    [House Hearing, 114 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

    LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 189, H.R. 216, H.R. 245, H.R. 280, AND H.R.
                                      294

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                         COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
                         U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                           TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2015

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 114-03

                                   __________

           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 PUBLISHING OFFICE

    97-994                         WASHINGTON : 2016
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
      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

                         JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman

    DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado               CORRINE BROWN, Florida, Ranking
    GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Vice-         Minority Member
        Chairman                         MARK TAKANO, California
    DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee              JULIA BROWNLEY, California
    DAN BENISHEK, Michigan               DINA TITUS, Nevada
    TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas                RAUL RUIZ, California
    MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado               ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
    BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio               BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
    JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana             KATHELEEN RICE, New York
    RALPH ABRAHAM, Louisiana             TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
    LEE ZELDIN, New York                 JERRY McNERNEY, California
    RYAN COSTELLO, Pennsylvania
    AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, American
        Samoa
    MIKE BOST, Illinois
                           Jon Towers, Staff Director
                    Don Phillips, Democratic Staff Director

    Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
    hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
    published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
    official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
    both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
    of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
    unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
    current publication process and should diminish as the process is
    further refined.

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                           Tuesday, January 27, 2015

                                                                       Page

    Legislative Hearing on H.R. 189, H.R. 216, H.R. 245, H.R. 280,
      and H.R. 294...................................................     1

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Jeff Miller, Chairman............................................     1
        Prepared Statement...........................................    28
    Corrine Brown, Ranking Member....................................     2
        Prepared Statement...........................................    31
    Hon. Dr. Ralph Abraham...........................................     3

                                   WITNESSES

    Hon. Alan Grayson, Member of Congress............................     4
        Prepared Statement...........................................    31
    Mr. David R. McLenachen, Acting Deputy Under Secretary for
      Disability Assistance, VBA, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs     6
        Prepared Statement...........................................    33

        Accompanied by:

            Dr. Rajiv Jain, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for
                Health for Patient Services, VHA, U.S. Department of
                Veterans Affairs

            Ms. Susan Sullivan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
                Policy, Office of Policy and Planning, U.S.
                Department of Veterans Affairs

        And

            Ms. Kim McLeod, Counsel, Office of General Counsel. U.S.
                Department of Veterans Affairs
    Mr. Joseph A. Violante, National Legislative Director DAV........    18
        Prepared Statement...........................................    47
    Mr. Aleks Morosky, Deputy Director National Legislative Service,
      VFW............................................................    19
        Prepared Statement...........................................    53
    Mr. Zachary Hearn, Claims of the Veterans Affairs and
      Rehabilitation Commission, The American Legion.................    21
        Prepared Statement...........................................    57
    Mr. Blake Ortner, Deputy Government Relations Director, PVA......    22
        Prepared Statement...........................................    63

                                 FOR THE RECORD

    Housing Policy Council...........................................    73

    LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 189, H.R. 216, H.R. 245, H.R. 280, AND H.R.
                                      294

                                  ----------

                           Tuesday, January 27, 2015

                 U.S. House of Representatives,
                        Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
                                                       Washington, D.C.
        The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:31 a.m., in
    Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Miller
    [chairman of the committee] presiding.
        Present:  Representatives Miller, Lamborn, Bilirakis,
    Benishek, Coffman, Wenstrup, Abraham, Zeldin, Costello,
    Radewagen, Bost, Brown, Brownley, Ruiz, Kuster, and Rice.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JEFF MILLER

        The Chairman. We are here to talk about five pieces of
    legislation this morning. In the interest of time, I am going
    to forego a lengthy opening statement and just briefly touch on
    two bills on the agenda which I am proud to have introduced
    before this Congress.
        The first bill is H.R. 280. The language is similar to a
    bill that I introduced last Congress which passed favorably out
    of this committee. H.R. 280 would provide the secretary with
    the authority to rescind a bonus or performance award from any
    VA employee when the secretary deems it is appropriate.
        Now, to ensure a fair process, the provision would also
    afford the employee an opportunity to have a hearing on the
    secretary's decision to recoup their bonus.
        I proposed this legislation last Congress because VA had
    given this committee conflicting statements on whether or not
    it already had the ability rescind bonuses.
        For example, former Secretary Shinseki rescinded the then
    Phoenix director, Sharon Hellman's 2013 bonus because it was
    paid based on an administrative error. Notwithstanding this
    limited authority, VA later confirmed it did not have the
    ability to rescind a bonus that was based on erroneous
    performance data.
        I believe the ability to recoup a bonus based on that or
    manipulated performance data is a tool that the secretary needs
    and that the American public would expect.
        Now, the second bill that I have introduced is H.R. 294,
    The Long-Term Care Veterans Choice Act. This would authorize VA
    for three years beginning October 1 of 2015 to enter into a
    contract on agreement with a certified medical foster home to
    pay for long-term care for certain veterans already eligible
    for VA paid nursing home care.
        It would require that an eligible veteran could receive VA
    home health services as a component of such payments. Medical
    foster homes provide a non-institutional, long-term care
    alternative to veterans who prefer a smaller, more home-like
    and family-style setting than most traditional nursing homes
    are able to provide.
        The VA has been helping place veterans in medical foster
    homes for more than a decade. VA does not currently have
    authority to pay for a veteran to receive care in a medical
    foster nursing home even if the veteran is eligible for VA paid
    nursing home care.
        As a result, service-connected veterans who would prefer to
    receive care in a foster home must pay out of pocket using
    their own personal funds and many are unable to do so because
    of financial constraints.
        Our veterans, particularly those who are service-connected
    and in need of long-term care, deserve to decide for themselves
    where they and how they receive the care they need. And H.R.
    294 would allow them that opportunity.
        Now, given that the average cost of a medical foster home
    is approximately half the monthly nursing home cost, H.R. 294
    would also provide a cost-effective, long-term care option for
    the department.
        And I would urge my colleagues to support both of these
    bills and look forward to discussing them with our witnesses
    this morning.
        Ms. Brown has a bill on the agenda that I am proud to be a
    cosponsor of. And at this time, I will defer to her for her
    explanation and an opening statement.

           OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER CORRINE BROWN

        Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
    holding this hearing today.
        This is the first legislative hearing of the 114th
    Congress. I look forward to this committee in our usual
    bipartisan fashion being, busy in looking at bills that will
    help our veterans, and assist the VA in its effort to
    accomplish its mission.
        I am especially pleased that my bill, H.R. 216, was
    included today. H.R. 216 was introduced last Congress by the
    former ranking member and was approved by this committee as
    part of the advanced appropriation bill. I am looking forward
    to working with my colleagues and stakeholders to move this
    bill as fast as we can this year.
        VA's financial management process often looks like
    budgeting-by-crisis. H.R. 216 would provide the framework to
    assist the VA in the steps it has already taken to reform its
    budget process. It is important that everyone have a copy of
    the rules and by putting these processes into statute, we will
    make sure that they do. Providing a road map each year so that
    VA, veterans, and Congress know where we are going is vital in
    reforming the VA.
        My bill will ensure that the steps taken to come up with
    this road map are transparent and that all stakeholders are
    fully engaged in making sure that we provide the resources that
    we are committed to our veterans' demand.
        So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for including H.R. 216 today. I
    am looking forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I also
    want to welcome my colleague from Florida, Mr. Grayson, who we
    joined each other in Orlando.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Brown.
        I want to recognize a new Member to the committee that
    wasted no time in introducing a bill that will affect
    positively the veterans of our country, Dr. Abraham, to discuss
    his bill that is before us today, H.R. 245.
        Dr. Ralph Abraham, you are recognized.
        Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH ABRAHAM

        I want to address a bill that I have offered, H.R. 245, to
    amend Title 38, United States Code to codify certain existing
    provisions of law related to effective dates for claims under
    the laws administered by the secretary of Veterans Affairs and
    for other purposes.
        This bill is not only important to the veterans of my home
    state of Louisiana but also to millions of veterans nationwide,
    particularly those who live in rural areas or those who may be
    unfamiliar with the claims process of the VBA, Veterans
    Benefits Administration.
        The department has devoted much of its time in recent
    months to devising means to cut time out of the claims process
    in furtherance of its goal to issue rating decisions within 125
    days.
        While all stakeholders are in favor of seeking process
    efficiency, we must remain cognizant that this system is at its
    core meant to be veteran friendly. While the appropriateness
    and the legality, equity of many of VBA's efforts to issue
    faster decisions must bear further scrutiny, this particular
    rule change on informal claims and inferred claims must be
    addressed now.
        And H.R. 245 strikes a middle ground between the current
    operation of VBA and the desired standardization sought by VBA.
    Essentially my bill would provide that if a veteran sent a
    handwritten, informal claim to the VA, the department would
    track the claims as of the date of receipt of the veteran's
    correspondence.
        The department would still send the veteran a standardized
    form for completion. Provided that the veteran returned the
    standardized form within 180 days of the date that the
    department furnished the form to the veteran, the date of the
    veteran's original submission will continue to be recognized as
    the veteran's effective date.
        This protects the veteran as it ensures that any
    departmental administrative delay will not negatively affect
    the veteran's rights.
        My bill also maintains identification of inferred claims
    with those who have the requisite expertise, who are the
    trained professionals of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I
    also understand that veterans may have but be unaware of
    service-connected conditions that may be evidence in their
    medical records but which may be absent from their formal
    claim.
        For example, a veteran might claim a knee injury tied to a
    bad jump but be unaware that a more serious condition such as
    depression attributable to an event in service is also eligible
    for compensation and treatment.
        Well, it is my belief that if a claim comes to the
    Department of Veterans Affairs and there is something the
    department can do to assist that veteran, the department
    should, in fact, assist that veteran.
        There is surely a balance to be struck between department
    efficiency and veteran-friendly practice. And while I will
    agree that some standardization of process is necessary, it
    must also be accomplished in a manner that prioritizes the
    veteran over the bureaucrat. I believe my bill strikes that
    balance.
        I thank the chairman for including H.R. 245 in our
    proceedings today and I urge my colleagues to support its
    passage. I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Dr. Abraham.
        At this time, I want to welcome our colleague from the 9th
    District of Florida, Mr. Alan Grayson, who is the sponsor of
    H.R. 189, The Servicemember Foreclosure Protections Extension
    Act of 2015.
        Mr. Grayson, welcome to the committee. You are recognized
    for five minutes to explain your bill.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN GRAYSON

        Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member
    Brown. Thank you very much for inviting me to appear before you
    today.
        I look forward to what this committee under the leadership
    of two Floridians will be able to accomplish for our Nation's
    veterans during the 114th Congress.
        My bill, H.R. 189, The Servicemember Foreclosure
    Protections Extension Act of 2015, would extend for one
    calendar year the foreclosure and eviction protections that
    currently exist for active-duty members of our Military Forces
    and for veterans who have served in our Armed Forces within the
    previous year. These protections are scheduled to expire at the
    end of 2015 unless we act.
        Historically Section 303 of The Servicemembers Civil Relief
    Act has protected servicemembers from foreclosure and eviction
    if an action is filed during or within 90 days after a period
    of military service.
        Section 2203 of The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of
    2008 extended the period of protection from 90 days to nine
    months.
        And in 2012, Congress in a bill which you authored, Mr.
    Chairman, extended foreclosure and eviction protections further
    to one year.
        My bill would ensure that this one-year protection period
    that currently exists is extended through the end of 2016.
        Mr. Chairman, as you will recall, we began discussing this
    provision of law in September of last year after I noticed its
    omission from H.R. 5404, The Department of Veterans Affairs
    Expiring Authority Act of 2014, which was ultimately signed
    into law.
        You voiced your general support for the current foreclosure
    and eviction protections, but you stated that you wished to a
    hold a legislative hearing on the measure prior to moving any
    extension to the floor.
        I am pleased that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse was able to
    pass a clean one-year extension at the end of 2014 that lasts
    through the end of 2015 through the Senate during the closing
    days of the last session of Congress. And I am pleased that you
    have decided to make an extension into 2016, one of the first
    pieces of legislation to consider before the committee in this
    Congress, demonstrating that not everything in Washington, D.C.
    has to wait until the last minute.
        It is vitally important that we pass H.R. 189. Without this
    extension, at the end of this year, the period of foreclosure
    and eviction protections currently made available to
    servicemembers will revert from one year all the way back to
    the original 90-day period. A lapse in a full year's worth of
    protection would harm our young men and women returning from
    war.
        Almost a year ago, the GAO issued a report entitled
    Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, Information on Mortgage
    Protections and Related Education Efforts. Page 13 of that
    report states as follows, quote: ``Our analysis of one service
    source data suggests that all military borrowers, SCRA
    protected or not, had a higher likelihood of becoming
    delinquent in the first year after they left active duty than
    when in the military.''
        For example, in the loan level data from the institution
    that used the DMDC database to check the military status of its
    entire loan portfolio, all of its military borrowers had a
    higher likelihood of becoming delinquent in the first year
    after they left active duty than when in service. And that risk
    declines somewhat over the course of the year, but still
    remained significant.
        Mr. Chairman, we currently protect recent veterans and
    soldiers from the unfortunate situation just described. Clearly
    it is a very real threat to the well-being of the young men and
    women who serve in the Armed Forces.
        Respectfully I urge this committee to continue to ensure
    that the foreclosure and eviction protections that appear in
    the current law continue to exist in full measure throughout
    2016. No soldier should ever have to fight abroad and return
    home only to find that home is no longer there.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Grayson. I do
    appreciate your tenacity and willingness to work with the
    committee. And I appreciate you bringing the legislation
    forward.
        I will forego a round of questions for Mr. Grayson and I
    would ask that any questions that Members may have of Mr.
    Grayson be submitted for the record.
        And I appreciate you being here today, Mr. Grayson, and you
    are excused.
        Mr. Grayson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. And I would go ahead and invite the second
    panel to come forward and as you are coming forward to the
    table, we will temporarily recess this hearing and go into our
    official business meeting because we do, in fact, have a
    quorum.
        [Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the committee proceeded to other
    business.]
        The Chairman. Okay. We will bring back the hearing now on
    pieces of legislation.
        Our second panel is at the table. We will hear from David
    McLenachen.
        Mr. McLenachen. Thank you.
        The Chairman [continuing]. Acting Deputy Under Secretary
    for Disability Assistance for the Veterans Benefits
    Administration of the VA. He is accompanied by Mr. Rajiv----
        Dr. Jain.
        The Chairman. Jain----
        Dr. Jain. Yeah.
        The Chairman [continuing]. Assistant Deputy Under Secretary
    for Health for Patient Services at VA's Health Administration;
    Ms. Susan Sullivan, I get that one pretty well, I think, Deputy
    Assistant Secretary for Policy at VA's Office of Policy and
    Planning; Kim McLeod, Counsel of the VA's Office of General
    Counsel.
        Thank you all for being here today. I appreciate your
    attending.
        Deputy Secretary, acting Deputy Under Secretary, you are
    recognized for five minutes.

     STATEMENT OF DAVID R. MCLENACHEN, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY FOR
     DISABILITY ASSISTANCE, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S.
       DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIR, ACCOMPANIED BY RAJIV JAIN,
        ASSISTANT DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR HEALTH FOR PATIENT
     SERVICES, VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
     VETERANS AFFAIRS; SUSAN SULLIVAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY
     FOR POLICY, OFFICE OF POLICY AND PLANNING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
       VETERANS AFFAIRS; KIM MCLEOD, COUNSEL, OFFICE OF GENERAL
              COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

        Mr. McLenachen. Good morning, Chairman Miller, Ranking
    Member Brown, and Members of the committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to present VA's views on several bills that are
    pending before the committee.
        Joining me today are Dr. Jain, Assistant Deputy Under
    Secretary for Health and Patient Services; Ms. Susan Sullivan,
    Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy; and Ms. Kim McLeod,
    Deputy Assistant General Counsel.
        I want to first thank the committee for the opportunity to
    testify concerning the bill we support. H.R. 294, The Long-Term
    Care Veterans Choice Act, we strongly support the concepts
    provided in the bill which permits VA to pay for care for
    veterans transferred to medical foster homes and at the same
    time realize cost savings for a more effective manner of care.
        Despite the strong support, we do have a few technical
    concerns with the approach outlined in the bill. We hope to
    work with the committee going forward to ensure VA is able to
    effectively implement the provisions of the bill.
        We thank the ranking member for her efforts related to H.R.
    216. We are happy to say that VA is undertaking many of the
    efforts outlined in the bill.
        Over the last few years, VA incorporated forward-looking
    environmental scanning into our quadrennial strategic planning
    process. We have been in the process of implementing a
    planning, programming, budgeting, and execution resource
    allocation initiative modeled after similar efforts used in
    other federal agencies.
        Under VA's current organizational structure, the Assistant
    Secretary for Policy and Planning performs the responsibilities
    described for the proposed chief strategy officer.
        Additionally, to better serve veterans, the department has
    been evaluating our organizational structure as identified in
    VA's 2014 through 2020 strategic plan.
        And through the My VA Task Force, VA has been actively
    working on addressing organizational, policy, procedural,
    perceptual, and cultural boundaries that could constrain our
    ability to coordinate, integrate, and deliver benefits and
    services.
        We appreciate the committee's attention on the critical
    topic of VA's strategic planning and are eager to continue to
    discuss these efforts with the committee.
        Mr. Chairman, at this time, the department does not have
    views on H.R. 280. We note that this legislation could change
    laws and policies beyond that of our department and as such, we
    are consulting with other federal government agencies. We will
    continue to coordinate views on this matter and upon completion
    submit them to the committee.
        Finally, we cannot support H.R. 245 because its primary
    purpose appears to be to overrule VA's recent rule making and
    maintain the concept of informal claims. It would codify
    current rules that make it difficult to identify claims and
    unintentionally incentivize submission of claims in nonstandard
    formats that frustrate timely, accurate, and orderly claim
    processing.
        Our final rule which is effective on March 24th is crucial
    to VA's long-term efforts to modernize the claims system for
    the benefit of all veterans. It would eliminate the concept of
    informal claims and replace it with submission of claims in a
    format more amenable to efficient processing while still
    allowing veterans to receive favorable, effective date
    treatment similar to what is available today under current
    rules.
        Also, to process veterans' claims for benefits as
    accurately and efficiently as possible, VA is moving towards a
    paperless electronic system. An important component of that
    transition is that claims must originate on standardized inputs
    that can be easily identified and contain the core data needed
    to process the claim.
        We believe that the final rule carefully and
    comprehensively balances the interest of modernizing the VA
    claims system with allowing claimants to easily initiate claims
    and preserve the most favorable effective dates.
        VA strongly opposes H.R. 245 because it would run counter
    to VA's efforts to assist veterans by improving the efficiency
    of the claims process and would impair our ability to achieve
    and maintain our backlog reduction.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. We are happy to
    entertain any questions that you or the Members of the
    committee may have. Thank you.

