran. This proposal is similar to a VA proposal sent to Congress on April 25th of this year, 

and it would allow the deceased veteran to be buried with a spouse 

with whom he or she always expected to be buried. It would also 

allow the veteran’s children to visit a single grave site to pay their 

respects to their parents. 

H.R. 1500 would permit a veteran purchasing a home using a VA 

guaranteed loan to select the appraiser. VA opposes enactment of 

this bill. Under current law, VA is required to select the appraiser 

on a rotating basis from a list of qualified appraisers. The current 

rotational appraisal system provides an important internal control 

check, and helps us regulate and manage the appraisal workload. 

The independence of the VA appraisal process is a fundamental 

principle that assures participants that their home, held as collateral, reflects the market value. Our current system is designed to 

protect both veterans and the government from potential distortions and adverse consequences. We believe the process works effectively, and that H.R. 1500 may inhibit the ability of the Department to maintain an independent appraisal process. 

H.R. 1516 would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish within 4 years a national cemetery to serve veterans and 

their families in southeastern Pennsylvania. It would also direct 

the Secretary to take several specific steps in the site selection 

process. 

The VA is aware that not all of America’s veterans and their 

families have easy access to a national cemetery. We have determined that a veteran population of 170,000 within a 75-mile radius 

would be an appropriate threshold for an establishment of a new 

national cemetery. 

Further, our analysis supports the conclusion that there are a 

significant number of veterans living in southeast Pennsylvania 

without adequate access to a burial option within 75 miles. Consequently, VA supports the concept of H.R. 1516, and will prioritize 

the construction of a Philadelphia-area cemetery within the 2005 

budgetary resources. 

Section 1 of H.R. 2163 would amend Section 1503(a) of Title 38 

so that lump sum proceeds of life insurance policies on a veteran 

do not count as income for purposes of determining eligibility for 

VA death pension benefits. 

Section 2 of the bill would further amend Title XVIII to make an 

award of death pension effective the first day of the month in 

which the death occurred if the claim is received within one year 

from the date of death. These provisions were proposed by VA, and 

draft legislation submitted to Congress on April 25th of this year. 

The current provisions for determining effective dates of death 

pension awards were enacted as a cost-saving measure. Unfortunately, we believe that what we call the 45-day rule created a situation of unfair and equal treatment for applicants for death pension. We feel that H.R. 2163 would correct this inequity. 

H.R. 2164 would provide that survivors and dependents who 

qualify for Chapter 35 education benefits and are involuntarily ordered to full-time National Guard duty under 32 United States 
20

Code, Section 502(f), after September 11, 2001, would have their 

delimiting dates extended by amount of time equal to the period of 

their active duty plus 4 months. 

Public Law 107–103 provided a similar restoration for National 

Guard personnel who were called to active duty under Title 10, 

United States Code. This bill would provide the same delimiting 

date extension to National Guard members activated under Title 

32. The proposal is nearly identical to a VA proposal transmitted 

to Congress on April 25, and we strongly support this bill. 

H.R. 2285 would amend Title 38, U.S. Code, to require the Secretary of Labor to provide staffing at military installations overseas 

to carry out TAP counseling within 90 days after the enactment of 

the Act. While VA strongly supports initiatives that would further 

enhance TAP, we respectfully defer to the views of the Department 

of Labor regarding the merits of this bill. 

H.R. 2297 contains several provisions. Section 1 of the bill would 

expand the Montgomery GI Bill program by authorizing 

educational assistance benefits for veterans under that program for 

on-the-job training in certain self-employment training programs. 

This amendment would provide veterans considering self-employment with improved access to capital for training. Thus, more veterans would be encouraged to initiate steps towards self-employment. The proposal is nearly identical to a VA proposal transmitted 

to Congress on April 25, 2003. Accordingly, we strongly support 

enactment. 

We also support the remaining provisions of H.R. 2163. We 

would note that Section 2 on extension of the Veterans’ Advisory 

Committee on Education and Section 3 on repeal of the VA education loan program are similar to VA proposals submitted to 

Congress. 

We do favor extending the authority for the Education Advisory 

Committee until 2013. And we would note that Section 6 extends 

until December 31, 2005, the authority of the Secretary, Veterans’ Affairs, to operate a regional office in the Republic of the Philippines. We support extension of the Secretary’s authority. However, we recommend it be extended through December 31, 2008. 

