[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                    PREPARING FOR BLUE WATER CLAIMS_
                   VA STATUS UPDATE ON IMPLEMENTATION

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

       SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS

                                 OF THE

                     COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                      WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2019

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-43

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
       

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]       


                    Available via http://govinfo.gov
                    
                             __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
41-248                     WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------   
                    
                     COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS

                   MARK TAKANO, California, Chairman

JULIA BROWNLEY, California           DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee, Ranking 
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York               Member
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania, Vice-      GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
    Chairman                         AUMUA AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, 
MIKE LEVIN, California                   American Samoa
MAX ROSE, New York                   MIKE BOST, Illinois
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire          NEAL P. DUNN, Florida
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia            JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
SUSIE LEE, Nevada                    JIM BANKS, Indiana
JOE CUNNINGHAM, South Carolina       ANDY BARR, Kentucky
GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, JR.,           DANIEL MEUSER, Pennsylvania
    California                       STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota        CHIP ROY, Texas
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,      W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
    Northern Mariana Islands
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York

                 Ray Kelley, Democratic Staff Director
                 Jon Towers, Republican Staff Director

       SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS

                 ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia, Chairwoman

GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, JR.,           MIKE BOST, Illinois Ranking Member
    California                       GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN,      STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
    Northern Mariana Islands         W. GREGORY STEUBE, Florida
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public 
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also 
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the 
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare 
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process 
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce 
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the 
current publication process and should diminish as the process is 
further refined.
                        
                        C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                              ----------                              

                      WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2019

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Honorable Elaine G. Luria, Chairwoman............................     1
Honorable Mike Bost, Ranking Member..............................     2
Honorable David P. Roe, Ranking Member, Full Committee...........     5

                               WITNESSES

Mr. Willie Clark, Deputy Under Secretary for Field Operartions, 
  Veterans Benefits Administration...............................     4

        Accompanied by:

    Ms. Beth Murphy, Executive Director, Compensation Service, 
        Veterans Benefits Administration

Mr. Shane Liermann, Assistant National Legislative Director, 
  Disabled American Veterans.....................................    24
Ms. Diane Rauber, Executive Director, National Organization of 
  Veterans' Advocates............................................    26

Mr. Ryan Gallucci, Director National Veterans Service, Veterans 
  of Foreign Wars................................................    27

                                APPENDIX
                    Prepared Statements of Witnesses

Mr. Willie Clark Prepared Statement..............................    39
Mr. Shane Liermann Prepared Statement............................    40
Ms. Diane Rauber Prepared Statement..............................    45
Mr. Ryan Gallucci Prepared Statement.............................    49
Mr. Rick Weidman Prepared Statement..............................    53

                        Statement For The Record

The American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO.........    59
The National Association of County Veteran Service Officers......    60
The National Veterans Legal Services Program.....................    61
The American Legion..............................................    65

 
                   PREPARING FOR BLUE WATER CLAIMS--
                   VA STATUS UPDATE ON IMPLEMENTATION

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2019

             U. S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial 
                                            Affairs
                             Committee on Veterans' Affairs
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o'clock 
p.m., in room 210, House Visitors Center, Hon. Elaine Luria 
[chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
    Present: Representatives Luria, Cisneros, Allred, 
Underwood, Takano, Bost, Bilirakis, Steube, and Roe.

         OPENING STATEMENT OF ELAINE LURIA, CHAIRWOMAN

    Ms. Luria. I call this oversight hearing to order.
    Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a 
recess at any time.
    Good afternoon and welcome to the subcommittee on 
disability assistance and memorial affairs hearing. I will note 
that several of our colleagues are in other committee hearings 
and briefings right now, so we anticipate that they will join 
us. But I think we will go ahead and kick off with the opening 
statements from both the chair and ranking member as well as 
those who have come here to testify. Hopefully they will filter 
in a timely manner for us to be able to include them in the 
questioning part.
    I would like to start by welcoming the veterans, both at 
home and here in this room who have joined us for this hearing 
today. Caring for veterans is a top priority of this 
subcommittee and today we are here to ensure that Blue Water 
veterans receive the benefits and care that they are entitled 
to under the law.
    Our Vietnam era veterans waited for too long for the VA and 
for Congress to provide the critical disability and health 
benefits that are due to them as a result of Agent Orange 
exposure. Thankfully, that wrong was righted with the 
bipartisan unanimous passage of the Blue Water Navy Vietnam 
Veterans Act of 2019, which I co-sponsored. That act goes into 
effect January 1st, 2020.
    I am holding this hearing now to make sure that the VA is 
planning for success and doing everything it can in the 
meantime to help veterans covered by this law. I invited Dr. 
Paul Lawrence, the Under Secretary for Benefits at the Veterans 
Benefits Administration to this hearing to address VA's 
progress and planning for Blue Water Navy implementation.
    Disappointingly, the Under Secretary declined to attend and 
did not give a reason for his inability to attend. I would say 
that his absence is notable and concerning today, and it would 
have been helpful for Dr. Lawrence to have bene here today to 
answer our questions, address our concerns, and let us know 
what, if any, additional resources the VA needs to implement 
this law on time for our veterans.
    We have also heard from our Veteran Service Organization 
(VSO) partners that the Department is failing to fully 
collaborate and share information with them. They identified a 
stonewall at high levels of the Department that reduces 
transparency and ultimately hurts VA programs and veterans. I 
am sorry that Dr. Lawrence is not here today to personally 
address at this hearing those concerns of our VSO partners who 
we will hear from later today.
    One common objection from veterans' advocates is the 
secretary's stay on all claims covered in the Blue Water 
Veterans Act, including Blue Water claims, children of Thailand 
veterans, and Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) veterans. I am 
concerned that this stay is overreaching and causes undue 
delays.
    While I appreciate the Department's efforts toward 
preparation, including the mapping tool that they have created 
using naval deck logs, I question the need for a blanket stay.
    I know that we spoke earlier, Mr. Clark and Ms. Murphy, and 
perhaps there is a misunderstanding between that and the VSOs, 
what they are observing and what you are implementing. Perhaps 
we can clear that up as part of the questioning today.
    I am also troubled with the news that VA has not accounted 
for submarines when deploying the mapping tool for Blue Water. 
The law in the committee report clearly outline that veterans 
who served on any vessel within offshore waters is presumed to 
have been exposed to Agent Orange. The committee reports State 
that vessels below the water are also included, but even so, 
submarines often surface and would have done so within the 
offshore waters of Vietnam.
    VA has made some progress in preparing for implementation 
of this act, but I hope that we will hear some more today about 
the VA's plans going forward. For example, how will VA 
implement training for newly hired raters; how will VA utilize 
the hub processing centers. Indications to this subcommittee 
are that some regional offices and medical centers remain 
unaware about the upcoming changes to the law; and will the VA 
adjust the employee production standards to account for 
complicated Blue Water claims which could potentially entail 
reviewing decades of medical files.
    The committee has many questions and we believe the VA has 
much work left to do. This work is far too important to 
veterans and to the country. We see this as an opportunity for 
our VA representatives here today to let Congress know what, if 
any, additional resources and support that you need to 
successfully implement the Blue Water Navy Veterans Act as of 
January 1st, 2020.
    I now recognize Ranking Member Mr. Bost for his remarks.

         OPENING STATEMENT OF MIKE BOST, RANKING MEMBER

    Mr. Bost. Thank you Chair Luria and thank you all for being 
here today to discuss the VA's implementation of the Blue Water 
Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019. This law extended the 
presumption of exposure to the Blue Water Navy veterans. Now 
these veterans will qualify for the same benefits as their 
boots on the ground and Brown Water Navy comrades.
    The Blue Water Act took years of hard work from members on 
both sides of the aisle to finally get this bill through 
Congress and to the president's desk. Our work did not stop 
when we did that, when we got it signed into law. As congress, 
we have a responsibility to ensure that the VA successfully 
implements the Blue Water Act on January 1, 2020. Between now 
and January the VA has a lot of work to do. Rest assured, I am 
committed to working with the VA and the VSOs to ensure that 
the veterans who file a claim under Blue Water Act receive 
timely and accurate decisions.
    Accordingly, for today's hearing I would like to discuss 
the efficiencies VA is developing that will help it process 
these claims more efficiently so that these veterans can 
finally receive their benefits that they had earned so long 
ago.
    For instance, the Veteran Benefits Administration (VBA) is 
creating an IT tool that will help claims processors determine 
if the veteran served in the offshore waters of Vietnam. That 
being said, this tool is not a replacement for having well 
trained claimed processors. Sometimes technology fails us, 
which is why employees need accurate guidance to avoid any 
potential pitfalls, IT or otherwise. It is important the Blue 
Water Navy veterans and the veterans receive correct decisions 
the first time. And it is imperative that the VA personnel are 
adequately trained by January 1.
    Therefore, I would also like to hear about the training the 
VA is conducting on Blue Water claims and, finally, I am 
interested also in receiving an update on VA's progress 
executing the additional provisions in the Blue Water Act that 
would extend the presumption to veterans who served in or near 
the Korean DMZ beginning on September 1st, 1967, provide 
benefits to certain children of Thailand veterans who were 
exposed to Agent Orange, require VA to identify the U.S. 
military bases located in Thailand where Agent Orange was used 
and when it was used, and also to provide an update on the 
current research on the potential in-service toxic exposure of 
Gulf War veterans.
    I am so glad that we are quickly approaching the day when 
VA will be able to start granting claims to Blue Water Navy 
veterans. These veterans have been waiting decades to finally 
hear the VA acknowledge that their health challenges were, in 
fact, caused by the time these warriors were serving in the 
defense of our Nation.
    Again, thank you all for being here. I am looking forward 
to having a productive discussion on the VA's implementation of 
the Blue Water Act. With that I yield back.
    Ms. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Bost.
    For our first panel we have Mr. Willie Clark how is the 
Under Secretary for Field Operations at the Veterans Benefits 
Administration and Ms. Beth Murphy, Executive Director of 
Compensation Services at the Veterans Benefits Administration.
    So I would like to start with allowing you, Mr. Clark, 5 
minutes for comments.

                   STATEMENT OF WILLIE CLARK

    Mr. Clark. Good afternoon, Chair Luria, Ranking Member 
Bost, and members of the committee. Thank you for the 
opportunity to come before you to speak today on Veterans 
Benefits Administration's plan to implement Blue Water Navy or 
BWN Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019.
    Joining me today is Beth Murphy, as you mentioned, 
Executive Director of Compensation Services.
    Today I will provide an update on how VBA is preparing to 
process disability compensation and survivors' claims as a 
result of the new law and what resources will be required for 
implementation. The new law provides that a greater population 
of veterans are now presumed to have been exposed to herbicides 
such as Agent Orange and may be entitled to service connection 
for conditions related to their exposure.
    VA appreciates the authority Congress provided to stay 
pending BWN claims until the law takes effect on January 1st, 
2020. The stay is enabling VA to operationalize the new law to 
ensure proper resources are in place to meet the anticipated 
work load demands, develop appropriate policies and procedures, 
and create the necessary tools to adjudicate claims timely and 
accurately under the new law.
    One of the tools we are developing under the stay is called 
the ship locator tool. This tool which will mitigate risks 
associated with developing these cases will enable our claims 
processors to shave months off of the normal development time. 
I will speak more to this special tool later.
    The VA is committed to ensuring all veterans and 
beneficiaries covered under the BWN Act receive the benefits 
they have earned in a manner that honors their service. This is 
particularly important for our ailing and aging BWN Vietnam era 
veterans. I am confident that awarding these claims will begin 
on January the 1st, 2020.
    The VA is committed providing priority processing for 
claims of veterans who are homeless, experiencing a financial 
hardship, terminally ill and age 85 and older. VBA is executing 
a comprehensive project management plan to process BWN claims 
timely and accurately. VBA has issued interim guidance to the 
field for the handling of existing and incoming BWN claims. We 
continue to refine policies and procedures which will be 
finalized prior to January 1st, 2020.
    Mandatory training will be delivered to experienced claim 
processors at eight Regional Offices (ROs) by December 13th. We 
have chosen to limit processing to these eight ROs because they 
experience working Agent Orange claims and with retroactive 
benefits aspect of dealing with those types of claims. It is 
vital that we get the funding requested to implement this new 
law so we can hire claims processors with adequate time to 
provide training so they can backfill behind the experienced 
employees.
    We have developed a robust communications plan for both 
internal and external stakeholders. This includes partnering 
with the VSOs who we meet with monthly and who have provided 
great feedback and advice on our comms plan. We are publicizing 
the act through press releases, newsletters, media, and other 
digital platforms. As part of this effort we recently sent 
targeted outreach through direct mailings to over 77,000 
veterans and survivors who submitted claims that were 
previously denied.
    VBAs deck log scanning effort will provide VBA claims 
processors with tools to efficiently identify vessels that meet 
the definition of the new law. Along with the Navy history and 
heritage command, VBA collaborated with the National Archives 
and Records Administration which has entrusted VBA with the 
care of their archival records in the form of deck logs. We are 
managing a contract to scan and extract pertinent data from 
deck logs created over a 13-year timeframe.
    These data are being incorporated into the electronic ship 
locator tool which will be utilized by claims processors. These 
deck logs are comprised of millions of images and scanning them 
up-front will save claims processors from having to submit 
individual case by case requests for these records.
    In cases where the tool does not confirm eligibility, such 
as for classified missions, service on submarines, fire related 
records that have been lost, a special team will do deeper 
records research to confirm eligibility.
    VA appreciates congress's consideration and appropriating 
funding which will enable VA to successfully implement the BWN 
Act. Beyond funding for benefits payments, VA needs resources 
to hire, train, and support additional claims processors, scan 
deck logs and veterans records, and modify IT systems.
    VA is committed to ensuring all BWN Vietnam veterans and 
their survivors receive the benefits they have earned under the 
BWN Act. We understand the gravity of this initiative and are 
committed to getting it right. We have a comprehensive 
implementation plan to operationalize the requirements of the 
new law and we are currently on track to begin awarding 
benefits on January the 1st.
    VA appreciates the support of Congress and this committee, 
and continue to care for our Nation's veterans and family 
members.
    This concludes my testimony. I will be happy to entertain 
any questions from members of the committee.

    [The Prepared Statement Of Willie Clark Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Ms. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Clark.
    Also joining us today, we have Dr. Roe who is the ranking 
member of the full Veterans Affairs Committee, and I will 
recognize you, Dr. Roe, for 5 minutes for an opening statement 
as well.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF DAVID P. ROE, RANKING MEMBER, FULL 
                           COMMITTEE

