Legislative hearing on H.R. 23, H.R. 601, 

H.R. 2188, H.R. 2963, H.R. 4843, H.R. 5037, 

and H.R. 5038

Hearing

before the

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

House of Representatives

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance 

and Memorial Affairs

one hundred ninth congress

Second session

April 6, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Serial No. 109-44

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

u.s. government printing office

washington : 2006

27-515.PDF
Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Steve Buyer, Indiana, Chairman

Michael Bilirakis, Florida Lane Evans, Illinois, Ranking

Terry Everett, Alabama Bob Filner, California

Cliff Stearns, Florida Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois

dan burton, Indiana Corrine Brown, Florida

Jerry Moran, Kansas Vic Snyder, Arkansas

richard H. baker, Louisiana Michael H. Michaud, Maine

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina Stephanie Herseth, South 

Jeff Miller, Florida Dakota

John Boozman, Arkansas Ted Strickland, Ohio

Jeb Bradley, New Hampshire Darlene Hooley, Oregon

Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida Silvestre Reyes, Texas

Michael R. Turner, Ohio ShellEy Berkley, Nevada

John Campbell, California Tom Udall, New Mexico

 John T. Salazar, Colorado

James M. Lariviere, Staff Director

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance

and Memorial Affairs

Jeff Miller, Florida, Chairman Shelley Berkley, Nevada, 

Jerry Moran, Kansas Ranking

Jeb Bradley, New Hampshire, Vice Chairman Tom Udall, New Mexico

Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida Lane Evans, Illinois

 

PAIGE MCMANUS, Subcommittee Staff Director

(II)
CONTENTS

April 6, 2006

 Page

Legislative hearing on H.R. 23, H.R. 601, H.R. 2188, H.R. 2963,

 H.R. 4843, H.R. 5037, and H.R. 5038 .................................... 

OPENING STATEMENTS

Chairman Miller .......................................................................... 

Prepared statement of Chairman Miller .................................... 

Hon. Shelley Berkley, Ranking Democratic Member ..............

Prepared statement of Ms. Berkley .......................................... 

Witnesses

Hon. Mike Roger, 8th District of Michigan ..............................

Prepared statement of Mr. Rogers ............................................

Hon. Steve Chabot, 1st District of Ohio ....................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Chabot ...........................................

Hon. Silvestre Reyes, 16th District of Texas ............................

Prepared statement of Mr. Reyes ..............................................

Hon. Bob Filner, 51st District of California .............................

Prepared statement of Mr. Filner .............................................

Hon. Tammy Baldwin, 2nd District of Wisconsin ....................

Prepared statement of Ms. Baldwin .........................................

Hon. James R. Langevin, 2nd District of Rhode Island ...........

Prepared statement of Mr. Langevin ........................................

Hon. Tom Udall, 3rd District of New Mexico ...........................

Prepared statement of Mr. Udall ..............................................

Tuerk, William F., Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs,

 Department of Veterans Affairs ............................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Tuerk .............................................

Metzler, John Charles, Jr., Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery .......................................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Metzler ..........................................

Allison, Ian T., Co-Chairman, Just Compensation Committee

of the U.S. Merchant Marine Combat Veteran ....................

Prepared statement of Mr. Allison ............................................

Greineder, David G., Deputy National Legislative Director,

 AMVETS .................................................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Greineder ......................................

(III)

1

 1

41

37

43

4

44

6

46

8

52

13

54

16

65

18

68

20

69

22

77

24

96

31

99

33

104
 Page

Zampieri, Thomas, Ph.D., Director, Government Relations, 

Blinded Veterans Association ................................................

Prepared statement of Dr. Zampieri .........................................

Kinderman, Quentin, Deputy Director, National Legislative

 Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ......

Prepared statement of Mr. Kinderman .....................................

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD

Forte, David F., Professor of Law, Cleveland-Marshall College

of Law, Cleveland State University ......................................

Graglia, Lino A., A. Dalton Cross Professor of Law .................

Lawrence, Brian, Assistant National Legislative Director, 

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

Gaytan, Peter, Director, Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation

Commission, The American Legion .......................................

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

Hodge, Sharon, Associate Director of Government Relations,

Vietnam Veterans of America ................................................

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD

Chairman Miller to Hon. William F. Tuerk ..............................

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR THE RECORD

Letter submitted by Hon. Bob Filner on behalf of the the International Organization of Masters, Mates, and Pilots, the

  Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association, the American

  Maritime Officers, and the Seafarers International Union of

 North America ........................................................................

Letters to Mr. Udall expressing support for H.R. 2983 from the

108th Congress, and H.R. 601 ............................................... 

34

112

36

 118

 121

130

131

135

136

149

154

63

72

(IV)
Legislative hearing on H.R. 23, H.R. 601, H.R. 2188, H.R. 

2963, H.R. 4843, H.R. 5037, and H.R. 5038

Thursday, April 6, 2006

(1)

U.S. House of Representatives,

Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and

Memorial Affairs,

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs,

Washington, D.C.

 The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 1:00 p.m., in 334 Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Miller [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

 Present: Representatives Buyer, Miller, Berkley, Moran, Udall, 

Bradley, and Brown-Waite of Florida.

Mr. Miller. If I could get everybody to take their seats, please. 

Thank you very much. This hearing will come to order. I want to 

welcome all of you to our first legislative hearing of this year. We do

have a full plate on the agenda and so I am going to highlight each 

bill briefly for you before recognizing Ms. Berkley, if she is able to

arrive in time because unfortunately she is over at an International 

Relations Committee hearing as well.

 H.R. 23, the Belated Thank You to the Merchant Mariners of World 

War II Act of 2005, would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 

pay a monthly, tax-free benefit of $1,000 to certain honorably discharged veterans of the U.S. Merchant Marine or to their survivors.

 H.R. 601, the Native American Veterans Cemetery Act, would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make grants to tribal 

organizations to assist them in establishing, expanding, or improving 

veterans’ cemeteries on trust lands.

 H.R. 2188 would authorize the placement of memorial markers in a 

Department of Veterans Affairs national cemetery for the purpose of 

commemorating servicemembers or other persons whose remains are 

interred in an American Battle Monuments Commission cemetery.

 H.R. 2963, the Dr. James Allen Disabled Veterans Equity Act, 

would allow certain veterans who receive disability compensation of 

at least ten percent for impairment of vision in one eye to be eligible 
2

to receive such compensation for impairment of vision in the other 

eye that is deemed not related to their military service.

 H.R. 4843, the Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment 

Act of 2006, would increase effective December 1, 2006, the rates of 

disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation.

 H.R. 5037, the Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act, would prohibit demonstrations within 500 feet of a national cemetery and Arlington National Cemetery during a funeral service. Violation of the 

prohibition would be punishable by up to a year imprisonment under 

title 18 of the United States Code.

  And finally, last on the agenda would be H.R. 5038, the Veterans

Memorial Markers Act of 2006. This bill provides government markers for veterans who died between November 1, 1990 and September 

10, 2001, and who are interred in a private cemetery. It would extend 

through December 31, 2007 the current authorization for government 

markers for veterans interred in a marked grave at a private cemetery. It would also authorize the placement in a national cemetery 

of a memorial marker for dependent children who would otherwise be 

eligible for burial but whose remains are unavailable.

 Ms. Berkley is not with us at this time. Mr Udall, do you have a 

statement for the record?

 Mr. Udall. No. Ms. Berkley is trying to make it. And we would 

just put her statement in the record, Chairman Miller.

 Mr. Miller. Very good. I would like to recognize Congressman 

Moran for an opening statement.

 Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciate the 

opportunity to be here on all these issues. I particularly wanted to 

point out the legislation introduced by the gentleman from Michigan, 

Mr. Rogers and Chairman Buyer, the respect for America’s Fallen 

Heroes Act. This is an issue that we have encountered in Kansas 

many times. And I am interested in hearing the testimony and the 

story of your legislation.

 And I would also like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that as a response to the protests that are occurring at funerals across the country, a group of military retirees and veterans have created beginning 

in Mulvane, Kansas the Patriot Guard. And these are motorcyclists, 

motorcycle riders who have traveled the country at the request of 

families of fallen soldiers to provide a shield or a buffer between the 

protesters and the family and those who are attending the services.

 And I have introduced a resolution commending the Patriot Guard 

and would welcome Mr. Rogers’ and others support of that resolution. 

We hope to have that legislation on the House floor in the near future,

again, just recognizing a group of Americans who have responded 

to what in many circumstances have become a very difficult circumstance. I have been to funerals in Kansas in which the protests have 
3

occurred and which the Patriot Guard has been there. And it is a 

wonderful sight to see the hundreds, if not thousands, of motorcycles, 

flags flying, and see their response of revving their motors to drown

out the sound of the protesters really in tribute to soldiers and their 

families.

 So I commend you for your efforts in trying to correct a situation 

we face in our State -- 

 Mr. Buyer. Would you yield?

 Mr. Moran. -- and states across the country. And I happily yield 

to the gentleman from Indiana.

Mr. Buyer. I want to thank you for bringing up the Patriot Guard, 

the riders. I also want to thank Mr. Miller, Mr. Rogers, and Mr. 

Reyes. You know someone could also interpret whether these, under 

the law, whether those riders could also be considered demonstrators. And so we wanted to make sure that the law is drafted in a 

manner whereby these individuals who come to the defense of the 

family could not be subject to penalty under the legislation.

 So I just wanted to point out they have been very thoughtful in the 

drafting of the legislation. I yield back to the gentleman.

 Mr. Moran. Thank you. I appreciate you pointing that out. I was 

aware of that and pleased with that. And, again, the Patriot Guard 

only arrive at the request of the families of these soldiers. And I am 

honored to have with us today two of my constituents, Loren and 

Lynette Stenzel from Ness City, Kansas, who are members of the 

Patriot Guard. And I recognize them and hundreds and really thousands of other Kansans and Americans who have responded to this 

circumstance. And I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Moran. Your continued 

presence and work on this Committee is greatly appreciated. I do 

want to recognize, for those in the audience who may not recognize 

him, the Chairman of the full Committee, who is going to be with us 

this afternoon, Chairman Steve Buyer. I take it from nodding your 

head a minute ago you do not have an opening statement. But I think 

you will be participating in some of the questioning that will take 

place a little later on.

 What we will do is we will give Ms. Berkley an opportunity, when 

she gets here, to have her statement either entered into the record or 

give her a chance to give it.

  Testifying first are the chief sponsors of many of the bills that we

have on the agenda today; they are sitting at the front table. I would 

like to take a minute and recognize everybody that is up there and 

then we will begin testimony. Mr. Rogers has led the bipartisan effort to restrict demonstrations at national cemeteries and introduced 

H.R. 5037 on March 29th. He represents the 8th congressional district in Michigan.

 Mr. Chabot of the First Congressional District in Ohio will be testi-
4

fying on H.R. 5037. He is the Chairman of the Subcommittee on the 

Constitution at the Judiciary Committee. He and his staff have been 

invaluable to Mr. Rogers and the Veterans’ Committee in helping to 

draft this piece of legislation. We thank you.

 We also thank Mr. Silvestre Reyes, a member of this Committee. 

He represents the Sixteenth Congressional District in Texas and is a 

chief sponsor of H.R. 5037.

 Mr. Filner, a member of this Committee for 13 years, represents 

the Fifty-First Congressional District in California, and will be testifying on H.R. 23.

 Ms. Baldwin will be testifying on H.R. 2963, and she represents the 

Second Congressional District in the State of Wisconsin.

 Mr. Langevin, good to see you here. Representing the Second Congressional District in Rhode Island, he will be testifying on his bill, 

H.R. 2188.

  And, finally, Mr. Udall, who is also a member of this Committee

representing the Third Congressional District in New Mexico, and a 

member of the Subcommittee is going to be testifying on H.R. 601.