My written statement includes additional information regarding 

costs on the various proposals. I would ask that my statement be 

included in the record. And with that, Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I are prepared to answer your questions. 

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Epley. And we stated that your text 

will be recorded as part of the record. 

Mr. EPLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Epley appears on p. 88.] 

Mr. BROWN. On House Bill 1500, the Veterans’ Appraiser Choice 

Act, could you tell us how an appraiser gets on the VA-approved 

appraiser list, and what steps VA takes to ensure that its pre-approved appraisers will provide timely and accurate service to veterans seeking to purchase a home? 

Mr. EPLEY. Yes, sir. Appraisers who wish to get on to the VA 

panel make application to that panel. We have a standard resumelike format for their application. We require that they be licensed 

by their state. We expect 5 years minimal experience for the people 

who have applied to be on the panel, and we also ask them to sub-
21

mit a demonstration appraisal that is reviewed by VA staff for 

thoroughness and to insure the methodology is sound. 

Once they get on the panel, we do oversee their appraisals. In 

their first year, they’re on a probationary status, and VA does a 

field review of at least 10 percent of their appraisals to make sure 

that it meets our standards. After that 1-year probationary period, 

journeymen appraisers continue to be reviewed by our field appraisers at at least 5 percent. And we provide feedback to them, 

and, where necessary, we make changes to the panel. 

Mr. BROWN. Let me ask you one further question. If an appraisal 

comes back, and the owner of a home doesn’t feel that the appraisal is correct, what is the appeal process? What recourse does 

the veteran have or the homeowner have? 

Mr. EPLEY. Well, the veteran, I think it was mentioned earlier 

in testimony that the veteran may ask for a second appraisal to be 

done. He may direct that himself, and we will consider that second 

appraisal. And VA staff also will look at the appraiser’s work. 

Mr. BROWN. But that appraiser is still one of those certified appraisers on your list, right? He doesn’t have the option to go and 

get an independent appraisal to—for part of the record. 

Mr. EPLEY. I believe he may seek an independent appraisal, Mr. 

Chairman. He does not have to select an appraisal from our approved list. 

Mr. BROWN. Is that a fact? 

Mr. EPLEY. Right. 

Mr. BROWN. Okay. Do you have a record of any of the approved 

appraisers ever being removed from the list for calls or for—— Mr. EPLEY. If I understand you correctly, you’re asking do we 

have—have we taken appraisers off the panel in the past. Yes, sir, 

we have. And on a continuing basis, we provide them feedback. If 

we find that their appraisals are of poor quality, we give them direct feedback. And if we see a pattern of that, we will consider removal from the panel. 

I believe I misstated. Looking at my colleague, Mr. Pedigo, in the 

back, he tells me now that the appraisers that the veterans select 

must be on the panel. I apologize for that. 

Mr. BROWN. So he’s not able to get an independent appraisal if 

he doesn’t agree with the certified appraisers. That’s what you 

said, right? That’s correct. 

Mr. EPLEY. He can get a second appraisal. He must use an appraiser off our panel. 

Mr. BROWN. Okay. And I guess if you got enough complaints 

from the appraiser, that would warrant removing him from the list. 

Mr. EPLEY. Yes. 

Mr. BROWN. Is that part of the justification? 

Mr. EPLEY. And it does happen from time to time. 

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

have a question? 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. If I might digress just a little bit, as you heard me in my open remarks, I’m 

very concerned with the numbers that we’ve been receiving and not 

being backed up. Having been involved in the legislature for 22 

years, if the agency does not like a bill, they try to fix the numbers. 

And I think that’s what VA’s doing. 
22

Credibility is really important to me. And I am questioning, after 

the hearing yesterday and what I’m seeing today, the credibility of 

the VA with their numbers. I’d rather be up front and oppose a bill, 

versus fixing the numbers. Because once you lose your credibility, 

you lose everything. 

And you’re getting to that point with me now. And when you look 

at the numbers, they’re way off, and the CBO is scoring 15 billion 

over 10 years versus—210 million, rather, versus 15. I mean, those 

numbers are way off. And I would encourage the VA to bring forward data and supporting information and methodology to support 

their information. Because the fine line is getting very fine in that 

regard. 

