[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2214, H.R. 1380, H.R. 2706, H.R. 2691, H.R.
303, H.R. 1338, H.R. 1302, H.R. 2605 AND H.R. 1384
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 2015
__________
Serial No. 114-28
__________
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
98-645 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 KATHLEEN 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
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
RALPH ABRAHAM, Louisiana, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado DINA TITUS, Nevada, Ranking Member
LEE ZELDIN, New York JULIA BROWNLEY, California
RYAN COSTELLO, Pennsylvania RAUL RUIZ, California
MIKE BOST, Illinois
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
----------
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Page
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2214, H.R. 1380, H.R. 2706, H.R.
2691, H.R. 303, H.R. 1338, H.R. 1302, H.R. 2605 and H.R. 1384.. 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Ralph Abraham, Chairman.......................................... 1
Dina Titus, Ranking Member....................................... 2
Jeff Miller, Chairman, Committee of Veterans Affairs............. 3
WITNESSES
Hon. Raul Ruiz................................................... 4
Hon. Bill Johnson, U.S. House of Representatives................. 8
Prepared Statement........................................... 28
Mr. David R. McLeachen, Acting Deputy Under Secretary for
Disability Assistance, VBA U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 10
Prepared Statement........................................... 30
Accompanied by:
Mr. Matthew Sullivan, Acting Deputy Under Secretary for
Finance and Planning and CFO, National Cemetery
Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
And
Mr. David Barrans, Assistant General Counsel, Office of
General Counsel, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Zachary Hearn, Deputy Director for Claims, Veterans Affairs
and Rehabilitation Division, The American Legion............... 17
Prepared Statement........................................... 57
Mr. Paul R. Varela, Assistant National Legislative Director,
Disabled American Veterans..................................... 19
Prepared Statement........................................... 64
Mr. Aleks Morosky, Deputy Director, National Legislative Service,
Veterans of Foreign Wars....................................... 20
Prepared Statement........................................... 73
Ms. Diane Zumatto, National Legislative Director, AMVETS......... 22
Prepared Statement........................................... 78
Mr. Chris Neiweem, Legislative Associate, Iraq and Afghanistan
Veterans of America............................................ 23
Prepared Statement........................................... 83
FOR THE RECORD
Statement of Jeffrey Swanson, PhD and Richard Bonnie, LLB........ 89
Statement of Lesley Witter, Senior Vice President, Advocacy for
the National Funeral Directors Association..................... 97
Statement of Brigadier General (RET) Stephen N. Xenakis, MD...... 100
Hon. Bob Lata, U.S. House of Representatives..................... 103
Hon. Bill Shuster, U.S. House of Representatives................. 103
Mr. Blake C. Ortner, Deputy Government Relations, Director,
Paralyzed Veterans of America.................................. 108
Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis, Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and
Memorial Affairs............................................... 110
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2214, H.R. 1380, H.R. 2706, H.R. 2691, H.R.
303, H.R. 1338, H.R. 1302, H.R. 2605 AND H.R. 1384
----------
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Ralph Abraham
[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Abraham, Titus, Lamborn,
Brownley, Zeldin, Ruiz, Costello, Bost, Miller, Bilirakis, and
Walz.
Dr. Abraham. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for your
patience. This subcommittee will come to order.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RALPH ABRAHAM
Before we begin, I would like to ask unanimous consent that
our colleagues Representatives Bilirakis and Walz be allowed to
sit at the dais, make opening statements and ask questions. I
understand that Chairman Miller has been delayed, but when he
arrives that he would also be allowed to sit at the dais, make
an opening statement and ask questions.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
Again, thank you for being here today. I appreciate you all
waiting, we had votes, to discuss this legislation opinion
before the subcommittee concerning disability examinations,
honoring deceased veterans, fiduciary reform, concurrent
receipt survivor claims, the appeals backlog, and other
veterans issues.
This afternoon, we have nine important pieces of
legislation before us. I will focus my remarks on H.R. 2214,
the Disabled Veterans Access to Medical Exams Improvement Act
of 2015, which I am proud to have introduced.
Many veterans undergo a VA medical examination in support
of their application for disability benefits. The problem is
that there are not enough VA examiners to perform these
evaluations in a timely manner.
In 2003, Congress gave VA temporary authority to contract
with outside physicians to perform disability examinations.
This has helped reduce the backlog, but that authorization
expires at the end of this year. Section 2(a) of H.R. 2214
would extend this temporary authorization through December
31st, 2017.
H.R. 2214 includes another provision which would make it easier
and convenient for veterans to schedule these examinations.
Veterans in rural areas like the 5th District of Louisiana,
which I represent, often have to travel many miles to see a VA
facility, in order to see a VA examiner or a disability
examination. It is especially difficult to schedule these
examinations if the veteran needs to see a specialist such as a
cardiologist or an orthopedic surgeon.
My bill would make it easier for VA to arrange for the
veteran to get a disability examination by permitting licensed
physicians to conduct these examinations anywhere in the United
States as long as they are a doctor under current VA contract.
Enabling contract specialists to conduct more examinations
will also free up VA doctors to devote more time to treating
veterans rather than conducting disability examinations.
Finally, the bill would expand a pilot program that
authorizes the VA to use contract physicians in some regional
offices. Section 2(c) would allow this pilot to continue in 15
regional offices. The bill would also establish a criteria VA
should use when selecting which regional offices should
participate in the pilot program.
As a doctor and a veteran, I know how important this bill
is and I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense
legislation.
With that said, I am eager to discuss each of the nine
pieces of legislation before us here today and I am grateful to
my colleagues who have introduced these bills and to our
witnesses for being here to discuss them with us. I look
forward to a productive and meaningful discussion.
And I would like to take a minute and share that, while I
intended to be present for the entire hearing, a last-minute
scheduling has come up and I will have to leave a little early,
so you will have to excuse me. And I want to emphasize that I
appreciate the witnesses that took the time to come here today
and share their views. I will carefully read the transcript and
review everyone's testimony as the subcommittee continues to
consider these bills.
I will now yield to my colleague Ranking Member Titus for
any opening statements she may have.
OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER DINA TITUS
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you have to step out
early, does that mean I get to be in charge?
Dr. Abraham. I am afraid not.
Ms. Titus. Oh, okay. Well, thank you for holding the
hearing today and for your work on these bills.
As the Chairman said, we are examining nine bills that are
all important to our nation's heroes, and so I would like to
commend the sponsors for their hard work in support of our
veterans.
First, I would like to highlight H.R. 2691, the Veterans
Survivors Claims Processing Automation Act. The bill would
provide VA with the authority to initiate and pay a survivor's
claim without receipt of a formal application if they have
enough evidence available to process that claim. This makes
common sense and lessens the burden on families during the time
of their distress.
H.R. 1384, the Honor Americas Guard Reserve Retirees Act,
which was introduced by Representative Walz of Minnesota, who
is a member of the full committee and with us here today, is a
bill that would grant honorary veterans status to retired
members of the Guard and Reserve who have completed 20 years of
service. It is time that we gave them this recognition.
Lastly, I want to discuss my legislation, H.R. 2706. This
is the Veterans National Remembrance Act. This bill would bring
an end to an inequity for more than 1.8 million veterans and
their families spread across 11 states, located mostly in the
West where distances are long and population centers are small.
These states represent places that do not have a true national
cemetery. The state with the largest veterans population that
is not served by a national cemetery is my home state of
Nevada, which is home to over 230,000 veterans, 155,000 of whom
reside in Las Vegas.
Southern Nevada has a very nice maintained state cemetery,
but our nation's veterans fought for our nation, not for a
state, and they deserve the opportunity to be buried in a
national cemetery without requiring their families to have to
drive long distances to visit their grave sites.
My legislation would require every third national cemetery
to be built in those states with large unserved veteran
populations. I believe this gets us on track to eventually
serve these veterans who have been overlooked, despite the fact
that the NCA has 131 national cemeteries with plans to build
several more.
I would like to note, however, unfortunately and to my
great disappointment, the absence of one bill that I requested
twice to appear on the committee's agenda and that is H.R.
1598, the Veterans Spouses Equal Treatment Act, our work today
is focused on improving the benefits process for our nation's
heros, but while we are doing that we are ignoring the fact
that there are veterans who are being prevented from accessing
the benefits they have already earned. It is not right and I
believe our committee is missing a chance to correct this
inequity.
Last year, under the leadership of Chairman Runyan, we
included the bill in a legislative hearing and we got only
positive comments back from the VSO community and the VA.
As this group of bills, though, that we are considering
moves forward, I intend to work with all the members. I think
it is thoughtful legislation. And I thank the witnesses who are
here today for your assistance in making them better. So I look
forward to hearing your testimony and I yield back.
Dr. Abraham. Thank you, Ms. Titus.
Chairman Miller, thank you for being here today. You are
now recognized to discuss your bill.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MILLER
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate
you holding this hearing and I want to talk about H.R. 1380. It
expands the eligibility for a medallion provided by the VA
which signifies the veterans status of a deceased individual.
These medallions are inscribed with the word, ``Veteran,''
across the top and the branch of service at the bottom.
Now, under current law, this medallion may be affixed to a
privately purchased headstone or marker and is furnished upon
request for eligible veterans who died on or after November 1st
of 1990. H.R. 1380 would amend the law to authorize VA to
provide this medallion for any veteran regardless of the
veteran's date of death.
For nearly 40 years, VA has administered various programs
to provide headstones or marker options for veterans. These
programs have changed over time, which has caused some
confusion for veterans and for their families. Sometimes VA has
provided allowances for private headstones, but at other times
these allowances were not provided.
In 2009, VA began providing a medallion as a retroactive
benefit for veterans who died after the 31st of October in the
year 1990. This date was chosen because from November 1st, 1990
through September 11th, 2001 VA did not pay a benefit for the
purchase of a private headstone or marker for veterans who were
qualified for interment at a national or state veterans'
cemetery.
The medallion has proved to be very much appreciated by the
veterans and by their families. And this bill would provide
this benefit to every veteran regardless of the date of his or
her death. These medallions will ensure that future generations
are able to identify the final resting place of our nation's
warriors and to continue to remember and honor the sacrifice
and service of these heros.
I want to ask each of you to support H.R. 1380. And, Mr.
Chairman, thank you again, Ms. Titus, for holding this hearing,
and I yield back.
Dr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RAUL RUIZ
Dr. Ruiz, would you like to speak about you bill?
Dr. Ruiz. Yes, absolutely.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ms. Ranking Member, for holding
this hearing and including my bill, the Veterans Survivors
Claims Processing Automation Act.
This simple, commonsense legislation will provide VA the
statutory authority to expedite payment of certain survivor
benefits to eligible family members upon the death of a
veteran.
When a beloved family member passes away, it is time for
family, for reflection and for grieving survivors to have the
time and privacy to mourn however they choose, it is not a time
for paperwork or bureaucracy. Mourning family members have
enough to deal with upon the death of cherished veterans and we
should no longer make navigating the VA bureaucracy part of
that coping process. The law should not force veterans' loved
ones to take time away from their family, file a formal claim,
and wait months on end anxiously to access needed survivor
benefits the veteran has already earned.
