69–010 ★ (Star Print) 

Calendar No. 947 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 110–449 

VETERANS’ BENEFITS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2008 

SEPTEMBER 9, 2008.—Ordered to be printed 

Mr. AKAKA, from the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 3023] 

The Committee on Veterans’ Affairs (the Committee), to which 

was referred the bill (S. 3023), to amend title 38, United States 

Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to prescribe regulations relating to the notice to be provided claimants with the 

Department of Veterans’ Affairs regarding the substantiation of 

claims, having considered the same, unanimously reports favorably 

thereon with an amendment, and an amendment to the title, and 

recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass. 

INTRODUCTION

On May 15, 2008, Committee Chairman Daniel K. Akaka introduced S. 3023, the proposed ‘‘Veterans’ Notice Clarification Act of 

2008.’’ S. 3023 would amend title 38, United States Code, to improve notices provided to veterans applying for disability compensation, and for other purposes. The bill was referred to the 

Committee. 

Earlier on January 4, 2007, Senator Thune introduced S. 161, 

the proposed ‘‘Veterans’ Disability Compensation Automatic COLA 

Act.’’ Later, Senators Snowe and Tester were added as cosponsors. 

S. 161 would require that, whenever there is an increase in benefit 

amounts payable under title II (Federal Old-Age, Survivors, and 

Disability Insurance Benefits) of the Social Security Act, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall increase by the same percentage 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
2 

the amounts payable as veterans’ disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses and 

children. 

On June 27, 2007, Senator Brown introduced S. 1718, the proposed ‘‘Veterans Education Tuition Support Act,’’ with Senator 

Salazar as an original cosponsor. Later, Senators Baucus, Boxer, 

Casey, Domenici, Klobuchar, McCaskill, Menendez, Mikulski, Murray, Sessions, Stabenow, Tester, and Webb were added as cosponsors. S. 1718 would amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 

(SCRA) to provide protections for servicemembers who are called to 

active duty while enrolled in institutions of higher education. 

On September 25, 2007, Chairman Akaka introduced S. 2090 by 

request of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(CAVC or the Court). S. 2090 would enhance privacy protection and 

alleviate security concerns regarding the records of the Court. 

On September 25, 2007, Chairman Akaka introduced S. 2091 by 

request of CAVC. S. 2091 would increase the number of judges on 

the Court from seven to nine. 

On December 13, 2007, Senator Kennedy introduced S. 2471, the 

proposed ‘‘USERRA Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007,’’ with 

Chairman Akaka and Senator Obama as original cosponsors. Later, 

Senator Clinton was added as a cosponsor. S. 2471 would amend 

the current Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment 

Rights Act (USERRA) complaint process and modify and expand 

the reporting requirements with respect to enforcement of 

USERRA. 

On January 23, 2008, Senator Hutchison introduced S. 2550, the 

proposed ‘‘Combat Veterans Debt Elimination Act of 2008,’’ with 

Senators Cornyn and Johnson as original cosponsors. Later, Ranking Minority Member Burr and Senators Alexander, Allard, Bayh, 

Brown, Brownback, Byrd, Cochran, Conrad, Domenici, Ensign, 

Isakson, McConnell, Murray, Roberts, Sessions, Sununu, and Wicker were added as cosponsors. S. 2550 would prohibit the Secretary 

of Veterans Affairs from collecting debts owed to the United States 

by certain members of the Armed Forces or veterans who die as a 

result of an injury incurred or aggravated on active duty in a war 

or a combat zone after September 11, 2001. 

On February 28, 2008, Ranking Minority Member Burr introduced S. 2674, the proposed ‘‘America’s Wounded Warriors Act.’’ 

Later, Senators Cochran, Domenici, and Isakson were added as cosponsors. Title II of S. 2674 would direct the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA or the Department) to conduct a series of studies 

on reforming the disability compensation system and then submit 

to Congress a proposal for a new compensation and transition payment rate structure. 

On March 10, 2008, Chairman Akaka introduced S. 2737, the 

proposed ‘‘Veterans’ Rating Schedule Review Act.’’ S. 2737 would 

authorize CAVC to review whether, and the extent to which, the 

rating schedule for veterans’ disabilities complies with statutory requirements applicable to entitlement to veterans’ disability compensation for service-connected disability or death. 

On March 13, 2008, Chairman Akaka introduced S. 2768, with 

Ranking Minority Member Burr, and Senators Baucus, Boxer, 

Brown, Clinton, Durbin, Kerry, Murray, Obama, Reid, Rockefeller, 

and Sanders as original cosponsors. Later, Senators Cantwell, 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
3 

Isakson, Schumer, and Smith were added as cosponsors. S. 2768 

would provide a temporary increase, during the period beginning 

on the date of enactment of this Act and ending on December 31, 

2011, in the maximum veterans’ loan guaranty amount for housing 

loans guaranteed by VA. 

On April 17, 2008, Chairman Akaka introduced S. 2889, the proposed ‘‘Veterans Health Care Act of 2008,’’ by request of VA. Section 7 of S. 2889 would make permanent VA’s authority to obtain 

income information from the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration. 

On April 30, 2008, Senator Vitter introduced S. 2946, with Senator Brownback as an original cosponsor. S. 2946 would allow a 

stillborn child to be an insurable dependent under Servicemembers’ 

Group Life Insurance (SGLI). 

On May 1, 2008, Senator Baucus introduced S. 2951, with Senators Lugar and Tester as original cosponsors. S. 2951 would require reports on VA’s progress in addressing causes for variances 

in compensation payments to veterans for service-connected disabilities. 

On May 1, 2008, Chairman Akaka introduced S. 2961. S. 2961 

would enhance the refinancing of home loans by veterans. 

On May 1, 2008, Senator Boxer introduced S. 2965, with Senator 

Lieberman as an original cosponsor. S. 2965 would require a report 

from VA on the inclusion of severe and acute Post Traumatic 

Stress Disorder among the conditions covered by traumatic injury 

protection under SGLI. 

On May 6, 2008, Senator Casey introduced S. 2981, the proposed 

‘‘Disabled Veterans Home Ownership Preservation Act of 2008,’’ 

with Senator Isakson as an original cosponsor. S. 2981 would 

amend SCRA to provide a one-year period of protection against 

mortgage foreclosures for certain disabled or severely injured 

servicemembers, and for other purposes. 

On May 6, 2008, Chairman Akaka introduced S. 2984, the proposed ‘‘Veterans’ Benefits Enhancement Act of 2008,’’ by request of 

VA. S. 2984 would eliminate the reporting requirement for prior 

training; modify the waiting period before the affirmation of enrollment in a correspondence course; eliminate the change-of-program 

application; eliminate the wage earning requirement for self-employment on-job training; authorize memorial headstones and 

markers for deceased remarried surviving spouses of veterans; 

make permanent VA’s authority to contract for medical disability 

examinations; make modifications to SGLI; permit VA to provide 

Temporary Residence Assistance Grants to certain servicemembers; 

and designate a VA Office of Small Business Programs. 

On May 7, 2008, the Committee held a hearing on benefits legislation at which testimony was offered by: Mr. Keith Pedigo, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program Management, Department of Veterans Affairs; Mr. Carl Blake, National 

Legislative Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America; Mr. Richard 

Paul Cohen, Executive Director, National Organization of Veterans’ 

Advocates; Mr. Eric A. Hilleman, Deputy Director of the National 

Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States; 

Mr. Ray Kelley, Legislative Director, AMVETS; Mr. Steve 

Smithson, Deputy Director, Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation 

Commission, The American Legion; Mr. Joseph Violante, National 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
4 

Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans; Mr. Rick 

Weidman, Governmental Affairs Director, Vietnam Veterans of 

America; Mr. Herman Gerald Starnes, U.S. Merchant Marine with 

service in World War II; and Mr. Charles Dana Gibson, U.S. Merchant Marine with service in World War II and maritime historian. 

On May 8, 2008, Chairman Akaka introduced S. 3000, the proposed ‘‘Native American Veterans Access Act of 2008,’’ with Senator Inouye as an original cosponsor. S. 3000 would allow tribal 

governments to apply for veterans’ program grants that are currently limited to States and certain U.S. Territories. 

On June 5, 2008, Senator Snowe introduced S. 3087, the proposed ‘‘Helping Our Veterans to Keep Their Homes Act of 2008.’’ 

S. 3087 would extend VA’s authority to guaranty adjustable rate 

mortgages and hybrid adjustable rate mortgages. 

COMMITTEE MEETING

After carefully reviewing the testimony from the foregoing hearing, the Committee met in open session on June 26, 2008, to consider, among other legislation, an amended version of S. 3023, consisting of provisions from S. 3023, as introduced, and from the legislation noted above. The Committee voted unanimously to report 

favorably S. 3023, as amended, to the Senate. 

SUMMARY OF S. 3023 AS REPORTED

S. 3023, as reported (the Committee bill), consists of six titles, 

summarized below. 

TITLE I—COMPENSATION AND PENSION MATTERS

Section 101 would require VA to promulgate regulations specifying the content of notices to be provided to claimants for original 

claims, reopened claims and claims for an increase in benefits. This 

would apply to notices sent on or after the date the regulations are 

effective. 

Section 102 would authorize the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit to review VA actions relating to the adoption or revision of the VA disability rating schedule in the same 

manner as other actions of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs are reviewed. 

Section 103 would provide an automatic annual increase in rates 

of disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation. 

Section 104 would make a technical correction to the National 

Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008. 

Section 105 would require a report describing VA’s progress in 

addressing the causes for any unacceptable variances in compensation payments to veterans for service-connected disabilities. 

Section 106 would require a report on studies regarding compensation of veterans for loss of earning capacity, quality of life, 

and long-term transition payments to veterans undergoing rehabilitation for service-connected disabilities. 

TITLE II—HOUSING MATTERS

Section 201 would temporarily increase the maximum loan guaranty amount for certain housing loans guaranteed by VA. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
5 

Section 202 would permit regular loans in excess of $144,000 to 

be refinanced with a loan guaranteed by VA and decrease the equity requirement for veterans who refinance to a loan backed by 

VA. 

Section 203 would provide a four-year extension of two demonstration projects of adjustable rate mortgages. 

Section 204 would make members of the Armed Forces with certain service-connected disabilities eligible for specially adapted 

housing benefits and assistance. 

Section 205 would require a report on the impact of housing foreclosures on veterans and the adequacy of protection against foreclosure in existing law. 

TITLE III—LABOR AND EDUCATION MATTERS

SUBTITLE A—LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT MATTERS

Section 301 would waive the 24-month limitation on a program 

of independent living services and assistance for veterans with a 

severe disability incurred in the Post-9/11 Global Operations period. 

Section 302 would reform the USERRA complaint process. 

Section 303 would modify and expand the reporting requirements 

with respect to enforcement of USERRA. 

Section 304 would require USERRA training for the executive 

branch human resources personnel. 

Section 305 would require a report on efforts to address the employment needs of Native American veterans living on tribal lands. 

Section 306 would require a report on measures that could be 

taken by VA to assist and encourage veterans in completing vocational rehabilitation. 

SUBTITLE B—EDUCATION MATTERS

Section 311 would provide relief for students who discontinue 

education because of military service. 

Section 312 would extend the period of eligibility for Survivors’ 

and Dependents’ Educational Assistance of certain spouses of individuals with service-connected disabilities total and permanent in 

nature. 

Section 313 would repeal the requirement that an educational institution providing non-accredited courses notify VA of the credit 

granted for prior training of certain individuals. 

Section 314 would decrease the waiting period before affirmation 

of enrollment in a correspondence course may be finalized for purposes of receiving educational assistance from VA. 

Section 315 would repeal the requirement that an individual notify VA when the individual changes educational programs but remains enrolled at the same educational institution. 

Section 316 would exempt on-the-job training programs from the 

requirement to provide participants with wages if the training program is offered in connection with the purchase of a franchise. 

SUBTITLE C—OTHER MATTERS

Section 321 would rename VA’s Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization as the VA Office of Small Business Programs. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
6 

TITLE IV—COURT MATTERS

Section 401 would increase the number of active judges on the 

Court. 

Section 402 would provide for the protection of privacy and security concerns in Court records. 

Section 403 would modify the rules governing service and payment of retired judges performing recall service for the Court. 

Section 404 would require the Court to submit annual reports to 

Congress on its workload. 

TITLE V—INSURANCE MATTERS

Section 501 would require a report on the inclusion of severe and 

acute Post Traumatic Stress Disorder among the conditions covered 

by traumatic injury protection coverage under SGLI. 

Section 502 would provide for the treatment of stillborn children 

as insurable dependents under SGLI. 

Section 503 would extend SGLI coverage to certain members of 

the Individual Ready Reserve. It would terminate coverage under 

SGLI for a servicemember’s dependent 120 days after the servicemember separates from service. It would authorize VA to set SGLI 

premiums for Ready Reservists’ spouses based on the age of the 

spouse. It would create a forfeiture of insurance under the Veterans’ Group Life Insurance (VGLI) program for actions such as 

mutiny or treason. 

TITLE VI—OTHER MATTERS

Section 601 would create the authority for suspension or termination of claims of the United States against individuals who died 

while serving on active duty in the Armed Forces. 

Section 602 would provide memorial headstones and markers for 

deceased remarried surviving spouses of veterans. 

Section 603 would provide a three-year extension of authority for 

VA to carry out income verification using records from the Internal 

Revenue Service (IRS) and Social Security Administration (SSA). 

Section 604 would extend the authority for VA to fund contract 

medical disability examinations. 

BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

TITLE I—COMPENSATION AND PENSION MATTERS

Sec. 101. Regulations on contents of notice to be provided claimants 

with the Department of Veterans Affairs regarding substantiation of claims. 

Section 101 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 3023 

as introduced, would require VA to promulgate regulations relating 

to the notice provided to claimants seeking VA benefits. 

Background. VA’s system for adjudicating claims for service-connected disability benefits is intended to be a claimant-friendly and 

non-adversarial process. Under chapter 51 of title 38, VA has a 

duty to assist claimants in gathering the necessary information and 

evidence to fully develop their claims. 

A series of CAVC rulings in the 1990s narrowly interpreted the 

duty to assist concept, culminating in Morton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 

477 (1999), which held that VA had no authority to assist. claimVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:33 Sep 11, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR449.XXX SR449

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
7 

ants absent verification that the claim was well-grounded. The 

CVAC found that VA was precluded from assisting a claimant ‘‘in 

any way unless that claimant had first established that his or her 

claim was well-grounded.’’ PVA v. Secretary, 345 F.3d 1334, 1338 

(Fed. Cir. 2003). As a result of the Morton decision, VA ceased providing any assistance to claimants who did not have a ‘‘wellgrounded claim’’ except for the verification of military service and 

obtaining service medical records. 

Congress disagreed with the Court’s interpretation of VA’s duty 

to assist and, in 2000, in Public Law 106–475, the Veterans Claims 

Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), clarified and expanded VA’s duty 

to assist claimants. The VCAA reinstated VA’s traditional practice 

of assisting veterans at the beginning of the claims process. 

Prior to the enactment of the VCAA, section 5103 of title 38 provided that, if a claimant’s application for benefits was incomplete, 

VA was required to notify the claimant of the evidence necessary 

to complete the application. Under the changes made by the VCAA, 

VA is required to inform the claimant of what information and 

medical or lay evidence is needed to substantiate the claim. The notice must also stipulate what evidence and information is to be obtained by the claimant and what evidence is VA’s responsibility. 

VA is also required to notify the claimant when it is unable to obtain the relevant records. 

Since the enactment of the VCAA, various actions, including decisions of the Court and VA’s responses to some of those decisions, 

have led to notices that are not meeting the goal of providing 

claimants with sufficient, clear information on which they can then 

act. Instead of simple, straightforward notices that can be easily 

read and understood by claimants, VA is now routinely providing 

long, frequently convoluted, overly legalistic notices that do not 

meet the objective of the VCAA. It is clear to the Committee that 

there is abundant evidence supporting the need to change the current situation and strong support for doing so. 

For example, the Committee notes that there have been cases 

subsequent to the enactment of VCAA, such as Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006), in which the Court has interpreted 

the notice requirement to include information concerning so-called 

‘‘downstream’’ issues, such as the rating schedule and effective 

date, before a determination of service-connection is made, a result 

not contemplated by the original law. In other cases, such as 

Vazquez-Flores v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 37 (2008), it appears that VA 

has misinterpreted the intent of the Court by suggesting that a 

preadjudication of claims would be required prior to sending a 

VCAA notice. In VA’s motion to stay its original decision, the Court 

stated, ‘‘the Secretary need only identify the assigned DC [diagnostic code] and cross-referenced DCs, review them for specific criteria for which the generic notice is insufficient, and add general 

notice of the evidence needed to satisfy that criteria.’’ Vazquez-Flores v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 91 (2008). 

In recent oversight visits to 19 different VA regional offices, a 

Democratic Committee staff member reviewed 298 individual claim 

files and found that VCAA letters sent to claimants provide little 

practical assistance to those veterans. In many of the claims examined, information that would have been helpful in substantiating 

the claim was missing. However, the files did not indicate that VA 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
8 

had requested the missing information. For example, a veteran filing an original claim, would indicate ‘‘See SMRs [Service Medical 

Records]’’ rather than providing dates of disability and treatment 

locations. In a number of files reviewed, the evidence showed that 

service medical records were missing or incomplete. In cases involving combat, time and location information may be needed in order 

for VA to determine if the relaxed evidentiary requirements of section 1154 of title 38 should be applied, but review of the files found 

that such information was neither provided nor requested. The 

Committee believes that time and location information should be 

requested in those cases where it is needed for VA to provide effective assistance in locating relevant government records. 

With respect to reopened claims or claims for an increase, the 

VCAA letters are also legalistic and confusing. In over 50 percent 

of the claims reviewed at regional offices, VA staff agreed that errors involving service-connection or the rating assigned were committed. Where service-connection was an issue, VCAA letters involving reopened claims generally did not inform veterans of the 

element of the claim for which evidence would be needed to reopen 

the claim. For example, a VCAA letter to a veteran with a current 

disability would not state that the evidence needed to reopen the 

claim was evidence of the relationship between the current disability and military service. As a result, a veteran would submit 

considerable evidence concerning the extent of the disability but 

would fail to submit needed evidence of the relationship, or nexus, 

between the disability and military service. 

In testimony before the Committee, on July 9, 2008, Kerry 

Baker, Associate National Legislative Director of the Disabled 

American Veterans noted that ‘‘the language of section 5103(a) has 

led to such a procedural quagmire that it is not fulfilling its intended benefit to VA claimants.’’ During the same hearing, William 

‘‘Bo’’ Rollins, Director of Field Services for the Paralyzed Veterans 

of America stated ‘‘Congress should consider amending the [VCAA] 

law to direct VA to fill in the contours of an adequate VCAA notice 

letter.’’ 

The Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission (VDBC), in its 

final report, expressed concerns about VA’s efforts to comply with 

the VCAA, based on its site visits and general study of VA claims 

adjudication. The VDBC reported receiving numerous complaints 

that the notice letters they were receiving were too long and overburdened with legal language. The VDBC recognized that the notices are not clear or succinct: 

VA should consider amending Veterans Claims Assistance 

Act letters by including all claim-specific information to be 

shown on the first page and all other legal requirements 

would be reflected, either on a separate form or on subsequent pages. In particular, VA should use plain language 

in stating how the claimant can request an early decision 

in his or her case. 

IBM Global Business Services, with which VA contracted in the 

Fall of 2007 to conduct an analysis of VA’s business processes for 

adjudicating disability claims and prescribe a short-term action 

plan and long-term strategic plan for improving the quality and efficiency of the process, also found the current VCAA letter to be 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
9 

‘‘long and complex, containing a great deal of legal language that 

can be confusing to veterans when trying to understand the process 

for completing their disability claim.’’ It recommended that the current VCAA letter be revised to be shorter and more transparent to 

veterans. According to IBM, ‘‘[c]omplex legal language which is required to be in the letter should be translated into layman’s terms, 

or else placed in supplemental pages to the letter, while the main 

body of the letter is clear and succinct.’’ 

It is clear to the Committee that additional Congressional guidance and a requirement for the promulgation of regulations will aid 

VA in providing easy-to-read notices that will comply with due 

process and VA’s duty to assist under the VCAA. 

Committee Bill. Section 101 of the Committee bill would amend 

subsection (a) of section 5103 of title 38 to add a new paragraph 

that would require VA to promulgate regulations specifying the 

content of VCAA notices provided to claimants. The regulations required by the Committee bill would require that the notice specify 

for each type of claim for benefits the general information and evidence required to substantiate the claim. For example, if a claim 

involved benefits and services based upon need, the notice would 

advise that information concerning income and assets must be submitted. In a claim based upon disability, the notice would reference 

the need for evidence of disability, including signs or symptoms of 

a disabling condition. The regulations should also specify different 

content of the notices depending on the type of claim concerned, 

whether it be an original claim, a claim for reopening, or a claim 

for increase in benefits. 

The Committee emphasizes that VCAA notices are required only 

in cases in which additional information or evidence is needed to 

substantiate the claim. If the information and evidence needed to 

substantiate the claim is submitted with the application or contained in the claims file, no VCAA notice is required. For example, 

claims for education, health care, housing, vocational rehabilitation, and burial benefits might contain sufficient information and 

evidence to substantiate the claim without the necessity of a VCAA 

notice. 

With respect to original claims, the Committee believes that the 

regulations relating to notice for original claims should specify that 

the information and evidence referenced in the VCAA notice should 

be relevant to the basic elements of the claim for benefits or services sought: (1) evidence of current disability or symptoms of disability; (2) evidence relating to a disability, symptoms of disability, 

one or more incidents or events in service giving rise to or aggravating a disability; and (3) the relationship between the current 

disability and military service. 

The Committee expects that the regulations will require that 

VCAA notices include a request for clarification of missing or ambiguous information contained in a request for benefits where it 

may be necessary or helpful to identify evidence that may substantiate the claim. In cases concerning service-connection, such requests might include approximate dates and locations of treatment 

and if applicable, approximate dates and locations related to combat experiences associated with claimed disabilities. 

The Committee is concerned that requiring VA to include in notices relating to original claims information concerning ‘‘downVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:33 Sep 11, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR449.XXX SR449

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
10 

stream elements,’’ such as the rating schedule and effective date, 

before a determination of service-connection is made, may be misleading and confusing to veterans. Such information may lead a 

veteran into believing that service-connection has been conceded 

and the issue on which evidence must be submitted relates to the 

rating or effective date. 

During oversight visits to 19 different VA regional offices, a 

Democratic Committee staff member has identified some claims for 

which VA has no duty to assist, because there was no reasonable 

possibility that such assistance would result in substantiating a 

claim. These claims included claims for environmental exposure 

without any indication that any disability is related to the alleged 

exposure. The regulations may provide that notice in such cases 

may indicate that no development will be undertaken, unless the 

veteran indicates a disability that is related to the claimed exposure. Other examples of cases in which the notice may indicate 

that VA assistance cannot help include claims involving conditions, 

such as high cholesterol, with no related disability alleged, and 

male pattern baldness, which is not considered a disability under 

VA regulations. In such instances, the regulations may provide 

that the notification will indicate that the claims will not be developed because there is no reasonable possibility that such assistance 

would result in substantiating the claim. 

With respect to claims to reopen a previously denied claim, the 

Committee believes that different VCAA notice considerations 

should apply. In recent oversight visits by a Democratic Committee 

staff member, it was noted that a number of veterans’ claims were 

denied because of a lack of nexus between a claimed disability and 

military service but with no indication that a medical opinion was 

acquired, as required by section 5103A of title 38. This error is frequently identified by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals in remands of 

appealed cases. In other cases, the veteran may have filed an ambiguous, potential, or inferred claim that was not clarified before 

the claim was decided. The Democratic Committee staff member 

also identified a number of cases in which a veteran seeking to reopen a previously denied claim for service-connection submitted 

substantial and often duplicative documentation concerning a current disability, apparently unaware that the basis for the denial 

was a lack of evidence linking the disability to military service. 

The Committee does not expect that the regulations would require a full pre-adjudication file review prior to issuing a VCAA letter involving a reopened claim. However, the regulations should require the notice in such cases to appropriately reference the prior 

decision with respect to what element of the claim requires new 

and material evidence to reopen the claim and what type of evidence is required. In this regard, the Committee notes the opinion 

of the Court in Kent v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 1, 9 (2006), in which 

the Court indicated that ‘‘VA must notify a claimant of the evidence and information that is necessary to reopen the claim and 

VA must notify the claimant of the evidence and information that 

is necessary to establish his entitlement to the underlying claim for 

the benefit sought by the claimant.’’ The Committee expects regulations concerning reopened claims to comply with the Kent standard. 

The Committee notes that given the large amount of documentation often contained in claims files, it is not practical, feasible, or 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
11 

efficient to require that every document in an existing claims file 

be reviewed before a VCAA letter is issued. By focusing the regulation on the decision sought to be reopened with reference to the 

evidence considered in that decision, the Committee believes that 

VCAA and Kent compliance would be achieved. 

The Committee recognizes that review of the most recent prior 

decision might also result in a finding of ‘‘clear and unmistakable 

error’’ (CUE). During Committee oversight visits by a Democratic 

staff member, some claims were identified with CUE in the original 

rating decision. For example, several rating decisions for serviceconnection of asthma acknowledged that the veteran required daily 

inhalation bronchodilator therapy but rated such a claim at 10 percent rather than 30 percent which the same decision recognized as 

the correct rating for such a disability. In most of the claims where 

CUE was found, the veteran had not appealed an erroneous decision and, in a few cases, had attempted to reopen the decision rather than appeal. Such errors were promptly corrected by the regional office during the oversight visits. A review by VA of the decision sought to be reopened in preparation for the VCAA notice 

should identify clear examples of CUE, leading to a revised decision which would moot the request for reopening. 

With respect to claims for an increase in the degree of serviceconnected disability, the Committee expects that the regulation will 

require VA to review the most recent rating decision concerning the 

disability for which an increased rating is claimed and, in the 

words of the Court in Vazquez-Flores v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 91, 93 

(2008) make ‘‘a common-sense assessment whether the criteria for 

a higher rating under the assigned or a cross-referenced DC [diagnostic code] includes criteria ‘that would not be satisfied by the 

claimant demonstrating a noticeable worsening or increase in severity of the disability * * *’.’’ 

The Committee notes that the best evidence upon which to evaluate a claim for an increased rating is a complete and thorough 

medical examination that should provide sufficient evidence for VA 

rating staff to determine which rating code is appropriate to the 

findings and diagnosis made by the examiner. Unless the medical 

evidence submitted by the veteran requesting an increased rating 

or the other VA records demonstrate that such an increase is warranted, the Committee believes that the VCAA notice involving a 

claim for an increase should indicate that a VA medical examination will be ordered. The regulation should also require that the 

veteran be informed as to the general information and medical or 

lay evidence needed to establish a claim for extra-schedular consideration. 

The Committee believes that, by notifying the veteran that an 

examination would be scheduled to evaluate the current disability 

involved in the claim for an increase and the criteria for establishing extra-schedular consideration, the duty to notify would be 

met. VA would need to comply with the Vazquez-Flores requirement for additional diagnostic codes or other criteria only when a 

‘‘common-sense assessment’’, such as the identification of cross-referenced codes, is indicated. In cases where a common-sense assessment requires information concerning additional diagnostic code 

criteria, the regulations may provide that such criteria be included 

as an appendix rather than in the body of the VCAA letter. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
12 

VCAA letters concerning claims for increased ratings should be 

based upon the rating code that was assigned in the most recent 

prior decision and any other cross-referenced rating codes that 

might provide a basis for an increase in benefits. However, the 

Committee does not expect that such a requirement should be interpreted to require notice and diagnostic codes for all potential 

disabilities involving a particular body system or part. 

Under the amendment proposed in the Committee bill, VA would 

be specifically authorized to issue additional or alternative regulations in order to tailor the VCAA notice to the specific elements of 

the claim for the particular type of benefits or services sought. In 

cases in which more than one type of claim is filed in the same document, VA would have the flexibility to issue separate VCAA notices on the different types of claims or to provide the information 

relevant to each type of claim in the same VCAA notice. The Committee intends that, in determining whether to require separate or 

combined notices, VA will take into account the intent of Congress 

to promote simple and easy-to-understand VCAA notices. 

The amendment proposed in the Committee bill would also require that the regulations contain information concerning the time 

within which the information and evidence to be provided by the 

claimant must be submitted in order for benefits to be paid or services rendered under the claim. 

This provision is intended to simplify the notices by reducing the 

amount of extraneous information provided and clarifying the responsibilities of the claimant to provide relevant information and 

evidence. The regulations required by section 101 would apply to 

all notices issued on or after the date the regulations are made effective. 

The Committee is aware that VA has taken action to revise the 

VCAA letter. VA Deputy Under Secretary for Benefits, Michael 

Walcoff, testified at a February 14, 2008, hearing of the House 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs that the ‘‘current VCAA letters are 

lengthy and contain complex legal language that many claimants 

find difficult to understand.’’ At that time, Mr. Walcoff reported 

that the Veterans Benefits Administration was working closely 

with VA’s Office of the General Counsel to revise and simplify the 

letters. VA Acting Under Secretary for Benefits, Rear Admiral Patrick Dunne, testified at the Committee’s July 9, 2008, hearing that 

four new VCAA letter templates had been drafted for specific types 

of claims. Admiral Dunne projected that the revised letters would 

be available for use by regional offices by November 2008. 

The Committee recognizes that VA does not require statutory authority to make the proposed changes to its notices and welcomes 

the expected introduction of these revised notices in November 

2008. However, the Committee believes that, given the history of 

judicial interpretations of the notice requirement, a statutory basis 

for the revised VCAA notice regulations should be enacted. 

The Committee notes that the regulations required by section 

101 of the Committee bill would have prospective effect and does 

not intend that the required changes would be applied retroactively. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
13 

Sec. 102. Judicial review of adoption and revision by the Secretary 

of Veterans Affairs of the schedule of ratings for disabilities of 

veterans. 

Section 102 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 2737, 

would make actions of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs relating to 

the adoption or revision of VA’s rating schedule for disabilities subject to the same type of review as that applied to other actions of 

the Secretary. 