 Mr. Rogers we will begin with you, please. And Mr. Udall, if you do 

not mind, we will wrap up this panel with your testimony. All of your 

full statements will be printed in the record of the hearing. And we 

will hold our questions until each of you has testified. So, Mr. Rogers,

the floor is yours.

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE ROGERS, A REPRESENTATIVE

 IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

 Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much, Chairman Miller. I appreciate 

this opportunity. And let me thank you and Chairman Buyer and 

your staffs for the endless time and questions and talent and energy 

that you have dedicated to get this bill, and get this bill right. Mr. 

Chabot has helped us certainly from his judiciary perspective. And 

Silvestre Reyes has been a real champion in this effort and been very, 

very helpful. Silvestre, who has been a friend in Congress, and we do 

not always agree, but we came together on this. And thank you for 

your effort.

 I think it has led in this bipartisan way to get here today on something that I think is incredibly important. And that is really the 

dignity of the individuals who are grieving for their loved ones for a 

fallen soldier, Marine, airman, woman or sailor, who has given their 

life in the defense of the United States of America and really what 

that means.

 And this bill, Mr. Chairman, protects the First Amendment. But it 

also protects the family. And really what this is America’s chance to 

put our arms around these families and tell them we love them, we 

appreciate it, we certainly appreciate their sacrifice. And we will al-
5

low you the dignity and peace to lay to rest your loved one and have a 

celebration of their life and their sacrifice for their country.

 I happened to witness that personally in a town called Flushing, 

Michigan. At a very small town, where Sergeant Joshua Youmans 

was going to his final resting place. And to see the vile hatred, the

taunting, the jeering, of these families goes beyond the pale of any 

sense of decency I have ever seen. And when you look at what the 

family is going through to get to that part of their life; and certainly 

the grief and all of the emotions they are going to have to deal with, 

the one thing they should not have to deal with in this country are 

people trying to steal their ability for a peaceful service and ceremony. And they accomplished exactly that when they showed up that 

day.

 And here was in contrast this young-20’s mother of a very young 

baby, who Sergeant Youmans got to hold one time in his arms when 

he died just a few days later, give the eulogy for her husband in a 

room packed with National Guard soldiers, friends and family, 

mourners, supporters, great Americans and patriots. The courage 

that she showed in the pulpit that day talking about her soul mate, 

her loved one, her husband, the pride that she was going to instill in 

their young child and what their father had done and the service he 

had given to his country.

 And to juxtapose that courage, Mr. Chairman, with what was happening outside, the jeers, and the taunting, and the songs that are 

not fit for public consumption, it did not take long to come to the conclusion that we have to do better by these families in America. And 

we can do better by these families in America. And I think this bill 

represents that.

  You know, just since we started this, just in my office alone, and I

know other members here got e-mails in support, we have over 25,000 

e-mails of support just since we started talking about this. That is 

just in my office, Mr. Chairman. That does not count all the other

members. And the comments are very touching and very powerful 

and very strong in support of these families, of these military members who have given their lives, and what we need to do to give them 

their dignity back at these services.

 And, for the record, I brought about, I do not know, there is about 

5,000 here, I think, in paper form. We stopped printing them off and 

said I do not think the Chairman might appreciate 25,000 individual 

sheets. So we have gone ahead and put it on a CD, sir. And without 

objection, I would like to submit that to the Committee on behalf of 

lots of Americans from Brighton, Michigan to Iraq to every state in 

the union celebrating what you are going to do here today.

 Mr. Miller. And without objection, it is submitted to the Committee, but not for the printed record.

 Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Believe me take some 
6

time and read just a few of these and you will be moved to tears before it is over. And I just wanted to read a couple that we had pulled 

out, including one, sir, where I know you escorted the body back of 

this fine patriotic American. And it was his mother, also, wrote in

support of this. And I am just going to read these two if I may, sir, 

for the record.

 And I quote, “Over the last six months my unit has taken over 30 

casualties in some of the most vicious areas south of Baghdad. The 

thought of their families having to face protesters after their memorials insights a rage I have never known before. These ‘protesters’ 

mock all that we have accomplished here. The lives that have been 

forever changed and the lives that have been lost, using our most valued doctrines of faith and freedom as their defense. I can not thank 

you enough for your dedication to this effort. I can only hope that the 

colleagues in Congress will join in this battle.” End quote. Sergeant 

Ashley A. Voss, Baghdad, Iraq.

Just a second one, if I may, Mr. Chairman. And I quote, “Thank 

you for creating and seeking to help grieving families of our American 

Heros. My husband and I support this act 100 percent. Our son, Sergeant Trevor Blumberg, was killed in action in Iraq on September 14, 

2003. We know the pain and horror in losing a heroic son; no less to 

have to face cruel, inhumane people who cannot dignify your time of 

grief. Please continue to place these families in America’s hearts and 

America’s minds. Nothing less is deserved. Ms. Janet M. Blumberg, 

a proud parent of an American hero.”

 Mr. Chairman, I do not know if we can say much more then that of 

those families who have given so much and really are pleading with 

us to please do something to allow them to have their dignity at this -- 

you know, it is probably the most trying moment of their lives. Let us 

show them that we appreciate this sacrifice. That we will stand with

them and we will proudly acknowledge their sacrifice for the defense

of the United States of America.

 I will go ahead and submit a written statement, if I may, Mr. Chairman. And I would yield back the balance of my time.

 Mr. Miller. Your statement will be entered in the record, without 

objection.

  [The statement of Michael Rogers appears on p. 44]

Mr. Miller. Mr. Chabot. 

STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE CHABOT, A REPRESENTATIVE

 IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

 Mr. Chabot. Thank you much, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee. I am very pleased to be an original cosponsor of H.R. 

5037, the Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act, and to have helped 
7

author the bill along with Chairman Buyer and Chairman Miller and 

Representative Rogers and many others that have been involved in 

this. As the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on the Constitution, my testimony today will focus on how the bill is fully consistent 

with the Constitution while fully protecting the respect and dignity 

of funerals held on and near national cemeteries.

 We are all painfully aware of the recent trend of demonstrations 

and protests occurring near military funerals on national cemeteries. 

Such demonstrations are not compatible with the respect due to our 

nation’s fallen heroes, and they should not be permitted under our 

nation’s laws. That is why I am here today.

  The first provision of H.R. 5037 prohibits demonstrations on national cemetery grounds, unless such demonstrations are approved 

by the cemetery director. This provision, in my opinion, is clearly 

constitutional under judicial precedents, most recently Griffin v. Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs. In that case, the Federal Circuit Court 

of Appeals, just a few years ago, upheld as constitutional an existing 

federal regulation providing that “any service, ceremony, or demonstration, except as authorized by the head of the facility or designee, 

is prohibited” on Veterans’ Affairs property. The first precedent -

- excuse me. The first provision of H.R. 5037 simply codifies that

principle in statute.

 The second provision of H.R. 5037 prohibits any demonstration 

within 500 feet of national cemeteries, within 60 minutes before or 

after a memorial service is held there, if the demonstration includes 

“any individual willfully making or assisting in the making of any 

noise or diversion that disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good 

order of the funeral or memorial service or ceremony.” This exact 

language has been upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 

the case of Grayned v. City of Rockford.

 The Supreme Court, upholding this language in the Grayned case, 

specifically cited and relied on Webster’s definition of diversion which

is “the act or an instance of diverting as the mind or attention from 

some activity.” Consequently, under this language, any demonstration that includes anyone whose conduct so much as tends to turn 

the heads of those participating in a funeral ceremony can be prohibited.

 At the same time, this language does not unconstitutionally draw 

distinctions regarding what demonstrations are allowed, and are not 

allowed, based on the content of the speech. The Supreme Court, 

again in the Grayned case, upheld this precise language as constitutional because the language “contains no broad invitation to subjective or discriminatory enforcement.” Also, as the court stated in 

the Griffin case, “Because the judgments necessary to ensure that

cemeteries remain sacred to the honor and memory of those interred 

or memorialized there may defy objective description and may vary 
8

with individual circumstances, the discretion vested in VA administrators is reasonable in light of the characteristic nature and function 

of national cemeteries.”

Judicial precedents also make clear that H.R. 5037 is constitutional because it is a reasonable time, place, and manner restriction. As 

the Supreme Court in the Grayned case stated, “Reasonable time, 

place and manner regulations may be necessary to further significant

governmental interests, and are permitted.”

 The 500 foot, 60 minutes before and after prohibition of any diversionary protest in H.R. 5037 is clearly a reasonable time, place and 

manner regulation that furthers the significant governmental interest of protecting the sanctity of national cemeteries. The significance

of this governmental interest is clear in existing federal law. Congress, by express statutory command, has long provided that national 

cemeteries shall be considered national shrines as a tribute to our 

gallant dead.

  Section 2(b) of the bill defines the term demonstration to include

picketing, speeches, the use of sound amplification equipment, the

display of placards, the distribution of leaflets, and similar conduct,

unless they are an official part of the funeral ceremony. This definition is sufficiently clear in my view and will not be struck down on

the grounds that it is unconstitutionally vague. Indeed, the Supreme 

Court has upheld laws using terms like demonstration, standing 

alone, without any definition whatsoever.

 In conclusion, let me say that all supporters of H.R. 5037 are asking is that the families and friends of our nation’s fallen heroes be 

given a few hours of peace within which to honor their loved ones’ 

ultimate sacrifice. A few hours to pay respect to a selfless life devoted

to protecting others. That is not unconstitutional. That is not even 

an imposition. That is the least we can do for those who have fought 

and given their life to uphold the Constitution.

 I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill, which 

will give the families of those who have died the comfort of knowing 

that they will be able to pray in peace and thank the fallen on and 

near the sacred ground where they will rest forever so that we can 

live free today. I yield back the balance of my time.

 Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chabot. Mr. Reyes.

  [The statement of Steve Chabot appears on p. 46]

STATEMENT OF HON. SILVESTRE REYES, A REPRESENT-

 ATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

 Mr. Reyes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on H.R. 5037, Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act. 

I have a statement for the record that, if you would enter it.

 Mr. Miller. Without objection.
9

Mr. Reyes. And I will try to just summarize some of the major 

points. Before I get into my comments I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you mentioned, I am a proud member of this Committee. 

Have been since I have been in Congress. This is my tenth year. And 

I first heard about this issue and I can remember the day because we

were taking testimony when Chairman Buyer made mention of this 

on the issue of the IT System for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. 

And, frankly, when I was hearing our Chairman talk about this, I

was sitting there incredulous that -- I was saying to myself this cannot be right. I mean this information just does not register either as 

a parent, as a grandparent, or as an American. It cannot be possible 

that there are those among us in this country that would use their 

First Amendment guarantees to prey on grieving families like this.

But, sure enough, as we looked into it, it was everything that our 

Chairman said was facts. In fact, I think the Chairman announced 

that day that he was going to a funeral and be there to help the parents of the soldier.

 Ironically enough, six days ago, Mr. Chairman, we in our community suffered our 22nd casualty. Sergeant Israel DeVora of Clint, 

Texas in my District was killed in Baghdad on April 1st. This is 

what I think is most important in this legislation. And I appreciate 

my colleagues articulating what the legislation says. But, the important point to remember for us is that when people are at their most 

vulnerable, and certainly those who have lost a loved one are, I can 

remember when one of my brothers was killed by a hit and run driver 

many, many years ago, seeing my mom cry. My mom passed away 

two years ago, and up until her death for some 35 years, she cried for 

my brother, Eduardo.

 So losing a son or a daughter is a tremendous blow to a parent. 

Having people exploit that for political purposes or for whatever purposes they may try to justify these actions is, for me, a most despicable, lowest form of preying that there is on the vulnerabilities and 

the misfortune of others.