    Mr. Roe. Thank you. I want to thank the chair and Ranking 
Member Bost for holding the hearing, and I would like to say 
that I think the Nats got a lousy call last night down the 
first base line.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Roe. As a veteran, as a Vietnam era veteran who served 
in Korea today's topic is very near and dear to my heart. 
Passing the Blue Water Navy Act was the right thing to do for 
our Nation's veterans. Now we must ensure that VA implements 
the law the right way. A lot of our Blue Water Navy Vietnam 
veterans are suffering from conditions known to be associated 
with exposure to Agent Orange. Their benefits are long overdue 
and they are looking at us to make sure that our country does 
not fail them a second time.
    As Ranking Member Bost stated earlier, we are committed to 
ensuring that VA does not wrongfully deny these veterans the 
benefits they have earned, so I would encourage VA to work with 
Congress and stakeholders on this matter. VA has tremendous 
work ahead of it and we are here to lend a helping hand.
    That being said, we will closely be monitoring the 
implementation of the Blue Water Act as it proceeds. I am 
especially focused on VA's plan to analyze deck logs that will 
allow the Department to determine which veterans served in the 
offshore waters of Vietnam.
    And just having said that, I think back to my own 
experience with boots on the ground. I do not know that I could 
prove where I was in Korea.
    I think I--well, I know where I was stationed. We were in 
the field. We were out--it would be very difficult.
    On a ship, thank goodness I was never on a ship, Mr. Clark, 
but--I like the ground. You know, floating around where you can 
not see land does not do me any good. And I think it is--if you 
are relying on those logs is extremely important to prove 
because if you are in a submarine, and I have spent one weekend 
in a submarine--that was enough for the rest of my life--you do 
not know where you are. You are relying strictly on that. 
Fortunately, the Navy keeps great records and hopefully you 
will tell us in your question and answer period, do we have 
access to all of those records. It should be--if we do, that 
should be fairly easy to nail down, I think.
    That being said, successfully confirming that the 
particular ship entered the offshore waters of Vietnam is only 
one piece of the puzzle to award benefits to our Blue Water 
Navy veterans. These veterans still have to meet the same other 
eligibility criteria as boots on the ground and Brown Water 
Navy veterans; that is, the ship being in the right spot is one 
part. Showing that the veteran was on that ship is another 
part.
    One of my concerns is how VA will address any challenges 
that may arise from records that were destroyed in the 1973 
fire at the National Personnel Records Center that might have 
provided the information needed to establish that a veteran was 
on a particular ship while it was in the offshore waters of 
Vietnam.
    I hope that today VA will provide us with assurances that 
no veteran will be denied benefits without proper development 
of their claim. Additionally, many of the Blue Water Navy 
claims will be particularly complicated because of the 
potential retroactive benefit involved.
    As a doctor, I know that conditions change and evolve over 
time, and frequently patients develop secondary conditions. VA 
will need to account for a veteran's changing disability 
picture as it assigns evaluations including ratings that have 
increased as time has passed.
    Last, I fully expect on January 1, 2020 the secretary will 
lift the stay. Consequently, I would like to get VAs commitment 
that it will have the information technology training and 
guidance necessary to begin awarding benefits for Blue Water 
Navy claims on 1 January 2020. I think we have.
    I would also like to renew the inquiry in the letter that 
Chairman Isakson and I sent to Secretary Wilke on September 
19th, 2019 asking whether there are any exceptions to the stay 
for veterans in extreme circumstances such as veterans 
diagnosed with terminal and aggressive Agent Orange related 
diseases who may not have the luxury of time. These veterans 
are undergoing an unfathomable hardship and deserve recognition 
from VA during their final moments that their illnesses may 
have been caused by their military service.
    However, we must not forget the concerns of other Vietnam 
era veterans who are worried that they may have been exposed to 
Agent Orange. For example, we know that the Department of 
Defense sprayed herbicides in Thailand. The extent of that 
spraying is unclear. For that reason, we included a provision 
in the Blue Water Navy Act that instructs the VA to work with 
DOD to determine exactly when and where Agent Orange was used 
and then report back to Congress with results.
    We have a lot of Thailand veterans who need answers about 
their potential exposure to herbicides. I would like for VA to 
confirm that this review has started and confirm that it will 
meet the 180 deadline in the reporting.
    Again, thank you Chairwoman and Ranking Member for holding 
this hearing. I look forward to discussing the current status 
of VA's implementation of the Blue Water Navy Act, and I yield 
back.
    Ms. Luria. Well, thank you, Dr. Roe, and thank you for 
joining us today.
    We will now move on to questions and I will first recognize 
myself for 5 minutes.
    I would like to start with Mr. Clark. We are only 63 days 
away from January 1st when we will implement the Blue Water 
Navy legislation. Earlier you mentioned that you hope to 
process Blue Water claims using specifically eight hubs, but 
have not yet determined those locations.
    You also told me that you are still, you know, finalizing 
the training for employees which, to me, infers that it has not 
yet started to be delivered to those employees.
    Considering the complexity, the volume of these claims and 
the short time, 63 days remaining between now and January 1st, 
how do you plan to finalize these locations, conduct the 
training, ensure you have the right personal on hand to be 
successful in the roll out starting January 1st?
    Mr. Clark. I will begin and then I will ask my colleague to 
join in. We, again, appreciate the opportunity for the stay. 
The stay is enabling us, and we are on schedule, to be ready on 
January the 1st.
    What we are doing right now is several things, myriad 
things and many, the first of which is we have got 28 million 
records of these deck logs that have to be scanned and placed 
in this tool so we can use that as a confirmation that veterans 
were in the 12 mile nautical area seaward.
    That tool, and it is not done, we are still doing load 
testing on it and the like, but that tool is not used to deny 
individuals benefits. It is used only to get to yes, to 
confirm. Any cases that we cannot definitively say using a 
tool, then we have a group of individuals that will undertake 
development to go through and look through records which we do 
now for other types of places, other Agent Orange related cases 
for boots on the ground and the like. That is one of the things 
that we are doing.
    We have got to finish policies and procedures. My colleague 
here, her team is working on that aspect of it. Training is 
slated to begin and be finished the first 2 weeks of December. 
Once we get that training, which comprises or consists of about 
2 days of specialized training because understanding we are 
limiting the individuals doing this work to eight regional 
offices. Those eight offices are offices that we used to or are 
currently working Agent Orange type claims, number one, and 
they have experience with dealing with retroactive aspect of 
benefits for Agent Orange claims. That is why we----
    Ms. Luria. With these----
    Mr. Clark.--selected those eight.
    Ms. Luria. Just to clarify a little bit more, then these 
eight particular locations already have specialized teams that 
have been more focused on this type of claim than the wider 
range of over 50 offices across the country?
    Mr. Clark. Well, all 50 offices are working Agent Orange 
type claims and a multitude of other type claims. These offices 
have individuals that work retroactive aspect of AO claims----
    Ms. Luria. You have done an----
    Mr. Clark.--underneath.
    Ms. Luria.--analysis to find the people----
    Mr. Clark. We have done an analysis.
    Ms. Luria.--you think are the best suited for these complex 
claims.
    Mr. Clark. That is why we selected those eight regional 
offices.
    Ms. Luria. Okay. Great. We are a little bit limited on 
time, so I wanted to make sure----
    Mr. Clark. Yes.
    Ms. Luria.--Ms. Murphy had time to comment on----
    Mr. Clark. Yes.
    Ms. Luria.--this question as well.
    Ms. Murphy. Yes. If I could add to the list of sorts of 
activities that need to be synchronized all brought together 
during this stay period, we have--in addition to the policies, 
there are the parallel procedural elements in our manual that 
tell the claims processors how to track the claims, what end 
products for routing and tracking, reporting are assigned to 
each claim. We mentioned the training. We also have a service 
center manager conference twice a year where we bring together 
all of the heads of the claims processing divisions from all 
over the country for training and best practice sharing.
    We have one of those already scheduled for the week of 
December 8th, so we will have all of our claims processing 
leadership in one place to have a deep dive refresher and get 
ready for this January 1st.
    We have had to develop communications, press releases, 
website information, frequently asked questions, all of this 
that is available. We had to draft the outreach letters. We 
worked closely with the veteran service organizations. We sat 
down with them and asked them to help us review the letters, 
make some wordsmith changes, make sure we did not miss anything 
because the veterans and the survivors who read these letters, 
they are working closely with them. You know, they know what 
they need in these letters. We made some improvements based on 
that. I think the outreach is very important because the law 
requires folks come in and file a claim to be eligible for 
these benefits. We want to make sure that we are using our time 
to get the word out as well so folks come in.
    Other than that, hiring, research, getting the call center 
scripts for phone agents prepared, a lot of risk assessment, 
dashboard reporting analysis preparation. There are a lot of 
things that are coming together in a short period of time. 
Based on our integrated project plan and all the different work 
groups that have different pieces of this that they are working 
on, it is coming together and we are on track for January 1st.
    Ms. Luria. Well, thank you. I just wanted to reiterate, 
pick out a piece of what you said for anyone who might be 
watching this hearing at home specifically, is that a veteran 
will have to submit a new claim under----
    Ms. Murphy. Correct.
    Ms. Luria.--the new law. There are veterans. I think you 
referenced earlier somewhere around 70,000 who have previously 
submitted claims for this and been denied.
    Ms. Murphy. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Luria. They should be receiving a letter in the mail.
    Ms. Murphy. The letters have been going out this week to 
the 77,000 previously denied veterans or the surviving spouses 
who have claimed these benefits with the appropriate form in 
the letter so that they return that to us.
    Ms. Luria. If anyone watching this perhaps----
    Ms. Murphy. Absolutely.
    Ms. Luria.--is in that circumstance, maybe they have moved, 
maybe they do not get the letter in a timely manner, they can 
reach out to the VA or through a VSO to get all of this 
information because they should be able to submit claims. You 
have also estimated that----
    Ms. Murphy. Right.
    Ms. Luria.--from our previous conversation there is roughly 
400,000 people. There is a lot more people who may have never 
submitted a claim who also should know about this change in the 
law.
    Ms. Murphy. Absolutely.
    Ms. Luria. You are making efforts to get that word out to 
everyone.
    Ms. Murphy. Yes. We rely on you and your offices and the 
VSOs and our other partners in the veteran community to get 
that word out because it is important. We want to make sure we 
make whole and pay everybody that we can that is eligible, but 
they do have to come in and make themselves known to us.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Luria. Okay. Thank you.
    I know that I ran over on my time, so I will now recognize 
Mr. Bost, the ranking member, for 7 minutes since that is how 
long I took.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Bost. Mr. Clark, we know, and I want to thank you first 
off in your testimony where you said that you are not going to 
be using the tool to get to know. The tool is just to firm, and 
so obviously there is going to be times that that tool does not 
work either because the records are not in or some kind of 
problem that could have happened.
    If the claim can not be granted through that verification 
tool prior to the denial of the claim, will the VA contact the 
veteran, inform them of additional evidence that they can find 
and get together, and what might that evidence be that they can 
search out? I know we have had this conversation about how hard 
it is sometimes with our records.
    Mr. Clark. Great question. Thank you for that.
    The answer is, yes, we will contact the veteran survivor 
and let them know that while we continue to do additional 
development to go back to places that have records, military 
records stored which we typically do when we can not 
corroborate whether a veteran was at a particular place where 
they had said that they were at, Dr. Roe spoke to that earlier.
    In addition, though, to our doing development, we do go 
back to the veteran and ask, if you have any buddy statements 
we call them, lay statements legally or anything else that you 
can send to us that will help us get you to yes. What we are 
trying to do is to grant as many of these as we can. The tool 
will shave off months of what would typically take maybe 
upwards of 9 months or so to get--do this development 
typically.
    With the scanning of the deck logs, 28 million of these, 
once they are in the tools and this ship locator tool we are 
confident that that is going to address the lion's share of the 
BWN veterans coming in.
    Mr. Bost. Okay. And----
    Mr. Clark. If that does not work----
    Mr. Bost.--then you would explain to them at that time all 
the items that they could--it is kind of like the checklist of 
things, would you have a letter, would you have a buddy, would 
you have someone that can verify you were there----
    Mr. Clark. Yes.
    Mr. Bost.--correct?
    Mr. Clark. We will do that. Again, we look for our VSO 
partners. You know, these letters that we are talking about, we 
have worked with our VSOs to say, take a look at what we are 
doing and certainly receive any advice and consult assistance 
in getting that word out. We specifically go to each of them 
and let them know what is needed to help them develop their 
claim.
    Mr. Bost. We know the turn up date is January 1. Do you 
know what date you are going to start testing and have 
everything loaded in the tools so you can start getting it 
tested and online?
    Mr. Clark. The tool is slated to be done the first week in 
December. We will have training done not later than the 13th of 
December.
    Mr. Bost. What is your back up plan if it does not work?
    Mr. Clark. The tool?
    Mr. Bost. Yes.
    Mr. Clark. Well, it is working.
    Mr. Bost. Okay.
    Mr. Clark. We are looking. We are putting data in, but we 
do not have all of the date in yet.
    Mr. Bost. Okay.
    Mr. Clark. We will use is, is what we currently use, these 
800 people that we are hiring, and I did not get to say that as 
part--what we are also doing as part of the stay, we are hiring 
processors to backfill the experienced processors that we are 
using to work these BWN claims. That is what we use, the old 
fashioned way of going back and requesting records to try to 
help veterans place them where they say they were, or to find 
records that corroborates their story to help service connect 
them.
    Mr. Bost. I was a little concerned with what the chair 
actually said in her opening statement about, are we going to 
get the problem straightened out on the subs. The subs were not 
in the original tool; is that correct? I think that statement 
was----
    Mr. Clark. Submarine records are not, but we are working to 
get those in. But what we are doing is, is as part of that 
development action that I spoke to, if someone is not in the 
tool--fire related cases, they may not be--those records may 
not be in the tool. We have a construct that says if this is a 
fire-related case, these are the steps that we go through to 
try to help corroborate those stories, which, again, speaks to 
buddy statements, lay statements, and several other things that 
we use to help get to yes.
    Mr. Bost. So while you are in the stay, are you--is there 
any cases that are actually being worked on at all in advance?
    Mr. Clark. No, because our folks are not trained to do this 
work. What we have, we have 12 individuals that are working on 
this ship locator tool. We are getting the records scanned. We 
are doing tests to see that checking the load of the system, 
making sure that the few million records that we have in there 
right now that if we can extract data, that the system does not 
fail on us and the like. All of that is part of the procedures 
and policies that Ms. Murphy's team is working on because, 
again, we want to make sure that we get it right.
    We have learned historically speaking that we have rushed 
sometimes possibly to start doing things and we just cannot 
afford that with these individuals. They are aged and we want 
to get it right the first time.
    Mr. Bost. Yes. We want to make sure you get it right 
because--and this is me speaking, just because I have been here 
5 years and there has been many a thing that has come before 
us, not only on this committee, but on different committees 
that I serve on, and we are promised a date and the date comes 
and all of a sudden there is not the delivery. This is not one 
that we want to see that happen with. Your team understands how 
vitally important this is. These people have waited too long. 
We have finally got the legislation in place and we need to be 
moving forward with it.
    With that I will yield back.
    Ms. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Bost.
    I will now recognize the chair of the full Veterans' 
Affairs Committee, Mr. Takano, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Takano. Thank you, Chairwoman Luria, for holding this 
very important oversight hearing.
    Mr. Clark, you said in your written testimony that VA has 
adopted an evidence based approach for verifying the locations 
of Navy ships and determining the veterans' eligibility under 
law. You know, many veterans like those whose records were 
destroyed at the fire at the National Personnel Record Center, 
those records may not be available.
    How do you plan to develop these claims or claims that 
might arise from veterans whose records were burned there?
    Mr. Clark. We have a protocol and I will let Ms. Murphy 
speak to what that is. We have these types of claims for other 
veterans as well that--because that fire unfortunately 
destroyed many veterans' claims. We have to--we have a 
reconstruction protocol which, again, goes back to the veteran 
that asks him and her on dates, times, individuals, anything 
that we can to help corroborate them. We can go and, Ms. 
Murphy, I will let you speak to the other things, but we do 
have a protocol.
    Ms. Murphy. Yes. Mr. Clark is spot on. There are standard 
operating procedures to reconstruct records to the extent we 
can, find out who the veteran may have served with. We can use 
other records, lay statements, to place people in different 
locations. I also wanted to mention that as far as the process 
of loading the data into the tool, Mr. Clark mentioned the 28 
million records that need to be scanned. These records are 
unavailable to us right now. They are on trucks to high speed 
scanning locations so that they can be ingested into the tool, 
extraction done from the necessary data points, the latitude 
and longitude elements on those records. That populates the 
tool.
    In many cases the development we need to do we can not even 
put our hands on those deck logs until the scanning is done. We 
have scanned about 4 million of those records so far of the 28 
million. The first are the hardest because you have to set the 
machines up and work through the paper issues. We are scanning 
about a million a day. We are on track to make sure that is 
available.
    As far as some of the other records, the unavailability of 
records, sir, that you are mentioning, there are classified 
records. Most of the submarine records are classified. We have 
individuals amongst our employees who have top secret 
clearances. We go to them on a regular basis for information 
and help us to research these. These will be treated as special 
cases. The bulk of the claims processors will be working on the 
bulk of the cases. We would be able to say, yes, they were 
there, yes, they have the condition and, yes, we can pay them. 
We will treat these unavailability type records specially.
    Mr. Takano. Well, thank you.
    Mr. Clark, as you know, Blue Water claims will take 
significant work, especially as the VA considers staged ratings 
and retroactive payments.
    Are you planning to--plan on augmenting the production 
standards in order to ensure that these complicated claims are 
adjudicated correctly?
    Mr. Clark. Mr. Takano, the answer is yes. Now----
    Mr. Takano. I am very please to hear that. I had a follow 
up if you said no, but----
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Clark. No. No. I will not say no. The thing is, is that 
what we do for all types of claims is to take a look at our 
employees and the amount of work that they do for the types of 
claims. If we see that these claims are taking longer we will 
give more credit. Now that is not something that we can do in a 
day or two. Once we see--and this, again, is part of a process 
that we have in reviewing the output for our employees.
    Mr. Takano. Well, as I said, I am glad to hear it. You 
know, you said Veterans Health Administration (VHA) would 
provide updated guidance to enrollment stuff and how to verify 
service in Vietnam. What training and guidance was given to 
healthcare staff and can you verify that all healthcare 
facilities have received it?
    Mr. Clark. I would have to take that for the record.
    Mr. Takano. For the record.
    Mr. Clark. Yes, because----
    Mr. Takano. Okay.
    Mr. Clark.--VHA, I would like for them to speak to that.
    Mr. Takano. Okay. Well, I appreciate that. I hope you will 
get that answer back to us. I appreciate your coming in today 
and answering our questions.
    Mr. Clark. Thank you.
    Mr. Takano. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Takano.
    I would now recognize Dr. Roe for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Roe. Thank you.
    Mr. Clark, my understanding is that Blue Water Navy 
veterans who may be eligible for retroactive benefits under the 
law are encouraged to file a supplemental claim. In contrast, 
Blue Water Navy veterans who have never applied for benefits 
related to Agent Orange should file an initial claim.
    How will VA handle any Blue Water Navy claims that are 
filed on the incorrect form?
    Mr. Clark. We will correspond back to said veteran and let 
him or her know, either the veteran and/or the survivor that 
this is the proper form that you should use for your particular 
case. If we have previously denied a case of which we sent out, 
as Beth mentioned a second ago, over 77,000 outreach letters 
and, in fact, that just for individuals that were previously 
denied. In that letter we said these are the type--this is the 
type form that you should use to come back into us.
    Again, working in concert with VSOs to try to get that 
information out, working with your offices. If they call the 
call centers, our call center agents have scripts that they 
understand how to tell or instruct one to--what form to use.
    We are prepared to be ready on 1 January. We will be ready 
without fail.
    Mr. Roe. You have answered part of the next question. You 
know, some veterans may not remember. It has been so many years 
that they even filed a form. For those veterans who filed an 
initial form, I can see how that confusion could occur pretty 
easily and cause a little hiccup in getting their claim 
adjudicated. So I think paying attention to that because many 
have--I am not sure how many actually provide, and you all may 
know those numbers, of how many have applied previously. I do 
not know whether you do or not.
    I guess the question I have, if I come in and put my claim 
in. I file the claim and then you are going to take this ship 
locator to it so you can figure out where that ship was, and 
then you have got to figure out was I on that ship; am I 
correct, did that ship get inside the statutory requirements of 
the law? Then were my feet actually on that ship or submarine. 
It could be a submarine. I can assure you that they do not--if 
you were riding around in the submarine I had no clue. I was 
under the polar ice load. That is all I knew in the North 
Atlantic. That may be all the crew knows at the time because it 
is a need to know basis where you are.
    If you can get that information, then how long should it 
take after that because that seems, if that tool works and you 
can prove you were on that ship, that should be a fairly--and 
you have a presumption, a lymphoma or----
    Mr. Clark. Right.
    Mr. Roe.--Type II diabetes, whatever the 12, 13, 14 
presumptions are, how long should that take?
    Mr. Clark. Dr. Roe, that is a great question. This is why 
we love this took so much and this is why, again, the stay 
which we are appreciative of you allowing us to have the stay. 
Once we get all these records in, if we can place an individual 
that says I was once on the U.S.S., you know, whatever the ship 
was, the deck logs contain the coordinates, where that ship 
was. All deck logs record this at 3 different times a day, 8 
a.m., 12 p.m. and then 8 p.m. Once we go through and we set up 
like a, what they call a paragon that actually is an area that 
says this ship was in this particular location, they are in. 
Once they are in, and you adequately explained this during your 
initial brief, that gets you in that says you were in and we 
are going to concede exposure.
    Next, now you have to have medical evidence that 
establishes that you have a condition, a diagnosis for one of 
those presumptive conditions. Once we do that, we have promised 
and our boss has said, we are going to rate these claims just 
like we do the others. No more than 125 days. Presently we are 
less than 100 days. We are working feverishly. We are going to 
have all of our employees working on the 1st. Both Beth and I 
will be working as well, the 1st of January I am talking about. 
They will be working overtime because we will be ready on the 
1st. We will be issuing decisions on the 1st. We will be 
serving veterans on the 1st.
    Ms. Murphy. Dr. Roe, just if I could quickly add, the more 
complex cases that you eluded to earlier that go back over 
periods of time for potential retroactive benefits, those can 
be a little more complicated because we have to go look for 
some of the decades of records, medical records that may be 
relevant, including from private providers. We have a contract 
that supports turning those round and about 10 to 12 days. That 
helps. Then we also need the personnel records, the service 
treatment records, sometimes we have those in the file, because 
then we say, Okay, the service member in their military records 
shows that they were on this ship. We go to the tool and say, 
yes, type in the day and the coordinates. They were--the ship 
was where it was supposed to be. Then, do they have the 
condition, how long have they had it, and how has it progressed 
over time.
    Yes, sir.
    Mr. Roe. Two other things very quickly is, one, I think it 
is also important to get that report on Thailand out. I had one 
of my best friends I will ever have on this earth die of a very 
rare lymphoma that the perimeter of his base was sprayed with 
Agent Orange.
    Then just last an editorial comment is that I remember when 
our battalion commander came in. I had just gotten in Korea and 
he said, if an all out war breaks out here today, there will be 
80 percent casualties. I held my hand up and I said, sir, where 
are we. I did not even know where I was.
    A lot of veterans are out there. They do not know were they 
placed or not, and I think your ship locator is going to be a 
great tool to be able to verify, much easier for the Navy than 
for the Army, I think.
    Okay. Thank you. I yield back.
    Ms. Luria. Well, thank you, Dr. Roe. As a follow on, Mr. 
Clark, I would like a follow up and perhaps you can provide 
this information to me after the hearing.
    If I am understanding you correctly, out of all of these 
deck logs you are only taking position reports from 8 o'clock 
and 12 o'clock reports? Those are the only positions that you 
are taking as far as the navigation of the ship during the 
course of these 13 years?
    Mr. Clark. Under our present guidelines it is three, 8 
a.m., 12 p.m. and 8 p.m. So it is three coordinates off of the 
deck logs.
    Ms. Luria. Not 12 a.m. when they start a new deck log for 
the new day and have a position report?
    Mr. Clark. It will be 8 a.m. the following day. Again, this 
is another reason that we are still working through this. You 
know, we were asked if we are ready. We are not because, again, 
this--now you bringing this to the forefront, we have got a 
team that----
    Ms. Luria. Because I certainly know that a ship navigating 
within 12 miles of land takes a position report more than 3 
times a day.
    Mr. Clark. We can take that back up for the record. I will 
let Ms. Murphy speak to that. That is the procedures that we 
were using, three coordinates three times, 8 a.m.----
    Ms. Luria. That is an internal VA policy that you have 
established?
    Ms. Murphy. Well, that is the data that is available on the 
top of the deck logs so that is what----
    Ms. Luria. You are only using the header on the deck logs. 
You are not----
    Ms. Murphy. Yes.
    Ms. Luria.--using all of the data contained therein?
    Ms. Murphy. Both. For the big picture plotting where the 
ship was, the movement of the ship, we are primarily using 
those lat longs at those 3 points in the day. That will get a 
bulk of the folks in to yes. A pdf of the whole deck log is 
included and embedded in the tool as well.
    If the--if those coordinates will not answer the question, 
we can bring up the actual pdf and read the narrative in the 
deck log as well. That is why we will go fast as much as we can 
on the ones that are based on those 3 times a day coordinates. 
If we have to go deeper, we will go deeper and do all of the 
additional development before we say no.
    Ms. Luria. Okay. Then last I wanted to follow on again to 
Dr. Roe's comment because we have gotten feedback from the VSO 
specifically that people, veterans who are trying to submit 
these claims are just very confused. Do we really need to 
quibble over whether they are using an old form or a new form 
or having them resubmit forms multiple times. I mean, what can 
we do to make this as smooth as possible?
    When you have a veteran walk in and they do not remember if 
they submitted a claim 20 years ago or perhaps someone did it 
on their behalf at a VSO quite a while ago, and they submit the 
wrong form, do you really think the burden needs to be on them 
to go through the process of you mailing them a letter back, 
they fill out a different form, mail it back in. I mean, at 
what point and level of frustration after 40 years do people 
need to actually get these benefits?
    Ms. Murphy. Right. We do acknowledge that that can be 
complex. I mean, our whole claims process can be complex. We 
are delivering a wide variety----
    Ms. Luria. Can you say----
    Ms. Murphy.--of benefits----
    Ms. Luria.--can you just say that you can look at your 
policy and let--get back to us. Is it possible to take either 
form for these claims?
    Ms. Murphy. Ma'am, it is based on the changes that came 
from the Appeals Modernization Act. Those requirements were 
built into that act and it flows from there. That is why we did 
the risk mitigation of sending the letters to the previously 
denied with the appropriate form to make sure that we had the 
best opportunity to get the right form in.
    If they do send in the wrong form, we have a standard 
operating procedure in place to go back to them, send them the 
right form, ask them to send it back within 30 days. They can 
call the call centers if they have any questions, reach out to 
VSO----
    Ms. Luria. Basically you are putting it back in the 
veteran's lap because they submitted the wrong form and they do 
not know any better?
    Ms. Murphy. Ma'am, we are following the law. And----
    Ms. Luria. Are you telling me that the Appeals 
Modernization Act (AMA) tells exactly which form, number, 
version, series, date----
    Ms. Murphy. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Luria.--that the person has to submit?
    Ms. Murphy. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Luria. Okay. I would like to see that----
    Ms. Murphy. We would be happy to----
    Ms. Luria.--as soon as possible----
    Ms. Murphy. We would be happy to talk to----
    Ms. Luria.--because I seriously doubt that in the law we 
spelled out versions of VA forms. I think those----
    Ms. Murphy. Well----
    Ms. Luria.--are internal forms that you create for 
administrative purposes.
    Ms. Murphy.--there were different categories of claims 
created. If someone had been previously denied and comes back 
in, then there is a requirement for a different form. We would 
be happy to go into----
    Ms. Luria. A requirement for a different form or a 
requirement for you to be tracking them differently so putting 
the tracking burden on the veteran rather than you to just say 
this goes in this pile rather than this pile?
    Ms. Murphy. Good point, ma'am. We would be happy to talk 
further about it.
    Ms. Luria. Okay. My goal in all of this and the feedback we 
have gotten from VSOs and, you know, I went to a Veterans of 
Foreign Wars (VFW) in my district and heard frustration from 
veterans about very similar things is that they feel like the 
burden is always put back on them. They are just the end user. 
They do not know that there is different forms out there.
    Ms. Murphy. I hear you, ma'am. We understand.
    Ms. Luria. We just want to----
    Ms. Murphy. We do not want to make it any more----
    Ms. Luria.--make it as simple as possible.
    Ms. Murphy.--complex either.
    Mr. Clark. Right. We will take that back for the record.
    Ms. Luria. Okay.
    Ms. Murphy. Thank you. We will take it back.
    Ms. Luria. Yes. Thank you both for that.
    Ms. Murphy. Thank you.
    Ms. Luria. To my colleagues, I apologize. I ate up a little 
bit of extra time. Now we will be moving on and, Mr. Cisneros, 
I recognize you for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Cisneros. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Mr. Clark, I just want to follow up on what you said when 
you--what you stated earlier about the getting the information 
out there or starting this. You said it was going to be in 
eight hubs or eight regional offices where there is initially 
going to be happening.
    Are they going to handle claims for the entire country, 
these eight hubs, or is it only specifically for their regions?
    Mr. Clark. No. These are, as called for in the law, there 
are a certain number of hires that we stated through Congress 
that we would need to process these claims. We are in the 
process of hiring 800 individuals to do that.
    Now we are limiting--we are using experienced people to do 
this work, 800 experienced people. The ones we are hiring are 
backfilling. We will start with that number. We have got a 
universe potentially of 400 people that may file claims. It is 
not the thought that many will come in, but if they----
    Mr. Cisneros. Wait. Only 400 people you expect----
    Mr. Clark. No. I said 400,000. Did I say 400 people? Oh, my 
goodness. Yes. Yes. 400k, not 400 people, so sorry about that.
    We have data that shows that much less than that will come 
in. What I am doing is limiting that to a small number of 
regional offices so that if we glean that we are making errors, 
if we feel that there are some changes that need to be made, 
rather than contacting every regional office and having those 
individual to do that work, we are limiting it to eight people.
    Now we re mindful of timeliness. We will meet or exceed the 
same timeliness. I spoke to this a little earlier, right now we 
are averaging less than 100 days to get claims completed. Once 
we get an affirmation from the tool, if we can not get an 
affirmation, then it goes and we do some additional 
development. Once we get an affirmation, we will be able to 
just go pretty quickly because we need a diagnosis and we need 
medical evidence.
    Mr. Cisneros. The answer I am looking for is if you have 
these eight regional offices who are handing claims, if I do 
not live in this specific area of these offices, is my claim 
still going to be handled?
    Mr. Clark. Of course, because, see, our claims, we deal in 
electronics. What happens, we send digits to regional offices. 
We do not send paper. When we send the claim, we send it in an 
electronic format. Those individuals--and, again, we are 
monitoring the amount of the inventory, how quickly claims are 
going out, and if we need to add more resources, we will do so 
because we understand that we are dealing with a population of 
individuals that have served this great country that are aged 
and they are, you know, they are disabled, sick. We know we 
have to get these claims done quickly.
    Mr. Cisneros. All right. I believe you said the training 
program will start around December 13th.
    Mr. Clark. We will be finished on December 13th.
    Now these are trained individuals, Mr. Cisneros, that they 
already know how to----
    Mr. Cisneros. Handle a claim.
    Mr. Clark.--complete Agent Orange claims.
    Mr. Cisneros. Great. Got it.
    Mr. Clark. Believe it or not, I did them back in the day.
    Mr. Cisneros. Right.
    Mr. Clark. I will not go back to when, but I did them.
    Mr. Cisneros. The only additional training they really need 
is on this----
    Mr. Clark. Is the retroactive, the tool----
    Mr. Cisneros. The tool.
    Mr. Clark.--and then we need to sure up on the retroactive 
aspect of paying out because, as Beth said earlier, if an 
individual was previously denied, we have a situation where an 
individual may have been married, you know, a couple of times, 
they may have had cancer that may have regressed and then it 
came back again. We have got these staged ratings. These 
decisions can be very complex.
    That is the training component we need, 14 hours less than 
2 days. We are going to start it on the 2nd of December, be 
done on the 13th. We have some tests in mind that we are going 
to do to make sure that they get it. If they do not get it, we 
are going to pull cases that they rate. We will get the eight 
ROs together. Again, now we are talking about, you know, 800 
people, but that way these individuals rate enough cases that--
--
    Mr. Cisneros. Okay.
    Mr. Clark.--they can become very proficient at doing this 
work.
    Mr. Cisneros. Right. I got 30 seconds left, so I just want 
to ask this real quick. As far as outreach to the VSOs, do you 
have a plan to outreach to the VSOs and what is that plan?
    Mr. Clark. That plan is we meet with the VSOs monthly. We 
have been for the last few months. We continue to work with 
them, and we are asking them to help get the word out. We have 
outreach. Our regional office directors, you know, town halls 
in the community and the like. We have an aggressive and a 
comprehensive plan to make sure, starting with the outreach 
letters, the 77,000, to make sure that we get the word out and 
working in concert with the VSOs to make that happen.
    Mr. Cisneros. All right. Thank you.
    Ms. Murphy. Sir, if I could do a quick public service 
announcement. I went myself onto the VA.gov website and I just 
wanted to go in and find the fastest way I could get to this 
information. I went last night to the VA.gov website. I went to 
the search box at the top and I typed in Blue Water Navy and 
the first item that came up, it was right there. There is a lot 
of information, so I would----
    Mr. Cisneros. Yes. And----
    Ms. Murphy.--encourage people to look there as well.
    Mr. Cisneros. I get it. My father is a Vietnam veteran at 
70 years old----
    Ms. Murphy. Understood.
    Mr. Cisneros.--and he does not really use the Internet.
    Ms. Murphy. Right.
    Mr. Cisneros. That is not really going to do him much good.
    Ms. Murphy. He might have a smart son who does and who can 
help him with that.
    [Laughter.]
    Ms. Murphy. We are trying to get the word out any way that 
we can, sir.
    Mr. Cisneros. Well, he is still looking for that smart son.
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Cisneros. All right. Thank you.
    Ms. Luria. Well, thank you, Mr. Cisneros.
    I will now recognize Mr. Bilirakis for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I 
appreciate it very much.
    Again, what about television? I am from the old school, 
too. Television, radio announcements, public service 
announcements for those that do not read their emails or go on 
the Internet on a regular basis, have you all thought of that?
    Ms. Murphy. Yes. We have a comms team and a subwork group 
that is considering all of those different options. Twitter 
town halls, I know, again, those are for the kids of or maybe 
the grandkids of, but public service announcements certainly, 
we will have more conversations as it gets closer to get the 
word out about other modes of delivery of that information. 
But----
    Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. Now----
    Ms. Murphy.--no wrong door.
    Mr. Bilirakis. And you said that you wanted to involve 
Members of Congress, their staffs as well.
    Ms. Murphy. Yes.
    Mr. Bilirakis. That is great. Is there a plan to train some 
of the staff and how far, is there any flexibility as far as 
how far the staff can go to help the constituent with the forms 
and all that----
    Ms. Murphy. Certainly.
    Mr. Bilirakis.--because I know we are limited in some 
capacity and some areas. Yes.
    Ms. Murphy. We have some toolkit materials that we can 
provide to all of the offices. I know sometimes you are going 
back to your districts and you might have a package of 
information that you could share. We would be happy to share 
some outreach materials that you could pass along, the tools, 
the link to the website, any and all of the information.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. We are going to put it on our Facebook 
page. That is important, too.
    Ms. Murphy. Yes. That is good.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Again, you know, I hate the stay, but if it 
is necessary. You know, our Blue Water Navy veterans have 
waited too long. I know it was in the legislation, but we want 
to get it right, obviously.
    Let me ask this. In this regard can you tell me how long 
VBA plans on tracking and reporting the accuracy of the Blue 
Water Navy claims?
    Ms. Murphy. We have particular tracking mechanisms, 
different claim labels and end products that we have for all of 
these different categories, Blue Water Navy being one of many, 
many that we do. We can do special reviews. We are going to set 
up a process to do quality reviews as we are getting ready to 
pay some of the first claims. We will be giving feedback to the 
stations, holding calls every week, maybe every day at the 
beginning. We will have the VA pulse page available to the 
claims processors in case they have any questions as part of 
the claims processing.
    My team, the National Quality Team, will be looking at 
categories of these, subcategories of these. The local quality 
teams will be doing targeted reviews. We will be doing this for 
some time over the years while we are processing these claims 
as they come in.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. You are not anticipating any type of a 
shortage with regard to Full Time Employees (FTEs) until--I 
know you made a request for new FTEs for Fiscal Year 2020.
    Ms. Murphy. Correct.
    Mr. Bilirakis. You think you have enough now that will be 
trained adequately to get these claims submitted. When you go 
from say January 1st and it is a uncomplicated claim, say an 
easy claim, what have you, I know in regular claims it is 
anticipated 125 days. Give me an average roughly how long you 
anticipate this claim from start to finish, and I mean from 
when the beginning of the claim, but also when can the veteran 
go to his or her mailbox and receive the check from start to 
finish.
    Ms. Murphy. Every claim is different.
    Mr. Bilirakis. I know that.
    Ms. Murphy. That is part of the complexity. The 125 days--
--
    Mr. Bilirakis. Roughly tell me.
    Ms. Murphy. I would say for--it is hard to say. For some of 
the more--if everything is in the claims folder----
    Mr. Bilirakis. Yes. Everything is there.
    Ms. Murphy.--and we can go, there is also prioritization. 
Your claim may be ready to go, but if it is in line behind a 
terminally ill veteran or a homeless veteran----
    Mr. Bilirakis. They are priority.
    Ms. Murphy. They are prioritized first.
    Mr. Bilirakis. That is fine with me.
    Ms. Murphy. They go first.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Particularly the terminally ill.
    Ms. Murphy. If we have, you know, if you have got like a 
lot of planes ready to land on the runway, if you have a lot of 
claims that are ready to go, we will do those prioritized 
claims first. It may make your claim, your ready to go claim 
take a little longer. Some of the simpler claims could be done 
in a couple of weeks. Some of the more complex claims could be 
many months. If we are in a position to deny a claim, it will 
take longer because we want to exhaust all avenues to try to 
say yes on that claim.
    Now if a veteran does not have a confirmed diagnosis of one 
of the Agent Orange conditions, that would end up being a no. 
Other than going out and affirming whether there is a diagnosis 
or looking for more medical records, if the veteran does not 
have one of the presumptive conditions, looking for more 
records or trying to place them on the ship becomes less 
relevant.
    We will develop, fully develop all of our claims. It is 
part of our duty to assist.
    Mr. Bilirakis. We have got to take into consideration that 
they have been waiting all these years, for----
    Ms. Murphy. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Bilirakis.--over 40 years. I do not like, as the chair 
said, placing the burden on the veteran. They file the wrong 
claim and they need a correct form, or file the wrong form and 
they need a correct form, but they have 35 days, my 
understanding, is to get in the correct form. What happens if 
they do not get it in within 35 days?
    Ms. Murphy. It is an effective date issue. It does not mean 
that they are out of----
    Mr. Bilirakis. Right.
    Ms. Murphy. They are out.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Do you have any leeway with those 35 days, 
say they get it in 40 days----
    Ms. Murphy. We can----
    Mr. Bilirakis.--are they going to lose their place?
    Ms. Murphy.--look at postmarks. We can take a look at some 
things in the system. These are all handled on a case by case 
basis, sir.
    Mr. Bilirakis. Okay. All right. Well, thank you very much. 
I appreciate it. What I do not want to see is a veteran get 
frustrated and say, the heck with it, it is not worth it----
    Ms. Murphy. We do not want to see that either.
    Mr. Bilirakis.--because they earned that. We have to----
    Ms. Murphy. Absolutely.
    Mr. Bilirakis.--go the extra mile.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Murphy. Thank you, sir.
    Ms. Luria. Okay. Thank you. We will move into a second 
round of questions.
    Just to clarify the stay, and specifically talking about 
the Korean DMZ claims, my understanding is that you are still 
processing those claims for the laws that existed prior to Blue 
Water Navy Veterans Act being passed; is that true?
    Ms. Murphy. Yes. For Blue Water Navy, boots on ground----
    Ms. Luria. I am specifically asking about Korean DMZ 
claims.
    Ms. Murphy. Yes. If there is----
    Ms. Luria. Are those still being processed during the 6 
month time between June and January?
    Ms. Murphy. It is my understanding, yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Luria. Okay, because I have a copy of a letter here 
from Secretary Wilke to the Under Secretary for Benefits and it 
specifically says in paragraph 3 that the board is ordered to 
stay decisions regarding claims for disability compensation 
that are based on service in or near the Korean DMZ from 
September 1st, 1967 to August 31st, 1971. Okay.
    There is a period of time, the only thing that changed in 
Blue Water Navy was we added additional time. From September 
1st, 1967 to April 1st, 1968 is the new time. This is saying, 
stop all claims for Korean DMZ between 1967 and 1971. Are all 
of them being stopped because----
    Ms. Murphy. So if----
    Ms. Luria.--we only added a new time between 1967 and 1968? 
I am kind of confused.
    Ms. Murphy.--if that is speaking to instructions to the 
Board of Veterans Appeals, I would have to go check with them 
to--I would have to go verify their instructions.
    Ms. Luria. You are saying that the secretary's guidance 
does not apply to you in this case?
    Ms. Murphy. I was just going from what you read there, 
ma'am. It is my understanding, and we will double check, we 
will verify with the claims processing side, but if we can 
process----
    Ms. Luria. Wait. I mean, this is----
    Ms. Murphy.--the normal case----
    Ms. Luria.--addressed to Under Secretary for Benefits. I 
believe that that is Dr. Lawrence who we asked to come to this 
hearing; is that correct? Is that who that person is?
    Ms. Murphy. Dr. Lawrence is our under secretary. Yes, 
ma'am.
    Ms. Luria. Okay. Well, this says from secretary 00, Code 
00, signed by Robert L. Wilke to Under Secretary of Benefits. 
This is a letter from Secretary Wilke to Dr. Lawrence saying do 
not process any claims between September 1st, 1967 and August 
31st, 1971, during the 6-month period.
    Mr. Clark. We will take that back for the record, ma'am, 
and get you a response.
    Ms. Luria. Okay. I would----
    Mr. Clark. Yes, ma'am. We will do so.
    Ms. Luria. --like clarification on that because the only 
thing----
    Mr. Clark. We will do so.
    Ms. Luria.--added in the new legislation is the time period 
between September 1st, 1967 and April 1st, 1968. That is the 
only new timeframe.
    Mr. Clark. We will get you a response.
    Ms. Luria. If I am understanding correctly----
    Ms. Murphy. If you are correct----
    Ms. Luria.--everything else related to Korean DMZ claims 
should have been processed as was already ongoing during the 6-
month period. If the case is that it has been stopped for the 
entire timeframe, I would also like to know how many cases were 
affected and how many are just waiting in a queue----
    Ms. Murphy. Certainly.
    Ms. Luria.--due to this halt in process.
    Ms. Murphy. We will validate that. Thank you.
    Mr. Clark. We will get that.
    Ms. Luria. Thank you.
    Okay. I now ask Mr. Bost if he would like to ask additional 
questions.
    Mr. Bost. Yes. There is just a couple more.
    Mr. Clark, can you kind of give a detail on the contractors 
who are qualified to transcribe the information from the deck 
logs so it can be used on the ship locator. You have a 
contracted company for them; is that correct?
    Ms. Murphy. Sir, if I could jump in.
    Mr. Bost. Yes.
    Ms. Murphy. We are working with our Office of Business 
Process Integration or OBPI. They have got the lead on working 
with their existing scanning vendors who do our normal scanning 
for any paper that we get in, turning it into electrons so that 
we can route the work paperlessly.
    Mr. Bost. Do you know which contractor that is?
    Ms. Murphy. Off the top of my head I do not know the name 
of the contractor, sir. It is somebody that I believe that we 
have worked with----
    Mr. Bost. We can get it for the record.
    Ms. Murphy. Yes. We have worked with them for a while. They 
have existing locations, high speed scanning. We have a 
relationship with these folks and they have taken the lead on 
working through the mechanics of that.
    Mr. Bost. All right. One other thing I want to follow up on 
what Dr. Roe asked before he left, you know, the other parts of 
this legislation. Where are we at on tracking to complete the 
study to identify the military installations where Agent Orange 
was sprayed in Thailand during the Vietnam Era? How are we 
coming along with that and are we getting that information? 
That is part of the legislation, right?
    Mr. Clark. I will have to take that for the record and get 
back to you----
    Mr. Bost. If you would take it for the record and get it 
back to us, that would be great.
    Mr. Clark.--because I do not know if we have started, but 
we will certainly get you a response on it, Mr. Bost.
    Mr. Bost. Okay. All right, because we are working on the 
big picture of the legislation----
    Mr. Clark. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Bost.--but we also want to know where we are at with 
that.
    Mr. Clark. We will get that back to you.
    Mr. Bost. Okay. I yield back.
    Ms. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Bost. Thank you both for 
appearing today and answering questions, and we will look 
forward to follow up on some of the open ended questions that 
we had during the hearing.
    I would like to now invite Panel Number 2 to come forward 
to the table. While you are doing that, I will introduce the 
witnesses on this panel.
    We have Mr. Shane Liermann, the Deputy National Legislative 
Director of the Disabled American Veterans; Ms. Diane Rauber, 
Executive Director of the National Organization of Veterans' 
Advocates; and Mr. Ryan Gallucci, Director National Veterans 
Services for the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
    While you are taking your seats we will get ready for 
questions when you are ready.
    [Pause]
    Ms. Luria. Mr. Liermann, we will start with you and I would 
like to recognize you for 5 minutes for a statement.