My bill would authorize the VA to initiate and pay survivor
benefits without requiring a formal claim as long as sufficient
evidence exists on record to process survivor benefits. This
additional authority will allow the VA to proactively disburse
survivor benefits if they have the information they need
without forcing bereaved families to file a formal claim and
wait for the VA claims process to unfold.
Eligible benefits include funeral and burial expenses,
survivor pension paid to low-income surviving spouses or
unmarried children, and dependency benefits for survivors of
veterans who died from service-connected ailments.
When a veteran dies, survivors often rely on these benefits
to stay afloat during an already difficult time. This
legislation will give survivors their benefits quicker and
reduce the risk of financial harm to grieving family. This bill
is a simple, practical solution that will make a difference for
veterans' families, which is why it has the support of veterans
in my district and VSOs represented here today.
The VA has explicitly requested this authority in their
fiscal year 2016 budget request and concluded that it would not
increase mandatory costs.
I look forward to working with veterans, VSOs and the VA to
advance this legislation and engage on recommendations that all
of you may have. And I urge my fellow subcommittee members to
stand up for veteran families and cosponsor this cost-neutral
bill, advancing it to the floor, and show veterans' survivors
the support that they really have.
Thank you. I yield back my time.
Dr. Abraham. Dr. Ruiz, thank you.
Mr. Bilirakis, would you like to discuss your bill?
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I
want to thank you and the ranking member, and members of the
Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Committee, and thank
you for tendering this great bill. Thank you for holding this
very important hearing and for the opportunity to discuss my
bill, H.R. 303, the Retired Pay Restoration Act.
Prior to 2004, existing laws and regulations dictated that
a military retiree could not receive both payments from the DoD
and the VA. Through the enactment of the Concurrent Retirement
and Disability Payments Programs authorized within fiscal year
2004, the NDAA, those who are 100-percent disabled were able to
receive both earned benefits for the first time ever. And I
will add that my father worked on this bill for many, many
years. He was vice chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee.
Since then, the law has expanded the eligibility, allowing
more retirees to receive both benefits, both payments, like
those with the 20 or more years of service and a 50-percent or
higher disability rating through the VA. The program
established a system which gradually phased in these payments
through 2014, which is when these retirees would be receiving
both payments in full.
While our efforts have made great strides towards resolving
this issue, much more needs to be done. Statistics reveal that
there are still nearly 550,000 military retirees who may be
eligible to receive both military retire pay and a VA
disability compensation, but are unable to do so under the
current guidelines of this program.
In short, this means that there are 550,000 veterans, Mr.
Chairman, who are currently being denied the benefits they are
entitled. Given their unwavering sacrifice to this great
nation, I firmly believe we must provide the benefits they have
earned. This is unacceptable and this is why I continue to
advocate for the Retired Pay Restoration Act, which, again, my
father sponsored during his time in Congress and worked on so
many years and was successful, but we have got to do more now.
We have to include everyone.
H.R. 303 would serve to ensure that our nation's veterans are
not negatively affected by having their military retirement pay
deducted by the amount of their disability, their VA disability
compensation. Many have rightly argued that this represents an
injustice for veterans having one earned benefit pay for the
other, I think it is very unfair.
Every Congress I am encouraged by the immense bipartisan
support for my bill, the Retired Pay Restoration Act. Last
Congress, H.R. 303 received a total of 107 bipartisan
cosponsors. This is a clear testament that both sides of the
aisle recognize that this is an issue that needs to be
rectified. We have the support from the veterans and the
organizations that work closely with them.
I greatly appreciate the support from our witnesses today,
especially from the VSOs that came to testify before this
committee. It is clear that there is a need to do more and what
we need as a nation to do in repaying the brave men and women
for their sacrifice.
Military retirement pay and service-connected disability
compensation are two completely different benefits, one does
not diminish the merits of the other. It is our responsibility
to give our veterans what has been earned through service to
God and country. The question now is, what are we going to do
about it? H.R. 303 is the clear answer.
I urge all my colleagues to show your support for our
nation's heros by cosponsoring and supporting this bill. Let's
get this done for our veterans, our true heros.
And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for actually
including this in the hearing today.
Dr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis.
Mr. Bilirakis. It is very important, one of my top
priorities. Thank you.
Dr. Abraham. Mr. Walz, would you like to discuss your bill?
Mr. Walz. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to you and the
ranking member, thank you for holding this hearing and bringing
up important legislation, and also thank you for the role-
modeling you do of working together to further the cause of our
veterans in a bipartisan manner, it means a lot.
I am going to speak on the Honor Americas Guard and Reserve
Retirees Act. For some of you in here this is like the movie
Groundhog's Day, it is over and over and over. I thank those
members in here, many of you have voted for this bill on
numerous occasions.
A unique thing has happened since 2010, the House has voted
in favor of this with no opposition every single time. We have
included it in the NDAA and, unfortunately, it dies in the
Senate. We have done everything we can to work on this. We have
seen this happen before with the Clay Hunt Suicide Act where
one senator can derail it. And so I have appealed to their
sense of duty, I have appealed to their sense of honor and now
I may turn to shaming them if they don't do this one this time,
because this is very frustrating.
For the new members, what this bill does is it takes our
Guard and Reserve forces, those women and men who have served
honorably, flying helicopters, shooting artillery, infantry
soldiers, service and support. In many cases, they are the
trainers. These are the senior NCOs who spent 20 years as E-6,
E-7, trained troops and deployed in support of floods, in
support of tornados, in hurricanes. They have done their state
service and in many cases they have done federal service in
less than 179 days and not in Title 10.
I have been with many of them when we did three-month-long
stints north of the Arctic Circle in Norway, training military
winter operations. So they have done that.
These are the folks that are held to the exact same
standards on Army physical fitness, on weapons qualification,
on schooling. They do their 20 years, they retire, and you know
what we do? We give them benefits that they have earned. We
give them medical benefits, we give them educational benefits,
we do all of those things. The one thing we do not do is we do
not allow them to call themselves veterans.
This piece of legislation does not add one financial
benefit, it does not change what they get, what it changes is
their ability to call themselves a veteran, because these folks
now technically have to refer to themselves as military
retirees. Technically, they cannot use the medallion you heard
the chairman talk about putting on there.
And for those who say, well, what is the big deal? The big
deal is this is about honor. We work hard to say we respect
your service. These are folks that simply want to have the
ability to put a veterans' license plate on their car, maybe
wear a hat that says Army veteran, something, and understand
that they gave that service and the recognition is for them.
They don't want to have to mince and talk about it and say,
well, yeah, I did 20 years and, yeah, I was the First Sergeant
of the Guard Unit and, yeah, most of these 7s I trained went to
Iraq and fought nobly and all of that, and we don't do it.
The push back, if you look, and I want to thank all the
veterans service organizations who have supported this, the
only opposition comes from the VA, and the VA's point is that
we are redefining veteran. I would say to them is we are
clarifying it because of your misinterpretation of what that
term meant.
It has been looked at from every angle, it has been hashed
over by CBO. Everyone agrees it is not going to add a cost, it
rectifies a wrong, it is supported by our veterans' groups.
And this is a group of folks, we understand very clearly,
when someone is wearing a combat infantry badge or something,
there is a status given amongst veterans to this. If someone
does 20 years or they have reached a certain rank, there is a
sense of status that goes along with this. We are putting
280,000 of your constituents in the situation of served this
nation for 20 years or more, did everything right, did
everything that was asked of them, met all the standards, and
now we can't call them veterans.
I have to tell you, when I first introduced this, I thought
this was a slam dunk, we would rectify it and fix it, and it
has gone to die an ugly, dishonorable death of no one standing
up over there and putting their name on it of who is holding it
up and who is stopping it. If you have got a problem with it,
and I know it is not going to come from here, I am preaching
from the choir, but I want us to sing loudly together.
Let's just finish this one. It doesn't cost us anything, it
does the right thing. It will make a lot of people appreciate
it. And I got to tell you, at a time our veterans need to know
that we hold faith with them, they need to know that the
country holds faith with them and there are certain things we
can do. And there is a whole list of really good things here
and I think we should do them all, but let's hammer this one
through.
And I would encourage all of you, go back home, if you can,
and talk a little bit, you will find these folks on the
streets. And the biggest thing about this is, the biggest
surprise is, most people had no idea this was the rule. And I
have a whole bunch of people who accidentally didn't know and
now they feel like they did something wrong because they have
been calling themselves veterans for this time. That is just
wrong. This can be fixed, it is easy. It is in the NDAA.
But, Chairman, I thank you and the ranking member. Send a
strong message to bring back again and, against all odds, maybe
they will hear us.
So with that, I thank you for this, encourage your support,
and I yield back.
Dr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Walz, well said.
It is an honor today to be joined by our colleague Mr.
Johnson of Ohio at the witness table and I appreciate you being
here, Mr. Johnson. You used to serve as the chairman of the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, so I am sure it is
a little bit different from the view down there.
Mr. Johnson, you are now recognized, sir.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. BILL JOHNSON
Mr. Johnson. Thank you, Chairman Abraham and Ranking Member
Titus and members of the subcommittee. I really appreciate the
opportunity to testify before you today on H.R. 2605. That is
important legislation that I introduced to reform the
Department of Veterans Affairs fiduciary program.
As many of you know, as the chairman just mentioned, I
served as the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee
chairman on the House Veterans Affairs Committee for the 112th
Congress. An investigation into the VA's fiduciary program by
my subcommittee at that time revealed shocking behavior on the
part of the VA's hired fiduciaries and gross malfeasance on the
part of the VA to address those issues.
Some fiduciaries entrusted to manage the finances of our
nation's heros who were unable to do so themselves were caught
abusing this system by withholding funds, embezzling veterans'
money, and other egregious actions.
Furthermore, I chaired an Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee hearing on February 9th, 2012 that exposed many of
the VA's fiduciary program policies do not correspond with
actual practices.
For instance, the VA claims to have a policy stating
preference for family members and friends to serve as a
veteran's fiduciary. However, the investigation into the
fiduciary program revealed instances where this is not the
case. In one instance, the VA arbitrarily removed a veteran's
wife who had served as her husband's fiduciary for ten years
and replaced her with a paid fiduciary.
There are also many honest and hardworking fiduciaries that
experience difficulty performing their duties due to the
bureaucratic nature of the VA's fiduciary program. We owe it to
America's heros to provide them with a fiduciary program that
is more responsive to the needs of the veterans it is supposed
to serve.
I also had the opportunity to participate in this
subcommittee's follow-up hearing on the fiduciary program
earlier this month. It was disheartening to hear that some of
the same issues from 2012 are ongoing today.
Additionally, while the VA issued a proposed rule to
modernize the fiduciary program in January, 2014, the VA has
yet to issue the final rule.
For these reasons, I am proud to sponsor H.R. 2605, the
Veterans Fiduciary Reform Act.