On June 10th of 1999, the VA testified that—and I quote—‘‘Relatively few surviving spouses of POWs will qualify for benefits 

based upon the POW having been 100 percent disabled due to the 

service-connected for 1-year period to the death, since most POW 

die of a service-connected condition, and the surviving spouse 

would automatically qualify for DIC.’’ In fact, fewer surviving 

spouses then predicated in 1992 have actually qualified for this 

benefit. 

My question is what data has VA used to determine the cost of 

H.R. 886, which is 14 times more than the Congressional Budget 

Office. That’s my first question. 

My second question is according to VA, 157 surviving spouses of 

POWs would not have qualified for DIC without the provisions allowing DIC to be paid if the POW was service-connected with a 

rate of 100 percent for at least one year prior to death. 

I guess this here is more of a request. I’m requesting that 157 

files be called into Central Office and made available for committee 

staff to review during the time frame of August 11 of 2003 to August 29 of 2003. 

Mr. EPLEY. Mr. Michaud, regarding your last question, the 157 

surviving spouses, I just received a note from our compensation 

and pension service, if we can identify those claims, we certainly 

can make them available for staff to review. And we’ll make every 

effort to do that. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Okay. 

Mr. EPLEY. The earlier part of your question, I do understand 

your concern about our costing methodology. It’s very clear that 

you’re concerned. It’s very clear that there’s a disparity between 

our estimate and the CBO estimate. We did look at the surviving 

population of POWs. We have made estimates on the percentage of 

POWs who have spouses. We have consciously estimated that 

POWs have a higher rate of spouses than the general veteran population based on our outreach over the last 5 years with the POW 

community. We estimated 75 percent rather than a 62 percent normal spousal rate. 

We also estimated a very high claim rate of 95 percent of the 

available spouses, potentially eligible spouses will apply for this 

benefit. That’s significantly higher than the estimate, I believe, 

that staff used. That’s based on our experience in the outreach with 

POWs. And their very strong familiarity with the 1999 Rowland 

Bill, we think we’ll see a high claim rate. 
23

I would add beyond that, we’d be happy to have our staff work 

with staff on discussing methodologies and making sure that we refine them so that we’re in closer sync. 

Mr. MICHAUD. People who apply now are eligible; is that correct? 

Mr. EPLEY. Some people who apply now are eligible. Some people 

fail to meet the eligibility requirements. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Of the POWs who have died since World War I, 

only 2 percent have surviving spouses who receive DIC. Indeed, 

most POWs died without receiving any service-connected compensation. What is the current number of former POWs who are 

currently married and service-connected at 100 percent? Do you 

have that number? 

Mr. EPLEY. The estimate that we used in the cost estimate was 

that there are about 3,750 surviving spouses who may have potential eligibility under the legislation. We expect about 2600 to be 

alive on 10/1/04, which I think is our estimate of the effective date. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Mr. Chair, I’ll probably have further questions I’d 

like to submit in writing at a later date. 

Mr. BROWN. No problem. Thank you, Mr. Epley and Mr. 

Wannamacker and Mr. Thompson, for coming and being a part of 

this hearing today. 

Are there any further questions? 

[No. response.] 

Mr. BROWN. No further questions. The meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(25)

A P P E N D I X 
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88

Statement of Robert J. Epley 

June 11, 2003

***** 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today on several legislative items of interest to veterans. Accompanying 

me today is John H. Thompson, Deputy General Counsel. 

H.R. 886 

H.R. 886 would amend section 1318(b)(3) of title 38, United States Code, to eliminate the September 30, 1999, date limitation on benefit eligibility for surviving 

spouses and children of former prisoners-of-war (POWs) who died of nonservice-connected causes and were totally disabled for a continuous period of one year prior 

to death. Under current law, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) pays dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) benefits under chapter 13 of title 38, 

United States Code, to the surviving spouse, dependent children, and dependent 

parents of service members who died during active duty or who died after service 

as a result of a service-connected condition. In addition, VA provides benefits in the 

same manner to the surviving spouse and children of veterans who died after service from a nonservice-connected cause if the veteran was totally disabled due to a 

service-connected cause: (1) for a continuous period of ten or more years immediately preceding death; (2) for a continuous period of at least five years after the 

veteran’s release from service; or (3) in the case of a former POW who died after 

September 30, 1999, for a continuous period of at least one year immediately preceding death. The amendment to section 1318(b)(3) would eliminate the date limitation governing benefit eligibility for POWs’ survivors, thereby authorizing such payments regardless of the date of the veteran’s death. 

