U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

82–714 PDF 2014

S. HRG. 113–111 

HEARING ON PENDING BENEFITS LEGISLATION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 12, 2013 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

BERNARD SANDERS, (I) Vermont, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

MAZIE HIRONO, Hawaii 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina, Ranking 

Member 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

STEVE ROBERTSON, Staff Director 

LUPE WISSEL, Republican Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 12, 2013 

SENATORS 

Page 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, Chairman, U.S. Senator from Vermont ........................ 1, 14 

Tester, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from Montana ...................................................... 13 

Heller, Hon. Dean, U.S. Senator from Nevada ..................................................... 16 

Begich, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator from Alaska ..................................................... 18 

Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from Arkansas .............................................. 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Blumenthal, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator from Connecticut ................................ 86 

WITNESSES 

Schatz, Hon. Brian, U.S. Senator from Hawaii ..................................................... 1 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator from Alaska ................................................ 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Franken, Hon. Al, U.S. Senator from Minnesota .................................................. 7 

Wyden, Hon. Ron, U.S. Senator from Oregon ....................................................... 8 

Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from Oregon ..................................................... 10 

Shaheen, Hon. Jeanne, U.S. Senator from New Hampshire ................................ 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Curtis L. Coy, Deputy Under Secretary for Economic Opportunity, Veterans’ 

Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; accompanied 

by Thomas Murphy, Director, Compensation Service; Richard Hipolit, 

Assistant General Counsel; and John Brizzi, Deputy Assistant General 

Counsel .................................................................................................................. 22 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Additional views ............................................................................................... 46 

Posthearing questions submitted by: 

Hon. Bernard Sanders .................................................................................. 63 

Hon. Richard Burr ........................................................................................ 75 

Hon. Jon Tester ............................................................................................. 79 

Hon. Mark Begich ......................................................................................... 83 

Response to request arising during the hearing by: 

Hon. Richard Blumenthal ............................................................................ 88 

Hon. John Boozman ...................................................................................... 93 

Hon. Mark Begich ......................................................................................... 108 

Hall, Jeffrey, Assistant National Legislative Director, Disabled American 

Veterans ................................................................................................................ 112 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 114 

de Planque, Ian, Deputy Legislative Director, The American Legion ................. 126 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 127 

Norton, Col. Robert F., USA (Ret.), Deputy Director, Government Relations, 

Military Officers Association of America ............................................................ 143 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 145 

Gallucci, Ryan, Deputy Director, National Legislative Service, Veterans of 

Foreign Wars ........................................................................................................ 164 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 166 

APPENDIX 

Isakson, Hon. Johnny, U.S. Senator from Georgia; prepared statement ............ 183 

Hirono, Hon. Mazie K., U.S. Senator from Hawaii; prepared statement ............ 183 

Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from Nevada; prepared statement .................... 184 

Page

IV 

Butterfield, Hon. G.K., U.S. Congressman from North Carolina; prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 185 

Howard, Dr. Muriel A., President, American Association of State Colleges 

and Universities; prepared statement ................................................................ 188 

Cleland, Max, Secretary, American Battle Monuments Commission; prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 191 

Ganio, Patrick, Sr., President; Franco Arcebal, Vice President—Membership; 

and Eric Lachica, Executive Director, American Coalition for Filipino Veterans, Inc.; letter .................................................................................................. 192 

Murphy, Laura W., Director; Vania Leveille, Senior Legislative Counsel; and 

Elayne Weiss, Legislative Assistant, Washington Legislative Office, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU); prepared statement .................................. 193 

American Civil Liberties Union and Other Groups; joint letter .......................... 196 

American Chemical Society; prepared statement ................................................. 197 

American Federation of Government Employees, AFL–CIO and the AFGE 

National VA Council; prepared statement ......................................................... 198 

Peters, Stephen, President, American Military Partner Association; prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 200 

Garrett, Maggie, Legislative Director, Americans United For Separation of 

Church and State; prepared statement .............................................................. 202 

Association of the United States Navy; letter ....................................................... 207 

U.S. Department of Defense; prepared statement ................................................ 208 

Won Pat, Judith T., Ed.D., Office of the Speaker, 32nd Guam Legislature; 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 210 

Attachments ...................................................................................................... 212 

Gaddy, Rev. Dr. C. Welton, President, Interfaith Alliance; letter ....................... 215 

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America; prepared statement ........................ 216 

Smith, Philip, National Liaison & Washington, DC, Director, Lao Veterans 

of America; letter ................................................................................................. 224 

National Academy of Elder Law Attorneys, Inc.; letter ....................................... 225 

Attachments ...................................................................................................... 227 

Levins, Scott, Director, National Personnel Records Center, National Archives 

and Records Administration; prepared statement ............................................ 248 

National Governors Association; prepared statement .......................................... 249 

Attachments ...................................................................................................... 258 

Duffy, Peter J., COL., US Army (Ret.), Legislative Director, National Guard 

Association of the United States; prepared statement ...................................... 283 

Bailey, Angela, Associate Director, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, 

Employee Services, and Chief Human Capital Officer; prepared statement .. 287 

Lerner, Carolyn N., Special Counsel, U.S. Office of Special Counsel; prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 288 

Paralyzed Veterans of America; prepared statement ........................................... 289 

Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism; prepared statement ...................... 296 

Reserve Officers Association of the United States and Reserve Enlisted Association of the United States; prepared statement ............................................. 296 

Colvin, Carolyn W., Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration; 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 300 

Dakduk, Michael, Executive Director, Student Veterans of America; prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 302 

Service Women’s Action Network; prepared statement ........................................ 304 

Huebner, Charlie, Chief of Paralympics, United States Olympic Committee; 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 307 

Exhibit A ........................................................................................................... 310 

(1) 

HEARING ON PENDING BENEFITS 

LEGISLATION 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 12, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in room 

418, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Bernard Sanders, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Sanders, Tester, Begich, Blumenthal, Boozman 

and Heller. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

CHAIRMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM VERMONT 

Chairman SANDERS. Good morning. We are going to begin this 

important hearing dealing with legislation for benefits for our veterans. We are going to be hearing, I suspect, from a number of 

Members of the Committee this morning, and we are very pleased 

to have a number of Senators who are not on this Committee who 

understand the importance of the issues that we are dealing with 

and have brought forth their own legislation. We are very delighted 

that they are here as well. 

So, without further ado, we want to welcome Senator Schatz, 

Senator Murkowski, Senator Franken, and Senator Wyden. Senator Schatz, can we begin with you? 

STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN SCHATZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Senator SCHATZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Senator Tester, 

for this opportunity to speak in support of S. 690, the Filipino Veterans Fairness Act of 2013, which I introduced on the anniversary 

of the Bataan Death March. I want to thank Senators Murkowski, 

Begich, and Hirono for cosponsoring this critical legislation. 

I want to especially acknowledge the Justice for Filipino American Veterans, the Japanese American Citizens League, the American Coalition for Filipino Veterans, and the Lao Veterans of America for their support of this vital legislation. 

It’s important because it would provide the Filipino soldiers who 

fought with the American Army during World War II with the full 

veterans benefits that they rightfully deserve and it will send a 

clear message to all veterans that Americans will not forget their 

service once they return from combat. 

2 

More than 200,000 soldiers fought in the Pacific Theater, of Filipino descent, and more than half of them were killed while they 

served under the command of the U.S. Armed Forces. 

The Philippines was a United States territory before and during 

World War II, and President Roosevelt issued an executive order 

to call into service Filipino soldiers to defend American territory 

and military bases. 

These soldiers served our Nation so we owe them nothing less 

than honoring their service with the full benefits that they were 

promised and deserved. 

This Act would do four things. First, under current law, there are 

four different categories of Filipino soldiers who fought with the 

U.S. Army. This bill will eliminate these categories and treat everyone equally. 

After the war, Congress passed a series of laws that became 

known as the Recession Acts of 1946 and they stripped many of 

these Filipino soldiers of the benefits that they had earned. Instead, these Filipino soldiers were split into four different administrative categories, each group being awarded different benefits. 

While all four groups served in the same war and under the 

same American flag, one of the groups gets full veterans’ status 

and benefits while the other three groups were denied some of 

these same benefits. 

Second, it extends veteran benefits eligibility to Filipino veterans 

who received payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund, which was created in the 2009 American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act. 

Third, the bill directs the Veterans’ Administration to allow the 

use of alternative documentation when determining eligibility to 

ensure that all Filipino veterans are recognized for their service. 

Under the current law, in order for Filipino veterans to be eligible for benefits, they must be on the Approved, Revised, Reconstructed Guerrilla Roster of 1948 known as the Missouri List. This 

list is critical for determining benefits eligibility; but even if there 

are other forms of documentation, Filipino veterans not on this list 

will not be recognized for their service. 

But, this list does not include every Filipino veterans because it 

was damaged in a fire in 1973 and the reconstructed list is being 

currently used to determine benefits eligibility. 

In addition, because the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation 

Fund used the Missouri List as the sole basis for eligibility determination, 24,000 Filipino veterans were denied compensation. 

Finally, this bill would allow widows and dependents to be eligible for dependency and indemnity compensation and would eliminate the differences in payment given to veterans based on whether a Filipino veteran lived in the United States or in the 

Philippines. 

It has been more than 50 years and yet many Filipino veterans 

have not been recognized as veterans and have been denied their 

basic rights. Unfortunately, many Filipino veterans are in their 90s 

and are passing away rapidly, and so, we must act now. 

Thank you, Chairman Sanders, for taking up this legislation. I 

look forward to working with everyone on the Committee to give 

3 

the Filipino veterans their full recognition for their service and 

their sacrifice. 

Chairman SANDERS. Senator Schatz, thank you very much. 

Senator Murkowski. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you for 

your leadership on veterans issues, particularly for ensuring that 

our veterans receive the benefits that they so clearly deserve. We 

honor them by keeping our commitments. So, your hearing today 

is very important. 

To you and the Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present my bill this morning which would authorize 

the interment of Hmong veterans in national cemeteries. 

Across our Nation thousands and thousands of U.S. citizens that 

fought for our country during Vietnam are not officially recognized 

for their service. Members of the Hmong community that fought 

under the CIA during Vietnam currently enjoy no rights as veterans. They are simply requesting to be buried and recognized in 

the national cemeteries. This bill would authorize those heroes to 

rest alongside their brothers in arms on our Nation’s most hallowed grounds. 

A little bit of background here. Responding to a secretive call to 

arms during the Vietnam war, Hmong soldiers aided U.S. Special 

Forces and CIA operatives. They guarded bases that no one was 

supposed to know was there. They rescued downed U.S. airman 

who also were not supposed to be there. 

Americans who served and fought and put their lives on the line 

receive a resting place in our national cemeteries and the men who 

saved American lives deserve the same honor. 

The Hmong people were a social minority being persecuted by 

communists within Laos. President Kennedy first initiated the U.S. 

alliance with Laos and the Hmong people in defense of the Kingdom of Laos and the U.S. national security interests in Vietnam 

and Southeast Asia. 

During the Vietnam War, Hmong soldiers served in what was 

called the U.S. Secret Army. The Hmong fighters were led by General Vang Pao during The Secret War which interrupted operations 

on the Ho Chi Minh Trail and conducted downed aircraft recovery 

operations of American airman within Laos. 

Over the course of the war, the CIA employed tens of thousands 

of these volunteers. In all, over 100,000 Hmong lost their lives by 

the end of the U.S. involvement in Vietnam. 

According to a recently declassified CIA report, the Hmong became the core of an irregular force that fought the North Vietnamese Army. Hmong soldiers saved thousands of American soldiers from being attacked and killed in South Vietnam by engaging 

numerous North Vietnamese army units in combat. 

Two years after the withdrawal of American forces, the Kingdom 

of Laos was overthrown by communist troops supported by North 

Vietnamese. Hmong were forced into re-education camps. Many 

fled into hiding in the mountains or to refugee camps in Thailand. 

Several thousand sought asylum internationally with thousands 

4 

making their way here to the United States. Senator Franken and 

I were just discussing that in Minnesota there is a large Hmong 

population, in Alaska as well. 

Many soldiers who fought for the CIA and their families were 

among the refugees that became U.S. citizens. There are currently 

over 260,000 Hmong people in America. In Anchorage, AK, we have 

about 5,000 Hmong refugees there. Senator Begich clearly knows 

the importance of them as an addition to our community. Of the 

Hmong who became U.S. citizens, there are approximately 6,900 

veterans that are still with us today. The number, of course, is 

dwindling by the day. The Hmong fighters’ sacrifice on behalf of 

America calls for reciprocal honor paid during the latter years of 

these veterans lives. Hmong veterans fought for America and deserve the choice to be buried in national cemeteries. 

Mr. Chairman, this concept is not unprecedented. Just as the 

Hmong responded to the call to arms and paid the ultimate sacrifice, so did the Filipino soldiers as my friend Senator Schatz said. 

Our country has long been grateful for their service, their sacrifice, 

and we passed legislation to honor those veterans providing burial 

rites and compensation. 

The Hmong Veterans Naturalization Act of 2000 provided naturalization benefits for Hmong veterans. It was designed to ease the 

path to naturalization in various ways for the Hmong. Ultimately, 

Immigration and Naturalization provided multiple avenues 

through which Hmong veterans could prove their service. We have 

got about 6,000 Hmong that self-identified as veterans by providing 

original documents, an affidavit of the serving person’s superior officer or two affidavits from other individuals who were also serving 

with a special guerrilla unit. 

For years Congress has publicly recognized the thousands of 

Hmong that fought and died for our country. I believe that providing burial rights to the small number of Hmong veterans remaining that fought for America is the least that we can do to 

honor their service. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Murkowski follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

S. 200—A BILL TO AUTHORIZE THE INTERMENT IN NATIONAL CEMETERIES UNDER THE

CONTROL OF THE NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION OF INDIVIDUALS WHO

SERVED IN COMBAT SUPPORT OF THE ARMED FORCES IN THE KINGDOM OF LAOS

Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, Distinguished Members of the Senate 

Veterans’ Affairs Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to present my bill, to 

authorize the interment of Hmong veterans in national cemeteries, before the Committee. Across our Nation, thousands of US citizens that fought for our country during Vietnam are not officially recognized for their service. Members of the Hmong 

community that fought under the CIA during Vietnam currently enjoy no rights as 

veterans. They are requesting to be buried in national cemeteries. This bill would 

authorize those heroes to rest alongside their brothers-in-arms on our Nation’s most 

hallowed grounds. 

A few weeks ago at Arlington National Cemetery, a group of ‘‘old Hmong veterans 

stood at ragged attention’’ on burial grounds that are closed to them, despite their 

military service to our Nation. Responding to a secretive call to arms during the 

Vietnam War, ‘‘Hmong soldiers aided U.S. special forces and CIA operatives. They 

guarded bases that no one was supposed to know about, and rescued downed U.S. 

airmen who weren’t supposed to be there.’’ Americans who served and fought and 

5 

1 ‘‘Undercover Armies: CIA and Surrogate Warfare in Laos’’ 

2Philip Smith, Director of Center for Public Policy Analysis, the Lao Veterans of America, 

Inc., Lao Veterans of America Institute. 

put their lives on the line receive a resting place in our national cemeteries; the 

men who saved American lives deserve the same honor. 

During the Vietnam War, Laotian and Hmong soldiers served in the ‘‘U.S. Secret 

Army.’’ Over the course of the war, the CIA employed tens of thousands of these 

volunteers. The Hmong people were a social minority in the country that was being 

persecuted by the Pathet Lao within Laos (the Laotian equivalent to the Vietnamese 

Communists). President John F. Kennedy first initiated the U.S. alliance with the 

Lao and Hmong people in defense of the Kingdom of Laos and U.S. national security 

interests in Vietnam and Southeast Asia. These Lao-Hmong soldiers were clandestinely organized and supported by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and 

the Pentagon to combat the invasion of the Kingdom of Laos by the North Vietnam’s 

Army (NVA) and an insurgency of communist Pathet Lao guerrillas. 

The Hmong fighters were led by General Vang Pao during the ‘‘Secret War’’ which 

interrupted operations on the Ho Chi Minh trail and assisted in downed aircraft recovery operations of American airmen within Laos. 

According to a recently declassified CIA report, the Hmong became the core of an 

irregular force that fought the North Vietnamese Army until February 1973, when 

a Laotian cease-fire followed the agreement with Hanoi on terms to end the war 

in South Vietnam. Under their charismatic, mercurial leader Vang Pao, the Meo— 

more properly known as the Hmong—evolved from a hit-and-run guerilla outfit into 

light infantry operating in regimental strength. Expanded Hmong forces * * * diverted substantial North Vietnamese forces in South Vietnam. The Hmong showed 

‘‘courage, [a] capacity [to] take losses,’’ the ability to ‘‘survive despite hardships and 

meager rations,’’ and a ‘‘considerable instinct and enthusiasm for ambushing and 

harassing.’’ 1

In order to highlight the unique manner in which America called upon the 

Hmong, it is important to understand that the CIA’s clandestine airline, Air America, flew cash-payroll flights to support, pay and expand the elite Lao and Hmong 

secret army based at Long Chieng. From there, the Lao Hmong covert army engaged in strategic battles against main-force [North Vietnamese Army] divisions 

and communist insurgents. Lao and Hmong Special Forces saved thousands of 

American soldiers from being attacked and killed in South Vietnam by engaging numerous [North Vietnamese Army] units in combat and playing a key role with the 

U.S. bombing campaign of enemy supply routes and targets on the Ho Chi Minh 

Trail, Plaine des Jarres and elsewhere.2

Two years after the withdrawal of American forces, the Kingdom of Laos was 

overthrown by communist troops supported by the North Vietnamese Army. The 

Pathet Lao then continued their persecution of the Hmong by placing them into reeducation camps where political prisoners served terms of 3–5 years. Many fled into 

hiding in the mountains or to refugee camps in Thailand. Several thousand sought 

asylum internationally with many making their way to the United States. 

Some of the soldiers who fought for the CIA and their families were among the 

refugees. Some settled within the borders of other nations; some became US citizens. There are currently over 260,000 Hmong people in America; according to the 

2010 Census, the heaviest concentrations are in California, Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

North Carolina, Michigan, Colorado, Georgia, Alaska, Oklahoma and Oregon. Within Anchorage alone are approximately 5,000 Hmong refugees. Of the Hmong who 

became US Citizens, there are approximately 6,900 veterans still with us today. Of 

note, nearly half of those veterans live in Minnesota. 

Today, the number of Hmong veterans in America is dwindling by the day. As 

described by the Washington, DC. Director and Liaison for the Lao Veterans of 

America, Inc., Philip Smith: ‘‘Many Lao and Hmong-American veterans, who served 

in America’s covert theatre of operations during the Vietnam War, are dying in 

Rhode Island and across the United States, without the benefit of being recognized 

or honored for their extraordinary military service. Having saved the lives of many 

U.S. soldiers and aircrews, these forgotten veterans deserve to be buried with dignity at U.S. national veterans’ cemeteries, with military honors, for their unique 

service as part of the ‘U.S. Secret Army’ defending U.S. national security interests 

and the Kingdom of Laos during the Vietnam conflict.’’ In all, over 30,000 Hmong 

lost their lives by the end of US involvement in Vietnam. The Hmong fighters’ sacrifice on behalf of America calls for reciprocal honor paid during the latter years of 

these veterans’ lives. 

Hmong veterans fought for America and deserve the choice to be buried in national cemeteries. This concept is not unprecedented. Just as the Hmong responded 

6 

3 House Report 106–563—Hmong Veteran’s Naturalization Act of 2000. 

4 Ibid. 

5 Ibid. 

6 Ibid. 

to the call to arms and many paid the ultimate sacrifice, so did Filipino soldiers. 

Our country has long been grateful for their service and passed legislation to honor 

those veterans. The Veterans Benefits and Health Care Improvement Act of 2000 

permits Philippine veterans who were citizens of the United States or aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence who served during World War II to be buried in national cemeteries. Another 2000 law provided full-dollar rate compensation 

payments to veterans of the Commonwealth Army or recognized guerrilla forces residing in the U.S. if they are either U.S. citizens or lawfully admitted permanent 

resident aliens. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, which the President 

signed into law, contained a provision creating the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund. Eligible veterans who are U.S. citizens receive a one-time payment 

of $15,000. The law also provides for eligible veterans who are not U.S. citizens to 

receive a one-time payment of $9,000. The Department of Veterans Affairs established a process, in collaboration with the Department of Defense, to determine eligibility to receive payments from the Fund. As of last month, the Administration 

had approved over 18,000 claims. 

Additionally, there has been legislation passed that provided naturalization benefits for Hmong veterans. The Hmong Veterans’ Naturalization Act of 2000 provided 

an exemption from the English language requirement and special consideration for 

civics testing for certain refugees from Laos applying for naturalization. The legislation was ‘‘designed to ease the path to naturalization in various ways for Hmong 

individuals who had fought in the CIA-organized guerrilla units in Laos.’’ The law 

applies to refugees from Laos who served with a special guerrilla unit, or irregular 

forces, operating from a base in Laos in support of the United States military at 

any time during February 28, 1961 through September 18, 1978 and who entered 

the United States as refugees from Laos. 

Leading up to the passage of the law, there were Congressional concerns ‘‘related 

to difficulties in identifying which Hmong refugees actually fought on behalf of the 

United States as few records were kept of these covert operations.’’ 3 Following the 

Committee hearings of H.R. 371 in June 1997, the Immigration and Naturalization 

Service (INS) provided technical assistance in redrafting the bill to: (1) tighten the 

documentation requirements; (2) require the Department of Defense to review the 

documentation; and (3) require the Department of Defense to advise the INS with 

respect to the credibility of claims of service with special guerrilla units or irregular 

forces. As a consequence, the Department did not object to this bill which, as revised, minimized the risk of fraud while maximizing the intended benefit [to] certain 

Hmong individuals and their spouses.4

Within the Committee reports, there was further refining of how to determine an 

alien’s eligibility for benefits under the bill: ‘‘the Attorney General (1) shall review 

refugee processing documents to verify that an alien was admitted to the United 

States as a refugee from Laos, (2) shall consider the documentation submitted by 

the alien, (3) shall request an advisory opinion from the Secretary of Defense, and 

(4) may consider any certification prepared by the Lao Veterans of America, Inc. or 

similar organizations.’’ 5

The Lao Veterans of America includes tens of thousands of Hmong and Lao veterans and their families who played roles in the U.S. covert war in Laos and Vietnam. It has stringent requirements for membership: first, filling out an application 

and submitting to an initial interview, second determining that the prospective 

member served a minimum of 1 year as a veteran and third, be certified by a former 

commander or his representative, or the leader of the U.S. Secret Army in Laos, 

Major General Vang Pao. Finally, the applicant must be verified by a three member 

military review board appointed by the Lao Veterans of America’s Board of Directors and Advisory Board.6

Ultimately, the Immigration and Naturalization Service provided multiple avenues through which Hmong veterans could prove their service. First, if an applicant 

testified to this military service at the time of refugee processing, the required documentation should already be in the applicants immigration file. If not, applicants 

could provide original documents; an affidavit of the serving person’s superior officer; two affidavits from other individuals who also were serving with such a special 

guerrilla unit, or irregular forces, and who personally know of the person’s service; 

or other appropriate proof. 

7 

Congress has publically recognized the Hmong veterans’ service to our Nation, but 

paradoxically has not allowed for burial rights in national cemeteries. In 2009, the 

House recognized ‘‘National Lao-Hmong Recognition Day,’’ calling to attention to the 

Hmong’s service in the Vietnam War. The Resolution recognized that ‘‘the United 

States recruited thousands of the Lao-Hmong to fight against the Communist 

Pathet Lao and North Vietnamese Army regulars in Laos’’ and we ‘‘relied heavily 

on the Lao-Hmong Special Guerrilla Units to engage in direct combat with North 

Vietnamese troops.’’ Providing burial rights to the small number of Hmong veterans 

remaining that fought for America is the least we can do to honor their service. This 

legislation is a modest next step to honor the Hmong veterans who now live in the 

US as a result of our call for their service. 

Chairman SANDERS. Thank you very much Senator Murkowski. 

Senator Franken. 

STATEMENT OF HON. AL FRANKEN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MINNESOTA 

Senator FRANKEN. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I would like today to talk briefly about my new legislation. 

First, I would like to say something about the Hmong who fought 

with us in Laos. 

I went to Laos in July 2010. It was on a trip that the Chairman 

and I took with Senator Harkin to Vietnam. I took a little side trip 

to Laos because some Hmong refugees had been illegally repatriated to Laos from Thailand. 

You may know that Sheldon Whitehouse, the Senator from 

Rhode Island, often says—and his father was Ambassador to 

Laos—that there is a few thousand fewer American names on that 

wall at the Vietnam War Memorial, because of the Hmong. 

But I am here to talk about my new legislation, the Quicker Benefits Delivery Act. This piece of legislation has one simple purpose, 

to enable VA to get benefits to veterans more quickly. 

We are all concerned about the claims backlog, and VA is working hard to address it. The fundamental issue is that we need to 

make sure veterans are getting the benefits to which they are entitled as quickly as possible. This is especially important when it 

comes to our newest veterans who are still in the process of 

transitioning back to civilian life. That is what my legislation will 

do. 

It is a pragmatic effort to make sure that VA has the tools to get 

benefits into the hands of veterans as quickly as possible and uses 

those tools most effectively. 

I am very pleased that Congressman Tim Walz, who is also from 

Minnesota and is a member of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, has introduced companion legislation on the House side. He 

and I have heard from veterans in Minnesota about these issues 

and we owe several of the proposed solutions to suggestions from 

VSOs, Veterans Service Organizations, including testimony before 

your Committee. 

My bill would get benefits into the hands of veterans more quickly in three ways. First, my bill would expand VA’s use of non-VA 

medical evidence, medical examinations, and medical opinions in 

the claims process. That private medical evidence could only be 

used where it is competent, credible, and probative, in other words, 

fully adequate for helping to decide a veteran’s claim. 

VA is already making use of non-VA medical evidence, but my 

legislation would shift the burden a little bit more to VA so that 

8 

VA has to make the case for why it would not use a non-VA medical examination to assess a veteran’s claim. 

Not only would veterans who submit such evidence receive their 

benefits more quickly under my bill, it would also free up VA resources so that more veterans who do need VA medical examinations would also get their claims decided more quickly. 

Second, my bill would expand VA’s authorities to rapidly provide 

a veteran with provisional benefits when there is enough evidence 

to warrant it even if VA has not yet made the final determination 

about the veterans disability and compensation. This would be 

done through what are called pre-stabilization ratings which are 

for our newest veterans who may not yet have fully recovered from 

their injuries. 

My bill would also expand VA’s ability and its responsibility to 

give out a temporary minimum disability rating to a veteran where 

that is appropriate but where VA has not yet been able to make 

a final determination about all of the veterans claims. In fact, the 

VA recently announced that it was going to do just that with respect to the oldest claims in the backlog. 

The purpose here is to make sure that veterans and their families can start getting benefits as soon as it is clear they are entitled 

to. Those veterans are then effectively not part of the backlog since 

they are getting benefits, and my legislation would clarify that. 

Finally, my legislation addresses an issue we hear a lot about 

from veterans who have become students and are making use of 

the GI Bill benefits. Those student veterans have to wait until the 

first of a given month to receive their housing benefits for the previous month. That does not make a whole lot of sense to me, but 

my understanding is that VA needs the explicit authority to provide such benefits before the first day of the month, and my legislation makes that clarification. 

Of course, my legislation by itself will not solve the claims backlog issue; but in significant ways, it will provide the VA with some 

tools to help it address this fundamental issue of making sure our 

veterans get the benefits that they have earned as quickly as 

possible. 

As this legislation moves forward, I continue to welcome any and 

all suggestions for how it might be refined and improved to accomplish this important purpose. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

I am sorry but now I have to excuse myself because I need to 

go to the Health Committee where we are doing the markup of the 

ESCA bill, and I see Senator Murkowski has preceded me in leaving for that room. 

So, I appreciate your attention and hope you have a good hearing. Thank you. 

Chairman SANDERS. Thank you very much Senator Franken. 

Senator Wyden. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you very much, Chairman Sanders and 

Senator Heller, for having me today. I can see you have lots of colleagues. 

9 

The bill that I am going to discuss today is S. 748 and it is the 

product of a long-standing and bipartisan partnership that this 

Committee has had with the Special Committee on Aging, particularly on issues relating to the rights of older veterans. 

The legislation that I offer today with Senator Burr—we have 

worked on this for many, many months—revolves around the fact 

that last June the Senate Special Committee on Aging held an investigative hearing on scams that target older veterans using a 

specific VA pension, in effect, to lure in the veteran. 

What the Aging Committee found—we actually had an undercover investigation that was again at the request of a bipartisan 

group of Senators—what we found is that there are a number of 

financial planners, lawyers, and others who use the VA’s enhanced 

pension—and this is the pension for the most vulnerable of our 

older veterans, the most vulnerable of the low-income veterans. 

It is called the enhanced pension with aide and attendance, and 

they essentially use [knowledge of] this pension to kind of lure the 

older veteran into a variety of arrangements with trusts and annuities; and the poacher gets these, you know, large fees and very 

often the older veterans end up with virtually nothing. They do not 

have their aide and attendance; they are just completely ripped off. 

So, the General Accounting Office, after the undercover investigation, recommended to the Congress that there be a look-back 

period similar to Medicare and Medicaid so that we could achieve 

two objectives: one, take away the ability of these ripoff artists, the 

pension imposter, to target the low income, older veteran; and two, 

make sure that we preserve this critical benefit for the many veterans who need it. 

So, Senator Burr and I have worked with the advocacy groups 

for veterans and with the VA itself; and the heart of the legislation 

is to offer this kind of look-back. I think with the bipartisan support we have—we worked with the VA to make sure this would not 

contribute to the backlog volume—we now have legislation that we 

believe is ready for the Committee’s consideration. 

I am also appreciative of the Assisted Living Federation of America writing to the Committee supporting the legislation and pledging that their industry wants to also figure out a way to drain the 

swamp. 

Mr. Chairman, you and I talked about this back in the days 

when I had a full head of hair and rugged good looks. I was the 

co-director of the Gray Panthers. 

Chairman SANDERS. I would not go that far. 

Senator WYDEN. All right. Fair enough. [Laughter.] 

I have seen a lot of scams and this Committee has as well. This 

is one of the most outrageous. Senator Burr and I hope that we can 

move forward expeditiously, and we very much appreciate your 

consideration. 

I, too, am going to have to go but I am very grateful to be able 

to work with the Committee. 

Chairman SANDERS. Senator Wyden, thanks very much. 

Senator Merkley. 

10 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Chairman Sanders and 

Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to introduce you to Senate Bill 1039, the Spouses of Heroes Education Act 

of 2013. 

This bill is cosponsored by Senator Heller. Senator, thank you 

very much. It addresses the needs of spouses of our fallen heroes 

in the armed services. The Spouses of Heroes Education Act would 

grant post-9/11 era widows and widowers the same educational 

benefits that Congress has authorized for their children under the 

Gunnery Sergeant John D. Fry Scholarship Program through the 

post-9/11 GI Bill. At age 18, these children can attend any public 

college tuition free and receive a housing allowance and an annual 

book stipend. 

Surviving spouses of the current conflicts, however, are left with 

far less generous benefits. They have access only to the limited 

Survivors’ and Dependents’ Educational Assistance, DEA benefits. 

DEA pays only $987 per month for full-time study with no support 

for housing or books; and it is very difficult for surviving spouses, 

especially those with children, to afford college or job training 

under the DEA program. 

I want to thank veteran Robert Thornhill of Central Oregon, who 

came to one of my town halls and pointed this out. Quite frankly, 

I was surprised to find that we did not treat spouses in the same 

way as the children. 

And a special thanks to Army Colonel retired Bob Norton of the 

Military Officers Association of America, who has helped to give 

feedback and thoughts and circulation to this legislation. 

This bill would provide the new GI Bill benefits to the spouses 

of those servicemembers who made the ultimate sacrifice to their 

Nation. By opting to receive the Fry Scholarship, spouses would 

forgo other GI Bill benefits related to education, such as DEA. The 

scholarship benefits would expire after a period of 15 years. 

We must remember that the spouses of our fallen heroes were 

often left to raise young children as a single parent. These children 

may not be eligible to use the Fry Scholarship to help with college 

expenses for many years, but in the meantime, the parents should 

have the opportunity to go back to school and prepare for a wellpaying job that can support his or her family. 

The bill is endorsed by the Military Officers Association of America, the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the National Guard Association 

of the United States, Vietnam Veterans of America, the American 

Legion, and Iraqi and Afghanistan Veterans of America. It is endorsed by the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Military Order 

of the Purple Heart, AMVETS, and Student Veterans of America. 

In addition, the Veterans Legislative Committee of the Military 

Coalition, a group comprised of 33 organizations representing more 

than 5.5 million members of the uniform services and their families 

have endorsed this goal of providing surviving spouses with the 

same educational benefits to which the children are entitled. 

Our Nation owes an enormous debt of gratitude to our fallen and 

their family members. Our servicemembers have made extraordinary sacrifices, and we must never forget that their families have 

11 

sacrificed alongside them. We can never repay the sacrificed to a 

fallen hero’s spouse but we can honor them by ensuring they have 

the tools they need to go back to school and provide a foundation 

for their family. 

Our veterans and our veterans’ families have stood up for our 

Nation abroad and we need to stand up for them here at home. 

I look forward to working with Senator Heller and the Committee to move this bill forward. 

Thank you. 

Chairman SANDERS. Senator Merkley, thank you very much. 

Senator Shaheen. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Senator SHAHEEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator 

Heller, Senators Tester and Begich. I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before you to talk about two pieces of legislation that I have introduced. 

The first is the Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act, which I introduced along with Senator Gillibrand back 

in February. This bill would address ongoing discrimination 

against gay and lesbian members of the military and their families. 

In particular, it would make a number of critical benefits including TRICARE Access, VA survivor benefits, and travel and transportation allowances available to all military spouses regardless of 

sexual orientation. That is not the case now despite the repeal of 

‘‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.’’ 

Even if the Defense of Marriage Act is overturned by the Supreme Court, legislation like the Charlie Morgan Military Spouses 

Act would likely still be necessary to help ensure equality in military and veterans’ benefits for all of our Nation’s military spouses. 

Now, I am not going to go into the details of this legislation because I know you will do that in Committee but I did want to just 

say a few words about the woman who the bill is named after, 

Charlie Morgan. 

She was a New Hampshire National Guard chief warrant officer 

who very sadly passed away earlier this year after a courageous 

battle with breast cancer. 

Charlie enlisted in the Army in 1982 in Kentucky. She served in 

the regular army. After getting out, rejoined the New Hampshire 

National Guard after September 11 because she was so moved by 

the need to again serve this country after those terrorist attacks. 

She served a year in deployment in Kuwait and served very honorably despite having to keep her personal life secret from all of 

her fellow soldiers. 

Charlie and her wife Karen were not able to take advantage of 

many of the support programs that were so essential and are so essential to the health and well-being of our military families. 

After she was diagnosed with breast cancer, the issue of benefits 

for her family became very personal, and unfortunately she is not 

going to be able to see their final day in court despite having joined 

the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act, but I introduced this 

bill to honor her memory and because every individual, regardless 

of their sexual orientation, who provides for our defense deserves 

12 

the peace of mind that comes with knowing that their family is 

going to be taken care of when something happens to them. 

Now, the second piece of legislation is the Veteran Legal Services 

Act, which I introduced with Senators Klobuchar and Murphy. I 

know that you all have been working very hard to address the 

backlog in our VA benefits, that goes without saying. It is a national disgrace that we have so many veterans waiting so long to 

get the benefits that are due them. 

This bill, I think, addresses one of the programs that, as we have 

looked at it, seems to be the most effective in helping to deal with 

the backlog as well as veteran homelessness: the work of our Nation’s law schools and their student volunteers. By counseling veterans with their disabilities claims, law students are turning incredibly complex stories and injuries into organized benefit applications that are exponentially reducing the VA’s processing time for 

the most complicated cases in the backlog. 

There are a number of States that have legal clinics that are 

working with veterans—North Carolina, West Virginia, Connecticut, Georgia, and Ohio, to name a few. What this bill would do is 

authorize the VA to coordinate more closely with these programs 

to ensure that they are as productive as possible. 

Again, I think it is one way to address the backlog that does not 

involve a lot of Federal dollars but gets the work done for our 

veterans. 

So again, thank you all very much for the work that you are 

doing and the opportunity to appear before you this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Shaheen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JEANNE SHAHEEN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE

Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, Members of the Committee, I want to 

thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly about two pieces of legislation that 

are before you today. 

The first is the Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act, which I 

introduced along with Senator Gillibrand in February. The bill would address ongoing discrimination against gay and lesbian members of the military and their families. In particular, it would make a number of critical benefits, including TRICARE 

access, VA survivor benefits and travel and transportation allowances available to 

all military spouses, regardless of sexual orientation. 

A number of important family benefits and support programs remain unavailable 

to same-sex spouses under current law. Even if the Defense of Marriage Act is overturned by the Supreme Court, this bill would likely still be necessary to help ensure 

equality in military and veterans’ benefits for all of our Nation’s military spouses. 

I am certain the Committee will get into all of the various details on each of the 

benefits affected by this legislation, but today, I want to share with you the story 

of a true hero who inspired this act. The bill before you is named after Charlie Morgan, a New Hampshire National Guard Chief Warrant Officer, who sadly passed 

away earlier this year after a courageous battle with breast cancer. 

Charlie enlisted in the United States Army in 1982. After a brief period away, 

Charlie returned to service as a member of the Kentucky National Guard in 1992. 

Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Charlie returned for a third 

time, joining the 197th Fires Brigade of the New Hampshire National Guard, a tour 

that included a year-long deployment in Kuwait. 

Throughout her long career of service, she shouldered the incredible burden of 

keeping her life secret from her fellow soldiers. Charlie was unable to live openly 

under the ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ policy. In addition, despite enduring the same 

hardships as any other military family, Charlie and her wife, Karen, were not able 

to take advantage of many of the same support programs that are so essential to 

the health and well-being of military families. 

13 

Soon after ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ was repealed, Charlie came out publicly and 

began the fight for equal benefits for same-sex spouses, benefits she and her family 

had earned as much as any other military member. 

But, this was not just an abstract issue for Charlie. She was diagnosed with 

breast cancer in 2011, and knew that her time was limited. Concerned for the future 

well-being of her family, Charlie took aim at the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) 

by joining the challenge to its constitutionality in Federal court. 

Unfortunately, Charlie will not be able to see her final day in court. She passed 

away earlier this year. Charlie Morgan epitomized courage—in her military service, 

her fight for LGBT equality and in her battle with cancer. 

I introduced this bill to honor Charlie’s memory. Every individual who provides 

for our defense deserves the peace of mind that comes with knowing one’s family 

will be taken care of should the worst happen. 

LGBT servicemembers now serve openly in our military and we depend on them 

to keep us safe. Denying their legally recognized spouses equal benefits under the 

law is unjustified. No one should ever again go through what Charlie and her family 

had to go through. I hope my colleagues on this Committee will act quickly to address this issue by passing the Charlie Morgan Act and sending it to the floor for 

consideration. 

The second piece of legislation I’d like to discuss is the Veterans Legal Services 

Act, which I recently introduced along with Senators Klobuchar and Murphy. 

No one knows better than the Members of this Committee the frustration that 

we all share regarding the VA’s disability claims backlog. It is a national disgrace 

and one that we are all working to address. I know the Chairman has sponsored 

legislation on this issue and I am grateful to him for that leadership. 

Our bill would support one of the most productive efforts I have seen in recent 

years to address both the backlog as well as veterans homelessness: the work of our 

Nation’s law schools and their student volunteers. 

Since 2008, more than 30 law schools in 18 states have developed clinical programs specifically to assist veterans. By counseling veterans with their disability 

claims, law students are turning incredibly complex stories and injuries into organized benefits applications that are exponentially reducing VA’s processing time for 

the most complicated cases in the backlog. 

A perfect example of these programs is the Lewis B. Puller Jr. Veterans Benefits 

Clinic at William and Mary Law School. On average, students in the program provide over 70 hours of assistance per veteran, and over 330 hours of assistance per 

veterans for cases involving Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic 

Brain Injury (TBI). The results of their work have been outstanding. In one case, 

students helped a veteran recoup over $40,000 dollars in back payments. 

Many other states are developing equally successful programs including North 

Carolina, West Virginia, Connecticut, Georgia, and Ohio. 

Our legislation is simple. It authorizes VA to coordinate more closely with these 

programs to ensure they are as productive as possible. We are hopeful that with 

VA’s support and guidance these programs will continue to thrive and make it easier for additional schools to follow their lead. Our goal is to eventually have a veteran’s legal clinic in every state. 

Again, I want to thank the Committee again for the opportunity to appear here 

today, for consideration of these two pieces of legislation, and for your continued 

service on behalf of our Nation and its veterans. 

Chairman SANDERS. Senator Shaheen, thank you very much. 

As I understand it, Senator Tester, you are going to have to 

make a quick exit, is that correct? 

Senator TESTER. That is correct. 

Chairman SANDERS. And you would like to say a few words on 

a piece of legislation. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. If I might, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I thank 

the Chairman and, Senator Heller—you look good in that position—for having this hearing. 

I want to thank the VSOs participation in the Ruth Moore Act. 

The Ruth Moore Act deals with military sexual trauma and how 

the VA deals with it. In that regard, Mr. McCoy, I appreciate the 

14 

VA’s recent efforts to better adjudicate claims based on military 

sexual trauma and your willingness to work with me and the Committee on this very important issue. 

As we address sexual assault in the military, we must do everything we can to support the survivors of service-related trauma. A 

recent Pentagon data estimate reported the number of sexual assaults in the military has increased by 35 percent over the last 

2 years. 

Tragically, these assaults have lasting consequences for the survivors, including PTSD, anxiety, depression, and various physical 

disabilities. Moreover, the female servicemembers who are sexually 

assaulted are more likely to develop PTSD than their male counterparts who have experienced combat. 

Establishing proof of military sexual assault, however, is very 

difficult in the current system and the vast majority of these assaults go unreported—as high as 85 percent according to some 

reports. 

Subsequently, the veterans have a hard time meeting the burden 

of proof when applying for VA benefits for disabilities linked to 

military sexual trauma. The Ruth Moore Act of 2013 would bring 

fairness to the VA claims process for victims of the service-related 

trauma by relaxing the evidentiary area standards for MST 

survivors. 

Now, while I acknowledge the VA’s recent efforts to improve adjudication of claims related to military sexual trauma, I think further action is necessary. The current standards are difficult, if not 

impossible, to meet; and they do an injustice to veterans who have 

honorably served their Nation yet suffer terrific trauma. 

Now, combating sexual assaults in the military will require a 

multipronged approach. No single law or policy will do this. A culture change is needed. 

But as long as we work together to prevent these atrocities from 

happening, we cannot forget the thousands of survivors who have 

summoned up the courage and turned to the government for help. 

So, we need to act on their behalf. 

I just want to once again thank the Chairman for the courtesy 

and look forward to further debating this bill. 

Chairman SANDERS. Senator Tester, thanks very much. 

CONTINUING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

CHAIRMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM VERMONT 

Chairman SANDERS. I recognize that today is a really busy day. 

There are Committee hearings all over the place so people are 

going to be coming and going. 

What I would like to do now is get back to regular order. I want 

to say a few words. I will give the mic over to Senator Heller and 

then we will hear from Senator Begich and then we will bring in 

our next panel. 

As I think everybody will recall, earlier in the session we had the 

opportunity, along with the House Veterans’ Committee, to hear 

from all of the service organizations. I found those hearings extraordinarily helpful because we heard from veterans from all 

walks of life, from different wars; and we had a very broad understanding of the needs of our veterans. 

15 

What I pledged to do with my staff was to listen very carefully 

to what the veterans organizations had to say and to do our best 

to respond to all of the legitimate concerns that they raised. That 

is what we are in the process of doing. 

As Members will recall from a month or so ago, we had what I 

thought was an excellent hearing focusing on health care issues. 

The bottom line is that I believe we have a strong health care system within the VA. 

With 152 medical centers and 900 CBOCs and Vet Centers all 

over this country, there is no question that we can make improvements. We intend to focus on VA health care very carefully and 

make those improvements. 

Today, what we are focusing on are benefits issues and I thought 

we heard some excellent testimony from our colleagues who are not 

on this Committee. We will hear testimony and comments from 

Members of this Committee who have introduced important legislation. 

Let me just take a moment to give a brief overview of some of 

the legislation that I have introduced. One of the issues that the 

veterans community and the American people are clearly concerned 

about is making sure that when young men and women return 

from Iraq and Afghanistan and from the Armed Forces in general, 

they are able to return to civilian life and get decent jobs. 

We are recovering from a serious recession. The economy is better than it was but unemployment remains much, much too high. 

So, I have introduced legislation called the Veterans Equipped for 

Success Act of 2013, which I think will go a significant way forward 

in providing good jobs for those men and women who have returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, who have been discharged from 

the Armed Forces. 

We have heard today, and we have heard for many, many 

months, probably the major issue that veterans organizations and 

I think the American people are concerned about, as Senator 

Shaheen just mentioned. is to make absolutely sure that when a 

veteran files a claim for benefits that that claim is processed in a 

reasonable period of time. 

We are all appalled that in some cases it is taking years for these 

claims to be adjudicated. Secretary Shinseki has brought forth a 

goal to make sure that every claim is processed within 125 days 

and I believe he intends to do that by the end of 2015. 

As we all know, 5 years ago there was limited discussion about 

the need to do what every major corporation in America and other 

government agencies have done, and that is go from a paper to a 

digital system. The VA is now in the process of making that huge 

transformation. We think they are making some progress but obviously they have a long way to go. 

We have legislation to make sure that the very ambitious goal 

of making sure that every claim is processed with 125 days and to 

have that done by the end of 2015, in fact, takes place when it is 

supposed to. We are going to be watching that and we have legislation that will monitor that very, very closely. 

There is another piece of legislation that we have introduced 

called the Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of 2013. As we all 

know, a decade of war has had a major impact on our military famVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN
16 

ilies. Over 6,600 servicemembers have died in operations Iraqi 

Freedom and Enduring Freedom, leaving behind spouses and children who relied on them. 

Earlier this year, this Committee heard from the Gold Star 

Wives of America about the significant challenges that survivors 

continue to face such as the need for improved dependency and indemnity compensation benefits and qualification requirements. 

The Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of 2013 would address 

many of these challenges, and I think we certainly owe that to the 

survivors. 

One of the ongoing concerns that I have and one of the hearings 

that we had dealt with the fact that no matter how strong the benefits or health care that we provide veterans is, it does not do anybody any good unless veterans and their families understand the 

benefits to which they are entitled. 

While the VA does a lot of things very, very well, one of the 

things that they have not done well is outreach. In the last couple 

of months, by the way, I think we have seen a turnaround on that. 

I think they are doing a better job. 

It is not unimpressive that over 50 percent of the servicemembers who are leaving the Armed Forces now are, in fact, enrolled 

in the VA. That is an historically high level of outreach in bringing 

people into the system. 

Our legislation is called the Veterans Outreach Act of 2013 and 

it deals with the fact that if veterans are unaware of their benefits, 

then nothing we discuss here today will help them when they need 

assistance. 

So, we have the Veterans Outreach Act of 2013 which, in a number of ways, works with community organizations to make sure 

that every veteran in this country understands the benefits to 

which he or she is entitled. 

So, those are some of the issues that I will be working on. Now, 

let me give the mic over to Senator Heller. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEAN HELLER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator HELLER. Mr. Chairman, Thank you and thank you for 

your leadership on this issue and for holding today’s hearing. I 

want to thank my colleagues who were here earlier. You can tell 

that when it comes to veterans issues it is very bipartisan; and it 

is good to have and to see that kind of support for our veterans 

here in this country. 

I want to thank those that are here as witnesses that will testify, 

and I also want to thank those that are in the audience for taking 

time from your busy schedules to show support on these bills. 

I have a number of bills that will be discussed today that I have 

written or cosponsored, and I would like to touch on a few of them, 

if I may, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I would like to discuss the Accountability for Veterans Act. 

It is no secret this community has been holding vigorous oversight 

of the backlog at the VA for disabilities and benefits claims. To say 

that patience on this is thinning is probably an understatement. 

In Las Vegas and in Reno, there are more than 10,000 pending 

claims. Las Vegas veterans have been hit particularly hard by the 

17 

economic downturn and these disability payments are critical to 

these veterans who are trying to make ends meet. 

I know there is not one solution that will solve this issue but one 

problem seems to be coordination between VBA and other government agencies. 

When the VA was here testifying on the backlog, we were told 

that the employees at the VA were required to fax requests for files 

to the Department of Defense, the Social Security Administration, 

the National Archives and then wait 60 days. 

Then, when they did not get a response, they were to e-mail 

those agencies and wait another 30 days. This process is outdated. 

The fax machine is irrelevant. VA should modernize its procedure, 

and that is why I have introduced the Accountability for Veterans 

Act. 

This bill requires DOD, the Social Security Administration, and 

the National Archives to respond to a VA requests for veterans files 

within 30 days with either the file or an explanation why the file 

was not available and when the VA can expect this file. This bill 

also calls for a biannual report to Congress on the time it takes for 

these agencies to respond to the VA requests. 

The measure has the support of the American Legion, Disabled 

American Veterans, the Military Officers Association of America, 

and the Veterans of Foreign Wars because we must hold these 

agencies accountable if they are not providing information in a 

timely manner. 

I have another measure that I would like to address and that is 

the Filipino Veterans Promise Act. Before I do that, I want to recognize someone in our audience, Mr. Almato, and I want to thank 

you for being here today and thank you for your service. 

[Applause.] 

The Filipino Veterans Promise Act is bipartisan and bicameral. 

It fulfills the obligation that the United States makes every effort 

to ensure that individuals who served our Nation are properly recognized for their contributions to our Nation. 

There is no doubt that the Filipino soldiers served honorably in 

the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines, recognized guerrilla 

forces, and the new Philippine Scouts alongside U.S. troops during 

World War II. 

Today, many Filipino veterans are not able to have their service 

of World War II verified by the Army’s National Personnel Records 

Center. The NPRC uses only evidence that is approved by the U.S. 

Army and does not have access to a consolidated personal file for 

most of the individuals who served in the Philippine army or guerrilla unit. 

The Filipino Veterans Promise Act would mandate that the Department of Defense in coordination with military historians establish a process to open the approved revised reconstructed guerrilla 

roster of 1948, also known as the Missouri List, to give Filipinos 

the opportunity to prove their service during World War II. 

I was proud to introduce this bill in the U.S. Senate and work 

with Representative Hanabusa in the House of Representatives because Filipino veterans deserve a better process to adjudicate their 

claims than currently exists. 

18 

It is important to note that this bill works at length to ensure 

that we are arming those who served and not providing benefits for 

any person that did not. This is why this bill calls for the Army 

to verify service. It is an added protection to ensure that hardearned benefits are going to those who earned them. 

I think we can all agree that if any person served our country 

in battle and is not receiving benefits they earned, this should be 

an outrage. Las Vegas, in particular, has a large Filipino population and a number of Filipinos there are still seeking recognition 

as veterans. They are a respected part of the community and they 

deserve a fair and complete examination of their record. 

I have also introduced two bills that will help military families 

who have lost a loved one in the line of duty: the Veteran Small 

Business Opportunity and Protection Act; as well as a bipartisan 

bill, the Spouses of Heroes Education Act, that Senator Merkley 

testified on earlier today. 

Last, I introduced a bill with my fellow Committee Member, Senator Murray, the Care for Veterans’ Dependents Act. 

I appreciate the consideration given to all these measures and 

the time today to discuss them. As this Committee further discusses me and my colleagues’ proposals to help America’s veterans 

receive the benefits that they have earned, it is my hope that we 

will remember our commitments to caring for those brave heroes 

who sacrificed greatly to serve this country. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SANDERS. Thank you very much, Senator Heller. 

Senator Begich. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank 

you again for having this hearing today. I just want to speak about 

one bill, although I am on several others, which I appreciate my 

colleagues on both sides of the aisle. 

There is no question that in Alaska we have the highest number 

per capita of veterans in the Nation; and everywhere and any time 

I am in Alaska, the issues of veterans come up on small-scale and 

large-scale. So again, thank you for having the list of legislation to 

go over today. 

I want to just talk about one specific bill, which is S. 932, the 

Putting Veterans Funding First Act. This bill acts as a continuation. As you know, we have advanced appropriations on the health 

care side, and what I am trying to do here is include the second 

part which is VA discretionary accounts, including the National 

Cemetery Administration, the Veterans Benefits Administration, 

and the Native American Veterans Housing Loan Program. 

It would also authorize advance appropriations for the following 

discretionary administration accounts: general operating expenses; 

information technology systems; Office of the Inspector General; 

construction for both major and minor projects; and grants for construction of State extended-care facilities. 

Mr. Chairman, this has been something that I have believed in 

ever since I was back in local government and that is trying to get 

19 

more and more governments to 2-year cycles on funding because it 

gives more stability for the agencies. 

We did this for part of the VA in regard to their health care section where they have advance funding. It makes a big difference for 

them to hire nurses, hire medical technicians, and others and it 

just seems that we should complete the circle and finish out the VA 

in giving them advance appropriation for all of their operations. 

This would make a huge difference for management of the VA. 

As a former mayor—I know you are a former mayor, Mr. Chairman—every time we dealt with our budget folks, we spent months 

in preparation. Then we got the budget done. Then we had a few 

months to manage it. Then we were back into preparation mode 

again. It made no sense. 

With the VA having so much need that is going to grow very significantly over the next several years, it just seems logical that we 

get them on a cycle of more certainty which ensures veterans that 

certain programs, as I just mentioned, would have the long-term 

certainty and funding mechanism they need to hire people, to get 

contracts, to move forward on construction, and other things that 

are necessary for our veterans. 

So, it is a simple bill, a continuation of advance appropriations 

complementing what we have already done. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I will leave it at that. There are other bills 

that I have cosponsored and I am very excited about several of 

them, but I know we want to get to the panel. 

I have to step out for a few minutes but I will be back because, 

as you said, a lot of ideas we get from the veterans organizations 

are incredible for us and we should be listening carefully to hear 

those ideas. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SANDERS. Senator Begich, thank you very much. 

Senator Boozman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you so 

much for having this very, very important hearing to evaluate proposals to improve the quality of delivery of care for our Nation’s 

veterans that have served our country, and really try to continue 

as a Committee and as Senators to uphold all of the promises that 

we made to their families. 

I appreciate the Senator from Alaska’s leadership on the bill that 

he just mentioned. We are the lead Republican cosponsor on that, 

and to me it is just good governance. It makes all the sense in the 

world, and I hope that we can get that done in the sense that I 

think it is so important that we move government, you know, into 

this century. I think that is one of the ways that we do it. 

You know, this is something that would not cost us any money. 

It would save us a lot of money and create tremendous efficiencies. 

So, again, I thank you very much for your work on that. 

I am also pleased that we have three other legislative proposals 

that we are working with and looking forward with my colleagues 

to try to get signed into law. 

20 

S. 257, the GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act would protect our veterans ability to use their GI benefit at the school of their choice 

without facing the liability of having to offset out-of-state tuition 

fees by paying out of their own pocket. 

I know that there have been other proposals on how to accomplish the underlying principle of this legislation, which is to protect 

choice for our veterans when utilizing one of their most important 

economic opportunity benefits. 

This legislation is supported by many VSOs including some here 

today. I believe that it would very much be a step in the right direction in expanding educational opportunities for veterans and 

would actually save the Federal Government money. I look forward 

to working with my colleagues to accomplish this worthy goal. 

S. 695, the Veterans Paralympic Act of 2013 seeks to reauthorize 

the paralympic integrated adaptive sports program for disabled 

veterans. The modest investment that we make in this program 

improves the physical and mental health of so many of our disabled 

veterans. 

This program has reached more than 5,000 participants in more 

than 150 communities in 46 States. It has successfully collaborated 

with 85 VA medical centers in 39 States to provide an adaptive 

sports program to veterans in their communities. 

Extending this program I think is a common sense step to empower our disabled veterans through sport and benefits the physical and mental health of the disabled veteran community. 

S. 889, the Service Members Choice in Transition Act, is another 

bill that we have been working on. The Department of Defense is 

redesigning and updating TAP to make it more interactive and this 

makes it such that it offers on a non-mandatory basis specialized 

tracks for servicemembers that fit their transition goals. 

The legislation would mandate that servicemembers be given a 

choice to take one of the tracks as part of the mandatory portion 

of TAP and will assist them in meeting the specific transition goal. 

This goal-oriented structure helps our transitioning veterans 

identify and pursue specific goals early, which means that they will 

be more likely to use their hard-earned benefits wisely. 

Again, I think this is so important. If, through TAP and every 

other device that we have, we can make it such that we can get 

our veterans employed, get them where they are able to support 

their families, take care of themselves, then it is not only the right 

thing to do but it is something that saves tremendous amounts of 

money long term in trying to deal with the problems of not being 

able to do that. 

All of these bills I have just mentioned are reasonable, bipartisan 

proposals to improve the lives and opportunities of our veterans 

and their families, and I appreciate their consideration here today. 

With that, I would like to include the rest of my statement for 

the record and get on to our witnesses. 

Chairman SANDERS. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Boozman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS

Mr. Chairman, Thank you for holding this hearing so that we can continue to 

evaluate proposals to improve the quality and delivery of services to our Nation’s 

21 

veterans, and fight to uphold all of the promises that we have made to them and 

their families. 

I am particularly pleased that we have included three of my legislative proposals 

and look forward to working with my colleagues to get these bills signed into law. 

S. 257, the GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act would protect our veterans’ ability to use 

their GI Benefit at the school of their choice, without facing the liability of having 

to offset out-of-state tuition fees by paying out of their own pocket. I know that 

there have been other proposals on how to accomplish the underlying principal of 

this legislation—which is to protect choice for our veterans when utilizing one of 

their most important economic opportunity benefits—and I look forward to working 

with my colleagues to accomplish this worthy goal. This legislation is supported by 

many VSO’s, including some here today, and would be a step in the right direction 

in expanding educational opportunities for veterans and would actually save the 

Federal Government money. 

S. 695, the Veterans Paralympic Act of 2013 seeks to reauthorize the Paralympic 

Integrated Adaptive Sports Program for disabled veterans. The modest investment 

that we make in this program improves the physical and mental health of so many 

of our disabled veterans. This program has reached more than 5,000 participants 

in more than 150 communities in 46 states. It has successfully collaborated with 85 

VA medical centers in 39 states to provide adaptive sports programs to veterans in 

their communities. Extending this program is a common sense step to empower our 

disabled veterans through sport, and benefits the physical and mental health of our 

disabled veteran community. 

S. 889, the Servicemembers’ Choice in Transition Act is another bill I have been 

working on. The Department of Defense (DOD) is re-designing and updating TAP 

to make it more interactive and it offers on a non-mandatory basis specialized 

tracks for servicemembers that fit their transition goals. This legislation would mandate that servicemembers be given the choice to take one of the tracks as part of 

the mandatory portion of TAP, and will assist them in meeting their specific transition goal. This goal oriented structure helps our transitioning veterans identify and 

pursue specific goals early, which means that they will be more likely to use their 

hard earned benefits wisely. 

All of these bills I have just mentioned are reasonable, bipartisan proposals to improve the lives and opportunities of our veterans and their families, and I appreciate 

their consideration here today. 

Other important bills before us today will: 

• Protect the second amendment rights of our nations’ veterans • Recognize the honorable service of guardsmen and reservists that have served 

our Nation for 20 or more years • Ensure the freedom of religious expression on national war memorials • Ensure a cost of living adjustment for disabled veterans 

• Try to fix our broken VA claims processing system; and 

• Provide many other economic opportunities to those who have served and sacrificed on behalf of our grateful Nation. 

These are all important goals and I appreciate everyone here for all of your hard 

work on behalf of our Nation’s veterans and look forward to continuing our work 

together to address these issues facing the veteran community. 

Chairman SANDERS. Very good. Senator Boozman, thanks very 

much. I want to thank each of the Senators who have spoken about 

their important legislation; we look forward to working with all of 

them. 

Now, we are ready for our second panel. We welcome representatives of the VA. 

Senator Boozman, did you want to come up here? 

Senator BOOZMAN. I think Senator Heller is about to join us. 

Chairman SANDERS. OK. We are pleased to have with us Curtis 

L. Coy, who is the Deputy Undersecretary for Economic Opportunity of the Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans’ Affairs. He is accompanied by Thomas Murphy, Director of 

Compensation Service; Richard Hipolit, Assistant General Counsel; 

and John Brizzi, Deputy Assistant General Counsel. 

Gentlemen, thanks very much for being with us. Mr. Coy, I think 

we begin with you. 

22 

STATEMENT OF CURTIS L. COY, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY 

FOR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; 

ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS MURPHY, DIRECTOR OF COMPENSATION SERVICE; RICHARD HIPOLIT, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL; AND JOHN BRIZZI, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

GENERAL COUNSEL 

Mr. COY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to you, 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am pleased to be 

here today to provide the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs on pending legislation affecting VA’s programs. 

We are encouraged seeing so many legislative proposals aimed at 

improving benefits and services for our Nation’s veterans. We are 

particularly glad to see the inclusion of some of the concepts VA 

put forth in April in its 2014 budget as well as significant legislation aimed at addressing claims backlog. 

As we have been reporting regularly to the Committee, VA has 

been able to do much in the areas of people, process, and technology under the authorities it has now but there are systemic 

changes that could be done only by legislation. 

We are happy to discuss these bills that are aimed at giving veterans better tools to further their education and employment, extend certain work-study activities, and improve our programs that 

benefit veteran-owned small businesses. 

Accompanying me this morning are my colleagues are Thomas 

Murphy, Director, Compensation Service at Veterans Benefits Administration; Richard Hipolit, Assistant General Counsel; and John 

Brizzi, Deputy Assistant General Counsel. 

Given the number of bills under consideration today and in the 

interest of time, I will focus my statement this morning on legislation impacting several broad areas. There are also significant bills 

on the subject of outreach, benefits for survivors, and mental 

health programs. For several bills we provided our views and costs 

for the record. Similar to the Members of this Committee, VA is always seeking new ways to improve benefits for those who have 

served. 

I am a 24-year veteran of the U.S. Navy and, like you and your 

staff, work hard to ensure that we honor those who have served 

and sacrificed for our country. 

With respect to those bills that affect education and employment 

of veterans, the VA supports any effort that would end those opportunities. We support extending the veterans are retraining and assistance program but we suggest additional changes to the program 

to improve the administration of the program and give veterans 

more choices. 

The VA also supports the veterans internship pilot but again recommends several ambiguities and resource issues be addressed before moving the bill for word. 

While we are sympathetic to the issue of rising tuition costs, it 

is difficult to endorse any legislation that might impact or limit 

choices of veterans that they may have were a school not to offer 

in-state tuition for veterans. 

Similarly, changing the way we currently calculate tuition and 

fees in the post-9/11 GI Bill would be a challenge to both impleVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN
23 

ment and understand. We look forward to working with the Committee to address these challenges. 

The VA strongly supports those bills that propose to extend existing programs such as portions of the vocational rehabilitation and 

employment, the paralympics, and VA’s work-study program and 

we would suggest making some of those extensions permanent. 

Finally, we appreciate the Committee’s interest in legislation intended to reduce the disability claims backlog. We support many 

provisions of the claims process improvement act of 2013 which 

hold promise to take a significant bite out of the backlog without 

prejudicing veterans and we look forward to commenting shortly on 

other significant provisions of that bill. We want to work with you 

and other stakeholders here today to have a collaborative dialog 

about all of the proposals on the agenda today. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for the 

opportunity to appear before you today. We would be pleased to respond to any questions you or other Members of the Committee 

may have about any of these bills or other legislation discussed in 

our written testimony. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Coy follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CURTIS L. COY, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR ECONOMIC

OPPORTUNITY, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am pleased to 

be here today to provide the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on 

pending legislation affecting VA’s programs, including the following: Sections 101, 

102 and 103 of S. 6, S. 200, S. 257, S. 262, S. 294, S. 373, S. 430, sections 5, 6, 7, 

and 8 of S. 495, S. 514, S. 515, S. 572, S. 629, S. 674, S. 690, S. 695, S. 705, S. 748, 

S. 893, S. 894, S. 922, sections 103, 104, 201, 202, 301, 302, 303, 304, and 305 of 

S. 928, and S. 939. VA has not had time to develop cost estimates for S. 514 and 

S. 894 and but will work to provide them. VA has not had time to develop views 

and costs on the other sections of S. 928. I cannot address today views and costs 

on S. 735, S. 778, S. 819, S. 863, S. 868, S. 889, S. 927, certain sections of S. 928, 

S. 930, S. 932, S. 935, S. 938, S. 944, S. 1039, S. 1042, and S. 1058, but, with your 

permission, we will work to provide that information. Other legislative proposals 

under discussion today would affect programs or laws administered by the Department of Labor (DOL), Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Defense (DOD), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the General Services 

Administration (GSA). Respectfully, we defer to those Departments’ views on those 

legislative proposals. Accompanying me this morning are Thomas Murphy, Director, 

Compensation Service, Veterans Benefits Administration; Richard Hipolit, Assistant 

General Counsel; and John Brizzi, Deputy Assistant General Counsel. 

S. 6

Section 101 of S. 6, the ‘‘Putting Our Veterans Back to Work Act of 2013,’’ would 

extend by two years the expiration of the Veterans Retraining Assistance Program 

(VRAP) under section 211 of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011, from March 31, 

2014, to March 31, 2016. This section also would increase the maximum enrollment 

in VRAP from 99,000 to 199,000 Veterans. It would add 50,000 participants during 

the period April 1, 2014 through March 31, 2015, and another 50,000 between 

April 1, 2015 and March 31, 2016. Finally, section 101 would amend subsection (b) 

of section 211 by striking ‘‘up to 12 months of retraining’’ and replacing it with ‘‘an 

aggregate of not more than 12 months of retraining.’’ 

VA generally supports the legislation that would extend the expiration of VRAP, 

to allow maximum enrollment of the currently allotted 99,000 participants. VA supports legislative initiatives that are designed to help Veterans seek and gain meaningful employment, and this legislation provides more time to select and complete 

their degree or certificate program, particularly those Veterans between the ages of 

24 

35 and 60. VA suggests, however, that changes be made to the existing program 

prior to expansion, including adding new participants. 

As of April 25, 2013, VA approved 98,296 applicants for VRAP benefits, but only 

43,803 Veterans were either enrolled in school or had used their benefits. VA 

reached out to individuals eligible for VRAP on several occasions to encourage them 

to enroll in training. VA recommends that the following changes be made to VRAP 

before expanding the program to more participants: 

• Allow participants to receive the full 12-month benefit as long as the participant 

starts a training program within the period between receiving their certificate of eligibility and the program’s sunset date. • Expand the program to include 4-year institutions that offer associate’s degrees. • Amend the sunset date of the program from March 31 to May 31 so that it does 

not end in the middle of a standard academic semester. 

Finally, VA recommends removing the partition of participants by fiscal year. 

