    [Senate Hearing 114-182]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                         S. Hrg. 114-182

                    HEARING ON PENDING BENEFITS LEGISLATION

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                         COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 13, 2015

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

                                    ___________

                             U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    94-845 PDF                    WASHINGTON : 2016

    _________________________________________________________________________________________
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
    U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
    E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

                        COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                       Johnny Isakson, Georgia, Chairman
    Jerry Moran, Kansas                  Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut,
    John Boozman, Arkansas                   Ranking Member
    Dean Heller, Nevada                  Patty Murray, Washington
    Bill Cassidy, Louisiana              Bernard Sanders, (I) Vermont
    Mike Rounds, South Dakota            Sherrod Brown, Ohio
    Thom Tillis, North Carolina          Jon Tester, Montana
    Dan Sullivan, Alaska                 Mazie K. Hirono, Hawaii
                                         Joe Manchin III, West Virginia
                           Tom Bowman, Staff Director
                     John Kruse, Democratic Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                  May 13, 2015
                                    SENATORS

                                                                       Page
    Isakson, Hon. Johnny, Chairman, U.S. Senator from Georgia........     1
    Brown, Hon. Sherrod, U.S. Senator from Ohio......................    59
    Cassidy, Hon. Bill, U.S. Senator from Louisiana..................    61
    Murray, Hon. Patty, Chairman, U.S. Senator from Washington.......    78

                               VISITING SENATORS

    Ayotte, Hon. Kelly, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire..............     1
    Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire............     3
    Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from New York.............    65

                                   WITNESSES

    Kurta, Anthony, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Military
      Personnel Policy, U.S. Department of Defense...................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................     6
        Response to posthearing questions submitted by Hon. Johnny
          Isakson....................................................    11
    Gerton, Teresa W., Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy,
      Veterans Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of
      Labor..........................................................    12
        Prepared statement...........................................    14
    McLenachen, David R., Acting Deputy Under Secretary for
      Disability Assistance, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs;
      accompanied by Renee Szybala, Assistant General Counsel........    18
        Prepared statement...........................................    19
        Additional views.............................................    33
    Maldon, Alphonso, Jr., Chairman, Military Compensation and
      Retirement Modernization Commission; accompanied by Michael R.
      Higgins, Commissioner, Military Compensation and Retirement
      Modernization Commission.......................................    62
        Prepared statement...........................................    63
    Phillips, Jeffrey E., Executive Director, Reserve Officers
      Association....................................................    67
        Prepared statement...........................................    69
    Morosky, Aleks, Deputy Legislative Director, National Legislative
      Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars..............................    72
        Prepared statement...........................................    73

                                    APPENDIX

    Daines, Hon. Steve, U.S. Senator from Montana; prepared statement    83
    Gibson, Hon. Chris, U.S. Representative from New York; prepared
      statement......................................................    84
    Air Force Association; prepared statement........................    85
    American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO and the AFGE
      National VA Council; prepared statement........................    86
    Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Association; prepared statement.    90
    Concerned Veterans for America; prepared statement...............   102
    Varela, Paul R., Assistant National Legislative Director,
      Disabled American Veterans (DAV); prepared statement...........   103
    Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States
      (EANGUS); prepared statement...................................   112
    Snee, Thomas J., M.Ed., NCCM (SW), USN, (Ret), Fleet Reserve
      Association (FRA); prepared statement..........................   137
    Tomek, Jamie, Chair, Government Relations Committee, Gold Star
      Wives of America, Inc. (GSW); prepared statement...............   140
    Stacy, David, Government Affairs Director, Human Rights Campaign;
      prepared statement.............................................   141
    Military Officers Association of America (MOAA); prepared
      statement......................................................   142
    Polisuk, Bryan, General Counsel, United States Merit Systems
      Protection Board (MSPB); letter................................   147
    Wells, John B., USN (Ret), Executive Director, Military-Veterans
      Advocacy (MVA); prepared statement.............................   154
    Levins, Scott, Director, National Personnel Records Center,
      National Archives and Records Administration (NARA); prepared
      statement......................................................   167
    Duffy, Peter J., Colonel, USARMY (Ret), Legislative Director,
      National Guard Association of the United States (NGAUS);
      prepared statement.............................................   168
    National Military and Veterans Alliance (NMVA); letter...........   172
    Carpenter, Kenneth M., Founding Member, National Organization of
      Veterans' Advocates, Inc. (NOVA); prepared statement...........   174
    National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP); prepared
      statement......................................................   182
    Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA); prepared statement..........   194
    Bonosaro, Carol A., President, Senior Executives Association
      (SEA); letter..................................................   198
    The American Legion; prepared statement..........................   199

                    HEARING ON PENDING BENEFITS LEGISLATION

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2015

                                           U.S. Senate,
                                Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 p.m., in room
    418, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Johnny Isakson,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Isakson, Cassidy, Murray, and Brown.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHNNY ISAKSON, CHAIRMAN, U.S.
                          SENATOR FROM GEORGIA

        Chairman Isakson. I call this meeting of the Senate
    Veterans' Affairs Committee to order. Let me make an editorial
    comment, if I can.
        I am going to waive opening statements for both myself and
    Senator Blumenthal. Senator Blumenthal is in a SASC meeting.
    They are doing a markup on NDAA, which I know Senator Ayotte is
    at, as well. We have six Members of the Veterans' Committee who
    serve on the Armed Services Committee. I have to leave at 3:45
    to meet with Secretary McDonald on an urgent matter which I
    cannot delay, and we have so many Members in so many meetings,
    I may not have anybody to fill in for me as Chair, so I am
    going to go as quickly as I can through the bills--Ms. Ayotte,
    Ms. Gillibrand, and Ms. Shaheen's bills--then immediately to
    panel one and panel two, try to ward off editorial speeches by
    Members so we can get all the testimony in by 3:45, and then if
    we have to adjourn without somebody to preside, at least we
    will have filled the record on what we intended to do.
        With that said, it is a pleasure for me to introduce
    Senator Ayotte from New Hampshire and recognize her for
    comments on her bill. Senator Ayotte.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. KELLY AYOTTE,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE

        Senator Ayotte. Well, thank you, Chairman. I appreciate
    your important leadership on this Committee and the invitation
    to testify today. I know that my colleagues, Senator Shaheen
    and Senator Gillibrand, will be joining us shortly. We all
    serve on the Armed Services Committee together.
        Americans were horrified last year as the scandal at the VA
    unfolded and we heard reports of veterans unable to get timely
    care, while VA employees manipulated appointment wait lists to
    hide the fact that the VA could not ensure that veterans would
    get the care that they needed and deserved. The manipulation of
    wait lists contributed to the deaths of veterans who needed
    more urgent care.
        It is unacceptable that Americans who defended our Nation
    and who sacrificed so much have died or become more ill because
    they were not able to rely on the VA for critical care. That
    veterans face delays or outright denial of care is particularly
    disturbing given that it was a result of VA employees
    deliberately cooking the books.
        To make matters worse, in the aftermath of the wait list
    scandal, the VA failed to sufficiently hold those who
    manipulated the wait lists responsible. That is an additional
    bureaucratic failure in its own right, and, I know, something
    that this Committee has been working diligently on.
        That is why I introduced bipartisan legislation with
    Senator McCaskill to improve accountability at the VA by
    requiring the Secretary to claw back bonuses that were paid to
    VA employees who were involved in the manipulation of the
    electronic wait lists. Because the VA used wait time metrics as
    a factor in determining employees bonuses, some VA employees
    were incentivized to use secret wait lists to artificially
    inflate compliance data in order to maximize their bonus
    payments to themselves.
        According to one report, employees at the Phoenix VA
    hospital, ground zero for this scandal, received approximately
    $10 million in bonuses since 2011, while simultaneously using
    secret wait lists to hide delays for our veterans who needed
    care. In addition, the VA paid out $278 million in bonuses in
    2013, millions of which went to employees in facilities being
    investigated for wait list manipulations.
        It is outrageous that VA employees who deliberately
    manipulated wait lists receive bonus pay at taxpayers' expense.
    They must be held fully accountable for their misconduct,
    starting with repaying the funds they wrongly received, which
    this bipartisan legislation that you will be considering today
    would require.
        This legislation directs the VA Secretary to require
    employees who received bonuses in 2011 or later to repay those
    bonuses if they were involved in the deliberate manipulation of
    electronic wait lists. The employees' superiors are also
    required to pay back bonuses if they knew or reasonably should
    have known of their subordinates' purposeful omission of the
    names of veterans from the actual wait lists. The bill requires
    the VA Secretary to identify these VA employees through reports
    issued by the Department's Inspector General.
        I am encouraged that the House of Representatives has
    passed similar legislation. It is important that we work
    together to bring more accountability to the VA and individuals
    who are responsible for wrongdoing.
        I appreciate this Committee's attention and dedication to
    solving the problems at the VA and thank the Chairman for
    holding this hearing and inviting me to participate. I urge you
    all--I appreciate very much the Chairman's leadership and
    working with Senator McCaskill--to pass this legislation to
    make sure that individuals who perpetrated the wait list fraud
    are held fully accountable and that they pay back the bonuses
    that they should have never received.
        So, I thank the Chairman for allowing me to be before this
    important Committee today.
        Chairman Isakson. I thank the distinguished Senator from
    New Hampshire for bringing an important issue of accountability
    to the Committee. As those who have attended our other
    committee meetings since the first of January know, we are all
    about accountability, and there is a lot that needs to be held
    accountable at the VA.
        Your bill will be considered in a markup which we will
    schedule for the month of June, if I am not mistaken. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Bowman. That is correct.
        Chairman Isakson. In fact, all the bills that are addressed
    today will be brought up at a markup in June. We appreciate
    your attention to it and appreciate your being here today and
    what you are doing on Armed Services.
        Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Isakson. Since there are no other Members present
    and I am in charge, I am not going to raise any questions,
    because I want to give everybody a chance to have their say.
        Senator Shaheen, you are recognized.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE

        Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I also
    appreciate the opportunity to be here. Like Senator Ayotte, I
    am downstairs in the Defense markup, but really appreciate this
    chance to testify in support of the Charlie Morgan Military
    Spouses Equal Treatment Act.
        As I think you know, Mr. Chairman, this bill is named for
    Charlie Morgan, who was a former soldier and Chief Warrant
    Officer in both the New Hampshire and Kentucky National Guards.
    She was a military veteran with a career that spanned more than
    30 years.
        I first met Charlie in 2011. She had just gotten back from
    a deployment in Kuwait and, sadly, had just been diagnosed for
    the second time with breast cancer. She was very concerned
    about the well-being of her wife, Karen, and their young
    daughter. And, Charlie, as the result of her diagnosis, became
    an outspoken critic of the Defense of Marriage Act, which at
    that time prohibited her spouse and their daughter from
    receiving the benefits she had earned during her service.
        Sadly, Charlie did not live to see the Supreme Court
    overturn the Defense of Marriage Act. And, despite the Court's
    ruling, there are still provisions in the U.S. Code that deny
    equal treatment to LGBT families. One of those provisions is
    Title 38 regarding veterans' benefits.
        Today, if you are a gay veteran living in a State like New
    Hampshire that recognizes same sex marriage, your family is
    entitled to all the benefits you have earned through your
    military service. However, a veteran with the exact same
    status, the same service record, same injuries, same family
    obligations, but living in a State that does not recognize same
    sex marriage, will receive less.
        There are even reports that the VA has required gay
    veterans to pay back benefits because their State will not
    recognize their marriage. In one case that we were notified
    about, a young woman, 50 percent disabled, a combat veteran,
    was initially approved for benefits for her wife and child.
    Later, however, she was told by the VA that because her home
    State did not recognize same sex marriages, she was not only
    going to lose a portion of her benefits, but the VA was also
    going to withhold her future payments until the excess funds
    had been recovered. Perhaps for her the most frustrating part
    of that story is knowing that if she had moved across the
    border to another State, she would never have had a problem.
        I hope that this Committee and in the Senate we can work
    together to correct this injustice. These young men and women
    have volunteered to serve in our Armed Forces. They have
    volunteered to put themselves in harm's way, to leave their
    families and their homes to travel around the world to protect
    our way of life, and yet they are being deprived of the very
    rights that they have risked their lives to protect.
        I think it is just unfair, Mr. Chairman, and we have an
    opportunity now to end this kind of discrimination against our
    veterans, to make our Nation a fairer place, and I hope the
    Committee will approve this legislation and that we can move it
    to a vote as soon as possible.
        Thank you very much.
        Chairman Isakson. Thank you, Senator Shaheen.
        For your information as well as those in attendance today,
    we received a request, as is normal, from the Senate Armed
    Services Committee (SASC) for an amendment that does the exact
    same thing to be considered--to waive our jurisdictional right
    and let them consider it in SASC. Because this is a posthumous
    or retirement veterans' issue, it really should be handled by
    the Veterans' Affairs Committee, which last year voted, as you
    know, on this very same proposal.
        Senator Shaheen. Right.
        Chairman Isakson. So, out of no discourtesy to you, but out
    of respect for the Committee jurisdiction, I told the Armed
    Services Committee that we would maintain our jurisdiction and
    your bill will come up at the same time Senator Ayotte's bill
    comes up in June.
        Senator Shaheen. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I
    appreciate that explanation. We were just trying to cover as
    many bases as possible.
        Chairman Isakson. The Senator from New Hampshire is always
    trying to cover every base possible--in fact, both of them are.
    [Laughter.]
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
        Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
        Senator Shaheen. We try.
        Chairman Isakson. The State is lucky to have two great
    women leading them. We appreciate you being here very much.
        If you wish to be excused, you may. Thank you very much for
    your time. And, do you know if Senator Gillibrand is coming or
    not?
        Senator Shaheen. She was just getting ready to offer a
    number of amendments, so I would suspect she will be here, but
    it may be a few minutes.
        Chairman Isakson. I will let her break in on our panel.
        Thank you all very much for being here.
        Senator Shaheen. Thank you.
        Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
        Chairman Isakson. Let us go ahead and set up for panel one
    and take advantage of the time. [Pause.]
        I would like to welcome the panelists for our first panel.
    We will open the testimony. I hope you will limit your remarks
    to approximately 5 minutes. We will have a clock running and it
    will be indicated on the clock in front of you. I will
    introduce the panel all together at once and then we will go,
    starting with Mr. Kurta, though Mr. Kurta, you are sitting out
    of order from what I have written down. We will start with you,
    Mr. Kurta, but I am going to introduce you in another order.
        David R. McLenachen, Acting Deputy Under Secretary for
    Disability Assistance, Department of Veterans Affairs,
    accompanied by Renee--all right, Renee----
        Ms. Szybala. Szybala.
        Chairman Isakson. An Isakson guy ought to be able to
    pronounce that, but I am sorry----
        Ms. Szybala. I ignore the dead letters.
        Chairman Isakson. When it is ``i''s and ``z''s, people go
    crazy.
        Ms. Szybala. And ``s'' and ``z''s.
        Chairman Isakson. Anthony Kurta, Deputy Assistant Secretary
    of Defense, Military Personnel Policy, Department of Defense.
        And, Teresa W. Gerton, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
    Policy, Veterans Employment and Training Service, Department of
    Labor.
        We appreciate you being here today and we will start with
    Mr. Kurta.

       STATEMENT OF ANTHONY KURTA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF
     DEFENSE, MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

        Mr. Kurta. Good afternoon, Chairman Isakson. I am pleased
    to appear before you today to discuss proposed benefits
    legislation. In order to be expeditious, I will focus my
    comments only on those proposals that will affect the
    Department of Defense.
        The G.I. Bill Fairness Act of 2015 would consider active
    duty performed under the authority of Title X, U.S. Code
    Section 12301(h), as qualifying active duty for the purposes of
    Post-9/11 G.I. Bill education benefits. DOD supports this
    provision.
        Section 101 of the 21st Century Veterans Benefits Delivery
    Act would deny servicemembers the ability to complete the
    Transition Assistance Program online. Another provision
    requires the Secretary of Defense, in collaboration with the
    Secretaries of Labor, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs,
    to establish a process to allow a representative of a Veterans
    Service Organizations to be present at any portion of the TAP
    program relating to the submission of claims to the Department
    of Veterans Affairs. Finally, this section contains a
    requirement to provide a report on the participation of VSOs in
    TAP.
        DOD does not support the provisions in this section for a
    number of reasons, but primarily because we do not feel they
    would improve current processes and will create an undue
    burden. More specific details which explain the Department's
    position are provided in my written statement.
        You also asked for comments on the Military Compensation
    and Retirement Modernization Commission Report. First, I would
    like to take the opportunity to commend the Departments of
    Labor, Education, and Veterans Affairs for their expert
    collaboration and I especially thank the Commission for its
    superb cooperation. DOD agrees with the Commission's objectives
    of safeguarding education benefits for servicemembers by
    reducing redundancy and ensuring the fiscal sustainability of
    education programs.
        We support sunsetting both the Montgomery G.I. Bill and the
    Reserve Education Assistance Program with a view to maintaining
    the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill as the primary education benefit. The
    Commission and DOD also agree that in order to keep faith with
    our servicemembers, we must grandfather those who already have
    the benefits that will be phased out.
        However, without data enabling DOD to understand the
    potential effects on retention, and the Joint Chiefs are
    particularly concerned on this point, we do not support the
    recommendation to sunset the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill Housing
    Stipend for dependents or the recommendation to increase the
    eligibility requirements for transferring Post-9/11 G.I. Bill
    benefits.
        DOD also does not support the recommendation that would
    prohibit ex-servicemembers from receiving unemployment while
    simultaneously receiving G.I. Bill benefits, as we believe this
    would have unintended consequences.
        Finally, DOD supports the Commission's objectives of better
    preparing servicemembers for transition to civilian life, but
    we do not believe that additional legislation is required. We
    have significantly redesigned the Transition Assistance Program
    over the last 2 years and implemented the Vow to Hire Heroes
    Act legislation enacted in 2011. These modifications
    significantly address the Commission's objectives.
        Detailed comments on both recommendations are provided in
    my written statement.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I thank you for
    the opportunity to appear here with you today and look forward
    to any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Kurta follows:]
      Prepared Statement of Anthony Kurta, Deputy Assistant Secretary of
         Defense, Military Personnel Policy, U.S. Department of Defense
        Good afternoon, Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and
    esteemed Members of the Committee. I am pleased to appear before you
    today to discuss pending benefits legislation.
        Per the agenda for today's hearing, the Committee requested the
    Department of Defense's view on a series of bills and proposals. Since
    both funding and administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill fall under the
    purview of the Department of Veterans Affairs, I will focus my comments
    only on those proposals that will affect the Department of Defense and
    generally defer to the Departments of Labor and Veterans Affairs to
    provide responses on those with no significant DOD impacts. This
    statement will follow the order on the printed agenda.
                      s. 602, gi bill fairness act of 2015
        The Committee asked for comments on S. 602, ``GI Bill Fairness Act
    of 2015,'' a bill that would consider active duty performed under the
    authority of title10, United States Code, section 12301(h), as
    qualifying active duty for the purposes of Post-9/11 GI Bill Education
    Benefits. Reserve component members wounded in combat are often given
    orders to active duty under this provision to receive authorized
    medical care; to be medically evaluated for disability; or to complete
    a required health care study. However, as currently written, section
    3301(1)(B), of title 38, United States Code, does not include active
    duty performed under 12301(h) as qualifying active duty for purposes of
    Post-9/11 GI Bill educational assistance.
        Currently, when a member of the Reserve Component on active duty
    sustains an injury due to military operations, the Servicemember is not
    discharged, but remains in the Selected Reserve on active duty under
    12301(h), title 10, United States Code. None of the time spent in
    recovery under this status is qualifying time for purposes of the Post-
    9/11 GI Bill. In this case, the Servicemember would return to Selected
    Reserve status with less qualifying time than those who served an
    entire period of active duty without an intervening injury. As a
    result, the Servicemember would not receive an educational benefit
    equivalent to the other members of his or her cohort. In effect, the
    Servicemember is being penalized for having being wounded or injured in
    theater. This legislation would correct this inequity by simply
    extending eligibility for the Post-9/11 GI Bill to service under
    12301(h).
        DOD recognizes the inequity of not including this active duty time
    for purposes of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, and has included a
    provision similar to this bill in our FY 2016 legislative proposal
    package as section 514. However, the DOD proposal would include only
    active duty performed after enactment. In contrast, S. 602 would be
    retroactive; categorizing all duty performed under 12301(h) since
    September 11, 2001, as qualifying active duty for purposes of the Post-
    9/11 GI Bill. We estimate that approximately 5,000 Reserve Component
    members performed active duty under 12301(h) each year since September
    11, 2001. Accordingly, we believe that S. 602 would generate an
    additional cost to the Department of Veterans Affairs. Given that both
    the funding and administration of the Post-9/11 GI Bill fall under the
    purview of the Department of Veterans Affairs, we would defer to that
    agency to determine the costs and effects of the bill on their
    Department.
            draft bill, 21st century veterans benefits delivery act
        Section 101, ``Improvements To Transition Assistance Program,'' of
    this bill states that an individual subject to the requirement under
    subsection (c), which requires participation in the program ( defined
    as employment assistance, job training assistance and other
    transitional services), may not satisfy such requirement by
    participating in the program carried out under this section solely
    through an Internet Web site. The Department of Defense does not
    support that portion of the language. The Administration should have
    flexibility in determining what methods and tools, to include Internet
    Web sites, should be used to deliver transition services to eligible
    transitioning Servicemembers and their spouses. This language would
    take away the flexibility to make such decisions. The Department of
    Defense and our interagency partners have agreed to allow
    Servicemembers who are subject to a short-notice separation or are
    geographically remote and isolated, to use the Department of Veterans
    Affairs Benefits module (part of full Transition Assistance Program
    (TAP) virtual curriculum) and the Department of Labor Employment
    Workshop through Joint Knowledge Online, which connects to other
    Department of Defense systems for mandatory attendance tracking.
    Implementation of this restrictive language would end that initiative
    and the millions of dollars invested in our on-line curriculum would be
    lost. The Department of Defense must have the flexibility to meet the
    needs of our Servicemembers; we strongly advocate that the Congress not
    deprive the Secretary of Defense of this flexibility.
        Section 101 also requires the Secretary of Defense, in
    collaboration with the Secretaries of Labor, Homeland Security, and
    Veterans Affairs to establish a process to allow a representative of a
    Veteran Service Organization (VSO) to be present at the benefits
    portion of the program under Section 1144, title 10, United States Code
    (the program under Section 1144 pertains to employment assistance, job
    training assistance and other transitional services) relating to the
    submission of claims to the Secretary of Veteran Affairs. The
    Department of Defense does not support this provision. The Department
    of Defense recognizes and appreciates the tremendous support VSOs
    provide to Servicemembers who file claims with the VA. However, we
    believe that process best occurs outside the standard TAP classroom in
    a one-on-one private conversation between the Servicemember and the VSO
    representative. The redesigned TAP focus is to make Servicemembers
    career ready by meeting Career Readiness Standards. The preparation
    occurs in the classroom with the delivery of Transition GPS (Goals,
    Plans, Success) curriculum. The Department of Veterans Affairs provides
    two robust classes: VA Benefits I, which focus on VA Benefits, and VA
    Benefits II, which introduces Servicemembers to, and walks them
    through, the process of filing a claim for Department of Veterans
    Affairs benefits. It would be more appropriate at the conclusion of VA
    Benefits II briefing for the Department of Veterans Affairs instructor
    delivering the briefing to introduce the VSO representative who can
    assist Servicemembers with their claims. The VSO representative can
    connect with Servicemembers at the end of the class. At that time the
    VSO representative can set up one-on-one appointments to assist those
    Servicemembers planning to file a claim.
        Finally, the Department of Defense opposes that provision in
    section 101 that requires the Secretary of Defense to provide a report
    to Congress that assesses the compliance of facilities of the
    Department of Defense per the Secretary's Memorandum title
    ``Installation Access and Support Services for Nonprofit Non-Federal
    Entities'' dated December 23, 2014. This would require a tracking and
    reporting system to capture how many Veterans and Military Service
    organizations and other Nonprofit Non-Federal Entities are on each
    installation and the number of installations in compliance with the
    Secretary's Memorandums. This will pose a significant burden/hardship
    upon the installation staff and cause a diversion of already limited
    and stretched transition resources from the primary mission of the
    redesigned TAP.
      military compensation and retirement modernization commission report
        The committee requested input from the Department of Defense on the
    legislative proposals in two of the recommendations in the recently
    released Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission
    Report: Recommendation 11: Safeguard education benefits for
    Servicemembers by reducing redundancy and ensuring the fiscal
    sustainability of education programs, and Recommendation 12: Better
    prepare Servicemembers for transition to civilian life by expanding
    education and granting states more flexibility to administer the Jobs
    for Veterans State Grants Program. I would like to state up front that
    the Department of Defense worked closely with the Commission in
    evaluating its recommendations, and included experts from the
    Departments of Labor and Veterans Affairs, as well as the Office of
    Management and Budget, in our working groups designed to formulate
    DOD's response to the President.
    Recommendation 11: Safeguard education benefits for Servicemembers by
            reducing redundancy and ensuring the fiscal sustainability of
            education programs
        The Department agrees with the Commission's objectives of
    safeguarding education benefits for Servicemembers by reducing
    redundancy and ensuring the fiscal sustainability of education
    programs. We support sun-setting both the Montgomery GI Bill (chapter
    30 of title 38, United States Code, also known as MGIB-AD) and the
    Reserve Education Assistance Program (REAP), with a view to maintaining
    the Post-9/11 GI Bill as the primary education benefit. The Commission
    and the Department also agree that in order to keep faith with our
    Servicemembers, we must grandfather those who already have the benefits
    that will be phased out. Further, the Department and the Commission
    agree on how best to achieve the objective of collecting, tracking, and
    reporting on Servicemember, Veteran, or dependent education related
    data. The Commission recommends requiring that Tuition Assistance be
    used for ``professional development'' courses only. DOD has already
    issued policy guidance to the Services to this effect where all
    signatories of the Department of Defense Education Partnership
    Memorandum of Understanding must provide an approved education plan for
    each Tuition Assistance recipient. This plan provides the roadmap for
    their educational goal development to include supporting courses.
        The Department would like to ensure that once the MGIB-AD sunsets,
    Servicemembers will be able to combine Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits with
    Tuition Assistance (commonly referred to as ``top up'') using the same
    ``top up'' usage method as currently available under the MGIB-AD.
        The Department submitted a legislative proposal to Congress on May
    1 that would sunset the MGIB-AD and REAP, grandfather Servicemembers
    currently receiving those benefits, and provide a ``top up'' benefit.
        Without data enabling the Department of Defense to understand the
    potential effects on retention, the Department of Defense--and the
    Joint Chiefs are particularly concerned on this point--cannot support
    the recommendation to sunset the Post-9/11 GI Bill housing stipend for
    dependents, or the recommendation to increase the eligibility
    requirements for transferring Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. To this end,
    the Department of Defense has sponsored a study with RAND National
    Defense Research Institute to review education benefits for
    Servicemembers, including the benefits of the Post-9/11 GI Bill and
    their impacts on retention (with a focus on impacts of
    transferability). We anticipate the study to be completed in the summer
    of 2016, allowing the Department of Defense to evaluate the potential
    effects of altering the features of the benefit on retention.
        Lastly, the Department of Defense does not support the
    recommendation that would prohibit ex-Servicemembers from receiving
    unemployment compensation (as authorized under chapter 85, subchapter
    II, of title 5, United States Code) while simultaneously receiving the
    living stipend as part of Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. State-level
    unemployment compensation programs already provide guidance regarding
    students' status within the workforce and eligibility to receive
    benefits (as detailed in Congressional Research Service Report,
    (Unemployment Compensation (UC): Eligibility for Students Under State
    and Federal Laws, dated September 7, 2012). Eliminating concurrent
    receipt of educational benefits and Unemployment Compensation for Ex-
    Service Members (UCX) may be viewed as penalizing Servicemembers who
    are pursuing courses at trade/vocational schools to acquire skills/
    certifications that would make them more employable. This Commission
    recommendation could also have a disproportionate impact on Reserve
    Component Servicemembers because both separated and currently serving
    Reserve Component members may be affected.
    Recommendation 12: Better prepare Servicemembers for transition to
            civilian life by expanding education and granting states more
            flexibility to administer the Jobs for Veterans State Grants
            Program.
        The Department of Defense supports the Commission's objective of
    better preparing Servicemembers for transition to civilian life, but
    does not believe additional legislation is required. The Department of
    Defense has significantly re-designed the Transition Assistance Program
    over the last 2 years and implemented the VOW to Hire Heroes Act
    legislation enacted in 2011; these modifications significantly address
    the Commission's objectives.
        The Department of Defense, together with the Departments of Labor
    and Veterans Affairs, has developed Transition Assistance Program
    curriculum to support Servicemembers' educational goals. The Accessing
    Higher Education (AHE) track focuses transitioning Servicemembers on
    selecting an institution of higher education and achieving academic
    success. The Career Technical Training (CTT) track focuses on
    credentials earned during military service and higher education in
    select technical training schools and fields. The Department of Defense
    concurs with mandatory participation in the AHE or CTT track, for
    Servicemembers who identify an interest in attending college or a
    career technical school after separation, with authorized exemptions.
    Contrary to the re-designed Transition Assistance Program, the
    Commission proposal does not enable transition planning according to
    the individual goals and needs of each transitioning Servicemember. The
    proposed legislation is a ``one size fits all'' approach and does not
    take into consideration the numerous other education benefits active
    duty Servicemembers have, or are eligible for, prior to separating,
    such as tuition assistance and the GI Bills. These other benefits
    require an education plan and individual counseling with an education
    professional. Furthermore, the proposed legislation does not appear to
    consider how it might affect those Servicemembers who enter on active
    duty with a college diploma, credential and/or license.
        The Department of Veterans Affairs is developing a module
    specifically focused on the benefits, eligibility, and transferability
    of the Post-9/11 GI Bill as part of military career deliberations. The
    goals of the Commission's recommendation will be met as a result of
    Servicemembers attending the new Department of Veterans Affairs
    training for Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits prior to developing an
    education program plan or using their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.
    Expected implementation date for the new Post-9/11 GI Bill training is
    October 1, 2015.
        The Commission's legislative proposal to review and evaluate the
    core Transition Goals, Plans, Success (GPS) curriculum is aligned with
    the current Department of Defense and TAP Inter-agency Evaluation
    Strategy. New legislation is not required because an interagency annual
    review is a pillar of the Office of Management and Budget approved TAP
    Evaluation Strategy. This strategy requires analysis of metrics and
    benchmark performance criteria to enable the Department of Defense to
    provide programs and support to meet the needs of transitioning
    Servicemembers. It necessitates an annual review of all curriculum
    components in concert with participant feedback to ensure curriculum
    and training resources support the achievement of career readiness
    standards and career success post military service.
        The Transition Assistance Program Inter-agency Curriculum Working
    Group, comprised of members from each of the TAP Inter-agency partners,
    the Military Services, and relevant subject matter experts, conducts an
    annual review of the Transition GPS curriculum. The Working Group
    develops changes based on content relevancy, participant assessments,
    Servicemember feedback, roles and responsibilities of partners,
    facilitator recommendations, and best practices and lessons learned as
    a result of staff assistance visits to installations. Proposed
    curriculum revisions are vetted and approved by the TAP Inter-agency
    Executive Council.
                  department of defense legislative proposals
        The Committee requested input on several of the Legislative
    Proposals included in the Department of Defense National Defense
    Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 submission.
    Sec. 514. Inclusion of duty performed by a reserve component member
            under a call or order to active duty for medical purposes as
            qualifying active duty time for purposes of Post-9/11 GI Bill
            education benefits.
        Similar to S. 602, ``GI Bill Fairness Act of 2015,'' this section
    includes active duty performed under the authority of title10, United
    States Code, section 12301(h), as qualifying active duty for the
    purposes of Post-9/11 GI Bill Education Benefits. As pointed out in my
    discussion of that bill, the Department's proposal differs in that it
    is not retroactive to September 11, 2001. The Department of Defense
    urges adoption of this proposal.
    Sec. 522. Retention of entitlement to educational assistance during
            certain additional periods of active duty
        This section would amend chapter 1606, (Montgomery GI Bill-Selected
    Reserve (MGIB-SR) of title 10, United States Code. Specifically this
    proposal would add 10 United States Code 12304a and 12304b to the
    existing list of authorities in 10 United States Code16131 under which
    a servicemember may regain lost payments. Further, both 10 United
    States Code 12304a and 12304b would be added to 10 United States Code
    16133 under which a Servicemember may regain lost entitlement time for
    MGIB-SR benefits. The Department of Defense urges adoption of this
    proposal.
    Sec. 542. Update to involuntary mobilization duty authorities exempt
            from 5-year limit under the Uniformed Services Employment and
            Reemployment Rights Act.
        This section would amend section 4312 of title 38, United States
    Code, to update the involuntary mobilization authorities exempted from
    the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)
    5-year limit. Adding references to sections 12304a and 12304b of title
    10 will complete the list of current involuntary mobilization
    authorities exempted from that limit in section 4312 of title 38.
        USERRA, codified in 38 U.S.C. 4301-4335, protects individuals
    performing, or who have performed or will perform, uniformed service
    from employment discrimination on the basis of their uniformed service.
    It provides for prompt reemployment when they return to civilian life.
    The Department of Defense urges adoption of this proposal.
    Sec. 545. Required provision of pre-separation counseling.
        This section would amend section 1142 and 1144 of Title 10, United
    States Code to authorize Pre-separation, Employment Assistance and all
    other transition services prescribed in Department of Defense policy by
    the Secretary of Defense for ALL Active Component Servicemembers of the
    Armed Forces and for ALL National Guard and Reserve Servicemembers
    called or ordered to active duty or full-time operational support after
    completion of their first 180 continuous days or more under Title 10,
    United States Code, (other than for full-time training duty, annual
    training duty, and attendance, while in the active military service, at
    a school designated as service school by law or by the Secretary of the
    military department concerned), whose discharge or release from active
    duty is anticipated as of a specific date. The Department of Defense
    urges adoption of this proposal.
    Sec. 1041. Transfer of functions of the Veterans' Advisory Board on
            Dose Reconstruction to the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs and
            Defense.
        This section would repeal the statutory requirement for a Federal
    Advisory Committee Act (FACA) advisory board for the Radiation Dose
    Reconstruction Program. The Department of Defense believes that this
    advisory board has achieved its objectives, and that its functions can
    now be more effectively conducted through an interagency effort rather
    than through a FACA advisory board. The Department of Defense urges
    adoption of this proposal.
        The final item on the agenda is a discussion of provisions derived
    from a series of pending bills. I will comment only on those that
    affect the Department of Defense.
                     s. 151. filipino veterans promise act.
        This bill would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a
    process to determine whether individuals claiming certain service in
    the Philippines during World War II are eligible for certain benefits
    despite not being on the so-called ``Missouri List.'' The Department
    does not support any further legislation concerning determining service
    eligibility for the WWII Filipino Guerilla Veterans. The Army has a
    program in place that is verifiable. This program, due to its thorough
    processes, is the foundation for the Army's position, past and current,
    for making final service determinations for eligibility. The Army
    maintains complete confidence that the records and files completed in
    1948 provide the best and most accurate determinations that could have
    been made from that time until today.
           s. 743. honor america's guard-reserve retirees act of 2015
        This bill amends title 38, United States Code, to recognize the
    service in the reserve components of the Armed Forces of certain
    persons by honoring them with status as Veterans under law, and for
    other purposes. The Department recognizes and values the service of
    these Servicemembers who qualify for a Reserve retirement, but may not
    be Veterans, but opposes identifying these Servicemembers with any type
    of honorary Veteran status. Although S. 743 defines this honorary
    status to be without eligibility for Veteran's benefits from the
    Department of Veterans Affairs, the Department of Defense believes this
    honorary status would create confusion about eligibility for the
    Department of Veterans Affairs benefits among the current and former
    Servicemembers and could increase the potential for error in
    determining benefits entitlements.

        Mr. Chairman this concludes my statement. As has been stated
    numerous times in hearings before this Committee, post service
    education benefits have been a cornerstone of our military recruiting
    and retention efforts since 1985, and a major contributor to the
    continued success of the All-Volunteer Force. Money for education has
    been and remains at the forefront of reasons cited by young Americans
    for joining the military. From its inception we fully expected the
    Post-9/11 GI Bill to continue to have this impact and we are seeing
    that happen in the form of sustained recruiting success. I thank you
    and the members of this Committee for your outstanding and continuing
    support of the men and women of the Department of Defense. We look
    forward to working closely with you to strengthen the All-Volunteer
    force through a balanced program of recruiting, retention, and vital
    education benefits, and to recognize the service of our Veterans.
                                     ______

     Response to Posthearing Questions Submitted by Hon. Johnny Isakson to
      Hon. Anthony Kurta, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Military
                  Personnel Policy, U.S. Department of Defense
        Question 1.  Chairman Maldon noted at the hearing on Pending
    Benefits Legislation that the Department of Defense (DOD) had asked the
    Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission for more
    flexibility in managing the force profile and that the Commission
    thought extending the service requirement for transfer of education
    benefits would help mid-career retention. Would DOD clarify its desire
    for flexibility in shaping the force and its position on using transfer
    of education benefits for retention?
        Response. The Department of Defense, in general, supports increased
    flexibility in managing our force profiles. However, the Department did
    not ask the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization
    Commission (MCRMC) to modify the service requirement for transfer of
    education benefits nor do we believe the proposed modification enhances
    our flexibility in force management. The Department's position was
    accurately articulated in Mr. Kurta's oral statement (as well as his
    written statement and detailed comments), ``that without data enabling
    the Department of Defense to understand the potential effects on
    retention, the Department of Defense--and the Joint Chiefs are
    particularly concerned on this point--cannot support the recommendation
    to sunset the Post-9/11 GI Bill housing stipend for dependents, or the
    recommendation to increase the eligibility requirements for
    transferring Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.''

        Question 2.  If funding of transferred education benefits moves
    from the Department of Veterans Affairs budget to the Defense budget,
    how would that impact DOD's use of transferability as a retention tool?
        Response. The Department sees no benefit to moving funding for
    transferability to the DOD. The DOD is currently studying the effect on
    retention of the transferability benefit and is therefore not able to
    evaluate the impact of a change in budgetary responsibility. Although
    enacted as a recruiting and retention tool, transferability provides
    Servicemembers who earned the veteran benefit of the Post-9/11 GI Bill
    during this time of armed conflict, and choose to remain in service, an
    alternative means to use that earned benefit.