 I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank my good friend 

and colleague, Mike Rogers, because as he said sometimes we do not 

agree on the politics of everything here. But I can tell you that there 

has not been a single member of Congress that I have approached 

to cosponsor this legislation that has turned me down. I think that 

speaks volumes about the outrage that we all share on this particular 

issue.

 So I am proud to be here this afternoon to lend my support. And I

am proud to be the lead Democrat on this legislation because while 

there may be other pieces of legislation that affect more people that 

we pass here in Congress, this legislation speaks to those that have 

made, in their own way, their own ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our

freedoms. And ironically enough, guarantee that these misguided 
10

individuals can take those freedoms to an extreme that most of us 

find so despicable and distasteful. And so with that, Mr. Chairman,

I appreciate the opportunity to be here and share those comments. 

And I yield back my time.

  [The statement of Silvestre Reyes appears on p. 52]

 Mr. Miller. Thank you for your service, Mr. Reyes. Mr. Chairman 

do you have questions that you would like to pose?

 Mr. Buyer. Were you going to go with the entire panel first?

Mr. Miller. I would like to go between these individuals.

 Mr. Buyer. I would, but I would yield to all the members without 

objection.

 Mr. Miller. I would like to recognize you as the Chairman.

 Mr. Buyer. All right. One question I have, it is unfortunate that 

Mr. Chabot has left. It deals with the issue on proportionality with 

regard to the sentencing. Let me just turn to you, Mr. Rogers, because you are a former FBI agent. You have devoted a lot of your life 

to title 18 and the enforcement of the federal code. So with regard to 

making this a Class A misdemeanor, you have looked at the issue of 

proportionality. If you could testify to that issue, please.

Mr. Rogers. Sure. One of the reasons that we establish sentencing, 

and the difference between class A misdemeanors and felonies, and 

other distinctions in the law when it comes to punishment for conviction, is hopefully for deterrence. And you hope that the sentence at 

some point reaches the level of deterrence for that particular crime. 

Trafficking of liquor across interstate lines is a class A misdemeanor.

And fraudulent farm bonds is a class A misdemeanor. Because it has 

a year in prison, up to a year in prison, which is a significant loss of

freedom. And equally as important is the $100,000 fine that can go

with it. That can be pretty devastating. And sometimes the financial

part of it can be as devastating as the time in jail.

 And in this case when we looked at what this means and what this 

crime ought to hold in relation to other crimes on the book, class A

misdemeanor, a year in jail and a $100,000 fine, we felt fit the needs

and the proportionality to cause a deterrence for people violating the 

law.

 Mr. Buyer. A Class B misdemeanor would be what?

 Mr. Rogers. It could be -- 

Mr. Buyer. Six months, $10,000.

 Mr. Rogers. Six months to $1,000. There are some three --

 Mr. Buyer. $10,000 fine?

 Mr. Rogers. -- month conditions under a class B misdemeanors 

and likely would not, quite frankly, in a federal system would be very 

difficult to find a class B misdemeanor where you would actually do

jail time or get the maximum fine. So this would at least leave the

judge with, obviously when you argue the severity of what this does 
11

to the family, to give that year in jail.

 Mr. Buyer. So these are individuals prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s office into U.S. Magistrate’s court or referred to U.S. District

Court if they choose.

 Mr. Rogers. That is correct.

 Mr. Buyer. On the -- the other question I have is when Chairman 

Chabot testified with regard to time, place, and manner restrictions

to further a significant government interest. I would like to ask the

two lead cosponsors, in your belief, what would be the significant government interest?

 Mr. Rogers. Well, two things. First, I think the most obvious is how 

we treat the fallen soldiers who have defended the United States of 

America. Our government interest is to provide that buffer of peace, 

decency, dignity, and respect. They have the right to bury their loved 

ones in peace and dignity.

 And the interest in this is saying we believe that that bubble ought 

to exist. And we do it in other places in the law. We believe that 

bubble ought to exist for this very -- special is probably the wrong 

word, Mr. Chairman. But this unique event in someone’s life that 

they have to go through this, God forbid, and bury a loved one who is 

a military fallen hero.

  We also protect that significant government interest in the First

Amendment by laying down a framework of place, time, and manner. 

An hour before. If you want to circle the cemetery an hour before at a 

500 foot distance and spew your hate and discontent, you can do that 

under the United States Constitution, and we preserved that right in 

this bill.

But you cannot do it in a manner that does not allow these families 

that peace and that dignity. And I think that is a compelling government interest.

 Mr. Buyer. Mr. Reyes.

 Mr. Reyes. I also think that a compelling government interest in 

this speaks to the fact that there are -- the conduct of these people is 

so reprehensible that there are hundreds of thousands of Americans 

that are outraged, including veterans organizations. And they are 

looking for us to show some leadership and to show an effort to protect those families. Because in the minds and eyes of our veterans 

community, it could be their families sitting there were circumstances different.

 So like my colleague, Mr. Rogers, we have gotten hundreds and 

hundreds of e-mails and letters. I have been contacted in my district 

by not just veterans groups, but by individuals and non-veterans that 

are outraged that this is going on and that the possibility that they 

may have to take some action locally, as I just mentioned our 22nd 

casualty on April 1st. And so they look to us to be able to take some 

action to provide that protection for the families.
12

 Mr. Buyer. Thank you. Chairman Miller and Mr. Reyes and Mr. 

Chabot, I think that you have narrowly tailored your legislation to 

further the significant government interests in setting the standards

of decency with regard to our federal lands. The federal government 

owns those lands. And so you have not been -- you are not overreaching with regard to veterans state cemeteries and I want to applaud 

your actions to encourage states to act and set those standards. I

yield back my time.

 Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate 

your leadership and guidance at the full Committee level. Mr. Udall, 

do you have any questions? Mr. Moran.

 Mr. Moran. No, Mr. Chairman.

 Mr. Miller. Mr. Bradley.

 Mr. Bradley. I would just thank the sponsors of the legislation and 

in particular salute you for your bipartisan approach on this very 

important issue. And I look forward to being a cosponsor of this bill, 

Mr. Rogers, this afternoon, please.

 Mr. Rogers. Sure. I appreciate it. Thank you.

 Mr. Bradley. Thank you. So it is on the record, it will be done.

 Mr. Miller. Ms. Brown-Waite.

 Ms. Brown-Waite of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have 

a veterans cemetery in my area and I think any one of us who have 

attended a service either back at a veterans cemetery or here at Arlington know the absolute need for it to be a moment for the family. 

And a moment for every American to thank those who gave the ultimate sacrifice. I commend you for this bill and I am going to contact

the members of the state legislature and ask them to implement the 

same kind of rules. They are still in session right now and I think 

that it is a logical follow through. And I thank you for your leadership on this. And I have already said I would cosponsor.

 Mr. Rogers. Thank you. If I may respond as well. And one of the 

reasons that we called for the states to do this is because there has 

been so much work by so many on the counsel and the Committee and 

others, the members, Mr. Chabot and Mr. Reyes and Mr. Buyer and 

Mr. Miller, on the constitutionality of this. To encourage the states 

to pass something that looks a lot like this will stand the test. We 

have noticed some states have over reached a little bit. They are going to be taken to court. And our worry is they will be struck down. 

If they follow what we have done here and take advantage of all of 

the effort that has been put into this bill, we will have a 50 state -- 

all 50 states will have legislation that protects these families at the 

funeral homes, national cemeteries, at other cemeteries as well. And 

I encourage you to do that and thank you very much. And I think 

that is an important part of this bill we did not get a chance to talk 

about today.

Mr. Miller. Thank you very much. We will move to the next bill by 
13

Mr. Filner, who is next up. You are recognized. And if I could, also, 

while we are moving to Mr. Filner, make note that a member of our 

Subcommittee is not with us today. Mr. Evans, as everybody knows, 

has made an announcement that he will be leaving Congress after 

the end of his term. I would ask that each of our members keep him 

in our thoughts and in our prayers as he goes through a very difficult

time in his life. His service is to be commended not only to this nation, but to this Congress and this Committee. Mr. Filner.

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB FILNER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for those words 

for Mr. Evans. And thank you for giving us the opportunity to talk 

about our respective bills. Mine is H.R. 23, the “Belated Thank You 

to the Merchant Mariners of World War II Act.” Mr. Chairman, you 

have Democrats and Republicans here at the table. These are all 

bipartisan bills, and I appreciate the spirit in which you allow us to 

participate with you. I certainly, as a member of this Committee, will 

pledge that we will try to continue that spirit of bipartisanship that 

you have exemplified here today.

 The story of the World War II United States Merchant Marines is 

a story of patriotism, of youthful exuberance, of dedication to duty, of 

pride in a job well done, of bravery in the midst of battle, and sadly, 

of a nation who forgot these heroes for over 40 years after the war’s 

end.

 World War II Merchant Mariners suffered the highest casualty rate 

of any of the branches of service while they delivered troops, tanks, 

food, airplanes, fuel and other needed supplies to every theater of the 

war. Troops were trained and supplies, ammunition, and equipment 

were manufactured in the U.S. and used overseas. The Merchant 

Mariners were the necessary link between the two. Without them, 

we would not have been able to win the war. It is as simple as that.

 The Merchant Mariners took part in every invasion, from Normandy to Okinawa, often becoming sitting ducks for enemy submarines, mines, bombers, and kamikaze pilots. Fighting was particularly fierce in the Atlantic, where German submarines and U-boats

prowled the ocean, destroying Merchant Marine ships in an attempt 

to isolate Great Britain.

Compared to the large numbers of men and women serving in World 

War II, the numbers of the Merchant Marines were small, but their 

chance of dying during service was extremely high. Estimates range 

up to 1,500 for the number of ships that enemy forces sank; 9,300 

Mariners lost their lives; 600 were POWs; 11,000 were injured.

  Yet an injustice was inflicted on this group of World War II veterans. All volunteers, once approximately 230,000 strong, the number 
14

of those currently living is estimated to be approximately 10,000.

 This group of brave men was denied their rights under the GI Bill 

of Rights that Congress passed in 1945. All those who served in the 

Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, or Coast Guard were recipients of benefits under the GI Bill. Only the United States Merchant

Marine was not included.

 The Merchant Marines became the forgotten service. For four decades no effort was made to recognize their contribution. The fact 

that these seamen had borne arms during wartime in the defense of 

their country seemed not to matter.

  After years of fighting the system and a court battle, some World

War II Mariners finally received a watered down bill of rights in 1988.

But some portions of that GI Bill have never been made available to 

veterans of the Merchant Marine.

 What did this mean in practical terms? First and probably most 

important, it meant no GI Bill educational benefits. Instead of studying to become a lawyer, a teacher, a doctor, or a number of other 

life-long professions that require a higher education, many Merchant 

Mariners had to rely on their high school education to get them a job. 

Lost opportunities, lost careers, lost wages were the results for the 

Merchant Mariners.

 No low interest home loans were available to Merchant Marines. 

No lifetime compensation for related war injuries and disabilities, 

no use of VA hospitals, no priority for local, state, or federal jobs, no 

social security credit for wartime service.

 I know many of us, Mr. Chairman, have been able to achieve and 

become members of the middle class because of the GI Bill. I had my 

first home when my father got back from World War II, and it was a

dream come true for a family that had lived with relatives for most 

of their lives.

 I would say there is overwhelming support now in the Congress for 

this bill. At last count this morning, a bipartisan list of 248 Members 

of Congress had endorsed it. There is support from coast to coast, 

from the City of Los Angeles, California to the City of New Bedford, 

Massachusetts, who have passed resolutions in support of H.R. 23. 

Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska has introduced the companion bill 

in the Senate. A letter from Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta expressed gratitude for the service that these Mariners gave 

during World War II. And I just received a letter this morning from 

a group of labor unions, the International Organization of Masters, 

Mates, and Pilots, the Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association, the

American Maritime Officers, and the Seafarers International Union

of North America, who have also endorsed this bill. I would like to 

put that letter in the record, Mr. Chairman.

