mr. chairman , i have some concerns about provisions in section 1113 of the bill relating to service members group life insurance , which i will now referral to as sgli . 
neither the department of veterans affairs nor the house committee on veterans ' affairs , the authorizing committee with jurisdiction over va insurance programs , was consulted prior to the administration 's submitting the insurance proposals in the war supplemental . 
i recognize that it placed the gentleman from california ( mr. lewis ) xz4002391 and the gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. obey ) xz4003000 in very difficult positions , because they always come to the floor to talk about authorizing on appropriations bills ; but that is what you are doing exactly here . 
there are two primary points of concern with regard to these sections . 
number one , it would authorize retroactive insurance coverage in cases of servicemembers who die having declined insurance coverage ; and , second , it would require a spouse to concur with the servicemember 's insurance coverage election . 
the administration proposed to provide for a retroactive payment to give the same level of benefits proposed for prospective maximum sgli to those who have died since the beginning of combat operations on october 7 , 2001 . 
at the appropriations markup , the gentleman from wisconsin ( mr. obey ) xz4003000 offered an amendment , which was accepted , to limit retroactive payment to those who died in performance of duty . 
by restricting payments to deaths that the service secretary concerned determines in the performance of duty , we would then expect that deaths which occurred during the performance of an assigned military duty would be compensated , but that deaths not associated with assigned military duties would not qualify . 
another qualifier , though , that perhaps should have been considered during this markup , would have been in addition to dying in performance of military duties , the servicemember must have had maximum insurance coverage at the time of death . 
the committee on veterans ' affairs has established a record in this regard . 
when we increased the sgli coverage from $ 200 , 000 to $ 250 , 000 with a delayed effective date in public law 106-419 , then in reaction to the terrorist attack on the uss cole we did , in fact , make a retroactivity in public law 107-14 for servicemembers who died in performance of duty that had maximum sgli at the time of their death . 
we should not be providing the maximum amount of insurance posthumously if the servicemember declined coverage , hence , never paid premiums , or elected a lesser amount . 
this is a policy change that could have detrimental effects . 
the bottom line is that it changes the identity and substance of the sgli program . 
sgli is neither an indemnity nor a gratuity program . 
it is an insurance program . 
second , i have great concern regarding the administration 's proposal to include in h.r. 1268 that a spouse must concur with a servicemember 's insurance election . 
life insurance is a contract . 
requiring a spouse who is not a party to the contract to assent to a servicemember 's decision concerning whether to enter into a contract and the amount of that contract violates the principles of contractual law and the nature of life insurance . 
requiring the spouse to concur with the servicemember 's decision , as included in h.r. 1268 , would in fact make sgli a volunteer program for single servicemembers , and an involuntary program for married servicemembers . 
life insurance policies are fundamentally different from the protection to surviving spouses rightfully provided under some other retirement programs . 
there are plenty of substantive concerns with regard to this provision : one , giving the spouse veto power over the amount of insurance that gives him or her greater say than the servicemember . 
number two , sgli would in fact be a voluntary program for singles , involuntary for married . 
three , the concurrence policy would force the servicemember to pay premiums and keep the spouse as a beneficiary , even in situations of pending divorce , spousal abuse , drug abuse , child abuse . 
i mean , let your mind go . 
fourth , the spousal concurrence as drafted in the bill would prevent a servicemember from naming children , children from a previous marriage , parents , grandparents , guardians of grandchildren , let your mind go , from participating in insurance . 
the supreme court has upheld the right of the insured to name whoever he or she wants as a beneficiary , even if it is in violation of a state court divorce decree . 
there are administrative concerns as well , the substantial administrative costs that would be added in the day-to-day running of this program , as well as has been added to its greater complexity . 
if a servicemember there says that there is no spouse or names another beneficiary and declines coverage , a spouse could come forward after the servicemember 's death . 
another concern is the program may be liable to pay maximum amounts if no premiums were collected or if a separate beneficiary already had been paid . 
and if there is a delay in getting a spouse to agree to insurance coverage or the amount and the servicemember dies , then who receives the benefits ? 
these are many , many issues that need to be resolved , and i look forward to working with the gentleman from california ( chairman lewis ) as we proceed forward to the conference to address many of these issues . 
mr. chairman , i include the following letter from the military officers association of america for the record . 
of america , alexandria , va , march 11 , 2005 . 
dear mr . 
chairman : on behalf of the 370 , 000 members of the military officers association of america ( moaa ) , i am writing to inform you that , after discussing the issue extensively with the committee 's majority and minority staff , moaa has reconsidered its position on the servicemen 's group life insurance ( sgli ) spousal consent requirement , as included in the appropriations committee 's markup of the fy2005 defense supplemental appropriations act . 
we believe there is merit to the staff 's view that the appropriations committee 's language is excessively stringent and could inappropriately preclude servicemembers ' ability to make reasonable insurance decisions -- especially in circumstances where it may be reasonable and appropriate for a member to designate children as beneficiaries instead of the current spouse . 
moaa believes congress is doing the right thing in expediting passage of improved death benefits coverage in the supplemental appropriations act , and we have no wish to slow that process in any way . 
therefore , moaa urges your support for a floor amendment that would either substitute a provision requiring spousal notification ( instead of spousal consent ) or strike the spousal consent requirement to allow the committee to develop more appropriate language that could be offered in conference or another appropriate legislative venue . 
sincerely , colonel , usaf ( ret ) , 