[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]