 Mr. Miller. Without objection.

  [The attachment appears on p. 63]
15

 Mr. Filner. While it is impossible for us to make up for over 40 

years of unpaid benefits, I propose that this bill will acknowledge the

service of the Veterans of the Merchant Marines and offer compensation for years and years of lost benefits.

  H.R. 23 will pay eligible veteran a monthly benefit of $1,000 and

that payment would also go to their surviving spouses. Their average 

age is now 82. Many have outlived their savings. A monthly benefit

to compensate for the loss of nearly a lifetime of ineligibility for the 

GI Bill would be of comfort and would provide some measure of security for veterans of the Merchant Marines.

 In the words of General of the Army and former President, Dwight 

D. Eisenhower, “When final victory is ours, there is no organization

that will share its credit more deservedly than the Merchant Marine.” 

Franklin Roosevelt said, “The Mariners have written one of its most 

brilliant chapters of the war. They have delivered the goods when 

and where needed in every theater of operations and across every 

ocean in the biggest, the most difficult, and most dangerous job ever

undertaken.” And Douglas McArthur said about the liberation of the 

Philippines, “With us they have shared the heaviest enemy fire. On

these islands I have ordered them off their ships and into fox holes 

when their ships became untenable targets of attack. At our side 

they have suffered in bloodshed and death. They have contributed 

tremendously to our success. I hold no branch in higher esteem than 

the Merchant Marine service.”

 So, Mr. Chairman, again, I thank you for allowing us to bring this 

bill for hearing today. As everyone on the platform has cosponsored 

the bill, it is time to finally fix the injustices endured by our nation’s

Merchant Marines. Thank you, sir.

  [The statement of Bob Filner appears on p. 54]

 Mr. Miller. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Moran, do you 

have any questions?

 Mr. Moran. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. I just commend 

the gentleman from California, Mr. Filner. He has been an advocate 

for veterans of all services, all branches, for a long time. And this is 

just one or more of his many efforts in regard to making certain that 

no one is left out in the recognition to the service to our country. And 

I too am pleased to be a sponsor of this legislation. I thank Mr. Filner 

for his efforts.

Mr. Miller. Mr. Udall.

Mr. Udall. Thank you.

 Mr. Miller. Mr. Bradley.

 Mr. Bradley. Ditto Mr. Moran’s comments. Thank you, Mr. Filner.

 Mr. Filner. Thank you, sir.

 Mr. Miller. Ms. Brown-Waite.
16

 Ms. Brown-Waite of Florida. Whenever I am meeting with veterans throughout my district inevitably this issue comes up. 

 And we still thankfully do have a lot of veterans left who did serve 

in the Merchant Marine. Certainly it is time to recognize their service and their great contribution. And as you said, every member up 

here is on the bill. And I think it is time we move it. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman.

 Mr. Miller. Thank you very much. I would also like to ask Mr. 

Filner, with your acknowledgment, if we could have any veterans 

who were Merchant Marines and are here today, if you would please 

stand.

 Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Mr. Miller. Thank you for your service.

 Mr. Filner. They are going to be testifying at a later panel.

 Mr. Miller. Very good. Just asking for you all to stand.

 Mr. Miller. They listen to you. We do not. Thank you very much, 

Mr. Filner. Ms. Baldwin, you are next testifying on H.R. 2963. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, A REPRESENTA-

 TIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

 Ms. Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, members 

of the Subcommittee, I really appreciate this opportunity to address 

the Subcommittee on H.R. 2963, the Dr. James Allen Disabled Veterans Equity Act. The bill that I introduced along with my co-author, 

Congressman Boozman, last year. This bill addresses an inequity in 

the paired organ statute that has resulted in the denial of appropriate disability compensation to blinded veterans.

 This Committee and this Congress have rightly recognized that 

certain human organs or limbs are designed to work in pairs; hands, 

legs, kidneys, lungs, ears, and of course, eyes. In the instance of eyes, 

blindness in one eye profoundly affects depth perception, even if sight 

is fully retained in the other eye. The paired organ statute was written to assist those veterans who experience a service connected loss of 

a paired organ or limb. This statute recognizes the interdependency 

of paired organs and endeavors to treat the combined disability created by a non-service connected loss, injury, or degeneration of the 

remaining paired organ or limb as though it were the result of a service connected disability. In general, the paired organ statute accomplishes this task, with the exception of its treatment of loss of sight.

 I want to begin by telling you the story of Dr. James Allen, after 

whom this legislation is named. Dr. Allen is a Professor of Ophthalmology at the University of Wisconsin Medical School in my district. 

And he as worked at the Veterans’ Affairs Hospital for 33 years and 

treated numerous eye patients, including veterans who are blind. 

One such example is Mr. Donald May. Don is a World War II veteran 
17

who lost his right eye in a hand grenade explosion. A few years ago 

Mr. May became legally blind in the non-service connected left eye. 

He applied to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs for help and was 

denied further benefits. He was told that the current law in regard to

paired organs did not apply to him even though he was legally blind 

in his service connected right eye.

 After Dr. Allen brought the plight of his patients to my attention, I

began to research why these veterans were being denied the benefits

that I felt they deserved, benefits that I believe Congress intended to

grant them. Through my work with the Blinded Veterans Association, we discovered that while the current paired organ statute covers 

blindness, in practice few, if any, veterans have been able to qualify 

for compensation under its provisions.

 In theory the statute provides that when a veteran who is service 

connected for blindness in one eye could qualify for additional disability compensation if they became blind in the remaining eye for 

non-service connected reasons. However, the statute does not define

the term blindness, nor is any provision made for impairment of vision in the non-connected eye short of blindness.

  Rather than using the visual acuity of 20 over 200, as the definition

of legal blindness that has been adopted by the way in all 50 states 

and by the Social Security Administration and the World Health Organization, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs uses an obscure and 

much more restrictive 5 over 200 acuity for blindness, which is in 

rough layman’s terms, the equivalent of having an eye with light perception only, no ability to perceive shapes, et cetera. As a result, few, 

if any, blinded veterans are able to qualify for additional compensation under the paired organ statute.

Consequently, I began to explore various options to address this 

inequity in current law. H.R. 2963 allows veterans who receive veterans disability compensation for impairment of vision in one eye at 

the rate of at least ten percent to be eligible to receive additional disability compensation for impairment of vision in the eye that is not 

service connected.

 This change in law would affect only a small percentage, estimated 

to be roughly five percent of the some 13,100 veterans who are service

connected for loss of vision in one eye. Yet such a change would send 

a powerful signal to our nation’s blinded veterans that the hardships 

they face are not forgotten.

 Once again I would like to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member and Subcommittee for the opportunity to appear on behalf of the 

Dr. James Allen Disabled Veterans Equity Act. It is certainly a modest but important step in restoring fair treatment to those blinded 

due to their service to our country and to further our commitment to 

them. Their sacrifices and service to this nation should be matched

by our desire to improve quality of life for them and for their families. 
18

And I look forward to working with you to advance this legislation. 

Thank you, again, Mr. Chairman.

  [The statement of Tammy Baldwin appears on p. 65]

 Mr. Miller. Thank you very much. Questions from the Subcommittee. Mr. Udall.

 Mr. Udall. No question.

 Mr. Miller. Mr. Moran.

 Mr. Moran. Nothing other than to indicate to Ms. Baldwin my appreciation for her bringing this interest -- this issue to my attention. 

I had not thought about this particular topic and appreciate being 

made aware. And I thank you for coming before our Subcommittee.

 Mr. Miller. Mr. Bradley.

 Mr. Bradley. I am just echoing the words of Mr. Moran. Thank you 

for your advocacy and I am pleased to be a cosponsor.

 Mr. Miller. Ms. Baldwin, I understand that the Subcommittee 

staff is currently working with you looking at the numbers as it relates to the expense of the bill. And I would expect that we would 

have an opportunity to re-enter dialogue after we hear back for CBO. 

So, thank you for bringing this bill forward this afternoon.

 Ms. Baldwin. Thank you.

 Mr. Miller. Mr. Langevin, with H.R. 2188.

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES R. LANGEVIN, A REPRESENT-

 ATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

 Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee. And before I begin, I would just like to take a moment 

to add my voice of support to, in particular Mr. Filner’s bill. Both 

my grandfather, John Barrett, and his brother, my great-uncle after 

whom I was named, Jim Barrett, served in the Merchant Marines 

during World War II. They have both since long passed away, as 

well as their spouses. So my family, of course, there is no surviving 

member that would benefit financially from this in an effort for full

disclosure. But it is the right thing to do to honor our Merchant Marines and the sacrifice that they gave during World War II.

But, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Berkley, who is also a 

sponsor of 2188, and distinguished Members of this Subcommittee, I

want to thank you for having this important hearing today on all of 

these bills, and especially for the opportunity to discuss H.R. 2188, a 

bill that would authorize memorial markers in a national cemetery 

to commemorate service members buried in American Battle Monuments Commission cemetery.

 As Members of Congress we all have the great opportunity to hear 

stories of duty and honor from our constituents. I had such a chance 

right after Memorial Day in 2004, when I received a letter from Hen-
19

ry Stad, a resident of Rhode Island and a U.S. Airforce veteran of 

World War II. Mr. Stad asked that I sponsor a bill that would allow 

family members of servicemembers that were killed in action and 

buried overseas to be able to request a burial plaque to be set in a 

family burial plot in the United States. I was happy to look into this 

request from a man who gave so much for our country.

 Mr. Chairman, as you know, the United States currently has 24 

permanent overseas burial grounds that are the final resting place

for nearly 125,000 of the brave men and women who died serving our 

country. These sites are the responsibility of the American Battle 

Monuments Commission and are a wonderful tribute to those who 

sacrificed for our nation. However, the Department of Veterans’ Affairs maintains that because these graves can be visited, there is no 

need to provide families at home with a memorial marker for their 

deceased loved ones buried there.

 Now as a result, I introduced a bill that will help families memorialize those who died in service to our country and are buried in cemeteries overseas. According to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, 

those servicemembers whose remains are classified as “unavailable

for burial” are eligible for government provided memorial markers or 

headstones. While this classification includes those whose remains

have not been recovered, or who are buried at sea, there is one glaring exception to this definition. Those who died fighting for freedom

abroad and were laid to rest there.

 Now families are proud of these courageous men and women who 

answered the call to protect our country and then paid the ultimate 

sacrifice. Unfortunately for many families, a trip abroad to visit their

loved ones final resting place is not possible due to finances or old age.

A memorial marker is the way to keep the memory of their loved ones 

alive, while also teaching younger generations about sacrifice. We

should not deny the families of these courageous men and women 

the ability to obtain memorial markers when we already do it for so 

many others.

 To correct this my legislation will add overseas burials to the VA’s 

“unavailable for burial” classification and finally let these men and

women be memorialized by their families here at home.

 Mr. Chairman, in closing, I urge you to help memorialize those that 

accepted the call to protect our country. Thank you, again, for this 

opportunity and I look forward to working with you in serving our 

veterans. Thank you.

  [The statement of James R. Langevin appears on p. 68]

 Mr. Miller. Thank you very much. Mr. Udall, questions? Mr. Moran? Mr. Bradley? Thank you for your testimony and bringing this 

forward. And the last panelist is up here with us on the Subcommittee. Mr. Udall, you are recognized to talk about your bill, H.R. 601.
20

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

 Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I very much appreciate the testimony of my colleagues, Tammy Baldwin, Bob 

Filner, and James Langevin.

 Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for considering my legislation today, H.R. 601, the Native American Veterans Cemetery Act of 

2005, and would like to personally thank Chairman Miller for inviting me to testify today.