We estimate that enactment of the proposed amendment to 38 U.S.C. § 1318(b)(3) 

would result in additional mandatory benefit costs of $8 million in fiscal year (FY) 

2004 and $210 million for the 10-year period FY 2004 through FY 2013. Additional 

discretionary costs would total $187,000 for five years. This proposal was not in the 

President’s Budget for FY 2004, and so we cannot support it without an offset. 

H.R. 1167 

H.R. 1167 would allow a veteran’s surviving spouse who marries a non-veteran 

after the veteran’s death to be eligible for burial in a VA national cemetery based 

on his or her marriage to the veteran. This proposal is similar to a VA proposal sent 

to Congress on April 25, 2003.Over the last several years, the National Cemetery 

Administration has seen an increase in the number of requests for burial of a veteran’s widow or widower who married a non-veteran after the veteran died. These 

cases usually involve spouses of veterans who were married for many years and 

raised a family with the veteran. Typically, the veteran’s children and grandchildren, and often the current spouse, support the burial of the decedent with the 

original veteran-spouse in a VA national cemetery. However, current law does not 

permit it if the remarriage remained in effect when the veteran’s survivor predeceased the new spouse. 

Public Law 103–446 revised eligibility criteria for burial in a national cemetery 

to reinstate burial eligibility for a surviving spouse of an eligible veteran whose subsequent remarriage to a non-veteran was terminated by death or dissolved by divorce. The current proposal would be consistent with that amendment in further acknowledging the importance of that marriage to the veteran’s family. This proposal 

would allow the deceased veteran to be buried with a spouse with whom he or she 

always expected to be buried. It would also allow the veteran’s children to visit a 

single gravesite to pay their respects to their parents. 

We estimate that the cost associated with this proposal would be minimal. The 

average number of requests for burials for individuals previously married to an eligible veteran who subsequently married a non-veteran is estimated to be 200 per 

year; the majority of these burials would be second interments. The cost of a second 

interment (including a headstone or marker) in a VA national cemetery averages 

approximately $550. For FY 2004, we anticipate the mandatory cost of the proposal 

to be $20,000 for the provision of headstones or markers and the discretionary costs 

to be $90,000 for operational activities. Our ten-year estimate (FY 2004–2013) is 

$200,000 in mandatory costs and $900,000 in discretionary costs.This bill makes the 

eligibility for burial of remarried surviving spouses of veterans retroactive to January 1, 2000. We estimate that the costs associated with the retroactivity of this bill 

would be negligible. While it is difficult to determine how many families of already 

deceased, and presumably interred, remarried surviving spouses of veterans would 
89

want to disinter their loved one and then re-inter them with the veteran in a national cemetery, we do not believe this number would be significant. 

H.R. 1500 

Under current law, VA is required to select the appraiser, on a rotating basis, 

from a list of qualified appraisers VA maintains. The current rotational appraisal 

system provides an important check against potential fraud and collusion between 

sellers, real estate brokers, lenders, and appraisers to artificially inflate value estimates. The VA computer system that makes appraisal assignments in a rotational 

manner and VA’s internal reporting procedures provide significant safeguards that 

could be circumvented if H.R. 1500 were enacted. 

VA doubts that the vast majority of veterans purchasing homes know any practicing appraisers. Consequently, if H.R. 1500 were enacted, the real estate broker 

or loan originator concerned would most likely influence the selection of an appraiser. In such a case, objectivity could be compromised in favor of reaching a valuation that facilitates the transaction rather than obtaining a fair and unbiased estimate of property value. The lack of an independent, objective appraisal in this context would tend to lead to a distorted value estimate, whether intended or not. The 

independence of the VA appraisal process is a fundamental principle that assures 

participants in a mortgage transaction that the value of a home held as collateral 

reflects market value. H.R. 1500 would inhibit the ability of the Department to 

maintain an independent appraisal process. 