                  STATEMENT OF SHANE LIERMANN

    Mr. Liermann. Thank you.
    Chairman Luria, Ranking Member Bost, and members of the 
subcommittee, on behalf of Disabled American Veterans (DAV's) 
more than 1 million members, we thank you for the opportunity 
to present our views at today's oversight hearing regarding VAs 
implementation of the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 
2019.
    Our written testimony addresses all of our concerns, 
questions and recommendations, however, my oral remarks will 
highlight just a few of these.
    Madam Chair, we thank you and Ranking Member Bost and all 
members of the subcommittee for your collective efforts in 
getting H.R. 299 unanimously passed through the House in May 
which was approved by the Senate and signed into law by the 
president on June 25th.
    As noted, unfortunately Secretary Wilke, on July 1st, 
issued a stay that stopped all processing of all benefit claims 
by Blue Water Navy veterans and survivors. We do not believe it 
was congress's intention to prevent every single Blue Water 
Navy veteran from receiving Agent Orange benefits for at least 
6 months.
    We continue to call on Secretary Wilke and the president to 
lift or modify the stay on Blue Water Navy claims, especially 
for those most in need.
    Senior VA officials have stated that they will be ready to 
make decisions and award benefits for Blue Water Navy claims on 
January 1st. That means they would have developed and prepared 
these cases in advance, which then begs the question, if VA has 
cases ready to grant benefits on January 1st, why can not VA 
grant those benefits now, particularly for those with terminal 
illnesses and other hardships.
    In reference to VAs implementation of Blue Water Navy 
claims, we have received limited information and little 
collaboration which leads only to many more questions, such as 
VA ship locator tool is being created solely with the ship's 
list provided from DOD. Of those ships, are we certain that 
every deck log for every ship has been provided; are there 
ships that served within the determined area offshore of 
Vietnam that were not included?
    DOD has specifically excluded submarines from the ship's 
list provided to the VA. As diesel powered submarines were used 
during this time, and they had to surface every 2 to 3 days to 
recharge their batteries and exchange fresh air. Why were 
diesel powered submarines excluded from the list of U.S. ships 
serving in the waters offshore?
    We also do not know if the ship's locator tool will be 
available to the Board of Veterans Appeals, especially for 
those legacy appeals and Appeals Modernization Act pending 
appeals that have been impacted by the secretary's stay, and 
how will this affect the board's prohibition from developing 
cases.
    Madam Chair, in their letters to previously denied 
veterans, VA is providing the supplemental claim form to 
reestablish the claims and advising them they cannot file for a 
new disability on that supplemental claim form and directing 
them to the website for the new claim. We ask, why is the VA 
not satisfying their duty to notify and providing the 
appropriate form designated for new claims to previously denied 
veterans.
    VA regulations State that in order for a claim to be 
considered, it must be submitted on the appropriate claims 
form, in this case either the supplemental claim or the 
application for disability compensation. If a veteran or 
survivor submits a claim on the wrong form, VA will not take 
action on the claim. However, VA is required to notify them and 
provide the correct form. Their effective date will not be 
protected, which means veterans and survivors can lose months 
of entitlements to their benefits while waiting for VA to 
notify them.
    Because it is difficult for veterans to recall the claims 
filed decades ago, VSOs and veterans have no other choice than 
to file these claims on both forms as to ensure the proper 
claims are filed without veterans losing entitlements or their 
effective dates.
    Unfortunately, this will create additional work for 
veterans, VSOs and the VA. This issue, which applies to the 
entire VA claims process, has been raised multiple times with 
VA over the past several months. It is clear, VA has no 
intention of changing this policy. Therefore, Congress should 
enact legislation to require VA to accept any new claim or 
previously denied claim being filed on either form.
    As former VA administrator, General Omar Bradley stated, 
``We are dealing with veterans, not procedures, with their 
problems, not ours.''
    Madam Chair, this concludes my testimony and I would be 
pleased to answer any questions that you or members of the 
subcommittee may have.

    [The Prepared Statement Of Shane Liermann Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Ms. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Liermann.
    I now recognize Ms. Rauber for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF DIANE RAUBER

    Ms. Rauber. Thank you.
    Chairwoman Luria, Ranking Member Bost, and members of the 
subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. We 
appreciate congress's passage of the Blue Water Navy 
legislation and your leadership in exercising oversight 
authority over its implementation.
    National Organization of Veterans' Advocates (NOVA) members 
have long fought for the rights of Blue Water Navy veterans and 
their families, representing them before the agency, the Board 
of Veterans Appeals, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
Veterans' Claims. We supported Mr. Procopio's original appeal 
before the Federal Circuit, filing an amicus brief joined by 
Amvets, NOVA, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), and the 
veterans and military law section of the Federal Bar 
Association.
    Before outlining specific concerns, we noted it is 
unfortunate VA has moved away from the more inclusive 
communications approach used for the AMA and chose not to share 
its intentions for implementation of this legislation with the 
broader stakeholder community. Inclusion and collaboration is 
best for our Nation's veterans.
    Turning to VA's implementation, first, VA must not use 
agency guidance to skirt notice and comment requirements. This 
legislation permits VA, notwithstanding Section 501 of Title 
38, to issue guidance before prescribing regulations. We 
appreciate this provision is meant to give VA flexibility to 
adjudicate claims expeditiously. However, this provision does 
not authorize VA to use its manual provisions to avoid notice 
and comment rulemaking.
    Second, the secretary's stay is over inclusive and harmful. 
The Federal circuit is reviewing the legality of the 
secretary's July 1st stay. Regardless of its ultimate decision, 
the stay is delaying too many 1116 claims and appeals that 
could be granted on the existing evidence of record.
    For example, take the case of Veteran Kiefer R. represented 
by an OVER member. Mr. R. received an August 2018 Board 
Veterans' Appeal (BVA) decision concluding he served on the 
U.S.S. Perry. The ship operated in the waters of Vietnam. He 
was aboard at the relevant times, and he suffers from multiple 
Agent Orange presumptive conditions. In court the parties 
agreed the decision should be vacated under Procopio. Mr. R. 
has not received his benefits. This is just one example of many 
cases not filed under the new legislation that have been 
unnecessarily delayed by the stay.
    Holding these cases up is particularly harmful given the 
age and health of Blue Water Navy veterans. After waiting years 
for justice, they are now faced with a longer wait for 
financial relief. Even if some claims and appeals need 
additional development, the secretary should ensure VBA and BVA 
adjudicate without further delay pending 1116 claims and 
appeals that can be granted on the existing record.
    Next, VA must ensure adequate quality control and expert 
assistance for scanning of deck logs. VA is currently scanning 
deck logs provided by national archives. Ship deck logs are 
dense and largely handwritten. They consist of critical numbers 
that can prove whether a ship traveled in the territorial sea 
of the Republic of Vietnam.
    However, VA's digital transitions are often problematic. 
Veterans and advocates frequently experience delayed uploads, 
missing materials, mislabeling and improper ordering when 
submitting documents for VA scanning. Careless scanning of 
these deck logs, whether through missed pages, unreadable 
images or mislabeling will result in denials to deserving 
veterans. Please ensure VA provides adequate quality control 
over the scanning process using vendors and staff who are 
qualified for the task. Likewise, any tool created from scanned 
deck logs should be developed by people with the appropriate 
expertise.
    In addition, advocates need access to VA ship locator tool. 
While VA is scanning deck logs, they are unavailable to 
researchers. Regardless of when access is restored, all 
accredited attorneys, agents, and VSOs should have access to 
the locator tool created by VA. Such access is critical to 
ensure all evidence is considered and properly interpreted so 
claimants receive all earned benefits.
    Finally, VA should ensure the tool is not used to deny 
claimants. We are happy to hear Mr. Clark today has assured us 
that this will be the case. We will be following that closely. 
In its regulations and manual guidance, VA must clearly explain 
this concept and provide adequate training to the field. To Dr. 
Roe's earlier point, VA guidance should also ensure that 
competent and credible lay evidence is given proper weight in 
deciding these claims and appeals.
    I would like to note that National Veterans Legal Services 
Program (NVLSP), in its written testimony, has advocated for 
specific methods of contacting veterans when letters are 
returned, and we would urge you to take a look at those 
recommendations as well.
    NOVA is committed to work with congress, VA and fellow 
stakeholders to ensure Blue Water Navy veterans receive their 
earned benefits in a fair and timely fashion.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify, and we 
would be happy to answer any questions.

    [The Prepared Statement Of Diane Rauber Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Ms. Luria. Thank you, Ms. Rauber.
    I now recognize Mr. Gallucci for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF RYAN GALLUCCI

    Mr. Gallucci. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Ranking Member 
Bost, members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to present VFW's views on implementation of the 
Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act.
    The VFW applauds Congress for passing the act, correcting a 
horrible injustice for our veterans. We also thank the 
president for swiftly signing it into law. We are only halfway 
there. Our next goal is to make sure that VA delivers timely, 
accurate benefits to those covered by the act.
    I will address several facets of VA's roll out in my 
remarks, such as Secretary Wilke's stay on claims, VA's plan to 
process claims and the effects of appeals modernization on VA's 
workload.
    First, the VFW strongly disagrees with the stay on 
processing all claims covered under the act. No sooner had 
President Trump's signature dried on the bill that Secretary 
Wilke unilaterally applied his authority to stay certain claims 
to any claim that could be covered under the law, even claims 
that VA could already grant, as Chairwoman Luria pointed out, 
such as Korean DMZ.
    In partnership with Disabled America Veterans, Vietnam 
Veterans of America and others, we called attention to the 
effects of the stay in a press conference late last month. To 
be clear, it is not just about denial of care, but the 
financial ruin that veterans would face for life-saving care 
that should have been paid for by VA.
    For survivors, months without benefits could mean losing a 
home or amassing debt to make ends meet. For veterans who stand 
to lose their battles with these illnesses, as Dr. Roe pointed 
out, why make them wait any longer.
    To the VFW, the stay should have meant that VA should grant 
what it could under Procopio and current law, but stay any 
claims that required either further development or denial. 
Secretary Wilke must lift the stay immediately. We know that 
certain claims can be granted now. Waiting until January not 
only harms veterans, but creates an unnecessary backlog for VA 
at a time we can ill afford it.
    Furthermore, the VFW calls on this subcommittee to 
commission a report on the effects of the stay asking 2 points: 
How many veterans requested expedited processing due to 
financial hardship or terminal illness during the stay; and how 
many veterans died during the stay?
    Next, the VFW has tried to work closely with Dr. Lawrence 
and his team at every opportunity to provide insight into the 
development of the act. To his credit, Dr. Lawrence has been 
responsive to the VSOs by offering opportunities to review VAs 
communication plan explaining the processes to veterans. VA 
must move aggressively to get this information in front of 
veterans, and the VFW will assist in any way that we can.
    VBA should also be commended for developing its ship 
locator tool with the national archives and DOD, and we look 
forward to a demonstration of the tool next month. However, we 
are concerned about the lack of formal policy guidance. We 
heard from our field offices that there are different 
interpretations of what veterans are supposed to do. In Ohio, 
we were advised to file 3 separate forms for veterans just to 
be safe. In Maine, we are tracking several veterans who filed 
supplemental claims only to learn they were never established.
    We understand that regulations will not be ready in time 
for January, but that is Okay, because we think that VA already 
has the ability to process many of these claims under current 
authorities. However, we believe that the inconsistencies that 
we have heard about in the field underscore the critical need 
for policy guidance both for VA and VSOs. VA must publish and 
communicate this guidance as soon as possible.
    Now before this hearing the VFW believed that VBA was 
heading in the right direction. As of last week VBA reported 
that exams were underway and that they intended to queue claims 
ready for decision while waiting for the stay to expire. I 
commended VA for this in my submission for the record, but now 
after the previous panel I have heard that they are not doing 
this. I must question the information that we received up to 
this hearing today.
    Now I cannot discuss Blue Water Navy without also 
discussing unintended consequences of the Appeals Modernization 
Act. In June, a coalition of VSOs asked Dr. Lawrence to look 
into concerns over how VA was processing forms for decision 
reviews as well as the lack of applicability of intent to file 
for supplemental claims after 1 year, which there was ample 
discussion about with the first panel.
    To their credit, VBA did say that they reviewed the Intent 
To File (ITF) issue and that we should expect a revision soon. 
However, VBA has yet to address the standard forms that caught 
the committee's attention in the previous panel.
    We worry that under Blue Water the situation will only be 
exacerbated when veterans' claims are turned away. This is a 
self-inflicted wound for VBA. Section 5108 of the Appeals 
Modernization Act did not direct VA to create a standard form 
for supplemental claims. It only created a burden for veterans 
to furnish new and material--I am sorry--new and relevant 
evidence for VA to review that prior decision.
    We see this as only creating bureaucratic barriers for 
veterans. VA must address this forms issue. Since any action VA 
takes would only be prospective, VFW further recommends that VA 
report on how many veterans were affected by the AMA issues and 
that Congress take up legislation to award retroactive benefits 
to anyone whose claims were erroneously denied.
    A 100 years ago, VFW helped our first veterans access their 
benefits. Today more than 2,100 professional VFW advocates 
assist more than half a million veterans in this complex 
process. We know the issues. We understand the problems, and we 
are here to help.
    We hope the recommendations we presented today will be 
valuable to the subcommittee and to VA in ensuring we deliver 
timely and accurate benefits to our veterans.
    Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Bost, this concludes my 
remarks and I am eager to answer any questions the subcommittee 
may have.

