Hubbard Act

Madam Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 6580) to ensure the fair treatment of a member of the Armed Forces who is discharged from the Armed Forces, at the request of the member, pursuant to the Department of Defense policy permitting the early discharge of a member who is the only surviving child in a family in which the father or mother, or one or more siblings, served in the Armed Forces and, because of hazards incident to such service, was killed, died as a result of wounds, accident, or disease, is in a captured or missing in action status, or is permanently disabled, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to repeal the dollar limitation on contributions to funeral trusts, and for other purposes.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to introduce other extraneous material on H.R. 6580.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

H.R. 6580 is a combination of two good pieces of legislation joined together to be pay-as-you-go compliant under our current budget rules. The first part of the bill is the Hubbard Act, an important bill introduced by my good friend and colleague on the Ways and Means Committee, Representative Devin Nunes from California. The second part of the bill (H.R. 1264) is a bill that I and Charlie Wilson of Ohio introduced to make it easier for individuals to save and to plan for their funerals.

Let me begin by commending Representative Nunes for sponsoring and for introducing the Hubbard Act. This bill makes an important change to the rules governing sole survivorship in the Armed Forces. It's the right thing to do. In a moment, you will realize why.

Representative Nunes represents the Hubbard family in California. Tragically, this family has lost two sons, Jared and Nathan, to the war in Iraq. The remaining son, Jason, left the Army under the sole survivor rule, which protects parents from losing all of their children to war by permitting the last remaining sibling in combat to return home if all other siblings have been killed or have been severely injured. This truly is the Saving Private Ryan scenario. After being discharged, however, Jason Hubbard was asked to repay significant portions of his enlistment bonus; he was denied transition health care, and he was told he wasn't eligible for GI benefits even though he had already paid into the program.

Currently, there are no standard benefits available to those who separate from the Armed Services under the Sole Survivor Policy regardless of whether one's service obligation was completed. The Hubbard Act will allow those troops who voluntarily separate under the sole survivor rule to qualify for the same benefits provided to those who involuntarily or who honorably separate from the military. Sole survivors of their families who have already made the greatest sacrifice should qualify for the benefits that they've earned. This bill corrects that. Again, it's the right thing for us to do.

To offset the costs of the Hubbard Act, H.R. 6580 also includes language to eliminate the current dollar limitation for qualified funeral trusts. Current law limits a funeral trust to just $9,000, but this is generally no longer sufficient to cover a family's funeral and burial expenses. With this contribution limit, even those who responsibly plan for their own funerals often leave their families with substantial expenses.

Given that the qualified funeral trusts can only be used for specific, limited purposes, I see no reason to place a dollar limit on their use. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, the bill will have a positive impact on the Federal Treasury.

The passage of this legislation is an important step for American families and funeral directors, and it would allow for seamless funeral and burial planning for families in western Wisconsin and throughout the United States.

I hope these two commonsense, bipartisan pieces of legislation packaged together will pass this Congress and will move to the President's desk swiftly. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6580.

Finally, I would like to offer my thoughts and prayers to the Hubbard family. Their sacrifice will not be forgotten. I hope the passage of this bill will offer them some solace, will honor their sacrifice and will respect their sons' service to our country. May God bless Jared and Nathan.

May God also bring a special comfort to those families who have lost a loved one while serving our Nation.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I would like to recognize for such time as he may consume a former funeral director himself, my good friend and colleague from Ohio, Charlie Wilson.

Madam Speaker, at this time, I yield such time as he may consume to an original cosponsor with Mr. Nunes and Mr. Cardoza of the Hubbard Act, our good friend and colleague from California, Jim Costa.

Madam Speaker, the Hubbard Act does recognize and correct a grave injustice and an anomaly in how sole survivors in our military are treated in regards to the eligibility of our veterans benefits. And I want to also commend Representative Nunes for recognizing this injustice and for his perseverance in gathering support, educating his colleagues here in Congress, and making passage of this legislation possible.

I also want to commend the delegation of the Central Valley and the effort and engagement that they've shown on such an important issue. I want to encourage my colleagues to support the Hubbard Act of 2008.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Before I share with you the reason I wrote this legislation, I think it's important to remind everyone why sole survivors are afforded unique status in our military.

Prior to 1942, it was not uncommon for family members to serve together in the military, even in the same unit. However, a World War II tragedy during the naval battle at Guadalcanal would cause the War Department to rethink its policy. That tragedy involved the death of all five Sullivan brothers, who were serving together aboard the USS Juneau when it was sunk in 1942.

The death of the Sullivans prompted changes intended to protect families from the heartache of losing an entire generation to war. One key reform is the policy requiring sole survivors to be removed from combat. It is this rule, known as the Sole Survivor Policy, that Tom Hanks dramatized in his movie Saving Private Ryan. Since 9/11, there have been 51 sole survivors identified by the Department of Defense. Each of them has a unique story of service and sacrifice.

