[Senate Hearing 113-111]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-111
HEARING ON PENDING BENEFITS LEGISLATION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 12, 2013
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-714 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
Bernard Sanders, (I) Vermont, Chairman
John D. Rockefeller IV, West Richard Burr, North Carolina,
Virginia Ranking Member
Patty Murray, Washington Johnny Isakson, Georgia
Sherrod Brown, Ohio Mike Johanns, Nebraska
Jon Tester, Montana Jerry Moran, Kansas
Mark Begich, Alaska John Boozman, Arkansas
Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Dean Heller, Nevada
Mazie Hirono, Hawaii
Steve Robertson, Staff Director
Lupe Wissel, Republican Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
June 12, 2013
SENATORS
Page
Sanders, Hon. Bernard, Chairman, U.S. Senator from Vermont....... 1, 14
Tester, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Montana...................... 13
Heller, Hon. Dean, U.S. Senator from Nevada...................... 16
Begich, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator from Alaska...................... 18
Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Arkansas................... 19
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Blumenthal, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator from Connecticut.......... 86
WITNESSES
Schatz, Hon. Brian, U.S. Senator from Hawaii..................... 1
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Franken, Hon. Al, U.S. Senator from Minnesota.................... 7
Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon........................ 8
Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from Oregon..................... 10
Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire............ 11
Prepared statement........................................... 12
Curtis L. Coy, Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity,
Veterans' Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs; accompanied by Thomas Murphy, Director, Compensation
Service; Richard Hipolit, Assistant General Counsel; and John
Brizzi, Deputy Assistant General Counsel....................... 22
Prepared statement........................................... 23
Additional views............................................. 46
Posthearing questions submitted by:
Hon. Bernard Sanders....................................... 63
Hon. Richard Burr.......................................... 75
Hon. Jon Tester............................................ 79
Hon. Mark Begich........................................... 83
Response to request arising during the hearing by:
Hon. Richard Blumenthal.................................... 88
Hon. John Boozman.......................................... 93
Hon. Mark Begich........................................... 108
Hall, Jeffrey, Assistant National Legislative Director, Disabled
American Veterans.............................................. 112
Prepared statement........................................... 114
de Planque, Ian, Deputy Legislative Director, The American Legion 126
Prepared statement........................................... 127
Norton, Col. Robert F., USA (Ret.), Deputy Director, Government
Relations, Military Officers Association of America............ 143
Prepared statement........................................... 145
Gallucci, Ryan, Deputy Director, National Legislative Service,
Veterans of Foreign Wars....................................... 164
Prepared statement........................................... 166
APPENDIX
Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator from Georgia; prepared
statement...................................................... 183
Hirono, Hon. Mazie K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii; prepared
statement...................................................... 183
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada; prepared statement... 184
Butterfield, Hon. G.K., U.S. Congressman from North Carolina;
prepared statement............................................. 185
Howard, Dr. Muriel A., President, American Association of State
Colleges and Universities; prepared statement.................. 188
Cleland, Max, Secretary, American Battle Monuments Commission;
prepared statement............................................. 191
Ganio, Patrick, Sr., President; Franco Arcebal, Vice President--
Membership; and Eric Lachica, Executive Director, American
Coalition for Filipino Veterans, Inc.; letter.................. 192
Murphy, Laura W., Director; Vania Leveille, Senior Legislative
Counsel; and Elayne Weiss, Legislative Assistant, Washington
Legislative Office, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU);
prepared statement............................................. 193
American Civil Liberties Union and Other Groups; joint letter.... 196
American Chemical Society; prepared statement.................... 197
American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO and the AFGE
National VA Council; prepared statement........................ 198
Peters, Stephen, President, American Military Partner
Association; prepared statement................................ 200
Garrett, Maggie, Legislative Director, Americans United For
Separation of Church and State; prepared statement............. 202
Association of the United States Navy; letter.................... 207
U.S. Department of Defense; prepared statement................... 208
Won Pat, Judith T., Ed.D., Office of the Speaker, 32nd Guam
Legislature; letter............................................ 210
Attachments.................................................. 212
Gaddy, Rev. Dr. C. Welton, President, Interfaith Alliance; letter 215
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America; prepared statement..... 216
Smith, Philip, National Liaison & Washington, DC, Director, Lao
Veterans of America; letter.................................... 224
National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, Inc.; letter............ 225
Attachments.................................................. 227
Levins, Scott, Director, National Personnel Records Center,
National Archives and Records Administration; prepared
statement...................................................... 248
National Governors Association; prepared statement............... 249
Attachments.................................................. 258
Duffy, Peter J., COL., US Army (Ret.), Legislative Director,
National Guard Association of the United States; prepared
statement...................................................... 283
Bailey, Angela, Associate Director, U.S. Office of Personnel
Management, Employee Services, and Chief Human Capital Officer;
prepared statement............................................. 287
Lerner, Carolyn N., Special Counsel, U.S. Office of Special
Counsel; prepared statement.................................... 288
Paralyzed Veterans of America; prepared statement................ 289
Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; prepared statement.... 296
Reserve Officers Association of the United States and Reserve
Enlisted Association of the United States; prepared statement.. 296
Colvin, Carolyn W., Acting Commissioner, Social Security
Administration; prepared statement............................. 300
Dakduk, Michael, Executive Director, Student Veterans of America;
prepared statement............................................. 302
Service Women's Action Network; prepared statement............... 304
Huebner, Charlie, Chief of Paralympics, United States Olympic
Committee; prepared statement.................................. 307
Exhibit A.................................................... 310
HEARING ON PENDING BENEFITS LEGISLATION
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2013
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
room 418, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Bernard Sanders,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Sanders, Tester, Begich, Blumenthal,
Boozman and Heller.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, CHAIRMAN, U.S.
SENATOR FROM VERMONT
Chairman Sanders. Good morning. We are going to begin this
important hearing dealing with legislation for benefits for our
veterans. We are going to be hearing, I suspect, from a number
of Members of the Committee this morning, and we are very
pleased to have a number of Senators who are not on this
Committee who understand the importance of the issues that we
are dealing with and have brought forth their own legislation.
We are very delighted that they are here as well.
So, without further ado, we want to welcome Senator Schatz,
Senator Murkowski, Senator Franken, and Senator Wyden. Senator
Schatz, can we begin with you?
STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ,
U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII
Senator Schatz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Tester,
for this opportunity to speak in support of S. 690, the
Filipino Veterans Fairness Act of 2013, which I introduced on
the anniversary of the Bataan Death March. I want to thank
Senators Murkowski, Begich, and Hirono for cosponsoring this
critical legislation.
I want to especially acknowledge the Justice for Filipino
American Veterans, the Japanese American Citizens League, the
American Coalition for Filipino Veterans, and the Lao Veterans
of America for their support of this vital legislation.
It's important because it would provide the Filipino
soldiers who fought with the American Army during World War II
with the full veterans benefits that they rightfully deserve
and it will send a clear message to all veterans that Americans
will not forget their service once they return from combat.
More than 200,000 soldiers fought in the Pacific Theater,
of Filipino descent, and more than half of them were killed
while they served under the command of the U.S. Armed Forces.
The Philippines was a United States territory before and
during World War II, and President Roosevelt issued an
executive order to call into service Filipino soldiers to
defend American territory and military bases.
These soldiers served our Nation so we owe them nothing
less than honoring their service with the full benefits that
they were promised and deserved.
This Act would do four things. First, under current law,
there are four different categories of Filipino soldiers who
fought with the U.S. Army. This bill will eliminate these
categories and treat everyone equally.
After the war, Congress passed a series of laws that became
known as the Recession Acts of 1946 and they stripped many of
these Filipino soldiers of the benefits that they had earned.
Instead, these Filipino soldiers were split into four different
administrative categories, each group being awarded different
benefits.
While all four groups served in the same war and under the
same American flag, one of the groups gets full veterans'
status and benefits while the other three groups were denied
some of these same benefits.
Second, it extends veteran benefits eligibility to Filipino
veterans who received payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity
Compensation Fund, which was created in the 2009 American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Third, the bill directs the Veterans' Administration to
allow the use of alternative documentation when determining
eligibility to ensure that all Filipino veterans are recognized
for their service.
Under the current law, in order for Filipino veterans to be
eligible for benefits, they must be on the Approved, Revised,
Reconstructed Guerrilla Roster of 1948 known as the Missouri
List. This list is critical for determining benefits
eligibility; but even if there are other forms of
documentation, Filipino veterans not on this list will not be
recognized for their service.
But, this list does not include every Filipino veterans
because it was damaged in a fire in 1973 and the reconstructed
list is being currently used to determine benefits eligibility.
In addition, because the Filipino Veterans Equity
Compensation Fund used the Missouri List as the sole basis for
eligibility determination, 24,000 Filipino veterans were denied
compensation.
Finally, this bill would allow widows and dependents to be
eligible for dependency and indemnity compensation and would
eliminate the differences in payment given to veterans based on
whether a Filipino veteran lived in the United States or in the
Philippines.
It has been more than 50 years and yet many Filipino
veterans have not been recognized as veterans and have been
denied their basic rights. Unfortunately, many Filipino
veterans are in their 90s and are passing away rapidly, and so,
we must act now.
Thank you, Chairman Sanders, for taking up this
legislation. I look forward to working with everyone on the
Committee to give the Filipino veterans their full recognition
for their service and their sacrifice.
Chairman Sanders. Senator Schatz, thank you very much.
Senator Murkowski.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you for
your leadership on veterans issues, particularly for ensuring
that our veterans receive the benefits that they so clearly
deserve. We honor them by keeping our commitments. So, your
hearing today is very important.
To you and the Members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to present my bill this morning which would
authorize the interment of Hmong veterans in national
cemeteries.
Across our Nation thousands and thousands of U.S. citizens
that fought for our country during Vietnam are not officially
recognized for their service. Members of the Hmong community
that fought under the CIA during Vietnam currently enjoy no
rights as veterans. They are simply requesting to be buried and
recognized in the national cemeteries. This bill would
authorize those heroes to rest alongside their brothers in arms
on our Nation's most hallowed grounds.
A little bit of background here. Responding to a secretive
call to arms during the Vietnam war, Hmong soldiers aided U.S.
Special Forces and CIA operatives. They guarded bases that no
one was supposed to know was there. They rescued downed U.S.
airman who also were not supposed to be there.
Americans who served and fought and put their lives on the
line receive a resting place in our national cemeteries and the
men who saved American lives deserve the same honor.
The Hmong people were a social minority being persecuted by
communists within Laos. President Kennedy first initiated the
U.S. alliance with Laos and the Hmong people in defense of the
Kingdom of Laos and the U.S. national security interests in
Vietnam and Southeast Asia.
During the Vietnam War, Hmong soldiers served in what was
called the U.S. Secret Army. The Hmong fighters were led by
General Vang Pao during The Secret War which interrupted
operations on the Ho Chi Minh Trail and conducted downed
aircraft recovery operations of American airman within Laos.
Over the course of the war, the CIA employed tens of
thousands of these volunteers. In all, over 100,000 Hmong lost
their lives by the end of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam.
According to a recently declassified CIA report, the Hmong
became the core of an irregular force that fought the North
Vietnamese Army. Hmong soldiers saved thousands of American
soldiers from being attacked and killed in South Vietnam by
engaging numerous North Vietnamese army units in combat.
Two years after the withdrawal of American forces, the
Kingdom of Laos was overthrown by communist troops supported by
North Vietnamese. Hmong were forced into re-education camps.
Many fled into hiding in the mountains or to refugee camps in
Thailand. Several thousand sought asylum internationally with
thousands making their way here to the United States. Senator
Franken and I were just discussing that in Minnesota there is a
large Hmong population, in Alaska as well.
Many soldiers who fought for the CIA and their families
were among the refugees that became U.S. citizens. There are
currently over 260,000 Hmong people in America. In Anchorage,
AK, we have about 5,000 Hmong refugees there. Senator Begich
clearly knows the importance of them as an addition to our
community. Of the Hmong who became U.S. citizens, there are
approximately 6,900 veterans that are still with us today. The
number, of course, is dwindling by the day. The Hmong fighters'
sacrifice on behalf of America calls for reciprocal honor paid
during the latter years of these veterans lives. Hmong veterans
fought for America and deserve the choice to be buried in
national cemeteries.
Mr. Chairman, this concept is not unprecedented. Just as
the Hmong responded to the call to arms and paid the ultimate
sacrifice, so did the Filipino soldiers as my friend Senator
Schatz said. Our country has long been grateful for their
service, their sacrifice, and we passed legislation to honor
those veterans providing burial rites and compensation.
The Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act of 2000 provided
naturalization benefits for Hmong veterans. It was designed to
ease the path to naturalization in various ways for the Hmong.
Ultimately, Immigration and Naturalization provided multiple
avenues through which Hmong veterans could prove their service.
We have got about 6,000 Hmong that self-identified as veterans
by providing original documents, an affidavit of the serving
person's superior officer or two affidavits from other
individuals who were also serving with a special guerrilla
unit.
For years Congress has publicly recognized the thousands of
Hmong that fought and died for our country. I believe that
providing burial rights to the small number of Hmong veterans
remaining that fought for America is the least that we can do
to honor their service.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Lisa Murkowski, U.S. Senator from Alaska
S. 200--A bill to authorize the interment in national cemeteries under
the control of the National Cemetery Administration of individuals who
served in combat support of the Armed Forces in the Kingdom of Laos
Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, Distinguished Members of the
Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to
present my bill, to authorize the interment of Hmong veterans in
national cemeteries, before the Committee. Across our Nation, thousands
of US citizens that fought for our country during Vietnam are not
officially recognized for their service. Members of the Hmong community
that fought under the CIA during Vietnam currently enjoy no rights as
veterans. They are requesting to be buried in national cemeteries. This
bill would authorize those heroes to rest alongside their brothers-in-
arms on our Nation's most hallowed grounds.
A few weeks ago at Arlington National Cemetery, a group of ``old
Hmong veterans stood at ragged attention'' on burial grounds that are
closed to them, despite their military service to our Nation.
Responding to a secretive call to arms during the Vietnam War, ``Hmong
soldiers aided U.S. special forces and CIA operatives. They guarded
bases that no one was supposed to know about, and rescued downed U.S.
airmen who weren't supposed to be there.'' Americans who served and
fought and put their lives on the line receive a resting place in our
national cemeteries; the men who saved American lives deserve the same
honor.
During the Vietnam War, Laotian and Hmong soldiers served in the
``U.S. Secret Army.'' Over the course of the war, the CIA employed tens
of thousands of these volunteers. The Hmong people were a social
minority in the country that was being persecuted by the Pathet Lao
within Laos (the Laotian equivalent to the Vietnamese Communists).
President John F. Kennedy first initiated the U.S. alliance with the
Lao and Hmong people in defense of the Kingdom of Laos and U.S.
national security interests in Vietnam and Southeast Asia. These Lao-
Hmong soldiers were clandestinely organized and supported by the U.S.
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Pentagon to combat the
invasion of the Kingdom of Laos by the North Vietnam's Army (NVA) and
an insurgency of communist Pathet Lao guerrillas.
The Hmong fighters were led by General Vang Pao during the ``Secret
War'' which interrupted operations on the Ho Chi Minh trail and
assisted in downed aircraft recovery operations of American airmen
within Laos.
According to a recently declassified CIA report, the Hmong became
the core of an irregular force that fought the North Vietnamese Army
until February 1973, when a Laotian cease-fire followed the agreement
with Hanoi on terms to end the war in South Vietnam. Under their
charismatic, mercurial leader Vang Pao, the Meo--more properly known as
the Hmong--evolved from a hit-and-run guerilla outfit into light
infantry operating in regimental strength. Expanded Hmong forces * * *
diverted substantial North Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam. The
Hmong showed ``courage, [a] capacity [to] take losses,'' the ability to
``survive despite hardships and meager rations,'' and a ``considerable
instinct and enthusiasm for ambushing and harassing.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Undercover Armies: CIA and Surrogate Warfare in Laos''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to highlight the unique manner in which America called
upon the Hmong, it is important to understand that the CIA's
clandestine airline, Air America, flew cash-payroll flights to support,
pay and expand the elite Lao and Hmong secret army based at Long
Chieng. From there, the Lao Hmong covert army engaged in strategic
battles against main-force [North Vietnamese Army] divisions and
communist insurgents. Lao and Hmong Special Forces saved thousands of
American soldiers from being attacked and killed in South Vietnam by
engaging numerous [North Vietnamese Army] units in combat and playing a
key role with the U.S. bombing campaign of enemy supply routes and
targets on the Ho Chi Minh Trail, Plaine des Jarres and elsewhere.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Philip Smith, Director of Center for Public Policy Analysis,
the Lao Veterans of America, Inc., Lao Veterans of America Institute.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two years after the withdrawal of American forces, the Kingdom of
Laos was overthrown by communist troops supported by the North
Vietnamese Army. The Pathet Lao then continued their persecution of the
Hmong by placing them into re-education camps where political prisoners
served terms of 3-5 years. Many fled into hiding in the mountains or to
refugee camps in Thailand. Several thousand sought asylum
internationally with many making their way to the United States.
Some of the soldiers who fought for the CIA and their families were
among the refugees. Some settled within the borders of other nations;
some became US citizens. There are currently over 260,000 Hmong people
in America; according to the 2010 Census, the heaviest concentrations
are in California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Michigan,
Colorado, Georgia, Alaska, Oklahoma and Oregon. Within Anchorage alone
are approximately 5,000 Hmong refugees. Of the Hmong who became US
Citizens, there are approximately 6,900 veterans still with us today.
Of note, nearly half of those veterans live in Minnesota.
Today, the number of Hmong veterans in America is dwindling by the
day. As described by the Washington, DC. Director and Liaison for the
Lao Veterans of America, Inc., Philip Smith: ``Many Lao and Hmong-
American veterans, who served in America's covert theatre of operations
during the Vietnam War, are dying in Rhode Island and across the United
States, without the benefit of being recognized or honored for their
extraordinary military service. Having saved the lives of many U.S.
soldiers and aircrews, these forgotten veterans deserve to be buried
with dignity at U.S. national veterans' cemeteries, with military
honors, for their unique service as part of the `U.S. Secret Army'
defending U.S. national security interests and the Kingdom of Laos
during the Vietnam conflict.'' In all, over 30,000 Hmong lost their
lives by the end of US involvement in Vietnam. The Hmong fighters'
sacrifice on behalf of America calls for reciprocal honor paid during
the latter years of these veterans' lives.
Hmong veterans fought for America and deserve the choice to be
buried in national cemeteries. This concept is not unprecedented. Just
as the Hmong responded to the call to arms and many paid the ultimate
sacrifice, so did Filipino soldiers. Our country has long been grateful
for their service and passed legislation to honor those veterans. The
Veterans Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act of 2000 permits
Philippine veterans who were citizens of the United States or aliens
lawfully admitted for permanent residence who served during World War
II to be buried in national cemeteries. Another 2000 law provided full-
dollar rate compensation payments to veterans of the Commonwealth Army
or recognized guerrilla forces residing in the U.S. if they are either
U.S. citizens or lawfully admitted permanent resident aliens.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which the
President signed into law, contained a provision creating the Filipino
Veterans Equity Compensation Fund. Eligible veterans who are U.S.
citizens receive a one-time payment of $15,000. The law also provides
for eligible veterans who are not U.S. citizens to receive a one-time
payment of $9,000. The Department of Veterans Affairs established a
process, in collaboration with the Department of Defense, to determine
eligibility to receive payments from the Fund. As of last month, the
Administration had approved over 18,000 claims.
Additionally, there has been legislation passed that provided
naturalization benefits for Hmong veterans. The Hmong Veterans'
Naturalization Act of 2000 provided an exemption from the English
language requirement and special consideration for civics testing for
certain refugees from Laos applying for naturalization. The legislation
was ``designed to ease the path to naturalization in various ways for
Hmong individuals who had fought in the CIA-organized guerrilla units
in Laos.'' The law applies to refugees from Laos who served with a
special guerrilla unit, or irregular forces, operating from a base in
Laos in support of the United States military at any time during
February 28, 1961 through September 18, 1978 and who entered the United
States as refugees from Laos.
Leading up to the passage of the law, there were Congressional
concerns ``related to difficulties in identifying which Hmong refugees
actually fought on behalf of the United States as few records were kept
of these covert operations.'' \3\ Following the Committee hearings of
H.R. 371 in June 1997, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
provided technical assistance in redrafting the bill to: (1) tighten
the documentation requirements; (2) require the Department of Defense
to review the documentation; and (3) require the Department of Defense
to advise the INS with respect to the credibility of claims of service
with special guerrilla units or irregular forces. As a consequence, the
Department did not object to this bill which, as revised, minimized the
risk of fraud while maximizing the intended benefit [to] certain Hmong
individuals and their spouses.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ House Report 106-563--Hmong Veteran's Naturalization Act of
2000.
\4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the Committee reports, there was further refining of how to
determine an alien's eligibility for benefits under the bill: ``the
Attorney General (1) shall review refugee processing documents to
verify that an alien was admitted to the United States as a refugee
from Laos, (2) shall consider the documentation submitted by the alien,
(3) shall request an advisory opinion from the Secretary of Defense,
and (4) may consider any certification prepared by the Lao Veterans of
America, Inc. or similar organizations.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Lao Veterans of America includes tens of thousands of Hmong and
Lao veterans and their families who played roles in the U.S. covert war
in Laos and Vietnam. It has stringent requirements for membership:
first, filling out an application and submitting to an initial
interview, second determining that the prospective member served a
minimum of 1 year as a veteran and third, be certified by a former
commander or his representative, or the leader of the U.S. Secret Army
in Laos, Major General Vang Pao. Finally, the applicant must be
verified by a three member military review board appointed by the Lao
Veterans of America's Board of Directors and Advisory Board.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimately, the Immigration and Naturalization Service provided
multiple avenues through which Hmong veterans could prove their
service. First, if an applicant testified to this military service at
the time of refugee processing, the required documentation should
already be in the applicants immigration file. If not, applicants could
provide original documents; an affidavit of the serving person's
superior officer; two affidavits from other individuals who also were
serving with such a special guerrilla unit, or irregular forces, and
who personally know of the person's service; or other appropriate
proof.
Congress has publically recognized the Hmong veterans' service to
our Nation, but paradoxically has not allowed for burial rights in
national cemeteries. In 2009, the House recognized ``National Lao-Hmong
Recognition Day,'' calling to attention to the Hmong's service in the
Vietnam War. The Resolution recognized that ``the United States
recruited thousands of the Lao-Hmong to fight against the Communist
Pathet Lao and North Vietnamese Army regulars in Laos'' and we ``relied
heavily on the Lao-Hmong Special Guerrilla Units to engage in direct
combat with North Vietnamese troops.'' Providing burial rights to the
small number of Hmong veterans remaining that fought for America is the
least we can do to honor their service. This legislation is a modest
next step to honor the Hmong veterans who now live in the US as a
result of our call for their service.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you very much Senator Murkowski.
Senator Franken.
STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA
Senator Franken. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee,
I would like today to talk briefly about my new legislation.
First, I would like to say something about the Hmong who fought
with us in Laos.
I went to Laos in July 2010. It was on a trip that the
Chairman and I took with Senator Harkin to Vietnam. I took a
little side trip to Laos because some Hmong refugees had been
illegally repatriated to Laos from Thailand.
You may know that Sheldon Whitehouse, the Senator from
Rhode Island, often says--and his father was Ambassador to
Laos--that there is a few thousand fewer American names on that
wall at the Vietnam War Memorial, because of the Hmong.
But I am here to talk about my new legislation, the Quicker
Benefits Delivery Act. This piece of legislation has one simple
purpose, to enable VA to get benefits to veterans more quickly.
We are all concerned about the claims backlog, and VA is
working hard to address it. The fundamental issue is that we
need to make sure veterans are getting the benefits to which
they are entitled as quickly as possible. This is especially
important when it comes to our newest veterans who are still in
the process of transitioning back to civilian life. That is
what my legislation will do.
It is a pragmatic effort to make sure that VA has the tools
to get benefits into the hands of veterans as quickly as
possible and uses those tools most effectively.
I am very pleased that Congressman Tim Walz, who is also
from Minnesota and is a member of the House Veterans' Affairs
Committee, has introduced companion legislation on the House
side. He and I have heard from veterans in Minnesota about
these issues and we owe several of the proposed solutions to
suggestions from VSOs, Veterans Service Organizations,
including testimony before your Committee.
My bill would get benefits into the hands of veterans more
quickly in three ways. First, my bill would expand VA's use of
non-VA medical evidence, medical examinations, and medical
opinions in the claims process. That private medical evidence
could only be used where it is competent, credible, and
probative, in other words, fully adequate for helping to decide
a veteran's claim.
VA is already making use of non-VA medical evidence, but my
legislation would shift the burden a little bit more to VA so
that VA has to make the case for why it would not use a non-VA
medical examination to assess a veteran's claim.
Not only would veterans who submit such evidence receive
their benefits more quickly under my bill, it would also free
up VA resources so that more veterans who do need VA medical
examinations would also get their claims decided more quickly.
Second, my bill would expand VA's authorities to rapidly
provide a veteran with provisional benefits when there is
enough evidence to warrant it even if VA has not yet made the
final determination about the veterans disability and
compensation. This would be done through what are called pre-
stabilization ratings which are for our newest veterans who may
not yet have fully recovered from their injuries.
My bill would also expand VA's ability and its
responsibility to give out a temporary minimum disability
rating to a veteran where that is appropriate but where VA has
not yet been able to make a final determination about all of
the veterans claims. In fact, the VA recently announced that it
was going to do just that with respect to the oldest claims in
the backlog.
The purpose here is to make sure that veterans and their
families can start getting benefits as soon as it is clear they
are entitled to. Those veterans are then effectively not part
of the backlog since they are getting benefits, and my
legislation would clarify that.
Finally, my legislation addresses an issue we hear a lot
about from veterans who have become students and are making use
of the GI Bill benefits. Those student veterans have to wait
until the first of a given month to receive their housing
benefits for the previous month. That does not make a whole lot
of sense to me, but my understanding is that VA needs the
explicit authority to provide such benefits before the first
day of the month, and my legislation makes that clarification.
Of course, my legislation by itself will not solve the
claims backlog issue; but in significant ways, it will provide
the VA with some tools to help it address this fundamental
issue of making sure our veterans get the benefits that they
have earned as quickly as possible.
As this legislation moves forward, I continue to welcome
any and all suggestions for how it might be refined and
improved to accomplish this important purpose.
Thank you for your consideration.
I am sorry but now I have to excuse myself because I need
to go to the Health Committee where we are doing the markup of
the ESCA bill, and I see Senator Murkowski has preceded me in
leaving for that room.
So, I appreciate your attention and hope you have a good
hearing. Thank you.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you very much Senator Franken.
Senator Wyden.
STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Chairman Sanders and
Senator Heller, for having me today. I can see you have lots of
colleagues.
The bill that I am going to discuss today is S. 748 and it
is the product of a long-standing and bipartisan partnership
that this Committee has had with the Special Committee on
Aging, particularly on issues relating to the rights of older
veterans.
The legislation that I offer today with Senator Burr--we
have worked on this for many, many months--revolves around the
fact that last June the Senate Special Committee on Aging held
an investigative hearing on scams that target older veterans
using a specific VA pension, in effect, to lure in the veteran.
What the Aging Committee found--we actually had an
undercover investigation that was again at the request of a
bipartisan group of Senators--what we found is that there are a
number of financial planners, lawyers, and others who use the
VA's enhanced pension--and this is the pension for the most
vulnerable of our older veterans, the most vulnerable of the
low-income veterans.
It is called the enhanced pension with aide and attendance,
and they essentially use [knowledge of] this pension to kind of
lure the older veteran into a variety of arrangements with
trusts and annuities; and the poacher gets these, you know,
large fees and very often the older veterans end up with
virtually nothing. They do not have their aide and attendance;
they are just completely ripped off.
So, the General Accounting Office, after the undercover
investigation, recommended to the Congress that there be a
look-back period similar to Medicare and Medicaid so that we
could achieve two objectives: one, take away the ability of
these ripoff artists, the pension imposter, to target the low
income, older veteran; and two, make sure that we preserve this
critical benefit for the many veterans who need it.
So, Senator Burr and I have worked with the advocacy groups
for veterans and with the VA itself; and the heart of the
legislation is to offer this kind of look-back. I think with
the bipartisan support we have--we worked with the VA to make
sure this would not contribute to the backlog volume--we now
have legislation that we believe is ready for the Committee's
consideration.
I am also appreciative of the Assisted Living Federation of
America writing to the Committee supporting the legislation and
pledging that their industry wants to also figure out a way to
drain the swamp.
Mr. Chairman, you and I talked about this back in the days
when I had a full head of hair and rugged good looks. I was the
co-director of the Gray Panthers.
Chairman Sanders. I would not go that far.
Senator Wyden. All right. Fair enough. [Laughter.]
I have seen a lot of scams and this Committee has as well.
This is one of the most outrageous. Senator Burr and I hope
that we can move forward expeditiously, and we very much
appreciate your consideration.
I, too, am going to have to go but I am very grateful to be
able to work with the Committee.
Chairman Sanders. Senator Wyden, thanks very much.
Senator Merkley.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY,
U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Chairman Sanders and
Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to
introduce you to Senate Bill 1039, the Spouses of Heroes
Education Act of 2013.
This bill is cosponsored by Senator Heller. Senator, thank
you very much. It addresses the needs of spouses of our fallen
heroes in the armed services. The Spouses of Heroes Education
Act would grant post-9/11 era widows and widowers the same
educational benefits that Congress has authorized for their
children under the Gunnery Sergeant John D. Fry Scholarship
Program through the post-9/11 GI Bill. At age 18, these
children can attend any public college tuition free and receive
a housing allowance and an annual book stipend.
Surviving spouses of the current conflicts, however, are
left with far less generous benefits. They have access only to
the limited Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance,
DEA benefits. DEA pays only $987 per month for full-time study
with no support for housing or books; and it is very difficult
for surviving spouses, especially those with children, to
afford college or job training under the DEA program.
I want to thank veteran Robert Thornhill of Central Oregon,
who came to one of my town halls and pointed this out. Quite
frankly, I was surprised to find that we did not treat spouses
in the same way as the children.
And a special thanks to Army Colonel retired Bob Norton of
the Military Officers Association of America, who has helped to
give feedback and thoughts and circulation to this legislation.
This bill would provide the new GI Bill benefits to the
spouses of those servicemembers who made the ultimate sacrifice
to their Nation. By opting to receive the Fry Scholarship,
spouses would forgo other GI Bill benefits related to
education, such as DEA. The scholarship benefits would expire
after a period of 15 years.
We must remember that the spouses of our fallen heroes were
often left to raise young children as a single parent. These
children may not be eligible to use the Fry Scholarship to help
with college expenses for many years, but in the meantime, the
parents should have the opportunity to go back to school and
prepare for a well-paying job that can support his or her
family.
The bill is endorsed by the Military Officers Association
of America, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the National Guard
Association of the United States, Vietnam Veterans of America,
the American Legion, and Iraqi and Afghanistan Veterans of
America. It is endorsed by the Air Force Sergeants Association,
the Military Order of the Purple Heart, AMVETS, and Student
Veterans of America.
In addition, the Veterans Legislative Committee of the
Military Coalition, a group comprised of 33 organizations
representing more than 5.5 million members of the uniform
services and their families have endorsed this goal of
providing surviving spouses with the same educational benefits
to which the children are entitled.
Our Nation owes an enormous debt of gratitude to our fallen
and their family members. Our servicemembers have made
extraordinary sacrifices, and we must never forget that their
families have sacrificed alongside them. We can never repay the
sacrificed to a fallen hero's spouse but we can honor them by
ensuring they have the tools they need to go back to school and
provide a foundation for their family.
Our veterans and our veterans' families have stood up for
our Nation abroad and we need to stand up for them here at
home.
I look forward to working with Senator Heller and the
Committee to move this bill forward.
Thank you.
Chairman Sanders. Senator Merkley, thank you very much.
Senator Shaheen.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator
Heller, Senators Tester and Begich. I very much appreciate the
opportunity to appear before you to talk about two pieces of
legislation that I have introduced.
The first is the Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal
Treatment Act, which I introduced along with Senator Gillibrand
back in February. This bill would address ongoing
discrimination against gay and lesbian members of the military
and their families.
In particular, it would make a number of critical benefits
including TRICARE Access, VA survivor benefits, and travel and
transportation allowances available to all military spouses
regardless of sexual orientation. That is not the case now
despite the repeal of ``Don't Ask Don't Tell.''
Even if the Defense of Marriage Act is overturned by the
Supreme Court, legislation like the Charlie Morgan Military
Spouses Act would likely still be necessary to help ensure
equality in military and veterans' benefits for all of our
Nation's military spouses.
Now, I am not going to go into the details of this
legislation because I know you will do that in Committee but I
did want to just say a few words about the woman who the bill
is named after, Charlie Morgan.
She was a New Hampshire National Guard chief warrant
officer who very sadly passed away earlier this year after a
courageous battle with breast cancer.
Charlie enlisted in the Army in 1982 in Kentucky. She
served in the regular army. After getting out, rejoined the New
Hampshire National Guard after September 11 because she was so
moved by the need to again serve this country after those
terrorist attacks.
She served a year in deployment in Kuwait and served very
honorably despite having to keep her personal life secret from
all of her fellow soldiers.
Charlie and her wife Karen were not able to take advantage
of many of the support programs that were so essential and are
so essential to the health and well-being of our military
families.
After she was diagnosed with breast cancer, the issue of
benefits for her family became very personal, and unfortunately
she is not going to be able to see their final day in court
despite having joined the challenge to the Defense of Marriage
Act, but I introduced this bill to honor her memory and because
every individual, regardless of their sexual orientation, who
provides for our defense deserves the peace of mind that comes
with knowing that their family is going to be taken care of
when something happens to them.
Now, the second piece of legislation is the Veteran Legal
Services Act, which I introduced with Senators Klobuchar and
Murphy. I know that you all have been working very hard to
address the backlog in our VA benefits, that goes without
saying. It is a national disgrace that we have so many veterans
waiting so long to get the benefits that are due them.
This bill, I think, addresses one of the programs that, as
we have looked at it, seems to be the most effective in helping
to deal with the backlog as well as veteran homelessness: the
work of our Nation's law schools and their student volunteers.
By counseling veterans with their disabilities claims, law
students are turning incredibly complex stories and injuries
into organized benefit applications that are exponentially
reducing the VA's processing time for the most complicated
cases in the backlog.
There are a number of States that have legal clinics that
are working with veterans--North Carolina, West Virginia,
Connecticut, Georgia, and Ohio, to name a few. What this bill
would do is authorize the VA to coordinate more closely with
these programs to ensure that they are as productive as
possible.
Again, I think it is one way to address the backlog that
does not involve a lot of Federal dollars but gets the work
done for our veterans.
So again, thank you all very much for the work that you are
doing and the opportunity to appear before you this morning.
[The prepared statement of Senator Shaheen follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeanne Shaheen,
U.S. Senator from New Hampshire
Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, Members of the Committee, I
want to thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly about two pieces
of legislation that are before you today.
The first is the Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment
Act, which I introduced along with Senator Gillibrand in February. The
bill would address ongoing discrimination against gay and lesbian
members of the military and their families. In particular, it would
make a number of critical benefits, including TRICARE access, VA
survivor benefits and travel and transportation allowances available to
all military spouses, regardless of sexual orientation.
A number of important family benefits and support programs remain
unavailable to same-sex spouses under current law. Even if the Defense
of Marriage Act is overturned by the Supreme Court, this bill would
likely still be necessary to help ensure equality in military and
veterans' benefits for all of our Nation's military spouses.
I am certain the Committee will get into all of the various details
on each of the benefits affected by this legislation, but today, I want
to share with you the story of a true hero who inspired this act. The
bill before you is named after Charlie Morgan, a New Hampshire National
Guard Chief Warrant Officer, who sadly passed away earlier this year
after a courageous battle with breast cancer.
Charlie enlisted in the United States Army in 1982. After a brief
period away, Charlie returned to service as a member of the Kentucky
National Guard in 1992. Following the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001, Charlie returned for a third time, joining the
197th Fires Brigade of the New Hampshire National Guard, a tour that
included a year-long deployment in Kuwait.
Throughout her long career of service, she shouldered the
incredible burden of keeping her life secret from her fellow soldiers.
Charlie was unable to live openly under the ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell''
policy. In addition, despite enduring the same hardships as any other
military family, Charlie and her wife, Karen, were not able to take
advantage of many of the same support programs that are so essential to
the health and well-being of military families.
Soon after ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' was repealed, Charlie came out
publicly and began the fight for equal benefits for same-sex spouses,
benefits she and her family had earned as much as any other military
member.
But, this was not just an abstract issue for Charlie. She was
diagnosed with breast cancer in 2011, and knew that her time was
limited. Concerned for the future well-being of her family, Charlie
took aim at the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) by joining the challenge
to its constitutionality in Federal court.
Unfortunately, Charlie will not be able to see her final day in
court. She passed away earlier this year. Charlie Morgan epitomized
courage--in her military service, her fight for LGBT equality and in
her battle with cancer.
I introduced this bill to honor Charlie's memory. Every individual
who provides for our defense deserves the peace of mind that comes with
knowing one's family will be taken care of should the worst happen.
LGBT servicemembers now serve openly in our military and we depend
on them to keep us safe. Denying their legally recognized spouses equal
benefits under the law is unjustified. No one should ever again go
through what Charlie and her family had to go through. I hope my
colleagues on this Committee will act quickly to address this issue by
passing the Charlie Morgan Act and sending it to the floor for
consideration.
The second piece of legislation I'd like to discuss is the Veterans
Legal Services Act, which I recently introduced along with Senators
Klobuchar and Murphy.
No one knows better than the Members of this Committee the
frustration that we all share regarding the VA's disability claims
backlog. It is a national disgrace and one that we are all working to
address. I know the Chairman has sponsored legislation on this issue
and I am grateful to him for that leadership.
Our bill would support one of the most productive efforts I have
seen in recent years to address both the backlog as well as veterans
homelessness: the work of our Nation's law schools and their student
volunteers.
Since 2008, more than 30 law schools in 18 states have developed
clinical programs specifically to assist veterans. By counseling
veterans with their disability claims, law students are turning
incredibly complex stories and injuries into organized benefits
applications that are exponentially reducing VA's processing time for
the most complicated cases in the backlog.
A perfect example of these programs is the Lewis B. Puller Jr.
Veterans Benefits Clinic at William and Mary Law School. On average,
students in the program provide over 70 hours of assistance per
veteran, and over 330 hours of assistance per veterans for cases
involving Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain
Injury (TBI). The results of their work have been outstanding. In one
case, students helped a veteran recoup over $40,000 dollars in back
payments.
Many other states are developing equally successful programs
including North Carolina, West Virginia, Connecticut, Georgia, and
Ohio.
Our legislation is simple. It authorizes VA to coordinate more
closely with these programs to ensure they are as productive as
possible. We are hopeful that with VA's support and guidance these
programs will continue to thrive and make it easier for additional
schools to follow their lead. Our goal is to eventually have a
veteran's legal clinic in every state.
Again, I want to thank the Committee again for the opportunity to
appear here today, for consideration of these two pieces of
legislation, and for your continued service on behalf of our Nation and
its veterans.
Chairman Sanders. Senator Shaheen, thank you very much.
As I understand it, Senator Tester, you are going to have
to make a quick exit, is that correct?
Senator Tester. That is correct.
Chairman Sanders. And you would like to say a few words on
a piece of legislation.
STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA
Senator Tester. If I might, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I
thank the Chairman and, Senator Heller--you look good in that
position--for having this hearing.
I want to thank the VSOs participation in the Ruth Moore
Act. The Ruth Moore Act deals with military sexual trauma and
how the VA deals with it. In that regard, Mr. McCoy, I
appreciate the VA's recent efforts to better adjudicate claims
based on military sexual trauma and your willingness to work
with me and the Committee on this very important issue.
As we address sexual assault in the military, we must do
everything we can to support the survivors of service-related
trauma. A recent Pentagon data estimate reported the number of
sexual assaults in the military has increased by 35 percent
over the last 2 years.
Tragically, these assaults have lasting consequences for
the survivors, including PTSD, anxiety, depression, and various
physical disabilities. Moreover, the female servicemembers who
are sexually assaulted are more likely to develop PTSD than
their male counterparts who have experienced combat.
Establishing proof of military sexual assault, however, is
very difficult in the current system and the vast majority of
these assaults go unreported--as high as 85 percent according
to some reports.
Subsequently, the veterans have a hard time meeting the
burden of proof when applying for VA benefits for disabilities
linked to military sexual trauma. The Ruth Moore Act of 2013
would bring fairness to the VA claims process for victims of
the service-related trauma by relaxing the evidentiary area
standards for MST survivors.
Now, while I acknowledge the VA's recent efforts to improve
adjudication of claims related to military sexual trauma, I
think further action is necessary. The current standards are
difficult, if not impossible, to meet; and they do an injustice
to veterans who have honorably served their Nation yet suffer
terrific trauma.
Now, combating sexual assaults in the military will require
a multipronged approach. No single law or policy will do this.
A culture change is needed.
But as long as we work together to prevent these atrocities
from happening, we cannot forget the thousands of survivors who
have summoned up the courage and turned to the government for
help. So, we need to act on their behalf.
I just want to once again thank the Chairman for the
courtesy and look forward to further debating this bill.
Chairman Sanders. Senator Tester, thanks very much.
CONTINUING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS,
CHAIRMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM VERMONT
Chairman Sanders. I recognize that today is a really busy
day. There are Committee hearings all over the place so people
are going to be coming and going.
What I would like to do now is get back to regular order. I
want to say a few words. I will give the mic over to Senator
Heller and then we will hear from Senator Begich and then we
will bring in our next panel.
As I think everybody will recall, earlier in the session we
had the opportunity, along with the House Veterans' Committee,
to hear from all of the service organizations. I found those
hearings extraordinarily helpful because we heard from veterans
from all walks of life, from different wars; and we had a very
broad understanding of the needs of our veterans.
What I pledged to do with my staff was to listen very
carefully to what the veterans organizations had to say and to
do our best to respond to all of the legitimate concerns that
they raised. That is what we are in the process of doing.
As Members will recall from a month or so ago, we had what
I thought was an excellent hearing focusing on health care
issues. The bottom line is that I believe we have a strong
health care system within the VA.
With 152 medical centers and 900 CBOCs and Vet Centers all
over this country, there is no question that we can make
improvements. We intend to focus on VA health care very
carefully and make those improvements.
Today, what we are focusing on are benefits issues and I
thought we heard some excellent testimony from our colleagues
who are not on this Committee. We will hear testimony and
comments from Members of this Committee who have introduced
important legislation.
Let me just take a moment to give a brief overview of some
of the legislation that I have introduced. One of the issues
that the veterans community and the American people are clearly
concerned about is making sure that when young men and women
return from Iraq and Afghanistan and from the Armed Forces in
general, they are able to return to civilian life and get
decent jobs.
We are recovering from a serious recession. The economy is
better than it was but unemployment remains much, much too
high. So, I have introduced legislation called the Veterans
Equipped for Success Act of 2013, which I think will go a
significant way forward in providing good jobs for those men
and women who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, who have
been discharged from the Armed Forces.
We have heard today, and we have heard for many, many
months, probably the major issue that veterans organizations
and I think the American people are concerned about, as Senator
Shaheen just mentioned. is to make absolutely sure that when a
veteran files a claim for benefits that that claim is processed
in a reasonable period of time.
We are all appalled that in some cases it is taking years
for these claims to be adjudicated. Secretary Shinseki has
brought forth a goal to make sure that every claim is processed
within 125 days and I believe he intends to do that by the end
of 2015.
As we all know, 5 years ago there was limited discussion
about the need to do what every major corporation in America
and other government agencies have done, and that is go from a
paper to a digital system. The VA is now in the process of
making that huge transformation. We think they are making some
progress but obviously they have a long way to go.
We have legislation to make sure that the very ambitious
goal of making sure that every claim is processed with 125 days
and to have that done by the end of 2015, in fact, takes place
when it is supposed to. We are going to be watching that and we
have legislation that will monitor that very, very closely.
There is another piece of legislation that we have
introduced called the Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of
2013. As we all know, a decade of war has had a major impact on
our military families. Over 6,600 servicemembers have died in
operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, leaving behind
spouses and children who relied on them.
Earlier this year, this Committee heard from the Gold Star
Wives of America about the significant challenges that
survivors continue to face such as the need for improved
dependency and indemnity compensation benefits and
qualification requirements.
The Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of 2013 would address
many of these challenges, and I think we certainly owe that to
the survivors.
One of the ongoing concerns that I have and one of the
hearings that we had dealt with the fact that no matter how
strong the benefits or health care that we provide veterans is,
it does not do anybody any good unless veterans and their
families understand the benefits to which they are entitled.
While the VA does a lot of things very, very well, one of
the things that they have not done well is outreach. In the
last couple of months, by the way, I think we have seen a
turnaround on that. I think they are doing a better job.
It is not unimpressive that over 50 percent of the
servicemembers who are leaving the Armed Forces now are, in
fact, enrolled in the VA. That is an historically high level of
outreach in bringing people into the system.
Our legislation is called the Veterans Outreach Act of 2013
and it deals with the fact that if veterans are unaware of
their benefits, then nothing we discuss here today will help
them when they need assistance.
So, we have the Veterans Outreach Act of 2013 which, in a
number of ways, works with community organizations to make sure
that every veteran in this country understands the benefits to
which he or she is entitled.
So, those are some of the issues that I will be working on.
Now, let me give the mic over to Senator Heller.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA
Senator Heller. Mr. Chairman, Thank you and thank you for
your leadership on this issue and for holding today's hearing.
I want to thank my colleagues who were here earlier. You can
tell that when it comes to veterans issues it is very
bipartisan; and it is good to have and to see that kind of
support for our veterans here in this country.
I want to thank those that are here as witnesses that will
testify, and I also want to thank those that are in the
audience for taking time from your busy schedules to show
support on these bills.
I have a number of bills that will be discussed today that
I have written or cosponsored, and I would like to touch on a
few of them, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
First, I would like to discuss the Accountability for
Veterans Act. It is no secret this community has been holding
vigorous oversight of the backlog at the VA for disabilities
and benefits claims. To say that patience on this is thinning
is probably an understatement.
In Las Vegas and in Reno, there are more than 10,000
pending claims. Las Vegas veterans have been hit particularly
hard by the economic downturn and these disability payments are
critical to these veterans who are trying to make ends meet.
I know there is not one solution that will solve this issue
but one problem seems to be coordination between VBA and other
government agencies.
When the VA was here testifying on the backlog, we were
told that the employees at the VA were required to fax requests
for files to the Department of Defense, the Social Security
Administration, the National Archives and then wait 60 days.
Then, when they did not get a response, they were to e-mail
those agencies and wait another 30 days. This process is
outdated. The fax machine is irrelevant. VA should modernize
its procedure, and that is why I have introduced the
Accountability for Veterans Act.
This bill requires DOD, the Social Security Administration,
and the National Archives to respond to a VA requests for
veterans files within 30 days with either the file or an
explanation why the file was not available and when the VA can
expect this file. This bill also calls for a biannual report to
Congress on the time it takes for these agencies to respond to
the VA requests.
The measure has the support of the American Legion,
Disabled American Veterans, the Military Officers Association
of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars because we must
hold these agencies accountable if they are not providing
information in a timely manner.
I have another measure that I would like to address and
that is the Filipino Veterans Promise Act. Before I do that, I
want to recognize someone in our audience, Mr. Almato, and I
want to thank you for being here today and thank you for your
service.
[Applause.]
The Filipino Veterans Promise Act is bipartisan and
bicameral. It fulfills the obligation that the United States
makes every effort to ensure that individuals who served our
Nation are properly recognized for their contributions to our
Nation.
There is no doubt that the Filipino soldiers served
honorably in the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines,
recognized guerrilla forces, and the new Philippine Scouts
alongside U.S. troops during World War II.
Today, many Filipino veterans are not able to have their
service of World War II verified by the Army's National
Personnel Records Center. The NPRC uses only evidence that is
approved by the U.S. Army and does not have access to a
consolidated personal file for most of the individuals who
served in the Philippine army or guerrilla unit.
The Filipino Veterans Promise Act would mandate that the
Department of Defense in coordination with military historians
establish a process to open the approved revised reconstructed
guerrilla roster of 1948, also known as the Missouri List, to
give Filipinos the opportunity to prove their service during
World War II.
I was proud to introduce this bill in the U.S. Senate and
work with Representative Hanabusa in the House of
Representatives because Filipino veterans deserve a better
process to adjudicate their claims than currently exists.
It is important to note that this bill works at length to
ensure that we are arming those who served and not providing
benefits for any person that did not. This is why this bill
calls for the Army to verify service. It is an added protection
to ensure that hard-earned benefits are going to those who
earned them.
I think we can all agree that if any person served our
country in battle and is not receiving benefits they earned,
this should be an outrage. Las Vegas, in particular, has a
large Filipino population and a number of Filipinos there are
still seeking recognition as veterans. They are a respected
part of the community and they deserve a fair and complete
examination of their record.
I have also introduced two bills that will help military
families who have lost a loved one in the line of duty: the
Veteran Small Business Opportunity and Protection Act; as well
as a bipartisan bill, the Spouses of Heroes Education Act, that
Senator Merkley testified on earlier today.
Last, I introduced a bill with my fellow Committee Member,
Senator Murray, the Care for Veterans' Dependents Act.
I appreciate the consideration given to all these measures
and the time today to discuss them. As this Committee further
discusses me and my colleagues' proposals to help America's
veterans receive the benefits that they have earned, it is my
hope that we will remember our commitments to caring for those
brave heroes who sacrificed greatly to serve this country.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you very much, Senator Heller.
Senator Begich.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you again for having this hearing today. I just want to speak
about one bill, although I am on several others, which I
appreciate my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.
There is no question that in Alaska we have the highest
number per capita of veterans in the Nation; and everywhere and
any time I am in Alaska, the issues of veterans come up on
small-scale and large-scale. So again, thank you for having the
list of legislation to go over today.
I want to just talk about one specific bill, which is
S. 932, the Putting Veterans Funding First Act. This bill acts
as a continuation. As you know, we have advanced appropriations
on the health care side, and what I am trying to do here is
include the second part which is VA discretionary accounts,
including the National Cemetery Administration, the Veterans
Benefits Administration, and the Native American Veterans
Housing Loan Program.
It would also authorize advance appropriations for the
following discretionary administration accounts: general
operating expenses; information technology systems; Office of
the Inspector General; construction for both major and minor
projects; and grants for construction of State extended-care
facilities.
Mr. Chairman, this has been something that I have believed
in ever since I was back in local government and that is trying
to get more and more governments to 2-year cycles on funding
because it gives more stability for the agencies.
We did this for part of the VA in regard to their health
care section where they have advance funding. It makes a big
difference for them to hire nurses, hire medical technicians,
and others and it just seems that we should complete the circle
and finish out the VA in giving them advance appropriation for
all of their operations.
This would make a huge difference for management of the VA.
As a former mayor--I know you are a former mayor, Mr.
Chairman--every time we dealt with our budget folks, we spent
months in preparation. Then we got the budget done. Then we had
a few months to manage it. Then we were back into preparation
mode again. It made no sense.
With the VA having so much need that is going to grow very
significantly over the next several years, it just seems
logical that we get them on a cycle of more certainty which
ensures veterans that certain programs, as I just mentioned,
would have the long-term certainty and funding mechanism they
need to hire people, to get contracts, to move forward on
construction, and other things that are necessary for our
veterans.
So, it is a simple bill, a continuation of advance
appropriations complementing what we have already done.
So, Mr. Chairman, I will leave it at that. There are other
bills that I have cosponsored and I am very excited about
several of them, but I know we want to get to the panel.
I have to step out for a few minutes but I will be back
because, as you said, a lot of ideas we get from the veterans
organizations are incredible for us and we should be listening
carefully to hear those ideas.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sanders. Senator Begich, thank you very much.
Senator Boozman.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you so
much for having this very, very important hearing to evaluate
proposals to improve the quality of delivery of care for our
Nation's veterans that have served our country, and really try
to continue as a Committee and as Senators to uphold all of the
promises that we made to their families.
I appreciate the Senator from Alaska's leadership on the
bill that he just mentioned. We are the lead Republican
cosponsor on that, and to me it is just good governance. It
makes all the sense in the world, and I hope that we can get
that done in the sense that I think it is so important that we
move government, you know, into this century. I think that is
one of the ways that we do it.
You know, this is something that would not cost us any
money. It would save us a lot of money and create tremendous
efficiencies. So, again, I thank you very much for your work on
that.
I am also pleased that we have three other legislative
proposals that we are working with and looking forward with my
colleagues to try to get signed into law.
S. 257, the GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act would protect our
veterans ability to use their GI benefit at the school of their
choice without facing the liability of having to offset out-of-
state tuition fees by paying out of their own pocket.
I know that there have been other proposals on how to
accomplish the underlying principle of this legislation, which
is to protect choice for our veterans when utilizing one of
their most important economic opportunity benefits.
This legislation is supported by many VSOs including some
here today. I believe that it would very much be a step in the
right direction in expanding educational opportunities for
veterans and would actually save the Federal Government money.
I look forward to working with my colleagues to accomplish this
worthy goal.
S. 695, the Veterans Paralympic Act of 2013 seeks to
reauthorize the paralympic integrated adaptive sports program
for disabled veterans. The modest investment that we make in
this program improves the physical and mental health of so many
of our disabled veterans.
This program has reached more than 5,000 participants in
more than 150 communities in 46 States. It has successfully
collaborated with 85 VA medical centers in 39 States to provide
an adaptive sports program to veterans in their communities.
Extending this program I think is a common sense step to
empower our disabled veterans through sport and benefits the
physical and mental health of the disabled veteran community.
S. 889, the Service Members Choice in Transition Act, is
another bill that we have been working on. The Department of
Defense is redesigning and updating TAP to make it more
interactive and this makes it such that it offers on a non-
mandatory basis specialized tracks for servicemembers that fit
their transition goals.
The legislation would mandate that servicemembers be given
a choice to take one of the tracks as part of the mandatory
portion of TAP and will assist them in meeting the specific
transition goal.
This goal-oriented structure helps our transitioning
veterans identify and pursue specific goals early, which means
that they will be more likely to use their hard-earned benefits
wisely.
Again, I think this is so important. If, through TAP and
every other device that we have, we can make it such that we
can get our veterans employed, get them where they are able to
support their families, take care of themselves, then it is not
only the right thing to do but it is something that saves
tremendous amounts of money long term in trying to deal with
the problems of not being able to do that.
All of these bills I have just mentioned are reasonable,
bipartisan proposals to improve the lives and opportunities of
our veterans and their families, and I appreciate their
consideration here today.
With that, I would like to include the rest of my statement
for the record and get on to our witnesses.
Chairman Sanders. Without objection.
[The prepared statement of Senator Boozman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John Boozman,
U.S. Senator from Arkansas
Mr. Chairman, Thank you for holding this hearing so that we can
continue to evaluate proposals to improve the quality and delivery of
services to our Nation's veterans, and fight to uphold all of the
promises that we have made to them and their families.
I am particularly pleased that we have included three of my
legislative proposals and look forward to working with my colleagues to
get these bills signed into law.
S. 257, the GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act would protect our
veterans' ability to use their GI Benefit at the school of their
choice, without facing the liability of having to offset out-of-state
tuition fees by paying out of their own pocket. I know that there have
been other proposals on how to accomplish the underlying principal of
this legislation--which is to protect choice for our veterans when
utilizing one of their most important economic opportunity benefits--
and I look forward to working with my colleagues to accomplish this
worthy goal. This legislation is supported by many VSO's, including
some here today, and would be a step in the right direction in
expanding educational opportunities for veterans and would actually
save the Federal Government money.
S. 695, the Veterans Paralympic Act of 2013 seeks to reauthorize
the Paralympic Integrated Adaptive Sports Program for disabled
veterans. The modest investment that we make in this program improves
the physical and mental health of so many of our disabled veterans.
This program has reached more than 5,000 participants in more than 150
communities in 46 states. It has successfully collaborated with 85 VA
medical centers in 39 states to provide adaptive sports programs to
veterans in their communities. Extending this program is a common sense
step to empower our disabled veterans through sport, and benefits the
physical and mental health of our disabled veteran community.
S. 889, the Servicemembers' Choice in Transition Act is another
bill I have been working on. The Department of Defense (DOD) is re-
designing and updating TAP to make it more interactive and it offers on
a non-mandatory basis specialized tracks for servicemembers that fit
their transition goals. This legislation would mandate that
servicemembers be given the choice to take one of the tracks as part of
the mandatory portion of TAP, and will assist them in meeting their
specific transition goal. This goal oriented structure helps our
transitioning veterans identify and pursue specific goals early, which
means that they will be more likely to use their hard earned benefits
wisely.
All of these bills I have just mentioned are reasonable, bipartisan
proposals to improve the lives and opportunities of our veterans and
their families, and I appreciate their consideration here today.
Other important bills before us today will:
Protect the second amendment rights of our nations'
veterans
Recognize the honorable service of guardsmen and
reservists that have served our Nation for 20 or more years
Ensure the freedom of religious expression on national war
memorials
Ensure a cost of living adjustment for disabled veterans
Try to fix our broken VA claims processing system; and
Provide many other economic opportunities to those who
have served and sacrificed on behalf of our grateful Nation.
These are all important goals and I appreciate everyone here for
all of your hard work on behalf of our Nation's veterans and look
forward to continuing our work together to address these issues facing
the veteran community.
Chairman Sanders. Very good. Senator Boozman, thanks very
much. I want to thank each of the Senators who have spoken
about their important legislation; we look forward to working
with all of them.
Now, we are ready for our second panel. We welcome
representatives of the VA.
Senator Boozman, did you want to come up here?
Senator Boozman. I think Senator Heller is about to join
us.
Chairman Sanders. OK. We are pleased to have with us Curtis
L. Coy, who is the Deputy Undersecretary for Economic
Opportunity of the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department
of Veterans' Affairs. He is accompanied by Thomas Murphy,
Director of Compensation Service; Richard Hipolit, Assistant
General Counsel; and John Brizzi, Deputy Assistant General
Counsel.
Gentlemen, thanks very much for being with us. Mr. Coy, I
think we begin with you.
STATEMENT OF CURTIS L. COY, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITY, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT
OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS MURPHY, DIRECTOR OF
COMPENSATION SERVICE; RICHARD HIPOLIT, ASSISTANT GENERAL
COUNSEL; AND JOHN BRIZZI, DEPUTY ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL
Mr. Coy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to you,
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am pleased to be
here today to provide the views of the Department of Veterans
Affairs on pending legislation affecting VA's programs.
We are encouraged seeing so many legislative proposals
aimed at improving benefits and services for our Nation's
veterans. We are particularly glad to see the inclusion of some
of the concepts VA put forth in April in its 2014 budget as
well as significant legislation aimed at addressing claims
backlog.
As we have been reporting regularly to the Committee, VA
has been able to do much in the areas of people, process, and
technology under the authorities it has now but there are
systemic changes that could be done only by legislation.
We are happy to discuss these bills that are aimed at
giving veterans better tools to further their education and
employment, extend certain work-study activities, and improve
our programs that benefit veteran-owned small businesses.
Accompanying me this morning are my colleagues are Thomas
Murphy, Director, Compensation Service at Veterans Benefits
Administration; Richard Hipolit, Assistant General Counsel; and
John Brizzi, Deputy Assistant General Counsel.
Given the number of bills under consideration today and in
the interest of time, I will focus my statement this morning on
legislation impacting several broad areas. There are also
significant bills on the subject of outreach, benefits for
survivors, and mental health programs. For several bills we
provided our views and costs for the record. Similar to the
Members of this Committee, VA is always seeking new ways to
improve benefits for those who have served.
I am a 24-year veteran of the U.S. Navy and, like you and
your staff, work hard to ensure that we honor those who have
served and sacrificed for our country.
With respect to those bills that affect education and
employment of veterans, the VA supports any effort that would
end those opportunities. We support extending the veterans are
retraining and assistance program but we suggest additional
changes to the program to improve the administration of the
program and give veterans more choices.
The VA also supports the veterans internship pilot but
again recommends several ambiguities and resource issues be
addressed before moving the bill for word.
While we are sympathetic to the issue of rising tuition
costs, it is difficult to endorse any legislation that might
impact or limit choices of veterans that they may have were a
school not to offer in-state tuition for veterans.
Similarly, changing the way we currently calculate tuition
and fees in the post-9/11 GI Bill would be a challenge to both
implement and understand. We look forward to working with the
Committee to address these challenges.
The VA strongly supports those bills that propose to extend
existing programs such as portions of the vocational
rehabilitation and employment, the paralympics, and VA's work-
study program and we would suggest making some of those
extensions permanent.
Finally, we appreciate the Committee's interest in
legislation intended to reduce the disability claims backlog.
We support many provisions of the claims process improvement
act of 2013 which hold promise to take a significant bite out
of the backlog without prejudicing veterans and we look forward
to commenting shortly on other significant provisions of that
bill. We want to work with you and other stakeholders here
today to have a collaborative dialog about all of the proposals
on the agenda today.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for
the opportunity to appear before you today. We would be pleased
to respond to any questions you or other Members of the
Committee may have about any of these bills or other
legislation discussed in our written testimony.
Thank you, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Coy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Curtis L. Coy, Deputy Under Secretary for
Economic Opportunity, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am
pleased to be here today to provide the views of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) on pending legislation affecting VA's programs,
including the following: Sections 101, 102 and 103 of S. 6, S. 200,
S. 257, S. 262, S. 294, S. 373, S. 430, sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 of
S. 495, S. 514, S. 515, S. 572, S. 629, S. 674, S. 690, S. 695, S. 705,
S. 748, S. 893, S. 894, S. 922, sections 103, 104, 201, 202, 301, 302,
303, 304, and 305 of S. 928, and S. 939. VA has not had time to develop
cost estimates for S. 514 and S. 894 and but will work to provide them.
VA has not had time to develop views and costs on the other sections of
S. 928. I cannot address today views and costs on S. 735, S. 778,
S. 819, S. 863, S. 868, S. 889, S. 927, certain sections of S. 928,
S. 930, S. 932, S. 935, S. 938, S. 944, S. 1039, S. 1042, and S. 1058,
but, with your permission, we will work to provide that information.
Other legislative proposals under discussion today would affect
programs or laws administered by the Department of Labor (DOL),
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Defense (DOD), the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the General Services
Administration (GSA). Respectfully, we defer to those Departments'
views on those legislative proposals. Accompanying me this morning are
Thomas Murphy, Director, Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits
Administration; Richard Hipolit, Assistant General Counsel; and John
Brizzi, Deputy Assistant General Counsel.
s. 6
Section 101 of S. 6, the ``Putting Our Veterans Back to Work Act of
2013,'' would extend by two years the expiration of the Veterans
Retraining Assistance Program (VRAP) under section 211 of the VOW to
Hire Heroes Act of 2011, from March 31, 2014, to March 31, 2016. This
section also would increase the maximum enrollment in VRAP from 99,000
to 199,000 Veterans. It would add 50,000 participants during the period
April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015, and another 50,000 between
April 1, 2015 and March 31, 2016. Finally, section 101 would amend
subsection (b) of section 211 by striking ``up to 12 months of
retraining'' and replacing it with ``an aggregate of not more than 12
months of retraining.''
VA generally supports the legislation that would extend the
expiration of VRAP, to allow maximum enrollment of the currently
allotted 99,000 participants. VA supports legislative initiatives that
are designed to help Veterans seek and gain meaningful employment, and
this legislation provides more time to select and complete their degree
or certificate program, particularly those Veterans between the ages of
35 and 60. VA suggests, however, that changes be made to the existing
program prior to expansion, including adding new participants.
As of April 25, 2013, VA approved 98,296 applicants for VRAP
benefits, but only 43,803 Veterans were either enrolled in school or
had used their benefits. VA reached out to individuals eligible for
VRAP on several occasions to encourage them to enroll in training. VA
recommends that the following changes be made to VRAP before expanding
the program to more participants:
Allow participants to receive the full 12-month benefit as
long as the participant starts a training program within the period
between receiving their certificate of eligibility and the program's
sunset date.
Expand the program to include 4-year institutions that
offer associate's degrees.
Amend the sunset date of the program from March 31 to
May 31 so that it does not end in the middle of a standard academic
semester.
Finally, VA recommends removing the partition of participants by
fiscal year. Many unemployed Veterans cannot enroll in training before
they receive their certificate of eligibility for VRAP. Therefore,
Veterans may not enroll in school during the same fiscal year that they
are determined eligible. Additionally, it is unclear if any unused
slots from the original 99,000 participants will be lost in the next
fiscal year or will remain available for use in the next fiscal year.
To reduce confusion for Veterans using the program, VA recommends that
any increase in beneficiaries be effective for the remainder of the
program.
VA estimates the benefit costs for section 101 of S. 6 would be
$152.8 million during fiscal year (FY) 2014 and $1.3 billion for the
period beginning on April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2016.
Section 102 of S. 6 would extend the provisions of Section 231 of
Public Law 112-56 through December 31, 2016, VA's authority to provide
vocational rehabilitation benefits to members of the Armed Forces with
severe injuries or illnesses who have not yet been rated for purposes
of service-connected disability compensation. The current authority to
provide such benefits to these Servicemembers expires on December 31,
2014. Section 102 also would require VA to submit a report to Congress
on the benefits provided to these members of the Armed Forces within
180 days after the enactment of section 102.
VA supports this provision and believes that extending automatic
eligibility for vocational rehabilitation to Servicemembers for two
additional years is warranted due to the expected acceleration in
Servicemembers separating from the Armed Forces. This provision would
allow individuals who are still on active duty to qualify for and
receive vocational rehabilitation and employment services without
waiting for a VA disability rating, and would facilitate their
transition from military to civilian life.
We do not anticipate additional costs to VA resulting from
enactment of this provision because individuals who would receive
vocational rehabilitation services under this provision would be
expected to receive VA disability ratings as Veterans that would
qualify them for vocational rehabilitation services.
Section 103 of the bill would provide a two-year extension of the
provisions of section 233 of Public Law 112-56, which entitles a
Veteran who has completed a vocational rehabilitation program under
chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code, and has exhausted state
unemployment benefits, to an additional twelve-month period of
vocational rehabilitation services without regard to the 12-year
eligibility period or 48-month limitation on entitlements. Under
current law, VA must receive the application for chapter 31 services
before March 31, 2014, and within 6 months of exhausting regular
unemployment compensation benefits. If section 103 were enacted, the
deadline for receipt of an application would be extended until
March 31, 2016.
VA supports this provision. Extending this benefit for Veterans who
are beyond the 12-year delimiting date would provide them the
opportunity to prepare for and obtain suitable employment.
VA estimates that benefit costs associated with enactment of
section 103 would be approximately $260,000 from FY 2016 through FY
2018. There are no additional full-time equivalent (FTE) or general
operating expenses (GOE) cost requirements.
Sections 104, 201, 301, and 302 affect programs or laws
administered by DOL. Section 202 affects programs or laws administered
by DHS. Section 203 affects programs or laws administered by GSA.
Respectfully we defer to those Departments' views on those sections of
S. 6.
s. 200
S. 200 would establish eligibility for interment in a national
cemetery for any individual who: (1) the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
determines served in combat support of the Armed Forces in Laos during
the period beginning on February 28, 1961, and ending on May 15, 1975;
and (2) at the time of death was a U.S. citizen or lawfully admitted
alien.
Section 401 of Public Law 95-202 authorizes the Secretary of
Defense to determine whether the service of members of civilian or
contractual groups shall be considered active duty for the purposes of
all laws administered by VA. The DOD Civilian/Military Service Review
Board advises the Secretary of Defense in determining if civilian
service in support of the U.S. Armed Forces during a period of armed
conflict is equivalent to active military service for VA benefits. VA
provides burial and memorial benefits to individuals deemed eligible by
reason of active military service established by the Secretary of
Defense.
VA does not support this bill because it would bypass the
statutorily mandated process established under section 401 of Public
Law 95-202 that promotes consistency in evaluation of various types of
service. The established process under Public Law 95202 ensures
that determinations regarding individuals or groups who did not serve
in the Armed Forces are based on adequate information regarding the
nature of the operations of the U.S. Armed Forces at the relevant times
and locations and the nature of the support provided by the individuals
or groups in question.
Further, VA relies on DOD to determine the circumstances of an
individual's service and when such service was rendered, and, for
purposes of this bill, VA would have to rely on DOD to make
determinations such as whether such service was ``in combat support of
the Armed Forces.'' VA is not equipped to make those determinations on
a case-by-case basis. Yet the bill makes no provision for DOD
involvement in the process. In addition, it is unclear how ``combat
support'' would be defined and documented for purposes of implementing
this bill.
If the assumption is made that the impacted population would be
small, no significant cemetery construction or interment costs would be
associated with this legislation.
s. 257
S. 257, the ``GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act of 2013,'' would amend
section 3679 of title 38, United States Code, to direct VA, for
purposes of the educational assistance programs administered by the
Secretary, to disapprove courses of education provided by public
institutions of higher education that do not charge tuition and fees
for Veterans at the same rate that is charged for in-state residents,
regardless of the Veteran's State of residence. The bill does not
address whether tuition and fee rates for Servicemembers or other
eligible beneficiaries of the GI Bill affect the approval status of a
program of education. S. 257 would apply to educational assistance
provided after August 1, 2014. In the case of a course of education in
which a Veteran or eligible person (such as a spouse or dependent who
is eligible for education benefits) is enrolled prior to August 1,
2014, that is subsequently disapproved by VA, the Department would
treat that course as approved until the Veteran or eligible person
completes the course in which the individual is enrolled. After
August 1, 2018, any disapproved course would be treated as such, unless
the Veteran or eligible person receives a waiver from VA. While VA is
sympathetic to the issue of rising tuition costs, it is difficult to
endorse the proposed legislation until we know more about the impact.
VA cannot predict what reductions in offerings by educational
institutions would result from this requirement. In-state tuition rules
are set by individual States, and are undoubtedly driven by overall
fiscal factors and other policy considerations. Additionally, the bill
creates ambiguity since it is unclear whether institutions that charge
out-of-state tuition and fees to other eligible persons for a course of
education, but that charge in-state tuition to Veterans in the same
course, would also be disapproved.
VA estimates approximately 11.8 percent of Yellow Ribbon
participants attended public institutions since the program's
inception. Of those, an estimated 80.6 percent were Veterans during the
2012 fall enrollment period. VA applied these percentages to the total
amount of Yellow Ribbon benefits paid in FY 2012 and projected through
FY 2023, assuming growth consistent with the overall chapter 33
program. Based on those projections, VA estimates that enactment of
S. 257 would result in benefit savings to VA's Readjustment Benefits
account of $2.3 million in the first year, $70.3 million over 5 years,
and $179.9 million over 10 years. VA estimates there would be no
additional GOE administrative costs required to implement this bill.
s. 262
S. 262, the ``Veterans Education Equity Act of 2013,'' would amend
section 3313(c)(1) of title 38, United States Code, to revise the
formula for the payment of tuition and fees for individuals entitled to
educational assistance under the Post-9/11 GI Bill who are pursuing
programs of education at a public institution of higher learning (IHL).
The revised formula would include, as an additional payment formula,
the lesser of the actual net cost for tuition and fees after applying
the receipt of any tuition waivers, reductions, and scholarships,
versus the greater of the actual net cost for in-state tuition and fees
after applying the receipt of any tuition waivers, reductions, and
scholarships, or $17,500 for the academic year beginning on August 1,
2011 (such amount to be increased each subsequent year by the average
percentage increase in undergraduate tuition costs). The amendment
would be effective with respect to the payment of educational
assistance for an academic year beginning on or after the date of
enactment.
Currently, resident and non-resident students pursuing programs of
education at public IHLs receive the actual net cost for in-state
tuition and fees charged by the institution. As written, this bill
would allow non-resident students to receive an amount above net in-
state tuition charges in some instances.
While VA understands the issue of rising educational costs and
supports the intent underlying the bill to provide payment equity for
individuals training under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, VA cannot support the
proposed legislation.
The additional separate rules for tuition-and-fee charges would add
yet another level of complexity to the Post-9/11 GI Bill for both
Veterans and schools to understand. VA continues to receive complaints
from participants regarding confusion about exactly how much they will
receive in tuition and fees under the program. This bill would
exacerbate that problem.
S. 262 would also lead to very complicated processing scenarios in
the Long Term Solution (LTS), the computer processing system for the
Post-9/11 GI Bill. Rules in the LTS system regarding payment amounts
would need to be updated. Additionally, since the amount of educational
assistance would be based on the actual net cost for tuition and fees
versus the greater of the actual net cost for in-state tuition and fees
and $17,500, VA would have to apply a blended set of rules to each
claim that falls under these provisions.