This important legislation initially introduced in 2012 was
drafted based on problems uncovered from O&I's hearing and
investigation, as well as valuable input from veterans' service
organizations and individuals who have experienced difficulties
with the program firsthand. It is designed to transform the
VA's fiduciary program to better serve the needs of our most
vulnerable veterans and their hardworking fiduciaries. And,
most importantly, it will protect veterans in the program from
falling victim to deceitful and criminal fiduciaries.
Specifically, the Veterans Fiduciary Reform Act would
require a credit and criminal background check each time a
fiduciary is appointed, and allow veterans to petition to have
their fiduciary removed if problems arise. It would also
decrease the potential maximum fee a fiduciary can receive to
the lesser of three percent or $35 per month, similar to Social
Security's fiduciary program. This will help discourage those
who enroll as VA fiduciaries with only a profit motive in mind.
Importantly, H.R. 2605 would enable veterans to appeal
their incompetent status at any time. Additionally, it would
allow veterans to name a preferred fiduciary such as a family
member.
This legislation also addresses the requirement of
fiduciaries to obtain a bond. While proper in some settings, it
is inappropriate when it causes unnecessary hardship such as a
mother caring for her veteran son. This legislation would
require the VA to consider whether a bond is necessary and if
it will adversely affect the fiduciary and the veterans he or
she serves.
H.R. 2605 would also direct the VA's Under Secretaries for
Health and Benefits to coordinate their efforts to ensure that
fiduciaries caring for their loved ones are not overly burdened
by redundant requirements.
Lastly, this bill aims to simplify annual reporting
requirements. Currently, the VA does not have to review a
fiduciary's annual accounting and, when it does, it places an
onerous burden on those fiduciaries who are serving out of
love, not for monetary gain. This bill will implement a
straightforward annual accounting requirement and give VA the
opportunity to audit fiduciaries whose accounting is suspect.
These significant changes would strengthen the VA's
standard for administering the fiduciary program and increase
protection for vulnerable veterans. Requiring background checks
and lowering the fee a fiduciary can charge would also increase
scrutiny of potential fiduciaries and help root out potential
predators.
This legislation also adds a layer of protection for
veterans with fiduciaries by incorporating the ability for
veterans to petition to have their fiduciary removed and
replaced.
I am proud that this legislation has passed the House of
Representatives twice now, both in 2012 and in 2013 as part of
larger legislation. Unfortunately, this important legislation
has not been considered by the Senate and, therefore, the VA's
fiduciary program is still in urgent need of reform.
Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus, thank you again for
the opportunity to speak on this important legislation and
these issues. I am hopeful that this legislation will again be
favorably considered by the Veterans' Affairs Committee and
this time become law. Our veterans were willing to sacrifice
everything to serve our nation and they deserve to receive the
care, the benefits and the respect that they have earned.
And with that, I yield back. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Bill Johnson appears in the
Appendix]
Dr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. We appreciate it.
Thank you for bringing forth this bill and speaking at today's
subcommittee hearing.
We will forgo any questioning at this time and any question
that anyone may have for our colleagues may be submitted for
the record.
I now invite our second panel to the table. Mr. David
McLenachen, the Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Disability
Assistance of the Veterans Benefits Administration. He is
accompanied by Mr. Matthew Sullivan, Deputy Under Secretary for
Finance and Planning, and Chief Financial Officer for the
National Cemetery Administration. And Mr. David Barrans,
Assistant General Counsel of the Department of Veterans
Affairs. We thank you all for being here.
Mr. McLenachen, you are now recognized for five minutes,
sir.
STATEMENT OF DAVID R. McLENACHEN, ACTING DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY
FOR DISABILITY ASSISTANCE OF THE VETERANS BENEFITS
ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY MATTHEW SULLIVAN, DEPUTY UNDER
SECRETARY FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
FOR THE NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION, AND DAVID BARRANS,
ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. McLenachen. Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus 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 from the Department of Veterans Affairs is
Mr. Matthew Sullivan, Deputy Under Secretary for Finance and
Planning for the National Cemetery Administration, and Mr.
David Barrans, Assistant General Counsel.
Mr. Chairman, we recognize the need for a more streamlined
appeal process and appreciate the opportunity to comment on
H.R. 1302, the VA Appeals Backlog Relief Act. However, the
Department does not support this bill because we believe the
appeal timeliness should be improved through comprehensive
reform of the appeal process rather than imposing a statutory
deadline for one stage of that process.
We would like to work with the committee to consider
legislative reforms that will actually streamline the process,
such as our proposal as fiscal year 2016 budget to expand the
Board of Veterans' Appeals authority to conduct an initial
review of evidence submitted during an appeal without remanding
to VBA.
Regarding H.R. 1338, the Dignified Interment of Our
Veterans Act of 2015, while the intent behind requiring this
study is positive, we are concerned that the study may be
unnecessary or premature at this time. VA is more than willing
to work with the committee to gather responsive information on
unclaimed remains of veterans, but we feel we can accomplish
this without legislation.
We are pleased to support H.R. 1380, which would extend
eligibility for a medallion furnished by VA to signify a
veteran's status regardless of the date of the veteran's death.
However, we would like to work with the committee to address a
few technical concerns about the language in the bill. In
particular, to ensure the provision of medallions does not
disrupt the historic landscape of our national cemeteries. For
this reason, we suggest amending the bill to allow provision of
medallions for those who served during or after the first World
War.
Mr. Chairman, we acknowledge that members of the National
Guard and Reserves have admirably served this country and in
recent years have played a very important role in our nation's
national defense. Nonetheless, we cannot support H.R. 1384, the
Honor Americas Guard Reserve Retirees Act, because it would
represent a departure from active service as the foundation for
veterans status. It would also conflict with the definition of
veteran in 38 U.S.C. Section 101 and cause confusion about
entitlement to VA benefits.
We strongly support the provisions of H.R. 2214, the
Disabled Veterans Access to Medical Exams Improvement Act, your
bill, Mr. Chairman, that would extend VA's authority to
contract for compensation and pension examinations and
authorize physicians to conduct these examinations in any
state.
These provisions are essential to VA's goal of ensuring the
timely adjudication of disability compensation claims. However,
we oppose provisions in the bill that would limit our contract
examination authority to 15 regional offices and prescribe the
criteria for selecting those regional offices.
To ensure the timeliness of claim processing now and in the
future, VA requires the authority to conduct contract
examinations at as many regional offices as it considers
appropriate.
We cannot support H.R. 2605, the Veterans Fiduciary Reform
Act of 2015, because it would, among other things, create
disincentives for recruiting paid and volunteer fiduciaries and
generally add complexity that VA cannot address without
additional resources.
For example, the bill would limit fiduciary fees to three
percent of the monthly benefits paid to a fiduciary on behalf
of a beneficiary or $35, whichever is lower. This would make it
difficult for VA to find a fiduciary in cases where there is no
qualified family member, friend or care provider who is willing
to serve without a fee. Also, the bill's accounting and
auditing requirements would add burden of fiduciaries, 90
percent of whom are volunteers, and would not significantly
improve VA's oversight.
As outlined in detail in my written statement, we are
concerned that several other provisions in the bill would be
inconsistent with our efforts to transform this important
program.
Mr. Chairman, at this time the Department does not have
views on two bills that are subject of today's hearing, the
Veterans National Remembrance Act and the Veterans Survivors
Claims Processing Automation Act. We will continue to
coordinate views on these matters and upon completion submit
them to the committee.
This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. We are happy to
entertain any questions that you or the members may have.
[The prepared statement of David R. McLenachen appears in
the Appendix]
Dr. Abraham. All right. Thank you for your remarks. I will
begin the questioning, Mr. McLenachen.
Please explain why the VA is advocating for the authority
to use this contract examination in more than 15 regional
offices.
Mr. McLenachen. Without a doubt, as you mentioned in your
opening statement, this is a very, very important issue for the
department. If we are going to timely decide disability
compensation claims, the ability to get an exam quickly, a good
quality exam quickly, is critical to making that decision
within 125 days. If we do not have the available exam resources
through the contract option, it makes it very difficult to
accomplish that important goal.
Dr. Abraham. Okay, thank you. And of course you are the
witness. Regarding H.R. 1380, please explain why the VA
supports expanding the eligibility for a medallion that is
furnished by the VA in order to signify the person's status as
a veteran, but only for veterans who served on active duty on
or after April 6th, 1917.
Mr. McLenachen. Mr. Chairman, that is Mr. Sullivan's area
of expertise, I will defer to him on that.
Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, we strongly support the goal to
expand eligibility for the medallion to veterans. Our request
is to amend the bill language to provide this expansion of
eligibility for the medallion for those veterans who had a
qualifying period of service on or after April 6th, 1917, which
is the date that the U.S. interred World War I. We make this
request because there is significant impact that this bill
could have on the landscape of our national cemeteries,
especially our historic national cemeteries, and our ability to
maintain the historic headstones and markers, and the ability
for VA to comply with our National Historic Preservation laws
and regulations.
There are 115 national cemeteries out of our 132 that are
currently on Federal Historic Register and those could be
significantly impacted by the expansion of this eligibility to
all veterans, including those that had a period of service
before the April 6th, 1917.
Secondly, we think that by setting that eligibility date
with the period of qualifying service for April 6th, 1917, our
data shows that we would still be able to cover the majority of
those otherwise eligible veterans that have been denied this
benefit. Fully 91 percent, which is a vast majority of those
applicants that have been denied and would have otherwise been
eligible because they died before 19--I am sorry, before 1990
would now become eligible because their period of qualifying
service would have taken place on or after November 1st, 1917.
Dr. Abraham. Mr. McLenachen, you state that a significant
factor contributing to the delay in certifying appeals to the
Board of Veterans Appeals is that the claimants may identify
additional supportive evidence after filing a substantive
appeal and before the appeal is certified to the VBA, in what
percentage of the cases does that occur?
Mr. McLenachen. I don't have that precise information with
me, but I would be happy to provide that to you for the record,
sir.
Dr. Abraham. Okay, that will be fair enough. And I will of
course stay with you.
In your testimony again, Mr. McLenachen, you raised
concerns that the study mandated by H.R. 1338 may be premature.
Isn't it appropriate for the VA to study the changes NCA has
implemented since the enactment of the Dignified Burial and
Other Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2012 in order to
better evaluate whether additional modifications may be
required?
Mr. McLenachen. Yes, that is true, but I will again defer
to Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sullivan. Mr. Chairman, again, we do strongly support
that goal of ensuring that the unclaimed veterans' remains
receive dignified burials and memorialization. And we
appreciate the intent of the bill to study the scope of issues
related to that matter. However, we believe that our time and
resources right now are better spent on implementing those
existing authorities that we have, especially those new
authorities that you mentioned that we received through that
Dignified Burial and Other Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of
2012.
We have taken significant actions to implement those
authorities and to facilitate the timely interment of unclaimed
veterans' remains. I have just implemented recently two new
programs, one to provide reimbursement for the cost of casket
and urn to those third parties who had to expend those costs in
the interment of unclaimed veterans' remains, as well as to
provide a cost--I am sorry, provide reimbursement for the cost
of transportation and other funeral expenses for the interment
of unclaimed veterans' remains, again, better interred in our
national cemeteries.