Many unemployed Veterans cannot enroll in training before they receive their certificate of eligibility for VRAP. Therefore, Veterans may not enroll in school during 

the same fiscal year that they are determined eligible. Additionally, it is unclear if 

any unused slots from the original 99,000 participants will be lost in the next fiscal 

year or will remain available for use in the next fiscal year. To reduce confusion 

for Veterans using the program, VA recommends that any increase in beneficiaries 

be effective for the remainder of the program. VA estimates the benefit costs for section 101 of S. 6 would be $152.8 million during fiscal year (FY) 2014 and $1.3 billion for the period beginning on April 1, 2014 

through March 31, 2016. 

Section 102 of S. 6 would extend the provisions of Section 231 of Public Law 112– 

56 through December 31, 2016, VA’s authority to provide vocational rehabilitation 

benefits to members of the Armed Forces with severe injuries or illnesses who have 

not yet been rated for purposes of service-connected disability compensation. The 

current authority to provide such benefits to these Servicemembers expires on December 31, 2014. Section 102 also would require VA to submit a report to Congress 

on the benefits provided to these members of the Armed Forces within 180 days 

after the enactment of section 102. 

VA supports this provision and believes that extending automatic eligibility for 

vocational rehabilitation to Servicemembers for two additional years is warranted 

due to the expected acceleration in Servicemembers separating from the Armed 

Forces. This provision would allow individuals who are still on active duty to qualify 

for and receive vocational rehabilitation and employment services without waiting 

for a VA disability rating, and would facilitate their transition from military to civilian life. 

We do not anticipate additional costs to VA resulting from enactment of this provision because individuals who would receive vocational rehabilitation services 

under this provision would be expected to receive VA disability ratings as Veterans 

that would qualify them for vocational rehabilitation services. 

Section 103 of the bill would provide a two-year extension of the provisions of section 233 of Public Law 112–56, which entitles a Veteran who has completed a vocational rehabilitation program under chapter 31 of title 38, United States Code, and 

has exhausted state unemployment benefits, to an additional twelve-month period 

of vocational rehabilitation services without regard to the 12-year eligibility period 

or 48-month limitation on entitlements. Under current law, VA must receive the application for chapter 31 services before March 31, 2014, and within 6 months of exhausting regular unemployment compensation benefits. If section 103 were enacted, 

the deadline for receipt of an application would be extended until March 31, 2016. 

VA supports this provision. Extending this benefit for Veterans who are beyond 

the 12-year delimiting date would provide them the opportunity to prepare for and 

obtain suitable employment. 

VA estimates that benefit costs associated with enactment of section 103 would 

be approximately $260,000 from FY 2016 through FY 2018. There are no additional 

full-time equivalent (FTE) or general operating expenses (GOE) cost requirements. 

Sections 104, 201, 301, and 302 affect programs or laws administered by DOL. 

Section 202 affects programs or laws administered by DHS. Section 203 affects programs or laws administered by GSA. Respectfully we defer to those Departments’ 

views on those sections of S. 6. 

S. 200

S. 200 would establish eligibility for interment in a national cemetery for any individual who: (1) the Secretary of Veterans Affairs determines served in combat support of the Armed Forces in Laos during the period beginning on February 28, 1961, 

25 

and ending on May 15, 1975; and (2) at the time of death was a U.S. citizen or lawfully admitted alien. 

Section 401 of Public Law 95–202 authorizes the Secretary of Defense to determine whether the service of members of civilian or contractual groups shall be considered active duty for the purposes of all laws administered by VA. The DOD Civilian/Military Service Review Board advises the Secretary of Defense in determining 

if civilian service in support of the U.S. Armed Forces during a period of armed conflict is equivalent to active military service for VA benefits. VA provides burial and 

memorial benefits to individuals deemed eligible by reason of active military service 

established by the Secretary of Defense. 

VA does not support this bill because it would bypass the statutorily mandated 

process established under section 401 of Public Law 95–202 that promotes consistency in evaluation of various types of service. The established process under Public 

Law 95†202 ensures that determinations regarding individuals or groups who did 

not serve in the Armed Forces are based on adequate information regarding the nature of the operations of the U.S. Armed Forces at the relevant times and locations 

and the nature of the support provided by the individuals or groups in question. 

Further, VA relies on DOD to determine the circumstances of an individual’s service and when such service was rendered, and, for purposes of this bill, VA would 

have to rely on DOD to make determinations such as whether such service was ‘‘in 

combat support of the Armed Forces.’’ VA is not equipped to make those determinations on a case-by-case basis. Yet the bill makes no provision for DOD involvement 

in the process. In addition, it is unclear how ‘‘combat support’’ would be defined and 

documented for purposes of implementing this bill. 

If the assumption is made that the impacted population would be small, no significant cemetery construction or interment costs would be associated with this 

legislation. 

S. 257

S. 257, the ‘‘GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act of 2013,’’ would amend section 3679 of 

title 38, United States Code, to direct VA, for purposes of the educational assistance 

programs administered by the Secretary, to disapprove courses of education provided by public institutions of higher education that do not charge tuition and fees 

for Veterans at the same rate that is charged for in-state residents, regardless of 

the Veteran’s State of residence. The bill does not address whether tuition and fee 

rates for Servicemembers or other eligible beneficiaries of the GI Bill affect the approval status of a program of education. S. 257 would apply to educational assistance provided after August 1, 2014. In the case of a course of education in which 

a Veteran or eligible person (such as a spouse or dependent who is eligible for education benefits) is enrolled prior to August 1, 2014, that is subsequently disapproved 

by VA, the Department would treat that course as approved until the Veteran or 

eligible person completes the course in which the individual is enrolled. After August 1, 2018, any disapproved course would be treated as such, unless the Veteran 

or eligible person receives a waiver from VA. While VA is sympathetic to the issue 

of rising tuition costs, it is difficult to endorse the proposed legislation until we 

know more about the impact. 

VA cannot predict what reductions in offerings by educational institutions would 

result from this requirement. In-state tuition rules are set by individual States, and 

are undoubtedly driven by overall fiscal factors and other policy considerations. Additionally, the bill creates ambiguity since it is unclear whether institutions that 

charge out-of-state tuition and fees to other eligible persons for a course of education, but that charge in-state tuition to Veterans in the same course, would also 

be disapproved. 

VA estimates approximately 11.8 percent of Yellow Ribbon participants attended 

public institutions since the program’s inception. Of those, an estimated 80.6 percent were Veterans during the 2012 fall enrollment period. VA applied these percentages to the total amount of Yellow Ribbon benefits paid in FY 2012 and projected through FY 2023, assuming growth consistent with the overall chapter 33 

program. Based on those projections, VA estimates that enactment of S. 257 would 

result in benefit savings to VA’s Readjustment Benefits account of $2.3 million in 

the first year, $70.3 million over 5 years, and $179.9 million over 10 years. VA estimates there would be no additional GOE administrative costs required to implement 

this bill. 

S. 262

S. 262, the ‘‘Veterans Education Equity Act of 2013,’’ would amend section 

3313(c)(1) of title 38, United States Code, to revise the formula for the payment of 

26 

tuition and fees for individuals entitled to educational assistance under the Post9/11 GI Bill who are pursuing programs of education at a public institution of higher learning (IHL). The revised formula would include, as an additional payment formula, the lesser of the actual net cost for tuition and fees after applying the receipt 

of any tuition waivers, reductions, and scholarships, versus the greater of the actual 

net cost for in-state tuition and fees after applying the receipt of any tuition waivers, reductions, and scholarships, or $17,500 for the academic year beginning on August 1, 2011 (such amount to be increased each subsequent year by the average percentage increase in undergraduate tuition costs). The amendment would be effective 

with respect to the payment of educational assistance for an academic year beginning on or after the date of enactment. 

Currently, resident and non-resident students pursuing programs of education at 

public IHLs receive the actual net cost for in-state tuition and fees charged by the 

institution. As written, this bill would allow non-resident students to receive an 

amount above net in-state tuition charges in some instances. 

While VA understands the issue of rising educational costs and supports the intent underlying the bill to provide payment equity for individuals training under the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill, VA cannot support the proposed legislation. 

The additional separate rules for tuition-and-fee charges would add yet another 

level of complexity to the Post-9/11 GI Bill for both Veterans and schools to understand. VA continues to receive complaints from participants regarding confusion 

about exactly how much they will receive in tuition and fees under the program. 

This bill would exacerbate that problem. 

S. 262 would also lead to very complicated processing scenarios in the Long Term 

Solution (LTS), the computer processing system for the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Rules in 

the LTS system regarding payment amounts would need to be updated. Additionally, since the amount of educational assistance would be based on the actual net 

cost for tuition and fees versus the greater of the actual net cost for in-state tuition 

and fees and $17,500, VA would have to apply a blended set of rules to each claim 

that falls under these provisions. 

In addition, VA has identified technical concerns with the bill’s text. For example, 

it is unclear how to apply the $17,500 cap per academic year to enrollments. The 

bill does not specify if VA would need to pay the first term of the academic year 

up to the maximum amount or divide the total yearly allotment over the course of 

different semesters. There could be scenarios in which an individual may receive 

most of, if not all, the yearly allotment for the fall term alone, leaving no money 

to be spent in the subsequent terms. 

VA estimates that the benefit cost associated with enactment of this bill would 

be $613.0 million in the first year, $3.4 billion over 5 years, and $7.6 billion over 

10 years. No administrative or personnel costs to VA are associated with this bill. 

VA information technology costs are estimated to be $1 million. These costs include 

enhancements to the Post-9/11 GI Bill Long-Term Solution. 

S. 294

Section 2(a) of S. 294, the ‘‘Ruth Moore Act of 2013,’’ would add to 38 U.S.C. 

§ 1154 a new subsection (c) to provide that, if a Veteran alleges that a ‘‘covered mental health condition’’ was incurred or aggravated by military sexual trauma (MST) 

during active service, VA must ‘‘accept as sufficient proof of service-connection’’ a 

mental health professional’s diagnosis of the condition together with satisfactory lay 

or other evidence of such trauma and the professional’s opinion that the condition 

is related to such trauma, provided that the trauma is consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of such service, irrespective of whether there 

is an official record of incurrence or aggravation in service. Service connection could 

be rebutted by ‘‘clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.’’ In the absence of 

clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and provided the claimed MST is consistent with the circumstances, conditions, and hardships of service, the Veteran’s 

lay testimony alone would be sufficient to establish the occurrence of the claimed 

MST. The provision would define the term ‘‘covered mental health condition’’ to 

mean Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), anxiety, depression, ‘‘or other mental 

health diagnosis described in the current version’’ of the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders that VA ‘‘determines 

to be related to military sexual trauma.’’ The bill would define MST to mean ‘‘psychological trauma, which in the judgment of a mental health professional, resulted 

from a physical assault of a sexual nature, battery of a sexual nature, or sexual harassment which occurred during active military, naval, or air service.’’ 

Section 2(b) would require VA, for a 5-year period beginning with FY 2014, to submit to Congress an annual report on claims covered by new section 1154(c) that 

27 

were submitted during the fiscal year. Section 2(b) would also require VA to report 

on the: (1) number and percentage of covered claims submitted by each sex that 

were approved and denied; (2) rating percentage assigned for each claim based on 

the sex of the claimant; (3) three most common reasons for denying such claims; (4) 

number of claims denied based on a Veteran’s failure to report for a medical examination; (5) number of claims pending at the end of each fiscal year; (6) number of 

claims on appeal; (7) average number of days from submission to completion of the 

claims; and (8) training provided to Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) employees with respect to covered claims. 

Section 2(c) would make proposed section 1154(c) applicable to disability claims 

‘‘for which no final decision has been made before the date of the enactment’’ of the 

bill. 

VA is committed to serving our Nation’s Veterans by accurately adjudicating 

claims based on MST in a thoughtful and caring manner, while fully recognizing 

the unique evidentiary considerations involved in such an event. Before addressing 

the specific provisions of S. 294, it would be useful to outline those efforts, which 

we believe achieve the intent behind the bill. The Under Secretary for Benefits has 

spearheaded VBA’s efforts to ensure that these claims are adjudicated compassionately and fairly, with sensitivity to the unique circumstances presented by each 

individual claim. 

VA is aware that, because of the personal and sensitive nature of the MST 

stressors in these cases, it is often difficult for the victim to report or document the 

event when it occurs. To remedy this, VA developed regulations and procedures specific to MST claims that appropriately assist the claimant in developing evidence 

necessary to support the claim. As with other PTSD claims, VA initially reviews the 

Veteran’s military service records for evidence of the claimed stressor. VA’s regulation also provides that evidence from sources other than a Veteran’s service records 

may corroborate the Veteran’s account of the stressor incident, such as evidence 

from mental health counseling centers or statements from family members and fellow Servicemembers. Evidence of behavior changes, such as a request for transfer 

to another military duty assignment, is another type of relevant evidence that may 

indicate occurrence of an assault. VA notifies Veterans regarding the types of evidence that may corroborate occurrence of an in-service personal assault and asks 

them to submit or identify any such evidence. The actual stressor need not be documented. If minimal circumstantial evidence of a stressor is obtained, VA will schedule an examination with an appropriate mental health professional and request an 

opinion as to whether the examination indicates that an in-service stressor occurred. 

The mental health professional’s opinion can establish occurrence of the claimed 

stressor. 

With respect to claims for other disabilities based on MST, VA has a duty to assist in obtaining evidence to substantiate a claim for disability compensation. When 

a Veteran files a claim for mental or physical disabilities other than PTSD based 

on MST, VBA will obtain a Veteran’s service medical records, VA treatment records, 

relevant Federal records identified by the Veteran, and any other relevant records, 

including private records, identified by the Veteran that the Veteran authorizes VA 

to obtain. VA must also provide a medical examination or obtain a medical opinion 

when necessary to decide a disability claim. VA will request that the medical examiner provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the current 

symptoms or disability are related to the in-service event. This opinion will be considered as evidence in deciding whether the Veteran’s disability is service-connected. 

VBA has also placed a primary emphasis on informing VA regional office (RO) 

personnel of the issues related to MST and providing training in proper claims development and adjudication. VBA developed and issued Training Letter 11–05, Adjudicating Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Claims Based on Military Sexual Trauma, 

in December 2011. This was followed by a nationwide broadcast on MST claims adjudication. The broadcast focused on describing the range of potential markers that 

could indicate occurrence of an MST stressor and the importance of a thorough and 

open-minded approach to seeking such markers in the evidentiary record. In addition, the VBA Challenge Training Program, which all newly hired claims processors 

are required to attend, now includes a module on MST within the course on PTSD 

claims processing. VBA also provided its designated Women Veterans Coordinators 

with updated specialized training. These employees are located in every VA RO and 

are available to assist both female and male Veterans with their claims resulting 

from MST. 

VBA worked closely with the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) Office of Disability Examination and Medical Assessment to ensure that specific training was 

developed for clinicians conducting PTSD compensation examinations for MST-related claims. VBA and VHA further collaborated to provide a training broadcast tarVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN
28 

geted to VHA clinicians and VBA raters on this very important topic, which aired 

initially in April 2012 and has been rebroadcast numerous times. 

Prior to these training initiatives, the grant rate for PTSD claims based on MST 

was about 38 percent. Following the training, the grant rate rose and at the end 

of February 2013 stood at about 52 percent, which is roughly comparable to the approximate 59-percent grant rate for all PTSD claims. 

In December 2012, VBA’s Systematic Technical Accuracy Review team, VBA’s national quality assurance office, completed a second review of approximately 300 

PTSD claims based on MST. These claims were denials that followed a medical examination. The review showed an overall accuracy rate of 86 percent, which is 

roughly the same as the current national benefit entitlement accuracy level for all 

rating-related end products. 

In addition, VBA’s new standardized organizational model has now been implemented at all of our ROs. It incorporates a case-management approach to claims 

processing. VBA reorganized its workforce into cross-functional teams that give employees visibility of the entire processing cycle of a Veteran’s claim. These crossfunctional teams work together on one of three segmented lanes: express, special operations, or core. Claims that predictably can take less time flow through an express 

lane (30 percent); those taking more time or requiring special handling flow through 

a special operations lane (10 percent); and the rest of the claims flow through the 

core lane (60 percent). All MST-related claims are now processed in the special operations lane, ensuring that our most experienced and skilled employees are assigned 

to manage these complex claims. 

The Under Secretary for Benefits’ efforts have dramatically improved VA’s overall 

sensitivity to MST-related PTSD claims and have led to higher current grant rates. 

However, she recognized that some Veterans’ MST-related claims were decided before her efforts began. To assist those Veterans and provide them with the same 

evidentiary considerations as Veterans who file claims today, VBA in April 2013 advised Veterans of the opportunity to request that VA review their previously denied 

PTSD claims based on MST. Those Veterans who respond will receive review of 

their claims based on VA’s heightened sensitivity to MST and a more complete 

awareness of evidence development. VBA will also continue to work with VHA medical professionals to ensure they are aware of their critical role in processing these 

claims. 

Through VA’s extensive, recent, and ongoing actions, we are ensuring that MST 

claimants are given a full and fair opportunity to have their claim considered, with 

a practical and sensitive approach based on the nature of MST. As noted above, VA 

has recognized the sensitive nature of MST-related PTSD claims and claims based 

on other covered mental health conditions, as well as the difficulty inherent in obtaining evidence of an in-service MST event. Current regulations provide multiple 

means to establish an occurrence, and VA has initiated additional training efforts 

and specialized handling procedures to ensure thorough, accurate, and timely processing of these claims. 

VA’s regulations reflect the special nature of PTSD. Section 3.304(f) of title 38 

Code of Federal Regulations, currently provides particularized rules for establishing 

stressors related to personal assault, combat, former prisoner-of-war status, and fear 

of hostile military or terrorist activity. These particularized rules are based on an 

acknowledgement that certain circumstances of service may make the claimed 

stressor more difficult to corroborate. Nevertheless, they require threshold evidentiary showings designed to ensure accuracy and fairness in determinations as to 

whether the claimed stressor occurred. Evidence of a Veteran’s service in combat or 

as a prisoner of war generally provides an objective basis for concluding that 

claimed stressors related to such service occurred. Evidence that a Veteran served 

in an area of potential military or terrorist activity may provide a basis for concluding that stressors related to fears of such activity occurred. In such cases, VA 

also requires the opinion of a VA or VA-contracted mental health professional, 

which enables VA to ensure that such opinions are properly based on consideration 

of relevant facts, including service records, as needed. For PTSD claims based on 

a personal assault, lay evidence from sources outside the Veteran’s service records 

may corroborate the Veteran’s account of the in-service stressor, such as statements 

from law enforcement authorities, mental health counseling centers, family members, or former Servicemembers, as well as other evidence of behavioral changes following the claimed assault. Minimal circumstantial evidence of a stressor is sufficient to schedule a VA examination and request that the examiner provide an opinion as to whether the stressor occurred. We recognize that some victims of sexual 

assault may not have even this minimal circumstantial evidence, and we are committed to addressing the problem. 

29 

As VA has continued its close review of this legislation as part of an Administration-wide focus on the critical issue of MST, we would like to further consider 

whether statutory changes could also be useful, while continuing to carry forward 

the training, regulatory, and case review efforts described above. VA would like to 

follow up with the Committee on the results of this review, and of course are glad 

to meet with you or your staff on this critical issue. 

VA does not oppose section 2(b). 

Section 2(c) does not define the term ‘‘final decision.’’ As a result, it is unclear 

whether the new law would be applicable to an appealed claim in which no final 

decision has been issued by VA or, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7291, by a court. 

Benefit costs are estimated to be $135.9 million during the first year, $2.0 billion 

for 5 years, and $7.1 billion over 10 years. 

S. 373

S. 373, the ‘‘Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act of 2013,’’ 

would consider a person a spouse, for purposes of military personnel policies and 

military and Veterans’ benefits, if the marriage of the individual is valid in the 

State in which the marriage was entered into or, in the case of a marriage entered 

into outside any State, if the marriage is valid in the place in which the marriage 

was entered into and the marriage could have been entered into in a State. It includes as a State: the District of Columbia, the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and 

the Northern Mariana Islands, and U.S. territories and possessions. We defer to 

DOD’s views on those parts of the bill amending titles 10, 32, and 37 of the United 

States Code. 

Section 7 of title 1, United States Code, which implements section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, defines the term ‘‘marriage’’ for purposes of Federal statutes, 

regulations, or rulings to mean only a union between one man and one woman as 

husband and wife, and defines the term ‘‘spouse’’ to mean only a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife. This law excludes same-sex relationships from 

the definition of ‘‘marriage,’’ and persons of the same sex from the definition of 

‘‘spouse,’’ regardless of whether the marital relationship is recognized under state 

law. Similarly, section 101(3) and (31) of title 38, United States Code, limits the 

definitions of ‘‘surviving spouse’’ and ‘‘spouse’’ for purposes of the statutory provisions in title 38 pertaining to VA benefits to only apply to a person of the opposite 

sex of the Veteran. 

With regard to the laws that govern VA, section 2(d) of the bill would revise paragraph (3) of section 101 to remove the requirement that a ‘‘surviving spouse’’ must 

be a person of the opposite sex of the Veteran. We believe the revision to section 

101(3) would most logically be read to incorporate the liberalized definition of 

‘‘spouse’’ in the proposed section 101(31), but that there would be some ambiguity 

on that question absent language in section 101(3) expressly precluding application 

of section 7 of title 1, United States Code, which defines both ‘‘spouse’’ and ‘‘marriage’’ for purposes of all Federal laws. 

Section 2(d) of the bill would revise paragraph (31) of section 101, which defines 

the term ‘‘spouse’’ for the purposes of title 38, to exclude the application of section 

7 of title 1, United States Code, and, in most instances, to defer to the law of the 

State in which the parties celebrated their marriage to determine the validity of the 

marriage and whether an individual qualifies as a ‘‘spouse’’ of a Veteran. Under this 

section of the bill, an individual shall be considered a ‘‘spouse’’ if the marriage of 

the individual is valid in the State in which the marriage was entered into, or in 

the case in which the marriage was entered into outside any State, if the marriage 

is valid in the place in which the marriage was entered into as long as the marriage 

could have been entered into in a State. Section 2 would further revise section 

101(31) to refer to paragraph (20) of the same section to provide the meaning of the 

term ‘‘State,’’ with the additional inclusion of the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands. The bill’s language in section 101(31) directly conflicts with 38 

U.S.C. § 103(c), which provides that VA determines the validity of a marriage in accordance with the law of the State where the parties resided at the time of the marriage or the law of the State where the parties resided when the right to benefits 

accrued. 

VA supports this bill to change the definition of ‘‘spouse’’ and ‘‘surviving spouse’’ 

in title 38 and exempt VA from the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which restricts 

Federal marriage benefits and requires inter-state marriage recognition to only opposite-sex marriages in the United States. However, VA is concerned about the conflict (noted above) between section 103(c) and the proposed amendments in section 

101. We suggest the proposed legislation be amended to resolve this issue. Specifically, this bill could amend section 103(c), which defines a marriage based on ‘‘the 

30 

law of the place where the parties resided at the time of the marriage or the law 

of the place where the parties resided when the right to benefits accrued’’ to be consistent with the other amendments of section 2 providing that an individual shall 

be considered a ‘‘spouse’’ based on the law of the place where the parties entered 

into the marriage. Alternatively, the amendments in section 2 of the bill could be 

revised to be consistent with the current section 103(c). We note that a revision to 

section 103(c) would change how VA administers benefits for both same-sex and heterosexual couples. 

S. 373 would require an amendment to several regulations, including section 3.1(j) 

of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, which defines ‘‘marriage,’’ and section 3.50 

of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, which defines ‘‘spouse’’ and surviving 

spouse.’’ S. 373 would also require VA to revise several sections in its adjudication 

procedures manual and develop other policy and procedures guidance. Full implementation of this bill would require VA to amend governing regulations, procedures, 

and training products. Therefore, if this bill is codified, VA will work diligently to 

revise its regulations in a timely manner. 

S. 373 would affect all VA benefits available to or for a veteran’s spouse, including 

compensation, pension, insurance, death, burial, memorialization, and other benefits. Full implementation of this bill would require VA to amend governing regulations, procedures, and training products, which could result in some short-term 

delays due to the necessary transitions. For example, under Family Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance (FSGLI), members of the uniformed services insured 

under SGLI can purchase life insurance on the lives of their spouses. Currently 

same-sex spouses are not considered spouses for FSGLI purposes. Also, since the 

spousal coverage is automatically included for most SGLI-insured members, it would 

be necessary for DOD to adjust its data systems to accommodate recognized marriages, including its premium deduction functions, since DOD’s systems maintain all 

SGLI-related information for its Servicemembers. It would have to be determined 

if the Office of Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance, the office that administers 

the SGLI program and receives from DOD the documentation necessary to identify 

and pay claims, will be able to rely on DOD’s certifications, or will have to try to 

identify and verify claims for the death of a spouse that are based upon same-sex 

marriages. 

VA will provide a cost estimate for the record. 

S. 430

Section 2 of S. 430, the ‘‘Veterans Small Business Opportunity and Protection Act 

of 2013,’’ would expand the scope of the ‘‘surviving spouse’’ exception associated with 

VA’s Veteran-owned small business (VOSB) acquisition program established by 38 

U.S.C. § 8127. This program requires that VA verify the ownership and control of 

VOSBs by Veterans in order for the VOSB to participate in VA acquisitions set 

aside for these firms. 

Currently, an exception in the law is provided for certain surviving spouses to 

stand in the place of a deceased service-disabled spouse owner for verification purposes if the Veteran owner had a service-connected disability rated as 100 percent 

disabling or died as a result of a service-connected disability for a limited period of 

time. Section 2 would continue to provide that if the deceased Veteran spouse had 

a service-connected disability rated as 100 percent disabling or died as a result of 

a service-connected disability, the surviving spouse owner could retain verified service-disabled Veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) status for VA’s program for 

a period of 10 years. In addition, a surviving spouse of a deceased Veteran with any 

service-connected disability, regardless of whether the Veteran died as a result of 

the disability, could retain verified SDVOSB status for VA’s program for a period 

of 3 years. VA supports this provision. 

Section 3 of S. 430 would add a separate, new provision to 38 U.S.C. § 8127 to 

enable the surviving spouse or dependent of an servicemember killed in the line of 

duty who acquires 51 percent or greater ownership rights of the servicemember’s 

small business to stand in place of the deceased servicemember for purposes of 

verifying the small business as one owned and controlled by Veterans in conjunction 

with VA’s VOSB set-aside acquisition program also created by 38 U.S.C. § 8127. 

This status would continue, for purposes of a surviving spouse, until the earlier of 

the re-marriage of the surviving spouse, the relinquishment of ownership interest 

such that the percentage falls below 51 percent, or 10 years. With respect to dependent status, this would continue until the dependent holds less than 51 percent ownership interest or 10 years, whichever occurs earlier. VA supports this provision but 

recommends clarifying the term ‘‘dependent,’’ as appropriate, to ensure the individual is one having legal capacity to contract with the Federal Government. VA 

31 

stands ready to work with the Committee to address this issue. VA estimates no 

additional appropriations would be required to implement this bill if enacted. 

S. 492

S. 492, which would require conditioning certain DOL grants upon States establishing programs to recognize military experience in its licensing and credentialing 

programs. This bill affects programs or laws administered by DOL. Respectfully, we 

defer to that Department’s views on this bill. 

S. 495

Section 5 of S. 495, ‘‘Careers for Veterans Act of 2013,’’ would add a new definition to 38 U.S.C. § 8127, VA’s VOSB set-aside acquisition program, to clarify that 

any small business concern owned exclusively by Veterans would be deemed to be 

unconditionally owned by Veterans. VA supports this provision. 

Section 6 of the bill essentially duplicates the extension of surviving spouse status 

previously discussed in conjunction with section 2 of S. 430. VA supports this provision. Section 7 of this bill essentially duplicates the provisions of section 3 of S. 430. 

Again, VA supports this provision subject to the caveat that ‘‘dependent’’ be more 

specifically defined. Last, section 8 of this bill would add a new subsection to 38 

U.S.C. § 8127 that would eliminate consideration of state community property laws 

in verification examinations with respect to determinations of ownership percentage 

by the Veteran or Veterans of businesses located in States with community property 

laws. VA supports this provision. VA estimates that no additional appropriations 

would be required to implement the provisions of sections 5 through 8 of S. 495. 

Section 2 affects programs or laws administered by OPM and sections 3 and 4 affect programs or laws administered by DOL. Respectfully, we defer to those Departments for views on those sections of S. 495. 

S. 514

S. 514 would authorize VA to pay an additional appropriate amount to each individual entitled to educational assistance under the Post-9/11 GI Bill (chapter 33) 

who is pursuing a program of education with a focus (as determined in accordance 

with regulations prescribed by VA) on science, technology, engineering, and math 

(STEM) or an area leading to employment in a high-demand occupation. Such payment amount would be in addition to any other educational assistance to which the 

individual was entitled. The additional payment would be in an amount determined 

by the Secretary and would be in addition to other amounts payable under the Post9/11 GI Bill. 

While VA is in favor of legislation encouraging Veterans to pursue higher education, particularly in programs leading to employment in high-demand fields including science, technology, engineering, and math, we are unable to support the bill 

as drafted. 

First, the bill could create inequity of payments among Veterans who have all 

earned the same benefit. Current chapter 33 beneficiaries are free to pursue programs and degrees that best fit their personal and professional goals, yet this bill 

could result in higher payments to certain Veterans based on an individual’s decision to pursue a specific degree or career path. 

Second, the proposed bill could create an inequity if a beneficiary begins his or 

her education by pursuing a STEM degree or a degree leading to a high-demand 

occupation and later decides to pursue a degree for which no additional benefit is 

granted. If this occurs, two beneficiaries could conceivably complete the same degree 

yet have received different payment amounts over the course of their education. 

We will be pleased to provide for the record an estimate of the cost of enactment 

of this bill. 

S. 515

S. 515 would amend title 38, United States Code, to permit a recipient of the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry Scholarship (available to a child of an individual who, on or after September 11, 2001, dies in the line of duty while serving 

on active duty) to be eligible for the ‘‘Yellow Ribbon G.I. Education Enhancement 

Program’’ (Yellow Ribbon Program), under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance 

Program (Post-9/11 GI Bill). The Yellow Ribbon Program is available to Veterans 

and transfer-of-entitlement recipients receiving Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits at the 

100% benefit level attending school at a private institution or as a non-resident student at a public institution. The Program provides payment for up to half of the 

tuition-and-fee charges that are not covered by the Post-9/11 GI Bill, if the instituVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN
32 

tion enters into an agreement with VA to pay or waive an equal amount of the 

charges that exceed Post-9/11 GI Bill coverage. This bill would take effect at the beginning of the academic year after the date of enactment. 

VA supports S. 515, but has some concerns, expressed below, that we believe 

should be addressed. The enactment of this proposed legislation would require programming changes to VA’s Long Term Solution computer processing system. Obviously development funding is not available in VA’s fiscal year 2013 budget for the 

changes that would be necessitated by enactment of this legislation. If funding is 

not made available to support them, manual processes would be required, which 

could result in some decrease in timeliness and accuracy of Post-9/11 GI Bill claims. 

The effective date for the proposed legislation would be the first academic year after 

enactment, which is also problematic. VA estimates that it would require one year 

from date of enactment to make the system changes necessary to implement this 

bill. 

VA estimates that if S. 515 were enacted, the costs to the Readjustment Benefits account would be $609 thousand in the first year, $3.6 million over 5 years, and 

$8.4 million over 10 years. There are no additional FTE or GOE costs associated 

with this proposal. 

S. 572

S. 572, the ‘‘Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act,’’ would provide that a 

person who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or unconscious 

for an extended period will not be considered adjudicated as a ‘‘mental defective’’ 

for purposes of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act in the absence of an 

order or finding by a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority that such person 

is a danger to himself, herself, or others. The bill would, in effect, exclude VA determinations of incompetency from the coverage of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. VA does not support this bill. 

VA determinations of mental incompetency are based generally on whether a person, because of injury or disease, lacks the mental capacity to manage his or her 

own financial affairs. We believe adequate protections can be provided to these Veterans under current statutory authority. Under the [National Instant Criminal 

Background Check System] NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, individuals whom VA has determined to be incompetent can have their firearms rights restored in two ways: First, a person who has been adjudicated by VA as unable to 

manage his or her own affairs can reopen the issue based on new evidence and have 

the determination reversed. When this occurs, VA is obligated to notify the Department of Justice to remove the individual’s name from the roster of those barred 

from possessing and purchasing firearms. Second, even if a person remains adjudicated incompetent by VA for purposes of handling his or her own finances, he or 

she is entitled to petition VA to have firearms rights restored on the basis that the 

individual poses no threat to public safety. VA has relief procedures in place, and 

we are fully committed to continuing to conduct these procedures in a timely and 

effective manner to fully protect the rights of our beneficiaries. 

Also, the reliance on an administrative incompetency determination as a basis for 

prohibiting an individual from possessing or obtaining firearms under Federal law 

is not unique to VA or Veterans. Under the applicable Federal regulations implementing the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, any person determined by a 

lawful authority to lack the mental capacity to manage his or her own affairs is subject to the same prohibition. By exempting certain VA mental health determinations 

that would otherwise prohibit a person from possessing or obtaining firearms under 

Federal law, the bill would create a different standard for Veterans and their survivors than that applicable to the rest of the population and could raise public safety 

issues. 

The enactment of S. 572 would not impose any costs on VA. 

S. 629

S. 629, the ‘‘Honor America’s Guard-Reserve Retirees Act of 2013,’’ would add to 

chapter 1, title 38, United States Code, a provision to honor as Veterans, based on 

retirement status, certain persons who performed service in reserve components of 

the Armed Forces but who do not have service qualifying for Veteran status under 

38 U.S.C. § 101(2). The bill provides that such persons would be ‘‘honored’’ as Veterans, but would not be entitled to any benefit by reason of the amendment. 

Under 38 U.S.C. § 101(2), Veteran status is conditioned on the performance of ‘‘active military, naval, or air service.’’ Under current law, a National Guard or Reserve 

member is considered to have had such service only if he or she served on active 

duty, was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line 

33 

of duty during active duty for training, or was disabled or died from any injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty or from an acute myocardial infarction, a cardiac arrest, or a cerebrovascular accident during inactive duty training. S. 629 

would eliminate these service requirements for National Guard or Reserve members 

who served in such a capacity for at least 20 years. Retirement status alone would 

make them eligible for Veteran status. 

VA recognizes that the National Guard and Reserves have admirably served this 

country and in recent years have played an even greater role in our Nation’s overseas conflicts. Nevertheless, VA does not support this bill because it represents a 

departure from active service as the foundation for Veteran status. This bill would 

extend Veteran status to those who never performed active military, naval, or air 

service, the very circumstance which qualifies an individual as a Veteran. Thus, this 

bill would equate longevity of reserve service with the active service long ago established as the hallmark for Veteran status. 

VA estimates that there would be no additional benefit or administrative costs associated with this bill if enacted. 

S. 674

S. 674, the ‘‘Accountability for Veterans Act of 2013,’’ would require responses 

within a fixed period of time from the heads of covered Federal agencies when the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs requests information necessary to adjudicate claims 

for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. Covered agencies would include the Department of Defense (DOD), the Social Security Administration (SSA), 

and the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). 

The bill would require covered agencies to provide VA with requested Federal 

records within 30 days or submit to VA the reason why records cannot be obtained 

within 30 days, along with an estimate as to when the records could be furnished. 

If VA does not receive the records within 15 days after the estimated date, then VA 

would resubmit such request and the agency must, within 30 days, furnish VA with 

the records or provide an explanation of why the records have not been provided 

and an estimate of when the records will be provided. The bill would also require 

VA to provide notices to the claimant regarding the status of the records requests 

and to submit a semiannual report to the Senate and House Committees on Veterans’ Affairs regarding the progress of records requests for the most recent 6- 

month period. 

VA appreciates this effort to accelerate the response times when VA requests 

records from Federal agencies that are necessary to adjudicate disability claims. 

However, VA opposes this bill because adequate measures are already in place to 

facilitate expeditious transfer of records from the identified covered agencies. 

Under a recent Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between VA and DOD, 

DOD provides VA, at the time of a Servicemember’s discharge, a 100-percent-complete service treatment and personnel record in an electronic, searchable format. As 

this MOU applies to the 300,000 annually departing Active Duty, National Guard, 

and Reserve Servicemembers, it represents a landmark measure that will significantly contribute to VA’s efforts to achieve its 125-day goal to complete disability 

compensation claims. 

VA also continues to work with SSA to enhance information sharing through 

SSA’s Web-based portal, Government to Government Services Online (GSO). VA and 

SSA officials confer weekly to develop strategies to allow VA to more quickly obtain 

SSA medical records needed for VA claims. As a result, SSA is now directly 

uploading electronic medical records into VBA’s electronic document repository at 

several regional offices (RO). These improvements are reducing duplication and 

streamlining the records transmittal and review processes. VA will continue with 

a phased nationwide deployment of this initiative for our new paperless processing 

system, beginning with the San Juan Regional Office. 

VA is also concerned about the requirement to notify the claimant of the status 

of records requests. Although these extra administrative steps would provide additional information to claimants, they also require more work of claims processors 

and thus reduce claims processing capacity in ROs. VA wishes to concentrate its resources on eliminating the disability claims backlog. 

There are no mandatory costs associated with this proposal. The discretionary 

costs associated with this bill cannot be determined, given the speculative nature 

of estimating what additional actions would be required of other Federal agencies. 

S. 690

S. 690, the ‘‘Filipino Veterans Fairness Act of 2013,’’ would expand VA benefits 

provided for Filipino Veterans of World War II. 

34 

Current law at section 107 of title 38, United States Code, addresses Filipino Veterans of World War II and restricts entitlement to VA benefits as compared to U.S. 

military Veterans. Section 107 states that certain service is deemed not to be ‘‘active 

military, naval, or air service’’ for purposes of some VA benefits. Accordingly, that 

service does not satisfy the statutory definition of ‘‘Veteran’’ under section 101(2) of 

title 38, United States Code, and persons with such service are not eligible for VA 

benefits, except for those benefits specifically provided under section 107. 

Section 2(a)(1) and (2) of S. 690 would convert service in the Philippine Commonwealth Army, the Recognized Guerrillas, and the New Philippine Scouts into active 

military, naval, or air service for the purpose of VA benefits. Essentially, these individuals would no longer be excluded from the statutory definition of ‘‘Veteran’’ in 

section 101(2) of title 38, United States Code. 

Section 2(a)(3) would require VA to make determinations as to whether individuals claiming such service did in fact serve, taking into account any ‘‘alternative 

documentation’’ that the Secretary determines relevant. Although the Secretary 

would have discretion to determine what documentation is relevant, this requirement would be a departure from VA’s longstanding practice under section 3.203 of 

title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, of relying on service department records, 

which VA believes to be the most reliable source of service verification. This would 

add an evidence-intensive step to the processing of these claims that does not exist 

for other claims. 

Section 2(a)(4) would relieve persons who become eligible for VA benefits under 

this law from the preclusive effect of a provision of the Filipino Veterans Equity 

Compensation (FVEC) law, which provided that acceptance of payments from the 

fund constituted a complete release of any claims against the United States based 

on the types of service qualifying for payment from the fund and described in subsection (a)(1) and (a)(2). In other words, those who were given FVEC payments 

could still file ‘‘traditional’’ claims for benefits under the expanded eligibility criteria 

of this bill. 

Although VA appreciates and values the service of Filipino Veterans, VA cannot 

support S. 690 because it would effect a unique departure, for one group of claimants, from the sound and generally applicable procedures for verification of service 

and would accord such claimants potential entitlement to more benefits than other 

Veterans, insofar as they would be eligible to receive the full range of VA benefits 

in addition to the FVEC payments already received. 

Based on the characterization of service as active service, this bill would confer 

statutory ‘‘Veteran’’ status under section 101(2) of title 38, United States Code, upon 

Filipino Veterans, entitling them to all VA benefits. This would not change the dollar amount of previously covered benefits ($.50 for each dollar authorized); however, 

full benefits under other programs, such as Education, Loan Guaranty, and those 

provided by VHA may be extended to certain Filipino Veterans who are not otherwise eligible. This has significant budgetary implications and raises issues of fairness and equity given that Filipino Veterans were authorized to receive payments 

from the FVEC fund. Section 2(a)(4) of this bill would rescind section 1002(h)(1) of 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the legislation which authorized FVEC payments. This Act provided that receipt of payment under the FVEC 

was a release of all claims against the United States. This bill would rescind that 

release notwithstanding the receipt of FVEC payments. 

VA currently relies on service department records under section 3.203 of title 38, 

Code of Federal Regulations, to determine what service a claimant rendered. That 

policy and the resulting procedures would be invalidated by this bill for persons 

claiming this service. Section 2(a)(3) would require VA to consider alternative documentation as proof of service and make a determination on service verification. VA 

believes the current requirements and processes are both reasonable and important 

to maintain the integrity of this benefit program. 

VA will provide its cost estimate for S. 690 for the record at a later time. 

S. 695

S. 695 would amend section 322 of title 38, United States Code, to extend for 5 

years (through FY 2018) the yearly $2 million appropriations authorization for VA 

to pay a monthly assistance allowance to disabled Veterans who are invited to compete for a slot on, or have been selected for, the U.S. Paralympic Team in an amount 

equal to the monthly amount of subsistence allowance that would be payable to the 

Veteran under chapter 31, title 38, United States Code, if the Veteran were eligible 

for and entitled to rehabilitation under such chapter. S. 695 also would amend section 521A of title 38 to extend for 5 years (through FY 2018) VA’s appropriations 

authorization, with amounts appropriated remaining available without fiscal year 

35 

limitation, for grants to United States Paralympics, Inc. (now the United States 

Olympic Committee) to plan, develop, manage, and implement an integrated adaptive sport program for disabled Veterans and disabled members of the Armed Forces. 

These Paralympic programs have experienced ongoing improvement and expansion 

of benefits to disabled Veterans and disabled Servicemembers, to include 115 Veterans qualifying for the monthly assistance allowance, and over 1,900 Paralympic 

grant events with over 16,000 Veteran participants during FY 2012. Under current 

law, both authorities will expire at the end of FY 2013. 

VA supports extension of these authorities, but recommends further revisions, to 

improve the accessibility and equity of these programs, by extending monthly assistance allowances to disabled Veterans who are invited to compete for a slot on, or 

have been selected for, the United States Olympic Team (not just the Paralympic 

Team) or Olympic and Paralympic teams representing the American Samoa, Guam, 

Puerto Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, by authorizing grants to those Olympic and Paralympic sports entities, and by clarifying that 

the current authority to award grants is to promote programs for all adaptive sports 

and not just Paralympic sports. 

VA estimates there would be no costs associated with implementing this bill. 

S. 705

S. 705, the ‘‘War Memorial Protection Act of 2013,’’ would add a new section 2115 

to title 36, United States Code, Chapter 21, which governs the operations of the 

American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC), to authorize the inclusion of religious symbols as part of any military memorial established or acquired by the U.S. 

Government or military memorials established in cooperation with ABMC. 

Presently, VA’s role in ABMC’s monument authority is limited to a single mention 

in 36 U.S.C. § 2105(b) that ‘‘[t]he Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall maintain works 

of architecture and art built by the Commission in the National Cemetery [Administration], as described in section 2400(b) of title 38.’’ The only known ABMC facility 

on VA property is the Honolulu Memorial at the National Memorial Cemetery of 

the Pacific. 

As this bill does not mention VA, nor does VA establish U.S. Government or military memorials, VA defers to the ABMC regarding this bill. 

S. 748

S. 748, the ‘‘Veterans Pension Protection Act,’’ would amend sections 1522 and 

1543 of title 38, United States Code, to establish in VA’s pension programs a lookback and penalty period of up to 36 months for those claimants who dispose of resources for less than fair market value that could otherwise be used for their maintenance. 

Subsection (a) would amend the net worth limitations applicable to Veteran’s pension in section 1522 of title 38, United States Code. If a Veteran (or a Veteran’s 

spouse) disposes of assets before the date of the Veteran’s pension claim, VA currently does not generally consider those assets as part of the Veteran’s net worth, 

so long as the transfer was a gift to a person or entity other than a relative living 

in the same household. As amended, section 1522 would provide that when a Veteran (or Veteran’s spouse) disposes of ‘‘covered resources’’ for less than fair market 

value on or after the beginning date of a 36-month look-back period, the disposal 

may result in a period of ineligibility for pension. In such cases, the law would provide for a period of ineligibility for pension beginning the first day of the month in 

or after which the resources were disposed of and which does not occur in any other 

period of ineligibility. 

Subsection (a) would also provide a method for calculating the period of ineligibility for pension resulting from a disposal of covered resources at less than fair 

market value. The period of ineligibility, expressed in months, would be the total 

uncompensated value of all applicable covered resources disposed of by the Veteran 

(or the Veteran’s spouse) divided by the maximum amount of monthly pension that 

would have been payable to the Veteran under section 1513 or 1521 without consideration of the transferred resources. 

This subsection would also give VA authority to promulgate regulations under 

which VA would consider a transfer of an asset, including a transfer to an annuity, 

trust, or other financial instrument or investment, to be a transfer at less than fair 

market value, if the transfer reduced the Veteran’s net worth for pension purposes 

and VA determines that, under all the circumstances, the resources would reasonably be consumed for maintenance. 

Subsection (a) would also provide that VA shall not deny or discontinue payment 

of pension under sections 1513 and 1521 or payment of increased pension under 

36 

subsections (c), (d), (e), or (f) of section 1521 on account of a child based on the penalty and look-back periods established by sections (a)(2) or (b)(2) of the bill if: (1) 

the claimant demonstrates to VA that the resources disposed of for less than fair 

market value have been returned to the transferor; or (2) VA determines that the 

denial would work an undue hardship. 

Finally, subsection (a) would require VA to inform Veterans of the asset transfer 

provisions of the bill and obtain information for making determinations pertaining 

to such transfers. 

VA supports in principle the look-back and penalty-period provisions of subsection 

(a), but cannot support the bill as written because of the manner in which the 

length of the penalty period would be calculated. Our reading of the bill indicates 

that the method used to calculate the penalty period in proposed section 

1522(a)(2)(E)(i), ‘‘the total, cumulative uncompensated value of all covered resources,’’ could be unnecessarily punitive because VA might have determined that 

only a small portion of the covered resources should have been used for the Veteran’s maintenance. VA has similar concerns with language in proposed section 

1522(b)(2)(E)(i). 

VA proposes, as an alternative, that the dividend under proposed section 

1522(a)(2)(E)(i) be, ‘‘the total, cumulative uncompensated value of the portion of the 

covered resources so disposed of by the veteran (or the spouse of the veteran) on 

or after the look-back date described in subparagraph (C)(i), that the Secretary determines would reasonably have been consumed for the Veteran’s maintenance;.’’ 

We propose that similar language be used in section 1522(b)(2)(E)(i). 

Apart from the concerns expressed regarding the method for calculating the penalty period, VA supports this subsection of the bill, which would clarify current law 

by prescribing that pension applicants cannot create a need for pension by gifting 

assets that the applicant could use for the applicant’s own maintenance. It would 

also clarify that an applicant cannot restructure assets during the 36-month period 

preceding a pension application through transfers using certain financial products 

or legal instruments, such as annuities and trusts. A 2012 Government Accountability Office study found that there is a growing industry that markets these products and instruments to vulnerable Veterans and survivors, potentially causing 

them harm. Subsection (a) would amend the law in a manner that will authorize 

VA’s implementation of necessary program integrity measures. 

Subsection (b) of S. 748 would amend the net worth limitations applicable to survivor’s pension in section 1543 of title 38, United States Code. Subsection (b) of the 

bill would apply to surviving spouses and surviving children the same restrictions 

pertaining to disposal of covered resources at less than fair market value as would 

be applied to Veterans under subsection (a). This subsection would also provide that 

if the surviving spouse transferred assets during the Veteran’s lifetime that resulted 

in a period of ineligibility for the Veteran, VA would apply any period of ineligibility 

remaining after the Veteran’s death to the surviving spouse. 

As with subsection (a), VA supports in principle the look back and penalty period 

provisions of subsection (b), but cannot support the bill as written because of the 

manner in which the length of the penalty period would be calculated. VA has the 

same concerns with the methodology language in proposed sections 1543(a)(2)(E)(i) 

and (b)(2)(E)(i) as expressed above pertaining to sections 1522(a)(2)(E)(i) and 

(b)(2)(E)(i). 

VA opposes carrying over a penalty based on a transfer of assets made during the 

Veteran’s lifetime to a pension claim filed by a surviving spouse because it could 

be potentially punitive. Under proposed paragraph (a)(2)(C) of section 1543, VA 

would apply the same 36-month look-back period to surviving spouses that it applies 

to Veterans. If the Veteran died soon after his or her pension claim was filed and 

the surviving spouse filed a claim for pension within 36 months of the Veteran’s 

pension claim, VA would evaluate resource transfers that the surviving spouse made 

during the Veteran’s lifetime under section 1543(a)(2)(C). However, if the surviving 

spouse did not claim pension until many years after the Veteran’s pension claim or 

many years after the Veteran’s death, under proposed section 1543(a)(2)(F), VA 

would apply the remainder of any penalty period assessed the Veteran based on a 

spouse’s pre-death transfer of assets. In applying a penalty period based on a very 

old transaction to a new pension claim, this provision could be viewed as imposing 

a much longer look-back period for surviving spouses than that proposed for Veterans. Because VA will evaluate the surviving spouse’s claim for pension on its own 

merits, VA proposes that the penalty-period carry-over provisions be eliminated. 

Subsection (c) would provide that the amendments to section 1522(a)(2), (b)(2), 

and (c), and section 1543(a)(2), (a)(4), (b)(2), and (c) prescribed in the bill would take 

effect one year after the date of enactment and would apply to applications filed 

37 

after the effective date as well as to any pension redetermination occurring after the 

effective date. 

Subsection (d) provides for annual reports from VA to Congress, beginning not 

later than two years after the date of enactment, as to: (1) the number of individuals 

who applied for pension; (2) the number of individuals who received pension; and 

(3) the number of individuals whose pension payments were denied or discontinued 

because covered resources were disposed of for less than fair market value. 

VA would not oppose inclusion of subsections (c) and (d) if the bill were amended 

as we recommend. 

We lack sufficient data to estimate benefit or administrative costs associated with 

this proposal. 

S. 893

S. 893, the ‘‘Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013,’’ 

would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to increase, effective December 1, 

2013, the rates of disability compensation for service-disabled Veterans and the 

rates of dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) for survivors of Veterans. 

This bill would increase these rates by the same percentage as the percentage by 

which Social Security benefits are increased effective December 1, 2013. The bill 

would not, however, account for the expiration at the end of this fiscal year of the 

feature in current law that rounds down to the next lower whole dollar amount 

those increases not in whole dollars. The bill would also require VA to publish the 

resulting increased rates in the Federal Register. 

VA strongly supports annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) for these important compensation programs because they express, in a tangible way, this Nation’s 

gratitude for the sacrifices made by our service-disabled Veterans and their surviving spouses and children and would ensure that the value of their well-deserved 

benefits will keep pace with increases in consumer prices. However, VA recommends 

the current ‘‘round down’’ statutory provisions be extended. We recommend amending sections 1303(a) and 1104(a) of title 38, United States Code, to provide a 5-year 

extension of the round-down provisions of the computation of the COLA for serviceconnected disability compensation and DIC. Public Law 108–183 extended the ending dates of these provisions to 2013. The extension for the COLA round down provision beyond the 2013 expiration date results in cost savings. The benefit savings to 

round down the FY 2014 COLA are estimated to be $41.6 million in FY 2014, 

$712.5 million for 5 years, and $2.3 billion over 10 years as a result of the 

compounding effects of rounding down the COLA in subsequent years. 

S. 894

S. 894 would amend section 3485(a)(4) of title 38, United States Code, extending 

for 3 years (through June 30, 2016) VA’s authority to provide work-study allowances 

for certain already-specified activities. Under current law, the authority is set to expire on June 30, 2013. 

Public Law 107–103, the ‘‘Veterans Education and Benefits Expansion Act of 

2001,’’ established a 5-year pilot program under section 3485(a)(4) that expanded 

qualifying work-study activities to include outreach programs with State Approving 

Agencies, an activity relating to the administration of a National Cemetery or a 

State Veterans’ Cemetery, and assisting with the provision of care to Veterans in 

State Homes. Subsequent public laws extended the period of the pilot program and, 

most recently, section 101 of Public Law 111–275, the ‘‘Veterans’ Benefits Act of 

2010,’’ extended the sunset date from June 30, 2010 to June 30, 2013. 

S. 894 also would add a provision to section 3485(a) that would authorize for a 

3-year period from June 30, 2013 to June 30, 2016, work-study activities to be carried out at the offices of Members of Congress for such Members. Work-study participants would distribute information about benefits and services under laws administered by VA and other appropriate governmental and non-governmental programs to Servicemembers, Veterans, and their dependents. Work-study participants 

would also prepare and process papers and other documents, including documents 

to assist in the preparation and presentation of claims for benefits under laws administered by VA. 

Finally, S. 894 would require VA, not later than June 30 each year beginning with 

2014 and ending with 2016, to submit a report to Congress on the work-study allowances paid during the most recent 1-year period for qualifying work-study activities. 

Each report would include a description of the recipients of the allowances, a list 

of the locations where qualifying work-study activities were carried out and a description of the outreach conducted by VA to increase awareness of the eligibility 

of such work-study activities for work-study allowances. 

38 

VA does not oppose legislation that would extend the current expiration date of 

the work-study provisions to June 30, 2016. However, we would prefer that the legislation provide a permanent authorization of the work-study activities, rather than 

extending repeatedly for short time periods. 

VA has no objection to work-study participants conducting and promoting the outreach activities and services contemplated by the bill. We also have no objection to 

work-study participants assisting in the preparation and processing of papers and 

other documents, ‘‘including documents to assist in the preparation and presentation 

of claims for VA benefits’’ under the proposed new section. However, work-study 

participants would be subject to the limitations found in chapter 59 of title 38 on 

representing claimants for VA benefits. 

VA does not oppose submitting annual reports to Congress regarding the workstudy program. 

S. 922

Section 3 of S. 922, the ‘‘Veterans Equipped for Success Act of 2013’’ would require VA, in collaboration with the Department of Labor (DOL), to create a 3-year 

pilot program in four locations of VA’s choosing to assess the feasibility and advisability of offering career transition services to eligible Veterans. Such services would 

provide work experience in the civilian sector, increase participants’ marketable 

skills, assist them to obtain gainful employment, and assist in integrating eligible 

individuals into their local communities. These services would be available to unemployed or underemployed Veterans discharged under conditions other than dishonorable and to members of the National Guard or Reserve Component who served at 

least 180 days on active-duty within 2 years of applying for the program. Not more 

than 50,000 eligible individuals would participate in this pilot program concurrently, and the program would be limited to participants between 18 and 30 years 

of age. 

Career transition services offered would include: 

• Internships—Participants would receive an internship on a full-time basis with 

an eligible employer as determined by VA. Among other restrictions, eligible employers would not include state or Federal Government agencies, those that derive 

75 percent or more of their revenue from state and/or Federal Government, or employers that unsatisfactorily participated in the pilot previously. Such internships 

would last for 1 year, and interns would be paid by VA at the greater rate of an 

amount consistent with the minimum wage protections of the Fair Labor Standards 

Act or if the intern was receiving it, the rate of unemployment compensation, up 

to $30,000. For the purpose of health benefits and on-the-job injuries, interns would 

be considered VA employees. 

• Mentorship and job-shadowing—Employers would be required to provide interns at least one mentor who would provide job-shadowing and career-counseling 

opportunities throughout the internship. 

• Volunteer opportunities—Participants in the pilot program would be required to 

participate each month in a qualified volunteer activity, as determined by VA. Such 

volunteer activities could include outreach, service at an institution of higher learning or for a recognized Veterans Service Organization, and/or assistance provided 

to or for the benefit of Veterans in a State home or VA medical facility. 

• Professional skill workshops—As part of the pilot, VA would be required to provide workshops to interns to develop and build their professional skills. 

• Skills assessment—VA would be required to provide skills assessment testing 

to participants to help them select an appropriate place to perform their internship. 

• Additional services—VA would provide, in addition to the services outlined 

above, career and job counseling, job-search assistance, follow-up services, and reimbursement of transportation expenses up to 75 miles. 

VA could provide grants for up to four non-profit entities to administer this pilot. 

The bill would require VA and DOL to conduct a joint outreach campaign to advertise the pilot. VA would be authorized to develop an awards system by which exemplary employers and interns might be recognized. 

VA would provide a report to Congress each year of the pilot containing an evaluation of the program, information about program participants and their internships, and intern job-placement rates, including wages and nature of employment 

among other data. 

VA supports initiatives to assist Veterans in obtaining meaningful employment. 

While VA appreciates the intent underlying this bill, VA has several concerns with 

the program outlined in this legislation, including the following: 

First, the requirement that the internship pilot begin in January 2014 would create a significant challenge. VA would have less than 1 year from enactment to, in 

39 

addition to other tasks: conduct a study of Veteran unemployment and population 

densities; select four pilot locations based on that study; create eligibility criteria for 

both employers and interns; solicit and approve applications from employers; once 

employers are identified, solicit and approve applications from interns; and match 

interns with employers. These tasks would require extensive coordination between 

VA and other stakeholders. Second, VA points out that this bill lacks specific information on the scope of the pilot program. The bill does not specify how many interns 

should be placed or how those interns should be dispersed across the four pilot locations. Additionally, the bill requires that participants be between the ages of 18 and 

30. VA notes that the most recent data issued by the Bureau of Labor Statistics 

shows that Veterans aged 18 to 30 comprise less than 20 percent of currently unemployed Veterans. The third challenge posed by this bill is the requirement that VA 

establish criteria to determine an employer’s eligibility to participate in the pilot. 

Among other factors, VA must consider prior investigations by the Federal Trade 

Commission (FTC), the employer’s standing with state’s business bureaus, tax delinquency, and the employer’s reliance on state and Federal Governments as a source 

of revenue. VA would need to develop agreements with the FTC, Internal Revenue 

Service, and DOL to acquire this data. Additionally, the bill requires VA to consider 

whether interns comprise over 10 percent of an employer’s workforce when placing 

additional interns with that employer. The language of the bill is unclear, however, 

on whether 10 percent is a cap or simply a factor to consider when placing interns 

in a workplace. 

It would be challenging and costly for VA to create a payment system as described 

in the bill. The bill would require VA to issue payments to interns, which would 

require VA to determine hours worked in a given pay period, calculate salary 

earned, and issue payments. VA’s current payment systems are designed to provide 

benefits payments in pre-determined increments on a monthly schedule. The closest 

analogous payment structure VA currently uses that could fulfill the requirements 

of the bill is our work-study process. Veterans who participate in the work-study 

program submit hard-copy time sheets, and VA performs a manual calculation of 

benefits earned and issues payment. In order to issue payments as required by this 

bill, VA would need an entirely new electronic payment system which would require 

both time and funding to develop. 

Most of the cost of administering the pilot would be incurred ‘‘up front’’ by VA. 

VA would need funding to significantly expand its full-time, employment-focused 

staff, develop a new IT system to provide interns’ payments, and process applications from both employers and Veterans. This issue would be further complicated 

by the legislation’s restriction that no more than 5 percent of any appropriations 

made be used to administer the pilot. At the outset, VA would have no data from 

which to project how many Veterans may sign up for the pilot, and therefore would 

not know how much funding VA could apply toward administering the program. Because we cannot predict the scope and size of the program at its outset, The Administration has already undertaken numerous efforts to address unemployment among 

our Nation’s veterans. Online resources including the Veterans Job Bank and My 

Next Move for Veterans help match unemployed veterans with jobs best suited to 

their unique skill sets. With the new Veterans Gold Card, Post-9/11 veterans are 

entitled to enhanced services and personalized case management, assessment, and 

counseling at the roughly 3,000 One-Stop Career Centers located nationwide. VA 

and DOL are currently piloting a newly enhanced Transition Assistance Program 

designed to make sure newly separating servicemembers never become unemployed. 

VA will provide a cost estimate for S. 922 at a later date. 

S. 928

S. 928, the ‘‘Claims Processing Improvement Act of 2013’’ would amend title 38, 

United States Code, to improve the processing of claims for compensation under 

laws administered by the Secretary of VA, and for other purposes. VA will provide 

later for the record its views on sections 101,102, 104, 105, 106, and 203 of the draft 

bill. 

Currently, section 5103A(c)(2) of title 38, United States Code, requires VA, when 

requesting records on a claimant’s behalf from a Federal department or agency, to 

continue to request records until VA obtains them or it is reasonably certain that 

such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain them would be futile. VA 

is rarely able to determine with certainty that particular records do not exist or that 

further efforts to obtain them would be futile. Under current law, VA regional offices experience significant challenges and delays in their attempts to obtain certain 

non-VA Federal records, particularly service treatment records for National Guard 

and Reserve members who have been activated. While VA is currently working with 

40 

other Federal agencies to improve the process of procuring non-VA Federal records, 

past efforts to obtain records from other government agencies have significantly delayed adjudication of pending disability claims. 

Section 103 of this draft bill would provide that, when VA attempts to obtain 

records from a Federal department or agency other than a component of VA itself, 

it shall make not fewer than two attempts to obtain the records, unless the records 

are obtained or the response to the first request makes evident that a second request would be futile. Section 103 would also ensure that if any relevant record requested by VA from a Federal department or agency before adjudication is later provided, the relevant record would be treated as though it was submitted as of the 

date of the original filing of the claim. This provision would streamline the process 

for obtaining non-VA Federal records, would further balance the responsibilities of 

VA and Veterans to obtain evidence in support of a claim, and would allow VA to 

better address its pending inventory of disability claims. Section 103 would provide 

a more feasible and realistic standard in this time of limited resources and burgeoning claim inventory, which would help ensure valuable resources are focused 

most effectively on what will make a difference for faster more accurate adjudications of Veterans’ claims. 

VA supports section 103 of this bill, which is similar to one of VA’s legislative proposals in the FY 2014 budget submission. 

No benefit costs or savings would be associated with this section. 

Section 104 would amend section 5902(a)(1) of title 38, United States Code, to include ‘‘Indian tribes’’ with the American National Red Cross, the American Legion, 

the Disabled American Veterans, the United Spanish War Veterans, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars as an enumerated organization whose representatives may 

be recognized by the Secretary in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of 

claims under laws administered by the Secretary. 

VA does not support section 104 of S. 928. With the exception of the American 

National Red Cross, which provides services generally as a charitable organization, 

the organizations listed in current section 5902(a)(1) have as a primary purpose 

serving Veterans. Indian tribes are not charitable organizations, nor do they have 

as a primary purpose serving Veterans; therefore, VA does not believe Indian tribes 

should be named among these organizations in the statute. Under this bill as drafted, all Indian tribes, regardless of their size, capability, and resources to represent 

VA claimants, would essentially receive similar treatment as organizations recognized by VA for the purpose of providing representation to VA claimants. In other 

words, under section 14.629(a) of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, Indian tribes 

could certify to VA that certain members are qualified to represent claimants before 

VA for the purpose of obtaining VA accreditation for those members, despite the 

tribes not meeting all the requirements for recognition under section 14.628 of title 

38, Code of Federal Regulations. 

Pursuant to the authority granted in section 5902(a), VA has established in section 14.628 of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, the requirements for recognition 

of organizations to assist claimants in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims under laws administered by the Secretary. Under this regulation, the 

organization must, among other requirements, have as a primary purpose serving 

veterans, demonstrate a substantial service commitment to Veterans, and commit 

a significant portion of its assets to Veterans’ services. VA believes these are necessary characteristics of an organization whose representatives will be recognized in 

providing such assistance to Veterans. Indian tribes necessarily engage in a much 

broader scope of governance activities and operations and, therefore, generally do 

not have the Veteran-specific focus that is common to the organizations (save for 

the American Red Cross) recognized pursuant to section 5902(a)(1) of title 38, 

United States Code, and the VA regulations implementing that statute. 

Currently, a member of an Indian tribe may request accreditation to assist Veterans in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims for VA benefits as 

an agent or attorney under section 14.629(b) of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, or as a representative of a currently recognized Veterans Service Organization. Thus, a member of an Indian tribe may be individually recognized by the Secretary to assist Veterans despite ‘‘Indian tribes’’ not being included among the enumerated organizations in section 5902(a)(1) of title 38, United States Code. 

Section 201 of the bill would amend section 7105(b)(1) of title 38, United States 

Code, to require persons seeking appellate review of a VA decision to file a notice 

of disagreement (NOD) within 180 days from the date VA mails such decision to 

the claimant. Currently, persons challenging a decision of a VA agency of original 

jurisdiction (AOJ) have one year from the date the AOJ mails the decision to initiate 

an appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) by filing a NOD. This provision 

41 

would reduce the time period for initiating appellate review from one year to 180 

days. 

The intent behind this provision is to allow VA to more quickly resolve claims and 

appeals. Currently, VA must wait up to one year to determine if a claimant disagrees with a decision on a claim for benefits. If a claimant waits until the end of 

the 1-year period to file a NOD, VA is often required to re-develop the record to 

ensure the evidence of record is up to date. Data support the conclusion that such 

late-term development delays the resolution of the claim. If the period in which to 

file a NOD were reduced, VA could more quickly finalize the administrative processing of claims not being appealed and focus resources on the processing of new 

claims and appeals. Accordingly, adoption of this proposal would allow VA to more 

actively manage cases and work toward a faster resolution of claims and appeals. 

Because most claimants are able to quickly determine if they are satisfied with 

VA’s decision on their claims and because the NOD is a relatively simple document, 

enactment of this provision would not adversely affect claimants for VA benefits. 

The average filing time for NODs demonstrates that most claimants file their NOD 

shortly after receiving notice of VA’s decision, and, consequently, claimants would 

not be adversely affected by this amendment. 

VA supports this provision. VA submitted a similar proposal with the FY 2014 

budget request. While this proposal is clearly a step in the right direction, VA believes that further changes are needed in what currently is an extraordinarily 

lengthy and cumbersome appellate process in order to provide Veterans with timely 

resolution of their appeals. VA believes there is a need to further shorten the timeframe for Veterans to initiate appellate review to 60 days. Data show that most appeals are filed within the first 30 days following notice to a claimant of VA’s decision 

on a claim. We therefore believe this 60-day time period would still protect Veterans’ rights to appeal VA’s decisions while bringing the appeal filing period more 

in line with that of Federal district courts and the Social Security Administration, 

which allows 60 days for appeal of the initial agency decision. 

This proposal has no measurable monetary costs or savings. However, VA estimates that enactment of the proposal would result in more expeditious adjudication 

of claims because VA would not have to wait one year from the date of an adverse 

decision to determine whether a claimant intended to file an appeal. Under this proposal, VA would have to wait only 180 days for such determination and could therefore more timely process the appeal. 

Section 202 would allow for greater use of video conference hearings by the Board, 

while still providing Veterans with the opportunity to request an in-person hearing 

if they so elect. This provision would apply to cases received by the Board pursuant 

to a NOD submitted on or after the date of the enactment of the Act. VA fully supports section 202 as drafted, as this provision would potentially decrease hearing 

wait times for Veterans, enhance efficiency within VA, and better focus Board resources toward issuing more final decisions. 