In addition, VA has identified technical concerns with the bill's
text. For example, it is unclear how to apply the $17,500 cap per
academic year to enrollments. The bill does not specify if VA would
need to pay the first term of the academic year up to the maximum
amount or divide the total yearly allotment over the course of
different semesters. There could be scenarios in which an individual
may receive most of, if not all, the yearly allotment for the fall term
alone, leaving no money to be spent in the subsequent terms.
VA estimates that the benefit cost associated with enactment of
this bill would be $613.0 million in the first year, $3.4 billion over
5 years, and $7.6 billion over 10 years. No administrative or personnel
costs to VA are associated with this bill. VA information technology
costs are estimated to be $1 million. These costs include enhancements
to the Post-9/11 GI Bill Long-Term Solution.
s. 294
Section 2(a) of S. 294, the ``Ruth Moore Act of 2013,'' would add
to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1154 a new subsection (c) to provide that, if a
Veteran alleges that a ``covered mental health condition'' was incurred
or aggravated by military sexual trauma (MST) during active service, VA
must ``accept as sufficient proof of service-connection'' a mental
health professional's diagnosis of the condition together with
satisfactory lay or other evidence of such trauma and the
professional's opinion that the condition is related to such trauma,
provided that the trauma is consistent with the circumstances,
conditions, or hardships of such service, irrespective of whether there
is an official record of incurrence or aggravation in service. Service
connection could be rebutted by ``clear and convincing evidence to the
contrary.'' In the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the
contrary, and provided the claimed MST is consistent with the
circumstances, conditions, and hardships of service, the Veteran's lay
testimony alone would be sufficient to establish the occurrence of the
claimed MST. The provision would define the term ``covered mental
health condition'' to mean Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD),
anxiety, depression, ``or other mental health diagnosis described in
the current version'' of the American Psychiatric Association
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders that VA
``determines to be related to military sexual trauma.'' The bill would
define MST to mean ``psychological trauma, which in the judgment of a
mental health professional, resulted from a physical assault of a
sexual nature, battery of a sexual nature, or sexual harassment which
occurred during active military, naval, or air service.''
Section 2(b) would require VA, for a 5-year period beginning with
FY 2014, to submit to Congress an annual report on claims covered by
new section 1154(c) that were submitted during the fiscal year. Section
2(b) would also require VA to report on the: (1) number and percentage
of covered claims submitted by each sex that were approved and denied;
(2) rating percentage assigned for each claim based on the sex of the
claimant; (3) three most common reasons for denying such claims; (4)
number of claims denied based on a Veteran's failure to report for a
medical examination; (5) number of claims pending at the end of each
fiscal year; (6) number of claims on appeal; (7) average number of days
from submission to completion of the claims; and (8) training provided
to Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) employees with respect to
covered claims.
Section 2(c) would make proposed section 1154(c) applicable to
disability claims ``for which no final decision has been made before
the date of the enactment'' of the bill.
VA is committed to serving our Nation's Veterans by accurately
adjudicating claims based on MST in a thoughtful and caring manner,
while fully recognizing the unique evidentiary considerations involved
in such an event. Before addressing the specific provisions of S. 294,
it would be useful to outline those efforts, which we believe achieve
the intent behind the bill. The Under Secretary for Benefits has
spearheaded VBA's efforts to ensure that these claims are adjudicated
compassionately and fairly, with sensitivity to the unique
circumstances presented by each individual claim.
VA is aware that, because of the personal and sensitive nature of
the MST stressors in these cases, it is often difficult for the victim
to report or document the event when it occurs. To remedy this, VA
developed regulations and procedures specific to MST claims that
appropriately assist the claimant in developing evidence necessary to
support the claim. As with other PTSD claims, VA initially reviews the
Veteran's military service records for evidence of the claimed
stressor. VA's regulation also provides that evidence from sources
other than a Veteran's service records may corroborate the Veteran's
account of the stressor incident, such as evidence from mental health
counseling centers or statements from family members and fellow
Servicemembers. Evidence of behavior changes, such as a request for
transfer to another military duty assignment, is another type of
relevant evidence that may indicate occurrence of an assault. VA
notifies Veterans regarding the types of evidence that may corroborate
occurrence of an in-service personal assault and asks them to submit or
identify any such evidence. The actual stressor need not be documented.
If minimal circumstantial evidence of a stressor is obtained, VA will
schedule an examination with an appropriate mental health professional
and request an opinion as to whether the examination indicates that an
in-service stressor occurred. The mental health professional's opinion
can establish occurrence of the claimed stressor.
With respect to claims for other disabilities based on MST, VA has
a duty to assist in obtaining evidence to substantiate a claim for
disability compensation. When a Veteran files a claim for mental or
physical disabilities other than PTSD based on MST, VBA will obtain a
Veteran's service medical records, VA treatment records, relevant
Federal records identified by the Veteran, and any other relevant
records, including private records, identified by the Veteran that the
Veteran authorizes VA to obtain. VA must also provide a medical
examination or obtain a medical opinion when necessary to decide a
disability claim. VA will request that the medical examiner provide an
opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the current
symptoms or disability are related to the in-service event. This
opinion will be considered as evidence in deciding whether the
Veteran's disability is service-connected.
VBA has also placed a primary emphasis on informing VA regional
office (RO) personnel of the issues related to MST and providing
training in proper claims development and adjudication. VBA developed
and issued Training Letter 11-05, Adjudicating Posttraumatic Stress
Disorder Claims Based on Military Sexual Trauma, in December 2011. This
was followed by a nationwide broadcast on MST claims adjudication. The
broadcast focused on describing the range of potential markers that
could indicate occurrence of an MST stressor and the importance of a
thorough and open-minded approach to seeking such markers in the
evidentiary record. In addition, the VBA Challenge Training Program,
which all newly hired claims processors are required to attend, now
includes a module on MST within the course on PTSD claims processing.
VBA also provided its designated Women Veterans Coordinators with
updated specialized training. These employees are located in every VA
RO and are available to assist both female and male Veterans with their
claims resulting from MST.
VBA worked closely with the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)
Office of Disability Examination and Medical Assessment to ensure that
specific training was developed for clinicians conducting PTSD
compensation examinations for MST-related claims. VBA and VHA further
collaborated to provide a training broadcast targeted to VHA clinicians
and VBA raters on this very important topic, which aired initially in
April 2012 and has been rebroadcast numerous times.
Prior to these training initiatives, the grant rate for PTSD claims
based on MST was about 38 percent. Following the training, the grant
rate rose and at the end of February 2013 stood at about 52 percent,
which is roughly comparable to the approximate 59-percent grant rate
for all PTSD claims.
In December 2012, VBA's Systematic Technical Accuracy Review team,
VBA's national quality assurance office, completed a second review of
approximately 300 PTSD claims based on MST. These claims were denials
that followed a medical examination. The review showed an overall
accuracy rate of 86 percent, which is roughly the same as the current
national benefit entitlement accuracy level for all rating-related end
products.
In addition, VBA's new standardized organizational model has now
been implemented at all of our ROs. It incorporates a case-management
approach to claims processing. VBA reorganized its workforce into
cross-functional teams that give employees visibility of the entire
processing cycle of a Veteran's claim. These cross-functional teams
work together on one of three segmented lanes: express, special
operations, or core. Claims that predictably can take less time flow
through an express lane (30 percent); those taking more time or
requiring special handling flow through a special operations lane (10
percent); and the rest of the claims flow through the core lane (60
percent). All MST-related claims are now processed in the special
operations lane, ensuring that our most experienced and skilled
employees are assigned to manage these complex claims.
The Under Secretary for Benefits' efforts have dramatically
improved VA's overall sensitivity to MST-related PTSD claims and have
led to higher current grant rates. However, she recognized that some
Veterans' MST-related claims were decided before her efforts began. To
assist those Veterans and provide them with the same evidentiary
considerations as Veterans who file claims today, VBA in April 2013
advised Veterans of the opportunity to request that VA review their
previously denied PTSD claims based on MST. Those Veterans who respond
will receive review of their claims based on VA's heightened
sensitivity to MST and a more complete awareness of evidence
development. VBA will also continue to work with VHA medical
professionals to ensure they are aware of their critical role in
processing these claims.
Through VA's extensive, recent, and ongoing actions, we are
ensuring that MST claimants are given a full and fair opportunity to
have their claim considered, with a practical and sensitive approach
based on the nature of MST. As noted above, VA has recognized the
sensitive nature of MST-related PTSD claims and claims based on other
covered mental health conditions, as well as the difficulty inherent in
obtaining evidence of an in-service MST event. Current regulations
provide multiple means to establish an occurrence, and VA has initiated
additional training efforts and specialized handling procedures to
ensure thorough, accurate, and timely processing of these claims.
VA's regulations reflect the special nature of PTSD. Section
3.304(f) of title 38 Code of Federal Regulations, currently provides
particularized rules for establishing stressors related to personal
assault, combat, former prisoner-of-war status, and fear of hostile
military or terrorist activity. These particularized rules are based on
an acknowledgement that certain circumstances of service may make the
claimed stressor more difficult to corroborate. Nevertheless, they
require threshold evidentiary showings designed to ensure accuracy and
fairness in determinations as to whether the claimed stressor occurred.
Evidence of a Veteran's service in combat or as a prisoner of war
generally provides an objective basis for concluding that claimed
stressors related to such service occurred. Evidence that a Veteran
served in an area of potential military or terrorist activity may
provide a basis for concluding that stressors related to fears of such
activity occurred. In such cases, VA also requires the opinion of a VA
or VA-contracted mental health professional, which enables VA to ensure
that such opinions are properly based on consideration of relevant
facts, including service records, as needed. For PTSD claims based on a
personal assault, lay evidence from sources outside the Veteran's
service records may corroborate the Veteran's account of the in-service
stressor, such as statements from law enforcement authorities, mental
health counseling centers, family members, or former Servicemembers, as
well as other evidence of behavioral changes following the claimed
assault. Minimal circumstantial evidence of a stressor is sufficient to
schedule a VA examination and request that the examiner provide an
opinion as to whether the stressor occurred. We recognize that some
victims of sexual assault may not have even this minimal circumstantial
evidence, and we are committed to addressing the problem.
As VA has continued its close review of this legislation as part of
an Administration-wide focus on the critical issue of MST, we would
like to further consider whether statutory changes could also be
useful, while continuing to carry forward the training, regulatory, and
case review efforts described above. VA would like to follow up with
the Committee on the results of this review, and of course are glad to
meet with you or your staff on this critical issue.
VA does not oppose section 2(b).
Section 2(c) does not define the term ``final decision.'' As a
result, it is unclear whether the new law would be applicable to an
appealed claim in which no final decision has been issued by VA or,
pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7291, by a court.
Benefit costs are estimated to be $135.9 million during the first
year, $2.0 billion for 5 years, and $7.1 billion over 10 years.
s. 373
S. 373, the ``Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act
of 2013,'' would consider a person a spouse, for purposes of military
personnel policies and military and Veterans' benefits, if the marriage
of the individual is valid in the State in which the marriage was
entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered into outside any
State, if the marriage is valid in the place in which the marriage was
entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State.
It includes as a State: the District of Columbia, the Commonwealths of
Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. territories and
possessions. We defer to DOD's views on those parts of the bill
amending titles 10, 32, and 37 of the United States Code.
Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, which implements section
3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, defines the term ``marriage'' for
purposes of Federal statutes, regulations, or rulings to mean only a
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and defines
the term ``spouse'' to mean only a person of the opposite sex who is a
husband or wife. This law excludes same-sex relationships from the
definition of ``marriage,'' and persons of the same sex from the
definition of ``spouse,'' regardless of whether the marital
relationship is recognized under state law. Similarly, section 101(3)
and (31) of title 38, United States Code, limits the definitions of
``surviving spouse'' and ``spouse'' for purposes of the statutory
provisions in title 38 pertaining to VA benefits to only apply to a
person of the opposite sex of the Veteran.
With regard to the laws that govern VA, section 2(d) of the bill
would revise paragraph (3) of section 101 to remove the requirement
that a ``surviving spouse'' must be a person of the opposite sex of the
Veteran. We believe the revision to section 101(3) would most logically
be read to incorporate the liberalized definition of ``spouse'' in the
proposed section 101(31), but that there would be some ambiguity on
that question absent language in section 101(3) expressly precluding
application of section 7 of title 1, United States Code, which defines
both ``spouse'' and ``marriage'' for purposes of all Federal laws.
Section 2(d) of the bill would revise paragraph (31) of section
101, which defines the term ``spouse'' for the purposes of title 38, to
exclude the application of section 7 of title 1, United States Code,
and, in most instances, to defer to the law of the State in which the
parties celebrated their marriage to determine the validity of the
marriage and whether an individual qualifies as a ``spouse'' of a
Veteran. Under this section of the bill, an individual shall be
considered a ``spouse'' if the marriage of the individual is valid in
the State in which the marriage was entered into, or in the case in
which the marriage was entered into outside any State, if the marriage
is valid in the place in which the marriage was entered into as long as
the marriage could have been entered into in a State. Section 2 would
further revise section 101(31) to refer to paragraph (20) of the same
section to provide the meaning of the term ``State,'' with the
additional inclusion of the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana
Islands. The bill's language in section 101(31) directly conflicts with
38 U.S.C. Sec. 103(c), which provides that VA determines the validity
of a marriage in accordance with the law of the State where the parties
resided at the time of the marriage or the law of the State where the
parties resided when the right to benefits accrued.
VA supports this bill to change the definition of ``spouse'' and
``surviving spouse'' in title 38 and exempt VA from the Defense of
Marriage Act of 1996, which restricts Federal marriage benefits and
requires inter-state marriage recognition to only opposite-sex
marriages in the United States. However, VA is concerned about the
conflict (noted above) between section 103(c) and the proposed
amendments in section 101. We suggest the proposed legislation be
amended to resolve this issue. Specifically, this bill could amend
section 103(c), which defines a marriage based on ``the law of the
place where the parties resided at the time of the marriage or the law
of the place where the parties resided when the right to benefits
accrued'' to be consistent with the other amendments of section 2
providing that an individual shall be considered a ``spouse'' based on
the law of the place where the parties entered into the marriage.
Alternatively, the amendments in section 2 of the bill could be revised
to be consistent with the current section 103(c). We note that a
revision to section 103(c) would change how VA administers benefits for
both same-sex and heterosexual couples.
S. 373 would require an amendment to several regulations, including
section 3.1(j) of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, which defines
``marriage,'' and section 3.50 of title 38, Code of Federal
Regulations, which defines ``spouse'' and surviving spouse.'' S. 373
would also require VA to revise several sections in its adjudication
procedures manual and develop other policy and procedures guidance.
Full implementation of this bill would require VA to amend governing
regulations, procedures, and training products. Therefore, if this bill
is codified, VA will work diligently to revise its regulations in a
timely manner.
S. 373 would affect all VA benefits available to or for a veteran's
spouse, including compensation, pension, insurance, death, burial,
memorialization, and other benefits. Full implementation of this bill
would require VA to amend governing regulations, procedures, and
training products, which could result in some short-term delays due to
the necessary transitions. For example, under Family Servicemembers'
Group Life Insurance (FSGLI), members of the uniformed services insured
under SGLI can purchase life insurance on the lives of their spouses.
Currently same-sex spouses are not considered spouses for FSGLI
purposes. Also, since the spousal coverage is automatically included
for most SGLI-insured members, it would be necessary for DOD to adjust
its data systems to accommodate recognized marriages, including its
premium deduction functions, since DOD's systems maintain all SGLI-
related information for its Servicemembers. It would have to be
determined if the Office of Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance, the
office that administers the SGLI program and receives from DOD the
documentation necessary to identify and pay claims, will be able to
rely on DOD's certifications, or will have to try to identify and
verify claims for the death of a spouse that are based upon same-sex
marriages.
VA will provide a cost estimate for the record.
s. 430
Section 2 of S. 430, the ``Veterans Small Business Opportunity and
Protection Act of 2013,'' would expand the scope of the ``surviving
spouse'' exception associated with VA's Veteran-owned small business
(VOSB) acquisition program established by 38 U.S.C. Sec. 8127. This
program requires that VA verify the ownership and control of VOSBs by
Veterans in order for the VOSB to participate in VA acquisitions set
aside for these firms.
Currently, an exception in the law is provided for certain
surviving spouses to stand in the place of a deceased service-disabled
spouse owner for verification purposes if the Veteran owner had a
service-connected disability rated as 100 percent disabling or died as
a result of a service-connected disability for a limited period of
time. Section 2 would continue to provide that if the deceased Veteran
spouse had a service-connected disability rated as 100 percent
disabling or died as a result of a service-connected disability, the
surviving spouse owner could retain verified service-disabled Veteran-
owned small business (SDVOSB) status for VA's program for a period of
10 years. In addition, a surviving spouse of a deceased Veteran with
any service-connected disability, regardless of whether the Veteran
died as a result of the disability, could retain verified SDVOSB status
for VA's program for a period of 3 years. VA supports this provision.
Section 3 of S. 430 would add a separate, new provision to 38
U.S.C. Sec. 8127 to enable the surviving spouse or dependent of an
servicemember killed in the line of duty who acquires 51 percent or
greater ownership rights of the servicemember's small business to stand
in place of the deceased servicemember for purposes of verifying the
small business as one owned and controlled by Veterans in conjunction
with VA's VOSB set-aside acquisition program also created by 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 8127. This status would continue, for purposes of a surviving
spouse, until the earlier of the re-marriage of the surviving spouse,
the relinquishment of ownership interest such that the percentage falls
below 51 percent, or 10 years. With respect to dependent status, this
would continue until the dependent holds less than 51 percent ownership
interest or 10 years, whichever occurs earlier. VA supports this
provision but recommends clarifying the term ``dependent,'' as
appropriate, to ensure the individual is one having legal capacity to
contract with the Federal Government. VA stands ready to work with the
Committee to address this issue. VA estimates no additional
appropriations would be required to implement this bill if enacted.
s. 492
S. 492, which would require conditioning certain DOL grants upon
States establishing programs to recognize military experience in its
licensing and credentialing programs. This bill affects programs or
laws administered by DOL. Respectfully, we defer to that Department's
views on this bill.
s. 495
Section 5 of S. 495, ``Careers for Veterans Act of 2013,'' would
add a new definition to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 8127, VA's VOSB set-aside
acquisition program, to clarify that any small business concern owned
exclusively by Veterans would be deemed to be unconditionally owned by
Veterans. VA supports this provision.
Section 6 of the bill essentially duplicates the extension of
surviving spouse status previously discussed in conjunction with
section 2 of S. 430. VA supports this provision. Section 7 of this bill
essentially duplicates the provisions of section 3 of S. 430. Again, VA
supports this provision subject to the caveat that ``dependent'' be
more specifically defined. Last, section 8 of this bill would add a new
subsection to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 8127 that would eliminate consideration of
state community property laws in verification examinations with respect
to determinations of ownership percentage by the Veteran or Veterans of
businesses located in States with community property laws. VA supports
this provision. VA estimates that no additional appropriations would be
required to implement the provisions of sections 5 through 8 of S. 495.
Section 2 affects programs or laws administered by OPM and sections
3 and 4 affect programs or laws administered by DOL. Respectfully, we
defer to those Departments for views on those sections of S. 495.
s. 514
S. 514 would authorize VA to pay an additional appropriate amount
to each individual entitled to educational assistance under the Post-9/
11 GI Bill (chapter 33) who is pursuing a program of education with a
focus (as determined in accordance with regulations prescribed by VA)
on science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) or an area leading
to employment in a high-demand occupation. Such payment amount would be
in addition to any other educational assistance to which the individual
was entitled. The additional payment would be in an amount determined
by the Secretary and would be in addition to other amounts payable
under the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
While VA is in favor of legislation encouraging Veterans to pursue
higher education, particularly in programs leading to employment in
high-demand fields including science, technology, engineering, and
math, we are unable to support the bill as drafted.
First, the bill could create inequity of payments among Veterans
who have all earned the same benefit. Current chapter 33 beneficiaries
are free to pursue programs and degrees that best fit their personal
and professional goals, yet this bill could result in higher payments
to certain Veterans based on an individual's decision to pursue a
specific degree or career path.
Second, the proposed bill could create an inequity if a beneficiary
begins his or her education by pursuing a STEM degree or a degree
leading to a high-demand occupation and later decides to pursue a
degree for which no additional benefit is granted. If this occurs, two
beneficiaries could conceivably complete the same degree yet have
received different payment amounts over the course of their education.
We will be pleased to provide for the record an estimate of the
cost of enactment of this bill.
s. 515
S. 515 would amend title 38, United States Code, to permit a
recipient of the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship
(available to a child of an individual who, on or after September 11,
2001, dies in the line of duty while serving on active duty) to be
eligible for the ``Yellow Ribbon G.I. Education Enhancement Program''
(Yellow Ribbon Program), under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance
Program (Post-9/11 GI Bill). The Yellow Ribbon Program is available to
Veterans and transfer-of-entitlement recipients receiving Post-9/11 GI
Bill benefits at the 100% benefit level attending school at a private
institution or as a non-resident student at a public institution. The
Program provides payment for up to half of the tuition-and-fee charges
that are not covered by the Post-9/11 GI Bill, if the institution
enters into an agreement with VA to pay or waive an equal amount of the
charges that exceed Post-9/11 GI Bill coverage. This bill would take
effect at the beginning of the academic year after the date of
enactment.
VA supports S. 515, but has some concerns, expressed below, that we
believe should be addressed. The enactment of this proposed legislation
would require programming changes to VA's Long Term Solution computer
processing system. Obviously development funding is not available in
VA's fiscal year 2013 budget for the changes that would be necessitated
by enactment of this legislation. If funding is not made available to
support them, manual processes would be required, which could result in
some decrease in timeliness and accuracy of Post-9/11 GI Bill claims.
The effective date for the proposed legislation would be the first
academic year after enactment, which is also problematic. VA estimates
that it would require one year from date of enactment to make the
system changes necessary to implement this bill.
VA estimates that if S. 515 were enacted, the costs to the
Readjustment Benefits account would be $609 thousand in the first year,
$3.6 million over 5 years, and $8.4 million over 10 years. There are no
additional FTE or GOE costs associated with this proposal.
s. 572
S. 572, the ``Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act,'' would
provide that a person who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally
incompetent, or unconscious for an extended period will not be
considered adjudicated as a ``mental defective'' for purposes of the
Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in the absence of an order or
finding by a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority that such
person is a danger to himself, herself, or others. The bill would, in
effect, exclude VA determinations of incompetency from the coverage of
the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. VA does not support this
bill.
VA determinations of mental incompetency are based generally on
whether a person, because of injury or disease, lacks the mental
capacity to manage his or her own financial affairs. We believe
adequate protections can be provided to these Veterans under current
statutory authority. Under the [National Instant Criminal Background
Check System] NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, individuals whom
VA has determined to be incompetent can have their firearms rights
restored in two ways: First, a person who has been adjudicated by VA as
unable to manage his or her own affairs can reopen the issue based on
new evidence and have the determination reversed. When this occurs, VA
is obligated to notify the Department of Justice to remove the
individual's name from the roster of those barred from possessing and
purchasing firearms. Second, even if a person remains adjudicated
incompetent by VA for purposes of handling his or her own finances, he
or she is entitled to petition VA to have firearms rights restored on
the basis that the individual poses no threat to public safety. VA has
relief procedures in place, and we are fully committed to continuing to
conduct these procedures in a timely and effective manner to fully
protect the rights of our beneficiaries.
Also, the reliance on an administrative incompetency determination
as a basis for prohibiting an individual from possessing or obtaining
firearms under Federal law is not unique to VA or Veterans. Under the
applicable Federal regulations implementing the Brady Handgun Violence
Prevention Act, any person determined by a lawful authority to lack the
mental capacity to manage his or her own affairs is subject to the same
prohibition. By exempting certain VA mental health determinations that
would otherwise prohibit a person from possessing or obtaining firearms
under Federal law, the bill would create a different standard for
Veterans and their survivors than that applicable to the rest of the
population and could raise public safety issues.
The enactment of S. 572 would not impose any costs on VA.
s. 629
S. 629, the ``Honor America's Guard-Reserve Retirees Act of 2013,''
would add to chapter 1, title 38, United States Code, a provision to
honor as Veterans, based on retirement status, certain persons who
performed service in reserve components of the Armed Forces but who do
not have service qualifying for Veteran status under 38 U.S.C.
Sec. 101(2). The bill provides that such persons would be ``honored''
as Veterans, but would not be entitled to any benefit by reason of the
amendment.
Under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 101(2), Veteran status is conditioned on the
performance of ``active military, naval, or air service.'' Under
current law, a National Guard or Reserve member is considered to have
had such service only if he or she served on active duty, was disabled
or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty
during active duty for training, or was disabled or died from any
injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty or from an acute
myocardial infarction, a cardiac arrest, or a cerebrovascular accident
during inactive duty training. S. 629 would eliminate these service
requirements for National Guard or Reserve members who served in such a
capacity for at least 20 years. Retirement status alone would make them
eligible for Veteran status.
VA recognizes that the National Guard and Reserves have admirably
served this country and in recent years have played an even greater
role in our Nation's overseas conflicts. Nevertheless, VA does not
support this bill because it represents a departure from active service
as the foundation for Veteran status. This bill would extend Veteran
status to those who never performed active military, naval, or air
service, the very circumstance which qualifies an individual as a
Veteran. Thus, this bill would equate longevity of reserve service with
the active service long ago established as the hallmark for Veteran
status.
VA estimates that there would be no additional benefit or
administrative costs associated with this bill if enacted.
s. 674
S. 674, the ``Accountability for Veterans Act of 2013,'' would
require responses within a fixed period of time from the heads of
covered Federal agencies when the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
requests information necessary to adjudicate claims for benefits under
laws administered by the Secretary. Covered agencies would include the
Department of Defense (DOD), the Social Security Administration (SSA),
and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
The bill would require covered agencies to provide VA with
requested Federal records within 30 days or submit to VA the reason why
records cannot be obtained within 30 days, along with an estimate as to
when the records could be furnished. If VA does not receive the records
within 15 days after the estimated date, then VA would resubmit such
request and the agency must, within 30 days, furnish VA with the
records or provide an explanation of why the records have not been
provided and an estimate of when the records will be provided. The bill
would also require VA to provide notices to the claimant regarding the
status of the records requests and to submit a semiannual report to the
Senate and House Committees on Veterans' Affairs regarding the progress
of records requests for the most recent 6-month period.
VA appreciates this effort to accelerate the response times when VA
requests records from Federal agencies that are necessary to adjudicate
disability claims. However, VA opposes this bill because adequate
measures are already in place to facilitate expeditious transfer of
records from the identified covered agencies.
Under a recent Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between VA and
DOD, DOD provides VA, at the time of a Servicemember's discharge, a
100-percent-complete service treatment and personnel record in an
electronic, searchable format. As this MOU applies to the 300,000
annually departing Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserve
Servicemembers, it represents a landmark measure that will
significantly contribute to VA's efforts to achieve its 125-day goal to
complete disability compensation claims.
VA also continues to work with SSA to enhance information sharing
through SSA's Web-based portal, Government to Government Services
Online (GSO). VA and SSA officials confer weekly to develop strategies
to allow VA to more quickly obtain SSA medical records needed for VA
claims. As a result, SSA is now directly uploading electronic medical
records into VBA's electronic document repository at several regional
offices (RO). These improvements are reducing duplication and
streamlining the records transmittal and review processes. VA will
continue with a phased nationwide deployment of this initiative for our
new paperless processing system, beginning with the San Juan Regional
Office.
VA is also concerned about the requirement to notify the claimant
of the status of records requests. Although these extra administrative
steps would provide additional information to claimants, they also
require more work of claims processors and thus reduce claims
processing capacity in ROs. VA wishes to concentrate its resources on
eliminating the disability claims backlog.
There are no mandatory costs associated with this proposal. The
discretionary costs associated with this bill cannot be determined,
given the speculative nature of estimating what additional actions
would be required of other Federal agencies.
s. 690
S. 690, the ``Filipino Veterans Fairness Act of 2013,'' would
expand VA benefits provided for Filipino Veterans of World War II.
Current law at section 107 of title 38, United States Code,
addresses Filipino Veterans of World War II and restricts entitlement
to VA benefits as compared to U.S. military Veterans. Section 107
states that certain service is deemed not to be ``active military,
naval, or air service'' for purposes of some VA benefits. Accordingly,
that service does not satisfy the statutory definition of ``Veteran''
under section 101(2) of title 38, United States Code, and persons with
such service are not eligible for VA benefits, except for those
benefits specifically provided under section 107.
Section 2(a)(1) and (2) of S. 690 would convert service in the
Philippine Commonwealth Army, the Recognized Guerrillas, and the New
Philippine Scouts into active military, naval, or air service for the
purpose of VA benefits. Essentially, these individuals would no longer
be excluded from the statutory definition of ``Veteran'' in section
101(2) of title 38, United States Code.
Section 2(a)(3) would require VA to make determinations as to
whether individuals claiming such service did in fact serve, taking
into account any ``alternative documentation'' that the Secretary
determines relevant. Although the Secretary would have discretion to
determine what documentation is relevant, this requirement would be a
departure from VA's longstanding practice under section 3.203 of title
38, Code of Federal Regulations, of relying on service department
records, which VA believes to be the most reliable source of service
verification. This would add an evidence-intensive step to the
processing of these claims that does not exist for other claims.
Section 2(a)(4) would relieve persons who become eligible for VA
benefits under this law from the preclusive effect of a provision of
the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation (FVEC) law, which provided
that acceptance of payments from the fund constituted a complete
release of any claims against the United States based on the types of
service qualifying for payment from the fund and described in
subsection (a)(1) and (a)(2). In other words, those who were given FVEC
payments could still file ``traditional'' claims for benefits under the
expanded eligibility criteria of this bill.
Although VA appreciates and values the service of Filipino
Veterans, VA cannot support S. 690 because it would effect a unique
departure, for one group of claimants, from the sound and generally
applicable procedures for verification of service and would accord such
claimants potential entitlement to more benefits than other Veterans,
insofar as they would be eligible to receive the full range of VA
benefits in addition to the FVEC payments already received.
Based on the characterization of service as active service, this
bill would confer statutory ``Veteran'' status under section 101(2) of
title 38, United States Code, upon Filipino Veterans, entitling them to
all VA benefits. This would not change the dollar amount of previously
covered benefits ($.50 for each dollar authorized); however, full
benefits under other programs, such as Education, Loan Guaranty, and
those provided by VHA may be extended to certain Filipino Veterans who
are not otherwise eligible. This has significant budgetary implications
and raises issues of fairness and equity given that Filipino Veterans
were authorized to receive payments from the FVEC fund. Section 2(a)(4)
of this bill would rescind section 1002(h)(1) of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the legislation which authorized FVEC
payments. This Act provided that receipt of payment under the FVEC was
a release of all claims against the United States. This bill would
rescind that release notwithstanding the receipt of FVEC payments.
VA currently relies on service department records under section
3.203 of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, to determine what
service a claimant rendered. That policy and the resulting procedures
would be invalidated by this bill for persons claiming this service.
Section 2(a)(3) would require VA to consider alternative documentation
as proof of service and make a determination on service verification.
VA believes the current requirements and processes are both reasonable
and important to maintain the integrity of this benefit program.
VA will provide its cost estimate for S. 690 for the record at a
later time.
s. 695
S. 695 would amend section 322 of title 38, United States Code, to
extend for 5 years (through FY 2018) the yearly $2 million
appropriations authorization for VA to pay a monthly assistance
allowance to disabled Veterans who are invited to compete for a slot
on, or have been selected for, the U.S. Paralympic Team in an amount
equal to the monthly amount of subsistence allowance that would be
payable to the Veteran under chapter 31, title 38, United States Code,
if the Veteran were eligible for and entitled to rehabilitation under
such chapter. S. 695 also would amend section 521A of title 38 to
extend for 5 years (through FY 2018) VA's appropriations authorization,
with amounts appropriated remaining available without fiscal year
limitation, for grants to United States Paralympics, Inc. (now the
United States Olympic Committee) to plan, develop, manage, and
implement an integrated adaptive sport program for disabled Veterans
and disabled members of the Armed Forces. These Paralympic programs
have experienced ongoing improvement and expansion of benefits to
disabled Veterans and disabled Servicemembers, to include 115 Veterans
qualifying for the monthly assistance allowance, and over 1,900
Paralympic grant events with over 16,000 Veteran participants during FY
2012. Under current law, both authorities will expire at the end of FY
2013.
VA supports extension of these authorities, but recommends further
revisions, to improve the accessibility and equity of these programs,
by extending monthly assistance allowances to disabled Veterans who are
invited to compete for a slot on, or have been selected for, the United
States Olympic Team (not just the Paralympic Team) or Olympic and
Paralympic teams representing the American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico,
the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, by
authorizing grants to those Olympic and Paralympic sports entities, and
by clarifying that the current authority to award grants is to promote
programs for all adaptive sports and not just Paralympic sports.
VA estimates there would be no costs associated with implementing
this bill.
s. 705
S. 705, the ``War Memorial Protection Act of 2013,'' would add a
new section 2115 to title 36, United States Code, Chapter 21, which
governs the operations of the American Battle Monuments Commission
(ABMC), to authorize the inclusion of religious symbols as part of any
military memorial established or acquired by the U.S. Government or
military memorials established in cooperation with ABMC.
Presently, VA's role in ABMC's monument authority is limited to a
single mention in 36 U.S.C. Sec. 2105(b) that ``[t]he Secretary of
Veterans Affairs shall maintain works of architecture and art built by
the Commission in the National Cemetery [Administration], as described
in section 2400(b) of title 38.'' The only known ABMC facility on VA
property is the Honolulu Memorial at the National Memorial Cemetery of
the Pacific.
As this bill does not mention VA, nor does VA establish U.S.
Government or military memorials, VA defers to the ABMC regarding this
bill.
s. 748
S. 748, the ``Veterans Pension Protection Act,'' would amend
sections 1522 and 1543 of title 38, United States Code, to establish in
VA's pension programs a look-back and penalty period of up to 36 months
for those claimants who dispose of resources for less than fair market
value that could otherwise be used for their maintenance.
Subsection (a) would amend the net worth limitations applicable to
Veteran's pension in section 1522 of title 38, United States Code. If a
Veteran (or a Veteran's spouse) disposes of assets before the date of
the Veteran's pension claim, VA currently does not generally consider
those assets as part of the Veteran's net worth, so long as the
transfer was a gift to a person or entity other than a relative living
in the same household. As amended, section 1522 would provide that when
a Veteran (or Veteran's spouse) disposes of ``covered resources'' for
less than fair market value on or after the beginning date of a 36-
month look-back period, the disposal may result in a period of
ineligibility for pension. In such cases, the law would provide for a
period of ineligibility for pension beginning the first day of the
month in or after which the resources were disposed of and which does
not occur in any other period of ineligibility.
Subsection (a) would also provide a method for calculating the
period of ineligibility for pension resulting from a disposal of
covered resources at less than fair market value. The period of
ineligibility, expressed in months, would be the total uncompensated
value of all applicable covered resources disposed of by the Veteran
(or the Veteran's spouse) divided by the maximum amount of monthly
pension that would have been payable to the Veteran under section 1513
or 1521 without consideration of the transferred resources.
This subsection would also give VA authority to promulgate
regulations under which VA would consider a transfer of an asset,
including a transfer to an annuity, trust, or other financial
instrument or investment, to be a transfer at less than fair market
value, if the transfer reduced the Veteran's net worth for pension
purposes and VA determines that, under all the circumstances, the
resources would reasonably be consumed for maintenance.
Subsection (a) would also provide that VA shall not deny or
discontinue payment of pension under sections 1513 and 1521 or payment
of increased pension under subsections (c), (d), (e), or (f) of section
1521 on account of a child based on the penalty and look-back periods
established by sections (a)(2) or (b)(2) of the bill if: (1) the
claimant demonstrates to VA that the resources disposed of for less
than fair market value have been returned to the transferor; or (2) VA
determines that the denial would work an undue hardship.
Finally, subsection (a) would require VA to inform Veterans of the
asset transfer provisions of the bill and obtain information for making
determinations pertaining to such transfers.
VA supports in principle the look-back and penalty-period
provisions of subsection (a), but cannot support the bill as written
because of the manner in which the length of the penalty period would
be calculated. Our reading of the bill indicates that the method used
to calculate the penalty period in proposed section 1522(a)(2)(E)(i),
``the total, cumulative uncompensated value of all covered resources,''
could be unnecessarily punitive because VA might have determined that
only a small portion of the covered resources should have been used for
the Veteran's maintenance. VA has similar concerns with language in
proposed section 1522(b)(2)(E)(i).
VA proposes, as an alternative, that the dividend under proposed
section 1522(a)(2)(E)(i) be, ``the total, cumulative uncompensated
value of the portion of the covered resources so disposed of by the
veteran (or the spouse of the veteran) on or after the look-back date
described in subparagraph (C)(i), that the Secretary determines would
reasonably have been consumed for the Veteran's maintenance;.'' We
propose that similar language be used in section 1522(b)(2)(E)(i).
Apart from the concerns expressed regarding the method for
calculating the penalty period, VA supports this subsection of the
bill, which would clarify current law by prescribing that pension
applicants cannot create a need for pension by gifting assets that the
applicant could use for the applicant's own maintenance. It would also
clarify that an applicant cannot restructure assets during the 36-month
period preceding a pension application through transfers using certain
financial products or legal instruments, such as annuities and trusts.
A 2012 Government Accountability Office study found that there is a
growing industry that markets these products and instruments to
vulnerable Veterans and survivors, potentially causing them harm.
Subsection (a) would amend the law in a manner that will authorize VA's
implementation of necessary program integrity measures.
Subsection (b) of S. 748 would amend the net worth limitations
applicable to survivor's pension in section 1543 of title 38, United
States Code. Subsection (b) of the bill would apply to surviving
spouses and surviving children the same restrictions pertaining to
disposal of covered resources at less than fair market value as would
be applied to Veterans under subsection (a). This subsection would also
provide that if the surviving spouse transferred assets during the
Veteran's lifetime that resulted in a period of ineligibility for the
Veteran, VA would apply any period of ineligibility remaining after the
Veteran's death to the surviving spouse.
As with subsection (a), VA supports in principle the look back and
penalty period provisions of subsection (b), but cannot support the
bill as written because of the manner in which the length of the
penalty period would be calculated. VA has the same concerns with the
methodology language in proposed sections 1543(a)(2)(E)(i) and
(b)(2)(E)(i) as expressed above pertaining to sections 1522(a)(2)(E)(i)
and (b)(2)(E)(i).
VA opposes carrying over a penalty based on a transfer of assets
made during the Veteran's lifetime to a pension claim filed by a
surviving spouse because it could be potentially punitive. Under
proposed paragraph (a)(2)(C) of section 1543, VA would apply the same
36-month look-back period to surviving spouses that it applies to
Veterans. If the Veteran died soon after his or her pension claim was
filed and the surviving spouse filed a claim for pension within 36
months of the Veteran's pension claim, VA would evaluate resource
transfers that the surviving spouse made during the Veteran's lifetime
under section 1543(a)(2)(C). However, if the surviving spouse did not
claim pension until many years after the Veteran's pension claim or
many years after the Veteran's death, under proposed section
1543(a)(2)(F), VA would apply the remainder of any penalty period
assessed the Veteran based on a spouse's pre-death transfer of assets.
In applying a penalty period based on a very old transaction to a new
pension claim, this provision could be viewed as imposing a much longer
look-back period for surviving spouses than that proposed for Veterans.
Because VA will evaluate the surviving spouse's claim for pension on
its own merits, VA proposes that the penalty-period carry-over
provisions be eliminated.
Subsection (c) would provide that the amendments to section
1522(a)(2), (b)(2), and (c), and section 1543(a)(2), (a)(4), (b)(2),
and (c) prescribed in the bill would take effect one year after the
date of enactment and would apply to applications filed after the
effective date as well as to any pension redetermination occurring
after the effective date.
Subsection (d) provides for annual reports from VA to Congress,
beginning not later than two years after the date of enactment, as to:
(1) the number of individuals who applied for pension; (2) the number
of individuals who received pension; and (3) the number of individuals
whose pension payments were denied or discontinued because covered
resources were disposed of for less than fair market value.
VA would not oppose inclusion of subsections (c) and (d) if the
bill were amended as we recommend.
We lack sufficient data to estimate benefit or administrative costs
associated with this proposal.
s. 893
S. 893, the ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act
of 2013,'' would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase,
effective December 1, 2013, the rates of disability compensation for
service-disabled Veterans and the rates of dependency and indemnity
compensation (DIC) for survivors of Veterans. This bill would increase
these rates by the same percentage as the percentage by which Social
Security benefits are increased effective December 1, 2013. The bill
would not, however, account for the expiration at the end of this
fiscal year of the feature in current law that rounds down to the next
lower whole dollar amount those increases not in whole dollars. The
bill would also require VA to publish the resulting increased rates in
the Federal Register.
VA strongly supports annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) for
these important compensation programs because they express, in a
tangible way, this Nation's gratitude for the sacrifices made by our
service-disabled Veterans and their surviving spouses and children and
would ensure that the value of their well-deserved benefits will keep
pace with increases in consumer prices. However, VA recommends the
current ``round down'' statutory provisions be extended. We recommend
amending sections 1303(a) and 1104(a) of title 38, United States Code,
to provide a 5-year extension of the round-down provisions of the
computation of the COLA for service-connected disability compensation
and DIC. Public Law 108-183 extended the ending dates of these
provisions to 2013. The extension for the COLA round down provision
beyond the 2013 expiration date results in cost savings. The benefit
savings to round down the FY 2014 COLA are estimated to be $41.6
million in FY 2014, $712.5 million for 5 years, and $2.3 billion over
10 years as a result of the compounding effects of rounding down the
COLA in subsequent years.
s. 894
S. 894 would amend section 3485(a)(4) of title 38, United States
Code, extending for 3 years (through June 30, 2016) VA's authority to
provide work-study allowances for certain already-specified activities.
Under current law, the authority is set to expire on June 30, 2013.
Public Law 107-103, the ``Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion
Act of 2001,'' established a 5-year pilot program under section
3485(a)(4) that expanded qualifying work-study activities to include
outreach programs with State Approving Agencies, an activity relating
to the administration of a National Cemetery or a State Veterans'
Cemetery, and assisting with the provision of care to Veterans in State
Homes. Subsequent public laws extended the period of the pilot program
and, most recently, section 101 of Public Law 111-275, the ``Veterans'
Benefits Act of 2010,'' extended the sunset date from June 30, 2010 to
June 30, 2013.
S. 894 also would add a provision to section 3485(a) that would
authorize for a 3-year period from June 30, 2013 to June 30, 2016,
work-study activities to be carried out at the offices of Members of
Congress for such Members. Work-study participants would distribute
information about benefits and services under laws administered by VA
and other appropriate governmental and non-governmental programs to
Servicemembers, Veterans, and their dependents. Work-study participants
would also prepare and process papers and other documents, including
documents to assist in the preparation and presentation of claims for
benefits under laws administered by VA.
Finally, S. 894 would require VA, not later than June 30 each year
beginning with 2014 and ending with 2016, to submit a report to
Congress on the work-study allowances paid during the most recent 1-
year period for qualifying work-study activities. Each report would
include a description of the recipients of the allowances, a list of
the locations where qualifying work-study activities were carried out
and a description of the outreach conducted by VA to increase awareness
of the eligibility of such work-study activities for work-study
allowances.
VA does not oppose legislation that would extend the current
expiration date of the work-study provisions to June 30, 2016. However,
we would prefer that the legislation provide a permanent authorization
of the work-study activities, rather than extending repeatedly for
short time periods.
VA has no objection to work-study participants conducting and
promoting the outreach activities and services contemplated by the
bill. We also have no objection to work-study participants assisting in
the preparation and processing of papers and other documents,
``including documents to assist in the preparation and presentation of
claims for VA benefits'' under the proposed new section. However, work-
study participants would be subject to the limitations found in chapter
59 of title 38 on representing claimants for VA benefits.
VA does not oppose submitting annual reports to Congress regarding
the work-study program.
s. 922
Section 3 of S. 922, the ``Veterans Equipped for Success Act of
2013'' would require VA, in collaboration with the Department of Labor
(DOL), to create a 3-year pilot program in four locations of VA's
choosing to assess the feasibility and advisability of offering career
transition services to eligible Veterans. Such services would provide
work experience in the civilian sector, increase participants'
marketable skills, assist them to obtain gainful employment, and assist
in integrating eligible individuals into their local communities. These
services would be available to unemployed or underemployed Veterans
discharged under conditions other than dishonorable and to members of
the National Guard or Reserve Component who served at least 180 days on
active-duty within 2 years of applying for the program. Not more than
50,000 eligible individuals would participate in this pilot program
concurrently, and the program would be limited to participants between
18 and 30 years of age.
Career transition services offered would include:
Internships--Participants would receive an internship on a
full-time basis with an eligible employer as determined by VA. Among
other restrictions, eligible employers would not include state or
Federal Government agencies, those that derive 75 percent or more of
their revenue from state and/or Federal Government, or employers that
unsatisfactorily participated in the pilot previously. Such internships
would last for 1 year, and interns would be paid by VA at the greater
rate of an amount consistent with the minimum wage protections of the
Fair Labor Standards Act or if the intern was receiving it, the rate of
unemployment compensation, up to $30,000. For the purpose of health
benefits and on-the-job injuries, interns would be considered VA
employees.
Mentorship and job-shadowing--Employers would be required
to provide interns at least one mentor who would provide job-shadowing
and career-counseling opportunities throughout the internship.
Volunteer opportunities--Participants in the pilot program
would be required to participate each month in a qualified volunteer
activity, as determined by VA. Such volunteer activities could include
outreach, service at an institution of higher learning or for a
recognized Veterans Service Organization, and/or assistance provided to
or for the benefit of Veterans in a State home or VA medical facility.
Professional skill workshops--As part of the pilot, VA
would be required to provide workshops to interns to develop and build
their professional skills.
Skills assessment--VA would be required to provide skills
assessment testing to participants to help them select an appropriate
place to perform their internship.
Additional services--VA would provide, in addition to the
services outlined above, career and job counseling, job-search
assistance, follow-up services, and reimbursement of transportation
expenses up to 75 miles.
VA could provide grants for up to four non-profit entities to
administer this pilot. The bill would require VA and DOL to conduct a
joint outreach campaign to advertise the pilot. VA would be authorized
to develop an awards system by which exemplary employers and interns
might be recognized.
VA would provide a report to Congress each year of the pilot
containing an evaluation of the program, information about program
participants and their internships, and intern job-placement rates,
including wages and nature of employment among other data.
VA supports initiatives to assist Veterans in obtaining meaningful
employment. While VA appreciates the intent underlying this bill, VA
has several concerns with the program outlined in this legislation,
including the following:
First, the requirement that the internship pilot begin in
January 2014 would create a significant challenge. VA would have less
than 1 year from enactment to, in addition to other tasks: conduct a
study of Veteran unemployment and population densities; select four
pilot locations based on that study; create eligibility criteria for
both employers and interns; solicit and approve applications from
employers; once employers are identified, solicit and approve
applications from interns; and match interns with employers. These
tasks would require extensive coordination between VA and other
stakeholders. Second, VA points out that this bill lacks specific
information on the scope of the pilot program. The bill does not
specify how many interns should be placed or how those interns should
be dispersed across the four pilot locations. Additionally, the bill
requires that participants be between the ages of 18 and 30. VA notes
that the most recent data issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics
shows that Veterans aged 18 to 30 comprise less than 20 percent of
currently unemployed Veterans. The third challenge posed by this bill
is the requirement that VA establish criteria to determine an
employer's eligibility to participate in the pilot. Among other
factors, VA must consider prior investigations by the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC), the employer's standing with state's business
bureaus, tax delinquency, and the employer's reliance on state and
Federal Governments as a source of revenue. VA would need to develop
agreements with the FTC, Internal Revenue Service, and DOL to acquire
this data. Additionally, the bill requires VA to consider whether
interns comprise over 10 percent of an employer's workforce when
placing additional interns with that employer. The language of the bill
is unclear, however, on whether 10 percent is a cap or simply a factor
to consider when placing interns in a workplace.
It would be challenging and costly for VA to create a payment
system as described in the bill. The bill would require VA to issue
payments to interns, which would require VA to determine hours worked
in a given pay period, calculate salary earned, and issue payments.
VA's current payment systems are designed to provide benefits payments
in pre-determined increments on a monthly schedule. The closest
analogous payment structure VA currently uses that could fulfill the
requirements of the bill is our work-study process. Veterans who
participate in the work-study program submit hard-copy time sheets, and
VA performs a manual calculation of benefits earned and issues payment.
In order to issue payments as required by this bill, VA would need an
entirely new electronic payment system which would require both time
and funding to develop.
Most of the cost of administering the pilot would be incurred ``up
front'' by VA. VA would need funding to significantly expand its full-
time, employment-focused staff, develop a new IT system to provide
interns' payments, and process applications from both employers and
Veterans. This issue would be further complicated by the legislation's
restriction that no more than 5 percent of any appropriations made be
used to administer the pilot. At the outset, VA would have no data from
which to project how many Veterans may sign up for the pilot, and
therefore would not know how much funding VA could apply toward
administering the program. Because we cannot predict the scope and size
of the program at its outset, The Administration has already undertaken
numerous efforts to address unemployment among our Nation's veterans.
Online resources including the Veterans Job Bank and My Next Move for
Veterans help match unemployed veterans with jobs best suited to their
unique skill sets. With the new Veterans Gold Card, Post-9/11 veterans
are entitled to enhanced services and personalized case management,
assessment, and counseling at the roughly 3,000 One-Stop Career Centers
located nationwide. VA and DOL are currently piloting a newly enhanced
Transition Assistance Program designed to make sure newly separating
servicemembers never become unemployed.
VA will provide a cost estimate for S. 922 at a later date.
s. 928
S. 928, the ``Claims Processing Improvement Act of 2013'' would
amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the processing of claims
for compensation under laws administered by the Secretary of VA, and
for other purposes. VA will provide later for the record its views on
sections 101,102, 104, 105, 106, and 203 of the draft bill.
Currently, section 5103A(c)(2) of title 38, United States Code,
requires VA, when requesting records on a claimant's behalf from a
Federal department or agency, to continue to request records until VA
obtains them or it is reasonably certain that such records do not exist
or that further efforts to obtain them would be futile. VA is rarely
able to determine with certainty that particular records do not exist
or that further efforts to obtain them would be futile. Under current
law, VA regional offices experience significant challenges and delays
in their attempts to obtain certain non-VA Federal records,
particularly service treatment records for National Guard and Reserve
members who have been activated. While VA is currently working with
other Federal agencies to improve the process of procuring non-VA
Federal records, past efforts to obtain records from other government
agencies have significantly delayed adjudication of pending disability
claims.
Section 103 of this draft bill would provide that, when VA attempts
to obtain records from a Federal department or agency other than a
component of VA itself, it shall make not fewer than two attempts to
obtain the records, unless the records are obtained or the response to
the first request makes evident that a second request would be futile.
Section 103 would also ensure that if any relevant record requested by
VA from a Federal department or agency before adjudication is later
provided, the relevant record would be treated as though it was
submitted as of the date of the original filing of the claim. This
provision would streamline the process for obtaining non-VA Federal
records, would further balance the responsibilities of VA and Veterans
to obtain evidence in support of a claim, and would allow VA to better
address its pending inventory of disability claims. Section 103 would
provide a more feasible and realistic standard in this time of limited
resources and burgeoning claim inventory, which would help ensure
valuable resources are focused most effectively on what will make a
difference for faster more accurate adjudications of Veterans' claims.
VA supports section 103 of this bill, which is similar to one of
VA's legislative proposals in the FY 2014 budget submission.
No benefit costs or savings would be associated with this section.
Section 104 would amend section 5902(a)(1) of title 38, United
States Code, to include ``Indian tribes'' with the American National
Red Cross, the American Legion, the Disabled American Veterans, the
United Spanish War Veterans, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars as an
enumerated organization whose representatives may be recognized by the
Secretary in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims
under laws administered by the Secretary.
VA does not support section 104 of S. 928. With the exception of
the American National Red Cross, which provides services generally as a
charitable organization, the organizations listed in current section
5902(a)(1) have as a primary purpose serving Veterans. Indian tribes
are not charitable organizations, nor do they have as a primary purpose
serving Veterans; therefore, VA does not believe Indian tribes should
be named among these organizations in the statute. Under this bill as
drafted, all Indian tribes, regardless of their size, capability, and
resources to represent VA claimants, would essentially receive similar
treatment as organizations recognized by VA for the purpose of
providing representation to VA claimants. In other words, under section
14.629(a) of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, Indian tribes could
certify to VA that certain members are qualified to represent claimants
before VA for the purpose of obtaining VA accreditation for those
members, despite the tribes not meeting all the requirements for
recognition under section 14.628 of title 38, Code of Federal
Regulations.
Pursuant to the authority granted in section 5902(a), VA has
established in section 14.628 of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations,
the requirements for recognition of organizations to assist claimants
in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims under laws
administered by the Secretary. Under this regulation, the organization
must, among other requirements, have as a primary purpose serving
veterans, demonstrate a substantial service commitment to Veterans, and
commit a significant portion of its assets to Veterans' services. VA
believes these are necessary characteristics of an organization whose
representatives will be recognized in providing such assistance to
Veterans. Indian tribes necessarily engage in a much broader scope of
governance activities and operations and, therefore, generally do not
have the Veteran-specific focus that is common to the organizations
(save for the American Red Cross) recognized pursuant to section
5902(a)(1) of title 38, United States Code, and the VA regulations
implementing that statute.
Currently, a member of an Indian tribe may request accreditation to
assist Veterans in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of
claims for VA benefits as an agent or attorney under section 14.629(b)
of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, or as a representative of a
currently recognized Veterans Service Organization. Thus, a member of
an Indian tribe may be individually recognized by the Secretary to
assist Veterans despite ``Indian tribes'' not being included among the
enumerated organizations in section 5902(a)(1) of title 38, United
States Code.
Section 201 of the bill would amend section 7105(b)(1) of title 38,
United States Code, to require persons seeking appellate review of a VA
decision to file a notice of disagreement (NOD) within 180 days from
the date VA mails such decision to the claimant. Currently, persons
challenging a decision of a VA agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ)
have one year from the date the AOJ mails the decision to initiate an
appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) by filing a NOD. This
provision would reduce the time period for initiating appellate review
from one year to 180 days.
The intent behind this provision is to allow VA to more quickly
resolve claims and appeals. Currently, VA must wait up to one year to
determine if a claimant disagrees with a decision on a claim for
benefits. If a claimant waits until the end of the 1-year period to
file a NOD, VA is often required to re-develop the record to ensure the
evidence of record is up to date. Data support the conclusion that such
late-term development delays the resolution of the claim. If the period
in which to file a NOD were reduced, VA could more quickly finalize the
administrative processing of claims not being appealed and focus
resources on the processing of new claims and appeals. Accordingly,
adoption of this proposal would allow VA to more actively manage cases
and work toward a faster resolution of claims and appeals.
Because most claimants are able to quickly determine if they are
satisfied with VA's decision on their claims and because the NOD is a
relatively simple document, enactment of this provision would not
adversely affect claimants for VA benefits. The average filing time for
NODs demonstrates that most claimants file their NOD shortly after
receiving notice of VA's decision, and, consequently, claimants would
not be adversely affected by this amendment.
VA supports this provision. VA submitted a similar proposal with
the FY 2014 budget request. While this proposal is clearly a step in
the right direction, VA believes that further changes are needed in
what currently is an extraordinarily lengthy and cumbersome appellate
process in order to provide Veterans with timely resolution of their
appeals. VA believes there is a need to further shorten the timeframe
for Veterans to initiate appellate review to 60 days. Data show that
most appeals are filed within the first 30 days following notice to a
claimant of VA's decision on a claim. We therefore believe this 60-day
time period would still protect Veterans' rights to appeal VA's
decisions while bringing the appeal filing period more in line with
that of Federal district courts and the Social Security Administration,
which allows 60 days for appeal of the initial agency decision.
This proposal has no measurable monetary costs or savings. However,
VA estimates that enactment of the proposal would result in more
expeditious adjudication of claims because VA would not have to wait
one year from the date of an adverse decision to determine whether a
claimant intended to file an appeal. Under this proposal, VA would have
to wait only 180 days for such determination and could therefore more
timely process the appeal.
Section 202 would allow for greater use of video conference
hearings by the Board, while still providing Veterans with the
opportunity to request an in-person hearing if they so elect. This
provision would apply to cases received by the Board pursuant to a NOD
submitted on or after the date of the enactment of the Act. VA fully
supports section 202 as drafted, as this provision would potentially
decrease hearing wait times for Veterans, enhance efficiency within VA,
and better focus Board resources toward issuing more final decisions.
The Board has historically been able to schedule video conference
hearings more quickly than in-person hearings, saving valuable time in
the appeals process for Veterans who elect this type of hearing. In FY
2012, on average, video conference hearings were held almost 100 days
sooner than in-person hearings. Section 202 would allow both the Board
and Veterans to capitalize on these time savings by giving the Board
greater flexibility to schedule video conference hearings than is
possible under the current statutory scheme.
Historical data also shows that there is no statistical difference
in the ultimate disposition of appeals based on the type of hearing
selected. Veterans who had video conference hearings had an allowance
rate for their appeals that was virtually the same as Veterans who had
in-person hearings, only Veterans who had video conference hearings
were able to have their hearings scheduled much more quickly. Section
202 would, however, still afford Veterans who want an in-person hearing
with the opportunity to specifically request one.
Enactment of section 202 could also lead to more final decisions
for Veterans as a result of increased productivity at the Board. Time
lost due to travel and time lost in the field due to appellants failing
to show up for their hearing would be greatly reduced, allowing
Veterans Law Judges (VLJs) to better focus their time and resources on
issuing decisions. The time saved for VLJs could translate into
additional final Board decisions for Veterans.
Major technological upgrades to the Board's video conference
hearing equipment over the past several years have resulted in the
Board being well-positioned for the enactment of section 202. These
upgrades include the purchase of high-definition video equipment, a
state-of-the art digital audio recording system, implementation of a
virtual hearing docket, and significantly increased video conference
hearing capacity. These upgrades also include expanding the video
conferencing system to other strategic satellite sites in the
continental United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, and the
Philippines to support Veterans living in remote areas. Section 202
would allow the Board to better leverage these important technological
enhancements.
In short, section 202 would result in shorter hearing wait times,
better focus Board resources on issuing more decisions, and provide
maximum flexibility for both Veterans and VA, while fully utilizing
recent technological improvements. VA therefore strongly endorses this
proposal.
Section 301 of the bill would extend the authority currently
provided by section 315(b) of title 38, United States Code, to maintain
the operations of VA's Manila RO from December 31, 2013, to
December 31, 2014. Maintaining an RO in the Philippines has two
principal advantages. First, it is more cost effective to maintain the
facility in Manila than it would be to transfer its functions and hire
equivalent numbers of employees to perform those functions on the U.S.
mainland. Because the Manila RO employs mostly foreign nationals who
receive a lower rate of pay than U.S. Government employees,
transferring that office's responsibilities to a U.S. location would
result in increased payroll costs. Second, VA's presence in Manila
significantly enhances its ability to manage potential fraud. In an FY
2002 study of Philippine benefit payments, the VA Inspector General
stated: ``VA payments in the Philippines represent significant sums of
money. That, coupled with extreme poverty and a general lack of
economic opportunity, fosters an environment for fraudulent activity.''
Relocation of claims processing for VA benefits arising from Philippine
service would result in less control of potential fraud. VA would lose
the expertise the Manila staff applies to these claims and would need
time to develop such expertise at a mainland site. Relocation would
also diminish the RO's close and effective working relationship with
the VHA's Outpatient Clinic, which is essential for the corroboration
of the evidentiary record. Based on these factors, VA could not
maintain the same quality of service to the beneficiaries and the U.S.
Government if claims processing were moved outside of the Philippines.
VA supports this provision and submitted a similar proposal with
the FY 2014 budget request. VA's version of the proposal would extend
operating authority for 2 years rather than 1 year.
There would be no significant benefits costs or savings associated
with this proposal.
Section 302 of the draft bill would amend section 1156(a)(3) of
title 38, United States Code, to extend from 6 months to 18 months the
deadline after separation or discharge from active duty by which VA
must schedule a medical examination for certain Veterans with mental
disorders.
Section 1156(a)(3) currently requires VA to schedule a medical
examination not later than 6 months after the date of separation or
discharge from active duty for each Veteran ``who, as a result of a
highly stressful in-service event, has a mental disorder that is severe
enough to bring about the veteran's discharge or release from active
duty.'' However, an examination a mere six months after discharge may
lead to premature conclusions regarding the severity, stability, and
prognosis of a Veteran's mental disorder. Six months is a relatively
short period of treatment, and the stresses of active-duty trauma and
the transition to civilian life may not fully have manifested
themselves after 6 months. An examination conducted up to 18 months
after discharge is more likely to reflect an accurate evaluation of the
severity, stability, and prognosis of a Veteran's mental disorder.
VA supports section 302 of the bill, which is identical to one of
VA's legislative proposals in the FY 2014 budget submission.
This provision will not result in cost savings or benefits.
Section 303 of the draft bill would amend section 1541(f)(1)(E) of
title 38, United States Code, to extend eligibility for death pension
to certain surviving spouses of Persian Gulf War Veterans who were
married for less than 1 year; had no child born of, or before, the
marriage; and were married on or after January 1, 2001.
Section 1541 authorizes the payment of pension to the surviving
spouse of a wartime Veteran who met certain service requirements or of
a Veteran who was entitled to receive compensation or retirement pay
for a service-connected disability when the Veteran died. Section
1541(f) prohibits the payment of such a pension unless: (1) the
surviving spouse was married to the Veteran for at least 1 year
immediately preceding the Veteran's death; (2) a child was born of the
marriage or to the couple before the marriage; or (3) the marriage
occurred before a delimiting date specified in section 1541(f)(1). The
current delimiting date applicable to a surviving spouse of a Gulf War
Veteran is January 1, 2001. Section 303 would eliminate those
restrictions and extend that delimiting date.
The Persian Gulf War Veterans' Benefits Act of 1991 established the
delimiting marriage date of January 1, 2001, when pension eligibility
was initially extended to surviving spouses of Veterans of the Gulf
War. However, due to the duration of the Gulf War, this date is no
longer consistent with the other marriage delimiting dates in section
1541(f)(1). Generally, these delimiting dates are set for the day
following 10 years after the war or conflict officially ended, (e.g.,
the Korean War officially ended on January 31, 1955; the applicable
delimiting date is February 1, 1965). As provided in section 101(33) of
title 38, United States Code, the official Persian Gulf War period,
which began on August 2, 1990, is still ongoing and will end on a date
to be prescribed by Presidential proclamation or law. Revising the
marriage delimiting date for surviving spouses of Gulf War Veterans to
10 years and 1 day after the end of the war as prescribed by
Presidential proclamation or law would make that delimiting date
consistent with the other dates in section 1541(f)(1) and would prevent
any potentially incongruous results in death pension claims based on
Gulf War service compared to claims based on other wartime service.
Furthermore, because the Gulf War has not yet ended, the language in
this amendment would ensure that a standing 10-year qualifying period
will be in place for surviving spouses seeking pension based on Gulf
War service.
VA supports section 303 of the bill, which is identical to one of
VA's legislative proposals in the FY 2014 budget submission.
There would be no significant benefit costs or savings associated
with this proposal.
Section 304 of the draft bill would amend section 5110(l) of title
38, United States Code, to make the effective date provision consistent
with section 103(e), which provides: ``The marriage of a child of a
veteran shall not bar recognition of such child as the child of the
veteran for benefit purposes if the marriage is void, or has been
annulled by a court with basic authority to render annulment decrees
unless the Secretary determines that the annulment was secured through
fraud by either party or collusion.'' Section 103(e) implies that a
child's marriage that is not void and has not been annulled does bar
recognition of the child as a child of the Veteran for VA benefit
purposes, even if the marriage was terminated by death or divorce. In
fact, section 8004 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990
repealed a prior provision in section 103(e) that ``[t]he marriage of a
child of a veteran shall not bar the recognition of such child as the
child of the veteran for benefit purposes if the marriage has been
terminated by death or has been dissolved by a court with basic
authority to render divorce decrees unless the Veterans' Administration
determines that the divorce was secured through fraud by either party
or collusion.''
Nevertheless, no amendment has been made to the corresponding
effective date provision in section 5110(l), which still provides an
effective date for an award or increase in benefits ``based on
recognition of a child upon termination of the child's marriage by
death or divorce.'' Section 304 of the bill would delete that provision
from section 5110(l) and make section 5110(l) consistent with section
103(e).
VA supports section 304 of the bill, which is identical to one of
VA's legislative proposals in the FY 2014 budget submission.
There would be no costs or savings associated with this technical
amendment.
Section 305 of the draft bill would amend section 704(a) of the
Veterans Benefits Act of 2003, Public Law 108-183, which authorizes VA
to provide for the conduct of VA compensation and pension examinations
by persons other than VA employees by using appropriated funds other
than mandatory funds appropriated for the payment of compensation and
pension. In accordance with section 704(b), VA exercises this authority
pursuant to contracts with private entities. However, under section
704(c), as amended by section 105 of the Veterans' Benefits Improvement
Act of 2008, by section 809 of the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2010, and
by section 207 of the VA Major Construction Authorization and Expiring
Authorities Extension Act of 2012, this authority will expire on
December 31, 2013.
Section 305(a) of the bill would extend VA's authority to provide
compensation and pension examinations by contract examiners for another
year. The continuation of this authority is essential to VA's ability
to continue to provide prompt and high-quality medical disability
examinations for our Veterans. If this authority is allowed to expire,
VA will not be able to provide contracted disability examinations to
Veterans in need of examinations. Extending the authority for another
year would enable VA to effectively utilize supplemental and other
appropriated funds to respond to increasing demands for medical
disability examinations. Contracting for examinations is essential to
VA's objective of ensuring timely adjudication of disability
compensation claims and allows the VHA to better focus its resources on
providing needed heath care to Veterans.
Section 305(b) of the bill would require VA to provide to the House
and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs a report within 180 days of
enactment of the bill. The report would have to include extensive
information regarding medical exams furnished by VA from FY 2009 to FY
2012. Similarly, section 305(c) would require VA to provide a report to
the same committees in the same timeframe regarding Acceptable Clinical
Evidence.
VA supports section 305(a) of this bill and submitted a similar
proposal with the FY 2014 budget request. VA's version of the proposal
would extend operating authority for five years rather than one year.
VA does not oppose the reporting requirements of sections 305(b)
and 305(c); however, one year rather than 180 days would provide
adequate time to compile the data needed to comply with the detailed
reporting requirements and to adequately coordinate review of the
report before submission.
No benefit or administrative costs would result from enactment of
this provision.
s. 939
Section 1 of this draft bill would amend section 7103 of title 38,
United States Code, to provide that the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) or Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) shall treat any
document received from a person adversely affected by a decision of the
Board expressing disagreement with that Board decision as a motion for
reconsideration when that document is submitted to the Board or AOJ not
later than 120 days after the date of the Board decision and an appeal
with the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans
Court) has not been filed. The section would further explain that a
document will not be considered as a motion for reconsideration if the
Board or AOJ determines that the document expresses an intent to appeal
the decision to the Court and forwards the document to the Court in
time for receipt before the appeal filing deadline. As explained below,
VA has several concerns with the draft legislation.
Proposed new section 7103(c)(1) would state that a document filed
within 120 days of a Board decision that ``expresses disagreement with
such decision'' shall be treated as a motion for reconsideration. We
believe this draft standard would prove too vague and would result in
an excessive amount of uncertainty for reviewers determining how to
classify a piece of correspondence. The Board and AOJ receive a
significant amount of correspondence on a regular basis. The fact that
a piece of correspondence is received at the Board or AOJ after a Board
decision does not necessarily mean that the appellant intends to
challenge that Board decision, nor does it necessarily indicate an
expression of disagreement with a Board decision. An appellant could be
contacting VA to challenge a Board decision by way of a motion to
vacate the decision, a motion to revise the decision based on clear and
unmistakable error, or a motion for reconsideration--all types of
motions that imply some level of disagreement. Additionally, an
appellant could be contacting VA after a Board decision to file a new
claim, reopen an old claim, check on the status of a claim, or simply
express a generalized complaint, without intending to initiate an
appeal. In order for Board or AOJ correspondence reviewers to be able
to properly identify an appellant's intent from a piece of
correspondence, it is not unreasonable to require the appellant to
articulate the purpose of his or her correspondence and the result he
or she is seeking. Allowing an appellant to seek reconsideration by
merely expressing disagreement with a final Board decision would not
provide reviewers with sufficient ability to distinguish whether the
appellant is seeking a motion for reconsideration or some other
legitimate action, such as a motion to vacate a Board decision or a
motion to challenge based on clear and unmistakable error. This broad
standard would, in turn, result in greater uncertainty and delay in an
already heavily burdened system while benefiting few Veterans. The
current proposal's broad language will likely lead to reconsideration
rulings in cases where the appellant was not seeking further appellate
review and would occupy limited adjudicative resources, thus delaying
the claims of other Veterans.
Under section 20.1001(a) of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations,
a motion for reconsideration must ``set forth clearly and specifically
the alleged obvious error, or errors, of fact or law in the applicable
decision, or decisions, of the Board or other appropriate basis for
requesting Reconsideration.'' Further, the discretion of the Chairman
or his delegate to grant reconsideration of an appellate decision is
limited to the following grounds: (a) upon allegation of obvious error
of fact or law; (b) upon discovery of new and material evidence in the
form of relevant records or reports of the service department
concerned; or (c) upon allegation that an allowance of benefits by the
Board has been materially influenced by false or fraudulent evidence
submitted by or on behalf of the appellant. Although VA construes all
claimants' filings liberally, under these governing regulations, a
document that expresses general disagreement with a Board decision
would not be construed a motion for reconsideration.
The draft legislation would, however, require VA to consider such
general statements of dissatisfaction or disagreement to be motions for
reconsideration, thereby considerably broadening and weakening the
standard required to render a Board decision nonfinal. This could cause
confusion among correspondence reviewers. In fact, the standard
contemplated by the draft legislation would be lower than the standard
used to determine whether a document is a notice of disagreement (NOD)
with an AOJ decision, pursuant to section 20.201 of title 38, Code of
Federal Regulations.
Moreover, the language of proposed new section 7103(c)(1) indicates
that the lower standard would only apply to documents submitted within
the 120-day period for appeal to the Veterans Court. This would
essentially result in two standards being applied to motions for
reconsideration based on whether the appellant submits the motion
before or after the 120-day appeal period. Such different standards
would understandably result in confusion in determining whether a
document is a reconsideration motion.
Proposed new section 7103(c)(2) indicates that VA will not treat a
submitted document as a motion for reconsideration if VA determines
that the document expresses an intent to appeal the Board decision to
the Veterans Court and forwards that document to the court, and the
court receives the document within the statutory deadline to appeal the
Board decision. The draft legislation appears to make VA's
determination of whether a document is a motion for reconsideration or
a notice of appeal (NOA) to the Veterans Court partially contingent
upon whether VA forwards the document to the court and the court timely
receives it. Yet court decisions have found equitable tolling may apply
in situations where VA timely received a misfiled NOA, but the Veterans
Court did not timely receive it. The bill would give VA the authority
to potentially take away a course of action from an appellant. The
legislation would essentially provide VA with the authority to
determine whether a document is an NOA based in part on whether VA can
timely forward the document to the Veterans Court. This would prevent
an appellant who timely misfiled an NOA with VA from having an
opportunity to have the court determine whether equitable tolling
applies and whether the court will accept the misfiled submission as
timely. Further, an appellant may have been seeking to file a motion
for reconsideration with the Board. However, if VA determines that a
document is an NOA instead of a motion for reconsideration, VA may
inadvertently prevent an appellant from having the Board consider his
or her motion for reconsideration. Consequently, the proposed
legislation would pose a number of legal and practical difficulties.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for the
opportunity to appear before you today. I would be pleased to respond
to questions you or the other Members may have.
______
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Enclosure:
VA Views
s. 514
S. 514 would amend subchapter II of chapter 33, title 38, United
States Code, to provide additional educational assistance under the
Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program (Post-9/11 GI Bill) to
Veterans pursuing a degree in science, technology, engineering, math,
or an area that leads to employment in a high-demand occupation. The
additional payment would be in an amount determined by the Secretary
and would be in addition to other amounts payable under chapter 33. VA
provided views for this bill at the June 12, 2013, hearing.
The amount of increase in additional benefits is not specified in
this legislation; therefore, we are unable to provide an estimate for
the additional benefit costs that this legislation would incur. There
are no full time equivalent (FTE) or general operating expense (GOE)
costs associated with enactment of this bill.
s. 735
S. 735, the ``Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of 2013,'' would
amend title 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and assistance
provided to surviving spouses of Veterans under laws administered by
the Secretary of VA and for other purposes.