    [The Prepared Statement Of Ryan Gallucci Appears In The 
Appendix]

    Ms. Luria. Thank you, and thank you to all 3 of our 
witnesses for your opening statements. I also wanted to remark 
that Mr. Wideman had planned to be here today from the Vietnam 
Veterans of America, but due to an illness he was not able to 
come as planned. I just wanted to make sure that he had 
intended to participate.
    We will now move on to questions and I will shift this up 
and I will let Mr. Bost do 5 minutes of questions first and 
then I will follow.
    Mr. Bost. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    This is a question for the entire panel, just trying to 
kick it off. Do you believe that the VA is being collaborative 
and transparent in its implementation of the Blue Water Navy 
Veterans Act?
    Mr. Liermann. No, we do not. DAV does not, they have not 
provided us a copy of their implementation plan. They have not 
showed us anything that they are planning to do outside of that 
one letter and, oh, their communications information.
    Ms. Rauber. No. We have not been communicated with at all. 
To VA's credit, during the AMA process they were very 
inclusive, but it is been radio silence on this.
    Mr. Gallucci. Ranking Member Bost, in our prepared remarks 
we did give some credit to Veterans Benefits Administration, 
specifically Dr. Lawrence, for some of the information that we 
had provided. Unfortunately, after coming into the room today I 
learned more from this statement about what VA's actual plan is 
in executing the Appeals Modernization Act than the pointed 
questions that we have asked in these meetings over the last 
few months.
    I worry that when they keep giving credit about the 
communication plan that they do not full understand what our 
organizations do in representing veterans in this benefits 
process. This is not just about leveraging our infrastructure 
around the country to tell veterans about VA benefits, but 
literally advocating on their behalf.
    Mr. Bost. Okay. Can I ask, I know, Mr. Liermann, you gave 
certain suggestions that you believed should be done. Are there 
other suggestions any of you might have that we could better 
get the communications open?
    Mr. Gallucci. Ranking Member Bost, I would like to touch on 
that because in our testimony, in our prepared remarks I did 
talk a little bit about how this relationship had worked with 
VA over the years. It seems to be a stark departure from 
normal.
    Now to Mr. Clark and Ms. Murphy's credit, we have worked 
with them for a number of years and have seen a lot of 
transparency from Veterans Benefits Administration. I have to 
question why we are not receiving the type of information that 
we used to receive. It becomes very problematic for our folks 
in the fields who are trying to advocate----
    Mr. Bost. Sure.
    Mr. Gallucci.--on behalf of our veterans.
    Mr. Bost. Sure.
    Mr. Liermann, I have got a question for you. Your testimony 
stated the VA's updates to DAV about its implementation of Blue 
Water Navy are at times contradictory and unclear. Okay. Can 
you give us examples of where they run clear and also where do 
they contradict themselves?
    Mr. Liermann. Oh, absolutely. It goes back to one of the 
points we have already been discussed this afternoon. 
Originally in July when we mentioned this issue between a 
supplemental claim form and the actual claim for applications, 
what they were going to do, we were reassured at a meeting in 
July that they would accept any claim from a previously denied 
Vietnam veteran on any form that they submitted. We were 
assured that at the meeting we were not the only stakeholder 
there. VFW was there and several other organizations, and that 
is where--I mean, it is contradictory.
    Now it is as if they never told us that and now they are 
sticking only to, no, it has to be on the right form otherwise 
we will not process the claim.
    Mr. Bost. Okay. I think I cut you off on--you were wanting 
to respond back on----
    Ms. Rauber. Oh, well, no. I think previously as we said 
with the AMA, VA really reached out to a broader group of 
stakeholders outside of just the big six. Many organizations 
that are actively involved in representing veterans and we have 
not seen that kind of collaboration in this area.
    I might just also add to what Shane just said, I think if 
you go back to 2015 and the real intentions behind allowing VA 
to require specific forms, it was not intended to ding a 
veteran when he is unable to submit the correct form.
    Mr. Bost. Right.
    Okay. Do any of you have suggestions on how VA can improve 
the outreach that they are doing right now?
    Ms. Rauber. I think one of the things that I suggested at 
the end of the testimony that is also raised by NVLSP is if you 
are sending out letters to veterans who were denied back in the 
80's, 90's, early 2000's, what is happening when those letters 
come back and they are undeliverable. There needs to be some 
real intensive look at, are we really reaching the people that 
have been denied before.
    Mr. Bost. Okay. Then I am going to do a follow up because I 
know each one of your service organizations. I know them well. 
I have in my office, in my--well, actually, both of my offices 
I actually have people who were former VSOs processors and it 
is a great advantage to have that. I have got two disabled 
veterans that they are like bird dogs on this. It is fantastic.
    How can we, our offices, help you to make sure you get the 
information as quick as possible so we can turn this up? We 
have worked too long on this. We have worked too long on it not 
to be able to roll it out and roll it out right.
    Mr. Liermann. Actually, one of the things that, similar to 
what Ryan was saying, I learned more information about what was 
going on with this process from both committee staffs than I 
have from a lot of the VA and VBA briefings on how this is 
rolling out. We are in constant communications with both staffs 
and we have been getting more information from them than we 
have actually been getting from VBA.
    Sharing information with us that is important and relevant 
to the point Ryan made, instead of just talking about outreach 
and getting the word out, we were not aware that they were 
going to have eight VA regional offices handle these claims. 
Nobody told us that. We found that out from this committee 
staff. We were not told what they were and have not been 
advised any of that information.
    I think what it really comes down to is they need to tell 
us what they are doing. They need to have open, honest 
conversations instead of just being worried about getting their 
information out for them on social media.
    Mr. Bost. Okay. Thank you. My time is done.
    Ms. Luria. You are welcome to continue if you have a 
further line of questioning.
    Mr. Bost. I will yield back.
    Ms. Luria. Well, I will continue with, you know, I will 
dovetail off of what Mr. Liermann said is that, you know, I 
really sense a frustration between the VSOs who are here to 
help the veterans, our representatives from the VA who I feel 
are trying to implement what is technically a complex process 
of having millions of pages of deck logs implemented and a tool 
to put all these things together and get all the people in 
place. It just seems like there is a stonewall where people are 
not communicating what efforts are taking place on both sides.
    Can you elaborate a little bit more about like what 
attempts have you tried to make, any of you at the table, to 
gather this information and what normal lines of communication 
may have broken down so perhaps we can help facilitate that?
    Mr. Liermann. Well, we attend regular meetings as has been 
eluded to before about just Blue Water Navy and how they are 
implementing it. However, a lot of the suggestions, a lot of 
the comments, a lot of the information we bring forward is not 
followed through with. It is not implemented. We made several 
suggestions on how to improve their letter to veterans. Only 
one or two were actually made. They disregarded several of the 
comments that we included. And then just sharing of 
information, I mean, we are sitting in the room with them, but 
yet they have not told us a lot of the information we just 
learned today.
    I am not sure where the breakdown is. We are in meetings 
together, but some of the significant information that was 
shared today just has not ben shared with us. We are not even 
aware of their plan because we have never seen it nor has it 
been talked about before prior to the hearing.
    Ms. Luria. Do you have something to add?
    Mr. Gallucci. I would agree with what Shane said there. It 
just seems like there is a different mind set. Again, we 
believe that there are a lot of hardworking advocates at the 
Department of Veterans Affairs who do want to get this right. 
Again, we talked to our offices in the field about what they 
are hearing, and even they are reporting back contradictory 
guidance. It seems to becoming either from a different level 
because we are seeing it across other business lines in VA.
    As you mentioned before, we are deeply integrated into the 
Veterans Benefits Administration and their processes to 
represent veterans in the benefits process, but then other 
reforms like MISSION Act and the community access standards, 
things like that, were dropped on organizations at the last 
minute. We are still not really sure what is happening with 
Care giver.
    The communication just is not--it is not there. Anything 
that this committee can do to assist in that and bring about 
more transparency, we certainly welcome it.
    Ms. Luria. Well, just the irony looking here, I mean, you 
are sitting with your backs to the folks who have the answers 
to the questions. You know, please take the opportunity while 
you are here in the room, you know, after the hearing to follow 
up with each other on some of these concerns because I assume 
that there might be mutual concerns in the flow of information.
    I really appreciate you pointing those out, and I think 
that we are all on the same team and we want to see this roll 
out effectively starting January 1st. We want veterans' claims 
to be handled as expeditiously and accurately.
    I think, Mr. Liermann, you mentioned that getting it right 
the first time as possible because these claims are long 
overdue and we want these people who have been effected by this 
exposure to receive the healthcare and benefits that they 
deserve, or their survivors in the case, the very unfortunate 
case that they may no longer be with us.
    I had some other questions. I think we have covered the 
issue of forms. We have brought that up. It is of concern and I 
think that they have indicated in the first part of the hearing 
that they will go back and take a look at that.
    I was also going to ask a question specifically about 
submarines, the importance of that, how frequently have you 
heard that, you know, from people that you interact with and 
could you just potentially amplify the importance of including, 
you know, submarines and submarine data in this process?
    Mr. Liermann. We were not even aware they were being 
excluded until, again, conversations with the committee staff. 
We had not been provided the information from VA that 
submarines were being excluded. We have had conversations 
with----
    Ms. Luria. Can I actually interrupt for a second?
    Just to be clear, and I know you can feel free to answer, 
you know, from sitting behind the witness table right now for 
Mr. Clark. I do not feel that they are being excluded. I just 
think, what if my understanding is because of the nature of the 
deck logs that they are not initially being included in the 
tool. If someone submits a claim and they did serve on a 
submarine, the tool would not contain that data. So then it 
would go through a separate review.
    You can turn around. Mr. Clark is nodding behind you; is 
that correct?
    Mr. Clark. That is correct.
    Ms. Luria. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that if anybody 
is watching this hearing and they did serve on a submarine, it 
is not being excluded. It is just that that data is not in this 
initial phase being incorporated into the tool. It may take a 
little bit longer to do the investigating. That person is still 
entitled to the same benefits, and their claim might just take 
a little bit longer to process.
    Mr. Liermann. That is great information and we are glad to 
hear it because, again, nobody has shared any of this 
information with us prior to the hearing.
    Ms. Luria. Well, thank you.
    Mr. Bost, do you have any additional questions for our 
witnesses?
    Mr. Bost. Yes. What is NOVAs position, as far as the 
importance of VA providing adequate control over the deck logs 
and the scanning process, in your----
    Ms. Rauber. What we have seen in the past with all kinds of 
scanning procedures of the VA is that often they are not as 
good as they should be. There is problems. There are issues. We 
want to be sure that there is adequate oversight over the 
scanning process. We believe that advocates who are properly 
accredited should have access to this tool that they are 
creating. Those deck logs for all the time that they are out 
being scanned are not available to researchers. We know some of 
our members who are working on behalf of Blue Water Navy 
veterans are being told, you know, these records are not 
accessible to you for this period of time.
    We really feel that VA's electronic processing issues are 
well known and need to be carefully looked at.
    Mr. Bost. Okay. All right. Then just kind of a follow up to 
that. It is, and I feel good about this. I hope your 
organizations do, too, that when Mr. Clark said that but they 
are not using the tool to get to know.
    Ms. Rauber. Yes. They had said that at a few meetings and 
we are glad to hear him confirm that.
    Mr. Bost. Okay.
    Ms. Rauber. We appreciate it.
    Mr. Bost. Then one last one is can you describe any 
training that the VA has provided to your organizations so far 
for Blue Water Navy?
    Ms. Rauber. None.
    Mr. Bost. Okay. I yield back. Thanks.
    Ms. Luria. Well, and also looking to this a little bit 
further, it appears that this partnership between the national 
archives and the VA that will result in the scanning of these 
deck logs, that they will actually now be more accessible to 
people afterwards because the national archives will be making 
them available digitally.
    I know that there is a time window just because of the 
logistics of physically taking these deck log books to a 
scanning facility where they are not available. I do get the 
impression that longer term this data will now be readily 
available to the general public in a much faster and easier 
way.
    I think there might be a delay right now for some people 
trying to do this research, but in general in the future I 
think it will be very accessible. I just wanted to point that 
particular thing out.
    I do not have any further questions for the panel. I want 
to thank you again for taking time to come speak to us today. 
You know, also thank Mr. Clark and Ms. Murphy for being here, 
and, really, just look forward to the ongoing and continuing 
dialog as we move forward to January 1st and then after January 
1st to have the ability to, you know, visit and interact with 
one or more of these eight sites where this processing is 
taking place because I think that would be useful for the 
members and our committee staff.
    Let us see if there is any other additional things that we 
should include.
    Mr. Bost, would you like to make any closing remarks?
    Mr. Bost. No. I just want to thank everyone for being here. 
I think, you know, it has been productive. We do, I mean, I can 
not say it enough. We want this done right. We want--it has 
been too long. Thank you.
    Ms. Luria. I just want to reemphasize again that these 
veterans have waited for decades to get these benefits and, you 
know, the goal of this hearing is to make sure that the VA has 
the resources, the personnel, conducts the training and all of 
the other pieces that are required for successful 
implementation so that we can get this right. We want veterans 
who submit their claims to get an accurate review and a 
positive response in the case where they are entitled to these 
benefits the first time around.
    Thank you all for being here to be part of that discussion.
    I would like to remind all members that they have 5 
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks, and 
include any extraneous material.
    This hearing is adjourned.     
      
    
      
=======================================================================


                         A  P  P  E  N  D  I  X

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


                    Prepared Statements of Witnesses

                              ----------                              


                   Prepared Statement Of Willie Clark

    Good afternoon, Chair Luria, Ranking Member Bost, and Members of 
the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today on the 
Veterans Benefits Administration's (VBA) plan to implement the Blue 
Water Navy (BWN) Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019. Joining me today is Beth 
Murphy, Executive Director of Compensation Service. Today, I will 
provide an update on how VBA is preparing to process disability 
compensation and survivors' claims as a result of the new law and what 
resources will be required for implementation.

Background

    Public Law (P.L.) 116-23, the BWN Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019 
(referred hereafter as BWN Act), was signed into law on June 25, 2019. 
The law provides that Veterans aboard a U.S. military vessel offshore 
of the Republic of Vietnam between January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975, 
are presumed to have been exposed to herbicides such as Agent Orange 
and may be entitled to service connection for conditions related to 
that exposure.
    VA appreciates the authority Congress provided to the Secretary to 
stay pending BWN claims until the law takes effect on January 1, 2020. 
VA executed a stay of pending claims on July 1, 2019. The stay is 
enabling VA to operationalize the new law to ensure the proper 
resources are in place to meet anticipated workload demands, to develop 
appropriate policies and procedures, and to create the necessary tools 
to accurately adjudicate claims under the new law.
    VA is committed to ensuring all Veterans and beneficiaries covered 
under the BWN Act receive the benefits they have earned in a manner 
that honors their service. Through the various activities discussed 
today, VBA is confident that awarding these claims will begin on 
January 1, 2020. VBA will provide priority processing for claims of 
Veterans who are homeless, experiencing financial hardship, terminally 
ill, and age 85 and older, in the same manner as other claims that 
receive priority processing.

Implementation Plan

    VBA is executing a comprehensive project management plan to process 
BWN claims timely and accurately. The Under Secretary for Benefits 
established a Tiger Team comprised of senior leaders and other subject 
matter experts who drive the progress. Also, an Integrated Project Team 
(IPT) was established that collaborates across VA organizations and 
partners and regularly reports statuses, issues, and risks to the Tiger 
Team. Finally, three sub-workgroups are preparing key program 
deliverables for field stations. These workgroups address policy and 
procedural matters, training and communications, and deck log scanning 
and Information Technology (IT) systems.

Policy and Procedures

    The BWN Act authorizes VA to implement the law prior to publishing 
regulations. Under this authority, VBA has issued interim guidance to 
the field in the form of USB Policy Letters for the handling of 
existing and incoming BWN claims. Meanwhile, we are currently working 
on publishing proposed regulations to codify certain aspects of these 
policies through the formal rulemaking process (with public comment) by 
the third quarter of this fiscal year. VBA continues to work through 
other policies and procedures, which will be finalized prior to the 
effective date of the law. The Secretary has adopted an evidence-based 
approach in verifying the locations of Navy ships for determining 
eligibility under the BWN Act that will result in greater consistency 
and uniformity across its regional offices.

Training and Communications

    BWN Training materials are currently being finalized and will be 
delivered nationwide to field employees in early December 2019. 
Further, as additional claims processors are hired to address the 
increased demand anticipated from the new law, VBA will deliver 
Challenge training for new hires.
    VBA has developed a robust communications plan for both internal 
and external stakeholders. A coordinated public outreach campaign is 
currently in development and designed to reach those claimants who are 
potentially eligible under the new law. This includes partnering with 
Veterans Service Organizations and other interested stakeholders to 
publicize BWN Act provisions through press releases, newsletters, 
media, and digital platforms (i.e., internet, email, social media, 
etc.). As part of this effort, VA recently sent targeted outreach 
through direct mailings to Veterans and survivors who submitted claims 
that were previously denied. In the outreach letters, VA provided the 
appropriate form and information necessary to receive consideration 
under the new law. VA is equipping employees with detailed policy and 
procedural guidance and call scripts for National Call Center agents.

Deck Log Scanning and Development of IT Systems

    This effort provides VBA claim processors with tools to efficiently 
identify vessels that traveled within 12-nautical miles seaward from 
the Vietnam water demarcation line as defined in the law. Along with 
the Naval History and Heritage Command, VBA collaborated with the 
National Archives and Records Administration, which has entrusted VBA 
with the care of their archival records in the form of deck logs. VA is 
managing a contract to scan and extract pertinent data from deck logs 
for over 1,800 ships created over a 13-year timeframe. Upon completion 
of this scanning effort, VA will return the paper deck logs as well as 
provide the deck log image files to the National Archives to 
incorporate into its digital catalog. VA is ingesting the data into an 
electronic tool, which will be utilized by claims processors to 
determine whether a ship operated in the offshore waters during the 
prescribed timeframe after consideration of all evidence of record. 
Furthermore, VBA is modifying its current corporate IT systems to allow 
for the accurate tracking and processing of BWN claims.

Claims Processing

    VBA will be ready to process these claims and begin awarding 
disability benefits on January 1, 2020. VBA has identified subject 
matter experts with extensive experience in reviewing and researching 
military service and other records from the field who have provided 
valuable insight to help inform policies and procedures, along with 
anticipated workload needs. VBA will have dedicated resources that will 
process these claims, including these specialized experts who will make 
the determination that Veterans had qualifying offshore service. As 
noted previously, VBA will provide priority processing for claims of 
Veterans who are homeless, experiencing financial hardship, terminally 
ill, and age 85 and older, in the same manner as other claims that 
receive priority processing.

Resources

    Considering that the BWN Act was signed into law in June 2019, 
after the 2020 budget process concluded, the 2021 budget process would 
be the first opportunity for VA to formally request resources to 
support the implementation of this law. In addition to funding to make 
benefits payments to Veterans who qualify under the provisions of the 
law, as described in this testimony, VA needs resources to hire, train, 
and support additional claims processors, to scan deck logs and Veteran 
records, and to modify IT systems. VA appreciates Congress' 
consideration in appropriating funding, which will enable VA to 
successfully implement the BWN Act and provide these Veterans and their 
Survivors the benefits and services they are newly entitled to receive.

Conclusion

    VA is committed to ensuring all BWN Vietnam Veterans and family 
members receive the benefits they have earned under the BWN Act. VBA 
has a comprehensive implementation plan to operationalize the 
requirements of the new law, and we are currently on track to begin 
awarding benefits on January 1, 2020. VA appreciates the support of 
Congress and this committee to continue to care for our Nation's 
Veterans and family members. This concludes my testimony. I would be 
happy to address any questions from Members of the Committee.
                                 ______
                                 

                  Prepared Statement of Shane Liermann

    Madame Chair, Ranking Member Bost and Members of the Subcommittee:
    Thank you for inviting DAV (Disabled American Veterans) to testify 
at today's oversight hearing on ``Preparing for Blue Water Claims - VA 
Status Update on Implementation.''
    DAV is a congressionally chartered national veterans' service 
organization (VSO) of more than one million wartime veterans, all of 
whom were injured or made ill while serving on behalf of this Nation. 
To fulfill our service mission to America's injured and ill veterans 
and the families who care for them, DAV directly employs a corps of 
more than 260 National Service Officers (NSOs), all of whom are 
themselves wartime service-connected disabled veterans, at every VA 
regional office (VARO) as well as other VA facilities throughout the 
Nation. Together with our chapter, department, transition and county 
veteran service officers, DAV has over 4,000 accredited representatives 
on the front lines providing free claims and appeals services to our 
Nation's veterans, their families and survivors.
    We represent over one million veterans and survivors, making DAV 
the largest VSO providing claims assistance. This provides us with an 
expert understanding and direct knowledge in navigating the VA claims 
and appeals process.

Lift the Stay

    We continue to call on Secretary Wilkie and the president to lift 
the stay placed on all Blue Water Navy claims issued on July 1st. 
480,000 of our over one million members are Vietnam veterans. Achieving 
justice for Blue Water Navy veterans and their families is of vital 
importance to DAV, our membership, and the thousands of veterans 
suffering from Agent Orange linked illnesses and diseases.
    Our testimony will address the decision by the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Procopio v Wilkie, the Secretary's 
stay and our concerns and recommendations for VA and Congress on the 
implementation of the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019.

Procopio v Wilkie

    On January 29, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal 
Circuit, in Procopio v. Wilkie, held that the intent of Congress is 
clear from its use of the term ``in the Republic of Vietnam,'' which 
under all available international law includes both its landmass and 
its territorial seas. This decision overruled VA's previous 
misinterpretations and determined that service in the Republic of 
Vietnam includes service in the territorial waters within 12 nautical 
miles of the baseline.
    This was true in 1991 when Congress adopted the Agent Orange Act, 
and the government has pointed to no law to the contrary. It is 
important to note that none of the Federal Circuit Judges determined 
the veteran should have been denied benefits. It has been well 
established that Blue Water Navy veterans were considered exposed to 
Agent Orange prior to the VA General Counsel Opinion of July 23, 1997. 
As noted by the Federal Circuit, the 1997 VA General Counsel Opinion 
was not based on any subsequent change of law, it was solely an 
interpretation of a regulation that was not specific to Agent Orange 
exposure.
    It seemed that justice for Blue Water Navy Vietnam veterans was 
within in our grasp. DAV reached out to the Under Secretary for the 
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and provided our recommendations 
for processing claims and appeals impacted by Procopio.
    However, the Administration continued to submit motions to the U.S. 
Supreme Court to extend the time for filing an appeal to their 
jurisdiction. These actions placed a stay on claims pending due to a 
possible appeal. In late May, the Administration announced they would 
not pursue an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Board of Veterans' 
Appeals lifted their stay on these cases and adjudicated 200 Blue Water 
Navy appeals. However, the Administration's actions resulted in 4 
months of delays on all pending Blue Water Navy claims within VA.