The Board has historically been able to schedule video conference hearings more 

quickly than in-person hearings, saving valuable time in the appeals process for 

Veterans who elect this type of hearing. In FY 2012, on average, video conference 

hearings were held almost 100 days sooner than in-person hearings. Section 202 

would allow both the Board and Veterans to capitalize on these time savings by giving the Board greater flexibility to schedule video conference hearings than is possible under the current statutory scheme. 

Historical data also shows that there is no statistical difference in the ultimate 

disposition of appeals based on the type of hearing selected. Veterans who had video 

conference hearings had an allowance rate for their appeals that was virtually the 

same as Veterans who had in-person hearings, only Veterans who had video conference hearings were able to have their hearings scheduled much more quickly. 

Section 202 would, however, still afford Veterans who want an in-person hearing 

with the opportunity to specifically request one. 

Enactment of section 202 could also lead to more final decisions for Veterans as 

a result of increased productivity at the Board. Time lost due to travel and time 

lost in the field due to appellants failing to show up for their hearing would be 

greatly reduced, allowing Veterans Law Judges (VLJs) to better focus their time and 

resources on issuing decisions. The time saved for VLJs could translate into additional final Board decisions for Veterans. 

Major technological upgrades to the Board’s video conference hearing equipment 

over the past several years have resulted in the Board being well-positioned for the 

enactment of section 202. These upgrades include the purchase of high-definition 

video equipment, a state-of-the art digital audio recording system, implementation 

of a virtual hearing docket, and significantly increased video conference hearing capacity. These upgrades also include expanding the video conferencing system to 

42 

other strategic satellite sites in the continental United States, Puerto Rico, Guam, 

American Samoa, and the Philippines to support Veterans living in remote areas. 

Section 202 would allow the Board to better leverage these important technological 

enhancements. 

In short, section 202 would result in shorter hearing wait times, better focus 

Board resources on issuing more decisions, and provide maximum flexibility for both 

Veterans and VA, while fully utilizing recent technological improvements. VA therefore strongly endorses this proposal. 

Section 301 of the bill would extend the authority currently provided by section 

315(b) of title 38, United States Code, to maintain the operations of VA’s Manila 

RO from December 31, 2013, to December 31, 2014. Maintaining an RO in the Philippines has two principal advantages. First, it is more cost effective to maintain the 

facility in Manila than it would be to transfer its functions and hire equivalent 

numbers of employees to perform those functions on the U.S. mainland. Because the 

Manila RO employs mostly foreign nationals who receive a lower rate of pay than 

U.S. Government employees, transferring that office’s responsibilities to a U.S. location would result in increased payroll costs. Second, VA’s presence in Manila significantly enhances its ability to manage potential fraud. In an FY 2002 study of Philippine benefit payments, the VA Inspector General stated: ‘‘VA payments in the 

Philippines represent significant sums of money. That, coupled with extreme poverty and a general lack of economic opportunity, fosters an environment for fraudulent activity.’’ Relocation of claims processing for VA benefits arising from Philippine 

service would result in less control of potential fraud. VA would lose the expertise 

the Manila staff applies to these claims and would need time to develop such expertise at a mainland site. Relocation would also diminish the RO’s close and effective 

working relationship with the VHA’s Outpatient Clinic, which is essential for the 

corroboration of the evidentiary record. Based on these factors, VA could not maintain the same quality of service to the beneficiaries and the U.S. Government if 

claims processing were moved outside of the Philippines. 

VA supports this provision and submitted a similar proposal with the FY 2014 

budget request. VA’s version of the proposal would extend operating authority for 

2 years rather than 1 year. 

There would be no significant benefits costs or savings associated with this proposal. 

Section 302 of the draft bill would amend section 1156(a)(3) of title 38, United 

States Code, to extend from 6 months to 18 months the deadline after separation 

or discharge from active duty by which VA must schedule a medical examination 

for certain Veterans with mental disorders. 

Section 1156(a)(3) currently requires VA to schedule a medical examination not 

later than 6 months after the date of separation or discharge from active duty for 

each Veteran ‘‘who, as a result of a highly stressful in-service event, has a mental 

disorder that is severe enough to bring about the veteran’s discharge or release from 

active duty.’’ However, an examination a mere six months after discharge may lead 

to premature conclusions regarding the severity, stability, and prognosis of a Veteran’s mental disorder. Six months is a relatively short period of treatment, and the 

stresses of active-duty trauma and the transition to civilian life may not fully have 

manifested themselves after 6 months. An examination conducted up to 18 months 

after discharge is more likely to reflect an accurate evaluation of the severity, stability, and prognosis of a Veteran’s mental disorder. 

VA supports section 302 of the bill, which is identical to one of VA’s legislative 

proposals in the FY 2014 budget submission. 

This provision will not result in cost savings or benefits. 

Section 303 of the draft bill would amend section 1541(f)(1)(E) of title 38, United 

States Code, to extend eligibility for death pension to certain surviving spouses of 

Persian Gulf War Veterans who were married for less than 1 year; had no child 

born of, or before, the marriage; and were married on or after January 1, 2001. 

Section 1541 authorizes the payment of pension to the surviving spouse of a wartime Veteran who met certain service requirements or of a Veteran who was entitled to receive compensation or retirement pay for a service-connected disability 

when the Veteran died. Section 1541(f) prohibits the payment of such a pension unless: (1) the surviving spouse was married to the Veteran for at least 1 year immediately preceding the Veteran’s death; (2) a child was born of the marriage or to the 

couple before the marriage; or (3) the marriage occurred before a delimiting date 

specified in section 1541(f)(1). The current delimiting date applicable to a surviving 

spouse of a Gulf War Veteran is January 1, 2001. Section 303 would eliminate those 

restrictions and extend that delimiting date. 

The Persian Gulf War Veterans’ Benefits Act of 1991 established the delimiting 

marriage date of January 1, 2001, when pension eligibility was initially extended to 

43 

surviving spouses of Veterans of the Gulf War. However, due to the duration of the 

Gulf War, this date is no longer consistent with the other marriage delimiting dates 

in section 1541(f)(1). Generally, these delimiting dates are set for the day following 

10 years after the war or conflict officially ended, (e.g., the Korean War officially 

ended on January 31, 1955; the applicable delimiting date is February 1, 1965). As 

provided in section 101(33) of title 38, United States Code, the official Persian Gulf 

War period, which began on August 2, 1990, is still ongoing and will end on a date 

to be prescribed by Presidential proclamation or law. Revising the marriage delimiting date for surviving spouses of Gulf War Veterans to 10 years and 1 day after 

the end of the war as prescribed by Presidential proclamation or law would make 

that delimiting date consistent with the other dates in section 1541(f)(1) and would 

prevent any potentially incongruous results in death pension claims based on Gulf 

War service compared to claims based on other wartime service. Furthermore, because the Gulf War has not yet ended, the language in this amendment would ensure that a standing 10-year qualifying period will be in place for surviving spouses 

seeking pension based on Gulf War service. 

VA supports section 303 of the bill, which is identical to one of VA’s legislative 

proposals in the FY 2014 budget submission. 

There would be no significant benefit costs or savings associated with this proposal. 

Section 304 of the draft bill would amend section 5110(l) of title 38, United States 

Code, to make the effective date provision consistent with section 103(e), which provides: ‘‘The marriage of a child of a veteran shall not bar recognition of such child 

as the child of the veteran for benefit purposes if the marriage is void, or has been 

annulled by a court with basic authority to render annulment decrees unless the 

Secretary determines that the annulment was secured through fraud by either party 

or collusion.’’ Section 103(e) implies that a child’s marriage that is not void and has 

not been annulled does bar recognition of the child as a child of the Veteran for VA 

benefit purposes, even if the marriage was terminated by death or divorce. In fact, 

section 8004 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 repealed a prior provision in section 103(e) that ‘‘[t]he marriage of a child of a veteran shall not bar 

the recognition of such child as the child of the veteran for benefit purposes if the 

marriage has been terminated by death or has been dissolved by a court with basic 

authority to render divorce decrees unless the Veterans’ Administration determines 

that the divorce was secured through fraud by either party or collusion.’’ 

Nevertheless, no amendment has been made to the corresponding effective date 

provision in section 5110(l), which still provides an effective date for an award or 

increase in benefits ‘‘based on recognition of a child upon termination of the child’s 

marriage by death or divorce.’’ Section 304 of the bill would delete that provision 

from section 5110(l) and make section 5110(l) consistent with section 103(e). 

VA supports section 304 of the bill, which is identical to one of VA’s legislative 

proposals in the FY 2014 budget submission. 

There would be no costs or savings associated with this technical amendment. 

Section 305 of the draft bill would amend section 704(a) of the Veterans Benefits 

Act of 2003, Public Law 108–183, which authorizes VA to provide for the conduct 

of VA compensation and pension examinations by persons other than VA employees 

by using appropriated funds other than mandatory funds appropriated for the payment of compensation and pension. In accordance with section 704(b), VA exercises 

this authority pursuant to contracts with private entities. However, under section 

704(c), as amended by section 105 of the Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act of 

2008, by section 809 of the Veterans’ Benefits Act of 2010, and by section 207 of 

the VA Major Construction Authorization and Expiring Authorities Extension Act 

of 2012, this authority will expire on December 31, 2013. 

Section 305(a) of the bill would extend VA’s authority to provide compensation 

and pension examinations by contract examiners for another year. The continuation 

of this authority is essential to VA’s ability to continue to provide prompt and highquality medical disability examinations for our Veterans. If this authority is allowed 

to expire, VA will not be able to provide contracted disability examinations to Veterans in need of examinations. Extending the authority for another year would enable VA to effectively utilize supplemental and other appropriated funds to respond 

to increasing demands for medical disability examinations. Contracting for examinations is essential to VA’s objective of ensuring timely adjudication of disability compensation claims and allows the VHA to better focus its resources on providing 

needed heath care to Veterans. 

Section 305(b) of the bill would require VA to provide to the House and Senate 

Committees on Veterans’ Affairs a report within 180 days of enactment of the bill. 

The report would have to include extensive information regarding medical exams 

furnished by VA from FY 2009 to FY 2012. Similarly, section 305(c) would require 

44 

VA to provide a report to the same committees in the same timeframe regarding 

Acceptable Clinical Evidence. 

VA supports section 305(a) of this bill and submitted a similar proposal with the 

FY 2014 budget request. VA’s version of the proposal would extend operating authority for five years rather than one year. 

VA does not oppose the reporting requirements of sections 305(b) and 305(c); however, one year rather than 180 days would provide adequate time to compile the 

data needed to comply with the detailed reporting requirements and to adequately 

coordinate review of the report before submission. 

No benefit or administrative costs would result from enactment of this provision. 

S. 939

Section 1 of this draft bill would amend section 7103 of title 38, United States 

Code, to provide that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) or Agency of Original 

Jurisdiction (AOJ) shall treat any document received from a person adversely affected by a decision of the Board expressing disagreement with that Board decision 

as a motion for reconsideration when that document is submitted to the Board or 

AOJ not later than 120 days after the date of the Board decision and an appeal with 

the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) has not 

been filed. The section would further explain that a document will not be considered 

as a motion for reconsideration if the Board or AOJ determines that the document 

expresses an intent to appeal the decision to the Court and forwards the document 

to the Court in time for receipt before the appeal filing deadline. As explained 

below, VA has several concerns with the draft legislation. 

Proposed new section 7103(c)(1) would state that a document filed within 120 

days of a Board decision that ‘‘expresses disagreement with such decision’’ shall be 

treated as a motion for reconsideration. We believe this draft standard would prove 

too vague and would result in an excessive amount of uncertainty for reviewers determining how to classify a piece of correspondence. The Board and AOJ receive a 

significant amount of correspondence on a regular basis. The fact that a piece of correspondence is received at the Board or AOJ after a Board decision does not necessarily mean that the appellant intends to challenge that Board decision, nor does 

it necessarily indicate an expression of disagreement with a Board decision. An appellant could be contacting VA to challenge a Board decision by way of a motion 

to vacate the decision, a motion to revise the decision based on clear and unmistakable error, or a motion for reconsideration—all types of motions that imply some 

level of disagreement. Additionally, an appellant could be contacting VA after a 

Board decision to file a new claim, reopen an old claim, check on the status of a 

claim, or simply express a generalized complaint, without intending to initiate an 

appeal. In order for Board or AOJ correspondence reviewers to be able to properly 

identify an appellant’s intent from a piece of correspondence, it is not unreasonable 

to require the appellant to articulate the purpose of his or her correspondence and 

the result he or she is seeking. Allowing an appellant to seek reconsideration by 

merely expressing disagreement with a final Board decision would not provide reviewers with sufficient ability to distinguish whether the appellant is seeking a motion for reconsideration or some other legitimate action, such as a motion to vacate 

a Board decision or a motion to challenge based on clear and unmistakable error. 

This broad standard would, in turn, result in greater uncertainty and delay in an 

already heavily burdened system while benefiting few Veterans. The current proposal’s broad language will likely lead to reconsideration rulings in cases where the 

appellant was not seeking further appellate review and would occupy limited adjudicative resources, thus delaying the claims of other Veterans. 

Under section 20.1001(a) of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, a motion for reconsideration must ‘‘set forth clearly and specifically the alleged obvious error, or 

errors, of fact or law in the applicable decision, or decisions, of the Board or other 

appropriate basis for requesting Reconsideration.’’ Further, the discretion of the 

Chairman or his delegate to grant reconsideration of an appellate decision is limited 

to the following grounds: (a) upon allegation of obvious error of fact or law; (b) upon 

discovery of new and material evidence in the form of relevant records or reports 

of the service department concerned; or (c) upon allegation that an allowance of benefits by the Board has been materially influenced by false or fraudulent evidence 

submitted by or on behalf of the appellant. Although VA construes all claimants’ filings liberally, under these governing regulations, a document that expresses general 

disagreement with a Board decision would not be construed a motion for reconsideration. 

The draft legislation would, however, require VA to consider such general statements of dissatisfaction or disagreement to be motions for reconsideration, thereby 

45 

considerably broadening and weakening the standard required to render a Board decision nonfinal. This could cause confusion among correspondence reviewers. In fact, 

the standard contemplated by the draft legislation would be lower than the standard used to determine whether a document is a notice of disagreement (NOD) with 

an AOJ decision, pursuant to section 20.201 of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations. 

Moreover, the language of proposed new section 7103(c)(1) indicates that the 

lower standard would only apply to documents submitted within the 120-day period 

for appeal to the Veterans Court. This would essentially result in two standards 

being applied to motions for reconsideration based on whether the appellant submits 

the motion before or after the 120-day appeal period. Such different standards 

would understandably result in confusion in determining whether a document is a 

reconsideration motion. 

Proposed new section 7103(c)(2) indicates that VA will not treat a submitted document as a motion for reconsideration if VA determines that the document expresses 

an intent to appeal the Board decision to the Veterans Court and forwards that document to the court, and the court receives the document within the statutory deadline to appeal the Board decision. The draft legislation appears to make VA’s determination of whether a document is a motion for reconsideration or a notice of appeal 

(NOA) to the Veterans Court partially contingent upon whether VA forwards the 

document to the court and the court timely receives it. Yet court decisions have 

found equitable tolling may apply in situations where VA timely received a misfiled 

NOA, but the Veterans Court did not timely receive it. The bill would give VA the 

authority to potentially take away a course of action from an appellant. The legislation would essentially provide VA with the authority to determine whether a document is an NOA based in part on whether VA can timely forward the document to 

the Veterans Court. This would prevent an appellant who timely misfiled an NOA 

with VA from having an opportunity to have the court determine whether equitable 

tolling applies and whether the court will accept the misfiled submission as timely. 

Further, an appellant may have been seeking to file a motion for reconsideration 

with the Board. However, if VA determines that a document is an NOA instead of 

a motion for reconsideration, VA may inadvertently prevent an appellant from having the Board consider his or her motion for reconsideration. Consequently, the proposed legislation would pose a number of legal and practical difficulties. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I would be pleased to respond to questions you or the other 

Members may have. 

46 

ENCLOSURE: VA VIEWS

S. 514

S. 514 would amend subchapter II of chapter 33, title 38, United States Code, to 

provide additional educational assistance under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program (Post-9/11 GI Bill) to Veterans pursuing a degree in science, technology, engineering, math, or an area that leads to employment in a high-demand 

occupation. The additional payment would be in an amount determined by the Secretary and would be in addition to other amounts payable under chapter 33. VA provided views for this bill at the June 12, 2013, hearing. 

The amount of increase in additional benefits is not specified in this legislation; 

therefore, we are unable to provide an estimate for the additional benefit costs that 

this legislation would incur. There are no full time equivalent (FTE) or general operating expense (GOE) costs associated with enactment of this bill. 

S. 735

S. 735, the ‘‘Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of 2013,’’ would amend title 38, 

United States Code, to improve benefits and assistance provided to surviving 

spouses of Veterans under laws administered by the Secretary of VA and for other 

purposes. 

Section 2 of this bill would amend section 1311 of title 38, United States Code, 

by extending, from 2 to 5 years, the period for increased dependency and indemnity 

compensation (DIC) for surviving spouses with children. VA supports the extended 

period of eligibility, subject to Congress identifying the appropriate offsets. The bill 


913VAltr.eps
47 

extends the with-children increase period by 3 additional years. Benefits costs associated with section 2 are estimated to be $5.6 million during the first year, $72.1 

million for 5 years, and $199.3 million over 10 years. 

Section 3 of S. 735 would extend eligibility for DIC, heath care, and home loan 

guaranty benefits to surviving spouses who remarry after age 55. Currently, such 

benefits may be granted to surviving spouses who remarry after age 57. VA supports this provision because it would make consistent VA’s provision of benefits and 

health care to surviving spouses. Under section 103(d)(2)(b) of title 38, United 

States Code, remarriage after age 55 is not a bar to health care benefits. On December 16, 2003, Congress enacted the Veterans Benefits Act of 2003, which for the first 

time gave certain surviving spouses the right to retain VA benefits after remarriage. 

Prior law required VA to terminate those benefits upon remarriage regardless of the 

age of the surviving spouse. 

There will be no additional costs for health care as, under section 103(d)(2)(b) of 

title 38, United States Code, remarriage after age 55 is not a bar to health care benefits. Regarding costs associated with home loans, the provision would produce negligible estimated subsidy costs over 10 years because of a very small change expected in loan volume. We do not currently have an estimate of the costs associated 

with additional DIC eligibility. 

Section 4 of S. 735 would provide benefits to children of certain Thailand service 

Veterans born with spina bifida. The Spina Bifida Health Benefits Program was 

originally enacted for the birth of children with spina bifida to Vietnam Veterans 

based on evidence of an increased incidence of spina bifida among Veterans exposed 

to herbicides. The program was later expanded to include the children with spina 

bifida of certain Veterans whom the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) determined had been exposed to herbicides in Korea. The proposed bill would incorporate 

language from Subchapter I of Chapter 18 regarding spina bifida benefits for children of Vietnam Veterans and from Subchapter II, section 1821, regarding spina 

bifida benefits for children of Veterans with covered service in Korea. The covered 

service in this proposed bill is defined as ‘‘active military, naval, or air service in 

Thailand, as determined by the Secretary in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975,’’ 

in which an individual ‘‘is determined by the Secretary, in consultation with the 

Secretary of Defense, to have been exposed to a herbicide agent during such service 

in Thailand.’’ The proposed bill goes on to define ‘‘herbicide agent’’ as ‘‘a chemical 

in a herbicide used in support of United States and allied military operations in 

Thailand, as determined by the Secretary in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975.’’ 

VA supports section 4, pending congressional funding, which would provide benefits for this population similar to the benefits offered to those eligible under the 

Spina Bifida Health Care Benefits Program. However, there are several aspects that 

may limit its application. The benefit it seeks to provide to children of Veterans 

with Thailand service is based on the premise that the parent Veteran was exposed 

to the herbicide Agent Orange with its carcinogenic element dioxin, and that this 

contributed to the spina bifida. Veterans with service in Vietnam from January 9, 

1962, to May 7, 1975, are presumed exposed to this herbicide based on section 1116 

of title 38, United States Code. Veterans with service in certain units located on the 

Korean demilitarized zone (DMZ) from April 1, 1968, to August 31, 1971, are also 

given the presumption of exposure under section 3.307(a)(6)(iv) of title 38, Code of 

Federal Regulations. This presumption is the basis for the child’s spina bifida benefits. However, there is no presumption of Agent Orange exposure for service in Thailand, and DOD has stated that only commercial herbicides were used within the interiors of military installations in Thailand. As a result, there is some question as 

to how the proposed bill’s ‘‘covered service’’ in Thailand would be applied. 

Although there is no applicable presumption of herbicide exposure for purposes 

of identifying ‘‘covered service’’ in Thailand, there is some evidence supporting the 

possibility that tactical herbicides, such as Agent Orange, may have been used on 

the fenced-in perimeters of Thailand air bases during the Vietnam War. Some evidence for this is found in the 1973 DOD document ‘‘CHECO Report: Base Defense 

in Thailand,’’ which emphasizes the security role of herbicides within the fenced-in 

perimeters, but does not specifically identify the herbicide type. As a result, VA has 

given the benefit of the doubt to those Veterans who walked the perimeters as dog 

handlers or security guards and has acknowledged their exposure on a direct factsfound occupational basis. This is not the same as a legal presumption of exposure. 

These Veterans would be the only ones currently recognized as having the ‘‘covered 

service’’ that is referred to in the proposed legislation. General service in Thailand 

is not considered by VA to be the ‘‘covered service’’ involved with this legislation. 

48 

VA estimates that medical-care costs associated with this section would be $3.14 

million in fiscal year (FY) 2014; $17.81 million over 5 years; and $56.73 million over 

10 years. Benefits costs associated with this section of the bill are estimated to be 

$1.8 million during the first year, $9.4 million for 5 years, and $19.8 million over 

10 years. 

Section 5 of S. 735 would require VA, not later than 6 months after the date of 

enactment, to conduct a pilot program to assess the feasibility of providing grief 

counseling services in a group retreat setting to surviving spouses of Veterans who 

die while serving on active duty in the Armed Forces. The pilot program would be 

carried out by the Readjustment Counseling Service (RCS). Participation would be 

at the election of the surviving spouse. The pilot program would be carried out at 

not fewer than six locations, including three locations where surviving spouses with 

dependent children are encouraged to bring their children, and three locations 

where surviving spouses with dependent children are not encouraged to bring their 

children. Services provided under the pilot would include information and counseling on coping with grief, information about benefits and services available to surviving spouses under laws administered by VA, and other information considered 

appropriate to assist a surviving spouse with adjusting to the death of a spouse. 

VA supports the concept of providing readjustment counseling in retreat settings. 

Initial results from similar retreat-based pilot programs operated by RCS found participants were able to reduce symptoms and maintain a higher quality of life after 

the retreat. The retreats proposed in section 5 have the potential for similar results; 

however, a permissive or discretionary authority to operate such a program would 

be preferable to a mandatory pilot authority. Such authority would permit VA to 

determine eligible cohort participation based on criteria such as local demand and 

available funding. 

We estimate that the cost of the pilot would be approximately $512,730. 

S. 778

S. 778 would grant VA the authority to issue a card, known as a ‘‘Veterans ID 

Card,’’ to a Veteran that identifies the individual as a Veteran and includes a photo 

and the name of the Veteran. The issuance of the card would not be premised on 

receipt of any VA benefits nor enrollment in the system of annual patient enrollment for VA health care established under section 1705(a) of title 38, United States 

Code. The card could be used by Veterans to identify themselves as Veterans in 

order to secure pharmaceuticals and consumer products offered by retailers to Veterans at reduced prices. 

VA understands and appreciates the purpose of this bill, to provide Veterans a 

practical way to show their status as Veterans to avail themselves of the many special programs or advantages civic-minded businesses and organizations confer upon 

Veterans. However, VA does not support this bill. The same benefit to Veterans can 

best be achieved by VA and DOD working with the states, the District of Columbia, 

and United States territories to encourage programs for them to issue such identification cards. Those entities already have the experience and resources to issue reliable forms of identification. 

VA is working with states on these efforts. For example, VA and the Commonwealth of Virginia launched a program to allow Veterans to obtain a Virginia Veteran’s ID Card from its Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). The program will 

help thousands of Virginia Veterans identify themselves as Veterans and obtain retail and restaurant discounts around the state. On May 30, 2012, the program was 

launched in Richmond, and a DMV ‘‘2 Go’’ mobile office was present to process Veterans’ applications for the cards. 

Virginia Veterans may apply for the cards in person at any Virginia DMV customer service center, at a mobile office, or online. Each applicant presents an unexpired Virginia driver’s license or DMV-issued ID card, a Veterans ID card application, his or her DOD Form DD–214, DD–256, or WD AGO document, and $10. The 

card, which does not expire, is mailed to the Veteran and should arrive within a 

week. In the meantime, the temporary Veterans ID card received at the time of the 

in-person application can be used as proof of Veteran status. 

Other jurisdictions can use this model to establish similar programs without creating a new program within VA that may not be cost-efficient. It is not known 

whether enough Veterans would request the card to make necessary initial investments in information technology and training worthwhile. 

In addition, a VA-issued card could create confusion about eligibility. Although 

the card would not by itself establish eligibility, there could nonetheless be misunderstandings by Veterans that a Government benefit is conferred by the card. As 

the Committee knows, entitlement to some VA benefits depends on criteria other 

49 

than Veteran status, such as service connection or level of income. Confusion may 

also occur because the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) issues identification 

cards to Veterans who are eligible for VA health care. Having two VA-issued cards 

would pose the potential for confusion. 

It is difficult to predict how many Veterans would apply for such a card. Therefore, VA cannot provide a reliable cost estimate for S. 778. 

S. 819

S. 819, the ‘‘Veterans Mental Health Treatment First Act of 2013,’’ would provide 

the Department with significant new tools to maximize and reward a Veteran’s 

therapeutic recovery from certain service-related mental health conditions, and, to 

the extent possible, reduce the Veteran’s level of permanent disability from any of 

the covered conditions. The goal of the legislation is to give the Veteran the best 

opportunity to reintegrate successfully and productively into the civilian community. 

Specifically, S. 819 would require the Secretary to carry out a mental health and 

rehabilitation program for certain Veterans who have been discharged or released 

from service in the active military, naval, or air service under conditions other than 

dishonorable for a period of not more than 2 years, and who have been enrolled for 

care in the VA health care system since before the date of enactment of this bill. 

The program would be available to a Veteran who has been diagnosed by a VA physician with any of the following conditions: Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD); 

depression; or anxiety disorder that is service related, as defined by the bill. The 

bill would also cover a diagnosis of a substance use disorder related to service-related PTSD, depression, or anxiety. For purposes of this program, a covered condition would be considered to be service related if: (1) VA has previously adjudicated 

the disability to be service-connected; or (2) the VA physician making the diagnosis 

finds the condition plausibly related to the Veteran’s active service. S. 819 would 

also require the Secretary to promulgate regulations identifying the standards to be 

used by VA physicians when determining whether a condition is plausibly related 

to the Veteran’s active military, naval, or air service. 

The bill sets forth conditions of participation for the Veterans taking part in the 

program. If a Veteran has not filed a VA claim for disability for the covered condition, the Veteran would have to agree not to submit a VA claim for disability compensation for the covered condition for 1 year (beginning on the date the Veteran 

starts the program) or until the date on which the Veteran completes his or her 

treatment plan, whichever date is earlier. 

If the Veteran has filed a disability claim but it has not yet been adjudicated by 

the Department, the Veteran could elect either to suspend adjudication of the claim 

until he or she completes treatment or to continue with the claims adjudication 

process. As discussed below, the stipend amounts payable to the Veteran under the 

program will depend on which election the Veteran makes. 

If the Veteran has a covered condition that has been adjudicated to be serviceconnected, then the individual would have to agree not to submit a claim for an increase in VA disability compensation for 1 year (beginning on the date the Veteran 

starts the program) or until the date the Veteran completes treatment, whichever 

is earlier. 

S. 819 would establish a financial incentive in the form of ‘‘wellness’’ stipends to 

encourage participating Veterans to obtain VA care and rehabilitation before pursuing, or seeking additional, disability compensation for a covered condition. The 

amount of the stipend would depend on the status of the Veteran’s disability claim. 

If the Veteran has not filed a VA disability claim, VA would pay the Veteran $2,000 

upon commencement of the treatment plan, plus $1,500 every 90 days thereafter 

upon certification by the VA clinician that the Veteran is in substantial compliance 

with the plan. This recurring stipend would be capped at $6,000. The Veteran would 

receive an additional $3,000 at the conclusion of treatment or 1 year after the Veteran begins treatment, whichever is earlier. 

If the Veteran has filed a disability claim that has not yet been adjudicated, the 

participating Veteran who elects to suspend adjudication of the claim until he or she 

completes treatment would receive ‘‘wellness’’ stipends in the same amounts payable 

to Veterans who have not yet filed a disability claim. If the participating Veteran 

elects instead to continue with the claims adjudication process, the Veteran would 

receive ‘‘wellness’’ stipends in the same amounts payable to Veterans whose covered 

disabilities have been adjudicated and found to be service-connected: $667 payable 

upon the Veteran’s commencement of treatment and $500 payable every 90 days 

thereafter upon certification by the Veteran’s clinician that the individual is in substantial compliance with the plan. Recurring payments would be capped at $2,000, 

50 

and the Veteran would receive $1,000 when treatment is completed or 1 year after 

beginning treatment, whichever is earlier. 

If the Secretary determines that a Veteran participating in the program has failed 

to comply substantially with the treatment plan or any other agreed-upon conditions 

of the program, the bill would require VA to cease payment of future ‘‘wellness’’ stipends to the Veteran. 

Finally, S. 819 would limit a Veteran’s participation in this program to one time, 

unless the Secretary determines that additional participation in the program would 

assist in the remediation of the Veteran’s covered condition. 

VA does not support S. 819. Although VA philosophically appreciates the purpose 

of the bill and the legislator’s intent, we have concerns with its premises and are 

unable to support it. 

S. 819 assumes that early treatment intervention by VA health care professionals 

for a covered condition would be effective in either reducing or stabilizing the Veteran’s level of permanent disability from the condition, thereby reducing the amount 

of VA disability benefits ultimately awarded for the condition. No data exist to support or refute that assumption. 

With the exception of substance use disorders, we are likewise unaware of any 

data to support or refute the bill’s underlying assumption that paying a Veteran a 

‘‘wellness’’ stipend will ensure the patient’s compliance with his or her treatment 

program. Although there is a growing trend among health insurance carriers or employers to provide short-term financial incentives for their enrollees or employees to 

participate in preventive health care programs (e.g., reducing premiums for an enrollee who participates in a fitness program, loses weight, or quits smoking), we are 

unaware of any data establishing that these and similar financial incentives 

produce long-term cost savings to the carrier or employer. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to quantify savings or offsets because there is no way to 

know whether a particular patient’s health status would have worsened without 

VA’s intervention, and whether the intervention directly resulted in a certain or predictable total amount in health care expenditure savings. We would experience the 

same difficulties trying to identify what would have been the level of disability and 

costs of care for a particular Veteran had he or she not participated in the early 

clinical intervention program. 

The ‘‘wellness’’ stipends, themselves, raise several complex issues. None of VA’s 

current benefits systems is equipped to administer such a novel benefit, and no current account appears to be an appropriate funding source from which to pay the 

benefit. Second, authorization of wellness benefits would be determined based solely 

on adherence to the treatment/wellness program. This would place the clinician in 

the position of determining whether the patient will continue to receive these 

wellness benefits and would pose a significant conflict of interest which would likely 

compromise the healing relationship between the patient and clinical provider. 

There would be significant indirect costs as well. VHA currently lacks the information technology infrastructure, expertise, and staff to administer monetary benefits with the potential level of complexity and scale proposed in this legislation. The 

challenge posed in connection with this bill would be nearly insurmountable, which 

calls for a very complex, nationwide patient tracking and monitoring system that 

also has the capacity to administer payments at different points in time for Veterans participating in the program. The fact that the duration of each Veteran’s 

treatment plan would be highly individualized would only complicate the requirements of such a system design, as would the fact that the bill would permit some 

Veterans to receive treatment (and payment) extensions. 

The cost of administering S. 819 would be potentially higher than the benefit received by the Veteran. The maximum VA could pay any Veteran under the bill 

would be $11,000; however, it is reasonable to assume that the costs associated with 

designing, operating, and administering such a complex benefit program would far 

surpass the actual amounts we would pay out to the Veterans (individually or collectively). 

S. 819 would also place practitioners in the difficult position of determining if 

their patients will receive ‘‘wellness’’ stipends available under the program. It is 

quite atypical for a VA physician’s clinical determination regarding treatment to 

have direct financial implications or consequences for his or her patients. VA physicians and practitioners seek to help their Veteran patients attain maximum functioning as quickly as clinically possible. S. 819 would create potential conflict for our 

health care practitioners. They should focus solely on issues of health care and not 

feel pressure to grant requests for extensions of treatment in order to maximize the 

amount of money patients receive under the program. 

Additionally, it would be difficult to define ‘‘substantial compliance,’’ for purposes 

of S. 819, in a way that is measurable and objective as well as not easily amenable 

51 

to fraud or abuse. For instance, substantial compliance could be defined in part by 

a Veteran stating that he or she took prescribed medications as ordered by the physician and VA confirming the Veteran obtained refills in a timely manner. But that 

information does not actually verify that the patient in fact ingested the medication 

or did so as prescribed. 

There would unavoidably be some patients whose motivation for participating in 

this program is strictly financial, and they would invariably find ways to circumvent 

whatever criteria we established in order to receive their stipends. Although these 

payments would not be sizable, they would be sufficient to entice some patients who 

would not otherwise access VA’s health care system to participate in the program. 

We fear these patients would cease their treatment and stop accessing needed VA 

services once their treatment and payments end. 

If the use of ‘‘wellness’’ stipends were able to produce reliable, positive results in 

terms of patients’ compliance or outcomes, there may then be a demand to extend 

this reward system to other VA treatment programs. We note this only to point out 

that the cost implications in the out-years could be very difficult to estimate accurately. 

Finally, it is also troubling that S. 819 would require VA to treat specific diseases 

and not the Veteran as a whole. This approach would place VA practitioners in the 

difficult and untenable position of being able to identify conditions they cannot treat 

under the proposed program. This would create a particularly serious ethical dilemma for the practitioner who knows that his or her Veteran patient has no other 

access to needed health care services. In our view, authority to treat specific diseases-and not the person-would be counter to the principles of patient-centered and 

holistic medicine. 

We do not currently have a cost estimate for S. 819. 

S. 863

Section 2 of S. 863, the ‘‘Veterans Back to School Act of 2013,’’ would amend section 3031 of title 38, United States Code, to repeal the time limitations on the use 

of educational assistance under the Montgomery GI Bill-Active Duty (MGIB-AD) 

program. Currently, pursuant to section 3031, the period for which an individual is 

entitled to education assistance under the MGIB-AD program expires, generally, 10 

years after the individual’s last discharge or release from active duty. 

Section 2 of S. 863 would add a new subsection to section 3031 to provide that, 

notwithstanding other delimiting-date provisions in that section, the period for a 

‘‘covered individual’’ to use MGIB-AD education benefits would expire 10 years after 

the date on which the individual begins using the benefit. A ‘‘covered individual’’ 

would be defined to be any individual whose basic pay was reduced by $100 for 12 

months under paragraph (1) of section 3011, or an amount equal to $1,200 not later 

than 1 year after completion of 2 years of active duty service. This legislation would 

not apply to the period for using entitlement transferred under section 3020 of title 

38. 

The amendment made by section 2 would be made effective as if the legislation 

had been enacted immediately after the enactment of the Veteran’s Educational Assistance Act of 1984. 

VA is unable to support section 2 of S. 863. Currently, a Veteran must use MGIBAD benefits during the 10-year period beginning on the date of his or her release 

from active duty. Under the proposed legislation, an individual could wait more 

than 

10 years before he or she begins use of the benefit. This would require VA to administer the MGIB-AD program for an unknown number of individuals for an unlimited period of time. The MGIB-AD-eligible population is decreasing, as the 10- 

year period of eligibility for Veterans with service ending prior to 2001 has passed, 

and the majority of individuals with service after that date are electing to use benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill program, which provides a 15-year eligibility period. 

VA also has concerns with the effective date of the legislation. We interpret the 

effective date in paragraph (c) of section 2 to mean all individuals who have not received MGIB-AD education benefits would now be eligible and those that previously 

received benefits would have their time limitation recalculated. This would require 

VA to retroactively make adjustments to individual periods of eligibility, creating a 

significant workload that would impact our timeliness in processing all education 

claims. 

VA estimates that the benefit cost associated with enactment of section 2 of the 

bill would be insignificant. While section 2 would effectively extend the delimiting 

date of MGIB-AD, the Secretary currently has authority under Title 38 Section 3031 

to extend the delimiting date in certain circumstances. Additionally, MGIB-AD 

52 

usage data suggests that the majority of trainees begin receiving benefits within 

three years of separation and would not require more than the current ten year delimiting date to use their entitlement. Finally, because MGIB-AD is a decreasing 

program due to the implementation of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, we anticipate that 

MGIB-AD participation will decrease below 10,000 within ten years, further minimizing any impact of extending the delimiting date. 

Section 3 of S. 863 would amend chapter 36 of title 38, United States Code, to 

require VA, subject to the availability of appropriations, to provide funding for ‘‘offices of veterans affairs’’ at institutions of higher learning (IHL) at which there are 

in attendance at least 50 students receiving educational assistance administered by 

VA. 

This legislation would require that an IHL or consortium of IHLs submit an application to VA to determine eligibility for this program. Such application would be required to identify policies, assurances, and procedures to ensure that the funds received by the institution would be used solely to enhance the institution’s Veterans’ 

education outreach program. During each academic year an institution receives payments, the IHL would be required to fund an amount equal to at least the amount 

of the award paid by VA. The funding for the additional expenditure could not come 

from other Federal sources, and the applicant would have to submit any reports requested by VA. VA would determine what information must be included in the application and when the application should be submitted. In addition, the application 

must state that the applicant will maintain an ‘‘office of veterans affairs’’ and use 

that office for Veterans’ certification, outreach, recruitment, and special education 

programs. This would include referral to educational, vocational, and personal counseling for Veterans, as well as providing information for other services provided to 

Veterans by VA, such as readjustment counseling; job counseling, training, and 

placement services; and employment and training of Veterans. 

If VA determines that an institution eligible for funding is unable to carry out 

by itself any or all activities proposed in this legislation, the institution might carry 

out the program activities through a consortium agreement with one or more other 

IHLs in the same community. However, VA could not approve an application unless 

it is determined that the applicant would implement the necessary requirements 

within the first academic year in which a payment would be received. An eligible institution would receive $100 for each person that received VA edu- cational assistance, with a maximum amount of $150,000 to any IHL during the fiscal year. Six million dollars would be authorized to be appropriated for FY 2012 and 

each fiscal year thereafter. If the amount appropriated for any fiscal year would not 

be sufficient to pay all IHLs, the payments would be reduced. However, if any 

amounts become available in any fiscal year after such reductions, the reduced payments would be increased at the same level they were reduced. 

From the amounts made available for any fiscal year, VA would also be required 

to set aside 1 percent or $20,000, whichever is less, for the purpose of collecting information about exemplary programs and disseminating that information to other 

institutions with similar programs on their campuses. Such collection and dissemination would be completed each year. VA could not retain more than 2 percent of 

the funds available for administering this program. 

VA supports the intent of section 3; however, we have significant concerns about 

the potential additional administrative burden that could result. In calendar year 

2012, there were more than 3,100 schools with 50 or more recipients of VA education benefits. As the Post-9/11 GI Bill continues to grow, VA can expect the number of schools with 50 or more recipients to increase. During FY 2012, there were 

646,302 students who received Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, which is an increase of 

16.4 percent over FY 2011. VA would need to provide staffing to administer and 

process the number of applications received for this program. Additionally, VA 

would need to establish a method of reporting and tracking the success of these programs. 

We also have concerns about the broad scope of this legislation, and how VA 

would effectively administer the provisions. While the bill would require an institution to use funds solely to carry out Veterans’ education outreach programs, VA does 

not have a mechanism to ensure that all funds would be used accordingly. Additionally, the funding limitations by fiscal year present challenges. The risk of funding 

uncertainty would jeopardize effective planning. 

We note that the 2014 President’s Budget includes funding to expand the Department’s VetSuccess on Campus initiative to a total of 94 campuses. VA is beginning 

a partnership with the Corporation for National and Community Service to provide 

additional support for VetSuccess on Campus counselors through AmeriCorps members. Furthermore, as of May 29, 2013, 6,282 campuses have voluntarily agreed to 

comply with the Principles of Excellence outlined in Executive Order 13607, which 

53 

requires the schools designate a point of contact to assist Veteran and Servicemember students and their families with academic and financial advising. This legislation authorizes appropriation of $6 million to carry out section 3 for 

FY 2012 and each fiscal year thereafter. It is assumed that such funding would be 

made available through the GOE account, but we request that specific language be 

added to the legislation to make this clear. No benefits cost would be associated 

with enactment of this section. Although the bill would authorize $6 million to carry 

out this section, VA estimates GOE costs for the first year of $8 million based on 

17 FTE to administer the Veterans’ education outreach program established under 

section 3 (including salary, benefits, rent, supplies, equipment, payments made to 

institutions of higher learning, and an outreach study). The estimated 5-year cost 

would be $40 million, and the 10-year cost would be $81.2 million. In addition, VA 

estimates that information technology (IT) costs to support the additional staff for 

the first year would be $31,000 (this includes the IT equipment for FTE, installation, maintenance, and IT support). The estimated 5-year IT cost would be $175,000, 

and the 10-year cost would be $409,000. 

S. 868

S. 868, the ‘‘Filipino Veterans Promise Act,’’ would require the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of VA, to establish a process to determine 

whether individuals claiming certain service in the Philippines during World War 

II are eligible for certain benefits despite not being on the so-called ‘‘Missouri List.’’ 

This bill affects programs and laws administered by DOD. Respectfully, we defer to 

that Department’s views on this bill. 

S. 889

S. 889, the ‘‘Servicemembers’ Choice in Transition Act of 2013,’’ would amend section 1144 of title 10, United States Code, to improve the Transition Assistance Program (TAP). The current law does not stipulate any requirements for TAP beyond 

pre-separation counseling and the Department of Labor (DOL) Employment Workshop. 

S. 889 would mandate the following additions to TAP providing: (1) information 

on disability-related employment and education protection; (2) an overview of available education benefits; and (3) testing to determine academic readiness for postsecondary education. The deadline for implementation of these provisions would be 

April 1, 2015. The bill would also require a feasibility study by VA on providing the 

instruction of pre-separation counseling (described in subsection (b) of section 1142 

of title 10, United States Code) at overseas locations, no later than 270 days after 

the date of the enactment. 

VA appreciates the strong interest and support from the Committee to ensure 

that separating Servicemembers are given full and effective engagement on their 

employment and training opportunities, as well as other VA benefits they have 

earned. However, VA does not support this legislation. The passage of the Veterans 

Opportunity to Work (VOW) to Hire Heroes Act (VOW Act) of 2011 and the introduction of the President’s Veterans Employment Initiative (VEI) satisfy the intent 

underlying S. 889. VA believes those efforts should be afforded an opportunity to be 

fully implemented and assessed before any further legislation concerning TAP is enacted. Allowing agencies to proceed under current plans will provide greater flexibility in implementing improvements and making adjustments based on accurate 

data analysis during assessment. VA will be pleased to brief the Committee on the 

improvements and enhancements that are currently being implemented as part of 

the Administration’s VEI. 

VA and Federal agency partners including DOD, DOL, Department of Education, 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and the Small Business Administration 

(SBA), are currently working to develop a plan for the implementation of an enhanced TAP curriculum, known as Transition GPS (Goals, Plans, Success), which 

was developed under the Administration’s VEI. 

Current components of the Transition GPS curriculum include mandatory pre-separation counseling, service-delivered modules, enhanced VA benefits briefings, a 

DOL Employment Workshop, and Servicemember-selected tracks focused on technical training, higher education, and entrepreneurship opportunities. With the implementation of the Capstone event by the end of FY 2013, the Transition GPS curriculum will take approximately 7 to 8 days to complete. 

VA has primary responsibility in the development and delivery of the VA benefits 

briefings and the Career Technical Training Track, and additional responsibilities 

to support partner agencies in the development of curriculum of the higher education track, the entrepreneurship track, and the Capstone event. The Capstone 

54 

event is intended to serve as a standardized end-of-career experience to validate, 

verify, and bolster transition training and other services to prepare for civilian career readiness, including those delivered throughout the entire span of a Servicemember’s career, from accession to post-military civilian life. 

The VA Benefits I and II Briefings are part of the current Transition GPS Curriculum. During the VA Benefits I Briefing, information is provided on VA education 

benefits, as well as identifying the forms and documentation necessary to access 

those education benefits. The VA Benefits I Briefing also provides information on 

all other benefits and services offered by VA. The Benefits II Briefing provides an 

in-depth overview of VA’s disability compensation process, VA health care, and navigation of the eBenefits portal, a one-stop, self-service tool providing access to all 

benefits information. 

Testing to determine academic readiness for post-secondary education for any 

member who plans to use educational assistance under title 38 does not play a role 

in how VA determines eligibility and disburses VA education benefits. VA does not 

agree that this type of testing should be a part of Transition GPS, since Servicemembers who are interested in pursuing post-secondary education already go 

through an application process in order to determine readiness and acceptance to 

accredited schools, universities, or colleges. The final determination for one’s acceptance to post-secondary education is the responsibility of the academic institutions. 

VA believes the intent of this amendment is already being met under the revised 

Transition GPS. As part of the new process, Servicemembers receive pre-separation 

counseling by a representative within their respective Service, where they may receive additional guidance on appropriate next steps to include planning for a postsecondary education. 

This legislation would also mandate providing information on disability-related 

employment and education protections. As VA does not have oversight on employment and education protections, we defer to our agency partners (e.g., DOL and Department of Education) regarding the extent to which they address these topic areas 

during Transition GPS. 

Because pre-separation counseling is the responsibility of DOD, the feasibility 

study on the implementation of subsection (b) of section 1142 of title 10, United 

States Code, would be a new requirement for VA and would necessitate agreements 

and information sharing between VA and DOD to finalize within 270 days after enactment. 

We note that the Transition GPS curriculum is new and still being evaluated for 

effectiveness and efficiency. VA is in the process of fine tuning delivery and content 

to best meet Servicemembers’ needs, and additional legislation at this stage may 

hinder those efforts. For these reasons, VA does not support the feasibility study. 

VA estimates that, if S. 889 were enacted, costs for the first year would be $8.2 

million (including salary, benefits, travel, rent, supplies, training, equipment, and 

other services [including curriculum development]), $40.6 million over 5 years, and 

$86.5 million over 10 years. VA estimates that IT costs for the first year would be 

$0.3 million (including the IT equipment for FTE, installation, maintenance, and IT 

support) $0.9 million over 5 years, and $2.0 million over 10 years. 

S. 894

S. 894 would extend, through June 30, 2016, the Secretary’s authority to pay allowances for certain qualifying work-study activities performed by certain individuals pursuing programs of education. This bill would also amend section 3485(a)(4) 

of title 38, United States Code, to add a new subparagraph to add to the list of 

qualifying work-study activities certain activities performed at the offices of Members of Congress. Finally, this bill would require VA to submit annual reports to 

Congress regarding the work-study allowances paid under section 3485(a). VA provided views for this bill at the June 12, 2013, hearing. 

VA estimates that, if enacted, benefit costs for S. 894 would be $572,000 during 

FY 2013 and $7.4 million for the 3-year period beginning on June 30, 2013, and ending on June 30, 2016. There are no additional FTE or GOE cost requirements associated with this legislation. 

S. 922

Section 3 of S. 922, the ‘‘Veterans Equipped for Success Act of 2013,’’ would require VA, in collaboration with DOL, to create a 3-year pilot program in four locations to assess the feasibility and advisability of offering career transition services 

to eligible Veterans. VA provided views for this bill at the June 12, 2013, hearing. 

VA estimates that, if S. 922 were enacted, costs for the first year would be $1.9 

billion (including salary, benefits, travel rent, other services, supplies, and equipVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN
55 

ment), and $6.7 billion over 4 years. VA IT costs are estimated to be $0.1 million 

in the first year and $0.2 million over 4 years. IT costs include IT equipment, FTE, 

installation, maintenance, systems, and IT support. 

S. 927

S. 927, the ‘‘Veterans Outreach Act of 2013,’’ would require VA to carry out a 

demonstration project to assess the feasibility and advisability of using state and 

local government agencies and nonprofit organizations to increase outreach to Veterans regarding VA benefits and services. VA would require additional resources, 

such as manpower, funds, and space, to administer the mandated grant program, 

comply with the reporting requirements, and support the advisory committee called 

for in section 5 of the bill. In addition, VA has several recommendations and concerns regarding particular bill language. Because of the central role of outreach in 

ensuring that Veterans know of the benefits they have earned and the role of outreach throughout the myriad missions of VHA, VBA, and the National Cemetery 

Administration, we would benefit from meeting with the Committee to discuss ongoing outreach efforts and the ideas represented in this bill. 

Section 2 of S. 927 would require VA to conduct a demonstration project to increase coordination of outreach efforts between VA and Federal, state, and local 

agencies and nonprofit organizations. In the absence of a requirement for specific 

appropriations dedicated to the implementation of the bill, VA requests that, in section 2(a), ‘‘shall’’ be replaced with ‘‘may.’’ 

Section 2(a)(2) lists ‘‘nonprofit providers of health care and benefits services for 

veterans’’ as an entity with which VA would coordinate outreach activities. VA 

would like for the bill to have broad reach but would like to discuss with the Committee the different types of entities this language could cover. 

Section 2(c)(3) would require the Secretary to ‘‘consider where the projects will be 

carried out’’ and a number of other factors. VA recommends the considerations of 

section 2(c)(3) be deleted and that VA be directed to include appropriate project criteria, such as location and other factors, in VA implementing regulations. VA is concerned that, under section 2(c)(5), which would limit awards to a single state entity 

to 20 percent of all grant amounts awarded in a fiscal year, limitations would only 

be established for state entities while local and nonprofit entities would not be subject such limitations. VA recommends including all eligible grantees in this paragraph. Similarly, under section 2(d), the 50 percent matching funds requirement 

would only apply to states while county, municipal, and nonprofit entities would not 

have this burdensome requirement. VA recommends including all eligible grantees 

in this subsection as well. Essentially, there should be one standard: matching funds 

should be required for all entities or no such requirement should exist. VA already 

submits a consolidated biennial report on outreach activities, and therefore recommends that, rather than requiring the annual report as prescribed by section 

2(e), the biennial report already submitted address the grants called for in this proposed legislation. 

Section 3 would provide for cooperative agreements between the Secretary and 

states on outreach activities. VA already has an existing Memorandum of Agreement through the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs that 

encompasses the intent of this legislation. Therefore, VA recommends removing this 

section. 

Section 4 would provide for specific budget reporting requirements for VA’s outreach activities. VA administrations currently plan and track outreach budgets 

without a Congressionally-mandated requirement in order to report to VA’s Office 

of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs (OPIA). However, the language of section 

4 would require additional collection and coordination that could represent additional expenditures for VA. Additional manpower would be required to plan, coordinate, track, and report all outreach budget activities throughout VA. VA would be 

glad to discuss the requirements of this section with the Committee. 

Section 5 would establish an advisory committee on outreach activities in VA. Additional resources would be required to manage, plan, coordinate, support, and report on an outreach advisory committee’s activities. In addition, VA already has several committees, such as the Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans, the Advisory Committee on Women Veterans, and the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf 

War Veterans’ Illnesses, which look at outreach as a component of their charters. 

Should this additional advisory committee be established, VA believes that the quarterly consultation and reporting requirements contemplated by section 5(d) and (e) 

are excessive. Most VA committees already meet two to three times annually. VA 

recommends instead a biannual meeting requirement. 

56 

Section 6 would require each VA medical center to establish an advisory board 

on outreach activities. VA does not support this section of S. 927 as it would require 

152 additional advisory boards, each one being a potential distracter to mission 

workload. 

VA is unable to estimate the costs of this bill, as they would depend upon the 

scope of the grant program which, in turn, would depend upon amounts appropriated for such grants. 

S. 928

Section 101 of S. 928, the ‘‘Claims Processing Improvement Act of 2013,’’ would 

establish a working group to improve the employee work credit and work management systems of VBA. Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 

this Act, VA would establish a working group to assess and develop recommendations for the improvement of the employee work credit and work management systems of VBA. The work group would be comprised of VA adjudicators, labor representatives, and individuals from Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs). The 

working group would develop a data-based methodology to be used in revising the 

employee work credit system and a schedule by which revisions to such system 

would be made, and would assess and develop recommendations for improvement 

of the resource allocation model. In carrying out its duties, the working group would 

review the findings and conclusions of the Secretary regarding previous studies of 

the employee work credit and work management systems of VBA. 

Within 180 days following establishment of the working group, VA would submit 

a progress report to Congress. Within 1 year following the establishment of the 

working group, VA would submit a report to Congress detailing the methodology 

and schedule developed by the working group. 

VA does not support section 101. VA is fully aware of the need to improve its 

work credit and work management systems, but does not believe it necessary to legislate a formal working group to carry out an improvement plan. VA benefited from 

the Center for Naval Analyses report, mandated by section 226, Public Law 110– 

389, which revealed needed improvements of VA’s work credit and management system. It is vital that VA continue to improve its evolving claims processing system, 

including the enhancement of the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) 

to incorporate advanced workload management functionalities. VBA’s planned future state includes development of VBMS workload management capabilities that 

are entirely electronic. The workload management capabilities of VBMS are being 

developed in two steps. Currently, a working group is building the design requirements that will provide managers with the tools and reporting capabilities to manage their workload most effectively at the regional office level. Second, a national 

work queue will be developed, to include the capability of routing claims automatically through a pre-determined model, which will route claims based on VBA’s priorities and the skill levels of our employees, essentially matching claims processors 

with the ‘‘next best claim’’ to work based on their skill levels and areas of expertise, 

as well as national workload management policies. 

As VBA moves toward the full integration of the entire claims process in VBMS, 

the capability to capture transactional data will allow VA to move from a pointsbased work credit system dependent on employee-user input to a system that can 

automatically capture employees’ transactions, activities, claims completions, and 

timeliness, enabling VBA to measure performance against standards that truly reflect the desired outcome of timely and accurate completion of claims. VBA recognizes the importance of assessing the impact of our transformational initiatives on 

employees’ job requirements and appropriately adjusting the work credit system. 

VBA established a new team in April 2013 to work in concert with VBMS programmers to ensure the requirements and functionality for employee work-credit is incorporated into VBMS and that a system is established that measures and manages 

the work production of employees in accordance with actions required by the updated claims process. 

No mandatory or discretionary costs are associated with this section of the bill. 

Section 102 of the bill would establish a task force on retention and training of 

claims processors and adjudicators who are employed by VA and other Federal 

agencies and departments. The task force would be comprised of the VA Secretary, 

Director of OPM, Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, a representative from a VSO, and other individuals from institutions as the Secretary considers 

appropriate. The duties of the task force would include: 

(1) Identifying key skills required by claims processors and adjudicators to perform the duties of claims processors and adjudicators in the various claims processing and adjudication positions throughout the Federal Government; 

57 

(2) Identifying reasons for employee attrition from claims processing positions; 

(3) No later than 1 year after establishment of the task force, developing a Government-wide strategic and operational plan for promoting employment of Veterans 

in claims processing positions in the Federal Government; 

(4) Coordinating with educational institutions to develop training and programs 

of education for members of the Armed Forces to prepare such members for employment in claims processing and adjudication positions in the Federal Government; 

(5) Identifying and coordinating offices of DOD and VA located throughout the 

United States to provide information about, and promotion of, available claims processing positions to members of the Armed Forces transitioning to civilian life and 

to Veterans with disabilities; 

(6) Establishing performance measures to assess the plan developed under paragraph (3), assessing the implementation of such plan, and revising such plan as the 

task force considers appropriate; and 

(7) Establishing performance measures to evaluate the effectiveness of the task 

force. 

No later than 1 year after the date of the establishment of the task force, VA 

would be required to submit to Congress a report on the plan developed by the task 

force. Not later than 120 days after the termination of the task force, the Secretary 

would be required to submit to Congress a report that assesses the implementation 

of the plan developed by the task force. 

VA does not support section 102 because VA already has systems and programs 

in place to achieve the goals of the bill. 

As VA’s claims processes evolve, VA continues to identify critical skills needed by 

adjudicators. Establishing a task force to address concerns at this stage would be 

premature and counterproductive as VA implements, modifies, and enhances its 

transformational initiatives and automated processing systems. 

With regard to development of a Government-wide strategic and operational plan 

for promoting employment of Veterans in claims processing positions in the Federal 

Government, VA defers to OPM. However, 73 percent of VBA’s hires this year have 

been Veterans, and over 51 percent of VBA’s current workforce is Veterans. Our attrition rate in disability claims processing positions was only 6 percent last year and 

4 percent this fiscal year through June 30. VA currently utilizes tools in regional 

offices that capture reasons for attrition when employees leave Federal service. This 

information is used for succession planning and future hiring at the local level. 

Over the last several years, VBA has developed competency models for claims 

processing positions. The models describe the knowledge, skills and abilities necessary for these jobs. VBA is in the process of linking the models to training. 

The linked models will guide supervisors and employees as they develop training 

plans to improve capabilities and/or remediate skill deficits. Training to develop 

claims processing skill requires practical application using VA systems and processes that closely guard Veterans’ privacy. Effective training requires close evaluation achievable only by experts in claims processing, such as is conducted within 

VA. Educational institutions are unlikely to provide meaningful development of 

claims processor skills in Veterans. 

The requirement to coordinate with educational institutions to develop training 

and programs for members of the Armed Forces seems to contradict the rules in section 3680A of title 38, United States Code, which prohibits VA from approving programs of education where more than 85 percent of the students enrolled are in receipt of VA education benefits. Additionally, VA has concerns that the intent of providing specific training for employment for claims processing positions may actually 

limit their employment opportunities as their training would be specific to a position 

and not an industry or general career field. 

VA has partnered with other Federal agencies to include DOD, Department of 

Education, DOL, SBA, and OPM to develop a process through redesign of the TAP 

in order to achieve the President’s intent for a ‘‘career-ready military.’’ The redesign 

provides training to enable transitioning Servicemembers to meet Career Readiness 

Standards by translating military skills into Federal or private work opportunities 

and better prepare Servicemembers in making a successful transition from military 

to civilian life. VA is also responsible for delivering the Career Technical Training 

Track (CTTT) which assists Servicemembers in developing a plan for a technical career after departing the military. The CTTT is a 16-hour course targeted toward 

Servicemembers who may not choose a 4-year education option and who are seeking 

rapid employment. As part of the redesign efforts of TAP, VA partners with DOD 

and the Military Services in implementing a Capstone event to verify Servicemembers are career ready when departing the military. VA will provide support in 

the development of a Military Life Cycle, which will incorporate Career Readiness 

58 

Standards throughout an individual’s military career versus during the last few 

months prior to separation. 

There are no mandatory or discretionary costs associated with this section. 

Section 105 of S. 928 would mandate a pilot program to assess the feasibility and 

advisability of entering into memorandums of understanding with local governments 

and tribal organizations, to include at least two tribal organizations and 10 state 

or local governments, for the purpose of improving the quality of claims submitted 

and assisting Veterans who may be eligible for disability compensation in submitting claims. 

While VA supports efforts to enhance service and benefits delivery to all categories of Veterans to include those of tribal organizations, the rationale and intent 

behind this section of the bill is unclear. Therefore, VA does not support this section. 

A pilot is unnecessary given that VA regularly conducts outreach to tribal organizations. Further, VA works closely with State and local governments, which employ 

claims representatives to assist Veterans and their family members with filing 

claims. VA regularly trains state and county personnel to ensure they are equipped 

to assist Veterans in their communities. 

Costs cannot be accurately estimated without understanding the scope of this provision. However, it is anticipated that additional discretionary funds would be needed to administer the program and to train the local governments and tribal organizations to accurately discuss VA benefit programs and assist with claims. 

Section 106 of the bill would require VA, not later than 90 days after the date 

of the enactment of this Act and not less frequently than quarterly thereafter 

through calendar year 2015, to submit to the Senate and House Committees on Veterans’ Affairs a report on the backlog of claims. The report would include the following elements: 

(1) For each month through calendar year 2015, a projection of the following: 

a. The number of claims completed; 

b. The number of claims received; 

c. The number of claims backlogged at the end of the month; 

d. The number of claims pending at the end of the month; and 

e. A description of the status of the implementation of initiatives carried out 

by the Secretary to address the backlog. 

(2) For each quarter through calendar year 2015, a projection of the average accuracy of disability determinations for compensation claims that require a disability 

rating (or disability decision); 

(3) For each month during the most recently completed quarter, the following: 

a. The number of claims completed; 

b. The number of claims received; 

c. The number of claims backlogged at the end of the month; 

d. The number of claims pending at the end of the month; and 

e. A description of the status of the implementation of initiatives carried out 

by the Secretary to address the backlog. 

(4) For the most recently completed quarter, an assessment of the accuracy of disability determinations for compensation claims that require a disability rating (or 

disability decision). 

VA does not oppose section 106. Although various data elements from this bill are 

already publicly available and/or provided to Congress on a regular basis, this section of the bill would formalize the transmission of specific performance data. 

No mandatory or discretionary costs are associated with this section. 

S. 930

S. 930 would add a new subsection to section 5314 of title 38, United States Code, 

to delay the recovery of overpayments made by VA to individuals receiving Post-9/ 

11 GI Bill benefits until their last payment or payments under that program. This 

new provision would not apply to individuals, who either completed the program of 

education for which the debt was made or failed to attend class during the two academic semesters following the creation of the overpayment. VA would be authorized 

to charge interest on the amount of indebtedness so that the delayed payment actuarially would be equal to the amount as if the debt were paid immediately. The new 

subsection would apply to all debts created after the date of enactment and would 

expire 9 years after the date of enactment. 

VA does not support this bill. It would require VA to delay the collection of debts 

by making deductions from the last payment or payments due to beneficiaries. VA 

would not be able to project when Post-9/11 GI Bill beneficiaries would use their 

benefits for the last time and the amount of the last payment. As a result, it would 

59 

be difficult to determine when the debt should be recouped. Furthermore, withholding some or all the payments due to a Veteran for his/her final enrollment may 

place undue financial burden on the Veteran during his/her last school term, potentially putting at risk the Veteran’s ability to complete his or her program and graduate. If an overpayment remains after the final payment has been withheld, that 

overpayment would be the responsibility of the Veteran and would be subject to collection through the Treasury Offset Program if the Veteran is unable to pay out of 

pocket. 

This legislation would not apply to individuals who fail to attend classes in a 

manner consistent with ‘‘normal pursuit’’ of a program of education during the next 

two academic semesters after such overpayment. It is not clear what is meant by 

‘‘normal pursuit’’ as individuals may pursue training on a part-time basis and may 

take short breaks in training periods. Furthermore, the proposed legislation directs 

VA to charge the individual interest for debts that must be collected. It is not clear 

whether interest would accrue from the date the overpayment is created or the date 

VA begins collection due to non-pursuit of training. It is also unclear whether the 

debt should be deferred if the individual resumes ‘‘normal pursuit’’ after the debt 

collection process is initiated. 

VA does not believe that the potential benefits gained by deferring some Veteran 

debts would outweigh the increased burden Veterans may face to repay large 

amounts out-of-pocket (as there will be little to no benefits remaining) or the burden 

placed on VA to administer this provision. Moreover, this legislation conflicts with 

the intended spirit of the Improper Payment Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 

and the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, both of which speak to proper 

identification and recovery of Federal debts. 

S. 930 would be effective on the date of enactment; however, its implementation 

would require extensive changes to VA’s collection process, including labor-intensive 

systems changes. Thus, VA would need at least 18 months from the date of enactment to develop and/or amend systems to account for this change, train personnel 

on the change, and inform beneficiaries. 

VA estimates that enactment of S. 930 would result in benefits costs to VA of 

$233 million during the first year, $1.3 billion over 5 years, and $2.4 billion over 

10 years. 

S. 932

S. 932, the ‘‘Putting Veterans Funding First Act of 2013,’’ would extend the authority for advance appropriations provided in the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act to all of VA’s discretionary accounts, effective in 2016 

and in each fiscal year thereafter. We appreciate how Congressional support for VA 

advance appropriations for our medical care accounts has enabled a multi-year approach to medical budget planning and ensured continued medical services for Veterans. The advance medical care appropriation was designed to ensure continuity 

of critical medical operations in the face of fiscal uncertainty. 

A proposal to expand VA advance appropriations needs to be considered by the 

Administration as part of an across-the-government review of the advantages and 

disadvantages of such an approach not only for VA, but potentially other programs 

and agencies. Only in the context of such a broad review could the Administration 

offer an opinion on making such a change for VA. We cannot therefore offer a position on S. 932 at this time. We very much appreciate the concern for Veterans services reflected in the proposal and look forward to working with the Committee on 

how to best maintain the provision of VA benefits and services in light of fiscal uncertainties. 

S. 935

S. 935, the ‘‘Quicker Veterans Benefits Delivery Act of 2013,’’ would revise statutes pertaining to adjudications and payment of disability benefits. 

Section 2 of this bill would prohibit VA from requesting a medical examination 

when the claimant submits medical evidence or an opinion from a non-VA provider 

that is competent, credible, probative, and adequate for rating purposes. Section 3 

would add a third level of pre-stabilization rates under section 4.28 of title 38, Code 

of Federal Regulations, that can be assigned to recently discharged Veterans. Currently, pre-stabilization rates include a 50-percent and 100-percent evaluation. This 

bill proposes to add a 30-percent evaluation. In addition, the bill would create a new 

‘‘temporary minimum disability rating.’’ The bill would authorize such a rating for 

a Veteran who has one or more disabilities not already covered under the current 

temporary-rating scheme and ‘‘submits a claim for such disability that has sufficient 

evidence to support a minimum disability rating.’’ Under section 4, VA would be auVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN
60 

thorized to issue benefits payments prior to the month for which such payments are 

issued. Currently, VA issues benefits payments on the first of the month for the previous month’s entitlement. 

VA does not support S. 935. VA appreciates the intent of the provisions, which 

seek to provide benefits to Veterans more expeditiously. However, as written, these 

provisions are, in some respects, unnecessary, unclear, and problematic to implement. 

Section 2 of the bill is duplicative of existing law. This section prohibits VA from 

requesting a medical examination when evidence that is submitted is adequate for 

rating purposes. Section 5103A(d)(2) of title 38, United States Code, notes that an 

examination or opinion is only required when the record does not contain sufficient 

medical evidence to make a decision. Furthermore, section 5125 of title 38, United 

States Code, explicitly notes that private examinations may be sufficient, without 

conducting additional VA examinations, for adjudicating claims. VA regulations are 

consistent with these statutory requirements. Therefore, this section is unnecessary 

and duplicative. VA is already allowed to adjudicate a claim without an examination 

if evidence is provided by the claimant that is adequate for rating purposes. There 

are no costs associated with section 2. 