Background. Until 1988, veterans were generally precluded from 

obtaining judicial review of decisions made by the then-Veterans 

Administration. Public Law 100–687, the Veterans’ Judicial Review 

Act, removed that bar by authorizing judicial review of VA decisions in a newly established court, now known as the United States 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. That law also provided for 

jurisdiction in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit for challenges to certain actions of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs covered by the Administrative Procedure Act. However, that law specifically precluded review of actions relating to 

the adoption or revision of the schedule of ratings for disabilities 

adopted under section 1155 of title 38, United States Code. As a 

result of that prohibition, a regulation found in the rating schedule 

that is alleged to violate a statutory provision could be insulated 

from judicial review. 

A number of recent reports, including the Institute of Medicine’s 

report ‘‘A 21st Century System for Evaluating Veterans for Disability Benefits’’ and the final report of the Veterans’ Disability 

Benefits Commission ‘‘Honoring the Call to Duty: Veterans’ Disability Benefits in the 21st Century,’’ have noted the need to update obsolete sections of VA’s rating schedule. Without a change to 

current law, any changes to the rating schedule regulations would 

be shielded from judicial review. 

S. 2737, the legislation from which section 102 of the Committee 

bill is derived, would have provided for judicial review of the rating 

schedule by CAVC. Such review would have been available in order 

to determine if such regulations were in compliance with provisions 

in chapter 11 of title 38, the chapter relating to disability compensation. 

During the Committee’s May 7, 2008, hearing which focused on 

pending legislation, including S. 2737, the VA witness, Keith 

Pedigo, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program 

Management of the Veterans Benefits Administration, expressed 

concerns that the bill ‘‘would essentially expose the rating schedule 

to judicial review’’ in every case involving service-connection of a 

disability or a claim for an increased rating and, as such, could increase litigation in CAVC and result in piecemeal review of the rating schedule. 

At that same hearing, several veterans service organizations and 

the National Organization of Veterans’ Advocates testified in support of the bill. 

Committee Bill. Section 102 of the Committee bill would amend 

section 502 of title 38, relating to judicial review of rules and regulations by striking out ‘‘(other than an action relating to the adoption or revision of the schedule of ratings for disabilities adopted 

under section 1155 of this title),’’ thereby providing for review of 

actions of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs relating to adoption or 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
14 

revision of the rating schedule by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the same way as other VA actions 

are reviewed. 

The Committee believes that this approach will avoid the concern 

about the piecemeal approach raised in VA’s testimony and should 

prevent multiple and possibly conflicting interpretations of the rating schedule in various cases. 

The Committee notes that the level and type of review proposed 

in the Committee bill for the review of the rating schedule would 

be circumscribed by a number of limitations. For example, under 

the Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit, an action seeking review of a rule or regulation must be 

filed within 60 days of the effective date of the rule or regulation. 

Furthermore, under the standards set forth by the Supreme 

Court of the United States in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. 

Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 (1984), courts must give deference to the Secretary’s interpretation of a statute ‘‘if the statute 

is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue.’’ If Congress explicitly left a gap in the statute for VA to fill, then the Secretary’s interpretation is controlling unless ‘‘arbitrary, capricious, 

or manifestly contrary to the statute.’’ Id. at 843–844. If Congress 

implicitly delegated authority to VA to fill the gap, the Secretary’s 

interpretation will be upheld if it is a reasonable interpretation of 

the statute. Id. at 844. 

During consideration of this issue, a concern was raised that, 

under the proposed change allowing for judicial review of actions 

by the Secretary relating to the adoption or revision of VA’s rating 

schedule, it was possible that challenges might be taken in response to a denial by VA of a request for rulemaking under subsection (e) of section 553 of title 5. While it is correct that such a 

challenge is available under current law and might be brought in 

the future, no cases have been identified in which such a challenge 

has been brought with reference to VA rulemaking since judicial 

review was instituted in 1988. This lack of such actions may be explained by the daunting burden facing a petitioner in such a case. 

The Supreme Court of the United States only recently addressed 

the reviewability of an agency decision to deny a petition for rulemaking in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007). In that case, 

the Supreme Court found that a refusal ‘‘to promulgate rules are 

* * * susceptible to judicial review, though such review is ‘extremely limited’ and ‘highly deferential.’ ’’ The Supreme Court cited 

two decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit in its decision, American Horse Protection Association, Inc. v. Lyng, 812 F.2d 1 (D.C. Cir. 1987), and National Customs Brokers & Forwarders Ass’n v. United States, 883 F.2d 93 

(D.C. Cir. 1989). In National Customs Brokers, 883 F. 2d at 103, 

the circuit court noted that ‘‘[i]t is only in the rarest and most compelling of circumstances that [the circuit court] has acted to overturn an agency judgment not to institute rulemaking.’’ In concluding that the agency had not acted improperly in refusing to 

promulgate rules suggested by the petitioners, the court found that 

this was ‘‘not such a rare case’’ because the issues were ‘‘economic 

in nature’’ and entailed ‘‘policy determinations on which agency 

rulemaking discretion is respected.’’ Id. Thus, the Committee believes that the general authority that would be provided by this 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
15 

section would likely afford veterans relief under only very limited 

circumstances in a matter involving a denial on VA’s part to engage in rulemaking. 

Finally, the Committee notes that as a result of removing the 

prohibition on review of actions of the Secretary relating to adoption or revision of the rating schedule in current law, the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit would be authorized to review agency records that underlie challenges to rules and 

regulations in the same manner as is currently applied to other VA 

regulations. The Committee expects VA’s rulemaking procedures 

and fact-finding to be sufficiently robust to permit meaningful review of actions relating to the adoption and revision of the rating 

schedule. 

Sec. 103. Automatic annual increase in rates of disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation. 

Section 103 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 161, 

would require that whenever there is an increase in benefit 

amounts payable under title II of the Social Security Act, VA would 

automatically increase the rates of disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation, among other rates, by the 

same percentage and effective on the same date. 

Background. The service-connected disability compensation program under chapter 11 of title 38, United States Code, provides 

monthly cash benefits to veterans who have disabilities incurred or 

aggravated during active service in the Armed Forces. The amount 

of compensation paid depends on the nature and severity of a veteran’s disability or combination of disabilities and the extent to 

which the disability impairs earning capacity. Certain veterans 

with more severe disabilities are also eligible to receive additional 

compensation on behalf of the veteran’s spouse, children, and dependent parents. 

Under chapter 13 of title 38, VA pays dependency and indemnity 

compensation (DIC) to the survivors of servicemembers or veterans 

who died on or after January 1, 1957, from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated during military service. Survivors eligible for 

DIC include surviving spouses, unmarried children under the age 

of 18, children age 18 or older who are permanently incapable of 

self-support, children between the ages of 18 and 22 who are enrolled in school, and certain needy parents. 

Section 415(i) of title 42, provides for an automatic annual costof-living adjustment (COLA) for benefits payable under title II of 

the Social Security Act based on the annual increase in consumer 

prices. Title II Social Security benefits are indexed to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers 

(CPI–W), which is published on a monthly basis by the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics. The annual COLA increase is equivalent to the increase in the CPI–W from the most recent period between the third 

quarter of one calendar year to the third quarter of the next. 

Currently, under section 5312 of title 38, there are several VA 

benefits which receive automatic increases tied to the annual adjustments in title II Social Security benefits. These include pension 

benefits for indigent, wartime veterans who are permanently and 

totally disabled due to a non-service-connected condition, or over 

the age of 65, as well as their surviving spouses and children, and 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
16 

DIC benefits for the parents of a deceased veteran who are living 

below a certain income threshold. 

However, the majority of disability compensation and DIC benefits paid by VA are not indexed to the CPI–W and do not increase 

automatically when title II Social Security benefits are increased. 

Instead, Congress regularly enacts a cost-of-living adjustment on 

an annual basis to ensure that inflation does not erode the purchasing power of VA benefits. Although Congress in recent years 

has consistently enacted legislation on time so as to provide benefit 

recipients with a COLA increase beginning December 1 of each 

year, veterans service organizations and VA now support making 

the COLA automatic, rather than relying on annual legislation. 

Committee Bill. Section 103 of the Committee bill would amend 

section 5312 of title 38, so as to add a new subsection (d)(1), which 

would require VA to increase the amounts of certain VA benefits 

by the same percentage and effective on the same date as adjustments made to title II Social Security benefits pursuant to section 

415(i) of title 42. Proposed new subsection (d)(2) would specify the 

VA benefits which would be covered by the mandated COLA increase. The benefits covered would be: 

1. Basic compensation rates for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates payable for certain severe disabilities; 

2. The allowance for spouses, children, and dependent parents paid to service-connected disabled veterans rated 30 percent or more disabled; 

3. The annual clothing allowance paid to veterans whose 

compensable disability requires the use of a prosthetic or orthopedic appliance, including a wheelchair, that tends to tear 

or wear out clothing or which requires the use of a medication 

prescribed by a physician for a service-connected skin condition 

if the medication causes irreparable damage to the veteran’s 

outergarments; and 

4. Dependency and indemnity compensation paid to: 

(a) surviving spouses of veterans whose deaths were 

service- connected; 

(b) surviving spouses for dependent children below the 

age of 18; 

(c) surviving spouses who are so disabled that they need 

aid and attendance or are permanently housebound; 

(d) surviving spouses covered under section 1318 of title 

38; and 

(e) the children of veterans whose deaths were serviceconnected if no surviving spouse is entitled to DIC, the 

child is age 18 through 22 and attending an approved educational institution, or the child is age 18 or over and became permanently incapable of self-support prior to reaching age 18. 

The proposed new subsection (d)(3) would require VA to publish 

any increases under this new authority in the Federal Register. 

The effective date of section 103 of the Committee bill would be 

December 1, 2009. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
17 

Sec. 104. Conforming amendment relating to non-deductibility from 

veterans’ disability compensation of disability severance pay for 

disabilities incurred by members of the Armed Forces in combat 

zones. 

Section 104 of the Committee bill would make a technical correction to eliminate the requirement that severance pay for a disability incurred in a combat zone be deducted from disability compensation from VA. 

Background. Section 1212 of title 10, United States Code, stipulates the amount of severance pay available to members of the 

Armed Forces who separate due to a disability incurred in the line 

of duty. Section 1646 of the Wounded Warrior Act, title XVI of Public Law 110–181, amended section 1212 to adjust the computation 

of the amount of such severance pay and to eliminate the requirement that severance pay received by servicemembers for a disability incurred in a combat zone be deducted from VA compensation. 

Section 1161 of title 38, United States Code, stipulates that the 

deduction of disability severance pay from disability compensation 

shall be made at a monthly rate not in excess of the rate of compensation to which the individual would be entitled based on the 

individual’s disability rating. Section 1161 makes reference to subsection 1212(c) of title 10. However, Public Law 110–181 did not include a conforming amendment to keep section 1161 consistent 

with the changes made to section 1212. 

Committee Bill. Section 104 of the Committee bill would make a 

conforming amendment, so that section 1161 of title 38 will be consistent with section 1212 of title 10. Section 1646 of the Wounded 

Warrior Act would be amended by redesignating subsection (c) as 

subsection (d) and inserting a new subsection (c). The new subsection (c) would amend section 1161 of title 38 by striking ‘‘as required by section 1212(c) of title 10’’ and inserting ‘‘to the extent 

required by section 1212(d) of title 10’’. The new subsection (c) 

would take effect on January 28, 2008, as if it had been included 

in the Wounded Warrior Act. As a result, the amended section 

1161 of title 38 would reflect the change to section 1212 of title 10 

eliminating the requirement that severance pay for a disability incurred in a combat zone be deducted from disability compensation 

from VA. 

Sec. 105. Report on progress of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs in 

addressing causes for variances in compensation payments for 

veterans for service-connected disabilities. 

Section 105 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 2951, 

would require VA to submit a report to Congress describing its 

progress in addressing the causes for any unacceptable variances 

in compensation payments to veterans. 

Background. In 2004, the Chicago Sun-Times ran a series of articles highlighting evidence of low disability compensation payments 

for Illinois veterans compared to veterans from other states. In response to Congressional requests, VA’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted an investigation into the differences in average monthly disability compensation payments awarded by the various VA regional offices across the country. OIG concluded that the 

factors influencing the variations were complex and intertwined, 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
18 

and included differences in claims processing practices, disability 

examinations, timeliness pressures, staffing levels, and rater experience and training. OIG also concluded that certain conditions 

such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, are inherently prone to 

subjective rating decisions, leading to inconsistency in the decisions. OIG recommended that VA further pursue the matter by 

conducting a scientifically sound study of the major factors affecting variances for compensation payments. 

VA contracted with the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) to 

perform the recommended study. IDA made its findings public in 

July 2007. IDA identified several main causes for the variations 

across states and regional offices. IDA made six recommendations 

to VA aimed at aspects of the adjudication process it believed were 

most likely to affect the consistency of claims determinations: 

standardize initial and on-going training for rating specialists; 

standardize the hospital evaluation reporting process; increase 

oversight and review of rating decisions; consider consolidating all 

or selected parts of the rating process to one location; develop and 

implement metrics to monitor consistency in adjudication results; 

and improve and expand data capture and retention. 

Then-VA Deputy Under Secretary for Benefits, Ronald R. 

Aument, testified before the House Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee 

on Oversight and Investigations on October 16, 2007, regarding 

VA’s efforts to address the IDA recommendations on improving the 

quality and consistency of the claims process. Mr. Aument stated 

that VA concurred with the IDA findings and had various initiatives underway to support the IDA recommendations. 

Committee Bill. Section 105 of the Committee bill would require 

VA to submit a report to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs of 

the Senate and the House of Representatives describing its 

progress in addressing the causes of unacceptable variances in compensation payments to veterans for service-connected disabilities. 

The report would be due to the Committees not later than one year 

after the date of enactment of this section. 

The OIG and IDA reports explored the variances among various 

regional offices, identifying many of the factors that heavily impact 

the subjective policies, processes, and training methods of individual regional offices. The report called for in this section of the 

Committee bill would require VA to report to Congress on how it 

is mitigating the impact of these variables to ensure that the process is as fair and consistent as possible, regardless of where the 

claim is adjudicated. 

The Committee bill would require the report to include three specific elements: (1) a description of the Veterans Benefits Administration’s efforts to coordinate with the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to improve the quality of disability examinations performed by VHA and contract clinicians, including the use of standardized templates; (2) an assessment of the current personnel requirements at each regional office for each type of claims adjudication position; and (3) a description of the differences, if any, in current patterns of submittal rates for claims from various segments 

of the veterans population, including veterans from rural and highly rural areas, minority veterans, veterans who served in the National Guard or Reserve, and military retirees. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
19 

Sec. 106. Report on studies regarding compensation of veterans for 

loss of earning capacity and quality of life and on long-term 

transition payments to veterans undergoing rehabilitation for 

service-connected disabilities. 

Section 106 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 2674, 

would require VA to provide Congress with a report regarding the 

results of a study examining the appropriate compensation to be 

provided to veterans for loss of earning capacity and loss of quality 

of life caused by service-connected disabilities and another study 

examining long-term transition payments to veterans undergoing 

rehabilitation for service-connected disabilities. 

Background. In July 2007, the President’s Commission on Care 

for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors recommended that 

Congress ‘‘restructure VA disability payments to include * * * 

‘transition payments.’ ’’ Those payments would be equal to three 

months of base pay for veterans with disabilities who are not participating in further rehabilitation and would entail ‘‘longer-term 

payments to cover family living expenses, if they are participating 

in further rehabilitation or education and training programs.’’ The 

Commission further recommended that ‘‘VA should commission a 

six-month study to determine the appropriate level and duration of 

longer-term transition payments.’’ In addition, the Commission recommended that ‘‘VA should move swiftly to update (and thereafter 

keep current) its disability rating schedule to reflect current injuries and modern concepts of the impact of disability on quality of 

life.’’ 

In February 2008, VA entered into a contract to conduct two 

studies on those issues. One study will examine the appropriate 

level of disability compensation to be paid to veterans to compensate for loss of earning capacity and loss of quality of life as a 

result of service-related disabilities. The other study will examine 

the feasibility and appropriate level of long-term transition payments to veterans who are separated from the Armed Forces due 

to a disability while those veterans are undergoing a program of rehabilitation. The studies were due to be completed in August 2008. 

Committee Bill. Section 106 of the Committee bill would require 

VA to submit to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate 

and House of Representatives a report including a comprehensive 

description of the findings and recommendations of those studies; 

a description of the actions proposed to be taken by VA in light of 

those findings and recommendations, including a description of any 

proposed modifications to the VA disability rating schedule or to 

other regulations or policies; a schedule for the commencement and 

completion of any actions proposed to be taken; and a description 

of any legislative action required in order to authorize, facilitate, 

or enhance any of the proposed actions. That report would be due 

no later than 210 days after the date of enactment of the Committee bill. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
20 

TITLE II—HOUSING MATTERS

Sec. 201. Temporary increase in maximum loan guaranty amount 

for certain housing loans guaranteed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

Section 201 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 2768, 

would temporarily increase the maximum loan amount guaranteed 

by VA under the VA home loan guaranty program. 

Background. The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, commonly known as the GI Bill of Rights, was signed into law as Public Law 78–346 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on June 22, 

1944, and, among other things, provided veterans with federally 

guaranteed home loans with no down payment. As World War II 

was ending, this landmark legislation made the dream of home 

ownership a reality for millions of returning veterans. They were 

able to build new homes and otherwise begin new lives with the 

assistance of the federal government. 

This guaranty may exempt homeowners from having to make a 

down payment or secure private mortgage insurance, depending on 

the size of the loan and the amount of the VA guaranty. In general, 

eligibility is extended to veterans who served on active duty for a 

minimum of 90 days during wartime or 181 continuous days during 

peacetime, and have a discharge other than dishonorable. Members 

of the Guard and Reserve who have never been called to active 

duty must serve a total of six years in order to be eligible for the 

benefit. Certain surviving spouses are also eligible for the housing 

guaranty. 

Public Law 108–454 increased VA’s maximum guaranty amount 

to 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit determined 

under section 305(a)(2) of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation Act for a single family residence, as adjusted for the year 

involved. 

The Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 (Stimulus Act), Public Law 

110–185, temporarily reset the maximum limits on home loans that 

the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) may insure and that 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac may purchase on the secondary market to 125 percent of metropolitan-area median home prices, but 

did so without reference to the VA home loan program. This had 

the effect of raising the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and FHA limits 

to nearly $730,000, in the highest cost areas, while leaving the 

then-VA limit of $417,000 in place. 

On July 30, 2008, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 

2008 was signed into law as Public Law 110–289. That law provided a temporary increase in the maximum guaranty amount for 

VA loans originated from July 30, 2008 through December 31, 2008 

to the same level as provided in the Stimulus Act. 

Committee Bill. Section 201 of the Committee bill, in a freestanding provision, would apply the temporary increase in the maximum guaranty amount until December 31, 2011. This would enable more veterans to utilize their VA benefit to purchase more 

costly homes. 

Sec. 202. Enhancement of refinancing of home loans by veterans. 

Section 202 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 2961, 

would increase the maximum guaranty limit for refinance loans 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
21 

and increase the percentage of an existing loan that VA will refinance under the VA home loan program. 

Background. Under section 3703(a)(1)(A)(i)(IV) of title 38, United 

States Code, the maximum VA home loan guaranty limit for most 

loans in excess of $144,000 is equal to 25 percent of the Freddie 

Mac conforming loan limit for a single family home. Public Law 

110–289 set this value at approximately $182,437 through the end 

of 2008. This means lenders making loans up to $729,750 will receive at least a 25 percent guaranty, which is typically required to 

place the loan on the secondary market. Under current law, this 

does not include regular refinance loans. Section 3703(a)(1)(B) of title 38 limits to $36,000 the guaranty 

that can be used for a regular refinance loan. This restriction 

means a regular refinance over $144,000 will result in a lender not 

receiving 25 percent backing from VA. In this situation, the lender 

is less likely to make the loan to the veteran. This situation essentially precludes a veteran from being able to refinance his or her 

existing FHA or conventional loan into a VA guaranteed loan if the 

loan is greater than $144,000. 

Under section 3710(b)(8) of title 38, VA is also precluded from refinancing a loan if the homeowner does not have at least ten percent equity in his or her home. 

Committee Bill. Subsection 202(a) of the Committee bill would 

raise the guaranty on VA refinance loans to the same level as conventional loans, which is 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming 

loan limit for a single family home. 

Subsection 202(b) would decrease equity requirements from 90 

percent to 95 percent for refinancing from an FHA loan or conventional loan to a VA-guaranteed loan. This will allow more veterans 

to use their VA benefit to refinance their mortgages. Many veterans do not have ten percent equity and thus are precluded from 

refinancing to a VA-guaranteed home loan. 

Given the anticipated number of non-VA-guaranteed adjustable 

mortgages that are approaching the reset time when payments are 

likely to increase, the Committee believes that it is prudent to facilitate veterans refinancing to VA-guaranteed loans. In light of today’s housing and home loan crises, additional refinancing options 

will help some veterans to bridge financial gaps and allow them to 

stay in their homes and escape possible foreclosures. These provisions would allow more qualified veterans to refinance their home 

loans under the VA program. 

Sec. 203. Four-year extension of demonstration projects on adjustable rate mortgages. 

Section 203 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 3087, 

would extend VA’s authority to guaranty adjustable rate mortgages 

and hybrid adjustable rate mortgages. 

Background. Current law, section 3707(a) of title 38, United 

States Code, authorizes VA, through fiscal year 2008, to guaranty 

adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs). ARMs are loans with interest 

rates that change. Lenders generally charge lower initial interest 

rates for ARMs than for fixed-rate mortgages. An ARM allows a 

borrower to receive a lower initial interest rate for assuming the 

risk that the interest rate could go up. Public Law 102–547, the 

Veterans Home Loan Program Amendments of 1992, initially auVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:33 Sep 11, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR449.XXX SR449

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
22 

thorized a three-year test of a VA-guaranteed ARM program modeled after the Federal Housing Administration’s ARM program. 

Section 404 of Public Law 108–454 authorized an extension of the 

VA program through fiscal year 2008. 

Section 3707A(a) of title 38 authorizes VA, through fiscal year 

2008, to guarantee so-called ‘‘hybrid’’ adjustable rate mortgages 

(hybrid ARMs). Hybrid ARMs are loans that carry a fixed rate of 

interest for an initial period followed by annual interest rate adjustments thereafter. Section 303 of Public Law 107–330 first authorized this demonstration project. Section 405 of Public Law 108– 

454 authorized an extension through fiscal year 2008. 

Since the inception of VA’s authority to guaranty ARMs and hybrid ARMs, VA has guaranteed over 230,000 ARMs and hybrid 

ARMs, 9 percent of VA’s home loan guaranty activity. 

Committee Bill. Subsection 203(a) of the Committee bill would 

amend section 3707(a) of title 38 so as to extend VA’s ARM program through fiscal year 2012. Subsection 203(b) of the Committee 

bill would amend section 3707A(a) of title 38 so as to extend VA’s 

demonstration project on hybrid ARMs through fiscal year 2012. 

The Committee recognizes that these programs have proven to be 

an important part of VA’s home loan guaranty program and expects to continue to make these loan options available to those eligible for a VA-guaranteed loan. 

Sec. 204. Eligibility for specially adapted housing benefits and assistance for members of the Armed Forces with service-connected disabilities. 

Section 204 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 2984, 

would authorize VA to provide specially adapted housing assistance 

under chapter 21 of title 38, United States Code, to active duty 

servicemembers with severe disabilities incurred or aggravated in 

the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service. 

Background. Section 2101 of title 38 permits VA to assist veterans who have certain permanent and total service-connected disabilities acquire housing with special features or adapt their existing residences with special features. These special features are 

those that are deemed appropriate by VA to assist the veteran in 

living independently with the qualifying service-connected disability. Under current law, veterans with certain severe serviceconnected disabilities are eligible to receive grants of up to either 

$10,000 or $50,000, depending on the nature of the disability. 

Section 2101 includes authority to grant these benefits to members of the Armed Forces serving on active duty who are similarly 

disabled as the result of an injury incurred or disease aggravated 

in the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service. Eligibility of members of the Armed Forces is subject to the same criteria and conditions as the eligibility of veterans. 

However, other sections of chapter 21 of title 38 do not contain 

language that explicitly makes these provisions applicable to members of the Armed Forces. Most notably, section 2102A, which provides certain assistance to veterans residing temporarily in housing 

owned by a family member, is not currently available to members 

of the Armed Forces. 

Committee Bill. Section 204 of the Committee bill would eliminate this disparity by providing, in a free-standing provision, exVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:33 Sep 11, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR449.XXX SR449

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
23 

plicit authority to VA to provide all specially adapted housing benefits under chapter 21 of title 38 to eligible members of the Armed 

Forces on active duty. 

Sec. 205. Report on impact of mortgage foreclosures on veterans. 

Section 205 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 2981, 

would require VA to provide Congress with a report on the impact 

of the recent mortgage foreclosure crisis on veterans. 

Background. The recent troubles in the subprime mortgage industry have led to rising foreclosure rates across the country. The 

most recent data from RealtyTrac, the largest national database of 

foreclosures and bank-owned properties, shows that there were 

252,363 foreclosures filings on U.S. properties in June 2008, a 53 

percent increase over the number of filings in June 2007. That 

amounts to a foreclosure filing on one of every 501 U.S. households 

during the month of June 2008. According to data from the Mortgage Bankers Association, the rate of foreclosure starts and the 

percent of loans in the process of foreclosure were at their highest 

recorded levels since 1979 during the first quarter of 2008. 

The increase in foreclosures is also a matter of concern for veterans, particularly those who have recently separated from the 

military after deployments in Operation Enduring Freedom and 

Operation Iraqi Freedom. The Congressional Joint Economic Committee announced on June 12, 2008, that research conducted by 

Committee staff in cooperation with RealtyTrac found significantly 

higher foreclosure rates in the areas surrounding the 24 military 

bases with the highest personnel populations. 

Committee Bill. Section 205 of the Committee bill would require 

that VA investigate and report on the impact of the mortgage foreclosure crisis on veterans and the adequacy of existing mechanisms 

available to help veterans. Section 205 would require the report to 

include four specific elements: (1) a general assessment of the income of veterans who have recently separated from the Armed 

Forces; (2) an assessment of the effects of the length of the disability adjudication process on the capacity of veterans to maintain 

adequate or suitable housing; (3) a description of the extent to 

which the provisions of Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) 

currently protect veterans from mortgage foreclosure; and (4) a description and assessment of the adequacy of the VA home loan 

guaranty program in preventing foreclosure for recently separated 

veterans. The report would be due to the Committees on Veterans’ 

Affairs of the Senate and the House of Representatives no later 

than December 31, 2009. 

TITLE III—LABOR AND EDUCATION MATTERS

SUBTITLE A—LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT MATTERS

Sec. 301. Waiver of 24-month limitation on program of independent 

living services and assistance for veterans with a severe disability incurred in the Post-9/11 Global Operations period. 

Section 301 of the Committee bill would expand VA’s authority 

to waive the 24-month limit on independent living services that 

may be provided to veterans of the Post-9/11 Global Operations period. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
24 

Background. Under current law, VA may provide services to certain veterans with severe service-connected disabilities to help 

them achieve maximum independence in daily living. The general 

rule is that no more than 24-months of these services may be provided to a veteran. However, under section 3105(d) of title 38, 

United States Code, the period may be extended if ‘‘the Secretary 

determines that a longer period is necessary and likely to result in 

a substantial increase in a veteran’s level of independence in daily 

living.’’ 

Committee Bill. Section 301 of the Committee bill would amend 

section 3105(d) of title 38 so as to allow VA, without having to 

make such a determination, to extend the 24-month cap on independent living services for any veteran who served on active duty 

during the Post-9/11 Global Operations period and incurred or aggravated a severe disability during that service. In the view of the 

Committee, this additional flexibility will help ensure that VA is 

able to provide the appropriate services to veterans with severe disabilities, such as traumatic brain injury (TBI), that may have 

lengthy, complex, and unpredictable recovery periods. 

Sec. 302. Reform of USERRA complaint process. 

Section 302 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 2471, 

would create deadlines for the Department of Labor, the Attorney 

General, and the Office of Special Counsel to provide assistance to 

servicemembers who believe that their rights under the Uniformed 

Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 have 

been violated. 

Background. USERRA, chapter 43 of title 38, United States 

Code, provides reemployment and employment rights to servicemembers, veterans, and those who seek to join a uniformed service. 

USERRA encourages Americans to serve in the Armed Forces and 

reduces the disruption that servicemembers face when returning to 

the civilian workforce. Because the National Guard and Reserves 

have become an essential part of the military’s operational force, it 

is imperative that employers comply with USERRA and that the 

statute be rigorously enforced by the federal government. If individuals lack confidence that their USERRA rights will be respected 

or enforced, they will be far less likely to join or continue to serve 

in the Armed Forces, especially in the Reserve forces. 

Individuals can privately enforce their rights under USERRA by 

filing a complaint in federal or state court, or, in the case of a complaint against a federal employer, by submitting a complaint to the 

Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). In addition, individuals 

can request assistance from the federal government by filing a complaint with the Department of Labor’s Veterans’ Employment and 

Training Service (DOL VETS), which investigates and attempts to 

resolve complaints, and, if requested, will refer complaints for litigation. DOL VETS refers complaints against federal agencies to 

the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) and complaints against private 

sector employers and state and local governments to the Attorney 

General. The Special Counsel or Attorney General may represent 

individuals before the MSPB or in federal court, respectively. 

Although the sample size was small and the margin of error 

high, the Department of Defense’s 2006 Status of Forces Survey of 

Reserve Component Members does suggest that some serviceVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:33 Sep 11, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR449.XXX SR449

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
25 

members are increasingly dissatisfied with federal enforcement of 

USERRA and, in particular, the length of time it takes for 

USERRA claims to be investigated and resolved or referred for litigation. From 2004 to 2006, the percentage of Reserve Component 

members who responded that they were dissatisfied with how their 

complaints were handled by DOL VETS increased from 27 to 44 

percent. During the same period, the percentage of those who said 

that the government’s response to their complaints was not prompt 

rose from 32 to 38 percent. 