In addition, under the present system of rotational assignments, VA managers 

have the ability to regulate and influence the timeliness of appraisals performed. 

If the proposed changes were made, there would be no way for VA management to 

control the number of assignments received by various appraisers. This could negatively impact the timeliness of VA appraisals. 

Finally, we wish to note that under section 3731(e)(2) of title 38, United States 

Code, the veteran has the option of having a second appraisal done by a VA-approved appraiser of the veteran’s choice and submit this additional valuation to VA. 

VA must consider both appraisal reports. Therefore, veterans currently have the 

ability to select another appraiser if they are not satisfied with the valuation performed by the VA-selected appraiser. This provides veterans the ability to have the 

appraiser of their choice value the property while still preserving the integrity if the 

VA valuation process. 

VA estimates that if H.R. 1500 were enacted, VA would need to modify its appraisal data processing system to accommodate the new procedures. 

H.R. 1516 

H.R. 1516 would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish within four 

years a national cemetery to serve veterans and their families in southeastern 

Pennsylvania. It would also direct the Secretary to consult with appropriate Federal, State, and local officials and representatives of veterans service organizations 

before selecting the site for the cemetery and would allow the Governor of Pennsylvania to establish a panel to make a recommendation to the Secretary concerning 

the selection of the site. In addition, it would direct the Secretary to submit a report 

to Congress setting forth a schedule and cost estimate for the establishment of the 

national cemetery. 

VA is aware that not all of America’s veterans and their families have easy and 

convenient access to a national cemetery. In the Veterans Millennium Health Care 

and Benefits Act, Congress directed VA to identify areas of the country with the 

greatest concentration of veterans who do not have reasonable access to a burial option in a national or state veterans cemetery. Substantial documentation exists to 

demonstrate that 80 percent of burials in national cemeteries involve individuals 

who resided within 75 miles of the cemetery. VA has determined that a veteran population of 170,000 within a 75-mile service radius would be an appropriate threshold 

for the establishment of a new national cemetery. 

VA notes that the New Jersey state veterans cemetery is not available to Pennsylvania veterans and that, under current conditions, the Beverly National Cemetery 

in New Jersey will become unavailable for new burials much sooner than we had 

expected. We also determined that Monroe County, Pennsylvania should be included 

in the Philadelphia area service area. These circumstances, coupled with updated 

data on veteran demographics, lead to a conclusion that there are 170,000 or more 

veterans living in southeast Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia, who do not have 

adequate access to a burial option within 75 miles that would provide appropriate 

honor for their service as veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States. 

Consequently, VA supports the concept of H.R. 1516 and will prioritize the construction of a Philadelphia area cemetery within 2005 budgetary resources. 
90

Based on our experience, there are several steps involved in establishing a new 

national cemetery. Depending on the size of the project, the cost of these steps can 

range from $100,000 to $250,000 for environmental compliance; $3 million to $6 million for land acquisition, if required; $1 million to $2 million for master planning 

and design; and $15 million to $25 million for construction. Even with an aggressive 

schedule, it generally takes 41/2 to 5 years to open a cemetery to initial burials. The 

average annual operational costs of a new national cemetery range between $1 million and $2 million, without consideration of headstones and grave liners, which are 

purchased through mandatory funding. 

H.R. 2163 

Section 1 of H.R. 2163 would amend section 1503(a) of title 38, United States 

Code, to add lump-sum proceeds of life insurance policies on a veteran to the list 

of payments that do not count as income for purposes of determining eligibility for 

death pension benefits administered by VA under chapter 15 of title 38, United 

States Code. Section 2 of this bill would amend section 5110(d) of title 38, United 

States Code, to make an award of death pension effective the first day of the month 

in which the death occurred if the claim is received within one year from the date 

of death. These provisions were proposed by VA in draft legislation submitted to 

Congress on April 25, 2003. 

Under 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a), an award based on a death pension claim received 

more than 45 days after the veteran’s death can be effective no earlier than the date 

of the claim. Pursuant to current 38 U.S.C. § 5110(d)(2), however, if VA receives an 

application for death pension within 45 days of the veteran’s death, then the effective date of a death pension award is the first day of the month in which the death 

occurred. Section 5110(d)(2)’s original one-year period was reduced to the current 45 

days by the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, Pub. L. No. 98-369, 98 Stat. 494, 854-

901, as a cost-saving measure. Unfortunately, the ‘‘45-day rule’’ created a situation 

that has led to unfair and unequal treatment of applicants for VA death pension. 