VA does not support section 3. The intent of this provision and how it would be 

implemented are unclear. The existing pre-stabilization rates, 50 percent and 100 

percent, are used to compensate Veterans with severe injuries that are unstable and 

which materially impair employability. The criteria for when the proposed 30-percent evaluation would be used are not specified. However, generally, a rating of 30 

percent indicates that an individual is able to participate in the examination process 

and is capable of employment. Because the Veteran would be required to be re-examined and re-evaluated between 6 and 12 months after discharge, this provision 

would inconvenience Veterans as well as require additional work on the part of 

claims adjudicators and medical examiners. 

To the extent the bill would create a whole new category of claimants eligible to 

receive a temporary minimum disability rating, VA does not support this provision. 

It is unclear how this would be implemented (i.e., whether the term ‘‘temporary 

minimum disability rating’’ refers to the proposed 30 percent pre-stabilization rating 

or whether it refers to the current minimum compensable schedular rating of 10 

percent. Additionally, it is unclear what is meant by the requirement that the claimant submit ‘‘sufficient evidence to support a minimum disability rating.’’ If interpreted to mean that the claimant need only submit evidence of a current disability 

to be assigned a temporary rating of 30 percent, such a practice would likely result 

in frequent overpayments that would later need to be adjusted. Likewise, a Veteran 

with multiple disabilities would often be undercompensated. In general, establishing 

temporary ratings means that cases will need to be processed twice, which is not 

an efficient use of resources. Subsection (c), which directs that cases with pre-stabilization ratings or temporary minimum disability ratings not be counted in the 

backlog of disability claims, raises questions about how these cases would be 

tracked and counted in VA’s workload and concern about data integrity. VA is unable to provide costs for section 3, as the provision is unclear. Additional information concerning the criteria that would create entitlement would be required to determine costs. 

VA does not support section 4 of the bill, as its intent is unclear, and it could 

create significant administrative burdens and costs for VA. This provision would authorize the Secretary to certify benefit payments so that payments will be delivered 

‘‘before the first day of the calendar month for which such payments are issued.’’ 

VA is already authorized to make payments prior to the first of the month whenever 

the first day of the calendar month falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or legal public holiday. The payment VA makes on or near the first of the month is payment for the 

prior month’s entitlement. If the intent of section 4 is to permit VA to make this 

payment prior to the first of the month irrespective of whether that date falls on 

a weekend or holiday, we recommend replacing the phrase ‘‘for which such payments are issued’’ with the phrase ‘‘in which such payments would otherwise be 

issued.’’ However, if the intent is to authorize VA to deliver disability payments a 

full month in advance, such a change in procedure would raise several concerns. For 

a Veteran with an award that is currently ongoing, an additional month of mandatory funding would be required, as an extra payment would need to be made to advance payments to a month-in-advance status. Additionally, paying benefits in advance significantly increases the chances for overpayment of benefits and directly 

conflicts with the spirit of the Debt Collection Improvement Act and the Improper 

Payment Elimination and Recovery Improvement Act. Current processing allows VA 

to prevent payments from being released if a Veteran becomes ineligible during the 

month. For example, if a Veteran student drops out of school or passes away during 

61 

the month, VA is able to amend his or her benefit award and prevent payment from 

being released. Paying in advance would eliminate VA’s ability to prevent this type 

of improper payment. Paying benefits prior to the month in which they are earned 

would potentially result in increased overpayments. 

Absent clarification as discussed above, VA opposes this section of the bill, as it 

potentially would create an administrative burden and significant costs in the reprogramming of VA’s computer systems. The systems used by VA do not currently 

allow prospective payments, and this section would create the need to reprogram 

multiple applications. 

For section 4, if the intent of the proposed bill is to release benefit payments on 

the last day of the month for which they are due, rather than the first of the following month, as is the current practice, VA sees little impact to our internal processes or Office of Information Technology (OIT) applications. This change would require that our schedule of operations be modified by at least 1 business day to send 

our bulk payment files to the Department of the Treasury earlier in the month so 

payments could be delivered (by mail or electronically) on the last business day of 

the month rather than the first of the following month. The Department of the 

Treasury does not anticipate this potential change would be an issue with regards 

to processing and releasing VA benefit payments. 

However, if the intent of section 4 is to issue payments in advance of when they 

are due, VA OIT systems would require significant modifications, which would take 

longer than the 90-day period allowed to implement this section. For example, if the 

intent is that payment for July be received prior to July 1 (e.g., June 30), rather 

than August 1, the current functionality that generates the recurring or monthly 

payment files would require significant changes. VBA has ten separate OIT payment applications that produce a recurring or monthly payment file that would need 

to be modified. Changes of this nature would require significant OIT funding that 

is not budgeted and re-prioritization of planned OIT initiatives. 

If the intent of section 4 is to release benefit payments on the last day of the 

month for which they are due, rather than the first of the following month as is 

the current practice, there are no benefit costs or savings associated with section 

4. While this provision would impact the timing of outlays, it would not affect obligations. If the intent of section 4 is to issue payments in advance of when they are 

due, there would be costs, including costs associated with the increased chances of 

overpayments. However, more information would be required to calculate the benefit 

costs in this scenario. 

S. 938

S. 938, the ‘‘Franchise Education for Veterans Act of 2013,’’ would amend title 38 

United States Code, to allow Veterans who are eligible for educational assistance 

under the All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance Program (chapter 30) or the 

Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program (chapter 33) and no longer on active 

duty, to pursue training and receive educational assistance for franchise training. 

The amount of educational assistance payable under this program shall be, within 

any 12-month period in which training is pursued, the sum of the fees assessed by 

the training establishment, a monthly housing stipend for each month of training 

pursued equal to the monthly amount of the basic allowance for a Servicemember 

with dependents in pay grade E–5 residing in military housing within the zip code 

area of the training establishment, and a monthly stipend in the amount equal to 

$83 for each month of training for books, supplies, equipment, and other educational 

costs or $15,000, whichever is less. 

VA supports the intent of S. 938; however, we cannot support this bill due to significant administrative impacts and a need for further refinement in order to make 

this policy executable and supportable. We are unclear how VA would determine 

that the franchise training pursued by the Veteran would result in the establishment of a franchise. Franchise training times vary depending on what the franchise 

business requirements are (e.g., Meineke may be 4 weeks, whereas 7-Eleven may 

be 2–4 weeks). VA would have to establish ways to measure the franchise training 

and conduct adequate oversight to ensure compliance that is necessary for the State 

Approving Agencies (SAA) to approve the training programs. It is unclear whether 

any limitations should be established as to when VA should approve the individual 

pursuit of the franchise training. For example, it is unclear whether VA would need 

to ensure the individual who desires to open a business first provide business plans 

or proof of funding in order to establish the franchise. 

Due to the need to develop regulations to provide rules to administer this new 

benefit type, provide training to the SAAs who will approve the training, and provide training to the field offices on processing, VA recommends that this provision 

62 

become effective at the beginning of a fiscal year but no earlier than 12 months from 

date of enactment. 

VA estimates that benefit costs associated with enactment of S. 938 would be $1.5 

million in the first year, $7.5 million over 5 years, and a total of $15.0 million over 

10 years. 

S. 944

S. 944, the ‘‘Veterans’ Educational Transition Act of 2013,’’ would amend section 

3679 of title 38, United States Code, by adding a new subsection at the end. The 

new subsection would require VA to disapprove any course offered by a public institution of higher education that does not charge Veterans and eligible dependents 

pursuing a course of education with educational assistance under the All-Volunteer 

Force Educational Assistance Program (chapter 30) or the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program (chapter 33), in-state tuition, and fees, regardless of their state of 

residence. 

Under this legislation, a ‘‘covered individual’’ would be a Veteran who was discharged or released from a period of no less than 180 days of service in the active 

military, naval, or air service less than 2 years before the date of enrollment in the 

course concerned, or an individual who is entitled to assistance under section 

3311(b)(9) or 3319 of title 38 by virtue of such individual’s relationship to a covered 

Veteran. 

S. 944 would apply to educational assistance provided for pursuit of programs of 

education during academic terms that begin after July 1, 2015. 

While VA is sympathetic to the issue of rising educational costs, we cannot endorse this legislation until we know more about the impact. VA is concerned that 

possible reductions in course offerings could be the result from this requirement, 

which could negatively impact Veterans’ educational choices. In-state tuition rules 

are set by individual States and are undoubtedly driven by overall fiscal factors and 

other policy considerations. 

Enactment of S. 944 may result in cost savings for VA because the Department 

would no longer make Yellow Ribbon program payments to public institutions of 

higher learning—these schools would either charge in-state tuition, negating the 

need to make up the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition, or the 

school would cease to be approved for VA education benefit participation. However, 

as noted above, it is difficult to project the effect of this legislation on the courses 

offered by public educational institutions, so students may choose not to use their 

benefits at all because of reduced educational choices. 

VA estimates that benefit savings to the Readjustment Benefits account would be 

$70.2 million over 5 years and $206.2 million over 10 years. 

VA estimates that there would be no additional GOE administrative costs required to implement this amendment. 

S. 1039

S. 1039, the ‘‘Spouses of Heroes Education Act,’’ would amend the Post-9/11 GI 

Bill (chapter 33 of title 38, United States Code) to expand the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry scholarship to include spouses of members of the Armed 

Forces who die in the line of duty. Currently, only children of Servicemembers who 

die in the line of duty while serving on active duty in the Armed Forces are eligible 

for such education benefits. 

This bill would make spouses eligible for education benefits under chapter 33 for 

15 years from the date of the Servicemember’s death, or the date on which the 

spouse remarries, whichever comes first. 

A surviving spouse who establishes chapter 33 eligibility based on this bill and 

is also eligible for education benefits under the Dependents’ Educational Assistance 

(chapter 35) program would have to make an irrevocable election with respect to receipt of educational assistance (under one program only). 

S. 1039 also would amend section 3321(b)(4) of title 38 to specify that the period 

of eligibility for a child entitled to Post-9/11 GI Bill educational assistance under 

the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry scholarship expires 15 years after the 

child’s eighteenth birthday. 

VA supports S. 1039, subject to Congress identifying appropriate offsets for the 

benefit costs. If enacted, this legislation would offer eligible surviving spouses more 

generous monetary benefits than they are currently eligible to receive. Currently, 

a surviving spouse of a Servicemember who dies in the line of duty may receive education benefits under chapter 35, which include a 20-year delimiting date, 45 

months of entitlement, and a current full-time monthly rate of $987. Under this legislation, eligible spouses would receive full tuition and fees at a public institution 

63 

(or the maximum amount payable at private institutions), a housing allowance, and 

a books and supplies stipend of up to $1,000. 

Since the benefits are greater under chapter 33 than under chapter 35, VA anticipates surviving spouses would elect to receive benefits under chapter 33. As a consequence, this would decrease the number of chapter 35 beneficiaries. 

VA estimates that, if enacted, S. 1039 would result in benefit costs to VA of $10.3 

million during the first year, $67.7 million for 5 years, and $163.9 million over 10 

years. No administrative or personnel costs to VA are associated with this bill. VA 

IT costs are estimated to be $9.3 million. These costs include enhancements to the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill Long-Term Solution. If these IT enhancements could not be implemented, manual processing of claims would be required, which would result in an 

overall decrease in timeliness and accuracy in processing Post-9/11 GI Bill claims. 

We estimate that VA would need one year from date of enactment to implement this 

change. 

S. 1042

S. 1042, the ‘‘Veterans Legal Support Act of 2013,’’ would allow the Secretary to 

provide support to one or more university law school programs that are designed 

to provide legal assistance to Veterans. Funding for such programs would be derived 

from amounts appropriated for or made available to the Medical Services account 

of VA. 

VA does not support S. 1042. While VA supports the endeavors of university law 

school programs to assist Veterans in seeking VA benefits, it does not believe such 

a program would be an effective use of Medical Services funds. 

Under the terms of the bill, the amount that can be expended in any one year 

is limited to $1 million. 

RESPONSE TO POSTHEARING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. BERNARD SANDERS TO

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Question 1. Section 201 of S. 928 would amend section 7105(b)(1) of title 38 to require claimants seeking appellate review of a VA decision to file a notice of disagreement (NOD) within 180 days from the date VA mails such decision to the claimant. 

For the last three fiscal years please provide the following: 

i. Total number of notice of disagreements filed with VA; 

Response. 

Fiscal Year 2013: 117,472 

Fiscal Year 2012: 116,802 

Fiscal Year 2011: 126,665 

ii. Number and percentage of notice of disagreements that were filed within 0– 

30 days, 31–60 days, 61–90 days, 91–189 days, and 181–365 days. 

Response. 

0-30 days 31-60 days 61-90 days 91-180 days 181+ days 

Number Pct. Number Pct. Number Pct. Number Pct. Number Pct. 

FY 2013 ............................ 40,819 35% 19,911 17% 10,336 9% 17,426 15% 28,980 25% 

FY 2012 ............................ 39,518 34% 19,726 17% 10,645 9% 18,318 16% 28,595 24% 

FY 2011 ............................ 40,025 32% 20,871 16% 11,613 9% 20,199 16% 33,957 27% 

Question 2. VA’s written testimony in regards to section 201 of S. 928 states 

‘‘* * * If a claimant waits until the end of the 1-year period to file a NOD, VA is 

often required to re-develop the record to ensure the evidence of record is up to date. 

Data support the conclusion that such late-term development delays the resolution 

of the claim.’’ 

a. What data supports the conclusion that late-term development delays resolution of the claim? Please provide this data to the Committee. 

Response. There is a well-established pattern within the appeals system that the 

longer an individual takes to appeal his or her decision; the more likely it is that 

further development will be necessary. For example, a Veteran filing an appeal after 

340 days from the decision is much more likely to have had medical treatment during those 340 days than an individual that filed an appeal after 27 days. This requires VA to develop for such evidence, which in turn leads to a longer appeals resolution time. 

64 

The table below includes data pulled from VA’s Veterans Appeals Control and Locator System (VACOLS) on June 24, 2013. A review of fiscal years 2009–2012 data 

reveals evidence of a direct relationship between later filing (beyond 300 days) and 

longer resolution times. Notice of Disagreements (NOD) filed after 300 days took 36 

days longer on average to resolve than the entire inventory of NODs, 42 days longer 

than those filed between 31–60 days, and 55 days longer than those filed within 30 

days. 

Days from RO Decision to NOD Days to BVA Decision 

Fiscal Year 2012 

0–30 ................................................................ 1,325 

31–60 .............................................................. 1,355 

300+ ............................................................... 1,383 

Average for all NODs ...................................... 1,348 

Fiscal Year 2011 

0–30 ................................................................ 1,175 

31–60 .............................................................. 1,182 

300+ ............................................................... 1,228 

Average for all NODs ...................................... 1,196 

Fiscal Year 2010 

0–30 ................................................................ 1,153 

31–60 .............................................................. 1,156 

300+ ............................................................... 1,202 

Average for all NODs ...................................... 1,169 

Fiscal Year 2009 

0–30 ................................................................ 1,143 

31–60 .............................................................. 1,155 

300+ ............................................................... 1,201 

Average for all NODs ...................................... 1,159 

Question 3. During a discussion of the interoperability of DOD and VA medical 

record systems, Mr. Murphy’s oral testimony discussed the delivery by DOD of certified complete service treatment records. VA stated that ‘‘* * * 97 percent of those 

records are being delivered with a certified complete statement on top.’’ 

a. Please provide the Committee with copies of all previous and current agreements, including but not limited to the December 6, 2012, agreement and February 22, 2013 amended agreement referenced in Fast Letter 13–09, between DOD 

and VA on certification and transfer of service treatment records. 

Response. The Fast Letter and agreements follow: 

65 


612fast1.eps
66 


612fast2.eps
67 


612fast3.eps
68 


612fast4.eps
69 


612fast5.eps
70 


612fast6.eps
71 


612fast7.eps
72 

Based on the December 6, 2012 agreement, Fast Letter 13–09 was issued on January 1, 2013, and did not require service treatment records (STR) certification letters to contain the Servicemember’s name and last four digits of his or her social 

security number (SSN). On February 22, 2013, the agreement with DOD was 

amended to require the military services to provide the name and last four digits 

of the Servicemember’s SSN on each certification letter. DD Form 2963, STR Transfer or Certification, was published on June 25, 2013, for implementation effective 

August 1, 2013. Full implementation by the services is expected by November 1, 

2013. 

b. Please provide the Committee with the following information: 

i. Number of service treatment records, by military department, received 

since implementation of the December 6th agreement. 

Response. Please see the below chart with the number of service treatment 

records received by branch of service from January 2013 through June 21, 2013. 

Branch of Service Jan–Mar Apr–Jun 21 Total Received 

ARMY ......................................................................................................... 15,074 11,374 26,448 

NAVY .......................................................................................................... 10,177 8,271 18,448 

MARINE CORPS .......................................................................................... 9,814 6,332 16,146 

AIR FORCE ................................................................................................. 8,708 8,824 17,532 


612fast8.eps
73 

Branch of Service Jan–Mar Apr–Jun 21 Total Received 

COAST GUARD ........................................................................................... 495 545 1,040 

TOTAL ................................................................................................ 44,268 35,346 79,614 

ii. Number of service treatment records, by military department, with certification received since implementation of the December 6th agreement. 

Response. The Records Management Center (RMC) began tracking and reporting STR certification compliance in April 2012. The following data was collected from April 2012 through June 21, 2013. 

Branch of Service Non-Availability Letter* 

STRs Certified 

with 1/1/13 

Guidance 

STRs Certified 

with 2/22/13 

Guidance** 

Total 

Received 

ARMY .......................................................................................... 1,134 4,335 1,942 7,411 

NAVY ........................................................................................... 559 1,552 782 2,893 

MARINE CORPS ........................................................................... 198 1,829 445 2,472 

AIR FORCE .................................................................................. 908 4,574 2,592 8,074 

COAST GUARD ............................................................................ 24 117 73 214 

TOTAL ................................................................................. 2,823 12,407 5,834 21,064 

*A non-availability letter is used when a complete STR is unavailable (i.e., Medical Only, Dental Only, or partial STRs). 

**Letter is substantially similar to version implemented 01/01/2013, but includes Veteran’s name and last 4 of SSN 

At the end of May 2013, the RMC Director and the five service branches discussed 

the current process and established a way forward to ensure STRs were complete. 

On June 4, 2013, the Navy posted Servicemembers at the RMC to assist with obtaining a certification letter for all STRs for both the Navy and Marines. 

DD Form 2963, STR Transfer or Certification, was published on June 25, 2013, 

for implementation effective August 1, 2013. Full implementation by the services is 

expected by November 1, 2013. 

iii. Number of service treatment records, by military department, with certification received since implementation of the December 6th agreement that met 

the requirements of Fast Letter 13–09. 

Response. Please see the chart in the previous response. 

iv. Since May 31, 2013, how many service treatment records have been returned to the appropriate military service because they were not transmitted 

with the required certification letter? 

Response. Since May 31, 2013, 32 STRs have been returned due to lacking the 

required certification letter. 

c. How many service treatment records have been requested from the National 

Guard or Reserves while this agreement has been in effect and how many service 

treatment records have been received with the required certification? 

Response. The legacy systems do not identify Veterans based on service component (active or reserve). The reserve components do not capture whether the member is assigned to the Guard or Reserves specifically. Although VA has the ability 

to pull data from VADIR that will identify members of the Guard and Reserve, that 

information does not provide how many claims require STRs. 

d. If the service treatment records from one component, such as the National 

Guard are certified complete, will VA take any action where a veteran reports treatment during active duty with a different unit or component, but the treatment information is not included in the certified record? If so, what actions will be taken? 

Response. These records are not received as certified if the member is still serving. For those who have separated or retired, current guidance in Fast Letter 13– 

09 states: 

STRs are the outpatient treatment records and discharge summaries of 

inpatient care only. The STRs do not include the full inpatient treatment 

records or behavior health records. The inpatient records and behavior 

health records will not contain a certification letter. 

Development for additional paper STRs should only be conducted on 

these certified STRs when: 

1. The Veteran alleges treatment at a specific military treatment facility 

for a specific timeframe and, 

74 

2. That treatment information is not included within the certified paper 

STRs. 

A request for the needed paper STRs should be sent to the military point 

of contact on the paper STRs certification letter and all follow-ups should 

follow the guidance outlined in the M21–1MR III.iii.2.I.61 titled ‘‘General 

Information on Special Follow-Up by Military Records Specialists.’’ 

Question 4. VA’s written testimony indicated that the Department does not support section 104 of S. 928 on the basis that Indian tribes engage in a broad scope 

of governance activities, often lack veteran-specific focus, and are not among the organizations that, by regulation, can recognize representatives to prepare, present or 

prosecute claims. States and regional or local organizations can recognize representatives to prepare, present or prosecute claims. Like states, some Indian tribes have 

departments and offices responsible for administering benefits and services to eligible veterans, including persons who participate in VA’s tribal veteran representative 

program. Given that geographical challenges can result in very little involvement 

on tribal lands from organizations that have recognized representatives, please explain why Indian tribes should not be provided that same opportunity to recognize 

their own representatives, under the criteria outlined in sections 14.628 and 14.629 

of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations. 

Response. VA’s discretionary authority to recognize national, state, and regional/ 

local organizations is derived from 38 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 5902(a)(1). Pursuant to the authority granted in section 5902(a)(1), VA has established in 38 CFR 

§ 14.628 requirements for recognition of organizations to assist Veterans in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims before VA. Under section 14.628, an 

organization seeking recognition must, among other requirements, have as a primary purpose serving Veterans, demonstrate a substantial service commitment to 

Veterans, and commit a significant portion of its assets to Veterans’ services. These 

criteria are consistent with the purpose of VA’s recognition regulations to ensure 

that claimants for VA benefits have responsible, qualified representation, 38 CFR 

§ 14.626, and have been considered necessary characteristics of an organization that 

will be recognized in providing representation to Veterans. 

Under S. 928, as drafted, all Indian tribes, regardless of their size and their capability and resources to represent Veterans, and without applying for or meeting the 

requirements for VA recognition applicable to other organizations seeking to represent Veterans, would be placed on a par with the five organizations specifically 

identified by Congress in authorizing VA recognition of organizations and their representatives. The draft legislation would seemingly assume that all Indian tribes 

have the capability to provide qualified, responsible representation to Veterans and 

are prepared to certify to VA that certain of their members are qualified to represent Veterans before VA. 

Under current law, an Indian tribe Veterans service department may apply for 

VA recognition as a regional or local organization and may be recognized for purposes of providing representation services before VA if the organization satisfies the 

requirements for recognition under section 14.628. If an Indian tribe does not currently have a Veterans service department, a particular tribe or group of tribal Veterans representatives could establish a separate organization to provide representation services to Veteran members of Indian tribes with claims before VA and then 

apply for VA recognition as a regional or local organization. The organization would 

be required to submit information and documentation addressing each of the section 

14.628 requirements. For instance, the application would have to include information regarding the organization and its purpose, such as a charter or bylaws of the 

organization; financial statements establishing the organization’s financial viability; 

and the organization’s plans regarding recruitment, training, and supervision of its 

representatives. If VA were to recognize such an organization, the organization 

could then certify for VA accreditation members of the organization who could provide representation services to Veteran members of Indian tribes. 

Also, currently, a member of an Indian tribe may request accreditation to assist 

Veterans in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of claims for VA benefits 

as an agent or attorney under 38 CFR § 14.629(b) or as a representative of a currently recognized Veterans Service Organization under 38 CFR § 14.629(a). 

Nonetheless, to the extent the intent is that the proposed legislation explicitly 

provide a means for Indian tribe Veterans service departments to seek VA recognition in a manner similar to state Veterans affairs departments, and to expressly authorize VA to recognize particular Indian tribe Veterans service departments for 

purposes of providing representation services if the organizations apply for VA recognition and meet the requirements for recognition under section 14.628, the insertion of ‘‘, including organizations of Indian tribes (as defined in section 4 of the InVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN
75 

dian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (25 U.S.C. 450(b)),’’ after 

‘‘and such other organizations’’ in section 5902(a)(1) would achieve that purpose and 

would be consistent with VA’s current practice with respect to recognizing national, 

state, and regional or local Veterans organizations to ensure the provision of qualified, responsible representation to claimants for VA benefits. 

Question 5. Unlike the Medicaid program, VA’s pension program does not have 

any set aside of assets for the spouse of an institutionalized veteran who is residing 

in a health care facility. VHA has allowed a set aside of assets for the spouse of 

a veteran receiving health care in a long term care facility when assessing co-payments. VHA recently proposed amending their asset exclusion for a spouse residing 

in the community to match the amount allowed under Medicaid. 78 FR 23702 

(April 22, 2013). S. 748 does not provide community spouses of veterans asset protections similar to those afforded to Medicaid recipients or recipients of VHA long 

term care. Would VA support providing similar protections to spouses provided by 

VHA to VBA pensioners? 

Response. While it is true that there is no express ‘‘set aside’’ of assets for the 

spouse of an institutionalized Veteran who has applied for VA pension, VA has implemented the pension program in a manner that prevents the impoverishment of 

a spouse. Under current VA regulations, VA will deny pension when the ‘‘estate of 

the Veteran, and of the Veteran’s spouse, are such that under all of the circumstances, it is reasonable that some part of the corpus of such estates be consumed for the Veteran’s maintenance.’’ In determining whether it would be reasonable to require such consumption, VA evaluates a number of factors, such as the 

claimant’s income, whether property can be readily converted to cash, life expectancy, number of dependents, potential rate of depletion of assets, and medical expenses. This multi-factor evaluation generally provides a level of protection for 

spouses of institutionalized Veterans that is near the upper limit of the Community 

Spouse Resource Standard (CSRS) that Congress authorized for Medicaid. However, 

current VA regulations do not prescribe a bright-line net worth limit for pension eligibility that is based upon the CSRS or any other objective standard. The Veterans 

Benefits Administration’s (VBA) Pension and Fiduciary (P&F) Service has drafted 

regulations that would establish such a limit and provide clear notice regarding protected assets. The draft regulations are under review within VA. Accordingly, VA 

is already taking steps to address Chairman Sanders’ concerns. 

Question 6. VA’s testimony indicated concerns with the length and methodology 

of the look back period. Please explain the impact of the effect of the bill’s methodology on veterans who transferred substantial assets (such as over a million dollars) 

and veterans who have transferred an amount which does not exceed the asset 

amount the veteran would be permitted to keep and still qualify for pension. 

Response. For purposes of our response, assume that VA has established a net worth limit of $80,000, and that one Veteran transfers $80,000 prior to applying for 

pension and another transfers $1,000,000. Also assume that both Veterans transferred all of their resources and have no net worth when they apply for pension. 

Under S. 748, the Veteran who transferred $80,000 would not have a penalty period, while the Veteran who transferred $1,000,000 would have a 3-year penalty 

period. However, if the first Veteran transferred $82,000 rather than $80,000, S. 748 

would prescribe a penalty period based upon the entire $82,000 (rather than on 

$2,000), and the Veteran who transferred $82,000 would have the same 3-year penalty period as the Veteran who transferred $1,000,000. 

RESPONSE TO POSTHEARING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. RICHARD BURR TO

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Question 1. If the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) finds that veterans or 

other VA beneficiaries need help with their finances, VA assigns a fiduciary to help 

them and also sends their names to be included in the National Instant Criminal 

Background Check System (NICS). At the hearing, VA testified that it could be a 

physical disability, rather than a mental condition, that leads to assignment of a 

fiduciary. 

a. Of the individuals VA has sent to the NICS list, how many are suffering from 

physical impairments, rather than mental ailments? 

Response. To clarify, VA regulations specify that determinations of competency for 

purposes of the VA fiduciary program are based on mental competency, and not on 

physical disability status. The majority of VA beneficiaries on the NICS list suffer 

from mental disabilities that inhibit their ability to manage their VA affairs. Some 

individuals suffer from physical disabilities with co-existing mental conditions that 

76 

affect their capacity to handle their VA financial affairs (e.g., amyotrophic lateral 

sclerosis, Traumatic Brain Injury). VA does not have data on the number of incompetent beneficiaries who fall into this category. 

b. Once their names are sent to the NICS list, are they included on that list under 

the category for people with mental health conditions? 

Response. Incompetent Veterans and other incompetent beneficiaries are reported 

to the NICS list as mental defectives, per 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4). 

c. Under what legal authority does VA or the Department of Justice require the 

names of individuals with physical disabilities to be sent to a database for individuals with mental impairments? 

Response. Some individuals suffer from physical disabilities with co-existing mental conditions that affect their capacity to handle their VA financial affairs (e.g., 

amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, Traumatic Brain Injury). This may perhaps lead to 

the need to appoint a fiduciary to manage their VA affairs. These individuals are 

determined to be incompetent for VA purposes, and thus are reported to the NICS 

list. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (Public Law 103–159), as 

implemented by Department of Justice regulations at 27 CFR § 478.11, requires VA 

to report these individuals. 

Question 2. Of the individuals VA has sent to the NICS list, how many are older 

than 85 years old? 

Response. VA has sent information on 65,725 individuals age 85 or older to the 

NICS list, including 19,627 Veterans. 

Question 3. VA beneficiaries who have trouble with their finances can try to keep 

their names off the NICS list by seeking relief from VA and proving they are not 

a risk to public safety. 

a. How many individuals have sought relief from VA through this process? 

Response. Since the NICS Improvements Amendments Act of 2007(NIAA) was effective, 236 individuals have sought relief through VA from the NICS list. 

b. Has VA notified all individuals with fiduciaries that this relief process exists? 

If so, how was that done and how does VA gauge whether that notice was effective? 

Response. Notice of the relief process is provided to an individual before and after 

a rating of incompetency. VA has received 236 requests for relief, thus we believe 

the notifications to be effective. 

c. As of June 2012, VA had granted seven requests for relief from the NICS reporting requirements. How many requests have now been granted? 

Response. To date, seven relief requests have been granted. 

d. In July 2012, VA suspended processing requests for NICS relief so VA could 

revise its policy to require anyone seeking relief to also undergo a criminal history 

background check. Is that moratorium on deciding NICS relief requests still in 

place? If not, when was it lifted? 

Response. As of June 20, 2013, the moratorium on deciding NICS relief requests 

was lifted. 

e. How many NICS relief requests are currently pending and how long on average 

have they been waiting for a decision? 

Response. Forty relief requests are currently pending. Because processing those 

requests was temporarily suspended, the average wait time rose to 292 days. Since 

processing has resumed, those cases will be expeditiously processed. 

f. Does VA plan to require veterans and their families to pay for the costs of any 

background checks? 

Response. VA does not plan to require Veterans and their families to pay for the 

costs of any background checks. 

g. Would a criminal history background check be required for young children who 

have fiduciaries? 

Response. In all cases, benefit payments to minors are made to a parent guardian, 

or fiduciary on their behalf. Mental incompetency for VA purposes would only become an issue for individuals age 18 or older. 

h. Would a criminal history background check be required for individuals of extremely advanced age with limited mobility? 

Response. All persons of age 18 or older are required to follow state and Federal 

laws requiring a criminal history background check. VA requires a criminal history 

for anyone before receiving a grant of relief under the NIAA. 

i. Would a criminal history background check be required if VA already has clear 

evidence that the veteran or family member is not dangerous? 

Response. All persons of age 18 or older would be required to follow state and 

Federal laws requiring a criminal history background check. VA would require a 

criminal history for anyone before receiving a grant of relief under the NIAA. 

77 

j. Please quantify the resources that VA expects to use to adjudicate these requests for NICS relief, in terms of the number of hours worked, number of employees designated to work on these requests, or funding required. 

Response. Each VA regional office assigns an individual or individuals to make 

determinations for relief. The amount of hours worked, or funding required, would 

be dependent on the volume of relief requests received in any given time period for 

a particular regional office. 

Question 4. Last year, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported that 

over 200 companies are marketing financial products to veterans and their families 

in order to help them qualify for need-based pension by manipulating their assets. 

GAO recommended that Congress create a ‘‘look-back’’ period, so VA can check 

whether a pension applicant moved assets before applying for pension. In response, 

VA indicated that it was already drafting regulations along those lines. 

a. Other than the GAO investigation, what led VA to believe a look-back period 

may be necessary? 

Response. VBA created its Pension and Fiduciary Service (P&F) in 2011 to improve the pension program and focus on the unique needs of pension beneficiaries. 

In its initial assessment of the program, which preceded GAO’s investigation, P&F 

Service determined that current VA regulations did not adequately preserve the 

pension program for Veterans and survivors who have an actual need. The regulations permitted claimants to transfer assets prior to applying for pension, so long 

as the claimant relinquished all ownership and control over the assets. In addition, 

VBA had received complaints about financial planning businesses seeking to exploit 

asset transfers through the marketing of certain financial products, such as annuities and trusts, to Veterans and survivors. P&F Service determined that the pension program was at risk for becoming an estate planning tool rather than a needsbased program for wartime Veterans and their survivors. 

b. What is the status of those draft regulations? 

Response. The regulations are under review in VA. 

Question 5. There were a number of bills on the agenda that deal with the tuition 

costs for veterans and their family members who are attending public institutions 

of higher education. 

a. How many Post-9/11 GI Bill or Montgomery GI Bill users are currently attending public institutions of higher education? 

Response. While VA does not have data that will show how many Post-9/11 GI 

Bill or Montgomery GI Bill users are currently attending public institutions of higher education, the table below shows the number of Post- 9/11 GI Bill beneficiaries 

that attended public, private for-profit, and private nonprofit domestic institutions 

from August 1, 2009, to January 17, 2013. Please note that the chart does not count 

unique program participants. 

Post-9/11 GI Bill Number Trained by 

Domestic Institution Type 

(August 1, 2009–January 17, 2013) 

Profit Status Trainees 

Public ............................................................................ 632,005 

Private profit ................................................................ 325,105 

Private nonprofit ........................................................... 185,995 

Total ..................................................................... 1,143,105 

b. Of those, how many are estimated to be paying more than in-state tuition 

rates? 

Response. VA does not have data that will show how many VA education beneficiaries are paying more than in-state tuition rates. 

Question 6. Section 233 of Public Law 112–56, which included the VOW to Hire 

Heroes Act of 2011, entitled a veteran who had previously completed a vocational 

rehabilitation program and has exhausted state unemployment benefits to an additional 12-month period of vocational rehabilitation and employment services. 

a. Since this expansion has been implemented, how many veterans have been approved for the additional 12 months of entitlement and started a new vocational rehabilitation program? 

Response. Four Veterans started a new vocational program under this provision 

between May 2012 and June 2013. 

78 

b. If few have utilized it, are there other options that should be considered to improve vocational rehabilitation and employment programs to meet the needs of 

veterans? 

Response. Before enactment of this law, Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) estimated that few Veterans would qualify under this provision. Most 

Veterans who meet the criteria under Section 233 would already be found eligible 

under existing VR&E regulations. 

Question 7. S. 819, the Veterans Mental Health Treatment First Act, would 

incentivize veterans to seek treatment for certain conditions, such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). A veteran may receive an initial rating of less than 

100% but, over the years, may submit claims to increase the rating if the veteran’s 

symptoms deteriorate. Eventually, a veteran could be rated 100 percent disabled 

and unable to work. The goal of the bill would be to provide veterans with early 

treatment and, hopefully, stop or slow down the progression to the 100 percent and 

unemployable determination later in life. 

a. In total, how many veterans receive disability compensation from VA for PTSD? 

Response. There are 625,820 Veterans currently receiving disability compensation 

who have a service-connected PTSD rating, including 4,190 Veterans rated 0 percent 

for PTSD. 

b. How many of the current generation of veterans—those who served in Iraq and 

Afghanistan—are receiving disability compensation for PTSD? 

Response. Of the 625,820 Veterans currently receiving compensation who are 

service-connected for PTSD, 188,903 Veterans served in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

c. Please provide the Committee with the number of veterans receiving disability 

compensation for PTSD since 2001. Please break this data out by the rating percentage. 

Response. Please see Attachment A Spreadsheet. 

Attachment A 

Fiscal Year 

Number of Veterans Service Connected for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder 

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 100 Total 

2001 ........................... 1,213 17,485 12 36,421 11 30,594 6 26,899 1 34,808 147,422 

2002 ........................... 1,261 17,066 17 40,879 14 35,914 6 34,254 2 39,099 168,485 

2003 ........................... 1,319 17,198 22 47,119 19 43,044 7 43,536 2 44,429 196,641 

2004 ........................... 1,303 16,871 26 51,778 21 49,315 7 52,242 1 49,319 220,850 

2005 ........................... 1,319 17,269 28 58,252 21 56,790 8 60,553 1 53,705 247,918 

2006 ........................... 1,440 18,385 25 66,236 30 63,649 7 66,360 1 56,465 272,541 

2007 ........................... 1,725 21,453 30 77,678 27 72,392 12 73,936 2 60,066 307,321 

2008 ........................... 1,965 24,166 28 90,206 27 82,907 17 81,681 2 63,668 344,667 

2009 ........................... 2,125 26,080 30 104,375 33 94,892 15 91,952 2 67,296 386,800 

2010 ........................... 2,359 28,272 40 120,780 36 109,393 17 105,075 0 71,252 437,224 

2011 ........................... 2,754 31,831 54 142,634 49 128,457 21 119,885 0 75,493 501,178 

2012 ........................... 3,072 31,672 64 154,107 50 152,737 26 146,835 0 83,917 572,480 

FYTD 2013 .............. 4,190 32,691 62 162,247 54 170,101 31 166,239 0 90,205 625,820 

d. What is the average disability rating assigned when an individual first applies 

for compensation for PTSD? 

Response. The average degree of disability for Veterans who initially apply for 

service connection for PTSD is 50 percent. 

e. Can you provide the number of veterans with an initial PTSD rating less than 

100% who eventually apply for an increased rating? 

Response. As of June 2013, 129,035 Veterans have applied for an increased rating 

for PTSD in FY 2013. Please see Sheet B of Attachment A for the number of Veterans that applied for an increased rating for PTSD by year since FY 2001. 

Attachment A, Sheet B 

Total Number of Unique Veterans per FY Who Applied for an 

Increased PTSD Rating 

Fiscal Year Total 

2001 .......................................................................... 622 

2002 .......................................................................... 6,463 

2003 .......................................................................... 61,175 

79 

Attachment A, Sheet B—Continued 

Total Number of Unique Veterans per FY Who Applied for an 

Increased PTSD Rating 

Fiscal Year Total 

2004 .......................................................................... 108,207 

2005 .......................................................................... 117,147 

2006 .......................................................................... 117,923 

2007 .......................................................................... 127,596 

2008 .......................................................................... 148,105 

2009 .......................................................................... 173,039 

2010 .......................................................................... 227,484 

2011 .......................................................................... 232,716 

2012 .......................................................................... 223,021 

FYTD 2013 ............................................................ 129,035 

RESPONSE TO POSTHEARING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. JON TESTER TO

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Question 1. Deputy Undersecretary Coy’s written testimony for S. 294 stated: 

‘‘Prior to these training initiatives, the grant rate for PTSD claims based on MST 

was about 38 percent. Following the training, the grant rate rose and at the end 

of February 2013 stood at about 52 percent, which is roughly comparable to the approximate 59-percent grant rate for all PTSD claims.’’ 

a. Please provide data used by the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) to 

make this determination. 

Response. Please see Attachment A above, which contains grant rates for PTSD. 

As discussed in testimony, VBA conducted Military Sexual Trauma (MST) training 

in December 2011. 

b. Does the VBA have data on MST-related claims which have been denied or remanded at the Board of Veterans Appeals? 

Response. 

Total Allowed Denied Remanded 

Other (dismissed/ 

withdrawn) 

FY 2013 ..................................................................................... 249 76 39 126 8 

FY 2012 ..................................................................................... 257 85 38 129 5 

FY 2011 ..................................................................................... 280 98 56 119 7 

Question 2. Please provide data and methodology used by the VA to determine the 

cost of S. 294. 

Response. Please see the following methodology. 

80 


612method1.eps
81 


612method2.eps
82 


612method3.eps
83 

RESPONSE TO POSTHEARING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MARK BEGICH TO

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Question 1. I see you have not weighed in on my bill S. 932, Putting Veterans 

Funding First Act of 2013. This bill will provide for advance appropriations for discretionary accounts other than what was authorized in 2009. 

I believe I have heard the Secretary mention the value of advanced appropriations 

for the medical services and I know some of the VSO’s want to see some of the other 

important programs be included in advanced appropriations for continuity of care 

for veterans. 

What do you see as obstacles to this advance and tell me what the advantages 

would be for the VA? Do you see any savings in doing a two year budget for the 

other programs? 

Response. As noted in the Department’s views on S. 932, the issues and implications raised by the expansion of advance appropriation as called for in S. 932 are 

ones that must be considered by the Administration in the context of Governmentwide budget policy and operations. 

Question 2. I cosponsored Senator Burr’s bill to authorize the VA to issue cards 

to veterans that identify themselves as veterans. We have many veterans in Alaska 

who do not receive health care from the VA, but feel they served their country and 

want to have an identifier as a Veteran. My state did pass a driver’s license identifier for vets; however there are some businesses that do not accept it. You did not 

submit a view on this bill, and I would like you to respond to at least the concept 

and give any reason you may not support the bill. 

Response. As an advocate for Veterans, VA is pleased to see others recognize the 

service and sacrifice of these men and women. 

VA issues a single-purpose identity card for Veterans enrolled in VA health care. 

Having two VA-issued cards could cause confusion. Although the bill does state that 

the card would not by itself establish eligibility, there could nonetheless be misunderstandings by Veterans that a Government benefit is conferred by the card. 

VA neither encourages nor discourages private companies from recognizing Veterans for discounts and charity events. However, it is in the company’s sole discreVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN

612method4.eps
84 

tion to determine what documentation they are willing to accept to qualify for their 

special offers. VA encourages companies to accept a broad range of documents for 

verifying Veteran status to include DD Form 214, Military Retiree Identification 

Card, and state issued driver’s licenses with Veterans designation. 

All states have some kind of structured identity program and infrastructure that 

are better suited to satisfy this need. Currently over 30 states provide Veterans designation on state drivers’ licenses. 

At this time, VA does not have an estimate of the portion of our 22.4 million Veterans that would apply for such a card. VA cannot produce a cost estimate for 

S. 778. 

Question 3. Regarding fiduciary responsibility of the VA, please provide me with 

the laws and regulations that either direct, or authorize, the VA to submit individuals to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Please include 

legal justification for VA submitting individuals who have physical disabilities or 

who have voluntarily surrendered their fiduciary responsibilities. 

Response. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 (Brady Act) (Public Law 103–159), as implemented by Department of Justice regulations at 27 CFR 

§ 478.11, is the legal authority that requires VA to report these individuals to the 

National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The Department of 

Justice regulations include within the definition of mental defective, for purposes of 

NICS reporting under the Brady Act, persons who have been determined by a court, 

board, commission, or other legal authority to lack the mental capacity to contract 

or manage their own affairs. A VA determination of incompetency for the purpose 

of the VA fiduciary program falls within the scope of this definition. 

Some individuals suffer from physical disabilities with co-existing mental conditions that affect their capacity to handle their VA financial affairs (e.g., amyotrophic 

lateral sclerosis, Traumatic Brain Injury). This may perhaps lead to the need to appoint a fiduciary to manage their VA affairs. These individuals are determined to 

be incompetent for VA purposes, and thus are reported to the NICS list. 

VA does not provide a fiduciary at an individual’s request. An individual must 

meet the criteria as incompetent for managing their VA affairs to be assigned a 

fiduciary. 

Chairman SANDERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Coy. Thank you 

all for being here. Before I get to my written questions, let me just 

ask if anyone wants to respond. 

As you know, probably the major issue of concern for the veterans’ community and to this Committee has been the backlog. So, 

my question is a simple one. As we transform the entire system— 

and I think that was long overdue—I think it should have been 

done years before we began this. But be that as it may, as we make 

that transformation from paper to paperless, in your judgment, are 

we making progress? 

Mr. COY. Sir, I will defer that question to my colleague, Tom 

Murphy. He is very well vested in that process. 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, Mr. Chairman, we are. We are making significant progress. We, for the first time, have VBMS fielded in all regional offices in the country. 

It is generation one software, but we are seeing more rapid development, improvements in performance of individuals and their 

ability to process claims and move them through. Over time we 

have seen the savings from not literally shipping as many boxes of 

files back and forth across the country. So, just those shipping fees 

are now taken out of the process. 

So, we are starting to see the leverage from moving to the 

paperless system; and as that transition continues over the next 

year plus, we will see more benefits of that. 

Chairman SANDERS. In your judgment, do you think we will 

reach the goal, the very ambitious goal established by the 

Secretary? 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, sir, I do. 

85 

Chairman SANDERS. OK. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Coy, let me begin with you, although I believe this question 

may be best answered by Mr. Murphy. It deals with the Claims 

Processing Improvement Act which I have introduced, and there 

are a number of important provisions in that legislation which I 

am pleased to see VA indicating support for some of. I would like 

to discuss a couple of the provisions for which VA did not provide 

views. 

First, this Committee has a responsibility to exercise aggressive 

oversight of VA’s efforts to address the backlog. In other words, 

once again it is beyond my comprehension why it took so long for 

VA to move from paper to paperless. I applaud the Secretary for 

finally undertaking that very ambitious goal; but the job of this 

Committee is to make sure that that goal is achieved. 

So, my question to you, Mr. Murphy, is, do you agree that this 

Committee and the public needs to be able to measure VA’s 

progress? In other words, the Secretary, to his credit, did what very 

few people do: he put it right out there on the table. And correct 

me if I am wrong, but he said by the end of 2015 all claims would 

be processed within 125 days with 98 percent accuracy. Is that 

what he stated? 

Mr. MURPHY. That is correct, sir. 

Chairman SANDERS. OK, and what I just heard you say a moment ago is you believe that we are on target to reach that very 

ambitious goal. 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SANDERS. OK. So, what I want this Committee to be 

able to do is to make sure that we are monitoring effectively on a 

periodic basis our progress toward reaching that goal. 

Do you agree that that is a reasonable thing for the American 

people to be doing? 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman, and you point out there 

are some provisions of the bill that we have not put official testimony on, but I can speak to that in a very general sense. 

What we are talking about here is specific publicly posted performance for all to see and understand exactly what VA is doing 

and the progress we are making toward the Secretary’s goals of 125 

days, 98 percent. 

We have been reporting publicly for some time now all of the performance that we have on our ASPIRE Web site available to everybody, and we would be interested in discussing with you and the 

Committee on any further reportings that you would be talking 

about and talking about some of the details in your bill. 

Chairman SANDERS. Good. That is what we are talking about. I 

personally believe that visibility into actual production when measured against projected workload and production will allow stakeholders to see what benchmarks VA must hit in order to reach the 

Secretary’s goals. 

In other words, here is what we want. We do not want in late 

2015 for you to come in here and say, you know, we hoped that we 

would be able to do that but it turns out we cannot. 

We want to be monitoring you at least on a quarterly basis to 

see what your goals are, where you think you should be, and in 

fact, where you are. Does that make sense to you? 

86 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, it does, Mr. Chairman, and I have got to point 

out some numbers showing that we are making progress in that regard. The backlog reduction of approximate 74,000 cases in our 

overall inventory reduction is 44,000 cases just in the last 45 days. 

What is significant about those numbers when we are talking 

about such a large volume of cases, it is not, well, that is the game 

changer; but it does indicate that we are at a tipping point. In 

order to break the backlog, we need to be putting more work out 

the door than is coming in and we are there solidly month after 

month, consistently now. 

Chairman SANDERS. So, what you are telling us—and by the 

way, this is very good news for the American people—is that you 

think right now the backlog is decreasing. You think as the transformation of the system becomes firmer and we are more and more 

into digital rather than paper, you are going to see that backlog go 

down. Is that what you are telling us? 

Mr. MURPHY. I am saying that the backlog, we can expect the 

backlog to continue to decrease going forward. 

Chairman SANDERS. That it is decreasing and that it will continue to decrease? 

Mr. MURPHY. The last 45 days it has decreased by over 44,000 

cases, excuse me, 44,000 inventory, 74,000 backlog. They are two 

different numbers. 

Chairman SANDERS. OK. Senator Boozman, did you have some 

questions? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Yes, sir, I do. If you would like, you can move 

to Senator Blumenthal since I gave my opening statement. Go 

ahead, sir. 

Chairman SANDERS. That is kind of you. 

Senator Blumenthal. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 

thank you all for being here and thank you for your continued work 

on a number of these areas including the claims backlog which is 

vexing not only to us but obviously to stakeholders across the country; so I wondered if you could distinguish, you mentioned 74,000 

and 44,000. 74,000 is the reduction in? 

Mr. MURPHY. Total inventory in the VA. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And 44,000? 

Mr. MURPHY. Claims that are less than 125 days plus claims 

that are over 125 days comprise the total inventory. 44,000 is the 

reduction in that number. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And rather than quizzing you now, could 

you get us a report in writing with the numbers showing when the 

backlog began to decrease, in other words, when the tide turned; 

and what your projections are for coming months, let us say until 

the end of the year and as far beyond as you can project? 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, I understand what you are looking for, Senator, and I can get you the numbers showing the performance up 

to where we are today; and we will have some discussions about 

what the future looks like for the rest of the fiscal year. 

87 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, when you say ‘‘you will have,’’ ‘‘we 

will have some discussions,’’ do you mean you and we members of 

the Senate, or internally, ‘‘we will have?’’ 

Mr. MURPHY. We internally delivered to you members of the 

Senate. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. OK. Do you have numbers for Connecticut? 

Mr. MURPHY. Offhand I do not, not with me today. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Could you get those numbers to me? 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes, Senator, I would be happy to. 

[The information requested during the hearing follows:] 

88 


612q2BlumVA.eps
89 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

You know, I want to join my colleagues in expressing a sense of 

urgency. We said on a number of occasions how important it is to 

reduce this backlog, and I know you share the view that the numbers right now are unacceptable. We have heard that from veterans 

and you have heard it from us, and I appreciate your cooperation. 

Let me ask you about one of the issues that concerns me, the 

interoperability of the medical records system or the merger of the 

two, DOD and VA. Could you tell us what the status of that effort 

is today? 

Mr. MURPHY. I can address it from the standpoint of processing 

compensation claims and what it is that I need in order to process 

claims efficiently and quickly, and that is tied back to the electronic delivery from the Department of Defense to the VA of electronic copies of their service treatment records. 

There are two key things that have happened recently. The first 

one is the delivery by the Department of Defense of a certified complete record which relieves me of the responsibility to continue to 

search for Federal records, as required by the statute. 

Since the beginning of June—it has been about 3 weeks now of 

full implementation of Department of Defense—97 percent of those 

records are being delivered with a certified complete statement on 

top. That is great progress forward with us working together with 

our DOD partners. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And of those records that are automatically delivered seamlessly, they are interoperable without being, in 

effect, part of the same system. Is that what you are saying? 

Mr. MURPHY. I think the answer to that is going to come in the 

second part of this, Senator. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Sorry. 

Mr. MURPHY. Today, I will take it in any form DOD can give it 

to me as quickly as they are. The DOD has committed that by the 

end of the calendar year they will deliver all of their medical 

records, certified complete like that, to us in an electronic format. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. By the end of the year, did you say? 

Mr. MURPHY. This calendar year. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. This calendar year? 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Sir, I apologize for interrupting. In effect, 

DOD has committed to you that by the end of the year 2013 the 

two systems will fit together seamlessly and they will become part 

of the same system? I am trying to put it in layman’s language because I do not know how technically to describe it and I welcome 

whatever comment you have. 

Mr. MURPHY. Senator, you scare me with the ‘‘get together 

seamlessly’’ portion of that. I will receive that in a format that I 

can ingest—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Was that not the goal of Secretary Panetta—— 

Mr. MURPHY. Yes. Absolutely. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And Secretary Shinseki—— 

Mr. MURPHY. The key is they will give it to me in any format 

that I can receive into VBMS electronically, call it up at the rater’s 

desk without additional effort, see those records, search those 

90 

records in a format that is usable to us; and yes, that is the commitment. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And that is by the end of the year? 

Mr. MURPHY. That is by the end of this calendar year, correct. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Great. Because my time is limited, I am 

going to jump to another topic. 

I have sponsored a measure called the Veterans Back to School 

Act that would, in effect, eliminate the 10-year limit on GI Bill benefits. As you know right now, GI benefits are limited to 10 years 

after separation from the service. 

In today’s economy, 10 years is, in my view, no longer an acceptable limit because people change careers. They need new training. 

Veterans may simply be as much in need of these benefits after 10 

years as they are 10 years before. 

Could I ask you for a position on that measure? 

Mr. MURPHY. I think we are in Mr. Coy’s territory now, Senator. 

Mr. COY. Thank you, Senator, for that question. S. 863 essentially, as you indicated, takes away the time limit; and instead of 

from separation, it makes it from the time that you start using 

those benefits. 

We do not yet have cleared positions on that, and so, we are 

working through that. Some of this is ‘‘the devil is in the details,’’ 

if you will. 

So, we want to make sure we give you a good, complete answer 

for the record rather than make the effort to try and do that very 

quickly, and we hope to have those cleared views to you very 

shortly. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman SANDERS. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Again, I appreciate the fact that it seems like we are getting 

good news regarding the claims process. I know you all are working 

very, very hard, the entire system, to get that resolved. 

As you know, when I visit with veterans and the mail that we 

received, that really is the overwhelming concern right now. Not 

only with veterans, but the public generally, feel like people that 

have served deserve the opportunity in a somewhat timely fashion 

at least, to get the answer one way or another so that they can 

move on. 

So again, I appreciate your efforts and I appreciate the fact that 

we seem to be seeing some improvement. That is very positive. So, 

we will be able to pass that along. 

I would just like to ask you to help me understand a little bit 

about the fiduciary issue that has come up and has for a long time. 

If VA finds that veterans or other VA beneficiaries need help with 

their finances, and you can correct me, but my understanding is 

the VA assigns a fiduciary to help them and also sends their names 

to be included in the National Instant Criminal Background Check 

System or the NICS list. That prevents them from purchasing or 

owning firearms. In some cases that might impact the ability of 

their families to possess firearms. 

91 

So, I guess the questions I would have is, does VA look at whether a beneficiary is in any way dangerous when assigning the 

fiduciary? 

Mr. MURPHY. Can I ask a clarifying question there, Senator? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Yes. 

Mr. MURPHY. Is the fiduciary being appointed dangerous, is that 

what you are asking? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Yes—no, no, the veteran. 

Mr. MURPHY. The veteran themselves? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Yes. 

Mr. MURPHY. The veteran is through the fiduciary process 

deemed not capable of managing their own finances; and by virtue 

of that, they are added to the NICS database which restricts them 

from being able to own and purchase firearms. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Is there—— 

Mr. MURPHY. There is also a relief process in place. If a veteran 

thinks that they should not be on that list, they can file an appeal 

to us. There is an active, ongoing process where appeals are happening, and veterans gun ownership rights are being restored. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Is there any correlation with not being able 

to manage your finances and committing a violent crime? 

Mr. MURPHY. I do not know the answer to that question, Senator. 

Senator BOOZMAN. But we should know the answer in the sense 

that that is why we are doing it. 

Mr. HIPOLIT. If I could address that, there was a determination 

made by public safety authorities essentially at the Department of 

Justice. When they set up the NICS program, they determined who 

would be placed on the list; and one of the categories they chose 

was people who were unable to handle their finances, essentially, 

which tie the VA’s incompetence determinations into that process. 

So, because that is how the Justice Department set it up, we are 

required to report that information. 

Senator BOOZMAN. So, Social Security does the same thing? 

Mr. HIPOLIT. They fall within the same requirements I believe. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Is that correct? 

Mr. HIPOLIT. That is my understanding. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Social Security, my understanding was, and 

was confirmed, does not send names. 

Mr. HIPOLIT. OK. Now, they may not. I think in some cases Social Security appoints fiduciaries without making a determination 

of incompetency, and it is our determination of incompetency is 

what kicks in the reporting requirements. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Could it be a physical disability rather than 

a mental impairment that requires the assignment of a fiduciary? 

Mr. HIPOLIT. Yes, that is correct. It could be an injury or whatever. 

Senator BOOZMAN. So, an individual like that would go on the 

NICS list also? 

Mr. HIPOLIT. Yes, if they are unable to handle their financial 

affairs. 

Senator BOOZMAN. But that makes no sense if they have a physical impairment that would not allow them to do that. 

92 

Mr. HIPOLIT. There is a relief program in place that Mr. Murphy 

mentioned which, if a person is not a threat to public safety, they 

can be relieved from the reporting requirement. 

Senator BOOZMAN. No, I understand but it should not be that the 

onus is on them when we are putting them in a situation in that 

case with a physical impairment, it does not make any sense at all 

in regard to their wanting to commit or any correlation with violent 

crime in that regard. 

Who at VA makes the decisions about whether someone should 

have a fiduciary and do they have any law enforcement training or 

legal training? Or what is their training? 

Mr. MURPHY. There are pension veteran service representatives 

that make these determinations and their determinations are 

based not from a law enforcement perspective but from the standpoint of is the veteran capable of managing their financial affairs. 

Senator BOOZMAN. OK. How many individuals have their names 

on the NICS list as a result of the current policy? 

Mr. MURPHY. That I do not have a number in front of me. I can 

tell you how many have been added to the list and have applied 

to be relieved. That number is 236. 

Senator BOOZMAN. OK. Have you got a guess as to how many? 

Mr. MURPHY. I do not. If you would like that number, I would 

be happy to take that for the record and provide you with the detailed numbers. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Do you have any idea how many are children? 

How many are being added to the NICS list that are children? 

Mr. MURPHY. No, I do not, Senator. 

Senator BOOZMAN. OK. Elderly dependent parents? That would 

be something else we would be interested in. 

Again, like I said, to me it makes no sense when you have no 

correlation to violent crime that these individuals—I understand if 

we are picking out people who are mentally impaired and we need 

to get much more aggressive in that regard, not only in this situation but with others. 

But, somebody that is physically impaired, there are all kinds of 

categories that I think we would both agree that there is no correlation at all. So again, please, I would like the answers in writing. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your indulgence. 

[The information requested during the hearing follows:] 

93 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST ARISING DURING THE HEARING BY HON. JOHN BOOZMAN TO

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


612q2Booz1.eps
94 


612q2Booz2.eps
95 


612q2Booz3.eps
96 


612q2NICS1.eps
97 


612q2NICS2.eps
98 


612q2NICS3.eps
99 


612q2NICS4.eps
100 


612q2NICS5.eps
101 


612q2NICSb1.eps
102 


612q2NICSb2.eps
103 


612q2NICSb3.eps
104 


612q2NICSb4.eps
105 


612q2NICSb5.eps
106 


612q2NICSb6.eps
107 

Chairman SANDERS. Thank you, Senator Boozman. 

Senator Begich. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Actually, I want to follow-up. It was not my intent to follow-up 

on your question but I know, Senator Boozman, you and I have 

done several pieces of legislation together including this one. I have 

a piece of legislation pending with Senator Pryor, Flake, and 

Graham on this specific issue because there has been no proven 

correlation between financial affairs and someone committing or 

could potentially commit an act of violence. 


612q2NICSb7.eps
108 

There is no evidence, unless you have some; and I get what you 

are saying. I feel some uncomfortable conversation coming at me 

because you are kind of responding to the Justice Department’s decision. 

If I can, I would like to get from you whatever the public safety 

authority, Justice Department, issued this as an added item, whatever documentation they created this, because there is no 

connection. 

And, there are many veterans that are denied their Second 

Amendment rights because they are unable to manage their financial affairs but they are not violent, they are not potentially violent, 

they are not at risk to themselves or others. 

And so, could you provide us that? You do not have to answer 

this, but I sense some uncomfortable positioning in your responses 

to Senator Boozman and I get where this came from, that you are 

responding to that. 

Mr. HIPOLIT. Yes, Senator, there were Justice Department regulations that set that up and we would be pleased to provide you 

with background information on that. 

Senator BEGICH. We would like that. Again, our bill is to try to 

rectify this problem because it just seems unfair. We have to take 

and weigh someone’s constitutional right, whatever that right is, is 

something we need to be very careful about. 

At the same time, we need to recognize there are individuals that 

are at risk and we need to balance that. 

Mr. Murphy, you had some information regarding how many 

have been accepted into that system, how many are appealing, and 

then also what the timetable is from their initial appeal, or relief 

I guess is the word to use. And then what the outcome of that was. 

Would you mind giving us something on that also? 

Mr. MURPHY. We would be happy to, Senator. 

[The information requested during the hearing follows:] 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST ARISING DURING THE HEARING BY HON. MARK BEGICH TO

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Response. As of April 17, 2013, the cumulative total of VA incompetent beneficiaries is 143,580. A demographic breakdown is shown below: 

Veterans ................................... 83,764 

Surviving Spouses ................... 42,636 

Helpless Adult Children ........... 14,291 

Minor Children ......................... 2,733 

Dependent Parents .................. 86 

Other Adults ............................. 70 

TOTAL ................................... 143,580 

Senator Begich asked for data on the special NICS appeals process: how many 

have asked for a review, the time it takes for the appeal process, and the number 

of requests for relief granted/denied/not yet decided. 

Response. Please note that NICS relief is not an appeal, it is a separate process. 

As of April 17, 2013, VA received 236 requests for relief from the NICS reporting 

requirements. Breakdown is as follows: 

109 

Granted .................................... 7 

Denied ...................................... 153 

Pending .................................... 53 

Competency Restored .............. 23 

TOTAL ................................... 236 

Senator BEGICH. OK. Thank you. 

Let me move on to another subject matter. Again actually Senator Boozman and I have a bill entitled Putting Veterans Funding 

First Act, S. 932. We gave advance appropriations for part of the 

VA but not all of it, so this bill would complete fully giving advanced appropriations to the VA. 

Tell me what you think of this and would you be supportive of 

this legislation. Again, it just seems logical from a standpoint of 

saving money, saving time, and creating opportunity for the VA to 

do their work rather than processing paper all the time. 

Who would like to? 

Mr. COY. I will take that, Senator. 

Unfortunately, the short answer is we are still putting together 

our cleared views on this. 

Senator BEGICH. Can I interrupt you for just 1 second. 

Mr. COY. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. And I do not mean to be negative, only because 

of our time here. But, are you putting that together? Is OMB influencing that outcome of what you are putting together? 

The reason I ask is that OMB will always sanitize the heck out 

of everything. So, I am looking for what you all think as the department that has to run an agency of the magnitude that you 

have to run. 

So, you do not have to answer. I do not mean to be—I just get 

frustrated with OMB sanitizing everything before coming in front 

of a Committee. 

Mr. COY. I will take your advice and not insert that, Sir. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BEGICH. OK. Your answer is an answer but go ahead. I 

did not mean to—— 

Mr. COY. We have seen where it has been very useful for our colleagues at VHA. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. COY. But again we do not have our cleared position to put 

forth yet. 

Senator BEGICH. Understood. OK. 

Mr. COY. We are looking at it very vigorously and it is within VA 

at this point to put together those cleared views. 

Senator BEGICH. Fantastic. I would look forward and maybe we 

can ask the other side of VA at one point what they saw as their 

savings and opportunity. That might help us convince, and I say 

‘‘us,’’ meaning OMB to think about the right decision here. 

Mr. COY. Aye, aye. 

Senator BEGICH. I’ll leave it at that. 

Let me go on to one last quick thing. There is a bill that I cosponsored with Senator Burr but I do not see it, though I may be 

110 

wrong. You did not supply a view on it, which is about issuing 

cards to veterans that identify themselves as veterans so then they 

can benefit from community benefits that are available. 

It would not be used to determine their—it would not be used to 

go into the VA as it were but it would be their card to say, I am 

a veteran and therefore I might get certain benefits out in the 

community. 

You did not have a view on that. So, I am wondering if you are 

reviewing that or you are just going to keep neutral on it or help 

me out there. 

Mr. COY. Right now, again my short answer is we do not have 

cleared views on that yet. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. 

Mr. COY. What we have seen is about 50 percent of the States 

now have a driver’s license where they have identified veterans on 

there as well. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. COY. And we have seen that as a pretty useful tool. We are 

also looking at a number of things through our eBenefits portal 

where veterans can quickly get the information necessary to identify them as a veteran. 

But with respect to physically issuing ID cards, we are putting 

together those costs and views to be able to figure out what our official position is on that and we will get that to you, sir, as soon 

as we can. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the time. 

Chairman SANDERS. Thank you, Senator Begich. 

We are going to hear from the VSOs in 1 second but before we 

do I want to go back to Mr. Murphy because you are dealing with 

what is the most contentious issue facing the VA right now. 

What I want you to do in a very brief period of time is to tell 

this Committee how we got to where we are today in terms of the 

backlog, what the VA is doing to transform the system, where you 

think we are today, and where we are going to be by the end of 

2015. You got all of a minute to do that. 

Mr. MURPHY. A minute. Well, let us start at the end. The Secretary has put out a rather aggressive goal: 2015; 98 percent; 125 

days. You asked me previously are we going to hit that goal. The 

answer is yes. 

Chairman SANDERS. So, let me stop here. What you are saying 

again for the public record is that you believe by the end of 2015 

every benefit filed by a veteran will be processed within 125 days 

with 98 percent accuracy. 

Am I hearing you correctly? 

Mr. MURPHY. You are hearing me correctly. 

Chairman SANDERS. OK. 

Mr. MURPHY. It gives me chills. It is a very aggressive goal. 

Chairman SANDERS. It is an aggressive goal. 

Mr. MURPHY. But, I honestly believe we are going to hit that 

number and I am not saying that as an uneducated individual. You 

are asking me what are the things that we are doing, and you have 

heard Under Secretary Hickey many times talk about people processing technology. 

111 

That truly is the thing that all together are going to solve this. 

There is no single system that is going to come in that is going to 

be a silver bullet, VBMS, and make everything work. VBMS if left 

alone without other changes will just make a bad system worse. 

So, there are other things that have to go on here in terms of 

training, education, the quality of hiring, the processes that we are 

doing, the legislative proposals that you are bringing before us now 

and have done so over the last couple of years are bearing fruit and 

helping us develop this as well. 

You asked how did we get here? We are at the end of in excess 

of 10 years of war and still going. There is a very large number 

of veterans returning from conflict and they are filing claims when 

they do. These veterans have had injuries and conditions and it is 

having its effect on VA. 

If you look at the number of claims that we are getting, you look 

at not just the number of claims but the complexity and the number of issues that are in those claims, just to say that we have got 

25, 50, 100 percent more claims does not begin to address the 

workload that has really increased. 

A claim that formerly came in with three contentions it is now 

coming in with 12 to 15. That is three to four to five times the 

work to complete that same claim. But, we have not seen the same 

level of increase in resources in terms of personnel in order to do 

that. 

On top of that, there are presumptive conditions that were right 

decisions on the part of the Secretary that were put in place to 

take care of veterans from previous conflicts. 

Chairman SANDERS. Agent Orange. 

Mr. MURPHY. Agent Orange, specifically. There is a peripheral 

neuropathy presumption that we are going to see here shortly. Several other areas in there that have been right decisions, right 

things to do for veterans that did not stop us from making those 

decisions and we are seeing the consequences of those today. 