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has also found significant delays in the handling of USERRA complaints. In its July 

2007 report, ‘‘Military Personnel, Improved Quality Controls Needed over Servicemembers’ Employment Rights Claims at DOL,’’ 

GAO found that in the six cases when DOL VETS could not resolve 

complaints of federal employees, who then sought referrals for litigation, an average of eight months was required for DOL VETS to 

both investigate and refer those complaints to OSC. Id. at 23. In 

addition, GAO estimated that the average processing time of all 

USERRA complaints received by DOL VETS ranged from 53 to 86 

days, and concluded that the reporting on the number and percentage of claims it closes within 90, 120, and 365 days, was not reliable. In one case, DOL VETS did not refer the case for litigation 

until seven years after a complaint was filed. 

Committee Bill. Section 302 of the Committee bill would amend 

a number of sections in chapter 43 of title 38 so as to expedite federal enforcement of USERRA by imposing deadlines on action by 

DOL VETS, OSC, and the Attorney General to complete the tasks 

assigned to them under the statute: 

• Within 5 days of receiving a USERRA complaint, DOL VETS 

would be required to notify a complainant in writing about his or 

her rights to receive governmental assistance, including the right 

to request a referral and the relevant deadlines that the federal 

agencies must meet. 

• Within 90 days of receiving the complaint, DOL VETS would 

be required to complete its assistance and investigation and notify 

the complainant of the results and his or her rights, including the 

right to request a referral and the deadlines federal agencies must 

meet. 

• Within 48 days after receiving a request for a referral, DOL 

would be required to refer a complaint to the OSC or the Attorney 

General. 

• Within 60 days of receiving a referral, OSC or the Attorney 

General would be required to determine whether to provide legal 

representation to the complainant and notify the complainant of 

that decision in writing. 

These deadlines are not intended to adversely affect or diminish 

any of the rights of an individual to enforce his or her rights under 

USERRA or the ability of the government to enforce the rights of 

the servicemember. Nor are the deadlines intended to constitute or 

create any type of defense that an employer could raise in a judicial or administrative proceeding, or to deprive the MSPB, a federal 

court, or a state court of jurisdiction over a complaint or action 

filed under USERRA. Moreover, if the Secretary, the Attorney General, or the Special Counsel is unable to complete a specific task 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
26 

by the relevant deadline, the agency may complete the task within 

a time period agreed to by the complainant and the agency. 

Subsection 302(f) of the Committee bill would clarify that the 

original intent of Congress was that USERRA would not be subject 

to a federal or state statute of limitations period and specifically 

states that there is no time limit for a person to file a complaint 

with the Secretary of Labor, or for a person or the United States 

to submit a complaint before the MSPB or to file an action in federal or state court. The application of a federal statute of limitation 

period under USERRA is inconsistent with the intent of Congress 

and contrary to the Department of Labor’s longstanding ‘‘position 

that no Federal statute of limitations applied to actions under 

USERRA.’’ U.S. Department of Labor, ‘‘Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994; Final Rules,’’ 70 

Fed. Reg. 75246, 75287 (Dec. 19, 2005). This section of the Committee bill would implement the Department of Labor’s recommendation that Congress ‘‘consider amending USERRA to clarify that no statute of limitations may apply to USERRA.’’ U.S. Department of Labor, 2006 Fiscal Year Annual Report to Congress, at 

7 (Feb. 2008) (stating that a least one federal court has applied the 

four-year residual statute of limitations period in 28 U.S.C. § 1658 

to proceedings under USERRA, and citing Rogers v. City of San 

Antonio, 2003 WL 1566502, *7 (W.D. Tex.), reversed on other 

grounds, 392 F.3d 758 (5th Cir. 2004)). 

Sec. 303. Modification and expansion of reporting requirements 

with respect to enforcement of USERRA. 

Section 303 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 2471, 

would expand the reporting requirements regarding the federal 

government’s enforcement of USERRA and change the date that 

the Department of Labor’s annual USERRA report is due from February 1 to July 1. 

Background. Under current law, the Secretary of Labor must file 

an annual report to Congress that includes the number of cases reviewed by DOL VETS and the Department of Defense Employer 

Support of the Guard and Reserve (DoD ESGR), the number of 

cases referred to OSC and the Attorney General, and the number 

of complaints filed by the Attorney General. 

In February 2007, GAO published a report, ‘‘Military Personnel: 

Additional Actions Needed to Improve Oversight of Reserve Employment Issues.’’ GAO found that ‘‘[t]he four agencies * * * responsible for addressing and tracking USERRA claims cannot systematically record and track disability-related employment complaints,’’ in particular because ‘‘they do not record disability-related 

complaints using consistent and compatible categories to allow information analysis and reporting.’’ GAO concluded that the failure 

to consistently track disability-related complaints may result in 

underreporting of the number of disability-related USERRA complaints, and that the Department of Defense (DOD) ‘‘may not be 

completely aware of the effect that disabilities incurred by reservists while on active duty have on their reemployment, and what additional assistance may be needed to help transition this population back into the workforce.’’ Moreover, GAO found that this 

lack of consistency was indicative of a more general problem that 

USERRA complaints ‘‘could not be uniformly categorized in order 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
27 

to reveal trends on the kinds of problems that returning reservists 

experience because the four USERRA agencies responsible for addressing complaints use different complaint categories to characterize these issues.’’ 

Committee Bill. Section 303 of the Committee bill would amend 

section 4332 of title 38, United States Code, to expand the federal 

government’s reporting requirements with regard to enforcement of 

USERRA. 

Section 4332 requires the Department of Labor to report the 

number of complaints the Attorney General files in federal courts, 

but does not require reporting of the number of cases OSC initiates 

before the MSPB. Section 303 would eliminate this difference by requiring reporting on the number of cases OSC initiates before the 

MSPB. 

Section 303 of the Committee bill would also require reports of 

the number of individuals whose cases are reviewed by both DOD 

ESGR and the DOL VETS so that the agencies responsible for enforcing USERRA can understand how frequently aggrieved servicemembers seek assistance from both DOD ESGR and DOL VETS 

and what types of cases are more likely to require assistance from 

both agencies. The Department of Labor would be required to report the number of cases handled by DOD ESGR, DOL VETS, 

OSC, and the Attorney General that involve a disability-related 

issue and the number of cases that involve a person with a serviceconnected disability. In addition, section 303 would require the Department of Labor to ensure that all of the information collection 

and reporting of USERRA cases is done in a uniform and consistent manner. 

Finally, section 303 would require the Department of Labor, 

OSC, and the Attorney General to issue quarterly reports on their 

compliance with the new deadlines that would be set by section 302 

of the Committee bill, and it would require the Comptroller General to issue a report within two years assessing the reliability of 

the information in the three agencies’ quarterly reports and the extent to which the three agencies are meeting those deadlines. 

Sec. 304. Training for executive branch human resources personnel 

on employment and reemployment rights of members of the uniformed services. 

Section 304 of the Committee bill would require human resources 

personnel employed by Federal executive agencies to receive training regarding USERRA. 

Background. USERRA, which is codified in chapter 43 of title 38, 

United States Code, protects the public and private sector civilian 

job rights and benefits of veterans and members of the Armed 

Forces, including National Guard and Reserve members. USERRA 

also prohibits employer discrimination due to military obligations 

and provides reemployment rights to returning servicemembers. 

In October 2007, the Committee conducted an oversight hearing 

regarding USERRA. According to testimony provided at that hearing, when Federal executive agencies violate USERRA, it is often 

due to a lack of knowledge or understanding about the law. In fact, 

The Honorable Charles Ciccolella, Assistant Secretary for Veterans’ 

Employment and Training, U.S. Department of Labor, testified 

that ‘‘about half the [USERRA] cases that we do in the Federal 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
28 

government is where the Federal hiring manager just doesn’t understand the law or the [Office of Personnel Management] regulations that spell out how to implement the law.’’ 

Committee Bill. Section 304 of the Committee bill would amend 

chapter 43 of title 38 to add a new section 4335, which would require the head of each Federal executive agency to provide training 

for human resources personnel on the rights, benefits, and obligations of members of the Armed Forces under USERRA and the administration of USERRA by Federal executive agencies. It would 

require that the training be developed and provided in consultation 

with the Office of Personnel Management. The training would be 

provided as often as specified by the Director of the Office of Personnel Management in order to ensure that the human resources 

personnel are kept fully and currently informed about USERRA. 

Sec. 305. Report on the employment needs of Native American veterans living on tribal lands. 

Section 305 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 3000, 

would require the Department of Labor, in consultation with the 

Departments of Veterans Affairs and the Interior, to submit a report assessing the employment needs of Native American (American Indian, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and other Pacific Islander) veterans living on tribal lands, including Indian reservations, Alaska Native villages, and Hawaiian Home Lands. 

Background. According to a 2006 VA report entitled ‘‘American 

Indian and Alaska Native Veterans: Lasting Contributions’’, which 

relied on data from the 2000 Census, the unemployment rate 

among American Indian and Alaska Native veterans was approaching twice the unemployment rate among all veterans. For those 

Native American veterans who return to their native communities, 

their employment status may be much worse. According to the 

2003 American Indian Population and Labor Force Report published by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, on-reservation or near-reservation unemployment was 49 percent. While these statistics indicate a clear employment problem for Native American veterans, especially those residing in Native American communities, the Committee is in need of more information to determine the appropriate 

steps that need to be taken to address the problem. Additionally, 

the Committee seeks to learn how existing employment resources 

for veterans can be leveraged in Native American communities to 

assist Native American veterans. 

Committee Bill. Section 305 of the Committee bill would require 

the Secretary of Labor, in consultation with the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs and the Interior, to provide a report on the employment needs of Native Americans, including a review of current and 

prior government-to-government relationships between tribal organizations, as defined in section 3765 of title 38, which the Committee expects would include a discussion of the current and projected activities within DOL VETS. The report would also be required to include recommendations for improving employment and 

job training opportunities for Native American veterans on tribal 

land, especially through the utilization of resources for veterans. 

The report would be due to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs of 

the Senate and House of Representatives no later than December 

1, 2009. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
29 

Sec. 306. Report on measures to assist and encourage veterans in 

completing vocational rehabilitation. 

Section 306 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 2674, 

would require VA to conduct a study on factors that may prevent 

veterans with service-connected disabilities from completing their 

vocational rehabilitation plans and measures that could be taken 

to assist and encourage veterans in completing vocational rehabilitation. 

Background. In its July 2007 report, the President’s Commission 

on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors found that, ‘‘of 

the 65,000 who apply for [VA’s Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment program] each year, at most 10,000 of all ages complete 

the employment track in the program each year.’’ The Commission 

also found that ‘‘the effectiveness of various vocational rehabilitation programs is not well established, and the VA should undertake 

an effort to determine which have the greatest long-term success.’’ 

In addition, the Commission recommended that ‘‘VA should develop 

financial incentives that would encourage completion’’ of vocational 

rehabilitation. 

Committee Bill. Section 306 of the Committee bill would require 

VA to conduct a study that would identify the various factors that 

may prevent or preclude veterans from successfully completing 

their vocational rehabilitation plans. It would also require identification of actions that the Secretary may take to address such factors. 

In conducting the study, VA would be required to examine the 

measures utilized in other disability systems in the United States 

and in other countries to encourage successful completion of vocational rehabilitation; any relevant studies or survey data; the extent to which disability compensation may be used as an incentive 

to encourage veterans to undergo and complete their vocational rehabilitation programs; the report of the Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission; the report of the President’s Commission on Care 

for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors; and any other matters 

that VA considers appropriate. In addition, VA would address the 

extent to which bonus payments or other incentives may be used 

to encourage veterans to complete their vocational rehabilitation 

plans or otherwise achieve their vocational rehabilitation objectives. VA would be required to consult with veterans and military 

service organizations and any other organizations or individuals as 

VA deems appropriate and would be authorized to employ consultants. 

Finally, not later than 270 days after beginning the study, VA 

would be required to submit to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs 

of the Senate and House of Representatives a report including the 

findings of the study and any recommendations on actions that 

should be taken in light of the study. 

SUBTITLE B—EDUCATION MATTERS

Sec. 311. Relief for students who discontinue education because of 

military service. 

Section 311 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 1718, 

would amend title VII of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (50 

U.S.C. App. 591 et seq.), to provide protections for servicemembers 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
30 

who are called to active-duty service while enrolled in institutions 

of higher education. 

Background. Under the law as it was at the time the Committee 

met to mark up the Committee bill, there was no uniform financial 

protection for servicemembers who are called to active duty and are 

required to discontinue a program of education prior to the completion of the academic semester or quarter for which they are enrolled. Colleges and universities were not required to make reasonable accommodations for students who are called to active duty in 

the Armed Forces, such as tuition reimbursement and requirements for reenrollment. Members of the Armed Forces who return 

from deployment overseas and attempt to reenroll in a program of 

education could be overwhelmed with bureaucracy. In addition, the 

six-percent interest rate cap on all debts of members of the Armed 

Forces called to active duty guaranteed by the Servicemembers 

Civil Relief Act had been interpreted by the Secretary of Education 

not to apply to Federal student loans. 

Since the time of the Committee’s meeting on June 26, 2008, the 

Higher Education Opportunity Act was signed on August 14, 2008, 

and became Public Law 110–315. This new Public Law contains 

provisions addressing some of the same concerns intended to be addressed by the Committee bill, including reasonable accommodations and the cap on interest rates for Federal student loans. Any 

future action on the Committee bill will reflect the changes made 

by Public Law 110–315. 

Committee Bill. Section 311 of the Committee bill would require 

institutions of higher education to refund tuition and fees paid by 

a servicemember for courses not completed due to performance of 

military obligations. It would also provide that the interest rate for 

Federal student loans would be held at no more than six percent 

during such obligations. 

This would assist members of the Armed Forces who return from 

a deployment to make the transition from military service to civilian life and who wish to re-enter programs of education they were 

forced to discontinue because of such deployment. It would further 

provide the service member an opportunity to reenroll at the institution with the same educational and academic status that the 

service member had when the program was discontinued because 

of the military service. It would also provide parity with other loan 

obligations that can are reduced during periods of service. 

Some colleges and universities have wide ranging policies currently in place to minimize the academic impact of leaving for active duty service, including suspending the requirement that they 

reapply for admission and waiving changes to degree requirements. 

The Committee does not intend that policies and procedures currently in place at colleges and universities would be superseded by 

the requirements of these new protections. 

Sec. 312. Modification of period of eligibility for Survivors’ and Dependents’ Educational Assistance of certain spouses of individuals with service-connected disabilities total and permanent in 

nature. 

Section 312 of the Committee bill would extend the period within 

which the spouses of certain severely disabled veterans must use 

education benefits from VA. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
31 

Background. Under the Survivors’ and Dependents’ Educational 

Assistance (DEA) program, VA provides up to 45 months of education benefits to certain children or spouses of military personnel. 

For instance, the spouse of a veteran or servicemember may be eligible for these benefits if the veteran died, or is permanently and 

totally disabled, as the result of a service-connected disability or if 

the veteran died from any cause while a permanent and total service-connected disability was in existence. 

The spouse generally must use these education benefits within 

ten years after the date on which the veteran dies or is found to 

be permanently and totally disabled. However, if the servicemember died while on active duty, the spouse may use the education benefits during the twenty-year period after the servicemember’s death. That extended period was meant to recognize the 

struggles of a surviving spouse in the years following the loss of the 

servicemember. As this Committee explained: ‘‘For spouses with 

children, especially young children, using DEA benefits within the 

[ten-year] period may be difficult * * * A host of factors may preclude the use of DEA benefits during the ten-year period following 

a servicemember’s death, such as an extended grieving process, job 

demands, or simply the lack of an immediate need for education or 

training.’’ S. Rep. 108–352, at 10 (2004). 

In recent years, it has become clear that the families of those 

who are severely wounded in service may also face significant challenges in the years following the injuries. For example, the July 

2007 report of the President’s Commission on Care for America’s 

Returning Wounded Warriors contained these findings regarding 

the family members of servicemembers who survive devastating injuries, such as TBI: ‘‘The Commission has repeatedly heard about 

dedicated family members whose financial, family, and professional 

sacrifices allowed them to participate in their loved one’s TBI care. 

Some patients with severe TBI may need family members or others 

to provide care for an extended period.’’ 

Committee Bill. Section 312 of the Committee bill would extend 

from ten years to twenty years the time within which the spouses 

of certain severely injured veterans have to use their DEA benefits. 

Specifically, the twenty-year period would be available to a spouse 

of a veteran who becomes permanently and totally disabled within 

three years after discharge from service, if the spouse remains 

married to the injured veteran. In the view of the Committee, this 

extension is necessary to recognize that the extensive time and effort spent caring for a severely injured veteran may preclude a 

spouse from using DEA benefits during the existing ten-year period. 

Sec. 313. Repeal of requirement for report to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on prior training. 

Section 313 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 2984, 

would eliminate the current requirement that educational institutions providing non-accredited courses report to VA any credit that 

was granted by that institution for an eligible person’s prior training. 

Background. Under current law, State approving agencies approve, for VA education benefits purposes, the application of educational institutions providing non-accredited courses if the instituVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:33 Sep 11, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR449.XXX SR449

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
32 

tion and its courses meet certain criteria. Among these is the requirement that the institution maintain a written record of the previous education and training of the eligible person and what credit 

for that training has been given the individual. The institution 

must notify both VA and the eligible person regarding the amount 

of credit the school grants for previous training. 

Committee Bill. Section 313 of the Committee bill would amend 

section 3676(c)(4) of title 38, United States Code, to eliminate the 

notification requirement as it pertains to VA. VA will maintain 

oversight, just as it does with accredited courses. VA will review 

records during compliance visits to assure the institution is evaluating and appropriately reducing program requirements because of 

credit given for prior training. 

Removing the reporting requirement would shorten claims processing time because VA would not have to review each claim for 

the presence of such notice and, if submitted, have to check with 

the school and student to assure the requirement has been met. It 

would also permit more cases to be processed through VA’s Electronic Certification Automated Processing (ECAP) program. The 

ECAP system cannot process claims where proper credit reporting 

is at issue because those cases require manual development and review by a veteran’s claims examiner. The more claims VA can process through the ECAP system, the more timely VA beneficiaries 

will receive their benefits. 

Following up with schools for the written notification burdens 

the school certifying official and student, as well as VA. Often, the 

school certifying official, who is responsible for reporting a veteran’s enrollment, is not the individual who evaluates credit. The 

certifying official has no control over how long it takes the school 

to accomplish the review and granting of prior credit. 

Further, several of VA’s stakeholders, including the National Association of Veterans’ Program Administrators, have recommended 

that VA review school records to determine granting of prior credit 

during compliance visits rather than require the school to submit 

written reports. Eliminating this requirement would streamline the 

administration of educational assistance benefits, and improve the 

delivery of benefits to veterans, reservists, and other eligible individuals. 

Sec. 314. Modification of waiting period before affirmation of enrollment in a correspondence course. 

Section 314 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 2984, 

would reduce from ten to five days the waiting period required 

prior to the student’s affirmation of an enrollment agreement with 

an educational institution to pursue a program of education exclusively by correspondence. 

Background. Under current law, an enrollment agreement signed 

by a veteran, spouse, or surviving spouse will not be effective unless he or she, after ten days from the date of signing the agreement, submits a written and signed statement to VA affirming the 

enrollment agreement. In the event the individual at any time notifies the institution of his or her intention not to affirm the agreement, the institution, without imposing any penalty or charging 

any fee, shall promptly make a refund of all amounts paid. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
33 

Committee Bill. Section 314 of the Committee bill would amend 

section 3686(b) of title 38, United States Code, to reduce the required waiting period from ten to five days. The statutory ten-day 

period is twice the requirement of the Distance Education and 

Training Council (DETC) accrediting body standard, which states 

that institutions will allow a full refund of all tuition expenses paid 

if a student cancels within five days after enrolling in a course. Reducing the affirmation waiting period to five days would make the 

statute consistent with the DETC standard and eliminate confusion. It would also permit eligible individuals to begin their programs sooner. Should they decide at any time not to affirm the enrollment agreement, the eligible individuals would still be entitled 

to a refund of all amounts paid. Finally, this proposal would allow 

VA to strengthen its partnership with the National Association of 

State Approving Agencies which has had this issue high on its list 

of legislative priorities. 

Sec. 315. Change of programs of education at the same educational 

institution. 

Section 315 of the bill, which is derived from S. 2984, would 

eliminate the requirement that an individual must file an application with VA when changing programs of study while enrolled at 

the same school. 

Background. Under current law, a student who desires to initiate 

a program of education must submit an application to VA in the 

form prescribed by the Department. If the student decides a different program is more advantageous to his or her needs, that individual may change his or her program of study once. However, additional changes require VA to determine that the change is suitable to the individual’s interests and abilities. It is rare for VA to 

deny a change of program, especially if the student is continuing 

in an approved program at the same school. 

Committee Bill. Section 315 of the Committee bill, would amend 

section 3691(d) of title 38, United States Code, to eliminate the student application requirement. Under the new procedure, VA would 

accept the new program enrollment based on the certification of 

such enrollment from the school without requiring an additional 

certification from the student. VA would still have oversight of program changes by reviewing school records during compliance visits 

and would apply only if the individual remains enrolled at the 

same school. This new procedure should allow VA to increase the 

number of claims processed using the ECAP program without manual review by a veterans claims examiner—resulting in more timely awards and less of a information collection burden. 

Sec. 316. Repeal of certification requirement with respect to applications for approval of self-employment on-job training. 

Section 316 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 2984, 

would eliminate the requirement that wages be earned by veterans 

pursuing self-employment on-job training (OJT) authorized under 

section 301 of Public Law 108–183. 

Background. Section 301 of Public Law 108–183 expanded the 

chapter 30 Montgomery GI Bill program by authorizing educational 

assistance benefits for full-time OJT of less than six months needed 

for obtaining licensure to engage in a self-employment occupation 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
34 

or required for ownership and operation of a franchise. Under current law, all provisions of title 38, United States Code, that apply 

to VA’s other OJT programs (except the requirement that a training program has to be for at least six months) apply to franchiseownership OJT, including the requirement that the trainee earn 

wages that are increased on an incremental basis. 

Committee Bill. Section 316 of the Committee bill would amend 

section 3677(b) of title 38, United States Code, to exempt self-employment OJT from the wage-earning requirement. Through contact with the International Franchise Association, VA has determined that OJT for new franchise owners does not involve the payment of wages. Thus, if franchise OJT programs are not exempted 

from the current title 38 wage requirements, no franchise-ownership OJT program could be approved for VA benefits. 

SUBTITLE C—OTHER MATTERS

Sec. 321. Designation of the Office of Small Business Programs of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Section 321 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 2984, 

would designate VA’s office established to support contracting with 

small businesses as the Office of Small Business Programs. 

Background. Section 15(k) of the Small Business Act, codified at 

section 644(k) of title 15, United States Code, established, in each 

federal agency having procurement powers, including VA, an office 

to support contracting with small businesses to be known as the 

‘‘Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.’’ 

Committee Bill. Section 321 of the Committee bill would designate the office established under section 15(k) of the Small Business Act as the Office of Small Business Programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs. The head of the office would be designated as the Director of Small Business Programs. 

Designating the office as the Office of Small Business Programs 

would more clearly represent that office’s span of authority. The 

name would not reflect any change in emphasis or support for disadvantaged small businesses, but rather would clarify that the Office of Small Business Programs has the full range of authority 

over many other small business programs. The new title would capture the overarching nature of the program, which encompasses the 

small disadvantaged business, the service-disabled veteran-owned 

small business, the veteran-owned small business, the qualified 

historically underutilized business zone small business, the womenowned small business, and the very small business programs. 

TITLE IV—COURT MATTERS

Sec. 401. Increase in number of active judges on the United States 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 

Section 401 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 2091, 

would increase the number of active judges on the United States 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims from seven to nine. 

Background. Under current law, section 7253(a) of title 38, the 

court is limited to seven active judges. 

Over recent years, the Court has experienced a dramatic increase 

in cases filed. For example, in Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 the Court received 2,234 new cases, in FY 2005 that number grew to 3,466, in 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
35 

FY 2006 it was 3,729, and in FY 2007 new appeals filed totaled 

4,644. This trend has continued into FY 2008. According to the 

Court’s most recent quarterly report, covering April 1, 2008 to June 

30, 2008, the Court received 1,019 cases. 

As these statistics and the Court’s annual report depict, that increase amounts roughly to a jump from less than 200 cases filed 

per month to well over 300 cases filed per month. Likewise, the 

number of cases decided has grown from 1,780 in FY 2004, to an 

all-time high of 4,877 in FY 2007. 

In considering what should be the number of active judges for 

CAVC, the Committee believes it is appropriate to consider the Judicial Conference’s process for recommending additional judgeships 

for other federal courts. While CAVC is a federal Article I court, 

and thus not a member of the Judicial Conference, the Court has 

adopted many of the practices and processes of the Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. 

The Judicial Conference, in making recommendations to Congress on authorization of judgeships, uses a combination of objective and discretionary criteria. The Conference relies on past trends 

and current data, and does not consider projected future caseloads 

because they do not utilize predictors of future filings. It initially 

reviews the case statistics of a particular court to determine whether the amount of work justifies adding judicial resources and, if so, 

whether that addition should be permanent or temporary. The Conference uses a formula that assigns varying weight to different 

types of cases at the trial level, and considers a reasonable caseload 

of 430 weighted cases per district court judge; it uses 500 weighted 

filings per three-judge appellate panel as a reasonable workload. 

CAVC is an unusual appellate tribunal in that it sits both in 

panels in some instances, like most other appellate bodies, and also 

has authority to decide appeals by a single judge. Based on the Judicial Conference’s model for district court caseload of 430 filings 

per judgeship, CAVC’s current caseload justifies at least nine 

judges without even considering that many of the appeals filed will 

be considered by a panel of judges. Under the Conference’s appellate formula of 500 filings per three-judge panel, which equates to 

a potential requirement for each judge to write a decision in 167 

cases, seven full-time judges responsible for over 4,000 appeals per 

year, or, 571 per judge, greatly exceeds the normal appellate caseload. Thus, the recent trends demonstrate that the Court’s workload is large and increasing and supports authorizing more judgeships. 

In addition to looking at the Judicial Conference process, the 

Committee believes that it is important to recognize that CAVC 

also has a special responsibility as the only national court that reviews veterans’ benefits decisions. The impacts of that mandate are 

significant and they must be studied and weighed when considering the appropriate size of the Court. 

Although the Judicial Conference does not consider future projected caseloads when assessing the need for additional judgeships, 

it does consider the specific nature of a particular court in carrying 

out its evaluations. With respect to CAVC, there are bellwethers as 

to the caseload growth trend that cannot be ignored. The Nation 

is at war and there is no doubt that the number of veterans who 

are likely to seek benefits will rise as a result. There is great interVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:33 Sep 11, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR449.XXX SR449

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
36 

est within VA in expediting administrative adjudications of the 

hundreds of thousands of claims that are filed with VA each year, 

and Congress has increased substantially the resources for VA and 

the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or the Board) to accelerate 

administrative determinations. The Board has established a goal of 

deciding 43,000 cases or more each year, and VA has testified to 

the growing complexity of the claims filed and the rising number 

of issues contained within each claim. Because every veteran has 

an absolute right to appeal an adverse decision of the Board, there 

is significant pool of potential cases that may reach the Court. 

Unlike the Federal District Courts, CAVC does not have a pool 

of hundreds of senior judges to draw from at will. In the next eight 

years, it appears likely that only one judge will join the ranks of 

the retired recall-eligible judges. Conversely, it is certainly possible 

during that same period that one or more of the six current retired 

judges may become unavailable for recall service. The Committee 

believes that it would be irresponsible not to consider these factors 

in any assessment of the judgeship needs of CAVC. 

In response to the increasing caseload, the Court has examined 

its operational efficiency and taken steps to maximize the use of its 

available resources. To this end, retired recall-eligible judges have 

been convened to provide substantial service to the Court, the 

Court’s Central Legal Staff has been trained in and has developed 

an enhanced alternative dispute resolution program, and the 

Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure have been amended to require pre-briefing settlement conferences and to streamline the 

process of preparing the appellate record. Additionally, the Court 

is in the process of implementing an electronic case filing system, 

and is considering summary disposition for some appeals. While 

these steps help in managing the growing numbers of appeals, they 

are not sufficient. 

Committee Bill. The Committee bill would amend section 7253(a) 

so as to increase the number of active judges on CAVC from seven 

to nine. 

Sec. 402. Protection of privacy and security concerns in court 

records. 

Section 402 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 2090, 

would protect privacy and security concerns in records of CAVC. 

Background. Current law, section 7268(a) of title 38, United 

States Code, provides that ‘‘all decisions of the Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims and all briefs, motions, documents, and exhibits 

received by the Court * * * shall be public records open to the inspection of the public.’’ Section 7268(b)(1) provides that ‘‘[t]he Court 

may make any provision which is necessary to prevent the disclosure of confidential information, including a provision that any 

such document or information be placed under seal to be opened 

only as directed by the Court.’’ 

The Court has developed a process to seal, on its own, cases involving the conditions identified in section 7332(a)(1) of title 38, relating to confidentiality of certain VA medical records. Moreover, 

motions by appellants to seal case records for good cause are routinely granted. Even where case records remain unsealed, public 

access to those records presently is limited to on-site review in the 

reading room of the Court’s Public Office. However, with the 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
37 

Court’s implementation of the e-filing of records, the present 

logistical limitation on access to unsealed records will not exist. 

E-filing potentially makes sensitive material in court records 

widely accessible. These records generally include appellants’ Social 

Security information and medical records. As other federal courts 

implement e-filing, they too are attempting to achieve the balance 

between maintaining court records public while providing parties 

with protection from internet data mining and identity theft. The 

need to reach a balance is urgent. 

Committee Bill. The Committee bill would amend section 7268 of 

title 38, so as to require the Court to prescribe rules, in accordance 

with section 7264(a) of title 38, to protect privacy and security concerns relating to the filing of documents, and the public availability 

of such documents, that are retained by CAVC or filed electronically. The Committee bill would require that the rules prescribed 

by the Court be consistent, to the extent practicable, with rules 

that address privacy and security issues throughout the Federal 

courts. 