        [The prepared statement of David R. McLenachen appears in
    the Appendix]

        The Chairman. Thank you very much, and thank all the folks
    for being here today.
        I have got a couple issues. I want to, Mr. McLenachen, talk
    about H.R. 280, which is the bonus rescission bill, but I want
    to ask in a few questions about the current status, if you
    will, of the 2014 bonus of former director of the Phoenix VA
    Medical Center, Ms. Sharon Hellman, that was according to the
    department given in error.
        It is my understanding that the recoupment of her bonus
    from 2013 has stopped because Ms. Hellman has attempted to
    appeal the recoupment to VA's debt management center.
        Could you tell the committee, please, what is the status of
    her appeal and under VA's policy what happens if she loses this
    appeal now that she is no longer an employee of the department?
        Mr. McLenachen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I will defer to Ms. McLeod to provide you a response to
    that question.
        Ms. McLeod. Mr. Chairman, right now once Ms. Hellman
    requested an appeal of the offset of her salary or the debt
    that she incurred, any offset on her salary had to be stopped
    and she was entitled to a hearing on that debt.
        That hearing goes before a third-party United States Postal
    Service ALJ who will hear her request and will make a decision
    based on her request. So at this time, the VA is waiting to
    find out what the ALJ has done.
        The Chairman. If she loses her appeal, how do you recoup
    the bonus that was given in error?
        Ms. McLeod. If she loses her appeal, we will issue a debt
    like we already did and we will continue to receive the money
    back.
        The Chairman. But she no longer receives a salary from the
    department. That is how you were doing it. You were recouping
    it by taking it out of her current salary.
        So what is the mechanism then that VA has to recoup that
    debt?
        Ms. McLeod. A debt will be issued and that will go to the
    essentially Treasury Department who will recoup that like they
    would recoup any debt from a citizen even though she is no
    longer employed by the VA.
        The Chairman. Retirement pay?
        Ms. McLeod. I am not sure, but I can take that back and
    bring it----
        The Chairman. You have taken no formal position on H.R.
    280, but I would like to know if, in fact, the secretary, if it
    is correct, that the secretary does not have the authority to
    rescind a bonus once it is given; is that correct?
        Ms. McLeod. Have a very limited authority right now. To the
    extent an administrative error occurs, the agency can recoup
    money based on an administrative error. We have no other formal
    process to recoup performance awards.
        The Chairman. What happens if there is criminal activity
    and somebody is charged with a crime, does the VA then have the
    ability to go back and recoup the bonus?
        Ms. McLeod. Not that I am aware of, but we could certainly
    take that back and get back to the committee.
        The Chairman. Would that be an appropriate tool for the VA
    to have because it appears from press reports and information
    that we have gathered that a crime may have been committed? And
    it is stunning to me that the VA does not have the ability to
    go in and recoup a bonus if a crime has been committed.
        Ms. McLeod. I am not able to answer that for the department
    at this point.
        The Chairman. Okay. Thank you very much.
        One question about H.R. 245, Mr. McLenachen. One of the
    VSOs presented a note in their written testimony that the rule
    making suggests there would be a change in VA's treatment of
    inferred claims, that is claims reasonably raised by the
    contents of a veteran's record.
        Previously if a veteran had a condition secondary to a
    condition claimed or even an unrelated condition that could be
    reasonably raised by the record, the veteran would be entitled
    to service connection if a nexus to his service was found.
        Under the rule making set to take effect in March, it
    appears it would not. This system, I would hope is supposed to
    be pro veteran and I want to pose a hypothetical. And you can
    answer hopefully whether or not VA would adjudicate this claim
    under the rules.
        A veteran files a formal claim for an elbow disability
    which he alleges is due to a fall he suffered while in boot
    camp. The veteran is scheduled for a VA examination to assess
    his elbow disability and arrives for the exam in a wheelchair.
    And it is clearly evident that both of the veteran's legs have
    been amputated.
        The military service records in the veteran's VA file
    reflect that the veteran was injured in an explosive blast
    during deployment to Afghanistan and sustained a traumatic
    injury to both legs for which he received a Purple Heart.
        Under the new rule making, would the VA adjudicate a claim
    for the right and left leg disabilities if the veteran only
    formally filed for his elbow condition?
        Mr. McLenachen. Mr. Chairman, I think there may be a
    misunderstanding regarding the final rule that we issued. We
    did not propose a policy change in this particular area. We
    currently adjudicate all claims to include secondary matters
    and ancillary benefits that arise that are within the scope of
    the claim that is filed.
        So we did not propose a change to that. What was in the
    final rule was intended merely as a clarification regarding
    current policy. To directly answer your question, if it is
    determined at that examination and in adjudication of the claim
    that the conditions that were noted were within the scope of
    the claim that was filed, we would adjudicate that as a claim
    that is pending, yes.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Ms. Brown.
        Ms. Brown. I just have one quick question, Ms. McLeod, I
    guess.
        Do you know whether any of the federal agencies have the
    authority to recoup bonuses?
        Ms. McLeod. To my knowledge, no other federal agencies have
    that power to do that.
        Ms. Brown. Yes. I yield back my time. I have no other
    questions.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Lamborn.
        Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
        And also in connection with Ranking Member Brown's bill, I
    would like to ask will the future years' veteran program be
    made available online to the public? I know it is discussed
    internally within the VA, and that is for any one of you.
        Ms. Sullivan. Good morning.
        With the current legislation, it doesn't specify whether
    that is publicly available or not. The similar programs in
    Department of Defense and DHS do not provide those publicly.
    They do provide them to the Congress. I would assume that this
    would be implemented the same way.
        Mr. Lamborn. What if the bill isn't passed for whatever
    reason?
        Ms. Sullivan. The programming, the future years' veteran
    plan is an internal tool and would remain as an internal tool.
    It informs our budget process but is, you know, separate from
    that. So we would continue to use it in that manner.
        Mr. Lamborn. So the only way it would be made available to
    the public would be if this legislation were to pass under
    current VA policy?
        Ms. Sullivan. Under current policy, yes.
        Mr. Lamborn. Okay. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        The Chairman. Ms. Brownley, no questions?
        Ms. Brownley. No questions.
        The Chairman. Dr. Benishek.
        Dr. Benishek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I guess I don't understand what is the objection to H.R.
    216 by the VA. I mean, it seems to me we would like to have
    transparency in this process of planning for the budget and the
    VA.
        What is the downside?
        Ms. Sullivan. Thank you for your interest in strategic
    planning in the department.
        We do support the intent of the bill. We are right now
    evolving a lot of our processes, the planning, programming,
    budgeting, and execution process. We are in about our fourth
    year of going through that cycle.
        Basically the objection is we think that it is too early to
    codify it in statute. We would really like to get the processes
    a little bit more mature before we know what is really going to
    work in the long term.
        So we are doing pretty much everything that is in H.R. 216.
    It is the matter of how it is officially codified giving us the
    ability to continue to mature those processes over time.
        Dr. Benishek. Is there some reason that we shouldn't be
    aware of what you are doing? I just don't understand the
    reasoning.
        I mean, that is not a very good answer as far as I can
    tell, Ms. Sullivan, as to why Ms. Brown's idea of making sure
    that we are all aware of what is going on is a bad idea. I just
    don't understand your answer. I mean, we expect it to change
    with time. So I just don't understand that objection, but I
    guess that is the answer that we have.
        I yield back the remainder of my time. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Ms. Kuster.
        Ms. Kuster. No.
        The Chairman. Dr. Abraham.
        Mr. Abraham. Yes, questions for Mr. McLenachen.
        Your written testimony does represent VA's adamant
    opposition to H.R. 245 which in pertinent part seeks to
    preserve the ability of veterans to establish dates of claim at
    the point where the veteran opts to pursue a disability claim.
        One of our president stakeholders has noted in written
    testimony that VA's recent rule making on standard claims, an
    appeals form will, quote, ``create a division between veterans
    with internet access and those without internet access.''
        You have also noted that VA, quote, ``receives an enormous
    volume,'' end quote, of informal claims.
        Considering the opposition to your rule making by the
    several VSOs present today, I find it difficult to overlook the
    fact that VA through its rule-making process ought to
    unilaterally roll back decades worth of pro-veteran policy
    regarding establishment of effective dates.
        This is a ploy to make the VA's job easier and has the
    effect of taking monetary benefits from veterans who have
    earned them.
        Please explain how you can possibly describe your rule
    making as, quote, ``maintaining a pro-veteran process that is
    acceptable,'' end quote, when you will be making it harder for
    so many veterans, to use your words, quote, ``an enormous
    volume,'' end quote, of veterans without internet access to
    establish an effective date at the point where the veteran opts
    to pursue a disability claim.
        Mr. McLenachen. Thank you, sir, for the question. And I am
    glad I have an opportunity to address this concern.
        I want to be very frank with the committee that this was an
    opportunity to demonstrate to you how the rule-making process
    can really work to help veterans at the same time as helping
    VA. I assure you this is not a ploy by VA in any way.
        When we issued our proposed rule, what we did is we
    proposed to incentivize the filing of electronic claims through
    our e-benefits system. That is what we initially proposed to
    do.
        And in the rule-making process, we received comments saying
    essentially you are moving too fast. The primary concerns were
    that we were treating, just as you just suggested, we were
    treating paper claims differently than electronic claims. And
    we hadn't accounted for that and we were not providing the same
    effective date treatment for paper claims as electronic claims.
        So what we did is we completely revamped the rule. What we
    proposed is not in our final rule. What is in our final rule is
    that we treat paper claims exactly the same as electronic
    claims for effective date purposes.
        Secondly, we removed informal claims, but what we really
    did is we replaced it simply with, as one of the commenter
    suggested, why don't you just come up with a standard informal
    claim form. That is essentially what we did, sir.
        We have an intent to file form which is a one-page document
    that does exactly the same thing as informal claims. It is just
    that it is on a standard form.
        And I submit to each and every one the Members of the
    committee that your constituents deal with standard forms every
    day of their lives in every situation where they encounter
    private and public entities, just not at VA.
        And so when we talk about striking the proper balance, sir,
    we really believe that we have done that in the rule-making
    process. We replaced the informal claim process with what we
    are now calling intent to file. A one-page document can be
    submitted in three different ways and this is how you address
    the issue of people that don't have internet access.
        We have gone so far as to make it even more liberal to file
    an intent to file form. The reason is under current law, you
    have to identify the disability, your symptoms. That is
    required by a court decision and we implemented that decision
    in our procedures.
        Well, under the new regulations, we are not going to do
    that. All you have to do on this form is three things, tell us
    whether you want compensation pension or a survivor's benefit;
    two, provide us your identifying information; and, three, sign
    the form, either you or your representative. And that will
    establish your effective date.
        Three ways you can do it. You can pick up the phone and
    call one of our call centers. You can walk into one of our
    offices and somebody will fill out the form for you and third
    you can start an electronic claim and when you start that
    electronic claim, it preserves the effective date for you.
        So to address all of those concerns, sir, that you just
    mentioned, we did that in the final rule. So the only thing
    that is left is there is a one-page standard form. We
    essentially did what the commenters said, create a form for
    informal claims, and that is what we did.
        So that really strikes that balance that you mentioned,
    sir, when you were describing your bill was the balance between
    allowing VA to easily identify claims and quickly process them
    versus spending resources needlessly trying to figure out
    whether something is a claim or not.
        Mr. Abraham. But what you have done is you have converted
    that informal claim all of a sudden to a standardized formal
    document and that resets the time clock for this veteran.
        Mr. McLenachen. Sir, it does the same thing as current
    rules for informal claims. It establishes an effective date. So
    you come into us and you say I want to apply for compensation.
    And if you walk in, we have an employee that is going to sit
    there and type that information in for you.
        It establishes it in our systems and you get the same
    effective date that you would get under the informal claims
    process. There is absolutely no difference. The only
    distinction is it is either a walk in submitted on the standard
    paper form or you start it electronically.
        Mr. Abraham. How long will it take the VA then to respond
    or process that informal claim on the standardized form once
    they get it?
        Mr. McLenachen. Whether we are talking about informal
    claims today or intent to file under the new rules, that is not
    a claim. What happens is that that preserves the effective date
    if the claimant comes in within a year and files a claim.
        Mr. Abraham. And if they receive an informal letter?
        Mr. McLenachen. No. We have a statutory obligation when we
    receive an informal claim, and we will under the intent to file
    process, we have a statutory obligation to provide the claimant