        Question 3.  You noted in your written testimony that DOD has
    proposed legislation to sunset certain education benefits and to
    specify benefit levels under a ``Top Up'' benefit for the Post-9/11 GI
    Bill. If enacted, how would this ``Top Up'' change the benefits
    servicemembers receive from combining Tuition Assistance and the Post-
    9/11 GI Bill under current rules?
        Response. Currently there is no ``Top-Up'' provision in law for the
    Post-9/11 GI Bill. This legislative proposal would add such a provision
    and align the benefits usage rate for active duty members using the
    Post-9/11 GI Bill to supplement tuition assistance (TA) with the
    current ``Top-Up'' usage rate for the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB).

        Question 4.  You noted in your testimony that DOD sponsored a RAND
    study on education benefits for military personnel. Please provide
    copies of any documentation outlining the scope of that work and the
    objectives.
        Response. As Requested--documentation outlining the scope of RAND's
    work and the objectives is attached. A final report is not scheduled
    until September 2016. [Privileged and Confidential, for use by U.S.
    Government only and cannot be printed in the public record.]

        Chairman Isakson. For Senator Brown's benefit, Senator
    Blumenthal cannot be here today. Most of our Members are in
    SASC, so I went ahead and accelerated the testimony of the non-
    committee members who had submitted bills. We are now going to
    panel one and two.
        I am going to make a comment before I go to Ms. Gerton,
    just to make sure I understood what you said. You are talking
    about terminating those benefits for education in a prospective
    nature, meaning future volunteers of the military, not past
    volunteers who already are eligible, is that correct?
        Mr. Kurta. What we are saying, sir, is those that currently
    have either the Reserve Education Assistance Program or the
    Montgomery G.I. Bill benefits and are taking those, that they
    be allowed to use those benefits if they have earned them vice
    having to switch to the G.I. Bill.
        Chairman Isakson. They are grandfathered in.
        Mr. Kurta. Grandfathered in.
        Chairman Isakson. I just wanted to make sure that was
    clear.
        Mr. Kurta. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Isakson. Ms. Gerton, thank you for being here. We
    welcome your testimony.

     STATEMENT OF TERESA W. GERTON, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR
        POLICY, VETERANS EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE, U.S.
                          DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

        Ms. Gerton. Good afternoon, Chairman Isakson and
    distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to participate in today's hearing.
        I would also like to thank the Commission members who were
    assigned to develop the Military Compensation and Retirement
    Modernization Report for all their hard work. The Commission's
    questions provoked our thought and action, and we have already
    taken many steps that are in line with their recommendations.
    It is our hope that the Committee will consider the progress we
    have made and the changes we have implemented. We are always
    open to working with Committee Members to provide additional
    technical assistance.
        I would also like to take a moment to thank you, Mr.
    Chairman, as co-author of the Workforce Innovation and
    Opportunity Act of 2014, for your longstanding dedication to
    America's workers. This landmark legislation will be
    instrumental in improving our Nation's workforce system,
    including services for veterans provided at the nearly 2,500
    American Jobs Centers across the country.
        In its report, the Commission seeks to expand
    servicemembers' knowledge of educational benefits, improve
    Transition GPS, and improve the Jobs for Veterans State Grants
    Program, or JVSG. We support those aims, as well. DOL believes
    it has already met the intent of two of the sub-
    recommendations.
        DOD, VA, and DOL review the core curriculum for Transition
    GPS annually to ensure the current curriculum most accurately
    addresses the needs of transitioning servicemembers. Our first
    evaluation in 2014 included analysis of results from the Web-
    based Transition GPS participant survey instrument developed by
    DOD and input from various stakeholders. Based on this
    evaluation, the Department revised the TAP Employment Workshop
    curriculum to include Equal Employment Opportunity and
    Americans with Disability Act content, the Veterans Employment
    Center content, and enhanced information on the Workforce
    Investment Act training, Dislocated Worker training, and
    Registered Apprenticeship Programs.
        The fiscal year 2015 curriculum review began in April 2015.
    Any changes that may result from this review should be
    available to transitioning servicemembers this November, and we
    would be happy to brief the Committee on any changes that we
    make.
        We believe we have also met the intent of the sub-
    recommendation to permit State Departments of Labor or their
    equivalent agencies to work directly with State Veterans
    Affairs Directors or Offices to coordinate implementation of
    the JVSG Program.
        The Department's standards of performance for each of our
    Directors for Veterans Employment and Training, or our State
    DVETs, specifies in their duties and responsibilities section
    that each DVET must coordinate with State Departments of Labor
    and other agencies, including State Departments of Veterans
    Affairs. Moreover, current law does not prohibit interagency
    coordination with respect to JVSG, including coordination with
    the VA. In fact, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act
    supports greater interagency cooperation.
        Regarding the sub-recommendation that DOL should track
    American Jobs Center staff attendance at jobs fairs, the
    Department is focused on developing and tracking outcome-
    related metrics in accordance with the Workforce Innovation and
    Opportunity Act. These metrics will be based on participant
    outcomes instead of staff activity, and we believe this is the
    right approach in measuring the effectiveness of our programs.
        The Department supports the intent of the recommendation
    that DOD, VA, and DOL should submit a one-time joint report on
    the challenges employers face when seeking to hire veterans.
    However, we have already gathered much of this information from
    employers and are working with our agency partners to address
    many of those challenges.
        In addition, given the volume of information and the
    workload required to obtain additional data, we recommend that
    we work with our agency partners to develop the information you
    believe would be helpful in assessing issues related to
    barriers to employers who wish to hire veterans. We can then
    meet with you to share the requested material.
        We at the Department of Labor remain committed to our
    Nation's veterans and we look forward to working with the
    Committee to ensure the continued success of our efforts. We
    also praise the hard work of the Commission in developing their
    recommendations.
        We welcome each of you to come and see the services we
    provide for veterans at an American Jobs Center in your State
    or the improvements we have made to the TAP class for
    transitioning servicemembers on military installations around
    the country.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you again
    for the opportunity to testify today, and I am happy to take
    any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Gerton follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Teresa W. Gerton, Deputy Assistant Secretary for
     Policy, Veterans' Employment and Training Service, U.S. Department of
                                     Labor
                                  introduction
        Good afternoon, Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and
    distinguished Members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity
    to participate in today's hearing. I would like to thank the
    Commission, which was assigned to develop the Military Compensation and
    Retirement Modernization (MCRMC) Report, for all its hard work. As
    President Obama indicated, the report's recommendations ``represent an
    important step forward in protecting the long-term viability of the
    All-Volunteer Force,'' and ``improving quality-of-life for
    servicemembers and their families.'' As Deputy Assistant Secretary for
    Policy at the Veterans' Employment and Training Service (VETS) at the
    Department of Labor (DOL or Department), I appreciate the opportunity
    to discuss the Department's views on pending legislation and proposals
    impacting veterans.
        The Department's charter, for over 100 years, has been to ``foster,
    promote and develop the welfare of working people, to improve their
    working conditions, and to enhance their opportunities for profitable
    employment.'' The Department's collective resources and expertise are
    integrated with state workforce agencies and local communities to meet
    the employment and training needs of all Americans, including veterans,
    transitioning servicemembers, members of the National Guard and
    Reserve, their families, and survivors.
        As the Federal Government's leader on veterans' employment, VETS
    ensures that the full resources of the Department are readily available
    for veterans and servicemembers seeking to transition into the civilian
    labor force. VETS' mission is focused on four key areas: (1) preparing
    veterans for meaningful careers; (2) providing them with employment
    resources and expertise; (3) protecting their employment rights; and,
    (4) promoting the employment of veterans and related training
    opportunities to employers across the country.
        While this hearing addresses several legislative proposals, the
    Department limits its remarks to those legislative proposals that have
    a direct impact on the programs administered by the Department,
    specifically, the ``21st Century Veterans' Benefits Delivery Act,'' and
    the legislative proposals based on MCRMC Recommendations 11 and 12.
            s. 1203, ``21st century veterans benefits delivery act''
        The draft Senate bill, ``21st Century Veterans Benefits Delivery
    Act,'' seeks to amend title 38 of the U.S. Code, to improve the
    processing by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) of claims for
    benefits under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
    and for other purposes.
    Section 101
        Section 101 would amend section 1144 of title 10 of the U.S. Code,
    adding subsection (f) to require modifications to the VA's eBenefits
    Web site, which would ensure that servicemembers, veterans, and their
    spouses have access to the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) online
    curriculum, as administered by the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of
    Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Secretary of
    Veterans Affairs. The Department believes that it has already met the
    intent of this proposal. DOL has worked with the Department of Defense
    (DOD) and VA to host the TAP curriculum online. Currently,
    servicemembers and their spouses are able to access the entire
    Transition GPS curriculum online via DOD's Joint Knowledge Online, the
    VA's eBenefits Web site, or DOL VETS' Web site. Section 101 also
    states: ``An individual subject to a requirement under subsection (c)
    may not satisfy such requirement by participating in the program
    carried out under this section solely through an Internet Web site.''
    DOL appreciates the intent of this statement and notes that the vast
    majority of servicemembers who attend our employment workshop do so in
    person. We defer to DOD on the impact of this requirement, and to the
    VA on the inclusion of our Veterans Service Organization (VSO)
    partners.
                  legislative proposals from the mcrmc report
        The Administration has indicated its general support for
    Recommendations 11 and 12, in the Presidential Memorandum issued on
    April 30, 2015. As DOL recently shared with the staff of this
    Committee, the Department has initiated many of the Commission's
    recommendations prior to publication of the Commission's report.
    Accordingly, any legislative proposal to implement these
    recommendations should be modified to reflect these recent VETS program
    improvements, as well as to ensure continued access to unemployment
    benefits for servicemembers who need income support, while availing
    themselves of educational and training programs.
    Recommendation 11
        Recommendation 11, ``Safeguard education benefits for
    Servicemembers by reducing redundancy and ensuring the fiscal
    sustainability of education programs,'' is primarily directed toward
    DOD and VA, who administer a myriad of benefit programs for
    servicemembers. The Department generally supports Recommendation 11.
    The sub-recommendation of interest to DOL would prevent individuals
    receiving housing stipend benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill from
    simultaneously receiving unemployment insurance (UI). This sub-
    recommendation would amend title 5 of the U.S. Code, at section 8525,
    on Unemployment Compensation for Ex-Servicemembers (UCX), as well as
    any other regulation and policy pertaining to section 8525. The MCRMC's
    companion legislative proposal to implement this sub-recommendation is
    contained in Section 1109, Unemployment Insurance.
        To achieve the goal of safeguarding education benefits of
    servicemembers, it is necessary that servicemembers have adequate
    income support to take advantage of these programs. The Department
    would like to ensure equitable treatment for servicemembers compared to
    their civilian counterparts, who also are seeking UI benefits for
    approved training. The receipt of other benefits, such as the Post-9/11
    GI Bill retraining incentives or housing benefits, currently do not
    prevent veterans from taking advantage of the same provision given to
    regular (civilian) unemployment insurance (UI) recipients when training
    is approvable/approved under state law.
        Providing income support for servicemembers eligible for UCX helps
    to ensure that their retraining leads to employment in a more
    sustainable labor market after specialized military service.
    Unemployment insurance is designed to provide benefits for workers to
    enable their successful transition to new employment; it is
    affirmatively intended to provide for costs of living beyond housing.
    Additionally, State UI laws contain requirements regarding an
    individual's availability for work, which entails being ready, willing,
    and able to work. This includes the requirement that a claimant
    receiving UCX register with the public employment service. Thus,
    receipt of UCX benefits connects veterans to reemployment services
    through the public workforce system, which in conjunction with
    receiving GI Bill benefits, helps to more effectively support the
    individual's successful reentry to civilian employment. Therefore,
    preventing GI Bill beneficiaries from receiving unemployment
    compensation may be a detriment to their successful reemployment. While
    the Department does not favor Section 1109 as currently drafted, we
    would be willing to continue discussions with Congress and the
    Department of Veterans Affairs on this issue.
    Recommendation 12
        Recommendation 12, ``Better prepare Servicemembers for transition
    to civilian life by expanding and granting states more flexibility to
    administer the Jobs for Veterans State Grants Program,'' seeks to
    expand servicemembers' knowledge of educational benefits, improve
    Transition GPS, and improve the Jobs for Veterans State Grant (JVSG)
    program. The Department generally supports Recommendation 12; for
    purposes of this hearing, the Department will focus specifically on the
    following sub-recommendations:

        (1) The Congress should require DOD, VA, and DOL to review and
    report on the core curriculum for Transition GPS to reevaluate if the
    current curriculum most accurately addresses the needs of transitioning
    Servicemembers. This report should include review of the current
    curriculum; the roles and responsibilities of each Department and
    whether they are adequately aligned; and the distribution of time
    between the three departments in the core curriculum and whether it is
    adequate to provide all information regarding important benefits that
    can assist transitioning Servicemembers. This review should indicate
    whether any of the information in the three optional tracks should be
    addressed instead in mandatory tracks. It should also include a
    standard implementation plan of long-term outcome measures for a
    comprehensive system of metrics. This review should identify any areas
    of concern regarding the program and recommendations for addressing
    those concerns.
        DOL notes that processes already in place address the intent of
    this proposal, and would be pleased to share our curriculum review
    results with this Committee. The MCRMC's companion legislative proposal
    to implement this sub-recommendation is contained in Section 1204,
    Transition GPS Program Core Curriculum Review and Report.
        In Fiscal Year (FY) 2014, as a member of the TAP Senior Steering
    Curriculum Working Group with DOD and VA, the Department began an
    annual curriculum evaluation. This evaluation included analysis of
    results from the web-based Transition GPS participant survey instrument
    developed by DOD, and input from various stakeholders. Based on this
    evaluation, the Department revised the TAP Employment Workshop
    curriculum to include Equal Employment Opportunity and Americans with
    Disability Act content, the Veterans Employment Center content, and
    enhanced information on Workforce Investment Act training, dislocated
    worker training, and Registered Apprenticeship programs.
        The FY 2015 curriculum review began in April 2015, in conjunction
    with the TAP Senior Steering Curriculum Working Group's planned review
    of the entire Transition GPS curriculum. Any changes that may result
    from this review should be available to transitioning servicemembers in
    November 2015. Additionally, the Department will address this sub-
    recommendation before the TAP Senior Steering Group for consideration
    in the FY 2015 curriculum review.

        (2) The Congress should amend the relevant statutes to permit state
    departments of labor or their equivalent agencies to work directly with
    state Veterans Affairs directors or offices to coordinate
    implementation of the JVSG program.
        DOL believes that it has already met the intent of this proposal,
    which is contained in Section 1202, Coordination with State Departments
    of Labor and VA. The process this proposal seeks to implement is
    already in place; the Department's standards of performance for each of
    the Directors for Veterans' Employment and Training (DVET) specifies in
    the ``duties and responsibilities'' section that each DVET must
    coordinate with state Departments of Labor and Veterans Affairs.
    Moreover, current law does not prohibit inter-agency coordination with
    respect to JVSG, including coordination with the VA (title 38, U.S.
    Code 4102A(b)(3)). In fact, the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity
    Act, passed in 2014, supports greater inter-agency cooperation. The
    public workforce system is designed to be a decentralized network of
    strong partnerships at the Federal, state, local, and regional levels.

        (3) DOL should require One-Stop Career Centers to track the number
    of job fairs their employees participate in and the number of veterans
    they connect with at each job fair. This information should be included
    in each state's annual report to the DOL, and provided to the Congress.
        The Department does not find American Job Center (AJC) staff
    attendance at Transition GPS Employment Workshops, job fair
    participation rates, or the number of transitioning servicemembers and
    veterans with whom JVSG staff interact to be measures reflective of
    meaningful outcomes data. Tracking these activities may, in fact,
    result in the unintended consequence of incentivizing the quantity of
    interactions between AJC staff and veterans, rather than the quality
    and effectiveness of the services AJC staff provide to veterans. Also,
    this proposal, contained in Section 1201, Job Fair Participation Rates,
    seeks to amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998, which has been
    superseded by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA),
    making it difficult to interpret how it would be executed.
    Nevertheless, this proposal is not in keeping with Section 116 of WIOA
    (which replaced section 136 of WIA), which establishes common
    performance accountability measures that apply across the Department's
    core employment and training programs to assess the effectiveness of
    States and local areas in achieving positive outcomes for individuals
    served by related programs. While JVSG is not a core program under
    WIOA, 38 U.S.C. 4102A requires JVSG performance measures to ``be
    consistent with'' those under WIOA. The Departments of Labor and
    Education on April 16 jointly issued a WIOA Notice of Proposed
    Rulemaking seeking public comments on such topics as performance
    accountability to ensure that Federal employment and training program
    investments report on common performance indicators such as how many
    individuals, including veterans, entered employment and their median
    wages. The Departments welcome comments from this Committee on our
    proposal.

        (4) The Congress should require a one-time joint report from DOD,
    VA, and DOL to the Senate and House Committees on Armed Services and
    Veterans' Affairs regarding the challenges employers face when seeking
    to hire veterans. The report should identify the barriers employers
    face gaining information identifying veterans seeking jobs. It should
    also include recommendations addressing barriers for employers and
    improving information sharing between Federal agencies that serve
    veterans and separating Servicemembers, so they may more easily connect
    employers and veterans. The report should also review the Transition
    GPS career preparation core curriculum and recommend any improvements
    that can be made to better prepare Servicemembers trying to obtain
    private-sector employment.
        The Department supports the intent of this recommendation and looks
    forward to continuing our work with our Federal partners on this
    important issue. However, we already have gathered much information
    from employers on their challenges in hiring veterans. This is provided
    in recent reports, such as the 2014 RAND report titled, ``Lessons from
    the 100,000 Job Mission.'' We already are working with agency partners
    to address many of those challenges. In addition, and given the volume
    of information and the workload required to obtain additional data, we
    recommend that we work with our agency partners to develop the
    information you believe would be helpful in assessing issues related to
    barriers to employers hiring veterans. We then can meet with you to
    share the requested material.
                     other legislation before the committee
        The Committee also is considering legislation to encourage
    companies that contract with the VA to hire veterans. DOL's Office of
    Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) enforces a provision of
    the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act of 1974 (VEVRAA),
    38 U.S.C. 4212, which prohibits covered Federal contractors and
    subcontractors from discriminating in employment against protected
    veterans. This provision also requires these contractors to take
    affirmative action to employ, and advance in employment, protected
    veterans. Since the legislation addresses contracting preferences of
    the VA, DOL defers to that agency with respect to this bill, and defers
    to other agencies affected by the remaining pieces of legislation.
                                   conclusion
        We at the Department of Labor remain committed to our Nation's
    veterans and we look forward to working with the Committee to ensure
    the continued success of our efforts. The Department lauds the hard
    work the Commission placed into their recommendations. It is our hope
    that the Committee will consider the modifications we have provided and
    is open to working with the Committee members to provide technical
    assistance. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and Members of the
    Committee, this concludes my statement. Thank you again for the
    opportunity to testify today. I am happy to answer any questions that
    you may have.

        Chairman Isakson. Thank you for your testimony and your
    kind comments about WIOA. I am glad we finally were able to get
    that done.
        Mr. McLenachen, accompanied by Renee Szybala. Mr.
    McLenachen.

    STATEMENT OF DAVID R. McLENACHEN, ACTING DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY
    FOR DISABILITY ASSISTANCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS;
        ACCOMPANIED BY RENEE SZYBALA, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL

        Mr. McLenachen. Chairman Isakson and Members of the
    Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present VA's views
    on several bills that are pending before the Committee.
        As you just mentioned, Mr. Chairman, I am accompanied by
    Ms. Szybala. She is our Assistant General Counsel. She will
    address any questions that you may have regarding S. 627 on
    revocation of bonuses.
        I want to first thank the Committee for the opportunity to
    testify concerning the Cost-Of-Living Adjustment bill, which
    will ensure the value of veterans' and survivors' benefits will
    keep pace with consumer prices next year. We support this bill.
        We are also pleased to support S. 270, which would revise
    the definition of a spouse for purposes of VA benefits.
    However, we would like to work with the Committee to address a
    few technical concerns about the language used in the bill.
        We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the bill that
    addresses preferences for small businesses owned by veterans,
    our DIC Program for survivors, and other matters. VA fully
    supports Section 101, which would provide greater flexibility
    and protection for service-disabled veteran-owned small
    businesses, their employees, and surviving spouses.
        As to Section 102, VA supports the intent behind this
    provision, which would provide a period of transition for
    survivors of business owners who die in the line of duty, but
    we have a few concerns and would welcome the opportunity to
    work with the Committee to address them.
        Although we are committed to improving our processing of
    claims based on military sexual trauma, we believe that the
    reporting provisions in Section 202 and 203 are unnecessary
    because VA has provided the information requested and can
    provide any additional information that the Committee may need
    without legislation.
        We also believe that the provisions of Section 204, which
    would prescribe a pilot program to assess the feasibility of
    expediting DIC claims, is unnecessary, as VA has already
    achieved significant improvement in processing these claims, to
    include reducing the backlog by 87 percent and average
    processing time to 70 days.
        Turning to Section 301, VA appreciates continued
    Congressional support for meeting the needs of veterans whose
    remains are unclaimed. While we are concerned that the study
    mandated by this section may be unnecessary or premature in
    light of VA's recent efforts to ensure that these veterans
    receive a proper burial, we would appreciate the opportunity to
    work with the Committee on the requirements for any mandated
    study.
        Finally, we cannot support Section 401, which would expand
    the definition of veteran to include individuals with 20 years
    or more of non-regular military service. In VA's view, this
    would be an unreasonable and confusing departure from active
    service as the foundation for veteran status.
        We thank Senators Heller and Casey for their efforts
    related to the draft 21st Century Veterans Benefits Delivery
    Act. VA strongly supports Section 103 of this draft bill, which
    would allow for greater use of video conference hearings by the
    Board of Veterans Appeals. In addition, VA supports Section
    211, which would address the increased demand for examinations
    and allow for flexibility in utilizing non-VA examiners, while
    ensuring that veterans receive quality compensation and pension
    examinations. We also have no objection to spinning a joint
    report with DOD on health records interoperability.
        Despite the support, we have a few concerns with other
    sections of the draft bill. We believe that Section 101 is
    unnecessary because VA already provides access to the TAP
    curriculum through e-benefits and allows VSO representatives to
    attend.
        While VA appreciates the intent of Section 301, which is to
    facilitate records retrieval, we already have extensive ongoing
    initiatives with other Federal agencies to improve response
    times to VA's requests for records.
        Regarding Sections 205, 207, 209, and 210, we believe that
    the required reports would be duplicative of information that
    VA already provides in its budget, through regular updates to
    Congress, and in Monday morning workload reports. We will work
    with the Committee to add any information to these reports that
    the Committee believes is necessary, but we can accomplish this
    without legislation.
        Although we support appeals reform, we do not support
    Section 102 of the draft bill, as we believe it would not
    result in a faster resolution of appeals for veterans who are
    waiting far too long for a final decision on their claims.
    While some efficiency may result if more appellants filed their
    notices of disagreement within 180 days, the multi-step open
    record appeal process that precludes efficient resolution of
    appeals for all veterans would not change. We would like to
    work with the Committee to consider the entire appeals process
    and institute reforms that will result in overall increased
    efficiency for all veterans.
        Mr. Chairman, at this time, the Department does not have
    views on several bills that are the subject of today's hearing.
    We will continue to coordinate views on these matters and, upon
    completion, submit them to the Committee sufficiently in time
    before the markup that you mentioned this morning.
        This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. We are happy to
    entertain any questions you or other Members of the Committee
    may have. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. McLenachen follows:]
        Prepared Statement of David R. McLenachen, Acting Deputy Under
    Secretary For Disability Assistance, Veterans Benefits Administration,
                      U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
        Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am
    pleased to be here today to provide the views of the Department of
    Veterans Affairs (VA) on pending legislation affecting VA's programs,
    including the following: S. 270, S. 602, S. 627, the ``21st Century
    Veterans Benefits Delivery Act,'' the ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-
    Living Adjustment Act of 2015,'' and a draft bill concerning VA small
    business contracting, Veterans benefits, and burial matters. We will
    separately provide views on the following bills: S. 681; sections 202,
    203 and 206 of the ``21st Century Veterans Benefits Delivery Act;'' the
    bill associated with legislative proposals from the Report of the
    Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission; the bill
    associated with legislative proposals from the Department of Defense
    (DOD); and sections 201 and 206 of the consolidated bill related to
    bills from the 113th Congress. Accompanying me this afternoon is Renee
    Szybala, Assistant General Counsel.
                                     s. 270
        S. 270, the ``Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act
    of 2015,'' would amend sections 101 and 103 of title 38, United States
    Code, to revise the definition of spouse for purposes of Veterans'
    benefits. Specifically, the bill would remove from the definition of
    ``surviving spouse'' under section 101(3) the phrase ``of the opposite
    sex,'' and amend the definition of ``spouse'' under section 101(31) to
    include an individual if the marriage of the individual is ``valid
    under the laws of any State.'' The bill would define ``State'' in the
    same way that term is defined in section 101(20) of title 38, United
    States Code, for purposes of title 38, but include also ``the
    Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.'' Additionally, S. 270
    would amend section 103(c) of title 38, United States Code, removing
    the limitation that a marriage shall be proven as valid ``according to
    the law of the place where the parties resided at the time of the
    marriage or the law of the place where the parties resided when the
    right to benefits accrued.'' The bill would amend section 103(c) to
    follow the revised definition of ``spouse'' in section 101(31).
        VA generally supports the passage of this bill but has some
    concerns with the bill's language. Current section 101(3) and section
    101(31) of title 38, United States Code, limit the definitions of
    ``surviving spouse'' and ``spouse,'' respectively, for purposes of
    title 38 to only a person of the opposite sex of the Veteran. The
    language in these provisions is substantively identical to the language
    in section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, 1 U.S.C. Sec. 7, which the
    Supreme Court, in United States v. Windsor, 133 S. Ct. 2675 (2013),
    declared to be unconstitutional because it discriminates against
    legally-married, same-sex couples. On September 4, 2013, the President
    directed VA to cease enforcement of section 101(3) and section 101(31)
    of title 38, United States Code, to the extent that those provisions
    preclude the recognition of legally-valid marriages of same-sex
    couples. Pursuant to the President's direction, VA is no longer
    enforcing the title 38 provisions to the extent that they require a
    ``spouse'' or a ``surviving spouse'' to be a person of the opposite
    sex. Therefore, VA supports this bill as a means to amend the law to be
    consistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Windsor and the
    President's directive. In particular, VA supports the removal of the
    requirement that a ``spouse'' or a ``surviving spouse'' be a person of
    the opposite sex from subsections (3) and (31) of section 101.
        Further, current section 103(c) of title 38, United States Code,
    requires VA to apply the law of the place in which the couple resided
    at the time of the marriage or where they resided when the rights to
    benefits accrued, resulting in unwarranted disparate treatment in the
    delivery of Federal benefits. For example, VA may be precluded from
    recognizing a Veteran's same-sex marriage even though DOD, which is not
    subject to the limitation of section 103(c), may have recognized the
    marriage as valid based on a place-of-celebration standard while the
    Veteran was in service. The ``valid under the laws of any State''
    standard in S. 270 would promote greater consistency in the
    administration of Federal benefits based on same-sex marriages.
        However, VA has some concerns with the new standard. Under the
    provisions of this bill as currently drafted, the marriage has to be
    ``considered valid under the laws of any State.'' The phrase
    ``considered valid under the laws of any State'' may have unintended
    consequences. For example, this bill language may require VA to
    recognize a purported common law marriage in a State that does not
    recognize common law marriages, as long as any State would recognize
    the relationship as a valid common law marriage. Presumably, Congress
    does not intend to eliminate any and all differences between States
    regarding the types of relationships that would constitute a valid
    marriage for purposes of administering Federal benefits, but, rather,
    intends to obtain greater consistency regarding recognition of same-sex
    marriages. Furthermore, this bill language may require VA to determine
    whether a foreign marriage is valid based on a multitude of laws and
    would require an in-depth legal analysis that is not appropriate in the
    adjudication of claims.
        Costs related to this bill are not available at this time.
                                     s. 602
        S. 602, the ``GI Bill Fairness Act of 2015,'' would amend the term
    ``active duty'' under chapter 33 of title 38, to include certain time
    spent receiving medical care from DOD as qualifying active duty service
    performed by members of the Reserve and National Guard. Under this
    bill, individuals ordered to active duty under section 12301(h) of
    title 10, United States Code, to receive authorized medical care; to be
    medically evaluated for disability or other purposes; or to complete a
    required DOD health care study, would receive credit for this service
    under the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
        S. 602 would apply as if it were enacted immediately after the
    enactment of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008,
    Public Law 110-252.
        VA defers to DOD regarding the change to qualifying active duty
    service under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, with the observation that a
    similar proposal was submitted by the Administration for inclusion with
    the 2016 NDAA, with an exception that this bill would be retroactive.
    Currently, individuals with qualifying active duty service of at least
    30 continuous days who are honorably discharged due to a service-
    connected disability become eligible for 100 percent of the Post-9/11
    GI Bill benefit. Because service under 10 U.S.C. Sec. 12301(h) does not
    meet the current definition of active duty, Guard and Reserve members
    with such service who are discharged under these circumstances do not
    automatically qualify for 100 percent of the benefit. If enacted, this
    change would allow for an increase in benefits from the 40-90 percent
    benefit tier up to the 100 percent level, and the change would be
    retroactive to as early as August 1, 2009.
        The proposed change to the eligibility criteria under the Post-9/11
    GI Bill would require VA to make changes to the type of data that are
    exchanged between DOD and VA through the VA/DOD Identity Repository
    (VADIR) and displayed in the Veteran Information System (VIS). In
    addition, new rules would need to be programmed into the Post-9/11 GI
    Bill Long Term Solution (LTS) in order to calculate eligibility based
    on service under section 12301(h) and to allow for benefit payments
    retroactive to 2009. VA estimates that it would need one year from
    enactment of S. 602 to complete these changes.
        VA estimates that administrative cost requirements associated with
    the enactment of S. 602 would be insignificant. The Department is still
    evaluating benefit and resource costs related to this legislation.
                                     s. 627
        S. 627 would require VA to identify VA employees who, during fiscal
    years 2011 through 2014, contributed to the purposeful omission of the
    name of one or more Veterans from a VA medical facility's electronic
    wait list or supervisors of these employees who knew or reasonably
    should have known about the employee's actions and received a ``bonus''
    in part as a result of the purposeful omission. The bill would further
    require VA to identify these responsible individuals within 180 days
    after VA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) submits a report to
    Congress about inappropriate scheduling practices at VA medical
    facilities, if such report is based on investigations carried out by
    the OIG in calendar year 2014. VA would also be required, after
    providing notice and an opportunity for a hearing, to order that these
    individuals repay bonuses that they received as a result of a
    purposeful omission. An individual who has been ordered to repay a
    bonus may appeal that order to the Merit Systems Protection Board
    (MSPB).
        VA has numerous constitutional concerns about the bill, including
    concerns arising under the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, the Due
    Process Clause, and the Ex Post Facto Clause. VA also has policy and
    procedural concerns about the bill. VA looks forward to working with
    the Committee in order to address these concerns.
        S. 627 is a bill for which there is no precedent. No Federal
    agencies have the authority to require employees to repay past monetary
    performance awards or bonuses that were given in accordance with law
    and without conditions or contractual obligations. This legislation
    threatens a number of core constitutional rights related to property
    and due process that the Framers of the Constitution sought to
    protect,--and the bill would likely give rise to litigation. VA
    believes that employees should not be penalized by legislation that
    attaches new penalties on the basis of past behavior and transactions
    and should have protection from deprivation of life, liberty, or
    property without due process of law. Further, performance awards are
    intended to be a key tool in motivating employees to provide
    outstanding service to Veterans, and the value of that tool should not
    be undermined by measures that would limit employee confidence in the
    performance award system. By singling out VA employees for punitive
    measures, the legislation would likely serve to demoralize a workforce
    dedicated to serving Veterans and hurt VA's efforts to recruit and
    retain high performing employees. VA is concerned that S. 627, if
    passed, would give rise to numerous lawsuits challenging the
    constitutionality of the provisions and VA's actions pursuant to it.
        For these reasons, and as further explained in the below
    discussion, VA strongly opposes this legislation.
        Implementing the bill, as written, would also be impractical for
    the government. First, the bill does not define the term ``bonus'' as a
    ``performance award.'' In accordance with law, VA does not give
    ``bonuses,'' but rather awards an employee based on his or her
    performance. Second, the type of hearing that needs to be provided to
    an employee before a repayment order must be issued is not specifically
    addressed in the bill. While the bill states that hearings ``shall be
    conducted in accordance with regulations relating to hearings
    promulgated by the Secretary under chapter 75 of title 5, United States
    Code,'' chapter 75 references various types of hearings. Consequently,
    the type of hearing that would need to be provided is not addressed in
    the bill. Third, the bill raises a number of tax questions. For
    example, should the Department of Treasury treat a repayment of a
    performance award as adjustments to prior year compensation, even
    though the award may have been paid a number of years ago? This tax
    question, while not addressed in the bill, would have to be addressed.
        As noted above, the bill would raise a number of constitutional
    issues. First, the bill may run afoul of the Fifth Amendment's Takings
    Clause by requiring employees to return property that was given to them
    unconditionally by the government. The Takings Clause prevents the
    government from ``depriving private persons of vested property rights
    except for a ``public use'' and upon payment of ``just compensation.''
    Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 266 (1994). In the case of
    an employee who has already been paid a bonus by the government, that
    bonus is the property of the employee. The taking would occur if the
    government collects the bonus or even a portion thereof without just
    compensation. See, e.g., Nat'l Educ. Bd. v. Ret. Bd. of R.I., 172 F.3d
    22, 30 (1st Cir. 1999) (the Takings Clause protects ``[p]ension
    payments actually made to retirees'').
        The bill may have a ``retroactive effect'' by increasing an
    employee's liability for conduct that preceded the enactment of the
    bill. See Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280 (a bill has a ``retroactive
    effect'' if it ``increases a party's liability for past conduct''). ``
    `The retroactive aspects of legislation, as well as the prospective
    aspects, must meet the test of due process, and the justifications for
    the latter may not suffice for the former.' '' Pension Ben. Guar. Corp.
    v. R.A. Gray & Co., 467 U.S. 717, 730 (1984) (quoting Usery v. Turner
    Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 16-17 (1976)). Under the bill, an
    employee must repay a bonus based on conduct that preceded the
    enactment of the bill. Because the employee was not aware that he or
    she would have to repay the bonus at the time of the conduct, the bill
    may have a ``retroactive effect'' and may implicate the employees' due
    process rights to fair notice. See BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. Gore, 517
    U.S. 559, 570 (1996) (``Elementary notions of fairness enshrined in our
    constitutional jurisprudence dictate that a person receive fair notice
    not only of the conduct that will subject him to punishment, but also
    of the severity of the penalty that a State may impose.'').
        Finally, the legislation may raise constitutional Ex Post Facto
    Clause concerns. The Ex Post Facto Clause prohibits laws that ``impose[
    ] a punishment for an act which was not punishable at the time it was
    committed; or impose[ ] additional punishment to that then
    prescribed.'' Cummings v. Missouri, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 277, 325-26
    (1867). In Hiss v. Hampton, 338 F. Supp. 1141, 1147-48 (D.D.C. 1972), a
    three judge panel in the U.S. District Court for the District of
    Columbia held that a law denying payment of pensions to former
    employees who falsely testified with respect to Government service was
    an ex post facto law as it pertained to the conduct of those employees
    which preceded the passage of the law. Id. at 1148. According to the
    court in Hiss, ``[t]he proper function of [law] is to guide and control
    present and future conduct, not to penalize former employees for acts
    done long ago.'' Id. at 1148-49; see also Peugh v. United States, 133
    S. Ct. 2072, 2085 (2013) (noting that ``the [Ex Post Facto] Clause
    ensures that individuals have fair warning of applicable laws and
    guards against vindictive legislative action''). As currently drafted,
    the bill could potentially raise some of the same issues as the
    provision at issue in Hiss.
        Based on the implementation concerns discussed above, VA is unable
    to determine the costs for this bill. It is important to note, however,
    that apart from costs to investigate and identify the employees, as
    required by the bill, VA would also have to expend significant
    resources to conduct a hearing prior to issuing a repayment order,
    defend its repayment order before the MSPB, and assist the Department
    of Justice in defending the order before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
    the Federal Circuit.
                                    s. 1203
    Section 101
        Section 101 would amend section 1144 of title 10, United States
    Code, by adding a subsection (f) to require modifications to the
    eBenefits Internet Web site to ensure that members of the Armed Forces
    and spouses have access to the online curriculum for the Transition
    Assistance Program (TAP), as administered by the Secretary of Labor,
    the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the
    Secretary of Veterans Affairs. This would require modifications to the
    eBenefits Web site to host the online version of the TAP curriculum.
        Section 101 would also note Congress' intent that the Secretary of
    Labor, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security,
    and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs collaborate to establish a
    process by which Veterans service organizations may be present for TAP
    to provide assistance relating to submitting claims for VA compensation
    and pension benefits. The Secretary of Defense would be required to
    submit a report to Congress, no later than one year after enactment, on
    Veterans service organizations' participation.
        VA does not support the provision to make TAP curriculum available
    through eBenefits because it is unnecessary. This provision would be
    duplicative as all TAP curriculums are already available through the
    Joint Knowledge Online (JKO) system, which is linked to eBenefits. VA
    modified the eBenefits portal in fiscal year 2014 to provide an online
    version of VA's section of the TAP curriculum through the JKO link and
    facilitate online participation for transitioning Servicemembers and
    their families. This functionality lends support to geographically
    dispersed Servicemembers as well as members of the National Guard and
    Reserve components who are required to participate in VA's section of
    TAP. Additionally, the online version is beneficial to Veterans and
    their families if they would like to access the curriculum after
    separation.
        VA defers to DOD and the Department of Homeland Security for
    comment on proposed new 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1144(f)(2) regarding the
    feasibility of ensuring that Servicemembers who are mandated to fulfill
    the TAP requirement can satisfy the requirement through means other
    than solely through an internet Web site.
        VA does not oppose having a process for Veterans service
    organizations (VSOs) to provide assistance relating to submittal of
    claims for VA compensation and pension benefits. VA currently provides
    an overview of the services offered by VSOs and introduces VSOs to
    Servicemembers during our benefits briefings. VA also partners with
    VSOs at military installations where they are co-located or available
    to offer claims support.
        VA defers to DOD on subsection (b)(2) of section 101 of the bill
    regarding the requirement to provide a report on participation of VSOs
    in TAP.
        VA estimates that no administrative or benefit costs to VA would be
    associated with enactment of this section.
    Section 102
        Section 102 would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5104, which provides
    requirements for VA's decisions and notices of decision. It would
    require VA, upon issuing a decision for a claimed benefit, to also
    explain the procedure for obtaining review of the decision and explain
    the benefits of filing a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) within 180 days.
        VA does not support this section. While VA appreciates the effort
    to encourage individuals to file their NOD in a timelier manner, VA
    would prefer a more definitive legislative solution.
        As noted in VA's Strategic Plan to Transform the Appeal Process,
    which was provided to the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs on
    February 26, 2014, the current process provides appellants with
    multiple reviews in the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and one
    or more reviews at the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board), depending
    upon the submission of new evidence or whether the Board determines
    that it is necessary to remand the matter to VBA. The multi-step, open-
    record appeal process set out in current law precludes the efficient
    delivery of benefits to all Veterans. The longer an appeal takes, the
    more likely it is that a claimed disability will change, resulting in
    the need for additional medical and other evidence and further
    processing delays. As a result, the length of the process is driven by
    how many cycles and readjudications are triggered. VA's FY 2016 budget
    request includes legislative proposals to improve the appeal process,
    and VA has collaborated with Veterans service organizations to develop
    an optional fully developed appeals pilot program. VA continues to work
    with Congress and other stakeholders to explore long-term solutions
    that would provide Veterans the timely appeals process they deserve.
        VA estimates that GOE costs associated with this section would be
    insignificant.
    Section 103
        Section 103 would allow for greater use of video conference
    hearings by the Board, while still providing Veterans with the
    opportunity to request an in-person hearing if they so elect. This
    provision would apply to cases received by the Board pursuant to
    Notices of Disagreement submitted on or after the date of the enactment
    of the Act. VA fully supports section 103 as drafted, as this provision
    would potentially decrease hearing wait times for Veterans, enhance
    efficiency within VA, and better focus Board resources toward issuing
    more final decisions.
        The Board has historically been able to schedule video conference
    hearings more quickly than in-person hearings, saving valuable time in
    the appeals process for Veterans who elect this type of hearing. In FY
    2014, on average, video conference hearings were held 124 days sooner
    than in-person hearings before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a Regional
    Office Travel Board hearing. Section 103 would allow both the Board and
    Veterans to capitalize on these time savings by giving the Board
    greater flexibility to schedule video conference hearings than is
    possible under the current statutory scheme.
        Historical data also shows that there is no statistical difference
    in the ultimate disposition of appeals based on the type of hearing
    selected. Veterans who had video conference hearings had an allowance
    rate for their appeals that was virtually the same as Veterans who had
    in-person hearings; however, Veterans who had video conference hearings
    were able to have their hearings scheduled much more quickly. Section
    103 would continue to allow Veterans who want an in-person hearing the
    opportunity to specifically request and receive one.
        Enactment of section 103 could also lead to an increase in the
    number of final decisions for Veterans as a result of increased
    productivity at the Board. Time lost due to travel and time lost in the
    field due to appellants failing to show up for their hearing would be
    greatly reduced, allowing VLJs to better focus their time and resources
    on issuing final Board decisions for Veterans.
        Major technological upgrades to the Board's video conference
    hearing equipment over the past several years leave the Board well-
    positioned for the enactment of section 103. This includes the purchase
    of high-definition video equipment, a state-of-the art digital audio
    recording system, implementation of a virtual hearing docket, and
    significantly increased video conference hearing capacity. Section 103
    would allow the Board to better leverage these important technological
    enhancements.
        We observe that section 103 would redesignate current subsection
    (f) of section 7107 of title 38, United States Code, as subsection (g);
    however, the draft legislation does not revise the reference to current
    subsection (f) in subsection (a) of section 7107 of title 38, United
    States Code. We suggest revising subsection (a)(1) to state: ``Except
    as provided in paragraphs (2) and (3) and in subsection (g), each case
    received pursuant to application for review on appeal shall be
    considered and decided in regular order according to its place upon the
    docket.''
        In short, section 103 would result in shorter hearing wait times,
    focusing Board resources on issuing more decisions, and providing
    maximum flexibility for both Veterans and VA, while fully utilizing
    recent technological improvements. VA therefore strongly endorses this
    proposal.
    Section 201
        We defer to the U.S. Government Accountability Office.
    Section 204
        We defer to the VA Office of the Inspector General.
    Section 205
        Section 205 would require VA to submit an annual report to Congress
    on the capacity of VBA to process claims during the next one-year
    period. The reports would include the number of claims VBA expects to
    process; number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees who are
    dedicated to processing such claims; an estimate of the number of
    claims a single FTE can process in a year; an assessment of whether VA
    requires additional or fewer FTE to process such claims during the next
    one-year, five-year, and 10-year periods; a description of actions VA
    will take to improve claims processing; and an assessment of actions
    identified in previous reports required by this section. VA would be
    required to make the report publicly available on the internet.
        VA believes this legislation is unnecessary as VA's current budget
    reports address these issues adequately, and such budget reports are
    available publicly.
        No administrative costs would be associated with enactment of this
    section.
    Section 207
        Section 207 would require VA to submit to Congress a report on the
    Department's progress in implementing the Veterans Benefits Management
    System (VBMS). The report would include (1) an assessment of current
    VBMS functionality; (2) recommendations from VA's claims processors,
    including Veterans Service Representatives, Rating Veterans Service
    Representatives, and Decision Review Officers, on legislative or
    administrative actions to improve the claims process; and (3)
    recommendations from VSOs that use VBMS on legislative or
    administrative actions to improve VBMS. VA would be required to submit
    a report within 180 days after enactment of the bill and no less
    frequently than once every 180 days thereafter until three years after
    enactment.
        VA believes this legislation unnecessary as VA currently provides
    regular updates to Congress regarding implementation and functionality
    of VBMS; quarterly briefings to the House and Senate Committees on
    Veterans' Affairs, advising them of the status of VBA operations and
    updates to VBMS; and a quarterly report to the House and Senate
    Appropriations Committees summarizing recent and upcoming changes to
    VBMS. Additional reporting requirements are not needed at this time.
        VA estimates GOE costs associated with this section would be
    insignificant.
    Section 208
        Section 208 would require VA to submit, within 90 days of enactment
    of this Act, a report to Congress detailing plans to reduce the
    inventory of claims for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) and
    pension benefits.
        VA does not support section 208. It is unnecessary as VBA continues
    to make significant improvements in processing DIC and pension claims.
        VA's Pension and Fiduciary (P&F) Service, which oversees
    administration of the DIC and pension programs, reviewed the policies
    and procedures applicable to the adjudication of these claims to
    identify obstacles to timely processing. P&F Service determined that
    certain claim processing steps are redundant and appropriate for
    elimination. On March 22, 2013, P&F Service issued Fast Letter 13-04
    (FL 13-04), Simplified Processing of Dependency and Indemnity
    Compensation (DIC) Claims, which instructs VBA field staff on the
    procedures to follow when processing DIC claims. P&F Service is working
    on similar guidance for pension claims.
        On July 7, 2014, VA began automating payment of DIC to certain
    surviving spouses of Veterans rated totally disabled at death. As part
    of VA's notice of death process, VA systems determine if the deceased
    Veteran met the requirements of section 1318 and if the surviving
    spouse met the relationship requirements. If the system determines that
    both requirements are met it will automatically process and award DIC
    under section 1318 within six days of notification of the Veteran's
    death.
        Based on these changes and an aggressive workload management plan
    in VA's Pension Management Centers, VA has reduced its pending DIC
    claim inventory by 55 percent from its peak of 19,100 claims to 8,600
    claims, and backlog by 87 percent from its peak of 8,800 to 1,000.
    Veterans pension inventory was reduced by 68 percent from its peak of
    36,100 to 11,400, and backlog by 96 percent from its peak of 14,500 to
    600. Average processing time for DIC has improved by 100 days from its
    peak of 168 days to 68 days, while maintaining 99 percent accuracy.
        No benefits or GOE costs would be associated with enactment of this
    section.
    Section 209
        This section would require VA to include in its Monday Morning
    Workload Report (MMWR) the number of claims received by regional
    offices and pending decisions, disaggregated by the number of claims
    that have been pending for more than 125 days; the number of claims
    that have been pending for 125 days or less; and the number of claims
    that do not require a decision concerning a disability rating. This
    section would also require VA to include in the MMWR, the sections
    entitled ``Transformation'' and ``Aggregate,'' the number of partial
    ratings assigned. Additionally, this section would require VA to
    include in the MMWR a report on the total number of fully developed
    claims (FDC) received by regional offices that are pending a decision
    and the subset of those claims that have been pending for more than 125
    days, disaggregated by station.
        VA does not support this section. The information required by
    section 209(a) is already published in the MMWR for rating-related
    disability compensation and pension claims. The section appears to
    propose requiring all other non-rating pending compensation and pension
    workload be added to the MMWR; however information about these pending
    claims is also already published in the MMWR. The single distinguishing
    new feature would be the application of the backlog metric of 125 days
    to all non-rating-related claims by regional office. However, 125 days
    is not a useful metric for the majority of non-rating-related claims.
    The significant differences in the work effort required for various
    types of non-rating-related claims and the fact that much of this work
    is consolidated to the Pension Management Centers make comparison at
    the aggregate level across all regional offices a comparison without
    context or any real capability to inform how one regional office
    compares to another.
        Section 209(b) would elevate tallies of partial ratings of various
    claim types into a tool of comparison between regional offices. Data on
    partial ratings that award benefits for some, but not all, claimed
    conditions are not informative in this way as they reflect the unique
    circumstances of each claim. Additionally, irrespective of partial
    rating decisions, over half of the Veterans with pending claims are
    already receiving compensation as a result of a previously filed claim.
    Adding this partial-rating metric would not provide meaningful
    comparisons at the regional office level.
        Section 209(c) would require pending FDC claims, one VBA high-
    priority claims category, to be added to the MMWR. To the degree making
    comparisons between regional offices is desired, the existing reporting
    in the MMWR on claims older than 125 days, VA's largest pending group
    of high priority claims, provides a better metric for such comparisons
    than FDC claims. However, should it be determined that a pending FDC
    metric would be useful, legislation is not required to add this metric
    to the MMWR.
        VA estimates GOE costs associated with this section would be
    insignificant.
    Section 210
        This section would require VA to make available to the public on
    the internet the ``Appeals Pending'' and ``Appeals Workload by
    Station'' reports. VA would be required to include in one of these
    reports the percentage of appeals granted by station and the percentage
    of claims previously adjudicated by VBA's Appeals Management Center
    that were subsequently granted or remanded by the Board.
        VA does not support this section. VBA's MMWR currently includes the
    total number of appeals pending and other metrics related to appeals.
    Before adding data elements to reports, VBA needs to ensure that the
    information is provided in a useful way that can be easily understood
    by the public.
        For example, VBA is changing its workload management strategy by
    developing the National Work Queue (NWQ), a paperless workload
    management initiative designed to improve VBA's overall production
    capacity. In the initial phase of NWQ, VBA is matching its inventory
    with claims processing capacity at the regional office-level, moving
    claims electronically from a centralized queue to an office identified
    as having capacity to complete the work. With this national workload
    approach, VA will continue to focus on the improvement of its
    traditional performance metrics, with an emphasis on improving quality
    and consistency of claims and appeals processing nationwide to ensure
    Veterans and their families receive timely benefits, regardless of
    where they reside. Appeals data by station will be less useful to the
    public as NWQ is implemented.
        Additionally, it is unclear how the bill would define ``appeals
    granted by station.'' Multiple decisions may be appealed in each claim,
    and it is unclear if VA would be required to report percentages
    associated with each decision or each appeal. Similarly, it is unclear
    at what point in the appeal process this metric would be reported. The
    current process provides appellants with multiple reviews in VBA and
    one or more reviews at the Board, depending upon the submission of new
    evidence or whether the Board determines that it is necessary to remand
    the matter to VBA. The longer an appeal takes, the more likely it is
    that a claimed disability will change, resulting in the need for
    additional evidence, further processing delays, and less clarity in
    whether an initial decision was correctly made.
        VA estimates GOE costs associated with this section would be
    insignificant.
    Section 211
        Section 211 would revise provisions of the Veterans' Benefits
    Improvement Act of 1996 relating to contract examinations to clarify
    that, notwithstanding any law regarding the licensure of physicians, a
    licensed physician may conduct disability examinations for VA in any
    state, the District of Columbia, or a commonwealth, territory, or
    possession of the United States, provided the examination is within the
    scope of the physician's authorized duties under a contract with VA.
        VA supports the provision regarding licensure requirements as a
    means to ensure the quality of contract examinations. The demand for
    medical disability examinations has increased, largely due to an
    increase in the complexity of disability claims, an increase in the
    number of disabilities that Veterans claim, and changes in eligibility
    requirements for disability benefits. This authority would help provide
    flexibility in examinations through non-VA medical providers while
    maintaining licensure standards and accelerating benefits delivery.
        No benefit or discretionary costs would be associated with
    enactment of this section.
    Section 301
        Section 301 would require the appointment of at least one liaison
    between VA and DOD, and between VA and each of the reserve components.
    It would also require the National Archives and Records Administration
    (NARA) to appoint a liaison to VA. The intent of these appointments is
    to expedite the provision of information needed to process claims by
    VA, to ensure that such information would be provided within 30 days of
    the request. VA would be required to submit a report to Congress
    annually regarding the timeliness of responses from DOD and NARA.
        While VA appreciates the intent to facilitate records retrieval, VA
    believes that this section of the bill is unnecessary because of the
    extensive ongoing efforts between VA and other Federal agencies to
    improve response times to VA requests for records that are required to
    adjudicate disability claims. For example, a memorandum of
    understanding (MOU) between VA and DOD provides VA, at time of
    discharge, certified and complete service treatment records in an
    electronic, searchable format. As this MOU applies to the 300,000
    annually separated Active Duty, National Guard, and Reserve Component
    members, it will significantly contribute to VA's efforts to achieve
    its 125-day goal for completion of disability compensation claims.
        Costs associated with enactment of this section would be
    insignificant. DOD and NARA would be required to appoint liaisons; VBA
    would not hire additional employees. Costs associated with the report
    required by section 301(d) would be insignificant.
    Section 302
        Section 302 would require DOD and VA to jointly submit to Congress
    a report that sets forth a timeline with milestones for achieving
    interoperability between the electronic health records systems of both
    Departments.
        The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) runs the largest
    integrated health care system in the country; delivering the quality
    care Veterans deserve is not possible without innovative information
    technology and data sharing. VA's Electronic Health Record (EHR)--
    Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture
    (VistA)--is the most widely used EHR in the United States, and VA is
    working rapidly to modernize it. VA is developing a new web application
    and services platform called the Enterprise Health Management Platform
    (eHMP). eHMP is the VistA application clinicians will use during their
    clinical interactions with Veterans. eHMP brings exciting new features
    to the clinician, including Google-like search capabilities and
    information buttons that help clinicians find needed information much
    faster than current systems. VA is already piloting eHMP, and expects
    to deploy it to 30 sites by the end of the calendar year, with full
    rollout--including regular updates--over the next three years.
        VA continues to work with DOD on health data interoperability, but
    it is important to note that the two Departments already share health
    care data on millions of Servicemembers and Veterans. In fact, the two
    Departments share more health data than any other health care entities
    in the Nation. In addition to sharing health care data, VA and DOD have
    also paved the way for standardizing health care data, so that
    regardless of what system a clinician uses, the data is available in
    the right place and in the right way; for example, Tylenol and
    acetaminophen appear in the same place in the record because the system
    understands, through our data standardization, that they are the same
    medication. Today, VA and DOD clinicians can use the Joint Legacy
    Viewer (JLV) to see VA and DOD data on a single screen in a
    Servicemember or Veteran's record. Eventually, eHMP will replace JLV
    and will allow clinicians to see VA, DOD, and third-party provider data
    in their regular clinical care tool.
        The Department does not object to providing a report. Costs of this
    report would be insignificant as the Department currently provides a
    similar report to Congress.
                    draft bill cost-of-living-adjustment act
        The Draft bill on the ``Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living
    Adjustment Act of 2015,'' would require the Secretary of Veterans
    Affairs to increase, effective December 1, 2015, the rates of
    disability compensation for service-disabled Veterans and the rates of
    DIC for survivors of Veterans. This bill would increase these rates by
    the same percentage as the percentage by which Social Security benefits
    are increased effective December 1, 2015. The bill would also require
    VA to publish the resulting increased rates in the Federal Register.
        VA strongly supports this bill because it would express, in a
    tangible way, this Nation's gratitude for the sacrifices made by our
    service-disabled Veterans and their surviving spouses and children and
    would ensure that the value of their benefits will keep pace with
    increases in consumer prices.
        The cost of the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) is included in
    VA's baseline budget because we assume a COLA will be enacted by
    Congress each year. Therefore, enactment of the draft bill which would
    extend the COLA adjustment through November 30, 2016, would not result
    in costs.
     draft to amend title 38, united states code, to modify the treatment
     under contracting goals and preferences of the department of veterans
     affairs for small businesses owned by veterans, to carry out a pilot
      program on the treatment of certain applications for dependency and
        indemnity compensation as fully developed claims, and for other
                                    purposes
    Section 101
        Section 101 would expand the flexibility provided to a service-
    disabled Veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) to continue to hold that
    socioeconomic status upon the death of the service-disabled Veteran
    owner. Current law provides a transition period for SDVOSBs for up to
    10 years after the Veteran's death, if the Veteran had a service-
    connected disability with a 100-percent rating or died as a result of a
    service-connected disability. This bill would create a similar
    transition period for three years, if the Veteran had a service-
    connected disability with a rating of less than 100 percent and did not
    die as a result of a service-connected disability.
        VA supports this provision because, without the proposed transition
    period, the death of the Veteran owner could put at risk the jobs and
    livelihoods of the firm's employees, as well as the surviving spouse.
    The transition period provides the spouse a reasonable period of time
    to determine what should be done with the business after the Veteran's
    death.
        VA anticipates enactment of this provision would entail minor
    administrative costs. VA would incorporate this change into its
    existing application processes with no material addition to costs.
    Section 102
        Section 102 would amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 8127 by providing a
    transition rule for a member of the Armed Forces who owns at least 51
    percent of a small business and is killed in the line of duty. Such a
    Veteran's surviving spouse who acquires ownership interest in the small
    business would be treated as a service-disabled Veteran owner until the
    earliest of the following: 10 years after the Servicemember's death;
    the date on which the surviving spouse remarries; or the date on which
    the spouse no longer owns at least 51 percent of the small business.
    Such a Veteran's dependent child that acquires ownership interest in
    the small business would be treated as a Veteran owner for 10 years
    after the Servicemember's death or the date on which the child no
    longer owns at least 51 percent of the small business, whichever occurs
    first.
        VA supports the spirit behind this provision but notes two
    substantive concerns with the draft language. First, Congress sought to
    ensure that Veteran small business owners genuinely own and control the
    small business receiving benefits under the Veterans First Contracting
    Program. This would be a challenge for members of the regular Armed
    Forces, especially those serving in active duty abroad. Moreover,
    members of the Armed Forces are also Federal employees, which places
    limits on their ability to receive Federal contracts under conflict of
    interest rules. In practice, this rule would mainly apply to members of
    the National Guard and Army Reserve who own small businesses in their
    civilian lives, become activated, and are killed in the line of duty,
    leaving survivors to assume operational control of the firm as a
    service-disabled Veteran-owned small business. Second, if a dependent
    child owner is still a minor, this may complicate the actual operation
    of this rule because of limitations on a minor's capacity to enter into
    binding contracts or engage in commercial transactions as an owner. The
    firm may need to reside in a trust for the benefit of the dependent
    minor child with an adult trustee controlling the firm until the
    dependent reaches adulthood. VA would be pleased to provide technical
    assistance to seek resolution of these issues.
        VA anticipates enactment of this provision would entail minor
    administrative costs. VA would incorporate this change into its
    existing application processes with no material addition to costs.
    Section 202
        Section 202 would require VA to submit a report on the standard of
    proof for service-connected disability compensation for military sexual
    trauma (MST)-based mental health conditions to the House and Senate
    Committees on Veterans' Affairs no later than 90 days after enactment.
    The report would include recommendations for an appropriate standard of
    proof and legislative actions, if necessary.
        VA believes this legislation is unnecessary as VA provided a report
    with this information to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees
    in March 2015 and can share it with other interested Congressional
    offices.
        No benefit or GOE costs would be associated with enactment of this
    section.
    Section 203
        Section 203 would require VA to submit a report with data on
    compensation claims for MST-based PTSD to Congress no later than
    December 1, 2016 and each year thereafter through 2020. The report
    would include the following information from the preceding fiscal year:

        1. The number of MST-related PTSD claims submitted;
        2. The number and percentage of claims submitted by gender;
        3. The number of approved claims, including number and percentage
    by gender;
        4. The number of denied claims, including number and percentage by
    gender;
        5. The number of claims assigned to each rating percentage,
    including number and percentage by gender;
        6. The three most common reasons given for denial of such claims
    under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5104(b)(1);
        7. The number of denials that were based on the failure of the
    Veteran to report for a medical examination;
        8. The number of MST-based PTSD claims resubmitted after denial in
    a previous adjudication and items 2-7 from this list for this subset of
    claims;
        9. The number of claims that were pending at the end of the fiscal
    year and separately the number of such claims on appeal; and
        10. The average number of days to complete MST-based PTSD claims.

        VA believes this legislation is unnecessary as VA provided a report
    with most of this information to the House and Senate Appropriations
    Committees in March 2015 and can share it with other interested
    Congressional offices. If additional information or data for subsequent
    years are needed, VA can provide this to interested Congressional
    offices without legislation.
        No benefit or GOE costs would be associated with enactment of this
    section.
    Section 204
        Section 204 would direct VA to establish a one-year pilot program
    within 90 days of enactment to assess the feasibility and advisability
    of expediting the treatment of certain DIC claims, to include claims
    submitted:

        1. Within one year of the death of the Veteran upon whose service
    the claim is based;
        2. By dependents of Veterans who received benefits for one or more
    service-connected conditions as of the date of death;
        3. With evidence indicating the Veteran's death was due to a
    service-connected or compensable disability; and
        4. By a spouse of a deceased Veteran who certifies that he or she
    has not remarried since the Veteran's death.

        Section 204 would also require VA to submit a report to the House
    and Senate Committees on Veterans' Affairs within 270 days of
    completing the pilot program. The report would include:

        1. The number of DIC claims adjudicated under the pilot
    disaggregated by claims received by a spouse, child, or parent of a
    deceased Veteran;
        2. The number of DIC claims adjudicated but for which benefits were
    not awarded under the pilot disaggregated by claims received by a
    spouse, child, or parent of a deceased Veteran;
        3. A comparison of accuracy and timeliness of claims adjudicated
    under the pilot and DIC claims not adjudicated under the pilot;
        4. VA's finding with respect to the pilot; and
        5. Recommendations the VA may have for legislative or
    administrative action to improve processing of DIC claims.

        VA supports the intent of this legislation, but believes it is
    unnecessary. As discussed above, in fiscal year 2013, VBA's P&F Service
    reviewed the policies and procedures applicable to the adjudication of
    DIC claims to identify obstacles to timely processing. P&F Service
    determined that VA could quickly grant many DIC claims with little or
    no additional development, and that certain claim processing steps are
    redundant and appropriate for elimination. On March 22, 2013, P&F
    Service issued Fast Letter 13-04 (FL 13-04), Simplified Processing of
    Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) Claims, which instructs VBA
    field staff on the procedures to follow when processing claims.
        The new procedures require screening of claims at the intake point
    and limited or no development of additional evidence when information
    in VBA systems supports granting benefits. It also clarifies that VA
    grants DIC under 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1318 based upon total service-connected
    disability for a prescribed period before death in the same manner as
    if the death were service-connected. Accordingly, in these cases, our
    field staff will grant service-connected burial benefits and presume
    the permanence of total disability for purposes of establishing the
    survivor's entitlement to VA education and health care benefits. These
    new procedures allowed us to grant DIC benefits faster and without
    unnecessary development.
        Also, as discussed above, on July 7, 2014, VA automated some
    benefits to surviving spouses. VA can now automatically pay certain
    surviving spouses under section 1318. As part of VA's notice of death
    process, VA systems determine if the deceased Veteran met the
    requirements of section 1318 and if the surviving spouse met the
    relationship requirements. If the system determines that both
    requirements are met, it will automatically process and award DIC under
    section 1318 within six days of notification of the Veteran's death.
        Based on these changes and aggressive workload management plan in
    VA's Pension Management Centers, VA has reduced its pending DIC claim
    inventory by 55 percent from its peak of 19,100 claims to 8,600 claims.
    Average processing time for these claims has improved by 100 days from
    its peak of 168 days to 68 days while maintaining 99 percent accuracy.
        VA estimates no benefit or GOE costs would be associated with
    enactment of this section.
    Section 205
        Section 205 would require VA, DOD, and military historians
    recommended by DOD to review the process used to determine if
    individuals who applied for Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation
    (FVEC) benefits served during World War II in accordance with the
    requirements to receive this benefit payment. Section 205 would also
    require VA to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on
    Veterans' Affairs no later than 90 days after enactment. The report
    would detail any findings, actions taken, or recommendations for
    legislative action with respect to the review. If a new process is
    established as a result of this review, the process shall include
    mechanisms to ensure individuals who receive payments did not engage in
    any disqualifying conduct during their service, including collaboration
    with the enemy or criminal conduct.
        VA does not support this section. In determining whether a claimant
    is eligible for a VA benefit, including FVEC, VA is legally bound by
    service department determinations as to what service a claimant
    performed. VA regulations provide two methods for establishing service.
    Under 38 CFR Sec. 3.203(a), VA may accept evidence submitted by a
    claimant if the evidence is a document issued by a U.S. service
    department; contains the needed information as to length, time, and
    character of service; and, in VA's opinion, is genuine and accurate.
    Otherwise, under 38 CFR Sec. 3.203(c), VA must seek verification of
    service from the appropriate service department. These regulations are
    applicable to all claimants. For claims based on Philippine Service in
    World War II, the U.S. Army is the relevant service department, but VA
    requests verification from the National Personnel Records Center which,
    since 1998, has acted as the custodian of the U.S. Army's collection of
    Philippine Army and Guerrilla records.
        No benefit or GOE costs would be associated with enactment of this
    section.
    Section 301
        Section 301 would require VA to conduct a study and report to
    Congress on matters relating to the interment of unclaimed remains of
    Veterans in national cemeteries under the control of the National
    Cemetery Administration (NCA), including: (1) determining the scope of
    issues relating to unclaimed remains of Veterans, to include an
    estimate of the number of unclaimed remains; (2) assessing the
    effectiveness of VA's procedures for working with persons or entities
    having custody of unclaimed remains to facilitate interment in national
    cemeteries; (3) assessing State and local laws that affect the
    Secretary's ability to inter such remains; and (4) recommending
    legislative or administrative action the VA considers appropriate.
        Section 301 would provide flexibility for VA to review a subset of
    applicable entities in the estimating of the number of unclaimed
    remains of Veterans as well as assess a sampling of applicable State
    and local laws.
        In December 2014, NCA published a Fact Sheet to provide the public
    with information on VA burial benefits for unclaimed remains of
    Veterans. NCA prepared the Fact Sheet in collaboration with
    representatives from NCA, VBA, and VHA. As well as being posted on VA's
    Web site, the Fact Sheet was widely distributed to targeted employees
    in VA, including Homeless Veteran Coordinators, Decedent Affairs
    personnel, VBA Regional Compensation Representatives, and NCA Cemetery
    Directors as well as shared in a GovDelivery message sent to over
    28,000 funeral director and coroner's office recipients who are
    entities that may come to NCA seeking assistance to ensure burial of a
    Veteran whose remains are unclaimed.
        NCA strongly supports the goal of ensuring all Veterans, including
    those whose remains are unclaimed and do not have sufficient resources,
    who earned the right to burial and memorialization in a national,
    State, or tribal Veterans cemetery are accorded that honor. NCA
    appreciates the continued Congressional support to meet the needs of
    Veterans whose remains are unclaimed. While NCA is remains concerned
    that the study may be unnecessary or premature at this time, we would
    appreciate working with the Committee to make sure any study that the
    Department is mandated to produce is targeting data that can be used to
    better serve these Veterans.
        Over the past several years, Congressional and Departmental actions
    have increased the Department's ability to ensure dignified burials for
    the unclaimed remains of eligible Veterans. The Dignified Burial and
    Other Veterans' Benefits Improvement Act of 2012 (Public Law 112-260)
    authorizes VA to furnish benefits for the burial in a national cemetery
    for the unclaimed remains of a Veteran with no known next-of-kin and
    where sufficient financial resources are not available for this
    purpose. Those benefits include reimbursements for the cost of a casket
    or urn, for costs of transportation to the nearest national cemetery,
    and for certain funeral expenses.
        NCA is pleased to report that our final rule was published on
    April 13, 2015, beginning today, we are able to accept requests for
    reimbursement for caskets or urns purchased for the interment of
    deceased Veterans who died on or after January 10, 2014, without next
    of kin, and where sufficient resources for burial are not available. As
    this new benefit is administered, NCA will have a new source for
    collecting data on the number of Veterans whose unclaimed remains are
    brought to NCA for interment. The data can be used to assist in
    targeting outreach efforts to partners and getting a fuller
    understanding of the issue.
        The Department continues to identify areas to recommend legislative
    or administrative action that would support dignified burial of
    unclaimed remains of Veterans. Two legislative proposals are included
    in VA's FY 2016 Budget Submission. Currently, VA may furnish a
    reimbursement for the cost of a casket or urn and for the cost of
    transportation to the nearest national cemetery. These benefits are
    based on the Veteran being interred in a VA national cemetery. The
    legislative proposals are to expand these two benefits to include those
    Veterans who are interred in a state or tribal organization Veteran
    cemetery.
        In conjunction with discussions we had last year with congressional
    staff, NCA reviewed its internal procedures and began to follow-up
    every thirty days with the public officials on any unclaimed remain
    cases shown as pending until the cases are scheduled for burial and the
    Veterans' remains are interred. While state and local laws designate
    who may act as an authorized representative to claim remains, NCA can
    work with any individual or entity that contacts us to determine a
    Veteran's eligibility for burial and scheduling the burial in a VA
    national cemetery.
        The great work of the Missing in America Project (MIAP) and
    individual funeral directors is invaluable in complementing VA's role
    of ensuring that all Veterans, including those whose unclaimed remains
    are brought to us, receive the proper resources to ensure receipt of a
    dignified burial. Over the past several years, NCA has developed a
    strong working relationship with funeral homes, coroner offices, and
    medical examiners, to actively provide responses to requests for
    eligibility reviews. In FY 2014, NCA processed 2,805 MIAP requests to
    determine eligibility for burial in a VA national cemetery, of which
    1,642 were verified as eligible.
        In light of VA's recent activities, detailed above, to implement
    legislation targeted at ensuring appropriate burial of the unclaimed
    remains of Veterans, NCA feels it is premature to undertake the
    proposed study. Furthermore, if legislation is passed requiring the
    study, we do not object to the proposed scope and content, we are
    concerned that the timeframe for reporting in the bill is unrealistic.
        To implement the mandatory requirements outlined in the bill, even
    with the flexibilities included in the bill language, the Department
    would be required to contract with one or more private entities to
    perform such a study. Survey instruments would need to be developed to
    assess the number of remains in the possession of funeral directors and
    other entities for individuals with no known next of kin, and an
    appropriate sample would have to be identified and a legal review of
    state and local laws conducted regarding unclaimed remains of Veterans.
        The bill provides a reporting timeframe of one year. The need to
    get formal clearances on survey instruments takes several months;
    therefore, a more realistic timeframe is two years.
        The bill does not identify a funding source for this mandate. NCA
    is still evaluating the cost associated with this legislation.
    Section 401
        Section 401 would honor any person entitled under chapter 1223 of
    title 10, United States Code, to retired pay for nonregular service or
    who, but for age, would be entitled under this chapter to retired pay
    for nonregular service, as a Veteran. However, these individuals would
    not be entitled to any benefit by reason of this honor.
        VA does not support this section. It would conflict with the
    definition of ``Veteran'' in 38 U.S.C. Sec. 101(2) and would cause
    confusion about the definition of a Veteran and associated benefits. In
    title 38, United States Code, Veteran status is conditioned on the
    performance of ``active military, naval, or air service.'' Under
    current law, a National Guard or Reserve member is considered to have
    had such service only if he or she served on active duty, was disabled
    or died during active duty for training from a disease or injury
    incurred or aggravated in line of duty, or was disabled or died during
    inactive duty training from an injury incurred or aggravated in line of
    duty or from an acute myocardial infarction, a cardiac arrest, or a
    cerebrovascular accident. Section 401 would eliminate these service
    requirements for National Guard or Reserve members who served in such a
    capacity for at least 20 years. Retirement status alone would make them
    eligible for Veteran status.
        VA recognizes that the National Guard and Reserves have admirably
    served this country and in recent years have played an important role
    in our Nation's overseas conflicts. Nevertheless, VA does not support
    this bill because it represents a departure from active service as the
    foundation for Veteran status. This section would extend Veteran status
    to those who never performed active military, naval, or air service,
    the very circumstance which qualifies an individual as a Veteran. Thus,
    this section would equate longevity of reserve service with the active
    service long ago established as the hallmark for Veteran status.
        VA estimates that there would be no additional benefit or
    administrative costs associated with this section of the bill if
    enacted.

        This concludes my testimony. We appreciate the opportunity to
    present our views on these bills and look forward to working with the
    Committee.
                                     ______

        Additional Views Submitted After the Hearing by Hon. Robert A.
            McDonald, Secretary, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs

        Chairman Isakson. Senator Brown, would you have a question?

               HON. SHERROD BROWN, U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO

        Senator Brown. I do not, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
        Chairman Isakson. Mr. McLenachen, did you not say in your
    statement you were deferring any conversation on the Ayotte-
    Moran bill to Ms. Szybala?
        Ms. Szybala. Yes.
        Chairman Isakson. He gives you all the easy work, does he
    not, Ms. Szybala?
        Ms. Szybala. Yes. Absolutely.
        Chairman Isakson. Do you have any comment?
        Ms. Szybala. I do. I do. Basically, VA supports the goals
    of the bill, which are to give us more tools to achieve
    accountability and to hold those responsible for manipulating
    the wait lists and dis-serving veterans that way. Our problem
    with the bill is that we count four different ways in which it
    is constitutionally questionable, constitutionally debatable,
    and constitutionally attackable so that we are going to be tied
    up in litigation about this bill for a long time.
        The four ways, if you want me to go through them are--they
    are in David's written testimony, but we have ex post facto
    law, we have a retroactive law, we have a lack of due process,
    and we have--what is number 4--oh, we have unconstitutional
    takings under the Fifth Amendment.
        Chairman Isakson. Can I interrupt you there?
        Ms. Szybala. Sure. Please.
        Chairman Isakson. Has the VA ever considered establishing a
    rule that would allow it the ability to take back a bonus for
    somebody that was found to have deprived veterans of benefits
    that were intended for the veteran?
        Ms. Szybala. No. I am sure we could not do that by rule. We
    would need legislation to do that.
        Chairman Isakson. Let me explain why I made that comment.
        Ms. Szybala. Yes.
        Chairman Isakson. Every time the VA is here about something
    that is embarrassing, which is embarrassing for the VA and it
    is embarrassing for us in Congress, it is always ``somebody
    else did it,'' or ``something will not let me do it.'' I have
    not seen anybody come forward with a proposal stating, we would
    like to change the law to say X, Y, or Z dealing with taking
    this compensation situation.
        And, I am not afraid of going to the courts. I think it is
    about time that we--the courts are there--our Constitution has
    three branches of government. You are in the executive branch,
    I am the legislative, and the courts are the arbitrators in the
    judicial branch. I think it is about time agencies of
    government that are having problems with employees being non-
    compliant with the rules of the Department or, in fact, doing
    their job, had regulations that had accountability in them and
    let us let the courts strike them down rather than just saying
    we cannot do it. I am going to see Secretary McDonald in about
    30 minutes and I am going to tell him the same thing about
    another subject.
        I appreciate the employees at the VA and I appreciate your
    leadership and what you all do, but it is time that instead of
    playing defense against us or trying to react to the concerns
    of our constituents that you all were proactive on making
    recommendations in terms of how you change the VA to eradicate
    the culture of some of these problems that are taking place
    over and over and over again.
        I do not mean to lecture to you. I am not blaming you, Ms.
    Szybala. But, I think it is time that you all--instead of
    telling me you want to have some comment on some legislation we
    put up, I would love to see you come forward with legislation
    that deals with some of the concerns we have had on
    construction, on bonuses, and on accountability for
    appointments. I apologize for lecturing, yet I wanted to get
    that in.
        Ms. Szybala. No, I appreciate that. If I may, there are
    ways in which we like this bill. We could use more tools in
    terms of making sure people are held accountable after the
    fact, when we find things like this out. The problem with this
    bill is that it goes too far back in the past. We would like it
    for now and the future, and we can work with you to try and get
    a bill that does it that way, that avoids the pitfalls we see
    here.
        Chairman Isakson. Well, forewarned is forearmed, so I think
    if you start working on getting the powers to be--and I am
    going to talk with Secretary McDonald in just a little bit--
    start allowing you to think that way and bring some of those
    forward to us, we would love to have your backside on going
    after those things and having enforcement that actually works.
        Ms. Szybala. Thank you.
        Chairman Isakson. Thank you for your testimony.
        Does anybody else have a comment?
        [No response.]
        Chairman Isakson. Mr. McLenachen, you made a comment about
    S. 270. You said you were for it, but there was a reservation
    about some application. What was that?
        Mr. McLenachen. Sir, it is purely a technical matter as to
    how the language is written. I believe what Congress intends,
    or would intend, is something similar to bring us consistent
    with other Federal agencies, such as DOD, which has a place-of-
    celebration type rule. As written, the draft bill would have us
    recognize any marriage as long as that marriage is valid in any
    State. So, we were questioning whether the intent is really as
    it is written, which would basically change marriage rules for
    all States, so----
        Chairman Isakson. If you would, if you would file that
    comment with us for the record----
        Mr. McLenachen. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Isakson [continuing]. With Mr. Bowman, my Staff
    Director, I would appreciate it.
        Mr. McLenachen. We would be happy to help out with
    addressing that.
        Chairman Isakson. Any other comment? [No response.]
        If not, I want to thank panel one for their expeditious and
    forthright testimony and call panel two.
        I'll also draft Senator Casey from Louisiana to be our new
    Chairman in about 8 minutes. [Laughter.]