We think that with some time, especially to capture some
data to look at the effectiveness of these programs, assess the
efficacy of those programs in facilitating the interment of
unclaimed veterans' remains, we may be able to identify the
sources of delay, as well as collect more information data that
could be used to inform such efforts in the future.
Dr. Abraham. Okay, thank you.
Ms. Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just ask Mr. Sullivan some questions about national
cemeteries and the 11 states that don't currently have them,
most of them in the West. I wonder if under the current policy
the way it is defined of how you locate cemeteries if you
anticipate that there will be a national VA cemetery in any of
those 11 states that don't have one now? Now, I am not talking
about a rural initiative, I am talking about a regular national
veterans' cemetery.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Congresswoman. We have a long-held,
established policy on establishment of new national cemeteries.
It is a database policy based upon the distribution of the
veteran population across the United States. It is our belief
that through this strategy to serve the greatest densities of
veteran population that are currently unserved by locating
national cemeteries in those areas allows us to provide broad
access and increased access for veterans to a burial option in
a national or state veterans' cemetery.
Ms. Titus. So do you think there will be a national
cemetery in any of those 11 states ever because of the way the
formula is construed that has been so long held?
Mr. Sullivan. Congresswoman, I believe that right now our
plan does not allow us--our plan does not have any national
cemeteries in those 11 states, but I can't state whether in the
future we may adjust those policies to place a national
cemetery in one of those 11 states.
As you are aware, because we are focusing on that strategy
to provide the greatest population densities of unserved
veterans with a burial option, we are targeting, you know, four
new national cemetery establishments within the next three
years. Those are in southern Colorado, western New York, Omaha,
Nebraska, and Cape Canaveral, Florida.
We do also have plans again to implement our rule
initiative, which would put a national cemetery presence in
those states, eight of those states that you mentioned. Those
states that do not currently have a national cemetery and do
not have--are not already served 100 percent by an existing
state veterans' cemetery or a neighboring national cemetery. So
we do have some plans to try to address the rural populations
in those eight states and we believe that as we continue to
implement that plan we will be able to continue to increase
that access for rural veterans.
Ms. Titus. Well, those states that you mentioned that are
getting another federal cemetery already have one and the 11
states in the west don't have any. Are there any state
cemeteries that have achieved national shrine status?
Mr. Sullivan. Of the 11 state cemeteries that we visited to
conduct our compliance review program audits, none have
achieved the national shrine status yet. But again, of the 11
that we did visit, we did have five that were completely--I am
sorry, were compliant with our operational standards and
measures that did not require corrective action plans. And of
the six that did not fully comply with our standards and
measures, they were provisionally compliant with corrective
action plans in place. And since our visits, 83 percent of
those action plans have been completed, bringing most of those
state veterans' cemeteries into compliance with the same
operational standards and measures, those national shrine
standards that we hold for our national cemeteries.
Ms. Titus. Are you all doing any kind of survey of veterans
to see if they would prefer to be buried in a federal national
cemetery as opposed to a state cemetery?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Congresswoman. In 2014, we conducted our
first survey of satisfaction with state and tribal veterans'
cemeteries. We have conducted that for 13 years for our
national cemeteries, but 2014 was our first year for the state
and tribal veterans' cemeteries. And the data suggests that the
state and tribal veterans' cemeteries are comparable to our
national cemeteries. Fully 97 percent of respondents to the
state and tribal veterans' cemeteries survey responded that
they were satisfied with the overall quality of service, the
overall satisfaction rate with our state and tribal veterans'
cemeteries. That closely mirrors the 98-percent satisfaction
rate that we have with our national cemeteries.
Ms. Titus. Don't you think those results are skewed? When
you ask people if they are satisfied with a state cemetery,
that is a whole lot different from asking veterans out there
who aren't using the state cemetery would they go a national
cemetery if one existed. That is like asking somebody eating
ice cream, do you like ice cream.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Congresswoman. In an effort to try to
get at what you are asking about, we did ask those next of kin
that had a loved one buried in a state or tribal veterans'
cemetery within the last year and who had also visited a
national cemetery some questions to better understand the
experience of those that are experiencing the state and tribal
veterans' cemeteries.
For those respondents, they again overwhelmingly responded
that the experience at the state and tribal veterans'
cemeteries was comparable to the national cemetery. Eighty six
percent when asked, based upon their visits, did the appearance
of the state or tribal veterans' cemetery, was that comparable
to a national cemetery, they said agreed or strongly agreed
that, yes, it did. Seventy nine percent agreed or strongly
agreed that the state or tribal veterans' cemeteries, the
quality of service was comparable to that of a national
cemetery. Again, 79 percent also agreed or strongly agreed that
the honor of being interred at a state or tribal veterans'
cemetery was comparable to that of a national cemetery.
And when asked, if they had the choice, would they have
rather interred their loved one in a national cemetery versus
that state or tribal cemetery, only 14 percent agreed or
strongly agreed that they would have.
So we believe that the state and tribal veterans'
cemeteries are providing the high quality of care that we
expect at our national cemeteries.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Abraham. Thank you.
Mr. Bost.
Mr. Bost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I have just got a
few questions.
Mr. McLenachen, is that correct? The 1384, the question I
have, you said that there are many places where the change in
that veteran's description would mess with other law; is that
correct, is that basically what you said?
Mr. McLenachen. Yes, that the core feature of the states
that govern veterans' benefits and all the services that the
Department of Veterans Affairs provides, as well as their
benefits programs, is based upon that core concept of veteran
status and it has always been tied to active duty military
service, with the exception of National Guard or Reservists who
are disabled or die while they are doing their active duty for
training or inactive duty for training.
Mr. Bost. And forgive my ignorance here. As a Marine
veteran, I had always thought that if they served so many
months in an active status they do get the veteran?
Mr. McLenachen. Yes. So this bill concerns individuals who
have had non-regular service for a period of 20 years until
they reach the point of retirement from Reserve or National
Guard service. So we are talking individuals who have had no
active duty service and have not been disabled while they were
doing their training in the Reserves or National Guard, they
have only had non-regular service.
Mr. Bost. Okay, all right. And then the other question is
in regards to the medallions. The date--and I am sure that, Mr.
Sullivan, you are going to want to answer this--let me ask
specifically, because it has to do with my district. We have a
veterans' cemetery that was established by Abraham Lincoln in
Illinois. It obviously falls under that situation where it is a
historical site. What exactly are your concerns with that? Is
it for the tombstone, the defacing of the tombstone? Or kind of
explain to me, if you could.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, Congressman. We are concerned with
affixing a bronze medallion, based upon the size, it can be a
small, medium or large one, affixing a bronze medallion to
headstones and markers that in many cases could be over a
hundred years old that are in these cemeteries, many of them
which are Civil War era cemeteries. So we do think that there
could be some issues with complying with laws and regulations
that govern that, as well as doing damage to these historic
headstones and markers.
Mr. Bost. So that is the reason for your suggestion of the
date of the first day of the first World War; is that correct?
Mr. Sullivan. Yes, sir. If we did set the eligibility date
on or after April 6th, 1917, in terms of having a period of
qualifying service at that time, that we would be able to avoid
most of those concerns because they would most of the time be
headstones or markers or in cemeteries that are more recently
established or placed into the ground.
Mr. Bost. The first national cemetery was established in
what year, do you know?
Mr. Sullivan. I am sorry, I would have to provide that
response for the record.
Mr. Bost. Okay, if you could just find it at some point,
because I am trying to figure out do we have an idea of a total
how many cemeteries this would affect that do not receive them,
you know, I mean, how many are on the historical register.
Mr. Sullivan. Yes. We do have 115 of the 132 current
national cemeteries that are on the National Register of
Historic Places.
Mr. Bost. Okay.
Mr. Sullivan. And we also have the additional 33 soldier
slots burial sites that would most likely be under those
historic preservation requirements.
Mr. Bost. Repeat that one more time, I am sorry.
Mr. Sullivan. The 33 burial lots, the soldier slots,
Confederate monument sites, again mostly from that Civil War
era and before then, that would be again subject to these
historic preservation laws and regulations that would be at
risk we think with this medallion benefit.
Mr. Bost. Okay, thank you.
I yield back.
Dr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Bost.
All right. Thank you, gentlemen, you are excused.
And I now recognize our final panel of witnesses today. Mr.
Zachary Hearn, the Deputy Director for Claims Veterans Affairs
and Rehabilitation Division at the American Legion; Mr. Paul
Varela, the Assistant National Legislative Director for the
Disabled American Veterans; Mr. Aleks Morosky, the Deputy
Director of the National Legislative Service at the Veterans of
Foreign Wars of the United States; Ms. Diane Zumatto, the
National Legislative Director of AMVETS; and Mr. Christopher
Neiweem, the Legislative Associate at the Iraq and Afghanistan
Veterans of America.
I thank you all for being here. We thank you for your hard
work and certainly being advocates for veterans.
Mr. Hearn, we will start with you. Five minutes, sir.
STATEMENTS OF ZACHARY HEARN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR CLAIMS
VETERANS AFFAIRS AND REHABILITATION DIVISION, THE AMERICAN
LEGION; PAUL R. VARELA, ASSISTANT NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS; ALEKS MOROSKY, DEPUTY
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN
WARS; DIANE ZUMATTO, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMVETS;
CHRISTOPHER NEIWEEM, LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATE, IRAQ AND
AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA
STATEMENT OF ZACHARY HEARN
Mr. Hearn. Good afternoon, Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member
Titus and members of the committee.
On behalf of National Commander Mike Helm and the over two
million members comprising the American Legion, I am pleased to
offer remarks regarding pending legislation.
The slate of bills offered covers a wide range of topics,
proof that the impact of the Department of Veterans Affairs and
its benefits are due to the wide-ranging needs of the veterans
community, many of whom have physical and emotional scars
related to their service in the armed forces.
H.R. 303, the Retired Pay Restoration Act, entitles
military retirees with a disability rating less than 50 percent
to receive their VA disability payment concurrent with their
military retirement. The unfortunate truth is that the current
structure establishes two classes of veterans, those that
receive a military retirement and those that do not. If a
veteran retires from the military and has less than a 50-
percent disability rating, the veteran cannot receive the
disability payment concurrent with military retirement.
The concept of VA disability is to compensate the veteran
for loss of wages due to a disability incurred in service. If a
veteran's disability is offset in the military retirement and
that doesn't yield the same result, then it is clearly not
beneficial to the veteran, nor does it properly compensate for
the condition.
The American Legion fully supports veterans receiving their
full disability compensation associated with their dedicated
service and support H.R. 303.
VA's battle with its backlog of claims is well known and VA
should be commended in its efforts to reduce the backlog.
However, in its attempt to eliminate its backlog, it appears
that it has traded one difficulty for another.
On June 7, 2010, VA's Monday morning workload report
indicated over 192,000 appealed claims were awaiting
adjudication. Five years later, that figure has exploded to
exceed 305,000 claims, an over 58-percent increase.