    the application form.
        So let's assume that you called the call center and you say
    I want to file for compensation. The call center logs in that
    intent to file. It preserves your effective date and we have an
    obligation to send the proper application form and tell the
    claimant everything they have to do to complete that
    application. That is a statutory obligation today and it will
    be under the final rule.
        Mr. Abraham. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Ms. Rice, do you have any questions?
        Miss Rice. No.
        The Chairman. I have one quick one. In your testimony, you
    said the primary intent of this bill appears to be to overrule
    VA's current rule making?
        Mr. McLenachen. Yes, sir.
        The Chairman. Does it offend you that Congress would
    attempt to overrule your rule making?
        Mr. McLenachen. No, sir, not at all. And let me just
    suggest to----
        The Chairman. No. That is all I needed was----
        Mr. McLenachen. Okay.
        The Chairman [continuing]. Just a yes or no. It appeared
    that you might have your feathers ruffled just a little bit and
    I didn't want that to be the case.
        Mr. Costello is gone. Mr. Bost is gone.
        Dr. Wenstrup.
        Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. McLenachen, I understand the department has some issues
    with 294, H.R. 294, some technical issues with that, and you
    might have some suggestions for us on that Long-Term Veterans
    Choice Act.
        And I think we all look forward to discussing some of those
    technicalities with you, but really what I am asking today is
    will you give us the assurance that you will work with us in a
    very timely fashion on those, on any technical corrections you
    may have so that we can move forward in a very timely fashion?
        Mr. McLenachen. Yes. Dr. Jain has a particular interest in
    doing that with you, so I will let him address it.
        Dr. Wenstrup. Okay. Thank you.
        Dr. Jain. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
        And I really want to thank Chairman Miller for really
    authoring this bill and also for the committee for considering
    it.
        Just these are minor issues in some ways, but they could be
    challenging and we really want this program to function really
    well for our veterans.
        For example, there is a term used in the bill for transfer
    to homes. And for many clinicians, that could mean that this
    will require an admission to a hospital bed before the veteran
    becomes eligible for this benefit, so rather than being
    directly admitted from the veteran's home to the foster home.
    So that is just one issue.
        The other issue is the word contracts and we believe that
    there are some of our foster home operators that may have
    challenges with the contracting process. It can be pretty
    lengthy and complicated. So if there is a way to tweak some of
    that language, those are the only issues that we are talking
    about.
        Dr. Wenstrup. You mean a simpler contract of some type, is
    that----
        Dr. Jain. Or perhaps defining the agreements a little bit
    better, but I will defer to my counsel who may be able to
    clarify that issue.
        Dr. Wenstrup. Thank you, Doctor.
        Ms. McLeod. We would have to take that back and bring it
    back to the committee, but we are happy to work with you all on
    that.
        Dr. Wenstrup. I appreciate it. Thank you.
        And I yield back.
        The Chairman. Dr. Ruiz, do you have any questions?
        Mr. Ruiz. No, sir.
        The Chairman. Mr. Bilirakis, you are recognized.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
        Mr. McLenachen, I want to get back to H.R. 216, Ms. Brown's
    bill. I want to follow-up on Dr. Benishek's questions.
        Again, the VA indicates its support for the principles and
    concepts of H.R. 216, but it hasn't embraced looking at those
    principles in statute. And, again, I want to give you another
    opportunity.
        Why not in statute with respect to the legislation's
    requirement for VA to submit resource estimates over a five-
    year horizon that are in line with the department's goals and
    objectives for various programs? What is the problem with
    embracing the concept in statute if you agree with it in
    principle? And, again, you know, DoD does it. Why not the VA?
        Mr. McLenachen. I will defer to Ms. Sullivan on that
    because she is really the expert in this area.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Ms. Sullivan, please.
        Ms. Sullivan. Again, thank you in general for the support
    for the concept in the bill.
        Again, we are still kind of working on it. DoD has had
    decades to put that process in place, work the process, and
    make sure everybody understands the pieces. We are in our
    fourth year. I think we need to work more and come and give you
    more information on what that process is and the types of
    things that we are working through.
        There are several areas in the bill. The programming the
    future years' veteran plan is one, some of the issues there or
    the concerns are you kind of putting it together with the
    budget. Those are two separate processes. We don't want to
    confuse the two or constrain future budgets from what is in the
    five-year plan.
        Some of the other areas looking at the quadrennial review,
    what that looks like for VA is very different from what that
    looks like for DoD or DHS. We actually take their quadrennial
    reviews as input to us. So there are some pieces on how we look
    at how those processes in those other departments really apply
    to VA.
        Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Well, would you agree to work with Ms.
    Brown on this particular issue?
        Ms. Sullivan. Absolutely.
        Mr. Bilirakis. I mean, accountability is so very important.
    These are taxpayer dollars. And, you know, Ms. Brown is a
    fellow Floridian and we care about our veterans first.
        So would you agree to work with her and possibly invite me
    in the meeting as well because I think we need to get this done
    for our veterans?
        Ms. Sullivan. Absolutely. Happy to work with the committee.
        Mr. Bilirakis. All right. Very good. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. Ms. Sullivan, you said you have been working
    on it for four years. Do you think that putting that force of
    law behind it might encourage you to move a little quicker in
    establishing what Ms. Brown is trying to accomplish?
        Ms. Sullivan. For some of these, they are annual processes,
    so it still is going to take one cycle per year. That can't go
    any faster. We did do a lot with the strategic plan that we
    developed that came out last year in 2014 and we will start on
    our next cycle for the strategic plan. Again, that is a four-
    year cycle in itself. Obviously anything in legislation is
    going to get attention. I don't know if that will help mature
    the process any faster.
        The Chairman. I would hope it would. If it is in law, I
    would hope that it would encourage you to move quicker. I think
    Ms. Brown has got a great idea and it is something that
    everybody on this committee can get behind and support.
        I mean, we give you enough time to do it without putting it
    in law and you still come forward opposing, agreeing with the
    concept, but opposing putting it in statute. And it is hard for
    some of us to understand that.
        Mr. Coffman.
        Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Ms. McLeod, on House Bill 280, it is my understanding
    that Secretary McDonald has no position on that bill right now.
    Am I correct in that?
        Ms. McLeod. That is correct.
        Mr. Coffman. Okay. That really surprises me because he came
    onboard to clean up the VA from the scandals of its past that
    seem to continue to this day.
        And so if I understand the bill right--first of all, in
    your testimony earlier, you made the statement that VA's only
    ability to claw back a bonus is if there has been an error and
    that it should have been--it was never authorized or for the
    amount that it was authorized for. Am I correct in that?
        Ms. McLeod. Essentially, sir, yes. The only ability right
    now is a very narrow one when there has been an administrative
    error committed.
        Mr. Coffman. Yeah. So we have had incidents that are well-
    known today in the VHA system where management was complicit in
    a coverup involving appointment wait times. And those same
    managers were given bonuses based on a false reporting of
    performance where veterans suffered from that.
        Then the situation in my district where we have a hospital
    half built, hundreds of millions of dollars over budget, years
    behind schedule, along with other hospitals that have some of
    the same problems that are currently being built, major
    construction projects by the VA.
        The individual in charge of those projects within the
    leadership of the Veterans Administration received over $60,000
    in bonuses since 2009, Glenn Haggstrom. So, you know, clearly
    he didn't meet the criteria of the goals that were established.
        And so what you are saying is there is no mechanism under
    current law to claw back bonuses from somebody who clearly
    didn't meet when new information comes out and they clearly
    didn't meet the goals that were expressed as a requirement to
    get the bonus or criminal conduct was committed during that
    period of time, that there was no mechanism to claw back and
    current law of that bonus. I am correct in that, right?
        Ms. McLeod. You are correct.
        Mr. Coffman. And so we have a secretary of the Veterans
    Affairs that can't make a decision on something so obvious. I
    mean, I think it is just extraordinary. And what it says to me
    and what it says to the veterans of this country is nothing has
    really changed, nothing has really changed in the Department of
    Veterans Affairs.
        And I want you to take the message back to the secretary
    that he ought to make a decision on that and the decision ought
    to be to support this bill.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Ms. Brown.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a question
    for Ms. Sullivan.
        I am a little confused. Did I hear you correctly that you
    are concerned with forward protection separate from the budget?
        Ms. Sullivan. I am sorry. Can you repeat the question?
        Ms. Brown. Concerned with keeping the forward year
    protections separate from the budgetary process.
        Ms. Sullivan. So the five-year look at the resource
    allocation is a tool that informs the budget. There is some
    concern if those are both out together that those future year
    projections would set expectations for future year budgets and
    not provide some of the flexibility to deal with emerging
    priorities, so almost setting that in stone for the five years
    out and not being able to go through the budget formulation
    process.
        Ms. Brown. Well, I think that is what we want. We want to
    know what are the plans?
        Ms. Sullivan. As a plan, as long as it is able to then be
    adjusted during the budget cycle, not laying--for us to see
    five years in the future and lay that kind of in stone, it is a
    planning tool to look at those outward projections but not
    something that--again, the perception that that would then be
    the budget for that future year. There still is the budget
    process as a separate process.
        Ms. Brown. Why wouldn't you be able to adjust it if it is
    just a planning tool?
        Ms. Sullivan. I think the look now is whether or not those
    that are receiving it are able to, you know, kind of give us
    that flexibility as we go into the budget formulation cycle to
    look back and say, well, four years ago, you said it was going
    to be this and now you are coming in with this budget. So,
    again, it is a planning tool. It informs the budget.
        Ms. Brown. I understand that but as you plan, different
    factors come. Maybe we will get additional veterans in certain
    categories or, you know, it is lots of factors that is going to
    affect that. But I think what we are trying to do is to see
    your road map so that we can have some idea as to your planning
    process also.
        Ms. Sullivan. I understand.
        Ms. Brown. We clearly need to get together. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Ms. Sullivan, if I could follow-up on what
    Ms. Brown was just asking. Shouldn't Congress have the ability
    to look at year two, three, four, and five to help determine
    how you arrived at the current budget year request? Again, what
    is the fear that VA has to putting a five-year plan out to the
    public?
        Ms. Sullivan. I will have to take back some of the details,
    but, again, the other departments who do this, that is not
    public information. We are trying to, you know, look at similar
    processes to DoD and DHS. We obviously share our strategic plan
    and our planning processes. We do consult with Congress and the
    VSOs on doing that.
        The Chairman. I serve on the Armed Services Committee and
    we get a five-year budget picture. I just don't understand what
    VA's problem is with giving Congress the information on which
    you base your current year's budget proposal on.
        Ms. Sullivan. At this point, we are still maturing that
    process. I don't know if it is----
        The Chairman. How long will that process take to become
    mature?
        Ms. Sullivan. I can't answer that. I am sorry. I will have
    to take that back.
        The Chairman. Okay. I would like an answer.
        Ms. Sullivan. Okay.
        The Chairman. Ms. Radewagen, do you have any questions?
        Mrs. Radewagen. No, I don't, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Ms. Brown, one final question.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you.
        The Chairman. And then we will go to the third panel.
        Ms. Brown. To my understanding NASA does the forward budget
    and they make theirs public.
        Ms. Sullivan. I will have to look into that. Thank you.
        Ms. Brown. Congress gave advance appropriations to VA. We
    do it and, you know, I was very involved and very instrumental
    in making sure that VA got advanced appropriations. What we are
    saying is we want to be a part of that planning process.
        Ms. Sullivan. Appreciate that. Yes, we will come and meet
    with you and provide some more information and work with you on
    that.
        Ms. Brown. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        The Chairman. Yeah, I think it would be a good idea that we
    have you come back and talk with the entire committee about Ms.
    Brown's legislation. I think we would all be interested in
    knowing where the fear is from VA with making those numbers
    available to Congress.
        I want to thank you all for being here today.
        And we have got a third panel, so the second panel is
    excused and I would invite our third panel to please come to
    the witness table.
        As they are coming forward, joining us today is Mr. Joe
    Violante, National Legislative Director for Disabled American
    Veterans; Aleks Morosky, Deputy Director of the National
    Legislative Service of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the
    United States; Mr. Zachary Hearn, Deputy Director for Claims of
    the Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission for The
    American Legion; and Mr. Blake Ortner, the Deputy Director of
    Government Relations for Paralyzed Veterans of America.
        I appreciate you all being here. All of your complete
    written statements will be made a part of the record.
        Mr. Violante, you are recognized for five minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF JOSEPH A. VIOLANTE