Section 2 of this bill would amend section 1311 of title 38, United
States Code, by extending, from 2 to 5 years, the period for increased
dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) for surviving spouses with
children. VA supports the extended period of eligibility, subject to
Congress identifying the appropriate offsets. The bill extends the
with-children increase period by 3 additional years. Benefits costs
associated with section 2 are estimated to be $5.6 million during the
first year, $72.1 million for 5 years, and $199.3 million over 10
years.
Section 3 of S. 735 would extend eligibility for DIC, heath care,
and home loan guaranty benefits to surviving spouses who remarry after
age 55. Currently, such benefits may be granted to surviving spouses
who remarry after age 57. VA supports this provision because it would
make consistent VA's provision of benefits and health care to surviving
spouses. Under section 103(d)(2)(b) of title 38, United States Code,
remarriage after age 55 is not a bar to health care benefits. On
December 16, 2003, Congress enacted the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003,
which for the first time gave certain surviving spouses the right to
retain VA benefits after remarriage. Prior law required VA to terminate
those benefits upon remarriage regardless of the age of the surviving
spouse.
There will be no additional costs for health care as, under section
103(d)(2)(b) of title 38, United States Code, remarriage after age 55
is not a bar to health care benefits. Regarding costs associated with
home loans, the provision would produce negligible estimated subsidy
costs over 10 years because of a very small change expected in loan
volume. We do not currently have an estimate of the costs associated
with additional DIC eligibility.
Section 4 of S. 735 would provide benefits to children of certain
Thailand service Veterans born with spina bifida. The Spina Bifida
Health Benefits Program was originally enacted for the birth of
children with spina bifida to Vietnam Veterans based on evidence of an
increased incidence of spina bifida among Veterans exposed to
herbicides. The program was later expanded to include the children with
spina bifida of certain Veterans whom the Veterans Benefits
Administration (VBA) determined had been exposed to herbicides in
Korea. The proposed bill would incorporate language from Subchapter I
of Chapter 18 regarding spina bifida benefits for children of Vietnam
Veterans and from Subchapter II, section 1821, regarding spina bifida
benefits for children of Veterans with covered service in Korea. The
covered service in this proposed bill is defined as ``active military,
naval, or air service in Thailand, as determined by the Secretary in
consultation with the Secretary of Defense, during the period beginning
on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975,'' in which an individual
``is determined by the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of
Defense, to have been exposed to a herbicide agent during such service
in Thailand.'' The proposed bill goes on to define ``herbicide agent''
as ``a chemical in a herbicide used in support of United States and
allied military operations in Thailand, as determined by the Secretary
in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, during the period
beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975.''
VA supports section 4, pending congressional funding, which would
provide benefits for this population similar to the benefits offered to
those eligible under the Spina Bifida Health Care Benefits Program.
However, there are several aspects that may limit its application. The
benefit it seeks to provide to children of Veterans with Thailand
service is based on the premise that the parent Veteran was exposed to
the herbicide Agent Orange with its carcinogenic element dioxin, and
that this contributed to the spina bifida. Veterans with service in
Vietnam from January 9, 1962, to May 7, 1975, are presumed exposed to
this herbicide based on section 1116 of title 38, United States Code.
Veterans with service in certain units located on the Korean
demilitarized zone (DMZ) from April 1, 1968, to August 31, 1971, are
also given the presumption of exposure under section 3.307(a)(6)(iv) of
title 38, Code of Federal Regulations. This presumption is the basis
for the child's spina bifida benefits. However, there is no presumption
of Agent Orange exposure for service in Thailand, and DOD has stated
that only commercial herbicides were used within the interiors of
military installations in Thailand. As a result, there is some question
as to how the proposed bill's ``covered service'' in Thailand would be
applied.
Although there is no applicable presumption of herbicide exposure
for purposes of identifying ``covered service'' in Thailand, there is
some evidence supporting the possibility that tactical herbicides, such
as Agent Orange, may have been used on the fenced-in perimeters of
Thailand air bases during the Vietnam War. Some evidence for this is
found in the 1973 DOD document ``CHECO Report: Base Defense in
Thailand,'' which emphasizes the security role of herbicides within the
fenced-in perimeters, but does not specifically identify the herbicide
type. As a result, VA has given the benefit of the doubt to those
Veterans who walked the perimeters as dog handlers or security guards
and has acknowledged their exposure on a direct facts-found
occupational basis. This is not the same as a legal presumption of
exposure. These Veterans would be the only ones currently recognized as
having the ``covered service'' that is referred to in the proposed
legislation. General service in Thailand is not considered by VA to be
the ``covered service'' involved with this legislation.
VA estimates that medical-care costs associated with this section
would be $3.14 million in fiscal year (FY) 2014; $17.81 million over 5
years; and $56.73 million over 10 years. Benefits costs associated with
this section of the bill are estimated to be $1.8 million during the
first year, $9.4 million for 5 years, and $19.8 million over 10 years.
Section 5 of S. 735 would require VA, not later than 6 months after
the date of enactment, to conduct a pilot program to assess the
feasibility of providing grief counseling services in a group retreat
setting to surviving spouses of Veterans who die while serving on
active duty in the Armed Forces. The pilot program would be carried out
by the Readjustment Counseling Service (RCS). Participation would be at
the election of the surviving spouse. The pilot program would be
carried out at not fewer than six locations, including three locations
where surviving spouses with dependent children are encouraged to bring
their children, and three locations where surviving spouses with
dependent children are not encouraged to bring their children. Services
provided under the pilot would include information and counseling on
coping with grief, information about benefits and services available to
surviving spouses under laws administered by VA, and other information
considered appropriate to assist a surviving spouse with adjusting to
the death of a spouse.
VA supports the concept of providing readjustment counseling in
retreat settings. Initial results from similar retreat-based pilot
programs operated by RCS found participants were able to reduce
symptoms and maintain a higher quality of life after the retreat. The
retreats proposed in section 5 have the potential for similar results;
however, a permissive or discretionary authority to operate such a
program would be preferable to a mandatory pilot authority. Such
authority would permit VA to determine eligible cohort participation
based on criteria such as local demand and available funding.
We estimate that the cost of the pilot would be approximately
$512,730.
s. 778
S. 778 would grant VA the authority to issue a card, known as a
``Veterans ID Card,'' to a Veteran that identifies the individual as a
Veteran and includes a photo and the name of the Veteran. The issuance
of the card would not be premised on receipt of any VA benefits nor
enrollment in the system of annual patient enrollment for VA health
care established under section 1705(a) of title 38, United States Code.
The card could be used by Veterans to identify themselves as Veterans
in order to secure pharmaceuticals and consumer products offered by
retailers to Veterans at reduced prices.
VA understands and appreciates the purpose of this bill, to provide
Veterans a practical way to show their status as Veterans to avail
themselves of the many special programs or advantages civic-minded
businesses and organizations confer upon Veterans. However, VA does not
support this bill. The same benefit to Veterans can best be achieved by
VA and DOD working with the states, the District of Columbia, and
United States territories to encourage programs for them to issue such
identification cards. Those entities already have the experience and
resources to issue reliable forms of identification.
VA is working with states on these efforts. For example, VA and the
Commonwealth of Virginia launched a program to allow Veterans to obtain
a Virginia Veteran's ID Card from its Department of Motor Vehicles
(DMV). The program will help thousands of Virginia Veterans identify
themselves as Veterans and obtain retail and restaurant discounts
around the state. On May 30, 2012, the program was launched in
Richmond, and a DMV ``2 Go'' mobile office was present to process
Veterans' applications for the cards.
Virginia Veterans may apply for the cards in person at any Virginia
DMV customer service center, at a mobile office, or online. Each
applicant presents an unexpired Virginia driver's license or DMV-issued
ID card, a Veterans ID card application, his or her DOD Form DD-214,
DD-256, or WD AGO document, and $10. The card, which does not expire,
is mailed to the Veteran and should arrive within a week. In the
meantime, the temporary Veterans ID card received at the time of the
in-person application can be used as proof of Veteran status.
Other jurisdictions can use this model to establish similar
programs without creating a new program within VA that may not be cost-
efficient. It is not known whether enough Veterans would request the
card to make necessary initial investments in information technology
and training worthwhile.
In addition, a VA-issued card could create confusion about
eligibility. Although the card would not by itself establish
eligibility, there could nonetheless be misunderstandings by Veterans
that a Government benefit is conferred by the card. As the Committee
knows, entitlement to some VA benefits depends on criteria other than
Veteran status, such as service connection or level of income.
Confusion may also occur because the Veterans Health Administration
(VHA) issues identification cards to Veterans who are eligible for VA
health care. Having two VA-issued cards would pose the potential for
confusion.
It is difficult to predict how many Veterans would apply for such a
card. Therefore, VA cannot provide a reliable cost estimate for S. 778.
s. 819
S. 819, the ``Veterans Mental Health Treatment First Act of 2013,''
would provide the Department with significant new tools to maximize and
reward a Veteran's therapeutic recovery from certain service-related
mental health conditions, and, to the extent possible, reduce the
Veteran's level of permanent disability from any of the covered
conditions. The goal of the legislation is to give the Veteran the best
opportunity to reintegrate successfully and productively into the
civilian community.
Specifically, S. 819 would require the Secretary to carry out a
mental health and rehabilitation program for certain Veterans who have
been discharged or released from service in the active military, naval,
or air service under conditions other than dishonorable for a period of
not more than 2 years, and who have been enrolled for care in the VA
health care system since before the date of enactment of this bill. The
program would be available to a Veteran who has been diagnosed by a VA
physician with any of the following conditions: Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD); depression; or anxiety disorder that is service
related, as defined by the bill. The bill would also cover a diagnosis
of a substance use disorder related to service-related PTSD,
depression, or anxiety. For purposes of this program, a covered
condition would be considered to be service related if: (1) VA has
previously adjudicated the disability to be service-connected; or (2)
the VA physician making the diagnosis finds the condition plausibly
related to the Veteran's active service. S. 819 would also require the
Secretary to promulgate regulations identifying the standards to be
used by VA physicians when determining whether a condition is plausibly
related to the Veteran's active military, naval, or air service.
The bill sets forth conditions of participation for the Veterans
taking part in the program. If a Veteran has not filed a VA claim for
disability for the covered condition, the Veteran would have to agree
not to submit a VA claim for disability compensation for the covered
condition for 1 year (beginning on the date the Veteran starts the
program) or until the date on which the Veteran completes his or her
treatment plan, whichever date is earlier.
If the Veteran has filed a disability claim but it has not yet been
adjudicated by the Department, the Veteran could elect either to
suspend adjudication of the claim until he or she completes treatment
or to continue with the claims adjudication process. As discussed
below, the stipend amounts payable to the Veteran under the program
will depend on which election the Veteran makes.
If the Veteran has a covered condition that has been adjudicated to
be service-connected, then the individual would have to agree not to
submit a claim for an increase in VA disability compensation for 1 year
(beginning on the date the Veteran starts the program) or until the
date the Veteran completes treatment, whichever is earlier.
S. 819 would establish a financial incentive in the form of
``wellness'' stipends to encourage participating Veterans to obtain VA
care and rehabilitation before pursuing, or seeking additional,
disability compensation for a covered condition. The amount of the
stipend would depend on the status of the Veteran's disability claim.
If the Veteran has not filed a VA disability claim, VA would pay the
Veteran $2,000 upon commencement of the treatment plan, plus $1,500
every 90 days thereafter upon certification by the VA clinician that
the Veteran is in substantial compliance with the plan. This recurring
stipend would be capped at $6,000. The Veteran would receive an
additional $3,000 at the conclusion of treatment or 1 year after the
Veteran begins treatment, whichever is earlier.
If the Veteran has filed a disability claim that has not yet been
adjudicated, the participating Veteran who elects to suspend
adjudication of the claim until he or she completes treatment would
receive ``wellness'' stipends in the same amounts payable to Veterans
who have not yet filed a disability claim. If the participating Veteran
elects instead to continue with the claims adjudication process, the
Veteran would receive ``wellness'' stipends in the same amounts payable
to Veterans whose covered disabilities have been adjudicated and found
to be service-connected: $667 payable upon the Veteran's commencement
of treatment and $500 payable every 90 days thereafter upon
certification by the Veteran's clinician that the individual is in
substantial compliance with the plan. Recurring payments would be
capped at $2,000, and the Veteran would receive $1,000 when treatment
is completed or 1 year after beginning treatment, whichever is earlier.
If the Secretary determines that a Veteran participating in the
program has failed to comply substantially with the treatment plan or
any other agreed-upon conditions of the program, the bill would require
VA to cease payment of future ``wellness'' stipends to the Veteran.
Finally, S. 819 would limit a Veteran's participation in this
program to one time, unless the Secretary determines that additional
participation in the program would assist in the remediation of the
Veteran's covered condition.
VA does not support S. 819. Although VA philosophically appreciates
the purpose of the bill and the legislator's intent, we have concerns
with its premises and are unable to support it.
S. 819 assumes that early treatment intervention by VA health care
professionals for a covered condition would be effective in either
reducing or stabilizing the Veteran's level of permanent disability
from the condition, thereby reducing the amount of VA disability
benefits ultimately awarded for the condition. No data exist to support
or refute that assumption.
With the exception of substance use disorders, we are likewise
unaware of any data to support or refute the bill's underlying
assumption that paying a Veteran a ``wellness'' stipend will ensure the
patient's compliance with his or her treatment program. Although there
is a growing trend among health insurance carriers or employers to
provide short-term financial incentives for their enrollees or
employees to participate in preventive health care programs (e.g.,
reducing premiums for an enrollee who participates in a fitness
program, loses weight, or quits smoking), we are unaware of any data
establishing that these and similar financial incentives produce long-
term cost savings to the carrier or employer. It would be extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to quantify savings or offsets because
there is no way to know whether a particular patient's health status
would have worsened without VA's intervention, and whether the
intervention directly resulted in a certain or predictable total amount
in health care expenditure savings. We would experience the same
difficulties trying to identify what would have been the level of
disability and costs of care for a particular Veteran had he or she not
participated in the early clinical intervention program.
The ``wellness'' stipends, themselves, raise several complex
issues. None of VA's current benefits systems is equipped to administer
such a novel benefit, and no current account appears to be an
appropriate funding source from which to pay the benefit. Second,
authorization of wellness benefits would be determined based solely on
adherence to the treatment/wellness program. This would place the
clinician in the position of determining whether the patient will
continue to receive these wellness benefits and would pose a
significant conflict of interest which would likely compromise the
healing relationship between the patient and clinical provider.
There would be significant indirect costs as well. VHA currently
lacks the information technology infrastructure, expertise, and staff
to administer monetary benefits with the potential level of complexity
and scale proposed in this legislation. The challenge posed in
connection with this bill would be nearly insurmountable, which calls
for a very complex, nationwide patient tracking and monitoring system
that also has the capacity to administer payments at different points
in time for Veterans participating in the program. The fact that the
duration of each Veteran's treatment plan would be highly
individualized would only complicate the requirements of such a system
design, as would the fact that the bill would permit some Veterans to
receive treatment (and payment) extensions.
The cost of administering S. 819 would be potentially higher than
the benefit received by the Veteran. The maximum VA could pay any
Veteran under the bill would be $11,000; however, it is reasonable to
assume that the costs associated with designing, operating, and
administering such a complex benefit program would far surpass the
actual amounts we would pay out to the Veterans (individually or
collectively).
S. 819 would also place practitioners in the difficult position of
determining if their patients will receive ``wellness'' stipends
available under the program. It is quite atypical for a VA physician's
clinical determination regarding treatment to have direct financial
implications or consequences for his or her patients. VA physicians and
practitioners seek to help their Veteran patients attain maximum
functioning as quickly as clinically possible. S. 819 would create
potential conflict for our health care practitioners. They should focus
solely on issues of health care and not feel pressure to grant requests
for extensions of treatment in order to maximize the amount of money
patients receive under the program.
Additionally, it would be difficult to define ``substantial
compliance,'' for purposes of S. 819, in a way that is measurable and
objective as well as not easily amenable to fraud or abuse. For
instance, substantial compliance could be defined in part by a Veteran
stating that he or she took prescribed medications as ordered by the
physician and VA confirming the Veteran obtained refills in a timely
manner. But that information does not actually verify that the patient
in fact ingested the medication or did so as prescribed.
There would unavoidably be some patients whose motivation for
participating in this program is strictly financial, and they would
invariably find ways to circumvent whatever criteria we established in
order to receive their stipends. Although these payments would not be
sizable, they would be sufficient to entice some patients who would not
otherwise access VA's health care system to participate in the program.
We fear these patients would cease their treatment and stop accessing
needed VA services once their treatment and payments end.
If the use of ``wellness'' stipends were able to produce reliable,
positive results in terms of patients' compliance or outcomes, there
may then be a demand to extend this reward system to other VA treatment
programs. We note this only to point out that the cost implications in
the out-years could be very difficult to estimate accurately.
Finally, it is also troubling that S. 819 would require VA to treat
specific diseases and not the Veteran as a whole. This approach would
place VA practitioners in the difficult and untenable position of being
able to identify conditions they cannot treat under the proposed
program. This would create a particularly serious ethical dilemma for
the practitioner who knows that his or her Veteran patient has no other
access to needed health care services. In our view, authority to treat
specific diseases-and not the person-would be counter to the principles
of patient-centered and holistic medicine.
We do not currently have a cost estimate for S. 819.
s. 863
Section 2 of S. 863, the ``Veterans Back to School Act of 2013,''
would amend section 3031 of title 38, United States Code, to repeal the
time limitations on the use of educational assistance under the
Montgomery GI Bill-Active Duty (MGIB-AD) program. Currently, pursuant
to section 3031, the period for which an individual is entitled to
education assistance under the MGIB-AD program expires, generally, 10
years after the individual's last discharge or release from active
duty.
Section 2 of S. 863 would add a new subsection to section 3031 to
provide that, notwithstanding other delimiting-date provisions in that
section, the period for a ``covered individual'' to use MGIB-AD
education benefits would expire 10 years after the date on which the
individual begins using the benefit. A ``covered individual'' would be
defined to be any individual whose basic pay was reduced by $100 for 12
months under paragraph (1) of section 3011, or an amount equal to
$1,200 not later than 1 year after completion of 2 years of active duty
service. This legislation would not apply to the period for using
entitlement transferred under section 3020 of title 38.
The amendment made by section 2 would be made effective as if the
legislation had been enacted immediately after the enactment of the
Veteran's Educational Assistance Act of 1984.
VA is unable to support section 2 of S. 863. Currently, a Veteran
must use MGIB-AD benefits during the 10-year period beginning on the
date of his or her release from active duty. Under the proposed
legislation, an individual could wait more than
10 years before he or she begins use of the benefit. This would
require VA to administer the MGIB-AD program for an unknown number of
individuals for an unlimited period of time. The MGIB-AD-eligible
population is decreasing, as the 10-year period of eligibility for
Veterans with service ending prior to 2001 has passed, and the majority
of individuals with service after that date are electing to use
benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill program, which provides a 15-year
eligibility period.
VA also has concerns with the effective date of the legislation. We
interpret the effective date in paragraph (c) of section 2 to mean all
individuals who have not received MGIB-AD education benefits would now
be eligible and those that previously received benefits would have
their time limitation recalculated. This would require VA to
retroactively make adjustments to individual periods of eligibility,
creating a significant workload that would impact our timeliness in
processing all education claims.
VA estimates that the benefit cost associated with enactment of
section 2 of the bill would be insignificant. While section 2 would
effectively extend the delimiting date of MGIB-AD, the Secretary
currently has authority under Title 38 Section 3031 to extend the
delimiting date in certain circumstances. Additionally, MGIB-AD usage
data suggests that the majority of trainees begin receiving benefits
within three years of separation and would not require more than the
current ten year delimiting date to use their entitlement. Finally,
because MGIB-AD is a decreasing program due to the implementation of
the Post-9/11 GI Bill, we anticipate that MGIB-AD participation will
decrease below 10,000 within ten years, further minimizing any impact
of extending the delimiting date.
Section 3 of S. 863 would amend chapter 36 of title 38, United
States Code, to require VA, subject to the availability of
appropriations, to provide funding for ``offices of veterans affairs''
at institutions of higher learning (IHL) at which there are in
attendance at least 50 students receiving educational assistance
administered by VA.
This legislation would require that an IHL or consortium of IHLs
submit an application to VA to determine eligibility for this program.
Such application would be required to identify policies, assurances,
and procedures to ensure that the funds received by the institution
would be used solely to enhance the institution's Veterans' education
outreach program. During each academic year an institution receives
payments, the IHL would be required to fund an amount equal to at least
the amount of the award paid by VA. The funding for the additional
expenditure could not come from other Federal sources, and the
applicant would have to submit any reports requested by VA. VA would
determine what information must be included in the application and when
the application should be submitted. In addition, the application must
state that the applicant will maintain an ``office of veterans
affairs'' and use that office for Veterans' certification, outreach,
recruitment, and special education programs. This would include
referral to educational, vocational, and personal counseling for
Veterans, as well as providing information for other services provided
to Veterans by VA, such as readjustment counseling; job counseling,
training, and placement services; and employment and training of
Veterans.
If VA determines that an institution eligible for funding is unable
to carry out by itself any or all activities proposed in this
legislation, the institution might carry out the program activities
through a consortium agreement with one or more other IHLs in the same
community. However, VA could not approve an application unless it is
determined that the applicant would implement the necessary
requirements within the first academic year in which a payment would be
received.
An eligible institution would receive $100 for each person that
received VA educational assistance, with a maximum amount of $150,000
to any IHL during the fiscal year. Six million dollars would be
authorized to be appropriated for FY 2012 and each fiscal year
thereafter. If the amount appropriated for any fiscal year would not be
sufficient to pay all IHLs, the payments would be reduced. However, if
any amounts become available in any fiscal year after such reductions,
the reduced payments would be increased at the same level they were
reduced.
From the amounts made available for any fiscal year, VA would also
be required to set aside 1 percent or $20,000, whichever is less, for
the purpose of collecting information about exemplary programs and
disseminating that information to other institutions with similar
programs on their campuses. Such collection and dissemination would be
completed each year. VA could not retain more than 2 percent of the
funds available for administering this program.
VA supports the intent of section 3; however, we have significant
concerns about the potential additional administrative burden that
could result. In calendar year 2012, there were more than 3,100 schools
with 50 or more recipients of VA education benefits. As the Post-9/11
GI Bill continues to grow, VA can expect the number of schools with 50
or more recipients to increase. During FY 2012, there were 646,302
students who received Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, which is an increase
of 16.4 percent over FY 2011. VA would need to provide staffing to
administer and process the number of applications received for this
program. Additionally, VA would need to establish a method of reporting
and tracking the success of these programs.
We also have concerns about the broad scope of this legislation,
and how VA would effectively administer the provisions. While the bill
would require an institution to use funds solely to carry out Veterans'
education outreach programs, VA does not have a mechanism to ensure
that all funds would be used accordingly. Additionally, the funding
limitations by fiscal year present challenges. The risk of funding
uncertainty would jeopardize effective planning.
We note that the 2014 President's Budget includes funding to expand
the Department's VetSuccess on Campus initiative to a total of 94
campuses. VA is beginning a partnership with the Corporation for
National and Community Service to provide additional support for
VetSuccess on Campus counselors through AmeriCorps members.
Furthermore, as of May 29, 2013, 6,282 campuses have voluntarily agreed
to comply with the Principles of Excellence outlined in Executive Order
13607, which requires the schools designate a point of contact to
assist Veteran and Servicemember students and their families with
academic and financial advising.
This legislation authorizes appropriation of $6 million to carry
out section 3 for FY 2012 and each fiscal year thereafter. It is
assumed that such funding would be made available through the GOE
account, but we request that specific language be added to the
legislation to make this clear. No benefits cost would be associated
with enactment of this section. Although the bill would authorize $6
million to carry out this section, VA estimates GOE costs for the first
year of $8 million based on 17 FTE to administer the Veterans'
education outreach program established under section 3 (including
salary, benefits, rent, supplies, equipment, payments made to
institutions of higher learning, and an outreach study). The estimated
5-year cost would be $40 million, and the 10-year cost would be $81.2
million. In addition, VA estimates that information technology (IT)
costs to support the additional staff for the first year would be
$31,000 (this includes the IT equipment for FTE, installation,
maintenance, and IT support). The estimated 5-year IT cost would be
$175,000, and the 10-year cost would be $409,000.
s. 868
S. 868, the ``Filipino Veterans Promise Act,'' would require the
Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of VA, to
establish a process to determine whether individuals claiming certain
service in the Philippines during World War II are eligible for certain
benefits despite not being on the so-called ``Missouri List.'' This
bill affects programs and laws administered by DOD. Respectfully, we
defer to that Department's views on this bill.
s. 889
S. 889, the ``Servicemembers' Choice in Transition Act of 2013,''
would amend section 1144 of title 10, United States Code, to improve
the Transition Assistance Program (TAP). The current law does not
stipulate any requirements for TAP beyond pre-separation counseling and
the Department of Labor (DOL) Employment Workshop.
S. 889 would mandate the following additions to TAP providing: (1)
information on disability-related employment and education protection;
(2) an overview of available education benefits; and (3) testing to
determine academic readiness for post-secondary education. The deadline
for implementation of these provisions would be April 1, 2015. The bill
would also require a feasibility study by VA on providing the
instruction of pre-separation counseling (described in subsection (b)
of section 1142 of title 10, United States Code) at overseas locations,
no later than 270 days after the date of the enactment.
VA appreciates the strong interest and support from the Committee
to ensure that separating Servicemembers are given full and effective
engagement on their employment and training opportunities, as well as
other VA benefits they have earned. However, VA does not support this
legislation. The passage of the Veterans Opportunity to Work (VOW) to
Hire Heroes Act (VOW Act) of 2011 and the introduction of the
President's Veterans Employment Initiative (VEI) satisfy the intent
underlying S. 889. VA believes those efforts should be afforded an
opportunity to be fully implemented and assessed before any further
legislation concerning TAP is enacted. Allowing agencies to proceed
under current plans will provide greater flexibility in implementing
improvements and making adjustments based on accurate data analysis
during assessment. VA will be pleased to brief the Committee on the
improvements and enhancements that are currently being implemented as
part of the Administration's VEI.
VA and Federal agency partners including DOD, DOL, Department of
Education, Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Small Business
Administration (SBA), are currently working to develop a plan for the
implementation of an enhanced TAP curriculum, known as Transition GPS
(Goals, Plans, Success), which was developed under the Administration's
VEI.
Current components of the Transition GPS curriculum include
mandatory pre-separation counseling, service-delivered modules,
enhanced VA benefits briefings, a DOL Employment Workshop, and
Servicemember-selected tracks focused on technical training, higher
education, and entrepreneurship opportunities. With the implementation
of the Capstone event by the end of FY 2013, the Transition GPS
curriculum will take approximately 7 to 8 days to complete.
VA has primary responsibility in the development and delivery of
the VA benefits briefings and the Career Technical Training Track, and
additional responsibilities to support partner agencies in the
development of curriculum of the higher education track, the
entrepreneurship track, and the Capstone event. The Capstone event is
intended to serve as a standardized end-of-career experience to
validate, verify, and bolster transition training and other services to
prepare for civilian career readiness, including those delivered
throughout the entire span of a Servicemember's career, from accession
to post-military civilian life.
The VA Benefits I and II Briefings are part of the current
Transition GPS Curriculum. During the VA Benefits I Briefing,
information is provided on VA education benefits, as well as
identifying the forms and documentation necessary to access those
education benefits. The VA Benefits I Briefing also provides
information on all other benefits and services offered by VA. The
Benefits II Briefing provides an in-depth overview of VA's disability
compensation process, VA health care, and navigation of the eBenefits
portal, a one-stop, self-service tool providing access to all benefits
information.
Testing to determine academic readiness for post-secondary
education for any member who plans to use educational assistance under
title 38 does not play a role in how VA determines eligibility and
disburses VA education benefits. VA does not agree that this type of
testing should be a part of Transition GPS, since Servicemembers who
are interested in pursuing post-secondary education already go through
an application process in order to determine readiness and acceptance
to accredited schools, universities, or colleges. The final
determination for one's acceptance to post-secondary education is the
responsibility of the academic institutions. VA believes the intent of
this amendment is already being met under the revised Transition GPS.
As part of the new process, Servicemembers receive pre-separation
counseling by a representative within their respective Service, where
they may receive additional guidance on appropriate next steps to
include planning for a post-secondary education.
This legislation would also mandate providing information on
disability-related employment and education protections. As VA does not
have oversight on employment and education protections, we defer to our
agency partners (e.g., DOL and Department of Education) regarding the
extent to which they address these topic areas during Transition GPS.
Because pre-separation counseling is the responsibility of DOD, the
feasibility study on the implementation of subsection (b) of section
1142 of title 10, United States Code, would be a new requirement for VA
and would necessitate agreements and information sharing between VA and
DOD to finalize within 270 days after enactment.
We note that the Transition GPS curriculum is new and still being
evaluated for effectiveness and efficiency. VA is in the process of
fine tuning delivery and content to best meet Servicemembers' needs,
and additional legislation at this stage may hinder those efforts. For
these reasons, VA does not support the feasibility study.
VA estimates that, if S. 889 were enacted, costs for the first year
would be $8.2 million (including salary, benefits, travel, rent,
supplies, training, equipment, and other services [including curriculum
development]), $40.6 million over 5 years, and $86.5 million over 10
years. VA estimates that IT costs for the first year would be $0.3
million (including the IT equipment for FTE, installation, maintenance,
and IT support) $0.9 million over 5 years, and $2.0 million over 10
years.
s. 894
S. 894 would extend, through June 30, 2016, the Secretary's
authority to pay allowances for certain qualifying work-study
activities performed by certain individuals pursuing programs of
education. This bill would also amend section 3485(a)(4) of title 38,
United States Code, to add a new subparagraph to add to the list of
qualifying work-study activities certain activities performed at the
offices of Members of Congress. Finally, this bill would require VA to
submit annual reports to Congress regarding the work-study allowances
paid under section 3485(a). VA provided views for this bill at the
June 12, 2013, hearing.
VA estimates that, if enacted, benefit costs for S. 894 would be
$572,000 during FY 2013 and $7.4 million for the 3-year period
beginning on June 30, 2013, and ending on June 30, 2016. There are no
additional FTE or GOE cost requirements associated with this
legislation.
s. 922
Section 3 of S. 922, the ``Veterans Equipped for Success Act of
2013,'' would require VA, in collaboration with DOL, to create a 3-year
pilot program in four locations to assess the feasibility and
advisability of offering career transition services to eligible
Veterans. VA provided views for this bill at the June 12, 2013,
hearing.
VA estimates that, if S. 922 were enacted, costs for the first year
would be $1.9 billion (including salary, benefits, travel rent, other
services, supplies, and equipment), and $6.7 billion over 4 years. VA
IT costs are estimated to be $0.1 million in the first year and $0.2
million over 4 years. IT costs include IT equipment, FTE, installation,
maintenance, systems, and IT support.
s. 927
S. 927, the ``Veterans Outreach Act of 2013,'' would require VA to
carry out a demonstration project to assess the feasibility and
advisability of using state and local government agencies and nonprofit
organizations to increase outreach to Veterans regarding VA benefits
and services. VA would require additional resources, such as manpower,
funds, and space, to administer the mandated grant program, comply with
the reporting requirements, and support the advisory committee called
for in section 5 of the bill. In addition, VA has several
recommendations and concerns regarding particular bill language.
Because of the central role of outreach in ensuring that Veterans know
of the benefits they have earned and the role of outreach throughout
the myriad missions of VHA, VBA, and the National Cemetery
Administration, we would benefit from meeting with the Committee to
discuss ongoing outreach efforts and the ideas represented in this
bill.
Section 2 of S. 927 would require VA to conduct a demonstration
project to increase coordination of outreach efforts between VA and
Federal, state, and local agencies and nonprofit organizations. In the
absence of a requirement for specific appropriations dedicated to the
implementation of the bill, VA requests that, in section 2(a),
``shall'' be replaced with ``may.''
Section 2(a)(2) lists ``nonprofit providers of health care and
benefits services for veterans'' as an entity with which VA would
coordinate outreach activities. VA would like for the bill to have
broad reach but would like to discuss with the Committee the different
types of entities this language could cover.
Section 2(c)(3) would require the Secretary to ``consider where the
projects will be carried out'' and a number of other factors. VA
recommends the considerations of section 2(c)(3) be deleted and that VA
be directed to include appropriate project criteria, such as location
and other factors, in VA implementing regulations. VA is concerned
that, under section 2(c)(5), which would limit awards to a single state
entity to 20 percent of all grant amounts awarded in a fiscal year,
limitations would only be established for state entities while local
and nonprofit entities would not be subject such limitations. VA
recommends including all eligible grantees in this paragraph.
Similarly, under section 2(d), the 50 percent matching funds
requirement would only apply to states while county, municipal, and
nonprofit entities would not have this burdensome requirement. VA
recommends including all eligible grantees in this subsection as well.
Essentially, there should be one standard: matching funds should be
required for all entities or no such requirement should exist. VA
already submits a consolidated biennial report on outreach activities,
and therefore recommends that, rather than requiring the annual report
as prescribed by section 2(e), the biennial report already submitted
address the grants called for in this proposed legislation.
Section 3 would provide for cooperative agreements between the
Secretary and states on outreach activities. VA already has an existing
Memorandum of Agreement through the National Association of State
Directors of Veterans Affairs that encompasses the intent of this
legislation. Therefore, VA recommends removing this section.
Section 4 would provide for specific budget reporting requirements
for VA's outreach activities. VA administrations currently plan and
track outreach budgets without a Congressionally-mandated requirement
in order to report to VA's Office of Public and Intergovernmental
Affairs (OPIA). However, the language of section 4 would require
additional collection and coordination that could represent additional
expenditures for VA. Additional manpower would be required to plan,
coordinate, track, and report all outreach budget activities throughout
VA. VA would be glad to discuss the requirements of this section with
the Committee.
Section 5 would establish an advisory committee on outreach
activities in VA. Additional resources would be required to manage,
plan, coordinate, support, and report on an outreach advisory
committee's activities. In addition, VA already has several committees,
such as the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, the Advisory
Committee on Women Veterans, and the Research Advisory Committee on
Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses, which look at outreach as a component of
their charters. Should this additional advisory committee be
established, VA believes that the quarterly consultation and reporting
requirements contemplated by section 5(d) and (e) are excessive. Most
VA committees already meet two to three times annually. VA recommends
instead a biannual meeting requirement.
Section 6 would require each VA medical center to establish an
advisory board on outreach activities. VA does not support this section
of S. 927 as it would require 152 additional advisory boards, each one
being a potential distracter to mission workload.
VA is unable to estimate the costs of this bill, as they would
depend upon the scope of the grant program which, in turn, would depend
upon amounts appropriated for such grants.
s. 928
Section 101 of S. 928, the ``Claims Processing Improvement Act of
2013,'' would establish a working group to improve the employee work
credit and work management systems of VBA. Not later than 90 days after
the date of the enactment of this Act, VA would establish a working
group to assess and develop recommendations for the improvement of the
employee work credit and work management systems of VBA. The work group
would be comprised of VA adjudicators, labor representatives, and
individuals from Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs). The working
group would develop a data-based methodology to be used in revising the
employee work credit system and a schedule by which revisions to such
system would be made, and would assess and develop recommendations for
improvement of the resource allocation model. In carrying out its
duties, the working group would review the findings and conclusions of
the Secretary regarding previous studies of the employee work credit
and work management systems of VBA.
Within 180 days following establishment of the working group, VA
would submit a progress report to Congress. Within 1 year following the
establishment of the working group, VA would submit a report to
Congress detailing the methodology and schedule developed by the
working group.
VA does not support section 101. VA is fully aware of the need to
improve its work credit and work management systems, but does not
believe it necessary to legislate a formal working group to carry out
an improvement plan. VA benefited from the Center for Naval Analyses
report, mandated by section 226, Public Law 110-389, which revealed
needed improvements of VA's work credit and management system. It is
vital that VA continue to improve its evolving claims processing
system, including the enhancement of the Veterans Benefits Management
System (VBMS) to incorporate advanced workload management
functionalities. VBA's planned future state includes development of
VBMS workload management capabilities that are entirely electronic. The
workload management capabilities of VBMS are being developed in two
steps. Currently, a working group is building the design requirements
that will provide managers with the tools and reporting capabilities to
manage their workload most effectively at the regional office level.
Second, a national work queue will be developed, to include the
capability of routing claims automatically through a pre-determined
model, which will route claims based on VBA's priorities and the skill
levels of our employees, essentially matching claims processors with
the ``next best claim'' to work based on their skill levels and areas
of expertise, as well as national workload management policies.
As VBA moves toward the full integration of the entire claims
process in VBMS, the capability to capture transactional data will
allow VA to move from a points-based work credit system dependent on
employee-user input to a system that can automatically capture
employees' transactions, activities, claims completions, and
timeliness, enabling VBA to measure performance against standards that
truly reflect the desired outcome of timely and accurate completion of
claims. VBA recognizes the importance of assessing the impact of our
transformational initiatives on employees' job requirements and
appropriately adjusting the work credit system. VBA established a new
team in April 2013 to work in concert with VBMS programmers to ensure
the requirements and functionality for employee work-credit is
incorporated into VBMS and that a system is established that measures
and manages the work production of employees in accordance with actions
required by the updated claims process.
No mandatory or discretionary costs are associated with this
section of the bill.
Section 102 of the bill would establish a task force on retention
and training of claims processors and adjudicators who are employed by
VA and other Federal agencies and departments. The task force would be
comprised of the VA Secretary, Director of OPM, Commissioner of the
Social Security Administration, a representative from a VSO, and other
individuals from institutions as the Secretary considers appropriate.
The duties of the task force would include:
(1) Identifying key skills required by claims processors and
adjudicators to perform the duties of claims processors and
adjudicators in the various claims processing and adjudication
positions throughout the Federal Government;
(2) Identifying reasons for employee attrition from claims
processing positions;
(3) No later than 1 year after establishment of the task force,
developing a Government-wide strategic and operational plan for
promoting employment of Veterans in claims processing positions in the
Federal Government;
(4) Coordinating with educational institutions to develop training
and programs of education for members of the Armed Forces to prepare
such members for employment in claims processing and adjudication
positions in the Federal Government;
(5) Identifying and coordinating offices of DOD and VA located
throughout the United States to provide information about, and
promotion of, available claims processing positions to members of the
Armed Forces transitioning to civilian life and to Veterans with
disabilities;
(6) Establishing performance measures to assess the plan developed
under paragraph (3), assessing the implementation of such plan, and
revising such plan as the task force considers appropriate; and
(7) Establishing performance measures to evaluate the effectiveness
of the task force.
No later than 1 year after the date of the establishment of the
task force, VA would be required to submit to Congress a report on the
plan developed by the task force. Not later than 120 days after the
termination of the task force, the Secretary would be required to
submit to Congress a report that assesses the implementation of the
plan developed by the task force.
VA does not support section 102 because VA already has systems and
programs in place to achieve the goals of the bill.
As VA's claims processes evolve, VA continues to identify critical
skills needed by adjudicators. Establishing a task force to address
concerns at this stage would be premature and counterproductive as VA
implements, modifies, and enhances its transformational initiatives and
automated processing systems.
With regard to development of a Government-wide strategic and
operational plan for promoting employment of Veterans in claims
processing positions in the Federal Government, VA defers to OPM.
However, 73 percent of VBA's hires this year have been Veterans, and
over 51 percent of VBA's current workforce is Veterans. Our attrition
rate in disability claims processing positions was only 6 percent last
year and 4 percent this fiscal year through June 30. VA currently
utilizes tools in regional offices that capture reasons for attrition
when employees leave Federal service. This information is used for
succession planning and future hiring at the local level.
Over the last several years, VBA has developed competency models
for claims processing positions. The models describe the knowledge,
skills and abilities necessary for these jobs. VBA is in the process of
linking the models to training.
The linked models will guide supervisors and employees as they
develop training plans to improve capabilities and/or remediate skill
deficits. Training to develop claims processing skill requires
practical application using VA systems and processes that closely guard
Veterans' privacy. Effective training requires close evaluation
achievable only by experts in claims processing, such as is conducted
within VA. Educational institutions are unlikely to provide meaningful
development of claims processor skills in Veterans.
The requirement to coordinate with educational institutions to
develop training and programs for members of the Armed Forces seems to
contradict the rules in section 3680A of title 38, United States Code,
which prohibits VA from approving programs of education where more than
85 percent of the students enrolled are in receipt of VA education
benefits. Additionally, VA has concerns that the intent of providing
specific training for employment for claims processing positions may
actually limit their employment opportunities as their training would
be specific to a position and not an industry or general career field.
VA has partnered with other Federal agencies to include DOD,
Department of Education, DOL, SBA, and OPM to develop a process through
redesign of the TAP in order to achieve the President's intent for a
``career-ready military.'' The redesign provides training to enable
transitioning Servicemembers to meet Career Readiness Standards by
translating military skills into Federal or private work opportunities
and better prepare Servicemembers in making a successful transition
from military to civilian life. VA is also responsible for delivering
the Career Technical Training Track (CTTT) which assists Servicemembers
in developing a plan for a technical career after departing the
military. The CTTT is a 16-hour course targeted toward Servicemembers
who may not choose a 4-year education option and who are seeking rapid
employment. As part of the redesign efforts of TAP, VA partners with
DOD and the Military Services in implementing a Capstone event to
verify Servicemembers are career ready when departing the military. VA
will provide support in the development of a Military Life Cycle, which
will incorporate Career Readiness Standards throughout an individual's
military career versus during the last few months prior to separation.
There are no mandatory or discretionary costs associated with this
section.
Section 105 of S. 928 would mandate a pilot program to assess the
feasibility and advisability of entering into memorandums of
understanding with local governments and tribal organizations, to
include at least two tribal organizations and 10 state or local
governments, for the purpose of improving the quality of claims
submitted and assisting Veterans who may be eligible for disability
compensation in submitting claims.
While VA supports efforts to enhance service and benefits delivery
to all categories of Veterans to include those of tribal organizations,
the rationale and intent behind this section of the bill is unclear.
Therefore, VA does not support this section. A pilot is unnecessary
given that VA regularly conducts outreach to tribal organizations.
Further, VA works closely with State and local governments, which
employ claims representatives to assist Veterans and their family
members with filing claims. VA regularly trains state and county
personnel to ensure they are equipped to assist Veterans in their
communities.
Costs cannot be accurately estimated without understanding the
scope of this provision. However, it is anticipated that additional
discretionary funds would be needed to administer the program and to
train the local governments and tribal organizations to accurately
discuss VA benefit programs and assist with claims.
Section 106 of the bill would require VA, not later than 90 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act and not less frequently
than quarterly thereafter through calendar year 2015, to submit to the
Senate and House Committees on Veterans' Affairs a report on the
backlog of claims. The report would include the following elements:
(1) For each month through calendar year 2015, a projection of the
following:
a. The number of claims completed;
b. The number of claims received;
c. The number of claims backlogged at the end of the month;
d. The number of claims pending at the end of the month; and
e. A description of the status of the implementation of
initiatives carried out by the Secretary to address the
backlog.
(2) For each quarter through calendar year 2015, a projection of
the average accuracy of disability determinations for compensation
claims that require a disability rating (or disability decision);
(3) For each month during the most recently completed quarter, the
following:
a. The number of claims completed;
b. The number of claims received;
c. The number of claims backlogged at the end of the month;
d. The number of claims pending at the end of the month; and
e. A description of the status of the implementation of
initiatives carried out by the Secretary to address the
backlog.
(4) For the most recently completed quarter, an assessment of the
accuracy of disability determinations for compensation claims that
require a disability rating (or disability decision).
VA does not oppose section 106. Although various data elements from
this bill are already publicly available and/or provided to Congress on
a regular basis, this section of the bill would formalize the
transmission of specific performance data.
No mandatory or discretionary costs are associated with this
section.
s. 930
S. 930 would add a new subsection to section 5314 of title 38,
United States Code, to delay the recovery of overpayments made by VA to
individuals receiving Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits until their last
payment or payments under that program. This new provision would not
apply to individuals, who either completed the program of education for
which the debt was made or failed to attend class during the two
academic semesters following the creation of the overpayment. VA would
be authorized to charge interest on the amount of indebtedness so that
the delayed payment actuarially would be equal to the amount as if the
debt were paid immediately. The new subsection would apply to all debts
created after the date of enactment and would expire 9 years after the
date of enactment.
VA does not support this bill. It would require VA to delay the
collection of debts by making deductions from the last payment or
payments due to beneficiaries. VA would not be able to project when
Post-9/11 GI Bill beneficiaries would use their benefits for the last
time and the amount of the last payment. As a result, it would be
difficult to determine when the debt should be recouped. Furthermore,
withholding some or all the payments due to a Veteran for his/her final
enrollment may place undue financial burden on the Veteran during his/
her last school term, potentially putting at risk the Veteran's ability
to complete his or her program and graduate. If an overpayment remains
after the final payment has been withheld, that overpayment would be
the responsibility of the Veteran and would be subject to collection
through the Treasury Offset Program if the Veteran is unable to pay out
of pocket.
This legislation would not apply to individuals who fail to attend
classes in a manner consistent with ``normal pursuit'' of a program of
education during the next two academic semesters after such
overpayment. It is not clear what is meant by ``normal pursuit'' as
individuals may pursue training on a part-time basis and may take short
breaks in training periods. Furthermore, the proposed legislation
directs VA to charge the individual interest for debts that must be
collected. It is not clear whether interest would accrue from the date
the overpayment is created or the date VA begins collection due to non-
pursuit of training. It is also unclear whether the debt should be
deferred if the individual resumes ``normal pursuit'' after the debt
collection process is initiated.
VA does not believe that the potential benefits gained by deferring
some Veteran debts would outweigh the increased burden Veterans may
face to repay large amounts out-of-pocket (as there will be little to
no benefits remaining) or the burden placed on VA to administer this
provision. Moreover, this legislation conflicts with the intended
spirit of the Improper Payment Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 and
the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, both of which speak to
proper identification and recovery of Federal debts.
S. 930 would be effective on the date of enactment; however, its
implementation would require extensive changes to VA's collection
process, including labor-intensive systems changes. Thus, VA would need
at least 18 months from the date of enactment to develop and/or amend
systems to account for this change, train personnel on the change, and
inform beneficiaries.
VA estimates that enactment of S. 930 would result in benefits
costs to VA of $233 million during the first year, $1.3 billion over 5
years, and $2.4 billion over 10 years.
s. 932
S. 932, the ``Putting Veterans Funding First Act of 2013,'' would
extend the authority for advance appropriations provided in the
Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act to all of VA's
discretionary accounts, effective in 2016 and in each fiscal year
thereafter. We appreciate how Congressional support for VA advance
appropriations for our medical care accounts has enabled a multi-year
approach to medical budget planning and ensured continued medical
services for Veterans. The advance medical care appropriation was
designed to ensure continuity of critical medical operations in the
face of fiscal uncertainty.
A proposal to expand VA advance appropriations needs to be
considered by the Administration as part of an across-the-government
review of the advantages and disadvantages of such an approach not only
for VA, but potentially other programs and agencies. Only in the
context of such a broad review could the Administration offer an
opinion on making such a change for VA. We cannot therefore offer a
position on S. 932 at this time. We very much appreciate the concern
for Veterans services reflected in the proposal and look forward to
working with the Committee on how to best maintain the provision of VA
benefits and services in light of fiscal uncertainties.
s. 935
S. 935, the ``Quicker Veterans Benefits Delivery Act of 2013,''
would revise statutes pertaining to adjudications and payment of
disability benefits.
Section 2 of this bill would prohibit VA from requesting a medical
examination when the claimant submits medical evidence or an opinion
from a non-VA provider that is competent, credible, probative, and
adequate for rating purposes. Section 3 would add a third level of pre-
stabilization rates under section 4.28 of title 38, Code of Federal
Regulations, that can be assigned to recently discharged Veterans.
Currently, pre-stabilization rates include a 50-percent and 100-percent
evaluation. This bill proposes to add a 30-percent evaluation. In
addition, the bill would create a new ``temporary minimum disability
rating.'' The bill would authorize such a rating for a Veteran who has
one or more disabilities not already covered under the current
temporary-rating scheme and ``submits a claim for such disability that
has sufficient evidence to support a minimum disability rating.'' Under
section 4, VA would be authorized to issue benefits payments prior to
the month for which such payments are issued. Currently, VA issues
benefits payments on the first of the month for the previous month's
entitlement.
VA does not support S. 935. VA appreciates the intent of the
provisions, which seek to provide benefits to Veterans more
expeditiously. However, as written, these provisions are, in some
respects, unnecessary, unclear, and problematic to implement.
Section 2 of the bill is duplicative of existing law. This section
prohibits VA from requesting a medical examination when evidence that
is submitted is adequate for rating purposes. Section 5103A(d)(2) of
title 38, United States Code, notes that an examination or opinion is
only required when the record does not contain sufficient medical
evidence to make a decision. Furthermore, section 5125 of title 38,
United States Code, explicitly notes that private examinations may be
sufficient, without conducting additional VA examinations, for
adjudicating claims. VA regulations are consistent with these statutory
requirements. Therefore, this section is unnecessary and duplicative.
VA is already allowed to adjudicate a claim without an examination if
evidence is provided by the claimant that is adequate for rating
purposes. There are no costs associated with section 2.
VA does not support section 3. The intent of this provision and how
it would be implemented are unclear. The existing pre-stabilization
rates, 50 percent and 100 percent, are used to compensate Veterans with
severe injuries that are unstable and which materially impair
employability. The criteria for when the proposed 30-percent evaluation
would be used are not specified. However, generally, a rating of 30
percent indicates that an individual is able to participate in the
examination process and is capable of employment. Because the Veteran
would be required to be re-examined and re-evaluated between 6 and 12
months after discharge, this provision would inconvenience Veterans as
well as require additional work on the part of claims adjudicators and
medical examiners.
To the extent the bill would create a whole new category of
claimants eligible to receive a temporary minimum disability rating, VA
does not support this provision. It is unclear how this would be
implemented (i.e., whether the term ``temporary minimum disability
rating'' refers to the proposed 30 percent pre-stabilization rating or
whether it refers to the current minimum compensable schedular rating
of 10 percent. Additionally, it is unclear what is meant by the
requirement that the claimant submit ``sufficient evidence to support a
minimum disability rating.'' If interpreted to mean that the claimant
need only submit evidence of a current disability to be assigned a
temporary rating of 30 percent, such a practice would likely result in
frequent overpayments that would later need to be adjusted. Likewise, a
Veteran with multiple disabilities would often be undercompensated. In
general, establishing temporary ratings means that cases will need to
be processed twice, which is not an efficient use of resources.
Subsection (c), which directs that cases with pre-stabilization ratings
or temporary minimum disability ratings not be counted in the backlog
of disability claims, raises questions about how these cases would be
tracked and counted in VA's workload and concern about data integrity.
VA is unable to provide costs for section 3, as the provision is
unclear. Additional information concerning the criteria that would
create entitlement would be required to determine costs.
VA does not support section 4 of the bill, as its intent is
unclear, and it could create significant administrative burdens and
costs for VA. This provision would authorize the Secretary to certify
benefit payments so that payments will be delivered ``before the first
day of the calendar month for which such payments are issued.'' VA is
already authorized to make payments prior to the first of the month
whenever the first day of the calendar month falls on a Saturday,
Sunday, or legal public holiday. The payment VA makes on or near the
first of the month is payment for the prior month's entitlement. If the
intent of section 4 is to permit VA to make this payment prior to the
first of the month irrespective of whether that date falls on a weekend
or holiday, we recommend replacing the phrase ``for which such payments
are issued'' with the phrase ``in which such payments would otherwise
be issued.'' However, if the intent is to authorize VA to deliver
disability payments a full month in advance, such a change in procedure
would raise several concerns. For a Veteran with an award that is
currently ongoing, an additional month of mandatory funding would be
required, as an extra payment would need to be made to advance payments
to a month-in-advance status. Additionally, paying benefits in advance
significantly increases the chances for overpayment of benefits and
directly conflicts with the spirit of the Debt Collection Improvement
Act and the Improper Payment Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act.
Current processing allows VA to prevent payments from being released if
a Veteran becomes ineligible during the month. For example, if a
Veteran student drops out of school or passes away during the month, VA
is able to amend his or her benefit award and prevent payment from
being released. Paying in advance would eliminate VA's ability to
prevent this type of improper payment. Paying benefits prior to the
month in which they are earned would potentially result in increased
overpayments.
Absent clarification as discussed above, VA opposes this section of
the bill, as it potentially would create an administrative burden and
significant costs in the reprogramming of VA's computer systems. The
systems used by VA do not currently allow prospective payments, and
this section would create the need to reprogram multiple applications.
For section 4, if the intent of the proposed bill is to release
benefit payments on the last day of the month for which they are due,
rather than the first of the following month, as is the current
practice, VA sees little impact to our internal processes or Office of
Information Technology (OIT) applications. This change would require
that our schedule of operations be modified by at least 1 business day
to send our bulk payment files to the Department of the Treasury
earlier in the month so payments could be delivered (by mail or
electronically) on the last business day of the month rather than the
first of the following month. The Department of the Treasury does not
anticipate this potential change would be an issue with regards to
processing and releasing VA benefit payments.
However, if the intent of section 4 is to issue payments in advance
of when they are due, VA OIT systems would require significant
modifications, which would take longer than the 90-day period allowed
to implement this section. For example, if the intent is that payment
for July be received prior to July 1 (e.g., June 30), rather than
August 1, the current functionality that generates the recurring or
monthly payment files would require significant changes. VBA has ten
separate OIT payment applications that produce a recurring or monthly
payment file that would need to be modified. Changes of this nature
would require significant OIT funding that is not budgeted and re-
prioritization of planned OIT initiatives.
If the intent of section 4 is to release benefit payments on the
last day of the month for which they are due, rather than the first of
the following month as is the current practice, there are no benefit
costs or savings associated with section 4. While this provision would
impact the timing of outlays, it would not affect obligations. If the
intent of section 4 is to issue payments in advance of when they are
due, there would be costs, including costs associated with the
increased chances of overpayments. However, more information would be
required to calculate the benefit costs in this scenario.
s. 938
S. 938, the ``Franchise Education for Veterans Act of 2013,'' would
amend title 38 United States Code, to allow Veterans who are eligible
for educational assistance under the All-Volunteer Force Educational
Assistance Program (chapter 30) or the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance
Program (chapter 33) and no longer on active duty, to pursue training
and receive educational assistance for franchise training. The amount
of educational assistance payable under this program shall be, within
any 12-month period in which training is pursued, the sum of the fees
assessed by the training establishment, a monthly housing stipend for
each month of training pursued equal to the monthly amount of the basic
allowance for a Servicemember with dependents in pay grade E-5 residing
in military housing within the zip code area of the training
establishment, and a monthly stipend in the amount equal to $83 for
each month of training for books, supplies, equipment, and other
educational costs or $15,000, whichever is less.
VA supports the intent of S. 938; however, we cannot support this
bill due to significant administrative impacts and a need for further
refinement in order to make this policy executable and supportable. We
are unclear how VA would determine that the franchise training pursued
by the Veteran would result in the establishment of a franchise.
Franchise training times vary depending on what the franchise business
requirements are (e.g., Meineke may be 4 weeks, whereas 7-Eleven may be
2-4 weeks). VA would have to establish ways to measure the franchise
training and conduct adequate oversight to ensure compliance that is
necessary for the State Approving Agencies (SAA) to approve the
training programs. It is unclear whether any limitations should be
established as to when VA should approve the individual pursuit of the
franchise training. For example, it is unclear whether VA would need to
ensure the individual who desires to open a business first provide
business plans or proof of funding in order to establish the franchise.
Due to the need to develop regulations to provide rules to
administer this new benefit type, provide training to the SAAs who will
approve the training, and provide training to the field offices on
processing, VA recommends that this provision become effective at the
beginning of a fiscal year but no earlier than 12 months from date of
enactment.
VA estimates that benefit costs associated with enactment of S. 938
would be $1.5 million in the first year, $7.5 million over 5 years, and
a total of $15.0 million over 10 years.
s. 944
S. 944, the ``Veterans' Educational Transition Act of 2013,'' would
amend section 3679 of title 38, United States Code, by adding a new
subsection at the end. The new subsection would require VA to
disapprove any course offered by a public institution of higher
education that does not charge Veterans and eligible dependents
pursuing a course of education with educational assistance under the
All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance Program (chapter 30) or the
Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program (chapter 33), in-state
tuition, and fees, regardless of their state of residence.
Under this legislation, a ``covered individual'' would be a Veteran
who was discharged or released from a period of no less than 180 days
of service in the active military, naval, or air service less than 2
years before the date of enrollment in the course concerned, or an
individual who is entitled to assistance under section 3311(b)(9) or
3319 of title 38 by virtue of such individual's relationship to a
covered Veteran.
S. 944 would apply to educational assistance provided for pursuit
of programs of education during academic terms that begin after July 1,
2015.
While VA is sympathetic to the issue of rising educational costs,
we cannot endorse this legislation until we know more about the impact.
VA is concerned that possible reductions in course offerings could be
the result from this requirement, which could negatively impact
Veterans' educational choices. In-state tuition rules are set by
individual States and are undoubtedly driven by overall fiscal factors
and other policy considerations.
Enactment of S. 944 may result in cost savings for VA because the
Department would no longer make Yellow Ribbon program payments to
public institutions of higher learning--these schools would either
charge in-state tuition, negating the need to make up the difference
between in-state and out-of-state tuition, or the school would cease to
be approved for VA education benefit participation. However, as noted
above, it is difficult to project the effect of this legislation on the
courses offered by public educational institutions, so students may
choose not to use their benefits at all because of reduced educational
choices.
VA estimates that benefit savings to the Readjustment Benefits
account would be $70.2 million over 5 years and $206.2 million over 10
years.
VA estimates that there would be no additional GOE administrative
costs required to implement this amendment.
s. 1039
S. 1039, the ``Spouses of Heroes Education Act,'' would amend the
Post-9/11 GI Bill (chapter 33 of title 38, United States Code) to
expand the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry scholarship to
include spouses of members of the Armed Forces who die in the line of
duty. Currently, only children of Servicemembers who die in the line of
duty while serving on active duty in the Armed Forces are eligible for
such education benefits.
This bill would make spouses eligible for education benefits under
chapter 33 for 15 years from the date of the Servicemember's death, or
the date on which the spouse remarries, whichever comes first.
A surviving spouse who establishes chapter 33 eligibility based on
this bill and is also eligible for education benefits under the
Dependents' Educational Assistance (chapter 35) program would have to
make an irrevocable election with respect to receipt of educational
assistance (under one program only).
S. 1039 also would amend section 3321(b)(4) of title 38 to specify
that the period of eligibility for a child entitled to Post-9/11 GI
Bill educational assistance under the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John
David Fry scholarship expires 15 years after the child's eighteenth
birthday.
VA supports S. 1039, subject to Congress identifying appropriate
offsets for the benefit costs. If enacted, this legislation would offer
eligible surviving spouses more generous monetary benefits than they
are currently eligible to receive. Currently, a surviving spouse of a
Servicemember who dies in the line of duty may receive education
benefits under chapter 35, which include a 20-year delimiting date, 45
months of entitlement, and a current full-time monthly rate of $987.
Under this legislation, eligible spouses would receive full tuition and
fees at a public institution (or the maximum amount payable at private
institutions), a housing allowance, and a books and supplies stipend of
up to $1,000.
Since the benefits are greater under chapter 33 than under chapter
35, VA anticipates surviving spouses would elect to receive benefits
under chapter 33. As a consequence, this would decrease the number of
chapter 35 beneficiaries.
VA estimates that, if enacted, S. 1039 would result in benefit
costs to VA of $10.3 million during the first year, $67.7 million for 5
years, and $163.9 million over 10 years. No administrative or personnel
costs to VA are associated with this bill. VA IT costs are estimated to
be $9.3 million. These costs include enhancements to the Post-9/11 GI
Bill Long-Term Solution. If these IT enhancements could not be
implemented, manual processing of claims would be required, which would
result in an overall decrease in timeliness and accuracy in processing
Post-9/11 GI Bill claims. We estimate that VA would need one year from
date of enactment to implement this change.
s. 1042
S. 1042, the ``Veterans Legal Support Act of 2013,'' would allow
the Secretary to provide support to one or more university law school
programs that are designed to provide legal assistance to Veterans.
Funding for such programs would be derived from amounts appropriated
for or made available to the Medical Services account of VA.
VA does not support S. 1042. While VA supports the endeavors of
university law school programs to assist Veterans in seeking VA
benefits, it does not believe such a program would be an effective use
of Medical Services funds.
Under the terms of the bill, the amount that can be expended in any
one year is limited to $1 million.
______
Response to Posthearing Questions Submitted by Hon. Bernard Sanders to
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Question 1. Section 201 of S. 928 would amend section 7105(b)(1) of
title 38 to require claimants seeking appellate review of a VA decision
to file a notice of disagreement (NOD) within 180 days from the date VA
mails such decision to the claimant. For the last three fiscal years
please provide the following:
i. Total number of notice of disagreements filed with VA;
Response.
Fiscal Year 2013: 117,472
Fiscal Year 2012: 116,802
Fiscal Year 2011: 126,665
ii. Number and percentage of notice of disagreements that were
filed within 0-30 days, 31-60 days, 61-90 days, 91-189 days, and 181-
365 days.
Response.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0-30 days 31-60 days 61-90 days 91-180 days 181+ days
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number Pct. Number Pct. Number Pct. Number Pct. Number Pct.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013.................................................. 40,819 35% 19,911 17% 10,336 9% 17,426 15% 28,980 25%
FY 2012.................................................. 39,518 34% 19,726 17% 10,645 9% 18,318 16% 28,595 24%
FY 2011.................................................. 40,025 32% 20,871 16% 11,613 9% 20,199 16% 33,957 27%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. VA's written testimony in regards to section 201 of
S. 928 states ``* * * If a claimant waits until the end of the 1-year
period to file a NOD, VA is often required to re-develop the record to
ensure the evidence of record is up to date. Data support the
conclusion that such late-term development delays the resolution of the
claim.''
a. What data supports the conclusion that late-term development
delays resolution of the claim? Please provide this data to the
Committee.
Response. There is a well-established pattern within the appeals
system that the longer an individual takes to appeal his or her
decision; the more likely it is that further development will be
necessary. For example, a Veteran filing an appeal after 340 days from
the decision is much more likely to have had medical treatment during
those 340 days than an individual that filed an appeal after 27 days.
This requires VA to develop for such evidence, which in turn leads to a
longer appeals resolution time.
The table below includes data pulled from VA's Veterans Appeals
Control and Locator System (VACOLS) on June 24, 2013. A review of
fiscal years 2009-2012 data reveals evidence of a direct relationship
between later filing (beyond 300 days) and longer resolution times.
Notice of Disagreements (NOD) filed after 300 days took 36 days longer
on average to resolve than the entire inventory of NODs, 42 days longer
than those filed between 31-60 days, and 55 days longer than those
filed within 30 days.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Days to BVA
Days from RO Decision to NOD Decision
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2012
0-30................................................ 1,325
31-60............................................... 1,355
300+................................................ 1,383
Average for all NODs................................ 1,348
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2011
0-30................................................ 1,175
31-60............................................... 1,182
300+................................................ 1,228
Average for all NODs................................ 1,196
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2010
0-30................................................ 1,153
31-60............................................... 1,156
300+................................................ 1,202
Average for all NODs................................ 1,169
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2009
0-30................................................ 1,143
31-60............................................... 1,155
300+................................................ 1,201
Average for all NODs................................ 1,159
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 3. During a discussion of the interoperability of DOD and
VA medical record systems, Mr. Murphy's oral testimony discussed the
delivery by DOD of certified complete service treatment records. VA
stated that ``* * * 97 percent of those records are being delivered
with a certified complete statement on top.''
a. Please provide the Committee with copies of all previous and
current agreements, including but not limited to the December 6, 2012,
agreement and February 22, 2013 amended agreement referenced in Fast
Letter 13-09, between DOD and VA on certification and transfer of
service treatment records.
Response. The Fast Letter and agreements follow:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Based on the December 6, 2012 agreement, Fast Letter 13-09 was
issued on January 1, 2013, and did not require service treatment
records (STR) certification letters to contain the Servicemember's name
and last four digits of his or her social security number (SSN). On
February 22, 2013, the agreement with DOD was amended to require the
military services to provide the name and last four digits of the
Servicemember's SSN on each certification letter. DD Form 2963, STR
Transfer or Certification, was published on June 25, 2013, for
implementation effective August 1, 2013. Full implementation by the
services is expected by November 1, 2013.
b. Please provide the Committee with the following information:
i. Number of service treatment records, by military
department, received since implementation of the December 6th
agreement.
Response. Please see the below chart with the number of
service treatment records received by branch of service from
January 2013 through June 21, 2013.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total
Branch of Service Jan-Mar Apr-Jun 21 Received
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARMY............................... 15,074 11,374 26,448
NAVY............................... 10,177 8,271 18,448
MARINE CORPS....................... 9,814 6,332 16,146
AIR FORCE.......................... 8,708 8,824 17,532
COAST GUARD........................ 495 545 1,040
------------------------------------
TOTAL.......................... 44,268 35,346 79,614
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. Number of service treatment records, by military
department, with certification received since implementation of
the December 6th agreement.
Response. The Records Management Center (RMC) began tracking
and reporting STR certification compliance in April 2012. The
following data was collected from April 2012 through June 21,
2013.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STRs STRs
Non- Certified Certified Total
Branch of Service Availability with 1/1/13 with 2/22/13 Received
Letter* Guidance Guidance**
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARMY...................................................... 1,134 4,335 1,942 7,411
NAVY...................................................... 559 1,552 782 2,893
MARINE CORPS.............................................. 198 1,829 445 2,472
AIR FORCE................................................. 908 4,574 2,592 8,074
COAST GUARD............................................... 24 117 73 214
-----------------------------------------------------
TOTAL................................................. 2,823 12,407 5,834 21,064
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*A non-availability letter is used when a complete STR is unavailable (i.e., Medical Only, Dental Only, or
partial STRs).
**Letter is substantially similar to version implemented 01/01/2013, but includes Veteran's name and last 4 of
SSN
At the end of May 2013, the RMC Director and the five service
branches discussed the current process and established a way forward to
ensure STRs were complete. On June 4, 2013, the Navy posted
Servicemembers at the RMC to assist with obtaining a certification
letter for all STRs for both the Navy and Marines.
DD Form 2963, STR Transfer or Certification, was published on
June 25, 2013, for implementation effective August 1, 2013. Full
implementation by the services is expected by November 1, 2013.
iii. Number of service treatment records, by military
department, with certification received since implementation of
the December 6th agreement that met the requirements of Fast
Letter 13-09.
Response. Please see the chart in the previous response.
iv. Since May 31, 2013, how many service treatment records
have been returned to the appropriate military service because
they were not transmitted with the required certification
letter?
Response. Since May 31, 2013, 32 STRs have been returned due
to lacking the required certification letter.
c. How many service treatment records have been requested from the
National Guard or Reserves while this agreement has been in effect and
how many service treatment records have been received with the required
certification?
Response. The legacy systems do not identify Veterans based on
service component (active or reserve). The reserve components do not
capture whether the member is assigned to the Guard or Reserves
specifically. Although VA has the ability to pull data from VADIR that
will identify members of the Guard and Reserve, that information does
not provide how many claims require STRs.
d. If the service treatment records from one component, such as the
National Guard are certified complete, will VA take any action where a
veteran reports treatment during active duty with a different unit or
component, but the treatment information is not included in the
certified record? If so, what actions will be taken?
Response. These records are not received as certified if the member
is still serving. For those who have separated or retired, current
guidance in Fast Letter 13-09 states:
STRs are the outpatient treatment records and discharge
summaries of inpatient care only. The STRs do not include the
full inpatient treatment records or behavior health records.
The inpatient records and behavior health records will not
contain a certification letter.
Development for additional paper STRs should only be
conducted on these certified STRs when:
1. The Veteran alleges treatment at a specific military
treatment facility for a specific timeframe and,
2. That treatment information is not included within the
certified paper STRs.
A request for the needed paper STRs should be sent to the
military point of contact on the paper STRs certification
letter and all follow-ups should follow the guidance outlined
in the M21-1MR III.iii.2.I.61 titled ``General Information on
Special Follow-Up by Military Records Specialists.''
Question 4. VA's written testimony indicated that the Department
does not support section 104 of S. 928 on the basis that Indian tribes
engage in a broad scope of governance activities, often lack veteran-
specific focus, and are not among the organizations that, by
regulation, can recognize representatives to prepare, present or
prosecute claims. States and regional or local organizations can
recognize representatives to prepare, present or prosecute claims. Like
states, some Indian tribes have departments and offices responsible for
administering benefits and services to eligible veterans, including
persons who participate in VA's tribal veteran representative program.
Given that geographical challenges can result in very little
involvement on tribal lands from organizations that have recognized
representatives, please explain why Indian tribes should not be
provided that same opportunity to recognize their own representatives,
under the criteria outlined in sections 14.628 and 14.629 of title 38,
Code of Federal Regulations.
Response. VA's discretionary authority to recognize national,
state, and regional/local organizations is derived from 38 United
States Code (U.S.C.) Sec. 5902(a)(1). Pursuant to the authority granted
in section 5902(a)(1), VA has established in 38 CFR Sec. 14.628
requirements for recognition of organizations to assist Veterans in the
preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims before VA. Under
section 14.628, an organization seeking recognition must, among other
requirements, have as a primary purpose serving Veterans, demonstrate a
substantial service commitment to Veterans, and commit a significant
portion of its assets to Veterans' services. These criteria are
consistent with the purpose of VA's recognition regulations to ensure
that claimants for VA benefits have responsible, qualified
representation, 38 CFR Sec. 14.626, and have been considered necessary
characteristics of an organization that will be recognized in providing
representation to Veterans.
Under S. 928, as drafted, all Indian tribes, regardless of their
size and their capability and resources to represent Veterans, and
without applying for or meeting the requirements for VA recognition
applicable to other organizations seeking to represent Veterans, would
be placed on a par with the five organizations specifically identified
by Congress in authorizing VA recognition of organizations and their
representatives. The draft legislation would seemingly assume that all
Indian tribes have the capability to provide qualified, responsible
representation to Veterans and are prepared to certify to VA that
certain of their members are qualified to represent Veterans before VA.
Under current law, an Indian tribe Veterans service department may
apply for VA recognition as a regional or local organization and may be
recognized for purposes of providing representation services before VA
if the organization satisfies the requirements for recognition under
section 14.628. If an Indian tribe does not currently have a Veterans
service department, a particular tribe or group of tribal Veterans
representatives could establish a separate organization to provide
representation services to Veteran members of Indian tribes with claims
before VA and then apply for VA recognition as a regional or local
organization. The organization would be required to submit information
and documentation addressing each of the section 14.628 requirements.
For instance, the application would have to include information
regarding the organization and its purpose, such as a charter or bylaws
of the organization; financial statements establishing the
organization's financial viability; and the organization's plans
regarding recruitment, training, and supervision of its
representatives. If VA were to recognize such an organization, the
organization could then certify for VA accreditation members of the
organization who could provide representation services to Veteran
members of Indian tribes.
Also, currently, a member of an Indian tribe may request
accreditation to assist Veterans in the preparation, presentation, and
prosecution of claims for VA benefits as an agent or attorney under 38
CFR Sec. 14.629(b) or as a representative of a currently recognized
Veterans Service Organization under 38 CFR Sec. 14.629(a).
Nonetheless, to the extent the intent is that the proposed
legislation explicitly provide a means for Indian tribe Veterans
service departments to seek VA recognition in a manner similar to state
Veterans affairs departments, and to expressly authorize VA to
recognize particular Indian tribe Veterans service departments for
purposes of providing representation services if the organizations
apply for VA recognition and meet the requirements for recognition
under section 14.628, the insertion of ``, including organizations of
Indian tribes (as defined in section 4 of the Indian Self-Determination
and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450(b)),'' after ``and such
other organizations'' in section 5902(a)(1) would achieve that purpose
and would be consistent with VA's current practice with respect to
recognizing national, state, and regional or local Veterans
organizations to ensure the provision of qualified, responsible
representation to claimants for VA benefits.
Question 5. Unlike the Medicaid program, VA's pension program does
not have any set aside of assets for the spouse of an institutionalized
veteran who is residing in a health care facility. VHA has allowed a
set aside of assets for the spouse of a veteran receiving health care
in a long term care facility when assessing co-payments. VHA recently
proposed amending their asset exclusion for a spouse residing in the
community to match the amount allowed under Medicaid. 78 FR 23702
(April 22, 2013). S. 748 does not provide community spouses of veterans
asset protections similar to those afforded to Medicaid recipients or
recipients of VHA long term care. Would VA support providing similar
protections to spouses provided by VHA to VBA pensioners?