Sec. 403. Recall of retired judges of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. 

Section 403 of the Committee bill would eliminate the current restrictions on how many days per year a retired judge of CAVC may 

voluntarily serve in recall status; would modify the retirement pay 

structure for CAVC judges appointed on or after the date of enactment; and would exempt retired judges from involuntary recall 

once they have served an aggregate of five years of recall service. 

Background. Under current law, retiring CAVC judges make an 

election whether to be recall-eligible. If a judge chooses to be recalleligible, the Chief Judge has the authority to involuntarily recall 

that judge for up to 90 days per calendar year or, with the consent 

of the judge, to recall the judge for up to 180 days per calendar 

year. A recall-eligible retired judge receives annual pay equal to 

the annual salary of an active judge (pay-of-the-office) and that salary level is not impacted by how much recall service is performed 

during a year. 

Committee Bill. Section 403 of the Committee bill would modify 

the authorities for the recall of retired judges and the retirement 

pay structure. First, this section would repeal the 180-day limit on 

how many days per calendar year a recall-eligible retired judge 

may voluntarily serve in recall status. In addition, for judges appointed on or after the date of enactment, it would create a threetiered retirement pay structure. Specifically, pay-of-the-office would 

be reserved for judges who are actively serving, either as a judge 

of the Court or as a retired judge serving in recall status. When 

not serving in recall status, a recall-eligible retired judge would receive the rate of pay applicable to that judge as of the date the 

judge retired, as increased by periodic cost-of-living adjustments. A 

retired judge who is not recall-eligible would receive the rate of pay 

applicable to that judge at the time of retirement. Finally, section 

403 would exempt current and future recall-eligible retired judges 

from involuntary recall once they have served an aggregate of five 

years of recall service. 

By removing the cap on voluntary recall service and exempting 

recall-eligible judges from involuntary recall once they have served 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
38 

a cumulative total of five years of recall service, the Committee intends to provide both the authority and an incentive for recall-eligible judges to serve longer or more frequent periods of recall service. 

By reserving pay-of-the-office for those retired judges actually performing recall service, there will be an incentive for retired judges 

to continue offering their expertise in a time of need. 

Sec. 404. Annual reports on workload of the United States Court of 

Appeals for Veterans Claims. 

Section 404 of the Committee bill would establish an annual reporting requirement for CAVC. The Court would be required to 

submit to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate and 

House of Representatives an annual report summarizing the workload of the Court. 

Background. The Court’s workload has increased dramatically in 

recent years. Between FY 1998 and FY 2004, approximately 200 

cases were filed monthly with the Court. In FY 2005, that number 

began to increase, reaching an average of 387 cases per month in 

FY 2007. The FY 2007 total of 4,644 cases exceeded the Court’s 

previous single year high by approximately 900 cases. This dramatic increase has raised concerns that CAVC may not have the 

resources it needs to keep pace with its workload. However, there 

is currently a dearth of specific information on the unique characteristics of the Court’s workload. 

Committee Bill. Section 404 of the Committee bill would require 

CAVC to report to Congress annually on various details of its workload. The information required to be in the report would include 

the number of appeals, petitions, and applications for fees under 

the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA) filed with the Court. It 

would also include the total number of dispositions by the Court as 

a whole, by the Clerk of the Court, by a single judge, by multijudge panels, and by the full Court and the number of each type 

of disposition by the Court, including settlement, affirmation, remand, vacation, dismissal, reversal, grant, and denial. In addition, 

the required information would include the median time from filing 

an appeal to disposition by the Court as a whole, by the Clerk of 

the Court, by a single judge, or by multiple judges; the median 

time from the filing of a petition to disposition by the Court; the 

median time from filing an EAJA application to disposition by the 

Court; and the median time from completion of the briefing requirements by the parties to disposition by the Court. The report 

would also include the number of oral arguments held by the 

Court; the number of cases appealed to the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit; the number and status of appeals, 

petitions, and EAJA applications pending at the end of the fiscal 

year; the number of cases pending for more than 18 months at the 

end of the fiscal year; and a summary of any service performed by 

recalled retired judges during the fiscal year. 

In the view of the Committee, this information would be helpful 

in monitoring whether the Court has sufficient resources to provide 

claimants with timely and appropriate service. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
39 

TITLE V—INSURANCE MATTERS

Sec. 501. Report on inclusion of severe and acute Post Traumatic 

Stress Disorder among conditions covered by traumatic injury 

protection coverage under Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance. 

Section 501 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 2965, 

would require VA, in consultation with the Department of Defense, 

to submit a report to Congress assessing the feasibility of and advisability of including severe and acute Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) among the conditions covered by traumatic injury 

protection coverage under Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance 

(SGLI). 

Background. Section 1032 of Public Law 109–13, the Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on 

Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 established traumatic injury protection coverage under the SGLI program. Traumatic Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (TSGLI) provides coverage against 

qualifying losses incurred as a result of a traumatic injury event. 

In the event of a loss, VA will pay between $25,000 and $100,000 

depending on the severity of the qualifying loss. A key factor in 

analyzing the severity of a particular traumatic injury is the impact it has on the length of hospitalization and rehabilitation for 

the injured servicemember. 

At present, active duty and reserve component servicemembers 

with any amount of SGLI coverage are automatically covered under 

TSGLI. A premium (currently $1 monthly) is collected from covered 

members to meet peacetime program expenses; DOD is required to 

fund TSGLI program costs associated with the extra hazards of 

military service. 

TSGLI was designed to provide severely injured servicemembers 

who suffer a loss as a direct result of a traumatic injury with shortterm monetary assistance to lessen the economic burden on them 

and their families, who often incur financial hardships when they 

relocate to be with the member during long and difficult treatment 

and rehabilitation periods. Section 1980A(b)(1) of title 38, United 

States Code, lists some qualifying losses for which injured servicemembers are covered under TSGLI, including, among others, complete loss of vision, complete loss of hearing, amputation of a hand 

or foot and the inability to carry out the activities of daily living 

resulting from injury to the brain. PTSD is not currently among 

the conditions classified as qualifying losses. However, recent research on the severity of the problem suggests the concept should 

be studied. 

In April 2008, the RAND Corporation released a study on postdeployment PTSD, major depression and traumatic brain injury entitled: ‘‘Invisible Wounds of War.’’ Based on the results of a telephone survey of 1,965 previously deployed individuals, the study 

estimated that approximately 300,000 of the 1.64 million servicemembers who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan suffer from 

symptoms of PTSD or major depression. These findings suggest a 

widespread problem, which, in its most severe and acute manifestations, can have a significant impact on readjustment and earning 

capacity. RAND estimated that the cost of an invisible wound in 

terms of lost productivity, treatment, and other impacts over the 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
40 

two-year period immediately following deployment ranges from 

$5,904 to $25,757 per person. RAND noted that this estimate does 

not include potential costs associated with homelessness, domestic 

violence, family strain, and substance abuse. 

Committee Bill. Section 501 of the Committee bill would require 

VA, in consultation with DOD, to submit a report to House and 

Senate Committees on Veterans’ Affairs and Committees on Armed 

Services assessing the feasibility and advisability of including severe and acute PTSD among the conditions covered by TSGLI. The 

report would be due to the Committees not later than 180 days 

after enactment of this bill. 

The Committee bill would require VA to specifically consider certain factors in preparation of the assessment: the advisability of 

providing TSGLI coverage to individuals who suffer from PTSD as 

a result of military service in a combat zone which renders them 

unable to carry out the daily activities of living; the unique circumstances of military service in a combat zone; any financial 

strain incurred by family members of those suffering from severe 

and acute PTSD; the recovery time, and any particular difficulties 

of the recovery process, associated with severe and acute PTSD; 

and other matters as VA considers appropriate. 

Sec. 502. Treatment of stillborn children as insurable dependents 

under Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance. 

Section 502 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 2946, 

would allow a stillborn child to be an insurable dependent under 

SGLI. 

Background. In 2001, section 4 of the ‘‘Veterans’ Survivor Benefits Improvements Act of 2001’’, Public Law 107–14, established a 

program of family insurance coverage under SGLI through which 

an SGLI-insured member’s insurable dependents, defined as the 

member’s spouse and children, could also be insured. A member’s 

spouse may be insured in an amount up to $100,000. Coverage of 

a member’s children is automatic and is in the amount of $10,000 

for each child. Under current law, stillborn children are not eligible 

for coverage as insurable dependents under SGLI. 

A lawsuit, Warnock v. Office of Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance, No. 1:03-cv-1329-DFH, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8533 (S.D. 

Ind. April 28, 2004), raised the issue as to whether a member’s 

stillborn child is covered as an insurable dependent under SGLI. 

The plaintiff argued that the stillbirth of his child at 38 weeks gestational age should be covered under SGLI. The Court dismissed 

the lawsuit for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be 

granted, ruling that applicable statutes and the SGLI policy do not 

extend life insurance coverage to stillborn infants. In its ruling, the 

Court noted that ‘‘Congress could write the statute, or an insurer 

could write a policy, to cover future stillbirths.’’ 

In 2005, the Senate passed S. 1235, the ‘‘Veterans’ Housing Opportunity and Benefits Improvement Act of 2006.’’ That legislation 

included a provision, section 102, which would have included stillborn children as insurable dependents under SGLI. This provision 

was subsequently dropped in negotiations between the House and 

the Senate. 

Committee Bill. Section 502 of the Committee bill would amend 

section 1965(10) of title 38, United States Code, so as to cover a 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
41 

servicemembers ‘‘stillborn child’’ as an insurable dependent under 

the SGLI program. The Committee does not expect the term ‘‘stillborn child’’ to cover the deaths of children at any gestational age 

or under every circumstance. Rather, the Committee expects VA to 

issue regulations that would define the term in a manner consistent with the 1992 recommended reporting requirements of the 

Model State Vital Statistics Act and Regulations as drafted by the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for 

Health Statistics. The Model Act recommends a state reporting requirement of fetal deaths involving fetuses weighing 350 grams or 

more, if the weight is unknown, or 20 or more completed weeks of 

gestation, calculated from the date last normal menstrual began to 

the date of delivery. 

Sec. 503. Other enhancements of Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance coverage. 

Section 503 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 2984, 

makes changes to and clarifies the SGLI and Veterans’ Group Life 

Insurance programs. 

Background. SGLI is a VA-supervised life insurance program 

that provides group coverage for members on active duty in the 

uniformed services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, and 

Coast Guard), members of the Commissioned Corps of the United 

States Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Reserve and National Guard members, Reserve Officer Training Corps members engaged in authorized training, service academy cadets and midshipmen, Ready Reserve and 

Retired Reserve members, and Individual Ready Reserve members 

who are subject to involuntary recall to active duty service. VA purchases a group policy on behalf of participating members from a 

commercial provider. Since the inception of the SGLI program in 

1965, The Prudential Insurance Company of America has been the 

provider. VA’s FY 2009 budget submission projects that 2,342,000 

individuals will be covered under SGLI in FY 2009. 

Full coverage under SGLI is provided automatically at the maximum coverage amount when an individual begins covered service. 

Partial coverage at prorated premium rates is available for Reserve 

and National Guard members for active and inactive duty training 

periods. To be covered in an amount less than the maximum, or to 

decline coverage altogether, a member must make a written election to that effect. Coverage amounts may be reduced in multiples 

of $10,000. A member may also name, at any time, one or more 

beneficiaries of his or her choice. Decisions concerning coverage 

amounts and designation of beneficiaries are made at the sole discretion of members insured under SGLI. 

The ‘‘Veterans’ Insurance Act of 1974’’, Public Law 93–289, established a new program of post-separation insurance known as 

Veterans Group Life Insurance (VGLI). Like SGLI, VGLI is supervised by VA but administered by Prudential. VGLI provides for the 

post-service conversion of SGLI to a renewable term policy of insurance. Persons eligible for full-time coverage include former servicemembers who were insured full-time under SGLI and who were released from active duty or the Reserves, Ready Reservists who 

have part-time SGLI coverage and who incur certain disabilities 

during periods of active or inactive duty training, and members of 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
42 

the Individual Ready Reserve and Inactive National Guard. Like 

SGLI, VGLI is issued in multiples of $10,000 up to the maximum 

coverage amount, but in no case can VGLI coverage exceed the 

amount of SGLI coverage a member had in force at the time of separation from active duty service or the Reserves. 

Committee Bill. Section 503 of the Committee bill would correct 

the disparity in eligibility for SGLI coverage for Ready Reservists 

and members the Individual Ready Reserve; correct an inequity in 

termination dates of SGLI coverage between dependents and separating servicemembers; clarify VA’s authority to set SGLI premiums for spouses of Ready Reservists to make it consistent with 

current VA practice; and make consistent VA’s forfeiture provisions. 

Subsection 503(a) would extend full-time and family SGLI coverage to Individual Ready Reservists (IRRs), those individuals referred to in section 1965(5)(C) of title 38, United States Code. This 

group of individuals volunteer for assignment to a mobilization category in the Individual Ready Reserve, as defined in section 

12304(i)(1) of title 10. The ‘‘Veterans’ Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of 2001,’’ Public Law 107–14, provided SGLI coverage for 

Ready Reservists, referred to in section 1965(5)(B), but not to IRRs. 

The Committee believes IRRs should be afforded comparable coverage given that many of them have been called up to serve in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

Subsection 503(b) would provide that a dependent’s SGLI coverage would terminate 120 days after the date of the member’s separation or release from service, rather than 120 days after the 

member’s SGLI terminates. Under current law, section 

1968(a)(1)(A) of title 38, provides for a 120-day period after separation from active duty service or the Reserves for a member to receive premium-free SGLI coverage and elect to convert the coverage to VGLI. However, under section 1968(a)(5)(B)(ii) a dependent retains coverage for 120 days after that, for a total of 240 days 

after the member’s separation from service, twice the period of coverage for most policyholders. This provision would correct the inequity between members and dependents. 

Subsection 503(c) would clarify that VA has the authority to set 

premiums for SGLI coverage for the spouses of Ready Reservists 

based on the spouse’s age. This provision would correct an inconsistency between section 1969(g)(1)(A) of title 38, which does not 

require identical premiums for coverage of active duty members’ 

spouses, and section 1969(g)(1)(B), which may be read to imply that 

identical premiums for coverage of Ready Reservists’ spouses are 

required. 

Subsection 503(d) would clarify that any person guilty of mutiny, 

treason, spying, or desertion, or who, because of conscientious objections, refuses to perform service in the Armed Forces or refuses 

to wear the uniform of the Armed Forces, forfeits all rights to 

VGLI. Under section 1973 of title 38, forfeiture of SGLI is required, 

but not VGLI. The inconsistency between these two insurance programs was highlighted when it was discovered that former Federal 

Bureau of Investigation Agent Robert Hannsen, who was charged, 

and later plead guilty, to committing espionage by providing highly 

classified national security information to Russia and the former 

Soviet Union, was a VGLI policyholder. Under section 503(d) of the 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
43 

Committee bill, Hannsen’s VGLI would remain in force and be payable upon his death, however offenses occurring after passage of 

this provision would result in forfeiture. 

TITLE VI—OTHER MATTERS

Sec. 601. Authority for suspension or termination of claims of the 

United States against individuals who died while serving on 

active duty in the Armed Forces. 

Section 601 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 2550, 

would authorize VA to suspend or terminate the collection of debts 

owed to it by individuals who die while serving on active duty in 

the Armed Forces. 

Background. In January 2008, VA disclosed that, in an attempt 

to collect debts owed to VA, the Department had contacted the estates of twenty-two servicemembers who died while serving in either Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

Under the relevant law in effect at that time, section 5302 of title 

38, any veteran or active duty servicemember indebted to VA due 

to the overpayment or erroneous payment of benefits was able to 

apply for a waiver from VA so as to remove the obligation to pay 

the debt. However, under that law, VA was required to notify the 

beneficiary, or his or her estate if the beneficiary was deceased, 

when an outstanding debt arose and to provide information on the 

right to apply for a waiver. This left VA in the position of having 

to compound the grief of bereaved families by burdening them with 

a debt waiver process, despite the fact that the circumstances 

would likely warrant a waiver. 

In an attempt to address this situation, S. 2550 was introduced 

and testimony was taken on the bill at the Committee’s May 7, 

2008, legislative hearing. Subsequent to that hearing but before the 

Committee met to act on pending legislation, a provision derived 

from that bill was reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee and included in the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008, 

Public Law 110–252. 

The provision in the appropriations measure added a new section 

5302A to title 38, which prohibits VA from collecting all or any part 

of a debt owed to VA by a servicemember or veteran who dies as 

the result of an injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty 

while serving in a theater of combat operations in a war or in combat against a hostile force during a period of hostilities after September 11, 2001. The Secretary is required to determine that termination of collection is in the best interest of the United States 

This new provision provides relief only to the families of certain 

indebted servicemembers who die while serving on active duty. By 

its terms, new section 5302A only exempts the estates of individuals who die as the result of an injury incurred or aggravated in 

the line of duty while serving in a theater of combat operations in 

a war or in combat against a hostile force during a period of hostilities from the burden of filing an application for waiver of the 

debt. 

The Committee believes this new provision is too narrowly constructed to provide adequate relief to all individuals and families 

who should be protected from unnecessary efforts by VA to collect 

a debt. Because it is limited solely to indebted individuals who die 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
44 

as the result of injuries incurred while serving in combat with a 

hostile force, it does not include individuals who die in training exercises or while otherwise preparing to serve in a combat zone. 

This new provision gives VA no discretion to consider exceptional 

cases that fall outside of its limited parameters. In certain cases, 

waiver of VA debts before notification of the estate may be in the 

best interest of VA but the new provision does not accord the Department the legal authority to avoid the notification and waiver 

application process. 

Committee Bill. Section 601 of the Committee bill would amend 

section 3711 of title 31, United States Code, so as to grant VA discretionary authority to suspend or terminate the collection of debts 

owed to it by individuals who die while serving on active duty in 

the Armed Forces. The authority to suspend collection would cover 

all individuals who die while serving on active duty as a member 

of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard during a period when the Coast Guard is operating as a service in the 

Navy. 

Section 3711 of title 31 provides overall guidance with respect to 

requirements for collection and compromise by each executive, judicial or legislative agency of claims owed to the United States Government. Public Law 104–106, the National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 1996, amended section 3711 so as to exempt the 

Secretary of Defense from that section’s requirements relating to 

the initiation and pursuit of collection action with respect to the estates of indebted servicemembers who die while serving on active 

duty. Public Law 104–201, the National Defense Authorization Act 

for Fiscal Year 1997, granted the same authority to the Secretary 

of Transportation—now the Secretary of Homeland Security—with 

respect to individuals who die while serving on active duty as a 

member of the Coast Guard. The Committee bill would put VA on 

equal footing with these two Departments, allowing VA to forgive 

debts owed to the Department by individuals who die while serving 

on active duty when the Secretary determines it is appropriate 

under the circumstances. 

The Committee bill also includes a freestanding provision that 

would permit VA to provide an equitable refund to any estate from 

which it collected a debt that it otherwise would have waived had 

this provision been in effect at the time. VA would have the discretion to determine in which cases, if any, the use of this authority 

would be appropriate. 

Sec. 602. Memorial headstones and markers for deceased remarried 

surviving spouses of veterans. 

Section 602 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 2984, 

would eliminate the disparity that exists between eligibility for 

burial and eligibility for a memorial headstone or marker for deceased remarried surviving spouses of veterans whose remains are 

unavailable. 

Background. Section 2306(b)(4)(B) of title 38, United States 

Code, authorizes VA to furnish an appropriate memorial headstone 

or marker to commemorate eligible individuals whose remains are 

unavailable. Individuals currently eligible for memorial headstones 

or markers include a veteran’s surviving spouse, which is defined 

to include ‘‘an unremarried surviving spouse whose subsequent reVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:33 Sep 11, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR449.XXX SR449

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
45 

marriage was terminated by death or divorce.’’ Thus, a surviving 

spouse who remarried after the veteran’s death is not eligible for 

a memorial headstone or marker unless the remarriage was terminated by death or divorce before the surviving spouse died. However, a surviving spouse who remarried after the veteran’s death 

is eligible for burial in a VA national cemetery without regard to 

whether any subsequent remarriage ended. 

Committee Bill. Section 602 of the Committee bill would eliminate the disparity between eligibility for burial and eligibility for 

a memorial headstone or marker. It would extend eligibility for memorial headstones or markers to a deceased veteran’s remarried 

surviving spouse, without regard to whether any subsequent remarriage ended. 

Sec. 603. Three-year extension of authority to carry out income 

verification. 

Section 603 of the Committee bill would extend for three years, 

until September 30, 2011, VA’s authority to obtain information 

from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) or the Social Security Administration (SSA) for income verification purposes for needs-based 

benefits. 

Background. Under current law, certain benefits programs administered by VA, including pensions for wartime veterans and 

compensation for Individual Unemployability are available only to 

beneficiaries whose annual income is below a certain level. VA 

must have access to verifiable income information in order to ensure that those receiving benefits under its income-based programs 

are not earning a greater annual income than the law permits. 

Section 6103(l)(7)(D)(viii) of title 26, United States Code, authorizes the release of certain income information by the IRS or the 

SSA to VA for the purposes of verifying the incomes of applicants 

for VA needs-based benefits. Section 5317(g) of title 38, United 

States Code, provides VA with temporary authority to obtain and 

use this information. Under current law, this authority expires on 

September 30, 2008. 

Committee Bill. Section 603 of the Committee bill would amend 

subsection 5317(g) of title 38 to extend VA’s authority to obtain income information from the IRS or the SSA until September 30, 

2011. 

Sec. 604. Three-year extension of temporary authority for the performance of medical disability examinations by contract physicians. 

Section 604 of the Committee bill, which is derived from S. 2984, 

would extend VA’s temporary authority to contract for medical disability examinations using appropriated funds for three years, until 

December 31, 2012. 

Background. In order to determine the type and severity of disabilities of veterans filing for VA compensation or pension benefits, 

VA often requires thorough medical disability examinations. Because these examinations form the basis of disability ratings, their 

accurate and timely completion is essential. In recent years, the demand for medical disability examinations has increased beyond the 

number of requests that the current in-house system was designed 

to accommodate. This rise in demand is due to an increase in the 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
46 

complexity of disability claims, an increase in the number of disabilities claimed by veterans, and changes in eligibility requirements for disability benefits. 

In 1996, in Public Law 104–275, the Veterans’ Benefits Improvements Act of 1996, VA was authorized to carry out a pilot program 

of contract disability examinations through ten VA regional offices 

using amounts available for payment of compensation and pensions. During the initial pilot program, one contractor—QTC Management, Inc.—performed all contract examinations at the ten selected regional offices. The pilot was deemed a success, with general satisfaction reported from all stakeholders. According to the 

VA Claims Processing Task Force’s 2001 report to the Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs, ‘‘[t]he quality of QTC Management examinations 

has been reported to exceed a 99 percent adequacy rate, and the 

Task Force found high approval from Regional Office employees. 

Reported medical examination timeliness was within contract compliance with positive feedback in customer service surveys.’’ 

In 2003, in Public Law 108–183, the Veterans Benefits Act of 

2003, VA was temporarily authorized to contract for disability examinations using appropriated funds. This authority expires on December 31, 2009. High demand for compensation and pension examinations continues and VA reports continued satisfaction with 

the contracted exams, so the Committee views extension of the program to be warranted. 

Committee Bill. Section 604 of the Committee bill would extend 

VA’s authority, through December 31, 2012, to use appropriated 

funds for the purpose of contracting with non-VA providers to conduct disability examinations. The examinations would be conducted 

pursuant to contracts entered into and administered by the Under 

Secretary for Benefits. The Committee notes that the authority to 

contract for disability examinations through the regional offices, 

using amounts available for payment of compensation and pension, 

is an ongoing authority with no time limitation. 

COMMITTEE BILL COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee, based on information supplied 

by the CBO, estimates that enactment of the Committee bill would, 

relative to current law, increase discretionary spending by $9 million in 2009 and by $169 million over the 2009–2013 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. The Committee 

bill would decrease direct spending by $7 million in 2009, and by 

$29 million over the 2009–2013. According to CBO, S. 3023 would 

impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined in the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by placing new requirements on 

state governments, including public institutions of higher education 

that operate as lenders of student loans. CBO estimates that the 

aggregate costs of the mandate would be well below the threshold 

established in UMRA. 

The cost estimate provided by CBO, setting forth a detailed 

breakdown of costs, follows: 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
47 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

Washington, DC, July 23, 2008. 

Hon. DANIEL K. AKAKA

Chairman, 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 3023, the Veterans’ Benefits 

Improvement Act of 2008. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Dwayne M. Wright. 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG, 

Director. 

Enclosure 

S. 3023—Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act of 2008 

Summary: S. 3023 would affect several veterans’ programs, including housing, pension, burial, life insurance, and readjustment 

benefits. CBO estimates that implementing this legislation would 

incur discretionary costs of $9 million in 2009 and $169 million 

over the 2009–2013 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts. 

The bill also contains provisions that would both increase and decrease direct spending for veterans benefits. On balance, CBO estimates that enacting S. 3023 would decrease direct spending by $7 

million in 2009, $29 million over the 2009–2013 period, and $18 

million over the 2009–2018 period. Enacting the bill would have no 

effect on federal revenues. 

S. 3023 would impose an intergovernmental mandate as defined 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) by placing new requirements on state governments, including public institutions of 

higher education that operate as lenders of student loans. CBO estimates that the aggregate costs of the mandate would be well 

below the threshold established in UMRA ($68 million in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Public institutions of higher education also would incur costs to 

implement a provision in the bill that would require those institutions, as participants in federal student loan programs, to refund 

tuition and fees to servicemembers if they must leave school because of military service commitments. However, those costs, estimated to total at least $40 million in 2008, would result from conditions of a voluntary federal program, not intergovernmental mandates. 

Section 311 of S. 3023 contains private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. CBO estimates that the annual cost of those mandates would not exceed the threshold established in UMRA ($136 

million for private-sector mandates in 2008, adjusted annually for 

inflation). 

Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated budgetary impact of S. 3023 is summarized in Table 1. The costs of this 

legislation fall mostly within budget function 700 (veterans benefits 

and services). 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
48 

Table 1.—Estimated Budgetary Impact of S. 3023, Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act of 2008 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009– 

2013 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Estimated Authorization Level .......................................... 9 39 51 53 17 169 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................ 9 39 51 53 17 169 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING a

Estimated Budget Authority ............................................. ¥7 ¥10 ¥13 1 ¥1 ¥29 

Estimated Outlays ............................................................ ¥7 ¥10 ¥13 1 ¥1 ¥29 

Note: Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

a In addition to the direct spending effects shown here, enacting S. 3023 would affect direct spending after 2013 (see Table 3). The esti- mated net reduction in direct spending sums to $18 million over the 2009–2018 period. 

Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes the legislation 

will be enacted near the beginning of fiscal year 2009, that the estimated authorization amounts will be appropriated near the start of 

each fiscal year, and that outlays will follow historical spending 

patterns for existing or similar programs. 

Spending subject to appropriation 

S. 3023 contains several provisions that would increase spending 

subject to appropriation. CBO estimates that implementing the bill 

would result in discretionary outlays of $9 million in 2009 and 

$169 million over the 2009–2013 period, subject to appropriation of 

the necessary amounts (see Table 2). 

Table 2.—Estimated Changes to Discretionary Spending Under S. 3023, Veterans’ Benefits 

Improvement Act of 2008 

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars— 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009– 

2013 

CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION 

Extension of Authority for Medical Exams by Contract 

Physicians 

Estimated Authorization Level ................................. 0 35 47 49 13 144 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 0 35 47 49 13 144 

Human Resources Training 

Estimated Authorization Level ................................. 5 2 2 2 2 13 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 5 2 2 2 2 13 

Active Judges on the Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims 

Estimated Authorization Level ................................. 2 2 2 2 2 10 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 2 2 2 2 2 10 

Reports 

Estimated Authorization Level ................................. 2 * * * * 2 

Estimated Outlays ................................................... 2 * * * * 2 

Total Changes 

Estimated Authorization Level ........................ 9 39 51 53 17 169 

Estimated Outlays .......................................... 9 39 51 53 17 169 

Note: * = less than $500,000. 

Extension of Authority for Medical Exams by Contract Physicians. 

Section 604 would extend the temporary authority for the performance of medical examinations by contract physicians through December 31, 2012. Under current law, that authority expires on December 31, 2009. Although that authority has been in existence for 

several years, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) first used 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
49 

it in 2008. Based on information from VA, CBO estimates that, in 

2009, VA will use the current authority to have about 37,000 

exams completed by contract physicians at a cost of about $900 per 

exam. CBO further estimates that if the authority is extended beyond 2009, VA would use contract physicians for about 47,000 

exams a year. Taking inflation into account, CBO estimates that 

implementing section 604 would cost $144 million over the 2010– 

2013 period. 

Human Resources Training. Section 304 would require every federal agency to provide training to human resources personnel on 

the employment and reemployment rights under the Uniformed 

Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) of 

federal employees who leave their positions to undertake military 

service. The training would be developed and provided in consultation with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Using information provided by OPM and the Department of Labor (DOL), 

CBO estimates that there are over 20,000 human resources professionals in the federal government. USERRA training, although currently available, is not required. CBO expects that most of the 

training would be Internet-based, with some individual conferences 

in large agencies or cities. Based on those assumptions and using 

information provided by OPM, DOL, and various human resource 

professionals, CBO estimates that implementing mandatory training for federal employees would cost $5 million in 2009 and $2 million annually in subsequent years. 

Active Judges on the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 

(CAVC). Section 401 would increase the number of active judges on 

the CAVC from seven to nine. According to the CAVC, in 2007, the 

average annual cost for a judge’s chamber—which includes salaries 

of the judges and their staff, infrastructure, and incidentals—was 

about $1 million. Therefore, CBO estimates that implementing section 401 would cost $10 million over the 2009–2013 period. 