 Providing the men and women of the U.S. Armed Services with a 

final resting place is one of the missions of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs through the National Cemetery Administration. NCA

maintains 122 national cemeteries, including two in my home state 

of New Mexico, one in Santa Fe and one in Fort Bayard. NCA also 

provides grants to states for the construction of state cemeteries with 

ongoing responsibility for the maintenance of the cemetery.

 However, one group lacks the opportunity to be buried close to 

home in a veterans cemetery. Historically, Native Americans have 

the highest record of service in the armed forces per capita of any 

ethnic group. And New Mexico ranks fifth in the nation in Native

American veterans with a population of 9,800 veterans. Yet under 

existing law, tribal governments are ineligible to apply for a state 

cemetery grant. Thus, honorable soldiers are unable to receive the 

dignity of burial in a veterans cemetery located on their home land.

 My legislation would change that. Under H.R. 601, tribal governments would be put on the same footing as states, consistent with 

tribal sovereignty by allowing them to apply for grants to establish, 

expand, or improve tribal veterans cemeteries.

 H.R. 601 enjoys broad support. A bipartisan group of 46 members 

of the House are cosponsors, six of whom are members of the House 

Veterans’ Affairs Committee. I would specifically like to thank the

Ranking Member of this Subcommittee, Congresswoman Shelley 

Berkley for her support, as well as Congressman Tom Cole of Oklahoma for his strong and early support. State legislatures in both 

Arizona and New Mexico have passed resolutions in favor of allowing 

tribal governments to apply for national veterans cemeteries. The 

Navajo Nation, the largest federally recognized tribe is a strong supporter, as is the National American Indian Veterans Organization.

 Furthermore, both former Department of Veterans’ Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi and current Secretary Jim Nicholson have 

expressed strong support stating that H.R. 601 would create another 

means of accommodating the burial needs of Native American veterans who wish to be buried in tribal lands. I have included with my 

testimony several letters of support and would like to ask unanimous 

consent that these letters be made part of the record.
21

Mr. Miller. Without objection. So ordered.

  [The attachment appears on p. 72]

Mr. Udall. Mr. Chairman and Members of this Subcommittee, this 

bill would give no special treatment and make no special arrangements for tribal governments. It would allow tribal governments the 

same opportunities as state governments, and by extension would 

grant Native American veterans the opportunity to be laid to rest 

close to home. This bipartisan legislation is strongly and widely supported, and I hope for your sincere consideration. At this time I would 

be happy to take any questions also.

  [The statement of Tom Udall appears on p. 69]

 Mr. Miller. Questions. Mr. Moran.

 Mr. Moran. No, sir.

 Mr. Miller. Mr. Bradley.

 Mr. Bradley. Thank you very much, Mr. Udall.

 Mr. Udall. Thank you.

 Mr. Miller: I understand how busy everybody’s schedule is, and I

appreciate the panelists being here to testify on their legislation that 

impacts the lives of our servicemembers, veterans, and their survivors. On behalf of the Subcommittee let me do say thank you again. 

We look forward to working with all of you. Thank you. And with 

that we will move to the second panel. If I could ask the second panel, which is VA and Arlington Cemetery, I believe, to come forward 

please. Mr. Bill Tuerk is the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs at 

the National Cemetery Administration. Good to see you, sir. He is 

accompanied by Jack McCoy, the Associate Deputy Under Secretary 

for Policy and Program Management at the Veterans Benefits Administration. And rounding out this panel is Mr. Jack Metzler, the 

Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery.

 And I would say to any member of this Subcommittee if you have 

not availed yourself to a tour with Mr. Metzler at Arlington Cemetery 

you should do so. I do not know of any person that is more knowledgeable about a cemetery and a national shrine as he is. I want to 

personally thank you for giving me the opportunity to learn so much 

more about Arlington National Cemetery. I understand your testimony last week was quite helpful to the Subcommittee. I apologize, I

was not here, as I was out of Washington back in the district attending a funeral at Barrancas National Cemetery in my congressional 

district. So with that, Mr. Tuerk, you may begin.
22

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM F. TUERK, UNDER SECRETARY

 FOR MEMORIAL AFFAIRS, NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINI-

 STRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY JACK McCOY, ASSOCIATE

 DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLICY AND PROGRAM

 MANAGEMENT, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION

 Mr. Tuerk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Bradley, Mr. Udall, friends on the staff. I thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today on a number of legislative items of great interest to 

veterans.

 As you noted, Mr. Chairman, I am accompanied by Mr. Jack McCoy, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program Management, Veterans Benefits Administration. I am also honored to

share the panel with my friend of many years, Mr. Jack Metzler, Superintendent of Arlington National Cemetery. 

 With the Committee’s permission, Mr. Chairman, I will offer a 

summary statement this afternoon and request that my written testimony be submitted for the record.

 Mr. Miller. Without objection.

 Mr. Tuerk. If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will proceed by discussing 

each of the bills listed on the hearing agenda in the order in which 

they appear. The first bill, H.R. 23, the proposed Belated Thank You

to Merchant Mariners of World War II Act of 2005, would require the 

Department of Veterans Affairs to pay certain Merchant Mariners 

who served during World War II the sum of $1,000 per month. It

would, in addition, require VA to make the same payment to the surviving spouses of eligible Merchant Mariners after these Mariners’ 

deaths.

VA opposes enactment of this bill for several reasons. First, the 

Secretary of Defense has certified that Merchant Mariner ocean-going service during World War II was active military service for VA

benefit purposes. Thus, World War II Merchant Mariners are already eligible for the range of benefits offered to all World War II

veterans. This bill would provide concurrent eligibility for an additional VA benefit, a cash payment for Merchant Mariners, not made

available to other veterans.

 It would also provide for a payment to Merchant Mariners, even 

those who have not incurred a contemporary service-connected disability, that is greater than the payment received by World War II

veterans who suffered a disability, and have recieved a service-connected disability rating of 60 percent.

 In our view, such preferential treatment to be afforded to Merchant 

Mariners would not be fair. Fairness would dictate equity, something that World War II Merchant Mariners already have achieved. 

Further, VA believes the Social Security Administration should be 

consulted on its views with respect to this legislation and the interer 
23

agency coordination that it would require.

 H.R. 601, the proposed Native American Veterans Cemetery Act 

of 2005, would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make 

grants to Native American tribal organizations to assist them in establishing, expanding, or improving veterans cemeteries on trust 

lands in the same manner as such grants are made to States for these 

purposes. H.R. 601 would thus create another means of accommodating the burial needs of Native American veterans who wish to be 

buried on tribal lands. We strongly support enactment of this bill, as 

we have in years past.

 H.R. 2188 would make servicemembers and others interred at 

American Battle Monuments Commission cemeteries eligible for 

placement of an additional memorial marker in a stateside cemetery.

 The Department of Veterans Affairs does not support enactment of 

this bill. The fallen warriors who are interred in ABMC cemeteries 

have been provided an honorable place of repose by the United States 

government. To provide a second marker for those whose remains 

are already interred in a federal cemetery would significantly alter

the purpose of the memorial marker benefit. By statute, memorial

markers have been issued solely to honor those who cannot be interred either here or abroad, because their remains are not available 

for burial due to non-recovery from the battlefield, burial at sea, donation to science, or for other reasons.

 In short, we believe the honor of an “In Memory Of” headstone 

should be reserved for those who are not, and who cannot be, memorialized at a conventional gravesite. Those buried in ABMC facilities 

are already so memorialized.

 H.R. 2963, the proposed Dr. James Allen Disabled Veterans Equity 

Act, would improve compensation benefits for veterans in certain cases of vision impairment involving both eyes. This legislation, which 

is consistent with prior Congressional action pertaining to special 

consideration for hearing loss, would treat vision impairment in both 

eyes similarly to hearing loss in both ears. VA supports enactment of 

H.R. 2963, subject to offsetting savings.

 H.R. 4843, the proposed Veterans Compensation Cost of Living Adjustment Act of 2006, would authorize a COLA adjustment effective 

with payments received in January 2007 to the rates of disability 

compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, and other 

VBA administered cash benefit payments. We believe a COLA is

necessary and appropriate to protect the benefits of affected veterans

and their survivors from the eroding effects of inflation. We therefore

support enactment of this legislation.

 H.R. 5037, the proposed Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act, 

would prohibit non-approved demonstrations at cemeteries under the 

control of VA’s National Cemetery Administration and at Arlington 
24

National Cemetery. We fully support the policy objectives of this bill 

although, as I explain in my prepared statement, we are concerned 

that the text of this bill, as currently drafted, might inadvertently, 

we think, narrow the ban already in effect on demonstrations in national cemeteries under VA regulations. I look forward to working 

with Congress to avoid this result, particularly if it is an unintended 

result, and to ensure that the dignity and sanctity of our national 

cemeteries are fully maintained.

  The final bill on the agenda, H.R. 5038, the proposed Veterans Memorial Marker Act of 2006, would change the applicability date of 

VA’s current authority to provide a government headstone or marker 

for the private grave of a veteran, regardless of whether the grave 

has already been marked at private expense.

 Under current law this authority extends only to veterans whose 

deaths occurred on or after September 11, 2001. A provision of the 

bill would authorize VA to furnish such markers for the graves of veterans who died on or after November 1, 1990. We support enactment 

of this provision of the bill.

 In addition, this bill would extend VA’s authority to furnish the 

second marker benefit through December 31, 2007. We support extension of this authority. Indeed, we would recommend that the legal 

authority for this benefit be made permanent.

 Additionally with respect to H.R. 5038, we support a series of relatively minor statutory revisions, as outlined in my written statement, 

to accommodate the practical needs of veterans’ families in obtaining 

government-furnished headstones and markers. We request that the 

Committee consider adding these provisions to H.R. 5038 prior to, or 

at, its markup of this legislation. NCA’s technical experts will be 

made available to the Committee’s staff to explain in depth our proposed additions to this bill.

 Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement. I appreciate the opportunity to have appeared before you to explain the administration’s 

views on these important legislative matters. And I would be pleased 

to entertain any questions you or the other members of the Subcommittee may have. Thank you.

  [The statement of William F. Tuerk appears on p. 77]

 Mr. Miller. Thank you, sir. The Chair would now recognize Mr. 

Metzler.

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. METZLER, JR., SUPERINTENDENT,

 ARLINGTON NATIONAL CEMETERY

Mr. Metzler. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before the Subcommittee to present the Department of the Army’s views on H.R. 
25

5037, that would impact Arlington National Cemetery if enacted into 

law. I am testifying today on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, 

who is responsible for the operation and maintenance of Arlington 

National Cemetery.

 Arlington is our nation’s premier military cemetery. It is an honor 

for me to represent this national cemetery. And on behalf of the Department of the Army I want to express our appreciation for the support that Congress has provided over the years.

  In fiscal year 2005 there were over 6,500 funerals at Arlington National Cemetery. In addition, we conducted 3,200 ceremonies. H.R. 

5037 would prohibit certain demonstrations at national cemeteries 

under the control of the National Cemetery Administration and Arlington National Cemetery, to include picketing, oration before assembled crowds, displaying of placards, or distributing of certain 

forms or written materials on cemetery property. This bill would 

also prohibit demonstrations within 500 feet of a national cemetery 

one hour before and through one hour after a memorial, a funeral, or 

a ceremony.

 The Army fully supports this concept to this proposed legislation as 

it pertains to Arlington Cemetery, because it would help protect the 

sanctity of the cemetery and the dignity of the funerals and ceremonies that are held upon this hallowed grounds.

 Demonstrations at Arlington National Cemetery have been part 

of the history of the cemetery since at least the Vietnam War. Because of our urban location within the heart of our nation’s capital, 

Arlington frequently becomes a rallying point for groups wishing to 

express their opposing views and opinions, particularly regarding our 

nation’s military policies.

 For this reason, certain conduct with the cemetery grounds is currently prohibited under Title 32 of the Federal Code of Regulations. 