On the other side of that, we are at a turning point where we 

are starting to see the work go the opposite direction in terms of 

volume and the work coming through the door faster than the 

number of resources that we have. 

When you take all of those and put them in place, I think that 

adds to success at the end of 2015. 

Chairman SANDERS. OK. Thanks very much. 

Gentlemen, thank you very, very much. 

Now, we would like to hear from the veterans service organizations. 

[Pause.] 

I want to thank the service organizations, all of them, including 

those that are not here this morning for the help that they have 

given us in trying to assess the problems they have seen in the veterans community as well as their very specific thoughts on legislation and how we can address some of those problems. 

We are delighted this morning to have with us Jeffrey Hall, who 

is the Assistant National Legislative Director for the Disabled 

American Veterans. 

Ian de Planque, who is the Deputy Legislative Director for The 

American Legion. 

112 

Colonel Robert F. Norton, who is the Deputy Director, Government Relations, Military Officers Association of America. 

And, Ryan Gallucci, who is the Deputy Director, National Legislative Service for the Veterans of Foreign Wars. 

We thank you all for being here this morning. 

Mr. Hall. 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY HALL, ASSISTANT NATIONAL 

LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you and 

Members of the Committee. 

On behalf of the DAV and our membership of 1.2 million wartime service-disabled veterans, we appreciate the opportunity to 

offer our views regarding the legislation being considered by this 

Committee. My full written statement has been submitted for the 

record so I will limit my oral remarks today to only just a few of 

those bills. 

Mr. Chairman, as you and the Members of the Committee are 

well aware, the VA is currently in the process of comprehensively 

transforming its claims processing system to address the unacceptably large backlog of claims. 

DAV has and will continue to urge that the focus of all claims 

process reform efforts be centered on quality and accuracy to ensure that every veteran’s claim is done right the first time. 

Regarding S. 928, the Claims Processing Improvement Act of 

2013, it contains numerous provisions to help reform the current 

system but I am just going to highlight a few seconds here. 

With respect to Section 101, DAV has long supported calls for 

scientifically studying how VBA determines its resource needs 

which must be based on a true measure of how much work can be 

done accurately by its employees. 

While we support the general intent of the working group proposed by this section, we offer the following recommendations, Mr. 

Chairman. 

First, the working group must expand its focus beyond just a 

work credit system to developing a data driven model for determining VBA’s total resource needs now and into the future. 

Second, the working group should not study the VBA’s work 

management system at a time when VBA is in the middle of changing it. Doing so would be premature in light of the VBA’s new organizational model and the VBMS system being implemented. 

We suggest waiting until a time after the new system has been 

working and in place for a while in order to determine whether 

these changes are or will be successful. 

Finally, because Section 101 mandates that the Secretary shall 

implement the recommendations of this working group, DAV is 

concerned about the lack of details on the membership of the working group, operating rules of the group, how decisions will be made 

and votes taken, and how recommendations will be presented by 

the working group. 

Section 201 would reduce the filing period of a notice of disagreement from the current 1-year period to 180 days from the date of 

the decision. The DAV is opposed to this measure as we do not see 

113 

any positive effect resulting from this change toward the backlog 

of claims. 

DAV supports Section 202 to improve the appeals process by allowing the Board of Veterans Appeals to use videoconferencing 

hearings as a default hearing while allowing the claimant to retain 

the absolute right to appear in person before the board. 

We do, however, recommend that this is clearly explained and 

outlined in the notice of appeal rights and appeals form which the 

veteran receives. 

Regarding S. 819, the Veterans Mental Health Treatment First 

Act of 2013, this creates a new early intervention and treatment 

program for veterans suffering from PTSD, depression, anxiety disorder, or related substance abuse disorder. 

The DAV strongly supports early intervention and mental health 

treatment, prevention of chronic disability, and promotion of recovery. Likewise, we are generally supportive of providing financial 

support such as a wellness stipend to veterans who are willing to 

commit to this program of treatment as it would provide a means 

of income while undergoing treatment itself. 

However, we cannot support the bill in its current form because 

it constrains disabled veterans from applying for service-connected 

disability compensation or an increased rating for these covered 

conditions simply in order to gain the full amount of the wellness 

stipend. 

We believe that early treatment provisions and wellness stipend 

payments must be decoupled from any proposal which would have 

any adverse impact on a veteran applying for disability compensation or claim for an increased rating. 

Furthermore, such programs should begin as a pilot program to 

help determine the level of interest and whether or not it is likely 

to achieve its intended purpose. However, we would be pleased to 

work with the Committee to possibly find a workable solution on 

this matter. 

DAV strongly supports S. 893, the Veterans Compensation Cost 

of Living Adjustment Act of 2013, to increase compensation and 

DIC rates effective December 1 of 2013. 

Mr. Chairman, the DAV applauds you and Ranking Member 

Burr for not mandating that the COLA be rounded down to the 

next low whole dollar amount. DAV has a long-standing resolution 

to discontinue this unfair practice and we are very pleased that it 

was not included in the bill. 

The DAV also applauds you, Mr. Chairman, for your stalwart 

leadership and efforts opposing the chained consumer price index, 

which we, too, oppose. 

Finally, the DAV strongly supports S. 932, the Putting Veterans 

Funding First Act of 2013. In the same way that advance appropriations for VA health care have helped insulate and protect VHA 

from the disruptive budget fights each year, we believe that expanding advance appropriations to the VA’s remaining discretionary programs, including VBA, could have similar positive affects on helping to address the backlog of pending claims. 

Mr. Chairman, the DAV thanks the Committee for their tireless 

efforts toward improving the lives of service-disabled veterans and 

their families. 

114 

This concludes my remarks. I will be happy to answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hall follows:] 

STATEMENT OF JEFFREY C. HALL, ASSISTANT NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, 

DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS (DAV) 

Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for inviting the DAV (Disabled American Veterans) to testify at this legislative hearing of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee. As you know, DAV is 

a non-profit veterans service organization comprised of 1.2 million wartime servicedisabled veterans dedicated to a single purpose: empowering veterans to lead highquality lives with respect and dignity. DAV is pleased to be here today to present 

our views on the bills under consideration by the Committee. 

S. 6

S. 6, the Putting Our Veterans Back to Work Act of 2013, would reauthorize the 

VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011, to provide assistance to small businesses owned 

by veterans, to improve enforcement of employment and reemployment rights of 

members of uniformed services. This legislation would expand the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 by reauthorizing the Veterans Retraining Assistance Program 

(VRAP) allowing an additional 100,000 participants through April 2016. 

Other matters highlighted in S. 6 include extending through December 2016, the 

allowance for VA vocational rehabilitation & employment services to members of the 

Armed Forces with severe injuries or illnesses, and would also extend through 

March 2016, additional rehabilitation programs for those who have exhausted rights 

to unemployment benefits under state law, as well as the creation of a unified webbased employment portal identifying Federal employment, unemployment and training. S. 6 would also afford grants to the Department of Homeland Security and the 

Attorney General for the purpose of hiring firefighters and law enforcement officers. 

Finally, this legislation would require employment of veterans as an evaluation 

factor in solicitations for contracts by certain prospective contractors, while also improving employment and reemployment rights of members of the uniformed services 

with respect to states and private employers and suspension, termination, or debarment of contractors for repeated violations of such rights. 

In accordance with several DAV resolutions, we support enactment of this comprehensive legislation as it would improve the employment, training, and rights of 

service-disabled veterans and improve their transition from military service into civilian employment. 

S. 200

S. 200 would amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the interment in 

national cemeteries under the control of the National Cemetery Administration of 

individuals who served in combat support of the Armed Forces in the Kingdom of 

Laos between February 28, 1961, and May 15, 1975. 

DAV has no resolution or position on this matter. 

S. 257

S. 257, the GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act of 2013, would require courses of education provided by public institutions of higher education that are approved for purposes of the educational assistance programs administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to charge veterans tuition and fees at the in-state tuition rate. 

DAV has no resolution or position on this matter. 

S. 262

S. 262, the Veterans Education Equity Act of 2013, would provide equity for tuition and fees for individuals entitled to educational assistance under the Post-9/11 

Educational Assistance Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) who 

are pursuing programs of education at the institutions of higher learning. 

DAV has no resolution or position on this matter. 

S. 294

S. 294, the Ruth Moore Act of 2013, would improve the disability compensation 

evaluation procedure of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for veterans with mental 

115 

health conditions related to military sexual trauma. In accordance with DAV Resolution Nos. 030 and 204, we support enactment of this legislation. 

This bill would change the standard of proof required to establish service connection for veterans suffering from certain mental health conditions, including Post 

Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), resulting from military sexual trauma that occurred in service. 

In November 2010, VA modified its prior standard of proof for PTSD related to 

combat veterans by relaxing the evidentiary standards for establishing in-service 

stressors if related to a veteran’s ‘‘fear of hostile military or terroristic activity.’’ 

Under this change, VA is now able to award entitlement to service connection for 

PTSD even when there is no official record of such incurrence or aggravation in 

service, provided there is a confirmed diagnosis of PTSD coupled with the veteran’s 

written testimony that the PTSD is the result of an incident that occurred during 

military service, and a medical opinion supporting a nexus between the two. 

S. 294 would buildupon that same concept and allow VA to award entitlement to 

service connection for certain mental health conditions, including PTSD, anxiety and 

depression, or other mental health diagnosis described in the current version of the 

Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM), which a veteran 

claims was incurred or aggravated by military sexual trauma experienced in service, 

even in the absence of any official record of the claimed trauma. Similar to the evidentiary standard above for PTSD, the veteran must have a diagnosis of the covered 

mental health condition together with satisfactory lay or other evidence of such 

trauma and an opinion by the mental health professional that such covered mental 

health condition is related to such military sexual trauma, if consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of such service even in the absence of official 

record of such incurrence or aggravation in such service and if so all reasonable 

doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant. 

DAV Resolution No. 204 states that, ‘‘[e]stablishing a causal relationship between 

injury and later disability can be daunting due to lack of records or certain human 

factors that obscure or prevent documentation of even basic investigation of such incidents after they occur * * *’’ and that, ‘‘[a]n absence of documentation of military 

sexual trauma in the personnel or military unit records of injured individuals prevents or obstructs adjudication of claims for disabilities for this deserving group of 

veterans injured during their service, and may prevent their care by VA once they 

become veterans * * *.’’ Further, DAV Resolution No. 030 states that, ‘‘[p]roof of 

a causal relationship may often be difficult or impossible * * *’’ and that, 

‘‘* * * current law equitably alleviates the onerous burden of establishing performance of duty or other causal connection as a prerequisite for service 

connection * * *.’’ 

Correspondingly, in accordance with DAV Resolution Nos. 030 and 204, we 

support enactment of S. 294 as it would provide a more equitable standard of proof 

for service-disabled veterans who suffer from serious mental and physical traumas 

in environments that make it difficult to establish exact causal connections. 

We would also note that the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee recently adopted 

an amendment to a companion bill that replaced the language of this legislation 

with a ‘‘Sense of Congress’’ resolution, thereby significantly weakening the intent of 

this legislation. We would urge this Committee to retain the statutory language in 

S. 294 as it moves through the legislative process. 

S. 373

S. 373, the Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act of 2013, would 

amend titles 10, 32, 37, and 38 of the United States Code, to add a definition of 

spouse for purposes of military personnel policies and military and veteran benefits 

that recognizes new state definitions of spouse. 

DAV has no resolution or position on this matter. 

S. 430

S. 430, the Veterans Small Business Opportunity and Protection Act of 2013, 

would amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance treatment of certain small 

business concerns for purposes of VA contracting goals and preferences. Specifically, 

this bill would improve the treatment of a service-disabled veteran-owned small 

business (SDVOSB) after the death of the disabled veteran. Current law allows 10 

years to transfer a SDVOSB from a surviving spouse if the disabled veteran was 

rated 100 percent at time of death or who died as a result of a service-connected 

condition. This measure would allow for a transition period of three years for veterans rated less than 100 percent at time of death or whose death is not a result 

of a service-connected condition. 

116 

In accordance with DAV Resolution No. 168, we support enactment of this legislation. 

S. 492

S. 492 would amend title 38, United States Code, to require states to recognize 

the military experience of veterans when issuing licenses and credentials to veterans. Essentially this measure would improve employment for veterans by removing particular restrictions or unnecessary requirements for certain veterans. Specifically, as a condition of a grant or contract under which funds are made available 

to a state, the state must establish a program for a state-administered examination 

for each veteran seeking a license or credential issued by such state. 

Additionally, the state will issue a license or credential to such veteran without 

requiring training or apprenticeship, provided the veteran receives a satisfactory examination score and has 10 years or more of experience in a military occupational 

specialty that, as determined by a state, is similar to a civilian occupation for which 

such license or credential is required by the state. 

In accordance with DAV Resolution No. 194, we support enactment of S. 492 as 

it would improve transition from military service and the employment of service-disabled veterans. 

S. 495

S. 495, the Careers for Veterans Act of 2013, would amend title 38, United States 

Code, to require Federal agencies to hire veterans and require states to recognize 

the military experience of veterans when issuing licenses and credentials to 

veterans. 

This legislation is supported by a number of DAV resolutions; accordingly, DAV 

supports enactment of this measure. 

S. 514

S. 514 would amend title 38, United States Code, to provide additional educational assistance under Post-9/11 Educational Assistance to veterans pursuing a 

degree in science, technology, engineering, math, or an area that leads to employment in a high-demand occupation. 

DAV has no resolution or position on this matter. 

S. 515

S. 515 would amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the Yellow Ribbon G.I. 

Education Enhancement Program to cover recipients of Marine Gunnery Sergeant 

John David Fry scholarship. 

DAV has no resolution or position on this matter. 

S. 572

S. 572, the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, would clarify the conditions under which certain persons may be treated as adjudicated mentally incompetent for certain purposes. 

DAV has no resolution or position on this matter. 

S. 629

S. 629, the Honor America’s Guard-Reserve Retirees Act of 2013, would amend 

title 38, United States Code, to recognize the service in the reserve components of 

the Armed Forces of certain persons by honoring them with the status only as veterans under law. 

DAV has no resolution or position on this matter. 

S. 674

S. 674, the Accountability for Veterans Act of 2013, would require prompt responses from the heads of covered Federal agencies when the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs requests information necessary to adjudicate claims for benefits under laws 

administered by the Secretary. Specifically, this legislation would require the Department of Defense (DOD), Social Security Administration (SSA), and National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), to respond to VA’s request for information not later than 30 days from such request by providing the requested information or an explanation why the requested information could not be provided within 

the 30-day time period, and an estimate as to when the requested information will 

be furnished. If the VA’s request for information has not been satisfied, additional 

117 

requests shall be made in the same manner as the initial request and the claimant 

will be notified. 

When a claim is submitted to VA, the largest delay in the overall process resides 

within the development stage and usually involves VA not receiving requested information from private and Federal sources, which is necessary for VA to properly adjudicate a claim for benefits. While unanswered requests from private sources, such 

as treating physicians, are unacceptably burdensome, it is even more troublesome 

when requests for information go unanswered by the Federal Government. When 

this occurs, the claim spends months, even years, in a vortex of delay in processing 

and providing earned benefits to veterans and their families. When a covered agency 

is the custodial source of the information requested by VA then that agency is responsible to promptly furnish the information or a reasonable explanation as to why 

the information cannot be furnished. It is simply unconscionable that veterans and 

their families wait as long as they do for an answer to their claim, but to have this 

compounded by complacency or blatant disregard by a covered agency to furnish the 

requested information in a timely manner is beyond reproach. 

While this legislation may not solve this problem in every case, DAV agrees with 

the purpose of S. 674, which is to hold DOD, SSA and NARA accountable in furnishing the information requested by VA so a claim for benefits can be properly adjudicated in a timely manner. 

For the foregoing reasons and in accordance with DAV Resolution No. 205, we 

support the enactment of S. 674 as it would improve the VA claims process for service-disabled veterans. 

S. 690

S. 690, the Filipino Veterans Fairness Act of 2013, would amend title 38, Untied 

States Code, to deem certain service in the organized military forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the Philippine Scouts to have 

been active service for the purpose of obtaining benefits under programs administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

DAV has no resolution or position on this matter. 

S. 695

S. 695, the Veterans Paralympic Act of 2013, would amend title 38, United States 

Code, to extend the authorization of appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to pay a monthly assistance allowance to disabled veterans who are training 

or competing for the Paralympic Team and authorization of appropriations for the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide assistance to United States Paralympics, 

Inc. 

While DAV does not have a resolution specific to this issue, we do support the 

intent of the legislation as it empowers disabled veterans to live high quality lives 

with respect and dignity. 

S. 705

S. 705, the War Memorial Protection Act of 2013, would amend title 36, United 

States Code to ensure that memorials commemorating the service of the United 

States Armed Forces may contain religious symbols. 

DAV has no resolution or position on this matter. 

S. 735

S. 735, the Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of 2013, would amend title 38, 

United States Code, to improve benefits and assistance provided to surviving 

spouses of veterans under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

DAV supports Section 2 of the bill, which would extend from two years to five years, 

for the initial period for increased DIC for surviving spouses with children. DAV 

also supports Section 3 of the bill as it would expand the eligibility to DIC, health 

care, and housing loans for surviving spouses by lowering the age from 57 to 55 for 

those spouses who remarry. 

Section 4 of the bill would allow benefits for children of certain Thailand service 

veterans born with spina bifida in the same manner as children of Vietnam service 

veterans who were exposed to an herbicide agent. DAV has no resolution or position 

regarding this matter. 

Finally, Section 5 of S. 735 would initiate a pilot program to provide grief counseling in retreat settings for surviving spouses of veterans who die while serving on 

active duty in the United States Armed Forces. DAV supports the principle of SecVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN
118 

tion 5 of the bill as it would provide support and counseling to grieving spouses and 

children who are coping with the death and loss of the veteran. 

S. 748

S. 748, the Veterans Pension Protection Act, would amend title 38, United States 

Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to consider the resources of individuals applying for nonservice-related pension that were recently disposed of by the 

individuals for less than fair market value when determining the eligibility of such 

individuals for such nonservice-related pension. 

DAV has no resolution or position on this matter. 

S. 778

S. 778 would authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to issue cards to veterans that identify them as veterans, including name and photo, whether or not the 

veteran is enrolled the VA health care system or in receipt of benefits such as education, compensation or non-service related pension. 

While DAV has no resolution or position on this matter we recommend this be 

a collaborative effort between the two principle agencies; DOD issuing this type of 

identification card to those eligible at time of discharge, and VA issuing this type 

of identification card to those already separated from military service. 

S. 819

S. 819, the Veterans Mental Health Treatment First Act of 2013, creates a new 

program for provision of mental health care and rehabilitation for veterans suffering 

from service-related Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety 

disorder, or a related substance abuse disorder. DAV supports the provisions of this 

bill that promote early intervention in mental health treatment, prevention of 

chronic disability, and promotion of recovery. However, we cannot support the bill 

in its current form because it restricts the rights of disabled veterans to apply for 

service-connected disability compensation for those disabilities under VA care. We 

believe that early treatment provisions and wellness stipend payments must be decoupled from any proposal to deny veterans the ability to apply for disability compensation during the treatment phase. 

S. 819 would establish a new approach to dealing with veterans who are diagnosed with PTSD, depression, anxiety disorder or substance abuse disorder that, in 

the judgment of a VA physician, is related to military service. Financial support, 

known as a ‘‘wellness stipend,’’ would be provided to veterans who are willing to 

commit to a VA treatment plan with substantial adherence to that plan for a specified period of care. In order to be eligible for the wellness stipend, the veteran would 

be required to agree not to file a VA disability compensation claim for the covered 

conditions for one year or the duration of the treatment program, whichever time 

period would be shorter. Duration of treatment would be individualized and determined by the attending VA clinician. Under the program, there would be two proposed levels of wellness stipends. Receipt of the full wellness stipend would depend 

on the veteran having no service-related rating for PTSD, depression, anxiety disorder, or related substance abuse, and having no claim pending for one of the conditions mentioned. 

Veterans with no service-connected rating or claim pending for the conditions 

mentioned who agreed not to file a new or an increased disability claim for one of 

the conditions and in addition agreed to ‘‘substantial compliance’’ with a prescribed 

treatment plan for those conditions for the duration of the prescribed program (or 

12 months, whichever is sooner), would receive $2,000 immediately payable upon diagnosis; $1,500 payable every 90 days while in the treatment program upon clinician certification of substantial compliance with the treatment regimen; and $3,000 

payable at the conclusion of the time-limited treatment program. Under this proposal, the gross stipend for these veterans would be $11,000. 

This bill also would propose that any veteran, with a new or increased disability 

claim pending for PTSD, depression, anxiety disorder or related substance abuse, 

would receive only a partial wellness payment at identical intervals but totaling 

only up to 33% of the rates discussed above. Any participating veteran who failed 

to comply with the conditions of the program would be removed from the program, 

resulting in cessation of the stipends. The program would limit a veteran’s participation to a single enrollment unless VA determined that extended participation 

would provide the veteran additional assistance in recovery. 

As we have stated, we support efforts to increase early intervention in order to 

increase the chances for recovery. Multiple independent reports and scientific studies provide ample evidence for pursuing early intervention for PTSD and other servVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00122 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN
119 

ice-related mental health problems, for promoting recovery, and for providing adequate financial support so that veterans have the resources to engage fully in necessary treatment. Participation in treatment and counseling is often an intensive 

and time consuming process and so financial stipends, such as those proposed by 

this bill, would give veterans at least a modicum of support to concentrate on participating as full partners in their therapy. 

However, DAV strongly opposes any provision that attempts to link wellness stipend payments to a veteran’s right to file a disability claim. While progression in 

science has enhanced our ability to recognize and treat the mental health consequences of service in combat including PTSD, the treatments are not universally 

effective. PTSD and major depression tend to remit and recur. There is no justification for the view that participation in evidence-based therapy will eradicate the illness or eliminate the need for a claim for disability. 

In addition to the above concerns, we recognize the challenges that VA faces in 

establishing the administrative systems and management of mental health treatment programs. In order to increase the chances for success, DAV recommends that 

VA incorporate the following components into any new early intervention mental 

health treatment program design: 

• VHA has struggled to provide timely access to mental health services to all veterans seeking care. In order to carry out any new programs, such as those outlined 

in this bill, while continuing to meet current demand for mental health services, VA 

will need to recruit and retain additional highly skilled, dedicated mental health 

providers. 

• Every veteran enrolled in such programs should be assigned to a care manager 

to coordinate care and jointly track personal treatment and recovery plans. 

• VA mental health providers should receive ongoing continuing medical education, intensive training and clinical supervision to ensure that they have the skills 

and capability to deliver the latest evidence-based treatments. 

• VA should offer certifications to professionals for PTSD treatment, competency 

in veterans’ occupational health, and cultural competency in veterans and military 

life. 

Most of the military members who serve in combat will return home without injuries and readjust in a manner that promotes good health. However, it is the responsibility of our Nation to treat veterans who return with war wounds, both visible 

and invisible, and to fully support their mental health recoveries. Moreover, we believe that while wellness stipend payments could facilitate their recovery, they are 

not an adequate or acceptable substitute for fair and equitable disability compensation for service-related conditions. 

In summary, DAV supports the provisions of this bill that promote early intervention in mental health treatment, prevention of chronic disability, and promotion of 

recovery. However, we cannot support the bill in its current form because it restricts 

the rights of disabled veterans to apply for service-connected disability compensation. We suggest that the health care provisions and wellness stipend payments be 

decoupled from the proposal to deny veterans the ability to apply for disability compensation during the treatment phase. 

While DAV cannot offer our full support to S. 819, we would be happy to work 

with the Committee to see if there are additional ways to create incentives for veterans to seek early treatment for mental health conditions without forcing them to 

surrender their earned right to seek other VA benefits. 

S. 863

S. 863, the Veterans Back to School Act of 2013, would amend title 38, United 

States Code, to repeal time limitations on the eligibility for use of educational assistance under All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance Program and to improve 

veterans’ education outreach. 

DAV has no resolution or position on this matter. 

S. 868

S. 868 would require the Secretary of Defense to establish a process to determine 

whether individuals claiming certain service in the Philippines during World War 

II are eligible for certain benefits despite not being on the Missouri List. 

DAV has no resolution or position on this matter. 

S. 889

S. 889 would amend title 10, United States Code, to improve the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) of the DOD. Specifically, this legislation would expand the 

120 

current TAP for those who plan to use educational assistance by codifying the instruction and overview of such educational assistance, testing to determine academic readiness, instruction on how to finance post-secondary education, and instruction in the benefits and other programs administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

In light of the difficulty faced by many transitioning servicemembers, especially 

those with service-related disabilities, S. 889 will provide certain expansion and improvement to the current TAP program within each respective branch of the military. Allowing these individuals the maximum assistance in obtaining their benefits, 

education, and employment as they exit military service is absolutely imperative. 

In accordance with DAV Resolution No. 199, we support the enactment of S. 889. 

S. 893

S. 893, the Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013, would 

provide for an increase, effective December 1, 2013, in the rates of compensation for 

veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) for the survivors of certain disabled veterans. 

Although a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) was passed last year at the modest 

increase of 1.7%, each of the prior two years, there was no increase in the rates for 

compensation and DIC because the Social Security index used to measure the COLA 

did not increase. Many disabled veterans and their families rely heavily or solely 

on VA disability compensation or DIC as their only means of financial support and 

have struggled during these difficult times. While the economy has faltered, their 

personal economic circumstances have been negatively affected by rising costs of 

many essential items, including food, medicines and gasoline. As inflation becomes 

a greater factor, it is imperative that veterans and their dependents receive a COLA 

and DAV supports enactment of this legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, DAV applauds you and Ranking Member Burr for not mandating 

that the COLA be rounded down to the next lowest whole dollar amount. DAV has 

a longstanding resolution to discontinue this unfair practice. The ‘‘round down’’ 

practice was initially enacted to be a temporary cost savings measure, but has now 

been in effect for nearly 20 years. This temporary cost saving measure has resulted 

in the loss of millions of dollars to veterans and their families since its inception 

and long overdue to be discontinued. As such DAV thanks you for your forward 

thinking to remove the ‘‘round down’’ provision. 

DAV also applauds your leadership and efforts with respect to opposing the 

‘‘chained’’ consumer price index (CPI). DAV joins your opposition to this or any similar attempt at progressively eroding annual COLAs by replacing the current CPI 

formula used for calculating the annual Social Security COLA with the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics’ new formula, commonly termed the ‘‘chained CPI.’’ The conversion 

to using the ‘‘chained CPI’’ is intended to significantly reduce the rates paid to Social Security recipients in the future, thereby lowering the overall Federal deficit, 

which would come at great cost to disabled veterans; a group, as you know, that 

has already demonstrated great sacrifice to this Nation. Balancing the budget on 

the backs of disabled veterans is simply unacceptable and we thank you for your 

stalwart opposition the ‘‘chained CPI.’’ 

S. 894

S. 894 would amend title 38, United States Code, to extend expiring authority for 

work-study allowances for individuals who are pursuing programs of rehabilitation, 

education, or training under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

and to expand such authority to certain outreach services provided through congressional offices. 

DAV has no specific resolution on this matter; however, the purpose of this legislation is to provide economic assistance to veterans and disabled veterans in VA programs. DAV supports the principle intent of the bill, because it would help empower 

disabled veterans. 

S. 922

S. 922, the Veterans Equipped for Success During Transition Act of 2013, would 

provide in-state tuition to transitioning veterans. Essentially this legislation would 

create a pilot program to provide subsidies to employers of certain veterans and 

members of the Armed Forces, as well as a pilot program to provide career transition services to veterans. 

Employment for service-disabled veterans is a priority for DAV and we support 

the principle of the legislation, which is to improve transition from military service 

by encouraging employers to hire veterans. We are, however, unclear why Section 

121 

2 of the bill excludes veterans between the ages of 35 and 54, and why Section 3 

of the bill excludes veterans over the age of 30. Finding employment can be extremely difficult for veterans following military service, and even more challenging 

for veterans with service-related disabilities. Limiting these pilot programs to veterans of a particular age would increase the already difficult employment process 

for service-disabled veterans. While DAV supports the principle of this legislation, 

we believe S. 922 should be expanded to include all veterans, regardless of age, and 

should include more incentives for hiring disabled veterans. 

S. 927

S. 927, the Veterans’ Outreach Act of 2013, would authorize a demonstration 

project to assess the feasibility and advisability of improving VA’s outreach efforts 

by awarding grants to state and local government agencies, as well as private nonprofit organizations. The purpose of these demonstration grants would be to measure whether such partnerships are successful and should be continued and expanded in order to increase veterans awareness of the benefits and services that VA 

offers to them, their families and survivors. 

Mr. Chairman, like you, DAV is strongly committed to educating veterans about 

all of the services, benefits and programs provided by the Federal Government as 

a result of their service. Working through a core of more than 300 National Service 

Officers and Transition Service Officers, DAV reaches out to hundreds of thousands 

of veterans every year in order to educate and assist them in availing themselves 

of their earned benefits. Dozens of other veterans services organizations are also engaged in continual outreach to veterans across the country. 

In addition, DAV strongly supports chapter 63 of title 38, United States Code, 

which currently requires VA to engage in outreach activities and to report on them 

to Congress on a regular basis. We are also aware of the efforts that states and local 

government agencies have undertaken, particularly in recent years, to ensure that 

veterans are aware of the full range of benefits and services available to them and 

their families. 

However, although S. 927 would authorize new grants from VA to states, local 

governments and nonprofits, the legislation does not specifically authorize any additional funding for these purposes, nor does it require that additional appropriations 

be provided to fund such grants. As such, funding for such outreach activities might 

have to be taken from existing health care or benefit programs, both of which are 

already hard pressed to meet current demand. Too often new programs are funded 

by taking resources away from existing health care programs serving veterans, especially disabled veterans, and we would not be supportive of expanding outreach programs at the expense of existing programs for disabled veterans. 

Further, in conducting any such demonstration projects or any similar studies 

about expanded outreach, VA must carefully examine the additional costs that 

would accrue as a result of such outreach. A critical part of any such studies must 

be the cost of providing additional services and benefits to those veterans, family 

members and survivors who are brought into VA as a result of expanded outreach 

activities. DAV would not be supportive of an outreach program if it resulted in existing services and benefits being reduced for current recipients in order to provide 

benefits and services to new veterans, particularly if resources were cut for disabled 

veterans. Congress must ensure that any new outreach activities of the VA have 

sufficient funding, not just for the outreach activities themselves, but also for the 

resultant increased cost of veterans benefits and services by the those veterans who 

would be brought into the VA system. 

Mr. Chairman, DAV believes the Federal Government has a moral obligation to 

provide veterans, their families and survivors with all of the benefits and services 

they have earned through their sacrifice to this Nation, and that includes an obligation to make them aware of these benefits and services. But without a guarantee 

of sufficient funding, expanded outreach would end up being a hollow promise and 

could result in a decrease of benefits and services to those veterans who currently 

rely on VA. 

S. 928

S. 928, the Claims Processing Improvement Act of 2013, contains numerous provisions intended to improve the processing of claims for disability compensation under 

laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. As this Committee is well 

aware, VA is currently in the process of comprehensively transforming its claims 

processing system in order to address the unacceptably large backlog of pending 

claims. DAV has and will continue to urge that the focus of all claims process reVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00125 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN
122 

form efforts must be first and foremost on quality and accuracy in order to ensure 

that every veteran’s claim is done right the first time. 

Section 101 of the bill would establish a working group to study and make recommendations to improve the employee work credit and work management systems of 

the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). DAV has long supported calls for scientifically studying how VBA determines its resource needs, which must be based 

on an accurate measure of how much work can be done accurately by its employees. 

While we support the general intent of the working group proposed by this Section, 

we would make several recommendations to better focus the efforts in the context 

of the current transformation. 

First, we believe that the focus of the working group should be on developing a 

scientific, data-driven model for determining the resources needed to accurately 

process the volume of work now and in the future, as well as how to allocate those 

resources amongst VBA’s regional offices. The core of this resource needs model 

must be an accurate determination of how much work VBA employees can accurately produce at each position and experience level. Importantly, this model must 

be sufficiently dynamic to quickly adjust to changes in the laws and regulations governing disability compensation. 

Second, we would recommend that the working group not study VBA’s work management system at this time. As this Committee is aware, VBA has just completed 

implementing a brand new organization model for processing claims, and has not 

yet completed rolling out its new Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) 

to all regional offices, both of which make comprehensive changes to VBA’s work 

management systems. As such, it would be premature to study whether or not these 

new systems are or will be successful, much less recommend comprehensive changes 

to them, for the next couple of years. 

Finally, the language of Section 101 mandates that the Secretary ‘‘shall’’ implement the recommendations of this working group. As such it is imperative that the 

membership and operating rules of the working group are clearly delineated, including the total number of voting members, how decisions are made and votes taken, 

and how recommendations will be presented. 

Section 102 of the bill would establish a task force on the retention and training 

of VBA claims processors and adjudicators. DAV has been a longtime advocate for 

improvements to be made in the training of VBA employees in order to improve 

quality and accuracy. As such, DAV supports enactment of this section of the bill. 

Section 103 would streamline the requests for Federal records other than VA 

records. DAV agrees that the VA is burdened greatly in the development stage of 

a claim by not being able to retrieve records, or receive them in a timely manner, 

especially from a Federal agency. An even greater burden is shouldered by the veteran claimant who must endure unacceptable delay in processing the claim or a denial simply because the records weren’t provided to VA at its request. 

As part of VA’s duty to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate a claim, title 38, United States Code, section 5103A states the Secretary 

will make reasonable efforts to do so, including private records. While it is not defined in the law how many attempts to obtain records must be made, we do not believe the claim should languish or the VA left in an endless cycle of requests simply 

because a private entity does not or will not respond to such requests. 

However, when the records identified by the claimant are in custody of a Federal 

agency, we do not believe VA should be allowed to limit its requests. Section 103 

of this legislation states the Secretary shall not make fewer than two attempts to 

obtain Federal records, which essentially means VA will make no more than two 

requests. DAV believes the claimant would be gravely penalized by limiting the requests made by VA simply because of the lack of cooperation between Federal 

agencies. 

Additionally, we believe this section should require the Federal agency the records 

are requested from to provide the records to the VA, or a response as to why the 

records cannot be provided, within 30 days of VA’s request. 

Although we appreciate the intent of this legislation to provide quicker decisions 

for veterans whose claims are pending because Federal agencies do not respond to 

VA requests for records, we are concerned that this legislation removes rather than 

increases pressure on those Federal agencies. Instead, we believe that the provisions 

in S. 674 requiring greater accountability for Federal agencies through stricter reporting is a better approach and more likely to lead to more accurate decisions for 

veterans. 

DAV is not opposed to Sections 104, 105 and 106 of this bill. 

Section 201 would modify the filing period of a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) to 

decisions from the VA by reducing the currently allowed one year period to 180 days 

from the date of the decision. Currently the vast majority of claimants who file an 

123 

NOD already do so within 180 days. As such, one can reasonably ascertain claimants who don’t file within 180 days need the additional time to obtain and submit 

additional evidence in support of their claim. As such, DAV is opposed to Section 

201 of the bill, as we do not see any positive effect resulting from this change at 

this time. 

Section 202 would allow the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) to automatically 

select videoconference hearings to be scheduled for claimants desiring a hearing before the Board, unless the claimant specifically requests to appear in person before 

the Board. With the large number of claimants DAV represents, especially before 

the Board, we understand the benefits of the videoconference hearing process, specifically a claimant being able to be heard by the Board in a much faster and cost 

efficient manner. In fact, DAV encourages claimants desiring to have a hearing before the Board to do so by way of videoconference. As such, DAV supports this section of the bill as it would improve the timeliness of the appeal process; however, 

a veteran must always retain the right to have an in-person hearing if so desired. 

Further, we recommend the notice of appeal rights sent to a claimant include the 

automatic scheduling for a videoconference hearing before the Board along with the 

right to appear in person before the Board. 

DAV is not opposed to sections 203, 301, 302, 303 and 304 of the bill. 

Section 305 of the bill would provide an extension of temporary authority for disability medical examinations to be performed by contract physicians. If enacted, this 

section of the bill would extend this authority through December 31, 2014. The results from contracted examinations have been positive in the way of faster scheduling, more thorough, and better interaction with the physician providing the examination. As such, DAV supports this section of the bill, although we would like to 

see the authority extended further due to the positive feedback we have received 

from claimants and our National Service Officers, as well as employees in the VBA 

who review these examinations. With respect to the reporting requirement in this 

section of the bill, DAV is not clear of its actual purpose or what is hoped to be 

gained. While we have no reservation about requiring VA to provide a report about 

this process, we do question the requirement that VA do so at a time when the 

backlog of claims continues to grow. 

S. 930

S. 930 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, when there is an overpayment of benefits under Post-9/11 Educational Assistance, to deduct amounts for repayment from the last months of educational assistance entitlement. 

DAV has no resolution or position in this matter. 

S. 932

S. 932, the Putting Veterans Funding First Act of 2013, would authorize advance 

appropriations for all discretionary accounts within the VA, effective in the first and 

subsequent budgets submitted by the President following the date of enactment. 

While DAV does not have a resolution supporting the precise idea of advance appropriations for these purposes, DAV Resolution No. 216 seeks to ensure full implementation of legislation to guarantee sufficient, timely and predictable funding for VA 

health care. As this Committee is aware, DAV and the entire veterans’ service organization community strongly supported reformed appropriations legislation for VA 

health care, finally enacted as Public Law 111–81, the Veterans Health Care Budget 

Reform and Transparency Act of 2009. In the same vein as Public Law 111–81 and 

the positive impact it has had on VA health care, S. 932 seeks to provide the same 

support to veterans, their families and dependents, through all VA discretionary 

accounts. 

As this Committee also knows well, Federal programs, including the VA, have 

often been stymied in their responsibilities because they are forced to operate on flat 

or reduced spending plans constrained by continuing resolutions. If every VA program were funded in advance of need, VA decisionmakers and staff would gain confidence that funds were available long before the beginning of each budget year. 

This certainty would enable them to plan in more rational ways to ensure that veterans, their survivors and dependents, receive the benefits and services they have 

earned without delay or disruption, and would ensure VA’s myriad programs would 

be able to operate more efficiently; from a business perspective, and without the distraction of being managed in an irrational, continuing resolution environment. 

For each operative year of advance appropriations for VA health care, the Committees on the Budget have provided budget waivers to protect against points of 

order that would have prevented legislation containing advance appropriations due 

to restrictions under the governing Congressional Budget and Impoundment Act of 

124 

1974. Mr. Chairman, we believe advance appropriations for all VA accounts should 

be permanently insulated from points of order, not by uncertain and individual 

waivers to be given; the necessity for waivers to block points of order should be 

eliminated as this bill is considered by Congress. DAV requests these actions be 

taken, either in amending S. 932 itself, or in conjunction with the jurisdiction of the 

Committee on the Budget. 

Additionally, Mr. Chairman, Public Law 111–81 contained language requiring the 

Comptroller General to evaluate and report on the accuracy and sufficiency of VA’s 

formulation of its health care budgets covering fiscal years 2011, 2012 and 2013. We 

believe this monitoring and reporting function has provided a meaningful and effective source of oversight of VA’s internal budgeting processes, and leads to more accurate and sufficient budgeting over time. This authorizing language requiring GAO 

reviews was not included as a permanent part of the Code, so it has reached its 

sunset effective at the end of this fiscal year. We ask that consideration be given 

to making this mandate a permanent part of title 38, United States Code, and extending a new multi-year mandate to the GAO as an amendment to this bill. 

Based upon DAV’s practical observation, Public Law 111–81 has positively 

changed behavior in VA health care. This legislation would bring more stability, 

predictability and timely appropriations to all of VA. As such, in accordance with 

DAV Resolution No. 216, we support enactment of S. 932 and urge Congress to 

move this legislation forward as a high priority. 

S. 935

S. 935, the Quicker Veterans Benefits Delivery Act of 2013, would improve the VA 

disability claims process by prohibiting the Secretary of Veterans Affairs from requesting unnecessary medical examinations for veterans who have submitted sufficient medical evidence from non-VA medical professionals, which is competent, credible, probative and otherwise adequate for rating purposes. 

Additionally, S. 935 would expand the pre-stabilization rating criteria under section 4.28 of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, by adding a 30 percent level to 

the already established 50 percent and 100 percent level of disability for separating 

servicemembers suffering from wounds, injuries or illnesses that are not completely 

healed. Similarly, this bill would allow for a temporary minimum rating to be assigned to a veteran with one or more disabilities and sufficient evidence to support 

a minimum rating. 

While we are certainly supportive of providing a temporary minimum rating, 

which may dramatically improve the timeliness of the disability claims process for 

many veterans and VA alike, we believe the language of section 3 of the bill is too 

broad. First, expanding the pre-stabilization rating process to include a 30 percent 

level of disability would only serve to allow VA to use this percentage as the automatic base level for incompletely or unhealed conditions versus the already capable 

percentage of 50 percent, which would undoubtedly become obsolete. We believe the 

30 percent rating level would be more appropriate under the temporary minimum 

rating portion of section 3, which would allow a VA rater to, upon initial review of 

the evidence, establish that service connection is warranted for at least one disability, provide a temporary rating of at least 30 percent while the overall claim is 

being processed. This would allow veterans and their families to begin receiving 

compensation and provide eligibility for a plethora of other Federal and state benefits while the full claim is being processed. 

Last, S. 935 would provide for benefit payments to be made at the first of a month 

for the coming month instead of the current practice of benefit payments being 

made at the end of the month for the immediately passing month. 

As such, in accordance with DAV Resolution No. 205, we support enactment of 

S. 935. 

S. 938

S. 938, the Franchise Education for Veterans Act of 2013, would amend title 38, 

United States Code, to allow certain veterans to use educational assistance provided 

by the VA for franchise training. Specifically, this legislation would expand education and training opportunities under the All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance Program by allowing veterans to utilize a portion of their educational benefit 

toward franchise training. DAV recognizes not every veteran or service-disabled veteran learns in the same manner or has the same goal of achieving an educational 

degree; however, we believe there are many veterans and service-disabled veterans 

who, unfortunately, allow their education benefit entitlement to expire unused as 

they do not want to pursue an education degree type program. 

125 

In accordance with DAV Resolution No. 001, we support enactment of S. 938, as 

it would expand the use of the VA provided education benefit and empower servicedisabled veterans to use their education benefit in a manner conducive to their own 

employment interests and goals. 

S. 939

S. 939 would amend title 38, United States Code, to treat certain misfiled documents as motions for reconsideration of decisions by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals 

(Board). Under current law, when a veteran claimant receives an adverse decision 

from the Board, he or she has 120 days to file a Notice of Appeal with the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). Many veteran claimants, especially those without representation, do not distinguish the Court tribunal as being 

separate from the VA, specifically the Board or the agency of original jurisdiction 

(AOJ), primarily the VA Regional Office where the claim originated. 

When a veteran claimant receives a final, adverse decision from the Board he or 

she may inadvertently file their Notice of Appeal directly with the Board or the AOJ 

within the 120-day period rather than the Court. If the Board or AOJ does not forward the Notice of Appeal to the Court on behalf of the veteran claimant within 

the 120-day appeal period, the veteran claimant may forfeit their appeal rights and 

the Board’s decision would become final and binding. 

S. 939 would afford certain protection to a veteran claimant who submits to the 

Board or AOJ a document expressing disagreement with the Board’s decision within 

120 days of such decision. This legislation would require VA to treat such documents as a motion for reconsideration to the Board’s decision; unless the document 

clearly expresses the intent of a veteran claimant to appeal the Board’s decision to 

the Court. 

As such, in accordance with DAV Resolution No. 205, we support enactment of 

S. 939. 

S. 944

S. 944, the Veterans’ Educational Transition Act of 2013, would require courses 

of education provided by public institutions of higher education that are approved 

for purposes of the All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance Program and Post9/11 Educational Assistance to charge veterans tuition and fees at the in-State tuition rate. 

DAV has no resolution or position on this matter. 

S. 1039

S. 1039, the Spouses of Heroes Education Act, would expand the Marine Gunnery 

Sergeant John David Fry scholarship to include spouses of members of the Armed 

Forces who die in the line of duty. 

DAV has no resolution or position on this matter. 

S. 1042

S. 1042, the Veterans Legal Support Act of 2013, would authorize the Secretary 

of Veterans Affairs to provide support to university law school programs that are 

designed to provide legal assistance to veterans. Specifically, this bill would authorize financial support of $1,000,000 total derived from VA Medical Services account 

to fund this program, which is intended to provide financial support to university 

law school programs that provide legal assistance to veterans; assistance including 

filing and appealing VA claims in addition to other civil, criminal and family legal 

matters. 

S. 1042 does not provide details about the purpose of the funding nor the activities of the individuals involved in providing legal assistance. It is not clear whether 

these individuals would be accredited representatives; what if any training in this 

process will be required; what type of accessibility to VA systems and records will 

be afforded; what level of representation will be provided, etc. We believe there are 

many questions contained within this bill that are unanswered in its broad language and more specific information is necessary to fully understand the goal of this 

bill. 

While DAV does not have a resolution on this matter, we are concerned about the 

funding for this bill being taken from the VA Medical Services account, or any other 

VA account. Too often, new programs are funded by taking resources away from existing health care programs serving veterans, especially disabled veterans. DAV opposes funding any program at the expense of existing programs for disabled veterans, especially to fund a program to afford representation, which may or may not 

126 

have a cost to the veteran, when organizations like DAV and other veteran service 

organizations have a rich history and provide professional advocacy services and 

representation with no government funding and no cost to the veteran. 

S. 1058

S. 1058, the Creating a Reliable Environment for Veterans’ Dependents Act, 

would expand section 2012 of title 38, United States Code, to authorize per diem 

payments for the purpose of furnishing care to dependents of homeless veterans to 

grant recipient entities who provide comprehensive service programs for homeless 

veterans as covered under section 2011 of the same title. 

DAV has no resolution or position on this matter. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony and I would be happy to answer any 

questions from you or Members of the Committee. 

Chairman SANDERS. Thank you very much, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. de Planque. 

STATEMENT OF IAN DE PLANQUE, DEPUTY LEGISLATIVE 

DIRECTOR, THE AMERICAN LEGION 

Mr. DE PLANQUE. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and other Members of the Committee. I want to thank you on behalf of The American Legion for having us here, and I want to thank you especially 

for the large slate of bills that are being considered and the dedicated and tireless work of your staffs and the Members to bring 

such an ambitious slate to the forefront. 

I just want to touch on a couple of those things, one of which 

deals with the in-state tuition rates for veterans using the GI Bill 

benefits. 

As you know, The American Legion has a long-standing history 

with the GI Bill. We helped craft of the original GI Bill. We have 

been working tirelessly on this issue for a long time. 

We have strong support for S. 257 because it supports the widest 

number of veterans getting access to in-state tuition, and this is 

very important. We feel it is the one that puts the veterans first, 

not the States necessarily, not the schools necessarily. It is the one 

that has the interest of the veterans at heart. 

It is a difficult issue. There has been a lot of criticism of a variety of things regarding it. Using military tuition assistance at public schools has already been recognized at the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act of 2008. This is something that has already been 

agreed to. 

If you look at veterans, if you look at the servicemembers, they 

are a very small group of people, the only group of people who really have trouble maintaining the residency requirements to get 

these in-state tuition rates. 

We have already recognized that for active-duty servicemembers 

it needs to apply across all the veterans. When they stood there, 

when they took that oath, when they went to serve, they did not 

serve to defend Virginia, they did not serve to defend North Carolina, they served to defend the entire country. 

The entire country owes that back. All Americans in every State 

owe a debt of gratitude to the men and women who served in the 

Armed Forces. 

In addition, public universities are nonprofit institutions that get 

special privileges such as massive Federal and State government 

subsidies and tax exemptions based on the assumption that they 

are good stewards of the public trust. 

127 

Granting in-state rates should be seen as part of that exercise of 

trust. Student veterans face many challenges in pursuing higher 

education. There is no reason why obtaining in-state tuition rates 

should be one of them. 

We have seen with the original GI Bill what the dividend paid 

back to the country was. That is why we passed the new GI Bill 

for the veterans of the current wars; and to get that dividend, to 

get the maximum return on that dividend, we need to make sure 

that we are extending this benefit and making sure there is fairness there. 

Regarding fairness, I also want to talk about the Ruth Moore 

Act, S. 294, because it is essentially an issue of fairness. We have 

recognized already within the disability claims system that there 

are difficulties for combat veterans proving Post Traumatic Stress 

Disorder, stressors, issues of that nature. The reason they recognize it was because they knew in combat it is hard to keep records. 

There are very incomplete records. There are very inaccurate 

records. When you are sitting there engaging, fixing, destroying the 

enemy, you do not stop to take notes of every single thing that goes 

on. There was a recognition of this and so they came up with relaxed evidence standards. 

Well, we heard Senator Tester talking this morning about how 

as many as 85 percent of military sexual trauma crimes can go unreported. We know that in the past records of these incidents have 

been thrown out after a year or 3 years by mandatory regulations. 

We know this is something where the same condition exists. 

There is poor recordkeeping and victims of these terrible, terrible 

crimes that happen in the service are having to suffer again because we will not relax the evidence standards. 

The Ruth Moore Act would fix that. It will help bring them to 

the same standard that we treat the heroes of combat. We need to 

treat all of our heroes in the same way, and this is very important 

to us. 

I also want to take a moment to thank you especially, but the 

Committee as a whole, for working to help fight chained CPI for 

veterans with the cost of living increase. This is something that we 

cannot afford: to take these most vulnerable people, our disabled 

veterans and elderly veterans, and make them bear the brunt. 

Everybody always talks about how we are not going to balance 

the budget on the backs of our veterans. Well, that is what the 

chained CPI is doing. So, we want to thank you for continuing your 

flight on that, and The American Legion is happy to answer any 

questions that you have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ian de Planque follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF IAN DE PLANQUE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

LEGISLATIVE COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION

Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr and distinguished Members of the 

Committee, On behalf of Commander Koutz and the 2.4 million members of The 

American Legion, we thank you and your colleagues for the work you do in support 

of our servicemembers and veterans as well as their families. The hard work of this 

Committee in creating significant legislation has left a positive impact on our military and veterans’ community. 

Nationwide, The American Legion has over 2,600 accredited service officers to ensure veterans receive the benefits to which they are entitled at no cost to those veterans. Not only do we advocate for the 2.4 million members in our organization, but 

128 

also the millions of veterans who do not hold membership; in short, we live by the 

motto ‘‘a veteran is a veteran’’ and is deserving of representation when seeking VA 

benefits. We recognize the necessity to adequately compensate veterans and veterans’ families for disabilities incurred during service to our Nation. 

As a grassroots organization, The American Legion draws upon the strength of 

its membership to provide guidance on policies in the form of resolutions passed 

during annual national conventions or at meetings of the National Executive Committee. The will of the membership of the Legion is expressed through these resolutions, which support or oppose policy decisions on topics of concern, whether for veterans, the children and youth of America, a strong national defense, or the principles of Americanism. The support and positions of The American Legion on any 

legislation is derived from the guidance of these resolutions and the founding documents of our organization. 

S. 6: PUTTING OUR VETERANS BACK TO WORK ACT OF 2013

To reauthorize the VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011, to provide assistance to small 

businesses owned by veterans, to improve enforcement of employment and reemployment rights of members of the uniformed services, and for other purposes. 

This expansive bill renews many provisions of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act, supported by The American Legion in 2011, and expands on many of the provisions of 

that law, as well as offering other solutions to continue to address veterans’ employment concerns. 

The American Legion has been the leading veterans’ voice in getting veterans 

back to work as those who have served this Nation have suffered from unemployment rates fully two thirds or more higher than their comparative civilian cohort. 

Annually, The American Legion has worked with the Chamber of Commerce on 

hundreds of hiring fairs and put countless thousands of veterans back to work. Ensuring that the Nation’s protectors are matched up with the jobs their military service has prepared them for is a top priority of The American Legion. 

As an organization, we were deeply involved in the creation of the unified employment portal for online government hiring through development stages with the Department of Labor and the Office of Personnel Management. As the Nation’s largest 

wartime veterans organization, The American Legion is certainly cognizant of the 

many benefits to hiring veterans and supports increases to the weight of influence 

in determining an overall score, when considering the hiring veterans, as an evaluation factor in solicitations for contracts. 

At every stage of this Nation’s history, veterans of the Armed Forces have been 

vital to building the infrastructure of progress and the backbone of the labor force. 

This bill contains many important improvements to the employment environment 

for veterans to ensure they continue to provide the key role in America’s workforce 

they have always enjoyed. 

The American Legion supports this legislation. 

S. 200

A bill to amend Title 38, United States Code, to authorize the interment in national cemeteries under the control of the National Cemetery Administration of individuals who served in combat support of the Armed Forces in the Kingdom of Laos 

between February 28, 1961 and May 15, 1975, and for other purposes. 

The American Legion has no position on this legislation. 

S. 257: GI BILL TUITION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2013

Directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA), for purposes of the educational assistance programs administered by the Secretary, to disapprove courses of education 

provided by public institutions of higher education that do not charge tuition and 

fees for veterans at the same rate that is charged for in-state residents, regardless 

of the veteran’s state of residence. 

The American Legion is synonymous with veterans’ education, and was instrumental in the first, and most recent GI Bills’ passage designed to help the modernday veteran navigate the confusing world of education benefits. The main reason for 

the Post-9/11 GI Bill was that VA education benefits were no longer sufficiently 

keeping pace with fast-rising tuition costs. Working with Congress, The American 

Legion stressed the need for a ‘‘21st Century GI Bill’’ that would provide benefits 

worthy of today’s veterans, while offering similar opportunities afforded to those 

who fought in World War II. 

Critics have said that S. 257 sets a dangerous precedent for other non-resident 

students utilizing Federal aid programs. The American Legion strongly disagrees 

because military servicemembers and military veterans are the only cohort of AmerVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00132 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN
129 

1 Resolution No. 327: Support Legislation to Improve the Post-9/11 GI Bill, AUG 2012. 

icans who cannot satisfy residency requirements for in-state tuition because of circumstances beyond their control. Recognizing these unique circumstances, servicemembers are already offered this reasonable accommodation when using military 

Tuition Assistance at public schools through the Higher Education Authorization 

Act; however, once a servicemember leaves the military this protection goes away. 

The Post-9/11 GI Bill only pays in-state tuition and eligible fees. Veterans who 

settle in states other than their state of residence upon separating from the service 

are initially charged ‘‘out-of-state’’ tuition, which means they must pay the difference between the resident and non-resident charges of that state’s tuition. Servicemembers are not given the option to move to any state and establish residency 

prior to their separation from the Armed Forces, which can lead to financial burdens. 

State policies have adjusted in the last decade to allow active and reserve members to access in-state tuition rates, but separating servicemembers (future veterans) must fulfill established residency time requirements to establish state residency and access in-state tuition rates beginning the day they are discharged, and 

receive no credit for living in that state while they were serving there during their 

active duty commitment. The Yellow Ribbon Program, included in the Post-9/11 GI 

Bill, supplements costs above the ‘‘in-state’’ tuition rate by matching contributions 

made by an institution of higher learning (IHL) toward veterans’ education; however, cuts to education scholarship programs have hindered effective implementation of this program. 

Over the last couple of years, we have heard from countless veterans who, because 

of the nature of military service, have had a difficult time establishing residency for 

purposes of obtaining in-state tuition rates. Under current rules, 40,000 student-veterans have to pay the difference between in-state tuition, which is covered by the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill, and out-of-state tuition if they are attending school as a nonresident. Because of this, many of our student-veterans are unable to use their GI 

Bill benefits at an institution of higher education of their choice or are required to 

pay thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses in nonresidential tuition rates. 

This added financial burden undermines the original intent of the program. 

Additionally, public colleges and universities have significantly raised the costs of 

out-of-state tuition to offset decreasing revenues due to state budget cuts. Circumstances such as these pose significant challenges to using this important benefit. 

Because of this, and through resolution,1 The American Legion is working hard to 

ensure the Post-9/11 GI Bill receives appropriate enhancements to continually improve how this vital benefit functions for the servicemembers who utilize the benefits. 

The American Legion is addressing this issue on several fronts, and in addition 

to supporting Federal legislation, continues to lead a state-by-state initiative to introduce, advocate for, and support state legislation that would waive the residency 

requirements for separating veterans, which would grant them access to in-state 

tuition at public colleges and universities, regardless of their residency status. 

Veterans shouldn’t be penalized just because their residence of enlistment was in 

another state, or be made to assume tremendous financial burdens due to the recent 

change in law which often caps GI Bill benefits far short of the high out-of-state 

rates. Therefore, this legislation is absolutely essential to thousands of veterans who 

were promised this assistance for their college education when the Post-9/11 GI Bill 

was originally passed, and is vital to giving veterans an equal opportunity to afford 

the school of their choice. 

We were pleased to support this bipartisan effort, S. 257, which would require 

public colleges and universities to give veterans in-state tuition rates even though 

they may not be considered residents. The requirement would apply to state schools 

which have programs that are eligible to receive funding under the GI Bill. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

S. 262: VETERANS EDUCATION EQUITY ACT OF 2013

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide equity for tuition and fees for 

individuals entitled to educational assistance under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs who are pursuing programs 

of education at institutions of higher learning, and for other purposes. 

The American Legion understands that the goal of this bill is similar to that of 

S. 257. We thank Senator Durbin for taking this issue seriously and introducing legislation in an effort to ensure more equitable reimbursement for student-veterans 

130 

attending public schools. The American Legion supported this initiative in the last 

Congress, but we must explain why we have refined our position on this issue. 

Public colleges and universities have significantly raised the costs of out-of-state 

tuition to offset decreasing revenues due to state budget cuts, making any tuition 

discount all the more costly. Circumstances such as these pose significant challenges 

to using this important benefit. Because of this, many of America’s student-veterans 

are unable to use their GI Bill benefits at a school of their choice or are required 

to pay thousands of dollars in out-of-pocket expenses in nonresidential tuition rates. 

Since 1862, with the passage of the Morrill Act, institutions of higher education 

have always received some form of education subsidies. However, it was not until 

1944 with the passage of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944—the original 

GI Bill—which allowed World War II veterans to attend college at no cost, that 

those institutions of higher education began receiving their first major subsidy for 

students in higher education. The GI Bill is widely admired legislation, but like 

many subsidy programs it led to substantial wasteful spending and abuse. Some colleges and universities used Federal funds for extraneous purposes, such as swimming pools and stadiums, while others increased tuition rates charged to veterans. 

There were also cases of outright fraud by schools aimed at garnering extra Federal 

funds. 

Interestingly, the rise in student subsides coupled with the rise of tuition and 

other college expenses over the last several decades, has brought a significant spotlight on institutions of higher education. This, added to the current reality of education spending cuts, has lead institutions of higher education to view the Post9/11 GI Bill funding as nothing more than another source of subsidy to fill the void 

these cuts have created. 

The American Legion believes that increasing GI Bill funding to higher educational institutions is potentially harmful on many fronts; it encourages bloat and 

inefficiency, and is an unfair burden on taxpayers. It also poses a threat to the core 

strengths of American higher education, including institutional autonomy, competition, and innovation. While we cannot support S. 262, we sincerely appreciate Senator Durbin’s interest in this issue and we look forward to working with him on a 

fair solution for our current and future student-veterans. 

The American Legion does not support this bill. 

S. 294: RUTH MOORE ACT OF 2013

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the disability compensation 

evaluation procedure of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs for veterans with mental 

health conditions related to military sexual trauma, and for other purposes. 

The American Legion’s accredited representatives at county service offices, regional offices, and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals have acknowledged that a unique 

situation exists for victims of military sexual trauma (MST). MST is often an unreported crime, or even in the best cases poorly documented, and when MST is reported as the result of sexual assault or rape it is not uncommon for a lackluster 

investigation to occur resulting in the perpetrator of the crime never to be brought 

to justice. 

On March 26, 2013, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released a study: Returning 

Home from Iraq and Afghanistan: Assessment of Readjustment Needs of Veterans, 

Servicemembers, and Their Families. According to the study, ‘‘[M]ilitary sexual 

trauma has been occurring in high rates throughout the U.S. Armed Forces, including the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters. Sexual harassment and assaults disproportionately affect women; they have both mental and physical ramifications, and in 

many cases these victims have a difficult time readjusting.’’ As evidenced by this 

study, a staggering number of veterans reported suffering MST; over 48,000 women 

and 43,000 men have reported experiencing military sexual trauma. 

S. 294 addresses concerns raised repeatedly by The American Legion regarding 

MST. In testimony provided by The American Legion before the House Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs on July 18, 2012, 

Lori Perkio, Assistant Director for The American Legion Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Division, pointed to changes by VA in 2010 regarding combat zones and 

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and stated The American Legion’s position that the 

same consideration should be applied to MST victims as well. Both combat zones 

and MST related injuries are similar, and both types of claims reflect situations 

where there is a known and acknowledged culture of inadequate record keeping. 

Regulations allow for extra latitude on behalf of combat veterans to reflect the lack 

of record keeping, but the same consideration is not extended to rape and assault 

survivors, though their trauma is no less devastating. 

131 

2 Resolution No. 295: Military Sexual Trauma (MST), AUG 2012. 

3 Resolution No. 323: The Status of Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Business After the Death 

of the Veteran Owner, AUG 2012. 

The American Legion believes that VA should review ‘‘military personnel files in 

all MST claims and apply reduced criteria to MST-related PTSD to match that of 

combat-related PTSD.’’ 2 S. 294 adequately meets the criteria of American Legion 

resolution 295 by setting up similar criteria for MST victims as those in effect for 

combat victims. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

S. 373: CHARLIE MORGAN MILITARY SPOUSES EQUAL TREATMENT ACT OF 2013

A bill to amend titles 10, 32, 37, and 38 of the United States Code, to add a definition of spouse for purposes of military personnel policies and military and veteran 

benefits that recognizes new State definitions of spouse. 

The American Legion has no position on this legislation. 

S. 430: VETERANS SMALL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY AND PROTECTION ACT OF 2013

A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to enhance treatment of certain 

small business concerns for purposes of Department of Veterans Affairs contracting 

goals and preferences, and for other purposes. 

The American Legion has long been an advocate for amending the law to protect 

the Service Disabled Veteran Owned Business (SDVOB) status and has stated so 

through resolution.3 The American Legion works with veteran business owners all 

over the world, and has seen first-hand how the death of a veteran business owner 

creates an immediate and prejudicial hardship on the surviving spouse and family 

of the deceased veteran. The American Legion strongly supports the changes proposed in this legislation as they will properly improve and increase the benefits bequeathed to the veterans’ spouses or dependents who inherit a veteran owned business. The bill would increase the time period for a 100 percent disabled veteran’s 

spouse who has died as a result of a service-connected condition, to ten years, and 

would establish a benefit of three years for a 100 percent disabled veteran who dies 

as a result of a non-service-connected condition. 

The American Legion supports this legislation. 

S. 492

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require States to recognize the military 

experience of veterans when issuing licenses and credentials to veterans, and for 

other purposes. 

The American Legion applauds Senator Burr and his colleagues for their work in 

support of America’s servicemembers, veterans, and their families, as well as for the 

introduction of this legislation. Since 1996, The American Legion has worked tirelessly; first to bring this issue to the forefront of national attention, and second to 

work on a comprehensive solution to this issue. 

The American Legion believes that legislation designed to withhold funding could 

seriously slow, or stall the positive momentum The American Legion and Department of Defense have made, and continue to make at both national and state levels. 

At present, some states accept national certifications for licensure purposes, and 

will award a license when presented with a certification certificate. The American 

Legion believes that states should administer an examination or accept a nationally 

recognized certification as an equivalent for licensure purposes, as opposed to completion of a passing score that is based on national accepted practices. 

It is the opinion of The American Legion that the success of improving accessibility to state licensing and certification for veterans who possess equivalent 

skillsets will require the full cooperation of the state boards. We believe that in 

order for that to happen, the Federal Government must do its part to develop new 

regulations, and make changes to existing programs, policies and practices to support and reinforce what is happening in many states and across the credentialing 

industry. If Congress withholds funding from states, this will not be possible. 

As currently written, The American Legion cannot support S. 492. We appreciate 

Senator Burr’s efforts in this issue and we look forward to working with him on a 

solution for our current and future servicemembers, veterans, and their spouses that 

will advance the efforts to provide a uniformed and seamless transition for our Nation’s military trained professionals. 

The American Legion does not support this bill. 

132 

4 Resolution No. 330: Support Veterans’ Preference in Public Employment, AUG 2012. 

5 Resolution No. 295: Support Priority of Service for Veterans in All State Employment Services Agencies’ (SESA) One-Stop Centers, AUG 2004. 6 Resolution No. 323: The Status of Service-Disabled Veteran-Owned Business after the Death 

of the Veteran Owner, AUG 2012. 7 Resolution 153: Support for NASA and Advancements in Aeronautical and Space Research, 

AUG 2012. 

S. 495: CAREERS FOR VETERANS ACT OF 2013

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require Federal agencies to hire veterans, to require States to recognize the military experience of veterans when 

issuing licenses and credentials to veterans, and for other purposes. 

This broad reaching legislation takes a multifaceted approach to improving career 

prospects for veterans by addressing not only hiring of veterans, but also through 

improvements in the Federal Government’s acceptance of military experience and 

certifications and improvements in contracting goals and preferences for veteran 

owned small businesses. 

The bill would require the heads of Federal agencies to develop plans and work 

in conjunction with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to increase Federal 

hiring of veterans to include 10,000 covered veterans over the next five years. The 

American Legion recognizes better than anyone the unique contributions and 

strengths veterans bring to employers and is a devoted advocate for increasing Federal hiring of veterans. The American Legion urges all executives in government to 

enforce veterans’ preference in their respective agencies 4, and strongly supports veterans’ preference hiring and efforts to support such. 

Other provisions of the bill supported by The American Legion include support 

for improvements to state One-Stop Centers,5 the modification of treatment under 

contracting goals and preferences for small business owners after the death of disabled veteran owners,6 as well as the expansion of the contracting goals and preferences of the VA regarding veteran owned businesses. 

The American Legion supports this bill 

S. 514

A bill to amend Title 38, United States Code, to require states to provide additional Educational Assistance under Post-9/11 Educational Assistance to Veterans 

pursuing a degree in science, technology, engineering, math or an area that leads 

to employment in a high demand occupation, and for other purposes 

The American Legion supports Senator Brown’s pending legislation, S. 514, which 

seeks to provide additional educational assistance under the Post-9/11 GI Bill to better assist veterans pursuing a degree in science, technology, engineering, math or 

an area that leads to employment in a high-demand occupation. 

Based on our research, The American Legion believes that the United States, in 

the face of increasing competition, needs to maintain its hard won status as the 

world leader in science, technology, engineering, and math. Currently, there is high 

demand for jobs in these areas and our servicemembers, who have been screened, 

tested, and highly trained in a great number of highly technical military specialties, 

stand ready to significantly contribute to these sectors through innovation and ingenuity. Unfortunately, degrees in these kinds of programs can often cost more or last 

longer than other programs of education, making them a less desirable option for 

transitioning servicemembers who are concerned with starting new careers and supporting their families. 