Reports. S. 3023 would require VA to complete a series of reports 

and studies for the Congress on varying topics and issues. Those 

issues include: VA’s progress in addressing geographic variance in 

veterans’ disability payments; the appropriate levels of disability 

compensation for service-connected disabilities and of long-term 

transition payments for veterans undergoing vocational rehabilitation; the effect of mortgage foreclosures on veterans; the employment needs of Native American veterans living on tribal lands; 

ways to assist and encourage veterans to complete vocational rehabilitation; and the feasibility of including acute and severe Post 

Traumatic Stress Disorder under the traumatic injury protection 

insurance covered by Servicemembers Group Life Insurance (SGLI) 

program. Based on information from VA, CBO estimates that completing those reports would cost about $2 million over the 2009– 

2013 period. 

Direct Spending 

S. 3023 contains provisions that would both increase and decrease direct spending. CBO estimates that, on net, enacting S. 

3023 would decrease direct spending by $7 million in 2009, by $29 

million over the 2009–2013 period, and by $18 million over the 

2009–2018 period (see Table 3). 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
50 

Table 3.—Estimated Changes to Direct Spending Under S. 3023, 

Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act of 2008 

By fiscal year, outlays in millions of dollars a— 

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2009– 

2013 

2009– 

2018 

CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING b

Extension of Income 

Verification ........................ ¥2 ¥4 ¥6 ¥5 ¥6 ¥6 ¥5 ¥5 ¥5 ¥5 ¥24 ¥50 

Guarantees of Mortgage Refinancing Loans .................. * * * 3 3 3 3 5 4 5 6 26 

Guarantees of AdjustableRate Mortgages ................ ¥4 ¥4 ¥4 ¥1 0 0 0 1 0 1 ¥13 ¥11 

Temporary Increase in the 

Maximum Loan Guarantee ¥1 ¥3 ¥4 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 ¥6 ¥3 

Educational Assistance for 

Spouses of Severely Disabled Veterans .................. 0 1 1 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 6 13 

Certification Requirement for 

Self-Employment On-theJob Training ...................... * * * * * 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 

Total Changes .............. ¥7 ¥10 13 1 ¥1 1 1 4 1 4 ¥29 ¥18 

Note: * = less than $500,000. 

a Annual changes in budget authority would be equal to the estimated changes in outlays. 

b Components may not sum to totals because of rounding. 

Extension of Income Verification. Section 603 would extend authorities in current law that allow VA to acquire information on income reported to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to verify income reported by recipients of VA pension benefits. The authorization allowing the IRS to provide income information to VA was 

made permanent by Public Law 110–245, but the authorization allowing VA to acquire the information is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2008. Section 603 would extend VA’s authority to acquire IRS data through September 30, 2011. According to VA, the 

department saved, on average, approximately $5 million each year 

in new pension benefit payments by verifying veterans’ incomes 

over the 2001–2007 period using the IRS data. 

In 2007, the President signed into law Public Law 110–157, 

which includes a provision allowing VA to use the National Directory of New Hires (NDNH) database as an alternate source of income-verification data. That authority is set to expire on September 

30, 2011. The NDNH database, though using more up-to-date information, does not include a large segment of the workforce that 

might self-report work income. The IRS data reflect information on 

self-reported income. 

If VA were to use both systems over the three-year period from 

2009 through 2011, CBO estimates that the incremental savings 

from utilizing the IRS data for income verification would be about 

$2 million in new savings each year. Those savings would compound in subsequent years (rising to about $4 million in year two, 

and so on), with cost-of-living and mortality adjustments, until 

2011 when savings would decline after the authority to use IRS 

data expires. CBO estimates that section 603 would reduce direct 

spending by $50 million over the 2009–2018 period. 

Guarantees of Mortgage Refinancing Loans. Section 202 would 

authorize VA to provide the same maximum loan guarantee for veterans refinancing a non-VA loan as is provided for loans that are 

guaranteed by VA. Under current law, VA can provide a guarantee 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
51 

of only $36,000 for refinancing non-VA loans compared with a 

guarantee of $104,250 for refinancing VA loans. The section also 

would decrease the equity requirement for such refinancing loans 

from 10 percent of the loan amount to 5 percent. 

Based on information from VA, CBO estimates that those 

changes would result in an additional 1,000 loans in 2009, increasing to an additional 2,000 loans a year in 2012 and subsequent 

years. CBO and VA estimate that the VA loan guarantees currently have a negative subsidy rate reflecting relatively low default 

rates and the collection of up-front fees. However, certain loan fees 

will be reduced (under current law) on October 11, 2011, resulting 

in a positive subsidy rate after that date. Because most of the additional loans would occur after the loan fees are reduced, the additional loans would increase direct spending by $26 million over the 

2009–2018 period, CBO estimates. 

Guarantees of Adjustable-Rate Mortgages. Section 203 would extend, through 2012, VA’s authority to guarantee adjustable-rate 

mortgages and hybrid adjustable rate-mortgages. Adjustable-rate 

mortgages have interest rates that may change annually. Hybrid 

adjustable-rate mortgages have a fixed interest rate for an initial 

period of a few years, after which the rate may be adjusted annually. The authority to provide guarantees for such loans expires at 

the end of fiscal year 2008. 

Based on data from VA, CBO estimates that extending that authority would result in an additional 1,400 loans a year. Because 

the VA loan guarantee program has a negative subsidy rate during 

the period covered by the authority in section 203, those additional 

loans would increase receipts by $13 million over the 2009–2012 

period. CBO expects that some of those additional loans would become delinquent and go to foreclosure. When a guaranteed loan 

goes into foreclosure, VA often acquires the property and issues a 

new direct loan (called a vendee loan) when the property is sold. 

VA sells most vendee loans on the secondary-mortgage market and 

guarantees their timely repayment. Those vendee loans carry a 

positive subsidy, reflecting their potential defaults. Thus, the increased receipts for the new VA guarantees of adjustable-rate mortgages would be slightly offset by an additional $2 million in subsidy costs related to vendee loans. In total, extending the authority 

to guarantee adjustable-rate mortgages would reduce direct spending by $11 million over the 2008–2018 period. 

Temporary Increase in the Maximum Loan Guarantee. VA can 

provide lenders a guarantee of up to 25 percent of the value of 

home-acquisition loans made to veterans. Under current law, the 

maximum loan amount for which VA can provide a 25 percent 

guarantee is the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit of $417,000. 

Section 201 would increase the maximum amount of the loan for 

which a veteran could receive a 25 percent loan guarantee to 125 

percent of the area median home price, not to exceed 175 percent 

of the current Freddie Mac limit, or $729,750. The authority to increase the guarantee would expire on December 31, 2011. 

Based on nationwide mortgage data and information from the 

VA, CBO estimates that a total of 4,700 additional guaranteed 

loans would be made for an average loan amount of 10 percent 

more than the amount of the current maximum guarantee. CBO 

and VA estimate that the VA loan guarantees currently have a 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
52 

negative subsidy rate of about 0.4 percent. Because of that negative 

subsidy rate, CBO estimates that the added loans and higher loan 

amounts would increase receipts by $8 million during fiscal years 

2009 through 2011. However, certain loan fees will be reduced on 

October 1, 2011, resulting in higher subsidy rates. The additional 

loan guarantees that CBO estimates would occur in the final quarter before the authority expires would thus increase subsidy outlays by $2 million. 

CBO expects that some of those additional loans would become 

delinquent and go to foreclosure. As noted above, when a guaranteed loan goes into foreclosure, VA often acquires the property and 

issues a vendee loan when the property is sold. CBO estimates that 

the subsidy cost for those vendee loans in subsequent years would 

total $3 million over the 2014–2018 period. 

Taking into account the initial savings estimated for new loan 

guarantees and the expected costs for vendee loans, CBO estimates 

that this provision would reduce direct spending by $6 million over 

the 2009–2013 period and by $3 million over the 2009–2018 period. 

Educational Assistance for Spouses of Severely Disabled Veterans. 

Section 312 would allow spouses of veterans who are permanently 

and totally disabled to use education assistance over a 20-year period. Under current law, eligible spouses have a 10-year window in 

which to use their benefits. 

CBO estimates that nearly 6,000 spouses would be eligible for 

the extended entitlement period during some or all of the next 10 

years. The Department of Defense reports that more than 9,000 

veterans have separated from the armed forces with a permanent, 

total disability over the last 20 years. Of those 9,000 veterans, 

about 65 percent have spouses or children. CBO anticipates that 

more than 2,000 spouses will be eligible for the benefit each year 

and that 10 percent would use the benefit annually. CBO expects 

that the approximately 200 users each year would receive an average benefit that would equal $5,200 in 2009 and would grow by an 

annual cost-of-living increase thereafter. Therefore, CBO estimates 

that, over the 2009–2018 period, enacting section 312 would increase direct spending by $13 million. 

Certification Requirement for Self-Employment On-the-Job Training. Under section 316, veterans participating in on-the-job training for self-employment or operation of a franchise would no longer 

be required to provide VA certification that they are being paid for 

the training and that the training will lead to employment. Because self-employment and franchise training are typically unpaid, 

veterans pursuing those goals who are otherwise eligible to receive 

payments for training are effectively excluded due to the existing 

requirement that they certify that they are being paid for the training. 

CBO estimates that most of the veterans receiving on-the-job 

training benefits under section 316 would be franchise owners. The 

International Franchise Association runs a well-publicized program 

that enables veterans to purchase franchises at discounted rates. 

Based on information from the association and other national franchise information, CBO estimates that under section 316 about 400 

veterans annually would purchase franchises and qualify for onthe-job training benefits during their training period. For a typical 

training period of five weeks, veterans would receive around 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
53 

$1,600. In total, CBO estimates that enacting section 316 would increase direct spending by $7 million over the 2009–2018 period. 

Automatic Cost-of-Living Adjustment (COLA). Section 103 would 

provide a permanent annual cost-of-living adjustment to the 

amounts paid to veterans for disability compensation and to their 

survivors for dependency and indemnity compensation. The COLA 

would equal the cost-of-living adjustment payable to Social Security 

recipients. The increase would take effect on December 1 of each 

year, and the results of the adjustment would be rounded to the 

next lower dollar. 

The COLA that would be authorized by this bill is assumed in 

CBO’s baseline, pursuant to section 257 of the Balanced Budget 

and Emergency Deficit Control Act, and savings from rounding it 

down were achieved by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 (Public 

Law 105–33) and extended to 2013 by the Veterans Benefits Act 

of 2003 (Public Law 108–183). Because the COLA is assumed in 

CBO’s baseline, this provision would have no budgetary effect relative to that baseline. CBO estimates that the COLA for 2010, 

which would take effect in the second quarter of fiscal year 2010, 

would equal $1.2 billion. The full-year cost of that increase would 

equal $1.6 billion. Similar increases are estimated in subsequent 

years. 

Other provisions. The following provisions would have an insignificant impact on federal direct spending: 

• Section 204 would allow severely disabled members of the 

armed forces to receive certain housing grants from VA before they 

leave the service. CBO expects this provision would affect very few 

individuals and, in most cases, would serve only to accelerate the 

benefit by several months. 

• Section 301 would extend the 24-month limitation on receiving 

Independent Living assistance for severely disabled veterans of the 

war on terrorism. The Independent Living program provides services to maximize independence in daily living for veterans who are 

too severely disabled to pursue employment. Based on current program usage rates from VA, CBO estimates that fewer than 20 veterans will use more than 24 months of Independent Living services. 

• Section 602 would grant eligibility for VA-provided memorial 

headstones to certain deceased surviving spouses of veterans. 

Based on information from VA, CBO expects that there would be 

very few requests for VA-memorial headstones from the survivors 

of those surviving spouses. 

Estimated Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments 

Intergovernmental Mandates. Currently, fewer than 20 public institutions of higher education make or originate Federal Stafford 

Loans to graduate students under the Federal Family Education 

Loan program. S. 3023 would prohibit those institutions from applying an annual interest rate higher than 6 percent on student 

loans made to servicemembers during their period of military service. The duty to comply with the interest rate cap would be an 

intergovernmental mandate as defined in UMRA. Because Graduate Stafford Loans (both subsidized and unsubsidized) currently 

have a fixed interest rate of 6.8 percent through 2013 and because 

the provision would apply to a small number of individuals attendVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:33 Sep 11, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR449.XXX SR449

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
54 

ing fewer than 20 public institutions of higher education, CBO estimates that the mandate costs to governmental entities, in the form 

of lost interest revenue due to the cap, would be small and would 

not exceed the threshold in UMRA ($68 million in 2008, adjusted 

annually for inflation). 

Other Impacts. Public institutions of higher education that participate in federal financial aid programs also would be required to 

extend educational benefits to servicemembers because of their 

military service. However, those requirements would not be intergovernmental mandates as defined in UMRA, but rather conditions 

of participating in a voluntary federal program. 

Public institutions of higher education would be required to refund tuition and fees paid by servicemembers who had to leave 

school because of military service commitments. In addition, those 

institutions would be required to provide servicemembers who discontinued an educational program because of military service an 

opportunity to reenroll with the same educational and academic 

status held prior to their military service. Information from state 

and higher education officials indicate that public institutions of 

higher education in approximately half the states already extend 

similar benefits to servicemembers either because of state law or 

institutional policies. Public institutions that do not extend these 

benefits would be required to do so because of their participation 

in federal financial aid programs. CBO estimates that those institutions would incur costs of at least $40 million in 2008. Costs 

could be higher because enrollment data for all servicemembers attending public institutions of higher education, including activeduty members, were not available for this analysis. The CBO estimate includes only costs associated with members in the reserves 

who might discontinue their education because of military service. 

Estimated Impact on the Private Sector 

The bill contains private-sector mandates as defined in UMRA. 

Section 311 would require institutions of higher education to refund tuition and fees paid by students called to military service, for 

the portion of the education program for which such servicemembers did not receive academic credit. Section 311 also would 

limit the interest rate on student loans to 6 percent per year for 

servicemembers during their period of military service. 

CBO expects that the number of servicemembers called to military service while enrolled at an institution of higher education 

would be small. Based on estimates of total student loan debt for 

servicemembers entering the military, CBO also expects that the 

annual costs to lenders resulting from a reduction in the maximum 

allowable interest rate for those loans also would be small. Thus, 

CBO estimates that the total cost of the mandates would be below 

the annual threshold established in UMRA ($136 million for private-sector mandates in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation). 

Previous CBO estimates: On July 17, 2008, CBO transmitted a 

cost estimate for S. 2617, the Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2008, as ordered reported by the Senate 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs on June 26, 2008. On May 12, 

2008, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for H.R. 5826, also titled 

the Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2008, 

as ordered reported by the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
55 

on April 30, 2008. Section 103 of S. 3023 is similar to both S. 2617 

and H.R. 5826. However, section 103 would automatically increase 

benefit levels for disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation each year by the same COLA that Social Security recipients would receive. S. 2617 and H.R. 5826 would only 

make the adjustment for 2009. Because the COLA is assumed in 

CBO’s baseline, those proposals would have no budgetary effect relative to that baseline. 

Estimate prepared by: Federal Costs: Federal Courts, Benefits— 

Dwayne M. Wright (226-2840), Housing—DavidNewman (226- 

2840), Education and Vocational Rehabilitation—Camille Woodland 

(226-2840), Government Training—Matthew Pickford (226-2860); 

Impact on State, Local, and Tribal Governments: Lisa RamirezBranum (225-3220); Impact on the Private Sector: Daniel Frisk 

(226-2900). 

Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Assistant Director for 

Budget Analysis. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In compliance with paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs has made 

an evaluation of the regulatory impact that would be incurred in 

carrying out the Committee bill. The Committee finds that the 

Committee bill would not entail any regulation of individuals or 

businesses or result in any impact on the personal privacy of any 

individuals and that the paperwork resulting from enactment 

would be minimal. 

TABULATION OF VOTES CAST IN COMMITTEE

In compliance with paragraph 7 of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the following is a tabulation of votes cast in 

person or by proxy by members of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs at its June 26, 2008, meeting. The Committee, by voice vote, 

ordered S. 3023 reported favorably to the Senate, subject to amendment. 

On that date, the Committee considered two amendments offered 

by Senator Burr regarding the recall of retired judges and an annual reporting requirement on the workload of the United States 

Court of Appeal for Veterans Claims. The amendments were accepted by voice vote. 

The Committee then considered an amendment offered by Senator Burr regarding a contingent increase in the number of judges 

on the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The 

amendment was defeated by a 7 to 7 vote. 

Yeas Senator Nays 

Mr. Rockefeller X 

Ms. Murray X 

Mr. Obama 

Mr. Sanders X 

Mr. Brown X 

Mr. Webb X 

Mr. Tester X 

X Mr. Burr 

X (by proxy) Mr. Specter 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
56 

Yeas Senator Nays 

X Mr. Craig 

X Mr. Isakson 

X (by proxy) Mr. Graham 

X (by proxy) Ms. Hutchison 

X Mr. Wicker 

Mr. Chairman X 

7 TALLY 7 

The Committee then considered an amendment offered by Senator Burr regarding temporary expansion in the number of judges 

on the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The 

amendment was defeated by a 7 to 7 vote. 

Yeas Senator Nays 

Mr. Rockefeller X 

Ms. Murray X 

Mr. Obama 

Mr. Sanders X 

Mr. Brown X 

Mr. Webb X (by proxy) 

Mr. Tester X 

X Mr. Burr 

X (by proxy) Mr. Specter 

X Mr. Craig 

X Mr. Isakson 

X (by proxy) Mr. Graham 

X (by proxy) Ms. Hutchison 

X Mr. Wicker 

Mr. Chairman X 

7 TALLY 7 

The Committee then considered an amendment offered by Senator Burr regarding the retirement rules applicable to any judge 

appointed to fill one of the additional judicial positions on the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims proposed by 

section 401 of the Committee bill. The amendment was defeated by 

a 7 to 7 vote. 

Yeas Senator Nays 

Mr. Rockefeller X 

Ms. Murray X 

Mr. Obama 

Mr. Sanders X 

Mr. Brown X 

Mr. Webb X 

Mr. Tester X 

X Mr. Burr 

X (by proxy) Mr. Specter 

X Mr. Craig 

X Mr. Isakson 

X Mr. Graham 

X (by proxy) Ms. Hutchison 

X Mr. Wicker 

Mr. Chairman X 

7 TALLY 7 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
57 

AGENCY REPORT

On May 7, 2008, Keith Pedigo, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program Management of the Department of 

Veterans Affairs, appeared before the Committee and submitted 

testimony of the Department’s views of the bills. Excerpts from this 

statement are reprinted below: 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
(58) 

STATEMENT OF KEITH PEDIGO, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY 

UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLICY AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, good morning. I 

am pleased to be here today to provide the Department of Veterans 

Affairs’ (VA) views on pending benefits legislation. I will not be 

able to address a few of the bills on today’s agenda because VA received them in insufficient time to coordinate the Administration’s 

position and cost estimates, but we will provide that information in 

writing for the record. 

* * * * * * * 

S. 1718 

S. 1718, the ‘‘Veterans Education Tuition Support Act,’’ would 

amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to provide servicemembers reimbursement of tuition for programs of education interrupted by military service, deferment of student loans, and reduced 

interest rates for servicemembers during periods of military service. Because that Act is implemented by DOD, we defer to that department regarding the merits of S. 1718. 

S. 2090 

S. 2090 would require the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims (Veterans Court) to adopt rules to protect the privacy and 

security of documents retained by, or electronically filed with, the 

court. It would require the rules to be consistent with other Federal 

courts’ rules and to take into consideration the best practices in 

Federal and state courts to protect private information. 

This bill would extend the Veterans Court’s existing authority 

and anticipates the upcoming conversion from paper filing to electronic filing. The court’s current Rules of Practice and Procedure 

provide several tools to safeguard sensitive information. For example, Rule 11 (c)(2) permits the Veterans Court, on its own initiative 

or on motion of a party, to ‘‘take appropriate action to prevent disclosure of confidential information.’’ Rule 48 permits the Veterans 

Court to seal the Record on Appeal in appropriate cases. Rule 6 

provides: ‘‘Because the Court records are public records, parties 

will refrain from putting the appellant’s or petitioner’s VA claims 

file number on motions, briefs, and responses (but not the Notice 

of Appeal (see Rule 3(c)(1))); use of the Court’s docket number is 

sufficient identification. In addition, parties should redact the appellant’s or petitioner’s VA claims file number from documents submitted to the Court in connection with motions, briefs, and responses.’’ This rule prevents the public from easily accessing a veteran’s Social Security number. VA supports efforts to protect Social 

Security numbers. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
59 

The Secretary supports enactment of S. 2090 because the importance of safeguarding sensitive information in a veteran’s files cannot be overemphasized. The proposal is logical given the impending 

conversion from paper filing to electronic filing, particularly in this 

distressing era of internet data mining and identity theft. 

S. 2091 

S. 2091 would expand the number of active judges sitting on the 

Veterans Court from seven to nine. We have witnessed the 

progress that the Veterans Court has made in reducing its inventory of cases through temporary recall of retired judges. Under the 

current system, we believe the Court can effectively manage its 

projected caseload within the funds requested in the FY 2009 

President’s Budget. 

* * * * * * * 

S. 2471 

S. 2471, the ‘‘USERRA Enforcement Improvement Act of 2007,’’ 

would make several changes to the enforcement of the Uniformed 

Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. Because that 

Act is implemented by the Department of Labor, we defer to that 

department regarding the merits of S. 2471. 

S. 2550 

S. 2550, as proposed to be amended, the ‘‘Combat Veterans Debt 

Elimination Act of 2008,’’ would authorize VA to refrain from collecting all or part of a debt owed to the United States under any 

program administered by VA (other than a housing or small business program under chapter 37 of title 38, United States Code) by 

a service member or veteran who dies as a result of an injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty while serving in a theater 

of combat operations in a war or in combat against a hostile force 

during a period of hostilities after September 11, 2001, if the Secretary determines that termination of collection is in the best interest of the United States. 

In response to the Committee Chairman’s request, we provided 

VA’s views on this bill, as introduced, in a letter dated February 

13, 2008. In that letter, we raised certain concerns and suggested 

revisions. The bill, as proposed to be amended, appears to address 

VA’s concerns. Accordingly, VA supports S. 2550, as proposed to be 

amended. 

We estimate that enactment of this bill would result in additional benefits cost of $5,000 for FY 2009, and a 10-year cost of 

$50,000. In determining the costs, VA used the amount of debt of 

21 fallen service members. In relative terms, the total amount of 

accumulated debt over almost 4 years of collecting the information 

is so small, and the pattern of that accumulation so sporadic, that 

we would have little expectation of a material increase in the 

amount of benefit indebtedness. 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
60 

S. 2674 

S. 2674, the ‘‘America’s Wounded Warriors Act,’’ would implement the recommendation of the President’s Commission on Care 

for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors (‘‘Dole-Shalala Commission’’) to ‘‘Completely Restructure the Disability and Compensation Systems.’’ 

VA defers to DOD with regard to title I of S. 2674, which would 

amend chapter 61 of title 10, United States Code, to create an alternative disability retirement system for certain servicemembers. 

Title II would completely restructure the VA disability compensation program. Section 201 would require VA to conduct a study to 

determine the amount of compensation to be paid for each rating 

of disability assignable to veterans for service-connected disabilities. It would require VA to ensure that its determinations reflect 

current concepts of medicine and disability and take into account 

loss of quality of life and average loss of earning capacity resulting 

from specific injuries. In conducting the study, VA could take into 

account the findings, determinations, and results of any completed 

or on-going study or report that is applicable. Section 201 also 

would require VA to submit to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs 

of the Senate and House of Representatives a report that would include VA’s findings under the required study, as well as VA’s findings with respect to matters covered by the study arising from the 

report of the Veterans’ Disability Benefits Commission (VDBC) and 

the reports of such other independent advisory commissions that 

have studied the same matters. The report would be due to the 

Committees not later than 270 days after commencement of the required study. 

Section 202 of the bill would require VA to conduct a study to 

determine the appropriate amounts and duration of transition payments to veterans who are participating in a rehabilitation program under chapter 31 or chapter 17 of title 38, United States 

Code. In conducting the study, VA could take into account the findings, determinations, and results of any completed or on-going 

study or report that is applicable. Section 202 also would require 

VA to submit to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate 

and House of Representatives a report that would include VA’s 

findings under the required study, as well as VA’s findings with respect to matters covered by the study arising from the report of the 

VDBC and the reports of such other independent advisory commissions that have studied the same matters. The report would be due 

to the Committees not later than 270 days after commencement of 

the required study. 

These two sections are similar to section 201 of the Administration’s proposal to implement the report of the Dole-Shalala Commission. VA supports efforts to improve procedures for disability 

retirement of service members, to enhance authorities for the rating and compensation of service-connected disabilities, and to develop procedures to encourage completion of vocational rehabilitation plans under chapter 31. However, we do not believe that enactment of these sections is necessary in light of actions already 

undertaken by VA to study the same matters as these sections 

would require. In February 2008, VA entered into a contract with 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
61 

Economic Systems, Inc., of Falls Church, Virginia, to study the appropriate levels of compensation necessary to compensate veterans 

for loss of earning capacity and loss of quality of life caused by 

service-related disabilities and the nature and feasibility of making 

long-term transition payments to veterans separated from the 

Armed Forces due to disability while such individuals are undergoing rehabilitation under chapter 31 or chapter 17. These studies 

are expected to be completed by August of this year. We will provide the Committees with copies of these studies. 

Section 203 of S. 2674 would require VA to conduct a study to 

identify factors that may preclude veterans from completing their 

vocational rehabilitation plans and actions VA may take to assist 

and encourage veterans in overcoming such factors. The study 

would examine: (1) measures used in other disability systems to encourage completion of vocational rehabilitation plans; (2) any survey data available to VA that relate to matters covered by the 

study; (3) the results of the studies required by sections 201 and 

202 of this bill; (4) the report of the VDBC; and (5) the report of 

the Dole-Shalala Commission. The study would also consider the 

extent to which bonus payments or other incentives may be used 

to encourage completion of vocational rehabilitation plans under 

chapter 31 and such other matters VA considers appropriate. Not 

later than 270 days after commencement of the study, VA would 

be required to submit to the Committees on Veterans’ Affairs a report including the findings of the study and any appropriate recommendations and proposals for legislative or administrative action needed to implement the recommendations. 

There is no similar provision in the Administration’s proposal. 

However, the Administration’s proposal would authorize the payment of bonuses as an incentive to completing a vocational rehabilitation program. Thus, S. 2674 would further the same objective 

as the Administration’s proposal. In addition, we believe that the 

study conducted by Economic Systems, Inc., which is already in 

progress, is consistent with the intent of this section. 

Section 204 of the bill would require VA, not later than one year 

after the later of the dates of the reports required by sections 201(f) 

and 202(e)1 of the bill, to submit to Congress a proposal including 

a statement of purpose of the disability compensation and transition payments that would be required pursuant to enactment of 

section 207 of the bill, a statement of the amounts of compensation 

for service-connected disability that would be required pursuant to 

enactment of that section, and a statement of the amounts and duration of transition benefits to be payable pursuant to enactment 

of section 207 of this bill to veterans participating in a rehabilitation program under chapter 31 or chapter 17 of title 38. The rates, 

amounts, and duration of these benefits would be exempt from judicial review. We do not support enactment of this section; we prefer the Administration’s proposal. 

The new compensation system would apply to veterans who have 

a disability rated as service connected under chapter 11 of title 38, 

United States Code on the effective date of the new chapter 12 

compensation system, and who file a claim with respect to such disability or another disability on or after that date, as well as to veterans who do not have a disability rated as service connected under 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
62 

chapter 11 of title 38, United States Code on the effective date of 

the new chapter 12 compensation system, and who file a claim with 

respect to disability on or after that date. The disability rating for 

claims filed under chapter 12 would have to take into account all 

service-connected disabilities. The new chapter 12 compensation 

system would become effective, if at all, at most 85 days after VA 

submitted to Congress its proposal as to amounts of compensation 

and amounts and duration of transition benefits that are payable 

under the system. An award or increase of compensation with regard to a compensation claim filed during the 3-year period beginning on the effective date of implementation of the new VA compensation system could be retroactive for 3 years from the date of 

application or administrative determination of entitlement, whichever is earlier. 

The new VA compensation system would also include transition 

payments to cover living expenses for disabled veterans and their 

families, consisting of either 3 months of base pay if the veterans 

are returning to their community following retirement and not participating in further rehabilitation or longer-term payments to 

cover family living expenses if they are participating in further rehabilitation under chapter 31 or chapter 17. VA would also have 

authority to make transition payments to eligible veterans who are 

retired or separated under the alternate DOD system. 

Section 208 of S. 2674 would also add a new chapter 14 to title 

38, United States Code, which would permit a veteran retired 

under the new DOD system and entitled to compensation under 

new chapter 12 to elect a 6.5-percent reduction in the entire 

amount of compensation to provide a supplemental survivor benefit 

for a surviving spouse or child(ren). A survivor would be entitled 

to 55 percent of the veteran’s total compensation payable at the 

time of the veteran’s death. Also under section 208, if a veteran 

elects to provide a survivor benefit to the veteran’s child(ren) rather than spouse, VA would have to notify the veteran’s spouse of the 

veteran’s election. 

VA has the following concerns regarding title II of S. 2674. 

Currently, 2.7 million veterans are in receipt of VA disability 

compensation under chapter 11 of title 38, United States Code. By 

simply filing a compensation claim when or after chapter 12 goes 

into effect, all of these veterans would become eligible for compensation under chapter 12, and all of their service-connected disabilities would have to be rerated under the rating schedule applicable to chapter 12. Our initial review of new chapter 12 indicates 

that benefits under the new VA compensation system would be far 

more favorable than benefits under current chapter 11. As a result, 

VA could be overwhelmed with claims by veterans seeking to have 

their service-connected disabilities compensated under new chapter 

12. 

VA would be required to submit to Congress its proposals regarding amounts of disability compensation and the amounts and duration of transition benefits not later than one year after submitting 

the later of its reports on compensation and transition benefits. VA 

would have 270 days from commencement of each study to report 

to Congressional committees on the study results. VA would have 

to wait for completion of the compensation study before drafting a 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
63 

rating schedule. As a result, VA would have approximately 15 

months to draft a rating schedule compensating for loss of earnings 

and quality of life, propose it through notice-and-comment rulemaking, consider comments received, and issue a final rule. This 

is insufficient time considering the scope and complexity of the rating schedule. 