This prohibition also occurs for memorial services and other ceremonies when our nation comes together at Arlington to remember the 

deeds and sacrifices of the brave men and women who served honorably in our armed forces.

 This newly proposed law would help strengthen the sanctity and 

preserve the dignity of Arlington Cemetery. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be more than pleased to respond to any 

of your questions.

  [The statement of John C. Metzler, Jr. appears on p. 96]

Mr. Bradley. [Presiding] Thank you both, gentlemen. Let me start

out by just saying that Mr. Tuerk, because VA’s testimony was not 

received until the end of the day yesterday, Chairman Miller and 

other members of the Subcommittee will be submitting questions for 

the record. So let me just ask a couple of questions.

 You expressed some concerns in your testimony about H.R. 5037. 
26

That it would be less restrictive than current VA regulations that 

limit demonstrations on VA property. While VA regulations regulate 

within the grounds of a VA national cemetery, what affect do they 

have on demonstrations near, but not on, VA property?

 Mr. Tuerk. Our regulations, Mr. Chairman, only extend to the 

limits of our national cemetery property. They do not extend beyond 

those limits 500 yards or otherwise. When I say that our regulations 

are broader, I am not talking in terms of the scope of the geographic 

coverage. I am talking about the scope of activities that we have 

claimed the authority to regulate and which the courts have affirmed

that we in fact do have the authority to regulate.

 Mr. Bradley. Second question. When you exercise this authority 

to maintain decorum and not have demonstrations on the property, 

how do you go about informing people that may or may not know that 

these restrictions are in place?

 Mr. Tuerk. Mr. Chairman, to be honest with you, I do not know. 

I can certainly follow up on how we proactively get this information 

out. Otherwise, I am prepared to say now that if someone approaches 

us, and of course no one is going to come onto our property without 

approaching us for some sort of permission, at that point we would 

advise them of first, our proper role in regulating conduct within the

cemetery to maintain dignity and decorum; and secondly review with 

them the sort of activities that they have in mind; and lastly, inform 

them at that point of our views with respect to those activities.

 Mr. Bradley. So if someone were to gain access, for instance, to 

Arlington and did not appear that this was part of a protest and then 

unfurled banners and, you know, started a protest and they were 

unaware of the restrictions, what would -- how would you deal with 

that kind of a situation?

 Mr. Tuerk. I will only speak for national cemeteries.

 Mr. Bradley. Yes.

 Mr. Tuerk. I won’t speak for Arlington. But, if protestors were to 

appear at our cemetery and start a demonstration without our permission, we would inform them, irrespective of the subject matter of 

their demonstration, that it is not allowed without permission. Then 

we would ask them to vacate the premises. If they did not vacate 

the premises, we would call the proper authorities to compel them to 

vacate the premises.

 Mr. Bradley. So if you gave them the opportunity to vacate the 

premises, then no further action would be taken?

 Mr. Tuerk. I think that is the way we operate now. Yes, sir.

 Mr. Bradley. All right. Good. Thank you.

 Mr. Tuerk. I think that is a fair assessment.

 Mr. Bradley. Generally that would be how you would handle it?

 Mr. Tuerk. As a general proposition, yes.

 Mr. Bradley. Let me move to you, Mr. Metzler, and ask you the 
27

same questions about informing the public and if somebody legitimately did not know that there were restrictions during a funeral 

from demonstrating, how would you handle that?

 Mr. Metzler. We would inform these individuals, either myself or 

one of my representatives would go up to them and ask them politely, 

but firmly, that they needed to stop during this funeral service. And

at the same time we would call the United States Park Police, who 

is our law enforcement authority for Arlington Cemetery. And if the 

individuals left quietly that would end the matter. If not, we would 

invoke the Park Police to ensure that they left quietly.

 Mr. Bradley. So in other words, as you said, if people left and came 

back and demonstrated when it was appropriate to do so, then that 

would be the end of the issue?

 Mr. Metzler. Well, under the current Federal Code of Regulations, 

we do not allow picketing in the cemetery, protester demonstrations 

at all.

 Mr. Bradley. At all. Okay.

Mr. Metzler. At all, anytime. I think the difference in this new 

proposed legislation, which is strengthening, at least for Arlington 

Cemetery, is that there is a restriction now of 500 feet to the boundary of the cemetery, which is a tremendous benefit to us since we do

not actually own the property outside the -- 

 Mr. Bradley. Right. I mean, there is a bike path, there is a road, 

there is the bridge. I mean all of those I actually like to, myself, run 

out there once in a while. It is a beautiful run down the Mall and up 

to the Iwo Jima Memorial and along that bike path. So, under Mr. 

Rogers’ proposed legislation, then you would, in fact, have authority 

to ensure that within that scope of area around the cemetery during 

those times that you have the authority to regulate.

 Mr. Metzler. That is right. It would push them further away from 

the entrance of the cemetery. Oftentimes they use the area right in 

front of the cemetery, again which is not Arlington’s property, to start 

a demonstration to march into Washington. This, again, would be 

ended under this new proposed legislation.

 Mr. Bradley. Thank you. I am sure that the staff and members 

of the Subcommittee, and the sponsors of the legislation, especially 

H.R. 5037, look forward to working with you to make sure that we 

technically get the language right to make sure that there are no unintended consequences. And that the genuine thoughts of Mr. Rogers 

and the other sponsors that testified here today are what gets enacted

into law. We look forward to working with you. Mr. Udall?

 Mr. Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. These questions are for Mr. 

Tuerk and Mr. McCoy, if he is able to answer them. Your testimony 

objects to H.R. 23 because of the size of the benefit. Would VA support a lesser monetary benefit for the Merchant Mariners, such as the

$200 per month provided to pensioners of the earlier wars who did
28

not receive educational and housing benefits?

 Mr. Tuerk. I think, Mr. Udall, the basis for our objection to this 

legislation is not necessarily the quantum of the payment that would 

be made, but the fact that the payment would be made to this class 

of veterans and not be made available to other classes of veterans, 

and to these survivors and not to other survivors. I think it is that 

principle, more than the $1,000 versus the $200 amount that you

suggest here, that is the basis of our objection. Beyond that, I will 

defer to Mr. McCoy, who has more expertise on this matter, since it 

is a VBA matter.

 Mr. McCoy. I would agree with that statement and just add the 

fact that there are Merchant Mariners now that receive benefits who

would be getting an additional payment on top of whatever benefit

they might be receiving now.

 Mr. Udall. Could you please explain the VA’s rationale for considering blindness for paired organs at a visual acuity of 5 to 200, rather 

than the level of 20 to 200, used by the Social Security Administration and other government agencies to determine legal blindness?

 Mr. McCoy. No, sir. I can only explain it at this moment to the 

extent that is what our rating schedule calls for. I apologize, but I

cannot answer your question in more detail. I would be glad to get 

that to you.

  [As indicated above, Mr. McCoy submitted the following detailed

response to Mr. Udall’s question for the record: “The current Rating 

Schedule and its predecessors used by the Department of Veterans Affairs to evaluate visual impairment and to define blindness as visual

acuity of 5/200 have used the same standard since 1924. A review of 

the history of the various changes to the rating schedule with respect 

to visual acuity reveals that this standard has not been challenged 

by anyone or any entity since originally set out by VA. VA proposed 

revisions to the schedule for eye disabilities and solicited comments 

in 1999. While there were numerous comments on other aspects of 

the schedule, no individual or organization raised a concern about the 

standard for blindness.”]

 Mr. Udall. That would be fine. Thank you. If you would submit

that, that would be great. The Administration’s budget did not include a COLA applicable to the additional $250 per month paid to

surviving DIC, Dependency Indemnity Compensation beneficiaries

with children for the first two years of eligibility. Does VA believe

that it is appropriate for the value of this benefit to erode with the

passage of time?

 Mr. Tuerk. I am not prepared to speak for the administration on 

that question. Since we did not propose a COLA to that benefit, I

think I am not free to state specifically that we support it or that we

should have proposed it. I think, however, that the Administration 
29

would not take the point of view that any benefit currently recieved

by veterans should be eroded over time.

  [Mr. Tuerk provided this additional response following the hearing to Mr. Udall’s question: “Question 2: Why does the COLA bill 

not include a request to increase the $250 allowance for dependent

children? Aren’t you concerned that the allowance will be “devalued 

by inflation?”

  Response: We agree that the additional $250 benefit due surviving spouses with minor children during the first two years of entitlement or until the last minor child reaches age 18, whichever comes 

first, is an important benefit intended to address transition issues

for survivors. As survivors may be entitled to additional benefits for

dependents, the transitional benefit is similar to other special or onetime payments such as automobile allowances and burial benefits.

Traditionally, Congress has reserved to itself the decision to raise 

these benefits.”]

 Mr. Udall. And would you -- could you take a position then if you 

do not think there should be erosion, then we should somehow deal 

with it, shouldn’t we?

 Mr. Tuerk. Well, I cannot take a position here and now. But I certainly could follow up with a position on behalf of not only myself, but 

more significantly, on behalf of the administration.

Mr. Udall. That would be just fine. Thank you. Mr. Metzler, does

Arlington have space which would be unsuitable for burial gravesites, 

but might be suitable for placement of a marker of a veteran buried 

in an ABMC cemetery?

 Mr. Metzler. We have limited space at this time for memorial sections, as we refer to them. We are down to under about 300 spaces 

left in the cemetery. This proposed legislation, as I read it, did not 

seem to affect Arlington Cemetery. It seemed to affect the Veterans’ 

Administration national cemeteries. If it does eventually affect Arlington, it would concern me because the numbers are so great.

 Typically in a year’s time we only receive about 20 to 30 requests 

for memorial markers. And they are mainly World War II veterans 

whose remains have not been recovered and the families have just 

now found out about the benefit of putting a memorial marker up in

lieu of not having their loved one recognized at all.

 If this legislation gets enacted then there is a potential of 125,000 

new requests for not only Arlington, but for national cemeteries 

across the spectrum. This could have an impact on our availability of 

space for the other veterans in the future.

 Mr. Udall. Mr. Tuerk, could you answer that for the VA national 

cemeteries, that same question?

 Mr. Tuerk. I think we are not in the position that Mr. Metzler is 

with respect to Arlington. We have 122 cemeteries, some of which 
30

have no space available, some of which have several hundreds of 

acres available yet that have not been developed. So our position, 

unlike Arlington’s, is -- or at least less premised on the unavailability 

of space to provide this benefit then the rationale that we expressed

in both our prepared statement and my oral statement.

 Mr. Udall. In your testimony you indicate that the number of requests for a headstone or marker for an already marked grave are 

nominal. Veterans buried in ABMC cemeteries were generally single 

and have been dead for over 50 years. In almost all cases, the parents of the deceased veteran would also be deceased. On what basis 

do you expect the request for a marker or a headstone for a veteran 

buried in a ABMC cemetery would be more than nominal?

 Mr. Tuerk. Well, I think there are next of kin, perhaps, of many of 

those interred or other family members. I do not think that we necessarily assume that all would request this. I think our statement is 

premised on the outlying potential cost that this would generate.

Mr. Udall. Thank you, all three of you. Thank you very much. 

And I do not have any further questions, Mr. Chairman.

 Mr. Tuerk. Thank you.

 Mr. Udall. Thank you.

 Mr. Bradley. I would like to close this panel and thank you very 

much for your testimony. And as I said, Mr. Miller and other members of the Subcommittee may well have questions for the record and 

we will get them to you. And thank you again.

 Mr. Tuerk. I understand, Mr. Chairman. I thank you.

 Mr. Bradley. If you will be seated. Is Mr. Filner a Merchant Mariner?

 Mr. Filner. No, sir.

 Mr. Bradley. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Congressman Filner, I

assume you are here for purposes of an introduction?

 Mr. Filner. If I may?

 Mr. Bradley. Absolutely.