Although H.R. 1302, does not eliminate the backlog of
appeals, it does expedite the manner that the claims are to be
certified to the Board. Over the past year, the VBA has kept in
close contact with us regarding the impending onslaught of
cases to be reviewed at the Board. As a result, the American
Legion recently authorized the hiring of additional staff to
support the incoming cases requiring American Legion
representation.
Through passage of H.R. 1302, cases will no longer languish
at the regional offices awaiting certification for well over a
year, and we support passage of H.R. 1302.
Beginning with the scandal in Phoenix last summer, the
American Legion began conducting outreach events throughout the
nation to assist veterans attempting to gain access to their
earned benefits. During the events, we also meet with VA
Medical Center leaders to discuss concerns surrounding their
facility.
We have visited rural locations such as Clarksburg, West
Virginia and Harlingen, Texas, and urban locations such as Los
Angeles and Philadelphia. Regardless of location, whether urban
or rural, a common complaint is that VA is unable to recruit
medical professionals. The American Legion insists that VA's
inability to recruit medical professionals should not hamper a
veteran's adjudication of a benefit.
H.R. 2214 provides VA the ability to enter into contracts
with private physicians to conduct medical disability
examinations. Through passage of this bill, Congress will be
able to provide the tools to VA to conduct the compensation and
pension examinations in a timely fashion, and have the veteran
gain access to the benefits earned through their dedicated
service.
Again, on behalf of National Commander Mike Helm and the
over two million members of the nation's largest veterans
service organization, we thank you for the invitation to offer
our testimony and I will be happy to answer questions posed by
the committee.
Thank you, Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Zachary Hearn appears in the
Appendix]
Dr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Hearn.
Mr. Varela, five minutes.
STATEMENT OF PAUL R. VARELA
Mr. Varela. Good afternoon, Dr. Abraham, Ranking Member
Titus and members of the subcommittee. DAV appreciates the
opportunity to discuss the merits of the bills before us today.
I will begin with two bills that are fully supported by
DAV, H.R. 303 and H.R. 2691.
H.R. 303 would repeal the unfair offset currently imposed
upon longevity military retirees when they are rated less than
50 percent for service-connected disabilities. This legislation
would bring parity with their longevity retiree counterparts
that are authorized to receive their full military retirement
and VA disability compensation when they are rated greater than
50 percent for service-connected disabilities.
H.R. 2691 would improve and streamline claims processing
for survivors. The bill would allow a claim to be registered
with the VA when a survivor notifies the VA of a veteran's
passing. In instances where the record contains sufficient
information to award survivor's benefits, VA would be
authorized to make such an award.
We are pleased to see the introduction of these two bills
in the 114th Congress and look forward to working together to
see these legislative initiatives enacted into law.
For H.R. 2214, DAV supports the provisions of the bill
expanding VA's authority to enter into contracts with private
physicians to conduct medical C&P examinations from 12 VA
regional offices to 15, and extends the program until December
31st, 2017. We also urge the subcommittee to consider the
merits of removing the cap placed on the number of VA ROs that
can utilize contract examinations and make it available to all
VO ROs as a means to improve claims processing.
For the following bills, H.R. 1338, 1380, 2706, DAV has no
resolution from our membership pertaining to the issues
identified within these bills, but would not oppose passage of
the legislation.
For H.R. 1384, 2001, 2605, DAV has no resolution pertaining
the issues outlined within these bills and takes no position.
Finally, H.R. 1302. DAV opposes H.R. 1302 in its current
form. The bill would require to certify appeals no later than
one year after the date VA receives the VA Form 9. The bill
seeks to reduce the amount of time an appellant must wait for
VBA to certify an appeal to the Board of Veterans Appeals, also
known as the Board.
We recognize the sponsor's intention to shorten this
lengthy appeals process. However, the bill could create
unintended adverse consequences for appellants. Requiring VBA
to meet a hardened time limit raises several concerns.
First, the purpose of VBA's certification process is to
ensure that all administrative and adjudicative procedures have
been completed locally before an appeal is forwarded to the
Board. VBA performs this record review to ensure that all
issues have been properly addressed and that outstanding
appeals for interrelated issues have not been overlooked. The
purpose is to avoid unnecessary Board remands.
If VBA were forced to meet a one-year arbitrary
certification deadline, errors and oversights would likely
occur even more frequently and ultimately bring harm to
appellants. VBA's staff may be compelled to simply certify
these appeals without performing a thorough record review to
meet this mandated deadline. This could result in increased
Board remands, further delaying the appeals process.
Second, if an appeal requested a hearing before the Board
and conjunction with an appeal and made that selection on the
VA Form 9, the bill as written suggests that VBA must certify
the appeal to the Board with or without conducting the hearing.
As it stands today, an appeal cannot be certified if it carries
an outstanding hearing request.
On January 2nd, 2015, DAV testified before this
subcommittee regarding the appeals process and provided
Congress with several recommendations to improve this process
that were to strengthen the decision review officer program,
create a new fully developed appeals pilot program, improve the
rating board decision notification process. Although we
appreciate the sponsor's intentions, for the reasons outlined
above, DAV must oppose the bill in its current form.
Many of the issues plaguing VBA are resource related. Quite
simply, VBA's personnel-to-workload ratio has been mismatched
for quite some time in its attempt to do more with less.
Consider that in the fiscal year 2016, VSO, independent budget
recommendations, DAV and our VSO counterparts called for an
additional 1,700 additional FTE for VBA, 850 as full-time
employees, and 850 as two-year temporary employees. The
Administration only requested 770 new FTE. VBA needs the people
and the resources to keep up with the work. Dr. Abraham,
Ranking Member Titus and members of the Subcommittee, we look
forward to working together to identify practical solutions to
better VBA's appeals process. This concludes my testimony and
I'm prepared to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Paul R. Varela appears in the
Appendix]
Dr. Abraham. Thank you, Mr. Varela. Mr. Morosky, you have
five minutes for the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
STATEMENT OF ALEKS MOROSKY
Mr. Morosky. Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus and
Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of
the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and our
auxiliaries, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to offer
our thoughts on today's pending legislation.
The VFW strongly supports the Retired Pay Restoration Act
which would allow all military retirees to receive VA service-
connected disability compensation without forfeiting any
portion of their retirement pay commonly known as concurrent
receipt. Military retirees with service-connected disabilities
do not enjoy the same earning potential as non-disabled
retirees. Therefore, the VFW believes it is critical that all
disabled retirees are able to collect both benefits without
offset in order to grant them true parity with their non-
disabled counterparts.
The VA Appeals Backlog Relief Act would require VA regional
offices to certify all appeal forms to the Board of Veterans
Appeals no later than one year after receiving them. In the
past, we've seen how placing unsteady time constraints on VA's
processes can lead to employees and managers making bad
decisions in an effort to meet the timeline.
While the VFW agrees with the intent of this legislation,
we would recommend this effort be studied as a pilot before
full implementation across the department.
The VFW supports the Dignified Interment of Our Veterans
Act of 2015, which calls for a study of NCA's interment process
of unclaimed remains to include the estimated number of
unclaimed remains that VA processes, and the overall
effectiveness of the procedures used to communicate with
funeral directors and medical examiners.
The VFW believes that every effort must be made to ensure
that all veterans receive dignified burials, including those
with no next of kin. The VFW supports H.R. 1380. Currently, VA
may furnish a medallion for placement on a private marker for
veterans who died on or after November 1, 1990. This bill
rightly expands this honor to all veterans, regardless of the
date of their death.
The VFW strongly supports the Honor America's Guard and
Reserve Retirees Act. Many who serve in the Guard and Reserve
are in positions that support the deployments of their active
duty comrades, making sure the unit is fully prepared when
called upon. Although many of these men and women serve at
least 20 years and retire from the Reserve component, they are
not considered veterans according to the letter of the law.
This bill will finally grant these Guard and Reserve retirees
the recognition they deserve.
The VFW supports the Disabled Veterans Access to Medical
Examinations Improvement Act which would extend the authority
of VA to contract with non-VA physicians to perform disability
examinations set to expire at the end of the year. By extending
the authority through 2017, this bill would continue to provide
VA with the necessary tools to maximize veterans' access to
medical care by freeing many VA physicians from the added
responsibility of conducting disability evaluations.
The VFW supports the intent of the Veterans Fiduciary
Reform Act of 2015, protecting veterans from fraudulent
fiduciaries. Providing them an appeal process to have a new
fiduciary appointed and ensuring that veterans are capable of
managing their own finances is critical.
However, it is unclear to the VFW whether or not due
process would be violated by the provision that would help the
Secretary to appoint a fiduciary prior to the determination of
incompetency. This would be countered due process provision in
38 CFR Paragraph 3.353(d) and (e) which provides for the
presumption of competency prior to the court order or
competency hearing. We look forward to working with Congressmen
Johnson to ensure the intent of this bill is realized and that
veterans' due process is fully protected.
The Veterans National Remembrance Act, this legislation
would place states that do not currently have a national
cemetery at the top of the priority list for future cemetery
development.
The VFW supports NCA's analytical system of identifying
locations that have a need for veteran burial options which
currently sets thresholds at 80,000 veterans within a 75 mile
radius. We feel this allows NCA to accurately align their
resources with demand. The VFW would support this bill if it
were amended to place all locations that qualify or will
qualify for a national cemetery on a priority list that grants
preference to states that currently do not have a national
cemetery when all other factors are equal.
The VFW looks forward to working with Congresswoman Titus
to find a compromise that will bring national cemeteries to
states that do not have one, while ensuring that all veterans'
burial needs are met.
And finally, the VFW supports the Veterans Survivors Claim
Processing Automation Act, which would allow VA to pay benefits
to veterans' survivors who have not filed formal claims so long
as there is sufficient evidence in the veterans' record to
establish eligibility.
The VFW believes that in no instance should a survivor be
made to fill out unnecessary paperwork or resubmit evidence
when adequate documentation is already on file. We also
believe, however, that the survivor should have the opportunity
when providing notification of the veteran's death to submit
necessary documents that may not be contained in the records
such as the death certificate without the need to file a formal
claim.
Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus, this concludes my
statement and I'm happy to answer any questions you or the
other members of Committee may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Aleks Morosky appears in the
Appendix]
Dr. Abraham. Thank you Mr. Morosky. I will apologize. I
have got to go (indiscernible).
Mr. Bost. Ms. Zumatto, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF DIANE ZUMATTO
Ms. Zumatto. Dr. Abraham and Representative Titus, I am
just going to jump right in. The Retired Pay Restoration Act,
AMVETS fully supports this legislation, both retirement pay and
disability compensation are earned. They are two separate
categories, and we believe that both should be received. This
has been a longstanding goal of AMVETS, and also the Military
Coalition.
VA Appeals Backlog Relief Act, AMVETS does not support this
legislation.
The Dignified Interment of Our Veterans Act of 2015, AMVETS
does support the intent of this bill, however, we do have
several reservations which I outlined in my written testimony.