Response. While it is true that there is no express ``set aside''
of assets for the spouse of an institutionalized Veteran who has
applied for VA pension, VA has implemented the pension program in a
manner that prevents the impoverishment of a spouse. Under current VA
regulations, VA will deny pension when the ``estate of the Veteran, and
of the Veteran's spouse, are such that under all of the circumstances,
it is reasonable that some part of the corpus of such estates be
consumed for the Veteran's maintenance.'' In determining whether it
would be reasonable to require such consumption, VA evaluates a number
of factors, such as the claimant's income, whether property can be
readily converted to cash, life expectancy, number of dependents,
potential rate of depletion of assets, and medical expenses. This
multi-factor evaluation generally provides a level of protection for
spouses of institutionalized Veterans that is near the upper limit of
the Community Spouse Resource Standard (CSRS) that Congress authorized
for Medicaid. However, current VA regulations do not prescribe a
bright-line net worth limit for pension eligibility that is based upon
the CSRS or any other objective standard. The Veterans Benefits
Administration's (VBA) Pension and Fiduciary (P&F) Service has drafted
regulations that would establish such a limit and provide clear notice
regarding protected assets. The draft regulations are under review
within VA. Accordingly, VA is already taking steps to address Chairman
Sanders' concerns.
Question 6. VA's testimony indicated concerns with the length and
methodology of the look back period. Please explain the impact of the
effect of the bill's methodology on veterans who transferred
substantial assets (such as over a million dollars) and veterans who
have transferred an amount which does not exceed the asset amount the
veteran would be permitted to keep and still qualify for pension.
Response. For purposes of our response, assume that VA has
established a net worth limit of $80,000, and that one Veteran
transfers $80,000 prior to applying for pension and another transfers
$1,000,000. Also assume that both Veterans transferred all of their
resources and have no net worth when they apply for pension. Under
S. 748, the Veteran who transferred $80,000 would not have a penalty
period, while the Veteran who transferred $1,000,000 would have a 3-
year penalty period.
However, if the first Veteran transferred $82,000 rather than
$80,000, S. 748 would prescribe a penalty period based upon the entire
$82,000 (rather than on $2,000), and the Veteran who transferred
$82,000 would have the same 3-year penalty period as the Veteran who
transferred $1,000,000.
______
Response to Posthearing Questions Submitted by Hon. Richard Burr to
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Question 1. If the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) finds that
veterans or other VA beneficiaries need help with their finances, VA
assigns a fiduciary to help them and also sends their names to be
included in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System
(NICS). At the hearing, VA testified that it could be a physical
disability, rather than a mental condition, that leads to assignment of
a fiduciary.
a. Of the individuals VA has sent to the NICS list, how many are
suffering from physical impairments, rather than mental ailments?
Response. To clarify, VA regulations specify that determinations of
competency for purposes of the VA fiduciary program are based on mental
competency, and not on physical disability status. The majority of VA
beneficiaries on the NICS list suffer from mental disabilities that
inhibit their ability to manage their VA affairs. Some individuals
suffer from physical disabilities with co-existing mental conditions
that affect their capacity to handle their VA financial affairs (e.g.,
amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Traumatic Brain Injury). VA does not
have data on the number of incompetent beneficiaries who fall into this
category.
b. Once their names are sent to the NICS list, are they included on
that list under the category for people with mental health conditions?
Response. Incompetent Veterans and other incompetent beneficiaries
are reported to the NICS list as mental defectives, per 18 U.S.C.
922(g)(4).
c. Under what legal authority does VA or the Department of Justice
require the names of individuals with physical disabilities to be sent
to a database for individuals with mental impairments?
Response. Some individuals suffer from physical disabilities with
co-existing mental conditions that affect their capacity to handle
their VA financial affairs (e.g., amyotrophic lateral sclerosis,
Traumatic Brain Injury). This may perhaps lead to the need to appoint a
fiduciary to manage their VA affairs. These individuals are determined
to be incompetent for VA purposes, and thus are reported to the NICS
list. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (Public Law
103-159), as implemented by Department of Justice regulations at 27 CFR
Sec. 478.11, requires VA to report these individuals.
Question 2. Of the individuals VA has sent to the NICS list, how
many are older than 85 years old?
Response. VA has sent information on 65,725 individuals age 85 or
older to the NICS list, including 19,627 Veterans.
Question 3. VA beneficiaries who have trouble with their finances
can try to keep their names off the NICS list by seeking relief from VA
and proving they are not a risk to public safety.
a. How many individuals have sought relief from VA through this
process?
Response. Since the NICS Improvements Amendments Act of 2007(NIAA)
was effective, 236 individuals have sought relief through VA from the
NICS list.
b. Has VA notified all individuals with fiduciaries that this
relief process exists? If so, how was that done and how does VA gauge
whether that notice was effective?
Response. Notice of the relief process is provided to an individual
before and after a rating of incompetency. VA has received 236 requests
for relief, thus we believe the notifications to be effective.
c. As of June 2012, VA had granted seven requests for relief from
the NICS reporting requirements. How many requests have now been
granted?
Response. To date, seven relief requests have been granted.
d. In July 2012, VA suspended processing requests for NICS relief
so VA could revise its policy to require anyone seeking relief to also
undergo a criminal history background check. Is that moratorium on
deciding NICS relief requests still in place? If not, when was it
lifted?
Response. As of June 20, 2013, the moratorium on deciding NICS
relief requests was lifted.
e. How many NICS relief requests are currently pending and how long
on average have they been waiting for a decision?
Response. Forty relief requests are currently pending. Because
processing those requests was temporarily suspended, the average wait
time rose to 292 days. Since processing has resumed, those cases will
be expeditiously processed.
f. Does VA plan to require veterans and their families to pay for
the costs of any background checks?
Response. VA does not plan to require Veterans and their families
to pay for the costs of any background checks.
g. Would a criminal history background check be required for young
children who have fiduciaries?
Response. In all cases, benefit payments to minors are made to a
parent guardian, or fiduciary on their behalf. Mental incompetency for
VA purposes would only become an issue for individuals age 18 or older.
h. Would a criminal history background check be required for
individuals of extremely advanced age with limited mobility?
Response. All persons of age 18 or older are required to follow
state and Federal laws requiring a criminal history background check.
VA requires a criminal history for anyone before receiving a grant of
relief under the NIAA.
i. Would a criminal history background check be required if VA
already has clear evidence that the veteran or family member is not
dangerous?
Response. All persons of age 18 or older would be required to
follow state and Federal laws requiring a criminal history background
check. VA would require a criminal history for anyone before receiving
a grant of relief under the NIAA.
j. Please quantify the resources that VA expects to use to
adjudicate these requests for NICS relief, in terms of the number of
hours worked, number of employees designated to work on these requests,
or funding required.
Response. Each VA regional office assigns an individual or
individuals to make determinations for relief. The amount of hours
worked, or funding required, would be dependent on the volume of relief
requests received in any given time period for a particular regional
office.
Question 4. Last year, the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
reported that over 200 companies are marketing financial products to
veterans and their families in order to help them qualify for need-
based pension by manipulating their assets. GAO recommended that
Congress create a ``look-back'' period, so VA can check whether a
pension applicant moved assets before applying for pension. In
response, VA indicated that it was already drafting regulations along
those lines.
a. Other than the GAO investigation, what led VA to believe a look-
back period may be necessary?
Response. VBA created its Pension and Fiduciary Service (P&F) in
2011 to improve the pension program and focus on the unique needs of
pension beneficiaries. In its initial assessment of the program, which
preceded GAO's investigation, P&F Service determined that current VA
regulations did not adequately preserve the pension program for
Veterans and survivors who have an actual need. The regulations
permitted claimants to transfer assets prior to applying for pension,
so long as the claimant relinquished all ownership and control over the
assets. In addition, VBA had received complaints about financial
planning businesses seeking to exploit asset transfers through the
marketing of certain financial products, such as annuities and trusts,
to Veterans and survivors. P&F Service determined that the pension
program was at risk for becoming an estate planning tool rather than a
needs-based program for wartime Veterans and their survivors.
b. What is the status of those draft regulations?
Response. The regulations are under review in VA.
Question 5. There were a number of bills on the agenda that deal
with the tuition costs for veterans and their family members who are
attending public institutions of higher education.
a. How many Post-9/11 GI Bill or Montgomery GI Bill users are
currently attending public institutions of higher education?
Response. While VA does not have data that will show how many Post-
9/11 GI Bill or Montgomery GI Bill users are currently attending public
institutions of higher education, the table below shows the number of
Post- 9/11 GI Bill beneficiaries that attended public, private for-
profit, and private nonprofit domestic institutions from August 1,
2009, to January 17, 2013. Please note that the chart does not count
unique program participants.
Post-9/11 GI Bill Number Trained by Domestic Institution Type
(August 1, 2009-January 17, 2013)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Profit Status Trainees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public....................................................... 632,005
Private profit............................................... 325,105
Private nonprofit............................................ 185,995
----------
Total.................................................... 1,143,105
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Of those, how many are estimated to be paying more than in-state
tuition rates?
Response. VA does not have data that will show how many VA
education beneficiaries are paying more than in-state tuition rates.
Question 6. Section 233 of Public Law 112-56, which included the
VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011, entitled a veteran who had previously
completed a vocational rehabilitation program and has exhausted state
unemployment benefits to an additional 12-month period of vocational
rehabilitation and employment services.
a. Since this expansion has been implemented, how many veterans
have been approved for the additional 12 months of entitlement and
started a new vocational rehabilitation program?
Response. Four Veterans started a new vocational program under this
provision between May 2012 and June 2013.
b. If few have utilized it, are there other options that should be
considered to improve vocational rehabilitation and employment programs
to meet the needs of veterans?
Response. Before enactment of this law, Vocational Rehabilitation
and Employment (VR&E) estimated that few Veterans would qualify under
this provision. Most Veterans who meet the criteria under Section 233
would already be found eligible under existing VR&E regulations.
Question 7. S. 819, the Veterans Mental Health Treatment First Act,
would incentivize veterans to seek treatment for certain conditions,
such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). A veteran may receive an
initial rating of less than 100% but, over the years, may submit claims
to increase the rating if the veteran's symptoms deteriorate.
Eventually, a veteran could be rated 100 percent disabled and unable to
work. The goal of the bill would be to provide veterans with early
treatment and, hopefully, stop or slow down the progression to the 100
percent and unemployable determination later in life.
a. In total, how many veterans receive disability compensation from
VA for PTSD?
Response. There are 625,820 Veterans currently receiving disability
compensation who have a service-connected PTSD rating, including 4,190
Veterans rated 0 percent for PTSD.
b. How many of the current generation of veterans--those who served
in Iraq and Afghanistan--are receiving disability compensation for
PTSD?
Response. Of the 625,820 Veterans currently receiving compensation
who are service-connected for PTSD, 188,903 Veterans served in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
c. Please provide the Committee with the number of veterans
receiving disability compensation for PTSD since 2001. Please break
this data out by the rating percentage.
Response. Please see Attachment A Spreadsheet.
Attachment A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Veterans Service Connected for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder
Fiscal Year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 100 Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001.............................................................. 1,213 17,485 12 36,421 11 30,594 6 26,899 1 34,808 147,422
2002.............................................................. 1,261 17,066 17 40,879 14 35,914 6 34,254 2 39,099 168,485
2003.............................................................. 1,319 17,198 22 47,119 19 43,044 7 43,536 2 44,429 196,641
2004.............................................................. 1,303 16,871 26 51,778 21 49,315 7 52,242 1 49,319 220,850
2005.............................................................. 1,319 17,269 28 58,252 21 56,790 8 60,553 1 53,705 247,918
2006.............................................................. 1,440 18,385 25 66,236 30 63,649 7 66,360 1 56,465 272,541
2007.............................................................. 1,725 21,453 30 77,678 27 72,392 12 73,936 2 60,066 307,321
2008.............................................................. 1,965 24,166 28 90,206 27 82,907 17 81,681 2 63,668 344,667
2009.............................................................. 2,125 26,080 30 104,375 33 94,892 15 91,952 2 67,296 386,800
2010.............................................................. 2,359 28,272 40 120,780 36 109,393 17 105,075 0 71,252 437,224
2011.............................................................. 2,754 31,831 54 142,634 49 128,457 21 119,885 0 75,493 501,178
2012.............................................................. 3,072 31,672 64 154,107 50 152,737 26 146,835 0 83,917 572,480
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FYTD 2013....................................................... 4,190 32,691 62 162,247 54 170,101 31 166,239 0 90,205 625,820
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
d. What is the average disability rating assigned when an
individual first applies for compensation for PTSD?
Response. The average degree of disability for Veterans who
initially apply for service connection for PTSD is 50 percent.
e. Can you provide the number of veterans with an initial PTSD
rating less than 100% who eventually apply for an increased rating?
Response. As of June 2013, 129,035 Veterans have applied for an
increased rating for PTSD in FY 2013. Please see Sheet B of Attachment
A for the number of Veterans that applied for an increased rating for
PTSD by year since FY 2001.
Attachment A, Sheet B
Total Number of Unique Veterans per FY Who Applied for an Increased PTSD
Rating
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001.......................................................... 622
2002.......................................................... 6,463
2003.......................................................... 61,175
2004.......................................................... 108,207
2005.......................................................... 117,147
2006.......................................................... 117,923
2007.......................................................... 127,596
2008.......................................................... 148,105
2009.......................................................... 173,039
2010.......................................................... 227,484
2011.......................................................... 232,716
2012.......................................................... 223,021
---------
FYTD 2013................................................... 129,035
------------------------------------------------------------------------
______
Response to Posthearing Questions Submitted by Hon. Jon Tester to
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Question 1. Deputy Undersecretary Coy's written testimony for
S. 294 stated: ``Prior to these training initiatives, the grant rate
for PTSD claims based on MST was about 38 percent. Following the
training, the grant rate rose and at the end of February 2013 stood at
about 52 percent, which is roughly comparable to the approximate 59-
percent grant rate for all PTSD claims.''
a. Please provide data used by the Veterans Benefits Administration
(VBA) to make this determination.
Response. Please see Attachment A above, which contains grant rates
for PTSD. As discussed in testimony, VBA conducted Military Sexual
Trauma (MST) training in December 2011.
b. Does the VBA have data on MST-related claims which have been
denied or remanded at the Board of Veterans Appeals?
Response.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other
Total Allowed Denied Remanded (dismissed/
withdrawn)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2013............................................ 249 76 39 126 8
FY 2012............................................ 257 85 38 129 5
FY 2011............................................ 280 98 56 119 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. Please provide data and methodology used by the VA to
determine the cost of S. 294.
Response. Please see the following methodology.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Response to Posthearing Questions Submitted by Hon. Mark Begich to
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Question 1. I see you have not weighed in on my bill S. 932,
Putting Veterans Funding First Act of 2013. This bill will provide for
advance appropriations for discretionary accounts other than what was
authorized in 2009.
I believe I have heard the Secretary mention the value of advanced
appropriations for the medical services and I know some of the VSO's
want to see some of the other important programs be included in
advanced appropriations for continuity of care for veterans.
What do you see as obstacles to this advance and tell me what the
advantages would be for the VA? Do you see any savings in doing a two
year budget for the other programs?
Response. As noted in the Department's views on S. 932, the issues
and implications raised by the expansion of advance appropriation as
called for in S. 932 are ones that must be considered by the
Administration in the context of Government-wide budget policy and
operations.
Question 2. I cosponsored Senator Burr's bill to authorize the VA
to issue cards to veterans that identify themselves as veterans. We
have many veterans in Alaska who do not receive health care from the
VA, but feel they served their country and want to have an identifier
as a Veteran. My state did pass a driver's license identifier for vets;
however there are some businesses that do not accept it. You did not
submit a view on this bill, and I would like you to respond to at least
the concept and give any reason you may not support the bill.
Response. As an advocate for Veterans, VA is pleased to see others
recognize the service and sacrifice of these men and women.
VA issues a single-purpose identity card for Veterans enrolled in
VA health care. Having two VA-issued cards could cause confusion.
Although the bill does state that the card would not by itself
establish eligibility, there could nonetheless be misunderstandings by
Veterans that a Government benefit is conferred by the card.
VA neither encourages nor discourages private companies from
recognizing Veterans for discounts and charity events. However, it is
in the company's sole discretion to determine what documentation they
are willing to accept to qualify for their special offers. VA
encourages companies to accept a broad range of documents for verifying
Veteran status to include DD Form 214, Military Retiree Identification
Card, and state issued driver's licenses with Veterans designation.
All states have some kind of structured identity program and
infrastructure that are better suited to satisfy this need. Currently
over 30 states provide Veterans designation on state drivers' licenses.
At this time, VA does not have an estimate of the portion of our
22.4 million Veterans that would apply for such a card. VA cannot
produce a cost estimate for S. 778.
Question 3. Regarding fiduciary responsibility of the VA, please
provide me with the laws and regulations that either direct, or
authorize, the VA to submit individuals to the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System. Please include legal justification
for VA submitting individuals who have physical disabilities or who
have voluntarily surrendered their fiduciary responsibilities.
Response. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (Brady
Act) (Public Law 103-159), as implemented by Department of Justice
regulations at 27 CFR Sec. 478.11, is the legal authority that requires
VA to report these individuals to the National Instant Criminal
Background Check System (NICS). The Department of Justice regulations
include within the definition of mental defective, for purposes of NICS
reporting under the Brady Act, persons who have been determined by a
court, board, commission, or other legal authority to lack the mental
capacity to contract or manage their own affairs. A VA determination of
incompetency for the purpose of the VA fiduciary program falls within
the scope of this definition.
Some individuals suffer from physical disabilities with co-existing
mental conditions that affect their capacity to handle their VA
financial affairs (e.g., amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Traumatic Brain
Injury). This may perhaps lead to the need to appoint a fiduciary to
manage their VA affairs. These individuals are determined to be
incompetent for VA purposes, and thus are reported to the NICS list.
VA does not provide a fiduciary at an individual's request. An
individual must meet the criteria as incompetent for managing their VA
affairs to be assigned a fiduciary.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you very much, Mr. Coy. Thank you
all for being here. Before I get to my written questions, let
me just ask if anyone wants to respond.
As you know, probably the major issue of concern for the
veterans' community and to this Committee has been the backlog.
So, my question is a simple one. As we transform the entire
system--and I think that was long overdue--I think it should
have been done years before we began this. But be that as it
may, as we make that transformation from paper to paperless, in
your judgment, are we making progress?
Mr. Coy. Sir, I will defer that question to my colleague,
Tom Murphy. He is very well vested in that process.
Mr. Murphy. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are. We are making
significant progress. We, for the first time, have VBMS fielded
in all regional offices in the country.
It is generation one software, but we are seeing more rapid
development, improvements in performance of individuals and
their ability to process claims and move them through. Over
time we have seen the savings from not literally shipping as
many boxes of files back and forth across the country. So, just
those shipping fees are now taken out of the process.
So, we are starting to see the leverage from moving to the
paperless system; and as that transition continues over the
next year plus, we will see more benefits of that.
Chairman Sanders. In your judgment, do you think we will
reach the goal, the very ambitious goal established by the
Secretary?
Mr. Murphy. Yes, sir, I do.
Chairman Sanders. OK. Thank you very much.
Mr. Coy, let me begin with you, although I believe this
question may be best answered by Mr. Murphy. It deals with the
Claims Processing Improvement Act which I have introduced, and
there are a number of important provisions in that legislation
which I am pleased to see VA indicating support for some of. I
would like to discuss a couple of the provisions for which VA
did not provide views.
First, this Committee has a responsibility to exercise
aggressive oversight of VA's efforts to address the backlog. In
other words, once again it is beyond my comprehension why it
took so long for VA to move from paper to paperless. I applaud
the Secretary for finally undertaking that very ambitious goal;
but the job of this Committee is to make sure that that goal is
achieved.
So, my question to you, Mr. Murphy, is, do you agree that
this Committee and the public needs to be able to measure VA's
progress? In other words, the Secretary, to his credit, did
what very few people do: he put it right out there on the
table. And correct me if I am wrong, but he said by the end of
2015 all claims would be processed within 125 days with 98
percent accuracy. Is that what he stated?
Mr. Murphy. That is correct, sir.
Chairman Sanders. OK, and what I just heard you say a
moment ago is you believe that we are on target to reach that
very ambitious goal.
Mr. Murphy. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sanders. OK. So, what I want this Committee to be
able to do is to make sure that we are monitoring effectively
on a periodic basis our progress toward reaching that goal.
Do you agree that that is a reasonable thing for the
American people to be doing?
Mr. Murphy. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman, and you point out
there are some provisions of the bill that we have not put
official testimony on, but I can speak to that in a very
general sense.
What we are talking about here is specific publicly posted
performance for all to see and understand exactly what VA is
doing and the progress we are making toward the Secretary's
goals of 125 days, 98 percent.
We have been reporting publicly for some time now all of
the performance that we have on our ASPIRE Web site available
to everybody, and we would be interested in discussing with you
and the Committee on any further reportings that you would be
talking about and talking about some of the details in your
bill.
Chairman Sanders. Good. That is what we are talking about.
I personally believe that visibility into actual production
when measured against projected workload and production will
allow stakeholders to see what benchmarks VA must hit in order
to reach the Secretary's goals.
In other words, here is what we want. We do not want in
late 2015 for you to come in here and say, you know, we hoped
that we would be able to do that but it turns out we cannot.
We want to be monitoring you at least on a quarterly basis
to see what your goals are, where you think you should be, and
in fact, where you are. Does that make sense to you?
Mr. Murphy. Yes, it does, Mr. Chairman, and I have got to
point out some numbers showing that we are making progress in
that regard. The backlog reduction of approximate 74,000 cases
in our overall inventory reduction is 44,000 cases just in the
last 45 days.
What is significant about those numbers when we are talking
about such a large volume of cases, it is not, well, that is
the game changer; but it does indicate that we are at a tipping
point. In order to break the backlog, we need to be putting
more work out the door than is coming in and we are there
solidly month after month, consistently now.
Chairman Sanders. So, what you are telling us--and by the
way, this is very good news for the American people--is that
you think right now the backlog is decreasing. You think as the
transformation of the system becomes firmer and we are more and
more into digital rather than paper, you are going to see that
backlog go down. Is that what you are telling us?
Mr. Murphy. I am saying that the backlog, we can expect the
backlog to continue to decrease going forward.
Chairman Sanders. That it is decreasing and that it will
continue to decrease?
Mr. Murphy. The last 45 days it has decreased by over
44,000 cases, excuse me, 44,000 inventory, 74,000 backlog. They
are two different numbers.
Chairman Sanders. OK. Senator Boozman, did you have some
questions?
Senator Boozman. Yes, sir, I do. If you would like, you can
move to Senator Blumenthal since I gave my opening statement.
Go ahead, sir.
Chairman Sanders. That is kind of you.
Senator Blumenthal.
STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
thank you all for being here and thank you for your continued
work on a number of these areas including the claims backlog
which is vexing not only to us but obviously to stakeholders
across the country; so I wondered if you could distinguish, you
mentioned 74,000 and 44,000. 74,000 is the reduction in?
Mr. Murphy. Total inventory in the VA.
Senator Blumenthal. And 44,000?
Mr. Murphy. Claims that are less than 125 days plus claims
that are over 125 days comprise the total inventory. 44,000 is
the reduction in that number.
Senator Blumenthal. And rather than quizzing you now, could
you get us a report in writing with the numbers showing when
the backlog began to decrease, in other words, when the tide
turned; and what your projections are for coming months, let us
say until the end of the year and as far beyond as you can
project?
Mr. Murphy. Yes, I understand what you are looking for,
Senator, and I can get you the numbers showing the performance
up to where we are today; and we will have some discussions
about what the future looks like for the rest of the fiscal
year.
Senator Blumenthal. Well, when you say ``you will have,''
``we will have some discussions,'' do you mean you and we
members of the Senate, or internally, ``we will have?''
Mr. Murphy. We internally delivered to you members of the
Senate.
Senator Blumenthal. OK. Do you have numbers for
Connecticut?
Mr. Murphy. Offhand I do not, not with me today.
Senator Blumenthal. Could you get those numbers to me?
Mr. Murphy. Yes, Senator, I would be happy to.
[The information requested during the hearing follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
You know, I want to join my colleagues in expressing a
sense of urgency. We said on a number of occasions how
important it is to reduce this backlog, and I know you share
the view that the numbers right now are unacceptable. We have
heard that from veterans and you have heard it from us, and I
appreciate your cooperation.
Let me ask you about one of the issues that concerns me,
the interoperability of the medical records system or the
merger of the two, DOD and VA. Could you tell us what the
status of that effort is today?
Mr. Murphy. I can address it from the standpoint of
processing compensation claims and what it is that I need in
order to process claims efficiently and quickly, and that is
tied back to the electronic delivery from the Department of
Defense to the VA of electronic copies of their service
treatment records.
There are two key things that have happened recently. The
first one is the delivery by the Department of Defense of a
certified complete record which relieves me of the
responsibility to continue to search for Federal records, as
required by the statute.
Since the beginning of June--it has been about 3 weeks now
of full implementation of Department of Defense--97 percent of
those records are being delivered with a certified complete
statement on top. That is great progress forward with us
working together with our DOD partners.
Senator Blumenthal. And of those records that are
automatically delivered seamlessly, they are interoperable
without being, in effect, part of the same system. Is that what
you are saying?
Mr. Murphy. I think the answer to that is going to come in
the second part of this, Senator.
Senator Blumenthal. Sorry.
Mr. Murphy. Today, I will take it in any form DOD can give
it to me as quickly as they are. The DOD has committed that by
the end of the calendar year they will deliver all of their
medical records, certified complete like that, to us in an
electronic format.
Senator Blumenthal. By the end of the year, did you say?
Mr. Murphy. This calendar year.
Senator Blumenthal. This calendar year?
Mr. Murphy. Yes.
Senator Blumenthal. Sir, I apologize for interrupting. In
effect, DOD has committed to you that by the end of the year
2013 the two systems will fit together seamlessly and they will
become part of the same system? I am trying to put it in
layman's language because I do not know how technically to
describe it and I welcome whatever comment you have.
Mr. Murphy. Senator, you scare me with the ``get together
seamlessly'' portion of that. I will receive that in a format
that I can ingest----
Senator Blumenthal. Was that not the goal of Secretary
Panetta----
Mr. Murphy. Yes. Absolutely.
Senator Blumenthal. And Secretary Shinseki----
Mr. Murphy. The key is they will give it to me in any
format that I can receive into VBMS electronically, call it up
at the rater's desk without additional effort, see those
records, search those records in a format that is usable to us;
and yes, that is the commitment.
Senator Blumenthal. And that is by the end of the year?
Mr. Murphy. That is by the end of this calendar year,
correct.
Senator Blumenthal. Great. Because my time is limited, I am
going to jump to another topic.
I have sponsored a measure called the Veterans Back to
School Act that would, in effect, eliminate the 10-year limit
on GI Bill benefits. As you know right now, GI benefits are
limited to 10 years after separation from the service.
In today's economy, 10 years is, in my view, no longer an
acceptable limit because people change careers. They need new
training. Veterans may simply be as much in need of these
benefits after 10 years as they are 10 years before.
Could I ask you for a position on that measure?
Mr. Murphy. I think we are in Mr. Coy's territory now,
Senator.
Mr. Coy. Thank you, Senator, for that question. S. 863
essentially, as you indicated, takes away the time limit; and
instead of from separation, it makes it from the time that you
start using those benefits.
We do not yet have cleared positions on that, and so, we
are working through that. Some of this is ``the devil is in the
details,'' if you will.
So, we want to make sure we give you a good, complete
answer for the record rather than make the effort to try and do
that very quickly, and we hope to have those cleared views to
you very shortly.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Again, I appreciate the fact that it seems like we are
getting good news regarding the claims process. I know you all
are working very, very hard, the entire system, to get that
resolved.
As you know, when I visit with veterans and the mail that
we received, that really is the overwhelming concern right now.
Not only with veterans, but the public generally, feel like
people that have served deserve the opportunity in a somewhat
timely fashion at least, to get the answer one way or another
so that they can move on.
So again, I appreciate your efforts and I appreciate the
fact that we seem to be seeing some improvement. That is very
positive. So, we will be able to pass that along.
I would just like to ask you to help me understand a little
bit about the fiduciary issue that has come up and has for a
long time. If VA finds that veterans or other VA beneficiaries
need help with their finances, and you can correct me, but my
understanding is the VA assigns a fiduciary to help them and
also sends their names to be included in the National Instant
Criminal Background Check System or the NICS list. That
prevents them from purchasing or owning firearms. In some cases
that might impact the ability of their families to possess
firearms.
So, I guess the questions I would have is, does VA look at
whether a beneficiary is in any way dangerous when assigning
the fiduciary?
Mr. Murphy. Can I ask a clarifying question there, Senator?
Senator Boozman. Yes.
Mr. Murphy. Is the fiduciary being appointed dangerous, is
that what you are asking?
Senator Boozman. Yes--no, no, the veteran.
Mr. Murphy. The veteran themselves?
Senator Boozman. Yes.
Mr. Murphy. The veteran is through the fiduciary process
deemed not capable of managing their own finances; and by
virtue of that, they are added to the NICS database which
restricts them from being able to own and purchase firearms.
Senator Boozman. Is there----
Mr. Murphy. There is also a relief process in place. If a
veteran thinks that they should not be on that list, they can
file an appeal to us. There is an active, ongoing process where
appeals are happening, and veterans gun ownership rights are
being restored.
Senator Boozman. Is there any correlation with not being
able to manage your finances and committing a violent crime?
Mr. Murphy. I do not know the answer to that question,
Senator.
Senator Boozman. But we should know the answer in the sense
that that is why we are doing it.
Mr. Hipolit. If I could address that, there was a
determination made by public safety authorities essentially at
the Department of Justice. When they set up the NICS program,
they determined who would be placed on the list; and one of the
categories they chose was people who were unable to handle
their finances, essentially, which tie the VA's incompetence
determinations into that process.
So, because that is how the Justice Department set it up,
we are required to report that information.
Senator Boozman. So, Social Security does the same thing?
Mr. Hipolit. They fall within the same requirements I
believe.
Senator Boozman. Is that correct?
Mr. Hipolit. That is my understanding.
Senator Boozman. Social Security, my understanding was, and
was confirmed, does not send names.
Mr. Hipolit. OK. Now, they may not. I think in some cases
Social Security appoints fiduciaries without making a
determination of incompetency, and it is our determination of
incompetency is what kicks in the reporting requirements.
Senator Boozman. Could it be a physical disability rather
than a mental impairment that requires the assignment of a
fiduciary?
Mr. Hipolit. Yes, that is correct. It could be an injury or
whatever.
Senator Boozman. So, an individual like that would go on
the NICS list also?
Mr. Hipolit. Yes, if they are unable to handle their
financial affairs.
Senator Boozman. But that makes no sense if they have a
physical impairment that would not allow them to do that.
Mr. Hipolit. There is a relief program in place that Mr.
Murphy mentioned which, if a person is not a threat to public
safety, they can be relieved from the reporting requirement.
Senator Boozman. No, I understand but it should not be that
the onus is on them when we are putting them in a situation in
that case with a physical impairment, it does not make any
sense at all in regard to their wanting to commit or any
correlation with violent crime in that regard.
Who at VA makes the decisions about whether someone should
have a fiduciary and do they have any law enforcement training
or legal training? Or what is their training?
Mr. Murphy. There are pension veteran service
representatives that make these determinations and their
determinations are based not from a law enforcement perspective
but from the standpoint of is the veteran capable of managing
their financial affairs.
Senator Boozman. OK. How many individuals have their names
on the NICS list as a result of the current policy?
Mr. Murphy. That I do not have a number in front of me. I
can tell you how many have been added to the list and have
applied to be relieved. That number is 236.
Senator Boozman. OK. Have you got a guess as to how many?
Mr. Murphy. I do not. If you would like that number, I
would be happy to take that for the record and provide you with
the detailed numbers.
Senator Boozman. Do you have any idea how many are
children? How many are being added to the NICS list that are
children?
Mr. Murphy. No, I do not, Senator.
Senator Boozman. OK. Elderly dependent parents? That would
be something else we would be interested in.
Again, like I said, to me it makes no sense when you have
no correlation to violent crime that these individuals--I
understand if we are picking out people who are mentally
impaired and we need to get much more aggressive in that
regard, not only in this situation but with others.
But, somebody that is physically impaired, there are all
kinds of categories that I think we would both agree that there
is no correlation at all. So again, please, I would like the
answers in writing. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your indulgence.
[The information requested during the hearing follows:]
Response to Request Arising During the Hearing by Hon. John Boozman to
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Sanders. Thank you, Senator Boozman.
Senator Begich.
Senator Begich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Actually, I want to follow-up. It was not my intent to
follow-up on your question but I know, Senator Boozman, you and
I have done several pieces of legislation together including
this one. I have a piece of legislation pending with Senator
Pryor, Flake, and Graham on this specific issue because there
has been no proven correlation between financial affairs and
someone committing or could potentially commit an act of
violence.
There is no evidence, unless you have some; and I get what
you are saying. I feel some uncomfortable conversation coming
at me because you are kind of responding to the Justice
Department's decision.
If I can, I would like to get from you whatever the public
safety authority, Justice Department, issued this as an added
item, whatever documentation they created this, because there
is no connection.
And, there are many veterans that are denied their Second
Amendment rights because they are unable to manage their
financial affairs but they are not violent, they are not
potentially violent, they are not at risk to themselves or
others.
And so, could you provide us that? You do not have to
answer this, but I sense some uncomfortable positioning in your
responses to Senator Boozman and I get where this came from,
that you are responding to that.
Mr. Hipolit. Yes, Senator, there were Justice Department
regulations that set that up and we would be pleased to provide
you with background information on that.
Senator Begich. We would like that. Again, our bill is to
try to rectify this problem because it just seems unfair. We
have to take and weigh someone's constitutional right, whatever
that right is, is something we need to be very careful about.
At the same time, we need to recognize there are
individuals that are at risk and we need to balance that.
Mr. Murphy, you had some information regarding how many
have been accepted into that system, how many are appealing,
and then also what the timetable is from their initial appeal,
or relief I guess is the word to use. And then what the outcome
of that was.
Would you mind giving us something on that also?
Mr. Murphy. We would be happy to, Senator.
[The information requested during the hearing follows:]
Response to Request Arising During the Hearing by Hon. Mark Begich to
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Response. As of April 17, 2013, the cumulative total of VA
incompetent beneficiaries is 143,580. A demographic breakdown is shown
below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Veterans................................................... 83,764
Surviving Spouses.......................................... 42,636
Helpless Adult Children.................................... 14,291
Minor Children............................................. 2,733
Dependent Parents.......................................... 86
Other Adults............................................... 70
------------
TOTAL.................................................... 143,580
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Begich asked for data on the special NICS appeals process:
how many have asked for a review, the time it takes for the appeal
process, and the number of requests for relief granted/denied/not yet
decided.
Response. Please note that NICS relief is not an appeal, it is a
separate process. As of April 17, 2013, VA received 236 requests for
relief from the NICS reporting requirements. Breakdown is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Granted.................................................... 7
Denied..................................................... 153
Pending.................................................... 53
Competency Restored........................................ 23
------------
TOTAL.................................................... 236
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senator Begich. OK. Thank you.
Let me move on to another subject matter. Again actually
Senator Boozman and I have a bill entitled Putting Veterans
Funding First Act, S. 932. We gave advance appropriations for
part of the VA but not all of it, so this bill would complete
fully giving advanced appropriations to the VA.
Tell me what you think of this and would you be supportive
of this legislation. Again, it just seems logical from a
standpoint of saving money, saving time, and creating
opportunity for the VA to do their work rather than processing
paper all the time.
Who would like to?
Mr. Coy. I will take that, Senator.
Unfortunately, the short answer is we are still putting
together our cleared views on this.
Senator Begich. Can I interrupt you for just 1 second.
Mr. Coy. Yes.
Senator Begich. And I do not mean to be negative, only
because of our time here. But, are you putting that together?
Is OMB influencing that outcome of what you are putting
together?
The reason I ask is that OMB will always sanitize the heck
out of everything. So, I am looking for what you all think as
the department that has to run an agency of the magnitude that
you have to run.
So, you do not have to answer. I do not mean to be--I just
get frustrated with OMB sanitizing everything before coming in
front of a Committee.
Mr. Coy. I will take your advice and not insert that, Sir.
[Laughter.]
Senator Begich. OK. Your answer is an answer but go ahead.
I did not mean to----
Mr. Coy. We have seen where it has been very useful for our
colleagues at VHA.
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Coy. But again we do not have our cleared position to
put forth yet.
Senator Begich. Understood. OK.
Mr. Coy. We are looking at it very vigorously and it is
within VA at this point to put together those cleared views.
Senator Begich. Fantastic. I would look forward and maybe
we can ask the other side of VA at one point what they saw as
their savings and opportunity. That might help us convince, and
I say ``us,'' meaning OMB to think about the right decision
here.
Mr. Coy. Aye, aye.
Senator Begich. I'll leave it at that.
Let me go on to one last quick thing. There is a bill that
I cosponsored with Senator Burr but I do not see it, though I
may be wrong. You did not supply a view on it, which is about
issuing cards to veterans that identify themselves as veterans
so then they can benefit from community benefits that are
available.
It would not be used to determine their--it would not be
used to go into the VA as it were but it would be their card to
say, I am a veteran and therefore I might get certain benefits
out in the community.
You did not have a view on that. So, I am wondering if you
are reviewing that or you are just going to keep neutral on it
or help me out there.
Mr. Coy. Right now, again my short answer is we do not have
cleared views on that yet.
Senator Begich. OK.
Mr. Coy. What we have seen is about 50 percent of the
States now have a driver's license where they have identified
veterans on there as well.
Senator Begich. Right.
Mr. Coy. And we have seen that as a pretty useful tool. We
are also looking at a number of things through our eBenefits
portal where veterans can quickly get the information necessary
to identify them as a veteran.
But with respect to physically issuing ID cards, we are
putting together those costs and views to be able to figure out
what our official position is on that and we will get that to
you, sir, as soon as we can.
Senator Begich. Very good. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the time.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you, Senator Begich.
We are going to hear from the VSOs in 1 second but before
we do I want to go back to Mr. Murphy because you are dealing
with what is the most contentious issue facing the VA right
now.
What I want you to do in a very brief period of time is to
tell this Committee how we got to where we are today in terms
of the backlog, what the VA is doing to transform the system,
where you think we are today, and where we are going to be by
the end of 2015. You got all of a minute to do that.
Mr. Murphy. A minute. Well, let us start at the end. The
Secretary has put out a rather aggressive goal: 2015; 98
percent; 125 days. You asked me previously are we going to hit
that goal. The answer is yes.
Chairman Sanders. So, let me stop here. What you are saying
again for the public record is that you believe by the end of
2015 every benefit filed by a veteran will be processed within
125 days with 98 percent accuracy.
Am I hearing you correctly?
Mr. Murphy. You are hearing me correctly.
Chairman Sanders. OK.
Mr. Murphy. It gives me chills. It is a very aggressive
goal.
Chairman Sanders. It is an aggressive goal.
Mr. Murphy. But, I honestly believe we are going to hit
that number and I am not saying that as an uneducated
individual. You are asking me what are the things that we are
doing, and you have heard Under Secretary Hickey many times
talk about people processing technology.
That truly is the thing that all together are going to
solve this. There is no single system that is going to come in
that is going to be a silver bullet, VBMS, and make everything
work. VBMS if left alone without other changes will just make a
bad system worse.
So, there are other things that have to go on here in terms
of training, education, the quality of hiring, the processes
that we are doing, the legislative proposals that you are
bringing before us now and have done so over the last couple of
years are bearing fruit and helping us develop this as well.
You asked how did we get here? We are at the end of in
excess of 10 years of war and still going. There is a very
large number of veterans returning from conflict and they are
filing claims when they do. These veterans have had injuries
and conditions and it is having its effect on VA.
If you look at the number of claims that we are getting,
you look at not just the number of claims but the complexity
and the number of issues that are in those claims, just to say
that we have got 25, 50, 100 percent more claims does not begin
to address the workload that has really increased.
A claim that formerly came in with three contentions it is
now coming in with 12 to 15. That is three to four to five
times the work to complete that same claim. But, we have not
seen the same level of increase in resources in terms of
personnel in order to do that.
On top of that, there are presumptive conditions that were
right decisions on the part of the Secretary that were put in
place to take care of veterans from previous conflicts.
Chairman Sanders. Agent Orange.
Mr. Murphy. Agent Orange, specifically. There is a
peripheral neuropathy presumption that we are going to see here
shortly. Several other areas in there that have been right
decisions, right things to do for veterans that did not stop us
from making those decisions and we are seeing the consequences
of those today.
On the other side of that, we are at a turning point where
we are starting to see the work go the opposite direction in
terms of volume and the work coming through the door faster
than the number of resources that we have.
When you take all of those and put them in place, I think
that adds to success at the end of 2015.
Chairman Sanders. OK. Thanks very much.
Gentlemen, thank you very, very much.
Now, we would like to hear from the veterans service
organizations.
[Pause.]
I want to thank the service organizations, all of them,
including those that are not here this morning for the help
that they have given us in trying to assess the problems they
have seen in the veterans community as well as their very
specific thoughts on legislation and how we can address some of
those problems.
We are delighted this morning to have with us Jeffrey Hall,
who is the Assistant National Legislative Director for the
Disabled American Veterans.
Ian de Planque, who is the Deputy Legislative Director for
The American Legion.
Colonel Robert F. Norton, who is the Deputy Director,
Government Relations, Military Officers Association of America.
And, Ryan Gallucci, who is the Deputy Director, National
Legislative Service for the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
We thank you all for being here this morning.
Mr. Hall.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY HALL, ASSISTANT NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you and
Members of the Committee.
On behalf of the DAV and our membership of 1.2 million war-
time service-disabled veterans, we appreciate the opportunity
to offer our views regarding the legislation being considered
by this Committee. My full written statement has been submitted
for the record so I will limit my oral remarks today to only
just a few of those bills.
Mr. Chairman, as you and the Members of the Committee are
well aware, the VA is currently in the process of
comprehensively transforming its claims processing system to
address the unacceptably large backlog of claims.
DAV has and will continue to urge that the focus of all
claims process reform efforts be centered on quality and
accuracy to ensure that every veteran's claim is done right the
first time.
Regarding S. 928, the Claims Processing Improvement Act of
2013, it contains numerous provisions to help reform the
current system but I am just going to highlight a few seconds
here.
With respect to Section 101, DAV has long supported calls
for scientifically studying how VBA determines its resource
needs which must be based on a true measure of how much work
can be done accurately by its employees.
While we support the general intent of the working group
proposed by this section, we offer the following
recommendations, Mr. Chairman.
First, the working group must expand its focus beyond just
a work credit system to developing a data driven model for
determining VBA's total resource needs now and into the future.
Second, the working group should not study the VBA's work
management system at a time when VBA is in the middle of
changing it. Doing so would be premature in light of the VBA's
new organizational model and the VBMS system being implemented.
We suggest waiting until a time after the new system has
been working and in place for a while in order to determine
whether these changes are or will be successful.
Finally, because Section 101 mandates that the Secretary
shall implement the recommendations of this working group, DAV
is concerned about the lack of details on the membership of the
working group, operating rules of the group, how decisions will
be made and votes taken, and how recommendations will be
presented by the working group.
Section 201 would reduce the filing period of a notice of
disagreement from the current 1-year period to 180 days from
the date of the decision. The DAV is opposed to this measure as
we do not see any positive effect resulting from this change
toward the backlog of claims.
DAV supports Section 202 to improve the appeals process by
allowing the Board of Veterans Appeals to use videoconferencing
hearings as a default hearing while allowing the claimant to
retain the absolute right to appear in person before the board.
We do, however, recommend that this is clearly explained
and outlined in the notice of appeal rights and appeals form
which the veteran receives.
Regarding S. 819, the Veterans Mental Health Treatment
First Act of 2013, this creates a new early intervention and
treatment program for veterans suffering from PTSD, depression,
anxiety disorder, or related substance abuse disorder.
The DAV strongly supports early intervention and mental
health treatment, prevention of chronic disability, and
promotion of recovery. Likewise, we are generally supportive of
providing financial support such as a wellness stipend to
veterans who are willing to commit to this program of treatment
as it would provide a means of income while undergoing
treatment itself.
However, we cannot support the bill in its current form
because it constrains disabled veterans from applying for
service-connected disability compensation or an increased
rating for these covered conditions simply in order to gain the
full amount of the wellness stipend.
We believe that early treatment provisions and wellness
stipend payments must be decoupled from any proposal which
would have any adverse impact on a veteran applying for
disability compensation or claim for an increased rating.
Furthermore, such programs should begin as a pilot program
to help determine the level of interest and whether or not it
is likely to achieve its intended purpose. However, we would be
pleased to work with the Committee to possibly find a workable
solution on this matter.
DAV strongly supports S. 893, the Veterans Compensation
Cost of Living Adjustment Act of 2013, to increase compensation
and DIC rates effective December 1 of 2013.
Mr. Chairman, the DAV applauds you and Ranking Member Burr
for not mandating that the COLA be rounded down to the next low
whole dollar amount. DAV has a long-standing resolution to
discontinue this unfair practice and we are very pleased that
it was not included in the bill.
The DAV also applauds you, Mr. Chairman, for your stalwart
leadership and efforts opposing the chained consumer price
index, which we, too, oppose.
Finally, the DAV strongly supports S. 932, the Putting
Veterans Funding First Act of 2013. In the same way that
advance appropriations for VA health care have helped insulate
and protect VHA from the disruptive budget fights each year, we
believe that expanding advance appropriations to the VA's
remaining discretionary programs, including VBA, could have
similar positive affects on helping to address the backlog of
pending claims.
Mr. Chairman, the DAV thanks the Committee for their
tireless efforts toward improving the lives of service-disabled
veterans and their families.
This concludes my remarks. I will be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:]
Statement of Jeffrey C. Hall, Assistant National Legislative Director,
Disabled American Veterans (DAV)
Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for inviting the DAV (Disabled American Veterans) to testify
at this legislative hearing of the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee.
As you know, DAV is a non-profit veterans service organization
comprised of 1.2 million wartime service-disabled veterans dedicated to
a single purpose: empowering veterans to lead high-quality lives with
respect and dignity. DAV is pleased to be here today to present our
views on the bills under consideration by the Committee.
s. 6
S. 6, the Putting Our Veterans Back to Work Act of 2013, would
reauthorize the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011, to provide assistance
to small businesses owned by veterans, to improve enforcement of
employment and reemployment rights of members of uniformed services.
This legislation would expand the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 by
reauthorizing the Veterans Retraining Assistance Program (VRAP)
allowing an additional 100,000 participants through April 2016.
Other matters highlighted in S. 6 include extending through
December 2016, the allowance for VA vocational rehabilitation &
employment services to members of the Armed Forces with severe injuries
or illnesses, and would also extend through March 2016, additional
rehabilitation programs for those who have exhausted rights to
unemployment benefits under state law, as well as the creation of a
unified web-based employment portal identifying Federal employment,
unemployment and training. S. 6 would also afford grants to the
Department of Homeland Security and the Attorney General for the
purpose of hiring firefighters and law enforcement officers.
Finally, this legislation would require employment of veterans as
an evaluation factor in solicitations for contracts by certain
prospective contractors, while also improving employment and
reemployment rights of members of the uniformed services with respect
to states and private employers and suspension, termination, or
debarment of contractors for repeated violations of such rights.
In accordance with several DAV resolutions, we support enactment of
this comprehensive legislation as it would improve the employment,
training, and rights of service-disabled veterans and improve their
transition from military service into civilian employment.
s. 200
S. 200 would amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the
interment in national cemeteries under the control of the National
Cemetery Administration of individuals who served in combat support of
the Armed Forces in the Kingdom of Laos between February 28, 1961, and
May 15, 1975.
DAV has no resolution or position on this matter.
s. 257
S. 257, the GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act of 2013, would require
courses of education provided by public institutions of higher
education that are approved for purposes of the educational assistance
programs administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to charge
veterans tuition and fees at the in-state tuition rate.
DAV has no resolution or position on this matter.
s. 262
S. 262, the Veterans Education Equity Act of 2013, would provide
equity for tuition and fees for individuals entitled to educational
assistance under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) who are pursuing programs of
education at the institutions of higher learning.
DAV has no resolution or position on this matter.
s. 294
S. 294, the Ruth Moore Act of 2013, would improve the disability
compensation evaluation procedure of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
for veterans with mental health conditions related to military sexual
trauma. In accordance with DAV Resolution Nos. 030 and 204, we support
enactment of this legislation.
This bill would change the standard of proof required to establish
service connection for veterans suffering from certain mental health
conditions, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), resulting
from military sexual trauma that occurred in service.
In November 2010, VA modified its prior standard of proof for PTSD
related to combat veterans by relaxing the evidentiary standards for
establishing in-service stressors if related to a veteran's ``fear of
hostile military or terroristic activity.'' Under this change, VA is
now able to award entitlement to service connection for PTSD even when
there is no official record of such incurrence or aggravation in
service, provided there is a confirmed diagnosis of PTSD coupled with
the veteran's written testimony that the PTSD is the result of an
incident that occurred during military service, and a medical opinion
supporting a nexus between the two.
S. 294 would buildupon that same concept and allow VA to award
entitlement to service connection for certain mental health conditions,
including PTSD, anxiety and depression, or other mental health
diagnosis described in the current version of the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM), which a veteran claims
was incurred or aggravated by military sexual trauma experienced in
service, even in the absence of any official record of the claimed
trauma. Similar to the evidentiary standard above for PTSD, the veteran
must have a diagnosis of the covered mental health condition together
with satisfactory lay or other evidence of such trauma and an opinion
by the mental health professional that such covered mental health
condition is related to such military sexual trauma, if consistent with
the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of such service even in the
absence of official record of such incurrence or aggravation in such
service and if so all reasonable doubt will be resolved in favor of the
claimant.
DAV Resolution No. 204 states that, ``[e]stablishing a causal
relationship between injury and later disability can be daunting due to
lack of records or certain human factors that obscure or prevent
documentation of even basic investigation of such incidents after they
occur * * *'' and that, ``[a]n absence of documentation of military
sexual trauma in the personnel or military unit records of injured
individuals prevents or obstructs adjudication of claims for
disabilities for this deserving group of veterans injured during their
service, and may prevent their care by VA once they become veterans * *
*.'' Further, DAV Resolution No. 030 states that, ``[p]roof of a causal
relationship may often be difficult or impossible * * *'' and that, ``*
* * current law equitably alleviates the onerous burden of establishing
performance of duty or other causal connection as a prerequisite for
service connection * * *.''
Correspondingly, in accordance with DAV Resolution Nos. 030 and
204, we support enactment of S. 294 as it would provide a more
equitable standard of proof for service-disabled veterans who suffer
from serious mental and physical traumas in environments that make it
difficult to establish exact causal connections.
We would also note that the House Veterans' Affairs Committee
recently adopted an amendment to a companion bill that replaced the
language of this legislation with a ``Sense of Congress'' resolution,
thereby significantly weakening the intent of this legislation. We
would urge this Committee to retain the statutory language in S. 294 as
it moves through the legislative process.
s. 373
S. 373, the Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act of
2013, would amend titles 10, 32, 37, and 38 of the United States Code,
to add a definition of spouse for purposes of military personnel
policies and military and veteran benefits that recognizes new state
definitions of spouse.
DAV has no resolution or position on this matter.
s. 430
S. 430, the Veterans Small Business Opportunity and Protection Act
of 2013, would amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance treatment
of certain small business concerns for purposes of VA contracting goals
and preferences. Specifically, this bill would improve the treatment of
a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) after the
death of the disabled veteran. Current law allows 10 years to transfer
a SDVOSB from a surviving spouse if the disabled veteran was rated 100
percent at time of death or who died as a result of a service-connected
condition. This measure would allow for a transition period of three
years for veterans rated less than 100 percent at time of death or
whose death is not a result of a service-connected condition.
In accordance with DAV Resolution No. 168, we support enactment of
this legislation.
s. 492
S. 492 would amend title 38, United States Code, to require states
to recognize the military experience of veterans when issuing licenses
and credentials to veterans. Essentially this measure would improve
employment for veterans by removing particular restrictions or
unnecessary requirements for certain veterans. Specifically, as a
condition of a grant or contract under which funds are made available
to a state, the state must establish a program for a state-administered
examination for each veteran seeking a license or credential issued by
such state.
Additionally, the state will issue a license or credential to such
veteran without requiring training or apprenticeship, provided the
veteran receives a satisfactory examination score and has 10 years or
more of experience in a military occupational specialty that, as
determined by a state, is similar to a civilian occupation for which
such license or credential is required by the state.
In accordance with DAV Resolution No. 194, we support enactment of
S. 492 as it would improve transition from military service and the
employment of service-disabled veterans.
s. 495
S. 495, the Careers for Veterans Act of 2013, would amend title 38,
United States Code, to require Federal agencies to hire veterans and
require states to recognize the military experience of veterans when
issuing licenses and credentials to veterans.
This legislation is supported by a number of DAV resolutions;
accordingly, DAV supports enactment of this measure.
s. 514
S. 514 would amend title 38, United States Code, to provide
additional educational assistance under Post-9/11 Educational
Assistance to veterans pursuing a degree in science, technology,
engineering, math, or an area that leads to employment in a high-demand
occupation.
DAV has no resolution or position on this matter.
s. 515
S. 515 would amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the
Yellow Ribbon G.I. Education Enhancement Program to cover recipients of
Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry scholarship.
DAV has no resolution or position on this matter.
s. 572
S. 572, the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, would clarify
the conditions under which certain persons may be treated as
adjudicated mentally incompetent for certain purposes.
DAV has no resolution or position on this matter.
s. 629
S. 629, the Honor America's Guard-Reserve Retirees Act of 2013,
would amend title 38, United States Code, to recognize the service in
the reserve components of the Armed Forces of certain persons by
honoring them with the status only as veterans under law.
DAV has no resolution or position on this matter.
s. 674
S. 674, the Accountability for Veterans Act of 2013, would require
prompt responses from the heads of covered Federal agencies when the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs requests information necessary to
adjudicate claims for benefits under laws administered by the
Secretary. Specifically, this legislation would require the Department
of Defense (DOD), Social Security Administration (SSA), and National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA), to respond to VA's request
for information not later than 30 days from such request by providing
the requested information or an explanation why the requested
information could not be provided within the 30-day time period, and an
estimate as to when the requested information will be furnished. If the
VA's request for information has not been satisfied, additional
requests shall be made in the same manner as the initial request and
the claimant will be notified.
When a claim is submitted to VA, the largest delay in the overall
process resides within the development stage and usually involves VA
not receiving requested information from private and Federal sources,
which is necessary for VA to properly adjudicate a claim for benefits.
While unanswered requests from private sources, such as treating
physicians, are unacceptably burdensome, it is even more troublesome
when requests for information go unanswered by the Federal Government.
When this occurs, the claim spends months, even years, in a vortex of
delay in processing and providing earned benefits to veterans and their
families. When a covered agency is the custodial source of the
information requested by VA then that agency is responsible to promptly
furnish the information or a reasonable explanation as to why the
information cannot be furnished. It is simply unconscionable that
veterans and their families wait as long as they do for an answer to
their claim, but to have this compounded by complacency or blatant
disregard by a covered agency to furnish the requested information in a
timely manner is beyond reproach.
While this legislation may not solve this problem in every case,
DAV agrees with the purpose of S. 674, which is to hold DOD, SSA and
NARA accountable in furnishing the information requested by VA so a
claim for benefits can be properly adjudicated in a timely manner.
For the foregoing reasons and in accordance with DAV Resolution No.
205, we support the enactment of S. 674 as it would improve the VA
claims process for service-disabled veterans.
s. 690
S. 690, the Filipino Veterans Fairness Act of 2013, would amend
title 38, Untied States Code, to deem certain service in the organized
military forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of the
Philippines and the Philippine Scouts to have been active service for
the purpose of obtaining benefits under programs administered by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
DAV has no resolution or position on this matter.
s. 695
S. 695, the Veterans Paralympic Act of 2013, would amend title 38,
United States Code, to extend the authorization of appropriations for
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to pay a monthly assistance allowance
to disabled veterans who are training or competing for the Paralympic
Team and authorization of appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to provide assistance to United States Paralympics, Inc.
While DAV does not have a resolution specific to this issue, we do
support the intent of the legislation as it empowers disabled veterans
to live high quality lives with respect and dignity.
s. 705
S. 705, the War Memorial Protection Act of 2013, would amend title
36, United States Code to ensure that memorials commemorating the
service of the United States Armed Forces may contain religious
symbols.
DAV has no resolution or position on this matter.
s. 735
S. 735, the Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of 2013, would amend
title 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and assistance
provided to surviving spouses of veterans under laws administered by
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. DAV supports Section 2 of the bill,
which would extend from two years to five years, for the initial period
for increased DIC for surviving spouses with children. DAV also
supports Section 3 of the bill as it would expand the eligibility to
DIC, health care, and housing loans for surviving spouses by lowering
the age from 57 to 55 for those spouses who remarry.
Section 4 of the bill would allow benefits for children of certain
Thailand service veterans born with spina bifida in the same manner as
children of Vietnam service veterans who were exposed to an herbicide
agent. DAV has no resolution or position regarding this matter.
Finally, Section 5 of S. 735 would initiate a pilot program to
provide grief counseling in retreat settings for surviving spouses of
veterans who die while serving on active duty in the United States
Armed Forces. DAV supports the principle of Section 5 of the bill as it
would provide support and counseling to grieving spouses and children
who are coping with the death and loss of the veteran.
s. 748
S. 748, the Veterans Pension Protection Act, would amend title 38,
United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
consider the resources of individuals applying for nonservice-related
pension that were recently disposed of by the individuals for less than
fair market value when determining the eligibility of such individuals
for such nonservice-related pension.
DAV has no resolution or position on this matter.
s. 778
S. 778 would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to issue
cards to veterans that identify them as veterans, including name and
photo, whether or not the veteran is enrolled the VA health care system
or in receipt of benefits such as education, compensation or non-
service related pension.
While DAV has no resolution or position on this matter we recommend
this be a collaborative effort between the two principle agencies; DOD
issuing this type of identification card to those eligible at time of
discharge, and VA issuing this type of identification card to those
already separated from military service.
s. 819
S. 819, the Veterans Mental Health Treatment First Act of 2013,
creates a new program for provision of mental health care and
rehabilitation for veterans suffering from service-related Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety disorder, or a
related substance abuse disorder. DAV supports the provisions of this
bill that promote early intervention in mental health treatment,
prevention of chronic disability, and promotion of recovery. However,
we cannot support the bill in its current form because it restricts the
rights of disabled veterans to apply for service-connected disability
compensation for those disabilities under VA care. We believe that
early treatment provisions and wellness stipend payments must be
decoupled from any proposal to deny veterans the ability to apply for
disability compensation during the treatment phase.
S. 819 would establish a new approach to dealing with veterans who
are diagnosed with PTSD, depression, anxiety disorder or substance
abuse disorder that, in the judgment of a VA physician, is related to
military service. Financial support, known as a ``wellness stipend,''
would be provided to veterans who are willing to commit to a VA
treatment plan with substantial adherence to that plan for a specified
period of care. In order to be eligible for the wellness stipend, the
veteran would be required to agree not to file a VA disability
compensation claim for the covered conditions for one year or the
duration of the treatment program, whichever time period would be
shorter. Duration of treatment would be individualized and determined
by the attending VA clinician. Under the program, there would be two
proposed levels of wellness stipends. Receipt of the full wellness
stipend would depend on the veteran having no service-related rating
for PTSD, depression, anxiety disorder, or related substance abuse, and
having no claim pending for one of the conditions mentioned.
Veterans with no service-connected rating or claim pending for the
conditions mentioned who agreed not to file a new or an increased
disability claim for one of the conditions and in addition agreed to
``substantial compliance'' with a prescribed treatment plan for those
conditions for the duration of the prescribed program (or 12 months,
whichever is sooner), would receive $2,000 immediately payable upon
diagnosis; $1,500 payable every 90 days while in the treatment program
upon clinician certification of substantial compliance with the
treatment regimen; and $3,000 payable at the conclusion of the time-
limited treatment program. Under this proposal, the gross stipend for
these veterans would be $11,000.
This bill also would propose that any veteran, with a new or
increased disability claim pending for PTSD, depression, anxiety
disorder or related substance abuse, would receive only a partial
wellness payment at identical intervals but totaling only up to 33% of
the rates discussed above. Any participating veteran who failed to
comply with the conditions of the program would be removed from the
program, resulting in cessation of the stipends. The program would
limit a veteran's participation to a single enrollment unless VA
determined that extended participation would provide the veteran
additional assistance in recovery.
As we have stated, we support efforts to increase early
intervention in order to increase the chances for recovery. Multiple
independent reports and scientific studies provide ample evidence for
pursuing early intervention for PTSD and other service-related mental
health problems, for promoting recovery, and for providing adequate
financial support so that veterans have the resources to engage fully
in necessary treatment. Participation in treatment and counseling is
often an intensive and time consuming process and so financial
stipends, such as those proposed by this bill, would give veterans at
least a modicum of support to concentrate on participating as full
partners in their therapy.
However, DAV strongly opposes any provision that attempts to link
wellness stipend payments to a veteran's right to file a disability
claim. While progression in science has enhanced our ability to
recognize and treat the mental health consequences of service in combat
including PTSD, the treatments are not universally effective. PTSD and
major depression tend to remit and recur. There is no justification for
the view that participation in evidence-based therapy will eradicate
the illness or eliminate the need for a claim for disability.
In addition to the above concerns, we recognize the challenges that
VA faces in establishing the administrative systems and management of
mental health treatment programs. In order to increase the chances for
success, DAV recommends that VA incorporate the following components
into any new early intervention mental health treatment program design:
VHA has struggled to provide timely access to mental
health services to all veterans seeking care. In order to carry out any
new programs, such as those outlined in this bill, while continuing to
meet current demand for mental health services, VA will need to recruit
and retain additional highly skilled, dedicated mental health
providers.
Every veteran enrolled in such programs should be assigned
to a care manager to coordinate care and jointly track personal
treatment and recovery plans.
VA mental health providers should receive ongoing
continuing medical education, intensive training and clinical
supervision to ensure that they have the skills and capability to
deliver the latest evidence-based treatments.
VA should offer certifications to professionals for PTSD
treatment, competency in veterans' occupational health, and cultural
competency in veterans and military life.
Most of the military members who serve in combat will return home
without injuries and readjust in a manner that promotes good health.
However, it is the responsibility of our Nation to treat veterans who
return with war wounds, both visible and invisible, and to fully
support their mental health recoveries. Moreover, we believe that while
wellness stipend payments could facilitate their recovery, they are not
an adequate or acceptable substitute for fair and equitable disability
compensation for service-related conditions.
In summary, DAV supports the provisions of this bill that promote
early intervention in mental health treatment, prevention of chronic
disability, and promotion of recovery. However, we cannot support the
bill in its current form because it restricts the rights of disabled
veterans to apply for service-connected disability compensation. We
suggest that the health care provisions and wellness stipend payments
be decoupled from the proposal to deny veterans the ability to apply
for disability compensation during the treatment phase.
While DAV cannot offer our full support to S. 819, we would be
happy to work with the Committee to see if there are additional ways to
create incentives for veterans to seek early treatment for mental
health conditions without forcing them to surrender their earned right
to seek other VA benefits.
s. 863
S. 863, the Veterans Back to School Act of 2013, would amend title
38, United States Code, to repeal time limitations on the eligibility
for use of educational assistance under All-Volunteer Force Educational
Assistance Program and to improve veterans' education outreach.
DAV has no resolution or position on this matter.
s. 868
S. 868 would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a
process to determine whether individuals claiming certain service in
the Philippines during World War II are eligible for certain benefits
despite not being on the Missouri List.
DAV has no resolution or position on this matter.
s. 889
S. 889 would amend title 10, United States Code, to improve the
Transition Assistance Program (TAP) of the DOD. Specifically, this
legislation would expand the current TAP for those who plan to use
educational assistance by codifying the instruction and overview of
such educational assistance, testing to determine academic readiness,
instruction on how to finance post-secondary education, and instruction
in the benefits and other programs administered by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs.
In light of the difficulty faced by many transitioning
servicemembers, especially those with service-related disabilities,
S. 889 will provide certain expansion and improvement to the current
TAP program within each respective branch of the military. Allowing
these individuals the maximum assistance in obtaining their benefits,
education, and employment as they exit military service is absolutely
imperative.
In accordance with DAV Resolution No. 199, we support the enactment
of S. 889.
s. 893
S. 893, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of
2013, would provide for an increase, effective December 1, 2013, in the
rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities
and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) for the
survivors of certain disabled veterans.
Although a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) was passed last year at
the modest increase of 1.7%, each of the prior two years, there was no
increase in the rates for compensation and DIC because the Social
Security index used to measure the COLA did not increase. Many disabled
veterans and their families rely heavily or solely on VA disability
compensation or DIC as their only means of financial support and have
struggled during these difficult times. While the economy has faltered,
their personal economic circumstances have been negatively affected by
rising costs of many essential items, including food, medicines and
gasoline. As inflation becomes a greater factor, it is imperative that
veterans and their dependents receive a COLA and DAV supports enactment
of this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, DAV applauds you and Ranking Member Burr for not
mandating that the COLA be rounded down to the next lowest whole dollar
amount. DAV has a longstanding resolution to discontinue this unfair
practice. The ``round down'' practice was initially enacted to be a
temporary cost savings measure, but has now been in effect for nearly
20 years. This temporary cost saving measure has resulted in the loss
of millions of dollars to veterans and their families since its
inception and long overdue to be discontinued. As such DAV thanks you
for your forward thinking to remove the ``round down'' provision.
DAV also applauds your leadership and efforts with respect to
opposing the ``chained'' consumer price index (CPI). DAV joins your
opposition to this or any similar attempt at progressively eroding
annual COLAs by replacing the current CPI formula used for calculating
the annual Social Security COLA with the Bureau of Labor Statistics'
new formula, commonly termed the ``chained CPI.'' The conversion to
using the ``chained CPI'' is intended to significantly reduce the rates
paid to Social Security recipients in the future, thereby lowering the
overall Federal deficit, which would come at great cost to disabled
veterans; a group, as you know, that has already demonstrated great
sacrifice to this Nation. Balancing the budget on the backs of disabled
veterans is simply unacceptable and we thank you for your stalwart
opposition the ``chained CPI.''
s. 894
S. 894 would amend title 38, United States Code, to extend expiring
authority for work-study allowances for individuals who are pursuing
programs of rehabilitation, education, or training under laws
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and to expand such
authority to certain outreach services provided through congressional
offices.
DAV has no specific resolution on this matter; however, the purpose
of this legislation is to provide economic assistance to veterans and
disabled veterans in VA programs. DAV supports the principle intent of
the bill, because it would help empower disabled veterans.
s. 922
S. 922, the Veterans Equipped for Success During Transition Act of
2013, would provide in-state tuition to transitioning veterans.
Essentially this legislation would create a pilot program to provide
subsidies to employers of certain veterans and members of the Armed
Forces, as well as a pilot program to provide career transition
services to veterans.
Employment for service-disabled veterans is a priority for DAV and
we support the principle of the legislation, which is to improve
transition from military service by encouraging employers to hire
veterans. We are, however, unclear why Section 2 of the bill excludes
veterans between the ages of 35 and 54, and why Section 3 of the bill
excludes veterans over the age of 30. Finding employment can be
extremely difficult for veterans following military service, and even
more challenging for veterans with service-related disabilities.
Limiting these pilot programs to veterans of a particular age would
increase the already difficult employment process for service-disabled
veterans. While DAV supports the principle of this legislation, we
believe S. 922 should be expanded to include all veterans, regardless
of age, and should include more incentives for hiring disabled
veterans.
s. 927
S. 927, the Veterans' Outreach Act of 2013, would authorize a
demonstration project to assess the feasibility and advisability of
improving VA's outreach efforts by awarding grants to state and local
government agencies, as well as private nonprofit organizations. The
purpose of these demonstration grants would be to measure whether such
partnerships are successful and should be continued and expanded in
order to increase veterans awareness of the benefits and services that
VA offers to them, their families and survivors.
Mr. Chairman, like you, DAV is strongly committed to educating
veterans about all of the services, benefits and programs provided by
the Federal Government as a result of their service. Working through a
core of more than 300 National Service Officers and Transition Service
Officers, DAV reaches out to hundreds of thousands of veterans every
year in order to educate and assist them in availing themselves of
their earned benefits. Dozens of other veterans services organizations
are also engaged in continual outreach to veterans across the country.
In addition, DAV strongly supports chapter 63 of title 38, United
States Code, which currently requires VA to engage in outreach
activities and to report on them to Congress on a regular basis. We are
also aware of the efforts that states and local government agencies
have undertaken, particularly in recent years, to ensure that veterans
are aware of the full range of benefits and services available to them
and their families.
However, although S. 927 would authorize new grants from VA to
states, local governments and nonprofits, the legislation does not
specifically authorize any additional funding for these purposes, nor
does it require that additional appropriations be provided to fund such
grants. As such, funding for such outreach activities might have to be
taken from existing health care or benefit programs, both of which are
already hard pressed to meet current demand. Too often new programs are
funded by taking resources away from existing health care programs
serving veterans, especially disabled veterans, and we would not be
supportive of expanding outreach programs at the expense of existing
programs for disabled veterans.
Further, in conducting any such demonstration projects or any
similar studies about expanded outreach, VA must carefully examine the
additional costs that would accrue as a result of such outreach. A
critical part of any such studies must be the cost of providing
additional services and benefits to those veterans, family members and
survivors who are brought into VA as a result of expanded outreach
activities. DAV would not be supportive of an outreach program if it
resulted in existing services and benefits being reduced for current
recipients in order to provide benefits and services to new veterans,
particularly if resources were cut for disabled veterans. Congress must
ensure that any new outreach activities of the VA have sufficient
funding, not just for the outreach activities themselves, but also for
the resultant increased cost of veterans benefits and services by the
those veterans who would be brought into the VA system.
Mr. Chairman, DAV believes the Federal Government has a moral
obligation to provide veterans, their families and survivors with all
of the benefits and services they have earned through their sacrifice
to this Nation, and that includes an obligation to make them aware of
these benefits and services. But without a guarantee of sufficient
funding, expanded outreach would end up being a hollow promise and
could result in a decrease of benefits and services to those veterans
who currently rely on VA.
s. 928
S. 928, the Claims Processing Improvement Act of 2013, contains
numerous provisions intended to improve the processing of claims for
disability compensation under laws administered by the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs. As this Committee is well aware, VA is currently in
the process of comprehensively transforming its claims processing
system in order to address the unacceptably large backlog of pending
claims. DAV has and will continue to urge that the focus of all claims
process reform efforts must be first and foremost on quality and
accuracy in order to ensure that every veteran's claim is done right
the first time.
Section 101 of the bill would establish a working group to study
and make recommendations to improve the employee work credit and work
management systems of the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). DAV
has long supported calls for scientifically studying how VBA determines
its resource needs, which must be based on an accurate measure of how
much work can be done accurately by its employees. While we support the
general intent of the working group proposed by this Section, we would
make several recommendations to better focus the efforts in the context
of the current transformation.
First, we believe that the focus of the working group should be on
developing a scientific, data-driven model for determining the
resources needed to accurately process the volume of work now and in
the future, as well as how to allocate those resources amongst VBA's
regional offices. The core of this resource needs model must be an
accurate determination of how much work VBA employees can accurately
produce at each position and experience level. Importantly, this model
must be sufficiently dynamic to quickly adjust to changes in the laws
and regulations governing disability compensation.
Second, we would recommend that the working group not study VBA's
work management system at this time. As this Committee is aware, VBA
has just completed implementing a brand new organization model for
processing claims, and has not yet completed rolling out its new
Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) to all regional offices,
both of which make comprehensive changes to VBA's work management
systems. As such, it would be premature to study whether or not these
new systems are or will be successful, much less recommend
comprehensive changes to them, for the next couple of years.
Finally, the language of Section 101 mandates that the Secretary
``shall'' implement the recommendations of this working group. As such
it is imperative that the membership and operating rules of the working
group are clearly delineated, including the total number of voting
members, how decisions are made and votes taken, and how
recommendations will be presented.
Section 102 of the bill would establish a task force on the
retention and training of VBA claims processors and adjudicators. DAV
has been a longtime advocate for improvements to be made in the
training of VBA employees in order to improve quality and accuracy. As
such, DAV supports enactment of this section of the bill.
Section 103 would streamline the requests for Federal records other
than VA records. DAV agrees that the VA is burdened greatly in the
development stage of a claim by not being able to retrieve records, or
receive them in a timely manner, especially from a Federal agency. An
even greater burden is shouldered by the veteran claimant who must
endure unacceptable delay in processing the claim or a denial simply
because the records weren't provided to VA at its request.
As part of VA's duty to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence
necessary to substantiate a claim, title 38, United States Code,
section 5103A states the Secretary will make reasonable efforts to do
so, including private records. While it is not defined in the law how
many attempts to obtain records must be made, we do not believe the
claim should languish or the VA left in an endless cycle of requests
simply because a private entity does not or will not respond to such
requests.