The practical effect of the ‘‘45-day rule’’ in many cases has been to exclude lumpsum life insurance proceeds received within 45 days of the veteran’s death from 

countable income for pension claimants who file their claims more than 45 days 

after the date of the veteran’s death. In contrast, claimants who both receive insurance proceeds and file pension claims within 45 days of the veteran’s death have 

insurance proceeds counted as annual income, often reducing or precluding pension 

benefits during their first year of potential eligibility. In other words, claimants who 

receive insurance proceeds within 45 days of death, but who wait 45 days or longer 

to file pension claims, can receive pension effective from the date of claim without 

regard to recently-received insurance proceeds. In essence, claimants receiving 

lump-sum insurance proceeds under the current law are encouraged to forego entitlement from the date of death in exchange for the exclusion of the insurance payment in determining countable income for the following 12 months. 

While many veterans’ advocates are aware of this situation and advise claimants 

who receive life insurance proceeds within 45 days of death to postpone filing their 

claims, the current law unfairly penalizes claimants who are not well versed in such 

technical details. Fairness dictates that VA rules and procedures be straightforward, 

particularly for claimants who are coping with the loss of loved ones. Consequently, 

we believe the ‘‘45-day rule’’ should be eliminated in favor of a rule making death 

pension benefits effective from the first day of the month of the veteran’s death if 

the claim is received within one year of that date. 

We also believe that this change must go hand in hand with an amendment excluding lump-sum life insurance proceeds from the computation of income for death 

pension purposes. Lump-sum life insurance proceeds of genuine consequence are 

more appropriately addressed in terms of net worth, as provided in 38 U.S.C. § 1543, 

than in terms of income. Pursuant to section 1543, a claimant is ineligible to receive 

death pension benefits if his or her net worth is such that it is reasonable that some 

portion of it should be consumed for his or her maintenance. In our view, a surviving spouse whose income, excluding lump-sum life insurance proceeds, and net 

worth do not constitute a bar to pension deserves help from VA. 

We believe these proposed amendments are necessary and appropriate to eliminate unequal treatment of death pension applicants and to uphold one of the fundamental principles of the pension program, which is to ensure that those with the 

greatest need receive the greatest benefit. 

We estimate that the net effect of enactment of both sections of this draft bill 

would cost $649,000 for FY 2004 and $12.8 million for the ten-year period FY 2004 

through FY 2013. 
91

H.R. 2164 

H.R. 2164 would amend 38 U.S.C. § 3512, effective September 1, 2001, to provide 

that individuals who qualify for benefits under chapter 35 (survivors’ and dependents’ educational assistance) and are involuntarily ordered to full-time National 

Guard duty under 32 U.S.C. § 502(f) after September 11, 2001, would have their individual delimiting dates extended by an amount of time equal to that period of active duty plus 4 months. Public Law 107–103 restored entitlement to National 

Guard personnel who qualified for chapter 35 benefits who had to discontinue 

course pursuit as a result of being called to active duty under specific sections of 

title 10, United States Code. This bill would provide the same delimiting date extension to National Guard members who are activated under title 32. The proposal is 

nearly identical to a VA proposal transmitted to Congress on April 25, 2003. Thus, 

VA strongly supports the bill. 

We estimate the cost associated with the enactment of H.R. 2164 would be 

$150,000 for FY 2004 and approximately $5 million in mandatory funding for the 

ten-year period from FY 2004 through FY 2013. 

H.R. 2285 

HR 2285 would amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of 

Labor to provide staffing at military installations overseas to carry out Transition 

Assistance Program (TAP) counseling within 90 days after the date of enactment of 

the Act. While VA strongly supports initiatives that would further enhance TAP, we 

respectfully defer to the views of the Department of Labor regarding the merits of 

this bill. 