The Secretary's Stay

    Madame Chair, we thank you, Ranking Member Bost and all members of 
the subcommittee for your collective efforts in getting H.R. 299, the 
Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019, unanimously passed 
through the House in May. Subsequently, the Senate passed H.R. 299 
unanimously and on June 25th, the entire veterans community celebrated 
after President Trump signed H.R. 299 (P.L. 116-23), into law. This 
will correct the decades-long injustice for Navy veterans who had been 
blocked from receiving Agent Orange benefits because their service was 
in the waters offshore of Vietnam.
    However, our joy turned to dismay when VA Secretary Wilkie, on July 
1, issued a ``stay'' that stopped all processing of all benefit claims 
by Blue Water Navy veterans, including those already eligible to 
receive Agent Orange-related benefits based on the Procopio decision 
from January.
    In response, DAV and our VSO partners wrote to Secretary Wilkie on 
July 24th calling on him to lift or modify the blanket stay placed on 
all Blue Water claims, and immediately begin processing, adjudicating, 
granting and paying veterans for Agent Orange-related claims. We 
appealed on behalf of thousands of aging and ill Vietnam veterans and 
their survivors, many of whom have waited decades for the recognition 
that they too were exposed to Agent Orange and suffered negative health 
consequences as a result. We specifically asked the stay to be modified 
to address those claims of veterans and survivors with terminal 
illnesses, over the age of 85 or impoverished.
    Our pleas were left unanswered. On September 24, DAV, VFW, VVA and 
our fellow VSOs stood with House Veterans' Affairs Committee Chairman 
Takano and Senate Veterans' Affairs Ranking Member Tester, calling on 
President Trump to meet with us and to overrule the Secretary's choice 
to delay these earned benefits to the veterans and their families. As 
of today's hearing, we have not had any response from the White House.
    We do not believe it was Congress' intention to prevent every 
single Blue Water Navy veteran from receiving Agent Orange benefits for 
at least 6 months. Although the law does include a provision stating 
that, ``the Secretary may stay a claim...,'' it clearly does not State 
that the Secretary ``must'' stay all pending Blue Water claims. The 
reality is that this deeply flawed action delays, and in some cases, 
denies, benefits for veterans who will pass away before we reach 
January 1. Further, there are widows whose spouses have died this year 
- after the Court's ruling and after the law was enacted - who have no 
certainty whether they will receive survivor benefits.
    Robert ``Bobby'' Daniels, from Missouri, served in the Navy from 
1960 to 1964, including service onboard the USS Lexington, an Aircraft 
Carrier deployed to Vietnam. It was there, while serving as a 
Machinist's Mate that he was exposed to Agent Orange in the offshore 
waters. Bobby says that he has the ship logs to prove it.
    In 2011, Bobby was diagnosed with prostate cancer and diabetes, 
diseases that many of his former shipmates have also suffered from. 
Unfortunately, since 1997, VA has not provided the Agent Orange 
presumption of exposure for Blue Water Navy veterans like Bobby who 
served only in the waters offshore Vietnam without ever setting foot on 
the land. As he began this new battle, Bobby was blessed to have his 
wife of more than 50 years, Judy, a former school teacher, by his side. 
Over the years, Bobby and Judy have struggled through tough times 
together, including taking out a second mortgage to help pay for his 
medical expenses. Last year Bobby was told that his prostate cancer had 
reached a terminal stage with no cure possible. Although he had not 
previously sought benefits due to his prostate cancer or diabetes, he 
was now worried about how his wife would get by after he was gone, and 
filed new claims in January and February of this year so that his wife 
might be eligible for survivor benefits.
    It is unacceptable to force them to wait for life-changing benefits 
when VA has the authority to grant their claims right now. We call for 
immediate action on claims by Blue Water Navy veterans who already have 
sufficient evidence of record to grant benefits based on the Federal 
Circuit's Procopio decision, as well as those veterans who are 
terminally ill, of advanced age or impoverished.
    It has now been 275 days since the Procopio decision and 122 days 
since the Secretary chose to place a stay on all Blue Water Navy 
claims. How many more days will Bobby and the thousands like him be 
left to suffer and possibly die without access to VA benefits?

VA's Implementation of Blue Water Navy Claims: Concerns & 
    Recommendations

    Since the Secretary chose to stay all Blue Water Navy claims and 
appeals, VA has included DAV and our fellow VSOs in several meetings 
regarding the stay and their implementation of the Blue Water Navy 
Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019. We have been provided updates and at 
times contradictory or unclear information. To date, we have not been 
provided with any written plan on VA's implementation or their oft-
referenced operational action plan.
    On several occasions, VA has indicated that they planned and were 
developing Blue Water Navy claims during the entire stay. We have been 
advised that they plan to start requesting VA examinations for those 
cases requiring them. Senior VA officials continue to make statements 
that on January 1, 2020, VA will be prepared to make decisions and 
award benefits. This is indicative of VA having cases essentially pre-
adjudicated and are only waiting for January 1 to grant benefits. We 
have a question, if VA has cases ready to grant benefits on January1, 
why can't VA grant those benefits today, especially to those suffering 
without medical care, from terminal illnesses and those who are 
impoverished?
    Below are DAV's questions, concerns and recommendations regarding 
VA's implementation of the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 
2019.

    1. Priority Cases. On several occasions VA has advised they will 
prioritize cases for adjudication on January 1. Previously they noted 
that those veterans and survivors with terminal illnesses, over the age 
of 85 or impoverished would be their priority in adjudicating these 
cases. However, recently we have reviewed documents that indicate VA 
will only prioritize claims from veterans or survivors with terminal 
illnesses or over the age of 85, but not those suffering financial 
hardship or homelessness. We are concerned why these veterans and 
survivors have been left out of VA's prioritization of Blue Water Navy 
claims.

    VA's adjudication manual, M21-1 III.ii.1.D.1.a, updated on October 
15, 2019, lists the types of claims that require priority processing:

      claims from any claimant who is a participant in the 
Fully Developed Claim Program

      homeless

      terminally ill, or

      a survivor of a former prisoner of war (FPOW)

      disability compensation claims from any claimant who is 
experiencing extreme financial hardship, or

      more than 85 years old

    38 C.F.R. Sec.  20.902(c), the Board of Veterans Appeals Rule 902, 
Order of consideration of appeals, notes, a case may be advanced on the 
docket on the motion of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, a party to the 
case before the Board, or such party's representative. Such a motion 
may be granted only if the case involves interpretation of law of 
general application affecting other claims, if the appellant is 
seriously ill or is under severe financial hardship, or if other 
sufficient cause is shown. ``Other sufficient cause'' shall include, 
but is not limited to, administrative error resulting in a significant 
delay in docketing the case, administrative necessity, or the advanced 
age of the appellant. For purposes of this Rule, ``advanced age'' is 
defined as 75 or more years of age.

    Recommendation. VA should place a priority on all Blue Water Navy 
cases for veterans and survivors when there is a known terminal 
illness, severe financial hardship to include homelessness and those at 
risk, and those of advanced age.

    As noted, VA's adjudication manual notes that advanced age is 85. 
However, the Board of Veterans' Appeals defines advanced age as those 
of 75 or older. We recommend that VA should adopt the Board's Rule 902 
as priority for those with Blue Water Navy claims.
    Thousands of veterans and survivors have been denied these benefits 
for decades based on VA's own misinterpretation of law and in 
contradiction to the actual intent of Congress. Justice has been 
delayed far too long and VA should give priority to those veterans and 
survivors suffering from terminal illnesses, those with financial 
hardship to include homelessness, and those of 75 years of age or 
older.

    2. Cases handled by only eight VA Regional Offices. In an effort to 
provide consistent rating decisions and correct promulgation of awards 
with potential staged ratings and retroactive effective dates, VA has 
stated it will process pending Blue Water Navy cases at eight specific 
VA Regional Offices. We have been advised that initially, only 50 
employees will be provided the specific training to process and 
adjudicate these claims.

    We agree with VA's decision to have claims handled with specific 
trained expertise to properly and consistently adjudicate and 
promulgate these decisions. However we do have some concerns and 
questions:

      Will these eight specific VA Regional Offices, with 
initially only 50 employees processing these claims be able to keep up 
with the current pending 8,000 cases or will it cause a delay in 
processing and create another backlog of cases? Do they have sufficient 
resources at the eight locations?

      VA has recently sent out approximately 77,000 letters to 
previously denied veterans and survivors. Will these potentially 
forthcoming claims create a processing back log?

      Currently, VA processes all survivor benefits claims at 
only three VA Regional Offices: Philadelphia, Milwaukee and St. Paul. 
Will these three locations be part of the eight VA regional offices 
handling Blue Water Navy claims? If not, will there be sufficient 
expertise, training, and resources at those eight locations?

    3. VA Ship Locator Tool. VA, in concert with the Department of 
Defense (DOD) and the National Archives and Records Administration 
(NARA), has developed a tool that will track the locations of U.S. Navy 
ships that served in the waters offshore of Vietnam during the war. VA 
has received a list of ships with deck logs that DOD states were in the 
Vietnam waters. Millions of these deck logs with the ship's coordinates 
are being scanned, manually verified and logged into their tool.

    The tool will determine if the ship was within zone defined by the 
Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019. If the ship's location is 
not verified by the tool within the specific locations, VA will not 
deny the claim for that reason but VA will continue to develop for 
additional information to try to verify the ship's location.
    When the claims are being developed for the locations, VA will be 
taking screen shots of the tool's determinations and those images will 
be added the veteran's or survivor's electronic file in the Veterans 
Benefits Management System (VBMS). This information will then be 
accessible via VBMS to those VSOs, agents, and attorneys, who are the 
appointed accredited representatives.
    VA has stated that the tool will not be available to VSOs nor will 
it be public facing for veterans to use for their own claim 
development. However, it is our understanding that NARA may publish 
ship locations via their own website.
    None of the VSOs, to include DAV, have seen or will have access to 
this tool. We would like to note that tentatively, VA has scheduled a 
demonstration on November 18, 2019. We have several questions and 
concerns regarding the tool and its down-stream impact of the claims 
and appeals process.

      The information used by VA to create the tool is only the 
information as provided by the DOD. Are there ships that served within 
the determined area off shore of Vietnam that were not included or 
specifically excluded? Additionally, of those ships noted, are we 
certain that every deck log for every ship has been provided?

      DOD has specifically excluded submarines from the list 
provided to VA of ships that served in the waters offshore of Vietnam. 
While nuclear powered submarines can stay underwater for up to 90 days, 
diesel-power submarines had a limit of several days submerged. They 
couldn't run the air-breathing engines while fully submerged and had to 
rely on battery power and electric motors when underwater. They would 
have to surface and use the snorkel mast for air for the diesel engines 
to recharge the batteries and exchange fresh air. The last diesel-
powered submarine was decommissioned in 1990. However, they were used 
throughout the Vietnam War. Why were diesel-powered submarines excluded 
from the list of U.S. ships serving in the waters offshore?

      The tool only tracks U.S. ships and not the veterans who 
served aboard. This information can be gleaned from a veteran's DD-214 
or separation document, service medical records and service personnel 
records. What actions are VA undertaking for those veterans whose 
records have been determined to be destroyed by the 1973 fire at the 
National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis or destroyed in other 
ways?

        When records are determined to be lost or destroyed, the U.S. 
        Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 
        Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991), held that VA has a heightened duty 
        to consider the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule, 
        to assist the veteran in developing the claim, and to explain 
        the reasons and bases for its decision.

        Recommendation. VA needs to have a specific policy identified, 
        trained and enforced regarding records for Blue Water Navy 
        veterans that may not be available due to no fault of the 
        veteran or survivor. This heightened duty to assist and 
        application of the benefit of the doubt doctrine must be 
        adhered to by VA decision makers to ensure that veterans and 
        survivors are not being denied their benefits due to the 
        Federal Government's inability to protect or locate Federal 
        records. To ensure VA properly follows the Court in O'Hare for 
        all veterans cases to include Blue Water Navy, Congress should 
        codify the Court's holdings.

      Will the ships locator tool be available to the Board of 
Veterans' Appeals for those legacy appeals and Appeals Modernization 
Act (AMA) pending appeals that have been impacted by the Secretary's 
stay?

        The Board is prohibited from developing cases under its 
        jurisdiction; will this include using the ship locator tool? 
        Will this require the Board to remand legacy appeals? How will 
        this impact AMA appeals as they can only be returned to the VA 
        Regional Office of jurisdiction if there is a development 
        error?

    4. Letters to those previously denied. Although VA did engage VSOs 
in reviewing draft letters to previously denied Blue Water Navy 
veterans and survivors, none of our concerns, noted below, were 
included in the final letter.

      Duty to Notify. These letters advised previously denied 
veterans and survivors that if they intended to refile for those 
previously denied benefits, they needed to complete VA form 20-0995, 
Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim, which was provided. 
However, it was noted that if the veteran wanted to file a new 
disability claim related to Agent Orange exposure, VA form 20-0995 
could not be used and only directed them to VA's website.

        Recommendation. In accord with VA's duty to notify, VA must 
        provide VA form 21-526EZ, which is required for new claims, and 
        VA should provide one with the letter.

        DAV is extremely concerned about the lack of information and 
        clarity provided by VA's letter to those previously denied and 
        therefore we will be sending our own letters to over 8,000 
        veterans and survivors represented by DAV, who were previously 
        denied.

    5. Forms Issue. Currently, VA regulations State that in order for a 
claim to be considered it must be submitted on the appropriate claims 
form. If the veteran or survivor provides the wrong form, VA will not 
consider the claim, but will advise that the wrong form was used and 
not honor that submission or effective date. If the veteran or survivor 
responds with the correct form, the effective date will be the date the 
correct form is received.

    If a veteran submits a claim to refile for a previously denied Blue 
Water Navy claim on 20-0995 with a new disease related to Agent Orange, 
VA will not accept that new claim and will eventually advise the 
veteran of the need to file a 21-526EZ. The reverse is true if a 
veteran attempts to claim a previously denied issue on a 21-526EZ. It 
is difficult for a veteran to remember what was filed many years in the 
past. Therefore, VA should accept Blue Water Navy claims, whether new 
or previously denied, on either form.
    If VA does not change this policy, VSOs and veterans have no other 
choice than to file these claims on both forms as to ensure the proper 
claims are filed without veteran losing entitlements and effective 
dates. We acknowledge that this will create additional work for 
veterans, VSOs and the VA.
    This issue, which also applies to the entire VA process, has been 
raised multiple times with VA over the past several months. However, it 
is clear VA has no intention of changing this policy.

        Recommendation. Congress should enact legislation to require VA 
        to accept any new claim or previously denied claim being filed 
        on either VA form 20-0995 or VA form 21-526 EZ.

    As former VA Administrator, General Omar Bradley once said, ``We 
are dealing with veterans, not procedures; with their problems, not 
ours.''
    Madame Chair, this concludes my testimony on behalf of DAV. I would 
be happy to answer any questions you or other members of the 
Subcommittee may have.
                                 ______
                                 

                   Prepared Statement of Diane Rauber

    Chairman Luria, Ranking Member Bost, and members of the 
Subcommittee, the National Organization of Veterans' Advocates (NOVA) 
thanks you for the opportunity to testify on the topic of ``Preparing 
for Blue Water Navy Claims - VA Status Update on Implementation.'' We 
appreciate the Subcommittee's leadership in exercising its oversight 
authority over VA's implementation of the Blue Water Navy Vietnam 
Veterans Act of 2019.
    NOVA is a not-for-profit 501(c)(6) educational membership 
organization incorporated in the District of Columbia in 1993. NOVA 
represents over 600 attorneys and agents assisting tens of thousands of 
our Nation's military veterans, their widows, and their families 
seeking to obtain their earned benefits from VA. NOVA works to develop 
and encourage high standards of service and representation for all 
persons seeking VA benefits. NOVA members represent veterans before all 
levels of VA's disability claims process, and handle appeals before the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) and U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit). In 2000, the CAVC 
recognized NOVA's work on behalf of veterans with the Hart T. Mankin 
Distinguished Service Award.

OVERVIEW

    NOVA members have long fought for the rights of Blue Water Navy 
veterans and their families, representing them in individual claims and 
appeals before VA, BVA, and the CAVC, as well as advocating for the 
outcome achieved in Procopio v. Wilkie, 913 F.3d 1371 (2019). NOVA 
filed an amicus brief on behalf of Mr. Procopio before the Federal 
Circuit, and was joined by AMVETS, Military Officers Association of 
America, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans and Military 
Law Section of the Federal Bar Association.
    In Procopio, the Federal Circuit reversed its prior holding in Haas 
v. Peake, 544 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2008), found 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1116 
was unambiguous, and held those who served in the 12 nautical mile 
territorial sea of the ``Republic of Vietnam'' are entitled to the 
presumption of service connection for diseases associated with 
herbicide exposure. 913 F.3d at 1381. Approximately 5 months ar that 
decision, Congress passed the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 
2019. This legislation added to title 38, among other provisions, new 
section 1116A entitled: ``Presumptions of service connection for 
veterans who served offshore of the Republic of Vietnam.''
    We detail below concerns regarding implementation of this 
legislation that should be addressed to ensure Blue Water Navy veterans 
receive all the benefits to which they are entitled in a fair and 
timely manner.

POINTS OF CONCERN

DEVELOPMENT OF REGULATIONS AND AGENCY GUIDANCE

VA Must Not Use Agency Guidance To Skirt Notice And Comment 
    Requirements.

    The Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019 permits VA, 
``[n]otwithstanding section 501'' of title 38, to issue guidance before 
prescribing regulations. NOVA appreciates that this provision was 
intended to give the Secretary flexibility to adjudicate claims for 
Blue Water Navy veterans in an expeditious fashion. However, 
particularly given the Secretary's decision to issue a blanket stay as 
discussed in more detail below, this Subcommittee should ensure VA 
follows notice and comment requirements when issuing its regulations 
and does not issue permanent substantive guidance in the form of agency 
manual provisions. In other words, VA should not be permitted to hide 
behind this legislative provision and use its M21-1 manual provisions 
to avoid notice-and-comment rulemaking.

PENDING STAY ON BLUE WATER NAVY CLAIMS AND APPEALS

The Secretary's Implementation Of A Stay On All Blue Water Navy Claims 
    And Appeals Is Overinclusive and Harmful, And VA Should Lift It 
    Immediately To Resolve Claims and Appeals That Can Be Decided Based 
    On The Existing Evidence Of Record.

    On July 1, 2019, Secretary Wilkie issued a memorandum entitled 
``Stay of Pending Claims Under the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act 
of 2019.'' He relied on the stay provision included in Public Law 116-
23, to be codified at 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1116A(c)(3)(A): ``The Secretary 
may stay a claim described in subparagraph (B) until the date on which 
the Secretary commences the implementation of such section 1116A.'' A 
claim under subparagraph (B) is a claim for disability compensation 
``relating to the service and diseases covered by such section 1116A; 
and that is pending at the Veterans Benefits Administration or the 
Board of Veterans' Appeal on or ar the date of the enactment of this 
Act and before the date on which the Secretary commences the 
implementation of such section 1116A.''
    The validity of this stay has been challenged in the Federal 
Circuit. See Procopio, et al., v. Wilkie, No. 19-2184 (Fed. Cir. appeal 
docketed July 24, 2019; oral argument scheduled for November 8, 2019). 
Regardless of the Federal Circuit's decision, the Secretary's blanket 
stay on Blue Water Navy claims and appeals is overinclusive, 
unnecessary, and harmful.
    Specifically, the Procopio decision addressed the right of veterans 
to recover for benefits under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1116. 
The stay found in the new legislation addresses only Sec.  1116A 
claims. There simply is no reason for the agency to hold up pending 
Sec.  1116 claims and appeals. In many of these actions, the veteran 
has a diagnosis of a qualifying presumptive condition and the evidence 
of his Blue Water Navy service is already of record or relatively easy 
to determine. For example, if a veteran has a diagnosis of diabetes and 
has already produced deck logs of service on a ship within the 12 
nautical mile zone, the claim or appeal can be granted without delay.
    In fact, after the Federal Circuit decided Procopio, BVA lifted its 
pending stay predicated on that litigation in April 2019. See 
Memorandum No. 01-19-02, Stay Lifted On Adjudication of Appeals for 
Compensation Based on Alleged Exposure to Herbicide Agents In The 
Offshore Waterways Of The Republic Of Vietnam (April 1, 2019). From 
April until the Secretary's July stay, BVA proceeded to decide and 
grant appeals where the evidence of record warranted it under Procopio. 
See, e.g., Citation Nr: 19128696 (April 15, 2019) (BVA granted service 
connection for Parkinson's disease based on evidence of service on USS 
Dunham and Procopio decision); Citation Nr: 19137213 (May 14, 2019) 
(BVA granted service connection for diabetes mellitus, coronary artery 
disease, and peripheral neuropathy; relying on Procopio and finding 
``Veteran was stationed on the USS Lynde McCormick when it was in the 
territorial waters of Vietnam''); Citation Nr: 19137582 (May 15, 2019) 
(BVA granted service connection for cause of veteran's death based on 
evidence of service on USS Cochrane and USS White Plains and Procopio 
decision); Citation Nr: 19148388 (June 20, 2019) (BVA granted service 
connection for diabetes mellitus; veteran served on USS Capacon and 
``even if the Veteran did not step foot in the Republic of Vietnam, his 
ship certainly was within 12 nautical miles of such and he is presumed 
exposed to herbicide pursuant to Procopio v. Wilkie''). It is likely 
there are other cases such as these that could be decided with no need 
for additional development.
    Denying these veterans through a blanket stay is particularly 
harmful given the age and health of Blue Water Navy veterans. Many are 
eligible for priority processing at VBA or advancement on the docket at 
BVA due to their advanced age, financial hardship, or terminal illness. 
Even those who do not fall into these categories suffer from serious 
service-connected illnesses that have long limited or precluded their 
ability to work. After waiting years for justice, they are now faced 
with a longer wait for financial relief. Even if some claims and 
appeals must wait for additional evidentiary development and official 
VA guidance, the Secretary should lift the stay and allow VBA and BVA 
to dispatch - without further delay - all pending claims and appeals 
that can be decided based on the existing evidence of record.

DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF A SHIP LOCATOR TOOL

    In August 2019, the National Archives and Records Administration 
(NARA) entered into an agreement with VA to digitize U.S. Navy and 
Coast Guard deck logs dated from 1956 through 1978. Digitization 
Partnership Supports Veterans Claims, Access to Records, https://
www.archives.gov/press/press-releases-3 (August 21, 2019) (logs 
previously digitized are found at https://www.archives.gov/research/
military/logbooks/navy-online). According to NARA's press release, the 
current scanning project will include ``more than 20 million images.'' 
Id. Furthermore, NARA stated it ``will begin the process of making 
digitized records available on archives.gov, after images are 
transferred by the VA and the images are screened for privacy 
concerns.'' Id. Based on this digitization process, VA plans to create 
a tool for use by its adjudicators to consider Blue Water Navy claims 
and appeals.

VA Must Ensure Adequate Quality Control And Expert Assistance For 
    Scanning Of Deck Logs.