However, when the records identified by the claimant are in custody
of a Federal agency, we do not believe VA should be allowed to limit
its requests. Section 103 of this legislation states the Secretary
shall not make fewer than two attempts to obtain Federal records, which
essentially means VA will make no more than two requests. DAV believes
the claimant would be gravely penalized by limiting the requests made
by VA simply because of the lack of cooperation between Federal
agencies.
Additionally, we believe this section should require the Federal
agency the records are requested from to provide the records to the VA,
or a response as to why the records cannot be provided, within 30 days
of VA's request.
Although we appreciate the intent of this legislation to provide
quicker decisions for veterans whose claims are pending because Federal
agencies do not respond to VA requests for records, we are concerned
that this legislation removes rather than increases pressure on those
Federal agencies. Instead, we believe that the provisions in S. 674
requiring greater accountability for Federal agencies through stricter
reporting is a better approach and more likely to lead to more accurate
decisions for veterans.
DAV is not opposed to Sections 104, 105 and 106 of this bill.
Section 201 would modify the filing period of a Notice of
Disagreement (NOD) to decisions from the VA by reducing the currently
allowed one year period to 180 days from the date of the decision.
Currently the vast majority of claimants who file an NOD already do so
within 180 days. As such, one can reasonably ascertain claimants who
don't file within 180 days need the additional time to obtain and
submit additional evidence in support of their claim. As such, DAV is
opposed to Section 201 of the bill, as we do not see any positive
effect resulting from this change at this time.
Section 202 would allow the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) to
automatically select videoconference hearings to be scheduled for
claimants desiring a hearing before the Board, unless the claimant
specifically requests to appear in person before the Board. With the
large number of claimants DAV represents, especially before the Board,
we understand the benefits of the videoconference hearing process,
specifically a claimant being able to be heard by the Board in a much
faster and cost efficient manner. In fact, DAV encourages claimants
desiring to have a hearing before the Board to do so by way of
videoconference. As such, DAV supports this section of the bill as it
would improve the timeliness of the appeal process; however, a veteran
must always retain the right to have an in-person hearing if so
desired. Further, we recommend the notice of appeal rights sent to a
claimant include the automatic scheduling for a videoconference hearing
before the Board along with the right to appear in person before the
Board.
DAV is not opposed to sections 203, 301, 302, 303 and 304 of the
bill.
Section 305 of the bill would provide an extension of temporary
authority for disability medical examinations to be performed by
contract physicians. If enacted, this section of the bill would extend
this authority through December 31, 2014. The results from contracted
examinations have been positive in the way of faster scheduling, more
thorough, and better interaction with the physician providing the
examination. As such, DAV supports this section of the bill, although
we would like to see the authority extended further due to the positive
feedback we have received from claimants and our National Service
Officers, as well as employees in the VBA who review these
examinations. With respect to the reporting requirement in this section
of the bill, DAV is not clear of its actual purpose or what is hoped to
be gained. While we have no reservation about requiring VA to provide a
report about this process, we do question the requirement that VA do so
at a time when the backlog of claims continues to grow.
s. 930
S. 930 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, when there
is an overpayment of benefits under Post-9/11 Educational Assistance,
to deduct amounts for repayment from the last months of educational
assistance entitlement.
DAV has no resolution or position in this matter.
s. 932
S. 932, the Putting Veterans Funding First Act of 2013, would
authorize advance appropriations for all discretionary accounts within
the VA, effective in the first and subsequent budgets submitted by the
President following the date of enactment. While DAV does not have a
resolution supporting the precise idea of advance appropriations for
these purposes, DAV Resolution No. 216 seeks to ensure full
implementation of legislation to guarantee sufficient, timely and
predictable funding for VA health care. As this Committee is aware, DAV
and the entire veterans' service organization community strongly
supported reformed appropriations legislation for VA health care,
finally enacted as Public Law 111-81, the Veterans Health Care Budget
Reform and Transparency Act of 2009. In the same vein as Public Law
111-81 and the positive impact it has had on VA health care, S. 932
seeks to provide the same support to veterans, their families and
dependents, through all VA discretionary accounts.
As this Committee also knows well, Federal programs, including the
VA, have often been stymied in their responsibilities because they are
forced to operate on flat or reduced spending plans constrained by
continuing resolutions. If every VA program were funded in advance of
need, VA decisionmakers and staff would gain confidence that funds were
available long before the beginning of each budget year. This certainty
would enable them to plan in more rational ways to ensure that
veterans, their survivors and dependents, receive the benefits and
services they have earned without delay or disruption, and would ensure
VA's myriad programs would be able to operate more efficiently; from a
business perspective, and without the distraction of being managed in
an irrational, continuing resolution environment.
For each operative year of advance appropriations for VA health
care, the Committees on the Budget have provided budget waivers to
protect against points of order that would have prevented legislation
containing advance appropriations due to restrictions under the
governing Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 1974. Mr.
Chairman, we believe advance appropriations for all VA accounts should
be permanently insulated from points of order, not by uncertain and
individual waivers to be given; the necessity for waivers to block
points of order should be eliminated as this bill is considered by
Congress. DAV requests these actions be taken, either in amending
S. 932 itself, or in conjunction with the jurisdiction of the Committee
on the Budget.
Additionally, Mr. Chairman, Public Law 111-81 contained language
requiring the Comptroller General to evaluate and report on the
accuracy and sufficiency of VA's formulation of its health care budgets
covering fiscal years 2011, 2012 and 2013. We believe this monitoring
and reporting function has provided a meaningful and effective source
of oversight of VA's internal budgeting processes, and leads to more
accurate and sufficient budgeting over time. This authorizing language
requiring GAO reviews was not included as a permanent part of the Code,
so it has reached its sunset effective at the end of this fiscal year.
We ask that consideration be given to making this mandate a permanent
part of title 38, United States Code, and extending a new multi-year
mandate to the GAO as an amendment to this bill.
Based upon DAV's practical observation, Public Law 111-81 has
positively changed behavior in VA health care. This legislation would
bring more stability, predictability and timely appropriations to all
of VA. As such, in accordance with DAV Resolution No. 216, we support
enactment of S. 932 and urge Congress to move this legislation forward
as a high priority.
s. 935
S. 935, the Quicker Veterans Benefits Delivery Act of 2013, would
improve the VA disability claims process by prohibiting the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs from requesting unnecessary medical examinations
for veterans who have submitted sufficient medical evidence from non-VA
medical professionals, which is competent, credible, probative and
otherwise adequate for rating purposes.
Additionally, S. 935 would expand the pre-stabilization rating
criteria under section 4.28 of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations,
by adding a 30 percent level to the already established 50 percent and
100 percent level of disability for separating servicemembers suffering
from wounds, injuries or illnesses that are not completely healed.
Similarly, this bill would allow for a temporary minimum rating to be
assigned to a veteran with one or more disabilities and sufficient
evidence to support a minimum rating.
While we are certainly supportive of providing a temporary minimum
rating, which may dramatically improve the timeliness of the disability
claims process for many veterans and VA alike, we believe the language
of section 3 of the bill is too broad. First, expanding the pre-
stabilization rating process to include a 30 percent level of
disability would only serve to allow VA to use this percentage as the
automatic base level for incompletely or unhealed conditions versus the
already capable percentage of 50 percent, which would undoubtedly
become obsolete. We believe the 30 percent rating level would be more
appropriate under the temporary minimum rating portion of section 3,
which would allow a VA rater to, upon initial review of the evidence,
establish that service connection is warranted for at least one
disability, provide a temporary rating of at least 30 percent while the
overall claim is being processed. This would allow veterans and their
families to begin receiving compensation and provide eligibility for a
plethora of other Federal and state benefits while the full claim is
being processed.
Last, S. 935 would provide for benefit payments to be made at the
first of a month for the coming month instead of the current practice
of benefit payments being made at the end of the month for the
immediately passing month.
As such, in accordance with DAV Resolution No. 205, we support
enactment of S. 935.
s. 938
S. 938, the Franchise Education for Veterans Act of 2013, would
amend title 38, United States Code, to allow certain veterans to use
educational assistance provided by the VA for franchise training.
Specifically, this legislation would expand education and training
opportunities under the All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance
Program by allowing veterans to utilize a portion of their educational
benefit toward franchise training. DAV recognizes not every veteran or
service-disabled veteran learns in the same manner or has the same goal
of achieving an educational degree; however, we believe there are many
veterans and service-disabled veterans who, unfortunately, allow their
education benefit entitlement to expire unused as they do not want to
pursue an education degree type program.
In accordance with DAV Resolution No. 001, we support enactment of
S. 938, as it would expand the use of the VA provided education benefit
and empower service-disabled veterans to use their education benefit in
a manner conducive to their own employment interests and goals.
s. 939
S. 939 would amend title 38, United States Code, to treat certain
misfiled documents as motions for reconsideration of decisions by the
Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board). Under current law, when a veteran
claimant receives an adverse decision from the Board, he or she has 120
days to file a Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims (Court). Many veteran claimants, especially those
without representation, do not distinguish the Court tribunal as being
separate from the VA, specifically the Board or the agency of original
jurisdiction (AOJ), primarily the VA Regional Office where the claim
originated.
When a veteran claimant receives a final, adverse decision from the
Board he or she may inadvertently file their Notice of Appeal directly
with the Board or the AOJ within the 120-day period rather than the
Court. If the Board or AOJ does not forward the Notice of Appeal to the
Court on behalf of the veteran claimant within the 120-day appeal
period, the veteran claimant may forfeit their appeal rights and the
Board's decision would become final and binding.
S. 939 would afford certain protection to a veteran claimant who
submits to the Board or AOJ a document expressing disagreement with the
Board's decision within 120 days of such decision. This legislation
would require VA to treat such documents as a motion for
reconsideration to the Board's decision; unless the document clearly
expresses the intent of a veteran claimant to appeal the Board's
decision to the Court.
As such, in accordance with DAV Resolution No. 205, we support
enactment of S. 939.
s. 944
S. 944, the Veterans' Educational Transition Act of 2013, would
require courses of education provided by public institutions of higher
education that are approved for purposes of the All-Volunteer Force
Educational Assistance Program and Post-9/11 Educational Assistance to
charge veterans tuition and fees at the in-State tuition rate.
DAV has no resolution or position on this matter.
s. 1039
S. 1039, the Spouses of Heroes Education Act, would expand the
Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry scholarship to include spouses
of members of the Armed Forces who die in the line of duty.
DAV has no resolution or position on this matter.
s. 1042
S. 1042, the Veterans Legal Support Act of 2013, would authorize
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide support to university law
school programs that are designed to provide legal assistance to
veterans. Specifically, this bill would authorize financial support of
$1,000,000 total derived from VA Medical Services account to fund this
program, which is intended to provide financial support to university
law school programs that provide legal assistance to veterans;
assistance including filing and appealing VA claims in addition to
other civil, criminal and family legal matters.
S. 1042 does not provide details about the purpose of the funding
nor the activities of the individuals involved in providing legal
assistance. It is not clear whether these individuals would be
accredited representatives; what if any training in this process will
be required; what type of accessibility to VA systems and records will
be afforded; what level of representation will be provided, etc. We
believe there are many questions contained within this bill that are
unanswered in its broad language and more specific information is
necessary to fully understand the goal of this bill.
While DAV does not have a resolution on this matter, we are
concerned about the funding for this bill being taken from the VA
Medical Services account, or any other VA account. Too often, new
programs are funded by taking resources away from existing health care
programs serving veterans, especially disabled veterans. DAV opposes
funding any program at the expense of existing programs for disabled
veterans, especially to fund a program to afford representation, which
may or may not have a cost to the veteran, when organizations like DAV
and other veteran service organizations have a rich history and provide
professional advocacy services and representation with no government
funding and no cost to the veteran.
s. 1058
S. 1058, the Creating a Reliable Environment for Veterans'
Dependents Act, would expand section 2012 of title 38, United States
Code, to authorize per diem payments for the purpose of furnishing care
to dependents of homeless veterans to grant recipient entities who
provide comprehensive service programs for homeless veterans as covered
under section 2011 of the same title.
DAV has no resolution or position on this matter.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony and I would be happy to
answer any questions from you or Members of the Committee.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall.
Mr. de Planque.
STATEMENT OF IAN DE PLANQUE, DEPUTY LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, THE
AMERICAN LEGION
Mr. de Planque. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and other
Members of the Committee. I want to thank you on behalf of The
American Legion for having us here, and I want to thank you
especially for the large slate of bills that are being
considered and the dedicated and tireless work of your staffs
and the Members to bring such an ambitious slate to the
forefront.
I just want to touch on a couple of those things, one of
which deals with the in-state tuition rates for veterans using
the GI Bill benefits.
As you know, The American Legion has a long-standing
history with the GI Bill. We helped craft of the original GI
Bill. We have been working tirelessly on this issue for a long
time.
We have strong support for S. 257 because it supports the
widest number of veterans getting access to in-state tuition,
and this is very important. We feel it is the one that puts the
veterans first, not the States necessarily, not the schools
necessarily. It is the one that has the interest of the
veterans at heart.
It is a difficult issue. There has been a lot of criticism
of a variety of things regarding it. Using military tuition
assistance at public schools has already been recognized at the
Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008. This is something
that has already been agreed to.
If you look at veterans, if you look at the servicemembers,
they are a very small group of people, the only group of people
who really have trouble maintaining the residency requirements
to get these in-state tuition rates.
We have already recognized that for active-duty
servicemembers it needs to apply across all the veterans. When
they stood there, when they took that oath, when they went to
serve, they did not serve to defend Virginia, they did not
serve to defend North Carolina, they served to defend the
entire country.
The entire country owes that back. All Americans in every
State owe a debt of gratitude to the men and women who served
in the Armed Forces.
In addition, public universities are nonprofit institutions
that get special privileges such as massive Federal and State
government subsidies and tax exemptions based on the assumption
that they are good stewards of the public trust.
Granting in-state rates should be seen as part of that
exercise of trust. Student veterans face many challenges in
pursuing higher education. There is no reason why obtaining in-
state tuition rates should be one of them.
We have seen with the original GI Bill what the dividend
paid back to the country was. That is why we passed the new GI
Bill for the veterans of the current wars; and to get that
dividend, to get the maximum return on that dividend, we need
to make sure that we are extending this benefit and making sure
there is fairness there.
Regarding fairness, I also want to talk about the Ruth
Moore Act, S. 294, because it is essentially an issue of
fairness. We have recognized already within the disability
claims system that there are difficulties for combat veterans
proving Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, stressors, issues of
that nature. The reason they recognize it was because they knew
in combat it is hard to keep records.
There are very incomplete records. There are very
inaccurate records. When you are sitting there engaging,
fixing, destroying the enemy, you do not stop to take notes of
every single thing that goes on. There was a recognition of
this and so they came up with relaxed evidence standards.
Well, we heard Senator Tester talking this morning about
how as many as 85 percent of military sexual trauma crimes can
go unreported. We know that in the past records of these
incidents have been thrown out after a year or 3 years by
mandatory regulations. We know this is something where the same
condition exists.
There is poor recordkeeping and victims of these terrible,
terrible crimes that happen in the service are having to suffer
again because we will not relax the evidence standards.
The Ruth Moore Act would fix that. It will help bring them
to the same standard that we treat the heroes of combat. We
need to treat all of our heroes in the same way, and this is
very important to us.
I also want to take a moment to thank you especially, but
the Committee as a whole, for working to help fight chained CPI
for veterans with the cost of living increase. This is
something that we cannot afford: to take these most vulnerable
people, our disabled veterans and elderly veterans, and make
them bear the brunt.
Everybody always talks about how we are not going to
balance the budget on the backs of our veterans. Well, that is
what the chained CPI is doing. So, we want to thank you for
continuing your flight on that, and The American Legion is
happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ian de Planque follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ian De Planque, Deputy Director, National
Legislative Commission, The American Legion
Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr and distinguished Members of
the Committee, On behalf of Commander Koutz and the 2.4 million members
of The American Legion, we thank you and your colleagues for the work
you do in support of our servicemembers and veterans as well as their
families. The hard work of this Committee in creating significant
legislation has left a positive impact on our military and veterans'
community.
Nationwide, The American Legion has over 2,600 accredited service
officers to ensure veterans receive the benefits to which they are
entitled at no cost to those veterans. Not only do we advocate for the
2.4 million members in our organization, but also the millions of
veterans who do not hold membership; in short, we live by the motto ``a
veteran is a veteran'' and is deserving of representation when seeking
VA benefits. We recognize the necessity to adequately compensate
veterans and veterans' families for disabilities incurred during
service to our Nation.
As a grassroots organization, The American Legion draws upon the
strength of its membership to provide guidance on policies in the form
of resolutions passed during annual national conventions or at meetings
of the National Executive Committee. The will of the membership of the
Legion is expressed through these resolutions, which support or oppose
policy decisions on topics of concern, whether for veterans, the
children and youth of America, a strong national defense, or the
principles of Americanism. The support and positions of The American
Legion on any legislation is derived from the guidance of these
resolutions and the founding documents of our organization.
s. 6: putting our veterans back to work act of 2013
To reauthorize the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011, to provide
assistance to small businesses owned by veterans, to improve
enforcement of employment and reemployment rights of members of the
uniformed services, and for other purposes.
This expansive bill renews many provisions of the VOW to Hire
Heroes Act, supported by The American Legion in 2011, and expands on
many of the provisions of that law, as well as offering other solutions
to continue to address veterans' employment concerns.
The American Legion has been the leading veterans' voice in getting
veterans back to work as those who have served this Nation have
suffered from unemployment rates fully two thirds or more higher than
their comparative civilian cohort. Annually, The American Legion has
worked with the Chamber of Commerce on hundreds of hiring fairs and put
countless thousands of veterans back to work. Ensuring that the
Nation's protectors are matched up with the jobs their military service
has prepared them for is a top priority of The American Legion.
As an organization, we were deeply involved in the creation of the
unified employment portal for online government hiring through
development stages with the Department of Labor and the Office of
Personnel Management. As the Nation's largest wartime veterans
organization, The American Legion is certainly cognizant of the many
benefits to hiring veterans and supports increases to the weight of
influence in determining an overall score, when considering the hiring
veterans, as an evaluation factor in solicitations for contracts.
At every stage of this Nation's history, veterans of the Armed
Forces have been vital to building the infrastructure of progress and
the backbone of the labor force. This bill contains many important
improvements to the employment environment for veterans to ensure they
continue to provide the key role in America's workforce they have
always enjoyed.
The American Legion supports this legislation.
s. 200
A bill to amend Title 38, United States Code, to authorize the
interment in national cemeteries under the control of the National
Cemetery Administration of individuals who served in combat support of
the Armed Forces in the Kingdom of Laos between February 28, 1961 and
May 15, 1975, and for other purposes.
The American Legion has no position on this legislation.
s. 257: gi bill tuition fairness act of 2013
Directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA), for purposes of the
educational assistance programs administered by the Secretary, to
disapprove courses of education provided by public institutions of
higher education that do not charge tuition and fees for veterans at
the same rate that is charged for in-state residents, regardless of the
veteran's state of residence.
The American Legion is synonymous with veterans' education, and was
instrumental in the first, and most recent GI Bills' passage designed
to help the modern-day veteran navigate the confusing world of
education benefits. The main reason for the Post-9/11 GI Bill was that
VA education benefits were no longer sufficiently keeping pace with
fast-rising tuition costs. Working with Congress, The American Legion
stressed the need for a ``21st Century GI Bill'' that would provide
benefits worthy of today's veterans, while offering similar
opportunities afforded to those who fought in World War II.
Critics have said that S. 257 sets a dangerous precedent for other
non-resident students utilizing Federal aid programs. The American
Legion strongly disagrees because military servicemembers and military
veterans are the only cohort of Americans who cannot satisfy residency
requirements for in-state tuition because of circumstances beyond their
control. Recognizing these unique circumstances, servicemembers are
already offered this reasonable accommodation when using military
Tuition Assistance at public schools through the Higher Education
Authorization Act; however, once a servicemember leaves the military
this protection goes away.
The Post-9/11 GI Bill only pays in-state tuition and eligible fees.
Veterans who settle in states other than their state of residence upon
separating from the service are initially charged ``out-of-state''
tuition, which means they must pay the difference between the resident
and non-resident charges of that state's tuition. Servicemembers are
not given the option to move to any state and establish residency prior
to their separation from the Armed Forces, which can lead to financial
burdens.
State policies have adjusted in the last decade to allow active and
reserve members to access in-state tuition rates, but separating
servicemembers (future veterans) must fulfill established residency
time requirements to establish state residency and access in-state
tuition rates beginning the day they are discharged, and receive no
credit for living in that state while they were serving there during
their active duty commitment. The Yellow Ribbon Program, included in
the Post-9/11 GI Bill, supplements costs above the ``in-state'' tuition
rate by matching contributions made by an institution of higher
learning (IHL) toward veterans' education; however, cuts to education
scholarship programs have hindered effective implementation of this
program.
Over the last couple of years, we have heard from countless
veterans who, because of the nature of military service, have had a
difficult time establishing residency for purposes of obtaining in-
state tuition rates. Under current rules, 40,000 student-veterans have
to pay the difference between in-state tuition, which is covered by the
Post-9/11 GI Bill, and out-of-state tuition if they are attending
school as a nonresident. Because of this, many of our student-veterans
are unable to use their GI Bill benefits at an institution of higher
education of their choice or are required to pay thousands of dollars
in out-of-pocket expenses in nonresidential tuition rates. This added
financial burden undermines the original intent of the program.
Additionally, public colleges and universities have significantly
raised the costs of out-of-state tuition to offset decreasing revenues
due to state budget cuts. Circumstances such as these pose significant
challenges to using this important benefit. Because of this, and
through resolution,\1\ The American Legion is working hard to ensure
the Post-9/11 GI Bill receives appropriate enhancements to continually
improve how this vital benefit functions for the servicemembers who
utilize the benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Resolution No. 327: Support Legislation to Improve the Post-9/
11 GI Bill, AUG 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion is addressing this issue on several fronts, and
in addition to supporting Federal legislation, continues to lead a
state-by-state initiative to introduce, advocate for, and support state
legislation that would waive the residency requirements for separating
veterans, which would grant them access to in-state tuition at public
colleges and universities, regardless of their residency status.
Veterans shouldn't be penalized just because their residence of
enlistment was in another state, or be made to assume tremendous
financial burdens due to the recent change in law which often caps GI
Bill benefits far short of the high out-of-state rates. Therefore, this
legislation is absolutely essential to thousands of veterans who were
promised this assistance for their college education when the Post-9/11
GI Bill was originally passed, and is vital to giving veterans an equal
opportunity to afford the school of their choice.
We were pleased to support this bipartisan effort, S. 257, which
would require public colleges and universities to give veterans in-
state tuition rates even though they may not be considered residents.
The requirement would apply to state schools which have programs that
are eligible to receive funding under the GI Bill.
The American Legion supports this bill.
s. 262: veterans education equity act of 2013
To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide equity for
tuition and fees for individuals entitled to educational assistance
under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program of the Department of
Veterans Affairs who are pursuing programs of education at institutions
of higher learning, and for other purposes.
The American Legion understands that the goal of this bill is
similar to that of S. 257. We thank Senator Durbin for taking this
issue seriously and introducing legislation in an effort to ensure more
equitable reimbursement for student-veterans attending public schools.
The American Legion supported this initiative in the last Congress, but
we must explain why we have refined our position on this issue.
Public colleges and universities have significantly raised the
costs of out-of-state tuition to offset decreasing revenues due to
state budget cuts, making any tuition discount all the more costly.
Circumstances such as these pose significant challenges to using this
important benefit. Because of this, many of America's student-veterans
are unable to use their GI Bill benefits at a school of their choice or
are required to pay thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses in
nonresidential tuition rates.
Since 1862, with the passage of the Morrill Act, institutions of
higher education have always received some form of education subsidies.
However, it was not until 1944 with the passage of the Servicemen's
Readjustment Act of 1944--the original GI Bill--which allowed World War
II veterans to attend college at no cost, that those institutions of
higher education began receiving their first major subsidy for students
in higher education. The GI Bill is widely admired legislation, but
like many subsidy programs it led to substantial wasteful spending and
abuse. Some colleges and universities used Federal funds for extraneous
purposes, such as swimming pools and stadiums, while others increased
tuition rates charged to veterans. There were also cases of outright
fraud by schools aimed at garnering extra Federal funds.
Interestingly, the rise in student subsides coupled with the rise
of tuition and other college expenses over the last several decades,
has brought a significant spotlight on institutions of higher
education. This, added to the current reality of education spending
cuts, has lead institutions of higher education to view the Post-
9/11 GI Bill funding as nothing more than another source of subsidy to
fill the void these cuts have created.
The American Legion believes that increasing GI Bill funding to
higher educational institutions is potentially harmful on many fronts;
it encourages bloat and inefficiency, and is an unfair burden on
taxpayers. It also poses a threat to the core strengths of American
higher education, including institutional autonomy, competition, and
innovation. While we cannot support S. 262, we sincerely appreciate
Senator Durbin's interest in this issue and we look forward to working
with him on a fair solution for our current and future student-
veterans.
The American Legion does not support this bill.
s. 294: ruth moore act of 2013
To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the disability
compensation evaluation procedure of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
for veterans with mental health conditions related to military sexual
trauma, and for other purposes.
The American Legion's accredited representatives at county service
offices, regional offices, and the Board of Veterans' Appeals have
acknowledged that a unique situation exists for victims of military
sexual trauma (MST). MST is often an unreported crime, or even in the
best cases poorly documented, and when MST is reported as the result of
sexual assault or rape it is not uncommon for a lackluster
investigation to occur resulting in the perpetrator of the crime never
to be brought to justice.
On March 26, 2013, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a
study: Returning Home from Iraq and Afghanistan: Assessment of
Readjustment Needs of Veterans, Servicemembers, and Their Families.
According to the study, ``[M]ilitary sexual trauma has been occurring
in high rates throughout the U.S. Armed Forces, including the Iraq and
Afghanistan theaters. Sexual harassment and assaults disproportionately
affect women; they have both mental and physical ramifications, and in
many cases these victims have a difficult time readjusting.'' As
evidenced by this study, a staggering number of veterans reported
suffering MST; over 48,000 women and 43,000 men have reported
experiencing military sexual trauma.
S. 294 addresses concerns raised repeatedly by The American Legion
regarding MST. In testimony provided by The American Legion before the
House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and
Memorial Affairs on July 18, 2012, Lori Perkio, Assistant Director for
The American Legion Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Division,
pointed to changes by VA in 2010 regarding combat zones and Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder, and stated The American Legion's position
that the same consideration should be applied to MST victims as well.
Both combat zones and MST related injuries are similar, and both types
of claims reflect situations where there is a known and acknowledged
culture of inadequate record keeping. Regulations allow for extra
latitude on behalf of combat veterans to reflect the lack of record
keeping, but the same consideration is not extended to rape and assault
survivors, though their trauma is no less devastating.
The American Legion believes that VA should review ``military
personnel files in all MST claims and apply reduced criteria to MST-
related PTSD to match that of combat-related PTSD.'' \2\ S. 294
adequately meets the criteria of American Legion resolution 295 by
setting up similar criteria for MST victims as those in effect for
combat victims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Resolution No. 295: Military Sexual Trauma (MST), AUG 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this bill.
s. 373: charlie morgan military spouses equal treatment act of 2013
A bill to amend titles 10, 32, 37, and 38 of the United States
Code, to add a definition of spouse for purposes of military personnel
policies and military and veteran benefits that recognizes new State
definitions of spouse.
The American Legion has no position on this legislation.
s. 430: veterans small business opportunity and protection act of 2013
A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance treatment
of certain small business concerns for purposes of Department of
Veterans Affairs contracting goals and preferences, and for other
purposes.
The American Legion has long been an advocate for amending the law
to protect the Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business (SDVOB) status
and has stated so through resolution.\3\ The American Legion works with
veteran business owners all over the world, and has seen first-hand how
the death of a veteran business owner creates an immediate and
prejudicial hardship on the surviving spouse and family of the deceased
veteran. The American Legion strongly supports the changes proposed in
this legislation as they will properly improve and increase the
benefits bequeathed to the veterans' spouses or dependents who inherit
a veteran owned business. The bill would increase the time period for a
100 percent disabled veteran's spouse who has died as a result of a
service-connected condition, to ten years, and would establish a
benefit of three years for a 100 percent disabled veteran who dies as a
result of a non-service-connected condition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Resolution No. 323: The Status of Service-Disabled Veteran-
Owned Business After the Death of the Veteran Owner, AUG 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this legislation.
s. 492
To amend title 38, United States Code, to require States to
recognize the military experience of veterans when issuing licenses and
credentials to veterans, and for other purposes.
The American Legion applauds Senator Burr and his colleagues for
their work in support of America's servicemembers, veterans, and their
families, as well as for the introduction of this legislation. Since
1996, The American Legion has worked tirelessly; first to bring this
issue to the forefront of national attention, and second to work on a
comprehensive solution to this issue.
The American Legion believes that legislation designed to withhold
funding could seriously slow, or stall the positive momentum The
American Legion and Department of Defense have made, and continue to
make at both national and state levels.
At present, some states accept national certifications for
licensure purposes, and will award a license when presented with a
certification certificate. The American Legion believes that states
should administer an examination or accept a nationally recognized
certification as an equivalent for licensure purposes, as opposed to
completion of a passing score that is based on national accepted
practices.
It is the opinion of The American Legion that the success of
improving accessibility to state licensing and certification for
veterans who possess equivalent skillsets will require the full
cooperation of the state boards. We believe that in order for that to
happen, the Federal Government must do its part to develop new
regulations, and make changes to existing programs, policies and
practices to support and reinforce what is happening in many states and
across the credentialing industry. If Congress withholds funding from
states, this will not be possible.
As currently written, The American Legion cannot support S. 492. We
appreciate Senator Burr's efforts in this issue and we look forward to
working with him on a solution for our current and future
servicemembers, veterans, and their spouses that will advance the
efforts to provide a uniformed and seamless transition for our Nation's
military trained professionals.
The American Legion does not support this bill.
s. 495: careers for veterans act of 2013
To amend title 38, United States Code, to require Federal agencies
to hire veterans, to require States to recognize the military
experience of veterans when issuing licenses and credentials to
veterans, and for other purposes.
This broad reaching legislation takes a multifaceted approach to
improving career prospects for veterans by addressing not only hiring
of veterans, but also through improvements in the Federal Government's
acceptance of military experience and certifications and improvements
in contracting goals and preferences for veteran owned small
businesses.
The bill would require the heads of Federal agencies to develop
plans and work in conjunction with the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) to increase Federal hiring of veterans to include 10,000 covered
veterans over the next five years. The American Legion recognizes
better than anyone the unique contributions and strengths veterans
bring to employers and is a devoted advocate for increasing Federal
hiring of veterans. The American Legion urges all executives in
government to enforce veterans' preference in their respective agencies
\4\, and strongly supports veterans' preference hiring and efforts to
support such.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Resolution No. 330: Support Veterans' Preference in Public
Employment, AUG 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other provisions of the bill supported by The American Legion
include support for improvements to state One-Stop Centers,\5\ the
modification of treatment under contracting goals and preferences for
small business owners after the death of disabled veteran owners,\6\ as
well as the expansion of the contracting goals and preferences of the
VA regarding veteran owned businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Resolution No. 295: Support Priority of Service for Veterans in
All State Employment Services Agencies' (SESA) One-Stop Centers, AUG
2004.
\6\ Resolution No. 323: The Status of Service-Disabled Veteran-
Owned Business after the Death of the Veteran Owner, AUG 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this bill
s. 514
A bill to amend Title 38, United States Code, to require states to
provide additional Educational Assistance under Post-9/11 Educational
Assistance to Veterans pursuing a degree in science, technology,
engineering, math or an area that leads to employment in a high demand
occupation, and for other purposes
The American Legion supports Senator Brown's pending legislation,
S. 514, which seeks to provide additional educational assistance under
the Post-9/11 GI Bill to better assist veterans pursuing a degree in
science, technology, engineering, math or an area that leads to
employment in a high-demand occupation.
Based on our research, The American Legion believes that the United
States, in the face of increasing competition, needs to maintain its
hard won status as the world leader in science, technology,
engineering, and math. Currently, there is high demand for jobs in
these areas and our servicemembers, who have been screened, tested, and
highly trained in a great number of highly technical military
specialties, stand ready to significantly contribute to these sectors
through innovation and ingenuity. Unfortunately, degrees in these kinds
of programs can often cost more or last longer than other programs of
education, making them a less desirable option for transitioning
servicemembers who are concerned with starting new careers and
supporting their families.
This legislation provides additional funding for individuals in
these types of educational programs that will assist the United States
in maintaining its technological leadership in the international
community, while supporting our continued national commitment to
education in these fields of study. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs
should be given the discretion to allocate additional funds for
students participating in such programs as deemed appropriate. In
August 2012, The American Legion passed resolution 153, because our
members believe that it is imperative to the Nation's continued world
leadership and economic prosperity as well as aerospace and military
superiority \7\ to ensure that these skills remain a top priority
throughout our American system of education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Resolution 153: Support for NASA and Advancements in
Aeronautical and Space Research, AUG 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this bill.
s. 515
A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the Yellow
Ribbon G.I. Education Enhancement Program to cover recipients of Marine
Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry scholarship, and for other purposes.
The John David Fry Scholarship was created by Public Law 111-32 in
honor of Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry, and amends the Post-9/
11 GI Bill to include the children of servicemembers who die in the
line of duty after September 10, 2001.
The American Legion is deeply committed to the plight of the
children whose parents die on active duty in service to this Nation.
The American Legion established the Legacy Scholarship Fund to help
meet the shortfalls these children experience, in an attempt to make up
for significant shortfalls in government money allotted to these
children--the Federal Government gives these children a college
education stipend worth about $37,000. Taking into account living
expenses, textbooks and rising tuitions; this benefit covers little
more than half of the basic college costs in the most affordable
situations, and the price tag of higher learning will only continue to
rise. The most conservative estimates predict a 5-percent annual
increase, meaning that in 16 years the most affordable college
education will rise to a staggering $132,800.
The American Legion has long been a champion in the passage and
improvement of the GI Bill; from the passage of the original GI Bill in
World War II, through the passage of the Post-9/11 GI Bill--and through
several iterations of Post-9/11 GI Bill Improvement Acts. The American
Legion supports the full transferability of GI Bill benefits through
resolution 296,\8\ and to leave the children of those who have made the
ultimate sacrifice behind in Yellow Ribbon benefits seems contrary to
the spirit of the laws enacted to provide education as a reward for
service and sacrifice. This promise is the heart of the GI Bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Resolution 296: Amending the Eligibility for the Transfer of
the Post-9/11 GI Bill Educational benefits, AUG 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this legislation.
s. 572: veterans second amendment act
A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the
conditions under which certain persons may be treated as adjudicated
mentally incompetent for certain purposes.
It is both sad and ironic that the veterans' community, a community
in which each and every member swore to uphold the Constitution of the
United States, to include the 2nd Amendment, requires advocacy to
maintain its constitutional right to bear arms. Unless deemed unfit to
possess weapons by a judicial authority with the full benefit of due
process, The American Legion believes that each veteran, regardless of
disability, should maintain the right to possess a firearm. Any
constitutional right should be protected with this same expectation of
careful scrutiny to ensure no right is removed without due process.
On December 2, 2012, NBC News published an article regarding
veteran hunting trips as a form of therapy for combat veterans.\9\
Throughout the Nation, numerous organizations organize hunting trips
for veterans; and even the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has
acknowledged the positive effects of shooting firearms for some
veterans. Jose Llamas, community and public affairs officer for VA's
National Veterans Sports Program stated that hunting is included in a
veteran's health-life plan, and at various adaptive sports summits
throughout the Nation, veterans can enjoy target shooting as well as
competitive marksmanship competitions. Additionally, a recent $25,000
grant was made to the Grand Junction, Colorado, VA Medical Center, to
purchase the necessary equipment for veterans to hunt.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/02/15575983-florida-
guide-uses-hunting-as-rustic-therapy-for-combat-veterans?lite.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, there are concerns that the threat of being placed on
a list that might deny them their 2nd Amendment rights could act as a
deterrent for veterans who might otherwise seek treatment. When the
positive effects of therapy for conditions such as Posttraumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD) are so important, driving veterans away for fear of
repercussions such as confiscation of firearms could only exacerbate
existing stigmas.
During the 94th National Convention of The American Legion,
Resolution 68 was passed. According to the resolution, ``The American
Legion reaffirms its recognition that the Second Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States guarantees each law-abiding American
citizen the right to keep and bear arms; and, be it finally resolved,
that the membership of The American Legion urges our Nation's lawmakers
to recognize, as part of their oaths of office, that the Second
Amendment guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to keep and bear
arms of their choice, as do the millions of American veterans who have
fought, and continue to fight, to preserve those rights, hereby advise
the Congress of the United States and the Executive Department to cease
and desist any and all efforts to restrict these right by any
legislation or order.''
The American Legion supports this bill.
s. 629: honor america's guard-reserves act of 2013
A bill to amend title 38, United States Code to recognize the
service in the reserve components of certain persons by honoring them
with status as veterans under law.
This legislation honors, as a veteran, any person entitled to
retired pay for non-regular (reserve) service or, but for age, would be
so entitled. The bill provides that such person shall not be entitled
to any benefit by reason of such recognition.
Since the inception of the all-volunteer force, members of the
National Guard and reserve have stood side-by-side with their active
duty counterparts, ready to answer the call to protect the Nation. As
embodied in the recently adopted Resolution No. 10,\10\ The American
Legion believes those who have taken that solemn oath and stepped
forward to serve their country, the Armed Forces of the United States;
whether active duty, reserve, or National Guard, deserve the title
``Veteran.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Resolution No. 10: Support Veteran Status for National Guard
and Reserve Servicemembers MAY 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this legislation.
s. 674: accountability for veterans act of 2013
To require prompt responses from the heads of covered Federal
agencies when the Secretary of Veterans Affairs requests information
necessary to adjudicate claims for benefits under laws administered by
the Secretary, and for other purposes.
The American Legion processes thousands of veteran disability
claims each year, and is acutely aware of the vital need for the
interagency cooperation necessary to develop a Fully Developed Claim
(FDC). Historically, VA has called upon Federal agencies such as
Department of Defense, Social Security Administration (SSA), and
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to provide necessary documents to
support various claims submitted by veterans. In December 2012, Allison
Hickey, VA Under Secretary for Benefits, announced a program created
between VA, SSA, and IRS eliminating the need for veterans receiving
pension benefits to complete the Eligibility Verification Report (EVR).
This serves as the example of a positive relationship between VA and
other Federal entities.
The American Legion has called upon Congress to ``to pass
legislation that requires VA be held accountable for achieving the VA
Secretary's stated goal to achieve an operational state for VA in which
no claim is pending over 125 days and all claims have an accuracy rate
of 98 percent or higher, which is detailed in American Resolution 99.''
\11\ As we are calling upon VA to adjudicate claims in a timely and
accurate manner, accordingly, it is only appropriate that we also allow
for VA to have the all available tools to accomplish the stated
objectives. If a separate government entity holds a veteran's records
that are pertinent to a VA claim, then that entity should comply with
VA's request in a timely manner and provide the necessary required
documentation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Resolution No. 99: Increase the Transparency of the Veterans
Benefits Administration's (VBA) Claims Processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this bill.
s. 690: filipino veterans fairness act of 2013
To amend title 38, United States Code, to deem certain service in
the organized military forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of
the Philippines and the Philippine Scouts to have been active service
for purposes of benefits under programs administered by the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs.
In brief, this bill will strike the word ``not'' in two subsections
in section 107 of title 38, U.S.C.. By striking this word and the
remainder of the subsections the U.S.C. will read:
(a) Service before July 1, 1946, in the organized military
forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of the
Philippines, while such forces were in the service of the Armed
Forces of the United States pursuant to the military order of
the President dated July 26, 1941, including among such
military forces organized guerrilla forces under commanders
appointed, designated, or subsequently recognized by the
Commander in Chief, Southwest Pacific Area, or other competent
authority in the Army of the United States, shall be deemed to
have been active military, naval, or air service for the
purposes of any law of the United States conferring rights,
privileges, or benefits upon any person by reason of the
service of such person or the service of any other person in
the Armed Forces.
(b) Service in the Philippine Scouts under section 14 of the
Armed Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945 shall be deemed
to have been active military, naval, or air service for the
purposes of any of the laws administered by the Secretary.
Also, this bill introduces additional wording for determination of
eligibility. It charges the Secretary shall take into account any
alternative documentation regarding such service, including
documentation other than the Missouri List, that the Secretary
determines relevant.
This bill adds a report the Secretary shall submit to the Committee
on Veterans' Affairs of the Senate and House of Representative that
includes:
(a) The number of such individuals applying for benefits
pursuant to this section during the previous year; and
(b) The number of such individuals that the Secretary
approved for benefits.
The American Legion has no position on this legislation.
s. 695: veterans paralympics act of 2013
A bill to amend Title 38, United States Code, to extend the
Authorization of appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
to pay a monthly assistance allowance to Disabled Veterans training or
competing for the Paralympics team, and the authorization of
appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide
assistance to United States Paralympics, Inc., and for other purposes.
The American Legion has no position on this legislation.
s. 705: war memorial protection act of 2013
A bill to amend Title 36, United States Code, to ensure Memorials
commemorating the service of the United States Armed Forces may contain
religious symbols, and for other purposes.
As an organization whose motto reads ``For God and Country'' the
notion that memorializing those who have served and sacrificed on
behalf of this Nation could be rendered devoid of recognition of their
faith is alien and abhorrent. The American Legion was a leading voice
in the fight to protect the Mojave Cross in the California desert to
honor the sacrifices of the fallen. The American Legion was a leading
voice ensuring families of veterans in National Cemeteries have their
religious faith recognized as a part of funeral services. While faith
is an intensely personal matter to a great majority of our veterans,
The American Legion believes that a veteran's choice to recognize his
or her particular faith on his or her own personal memorial is in
keeping with the protections of all personal choices guaranteed to any
American citizen under any other circumstance.
That such a bill would even be considered necessary is
disheartening, but The American Legion will always protect the rights
of those who serve to enjoy their First Amendment protection to freely
express their religious affiliation on their grave markers. We thank
Ranking Member Burr for taking up this fight.
The American Legion supports this legislation.
s. 735: survivor benefits improvement act of 2013
To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and
assistance provided to surviving spouses of veterans under laws
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other
purposes.
S. 735 addresses several areas that would improve the quality of
life for dependents receiving VA benefits, to include Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation (DIC). The American Legion family has hundreds
of thousands of members that are directly affected by this provision,
and has previously called upon Congress to eliminate the age criteria
for a surviving spouse to remarry and continue to receive DIC
benefits.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Resolution No. 44: Dependency and Indemnity Compensation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thailand and herbicide exposure has been a continual concern for
The American Legion. As the regulations currently read, a veteran who
served in Thailand during the Vietnam Era has to prove exposure to
Agent Orange and other herbicides; this process has proven to be
burdensome for both veterans and surviving spouses. As a result, a
veteran who may have been exposed to herbicides while serving in
Thailand may not have received the entitled benefits associated with
herbicide exposure. Equally as important, widows of veterans exposed to
herbicides that may have met their demise due to a condition associated
with herbicide exposure are ineligible for benefits, such as DIC.
Additionally, children of veterans who have served in Thailand that may
have been born with conditions associated with the veteran's herbicide
exposure have also been identified as ineligible for benefits.
The American Legion has repeatedly called for a full recognition of
veterans that served in Thailand between January 9, 1962, and May 7,
1975, to be recognized as presumptively exposed to herbicides and
``seek legislation to amend title 38, United States Code, section 1116,
to provide entitlement to these presumptions for those veterans who
were exposed to Agent Orange while serving in areas other than the
Republic of Vietnam where Agent Orange was tested, sprayed, or stored
and has called for this recognition through resolution number
199.''\13\ Ultimately, it is our belief that a veteran, no matter where
the herbicide exposure occurred, should be entitled to the same benefit
as veterans that were exposed to herbicides in Vietnam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Resolution No. 199: Agent Orange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this bill.
s. 748: veterans pension protection act
To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to consider the resources of individuals applying for
pension that were recently disposed of by the individuals for less than
fair market value when determining the eligibility of such individuals
for such pension, and for other purposes.
The American Legion and our network of over 2,600 service officers
regularly work with veterans and their families to ensure they receive
the benefits they deserve. Over the last several years, it has become
more apparent that predatory actors are moving in and taking advantage
of elderly veterans in a vulnerable position, by engaging in
questionable business practices which can fleece a veteran of their
money while offering false promises of pension programs to pay for
elder care facilities.
While The American Legion is tremendously appreciative of Senator
Wyden's attention to this issue, and this legislation's aim is
admirable--seeking to protect veterans from these predatory practices
by increasing the look back period when examining veterans' assets, The
American Legion has reservations as to whether or not this is the most
appropriate measure to provide relief to veterans and their families.
Research conducted through The American Legion's network of service
providers shows, that this new look back period would affect surviving
spouses of veterans who need benefits, as well as questions how VA
would be able to address the increased workload of the look back period
when pension centers struggle to address their existing workload.
However, as this is a matter of concern, The American Legion
continues to work with the expertise of our service officers,
membership and staff to determine a course of action which would
provide remedy in this situation. When such a remedy is determined,
then by our own resolution process our membership, will The American
Legion be able to ratify a plan for taking action. Due to the
complexity of the situation, there is no consensus and therefore we can
neither support nor oppose this course of action.
The American Legion has no position on this legislation.
s. 778
To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to issue cards to
veterans that identify them as veterans, and for other purposes.
The American Legion recognizes that many states currently provide
driver's licenses indicating a licensed driver is a veteran. For
veterans residing in these states, a veteran can proudly prove service
to this Nation. Additionally, for retail outlets that may offer
discounts for veterans, a government sanctioned identification card
would require the necessary proof of military, naval, or air service.
Some outlets no longer accept as proof of service a copy of a DD-214 as
the document does not provide a photograph of the veteran.
Beyond the lack of photograph provided on a DD-214 is the form
itself and how it could cause harm to the veteran through repeatedly
showing the form in public. Public review of a DD-214 would reveal the
veteran's Social Security number and other personal privacy
information. In this age of widespread identity theft, it is possible a
veteran's identity could be stolen simply through proving veteran's
status at a retail outlet by displaying their DD-214; so in short, it
could be a heavy price to pay due to trying to receive a discount at a
retail outlet.
The American Legion has passed resolution number 43 that encourages
state governments to include a veteran identifier on drivers'
licenses.\14\ A nationwide veteran's card could accomplish the same
goal of having identification indicating veteran status without
including the veteran's Social Security number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Resolution No. 43: Veteran Coding on Driver's Licenses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this bill.
s. 819: veterans mental health treatment first act of 2013
A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to require a program
of mental health care and rehabilitation for veterans for service-
related Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, depression, anxiety disorder,
or a related substance use disorder, and for other purposes.
This bill calls for VA to start mental health treatment for
veterans regardless of whether or not they have been service-connected
for a mental health condition. The bill would prohibit veterans from
seeking service connection during that period, but would provide
alternative forms of compensation to the veteran during the treatment
period.
The American Legion is deeply concerned about the mental health
care received by America's veterans. Mental health care is one of the
components examined by the System Worth Saving Task Force through our
annual visits to VHA medical facilities. The American Legion maintains
an Ad Hoc Committee on PTSD and TBI to continually research new
information on these concerns facing American veterans.
While The American Legion applauds efforts to get veterans into
treatment, and through resolution number 109 works to monitor the
ongoing effectiveness \15\ of the Mental Health Strategic Plan of VHA,
we are concerned about the lack of ability for veterans to apply for
service connection during this period. The longer a veteran waits from
discharge from service, the more difficult it can be to find
appropriate records and ultimately obtain service connection for
injuries incurred or aggravated by military service. It would be
troubling to realize that a veteran could lose out on lifetime service
connection and health care for a mental health condition in the
interest of short term obtaining mental health care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Resolution 109: The Department of Veterans Affairs Mental
Health Services, AUG 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion is willing to work with Ranking Member Burr to
find a way to make this program effective without reducing a veteran's
rights to service connection, but cannot support the bill at this time.
The American Legion does not support this legislation.
s. 863: veterans back to school act of 2013
To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal time limitations
on the eligibility for use of educational assistance under All-
Volunteer Force Educational Assistance Program, to improve veterans
education outreach, and for other purposes.
The Montgomery GI Bill for active duty servicemembers and veterans
requires each enrolled servicemember to make a non-refundable
contribution up front. In return, they can use their entitlement--up to
36 months--to help pay for education, apprenticeship, and job training.
However, the entitlement automatically expires 10 years after the
veteran leaves active duty service. According to the Department of
Veterans Affairs, nearly 30 percent of eligible veterans are unable to
use any of their Montgomery GI Bill education benefits and most
eligible veterans are only able to access a portion of them before the
10-year limit is reached.
This legislation would change the expiration from 10 years after
the veteran leaves active duty service to 10 years after the veteran
begins using the benefit. The American Legion, by resolution,\16\
supports changes to the delimiting dates for the Montgomery GI Bill. In
addition, the provisions to support and extend offices of veterans'
affairs to more campuses are especially timely and relevant given the
increasing number of student-veterans on campuses and their unique
needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Resolution 301: Eliminate delimiting dates for the Montgomery
GI Bill and Post-9/11 GI Bill, AUG 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this bill.
s. 868: filipino veterans promise act of 2013
A bill to require the Secretary of Defense to establish a process
to determine whether individuals claiming certain service in the
Philippines during World War II are eligible for certain benefits
despite not being on the Missouri List, and for other purposes.
This bill is aligned in purpose with S. 690, the Filipino Veterans
Fairness Act.
The American Legion has no position on this legislation.
s. 893: veterans compensation cost of living act of 2013
A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for annual
cost-of-living adjustments to be made automatically by law each year in
the rates of disability compensation for veterans with service-
connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity
compensation for survivors of certain service-connected disabled
veterans.
The American Legion strongly supports a periodic cost-of-living
adjustment (COLA) for veterans reflective of increased expenses due to
inflation and other factors. However, there are many factors currently
being considered regarding the calculation of COLA that merit
discussion.
Within The American Legion's Code of Procedures, accredited
representatives are advised under no circumstances should they cause
harm to veterans' claims for benefits. Current provisions contained in
the President's 2014 proposed budget, as well as in amendments to other
bills that have been introduced from time to time, would replace the
current Consumer Price Index (CPI) used to calculate increases to
Social Security COLA with a so-called Chained CPI (C-CPI). Through
chaining VA benefits to the new C-CPI and COLA for Social Security
benefits, the veteran community would indeed be harmed. On December 19,
2012, Dean Stoline, Deputy Director of The American Legion Legislative
Division, stated that a chained CPI is misguided policy and ``would
have significant deleterious effect on the benefits of millions of
veterans.''
Chairman Sanders has provided evidence that displays the long term
negative effect upon the veteran community should Congress mandate a C-
CPI approach to determining COLA increases. According to a press
release from Sen. Sanders' office, the proposal would cut VA disability
benefits for a 30-year-old veteran by more than $13,000 a year by age
45, $1,800 a year by age 55, and $2,260 a year by age 65. Senior
citizens who retire by age 65 would see their Social Security benefits
reduced by about $650 a year by the time they reach 75, and more than
$1,000 a year when they turn 85. These cuts would certainly place many
veterans and their families' economic security in peril.
By resolution \17\ ``The American Legion support[s] legislation to
amend title 38, United States Code, section 1114, to provide a periodic
COLA increase and to increase the monthly rates of disability
compensation; and * * * oppose[s] any legislative effort to
automatically index such [COLA] adjustments to the [COLA] adjustment
for Social Security recipients, non-service-connected disability
recipients and death pension beneficiaries.'' The opposition to direct
and automatic connection to the Social Security policies reflects the
understanding that veterans and specifically disabled veterans
represent a unique subsection of the American community, and their
unique concerns should receive individual consideration when
determining the need for periodic increases for cost of living.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Resolution No. 178: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
Disability Compensation, AUG 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion encourages Congress to seriously examine the
disastrous long term negative consequences of C-CPI for veterans. The
long-term negative effects created through permitting C-CPI for VA
benefits could cause serious financial harm to millions of veterans.
The American Legion supports an increased Cost-of-Living Adjustment
for veterans, but would like to see the legislation amended to ensure
veterans' COLA is protected from being changed to reflect a C-CPI model
to the detriment of disabled veterans.
s. 894
A bill to amend Title 38, United States Code, to extend expiring
authority for work-study allowances for individuals who are pursuing
programs of rehabilitation, education, or training under the laws
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to expand such
authority to certain outreach services provided through congressional
offices, and for other purposes
This bill is an extension of the Department of Veterans Affairs
authority to offer certain work-study allowances for student-veterans
due to expire mid-year. The American Legion has long supported the
Department of Veterans Affairs work-study program as defined through
resolution number 296 \18\ and supports this initiative to maintain as
many of these work-study opportunities as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Resolution No. 296: Support the Development of Veterans On-
The-Job Training Opportunities, AUG 2004.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This program provides a valuable benefit to student-veterans and
that benefit is often multiplied many times over when, for example,
they are allowed to perform outreach services to servicemembers and
veterans furnished under the supervision of a State Approving Agency
employee. This is just one instance of the important work that is
accomplished by these student-veterans.
The American Legion supports this bill.
s. 922 veterans equipped for success act of 2013
A bill to require the Secretary of Labor to carry out a pilot
program on providing wage subsidies to employers who employ certain
veterans and members of the Armed Forces and require the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot program on providing career
transition services to young veterans, and for other purposes.
When veterans return to the workforce either right off of active
duty service or after obtaining a college degree, they still face
challenges in obtaining gainful employment. One of the barriers is the
lack of experience in the private sector, which is why The American
Legion has passed resolutions \19\ that support programs that encourage
employers to create on-the-job training (OJT) opportunities for
veterans and programs that provide financial incentives for employers
who hire and provide training for veterans. The American Legion
believes that the two pilot programs called for in this bill are
complimentary to the OJT program already in place in the Department of
Veterans Affairs. The range of veterans eligible for an OJT opportunity
in the private sector is increased to those that have exhausted their
GI Bill benefits and older veterans whose GI Bill benefits have
expired. Further, on top of incentivizing employers to participate, the
eligibility parameters of the pilot programs allows for more corporate
employers to participate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Resolution No. 18: Authorization to Seek Grants for Training
and Job Placement for Veterans.
Resolution No. 296: Support The Development of Veterans On-the-Job
Training Opportunities.
Resolution No. 313: Support for the Military Transition Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this bill.
s. 927: veterans outreach act of 2013
A bill to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a
demonstration project to assess the feasibility and advisability of
using State and local government agencies and nonprofit organizations
to increase awareness of benefits and services for veterans and to
improve coordination of outreach activities relating to such benefits
and services, and for other purposes.
This legislation calls upon VA to increase outreach to the veterans
of America to utilize the services available to them. With over 22
million veterans in America, surprisingly The American Legion has found
that only a fraction of those veterans utilize the services provided to
them.
The American Legion is deeply committed to getting the word out to
veterans about the benefits they have earned through their hard service
and sacrifice on behalf of this great Nation. With over 2.4 million
members, and thousands of Posts located in every town nationwide, our
organization is uniquely positioned within the veterans' community to
spread the word, but such efforts work best when in partnership with
the VA. The American Legion has over a dozen resolutions calling on
greater efforts in outreach from VA in every field, from women's health
care to volunteer work, and to benefits related to exposure to Agent
Orange. The American Legion is committed to working with VA to reach
every corner of the veterans' community.
While state and local authorities are an important component of
outreach, it is our hope VA recognizes the most important partnership
for reaching veterans is with The American Legion and with other non-
profit Veteran's Service Organizations.
The American Legion supports this legislation.
s. 928: claims processing improvement act of 2013
A bill to improve the processing of claims for compensation under
laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other
purposes.
The purpose of this legislation is to provide a multi-faceted
approach to dealing with the claims backlog. The rising claims backlog
has increasingly become a problem with the Veterans Benefits
Administration (VBA), and the past three years have seen the backlog
leap from approximately 37 percent of all claims pending past the
target goal of 125 days to nearly 70 percent of all claims now pending
over 125 days. All of this is occurring while VA struggles to increase
the accuracy of processing.
The American Legion, with over 2,600 accredited service officers
nationwide, is deep in the trenches of the war against the backlog. On
a daily basis, American Legion service officers help thousands of
veterans navigate the complex and convoluted system to receive benefits
they have earned by becoming disabled while serving their country, and
has recently partnered with The White House and the VA to spearhead the
Fully Developed Claim (FDC) initiative The American Legion is an
industry recognized expert in this area and has decades of experience
in this area.
This bill is broad in its reach and scope, and is best addressed by
breaking it down into its component sections.
Section 101--
This section directs the establishment of a working group to
improve employee work credit and work management systems. The American
Legion has already submitted to Congress and the VA proposals on how
the work credit system must be fixed to include better accounting for
accuracy as a measurable quantity. As it stands now, employees receive
the same credit whether work is done properly or inaccurately, and such
a system must be amended to take credit away for inaccurate work, but
also to reward workers who take the necessary time to get the job done
right the first time. The American Legion has tried to work with all
parties to get a better system implemented, rather than waiting upon
the work of a study group. The sooner VA can amend their work credit
system, the sooner the system can better serve veterans.
Section 102--
This section directs the establishment of a task force on retention
and training at VA. Certainly VA employees have problems with
retention, and the work is complicated enough that continually
retraining the work force is counterproductive. The American Legion
reiterates the concern that simply appointing another task force or
study commission only further delays actual progress on remedying the
issue.
Section 103--
This section addresses efforts to obtain information from other
Federal agencies. The American Legion has been vocal in their concerns
about the breakdown of communication between VA and DOD in combining
efforts on a Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record. Rather than work on a
single system which would vastly improve communication between
agencies, VA and DOD continue to walk down separate and individual
paths. Improvements in communications between VA and all Federal
agencies is an important part of the disability claims process and The
American Legion supports improvements in this area.
Section 104--
This section deals with recognition of the phrase ``Indian tribes''
with respect to subsection 5902(a)(1) of Title 38 of the United States
Code. The American Legion has no position on this section.
Section 105--
This section deals with creating pilot programs with tribal and
local governments to improve the claims quality of disability
compensation claims. The American Legion has no position on this
section.
Section 106--
This section requires quarterly progress reports on the progress of
VA in eliminating the backlog. The American Legion is concerned about
the lack of intermediary benchmarks from VA regarding reaching their
goal of 98 percent accuracy and no claim pending longer than 125 days.
Certainly some level of reporting to show clear progress would help
with what has often been a lack of transparency in this area.
Section 201--
This section would reduce the filing deadline for an appeal from
one year to 180 days. The American Legion opposes any reduction in a
veteran's appellate rights.
Section 202--
This section calls for all hearings to be conducted before the
Board of Veterans Appeals through video hearings. Although it allows
for a process for a veteran to request a personal hearing, it is
unclear what the appellate rights are in this case. The American Legion
retains concerns that whatever process is in place must be in the best
interest of the veteran, and not simply a more expedient measure for
the Board to alleviate the burden of communicating with the veteran.
While there may be some improvement in the schedule to hear from
veterans, it is important that veteran's concerns must be held
paramount in these decisions.
Section 301--
This section extends operational authority for the Manila Regional
Office. The American Legion agrees with the importance of maintaining
operations to serve veterans in the Philippines.
Section 302--
This section extends the period for scheduling medical exams for
veterans receiving temporary disability ratings for severe mental
disorders from six months to 540 days. The American Legion has no
position on this extension.
Section 303--
This section extends the marriage delimiting date for surviving
spouses of Persian Gulf War veterans to qualify for death pension to a
date ten years after the Persian Gulf War ends. As long as the war
remains open, this benefit and all associated benefits must be extended
to reflect the ongoing nature of the conflict.
Section 304--
This section adjusts effective dates for benefits eligibility based
on veterans' children. The American Legion has no position on this
section.
Section 305--
This section extends temporary authority for performing medical
examinations by contract physicians. The American Legion recognizes the
importance of these contract examinations in fulfilling examinations
for disability and compensation purposes, especially in the midst of
the backlog. Renewal of the contracting authority is important at this
critical juncture.
The American Legion supports portions of this bill and holds no
position on other portions. The American Legion opposes reducing the
appellate rights of veterans, especially as concerned in sections 201
and 202.
s. 932: putting veterans funding first act of 2013
A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for
advance appropriations for certain discretionary accounts of the
Department of Veterans Affairs.
This bill, as is the case with the companion legislation H.R. 813
in the House of Representatives, recognizes the importance of providing
timely, predictable funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs and
would, as is the case with medical funding because of advanced
appropriations, require Congress to fully fund the VA discretionary
budgets a year ahead of schedule. The American Legion helped lead the
way in the fight for advance appropriations for medical funding. In the
current political climate, with sequestration and budget battles
lurking around every corner, it is important to help set aside
veterans' funding as separate and distinct from these battles. This is
a bipartisan notion, as all Americans agree that those who have
sacrificed through their service should not bear the brunt of squabbles
and political infighting.
The current budgets of VA must grapple with ongoing efforts to
address infrastructure insufficiencies in construction, IT and other
projects, and advance funding would make the planning necessary to
avoid undue waste possible.
The arbitrary budget axe has become a very real fear in the current
political landscape. Politicians from both sides repeat the oft cited
pledge ``not to balance the budget on the backs of our veterans.'' This
legislation would help protect veterans from just such uncertainties.
Resolutions of The American Legion advocate protections for advance
funding for medical budgets \20\ and for protecting VA from PAY-GO
provisions.\21\ It is time to ensure all of VA's budgets are protected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Resolution 180: Assured Funding for VA Medical Care, AUG 2012.
\21\ Resolution 200: Exempt VA Benefits and Services from PAY-GO
Provisions, AUG 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this legislation.
s. 939
A bill to amend Title 38, United States Code, to treat certain
misfiled documents as motions for reconsideration of decisions by the
Board of Veterans Appeals, and for other purposes.
The American has seen first-hand how misfiled documents can
severely harm a veteran pursuing assistance or service-connected
disability recognition from the Department of Veteran Affairs. This
bill attempts to help address issues of confusion, wherein a veteran
mistakenly files documents intended for the Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims (CAVC) to the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA). Many
veterans are unaware that their appellate rights transfer between
branches of government, moving from the Executive to the Judicial
branch. The American Legion is intimately familiar with the appeals
process, and the confusing notification letters sent to veterans by VA,
and that these documents are extremely difficult for the average person
to make sense of. Certainly for unrepresented veterans, the legal
options available to them are confusing, and may subsequently file
their notice of ``dissatisfaction with the determination of the BVA''
to the incorrect entity.
The veterans' disability claims process has long been recognized as
``uniquely pro-claimant'' by the courts, and in this spirit, The
American Legion wants the benefit of the doubt extended to veterans at
every step of the process. While more must be done to help direct
veterans to accredited representation to help make sense of these
processes, veterans should not be penalized unduly for a failure to
understand every complexity of the arduous appeals process when there
is a reasonable chance to view their claim in a favorable light.
The American Legion supports this legislation.
s. 944: veterans' educational transition act of 2013
To amend title 38, United States Code, to require courses of
education provided by public institutions of higher education that are
approved for purposes of the All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance
Program and Post-9/11 Educational Assistance to charge veterans tuition
and fees at the in-State tuition rate, and for other purposes.
The American Legion applauds Chairman Sanders and Ranking Member
Burr for joining the push to prevent public colleges and universities
from charging student veterans out-of-state tuition with the
introduction of this legislation. However, we believe S. 257, which has
a companion bill that has cleared committee in the House, should be the
vehicle through which we offer our veterans reasonable in-state tuition
protections while using their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.
S. 944 has limitations not included in the S. 257 or the House bill
which are very disconcerting. In-state tuition would be required only
for veterans who are within two years of separation from active duty
when they enroll. They would have to live in the state while attending
school. The bill would exclude those servicemembers who served less
than 180 days and qualify for 40% of Post-9/11 GI Bill funding.
Finally, it would allow VA to waive in-state tuition to institutions of
higher learning if the Secretary determines such a waiver is
appropriate.
These provisions concede too much to states and their public
colleges and universities to the detriment of America's veterans.
Opponents of legislation to require in-state rates claim that it can
potentially discourage the veteran from pursuing post-secondary
education altogether if states or schools choose to opt out; however,
accruing huge financial burdens is more detrimental to these veterans
in our view. As public colleges and universities seek ways to recoup
decreasing revenues, many have significantly raised the costs of out-
of-state tuition. The cap for GI Bill benefits often falls short of
that high out-of-state rate. Furthermore, because of the nature of
military service, veterans, and beneficiaries, often have a difficult
time establishing residency for purposes of obtaining in-state tuition
rates. Circumstances such as these, which oftentimes require them to
live in certain areas, especially during the time when they are
separated from the uniformed services, pose significant challenges when
they wish to use this important benefit.
Critics have also said that legislation of this type sets a
dangerous precedent for other non-resident students utilizing Federal
aid programs. The American Legion strongly disagrees because military
servicemembers and military veterans are the only cohort of Americans
who cannot satisfy residency requirements for in-state tuition because
of circumstances beyond their control. Recognizing these unique
circumstances, servicemembers are already offered this reasonable
accommodation when using military Tuition Assistance at public schools
through the Higher Education Authorization Act of 2008; however, once a
servicemember leaves the military this protection goes away. Therefore,
states have already conceded the point that educating those who serve
is not only a Federal financial obligation and have agreed to make this
reasonable accommodation for those currently serving. They should do
the same for our veterans for the same reasons. That states have
already made arrangements to do so before also demonstrates that
complaints about the obstacles to amending state tuition laws are
overblown and, in fact, disingenuous.
After all, all Americans, in every state, owe a debt of gratitude
to the men and women who served in the Armed Forces of the United
States. In addition, public universities are nonprofit institutions
that get special privileges, such as massive Federal and state
government subsidies and tax exemptions, based on the assumption that
they are good stewards of the public trust. Granting in-state rates
should be seen as part of the exercise of this trust. Student-veterans
face many challenges pursuing higher education, there is no reason why
obtaining in-state tuition should be one of them. By requiring public
colleges and universities that receive GI Bill benefit payments to
offer all veterans in-state tuition, Congress stays true to the intent
of the GI Bill by enabling our veterans to pursue a higher education
and jobs skills through the benefits they have earned.
We thank Chairman Sanders and Ranking Member Burr for their
leadership on this issue and look forward to working with all
stakeholders to ensure we can pass reasonable in-state tuition
protections for currently-enrolled GI Bill beneficiaries and future
student-veterans.
The American Legion cannot support this bill as written.
Chairman Sanders. Thank you very much, Mr. de Planque.
Colonel Norton.
STATEMENT OF COLONEL ROBERT F. NORTON, USA (RET.), DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, MILITARY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
OF AMERICA
Colonel Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.
First, I want to join with my colleagues in thanking you
and all the Members of the Committee and your staffs for the
great work that went into putting together this very ambitious
slate of bills, most of which we strongly support.
Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the 380,000 members of the
Military Officers Association of America, it is an honor for me
to be here today to present our views on some of the bills
before you. My statement addresses almost all of them, and I
will limit my remarks to just a few of these measures.
First, S. 6, Putting Our Veterans Back to Work Act, would
extend transition services deadlines under the VOW to Hire
Heroes Act and for other purposes. We strongly support the
bill.
As of May 1, almost 45,000 older veterans were being
trained in a career field under the VRAP program of the VOW
Act. We commend the Committee and the VA for launching the
program and strongly support extending the deadlines in the
legislation.
We also recommend a grandfathering provision to allow
veterans who cannot finish a licensing requirement within the
1-year period required to be allowed to complete that licensure
or certification program, and we also suggest that 4-year
colleges that offer licensing and certification programs be
allowed to participate in the VRAP.
MOAA supports S. 430, the Veteran Small Business
Opportunity and Protection Act. It would allow a surviving
spouse of a service-disabled veteran to acquire the ownership
interest in a small business of the deceased veteran for
purposes of eligibility for VA service-disabled, small business
contracting goals and preferences.
The Careers for Veterans Act, S. 495, helps our
transitioning veterans by requiring States to recognize the
exceptional training and experience provided in military
service toward the award of a civilian license or certification
in a comparable field. MOAA strongly supports S. 495.
S. 629, the Honor America's Guard and Reserve Retirees Act.
Its sole purpose is honor, to honor certain career reservists
who have served their Nation faithfully for more than 20 years
but during that service did not perform any duty on formal
active duty orders.
On Veterans' Day, Memorial Day, and other days celebrating
our national heritage and honoring all those who served and
sacrificed on behalf of our country, there are tens of
thousands of career National Guard and Reserve members who
cannot stand up to be recognized as veterans of the Armed
Forces alongside their colleagues.
S. 629 specifically prohibits the award of any veterans
benefits. Its only and exclusive purpose is honor. I think the
best way to sum up this bill is from the letter of a retired
New York Army National Guard master sergeant who wrote
recently, ``I served for 2 weeks at Ground Zero in Manhattan
after the attacks on our homeland on September 11, 2001. Later
I served in Germany supporting the deployment of our forces for
operations in Iraq but I am not a veteran of the Armed Forces
of the United States.''
On his behalf and on the behalf of tens of thousands of
other career reservists MOAA strongly supports S. 629.
S. 735, the Survivor Benefits Improvement Act, addresses a
long-standing MOAA goal: to allow surviving military spouses to
retain their dependency and indemnity compensation payments if
they remarry after age 55, and that would make it consistent
with all other Federal survivor programs. Along with the other
provisions in this bill, we strongly support your bill, the
Survivor Benefits Improvement Act.
We also support S. 928, your bill, Mr. Chairman, the Claims
Processing Improvement Act. The bill requires the VA to report
on progress toward achieving its goal of eliminating the claims
backlog by 2015 and for other purposes.
Finally, I would like to be in the Greek chorus to Senator
Merkley and Senator Heller and thank them for their leadership
in introducing S. 1039, the Spouses of Heroes Education Act.
S. 1039 would authorize Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry
Scholarships to spouses of members of the Armed Forces who died
in the line of duty after September 10, 2001.
As Senator Merkley and Senator Heller pointed out, the Fry
Scholarships provide post-9/11 GI Bill benefits for the
children of fallen members of our Armed Forces who died in the
line of duty.
Unfortunately, their parents, the surviving spouses, are
not eligible for them. Instead, they are left with an inferior
educational assistance benefit, DEA.
Under DEA, a survivor receives only $987 per month for
full-time study, but no housing allowance and no book stipend.
Without access to the Fry Scholarships, surviving spouses of
the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts will have difficulty paying
for the cost of an education and better preparing their small
children to use the Fry Scholarship when they are of age. MOAA
strongly supports this bill, S. 1039, the Spouses of Heroes
Education Act.
Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your leadership on these
benefit issues and I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Colonel Norton follows:]
Statement of Colonel Robert F. Norton, USA (Ret.), Deputy Director,
Government Relations, Military Officers Association of America
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Sanders. Colonel, thank you very much.
Mr. Gallucci.
STATEMENT OF RYAN GALLUCCI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL
LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS
Mr. Gallucci. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On behalf of the VFW, the Nation's largest and oldest
organization of combat veterans, I want to thank you and
Members of the Committee for the opportunity to present our
thoughts on today's bills.
With the wars drawing down, the active duty force set to
contract, and more than one million veterans expected to enter
the workforce soon, the VFW believes the Senate must do all it
can to ensure our veterans are prepared to compete in an ever-
changing civilian marketplace.
We thank the Committee for its efforts last Congress to
prepare our veterans through reforms like the VOW to Hire
Heroes Act and the Improving Transparency and Education
Opportunities for Veterans Act, and we look forward to working
with this Committee this session to build on those initiatives.
For the VFW's views on each of the benefits bill on our
ambitious agenda, I refer you to my prepared remarks. For the
balance of my time, I will focus on several initiatives to
protect our student veterans.
First on S. 257, the GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act. The
post-9/11 GI Bill was designed to offer a free public education
to eligible veterans, allowing them to treat college as a full-
time job without worrying about financial stability.
Unfortunately, Student Veterans of America report that only
one out of every five veterans attending a public school can
attend at the in-state rate.
Currently, the VA can only reimburse veterans at public
schools for the cost of an in-state education, meaning veterans
who do not qualify as in-state receive meager reimbursement for
college.
As a result, veterans either drop out or find other ways to
pay for college through Federal financial aid, full-time
employment, or student loans even if they make a good faith
effort to legally reside in the State and attend a public
school.
Recently separated veterans may be legal residents in one
State, as my colleague Ian pointed out, but if military duty
took them to another State, they will not qualify for in-State
tuition because they have not been physically present in their
home State long enough.
Furthermore, many States require students to establish in-
state eligibility prior to enrollment, meaning current students
can never qualify regardless of their legal residency or where
they have established domicile.
Critics have said that S. 257 sets a dangerous precedent
for other nonresident students utilizing Federal aid programs.
The VFW disagrees. Servicemembers and veterans are the only
cohort of Americans who cannot satisfy in-state tuition
requirements because of circumstances beyond their control.