H.R. 2297 

H.R. 2297 would amend title 38, United States Code, to expand MGIB benefits 

to certain self-employment training, to extend the Veterans’ Advisory Committee on 

Education until 2009, to repeal the VA education loan program, to provide permanent authority for state cemetery grants, to provide for forfeiture of VA benefits for 

certain subversive activities, and to extend VA’s authority to maintain a regional 

office in the Philippines through 2005. H.R. 2297 incorporates with some changes 

certain provisions of VA draft bills sent to Congress on April 25, 2003, and May 12, 

2003. 

Section 1 of the bill would expand the Montgomery GI Bill (chapter 30) program 

by authorizing educational assistance benefits for veterans under that program for 

on-job training in certain self-employment training programs. Such training might, 

for example, include that necessary for operation of a franchise. The Veterans Entrepreneurship and Small Business Development Act of 1999 (Pub. L. No. 106-50) 

requires that all Federal agencies aggressively support self employment for veterans 

and service-disabled veterans, directly and through public or private partnerships. 

This amendment would provide veterans considering self employment with improved access to capital for training. Thus, more veterans would be encouraged to 

initiate steps toward self employment. The proposal is nearly identical to a VA proposal transmitted to Congress on April 25, 2003. Accordingly, we strongly support 

its enactment. 

We estimate the costs associated with the enactment of this section would be 

$357,000 for FY 2004 and approximately $3.9 million in mandatory funding for the 

10-year period from FY 2004 through FY 2013. 

Section 2 of the bill would extend to the year 2009 the Veterans’ Advisory Committee on Education and amend pertinent law requiring the inclusion of veterans 

from World War II, the Korean Conflict era and the post-Korean conflict era as 

members of the Committee. The Committee is useful in keeping the Secretary in 

touch with the education community as well as the veterans’ service organizations. 

During the last several years, the Committee has made a number of recommendations that have, in turn, become legislative proposals. The Committee’s discussions 

and recommendations are an invaluable aid to our efforts in administering VA’s 

education programs. The proposal is nearly identical to a VA proposal transmitted 

to Congress on April 25, 2003; however, we favor extending the authority for the 

Committee until 2013. 

We estimate the costs associated with the extension of the Committee would be 

$25,400 for FY 2004 and $200,000 in discretionary funding for the 10-year period 

from FY 2004 through FY 2013. 

Section 3 of the bill would repeal the VA education loan program and waive any 

existing repayment obligations, to include overpayments due to default on such 

loans. The program, in effect since January 1, 1975, currently is available to issue 

loans up to a maximum of $2,500 per academic year to spouses and surviving 

spouses of veterans who are past their delimiting dates with remaining entitlement 
92

to chapter 35 benefits. The population for this program is very limited, and, with 

other options in the public and private sectors, there is no longer a demand for these 

loans. In fact, VA has not issued a loan under this program in several years, but 

the Government has paid an estimated $70,000 a year to administer it. VA’s October 2002 monthly loans statistics show 20 current education loans in the amount 

of $14,987.08 and 116 defaulted education loans totaling $105,908.10. As is apparent, it costs VA more to administer the loan program than to forgive the debts currently outstanding. VA recommended the repeal of this program in a letter to Congress on April 25th of this year. 

We estimate the cost associated with the repeal of the education loan program to 

be approximately $121,000 in FY 2004 in mandatory funding. 

Section 4 of the bill would amend 38 U.S.C. § 2408(a)(2) to permanently authorize 

appropriations for VA to make grants to states to assist them in establishing, expanding, or improving state veterans’ cemeteries. Section 2408(a)(2) currently authorizes appropriations for making these grants through fiscal year 2004. 

VA’s State Cemetery Grants Program is an important component in meeting the 

burial needs of our Nation’s veterans. State veterans’ cemeteries supplement VA’s 

national cemetery system in providing burial options to veterans throughout the Nation. VA’s State Cemetery Grants Program has already helped to fund 51 operational state veterans’ cemeteries, and six more are under construction. VA has received over 30 additional pre-applications from states requesting grants. There is a 

tremendous, on-going demand for grants to improve or expand existing state veterans’ cemeteries, and permanently authorizing appropriations would assist longterm planning for this important program. 

Appropriations for VA’s State Home Grants Program (authorized by subchapter 

III of chapter 81, title 38, United States Code) are permanently authorized under 

38 U.S.C. § 8133(a). The amendment made by section 4 of H.R. 2297 would improve 

the consistency in the operation of the two programs. We support this proposal. 

