|
Statement
of Honorable Lane Evans December
11, 2001 Mr.
Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1291, the Veterans Education and
Benefits Expansion Act of 2001. I
commend and thank the distinguished Chairman of the Committee, Chris
Smith, for his outstanding leadership and his successful efforts to work
with Members on both sides of the aisle to bring this measure before us
today. I also thank all
Members who have contributed to this legislation, particularly the leaders
of our Subcommittee on Benefits, Mike Simpson and Silvestre Reyes.
In addition, I acknowledge and appreciate the contributions made by
all members of the Committee staff, particularly Mary Ellen Mc Carthy,
Todd Houchins and Beth Kilker of my staff. Every
member of the Committee on Veterans Affairs recognizes the need for a
meaningful increase in Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefits.
Numerous bills have been introduced in the 107th
Congress to achieve this objective. I
was proud to co-author H.R. 320, the Montgomery GI Bill Improvements Act
of 2001, with my good friend John Dingell.
H.R. 320 would pay full costs of tuition, fees, books and supplies.
It would also provide a living stipend and eliminate the $1,200
basic pay reduction that is required under current law.
Increased benefits have also been proposed under H.R. 1280, the
Veterans' Higher Education Opportunities Act of 2001, which was introduced
by Mr. Shows. That bill would
reimburse veterans for the cost of attending a four-year, public college
as a commuter student. Additionally, I was an original cosponsor of H.R. 1291, the
21st Century Montgomery GI Bill Enhancement Act, authored by Chairman
Smith. I am pleased the agreement before the House embodies the essence of H.R. 1291. The Committee on Veterans Affairs has acknowledged that additional increases are necessary to significantly improve the purchasing power of the GI Bill. In the face of budgetary constraints, the amounts contained in the compromise bill achieve an important step in our long-term goal to revitalize the MGIB program. The agreement contains many significant improvements to benefits for veterans and their families. I am personally happy the forward momentum of H.R. 1291 toward revitalizing the MGIB has remained a clear policy priority. I strongly believe that every possible door of educational opportunity must be opened to veterans. Our veterans should have every chance to return home and enjoy the same advantages they help make possible for the rest of us. Section 101 of H.R. 1291 provides for an increase in the amount of basic MGIB educational assistance for months beginning on or after January 1, 2002, from its current level of $672 to $800 per month. Subsequent increases, to $900 per month in fiscal year 2003, and to $985 per month in fiscal year 2004, are provided in the bill. Proportionate increases are provided to monthly rates for those veterans who choose studies on a less than full-time basis. After fiscal year 2004, increases to the monthly MGIB rate will be tied to the Consumer Price Index. Additionally, section 102 of H.R. 1291 provides a much-needed increase to survivors’ and dependents’ educational assistance benefits for full-time students from $608 to $670 per month effective October 1, 2001, and proportionate increases for part-time students. Importantly, these full and part-time increases include correspondence courses, apprenticeship training and special restorative training. Participants enrolled in VA-administered educational assistance programs are eligible for a prescribed number of monthly payments. In times of global conflict, active duty servicemembers and reservists are forced to leave school in the middle of their academic terms to perform military service in the Nation’s defense. In light of America’s current struggle against terrorism, H.R. 3240, the Reservists Education Protection Act of 2001, was introduced to assure that veterans would not lose education benefits due to activation. In the case of an individual who has been receiving VA education assistance payments but is prevented from completing his or her coursework due to changed military duties or activation, the agreement rightfully restores entitlement that was being used for interrupted schooling. Thus, upon returning to school, the agreement would permit the individual to resume their educational pursuits with the amount of entitlement they originally possessed before entering the interrupted academic term. Entitlement restoration is currently restricted to veterans and servicemembers ordered to active duty during the Persian Gulf War. Under current law, others ordered to active duty have no entitlement restoration for courses interrupted by America’s most recent call-up to fight terrorism. I am extremely pleased this inequity is addressed by section 103 of the agreement. I am pleased the agreement provides for increased flexibility in the use of veterans education benefits by allowing the MGIB benefit to be used for alternative forms of study such as intensive, short-term courses and distance education. I have long been a strong proponent of allowing education benefits to be used, as provided for in section 104, for short-term, high technology courses that may provide access to expanded and rewarding career opportunities for veterans. I have also long agreed with the merit of earning certificates through distance education opportunities that, as provided for in section 111, reflect educational attainment offered by traditional colleges and universities. Many popular short-term courses such as Microsoft or Cisco systems training last only a few weeks or months, but can cost thousands of dollars. Monthly disbursements under the current MGIB structure are not suited to this type of study. Beginning with fiscal year 2003, section 104 of the agreement provides a modified MGIB payment structure to accommodate such short-term courses. The value of the accelerated payment would then be deducted from the veteran's remaining entitlement. I am pleased that section 105 of the agreement assists Vietnam-era veterans who did not remain on active duty in 1985 when the MGIB was first established, but who later rejoined the Armed Forces for subsequent military duty after 1985. This small but deserving group is inadvertently penalized by current law with regard to MGIB eligibility requirements simply due to the timing of their multiple tours of military duty. As provided for in section 105, these service members and veterans are granted MGIB eligibility to pursue educational goals. As a long time supporter of benefits for veterans who have suffered from the effects of exposure to herbicides such as Agent Orange, I fully support the language changing the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims concerning a presumption of exposure to herbicides, such as Agent Orange, for veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam. The extensive use of herbicides in Vietnam during the Vietnam War has been well documented. Requiring a veteran to prove actual exposure merely because the disabling condition experienced by the veteran is not contained on a list of conditions presumptively service-connected is illogical. I strongly support removal of the 30-year limitation on the presumptive period for Vietnam veterans diagnosed with cancers of the respiratory tract. In its 1998 and 2000 Updates to Veterans and Agent Orange, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) reported that with regard to these cancers, it was not possible to put an upper limit on the length of time these herbicides could exert their effect. However, the bill requires the Secretary to enter into another contract with NAS to determine whether or not it is possible for a time limitation to be established beyond which dioxin would not exert a carcinogenic effect and authorizes the Secretary to prescribe a time limit if scientific evidence supports such a limitation. Nonetheless, a grant of service-connection provided by this section will be protected for all purposes. I fully support the provision in H.R. 1291, which is similar to H.R. 1587, introduced in the House by Ms. McKinney of Georgia. I thank the gentle lady from Georgia for her leadership on this important issue. I am also pleased this legislation includes a statutory presumption that makes it clear to veterans that their eligibility for service-connection of diabetes associated with exposure to herbicides is a protected statutory right. This provision is derived from H.R. 862, which I introduced. I also strongly support section 202 of the bill, based on H.R. 1406 which I introduced, to overturn a narrow and erroneous opinion of the VA General Counsel. Thousands of veterans who were healthy before their service in Southwest Asia have experienced a variety of unexplained symptoms since going to Southwest Asia. Claims for service-connected compensation filed by Gulf War veterans were originally denied because no single disease, entity or syndrome responsible for these illnesses had been identified. In providing for compensation due to undiagnosed illnesses or illnesses which could not be clearly defined, the Congress specifically intended that under Public Law 103-446, veterans be given the benefit of the doubt and provided service-connected compensation benefits. Because of an erroneous Opinion of VA’s General Counsel, the law’s intent has been frustrated and many veterans have been denied compensation. As many veterans organizations have noted, Bob Stump, the former Chairman of the Committee, and I have criticized VA’s interpretation of the term “undiagnosed illness” in VA General Counsel Precedent Opinion 8-98 as extremely restrictive. That opinion held that VA is precluded from providing benefits to veterans who develop symptoms after military service and who receive a diagnostic label, such as “chronic service fatigue syndrome”, even for illnesses not clearly defined. Thousands of veterans have had their claims denied because “chronic fatigue syndrome” or another diagnostic label such as “fibromyalgia” or “irritable bowel syndrome” was provided. Other veterans with identical symptoms whose physicians did not attach a diagnostic label have had their claims granted. Such disparate treatment is unfair and unacceptable. H.R. 1291 places the emphasis where Congress originally intended it by focusing on the symptoms that have had such a disabling affect on the lives of some Gulf War veterans. The bill addresses illnesses that are not clearly defined, rather than illnesses whose etiology is not clearly defined. As Dr. Claudia Miller, an experienced medical researcher, testified in 1999 before the Subcommittee on Benefits: “In medicine, we will label something with a name, as you are aware, and call it a diagnosis, but it may not convey what the etiology is. There are very few places in medicine where we say what the etiology is when we give a diagnosis. One of the few is infectious diseases.” In focusing on the symptoms of poorly defined illnesses, the bill applies to disabilities resulting from what is increasingly referred to in medical research as “chronic multisymptom illnesses”. (See, “Chronic Multisymptom Illness Affecting Air Force Veterans of the Gulf War”, Fukuda et al, JAMA 1988; 280:981-988, “Clinical Risk Communication: Explaining Causality To Gulf War Veterans With Chronic Multisymptom Illnesses”, Engel, Sunrise Symposium (June 25, 1999) (Found at www.deploymenthealth.mil/education/risk_comm.doc.) and “Multiple Chemical Sensitivity and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome in British Gulf War Veterans”, Reid et al, American Journal of Epidemiology, 2001 153:604-609. I expect that VA will treat veterans with similar clusters of symptoms from medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illnesses in a similar manner regardless of diagnostic labels. According to the Institute of Medicine’s report Gulf War Veterans: Treating Symptoms and Syndromes (National Academy Press: 2001), “Gulf War veterans are more likely than nondeployed veterans to report symptoms, illness and functional impairment, although no study has been able to identify a single accepted condition or group of diagnoses that explains the symptoms experienced.” I expect that in implementing the statute, VA will draft regulations on the frequency and severity of symptoms and their impact on the lives of veterans who served in Southwest Asia. Veterans must be provided the benefit of the doubt. VA’s cost estimate for compensating Gulf veterans who suffer from fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome and irritable bowel syndrome is evidence that claims, which Congress intended to recognize in its 1994 legislation, are being denied. I regret that having expanded so much of our Nation’s resources on a large tax cut, we are now forced to delay the effective date until April 1, 2002. On November 9, 2001, the Secretary of Veterans Affairs exercised his authority under current law to extend the presumptive period for undiagnosed illnesses until December 31, 2006. Legislation to extend the time period, originally passed by the House, is therefore not needed. Section 203 of H.R. 1291 gives the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the authority to protect the service-connection of veterans receiving compensation benefits. Last year, Congresswoman Capps and I became aware that VA was having difficulty in recruiting veterans to participate in a VA-sponsored research study concerning the prevalence of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS or Lou Gehrig’s Disease) in Gulf War veterans. Because ALS is such a rare disease, the validity of the study required that as many veterans as possible with this condition be identified. A number of veterans refused to participate in the study because they were currently receiving service-connected compensation benefits attributed to an undiagnosed illness. In response to a joint request from Mrs. Capps, Mr. Stearns, Mr. Bilirakis and myself to protect the benefits of the ALS study participants, former Acting Secretary Gober stated in an October 19, 2000, letter, “there is simply no viable way to provide such protections consistent with existing law and standards of ethical conduct for Government employees.” Section 203 of H.R. 1291 is intended to remedy this dilemma and provide the VA with the authority needed to enable veterans to participate in medical research studies, without fear that their benefits will be placed in jeopardy. I introduced H.R. 3087 to allow wartime veterans to qualify for pension at age 65 without regard to disability. I therefore support the provisions of H.R. 1291 that allow VA to provide pension benefits to wartime veterans who are aged 65 or older. I am extremely concerned however, that VA has verbally instructed its employees adjudicating claims for pension benefits to ignore the provisions of Public Law 101-508, which eliminated the presumption of eligibility for pension at age 65. If the Secretary of Veterans Affairs believes that a law passed by Congress is unwise, the proper procedure is for the Secretary to propose legislation to change the law, not to verbally instruct employees adjudicating claims to ignore the law. Veterans deserve to have their claims adjudicated in accordance with law. If the law is unfair or unwise, it should be changed, not ignored. By passing this legislation, I intend to protect the rights of our aged veterans, not to sanction the unlawful and highly irregular manner in which VA has been adjudicating their claims since September 2001. H.R. 1291 also requires VA to provide veterans and dependents with information concerning benefits and health care services under programs administered by the Secretary whenever they first apply for benefits from the VA. This provision is derived from legislation, H.R. 336, authored by the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mike Doyle, and H.R. 511, authored by the gentleman from New Jersey, Bill Pascrell, both committed advocates for veterans. I salute Mike Doyle and Bill Pascrell for their successful leadership. Veterans and their dependents will be better served as a result of this provision. As an original cosponsor of H.R. 442 introduced by the gentleman from California, Mr. Filner, I support section 401 of H.R. 1291, which will increase the amount of VA’s home loan guarantee for which our Nation’s servicemembers and veterans are eligible. This provision is particularly important to those who reside in areas of the country where housing is most costly. Likewise, I strongly support the provisions in H.R. 1291 that are derived from H.R. 1929, introduced by Tom Udall and myself, to extend the pilot program providing direct home loans to veterans residing on tribal lands. This bill provides another home ownership option to Native American veterans. In the 105th Congress, I introduced legislation to increase the automobile and housing grants provided to severely disabled veterans and to index those benefits to increases in the Consumer Price Index, so that the value of benefits would not continue to erode. Although Congress enacted legislation to increase those benefits, the amounts were not indexed, as had been provided in my bill, necessitating the increase provided in section 404 of H.R. 1291. I regret that budgetary considerations once again prevent us from providing an automatic increase in these benefits to avoid further erosion. Nonetheless, I support the modest increases provided by this bill. VA burial benefits are the final, and many times the only, form of thanks our veterans receive from a grateful Nation. VA currently provides a $1,500 burial allowance to veterans whose deaths are service-connected. VA also provides a $150 plot allowance toward the purchase of a burial plot and cost for interment for certain veterans not buried in national cemeteries. The dollar amount of these benefits has not been increased in decades. I am pleased that section 501 of the agreement provides nominal increases to these vital benefit programs, but I feel strongly that more increases will soon be needed. The increase for service-connected burial allowances will take effect as of September 11, 2001, allowing the increased amount to be paid to servicemembers who lost their lives in the terrorist attacks on our Nation. Section 508 of the compromise agreement would increase the maximum number of veterans allowed to participate in the VA independent living program to 2,500. I strongly support this provision, but was dismayed to learn that VA has been ignoring the limitation in current law. VA is never free to ignore statutory requirements, whether for good reasons or otherwise. When a current law limitation proves detrimental to veterans, the Secretary must present Congress with corrective legislation. In the event this new participant cap of 2,500 proves insufficient to meet the needs of disabled veterans, I expect the Secretary to follow the law and propose legislation to the Congress. Again,
I thank all who have contributed to the development of H.R. 1291 and urge
all of my colleagues to approve this important legislation.
|