As a result, servicemembers are already offered in-State
tuition when using military tuition assistance at public
schools. However, once a servicemember leaves the military,
that protection goes away.
Post-9/11 GI Bill recipients should not be penalized for
their honorable service when they cannot satisfy in-State
tuition requirements. The VFW believes that Congress must allow
these veterans to attend at the in-state rate, which is why we
proudly support S. 257.
Next, on S. 262, the Veterans Education Equity Act, the VFW
understands that the goal of this bill is similar to S. 257,
and we thank Senator Durbin for his attention to this issue.
The VFW supported a similar bill last Congress but we have
withdrawn our support this term because we believe we have
better identified the problem.
The problem is that recently separated veterans cannot meet
stringent in-state tuition requirements because of their
military service and in many cases can never attend at the in-
state rate because they are already enrolled.
S. 262 seeks to increase compensation for nonresidents, but
the VFW believes that offering veterans more money only puts a
Band-Aid on the problem. In-state tuition fixes it.
The VFW recently learned that higher education interest
groups have rallied in support of S. 262 in lieu of offering
in-state tuition. To the VFW, these groups only see veterans as
dollar signs in uniform.
We believe it would be irresponsible to put the VA and the
American taxpayers on the hook for more money when we know that
these schools can and should deliver a quality education to our
veterans at the in-state rate.
Last Congress this bill was a good stopgap measure that
would have lessened the financial burden on out-of-State
veterans attending public schools. Unfortunately, this bill
does not solve the inherent problem.
While we cannot support S. 262, we sincerely appreciate
Senator Durbin's leadership on this issue, and we look forward
to working with all stakeholders on a fair solution for student
veterans.
Finally, we come to your bill, S. 944, the Veterans
Educational Transition Act. As we stated in our written
testimony, the VFW consistently hears from veterans who say
that financial uncertainty is a critical barrier to finishing
college, and we thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member
Burr for your attention to this issue by seeking to offer in-
state tuition to recently separated veterans.
While S. 944 offers some clarification on beneficiaries
eligible for in-state tuition, the VFW is concerned about how
some of the restrictions will be interpreted by States, and we
oppose allowing the Secretary to waive compliance.
This is why the VFW prefers the protections offered by
S. 267, though I must clarify. We believe this is a very
serious issue that demands attention and we are willing to come
to the table with all stakeholders to craft a quality bill that
protects our student veterans and offers reasonable compliance
standards for schools.
I also wanted to echo my colleagues since I have 20 seconds
left and thank you for your support to killing the chained CPI
idea. We all agree that this is a reduction in benefits to our
veterans and something that we absolutely will not support.
Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, Members of the
Committee, this concludes my testimony and I am happy to answer
any questions you may have on any of the bills on
consideration.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallucci follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ryan M. Gallucci, Deputy Director, National
Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: On behalf of the men and
women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. (VFW) and our
Auxiliaries, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify
on today's pending legislation. As the wars wind down and the military
plans to shrink the active duty force, VA anticipates that more than
one million veterans will seek to access their earned benefits within
the next few years. The VFW applauds this Committee's work to address
benefit-access and transitional issues during the last Congress and we
are encouraged to see that the Committee continues to take this
situation seriously.
The VFW is honored to share our thoughts on today's bills in an
effort ensure our veterans have the opportunities they have earned to
succeed after leaving military service. Specifically, our testimony
will focus on nine veterans' economic opportunity bills, S. 257,
S. 262, S. 492, S. 495, S. 514, S. 863, S. 894, S. 922 and S. 944. We
will also offer VFW's brief thoughts on the other bills pending before
the Committee.
s. 257, gi bill tuition fairness act of 2013
The Post-9/11 GI Bill was intended to offer a free, public
education and a modest living stipend to eligible veterans, allowing
them to treat college as a full-time job without worrying about
financial stability. Unfortunately, Student Veterans of America reports
that only one out of every five veterans attending a public school is
eligible to attend at the in-state rate.
Current law only allows VA to reimburse veterans attending public
schools for the cost of an in-state education, meaning veterans who
cannot qualify for in-state tuition will only receive meager
reimbursement for college. This oversight forces veterans to either
drop out or find other ways to pay for college through Federal
financial aid programs, full time employment or amassing student loan
debt even when they make a good faith effort to legally reside in a
state and attend a public school.
Specifically, recently-separated veterans may be legal residents of
a particular state, but if their military duty has taken them to an
installation in another state, they will not qualify as residents when
they seek to attend a public college or university because they have
not been physically present in the state long enough to qualify as a
resident for tuition purposes. Furthermore, once a veteran matriculates
to the public school of their choice, many states restrict them from
establishing residency because of their status as a full-time student.
The VFW believes that Congress must allow Post-9/11 GI Bill-
eligible veterans to attend at the in-state rate, which is why we
proudly support S. 257.
Critics have said that S. 257 sets a dangerous precedent for other
non-resident students utilizing Federal aid programs. The VFW
vehemently disagrees with this notion because military servicemembers
and military veterans are the only cohort of Americans who cannot
reasonably satisfy residency requirements for in-state tuition because
of circumstances beyond their control. Recognizing these unique
circumstances, servicemembers are already offered this reasonable
accommodation when using military Tuition Assistance at public schools
through the Higher Education Authorization Act. However, once a
servicemember leaves the military, this protection goes away.
Eleven states already offer in-state tuition to veterans, eight
states offer conditional waivers for veterans in certain circumstances,
and 16 states have legislation pending. Of the states that have passed
in-state tuition initiatives for veterans, both Republican and Democrat
state leaders have all agreed that the financial benefits for the state
far outweigh the illusory financial burdens that some in higher
education believe would be detrimental to institutional budgets--
particularly since graduates of public colleges and universities
traditionally pursue careers close to their alma mater.
When Ohio passed its in-state tuition waiver in 2009, then- Gov.
Ted Strickland said of in-state tuition, ``It delivers real support to
veterans while helping strengthen Ohio's strategic plan for higher
education, which calls for attracting and keeping talent in the state.
Who better to have as part of Ohio's colleges and universities,
workforce and communities than the veterans who have served, led, and
protected our country?''
When Virginia passed its law in 2011, Gov. Bob McDonnell said
``These men and women have served our country; it is essential that we
continue to work to better serve them. Veterans are the kind of
citizens we want in the Commonwealth and that we want as part of our
workforce.''
When Louisiana passed its law in 2012, Gov. Bobby Jindal said,
``This new law encourages members of the U.S. military--who are the
best trained professionals in the world--to pursue an education in our
state, which will be an economic boost, but most importantly, it's yet
another means for us to thank these brave men and women for their
service.''
The Post-9/11 GI Bill is a Federal program designed to help our
Nation's heroes acquire the skills necessary to build a successful
career after military service. Our veterans served the Nation; not a
particular state. They should not be penalized for their honorable
service when they cannot satisfy strict residency requirements for
tuition purposes. The VFW regularly hears from student-veterans who
confirm that financial uncertainty is the most significant roadblock to
persistence and graduation. To combat this, it only makes sense to
allow our student-veterans to attend college at a reasonable rate when
seeking to use their earned Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, and we hope the
Committee moves quickly to pass this legislation.
s. 262, veterans education equity act of 2013
The VFW understands that the goal of this bill is similar to that
of S. 257. We thank Senator Durbin for taking this issue seriously and
introducing legislation that seeks to offer more equitable
reimbursement for student-veterans attending public schools. The VFW
supported this initiative in the last Congress, but we must explain why
we have withdrawn support this term.
This session, we believe we have better identified the problem. The
problem is that recently-separated veterans cannot meet stringent
residency requirements for in-state tuition because of their military
service, and once enrolled, they cannot legally establish residency
because of their status as full-time students.
S. 262 seeks to increase the compensation veterans attending a
public school as non-residents can receive, but the VFW believes that
throwing money at this problem does not solve it.
In the last few weeks, the VFW has learned that many interest
groups representing higher education--particularly public colleges and
universities--have rallied in support of S. 262 in lieu of offering in-
state tuition to recently-separated veterans attending public colleges
on the Post-9/11 GI Bill. To the VFW, these groups only see our
veterans as dollar signs in uniform. We believe it would be
irresponsible to put VA and the American taxpayers on the hook for more
money when we know these schools can and should deliver a quality
education at the in-state rate.
In the last session, this bill was a good stop-gap measure that
would have lessened the financial burden on student-veterans attending
public schools at the out-of-state rate. Unfortunately, this bill does
not solve the problem. While we cannot support S. 262, we sincerely
appreciate Senator Durbin's interest in this issue and we look forward
to working with all stakeholders on a fair solution for our student-
veterans.
s. 492
A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to require States to
recognize the military experience of veterans when issuing licenses and
credentials to veterans, and for other purposes.
The VFW supports S. 492, and we thank Ranking Member Burr for his
continued support to closing the civilian/military licensing and
credentialing gap. This bill's language is also included as a part of
S. 495, but we support this initiative as a stand-along bill as well.
This bill is a reasonable way to ensure that states will allow
experienced military professionals to sit for licensing exams, while
still ensuring states have the autonomy to issue professional licenses
as they see fit. States will not have to relax their standards for
professionals operating within their borders, but experienced veterans
will not be unnecessarily burdened with satisfying duplicative training
requirements.
s. 495, careers for veterans act
The VFW supports S. 495, which is the latest iteration of Ranking
Member Burr's veterans' jobs legislation from the end of last Congress.
The VFW continues to believe that this bill leverages existing
resources in an effort to ensure our veterans have access to a variety
of job opportunities within the Federal Government, and that private
industry has quality incentives to hire and retain veterans.
This bill also extends additional protections for surviving spouses
of veteran entrepreneurs by offering more time for survivors to
continue the business as if it remained veteran-owned. The VFW has
called on Congress to offer these kinds of protections for survivors
and we encourage the Senate to take swift action on this.
s. 514
A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide additional
educational assistance under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance to
veterans pursuing a degrees in science, technology, engineering, math
or an area that leads to employment in a high-demand occupation, and
for other purposes.
The VFW supports S. 514, which seeks to provide additional
educational assistance under the Post-9/11 GI Bill to better assist
veterans pursuing a degree in science, technology, engineering, math or
an area that leads to employment in a high-demand occupation. Currently
there is high demand for jobs in these areas and our servicemembers
stand to significantly contribute to these sectors through innovation
and ingenuity. Unfortunately degrees in these kinds of programs can
often cost more or last longer than other programs of education, which
is why we support giving the Secretary the discretion to allocate
additional funds for students participating in such programs as deemed
appropriate.
s. 863, veterans back to school act of 2013
The VFW supports Senator Blumenthal's proposal to reinstate the
Veterans Education Outreach Program (VEOP). However, we do not support
changing the delimiting dates on the Montgomery GI Bill, and cannot
support this bill as drafted.
The VFW believes that extending Montgomery GI Bill eligibility to
ten years after first use is not a sound policy for veterans. Unlike
other veterans' benefits, Montgomery GI Bill beneficiaries signed a
contract upon enlistment outlining the specific terms of their GI Bill
benefits. While the VFW understands that veterans have paid into the
program and that the nature of our economy has changed significantly
since the Montgomery GI Bill was signed into law, we believe this sets
a bad precedent for beneficiaries and creates unreasonable bureaucratic
hurdles and unsustainable financial burdens for those who administer
the benefit.
The VFW believes a more responsible solution to close the skills
gap for veterans who are no longer entitled to VA education benefits is
to extend eligibility for the Veterans Retraining Assistance Program
(VRAP), which offers up to 12 months of Montgomery GI Bill-style
benefits to unemployed veterans who are ineligible for other VA
education programs.
The VFW would support stand-alone legislation to reinstate VEOP,
which served as a critical resource for student-veterans transitioning
into college life. While VA does offer some support to veterans on
college campuses through VetSuccess on Campus, resources for this
program are extremely limited and the scope of services provided are
narrow. VEOP would ensure the anticipated 1 million veterans entering
academic life the in the next few years would have all of the resources
necessary to succeed on campus.
s. 894
A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend expiring
authority for work-study allowances for individuals who are pursuing
programs of rehabilitation, education, or training under laws
administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to expand such
authority to certain outreach services provided through congressional
offices, and for other purposes.
This bill is an extension and expansion of VA's authority to offer
work-study allowances for student-veterans. The VFW has long supported
the VA work-study program and we would proudly support this initiative
to extend the program. The VFW also appreciates Chairman Sanders'
effort to extend the program for the offices of Members of Congress.
However, we believe that the draft bill should extend the authority to
June 30, 2018, to match the extension offered in H.R. 1453.
s. 922, veterans equipped for success act of 2013
The VFW understands Chairman Sanders' goal with this legislation,
but we have concerns over establishing two new government subsidy
programs to hire and train veterans. First, the VFW believes that a new
pilot program for on-the-job training (OJT) administered by Department
of Labor is duplicative to VA's OJT program--particularly for the
cohort of veterans 18-30 outlined in this legislation.
Veterans in this age demographic are already eligible to
participate in VA OJT using their earned GI Bill benefits. Such OJT
programs already have minimal bureaucratic hurdles for businesses to
meet, and even officials involved in veterans' education admit that OJT
is underutilized. Creating a new pilot program will only create
confusion and additional bureaucratic hurdles for both businesses and
veterans that wish to participate.
Next, the VFW is worried that government subsidies to hire young
veterans and veterans near retirement age sets a bad precedent for the
veterans' community. The VFW understands that these two groups of
veterans have faced significant disadvantages in a down economy.
However, we also believe that government subsidies will exacerbate
misconceptions that such veterans are ``charity cases'' in need of a
government hand-out for the opportunity to work.
Instead, the VFW has leaned heavily on resources that make the
business case for hiring veterans by demonstrating how veterans can
succeed in the workplace, such as recent reports from the Syracuse
University Institute on Veterans and Military Families and the Center
for a New American Security.
The VFW understands that these proposals are simply pilot programs,
but we believe such new programs would create further confusion for
veterans seeking to navigate the complex system of more than 18 Federal
programs focusing on career readiness for servicemembers, veterans and
dependents, as reported by the Government Accountability Office in
2012.
The VFW believes that the best way to ensure veterans find
meaningful careers is to focus on professional development and
credentialing while in uniform, bolstering transition services through
the military Transition Assistance Program, fostering information-
sharing across relevant Federal and state agencies when servicemembers
separate, improving access to existing veterans' employment and
training resources, and demonstrating to employers how veterans will
contribute to their workforce.
The VFW understands that Chairman Sanders is very concerned about
the high unemployment numbers facing our veterans. We thank the
Chairman for his leadership on this issue and we look forward to
helping move initiatives through this Committee that will make our most
at-risk unemployed veterans marketable in the civilian workplace.
s. 944, veterans' educational transition act of 2013
The VFW thanks Chairman Sanders and Ranking Member Burr for their
attention to this serious issue and for introducing legislation that
seeks to address this major financial burden for many of our recently-
separated student-veterans. However, the VFW prefers that S. 257, which
has a companion bill that has cleared committee in the House, serve as
the vehicle through which we offer our veterans reasonable in-state
tuition protections while using their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.
The VFW applauds this bill for including protections for military
dependents using transferred Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, since the
transience of military life often also precludes them from establishing
residency for tuition purposes. We also support limiting the scope of
the bill to cover students receiving GI Bill benefits. By adding this
caveat, we ensure that schools can reasonably comply with the in-state
tuition policy, since they can easily identify enrolled beneficiaries.
We hope to see these provisions in any in-state tuition package that
advances.
However, as drafted, this bill raises several major issues for the
VFW. First, the VFW opposes any proposition that would give the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs the discretion to waive compliance with
the in-state tuition protection. School systems will have two years to
come into compliance with the policy, meaning every state legislature
will have an opportunity to address any state-specific issues caused by
the change. The VFW believes that among the states that currently say
they cannot comply, many will simply wait out the two-year compliance
period and insist on an exemption from the Secretary. While the VFW
believes that noncompliance would create a public affairs nightmare for
these university systems, we can easily avoid this by insisting that
public university systems who receive GI Bill compensation must comply
with this reasonable protection for their student-veterans, as we
outlined in our testimony in support of S. 257.
Next, the VFW is concerned that much of the language in S. 944
could be subject to broad interpretation by states that would allow
them to quickly charge veterans as out-of-state students after the
first semester. Specifically, Section 2(a)(3) allows schools to require
veterans to ``demonstrate an intent to establish residency in the State
in which the institution is located.'' While this seems like a
reasonable accommodation, the VFW recognizes that many states preclude
students living in campus-owned properties from taking steps to
demonstrate residency because their housing is considered temporary. In
states where this is a factor, students are precluded from establishing
domicile, registering to vote, or even changing their driver's license.
The VFW can easily see a scenario where student-veterans who are forced
to live in campus housing would only receive one semester of in-state
tuition before the university deems them ineligible for failing to
demonstrate intent to establish residency. The VFW suggests either
striking this section or clarifying that a ``letter of intent'' would
prove sufficient for student-veterans who cannot take other legal steps
to establish residency.
Next, the VFW worries that language limiting service to 180
continuous days of active duty and two years post-separation excludes
many veterans eligible for and currently using Post-9/11 GI Bill
benefits. We recommend changing the date to 90 days to cover all
Chapter 33-eligible veterans and changing the delimiting date to cover
all years of eligibility for both Chapter 30 and Chapter 33 programs.
The VFW understands that the goal of the two-year delimiting date is to
offer reasonable accommodation to transitioning servicemembers who
cannot satisfy residency requirements due to military service. However,
the VFW is also concerned that veterans who currently attend under
Chapter 33 will not be covered by the two-year limit, and veterans who
experience any lapse in enrollment or who enroll part time will lose
their status as in-state for tuition purposes.
We understand that the Chairman and Ranking Member have put
significant effort into a comprehensive bill that will protect student-
veterans, but not place an unnecessary burden on school systems that
seek to serve them. However, the VFW is worried that this legislation
as drafted would still leave many student-veterans in a gray area,
offering too much flexibility to school systems with no intention to
comply.
We thank Chairman Sanders and Ranking Member Burr for their
leadership on this issue, and we look forward to working with all
stakeholders to ensure we can pass reasonable in-state tuition
protections for currently-enrolled GI Bill beneficiaries and future
student-veterans.
Additional Bills Under Consideration:
s. 6, putting our veterans back to work act of 2013
The VFW supports this bill, which offers additional employment
incentives and opportunities for recently-separated veterans like
extension of VRAP and additional protections for veterans from
employers who knowingly violate the Uniformed Servicemembers Employment
and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
s. 200
A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the
interment in national cemeteries under the control of the National
Cemetery Administration of individuals who served in combat supports of
the Armed Forces in the Kingdom of Laos between February 28, 1961 and
May 15, 1975, and for other purposes.
The VFW has no official position on this legislation.
s. 294, ruth moore act of 2013
The VFW strongly supports this legislation and believes that it is
long overdue. S. 294 would relax evidentiary standards for tying mental
health conditions to an assault, making it easier for Military Sexual
Assault (MST) survivors to receive VA benefits.
Current regulations put a disproportionate burden on the veteran to
produce evidence of MST--often years after the event and in an
environment which is often unfriendly--in order to prove service-
connection for mental health disorders.
With the extraordinarily high incidence of sexual trauma in the
military and the failure of many victims to report the trauma to
medical or police authorities, it is time Congress amends this
restrictive standard.
This legislation does that by providing equity to those suffering
from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, anxiety, depression and other
mental health diagnoses that are often related to MST. It puts MST in
line with VA's standard of proof provided to combat veterans who suffer
from PTSD.
This bill will allow those who have suffered from sexual violence
in the military to get the care and benefits they deserve. The VFW
urges Congress to pass this legislation quickly, but we are also
disappointed to see the House companion bill, H.R. 671, amended to only
``direct'' VA to improve its policies on Military Sexual Trauma (MST),
weakening the original intent of the bill.
s. 373, charlie morgan military spouses equal treatment act of 2013
The VFW has no official position on this legislation.
s. 430, veterans small business opportunity and protection act of 2013
The VFW support S. 430 and the similar language included as part of
Ranking Member Burr's S. 495. Survivors of veteran entrepreneurs must
have reasonable protections to continue doing business as if the entity
remained veteran-owned. The VFW has called on Congress to offer these
kinds of protections for survivors and we encourage the Senate to take
swift action on this either as stand-alone legislation or through
S. 495.
s. 515
A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the Yellow
Ribbon G.I. Education Enhancement Program to cover recipients of Marine
Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry scholarship, and for other purposes.
A current statutory loophole excludes eligible dependents of a
servicemember killed in action from enhanced tuition reimbursement
available through the Yellow Ribbon Program. This simple legislative
fix will provide Fry Scholarship recipients with the same benefits as
other Chapter 33-eligible beneficiaries. The VFW proudly supports this
bill and we encourage the Senate to quickly pass this legislation.
s. 572, veterans second amendment protection act
The VFW supports S. 572, which would provide a layer of protection
for veterans who might be seeking or undergoing mental health care for
service-related psychological disorders from losing their Second
Amendment right. Adding a provision that will require a finding through
the legal system that the veteran's condition causes a danger to him or
herself or others will prevent a veteran's name from being
automatically added to Federal no-sell lists.
s. 629, honor america's guard-reserve retirees act of 2013
The VFW strongly supports this legislation, which would give the
men and women who chose to serve our Nation in the Reserve component
the recognition that their service demands. Many who serve in the Guard
and Reserve are in positions that support the deployments of their
active duty comrades to make sure the unit is fully prepared when
called upon. Unfortunately, some of these men and women serve at least
20 years and are entitled to retirement pay, TRICARE, and other
benefits, but are not considered a veteran according to the letter of
the law. Passing this bill into law will grant Guard and Reserve
retirees the recognition their service to our country deserves.
Critics are concerned that this bill will allow Guard and Reserve
retirees to legitimize claims for other veterans' benefits like health
care or education moving forward. The VFW disagrees because such
retirees are already eligible to participate in military health care
programs after age 65; they are still entitled to file a disability
claim for injuries sustained during military duty; and they already
have access to VA education programs like the Montgomery GI Bill
Reserve Select or even the Post-9/11 GI Bill contingent on the nature
of their military service.
s. 674, accountability for veterans act of 2013
The VFW supports this bill, which will require other Federal
agencies to promptly respond to a Secretary of Veterans Affairs request
for information that will assist in adjudicating a VA claim for
benefits. VA is held under focused scrutiny for the slow processing of
claims for benefits. This bill will require agencies to provide VA with
requested information within 30 days or provide a rationale and an
estimated time of delivery. In passing this legislation, other agencies
can be held accountable for any delays that are caused by their slow
response for information required to adjudicate a claim.
s. 690, filipino veterans act of 2013
The VFW has no official position on this legislation.
s. 695, veterans paralympic act of 2013
The VFW believes that rehabilitation through sports fosters healthy
living, physical fitness, and a competitive spirit for our disabled
veterans, many of whom have suffered catastrophic injuries in the line
of duty. VFW Posts and Departments around the country consistently
support rehabilitative sports in their communities, which is why we are
proud to support extending VA's collaboration with United States
Paralympics, Inc. through 2018.
By supporting responsible rehabilitative sports initiatives like
those provided by the U.S. Paralympic Team, the VFW believes that
combat-wounded veterans will not simply overcome their injuries, but
also discover new personal strengths and abilities.
s. 705, war memorial protection act of 2013
The VFW has no official position on this legislation.
s. 735, survivor benefits improvement act of 2013
The VFW is happy to support Chairman Sander's bill to expand
Federal assistance to the nearly 350,000 surviving spouses and children
receiving benefits from VA. Extending supplemental Disability Indemnity
Compensation (DIC) payments to survivors with children from two years
to five years gives survivors reasonable time to adjust to what is
often a very difficult financial period in their lives.
By allowing those who remarry after age 55 to retain DIC,
healthcare, housing and educational assistance, this bill fulfills a
longstanding VFW goal to level the playing field for survivors of
fallen servicemembers and other survivors who receive Federal benefits.
Current law cancels benefits if a surviving spouse remarries before age
57.
The VFW also supports expanding spina bifida care to children whose
parents served during the Vietnam era, but would recommend striking
``exposure to herbicide agents'' and replacing it with ``service in
Thailand'' as the qualifier for benefits. We believe making this small
change will lessen the burden of proof and offer timely access to
health care, compensation and supportive services for affected
children.
Finally, the VFW supports creation of a pilot program to provide
grief counseling in retreat settings for surviving spouses. The retreat
setting offers a unique and therapeutic environment for peer-to-peer
support while helping to provide participants with the necessary tools
to manage grief and begin the healing process. VFW has heard positive
stories from a similar pilot program involving women veterans, and we
are happy to support the same goals for those who lost a loved one on
active duty.
s. 748, veterans pension protection act
The VFW supports the passage of S. 748. Current law allows VA
pension claimants to transfer assets to lower their net worth prior to
applying for pension benefits. Other means-tested assistance programs
have a ``look-back'' period that prevents a claimant from disposing of
assets below fair market value.
Because there is disparity between the programs, veterans who are
seeking pension benefits from VA can put themselves into a ``penalty
period,'' precluding them from receiving assistance from programs like
Medicaid for up to three years when applying for other assistance
programs. Since VA lacks a ``look-back,'' veterans are being solicited
by financial institutions that state they can shelter assets and assist
in successfully claiming VA pension. In many cases, these institutions
are charging large service fees and in some cases placing the veteran's
assets into annuities that cannot be accessed during their expected
lifetime without withdrawal fees.
GAO released a report in June 2012, outlining the need for VA to
adopt a ``look-back'' period when determining eligibility for VA's
need-based pension. This bill would provide for a three-year look back
and penalty period that could not exceed 36 months. In passing this
legislation, VA will protect veterans from falling victim to aggressive
marketing that can diminish their assets and prevent them from
receiving other finical assistance when they need it most.
s. 778
A bill to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to issue
cards to veterans that identify them as veterans, and for other
purposes.
The VFW opposes the passage of S. 778, a bill to authorize the
Secretary of VA to issue ID card to any veteran for use as validation
of veteran status. The VFW believes that states are better suited to
provide veterans with identification that verifies veteran status.
Forty-three states already provide or are in the process of providing a
``veteran'' designation on state-issued driver's licenses or state
issued non-driver's license ID cards. The infrastructure already exists
within each state's Department of Motor Vehicles to provide picture
identification to its citizens, whereas the VA would have to expand its
capability to accommodate the increase in veteran requests for an ID
card. The VFW encourages the remaining seven states to pass legislation
to provide for veterans status on their existing state-issued driver's
licenses and ID cards.
s. 819, veterans mental health treatment first act of 2013
The VFW does not support this legislation which would create a
program of mental health care and rehabilitation for veterans who are
diagnosed by a VA physician with service-related PTSD, depression or
anxiety. Those who comply with the treatment regimen of the program
would be paid a stipend during participation, not to exceed a total of
$11,000. Although the VFW appreciates the effort to offer a new
approach to solving the difficult problem of mental health
rehabilitation, we feel that this legislation contains serious flaws.
The VFW does not support the idea of asking veterans not to submit
applications for disability compensation while participating in the
program. Even with the payments for treatment that this bill would
provide, we cannot support legislation that will require veterans to
temporarily forgo any benefits to which they may be entitled. This is
especially true in the case of a veteran who would ultimately receive a
high rating for a mental health disorder, even after completing the
program. The total monetary value of the wellness stipend could
potentially be far less than that of an award of service-connected
disability compensation, harming the veteran financially.
s. 868, filipino veterans promise act
The VFW has no official position on this legislation.
s. 889, servicemembers' choice in transition act of 2013
The VFW recently testified in support of the House companion, H.R.
631, and we are proud to support Senator Boozman's bill. S. 889
reflects the changes recently passed by the House Veterans' Affairs
Committee, clarifying that Department of Defense (DOD) must deliver the
education component of the military Transition Assistance Program (TAP)
to all interested transitioning servicemembers.
The VFW has long served as a vocal advocate for student-veterans,
and we believe that TAP plays a critical role in ensuring that
transitioning servicemembers are academically and financially prepared
for college. The VFW has been generally satisfied with the newly-
developed education curriculum for TAP, but we are concerned that the
military had no plans to adequately deliver the training to those who
need it, since participation in individualized tracked curricula will
neither be mandatory, nor will sufficient staff be provided.
DOD has instead decided that servicemembers will need to meet
``career readiness standards'' in the track of their choice, including
education. To the VFW, this does not satisfy the VOW to Hire Heroes Act
mandate to deliver ``assistance in identifying employment and training
opportunities, help in obtaining such employment and training * * *''
in accordance with title 10, U.S.C., Sec. 1144 (a), since the goal of
veterans' education benefits is to train veterans to enter the job
market.
DOD insists that it is building a life cycle model for military
professional development that will include education goals, but the VFW
remains concerned that the new model will still fail to adequately
prepare servicemembers for civilian life. We prefer the model set forth
in S. 889, which acknowledges the finite timeframe services can
dedicate to preparing separating servicemembers for civilian life, but
also ensures potential student-veterans can make knowledgeable college
choices.
s. 893, veterans' compensation cost-of-living adjustment act of 2013
Disabled veterans, their surviving spouses and children depend on
their disability and dependency and indemnity compensation to bridge
the gap of lost earnings and savings that the veteran's disability has
caused. Each year, veterans wait anxiously to find out if they will
receive a cost-of-living adjustment. There is no automatic trigger that
increases these forms of compensation for veterans and their
dependents. Annually, veterans wait for a separate Act of Congress to
provide the same adjustment that is automatic to Social Security
beneficiaries.
The VFW supports this legislation that will bring parity to VA
disability and survivor recipients' compensation by providing a COLA
beginning December 1, 2013, so long as VA disability, pension and
survivor benefits continue to be calculated with the currently used
Consumer Price Index--W, and not change the calculations for these
adjustments to the Chained--Consumer Price Index.
s. 927, veterans' outreach act of 2013
The VFW often hears from veterans who are confused by the dearth of
information about veterans' benefits, veteran-specific services, and
community resources. Since 2001, thousands of new non-profit and
community organizations have popped up, seeking to meet the needs of
servicemembers, veterans and their families. Some provide tremendous
resources and services, like the Wounded Warrior Project, Student
Veterans of America, Fisher House, Team Rubicon, or Team Red White and
Blue. Others have rightfully come under fire from charity watchdogs for
seeking to exploit the good will of the American people.
Saturation of the marketplace and the availability of information
through online and social channels have left many veterans confused.
The VFW and our partners in the veterans' community have seen this
before and we proudly help any veteran who reaches out navigate this
complex system to the best of our ability. But we can't do it alone.
Chairman Sanders' bill would insist that the Federal Government
take a hard look at how it disseminates information about veteran-
specific services to the men and women who need it. It seeks to improve
coordination among Federal, state and community resources to ensure
that information can be delivered in a timely manner. The VFW believes
these efforts are long overdue and we are proud to support this
legislation, and continue our work with Federal, state and local
agencies who seek to inform veterans of the programs and services
designed to serve them.
s. 928, claims processing improvement act of 2013
The VFW generally supports the concept of this bill and we thank
Chairman Sanders for his attention to the VA disability claims backlog.
The current wait times to process VA disability claims remains woefully
insufficient, and the VFW has consistently testified for nearly 20
years that the disability claims backlog demands leadership and
decisive action.
We support many of the provisions in this bill, such as creating a
study group to evaluate how VA administers work credit for claims
processors, establishing a task force on training and retention for
raters, providing education and training for transitioning
servicemembers to assist in claims-processing, and streamlining how VA
acquires military records.
However, the VFW has several concerns about the current bill.
First, the VFW opposes reducing a veteran's appeal period from one year
to 180 days. To the VFW, this clerical change will not affect the
backlog, since rated claims are no longer considered pending. Instead,
this will only hurt veterans who wish to appeal their rating decisions,
and only further exacerbate VA bureaucratic hurdles when veterans seek
exemptions from the 180-day filing period.
Next, the VFW wants to clarify that when VA requests records from
the military, VA must summarize why they stop development after a
second attempt to acquire records.
Next, the VFW worries that formally adopting VA's 125-day backlog
goal, while ambitious, does not accurately reflect the steps required
for proper claim development in certain circumstances. We also believe
that is unnecessary to formally codify ``pending,'' since this is
already defined in VA regulations and introduces an unnecessary
redundancy in the code.
s. 930
A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to require the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in cases of overpayments of educational
assistance under Post-9/11 Educational Assistance, to deduct amounts
for repayment from the last months of educational assistance
entitlement, and for other purposes.
The VFW supports this bill, which would protect student-veterans
from facing significant financial hardships and allow a student veteran
to charge their individual overpayment to entitlement. A student-
veteran's enrollment status can change month to month by adding or
dropping units, or based on an institution's academic calendars. When
these payments change so frequently, lack of due process and poor
communication does not allow the veteran a reasonable path to
understand whether or not they have received an overpayment in a timely
manner.
The VFW understands that VA overpayments must be recouped in order
for benefit programs to work efficiently, but the VFW is also concerned
that debt collections for a benefit as complicated as the Post-9/11 GI
Bill can cause significant financial hardships for both veterans and
their schools. Organizations representing school certifying officials,
like the National Association of Veterans Program Administrators
(NAVPA), report that VA's assignment of debt collections to schools and
students, as well as erroneous offsets have been inconsistent across
the board.
By allowing VA to tack debts to the end term of a benefit, we offer
veterans the flexibility to continue attending without facing potential
financial hardships.
While the VFW supports this bill, we also recognize that this is
just a stop-gap measure to protect student-veterans, but does not
tackle the major issue through which schools and veterans report that
VA poorly communicates the results of an assigned overpayment from the
Regional Processing Office in a timely manner and can result in the
recoupment of other Federal funds from schools through the Treasury's
tax offset program which in turn may result in the school reassigning
the debt to the student and/or placing a veteran's credit in jeopardy.
Either way the student veteran's educational goals are in jeopardy. VA
must clarify its policies on debt collections. Debt notices must be
clear and both veterans and schools should be able to take quick steps
to resolve any outstanding debts. We look forward to working with the
Committee to resolve this issue in an equitable way that not only
protects veterans and schools, but also ensures VA can properly
administer its benefit programs in a responsible manner.
s. 932, putting veterans funding first act of 2013
The VFW is proud to support this bill, which is a companion to H.R.
813. In March, VFW Commander-in-Chief John Hamilton made the case for
why Congress needed to offer advance appropriations for all VA
programs. Advance appropriations would prevent disruptions or delays to
existing or proposed programs and services that occur when budgets are
not passed in a timely manner. As we have seen with Advance
Appropriations for VA's medical care accounts, when VA knows how much
funding they will receive, they can better plan and more responsibly
spend their annual budget. By including all accounts under Advance
Appropriations, building projects will not be halted, IT development
will not be delayed and essential services and staffing levels will not
be threatened by arbitrary cutbacks.
s. 935, quicker veterans benefits delivery act
The VFW supports the intent of this legislation, but we have
serious concerns with the bill as written. The VFW supports the
provision to mandate VA's acceptance of private medical evidence that
is competent, credible, probative, and otherwise adequate for purposes
of making a decision on a claim. However, we believe that the bill must
also clarify that VA must not order an additional exam for the veteran
unless VA has provided a thorough explanation as to why the private
medical evidence proved insufficient for establishing service
connection and determining a rating.
Next, the VFW understands and supports the goal of lowering the
threshold with which VA can deliver temporary disability ratings for
veterans, but we believe the concept in this bill requires further
development. The VFW believes that this bill would unintentionally
incentivize VA to deliver temporary disability ratings with no required
follow-up. The bill currently also exempts VA from considering claims
with a temporary rating as ``backlogged'' for the purposes of reporting
to Congress.
The VFW understands that the wait time for disability rating
decisions remains a national embarrassment that demands innovative
solutions. We thank Senator Franken for his attention to this issue and
his continued support of our veterans. Though we cannot support this
bill in its current form, we look forward to working with Senator
Franken to craft a bill that will best serve the needs of our disabled
veterans.
s. 938, franchise education for veterans act of 2013
The VFW is proud to support this bill, which will allow veterans to
tap into their earned education benefits for established professional
development programs offered by franchisors. The VFW has long held that
the GI Bill is a professional development tool designed to help
veterans secure the skills necessary to succeed in the marketplace.
Allowing veteran franchisees to use their earned education benefits for
legitimate industry training seems like a reasonable extension of non-
degree professional training already offered through the GI Bill.
However, the VFW must ensure that State Approving Agencies, which
already approve or disapprove on-the-job training and apprenticeship
programs for GI Bill eligibility, also have oversight in approval and
disapproval of franchise education programs to ensure training is
relevant and necessary for the success of the franchisee.
Veterans, by nature, are more entrepreneurial than their civilian
counterparts, and veterans who own franchises are more likely to
succeed than civilian franchisees. Considering both of these factors,
providing educational resources for veterans to operate their own
franchises is a reasonable way to not only encourage business ownership
among veterans, but also a way to foster success and build the economy
with proven leaders.
s. 939
A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to treat certain
misfiled documents as motions for reconsideration of decisions by the
Board of Veterans' Appeals, and for other purposes.
When a veteran seeks to appeal his or her rating decision with the
Board of Veterans' Appeals, paperwork must be filed with the board in a
timely manner. If the veteran fails to file within the designated time
period, their motion to reconsider will be dismissed by the board.
However, many times the paperwork is confusing and veterans will
mistakenly seek to file their motion to reconsider with the VA regional
office of original jurisdiction for the claim. When this happens, the
regional office must process the paperwork and forward it to the Board
within the allotted time or the veteran's motion will be dismissed. To
avoid this unreasonable burden on veterans who make a good faith effort
to file a motion for reconsideration before the deadline, the VFW
agrees that misfiled documents postmarked within the allotted time
should also be treated by the Board as a motion for reconsideration.
The VFW is proud to support this bill.
s. 1039, spouses of heroes education act:
The Marine Gunnery Sgt. John D. Fry Scholarship Program offers the
surviving children of fallen servicemembers the opportunity to earn a
quality education. This bill would expand Fry Scholarship opportunities
to surviving spouses and the VFW is proud to support this initiative.
Military spouses often must sacrifice careers of their own to support
the service obligations of their loved ones. By extending this kind of
educational opportunity to a surviving spouse, we demonstrate our
commitment to serving not only the servicemember, but also the one ones
they may leave behind.
s. 1042, veterans legal support act of 2013
While the VFW understands the intent of this bill, we cannot
support it as written. We have concerns about VA using funds from its
Medical Services accounts to fund higher education programs. The VFW
would prefer to see states that offer veterans treatment courts to work
with law schools to provide legal resources to veterans.
s. 1058, creating a reliable environment for veterans' dependents act
While VA has made considerable progress in mitigating the factors
that contribute to veteran homelessness, the problem continues to
disproportionately affect the veterans' community. Sadly, veterans of
the current conflicts are experiencing homelessness in different ways.
The VFW supports this legislation as an additional resource in the
fight to end homelessness among veterans. Recent statistics show that
the number of homeless women veterans and homeless veterans with
children are on the rise. Current VA programs do not provide adequate
services for veterans with dependent children, leaving many without
access to resources critical to finding and maintaining permanent
housing.
Senator Heller's and Senator Murray's legislation would allow those
who qualify as a grant recipient under Section 2011 of title 38, U.S.C.
to also receive funding to furnish care for a dependent of a homeless
veteran. By providing per diem payments for a dependent you will allow
the veteran time needed to begin receiving supportive services designed
to help them achieve stability, increase employment skills, and obtain
greater independence.
VFW believes this is a wonderful example of how to strengthen
partnerships within the community to help meet the goal of ending
homelessness by 2015, and we urge the Committee to pass this bill
quickly.
Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr and distinguished Members of
the Committee, this concludes my statement and I am happy to answer any
questions you may have.
Chairman Sanders. Well, let me begin by thanking you all
not only for your excellent testimony this morning but for your
years of service for veterans in this country.
What I have believed from day one when I assumed this
position is that we cannot be successful unless we fully
understand the problems and that we work with the service
organizations who represent millions of veterans to try to find
solutions for those problems. That is what we are going to do
and that is what we are going to continue to do.
So, we may not be able to do everything everybody wants but
I think, as I have heard this morning, you are aware that we
are working on a very ambitious set of legislation and we are
going to continue to do that.
We are holding a markup in about a month to go over some of
these issues. We will be continuing our progress into next
year. But, at the end of the day, I want to do my best with
this Committee to make sure that within our limited financial
resources, acknowledging that we cannot do everything we want
to do.
We have a long list of every one of the issues that are of
concern to the veterans community and do our best to address
them all, health care, benefits, et cetera.
Let me start off by touching on an issue that some of you
have touched on. I know you have gone on to other areas,
important areas, as well--education, et cetera--but, I want to
get back to the issue that we have perhaps heard most about in
the last year and that is the backlog of claims.
My question is very simple. Do you believe the VA is making
progress in addressing this very serious problem?
Mr. Hall, why do you not begin.
Mr. Hall. We believe that the VA is making progress, but we
simply cannot ascertain the amount of progress that they have
made because we have not been provided any type of milestone
data.
Chairman Sanders. As you know, that is exactly what we want
to be able to do.
Mr. de Planque.
Mr. de Planque. I would absolutely like to associate myself
with that. I am recalling the famous expression, ``in God we
trust, all others we verify.'' I mean I think there has been a
very strong good faith effort by the VA. I think they are
working very hard. We have had excellent discussions with some
of the people in this room. The dialog----
Chairman Sanders. Sorry to interrupt you. Do you feel you
have access to the VA? Have you been able to give your views
about where we should be going to the VA?
Mr. de Planque. Our staff has been able to communicate very
well generally with the VA. However, in terms of having bench
marks, milestones; are we meeting markers; what is the plan;
what is the plan if we are going to get down to this 125 days
and 98 percent accuracy.
If we are here, where do we need to be in 3 months from
now, where do we need to be 6 months from now, where do we need
to be a year from then? Those sorts of things we have not seen,
but in terms of when we have a question we try to raise it and
speak to the VA, it would be wrong to say that they are not
communicative. They have been very communicative and they have
tried to work with us.
The American Legion worked closely with VA and other groups
who have worked with them on the fully developed claims process
which has made an impact in processing time on some of the
claims.
So, there are definitely ways that they are communicating
with us. They are taking input. We would like to see more in
terms of putting out benchmarks showing that they are reaching
those markers and that some of the errors of the past are not
made.
Chairman Sanders. You know, that is exactly what our
legislation proposes to do.
Colonel Norton, are we making progress or not?
Colonel Norton. Yes, we are making progress. They are
making progress, Mr. Chairman, but we continue to point out
that the long pole in the tent is the electronic medical record
or the lack thereof. We still need that. It is not there yet.
I would point out in commenting on the VA panel earlier
that four out of every ten of initial claims that are coming
into the VA today are from members of the National Guard and
the Reserve.
In a recent hearing, General Hickey, in response to a
question from Senator Tester, pointed out that there were, in
her words, complications with getting National Guard and
Reserve records.
So, we would like more information about the so-called DOD
guarantee that by the end of this calendar year the records,
the medical records, will be certified complete and available
for adjudication.
We want to see that for the entire force, not just for the
active duty force because so many of our National Guard and
Reserve members, tens of thousands of them, have served two,
three, and even four tours of active duty. They deserve the
same speedy treatment as everybody else in the total force
team.
Chairman Sanders. How has your relationship been with the
VA? Are they listening to what you have to say?
Colonel Norton. Yes, they are listening. We have, I would
say, a very good relationship. There are regular meetings with
senior VA officials. They welcome us in. They listen to our
thoughts. They provide good information. We support the team
that is in place.
But we, too, join with our colleagues in wanting to see
specific measurements set out to meet production and quality
goals month to month as we move toward 2015.
Chairman Sanders. We agree with you.
Mr. Gallucci.
Mr. Gallucci. Thank you, Chairman Sanders.
The VFW agrees with our partner organizations here at the
table that the situation is improving. We also echo calls for
specific benchmarks for how VA intends to meet its 2015 goal.
Specifically, we also support improving the information
flow from the Department of Defense. One of our concerns was
the announcement from DOD that they are going to once again
solicit a new integrated health care record.
Our concern is also that they've guarantee to deliver
electronically by the end of the year certified complete health
care records. Our concern is if they deliver this
electronically is it in PDF format or is it in a format that VA
can easily read through its Vista system?
This seems to be a major problem for the military. I have
seen it with colleagues of mine who served in Iraq and
Afghanistan when their files go missing or when they cannot
acquire them from DOD in a timely manner.
Chairman Sanders. During your testimony, Mr. Gallucci, you
and others touched on the higher education problems that we are
having with tuition issues which I do not want to get into now.
We take what you have said seriously.
Let me move to employment, which is a big issue. The bottom
line, briefly, starting with Mr. Hall, what would you like to
see us do to make sure that we improve capabilities in terms of
getting jobs for returning servicemembers?
Mr. Hall. Well, I think there is a lot of pretty good
legislation that is geared at that and we would like to see
that, you know, continue in that way; but I think the one thing
that I would like to comment on specifically is the Transition
Assistance Program in the military because that is where it
starts. That would be the first leg of many steps that they
have to do.
Chairman Sanders. Are we making progress through that
program? Is it an improved program?
Mr. Hall. According to our transition service officers
there at military installations, there are improvements being
made but I think there is still a lot of work left to do in
that regard.
Chairman Sanders. Mr. de Planque.
Mr. de Planque. In terms of, is the transition program
better than the one I went through in 2005; it is head and
shoulders better.
Is there still room for improvement? Absolutely. But I
think that is an area that is being worked on and I think that
is something essential in terms of that hand off. I think that
is one of the reasons a lot of us have spoken about the GI Bill
and tuition and the fact that protection of the in-state
tuition rates goes away the second you step out of these
services. That is kind of critical and we have seen a lot of
examples with that.
Making more on-the-job training robust would be another
thing, you know, that we would like to see improvements toward.
I think that there are a lot of efforts toward that. I think
managing that transition handoff is very important, but also
not forgetting those servicemembers who transitioned 2 years
ago and are still looking for work.
You know, we have to find ways to double back and make sure
that we are not missing those people as they slip off of the
statistics because, obviously, the longer you stay unemployed
the more difficult it is to get back into the workforce.
It is a terribly difficult thing to go through and I know a
number of people who have gone through it, particularly people
who have served in the Guard and Reserve. We have talked about
the Guard and the Reserve and having to keep one foot in the
civilian world and one foot in the military world and
constantly get jerked back and forth between those two places.
It is difficult to find employers who are going to stick
with you through that. They are not going to say it up front
that they are not hiring you because they are not happy about
the possibility of losing an employee for a year but that
certainly exists out there, so we need to look into more of
those aspects, as well.
Chairman Sanders. Thanks.
Colonel Norton.
Colonel Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me preface my
comment on the employment situation by saying that we have had
in MOAA a very robust career transition services capability for
many, many years.
Last year, we conducted hundreds of workshops for all
grades, not just officers, around the country and we provided
counseling for about 10,000 military men and women.
One of the things we emphasize is that it is not just about
converting the military skill equally into some civilian skill.
It is also about acquiring broader skills that help you
transition into the civilian work force.
That is why we believe that your bill, S. 922, has
potential. We do believe that it would have to be closely
monitored. The pilot programs that are being set up certainly
offer a great opportunity for our young veterans and our older
veterans, as well, to gain or regain exposure and experience in
the civilian workplace.
It is a different environment all together than what they
have experienced on active duty. Many of these young men and
women enter the Armed Forces at age 18. They have never had
civilian work experience.
So, at the end of the day, it is about gaining a whole
range of civilian-related skills and exposure that will then
help to enable them to move forward.
We would like to see your bill used in conjunction with the
VOW to Hire Heroes Act and the GI Bill, in other words,
basically making it a work-study program. But we think you are
headed in the right direction on that legislation.
Chairman Sanders. Colonel, thank you very much.
Mr. Gallucci.
Mr. Gallucci. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There are a few points that we consistently hit on. We
touched on many of them in our testimony on ways to improve the
employment situation for veterans. One would be to extend and
improve the VRAP program.
As my colleague, Colonel Norton, said, improving it to open
access to 4-year institutions and also allowing eligible
veterans to use it for certain kinds of remediation.
We have heard a number of great success stories of veterans
who have taken advantage of VRAP but we have also heard stories
of veterans who have hit bumps in the road in accessing their
benefits.
An example that I used in my testimony was in Erie,
Pennsylvania, where the University of Pennsylvania, Erie
Campus, serves as a de facto community college. There are no
community colleges in the area so VRAP-eligible veterans are
fairly limited in the kinds of programs that they can access.
In addition to that, examining VA's on-the-job training and
apprenticeship program in addressing your bill, S. 922, we did
have some disagreement on the approach that it took.
Our main concern is the duplicity in a pilot program for
on-the-job training and apprenticeships with what already
exists at VA. But, that being said, it has come to our
attention that in States like your homestate, Vermont, there is
one person responsible for approving education programs who
also has the collateral duty of approving on-the-job training
and apprenticeship programs which means that their reach is
very limited. Their capacity to approve those programs is also
very limited so it does warrant looking at other options to
make sure that veterans have those kind of opportunities.
Next, I want to build on what my colleague Jeff said about
the Transition Assistance Program. It has certainly improved
but our main concern is access to those resources once a
servicemember has left active duty.
We know that the Committee managed to move a pilot program
to offer those resources to veterans after they leave the
military last session. But, we want to make sure when we are
talking about the transition GPS and the military life cycle of
transition that we also take into account that many
servicemembers do not know the kinds of problems they are going
to face until they physically leave the military. You cannot
anticipate all the challenges that you will face.
So, our recommendation to the Department of Defense, VA,
Labor, and the other relevant agencies has consistently been to
ensure that the veterans can access these resources whether it
is the TAP briefings or the TAP modules after service even if
it is through something as simple as the eBenefits portal.
Finally, ease of access to the tax credits and consistently
working to build a career-ready force as my colleague, Colonel
Norton, said in making sure that servicemembers can acquire
skills that will translate once they leave the military.
Chairman Sanders. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your
testimony and your response to the questions. I do not need you
to answer this publicly but as a favor I want you to be
thinking about if we are going to improve and expand existing
programs, we need money to do that; and one of the ways that I
hope to find funds is I need your help in telling us what
programs, in your judgment, are no longer working at the VA, no
longer efficient.
I need your help basically to tell us where there is waste.
We are looking at a budget of almost $150 billion. Not every
nickel there is spent as effectively as it can be.
So as the world changes, we want the VA to change and
become more efficient but I need your help to identify those
areas as well. OK?
Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here today.
This meeting is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Johnny Isakson,
U.S. Senator from Georgia
I would like to thank Chairman Sanders and Ranking Member Burr for
holding this hearing on pending benefits legislation. I remain
committed to ensuring that the United States lives up to the promises
we have made to our Nation's service men and women. The members of the
Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee and other colleagues have worked
diligently to address the needs of veterans from all eras, and I look
forward to marking up these bills in the near future.
Of course, when we talk about veterans' benefits we must make sure
that they are delivered in a timely manner to the veterans and their
families. I continue to have concerns regarding the VA disability
claims backlog, and I think the current situation is inexcusable. I
will work with my colleagues on the Committee to ensure that any claim
submitted is decided in a timely and accurate manner.
I would like to highlight a few bills that I have cosponsored and
think will help address some of the needs veterans have.
I would like to thank Chairman Sanders for introducing S. 893, the
Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013. As
compensation payments are based on the Consumer Price Index and
historically tied to adjustments made to Social Security, I am proud to
cosponsor this bill, which ensures veterans will receive a cost-of-
living adjustment, too. I believe it is important that veterans are
given proper compensation for the sacrifices made in service to our
country, and am glad all of the Committee members have shown a similar
commitment.
Next, I am an original cosponsor of S. 495, the Careers for
Veterans Act of 2013, introduced by Ranking Member Burr. I believe we
must enable servicemembers to translate the valuable skills they honed
during their military service into successful civilian careers. It is
important that the Federal Government be a model employer of veterans,
and this bill requires that Federal agencies use the Veterans
Recruitment Appointment authority to hire no fewer than 10,000 veterans
into existing vacancies. The VA and the Department of Defense already
use VRA extensively, and I think the rest of the Federal Government
could benefit from it as well. This bill also enables veterans to use
their military training to acquire credentials and licenses
administered by the states. It requires states to develop examinations
for the credentials and licenses for veterans to take without
additional training or apprenticeships if they meet certain criteria. I
believe that this bill will help veterans use their skills as
effectively in the civilian workforce as they did during their military
service.
I am happy to continue my support of the disabled veterans training
or competing for the U.S. Paralympic Team. There are four grantees in
the state of Georgia doing good work for disabled veterans. I am happy
to cosponsor this bill and thank Senator Boozman and Senator Begich for
introducing the bill this Congress.
Finally, I am an original cosponsor of S. 705, the War Memorial
Protection Act of 2013. Our military has always fought to protect the
rights enshrined in Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including the
freedom to express religious beliefs. This bill would ensure that
religious symbols, regardless of affiliation, are allowed to be part of
military memorials that commemorate those who served or paid the
ultimate price in service to their country.
______
Prepared Statement by Hon. Mazie K. Hirono, U.S. Senator from Hawaii
Thank you Chairman Sanders for your remarks.
Today we will be considering a number of bills related to veterans'
benefits. Our Nation's veterans answered the call to duty and served
and sacrificed in defense of liberty and freedom. Support for
servicemembers and their families, whether on active duty, during the
transition back home, or as they settle into civilian life as veterans,
is our country's responsibility.
While I have cosponsored a number of bills before the Committee
today aimed to help fulfill our obligation to our Nation's veterans, I
would like to focus on legislation related to Filipino World War II
Veterans.
I want to associate myself with the testimony of my colleague from
Hawaii, Senator Schatz, in support of S. 690, the Filipino Veterans
Fairness Act.
Filipino veterans, many of whom live in Hawaii, are those that
answered the call of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and served
honorably alongside our Armed Forces during World War II. They fought
shoulder to shoulder with American servicemen; they sacrificed for the
same just cause.
President Roosevelt made a promise to provide full veterans'
benefits to those who served with our troops but Congress denied these
rights in passing the 1946 Rescission Act. And while we have made
appreciable progress, we have not yet achieved the full equity that
Filipino veterans deserve.
S. 690 would deem service in the organized military forces of the
Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the Philippine
Scouts to have been active service for purposes of benefits under
programs administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
I want to thank the Military Officers Association of America for
their support and urge my colleagues to support S. 690.
I recognize the concerns voiced by the VA and others on this bill
and want to state that as a policymaker I think we should consider
multiple proposals and ways to provide equity to these veterans.
I also wish to speak in support of S. 868, the Filipino Veterans
Promise Act, I cosponsored with Sen. Heller which seeks to resolve
issues surrounding the implementation of the Filipino Veterans Equity
Compensation Fund.
The bill would establish a process to determine whether individuals
claiming certain service in the Philippines during World War II are
eligible for compensation from the fund despite not being on the
National Personnel Records Center list used by the VA.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 established the
Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation (FVEC) Fund that provides a one-
time benefit payment to eligible Filipino World War II veterans.
Over 45,000 claims were received and processed. While more than
18,000 claims have been approved, over 24,000 were denied and around
4,500 denied claims have been appealed.
To determine the Filipino veterans eligible for FVEC payment, the
Department of the Army relies on an official Guerrilla list that was
created in 1948 in the immediate post-war period.
However, many possible inaccuracies in the official Guerrilla list,
which is maintained and searched by the National Archives' National
Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in St. Louis, Missouri, have been
identified. The NPRC has noted name variation issues and the existence
of other U.S. records verifying service in addition to the Guerilla
list. This has resulted in the reversal of denial decisions by the VA.
In light of evidence that the current process needs improvement and
that these Filipino veterans are now in the 80s and 90s, the urgency to
resolve this issue cannot be emphasized enough.
I look forward to working with the Committee, Secretary Shinseki,
and Secretary Hagel on this issue and urge my colleagues support these
bills.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senator from Nevada
Mr. Chairman, For over a decade, we have sent men and women into
battle. After two wars, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars,
tens of thousands have come back wounded, and 6,709 servicemembers have
paid the ultimate price. Moreover, as our Nation's heroes transition
into civilian life, they are increasingly faced with a new battle--
trying to find a job.
Unemployment is an issue facing all Americans, especially in
Nevada, but veteran unemployment numbers are routinely higher than the
national average. In fact, as of March 2013, roughly 783,000 veterans
were unemployed and looking for work, including 207,000 post-9/11
veterans. For me, this is simply shameful. Our servicemembers who are
currently fighting to protect the freedoms we all enjoy should be
focused on the task at hand, not worried about what they will do when
they come home. And those who have already left the military should be
able to put the skills and experience they have developed in the most
highly trained military in the world to use.
To combat this problem, I introduced one of the first pieces of
legislation during the 113th Congress: the Putting our Veterans Back to
Work Act of 2013 (S. 6). Whether by equipping veterans with the skills
they need to succeed in today's workforce or helping them get their own
small businesses off the ground, this bill honors the sacrifice of the
men and women who served in our Armed Forces and builds upon the great
work the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee has undertaken in the past
several years to help veterans find jobs.
Specifically, this legislation reauthorizes the transition,
retraining, and employment services created by the VOW to Hire Heroes
Act. It also further enhances the VOW to Hire Heroes Act by creating a
new, unified, online employment portal for veterans seeking information
regarding Federal employment and jobs training resources; provides
grants to first-responders for hiring and re-hiring needs; and directs
agency heads to favorably consider contractors that employ a
significant number of veterans for contracts of $25 million.
S. 6 is also instrumental in strengthening our vow to protect
employment rights for all veterans. This legislation enables the
Attorney General to investigate and file suit against a pattern or
practice of Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act
(USERRA) violations by a state or private employers; allows Federal
agencies to suspend and debar Federal contractors who repeatedly
violate the employment and reemployment rights of members of the Armed
Services; and provides the Special Counsel with authority to subpoena
attendance, testimony, and documents from Federal employees and
agencies in order to carry out investigations related to USERRA.
Finally, this legislation helps veteran small business owners. S. 6
codifies the Patriot Express Loan Program into law. This program has
been an invaluable resource for small businesses owned by veterans,
servicemembers, and their families by providing loans of up to
$500,000. This legislation also raises the Small Business
Administration Surety Bond Cap to $5 million, enabling many veteran-
owned small businesses to compete for larger contracts.
I appreciate Chairman Sanders and the Veterans' Affairs Committee
for taking the time to consider this valuable piece of legislation that
is so badly needed. Putting veterans back to work is a key priority for
Senate Leadership during the 113th Congress, and moving forward, you
can count on my support in working with the Veterans' Affairs Committee
to ensure that our Nation's commitment to veterans does not end with
their tours of duty.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. G.K. Butterfield,
U.S. Representative from North Carolina
Chairman Sanders and Ranking Member Burr, Thank you for the
opportunity to submit written testimony to your committee. I regret
that I was unable to testify in person.
I urge the Committee to support S. 262, the Veterans Education
Equity Act of 2013, introduced by Senator Dick Durbin (IL). I
introduced identical legislation in the House of Representatives in the
112th and 113th Congresses. The Veterans Education Equity Act seeks to
equalize veterans' tuition and fee benefits under the Post-9/11 G.I.
Bill by resolving an inequity in the existing law that unintentionally
allots more education funds to veterans enrolled in private colleges
than those in public institutions. Last Congress, the House Veterans'
Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity held a legislative hearing
on an identical version of the Veterans Education Equity Act.
Enacted in January 2011, the Post-9/11 Veterans' Educational
Improvements Assistance Act caps the amount of education benefits for
veterans enrolled in private colleges at $18,077.50, and limits the
education benefit for veterans who attend public colleges to the amount
charged for in-state tuition and fees. This law unintentionally burdens
a significant number of American veterans, requiring them to pay
thousands of dollars out-of-pocket in non-resident tuition and fees. In
certain states, this can add up to more than $100,000 in costs, which
has resulted in veterans dropping out of college, transferring to
another school, or assuming significant student debt. The Veterans
Education Equity Act is essential to more than 20,000 veterans who are
paying for school out-of-pocket although they were promised full
funding for their college education.
The table below illustrates how S. 262 would improve current law by
showing its impact on Post-9/11 G.I. Bill education aid available to
veterans at four institutions in North Carolina:
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
At Elizabeth City State University (ECSU), in-state tuition and
fees are $2,776 per year and out-of-state tuition and fees are $13,633.
Under current law, a veteran with North Carolina residency attending
ECSU would have his full tuition covered. A veteran who is not a
resident of North Carolina would be charged $13,633 but only receive
$2,776 in education benefits, so he would owe $10,857 out-of-pocket.
However, if that veteran chose to attend Chowan University which costs
$11,405, his education benefits would cover full tuition and fees. The
Veterans Education Equity Act would equalize benefits for veterans who
choose to attend public or private institutions.
Last year there were 516 veterans at University of North Carolina
institutions and 667 veterans in North Carolina Community Colleges who
would be immediately impacted should this bill become law. In my
District, Air Force veteran Edward Bailey, who attended East Carolina
University (ECU), faced $6,000 in charges before classes began in fall
2011 after the Post-9/11 Veterans' Educational Improvements Assistance
Act became law. He was forced to take out a $5,000 loan and borrow
$1,000 from friends to stay in school. In his final year of school, he
was forced to pay for $30,000 in tuition and fees. Marine Corps veteran
Nan Lopata, who also attended ECU, received G.I. benefits to cover full
tuition and fees for her first semester in spring 2011, only to face
$6,800 in charges before her second semester in fall 2011. She was
unable to afford to continue as a full-time student, delaying her
graduation. But worse, she must shoulder her misfortune without relief
because the United States did not honor their commitment to her. Two
other students attending ECU--James and Mary Murtha--received full
tuition G.I. benefits for their first three academic years before
receiving bills in fall 2011 totaling $38,000 to complete their senior
years. Their father, active duty Marine Corps Colonel Brian Murtha, was
forced to withdraw $36,000 from his retirement funds. We owe it to
veterans and their families to protect the benefits they were promised
when they joined our military.
I am concerned that the alternative legislative approach being
considered in this hearing, S. 257, would create unintended
consequences that could negatively impact veterans and our higher
education system. The bill would require every public institution, as a
condition of participating in the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill program, to
charge every veteran no more than the in-state rate. In the vast
majority of states, public institutions do not have the authority to
grant in-state tuition rates to out-of-state veterans--those decisions
are a matter of state law controlled entirely by the state legislature.
If a state legislature is unable or unwilling to make the changes
called for in this bill, all veterans would be prohibited from using
their Post-9/11 G.I. Bill benefits to attend that state's public
institutions. While I appreciate and share the goals of the bills'
sponsors, the legislation would allow an inappropriate level of Federal
intrusion and would result in significant harm to veterans' ability to
attend public institutions of their choosing. In my home state of North
Carolina, there are many outstanding public institutions such as North
Carolina Central University, East Carolina University, and Elizabeth
City State University; to name a few, that are providing veterans with
an excellent education and important support programs and services.
S. 257 is an unfunded mandate which sets a dangerous precedent by
shifting responsibility for veterans' benefits from the United States
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to the states. The bill is
significantly more expensive to taxpayers than the Veterans Education
Equity Act which focuses specifically on correcting the inequity in
current law for the 20,000 veterans who are impacted. The actual cost
and impact of S. 257 is uncertain and warrants further investigation.
In fact, in an April House subcommittee hearing on identical companion
legislation, VA Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity Curtis
L. Coy testified, ``VA cannot offer support for this legislation
because of its uncertain impact on the availability of educational
choices for Veterans, Servicemembers, or their dependents.'' I strongly
agree with Mr. Coy's assessment: S. 257 should not move forward until
such time as the Committee can assure itself that the bill will not
result in unintended and negative consequences for veterans.
We owe our veterans every opportunity to get a quality education
and enter the workforce with the tools needed to compete. Our broad
coalition including 45 cosponsors and seven higher education groups
urge the Committee to consider the positive impacts this legislation
will have for our Nation's veterans. If we do not correct this problem,
up to 20,000 veterans could face paying as much as $100,000 in out-of-
pocket tuition costs in a tough economy, and at a time when 9.2 percent
of veterans are unemployed. Let's treat all of our veterans fairly by
passing the Veterans' Education Equity Act out of committee and helping
it become law.
Enclosure from the American Association of State Colleges and
Universities follows.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Prepared Statement of Dr. Muriel A. Howard, President, American
Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU)
Thank you Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, and other
distinguished Senators for affording me this opportunity to submit
testimony on the role of AASCU institutions in providing affordable
access to higher education for our veterans; I commend the Committee
for exploring this topic. My name is Dr. Muriel Howard and I have the
honor of serving as the president of the American Association of State
Colleges and Universities (AASCU). Now in its 51st year, AASCU is a
national leadership association consisting of over 400 presidents,
chancellors and system heads of public four-year colleges and
universities. The group is diverse in its membership, ranging from
small, liberal arts institutions enrolling a few hundred students to
research-intensive universities that enroll tens of thousands of
students.
AASCU will be providing written testimony on two bills before the
Committee: S. 257, the proposed ``GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act of
2013,'' and S. 262, the proposed ``Veterans Education Equity Act of
2013.'' Both bills would essentially provide in-state tuition rates for
our veterans, something AASCU as an organization strongly supports.
However, we have significant concerns about the mechanism used in
S. 257 that would shift the cost burden for Post-9/11 GI Bill Benefits
from the Federal Government to the states. Since many institutions of
higher education do not have independent tuition-setting authority, 40
state legislatures would need to change state laws in order to comply
with the bill. Many states have enacted minimum residency requirements
that students must meet to be eligible for in-state tuition rates. For
example, in the District of Columbia, to receive the in-state tuition
rate, a veteran must reside in the District for a full year to become
eligible. We have concerns regarding the practicality of having
multiple states change their laws regarding in-state tuition for
veterans in a short period of time. Thus, we conclude that S. 262
includes language that is a preferred method for providing in-state
tuition. The procedure in S. 262 would avoid confusing our veterans and
not put additional stress on overburdened state budgets still
recovering from a recession.
s. 262--the veterans education equity act
In short, The Veterans Education Equity Act addresses the
unintentional harm to veterans enrolled as out-of-state students at
public institutions of higher education resulting from the passage of
the Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act, Public Law 111-
377. After passage of the 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of
2008, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) began the unenviable task
of implementing the legislation in a very short period of time. The VA
established a tuition and fee payment schedule for each state in order
to do so. In creating this structure, the VA separately determined the
highest amount in tuition and in required fees charged to a student
attending a public institution, rather than combining tuition and
required fees into one amount as is the standard practice in higher
education billing procedures. This structure resulted in veterans
attending public institutions having all or nearly all of their tuition
and fee charges paid via their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits regardless of
whether they were considered an in-state or out-of-state student.
The major focus of Public Law 111-377 was to revamp the tuition and
fee structure first established by the VA. The legislation established
two criteria: those veterans attending public institutions would
receive benefits equal to in-state tuition and fee charges, while
veterans attending private institutions would receive the lesser of
$18,000 or their actual charges for tuition and fees. Congress, when
drafting this legislation, thus created an inequity considerably
reducing benefits for those veterans attending public institutions
located outside of their home state. The benefit for in-state tuition
and fee charges is worth, on average, about $8,655 per year and does
not pay the full tuition and fee costs at public institutions located
outside a veteran's home state. Out-of-state tuition and fees at public
four-year institutions averaged $21,706 in 2012-13 (College Board
Trends in Pricing, 2012, p. 3). On the contrary, if one of our veterans
chooses to attend an out-of-state private institution, he or she will
automatically qualify for up to $18,000 per year. Simply put, a veteran
who chooses to attend a public institution is entitled to, on average,
less than half of the benefit of a veteran who chooses to attend a
private institution. S. 262 would remedy this inequity.
AASCU supports S. 262 as the preferred method to provide in-state
tuition for our veterans. We believe that this bill would not shift
additional cost burdens on institutions and states along with providing
what amounts to in-state tuition by leveling off the payment disparity
between public and private colleges. Finally, this bill would avoid
creating additional confusion for our veterans. Forty states would not
need to update state laws in order to be eligible to receive benefits
from the Federal Government.
s. 257--the gi bill tuition fairness act
S. 257 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to deny GI
Bill benefits to veterans who are not charged in-state tuition rates.
Moreover, this bill would not allow any veteran or their dependents
enrolled at a public institution to receive GI Bill benefits if that
institution does not offer in-state tuition to all veterans. As stated
previously, AASCU strongly supports offering in-state tuition rates to
veterans. However, we are concerned that this bill could create more
problems than it actually solves.
S. 257, as currently written, would require institutions to
convince state legislatures to alter their tuition laws on a state-by-
state basis. Currently only 10 states provide in-state tuition to
veterans regardless of their state of legal residence. We do not think
it is realistic to expect 40 states to substantially amend their state
tuition laws prior to August 1, 2014.
It is important to remember that the majority of public colleges
and universities in the United States do not set their individual
tuition or control the state policies governing tuition. Postsecondary
tuition policy in the remaining 40 states is set by state legislatures,
a statewide coordinating board, or other state entities with authority
to set tuition for institutions. In addition, many states have
established clear criteria for who is eligible to receive in-state
tuition benefits. Currently, only 10 States offer in-state tuition to
qualified veterans immediately after they move into the state. Thus,
state legislatures would ultimately be required to change the residency
treatment of veterans. This is a potentially difficult obstacle in many
states.
Given the complexity of tuition-setting policies across 40 states,
it is quite likely that institutions will not be legally permitted to
charge in-state rates regardless of their desire to serve veterans.
Veterans seeking to enroll in public institutions in those states would
need to find other, more than likely costlier, programs in order to
utilize their GI Bill benefits. Veterans would be forced to either move
to a state that offered in-state tuition, go to a more expensive
private nonprofit institution, attend a for-profit college or abandon
their plans to attend college.
This will create a scenario of confusion since many veterans arrive
on campus with the full expectation of receiving their GI Bill benefit.
Public institutions would be forced to inform veterans that they would
not be eligible to use those benefits in states where in-state tuition
has not been specifically approved for veterans. Further, no new
additional veterans, whether designated in-state or out-of-state
residents, would be permitted to use their GI Bill benefits in the
state. Thus, AASCU envisions further confusion which could potentially
discourage veterans from pursuing any postsecondary education as well
as creating a negative atmosphere toward veteran-friendly public
institutions that are legally bound by the laws of the states in which
they are located.
Veterans usually decide to remain in local communities after the
end of a tour of duty in a specific location where they may not be
considered state residents for a variety of reasons including their
minor children being already established in local K-12 schools
(particularly those minor children with special needs), their spouses'
employment, their family's integration into the local community, their
caregiving responsibilities for other family members, and so forth. If
they are located in a state that is unable or has yet to alter
residency treatment for veterans, significant disruption to the family
unit could occur. A veteran would explore options at a campus, not be
able to use their GI Bill benefits there, and be forced to move to a
state offering in-state tuition in order to receive their benefits.
Passage of this measure would create a hodge-podge of eligible and
ineligible states.
Further, we ask if the Committee has considered the treatment of a
veteran who is forced to move to another state as a result of family
obligations such as caring for an ill or aging parent? If a veteran is
attending classes at an institution within a state that has automatic
in-state tuition eligibility for veterans, but moves to one that does
not in order to satisfy family obligations such as caregiving, the
veteran, through no fault of his or her own, will no longer be eligible
to use GI Bill benefits in order to complete coursework.
It may also be instructive for the Committee to understand the
nature of in-state versus out-of-state tuition and fee rates. One way
of looking at an established out-of-state rate is to consider it as the
full cost to the institution of educating a student. Since public
institutions receive support from the state in order to provide its
residents with an education--a priority of the state--the in-state
tuition and fee rate reflects the cost to the institution after
factoring in the state subsidy. Thus, an in-state rate is supported by
state taxpayers. Out-of-state surcharges, therefore, are an attempt for
the state to recoup the costs of educating those students whose
education has not been supported by state taxpayers. Passage of this
bill would shift paying for veterans' education--established under the
original post-World War II GI Bill and all its successive iterations as
a Federal Government obligation--to the states, but only for veterans
attending public institutions.
This inequitable treatment would punish public institutions--and
only public institutions for the legal inability to set their own
tuition and fees. It would not affect private non- and for-profit
institutions that charged, on average respectively, $29,056 and $15,172
for tuition and fees in 2012-13 (College Board Trends in Pricing, 2012,
p. 10). Thus, it would end up costing veterans--and public
institutions, that educate the majority of Americans--rather than
helping them. Therefore, AASCU does not support the punitive aspects of
S. 257.
______
Prepared Statement of Max Cleland, Secretary, American Battle Monuments
Commission
s. 705--war memorial protection act of 2013
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the
invitation to submit written testimony on S. 705, the ``War Memorial
Protection Act of 2013.''
The American Battle Monuments Commission believes its existing
statutory framework provides the Commission with sufficient authority
to execute its mission. Accordingly, we would not expect S. 705 to have
any impact on Commission authorities or operations.