The events that shaped why we are here today began in November 2004 when a roadside bomb in Iraq killed Marine Lance Corporal Jared Hubbard. It is hard for anyone, myself included, to understand the anguish of losing a son or a daughter to war. The Hubbards bore their grief with amazing strength, and with the help of family and friends, they buried their son. Jared's patriotism and sacrifice inspired everyone who knew him, and although his loss is very real, his presence was not lost. Both of his brothers, Nathan and Jason, soon joined the Army. When asked why they chose to serve, both men responded that they wanted to honor their brother and wanted to continue his service to our Nation.

Late last year, Jason and Nathan were returning from a night scouting mission in separate Blackhawk helicopters when Nathan's helicopter crashed. Jason's Blackhawk landed with orders to secure the crash site. However, there were no survivors. Nathan had been killed in the crash.

Nathan's death resulted in Jason Hubbard's designation as a sole survivor. He was removed from combat duty, and was assigned to the solemn duty of accompanying his brother's body home for a second funeral in 3 years. Unfortunately, the tragedy does not end here.

When Jason voluntarily separated from the Army under the Sole Survivor Policy, he was asked to pay back his enlistment bonus.

He was denied transitional health care, and was told that he could not receive GI Bill benefits, the reason: ``He did not fulfill the commitment outlined in his contract.'' This response was clearly not what Jason expected. And I don't think there is anyone in this Nation who would argue that the Hubbards had failed in their commitment to our Nation.

Jason lost two brothers to war. He served honorably in the United States Army and discharged as a sole survivor only after being removed from combat under the Army's own rules. The challenges he faced were unjust. When Army Secretary Pete Geren learned of Jason's situation, he intervened to the extent he was able. However, we discovered statutory constraints that limited what the Secretary of the Army could do. The legislation before us today resolves those statutory issues, and for the first time recognizes sole survivors through an act of Congress.

The Hubbard Act will provide benefits already offered to other soldiers who honorably separate from military service. This means that sole survivors will not be forced to repay their enlistment bonus, they will be able to participate in the current and new GI Bill educational program, they will receive separation pay, and they will continue to be afforded transitional health care coverage.

As I conclude, I would like to thank my friends, Mr. Costa and Mr. Cardoza; both were instrumental in building support for this legislation. Furthermore, I would like to thank Senator Feinstein and Senator Chambliss for championing the Hubbard Act in the Senate, and of course Chairman Rangel and Ranking Member McCrery and, of course, Mr. Kind for their willingness to provide the offset for this bill. Their support, and the support of the 311 cosponsors, is very much appreciated.

With that, Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, I just want to thank Mr. Costa for his kind words.

And really, this is a piece of legislation that we hope will move as quickly as possible to the Senate floor so that the President can sign this bill into law. As has been outlined by all the speakers tonight, this is a sad moment, but it's really a wrong that needs to be made right. And I'm proud tonight that we will pass this, hopefully unanimously, by this Congress.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6580 and commend my colleague from California, Mr. Nunes, for his tireless efforts to secure passage of this important legislation addressing the concerns of ``sole survivors'' such as his constituent, Jason Hubbard. I also wish to thank the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, whose support was critical to consideration of this bill.

The ``sole-survivor'' policy of the Armed Forces was designed with the best of intentions but has yielded some unfortunate, unintended consequences. Currently, there are no standard benefits available to those who separate from the Armed Forces under this policy, whether or not their service obligation is completed.

This legislation puts the House firmly on record that sole survivors should qualify for a standard set of Federal benefits that are generally available to other veterans, including education benefits, transitional healthcare, and the ability to keep any enlistment bonus paid to them. Given the exigencies of the situation, the retroactive action being taken here today to protect sole survivors who have been honorably discharged from the military since September 11, 2001 is the right thing to do.

Let me take a moment to comment on the bill's other provision, Section 9 of today's legislation, which would repeal the dollar limitations on contributions to funeral trusts. This revenue provision, authored by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kind, has been included to offset the additional spending associated with the bill's sole survivor provisions.

As my colleagues know, I have complained often during the 110th Congress that the Committee on Ways and Means has been used repeatedly as a piggy-bank by other panels looking to offset the cost of new spending proposals. I certainly would have preferred to have the sole survivor provisions in today's legislation funded by suitable spending reductions identified by the committees of jurisdiction, rather than by a revenue enhancement.

But that option, having been fully explored, was not available to us on this bill. Under the circumstances, the path chosen today by the Majority is an appropriate one for several reasons.

First, given the urgency of acting on this legislation, we do not have time to wait. We understand that some of these sole survivors have had recent paychecks withheld or have recently received bills from the military demanding repayment of their enlistment bonuses. Families like the Hubbards are facing pressing financial deadlines, and we do not have the luxury of waiting to address this issue on their behalf.

Second, unlike numerous other examples from the 110th Congress, the higher revenues derived from this funeral trust provision are not being used to substantially expand eligibility for an entitlement program to classes of people for whom it was not originally intended, or to provide existing enrollees new benefits not already in law. Instead, this bill uses the small amount of revenue raised to correct a narrow, but serious, flaw in current law. That is an important difference.