This legislation provides additional funding for individuals in these types of educational programs that will assist the United States in maintaining its technological 

leadership in the international community, while supporting our continued national 

commitment to education in these fields of study. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

should be given the discretion to allocate additional funds for students participating 

in such programs as deemed appropriate. In August 2012, The American Legion 

passed resolution 153, because our members believe that it is imperative to the Nation’s continued world leadership and economic prosperity as well as aerospace and 

military superiority 7 to ensure that these skills remain a top priority throughout 

our American system of education. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

S. 515

A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the Yellow Ribbon G.I. 

Education Enhancement Program to cover recipients of Marine Gunnery Sergeant 

John David Fry scholarship, and for other purposes. 

133 

8 Resolution 296: Amending the Eligibility for the Transfer of the Post-9/11 GI Bill Educational benefits, AUG 2012. 9http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/02/15575983-florida-guide-uses-hunting-as-rustictherapy-for-combat-veterans?lite. 

The John David Fry Scholarship was created by Public Law 111–32 in honor of 

Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry, and amends the Post-9/11 GI Bill to include the children of servicemembers who die in the line of duty after September 10, 

2001. 

The American Legion is deeply committed to the plight of the children whose parents die on active duty in service to this Nation. The American Legion established 

the Legacy Scholarship Fund to help meet the shortfalls these children experience, 

in an attempt to make up for significant shortfalls in government money allotted 

to these children—the Federal Government gives these children a college education 

stipend worth about $37,000. Taking into account living expenses, textbooks and rising tuitions; this benefit covers little more than half of the basic college costs in the 

most affordable situations, and the price tag of higher learning will only continue 

to rise. The most conservative estimates predict a 5-percent annual increase, meaning that in 16 years the most affordable college education will rise to a staggering 

$132,800. 

The American Legion has long been a champion in the passage and improvement 

of the GI Bill; from the passage of the original GI Bill in World War II, through 

the passage of the Post-9/11 GI Bill—and through several iterations of Post-9/11 GI 

Bill Improvement Acts. The American Legion supports the full transferability of GI 

Bill benefits through resolution 296,8 and to leave the children of those who have 

made the ultimate sacrifice behind in Yellow Ribbon benefits seems contrary to the 

spirit of the laws enacted to provide education as a reward for service and sacrifice. 

This promise is the heart of the GI Bill. 

The American Legion supports this legislation. 

S. 572: VETERANS SECOND AMENDMENT ACT

A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify the conditions under which 

certain persons may be treated as adjudicated mentally incompetent for certain 

purposes. 

It is both sad and ironic that the veterans’ community, a community in which 

each and every member swore to uphold the Constitution of the United States, to 

include the 2nd Amendment, requires advocacy to maintain its constitutional right 

to bear arms. Unless deemed unfit to possess weapons by a judicial authority with 

the full benefit of due process, The American Legion believes that each veteran, regardless of disability, should maintain the right to possess a firearm. Any constitutional right should be protected with this same expectation of careful scrutiny to ensure no right is removed without due process. 

On December 2, 2012, NBC News published an article regarding veteran hunting 

trips as a form of therapy for combat veterans.9 Throughout the Nation, numerous 

organizations organize hunting trips for veterans; and even the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has acknowledged the positive effects of shooting firearms for 

some veterans. Jose Llamas, community and public affairs officer for VA’s National 

Veterans Sports Program stated that hunting is included in a veteran’s health-life 

plan, and at various adaptive sports summits throughout the Nation, veterans can 

enjoy target shooting as well as competitive marksmanship competitions. Additionally, a recent $25,000 grant was made to the Grand Junction, Colorado, VA Medical 

Center, to purchase the necessary equipment for veterans to hunt. 

Furthermore, there are concerns that the threat of being placed on a list that 

might deny them their 2nd Amendment rights could act as a deterrent for veterans 

who might otherwise seek treatment. When the positive effects of therapy for conditions such as Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) are so important, driving veterans away for fear of repercussions such as confiscation of firearms could only exacerbate existing stigmas. 

During the 94th National Convention of The American Legion, Resolution 68 was 

passed. According to the resolution, ‘‘The American Legion reaffirms its recognition 

that the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States guarantees 

each law-abiding American citizen the right to keep and bear arms; and, be it finally 

resolved, that the membership of The American Legion urges our Nation’s lawmakers to recognize, as part of their oaths of office, that the Second Amendment 

guarantees law-abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms of their choice, as 

do the millions of American veterans who have fought, and continue to fight, to preserve those rights, hereby advise the Congress of the United States and the ExecuVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN
134 

10 Resolution No. 10: Support Veteran Status for National Guard and Reserve Servicemembers 

MAY 2013. 11 Resolution No. 99: Increase the Transparency of the Veterans Benefits Administration’s 

(VBA) Claims Processing. 

tive Department to cease and desist any and all efforts to restrict these right by 

any legislation or order.’’ 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

S. 629: HONOR AMERICA’S GUARD-RESERVES ACT OF 2013

A bill to amend title 38, United States Code to recognize the service in the reserve 

components of certain persons by honoring them with status as veterans under law. 

This legislation honors, as a veteran, any person entitled to retired pay for nonregular (reserve) service or, but for age, would be so entitled. The bill provides that 

such person shall not be entitled to any benefit by reason of such recognition. 

Since the inception of the all-volunteer force, members of the National Guard and 

reserve have stood side-by-side with their active duty counterparts, ready to answer 

the call to protect the Nation. As embodied in the recently adopted Resolution No. 

10,10 The American Legion believes those who have taken that solemn oath and 

stepped forward to serve their country, the Armed Forces of the United States; 

whether active duty, reserve, or National Guard, deserve the title ‘‘Veteran.’’ 

The American Legion supports this legislation. 

S. 674: ACCOUNTABILITY FOR VETERANS ACT OF 2013

To require prompt responses from the heads of covered Federal agencies when the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs requests information necessary to adjudicate claims 

for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary, and for other purposes. 

The American Legion processes thousands of veteran disability claims each year, 

and is acutely aware of the vital need for the interagency cooperation necessary to 

develop a Fully Developed Claim (FDC). Historically, VA has called upon Federal 

agencies such as Department of Defense, Social Security Administration (SSA), and 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to provide necessary documents to support various 

claims submitted by veterans. In December 2012, Allison Hickey, VA Under Secretary for Benefits, announced a program created between VA, SSA, and IRS eliminating the need for veterans receiving pension benefits to complete the Eligibility 

Verification Report (EVR). This serves as the example of a positive relationship between VA and other Federal entities. 

The American Legion has called upon Congress to ‘‘to pass legislation that requires VA be held accountable for achieving the VA Secretary’s stated goal to 

achieve an operational state for VA in which no claim is pending over 125 days and 

all claims have an accuracy rate of 98 percent or higher, which is detailed in American Resolution 99.’’ 11 As we are calling upon VA to adjudicate claims in a timely 

and accurate manner, accordingly, it is only appropriate that we also allow for VA 

to have the all available tools to accomplish the stated objectives. If a separate government entity holds a veteran’s records that are pertinent to a VA claim, then that 

entity should comply with VA’s request in a timely manner and provide the necessary required documentation. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

S. 690: FILIPINO VETERANS FAIRNESS ACT OF 2013

To amend title 38, United States Code, to deem certain service in the organized 

military forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the 

Philippine Scouts to have been active service for purposes of benefits under programs administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

In brief, this bill will strike the word ‘‘not’’ in two subsections in section 107 of 

title 38, U.S.C.. By striking this word and the remainder of the subsections the 

U.S.C. will read: 

(a) Service before July 1, 1946, in the organized military forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, while such forces were in the 

service of the Armed Forces of the United States pursuant to the military order 

of the President dated July 26, 1941, including among such military forces organized guerrilla forces under commanders appointed, designated, or subsequently 

recognized by the Commander in Chief, Southwest Pacific Area, or other competent authority in the Army of the United States, shall be deemed to have 

been active military, naval, or air service for the purposes of any law of the 

United States conferring rights, privileges, or benefits upon any person by reaVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00138 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN
135 

12 Resolution No. 44: Dependency and Indemnity Compensation. 

son of the service of such person or the service of any other person in the Armed 

Forces. 

(b) Service in the Philippine Scouts under section 14 of the Armed Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945 shall be deemed to have been active military, 

naval, or air service for the purposes of any of the laws administered by the 

Secretary. 

Also, this bill introduces additional wording for determination of eligibility. It 

charges the Secretary shall take into account any alternative documentation regarding such service, including documentation other than the Missouri List, that the 

Secretary determines relevant. 

This bill adds a report the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on Veterans’ 

Affairs of the Senate and House of Representative that includes: 

(a) The number of such individuals applying for benefits pursuant to this section during the previous year; and 

(b) The number of such individuals that the Secretary approved for benefits. 

The American Legion has no position on this legislation. 

S. 695: VETERANS PARALYMPICS ACT OF 2013

A bill to amend Title 38, United States Code, to extend the Authorization of appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to pay a monthly assistance allowance to Disabled Veterans training or competing for the Paralympics team, and the 

authorization of appropriations for the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide assistance to United States Paralympics, Inc., and for other purposes. 

The American Legion has no position on this legislation. 

S. 705: WAR MEMORIAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2013

A bill to amend Title 36, United States Code, to ensure Memorials commemorating the service of the United States Armed Forces may contain religious symbols, 

and for other purposes. 

As an organization whose motto reads ‘‘For God and Country’’ the notion that memorializing those who have served and sacrificed on behalf of this Nation could be 

rendered devoid of recognition of their faith is alien and abhorrent. The American 

Legion was a leading voice in the fight to protect the Mojave Cross in the California 

desert to honor the sacrifices of the fallen. The American Legion was a leading voice 

ensuring families of veterans in National Cemeteries have their religious faith recognized as a part of funeral services. While faith is an intensely personal matter 

to a great majority of our veterans, The American Legion believes that a veteran’s 

choice to recognize his or her particular faith on his or her own personal memorial 

is in keeping with the protections of all personal choices guaranteed to any American citizen under any other circumstance. 

That such a bill would even be considered necessary is disheartening, but The 

American Legion will always protect the rights of those who serve to enjoy their 

First Amendment protection to freely express their religious affiliation on their 

grave markers. We thank Ranking Member Burr for taking up this fight. 

The American Legion supports this legislation. 

S. 735: SURVIVOR BENEFITS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2013

To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve benefits and assistance provided to surviving spouses of veterans under laws administered by the Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. 

S. 735 addresses several areas that would improve the quality of life for dependents receiving VA benefits, to include Dependency and Indemnity Compensation 

(DIC). The American Legion family has hundreds of thousands of members that are 

directly affected by this provision, and has previously called upon Congress to eliminate the age criteria for a surviving spouse to remarry and continue to receive DIC 

benefits.12

Thailand and herbicide exposure has been a continual concern for The American 

Legion. As the regulations currently read, a veteran who served in Thailand during 

the Vietnam Era has to prove exposure to Agent Orange and other herbicides; this 

process has proven to be burdensome for both veterans and surviving spouses. As 

a result, a veteran who may have been exposed to herbicides while serving in Thailand may not have received the entitled benefits associated with herbicide exposure. 

Equally as important, widows of veterans exposed to herbicides that may have met 

their demise due to a condition associated with herbicide exposure are ineligible for 

136 

13 Resolution No. 199: Agent Orange. 14 Resolution No. 43: Veteran Coding on Driver’s Licenses. 

benefits, such as DIC. Additionally, children of veterans who have served in Thailand that may have been born with conditions associated with the veteran’s herbicide exposure have also been identified as ineligible for benefits. 

The American Legion has repeatedly called for a full recognition of veterans that 

served in Thailand between January 9, 1962, and May 7, 1975, to be recognized as 

presumptively exposed to herbicides and ‘‘seek legislation to amend title 38, United 

States Code, section 1116, to provide entitlement to these presumptions for those 

veterans who were exposed to Agent Orange while serving in areas other than the 

Republic of Vietnam where Agent Orange was tested, sprayed, or stored and has 

called for this recognition through resolution number 199.’’13 Ultimately, it is our 

belief that a veteran, no matter where the herbicide exposure occurred, should be 

entitled to the same benefit as veterans that were exposed to herbicides in Vietnam. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

S. 748: VETERANS PENSION PROTECTION ACT

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to consider the resources of individuals applying for pension that were recently 

disposed of by the individuals for less than fair market value when determining the 

eligibility of such individuals for such pension, and for other purposes. 

The American Legion and our network of over 2,600 service officers regularly 

work with veterans and their families to ensure they receive the benefits they deserve. Over the last several years, it has become more apparent that predatory actors are moving in and taking advantage of elderly veterans in a vulnerable position, by engaging in questionable business practices which can fleece a veteran of 

their money while offering false promises of pension programs to pay for elder care 

facilities. 

While The American Legion is tremendously appreciative of Senator Wyden’s attention to this issue, and this legislation’s aim is admirable—seeking to protect veterans from these predatory practices by increasing the look back period when examining veterans’ assets, The American Legion has reservations as to whether or not 

this is the most appropriate measure to provide relief to veterans and their families. 

Research conducted through The American Legion’s network of service providers 

shows, that this new look back period would affect surviving spouses of veterans 

who need benefits, as well as questions how VA would be able to address the increased workload of the look back period when pension centers struggle to address 

their existing workload. 

However, as this is a matter of concern, The American Legion continues to work 

with the expertise of our service officers, membership and staff to determine a 

course of action which would provide remedy in this situation. When such a remedy 

is determined, then by our own resolution process our membership, will The American Legion be able to ratify a plan for taking action. Due to the complexity of the 

situation, there is no consensus and therefore we can neither support nor oppose 

this course of action. 

The American Legion has no position on this legislation. 

S. 778

To authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to issue cards to veterans that 

identify them as veterans, and for other purposes. 

The American Legion recognizes that many states currently provide driver’s licenses indicating a licensed driver is a veteran. For veterans residing in these 

states, a veteran can proudly prove service to this Nation. Additionally, for retail 

outlets that may offer discounts for veterans, a government sanctioned identification 

card would require the necessary proof of military, naval, or air service. Some outlets no longer accept as proof of service a copy of a DD–214 as the document does 

not provide a photograph of the veteran. 

Beyond the lack of photograph provided on a DD–214 is the form itself and how 

it could cause harm to the veteran through repeatedly showing the form in public. 

Public review of a DD–214 would reveal the veteran’s Social Security number and 

other personal privacy information. In this age of widespread identity theft, it is 

possible a veteran’s identity could be stolen simply through proving veteran’s status 

at a retail outlet by displaying their DD–214; so in short, it could be a heavy price 

to pay due to trying to receive a discount at a retail outlet. 

The American Legion has passed resolution number 43 that encourages state governments to include a veteran identifier on drivers’ licenses.14 A nationwide vetVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00140 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN
137 

15 Resolution 109: The Department of Veterans Affairs Mental Health Services, AUG 2012. 16 Resolution 301: Eliminate delimiting dates for the Montgomery GI Bill and Post-9/11 GI 

Bill, AUG 2012. 

eran’s card could accomplish the same goal of having identification indicating veteran status without including the veteran’s Social Security number. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

S. 819: VETERANS MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT FIRST ACT OF 2013

A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to require a program of mental 

health care and rehabilitation for veterans for service-related Post Traumatic Stress 

Disorder, depression, anxiety disorder, or a related substance use disorder, and for 

other purposes. 

This bill calls for VA to start mental health treatment for veterans regardless of 

whether or not they have been service-connected for a mental health condition. The 

bill would prohibit veterans from seeking service connection during that period, but 

would provide alternative forms of compensation to the veteran during the treatment period. 

The American Legion is deeply concerned about the mental health care received 

by America’s veterans. Mental health care is one of the components examined by 

the System Worth Saving Task Force through our annual visits to VHA medical facilities. The American Legion maintains an Ad Hoc Committee on PTSD and TBI 

to continually research new information on these concerns facing American veterans. 

While The American Legion applauds efforts to get veterans into treatment, and 

through resolution number 109 works to monitor the ongoing effectiveness 15 of the 

Mental Health Strategic Plan of VHA, we are concerned about the lack of ability 

for veterans to apply for service connection during this period. The longer a veteran 

waits from discharge from service, the more difficult it can be to find appropriate 

records and ultimately obtain service connection for injuries incurred or aggravated 

by military service. It would be troubling to realize that a veteran could lose out 

on lifetime service connection and health care for a mental health condition in the 

interest of short term obtaining mental health care. 

The American Legion is willing to work with Ranking Member Burr to find a way 

to make this program effective without reducing a veteran’s rights to service connection, but cannot support the bill at this time. 

The American Legion does not support this legislation. 

S. 863: VETERANS BACK TO SCHOOL ACT OF 2013

To amend title 38, United States Code, to repeal time limitations on the eligibility 

for use of educational assistance under All-Volunteer Force Educational Assistance 

Program, to improve veterans education outreach, and for other purposes. 

The Montgomery GI Bill for active duty servicemembers and veterans requires 

each enrolled servicemember to make a non-refundable contribution up front. In return, they can use their entitlement—up to 36 months—to help pay for education, 

apprenticeship, and job training. However, the entitlement automatically expires 10 

years after the veteran leaves active duty service. According to the Department of 

Veterans Affairs, nearly 30 percent of eligible veterans are unable to use any of 

their Montgomery GI Bill education benefits and most eligible veterans are only 

able to access a portion of them before the 10-year limit is reached. 

This legislation would change the expiration from 10 years after the veteran 

leaves active duty service to 10 years after the veteran begins using the benefit. The 

American Legion, by resolution,16 supports changes to the delimiting dates for the 

Montgomery GI Bill. In addition, the provisions to support and extend offices of veterans’ affairs to more campuses are especially timely and relevant given the increasing number of student-veterans on campuses and their unique needs. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

S. 868: FILIPINO VETERANS PROMISE ACT OF 2013

A bill to require the Secretary of Defense to establish a process to determine 

whether individuals claiming certain service in the Philippines during World War 

II are eligible for certain benefits despite not being on the Missouri List, and for 

other purposes. 

This bill is aligned in purpose with S. 690, the Filipino Veterans Fairness Act. 

The American Legion has no position on this legislation. 

138 

17 Resolution No. 178: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Disability Compensation, AUG 

2012. 18 Resolution No. 296: Support the Development of Veterans On-The-Job Training Opportunities, AUG 2004. 

S. 893: VETERANS COMPENSATION COST OF LIVING ACT OF 2013

A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for annual cost-of-living 

adjustments to be made automatically by law each year in the rates of disability 

compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for survivors of certain service-connected disabled veterans. 

The American Legion strongly supports a periodic cost-of-living adjustment 

(COLA) for veterans reflective of increased expenses due to inflation and other factors. However, there are many factors currently being considered regarding the calculation of COLA that merit discussion. 

Within The American Legion’s Code of Procedures, accredited representatives are 

advised under no circumstances should they cause harm to veterans’ claims for benefits. Current provisions contained in the President’s 2014 proposed budget, as well 

as in amendments to other bills that have been introduced from time to time, would 

replace the current Consumer Price Index (CPI) used to calculate increases to Social 

Security COLA with a so-called Chained CPI (C-CPI). Through chaining VA benefits 

to the new C-CPI and COLA for Social Security benefits, the veteran community 

would indeed be harmed. On December 19, 2012, Dean Stoline, Deputy Director of 

The American Legion Legislative Division, stated that a chained CPI is misguided 

policy and ‘‘would have significant deleterious effect on the benefits of millions of 

veterans.’’ 

Chairman Sanders has provided evidence that displays the long term negative effect upon the veteran community should Congress mandate a C-CPI approach to determining COLA increases. According to a press release from Sen. Sanders’ office, 

the proposal would cut VA disability benefits for a 30-year-old veteran by more than 

$13,000 a year by age 45, $1,800 a year by age 55, and $2,260 a year by age 65. 

Senior citizens who retire by age 65 would see their Social Security benefits reduced 

by about $650 a year by the time they reach 75, and more than $1,000 a year when 

they turn 85. These cuts would certainly place many veterans and their families’ 

economic security in peril. 

By resolution 17 ‘‘The American Legion support[s] legislation to amend title 38, 

United States Code, section 1114, to provide a periodic COLA increase and to increase the monthly rates of disability compensation; and*** oppose[s] any legislative effort to automatically index such [COLA] adjustments to the [COLA] adjustment for Social Security recipients, non-service-connected disability recipients and 

death pension beneficiaries.’’ The opposition to direct and automatic connection to 

the Social Security policies reflects the understanding that veterans and specifically 

disabled veterans represent a unique subsection of the American community, and 

their unique concerns should receive individual consideration when determining the 

need for periodic increases for cost of living. 

The American Legion encourages Congress to seriously examine the disastrous 

long term negative consequences of C-CPI for veterans. The long-term negative effects created through permitting C-CPI for VA benefits could cause serious financial 

harm to millions of veterans. 

The American Legion supports an increased Cost-of-Living Adjustment for veterans, but would like to see the legislation amended to ensure veterans’ COLA is 

protected from being changed to reflect a C-CPI model to the detriment of disabled 

veterans. 

S. 894

A bill to amend Title 38, United States Code, to extend expiring authority for 

work-study allowances for individuals who are pursuing programs of rehabilitation, 

education, or training under the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to expand such authority to certain outreach services provided through congressional offices, and for other purposes 

This bill is an extension of the Department of Veterans Affairs authority to offer 

certain work-study allowances for student-veterans due to expire mid-year. The 

American Legion has long supported the Department of Veterans Affairs work-study 

program as defined through resolution number 296 18 and supports this initiative 

to maintain as many of these work-study opportunities as possible. 

This program provides a valuable benefit to student-veterans and that benefit is 

often multiplied many times over when, for example, they are allowed to perform 

139 

19 Resolution No. 18: Authorization to Seek Grants for Training and Job Placement for Veterans. 

Resolution No. 296: Support The Development of Veterans On-the-Job Training Opportunities.

Resolution No. 313: Support for the Military Transition Program. 

Resolution No. 313: Support for the Military Transition Program. 

outreach services to servicemembers and veterans furnished under the supervision 

of a State Approving Agency employee. This is just one instance of the important 

work that is accomplished by these student-veterans. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

S. 922 VETERANS EQUIPPED FOR SUCCESS ACT OF 2013

A bill to require the Secretary of Labor to carry out a pilot program on providing 

wage subsidies to employers who employ certain veterans and members of the 

Armed Forces and require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a pilot program on providing career transition services to young veterans, and for other purposes. 

When veterans return to the workforce either right off of active duty service or 

after obtaining a college degree, they still face challenges in obtaining gainful employment. One of the barriers is the lack of experience in the private sector, which 

is why The American Legion has passed resolutions 19 that support programs that 

encourage employers to create on-the-job training (OJT) opportunities for veterans 

and programs that provide financial incentives for employers who hire and provide 

training for veterans. The American Legion believes that the two pilot programs 

called for in this bill are complimentary to the OJT program already in place in the 

Department of Veterans Affairs. The range of veterans eligible for an OJT opportunity in the private sector is increased to those that have exhausted their GI Bill 

benefits and older veterans whose GI Bill benefits have expired. Further, on top of 

incentivizing employers to participate, the eligibility parameters of the pilot programs allows for more corporate employers to participate. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

S. 927: VETERANS OUTREACH ACT OF 2013

A bill to require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to carry out a demonstration 

project to assess the feasibility and advisability of using State and local government 

agencies and nonprofit organizations to increase awareness of benefits and services 

for veterans and to improve coordination of outreach activities relating to such benefits and services, and for other purposes. 

This legislation calls upon VA to increase outreach to the veterans of America to 

utilize the services available to them. With over 22 million veterans in America, surprisingly The American Legion has found that only a fraction of those veterans utilize the services provided to them. 

The American Legion is deeply committed to getting the word out to veterans 

about the benefits they have earned through their hard service and sacrifice on behalf of this great Nation. With over 2.4 million members, and thousands of Posts 

located in every town nationwide, our organization is uniquely positioned within the 

veterans’ community to spread the word, but such efforts work best when in partnership with the VA. The American Legion has over a dozen resolutions calling on 

greater efforts in outreach from VA in every field, from women’s health care to volunteer work, and to benefits related to exposure to Agent Orange. The American 

Legion is committed to working with VA to reach every corner of the veterans’ community. 

While state and local authorities are an important component of outreach, it is 

our hope VA recognizes the most important partnership for reaching veterans is 

with The American Legion and with other non-profit Veteran’s Service Organizations. 

The American Legion supports this legislation. 

S. 928: CLAIMS PROCESSING IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2013

A bill to improve the processing of claims for compensation under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes. 

The purpose of this legislation is to provide a multi-faceted approach to dealing 

with the claims backlog. The rising claims backlog has increasingly become a problem with the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), and the past three years 

have seen the backlog leap from approximately 37 percent of all claims pending past 

the target goal of 125 days to nearly 70 percent of all claims now pending over 125 

140 

days. All of this is occurring while VA struggles to increase the accuracy of processing. 

The American Legion, with over 2,600 accredited service officers nationwide, is 

deep in the trenches of the war against the backlog. On a daily basis, American Legion service officers help thousands of veterans navigate the complex and convoluted 

system to receive benefits they have earned by becoming disabled while serving 

their country, and has recently partnered with The White House and the VA to 

spearhead the Fully Developed Claim (FDC) initiative The American Legion is an 

industry recognized expert in this area and has decades of experience in this area. 

This bill is broad in its reach and scope, and is best addressed by breaking it 

down into its component sections. 

Section 101— 

This section directs the establishment of a working group to improve employee 

work credit and work management systems. The American Legion has already submitted to Congress and the VA proposals on how the work credit system must be 

fixed to include better accounting for accuracy as a measurable quantity. As it 

stands now, employees receive the same credit whether work is done properly or inaccurately, and such a system must be amended to take credit away for inaccurate 

work, but also to reward workers who take the necessary time to get the job done 

right the first time. The American Legion has tried to work with all parties to get 

a better system implemented, rather than waiting upon the work of a study group. 

The sooner VA can amend their work credit system, the sooner the system can better serve veterans. 

Section 102— 

This section directs the establishment of a task force on retention and training 

at VA. Certainly VA employees have problems with retention, and the work is complicated enough that continually retraining the work force is counterproductive. The 

American Legion reiterates the concern that simply appointing another task force 

or study commission only further delays actual progress on remedying the issue. 

Section 103— 

This section addresses efforts to obtain information from other Federal agencies. 

The American Legion has been vocal in their concerns about the breakdown of communication between VA and DOD in combining efforts on a Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record. Rather than work on a single system which would vastly improve 

communication between agencies, VA and DOD continue to walk down separate and 

individual paths. Improvements in communications between VA and all Federal 

agencies is an important part of the disability claims process and The American Legion supports improvements in this area. 

Section 104— 

This section deals with recognition of the phrase ‘‘Indian tribes’’ with respect to 

subsection 5902(a)(1) of Title 38 of the United States Code. The American Legion 

has no position on this section. 

Section 105— 

This section deals with creating pilot programs with tribal and local governments 

to improve the claims quality of disability compensation claims. The American Legion has no position on this section. 

Section 106— 

This section requires quarterly progress reports on the progress of VA in eliminating the backlog. The American Legion is concerned about the lack of intermediary benchmarks from VA regarding reaching their goal of 98 percent accuracy 

and no claim pending longer than 125 days. Certainly some level of reporting to 

show clear progress would help with what has often been a lack of transparency in 

this area. 

Section 201— 

This section would reduce the filing deadline for an appeal from one year to 180 

days. The American Legion opposes any reduction in a veteran’s appellate rights. 

Section 202— 

This section calls for all hearings to be conducted before the Board of Veterans 

Appeals through video hearings. Although it allows for a process for a veteran to 

request a personal hearing, it is unclear what the appellate rights are in this case. 

The American Legion retains concerns that whatever process is in place must be 

in the best interest of the veteran, and not simply a more expedient measure for 

141 

20 Resolution 180: Assured Funding for VA Medical Care, AUG 2012. 21 Resolution 200: Exempt VA Benefits and Services from PAY-GO Provisions, AUG 2012. 

the Board to alleviate the burden of communicating with the veteran. While there 

may be some improvement in the schedule to hear from veterans, it is important 

that veteran’s concerns must be held paramount in these decisions. 

Section 301— 

This section extends operational authority for the Manila Regional Office. The 

American Legion agrees with the importance of maintaining operations to serve veterans in the Philippines. 

Section 302— 

This section extends the period for scheduling medical exams for veterans receiving temporary disability ratings for severe mental disorders from six months to 540 

days. The American Legion has no position on this extension. 

Section 303— 

This section extends the marriage delimiting date for surviving spouses of Persian 

Gulf War veterans to qualify for death pension to a date ten years after the Persian 

Gulf War ends. As long as the war remains open, this benefit and all associated benefits must be extended to reflect the ongoing nature of the conflict. 

Section 304— 

This section adjusts effective dates for benefits eligibility based on veterans’ children. The American Legion has no position on this section. 

Section 305— 

This section extends temporary authority for performing medical examinations by 

contract physicians. The American Legion recognizes the importance of these contract examinations in fulfilling examinations for disability and compensation purposes, especially in the midst of the backlog. Renewal of the contracting authority 

is important at this critical juncture. 

The American Legion supports portions of this bill and holds no position on other 

portions. The American Legion opposes reducing the appellate rights of veterans, especially as concerned in sections 201 and 202. 

S. 932: PUTTING VETERANS FUNDING FIRST ACT OF 2013

A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for advance appropriations 

for certain discretionary accounts of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

This bill, as is the case with the companion legislation H.R. 813 in the House of 

Representatives, recognizes the importance of providing timely, predictable funding 

for the Department of Veterans Affairs and would, as is the case with medical funding because of advanced appropriations, require Congress to fully fund the VA discretionary budgets a year ahead of schedule. The American Legion helped lead the 

way in the fight for advance appropriations for medical funding. In the current political climate, with sequestration and budget battles lurking around every corner, 

it is important to help set aside veterans’ funding as separate and distinct from 

these battles. This is a bipartisan notion, as all Americans agree that those who 

have sacrificed through their service should not bear the brunt of squabbles and political infighting. 

The current budgets of VA must grapple with ongoing efforts to address infrastructure insufficiencies in construction, IT and other projects, and advance funding 

would make the planning necessary to avoid undue waste possible. 

The arbitrary budget axe has become a very real fear in the current political landscape. Politicians from both sides repeat the oft cited pledge ‘‘not to balance the 

budget on the backs of our veterans.’’ This legislation would help protect veterans 

from just such uncertainties. Resolutions of The American Legion advocate protections for advance funding for medical budgets 20 and for protecting VA from PAYGO provisions.21 It is time to ensure all of VA’s budgets are protected. 

The American Legion supports this legislation. 

S. 939

A bill to amend Title 38, United States Code, to treat certain misfiled documents 

as motions for reconsideration of decisions by the Board of Veterans Appeals, and 

for other purposes. 

The American has seen first-hand how misfiled documents can severely harm a 

veteran pursuing assistance or service-connected disability recognition from the DeVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN
142 

partment of Veteran Affairs. This bill attempts to help address issues of confusion, 

wherein a veteran mistakenly files documents intended for the Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims (CAVC) to the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA). Many veterans 

are unaware that their appellate rights transfer between branches of government, 

moving from the Executive to the Judicial branch. The American Legion is intimately familiar with the appeals process, and the confusing notification letters sent 

to veterans by VA, and that these documents are extremely difficult for the average 

person to make sense of. Certainly for unrepresented veterans, the legal options 

available to them are confusing, and may subsequently file their notice of ‘‘dissatisfaction with the determination of the BVA’’ to the incorrect entity. 

The veterans’ disability claims process has long been recognized as ‘‘uniquely proclaimant’’ by the courts, and in this spirit, The American Legion wants the benefit 

of the doubt extended to veterans at every step of the process. While more must 

be done to help direct veterans to accredited representation to help make sense of 

these processes, veterans should not be penalized unduly for a failure to understand 

every complexity of the arduous appeals process when there is a reasonable chance 

to view their claim in a favorable light. 

The American Legion supports this legislation. 

S. 944: VETERANS’ EDUCATIONAL TRANSITION ACT OF 2013

To amend title 38, United States Code, to require courses of education provided 

by public institutions of higher education that are approved for purposes of the AllVolunteer Force Educational Assistance Program and Post-9/11 Educational Assistance to charge veterans tuition and fees at the in-State tuition rate, and for other 

purposes. 

The American Legion applauds Chairman Sanders and Ranking Member Burr for 

joining the push to prevent public colleges and universities from charging student 

veterans out-of-state tuition with the introduction of this legislation. However, we 

believe S. 257, which has a companion bill that has cleared committee in the House, 

should be the vehicle through which we offer our veterans reasonable in-state tuition protections while using their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. 

S. 944 has limitations not included in the S. 257 or the House bill which are very 

disconcerting. In-state tuition would be required only for veterans who are within 

two years of separation from active duty when they enroll. They would have to live 

in the state while attending school. The bill would exclude those servicemembers 

who served less than 180 days and qualify for 40% of Post-9/11 GI Bill funding. Finally, it would allow VA to waive in-state tuition to institutions of higher learning 

if the Secretary determines such a waiver is appropriate. 

These provisions concede too much to states and their public colleges and universities to the detriment of America’s veterans. Opponents of legislation to require instate rates claim that it can potentially discourage the veteran from pursuing postsecondary education altogether if states or schools choose to opt out; however, accruing huge financial burdens is more detrimental to these veterans in our view. As 

public colleges and universities seek ways to recoup decreasing revenues, many have 

significantly raised the costs of out-of-state tuition. The cap for GI Bill benefits often 

falls short of that high out-of-state rate. Furthermore, because of the nature of military service, veterans, and beneficiaries, often have a difficult time establishing residency for purposes of obtaining in-state tuition rates. Circumstances such as these, 

which oftentimes require them to live in certain areas, especially during the time 

when they are separated from the uniformed services, pose significant challenges 

when they wish to use this important benefit. 

Critics have also said that legislation of this type sets a dangerous precedent for 

other non-resident students utilizing Federal aid programs. The American Legion 

strongly disagrees because military servicemembers and military veterans are the 

only cohort of Americans who cannot satisfy residency requirements for in-state tuition because of circumstances beyond their control. Recognizing these unique circumstances, servicemembers are already offered this reasonable accommodation 

when using military Tuition Assistance at public schools through the Higher Education Authorization Act of 2008; however, once a servicemember leaves the military 

this protection goes away. Therefore, states have already conceded the point that 

educating those who serve is not only a Federal financial obligation and have agreed 

to make this reasonable accommodation for those currently serving. They should do 

the same for our veterans for the same reasons. That states have already made arrangements to do so before also demonstrates that complaints about the obstacles 

to amending state tuition laws are overblown and, in fact, disingenuous. 

After all, all Americans, in every state, owe a debt of gratitude to the men and 

women who served in the Armed Forces of the United States. In addition, public 

143 

universities are nonprofit institutions that get special privileges, such as massive 

Federal and state government subsidies and tax exemptions, based on the assumption that they are good stewards of the public trust. Granting in-state rates should 

be seen as part of the exercise of this trust. Student-veterans face many challenges 

pursuing higher education, there is no reason why obtaining in-state tuition should 

be one of them. By requiring public colleges and universities that receive GI Bill 

benefit payments to offer all veterans in-state tuition, Congress stays true to the 

intent of the GI Bill by enabling our veterans to pursue a higher education and jobs 

skills through the benefits they have earned. 

We thank Chairman Sanders and Ranking Member Burr for their leadership on 

this issue and look forward to working with all stakeholders to ensure we can pass 

reasonable in-state tuition protections for currently-enrolled GI Bill beneficiaries 

and future student-veterans. 

The American Legion cannot support this bill as written. 

Chairman SANDERS. Thank you very much, Mr. de Planque. 

Colonel Norton. 

STATEMENT OF COLONEL ROBERT F. NORTON, USA (RET.), 

DEPUTY DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, MILITARY 

OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA 

Colonel NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. 

First, I want to join with my colleagues in thanking you and all 

the Members of the Committee and your staffs for the great work 

that went into putting together this very ambitious slate of bills, 

most of which we strongly support. 

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the 380,000 members of the Military 

Officers Association of America, it is an honor for me to be here 

today to present our views on some of the bills before you. My 

statement addresses almost all of them, and I will limit my remarks to just a few of these measures. 

First, S. 6, Putting Our Veterans Back to Work Act, would extend transition services deadlines under the VOW to Hire Heroes 

Act and for other purposes. We strongly support the bill. 

As of May 1, almost 45,000 older veterans were being trained in 

a career field under the VRAP program of the VOW Act. We commend the Committee and the VA for launching the program and 

strongly support extending the deadlines in the legislation. 

We also recommend a grandfathering provision to allow veterans 

who cannot finish a licensing requirement within the 1-year period 

required to be allowed to complete that licensure or certification 

program, and we also suggest that 4-year colleges that offer licensing and certification programs be allowed to participate in the 

VRAP. 

MOAA supports S. 430, the Veteran Small Business Opportunity 

and Protection Act. It would allow a surviving spouse of a servicedisabled veteran to acquire the ownership interest in a small business of the deceased veteran for purposes of eligibility for VA service-disabled, small business contracting goals and preferences. 

The Careers for Veterans Act, S. 495, helps our transitioning veterans by requiring States to recognize the exceptional training and 

experience provided in military service toward the award of a civilian license or certification in a comparable field. MOAA strongly 

supports S. 495. 

S. 629, the Honor America’s Guard and Reserve Retirees Act. Its 

sole purpose is honor, to honor certain career reservists who have 

144 

served their Nation faithfully for more than 20 years but during 

that service did not perform any duty on formal active duty orders. 

On Veterans’ Day, Memorial Day, and other days celebrating our 

national heritage and honoring all those who served and sacrificed 

on behalf of our country, there are tens of thousands of career National Guard and Reserve members who cannot stand up to be recognized as veterans of the Armed Forces alongside their colleagues. 

S. 629 specifically prohibits the award of any veterans benefits. 

Its only and exclusive purpose is honor. I think the best way to 

sum up this bill is from the letter of a retired New York Army National Guard master sergeant who wrote recently, ‘‘I served for 2 

weeks at Ground Zero in Manhattan after the attacks on our homeland on September 11, 2001. Later I served in Germany supporting 

the deployment of our forces for operations in Iraq but I am not 

a veteran of the Armed Forces of the United States.’’ 

On his behalf and on the behalf of tens of thousands of other career reservists MOAA strongly supports S. 629. 

S. 735, the Survivor Benefits Improvement Act, addresses a longstanding MOAA goal: to allow surviving military spouses to retain 

their dependency and indemnity compensation payments if they remarry after age 55, and that would make it consistent with all 

other Federal survivor programs. Along with the other provisions 

in this bill, we strongly support your bill, the Survivor Benefits Improvement Act. 

We also support S. 928, your bill, Mr. Chairman, the Claims 

Processing Improvement Act. The bill requires the VA to report on 

progress toward achieving its goal of eliminating the claims backlog 

by 2015 and for other purposes. 

Finally, I would like to be in the Greek chorus to Senator 

Merkley and Senator Heller and thank them for their leadership 

in introducing S. 1039, the Spouses of Heroes Education Act. 

S. 1039 would authorize Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry 

Scholarships to spouses of members of the Armed Forces who died 

in the line of duty after September 10, 2001. 

As Senator Merkley and Senator Heller pointed out, the Fry 

Scholarships provide post-9/11 GI Bill benefits for the children of 

fallen members of our Armed Forces who died in the line of duty. 

Unfortunately, their parents, the surviving spouses, are not eligible for them. Instead, they are left with an inferior educational assistance benefit, DEA. 

Under DEA, a survivor receives only $987 per month for fulltime study, but no housing allowance and no book stipend. Without 

access to the Fry Scholarships, surviving spouses of the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts will have difficulty paying for the cost of an 

education and better preparing their small children to use the Fry 

Scholarship when they are of age. MOAA strongly supports this 

bill, S. 1039, the Spouses of Heroes Education Act. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you again for your leadership on these benefit issues and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Colonel Norton follows:] 

145 

STATEMENT OF COLONEL ROBERT F. NORTON, USA (RET.), DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, MILITARY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA


612MOAA1.eps
146 


612MOAA2.eps
147 


612MOAA3.eps
148 


612MOAA4.eps
149 


612MOAA5.eps
150 


612MOAA6.eps
151 


612MOAA7.eps
152 


612MOAA8.eps
153 


612MOAA9.eps
154 


612MOAA10.eps
155 


612MOAA11.eps
156 


612MOAA12.eps
157 


612MOAA13.eps
158 


612MOAA14.eps
159 


612MOAA15.eps
160 


612MOAA16.eps
161 


612MOAA17.eps
162 


612MOAA18.eps
163 


612MOAA19.eps
164 

Chairman SANDERS. Colonel, thank you very much. 

Mr. Gallucci. 

STATEMENT OF RYAN GALLUCCI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN 

WARS 

Mr. GALLUCCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

On behalf of the VFW, the Nation’s largest and oldest organization of combat veterans, I want to thank you and Members of the 

Committee for the opportunity to present our thoughts on today’s 

bills. 


612MOAA20.eps
165 

With the wars drawing down, the active duty force set to contract, and more than one million veterans expected to enter the 

workforce soon, the VFW believes the Senate must do all it can to 

ensure our veterans are prepared to compete in an ever-changing 

civilian marketplace. 

We thank the Committee for its efforts last Congress to prepare 

our veterans through reforms like the VOW to Hire Heroes Act and 

the Improving Transparency and Education Opportunities for Veterans Act, and we look forward to working with this Committee 

this session to build on those initiatives. 

For the VFW’s views on each of the benefits bill on our ambitious 

agenda, I refer you to my prepared remarks. For the balance of my 

time, I will focus on several initiatives to protect our student 

veterans. 

First on S. 257, the GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act. The post-9/11 

GI Bill was designed to offer a free public education to eligible veterans, allowing them to treat college as a full-time job without worrying about financial stability. 

Unfortunately, Student Veterans of America report that only one 

out of every five veterans attending a public school can attend at 

the in-state rate. 

Currently, the VA can only reimburse veterans at public schools 

for the cost of an in-state education, meaning veterans who do not 

qualify as in-state receive meager reimbursement for college. 

As a result, veterans either drop out or find other ways to pay 

for college through Federal financial aid, full-time employment, or 

student loans even if they make a good faith effort to legally reside 

in the State and attend a public school. 

Recently separated veterans may be legal residents in one State, 

as my colleague Ian pointed out, but if military duty took them to 

another State, they will not qualify for in-State tuition because 

they have not been physically present in their home State long 

enough. 

Furthermore, many States require students to establish in-state 

eligibility prior to enrollment, meaning current students can never 

qualify regardless of their legal residency or where they have established domicile. 

Critics have said that S. 257 sets a dangerous precedent for 

other nonresident students utilizing Federal aid programs. The 

VFW disagrees. Servicemembers and veterans are the only cohort 

of Americans who cannot satisfy in-state tuition requirements because of circumstances beyond their control. 

As a result, servicemembers are already offered in-State tuition 

when using military tuition assistance at public schools. However, 

once a servicemember leaves the military, that protection goes 

away. 

Post-9/11 GI Bill recipients should not be penalized for their honorable service when they cannot satisfy in-State tuition requirements. The VFW believes that Congress must allow these veterans 

to attend at the in-state rate, which is why we proudly support 

S. 257. 

Next, on S. 262, the Veterans Education Equity Act, the VFW 

understands that the goal of this bill is similar to S. 257, and we 

thank Senator Durbin for his attention to this issue. The VFW supVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00169 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN
166 

ported a similar bill last Congress but we have withdrawn our support this term because we believe we have better identified the 

problem. 

The problem is that recently separated veterans cannot meet 

stringent in-state tuition requirements because of their military 

service and in many cases can never attend at the in-state rate because they are already enrolled. 

S. 262 seeks to increase compensation for nonresidents, but the 

VFW believes that offering veterans more money only puts a BandAid on the problem. In-state tuition fixes it. 

The VFW recently learned that higher education interest groups 

have rallied in support of S. 262 in lieu of offering in-state tuition. 

To the VFW, these groups only see veterans as dollar signs in 

uniform. 

We believe it would be irresponsible to put the VA and the American taxpayers on the hook for more money when we know that 

these schools can and should deliver a quality education to our veterans at the in-state rate. 

Last Congress this bill was a good stopgap measure that would 

have lessened the financial burden on out-of-State veterans attending public schools. Unfortunately, this bill does not solve the inherent problem. 

While we cannot support S. 262, we sincerely appreciate Senator 

Durbin’s leadership on this issue, and we look forward to working 

with all stakeholders on a fair solution for student veterans. 

Finally, we come to your bill, S. 944, the Veterans Educational 

Transition Act. As we stated in our written testimony, the VFW 

consistently hears from veterans who say that financial uncertainty 

is a critical barrier to finishing college, and we thank you, Mr. 

Chairman, and Ranking Member Burr for your attention to this 

issue by seeking to offer in-state tuition to recently separated 

veterans. 

While S. 944 offers some clarification on beneficiaries eligible for 

in-state tuition, the VFW is concerned about how some of the restrictions will be interpreted by States, and we oppose allowing the 

Secretary to waive compliance. 

This is why the VFW prefers the protections offered by S. 267, 

though I must clarify. We believe this is a very serious issue that 

demands attention and we are willing to come to the table with all 

stakeholders to craft a quality bill that protects our student veterans and offers reasonable compliance standards for schools. 

I also wanted to echo my colleagues since I have 20 seconds left 

and thank you for your support to killing the chained CPI idea. We 

all agree that this is a reduction in benefits to our veterans and 

something that we absolutely will not support. 

Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, Members of the Committee, this concludes my testimony and I am happy to answer any 

questions you may have on any of the bills on consideration. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gallucci follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RYAN M. GALLUCCI, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL

LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: On behalf of the men and women 

of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. (VFW) and our Auxiliaries, I would like 

to thank you for the opportunity to testify on today’s pending legislation. As the 

167 

wars wind down and the military plans to shrink the active duty force, VA anticipates that more than one million veterans will seek to access their earned benefits 

within the next few years. The VFW applauds this Committee’s work to address 

benefit-access and transitional issues during the last Congress and we are encouraged to see that the Committee continues to take this situation seriously. 

The VFW is honored to share our thoughts on today’s bills in an effort ensure our 

veterans have the opportunities they have earned to succeed after leaving military 

service. Specifically, our testimony will focus on nine veterans’ economic opportunity 

bills, S. 257, S. 262, S. 492, S. 495, S. 514, S. 863, S. 894, S. 922 and S. 944. We will 

also offer VFW’s brief thoughts on the other bills pending before the Committee. 

S. 257, GI BILL TUITION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2013

The Post-9/11 GI Bill was intended to offer a free, public education and a modest 

living stipend to eligible veterans, allowing them to treat college as a full-time job 

without worrying about financial stability. Unfortunately, Student Veterans of 

America reports that only one out of every five veterans attending a public school 

is eligible to attend at the in-state rate. 

Current law only allows VA to reimburse veterans attending public schools for the 

cost of an in-state education, meaning veterans who cannot qualify for in-state tuition will only receive meager reimbursement for college. This oversight forces veterans to either drop out or find other ways to pay for college through Federal financial aid programs, full time employment or amassing student loan debt even when 

they make a good faith effort to legally reside in a state and attend a public school. 

Specifically, recently-separated veterans may be legal residents of a particular 

state, but if their military duty has taken them to an installation in another state, 

they will not qualify as residents when they seek to attend a public college or university because they have not been physically present in the state long enough to 

qualify as a resident for tuition purposes. Furthermore, once a veteran matriculates 

to the public school of their choice, many states restrict them from establishing residency because of their status as a full-time student. 

The VFW believes that Congress must allow Post-9/11 GI Bill-eligible veterans to 

attend at the in-state rate, which is why we proudly support S. 257. 

Critics have said that S. 257 sets a dangerous precedent for other non-resident 

students utilizing Federal aid programs. The VFW vehemently disagrees with this 

notion because military servicemembers and military veterans are the only cohort 

of Americans who cannot reasonably satisfy residency requirements for in-state tuition because of circumstances beyond their control. Recognizing these unique circumstances, servicemembers are already offered this reasonable accommodation 

when using military Tuition Assistance at public schools through the Higher Education Authorization Act. However, once a servicemember leaves the military, this 

protection goes away. 

Eleven states already offer in-state tuition to veterans, eight states offer conditional waivers for veterans in certain circumstances, and 16 states have legislation 

pending. Of the states that have passed in-state tuition initiatives for veterans, both 

Republican and Democrat state leaders have all agreed that the financial benefits 

for the state far outweigh the illusory financial burdens that some in higher education believe would be detrimental to institutional budgets—particularly since 

graduates of public colleges and universities traditionally pursue careers close to 

their alma mater. 

When Ohio passed its in-state tuition waiver in 2009, then- Gov. Ted Strickland 

said of in-state tuition, ‘‘It delivers real support to veterans while helping strengthen Ohio’s strategic plan for higher education, which calls for attracting and keeping 

talent in the state. Who better to have as part of Ohio’s colleges and universities, 

workforce and communities than the veterans who have served, led, and protected 

our country?’’ 

When Virginia passed its law in 2011, Gov. Bob McDonnell said ‘‘These men and 

women have served our country; it is essential that we continue to work to better 

serve them. Veterans are the kind of citizens we want in the Commonwealth and 

that we want as part of our workforce.’’ 

When Louisiana passed its law in 2012, Gov. Bobby Jindal said, ‘‘This new law 

encourages members of the U.S. military—who are the best trained professionals in 

the world—to pursue an education in our state, which will be an economic boost, 

but most importantly, it’s yet another means for us to thank these brave men and 

women for their service.’’ 

The Post-9/11 GI Bill is a Federal program designed to help our Nation’s heroes 

acquire the skills necessary to build a successful career after military service. Our 

veterans served the Nation; not a particular state. They should not be penalized for 

168 

their honorable service when they cannot satisfy strict residency requirements for 

tuition purposes. The VFW regularly hears from student-veterans who confirm that 

financial uncertainty is the most significant roadblock to persistence and graduation. To combat this, it only makes sense to allow our student-veterans to attend 

college at a reasonable rate when seeking to use their earned Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, and we hope the Committee moves quickly to pass this legislation. 

S. 262, VETERANS EDUCATION EQUITY ACT OF 2013

The VFW understands that the goal of this bill is similar to that of S. 257. We 

thank Senator Durbin for taking this issue seriously and introducing legislation that 

seeks to offer more equitable reimbursement for student-veterans attending public 

schools. The VFW supported this initiative in the last Congress, but we must explain why we have withdrawn support this term. 

This session, we believe we have better identified the problem. The problem is 

that recently-separated veterans cannot meet stringent residency requirements for 

in-state tuition because of their military service, and once enrolled, they cannot legally establish residency because of their status as full-time students. 

S. 262 seeks to increase the compensation veterans attending a public school as 

non-residents can receive, but the VFW believes that throwing money at this problem does not solve it. 

In the last few weeks, the VFW has learned that many interest groups representing higher education—particularly public colleges and universities—have rallied in support of S. 262 in lieu of offering in-state tuition to recently-separated veterans attending public colleges on the Post-9/11 GI Bill. To the VFW, these groups 

only see our veterans as dollar signs in uniform. We believe it would be irresponsible to put VA and the American taxpayers on the hook for more money when we 

know these schools can and should deliver a quality education at the in-state rate. 

In the last session, this bill was a good stop-gap measure that would have lessened the financial burden on student-veterans attending public schools at the outof-state rate. Unfortunately, this bill does not solve the problem. While we cannot 

support S. 262, we sincerely appreciate Senator Durbin’s interest in this issue and 

we look forward to working with all stakeholders on a fair solution for our studentveterans. 

S. 492

A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to require States to recognize the 

military experience of veterans when issuing licenses and credentials to veterans, 

and for other purposes. 

The VFW supports S. 492, and we thank Ranking Member Burr for his continued 

support to closing the civilian/military licensing and credentialing gap. This bill’s 

language is also included as a part of S. 495, but we support this initiative as a 

stand-along bill as well. 

This bill is a reasonable way to ensure that states will allow experienced military 

professionals to sit for licensing exams, while still ensuring states have the autonomy to issue professional licenses as they see fit. States will not have to relax their 

standards for professionals operating within their borders, but experienced veterans 

will not be unnecessarily burdened with satisfying duplicative training 

requirements. 

S. 495, CAREERS FOR VETERANS ACT

The VFW supports S. 495, which is the latest iteration of Ranking Member Burr’s 

veterans’ jobs legislation from the end of last Congress. 

The VFW continues to believe that this bill leverages existing resources in an effort to ensure our veterans have access to a variety of job opportunities within the 

Federal Government, and that private industry has quality incentives to hire and 

retain veterans. 

This bill also extends additional protections for surviving spouses of veteran entrepreneurs by offering more time for survivors to continue the business as if it remained veteran-owned. The VFW has called on Congress to offer these kinds of protections for survivors and we encourage the Senate to take swift action on this. 

S. 514

A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide additional educational assistance under the Post-9/11 Educational Assistance to veterans pursuing a degrees 

in science, technology, engineering, math or an area that leads to employment in 

a high-demand occupation, and for other purposes. 

169 

The VFW supports S. 514, which seeks to provide additional educational assistance under the Post-9/11 GI Bill to better assist veterans pursuing a degree in 

science, technology, engineering, math or an area that leads to employment in a 

high-demand occupation. Currently there is high demand for jobs in these areas and 

our servicemembers stand to significantly contribute to these sectors through innovation and ingenuity. Unfortunately degrees in these kinds of programs can often 

cost more or last longer than other programs of education, which is why we support 

giving the Secretary the discretion to allocate additional funds for students participating in such programs as deemed appropriate. 

S. 863, VETERANS BACK TO SCHOOL ACT OF 2013

The VFW supports Senator Blumenthal’s proposal to reinstate the Veterans Education Outreach Program (VEOP). However, we do not support changing the delimiting dates on the Montgomery GI Bill, and cannot support this bill as drafted. 

The VFW believes that extending Montgomery GI Bill eligibility to ten years after 

first use is not a sound policy for veterans. Unlike other veterans’ benefits, Montgomery GI Bill beneficiaries signed a contract upon enlistment outlining the specific 

terms of their GI Bill benefits. While the VFW understands that veterans have paid 

into the program and that the nature of our economy has changed significantly since 

the Montgomery GI Bill was signed into law, we believe this sets a bad precedent 

for beneficiaries and creates unreasonable bureaucratic hurdles and unsustainable 

financial burdens for those who administer the benefit. 

The VFW believes a more responsible solution to close the skills gap for veterans 

who are no longer entitled to VA education benefits is to extend eligibility for the 

Veterans Retraining Assistance Program (VRAP), which offers up to 12 months of 

Montgomery GI Bill-style benefits to unemployed veterans who are ineligible for 

other VA education programs. 

The VFW would support stand-alone legislation to reinstate VEOP, which served 

as a critical resource for student-veterans transitioning into college life. While VA 

does offer some support to veterans on college campuses through VetSuccess on 

Campus, resources for this program are extremely limited and the scope of services 

provided are narrow. VEOP would ensure the anticipated 1 million veterans entering academic life the in the next few years would have all of the resources necessary 

to succeed on campus. 

S. 894

A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend expiring authority for 

work-study allowances for individuals who are pursuing programs of rehabilitation, 

education, or training under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 

to expand such authority to certain outreach services provided through congressional offices, and for other purposes. 

This bill is an extension and expansion of VA’s authority to offer work-study allowances for student-veterans. The VFW has long supported the VA work-study program and we would proudly support this initiative to extend the program. The VFW 

also appreciates Chairman Sanders’ effort to extend the program for the offices of 

Members of Congress. However, we believe that the draft bill should extend the authority to June 30, 2018, to match the extension offered in H.R. 1453. 

S. 922, VETERANS EQUIPPED FOR SUCCESS ACT OF 2013

The VFW understands Chairman Sanders’ goal with this legislation, but we have 

concerns over establishing two new government subsidy programs to hire and train 

veterans. First, the VFW believes that a new pilot program for on-the-job training 

(OJT) administered by Department of Labor is duplicative to VA’s OJT program— 

particularly for the cohort of veterans 18–30 outlined in this legislation. 

Veterans in this age demographic are already eligible to participate in VA OJT 

using their earned GI Bill benefits. Such OJT programs already have minimal bureaucratic hurdles for businesses to meet, and even officials involved in veterans’ 

education admit that OJT is underutilized. Creating a new pilot program will only 

create confusion and additional bureaucratic hurdles for both businesses and veterans that wish to participate. 

Next, the VFW is worried that government subsidies to hire young veterans and 

veterans near retirement age sets a bad precedent for the veterans’ community. The 

VFW understands that these two groups of veterans have faced significant disadvantages in a down economy. However, we also believe that government subsidies 

will exacerbate misconceptions that such veterans are ‘‘charity cases’’ in need of a 

government hand-out for the opportunity to work. 

170 

Instead, the VFW has leaned heavily on resources that make the business case 

for hiring veterans by demonstrating how veterans can succeed in the workplace, 

such as recent reports from the Syracuse University Institute on Veterans and Military Families and the Center for a New American Security. 

The VFW understands that these proposals are simply pilot programs, but we believe such new programs would create further confusion for veterans seeking to 

navigate the complex system of more than 18 Federal programs focusing on career 

readiness for servicemembers, veterans and dependents, as reported by the Government Accountability Office in 2012. 

The VFW believes that the best way to ensure veterans find meaningful careers 

is to focus on professional development and credentialing while in uniform, bolstering transition services through the military Transition Assistance Program, fostering information-sharing across relevant Federal and state agencies when servicemembers separate, improving access to existing veterans’ employment and training 

resources, and demonstrating to employers how veterans will contribute to their 

workforce. 

The VFW understands that Chairman Sanders is very concerned about the high 

unemployment numbers facing our veterans. We thank the Chairman for his leadership on this issue and we look forward to helping move initiatives through this 

Committee that will make our most at-risk unemployed veterans marketable in the 

civilian workplace. 

S. 944, VETERANS’ EDUCATIONAL TRANSITION ACT OF 2013

The VFW thanks Chairman Sanders and Ranking Member Burr for their attention to this serious issue and for introducing legislation that seeks to address this 

major financial burden for many of our recently-separated student-veterans. However, the VFW prefers that S. 257, which has a companion bill that has cleared committee in the House, serve as the vehicle through which we offer our veterans reasonable in-state tuition protections while using their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. 

The VFW applauds this bill for including protections for military dependents 

using transferred Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits, since the transience of military life 

often also precludes them from establishing residency for tuition purposes. We also 

support limiting the scope of the bill to cover students receiving GI Bill benefits. 

By adding this caveat, we ensure that schools can reasonably comply with the instate tuition policy, since they can easily identify enrolled beneficiaries. We hope to 

see these provisions in any in-state tuition package that advances. 

However, as drafted, this bill raises several major issues for the VFW. First, the 

VFW opposes any proposition that would give the Secretary of Veterans Affairs the 

discretion to waive compliance with the in-state tuition protection. School systems 

will have two years to come into compliance with the policy, meaning every state 

legislature will have an opportunity to address any state-specific issues caused by 

the change. The VFW believes that among the states that currently say they cannot 

comply, many will simply wait out the two-year compliance period and insist on an 

exemption from the Secretary. While the VFW believes that noncompliance would 

create a public affairs nightmare for these university systems, we can easily avoid 

this by insisting that public university systems who receive GI Bill compensation 

must comply with this reasonable protection for their student-veterans, as we outlined in our testimony in support of S. 257. 

Next, the VFW is concerned that much of the language in S. 944 could be subject 

to broad interpretation by states that would allow them to quickly charge veterans 

as out-of-state students after the first semester. Specifically, Section 2(a)(3) allows 

schools to require veterans to ‘‘demonstrate an intent to establish residency in the 

State in which the institution is located.’’ While this seems like a reasonable accommodation, the VFW recognizes that many states preclude students living in campusowned properties from taking steps to demonstrate residency because their housing 

is considered temporary. In states where this is a factor, students are precluded 

from establishing domicile, registering to vote, or even changing their driver’s license. The VFW can easily see a scenario where student-veterans who are forced 

to live in campus housing would only receive one semester of in-state tuition before 

the university deems them ineligible for failing to demonstrate intent to establish 

residency. The VFW suggests either striking this section or clarifying that a ‘‘letter 

of intent’’ would prove sufficient for student-veterans who cannot take other legal 

steps to establish residency. 

Next, the VFW worries that language limiting service to 180 continuous days of 

active duty and two years post-separation excludes many veterans eligible for and 

currently using Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits. We recommend changing the date to 90 

days to cover all Chapter 33-eligible veterans and changing the delimiting date to 

171 

cover all years of eligibility for both Chapter 30 and Chapter 33 programs. The VFW 

understands that the goal of the two-year delimiting date is to offer reasonable accommodation to transitioning servicemembers who cannot satisfy residency requirements due to military service. However, the VFW is also concerned that veterans 

who currently attend under Chapter 33 will not be covered by the two-year limit, 

and veterans who experience any lapse in enrollment or who enroll part time will 

lose their status as in-state for tuition purposes. 

We understand that the Chairman and Ranking Member have put significant effort into a comprehensive bill that will protect student-veterans, but not place an 

unnecessary burden on school systems that seek to serve them. However, the VFW 

is worried that this legislation as drafted would still leave many student-veterans 

in a gray area, offering too much flexibility to school systems with no intention to 

comply. 

We thank Chairman Sanders and Ranking Member Burr for their leadership on 

this issue, and we look forward to working with all stakeholders to ensure we can 

pass reasonable in-state tuition protections for currently-enrolled GI Bill beneficiaries and future student-veterans. 

Additional Bills Under Consideration: 

S. 6, PUTTING OUR VETERANS BACK TO WORK ACT OF 2013

The VFW supports this bill, which offers additional employment incentives and 

opportunities for recently-separated veterans like extension of VRAP and additional 

protections for veterans from employers who knowingly violate the Uniformed Servicemembers Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). 

S. 200

A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the interment in national cemeteries under the control of the National Cemetery Administration of individuals who served in combat supports of the Armed Forces in the Kingdom of Laos 

between February 28, 1961 and May 15, 1975, and for other purposes. 

The VFW has no official position on this legislation. 

S. 294, RUTH MOORE ACT OF 2013

The VFW strongly supports this legislation and believes that it is long overdue. 

S. 294 would relax evidentiary standards for tying mental health conditions to an 

assault, making it easier for Military Sexual Assault (MST) survivors to receive VA 

benefits. 

Current regulations put a disproportionate burden on the veteran to produce evidence of MST—often years after the event and in an environment which is often 

unfriendly—in order to prove service-connection for mental health disorders. 

With the extraordinarily high incidence of sexual trauma in the military and the 

failure of many victims to report the trauma to medical or police authorities, it is 

time Congress amends this restrictive standard. 

This legislation does that by providing equity to those suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, anxiety, depression and other mental health diagnoses that 

are often related to MST. It puts MST in line with VA’s standard of proof provided 

to combat veterans who suffer from PTSD. 

This bill will allow those who have suffered from sexual violence in the military 

to get the care and benefits they deserve. The VFW urges Congress to pass this legislation quickly, but we are also disappointed to see the House companion bill, H.R. 

671, amended to only ‘‘direct’’ VA to improve its policies on Military Sexual Trauma 

(MST), weakening the original intent of the bill. 

S. 373, CHARLIE MORGAN MILITARY SPOUSES EQUAL TREATMENT ACT OF 2013

The VFW has no official position on this legislation. 

S. 430, VETERANS SMALL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY AND PROTECTION ACT OF 2013

The VFW support S. 430 and the similar language included as part of Ranking 

Member Burr’s S. 495. Survivors of veteran entrepreneurs must have reasonable 

protections to continue doing business as if the entity remained veteran-owned. The 

VFW has called on Congress to offer these kinds of protections for survivors and 

we encourage the Senate to take swift action on this either as stand-alone legislation or through S. 495. 

172 

S. 515

A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the Yellow Ribbon G.I. 

Education Enhancement Program to cover recipients of Marine Gunnery Sergeant 

John David Fry scholarship, and for other purposes. 

A current statutory loophole excludes eligible dependents of a servicemember 

killed in action from enhanced tuition reimbursement available through the Yellow 

Ribbon Program. This simple legislative fix will provide Fry Scholarship recipients 

with the same benefits as other Chapter 33-eligible beneficiaries. The VFW proudly 

supports this bill and we encourage the Senate to quickly pass this legislation. 

S. 572, VETERANS SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT

The VFW supports S. 572, which would provide a layer of protection for veterans 

who might be seeking or undergoing mental health care for service-related psychological disorders from losing their Second Amendment right. Adding a provision that 

will require a finding through the legal system that the veteran’s condition causes 

a danger to him or herself or others will prevent a veteran’s name from being automatically added to Federal no-sell lists. 

S. 629, HONOR AMERICA’S GUARD-RESERVE RETIREES ACT OF 2013

The VFW strongly supports this legislation, which would give the men and women 

who chose to serve our Nation in the Reserve component the recognition that their 

service demands. Many who serve in the Guard and Reserve are in positions that 

support the deployments of their active duty comrades to make sure the unit is fully 

prepared when called upon. Unfortunately, some of these men and women serve at 

least 20 years and are entitled to retirement pay, TRICARE, and other benefits, but 

are not considered a veteran according to the letter of the law. Passing this bill into 

law will grant Guard and Reserve retirees the recognition their service to our country deserves. 

Critics are concerned that this bill will allow Guard and Reserve retirees to legitimize claims for other veterans’ benefits like health care or education moving forward. The VFW disagrees because such retirees are already eligible to participate 

in military health care programs after age 65; they are still entitled to file a disability claim for injuries sustained during military duty; and they already have access to VA education programs like the Montgomery GI Bill Reserve Select or even 

the Post-9/11 GI Bill contingent on the nature of their military service. 

S. 674, ACCOUNTABILITY FOR VETERANS ACT OF 2013

The VFW supports this bill, which will require other Federal agencies to promptly 

respond to a Secretary of Veterans Affairs request for information that will assist 

in adjudicating a VA claim for benefits. VA is held under focused scrutiny for the 

slow processing of claims for benefits. This bill will require agencies to provide VA 

with requested information within 30 days or provide a rationale and an estimated 

time of delivery. In passing this legislation, other agencies can be held accountable 

for any delays that are caused by their slow response for information required to 

adjudicate a claim. 

S. 690, FILIPINO VETERANS ACT OF 2013

The VFW has no official position on this legislation. 

S. 695, VETERANS PARALYMPIC ACT OF 2013

The VFW believes that rehabilitation through sports fosters healthy living, physical fitness, and a competitive spirit for our disabled veterans, many of whom have 

suffered catastrophic injuries in the line of duty. VFW Posts and Departments 

around the country consistently support rehabilitative sports in their communities, 

which is why we are proud to support extending VA’s collaboration with United 

States Paralympics, Inc. through 2018. 

By supporting responsible rehabilitative sports initiatives like those provided by 

the U.S. Paralympic Team, the VFW believes that combat-wounded veterans will 

not simply overcome their injuries, but also discover new personal strengths and 

abilities. 

S. 705, WAR MEMORIAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2013

The VFW has no official position on this legislation. 