             HON. BILL CASSIDY, U.S. SENATOR FROM LOUISIANA

        Senator Cassidy. Well, it is Cassidy, so we had better get
    that right. [Laughter.]
        Chairman Isakson. Oh, what did I say? What did I say?
        Senator Cassidy. You said Casey.
        Chairman Isakson. Oh, I am sorry.
        Senator Cassidy. My wife----
        Chairman Isakson. I do not know why I would do that. Are
    you going to be here for a little bit?
        Senator Cassidy. I will be here for, like, 20 minutes.
        Chairman Isakson. Well, you and I will be leaving at about
    the same time, so--thanks for coming. [Pause.]
        I would like to welcome the second panel. What I am going
    to do, for all of your benefit, Senator Gillibrand is on the
    way. If she gets here during your testimony, we are going to
    allow her to interrupt that testimony and make her
    presentation.
        I have to walk out of here at 3:45 to meet with Secretary
    McDonald. Senator Cassidy, as long as he can stay, I am going
    to designate him to be the presiding officer. If he cannot stay
    any longer, then before I get back, I am going to designate him
    the authority to suspend the hearing until I do get back. Is
    that fair enough to everybody?
        [Panel nodding in agreement.]
        Chairman Isakson. Our second panel is made up of Alphonso
    Maldon, Jr., Chairman, Military Compensation and Retirement
    Modernization Commission; accompanied by Michael Higgins,
    Commissioner, Military Compensation and Retirement
    Modernization Commission.
        Jeffrey E. Phillips, Executive Director of the Reserve
    Officers Association.
        And, Aleks Morosky, Deputy Legislative Director, National
    Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars.
        Gentlemen, welcome. Mr. Higgins, we will hear from you
    first.
        Mr. Higgins. Sir, I will defer to my Chairman, Chairman
    Maldon.
        Chairman Isakson. You are the date, that is right. I
    forgot.
        Mr. Higgins. I am the date.
        Chairman Isakson. Mr. Maldon.

         STATEMENT OF ALPHONSO MALDON, JR., CHAIRMAN, MILITARY
         COMPENSATION AND RETIREMENT MODERNIZATION COMMISSION;
            ACCOMPANIED BY MICHAEL R. HIGGINS, COMMISSIONER

        Mr. Maldon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Isakson and
    Members of the Committee, Commissioner Higgins and I are
    honored to be here today and we thank you for the opportunity
    to speak to you about the work of the Commission and the
    recommendations that we have made.
        The all-volunteer force is without peer. Their unwavering
    commitment to excellence in the service of our Nation has never
    been clearer than during the past 13 years of war.
        As Commissioners, we recognize our obligation to craft a
    valued compensation system that is both relevant to
    contemporary servicemembers and able to operate in a modern and
    efficient manner. Our Commissioners are unanimous in our belief
    that the recommendations we offered in our report strengthen
    the foundation of the all-volunteer force, ensure our national
    security, and truly honor those who served and the family
    members who support them now and into the future.
        In particular, our recommendations safeguard education
    benefits to servicemembers, reduce redundancy, and ensure the
    fiscal sustainability of educational programs. DOD and the VA
    provide many programs that deliver educational benefits to
    servicemembers and veterans, including the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill,
    the Montgomery G.I. Bill-Active Duty, the Montgomery G.I. Bill-
    Select Reserve, and the Reserve Education Assistance Program,
    as well as the tuition assistance. Streamlining these programs
    would improve the efficiency and fiscal sustainability of the
    overall education benefit program.
        Adjusting eligibility requirements for transferring Post-9/
    11 G.I. Bill benefits better support critical mid-career
    retention and aligns with retention incentives in the
    Commission's retirement recommendations.
        Eliminating the housing stipend for transferred benefit
    encourages younger veterans to use the education benefit
    themselves while improving fiscal sustainability.
        Our recommendation also better prepares servicemembers for
    transition to civilian life by expanding education and granting
    States more flexibility to administer the Jobs for Veterans
    State Grant Program.
        DOD should require mandatory participation in the
    Transition GPS education track for servicemembers planning to
    attend school after separation or those who have transferred
    their Post-9/11 G.I. Bill benefits.
        The Department of Labor should permit State Departments of
    Labor to work directly with State VA offices to coordinate
    administration of the Jobs for Veterans State Grant Programs.
        One-stop Career Center employees should attend
    transitioning GPS classes to develop personal connections with
    transitioning veterans.
        A review of the core curriculum for Transition GPS should
    be required to re-evaluate whether the current curriculum
    accurately addresses the needs of transitioning servicemembers.
        DOD, VA, and DOL should be required to produce a one-time
    joint report regarding the challenges employers face when
    seeking to hire veterans.
        In closing, Mr. Chairman, we again thank you for the
    opportunity to be here today. It has been our honor and
    privilege to serve American servicemembers, veterans, and their
    families as we have assessed the current compensation and
    retirement programs, deliberated the best path to
    modernization, and offered our recommendations. We are
    confident that our recommendations, if adopted, will indeed
    serve our servicemembers in a positive, profound, and lasting
    way.
        We are pleased to answer any questions you have, Mr.
    Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Maldon follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Alphonso Maldon, Jr., Chairman, Military
     Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission; accompanied by
                        Michael R. Higgins, Commissioner
    Representative of:
    Hon. Alphonso Maldon, Jr., Chairman
    Hon. Larry L. Pressler
    Hon. Stephen E. Buyer
    Hon. Dov S. Zakheim
    Mr. Michael R. Higgins
    General Peter W. Chiarelli, United States Army (Ret.)
    Admiral Edmund P. Giambastiani, Jr., United States Navy (Ret.)
    Hon. J. Robert Kerrey
    Hon. Christopher P. Carney

        Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, distinguished Members
    of the Committee: We are honored to be here and thank you for the
    opportunity to testify today.
        Our All-Volunteer Force is without peer. This fact has been proven
    during the last 42 years and decisively reinforced during the last 13
    years of war. It is our obligation to ensure the Nation has the proper
    resources to support our veterans. Those resources include a valued
    compensation system that is relevant to contemporary Servicemembers and
    veterans, and that is operated in a modern and efficient manner. We are
    unanimous in our belief that our recommendations strengthen the
    foundation of the All-Volunteer Force and ensure our national security,
    now and into the future.
        Our work represents the most holistic and comprehensive review of
    military compensation and benefits since the inception of the All-
    Volunteer Force. Our Interim Report, published in June, 2014, documents
    the relevant laws, regulations, and policies; associated appropriated
    Federal funding; and historical and contextual backgrounds of more than
    350 compensation programs. Consistent with our Congressional mandate,
    programs were reviewed to determine if modernization would ensure the
    long-term viability of the All-Volunteer Force, enable the quality of
    life for members of the Armed Forces and the other Uniformed Services,
    and achieve fiscal sustainability for compensation and retirement
    systems.
        Our report is informed by our life-long experiences, but more
    importantly by the insights of a broad range of Servicemembers,
    veterans, retirees, and their families. More than 150,000 current and
    retired Servicemembers responded to the Commission's survey. The
    Commission visited 55 military installations, affording us the
    opportunity to discuss compensation issues with Servicemembers
    worldwide. We developed an ongoing working relationship with more than
    30 Military and Veteran Service Organizations. We also received input
    from more than 20 Federal agencies; several Department of Defense
    working groups; and numerous research institutions, private firms, and
    not-for-profit organizations.
        Our recommendations align compensation and benefit programs to the
    preferences of the modern Force and societal shifts since the inception
    of the All-Volunteer Force. By maintaining or improving benefits, while
    concurrently reducing costs, our recommendations address the ongoing
    tension between maintaining Servicemember benefits and reducing
    personnel budgets to meet the demands of the new fiscally constrained
    environment.
        11. safeguard education benefits for servicemembers by reducing
    redundancy and ensuring the fiscal sustainability of education programs
        DOD and the VA provide many programs that deliver educational
    benefits to Servicemembers and veterans. Current education assistance
    programs include the Post-9/11 GI Bill, the Montgomery GI Bill Active
    Duty, the Montgomery GI Bill Selected Reserve, the Reserve Education
    Assistance Program, and Tuition Assistance. There are duplicative and
    inefficient education benefits that should be streamlined to improve
    the sustainability of the overall education benefits program.
        Montgomery GI Bill Active Duty should be sunset on October 1, 2015.
    Reserve Education Assistance Program (REAP) should be sunset,
    restricting any further enrollment and allowing those currently
    pursuing an education program with REAP to complete their studies.
    Already enrolled Servicemembers who elect to switch to the Post-9/11 GI
    Bill should receive a full or partial refund of the $1,200 that was
    paid to buy in to the MGIB-AD. Eligibility requirements for
    transferring Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits should be increased to 10 years
    of service, plus an additional commitment of 2 years of service. The
    housing stipend for dependents should be sunset on July 1, 2017.
    Eligibility for unemployment compensation should be eliminated for
    anyone receiving housing stipend benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
    When providing feedback in comments to the Commission, Servicemembers
    repeatedly emphasized the importance of education benefits as
    recruiting and retention tools. Ensuring the robustness of education
    programs is one of the best ways to guarantee the future of the All-
    Volunteer Force. This recommendation would also support GI Bill
    benefits, including transferability, while improving their fiscal
    sustainability.
     12. better prepare servicemembers for transition to civilian life by
    expanding education and granting states more flexibility to administer
                   the jobs for veterans state grants program
        DOD, in partnership with the Department of Labor, the VA, and the
    Small Business Administration, maintains the Transition GPS program to
    help Servicemembers and their families prepare for a successful
    transition to civilian life. Transition GPS services are delivered
    through a series of workshops administered by each Service. The DOL
    administers One-Stop Career Centers which offer employment services for
    job seekers across the country, including veterans after they have
    transitioned to civilian life. These facilities are part of state
    workforce agencies or employment commissions and are partially funded
    through a number of grants under DOL's Jobs for Veterans State Grants
    program. Despite these services, transitioning from military service to
    civilian life is more difficult than it needs to be. DOD should require
    mandatory participation in the Transition GPS education track for
    Servicemembers planning to attend school after separation or those who
    have transferred their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. The Department of
    Labor should permit state departments of labor to work directly with
    state VA offices to coordinate administration of the Jobs for Veterans
    State Grants program. Furthermore, One-Stop Career Center employees
    should attend Transition GPS classes to develop personal connections
    with transitioning veterans. A review of the core curriculum for
    Transition GPS should be required to reevaluate whether the current
    curriculum accurately addresses the needs of transitioning
    Servicemembers, and DOD, VA, and DOL should be required to produce a
    one-time joint report regarding the challenges employers face when
    seeking to hire veterans.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify regarding our
    recommendations. We also want to thank all who contributed to our final
    report. The Commission is grateful to have been given the opportunity
    to make recommendations to strengthen the best All-Volunteer Force in
    the world. Ensuring our Servicemembers, veterans, retirees, and their
    families' get the support they need is a responsibility the Commission
    took very seriously. Thank you to all those who serve, those who have
    served, and the families that support them.

        Chairman Isakson. Thank you very much, Mr. Maldon, for your
    testimony.
        I am going to ask Mr. Phillips, if he would, give Senator
    Gillibrand his seat. Senator Gillibrand.
        Mr. Phillips. It would be my honor.
        Chairman Isakson. This is a non-conventional meeting of the
    Veterans' Affairs Committee, I can tell you that. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Phillips. We are flexible.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
        Chairman Isakson. Roberts Rules of Order do not include all
    of this, but we have all got a SASC meeting today----
        Senator Gillibrand. Yes.
        Chairman Isakson. We are meeting here and there are a lot
    of other important meetings. We want to make sure you are
    recognized to present your bill, understanding that when you
    complete your presentation, I am going to turn over the
    chairmanship of the Committee to Mr. Cassidy, who will finish
    the hearing, as long as he can stay.
        So, Senator Gillibrand from New York, you are on.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND,
                       U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW YORK

        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do thank
    you for letting me come now. We are in the middle of the Armed
    Services markup, so it was for good reason.
        Today's hearing on S. 681, the Blue Water Navy Vietnam
    Veterans Act of 2015, is a very important piece of legislation
    that I have talked to veterans over the last 10 years about.
    This piece of legislation would ensure that thousands of brave
    veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam
    War receive VA care for illnesses related to their Agent Orange
    exposure.
        Agent Orange was dangerous. It was toxic. It was poisonous.
    It filled the air and poisoned the water and severely damaged
    the health of the people who were exposed to it. The U.S.
    Government has recognized the harmful effects of Agent Orange
    since the 1960s and the VA actively provides care and coverage
    to many soldiers who were exposed to Agent Orange.
        The problem we face today is that under current VA rules,
    the only U.S. veterans who are counted as having been exposed
    to this deadly chemical are the people who were actually on the
    ground, on Vietnamese soil, and the people who served on boats
    on Vietnam rivers, referred to as Brown Water Veterans. But,
    the current VA rules exclude the thousands of Navy veterans who
    were stationed on ships just off the Vietnamese coastline. This
    does not make any sense and it is not fair to these men and
    women.
        Agent Orange did not discriminate between those who stood
    on boats on rivers and those who stood on boats offshore. So,
    why should the VA discriminate between the two?
        Because of this arbitrary and bureaucratic rule, thousands
    of our Navy veterans are suffering. It is time to right this
    wrong. Let us cut the red tape that is causing additional
    suffering.
        Bobby Condon is one of those veterans. He is from Brooklyn.
    He joined the Navy when he was a teenager and he went to
    Vietnam at the age of 18 because he wanted to serve our
    country. Like countless others, Bobby was exposed to Agent
    Orange in Vietnam. He served on the U.S.S. Intrepid, which is
    now a world class museum on the Hudson River in New York City,
    which my little boys love.
        Bobby moved propeller planes and bomber jets on the
    Intrepid's flight deck. These planes had dropped Agent Orange
    and after their missions were done still contained its residue.
    It was Bobby's job to handle these planes. Bobby was a serial
    nail biter, and he believes that Agent Orange toxins seeped
    into his body when he bit his nails. Bobby is in his late 60s
    now and suffers from leukemia, a disease linked to Agent Orange
    exposure. He has been dealing with it for almost 20 years.
        So, what do you think the Department of Veterans Affairs
    did when Bobby first went to them for coverage? They said,
    sorry, your boat was here, not here, so we cannot help you.
    Sorry, you did not have boots on the ground. All those Blue
    Water Navy veterans like Bobby were being let down. Bobby said
    it best. He said, ``All I wanted is what I deserve.''
        We have an obligation to give back to the brave men and
    women who risked their lives for us, because each day that we
    delay passage of this bill, Vietnam veterans continue to become
    ill and go bankrupt from trying to pay medical bills because
    they are unable to receive coverage from the VA.
        Mr. Chairman, because of this urgent issue, I request that
    this Committee mark up this legislation and expeditiously
    report it favorably to the floor for consideration by the full
    Senate.
        I would also like to add to the record remarks by Senator
    Daines, who is the cosponsor of this bill. He is extremely
    grateful that this hearing is being held, and he fundamentally
    believes that our veterans do not deserve subpar care. He
    believes it is unacceptable that a technicality in the law and
    a dysfunctional Federal bureaucracy has resulted in the
    prolonged suffering of thousands of our Nation's heroes. He
    knows this legislation would make a difference. I submit his
    statement for the record.

        [The prepared statement of Senator Steve Daines of Montana
    can be found in the Appendix.]

        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    for your indulgence.
        Chairman Isakson. Well, thank you, Senator Gillibrand. For
    your information, the Committee will have a markup on your bill
    and the others that are being presented today sometime in the
    month of June.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
        Chairman Isakson. You will be notified, as well as Senator
    Daines. We appreciate your interest in the Committee and the
    veterans.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Isakson. Mr. Phillips, at this point in time, I am
    going to use executive privilege and turn over to Senator
    Cassidy the gavel to conduct the rest of the hearing until I
    get back, with explicit instructions to adjourn the hearing if
    I do not get back and everybody is through saying what they
    have got to say. Is that fair enough?
        Just 1 second, Mr. Phillips.
        Senator Cassidy [presiding]. Mr. Phillips, you are next.

     STATEMENT OF JEFFREY E. PHILLIPS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RESERVE
                          OFFICERS ASSOCIATION

        Mr. Phillips. Senator Cassidy, distinguished Members of the
    Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and hard working staff,
    thank you for inviting the Reserve Officers Association of the
    United States to testify on issues that affect the National
    Guard and Reserve of our Nation's Armed Forces.
        From north to south, east to west, America's young men and
    women have for more than two centuries affirmed the wisdom of
    our founders in their willingness to engage boldly, selflessly,
    and with great fidelity in the defense of our way of life.
    Among them are those in our Reserve components whose yearning
    for service finds outlet in a particularly demanding regimen.
    They must balance military service, always a consuming and
    uncompromising business, with the demands of a civilian work
    life and the care of their families. They ask only for the
    opportunity, the requisite tools and training, and good
    leadership.
        It is the privilege of us in the advocacy community, such
    as ROA and our fellow service organizations, to look past
    official messaging, seek beyond official policy and existing
    law, and identify opportunities to improve both our Nation's
    resourcing and support of these young patriots and also their
    very employment in the furtherance of our national security.
        The Selected Reserves contribute more than 820,000 members
    of our Armed Forces. Since 9/11, more than 900,000 members of
    the Guard and Reserve have been activated for service in these
    wars. These men and women serve us every day, in remote places
    as well as cities in turmoil right here at home. Each act of
    service incurs personal risk, voluntarily accepted.
        Do you know that many of these members of the Guard and
    Reserve will never be veterans in the eyes of the law? It is on
    behalf of these patriots, as well as a matter of sheer honor,
    that ROA supports S. 743, Honor America's Guard and Reserve
    Retirees Act of 2015.
        A friend of mine, Bonnie Carroll, founded Tragedy
    Assistance Program for Survivors after her husband, an Army
    officer, was killed in a military plane crash. TAPS is expert
    in the care of survivors. They focus on supporting those who
    have lost a loved one in military service, yet provide
    expertise to all who ask. Bonnie herself served 32 years in the
    military, in both the Air National Guard and the Air Force
    Reserve. Because of the requirement to have so many days on
    active duty, she is technically not a veteran. Bonnie is
    focused on others. She would never ask for anything for
    herself. ROA supports this legislation for her and the many
    others like her.
        Title 38 U.S.C. 101 defines a veteran as a person who
    served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who
    was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other
    than dishonorable. The word ``active'' is left very generally
    here. Ladies and gentlemen, is there any doubt that Reserve
    component members have met and do meet this definition?
        S. 743 helps recognize the fidelity of service demonstrated
    by members of our Reserve components. We urge passage.
        Another bill that supports equity is S. 681, the Blue Water
    Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2015. The Department of Veterans
    Affairs in 1991 extended presumption of Agent Orange exposure
    to Vietnam veterans, yet some veterans who were exposed to
    toxins such as Agent Orange while serving in trust and good
    faith have yet to be served in return.
        Blue Water veterans of the naval services were likely
    exposed to Agent Orange, and the Institute of Medicine
    recommended these veterans not be excluded from presumption of
    exposure. Air Force Reserve C-123 air crews were also exposed
    to Agent Orange. They deserve inclusion for service disability
    in connection with Agent Orange exposure, and ROA is working on
    that.
        Many warriors since World War I have been exposed to toxins
    and related risks, be it mustard gas, asbestos, Agent Orange,
    and so forth. We must be accountable for this exposure and the
    resultant effects. We urge the DOD, working with VA, to
    maintain registries of toxin exposure that would help in
    identifying maladies and establishing connections as well as
    treatments, and perhaps offer lessons helpful in the
    responsible use of toxins.
        Finally, S. 602, the G.I. Bill Fairness Act of 2015, will
    correct a disparity, likely one made unintentionally, between
    active and Reserve component members. A Reservist placed on
    orders for medical care no longer earns education benefits. An
    active component servicemember placed in a similar medical
    status does continue to earn education benefits. ROA supports
    the reform offered in S. 602.
        Senator, my time is up, and so we respectfully request our
    written testimony be submitted for the record.
        ROA, chartered by Congress in 1950 to support our national
    defense and those who serve in the Reserve components,
    appreciates the opportunity to respond to the proposed
    legislation today and looks forward to helping the Committee in
    its vitally important work.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Phillips follows:]
    Prepared Statement of Jeffrey E. Phillips, Executive Director, Reserve
                   Officers Association of the United States
        The Reserve Officers Association of the United States (ROA) is a
    professional association of commissioned, non-commissioned and warrant
    officers of our Nation's seven uniformed services. ROA was founded in
    1922 during the drawdown years following the end of World War I. It was
    formed as a permanent institution dedicated to national defense, with a
    goal to teach America about the dangers of unpreparedness. Under ROA's
    1950 congressional charter, our purpose is to promote the development
    and execution of policies that will provide adequate national defense.
    We do so by developing and offering expertise on the use and resourcing
    of America's reserve components.
        The association's members include Guard and Reserve Soldiers,
    Sailors, Marines, Airmen, and Coast Guardsmen who frequently serve on
    active duty to meet critical needs of the uniformed services. ROA's
    membership also includes commissioned officers from the United States
    Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration who often are first responders during national disasters
    and help prepare for homeland security.
    President:
            Brigadier General Michael Silva, U.S. Army Reserve (Ret.)
                    202-646-7706
    Executive Director:
            Jeffrey Phillips
                    202-646-7726
    Legislative Director:
            Lieutenant Colonel Susan Lukas, U. S. Air Force Reserve (Ret.)
                    202-646-7713
                   disclosure of federal grants or contracts
        The Reserve Officers and is a member-supported organization. ROA
    has not received grants, contracts, or subcontracts from the Federal
    Government in the past three years. All other activities and services
    of the associations are accomplished free of any direct Federal
    funding.
        On behalf of our members, the Reserve Officers Association thanks
    the Committee for the opportunity to submit testimony on legislation
    proposed by Congress, the Department of Defense and the Military
    Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission.
                     s. 602, g.i. bill fairness act of 2015
        ROA wholeheartedly supports this proposal to continue eligibility
    for the Post-9/11 GI Bill when a member of the reserve component is
    receiving medical care under Title 10 United States Code (U.S.C.)
    12301(h). Placing reserve component servicemembers on these active duty
    orders is done for administrative purposes and Guard and Reserve
    members should not lose eligibility for education benefits. The change
    in status from one type of order to 10 United States Code 12301(h) is
    done to unencumber direct operation support billets. The change from
    one type of active duty order to another type of order should not be
    seen as change to a lesser duty status. The proposed legislation
    removes the disparity between the reserve component and active
    component, since active duty servicemembers continue to earn education
    benefits when they are in the same medical care status. Title 38 U.S.C.
    3301, which is addressed in the bill, already includes detainee status,
    10 U.S.C. 12301(g), and, therefore, does not need to be part of the
    G.I. Bill Fairness Act of 2015.
              s. 681, blue water navy vietnam veterans act of 2015
        ROA urges Congress to support Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans who
    were exposed to Agent Orange when ships manufactured fresh water by
    taking sea water, contaminated with Agent Orange off of the coast of
    Vietnam. This occurred when the rain washed Agent Orange through water
    tributaries to the South China Sea. On board ship, potable water (sea
    water distilled one time) is used for showers, shaving, cooking,
    coffee, laundry and dishwashing, which explains how sailors were
    directly exposed to the contaminated water. Agent Orange is a
    nonsoluble salt that migrates to the sides of the distillation
    equipment. It builds up over time increasing the potency of the
    chemical. The distillation equipment is cleaned on a 36 month regular
    overhaul schedule which means sailors on ship are exposed to Agent
    Orange for a protracted period of time. The Department of Defense does
    not have a toxic exposure policy to identify and study servicemembers
    who are exposed to toxic chemicals even though exposure to toxins has
    occurred in every modern war. A policy that tracks exposure could
    ultimately reduce health care costs through the collection of
    verifiable data rather than rely on designation of presumption status
    through the Department of Veterans Affairs.
        military compensation and retirement modernization commission--
                               education benefits
        Sec 1101: The commission recommendation sunsets the Montgomery G.I.
    Bill for Reserve Educational Assistance Program (MGIB-REAP) in favor of
    the Post-9/11 G.I. education bill. Making this change would end
    education benefits much sooner for Guard and Reserve under the Post-9/
    11 option. MGIB-REAP allows servicemembers to use the benefit 10 years
    from the day they leave the Selected Reserve or the day they leave the
    Individual Ready Reserve. For the Post-9/11 education benefit, they
    have 15 years from the last day of their active duty order. For
    example, a reservist is on active duty orders for 90 days until
    March 25, 2015. This means the reservist can use Post-9/11 education
    benefits until March 25, 2030. Under the same orders the reservist
    earns MGIB-REAP and retires from the Selected Reserve on April 1, 2025.
    The reservist's MGIB-REAP benefit can be used 10 years after
    retirement, until April 1, 2035. Guard and Reserve members work at two
    jobs, their civilian job and as reserve component servicemembers. Guard
    and Reserve members have clearly earned both benefits and should be
    able to use the education benefit that best serves their education
    goals or the Post-9/11 G.I. bill should be adjusted to use the same
    MGIB-REAP expiration of benefits criteria for Guard and Reserve.
        Sec 1103: This section applies to the Selected Reserve and
    Individual Ready Reserve when they agree to remain a member of the
    Selected Reserve for at least 4 years after completion of the education
    or training for which the tuition charges are paid. The change allows
    the service Secretary to deny tuition assistance if the education or
    training does not contribute to the servicemember's professional
    development. ROA agrees tuition assistance for professional development
    is reasonable but we are concerned with the subjective manner that
    ``professional development'' may be defined. For example, a
    noncommissioned officer is a personnel specialist and is pursuing a
    bachelor of science degree in management with George Mason University,
    which requires a class in calculus. A determination could be made that
    calculus is not considered professional development for a servicemember
    in the personnel career field. The class, if taken in isolation, would
    not qualify for tuition assistance. To overcome that possibility, ROA
    recommends changing the proposed legislation to include any courses
    required by a degree that is considered ``professional development.''
        Sec 1108: ROA has received feedback from our members who state
    transferability of the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill entitlement with a housing
    stipend is a motivating reason why they volunteer for deployments. This
    section terminates the monthly housing stipend beginning on July 1,
    2017. ROA is concern 2017 does not give servicemembers enough time to
    absorb this cost through their budget, savings, or investment planning.
    If Congress goes forward with this change, then ROA recommends
    termination be extended to July 1, 2021 vice July 1, 2017 to ensure all
    family members now matriculated are covered under the current plan.
    military compensation and retirement modernization commission (mcrmc)--
                             transition assistance
        SEC 1204: This section recommends, ``The Secretary of Defense, in
    consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary
    of Labor, shall conduct a review of the Department of Defense
    Transition GPS Program Core Curriculum * * * '' and the proposal
    includes several matters that should be reviewed. ROA is concerned that
    the proposed legislation does not include a review of the effectiveness
    of the program for Guard and Reserve servicemembers. Transition Goals,
    Plans, Success (GPS) is divided into several sessions covering
    finances, family adjustments, VA benefits, employment, education and
    small business startups that are very appropriate subjects for active
    component servicemembers who are leaving the service. However, when
    someone in the reserve components separates at the end of their orders,
    they remain in the military and return to their unit. ROA believes the
    proposed legislation should rewrite MCRMC legislative proposal SEC
    1204(a)(2)(A) to change ``* * * needs of members of the Armed Forces
    transitioning out of military service.'' to ``* * * needs of members of
    the Active and Reserve Components of the Armed Forces transitioning out
    of military service.'' This change would more clearly identify that
    Guard and Reserve needs would be considered as a separate category of
    the review.
                  department of defense legislative proposals
        Section 514: This section recommends the same legislation as S. 602
    discussed previously.
        Section 522: This proposed change adds two involuntary call-up
    categories (10 U.S.C. 12304a and 12304b) to education benefits in Title
    10, Chapter 1606 and this is supported by ROA. The change is for when a
    servicemember is responding to a major disaster or emergency (123041)
    or a preplanned mission in support of the combatant commanders
    (12304b). This would ensure Title 10 legislation, that created new
    provisions for involuntary call-up in 2011, is included for
    servicemembers to regain lost payments and lost entitlement time for
    the Montgomery G.I. Bill--Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR) benefits. It is
    important that an involuntary call-up should not allow benefits to be
    lost through no fault of the servicemember. This proposal would ensure
    all involuntary service does not result in servicemembers absorbing
    negative impacts to their education benefits, such as, course
    cancellations, tuition repayments or loss of entitlement time.
        Section 542: ROA included the legislative fix to exempt two duty
    statuses added in 2011 to the 5-year reemployment limit in ROA's 2015
    Legislative Plan. The change is for duty status when a servicemember is
    responding to a major disaster or emergency (123041) or a preplanned
    mission in support of the combatant commanders (12304b). USERRA
    significantly strengthens and expands the employment and reemployment
    rights of all uniformed servicemembers. Reemployment rights extend to
    persons who have been absent from a position of employment because of
    ``service in the uniformed services,'' which is through the performance
    of duty on a voluntary or involuntary basis. Until the addition of two
    involuntary duty statuses, all involuntary service was exempted from
    the five-year limit but the latest changes were not added to the
    proposed legislative provision. It is important that an involuntary
    call-up should not put an individual beyond the five-year limit and
    cause the individual to lose his or her right to reemployment.
        Section 545: The proposed change to exclude Guard and Reserve
    members from pre-separation counseling when on full-time training duty,
    annual training duty, and attending service school, has merit on the
    face of it, but ROA believes servicemembers should have the option to
    attend pre-separation counseling, if they so need. It is hard to
    anticipate everyone's unique needs and a blanket exclusion from
    receiving the counseling may mean servicemembers do not receive needed
    information.
                     discussion draft legislative proposals
        S. 743: The proposed bill to recognize a reserve component member
    as a veteran, but without benefits, is a legislative goal of The
    Military Coalition (TMC). The TMC, in a letter to bill sponsors, which
    ROA supported, stated, ``The individuals covered by your legislation
    have already earned most of the benefits granted to veterans by the
    Department of Veterans Affairs, and yet they do not have the right to
    call themselves veterans because their service did not include
    sufficient duty under Title 10 orders. Because of this they feel
    dishonored by their government. Your legislation simply authorizes them
    to be honored as ``veterans of the Armed Forces'' but prohibits the
    award of any new benefit. The `Honor America's Guard-Reserve Retirees
    Act of 2015' is a practical way to honor the vital role members of the
    Reserve Components have had in defending our Nation throughout long
    careers of service and sacrifice. And it can be done at no-cost to the
    American tax-payer because of your legislation.''
                                   conclusion
        ROA appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony and looks
    forward to working with Congress, whereby, we can offer our support and
    perspective of the reserve components.

        Senator Cassidy. Thank you, Mr. Phillips.
        Mr. Morosky.

       STATEMENT OF ALEKS MOROSKY, DEPUTY LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
         NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS

        Mr. Morosky. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the
    men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars and our
    Auxiliaries, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
    testify on today's pending legislation.
        I would like to open by saying that the VFW generally
    supports all bills and proposals under discussion today and
    thanks the Committee for its good work in bringing them
    forward. Due to time constraints, however, I will focus the
    majority of my statement on the areas in which we believe they
    may be further strengthened.
        The Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act:
    The VFW supports this legislation, which amends Title 38 to
    align the definition of marriage with the Supreme Court's
    ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act. Simply put, if a veteran
    is legally married in a State that recognizes same-sex
    marriage, we believe the VA should provide benefits to his or
    her spouse or surviving spouse the same way it does for every
    other legally married veteran.
        The G.I. Bill Fairness Act: The VFW supports this
    legislation, which would require VA to consider time spent by
    members of the Reserve component receiving medical care for
    service-connected injuries for the purposes of determining
    eligibility for the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill. We believe the time it
    takes to recuperate from service-connected injuries is still
    time in service to the country and that Reservists and
    Guardsmen should be recognized for that sacrifice.
        Furthermore, we urge Congress to address another inequity
    that we have identified in Post-9/11 G.I. Bill eligibility
    determination. The VFW believes that any member of the Armed
    Forces who was wounded in action should be deemed 100 percent
    eligible, regardless of how long they served on active duty.
        S. 627: The VFW strongly supports the intent of this
    legislation, which would require the Secretary to retroactively
    rescind bonuses paid to VA employees who were later found to
    have manipulated wait time data by purposefully omitting any
    veteran's name from the electronic wait list as identified by
    an investigation by the Inspector General. The VFW strongly
    believes that employee accountability is critical to correcting
    past problems at VA and restoring trust of the veterans that
    they serve. Employees must realize that deliberately delaying
    or withholding care from a veteran is unacceptable and will not
    be tolerated under any circumstances, much less rewarded.
        With that said, the VFW also recognizes that many front-
    line employees may have been coerced into these dishonest
    practices by their superiors. For far too long, whistleblower
    protections were not properly enforced at VA, and lower-level
    employees were often subjected to intimidation and threats of
    reprisal by their superiors if they did not comply with
    business practices that may have been dishonest. For this
    reason, we ask that the IG report also be required to determine
    which, if any, employees were coerced into their actions by
    their superiors and allow the Secretary to make a decision on
    whether or not those employees should be spared punishment on
    that basis.
        The Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act: The VFW strongly
    supports this legislation, which would extend presumptive
    service connection in health care for Agent Orange-related
    illnesses to Blue Water Navy veterans. We have long maintained
    that it is arbitrary and unjust that veterans who serve aboard
    ships in the coastal waters of veteran are denied presumptive
    benefits associated with Agent Orange exposure.
        The 21st Century Veterans Benefits Delivery Act: The VFW
    supports this important legislation, but has two suggestions
    which we believe would strengthen it further. First, we would
    ask that the bill be amended to indicate that VA shall notify
    the veteran of their right to an in-person hearing and shall
    grant such a request. Second, while the VFW supports the
    Comptroller General audit provision, we are not certain that
    the Comptroller can hire sufficient subject matter experts to
    conduct the review in the allotted time. For this reason, we
    would suggest that the Committee consider narrowing the scope
    of the study or extending the amount of time that the
    Comptroller has to conduct the review.
        The VFW generally supports all MCRMC and DOD
    recommendations except Section 545, which would allow DOD to
    not offer TAP to certain Reserve component members who are not
    activated. Although we understand that there are certain
    operational limitations for Reserve units that make it
    difficult for them to offer the full TAP course, we believe a
    better alternative, in our opinion, would be offering a
    condensed TAP course to these servicemembers.
        Finally, the draft legislation, the VFW supports all
    sections of this bill except Section 205, for which we have no
    position. Also, we support Section 206, which would require VA
    to submit reports on its disability medical exams process and
    the extent to which it is able to prevent unnecessary medical
    examinations. We would suggest, however, that the reporting
    requirement also include how many specialty examinations were
    ordered in cases where the veteran had already submitted a
    disability benefits questionnaire completed by a non-Department
    physician. This will help us understand the extent to which the
    information submitted in those cases is accepted by VA as
    adequate for deciding claims.
        Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, this concludes my
    statement and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Morosky follows:]
        Prepared Statement of Aleks Morosky, Deputy Director, National
       Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of The United States
        Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal and Members of the
    Committee, On behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign
    Wars of the United States (VFW) and our Auxiliaries, I would like to
    thank you for the opportunity to testify on today's pending
    legislation.
      s. 270, charlie morgan military spouses equal treatment act of 2015
        The VFW supports this legislation, which amends title 38, United
    States Code, to align the definition of marriage with the Supreme
    Court's ruling of the Defense of Marriage Act. Simply put, if a veteran
    is legally married in a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, the
    Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is obligated to provide survivor
    benefits to his or her spouse or surviving spouse the same way it does
    for every other legally married veteran. The VFW believes that a
    veteran is a veteran and their benefits should be provided fairly
    across the board.
                     s. 602, g.i. bill fairness act of 2015
        The VFW supports legislation requiring VA to consider time spent by
    members of the reserve components while receiving medical care for
    service-connected injuries for purposes of determining eligibility for
    the Post-9/11 GI Bill. In 2002, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
    Reserve Affairs accurately stated, ``the current reserve component
    status system is complex, aligns poorly to current training and
    operational support requirements, fosters inconsistencies in
    compensation and complicates rather than supports effective
    budgeting.'' There is no better illustration of this statement than the
    fact that recovering guardsmen and reservists are ineligible for the
    same GI Bill benefits as their active duty counterparts. We urge
    Congress to act swiftly to end this unequal treatment by passing
    S. 602.
        Furthermore, we urge Congress to draft legislation that addresses
    additional GI Bill benefits inequities between war veterans from the
    reserve component, non-wartime veterans, and dependents. Currently, a
    Marine reservist could potentially deploy to a combat zone, receive a
    Purple Heart and still only receive 60 percent of his or her Post-9/11
    GI Bill. Similarly, a Guardsman, who deploys twice to a combat zone,
    may only receive 80 percent of his or her Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit.
    Meanwhile, a dependent of an active duty veteran who may never have
    deployed to combat at all, could receive 100 percent of the Post-9/11
    GI Bill benefit, regardless of the dependent's affiliation with the
    military in their adult life. The eligibility requirement for reserve
    component members is inherently unjust, and we ask Congress to increase
    Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits for reserve component members who serve in a
    combat zone, especially for those wounded in action.
    s. 627, to require the secretary of veterans affairs to revoke bonuses
     paid to employees involved in electronic wait list manipulations, and
                              for other purposes.
        The VFW supports the intent of this legislation which would require
    the Secretary to retroactively rescind bonuses paid to VA employees who
    are later found to have manipulated wait time data by purposefully
    omitting any veteran's name from the electronic wait list, as
    identified by an investigation by the Inspector General (IG).
        The VFW strongly believes that employee accountability is critical
    to correcting past problems at VA and restoring the trust of the
    veterans they serve. Employees must realize that deliberately delaying
    or withholding care from a veteran is unacceptable and will not be
    tolerated under any circumstances, much less rewarded. In addition,
    supervisors who were aware of data manipulation practices by the
    employees below them must also be held equally accountable, as provided
    for in this legislation.
        With that said, the VFW also recognizes that many front-line
    employees may have been coerced into these dishonest practices by their
    superiors. For far too long, whistleblower protections were not
    properly enforced at VA, and lower level employees were often subjected
    to intimidation and threats of reprisal by their superiors if they did
    not comply with business practices that may have been dishonest. The
    VFW believes that this culture is changing at VA. Still, we believe
    employees who may have acted out of fear of reprisal were not directly
    responsible for the data manipulation that took place at some
    facilities. For this reason, we ask that the IG report also be required
    to determine which if any employees were coerced into their actions by
    their superiors, and allow the Secretary to make a decision on whether
    or not those employees should be spared punishment on that basis.
              s. 681, blue water navy vietnam veterans act of 2015
        The VFW strongly supports this legislation, which would require VA
    to include territorial seas as part of the Republic of Vietnam,
    extending presumptive service connection and health care for Agent
    Orange-related illnesses to Blue Water Navy veterans. We have long
    maintained that it is arbitrary and unjust that veterans who served
    aboard ships in the coastal waters of Vietnam are denied presumptive
    benefits associated with Agent Orange exposure. We believe that those
    veterans were potentially exposed to significant levels of toxins, and
    should be granted the same presumption of service connection as their
    counterparts who served on the mainland of Vietnam.
              s. 1203, 21st century veterans benefits delivery act
        This legislation would revise or add many provisions regarding the
    way in which the Department of Veterans Affairs administers veterans'
    claims for benefits, and the VFW worked closely with Senators Heller
    and Casey during its drafting. While the VFW supports this bill, we
    need to ensure its language is perfectly clear. Therefore, we recommend
    the Committee amend two sections of the bill to ensure veterans are
    fully aware of their rights and that the proposed Comptroller General
    audit is effective:

        Section 103 allows the Board of Veterans Appeals to use video
    teleconferencing (VTC) as the default method for hearings. While
    conducting hearings though VTC will expedite the adjudication of claims
    and eliminate substantial travel costs to veterans and the
    Administration, we feel that veterans should be made aware of the
    option to attend hearings in person. Therefore, we recommend the
    Committee amend the bill to indicate that the VA ``shall'' notify the
    veteran of their right to an in-person hearing and ``shall'' grant such
    a request.
        Section 201 requires the U.S. Comptroller General to audit all
    Veterans Benefits Administration Regional Offices (VARO) to assess the
    consistency of rating decisions. A thorough study would require the
    collection of a representative sample of decisions by disability to
    review them for similarities and note different outcomes. The VFW does
    not oppose the provision, but we worry that the Comptroller cannot hire
    sufficient subject matter experts to conduct the review in the time
    allotted. The Committee should consider whether another option may be
    more feasible, such as narrowing the scope of the study or extending
    the amount of time the Comptroller has to conduct the review.
      draft bill, veterans' compensation cost-of-living adjustment act of
                                      2015
        The VFW strongly supports this legislation which will increase VA
    compensation for veterans and survivors, and adjust other benefits, by
    providing a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) beginning December 1,
    2015.
        Disabled veterans, along with their surviving spouses and children,
    depend on their disability and dependency and indemnity compensation to
    bridge the gap of lost earnings and savings caused by the veteran's
    disability. Each year, veterans wait anxiously to find out if they will
    receive a cost-of-living adjustment. There is no automatic trigger that
    increases these forms of compensation for veterans and their
    dependents. Annually, veterans wait for a separate Act of Congress to
    provide the same adjustment that is automatically granted to Social
    Security beneficiaries.
        The VFW is pleased that this legislation does not contain the
    ``rounding down'' of the COLA increase. This is nothing more than a
    money-saving device that comes at the expense of veterans and their
    survivors.
         military compensation and retirement modernization commission
                             legislative proposals
    Recommendation 11
        The Commission recommended that the VA consolidate all education
    benefits into a single program, extend the time commitment required to
    obtain the transferability benefit and eliminate the Basic Housing
    Allowance for dependents. The VFW played an integral role in passing
    the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill and we have a vested interest in ensuring that
    the veterans who utilize this robust benefit receive quality
    educational and vocational training outcomes. Military and veterans'
    education benefits provide a critical tool to ensure that those who
    have defended our Nation can compete for the best jobs when they leave
    service. We believe the country has a vested interest in ensuring that
    Federal education dollars for our military men and women are not
    abused.
        The Commission takes issue with a prioritization of veterans' needs
    and the Defense Department's incentive to allow servicemembers to
    transfer their GI Bill benefits to their dependents. The G.I. Bill's
    primary use should be to help veterans reintegrate into civilian life
    by providing the education and skills necessary to gain meaningful
    employment, but providing transferability of one's G.I. Bill benefit
    has been a critical tool in retaining mid-career servicemembers. The
    G.I. Bill must be a transition benefit first, and the transition aspect
    should never provide a greater benefit to dependents than it does to
    veterans.
        The Commission recommended ``duplicative education assistance
    programs should sunset to reduce administrative costs and to simplify
    the education benefits system.'' To do so, Congress would have to
    choose between two options. First, extend full Post-9/11 G.I. Bill
    benefits to all servicemembers and veterans, including all reserve
    component members. The second option would be to create a scaled system
    in which certain categories of veterans will receive different
    percentages of the G.I. Bill depending on whether they served on active
    duty, reserve status or during a time of war, similar to how VA awards
    a certain percentage of the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill to reserve component
    servicemembers today. If these programs are set to expire, Congress
    needs to ensure that war veterans, including guardsmen and reservists,
    should not receive less of a benefit than dependents or other veterans.
    Recommendation 12
        The VFW supports the Commission's recommendations for Congress to
    reevaluate the current Transition Goals, Plans, Success (GPS)
    curriculum, encourage state collaboration in coordinating the Jobs for
    Veterans State Grants (JVSG) program, encourage employees to attend
    Transition GPS classes and require a joint report from Department of
    Defense (DOD), VA, and Department of Labor (DOL) on the challenges
    employers face when seeking to hire veterans. Over the past few years,
    this Committee's work has produced a significant evolution in the way
    the military prepares transitioning servicemembers for civilian life.
    Positive changes include mandatory Transition Assistance Program (TAP)
    for all servicemembers, the creation of the Off-Base Transition
    Training (OBTT) pilot program, and a complete redesign of a TAP
    curriculum. The Commission's recommendations will build on the good
    work the Committee and agencies have already accomplished.
        The VFW supports ensuring that transitioning servicemembers have
    access to the full suite of transitional training, should they so
    choose, because transitioning servicemembers have no reasonable way to
    anticipate the specific challenges they will face after leaving the
    military. However, the VFW understands the operational limitations in
    mandating such participation across the military. That is why the VFW
    supports supplementing the mandatory portion of TAP with access to all
    the track curricula through online resources. DOD recently took a major
    step by allowing transitioning servicemembers to audit the modules
    through the secure Joint Knowledge Online (JKO) portal. The VFW stands
    firm on the idea that online resources must be seen as a supplement to
    in-person TAP, not a replacement.
        The VFW believes that DOD must fully implement its information
    sharing agreement with DOL to ensure that state workforce development
    agencies would have consistent access to the names of veterans leaving
    the military and relocating to their areas. When armed with this
    information, employment counselors could reach out directly to recently
    transitioned veterans and speak to them face to face to ensure that
    they fully understand what is available to them locally. Unfortunately,
    the proposed information sharing agreement was delayed, and only
    started as a pilot in January of this year. DOL first informed the VFW
    that it was working to codify the agreement in 2012. It is now 2015. At
    this point, the VFW believes it is unacceptable that DOD and DOL have
    yet to implement this concept fully.
        Another solution is to continue to bolster the post-service
    availability of TAP. By facilitating large-scale, community-based TAP
    classes, OBTT serves veterans who would not have had access to the
    material, or who could only receive comparable information by meeting
    one on one with employment counselors at an American Jobs Center.
    Moreover, the program was very cost effective, costing only $52,052 to
    administer the entire pilot. Unfortunately, the OBTT pilot expired in
    January 2015, and DOL will not have information on employment outcomes
    for participants for another year. The VFW believes that OBTT should be
    a permanent program, but until we have final data on the OBTT pilot,
    Congress should pass an extension of the pilot.
       department of defense legislative proposals--regarding education
      benefits, transition assistance program and advisory board on dose
                                 reconstruction
    Section 114
        As previously mentioned, the VFW supports amending Title 38 so that
    reserve component members who spend time on active duty for the purpose
    of receiving medical care accrue time for the GI Bill eligibility. We
    agree with DOD and Senator Wyden that reserve component members, who
    answer the call to active duty and served under similar conditions as
    their active counterparts, deserve to have their service equally
    honored.
    Section 522
        The VFW supports amending Chapter 1606 of title 10, so
    servicemembers who are unable to complete their studies due to
    mobilization do not lose valuable G.I. Bill benefits. Occasionally
    servicemembers receive mobilization orders in the middle of the
    semester and have no choice but to immediately drop their classes.
    Schools or the Federal Government should never penalize servicemembers
    for answering the call to service. Therefore, we recommend that the
    Committee adopt DOD's proposal to amend title 10, United States Code,
    12304a and 12304b to ensure a servicemember's education benefits are
    not lost when called to active duty.
    Section 542
        We support amending section 4312 of title 38 to ensure that the
    time servicemembers spend on involuntary mobilization orders does not
    count toward the cumulative 5-year service limit under Uniformed
    Service Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). In order to
    maintain your right for reemployment under USERRA, your cumulative
    periods of uniformed service, relating to the employer relationship for
    which you seek reemployment, must not exceed five years. This proposal
    will ensure that Congress's original intent to exempt all involuntary
    service from the 5-year limit is consistent with DOD practices under
    sections 12304a and 12304b of title 10.
    Section 545
        The VFW opposes any effort to limit any servicemember's access to
    the Transition Assistance Program. Reserve component servicemembers
    often face unique challenges when bouncing back and forth from active
    to reserve duty. Many reserve component members do not realize the
    rights, resources, and benefits that Congress has created for them.
    Unfortunately, reserve component members already have limited, if any,
    access to the services provided by the Transition Assistance Program.
    Before Congress grants DOD the authority to further exempt reserve
    component members from receiving TAP, we believe that Congress and DOD
    should collaborate to find new ways to extend TAP to reserve component
    members. One possible solution would be to create a pilot program where
    the military services offer a 1-day condensed TAP class that reserve
    units could provide their members on a drill weekend. A special TAP
    class would ensure that reserve component members understand the
    resources available to them for when they mobilize and transition back
    to reserve status successfully, without interrupting the unit's annual
    training schedule.
       draft bill, to amend title 38, united states code, to modify the
    treatment under contracting goals and preferences of the department of
    veterans affairs for small businesses owned by veterans, to carry out a
     pilot program on the treatment of certain applications for dependency
      and indemnity compensation as fully developed claims, and for other
                                   purposes.
        The VFW supports section 101, which would allow the surviving
    spouse of a deceased veteran business owner to continue operating the
    business as a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB)
    for a period of three years following the veteran's death. Current law
    only allows a surviving spouse to do so if the veteran was 100 percent
    disabled or died from a service- connected disability. This is a
    necessary protection that allows for a transition period for the
    bereaved spouse to restructure the business as necessary. The VFW
    believes that this protection should be extended to all surviving
    spouses under the SDVOSB program.
        Section 102 would allow the surviving spouse or dependent child of
    a servicemember who owns a business and is killed in the line of duty
    to continue operating the business as though it were owned by a veteran
    with a service-connected disability. This status would last until the
    dependent relinquishes at least 51 percent ownership, the spouse
    remarries, or after a period of ten years. The VFW supports this
    section.
        Section 201 would clarify that VA has a duty to assist by obtaining
    a medical opinion for veterans making service-connected disability
    claims related to military sexual trauma (MST), when the medical
    evidence does not contain a diagnosis or opinion by a mental health
    professional. The VFW supports this section. In addition, we strongly
    believe that the evidentiary burden placed on the veteran in MST claims
    remains unrealistically high for many. For this reason, we continue to
    support S. 685, the Ruth Moore Act.
        Sections 202 and 203 would require VA to submit reports to Congress
    on disability claims related to MST. The VFW supports these sections.
        The VFW supports section 204, which would require VA to carry out a
    pilot program to assess the feasibility and advisability of expediting
    certain claims for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC). We feel
    this is a common sense step toward more quickly adjudicating DIC claims
    where the veteran is already receiving disability compensation and the
    cause of death is clearly listed as having been due to one of his or
    her disabilities. In such cases, there is no reason to make the
    veteran's survivors wait any longer than necessary for their benefits.
        Section 205 provides for a review of determination of certain
    service in the Philippines during World War II. The VFW holds no
    position on this section.
        Section 206 would require VA to submit reports on its disability
    medical exams process and the extent to which it is able to prevent
    unnecessary medical examinations. The VFW supports this section, as
    these reports will help improve the disability examinations process,
    reducing the overall time necessary to decide claims. We would suggest,
    however, that the reporting requirement also include how many specialty
    examinations were ordered in cases where the veteran had already
    submitted a disability benefits questionnaire completed by a non-
    Department physician. This will help us understand the extent to which
    the information submitted in those cases is accepted by VA as adequate
    for deciding claims.
        The VFW supports section 301, which would require the Secretary of
    Veterans Affairs to conduct a study on identifying, claiming and
    interring unclaimed remains of veterans. The private sector has worked
    very hard to ensure dignified burials for veterans whose remains have
    gone unclaimed. This bill will require VA to recommend legislation or
    administrative actions that could take place to make the process of
    claiming remains for burial more standardized and timely.
        Finally, the VFW supports section 401, which would give the men and
    women who serve our Nation in the reserve component the recognition
    they deserve. Many who serve in the Guard and Reserve are in positions
    that support the deployments of their active duty comrades to make sure
    the unit is fully prepared when called upon. Unfortunately, some of
    these men and women who serve at least 20 years and are entitled to
    retirement pay, TRICARE, and other benefits, are not considered
    veterans according to the letter of the law. This provision would grant
    Guard and Reserve retirees the proper recognition as veterans.

        Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, this concludes my
    testimony and I am happy to answer any questions you or any other
    Members of the Committee may have.

        Senator Cassidy. Thank you.
        Senator Murray, would you like to go?
        Senator Murray. Whichever way you like.
        Senator Cassidy. If you are ready, please do.

            HON. PATTY MURRAY, U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

        Senator Murray. I am ready. Mr. Chairman, thank you very
    much. I really appreciate the opportunity. Welcome to all of
    our panelists today.
        Mr. Morosky, in your testimony about S. 627, you mentioned
    that VFW believes the culture at VA is changing. As you know,
    changing culture is incredibly hard, especially at an
    organization as large as the VA. If change is starting to
    happen, we certainly want to protect that progress and
    encourage more. What is VFW seeing that shows the culture at VA
    is finally changing, and what do you believe is causing that
    change?
        Mr. Morosky. We believe that the changing of culture is a
    big priority for Secretary McDonald, that his ``I.C.A.R.E.''
    philosophy and the idea that he is approachable as the
    Secretary is helping employees feel as though they can approach
    their superiors. Again, it is a very long process. It does not
    happen overnight. We recognize that the effort is being made to
    really make the Department more veteran-centric as opposed to
    centered around the bureaucracy that is in place.
        Senator Murray. And, you are beginning to see that. Well,
    we want to make sure we encourage that----
        Mr. Morosky. Yes.
        Senator Murray [continuing]. So, if you have any thoughts
    about encouraging that ongoing, let us know.
        Mr. Morosky. Yes. Thank you.
        Senator Murray. The Transition Assistance Program is really
    critical in helping our servicemembers leaving the military and
    entering the civilian world. Constantly reviewing and updating
    and expanding the TAP curriculum is really key to keeping it
    relevant and useful for our separating servicemembers, which I
    am sure you all agree with that.
        Mr. Phillips, I wanted to ask you, in your testimony, you
    talk about the importance of specifically reviewing whether the
    program is meeting the needs of Guard and Reserve, because, as
    you know, Reserve members face a lot of challenges. They are
    far from a VA or a military base. They return to communities
    very different than when they left, and they frequently have a
    lot of interruption between their education and their job. So,
    there are a lot of challenges there and I wanted to ask you, is
    the structure of the program working for Reservists so they can
    complete TAP before demobilizing?
        Mr. Phillips. Senator, thank you for the question and thank
    you for most of the answers. [Laughter.]
        You went through some of the chief challenges.
        Senator Murray. Yes.
        Mr. Phillips. We think the TAP has gotten better as it has
    aged and is evolving in the right direction. One of our chief
    concerns is that we ensure that the language portrays the
    differentiation of active and Reserve----
        Senator Murray. So, it is actually named----
        Mr. Phillips. It is actually named to put it in front of
    people that there is a differentiation here.
        Senator Murray. Mm-hmm.
        Mr. Phillips. Do I have an organic complaint, as it were,
    against TAP? No. I think since I had seen it initiated years
    and years ago, it has come a long way.
        One of the aspects of receiving TAP as you leave service is
    you may well be in a facility better equipped to provide the
    requisite TAP than when you go home.
        Senator Murray. Mm-hmm. OK.
        Mr. Phillips. Does that answer your question?
        Senator Murray. Yes, it does. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Maldon, first of all, I want to commend you and the
    rest of the Commission for the very thoughtful and important
    report that you submitted. I think we all appreciate the
    overwhelming amount of work that everybody put into this, so
    thank you.
        Retaining good servicemembers is a major challenge for our
    military, as many of them, we know, leave after their first
    enlistment. To help with this, you recommend increasing the
    length of service requirement to transfer the G.I. Bill
    benefits to dependents. How many additional servicemembers do
    you expect would stay in the military, who would not have
    stayed otherwise, who would stay on as the result of that
    change?
        Mr. Maldon. Senator Murray, it is hard to say how many
    would stay on, quite candidly. We believe that by making that
    change, it certainly does not hurt retention. We believe that
    it gives the services an added flexibility that they had asked
    us for--asked the Commission for, if we give them the----
        Senator Murray. So, that is one of the things they
    requested?
        Mr. Maldon. That is one of the things that the services
    requested, is they wanted more flexibility so that they can
    manage the force profile. We believe that it would certainly
    help with that mid-career group of servicemembers that we
    wanted to retain, is by changing it from six-plus-four to ten-
    plus-two.
        Senator Murray. OK. Thank you. Thank you very much, and
    thank you all for your testimony today.
        Mr. Maldon. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, thank you for accommodating
    me. I appreciate it.

        Senator Cassidy. Mr. Morosky, you mentioned culture changes
    in the VA. Are there other issues besides a culture change?
    What comes to mind, I was reading about Matthew Ridgway who in
    a hundred days took a broken Army in Korea and formed it back
    into a fighting unit with high morale that was incredibly
    effective. Now, granted, the VA is--we do not have people
    walking around the VA corridors with hand grenades hanging
    around their neck. I get that. But, still, sometimes there are
    systemic problems that thwart even the best leadership. Do you
    see any of those?
        Mr. Morosky. Mr. Chairman, sometimes we refer to it as the
    frozen middle. We feel as though the people at VA's central
    office are certainly making a concerted effort and the
    Secretary has made it a priority to change culture, and we feel
    that a lot of the front-line people who work at VA can see this
    and want the culture to change, but there is--the middle
    management seems to be the biggest challenge, in our opinion,
    in terms of having that filter from the Secretary's level down
    to the point of service.
        Senator Cassidy. So, it comes to mind, Ridgway, apparently,
    when asked what the counterattack plans were, was told there
    were none. He then replaced the officer who had not developed
    such plans.
        So, I guess there is a sense in which you have to have the
    ability to replace those middle management who are not doing
    their job. I think with even all the scandals, only three
    people have been let go. So, I take it you would probably favor
    those bills which would increase accountability for that middle
    management?
        Mr. Morosky. Absolutely, sir, and that includes the bill
    today that deals with the bonus recision.
        Senator Cassidy. Got you. Thank you.
        Mr. Maldon, I really appreciate your work. Now, I am
    skimming over this, trying to understand--I forget if it was
    Mr. Phillips or Mr. Morosky's comments upon Mr. Maldon. Are
    both of you OK with the Commission's recommendation of
    transferability of G.I. benefits? You mentioned, I think, Mr.
    Maldon, that this has been an important tool in mid-career
    retention, correct?
        Mr. Maldon. Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is correct. The
    transferability is, in fact, important to retention.
        Senator Cassidy. And I think it was you, Mr. Morosky--I was
    not quite sure you all were completely in line with their
    recommendation. Did I misunderstand your testimony?
        Mr. Morosky. When it comes to G.I. Bill benefits, Mr.
    Chairman, we just want to make sure that if there are ways that
    cost is being looked at, that veterans are always the first
    priority. We are not opposed to dependents having benefits
    transferred, but we just want to make sure that the benefit
    remains there for the veteran as the first priority.
        Senator Cassidy. OK. Mr. Maldon, is there anything in your
    kind of recommendations that would make that not the case?
        Mr. Maldon. That is a negative, Mr. Chairman. We believe
    that the transferability recommendations that we made do just
    that. They do not do anything to harm the veterans at all. It
    will not affect or have an impact on retention.
        Senator Cassidy. Now, let me ask you gentlemen--and anyone
    can answer because I just do not know this--I was struck that
    all of you are advocating that when somebody goes on health
    leave, they would continue to have eligibility for their
    educational benefits. It makes total sense to me, but is there
    not a provision now where if somebody is injured, say, for
    example, they lose a leg, and formerly they did something which
    required their ability to ambulate, so now they would have some
    rehab that would kick in to help them adjust to life without a
    leg, but also to have a career that would not require them to
    ambulate. Is everybody with me so far?
        Now, that seems kind of part and parcel of post-service
    educational programs. Now, I think you, Mr. Maldon, spoke of
    the need to reduce duplication. So, is there any duplication
    there would be in the rehab of somebody from a medical event
    along with the G.I. Bill? I do not know this. I am asking for
    my own information. Can anybody address that, or did I not make
    my question clear enough?
        Mr. Morosky. VA also has another program, sir, called
    vocational rehabilitation, which allows for disabled
    servicemembers to learn vocational skills that can accommodate
    their disabilities.
        Senator Cassidy. Now, vocational rehab, I usually think in
    terms of, OK, I used to do things with two hands, and now I am
    going to learn how to do them with one hand. It is a little bit
    different than, OK, I used to carry pipes but now I am going to
    go back and get a history degree. Do you follow what I am
    saying?
        Mr. Morosky. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cassidy. So, is there an education--I do not know--
    is there an educational program for those in rehab beyond
    vocational rehab, or, rather, that would be duplicative of any
    other G.I. Bill? I am gathering not from the stares I am
    getting.
        Mr. Maldon. To my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, there is not.
        Senator Cassidy. That would be the only reason I could
    imagine that anyone would not take your suggestions in terms of
    extending the G.I. benefits after a health event.
        Mr. Phillips.
        Mr. Phillips. Senator, if I were to characterize vocational
    rehab, it is not just the body, but the spirit, and it is also
    a retuning of the soldier, sailor, airman, Marine's mind to be
    able to take account of the new physical situation this person
    finds him or herself in and adjust to that, not just
    physically, but in the way of going about their life and moving
    on to the next stage.
        What we perhaps could do better at is melding both
    education of the mind, G.I. Bill, and vocational
    rehabilitation, when it is appropriate, with the soldier or the
    servicemember who is going through that kind of transition.
        Senator Cassidy. I totally get that. Yes. That just makes
    total sense to me.
        Well, folks, Senator Isakson is not back yet, so I am going
    to call a recess until he returns, because I know he has
    questions that he would like to ask.
        But, again, thank you for all your service and for all you
    do representing our veterans. Thank you.
        Oh, I am told by somebody behind the chair whom you cannot
    see----
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Cassidy [continuing]. That we can go ahead and
    adjourn. So, thank you all very much.
        [Whereupon, at 4:02 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

       Prepared Statement of Hon. Steve Daines, U.S. Senator from Montana

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Hon. Chris Gibson, U.S. Representative
                                 from New York

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of Air Force Association
        Chairman Isakson and Ranking Member Blumenthal, The Air Force
    Association thanks you for your support of the Veterans of the Air
    Force, their families and survivors.
        We are grateful for your unwavering commitment to the men and women
    who have defended our Nation, and appreciate the priority Congress has
    given Veterans issues in the past decade. We acknowledge the
    increasingly difficult budget choices before you in these times. We
    also appreciate this opportunity to give the Air Force Association's
    views on the following matters.
                       Reserve Component on Medical Hold
        Members of the National Guard or Reserve who are disabled on active
    duty orders and receiving medical care (this is called ``medical hold''
    status), should not lose eligibility for Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.
        Currently, when a Guard or Reserve servicemember is injured or
    wounded in a combat theatre, the member transitions on orders to a
    medical hold status. This stops accrual of active duty time that would
    count toward Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, and even if the member returns
    to service, none of the time spent in medical hold qualifies.
        AFA believes fixing this oversight in current statute would allow
    all servicemembers to continue to accrue the educational benefits
    earned in service while receiving medical care from the Department of
    Defense (DOD).
     Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC)
                                Recommendations
        The MCRMC recommends a number of steps toward reducing redundancy
    in GI Bill programs. AFA generally supports these recommendations, as
    long as those already pursuing an education plan are allowed to finish
    their courses, and servicemembers who are using Montgomery GI Bill and
    other education benefits are grandfathered with those benefits.
        AFA also supports the MCRMC recommendation to increase the
    eligibility requirements for transferring Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits to
    10 years of service, and the sunset on housing stipend for dependents
    as long as those already under contract are grandfathered into those
    contracts.
        The MCRMC recommended DOD track the education levels of
    servicemembers leaving the service, as well as the education levels of
    servicemembers who transfer their Post-9/11GI Bill to their dependents.
    It also recommended the VA collect information related to: course
    completion rates, course dropout rates, course failure rates,
    certificates and degrees being pursued, and employment rates after
    graduation, including that information in an annual report to the
    Congress. AFA agrees to this tracking as well as the recommendation to
    better prepare servicemembers for transition to civilian life by
    expanding education and granting states more flexibility to administer
    state grants programs.
                           DOD Legislative Proposals
        AFA supports DOD's proposals giving Service Secretaries greater
    flexibility to test and evaluate alternative career retention options
    under the Career Intermission Pilot Programs, to bolster reemployment
    rights of those in the Reserve Component and confidential reporting in
    sexual assault cases.
        Thank you again for your support of our force, and for the
    opportunity to offer this testimony from the Air Force Association.
                                               Scott Van Cleef,
                                                 Chairman of the Board.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-
                      CIO and the AFGE National VA Council

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Association

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of Concerned Veterans for America
      s. 270: charlie morgan military spouses equal treatment act of 2015
    To amend title 38, United States Code, to revise the definition of
            spouse for purposes of veterans benefits in recognition of new
            State definitions of spouse, and for other purposes.
        CVA has NO POSITION on this legislation.
                      s. 602: gi bill fairness act of 2015
    To amend title 38, United States Code, to consider certain time spent
            by members of reserve components of the Armed Forces while
            receiving medical care from the Secretary of Defense as active
            duty for purposes of eligibility for Post-9/11 Educational
            Assistance, and for other purposes.
        CVA has NO POSITION on this legislation.
     s. 627: a bill to require the secretary of veterans affairs to revoke
          bonuses paid to employees involved in electronic wait list
                     manipulations, and for other purposes.
    To require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to revoke bonuses paid to
            employees involved in electronic wait list manipulations, and
            for other purposes.
        Last year it was revealed that wait list manipulations on the part
    of high-ranking VA employees had resulted in deaths as veterans waited
    for the care they needed. This was done in order to make it appear as
    if arbitrarily imposed wait time-reduction goals were being met, given
    that the annual bonuses paid to those officials depended in part on
    that reduction. It seems absurd, then, that these officials could still
    be eligible to a bonus despite their poor behavior, particularly as it
    has been revealed that the bonuses were paid out on the basis of an
    untruth.
        By requiring the VA Secretary to identify individuals who were
    involved in wait list manipulation and also received a bonus in part
    because of the omission, this bill ensures that such behavior is not
    rewarded. The bill would allow for proper investigation into all cases,
    and balances employee protections with proper accountability. Those
    individuals identified and found to be guilty after an investigation
    will be required to repay that bonus.
        CVA SUPPORTS this legislation.
            s. 681: the blue water navy vietnam veterans act of 2015
    To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify presumptions relating
            to the exposure of certain veterans who served in the vicinity
            of the Republic of Vietnam, and for other purposes.
        CVA has NO POSITION on this legislation.
       draft legislation: the 21st century veterans benefits delivery act
    To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the processing by the
            Department of Veterans Affairs of claims for benefits under
            laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for
            other purposes.
        The VA claims backlog has long been an issue. Veterans are often
    forced to wait for months--and sometimes years--to have their claims
    adjudicated and receive benefits that they deserve. Over the past few
    years, VA has paid lip service to the issue, but little real progress
    has been made. VA continues to play a shell game, shifting numbers
    around, but doing little to ensure that veterans are cared for.
        This legislation would make needed and sensible improvements to the
    claims system, and could potentially speed up claims processing,
    thereby allowing veterans to receive a decision on their claims and get
    on with their lives. The reporting requirements that are embedded in
    this bill are especially important to re-build the trust in VA that has
    been eroded due to the recent scandals. These reporting requirements
    will help shed light on the issues in VBA, and the systemic changes
    that this bill would implement will make strides toward rectifying
    problems in order to help ensure that the backlog is eliminated, and
    remains so.
        CVA SUPPORTS this legislation.
    draft legislation: veterans compensation cost-of-living-adjustment act
                                    of 2015
    To provide for an increase, effective December 1, 2015, in the rates of
            compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities
            and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the
            survivors of certain disabled veterans, and for other purposes.
        CVA has NO POSITION on this legislation.
         military compensation and retirement modernization commission
     legislative proposals--regarding commission recommendations 11 and 12
                              (sections 1101-1204)
        The recommendations offered by the Military Compensation and
    Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC) are, by and large, common-
    sense proposals which would streamline servicemember benefits while
    continuing to provide a robust benefits package, ensuring the
    continuing viability of an all-volunteer force. Recommendations 11 and
    12 are no exception. The rationalization of education benefits makes
    them more user friendly, by eliminating programs that offer less
    benefit to servicemembers. They make better use of taxpayer dollars as
    well, by eliminating redundant BAH payments to dependents of
    servicemembers after 2017. Furthermore, by increasing the time in
    service needed to transfer the Post-9/11 GI Bill to dependents,
    servicemembers are encouraged to remain in the military, reducing
    turnover and keeping experienced NCOs and officers in service.
        In terms of transition, the Transition Assistance Program (TAP)
    provides important information to servicemembers as they separate from
    active duty. CVA does, however, have some reservations about making the
    educational portion of TAP mandatory. While we understand that the
    reason for this is to require commanders and line leaders to allow
    transitioning servicemembers to attend, ``check-the-box'' training
    often has the counter effect of causing servicemembers to resent the
    training, rather than gleaning the information they need.
        CVA SUPPORTS this legislation, with some reservations.
       department of defense legislative proposals--regarding education
      benefits, transition assistance program, and advisory board on dose
             reconstruction (sections 514, 522, 542, 545, and 1041)
        CVA has NO POSITION on this legislation.
      discussion draft including provisions derived from s. 151, s. 241,
                     s. 296, s. 666, s. 695, s. 743, s. 865
        To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify the treatment
    under contracting goals and preferences of the Department of Veterans
    Affairs for small businesses owned by veterans, to carry out a pilot
    program on the treatment of certain applications for dependency and
    indemnity compensation as fully developed claims, and for other
    purposes.
        CVA has NO POSITION on this legislation.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Paul R. Varela, Assistant National Legislative
                      Director, Disabled American Veterans
        Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and Members of the
    Committee: Thank you for inviting the DAV (Disabled American Veterans)
    to testify at this legislative hearing, and to present our views on the
    bills under consideration. As you know, DAV is a non-profit veterans
    service organization comprised of 1.2 million wartime service-disabled
    veterans. DAV is dedicated to a single purpose: empowering veterans to
    lead high-quality lives with respect and dignity.
                   s. 151, the filipino veterans promise act
        This bill would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a
    process to determine whether individuals claiming certain service in
    the Philippines during World War II are eligible for certain benefits
    despite not being on the so-called ``Missouri List.'' The Secretary of
    Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and
    such military historians as the Secretary of Defense would consider
    appropriate, would establish a process to determine whether a covered
    individual served as described in subsection (a) or (b) of section 107
    of title 38, United States Code, for purposes of determining whether
    these individuals would be eligible for benefits described within
    relevant subsections.
        DAV has received no resolution from our membership on this topic;
    thus, DAV takes no position on this bill.
                 s. 241, the military family relief act of 2015
        This bill would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to pay
    temporary DIC to the surviving spouse of a veteran if, at the time of
    death, the veteran was in receipt of or entitled to receive
    compensation for a service-connected disability rated as total for at
    least one year preceding the veteran's death. Payments made on this
    temporary basis would not be made in excess of six months.
        Delays in the adjudication of benefits, particularly those to
    survivors can have serious adverse consequences. Providing temporary
    payments could provide welcome relief to survivors while their claims
    are being processed.
        DAV supports this bill, because it is alignment with our mission to
    support the needs of survivors of veterans who died as a result of
    service-connected disabilities.
    s. 270, the charlie morgan military spouses equal treatment act of 2015
        S. 270 would amend title 38, United States Code, to revise the
    definition of spouse for purposes of veterans' benefits in recognition
    of new State definitions of spouse.
        Section 101 of title 38, United States Code would be amended to
    reflect that an individual would be considered a `spouse' if a marriage
    of the individual is considered valid under the laws of any State, thus
    making same-sex spouses eligible for benefits under title 38.
        DAV has received no approved resolution from our membership on this
    topic; thus, DAV takes no position on this bill.
     s. 296, the veterans small business opportunity and protection act of
                                      2015
        This bill would amend title 38, United States Code, section 8127,
    to enhance Department of Veterans Affairs business-related protections
    in instances of death of service-connected disabled veteran business
    owners. The bill would also extend these business-related protections
    to survivors of active duty servicemembers who are killed in the line
    of duty.
        These amendments would make changes to the eligibility period for
    the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA's) service-disabled small
    business contracting goals and preferences program. The surviving
    spouse of a service-disabled veteran who acquires the ownership
    interest in a small business of the deceased veteran would retain the
    ability to operate as a veteran-owned small business for a period of
    ten years following the veteran's death, if such veteran was either
    100% disabled or died from a service-connected disability; or for three
    years after such death, if the veteran was less than 100% disabled and
    did not die from a service-connected disability.
        In instances when a servicemember is killed in the line of duty, VA
    small business contracting goals and preferences would also extend to
    the surviving spouse or dependent. The survivor would be recognized as
    a small business by VA beginning on the date of the servicemember's
    death and end on the earlier of either the date on which the surviving
    spouse remarries or relinquishes, or the date on which the surviving
    dependent relinquishes, an ownership interest in the small business
    concern, and no longer owns at least 51 percent of such small business
    concern; or ten years after the servicemember's death.
        DAV supports this bill in accordance with resolution No. 150, as
    adopted at our most recent national convention held in Las Vegas,
    Nevada, August 9-12, 2014. This resolution calls on Congress to support
    legislation to provide for a reasonable transition period for all
    service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses following the death of
    disabled veteran owners.
                    s. 602, the gi bill fairness act of 2015
        This bill would amend title 38, United Stated Code, to consider
    certain time spent by members of reserve components of the Armed Forces
    receiving medical care from the Secretary of Defense as active duty for
    purposes of eligibility for Post-9/11 educational assistance.
        The bill would amend subsection 3301(1)(B) of title 38, United
    States Code, by inserting the content of subparagraph 12301(h) of title
    10, United States Code to the existing language in this subsection.
    Adding this language in the subsection would validate as active duty
    time for the purposes of Post-9/11 educational assistance any period(s)
    spent by servicemembers (including Guard and Air National Guard members
    in certain circumstances) receiving authorized medical care, undergoing
    medical evaluations for disability, or completing a required Department
    of Defense health care study, which may include an associated medical
    evaluation of the member.
        The bill would provide for a retroactive application of this
    amendment as if the amendment were enacted immediately after the
    enactment of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008,
    Public Law 110-252.
        DAV has received no approved resolution from our membership on this
    particular topic, but would not oppose passage of such legislation.
        S. 627, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to revoke
    bonuses paid to employees involved in electronic wait list
    manipulations, and for other purposes
        S. 627 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to revoke
    bonuses paid to employees who were involved in direct or indirect
    manipulation of patient care waiting lists during a specified period.
        DAV has received no resolution from our membership on this topic;
    thus, DAV takes no position on this bill.
               s. 666, the quicker veterans benefits delivery act
        This bill would amend title 38, United States Code, section 5125,
    to improve the treatment of medical evidence provided by non-Department
    of Veterans Affairs medical professionals in support of veterans'
    claims for disability compensation.
        The bill would eliminate the VA practice of ordering unnecessary
    compensation and pension examinations. Unnecessary examinations lead to
    delays in delivery of benefits, tie up VA resources and add to the
    frustration of veterans who in many cases have provided sufficient
    medical evidence to support the claim. Requesting a VA examination when
    acceptable medical evidence already has been supplied creates the
    impression that private evidence is less valuable than evidence
    produced internally by VA.
        DAV continues to press for changes that improve and streamline the
    claims processing system. This legislation would give due deference to
    private medical evidence that is competent, credible, probative, and
    otherwise adequate for rating purposes.
        DAV is pleased to provide our support for this bill, consistent
    with Resolution No. 192, which calls on Congress to support meaningful
    reform in the Veterans Benefits Administration's (VBA) disability
    claims process. On April 14, 2015, DAV testified before the House
    Subcommittee on Disability and Memorial Affairs in support of a similar
    bill, H.R. 1331.
            s. 681, the blue water navy vietnam veterans act of 2015
        This bill would amend title 38, United States Code, to expand the
    accepted presumptions to justify service connection from exposure to
    herbicides containing dioxin, including Agent Orange deployed by
    American forces during the Vietnam War.
        This legislation would extend existing health care and compensation
    benefits to certain veterans who served ``in the territorial seas of
    such Republic.'' S. 681 would extend eligibility for VA benefits
    retroactively to September 25, 1985.
        DAV supports this legislation as it is consistent with DAV
    Resolution No. 072, passed at our most recent National Convention, held
    August 9-12, 2014, in Las Vegas, Nevada.
          s. 695, the dignified interment of our veterans act of 2015
        This bill would require the VA Secretary to study and report to
    Congress on matters relating to the interment of veterans' unclaimed
    remains in national cemeteries under the control of the National
    Cemetery Administration.
        The study would assess the scope of the issues relating to
    veterans' unclaimed remains, including the estimated number of such
    remains; the effectiveness of VA procedures for working with persons or
    entities having custody of unclaimed remains to facilitate the
    interment of such remains in national cemeteries; and the state and
    local laws that affect the Secretary's ability to inter unclaimed
    remains in such cemeteries.
        The report would provide recommendations for appropriate
    legislative or administrative action to improve areas where
    deficiencies are identified.
        DAV has no resolution pertaining to this recommendation, but would
    not oppose passage of this bill.
         s. 743, the honor america's guard-reserve retirees act of 2015
        This bill would bestow the designation of ``veteran'' to any person
    who is entitled to retired pay for non-regular (reserve) service or who
    would be so entitled, but for age.
        The bill stipulates that such person would not be entitled to any
    benefit by reason of such recognition.
        DAV has no resolution pertaining to this matter.
         s. 865, to amend title 38, united states code, to improve the
       disability compensation evaluation procedure of the secretary of
    veterans affairs for veterans with mental health conditions related to
                military sexual trauma, and for other purposes.
        This bill would improve VA disability compensation evaluation
    procedures in the case of veterans with mental health conditions
    related to military sexual trauma (MST).
        For decades, VA treated claims for service connection for mental
    health problems resulting from MST in the same way it treated all
    claimed conditions--the burden was on the claimant to prove the
    condition was related to service. Without validation from medical,
    investigative or police records, claims were routinely denied. More
    than a decade ago, VA relaxed its policy of requiring medical or police
    reports to show that MST occurred. Nevertheless, thousands of claims
    for mental health conditions resulting from MST have been denied since
    2002 because claimants were unable to produce evidence that assaults
    occurred. Between 2008 and 2012, grant rates for Post Traumatic Stress
    Disorder (PTSD) resulting from MST were 17 to 30 percent below grant
    rates for PTSD resulting from other causes.
        Unfortunately, victims of MST often do not report such trauma to
    medical or police authorities. Lack of reporting results in a
    disproportionate burden placed on veterans to produce evidence of MST.
    Full disclosure of incidents occurring during service tend to be
    reported years after the fact, making service connection for PTSD and
    other mental health challenges exceedingly difficult.
        Establishing a causal relationship between certain injuries and
    later disability can be daunting due to lack of records or human
    factors that obscure or prevent documentation or even basic
    investigation of such incidents after they occur. Military sexual
    trauma is ever more recognized as a hazard of service for one percent
    of men serving and 20 percent of women, and later represents a heavy
    burden of psychological and mental health care for the VA.
        An absence of documentation of military sexual trauma in the
    personnel or military unit records of injured individuals prevents or
    obstructs adjudication of claims for disabilities of this deserving
    group suffering the after effects associated with military service, and
    may interrupt or prevent their care by VA once they become veterans.
    The VA has issued a regulation that provides for a liberalization of
    requirements for establishment of service connection due to personal
    assault, including MST, even when documentation of an ``actual
    stressor'' cannot be found, but when evidence in other records exists
    of a ``marker'' indicating that a stressor may have occurred. DAV fully
    supports this relaxed evidentiary practice, consistent with DAV
    Resolution No. 086.
        S. 865 would seek to further relax the evidentiary standard for
    ``stressor'' requirements. It would provide that any veteran who claims
    that a covered mental health condition was incurred in or aggravated by
    MST during active military, naval, or air service would require the
    Secretary to accept as sufficient proof of service connection, a
    diagnosis of such mental health condition by a mental health
    professional, together with satisfactory lay or other evidence of such
    trauma and an opinion by the mental health professional that such
    covered mental health condition is related to such MST.
        The circumstances of MST would need to be consistent with the
    conditions or hardships of such service, notwithstanding the fact that
    no official record exists of such incurrence or aggravation in such
    service. Every reasonable doubt would be resolved in favor of the
    veteran. In the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the
    contrary, and provided that the claimed MST was consistent with the
    circumstances, conditions, or hardships of the veteran's service, the
    veteran's lay testimony alone would establish the occurrence of the
    claimed MST.
        Service connection of a covered mental health condition could be
    rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. The
    Secretary would also be required to record, in full, the reasons for
    granting or denying service connection in each case.
        Under this bill, a covered mental health condition would be defined
    as PTSD, anxiety, depression, or other mental health diagnosis
    described in the current version of the Diagnostic and Statistical
    Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric
    Association, that the Secretary determines to be related to MST.
        MST would be defined as a psychological trauma, which in the
    judgment of a mental health professional, resulted from a physical
    assault of a sexual nature, battery of a sexual nature, or sexual
    harassment which occurred during active military, naval, or air
    service.
        This bill would require the Secretary to provide a report on
    implementation of this measure and its impact on claims filed that deal
    with MST, beginning on December 1, 2016, through 2020.
        Enacting this legislation would ease some of the evidentiary
    requirements for those veterans filing claims for service-connection
    suffering the aftereffects of a MST. It would bolster the weight
    afforded to lay evidence. When the lay evidence is corroborated by a
    mental health professional and a diagnosis is made of one of the
    covered mental health conditions, the Secretary would be authorized to
    grant service-connection for the claim.
        Enactment of this legislation would result in two separate
    adjudication procedures for veterans filing claims related to MST
    versus veterans filing claims related to combat, or exposure to hostile
    military or terrorist activity. Those currently filing claims for PTSD
    unrelated to MST are required to have their diagnosis confirmed by VA
    psychiatrists or psychologists, or through psychiatrists or
    psychologists with whom VA has contracted.
        DAV Resolution No. 086, approved by our membership at our most
    recent national convention, supports the purposes of this bill.
        We believe VA should address a disparity in current regulation by
    making similar the adjudication of all stressor-related mental health
    disabilities. Accordingly, we recommend the following changes:

        To ensure parity among veterans claiming mental health-related
    disabilities as a result of MST, combat, and exposure to hostile
    military or terrorist activity, title 38, Code of Federal Regulations
    should be amended to read as follows:

            3.304 Direct service connection; wartime and peacetime.
              (3) If a stressor claimed by a veteran is related to the
            veteran's fear of hostile military or terrorist activity and a
            certified mental health professional, including a VA
            psychiatrist or psychologist, or a psychiatrist or psychologist
            with whom VA has contracted, confirms that the claimed stressor
            is adequate to support a diagnosis of Post Traumatic Stress
            Disorder.

    VA should accept and rate claims using private medical evidence for
    qualifying disabilities related to MST, combat, or exposure to hostile
    military or terrorist activity when received by a certified mental
    health professional, that is competent, credible, probative, and
    otherwise adequate for rating purposes.
        A similar bill, H.R. 1607, was introduced in the House. DAV was
    pleased to provide our testimony to the Subcommittee on Disability and
    Memorial Affairs on April 14, 2015, concerning this bill, which we
    supported.
          draft bill, the 21st century veterans benefits delivery act
        This bill would increase efficiencies within the Transition
    Assistance Program Global Positioning System (TAP GPS) program and
    other functions of VBA's benefit claims process.
        Section 101 of the bill would mandate that TAP be made available
    through the e-Benefits Web site to provide servicemembers and families
    with the option to participate online.
        This enhancement to the TAP program does not appear to compromise
    the requirements set forth under title 10, United States Code, section
    1144. DAV would recommend the online option be offered when a
    transitioning servicemember is unable to attend the formal class, but
    not be substituted for the requirement to attend in person.
        The bill would also require the Secretary of Defense to provide a
    report on the participation in TAP of veterans' service organizations
    (VSOs). The report would evaluate Department of Defense (DOD)
    compliance with directives contained within the ``Installation Access
    and Support Services for Nonprofit Non-Federal Entities,'' memorandum
    dated December 23, 2014, including the number of military bases that
    have complied with the directives, and the number of VSOs that have
    been present during portions of the TAP GPS presentations.
        DAV supports this provision consistent with national resolution NO.
    053, as adopted at our most recent national convention held in Las
    Vegas, Nevada, August 9-12, 2014. This resolution urges Congress to
    monitor the review of Transition GPS program, its workshops, training
    methodology, and delivery of services; the collection and analysis of
    course critiques; and to ensure the inclusion of DAV and other veterans
    service organizations in workshops, in order to confirm the program is
    meeting its objective and to enable follow-up with participants to
    determine if they have found gainful employment.
        Section 102 would require the Secretary to explain to claimants,
    upon receipt of decisions regarding their claims, the benefits of
    filing an appeal within 180 days. This provision would amend title 38,
    United States Code, section 5104, to require explanation of the
    procedures for obtaining appellate review.
        DAV has received no approved resolution from our membership on this
    topic, but would not oppose passage of this section.
        Section 107 would authorize the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) to
    schedule video conference hearings. This language would give the BVA
    the authority to schedule such hearings in the first instance, but
    would preserve the appellant's right to an in-person hearing. We
    strongly support an appellant's right to request the type of hearing
    best suited to their needs.
        DAV supports this provision of the bill.
        Section 201 would require the Comptroller General of the United
    States to complete an audit of the regional offices of the Veterans
    Benefits Administration. The audit would include examination of
    consistency of claims decisions; and identify ways to improve
    consistency and best practices, including management practices that
    distinguish higher performing regional offices from others.
        DAV has received no approved resolution from our membership
    covering this issue, but would not oppose passage of such legislation.
        Section 202 of the bill would require VA to establish a training
    program for veterans service center managers, and would include
    employees in successor positions within regional offices of the
    Veterans Benefits Administration. This training program would place
    emphasis on matters pertaining to managerial and other skills for those
    in leadership.
        DAV has received no approved resolution pertaining to this issue,
    but would not oppose passage of this section.
        Section 203 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, for
    each systemic analysis of operations that is completed by a Veterans
    Service Center Manager (VSCM) in a regional office (RO), also include
    an analysis of the communication between the regional office and
    veterans service organizations and case workers employed by Members of
    Congress.
        This section of the bill seeks to analyze the communication between
    those referenced above. Within VA ROs, the Secretary requires VSCMs to
    collect various forms of data and information to assess and report on
    overall performance and trends. This provision seeks to require that VA
    report on the effectiveness of communications amongst stakeholders.
        DAV has received no resolution from our membership pertaining to
    this issue, but would not oppose passage of this section.
        Section 204 would require the VA Inspector General (IG) to conduct
    a review of the practices of regional offices regarding the use of
    suspense dates during the disability claim assessment process. The
    intent of this legislation is unclear, but we presume that IG would be
    expected to report on whether VBA is following its own protocol for
    specific controls established for claims processing.
        DAV has received no approved resolution from our membership
    pertaining to this issue, but would not oppose its passage.
        Section 205 would require Secretary to submit to Congress a report
    on the capacity of the Veterans Benefits Administration to process
    claims for benefits during the next one-year period.
        This report would contain the number of claims Secretary expects
    VBA to process, the number of full-time equivalent employees who are
    dedicated to processing such claims, an estimate of the number of such
    claims a single full-time equivalent employee of the Administration can
    process in a year, and an assessment of whether the Administration
    requires additional or fewer full-time equivalent employees to process
    such claims during the next 1-year, 5-year, and 10-year periods.
        DAV recommends that any such report also include, in addition to
    the number of claims, the number of issues the Secretary expects to
    process, the number of issues granted or denied and the error rate per
    issue.
        DAV has received no approved resolution from our membership
    pertaining to this issue, but would not oppose passage of such
    legislation.
        Section 206 would require the Secretary to complete the revision to
    VBA's resource allocation model within 180 days after enactment of this
    legislation. Congress would also require the Secretary to provide a
    report on the newly revised resource allocation model.
        Although we welcome and look forward to changes of VBA's resource
    allocation model, mandating its completion within a specified period
    may lead VA to implement hasty and less comprehensive changes.
        DAV has received no approved resolution from our membership
    pertaining to this issue, would not oppose passage of this section, but
    would encourage the Committee to consider the potential effect of
    mandating the completion of the resource allocation model within 180
    days after enactment of governing legislation.
        Section 207 would require the Secretary to submit a report to
    Congress on the current functionality of the Veterans Benefits
    Management System (VBMS). It would also solicit recommendations to
    improve VBMS from VBA employees and VSO's that use the system. We would
    recommend that any report not only contain the functionality and
    progress of VBMS, but also review the anticipated enhancements to this
    platform and its interoperability with other systems within the VA.
        DAV has voiced concerns that there are functions within the VA,
    specifically those performed by the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board),
    that are essential to the processing of appeals that must become more
    seamless and interoperable with VBMS. We have recommended additional
    funding for VBMS to support the full range of benefits and claims
    process improvements.
        DAV has received no resolution pertaining to this issue, but would
    not oppose passage of this section.
        Section 208 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
    produce a report to Congress no later than 90 days after the enactment
    of this legislation detailing a plan to reduce the inventory of claims
    pending for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation and Pension benefits.
        Delays in the adjudication of benefits, particularly those for
    survivors, can mean serious adverse financial consequences. The death
    of a spouse means a significant loss in household income. Losing one's
    spouse already creates an emotional hardship which should not be
    compounded by an unnecessary delay in the approval of survivor
    benefits.
        Although DAV has received no resolution from our membership on this
    particular topic, we would welcome the findings of this report and the
    Secretary's plan to process these claims more expeditiously.
        Section 209 would require the Secretary to include in each Monday
    Morning Workload Report of VBA the number of claims for benefits that
    have been received by all regional offices and that are pending
    decisions, disaggregated by various categories. We recommend the
    language be amended to include information for the number of issues as
    well as the number of claims pending adjudication.
        DAV has received no resolution pertaining to this issue, but would
    not oppose passage of this section.
        Section 210 would require the Secretary, on an Internet Web site of
    the Department, to make available to the public internal reports
    entitled ``Appeals Pending'' and ``Appeals Workload by Station.'' We
    recommend the language be amended to include information for the number
    of issues as well as the number of appeals pending appellate review.
        DAV has no resolution pertaining to this issue, but would not
    oppose passage of this section.
        Section 211 would modify an existing pilot program that concerns
    the use of contract physicians to perform disability examinations. It
    would permit licensed and duly recognized physicians to perform
    examinations at any location in any state, the District of Columbia, or
    a Commonwealth, territory or possession of the United States so long as
    the examination is within the scope of the authorized duties stipulated
    under the contract. It would alleviate the jurisdictional obstacles in
    areas where physicians are not licensed within a particular
    jurisdiction.
        DAV supports this provision of the bill. We do not have a specific
    resolution on this issue, but in general it improves VA's ability to
    provide contract examinations for disability compensation purposes.
        Section 301 would require the appointment of liaisons by the
    Secretary of Defense, Commissioner of Social Security and the
    Administrator, National Archives and Records Administration, to work in
    coordination with the VA for the purpose of improving records transfers
    and claims processing efficiencies.
        DAV has no resolution pertaining to this issue, but would not
    oppose passage of this section.
        Section 302 would require the Secretaries of the VA and DOD to
    submit a report to Congress that outlines their plans for
    interoperability of electronic health records of each Department. This
    report would require specific timelines and milestones to achieve the
    goal of interoperability.
        We believe it is important that the transfer of health records from
    DOD to VA be accomplished seamlessly so that the transition of military
    members to civilian life can be improved. The movement of information
    is critical in the case of wounded and injured military personnel
    transitioning to veteran status, as well as for Guard and reserve
    component members who are in rotational assignments and combat
    deployments.
        DAV supports this provision of the bill.
      draft bill, veterans' compensation cost-of-living-adjustment act of
                                      2015
        If introduced, this draft bill would provide for an increase, with
    no ``round down'' requirement, effective December 1, 2015, in the rates
    of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and
    the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) for the
    survivors of certain disabled veterans.
        Mr. Chairman, DAV strongly supports this legislation, especially
    since it does not mandate that the cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) be
    rounded down to the next lowest whole dollar amount. DAV recognized
    this same accomplishment by this Committee last year when the COLA for
    2014 was enacted and excluded the round-down provision.
        Many disabled veterans and their families rely heavily or solely on
    VA disability compensation, or DIC payments, as their only means of
    financial support, and they have struggled during these difficult
    times. While the economy has faltered, their personal economic
    circumstances have been negatively affected by rising costs of many
    essential items, including food, medicines and gasoline.
        As inflation becomes a greater factor, it is imperative that
    veterans and their dependents receive a full COLA. On the strength of
    DAV Resolution No. 071, DAV supports enactment of this legislation.
          recommendations of the military compensation and retirement
                            modernization commission
        Recommendation 11 seeks to safeguard education benefits for
    Servicemembers by reducing redundancy and ensuring the fiscal
    sustainability of education programs. In an effort to accomplish these
    objectives, more stringent restrictions would be placed on availability
    of the active duty Tuition Assistance program to active duty
    servicemembers.
        The recommendation also proposes increases in active duty service
    commitments from six years with a four year re-up, to ten years with a
    two year re-up as a prerequisite to transfer Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits
    to eligible dependents. It would eliminate the housing stipend for
    dependents and prohibit the receipt of unemployment benefits when a
    housing stipend is received under Post-9/11.
        It would require reports on those using educational benefits, with
    reports to be supplied by schools. Montgomery GI Bill Active Duty
    (MGIB-AD) and Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP) would be
    sunset as all current and future educational programs would fall under
    the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
        DAV takes no position on this recommendation.
        Recommendation 12 seeks to better prepare servicemembers for
    transition to civilian life by expanding education and granting states
    more flexibility to administer the Jobs for Veterans State Grants
    (JVSG) program.
        If enacted into law, it would require active duty servicemembers to
    attend the educational track, which is now optional within TAP GPS, if
    servicemembers plan to use their educational benefits, or if they have
    transferred their benefits to a qualified dependent. The TAP GPS
    program would also be reviewed by DOD, VA, DOL and SBA to determine if
    the current curriculum most accurately addresses the needs of
    transitioning servicemembers.
        The recommendation also calls for relevant statutes to be amended
    to permit state departments of labor, or their equivalent agencies, to
    work directly with state Veterans Affairs directors or offices to
    coordinate implementation of the JVSG program.
        DAV does not oppose this recommendation. Requiring active duty
    servicemembers to attend a class within TAP focused on the use of their
    educational benefits seems beneficial overall. Additionally, continuous
    review of the TAP GPS program to ensure its relevance and effectiveness
    seems like a necessary function to keep pace with change.
        Finally, enacting legislation that improves coordination between
    state departments of labor of veterans affairs to enhance facilitation
    of the JVSG program could streamline processes resulting in better
    employment opportunities for veterans.
                  department of defense legislative proposals
        Section 514 of the DOD legislative proposal parallels the language
    of S. 602, the GI Bill Fairness Act of 2015, discussed above.
        Section 522 of the DOD legislative proposal seeks to amend chapter
    1606 of title 10, United States Code. The amendment would add language
    to preclude the loss of entitlement to and payment for the Montgomery
    GI Bill Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR). This amendment would preserve MGIB-
    SR benefits for servicemembers in instances when they are called to
    active duty in support of a major disasters or emergencies, or when
    they are ordered to active duty for pre-planned missions in support of
    combat commands.
        DAV has received no approved resolution from our membership on this
    topic; thus, DAV takes no position on this bill.
        Section 542 of the DOD legislative proposal would amend section
    4312, title 38, United States Code, governing reemployment rights of
    persons who serve in the uniformed services.
        DOD proposes to add the language of sections 12304(a) and 12304(b)
    of title 10, United States Code, noting that this additional language
    would complete the list of current involuntary mobilization authorities
    that are exempt from the five-year limit imposed by the Uniformed
    Services Employment and Reemployment Act (USERRA). We believe this
    amendment would further reemployment safeguards afforded to
    servicemembers who are involuntarily called to active duty with limited
    notice provided to an employer.
        DAV has received no resolution from our membership pertaining to
    this particular topic, but would not oppose passage of such
    legislation.
        Section 545 of the DOD legislative proposal would amend section
    1142 of title 10, United States Code, relative to pre-separation
    counseling to servicemembers being released from service prior to the
    completion of 180 days of active duty. DOD proposes to clarify that
    pre-separation counseling services would not be provided to a member
    who is being discharged or released before the completion of that
    member's first 180 ``continuous'' days of active duty.
        DAV has no resolution from our membership pertaining to this topic,
    but would not oppose passage of such legislation.
        Section 1041 of the DOD legislative proposal seeks eliminate the
    requirements set forth by the Radiation Dose Reconstruction Program .
    DOD recommends the repeal of the statutory requirement for an advisory
    board of the Radiation Dose Reconstruction Program. DOD contends the
    advisory board has achieved its objectives and that its functions can
    still be accomplished through interagency collaboration, rather than
    through the advisory board.
        DAV has no resolution pertaining to this issue and takes no
    position. However, DAV Resolution No. 187, speaks directly to the issue
    of atomic veterans' radiation exposure. Our resolution calls on
    Congress to support legislation authorizing presumptive service
    connection for all radiogenic diseases.
        Military servicemembers have participated in test detonations of
    nuclear devices and served in Hiroshima or Nagasaki, Japan, following
    the detonation of nuclear bombs, including clean-up operations at test
    sites. The government knew or should have known of the potential
    hazards to the health and well-being of these servicemembers.
        VA cites that approximately 50 claimants have obtained disability
    compensation or dependency and indemnity compensation pursuant to
    Public Law 98-542.
        Considerable resources have been expended by our government to
    provide dose reconstruction estimates which do not accurately reflect
    actual radiation dose exposure. DAV encourages Congress to enact
    legislation that provides presumptive service connection to atomic
    veterans for all recognized radiogenic diseases. Furthermore, all
    veterans involved in clean-up operations following the detonation of
    nuclear devices should be considered atomic veterans for all benefits
    and services provided by VA.

        Mr. Chairman, this concludes DAV's testimony. Thank you for
    inviting DAV to submit this statement for the record of today's
    hearing.
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the
                             United States (EANGUS)

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Thomas J. Snee, M.Ed, NCCM (SW), USN, (Ret),
           National Executive Director, The Fleet Reserve Association
                                    the fra
        The Fleet Reserve Association (FRA) is the oldest and largest
    organization serving enlisted men and women in the active, Reserve, and
    retired communities plus veterans of the Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast
    Guard. The Association is Congressionally Chartered, recognized by the
    Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and entrusted to serve all veterans
    who seek its help.
        FRA was started in 1924 and its name is derived from the Navy's
    program for personnel transferring to the Fleet Reserve or Fleet Marine
    Corps Reserve after 20 or more years of active duty, but less than 30
    years for retirement purposes. During the required period of service in
    the Fleet Reserve, assigned personnel earn retainer pay and are subject
    to recall by the Secretary of the Navy.
        The Association testifies regularly before the House and Senate
    Veterans' Affairs Committees, and the Association is actively involved
    in the Veterans Affairs Voluntary Services (VAVS) program. A member of
    the National Headquarters' staff serves as FRA's National Veterans
    Service Officer (NVSO) and as a representative on the VAVS National
    Advisory Committee (NAC). FRA's NVSO also oversees the Association's
    Veterans Service Officer Program and represents veterans throughout the
    claims process and before the Board of Veteran's Appeals. For 2014, 144
    FRA Shipmates and members of the Auxiliary provide 13,470 volunteer
    hours of support at 59 VA facilities throughout the country, enabling
    FRA to achieve VAVS ``Associate Servicemember'' status.
        FRA became a member of the Veterans Day National Committee in
    August 2007, joining 24 other nationally recognized Veterans Service
    Organizations (VSO) on this important committee that coordinates
    National Veterans' Day ceremonies at Arlington National Cemetery. The
    Association is a leading organization in The Military Coalition (TMC),
    a group of 33 nationally recognized military and veteran's
    organizations collectively representing the concerns of over five
    million members. FRA senior staff members also serve in a number of TMC
    leadership positions.
        The Association's motto is ``Loyalty, Protection, and Service.''
                                  introduction
        Distinguished Committee Chairman Johnny Isakson, Ranking Member
    Richard Blumenthal and other Members of the Committee; thank you for
    the opportunity to present the Association's views on specific pending
    and draft legislation, and recommendations 11 and 12 of the Military
    Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC). Before
    addressing specific issues, it's important to note that veteran's
    benefits are earned through service and sacrifice in the defense of
    this great Nation and are not ``entitlements'' or ``social welfare''
    programs. FRA will oppose any across-the-board budget driven cuts that
    lumps veteran's programs with unrelated civilian programs and
    completely rejects any efforts that would ask veterans to do their
    ``fair share'' in deficit reduction.
                  agent orange blue water navy reform (s. 681)
        The Association wishes to thank Senator Kristin Gillibrand (N.Y.)
    for introducing the ``Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act'' (S. 681).
    Representative Chris Gibson (NY) is sponsoring identical legislation in
    the House (H.R. 969) that was introduced with 131 original co-sponsors
    and currently has 218 co-sponsors. This legislation clarifies a
    presumption for filing disability claims at the VA for ailments
    associated with exposure to the Agent Orange herbicide during the
    Vietnam War. This legislation would reverse current policy so Blue
    Water veterans who only served on ships off the coast and have health
    problems commonly associated with herbicide exposure will be eligible
    for service-related VA medical and disability benefits. Many of these
    veterans are now senior citizens and the time to help them is now!
        From 1964-1975 more than 500,000 servicemembers were deployed off
    the coast of Vietnam, and many may have been exposed to Agent Orange, a
    herbicide used in Vietnam. Past VA policy (1991-2001) allowed
    servicemembers to file claims if they received the Vietnam Service
    Medal or Vietnam Campaign Medal. But VA implemented a ``boots on the
    ground'' limitation on obtaining an Agent Orange presumption
    connection.
        FRA is concerned about the December 2013 report from the National
    Academy of Sciences on the health effects from exposure to herbicides
    used during military operations in Vietnam. The study is mandated by
    the Agent Orange Act of 1991 (P.L. 102-4) and the Veterans Education
    and Benefits Expansion Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-103). This provision in
    the public law sunsets September 30, 2015 and should be extended.
        The study provides limited or suggestive evidence that some Vietnam
    veterans exposed to Agent Orange herbicide have a higher incidence of
    stroke after age 70. The study also notes that the possibility of
    adverse health effects in offspring of Vietnam veterans is a high
    priority with veterans, but notes that this is a very elusive outcome
    to establish or refute.
        The Association appreciates the establishment of a presumptive
    service-connection for Vietnam veterans who have B cell leukemia,
    Parkinson's disease or ischemic heart disease. These diseases are
    related to exposure to Agent Orange. Former VA Secretary Eric
    Shinseki's decision is a major step in the right direction, but FRA is
    advocating for a broader Agent Orange service-connection.
        However, a January 2013 VA statement referencing a careful review
    of another IOM report in 2011, entitled, ``Blue Water Navy Vietnam
    Veterans and Agent Orange Exposure,'' indicates that there is
    insufficient evidence to establish a presumption of exposure to
    herbicides for Vietnam veterans who served off the Vietnam coast during
    the conflict.
        FRA believes that decision maintains the status quo regarding
    disability claims of these so-called ``Blue Water'' veterans and that
    the IOM report validated the 2002 Royal Australian Navy study that
    confirmed the desalinization process used on Australian and U.S. Navy
    ships actually magnified the dioxin exposure. The Association continues
    to seek a legislative remedy to reverse current policy so Blue Water
    veterans and military retirees who have health problems commonly
    associated with herbicide exposure will be eligible for service-related
    VA medical and disability benefits.
        The Association notes the VA's efforts to expand presumption to
    ships exposed to Agent Orange during the Vietnam era. In January 2012,
    the VA added 47 ships to its list of Navy and Coast Guard vessels that
    may have been exposed to the Agent Orange herbicide. The list expanded
    as VA staff determined that a ship anchored, operated close to shore or
    traveled on the inland waterways and was exposed to the toxic
    herbicide. While the expanded VA policy to include veterans who sailed
    on ``inland waterway'' ships is significant, FRA believes it does not
    go far enough. The Association has received hundreds of calls from
    ``blue water sailors'' and their surviving spouses, stating that due to
    service on ``their ships'' in Vietnam waters (Tonkin Gulf), they too
    suffer or have died from many of the illnesses associated to presumed
    exposure to herbicides as their ``brown water'' and ``boots on the
    ground'' counterparts. Many want to forget about the Vietnam War. But
    we should never forget those who served during the Vietnam War.
                           gi bill fairness (s. 602)
        FRA wants to thank Senators Ron Wyden, (Ore.), and John Boozman,
    (Ark.), for introducing the ``GI Bill Fairness Act'' (S. 602) that
    would ensure wounded Guardsmen and Reservists receive the GI Bill
    benefits they've earned.
        Members of the Guard or Reserve who are wounded in combat are often
    given orders under 10 U.S.C. 12301(h) for their recovery, treatment and
    rehabilitation. Unfortunately, Federal law does not recognize such
    orders as eligible for Post-9/11 GI Bill education assistance, meaning
    that unlike other members of the military, these Reserve Component
    members actually lose benefits for being injured in the line of duty.
    The GI Bill Fairness Act would end that unequal treatment and ensure
    these servicemembers are eligible for the same GI Bill benefits as
    active duty members of the military. FRA believes this is common sense
    legislation to fix a problem and ensure these servicemembers get the
    benefits they deserve.
        FRA has signed onto a Military Coalition (TMC) letter of support
    for the ``Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act'' (S. 270) and the
    Association has not taken a position on S. 627.
                                mcrmc background
        The FY 2013 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 4310--P.L.
    112-239) establishes the Military Compensation and Retirement
    Modernization Commission (MCRMC), but limits its recommendations from
    being a BRAC-like endorsement, as originally proposed, in its review of
    the current compensation and military retirement system. FRA believes
    it's important that this distinguished Committee and its House
    counterpart maintain oversight over commission recommendations that
    fall under its jurisdiction. While FRA supports many of the
    Commission's recommendations it was noted that no enlisted personnel
    were appointed to serve on the Commission. Nearly 75 percent of the
    current active force is enlisted and therefore should have
    representation on this Commission.
        FRA wants to thank the members of the Commission and their staff
    for allowing FRA to have input while the report was being written. The
    Commission met with 97 other advocacy groups as well. The MCRMC visited
    55 military installations, received more than 150,000 survey responses
    from active duty and retirees, and held eight Town Hall meetings in
    their efforts to understand the complexity of the military compensation
    and retirement systems.
                               mcrmc final report
        The report makes 15 major recommendations intended to improve the
    cost-effectiveness of quality benefits for those who currently serve,
    have served and will serve in the future. This Distinguished Committee
    has asked for FRA's position on recommendation 11 and 12.
        MCRMC Recommendation 11 proposes that Congress ``Safeguard
    education benefits for Servicemembers by reducing redundancy and
    ensuring fiscal sustainability of education programs.'' FRA supports
    consolidating multiple educational benefit programs into a single
    package with benefits eligibility and scope based on the length and
    type of duty performed.
        The Commission recommends a number of steps toward reducing
    redundancy in GI Bill programs. FRA supports many of the specific
    proposals and offers these comments for the Committees' consideration.
        Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) and the Reserve Educational Assistance
    Program (REAP) should stop any further enrollment and permit those
    currently using these programs to complete their studies. Those only
    using the Post-9/11 GI Bill should receive a full or partial refund of
    the $1,200 they paid to become eligible for MGIB benefits.
        MCRMC also recommends eligibility requirements for transferring
    Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits should be increased to 10 years plus an
    additional commitment of two years. FRA opposes this change in that it
    devalues the program. Currently, servicemembers must serve 6 years and
    agree to serve 4 more to make dependents eligible for transfer of
    benefits.
        MCRMC further recommends that housing stipends for dependents be
    eliminated. FRA again opposes budget-driven cuts to benefit programs.
    The Association also supports restoring the Reserve Montgomery GI Bill
    benefits to at least 47 percent of active duty MGIB benefits. The
    Reserve MGIB program paid 47 percent of the Active Duty MGIB for the
    first 14 years of its existence (1985-1999). Thereafter, the National
    Guard and Reserve components reduced funding down to 21 percent of the
    Active Duty MGIB. The reason for the steep decline in these benefits is
    that the program competes directly for funding against annual
    discretionary reserve pay and benefit accounts. The Active Duty MGIB
    and the Post-9/11 GI Bill, are mandatory funding programs.
        Consistent with the MCRMC's basic recommendation about educational
    benefit programs redundancy, FRA could support a Reserve MGIB program
    as an initial entry benefit for reservists that was part of an
    overarching military education program that would include benefits
    adequate enough to maintain and support the All-Volunteer Force.
        FRA supports MCRMC Recommendation 12 and suggests that mandatory
    GPS should also include spouses and that the program should be adjusted
    to include programs that benefit the entire family. Further local
    branches of military/veterans organizations should also be involved in
    the transition from military to civilian life. Affiliating with one or
    more of organizations can provide critical transition assistance such
    as contacts in the local community, and camaraderie with fellow
    veterans.
                               draft legislation
        FRA wants to express its appreciation for having the opportunity to
    comment on draft legislation that includes provisions from other bills.
    The draft bill includes provisions from the ``Veterans Small Business
    Opportunity and Protection Act'' (S. 296), sponsored by Sen. Dean
    Heller (NV), that recognizes the surviving spouse of a service-
    connected disabled veteran, who acquires the ownership interest in a
    small business of the deceased veteran as such veteran.
        When a Veteran small business owner with a service-connected
    disability of less than 100 percent dies from causes unrelated to
    service, the spouse immediately loses those benefits. FRA supports this
    legislation, sponsored by Sen. Dean Heller (NV) that will help veteran
    owned family businesses remain eligible for small business benefits.
        The Association supports the ``Honor America's Guard-Reserve
    Retirees Act'' (S. 743), which recognizes servicemembers in the reserve
    components the status as a veteran. Under current law, a reserve
    component servicemember who has served honorably for twenty or more
    years, earning the right to retire, is not considered a veteran. FRA
    believes that for those who serve honorably in the Guard or Reserve
    components for 20 or more years and who have met the requirements as a
    retiree should be granted the title as veteran.
        FRA supports the ``Quicker Veterans Benefits Delivery Act''
    (S. 666), sponsored by Sen. Al Franken (Minn.) that intends to improve
    the disability claims backlog by removing bureaucratic red tape that
    allows Veterans to see local doctors for their initial diagnosis and
    avoid long wait times at VA hospitals.
        The Association supports the ``Dignified Interment of Our Veterans
    Act'' (S. 695), sponsored by Sen. Patrick Toomey (Penn.) that requires
    the VA to report to Congress on issues relating to the interring of
    veterans' unclaimed remains in national cemeteries under the auspices
    of the National Cemetery Administration. The Missing in America Project
    conducted research that suggests there are remains of about 47,000
    veterans stored throughout the United States that have yet to be
    identified and/or claimed.
        FRA supports the ``Ruth Moore Act'' (S. 865), sponsored by Sen. Jon
    Tester (Mt.) that makes it easier for veterans to qualify for
    disability benefits by reducing their burden of proof for incidents of
    military sexual trauma. The legislation is named after Navy Veteran,
    Ruth Moore, who is a survivor of military sexual assault. This
    legislation will also require the VA to report military sexual trauma
    claim statistics annually to Congress.
                                   conclusion
        In closing, allow me again to express the sincere appreciation of
    the Association's membership for all that you and the Members of the
    Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees and your outstanding staff do for
    our Nation's veterans.

        Our leadership and Legislative Team stand ready to work with the
    Committees and their staffs to improve benefits for all veterans who've
    served this great Nation.
                                     ______

     Testimony for the Record of Jamie Tomek, Chair, Government Relations
                  Committee, Gold Star Wives of America, Inc.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit Testimony for the Record
    for the Joint Senate and House Veterans' Affairs Committee hearing on
    Wednesday, May 13, 2015.
        Gold Star Wives of America, Inc. (GSW) was founded in 1945 and is a
    Congressionally Chartered Veterans Service Organization which serves
    the surviving spouses of military servicemembers and veterans who died
    in service to this Great Nation.
    s. 270, the charlie morgan military spouses equal treatment act of 2015
        This bill changes the Title 38 requirement that a spouse must be of
    the opposite sex and amends current law so that the determination of
    whether or not a marriage is valid is determined by the laws
    administered by the Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs
    rather than a variety of state, territory and local laws. GSW concurs
    with this proposed legislation.
                  21st century veterans benefits delivery act
    Sec 208. Report on Plans of Secretary of Veterans Affairs to Reduce
            Inventory of Claims for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
            and Claims for Pension Congress is requesting that the
            Department of Veterans Affairs provide a plan to reduce the
            inventory of claims for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
            and Pensions.
        Timely processing of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC)
    claims and timely receipt of DIC is critical to many surviving spouses.
    DIC is often the only income a surviving spouse receives and delay in
    processing and sending DIC causes a significant financial crisis.
        GSW concurs with the need for this plan.
                                discussion draft
    Sec 102. Treatment of Businesses after Deaths of Servicemember-owners
            for Purposes of Department of Veterans Affairs Contracting
            Goals and Preferences

        S. 296--Sec 102 of the Discussion Draft became S. 296. S. 296,
    Sec 3 (i) reads:

              ``(i) Treatment of businesses after death of servicemember-
            Owner.--(1) If a member of the Armed Forces owns at least 51
            percent of a small business concern and such member is killed
            in line of duty * * * ''

        The wording ``such member is killed in the line of duty'' should be
    amended to read ``and such member dies in the line of duty.'' The word
    ``killed'' excludes all those who die on active duty. GSW has
    encountered this problem with killed vs. died in the past and the error
    is usually unintentional and due to not understanding the legal
    difference between the two words. Other than the issue stated above GSW
    concurs with this legislation.
    Sec 204. Pilot Program on Treatment of Certain Applications for
            Dependency and Indemnity Compensation as Fully Developed Claims

            ``(b)(4) in the case that the claimant is the spouse of the
            deceased veteran, certifies that he or she has not remarried
            since the date of the veteran's death.''