The costs associated with this proposal would be those included in VA’s annual 

budget request for use in providing grants to states. The President’s budget submission to Congress for FY 2004 includes a request for $32 million for the State Cemetery Grants Program. 

Section 5 of the bill would amend section 6105 of title 38, United States Code, 

to supplement the list of offenses conviction of which would result in a bar to all 

gratuitous VA benefits. Section 6105 provides that an individual convicted after September 1, 1959, of any of several specified offenses involving subversive activities 

shall have no right to gratuitous benefits, including national cemetery burial, under 

laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and that no other person 

shall be entitled to such benefits on account of such individual. Congress’ primary 

concern in enacting this provision was to prevent VA benefits from being provided 

based on military service of persons found guilty of offenses involving national security. This proposal would amend section 6105 to supplement the list of offenses conviction of which would result in a bar to all gratuitous VA benefits to include additional offenses that have come into being since enactment of section 6105. 

This proposal would extend the current prohibition on payments of gratuitous 

benefits to persons convicted of subversive activities to include six additional classes 

of activities. The following offenses from title 18, United States Code, would be 

added: sections 175 (Prohibitions with respect to biological weapons); 229 (Prohibited activities with respect to chemical weapons); 831 (Prohibited transactions involving nuclear materials); 1091 (Genocide); 2332a (Use of certain weapons of mass 

destruction); and 2332b (Acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries). All of 

these offenses, which involve serious threats to national security, were added to title 

18, United States Code, after the enactment of section 6105. We support this proposal. 

There is no cost associated with this proposal. Cost savings would be insignificant. 

Section 6 of the bill would extend until December 31, 2005, the authority of the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs under 38 U.S.C. § 315(b) to operate a regional office 

in the Republic of the Philippines. Under current law, that authority will expire on 

December 31, 2003. Congress has periodically extended this authority, most recently 

in Public Law 106-117. 

Were VA to close the Manila regional office, veterans’ assistance activities would 

still be needed in the Philippines. A Federal Benefits Unit would have to be attached to the Department of State. Under such an arrangement, VA’s control of 

costs and quality of service would be limited. Because a Federal Benefits Unit would 

assume responsibility only for disseminating information and assistance, but not 

processing benefits, there could be no assurance that the extensive fraud-prevention 

activities currently performed by the Manila regional office would continue. 
93

We support extension of the Secretary’s authority to operate a regional office in 

the Philippines. However, we recommend that this authority be extended through 

December 31, 2008. 

An extension of the Secretary’s authority to operate a regional office in the Philippines is included in the President’s FY 2004 Budget. 

We note that, while legislation under consideration at this hearing reflects several 

proposals recommended by VA in draft legislation submitted to Congress on April 

25, 2003, and May 12, 2003, a number of other provisions of our draft bills of importance to VA and veterans were not included. In particular, our Allen-case legislation, forwarded to the Congress in April, if enacted, would put an end to a state 

of the law we consider unconscionable and an affront to most veterans. The same 

program that so fittingly compensates veterans for their service-related disabilities 

should not be a source of payments to veterans because they are substance abusers. 

Congress established the appropriate policy when it provided in 1990 that ‘‘no compensation shall be paid if [a] disability is a result of [a] veteran’s own . . . abuse 

of alcohol or drugs.’’ VA is a recognized leader in the treatment of substance disorders, and that is an altogether appropriate role for the Government to assume. 

But paying veterans for the disabling effects of their own alcohol or drug abuse obviously can be a disincentive to their treatment and recovery. As currently interpreted 

by the courts, the law in this regard reflects a public policy inconsistent with VA’s 

mission. We urge your prompt enactment of our legislation. 

In addition, we urge the Committee to review our draft legislative proposals dealing with alternative beneficiaries for Government life insurance, time limitations for 

submission of claim information, expansion of the burial plot allowance, provision 

of Government markers for privately marked graves, and expansion of benefits for 

Filipino veterans residing in the United States and incorporate these worthy initiatives into pending legislation. 
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126

WRITTEN COMMITTEE QUESTIONS AND THEIR RESPONSES 

CONGRESSWOMAN BROWN TO HON. J.W. NICHOLSON, UNDER SECRETARY FOR MEMORIAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS
127

Æ