The requirement that the Secretary of Veterans Affairs propose 

the amounts of disability compensation and the amounts and duration of transition benefits is insufficiently prescriptive for VA to formulate a proposal that will achieve the statutory objectives. The 

bill should provide more specific guidance in this regard. The legislature must give specific guidance to executive agencies when authorizing them to establish entitlement programs administratively. 

In addition, if S. 2674 were enacted and later challenged on constitutional grounds, the provision purporting to exempt the rates, 

amounts, and duration of these benefits from judicial review may 

be unavailing because Federal courts generally will interpret statutory provisions to avoid the serious constitutional questions that 

would arise if a statute were construed to deny any judicial forum 

for a colorable constitutional claim. 

Although it would require VA to study actions VA could take to 

help and encourage veterans to overcome impediments to completing their vocational rehabilitation plans, S. 2674 would not authorize an achievement bonus payable upon completion of certain 

milestones of a chapter 31 vocational rehabilitation program. We 

believe that such payments are necessary to serve as incentives to 

encourage veterans to remain in the VA vocational rehabilitation 

program and complete their vocational rehabilitation objectives. 

S. 2674 would authorize a survivor benefit that would be based 

upon a percentage of a veteran’s compensation for loss of quality 

of life as well as earnings loss. Compensation for the effect of a disability on the veteran’s quality of life would be similar to damages 

for pain and suffering awarded to an injured person in a tort lawsuit. Compensation for a veteran’s survivors under title 38, United 

States Code, on the other hand, is intended to replace the economic 

loss to the veteran’s survivors resulting from the veteran’s death. 

It would therefore be inconsistent to calculate survivors benefits 

under new chapter 14 based in part upon the compensation paid 

to a veteran for pain and suffering rather than based upon the loss 

to the veterans’ survivors caused by loss of the veteran’s earning 

capacity. 

S. 2674 does not authorize VA to provide services to family members of eligible veterans as necessary to facilitate the family members’ assistance in treatment, rehabilitation, or long-term care of 

the veteran, i.e., education concerning the veteran’s injuries and 

expected progress and caregiver training, counseling, and psychological services. Because the Administration’s proposed bill does authorize such services, we favor that bill over S. 2674. 

All in all, we prefer the Administration’s proposal to S. 2674. 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
64 

S. 2737 

S. 2737, the ‘‘Veterans’ Rating Schedule Review Act,’’ would give 

the Veterans Court jurisdiction to review whether, and the extent 

to which, the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (rating schedule) 

complies with ‘‘applicable requirements of chapter 11’’ of title 38, 

United States Code. 

VA opposes S. 2737 for the following reasons. First, extending 

the Veterans Court’s jurisdiction to include review of the rating 

schedule for compliance with applicable statutes would likely increase litigation, over both the validity of rating schedule provisions and the scope of the jurisdictional extension itself. Every 

claim in which VA grants service connection involves consideration 

of some portion of the schedule for purposes of rating the serviceconnected disability, as does every claim for an increased rating. S. 

2737 would essentially expose the rating schedule to judicial review 

in every such claim appealed to the Veterans Court. Any case in 

which the court feels that a rating-schedule provision prevents a 

veteran from receiving the full amount of compensation to which 

the court considers the veteran entitled could be viewed as posing 

a reviewable conflict between the rating schedule and some statute 

in chapter 11. If S. 2737 were enacted, the number of appeals to 

the Veterans Court could skyrocket, an increase in case load the 

Veterans Court could ill afford. According to the Veterans Court’s 

annual reports, the court’s caseload has doubled since 1998. Adding 

the increase of appeals resulting from the jurisdictional extension 

to the already growing case load could delay final resolution of all 

appeals before that court. 

A change in the court’s jurisdiction would itself stimulate litigation. Undoubtedly, claimants’ counsel would test the limits of the 

court’s jurisdiction, giving rise to protracted litigation of uncertain 

outcome. The courts are still grappling with the parameters of the 

Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 notice provisions some 8 

years after the passage of that statute. Besides burdening the 

courts, S. 2737 would require additional VA resources to handle the 

increase in litigation resulting from judicial review of whether the 

rating schedule complies with chapter 11 requirements. 

Second, S. 2737 would permit piecemeal review of individual rating classifications, which are matters particularly within VA’s expertise. Establishing the criteria for rating disabilities and the 

rates of compensation payable under those criteria depends on 

gathering and analysis of medical facts, matters of technical and 

medical judgment, including judgment about what disabilities and 

levels of disability should be included in the schedule. The prevention of piecemeal review was Congress’s rationale in originally proscribing review of the rating schedule in the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act. Congress intended that no court should substitute its 

judgment for the Secretary’s as to what rating a particular type of 

disability should be assigned. 

Third, S. 2737 would create a jurisdictional inconsistency. The 

bill would permit the Veterans Court to decide whether the VA rating schedule is consistent with statutes in chapter 11, but the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal 

Circuit) would remain without jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 502 to 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
65 

review an action of the Secretary relating to the adoption or revision of the rating schedule. Nonetheless, the Federal Circuit would 

have jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a) to review a Veterans 

Court interpretation of statute or regulation. Thus, the Federal Circuit would be barred from reviewing the content of the rating 

schedule on direct review but could review a Veterans Court decision on whether the rating schedule complies with chapter 11 requirements, which would likely require review of the content of the 

rating schedule. 

Finally, under current case law, the Veterans Court is not totally 

without authority to review the rating schedule. The Federal Circuit has held that 38 U.S.C. § 7252(b) bars judicial review of the 

content of the rating schedule and the Secretary’s actions in adopting or revising the content. However, the Federal Circuit has also 

held that the courts, including the Veterans Court, have jurisdiction to review the correct interpretation of rating-criteria content, 

the Secretary’s actions in adopting or revising the criteria for compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act, and constitutional 

challenges to the rating schedule. 

We cannot estimate the costs that would result from enactment 

of S. 2737. 

S. 2768 

S. 2768 would temporarily increase the maximum loan guaranty 

amount for certain housing loans guaranteed by VA. Currently, the 

maximum guaranty amount is 25 percent of the Freddie Mac conforming loan limitation, for a single family home, as adjusted annually. This means that the current VA maximum guaranty is 

$104,250 on a no-downpayment loan of $417,000. In high-cost 

areas, defined by Freddie Mac as Alaska, Guam, Hawaii, and the 

Virgin Islands, the maximum guaranty amount is $156,375 on a 

no-downpayment loan of $625,500. 

S. 2768 would provide VA similar authorizations related to loan 

limitations such as those established by the recently enacted Economic Stimulus Act, Public Law 110–185. Specifically, it would increase the maximum guaranty amount to be equal to 25 percent of 

the higher of: (1) the Freddie Mac conforming loan limit; or (2) 125 

percent of the area median price for a single-family residence, not 

to exceed 175 percent of the conforming loan limit. The higher 

guaranty amounts would be authorized through calendar year 

2011. An increase in the maximum loan limit generally translates 

to more purchasing power for veterans. VA supports the increase 

in loan guarantee limits through December 31, 2008, consistent 

with the Economic Stimulus Act’s other loan provisions. However, 

we need additional analysis to determine how the change in limit 

would affect our loan program beyond that date. 

* * * * * * * 

S. 2889, SECTION 7 

S. 2889, the ‘‘Veterans Health Care Act of 2008,’’ contains legislative proposals that the Administration recently submitted to Congress as part of the annual budget submission. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
66 

Section 7 would make permanent VA’s authority to verify the eligibility of recipients of, or applicants for, VA need-based benefits 

and services using income data from the Internal Revenue Service 

and the Social Security Administration. The existing authority has 

been instrumental in correcting amounts of benefits payments and 

determining health care eligibility, co-payment status, and enrollment priority assignment; however, this authority expires on September 30, 2008. Expiration of this authority would interrupt the 

income verification process. 

VA estimates that enactment of section 7 would result in net discretionary savings of $8.2 million in FY 2009 and $270 million over 

10 years. 

* * * * * * * 

Unnumbered Housing Refinance Legislation 

S. xxxx would increase the maximum guaranty amount for certain refinance loans, sometimes referred to as ‘‘regular’’ refinances, 

and would reduce the existing equity requirement for such loans 

from 10 percent to 5 percent. In general, a regular refinance loan 

is one in which a veteran refinances a loan not already guaranteed 

by VA. The law currently limits VA’s guaranty to $36,000 on regular refinance loans and limits the loan-to-value ratio (LTV) to 90 

percent of the value of the security. This means that the maximum 

loan amount a veteran effectively may borrow with a VA guarantee 

is $144,000 and that a veteran who has no equity in his or her 

home may obtain a regular VA refinance loan for only 90 percent 

of the home’s appraised value. 

The change proposed by S. xxxx would increase the maximum 

guaranty amount on regular refinances by tying such amount to 

the Freddie Mac Conforming Loan Limit. This means that a veteran who meets VA’s underwriting criteria could obtain a guaranty 

of as much as $104,250 on a loan of $417,000. Furthermore, S. 

xxxx would change the existing LTV requirement for regular refinance loans by increasing the limit from 90 percent to 95 percent 

of the home’s appraised value. 

Unnumbered Foreclosure Relief Legislation 

S. XXXX, the ‘‘Preventing Unnecessary Foreclosure for Servicemembers Act of 2008,’’ would amend the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act to protect against mortgage foreclosures for certain disabled 

or severely injured servicemembers. Because that Act would be implemented by DOD, we defer to that department regarding the 

merits of this proposal. 

Unnumbered Benefits Enhancement Legislation 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for introducing S. xxxx, the ‘‘Veterans’ 

Benefits Enhancement Act of 2008,’’ on behalf of VA. Titles I and 

II of this bill would expand and enhance veterans’ benefits, as 

noted below. 

TITLE I—EDUCATION BENEFITS

Section 101 of S. xxxx would eliminate the requirement that educational institutions providing non-accredited courses must report 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
67 

to VA any credit that was granted by that institution for an eligible 

person’s prior training. 

Under current law, State approving agencies approve, for VA 

education benefits purposes, the application of educational institutions providing nonaccredited courses if the institution and its 

courses meet certain criteria. Among these is the requirement that 

the institution maintain a written record of the previous education 

and training of the eligible person and what credit for that training 

has been given the individual. The institution must notify both VA 

and the eligible person regarding the amount of credit the school 

grants for previous training. 

VA proposes to eliminate that notification requirement as it pertains to VA. VA will still have oversight, just as it does with accredited courses. VA will review records during compliance visits to 

assure the institution is evaluating and appropriately reducing program requirements because of credit given for prior training. 

Removing the reporting requirement would shorten claims processing time because VA would not have to review each claim for 

the presence of such notice and, if not submitted, have to check 

with the school and student to assure the requirement has been 

met. It would also permit more cases to be processed through VA’s 

Electronic Certification Automated Processing (ECAP) program. 

The ECAP system cannot process claims where proper credit reporting is at issue because those cases require manual development 

and review by a veteran’s claims examiner. The more claims VA 

can process through the ECAP system, the more timely VA beneficiaries will receive their benefits. 

Following up with schools for the written notification burdens 

the school certifying official and student, as well as VA. Often the 

school certifying official, who is responsible for reporting a veteran’s enrollment, is not the individual who evaluates credit. The 

certifying official has no control over how long it takes the school 

to accomplish the review and granting of prior credit. 

Further, several of VA’s stakeholders, including the National Association of Veterans’ Program Administrators, have recommended 

that VA review school records to determine granting of prior credit 

during compliance visits rather than require the school to submit 

written reports. Eliminating this requirement would streamline the 

administration of educational assistance benefits and improve the 

delivery of benefits to veterans, reservists, and other eligible individuals. 

There would be no costs associated with enactment of this section. 

Section 102 of this bill would reduce from 10 days to 5 days the 

current waiting period required prior to the student’s affirmation 

of an enrollment agreement with an educational institution to pursue a program of education exclusively by correspondence. 

Under current law, an enrollment agreement signed by a veteran, spouse, or surviving spouse is not effective unless he or she, 

after 10 days from the date of signing the agreement, submits a 

written and signed statement to VA affirming the enrollment 

agreement. If the veteran, spouse, or surviving spouse at any time 

notifies the institution of his or her intention not to affirm the 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
68 

agreement, the institution, without imposing any penalty or charging any fee, promptly refunds all amounts paid. 

The statutory 10-day period is twice the requirement of the Distance Education and Training Council (DETC) accrediting body 

standard, which states that institutions will allow a full refund of 

all tuition expenses paid if a student cancels within 5 days after 

enrolling in a course. Reducing the affirmation waiting period to 5 

days would make the statute consistent with the DETC standard 

and eliminate confusion. It would also permit eligible individuals 

to begin their programs sooner. Should they decide at any time not 

to affirm the enrollment agreement, the eligible individuals would 

still be entitled to a refund of all amounts paid. 

Finally, this proposal would allow VA to strengthen its partnership with the National Association of State Approving Agencies, 

which has had this issue high on its list of legislative priorities. 

There would be no costs associated with enactment of this section. 

Section 103 of the bill would eliminate the requirement that an individual must file an application with VA when that individual remains enrolled at the same school but changes his or her program 

of study. 

Under current law, a student who desires to initiate a program 

of education must submit an application to VA in the form prescribed by VA. If the student decides a different program is more 

advantageous to his or her needs, that individual may change his 

or her program of study once. However, additional changes require 

VA to determine that the change is suitable to the individual’s interests and abilities. It is rare for VA to deny a change of program, 

especially if the student is continuing in an approved program at 

the same school. 

Under this provision, VA would accept the new program enrollment based on the certification of such enrollment from the school 

without requiring additional certification from the student. VA 

would still have oversight of program changes by reviewing school 

records when VA conducts its compliance visits. Again, this requirement would be eliminated for program changes only when the 

student remains enrolled at the same school. 

Section 103 also would allow VA to increase the number of 

claims processed using the ECAP program without manual review 

by a veterans claims examiner. Thus, since VA could award benefits based only on the school’s certification, without having to wait 

for additional certification from the student, VA could award benefits more timely and with less of a public information collection 

burden. 

There would be no costs associated with enactment of this section. 

Section 104 of the bill would eliminate the requirement that 

wages be earned by veterans pursuing self-employment on-job 

training authorized under section 301 of Public Law 108–183. That 

section expanded the chapter 30 Montgomery GI Bill program by 

authorizing educational assistance benefits for full-time on-job 

training (OJT) of less than 6 months needed for obtaining licensure 

to engage in a self-employment occupation or required for ownership and operation of a franchise. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
69 

Currently, all the provisions of title 38, United States Code, that 

apply to VA’s other OJT programs (except the requirement that a 

training program has to be for least 6 months) apply to franchiseownership OJT, including the requirement that the trainee earn 

wages that are increased incrementally. Through contact with the 

International Franchise Association, VA has determined that OJT 

for new franchise owners does not involve the payment of wages. 

Thus, if franchise OJT programs are not exempted from the current title 38 wage requirements, no franchise-ownership OJT program will ever be approved for VA benefits. 

VA has determined that no direct costs would result from enactment of this proposal. The estimated costs for implementing the 

section 301 authority have been included in the budget base each 

year since its enactment. 

TITLE II—OTHER BENEFITS MATTERS

Section 201(a) of the bill would explicitly authorize VA to stay 

temporarily its adjudication of a claim pending before either a VA 

regional office (or other agency of original jurisdiction) or the Board 

of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) when the stay is necessary to preserve 

the integrity of a program administered under title 38, United 

States Code. 

It is widely accepted that courts and administrative adjudicative 

agencies generally have the authority to manage their case loads 

and to stay cases as necessary for proper management. VA has historically used such authority sparingly to avoid waste and delay 

and to ensure consistency on important issues of law, usually when 

VA has appealed a controlling adverse decision by the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court). However, the 

Veterans Court recently curtailed this authority in Ramsey v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 16, (2006), and Ribaudo v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. 

App. 552 (2007) (en banc), effectively assuming supervisory control 

of VA’s adjudication docket. 

In Ramsey, the Veterans Court held that VA could not stay cases 

while it appealed the Veterans Court’s decision in Smith v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 63 (2005), which required VA to pay benefits in 

a manner VA believed to be unauthorized by law and which VA 

had appealed to the Federal Circuit. Ramsey would have required 

VA to pay those benefits, irrespective of VA’s position on appeal, 

if VA had not prevailed in its Federal Circuit appeal soon after 

Ramsey was issued. Had VA’s appeal not been resolved so quickly, 

VA would have been required to grant claims pursuant to Ramsey 

while the Federal Circuit reviewed the appeal, and many veterans 

would have received benefits to which they were not entitled under 

the law. 

Similarly, in Ribaudo, the Veterans Court held that VA could not 

stay cases while it appealed Haas v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 257 

(2006). Haas is a significant decision, with broad and costly implications, in which the Veterans Court ordered VA to presume that 

veterans who served exclusively on ships off the shores of Vietnam 

were nevertheless exposed to defoliants (including Agent Orange) 

that were sprayed only over land. In Ribaudo, the Veterans Court 

granted VA’s request for a stay of cases, but only after holding that 

VA’s own authority did not allow it to effect such a stay, thereby 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
70 

placing under the control of the Veterans Court VA’s entire docket 

of claims affected by Haas, claims over which the Veterans Court 

does not yet have direct jurisdiction. 

Section 201(a) would also require VA to issue regulations describing the factors it will consider in determining whether and to what 

extent such stays are warranted and would permit claimants to 

seek review of a stay in the Federal Circuit. Because the Federal 

Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over appeals from the Veterans 

Court, it is in the best position to determine whether a case should 

be stayed pending such an appeal. 

Under section 201(c), these new provisions would apply to benefit 

claims received by VA on or after the date of enactment and to 

claims received by VA before that date but not finally adjudicated 

by VA as of that date. 

Section 202(a) of the bill would clarify that the Board has the authority to decide cases out of docket-number order when a case has 

been stayed or when there is sufficient evidence to decide a claim 

but a claim with an earlier docket number is not ready for decision. 

Current law requires that ‘‘each case received pursuant to application for review on appeal shall be considered and decided in regular order according to its place upon the docket.’’ Section 202(a) 

would clarify that compliance with that requirement does not require the Board to refrain from deciding a case unaffected by a stay 

simply because that case has a higher docket number than a 

stayed case. Expressly authorizing the Board to decide cases out of 

docket order, when a later case is ready for decision sooner than 

an earlier case, would reflect current Board practice of allowing 

later cases that are ready for decision to proceed while earlier cases 

are still being developed. The Veterans Court’s Ribaudo decision 

rested in part on its interpretation of current law, and the express 

recognition of the Board’s practice will clarify that that statute 

does not relieve VA of its duty to decide administrative appeals 

quickly and efficiently. 

Under section 202(b), this provision would apply to benefit claims 

received by VA on or after the date of enactment and to claims received by VA before that date but not finally adjudicated by VA as 

of that date. 

The provisions in sections 201 and 202, governing staying of 

claims and management of the Board’s docket, would save the benefit costs and administrative expenses associated with granting 

benefits under court precedents that are later overturned on appeal. The amount of savings cannot be predicted, because it would 

depend upon the nature of the court decisions at issue, the extent 

to which those decisions compel payments or other expenses, and 

the number of claimants affected. However, VA has estimated that 

the Veterans Court’s decision in Haas will result in approximately 

$22.9 million in administrative costs and approximately $2.1 billion 

in benefit costs in the initial year of implementation. 

Section 203 of the bill would eliminate the disparity between eligibility for burial and eligibility for a memorial headstone or marker. It would extend eligibility for memorial headstones or markers 

to a veteran’s deceased remarried surviving spouse whose remains 

are unavailable for burial, without regard to whether any subseVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:33 Sep 11, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR449.XXX SR449

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
71 

quent remarriage ended, and would ensure that the burial needs 

of veterans and their survivors are more adequately met. 

Current law authorizes VA to furnish an appropriate memorial 

headstone or marker to commemorate eligible individuals whose remains are unavailable. Individuals currently eligible for such memorial headstones or markers include a veteran’s surviving spouse, 

which includes ‘‘an unremarried surviving spouse whose subsequent remarriage was terminated by death or divorce.’’ Thus, a 

surviving spouse who remarried after the veteran’s death is not eligible for a memorial headstone or marker unless the remarriage 

was terminated by death or divorce before the surviving spouse 

died. However, a surviving spouse who remarried after the veteran’s death is eligible for burial in a VA national cemetery without regard to whether any subsequent remarriage ended. 

Enactment of this provision would result in only nominal benefit 

costs. 

Section 204 of this bill would make permanent the authority 

given by section 704 of Public Law 108–183 that allows VA to contract for medical disability examinations using appropriated funds 

other than funds available for compensation and pension. Currently, that authority will expire on December 31, 2009. 

This change would provide VA with flexibility needed to effectively utilize supplemental and other appropriated funds in responding to unanticipated needs and emergencies. The demand for 

medical disability examinations has increased beyond the limited 

number of requests that the current system was designed to accommodate. The rise in demand is largely due to an increase in the 

complexity of disability claims, an increase in the number of disabilities claimed by veterans, and changes in eligibility requirements for disability benefits. The permanent authority to provide 

examinations to veterans through non-VA medical providers would 

continue this important resource for VA in providing high-quality 

patient care and improving benefit delivery. 

We estimate that enactment of section 204 would have no significant financial impact. 

Section 205(a) of the bill would extend full-time and family 

Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (SGLI) coverage to Individual Ready Reservists (IRRs), individuals referred to in 38 U.S.C. 

§ 1965(5)(C). It would correct an oversight in the Veterans’ Survivor 

Benefits Improvements Act of 2001, which provided such coverage 

for Ready Reservists, referred to in section 1965(5)(B), but not for 

IRRs. IRRs should be provided comparable coverage because many 

of them have been called up to serve in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

Section 205(b) would provide that a dependent’s SGLI coverage 

would terminate 120 days after the date of the member’s separation or release from service, rather than 120 days after the member’s SGLI terminates, as currently provided. Under current law, 

a member retains SGLI coverage for 120 days after separation or 

release from service, but a dependent retains coverage for 120 days 

after that, for a total of 240 days after the member’s separation 

from service, twice the period of coverage for most insureds. This 

provision would correct that inequity. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
72 

Section 205(c) would clarify that VA has the authority to set premiums for SGLI coverage for the spouses of Ready Reservists based 

on the spouse’s age. This provision would correct an inconsistency 

between 38 U.S.C. § 1969(g)(1)(A), which does not require identical 

premiums for coverage of active duty members’ spouses, and section 1969(g)(1)(B), which may be read to imply that identical premiums for coverage of Ready Reservists’ spouses are required. This 

change would make the law consistent with VA practice. 

Section 205(d) would clarify that any person guilty of mutiny, 

treason, spying, or desertion, or who, because of conscientious objections, refuses to perform service in the Armed Forces or refuses 

to wear the uniform of the Armed Forces, forfeits all rights to Veterans’ Group Life Insurance (VGLI), as well as SGLI. This provision would be consistent with public policy and would eliminate a 

distinction between SGLI and VGLI insureds that has no rational 

basis. 

There would be no costs associated with enactment of this section. 

Section 206 of the bill would authorize the Secretary to provide 

Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) grants to active duty servicemembers who reside temporarily with a family member. Public 

Law 109–233 authorized the Secretary to provide such assistance 

to veterans by adding a new section 2102A to title 38, United 

States Code. However, the new section did not expressly include active duty servicemembers, nor did it amend section 2101(c), the section that provides eligibility to active duty servicemembers for 

other SAH grants. 

This amendment also would ensure that, absent express language to the contrary, active duty servicemembers would be covered by future SAH benefit program amendments. Due to the 

structure of chapter 21, active duty servicemembers on occasion 

have been overlooked, inadvertently, in the course of amending the 

SAH program. For instance, a renumbering of SAH provisions in 

Public Law 108–454 inadvertently omitted the provision that created SAH eligibility for active duty servicemembers. Similarly, 

Public Law 109–233, failed to include authority for VA to assist active duty servicemembers temporarily residing with family members. This proposal would correct the latter oversight and, by 

amending section 2101(c) more broadly, would make the inclusion 

of otherwise eligible active duty servicemembers the rule, rather 

than the exception. 

There would be no costs associated with enactment of this section. 

Section 207 of the bill would designate the VA office established 

to support contracting with small businesses, which was required 

by section 15(k) of the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. § 644(k)), as 

the Office of Small Business Programs, to more clearly represent 

that office’s scope of authority. The name would not reflect any 

change in emphasis or support for disadvantaged small businesses, 

but rather would clarify that the Office of Small Business Programs has the full range of authority over many other small business programs. The new title would capture the overarching nature 

of the program, which encompasses the small disadvantaged business, the service-disabled veteran-owned small business, the vetVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:33 Sep 11, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR449.XXX SR449

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
73 

eran-owned small business, the qualified historically underutilized 

business zone small business, the women-owned small business, 

and the very small business programs. 

There would be no costs associated with enactment of this section. 

* * * * * * * 

VA does not have comments on the other bills included on the 

agenda for today’s hearing because it did not receive them in time 

to develop and clear views and estimate costs. 

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy 

now to entertain any questions you or the other members of the 

Committee may have. 

* * * * * * * 

THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. Washington, DC, June 2, 2008. 

Hon. DANIEL K. AKAKA, 

Chairman, 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am pleased to provide the Committee 

with the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on five 

bills that were not covered in VA’s statement at the Committee’s 

May 7, 2008, hearing: S. 161, S. 2934, S. 2946, S. 2951, and S. 

2965, 110th Cong. For the reasons explained below, we support S. 

161 and do not support S. 2934, S. 2946, S. 2951, and S. 2965. 

S. 161 

S. 161, the ‘‘Veterans’ Disability Compensation Automatic COLA 

Act,’’ would provide for an automatic cost-of-living increase in the 

rates of disability compensation for veterans with service-connected 

disabilities and of dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) 

for the survivors of veterans whose deaths are service related, 

whenever there is such an increase in Social Security benefits and 

by the same percentage as the percentage by which Social Security 

benefits are increased. VA benefits would increase on the date Social Security benefits are increased, which is December 1st of each 

year. The new statutory provision authorizing this automatic costof-living adjustment (COLA) would become effective on January 1st 

of the year following enactment of this bill. 

VA supports enactment of S. 161. We believe this proposed automatic COLA would simplify the annual rate-increase assessment 

process for compensation and DIC in the same manner that the 

process for pension was simplified by indexing pension increases to 

Social Security COLAs. We believe the annual increases are necessary and appropriate to provide continuous protection of the affected benefits from the eroding effects of inflation. The worthy 

beneficiaries of these benefits deserve no less. 

Because future COLA estimates are already included in the baseline President’s budget, this legislation would not result in additional costs. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
74 

S. 2934 

S. 2934 would require VA to pay states a $300 plot allowance for 

the burial in a state cemetery of the spouse, surviving spouse, 

minor child, and (in the Secretary’s discretion) unmarried adult 

child of specified persons who are eligible for burial in a national 

cemetery. The measure would apply to individuals who die on or 

after the date of enactment. 

VA does not support enactment of S. 2934. We believe current 

law provides an adequate plot allowance if family members are 

buried in the same plot as the veteran, which is usually the case 

in state cemeteries, whether or not the veteran dies first. An additional plot allowance for burial of a family member in the same plot 

as the veteran would be gratuitous. This bill would result in additional direct costs for which no offsets have been identified, and 

also additional administrative costs that must be considered in 

light of the competing demands for scarce VA resources in meeting 

veterans’ burial needs. 

We estimate that enactment of this bill would result in mandatory costs of $2.1 million for FY 2009, $12.1 million over the 5-year 

period from FY 2009 through FY 2013, and $28.6 million over the 

10-year period from FY 2009 through FY 2018. It would result in 

administrative costs of $245,000 for the first year, $1.7 million over 

5 years, and $4.6 million over 10 years. 

S. 2946 

S. 2946 would make a servicemember’s natural stillborn child an 

insurable dependent for purposes of the Servicemembers’ Group 

Life Insurance (SGLI) program. The term ‘‘stillborn natural child’’ 

would not include any fetus or child extracted for purposes of an 

abortion. 

VA does not support enactment of S. 2946. Private insurers do 

not generally insure stillborn children. In fact, private insurance 

coverage for a child typically does not begin until the fourteenth 

day after a live birth. 

The total cost to the SGLI program for adding stillborn coverage would be $4 million annually based on an estimate of 400 stillbirths per year with a benefit of $10,000 per stillbirth. 

S.2951 

S. 2951 would require the Secretary to report annually to Congressional veterans’ affairs committees on VA’s progress in addressing the causes of variances in veterans’ compensation payments. The reports would have to include a description of the Veterans Benefits Administration’s (VBA) efforts to coordinate with 

the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to improve the quality 

of disability examinations, an assessment of VBA’s current personnel requirements, and a description of any differences in the 

claim-submittal rates among various veteran populations, as well 

as a description and assessment of efforts undertaken to eliminate 

the differences. 

VA does not support enactment of S. 2951 because it is unnecessary. Over the past few years, VBA has achieved major improvements in the delivery of benefits, including the quality and consistVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:33 Sep 11, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR449.XXX SR449

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
75 

ency of benefit decisions. For instance, VBA has made all regional 

offices consistent in organizational structure and work process. 

VBA performs site surveys of regional offices to ensure compliance 

with procedures, with particular emphasis on current consistency 

issues. VBA has also deployed new training tools and centralized 

training programs that support accurate and consistent decisionmaking. In addition, VBA has established specialized processing 

centers to consolidate adjudication of certain types of claims to provide better and more consistent decisions. 

VBA has established an aggressive and comprehensive program 

of quality assurance and oversight to increase the accuracy and 

consistency of benefit decisions. As part of its quality assurance 

program for disability evaluations, in FY 2008 VBA began regularly monitoring the most frequently rated diagnostic codes to assess the consistency of service-connection determinations and assignment of disability ratings across regional offices. These studies 

are used to identify where additional guidance and training are 

needed to improve consistency and accuracy, as well as to drive 

procedural or regulatory changes. VBA also plans to begin studying 

the consistency of decisions among raters late this summer. 

VBA has developed jointly with VHA the Compensation and Pension Examination Project (CPEP) to improve the quality and consistency of compensation and pension examinations. CPEP is developing computerized templates to ensure that examinations are 

complete and to capture examination data. 