173 

S. 735, SURVIVOR BENEFITS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2013

The VFW is happy to support Chairman Sander’s bill to expand Federal assistance to the nearly 350,000 surviving spouses and children receiving benefits from 

VA. Extending supplemental Disability Indemnity Compensation (DIC) payments to 

survivors with children from two years to five years gives survivors reasonable time 

to adjust to what is often a very difficult financial period in their lives. 

By allowing those who remarry after age 55 to retain DIC, healthcare, housing 

and educational assistance, this bill fulfills a longstanding VFW goal to level the 

playing field for survivors of fallen servicemembers and other survivors who receive 

Federal benefits. Current law cancels benefits if a surviving spouse remarries before 

age 57. 

The VFW also supports expanding spina bifida care to children whose parents 

served during the Vietnam era, but would recommend striking ‘‘exposure to herbicide agents’’ and replacing it with ‘‘service in Thailand’’ as the qualifier for benefits. 

We believe making this small change will lessen the burden of proof and offer timely 

access to health care, compensation and supportive services for affected children. 

Finally, the VFW supports creation of a pilot program to provide grief counseling 

in retreat settings for surviving spouses. The retreat setting offers a unique and 

therapeutic environment for peer-to-peer support while helping to provide participants with the necessary tools to manage grief and begin the healing process. VFW 

has heard positive stories from a similar pilot program involving women veterans, 

and we are happy to support the same goals for those who lost a loved one on active 

duty. 

S. 748, VETERANS PENSION PROTECTION ACT

The VFW supports the passage of S. 748. Current law allows VA pension claimants to transfer assets to lower their net worth prior to applying for pension benefits. Other means-tested assistance programs have a ‘‘look-back’’ period that prevents a claimant from disposing of assets below fair market value. 

Because there is disparity between the programs, veterans who are seeking pension benefits from VA can put themselves into a ‘‘penalty period,’’ precluding them 

from receiving assistance from programs like Medicaid for up to three years when 

applying for other assistance programs. Since VA lacks a ‘‘look-back,’’ veterans are 

being solicited by financial institutions that state they can shelter assets and assist 

in successfully claiming VA pension. In many cases, these institutions are charging 

large service fees and in some cases placing the veteran’s assets into annuities that 

cannot be accessed during their expected lifetime without withdrawal fees. 

GAO released a report in June 2012, outlining the need for VA to adopt a ‘‘lookback’’ period when determining eligibility for VA’s need-based pension. This bill 

would provide for a three-year look back and penalty period that could not exceed 

36 months. In passing this legislation, VA will protect veterans from falling victim 

to aggressive marketing that can diminish their assets and prevent them from receiving other finical assistance when they need it most. 

S. 778

A bill to authorize the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to issue cards to veterans 

that identify them as veterans, and for other purposes. 

The VFW opposes the passage of S. 778, a bill to authorize the Secretary of VA 

to issue ID card to any veteran for use as validation of veteran status. The VFW 

believes that states are better suited to provide veterans with identification that 

verifies veteran status. Forty-three states already provide or are in the process of 

providing a ‘‘veteran’’ designation on state-issued driver’s licenses or state issued 

non-driver’s license ID cards. The infrastructure already exists within each state’s 

Department of Motor Vehicles to provide picture identification to its citizens, whereas the VA would have to expand its capability to accommodate the increase in veteran requests for an ID card. The VFW encourages the remaining seven states to 

pass legislation to provide for veterans status on their existing state-issued driver’s 

licenses and ID cards. 

S. 819, VETERANS MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT FIRST ACT OF 2013

The VFW does not support this legislation which would create a program of mental health care and rehabilitation for veterans who are diagnosed by a VA physician 

with service-related PTSD, depression or anxiety. Those who comply with the treatment regimen of the program would be paid a stipend during participation, not to 

exceed a total of $11,000. Although the VFW appreciates the effort to offer a new 

174 

approach to solving the difficult problem of mental health rehabilitation, we feel 

that this legislation contains serious flaws. 

The VFW does not support the idea of asking veterans not to submit applications 

for disability compensation while participating in the program. Even with the payments for treatment that this bill would provide, we cannot support legislation that 

will require veterans to temporarily forgo any benefits to which they may be entitled. This is especially true in the case of a veteran who would ultimately receive 

a high rating for a mental health disorder, even after completing the program. The 

total monetary value of the wellness stipend could potentially be far less than that 

of an award of service-connected disability compensation, harming the veteran 

financially. 

S. 868, FILIPINO VETERANS PROMISE ACT

The VFW has no official position on this legislation. 

S. 889, SERVICEMEMBERS’ CHOICE IN TRANSITION ACT OF 2013

The VFW recently testified in support of the House companion, H.R. 631, and we 

are proud to support Senator Boozman’s bill. S. 889 reflects the changes recently 

passed by the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee, clarifying that Department of Defense (DOD) must deliver the education component of the military Transition Assistance Program (TAP) to all interested transitioning servicemembers. 

The VFW has long served as a vocal advocate for student-veterans, and we believe 

that TAP plays a critical role in ensuring that transitioning servicemembers are 

academically and financially prepared for college. The VFW has been generally satisfied with the newly-developed education curriculum for TAP, but we are concerned 

that the military had no plans to adequately deliver the training to those who need 

it, since participation in individualized tracked curricula will neither be mandatory, 

nor will sufficient staff be provided. 

DOD has instead decided that servicemembers will need to meet ‘‘career readiness 

standards’’ in the track of their choice, including education. To the VFW, this does 

not satisfy the VOW to Hire Heroes Act mandate to deliver ‘‘assistance in identifying employment and training opportunities, help in obtaining such employment 

and training * * *’’ in accordance with title 10, U.S.C., § 1144 (a), since the goal 

of veterans’ education benefits is to train veterans to enter the job market. 

DOD insists that it is building a life cycle model for military professional development that will include education goals, but the VFW remains concerned that the 

new model will still fail to adequately prepare servicemembers for civilian life. We 

prefer the model set forth in S. 889, which acknowledges the finite timeframe services can dedicate to preparing separating servicemembers for civilian life, but also 

ensures potential student-veterans can make knowledgeable college choices. 

S. 893, VETERANS’ COMPENSATION COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 2013

Disabled veterans, their surviving spouses and children depend on their disability 

and dependency and indemnity compensation to bridge the gap of lost earnings and 

savings that the veteran’s disability has caused. Each year, veterans wait anxiously 

to find out if they will receive a cost-of-living adjustment. There is no automatic 

trigger that increases these forms of compensation for veterans and their dependents. Annually, veterans wait for a separate Act of Congress to provide the same 

adjustment that is automatic to Social Security beneficiaries. 

The VFW supports this legislation that will bring parity to VA disability and survivor recipients’ compensation by providing a COLA beginning December 1, 2013, so 

long as VA disability, pension and survivor benefits continue to be calculated with 

the currently used Consumer Price Index—W, and not change the calculations for 

these adjustments to the Chained—Consumer Price Index. 

S. 927, VETERANS’ OUTREACH ACT OF 2013

The VFW often hears from veterans who are confused by the dearth of information about veterans’ benefits, veteran-specific services, and community resources. 

Since 2001, thousands of new non-profit and community organizations have popped 

up, seeking to meet the needs of servicemembers, veterans and their families. Some 

provide tremendous resources and services, like the Wounded Warrior Project, Student Veterans of America, Fisher House, Team Rubicon, or Team Red White and 

Blue. Others have rightfully come under fire from charity watchdogs for seeking to 

exploit the good will of the American people. 

Saturation of the marketplace and the availability of information through online 

and social channels have left many veterans confused. The VFW and our partners 

175 

in the veterans’ community have seen this before and we proudly help any veteran 

who reaches out navigate this complex system to the best of our ability. But we 

can’t do it alone. 

Chairman Sanders’ bill would insist that the Federal Government take a hard 

look at how it disseminates information about veteran-specific services to the men 

and women who need it. It seeks to improve coordination among Federal, state and 

community resources to ensure that information can be delivered in a timely manner. The VFW believes these efforts are long overdue and we are proud to support 

this legislation, and continue our work with Federal, state and local agencies who 

seek to inform veterans of the programs and services designed to serve them. 

S. 928, CLAIMS PROCESSING IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2013

The VFW generally supports the concept of this bill and we thank Chairman 

Sanders for his attention to the VA disability claims backlog. The current wait times 

to process VA disability claims remains woefully insufficient, and the VFW has consistently testified for nearly 20 years that the disability claims backlog demands 

leadership and decisive action. 

We support many of the provisions in this bill, such as creating a study group 

to evaluate how VA administers work credit for claims processors, establishing a 

task force on training and retention for raters, providing education and training for 

transitioning servicemembers to assist in claims-processing, and streamlining how 

VA acquires military records. 

However, the VFW has several concerns about the current bill. First, the VFW 

opposes reducing a veteran’s appeal period from one year to 180 days. To the VFW, 

this clerical change will not affect the backlog, since rated claims are no longer considered pending. Instead, this will only hurt veterans who wish to appeal their rating decisions, and only further exacerbate VA bureaucratic hurdles when veterans 

seek exemptions from the 180-day filing period. 

Next, the VFW wants to clarify that when VA requests records from the military, 

VA must summarize why they stop development after a second attempt to acquire 

records. 

Next, the VFW worries that formally adopting VA’s 125-day backlog goal, while 

ambitious, does not accurately reflect the steps required for proper claim development in certain circumstances. We also believe that is unnecessary to formally codify ‘‘pending,’’ since this is already defined in VA regulations and introduces an unnecessary redundancy in the code. 

S. 930

A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to require the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs, in cases of overpayments of educational assistance under Post-9/11 Educational Assistance, to deduct amounts for repayment from the last months of educational assistance entitlement, and for other purposes. 

The VFW supports this bill, which would protect student-veterans from facing significant financial hardships and allow a student veteran to charge their individual 

overpayment to entitlement. A student-veteran’s enrollment status can change 

month to month by adding or dropping units, or based on an institution’s academic 

calendars. When these payments change so frequently, lack of due process and poor 

communication does not allow the veteran a reasonable path to understand whether 

or not they have received an overpayment in a timely manner. 

The VFW understands that VA overpayments must be recouped in order for benefit programs to work efficiently, but the VFW is also concerned that debt collections 

for a benefit as complicated as the Post-9/11 GI Bill can cause significant financial 

hardships for both veterans and their schools. Organizations representing school 

certifying officials, like the National Association of Veterans Program Administrators (NAVPA), report that VA’s assignment of debt collections to schools and students, as well as erroneous offsets have been inconsistent across the board. 

By allowing VA to tack debts to the end term of a benefit, we offer veterans the 

flexibility to continue attending without facing potential financial hardships. 

While the VFW supports this bill, we also recognize that this is just a stop-gap 

measure to protect student-veterans, but does not tackle the major issue through 

which schools and veterans report that VA poorly communicates the results of an 

assigned overpayment from the Regional Processing Office in a timely manner and 

can result in the recoupment of other Federal funds from schools through the Treasury’s tax offset program which in turn may result in the school reassigning the debt 

to the student and/or placing a veteran’s credit in jeopardy. Either way the student 

veteran’s educational goals are in jeopardy. VA must clarify its policies on debt collections. Debt notices must be clear and both veterans and schools should be able 

176 

to take quick steps to resolve any outstanding debts. We look forward to working 

with the Committee to resolve this issue in an equitable way that not only protects 

veterans and schools, but also ensures VA can properly administer its benefit programs in a responsible manner. 

S. 932, PUTTING VETERANS FUNDING FIRST ACT OF 2013

The VFW is proud to support this bill, which is a companion to H.R. 813. In 

March, VFW Commander-in-Chief John Hamilton made the case for why Congress 

needed to offer advance appropriations for all VA programs. Advance appropriations 

would prevent disruptions or delays to existing or proposed programs and services 

that occur when budgets are not passed in a timely manner. As we have seen with 

Advance Appropriations for VA’s medical care accounts, when VA knows how much 

funding they will receive, they can better plan and more responsibly spend their annual budget. By including all accounts under Advance Appropriations, building 

projects will not be halted, IT development will not be delayed and essential services 

and staffing levels will not be threatened by arbitrary cutbacks. 

S. 935, QUICKER VETERANS BENEFITS DELIVERY ACT

The VFW supports the intent of this legislation, but we have serious concerns 

with the bill as written. The VFW supports the provision to mandate VA’s acceptance of private medical evidence that is competent, credible, probative, and otherwise adequate for purposes of making a decision on a claim. However, we believe 

that the bill must also clarify that VA must not order an additional exam for the 

veteran unless VA has provided a thorough explanation as to why the private medical evidence proved insufficient for establishing service connection and determining 

a rating. 

Next, the VFW understands and supports the goal of lowering the threshold with 

which VA can deliver temporary disability ratings for veterans, but we believe the 

concept in this bill requires further development. The VFW believes that this bill 

would unintentionally incentivize VA to deliver temporary disability ratings with no 

required follow-up. The bill currently also exempts VA from considering claims with 

a temporary rating as ‘‘backlogged’’ for the purposes of reporting to Congress. 

The VFW understands that the wait time for disability rating decisions remains 

a national embarrassment that demands innovative solutions. We thank Senator 

Franken for his attention to this issue and his continued support of our veterans. 

Though we cannot support this bill in its current form, we look forward to working 

with Senator Franken to craft a bill that will best serve the needs of our disabled 

veterans. 

S. 938, FRANCHISE EDUCATION FOR VETERANS ACT OF 2013

The VFW is proud to support this bill, which will allow veterans to tap into their 

earned education benefits for established professional development programs offered 

by franchisors. The VFW has long held that the GI Bill is a professional development tool designed to help veterans secure the skills necessary to succeed in the 

marketplace. Allowing veteran franchisees to use their earned education benefits for 

legitimate industry training seems like a reasonable extension of non-degree professional training already offered through the GI Bill. 

However, the VFW must ensure that State Approving Agencies, which already approve or disapprove on-the-job training and apprenticeship programs for GI Bill eligibility, also have oversight in approval and disapproval of franchise education programs to ensure training is relevant and necessary for the success of the franchisee. 

Veterans, by nature, are more entrepreneurial than their civilian counterparts, 

and veterans who own franchises are more likely to succeed than civilian 

franchisees. Considering both of these factors, providing educational resources for 

veterans to operate their own franchises is a reasonable way to not only encourage 

business ownership among veterans, but also a way to foster success and build the 

economy with proven leaders. 

S. 939

A bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to treat certain misfiled documents 

as motions for reconsideration of decisions by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, and 

for other purposes. 

When a veteran seeks to appeal his or her rating decision with the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, paperwork must be filed with the board in a timely manner. If the 

veteran fails to file within the designated time period, their motion to reconsider 

will be dismissed by the board. However, many times the paperwork is confusing 

177 

and veterans will mistakenly seek to file their motion to reconsider with the VA regional office of original jurisdiction for the claim. When this happens, the regional 

office must process the paperwork and forward it to the Board within the allotted 

time or the veteran’s motion will be dismissed. To avoid this unreasonable burden 

on veterans who make a good faith effort to file a motion for reconsideration before 

the deadline, the VFW agrees that misfiled documents postmarked within the allotted time should also be treated by the Board as a motion for reconsideration. The 

VFW is proud to support this bill. 

S. 1039, SPOUSES OF HEROES EDUCATION ACT: 

The Marine Gunnery Sgt. John D. Fry Scholarship Program offers the surviving 

children of fallen servicemembers the opportunity to earn a quality education. This 

bill would expand Fry Scholarship opportunities to surviving spouses and the VFW 

is proud to support this initiative. Military spouses often must sacrifice careers of 

their own to support the service obligations of their loved ones. By extending this 

kind of educational opportunity to a surviving spouse, we demonstrate our commitment to serving not only the servicemember, but also the one ones they may leave 

behind. 

S. 1042, VETERANS LEGAL SUPPORT ACT OF 2013

While the VFW understands the intent of this bill, we cannot support it as written. We have concerns about VA using funds from its Medical Services accounts to 

fund higher education programs. The VFW would prefer to see states that offer veterans treatment courts to work with law schools to provide legal resources to 

veterans. 

S. 1058, CREATING A RELIABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR VETERANS’ DEPENDENTS ACT

While VA has made considerable progress in mitigating the factors that contribute 

to veteran homelessness, the problem continues to disproportionately affect the veterans’ community. Sadly, veterans of the current conflicts are experiencing homelessness in different ways. 

The VFW supports this legislation as an additional resource in the fight to end 

homelessness among veterans. Recent statistics show that the number of homeless 

women veterans and homeless veterans with children are on the rise. Current VA 

programs do not provide adequate services for veterans with dependent children, 

leaving many without access to resources critical to finding and maintaining permanent housing. 

Senator Heller’s and Senator Murray’s legislation would allow those who qualify 

as a grant recipient under Section 2011 of title 38, U.S.C. to also receive funding 

to furnish care for a dependent of a homeless veteran. By providing per diem payments for a dependent you will allow the veteran time needed to begin receiving 

supportive services designed to help them achieve stability, increase employment 

skills, and obtain greater independence. 

VFW believes this is a wonderful example of how to strengthen partnerships within the community to help meet the goal of ending homelessness by 2015, and we 

urge the Committee to pass this bill quickly. 

Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr and distinguished Members of the 

Committee, this concludes my statement and I am happy to answer any questions 

you may have. 

Chairman SANDERS. Well, let me begin by thanking you all not 

only for your excellent testimony this morning but for your years 

of service for veterans in this country. 

What I have believed from day one when I assumed this position 

is that we cannot be successful unless we fully understand the 

problems and that we work with the service organizations who represent millions of veterans to try to find solutions for those problems. That is what we are going to do and that is what we are 

going to continue to do. 

So, we may not be able to do everything everybody wants but I 

think, as I have heard this morning, you are aware that we are 

working on a very ambitious set of legislation and we are going to 

continue to do that. 

178 

We are holding a markup in about a month to go over some of 

these issues. We will be continuing our progress into next year. 

But, at the end of the day, I want to do my best with this Committee to make sure that within our limited financial resources, acknowledging that we cannot do everything we want to do. 

We have a long list of every one of the issues that are of concern 

to the veterans community and do our best to address them all, 

health care, benefits, et cetera. 

Let me start off by touching on an issue that some of you have 

touched on. I know you have gone on to other areas, important 

areas, as well—education, et cetera—but, I want to get back to the 

issue that we have perhaps heard most about in the last year and 

that is the backlog of claims. 

My question is very simple. Do you believe the VA is making 

progress in addressing this very serious problem? 

Mr. Hall, why do you not begin. 

Mr. HALL. We believe that the VA is making progress, but we 

simply cannot ascertain the amount of progress that they have 

made because we have not been provided any type of milestone 

data. 

Chairman SANDERS. As you know, that is exactly what we want 

to be able to do. 

Mr. de Planque. 

Mr. DE PLANQUE. I would absolutely like to associate myself with 

that. I am recalling the famous expression, ‘‘in God we trust, all 

others we verify.’’ I mean I think there has been a very strong good 

faith effort by the VA. I think they are working very hard. We have 

had excellent discussions with some of the people in this room. The 

dialog—— 

Chairman SANDERS. Sorry to interrupt you. Do you feel you have 

access to the VA? Have you been able to give your views about 

where we should be going to the VA? 

Mr. DE PLANQUE. Our staff has been able to communicate very 

well generally with the VA. However, in terms of having bench 

marks, milestones; are we meeting markers; what is the plan; what 

is the plan if we are going to get down to this 125 days and 98 percent accuracy. 

If we are here, where do we need to be in 3 months from now, 

where do we need to be 6 months from now, where do we need to 

be a year from then? Those sorts of things we have not seen, but 

in terms of when we have a question we try to raise it and speak 

to the VA, it would be wrong to say that they are not communicative. They have been very communicative and they have tried to 

work with us. 

The American Legion worked closely with VA and other groups 

who have worked with them on the fully developed claims process 

which has made an impact in processing time on some of the 

claims. 

So, there are definitely ways that they are communicating with 

us. They are taking input. We would like to see more in terms of 

putting out benchmarks showing that they are reaching those 

markers and that some of the errors of the past are not made. 

Chairman SANDERS. You know, that is exactly what our legislation proposes to do. 

179 

Colonel Norton, are we making progress or not? 

Colonel NORTON. Yes, we are making progress. They are making 

progress, Mr. Chairman, but we continue to point out that the long 

pole in the tent is the electronic medical record or the lack thereof. 

We still need that. It is not there yet. 

I would point out in commenting on the VA panel earlier that 

four out of every ten of initial claims that are coming into the VA 

today are from members of the National Guard and the Reserve. 

In a recent hearing, General Hickey, in response to a question 

from Senator Tester, pointed out that there were, in her words, 

complications with getting National Guard and Reserve records. 

So, we would like more information about the so-called DOD 

guarantee that by the end of this calendar year the records, the 

medical records, will be certified complete and available for adjudication. 

We want to see that for the entire force, not just for the active 

duty force because so many of our National Guard and Reserve 

members, tens of thousands of them, have served two, three, and 

even four tours of active duty. They deserve the same speedy treatment as everybody else in the total force team. 

Chairman SANDERS. How has your relationship been with the 

VA? Are they listening to what you have to say? 

Colonel NORTON. Yes, they are listening. We have, I would say, 

a very good relationship. There are regular meetings with senior 

VA officials. They welcome us in. They listen to our thoughts. They 

provide good information. We support the team that is in place. 

But we, too, join with our colleagues in wanting to see specific 

measurements set out to meet production and quality goals month 

to month as we move toward 2015. 

Chairman SANDERS. We agree with you. 

Mr. Gallucci. 

Mr. GALLUCCI. Thank you, Chairman Sanders. 

The VFW agrees with our partner organizations here at the table 

that the situation is improving. We also echo calls for specific 

benchmarks for how VA intends to meet its 2015 goal. 

Specifically, we also support improving the information flow from 

the Department of Defense. One of our concerns was the announcement from DOD that they are going to once again solicit a new integrated health care record. 

Our concern is also that they’ve guarantee to deliver electronically by the end of the year certified complete health care records. 

Our concern is if they deliver this electronically is it in PDF format 

or is it in a format that VA can easily read through its Vista 

system? 

This seems to be a major problem for the military. I have seen 

it with colleagues of mine who served in Iraq and Afghanistan 

when their files go missing or when they cannot acquire them from 

DOD in a timely manner. 

Chairman SANDERS. During your testimony, Mr. Gallucci, you 

and others touched on the higher education problems that we are 

having with tuition issues which I do not want to get into now. We 

take what you have said seriously. 

Let me move to employment, which is a big issue. The bottom 

line, briefly, starting with Mr. Hall, what would you like to see us 

180 

do to make sure that we improve capabilities in terms of getting 

jobs for returning servicemembers? 

Mr. HALL. Well, I think there is a lot of pretty good legislation 

that is geared at that and we would like to see that, you know, continue in that way; but I think the one thing that I would like to 

comment on specifically is the Transition Assistance Program in 

the military because that is where it starts. That would be the first 

leg of many steps that they have to do. 

Chairman SANDERS. Are we making progress through that program? Is it an improved program? 

Mr. HALL. According to our transition service officers there at 

military installations, there are improvements being made but I 

think there is still a lot of work left to do in that regard. 

Chairman SANDERS. Mr. de Planque. 

Mr. DE PLANQUE. In terms of, is the transition program better 

than the one I went through in 2005; it is head and shoulders 

better. 

Is there still room for improvement? Absolutely. But I think that 

is an area that is being worked on and I think that is something 

essential in terms of that hand off. I think that is one of the reasons a lot of us have spoken about the GI Bill and tuition and the 

fact that protection of the in-state tuition rates goes away the second you step out of these services. That is kind of critical and we 

have seen a lot of examples with that. 

Making more on-the-job training robust would be another thing, 

you know, that we would like to see improvements toward. I think 

that there are a lot of efforts toward that. I think managing that 

transition handoff is very important, but also not forgetting those 

servicemembers who transitioned 2 years ago and are still looking 

for work. 

You know, we have to find ways to double back and make sure 

that we are not missing those people as they slip off of the statistics because, obviously, the longer you stay unemployed the more 

difficult it is to get back into the workforce. 

It is a terribly difficult thing to go through and I know a number 

of people who have gone through it, particularly people who have 

served in the Guard and Reserve. We have talked about the Guard 

and the Reserve and having to keep one foot in the civilian world 

and one foot in the military world and constantly get jerked back 

and forth between those two places. 

It is difficult to find employers who are going to stick with you 

through that. They are not going to say it up front that they are 

not hiring you because they are not happy about the possibility of 

losing an employee for a year but that certainly exists out there, 

so we need to look into more of those aspects, as well. 

Chairman SANDERS. Thanks. 

Colonel Norton. 

Colonel NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me preface my 

comment on the employment situation by saying that we have had 

in MOAA a very robust career transition services capability for 

many, many years. 

Last year, we conducted hundreds of workshops for all grades, 

not just officers, around the country and we provided counseling for 

about 10,000 military men and women. 

181 

One of the things we emphasize is that it is not just about converting the military skill equally into some civilian skill. It is also 

about acquiring broader skills that help you transition into the civilian work force. 

That is why we believe that your bill, S. 922, has potential. We 

do believe that it would have to be closely monitored. The pilot programs that are being set up certainly offer a great opportunity for 

our young veterans and our older veterans, as well, to gain or regain exposure and experience in the civilian workplace. 

It is a different environment all together than what they have 

experienced on active duty. Many of these young men and women 

enter the Armed Forces at age 18. They have never had civilian 

work experience. 

So, at the end of the day, it is about gaining a whole range of 

civilian-related skills and exposure that will then help to enable 

them to move forward. 

We would like to see your bill used in conjunction with the VOW 

to Hire Heroes Act and the GI Bill, in other words, basically making it a work-study program. But we think you are headed in the 

right direction on that legislation. 

Chairman SANDERS. Colonel, thank you very much. 

Mr. Gallucci. 

Mr. GALLUCCI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There are a few points that we consistently hit on. We touched 

on many of them in our testimony on ways to improve the employment situation for veterans. One would be to extend and improve 

the VRAP program. 

As my colleague, Colonel Norton, said, improving it to open access to 4-year institutions and also allowing eligible veterans to use 

it for certain kinds of remediation. 

We have heard a number of great success stories of veterans who 

have taken advantage of VRAP but we have also heard stories of 

veterans who have hit bumps in the road in accessing their 

benefits. 

An example that I used in my testimony was in Erie, Pennsylvania, where the University of Pennsylvania, Erie Campus, serves 

as a de facto community college. There are no community colleges 

in the area so VRAP-eligible veterans are fairly limited in the 

kinds of programs that they can access. 

In addition to that, examining VA’s on-the-job training and apprenticeship program in addressing your bill, S. 922, we did have 

some disagreement on the approach that it took. 

Our main concern is the duplicity in a pilot program for on-thejob training and apprenticeships with what already exists at VA. 

But, that being said, it has come to our attention that in States 

like your homestate, Vermont, there is one person responsible for 

approving education programs who also has the collateral duty of 

approving on-the-job training and apprenticeship programs which 

means that their reach is very limited. Their capacity to approve 

those programs is also very limited so it does warrant looking at 

other options to make sure that veterans have those kind of opportunities. 

Next, I want to build on what my colleague Jeff said about the 

Transition Assistance Program. It has certainly improved but our 

182 

main concern is access to those resources once a servicemember 

has left active duty. 

We know that the Committee managed to move a pilot program 

to offer those resources to veterans after they leave the military 

last session. But, we want to make sure when we are talking about 

the transition GPS and the military life cycle of transition that we 

also take into account that many servicemembers do not know the 

kinds of problems they are going to face until they physically leave 

the military. You cannot anticipate all the challenges that you will 

face. 

So, our recommendation to the Department of Defense, VA, 

Labor, and the other relevant agencies has consistently been to ensure that the veterans can access these resources whether it is the 

TAP briefings or the TAP modules after service even if it is 

through something as simple as the eBenefits portal. 

Finally, ease of access to the tax credits and consistently working 

to build a career-ready force as my colleague, Colonel Norton, said 

in making sure that servicemembers can acquire skills that will 

translate once they leave the military. 

Chairman SANDERS. Gentlemen, thank you very much for your 

testimony and your response to the questions. I do not need you to 

answer this publicly but as a favor I want you to be thinking about 

if we are going to improve and expand existing programs, we need 

money to do that; and one of the ways that I hope to find funds 

is I need your help in telling us what programs, in your judgment, 

are no longer working at the VA, no longer efficient. 

I need your help basically to tell us where there is waste. We are 

looking at a budget of almost $150 billion. Not every nickel there 

is spent as effectively as it can be. 

So as the world changes, we want the VA to change and become 

more efficient but I need your help to identify those areas as well. 

OK? 

Gentlemen, thank you very much for being here today. 

This meeting is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:01 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(183) 

A P P E N D I X 

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

I would like to thank Chairman Sanders and Ranking Member Burr for holding 

this hearing on pending benefits legislation. I remain committed to ensuring that 

the United States lives up to the promises we have made to our Nation’s service 

men and women. The members of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee and other 

colleagues have worked diligently to address the needs of veterans from all eras, 

and I look forward to marking up these bills in the near future. 

Of course, when we talk about veterans’ benefits we must make sure that they 

are delivered in a timely manner to the veterans and their families. I continue to 

have concerns regarding the VA disability claims backlog, and I think the current 

situation is inexcusable. I will work with my colleagues on the Committee to ensure 

that any claim submitted is decided in a timely and accurate manner. 

I would like to highlight a few bills that I have cosponsored and think will help 

address some of the needs veterans have. 

I would like to thank Chairman Sanders for introducing S. 893, the Veterans’ 

Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013. As compensation payments 

are based on the Consumer Price Index and historically tied to adjustments made 

to Social Security, I am proud to cosponsor this bill, which ensures veterans will 

receive a cost-of-living adjustment, too. I believe it is important that veterans are 

given proper compensation for the sacrifices made in service to our country, and am 

glad all of the Committee members have shown a similar commitment. 

Next, I am an original cosponsor of S. 495, the Careers for Veterans Act of 2013, 

introduced by Ranking Member Burr. I believe we must enable servicemembers to 

translate the valuable skills they honed during their military service into successful 

civilian careers. It is important that the Federal Government be a model employer 

of veterans, and this bill requires that Federal agencies use the Veterans Recruitment Appointment authority to hire no fewer than 10,000 veterans into existing vacancies. The VA and the Department of Defense already use VRA extensively, and 

I think the rest of the Federal Government could benefit from it as well. This bill 

also enables veterans to use their military training to acquire credentials and licenses administered by the states. It requires states to develop examinations for the 

credentials and licenses for veterans to take without additional training or apprenticeships if they meet certain criteria. I believe that this bill will help veterans use 

their skills as effectively in the civilian workforce as they did during their military 

service. 

I am happy to continue my support of the disabled veterans training or competing 

for the U.S. Paralympic Team. There are four grantees in the state of Georgia doing 

good work for disabled veterans. I am happy to cosponsor this bill and thank Senator Boozman and Senator Begich for introducing the bill this Congress. 

Finally, I am an original cosponsor of S. 705, the War Memorial Protection Act 

of 2013. Our military has always fought to protect the rights enshrined in Constitution and the Bill of Rights, including the freedom to express religious beliefs. This 

bill would ensure that religious symbols, regardless of affiliation, are allowed to be 

part of military memorials that commemorate those who served or paid the ultimate 

price in service to their country. 

PREPARED STATEMENT BY HON. MAZIE K. HIRONO, U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII

Thank you Chairman Sanders for your remarks. 

Today we will be considering a number of bills related to veterans’ benefits. Our 

Nation’s veterans answered the call to duty and served and sacrificed in defense of 

liberty and freedom. Support for servicemembers and their families, whether on acVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00187 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN
184 

tive duty, during the transition back home, or as they settle into civilian life as veterans, is our country’s responsibility. 

While I have cosponsored a number of bills before the Committee today aimed to 

help fulfill our obligation to our Nation’s veterans, I would like to focus on legislation related to Filipino World War II Veterans. 

I want to associate myself with the testimony of my colleague from Hawaii, Senator Schatz, in support of S. 690, the Filipino Veterans Fairness Act. 

Filipino veterans, many of whom live in Hawaii, are those that answered the call 

of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and served honorably alongside our Armed 

Forces during World War II. They fought shoulder to shoulder with American servicemen; they sacrificed for the same just cause. 

President Roosevelt made a promise to provide full veterans’ benefits to those who 

served with our troops but Congress denied these rights in passing the 1946 Rescission Act. And while we have made appreciable progress, we have not yet achieved 

the full equity that Filipino veterans deserve. 

S. 690 would deem service in the organized military forces of the Government of 

the Commonwealth of the Philippines and the Philippine Scouts to have been active 

service for purposes of benefits under programs administered by the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA). 

I want to thank the Military Officers Association of America for their support and 

urge my colleagues to support S. 690. 

I recognize the concerns voiced by the VA and others on this bill and want to state 

that as a policymaker I think we should consider multiple proposals and ways to 

provide equity to these veterans. 

I also wish to speak in support of S. 868, the Filipino Veterans Promise Act, I cosponsored with Sen. Heller which seeks to resolve issues surrounding the implementation of the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund. 

The bill would establish a process to determine whether individuals claiming certain service in the Philippines during World War II are eligible for compensation 

from the fund despite not being on the National Personnel Records Center list used 

by the VA. 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 established the Filipino 

Veterans Equity Compensation (FVEC) Fund that provides a one-time benefit payment to eligible Filipino World War II veterans. 

Over 45,000 claims were received and processed. While more than 18,000 claims 

have been approved, over 24,000 were denied and around 4,500 denied claims have 

been appealed. 

To determine the Filipino veterans eligible for FVEC payment, the Department 

of the Army relies on an official Guerrilla list that was created in 1948 in the immediate post-war period. 

However, many possible inaccuracies in the official Guerrilla list, which is maintained and searched by the National Archives’ National Personnel Records Center 

(NPRC) in St. Louis, Missouri, have been identified. The NPRC has noted name variation issues and the existence of other U.S. records verifying service in addition to 

the Guerilla list. This has resulted in the reversal of denial decisions by the VA. 

In light of evidence that the current process needs improvement and that these 

Filipino veterans are now in the 80s and 90s, the urgency to resolve this issue cannot be emphasized enough. 

I look forward to working with the Committee, Secretary Shinseki, and Secretary 

Hagel on this issue and urge my colleagues support these bills. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. HARRY REID, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA

Mr. Chairman, For over a decade, we have sent men and women into battle. After 

two wars, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars, tens of thousands have 

come back wounded, and 6,709 servicemembers have paid the ultimate price. Moreover, as our Nation’s heroes transition into civilian life, they are increasingly faced 

with a new battle—trying to find a job. 

Unemployment is an issue facing all Americans, especially in Nevada, but veteran 

unemployment numbers are routinely higher than the national average. In fact, as 

of March 2013, roughly 783,000 veterans were unemployed and looking for work, including 207,000 post-9/11 veterans. For me, this is simply shameful. Our servicemembers who are currently fighting to protect the freedoms we all enjoy should be 

focused on the task at hand, not worried about what they will do when they come 

home. And those who have already left the military should be able to put the skills 

and experience they have developed in the most highly trained military in the world 

to use. 

185 

To combat this problem, I introduced one of the first pieces of legislation during 

the 113th Congress: the Putting our Veterans Back to Work Act of 2013 (S. 6). 

Whether by equipping veterans with the skills they need to succeed in today’s workforce or helping them get their own small businesses off the ground, this bill honors 

the sacrifice of the men and women who served in our Armed Forces and builds 

upon the great work the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee has undertaken in the 

past several years to help veterans find jobs. 

Specifically, this legislation reauthorizes the transition, retraining, and employment services created by the VOW to Hire Heroes Act. It also further enhances the 

VOW to Hire Heroes Act by creating a new, unified, online employment portal for 

veterans seeking information regarding Federal employment and jobs training resources; provides grants to first-responders for hiring and re-hiring needs; and directs agency heads to favorably consider contractors that employ a significant number of veterans for contracts of $25 million. 

S. 6 is also instrumental in strengthening our vow to protect employment rights 

for all veterans. This legislation enables the Attorney General to investigate and file 

suit against a pattern or practice of Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) violations by a state or private employers; allows Federal agencies to suspend and debar Federal contractors who repeatedly violate the 

employment and reemployment rights of members of the Armed Services; and provides the Special Counsel with authority to subpoena attendance, testimony, and 

documents from Federal employees and agencies in order to carry out investigations 

related to USERRA. 

Finally, this legislation helps veteran small business owners. S. 6 codifies the Patriot Express Loan Program into law. This program has been an invaluable resource 

for small businesses owned by veterans, servicemembers, and their families by providing loans of up to $500,000. This legislation also raises the Small Business Administration Surety Bond Cap to $5 million, enabling many veteran-owned small 

businesses to compete for larger contracts. 

I appreciate Chairman Sanders and the Veterans’ Affairs Committee for taking 

the time to consider this valuable piece of legislation that is so badly needed. Putting veterans back to work is a key priority for Senate Leadership during the 113th 

Congress, and moving forward, you can count on my support in working with the 

Veterans’ Affairs Committee to ensure that our Nation’s commitment to veterans 

does not end with their tours of duty. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. G.K. BUTTERFIELD, 

U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NORTH CAROLINA

Chairman Sanders and Ranking Member Burr, Thank you for the opportunity to 

submit written testimony to your committee. I regret that I was unable to testify 

in person. 

I urge the Committee to support S. 262, the Veterans Education Equity Act of 

2013, introduced by Senator Dick Durbin (IL). I introduced identical legislation in 

the House of Representatives in the 112th and 113th Congresses. The Veterans 

Education Equity Act seeks to equalize veterans’ tuition and fee benefits under the 

Post-9/11 G.I. Bill by resolving an inequity in the existing law that unintentionally 

allots more education funds to veterans enrolled in private colleges than those in 

public institutions. Last Congress, the House Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on 

Economic Opportunity held a legislative hearing on an identical version of the Veterans Education Equity Act. 

Enacted in January 2011, the Post-9/11 Veterans’ Educational Improvements Assistance Act caps the amount of education benefits for veterans enrolled in private 

colleges at $18,077.50, and limits the education benefit for veterans who attend public colleges to the amount charged for in-state tuition and fees. This law unintentionally burdens a significant number of American veterans, requiring them to pay 

thousands of dollars out-of-pocket in non-resident tuition and fees. In certain states, 

this can add up to more than $100,000 in costs, which has resulted in veterans 

dropping out of college, transferring to another school, or assuming significant student debt. The Veterans Education Equity Act is essential to more than 20,000 veterans who are paying for school out-of-pocket although they were promised full 

funding for their college education. 

The table below illustrates how S. 262 would improve current law by showing its 

impact on Post-9/11 G.I. Bill education aid available to veterans at four institutions 

in North Carolina: 

186 

At Elizabeth City State University (ECSU), in-state tuition and fees are $2,776 per year and out-of-state tuition and fees are $13,633. Under current law, a veteran 

with North Carolina residency attending ECSU would have his full tuition covered. 

A veteran who is not a resident of North Carolina would be charged $13,633 but 

only receive $2,776 in education benefits, so he would owe $10,857 out-of-pocket. 

However, if that veteran chose to attend Chowan University which costs $11,405, 

his education benefits would cover full tuition and fees. The Veterans Education Equity Act would equalize benefits for veterans who choose to attend public or private 

institutions. 

Last year there were 516 veterans at University of North Carolina institutions 

and 667 veterans in North Carolina Community Colleges who would be immediately 

impacted should this bill become law. In my District, Air Force veteran Edward Bailey, who attended East Carolina University (ECU), faced $6,000 in charges before 

classes began in fall 2011 after the Post-9/11 Veterans’ Educational Improvements 

Assistance Act became law. He was forced to take out a $5,000 loan and borrow 

$1,000 from friends to stay in school. In his final year of school, he was forced to 

pay for $30,000 in tuition and fees. Marine Corps veteran Nan Lopata, who also attended ECU, received G.I. benefits to cover full tuition and fees for her first semester in spring 2011, only to face $6,800 in charges before her second semester in fall 

2011. She was unable to afford to continue as a full-time student, delaying her graduation. But worse, she must shoulder her misfortune without relief because the 

United States did not honor their commitment to her. Two other students attending 

ECU—James and Mary Murtha—received full tuition G.I. benefits for their first 

three academic years before receiving bills in fall 2011 totaling $38,000 to complete 

their senior years. Their father, active duty Marine Corps Colonel Brian Murtha, 

was forced to withdraw $36,000 from his retirement funds. We owe it to veterans 

and their families to protect the benefits they were promised when they joined our 

military. 

I am concerned that the alternative legislative approach being considered in this 

hearing, S. 257, would create unintended consequences that could negatively impact 

veterans and our higher education system. The bill would require every public institution, as a condition of participating in the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill program, to charge 

every veteran no more than the in-state rate. In the vast majority of states, public 

institutions do not have the authority to grant in-state tuition rates to out-of-state 

veterans—those decisions are a matter of state law controlled entirely by the state 

legislature. If a state legislature is unable or unwilling to make the changes called 

for in this bill, all veterans would be prohibited from using their Post-9/11 G.I. Bill 

benefits to attend that state’s public institutions. While I appreciate and share the 

goals of the bills’ sponsors, the legislation would allow an inappropriate level of Federal intrusion and would result in significant harm to veterans’ ability to attend 

public institutions of their choosing. In my home state of North Carolina, there are 

many outstanding public institutions such as North Carolina Central University, 

East Carolina University, and Elizabeth City State University; to name a few, that 

are providing veterans with an excellent education and important support programs 

and services. 

S. 257 is an unfunded mandate which sets a dangerous precedent by shifting responsibility for veterans’ benefits from the United States Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) to the states. The bill is significantly more expensive to taxpayers than 

the Veterans Education Equity Act which focuses specifically on correcting the inequity in current law for the 20,000 veterans who are impacted. The actual cost and 

impact of S. 257 is uncertain and warrants further investigation. In fact, in an April 

House subcommittee hearing on identical companion legislation, VA Deputy Under 

Secretary for Economic Opportunity Curtis L. Coy testified, ‘‘VA cannot offer support for this legislation because of its uncertain impact on the availability of eduVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00190 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN

612apBUT3.eps
187 

cational choices for Veterans, Servicemembers, or their dependents.’’ I strongly 

agree with Mr. Coy’s assessment: S. 257 should not move forward until such time 

as the Committee can assure itself that the bill will not result in unintended and 

negative consequences for veterans. 

We owe our veterans every opportunity to get a quality education and enter the 

workforce with the tools needed to compete. Our broad coalition including 45 cosponsors and seven higher education groups urge the Committee to consider the positive 

impacts this legislation will have for our Nation’s veterans. If we do not correct this 

problem, up to 20,000 veterans could face paying as much as $100,000 in out-ofpocket tuition costs in a tough economy, and at a time when 9.2 percent of veterans 

are unemployed. Let’s treat all of our veterans fairly by passing the Veterans’ Education Equity Act out of committee and helping it become law. 

Enclosure from the American Association of State Colleges and Universities follows. 

188 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. MURIEL A. HOWARD, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN

ASSOCIATION OF STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (AASCU) 

Thank you Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, and other distinguished 

Senators for affording me this opportunity to submit testimony on the role of 

AASCU institutions in providing affordable access to higher education for our veterans; I commend the Committee for exploring this topic. My name is Dr. Muriel 

Howard and I have the honor of serving as the president of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU). Now in its 51st year, AASCU is 

a national leadership association consisting of over 400 presidents, chancellors and 

system heads of public four-year colleges and universities. The group is diverse in 

its membership, ranging from small, liberal arts institutions enrolling a few hunVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00192 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN

612apBUT1.eps
189 

dred students to research-intensive universities that enroll tens of thousands of 

students. 

AASCU will be providing written testimony on two bills before the Committee: 

S. 257, the proposed ‘‘GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act of 2013,’’ and S. 262, the proposed 

‘‘Veterans Education Equity Act of 2013.’’ Both bills would essentially provide instate tuition rates for our veterans, something AASCU as an organization strongly 

supports. However, we have significant concerns about the mechanism used in 

S. 257 that would shift the cost burden for Post-9/11 GI Bill Benefits from the Federal Government to the states. Since many institutions of higher education do not 

have independent tuition-setting authority, 40 state legislatures would need to 

change state laws in order to comply with the bill. Many states have enacted minimum residency requirements that students must meet to be eligible for in-state tuition rates. For example, in the District of Columbia, to receive the in-state tuition 

rate, a veteran must reside in the District for a full year to become eligible. We have 

concerns regarding the practicality of having multiple states change their laws regarding in-state tuition for veterans in a short period of time. Thus, we conclude 

that S. 262 includes language that is a preferred method for providing in-state tuition. The procedure in S. 262 would avoid confusing our veterans and not put additional stress on overburdened state budgets still recovering from a recession. 

S. 262—THE VETERANS EDUCATION EQUITY ACT

In short, The Veterans Education Equity Act addresses the unintentional harm 

to veterans enrolled as out-of-state students at public institutions of higher education resulting from the passage of the Veterans Educational Assistance Improvements Act, Public Law 111–377. After passage of the 9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) began the unenviable 

task of implementing the legislation in a very short period of time. The VA established a tuition and fee payment schedule for each state in order to do so. In creating this structure, the VA separately determined the highest amount in tuition 

and in required fees charged to a student attending a public institution, rather than 

combining tuition and required fees into one amount as is the standard practice in 

higher education billing procedures. This structure resulted in veterans attending 

public institutions having all or nearly all of their tuition and fee charges paid via 

their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits regardless of whether they were considered an instate or out-of-state student. 

The major focus of Public Law 111–377 was to revamp the tuition and fee structure first established by the VA. The legislation established two criteria: those veterans attending public institutions would receive benefits equal to in-state tuition 

and fee charges, while veterans attending private institutions would receive the 

lesser of $18,000 or their actual charges for tuition and fees. Congress, when drafting this legislation, thus created an inequity considerably reducing benefits for those 

veterans attending public institutions located outside of their home state. The benefit for in-state tuition and fee charges is worth, on average, about $8,655 per year 

and does not pay the full tuition and fee costs at public institutions located outside 

a veteran’s home state. Out-of-state tuition and fees at public four-year institutions 

averaged $21,706 in 2012–13 (College Board Trends in Pricing, 2012, p. 3). On the 

contrary, if one of our veterans chooses to attend an out-of-state private institution, 

he or she will automatically qualify for up to $18,000 per year. Simply put, a veteran who chooses to attend a public institution is entitled to, on average, less than 

half of the benefit of a veteran who chooses to attend a private institution. S. 262 

would remedy this inequity. 

AASCU supports S. 262 as the preferred method to provide in-state tuition for our 

veterans. We believe that this bill would not shift additional cost burdens on institutions and states along with providing what amounts to in-state tuition by leveling 

off the payment disparity between public and private colleges. Finally, this bill 

would avoid creating additional confusion for our veterans. Forty states would not 

need to update state laws in order to be eligible to receive benefits from the Federal 

Government. 

S. 257—THE GI BILL TUITION FAIRNESS ACT

S. 257 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to deny GI Bill benefits to 

veterans who are not charged in-state tuition rates. Moreover, this bill would not 

allow any veteran or their dependents enrolled at a public institution to receive GI 

Bill benefits if that institution does not offer in-state tuition to all veterans. As stated previously, AASCU strongly supports offering in-state tuition rates to veterans. 

However, we are concerned that this bill could create more problems than it actually 

solves. 

190 

S. 257, as currently written, would require institutions to convince state legislatures to alter their tuition laws on a state-by-state basis. Currently only 10 states 

provide in-state tuition to veterans regardless of their state of legal residence. We 

do not think it is realistic to expect 40 states to substantially amend their state tuition laws prior to August 1, 2014. 

It is important to remember that the majority of public colleges and universities 

in the United States do not set their individual tuition or control the state policies 

governing tuition. Postsecondary tuition policy in the remaining 40 states is set by 

state legislatures, a statewide coordinating board, or other state entities with authority to set tuition for institutions. In addition, many states have established clear 

criteria for who is eligible to receive in-state tuition benefits. Currently, only 10 

States offer in-state tuition to qualified veterans immediately after they move into 

the state. Thus, state legislatures would ultimately be required to change the residency treatment of veterans. This is a potentially difficult obstacle in many states. 

Given the complexity of tuition-setting policies across 40 states, it is quite likely 

that institutions will not be legally permitted to charge in-state rates regardless of 

their desire to serve veterans. Veterans seeking to enroll in public institutions in 

those states would need to find other, more than likely costlier, programs in order 

to utilize their GI Bill benefits. Veterans would be forced to either move to a state 

that offered in-state tuition, go to a more expensive private nonprofit institution, attend a for-profit college or abandon their plans to attend college. 

This will create a scenario of confusion since many veterans arrive on campus 

with the full expectation of receiving their GI Bill benefit. Public institutions would 

be forced to inform veterans that they would not be eligible to use those benefits 

in states where in-state tuition has not been specifically approved for veterans. Further, no new additional veterans, whether designated in-state or out-of-state residents, would be permitted to use their GI Bill benefits in the state. Thus, AASCU 

envisions further confusion which could potentially discourage veterans from pursuing any postsecondary education as well as creating a negative atmosphere toward veteran-friendly public institutions that are legally bound by the laws of the 

states in which they are located. 

Veterans usually decide to remain in local communities after the end of a tour 

of duty in a specific location where they may not be considered state residents for 

a variety of reasons including their minor children being already established in local 

K–12 schools (particularly those minor children with special needs), their spouses’ 

employment, their family’s integration into the local community, their caregiving responsibilities for other family members, and so forth. If they are located in a state 

that is unable or has yet to alter residency treatment for veterans, significant disruption to the family unit could occur. A veteran would explore options at a campus, 

not be able to use their GI Bill benefits there, and be forced to move to a state offering in-state tuition in order to receive their benefits. Passage of this measure would 

create a hodge-podge of eligible and ineligible states. 

Further, we ask if the Committee has considered the treatment of a veteran who 

is forced to move to another state as a result of family obligations such as caring 

for an ill or aging parent? If a veteran is attending classes at an institution within 

a state that has automatic in-state tuition eligibility for veterans, but moves to one 

that does not in order to satisfy family obligations such as caregiving, the veteran, 

through no fault of his or her own, will no longer be eligible to use GI Bill benefits 

in order to complete coursework. 

It may also be instructive for the Committee to understand the nature of in-state 

versus out-of-state tuition and fee rates. One way of looking at an established outof-state rate is to consider it as the full cost to the institution of educating a student. Since public institutions receive support from the state in order to provide its 

residents with an education—a priority of the state—the in-state tuition and fee 

rate reflects the cost to the institution after factoring in the state subsidy. Thus, 

an in-state rate is supported by state taxpayers. Out-of-state surcharges, therefore, 

are an attempt for the state to recoup the costs of educating those students whose 

education has not been supported by state taxpayers. Passage of this bill would shift 

paying for veterans’ education—established under the original post-World War II GI 

Bill and all its successive iterations as a Federal Government obligation—to the 

states, but only for veterans attending public institutions. 

This inequitable treatment would punish public institutions—and only public institutions for the legal inability to set their own tuition and fees. It would not affect 

private non- and for-profit institutions that charged, on average respectively, 

$29,056 and $15,172 for tuition and fees in 2012–13 (College Board Trends in Pricing, 2012, p. 10). Thus, it would end up costing veterans—and public institutions, 

that educate the majority of Americans—rather than helping them. Therefore, 

AASCU does not support the punitive aspects of S. 257. 

191 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAX CLELAND, SECRETARY, AMERICAN BATTLE

MONUMENTS COMMISSION

S. 705—WAR MEMORIAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2013

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for the invitation to 

submit written testimony on S. 705, the ‘‘War Memorial Protection Act of 2013.’’ 

The American Battle Monuments Commission believes its existing statutory 

framework provides the Commission with sufficient authority to execute its mission. 

Accordingly, we would not expect S. 705 to have any impact on Commission authorities or operations. 

192 

LETTER FROM AMERICAN COALITION FOR FILIPINO VETERANS, INC. 


612apACFV.eps
193 

1Most recently, In November 2012, the ACLU initiated a lawsuit, on behalf of the Service 

Women Action Network and other plaintiffs, against the Department of Defense challenging the 

ground combat exclusion. Over the years, we have also successfully challenged military recruitment standards and military academy admissions policies that discriminated against women; 

fought for servicewomen to receive the same military benefits as their male counterparts; and 

defended the rights of pregnant servicewomen; and advocated for servicewomen’s access to reproductive health care. 2DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, ANNUAL REPORT ON SEXUAL ASSAULT IN THE MILITARY: FISCAL

YEAR 2012, VOLUME I, 3 (2013), available at http://www.sapr.mil/media/pdf/reports/FY12_DOD_ SAPRO_Annual_Report_on_Sexual_Assault-VOLUME_ONE.pdf. 3 Id. at 25. 4 James Risen, Military Has Not Solved Problem of Sexual Assault, Women Say, N.Y. TIMES, 

Nov. 2, 2012 at A15, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/02/us/women-in-air-force-saysexual-misconduct-still-rampant.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0. 5See Invisible Wounds: Examining the Disability Compensation Benefits Process for Victims 

of Military Sexual Trauma: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Disability Assistance & Mem’l Affairs of the H. Comm. on Veterans’ Affairs, 112th Cong. (2012) (statement of Anu Bhagwati, Executive Director, Service Women’s Action Network). 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAURA W. MURPHY, DIRECTOR; VANIA LEVEILLE, SENIOR

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL; AND ELAYNE WEISS, LEGISLATIVE ASSISTANT, WASHINGTON

LEGISLATIVE OFFICE, AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

On behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and its more than a half 

million members, countless additional supporters and activists, and 53 affiliates nationwide, we commend the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee for bringing attention to the problems survivors of military sexual trauma face when applying for disability benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 

For decades, the ACLU has worked not only to end discriminatory treatment 

within our military,1 but also to prevent and respond to gender-based violence and 

harassment in the workplace and to ensure women’s full equality. The ACLU also 

works to hold governments, employers and other institutional actors accountable so 

as to ensure that women and men can lead lives free from violence. 

Over the last several years, Congress, the Department of Defense and the VA 

have grappled with the scourge of sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape within the military. Although a variety of proposals have been implemented and some 

progress has been made to prevent and respond to sexual assault, sexual harassment and rape in the military, the problem is deeply-rooted and persists. More than 

3,300 reports of sexual assault were made in FY 2012,2 but we know that the incidence of sexual assault is significantly underreported. The Pentagon estimated that 

26,000 incidents of sexual assault occurred in 2012 alone,3 and that one in three 

women serving in the military has been sexually assaulted.4 While such statistics 

alone are alarming, the problem of military sexual assault is compounded by the 

fact that servicemembers who leave the service find that the trauma they experienced as a result of sexual assault is not adequately recognized by the VA. 

The ACLU supports the Ruth Moore Act of 2013 (S. 294), which would remove 

current barriers that far too often prove insurmountable for sexual assault survivors 

who apply for disability compensation for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) 

and other mental health conditions. Congress should act quickly to enact this 

legislation. 

I. CONGRESSIONAL ACTION IS NEEDED TO EASE THE EVIDENTIARY BURDEN OF PROOF

SURVIVORS OF SEXUAL ASSAULT MUST MEET WHEN SEEKING DISABILITY BENEFITS. 

Veterans who were sexually assaulted during their service in our Armed Forces, 

and who now seek disability benefits, for conditions such as PTSD and depression, 

face enormous barriers. Data obtained through a FOIA lawsuit, filed in 2010 by the 

ACLU and the Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN) against the VA and the 

Department of Defense, shows that only 32 percent of PTSD disability claims based 

on military sexual trauma were approved by the Veterans Benefits Administration 

(VBA), compared to an approval rate of 54 percent of all other PTSD claims from 

2008–2010. Moreover, of those sexual assault survivors who were approved for benefits, women were more likely to receive a lower disability rating than men, therefore 

qualifying for less compensation. 

Despite the disparity in approved claims uncovered by the FOIA lawsuit, the VA 

has indicated that it is unwilling to amend 38 CFR § 3.304(f), the current regulation 

governing the claims process for PTSD.5 In 2011, the VA issued a ‘‘fast letter’’ to 

all VA Regional Offices (VAROs) reiterating the current policy while also emphasizing that the regulation should be interpreted liberally to give a veteran’s claim 

194 

6See Training Letter 11–05 from Thomas J. Murphy, Director, Compensation & Pension Services, to all VA Regional Offices (Dec. 2, 2011). 7 Id. 

8Godfrey v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 113, 121 (1995). 9Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Claims Based on Personal Attacks, 67 Fed. Reg. 10330 (Mar. 

7, 2002) (codified in 38 CFR pt. 3). 10The National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2013 changed this policy so that now DOD 

must retain these documents for 50 years, but only at the request of the servicemember. Pub. 

L. No. 112–239, § 577, 126 Stat. 1632, 1762. 11DEP’T OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, VETERANS HEALTH INITIATIVE: MILITARY SEXUAL TRAUMA 58

(2004), available at http://www.publichealth.va.gov/docs/vhi/military_sexual_trauma.pdf. 12 A study commissioned by the VA reported that ‘‘rating decisions often call for subjective 

judgments.’’ INST. FOR DEF. ANALYSES, ANALYSIS OF DIFFERENCES IN DISABILITY COMPENSATION

IN THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, VOLUME 1: FINAL REPORT, S–3 (2006), available at 

http://www.va.gov/VETDATA/docs/SurveysAndStudies/State_Variance_Study-Volumes_1_2.pdf. 

See also Title Redacted by Agency, Bd. Vet. App. 0318972 (2003) (veteran’s claim was denied 

despite presenting substantial evidence corroborating his sexual assault, including documentation of erratic behavior, sworn statements attesting to military performance issues, and records 

of mental counseling and treatment for sexual transmitted diseases.). 13Focusing on People: A Review of VA’s Plans for Employee Training, Accountability, and 

Workload Management to Improve Disability Claims Processing: Hearing Before H. Comm. on 

Veterans’ Affairs, 113th Cong. (2013) (submission for the record of The American Federation of 

Government Employees). 14 Rick Maze, VFW defends VA official, despite continued backlog, FED. TIMES (Mar. 20, 

2013, 4:19 PM), http://www.Federaltimes.com/article/20130320/DEPARTMENTS04/303200003/ 

VFW-defends-VA-official-despite-continued-backlog. 

the benefit of the doubt.6 The letter provided further guidance for what secondary 

markers—evidentiary signs, events or circumstances—a claims officer should seek 

out and review in determining the validity of a disability claim. While we commend 

the VA for providing such guidance, it fails to address the problem. Although the 

VA specifically ‘‘developed regulations and procedures that provide for a liberal approach to evidentiary development and adjudication of [ ] claims,’’ 7 the subjective 

nature of the current policy actually works against survivors of sexual assault. 

The VA’s regulations explicitly treat veterans who suffer from PTSD based on sexual trauma differently from all other PTSD claims, including those related to combat and hostile military activity. Even when a veteran can establish a diagnosis of 

PTSD and his or her mental health provider connects PTSD to sexual assault during service, the VA ‘‘is not required to accept doctors’ opinions that the alleged 

PTSD had its origins’’ 8 in the claimant’s military service. The VA reasoned that 

while such a diagnosis may constitute credible evidence, it is not always probative.9

As a result, the VA requires additional evidence, such as records from law enforcement authorities, hospitals, or mental health facilities, that generally does not exist. 

As the Department of Defense itself acknowledges, the vast majority of servicemembers who are assaulted do not report that assault because of the retaliation 

they are likely to face. 

Another problem faced by veterans is that until recently, the Department of Defense retained restricted reports of sexual assault for only 5 years; after that time 

the records were destroyed.10 On average, a veteran who was assaulted waits 15 

years after leaving the service to file a disability claim with the VA.11 Because of 

this delay and the Pentagon’s former record retention policy, veterans who were sexually assaulted are effectively cutoff from accessing critical evidence substantiating 

their disability claim to the VA. Likewise, as more time passes before a veteran 

seeks disability benefits, the harder it becomes for that individual to later prove a 

claim of sexual assault through secondary markers, such as statements from fellow 

servicemembers or deterioration in work performance. People move away, while documents are lost or discarded. 

Even when a veteran is able to present evidence to a claims examiner, whether 

the claim is approved is ultimately determined by a subjective standard that differs 

from examiner to examiner leading to inconsistent outcomes.12 Moreover, VAROs 

have seen high workforce turnover and the time period over which new employees 

receive training on adjudicating claims has been significantly reduced from one year 

to just eight weeks.13 As the VA grapples with the overwhelming number of outstanding benefits claims, which now total almost 900,000,14 unprepared and overburdened employees may not have the time or the skill set needed to properly investigate and adjudicate complex sexual assault disability claims. 

While the VA stands by its current policy, it is clear that the Department is not 

achieving its mission to ‘‘treat all veterans and their families with the utmost digVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00198 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN
195 

15 U.S. DEP’T OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, ABOUT VA: MISSION, CORE VALUES & GOALS, available 

at http://www.va.gov/about_va/mission.asp (last visited Apr. 15, 2013). 16 Ruth Moore Act of 2013, S. 294, 113th Cong. § 2(a) (2013). 17 Complaint at 2, Serv. Women’s Action Network v. U.S. Dep’t of Def., No. 3:2010cv01953 (D. 

Conn. Feb. 23, 2011). 

nity and compassion.’’ 15 Instead the VA has created an unfair standard that sets 

sexual assault survivors up to fail in claiming the disability benefits they deserve. 

The Ruth Moore Act would rectify the current policy and bring fairness to the 

claims process. Under S. 294, the VA would be required to treat PTSD claims related to sexual assault the same way it treats all other PTSD claims: by accepting 

the veteran’s lay testimony as sufficient proof that the trauma occurred ‘‘in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.’’ 16 This standard will help 

reduce the number of inconsistent and arbitrary adjudication decisions that result 

from applying a subjective standard and will decrease the risk of veterans experiencing further trauma as they navigate the claims process. 

II. S. 294’S REPORTING REQUIREMENT HELPS ENSURE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY. 

The ACLU works to hold our government accountable for responding to and taking proactive measures to end the cycle of violence in our country. For this reason, 

in 2010 we filed a Federal lawsuit against the Department of Defense and the VA 

for their failure to respond to our FOIA requests seeking records documenting incidents of sexual assault, sexual harassment, and domestic violence in the military 

and how the government addresses this violence. The goal of the lawsuit was to ‘‘obtain the release of records on a matter of public concern, namely, the prevalence 

of [military sexual trauma] (MST) within the armed services, the policies of DOD 

and the VA regarding MST and other related disabilities, and the nature of each 

agency’s response to MST.’’ 17

Given our past work in advancing government accountability, we strongly support 

the provision in the bill that requires the VA to submit an annual report to Congress that includes statistics, such as the number sexual assault-related claims that 

were approved or denied, and the average time it took the VA to adjudicate a claim. 

Should you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact our Senior Legislative Counsel. 

196 

LETTER FROM AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION AND OTHER GROUPS


612ACLU2.eps
197 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY


612apACS.eps
198 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL–CIO AND THE AFGE NATIONAL VA COUNCIL

OVERVIEW

The American Federation of Government Employees and the AFGE National VA 

Council (hereinafter ‘‘AFGE’’), the exclusive representative of employees processing 

disability claims at the Department of Veterans Affairs (Department) Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) Regional Offices (ROs) support the Department’s Transformation efforts and appreciate the opportunity to share our views on Section 101 

of S. 928, the Claims Processing Improvement Act of 2013, which would establish 

a working group to improve VBA’s employee work credit and work management systems. AFGE commends Chairman Sanders’ leadership in introducing legislation to 

create a new work credit system through collaboration between the Department, 

employee representatives, and veterans service organizations. Creating a more effective, scientifically designed, databased system for measuring the personnel hours 

and other resources required to accurately decide veterans’ claims the first time will 

help reduce VBA’s backlog of benefits claims and better serve our Nation’s veterans. 

AFGE urges this Committee to provide ongoing oversight of the work group’s efforts 

to design and implement this new work credit system. 

COMPOSITION OF THE WORKING GROUP

AFGE commends Chairman Sanders for proposing to increase collaboration 

among interested parties to fix the current, broken work credit system. AFGE also 

supports the provision in the bill for Congressional oversight of progress of the 

working group. 

AFGE also supports the requirement in the bill to include frontline employees recommended by a labor organization in the working group. Frontline employees provide a unique perspective on workplace issues and the current work credit system, 

and will play a valuable role in identifying much needed improvements for a new 

work credit system. Their input will be especially critical during the current period 

of Transformation when many new processes are being implemented. It is critical 

that labor representatives are able to select these employees as well in order to ensure true collaboration with VA management and stakeholders. 

AFGE supports requirements in S. 928 for regular oversight and reporting to Congress. The reports outlined in Section 101(e) are thorough and allow for several opportunities for Congressional oversight and adjustment. For example, the bill allows 

for implementation of changes following the first report after 180 days, which will 

allow positive changes to the work credit system to take place prior to the final report from the working group. 

The mandate in Section 101(c) (3) to create a new resource allocation model will 

also make long overdue changes in the claims process. Currently, VBA deprives low 

performing offices of resources, rather than shifting resources to strengthen the capacity of these offices. VBA must change its resource allocation model to support 

struggling Regional Offices, and AFGE supports Chairman Sanders’ focus on this 

issue. 

AFGE urges the Committee to include in Section 101(b)(2) specific language regarding the number of work group representatives from the Department, labor and 

veterans’ community to ensure effective collaboration in the work group. 

AFGE also requests that work group’s duties be expanded to include consultation 

with an independent subject matter expert to design and conduct a scientific, 

databased, time motion study. This study will serve as the foundation of the new 

databased methodology. Under VBA’s current work credit system, Veteran Service 

Representatives (VSRs), Rating VSRs (RVSRs), and Decision Review Officers 

(DROs) complete numerous time consuming steps in the adjudication process for 

which they receive no credit, as discussed more fully below. These tasks are both 

critical to VBA’s ability to process claims and the agency’s customer service for veterans. Despite assertions made by VBA in the past, the agency has never completed 

a data driven time motion study to analyze the time needed for each of these tasks. 

Similarly, AFGE recommends incorporating an independent third party expert in 

the assessment phase of the workgroup in Section 101(c)(1). Finally, in order to ensure that the new work credit system is properly designed, this independent entity 

must be able to provide ongoing oversight and input, and have regular access to all 

work group participants. 

CURRENT WORK CREDIT SYSTEM PROBLEMS

As noted, VBA has never had a formal work credit system in place that is based 

on actual data reflecting the amount of time required to process specific types and 

199 

components of claims. The current work credit system does not include an inventory 

of employees’ daily tasks. The agency has made a few perfunctory efforts to establish a more reliable set of measures over the years. However, AFGE has not seen 

any work credit study or work credit system based on actual data. 

Some of the main problems with the current work credit system include: 

• Lack of consistency • Lack of a solid methodology • Failure to update its ‘‘system’’ • Lack of participation from the front line employees and veterans service officers 

with direct knowledge of the work process • Lack of work credit for a variety of tasks 

The only study AFGE is aware of is the 2008 IBM Gap Analysis study. IBM’s 

main work credit recommendation was to provide work credit for developing and 

rating issues, rather than claims as a whole. When IBM tested these performance 

measures on 150 RVSRs, they found the employees produced at a higher quality and 

used far less excluded time while rating cases. However, the study did not break 

down the time for every piece of rating and development. The study is also outdated 

now with VBMS’ implementation. 