______
Letter from American Coalition for Filipino Veterans, Inc.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of Laura W. Murphy, Director; Vania Leveille, Senior
Legislative Counsel; and Elayne Weiss, Legislative Assistant,
Washington Legislative Office, American Civil Liberties Union
On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its more
than a half million members, countless additional supporters and
activists, and 53 affiliates nationwide, we commend the Senate
Veterans' Affairs Committee for bringing attention to the problems
survivors of military sexual trauma face when applying for disability
benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
For decades, the ACLU has worked not only to end discriminatory
treatment within our military,\1\ but also to prevent and respond to
gender-based violence and harassment in the workplace and to ensure
women's full equality. The ACLU also works to hold governments,
employers and other institutional actors accountable so as to ensure
that women and men can lead lives free from violence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Most recently, In November 2012, the ACLU initiated a lawsuit,
on behalf of the Service Women Action Network and other plaintiffs,
against the Department of Defense challenging the ground combat
exclusion. Over the years, we have also successfully challenged
military recruitment standards and military academy admissions policies
that discriminated against women; fought for servicewomen to receive
the same military benefits as their male counterparts; and defended the
rights of pregnant servicewomen; and advocated for servicewomen's
access to reproductive health care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the last several years, Congress, the Department of Defense
and the VA have grappled with the scourge of sexual harassment, sexual
assault and rape within the military. Although a variety of proposals
have been implemented and some progress has been made to prevent and
respond to sexual assault, sexual harassment and rape in the military,
the problem is deeply-rooted and persists. More than 3,300 reports of
sexual assault were made in FY 2012,\2\ but we know that the incidence
of sexual assault is significantly underreported. The Pentagon
estimated that 26,000 incidents of sexual assault occurred in 2012
alone,\3\ and that one in three women serving in the military has been
sexually assaulted.\4\ While such statistics alone are alarming, the
problem of military sexual assault is compounded by the fact that
servicemembers who leave the service find that the trauma they
experienced as a result of sexual assault is not adequately recognized
by the VA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Department of Defense, Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the
Military: Fiscal Year 2012, Volume I, 3 (2013), available at http://
www.sapr.mil/media/pdf/reports/FY12_DOD_
SAPRO_Annual_Report_on_Sexual_Assault-VOLUME_ONE.pdf.
\3\ Id. at 25.
\4\ James Risen, Military Has Not Solved Problem of Sexual Assault,
Women Say, N.Y. Times, Nov. 2, 2012 at A15, available at http://
www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/us/women-in-air-force-say-sexual-misconduct-
still-rampant.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ACLU supports the Ruth Moore Act of 2013 (S. 294), which would
remove current barriers that far too often prove insurmountable for
sexual assault survivors who apply for disability compensation for Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and other mental health conditions.
Congress should act quickly to enact this legislation.
i. congressional action is needed to ease the evidentiary burden of
proof survivors of sexual assault must meet when seeking disability
benefits.
Veterans who were sexually assaulted during their service in our
Armed Forces, and who now seek disability benefits, for conditions such
as PTSD and depression, face enormous barriers. Data obtained through a
FOIA lawsuit, filed in 2010 by the ACLU and the Service Women's Action
Network (SWAN) against the VA and the Department of Defense, shows that
only 32 percent of PTSD disability claims based on military sexual
trauma were approved by the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA),
compared to an approval rate of 54 percent of all other PTSD claims
from 2008-2010. Moreover, of those sexual assault survivors who were
approved for benefits, women were more likely to receive a lower
disability rating than men, therefore qualifying for less compensation.
Despite the disparity in approved claims uncovered by the FOIA
lawsuit, the VA has indicated that it is unwilling to amend 38 CFR
Sec. 3.304(f), the current regulation governing the claims process for
PTSD.\5\ In 2011, the VA issued a ``fast letter'' to all VA Regional
Offices (VAROs) reiterating the current policy while also emphasizing
that the regulation should be interpreted liberally to give a veteran's
claim the benefit of the doubt.\6\ The letter provided further guidance
for what secondary markers--evidentiary signs, events or
circumstances--a claims officer should seek out and review in
determining the validity of a disability claim. While we commend the VA
for providing such guidance, it fails to address the problem. Although
the VA specifically ``developed regulations and procedures that provide
for a liberal approach to evidentiary development and adjudication of
[ ] claims,'' \7\ the subjective nature of the current policy actually
works against survivors of sexual assault.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See Invisible Wounds: Examining the Disability Compensation
Benefits Process for Victims of Military Sexual Trauma: Hearing Before
the Subcomm. on Disability Assistance & Mem'l Affairs of the H. Comm.
on Veterans' Affairs, 112th Cong. (2012) (statement of Anu Bhagwati,
Executive Director, Service Women's Action Network).
\6\ See Training Letter 11-05 from Thomas J. Murphy, Director,
Compensation & Pension Services, to all VA Regional Offices (Dec. 2,
2011).
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The VA's regulations explicitly treat veterans who suffer from PTSD
based on sexual trauma differently from all other PTSD claims,
including those related to combat and hostile military activity. Even
when a veteran can establish a diagnosis of PTSD and his or her mental
health provider connects PTSD to sexual assault during service, the VA
``is not required to accept doctors' opinions that the alleged PTSD had
its origins'' \8\ in the claimant's military service. The VA reasoned
that while such a diagnosis may constitute credible evidence, it is not
always probative.\9\ As a result, the VA requires additional evidence,
such as records from law enforcement authorities, hospitals, or mental
health facilities, that generally does not exist. As the Department of
Defense itself acknowledges, the vast majority of servicemembers who
are assaulted do not report that assault because of the retaliation
they are likely to face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Godfrey v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 113, 121 (1995).
\9\ Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Claims Based on Personal
Attacks, 67 Fed. Reg. 10330 (Mar. 7, 2002) (codified in 38 CFR pt. 3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another problem faced by veterans is that until recently, the
Department of Defense retained restricted reports of sexual assault for
only 5 years; after that time the records were destroyed.\10\ On
average, a veteran who was assaulted waits 15 years after leaving the
service to file a disability claim with the VA.\11\ Because of this
delay and the Pentagon's former record retention policy, veterans who
were sexually assaulted are effectively cutoff from accessing critical
evidence substantiating their disability claim to the VA. Likewise, as
more time passes before a veteran seeks disability benefits, the harder
it becomes for that individual to later prove a claim of sexual assault
through secondary markers, such as statements from fellow
servicemembers or deterioration in work performance. People move away,
while documents are lost or discarded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2013 changed
this policy so that now DOD must retain these documents for 50 years,
but only at the request of the servicemember. Pub. L. No. 112-239,
Sec. 577, 126 Stat. 1632, 1762.
\11\ Dep't of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Initiative:
Military Sexual Trauma 58 (2004), available at http://
www.publichealth.va.gov/docs/vhi/military_sexual_trauma.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even when a veteran is able to present evidence to a claims
examiner, whether the claim is approved is ultimately determined by a
subjective standard that differs from examiner to examiner leading to
inconsistent outcomes.\12\ Moreover, VAROs have seen high workforce
turnover and the time period over which new employees receive training
on adjudicating claims has been significantly reduced from one year to
just eight weeks.\13\ As the VA grapples with the overwhelming number
of outstanding benefits claims, which now total almost 900,000,\14\
unprepared and overburdened employees may not have the time or the
skill set needed to properly investigate and adjudicate complex sexual
assault disability claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ A study commissioned by the VA reported that ``rating
decisions often call for subjective judgments.'' Inst. For Def.
Analyses, Analysis of Differences in Disability Compensation in the
Department of Veterans Affairs, Volume 1: Final Report, S-3 (2006),
available at http://www.va.gov/VETDATA/docs/SurveysAndStudies/
State_Variance_Study-Volumes_1_2.pdf. See also Title Redacted by
Agency, Bd. Vet. App. 0318972 (2003) (veteran's claim was denied
despite presenting substantial evidence corroborating his sexual
assault, including documentation of erratic behavior, sworn statements
attesting to military performance issues, and records of mental
counseling and treatment for sexual transmitted diseases.).
\13\ Focusing on People: A Review of VA's Plans for Employee
Training, Accountability, and Workload Management to Improve Disability
Claims Processing: Hearing Before H. Comm. on Veterans' Affairs, 113th
Cong. (2013) (submission for the record of The American Federation of
Government Employees).
\14\ Rick Maze, VFW defends VA official, despite continued backlog,
FED. TIMES (Mar. 20, 2013, 4:19 PM), http://www.Federaltimes.com/
article/20130320/DEPARTMENTS04/303200003/VFW-defends-VA-official-
despite-continued-backlog.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the VA stands by its current policy, it is clear that the
Department is not achieving its mission to ``treat all veterans and
their families with the utmost dignity and compassion.'' \15\ Instead
the VA has created an unfair standard that sets sexual assault
survivors up to fail in claiming the disability benefits they deserve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ U.S. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, About VA: Mission, Core Values
& Goals, available at http://www.va.gov/about_va/mission.asp (last
visited Apr. 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ruth Moore Act would rectify the current policy and bring
fairness to the claims process. Under S. 294, the VA would be required
to treat PTSD claims related to sexual assault the same way it treats
all other PTSD claims: by accepting the veteran's lay testimony as
sufficient proof that the trauma occurred ``in the absence of clear and
convincing evidence to the contrary.'' \16\ This standard will help
reduce the number of inconsistent and arbitrary adjudication decisions
that result from applying a subjective standard and will decrease the
risk of veterans experiencing further trauma as they navigate the
claims process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Ruth Moore Act of 2013, S. 294, 113th Cong. Sec. 2(a) (2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ii. s. 294's reporting requirement helps ensure government
accountability.
The ACLU works to hold our government accountable for responding to
and taking proactive measures to end the cycle of violence in our
country. For this reason, in 2010 we filed a Federal lawsuit against
the Department of Defense and the VA for their failure to respond to
our FOIA requests seeking records documenting incidents of sexual
assault, sexual harassment, and domestic violence in the military and
how the government addresses this violence. The goal of the lawsuit was
to ``obtain the release of records on a matter of public concern,
namely, the prevalence of [military sexual trauma] (MST) within the
armed services, the policies of DOD and the VA regarding MST and other
related disabilities, and the nature of each agency's response to
MST.'' \17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Complaint at 2, Serv. Women's Action Network v. U.S. Dep't of
Def., No. 3:2010cv01953 (D. Conn. Feb. 23, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given our past work in advancing government accountability, we
strongly support the provision in the bill that requires the VA to
submit an annual report to Congress that includes statistics, such as
the number sexual assault-related claims that were approved or denied,
and the average time it took the VA to adjudicate a claim.
Should you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact our
Senior Legislative Counsel.
______
Letter from American Civil Liberties Union and Other Groups
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Prepared Statement of the American Chemical Society
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Prepared Statement of American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-
CIO and the AFGE National VA Council
overview
The American Federation of Government Employees and the AFGE
National VA Council (hereinafter ``AFGE''), the exclusive
representative of employees processing disability claims at the
Department of Veterans Affairs (Department) Veterans Benefits
Administration (VBA) Regional Offices (ROs) support the Department's
Transformation efforts and appreciate the opportunity to share our
views on Section 101 of S. 928, the Claims Processing Improvement Act
of 2013, which would establish a working group to improve VBA's
employee work credit and work management systems. AFGE commends
Chairman Sanders' leadership in introducing legislation to create a new
work credit system through collaboration between the Department,
employee representatives, and veterans service organizations. Creating
a more effective, scientifically designed, databased system for
measuring the personnel hours and other resources required to
accurately decide veterans' claims the first time will help reduce
VBA's backlog of benefits claims and better serve our Nation's
veterans. AFGE urges this Committee to provide ongoing oversight of the
work group's efforts to design and implement this new work credit
system.
composition of the working group
AFGE commends Chairman Sanders for proposing to increase
collaboration among interested parties to fix the current, broken work
credit system. AFGE also supports the provision in the bill for
Congressional oversight of progress of the working group.
AFGE also supports the requirement in the bill to include frontline
employees recommended by a labor organization in the working group.
Frontline employees provide a unique perspective on workplace issues
and the current work credit system, and will play a valuable role in
identifying much needed improvements for a new work credit system.
Their input will be especially critical during the current period of
Transformation when many new processes are being implemented. It is
critical that labor representatives are able to select these employees
as well in order to ensure true collaboration with VA management and
stakeholders.
AFGE supports requirements in S. 928 for regular oversight and
reporting to Congress. The reports outlined in Section 101(e) are
thorough and allow for several opportunities for Congressional
oversight and adjustment. For example, the bill allows for
implementation of changes following the first report after 180 days,
which will allow positive changes to the work credit system to take
place prior to the final report from the working group.
The mandate in Section 101(c) (3) to create a new resource
allocation model will also make long overdue changes in the claims
process. Currently, VBA deprives low performing offices of resources,
rather than shifting resources to strengthen the capacity of these
offices. VBA must change its resource allocation model to support
struggling Regional Offices, and AFGE supports Chairman Sanders' focus
on this issue.
AFGE urges the Committee to include in Section 101(b)(2) specific
language regarding the number of work group representatives from the
Department, labor and veterans' community to ensure effective
collaboration in the work group.
AFGE also requests that work group's duties be expanded to include
consultation with an independent subject matter expert to design and
conduct a scientific, databased, time motion study. This study will
serve as the foundation of the new databased methodology. Under VBA's
current work credit system, Veteran Service Representatives (VSRs),
Rating VSRs (RVSRs), and Decision Review Officers (DROs) complete
numerous time consuming steps in the adjudication process for which
they receive no credit, as discussed more fully below. These tasks are
both critical to VBA's ability to process claims and the agency's
customer service for veterans. Despite assertions made by VBA in the
past, the agency has never completed a data driven time motion study to
analyze the time needed for each of these tasks. Similarly, AFGE
recommends incorporating an independent third party expert in the
assessment phase of the workgroup in Section 101(c)(1). Finally, in
order to ensure that the new work credit system is properly designed,
this independent entity must be able to provide ongoing oversight and
input, and have regular access to all work group participants.
current work credit system problems
As noted, VBA has never had a formal work credit system in place
that is based on actual data reflecting the amount of time required to
process specific types and components of claims. The current work
credit system does not include an inventory of employees' daily tasks.
The agency has made a few perfunctory efforts to establish a more
reliable set of measures over the years. However, AFGE has not seen any
work credit study or work credit system based on actual data.
Some of the main problems with the current work credit system
include:
Lack of consistency
Lack of a solid methodology
Failure to update its ``system''
Lack of participation from the front line employees and
veterans service officers with direct knowledge of the work process
Lack of work credit for a variety of tasks
The only study AFGE is aware of is the 2008 IBM Gap Analysis study.
IBM's main work credit recommendation was to provide work credit for
developing and rating issues, rather than claims as a whole. When IBM
tested these performance measures on 150 RVSRs, they found the
employees produced at a higher quality and used far less excluded time
while rating cases. However, the study did not break down the time for
every piece of rating and development. The study is also outdated now
with VBMS' implementation.
Depriving employees of the proper credit for critical work needed
to get claims processed accurately and timely the first time hurts
veterans by increasing errors and delays.
vba employee survey on current work credit system
AFGE conducted an informal survey of Regional Offices to identify
how well the current work credit system measures (or does not measure)
the hours and skills required to complete different tasks. Responses
from employees working in approximately a dozen different offices
indicated widespread inconsistencies in how much work credit is awarded
for the same tasks. Perhaps more troubling, employees in every Regional
Office and position are required to perform daily tasks for which they
are provided zero credit or only partial credit. By denying credit for
significant tasks, the current work credit system increases workplace
stress, puts pressure on employees to rush through claims, and results
in unwarranted negative performance ratings.
More specifically, employees reported that they receive inadequate
or zero work credit for the following tasks:
Deferred ratings: Deferred ratings occur on a daily basis
in Regional Offices. It is important to spend time on these issues
since the veteran should be assisted and informed accurately about
additional medical evidence they will need for their claim. However,
RVSRs do not receive any credit for cases where there is a deferred
rating (for example, cases deferred back to the VSR because additional
medical evidence is required). It is typical for a RVSR to have at
least one deferred rating every day that requires two hours of work to
write up medical opinions, tag pages where additional evidence is
needed, and write an opinion for each issue being deferred--without any
credit. For example, an RVSR is working on a case where the veteran has
claimed ten issues, but only two can be rated. The RVSR must spend
significant time on the other eight issues. In this situation, the RVSR
will receive credit for only two issues, rather than ten.
Multi-issue and complex cases: VSRs are not given adequate
credit for rating a case with significantly more issues or complexity.
Employees receive additional credit for completing cases with at least
three issues. However, veterans are regularly filing claims cases with
dozens of issues. VSRs do not receive any additional credit for
developing a case with thirty issues versus a case with three issues.
Employees also are denied sufficient credit for processing cases
involving complex claims such as military sexual trauma and TBI.
VSR work by RVSRs: RVSRs regularly work on developing
cases (VSR work). Sometimes, RVSRs will receive a case to rate that
needs additional development. Other times, Regional Offices do not have
the proper ratio of VSRs to RVSRs; consequently, there are not enough
cases to rate. In both of these instances, RVSRs work on developing
cases, yet they receive no credit for this work.
Mentoring: VBA's more senior claims processors receive no
credit for assisting or mentoring newer employees.
Productive time lost due to breakdowns in VBMS: VBMS is in
the process of being rolled out nationally. However, the system still
has frequent and significant malfunctions, at both the RO and national
levels. During VBMS shutdowns or malfunctions, employees receive no
adjustment to their work credit requirements for lost production time.
This has become a major issue with VBA's recent enactment of mandatory
overtime for employees. For example, employees reported that VBMS
shutdown on May 30, 2013 during mandatory overtime hours. Mandatory
overtime cannot possibly be productive if employees are consistently
dealing with a system that breaks down on a regular basis.
Supplemental development: VSRs can take credit for
supplemental development, while RVSRs and DROs cannot. However, VSRs
must complete an Advanced Development Course in order to request
medical opinions. At one Regional Office, VSRs regularly request
medical evidence, despite the course not being offered for several
years. This is inconsistent across VBA.
Training: Employees are not given sufficient work credit
for time spent during trainings. Often times, training is shifted away
from classroom instruction to reading slides or a packet at their desk
with less time allotted by managers than required by the curriculum.
Employees are consistently not given enough work credit for the time it
takes to go through this type of training.
The absence of a valid work credit system exacerbates the well
documented problem of VBA managers manipulating backlog data to improve
performance measures. The newest Fast letter from Undersecretary Hickey
on long pending cases has an admirable goal of processing cases that
have been pending for a long period of time. Veterans who fought for
this Nation deserve to have their claims processed in a timely manner,
and waiting over two years for a decision from VBA is unacceptable.
However, in practice, this newest quick fix from VBA shifts difficult,
time consuming cases to high performing office where employees are
denied any additional credit for processing these more challenging
cases. If Regional Offices are going to dedicate their efforts to this
essential yet difficult task, employees must receive the proper work
credit.
Section 102
Section 102 of S. 928 establishes a task force on retention and
training of VBA employees working as claims processors and
adjudicators. AFGE recommends adding a provision to S. 928 Section
102(b) to require the inclusion of employees on this task force, based
on the recommendations of their labor representatives.
Proper retention techniques and training of a strong workforce will
play an essential role in helping to lower the backlog of veterans'
claims. Input from frontline employees is essential in determining
inadequacies with training, inconsistencies across Regional Offices,
issues related to career growth, and general morale.
AFGE believes it is essential to have frontline employees provide
input into decisions related to retention and training in order to
provide a wide and accurate scope of the workplace in VBA. A consistent
theme throughout the ROs is that VBA management takes a ``one size fits
all'' approach when creating their training materials. The training is
not broken up between specific offices, and longtime employees receive
the same training as newer employees. There is also no consideration of
areas of performance when determining which type of training to give
which employees. In the past, when employees have not been able to
provide input, the training program suffers.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input from AFGE and its
National VA Council on this important legislation.
______
Prepared Statement of Stephen Peters, President,
The American Military Partner Association
Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the
Committee: Thank you holding this hearing today, and for your
dedication to our servicemembers, veterans, and their families. We are
forever grateful to you for continuing to ensure our military families
receive the support they deserve for their service to our great Nation.
You are considering a wide range of benefits bills here today that
would impact the lives of our Nation's veterans and their families.
However, there is one bill in particular that I would like to focus our
testimony on because of the disproportionate impact it would have on
our community and on the lives of so many military families--the
Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act.
As the Nation's largest non-profit, non-partisan resource and
support network for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT)
military families, the American Military Partner Association (AMPA) is
committed to connecting, supporting, honoring, and serving the partners
and spouses of America's LGBT servicemembers and veterans. Our
membership spans all branches of the military, every state in the
Nation, and a wide range of experiences that all military families
endure--including multiple members whose spouses have paid the ultimate
sacrifice while serving.
Currently, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the
Department of Defense (DOD) are limited in what benefits may be made
available to the same-sex spouses of servicemembers and veterans. The
Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act of 2013 would
require the VA and the DOD to: (1) recognize any legal marriage by a
state that permits same-sex marriage; and (2) grant access to military
and veteran's related benefits to the spouses of all servicemembers.
There are more than 100 benefits granted to servicemembers,
veterans, and military families based upon marital status, yet many of
these are denied to same-sex military spouses and their families. While
the previous Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta, ordered the extension
of a select number of benefits to same-sex domestic partners (the full
extension of which has yet to be implemented), there are still critical
areas of support and benefits that the same-sex spouses of
servicemembers and veterans are and will continue to be be denied
without passage of this bill.
Of direct relation to this Committee are the benefits provided
through the VA to surviving spouses. Currently, surviving legal spouses
who happen to be of the same gender are denied access to benefits like
dependency and indemnity compensation, survivor's pension, dependent's
educational assistance, and home loans. Nothing could be more
dishonorable than to deny the legal spouse of a fallen servicemember
critically needed support and benefits simply because of their gender.
Regardless of their gender, these spouses hurt too when their loved one
dies or is injured--both emotionally and financially. As a nation that
is committed to honoring all who serve and supporting those they leave
behind, this flaw in our current veterans benefits framework must be
corrected.
One of AMPA's members in North Carolina, Tracy Dice Johnson, is the
first known same-sex military spouse to lose her wife to war. Tracy's
wife, North Carolina National Guardsman Staff Sergeant Donna Johnson,
was killed in action in Afghanistan on October 1, 2012, by a suicide
bomber while on patrol. When Staff Sergeant Johnson was killed, Tracy
did not receive the proper notification from the Army because she is
not recognized as the primary next-of-kin. Tracy sadly had to find out
about her wife's death through someone else. At Donna's funeral, Tracy
had to watch the flag of her fallen wife be given to someone else,
something no military spouse should ever have to endure. Even though
they were legally married, Tracy is not recognized as the military
spouse that she undoubtedly is. To add insult to injury, she is still
denied all of the surviving spouse benefits provided to heterosexual
military and veteran spouses by our government.
The Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act would
correct this injustice by extending vital benefits to same-sex military
and veteran spouses. The bill itself is named after the late Charlie
Morgan, who served as a Chief Warrant Officer in the New Hampshire
National Guard. Charlie recently died of cancer, leaving behind her
wife and daughter. Charlie's widow, Karen, is also denied all of the
survivor benefits normally afforded to heterosexual widows of
servicemembers and veterans.
There are numerous other military and veterans benefits and support
services that same-sex spouses and their families are excluded from,
such as access to military and veterans health programs, financial
support for expensive moves to new duty stations, access to military
family housing, family housing allowances at the ``with dependent''
rate, and even command sponsorship for overseas duty stations. All are
denied simply because the legally wed spouse is of the same gender as
the servicemember or veteran. While these selfless Americans
voluntarily commit their lives in defense of our Nation, our Nation has
turned it's back on their families.
These military families serve and sacrifice just as much for our
freedom as their heterosexual counterparts, yet they do it all without
the same level of support and benefits. They continue to sacrifice and
serve because they believe in the goodness and righteousness of the
United States of America and in the mission of our Armed Forces. The
least our Nation can do in return is provide them and their families
with access to the same benefits and support as everyone else who
serves.
The Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act would
finally honor all who serve and have served by providing equal access
to support and benefits to these honorable warriors and their families.
Most importantly for this Committee, it would ensure that the spouses
of the fallen are properly cared for and receive the dignity, respect,
and support they rightly deserve.
I truly appreciate your consideration of the impact this bill would
have on the lives of our military families. We owe these families more
than our gratitude; we owe them the proper support that they too
deserve. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Maggie Garrett, Legislative Director, Americans
United For Separation of Church and State
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Letter from the Association of the United States Navy
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Prepared Statement of the U.S. Department of Defense
Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr and Members of the Committee,
the Department of Defense (DOD) appreciates the opportunity to comment
on pending legislation before this Committee. We are committed to
providing our Servicemembers and veterans with the support and benefits
they are deserved, and ensuring the partnership between DOD and the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) works toward those ends. Included
in this written statement are our views on legislation that DOD has a
direct equity. Thank you again for this opportunity and the continued
support of this Committee and Congress.
s. 373, the charlie morgan military spouses equal treatment act of 2013
S. 373 would change the current definition of spouse to include a
person of the same sex lawfully married under the law of the state
where the marriage occurred. This proposal would enact an exception to
the DOMA for the sole purpose of defining the word ``spouse'' in titles
10, 32, 37, and 38, United States Code. The Department of Defense
supports the extension of benefits to same-sex domestic partners of
military members to the fullest extent allowable under the law.
s. 495, careers for veterans act of 2013, section 3; and s. 492
While the Department appreciates the intent of this legislation
(Section 3 of S. 495 and S. 492 are identical) to assist our Veterans
by eliminating barriers to credentialing and licensing at the state
level, there are, however, two areas we would like to highlight.
The proposed legislation could potentially withhold funding from
two Department of Labor programs specifically designed to assist
Veterans with employment--the Disabled Veteran's Outreach Program and
the Local Veterans Employment Representatives.
Also by limiting participation to Veterans who have, ``* * * not
less than 10 years of experience in a military occupational specialty *
* *'' the proposed legislation misses the Veteran demographic with the
highest rates of unemployment. According to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, the 2012 annual average unemployment rate for Veterans aged
18 to 24 was 20.4%. The requirement for 10 years of experience
effectively prevents mid to lower grade Servicemembers from taking
advantage of this section of the proposed legislation. Younger
Servicemembers who decide to depart the military after their first or
second enlistment will not be eligible to take advantage of this
proposal.
s. 629, honor america's guard-reserve retirees act of 2013
This bill would add to chapter 1, title 38, United States Code, a
provision to honor as Veterans, based on retirement status, certain
persons who performed service in reserve components of the Armed Forces
but who do not have service qualifying for Veteran status under 38
U.S.C. Sec. 101(2). The bill provides that such persons would be
``honored'' as Veterans, but would not be entitled to any benefit by
reason of the amendment.
Under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 101(2), Veteran status is conditioned on the
performance of ``active military, naval, or air service.'' Under
current law, a National Guard or Reserve member is considered to have
had such service only if he or she served on active duty, was disabled
or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty
during active duty for training, or was disabled or died from any
injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty or from an acute
myocardial infarction, a cardiac arrest, or a cerebrovascular accident
during inactive duty training.
S. 629 would eliminate these service requirements for National
Guard or Reserve members who served in such a capacity for at least 20
years. Retirement status alone would make them eligible for Veteran
status.
DOD recognizes that the National Guard and Reserves have admirably
served this country and in recent years have played an even greater
role in our Nation's overseas conflicts. Nevertheless, the Department
does not support this bill because it represents a departure from
active service as the foundation for Veteran status. This bill would
extend Veteran status to those who never performed active military,
naval, or air service, the very circumstance which qualifies an
individual as a Veteran. Thus, this bill would equate longevity of
reserve service with the active service long ago established as the
hallmark for Veteran status. The Department does not concur with
expanding the definition and calling this population ``veterans,'' even
if that does not entail qualification for associated benefits.
Additionally, this provision as written is likely to cause
significant confusion amongst the population of those who have served,
and under S. 629 would be called ``veterans,'' yet not be qualified for
any additional benefits.
s. 674, accountability for veterans act of 2013
This bill states that whenever the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
submits a request for information, that the head of a covered agency
has no more than 30 days to provide all information that the Secretary
determines is necessary to adjudicate a claim for a benefit under a law
administered by the Secretary.
DOD and VA have both agreed to a 45 day timeframe to allow any and
all last minute medical care documentation, particularly coming back
from TRICARE network providers, time to ``catch up'' to the Service
Treatment Record and be interfiled prior to sending the Service
Treatment Record to VA. This agreement enabled DOD to dramatically
decrease the volume of late and loose flowing medical documentation to
the VA Records Management Center and provides greater likelihood that
the Service Treatment Record is complete upon transfer to VBA. Thus,
the proposed legislation of implementing a 30 day requirement is not
feasible and would undermine the current DOD/VA efforts in this arena.
s. 690, filipino veterans fairness act of 2013;
s. 868, filipino veterans promise act
The Department opposes S. 690 and S. 868 regarding the
identification of individuals claiming service in the Philippines
during World War II, because the current and effective process is
consistent with the process used for other conflicts, ensures the
service of claimants is properly authenticated, and results in
claimants receiving all benefits to which they are entitled.
The requirements for validating the qualifying service of Filipino
Guerillas who belonged to the U.S. Army Forces in the Far East (USAFFE)
and non-USAFFE Guerillas were established in the wake of the U.S.
Government's robust ``Guerilla Recognition Program'' that operated in
the Philippines from 1945-1948. The Army's service validation tools,
which include operational records, rosters, and other documents that
identify USAFFE and non-USAFFE Guerillas, were created as part of an
extremely thorough public outreach effort, spanning across the
Philippines, to identify and record any service of Philippine nationals
in support of the Allied war effort. This information was developed and
collected in direct coordination with the Philippine Authorities to
serve as a mechanism by which the Army could assess future claims.
Over the years, the U.S. Army spent a significant amount of time
reviewing its qualifying service verification policies and procedures
for potential USAFFE and non-USAFFE Filipino Guerillas. Changing the
validation process for potential Filipino Veterans of World War II
could result in inequity between special population groups associated
with other past conflicts and could generate an unprecedented number of
new claims that could not be verified given the passage of time. The
current process has been well-tested and has proven to be effective and
efficient in ensuring that the service of claimants is properly
authenticated with a view to ensuring that claimants receive all
benefits to which they may be entitled.
s. 889, servicemembers' choice of transition act of 2013
While we support the premise of this legislation, namely to ensure
Servicemembers are informed of their GI Bill benefits and how to access
those benefits to support the attainment of their educational goals, we
believe adding more time to the existing Transition curriculum as
stated in Section 10 is not the best approach. The VA currently
provides GI Bill benefits information within the mandatory (VOW Act)
Transition VA Benefits briefings and we believe the best approach is to
leverage and build on the existing curriculum to ensure Servicemembers
are well informed of how to access their GI Bill Benefits to support
the attainment of their educational goals. Additionally, the testing
provision contained in section 2(a)(3) duplicates the admissions
testing process already in place at academic institutions requiring
admissions testing. Moreover, requiring Servicemembers to take a test,
as required by this legislation, when they are applying to institutions
of higher learning that do not require such a test for admission,
places an undue burden and potential additional costs on
Servicemembers, which their non-Servicemember counterparts are not
required to bear.
______
Letter from Judith T. Won Pat, Ed.D., Office of the Speaker,
32nd Guam Legislature
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Letter from Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, President,
Interfaith Alliance
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Prepared Statement of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill # Bill Name Sponsor Position
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.6 Putting Our Veterans Back Reid Support
to Work Act of 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.200 Bill to authorize the Murkowski No Position
interment in national
cemeteries individuals who
served in combat support
of the Armed Forces of
Laos
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.257 GI Bill Tuition Fairness Boozman Support
Act of 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.262 Veterans Education Equity Durbin No Position
Act of 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.294 Ruth Moore Act of 2013 Tester Support
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.373 Charlie Morgan Military Shaheen Support
Spouses Equal Treatment
Act of 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.430 Veterans Small Business Heller Support
Opportunity and Protection
Act of 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.492 Bill to require States to Burr Support
recognize the military
experience of veterans
when issuing licenses and
credentials to veterans
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.495 Careers for Veterans Act of Burr Support
2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.514 Bill to provide additional Brown No Position
educational assistance to
veterans pursuing STEM and
other high-demand
occupation degrees
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.515 Bill to extend the Yellow Brown Support
Ribbon G.I. Education
Enhancement Program
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.572 Veterans Second Amendment Burr Support
Protection Act
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.629 Honor America's Guard- Pryor Support
Reserve Retirees Act of
2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.674 Accountability for Veterans Heller Support
Act of 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.690 Filipino Veterans Fairness Schatz No Position
Act of 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.695 Veterans Paralympic Act of Boozman Support
2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.705 War Memorial Protection Act Burr No Position
of 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.735 Survivor Benefits Sanders Support
Improvement Act of 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.748 Veterans Pension Protection Wyden Support
Act
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.778 Veterans ID Card Act Burr Support
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.819 Veterans Mental Health Burr Support
Treatment First Act of
2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.863 Veterans Back to School Act Blumenthal Support
of 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.868 Filipino Veterans Promise Heller No Position
Act
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.889 Servicemembers' Choice in Boozman Support
Transition Act of 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.893 Veterans' Compensation Cost- Sanders Support
of-Living Adjustment Act
of 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.894 Bill to extend the VA's Sanders Support
work-study allowance
program and expand the
program to include
outreach within
Congressional offices
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.922 Veterans Equipped for Sanders Support
Success Act of 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.927 Bill to require the VA to Sanders Support
carry out a demonstration
project to increase
awareness of benefits and
services
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.928 Claims Processing Sanders Review
Improvement Act of 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.932 Putting Veterans Funding Begich Support
First Act of 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.935 Quicker Veterans Benefits Franken Support
Delivery Act
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.938 Franchise Education for Moran Support
Veterans Act of 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.939 Bill to treat certain Blumenthal Support
misfiled documents as
motions for
reconsideration of
decisions by the Board of
Veterans' Appeals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.944 Bill to require courses of Sanders No Position
education provided by
public institutions of
higher education to charge
veterans tuition at the in-
state rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, and Distinguished Members of
the Committee: On behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America
(IAVA), I would like to extend our gratitude for being given the
opportunity to share with you our views and recommendations regarding
these important pieces of legislation.
IAVA is the Nation's first and largest nonprofit, nonpartisan
organization for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and their
supporters. Founded in 2004, our mission is critically important but
simple--to improve the lives of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and their
families. With a steadily growing base of over 200,000 members and
supporters, we strive to help create a society that honors and supports
veterans of all generations.
IAVA strongly believes that all veterans must have access to
quality health care, education, and employment resources. The men and
women who volunteer to serve in our Nation's military do so with the
understanding that they and their families will be cared for as
promised both during their period of service and after their period of
service as well. IAVA stands with you in faithfully supporting
legislation that helps to accomplish these goals.
s. 6
IAVA supports S. 6, the Putting Our Veterans Back to Work Act of
2013, which would extend critical aspects of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act
and the Wounded Warrior Act. This bill will make a difference for
veterans who are currently unemployed and servicemembers who will be
entering the civilian workforce in the future. By passing the VOW to
Hire Heroes Act, Congress sent veterans a clear message--we've got your
back. This legislation contains critical provisions that we believe
will help veterans find jobs, and it could not have come at a better
time. Veteran unemployment still remains high, but Congress has
recognized that the greatest investment they could make is supporting
the New Greatest Generation. This bill forwards that goal.
s. 200
IAVA has no position on S. 200, which would make an individual
eligible for interment in a national cemetery if they served in combat
in support of the Armed Forces of Laos between February 28, 1961, and
May 15, 1975, and at the time of death the individual was a U.S.
citizen or lawfully admitted alien.
s. 257
IAVA strongly supports S. 257, the GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act of
2013, which would grant in-state status at public colleges and
universities for all veterans using the GI Bill. For those who elect to
return to school after completing their military service obligations,
the GI Bill has been a remarkable personal development and economic
mobility tool for our Nation's veterans, and a tremendously successful
investment for our country. The new, Post-9/11 GI Bill in particular
has also been a tremendous boon for veterans of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan who deserve the same opportunities and adjusted benefit
levels as were afforded to veterans of previous generations.
But with the entry of millions of new veterans into the ranks of
those now utilizing their earned education benefits, the need for
various adjustments and fixes to the program have come to light over
the years. Given that Congress and the American people agree that all
veterans deserve a fair opportunity to be able to utilize their
benefits without undue hardship, this body has generally been amenable
to quickly addressing these various issues as they have come up. S. 257
would fix another one of these benefit access and utilization issues by
allowing veterans to attend public colleges and universities at their
respective in-state rates and, thereby, actually be able to afford to
go to school and live comfortably using their Post-9/11 GI Bill
benefits.
Because of the nature of military service, servicemembers are
required to move around according to the needs of their service.
Typically that means they are forced to settle down and reside for
years in communities outside of their original state of residence.
Servicemembers who are stationed at a particular base or post may live
in that state for years, buy a home in that state, shop and pay local
taxes to that state, raise a family in that state, and generally become
part of the community in that locale. However, that servicemember is
technically still not considered a resident of that state. So if he or
she retires or ends his or her term of service in that state and wants
to stay local and go back to school as a new veteran in the place where
he or she has already functionally settled, that servicemember would
nevertheless be considered a non-resident as a new veteran there and
would be forced to pay the often-exorbitant out-of-state tuition rates
for his or her education there.
Veterans who wind up living in an area outside of their home states
through no fault or choice of their own because of the obligations
associated with serving their country in uniform should not be denied
the opportunity to use their deserved and earned education benefits to
cover the full cost of their education in an area where they have
already become functional--but not technical--residents simply because
of their military service. This bill would remedy that gap in tuition
and residency fairness and ensure that all veterans can take advantage
of the promise of the Post-9/11 GI Bill without undue hardship.
s. 262
IAVA has no position on S. 262, the Veterans Education Equity Act
of 2013, would allow veterans who are considered non-residents of the
state school they attend to receive up to $18,077 in tuition benefits,
the same benefit that would be available to that veteran if attending a
private institution. IAVA supports the residency and tuition issues
that S. 262, aims to solve. However, it is IAVA's belief that the
method for resolving these issues laid forth in this bill is not the
most viable and beneficial solution available for veterans. IAVA feels
that better solutions exist, such as those covered in S. 257, but we
nevertheless recognize and support the mutual goal of both pieces of
legislation.
s. 294
IAVA supports S. 294, the Ruth Moore Act of 2013, which would
change the standard of proof so that official records are not required
to sufficiently document an incident of military sexual trauma (MST) to
the VA. Creating, obtaining or maintaining official records of MST has
proven difficult for many victims over the years. As a result of this
bill, veterans who say they were victims of MST would have their claim
accepted if a mental health professional says their condition is
consistent with sexual trauma and that other evidence does not rebut
their claim. This legislation would shift the burden of proof by
directing decisions to be resolved with ``every reasonable doubt in
favor of the veteran.''
For years, combat veterans also faced similar problems as Military
Sexual Trauma (MST) survivors in claiming benefits by having to provide
documentation of a combat event that led to their PTSD. On numerous
occasions, tangible documentation was incredibly difficult to produce.
To address this, the VA made changes that allowed veterans' personal
accounts of the incident(s) to serve as sufficient proof of a traumatic
event if accompanied by diagnosis of PTSD and a medical link. The Ruth
Moore Act would apply these same practices and principles to victims of
MST.
s. 373
IAVA supports S. 373, the Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal
Treatment Act of 2013, which would make additional benefits available
to all military spouses and families. This bill would require the
Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to honor any marriage that
has been legally recognized by a state and provide a number of key
benefits to the spouses of all servicemembers.
This bill is a natural extension of our mission to advocate for the
best interests of our troops, veterans and their families. IAVA
supports equality under the law for every member of our community. No
servicemember or veteran should ever be treated as a second-class
citizen by our country. However, when the family of any member of the
Armed Forces is denied benefits, that's exactly what happens. This
policy undermines the morale and welfare of our troops and, by
extension, the readiness of our Armed Forces.
s. 430
IAVA supports S. 430, the Veterans Small Business Opportunity and
Protection Act of 2013, which would allow small businesses bequeathed
to spouses and dependents of veterans and of servicemembers killed in
the line of duty to be treated as disabled veteran-owned small
businesses for the purpose of VA contracting goals and preferences. In
the troubling time following the death of a family member, surviving
spouses and dependents need as much assistance as we can provide. This
legislation would ensure that the VA's useful small-business benefits
and incentives get passed on to those spouses and dependents and that
this critical source of family income can be sustained.
s. 492
IAVA supports S. 492, which would enhance the transition of
servicemembers to the civilian workforce and help reduce the veteran
unemployment rate. Today's veterans are highly skilled and better
trained than ever, yet their unemployment rate remains high. This
legislation would require a state to issue a license or credential to a
veteran who has already passed the necessary exams within that state
and has demonstrated use of the specific skill while a member of the
Armed Forces. Thus, it would eliminate certain unnecessary and
repetitive steps that veterans encounter too frequently in today's job
market.
s. 495
IAVA supports S. 495, the Careers for Veterans Act, which would
require the Director of Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to
coordinate with Federal agencies and departments to hire 10,000
veterans to fill existing vacancies over the next five years. The bill
would also require the Secretary of Labor to establish a one-stop job
search center with a list of all Web sites and applications identified
as beneficial for veterans trying to navigate their way through the job
market. This bill would help create long-term, sustainable jobs for
America's veterans by transitioning the skills they gained through
their service into jobs in the civilian workforce. By making licenses
and credentials in their chosen fields more accessible, this bill is a
rational approach to addressing the long-term employment needs of our
Nation's veterans.
s. 514
At this point in time, IAVA has no position on S. 514, which would
allow the VA to provide greater levels of assistance to those veterans
pursuing science, technology, engineering, math degrees than it does to
veterans pursuing programs of higher education in other fields.
s. 515
IAVA supports S. 515, which would make the child of an individual
who died while serving on active duty eligible for the Yellow Ribbon
Program. The Yellow Ribbon Program has received much attention and many
accolades since its inception. This program is designed to help
``bridge the gap'' caused by schools charging tuition and fees higher
than the Post-9/11 GI Bill would cover. The Yellow Ribbon Program of
the Post-9/11 GI Bill will help make graduate schools and private
universities more affordable for a veteran's surviving family member.
s. 572
IAVA supports S. 572, the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act,
which would end a capricious process through which the government
strips veterans and other VA beneficiaries of their Second Amendment
rights. Veterans who have a had fiduciary appointed to act on their
behalf on financial matters are reported to the FBI's National Instant
Criminal Background Check System (NICS), a system which prevents
individuals from purchasing firearms in the United States. The
Veterans' Second Amendment Protection Act would require a judicial
authority to determine that a VA beneficiary poses a danger to himself
or others before VA may send their names to be listed in the FBI's
NICS.
s. 629
IAVA supports S. 629, the Honor America's Guard-Reserve Retirees
Act of 2013, which would grant full veteran status to members of the
Guard and Reserve components who have served at least 20 years, but who
were not called up for active duty. The men and women who have served
in uniform for 20 or more years as Guard or Reserve members should be
recognized as military veterans too, but are being overlooked. This
legislation corrects that error. We must honor the sacred contract
between a grateful nation and all veterans who make unselfish
sacrifices in defense of freedom.
s. 674
IAVA supports S. 674, the Accountability for Veterans Act of 2013,
which would require prompt responses from covered Federal agencies when
those agencies are asked for information necessary to adjudicate claims
by the VA. According to the VA's own figures, nearly 70 percent of
claims are backlogged, a number that is unacceptably high. Such long
wait times can delay the dispensing of benefits and the awarding of
compensation and, in turn, can have a devastating impact on veterans
and their families.
In order to reduce the wait time that veterans are facing during
the claims process, this legislation would hold agencies accountable on
the submission of requested evidence in a timely manner. This
accountability will help accelerate the claims process by ensuring that
the necessary medical information has been collected to produce an
accurate disability rating. This legislation would also keep veterans
better informed about the status of their claims. Any effort that can
make the claims process more efficient and more lucid will have a
positive impact on the livelihood of our veterans.
s. 690
At this point in time, IAVA has no position on S. 690, the Filipino
Veterans Fairness Act of 2013, which would adjust the disbursement of
benefits for certain veterans of WWII. As always, IAVA is incredibly
humbled by the display of patriotism from those who served our country
in a time of war across all generations.
s. 695
IAVA supports S. 695, the Veterans Paralympic Act of 2013, which
would extend through the 2018 fiscal year a joint program operated by
the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the U.S. Olympic Committee
that funds grants to a host of adaptive sports programs for disabled
veterans across the country. The bill would ensure that disabled
veterans in local communities throughout the country continue to have
opportunities for rehabilitation, stress relief, and higher achievement
through adaptive sports.
s. 705
IAVA has no position on S. 705, the War Memorial Protection Act of
2013, which would ensure that memorials commemorating the service of
the United States Armed Forces may contain religious symbols.
Nevertheless, IAVA strongly believes that American military memorials
stand as an important public reminder of the sacrifices made by our men
and women in uniform.
s. 735
IAVA supports S. 735, the Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of
2013, which would expand benefits for surviving spouses and continue to
enhance the VA's ability to ensure that a veteran's family members are
able to establish some stability in their lives after sacrificing so
much. This bill would provide grief counseling in retreat settings to
survivors whose spouses died while on active duty; expand benefits for
children with Agent Orange-related spina bifida, to include those whose
parent or parents served in Thailand; extend supplemental payments to
survivors with children for five years after the veteran's death
instead of the current two; and change remarriage rules so that
survivors who remarry can continue receiving benefits under the same
rules that apply to other Federal benefits. Current rules cancel
benefits for a spouse who remarries before age 57, but allow benefits
to be restarted if the marriage ends. This bill would change the age to
55.
s. 748
IAVA supports S. 748, the Veterans Pension Protection Act, which
would help discourage abuses within the low-income veterans' pension
program by establishing a three-year ``look back'' period for
individuals applying for benefits. By strengthening the pension program
and implementing protections to put a stop to abuse, this bill would
safeguard pension benefits so they would be there for those who
genuinely need them.
s. 778
IAVA supports S. 778, the Veterans ID Card Act, which would provide
a simple mechanism by which those who served could readily prove their
status as veterans. Currently only veterans who served at least 20
years or who have a service-connected disability are able to get an ID
card from the VA establishing their service. The only option available
for all other veterans is to carry a DD-214, which is impractical and
unrealistic. This bill would make the veteran ID card available to all
who served.
s. 819
IAVA supports S. 819, the Veterans Mental Health Treatment First
Act of 2013, which would place a stronger emphasis on treating veterans
with mental health disorders and would also provide prevention and
wellness incentives for veterans to seek treatment. Should a veteran
choose to enroll in the voluntary program, that veteran would work with
a VA clinician to develop an individual mental health treatment plan. A
veteran who is diagnosed with a service-connected mental health issue
(i.e. PTSD, anxiety, depression) would be eligible for enrollment,
regardless of his or her disability claim status.
s. 863
IAVA supports S. 863, the Veterans Back to School Act of 2013,
which would eliminate the time restriction on using Montgomery GI Bill
benefits. Those benefits currently expire ten years from the date that
an individual separates from the military. This legislation would allow
education benefits to expire ten years from the date of first use,
which would give veterans greater flexibility to take advantage of
their benefits.
This legislation would also reauthorize the Veterans Education
Outreach Program (VEOP) to provide funding for campus-based outreach
services to veterans. VEOP provided formula grants to institutions of
higher education based on the number of enrolled veterans receiving
veterans' educational benefits or vocational rehabilitation services.
After more than 12 years of war, more and more veterans are going back
to school, and this legislation would help expand veterans education
outreach and further enrich veterans' academic endeavors.
s. 868
IAVA has no position on S. 868, the Filipino Veterans Promise Act,
which would require the DOD to collaborate with military historians on
a process to potentially make adjustments to the Approved Revised
Reconstructed Guerilla Roster of 1948, also known as the ``Missouri
List.'' As always, IAVA is incredibly humbled by the display of
patriotism from those who served our country so bravely in a time of
war.
s. 889
IAVA supports S. 889, the Servicemembers' Choice in Transition Act
of 2013, which would enhance the content of the Transition Assistance
Program for servicemembers who are preparing to reintegrate into the
civilian world, go back to school using their VA education benefits,
and/or enter the civilian job market. This bill constitutes a positive
step in the right direction toward equipping troops with the knowledge
and skills they need to be successful as new veterans.
We cannot simply turn new veterans loose into the civilian world
and expect them to be successful, just as we would not release them as
new troops onto a battlefield without proper acculturation and
training. A strong, comprehensive, substantive, and consistent
Transition Assistance Program is vital to ensuring servicemembers'
successful transition back into civilian life, and to ensuring the
security and stability of their families.
s. 893
IAVA supports S. 893, the Veterans' Compensation Cost of Living
Adjustment Act of 2013, which would give qualified disabled veterans
and their dependents annual Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA)
adjustments starting in December 2013. Tough economic times have placed
a heavy burden on our wounded veterans and the limited resources they
are afforded. IAVA believes this piece of legislation will help protect
the financial stability of our disabled veterans and their families as
costs increase over time.
s. 894
IAVA supports S. 894, which would extend the VA's work-study
allowance program to 2016 and expand the program to include outreach
within Congressional offices. This outreach would include distributing
necessary information to servicemembers and veterans as well as their
dependents about the benefits and services available through the VA as
well as preparing any paperwork related to claims benefits. IAVA
believes that this bill would benefit veterans by granting them
valuable experience in the Federal Government and will benefit
Congressional offices by substantially increasing the number of
veterans helping other veterans.
s. 922
IAVA supports S. 922, the Veterans Equipped for Success Act of
2013. As Congress knows well, today's veterans are highly skilled and
better trained than ever before, yet their unemployment rate remains
far too high. While the most recent unemployment statistics show
promising indications of increasing opportunities for our nations
veterans, younger veterans are still experiencing difficulty finding
adequate employment in the current job market. Addressing this problem
remains a top priority for the veteran community, and IAVA supports
this legislation because it will provide employment resources to
veterans in general and to younger veterans specifically.
s. 927
IAVA supports S. 927, the Veterans Outreach Act of 2013, which
would require the VA to carry out a demonstration project to increase
awareness of benefits and services. Too often, veterans express
frustration about not knowing if the VA is capable of providing
assistance on a variety of issues. Part of the VA's mission is to make
veterans' lives better by getting them the right information about
their benefits at the right time.
IAVA welcomes legislative proposals focused on better informing
veterans about the benefits and services available to them from the VA.
Further, IAVA supports the continued establishment and strengthening of
partnerships between the VA and other state, local, and non-
governmental organizations for the benefit of America's veterans, which
this bill aims to accomplish.
s. 928
IAVA supports S. 928, the Claims Processing Improvement Act of
2013. Far too many veterans are stuck in the VA's claims backlog and
their numbers have been increasing exponentially over the past few
years. At present, over 860,000 VA claims are pending and over 569,000
(or 66.2%) of those claims are backlogged. This legislation would offer
a wide array of support and solutions to help improve VA claims-related
processes and capabilities, expand veterans' ability to conveniently
appeal claims decisions, and provide for extensions of other important
benefits and authorities.
Of particular note within this bill is the establishment of working
groups and task forces which collectively would mirror the work and
resemble the constitution of the backlog commission or task force for
which IAVA has been advocating. However, rather than a piecemeal
approach to the establishment of these entities, IAVA supports a
comprehensive approach under the authority of one task force. Since the
problems related to the conditions under which the claims backlog has
grown to such immense proportions are systemic and multidimensional,
IAVA favors a comprehensive look at these problems and comprehensive
solutions rather than a piecemeal approach.
Ending the disability claims backlog is one of IAVA's top
priorities. As such, IAVA encourages the adoption of solid legislation
that would provide long-term support and solutions to improve the
timeliness and accuracy of VA disability claims processing, expand
appeals rights for veterans, and improve upon other benefits and
authorities designed to serve veterans and their families.
s. 932
IAVA supports S. 932, the Putting Veterans Funding First Act, which
would require Congress to fully fund the Department of Veterans
Affairs' discretionary budget a year in advance, ensuring that all VA
accounts will have predictable funding in an era where continuing
resolutions and threats of government shutdowns are all too frequent.
America's veterans have already paid their debt to this country and in
return for their service, our Nation promised them care and benefits to
help transition back into civilian life. This bill would fulfill that
obligation by ensuring that crucial VA services are not affected by
Washington's partisan budgetary oscillations, and that the care and
benefits veterans have earned are delivered to them in a timely manner.
s. 935
IAVA supports S. 935, the Quicker Veterans Benefits Delivery Act of
2013, which would prevent the VA from requesting a medical examination
to further assess a disability if a veteran submits medical evidence
provided by a ``competent, credible, probative, and otherwise
adequate'' non-VA medical professional in support of a disability
claim. This legislation would require the VA to maximize the use of
private medical evidence, which would conserve VA resources and enable
swifter, more accurate rating decisions for veterans. VA should be a
beneficial resource and efficient adjudicator, not a veteran's biggest
obstacle to disability compensation.
s. 938
IAVA supports S. 938, the Franchise Education for Veterans Act of
2013, which would allow veterans interested in purchasing a business
franchise to use up to $15,000 in VA educational assistance program
funds to pay for franchise education and training programs. IAVA
believes that veterans can benefit from such programs just as much as
they can benefit from other programs and courses of study for which VA
educational assistance can be utilized, and that a greater array of
such educational and training programs will encourage veterans to start
business that will improve their own livelihoods as well as the overall
health of the American economy.
s. 939
IAVA supports S. 939, which would protect a veteran's appeal rights
before the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims when the
veteran mistakenly files a document with the VA and the document is not
transmitted to the appropriate office in a timely fashion. This bill
would instead treat that document as a motion for reconsideration
before the Court of an adverse decision by the Board of Veterans
Appeals in certain circumstances. The failure of VA to notify a veteran
promptly of a filing error or to forward the document to the
appropriate court or office should not deprive a veteran of the right
to have a case reviewed on appeal. The VA should be a beneficial
resource and a veteran's strongest advocate, not an obstacle to
compensation or care.
s. 944
At this point in time, IAVA has no position on S. 944, the
Veterans' Educational Transition Act of 2013, which would require
courses of education provided by public institutions of higher
education to charge veterans tuition at the in-state rate as long as
the veteran separated within the last two years before enrollment. IAVA
supports the tuition issue that S. 944 aims to solve. However, it is
IAVA's belief that the method for resolving the issue put forth in this
bill is not the most viable and beneficial solution available for
veterans. IAVA feels that better solutions exist, such as those covered
in S. 257, but we nevertheless recognize and support the mutual goal of
both pieces of legislation.
We again appreciate the opportunity to offer our views on these
important pieces of legislation, and we look forward to continuing to
work with each of you, your staff, and the Committee to improve the
lives of veterans and their families. Thank you for your time and
attention.
______
Letter from Philip Smith, National Liaison & Washington, DC, Director,
Lao Veterans of America
Lao Veterans of America, Inc.
Washington, DC, May 15, 2013.
Hon. Bernard Sanders
Chairman,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
RE: May 15, 2013, Hearing on Pending Veterans Benefits
Legislation & S. 690, The Filipino Veterans Fairness Act of
2013.
Dear Chairman Sanders, Vice Chairman Burr and Senate Veterans'
Affairs Committee Members: On behalf of the Lao Veterans of America,
Inc. (LVA) and the Lao Veterans of America Institute (LVAI), the
Nation's largest Laotian and Hmong-American veterans organizations with
over 55,000 members across the United States, we write in support of
important legislation S. 690, The Filipino Veterans Fairness Act of
2013, introduced by Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii.
The Filipino Scouts, and Filipino veterans, are indeed special
heroes that deserve the attention and support of this Committee. These
veterans courageously served in bloody defense of the Philippines, and
America's Armed Forces, during World War II, and the brutal invasion
and occupation of their island homelands by Imperial Japanese Army and
naval forces. The Filipino veterans endured unspeakable suffering and
helped turn the tide of battle. These veterans deserve the full support
of the United States, and the U.S. Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee.
We appeal to you Chairman Sanders, Vice Chairman Burr, and all of
the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Members, to act decisively, and
unanimously, in support of passage of S. 690, The Filipino Veterans
Fairness Act of 2013. It is critical for America to provide long-
overdue fairness, and full veterans benefits, to all Filipino veterans
who served during World War II.
Time is running out for these elderly Filipino veterans and their
families from World War II.
We sincerely appreciate Senator Brian Shatz's leadership on this
important matter as well as the work of his staff on this issue.
Like the Filipino veterans of World War II, the Lao and Hmong
veterans served in defense of freedom and America's interests in
Southeast Asia when they were under relentless and bloody attack.
Laotian and Hmong veterans uniquely served in the ``U.S. Secret Army''
defending the Kingdom of Laos and U.S. national security interests
during intense combat the Vietnam War. The Lao and Hmong veterans truly
know, understand and appreciate the full meaning of sacrifice on behalf
of the defense of their homeland and the United States, having shed
much blood and tears, and having saved the lives of many American
soldiers, pilots and aircrews in defense of freedom.
The Lao- and Hmong-American veterans of America's war in Indochina,
respectfully and humbly submit this appeal to you in support of S. 690
and all of the Filipino veterans of World War II. Please do not forget
them, especially as Senator Schatz and others seek to memorialize the
American and Filipino victims of the Bataan Death March.
We hope that the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee, and the U.S.
Senate, will immediately act to pass this important legislation.
Sincerely,
Philip Smith,
National Liaison & Washington, DC, Director.
______
Letter from National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, Inc.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Prepared Statement of Scott Levins, Director, National Personnel
Records Center, National Archives and Records Administration
Thank you, Chairman Sanders, for giving me the opportunity to
discuss S. 674, Accountability for Veterans Act of 2013. The National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is deeply committed to
serving our Nation's veterans and supporting the needs of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
NARA's National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) provides storage
and reference services on the military personnel and medical records of
nearly 60 million veterans. The center responds to approximately 5,000
requests each day. Most requests come directly from veterans and their
next of kin; however, NPRC receives approximately 1,250 requests per
day from the VA for the temporary loan of original records needed to
adjudicate claims.
The VA has a liaison office co-located at the NPRC facility and the
two offices work closely to ensure VA's prompt access to essential
records. During the first 35 weeks of fiscal year 2013 NPRC responded
to nearly 218,000 requests from the VA. The average response time has
been 2.2 workdays.
Recognizing the importance of providing timely access to records,
NPRC has worked with the VA to develop a process that enables the
electronic transmission of requests, prompt delivery of responsive
records, bar code tracking of records, and electronic status updates.
Our systems are designed to accommodate the receipt and processing of
bulk electronic files created by the VA, which include hundreds
(sometimes thousands) of new requests each day. The VA is also able to
submit individual requests electronically. Automatic email
notifications are sent to acknowledge the receipt of new requests. If
our systems determine that a responsive record is temporarily
unavailable, the request is placed on backorder for thirty days or
until the record is returned to file, whichever is sooner. In instances
where a responsive record is not immediately available (approximately
5% of requests), electronic notifications are made to the VA.
In addition to providing status updates through an electronic
portal available to VA users, we also provide the VA with direct access
to our production system. This access enables VA staff to delve deeper
into order fulfillment details concerning specific requests and to run
ad hoc queries and reports concerning work volumes and response times.
NPRC also has a staff member appointed to serve as a liaison with
the VA to ensure continuous, effective communication concerning
fluctuations in workload, troubleshooting system issues, or any other
issues involving service delivery to the VA.
NPRC is already exceeding the response time and notification
standards outlined in S. 674 and should be able to continuously meet
the requirements going forward.
NPRC is committed to serving America's veterans and proud of its
efforts to effectively support the VA in doing the same. We hope this
information is helpful; we appreciate your interest in this important
subject.
______
Prepared Statement of National Governors Association
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Prepared Statement of Peter J. Duffy, COL., US Army (Ret.), Legislative
Director, National Guard Association of the United States
Thank you for all you have done for our veterans since 9/11 and for
this opportunity to present this statement for the record.
background--unique citizen servicemember/veteran
The National Guard is unique among components of the Department of
Defense (DOD) in that it has the dual state and Federal missions. While
serving operationally on Title 10 active duty status in Operation Iraqi
Freedom (OIF) or Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), National Guard units
are under the command and control of the President. However, upon
release from active duty, members of the National Guard return as
veterans to the far reaches of their states, where most continuing to
serve in over 3,000 armories across the country under the command and
control of their Governors. As a special branch of the Selected
Reserves they train not just for their Federal missions, but for their
potential state active duty missions such as fire fighting, flood
control, and providing assistance to civil authorities in a variety of
possible disaster scenarios.
Since 9/11, over a half a million National Guard members have
deployed in contingency operations to gain veteran status. When they
return from deployment, they are not located within the closed
structure of a 24/7 supported active military installation, but rather
reside in their home town communities where they rely heavily on the
medical support of the Veterans Administration (VA) when they can
overcome time and distance barriers to obtain it.
Using the National Guard as an operational force requires a more
accessible mental health program for members and their families post-
deployment in order both to provide the care they deserve as veterans
and to maintain the necessary medical readiness required by deployment
cycles. It cannot be a simple post-deployment send off by the active
military of ``Good job. See you in five years.'' To create a seamless
medical transition from active duty to the VA, an improved medical
screening of our members before they are released from active duty is
essential to identify the medical issues that will be passed to the VA.
The Department of Defense must also recognize its responsibility of
sharing the burden with the VA in funding mental health care for our
National Guard members between deployments.
The Department of Defense must also be called to task for the
mishandling and disappearance of National Guard medical records in the
OIF/OEF theaters and the shoddy administration of Guard and Reserve
demobilization. Statistics published last year by the VA show that the
VA denies National Guard and Reserve disability benefit compensation
claims at four times the rate of those filed by active duty veterans.
Lacking clear records to establish the service connection for their
injuries, our Guard members face failure when they later file their VA
disability claims for undocumented physical and behavioral injuries.
This is a blot on the integrity of our Federal Government in its
treatment of our veterans. This Committee must seriously and separately
in another hearing consider legislation to establish a presumption of
service connection for certain war common injuries of National Guard
and Reserve veterans who later file disability benefit compensation
claims based upon those injuries.
Military service in the National Guard is uniquely community based.
The culture of the National Guard remains little understood outside of
its own circles. When the Department of Defense testifies before
Congress stating its programmatic needs, it will likely recognize the
indispensable role of the more cost efficient National Guard as a vital
operational force, but it will say little about, and seek less to,
redress the benefit disparities, training challenges, and unmet medical
readiness issues for National Guard members and their families at the
state level before, during, and after deployment. We continue to ask
Congress to give the Guard a fresh look with the best interests of the
National Guard members, their families, and the defense of the homeland
in mind.
correct the disprportionate denial rate for reserve component veterans'
disability benefit compensation claims with service-connection
presumptions for key injuries
According to Veterans Administration statistics published in
May 2012, it is denying adjudicated disability benefit compensation
claims for Reserve Component (RC) Global War on Terror at four times
the rate of active duty GWOT veterans according to a published VA
May 2012 report.
Years of neglect in the Office of the Secretary of Defense with the
demobilization process for RC members returning home from GWOT
deployment and the inadequate capturing of theater medical records for
the RC have come home to roost.
Area theater commands in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation
Enduring Freedom did not establish a reliable method for preserving in-
theater records of the RC. Congress heard testimony during the peak
years of OIF in 2007 that some medically evacuated RC members sometimes
returned stateside with medical records resting on their supine chests.
Moreover, too many members of the Guard and Reserve have been
allowed to slip through the medical cracks at demobilization stations
resulting in widespread under identification of service-connected
injuries at that critical separation point.
A variety of reasons were at play to include inadequate screening
by medical personnel at the demobilization site; the reluctance of
returning members to report disabling injuries at distant
demobilization sites to avoid the risk of further separations from home
after lengthy deployments; or simply the late onset of symptoms after
discharge from exposures to chemical hazards, Traumatic Brain Injury or
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
The six most frequent injuries for which the VA awards disability
benefit compensation are tinnitus; back or cervical strain; PTSD; leg
flexion limitations; degenerative spinal arthritis; of the spine; and
migraine. Service connection presumptions for these injuries presented
for RC GWOT veterans would help to mitigate the disproportionate denial
rate afflicting Guard and Reserve disability benefit compensation
claims.
pass s. 629 to bestow veteran status on national guard and reserve
military members with 20 years of service
NGAUS in concert with The Military Coalition has long sought
legislation authorizing veteran status under Title 38 for National
Guard and Reserve members of the Armed Forces who are entitled to a
non-regular retirement under Chapter 1223 of 10 U.S.C. but were never
called to title10 active service other than for training purposes
during their careers--through no fault of their own.
Many Members of Congress may not know that a reservist can complete
a full Guard or Reserve career but not earn the title of ``Veteran of
the Armed Forces of the United States,'' unless the member has served
on Title 10 active duty for other than training purposes.
Drill training, annual training, and title 32 service responding to
domestic natural disasters and defending our Nation's airspace, borders
and coastlines do not qualify for veteran status.
Reserve-component members who served 20 years gave the government a
blank check to send them anywhere in the world but through no fault of
their own were never deployed or in some cases even allowed to be
deployed.
Yet, an active-duty member whose entire short-term enlistment tour
is spent in less rigorous domestic assignments to domestic posts and
bases on Title 10 status will fully qualify, not just for veterans
status, but for all veterans' benefits. This disparity is unfair and
must end.
S. 629 would not bestow any benefits other than the honor of
claiming veteran status for those who honorably served and sacrificed
as career reserve component members but were never ordered to Title 10
active service. They deserve nothing less than this recognition.
Authorizing veteran status for career RC service would substantially
boost the morale of the RC without a cost consequence.
Opposition to this bill in the past has been grounded in a myth
that passage would open the floodgates of new veteran benefits for this
group. That is just not the case or even allowable under the law.
S. 629 explicitly guards against this possibility. Moreover, ``pay go''
laws in effect bar the default triggering of any new entitlements. It
is time to move past the unfounded ``camel's nose under the tent'' fear
that has held back this legislation. Its companion bill , H.R. 679, is
poised to pass the House imminently.
fully leverage the vet center model
For behavioral support, Guard veterans often look to the stellar
Vet Centers located throughout the country where they and their
families can obtain confidential peer to peer counseling as well as
behavioral treatment from on site clinicians; telehealth programs; or
from referrals to fee based clinicians paid for and pre approved by the
Vet Centers.
Confidentiality is vital in bringing our veterans still serving in
the Guard to treatment in order to assuage real concerns about the
sharing of medical records with the Department of Defense which VA
medical centers are authorized to do. The fee basing of referred care
by the Vet Center to community providers establishes a model for this
Committee to consider expanding to close the treatment gaps in our
rural communities. A voucher program administered by the Vet Centers
authorizing paid for treatment to qualified community providers would
maximize scheduling flexibility and plug direct access gaps to care for
our Guard veterans.
pass s. 927 and expand its outreach to fund community-based
mental health care
S. 927 pending before this Committee reflects the need for the VA
to better leverage and fund existing community resources in caring for
our veterans. It warrants immediate passage with an expanded feature
that would fund veterans' access to community based care. Too often
that care has relied on pro bono service providers or state/community
care facilities stressed for funding.
The issues of veterans' unemployment and mental health maintenance
cannot be separated. Before veterans can maintain gainful employment in
a challenging job environment, they must be able to maintain a healthy
mental status and establish supportive social networks.
In 2007, the Rand Corporation published a study titled, ``The
Invisible wounds of War.'' It found that at the time 300,000 veterans
of Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation enduring Freedom suffered from
either PTSD or major depression. This number can only have grown after
five more years of war. The harmful effects of these untreated
invisible wounds on our veterans hinder their ability to reintegrate
with their families and communities, work productively, and to live
independently and peacefully.
Rand recommended that a network of local, state, and Federal
resources centered at the community level be available to deliver
evidence-based care to veterans whenever and wherever they are located.
Veterans must have the ability to utilize trained and certified
services in their communities. In addition to training providers, the
VA must educate veterans and their families on how to recognize the
signs of behavioral illness and how and where to obtain treatment.
VA and Vet Center facilities are often located hundreds of miles
from our National Guard veterans living in rural areas. Requiring a
veteran, once employed, to drive hundreds of miles to obtain care at a
VA facility necessitates the veteran taking time off from work for
reasons likely difficult to explain to an employer. Most employees can
ill afford to miss work, particularly after an extended absence from
deployment in the case of our Guard veterans. The VA needs to leverage
community resources to proactively engage veterans in caring for their
mental health needs in a confidential and convenient manner that does
not require long distance travel or delayed appointments.
To facilitate the leveraging of mental health care providers in our
communities, the VA through its Office of Mental Health Services or
through its highly effective Vet Centers can actively exercise its
authority to contract with private entities in local communities, or
creatively implement a voucher program that would allow our veterans to
seek fee-based treatment locally with certified providers outside the
brick and mortar of the Veterans Administration facilities and even the
Vet Centers.
The Vet Center in Spokane for example serves an area as big as the
state of Pennsylvania. It is not practical for veterans in this
catchment area to drive hundreds of miles to seek counseling or
behavioral clinical care. That Vet Center pre screens fee based
providers to whom it will refer veterans for confidential treatment in
its management area. It also monitors the process to make sure the
veteran is actually receiving care paid for by the Vet Center. This
system already works. However, a voucher process would improve
efficiencies by relieving the Vet Center of its scheduling burden by
allowing the veteran to directly make his or her own appointment with
providers as needed.
The VA and Vet Centers also need to fully leverage existing state
administrative mental health and veteran networks. Working with the
state mental health care provider licensing authorities, community
providers certified by the VA or Vet Center to treat veterans could be
identified at the state agency level with vouchers to pay for treatment
by those providers. The various state departments of veterans affairs
are often in a better position to effectively administer such outreach
programs given the more extensive lists of veterans in their sates than
those possessed by the VA or Vet Centers.
Several of our veterans have fallen through the cracks of the VA
health care system, and will continue to do so. According to the
Vietnam Veterans of America, last year only 30% of our veteran
population had enrolled in VA medical programs. Many veterans end up in
the care of state social service programs in cooperation with state and
national veteran organizations. The VA has the authority to assist in
maintaining this safety net of care for veterans in a stressful
economic climate for our states with a voucher program or expanded
contracting with private entities. It needs to act.
hippa confidentiality must be observed with mental health care
Most of our National Guard veterans of OIF/OEF eligible for VA care
post-deployment are still serving with their units and subject to
redeployment. Given the evolving electronic medical records
interoperability between the VA and the Department of Defense (DOD), a
confidentiality issue exists relative to mental health treatment
records for these veterans who remain in the military who do not want
their records shared by the VA with their military commanders for fear
of career reprisals.
It is essential that HIPPA confidentiality be maintained by the VA
for the mental health treatment records of these veterans to encourage
their treatment with VA providers. Our Vet Centers already operate with
full confidentiality which makes them the service center of choice for
Guard members who want to maintain confidentiality of their mental
health counseling records to protect against perceived negative
repercussions in their units. HIPPA rules pragmatically require
observance of confidentiality but draw the line with patients who are
dangers to themselves or their communities whose cases must be
reported.
It is critical that confidentiality be established as soon as
possible legislatively with the VA much the same as it is currently
observed in Vet Centers. We believe that the VA is operating under
advice from its legal staff that all VA medical records can be
transferred to DOD. Lack of confidentiality will chill the treatment
process and is likely contributed to the under utilization of VA
medical care by our veterans.
require the va to fully implement section 304 of the caregivers and
veterans omnibus health services act 0f 2009, public law 111-163, to
provide mental health services to veterans of oif/oef and their
immediate family members veterans using private entities
Post-deployment, our National Guard members and their families
heavily rely on the VA for mental health care. Congress recognized as
much in passing The Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act
of 2009, Public Law 111-163, enacted May 6, 2010, now requires the VA
to reach out not just to veterans but to their immediate families as
well to assist in the reintegration process.
The law also urged the VA Secretary to contract with community
mental health centers and other qualified entities to provide the
subject services in areas the Secretary determines are not adequately
served by other health care facilities or Vet Centers of the Department
of Veterans Affairs. It is not clear how thoroughly the VA has fully
taken advantage of this authority to contract with private entities to
deliver community based mental health services.
Section 304 of the Family Caregiver Act required the VA to make
full mental health services available also to the immediate family
members of OIF/OEF veteran for three years post-deployment. However,
the VA delayed for at least two years in making the full range of its
Office of Mental Health Services (OMHS) programs available to immediate
to families as required by Section 304. It is not clear today that the
program has been fully implemented.
Section 304 was enacted on May 6, 2010. For many, the three year
post-deployment period will begin to lapse in 2013. The VA OMHS needed
to fully comply with Section 304 in a timely manner. Because the VA's
unreasonably delayed implementation of this important program, this
Committee needs to consider extending the subject three year post-
deployment limitation period another three years to allow family
members to access their care.
It also needs to lean harder on the VA to fully utilize its
contracting authority to better leverage private entities and to use a
voucher system described above to make community based treatment more
accessible and convenient. Our veterans and their immediate families
may be a small subset, but they are worth it.
the department of defense must cooperatively work with the va in
screening behavioral health care needs of our members before they are
released from active duty
At all stages of PTSD and depression, treatment is time sensitive.