    VA's digitization processes are often problematic. For example, 
veterans and advocates experience problems with mail, forms, and 
evidence being properly scanned into VBMS through VA's Evidence Intake 
Center. These problems include delays in uploading, missing materials, 
mislabeling, and improper ordering. The CAVC noted ``grave concerns 
regarding VA's implementation and oversight of its conversion to a 
paperless claims process,'' and concluded ``the Secretary would be well 
served by reexamining both his records retention policies and his 
contracts with the vendors tasked to digitize veterans' records.'' 
Robinson v. McDonald, 28 Vet.App. 178, 191 (2016). Recent articles 
indicate that problems are not isolated to the scanning of veterans' 
claims files. See, e.g., VA's Health Records Digitization Backlog Is 5 
Miles High, https://www.nextgov.com/it-modernization/2019/08/vas-
health-records-digitization-backlog-5-miles-high/159383/ (August 22, 
2019).
    Ship deck logs are dense and largely handwritten. As noted by NARA, 
these logs contain ``information regarding movements (heading and 
speed), and the ship's location, and in some cases have information on 
combat operations, accidents, injuries, and other personnel events.'' 
Digitization Partnership Supports Veterans Claims, Access to Records, 
https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases-3 (August 21, 2019). In 
other words, these documents consist of critical numbers that will 
prove whether or not certain ships traveled in the territorial sea of 
the Republic of Vietnam. Sloppy scanning - whether through missed 
pages, unreadable images, or mislabeling - can result in denials to 
deserving veterans.
    Therefore, Congress should ensure VA provides adequate quality 
control over this scanning process, using vendors and staff who are 
qualified for the task. Likewise, any ``tool'' created from scanned 
deck logs should be developed by people with the appropriate expertise.

Advocates Need Access To VA's Ship Locator Tools.

    According to NARA's press release, while VA is scanning deck logs, 
``this group of records will be closed to researchers at National 
Archives facilities,'' with access ``restored as soon as possible after 
the paper records are returned.'' Digitization Partnership Supports 
Veterans Claims, Access to Records, https://www.archives.gov/press/
press-releases-3 (August 21, 2019). Regardless of when public access to 
the deck logs is restored, all properly accredited attorneys, agents, 
and VSOs should have access to the ultimate ship locator and/or mapping 
tool created by VA. Such access is critical to ensure all evidence is 
considered and properly interpreted so claimants receive all earned 
benefits.

VA Should Ensure The Tool Is Not Used To Deny Claimants.

    VA has stated at recent meetings that the ship locator tool will 
not be used to deny claimants. Rather, according to public statements, 
VA has represented that this tool will be used as a screening tool. If 
the tool indicates a veteran served on a ship within the designated 
coordinates, he or she will be deemed to have served in Vietnam for 
purposes of the presumption. If the evidence is inconclusive based on 
the tool, the veteran will not be denied but rather the claim will 
undergo additional development. In its regulations and manual guidance, 
VA must clearly explain this concept and provide adequate training to 
the field. VA guidance should also ensure that competent and credible 
lay evidence is given proper weight in deciding claims and appeals.
    Other questions and concerns related to use of the tool include the 
following: (1) what assurances will the claimant have that the ship 
locator tool is not used to deny claims and appeals; (2) what 
information will VA and BVA be required to include in its decisions to 
indicate that it has fully developed each claim, particularly in light 
of AMA requirements; (3) will VA and BVA notify the claimant as to 
additional information necessary to substantiate the claim when notice 
under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA) has been waived such 
as, for example, is permitted on VA's Supplemental Claim form (VA Form 
20-0995, box 16); and (4) what additional guidance will be available to 
adjudicators beyond the ship locator tool or lists to grant claims.

VA COMMUNICATION AND ADJUDICATION

VA Should Contact All Those Whose Claims Have Been Previously Denied 
    With Instructions On How To Refile.

    The legislation does not require VA to automatically readjudicate 
previously denied claims. It requires VA to conduct certain outreach, 
i.e., publishing information on its website and notifying VSOs about 
the right to refile. However, blanket outreach is ineffective if does 
not reach the intended recipients. Therefore, it is critically 
important that VA develop clear and appropriate materials, to include 
notice to those previously denied, explaining their right to refile 
their claim. Otherwise, deserving veterans stand to miss the 
opportunity to obtain their benefits. NOVA understands some VSOs have 
had the opportunity to review and comment on VA's intended 
communication, which currently does include such a letter; however, VA 
should continue to communicate with the broader group of stakeholders 
included in discussions of the AMA.

VA Must Ensure That Claims And Appeals Entitled To Priority Processing 
    or Advancement On the Docket Are Handled In An Expeditious Manner.

    As previously noted, many Blue Water Navy veterans are very ill, 
unable to work, and in great need of the benefits they have earned. 
VA's regulations and guidance should ensure that those entitled to 
priority processing or advancement on the docket are handled in the 
most expeditious manner possible.

CONCLUSION

    NOVA is committed to continue working with this Subcommittee, VA, 
and fellow stakeholders to ensure Blue Water Navy veterans receive all 
the benefits to which they are entitled in a fair and timely fashion. 
We again thank the Subcommittee for allowing us to provide our views on 
implementation of this critical legislation, and we would be happy to 
answer any questions the Subcommittee members might have.
    For more information:
    NOVA would be happy to assist you with any further inquiries you 
may have regarding our views on this topic. For questions regarding 
this testimony or if you would like to request additional information, 
please feel free to contact:

    Diane Boyd Rauber, Esq.
    Executive Director
    National Organization of Veterans' Advocates, Inc.
    1775 Eye Street, NW
    Suite 1150
    Washington, DC 20006
    (202) 587-5708
    [email protected]

Diane Boyd Rauber

    Diane Boyd Rauber is the Executive Director of the National 
Organization of Veterans' Advocates, Inc. (NOVA) in Washington, DC. 
NOVA is a not-for-profit 501(c)(6) educational membership organization, 
representing over 600 attorneys and agents assisting tens of thousands 
of our Nation's military veterans, their widows, and their families to 
obtain benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
    Prior to joining NOVA in September 2015 as Director of Legislative 
and Regulatory Affairs, Ms. Rauber served as Associate General Counsel 
for Appeals at Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA). In this capacity, 
she oversaw PVA client representation before the Board of Veterans' 
Appeals (BVA), provided support and training to PVA's service officers, 
and analyzed cases for potential appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals 
for Veterans Claims (CAVC).
    She previously worked as of counsel to the Law Office of Wildhaber 
and Associates and as a staff attorney for the National Veterans Legal 
Services Program, representing veterans and their families before BVA 
and the CAVC. She frequently presents at veterans' law conferences, on 
topics including successful advocacy, legislative reform, and military 
history research.
    She also served as a consultant to the American Bar Association 
Center on Children and the Law. In this capacity, she collaborated on 
legal research projects, writing and editing numerous reports and 
publications on an array of child welfare topics, to include court 
improvement, education, child custody, parent representation, and 
judicial excellence.
    Ms. Rauber received her B.S. in Communication Disorders from Penn 
State University, M.Ed. in Special Education from the University of 
Pittsburgh, and J.D. from the Catholic University of America School of 
Law. She is a member of the Maryland and District of Columbia Bar 
Associations, as well as a member of the CAVC Bar Association, the CAVC 
Historical Society, and the Maryland Bar Association Veterans Affairs 
and Military Law Section.
                                 ______
                                 

                  Prepared Statement of Ryan Gallucci

    Chairwoman Luria, Ranking Member Bost, and members of the 
subcommittee, on behalf of the 1.6 million men and women of the 
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW) and its Auxiliary, 
thank you for the opportunity to provide our insight on the Department 
of Veterans Affairs' implementation of the Blue Water Navy Vietnam 
Veterans Act of 2019.
    First, the VFW applauds this committee and your colleagues across 
the House and Senate for working to pass the Blue Water Navy Vietnam 
Veterans Act of 2019, once and for all correcting a horrible injustice 
for our Vietnam veterans. We also thank the President for his swift 
action in signing this bill into law. This long-overdue legislation has 
the potential to truly change lives and you should be commended for 
taking this up and holding VA accountable for its responsible 
implementation.
    The VFW has been following implementation of the Act very closely 
and we will address several facets of implementation in our written 
remarks, focusing on VA Secretary Robert Wilkie's authority to stay 
claims covered by the Act, VA's creation and execution of its plan to 
process covered claims, how problems with the Appeals Modernization Act 
may affect VA's plans to responsibly handle the anticipated workload, 
and the need for comprehensive toxic exposure reform.

Secretary's Authority to Stay Certain Claims

    In light of last week's publication in Military Times of 
correspondence between former VA Secretary David Shulkin and officials 
within the Trump Administration on continuing to delay new presumptive 
conditions for Vietnam veterans exposed to Agent Orange, the VFW has a 
different perspective on some of the challenges we have seen in VA over 
the past year in implementing reforms like the Blue Water Navy Vietnam 
Veterans Act (BWN Act) and the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). Sadly, 
some of the roadblocks we have seen over the past year now appear to be 
deliberate in complicating the process and delaying certain benefit 
reforms as ways to save money. These earned benefits are not charity -- 
they are a cost of war. As VFW National Commander William ``Doc'' 
Schmitz said last week:
    ``We cannot, and will not, stand by and allow another veteran to 
lose their life because of the bureaucracy of Washington. The time for 
waiting is over.''
    This sentiment holds true not only for expansion of Agent Orange 
presumptive conditions, but also to the sense of VA toward Blue Water 
Navy expansion.
    After the landmark Procopio v. Wilkie decision earlier this year, 
we continued to hear VA Secretary Robert Wilkie comment that the 
science did not support expanding presumption to Blue Water Navy (BWN) 
veterans -- a position of his that helped to sink the BWN Act in the 
previous Congress. Subsequently, Secretary Wilkie directed his 
department to delay processing any claims and appeals authorized under 
Procopio until the courts ordered VA to start processing its pending 
BWN workload.
    Fast forward to the passage of the BWN Act -- no sooner had 
President Trump's signature dried on the bill that Secretary Wilkie 
took the drastic step to exercise his authority to stay certain claims 
and applied it unilaterally to any claim that could be covered under 
the law -- even claims that VA could already grant, like Korean DMZ 
claims between April 1, 1968 and August 31, 1971.
    VA continues to assert that the stay was designed to allow VA the 
time to create systems to properly process BWN claims. The VFW 
understands this to an extent. Given the specificity of the law in 
outlining the geographic boundaries for ships on which eligible 
veterans must serve, we know that VA needed the time to build a tool 
for verification.
    To his credit, Dr. Paul Lawrence, VA Under Secretary for Benefits, 
and his team should be applauded for their work on this system in 
concert with the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), 
aggressively scanning Navy deck logs to ensure they have the ability to 
get to ``yes'' for certain BWN veterans.
    The timeline in developing this tool was very aggressive, and VBA 
has shared that it is already operational. We look forward to a 
scheduled demo for VSOs on November 18.
    However, aside from this new tool, not much should need to change 
in the benefits administration process for BWN veterans and other 
covered veterans under the BWN Act. VA has been processing Agent Orange 
presumptive claims for years and already has the systems in place to 
evaluate the extent of these presumptive conditions and to even award 
retroactive benefits. This is why the VFW and our partner VSOs were so 
vocal about the blanket stay after the signing of the BWN Act.
    In partnership with Disabled American Veterans, Vietnam Veterans of 
America, and others, we called attention to the effects of the stay in 
a press conference earlier this month. Unfortunately, VA tried to 
obfuscate the effects of the stay on veterans by asserting that these 
veterans were not necessarily denied care or implying that survivors 
could wait a little longer. To the VFW, it was not just about the 
potential denial of care, but more about the financial ruin that 
veterans would have to face for their life-saving care that should have 
been covered by VA all along. For survivors, months without benefits 
for the loss of their loved ones could mean losing a home or amassing 
debt to make ends meet. Moreover, for veterans who stand to lose their 
battles with these illnesses, why would we want them to wait even 
longer?
    With these scenarios in mind, the VFW calls on this Subcommittee to 
commission a report from VA on the effects of the stay, asking the 
following questions:

        - How many BWN covered veterans requested expedited processing 
        due to financial hardship or terminal illness during the stay?

        - How many BWN covered veterans died during the stay?

    Next, the Secretary asserted that the bill did not take effect 
until January 1, 2020. This is only partially true. While the expansion 
of certain programs like Spina Bifida benefits for Thailand dependents 
and an earlier presumptive date for certain Korean DMZ claims do take 
effect in January, VA was already compelled by the courts to grant 
benefits for BWN veterans under current law through Procopio. The only 
change that we see in the BWN Act is the specificity on geographic 
boundaries for certain BWN veterans and comprehensive reporting 
requirements for VA. Otherwise, we view the law as simply a 
clarification of current laws, compelling VA to grant benefits for a 
long-overlooked class of Vietnam-era veterans.
    The stay was particularly egregious when applied to Korean DMZ 
claims. While it may have been reasonable to consider staying Korean 
DMZ claims between September 1, 1967 and March 31, 1968, the Secretary 
instead decided to halt all work on all Korean DMZ claims -- even those 
that were routinely granted under current authorities.
    When looking at the stay authorized in the BWN Act, the VFW has a 
very different perspective from the Secretary. We believe that the stay 
did not give him the authority to stop processing all claims possibly 
covered by the act, but instead gave the Secretary the space to stay 
claims that required further development under certain authorities of 
the new law. To the VFW, the stay under the BWN Act should have meant 
that VA should grant what it could in the interim under Procopio and 
other current VA policies, but stay any potential covered claims that 
either required further development or would have resulted in denials.
    One of our service officers in Virginia, Ken Wiseman, who this 
Subcommittee knows worked as an architect of this legislation when he 
served on the VFW National staff summed up the stay in very poignant 
manner:
    ``Veterans are dying and that is not a theatrical claim. Their 
benefits waiting are a slap in the face as the surviving spouse will 
get the [Dependents Indemnity Compensation] but what about the debts 
from health care that would have been covered otherwise? Anything that 
you can get after death is just a benefit that should have been granted 
in life. VA has no leg to stand on as this is not a new program to 
implement, just an expansion of the number of people eligible for the 
benefits. We saw a similar growth in use of the GI Bill but I do not 
know that there was a stay on new enrollments into the Montgomery [G.I. 
Bill] after September 11, 2001.''
    With this in mind, the VFW recommends that Secretary Wilkie lift 
the stay on processing these benefits immediately. We know that certain 
claims can be granted right now. Waiting until January not only harms 
veterans, but creates an unnecessary backlog for VA at a time we can 
ill afford it.

VA's Plan to Process Covered Claims

    The VFW has worked closely with Dr. Lawrence and his team at every 
opportunity to provide insight into their aggressive deployment of new 
policies and procedures. To his credit, Dr. Lawrence has been 
responsive to the VSOs by offering opportunities to review letters to 
veterans and, most recently, VA's communications plans to explain the 
processes to veterans. Despite the stay, our assessment is that Dr. 
Lawrence and the dedicated staff at VBA have taken this charge very 
seriously and want VBA to be in the best possible position to grant 
benefits as soon as possible.
    Just last week, we were offered the opportunity to comment on VA's 
frequently asked questions, training presentations, and decision making 
scenarios that will end up communicating to veterans what to expect 
from the process. Our initial assessment is that these were generally 
well thought out, and that veterans should easily understand that VA 
expects previously denied BWN veterans to file a supplemental claim on 
VA Form 20-0995 and BWN veterans filing for the first time to file on 
VA Form 21-526EZ.
    VA must move aggressively to get this information in front of 
veterans and the VFW stands ready to leverage our networks to make sure 
that our members, our service officers, and the veterans we represent 
are fully informed of the process.
    However, we are concerned about the lack of formal policy guidance 
on how BWN and other covered claims are to be handled at the VA 
Regional Office level. To VBA's credit, they have been transparent with 
the VSOs that formal regulations will not be proposed before January, 
but that interim policy guidance would be available in mid-October.
    Today is the last day of October and we are not tracking on the 
policy guidance, and neither are our representatives in the field. This 
is worrisome for two reasons: First, it is very difficult for us to 
provide our accredited field staff with the training they require in 
the absence of formal VA guidance. Second, VFW is concerned that the 
interim policy guidance may differ from the final promulgated 
regulations, meaning that VA would again need to readjudicate certain 
covered claims.
    To prepare for this hearing, VFW solicited the feedback of our 
global network of accredited service officers who work with veterans 
every day to understand their benefits. What we received demonstrated 
inconsistency across VA.
    In Ohio, one of our service officers told us that he was instructed 
to complete three forms for any BWN claimant -- VA forms 20-0995, 20-
0996, and 21-526EZ ``just to be safe.'' This highlights another issue 
that the VSOs have tried to resolve related to AMA, recognizing that it 
would have dire consequences for veterans covered under the BWN Act.
    In Idaho, one of our State partners was tracking a BWN claim that 
was actually granted in September in spite of the stay, only to 
discover that the veteran was given an improper effective date.
    Finally, in Maine, our service officer reported two veterans whose 
claims related to BWN were never properly established, even though they 
were filed on the prescribed 0995 form.
    We believe that these examples underscore the critical need for 
policy guidance in the field for both VA staff and VSO advocates. VA 
must work aggressively to approve, publish and communicate this 
guidance as soon as possible.
    Despite the lack of policy guidance, the VFW believes that VBA is 
generally heading in the right direction. VBA informed the VSOs that 
they planned to start scheduling exams in October, and we do see this 
happening. As of last week, VBA reported that exams were underway and 
that they intend to queue claims as ``ready for decision,'' while 
waiting for the stay to expire. This is positive and commendable for 
VBA, but VFW believes this again underscores the unnecessary nature of 
Secretary Wilkie's stay on benefit grants.

Appeals Modernization Implications

    We cannot discuss BWN implementation without also discussing 
certain unintended consequences of AMA implementation. Earlier in our 
testimony, we pointed to an example of how AMA is impacting VA's 
workflow in the field, establishing claim review actions for veterans 
who were previously denied a benefit.
    Just before AMA went live, VFW and DAV called VBA's attention to a 
problematic interpretation of the AMA and VA's plans to only accept 
claims for reopened conditions on VA Form 20-0995. At the time, we 
warned VA of a hypothetical scenario where a veteran would meet with 
one of our advocates for the first time and would not know whether or 
not they previously filed a claim for a certain condition.
    Since we would not have access to the veteran's claim file at this 
time to verify whether or not a claimed condition was previously 
adjudicated, our normal, good-faith business practice would be to file 
a Power of Attorney on VA Form 21-22 and submit a claim on the 
veteran's behalf on VA Form 21-526EZ.
    However, once VA receives this claim, they may determine that some 
conditions were previously adjudicated by VA. At this point, VA closes 
out the claim for any previously denied conditions, and generates a 
``Request for Application'' letter to the veteran, inviting them to 
file a supplemental claim on a different form.
    In our understanding of AMA and VA's own regulations under 38 CFR 
3.160, the 526EZ contains all of the information required by VA to 
establish the claim on a standard claim form prescribed by the 
Secretary. However, VA makes the arbitrary choice not to establish, 
creating more bureaucratic hurdles for the veteran.
    Though we raised this as a hypothetical in February, we started to 
see these scenarios play out with real claims over the next couple of 
months, resulting in lost benefits for veterans. In June, a coalition 
of many of the largest VSOs with VA-recognized benefits assistance 
programs asked that Dr. Lawrence look into our concerns over the new 
forms as well as the lack of applicability of Intent to File (ITF) for 
supplemental claims after the 1-year review period.
    To his credit, Dr. Lawrence and his team did review the ITF issue 
and we expect a revision to this in the coming months. However, VBA has 
not addressed the forms issue. We worry that under BWN, this situation 
will only be exacerbated when veterans' claims are turned away.
    Though this is not a fatal flaw for BWN veterans, since they will 
be entitled to an earlier effective date regardless, we still believe 
that this creates unnecessary confusion and delay for veterans and 
unnecessary work for VA at a time when VA's resources are already 
limited.
    The confusion over standard forms is unnecessary and we compel VBA 
to take a hard look at this. We believe it does not require a 
regulatory change, and in fact, is in direct contradiction to the 
intent of Congress under AMA.
    Finally, even though there are certain actions VA can take to 
correct this moving forward, any action VA takes would only apply to 
veterans who apply for future benefits. The VFW is worried about 
veterans who have already been harmed by these inconsistencies in AMA. 
To remedy this, we recommend the following: First, VA should report on 
how many veterans were affected by the ITF and standard forms issues 
since February 19, 2019. Second, Congress should consider legislation 
to award retroactive benefits to this select group of beneficiaries 
affected by this unintended consequence of AMA. The VFW stands ready to 
work with this Subcommittee on how to best address this issue.
    Based on our daily interactions with VBA and the long-standing 
relationships VFW has built over our first century of advocating for 
veterans' benefits, we believe that VBA has many hard working and 
dedicated professionals who want to get this right. The problem, 
however, comes at other levels of the bureaucracy who seem more 
interested in political maneuvering than helping veterans.
    Historically, when VA implements major reforms, like the BWN Act, 
they work in close consultation with VA-recognized Veterans Service 
Organizations like the VFW who interact with veteran clients of VA 
benefit programs every day. In the meetings I have had with VBA on 
this, I almost sense a palpable frustration among many VA leaders they 
cannot share more with the VSOs that help their system function.
    Dr. Lawrence has tried to keep VSOs apprised of what VA is thinking 
in developing its policies -- so much so that he personally sought out 
ideas from the VSOs on how to handle the potential influx of BWN claims 
from the time the Procopio ruling came down. Unfortunately, we still 
see a stonewall that is seemingly out of Dr. Lawrence's control. After 
all, this stonewalling seems pervasive across other VA business lines, 
such as the delayed implementation of the Caregiver expansion or the 
failure to properly study the health marketplace before implementing 
MISSION Act access standards - which VA released only days before 
implementation.
    What we ask for as VA-recognized organizations that provide legal 
representation for our clients in the benefits process is transparency 
and collaboration. We have been promised time and again that VA will 
improve in this area and to their credit, we have seen improvement but 
not consistently. That seems to be hard to find under Secretary 
Wilkie's leadership. In order for our advocates to properly represent 
the best interest of our veterans, VA should welcome our feedback in 
stress testing their systems and providing input on how to best serve 
our shared constituency.

Comprehensive Toxic Exposure Reform

    Finally, the VFW calls on Congress to take up comprehensive toxic 
exposure reform that proactively addresses the likelihood of 
presumptive conditions and necessary care for past, current, and future 
conflicts. In a century of advocating for veterans' benefits, the VFW 
sees little consistency in how we identify toxic exposures, then offer 
care and benefits to those affected. We should not need an Agent Orange 
Act or an Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune 
Families Act each time we verify a new hazard to military duty. 
Veterans instead deserve a consistent, proactive process to address 
toxic exposure concerns that history clearly shows us will emerge in 
every conflict.
    We should not be debating in 2019 whether or not the use of Agent 
Orange more than 50 years ago was harmful for our veterans. We know it 
was and so does VA. We worry that this same scenario is already playing 
out for today's veterans exposed to open air burn pits and other toxins 
on the modern battlefield. Congress should take up legislation to 
establish a process for granting care and benefits for verifiable toxic 
exposures, and the VFW stands ready to work with this Subcommittee to 
make this a reality.
    One hundred years ago this month, the VFW National Veterans Service 
helped our first veterans navigate a complex veterans' benefits 
landscape. Ever since, our interest has been to work collaboratively 
with Congress and VA on ways to improve the process. Today, our cadre 
of 2,100 professional advocates assist more than half a million 
veterans in understanding and accessing their benefits. We know the 
issues, we understand the problems, and we understand the affects these 
programs have on the lives of our veterans and their loved ones. We 
hope that the comments and recommendations we have presented today will 
be valuable to this Subcommittee and to VA leadership in ensuring we 
deliver timely and accurate benefits to our Vietnam-era veterans who 
were exposed to Agent Orange.
    Madame Chairman, this concludes our remarks and I am eager to 
answer any questions this Subcommittee may have.
                                 ______
                                 

                   Prepared Statement of Rick Weidman

    Good afternoon Chairwoman Luria, Acting Ranking Member Bost, and 
other Representatives of this distinguished subcommittee. On behalf of 
the VVA National President, John Rowan, and the membership of Vietnam 
Veterans of America, I thank you for affording VVA the opportunity to 
testify today on the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019 
(``BWN Act'').
    The passage of the BWN Act, shortly after the landmark Procopio 
decision, was a long time coming for tens of thousands of sailors and 
Marines afflicted by the toxic substance, Agent Orange, which was so 
liberally sprayed in South Vietnam during the years of our war there. 
The BWN Act recognizes those Vietnam veterans who served within 12 
nautical miles seaward from the demarcation line of the waters of 
Vietnam and Cambodia between January 9, 1962 and May 7, 1975. Like 
their boots-on-the-ground counterparts, they are now presumed exposed 
to Agent Orange.
    The new law also expands the recognized exposure dates from April 
1, 1968--August 31, 1971 to September 1, 1967--August 31, 1971 for 
those veterans who served in or near the DMZ in Korea. Recognition of 
claims for children with spina bifida whose parents served in Thailand 
is now covered as well. Many have waited more than half a century to 
receive life-saving medical support, and disability compensation for 
Parkinson's disease, prostate cancer, ischemic heart disease, Type 2 
diabetes, and other conditions associated with exposure to Agent 
Orange.
    Time is of the essence to swiftly and respectfully implement the 
life-saving provisions of the BWN Act. Unfortunately, the VA has failed 
to demonstrate any real recognition of the urgency of the new law's 
provisions. The VA initially issued an overly broad and thoughtless 
stay that has resulted in denying health care benefits to terminally 
ill ``Blue Water Navy'' veterans. VA leadership seems unwilling to 
clarify in its disseminated information just what the BWN Act does and 
does not do, which could have the unfortunate effect of confusing 
eligible veterans, their family members and survivors whether or not 
they even qualify for benefits in the first place. VA has also been 
resistant to resolving identified form issues for new and previously 
denied claims, which will likely create additional roadblocks for 
eligible veterans and family members receiving the maximum benefits 
they are entitled to under the law.
    Much still can be done to ensure that those entitled to benefits 
under the new law receive benefits as expeditiously and accurately as 
possible. VVA fully supports VA's request for additional funding to 
ensure that they have sufficient staffing and support to properly 
adjudicate claims under this law.
    Here are the issues as we see them:

The VA Secretary's 1 July 2019 Stay Is Overly Broad and Is Harming 
    Eligible Veterans, Their Families and Survivors.