        Surviving spouses who remarry at or after the age of 57 may receive
    Dependency and Indemnity Compensation. The above paragraph should be
    amended to add this information. Other than the issue stated above GSW
    concurs.
              mcrmc legislative proposal recommendations 11 and 12
    Sec 1104 and 1105. Post-9/11 GI Bill Transferability
        Servicemembers may transfer their post-9/11 education benefits to a
    family member but will incur an increase in their service obligation.
    GSW concurs with this proposal.
                                    reports
        There are numerous provisions in these proposals requiring a
    variety of different reports. Reports such as those mentioned herein
    are expensive and after a period of time are no longer needed or used.
    Such reports should have a termination date stated initially and if the
    report is still needed after the termination date action may be taken
    to extend the termination date.
                            surviving spouse issues
        There are numerous issues in the above reports pertaining to
    education benefits. Since education issues are being addressed the
    following issue concerning the Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry
    Scholarship/Post-9/11 GI Bill could easily be addressed with those
    issues.
    Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry Scholarships/Post-9/11 GI Bill for
            Surviving Spouses
        We are very grateful for Congress' recent approval of the Gunnery
    Sergeant John David Fry Scholarships or Post-9/11 GI Bill for the Post-
    9/11 surviving spouses of those who died on active duty. The Fry
    Scholarships became available to surviving spouses effective in
    January 2015 and are available to a surviving spouse for 15 years after
    the death of his or her military spouse. If a surviving spouse's
    military spouse died early in the post-9/11 era, the surviving spouse
    does not have enough time to complete a 4 year college degree. Please
    extend the time limit for using the Fry Scholarship benefits from 15
    years after the death of the military spouse to 20 years after the
    death of the military spouse.
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of David Stacy, Government Affairs Director,
                             Human Rights Campaign
        Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: My name is David Stacy,
    and I am the Government Affairs Director for the Human Rights Campaign,
    America's largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian,
    gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) equality. On behalf of our 1.5
    million members and supporters nationwide, I am honored to submit this
    statement into the record for this important hearing on pending
    benefits legislation that will impact our veterans. Today I will
    specifically speak in support of the Charlie Morgan Military Spouses
    Equal Treatment Act of 2015. Our veterans and their families have
    sacrificed deeply in service to our country. The Charlie Morgan Act
    promotes fundamental fairness and ensures that all veterans, regardless
    of who they love or where they live, receive the benefits that they
    have earned and deserve.
        Following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Windsor, which
    invalidated Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the
    Federal Government--including the Department of Veterans' Affairs--
    began recognizing same-sex spouses for the purposes of Federal benefits
    and services. However, for LGBT veterans access to these benefits is
    far from universal. Current statutory language limits eligibility for
    veterans' benefits to those living in states that recognize their
    marriage. This means that despite sweeping advances in equality and
    marriage recognition over the past decade, thousands of same-sex
    married couples living in states that do not recognize their marriage
    are denied access to these benefits including burial rights and home
    loan guaranty benefits.
        Veterans' benefits provide critical medical and financial support
    for veterans and their families. For veterans struggling with injury or
    disability as a result of service, these benefits can be a lifeline.
    For many active duty servicemembers, these benefits are a promise that
    their loved ones will be taken care of if they don't make it home.
    However, despite their service and sacrifice some veterans and
    servicemembers continue to be denied these most basic assurances.
        This denial is not only fundamentally unfair, it also promotes an
    arbitrarily discriminatory system that harms veterans and their
    families solely based on geography.
        Recognizing this, the Department of Defense has implemented a
    policy recognizing all same-sex marriages of enlisted servicemembers
    regardless of the state where the family lives. This policy promotes
    consistency and fairness and recognizes the mobility that we so often
    ask of our servicemembers. The failure of the Federal Government to
    provide uniform benefits to all veterans results in a frustrating and
    harmful scenario for many LGBT servicemembers. Due to these conflicting
    policies, upon retirement many veterans' families will lose benefits
    over night. This not only frustrates common sense, but disrespects the
    service and sacrifice of our veterans as well as their families.
        The harm of these denials results in daily hardships for too many
    families. Despite the Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Windsor, eight
    year Army veteran Earl Rector was denied a VA home loan in Texas with
    his husband Alan. The couple had legally married in Washington State
    and returned to Dallas to purchase a home. Despite meeting every other
    qualification, the Department of Veterans' Affairs denied the loan,
    leaving Earl with no recourse or assistance. Under the current
    discriminatory statute Earl and Alan were considered to be legal
    strangers by the Department simply because of their home state. Despite
    years of service, Earl was forced to secure a costly private mortgage
    to purchase the home.
        Earl and Alan are not alone. These daily denials are disrespectful,
    costly, and too often heartbreaking. Chief Warrant Officer Charlie
    Morgan passed away believing that her wife and daughter would go
    unrecognized and receive none of the benefits that she had earned
    during her years of service. No servicemember should face this stark
    discrimination at a time when they need support the most. We have made
    a promise to all of our veterans who faithfully serve our country
    alongside their families. It is time to keep this promise.

        I appreciate the opportunity to offer this testimony today and urge
    Congress put an end to this harmful discrimination against our brave
    service men and women.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Military Officers Association of America
        Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal: The Military Officers
    Association of America (MOAA) is pleased to present its views on
    veterans' benefits legislation under consideration by the Committee
    today, May 13, 2015.
        MOAA does not receive any grants or contracts from the Federal
    Government.
     military compensation and retirement modernization commission (mcrmc)
        MCRMC Recommendation 11 proposes that Congress ``Safeguard
    education benefits for Servicemembers by reducing redundancy and
    ensuring fiscal sustainability of education programs.''
        MOAA has long supported consolidating multiple educational benefit
    programs in a single platform under Title 38 with benefits eligibility
    and scope based on the length and type of duty performed.
        Specifically, the MCRMC recommends a number of steps toward
    reducing redundancy in GI Bill programs. MOAA endorses most of the
    specific proposals and offers these comments for the Committee's
    consideration.
        Montgomery GI Bill and REAP. MCRMC recommendation: Montgomery GI
    Bill--Active Duty (Chap. 30, 38 U.S.C.) should be sunset on
    1 October 2015. The Reserve Educational Assistance Program (REAP)
    (Chap. 1607, 10 U.S.C.) should be sunset restricting any further
    enrollment and allowing those currently pursuing an education program
    with REAP to complete their studies. Servicemembers who switch to the
    Post-9/11 GI Bill should receive a full or partial refund of the $1,200
    they paid to become eligible for MGIB benefits. The refund should be
    proportional to the amount of the Post-9/11 GI Bill benefit used.
        MOAA concurs. The Post-9/11 GI Bill should be the sole educational
    platform for supporting recruitment, retention and re-adjustment
    outcomes for the All-Volunteer Force. Servicemembers with MGIB-AD or
    REAP entitlement should be grandfathered with those benefits; under
    current policy they may elect to convert to the new GI Bill, if
    eligible. $1200 refunds are already authorized for MGIB-AD holders who
    make an irrevocable election to the new GI Bill and consume all 36
    months of their entitlement. MOAA recommends making $1200 refund rules
    clearer and simpler.
        Transfer Eligibility of Educational Benefits. MCRMC recommends
    eligibility requirements for transferring Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits
    should be increased to 10 YOS plus an additional commitment of 2 YOS.
    This change strengthens transferability as a true retention tool and
    aligns transferability eligibility to the Commission's Recommendation
    on retirement.
        MOAA does not support the transferability recommendation. Congress
    provided statutory authority for the Dept. of Defense (DOD) to
    determine the optimal service obligation for eligible servicemembers to
    transfer new GI Bill benefits to dependents. MOAA recommends DOD review
    its policy/procedures and adjust transferability service commitments to
    support career force retention as necessary.
        Housing Stipend. MCRMC recommends the housing stipend for
    dependents should be sunset on July 1, 2017.
        MOAA has no position on sunsetting the housing stipend for future
    Post-9/11 GI Bill transfer contracts entered into on/after 1 July 2017.
    However, MOAA strongly objects to any cancellation of the housing
    stipend under transferability contracts in place before 1 July 2017.
    DOD should not break faith on existing transfer agreements including
    the housing stipend (BAH) after 1 July 2017. In cases where service
    extension agreements have already been signed and/or fulfilled for
    transferability, BAH for dependents must be honored, and servicemembers
    with such contracts should not have to meet a new threshold of service.
        Unemployment Compensation. MCRMC recommends eligibility for
    unemployment compensation should be eliminated for anyone receiving
    housing stipend benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
        MOAA objects to the proposal. Housing stipends start and stop in
    synch with academic and training calendars. Unemployment compensation
    is needed for veterans, including veterans with dependents, to meet
    financial obligations during breaks in full-time study or training.
        Tracking Education Levels. DOD should track the education levels of
    Servicemembers leaving the Service, as well as the education levels of
    Servicemembers who transfer their Post-9/11GI Bill to their dependents.
    MOAA supports.
        Report to Congress. The VA should collect information related to,
    but not limited to, graduation rates, course competition rates, course
    dropout rates, course failure rates, certificates and degrees being
    pursued, and employment rates after graduation, and include that
    information in an annual report to the Congress.
        MOAA supports. The Departments of Defense, Veterans' Affairs and
    Education must build on their ongoing efforts to track outcomes from
    military tuition assistance (TA) and GI Bill programs.
        Non-Personally Identifiable Information. Educational institutions
    should be required to provide non-personally identifiable information
    on students who receive Post-9/11 GI Bill and TA benefits, when
    requested by DOD or VA.
        MOAA supports. Allow the collection of non-personally-identifiable
    veteran data by the Department of Education.
       montgomery gi bill--selected reserve (mgib-sr) (chapter 1606, 10
        u.s.c.). the mcrmc did not make a recommendation re the mgib-sr.
        MOAA position. The MGIB-SR program paid nearly 50 cents to the
    dollar compared to the MGIB-AD for the first 14 years of its existence
    (1985-1999). Thereafter, the Services and their National Guard and
    Reserve components allowed the program to dwindle to a current ratio of
    22 cents to the dollar compared to the MGIB-AD. The reason for the
    steep decline in these benefits over time is the program competes
    directly for funding against annual discretionary reserve pay and
    benefit accounts. The MGIB-AD and the Post-9/11 GI Bill, on the other
    hand, are mandatory funding programs under Title 38. As a Title 10
    discretionary program DOD has declined to sustain the MGIB-SelRes as a
    recruitment tool.
        Consistent with the MCRMC's basic recommendation to eliminate
    educational benefit programs redundancy, MOAA has long maintained that
    the MGIB-SR should be re-codified as a sub-chapter in Chapter 33, 38
    U.S.C. as an initial entry benefit for reservists. A single GI Bill
    platform with benefits scaled to the length and type of duty performed
    is needed to support All Volunteer Force manpower in the 21st century.
       department of defense legislative proposals--regarding education
      benefits, transition assistance program, and advisory board on dose
             reconstruction (sections 514, 522, 542, 545, and 1041)
        DOD Legislative Proposal Section 514. Expansion of Service
    Qualifying for Post-9/11 GI Bill Entitlement. DOD proposes to add
    Section 12301(h), 10 U.S.C. as qualifying active duty service for
    reservists who are receiving authorized medical care--medical hold
    status--for Post-9/11 GI Bill entitlement purposes.
        Members of the National Guard or Reserve who are disabled on active
    duty orders and receiving medical care should not lose eligibility for
    Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.
        The DOD's Reserve Forces Policy Board recommended to the Secretary
    of Defense a change in law on the basis of equity. MOAA agrees.
    Currently, when a Guard or Reserve servicemember is injured or wounded
    in a combat theatre, the member is transitioned on orders to a medical
    hold status under 10 U.S.C. 12301(h). This stops accrual of active duty
    time that would count toward Post-9/11 GI Bill entitlement. If the
    member is not discharged but returns to service, none of the time spent
    in medical hold counts as qualifying service. In effect, the reserve
    member is penalized for a line-of-duty wound, injury or illness.
    Coincidentally, if the same member were discharged from service because
    of the disability, the member would earn 100% of the benefit--assuming
    30 days continuous active duty service.
        Reservists continue to honorably serve wherever and whenever they
    are needed. Closing this oversight in current statute would allow all
    servicemembers to continue to accrue the educational benefits earned in
    service while receiving medical care from the DOD under Section
    12301(h) of Title 10.
        MOAA strongly supports S. 602, the GI Bill Fairness Act of 2015,
    which would implement DOD's recommendation for reservists in medical
    hold status.
        Section 522. Recovery of MGIB-Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR) Benefits
    for Service on Active Duty under Recently Added Authorities. DOD
    proposes that Sections 12304a and 12304b of 10 U.S.C. would be added to
    existing authorities in Chapter 1606, 10 U.S.C. so that reservists
    called to active duty under these sections may regain lost MGIB-SR
    after release from active duty.
        Section 12304a authorizes the involuntary activation of a National
    Guard or Reserve member by the Secretary of Defense when a state
    Governor requests Federal assistance in responding to a major disaster
    or emergency. Reservists may serve a continuous period of active duty
    of not more than 120 days under the authority. Under a catastrophic
    event like Hurricane Katrina reservists may need to be activated for a
    period of time that would compel them to repeat a course of study or
    training.
        Section 12304b authorizes Secretaries of the Military Departments
    to order as many as 60,000 members of the Selected Reserve to active
    duty to augment the active forces for missions in support of a
    combatant command for up to 365 days without the consent of the member.
    By law, such missions must be preplanned and budgeted in Service budget
    submissions and members must be notified 180 days prior to their
    activation. Reservists may be activated if an exception to policy is
    approved by the Secretary of Defense. When this happens, servicemembers
    may be forced to lose academic credit for withdrawal from a course. DOD
    anticipates that few reservists would be affected over the next few
    years but wants to protect their earned benefits.
        MOAA supports the DOD proposal. Reservists called to operational
    duty under Sections 12304a and 12304b should not lost entitlement to
    MGIB-SR benefits during their active duty service.
        The ``operational reserve'' policy was promulgated by former
    Secretary of Defense Bob Gates on January 17, 2007. It specifies that
    members and units of the National Guard and Reserve can expect to serve
    up to one year on active duty to perform operational missions for every
    six years of service in the Selected Reserve--``one year mobilized to
    every five years demobilized ratio.'' DOD's recommendation springs from
    acknowledgement that additional call-up authorities provided by
    Congress should not be a cause for them to lose earned MGIB-SR
    benefits.
        That said, MOAA believes that the DOD recommendation on Sections
    12304a and 12304b is too narrowly drawn. MOAA recommends that Sections
    12304a and 12304b be added to the Post-9/11 GI Bill under Section 3301,
    38 U.S.C. By any reasonable interpretation of Congress' intent for
    Sections 12304a and 12304b, missions that would be performed under such
    orders are operational missions for the purpose of defending or
    protecting the homeland or augmenting active force missions that are
    pre-planned and budgeted.
        In MOAA's view, reservists who serve aggregates of 90 days of
    active duty under Sections 12304a and 12304b should be entitled to
    Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. Our recommendation is consistent with the
    MCRMC's view on education benefits, discussed earlier, to eliminate GI
    Bill programs redundancy and rely on Chapter 33, 38 U.S.C. as the GI
    Bill educational platform for the All Volunteer Force.
        Section 542. Update Involuntary Mobilization Authorities Exempted
    from the USERRA Five-year Limit. DOD proposes to add references to
    Sections 12304a and 12304b of 10 U.S.C. to complete the list of current
    statutory authorities exempt from the Uniformed Services Employment and
    Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) five-year limitation under Chapter 43,
    38 U.S.C.
        Congress enacted the USERRA to protect members of individuals who
    perform or have performed service on active duty from employment
    discrimination on the basis of their uniformed service in accordance
    with Sections 4301-4335, 38 U.S.C. As DOD notes, the USERRA is
    ``intended to ensure that these uniformed servicemembers are not
    disadvantaged in their civilian careers because of their service; are
    promptly reemployed in their civilian jobs upon their return from duty;
    and are not disadvantaged against in employment because of their
    military status or uniformed service obligations.''
        Adding Sections 12304a and 12304b is consistent with Congress'
    intent for protecting uniformed servicemembers when called to active
    duty. MOAA strongly supports amending the USERRA to include Sections
    12304a and 12304b, 10 U.S.C.
        Section 545. Pre-Separation Counseling for Members of the National
    Guard and Reserves on Continuous Active Duty. DOD proposes to
    ``expressly exclude'' any period of active duty for training (ADT) from
    receiving transition assistance program (TAP) services. TAP is provided
    to members who are being discharged or released before the completion
    of that member's first 180 days active duty.
        According to DOD, the ``first 180 days'' can be misinterpreted to
    mean the first 180 cumulative days on active duty as in the case of
    National Guard and Reserve members.
        MOAA accepts the proposal to clarify the intent to exclude an
    initial period of active duty training (ADT) in the calculation of
    service to qualify for TAP services.
        We point out that the DOD and Services could use the proposed
    change to ``game'' the system by putting reservists on ADT and active
    duty orders in connection with an operational call-up.
        There are numerous examples of call-ups executed during OIF-OEF in
    the last decade that involved blended ADT and active duty orders. These
    appear to have been used to align the call-ups with available funding
    sources and to manage the numbers of National Guard and Reserves who
    were to be counted on ``active duty'' for operational purposes.
        MOAA is concerned that the proposed change could be used against
    reservists during extended call-ups to deny their access to TAP re-
    adjustment services. MOAA, therefore, opposes the proposal as written.
    MOAA recommends the Committee review this matter with the Armed
    Services Committee to ensure Guard and Reserve members who are on
    active duty to perform operational missions are not denied TAP upon the
    completion of 180 days of continuous active duty.
        Section 1041. Repeal the Authority for the Federal Advisory
    Committee Act Board on Radiation Dose Reconstruction Program. DOD
    proposes to repeal the FACA advisory board for the Radiation Dose
    Reconstruction Program. DOD asserts the board has achieved its
    objectives and its functions can now be more effectively conducted
    through an interagency effort rather than through a FACA advisory
    board.
        DOD notes that the Veterans' Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction
    (VBDR), a Federal Advisory Committee, provides technical assistance on
    DOD's Radiation Dose Reconstruction Program and the Dept. of VA's
    radiological disease claims processing procedures. DOD is requesting
    that that review and oversight functions of the VBDR be transferred to
    the Secretaries of Defense and Veterans Affairs.
        MOAA is not opposed to sunsetting the Federal Advisory Board on
    Radiation Dose Reconstruction. MOAA, however, would recommend the
    Committee consider the potential value in re-casting the VBDR charter
    with a broader mission of advising the Secretaries of Defense and
    Veterans Affairs on toxic exposures. The experience of our Nation's
    warriors over the past 25 years with exposures to burn pits, chemical
    weapons, hazardous military materials, spent uranium rounds,
    biologicals, and other toxic materials suggests that a Federal Advisory
    Board would be of value to the respective departments, servicemembers,
    veterans and their families.
        S. 681, Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2015 (Senators
    Gillibrand, D-NY, Tester, D-MT and Moran, R-KS. S. 681 would authorize
    Agent Orange-related benefits to Navy veterans who served in the
    territorial waters of Vietnam during that conflict. Despite scientific
    studies confirming their likely onboard exposure to dioxin and other
    chemicals that make up Agent Orange, these veterans have been denied
    access to service-related disability and other benefits arising from
    illnesses presumed caused by the exposure.
        MOAA has long maintained that these veterans deserve equal
    treatment with other veterans who set ``boots on the ground'' during
    the Vietnam War. That limitation was arbitrary, unfair and not based on
    science.
        MOAA strongly supports S. 681 and urges the Committee favorably
    report the bill as soon as possible.
        S. 1203, The 21st Century Veterans Benefits Delivery Act (Senators
    Heller, R-NV and Casey, D-PA). S. 1203 builds upon Senator Heller and
    Casey's legislation passed in the last session of Congress to advance
    practical, low-cost solutions to resolve the backlog of veterans'
    claims in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The bill also sets
    out supporting initiatives that can improve the efficiency and
    effectiveness of procedures and practices to sustain the claims system
    for the future.
        The 21st Century Veterans Benefits Delivery Act includes provisions
    beneficial to our Nation's veterans that will enable easier access to
    information on their claims through the eBenefits portal and speed
    access to hearings when they appeal a claim. The legislation also
    brings needed reforms to VA regional offices' practices that are
    designed to increase the accuracy and efficiency of their work on
    behalf of veterans and improve transparency. Additionally, S. 1203
    requires government agencies to cooperate in the collection and
    transmission of information needed by the VA to decide veterans'
    claims, and for other purposes.
        MOAA is very grateful that Senators Heller and Casey's offices
    actively consulted with us and our partner veteran service
    organizations to improve the draft legislation and make it responsive
    to the needs of our veterans.
        MOAA strongly supports the 21st Century Veterans Benefits Delivery
    Act, S. 1203, and urges the Committee to favorably report the bill at
    the earliest opportunity.
        discussion draft legislation including provisions derived from
                             various senate bills.
        S. 241, the Military Family Relief Act of 2015 (Senators Tester, D-
    MT and Moran, R-KS), would provide for the payment of temporary
    Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) to a surviving spouse of a
    veteran upon the death of the veteran, and for other purposes. MOAA
    strongly supports S. 241.
        S. 296, the Veterans Small Business Opportunity and Protection Act
    of 2015 (Senator Heller, R-NV and Manchin, D-WV) would assist surviving
    spouses and dependents of service-disabled veteran-owned businesses
    after the veteran dies from the disability or in the line of duty, and
    for other purposes. MOAA supports S. 296.
        S. 666, the Quicker Benefits Delivery Act of 2015 (Senator Franken,
    D-MN) would require (instead of permit) the consideration of non-Dept.
    of VA medical professionals evidence in support of claims for
    disability compensation submitted by veterans, and for other purposes.
    MOAA strongly supports S. 666.
        S. 695, the Dignified Interment of Our Veterans Act of 2015 (Sen.
    Toomey, R-PA) would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
    conduct a study on matters relating to the burial of unclaimed remains
    of veterans in national cemeteries, and for other purposes. MOAA
    supports S. 695.
        S. 743, Honor America's Guard-Reserve Retirees Act of 2015 (Senator
    Boozman, R-AR) would honor as a veteran members of the National Guard
    or Reserves who are entitled to or in receipt of retired pay for non-
    regular (reserve) service but who had not served on active duty.
        National Guard and Reserve members who complete a full career in
    reserve status and are receiving or entitled to a military pension,
    government health care and specific earned veterans' benefits under
    Title 38 are not ``veterans of the Armed Forces of the United States,''
    in the absence of a qualifying period of active duty.
        Due to military accounting and funding protocols, many reservists
    actually have performed operational missions during their careers but
    orders often were issued under other than a Title 10 active duty
    authority. S. 743 would honor these retired servicemembers as veterans
    but preclude award of any veterans' benefits they are not already
    entitled to as a result of their service. MOAA strongly supports
    passage of S. 243.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of Bryan Polisuk, General Counsel,
                  United States Merit Systems Protection Board

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of John B. Wells, USN (Ret), Executive Director,
                           Military-Veterans Advocacy

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Scott Levins, Director, National Personnel
          Records Center, National Archives and Records Administration

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Peter J. Duffy, Colonel, USARMY (Retired),
     Legislative Director, National Guard Association of the United States
        As Legislative Director of the National Guard Association of the
    United States, I thank you for the honor of submitting testimony with
    Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs on pending benefits legislation.
    This testimony will respond to Chairman's request to address S. 602;the
    G.I. Bill Fairness Act of 2015; the legislative proposals to implement
    Recommendations 11 and 12 of the Military Compensation and Retirement
    Modernization Commission (MCRMC); and the legislative proposals from
    the Department of Defense (DOD) regarding Education Benefits,
    Transition Assistance Program and Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction
    (sections 514,522542,545 and 1041).This statement will also comment on
    S. 865--the Ruth Moore Act of 2015.Thank you for this opportunity.
                         ngaus strongly supports s. 602
        NGAUS strongly supports S. 602 which would amend the Post-9/11
    Veterans Educational, Assistance Act of 2008 (Public Law 110-252) to
    recognize time National Guard and Reserve members serve on active duty
    receiving medical care as ``active duty'' for the purposes of
    eligibility for education assistance and to retroactively apply the
    amendment to the enactment date of Public Law 110-252 (hereinafter
    referred to as the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill).
        In order for members of the reserve components to qualify for
    educational benefit purposes under the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill as currently
    written, they must serve on active duty served under section 608,12301
    (a), 12301 (d),12301 (g),12302, or 12304 or section 712 of title 14.
    See 38 U.S.C. Section 3301(1) (B). Active duty service for medical 10
    U.S.C. Section 12301(h) is not included because that authority did not
    exist when Post-9/11 G.I. Bill was enacted.
        10 U.S.C. 12301(h) was enacted to authorize National Guard and
    Reserve members to remain on active duty for full pay and allowances
    for treatment and evaluation of their service-connected injuries and
    for other medical purposes. This addressed an ongoing problem during
    the wars of our members returning to their civilian lives unable to
    earn a living because of their debilitating but treatable injuries.
        When Congress enacted 10 U.S.C. 12301(h) during the ongoing OIF/OEF
    wars, it did not contemporaneously amend the existing Post-9/11 GI Bill
    in title 38 to qualify reserve component active duty served under 10
    U.S.C. 12301(h) for educational benefits. This appears to have been an
    oversight during a very busy time.
        NGAUS strongly supports this bill because the length of time
    reserve-component members serve on qualifying active duty determines
    their level of eligibility for education assistance. All active duty
    days need to be counted.
        Active-duty members receive full credit for education assistance
    for their time spent receiving medical care for service-connected
    injuries. In fairness, National Guard and Reserve members deserve the
    same.
        Not allowing educational benefits to apply to active duty served by
    the reserve components on for medical treatment discriminates harshly
    against our Guard and Reserve wounded warriors who have bravely served
    the Nation. This needs immediate correction that S. 602 would do with
    full retroactivity to the enactment of the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill.
        Please support this legislation and urge your colleagues to do the
    same.
         recommendation 11 of the military compensation and retirement
                            modernization commission
        NGAUS concurs with recommendation 11 and the legislative proposal
    to implement if with a few exceptions.
        When enacting the consolidation recommendation, Congress needs to
    grandfather all in place service agreements relative to the transfer of
    Post-9/11 G.I. Bill benefits to dependents to include grandfathering
    any BAH currently being received by dependents.
        The Post-9/11 G.I. Bill benefit must also be amended to cover all
    National Guard Title 32 active duty period of 90 consecutive days or
    longer responding to a national emergency pursuant to orders issued
    under the authority of Title 32 section 502 (f). This will compensate
    for benefits National Guard members would lose with the recommended
    elimination of REAP.
        With respect to Army's Federal Tuition Assistance referenced in the
    MCRMCV report, the current program needs to restore the full benefit
    for the Army National Guard before being allowed to go forward as it is
    currently administered.
        On Jan. 1, 2014 the Army imposed restrictions on utilization of the
    FTA for all Army components which prohibits use of FTA until one year
    after completion of Advanced Individual Training (AIT) or Basic Officer
    Leadership Course (BOLC). This has been particularly harmful to the
    ARNG participation in FTA which has declined by 18 percent and reduced
    total course enrollment by 31 percent. Consequently, the ARNG
    distributed only $59.98 million of the $73.8 million appropriated in
    2014 for that purpose.
        The Army's Federal Tuition Assistance (FTA) program has provided
    valuable financial assistance to citizen soldiers of the Army National
    Guard (ARNG) to advance their professional development as a soldier
    with benefits of up to $250 per semester credit hour or $167 per
    quarter credit hour not to exceed $4,500 a year; and 100 percent of
    high school equivalency tuition and fees up to $4,000 annually.
        The optimal time for ARNG soldiers to enroll in full time education
    programs is immediately after completion of their initial entry
    training. Immediate utilization of the FTA following initial training
    has not only been a valuable recruiting tool for the citizen soldier
    but it has effectively placed soldiers on a fast career development
    track. ARNG soldiers are in a better position than their active duty
    counterpart to enroll as full-time students while serving in the
    military.
        Soldiers receiving FTA within two years of accession have a higher
    retention rate than those not using FTA; soldiers using FTA within
    three years of enlistment have higher commission rates and are more
    likely to be higher quality accessions based on AFQT scores.
        Congress must assure restoration of FTA for the ARNG by rescinding
    the one year wait restriction imposed by the Army and return authority
    to the Army National Guard to implement a Federal tuition assistance
    policy that addressees the unique needs of the Guard soldier.
         recommendation 12 of the military compensation and retirement
        modernization commission--making transition assistance programs
                        mandatory but with improvements
        NGAUS concurs with this recommendation in theory but the practice
    needs amending to provide transition assistance services to separating
    members of the military closer to their homes which in truth may be as
    far as a continent away from the active installation hosting the
    Transition Assistance Program (TAP) they attended.
        Mental health providers in Florida reported last year that they
    treat veterans returning home to Florida after separating from the
    military who were totally unaware of the community mental health
    services available in that state.
        Mental health is only one of the services that a veteran may seek
    once home. They would also profit from awareness of what, where and
    from whom local employment and veteran assistance services are
    available. Receiving briefings from local personnel who will be
    administering these programs in their communities would allow our
    veterans to associate a face with a service. This would only enhance
    accession of those services as transition may require.
        Each state likely has the existing force structure through it
    National Guard Joint Force Headquarters to provide a facility and
    personnel for administering portions of TAP better delivered at the
    state level that could connect to local state and Federal agency staff
    who likely have been delivering similar transition briefs to
    demobilizing Guard members throughout the war years.
        This would provide a proven alternative or adjunct to existing TAP
    operations. One with the potential to save money for the government and
    likely anxiety on the part of the returning veteran with the better
    connectivity to in state resources that it would provide.
                  department of defense legislative proposals
        NGAUS applauds and thanks DOD for this proactive effort in behalf
    of the reserve components that addresses problems that have emerged
    during the wars or are likely to emerge with future deployments.
    Section 514
            please refer to the discussion above relative to s. 602.
        NGAUS certainly supports the DOD proposal to amend 38 U.S.C.
    3301(1) (B) to include reserve component active duty for medical care
    served under 10 U.S.C. 12301(h) as active duty for Post-9/11 G.I. Bill
    education eligibility purposes but it needs to go further.
        The proposed DOD amendment needs to incorporate the language of
    S. 602 so that it would be retroactively applied to the enactment of
    the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill. This would correct an apparent error in the
    legislative process that would provide equality in education benefit
    eligibility for all active duty and reserve component wounded warriors
    for their active duty time receiving medical care.
    Section 522
        NGAUS supports this DOD proposal that similar to section 514
    discussed above that equitably recognizes and protects reserve
    component active duty deployments under authorities that did not exist
    when chapter 1606 of title 10, U.S Code was enacted.
        Montgomery G.I. Bill educational benefits lost because of reserve
    component active duty deployments under 10 U.S.C. 12304a and 12304b
    cannot currently be regained under the protections afforded by 10
    U.S.C. 16133 which apply only to deployments under other older
    authorities.
        Section 522 would correct this by amending 10 U.S.C. 16133 to allow
    the member to regain those benefits when a reserve component member
    could not complete studies because of an activation order under 10
    U.S.C. 12304a or 12304b.
        Section 522 would update protections in a fair and sensible manner.
    However, just as with section 514, there needs to be retroactive
    application to allow members of the reserve component to regain
    benefits lost because of past deployments under 10 U.S.C. 12304a or
    12304b.
    Section 542
        NGAUS strongly supports amend this additional updating effort that
    would expand involuntary mobilization authorities exempt from the
    Uniform Services Employment Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA).
        Extended mobilizations beyond five years were harshly handled
    during the wars by some of our Nation's airlines in disallowing Air
    National Guard pilots to return to work who served more than five years
    protecting our Nation's airspace under Operation Noble Eagle /Air
    Sovereignty Alert orders. Legislation was passed late in the wars to
    address this.
        Section 542 is a forward looking effort that would protect reserve
    components members from an adverse employer's denial of reemployment
    based on a technical interpretation of existing USERRA law that does
    not apply to evolving deployment authorities.
    Section 545
        NGAUS supports section 545 recognizing that TAP is not needed for
    reserve component deployments less than 180 days or for longer periods
    of active duty for training. This would save the members' time and he
    government time and money. Moreover, any transition assistance required
    by National Guard members is more effectively and economically
    available through their assistance programs delivered within their
    states and managed by their Joint Force HQ.
    Section 1041
        NGAUS has scant experience with the programs covered by this
    proposal. Nevertheless, the proposal makes good economic and
    sustainment sense and avoids unnecessary duplication of effort by
    transferring to DOD and the Veterans Administration the duties still
    assigned to an aging Federal Advisory Committee that are actively and
    expertly being worked at DOD and VA.
                                     s. 865
        These comments are somewhat gratuitous but in review of the
    disability compensation protections that would be afforded sexual
    assault victims under S. 865--Ruth Moore, it is an opportunity to
    remind Congress of an alternative but underfunded authority to embed
    mental health providers in armories and Reserve Centers.
        Embedded licensed mental health care professionals embedded in
    armories and Reserve centers provide an onsite confidential touch point
    for sexual assault victims to report a sexual assault incident outside
    of the victim's chain of command.
        The embedded provider based the victim's civilian community will be
    well versed in what local support and prosecution services are
    available and can guide and advise the victim through that ticket.
        Moreover, sexual assault is the trigger and a precursor to a host
    of behavioral issues that can be immediately and confidentially
    addressed by an embedded mental health professional. This would not
    only help to protect and document a future disability claim but might
    well be a first step in preventing a suicide arising from the assault.
        The bill also grasps the need for victims to be able to support a
    disability claim from community based treatment outside of the Veterans
    Administration which may be perceived as male dominated and unfriendly
    to victims.
        There is a profound and ongoing need for Congress to fund
    confidential community based counseling services for veterans and their
    families similar to the successful Connecticut model that is
    administered cost effectively and efficiently with 24/7 access for
    veterans and families in crisis mode.
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of National Military and Veterans Alliance

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Kenneth M. Carpenter, Founding Member, National
                   Organization of Veterans' Advocates, Inc.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of National Veterans Legal Services Program