Although we realize the importance of providing reports on VA’s 

progress regarding variances in compensation payments, we believe 

that the measures VBA has taken sufficiently address the need for 

accuracy and consistency in veterans’ compensation decisions and 

believe that VA’s resources need to be directed, instead, to address 

the growing challenge of timely adjudicating veterans’ claims. VA 

is committed to providing accurate, consistent, and timely adjudications for those who have so admirably served our Nation. 

There are no mandatory costs associated with this bill because 

it does not affect entitlement to benefits. However, this legislation 

would require studies of patterns in claims adjudication and the 

development of an enhanced tracking mechanism to capture the required data. It would result in total administrative costs of $10 

million. 

S. 2965 

S. 2965 would require VA, in consultation with the Department 

of Defense (DOD), to report to the Congressional veterans’ affairs 

committees on the feasibility and advisability of including severe 

and acute Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) among the conditions covered by traumatic injury protection coverage under SGLI. 

Section 1980A of title 38, U.S. Code, provides an automatic injury 

protection rider to SGLI for any SGLI insured who sustains a traumatic injury that results in certain losses (TSGLI). 

VA does not support enactment of S. 2965. We do not believe 

that the TSGLI program is the appropriate vehicle for addressing 

the needs of veterans and servicemembers afflicted with PTSD, and 

we cannot foresee that undertaking the assessment required under 

this bill would affect that position. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
76 

The intent of Congress in establishing the TSGLI program was 

to provide rapid financial relief to traumatically injured servicemembers and their families during periods of recovery and rehabilitation. The program is designed to provide servicemembers the 

equivalent of accidental-dismemberment coverage available under 

civilian life-insurance plans. We are unaware of any equivalent private-sector life-insurance riders covering PTSD or other mental disorders. Further, the nature of PTSD, with periods of remission and 

reappearance, the range of its severity, and the variable time of its 

onset, make PTSD unsuitable for this kind of financial benefit. For 

these reasons, we believe that disability resulting from PTSD and 

other service-connected mental disorders, like other diseases, is 

most appropriately addressed by the existing disability-compensation program. 

The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is 

no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint 

of the Administration’s program. 

Sincerely yours, 

JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D. 

* * * * * * * 

THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

Washington, DC, July 8, 2008. 

Hon. DANIEL K. AKAKA, 

Chairman, 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am pleased to provide the Committee 

with the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on S. 

3023, 110th Cong., the ‘‘Veterans’ Notice Clarification Act of 2008.’’ 

VA supports S. 3023. 

Section 5103(a) of title 38, U.S. Code, requires that, upon receipt 

of a complete or substantially complete application for veterans 

benefits, VA must notify a claimant of the information and evidence necessary to substantiate the claim and the respective obligations of VA and the claimant to obtain the requisite information 

and evidence. S. 3023 would amend 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to prescribe regulations regarding the content of the notice to be provided by VA. The bill 

would require the Secretary to prescribe regulations that specify: 

(1) the content of the notice based upon the type of claim filed, e.g., 

original claim, claim to reopen a previously disallowed claim, or a 

claim for increased benefits; (2) the general information and evidence required to substantiate the basic elements of such type of 

claim; and (3) the timing of the issuance of the notice. The bill 

would also authorize the Secretary to prescribe regulations providing additional or alternative contents for notice if appropriate to 

the benefit or services sought under the claim. 

When VA promulgated 38 C.F.R. 3.159(b)(1) to implement current section 5103(a), VA interpreted the statute to require generic 

rather than specific notice after the initial claim for benefits has 

been filed. 66 Fed. Reg. 45,620, 45,622 (2001). In adopting this approach, VA explained that ‘‘[t]he statutory notice required by [secVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:33 Sep 11, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\SR449.XXX SR449

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
77 

tion 5103(a)] occurs at an early point in the claims process when 

* * * VA does not yet know what kinds of specific evidence to try 

to obtain on behalf of the claimant.’’ Id. VA also declined a public 

commenter’s suggestion to provide in the regulation that, ‘‘if VA receives evidence that is inadequate to substantiate the claim,’’ VA 

would ‘‘contact the claimant and give him or her the opportunity 

to correct the inadequacy or bolster the evidence.’’ Id. at 45,623. VA 

concluded that section 5103(a) does not require such ongoing and 

specific notification, that undertaking to provide such notice would 

be administratively unworkable and would cause undue delays in 

claim adjudications, and that the type of notice sought is properly 

provided at the point that VA adjudicates the claim. Id. The United 

States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) 

held that VA’s decision to provide generic rather than case-specific 

notice under section 3.159(b)(1) is consistent with the statute and 

is a ‘‘reasonable interpretation’’ of 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) to which a 

court must defer. Wilson v. Mansfield, 506 F.3d 1055, 1059–60 

(Fed. Cir. 2007); Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs, 345 F.3d 1334, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2003). 

Notwithstanding this direction from the Federal Circuit, the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans 

Court) continues to impose increasingly numerous and case-specific 

notice requirements under 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) for each type of 

claim as to which a VA notice letter has come before it for review. 

E.g., Palor v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 325 (2007) (claim from person 

who served in Philippine guerilla forces); Hupp v. Nicholson, 21 

Vet. App. 342, 352–53 (2007) (claim for dependency and indemnity 

compensation); Kent v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 1, 9–10 (2006) 

(claim to reopen); Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473, 488–89 

(2006), aff’d per curiam, Nos. 2006–7247 & 2006–7312, 2007 WL 

1686737 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2007) (claim for service connection). 

Most recently, the Veterans Court held that, when VA receives a 

claim for an increased rating, if the diagnostic code (DC) in the VA 

rating schedule under which a claimant’s disability is rated contains criteria necessary for entitlement to a higher disability rating 

that would not be satisfied by the claimant demonstrating a noticeable worsening or increase in severity of the disability and the effect that worsening has on the claimant’s employment and daily 

life, VA must provide at least general notice of the requirements 

of the particular DC to the claimant. Vazquez-Flores v. Peake, 22 

Vet. App. 37, 43 (2008), motion for stay denied, 22 Vet. App. 91 

(2008), motion for recon. denied, 2008 WL 1990812 (Vet. App. May 

9, 2008), motion for en banc review denied, 2008 WL 2132309 (Vet. 

App. May 21, 2008). The Veterans Court also held that section 

5103(a) requires VA to provide notice of the criteria of any DC that 

is cross-referenced in the previously assigned DC. Vazquez-Flores, 

22 Vet. App. at 93. 

The pattern of imposing increasing specificity on VA’s notices has 

several burdensome effects on the Department. First, it potentially 

requires remand of numerous previously-decided cases involving 

similar section 5103(a) notices, diverting adjudication resources 

from other pending claims. Each time the Veterans Court finds 

that a particular type of notice letter is inadequate, the erroneous 

notice that VA provided in all similar cases before the decision is 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
78 

presumptively prejudicial to appellants, potentially requiring widescale remands and readjudications. See Sanders v. Nicholson, 487 

F.3d 881 (Fed. Cir. 2007), and Simmons v. Nicholson, 487 F.3d 892 

(Fed. Cir. 2007), cert. granted, 76 U.S.L.W. 3654 (U.S. June 16, 

2008) (No. 07–1209). Second, enormous administrative burdens are 

incurred in reprogramming computers and revising VA’s notices to 

comply with each Veterans Court decision interpreting section 

5103(a). Third, requiring case-specific notice at the initial stages of 

a claim requires a substantially greater expenditure of time and resources in each case than VA’s existing practice of providing generally-applicable notice based on the type of claim filed. Finally, the 

increased specificity required by the Veterans Court threatens to 

make VA’s notice increasingly complex and difficult for claimants 

to read and understand, threatening the very purpose and utility 

of the notice. 

S. 3023 would address these concerns. First, this legislation 

would incorporate the Federal Circuit’s conclusion that VA must 

provide only generic notice under 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a), a holding 

which is consistent with the point in the claims process at which 

VA provides notice, i.e., immediately upon receipt of an application 

for veterans benefits, when VA does not yet know what kinds of 

specific evidence to try to obtain on behalf of the claimant. The bill 

would also reinforce VA’s ability to fill gaps or address any ambiguities in 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) via the promulgation of regulations to 

which a reviewing court would have to defer so long as the regulations are not arbitrary, capricious, or manifestly contrary to the 

statute. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 

U.S. 837, 843–44 (1984). As a result, the legislation would eliminate the need for VA to continually revise its notice letters and to 

reissue notices to claimants and would allow VA to dedicate its resources to adjudicating the more than 800,000 claims filed annually. S. 3023 would also allow VA to make its notice more readily 

understandable and useful to claimants by providing generic notice 

of the evidence necessary to substantiate the type of claim filed. 

There would be no costs associated with enactment of S. 3023. 

The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is 

no objection to the submission of this report from the standpoint 

of the Administration’s program. 

Sincerely yours, 

JAMES B. PEAKE, M.D. 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
(79) 

SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS OF SENATOR BURR 

On June 26, 2008, the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

(hereinafter, ‘‘Committee’’) voted to favorably report S. 3023, as 

amended, the Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act of 2008 (hereinafter, ‘‘Committee bill’’). This bill contains many valuable provisions, including an extension of the time within which spouses of 

seriously disabled veterans may use their education benefits from 

the Department of Veterans Affairs (hereinafter, ‘‘VA’’) and a requirement that human resources specialists in the Federal executive branch receive training on the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. I am pleased that these provisions and others were included in the Committee bill and, on the 

whole, believe this is a worthwhile piece of legislation. 

These supplemental views are primarily meant to express my 

concerns about section 401 of the Committee bill, which would permanently expand the size of the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims (hereinafter, ‘‘CAVC’’ or ‘‘Court’’) from seven to 

nine judges. At the outset, I want to be clear that I fully support 

providing the Court with the resources it needs to timely decide 

veterans’ cases and that I sincerely appreciate the tremendous effort of the Court’s judges and staff in recent years to increase productivity. However, I do not believe we have sufficient information 

at this time to determine whether the permanent addition of judges 

is the best way to help the Court deal with its caseload. In addition, I think the approach taken in the Committee bill would miss 

an important opportunity to strategically plan ahead to ensure that 

service to veterans will not be disrupted again in the future by 

multiple judicial retirements at the Court. 

I. COURT’S WORKLOAD

By way of background, the CAVC provides judicial review of decisions rendered by VA’s Board of Veterans’ Appeals on claims for 

VA benefits and is authorized to have seven judges. In September 

2007, the CAVC submitted a legislative proposal to the Committee, 

requesting an increase in authorized judges from seven to nine. 

The Court noted that the number of incoming cases at the Court 

reached a record high in fiscal year 2007 and that the Court’s ‘‘perjudge average for incoming cases each year now ranks among the 

highest in the federal appellate system.’’ In addition, the Court 

pointed to recent staffing increases at VA, which may increase the 

volume of cases being decided by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. 

The Court projected that its incoming caseload will ‘‘increase proportionally’’ if the volume of cases decided by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals grows. In sum, the Court’s primary reason for requesting more judges is based on the raw number of incoming 

cases expected now and in the future. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
80 

Although the level of incoming cases is certainly one indicator of 

the Court’s resource needs, it does not answer the key question in 

assessing the need for more judgeships: What is the actual workload burden on the Court’s existing judges? Indeed, not all cases 

that are filed at the Court will eventually reach a judge and not 

every case will require the same amount of judge-time to resolve. 

Some cases are resolved by the Clerk of the Court, such as when 

an appellant fails to pay the required filing fee. Other cases may 

be resolved through the efforts of the Court’s Central Legal Staff, 

which conducts pre-briefing conferences with the parties. In addition, the complexity of cases that ultimately reach a judge may 

vary significantly, based on such factors as the arguments raised, 

the number of issues involved, and the size of the record. In my 

view, to determine the actual workload burden on the judges would 

require more information about how many cases the judges actually handle, the nature and complexity of the cases before the 

judges, and how much judge-time is required to handle various 

types of cases. 

In fact, that type of analysis is used elsewhere in the Federal judiciary to help determine which courts may need additional judgeships. For example, the Judicial Conference of the United States 

uses a weighting system to gauge the workload burden on Federal 

district court judges. Cases that would consume a significant 

amount of judge-time are assigned larger weights than cases that 

generally would consume a small amount of judge-time. According 

to the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, this weighting 

system ‘‘predict[s] caseload burden more accurately than the raw 

number of filings.’’ See, ‘‘Case Weights Help Federal Courts Assess 

Demands on Judges’ Time,’’ found at http://www.uscourts.gov/ 

newsroom/weights.htm (last visited July 12, 2008). Similarly, the 

workload burden of Federal appellate court judges is gauged using 

an ‘‘adjusted’’ number of filings, which factors in the relative ease 

of certain cases and the percentage of cases that normally would 

require a merits decision from a judge. 

At this point, we simply do not have sufficient data regarding the 

workload of the CAVC to conduct that type of weighting of the 

Court’s caseload. We do not have historical data as to the percentage of cases decided by judges or about the time it takes to decide 

cases of various levels of complexity. Also, the information that we 

do have suggests that the raw volume of cases received at the 

Court is not a good indicator of the workload burden on judges. For 

example, in fiscal year 2007, the Court received 4,644 new cases 

and decided 4,877 cases. The seven active judges decided about 39 

percent of those 4,877 cases, recalled retired judges decided about 

6 percent, and the Clerk of the Court resolved 55 percent. This 

means that, even though the Court received over 660 cases per active judge, the seven judges decided about 270 cases each—less 

than half of the number that the Court received. 

In view of this lack of data about the Court’s workload, the Disabled American Veterans testified last year that, ‘‘[u]ntil this information is made available to Congress, it is * * * premature to expand the number of judges to nine.’’ S. Hrg. 110–360, at 44 (2007). 

I agree that we need additional information about the Court’s 

workload, about who is doing the work, and about where there are 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
81 

bottlenecks. Then we could determine what measures—such as increasing the Court’s Public Office, expanding the Central Legal 

Staff, authorizing magistrates, or adding judges—would be the 

most effective in helping the Court provide timely decisions to veterans. In sum, although I am committed to making sure the Court 

has adequate resources, my preference would be to follow a more 

deliberate, searching approach in assessing whether to expand the 

size of the Court. 

II. TEMPORARY VS. PERMANENT INCREASE

In addition to concerns about the lack of data on the Court’s 

workload, it appears to me that we do not have sufficient information at this time to determine whether a permanent increase in the 

size of the Court is warranted. Over the years, the incoming caseload at the Court has varied significantly, ranging from less than 

1,200 new cases to more than 4,600 new cases. Although the number of incoming cases reached a record high in fiscal year 2007, the 

Court is now on pace to receive about 700 fewer cases during fiscal 

year 2008. Also, it is worth mentioning that in 1996 the Court requested that Congress reduce the size of the Court from seven 

judges to five judges, reasoning that ‘‘[i]t does not appear that 

there will be any reasonably foreseeable surge in the number of appeals filed in the Court.’’ S. Hrg. 104–722, at 178 (1996). Yet, the 

following year the Court experienced a 38 percent increase in incoming cases. 

To me, this volatility in the Court’s caseload would weigh in 

favor of a temporary, rather than permanent, increase in the size 

of the Court at this point. In fact, for other Federal courts, the Judicial Conference of the United States ‘‘recommends temporary 

judgeships in all situations where the caseload level justifying additional judgeships occurred only in the most recent years.’’ H. Hrg. 

108–30, at 18 (2003). In addition, the CAVC itself has recognized 

that it may not be necessary for the Court to have nine judges in 

future years. As the Chief Judge stated in the Court’s September 

2007 legislative proposal, ‘‘Congress could reexamine the need for 

nine judges when the 13-year terms of Judges Kasold and Hagel 

expire in 2016.’’ 

Perhaps more importantly, a temporary increase would provide 

Congress with an opportunity to monitor the Court’s progress with 

additional judges and gather more information about the Court’s 

workload before deciding whether a permanent expansion is the 

best way to make sure veterans receive timely decisions. To me, a 

temporary expansion of the Court would appear to be a more reasonable approach for this Committee given the information we 

have at this time. 

III. STAGGERED TERMS

As a final matter, I want to discuss another important issue facing the Court—the prospect of having multiple judicial vacancies 

when the current judges retire. By way of background, when the 

CAVC was created in 1988, the 15-year terms of the original judges 

were not staggered, which led to six judges retiring between 2000 

and 2005. This left the Court without a full complement of judges 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
82 

for much of that period, which, in turn, contributed to a disruption 

in service to veterans. In total, the Court received over 1,800 more 

cases than it decided from 2000 to 2005, and the number of cases 

pending at the Court grew from almost 2,300 in 1999 to over 4,600 

in 2005. 

Now, it is possible that this second generation of judges will also 

retire in a cluster. The terms of six judges will expire between 2016 

and 2019, with four terms expiring in a two-week period in 2019. 

In fact, in the September 2007 legislative proposal, the Court pointed to this possibility of en masse retirements as another reason for 

expanding the Court. According to the Chief Judge, ‘‘[c]reating two 

new vacancies in FY 2008–09 would avoid a significant number of 

simultaneous vacancies followed by a period of time when a majority of the judges would be new and unseasoned at the same time.’’ 

However, the addition of judgeships would only help alleviate the 

impact of multiple retirements if the new judges serve beyond 

2019. Yet, under current law, judges who have served at least 10 

years may retire before the expiration of their 15-year term when 

their age plus years of service on the bench equals 80—a provision 

known as the ‘‘Rule of 80.’’ That means a judge confirmed next year 

could potentially be eligible to retire in 2019—the same year that 

the terms of four existing judges will expire. 

In summary, we would simply be repeating past mistakes if we 

add two more judges to the Court in the next year and allow them 

to retire under the Rule of 80. That is why I filed an amendment 

at the Committee markup to require that any judge confirmed to 

fill the two new judgeships must serve out the full balance of the 

15-year term before retiring and receiving 100 percent of their salary—currently $169,000—for the rest of their lives. That would 

help ensure that the new judges will serve well beyond the retirement dates of the existing judges and hopefully ensure the Court 

consistently has the judicial resources necessary to provide timely 

service to our nation’s veterans. 

In my view, if Congress simply expands the size of the Court 

without addressing this ongoing problem of en masse retirements 

by planning ahead, our veterans will, unfortunately, pay the price 

with a disruption in service. I hope that, before Congress moves 

forward with any expansion in the size of the Court, measures will 

be taken to address this very real problem that is confronting veterans who are seeking justice from the Court. 

IV. COMMITTEE REPORT

As a final matter, I find it necessary to express reservations 

about the methodologies used for some portions of this report. A 

Committee report serves as a key source of legislative history. It 

preserves the Committee’s assessment of the laws and circumstances that exist today, how the Committee bill would change 

the law, and more importantly why the Committee has determined 

that changes are necessary. A Committee report will be relied upon 

for many years to come by legislators, judges, historians, and other 

practitioners seeking to gain insight into the actions and intentions 

of this Committee. That is why I believe it is our responsibility as 

a Committee to ensure that the information contained in each 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
83 

Committee report is held to the highest standards of quality, reliability, and accuracy befitting this historical document. 

Unfortunately, this Committee report—principally the material 

in the discussion of section 101—contains numerous conclusions 

that were reached by a single member of the Chairman’s Committee staff after she reviewed claims files at several VA offices. Although I have no reason to doubt the intentions of the Chairman’s 

staff, I would suggest that the views of a single staff member 

should not be included in this report until they have been verified. 

For the Committee to determine whether this information is reliable, we would—at a minimum—need information about the methodology used in conducting these reviews, such as the standards 

used to determine whether errors were committed, the method 

used to choose the case files that were reviewed, and the reviewer’s 

training in auditing. In the absence of that basic information, there 

is simply no means to gauge the accuracy or reliability of the opinions expressed in that section of the report. 

This is not meant to suggest that oversight work performed by 

staff members is unimportant. To the contrary, it plays a key role 

in helping identify problems and trends that should be examined 

by the entire Committee. It may also reveal the need to engage 

independent entities—such as the Government Accountability Office or VA’s Office of Inspector General—to thoroughly and rigorously review specific benefits or services provided by VA. Those entities conduct their studies in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards, which helps ensure that their findings are objective, independent, fact-based, and nonpartisan. 

That type of exacting standard should be expected of work that 

will be relied upon by Congressional Committees in performing 

their legislative functions. That caliber of work also provides the 

type of objective, factual, and verifiable information that is appropriate for a Committee report. 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
(84) 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with paragraph 12 of Rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill, as 

reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted 

is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman). 

TITLE 31. MONEY AND FINANCE 

* * * * * * * 

SUBTITLE III. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 37. CLAIMS 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter II. Claims of The United States Government 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3711. COLLECTION AND COMPROMISE 

* * * * * * * 

(f)(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) The Secretary of Veterans Affairs may suspend or terminate 

an action by the Secretary under subsection (a) to collect a claim 

against the estate of a person who died while serving on active duty 

as a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast 

Guard during a period when the Coast Guard is operating as a 

service in the Navy if the Secretary determines that, under the circumstances applicable with respect to the deceased person, it is appropriate to do so. 

(4) ø(3)¿ * * * 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 38. VETERANS’ BENEFITS 

PART I. GENERAL PROVISIONS 

CHAPTER 1. GENERAL 

SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
85 

(4)(A) The term ‘‘child’’ means (except for purposes of chapter 19 

of this title (other than with respect to a child who is an insurable 

dependent under øsection 1965(10)(B)¿ subparagraph (B) or (C) of 

section 1965(10) of such chapter) and section 8502(b) of this title) 

a person who is unmarried and— 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 5. AUTHORITY AND DUTIES OF 

THE SECRETARY 

Subchapter I. General Authorities 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 502. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF RULES AND REGULATIONS 

An action of the Secretary to which section 552(a)(1) or 553 of 

title 5 (or both) refers ø(other than an action relating to the adoption or revision of the schedule of ratings for disabilities adopted 

under section 1155 of this title)¿ is subject to judicial review. Such 

review shall be in accordance with chapter 7 of title 5 and may be 

sought only in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal 

Circuit. However, if such review is sought in connection with an 

appeal brought under the provisions of chapter 72 of this title, the 

provisions of that chapter shall apply rather than the provisions of 

chapter 7 of title 5. 

* * * * * * * 

PART II. GENERAL BENEFITS 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 19. INSURANCE 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter III. Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance 

SEC. 1965. DEFINITIONS 

* * * * * * * 

(10) The term ‘‘insurable dependent’’, with respect to a member, means the following: 

(A) The member’s spouse. 

(B) The member’s child, as defined in the first sentence 

of section 101(4)(A) of this title. 

(C) The member’s stillborn child. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1967. PERSONS INSURED; AMOUNT 

(a)(1) * * * 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) In the case of any member of the Ready Reserve of a uniformed service who meets the qualifications set forth in 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
86 

øsection 1965(5)(B) of this title¿ subparagraph (B) or (C) of section 1965(5) of this title— 

* * * * * * * 

(5) * * * 

(A) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) The first day a member of the Ready Reserve meets the 

qualifications set forth in øsection 1965(5)(B) of this title¿ subparagraph (B) or (C) of section 1965(5) of this title. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1968. DURATION AND TERMINATION OF COVERAGE; CONVERSION 

(a) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(5) With respect to an insurable dependent of the member, 

insurance under this subchapter shall cease— 

(A) 120 days after the date of an election made in writing by the member to terminate the coverage; or 

(B) on the earliest of— 

(i) 120 days after the date of the member’s death; 

(ii) ø120 days after¿ the date of termination of the 

insurance on the member’s life under this subchapter; 

or 

(iii) 120 days after the termination of the dependent’s status as an insurable dependent of the member. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1969. DEDUCTIONS; PAYMENT; INVESTMENT; EXPENSES 

* * * * * * * 

(g)(1)(A) * * * 

(B) During any month in which a member is assigned to the 

Ready Reserve of a uniformed service under conditions which meet 

the qualifications set forth in øsection 1965(5)(B) of this title¿ subparagraph (B) or (C) of section 1965(5) of this title and the spouse 

of the member is insured under a policy of insurance purchased by 

the Secretary under section 1966 of this title, there shall be contributed from the appropriation made for active duty pay of the 

uniformed service concerned an amount determined by the Secretary ø(which shall be the same for all such members)¿ as the 

share of the cost attributable to insuring the spouse of such member under this policy, less any costs traceable to the extra hazards 

of such duty in the uniformed services. Any amounts so contributed 

on behalf of any individual shall be collected by the Secretary concerned from such individual (by deduction from pay or otherwise) 

and shall be credited to the appropriation from which such contribution was made. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1973. FORFEITURE 

Any person guilty of mutiny, treason, spying, or desertion, or 

who, because of conscientious objections, refuses to perform service 

in the Armed Forces of the United States or refuses to wear the 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
87 

uniform of such force, shall forfeit all rights to Servicemembers’ 

Group Life Insurance øunder this subchapter¿ and Veterans’ Group 

Life Insurance under this subchapter. No such insurance shall be 

payable for death inflicted as a lawful punishment for crime or for 

military or naval offense, except when inflicted by an enemy of the 

United States. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 23. BURIAL BENEFITS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 2306. HEADSTONES, MARKERS, AND BURIAL RECEPTACLES 

* * * * * * * 

(b)(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4) For purposes of this subsection: 

(A) The term ‘‘veteran’’ includes an individual who dies in 

the active military, naval, or air service. 

(B) The term ‘‘surviving spouse’’ includes øan unremarried 

surviving spouse whose subsequent remarriage was terminated 

by death or divorce¿ a surviving spouse who had a subsequent 

remarriage. 

* * * * * * * 

PART III. READJUSTMENT AND 

RELATED BENEFITS 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 31. TRAINING AND REHABILITATION FOR 

VETERANS WITH SERVICE-CONNECTED DISABILITIES 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3105. DURATION OF REHABILITATION PROGRAMS 

* * * * * * * 

(d) øUnless the Secretary determines that a longer period is necessary and likely to result in a substantial increase in a veteran’s 

level of independence in daily living, the period of a program¿ (1) 

Except as provided in paragraph (2), the period of a program of 

independent living services and assistance for a veteran under this 

chapter (following a determination by the Secretary that such veteran’s disability or disabilities are so severe that the achievement 

of a vocational goal currently is not reasonably feasible) may not 

exceed twenty-four months. 

(2)(A) The period of a program of independent living services and 

assistance for a veteran under this chapter may exceed twenty-four 

months as follows: 

(i) If the Secretary determines that a longer period is necessary and likely to result in a substantial increase in the veteran’s level of independence in daily living. 

(ii) If the veteran served on active duty during the Post-9/11 

Global Operations period and has a severe disability (as deterVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:33 Sep 11, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6603 E:\HR\OC\SR449.XXX SR449

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
88 

mined by the Secretary for purposes of this clause) incurred or 

aggravated in such service. 

(B) In this paragraph, the term ‘‘Post-9/11 Global Operations period’’ means the period of the Persian Gulf War beginning on September 11, 2001, and ending on the date thereafter prescribed by 

Presidential proclamation or by law. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 35. SURVIVORS’ AND DEPENDENTS’ 

EDUCATIONAL ASSISTANCE 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter II. Eligibility and Entitlement 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3512. PERIODS OF ELIGIBILITY 

* * * * * * * 

(b)(1)(A) Except as provided in øsubparagraph (B) or (C)¿ subparagraphs (B), (C), or (D), a person made eligible by subparagraph 

(B) or (D) of section 3501(a)(1) of this title or a person made eligible 

by the disability of a spouse under section 3501(a)(1)(E) of this title 

may be afforded educational assistance under this chapter during 

the 10-year period beginning on the date (as determined by the 

Secretary) the person becomes an eligible person within the meaning of section 3501(a)(1)(B), 3501(a)(1)(D)(i), 3501(a)(1)(D)(ii), or 

3501(a)(1)(E) of this title. In the case of a surviving spouse made 

eligible by clause (ii) of section 3501(a)(1)(D) of this title, the 10- 

year period may not be reduced by any earlier period during which 

the person was eligible for educational assistance under this chapter as a spouse made eligible by clause (i) of that section. 

* * * * * * * 

(D) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), an eligible person referred to in that subparagraph who is made eligible under section 

3501(a)(1)(D)(i) of this title by reason of a service-connected disability that was determined to be a total disability permanent in nature not later than three years after discharge from service may be 

afforded educational assistance under this chapter during the 20- 

year period beginning on the date the disability was so determined 

to be a total disability permanent in nature, but only if the eligible 

person remains the spouse of the disabled person throughout the period. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 36. ADMINISTRATION OF 

EDUCATIONAL BENEFITS 

Subchapter I. State Approving Agencies 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3676. APPROVAL OF NONACCREDITED COURSES 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
89 

(c) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(4) The institution maintains a written record of the previous 

education and training of the eligible person and clearly indicates that appropriate credit has been given by the institution 

for previous education and training, with the training period 

shortened proportionately and the eligible person øand the Secretary¿ so notified. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3677. APPROVAL OF TRAINING ON THE JOB 

* * * * * * * 

(b)(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3) The requirement for certification under paragraph (1) shall 

not apply to training described in section 3452(e)(2) of this title. 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter II. Miscellaneous Provisions 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3686. CORRESPONDENCE COURSES 

* * * * * * * 

(b) The enrollment agreement shall fully disclose the obligation 

of both the institution and the veteran or spouse or surviving 

spouse and shall prominently display the provisions for affirmance, 

termination, refunds, and the conditions under which payment of 

the allowance is made by the Secretary to the veteran or spouse 

or surviving spouse. A copy of the enrollment agreement shall be 

furnished to each such veteran or spouse or surviving spouse at the 

time such veteran or spouse or surviving spouse signs such agreement. No such agreement shall be effective unless such veteran or 

spouse or surviving spouse shall, after the expiration of øten¿ five 

days after the enrollment agreement is signed, have signed and 

submitted to the Secretary a written statement, with a signed copy 

to the institution, specifically affirming the enrollment agreement. 