Third, I would note that this provision is fully voluntary--it would only affect those Americans who voluntarily opt to make larger contributions to a pre-paid funeral trust.

Finally, unlike prior revenue raisers proposed by the Majority that would impose unwelcome tax increases on unsuspecting Americans, this particular revenue offset is actually strongly supported by those who would pay the additional tax. In other cases where the Majority has sought higher revenues to pay for new spending, our friends across the aisle have typically targeted either politically disfavored taxpayers, such as smokers or ``the rich,'' or groups, such as late-filing taxpayers, who would almost certainly be unaware of the tax increase until they had to write a bigger check to Uncle Sam. By contrast, the tax provision here is the rare bird in Washington: a proposed revenue enhancement that has generated no discernible opposition and that has actually been endorsed by the leading industry group representing affected taxpayers,The National Funeral Directors Association.

As I noted, I generally would prefer that we not use the tax code to raise revenue to pay for higher spending. But this legislation presents unique facts and circumstances that justify the action being taken today, and I hope my colleagues in the other body will act quickly to get this important bill to the President's desk.

I want to thank Congressman Kind for his hard work in this very important legislation.

I rise tonight in strong support of H.R. 6580, the Hubbard Act, named after Jason and his brother Nathan Hubbard, to fix a flaw that exists, as Congressman Nunes so well stated, in the Department of Defense's sole survivor policy that really originated from the Sullivan Act that was referenced during World War II when the Sullivan family lost all of their sons in a naval combat action during World War II.

Right now, the Department of Defense allows a remaining son or daughter serving in the military to be removed from combat or to accept an honorable discharge. However, as we found with the circumstances facing the Hubbard family, military benefits like signing bonuses or access to the GI Bill can be taken away. This is not right. Jason Hubbard of Clovis, California was put in this situation after tragically losing both of his brothers. This legislation would allow a member who voluntarily separates honorably, under the sole survivor aspect of the law, to qualify for programs like the GI benefit, to be allowed the use of the commissary and base exchange, and entitled to benefits of the veteran home loan and other entitlements that our veterans who serve their country so honorably deserve. It was tragic to find that after the circumstance, that there was a request that he return his signing bonus benefit, but Congressman Nunes stepped in and, with the Secretary of the Army, changed that.

The legislation that we are about to pass here reflects veterans throughout our country. Our Central Valley, the San Joaquin Valley in California, has a proud history of men and women who have worn the uniform and defended our country in a troubled world, both in the 20th century and the 19th century, and of course today in the conflict in the Middle East, in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Hubbard brothers now are a part of this honorable military history that all our veterans share in, and like the Sullivan brothers, are being recognized for their service.

This bill is fully paid for, and therefore PAYGO compliant. I want to thank Chairman Rangel for his willingness to make this extra effort. In multiple conversations that many of us had with the chairman, he understood clearly, as a fellow veteran, the importance of this legislation. Congressman Kind also showed leadership in his efforts. And of course as Congressman Nunes noted, without Senator Feinstein and Senator Chambliss' help, we would not have gotten the measure out through the Senate.

Finally, my good friend, Congressman Devin Nunes, has been tenacious on this piece of legislation, representing his constituents and the Hubbard family, but more importantly, all veterans throughout the United States. The passion and the leadership which Congressman Nunes demonstrated on this bill is reflective of his passion for his constituency and for our country.

So I want to thank Congressman Nunes for his hard work on behalf of the Hubbard family, Nathan and Jarrett, who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country, to their family and to their brother Jason, who we have named this legislation on behalf of.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Hubbard Act.

This important legislation helps our service men and women in uniform who are the ``sole survivor''--only surviving child in a family in which one of their family members has died or been killed due to their military service. Under the current ``sole survivor'' policy of the Armed Forces, there are no standard benefits available to those who separate from the Armed Forces under this policy.

The legislation corrects a flaw, allowing sole survivors to qualify for a standard set of Federal benefits that are generally available to other veterans.

I would like to comment on the bill's other provision. Section 9 would repeal the dollar limitations on contributions to funeral trusts. In the Senate, this provision was authored by the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch. It has been included to offset the additional spending associated with the bill's sole survivor provisions.

As I have consistently said in the past, the Senate Finance Committee is not a piggy bank for the other committees to dip into to pay for their new

spending proposals. My preference would have been to have the sole survivor provisions in this legislation funded by spending reductions by the committees of jurisdiction.

I have been told that option was not available for this bill.

The funeral trust provision under Section 9, is a taxpayer favorable provision. It is a purely voluntary provision. It helps people who want to put more money aside in trust to provide for their funeral.

Unlike prior revenue raisers proposed by the majority that would impose tax increases on unsuspecting Americans, this revenue offset is strongly supported by those who would pay the additional tax.

As I said previously, my strong preference would be to not use the tax code to pay for higher spending. However, there is strong support for the funeral trust provision and it is favorable to taxpayers.