So I won't repeat those now.
H.R. 1380, AMVETS is very supportive of this legislation,
which eliminates the current date of death requirement with one
exception, and that is for historic cemeteries headstones. I am
a trained historic preservationist, and so I am pretty well
aware of not only the laws that you have to comply with, but
also the intent of preserving a historic site the way it is and
not adding new things to it. So we totally agree with NCA on
that point.
The Honor Americas Guard and Reserve Retirees Act, this is
like the Representative Wall says, we have been working on this
for years. You know, these people wore the same uniform that
those of us on active duty did. They did the same jobs that we
did, and I always use the example of my own experience. I did
one three-year tour in the Army, and I am considered a veteran.
But I know people who spent 25, 30, 40 serving in National
Guard and they do not have the right to call themselves
veterans. It just doesn't make sense. So we believe that it is
the right thing to do and we would really like to see this come
to fruition.
The Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, AMVETS does
support this legislation. The Disabled Veterans Access to
Medical Exams Improvements, we also support this legislation.
We think there are several benefits, which I did include in my
written testimony. We have not taken a position on the H.R.
2605, although it is interesting that just a day or so ago
somebody was giving me an example of a veteran who was
essentially a prisoner of the person who was his fiduciary. So
we do, you know, we think there is work to be done here, but I
didn't really have a chance to fully review that piece of
legislation. So at this point, I can't really take a position.
The Veterans Survivors Claim Processing Automation, we
support that. I think Representative Ruiz was right on with
what he said. You know, when you are in the grieving process,
the last thing you want to be doing is trying to figure out
what forms do I have to fill out and all of that. So if all the
information was already available to the VA, hey, then let's go
ahead and expedite.
The Veterans National Remembrance Act. You are passionate.
I have to say that. I am not sure if this, you know, bill--we
are not going to support it the way it is right now. We think
so far the process that NCA is using is moving things forward.
When that starts to fail, then you know, I think we should find
another--a new way to figure out how to do this. And I guess
that is the last one, so that concludes my testimony, and I
would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Diane Zumatto appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Bost. Thank you Ms. Zumatto. And for five minutes, Mr.
Neiweem, you're recognized.
STATEMENT OF CHRIS NEIWEEM
Mr. Neiweem. Thank you, Chairman Bost, Ranking Member Titus
and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. On behalf of
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, our nearly 400,000
members and supporters, thank you for the opportunity to share
our views on these important bills today. And it is refreshing
to see a fellow Illinois veteran in the chair, Mr. Chair.
H.R. 2214, we support this legislation which would expand
examination authority for physicians that examine veterans'
claims for disability compensation. Too often veterans continue
to wait for long periods of time to receive decisions on their
claims for disability compensation. Extending examination
authority and extending contracts with licensed physicians will
ensure efficiency in this process and will go a long way to
eliminating redundant medical examinations. This bill will aid
VA in its goal to provide veterans timely and accurate medical
examinations. We strongly support this.
In 2013 IAVA strongly pushed down on VA to eliminate the
disability claims backlog, and this is the kind of legislation
that will continue to move the ball forward, and we are
appreciative that it was introduced.
H.R. 1380. This legislation would provide flexibility
regardless of the date of death of an individual to be eligible
to receive a medallion or other device that signifies status.
Strongly support the legislation. I am glad Chairman Miller was
introducing it and put it forward.
We understand H.R. 2001 has been removed from the docket
today. Happy to allow our position to be submitted for the
record and look forward to discussing it at a future date.
H.R. 303. This legislation would express a sense of
Congress that military retired pay should not be offset or
otherwise cut back because a veteran also earned, emphasis on
earned, disability compensation. This bill would also remove
the phase-in periods for concurrent receipt and for individuals
who are retired or separated from military due to a service-
connected disability, make them eligible for the full
concurrent receipt of disability compensation and either
retired pay or CRSC. Let's keep in mind that these veterans,
especially those that are eligible for CRSC, have sustained
injuries in combat. These are the last individuals that should
be the targets of federal savings. IAVA strongly supports this
legislation and many of our members have deployed not once, not
twice, not three, but even four times and continue to step up.
So we want to make sure that we are guarding against that.
Appreciate the legislation.
H.R. 1338. This bill would require the Secretary of VA to
study and report to Congress in a few key topic areas that
relate to the issue of veteran burial and interment in national
cemeteries and under the authority of NCA. This requirement
would extend to identifying how many unclaimed remains exist in
estimated figures. The bill would additionally require VA--
current VA procedure to be the subject of review and further
examine how those policies comport with state and local laws to
allow the Secretary of VA to administer in this area.
The last key provision would require recommended
legislative or administrative actions that can improve the way
our government handles the remains of our veterans as we work
to ensure they have a dignified final resting place, and we
strongly support the legislation.
Looking at H.R. 1302. The legislation requires that a
(indiscernible) certify a veteran appeal submission within one
year of receipt. In a time when too many veterans again
continue to feel that the VA claims process moves at a glacial
pace, we support legislative requirements that mandate timely
action, especially as we look at the current statistics with
520-day waits for remands in the appeals process. We've got to
continue to double down and make this a focus so we can get
this right.
Turning to H.R. 2605, the administration of VBA benefits to
fiduciaries serving our veterans is a very technical and
difficult task, and we greatly respect the work of the
department to that end. And this bill is seeking to make it
work better. Our goal in this topic is to achieve the balance
of ensuring the benefits are being paid and administered in
such a way that accurately supports the veterans and their
fiduciary, while at the same time not burdening them with
excessive barricades to getting that support.
This bill would clarify the rules of fiduciaries to include
a process by which temporary fiduciaries may be appointed to
veterans. The bill would also provide a comprehensive set of
reforms to supervise fiduciaries and clarify how investigations
and the results of those actions should be administrated. This
includes recourse for overpayments and the misuse of funds. The
support Congress has given disabled veterans and the
collaboration with VSOs to that end, and especially in the
years since the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, has been strong. We
have some of the strongest benefits now than at any time in
history. However, the complexity of those benefits will require
congressional oversight and perennial stakeholder input.
H.R. 1384. Simply put, this does not create any new
benefits that would allow--but would rather allow our Reserve
and Guard service members who serve on orders that are
currently outside the scope of what classifies them as veterans
be given that title in law. This is has been a longstanding TMC
goal with our partners and allies of the veteran community, and
IAVA joins Rep. Walz and our allies at TMC in supporting this
bill. And since the Groundhog Day reference is already used, I
will use an original one. This issue is as perennial as the
dress. Every single year we come back to it. The House passed
it. We have got to get it done. We have got to get this right.
I yield back, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may
have.
[The prepared statement of Chris Neiweem appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Bost. Thank you. And thank you to all of the panel. And
we are going to go ahead and open up to questions. And I am
going to yield myself five minutes. If I could, Mr. Morosky, in
your written testimony you stated that although the VFW
supports the intent of House resolution 2605, it has concerns
about the provisions authorizing appointment of a temporary
fiduciary prior to the determination of incompetency. Can you
kind of expand there with the concerns that you might have?
Mr. Morosky. Sure, Mr. Chairman. And I want it to be clear
that this bill does a lot of things and the VFW supports all
the other provisions of this bill. I mean, you know, allowing
the beneficiary to request an appointment of a new fiduciary
without interruption, you know, requiring VA to conduct audits
and investigate and report wrongdoing, these are all good
things. It was just that one provision that was brought by one
of our staff attorneys, and it was brought to our attention
that if the Secretary were to appoint or produce a fiduciary on
a temporary basis, and I believe the language is for 120 days
prior to the determination of incompetency, then it could be in
conflict with another portion of the code which provides for
the presumption of competency prior to the court order. So we
would be happy to work with the sponsor.
Mr. Bost. Yes, I was going to ask you if have--what
suggestions you might have.
Mr. Morosky. And we would be happy to work on the sponsor
with that, and you know, so that we can support this bill.
Mr. Bost. One question I also have for the whole panel, I
know, Ms. Zumatto, you said that for historical purposes, and
it is a concern of mine, I mean, all of us want our veterans to
be honored to the best possible point. My question is with the
other members of the panel, would a date change that it would
be First World War to protect the integrity of the headstones
of those veterans that served before be in agreement or is
there concerns that is out there from any of your
organizations?
Mr. Morosky. The American Legion obviously supports
honoring the veterans in the way that you had mentioned,
Chairman. I don't believe anybody at the American Legion has
the preservation skills that my colleague here does in dealing
with historical markers. So I do understand somewhat of what
she says, but we obviously we fully support providing that or
sending an earlier date, but at the same time we don't want to
create a situation where we are damaging materials as suggested
by our colleague.
Mr. Bost. Anyone? Okay. Thanks. Mr. Hearn, you stated that
the Legion supports House Resolution 1302, please describe how
it would expedite the appeals process if the VA were required
to certify a VA Form 9 within one year of receipt?
Mr. Hearn. Thank you. As it stands now, I believe according
to the most recent Monday morning workload reported, you are
looking at somewhere 16 to 18 months getting close to 2 years
before the average claim is getting sent up. I think I said 620
days. Knocking it down to 365 days is really three times the
amount that VA has promised its veterans that they would
adjudicate the original claim. Since VA is no longer taking
informal claims, I guess they will have extra things to do,
they will be able to handle that. Again, the staffing issue
might be something that we need to examine a little bit
closely. But the fact that you have cases languishing there for
close to a year or over a year, I am sorry, to be certified to
the Board. These are veterans in some cases that may be nearing
homelessness, that are homeless, that are over 75, may have
terminal illness. We need to get these claims adjudicated. I
contacted the Board of Veterans Appeals this morning, and while
nobody could provide me a hard date as far as American Legion
cases were concerned, rough estimation is 500 veterans per year
that the American Legion alone represents would be directly
impacted on annual basis.
Mr. Bost. Okay. Thank you. With that, I recognize Ranking
Member Titus for any questions she may have at this time.
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much. Mr. Sullivan mentioned that
the VA had conducted a non-scientific poll of the people who
use state and tribal cemeteries. I don't know how many people
were in that sample, but I would ask all of you, have you
polled your members and asked them the question that if a
national cemetery were available, would you rather be buried in
the national cemetery or in a state cemetery. Just go down the
row.
Mr. Morosky. I would just say, Madam Ranking Member, that
we need to do that. That is a great question. We have not
polled our membership. And that is a great question, and we can
look at doing a flash poll on that and ascertain that
information for future use.
Ms. Titus. That would be great. Thank you.
Ms. Zumatto. We have not polled our members, but as you saw
in the written testimony, I did finally get to a couple of
state cemeteries recently. And honestly I noticed almost a
family feeling while I was there. The people that live around
these cemeteries refer to it as their cemetery. They take a lot
of pride in them. And because they are such an integral part of
the communities, the sense that I got is the folks that--the
veterans that are living there, yeah, they are very happy to be
buried in the state cemetery. But no, we have not asked that
question of our members.
Ms. Titus. I imagine the people who live in Boulder City,
that little community of few people outside of Las Vegas, do
like that cemetery and do like to be buried there, but that is
really not the question. Yes?