    At the forefront of all policy decisions, the VA must consider the 
specific population that is affected by the law. Today, the average age 
of a Vietnam Veteran is 73 years; hence, time is of the essence as a 
grant of benefits can mean obtaining life-saving health care. Under 
Procopio, the VA has the authority to grant claims now, as adjudicators 
had been doing for several months prior to the stay. Indeed, the 
Veterans Benefits Administration, the VBA, had the process and 
procedures in place to apply Procopio since June 4, 2019.
    Nevertheless, the VA decided, in a 1 July 2019 memorandum, to issue 
an unnecessarily broad and arbitrary stay on all Blue Water Navy 
claims, Korean DMZ claims, and all claims for children with spina 
bifida whose parents served in Thailand. VVA recognizes that the BWN 
Act and Procopio are not identical and that VA will need time to 
prepare to implement the nuances that the BWN Act brings. Still, what 
is VA's rationale for staying decisions for those veterans who were 
along the Korean DMZ between April 1, 1968 and August 31, 1971, 
inasmuch as VBA raters had been adjudicating these claims for years 
prior to the stay? What is VA's rationale for staying claims for 
children with spina bifida whose parent served in Thailand? What is 
VA's rationale for staying claims that they can grant under Procopio?
    This broad, overarching, and completely unnecessary stay is harming 
veterans. In one case, for example, the VA decided to stay a terminally 
ill veteran's appeal despite the fact that they had already conceded 
exposure to Agent Orange prior to the stay. There is a bit of hypocrisy 
here. The VA touts its mission of fulfilling President Lincoln's 
promise: ``To care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his 
widow, and his orphan.'' Right now, the VA already has a pile of claims 
it is ready to grant on January 1, 2020. We wonder - as we trust you 
will as well - just how many veterans in this stack of claims will die 
before January 1st? Why does the Secretary refuse to lift the stay and 
grant these claims immediately? The mission of the VA, after all, is to 
care for those who have served in uniform and not delay delivery of 
benefits so that VA can issue a press release on January 1st touting 
how much money they managed to award in a single day.

The VA's Continual Misstatement of Just What the Law Establishes 
    Threatens the Delivery of Benefits to Veterans.

    VVA is concerned over some of the messaging thus far concerning the 
stipulations in the BWN Act. The law does establish that certain 
veterans who served offshore of the Republic of Vietnam and in or near 
the Korean Demilitarized Zone during specific time periods shall be 
presumed to have been exposed to an herbicide agent. The law, however, 
does not indicate that a claimant is only eligible for benefits if he 
or she has a disability that is recognized as a disease associated with 
exposure to certain herbicide agents noted in 38 C.F.R. Sec.  3.309(e). 
Indeed, a veteran may provide a medical nexus to prove a health 
condition not enumerated in Section 3.309(e) is caused or aggravated by 
exposure to an herbicide agent. This is particularly relevant for 
veterans suffering from bladder cancer, hypothyroidism, Parkinson's-
like symptoms, and hypertension, as these disabilities have not yet 
been added to the recognized list of presumptions to service 
connection.
    Nevertheless, and despite VVA and other VSOs clarifying this point 
on multiple occasions, the materials that have been released by the VA 
thus far seem to suggest that veterans will be eligible under the BWN 
Act for benefits only if they can provide evidence that they have a 
presumptive disability pursuant to Section 3.309(e). (See, e.g., VA 
Letter to Previously Denied Compensation Claimants [With No EP-335 
Pending]).
    The VA's Vietnam Blue Water Navy Veterans Fact Sheet (7-5-2019), 
which is available online, also states: ``To be entitled to disability 
compensation benefits, these Veterans must have one or more of the 
conditions associated with Agent Orange exposure that are listed in 38 
Code of Federal Regulations section 3.309(e).'' (Vietnam Blue Water 
Navy Veterans, https://www.va.gov/BWN-one-pager-7-5-2019-V4.pdf 
[emphasis added]). We are concerned that the VA is failing to make this 
important distinction, thereby effectively deterring otherwise eligible 
claimants from filing a claim. The VA would do a lot better by 
listening and incorporating VSOs' feedback and advice, so that all 
eligible beneficiaries are made aware to apply for benefits due to them 
under the law.
    VVA is also concerned about the messaging to eligible survivors and 
dependents. VVA urges VA to pay special attention to the messaging and 
outreach to eligible survivors, as awareness of the benefits available 
and how to access these benefits must be prioritized. Unfortunately, 
proper recognition of the sacrifices of our veterans took multiple 
decades to be realized; we now have a responsibility to the families 
who also sacrificed so much. Accurate, helpful, and targeted messaging 
to eligible survivors and dependents is necessary and must be also 
prioritized.

The VA's Rigid and Harmful Policies Concerning Previously Filed Claims 
    Threatens the Delivery of Benefits to Veterans.

    VVA fears that new VA form requirements, as required pursuant to 
the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) through regulations, will create 
additional barriers to eligible beneficiaries who seek to reopen 
previously denied benefits claims. Specifically, for veterans who 
previously filed for a ``same or similar benefit on the same or similar 
basis,'' must file for such benefit on VA Form 20-0995. Veterans filing 
for a new benefit, however, must file on VA Form 21-526EZ.
    VVA believes that it is an unreasonable expectation for a veteran 
to determine how the VA will interpret ``same or similar'' when he or 
she seeks to file for a benefit. This is particularly true for those 
veterans who have applied for benefits many years ago. To ensure that a 
veteran or family or survivors do not lose any benefits, VVA's current 
practice requires veterans service representatives to often submit both 
Form 20-0995 and Form 21-526EZ; this creates unnecessary paperwork and 
administrative burdens for the VA as well.
    Because VA Form 21-526EZ contains all of the same information VA 
would collect through VA Form 20-0995, VVA believes that the VA should 
accept any claim, original or supplemental, on the same form -- VA Form 
21-526EZ -- after the 1-year appeal period has elapsed. This would be 
particularly helpful for Blue Water Navy veterans.
    Although the VA has pledged to amend its regulations so that ITFs 
-- Intent To File -- will also be accepted for supplemental claims, 
they have not made the same commitment to fix the form issue. VVA is 
thankful for the willingness of the VA to address the ITF issue; 
nevertheless, it is important to note that accepting ITFs for 
supplemental claims does not address the fundamental problem with the 
form issue.
    For many BWN veterans who have previously submitted claims, perhaps 
even decades ago, VVA urges the VA to immediately address the form 
issue to ensure that veterans may be permitted to receive their maximum 
earned benefits. Notably, VVA believes that this issue may be further 
exacerbated due to VA's failure to include the 21-526EZ form in letters 
to BWN veterans with previously denied claims or to even mention or 
properly explain when a different form may be needed.
    VVA is thankful that Congress has recognized at long last the 
sacrifices of Blue Water Navy veterans and veterans who served in or 
around the Korean DMZ and in Thailand. Much can still be done to ensure 
that these veterans and their families who should benefit by this law 
are treated with respect and dignity. VVA therefor calls on the VA to 
immediately lift the stay and adjudicate the ``pile'' of claims they 
already have ``ready to go.'' VVA urges the VA to genuinely collaborate 
with the VSOs to help ensure that the messaging of what the BWN Act 
does and does not do is accurate, so that those who are eligible under 
the new law are not deterred from applying. Finally, VVA implores the 
VA to address the form issue so that these veterans and their families/
survivors are not penalized unjustly for not correctly identifying 
``same or similar'' benefits that they may have applied for decades 
ago.
    VVA is committed to supporting the VA's request for additional 
funds from you in Congress. And we stand ready to work in partnership 
with the VA and our fellow VSOs to ensure that the Blue Water Navy law 
is implemented in a timely and respectful manner.
    We thank the Subcommittee for the opportunity to testify here 
today, and we will of course respond to any questions members may ask 
of us.

Vietnam Veterans Of America Funding Statement

    The national organization Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) is a 
non-profit veterans' membership organization registered as a 501(c) 
(19) with the Internal Revenue Service. VVA is also appropriately 
registered with the Secretary of the Senate and the Clerk of the House 
of Representatives in compliance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 
1995.
    VVA is not currently in receipt of any Federal grant or contract, 
other than the routine allocation of office space and associated 
resources in VA Regional Offices for outreach and direct services 
through its Veterans Benefits Program (Service Representatives). This 
is also true of the previous two fiscal years.
    For further information, contact:

    Executive Director for Policy and Government Affairs
    Vietnam Veterans of America
    (301) 585-4000, extension 127

RICK WEIDMAN

    Richard F. ``Rick'' Weidman serves as Executive Director for Policy 
& Government Affairs on the National Staff of Vietnam Veterans of 
America (VVA). As such, he is the primary spokesperson for VVA in 
Washington. He served as a 1-A-O Army Medical Corpsman during the 
Vietnam War, including service with Company C, 23d Med, AMERICAL 
Division, located in I Corps of Vietnam in 1969.
    Mr. Weidman was part of the staff of VVA from 1979 to 1987, and 
from 1998 to the present, serving variously as Membership Services 
Director, Agency Liaison, Director of Government Relations, and now 
Executive Director for Policy & Government Affairs. He left VVA to 
serve in the Administration of Governor Mario M. Cuomo (NY) as 
statewide director of veterans' employment & training (State Veterans 
Programs Administrator) for the New York State Department of Labor from 
1987 to 1995.
    Rick has served as Consultant on Legislative Affairs to the 
National Coalition for Homeless Veterans (NCHV), and served at various 
times on the VA Re-adjustment Advisory Committee, as a consumer liaison 
on the Secretary's Advisory Committee on Serious Mental Illness at VA, 
the Secretary of Labor's Advisory Committee on Veterans Employment & 
Training, the President's Committee on Employment of Persons with 
Disabilities--Subcommittee on Disabled Veterans, Advisory Committee on 
veterans' entrepreneurship at the Small Business Administration, and 
numerous other advocacy posts in veteran affairs. Weidman has been 
honored with awards for his work in veterans' employment at the local, 
State and national levels many times over the last forty years. He is 
currently Chairman of the Veterans Entrepreneurship Task Force (VET-
Force), which is the consortium of most of the major veterans' service 
organizations and military service organizations regarding expanding 
opportunities for veterans, particularly disabled veterans to create, 
own, and successfully operate their own small business.
    Mr. Weidman was an instructor and administrator at Johnson State 
College (Vermont) in the 1970's, where he was also active in community 
and veterans affairs. He attended Colgate University (B.A., 1967), and 
did graduate studies at the University of Vermont.
    He is married and has four children.
      
=======================================================================


                       Statements for the Record

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


                       Statements for the Record

                              ----------                              


Prepared Statement of The American Federation of Government Employees, 
                                AFL-CIO

    Chairwoman Luria, Ranking Member Bost, and Members of the 
Subcommittee:
    On behalf of the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-
CIO (AFGE), which represents more than 700,000 Federal and District of 
Columbia government employees, 260,000 of whom are dedicated VA 
employees, we appreciate the opportunity to provide our views on 
today's hearing titled, ``Preparing for Blue Water Claims--VA Status 
Update On Implementation.''
    AFGE membership includes the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) 
claims processors who will be the workers responsible for processing 
Blue Water Navy (BWN) claims once the VA allows BWN claims to proceed. 
Because of the expertise these employees have in processing veterans' 
claims of all levels of nuance and complexity, AFGE makes the following 
recommendations to the Subcommittee on how VBA can change its internal 
policies to improve all compensation claims processing, each of which 
will especially affect the imminent BWN claims: 1) Reinstate a 
specialized lane for highly complex claims, and 2) Stop the reductions 
in eligibility for ``excluded time'' raised in VBA's ``#BestYearEver 
Availability Improvement Project'' memo. Both of these changes will 
better allow claims processors to perform their duties and serve 
veterans.

Reinstituting a Specialized Lane for Complex Claims Including ``Blue 
    Water Navy'' Claims

    Like all VA compensation claims, BWN claims go through a process 
where they are evaluated by both Veteran Service Representatives (VSRs) 
and Rating Veteran Service Representatives (RVSRs) to ensure that 
veterans get the benefits they have earned. While all claims go through 
a similar process, different types of claims require different amounts 
of attention and time based on their complexity. Relative to other 
claims, BWN claims are highly labor intensive and require specialized 
attention.
    BWN claims take significantly more time to process than most claims 
because of the significant amount of time that has elapsed since the 
Vietnam and Korean Wars and the specificity of evidence required to 
corroborate an entitlement to benefits, including the exact time and 
geographic coordinates of when and where a particular service member 
was on duty. However, as a result of the way VBA currently assigns 
cases, VBA does not consider the complexity and meticulous nature of 
claims handled by VSRs and RVSRs. As a result, VSRs and RVSRs have been 
unfairly penalized for handling complex claims. While VSRs and RVSRs 
are qualified and capable of processing these claims, the system of 
evaluating these employees should take into account the complexity of 
BWN claims and the time and attention needed to accurately process and 
evaluate them for the benefit of both employees and the veterans they 
serve.
    AFGE urges the Subcommittee and VBA to consider re-instituting 
specialized lanes that have existed in the past for BWN claims and 
appropriately adjust the production standards for the employees working 
in those lanes.\1\ This change will allow the VSRs and RVSRs chosen in 
each of the eight Regional Offices where BWN cases will be processed to 
gain familiarity with the nuances of this large subset of impending 
claims and enable them to efficiently provide these veterans with the 
benefits they have earned while meeting fair production standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\  Prior to the implementation of the NWQ, VSRs an RVSRs were in 
designated lanes that handled similar types of cases repeatedly, giving 
those employees the opportunity to develop an expertise in certain 
types of claims. This made them more accurate and efficient in their 
performance, which both benefited them in their own performance 
evaluations and allowed them to better serve veterans, particularly 
those with rarer or more complex claims. Presently, VSRs and RVSRs do 
not work in lanes, and are expected to process all cases without 
developing any beneficial specialization. The Office of the Inspector 
General (OIG) released a report in 2018 (VA OIG 17-05248-241 : August 
21, 2018) supporting the use of specialized lanes for certain complex 
claims.

Preventing Problems in the ``#BestYearEver Availability Improvement 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Project'' and Preserving Excluded Time

    In a memo issued on October 11, 2019 by the VBA Office of Field 
Operations (OFO) - Operations Analysis, the OFO said ``To improve 
production and achieve the #BestYearEver, while also onboarding new 
staff and countering the known impacts of presumptive claims from [BWN] 
veterans, VBA is implementing new strategies to manage available 
time.'' \2\ The plan does this by attempting to limit ``excluded 
time,'' which is the time that can be deducted from an employee's 
expected production quota under certain circumstances (ex: if an 
employee uses 8 hours of leave, the employee's expected production is 
reduced by 8 hours).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\  ``#BestYearEver availability Improvement Project.'' VA Office 
of Field Operations Memo--Operations Analysis. October 11, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The first section of this memo describes OFO's limitations on 
``Special Projects,'' and the OFO announcing that it will severely 
limit what percentage of time a VSR or RVSR can spend on ``Special 
Projects'' that in the past would have earned excluded time. 
Specifically, the memo limits the individuals who can grant excluded 
time for a special project to the Veterans Service Center Manager/
Pension Management Center Manager or designee. Additionally, the memo 
states that an employee may not spend more than 1.5 percent of their 
time annually on special projects, which can increase to 2.0 percent 
when approved by the District Director.
    Eliminating the use of ``Special Projects'' could negatively affect 
the ability of claims processors to perform their duties within the 
prescribed performance standards. Currently, managers assign ``Special 
Projects'' to grant excluded time to a VSR or RVSR working on a claim 
that would otherwise prevent them from meeting their quota. Examples of 
claims meriting a ``Special Project'' assignment could include a 
particularly difficult and time-consuming claim, a claim that had to be 
remanded and thus reduced or denied the employee production credit, or 
a claim that categorically does not generate credit for the employee. 
Some BWN claims, which are highly complex and likely require more time 
to complete than other claims, could easily be classified as a 
``Special Project'' and are worthy of excluded time. AFGE strongly 
urges the VBA to rescind this proposal to limit the use of ``Special 
Projects,'' particularly for BWN claims.
    The OFO memo also limits the amount of excluded time that VSRs and 
RVSRs can use for training. This proposal reduces the total number of 
hours for training that can be used for excluded time from 80 hours 
annually to 40 hours annually, a 50 percent decrease with certain 
exceptions to grant more hours in certain situations. The memo then 
specifically uses BWN claims as an example of a need for extra 
training, but only authorizes an additional 2 hours of training for 
VSRs and RVSRs when processing BWN claims. With an exorbitant number of 
complex BWN claims expected, budgeting only 2 hours of training for 
this type of claim while reducing the overall amount of training will 
make it extremely difficult for the VSRs and RVSRs to learn the new 
processes associated with these new claims. AFGE urges the OFO and VBA 
to rescind this planned change and allow VSRs and RVSRs to continue to 
gain the necessary training and expertise required to effectively serve 
veterans.

Conclusion

    AFGE thanks the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee 
on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs for considering the 
potential problems arising from the processing of BWN claims. We look 
forward to working with the Committee and Subcommittee to address these 
problems facing VSRs and RVSRs, and ensuring that veterans receive the 
benefits they have earned in an accurate and efficient manner.
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on this important 
issue.
                                 ______
                                 

   Prepared Statement of The National Association of County Veteran 
                            Service Officers

    Chairwoman Luria, Ranking Member Bost, and Members of the 
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs, on behalf 
of the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers 
(NACVSO) and our 1,766 members located in local governmental and tribal 
offices across the Nation thank you for the opportunity to provide a 
statement regarding the status of the preparation for, and 
implementation of, Blue Water Claims for Vietnam veterans.
    Blue Water Vietnam veterans have fought for decades in an effort to 
convince the U.S. Government to acknowledge that they, too, were 
exposed to hazardous toxins from Agent Orange while serving in the 
waters around Vietnam. NACVSO, and its accredited members, have seen 
the long-term detrimental health impacts of Agent Orange exposure 
(i.e., prostate cancer, Parkinson's disease, and respiratory cancers) 
as we meet face-to-face with these veterans and their survivors in 
County offices across the United States.
    Considering the decades long fight for their recognition, NACVSO 
believes that as we approach January 1, 2020 the VA should do 
everything in its power to ensure that it is fully prepared to receive, 
administer, and adjudicate Blue Water claims, to combat any preventable 
delays in benefit/service delivery.
    Unfortunately, to date, the VA has not consulted with NACVSO and 
our members to help assist with the implementation process or have we 
been given any guidance on the processes to come. Our County Veteran 
Service Officers (CVSOs) are local, community-accredited advocates and 
can be force multipliers for the VA. It is vital for successful 
implementation that frontline veterans advocates are communicated with 
in advance on the preparation of, and processes for, filing Blue Water 
claims. CVSOs across the country are often the only advocate that a 
veteran will meet with in person to help advise, research, collate, 
complete, and submit claims. We are uniquely positioned to act as a 
conduit between the VA and the veterans impacted by the new legislation 
that takes effect on January 1, 2020.
    NACVSO members are governmental partners to the VA, and the VA 
should utilize us as such. NACVSO believes it would be beneficial to 
the success of Blue Water Claims implementation if the VA communicated 
more directly with our organization in advance of January 1, 2020, we 
can help support your effort; NACVSO can disseminate proper information 
to our members and ensure they are filing the most appropriate 
documentation required under the new law to minimize error and maximize 
efficiency and expeditiously adjudicate these cases.
    Chairwoman Luria, Ranking Member Bost, and Members of the 
Subcommittee-- on behalf of NACVSO and its members we appreciate the 
important work you are doing to support those who have served this 
great nation. Working together, with the VA, we can ensure this process 
is a success.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 ______
                                 

   Prepared Statement of The National Veterans Legal Services Program

    The National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP) welcomes the 
opportunity to submit a statement for the record regarding the October 
30, 2019 hearing held by Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and 
Memorial Affairs of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs of the House of 
Representatives, ``Preparing for Blue Water Claims-VA Status Update on 
Implementation.''
    NVLSP would like to thank Chair Luria, Ranking Member Bost and 
members of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial 
Affairs for holding this vitally important hearing and for continuing 
to shine a light on an issue that impacts thousands of our veterans and 
their families in the United States.
    Since 1981, the National Veterans Legal Services Program (NVLSP), 
an independent, nonprofit veterans service organization, has been 
dedicated to ensuring that our government lives up to its obligations 
to provide our 22 million veterans and active service members the VA 
and military department benefits they have earned due to disabilities 
resulting from their military service to our country. At NVLSP, we have 
adopted a uniform code to serve our Nation's veterans with the same 
vigor and dedication that they have demonstrated in their service to 
our country.