        Mr. Violante. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Brown, Members of the
    committee, DAV appreciates the opportunity to testify before
    this committee on the various bills under consideration.
        H.R. 216 would establish new planning and budgetary
    processes and make changes affecting VA's ability to develop
    and implement budgets and strategic plans. The bill directs the
    secretary to submit to Congress a future years' veterans'
    program and a quadrennial veterans' review modeled on similar
    procedures for DoD and Homeland Security. The legislation would
    also establish the new position of chief strategic officer.
        Mr. Chairman, for decades, DAV and our partners in the
    Independent Budget have pointed out mismatches in funding for
    VA programs which became evident in last year's scheduling
    scandal and access crisis.
        This legislation would help to address this problem by
    adding more transparency and rigor to VA's budget and planning
    process. DAV generally supports this legislation, although we
    do have a few concerns.
        First, the legislation must make clear that both the
    quadrennial review and the future years' veterans' program are
    made publicly available when they are delivered to Congress.
        Second, the bill gives OMB some ability to constrain VA's
    planning by setting guidance on the overall resources available
    to VA. It is vital that any long-range strategic planning
    process produce honest assessments of veterans' needs and the
    cost to meet them.
        Third, the bill does not make clear how the chief strategic
    strategy officer will interact with VA's chief financial
    officer or the under secretaries. This might add a new
    dimension of bureaucracy that could complicate rather than
    improve budgeting.
        Finally, we are concerned about the potential of
    diminishing the influence of veteran stakeholders when setting
    out VA's long-term missions and priorities.
        H.R. 245 would reestablish certain safeguards for veterans
    who currently file informal claims. Under a VA rule that will
    take effect in March, claimants will no longer be able to file
    informal claims through written communications establishing
    only an intent to file a claim process that must be completed
    on standardized forms. As a result, veterans may lose some
    accrued benefits.
        The bill seeks to remedy this situation by requiring that
    claimants who send written communications to VA indicating an
    intent to file a claim would be considered an informal claim
    and would have up to 180 days to complete the required forms to
    protect their effective date.
        DAV supports the purpose of this provision. However, we
    strongly recommend that the informal claim period be restored
    to a full year, same as the new intent to file a claim
    procedure to ensure that all veterans who file claims are
    treated equitably regardless of how they file them.
        DAV supports H.R. 294. Some severely disabled veterans who
    are unable to live independently at home choose to reside in
    more intimate home-like alternatives to a nursing home called
    medical foster homes. While some veterans cannot afford medical
    foster homes, other veterans who can are required by law to pay
    the full cost out of their own pockets. Many of them are
    service connected veterans who could choose to live in a more
    expensive nursing home setting fully paid for by VA.
        This measure would give VA a three-year authority to pay
    for veterans who want to reside in a VA approved medical foster
    home, saving tax payers money. However, despite the laudable
    aim of this measure we do not believe its goal will be
    successfully achieved unless Congress fixes VA's authority to
    use provider agreements. Since VA currently is unable to use
    its provider agreements authority to pay for medical foster
    homes, the alternative is to use contract vehicles.
        The cost of the burdensome reporting and auditing
    requirements inherent in federal contracting, we believe some
    medical foster home providers would not be willing or capable
    of entering into complex contracts with VA. We urge the
    committee to pass these bills and we pledge to work with you
    and your staff to address our concerns. That concludes my
    testimony, I will be happy to answer any questions.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Morosky, you're
    recognized for five minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF ALEKS MOROSKY

        Mr. Morosky. Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, on
    behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of
    the United States and our auxiliaries, I would like to thank
    you for the opportunity to testify on today's pending
    legislation.
        The Service Member Foreclosure Protection Extension Act:
    The VFW supports this legislation which would continue for one
    year the extension of the period that veterans are protected
    from mortgage sale or foreclosure following their military
    service from 9 to 12 months. The VFW believes that veterans
    should be afforded the maximum opportunity to gain financial
    stability when transitioning from active duty to civilian life
    without the threat of losing their homes.
        A January 2014 GAO report found that military borrowers
    were at a higher risk of mortgage delinquency in the first year
    after leaving active service. But with these protections in
    place we are more likely to resolve those delinquencies than
    others. Accordingly, the VFW believes that the one-year
    protection window should not only be extended, but we urge
    Congress to make this policy permanent.
        The Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Planning Reform
    Act: This legislation would require VA to estimate and report
    to Congress its budgetary needs for four fiscal years. It would
    also establish a quadrennial veterans' review to ensure VA has
    a strategy to meet the future needs of our nation's veterans.
    The VFW strongly agrees that VA should constantly analyze
    veterans' needs and develop a strategy that will enable it to
    address such needs, not just today and tomorrow, but for years
    to come.
        The quadrennial review concept has been successful for DOD
    in prioritizing its strategic pillars to ensure it is able to
    protect America and advance our interests abroad. The VFW
    supports the concept of a quadrennial veterans' review, but we
    do not believe VA should prioritize veterans' benefits.
        VA benefits and programs are vital to the veterans they
    serve. One benefit is not more important than the other and
    should not be treated as such. Instead, we suggest the
    quadrennial review analyze the fiscal demands of the full range
    of programs and capabilities. This would ensure VA adjusts its
    programs to fit emerging trends and maximizes its finite
    resources to meet veterans' needs.
        The bill would also require VA to conduct a study to ensure
    its functions and organizational structure are effective,
    efficient, and economical. The VFW applauds Secretary Robert
    McDonald for realizing the VA's organizational structure needs
    to change.
        In November he announced the My--VA Initiative to, among
    other things, reorganize the department's structure to better
    meet veterans' needs. VFW believes the VA should be given the
    opportunity to fully implement Secretary McDonald's
    reorganizational initiative.
        H.R. 245: This bill makes two significant changes. First,
    the bill codifies the effective date for a claim to include the
    date VA receives an informal claim. This is a much needed
    provision that will provide clear understanding for a
    claimant's effective date of claim.
        The second provision places a 180-day time limitation on
    veterans who have filed an informal claim to complete and
    return VA Form 21-526 to VA. The VFW opposes this provision.
    Current law provides claimants a full year to complete and
    return the application form other under circumstances. The VFW
    believes there should be parity between existing law, and
    recommends that claimants are afforded a full year to submit
    their formal claim. This does not place an additional burden on
    VA and will not count towards the time the claim takes to be
    adjudicated.
        H.R. 280: The VFW supports this legislation. Employees
    receive bonuses as an incentive in recognition for superior
    work performance. But if a bonus is found after the fact to be
    awarded to an employee who manipulated data, put veterans at
    risk of harm, or in some other way defrauded the Government to
    receive that bonus, the Secretary should have the authority to
    recoup the bonus amount.
        The Long Term Care Veterans Choice Act: The VFW supports
    this legislation which would allow enrolled veterans in nursing
    home care to transfer into adult foster home care at their
    request. Currently, veterans who choose to live in adult foster
    homes must do so at their own expense. To grant VA the
    authority to reimburse adult foster homes would provide
    veterans with an additional residency choice potentially
    improving the quality of life for those who would prefer this
    option.
        The VFW strongly believes that all non-VA care services
    should be provided in conjunction with proper care
    coordination. The VHA medical foster home procedures handbook
    requires an interdisciplinary VA home care team to provide the
    veteran with primary care, regularly communicate with the
    foster home caregiver, and monitor the care provided with
    frequent unannounced visits. The VFW feels that these would
    ensure adequate care coordination and recommends that the care
    coordination policies outlined in that document should be made
    permanent by adding them to the language of this legislation.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I will be
    happy to answer any questions you or other Members of the
    Committee may have.
        The Chairman. Thank you very much. Mr. Hearn, you are
    recognized for five minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF ZACHARY HEARN