Mr. Neiweem. We have never conducted a poll, Congresswoman.
But we have heard from people who have called us up and from
veterans from states who don't have one, and have told us, you
know, we think that it would be nice if we did. Of course, they
all have state cemeteries but they would also like a national
cemetery as well. We think that maybe one solution to this
would be to just increase transparency of the process. I mean,
you did just ask the gentlemen from NCA if there was going to
be a national cemetery any time soon in any of those 11 states,
and, you know, he couldn't really give you an answer. Maybe if
there were more transparency, if veterans from those states
knew where they fell on the list, it would sort of increase
satisfaction a little bit more just knowing that where they
fell in the priority.
Mr. Varela. Ranking Member, I would like to take that
question for the record just to be sure. The history of this
issue goes back probably before I got up here to our
legislative staff. I don't remember that coming up. I haven't
heard it mentioned, but I will bring it back and find out if
that is also an option.
Ms. Titus. Thank you.
Mr. Hearn. Ranking Member, similar to Paul, I will take
this back to the American Legion who handles this in his
portfolio and see if I can get an answer for you.
Ms. Titus. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hearn. You are welcome.
Ms. Titus. You know, you mentioned transparency and I think
that is important. So if we can't get this old formula changed
that has been in place for so long and discriminates against
veterans who live in those 11 states, maybe we can at least
work together to get a set of standards that need to be met to
receive the National Shrine Designation, and if those
cemeteries don't meet it, veterans will at least know that they
are not being in a place that meets that National Shrine
standard. So maybe you can help me work on that.
I would just ask you one last little quick question too. It
is something I mentioned in my opening statement. If the
Supreme Court hands down a ruling that strikes down all
existing state bans on marriage equality, do you think the VA--
it is time to change the veterans law so that all veterans
regardless of their marital status and who they are married to
and where they live get the same benefits?
Mr. Morosky. Madam Ranking Member, we support your
legislation, supported it previously, and continue to support
it.
Ms. Titus. I appreciate that a lot. Thank you.
Mr. Morosky. Madam Ranking Member, the VFW believes that a
veteran is a veteran and all those should be treated equally.
Mr. Bost. I believe that this was not on the agenda.
Ms. Titus. Well, it wasn't. I mentioned it in my opening
remarks, that is why I thought it would be appropriate to.
Mr. Bost. I don't think it is appropriate at this time.
Thank you.
Ms. Titus. That is the problem. You don't think it is
appropriate. Thank you anyway.
Mr. Bost. Thank you to the Ranking Member. And if there is
not anyone else seeking questions. As there are no further
questions, I want to thank everyone here today for taking the
time to come share their views on these nine bills. This is
very important to the legislative process, and we appreciate
your insight and feedback. I ask unanimous consent that the
written statements provided by Representative Latta and Shuster
and other submitted statements be placed in the hearing record.
Without objections, so ordered. Finally, I ask unanimous
consent that all members have five legislative days to reserve
and extend the remarks, include extraneous material on any of
all bills under consideration this afternoon. Without
objection, so ordered. This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:56 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Statement of Honorable Bill Johnson (OH-06)
Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus and Members of the
Subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you on H.R. 2605,
important legislation I introduced to reform the Department of
Veterans' Affairs (VA's) Fiduciary Program.
As many of you know, I served as the Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee Chairman on the House Veterans' Affairs Committee for the
112th Congress. An investigation into the VA's Fiduciary Program by my
subcommittee revealed shocking behavior on the part of the VA's hired
fiduciaries, and gross malfeasance on the part of the VA. Some
fiduciaries--entrusted to manage the finances of our nation's heroes
who are unable to do so themselves--were caught abusing the system by
withholding funds, embezzling veterans' money and other egregious
actions.
Furthermore, I chaired an Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee
hearing held on February 9, 2012, that exposed that many of the VA's
Fiduciary Program policies do not correspond with actual practices. For
instance, the VA claims to have a policy stating preference for family
members and friends to serve as a veteran's fiduciary. However, the
investigation into the Fiduciary Program revealed instances where this
is not the case. In one instance, the VA arbitrarily removed a
veteran's wife, who served as her husband's fiduciary for ten years,
and replaced her with a paid fiduciary. There are also many honest and
hardworking fiduciaries that experience difficulty performing their
duties due to the bureaucratic nature of the VA's fiduciary program. We
owe it to America's heroes to provide them with a fiduciary program
that is more responsive to the needs of the veterans it is supposed to
serve.
I also had the opportunity to participate in this subcommittee's
follow up hearing on the Fiduciary Program earlier this month. It was
disheartening to hear that some of the same issues from 2012 are
ongoing. Additionally, while the VA issued a proposed rule to modernize
the Fiduciary Program in January 2014, the VA has yet to issue the
final rule.
For these reasons, I am proud to sponsor H.R. 2605, the ``Veteran's
Fiduciary Reform Act.'' This important legislation, initially
introduced in 2012, was drafted based on problems uncovered from O&I's
hearing an investigation, as well as valuable input from veterans'
service organizations and individuals who have experienced difficulties
with the program firsthand. It is designed to transform the VA's
Fiduciary Program to better serve the needs of our most vulnerable
veterans and their hardworking fiduciaries. And, most importantly, it
will protect veterans in the program from falling victim to deceitful
and criminal fiduciaries.
Specifically, the Veterans Fiduciary Reform Act would require a
credit and criminal background check each time a fiduciary is
appointed, and allow veterans to petition to have their fiduciary
removed if problems arise. It would also decrease the potential maximum
fee a fiduciary can receive to the lesser of 3 percent or $35 per
month, similar to Social Security's fiduciary program. This will help
discourage those who enroll as VA fiduciaries with only a profit motive
in mind.
Importantly, H.R. 2605 would enable veterans to appeal their
incompetent status at any time. Additionally, it would allow veterans
to name a preferred fiduciary, such as a family member.
This legislation also addresses the requirement of fiduciaries to
obtain a bond. While proper in some settings, it is inappropriate when
it causes unnecessary hardship, such as a mother caring for her veteran
son. This legislation would require the VA to consider whether a bond
is necessary, and if it will adversely affect the fiduciary and the
veterans he or she serves. H.R. 2605 would also direct the VA's Under
Secretaries for Health and Benefits to coordinate their efforts to
ensure that fiduciaries caring for their loved ones are not overly
burdened by redundant requirements.
Lastly, this bill aims to simplify annual reporting requirements.
Currently, the VA does not have to review a fiduciary's annual
accounting, and when it does, it places an onerous burden on those
fiduciaries who are serving out of love, not for monetary gain. This
bill will implement a straight forward annual accounting requirement,
and give VA the opportunity to audit fiduciaries whose accounting is
suspect.
These significant changes would strengthen the VA's standards for
administering the Fiduciary Program, and increase protection for
vulnerable veterans. Requiring background checks and lowering the fee a
fiduciary can charge would also increase scrutiny of potential
fiduciaries, and help root out potential predators. This legislation
also adds a layer of protection for veterans with fiduciaries by
incorporating the ability for veterans to petition to have their
fiduciary removed and replaced.
I am proud that this legislation has passed the House of
Representatives twice now--both in 2012 and in 2013 as part of larger
legislation. Unfortunately, this important legislation has not been
considered by the Senate, and therefore, the VA's Fiduciary Program is
still in urgent need of reform.
Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus, thank you again for the
opportunity to speak on this important legislation. I am hopeful that
this legislation will again be favorably considered by the Veterans'
Affairs Committee, and this time become law. Our veterans were willing
to sacrifice everything to serve our nation, and they deserve to
receive the care, benefits, and respect that they have earned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Statement of Hon. Bob Latta (OH-05)
Mr. Chairman,
I thank you for the opportunity to provide a statement for the
record for today's legislative hearing in the House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs, Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs
Subcommittee, that includes strong bipartisan legislation I introduced,
H.R. 1302, the VA Appeals Backlog Relief Act, which would help expedite
the appeals claims process.
Our great nation is blessed to have the bravest men and women in
the world serving in our armed forces and putting their lives on the
line every day in order to defend the freedoms we hold so dear. The
sacrifices they make are incredible and it is incumbent upon Congress
and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to ensure they receive the
timely care and benefits they have earned and deserve upon their return
home.
The VA's lack of timely claims processing, and the massive backlog
that has been created, has long been a major problem. Thanks to the
quality work of this subcommittee, and the full committee, a good deal
of progress has been made; however, there is still more work to be
done, especially on the appeals side.
As it currently stands at the VA, there are at least 300,000
appeals claims pending, with nearly 60,000 pending VA Form 9's with an
average pending time of well over 600 days. In my home state of Ohio,
county veterans service officers and veterans service organizations
have contacted me regarding the possibility of five to ten year wait
times on appealed issues, with a major cause of the delay due to the
lengthy time it takes the local VA Regional Office (VARO), once they
have received a completed VA Form 9, to certify the case to the Board
of Veterans Appeals. In response, and with the input of these officers
and organizations, I introduced the VA Appeals Backlog Relief Act. This
important legislation would make it mandatory for all appeals claims to
be certified to the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) no later than 12
months after the VARO receives the completed VA Form 9, which is more
than ample time to complete this process.
I commend the Chairman and Ranking Member for their hard work and
dedication to helping our nation's veterans and thank them, and the
subcommittee, for including H.R. 1302 as part of this legislative
hearing. I would ask my colleagues for their continued support of H.R.
1302 so we can better fulfill our obligations to our nation's veterans.
Thank you.
Congressman Bob Latta
Statement of Hon. Bill Shuster (PA-09)
Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus and Members of the
Subcommittee:
Thank you for allowing me to testify today on behalf of my bill
H.R. 1338, the Dignified Interment of Our Veterans Act of 2015.
The issue of unclaimed veteran remains was first brought to my
attention by two dedicated community servants from my district, Mr.
Lanny Golden and Mr. Ron Metros. They catapulted my awareness of the
tragic state of thousands of veteran remains and the important work
being done by selfless volunteers associated with organizations like
the Missing in America Project whose mission it is to locate, identify,
and inter the unclaimed remains of American veterans.
The Dignified Burial and Other Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act
of 2012 placed shared responsibility on the Veteran Affairs
Administration, veteran service organizations, and funeral directors to
identify the veteran status of the deceased and make every effort to
locate the next of kin. Despite the best efforts of these agencies, it
is estimated that 47,000 unclaimed, uninterred veteran cremains remain
on shelves collecting dust. The Pennsylvania State Coordinator for the
Missing in America Project, who is also a licensed funeral director,
estimates he has interred more than 125 unclaimed cremains from Western
Pennsylvania in the last three years. We can speculate regarding the
reason for this epidemic but we cannot know for sure without giving
this issue the attention it deserves.
In order to help address this problem, I introduced legislation
that requires the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a study on
matters relating to claiming and interring of unclaimed veteran
remains. The intent of the study is to confirm the scope of this
problem, uncover any barriers associated with claiming and interring
veteran remains, and solicit recommendations from the Department of
Veterans Affairs on potential program improvements. This is the first
step in fixing this issue and bringing honor back to our fallen heroes.