In the event the veteran or spouse or surviving spouse at any time 

notifies the institution of such veteran’s or spouse’s intention not 

to affirm the agreement in accordance with the preceding sentence, 

the institution, without imposing any penalty or charging any fee 

shall promptly make a full refund of all amounts paid. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3691. CHANGE OF PROGRAM 

* * * * * * * 

(d) (1) For the purposes of this section, the term ‘‘change of program of education’’ shall not be deemed to include a change by a 

veteran or eligible person from the pursuit of one program to the 

pursuit of another program if— 

ø(1)¿ (A) the veteran or eligible person has successfully completed the former program; 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
90 

ø(2)¿ (B) the program leads to a vocational, educational, or 

professional objective in the same general field as the former 

program; 

ø(3)¿ (C) the former program is a prerequisite to, or generally required for, pursuit of the subsequent program; øor¿ 

ø(4)¿ (D) in the case of a change from the pursuit of a subsequent program to the pursuit of a former program, the veteran 

or eligible person resumes pursuit of the former program without loss of credit or standing in the former programø.¿ ; or 

(E) the change from the program to another program is at the 

same educational institution and such educational institution 

determines that the new program is suitable to the aptitudes, 

interests, and abilities of the veteran or eligible person and certifies to the Secretary the enrollment of the veteran or eligible 

person in the new program. 

(2) A veteran or eligible person undergoing a change from one 

program of education to another program of education as described 

in paragraph (1)(E) shall not be required to apply to the Secretary 

for approval of such change. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 37. HOUSING AND SMALL BUSINESS LOANS 

Subchapter I. General 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3703. BASIC PROVISIONS RELATING TO LOAN GUARANTY AND 

INSURANCE 

(a)(1)(A) * * * 

(i)(I) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(IV) in the case of any loan of more than $144,000 for a purpose specified in clause (1), (2), (3), (5), (6), or (8) of section 

3710(a) of this title, the lesser of the maximum guaranty 

amount (as defined in subparagraph (C)) or 25 percent of the 

loan; or 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3707. ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGES 

(a) The Secretary shall carry out a demonstration project under 

this section øduring fiscal years 1993 through 2008¿ during the period beginning with the beginning of fiscal year 1993 and ending 

at the end of fiscal year 2012 for the purpose of guaranteeing loans 

in a manner similar to the manner in which the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development insures adjustable rate mortgages 

under section 251 of the National Housing Act. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 3707A. HYBRID ADJUSTABLE RATE MORTGAGES 

(a) The Secretary shall carry out a demonstration project under 

this section during fiscal years 2004 øthrough 2008¿ through 2012 

for the purpose of guaranteeing loans in a manner similar to the 

manner in which the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 

insures adjustable rate mortgages under section 251 of the NaVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:33 Sep 11, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR449.XXX SR449

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
91 

tional Housing Act in accordance with the provisions of this section 

with respect to hybrid adjustable rate mortgages described in subsection (b). 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter II. Loans 

SEC. 3710. PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF HOMES 

* * * * * * * 

(b) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(8) in the case of a loan to refinance a loan (other than a 

loan or installment sales contract described in clause (7) of this 

subsection or a loan made for a purpose specified in subsection 

(a)(8) of this section), the amount of the loan to be guaranteed 

or made does not exceed ø90 percent¿ 95 percent of the reasonable value of the dwelling or farm residence securing the loan, 

as determined pursuant to section 3731 of this title. 

* * * * * * * 

CHAPTER 43. EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT 

RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF THE UNIFORMED SERVICES 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER III. PROCEDURES FOR ASSISTANCE, ENFORCEMENT, AND INVESTIGATION 

* * * * * * * 

Sec. 

4326. Conduct of investigation; subpoenas. 

4327. Noncompliance of Federal officials with deadlines; inapplicability of statutes 

of limitations. 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER IV. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

4334. Notice of rights and duties. 

4335. Training for Federal executive agency human resources personnel on employment and reemployment rights and limitations. 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter III. Procedures for Assistance, Enforcement, 

and Investigation 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 4322. ENFORCEMENT OF EMPLOYMENT OR REEMPLOYMENT 

RIGHTS 

* * * * * * * 

ø(c) The Secretary shall, upon request, provide technical assistance to a potential claimant with respect to a complaint under this 

subsection, and when appropriate, to such claimant’s employer.¿ 

(c)(1) Not later than five days after the Secretary receives a complaint submitted by a person under subsection (a), the Secretary 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
92 

shall notify such person in writing of his or her rights with respect 

to such complaint under this section and section 4323 or 4324, as 

the case may be. 

(2) The Secretary shall, upon request, provide technical assistance 

to a potential claimant with respect to a complaint under this subsection, and when appropriate, to such claimant’s employer. 

* * * * * * * 

(e) If the efforts of the Secretary with respect to any complaint 

filed under subsection (a) do not resolve the complaint, the Secretary shall notify the person who submitted the complaint in writing of— 

* * * * * * * 

(f) Any action required by subsections (d) and (e) with respect to 

a complaint submitted by a person to the Secretary under subsection 

(a) shall be completed by the Secretary not later than 90 days after 

receipt of such complaint. 

(g) ø(f)¿ This subchapter does not apply to any action relating to 

benefits to be provided under the Thrift Savings Plan under title 

5. 

SEC. 4323. ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO A STATE OR 

PRIVATE EMPLOYER 

(a) ACTION FOR RELIEF.— 

(1) A person who receives from the Secretary a notification 

pursuant to section 4322(e) of this title of an unsuccessful effort to resolve a complaint relating to a State (as an employer) 

or a private employer may request that the Secretary refer the 

complaint to the Attorney General. Not later than 60 days after 

the Secretary receives such a request with respect to a complaint, the Secretary shall refer the complaint to the Attorney 

General. If the Attorney General is reasonably satisfied that 

the person on whose behalf the complaint is referred is entitled 

to the rights or benefits sought, the Attorney General may appear on behalf of, and act as attorney for, the person on whose 

behalf the complaint is submitted and commence an action for 

relief under this chapter for such person. In the case of such 

an action against a State (as an employer), the action shall be 

brought in the name of the United States as the plaintiff in the 

action. 

(2) Not later than 60 days after the date the Attorney General 

receives a referral under paragraph (1), the Attorney General 

shall— 

(A) make a decision whether to appear on behalf of, and 

act as attorney for, the person on whose behalf the complaint is submitted; and 

(B) notify such person in writing of such decision. 

(3) ø(2)¿ A person may commence an action for relief with 

respect to a complaint against a State (as an employer) or a 

private employer if the person— 

* * * * * * * 

ø(i) INAPPLICABILITY OF STATE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.—No 

State statute of limitations shall apply to any proceeding under 

this chapter.¿ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
93 

(i) ø(j)¿ DEFINITION.—In this section, the term ‘‘private employer’’ 

includes a political subdivision of a State. 

SEC. 4324. ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO FEDERAL 

EXECUTIVE AGENCIES 

(a)(1) A person who receives from the Secretary a notification 

pursuant to section 4322(e) may request that the Secretary refer 

the complaint for litigation before the Merit Systems Protection 

Board. øThe Secretary shall refer¿ Not later than 60 days after the 

date the Secretary receives such a request, the Secretary shall refer 

the complaint to the Office of Special Counsel established by section 1211 of title 5. 

(2)(A) * * * 

(B) øIf the Special Counsel declines to initiate an action and represent a person before the Merit Systems Protection Board under 

subparagraph (A), the Special Counsel shall notify such person of 

that decision.¿ Not later than 60 days after the date the Special 

Counsel receives a referral under paragraph (1), the Special Counsel 

shall— 

(i) make a decision whether to represent a person before the 

Merit Systems Protection Board under subparagraph (A); and 

(ii) notify such person in writing of such decision. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 4327. NONCOMPLIANCE OF FEDERAL OFFICIALS WITH DEADLINES; INAPPLICABILITY OF STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS 

(a) EFFECT OF NONCOMPLIANCE OF FEDERAL OFFICIALS WITH

DEADLINES.—(1) The inability of the Secretary, the Attorney General, or the Special Counsel to comply with a deadline applicable 

to such official under section 4322, 4323, or 4324 of this title— 

(A) shall not affect the authority of the Attorney General or 

the Special Counsel to represent and file an action or submit a 

complaint on behalf of a person under section 4323 or 4324 of 

this title; 

(B) shall not affect the right of a person— 

(i) to commence an action under section 4323 of this title; 

(ii) to submit a complaint under section 4324 of this title; 

or 

(iii) to obtain any type of assistance or relief authorized 

by this chapter; 

(C) shall not deprive a Federal court, the Merit Systems Protection Board, or a State court of jurisdiction over an action or 

complaint filed by the Attorney General, the Special Counsel, or 

a person under section 4323 or 4324 of this title; and 

(D) shall not constitute a defense, including a statute of limitations period, that any employer (including a State, a private 

employer, or a Federal executive agency) or the Office of Personnel Management may raise in an action filed by the Attorney 

General, the Special Counsel, or a person under section 4323 or 

4324 of this title. 

(2) If the Secretary, the Attorney General, or the Special Counsel 

is unable to meet a deadline applicable to such official in section 

4322(f), 4323(a)(1), 4323(a)(2), 4324(a)(1), or 4324(a)(2)(B) of this 

title, and the person agrees to an extension of time, the Secretary, 

the Attorney General, or the Special Counsel, as the case may be, 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
94 

shall complete the required action within the additional period of 

time agreed to by the person. 

(b) INAPPLICABILITY OF STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS.—If any person 

seeks to file a complaint or claim with the Secretary, the Merit Systems Protection Board, or a Federal or State court under this chapter alleging a violation of this chapter, there shall be no limit on 

the period for filing the complaint or claim. 

Subchapter IV. Miscellaneous Provisions 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 4332. REPORTS 

(a) ANNUAL REPORT BY SECRETARY.—The Secretary shall øThe 

Secretary shall¿, after consultation with the Attorney General and 

the Special Counsel referred to in section 4324(a)(1) øand no later 

than February 1, 2005, and annually thereafter, transmit to the 

Congress, a report containing the following matters for the fiscal 

year ending before such February 1:¿ , transmit to Congress not 

later than July 1 each year a report on matters for the fiscal year 

ending in the year before the year in which such report is transmitted as follows: 

(1) * * * 

(2) * * * 

(3) The number of cases referred to the Attorney General or 

the Special Counsel pursuant to section 4323 or 4324, respectively, during such fiscal year and the number of actions initiated by the Office of Special Counsel before the Merit Systems 

Protection Board pursuant to section 4324 during such fiscal 

year. 

(4) * * * 

(5) The number of cases reviewed by the Secretary and the 

Secretary of Defense through the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve of the Department of 

Defense that involve the same person. 

(6) With respect to the cases reported on pursuant to paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5)— 

(A) the number of such cases that involve a disability-related issue; and 

(B) the number of such cases that involve a person who 

has a service-connected disability. 

(7) ø(5)¿ The nature and status of each case reported on pursuant to paragraph (1), (2), (3), øor (4)¿ (4), or (5). 

(8) With respect to the cases reported on pursuant to paragraphs (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5) the number of such cases that 

involve persons with different occupations or persons seeking 

different occupations, as designated by the Standard Occupational Classification System. 

(9) ø(6)¿ An indication of whether there are any apparent 

patterns of violation of the provisions of this chapter, together 

with an explanation thereof. 

(10) ø(7)¿ Recommendations for administrative or legislative 

action that the Secretary, the Attorney General, or the Special 

Counsel considers necessary for the effective implementation of 

this chapter, including any action that could be taken to enVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:33 Sep 11, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\SR449.XXX SR449

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
95 

courage mediation, before claims are filed under this chapter, 

between employers and persons seeking employment or reemployment. 

(b) QUARTERLY REPORTS.— 

(1) QUARTERLY REPORT BY SECRETARY.—Not later than 30 

days after the end of each fiscal quarter, the Secretary shall 

submit to Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Special Counsel a report setting forth, for the previous full quarter, the following: 

(A) The number of cases for which the Secretary did not 

meet the requirements of section 4322(f) of this title. 

(B) The number of cases for which the Secretary received 

a request for a referral under paragraph (1) of section 

4323(a) of this title but did not make such referral within 

the time period required by such paragraph. 

(2) QUARTERLY REPORT BY ATTORNEY GENERAL.—Not later 

than 30 days after the end of each fiscal quarter, the Attorney 

General shall submit to Congress, the Secretary, the Secretary 

of Defense, and the Special Counsel a report setting forth, for 

the previous full quarter, the number of cases for which the Attorney General received a referral under paragraph (1) of section 4323(a) of this title but did not meet the requirements of 

paragraph (2) of section 4323(a) of this title for such referral. 

(3) QUARTERLY REPORT BY SPECIAL COUNSEL.—Not later than 

30 days after the end of each fiscal quarter, the Special Counsel 

shall submit to Congress, the Secretary, the Secretary of Defense, and the Attorney General a report setting forth, for the 

previous full quarter, the number of cases for which the Special 

Counsel received a referral under paragraph (1) of section 

4324(a) of this title but did not meet the requirements of paragraph (2)(B) of section 4324(a) of this title for such referral. 

(c) UNIFORM CATEGORIZATION OF DATA.—The Secretary shall coordinate with the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and 

the Special Counsel to ensure that— 

(1) the information in the reports required by this section is 

categorized in a uniform way; and 

(2) the Secretary, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Special Counsel each have electronic access to the 

case files reviewed under this chapter by the Secretary, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Special Counsel 

with due regard for the provisions of section 552a of title 5. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 4335. TRAINING FOR FEDERAL EXECUTIVE AGENCY HUMAN RESOURCES PERSONNEL ON EMPLOYMENT AND REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS AND LIMITATIONS 

(a) TRAINING REQUIRED.—The head of each Federal executive 

agency shall provide training for the human resources personnel of 

such agency on the following: 

(1) The rights, benefits, and obligations of members of the 

uniformed services under this chapter. 

(2) The application and administration of the requirements of 

this chapter by such agency with respect to such members. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
96 

(b) CONSULTATION.—The training provided under subsection (a) 

shall be developed and provided in consultation with the Director 

of the Office of Personnel Management. 

(c) FREQUENCY.—The training under subsection (a) shall be provided with such frequency as the Director of the Office of Personnel 

Management shall specify in order to ensure that the human resources personnel of Federal executive agencies are kept fully and 

currently informed of the matters covered by the training. 

(d) HUMAN RESOURCES PERSONNEL DEFINED.—In this section, the 

term ‘‘human resources personnel’’, in the case of a Federal executive 

agency, means any personnel of the agency who are authorized to 

recommend, take, or approve any personnel action that is subject to 

the requirements of this chapter with respect to employees of the 

agency. 

* * * * * * * 

PART IV. GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE 

PROVISIONS 

CHAPTER 51. CLAIMS, EFFECTIVE DATES, AND 

PAYMENTS 

Subchapter I. Claims 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 5103. NOTICE TO CLAIMANTS OF REQUIRED INFORMATION AND 

EVIDENCE 

(a) REQUIRED INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE.—(1) Upon receipt of 

a complete or substantially complete application, the Secretary 

shall notify the claimant and the claimant’s representative, if any, 

of any information, and any medical or lay evidence, not previously 

provided to the Secretary that is necessary to substantiate the 

claim. As part of that notice, the Secretary shall indicate which 

portion of that information and evidence, if any, is to be provided 

by the claimant and which portion, if any, the Secretary, in accordance with section 5103A of this title and any other applicable provisions of law, will attempt to obtain on behalf of the claimant. 

(2)(A) The Secretary shall prescribe in regulations requirements 

relating to the contents of notice to be provided under this subsection. 

(B) The regulations required by this paragraph— 

(i) shall specify different contents for notice depending on 

whether the claim concerned is an original claim, a claim for 

reopening a prior decision on a claim, or a claim for increase 

in benefits; 

(ii) may provide additional or alternative contents for notice 

if appropriate to the benefit or services sought under the claim; 

(iii) shall specify for each type of claim for benefits the general information and evidence required to substantiate the basic 

elements of such type of claim; and 

(iv) shall specify the time period limitations required pursuant to subsection (b). 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
97 

CHAPTER 53. SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO 

BENEFITS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 5312. ANNUAL ADJUSTMENT OF CERTAIN BENEFIT RATES 

* * * * * * * 

(d)(1) Whenever there is an increase in benefit amounts payable 

under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 401 et seq.) as 

a result of a determination made under section 215(i) of such Act 

(42 U.S.C. 415(i)), the Secretary shall, effective on the date of such 

increase in benefit amounts, increase the dollar amounts in effect for 

the payment of disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation by the Secretary, as specified in paragraph (2), 

as such amounts were in effect immediately prior to the date of such 

increase in benefit amounts payable under title II of the Social Security Act, by the same percentage as the percentage by which such 

benefit amounts are increased. 

(2) The dollar amounts to be increased pursuant to paragraph (1) 

are the following: 

(A) COMPENSATION.—Each of the dollar amounts in effect 

under section 1114 of this title. 

(B) ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR DEPENDENTS.—Each of 

the dollar amounts in effect under section 1115(1) of this title. 

(C) CLOTHING ALLOWANCE.—The dollar amount in effect 

under section 1162 of this title. 

(D) NEW DIC RATES.—Each of the dollar amounts in effect 

under paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 1311(a) of this title. 

(E) OLD DIC RATES.—Each of the dollar amounts in effect 

under section 1311(a)(3) of this title. 

(F) ADDITIONAL DIC FOR SURVIVING SPOUSES WITH MINOR

CHILDREN.—The dollar amount in effect under section 1311(b) 

of this title. 

(G) ADDITIONAL DIC FOR DISABILITY.—Each of the dollar 

amounts in effect under sections 1311(c) and 1311(d) of this 

title. 

(H) DIC FOR DEPENDENT CHILDREN.—Each of the dollar 

amounts in effect under sections 1313(a) and 1314 of this title. 

(3) Whenever there is an increase under paragraph (1) in amounts 

in effect for the payment of disability compensation and dependency 

and indemnity compensation, the Secretary shall publish such 

amounts, as increased pursuant to such paragraph, in the Federal 

Register at the same time as the material required by section 

215(i)(2)(D) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)(2)(D)) is 

published by reason of a determination under section 215(i) of such 

Act (42 U.S.C. 415(i)). 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 5317. USE OF INCOME INFORMATION FROM OTHER AGENCIES: 

NOTICE AND VERIFICATION 

* * * * * * * 

(g) The authority of the Secretary to obtain information from the 

Secretary of the Treasury or the Commissioner of Social Security 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
98 

under section 6103(1)(7)(D)(viii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

1986 expires on øSeptember 30, 2008¿ September 30, 2011. 

* * * * * * * 

PART V. BOARDS, ADMINISTRATIONS, AND 

SERVICES 

CHAPTER 72. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 

VETERANS CLAIMS 

* * * * * * * 

SUBCHAPTER III. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 

* * * * * * * 

Sec. 

7287. Administration. 

7288. Annual report. 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter I. Organization and Jurisdiction 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 7253. COMPOSITION 

(a) COMPOSITION.—The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims is 

composed of at least three and not more than øseven judges¿ nine 

judges, one of whom shall serve as chief judge in accordance with 

subsection (d). 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 7257. RECALL OF RETIRED JUDGES 

(a)(1) A retired judge of the Court may be recalled for further 

service on the Court in accordance with this section. To be eligible 

to be recalled for such service, a retired judge must at the time of 

the judge’s retirement provide to the chief judge of the Court (or, 

in the case of the chief judge, to the clerk of the Court) notice in 

writing that the retired judge is available for further service on the 

Court in accordance with this section and is willing to be recalled 

under this section. øSuch a notice provided by a retired judge is irrevocable.¿ Such a notice provided by a retired judge to whom section 7296(c)(1)(B) of this title applies is irrevocable. 

* * * * * * * 

(b)(1) * * * 

(2) A recall-eligible retired judge may not be recalled for more 

than 90 days (or the equivalent) during any calendar year without 

the judge’s consent øor for more than a total of 180 days (or the 

equivalent) during any calendar year¿. (3) If a recall-eligible retired judge is recalled by the chief judge 

in accordance with this section and (other than in the case of a 

judge who has previously during that calendar year served at least 

90 days (or the equivalent) of recalled service on the court) declines 

(other than by reason of disability) to perform the service to which 

recalled, the chief judge shall remove that retired judge from the 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
99 

status of a recall-eligible judge. This paragraph shall not apply to 

a judge to whom section 7296(c)(1)(A) or 7296(c)(1)(B) of this title 

applies and who has, in the aggregate, served at least five years of 

recalled service on the Court under this section. 

* * * * * * * 

ø(d)(1) The pay of a recall-eligible retired judge who retired 

under section 7296 of this title is specified in subsection (c) of that 

section. 

ø(2) A judge who is recalled under this section who retired under 

chapter 83 or 84 of title 5 shall be paid, during the period for which 

the judge serves in recall status, pay at the rate of pay in effect 

under section 7253(e) of this title for a judge performing active 

service, less the amount of the judge’s annuity under the applicable 

provisions of chapter 83 or 84 of title 5.¿ 

(d)(1) The pay of a recall-eligible retired judge to whom section 

7296(c)(1)(B) of this title applies is the pay specified in that section. 

(2) A judge who is recalled under this section who retired under 

chapter 83 or 84 of title 5 or to whom section 7296(c)(1)(A) of this 

title applies shall be paid, during the period for which the judge 

serves in recall status, pay at the rate of pay in effect under section 

7253(e) of this title for a judge performing active service, less the 

amount of the judge’s annuity under the applicable provisions of 

chapter 83 or 84 of title 5 or the judge’s annuity under section 

7296(c)(1)(A) of this title, whichever is applicable. 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter II. Procedure 

SEC. 7268. AVAILABILITY OF PROCEEDINGS 

* * * * * * * 

(c)(1) The Court shall prescribe rules, in accordance with section 

7264(a) of this title, to protect privacy and security concerns relating 

to all filing of documents and the public availability under this subsection of documents retained by the Court or filed electronically 

with the Court. 

(2) The rules prescribed under paragraph (1) shall be consistent 

to the extent practicable with rules addressing privacy and security 

issues throughout the Federal courts. 

(3) The rules prescribed under paragraph (1) shall take into consideration best practices in Federal and State courts to protect private information or otherwise maintain necessary information security. 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter III. Miscellaneous Provisions 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 7288. ANNUAL REPORT 

(a) IN GENERAL.—The chief judge of the Court shall submit to the 

appropriate committees of Congress each year a report summarizing 

the workload of the Court for the fiscal year ending during the preceding year. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
100 

(b) ELEMENTS.—Each report under subsection (a) shall include, 

with respect to the fiscal year covered by such report, the following 

information: 

(1) The number of appeals filed with the Court. 

(2) The number of petitions filed with the Court. 

(3) The number of applications filed with the Court under 

section 2412 of title 28. 

(4) The total number of dispositions by each of the following: 

(A) The Court as a whole. 

(B) The Clerk of the Court. 

(C) A single judge of the Court. 

(D) A multi-judge panel of the Court. 

(E) The full Court. 

(5) The number of each type of disposition by the Court, including settlement, affirmation, remand, vacation, dismissal, 

reversal, grant, and denial. 

(6) The median time from filing an appeal to disposition by 

each of the following: 

(A) The Court as a whole. 

(B) The Clerk of the Court. 

(C) A single judge of the Court. 

(D) Multiple judges of the Court (including a multi-judge 

panel of the Court or the full Court). 

(7) The median time from filing a petition to disposition by 

the Court. 

(8) The median time from filing an application under section 

2412 of title 28 to disposition by the Court. 

(9) The median time from the completion of briefing requirements by the parties to disposition by the Court. 

(10) The number of oral arguments before the Court. 

(11) The number of cases appealed to the United States Court 

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

(12) The number and status of appeals and petitions pending 

with the Court and of applications described in paragraph (3) 

as of the end of such fiscal year. 

(13) The number of cases pending with the Court more than 

18 months as of the end of such fiscal year. 

(14) A summary of any service performed for the Court by a 

recalled retired judge of the Court. 

(c) APPROPRIATE COMMITTEES OF CONGRESS DEFINED.—In this 

section, the term ‘‘appropriate committees of Congress’’ means— 

(1) the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs of the Senate; and 

(2) the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs of the House of Representatives. 

* * * * * * * 

Subchapter V. Retirement and Survivors Annuities 

SEC. 7296. RETIREMENT OF JUDGES 

* * * * * * * 

(c)ø(1) An individual who retires under subsection (b) of this section and elects under subsection (d) of this section to receive retired 

pay under this subsection shall (except as provided in paragraph 

(2) of this subsection) receive retired pay as follows: 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
101 

ø(A) In the case of a judge who is a recall-eligible retired 

judge under section 7257 of this title or who was a recall-eligible retired judge under that section and was removed from recall status under subsection (b)(4) of that section by reason of 

disability, the retired pay of the judge shall be the pay of a 

judge of the court. 

ø(B) In the case of a judge who at the time of retirement did 

not provide notice under section 7257 of this title of availability 

for service in a recalled status, the retired pay of the judge 

shall be the rate of pay applicable to that judge at the time of 

retirement. 

ø(C) In the case of a judge who was a recall-eligible retired 

judge under section 7257 of this title and was removed from 

recall status under subsection (b)(3) of that section, the retired 

pay of the judge shall be the pay of the judge at the time of 

the removal from recall status.¿ 

(1)(A) A judge who is appointed on or after the date of the enactment of the Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act of 2008 and who retires under subsection (b) and elects under subsection (d) to receive 

retired pay under this subsection shall (except as provided in paragraph (2)) receive retired pay as follows: 

(i) In the case of a judge who is a recall-eligible retired judge 

under section 7257 of this title, the retired pay of the judge 

shall (subject to section 7257(d)(2) of this title) be the rate of 

pay applicable to that judge at the time of retirement, as adjusted from time to time under subsection (f)(3). 

(ii) In the case of a judge other than a recall-eligible retired 

judge, the retired pay of the judge shall be the rate of pay applicable to that judge at the time of retirement. 

(B) A judge who retired before the date of the enactment of the 

Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act of 2008 and elected under subsection (d) to receive retired pay under this subsection, or a judge 

who retires under subsection (b) and elects under subsection (d) to 

receive retired pay under this subsection, shall (except as provided 

in paragraph (2)) receive retired pay as follows: 

(i) In the case of a judge who is a recall-eligible retired judge 

under section 7257 of this title or who was a recall-eligible retired judge under that section and was removed from recall status under subsection (b)(4) of that section by reason of disability, the retired pay of the judge shall be the pay of a judge 

of the court. 

(ii) In the case of a judge who at the time of retirement did 

not provide notice under section 7257 of this title of availability 

for service in a recalled status, the retired pay of the judge shall 

be the rate of pay applicable to that judge at the time of retirement. 

(iii) In the case of a judge who was a recall-eligible retired 

judge under section 7257 of this title and was removed from recall status under subsection (b)(3) of that section, the retired 

pay of the judge shall be the pay of the judge at the time of the 

removal from recall status. 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
102 

(f)(1) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(3)(A) A cost-of-living adjustment provided by law in annuities 

payable under civil service retirement laws shall apply to retired 

pay under this section only in the case of retired pay computed 

under øparagraph (2) of subsection (c)¿ paragraph (1)(A)(i) or (2) 

of subsection (c). 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE 50. WAR AND NATIONAL 

DEFENSE 

TITLE 50 APPENDIX—WAR AND NATIONAL 

DEFENSE 

* * * * * * * 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE VII. FURTHER RELIEF 

* * * * * * * 

Sec. 

596. Business or trade obligations 

707. Tuition, reenrollment, and student loan relief for postsecondary students called 

to military service. 

* * * * * * * 

Title VII. Further Relief 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 707. TUITION, REENROLLMENT, AND STUDENT LOAN RELIEF FOR 

POSTSECONDARY STUDENTS CALLED TO MILITARY SERVICE. 

(a) TUITION AND REENROLLMENT.—In the case of a servicemember 

who because of military service discontinues a program of education 

at a covered institution of higher education that administers a Federal financial aid program, such institution of higher education 

shall— 

(1) refund to such servicemember the tuition and fees paid by 

such servicemember from personal funds, or from a loan, for the 

portion of the program of education for which such servicemember did not receive academic credit because of such military service; and 

(2) provide such servicemember an opportunity to reenroll in 

such program of education with the same educational and academic status such servicemember had when such servicemember 

discontinued such program of education because of such military service. 

(b) INTEREST RATE LIMITATION ON STUDENT LOANS.— 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
103 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this 

subsection, a student loan shall be considered an obligation or 

liability for the purposes of section 207. 

(2) EXCEPTION.—Subsection (c) of section 207 shall not apply 

to a student loan. 

(c) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

(1) The term ‘‘covered institution of higher education’’ means 

a 2-year or 4-year institution of higher education as defined in 

section 102 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 

1002) that participates in a loan program under title IV of that 

Act (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.). 

(2) The term ‘‘Federal financial aid program’’ means a program providing loans made, insured, or guaranteed under part 

B, D, or E of title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 

U.S.C. 1077 et seq., 1087a et seq., 1087aa et seq.). 

(3) The term ‘‘student loan’’ means any loan, whether Federal, 

State, or private, to assist an individual to attend an institution 

of higher education, including a loan made, insured, or guaranteed under part B, D, or E of title IV of the Higher Education 

Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1077 et seq., 1087a et seq., 1087aa et 

seq.). 

* * * * * * * 

WOUNDED WARRIOR ACT 

(Public Law 110–181; 122 Stat. 472) 

* * * * * * * 

TITLE XVI. WOUNDED WARRIOR MATTERS 

* * * * * * * 

Subtitle D. Disability Matters 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1646. ENHANCEMENT OF DISABILITY SEVERANCE PAY FOR MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES. 

(a) * * * 

(b) * * * 

(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 1161 of title 38, United 

States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘as required by section 1212(c) 

of title 10’’ and inserting ‘‘to the extent required by section 1212(d) 

of title 10’’. 

(d) ø(c)¿ * * * 

* * * * * * * 

VETERANS BENEFITS ACT OF 2003 

(Public Law 108–183; 117 Stat. 2651; 38 U.S.C. 5101 note) 

* * * * * * * 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
104 

TITLE VII. OTHER MATTERS 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 704. TEMPORARY AUTHORITY FOR PERFORMANCE OF MEDICAL 

DISABILITIES EXAMINATIONS BY CONTRACT PHYSICIANS. 

(a) * * * 

(b) * * * 

(c) EXPIRATION.—The authority in subsection (a) shall expire on 

øDecember 31, 2009¿ December 31, 2012. No examination may be 

carried out under the authority provided in that subsection after 

that date. 

(d) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING