Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 106
04/09/2009 08:00 AM House STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB24 | |
| HJR31 | |
| HB106 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | SB 58 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 72 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 76 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HJR 31 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 24 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HJR 31-SUPPORT SOLDIERS' BURIAL DESIGNATIONS 8:12:53 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that the next order of business was HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 31, Urging the United States Congress to pass the Honor the Written Intent of our Soldier Heroes Act. [Before the committee was CSHJR 31(MLV).] 8:13:02 AM JOSH TEMPEL, Staff, Joint Veterans' Caucus, Senator Charlie Huggins, Alaska State Legislature, introduced HJR 31 on behalf of the Joint Veterans' Caucus. He said the proposed resolution would express Alaska's support of H.R. 1633, a Congressional bill entitled, "Honor the Wish Act." The federal bill would allow military personnel to designate people other than their immediate family members to oversee their disposition if they are killed in the line of duty. Mr. Tempel explained that members of armed forces fill out a DD FORM 93 to designate who will direct disposition of their remains if they die while in active duty. Current law allows these members to designate a spouse, blood relative, or adoptive parent. Mr. Tempel stated that some service members need someone who does not fall into those categories to bear that responsibility, but current law prohibits that. He said H.R. 1633 supports the nation's troops [by upholding] their dying wishes, and passing HJR 31 would be a meaningful way for Alaska to continue its support of those in the military. MR. TEMPEL noted that two individuals were present to testify, one of whom was responsible for bringing forth the idea for HJR 31. 8:15:48 AM NICHOLAS HENDERSON told the committee that he is a veteran, having served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and is testifying on behalf of himself in support of HJR 31. He related a story about the loss of a "brother through service" - Specialist Christopher Fox (ph) - who was killed in action in Baghdad. Mr. Henderson said that on a DD FORM 93, Mr. Fox had specified a woman named, Amy Frost, as the person responsible for the disposition of his remains, in the event that he was killed in action. Ms. Frost was not Mr. Fox's mother, but was someone who had taken him in after he had been kicked out of his step- father's home. Mr. Henderson said Mr. Fox's mother had already died, and Ms. Frost considered Mr. Fox her son. The U.S. Army notified Ms. Frost, but told her that they were awarding custody to Mr. Fox's step-father. MR. HENDERSON stated, "This resolution is our way of showing that not only do we support our veterans, but we want to honor them in life and in death. Their last and final wishes should be honored." 8:18:46 AM REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON asked who would have been next in line after the step-father if that detail had not been designated on the form. MR. HENDERSON responded that each soldier fills out a DD FORM 93 before he/she is deployed. He said in the case of Amy Frost, the Casualty Assistance Office notified her, and additionally it sought out Mr. Fox's step-father and step-brother. 8:19:47 AM CHAIR LYNN said he heard this bill during a House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs hearing. He opined that HJR 31 is well-intended, but has issues. He offered his understanding that today, the cost of basic life insurance in the military is $400,000, while the cost for military funeral expenses is $100,000. MR. HENDERSON confirmed that is correct. CHAIR LYNN directed attention to a list included in the committee packet, from Section 1482 of federal law, entitled, "Expenses incident to death." Included on the list is: identification, uniform, funeral services, and Hearst services. The $100,000 is given to the person whose name is listed on the DD 93 form. He offered his understanding that that person is not obligated to spend the entire $100,000 on those expenses. Chair Lynn stated that family members are "forever," while friends can be "transitory." The potential exists for a girlfriend to get the $100,000 and not spend it on the necessary funeral expenses. Furthermore, the same woman could be the girlfriend of several military personnel and "end up being very wealthy rather rapidly." Conversely, Chair Lynn said anyone who is old enough to carry a gun and go into battle ought to have the right to designate whom he/she wishes. He indicated that the same argument applies to the age at which someone should be allowed to drink and smoke. He said he wants to support the wishes of soldiers, but is concerned about someone preying upon the military community. 8:23:37 AM MR. HENDERSON said he echoes Chair Lynn's standpoint that if a person is old enough to carry a gun and go into battle, he/she should be allowed to have a drink legally. 8:24:18 AM MR. TEMPEL, in response to Representative Johnson, confirmed that a person who has filled out a DD FORM 93 can later change the name of the designee on the form. 8:24:55 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO stated his understanding that an adult male or female fills out a DD FORM 93, does so with guidance. MR. HENDERSON responded that that is correct. He said every time a soldier deploys, he/she fills out a new DD FORM 93 and can modify that form at any time. He said he had four soldiers under his direct supervision in the last year of his service. Each time those soldiers filled out paperwork, they were counseled on the correct way to do so, and the paperwork was checked to ensure it was completed in its entirety. CHAIR LYNN reiterated that he supports the intent of the bill, but noted that the committee must look for unintended consequences in each bill before moving it out of committee. 8:26:43 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the previously mentioned list from Section 1482. He noted that the list pertains to "any decedent covered by Section 1481 of this title," and said he would like to know if Section 1482 covers only those military personnel who die while engaged in battle or if it covers someone who has been sworn in but dies while still in the U.S. MR. TEMPEL responded, "This applies to everyone." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "Does the bill apply to anyone who passes away after the effective date, even if they filled out their [DD FORM 93] 10 years before?" MR. TEMPEL responded that if that person is still in the military at the time of his/her death, then "it does apply." He explained, "The forms you fill out will stay with you until you ... fill out new ones; however, they are redone annually - it's a requirement of every unit." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked, "Does it apply to National Guard and reservists during their time on active duty?" MR. HENDERSON answered yes. 8:29:15 AM DAVID ROGERS stated that he is the father of the late Private First Class Jesse Rogers (ph), who was killed in action on July 23, 2007, in Afghanistan. He said he does not know if he agrees with allowing a soldier to designate anyone he/she chooses concerning funeral arrangements and for [that designee] to be the recipient of the $100,000. MR. ROGERS shared his story as follows: When my son was killed, it hit me hard. The best way to explain it may be to explain my state of mind during the process the Army has set up for this situation. My son designated me to have the final word on everything related to his death. ... [My wife and I] went into the office at Fort Richardson. A military [representative] would ask me a question, I would have to look at my wife, she would then repeat the question, and I would then look at the officer and give my answer. This went on for several days. Even the most simple question didn't register until I heard my wife ask it. I've lost two brothers in my adult life, one by suicide and one by cancer. Losing a child was far harder. I still to this day, including last night, lay awake most of the night. When my son joined the Army, I did my dead-level best to explain to him the monotony of the military life as well as the rewards. I also explained to him the best I could the reality of going in, in a time of war - not to steer him one way or the other, but to help him understand fully what he was volunteering for. No father could have been prouder than I was of Jesse. ... He was becoming a man, and seemed to have a sense of direction for his life. The question before us today seems to come down to this: At the age of 18, does the typical teenager have the maturity or clarity of thought to make responsible choices with their life? As a father of 13 children, I can tell you they don't - not without wise counsel. My children rely on my wife and I for advice on a range of issues. Not every child has parents that are involved with them - they tend to cling to the advice of a coach or a teacher. This is not a bad thing, of course. In my own life I had a 15-year-old boy tell me, "I wish you were my dad." I squared him away promptly, however, because he had a great dad; they just didn't see eye to eye. I try to imagine myself receiving news that my son died in war, then hearing that some teacher, coach, or neighbor is in charge of making the burial arrangements as I look on helplessly. My personal opinion is: ... at least make the soldier wait 'til they are 21 to make that decision. Most teenagers don't make these kinds of decisions in a civilian world. If a teenager has life insurance, it is because a parent is providing it. Very rare are the teenagers that actually do know everything. One other point before I finish: There are ... opportunists out there that may see this as a way to take advantage of a gullible teenager. Kids are sent credit cards as soon as it's legal, knowing that they will overspend and be paying the coveted penalty for many years until they finally cut their credit cards up. Sometimes adults have to protect teenagers from themselves. I believe this may be one of those times. The memory of my son is one of respect and honor. The memory of a soldier that wrote a name down on a piece of paper that caused a nightmare to ensue as a result of his or her hasty decision may be something we adults should control now by not giving them that choice - not at the age of 18. 8:34:54 AM CHAIR LYNN said if the rules are still as they were in the past, a person can enlist in the military at 17 with parental permission, thus, this issue could pertain to 17-year-olds. 8:35:02 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed his sympathy for Mr. Rogers. He asked if the military provided any counseling to family members. MR. ROGERS replied that the military respected and honored the family in every way possible. He said the matter is so personal that he thinks the military steers clear of giving advice. He said he and his wife could have had their son buried at Arlington, but they wanted him close, so they had him interred at Fort Richardson. In regard to the aforementioned $100,000, he said, "It was paid for by the military; we never saw a single bill." He praised the military for allowing his family the time they needed to absorb the information, and for offering only that which they wanted to know. Mr. Rogers said he needed to know what his son had gone through in his last moments on earth. 8:38:06 AM MR. ROGERS said when he served in the U.S. Army, there were a lot of troubled youth in the service, some of whom were kicked out of the military. He said, "That's life. Sometimes it's tough love, sometimes it's irresponsible parenting and the kids end up in the military as a way out of their situation." He said the parent who does not love their child and treats him/her in a way that is not beneficial is the exception to the rule. He acknowledged that there are mentors who help children, and he said he hopes his own children find mentors to help them through life. He continued: But for that child to, in a moment of -- ... because they have that deep affection for that individual and they're angry at their parents at the time -- I'm seeing this as a situation that actually could happen. I've seen some very irresponsible soldiers in the military. And I was told by the military myself, they said, "Dave, as you well know, not every soldier's a hero, not every soldier in the military is a good man." And they can make life very, very hard on their parents if they wish to, through this situation. And nobody wishes it on a soldier. And I also want to honor that soldier and his wishes. ... It is a difficult quandary. I would like to see that they wait, maybe until they're 21 - maybe until their second tour, where they've had a chance to experience life a little bit more. 8:40:23 AM CHAIR LYNN indicated that voting on this issue would be difficult. MR. ROGERS spoke about teaching children consequences and guiding them so that eventually they make wise choices on their own; however, he questioned whether that means a boy is a man the day he turns 18. He admitted that at 18, a soldier is expected to fire a weapon during battle, and regarding the consumption of alcohol, he said there are nightclubs surrounding every military base in America. He said his son was stationed in Italy, and "morally, he was slipping a little bit - falling into that trap." He said there are people in those clubs that "prey on these young men." Mr. Rogers indicated that it may be possible that a door could be opened so that "some snake oil salesman will create some document that you just need to sign - 'You sign this and you go turn it in to your Sarge' - for an evening of fun, or whatever." He stated that the world is "real," not "one we wish we had," and he said, "There are evil people in the world who will look for ways to benefit from..." CHAIR LYNN said his impression is that Mr. Rogers is a good father, and he said he wishes more children had parents like him. 8:42:38 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked Mr. Rogers if he is recommending a solution wherein a soldier who has made a decision related to a DD FORM 93 subsequently dies, and "some authority would say, 'I don't care what he signed, I'm not going to allow this.'" MR. ROGERS replied that he does not perceive non-commissioned officers (NCOs), officers, or captains as able to counsel a soldier one way or the other. He said he thinks those authority figures just "allow the soldier to fill out a form properly." He said a soldier's personal choice is his/her own. He stated that he supports 21 as the legal drinking age, and he related that his son, although remaining a responsible soldier, began drinking in Italy where the drinking age is 18. He recalled that Mr. Tempel had said this issue is related to an Act of Congress, not something over which the military has to make a decision, and he said he thinks that is wise. He added that he doesn't know if the military even would want to "enforce this kind of thing." Mr. Rogers emphasized that at age 18, an individual is not fully mature and does not "look at life in a real way." Males 18 years of age are full of testosterone and feel invincible. Mr. Rogers related that his son had told him he would rather be killed than come home wounded. Mr. Rogers said parents just want their children to come home alive. He said he does not know the answer, but said wisdom has got to prevail. Mr. Rogers concluded, "There are people out there - organizations out there - that hate our military ... and ... wouldn't think twice about taking advantage if they could ...." 8:46:39 AM CHAIR LYNN questioned whether there may be some possible form of appeal process so that a parent or other family member could show there was fraud involved when the DD FORM 93 was signed. 8:47:30 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO suggested that any soldier who enlists who is not yet 21 would have to have his/her DD FORM 93 form approved by a panel, a real judge, or a counselor. He asked Mr. Rogers if he would consider that a "resolution to preventing fraud." MR. ROGERS answered that he knows there are exceptions to every rule, and he can see where a person might have a need to disassociate him/herself from an abusive parent and not allow that parent any say regarding his/her remains. He said there should be a record of that child abuse, and the person could use that record when filling out a form in order for an exception to be made to the general policy. 8:49:13 AM CHAIR LYNN said he is a parent of six children, all of whom have been angry with him at one time or another - especially during their teenage years. However, that anger was transient. 8:49:35 AM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN suggested having a requirement wherein if a person between the ages of 17-21 names someone other than a parent or legal guardian on his/her DD FORM 93 form, the parent or legal guardian would be notified. MR. ROGERS responded that perhaps it would be possible that some parents would understand, admit to failing their child, and "sign off on something like that" to show they understand their child's wishes. However, he stated, "I don't think we should kid ourselves, that $100,000 is a prize to some people." He said he and his wife considered the money sacred and made decisions on how to spend it with consideration of what would have made their son proud. He said, "I just wonder how many of these soldiers would have someone interested in their burial arrangements if they didn't have that $100,000." 8:52:19 AM REPRESENTATIVE SEATON reminded everyone that the committee is not creating a law, but considering a resolution. He directed attention to Section 1482, subsection (a), which stipulates that the "Secretary" concerned may pay necessary expenses and lists [in paragraphs (1)-(11)] which expenses qualify. He added, "It doesn't say they can give somebody $100,000 to do it." He referred to the first sentence of subsection (b), which read: (b) If an individual pays any expense payable by the United States under this section, the Secretary concerned shall reimburse him or his representative in an amount not larger than that normally incurred by the Secretary in furnishing the supply or service concerned. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON then referred to subsection (c), which read: (c) Only the following persons may be designated to direct disposition of the remains of a decedent covered by this chapter: (1) The surviving spouse of the decedent. (2) Blood relatives of the decedent. (3) Adoptive relatives of the decedent. (4) If no person covered by clauses (1)-(3) can be found, a person standing in loco parentis to the decedent. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that [subsection (a), paragraph (11)] defines "parent" to include "a person who for a period of not less than one year before the death of the decedent stood in loco parentis to him". He cited the second sentence of [subsection (d), paragraph (2)], which read: However, the amount of the reimbursement shall be determined in the manner prescribed in subsection (b) for an interment, but may not be larger than that authorized when the United States provides the grave site. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON noted that subsection (e) states that "the Secretary concerned may pay the necessary expenses", and he cited language within the first sentence of subsection (f), which read as follows: (f) The payment of expenses incident to the recovery, care, and disposition of a decedent covered by section 1481 (a)(9) of this title is limited to the payment of expenses described in paragraphs (1) through (5) of subsection (a) and air transportation of the remains from a location outside the United States to a point of entry in the United States. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said he is not sure where reference to the $100,000 is, and he recalled that previous testimony related that the $100,000 was not given to someone, but expenses were paid, perhaps with a limit of $100,000. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON directed attention to "ITEM 11a." on the front of a two-sided DD FORM 93 (INSTRUCTIONS) page [included in the committee packet], which read [original punctuation provided]: ITEM 11a. Beneficiary(ies) for Death Gratuity (Military only). Enter first name(s), middle initial, and last name(s) of the person(s) to receive death gratuity pay. A member may designate one or more persons to receive all or a portion of the death gratuity pay. The designation of a person to receive a portion of the amount shall indicate the percentage of the amount, to be specified only in 10 percent increments, that the person may receive. If the member does not wish to designate a beneficiary for the payment of death gratuity, enter "None," or if the full amount is not designated, the payment or balance will be paid as follows: 1)To the surviving spouse of the person, if any; 2)To any surviving children of the person and the descendants of any deceased children by representation; 3)To the surviving parents or the survivor of them; 4)To the duly appointed executor or administrator of the estate of the person; 5)If there are none of the above, to other next of kin of the person entitled under the laws of domicile of the person at the time of the person's death. The member should make specific designations, as it expedites payment. ITEM 11a. (Continued) Seek legal advice if naming a minor child as a beneficiary. If a member has a spouse but designates a person other than the spouse to receive all or a portion of the death gratuity pay, the Service concerned is required to provide notice of the designation to the spouse. NOT APPLICABLE to civilians. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON referred to language in "ITEM 12a." of the aforementioned instructions, which read, "The member may indicate anyone to receive this payment." He stated, "I'm not an expert enough to deal with this, but it seems that if the secretary is handing out $100,000 to someone designated on a form, that's not what these things are saying, and that's not - [according to] what we've heard from testimony - ... the way it's handled by the military." CHAIR LYNN asked, "So you're saying, basically, that we may have a non-issue?" REPRESENTATIVE SEATON answered, "I think so, unless the secretary is not following all of the information that we have before us. I just don't have any data or testimony to tell me what to do in this issue." 8:56:59 AM MR. TEMPEL explained that there are three separate pots of money involved. First is the $400,000 life insurance policy given to every member of the military. Second is the $100,000, which is not specifically for funeral expenses, but is intended to ease the lives of the recipients of that money. The third pot of money consists of unpaid allowances, and the beneficiary(ies) for unpaid pay/allowances would be designated in section 12a of the DD FORM 93. Mr. Tempel indicated that there are no restrictions regarding who can be elected to receive that money. In response to Representative Seaton, he said the $100,000 is the death gratuity, and the beneficiary(ies) for death gratuity would be listed in section 11a of the form. Mr. Tempel noted that section 13a of the form is where the name of the person authorized to direct disposition would be written, and he specified that the name written in sections 11a and 13a would be the same. He also said the aforementioned restrictions apply regarding who can be elected to receive that money and be authorized to direct disposition. MR. TEMPEL, in response to Representative Seaton, corrected his original statement and said the death gratuity is not the $100,000, but is the $400,000 life insurance. He said, "There's another form where you have your life insurance filled out, and this is just an easy way for the military to say ... this is what needs to happen here." REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said the language of 11a, [text provided previously], instructs that the person filling out the DD FORM 93 may designate anyone as beneficiary or may enter "None." There is no exclusion regarding who can be chosen, he noted. MR. TEMPEL clarified that the life insurance can be left to anyone, but the $100,000 can only be left to the aforementioned exclusive list. In response to Chair Lynn, he emphasized that the $100,000 is not just for burial costs, but for all related funeral costs. He continued as follows: Some of these funeral expenses they talk about here are provided by the U.S. Government. As Mr. Rogers [was] saying, they end up covering a lot of these things, and if you end up paying for a flag [or] ... a tombstone that's supposed to be provided, they'll reimburse you for that. So, that's actually another separate pot. So, you'd have these expenses that the U.S. Government said, "We're going to provide a coffin; we're going to provide a tombstone; we're going to provide a few other things here." And you are not going to pay for these unless you want to pay for them in another section. ... If you want to have a funeral in your family cemetery or if you want to have it wherever you want, we will reimburse you the expenses that we would have given you to do it in the military burial ground. Now, that's that expense, and that's what I was talking about there. $100,000 is a completely separate expense. This is something that the government wanted to do that was good for the parents or whoever was in charge of the remains, and ... families are going through a lot of grief, as Mr. Rogers very well knows. And they ... most of them aren't wanting to work right after this happens. Most of them -- I mean, it's a very traumatic thing. This is something the U.S. Government does instantly. The day after it happens, they write out this check ... and they go straight to this form. It's an instant thing. It's meant to give these families as much reprieve as possible. [They can] do whatever they want with the money, no questions asked; they can travel to be with family, they can do whatever - that's what this money is for. 9:05:54 AM CHAIR LYNN, after ascertaining that there was no one else to testify, closed public testimony. 9:06:02 AM MR. TEMPEL asked that the committee consider that any 18-year- old has the right to create a will, and an 18-year-old soldier should have the right to decide who deals with his/her remains. He indicated that unfortunately the matter of the $100,000 "starts changing things around a little bit," but the root of the matter is a soldier's right to decide who will designate his/her burial remains. 9:07:05 AM MR. HENDERSON relayed that the Congressional [resolution] that is being considered right now would only modify [subsection (c)] of Title 10, Section 1482. The bill would delete "Only" before "the following people" and insert a new paragraph that would allow any person to be designated. The bill would also modify [paragraph (4)] of [subsection (c)] to strike "clauses (1)-(3)". 9:08:03 AM REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that there should be no restrictions in regard to the allowable beneficiaries of the death gratuity. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON said there are no restrictions on the death gratuity. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG observed that the instructions for 11a say a military member may not designate "anybody else," unless that person is a "duly appointed executor or administrator." He said that person could only be appointed if there is a will or "if that occurs after the decedent dies." REPRESENTATIVE SEATON pointed out that those provisions only come into play if "the member does not wish to appoint a beneficiary for the payment of death gratuity." REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that he may stand corrected. REPRESENTATIVE SEATON remarked that there are a lot of technicalities involved, and he is unsure of what he would be recommending the U.S. [Congress]; therefore, he said he is not prepared to vote on the resolution now. 9:11:49 AM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO concurred with Representative Seaton, noting that the testimony of Mr. Rogers "seems to indicate along the same lines." He said he sees no harm in holding the resolution for another hearing." 9:12:06 AM CHAIR LYNN stated that he thinks the intent of bill is good, but said he would be more comfortable holding the bill for now. 9:12:58 AM MR. TEMPEL, in response to Chair Lynn, said he would be happy to work with committee to meet the intent of the bill. CHAIR LYNN commented that Mr. Rogers' testimony was compelling. 9:13:31 AM CHAIR LYNN announced that HJR 31 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 01 HJR031B.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 01 4-2-09 CSHB106_T.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| 02 Sponsor Statement HJR 31.doc |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 03 HJR031-1-1-040809-MLV-N.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 04 Expenses Incident to Death.doc |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 05 DD93.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 06 Air Force Association support letter.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 02 4.8.09HB106_SponsorStatement.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| 03 HB106_SummaryOfChanges2.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| 04 HB106-Fiscal_Note-DPS-DET-02-23-09.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| 05 NAB Resolution.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 06 4.8.09HB106_Sectional.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 106 |
| 07 H.R. 1633.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
|
| 3-13-09 - HB 76 Research.pdf |
HSTA 4/9/2009 8:00:00 AM |
HB 76 |