[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, [email protected].
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
[email protected].
[all]