        Mr. Hearn. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Miller,
    Ranking Member Brown, and Members of the committee. On behalf
    of National Commander Helm and the 2.4 million members of The
    American Legion, we are honored to speak this morning regarding
    proposed bills impacting our nation's veterans.
        Based on the slate of bills for consideration The American
    Legion supports the following bills.
        H.R. 189, the Service Member Foreclosure Protection Act of
    2015.
        H.R. 216, the Department of Veterans Affairs Budget
    Planning and Reform Act of 2015.
        H.R. 245, H.R. 280.
        H.R. 289 addresses alternative solutions to veterans
    incapable of independent living. Currently, The American Legion
    does not have a position pertaining to this bill, however, we
    are continuing to consider the solutions the bill provides. A
    complete discussion of The American Legion's position can be
    found in our written testimony that you have before you today.
        The American Legion supports H.R. 245. In recent years the
    Veterans Benefits Administration has taken steps to improve its
    efficiency in the adjudication of claims. One much publicized
    effort was the virtual transformation in the claims process.
    Another effort was the VA's issuance of regulations that would
    change a decades old policy regarding the submission of
    informal claims. The American Legion opposes this change.
        Historically, veterans were permitted to submit written
    correspondence to VA indicating their intent to file a claim
    for disability benefits. This process did not require a
    specified form, it simply required a written communication
    indicating a desire to file for disability benefits for a
    particular condition.
        In September 2014 VA issued regulations that would go into
    effect in March 2015 that would eliminate the informal written
    claim as a marker for an effective date of benefits. Instead,
    veterans were directed to submit claims electronically, orally
    to a VA employee, or through a new VA form to protect the
    earliest possible effective date.
        Veterans who name the benefit they seek in a written
    communication to the VA are punished because that communication
    under the new regulations would not protect the earliest
    effective date. What really is happening is that the BVA is
    using the new regulations to artificially reduce the number of
    pending claims. It is counterintuitive for veterans to not
    mention the benefit that they seek.
        Compelling veterans to file via electronic means could be
    detrimental. The National Center for Veterans Analysis and
    Statistics reported the average male veteran was 64 years old
    in 2011, and the census bureau reports that less than half of
    Americans over 65 years old have access to the Internet.
        If a sizable portion of the veteran population does not
    have regular access to the means necessary to file and then
    complete application, is VA adequately serving the veteran
    population? It should be mentioned that the issue of expediency
    on the front end of the claims process isn't the only reason
    why VA pursued this policy.
        Another justification for this process was that a number of
    inferred claims hadn't been recognized by VA at the regional
    offices. It was only when a claim was appealed to the Board of
    Veterans Appeals that a BVA judge recognized the nature of the
    claim.
        VA's requirement for the standardized form suggests that
    instead of embracing its responsibility to properly train its
    employees, VA opted to advocate its responsibility to both its
    employees and the veteran community through removing the policy
    altogether. Ultimately, VA's policy pertaining to the
    electronic submission of claims will have a deleterious effect
    upon effective dates.
        If veterans, regardless of age, do not have access to the
    Internet then they may have to endure additional steps to file
    a claim losing their effective date, and ultimately the payment
    of their disability benefits.
        H.R. 245 codifies a longstanding practice of VA permitting
    informal claims without the requirement of a standardized form
    or electronic submission. Moreover, it permits veterans to
    maximize the benefits earned through their dedicated service to
    this nation.
        Again, on behalf of National Commander Helm, and 2.4
    million members that comprise The American Legion, we thank the
    committee for hearing our testimony today. And I will be happy
    to answer any questions that this Committee may have.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Hearn. Mr. Ortner, you are
    recognized for five minutes.