 Mr. Filner. All of us have had the experience, especially those of 

us who have the privilege of serving on the Veterans’ Committee, of 

meeting members of the greatest generation. The stories they tell, 

the courage they exhibited, the patriotism they have, it is an inspiration to all of us. One of the people I have had the privilege of meeting is Ian Allison, who is going to be testifying on H.R. 23. He is 

the Chairman of the Just Compensation Committee, which has been 

working on behalf of the Merchant Mariners. He has a life that is 

filled with adventure, and I just love to be with him. So I wanted to

be here next to him today and share in his attempt to convince everybody of the virtue of H.R. 23.

 Mr. Bradley. Thank you very much, Mr. Filner. Let me just briefly

introduce everybody. Mr. Ian Allison is the Co-Chair of the Just Compensation Committee of the U.S. Merchant Marine Combat Veteran. 
31

Mr. David Greineder is the Deputy Legislative Director at AMVETS. 

Mr. Thomas Zampieri is the Director of Government Relations at the 

Blinded Veterans Association. Mr. Quentin Kinderman is the Deputy Director of the Veterans of Foreign Wars National Legislative Service. I would like to just remind all of you if you could do your utmost 

to keep your remarks to the five minute limit. Your full statement,

obviously, will be part of the permanent record and will be printed as 

a result of the hearing. Mr. Allison, please.

STATEMENT OF IAN ALLISON, CO-Chairman, JUST COMPEN-

 SATION COMMITTEE OF THE U.S. MERCHANT MARINE

COMBAT VETERAN

 Mr. Allison. Chairman Bradley, and other Members of this Subcommittee, esteemed Members I should say, my name is Ian Allison. 

I strongly encourage the passage of H.R. 23. I represent 6,300 Merchant Marine veterans of World War II, who are seeking the recognition and their benefits under the 1944 GI Bill of Rights. This group

is a non-profit, unincorporated committee of veterans registered with

the Internal Revenue Service as a Just Compensation Committee.

 The committee has asked me to appear today before this Subcommittee to represent their interests. The statements 

made here today have been supplied to me by various members of our 

committee for your enlightenment. I am requesting that the statements of Stanley Wilner, (POW), Bruce Felknor, Perry Adams, and 

Burt Young be introduced into the record. These written statements 

have been delivered to the Subcommittee and I ask you again to be 

sure they are introduced into the record.

  [The attachments appear following Mr. Allison’s written statement]

 Mr. Allison. Passage of H.R. 23 would be the final chapter of what

has been a ragged response by the government to men who placed 

their lives in danger as they served their country. There might be 

some members in Congress who are not historically informed in what 

happened to some 230,000 seamen, both black and white, from the 

end of World War II to the present. And perhaps I can help present 

this issue. The Merchant Mariners of World War II were the only 

service that was not segregated. We had black and white both serving on the same ship.

  It has been said that when one dies, so dies one’s influence and

power. And so it was that when President Franklin Roosevelt died, 

his directions to his advisors that the Merchant Seamen of World 

War II should be accorded benefits like veterans of other services

also died. The influence of dissenting Members and some of the animosities left over after the war from competing services and civilian 
32

service groups prevented benefits being given to the Merchant Seamen. Many service people who might have dug ditches in Louisiana 

and never stepped outside of the United States got the full GI Bill, 

GI loans, and much more. But those who sailed the Murmansk Run, 

were sunk in burning oil, or frigid waters of the North Atlantic got 

nothing. In fact, their pay, which has been reviewed countless times, 

stopped the moment they went into the water.

 It was not until Senator Barry Goldwater in 1977 made the effort 

to recognize the women pilots with veteran recognition did the same 

bill, Public Law 95-202 permit Merchant Seamen to apply for veteran 

recognition. Thus began the constant misinformation and countless 

examples of hatred for the Merchant Seamen’s efforts to secure veterans recognition. There was a growing lack of concern for Congress to 

do what was right, recognize the Merchant Marine veterans of World 

War II.

  The first stage of recognition efforts by the seamen came after a

bitter court battle between the Maritime Trades and the Pentagon. A

federal court judge, in 1986, ruled against the Pentagon, stating that 

the Merchant Seamen have been discriminated against. He wrote 

in his finding that the Navy and certain veterans groups bitterly opposed any recognition. While the court recognized the majority of 

Merchant Seamen as qualified, these men only received a tombstone,

a flag, and a discharge and limited medical attention. Those who

went to sea after August 15, 1945 to December 31, 1946, the official

end of the war, received nothing. They became the denied seamen. 

The Defense Department went to war against this group.

  This started phase two of official Congressional denial. It took ten

years of effort on the part of the Merchant Mariners Fairness Committee, through five sessions of Congress, until finally H.R. 1126 with

Representative Lane Evans as sponsor and 337 of his fellow members as cosponsors, to recognize the denied seamen with veterans discharge. A discharge that they had to pay $30 to buy and to pay for

their own medals, and received only a tombstone, a flag and a piece

of paper. Nothing else as a benefit. We are most fortunate many of

the cosponsors of H.R. 1126 are still members of the House of Representatives, members of the Veterans’ Committee, and members of 

this Subcommittee.

 They do not have the knowledge of how slanderous misinformation 

was continually sent to House members by various military liaison 

stating that Merchant Seamen were unqualified to be veterans as

they went on strike during the war. The story by Walter Winchell 

about Merchant Seamen refusing to unload munitions and cargo at 

Guadalcanal on a Sunday was repudiated and the reporter was in 

disgrace. No ship was ever delayed in the war because of labor problems. It is so hard to counter lies, especially when many Members 

had no direct knowledge of the history of the war. Today we call it 
33

“bad-mouthing” your opposition.

 Of the 230,000 men in the Merchant Marine in 1945, probably less 

than 10,000 are still alive. The youngest who joined the service in 

1945 are now 78 to 79 years old, many in poor health. The majority of 

the men in their mid-80’s, as myself, I am 86, dedicating 100 percent 

of my time to see the record set straight by passage of H.R. 23. There 

is still a time for a grateful nation to say thank you to a thinning rank 

of men.

 We are now at stage three. Sixty years is a long time for any service 

person to wait for proper recognition. Sixty years is a long time to 

spend trying to correct history written to denigrate what we thought 

was service to our country. They say America is strong because of 

the will of the people and their concern for each other. Passage of 

H.R. 23 will go a long way in proving this to be so. Please recommend 

that H.R. 23 be passed and let’s clean up the record. These blemishes 

should not be part of our country’s record. Thank you very much.

  [The statement of Ian Allison appears on p. 99]

 Mr. Bradley. Thank you very much, sir. Next, Mr. Greineder.

STATEMENT OF DAVID GREINEDER, DEPUTY LEGISLATIVE

 DIRECTOR, AMVETS

 Mr. Greineder. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, AMVETS is pleased to present our views on the legislation before the Subcommittee. And we are honored to join our fellow 

veterans service organizations and veterans on the panel.

  Regarding H.R. 23, this bill would provide $1,000 monthly payment

to the Merchant Marines of World War II. If implemented, this legislation would cost $120 million for the first year, and $20 million in

subsequent years. AMVETS has no official position on the bill at this

time, but I will say that we believe this bill will be extremely costly 

to VA. AMVETS certainly recognizes the sacrifices of the Merchant

Marines during World War II and we are proud of their accomplishments, but we would ask that you seriously take a look at how this 

bill would affect VA.

 H.R. 601 would allow Native American Tribes to apply for state 

cemetery grants from VA. AMVETS believes cemeteries on tribal 

lands would be an appropriate memorial and a reminder of the sacrifices made by Native American men and women.

 H.R. 2188 would allow memorial markers to be placed in a national 

cemetery to commemorate service members whose remains are interred in American Battle Monuments Cemetery. AMVETS share 

the profound pride, admiration, and gratefulness associated with the 

spirit of this legislation. We support the bill. But we do ask that appropriate steps be taken to ensure that the land used for these mark-
34

ers are not better intended for gravesites.

 H.R. 2963 would allow veterans who have a complete loss of sight 

in one eye due to a service connected injury to receive increased disability compensation if they lose sight in the other eye. AMVETS

recognizes the need and importance of this legislation. We support 

the bill.

 H.R. 4843 would provide a cost of living adjustment to veterans 

benefits effective December 1, 2006. AMVETS supports our nation’s

commitment to care for the men and women who have served in our 

military service. This legislation will increase current rates of disability compensation to help meet rising costs. We support the bill.

 H.R. 5038 would allow veterans and their families to apply and 

receive VA’s official grave marker for an additional year. AMVETS

trusts that the Committee can locate the funds necessary to incorporate these veterans and family members with an official recognition. 

AMVETS supports the bill.

 H.R. 5037 would restrict protests in national cemeteries during 

military funeral honors. AMVETS whole heartedly supports this legislation. We believe it is only appropriate that grieving families be 

allowed to bury their loved ones in peace. AMVETS is troubled, and 

quite frankly offended, that more than 100 military funerals in the 

last nine months have been interrupted by aggressive war protests. 

Families burying their husbands, wives, sons, or daughters should 

not be subject to this kind of display. AMVETS believes this bill is 

very timely and hope it receives swift passage in the House floor. And

Mr. Chairman, AMVETS wrote a letter of endorsement for this bill 

and I would ask that it be included in the record.

  [The attachment appears on p. ]

 Mr. Greineder. In closing, Mr. Chairman, AMVETS looks forward 

to working with you and others in Congress to ensure the earned benefits of all American veterans are strengthened and improved. This

concludes my testimony. Thank you again for allowing us to present 

our views.

  [The statement of David Greineder appears on p. 104]

 Mr. Bradley. Dr. Zampieri.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS ZAMPIERI, DIRECTOR OF GOVERN-

 MENT RELATIONS, BLINDED VETERANS ASSOCIATION

 Mr. Zampieri. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, on 

behalf of the Blinded Veterans Association we appreciate the opportunity to testify here today on H.R. 2963. I will try to make this very 

brief. I would like to have the full testimony entered into the record.

 There are basically four points here of interest that we would like 
35

to stress. One is that BVA would like to remind the Committee that 

this is not a new benefit or a new entitlement. We are just trying to

fix the paired organ statute, which historically has been on the books

since 1962. That is a real long time to have something on the books 

with an error in it of omission. And what we are concerned about and 

we want to stress is, there has been, according to VHA records 13,109 

veterans who are service connected as of today for the anatomical 

loss of an eye or blindness due to an injury or illness while they are in 

the service and they searched the records to find out seven different

ways if there was any other missing people out there. And this is the 

number that they kept coming up with.

 I go out to Walter Reed frequently to visit with every blinded soldier who has come back from Iraq since last June. And I have talked 

with the Chief of Ophthalmology out there. And to put a new face on 

this, there are currently 90 soldiers who have come back from Iraq 

who have anatomically lost an eye due to an IED explosion or to a 

gunshot wound. Two of those soldiers are sitting out there today. 

And the concerned mother of one of those soldiers talked to me yesterday. And she said, “Her son is doing well recovering form other 

injuries, but he lays awake at night worrying what will happen to me 

if I lose my vision in my other eye?”

  Under the current paired organ statute, which does not define legal

blindness, if an individual who is service connected for loss of vision 

in one eye puts in a claim for service connection under the paired 

organ statute, the VA refers to Section 1160, paragraph (l), which defines legal blindness in a measurement form of 5/200 in order to meet

VA service connection compensation standards.

  Currently legal blindness is defined in all 50 states by the Social

Security Administration, by the World Health Organization, is defined as 20/200 or less, or 20 degrees of central field of vision or less. 