I would be remiss if I didn't highlight efforts by the Department
of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration to bolster
outreach efforts over the last year and their implementation of new
tracking protocols that ensure claimed veterans are interred within a
timely manner. I'm confident they'll apply the same level of vigor in
finding solutions to the obstacles that have yet to be uncovered.
Lastly, I would like to say thank you to all who have served this
great nation and ensure that your final resting place be of dignity and
honor. We will not forget you.
Paralyzed Veterans of America
Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus, and members of the
Subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank
you for the opportunity to provide our views on pending legislation
before the Subcommittee.
H.R. 303, the ``Retired Pay Restoration Act''
PVA supports H.R. 303, the ``Retired Pay Restoration Act.'' PVA has
always strongly supported the repeal of the current inequitable
requirement that a veteran's military retired pay based on longevity be
offset by an amount equal to his or her VA disability compensation.
Veterans are the only group of federal retirees that have to surrender
a portion of their retirement pay to receive their disability
compensation. This requirement essentially forces disabled military
retirees to fund their own disability benefits.
While this issue has always been about funding, PVA believes this
is more about fairness. Is it fair that an individual who has done his
duty and served 20 years of faithful service be penalized because he or
she also became disabled during that service? PVA does not believe this
is fair.
H.R. 1302, the ``VA Appeals Backlog Relief Act''
PVA supports the intent of H.R. 1302, the ``VA Appeals Backlog
Relief Act,'' and sees a level of value in it. We are concerned that
there may be some instances where the veteran submits additional
evidence or information with the substantive appeal that may require
the VA to do additional development to assist the veteran in
substantiating his or her claim. This development might preclude the VA
from compliance with the certification deadline in some instances.
Unfortunately, PVA does not believe this law would be enforced to the
point that there would visibly be any significant change. In fact, some
veterans' appeals could be negatively impacted if their appeal was
certified prior to the receipt of supporting evidence, PVA recommends
language allowing for an exception for those situations where
additional development might be needed. PVA wholeheartedly supports
seeking methods to reduce the time for certification as some appeals
are waiting up to three years to be certified.
H.R. 1338, the ``Dignified Interment of Our Veterans Act of 2015''
PVA supports H.R. 1338, the ``Dignified Interment of Our Veterans
Act of 2015.'' All veterans who have honorably served in the military
deserve a proper and dignified interment. Requiring the Secretary to
conduct a study on the matters relating to the disposition of unclaimed
remains is appropriate to ensure that all veterans receive the handling
and recognition their service deserves.
H.R. 1380
PVA supports H.R. 1380 to expand the eligibility for a medallion
furnished by the Secretary to signify the veteran status of a deceased
individual. By removing any limitation due to date of death of a
veteran, all those who served will be eligible for the recognition they
earned through their service.
H.R. 1384, the ``Honor America's Guard-Reserve Retirees Act''
PVA supports H.R. 1384, the ``Honor America's Guard-Reserve
Retirees Act.'' We believe everyone who raises their hand to support
and defend the Constitution of the United States should be recognized
for their service, to include the Guard and Reserve. The mission of
many guard and reservists is to facilitate and support the deployments
of their comrades, so the unit is fully prepared when called upon.
Unfortunately, the law does not currently allow those who have served
several years under non-federal status orders, and are entitled to
retirement pay, TRICARE, and other benefits, to call themselves
``veterans.'' These men and women have taken the same oath as an active
duty servicemember and have made sacrifices that have earned the right
to call themselves veteran. But at the same time, it is critical that
these individuals recognize at their retirement that the title of
``Veteran'' does not come with the benefits earned by those who have
served on active duty for 20 years. This is our only concern, that
there will now be a perceived ``double-standard'' on how we treat our
``veterans.''
H.R. 2001, the ``Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act''
PVA has no position on HR 2001, the ``Veterans 2nd Amendment
Protection Act.''
H.R. 2214, the ``Disabled Veterans' Access to Medical Exams Improvement
Act''
PVA supports H.R. 2214, the ``Disabled Veterans' Access to Medical
Exams Improvement Act.'' VA has had great success with the use of
contract physicians. Extending the temporary authority until December
31, 2017 will further support the effort to reduce the backlog and then
provide additional authority beyond VA's backlog reduction goal to
ensure the ability to maintain the 125 day decision goal. More
importantly, if VA misses its 2015 backlog reduction target, contracted
physicians will still be available to continue supporting the process
with no additional legislation required.
H.R. 2605, the ``Veterans Fiduciary Reform Act of 2015''
PVA supports H.R. 2605, the ``Veterans Fiduciary Reform Act of
2015.'' Often beneficiaries languish and even die during the protracted
effort to appoint a fiduciary. There have been many iterations of this
legislation circulating for the last few years; this legislation
addresses many concerns that have been expressed on fiduciary services.
In particular, this legislation is taking steps to minimize the impact
on family members who serve as fiduciaries and included a provision for
caregivers.
Efforts to appoint fiduciaries seem to have become worse following
the centralization of fiduciary services. When these issues were
handled at the regional office level, the local field examiners and
estate analysts had a more personal awareness of beneficiary issues
associated with incompetency ratings. Since the onset of
centralization, it has become increasingly difficult to assist
beneficiaries in situations where their welfare may be compromised.
Practical options such as supervised direct pay are less likely to be
utilized when functional contact between field examiners and rating
activities is limited. Rating calculators do not effectively analyze
the potential danger or lack thereof of paying benefits to
beneficiaries who are rated as incompetent.
With regards to notification to claimants, it is important to
explain that what is needed to challenge a determination of competency
is an expression of competency from a medical professional that
addresses the ability to manage funds. Often documentation to support a
negative determination will consist of statements that the individual
receives help in paying the bills which clearly is an insufficient
basis for determination.
H.R. 2691, the ``Veterans' Survivors Claims Processing Automation Act
of 2015''
PVA supports H.R. 2691, the ``Veterans' Survivors Claims Processing
Automation Act of 2015.'' The legislation allows VA to pay benefits to
a survivor who for whatever reason didn't file a claim as long as
sufficient evidence of record existed to grant the claim. For example,
in the case of a veteran who was known to have been exposed to Agent
Orange and died of lung cancer, the VA could establish entitlement to
DIC in the absence of a properly filed claim. In such a case the
notification of death would become the date of claim. While this may
not be the intent of the legislation, this could protect a date of
claim which could otherwise be untimely and will ensure the survivor
receives benefits their loved one earned. This is appropriate
legislation that will pay benefits to a veteran's survivor as quickly
as possible and streamline the process. In many cases, the benefits a
disabled veteran receives may be the only family income.
One change that PVA would like to see in the language is in Section
2(B)(ii) that states `` . . . the date on which the survivor of a
veteran notifies the Secretary of the death.....'' As in many cases
with legislation, PVA believes this should read ``survivor or duly
appointed representative'' to ensure it is clear that veteran service
officers or others that may be assisting the survivor can act on their
behalf. It may also be appropriate to include language referencing VA
learning of the death from another federal agency such as the Social
Security Administration or the Internal Revenue Service before a
survivor may notify VA. Limiting notification to the survivor strikes
PVA as being too narrowly defined. However, this being said, VA has
already initiated a process to automatically begin payment of DIC to
the spouse of record in cases where the veteran has been rated at 100%
for ten years, without a requirement for the widow to file a claim.
This legislation would better establish that process into law.
H.R. 2706, the ``Veterans National Remembrance Act''
PVA supports H.R. 2706, the ``Veterans National Remembrance Act.''
With the rapid aging of our World War II population and increasing
number of daily losses of these heroes, the need for National
Cemeteries is increasing. It is critical that these veterans have the
ability and the opportunity to lie for all eternity with their fellow
veterans if they and their family so chooses.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate your
commitment to ensuring that veterans receive the best benefits and care
available. We also appreciate the fact that this Subcommittee has
functioned in a generally bipartisan manner over the years. We look
forward to working with the Subcommittee as we continue to provide the
best care for our veterans.
Information Required by Rule XI 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives
Pursuant to Rule XI 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, the
following information is provided regarding federal grants and
contracts.
Fiscal Year 2014
No federal grants or contracts received.
Fiscal Year 2013
National Council on Disability--Contract for Services--$35,000.
Disclosure of Foreign Payments
``Paralyzed Veterans of America is largely supported by donations
from the general public. However, in some very rare cases we receive
direct donations from foreign nationals. In addition, we receive
funding from corporations and foundations which in some cases are U.S.
subsidiaries of non-U.S. companies.''
Statement of the Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis
Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus, and members of the
Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee,
Thank you for holding this very important hearing and for the
opportunity to discuss my bill, H.R. 303, the Retired Pay Restoration
Act.
Prior to 2004, existing laws and regulations dictated that a
military retiree could not receive both payments from the DoD and the
VA.
Through the enactment of the Concurrent Retirement and Disability
Payments (CRDP) program authorized within the FY 2004 NDAA, those who
are 100% disabled were able to receive both earned benefits for the
first time ever.
Since then, the law has expanded the eligibility allowing more
retirees to receive both payments--like those with 20 or more years of
service and a 50% or higher disability rating through the VA.
The program established a system which gradually phased in these
payments through 2014, which is when these retirees would be receiving
both payments in full.
While our efforts have taken great strides towards resolving this
issue, much more needs to be done. Statistics reveal that there are
still nearly 550,000 military retirees who may be eligible to receive
both military retired pay and VA disability compensation, but are
unable to do so under the current guidelines of this program.
In short, this means that there are 550,000 Veterans who are
currently being denied the benefits they are entitled. Given their
unwavering sacrifice to this great nation, I firmly believe we must
provide the benefits they have earned. This is unacceptable, and this
is why I continue to advocate for the Retired Pay Restoration Act,
which my father sponsored during his time in Congress.
H.R. 303 would serve to ensure that our nation's Veterans are not
negatively affected by having their military retirement pay deducted by
the amount of their VA disability compensation. Many have rightly
argued that this represents an injustice for Veterans having one earned
benefit pay for the other.
Every Congress I am encouraged by the immense bipartisan support
for my bill, the Retired Pay Restoration Act. Last Congress, H.R. 303
received a total of 107 bipartisan cosponsors. This is a clear
testament that both sides of the aisle recognize that this is an issue
that needs to be rectified.
We have the support from Veterans and the organizations that work
closely with them. I greatly appreciate the support from our witnesses
today; especially from the VSOs that came to testify before this
Committee. It is clear that there is a need to do more in what we--as a
nation--do in repaying the brave men and women for their sacrifice.
Military retirement pay and service-connected disability
compensation are two completely different benefits. One does not
diminish the merits of the other.
It is our responsibility to give our Veterans what has been earned
through service to God and country. The question now is this: what do
we intend to do about it?
H.R. 303 is the clear answer. I urge all my colleagues to show your
support for our nation's heroes by cosponsoring and supporting this
bill. Let's get this done for our Veterans. Thank you.
[all]