                       STATEMENT OF BLAKE ORTNER

        Mr. Ortner. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Brown, and
    Members of the committee, Paralyzed Veterans of America would
    like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the
    legislation before the committee. PVA supports H.R. 189. It is
    our belief that the extension of this foreclosure protection
    should have been included with other extenders that were passed
    in the 113th Congress and that was inadvertently left out.
        PVA generally supports the intent, however, we have
    concerns regarding H.R. 216, similar to those expressed in 2013
    when PVA testified on similar draft legislation. This
    legislation establishes new planning and budgeting processes as
    well as study and make organizational changes affecting VA's
    ability to develop and implement budgets and strategic plans.
    Our concerns are similar to those expressed by the panel today.
        Long range strategic planning is vitally important and VA
    does and must continue to do this. VA annually prepares and
    submits to Congress and the public a performance and
    accountability report to show how well VA's strategic goals are
    being met. In addition, VA's annual budget submission lays out
    in great detail the programs and policies designed to achieve
    VA's strategic goals. VA also supports two dozen ongoing
    advisory committees to provide outside perspective and Congress
    has authorized commissions and task forces to look at major
    issues.
        It is not yet clear how or if the creation of a quadrennial
    veterans' review would improve on these ongoing strategic
    planning processes. Similarly, it is not clear whether the
    creation of a future years veterans' program would lead to
    either more transparent or more accurate budgets or
    appropriations. And based on Ms. Sullivan's testimony,
    transparency does not appear to be a goal.
        There are also questions about the creation of the new
    Chief Strategy Officer. The language of the legislation gives
    the CSO significant independence in overseeing all planning and
    programing throughout VA. Would the CSO have overlapping
    authority with the under secretaries? How would the CSO and the
    CFO interact during preparation of VA's budget? Are they co-
    equal? And how would disagreements between them be settled?
    Would this lead to greater harmony or conflict within VA's
    budget formulation process?
        We also have questions about the role of veterans' service
    organizations and the development of the QVR. As organizations
    with great experience and expertise in dealing with veterans,
    will this Board consultation process dilute our input? VSOs are
    not idle stakeholders. We are concerned about putting us on par
    with less interested, informed, and involved stakeholders
    during the consultation process. Although we do have questions
    about this legislation, I want to emphasize we have no
    questions about the sincere intentions and aims of the sponsors
    to this legislation.
        PVA supports H.R. 245 to codify existing provisions of law
    relating to effective dates of claims, in particular the
    informal claim procedures. Because the veterans may not realize
    the intricacies of claiming benefits, some may submit claims on
    their own which might simply consist of a letter presenting
    their case. PVA welcomes provisions requiring the Secretary to
    provide a claims application form when the informal claim is
    received, but agree that the informal claim continue with the
    same weight of law, unbiased consideration, and receipt date
    had it been a formal claim.
        PVA is not opposed to provisions of H.R. 280 and believes
    giving the Secretary some kind of leverage to hold senior staff
    more accountable is valuable. However, it is critical that the
    Secretary not enjoy any sort of carte blanche authority to
    strip bonuses. Concerning the time frame, PVA does not believe
    that this authority should continue in perpetuity, but be of
    sufficient length to ensure that behavior discovered in the
    future can be acted upon. Let us also be very clear, we do not
    feel that this limit should apply in cases of clear fraud or
    criminal activity.
        A second concern regards the rights of the employee for a
    review of the recoupment. PVA is not certain a hearing with the
    Secretary is the best or most fair venue for the review as it
    would establish the Secretary as the arbiter of his or her own
    decision.
        PVA generally supports H.R. 294 regarding the transfer of
    veterans to non-VA adult foster homes. PVA believes that VA's
    primary obligation involving long-term support services is to
    provide veterans with quality medical care in a healthy and
    safe environment. It is PVA's position that adult foster homes
    are only appropriate for disabled veterans who do not require
    regular monitoring by licensed providers, but rather have a
    catastrophic injury or disability and are able to sustain a
    high level of independence.
        When these veterans are transferred to adult foster homes,
    care coordination with VA specialized systems of care is vital
    and the veteran must be regularly evaluated by specialized
    providers trained to meet the needs of their specific
    conditions. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I
    would be happy to answer any questions.
        Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Ortner, very much and I would
    like to go ahead and yield for questions to the Chairman of the
    Sub Committee, Dr. Abraham.
        Mr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ortner, your
    testimony on H.R. 245 noted that as VA tries to reduce its
    claims' backlog there is a risk that the department will look
    for methods to avoid claims that are difficult to complete. I
    am very concerned by the state of affairs as ``difficult
    claims'' may be those of our most serious, severely disabled
    veterans. Would you elaborate, please, on this concern that you
    and I share a bit more about how the 2015 goal to eliminate the
    claims' backlog may actually create reverse incentives for VVA
    to strategize methods to avoid hard claims?
        Mr. Ortner. Yes, sir, I think in our full testimony we
    discuss a little bit about the concerns of both trying to avoid
    some of those claims that are possibly more difficult. And the
    informal claim is one of those that you definitely run into a
    problem with because of the requirement to collect the
    evidence. Probably of greater concern is the risk of those
    claims being pushed off as we discussed in a hearing last week
    have to do with becoming grounds for more appeals.
        So I think that is our concern. I think the stress or the
    sword of Damocles hanging over the heads regarding the 2015
    requirements can potentially push people into trying to speed
    things along or trying to avoid those issues that may
    complicate them meeting that goal.
        Mr. Abraham. Thank you. One more question. Mr. Violante,
    your testimony recommend that the informal claim period be
    expanded beyond that which is currently set forth in H.R. 245
    and extend to a full year. Tell me again why your organization
    believes that that full year is necessary as opposed to the 180
    days.
        Mr. Violante. Well, currently the law allows for one year
    for a veteran to file it. Under their proposed rule change the
    VA has, they would also allow one year from the intent to file
    a claim for a veteran to file his formal appeal. So we believe,
    number one, one year gives a veteran sufficient time. There is
    a lot of medical problems sometimes that arise that keep him
    from filing these claims, but it would also keep the same time
    that is in place now as well as what VA intends to do with
    their intent to file.
        Mr. Abraham. Thank you. I have one other question. Mr.
    Hearn, good to see you again, you are on the sub-committee.
    Your testimony on H.R. 245 noted that The American Legion does
    not agree with the department's rule-making as it regards to
    ``inferred'' claims. Did The American Legion state its opinion
    to the VA during the rule-making process? And, if so, to what
    extent did dialog occur on these concerns?
        Mr. Hearn. The period to comment, I think it opened up in
    late 2013, The American Legion submitted their comments
    regarding this issue. I think December 31st was the deadline to
    submit the comments pertaining to this. We have had our
    concerns about this going back over the last 12 months. I have
    a copy of those comments if you would like to see them. But the
    VSOs were open and VA allowed for these comments to be made and
    right from the very beginning we had concerns and we had very
    sincere concerns regarding this, and regardless VA continued to
    move down the path.
        Mr. Abraham. I yield back.
        Mr. Chairman. Ms. Brown.
        Ms. Brown. I think Ms. Brownley has a question.
        Mr. Chairman. Ms. Brownley.
        Ms. Brownley. Yes, just quickly. I certainly agree with the
    argument that there should never be a rule that would prevent
    or delay in any way veterans from getting their benefits. And,
    Mr. Hearn, in your testimony it seemed as though, and correct
    me from the other VSOs if I am summarizing incorrectly, but it
    seems as though the issue for most VSOs is about the time frame
    it is not necessarily about the standardized form.
        But, Mr. Hearn, in your testimony you do highlight the
    issue around the informal claim and not going to a standardized
    form in addition to the not going 180 days but going for the
    full year. So could you just describe to me sort of in what
    form how many informal claims are we getting from veterans at
    this particular point in time and what do they sort of look
    like?
        Mr. Hearn. An informal claim, it can be submitted on line
    paper, on any sort of document. It is just a level of written
    correspondence to VA indicating that there is an intent to file
    for a particular medical condition. As far as the numbers I
    would have to go back and get those for you. But the problem
    with this is that there is a standardized form that is
    ultimately going to be submitted when a veteran files the
    formal claim aspect, it is maintaining the effective date that
    we have concerns.
        One, when this issue was first brought up, and VA mentioned
    it today, that we use standardized forms in everything. Which
    is correct, we do. And what they pointed to so much was IRS.
    Well, tax season is just from January 1 through April 15.
    Veteran season is January 1 through December 31st. And so we
    can't set up tax prepare or veteran prepare operations in every
    strip mall and corner of America like you see during tax
    season. It is not realistic. And we want to make sure that all
    veterans have access to receive those benefits that they
    receive and our fear is that if we continue down this path that
    has been proposed that those veterans' benefits are going to be
    reduced if not eliminated.
        Ms. Brownley. Thank you. And I yield back.
        Mr. Chairman. Mr. Coffman.
        Mr. Coffman. Mr. Chairman, just a question for all members
    of the panel. On H.R. 280 that involves what we call the
    calling back of bonuses that were given, either that where we
    find out that the recipient lacked merit for the bonus based on
    the record of performance after the fact that it was found out
    or that there was criminality involved during the duration that
    the bonus was given. What H.R. 280 does is it authorizes the
    Secretary of the VA to be able to call back those bonuses. And
    right now under current law it is only if in fact there was an
    administrative error in awarding the bonus the only ability to
    call back.
        Given the abuses that occurred in the VHA system with the
    employment wait times where there were instances where
    management was complicit in that and received bonuses for
    allegedly bringing down the wait times which we know was at the
    expense of our veterans or the construction of veterans
    hospitals that are hundreds of millions of dollars over budget,
    years behind schedule, that the leadership involved in that
    received bonuses. I would like to know if any of you have any
    reservations on the bill, I would like each one of you to state
    your position. Organization and state your position on that
    legislation.
        Mr. McLenachen. Congressman, DAV does not have an official
    position on that piece of legislation.
        Mr. Morosky. Congressman, the VFW supports the legislation.
    We feel like bonuses should be awarded for exceptional
    performance. Clearly, anybody who is putting veterans at risk,
    manipulating data, or defrauding the Government is not
    performing exceptionally and it is a disservice to the American
    taxpayer and veterans to allow them to keep their bonuses, so
    we support the legislation.
        Mr. Hearn. Congressman, The American Legion supports it. As
    many know that we established veterans' crisis command centers
    last year and went out into the field. And for those
    representatives of VA that essentially fraudulently received
    those bonuses, it is not right that they do. Just as was stated
    earlier, these bonuses should be based upon merit, not off of
    manipulated data.
        Mr. Ortner. Congressman, the only real concerns PVA had
    with it is that time frame. Do we have a situation where
    somebody goes back 10 years, 12 years? And in our written
    testimony we do indicate that we are not sure what that time
    frame should be. But that concern and then also just the fact
    that the Secretary is ruling on their own decision in a
    recoupment review. But other than that, we don't have any
    significant problems----
        Mr. Coffman. Mr. Ortner, I guess my question then would be
    to you then, but the decision is fairly subjective to begin
    with. The fact that there is criteria that is drawn up in terms
    of when someone merits a bonus, I mean that is done by the
    leadership of the Veterans Committee. You and I assume you
    served in the military, am I correct in that?
        Mr. Ortner. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Coffman. I know people are going to get bonuses, I mean
    unless they wanted to re-up for a longer period of time, but
    you were written up positively or negatively, and if you did a
    good job you were promoted, if you didn't do a good job, you
    were demoted or relieved of command or whatever was relative to
    your position. And so here we have a problem of excessive
    bonuses for people not doing their work. And so what I sense in
    your position is some reservation about the Secretary's ability
    to call back those bonuses.
        Mr. Ortner. Actually, it is more of a reservation about the
    justification of the Secretary going back. I think in our
    discussion there was a little concern, especially about the
    time frame. Do we have a Secretary that attempts to recoup a
    bonus based on a policy disagreement, based on a political
    disagreement, or something like that. Which is also why we go
    into the idea of saying if there is a case of fraud or criminal
    activity, obviously that is a given.
        So that is really our reservation, exactly what are the
    grounds for that, the bonus being recouped. And so you sort of
    backed up our concerns with saying, well, geez, it is kind of
    arbitrary on sometimes how those bonuses are given. So we don't
    want to get in the situation where it is arbitrary on how they
    are also pulled back due to some other disagreement.
        Mr. Coffman. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Coffman. And I think
    if I am correct, Brigadier General?
        Mr. Ortner. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir. Any other comments or
    questions? Miss Rice.
        Miss Rice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ortner, do you have
    an estimate of how many veterans suffering from catastrophic
    injury or disability would actually be able to benefit from the
    Long Term Care Veterans Choice Act?
        Mr. Ortner. No, ma'am, I don't. But I would be happy to
    take that for the record and have our staff look into it.
        Miss Rice. That would be great. And I just have a general
    question for all of you. In what ways are your organizations
    able to help veterans through this claims process to ensure
    that they get the benefits that they need?
        Mr. Violante. DAV has a corp of about 270 National Service
    Officers, about 34 transition service officers. We are located
    at all the VA regional offices as well as some of the military
    bases where military members are coming out. So we are
    available to them at those offices. We also have roughly about
    2,000 service officers out in the field with chapters and
    departments that are points of contact that refer them to our
    national service officers.
        Mr. Morosky. Congresswoman, the VFW has similar services.
    We have service officers at each VA regional office. We have
    representatives at military bases for the benefits at discharge
    system, and we provide those services as well.
        Mr. Hearn. The American Legion has over 3,000 accredited
    representatives nationwide designed and they are professionally
    trained to help veterans, and we also have representatives at
    the regional offices and at the Board of Veterans Appeals.
        Mr. Ortner. PVA is similar to the other groups. We have
    about 70 service officers which handle claims. Their trained
    service officers who go through extensive training similar to
    DAV and the other VSOs. And they help all veterans, not just
    those with catastrophic injuries.
        Miss Rice. I applaud all of your organizations because as
    you all know you are very often the first line of defense for
    helping your colleagues get the benefits that they deserve, so
    I thank you all for that. And I yield back my time, Mr.
    Chairman, thank you.
        Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. Members, any other
    questions?
        [No response.]
        Mr. Chairman. With that, we probably will each have
    questions for the record that we will follow up. We thank you
    for your testimony today. I would ask that all Members would
    have five legislative days with which to revise and extend
    their remarks, without objection, so ordered. And with that,
    this hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                   Prepared Statement Of Chairman Jeff Miller