Basically, in researching this and actually working with CBO, and I

am going to cite their own figures, according to the Journal of American Medical Association Archives of Ophthalmology, and this is in the 

CBO report, “The prevalence of age-related macular degeneration or 

other diseases that would cause an individual in the U.S. population 

between the ages of 40 and 65 to lose their vision is 1.4 percent. The 

figure rises to just five percent of the population between the ages of

65 to 80 years of age, and then does not increase until after age 80 to 

about 15 percent of the population.”

  Therefore, if this paired organ statute is fixed concerning the 13,109

veterans who have lost vision in one eye, you can expect probably 

600 claims. I talked to a VBA claims reviewer who had 19 years of 

experience. And he knows of five cases in the last six years. So we

are not opening up the flood gates as long as we look at this from the

standpoint of those individuals who served and lost an eye in service 

of their country.
36

 I will leave it on this note that why should a veteran who served 

in the military and lost an eye and almost probably lost his life in 

service to his country have to meet a higher standard of blindness 

than a Social Security recipient. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity for Blinded Veterans Association to testify today. And we 

are completely in support of H.R. 5037. Thank you.

  [The statement of Thomas Zampieri appears on p. 112]

 Mr. Bradley. Thank you very much. Mr. Kinderman.

STATEMENT OF QUENTIN KINDERMAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

 NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE VETERANS OF FOR-

 EIGN WARS

 Mr. Kinderman. Thank you, Mr. Bradley. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting us to testify here 

today. On behalf of the 2.4 million men and women of the Veterans 

of Foreign Wars of the United States, we appreciate the opportunity 

to present our views on legislation included in today’s hearing. Our 

views follow.

 Regarding H.R. 23, Belated Thank You to the Merchant Mariners 

of World War II Act of 2005, the bill seeks to expand the current dates 

of service for World War II Merchant Mariners, who are recognized 

as veterans, and pay a $1,000 monthly benefit to those World War II

Merchant Mariners, or to their surviving spouses. The VFW recognizes the heroic service of Merchant Mariners during World War II. 

Their sacrifices and heroic efforts were instrumental in winning the

Second World War.

 We cannot, however, support this legislation to pay a monthly benefit which would be in addition to any current veterans benefits that

would otherwise be payable. We believe this payment would be disproportionate in terms of recognition or benefits to what other veterans who have gone in harm’s way in service to our country currently 

receive.

 With regard to their service as Merchant Mariners, and the proposal that they should be recognized for this Merchant Marine service 

by a special benefit, in addition to being recognized as veterans, or

for a period extending beyond the currently recognized World War II

dates, the VFW has not taken a position on this matter.

 H.R. 601, titled “Native American Veterans’ Cemetery Act of 2005,” 

would allow tribal organizations to apply for grants to establish and 

maintain veteran cemeteries on tribal lands. We fully support H.R. 

601. We believe this is a logical extension of the veteran cemetery 

grant program. This legislation will address the needs of Native 

American veterans and their families which are not fully met by the 

national and state veteran cemeteries.
37

 H.R. 2188, titled “Authorization of Memorial Markers for the Remains Interred in American Battle Monuments,” proposes allowing 

memorial markers to be placed in national cemeteries for remains 

interred in cemeteries administered by the American Battle Monuments Commission. The bill provides recognition on American hallowed ground to the many servicemembers who made the ultimate 

sacrifice to preserve our freedom, and never returned home. We fully

support this bill. And I might say, as probably anyone would who has 

been to Normandy Beach and seen the memorial cemeteries there, 

that these are sacrifices that I think should remain in the consciousness of the American people. And I think making these markers convenient here so people can see the sacrifices made by the greatest

generation is a good thing.

 H.R. 2963 is titled “Dr. James Allen Veterans Equity Act.” The bill 

addresses the payment of service connected compensation for service 

connected loss of vision in one eye in the event vision is impaired in 

the other eye. I doubt I could explain that anywhere near as well as 

Tom just has. We fully support this legislation.

 H.R. 4843, titled “Veterans Compensation Cost of Living Adjustments Act of 2006,” seeks to adjust compensation rates to reflect the

rising cost of living. We appreciate the Committee’s commitment to 

maintaining the integrity of the buying power of the veterans’ compensation program by providing periodic cost of living increases, COLAs. We fully support this goal.

 However, we note that this bill, once again, contains a provision 

for rounding down any fraction of a dollar in the COLA calculation. 

This works against the spirit of the bill. Over time, and when combined with other adjustments made to meet budgetary goals, this has 

cause erosion of the compensation benefit and significant problems

for America’s veterans. We believe it might be the underlying cause 

of some policy problems that have been recognized by the Committee.

 H.R. 5037 is titled “Respect for America’s Fallen Heroes Act.” This 

legislation restricts demonstrations at or near national cemeteries 

during funerals and requires approval by cemetery authorities for 

other demonstrations. The intent is to prevent hateful and offensive 

speech during a very difficult time for a veteran or servicemember’s

family. We strongly support this legislation, including provision that 

urge state and local governments to enact legislation to protect funeral homes, religious services, and memorial services from this dangerous and damaging use of free speech.

  And finally, H.R. 5038, entitled “Providing Government Markers

for Dependent Children,” we fully support this bill as well. Thank 

you for the opportunity to present the views of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.

  [The statement of Quentin Kinderman appears on p. 118]
38

 Mr. Bradley. Thank you all to the panel. Ms. Berkley, you indicated you had a markup that you had to go back to. So I will yield 

first to you for questions.

Ms. Berkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Actually, I had a hearing 

at the International Relations Committee, which precluded me from 

coming and listening to the entire hearing. But I am awfully glad I

came for this panel and was able to get away.

 I want to thank all of you for your eloquent remarks. I am supportive of all of the pieces of legislation that have been discussed today 

and a cosponsor of most of them. But I particularly want to thank 

all of you for your continued service to our country. Not only did you 

serve in our nation’s wars, but you continue to serve the veterans 

of this country by your work through your VSOs and this Congresswoman wants to tell you how much I appreciate that.

And, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to submit my written 

testimony -- my written opening remarks for the record, since I am 

sure that everybody has sat through a lot of testimony. And I do not 

want to burden anyone further. So thank you very much for the opportunity.

  [The statement of Shelley Berkley appears on p. 43]

 Mr. Bradley. Mr. Udall.

 Mr. Udall. I do not have any questions, but I also just want to tell 

the panel I think you have given excellent testimony here today and 

very much appreciate it. Thank you.

 Mr. Bradley. In that case, I have a couple of quick questions. Mr. 

Filner, since you are still here, can I impose on you to ask you a question?

 Mr. Filner. Please.

 Mr. Bradley. Thank you. As you know, I am a cosponsor of H.R. 

23. Numerous others, and I would say that by virtue of the fact that 

I agree with you on the -- what you are trying to accomplish with regard to the Merchant Marine, I believe is appropriate. But you heard 

the testimony from some of the other witnesses today. Other groups 

have had -- other civilian groups -- have had veterans’ status conferred on them in accordance with Public Law 95-202. Could you just 

testify as to why you think it is appropriate to single out Merchant 

Marines for this special monthly benefit and respond perhaps to some

of the critiques from other panelists have talked?

 Mr. Filner. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, I want to defer 

to Mr. Allison on some of the more emotional kinds of arguments. 

Let me say, that I heard about the amount of money. We are talking 

about $120 million that goes down to, unfortunately, zero in a relatively short time. $120 million is 0.2 percent of the VA budget, of the

existing VA budget, not 2 percent, 0.2 percent.
39

 There are myths about who deserves what at what time. Remember that this is a benefit for just the remaining years of life, not for a

lifetime. As Ian was telling me, the few that do get benefits for disability were denied the GI bill benefits. We are just saying, “here is

nominal sum, a belated thank you.” We can never make up for the 

loss of benefits. We cannot afford not to do this. It is a moral imperative of our nation. Most Mariners thought they were fighting for the

nation as part of our armed forces in World War II. I would like Ian, 

if he may, to comment on your initial issue about why this group.

 Mr. Allison. Can you repeat that question? I am a little hard of 

hearing.

 Mr. Bradley. Well, thank you, sir. I indicated to Congressman 

Filner that while I agree with him about the appropriateness of this 

bill and singling out members of the Merchant Marine for this special 

benefit, there are those who do not agree with that policy change.

And so -- and the gentleman, Mr. Kinderman from the VFW testified

in essence to that before. So I was in essence trying to give yourself 

and Congressman Filner a chance to respond to that. Why you think 

it is appropriate for singling out members of the Merchant Marine for 

this stipend at this point in time?

 Mr. Allison. I appreciate that question. And I like that expression 

“singling out”. I think that was the problem. Back in 1944 we were 

singled out and were dropped from the benefits that everybody else

got. I do not -- 14 million veterans were allowed the GI Bill of Rights 

in 1944. And we were singled out. We did not get those benefits.

And we did not -- there are a dozen of things in the testimony that 

were given by my fellow veterans of what they -- experiences they had 

trying to get into college, trying to get jobs, trying to make a living 

after the war when they weren’t veterans. And it was quite flagrant

to these people.

 It is dollars and cents. We were denied the college education. I

only went to the 12th grade in school. I hustled and I did pretty good 

after. But that right of a college education was worth a lot of money. 

And the DOT and some of the Department of Labor said it was worth 

anywhere from $150,000 to $300,000, in 1945 dollars or ‘44 dollars.

In today it would be a million dollars that we were denied. And I

think most people who are denied a million dollars would like to try 

to get some of it back, especially when the get 80/85 years old.

 Mr. Bradley. Well, just for the record, I want to make sure you 

know I agree with you and I was just giving you a chance to respond 

to that.

 Mr. Allison. Thank you very much, sir.

 Mr. Bradley. Mr. Kinderman, do you -- I am going to give you a 

chance to respond also.

 Mr. Kinderman. Thank you, Mr. Bradley. It is very difficult to sit

here and oppose a popular bill, especially when in fact I am a Mer-
40

chant Mariner. I hold a Merchant Mariner’s license, but obviously 

not World War II.

 I think Mr. Filner said it. He said “Who deserves what and at what 

time?” This is, as you pointed out, not a unique group. There are other groups who for various reasons have not received veterans benefits

at the time when they needed them either through the controversy or 

the amount of time it took to make a deliberation on eligibility.

 World War II Merchant Mariners took a long time. You talk to 

Vietnam veterans exposed to agent orange who suffered from cancer, 

they will tell you it took a long time to get justice too. And there 

seems to be a tradition of when you make the decision you move forward, you do not look back. So we would have concerns that if we do 

this monthly benefit without any constraints on eligibility other than

you were there, you served, and you are alive today, or your spouse is 

alive, it would certainly open up the possibilities that you would deal 

with many, many more groups.

  I am old enough to remember that when I first came into this business that the World War I veterans, they would always have a bill, 

H.R. 1918, for a service pension. And there was always great support 

for that, but it never came about. So I know this is a very difficult

situation for you.

 Mr. Bradley. Thank you very much. I have no further questions. 

If Mr. Udall or Ms. Berkley have no further questions, I would like to 

thank the panel and thank all three of the panels this afternoon. And 

state that, without objection, statements by the following individuals and organizations will be entered into the record: David Forte, 

Cleveland Marshall College of Law at Cleveland State University; 

Lino Graglia, University of Texas Law School; John Fee, Brigham 

Young University; the Disabled American Veterans; The American 

Legion; the Paralyzed Veterans of America; and the Vietnam Veterans of America.

  [The statements appear on p. 121, p. 130, p. 131, p. 135, p. 136, and

p. 149]

 Mr. Bradley. I appreciate everyone’s attendance this afternoon. 

This Committee has a long tradition of bipartisanship, which I think 

you have seen on display here this afternoon. On behalf of the other 

members and Mr. Miller, we all look forward to working with you 

to ensure a productive year. And once again we thank you for your 

participation this afternoon. And with that and with nothing further 

before this Subcommittee, I will adjourn the hearing and thank you.

  [Whereupon, at 3:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
(41)

APPENDIX
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157