However, this is particularly important after onset, as the illness
could persist for a lifetime if not promptly and adequately treated,
and could render the member permanently disabled. The effects of this
permanent disability on the member's entire family can be devastating.
It is absolutely imperative that members returning from deployment be
screened with full confidentiality at the home station while still on
active duty by trained and qualified mental health care providers from
VA staff and/or qualified health care providers from the civilian
community. These providers could include primary care physicians,
physician assistants, and nurse practitioners who have training in
assessing psychological health presentations. Prompt diagnosis and
treatment will help to mitigate the lasting effects of mental illness.
This examination process must be managed by the VA in coordination with
the National Guard Director of Psychological Health for the respective
state, and the state's Department of Mental Health to allow transition
for follow up treatment by the full VA and civilian network of
providers within the state.
As an American Legion staffer at Walter Reed once stated, the main
problem for Reserve Component injured servicemembers is that they are
``rushed out of the system'' before their service-connected injuries
and disability claims have been resolved. Our injured members should
not be given the ``bum's rush'' and released from active duty until a
copy of their complete military medical file, including any field
treatment notes, has been transferred to the VA, their discoverable
service-connected military medical issues have been identified, any
service-connected VA disability physicals have been performed similar
to what is provided to the active forces before they are released from
active duty, and the initial determination of any service-connected VA
disability claim has been rendered. Unless medically not feasible, our
members should be retained on active duty in their home state for
treatment to discourage them from reporting injures out of fear of
being retained at a distant demobilization site.
It is absolutely necessary to allow home station screening for all
returning members by trained health care professionals who can screen,
observe, and ask relevant questions with the skill necessary to elicit
medical issues either unknown to the self-reporting member, or
unreported for fear of being retained at a far removed demobilization
site. In performing their due diligence before the issuance of an
insurance policy, insurance companies do not allow individuals to self
assess their health. Neither should the military. If geographical
separation from families is causing some to underreport, or not report,
physical or psychological combat injuries on the PDHA, then continuing
this process at the home station for those in need would likely produce
a better yield at a critical time when this information needs to be
captured in order for prompt and effective treatment to be
administered.
Please see the copy of a November 5, 2008 electronic message to
NGAUS from Dr. Dana Headapohl set forth in the Appendix that still
pertains. Dr. Headapohl strongly recommended a surveillance program for
our members before they are released from active duty. Dr. Headapohl
opined then the obvious in stating that inadequate medical screening of
our members before they are released from active duty is ``unacceptable
to a group that has been asked to sacrifice for our country.''
(emphasis added)
conclusion
Thank you for that you have done for our veterans since 9/11.
Please view our efforts as part of a customer feedback process to
refine and improve the ongoing vital and enormous undertaking of the
VA. Our National Guard veterans, both still serving and separated, will
remain one of your largest base of customers who will continue to
require your attention. Thank you for this opportunity to present.
______
Prepared Statement of Angela Bailey, Associate Director, Employee
Services, and Chief Human Capital Officer, U.S. Office of Personnel
Management
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for the
record related to the June 12, 2013 hearing on pending veterans
benefits legislation. Specifically, the Committee has requested the
Office of Personnel Management's (OPM's) input on section 2 of S. 495,
the Careers for Veterans Act of 2013.
Our Nation's veterans have sacrificed tremendously in service to
our country, and we have an obligation to support them upon their
separation from the Armed Forces. This Administration has supported
that obligation repeatedly through the years, and OPM has been a proud
partner in the efforts to employ greater numbers of veterans in the
Federal workforce. While OPM believes that S. 495 is a well-intended
bill, it is important to highlight existing work being carried out to
employ veterans with the Federal Government.
Presently, when applying for Federal employment, veterans may take
advantage of special hiring authorities for veterans. For example, a
veteran applying for Federal employment may do so under the Veterans'
Recruitment Appointment (VRA). It is an excepted authority that allows
agencies to appoint eligible veterans without competition at any grade
level up to and including GS-11 or equivalent. VRA provides the
opportunity for eligible veterans to train for two years in a position.
Additionally, the Veterans Employment Opportunity Act of 1998 (VEOA), a
competitive service appointing authority used when filling permanent,
competitive service positions, affords veterans the opportunity to
compete with current Federal employees. Veterans who are 30 percent or
more disabled may be appointed non-competitively. Disabled veterans may
also use Schedule A appointing authority for an excepted service
appointment. Finally, disabled veterans who are eligible for training
under the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) vocational rehabilitation
program may enroll for training or work experience at an agency under
the terms of an agreement between the agency and VA.
In addition to the special hiring authorities, veterans have also
been subject to targeted outreach by the Administration. As part of
these efforts, on November 9, 2009, President Barack Obama signed
Executive Order 13518, Employment of Veterans in the Federal
Government, which establishes the Veterans Employment Initiative (VEI).
The VEI is a strategic approach to helping the men and women who have
served our country in the military find employment in the Federal
Government. Under the VEI, OPM and partner agencies developed the
Government-wide Veterans' Recruitment and Employment Strategic Plan for
FY 10-12, an important tool in the implementation of the President's
Executive Order. The plan outlined strategies the Federal Government
subsequently used to improve employment opportunities for veterans in
the executive branch. Presently, the Veterans' Recruitment and
Employment Strategic Plan for FY 13-15 is under development.
Additionally, Veteran Employment Program Offices have been established
in the 24 agencies covered under Executive Order 13518. Further, OPM
has created the Feds Hire Vets Web site to provide a single point for
providing veterans' employment information to veterans, their families,
and hiring managers. OPM has also created a Government-wide marketing
campaign on the value of our veterans and toolkits were provided to
Federal agencies to aid in their efforts to hire veterans. Finally, OPM
conducted the Veterans Employment Symposium which provided essential
learning to human resources professionals and hiring managers. This
symposium was followed by web-based training applications in the areas
of veterans' appointing authorities and veterans' preference.
OPM has worked with other agencies on the implementation of the VOW
(Veterans Opportunity to Work) To Hire Heroes Act of 2011 (``the VOW
Act''). The VOW Act, which requires Federal agencies to treat active
duty servicemembers as veterans, disabled veterans, or preference
eligibles for purposes of appointment in the competitive service when
these servicemembers submit a certification of expected discharge or
release from active duty under honorable conditions along with their
applications for Federal employment, was passed in the last Congress
and is another tool in assisting veterans in obtaining Federal
employment.
The efforts of OPM and other Federal agencies, through the Council
on Veterans Employment, to employ veterans in Federal service are
already paying dividends. In FY 2012, veterans accounted for 28.9
percent of all new hires in the Federal Government which is the highest
percentage of veteran new hires in the past twenty years and exceeds FY
2011 which was the previous all-time high. Additionally, the number of
veterans in Federal employment has steadily grown from 25.8 percent of
the Federal workforce in FY 2009 to 29.7 percent in FY 2012. Since FY
2009, 263,754 new hires in the Federal Government have been veterans.
OPM welcomes efforts that support employment of veterans, and is
actively engaged with agencies to increase the number of veterans in
the Federal workforce. This Administration's efforts in this regard are
already showing results in numbers well beyond the goals set forth in
S. 495. We are concerned that the planning and reporting requirements
contained in the legislation would increase the workload for agencies
and detract from efforts already underway. OPM looks forward to
continuing to work with this Committee on legislation that aims to
assist veterans in obtaining employment following their service for our
country as members of the Armed Forces.
______
Prepared Statement of Carolyn N. Lerner, Special Counsel,
United States Office of Special Counsel
Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the
Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on
behalf of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) in connection with
today's legislative hearing. OSC protects the merit system for over 2
million civilian employees in the Federal Government. Congress has
tasked OSC with four distinct mission areas. First, we protect Federal
employees from prohibited personnel practices, especially retaliation
for whistleblowing. Second, we provide a safe and secure channel for
employees to disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and threats to public health
or safety. Third, we enforce the Hatch Act, which keeps the Federal
workplace free from political coercion and improper partisan politics.
Finally, we are the primary enforcement agency for Federal sector
claims under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights
Act (USERRA).
USERRA protects the civilian employment and reemployment rights of
those who serve the United States in the Armed Forces, including the
National Guard and Reserves. OSC plays a critical role in enforcing
USERRA and helps to fulfill Congress' directive that the Federal
Government serve as a ``model employer'' under the law. This is
especially important because the Federal Government is the largest
civilian employer of National Guard and Reserve members.
OSC receives referrals from the Department of Labor for
representation of servicemembers and prosecution of USERRA violations.
In addition, in August 2011, OSC took on new responsibilities for
USERRA enforcement under a ``Demonstration Project.'' Under the
project, OSC investigates over half of all Federal sector USERRA
claims. OSC recently piloted a novel, expeditious and low-cost approach
to resolving USERRA cases by using alternative dispute resolution. OSC
has achieved a 100% success rate using mediation to resolve
servicemembers' claims.
s. 6--``putting our veterans back to work act of 2013''
OSC strongly supports S. 6, the ``Putting Our Veterans Back to Work
Act of 2013.'' Section 303 of S. 6 clarifies OSC's authority to
subpoena the attendance and testimony of witnesses, as well as the
production of documents from Federal employees and agencies. This
provision is necessary to assist OSC in determining whether a
servicemember is entitled to relief. This section also sets forth a
streamlined and more efficient process for enforcement of subpoenas
against Federal executive agencies or their employees by order of the
Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Explicit authority under Title
38 to issue subpoenas to Federal employees and agencies will assist OSC
in protecting rights of servicemembers.
______
Prepared Statement of Paralyzed Veterans of America
Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the
Committee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank you
for the opportunity to present our views on the broad array of
legislation impacting the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) pending
before the Committee. These important bills will help ensure that
veterans receive appropriate benefits in a timely manner.
s. 6, the ``putting our veterans back to work act of 2013''
PVA supports S. 6, ``Putting Our Veterans Back to Work Act of
2013'' which would amend the ``VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011'' to
extend this career assistance program through March 31, 2016. This
program is available for veterans that are unemployed and have
exhausted other educational and career assistance benefits. Since the
start of the program, July 1, 2012, the number of veterans
participating in the program fell short of the anticipated enrollment.
Although a large number of veterans have applied and qualified for the
program, many have not used the program.
The VA and the Department of Labor, Veterans Employment and
Training Service (VETS) must increase outreach to the veterans that
have applied for this program. A career counselor can help a veteran
decide on the best application of this program to compliment the job
skills previously obtained in the military. After discussing options
with a counselor, a veteran may decide not to use the program and
relinquish the certificate allocated for that veteran. Thus, allowing
another veteran to receive employment training.
The bill includes a requirement for the VA to establish a single
Web-based employment portal for veterans to access this information.
Additional outreach will be needed to reach those veterans not
dependent on the internet for their source of information. The VA
should strive to fill every available slot for this unique program to
help unemployed veterans.
s. 200
PVA does not oppose S. 200, which would amend Title 38, United
States Code, to authorize the interment of individuals that served in
combat support in the Kingdom of Laos between February 28, 1961 and
May 15, 1975 in cemeteries controlled by the VA National Cemetery
Administration.
s. 257, the ``gi bill tuition fairness act of 2013''
PVA supports S. 257, the ``GI Bill Fairness Act of 2013.'' This
legislation would require public institutions to charge the in-state
tuition and fees rate to veterans who use the GI Bill at that
institution when the veteran did not originally reside in that state.
Although many institutions have changed their policies to allow a
veteran to attend a public institution at the instate rate, some
continue charging veterans an out-of-state rate for those who once
lived in another state before entering service. This legislation will
address this shortcoming.
s. 262, the ``veterans education equity act of 2013''
PVA supports S. 262, the ``Veterans Education Equity Act of 2013,''
which would assist veterans using the GI Bill that have been paying
tuitions and fees above the GI Bill amount designated for that state.
Many veterans have accumulated thousands of dollars in debt for tuition
and fees over the amount paid by the GI Bill. This legislation will
allow the veteran to continue in the program of their choice without
accumulating extra financial dept.
s. 294, the ``ruth moore act of 2013''
PVA supports S. 294, the ``Ruth Moore Act of 2013.'' According to
reports, sexual assault in the military continues to be a serious
problem, despite several actions by the Department of Defense (DOD) to
combat the issue, including required soldier and leader training. As
the military works to reduce the threat and incident of military sexual
trauma (MST), it is important that victims of MST, both women and men,
have the ability to receive care from the VA and receive timely, fair
consideration of their claims for benefits. This is particularly
important given the number of MST occurrences that go unreported. While
current policies allowing restricted reporting of sexual assaults
should reduce the number of incidents which have ``no official
record,'' it can still be anticipated that there are those who will not
report the incident out of shame, fear of reprisals or stigma, or
actual threats from their attacker. To then place a high burden of
proof on the veteran, who has experienced MST to prove service-
connection, particularly in the absence of an official record, would
add further trauma to an already tragic event.
One particular recommendation that PVA would like to make about the
proposed language is a clarification of what constitutes a ``mental
health professional.'' We would hope that the intent of this
legislation is not to limit ``mental health professionals'' to only VA
health care professionals.
s. 373, the ``charlie morgan military spouses equal treatment act of
2013''
PVA has no formal position on S. 373, the ``Charlie Morgan Military
Spouses Equal Treatment Act of 2013.''
s. 430, the ``veterans small business opportunity and protection act of
2013''
PVA supports S. 430, the ``Veterans Small Business Opportunity and
Protection Act of 2013.'' This legislation would recognize the
surviving spouse of a deceased service-disabled veteran who acquires
the ownership interest in a small business of the deceased veteran as
such veteran, for purposes of eligibility for VA service-disabled small
business contracting preference, for a period of 10 years after the
veteran's death. This 10 year continuation applies only if such veteran
was either 100 percent disabled or died from a service-connected
disability. In situations where the veteran was less than 100 percent
disabled and did not die from a service-connected disability the
eligibility will continue for 3 years. This 3-year period is necessary
to continue conducting business that has been awarded and under
contract. This time period allows the surviving spouse to develop plans
for the future of the business, or plan for the sale of the business.
s. 492
PVA supports S. 492, a bill to amend Title 38, United States Code,
to require states to recognize the military experience of veterans when
issuing licenses and credentials to veterans without requiring
additional training. This Federal legislation is necessary to encourage
state license and certifying agencies to acknowledge the years of
training and performance veterans may have had in specific career
fields. Although some states have recognized this professional training
and experience provided by the Federal Government, most have not. This
unwillingness to license or certify qualified veterans can burden the
veteran with years of classroom and on the job training before the
veteran is allowed to work in a specific field with full pay. This bill
will require states to become more active in the process of certifying
qualified veterans.
s. 495, the ``careers for veterans act of 2013''
PVA supports S. 495, the ``Careers for Veterans Act of 2013.'' This
legislation combines several issues from other bills previously
introduced in the Senate. Those issues are surviving spouses' ownership
and continuation of receiving Federal contracts for a business that was
owned by a service-disabled veteran, and the requirement of states to
issues licenses or credentials in employment trades that a veteran is
qualified for and has received training and experience while in the
military.
The bill also requires the Sectary of Labor to provide each
veteran's one-stop center with a list of Web sites and applications
that are beneficial for veterans searching for employment. S. 495 also
directs each Federal agency to development a five-year plan to hire
qualified veterans with a total employment goal of 10,000 veterans
hired in the five year period. PVA supports this legislation and when
it is fully implemented, it will help many veterans with their
transition to the civilian work force.
s. 514
PVA supports S. 514, a bill to amend Title 38, United States Code,
to provide additional educational assistance under the current Post-9/
11 Educational Assistance to Veterans programs, who are pursuing a
degree in high-demand occupational fields such as engineering, math, or
an area that leads to employment in a high-demand occupation. This will
eliminate the financial barrier that could arise as a veteran pursues
the field of their choice with a STEM focus (science, technology,
engineering, or math). Often special programs of these educational
fields may cost above an individual state's allowance of the GI Bill.
This will accommodate veterans who study in STEM fields.
s. 515
PVA supports S. 515, a bill to amend Title 38, United States Code,
to extend the Yellow Ribbon G.I. Education Enhancement Program to cover
recipients of the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry scholarship.
This will allow public and private contributions for educational
assistance to the child of an individual who dies in the line of duty
while serving on active duty on or after September 11, 2001.
s. 572, the ``veterans second amendment protection act''
Regarding S. 572, the ``Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act,''
PVA has no formal position on this legislation.
s. 629, the ``honor america's guard-reserve retirees act of 2013''
Paralyzed Veterans of America supports S. 629, the ``Honor
America's Guard-Reserve Retirees Act.'' This bill incorporates
``veteran'' into the Guard and Reserve community. PVA supports
recognizing and honoring all servicemembers, Guard or Reserve, for
their faithful and honorable service in defending the United States of
America. Serving in a volunteer force should be credited to the
servicemember, not discounted through no fault of their own, because
they were never activated.
s. 674, the ``accountability for veterans act of 2013''
PVA supports S. 674, the ``Accountability for Veterans Act of
2013'' which will require prompt responses from the Department of
Defense, the Social Security Administration and the National Archives
and Records Administration when the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
requests information necessary to adjudicate benefits claims. It is
unfortunate that legislation is required in order for government
agencies to promptly provide information to adjudicate a veteran's
claim. PVA also supports the reporting requirement that will allow
better oversight and should identify trends in timeliness of agency
responses.
s. 690, the ``filipino veterans fairness act of 2013''
PVA has no official position on S. 690, the ``Filipino Veterans
Fairness Act.'' That being said, we have concerns about the provisions
of the legislation that address the $0.50-on-the-dollar benefit rate
that has long been included in Title 38 U.S.C for non-resident Filipino
veterans. It is our understanding that the legislation would eliminate
this benefit rate from statute. This rate was established to reflect
the fact that the standard-of-living in the Philippines is
significantly less than in the United States. This rate was determined
to reflect equitable and fair compensation for Filipino veterans who
served alongside U.S. veterans, but who are not U.S. citizens. We see
no reason why this rate should be changed (a position supported by the
Department of Veterans Affairs in the past).
s. 695, the ``veterans paralympic act of 2013''
PVA supports S. 695, a bill that would reauthorize the Paralympics
program that has partnered with the VA to expand sports and recreation
opportunities to disabled veterans and injured servicemembers. We
believe that this has certainly been a worthwhile program as the need
for expansion of these activities is necessary. We appreciate the role
that the Paralympics have played in this expansion.
PVA believes that much progress and enhanced cooperation has
resulted from the Paralympics Program and its partnership with VA.
Under this program, PVA has witnessed improved coordination between our
organization, USOC-Paralympics, and other veterans' and community-based
sports organizations that has enhanced existing programs and advanced
development of new programs in communities that previously had not been
served. The overall performance of the partnership between PVA, the
USOC-Paralympics and the Department of Veterans Affairs has
successfully produced an increased number of sports and recreation
opportunities for disabled veterans.
s. 705, the ``war memorial protection act of 2013''
PVA has no formal position on S. 705, the ``War Memorial Protection
Act of 2013.''
s. 735, the ``survivor benefits improvement act of 2013''
PVA supports, S. 735, the ``Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of
2013'' to extend the initial period for increase dependency and
indemnity compensation for surviving spouses, to extend benefits for
children of certain Thailand service veterans born with spina bifida,
and conduct a pilot program on grief counseling for surviving spouses
of veterans who die while serving on active duty in the Armed Forces.
s. 778
PVA has no specific position on the proposed legislation that would
allow the VA to issue identification (ID) cards to veterans. While we
can certainly see the merits of veterans having ID's that specifically
indicate their status, we wonder what verification mechanism would be
devised to determine whether or not a person is in fact a veteran.
Would the VA require a person to apply for the ID card and include a
copy of his or her DD214 for verification purposes? We question whether
or not the VA can handle the additional administrative burden that
might come with implementation of this legislation.
s. 819, the ``veterans mental health treatment first act of 2013''
While PVA understands the concepts outlined in S. 819, the
``Veterans Mental Health Treatment First Act,'' we oppose this proposed
legislation. We believe that this legislation tries to draw attention
to a concept that the VA ought to be focused on already--the health and
wellness of sick and disabled veterans. But this focus should not be at
the expense of the veteran. We cannot argue with the importance of
proper and effective treatment to address the mental health issues that
veterans may face. However, we believe this legislation would simply
force near term treatment on veterans in order to save the VA, and by
extension the Federal Government, money paid out in compensation in the
long term.
First, we would point out that the legislation calls for a ``pre-
evaluation'' of the veteran exhibiting symptoms of Post-Traumatic
Stress Disorder (PTSD) to determine if the condition might be related
to his or her service. This implies a step the disability claims
process should already be taking. Furthermore, it calls for the
Secretary to prescribe regulations dictating what constitutes a
relationship to military service--a concept already addressed in Title
38 U.S.C. and the Code of Federal Regulations.
Second, the legislation requires the veteran to delay his or her
right to file a claim while participating in the program. While we can
certainly see the benefit of a veteran participating in a comprehensive
treatment program, we see no reason why he or she should not still be
able to file a claim concurrently. Otherwise, the process simply is
delayed a year. And while we understand the argument that a veteran
would receive a stipend under this program, we do not believe that this
is an acceptable method of offsetting the broad range of benefits,
along with compensation, associated with adjudication of a claim.
Furthermore, depriving a veteran of his or her entitlement to
compensation may actually have the unintended effect of providing a
financial disincentive to participate in rehabilitation and treatment.
s. 863, the ``veterans back to school act of 2013''
PVA supports S. 863, the ``Veterans Back to School Act of 2013.''
This legislation will repeal the current time limitations on the
eligibility for use of educational assistance and extend eligibility to
10 years after the veteran starts using the program. Section 3 of the
bill ``Veterans Education Outreach Program'' would authorize funding to
institutions of higher learning to establish an office for a veterans'
education outreach program. To participate in the program an
institution must have a minimum of 50 veterans enrolled and match the
funding amount provided by the VA from non-Federal funds. Upon passage
of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, Secretary Shinseki's public remarks were that
he was pleased that young veterans can now attend the finest colleges
and universities in the Nation. Our challenge (the VA's and the
learning institutions) is to insure they stay in school. This new group
of students, many returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, are non-
traditional students with non-traditional issues and problems. This
legislation should provide on-campus counseling for veterans by
veterans, along with support and assistance. The function of fostering
communication among veteran students may be the key that helps veterans
address this next chapter of life after the military.
s. 889, the ``servicemembers' choice in transition act of 2013''
PVA supports S. 889, the ``Servicemembers' Choice in Transition Act
of 2013.''
s. 893, the ``veterans compensation cost-of-living adjustment act of
2013''
PVA supports S. 893, the ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living
Adjustment Act of 2013,'' that would increase, effective as of
December 1, 2013, the rates of compensation for veterans with service-
connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity
compensation (DIC) for the survivors of certain disabled veterans. This
would include increases in wartime disability compensation, additional
compensation for dependents, clothing allowance, and dependency and
indemnity compensation for children.
While our economy continues to struggle, veterans' personal
finances have been affected by rising costs of essential necessities to
live from day to day and maintain a certain standard of living.
s. 894
PVA supports S. 894, a bill to amend Title 38, United States Code,
to extend expiring authority for work-study allowances for individuals
who are pursuing programs of rehabilitation, education, or training
under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to expand
such authority to certain outreach services provided through
congressional offices.
s. 922, the ``veterans equipped for success during transition act of
2013''
PVA supports S. 922, the ``Veterans Equipped for Success Act of
2013.'' This legislation creates a comprehensive employment program
that will benefit many veterans by getting them started in the work
place, or helping some get back into the workplace. The three year
pilot program will enroll 50,000 eligible veterans. The VA will
designate the cities, minimum of four geographic areas, which will be
available for this program based on veterans' unemployment rates for an
area. The program will provide living wages for the veteran with
medical care provided by the VA. The legislation specifies that the
veteran worker should not be used in place of a full-time employee, or
to replace a full time employee that is out on sick leave or has left
the organization. This program will be a large undertaking for the VA
and the Department of Labor along with helpful oversight from Congress.
Employment programs for unemployed veterans have been created in the
past, but for various reasons were not successful or properly funded.
In this period of a slow economy, this can be a program of tremendous
importance for helping many veterans learn job skills and eventually
get into the workforce.
s. 927, the ``veterans outreach act of 2013''
PVA supports S. 927, the ``Veterans Outreach Act of 2013.'' With
the large number of veterans currently in the United States, and the
expectation that this number will increase with the current drawdown of
the military, outreach becomes critical to ensuring those who have
earned benefits are aware of their availability.
However, PVA is concerned with funding the grants for the outreach.
Too often additional programs are required of VA with no additional
appropriations being provided. It would be unfortunate if Veterans
Outreach suffered similarly. While there is a requirement for state
entities to provide 50-percent matching funds, grants are provided to
other entities including non-profits. With the current restrained
fiscal environment, PVA is concerned that this will be another good
idea that is never fulfilled due to funding shortfalls.
s. 928, the ``claims processing improvement act of 2013''
PVA generally supports the current draft of S. 928, the ``Claims
Processing Improvement Act of 2013'' with a few concerns. First,
Section 103 requires that the Secretary ``shall not make fewer than two
attempts to obtain the records,'' which may be interpreted by VA that
they are only required to make two attempts. This may also permit a
decision that only one attempt is necessary if a second would be
futile. This wording provides a great deal of subjectivity to the VA in
an area that they have been continually challenged to improve.
With regards to Section 201, understanding that the purpose of this
legislation is to reduce the backlog, PVA is not supportive of
legislation that abridges due process in any way. PVA believes
proposing a shorter filing period for Notices of Disagreement from 1
year to 6 months is unacceptable. A year gives the veteran the time to
obtain any additional evidence to support the claim, particularly if it
is a severely disabled veteran who can often face long hospital stays
or rehabilitation. Seeking additional medical information can be a
lengthy process. Furthermore, the ``good cause'' exception to the
proposed 180-day period could actually result in much more dispute and
litigation because of the broadness of the accepted circumstances of
``physical, mental, educational and linguistic limitation.'' There may
be an alternative that would allow claimants to waive the longer filing
period if they are sure the needed medical information can be quickly
obtained.
PVA supports Section 202 with regards to video conferencing. As
long as there is the ability to request an in-person hearing that the
Board would be required to honor, we believe this will benefit both the
claimant and the Board. At the Veteran Service Organization forums held
by the Board, there has been an ongoing emphasis on holding video
conferences whenever possible to reduce time lost for no-shows.
Additionally, the grant rate for video versus in-person hearings is the
same. In fact, PVA has encouraged service officers to hold video
conference hearings and the vast majority of PVA hearings are now held
via video conference.
Under Section 305 paragraph (c), the proposed legislation supports
PVA's position on the Accepted Clinical Evidence Initiative. We are
concerned VA may downplay the effectiveness by under-reporting it. The
single 15-month pilot took place only at the St. Paul Regional Claims
office, which doesn't have a significant backlog, reducing the
likelihood of large amounts of data to report. PVA believes VA should
have to expand the pilot before reporting on it to allow examination of
its true efficacy. Large urban areas or rural areas would benefit most.
For example, as of May 6, 2013, St. Paul has 9,553 veterans waiting,
with 2,447 waiting more than 125 days and 346 waiting more than one
year with an average wait time of 110 days. This is compared to Houston
with 36,044 veterans waiting, with 26,331 waiting more than 125 days
and 14,480 waiting more than one year with an average wait time of 419
days; or San Diego with 28,467 veterans waiting, with 19,435 waiting
more than 125 days and 7,666 waiting more than one year with an average
wait time of 319 days.
s. 930
PVA has no formal position on S. 930.
s. 932, the ``putting veterans funding first act of 2013''
PVA is pleased to see this legislation put forward by Sen. Begich
and fully supports it. This legislation, similar to H.R. 813, the
``Putting Veterans Funding First Act of 2013,'' introduced by House
Committee on Veterans' Affairs Chairman Jeff Miller (R-FL) and Ranking
Member Mike Michaud (D-ME), requires all accounts of the VA to be
funded through the advance appropriations process. It would provide
protection for the operations of the entire VA from the political
wrangling that occurs as a part of the appropriations process every
year. We would also like to see the Committee consider legislation
similar to that introduced by Representative Brownley in H.R. 806, the
``Veterans Healthcare Improvement Act'' that permanently establishes
the Government Accountability Office's reporting requirements as a part
of VA advance appropriations.
s. 935, the ``quicker veterans benefits delivery act of 2013''
PVA supports S. 935, the ``Quicker Veterans Benefits Delivery Act
of 2013.'' PVA has consistently recommended that VA accept valid
medical evidence from non-Department medical professionals. The
continuing actions of VA to require Department medical examinations
does nothing to further efforts to reduce the claims backlog and may
actually cause the backlog to increase.
s. 938, the ``franchise education for veterans act of 2013''
PVA supports the draft legislation ``Franchise Education for
Veterans Act of 2013'' which would amend Title 38, United States Code,
to allow certain veterans to use funding from educational assistance
provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs for franchise training.
Many veterans are using their Post-9/11 GI Bill to begin, or continue
their education to prepare for future careers. This unique benefit will
help hundreds of thousands of veterans as they complete their education
and move into career positions in government or private sector. For
those that choose not to attend college, owning a business franchise
can allow a veteran to provide for themselves and their families. Since
every franchise has a training program to prepare the future business
owner for achieving success, PVA supports the concept of using the
veterans' earned benefit, Post-9/11 GI Bill, to help pay for this
valuable and required training. The VA should require certain standards
of a training program and a history of the parent corporation's success
in their field of business along with a pattern of successful
franchises. This scrutiny of the training and a review of the business
plan of the franchise would be necessary to eliminate organizations
that obtain their profits from selling franchises rather that providing
a product or service that has a market demand.
s. 939
PVA fully supports this legislation. The claims process is
significantly complicated and it is noted that VA often does not
properly forward the Notice of Appeal to the Board. This legislation
will permit a Notice of Appeal incorrectly sent to VA instead of the
Court to be considered as a motion for reconsideration by the Board.
This is the fair thing to do where the intent of the veteran clearly
was to appeal.
PVA would once again like to thank the Committee for the
opportunity to submit our views on the legislation considered today.
Enactment of much of the proposed legislation will significantly
enhance the benefits services available to veterans, servicemembers,
and their families. We would be happy to answer any questions that you
may have for the record.
s. 944, the ``veterans' educational transition act of 2013''
As with S. 257, PVA supports S. 944, the ``Veterans' Educational
Transition Act of 2013.'' Because of the unique nature of military
service, Veterans deserve an in-state tuition and fees rate when using
the GI Bill at public institutions even when the veteran did not
originally reside in that state.
PVA would once again like to thank the Committee for the
opportunity to submit our views on the legislation considered today.
Enactment of much of the proposed legislation will significantly
enhance the health care services available to veterans, servicemembers,
and their families. We would be happy to answer any questions that you
may have for the record.
______
Prepared Statement of Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
______
Prepared Statement of Reserve Officers Association of the United States
and Reserve Enlisted Association of the United States
introduction
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Reserve Officers
Association (ROA) and the Reserve Enlisted Association (REA) would like
to thank the Committee for the opportunity to submit testimony. ROA and
REA applaud the ongoing efforts by Congress to address issues facing
veterans and serving Reserve Component members such as veteran status,
employment challenges, improvements to the education program, claims
processing and more.
Reservists are unique as veterans; warriors who, when separated
from active duty, are still subject to recall. This creates a different
set of challenges for this group, atypical from nonaffiliated veteran
concerns.
Though contingency operations in Afghanistan are winding down,
currently there are still high levels of mobilizations and deployments
for Guard and Reserve members, and many of these outstanding citizen
soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen have put their
civilian careers on hold while they serve their country in harm's way.
As we have learned, they share the same risks as their counterparts on
the battlefield in the Active Components. Over 875,000 Guard and
Reserve servicemembers have been activated since September 11. Of these
one-third have been mobilized two or more times. The United States is
creating a new generation of combat veterans that come from its Reserve
Components (RC). It is important, therefore, that we do not squander
this valuable resource of experience, nor ignore the benefits that they
are entitled to because of their selfless service to their country.
Yet there is a group of serving Reserve Component members who have
prepared these war veterans, who are not recognized as veterans
themselves. Many of these Guard and Reserve members don't qualify for
veteran status, because their active duty periods are not long enough.
ROA and REA thank the Committee for including Senator Pryor's bill
S. 629, ``Honor America's Guard-Reserve Retirees Act of 2013,'' to be
included in this hearing.
Unfortunately, unemployment continues to run about 10 percent
higher for younger Guard and Reserve members than for non-affiliated
veterans. ROA and REA would like to work with this Committee to develop
employment solutions that would focus on this age group.
ROA and REA endorse S. 629 (Pryor), S. 6 (Reid), S. 257 (Boozman),
S. 262 (Durbin), S. 294 (Tester), S. 430 Heller, S. 515 (Brown), S. 572
(Burr), S. 674 (Heller), S. 695 (Boozman), S. 705 (Burr), S. 735
(Sanders), S. 819 (Burr), S. 893 (Sanders), S. 894 (Sanders), S. 922
(Sanders), S. 927 (Sanders), S. 928 (Sanders), S. 863 (Blumenthal).
The Associations don't necessarily object to legislation that is
excluded from this list.
reserve association's agenda summary
Employer Support:
Continue to enact tax credits for health care and
differential pay expenses for deployed Reserve Component employees.
Provide tax credits to offset costs for temporary
replacements of deployed Reserve Component employees.
Support tax credits to employers who hire servicemembers
who supported contingency operations.
Employee Support:
Permit delays or exemptions while mobilized of regularly
scheduled mandatory continuing education and licensing /certification/
promotion exams.
Seek a credentialing process to recognize military skills
Continue to support a law center dedicated to USERRA/SCRA
problems of deployed Active and Reserve servicemembers.
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)/
Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act (SCRA):
Improve SCRA to protect deployed members from creditors
that willfully violate SCRA.
Fix USERRA/SCRA to protect health care coverage of
returning servicemembers and family for pre-existing conditions, and
continuation of prior group or individual insurance.
Encourage Federal agencies to abide by USERRA/SCRA
standards.
Ensure USERRA isn't superseded by binding arbitrations
agreements between employers and Reserve Component members.
Make the states employers waive 11th Amendment immunity
with respect to USERRA claims, as a condition of receipt of Federal
assistance.
Make the award of attorney fees mandatory rather than
discretionary.
Veterans Affairs:
Calculate years of service for disability retired pay for
Reserve Component members wounded or injured in combat under section
12732 of U.S.C. Title 10.
Extend veterans preference to those Reserve Component
members who have completed 20 years in good standing.
Make permanent Reserve Component VA Home Loan Guarantees.
Eliminate the 3/4 percent fee differential between Active
Component and Reserve Component programs on VA Home Loan.
Support burial eligibility for deceased gray-area retirees
at Arlington National Cemetery.
Continue to seek timely and comprehensive implementation
of concurrent receipt for disabled receiving retired pay and VA
disability compensation.
including reserve retirees who have earned veteran status
Many Guard and Reserve servicemembers have served admirably for 20
plus years and qualify for retirement without having been called to
active duty service during their careers. The Pentagon estimates there
are just under 290,000 in this group. At age 60, they are entitled to
Reserve military retired pay, government health care, and other
benefits of service, including some Veterans' benefits. Yet current law
denies them full standing as a Veteran of the Armed Forces. Both ROA
and REA support Senator Pryor's bill S. 629, Honor America's Guard-
Reserve Retirees Act of 2013 to correct this injustice. It is the right
thing to do!
Reserve Component members, as defined in law, who have completed 20
or more years of service are military retirees and eligible once
reaching 60 years of age for all of the active duty military retiree
benefits. Conversely they are not considered to be ``Veterans'' if they
have not served the required number of uninterrupted days on Federal
active duty (defined as active duty other than for training). Yet over
20 years they have sacrificed much in family and civilian employment
opportunity and at a minimum have served more than seven years on duty
over weekends and annual duty.
Serving Reserve Component members focus on numerous things such as
the mission at hand, the job, training and development, the troops,
going where needed, and other responsibilities, but not much thought is
given by individuals to making sure they had the right kind of duty
orders to qualify as a Veteran upon retirement.
Those Reserve Component members that have been called to serve in
Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation New
Dawn have undoubtedly qualified as Veterans. Yet, there are many others
who stand in front of and behind these men and women--preparing them
and supporting them--individuals that are also ready to deploy but
because of their assigned duties may never serve in that capacity.
Nevertheless they serve faithfully.
Twenty or more years of service in the Reserve forces and
eligibility for Reserve retired pay should be sufficient qualifying
service for full Veteran status under the law.
This issue is a matter of honor for those, who through no fault of
their own were never activated, but served their nation faithfully for
20 or more years.
Hurtles
Seemingly, the biggest hindrance to passing S. 629 to grant
Veterans status, is the misconception that passage would have
unintended consequences, causing this group of Veterans to receive
benefits that they would not otherwise qualify for. The pending
legislation would change the legal definition of ``Veteran'' so that
proper acknowledgment and recognition that comes with the designation
of ``veteran'' would be made. BUT it would NOT change the legal
qualification for access to any benefits.
Each veteran benefit has a different set of qualifications because
each was created at a different time. Every time Congress passes new
legislation that is signed into law authorizing new Veteran benefits,
the eligibility requirements are determined for that specific benefit.
Veteran status depends on which Veteran program or benefit you are
applying for. Thus S. 629's language does not generate unintended
consequences.
Some have suggested moving such language out of Title 38. If that
were to happen, a specific group would be classified as second-class
veterans. Such a result would not grant these admirable men and women
the honor they deserve for their 20 years plus service, but denigrate
it.
No Cost
Reserve Component members with 20 years or more service without
qualifying consecutive active duty time, will not be given special
access to Veterans Affairs (VA) disability rating. Currently if they
are injured while on military orders in the line of duty, they are
already eligible for a VA disability rating and VA health care.
In the majority of circumstances these individuals will have other
full-time employment in the private sector or as a civilian government
employee. Therefore almost all have health care insurance through their
employer, and have no need to rely on VA health benefits. Upon reaching
60 years of age they will be eligible for TRICARE, and at age 65 for
TRICARE for Life.
reducing guard and reserve unemployment
Employers view USERRA as a negative incentive and would like to see
positive encouragement to hire veterans. Reauthorizing the VOW to Hire
Heroes Act is a good step, but does not address the problems faced by
Guard and Reserve members. For younger Guard and Reserve members
unemployment continues to run at about 10 percent higher than non-
affiliated veterans. For the most part those between 18 to 24 years old
are from the Reserve Component, who in April had an unemployment rate
over 14 percent.
After 10 years of war, employers are more comfortable hiring
unaffiliated veterans, than those who could be recalled to active duty
and with a future risk of an operational call-up once every five years.
It is just easier not to hire Guard and Reserve members.
While this may be a violation of the USERRA, stealth discrimination
can easily occur if you do not tell the Reserve Component veteran that
their military career is why they were not hired. Additional positive
incentives are needed for this group of veterans.
Notwithstanding the protections and antidiscrimination laws in
effect for veterans and serving members, it is not unusual for members
to lose their jobs due to time spent away while deployed. Sometimes
employers are going out of business, but more often it is because it
costs employers money, time, and effort to reintroduce the employee to
the company.
Incentives of various types would serve to mitigate burdens and
encourage businesses to both hire and retain Reservists and veterans.
Examples include providing employers--especially small businesses--with
incentives such as cash stipends to help pay for health care for
Reservists up to the amount DOD is contributing. Small businesses are
more likely to hire Guard and Reserve veterans if they could afford to
hire temporary replacements. A variety of tax credits could be enacted
to provide such credit at the beginning of a period of mobilization or
perhaps even a direct subsidy for costs related to a mobilization such
as the hiring and training of new employees.
Small Business hiring of Guard and Reserve members
Deployment of Guard and Reserve members has the hardest impact on
small businesses. Such businesses are the backbone of the American
economy, and are expected to do the majority of the hiring in the near
future. The Small Business Administration defines a small business
(depending on the industry) as a business with fewer than 500
employees. A micro-business is defined as having fewer than 10
employees.
ROA and REA support initiatives to provide small business owners
with protections for their businesses while a Reserve Component
employee is on deployment. Employer care plans should be developed in a
way that will assist with mitigation strategies for dealing with the
civilian workload during the absence of the servicemember employee and
lay out how the employer and employee would remain in contact
throughout the deployment.
If a Reserve Component small business owner is killed in the line
of duty, ROA and REA support legislation that would extend veteran
entitlements to the surviving spouse as long as she or he maintain a
controlling interest.
Recognition of Active Duty experience for civilian employment
There is an ongoing challenge on how to convert military skill sets
into credited experience that would be recognized by civilian employers
and provide longevity credit during a licensing or credentialing
process. Cross-licensing/credentialing would ease the burden of having
to acquire new licenses/credentials in the private sector after having
gained experience to perform such duties during military service.
ROA and REA encourage the implementation of certifications or a
form that would inform employers of skills potential veteran and
servicemember employees gained through their military service.
The Associations are concerned about suggested language that would
require ``no less than 10 years'' of experience in a Military
Occupation Specialty before such certification could be earned. Many
active duty contracts are of a much shorter duration, and experience
should not be measured by a calendar. Like educations institutions that
provide accreditation for military professional experience, state tests
should evaluate the amount of experience of an individual.
education
Education improves a veteran's chance for employment, and many
returning combat veterans seek a change in the life paths. There is
still room for more improvement in the Post-9/11 GI Bill that in the
long run can make the program more effective and increase utilization.
Issues that student veterans have raised to ROA and REA in which we
recommend include the following:
Seek in-state tuition for non-resident veterans
Establish dedicated and well-trained officers for student
veterans to speak with via a call center.
Allow institutions to give more funds to students with
stronger merit and need-base under the Yellow Ribbon Program.
Extend Yellow Ribbon Program to Fry scholarship
recipients.
Align the VA's work-study program for students to work as
guidance officers at their institutions to aid other student veterans,
to be matched up with institution's academic calendar.
Safeguard and implement a long term plan for sustaining
the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
- Ensure transferability benefits are protected.
- Guarantee that any future changes to the program that could
have negative effects on benefits will grandfather in current
beneficiaries.
Pass legislation to disallow institutions including
benefits in need-based aid formulations.
Transferring jurisdiction of Montgomery GI Bill for
Selected Reserve to Veteran Affairs committees.
One of the most significant problems that link all issues
pertaining to the Post-9/11 GI Bill is the lack of effectively trained
customer service representatives. One of the many examples came from
two of our members that are married, both serving in a Reserve
Component. They wanted to transfer their benefits to their children,
but were told that only one parent can register the children in the
DEERS system and therefore only one of the parents could transfer the
benefits. After going through a couple back channels ROA found out that
the couple needed to go to a DEERS office and request an
`administrative' account for the purposes of transferring benefits.
There are many stories similar to this one which causes unnecessary
stress on the families, some of whom give into the system and give up
the benefit because either they are given incorrect and/or incomplete
information or the hassles involved are not deemed worthwhile.
It is absolutely necessary that our servicemembers, veterans and
families have the ability to access accurate and timely information.
ROA and REA urge Congress to insist on the VA and education
institutions to properly and effectively train their personnel.
conclusion
ROA and REA appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony. ROA and
REA look forward to working with the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee
on solutions to these and other issues. We hope in the future for an
opportunity to discuss these issues in person with committee members
and their staff.
______
Prepared Statement of Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner,
Social Security Administration
Thank you, Chairman Sanders, for giving me the opportunity to
discuss S. 674, the Accountability for Veterans Act of 2013. I
appreciate this opportunity to discuss several ways in which we help
the men and women who have served our Nation. The Social Security
Administration (SSA) historically and proudly has been a ``can-do''
agency. The services we provide to our Nation's veterans illustrate our
deep commitment to assisting those in need. I applaud you, Senator, for
leading the Committee's efforts in helping the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) improve the processing of disability compensation
applications.
For my statement today, I will focus specifically on the provision
in the S. 674 that would require covered agencies, including SSA, to
provide VA with information necessary to process a VA claim within 30
days after such information is requested by VA. The vast majority of
the information we provide VA is medical records that we gather during
the processing of the veterans' claims for Social Security disability
benefits.
While the purposes and eligibility criteria for VA and Social
Security disability programs differ significantly, the process of
determining disability in both programs hinges on medical information
provided to adjudicators. Thus, we recognize that having complete and
timely medical records is vitally important to both programs. We are
proud of the work that we are doing with VA to help ensure veterans get
the benefits due them, and we greatly value our mutually beneficial
partnership with VA.
In March, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified
before this Committee on VA's disability compensation claims process.
In its testimony, GAO created the impression that we do not promptly
reply to the requests for medical records that we receive from VA. That
impression is simply wrong. As the data show, we place a high priority
on the requests we receive from VA and work very hard on responding to
them timely.
In FY 2012, we received nearly 33,000 requests for medical evidence
from VA. On average, we responded to those requests in less than a
week. We currently have no pending requests that are older than 90
days. For the first quarter of fiscal year 2013, we received over 9,600
requests for medical evidence from VA. On average, we responded to
those requests in less than a week, with only four cases taking longer
than 60 days, and we responded to all of them in less than 90 days.\1\
Moving forward, we should be able to comfortably and consistently meet
the requirement in S. 674 if it were enacted. However, even without a
statutory requirement, I can assure you that we will continue to work
hard to assist our Nation's veterans and VA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The current delays in processing VA requests are due to
situations in which there are paper files that need to be mailed from
another SSA location, such as a local field office or hearing office,
to the NRC. As we have shifted from paper to electronic files, any
delays should be further reduced as we can access electronic files
instantaneously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have taken several steps to ensure that we continue to respond
timely to VA's requests. We centralized our process in our National
Records Center (NRC) in Independence, Missouri. The NRC receives all
requests and provides all records. If the requested records are in a
paper file located in a different facility, the NRC requests the file,
photocopies the medical records from it, and sends them to VA. By
completely centralizing our process, we have greater control over these
requests and ensure timely responses to all of them. We have also
established processes to expedite Agent Orange and homeless veterans'
cases; on average, we send these records in two days or less from the
date we receive the requests.
We also maintain good and regular communications with VA about
requests for information. SSA had previously asked VA to follow up on
requests for medical records after 60 days, but that timeframe was
recently reduced to 20 days for a first followup and 35 days for a
second followup. Finally, we developed a tracking system to ensure that
we do not overlook a single case and have designated a staff person to
serve as VA liaison in our NRC facility. Our NRC liaison tracks status
and folder location for any request over 35 days old and explains any
delays to VA.
We continue to work with VA to streamline the medical records
request process. For example, we collaborated with VA to establish the
Veterans Administration Regional Office (VARO) Project. Currently, five
VARO sites participate in the project. The VARO Project uses a web-
based tool that allows VA staff to communicate securely and directly
with us. This automated tool significantly improves efficiency. We
participate in weekly and monthly conference calls with VA headquarters
personnel to discuss record requests, including any problems we have
encountered and any improvements that can be made to the process.
Our involvement in VA's disability compensation claims process
extends beyond supplying medical records. Through numerous verification
and exchange agreements, we also provide VA with verification of names
and Social Security numbers, information about Social Security and
Supplemental Security Income benefits, employer reports of earnings
from our Master Earnings File, and indicators of death reports and
prisoner data. VA uses these data for ensuring eligibility and accuracy
of VA payments. Recently, we have implemented changes to increase the
frequency of the earnings data exchanges from annually to weekly at the
request of VA.
Again, thank you for your work on these important issues and for
this opportunity to describe the ways we help Veterans. We are proud of
our efforts to reach out to the men and women who have served this
Nation. We think our partnership with VA is very effective. By working
together with Congress, we believe both agencies will continue to make
substantial progress toward providing the world-class service that our
veterans deserve.
______
Prepared Statement of Michael Dakduk, Executive Director,
Student Veterans of America
Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the
Committee: Thank you for inviting Student Veterans of America to submit
written testimony regarding pending legislation intended to increase
support for military servicemembers and veterans.
Student Veterans of America is the largest and only national
association of military veterans in higher education. Our mission is to
provide military veterans with the resources, support, and advocacy
needed to succeed in higher education and after graduation. We
currently have over 800 chapters, or student veteran organizations, at
colleges and universities in all 50 states that assist veterans in
their transition to and through higher education. SVA chapters are
organized as four-year and two-year public, private, nonprofit, and
for-profit institutions of higher learning. This diverse and direct
contact gives SVA a unique perspective on the needs and obstacles faced
by our Nation's veterans as they utilize education benefits in
preparation for their future transition into the civilian workforce.
S. 257, GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act of 2013:
The Post-9/11 GI Bill pays the highest in-state tuition and fees.
Due to military obligations, many veterans are unable to establish in-
state residency for the purposes of enrolling at a public university or
college. Ultimately, this becomes a financial burden that leaves
veterans vying for additional financial aid due to out-of-state
residency status.
This proposed bill would make all student veterans eligible for in-
state tuition at public colleges and universities, regardless of their
residency status, eliminating the need for veterans seeking a post-
secondary credential to find full-time employment or accrue student
loan debt while attending a public institution.
The protocol for establishing residency for tuition purposes varies
across the spectrum of higher education, leaving many recently-
separated veterans unable to satisfy strict requirements due to their
service in another state. Nuanced policies and variability between
states and university systems are highly complex and penalize veterans
with stringent residency requirements they are unable to fulfill due to
their honorable military service.
According to a state-by-state landscape analysis conducted by our
organization, 12 states already offer in-state tuition to veterans, 8
states offer conditional waivers to veterans under particular
circumstances, and another 16 states are currently considering similar
legislation.
State leaders from both sides of the aisle have recognized the
financial and social benefits veterans bring to their communities. Not
only do student veterans diversify the landscape of higher education by
bringing their unique experiences and perspectives to public campuses,
but many veterans will pursue careers within the same state post-
graduation.
Veterans who choose to attend public schools, but are unable to
qualify for residency status should not have to shoulder the burden of
additional tuition fees. We are proud to be working with the American
Legion on a state-by-state initiative to see in-state tuition granted
to all veterans. We are also very proud to be aligned with both the
American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) in seeing this
issue resolved in Congress. We recognize that veterans served our
Nation in its entirety, not just one state, and as such we hope to see
veterans provided the opportunity to use their educational benefits in
all states without discrimination.
SVA fully supports S. 257 and hopes the Committee moves quickly to
pass this legislation.
S. 262, Veterans Education Equity Act of 2013:
SVA would like to thank Senator Durbin for his attention to the
inequity existing within the Post-9/11 GI Bill. While we support the
intention of this bill, which seeks to address the same issue as
S. 257, we cannot support this legislation.
In an attempt to offset decreasing revenues due to state budget
cuts, public colleges and universities have significantly raised the
cost of out-of-state tuition. Some institutions have inflated out-of-
state tuition to over 300% of the in-state tuition rate, forcing
student veterans who are unable to meet residency requirements to fund
their education through other means of Federal financial aid, student
loans, or full-time employment.
S. 262 proposes to increase compensation received by non-resident
veterans attending public colleges and universities.
SVA stands in agreement with the VFW that it would be irresponsible
to place additional financial burden on VA and the American taxpayer
when we know these schools can deliver a quality education at the in-
state rate, and stand with the American Legion in that S. 262 would
encourage inefficiency within the higher education system. SVA thanks
Senator Durbin for his serious consideration of the issue and looks
forward to working with him to support student veterans.
S. 492, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to require States
to recognize the military experience of veterans when issuing
licenses and credentials to veterans, and for other purposes:
This bill ensures that professional military personnel have the
opportunity to sit for licensing exams, allowing veterans the
opportunity to successfully translate their military expertise and
effectively integrate into the civilian workforce.
SVA stands with VFW and the American Legion in support of this
legislation.
S. 495, Careers for Veterans Act:
SVA supports S. 495, which incentivizes the private sector to hire
and retain veterans, provides veterans with Federal employment
opportunities, and extends additional protections for surviving spouses
of veteran entrepreneurs.
S. 863, Veterans Back to School Act of 2013:
Currently, veterans have 10 years upon separation from the military
to use their Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefit. Military veterans are
nontraditional students, and often do not enter a higher education
environment immediately after military service. In fact, many
nontraditional students start and stop school at various times during
their academic careers. By initiating the MGIB clock once the veteran
begins using the benefit, we provide these nontraditional learners with
a better opportunity for academic success and ultimately post-
graduation employment. Additionally, these veterans have made financial
contributions to the MGIB. They made the investment to better
themselves through higher learning and we have an obligation to honor
that investment.
SVA is also pleased to see a veteran outreach component to this
bill. By providing institutions of higher learning with support to
increase outreach efforts, student veterans will ultimately be better
served. Programs and services dedicated to veterans on campus are
absolutely critical to retention, graduation, and post-graduation
employment.
S. 514, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide
additional educational assistance under the Post-9/11
educational Assistance to veterans pursuing a degree in
science, technology, engineering, math or an area that leads to
employment in a high-demand occupation, and for other purposes:
This bill stands to provide additional financial support to student
veterans pursuing a degree in the fields of science, technology,
engineering, math, or an area that leads to employment in a high-demand
occupation. SVA has long supported the intent of such legislation,
seeing as the demand for jobs in these fields are high and veterans,
with their unique experiences and training, stand to significantly
contribute to these industries.
Because high tuition costs and long paths to graduation are often
associated with these degrees, SVA supports giving the Secretary the
discretion to distribute additional funds to student veterans
participating in such programs as deemed appropriate.
S. 6, Putting Our Veterans Back to Work:
SVA supports this bill, which focuses on transitioning recently-
separated veterans and student veterans into the civilian workforce
through an extension of the VRAP program and additional protections
under the Uniformed Servicemembers Employment and Reemployment Rights
Act (USERRA).
S. 430, Veterans Small Business Opportunity and Protection Act of 2013:
SVA supports this bill, as well as similar language in S. 495, that
would allow survivors of veteran entrepreneurs to continue operating
their business as if the entity remained veteran-owned. We encourage
the Senate to take swift action on this either as stand-alone
legislation or through S. 495.
S. 515, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the
Yellow Ribbon GI Education Enhancement program to cover
recipients of Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry
scholarship, and for other purposes:
As it stands eligible dependents of a servicemember killed in
action are excluded from additional educational benefits through the
Yellow Ribbon Program. S. 515 will provide Fry Scholarship recipients
the same benefits as other Chapter 33-eligible beneficiaries. SVA
stands with the VFW and American Legion in strong support of this
legislation.
S. 894, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend
expiring authority for work-study allowances for individuals
who are pursuing programs of rehabilitation, education, or
training under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, to expand such authority to certain outreach services
provided through congressional offices, and for other purposes:
Although SVA did not have adequate time to review the text of
S. 894, we do offer our support of the legislation's intention to
extend expiring work-study allowances for individuals pursuing programs
of rehabilitation, education or training. Many student veterans use the
work-study program as a supplement to pay for their bills and other
costs not covered by primary VA educational programs. SVA strongly
supports the VA work-study program.
Draft bill, a bill to provide in-state tuition to transitioning
veterans:
SVA did not receive a draft of this bill in time to offer comment;
however, we believe that S. 257 is the appropriate and comprehensive
way to offer equitable funds to veterans using the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
SVA was not provided the text of the following legislation in
adequate time to review and offer comment:
S. 674, Accountability for Veterans Act of 2013
S. 893, Veterans' Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013
S. 928, Claims Processing Improvement Act of 2013
S. 922, Veterans Equipped for Success During Transition Act of 2013
Draft bill, Veterans Outreach Act of 2013
SVA finds the following bills outside the scope of our mission and
does not wish to offer comment at this time:
S. 200, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the
interment in national cemeteries under the control of the
National Cemetery Administration of individuals who served in
combat support of the Armed Forces in the Kingdom of Laos
between February 28, 1961, and May 15, 1975, and for other
purposes.
S. 294, Ruth Moore Act of 2013
S. 373, Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act of 2013
S. 572, Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act
S. 629, Honor America's Guard-Reserve Retirees Act of 2013
S. 674, Accountability for Veterans Act of 2013
S. 690, Filipino Veterans Fairness Act of 2013
S. 695, Veterans Paralympic Act of 2013
S. 705, War Memorial Protection Act of 2013
S. 735, Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of 2013
S. 748, Veterans Pension Protection Act
S. 819, Veterans Mental Health Treatment First Act of 2013
Thank you Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, and distinguished
Members of the Committee for allowing Student Veterans of America to
present our views on legislation focused on supporting veterans,
military servicemembers, and their families.
______
Prepared Statement of Service Women's Action Network
Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr and distinguished Members of
the Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to submit written
testimony for the record and thank you for your continued leadership on
veteran's issues and for convening this hearing today.
The Service Women's Action Network (SWAN) is a non-profit, non-
partisan veterans led civil rights organization. SWAN's mission is to
transform military culture by securing equal opportunity and freedom to
serve without discrimination, harassment or assault; and to reform
veterans' services to ensure high quality health care and benefits for
women veterans and their families.
We challenge institutions and cultural norms that deny equal
opportunities, equal protections, and equal benefits to servicemembers
and veterans. SWAN is not a membership organization, instead we utilize
direct services to provide outreach and assistance to servicemembers
and veterans and our policy agenda is directly informed by those
relationships and that interaction.
SWAN extends opportunities to and promotes the voices and agency of
service women and women veterans without regard to sex, gender, sexual
orientation or gender identity or the context, era, or type of their
service.
SWAN welcomes the opportunity to share our views on two bills
before the Committee today: S. 294 the Ruth Moore Act of 2013; and
S. 373 the Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act of 2013.
s. 294
SWAN strongly supports S. 294, the Ruth Moore Act. Veterans who are
partially or fully disabled from an injury suffered while serving in
the military are entitled to disability benefits. Currently VA policy
requires a veteran applying for disability benefits to demonstrate
three things: A diagnosis of a medical or mental health issue; Proof
that an event (stressor) happened while in the service; and a link
between the stressor and the medical/mental health issue, provided by a
VA examiner. The Ruth Moore Act allows a statement from the survivor to
be considered sufficient proof that an assault occurred.
SWAN has been advocating for changes to the VA claims process for
several years. We actively supported the 2010 change to the claims
process for PTSD- claims related to ``fear of hostile military or
terrorist activity'' and have provided testimony many times to both
House and Senate committees on issues and challenges facing women
veterans at both the VHA and VBA, and the unique challenges faced by
veterans filing Military Sexual Trauma (MST) claims.
According to VA, PTSD is the most common mental health condition
associated with MST. For women veterans, MST is a greater predictor of
PTSD than combat. Studies also indicate that sexual harassment causes
the same rates of PTSD in women as combat does in men. And 40 to 53% of
homeless women veterans have been sexual assaulted while in the
military. The Committee should also be aware that this is not just an
issue for women veterans, but that many men suffer from the effects of
military sexual violence. According to the Department of Defense, 12%
of all unrestricted sexual assault reports are made by men. Simply put,
MST has negatively affected the entire veterans' community.
Veterans who suffer from the debilitating effects of Military
Sexual Trauma face unique challenges in obtaining disability
compensation from the VA. In 2011, SWAN and the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a Freedom of Information Request with the
VA for data on MST claims. The data obtained through litigation showed
that during FY 2008, 2009 and 2010, only 32.3% of MST-based PTSD claims
were approved by VBA compared to an approval rate of 54.2% of all other
PTSD claims during that time. As a point of comparison, data obtained
by Veterans for Common Sense indicates that 53% of Iraq and Afghanistan
deployment related PTSD claims through October2011 were approved.
Looking more deeply at the MST data, SWAN discovered that among
veterans who had their MST- PTSD claims approved by VA, women were more
likely to receive a 10% to 30% disability rating, whereas men were more
likely to receive a 70% to 100% disability rating.
These findings indicate that veterans who file a PTSD claim based
on MST have only a 1 in 3 chance of getting their claim approved. Also,
data suggests a strong gender bias in VA's MST PTSD disability ratings
process.
SWAN has presented our data to the VA Secretary Eric Shinseki and
to the Under Secretary for Benefits Allison Hickey and asked for
changes to VA regulations on MST claims. After a series of
conversations with SWAN, Undersecretary Hickey decided not to change
the regulation, but instead issued a memo in June 2011 providing
further guidance to claims officers and instituting training
requirements for processing MST claims. However, examination of both
the letter and the training revealed it simply reinforced the existing
regulation which places a double standard on MST claimants. Recently VA
has released statistics that show a near miraculous increase in MST
claims approvals, presumably due to this training memo. Both SWAN and
the New York Times have asked to see the data behind these numbers and
VA has refused to provide it.
Additional responses from VA on this issue have not been adequate
either. At a House Veterans' Affairs subcommittee hearing in 2012, VA
admitted that their current regulation had not been applied properly by
claims officials and stated they would be sending letters to previously
rejected MST claimants to offer to re-adjudicate their claims, but
after a year this has not been accomplished. Most recently Allison
Hickey testified before Congress that VA was designating one person,
specifically a woman, in each regional office as the sole reviewer of
MST cases. This action by VA clearly demonstrates the inadequacies of
their 2011 guidance memo and training efforts and reveals more of VA's
MST gender bias in adjudicating MST claims. SWAN is extremely concerned
that this action will create a bottleneck or MST claims, increasing
delays in adjudications and creating larger issues for the overall
claims inventory and backlog crisis.
The regulation has to change. Even with ``secondary markers'' the
current language fails veterans for a variety of reasons. First, sexual
assault and sexual harassment in the military are notoriously under-
reported. According to the Pentagon's Sexual Assault Prevention and
Response Office (SAPRO), 86.5% of sexual assaults go unreported,
meaning that official documentation of an assault rarely exists.
Second, prior to the new evidence retention laws passed in the 2011
National Defense Authorization Act, the services routinely destroyed
all evidence and investigation records in sexual assault cases after 2
to 5 years, leaving gaping holes in MST claims filed prior to 2012.
Last, the allowance for secondary evidentiary described in the
regulation does not take into consideration the reality that many
victims do not report the incident(s) to anyone, including family
members, for a variety of legitimate reasons, including shame, stigma,
embarrassment, or disorientation associated with sexual trauma.
Additionally, although sexual assault increases the chance of
adverse emotional responses and behaviors, it does not mean that all
MST claimants will experience these symptoms. In fact, SWAN has spoken
to many assault survivors who demonstrate changes in behavior that are
not included in the regulation, such as improved job performance as a
means of coping with the trauma.
In the MST community, the failures of the VA claims process are
well known. SWAN has spoken with veterans who suffer PTSD related to
both MST and combat--what veterans cynically call the ``double
whammy.'' These veterans chose to abandon their MST claims and submit a
claim only for combat related PTSD, as they felt their combat claim was
more likely to be approved, and that the uphill battle to file an MST
claim wasn't worth the agony.
It is well past time for VA to admit that the current MST claims
process is broken. VA's PTSD policy discriminates against veterans who
were sexually assaulted or harassed while in uniform by holding them to
an evidentiary standard which is not only higher than that of other
groups of veterans suffering from PTSD, but also completely unrealistic
for the majority of survivors to meet. It has not been able to train
its way out of this issue by enforcing a bad regulation, and VA's
recent responses to the crisis are creating more problems than they are
solving.
It is not enough for Congress just to tell VA to improve the
regulation. It must specifically state what needs to be done. VA has
proven they cannot do this on their own, they need the help of
Congress. Ask any MST survivor and they will tell you that the only way
to fix this problem is to change the regulation, and that is what the
Ruth Moore Act does.
S. 294, the Ruth Moore Act of 2013 amends the current regulation so
that it correctly makes the determination of entitlement to service-
connected compensation for the resulting disability from the in service
trauma a question of medical diagnosis and not question of evidence, it
maintains the existing requirements for a proper medical diagnosis,
stressor evidence and VA examination, it ends the veteran's endless
quest for hard-to-find ``secondary markers,'' and prevents MST
survivors from being further re-traumatized by an adjudication process
which implicitly questions the veracity of the reported in-service
personal assault in the first place.
s. 373
SWAN strongly supports S. 373, the Charlie Morgan Military Spouses
Equal Treatment Act of 2013. This bill would change the definition of
``spouse'' in four areas of U.S. Code related to recognition, support,
and benefits for married servicemembers and veterans. The changes--
including to provisions in Titles 10, 32, and 38 would ensure that
spouses of the same gender are eligible for key military benefits. The
bill adds a favorable controlling definition of ``spouse'' to Title 37
to provide greater uniformity of benefits for same-sex spouses.
Importantly, the bill extends dozens of important spousal benefits
and support programs to same-gender spouses, including coverage under
TRICARE insurance, an increased housing allowance and survivor
benefits, and it closes the benefit gaps left after the limited
extension of same-sex spousal benefits signed by former Secretary of
Defense Leon Panetta.
Since the repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' there have been two
classes of servicemembers in this country--one that receives the
Nation's full recognition, support and benefits and one that does not.
The law as it currently stands perpetuates this second-class solider
syndrome which harms all servicemembers, prevents commanders from
taking care of their troops and weakens the force. The integration of
openly gay servicemembers into the military has been seamless and they
continue to serve our country well. It is well past time to welcome the
spouses and families who support them into the ranks as well.
Again, we appreciate the opportunity to offer our views on these
very important bills and we look forward to continuing our work
together to improve the lives of veterans and their families.
______
Prepared Statement of Charlie Huebner, Chief of Paralympics, United
States Olympic Committee
s. 695, the veterans paralympic act of 2013
Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the
Committee, my name is Charlie Huebner and I am the Chief of
Paralympics, for the United States Olympic Committee (``USOC''). Thank
you for the opportunity to submit a statement and testify before this
Committee in support of S. 695, which extends the authorization for the
highly successful, innovative and cost effective partnership between
the USOC and the Department of Veteran Affairs to provide Paralympic
sports and sustainable physical activity opportunities for disabled
veterans at the community level.
I would like to thank the sponsors of this legislation, Senators
Boozman and Begich, as well as the co-sponsors who sit on this
Committee, Senator Murray, the former Chairman, and Senators Tester,
Hirono, and Johanns. I would also like to acknowledge are partner
organizations that have worked so hard with the USOC and the VA to make
this program a success. S. 695 is supported by national organizations
such as the American Legion, BlazeSports America, the Blinded Veterans
Association, Disabled Sports USA, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of
America, the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the USO and the National
Recreation and Parks Association, as well as by hundreds of local,
community-based organizations such as Bridge II Sports in Durham, North
Carolina, Challenge Alaska, and Greater Metro Parks in Tacoma,
Washington. A letter of support from these organizations, among others,
is attached as Exhibit A.
Paralympic programs are sports for physically disabled athletes. It
was founded and exists because of Veterans from World War II. Research
has proven that Paralympic sport and physical activity is an impactful
aspect of successful rehabilitation for disabled Veterans.
Research-based outcomes from consistent physical activity for
disabled Veterans include higher self-esteem, lower stress levels and
secondary medical conditions and higher achievement levels in education
and employment.
At the beginning of U.S. combat operations, the USOC expanded its
service to injured members of our Armed Forces and Veterans by
providing training, technical assistance and Paralympic ambassadors to
installations and military medical centers. As combat escalated,
Congress reached out to the USOC asking for us to do more!
I applaud the leadership in Congress, which realized that
collaboration between the public and private sector, between Government
agencies, non-profit organizations, and the private business sector
could expand expertise and capabilities, and program awareness in a
cost effective manner.
The legislation you created in Fiscal Year 2010, allowed the USOC
and VA to significantly grow the capabilities and reach of physical
activity programming to thousands of disabled Veterans today in
communities throughout America. Since 2010, the cumulative number of
veterans served has been over 16,000. We estimate that annually up to
5,000 veterans are being served by our partner organizations, and we
have made it a priority to increase the numbers of veterans we reach
through this program.
The authorization for this program expires at the end of Fiscal
Year 2013. It is imperative that Congress act to extend the
authorization for this program to ensure there is no interruption in
the services being provided to our disabled veterans, and just as
importantly, develop enhanced programming in collaboration with the
private sector where there are significant needs.
The USOC, which itself was created by Congress, is one of only four
National Olympic Committees that manage both Olympic and Paralympic
sport. We are one of only a handful of National Olympic Committees that
are 100% privately funded, with our major competitors outspending us
often as much as 5-to-1. Innovation, collaboration and cost
efficiencies are core to our organizational success and critical to
this continued USOC and VA partnership.
Injured military personnel and Veterans are the soul of the
Paralympic movement. When discussing the Paralympic Movement, we have
two primary objectives. One: pursue excellence at the Paralympic Games.
As a result of Paralympic Veteran role models and ambassadors such as
Navy Lt. Brad Snyder, Army Veteran Melissa Stockwell, and Marine
Veteran Oz Sanchez, the USOC and VA have been able to reach millions of
Americans with stories of Veteran achievements and excellence. Second,
and more importantly, the VA and USOC collectively have reached
thousands of disabled Veterans and their families with stories of hope,
and a roadmap to being healthy, productive and contributing members of
society.
With partners such as PVA, IAVA, Disabled Sports USA and USA Hockey
to name a few, the VA and USOC have created significant, sustainable
and cost effective regional and local physical activity opportunities
for disabled Veterans to pursue competitive excellence, but most
significantly, for a majority of the thousands of physically disabled
Veterans in the US these opportunities are ways to simply re-engage
into society by being physically active with their sons, daughters,
families, and friends.
It is as simple as skiing with your buddies again, or as one double
amputee Army Ranger stated ``I want to be able to run with my son.''
This Committee, Congressional leaders, and Veteran and Military
organizations asked the USOC to lead this effort due to our powerful,
iconic, and inspiring brand; our expertise in physical activity and
sport for persons with physical disabilities; and our significant
infrastructure of member organizations. We have accepted the
responsibility and opportunity to serve those who have served us. And
because of your leadership in developing and providing funding for this
USOC and VA partnership, we are able today to report the first phase of
significant program success and expansion in less than three years of
this legislation. Since June 2010, the VA and USOC have:
Distributed more than 350 grants to community sport
organizations to develop sustainable physical activity programs for
disabled Veterans returning to their hometowns.
These community programs are investing millions of dollars
in private resources, combined with grants from the VA--USOC grant
pool, to reach thousands of Veterans with a focus on sustainable and
consistent physically activity at the local level.
The VA and USOC have emphasized and led an effort to
promote collaboration between the DOD, VA and community sport
organizations to recognize and enhance programmatic and financial
efficiencies. To date, grant recipients have collaborated and partnered
with 85 VA medical centers in 39 states and military treatment
facilities across the country.
Created the Paralympic Resource Network, an online
database of Paralympic programs nationally which is designed to link
individuals with physical and visual disabilities to sports programs in
their communities. There are now 340 organizations listed. This is over
35% more than the targeted goal of 250 organizations.
Created consistent national and regional training,
technical assistance and sharing of best practices to expand
availability of sustainable programming at the community level.
Distributed training stipends to over 115 Veteran
athletes; 43 of these athletes have met the national team standard in
their respective sports.
Implemented regional and national public relations and
communications strategies resulting in major national media campaigns
and news stories that have reached millions of Americans with stories
of Paralympic Veterans as national ambassadors.
Significantly expanded and implemented, accountability and
oversight processes that include USOC-led internal audits of grantees,
upgraded reporting and monitoring of sub-grantees, consistent USOC site
visits and weekly USOC-VA grant monitoring calls.
Two staff members implementing this program are
individuals with physical disabilities, one being a Veteran.
Humbly, we work for an organization that has one of the most
inspiring brands in the world. A brand that motivates people and
organizations to get involved and to collaborate. I can't emphasize the
collaboration point enough, because collaboration also leads to
significant cost efficiencies and impact!
Today, more than 350 USOC partner organizations in 46 states and
the District of Columbia are investing millions in private resources,
staff, and facilities to cost effectively implement these programs. As
part of our commitment to deliver services in the most cost efficient
manner possible, the USOC has not accepted the 5% allowance for
Administrative Costs and has instead contributed its own administrative
resources to maximize funding.
One specific new example of USOC--VA innovation, impact, cost-
efficiency, collaboration and enhanced awareness was the development of
the regional and local Valor Games series in Chicago. Through
partnership with a USOC leadership organization--World Sport Chicago--
the USOC and VA identified a partner that could plan, implement,
provide a majority of the funding and promote the importance and impact
at a regional event for physically disabled Veterans with the primary
objective and outcome being the connecting of these Veterans to
everyday physical activity programs in the region. This was done with
limited VA-USOC financial investment and only one USOC staff and one VA
staff member involved.
In closing, the need in this Country is great. More physically
disabled members of our Armed Forces are returning to America's
communities, urban and rural, as heroic Veterans. Many of them are
simply trying to reintegrate with their friends and families. Some want
to compete. The power of sport is one tool in the rehabilitative
process that allows for our Nation's heroes to take a small step to
normalcy. Research has proven that!
I would like to thank the Committee, the VA leadership,
particularly Secretary Eric Shinseki; Assistant Secretary Tommy Sowers,
Mike Galloucis, Executive Director of the Department of Veterans
Affairs Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs; I would like to
especially commend Marine Veteran and VA leader Chris Nowak, a
physically disabled Veteran who is driving change in collaboration with
the VA and USOC with a primary focus on impacting Veterans in a cost
effective manner. Mr. Nowak is a Marine Veteran making a difference!
I can simply say that you have led a collaborative and cost
effective effort. You, too, are making a difference. A difference in
the lives of those that have given our Nation so much!
Exhibit A
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]