        Good Morning, Thank you all for being here today.
        Today we are having a legislative hearing on five pieces of
    legislation.
        In the interest of time, I am going to forgo a lengthy
    opening statement and just briefly touch on two bills on the
    agenda which I am proud to have introduced.
        The first bill is H.R. 280.
        The language is similar to a bill I introduced last
    Congress which passed favorably out of this committee.
        H.R. 280 would provide the secretary the authority to
    rescind a bonus or performance award from any VA employee when
    the secretary deems it appropriate.
        To ensure a fair process, the provision would also afford
    the employee an opportunity to have a hearing on the
    secretary's decision to recoup their bonus.
        I proposed this legislation last congress because VA had
    given this committee conflicting statements on whether or not
    it already had the ability to rescind bonuses.
        For example, former Secretary Shinseki rescinded then--
    Phoenix Director Sharon Helman's 2013 bonus because it was paid
    based on an administrative error.
        Notwithstanding this limited authority, VA later confirmed
    it did not have the ability to rescind a bonus that was based
    on erroneous performance data.
        I believe the ability to recoup a bonus based on bad or
    manipulated performance data, is a tool that the secretary
    needs, and that the American public would expect.
        My second bill is H.R. 294, the Long-Term Care Veterans
    Choice Act.
        It would authorize VA, for three years beginning on October
    1, 2015, to enter into a contract or agreement with a certified
    medical foster home to pay for Long-Term Care For Certain
    Veterans already eligible for VA paid nursing home care.
        It would also require an eligible veteran to receive VA
    home health services as a component of such payment.
        Medical foster homes provide a non-institutional Long-Term
    Care alternative to veterans who prefer a smaller, more home--
    like and family--style setting than most traditional nursing
    homes are able to provide.
        Though VA has been helping place veterans in medical foster
    homes for more than a decade, VA does not currently have
    authority to pay for a veteran to receive care in a medical
    foster home, even if the veteran is eligible for VA paid
    nursing home care.
        As a result, service-connected veterans who would prefer to
    receive care in a foster home must pay out of pocket using
    personal funds, and many are unable to do so because of
    financial constraints.
        Our veterans--particularly those who are service-connected
    and in need of long-term care-deserve to decide for themselves
    where and how to receive the care they need and H.R. 294 would
    allow them that opportunity.
        Given that the average cost of a medical foster home is
    approximately half the monthly cost of a nursing home, H.R. 294
    would also provide a cost effective long-term care option for
    the department.
        I urge my colleagues to support both of these bills and
    look forward to discussing them with our witnesses this
    morning.
        Ms. Brown has a bill on the agenda that I am proud to
    cosponsor, and at this time I'll defer to her for its
    explanation and for her opening statement.
        Ms. Brown.
        Thank You Ms. Brown.
        I now recognize Dr. Abraham to discuss his bill that is
    before us today, H.R. 245.
        Thank You Dr. Abraham.
        At this time, I would like to welcome to the witness table
    our colleague from the ninth district of Florida, Mr. Alan
    Grayson, who is the sponsor of H.R. 189, The Servicemember
    Foreclosure Protections Extension Act of 2015.
        Mr. Grayson, you are now recognized for five minutes.
        Thank You Mr. Grayson.
        We will forgo a round of questions for Mr. Grayson, and any
    questions that anyone may have for our colleague may be
    submitted for the record.
        On behalf of the committee, I thank you for joining us
    today and for your testimony on your bill.
        You are now excused.
        I now ask our second panel to come to the table.
        On this panel we will hear from Mr. David Mclenachen [Mik-
    Len-A-Kin], Acting Deputy Under Secretary For Disability
    Assistance for the Veterans Benefits Administration at VA.
        He is accompanied by Dr. Rajiv Jain, Assistant Deputy Under
    Secretary for Health for Patient Services at VA's Veterans
    Health Administration;
        Ms. Susan Sullivan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy
    at VA's Office of Policy and Planning; and Ms. Kim Mcleod
    Counsel in VA's Office of General Counsel.
        Thank you all for being here today.
        Mr. Mclenachen, you are now recognized for five minutes.
        Thank You.
        On behalf of the committee, I thank you for your testimony
    and for being here today.
        The second panel is now excused.
        I now invite our third and final panel to the witness
    table.
        Joining us today on the third panel is Mr. Joseph Violante,
    the National Legislative Director for the Disabled American
    Veterans;
        Mr. Aleks [Alex] Morosky, the Deputy Director of the
    National Legislative Service for the Veterans of Foreign Wars
    of the United States;
        Mr. Zachary Hearn [Hurn], the Deputy Director for Claims of
    the Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission for the
    American Legion;
        Mr. Blake Ortner, the Deputy Director of Government
    Relations for Paralyzed Veterans of America.
        Thank you all for being here today.
        All of your complete written statements will be made part
    of the hearing record.
        Mr. Violante, you are now recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Morosky, you are now recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Hearn, you are now recognized for give minutes.
        Mr. Ortner, you are now recognized for five minutes.
        Thank you all for your testimony.
        I will begin with questions.
        On behalf of the committee, I thank each of you for your
    testimony.
        We look forward to working with you in the future on these
    bills, as well as on a wide range of challenges facing our
    nation's veterans.
        If there are no further questions, the witnesses are
    excused.
        I now ask unanimous consent that statements from the
    Vietnam Veterans of America and the housing policy council be
    submitted for the record.
        Hearing no objection, so ordered.
        And I ask unanimous consent that all members have five
    legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include
    extraneous material.
        Hearing no objection so ordered.
        I thank the members and the witnesses for their attendance
    and participation today.
        This hearing is now adjourned.

                                    APPENDIX

               Prepared Statement of Ranking Member Corrine Brown

        Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding the Committee's first
    legislative hearing of the 114th Congress.
        I look forward to this Committee, in our usual bipartisan fashion,
    being busy in looking at bills that will help our veterans, and assist
    the VA in its efforts to accomplish its mission.
        I am especially pleased that my bill, H.R. 216, was included today.
        H.R. 216 was introduced last Congress by former Ranking Member
    Michaud, and was approved by the Committee as part of the advance
    appropriations bill. I look forward to working with my colleagues and
    stakeholders to move this bill as fast as we can this year.
        VA's financial management process often looks like budgeting-by-
    crisis. H.R. 216 would provide the framework to assist the VA in the
    steps it has already taken to reform its budget process. It's important
    that everyone have a copy of the rules and by putting these processes
    into statute we'll make sure that they do.
        Providing a roadmap each year so that VA, veterans, and Congress
    know where we are going is vital in reforming the VA.
        My bill will ensure that the steps taken to come up with this
    roadmap are transparent, and that all stakeholders are fully engaged in
    making sure that we provide the resources that our commitment to our
    veterans demands.
        So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for including H.R. 216 today. I look
    forward to hearing from our witnesses on this, and our other bills, and
    I yield back the balance of my time.

                       Prepared Statement of Alan Grayson

        Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Brown, thank you for inviting me to
    appear before you today. I look forward to what this committee, under
    the leadership of two Floridians, will be able to accomplish for our
    nation's veterans during the 114th Congress.
        As you know, my bill, H.R. 189: the `Servicemember Foreclosure
    Protections Extension Act of 2015', would extend for one calendar year
    the foreclosure and eviction protections that currently exist for
    active duty members of our military forces and veterans who have served
    in our armed forces within the past year. These protections are
    scheduled to expire at the end of 2015.
        Historically, Section 303 of the `Servicemembers Civil Relief Act'
    (``SCRA'') (50 U.S.C. App. 533) has protected servicemembers from
    foreclosure and eviction if an action is filed during, or within 90
    days after, a period of military service. Section 2203 of the `Housing
    and Economic Recovery Act of 2008' extended the period of protection
    from 90 days to nine months. In 2012, Congress--in a bill which you
    authored, Mr. Chairman--extended foreclosure and eviction protections
    further to one year (see Section 710 of the `Honoring America's
    Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act of 2012' (P.L. 112-
    154)). Again, my bill would ensure that the one-year protection period
    that currently exists is extended.
        As you will recall, Mr. Chairman, we began discussing this
    provision of law in September of last year, after I noticed its
    omission from H.R. 5404: the `Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring
    Authority Act of 2014' which was ultimately signed into law. You voiced
    your support for its extension, but stated that you wished to hold a
    legislative hearing on a measure prior to moving an extension to the
    floor. I am pleased that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse was able to pass a
    clean one-year extension through the Senate during the closing days of
    the last session of Congress, and I am pleased that you have decided to
    make this one of the first pieces of legislation to consider before the
    committee this Congress.
        It is vitally important that we pass H.R. 189. Without this
    extension, the period of foreclosure and eviction protections currently
    made available to servicemembers will revert from one year all the way
    back to the original 90 day period (see Section 710(d)(3) of P.L. 112-
    154). On January 28, 2014, GAO issued Report No. GAO-14-221 entitled
    `Servicemembers Civil Relief Act: Information on Mortgage Protections
    and Related Education Efforts'. Page 13 of that report states:

    Our analysis of one servicer's data suggests that all military
    borrowers--SCRA-protected or not--had a higher likelihood of becoming
    delinquent in the first year after they left active duty than when in
    the military. For example, in the loan-level data from an institution
    that used the DMDC database to check the military status of its entire
    loan portfolio, all of its military borrowers had a higher likelihood
    of becoming delinquent in the first year after they left active duty
    than when in service, with that risk declining somewhat over the course
    of the year for non-SCRA-protected military borrowers.

        Mr. Chairman, we currently protect recent veterans and soldiers
    from the unfortunate situation just described; and, respectfully, I
    urge this committee to continue to do so. No soldier should ever have
    to fight abroad and return home, only to find that it is no longer
    there.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]