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of Paralyzed Veterans of America
        Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal, and Members of the
    Committee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank you
    for the opportunity to submit our views on pending legislation before
    the Committee. We appreciate the Committee focusing on these critical
    issues that will affect veterans and their families. We will also limit
    our comments on the Department of Defense (DOD) proposals to those
    issues that are governed by title 38 U.S.C.
     s. 270, the ``charlie morgan military spouses equal treatment act of
                                     2015''
        PVA does not have an official position on this legislation.
    However, we believe that VA regulations should be consistent with
    current Federal law and how the larger Federal Government handles this
    issue.
                  s. 602, the ``gi bill fairness act of 2015''
        PVA supports S. 602, the ``GI Bill Fairness Act of 2015.'' This
    legislation would include time spent receiving medical care from the
    Department of Defense as active duty time for the purpose of
    eligibility for Post-9/11 GI Bill. We have no doubt that this time
    should be considered active duty for purposes of eligibility for the
    Post-9/11 GI Bill. We also appreciate the fact that this legislation
    would be retroactive to the date of the enactment of the Post-9/11 GI
    Bill.
                                     s. 627
        PVA supports S. 627 to revoke bonuses paid to employees involved in
    electronic wait list manipulations. Our only caution is to ensure that
    due process is afforded to any employees identified in the Inspector
    General (IG) report. These employees violated the public trust and
    deserve appropriate discipline which may include the loss bonuses;
    however, they must be afforded the protections that Federal service has
    provided.
          s. 681, the ``blue water navy vietnam veterans act of 2015''
        PVA supports S. 681, the ``Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of
    2015,'' which would amend title 38 and expand the presumption for
    service connection related to the exposure of herbicides containing
    dioxin, including Agent Orange. As more information becomes available
    about these types of exposures, it will be imperative for Congress to
    take appropriate steps to ensure that these men receive just
    consideration for health care and benefits eligibility.
    military compensation and retirement modernization commission proposals
        PVA generally supports the proposals identified by the Military
    Compensation and Retirement Commission as they apply to title 38 U.S.C.
    However, we have strong objections to Section 1108. The Post-9/11
    educational benefit is earned by a servicemember after serving the
    prescribed length of service. In an effort to retain high quality mid-
    grade servicemembers, the program included the ability to transfer the
    benefits to family members. The only change this section offers is to
    reduce the earned benefit by denying the Basic Housing Allowance (BHA)
    to family members to whom GI Bill benefits have been transferred. PVA
    believes the only reason for this change is to save money. We are
    seriously disappointed that by this effort to force our military
    members and veterans to pay for the cost savings through the reduction
    of their ``earned'' benefits. This section is wholly unacceptable and
    should not be part of any Congressional action.
                  department of defense legislative proposals
        As previously stated, PVA does not generally involve itself in
    matters governed by DOD. However, PVA generally supports the Department
    of Defense legislative proposals as they apply to title 38 U.S.C. The
    bulk of these proposals correct provisions of public law to more
    appropriately treat Reserve and National Guard members when they are
    called to active duty, either involuntarily or for medical purposes.
        PVA concurs with Section 545. While there are those Reserve and
    National Guard members who could possibly benefit from the TAP program,
    this was not the purpose of TAP and should not be applied to active
    duty for training status.
        Regarding Section 1041 that eliminates the Federal Advisory Board
    for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Program, DOD indicates the Board has
    achieved its objectives. Too often we find Federal Agencies will claim
    something is no longer needed simply to save money. If in fact the
    Board's work has been accomplished, then PVA sees no issue with the
    elimination of the Board. However, we would encourage the Committee
    scrutinize this issue carefully and not simply take DOD's word for it.
              the ``21st century veterans benefits delivery act''
        PVA generally supports the provisions of the draft bill, the ``21st
    Century Veterans Benefits Delivery Act.'' Under Title I, PVA supports
    Section 101 that will prevent DOD from allowing TAP to be conducted
    entirely on-line. While improvements to the eBenefits Internet Web site
    will be valuable, we see too many instances of organizations moving
    more and more content and actions to the impersonal internet. The lack
    of face-to-face interaction that we find with the internet can
    significantly reduce the efficacy of services provided during a TAP
    program by eliminating the ability of the TAP instructor to identify
    body language that may indicate a lack of understanding or
    comprehension on the part of a soon to be discharged servicemember. In
    addition, individuals may be less likely to engage or ask questions
    when all content or training are on-line. Ensuring some level of
    personal interaction will benefit the veteran and make the transition
    to civilian life easier.
        PVA welcomes the provisions of Section 102 which will better
    explain the advantages for filing an appeal and see it as valid.
    However, we believe this issue is already being addressed in the
    revision of the Simplified Notification Letters (SNL) and we are
    heavily involved in this ongoing project. PVA supports Section 103 that
    will provide the opportunity for a veteran to request and be granted an
    in-person hearing before the Board of Veterans Appeals. While PVA
    strongly supports the use of video hearings and encourages those
    veterans served by our service officers to seek a video hearing,
    veterans that may feel uncomfortable with the technology should be
    allowed to seek an in-person hearing. We are glad to see that this
    legislation would require the Board to comply with this request.
        Under Title II, PVA supports the intent of Section 201 that will
    assess the consistency of decisions at a Regional Office (RO). Too
    often we see wide disparities between different RO's and how they treat
    a disability claim. The identification of Best Practices, if
    implemented by the Secretary and the Regional Offices, may better
    provide for veterans and remove the ``luck of the draw'' that is found
    today. But we caution that trying to have the Comptroller General audit
    what is an individual human assessment is unlikely to produce a valid
    outcome. While there may be the ability to determine some trends, only
    in the area of gross differences in opinions will there be any
    significant basis for evaluation.
        In addition, the training identified in Section 202 and the
    analysis of communication required by Section 203, may also improve the
    processes within VA as well as between its stakeholders in the veterans
    community and with Congress. Service center managers are the key to
    efficient claims processing. They are responsible for the training and
    development of the employees who are the heart and soul of claims
    processing. In the same way that Veterans Health Administration (VHA)
    employees were put under pressure to report timely service, Veterans
    Benefits Administration (VBA) managers have felt the need to
    demonstrate increased productivity. However, it seems late in the game
    to realize that key management personnel now need management training.
    PVA's fear is that the response by VA to such legislation will be
    enrollment in management courses that will enable VA to check off the
    block for training requirements without actually improving performance.
    If VA was truly interested in such improvement, this management
    training would already be occurring.
        While tasking the IG to review the practices of RO's regarding use
    of suspense dates, we believe Section 204 needs to better identify what
    this review is meant to achieve. It would be unfortunate if after
    almost a year of review, the IG provides information that is either of
    no value, or does not address the issues Congress sought by the
    legislation. Similarly, with Section 205, PVA believes the requirement
    to report on the capacity of the VBA to process benefits claims should
    be expanded to include the capacity of VA to process appeals and not
    just claims. PVA and other veterans' service organizations (VSO)
    predict a coming wave of appeals in the near future and information on
    VA's ability to process appeals may prove equally valuable. Regarding
    Section 206, PVA looks forward to seeing VA's plan for revising the
    resource allocation model for VBA.
        PVA will be interested in the findings of the semiannual report on
    implementation of the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) under
    Section 207. PVA has been very supportive of VBMS as a tool that can
    speed the completion of simpler and more straight-forward claims.
    Automation and rules based processing has an important place in VBA
    claims processing. However, as PVA has always cautioned, VBMS is not an
    end-all and be-all for claims. While VBMS works for simple claims,
    those that are more complicated or have a significant number of issues
    cannot be easily processed with a rules-based system. These are the
    claims that need the ``human touch'' of an experienced claims
    adjudicator who fully understand the impact of wide ranging
    disabilities and their impact on each other. It has always been a fear
    of PVA that as VBMS became the standard for claims processing, VA would
    look to reduce costs or transfer personnel to other areas of VA thereby
    reducing the numbers of adjudicators needed for the more complex
    claims. As part of Section 207, PVA would like to see a report on how
    VA is handling those more complex claims and how VA has been able to
    improve the accuracy and reduce processing time of these more complex
    claims. Additionally, the legislation seems to only seek input from VBA
    employees and VSOs. We recommend that input also be received from
    employees of the Board of Veterans Appeals to ensure that the
    downstream impact of VBMS is also assessed.
        Section 208 requires a report on the Secretary's plans to reduce
    the inventory of claims for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC)
    and claims for Pension. PVA is as interested as Congress to see this
    plan. Additionally, it is absolutely critical that the increased
    transparency in Monday Morning Workload reports required by Section 209
    be enacted. It is impossible to improve processes without metrics to
    track success or failure. PVA is pleased to see the inclusion of
    partial ratings assigned and the information on Fully Developed Claims
    (FDC) as well as indentifying the Regional Office processing the FDC.
        Finally, including public access to reports on appeals decisions
    outlined in Section 210 will also increase transparency. This is
    perhaps one of the most opaque aspects of the claims process. While
    great attention is paid to processing times of initial claims, appeals
    seem to sit hidden away from view. We encourage the reporting of
    detailed information from previously adjudicated claims by the Appeals
    Management Center to identify problematic trends. As stated earlier,
    PVA sees a coming wave of appeals that may dwarf the current claims
    backlog in time, if not in number. Greater information for veterans and
    their representatives may help in better understanding the appeals
    process and shine some sunlight on this interminable process.
        PVA supports the provisions of Section 211 that will modify the
    pilot program for use of contract physicians for disability
    examinations. Hopefully this provision may allow VA to ensure that an
    appropriate physician is available to conduct a proper examination. Too
    often PVA sees exams performed by physicians not familiar with the
    disability in question.
                discussion draft for other veterans legislation
        PVA supports Title I, Sections 101 and 102, of the draft
    legislation that would modify the law governing the treatment of
    veterans' small businesses after the death of the disabled veteran
    business owner. Businesses are not built in a day. Moreover, they are
    built as an enterprise, and often as a family enterprise. The veteran
    may not expect to die while still owning his or her business and PVA
    believes it is only fair that the surviving spouse be able to have
    adequate time to maintain and then sell the business. This is
    particularly true in the case of the disable veteran who dies as a
    result of their service-connected disability or who dies in the line of
    duty.
        Currently if the veteran business owner passes away from a non-
    service-connected illness or injury, and is rated less that 100 percent
    service-connected, the surviving spouse only has one year to transition
    the business out of SDVOSB status with VA. If the SDVOSB has contracts
    with any other Federal agency, the business immediately loses its
    SDVOSB status upon the passing of the veteran and all business must
    stop. This legislation will allow the business to retain the SDVOSB
    status for three years upon the passing of the veteran to allow for a
    transition of the business. This three year period would apply to
    SDVOSB contracts with the VA and all Federal agencies.
        PVA supports Sections 201-203 of the draft legislation that address
    Military Sexual Trauma. Our position is consistent with a previous
    stated position on H.R. 1607, the ``Ruth Moore Act,'' which addresses
    similar issues. According to reports, sexual assault in the military
    continues to be a serious problem, despite several actions by DOD to
    combat the issue, including required soldier and leader training. As
    the military works to reduce the threat and incident of military sexual
    trauma (MST), it is important that victims of MST, both women and men,
    have the ability to receive care from the VA and receive timely, fair
    consideration of their claims for benefits. This is particularly
    important given the number of MST occurrences that go unreported. While
    current policies allowing restricted reporting of sexual assaults
    should reduce the number of incidents which have ``no official
    record,'' it can still be anticipated that there are those who will not
    report the incident out of shame, fear of reprisals or stigma, or
    actual threats from their attacker. To then place a high burden of
    proof on the veteran, who has experienced MST to prove service-
    connection, particularly in the absence of an official record, would
    add further trauma to an already tragic event.
        One particular recommendation that PVA would like to make about the
    proposed language is a clarification of what constitutes a ``mental
    health professional.'' We would hope that the intent of this
    legislation is not to limit ``mental health professionals'' to only VA
    health care professionals.
        PVA supports the provisions of Section 204. This section
    establishes a pilot program on treatment of certain applications for
    dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) as fully developed claims.
    Additionally, we support Section 205 that requires a review of
    determination of certain service in Philippines during World War II.
    This has been an ongoing effort for multiple years. PVA supports the
    proper identification of service for the purposes of compensation and
    supports efforts to achieve that goal.
        PVA supports the provisions of Section 206. PVA has consistently
    testified on what we see as unnecessary medical examinations scheduled
    by VHA when sufficient non-VA medical information is present. But we
    would like to see more detail in the report as it applies to
    specialized care, in particular, care and treatment in Spinal Cord
    Injury (SCI) Centers. Because of the extensive use of SCI centers and
    specialists by PVA members, we need to be sure that the report includes
    not only ``private physician'' but ``VA treating physician''
    information. There is a tremendous distinction between a C & P examiner
    doing the one time exam of a patient and the SCI physician who sees the
    patient on a regular basis. This distinction is critical to PVA and the
    proper care and evaluation of SCI patients as well as other disabled
    veterans who receive specialized care from VA.
        PVA supports the provisions included in Title III and IV of the
    draft legislation. However, in the case of Title IV, we would caution
    the Committee about anticipated confusion on the part of those members
    of the Reserves who gain recognition as ``veterans.'' We expect that
    these former members of the Reserves will eventually wonder that if
    they are in fact ``veterans,'' why they do not get the benefits of
    being veterans.

        Once again, we thank you for the opportunity to submit for the
    record. We look forward to working with the Committee to see these
    proposals through to final passage. We would be happy to take any
    questions you have for the record.
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Carol A. Bonosaro, President, Senior Executives
                                  Association

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of The American Legion
        Chairman Isakson, Ranking Member Blumenthal and distinguished
    Members of the Committee, on behalf of National Commander Michael D.
    Helm and the 2.3 million members of The American Legion, we thank you
    and your colleagues for the work you do in support of servicemembers,
    veterans and their families.
      s. 270: charlie morgan military spouses equal treatment act of 2015
        To amend title 38, United States Code, to revise the definition of
    spouse for purposes of veterans benefits in recognition of new State
    definitions of spouse, and for other purposes
        The American Legion has no position on this legislation.
                      s. 602: gi bill fairness act of 2015
        To amend title 38, United States Code, to consider certain time
    spent by members of reserve components of the Armed Forces while
    receiving medical care from the Secretary of Defense as active duty for
    purposes of eligibility for Post-9/11 educational Assistance, and for
    other purposes.
        Members of the Guard or Reserve who are wounded in combat are often
    given orders under 10 U.S.C. 12301(h) for their recovery, treatment and
    rehabilitation. Unfortunately, Federal law does not recognize such
    orders as eligible for Post-9/11 GI Bill education assistance, meaning
    that unlike other members of the military, these members of the Guard
    and Reserve actually lose benefits for being injured in the line of
    duty.
        The GI Bill Fairness Act would end that unequal treatment and
    ensure these servicemembers are eligible for the same GI Bill benefits
    as active duty members of the military. It is truly unjust to deny
    wounded and injured servicemembers the ability to accrue educational
    benefits for the time they spend receiving medical care. No veteran
    should lose their benefits simply because they were in the National
    Guard or Reserves.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Resolution No. 14: Review of Federal Mobilization Personnel
    Statuses and Benefits
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The American Legion supports S. 602.
                                     s. 627
        A bill to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to revoke
    bonuses paid to employees involved in electronic wait list
    manipulations, and for other purposes
        The American Legion has no position
              s. 681: blue water navy vietnam veterans act of 2015
        To amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify presumptions
    relating to the exposure of certain veterans who served in the vicinity
    of the Republic of Vietnam, and for other purposes
        Veterans who served on open sea ships off the shore of Vietnam
    during the Vietnam War are called ``Blue Water Veterans.'' Currently,
    Blue Water Veterans must have actually stepped foot on the land of
    Vietnam or served on its inland waterways anytime between January 9,
    1962 and May 7, 1975 to be presumed to have been exposed to herbicides
    when claiming service-connection for diseases related to Agent Orange
    exposure.
        Blue Water Veterans who did not set foot in Vietnam or serve aboard
    ships that operated on the inland waterways of Vietnam must show on a
    factual basis that they were exposed to herbicides during military
    service in order to receive disability compensation for diseases
    related to Agent Orange exposure. These claims are decided on a case-
    by-case basis.
        We are cognizant that VA previously asked the National Academy of
    Sciences' Institute of Medicine (IOM) to review the medical and
    scientific evidence regarding Blue Water Veterans' possible exposure to
    Agent Orange and other herbicides. IOM's report Blue Water Navy Vietnam
    Veterans and Agent Orange Exposure was released in May 2011. The report
    concluded that ``there was not enough information for the IOM to
    determine whether Blue Water Navy personnel were or were not exposed to
    Agent Orange.''
        However, Vietnam veterans who served on land and sea now have
    health problems commonly associated with herbicide exposure. Just as
    those who served on land were afforded the presumption because it would
    have placed an impossible burden on them to prove exposure, Congress
    should understand the injustice of placing the same burden on those who
    served offshore. Clearly, all the toxic wind-blown and waterborne Agent
    Orange-dioxin just didn't somehow stop at the coast line.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Resolution No. 250: Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The American Legion strongly supports this legislation to expand
    the presumption of exposure to herbicides for veterans who served
    within the territorial seas of Vietnam, to ensure that proper benefits
    are awarded to those with conditions associated with exposure.
        The American Legion supports S. 681
         draft legislation: 21st century veterans benefits delivery act
        To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the processing by
    the Department of Veterans Affairs of claims for benefits under laws
    administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other
    purposes.
        The American Legion was honored to work with Senators Heller and
    Casey in attempting to improve accountability within the Department of
    Veterans Affairs (VA); more importantly, through this accountability,
    it is The American Legion's pure objective to ensure that our Nation's
    veterans are receiving their entitled benefits due to their honorable
    service to this Nation. The American Legion especially applauds the
    efforts from the Backlog Working Group to reach out directly to the
    Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs) in an effort to understand the
    problems inherent the VA disability claims system. The American Legion
    alone accredits over 3,000 service officers nationally to assist
    veterans with their claims for benefits. This first hand, front line
    experience is critical to understand how the system actually operates
    ``in the trenches.'' The willingness and eagerness of Senators Heller
    and Casey to go directly to the veterans who wage these battles for
    benefits daily has informed the policies they have proposed and
    underlined the absolutely critical need to include all stakeholders in
    the process of reforming any VA system.
        The bill is extensive in scope, so analysis of critical sections is
    provided:
    Sec. 101--Improvement to Transition Assistance Program
        The American Legion supports making TAP classroom material
    available online and has long advocated for the inclusion of veterans
    service organizations (VSOs) to servicemembers as they transition from
    service. The American Legion believes The Department of Veterans
    Affairs (VA), the Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Labor
    (DOL) need to work together to establish a nationwide policy to permit
    American Legion accredited representatives (service officers) as well
    as other major veterans service organizations (VSOs), that choose to
    participate in the Transition Goals, Plans and Success Program.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Resolution No. 210: Service Officers Participation in the
    Transition Goals, Plans and Success Program
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec. 103--Determination of Manner of Appearance for Hearings before
            Board of Veterans' Appeals
        For veterans opting to appeal their claims to the Board of
    Veterans' Appeals (BVA), it can often be an arduous process. In
    January 2015, The American Legion testified before the House Committee
    on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee Disability Assistance and Memorial
    Affairs regarding the amount of time that veterans wait prior to having
    their claims adjudicated. During that testimony, we indicated that a
    veteran's standard four year enlistment is shorter than the period of
    time that a veteran must wait before a claim is adjudicated; sadly,
    approximately half of those claims reviewed by BVA must be remanded for
    further development to comply with VA's duty to assist veterans seeking
    disability benefits.
        Veterans have various avenues to have their claims adjudicated.
    They may choose to have the following:

         An informal hearing presentation
         A hearing at BVA in Washington, D.C
         A travel BVA hearing
         A video conference hearing

        The American Legion believes that veterans own their claims. As
    such, the manner they choose to prosecute their claims should remain
    theirs; however, if VA can provide the manner that would be the most
    expeditious while not reducing the veteran's due process rights to
    ensure they receive the benefits in a timely manner, it would be
    ultimately beneficial to the veteran community. Section 103 of this
    bill will allow veterans to have their claims to be adjudicated in a
    timelier manner and allow the veteran to ``opt-out'' of VA's suggested
    manner to have a hearing conducted. This is consistent with The
    American Legion's policy of encouraging VA to address all claims in an
    expeditious and accurate manner, provided VA creates no program that
    diminishes a veteran's due process rights.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Resolution No. 28: Department of Veterans Affairs Appeals
    Process
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec. 201--Required Comptroller General Audit of Regional Offices of
            Veterans Benefits Administration
        It is an unfortunate reality that veterans' claims are not
    adjudicated in a similar manner. A claim adjudicated in one office may
    be granted while denied in another; additionally, a claim in one office
    may be granted a higher disability rating than in a separate office. We
    recognize that adjudicating claims is inherently open to
    interpretation; however, during The American Legion's Regional Office
    Action Review visits in recent years, we have noted that certain VA
    regional offices are more adept than others at adjudicating claims.
        Over the past year, VA has been moving toward establishing its
    National Work Queue (NWQ) program designed to have claims adjudicated
    not by region, as has been VA's historical practice, but by available
    rater. To ensure that NWQ is successful, the veterans need assurance
    that a claim adjudicated by one regional office employee would have the
    same results in a different regional office. If not, VA runs the risk
    of NWQ ultimately becoming a chaotic world of VA appeals due to an
    uncertainty in the quality of adjudications. Through passage of
    Resolution 128 at our National Convention in Charlotte in August 2014,
    The American Legion called for transparency within VA. We assert
    through a third-party review of the manner that the claims are
    adjudicated; a fuller understanding of VA's manner of adjudication at
    each of its regional offices can finally be accomplished.
    Sec. 203--Analysis of Communication between Regional Offices of
            Department of Veterans Affairs and Veterans Service
            Organizations and Congressional Caseworkers
        Section 203 is designed to increase the efficiency in the level of
    communication between VSOs and Congressional caseworkers. The American
    Legion has over 3,000 accredited representatives, to include service
    officers in each of VA's regional offices. Like the accuracy and nature
    in adjudicating claims, the level of communication between our
    accredited representatives and VA regional office employees differs by
    regional office.
        During the wake of last summer's VA health care scandal, The
    American Legion established Veterans Crisis Command Centers to allow
    veterans to gain access to their benefits. During an event in St.
    Louis, an elderly veteran stated for 20 years he had been pursuing his
    benefits, and in 20 minutes with The American Legion and VA personnel,
    he was able to finally gain the access he sought. He stated, ``This is
    a business built on communication, and VA has failed.''
        Similar to the necessity of communication between VA and veterans,
    VA needs to provide the necessary communication to VSOs; VSOs often
    provide the front line of advocacy for veterans. If we are unable to
    communicate, then a breakdown in the pursuit of benefits can occur. In
    our recent National Executive Committee meeting, The American Legion
    adopted Resolution 28 that calls for VA to pursue an efficient manner
    to adjudicate claims and appeals. While this section may not completely
    address the whole issue, improving communication between the advocate
    and VA will only strengthen the program.
        The American Legion supports efforts to improve the effectiveness
    in VA's adjudication of claims and appeals, provided these efforts
    don't impact or remove any due process rights afforded to veterans.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Ibid
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Sec. 205--Annual Report on Capacity of Benefits Administration to
            Process Benefits Claims
        According to the May 2, 2015, VA's Monday Morning Workload Report
    (MMWR), 439,928 claims are awaiting adjudication; 161,519 have been
    awaiting adjudication for over 125 days. 299,983 claims are languishing
    in appeals status. Compare this data with the MMWR released on May 3,
    2010, where 523,976 claims were awaiting adjudication; 189,048 claims
    were waiting a decision greater than 125 days with 189,269 claims in
    appeal status awaiting a claim. Though VA has made significant strides
    in improving its adjudication rates, it is evident that while the focus
    has been on original decisions, the appeals inventory has exploded by
    58.5 percent.
        In recent years, The American Legion has testified that VA is
    overwhelmed. Our Regional Office Action Review (ROAR) visitations have
    witnessed the level of stress within the VA regional offices. Not only
    are they understaffed, many employees simply do not have the level of
    experience necessary to adjudicate the claims. In speaking with VA
    management at the regional offices, they often referred to the level of
    inexperience and understaffing. Meanwhile, when asked by Congress
    regarding if they needed additional employees, VA senior leadership
    repeatedly stated that they have adequate levels of staffing.
        As we move closer to the December 2015 deadline to meet former VA
    Secretary Eric Shinseki's goal of having claims adjudicated within 125
    days and 98 percent accuracy, The American Legion fears that the focus
    upon achieving the arbitrary objective will come at a cost to veterans.
    Through Section 205, VA will be compelled to reveal the stress within
    the regional offices and can meet the needs of the veterans throughout
    the Nation. The American believes strongly in an increased level of
    transparency within the Veterans Benefits Administration;\6\ through
    passage of this bill, VA will be required to release its needs to
    Congress and increase its transparency.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Resolution No. 128: Increase the Transparency of the Veterans
    benefits Administration's Claims Processing
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The American Legion supports the 21st Century Veterans Benefits
    Act.
      draft legislation: veterans compensation cost-of-living adjustment
                                  act of 2015
        To provide for an increase, effective December 1, 2015, in the
    rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities
    and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the
    survivors of certain disabled veterans, and for other purposes.
        This draft bill would provide a Cost of Living Allowance (COLA)
    effective December 1, 2015. Disability compensation and pension
    benefits awarded by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) are
    designed to compensate veterans for medical conditions due to service
    or who earn below an income threshold. With annual increases to costs
    of living, it is only appropriate that veterans' benefits increase
    commensurate with those increases.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ Resolution No. 291: Oppose Lowering of Cost-of-Living-
    Adjustments
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The American Legion supports this draft bill.
         military compensation and retirement modernization commission
      legislative proposals regarding commission recommendations 11 and 12
    Sec. 1101: Montgomery GI Bill Sunset
        The American Legion supports this provision, but Congress should
    ensure that any inconsistency between MGIB-AD and the Post-9/11 GI Bill
    are identified and rectified prior to merging the two education
    programs. Servicemembers should not lose any portion of these
    educational programs due to the merger. Where the Post-9/11 GI Bill
    does not provide the same services as other educational programs, it
    should be amended to do so. Also, full or partial refund of the $1,200
    servicemembers paid to become eligible for MGIB should be made.
        Two examples of inconsistency between the MGIB-AD and Post-9/11 are
    as follows:

        (1) Currently Title 38 U.S. Code Chapter 33, subchapter II--
    Educational Assistance (Sec. Sec. 3311-3319), section Sec. 3315(c)
    states the following:

            ``The charge against an individual's entitlement under this
            chapter for payment for a licensing or certification test shall
            be determined at the rate of one month (rounded to the nearest
            whole month) for each amount paid that equals''

        The change to chapter 33 should mirror previous Public Law 106-419:
    Veteran Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act of 2000, section 122
    that outlined licensing and certification, and reads as follows:

            ``The number of months of entitlement charged in the case of
            any individual for such licensing or certification test is
            equal to the number (including any fraction) determined by
            dividing the total amount of educational assistance paid such
            individual for such test 8 by the full time monthly
            institutional rate of educational assistance which, except for
            paragraph (1), such individual would otherwise be paid under
            subsection (a)(1), (b)(1),(d), or (e)(1) of section 3015 of
            this title, as the case may be.''

        (2) There are schools that do not charge tuition for their student
    veterans. Some states offer a tuition waiver to their veterans as part
    of their State Military Benefits. Because a large part of the Post-9/11
    GI Bill pays tuition and eligible fees, if you do not have tuition
    charges, then all you get out of your GI Bill is the housing allowance
    and book stipend.
        If your tuition-free school happens to be in a low cost-of-living
    area, you may actually make more or at least the same by using the
    Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB). If you had at least three years of service
    and go to school full-time taking 12 credits, you would earn $1,426 per
    month.
        Taking that same credit load under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, you would
    get the book stipend that breaks down to $125.01 per month and your
    housing allowance. With the housing allowance averaging $1,200 across
    the United States, there are many places choosing the MGIB would be
    more beneficial to the veteran. The American Legion wants to ensure
    student-veterans have access to all of the resources available to them.
    Sec. 1102: Reserve Education Assistance Program Continuing Eligibility
            and Sunset
        The American Legion supports this section, but Congress should
    ensure that any inconsistencies between Chapter 1607 (REAP) and Chapter
    33 (Post-9/11) are identified and rectified prior to the merger of the
    two programs to prevent any confusion by all stakeholders impacted by
    this merger, especially, the users of the program.
    Sec. 1103: Tuition Assistance
        The American Legion does not support this section. Tuition
    Assistance (TA) currently may be used by servicemembers to take courses
    in any area of study. MCRMC recommends restricting TA to professional
    development courses only, under the rationalization that other areas of
    study can now be pursued via the Post-9/11 GI Bill. However, The
    American Legion sees the Post-9/11 GI Bill primarily as a transition
    tool. DOD should not be encouraging servicemembers to use this valuable
    transition benefit during service just to cut costs.
    Sec. 1104: Post-9/11 GI Bill Transferability
        The American Legion supports extending the time commitment required
    to obtain the transferability benefit. Again, we see the Post-9/11 GI
    Bill primarily as a transition tool, but are cognizant of its use as a
    retention tool. It is well known that the ten year mark is an important
    decision point in a military career, the halfway mark so to speak. Too
    many are now dropping out at this point and if transferability would be
    more advantageous as a retention tool at the ten year mark rather than
    the six year mark, we see the reason in that.
    Sec. 1105: Sense of Congress Regarding Transferability of Unused
            Education Benefits to Family Members
        We support this section.
    Sec. 1106: Report on Education Attainment
        We support this section.
    Sec. 1107: Report on Education Levels of Servicemembers at Separation
        There appears to be an error in this legislative proposal language.
    Section 1106 already proposes obtaining information on the highest
    level of education obtained by individuals transferring an education
    benefit. On our reading, Section 1107 should be proposing obtaining
    information at separation on the highest level of education attained by
    a servicemember prior to separation regardless of whether they
    transferred the education benefit. In other words, all servicemembers,
    not just those who transferred. MCRMC Report page 171 says in relevant
    part:

         Require report on educational attainment of Servicemembers
    who transfer their education benefit: 38 U.S.C. Sec. 3325 should be
    amended to require reporting of information of the highest level of
    education obtained by individuals transferring their Post-9/11 GI Bill
    benefits.
         Require report on education levels of Servicemembers at
    separation: 10 U.S.C. Sec. 1142 should be amended to require that
    information be obtained at time of separation, on the highest level of
    education attained by a Servicemember prior to separating from military
    service, and that the education levels of separating Servicemembers be
    reported annually to the Congress.

        The second report requirement says nothing about transferability.
    The American Legion would support a revised Section 1107 which
    corrected this.
    Sec. 1108: Termination of BAH Payments for Dependents Using Transferred
            Education Benefits
        The American Legion supports terminating BAH payments for child
    dependents, but has concerns about denying the benefit to spouses,
    especially those who are caregivers to severely disabled veterans.
    Serious consideration should be given to whether the different life
    circumstances of spouses warrants retention of the BAH benefit for
    them.
    Sec. 1109: Unemployment Insurance
        In general, The American Legion supports the idea of prohibiting
    individuals from receiving Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits simultaneously
    with unemployment benefits. However, The American Legion does not
    support having this section applied to all individuals with a board
    brush. This section should apply only to individuals who are eligible
    for full Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. Many National Guard (NG) and
    Reservists however do not have the full benefit and get only a partial
    BAH allowance. You may have NG or reservists who were unemployed at
    activation, their jobs may have been eliminated, or may have been
    denied reemployment. The recommendation in its current form would
    penalize those individuals who through no fault of their own need
    access to UCX while using their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.
    Furthermore, because only their activated deployment time ``counts''
    toward accruing GI Bill benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, many NG
    and reservists do not merit the full 100% of GI Bill benefits and in
    addition to their more difficult employment situation also face a
    greater financial burden when pursuing their GI Bill education. The
    American Legion recommends an exception for NG and Reservists in this
    recommendation.
    Sec. 1110: Reporting on Student Progress
        This recommendation is already being conducted pursuant to Pub. L.
    112--249, the Improving Transparency of Education Opportunities for
    Veterans Act of 2012, and Executive Order 13677, Establishing
    Principles of Excellence for Education Institutions Serving
    Servicemembers, Veterans, Spouses, and Other Family Members. The
    American Legion believes another reporting requirement to be conducted
    by the Departments of Defense and VA would only hamper ongoing
    collection of data, and harm current gains in the collection of the
    information stated above.
    Sec. 1201-1204: Recommendation 12
        The American Legion believes that these recommendations are good,
    common sense ideas, and would further the goal of ensuring that
    servicemembers are able to transition smoothly and successfully into
    civilian lives and careers, and that veterans are well cared for should
    they require employment assistance. We would, however, recommend that
    Congress consider adding the Department of Education (DOE) and the
    Small Business Administration (SBA) to those who review the TAP
    curriculum, given that they contribute important content to the
    curriculum, and they maintain expertise in those areas covered by that
    content.
        Furthermore, while The American Legion wholly agrees with the
    recommendation that Congress amend the relevant statutes to permit
    state departments of labor to work directly with state veterans
    affairs, we would add that those departments should work together to
    meet or exceed the federally mandated priority of service for eligible
    veterans. This would entail ensuring that current practices incentivize
    DVOPs and LVERs to increase the level of service they provide, rather
    than getting bogged down in processes or manipulating numbers.
        Concurrent with MCRMC recommendations, we find that the model
    employed by Texas--consolidating veterans' employment services within a
    state veterans' commission--is effective in addressing the needs of
    veterans. Texas currently enjoys the lowest unemployment rate for
    veterans of any state in the union. We feel that this is demonstrative
    of what is possible when there is a single point of entry for veterans'
    benefits and services administered by a state agency, and we encourage
    Congress to examine that model and consider touting it as an example to
    other states that are looking to effectively serve their veteran
    population.
        Recently Wisconsin petitioned DOL-VETS for the permission to follow
    Texas in consolidation services and taking a holistic approach to
    providing services for veterans. DOL-VETS denied Wisconsin's request
    two years after the request was submitted citing a May 2010 DOL OIG
    report that looked at the Texas Veterans Commission's (TVC) performance
    in 2008 when veterans employment programs was just undergoing
    consolidation. However, these six months in 2008 were not indicative of
    TVC's record overall. Performance of TVCs employment programs and
    services have been on an upward trajectory since 2008.
        A more recent study was completed by DOL's Chief Evaluation Office
    dated January 30, 2015. The study ``Veterans and Non-Veterans Job
    Seekers: Exploratory analysis of services and outcomes for customers of
    federally-funded employment services.'' The data used in the study
    encompassed nine months from January 2011-March 2013, prior to the JVSG
    reconstruction.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ U.S. Department of Labor Training and Employment Guidance
    Letter (TEGL) 19-13, April 10, 2014.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The report cites Texas's veterans are entering employment at much
    higher rates than the national average (62%). However, non-veterans
    entered employment rates are similar to the national average. Texas
    veterans also retained employment at higher rates than the national
    average (81%).
        TVC holds them self to a higher standard in ensuring that veterans
    are triaged by trained professionals (not a receptionist, survey or
    online tool) for employment services. Further, before the JVSG
    reconstruction. TVC provided their own resources to ensure that all
    veterans were assigned a veteran caseworker.
        The American Legion believes that a holistic approach to providing
    services to veterans is worthy of replicating at the state level;
    States should have the ability to run the JVSG program through an
    agency the Governor believes will best support the veteran. Further, we
    believe that a veteran has earned the right to be seen by a veteran,
    regardless of whether it is an issue involving claims, education,
    health care or employment. If a veteran walks into an American Jobs
    Center and wants to speak to a DVOP, then he or she should be allowed
    to do that.
                                discussion draft
        To amend title 38, United States Code, to modify the treatment
    under contracting goals and preferences of the Department of Veterans
    affairs for small businesses owned by veterans, to carry out a pilot
    program on the treatment of certain applications for dependency and
    indemnity compensation as fully developed claims for other purposes.
    Sec. 101: Modification of treatment under contracting goals and
            preferences of Department of Veterans Affairs for small
            businesses owned by veterans of small businesses after death of
            disabled veteran owners
        The American Legion supports Section 101.
    Sec. 102: Treatment of businesses after deaths of servicemember-owners
            for purposes of Department of Veterans Affairs contracting
            goals and preferences
        The American Legion supports Section 102.
    Sec. 201: Medical Examination and opinion for disability compensation
            claims based on military sexual trauma
        Section 201 calls for VA to provide a report regarding the number
    of examinations and opinions provided VA medical providers pertaining
    to military sexual trauma (MST). Quite simply, MST can cause long-
    lasting, devastating effects upon victims of sexual assault. Questions
    pertaining to the frequency of MST exist within Department of Defense;
    however, The American Legion asserts a frequency of one is one too
    many.
        The American Legion believes there is a need for an examination of
    ``the underreporting of MST and to permanently maintain records of
    reported MST allegations, thereby expanding victims' access to
    documented evidence which is necessary for future VA claims.'' \9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Resolution No. 67 ``Military Sexual Trauma''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The American Legion supports section 201.
    Sec. 202: Report on Standard of Proof for Service-Connection of Mental
            Health Conditions Related to Military Sexual Trauma
        For many veterans suffering with medical conditions associated with
    military sexual trauma (MST), the unfortunate reality is that no
    documentation exists regarding the incident. Fear and embarrassment are
    just some of the myriad reasons why servicemembers do not report the
    incident either to their chain of command or local law enforcement.
        Due to this fact, little if any documentation exists within the
    veteran's service treatment records. Upon discharge the veteran is left
    with little proof of the incident. VA has relaxed regulations
    pertaining to MST; however, the implementation and usage of the relaxed
    regulations is varied based upon VA regional office.
        The American Legion supports a full understanding of how MST claims
    are adjudicated and urges ``VA to conduct an analysis of MST claims
    volume, assess the consistency of how these claims are adjudicated, and
    determine the need, if any, for additional training and testing on
    processing of these claims.'' \10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Resolution No. 67 ``Military Sexual Trauma''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The American Legion supports section 202.
    Sec. 203: Reports on claims for disabilities incurred or aggravated by
            military sexual trauma
        The long-term effects of MST can be devastating. Beyond any
    physical conditions that may manifest due to MST, the psychological
    effects can continue through the veteran's life. VA's PILOTS database
    provides numerous studies indicating the relationship between Post
    Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and physical conditions.
        Stating MST may cause PTSD or other mental health conditions is an
    oversimplification of the issue. Studies have related PTSD to many
    physical medical conditions, to include cardio-vascular conditions. The
    American Legion supports identifying conditions associated with MST to
    ensure veterans receive the benefits they have earned.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Ibid
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The American Legion supports section 203.
    Sec. 204: Pilot program on treatment of certain applications for
            dependency and indemnity compensation as fully developed claims
        The American Legion has invested significant time and funding to
    ensure that VA's Fully Developed Claims (FDC) program is successful. As
    the Nation's largest VSO, we recognized that to ensure veterans receive
    benefits in a more expeditious manner; we would inherit some of the
    responsibilities previously held by VA to further assist the veteran.
    We had a team of subject matter experts travel the Nation, speak with
    VA regional office employees, veterans, and service officers to ensure
    that FDC was viable. We are proud to report that over 40 percent of our
    claims are submitted via FDC.
        We welcome the idea of having benefits reach veterans in a more
    expeditious and accurate manner. Additionally, as we assist VA with the
    implementation of FDC, we offer our services to assist in implementing
    FDC for DIC claimants. The American Legion calls for VA to create an
    efficient method to adjudicate claims; having FDC available for DIC
    claimants would move toward meeting that objective.\12\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Resolution No. 28: Department of Veterans Affairs Appeals
    Process
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The American Legion supports section 204.
    Sec. 205: Review of determination of certain service in Philippines
            during World War II
        The American Legion has no position on section 205.
    Sec. 206: Reports on Department Disability medical examinations and
            prevention of unnecessary medical examinations
        Many veterans will submit private medical evidence to support their
    claims for disability benefits. For veterans that require additional
    medical review or do not provide a statement from a medical
    professional linking a medical condition to military service, VA
    provides compensation and pension (C&P) examinations to determine the
    linkage or severity of medical conditions.
        The American Legion has conducted Regional Office Action Review
    (ROAR) visits for approximately 20 years. Through these visits The
    American Legion determined and reported to Congress that VA has had
    instances of scheduling unnecessary and duplicative examinations
    despite the necessary evidence existing to grant the benefit. This adds
    further complication to an already complicated process.
        The American Legion understands that there are occasions where a
    veteran would need a second examination after submitting a medical
    nexus statement. If a private medical provider did not use a VA
    disability medical questionnaire, then it stands to reason that the
    provider may not have conducted the necessary tests to accurately rate
    the veteran.
        Unfortunately, these instances did not get noticed solely during
    ROAR visits. They are noticed far too frequently by American Legion
    representatives at the Board of Veterans' Appeals. There have been
    occasions where veterans have been seeking total disability based on
    individual unemployability (TDIU) benefits. Meanwhile, the veteran had
    previously been granted Social Security disability benefits for a
    condition incurred in service and service-connected by VA. Despite
    enduring medical examinations for Social Security purposes and having
    the benefit granted by the agency, VA would conduct their own
    examinations to determine the veteran's employability. Some in the
    veteran community refer to this needless development of disability
    claims as ``developing to deny.''
        Through the reporting required by this section, VA would be
    compelled to release data regarding acceptable clinical evidence and
    increase transparency regarding the manner claims are developed and
    ultimately adjudicated. Having Congressional and VA focus upon the
    manner that private medical evidence is treated, The American Legion
    believes that the treatment of the evidence received from private
    medical providers would receive higher consideration. Moreover, this
    could expedite the adjudication process and increase the overall
    transparency of the claims process.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Resolution No. 128: Increase the Transparency of the Veterans
    benefits Administration's Claims Processing
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The American Legion supports section 206.
    Sec. 301: Department of Veterans Affairs study on matters relating to
            burial of unclaimed remains of veterans in national cemeteries
        This section aims to help dignify veterans who have passed away but
    whose remains are still unclaimed. Up until now, the sole means for
    dignified burial for these forgotten heroes has been private groups,
    such as the Missing in America Project (MIAP), a non-profit
    organization launched nationwide in 2007 that has been supported by The
    American Legion in their efforts to bring honor to all of America's
    fallen. This provision would enable VA support of this mission,
    directing VA to: Conduct a study on matters relating to the interring
    of unclaimed remains of veterans in national cemeteries under the
    control of the National Cemetery Administration by estimating the
    number of unclaimed remains; assessing the effectiveness of procedures
    of the VA for working with persons or entities having custody of
    unclaimed remains to facilitate interment of unclaimed remains of
    veterans in national cemeteries; assessing state and local laws that
    affect the ability of VA to indentify, claim and inter these remains;
    recommend appropriate legislative action. All of America's veterans
    deserve to be remembered for eternity with dignity and honor.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Resolution No. 24: Identify, Honor, and Inter Unclaimed
    Cremated Remains of Veterans
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The American Legion supports section 301.
    Sec. 401: Honoring as veterans certain persons who performed service in
            the reserve components of the Armed Forces
        This legislation would provide a purely honorific title of veteran
    for those individuals who completed appropriate service in the National
    Guard and Reserve components of the Armed Forces, but for whatever
    reason do not have active duty service sufficient to bestow a title of
    veteran subject to the conditions provided for under the normal titles
    of the United States Code which assign veteran status for the purposes
    of benefits. This bill would not provide any benefit beyond the title
    of `veteran' and is stated to be intended purely as a point of
    honor.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \15\ Resolution No. 10: Support Veteran Status for National Guard
    and Reserve Servicemembers
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The American Legion supports section 401.
                                   conclusion
        As always, The American Legion thanks this Committee for the
    opportunity to explain the position of the 2.3 million veteran members
    of this organization. Questions concerning this testimony can be
    directed to The American Legion Legislative Division (202) 861-2700, or
    wgoldstein@legion.org.

                                      [all]