Background: The Nehmer Class Action Against The VA and Procopio

    In considering the impact of The Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans 
Act of 2019 (BWNVVA) and its implementation, it is important to 
understand at the outset the results of the class action Nehmer v. U.S. 
Department of Veterans Affairs. That landmark class action lawsuit was 
brought by NVLSP attorneys in 1986 on behalf of Vietnam veterans and 
their survivors to challenge the 1985 VA Agent Orange compensation 
regulation, former 38 C.F.R. 3.311a, that provided, among other things, 
that chloracne is the only disease that scientific evidence shows is 
associated with exposure to herbicides like Agent Orange used by the 
United States in Vietnam.
    In 1987, the district court certified the case as a nationwide 
class action on behalf of more than 2 million Vietnam veterans and 
their survivors, including those who had been denied VA benefits for a 
condition allegedly associated with herbicide exposure and those who 
would be eligible to file a claim for such benefits in the future. 
Nehmer v. U.S. Veterans Administration, 118 F.R.D. 113 (N.D. Cal. 
1987). The court also certified NVLSP's lawyers as the counsel for all 
these class members. In 1989, the district court invalidated the 
portion of the regulation providing that no condition other than 
chloracne is associated with herbicide exposure and voided more than 
20,000 VA decisions denying benefit claims under that portion of the 
regulation. Nehmer, 712 F.Supp. 1404 (N.D. Cal. 1989).
    As noted in the November 2014 report by the congressional Research 
Service, ``Veterans Exposed to Agent Orange: Legislative History, 
Litigation, and Current Issues, as a result of the Nehmer decision, 
Congress enacted the Agent Orange Act of 1991, 38 U.S.C. Sec.  1116. 
The Agent Orange Act (AOA) required the VA to contract with an 
independent agency, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), to review 
the emerging scientific studies on the adverse health effects of 
exposure to this herbicide and to prepare a report for the VA every 2 
years with its conclusions. The AOA also required the Secretary of 
Veterans Affairs to decide within a specified period of time after 
receiving an NAS report whether to amend VA regulations by according 
presumptive service connected status to additional diseases.
    In 2001, Congress extended the sunset date of the AOA from 
September 30, 2002 to September 30, 2015. Unfortunately, Congress did 
not extend the September 30, 2015 sunset date of the AOA despite the 
fact that NAS issued subsequent reports identifying additional diseases 
that have a positive association with exposure to Agent Orange. The VA 
has not approved or added any new diseases to this list since the AOA 
expired.
    In 1991, NVLSP's attorneys negotiated a favorable consent decree 
with the VA in Nehmer. The Nehmer consent decree requires VA, whenever 
it recognizes pursuant to the AOA that the emerging scientific evidence 
and NAS reports shows that a positive association exists between Agent 
Orange exposure and a new disease, to (a) automatically identify all 
disability and death compensation claims based on the newly recognized 
disease that were previously denied and (b) automatically readjudicate 
these prior claims under the amended VA regulations recognizing the new 
disease, and (c) pay disability and death benefits to those claimants 
who prevail, retroactive to the initial date of claim. See Nehmer, 494 
F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2007). Most of the binding Nehmer Consent Decree 
rules are currently codified in 38 C.F.R. Sec.  3.816.
    Since the AOA was enacted, the numerous periodic NAS reports that 
have been issued have persuaded the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to 
amend VA regulations under the process set forth in the AOA to provide 
that many serious disabling diseases should be accorded presumptive 
service connected status because they have a positive association with 
exposure to the toxic herbicides used in Vietnam, including Agent 
Orange. These diseases include:

    AL Amyloidosis
    All Chronic B-Cell Leukemias
    Chloracne
    Diabetes-Type 2
    Hodgkin's Disease
    Ischemic Heart Disease
    Multiple Myeloma
    Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma
    Parkinson's Disease
    Peripheral Neuropathy--Early-Onset
    Porphyria Cutanea Tarda
    ProState Cancer
    Respiratory Cancers including Lung Cancer, Trachea Cancer and 
Larynx Cancer
    Soft-Tissue Sarcomas

    As a result of the Nehmer consent decree, over the last two 
decades, VA automatically readjudicated--without the necessity of 
filing a new claim--the prior VA denial of the claims of well more than 
100,000 Vietnam veterans and their survivors that were based on a newly 
recognized Agent Orange-related disease. As a result of these Nehmer 
readjudications, VA has paid an aggregate of more than $4.6 billion in 
retroactive disability and death benefits to these Vietnam veterans and 
their surviving family members.
    NVLSP's quest for justice for Vietnam veterans has not been limited 
to serving as class counsel in Nehmer. From 2005-2009, NVLSP litigated 
Haas v. Peake, in which NVLSP challenged on behalf of Navy Commander 
Hass the VA policy limiting the presumption of herbicide exposure to 
only those who set foot on the land mass of Vietnam or served on its 
inland waterways. Unfortunately, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
Federal Circuit ruled by a vote of 2 to 1 in Haas that the language 
``served in the Republic of Vietnam'' was ambiguous. Due to the 
ambiguity, the Federal Circuit allowed VA's interpretation to stand and 
it remained the governing policy for determining Agent Orange 
disability and death benefit claims for the last 10 years until the 
Federal Circuit's decision of January 30, 2019 in Procopio v. Wilkie. 
In Procopio, all of the active judges on the Federal Circuit convened 
and explicitly overruled the Federal Circuit's holding in Haas, 
concluding that Congress clearly intended the definition of ``the 
Republic of Vietnam'' to include the territorial seas of the Republic 
of Vietnam.
    My statement today is driven by NVLSP's long experience in pursuing 
justice for the veterans and their families who have suffered due to 
exposure to Agent Orange during military service, particularly the Blue 
Water Navy Vietnam Veterans.
    To that end, NVLSP urges Congress to ensure that the VA live up to 
the full intention of H.R. 299 to expedite the payment of claims to 
Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans. Specifically, we recommend that 
Congress enact the following amendments to the BWNVVA and 
clarifications to further Congress' intent in passing the BWNVVA.

1. The BWNVVA's Exclusion of Many Blue Water Vietnam Veterans and 
    Survivors Who Were Previously Denied Benefits for An Agent-Orange 
    Related Disease

    The BWNVVA contains provisions that clearly reflect Congress' 
intent to ensure that Blue Water Vietnam veterans and their survivors 
receive the same retroactive compensation that has already been 
received by their Vietnam veteran counterparts who set foot on the land 
mass of Vietnam and their survivors. NVLSP applauds Congress for 
attempting to provide Blue Water Vietnam veterans and their survivors 
the same retroactive compensation as other Vietnam veterans and 
survivors have already received by virtue of the Nehmer consent decree. 
But for many of these Blue Water veterans and survivors, the BWNVVA 
unfortunately throws them a lifeline that is a foot short.
    One oversight in the BWNVVA is that it excludes many Blue Water 
veterans and survivors from the scope of the BWNVVA's provisions 
providing a right to retroactive compensation. There are two groups of 
these individuals and they are identified in the margin below.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\  There are two groups of Blue Water Vietnam veterans and their 
survivors that are excluded from the scope of the retroactive 
compensation provisions of the BWNVVA. compensation to Vietnam veterans 
based on a liberal interpretation of what constitutes a disability 
claim for an Agent Orange related disease. Under the definition of a 
claim in footnote 1 of the Nehmer consent decree, if a veteran files a 
claim for a noncovered disease, such as knee arthritis, but has a 
diagnosis of a disease later recognized by VA as associated with Agent 
Orange exposure, that claim counts for purposes of entitlement to 
retroactive disability benefits. In other words, that class member 
would be entitled to disability benefits retroactive to the date of the 
knee disability claim even though the veteran did not also expressly 
request benefits for the disease later recognized by VA as associated 
with Agent Orange exposure. This is important because Vietnam veterans 
often failed to formally request disability compensation for diseases 
VA had yet to recognize as Agent Orange-related, because they knew, or 
VA employees informed them, that it would have been a fruitless 
exercise. Under the BWNVVA, however, the retroactive compensation 
provisions in Section 1116A(c)(2) apply only to those who filed a claim 
``for a disease covered by this section.'' VA would likely interpret 
this language to exclude claims in which the record shows the veteran 
was formally diagnosed with a covered disease, but did not expressly 
request benefits for that covered disease. This leads to the following 
injustice: On one hand, Vietnam veterans who set foot on land in 
Vietnam are entitled to retroactive benefits based on a claim for a 
noncovered disability in which the record shows a diagnosis for a 
disease later recognized by VA as associated with Agent Orange 
exposure. On the other hand, Blue Water Vietnam veterans might not be 
entitled to retroactive benefits based on a claim for a noncovered 
disability in which the record shows a diagnosis for a disease later 
recognized by VA as associated with Agent Orange exposure.
      The second group of Blue Water veterans excluded from retroactive 
compensation by the wording of the BWNVVA involves Blue Water veterans 
who were previously denied disability benefits for an Agent Orange-
related disease and who died before January 1, 2020. Under the Nehmer 
consent decree, VA must readjudicate the claim of a Vietnam veteran 
whom VA identifies as having been denied compensation for a disease now 
recognized as associated with Agent Orange exposure even if the veteran 
is no longer alive. If the Nehmer readjudication results in a grant of 
disability benefits, the veteran's survivors are entitled to the 
veteran's disability compensation from the date of the veteran's claim 
to the date of the veteran's death. The VA is unlikely to interpret the 
BWNVVA to require it to pay retroactive disability compensation to the 
survivors of a Blue Water Vietnam veteran who died prior to January 1, 
2020. Thus, the Nehmer consent decree allows the survivors of Vietnam 
veterans who set foot on land in Vietnam to receive accrued benefits 
whereas the BWNVVA might not guarantee the same for survivors of Blue 
Water veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A second oversight, which has an even greater impact, is the 
requirement that to obtain retroactive compensation, the Blue Water 
veteran or survivor must file a new claim. Under the Nehmer consent 
decree, the VA agreed to automatically take action to (a) identify 
through use of its systems of records all Vietnam veterans and their 
survivors who were previously denied benefits for a newly recognized 
disease and then (b) readjudicate the prior claim.
    The most prominent adverse impact of requiring Blue Water veterans 
and their survivors to file a new claim in order to qualify for 
retroactive compensation is that a large percentage of these veterans 
and survivors will never file new claims because they will never find 
out that they are entitled to retroactive compensation by virtue of the 
BWNVVA. Although VA did not see fit to communicate with NVLSP about it, 
NVLSP has been informed by other veterans service organizations with 
whom VA consulted that VA plans voluntarily to attempt to identify 
these veterans and survivors and write them at their last known address 
to inform them of their right to retroactive compensation under the 
BWNVVA. NVLSP commends VA for this effort.
    Letters mailed to VA-identified veterans and survivors at the 
address last known by VA certainly helps reduce the number of Blue 
Water veterans and their survivors who will be excluded from the 
retroactive compensation contemplated by the BWNVVA. But it is likely 
that hundreds, if not thousands, of Blue Water veterans and their 
survivors will still be excluded because these letters will not reach 
them for reasons such as stale addresses. Many Blue Water veterans and 
their survivors are not currently receiving VA benefits, and therefore 
the last address known to VA is many years, perhaps decades, old. For 
example, consider a letter mailed to the last known address of a 
surviving spouse who filed for and was denied death compensation in 
1993 on the ground that the 1992 death due to larynx cancer of her 42-
year-old husband, a Blue Water Vietnam veteran, was not related to 
service. Although the surviving spouse in this example would be owed 27 
years of retroactive DIC if she files a new claim, the letter informing 
her of this fact will be sent to an address that is 27 years old. In 
our experience, this is not likely to be the address where this 
surviving spouse currently lives.
    NVLSP believes that there are other reasonable ways to reach a 
greater percentage of the Blue Vietnam veterans and their survivors who 
would be entitled to retroactive compensation if they file a new claim. 
First, Congress could and should require the VA to use the last known 
address of the VA-identified veterans and survivors that is possessed 
by the Internal Revenue Service. That is exactly what Congress required 
the Department of Defense (DOD) to do in the Combat-Injured Veterans 
Tax Fairness Act of 2016.
    Second, Congress could and should require VA to contract with one 
or more private search firms to locate those Blue Water veterans and 
their survivors whose VA notice letters are returned by the U.S. Postal 
Service as undeliverable. This technique has been highly successful in 
locating the current address of Nehmer class members who are owed 
retroactive compensation under the Nehmer consent decree and whom VA 
was unable to locate. VA agreed, pursuant to the district court's 
privacy protection order, to provide NVLSP, as counsel for the Nehmer 
class, with the identity, social security number and other personal 
information of those class members who were owed retroactive 
compensation, but whom VA could not locate. NVLSP then worked with two 
private search firms and were able to find the current address of the 
class member, which NVLSP then forwarded to VA so VA could pay them the 
compensation VA owed. Using this technique, NVLSP has thus far been 
able to locate more than 1,200 class members whom VA could not locate, 
and VA has paid them an aggregate of more than $21 million in 
retroactive compensation.

A. Ensuring That VA Expedites Its Decision-Making on Pending Claims 
    Filed by Blue Water Vietnam Veterans and Their Survivors

    NVLSP opposes the 6-month stay, effective July 1, 2019, that 
Secretary Wilkie has imposed on decisionmaking on pending claims filed 
by Blue Water Vietnam veterans and their survivors. From NVLSP's 
experience, it is obvious from the evidence in the existing claims file 
in most of these pending cases that the veteran served within the 
territorial seas of Vietnam as defined by BWNVVA. Therefore, Congress 
should insist that Blue Water claims pending at the Board of Veterans' 
Appeals be decided by the Board in docket order, as required by current 
law, without being remanded unless further development is clearly 
needed. Congress should further insist that each VA regional office 
(RO) quickly survey those with Blue Water Agent Orange claims pending 
at the RO to determine if the claimant is seriously ill, is suffering 
from financial hardship, or is 75 years or older. These pending claims 
should be decided first, before any other claims pending at the ROs, 
especially given that their claims have been delayed by Secretary 
Wilkie's July 1 stay order.

B. Ensuring That the VA Uses A Fair Process for Deciding Blue Water 
    Claims

    According to the terms of the BWNVVA, whether the statutory 
presumption of herbicide exposure applies to a former sailor depends 
upon the various locations of the ship on which the former sailor 
served during the Vietnam era. Highly probative evidence of these 
locations are the Navy deck logs for the ships that served in the 
waters offshore Vietnam during the Vietnam era. These deck logs have 
long resided in and been maintained by the National Archives. In recent 
months, the VA has removed these deck logs from the National Archives 
so that they can be scanned for use in deciding the Agent Orange claims 
of Blue Water Vietnam veterans and their survivors. Because the VA 
literally removed the deck logs from the National Archives, the 
unfortunate byproduct is that Blue Water Vietnam veterans and their 
survivors do not currently have access to highly probative evidence on 
the merits of their Agent Orange claims.
    It is fundamentally unfair and a violation of due process to deny 
veterans and their survivors reasonable access to highly probative 
evidence in the government's possession. This unfairness is exacerbated 
if the government were to rely upon highly probative evidence to decide 
a veteran's claim and, at the same time, deny the veteran reasonable 
access to that evidence. And this unfairness is further exacerbated if 
the government were to rely upon this highly probative evidence and, at 
the same time, shield the evidence from review by the claimant and a 
reviewing Federal court by keeping the evidence out of the 
administrative record (i.e., the claimant's VA claims file).
    Congress can and should ensure that in implementing the BWNVVA, the 
VA provides Blue Water veterans and their survivors with a fair process 
that is consistent with fundamental principles of due process. To this 
end, NVLSP recommends that Congress provide in legislation that (1) 
Blue Water veterans and their survivors and the representatives of 
these individuals have the right to reasonable access to Navy deck logs 
and that VA must promptly promulgate interim regulations governing the 
process by which these individuals can gain access to these logs and 
(2) if VA adjudicators review copies of Navy deck logs in the course of 
deciding a claim filed by a Blue Water veteran or their survivor, that 
a copy of the Navy deck logs reviewed must be placed into the 
claimant's VA claims file so that it is part of the administrative 
record available to the claimant, the claimant's representative, and a 
reviewing Federal court.
    NVLSP appreciates the work being done by Congress and the VA to 
correct the injustice that the BWNVVA is designed to remedy--the denial 
prior to the Procopio decision of the statutory presumption of exposure 
to herbicides contained in the AOA to those who served in uniform in 
the territorial waters of Vietnam. NVLSP is committed to working with 
Congress and all relevant Federal agencies to ensure that Blue Water 
veterans and their survivors receive the benefits to which they are 
entitled due to disabilities they incurred as a result of their 
military service to our Nation. We stand ready to assist on this issue 
and others that may develop in the future.
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement for the record 
on this critical matter.
                                 ______
                                 

               Prepared Statement of The American Legion

    Chairman Luria, Ranking Member Bost, and distinguished members who 
proudly serve on this subcommittee; on behalf of our National 
Commander, James W. ``Bill'' Oxford, thank you for the opportunity to 
comment on the important issue of the Department of Veterans Affairs' 
(VA) preparations to implement Blue Water Navy (BWN) Vietnam Veterans 
Act of 2019. It is our duty and honor to assist this committee in 
better understanding this issue, how it impacts our veterans, and 
provide recommendations for improvement. It is imperative that we 
address these implementation issues ensuring that long delayed benefits 
are delivered in the most expeditious manner possible. BWN veterans who 
are experiencing health issues as a result of herbicide exposure during 
their service have been suffering for too long without the benefit and 
assistance warranted by their service. It is incumbent upon VA to 
ensure that every effort is made to ensure that BWN claims are 
processed and adjudicated in a swift, fair, and efficient manner.

Update From Previous Hearing

    The American Legion last testified before this subcommittee on the 
issue of BWN on February 27, 2019.\1\ Consistent with our long history 
of championing the cause of veterans harmed by exposure to herbicides 
in Vietnam, we called for the passage of H.R. 299, ``Blue Water Navy 
Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019'' to extend benefits to BWN veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ https://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR00/20190227/108928/HHRG-
116-VR00-20190227-SD012.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Four months later, on June 25, 2019, President Donald Trump signed 
into law H.R. 299, which became Public Law (P.L.) 116-23. This law 
states that veterans who served offshore of the Republic of Vietnam 
between January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975, are presumed to have been 
exposed to herbicides such as Agent Orange and may be entitled to 
service connection for conditions related to that exposure. To be 
eligible for presumption of service connection based on herbicide 
exposure, the veteran must have served in the offshore waters of the 
Republic of Vietnam not more than 12-nautical miles seaward of a line 
commencing on the southwestern demarcation of the waters of Vietnam and 
Cambodia. Additionally, it affords spouses of certain veterans whose 
death was caused by a service-connected disability access to pension 
benefits, and expands benefits to the children of veterans of covered 
service in Thailand who suffer from spina bifida.
    On July 1, 2019, VA Secretary Robert Wilkie issued a ``Stay of 
Pending Claims under the Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act of 
2019,'' citing authority granted by the law. Secretary Wilkie directed 
the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and Board of Veterans' 
Appeals ``to stay decisions regarding claims for disability 
compensation that are based on service in the offshore waters of the 
Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and 
ending on May 7, 1975, and which claim disability resulting from at 
least one of the diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. Sec.  3.309(e).'' The 
stay also applies to claims for disability compensation based on 
service in or near the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) and claims for 
benefits for spina bifida for children of Veterans who were allegedly 
exposed to herbicides while serving in Thailand. The stay will remain 
in place until January 1, 2020.
    On July 5, 2019, VA issued a press release titled, ``VA Extends 
Agent Orange Presumption to `Blue Water Navy' Veterans.'' \2\ The press 
release encouraged applicants to ``submit disability compensation 
claims for conditions presumed to be related to Agent Orange 
exposure,'' adding that veterans over age 85, or with life-threatening 
illnesses, will have priority in claims processing. The press release 
also called for veterans who were previously denied for an Agent Orange 
compensation claims to re-submit a claim under P.L. 116-23. However, 
the invitation to file, or re-submit, was prefaced by the statement 
that ``the bipartisan Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Act gives VA 
until January. 1, 2020, to begin deciding Blue Water Navy related 
claims'' and that ``by staying claims decisions until that date, VA is 
complying with the law that Congress wrote and passed.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\  https://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/includes/viewPDF.cfm?id=5280
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    On July 24, 2019, The American Legion and eight other Veteran 
Service Organizations issued a joint letter to Secretary Wilkie on 
behalf of the millions of veterans, service members, their families, 
and survivors asking him to lift the July 1, 2019, stay on BWN claims 
that were eligible for benefits as a result of the Procopio v Wilkie 
ruling.\3\ The joint letter echoed calls from a July 15, 2019, letter 
from the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee Ranking Member Jon Tester 
and nine other Senators calling for similar action by VA.\4\ The 
American Legion remains concerned for the urgent needs of these 
vulnerable veterans and continues to urge VA to begin adjudicating 
those claims made eligible by the Procopio v Wilkie ruling immediately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\  https://www.moaa.org/content/publications-and-media/news-
articles/2019-news-articles/moaa-and-fellow-vsos-request-sit-down-with-
president-trump-to-help-blue-water-navy-vets/
    \4\  https://www.tester.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=6876

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Challenges

    VA has estimated that 420,000 to 560,000 Vietnam-era veterans may 
be considered BWN veterans, not including survivors and dependents. 
Additionally, VA will undoubtedly receive claims from veterans who 
believe they were exposed to Agent Orange by ships returning from the 
regions in and around Vietnam, without concern for the offshore zone 
determined by H.R. 299. This could easily add thousands of applicants 
to the numbers cited by VA and overwhelm regional offices, healthcare 
facilities, and the Board of Veterans' Appeals. VA already faces 
difficulties maintaining proper resources to provide the service, care, 
and support of veterans without this additional influx of veterans 
requiring services.
    The Government Accountability Office (GAO) cited concerns regarding 
VA's ability to provide timely access to safe, high-quality health care 
for veterans.\5\ It also reported that ``VA has made limited progress 
toward addressing information technology (IT) system modernization 
challenges.'' \6\ Adding to this, additional claims are being generated 
while the stay is in effect, further contributing to the already 
strained VA resource pool. The Undersecretary for Benefits, Dr. Paul 
Lawrence, has ensured The American Legion that VBA is working to ensure 
proper resources are in place to meet the needs of BWN veteran 
community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/
managing_risks_improving_va_health_care/issue_summary
    \6\  https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/698164.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The VBA is currently undertaking a massive effort to identify, 
retrieve, and scan ships logs to determine which ships operated within 
the 12 nautical miles of the Republic of Vietnam and identify which 
veterans will be eligible for additional benefits under P.L. 116-23. As 
a part of these efforts, VA has scanned more than 4 million records to 
date and will ultimately scan approximately 20 million. Also, they are 
building a ship locator tool to validate a veteran's service in the 
offshore waters of the Republic of Vietnam.
    These efforts are underway in the shadow of another GAO report 
challenging the accuracy of Agent Orange testing and storage 
locations.\7\ According to the report, ``While the logbooks GAO 
reviewed identify when vessels left various ports as they traveled to 
and from Vietnam, they do not show whether and how much cargo was 
loaded or unloaded at those ports. [Department of Defense's] official 
list of herbicide testing and storage locations outside of Vietnam that 
is posted on the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) website is 
inaccurate and incomplete.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\  https://www.gao.gov/assets/700/695560.pdf

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommendations to Address Preparation for Blue Water Claims

Internal Repairs

    The American Legion supports the plan and effort of VA to ensure 
the right resources and systems are in place before issuing decisions 
on BWN claims. However, the blanket stay is an exaggerated reaction 
that has the potential to result in a self-inflicted resource deficit. 
The American Legion calls on VA to accede to the joint VSO request to 
grant BWN claims for those who are currently eligible as a result of 
the Procopio v Wilkie ruling. By doing so, VA will simultaneously 
prevent additional backlogs and ensure that veterans receive their long 
overdue benefits as quickly as possible.
    The efforts made by VA to ensure that proper resources have been 
allocated to BWN implementation is commendable and The American Legion 
urges VA to continue its ceaseless efforts on this front. Additionally, 
we welcome the use of the ship locator tool and it's potential to 
swiftly and accurately adjudicate claims. This will be integral to 
ensuring that claims are processed in an expedient manner and resources 
are not needlessly diverted to backlogged claims.
    We urge that VA not use the ship locator tool as the single 
determinant in denying a veteran's claim. As indicated by the 
aforementioned GAO report, there are significant information gaps that 
could result in a veteran being wrongly denied benefits if these lists 
are perceived to be exhaustive.
    We call on VA to remain cognizant of this fact and to ensure that 
every veteran's claim receives the appropriate due diligence. The ship 
locator tool should be utilized as an expedient means to validating 
claims, not disputing them. The American Legion looks forward to the 
scheduled demonstration of this tool by the VBA on November 18, 2019.

External Repairs

    VBA has been hosting webcasts to inform the veteran community about 
the various projects underway. We encourage VA to adopt more of these 
types of outreach efforts and to work with The American Legion to host 
live watch parties at posts across the country. This would bridge the 
gap between the generation of veterans who embrace mobile technology 
and those who don't to reach a broader audience. VA should develop a 
more interactive working relationship with VSOs for the welfare of 
veterans; to include more candid communication about internal 
challenges and envisioned projects.
    The American Legion has and will continue to play a pivotal role in 
educating and advocating for all veterans and their families. However, 
it is also incumbent on VA to better educate veterans and family 
members about H.R. 299 implementation. Specifically, information about 
qualifications, resources, and the claims process. We encourage VA to 
take advantage of American Legion town halls and events as a venue to 
communicate with veterans.

CONCLUSION

    The American Legion thanks this committee for the opportunity to 
elucidate the position of the nearly 2 million veteran members of this 
organization. It is imperative that VA implement the Blue Water Navy 
Vietnam Veterans Act of 2019 in the most expeditious and fair manner 
possible. The American Legion looks forward to hearing from our members 
who have been affected by these issues and will be closely monitoring 
the implementation process. For additional information regarding this 
testimony, please contact Mr. Lawrence Montreuil, Legislative 
Associate, at [email protected] or (202) 861-2700.

                                 [all]