Depriving employees of the proper credit for critical work needed to get claims 

processed accurately and timely the first time hurts veterans by increasing errors 

and delays. 

VBA EMPLOYEE SURVEY ON CURRENT WORK CREDIT SYSTEM

AFGE conducted an informal survey of Regional Offices to identify how well the 

current work credit system measures (or does not measure) the hours and skills required to complete different tasks. Responses from employees working in approximately a dozen different offices indicated widespread inconsistencies in how much 

work credit is awarded for the same tasks. Perhaps more troubling, employees in 

every Regional Office and position are required to perform daily tasks for which 

they are provided zero credit or only partial credit. By denying credit for significant 

tasks, the current work credit system increases workplace stress, puts pressure on 

employees to rush through claims, and results in unwarranted negative performance 

ratings. 

More specifically, employees reported that they receive inadequate or zero work 

credit for the following tasks: 

• Deferred ratings: Deferred ratings occur on a daily basis in Regional Offices. It 

is important to spend time on these issues since the veteran should be assisted and 

informed accurately about additional medical evidence they will need for their claim. 

However, RVSRs do not receive any credit for cases where there is a deferred rating 

(for example, cases deferred back to the VSR because additional medical evidence 

is required). It is typical for a RVSR to have at least one deferred rating every day 

that requires two hours of work to write up medical opinions, tag pages where additional evidence is needed, and write an opinion for each issue being deferred—without any credit. For example, an RVSR is working on a case where the veteran has 

claimed ten issues, but only two can be rated. The RVSR must spend significant 

time on the other eight issues. In this situation, the RVSR will receive credit for 

only two issues, rather than ten. • Multi-issue and complex cases: VSRs are not given adequate credit for rating 

a case with significantly more issues or complexity. Employees receive additional 

credit for completing cases with at least three issues. However, veterans are regularly filing claims cases with dozens of issues. VSRs do not receive any additional 

credit for developing a case with thirty issues versus a case with three issues. Employees also are denied sufficient credit for processing cases involving complex 

claims such as military sexual trauma and TBI. • VSR work by RVSRs: RVSRs regularly work on developing cases (VSR work). 

Sometimes, RVSRs will receive a case to rate that needs additional development. 

Other times, Regional Offices do not have the proper ratio of VSRs to RVSRs; consequently, there are not enough cases to rate. In both of these instances, RVSRs 

work on developing cases, yet they receive no credit for this work. 

• Mentoring: VBA’s more senior claims processors receive no credit for assisting 

or mentoring newer employees. 

• Productive time lost due to breakdowns in VBMS: VBMS is in the process of 

being rolled out nationally. However, the system still has frequent and significant 

malfunctions, at both the RO and national levels. During VBMS shutdowns or malfunctions, employees receive no adjustment to their work credit requirements for 

lost production time. This has become a major issue with VBA’s recent enactment 

of mandatory overtime for employees. For example, employees reported that VBMS 

200 

shutdown on May 30, 2013 during mandatory overtime hours. Mandatory overtime 

cannot possibly be productive if employees are consistently dealing with a system 

that breaks down on a regular basis. 

• Supplemental development: VSRs can take credit for supplemental development, 

while RVSRs and DROs cannot. However, VSRs must complete an Advanced Development Course in order to request medical opinions. At one Regional Office, VSRs 

regularly request medical evidence, despite the course not being offered for several 

years. This is inconsistent across VBA. 

• Training: Employees are not given sufficient work credit for time spent during 

trainings. Often times, training is shifted away from classroom instruction to reading slides or a packet at their desk with less time allotted by managers than required by the curriculum. Employees are consistently not given enough work credit 

for the time it takes to go through this type of training. 

The absence of a valid work credit system exacerbates the well documented problem of VBA managers manipulating backlog data to improve performance measures. 

The newest Fast letter from Undersecretary Hickey on long pending cases has an 

admirable goal of processing cases that have been pending for a long period of time. 

Veterans who fought for this Nation deserve to have their claims processed in a 

timely manner, and waiting over two years for a decision from VBA is unacceptable. 

However, in practice, this newest quick fix from VBA shifts difficult, time consuming cases to high performing office where employees are denied any additional 

credit for processing these more challenging cases. If Regional Offices are going to 

dedicate their efforts to this essential yet difficult task, employees must receive the 

proper work credit. 

Section 102 

Section 102 of S. 928 establishes a task force on retention and training of VBA 

employees working as claims processors and adjudicators. AFGE recommends adding a provision to S. 928 Section 102(b) to require the inclusion of employees on this 

task force, based on the recommendations of their labor representatives. 

Proper retention techniques and training of a strong workforce will play an essential role in helping to lower the backlog of veterans’ claims. Input from frontline employees is essential in determining inadequacies with training, inconsistencies 

across Regional Offices, issues related to career growth, and general morale. 

AFGE believes it is essential to have frontline employees provide input into decisions related to retention and training in order to provide a wide and accurate scope 

of the workplace in VBA. A consistent theme throughout the ROs is that VBA management takes a ‘‘one size fits all’’ approach when creating their training materials. 

The training is not broken up between specific offices, and longtime employees receive the same training as newer employees. There is also no consideration of areas 

of performance when determining which type of training to give which employees. 

In the past, when employees have not been able to provide input, the training program suffers. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input from AFGE and its National VA 

Council on this important legislation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN PETERS, PRESIDENT, 

THE AMERICAN MILITARY PARTNER ASSOCIATION

Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you holding this hearing today, and for your dedication to our servicemembers, veterans, and their families. We are forever grateful to you for continuing 

to ensure our military families receive the support they deserve for their service to 

our great Nation. 

You are considering a wide range of benefits bills here today that would impact 

the lives of our Nation’s veterans and their families. However, there is one bill in 

particular that I would like to focus our testimony on because of the disproportionate impact it would have on our community and on the lives of so many military 

families—the Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act. 

As the Nation’s largest non-profit, non-partisan resource and support network for 

lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) military families, the American Military Partner Association (AMPA) is committed to connecting, supporting, honoring, 

and serving the partners and spouses of America’s LGBT servicemembers and veterans. Our membership spans all branches of the military, every state in the Nation, and a wide range of experiences that all military families endure—including 

multiple members whose spouses have paid the ultimate sacrifice while serving. 

201 

Currently, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the Department of Defense (DOD) are limited in what benefits may be made available to the same-sex 

spouses of servicemembers and veterans. The Charlie Morgan Military Spouses 

Equal Treatment Act of 2013 would require the VA and the DOD to: (1) recognize 

any legal marriage by a state that permits same-sex marriage; and (2) grant access 

to military and veteran’s related benefits to the spouses of all servicemembers. 

There are more than 100 benefits granted to servicemembers, veterans, and military families based upon marital status, yet many of these are denied to same-sex 

military spouses and their families. While the previous Secretary of Defense, Leon 

Panetta, ordered the extension of a select number of benefits to same-sex domestic 

partners (the full extension of which has yet to be implemented), there are still critical areas of support and benefits that the same-sex spouses of servicemembers and 

veterans are and will continue to be be denied without passage of this bill. 

Of direct relation to this Committee are the benefits provided through the VA to 

surviving spouses. Currently, surviving legal spouses who happen to be of the same 

gender are denied access to benefits like dependency and indemnity compensation, 

survivor’s pension, dependent’s educational assistance, and home loans. Nothing 

could be more dishonorable than to deny the legal spouse of a fallen servicemember 

critically needed support and benefits simply because of their gender. Regardless of 

their gender, these spouses hurt too when their loved one dies or is injured—both 

emotionally and financially. As a nation that is committed to honoring all who serve 

and supporting those they leave behind, this flaw in our current veterans benefits 

framework must be corrected. 

One of AMPA’s members in North Carolina, Tracy Dice Johnson, is the first 

known same-sex military spouse to lose her wife to war. Tracy’s wife, North Carolina National Guardsman Staff Sergeant Donna Johnson, was killed in action in Afghanistan on October 1, 2012, by a suicide bomber while on patrol. When Staff Sergeant Johnson was killed, Tracy did not receive the proper notification from the 

Army because she is not recognized as the primary next-of-kin. Tracy sadly had to 

find out about her wife’s death through someone else. At Donna’s funeral, Tracy had 

to watch the flag of her fallen wife be given to someone else, something no military 

spouse should ever have to endure. Even though they were legally married, Tracy 

is not recognized as the military spouse that she undoubtedly is. To add insult to 

injury, she is still denied all of the surviving spouse benefits provided to heterosexual military and veteran spouses by our government. 

The Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act would correct this injustice by extending vital benefits to same-sex military and veteran spouses. The bill 

itself is named after the late Charlie Morgan, who served as a Chief Warrant Officer 

in the New Hampshire National Guard. Charlie recently died of cancer, leaving behind her wife and daughter. Charlie’s widow, Karen, is also denied all of the survivor benefits normally afforded to heterosexual widows of servicemembers and 

veterans. 

There are numerous other military and veterans benefits and support services 

that same-sex spouses and their families are excluded from, such as access to military and veterans health programs, financial support for expensive moves to new 

duty stations, access to military family housing, family housing allowances at the 

‘‘with dependent’’ rate, and even command sponsorship for overseas duty stations. 

All are denied simply because the legally wed spouse is of the same gender as the 

servicemember or veteran. While these selfless Americans voluntarily commit their 

lives in defense of our Nation, our Nation has turned it’s back on their families. 

These military families serve and sacrifice just as much for our freedom as their 

heterosexual counterparts, yet they do it all without the same level of support and 

benefits. They continue to sacrifice and serve because they believe in the goodness 

and righteousness of the United States of America and in the mission of our Armed 

Forces. The least our Nation can do in return is provide them and their families 

with access to the same benefits and support as everyone else who serves. 

The Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act would finally honor 

all who serve and have served by providing equal access to support and benefits to 

these honorable warriors and their families. Most importantly for this Committee, 

it would ensure that the spouses of the fallen are properly cared for and receive the 

dignity, respect, and support they rightly deserve. 

I truly appreciate your consideration of the impact this bill would have on the 

lives of our military families. We owe these families more than our gratitude; we 

owe them the proper support that they too deserve. Thank you. 

202 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAGGIE GARRETT, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICANS

UNITED FOR SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE


612apAUS2.eps
203 


612apAUS3.eps
204 


612apAUS4.eps
205 


612apAUS5.eps
206 


612apAUS6.eps
207 

LETTER FROM THE ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY


612apAUSN.eps
208 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr and Members of the Committee, the 

Department of Defense (DOD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on pending 

legislation before this Committee. We are committed to providing our Servicemembers and veterans with the support and benefits they are deserved, and ensuring the partnership between DOD and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

works toward those ends. Included in this written statement are our views on legislation that DOD has a direct equity. Thank you again for this opportunity and the 

continued support of this Committee and Congress. 

S. 373, THE CHARLIE MORGAN MILITARY SPOUSES EQUAL TREATMENT ACT OF 2013

S. 373 would change the current definition of spouse to include a person of the 

same sex lawfully married under the law of the state where the marriage occurred. 

This proposal would enact an exception to the DOMA for the sole purpose of defining the word ‘‘spouse’’ in titles 10, 32, 37, and 38, United States Code. The Department of Defense supports the extension of benefits to same-sex domestic partners 

of military members to the fullest extent allowable under the law. 

S. 495, CAREERS FOR VETERANS ACT OF 2013, SECTION 3; AND S. 492

While the Department appreciates the intent of this legislation (Section 3 of 

S. 495 and S. 492 are identical) to assist our Veterans by eliminating barriers to credentialing and licensing at the state level, there are, however, two areas we would 

like to highlight. 

The proposed legislation could potentially withhold funding from two Department 

of Labor programs specifically designed to assist Veterans with employment—the 

Disabled Veteran’s Outreach Program and the Local Veterans Employment Representatives. 

Also by limiting participation to Veterans who have, ‘‘* * * not less than 10 years 

of experience in a military occupational specialty * * *’’ the proposed legislation 

misses the Veteran demographic with the highest rates of unemployment. According 

to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the 2012 annual average unemployment rate for 

Veterans aged 18 to 24 was 20.4%. The requirement for 10 years of experience effectively prevents mid to lower grade Servicemembers from taking advantage of this 

section of the proposed legislation. Younger Servicemembers who decide to depart 

the military after their first or second enlistment will not be eligible to take advantage of this proposal. 

S. 629, HONOR AMERICA’S GUARD-RESERVE RETIREES ACT OF 2013

This bill would add to chapter 1, title 38, United States Code, a provision to honor 

as Veterans, based on retirement status, certain persons who performed service in 

reserve components of the Armed Forces but who do not have service qualifying for 

Veteran status under 38 U.S.C. § 101(2). The bill provides that such persons would 

be ‘‘honored’’ as Veterans, but would not be entitled to any benefit by reason of the 

amendment. 

Under 38 U.S.C. § 101(2), Veteran status is conditioned on the performance of ‘‘active military, naval, or air service.’’ Under current law, a National Guard or Reserve 

member is considered to have had such service only if he or she served on active 

duty, was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line 

of duty during active duty for training, or was disabled or died from any injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty or from an acute myocardial infarction, a cardiac arrest, or a cerebrovascular accident during inactive duty training. 

S. 629 would eliminate these service requirements for National Guard or Reserve 

members who served in such a capacity for at least 20 years. Retirement status 

alone would make them eligible for Veteran status. 

DOD recognizes that the National Guard and Reserves have admirably served 

this country and in recent years have played an even greater role in our Nation’s 

overseas conflicts. Nevertheless, the Department does not support this bill because 

it represents a departure from active service as the foundation for Veteran status. 

This bill would extend Veteran status to those who never performed active military, 

naval, or air service, the very circumstance which qualifies an individual as a Veteran. Thus, this bill would equate longevity of reserve service with the active service 

long ago established as the hallmark for Veteran status. The Department does not 

concur with expanding the definition and calling this population ‘‘veterans,’’ even if 

that does not entail qualification for associated benefits. 

209 

Additionally, this provision as written is likely to cause significant confusion 

amongst the population of those who have served, and under S. 629 would be called 

‘‘veterans,’’ yet not be qualified for any additional benefits. 

S. 674, ACCOUNTABILITY FOR VETERANS ACT OF 2013

This bill states that whenever the Secretary of Veterans Affairs submits a request 

for information, that the head of a covered agency has no more than 30 days to provide all information that the Secretary determines is necessary to adjudicate a claim 

for a benefit under a law administered by the Secretary. 

DOD and VA have both agreed to a 45 day timeframe to allow any and all last 

minute medical care documentation, particularly coming back from TRICARE network providers, time to ‘‘catch up’’ to the Service Treatment Record and be interfiled 

prior to sending the Service Treatment Record to VA. This agreement enabled DOD 

to dramatically decrease the volume of late and loose flowing medical documentation 

to the VA Records Management Center and provides greater likelihood that the 

Service Treatment Record is complete upon transfer to VBA. Thus, the proposed legislation of implementing a 30 day requirement is not feasible and would undermine 

the current DOD/VA efforts in this arena. 

S. 690, FILIPINO VETERANS FAIRNESS ACT OF 2013; 

S. 868, FILIPINO VETERANS PROMISE ACT

The Department opposes S. 690 and S. 868 regarding the identification of individuals claiming service in the Philippines during World War II, because the current 

and effective process is consistent with the process used for other conflicts, ensures 

the service of claimants is properly authenticated, and results in claimants receiving 

all benefits to which they are entitled. 

The requirements for validating the qualifying service of Filipino Guerillas who 

belonged to the U.S. Army Forces in the Far East (USAFFE) and non-USAFFE Guerillas were established in the wake of the U.S. Government’s robust ‘‘Guerilla Recognition Program’’ that operated in the Philippines from 1945–1948. The Army’s 

service validation tools, which include operational records, rosters, and other documents that identify USAFFE and non-USAFFE Guerillas, were created as part of 

an extremely thorough public outreach effort, spanning across the Philippines, to 

identify and record any service of Philippine nationals in support of the Allied war 

effort. This information was developed and collected in direct coordination with the 

Philippine Authorities to serve as a mechanism by which the Army could assess future claims. 

Over the years, the U.S. Army spent a significant amount of time reviewing its 

qualifying service verification policies and procedures for potential USAFFE and 

non-USAFFE Filipino Guerillas. Changing the validation process for potential Filipino Veterans of World War II could result in inequity between special population 

groups associated with other past conflicts and could generate an unprecedented 

number of new claims that could not be verified given the passage of time. The current process has been well-tested and has proven to be effective and efficient in ensuring that the service of claimants is properly authenticated with a view to ensuring that claimants receive all benefits to which they may be entitled. 

S. 889, SERVICEMEMBERS’ CHOICE OF TRANSITION ACT OF 2013

While we support the premise of this legislation, namely to ensure Servicemembers are informed of their GI Bill benefits and how to access those benefits to 

support the attainment of their educational goals, we believe adding more time to 

the existing Transition curriculum as stated in Section 10 is not the best approach. 

The VA currently provides GI Bill benefits information within the mandatory (VOW 

Act) Transition VA Benefits briefings and we believe the best approach is to leverage and build on the existing curriculum to ensure Servicemembers are well informed of how to access their GI Bill Benefits to support the attainment of their 

educational goals. Additionally, the testing provision contained in section 2(a)(3) duplicates the admissions testing process already in place at academic institutions requiring admissions testing. Moreover, requiring Servicemembers to take a test, as 

required by this legislation, when they are applying to institutions of higher learning that do not require such a test for admission, places an undue burden and potential additional costs on Servicemembers, which their non-Servicemember counterparts are not required to bear. 

210 

LETTER FROM JUDITH T. WON PAT, ED.D., OFFICE OF THE SPEAKER, 

32ND GUAM LEGISLATURE


612apGUAM1.eps
211 


612apGUAM2.eps
212 

ATTACHMENTS: 


612apGUAM3.eps
213 


612apGUAM4.eps
214 


612apGUAM5.eps
215 

LETTER FROM REV. DR. C. WELTON GADDY, PRESIDENT, 

INTERFAITH ALLIANCE


612apGAD1.eps
216 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA

Bill # Bill Name Sponsor Position 

S. 6 Putting Our Veterans Back to Work Act of 2013 ....................................................... Reid Support 

S. 200 Bill to authorize the interment in national cemeteries individuals who served in 

combat support of the Armed Forces of Laos.

Murkowski No Position 

S. 257 GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act of 2013 ........................................................................... Boozman Support 

S. 262 Veterans Education Equity Act of 2013 ...................................................................... Durbin No Position 

S. 294 Ruth Moore Act of 2013 .............................................................................................. Tester Support 

S. 373 Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act of 2013 ................................ Shaheen Support 

S. 430 Veterans Small Business Opportunity and Protection Act of 2013 ........................... Heller Support 

S. 492 Bill to require States to recognize the military experience of veterans when 

issuing licenses and credentials to veterans.

Burr Support 

S. 495 Careers for Veterans Act of 2013 ............................................................................... Burr Support 

S. 514 Bill to provide additional educational assistance to veterans pursuing STEM and 

other high-demand occupation degrees.

Brown No Position 

S. 515 Bill to extend the Yellow Ribbon G.I. Education Enhancement Program ................... Brown Support 

S. 572 Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act .............................................................. Burr Support 

S. 629 Honor America’s Guard-Reserve Retirees Act of 2013 ............................................... Pryor Support 

S. 674 Accountability for Veterans Act of 2013 ..................................................................... Heller Support 

S. 690 Filipino Veterans Fairness Act of 2013 ...................................................................... Schatz No Position 

S. 695 Veterans Paralympic Act of 2013 ............................................................................... Boozman Support 

S. 705 War Memorial Protection Act of 2013 ......................................................................... Burr No Position 

S. 735 Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of 2013 ............................................................... Sanders Support 

S. 748 Veterans Pension Protection Act ................................................................................. Wyden Support 

S. 778 Veterans ID Card Act .................................................................................................. Burr Support 

S. 819 Veterans Mental Health Treatment First Act of 2013 ................................................ Burr Support 

S. 863 Veterans Back to School Act of 2013 ......................................................................... Blumenthal Support 

S. 868 Filipino Veterans Promise Act ..................................................................................... Heller No Position 


612apGAD2.eps
217 

Bill # Bill Name Sponsor Position 

S. 889 Servicemembers’ Choice in Transition Act of 2013 ................................................... Boozman Support 

S. 893 Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013 .............................. Sanders Support 

S. 894 Bill to extend the VA’s work-study allowance program and expand the program to 

include outreach within Congressional offices.

Sanders Support 

S. 922 Veterans Equipped for Success Act of 2013 .............................................................. Sanders Support 

S. 927 Bill to require the VA to carry out a demonstration project to increase awareness 

of benefits and services.

Sanders Support 

S. 928 Claims Processing Improvement Act of 2013 ............................................................ Sanders Review 

S. 932 Putting Veterans Funding First Act of 2013 .............................................................. Begich Support 

S. 935 Quicker Veterans Benefits Delivery Act ....................................................................... Franken Support 

S. 938 Franchise Education for Veterans Act of 2013 .......................................................... Moran Support 

S. 939 Bill to treat certain misfiled documents as motions for reconsideration of decisions by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals.Blumenthal Support 

S. 944 Bill to require courses of education provided by public institutions of higher education to charge veterans tuition at the in-state rate.Sanders No Position 

Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, and Distinguished Members of the 

Committee: On behalf of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA), I would 

like to extend our gratitude for being given the opportunity to share with you our 

views and recommendations regarding these important pieces of legislation. 

IAVA is the Nation’s first and largest nonprofit, nonpartisan organization for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and their supporters. Founded in 2004, 

our mission is critically important but simple—to improve the lives of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans and their families. With a steadily growing base of over 200,000 

members and supporters, we strive to help create a society that honors and supports 

veterans of all generations. 

IAVA strongly believes that all veterans must have access to quality health care, 

education, and employment resources. The men and women who volunteer to serve 

in our Nation’s military do so with the understanding that they and their families 

will be cared for as promised both during their period of service and after their period of service as well. IAVA stands with you in faithfully supporting legislation that 

helps to accomplish these goals. 

S. 6

IAVA supports S. 6, the Putting Our Veterans Back to Work Act of 2013, which 

would extend critical aspects of the VOW to Hire Heroes Act and the Wounded Warrior Act. This bill will make a difference for veterans who are currently unemployed 

and servicemembers who will be entering the civilian workforce in the future. By 

passing the VOW to Hire Heroes Act, Congress sent veterans a clear message— 

we’ve got your back. This legislation contains critical provisions that we believe will 

help veterans find jobs, and it could not have come at a better time. Veteran unemployment still remains high, but Congress has recognized that the greatest investment they could make is supporting the New Greatest Generation. This bill forwards that goal. 

S. 200

IAVA has no position on S. 200, which would make an individual eligible for interment in a national cemetery if they served in combat in support of the Armed 

Forces of Laos between February 28, 1961, and May 15, 1975, and at the time of 

death the individual was a U.S. citizen or lawfully admitted alien. 

218 

S. 257

IAVA strongly supports S. 257, the GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act of 2013, which 

would grant in-state status at public colleges and universities for all veterans using 

the GI Bill. For those who elect to return to school after completing their military 

service obligations, the GI Bill has been a remarkable personal development and 

economic mobility tool for our Nation’s veterans, and a tremendously successful investment for our country. The new, Post-9/11 GI Bill in particular has also been a 

tremendous boon for veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who deserve the 

same opportunities and adjusted benefit levels as were afforded to veterans of previous generations. 

But with the entry of millions of new veterans into the ranks of those now utilizing their earned education benefits, the need for various adjustments and fixes 

to the program have come to light over the years. Given that Congress and the 

American people agree that all veterans deserve a fair opportunity to be able to utilize their benefits without undue hardship, this body has generally been amenable 

to quickly addressing these various issues as they have come up. S. 257 would fix 

another one of these benefit access and utilization issues by allowing veterans to 

attend public colleges and universities at their respective in-state rates and, thereby, actually be able to afford to go to school and live comfortably using their Post9/11 GI Bill benefits. 

Because of the nature of military service, servicemembers are required to move 

around according to the needs of their service. Typically that means they are forced 

to settle down and reside for years in communities outside of their original state 

of residence. Servicemembers who are stationed at a particular base or post may 

live in that state for years, buy a home in that state, shop and pay local taxes to 

that state, raise a family in that state, and generally become part of the community 

in that locale. However, that servicemember is technically still not considered a resident of that state. So if he or she retires or ends his or her term of service in that 

state and wants to stay local and go back to school as a new veteran in the place 

where he or she has already functionally settled, that servicemember would nevertheless be considered a non-resident as a new veteran there and would be forced 

to pay the often-exorbitant out-of-state tuition rates for his or her education there. 

Veterans who wind up living in an area outside of their home states through no 

fault or choice of their own because of the obligations associated with serving their 

country in uniform should not be denied the opportunity to use their deserved and 

earned education benefits to cover the full cost of their education in an area where 

they have already become functional—but not technical—residents simply because 

of their military service. This bill would remedy that gap in tuition and residency 

fairness and ensure that all veterans can take advantage of the promise of the Post9/11 GI Bill without undue hardship. 

S. 262

IAVA has no position on S. 262, the Veterans Education Equity Act of 2013, 

would allow veterans who are considered non-residents of the state school they attend to receive up to $18,077 in tuition benefits, the same benefit that would be 

available to that veteran if attending a private institution. IAVA supports the residency and tuition issues that S. 262, aims to solve. However, it is IAVA’s belief that 

the method for resolving these issues laid forth in this bill is not the most viable 

and beneficial solution available for veterans. IAVA feels that better solutions exist, 

such as those covered in S. 257, but we nevertheless recognize and support the mutual goal of both pieces of legislation. 

S. 294

IAVA supports S. 294, the Ruth Moore Act of 2013, which would change the 

standard of proof so that official records are not required to sufficiently document 

an incident of military sexual trauma (MST) to the VA. Creating, obtaining or maintaining official records of MST has proven difficult for many victims over the years. 

As a result of this bill, veterans who say they were victims of MST would have their 

claim accepted if a mental health professional says their condition is consistent with 

sexual trauma and that other evidence does not rebut their claim. This legislation 

would shift the burden of proof by directing decisions to be resolved with ‘‘every reasonable doubt in favor of the veteran.’’ 

For years, combat veterans also faced similar problems as Military Sexual Trauma (MST) survivors in claiming benefits by having to provide documentation of a 

combat event that led to their PTSD. On numerous occasions, tangible documentation was incredibly difficult to produce. To address this, the VA made changes that 

219 

allowed veterans’ personal accounts of the incident(s) to serve as sufficient proof of 

a traumatic event if accompanied by diagnosis of PTSD and a medical link. The 

Ruth Moore Act would apply these same practices and principles to victims of MST. 

S. 373

IAVA supports S. 373, the Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act 

of 2013, which would make additional benefits available to all military spouses and 

families. This bill would require the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs 

to honor any marriage that has been legally recognized by a state and provide a 

number of key benefits to the spouses of all servicemembers. 

This bill is a natural extension of our mission to advocate for the best interests 

of our troops, veterans and their families. IAVA supports equality under the law for 

every member of our community. No servicemember or veteran should ever be treated as a second-class citizen by our country. However, when the family of any member of the Armed Forces is denied benefits, that’s exactly what happens. This policy 

undermines the morale and welfare of our troops and, by extension, the readiness 

of our Armed Forces. 

S. 430

IAVA supports S. 430, the Veterans Small Business Opportunity and Protection 

Act of 2013, which would allow small businesses bequeathed to spouses and dependents of veterans and of servicemembers killed in the line of duty to be treated as 

disabled veteran-owned small businesses for the purpose of VA contracting goals 

and preferences. In the troubling time following the death of a family member, surviving spouses and dependents need as much assistance as we can provide. This legislation would ensure that the VA’s useful small-business benefits and incentives get 

passed on to those spouses and dependents and that this critical source of family 

income can be sustained. 

S. 492

IAVA supports S. 492, which would enhance the transition of servicemembers to 

the civilian workforce and help reduce the veteran unemployment rate. Today’s veterans are highly skilled and better trained than ever, yet their unemployment rate 

remains high. This legislation would require a state to issue a license or credential 

to a veteran who has already passed the necessary exams within that state and has 

demonstrated use of the specific skill while a member of the Armed Forces. Thus, 

it would eliminate certain unnecessary and repetitive steps that veterans encounter 

too frequently in today’s job market. 

S. 495

IAVA supports S. 495, the Careers for Veterans Act, which would require the Director of Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to coordinate with Federal agencies and departments to hire 10,000 veterans to fill existing vacancies over the next 

five years. The bill would also require the Secretary of Labor to establish a one-stop 

job search center with a list of all Web sites and applications identified as beneficial 

for veterans trying to navigate their way through the job market. This bill would 

help create long-term, sustainable jobs for America’s veterans by transitioning the 

skills they gained through their service into jobs in the civilian workforce. By making licenses and credentials in their chosen fields more accessible, this bill is a rational approach to addressing the long-term employment needs of our Nation’s 

veterans. 

S. 514

At this point in time, IAVA has no position on S. 514, which would allow the VA 

to provide greater levels of assistance to those veterans pursuing science, technology, engineering, math degrees than it does to veterans pursuing programs of 

higher education in other fields. 

S. 515

IAVA supports S. 515, which would make the child of an individual who died 

while serving on active duty eligible for the Yellow Ribbon Program. The Yellow 

Ribbon Program has received much attention and many accolades since its inception. This program is designed to help ‘‘bridge the gap’’ caused by schools charging 

tuition and fees higher than the Post-9/11 GI Bill would cover. The Yellow Ribbon 

220 

Program of the Post-9/11 GI Bill will help make graduate schools and private universities more affordable for a veteran’s surviving family member. 

S. 572

IAVA supports S. 572, the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, which 

would end a capricious process through which the government strips veterans and 

other VA beneficiaries of their Second Amendment rights. Veterans who have a had 

fiduciary appointed to act on their behalf on financial matters are reported to the 

FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), a system which 

prevents individuals from purchasing firearms in the United States. The Veterans’ 

Second Amendment Protection Act would require a judicial authority to determine 

that a VA beneficiary poses a danger to himself or others before VA may send their 

names to be listed in the FBI’s NICS. 

S. 629

IAVA supports S. 629, the Honor America’s Guard-Reserve Retirees Act of 2013, 

which would grant full veteran status to members of the Guard and Reserve components who have served at least 20 years, but who were not called up for active duty. 

The men and women who have served in uniform for 20 or more years as Guard 

or Reserve members should be recognized as military veterans too, but are being 

overlooked. This legislation corrects that error. We must honor the sacred contract 

between a grateful nation and all veterans who make unselfish sacrifices in defense 

of freedom. 

S. 674

IAVA supports S. 674, the Accountability for Veterans Act of 2013, which would 

require prompt responses from covered Federal agencies when those agencies are 

asked for information necessary to adjudicate claims by the VA. According to the 

VA’s own figures, nearly 70 percent of claims are backlogged, a number that is unacceptably high. Such long wait times can delay the dispensing of benefits and the 

awarding of compensation and, in turn, can have a devastating impact on veterans 

and their families. 

In order to reduce the wait time that veterans are facing during the claims process, this legislation would hold agencies accountable on the submission of requested 

evidence in a timely manner. This accountability will help accelerate the claims 

process by ensuring that the necessary medical information has been collected to 

produce an accurate disability rating. This legislation would also keep veterans better informed about the status of their claims. Any effort that can make the claims 

process more efficient and more lucid will have a positive impact on the livelihood 

of our veterans. 

S. 690

At this point in time, IAVA has no position on S. 690, the Filipino Veterans Fairness Act of 2013, which would adjust the disbursement of benefits for certain veterans of WWII. As always, IAVA is incredibly humbled by the display of patriotism 

from those who served our country in a time of war across all generations. 

S. 695

IAVA supports S. 695, the Veterans Paralympic Act of 2013, which would extend 

through the 2018 fiscal year a joint program operated by the U.S. Department of 

Veterans Affairs and the U.S. Olympic Committee that funds grants to a host of 

adaptive sports programs for disabled veterans across the country. The bill would 

ensure that disabled veterans in local communities throughout the country continue 

to have opportunities for rehabilitation, stress relief, and higher achievement 

through adaptive sports. 

S. 705

IAVA has no position on S. 705, the War Memorial Protection Act of 2013, which 

would ensure that memorials commemorating the service of the United States 

Armed Forces may contain religious symbols. Nevertheless, IAVA strongly believes 

that American military memorials stand as an important public reminder of the sacrifices made by our men and women in uniform. 

221 

S. 735

IAVA supports S. 735, the Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of 2013, which 

would expand benefits for surviving spouses and continue to enhance the VA’s ability to ensure that a veteran’s family members are able to establish some stability 

in their lives after sacrificing so much. This bill would provide grief counseling in 

retreat settings to survivors whose spouses died while on active duty; expand benefits for children with Agent Orange-related spina bifida, to include those whose parent or parents served in Thailand; extend supplemental payments to survivors with 

children for five years after the veteran’s death instead of the current two; and 

change remarriage rules so that survivors who remarry can continue receiving benefits under the same rules that apply to other Federal benefits. Current rules cancel 

benefits for a spouse who remarries before age 57, but allow benefits to be restarted 

if the marriage ends. This bill would change the age to 55. 

S. 748

IAVA supports S. 748, the Veterans Pension Protection Act, which would help discourage abuses within the low-income veterans’ pension program by establishing a 

three-year ‘‘look back’’ period for individuals applying for benefits. By strengthening 

the pension program and implementing protections to put a stop to abuse, this bill 

would safeguard pension benefits so they would be there for those who genuinely 

need them. 

S. 778

IAVA supports S. 778, the Veterans ID Card Act, which would provide a simple 

mechanism by which those who served could readily prove their status as veterans. 

Currently only veterans who served at least 20 years or who have a service-connected disability are able to get an ID card from the VA establishing their service. 

The only option available for all other veterans is to carry a DD–214, which is impractical and unrealistic. This bill would make the veteran ID card available to all 

who served. 

S. 819

IAVA supports S. 819, the Veterans Mental Health Treatment First Act of 2013, 

which would place a stronger emphasis on treating veterans with mental health disorders and would also provide prevention and wellness incentives for veterans to 

seek treatment. Should a veteran choose to enroll in the voluntary program, that 

veteran would work with a VA clinician to develop an individual mental health 

treatment plan. A veteran who is diagnosed with a service-connected mental health 

issue (i.e. PTSD, anxiety, depression) would be eligible for enrollment, regardless of 

his or her disability claim status. 

S. 863

IAVA supports S. 863, the Veterans Back to School Act of 2013, which would 

eliminate the time restriction on using Montgomery GI Bill benefits. Those benefits 

currently expire ten years from the date that an individual separates from the military. This legislation would allow education benefits to expire ten years from the 

date of first use, which would give veterans greater flexibility to take advantage of 

their benefits. 

This legislation would also reauthorize the Veterans Education Outreach Program 

(VEOP) to provide funding for campus-based outreach services to veterans. VEOP 

provided formula grants to institutions of higher education based on the number of 

enrolled veterans receiving veterans’ educational benefits or vocational rehabilitation services. After more than 12 years of war, more and more veterans are going 

back to school, and this legislation would help expand veterans education outreach 

and further enrich veterans’ academic endeavors. 

S. 868

IAVA has no position on S. 868, the Filipino Veterans Promise Act, which would 

require the DOD to collaborate with military historians on a process to potentially 

make adjustments to the Approved Revised Reconstructed Guerilla Roster of 1948, 

also known as the ‘‘Missouri List.’’ As always, IAVA is incredibly humbled by the 

display of patriotism from those who served our country so bravely in a time of war. 

222 

S. 889

IAVA supports S. 889, the Servicemembers’ Choice in Transition Act of 2013, 

which would enhance the content of the Transition Assistance Program for servicemembers who are preparing to reintegrate into the civilian world, go back to school 

using their VA education benefits, and/or enter the civilian job market. This bill constitutes a positive step in the right direction toward equipping troops with the 

knowledge and skills they need to be successful as new veterans. 

We cannot simply turn new veterans loose into the civilian world and expect them 

to be successful, just as we would not release them as new troops onto a battlefield 

without proper acculturation and training. A strong, comprehensive, substantive, 

and consistent Transition Assistance Program is vital to ensuring servicemembers’ 

successful transition back into civilian life, and to ensuring the security and stability of their families. 

S. 893

IAVA supports S. 893, the Veterans’ Compensation Cost of Living Adjustment Act 

of 2013, which would give qualified disabled veterans and their dependents annual 

Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA) adjustments starting in December 2013. Tough 

economic times have placed a heavy burden on our wounded veterans and the limited resources they are afforded. IAVA believes this piece of legislation will help protect the financial stability of our disabled veterans and their families as costs increase over time. 

S. 894

IAVA supports S. 894, which would extend the VA’s work-study allowance program to 2016 and expand the program to include outreach within Congressional offices. This outreach would include distributing necessary information to servicemembers and veterans as well as their dependents about the benefits and services 

available through the VA as well as preparing any paperwork related to claims benefits. IAVA believes that this bill would benefit veterans by granting them valuable 

experience in the Federal Government and will benefit Congressional offices by substantially increasing the number of veterans helping other veterans. 

S. 922

IAVA supports S. 922, the Veterans Equipped for Success Act of 2013. As Congress knows well, today’s veterans are highly skilled and better trained than ever 

before, yet their unemployment rate remains far too high. While the most recent unemployment statistics show promising indications of increasing opportunities for our 

nations veterans, younger veterans are still experiencing difficulty finding adequate 

employment in the current job market. Addressing this problem remains a top priority for the veteran community, and IAVA supports this legislation because it will 

provide employment resources to veterans in general and to younger veterans 

specifically. 

S. 927

IAVA supports S. 927, the Veterans Outreach Act of 2013, which would require 

the VA to carry out a demonstration project to increase awareness of benefits and 

services. Too often, veterans express frustration about not knowing if the VA is capable of providing assistance on a variety of issues. Part of the VA’s mission is to 

make veterans’ lives better by getting them the right information about their benefits at the right time. 

IAVA welcomes legislative proposals focused on better informing veterans about 

the benefits and services available to them from the VA. Further, IAVA supports 

the continued establishment and strengthening of partnerships between the VA and 

other state, local, and non-governmental organizations for the benefit of America’s 

veterans, which this bill aims to accomplish. 

S. 928

IAVA supports S. 928, the Claims Processing Improvement Act of 2013. Far too 

many veterans are stuck in the VA’s claims backlog and their numbers have been 

increasing exponentially over the past few years. At present, over 860,000 VA claims 

are pending and over 569,000 (or 66.2%) of those claims are backlogged. This legislation would offer a wide array of support and solutions to help improve VA claimsrelated processes and capabilities, expand veterans’ ability to conveniently appeal 

223 

claims decisions, and provide for extensions of other important benefits and 

authorities. 

Of particular note within this bill is the establishment of working groups and task 

forces which collectively would mirror the work and resemble the constitution of the 

backlog commission or task force for which IAVA has been advocating. However, 

rather than a piecemeal approach to the establishment of these entities, IAVA supports a comprehensive approach under the authority of one task force. Since the 

problems related to the conditions under which the claims backlog has grown to 

such immense proportions are systemic and multidimensional, IAVA favors a comprehensive look at these problems and comprehensive solutions rather than a piecemeal approach. 

Ending the disability claims backlog is one of IAVA’s top priorities. As such, IAVA 

encourages the adoption of solid legislation that would provide long-term support 

and solutions to improve the timeliness and accuracy of VA disability claims processing, expand appeals rights for veterans, and improve upon other benefits and authorities designed to serve veterans and their families. 

S. 932

IAVA supports S. 932, the Putting Veterans Funding First Act, which would require Congress to fully fund the Department of Veterans Affairs’ discretionary budget a year in advance, ensuring that all VA accounts will have predictable funding 

in an era where continuing resolutions and threats of government shutdowns are 

all too frequent. America’s veterans have already paid their debt to this country and 

in return for their service, our Nation promised them care and benefits to help transition back into civilian life. This bill would fulfill that obligation by ensuring that 

crucial VA services are not affected by Washington’s partisan budgetary oscillations, 

and that the care and benefits veterans have earned are delivered to them in a 

timely manner. 

S. 935

IAVA supports S. 935, the Quicker Veterans Benefits Delivery Act of 2013, which 

would prevent the VA from requesting a medical examination to further assess a 

disability if a veteran submits medical evidence provided by a ‘‘competent, credible, 

probative, and otherwise adequate’’ non-VA medical professional in support of a disability claim. This legislation would require the VA to maximize the use of private 

medical evidence, which would conserve VA resources and enable swifter, more accurate rating decisions for veterans. VA should be a beneficial resource and efficient 

adjudicator, not a veteran’s biggest obstacle to disability compensation. 

S. 938

IAVA supports S. 938, the Franchise Education for Veterans Act of 2013, which 

would allow veterans interested in purchasing a business franchise to use up to 

$15,000 in VA educational assistance program funds to pay for franchise education 

and training programs. IAVA believes that veterans can benefit from such programs 

just as much as they can benefit from other programs and courses of study for 

which VA educational assistance can be utilized, and that a greater array of such 

educational and training programs will encourage veterans to start business that 

will improve their own livelihoods as well as the overall health of the American 

economy. 

S. 939

IAVA supports S. 939, which would protect a veteran’s appeal rights before the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims when the veteran mistakenly 

files a document with the VA and the document is not transmitted to the appropriate office in a timely fashion. This bill would instead treat that document as a 

motion for reconsideration before the Court of an adverse decision by the Board of 

Veterans Appeals in certain circumstances. The failure of VA to notify a veteran 

promptly of a filing error or to forward the document to the appropriate court or 

office should not deprive a veteran of the right to have a case reviewed on appeal. 

The VA should be a beneficial resource and a veteran’s strongest advocate, not an 

obstacle to compensation or care. 

S. 944

At this point in time, IAVA has no position on S. 944, the Veterans’ Educational 

Transition Act of 2013, which would require courses of education provided by public 

institutions of higher education to charge veterans tuition at the in-state rate as 

224 

long as the veteran separated within the last two years before enrollment. IAVA 

supports the tuition issue that S. 944 aims to solve. However, it is IAVA’s belief that 

the method for resolving the issue put forth in this bill is not the most viable and 

beneficial solution available for veterans. IAVA feels that better solutions exist, such 

as those covered in S. 257, but we nevertheless recognize and support the mutual 

goal of both pieces of legislation. 

We again appreciate the opportunity to offer our views on these important pieces 

of legislation, and we look forward to continuing to work with each of you, your 

staff, and the Committee to improve the lives of veterans and their families. Thank 

you for your time and attention. 

LETTER FROM PHILIP SMITH, NATIONAL LIAISON & WASHINGTON, DC, DIRECTOR, 

LAO VETERANS OF AMERICA

LAO VETERANS OF AMERICA, INC. 

Washington, DC, May 15, 2013. 

Hon. BERNARD SANDERS

Chairman, 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

RE: MAY 15, 2013, HEARING ON PENDING VETERANS BENEFITS LEGISLATION

& S. 690, THE FILIPINO VETERANS FAIRNESS ACT OF 2013. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN SANDERS, VICE CHAIRMAN BURR AND SENATE VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

COMMITTEE MEMBERS: On behalf of the Lao Veterans of America, Inc. (LVA) and 

the Lao Veterans of America Institute (LVAI), the Nation’s largest Laotian and 

Hmong-American veterans organizations with over 55,000 members across the 

United States, we write in support of important legislation S. 690, The Filipino Veterans Fairness Act of 2013, introduced by Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii. 

The Filipino Scouts, and Filipino veterans, are indeed special heroes that deserve 

the attention and support of this Committee. These veterans courageously served 

in bloody defense of the Philippines, and America’s Armed Forces, during World 

War II, and the brutal invasion and occupation of their island homelands by Imperial Japanese Army and naval forces. The Filipino veterans endured unspeakable 

suffering and helped turn the tide of battle. These veterans deserve the full support 

of the United States, and the U.S. Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee. 

We appeal to you Chairman Sanders, Vice Chairman Burr, and all of the Senate 

Veterans’ Affairs Committee Members, to act decisively, and unanimously, in support of passage of S. 690, The Filipino Veterans Fairness Act of 2013. It is critical 

for America to provide long-overdue fairness, and full veterans benefits, to all Filipino veterans who served during World War II. 

Time is running out for these elderly Filipino veterans and their families from 

World War II. 

We sincerely appreciate Senator Brian Shatz’s leadership on this important matter as well as the work of his staff on this issue. 

Like the Filipino veterans of World War II, the Lao and Hmong veterans served 

in defense of freedom and America’s interests in Southeast Asia when they were 

under relentless and bloody attack. Laotian and Hmong veterans uniquely served 

in the ‘‘U.S. Secret Army’’ defending the Kingdom of Laos and U.S. national security 

interests during intense combat the Vietnam War. The Lao and Hmong veterans 

truly know, understand and appreciate the full meaning of sacrifice on behalf of the 

defense of their homeland and the United States, having shed much blood and tears, 

and having saved the lives of many American soldiers, pilots and aircrews in defense of freedom. 

The Lao- and Hmong-American veterans of America’s war in Indochina, respectfully and humbly submit this appeal to you in support of S. 690 and all of the Filipino veterans of World War II. Please do not forget them, especially as Senator 

Schatz and others seek to memorialize the American and Filipino victims of the Bataan Death March. 

We hope that the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, and the U.S. Senate, will 

immediately act to pass this important legislation. 

Sincerely, 

PHILIP SMITH, 

National Liaison & Washington, DC, Director. 

225 

LETTER FROM NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ELDER LAW ATTORNEYS, INC. 


612apNAE1.eps
226 


612apNAE2.eps
227 

ATTACHMENTS: 


612apNAE3.eps
228 


612apNAE4.eps
229 


612apNAE5.eps
230 


612apNAE6.eps
231 


612apNAE8.eps
232 


612apNAE9.eps
233 


612apNAE11.eps
234 


612apNAE12.eps
235 


612apNAE14.eps
236 


612apNAE15.eps
237 


612apNAE16.eps
238 


612apNAE17.eps
239 


612apNAE18.eps
240 


612apNAE19.eps
241 


612apNAE20.eps
242 


612apNAE21.eps
243 


612apNAE22.eps
244 


612apNAE23.eps
245 


612apNAE24.eps
246 


612apNAE25.eps
247 


612apNAE26.eps
248 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT LEVINS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PERSONNEL RECORDS

CENTER, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

Thank you, Chairman Sanders, for giving me the opportunity to discuss S. 674, 

Accountability for Veterans Act of 2013. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is deeply committed to serving our Nation’s veterans and supporting the needs of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 

NARA’s National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) provides storage and reference services on the military personnel and medical records of nearly 60 million 

veterans. The center responds to approximately 5,000 requests each day. Most requests come directly from veterans and their next of kin; however, NPRC receives 

approximately 1,250 requests per day from the VA for the temporary loan of original 

records needed to adjudicate claims. 

The VA has a liaison office co-located at the NPRC facility and the two offices 

work closely to ensure VA’s prompt access to essential records. During the first 35 

weeks of fiscal year 2013 NPRC responded to nearly 218,000 requests from the VA. 

The average response time has been 2.2 workdays. 

Recognizing the importance of providing timely access to records, NPRC has 

worked with the VA to develop a process that enables the electronic transmission 

of requests, prompt delivery of responsive records, bar code tracking of records, and 

electronic status updates. Our systems are designed to accommodate the receipt and 

processing of bulk electronic files created by the VA, which include hundreds (sometimes thousands) of new requests each day. The VA is also able to submit individual 

requests electronically. Automatic email notifications are sent to acknowledge the 

receipt of new requests. If our systems determine that a responsive record is temporarily unavailable, the request is placed on backorder for thirty days or until the 

record is returned to file, whichever is sooner. In instances where a responsive 

record is not immediately available (approximately 5% of requests), electronic notifications are made to the VA. 

In addition to providing status updates through an electronic portal available to 

VA users, we also provide the VA with direct access to our production system. This 

access enables VA staff to delve deeper into order fulfillment details concerning specific requests and to run ad hoc queries and reports concerning work volumes and 

response times. 

NPRC also has a staff member appointed to serve as a liaison with the VA to ensure continuous, effective communication concerning fluctuations in workload, troubleshooting system issues, or any other issues involving service delivery to the VA. 

NPRC is already exceeding the response time and notification standards outlined 

in S. 674 and should be able to continuously meet the requirements going forward. 

NPRC is committed to serving America’s veterans and proud of its efforts to effectively support the VA in doing the same. We hope this information is helpful; we 

appreciate your interest in this important subject. 

249 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NATIONAL GOVERNORS ASSOCIATION


612apNGA2.eps
250 


612apNGA3.eps
251 


612apNGA4.eps
252 


612apNGA5.eps
253 


612apNGA6.eps
254 


612apNGA7.eps
255 


612apNGA8.eps
256 


612apNGA9.eps
257 


612apNGA10.eps
258 

ATTACHMENTS: 


612apNGA11.eps
259 


612apNGA12.eps
260 


612apNGA13.eps
261 


612apNGA14.eps
262 


612apNGA15.eps
263 


612apNGA16.eps
264 


612apNGA17.eps
265 


612apNGA18.eps
266 


612apNGA19.eps
267 


612apNGA20.eps
268 


612apNGA21.eps
269 


612apNGA22.eps
270 


612apNGA23.eps
271 


612apNGA24.eps
272 


612apNGA25.eps
273 


612apNGA26.eps
274 


612apNGA27.eps
275 


612apNGA28.eps
276 


612apNGA29.eps
277 


612apNGA30.eps
278 


612apNGA31.eps
279 


612apNGA32.eps
280 


612apNGA33.eps
281 


612apNGA34.eps
282 


612apNGA35.eps
283 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER J. DUFFY, COL., US ARMY (RET.), LEGISLATIVE

DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GUARD ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES

Thank you for all you have done for our veterans since 9/11 and for this opportunity to present this statement for the record. 

BACKGROUND—UNIQUE CITIZEN SERVICEMEMBER/VETERAN

The National Guard is unique among components of the Department of Defense 

(DOD) in that it has the dual state and Federal missions. While serving operationally on Title 10 active duty status in Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) or Operation 

Enduring Freedom (OEF), National Guard units are under the command and control of the President. However, upon release from active duty, members of the National Guard return as veterans to the far reaches of their states, where most continuing to serve in over 3,000 armories across the country under the command and 

control of their Governors. As a special branch of the Selected Reserves they train 

not just for their Federal missions, but for their potential state active duty missions 

such as fire fighting, flood control, and providing assistance to civil authorities in 

a variety of possible disaster scenarios. 

Since 9/11, over a half a million National Guard members have deployed in contingency operations to gain veteran status. When they return from deployment, they 

are not located within the closed structure of a 24/7 supported active military installation, but rather reside in their home town communities where they rely heavily 

on the medical support of the Veterans Administration (VA) when they can overcome time and distance barriers to obtain it. 

Using the National Guard as an operational force requires a more accessible mental health program for members and their families post-deployment in order both 

to provide the care they deserve as veterans and to maintain the necessary medical 

readiness required by deployment cycles. It cannot be a simple post-deployment 

send off by the active military of ‘‘Good job. See you in five years.’’ To create a seamless medical transition from active duty to the VA, an improved medical screening 

of our members before they are released from active duty is essential to identify the 

medical issues that will be passed to the VA. The Department of Defense must also 

recognize its responsibility of sharing the burden with the VA in funding mental 

health care for our National Guard members between deployments. 

The Department of Defense must also be called to task for the mishandling and 

disappearance of National Guard medical records in the OIF/OEF theaters and the 

shoddy administration of Guard and Reserve demobilization. Statistics published 

last year by the VA show that the VA denies National Guard and Reserve disability 

benefit compensation claims at four times the rate of those filed by active duty veterans. Lacking clear records to establish the service connection for their injuries, 

our Guard members face failure when they later file their VA disability claims for 

undocumented physical and behavioral injuries. This is a blot on the integrity of our 

Federal Government in its treatment of our veterans. This Committee must seriously and separately in another hearing consider legislation to establish a presumption of service connection for certain war common injuries of National Guard and 

Reserve veterans who later file disability benefit compensation claims based upon 

those injuries. 

Military service in the National Guard is uniquely community based. The culture 

of the National Guard remains little understood outside of its own circles. When the 

Department of Defense testifies before Congress stating its programmatic needs, it 

will likely recognize the indispensable role of the more cost efficient National Guard 

as a vital operational force, but it will say little about, and seek less to, redress the 

benefit disparities, training challenges, and unmet medical readiness issues for National Guard members and their families at the state level before, during, and after 

deployment. We continue to ask Congress to give the Guard a fresh look with the 

best interests of the National Guard members, their families, and the defense of the 

homeland in mind. 

CORRECT THE DISPRPORTIONATE DENIAL RATE FOR RESERVE COMPONENT VETERANS’ 

DISABILITY BENEFIT COMPENSATION CLAIMS WITH SERVICE-CONNECTION PRESUMPTIONS FOR KEY INJURIES

According to Veterans Administration statistics published in May 2012, it is denying adjudicated disability benefit compensation claims for Reserve Component (RC) 

Global War on Terror at four times the rate of active duty GWOT veterans according to a published VA May 2012 report. 

284 

Years of neglect in the Office of the Secretary of Defense with the demobilization 

process for RC members returning home from GWOT deployment and the inadequate capturing of theater medical records for the RC have come home to roost. 

Area theater commands in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring 

Freedom did not establish a reliable method for preserving in-theater records of the 

RC. Congress heard testimony during the peak years of OIF in 2007 that some 

medically evacuated RC members sometimes returned stateside with medical 

records resting on their supine chests. 

Moreover, too many members of the Guard and Reserve have been allowed to slip 

through the medical cracks at demobilization stations resulting in widespread under 

identification of service-connected injuries at that critical separation point. 

A variety of reasons were at play to include inadequate screening by medical personnel at the demobilization site; the reluctance of returning members to report disabling injuries at distant demobilization sites to avoid the risk of further separations from home after lengthy deployments; or simply the late onset of symptoms 

after discharge from exposures to chemical hazards, Traumatic Brain Injury or Post 

Traumatic Stress Disorder. 

The six most frequent injuries for which the VA awards disability benefit compensation are tinnitus; back or cervical strain; PTSD; leg flexion limitations; degenerative spinal arthritis; of the spine; and migraine. Service connection presumptions 

for these injuries presented for RC GWOT veterans would help to mitigate the disproportionate denial rate afflicting Guard and Reserve disability benefit compensation claims. 

PASS S. 629 TO BESTOW VETERAN STATUS ON NATIONAL GUARD AND RESERVE MILITARY

MEMBERS WITH 20 YEARS OF SERVICE

NGAUS in concert with The Military Coalition has long sought legislation authorizing veteran status under Title 38 for National Guard and Reserve members of the 

Armed Forces who are entitled to a non-regular retirement under Chapter 1223 of 

10 U.S.C. but were never called to title10 active service other than for training purposes during their careers—through no fault of their own. 

Many Members of Congress may not know that a reservist can complete a full 

Guard or Reserve career but not earn the title of ‘‘Veteran of the Armed Forces of 

the United States,’’ unless the member has served on Title 10 active duty for other 

than training purposes. 

Drill training, annual training, and title 32 service responding to domestic natural 

disasters and defending our Nation’s airspace, borders and coastlines do not qualify 

for veteran status. 

Reserve-component members who served 20 years gave the government a blank 

check to send them anywhere in the world but through no fault of their own were 

never deployed or in some cases even allowed to be deployed. 

Yet, an active-duty member whose entire short-term enlistment tour is spent in 

less rigorous domestic assignments to domestic posts and bases on Title 10 status 

will fully qualify, not just for veterans status, but for all veterans’ benefits. This disparity is unfair and must end. 

S. 629 would not bestow any benefits other than the honor of claiming veteran 

status for those who honorably served and sacrificed as career reserve component 

members but were never ordered to Title 10 active service. They deserve nothing 

less than this recognition. Authorizing veteran status for career RC service would 

substantially boost the morale of the RC without a cost consequence. 

Opposition to this bill in the past has been grounded in a myth that passage 

would open the floodgates of new veteran benefits for this group. That is just not 

the case or even allowable under the law. S. 629 explicitly guards against this possibility. Moreover, ‘‘pay go’’ laws in effect bar the default triggering of any new entitlements. It is time to move past the unfounded ‘‘camel’s nose under the tent’’ fear 

that has held back this legislation. Its companion bill , H.R. 679, is poised to pass 

the House imminently. 

FULLY LEVERAGE THE VET CENTER MODEL

For behavioral support, Guard veterans often look to the stellar Vet Centers located throughout the country where they and their families can obtain confidential 

peer to peer counseling as well as behavioral treatment from on site clinicians; telehealth programs; or from referrals to fee based clinicians paid for and pre approved 

by the Vet Centers. 

Confidentiality is vital in bringing our veterans still serving in the Guard to treatment in order to assuage real concerns about the sharing of medical records with 

the Department of Defense which VA medical centers are authorized to do. The fee 

285 

basing of referred care by the Vet Center to community providers establishes a 

model for this Committee to consider expanding to close the treatment gaps in our 

rural communities. A voucher program administered by the Vet Centers authorizing 

paid for treatment to qualified community providers would maximize scheduling 

flexibility and plug direct access gaps to care for our Guard veterans. 

PASS S. 927 AND EXPAND ITS OUTREACH TO FUND COMMUNITY-BASED

MENTAL HEALTH CARE

S. 927 pending before this Committee reflects the need for the VA to better leverage and fund existing community resources in caring for our veterans. It warrants 

immediate passage with an expanded feature that would fund veterans’ access to 

community based care. Too often that care has relied on pro bono service providers 

or state/community care facilities stressed for funding. 

The issues of veterans’ unemployment and mental health maintenance cannot be 

separated. Before veterans can maintain gainful employment in a challenging job 

environment, they must be able to maintain a healthy mental status and establish 

supportive social networks. 

In 2007, the Rand Corporation published a study titled, ‘‘The Invisible wounds of 

War.’’ It found that at the time 300,000 veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom and 

Operation enduring Freedom suffered from either PTSD or major depression. This 

number can only have grown after five more years of war. The harmful effects of 

these untreated invisible wounds on our veterans hinder their ability to reintegrate 

with their families and communities, work productively, and to live independently 

and peacefully. 

Rand recommended that a network of local, state, and Federal resources centered 

at the community level be available to deliver evidence-based care to veterans whenever and wherever they are located. Veterans must have the ability to utilize 

trained and certified services in their communities. In addition to training providers, the VA must educate veterans and their families on how to recognize the 

signs of behavioral illness and how and where to obtain treatment. 

VA and Vet Center facilities are often located hundreds of miles from our National Guard veterans living in rural areas. Requiring a veteran, once employed, to 

drive hundreds of miles to obtain care at a VA facility necessitates the veteran taking time off from work for reasons likely difficult to explain to an employer. Most 

employees can ill afford to miss work, particularly after an extended absence from 

deployment in the case of our Guard veterans. The VA needs to leverage community 

resources to proactively engage veterans in caring for their mental health needs in 

a confidential and convenient manner that does not require long distance travel or 

delayed appointments. 

To facilitate the leveraging of mental health care providers in our communities, 

the VA through its Office of Mental Health Services or through its highly effective 

Vet Centers can actively exercise its authority to contract with private entities in 

local communities, or creatively implement a voucher program that would allow our 

veterans to seek fee-based treatment locally with certified providers outside the 

brick and mortar of the Veterans Administration facilities and even the Vet Centers. 

The Vet Center in Spokane for example serves an area as big as the state of 

Pennsylvania. It is not practical for veterans in this catchment area to drive hundreds of miles to seek counseling or behavioral clinical care. That Vet Center pre 

screens fee based providers to whom it will refer veterans for confidential treatment 

in its management area. It also monitors the process to make sure the veteran is 

actually receiving care paid for by the Vet Center. This system already works. However, a voucher process would improve efficiencies by relieving the Vet Center of its 

scheduling burden by allowing the veteran to directly make his or her own appointment with providers as needed. 

The VA and Vet Centers also need to fully leverage existing state administrative 

mental health and veteran networks. Working with the state mental health care 

provider licensing authorities, community providers certified by the VA or Vet Center to treat veterans could be identified at the state agency level with vouchers to 

pay for treatment by those providers. The various state departments of veterans affairs are often in a better position to effectively administer such outreach programs 

given the more extensive lists of veterans in their sates than those possessed by the 

VA or Vet Centers. 

Several of our veterans have fallen through the cracks of the VA health care system, and will continue to do so. According to the Vietnam Veterans of America, last 

year only 30% of our veteran population had enrolled in VA medical programs. 

Many veterans end up in the care of state social service programs in cooperation 

with state and national veteran organizations. The VA has the authority to assist 

286 

in maintaining this safety net of care for veterans in a stressful economic climate 

for our states with a voucher program or expanded contracting with private entities. 

It needs to act. 

HIPPA CONFIDENTIALITY MUST BE OBSERVED WITH MENTAL HEALTH CARE

Most of our National Guard veterans of OIF/OEF eligible for VA care post-deployment are still serving with their units and subject to redeployment. Given the evolving electronic medical records interoperability between the VA and the Department 

of Defense (DOD), a confidentiality issue exists relative to mental health treatment 

records for these veterans who remain in the military who do not want their records 

shared by the VA with their military commanders for fear of career reprisals. 

It is essential that HIPPA confidentiality be maintained by the VA for the mental 

health treatment records of these veterans to encourage their treatment with VA 

providers. Our Vet Centers already operate with full confidentiality which makes 

them the service center of choice for Guard members who want to maintain confidentiality of their mental health counseling records to protect against perceived 

negative repercussions in their units. HIPPA rules pragmatically require observance 

of confidentiality but draw the line with patients who are dangers to themselves or 

their communities whose cases must be reported. 

It is critical that confidentiality be established as soon as possible legislatively 

with the VA much the same as it is currently observed in Vet Centers. We believe 

that the VA is operating under advice from its legal staff that all VA medical 

records can be transferred to DOD. Lack of confidentiality will chill the treatment 

process and is likely contributed to the under utilization of VA medical care by our 

veterans. 

REQUIRE THE VA TO FULLY IMPLEMENT SECTION 304 OF THE CAREGIVERS AND VET- ERANS OMNIBUS HEALTH SERVICES ACT 0F 2009, PUBLIC LAW 111–163, TO PROVIDE

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES TO VETERANS OF OIF/OEF AND THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILY

MEMBERS VETERANS USING PRIVATE ENTITIES

Post-deployment, our National Guard members and their families heavily rely on 

the VA for mental health care. Congress recognized as much in passing The Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2009, Public Law 111–163, enacted May 6, 2010, now requires the VA to reach out not just to veterans but to 

their immediate families as well to assist in the reintegration process. 

The law also urged the VA Secretary to contract with community mental health 

centers and other qualified entities to provide the subject services in areas the Secretary determines are not adequately served by other health care facilities or Vet 

Centers of the Department of Veterans Affairs. It is not clear how thoroughly the 

VA has fully taken advantage of this authority to contract with private entities to 

deliver community based mental health services. 

Section 304 of the Family Caregiver Act required the VA to make full mental 

health services available also to the immediate family members of OIF/OEF veteran 

for three years post-deployment. However, the VA delayed for at least two years in 

making the full range of its Office of Mental Health Services (OMHS) programs 

available to immediate to families as required by Section 304. It is not clear today 

that the program has been fully implemented. 

Section 304 was enacted on May 6, 2010. For many, the three year post-deployment period will begin to lapse in 2013. The VA OMHS needed to fully comply with 

Section 304 in a timely manner. Because the VA’s unreasonably delayed implementation of this important program, this Committee needs to consider extending the 

subject three year post-deployment limitation period another three years to allow 

family members to access their care. 

It also needs to lean harder on the VA to fully utilize its contracting authority 

to better leverage private entities and to use a voucher system described above to 

make community based treatment more accessible and convenient. Our veterans 

and their immediate families may be a small subset, but they are worth it. 

THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE MUST COOPERATIVELY WORK WITH THE VA IN SCREENING BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CARE NEEDS OF OUR MEMBERS BEFORE THEY ARE RELEASED FROM ACTIVE DUTY

At all stages of PTSD and depression, treatment is time sensitive. However, this 

is particularly important after onset, as the illness could persist for a lifetime if not 

promptly and adequately treated, and could render the member permanently disabled. The effects of this permanent disability on the member’s entire family can 

be devastating. It is absolutely imperative that members returning from deployment 

be screened with full confidentiality at the home station while still on active duty 

287 

by trained and qualified mental health care providers from VA staff and/or qualified 

health care providers from the civilian community. These providers could include 

primary care physicians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners who have 

training in assessing psychological health presentations. Prompt diagnosis and 

treatment will help to mitigate the lasting effects of mental illness. This examination process must be managed by the VA in coordination with the National Guard 

Director of Psychological Health for the respective state, and the state’s Department 

of Mental Health to allow transition for follow up treatment by the full VA and civilian network of providers within the state. 

As an American Legion staffer at Walter Reed once stated, the main problem for 

Reserve Component injured servicemembers is that they are ‘‘rushed out of the system’’ before their service-connected injuries and disability claims have been resolved. Our injured members should not be given the ‘‘bum’s rush’’ and released 

from active duty until a copy of their complete military medical file, including any 

field treatment notes, has been transferred to the VA, their discoverable service-connected military medical issues have been identified, any service-connected VA disability physicals have been performed similar to what is provided to the active 

forces before they are released from active duty, and the initial determination of any 

service-connected VA disability claim has been rendered. Unless medically not feasible, our members should be retained on active duty in their home state for treatment to discourage them from reporting injures out of fear of being retained at a 

distant demobilization site. 

It is absolutely necessary to allow home station screening for all returning members by trained health care professionals who can screen, observe, and ask relevant 

questions with the skill necessary to elicit medical issues either unknown to the 

self-reporting member, or unreported for fear of being retained at a far removed demobilization site. In performing their due diligence before the issuance of an insurance policy, insurance companies do not allow individuals to self assess their health. 

Neither should the military. If geographical separation from families is causing 

some to underreport, or not report, physical or psychological combat injuries on the 

PDHA, then continuing this process at the home station for those in need would 

likely produce a better yield at a critical time when this information needs to be 

captured in order for prompt and effective treatment to be administered. 

Please see the copy of a November 5, 2008 electronic message to NGAUS from Dr. 

Dana Headapohl set forth in the Appendix that still pertains. Dr. Headapohl strongly recommended a surveillance program for our members before they are released 

from active duty. Dr. Headapohl opined then the obvious in stating that inadequate 

medical screening of our members before they are released from active duty is ‘‘unacceptable to a group that has been asked to sacrifice for our country.’’ (emphasis 

added) 

CONCLUSION

Thank you for that you have done for our veterans since 9/11. Please view our 

efforts as part of a customer feedback process to refine and improve the ongoing 

vital and enormous undertaking of the VA. Our National Guard veterans, both still 

serving and separated, will remain one of your largest base of customers who will 

continue to require your attention. Thank you for this opportunity to present. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANGELA BAILEY, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEE

SERVICES, AND CHIEF HUMAN CAPITAL OFFICER, U.S. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

Thank you for the opportunity to provide this statement for the record related to 

the June 12, 2013 hearing on pending veterans benefits legislation. Specifically, the 

Committee has requested the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM’s) input on 

section 2 of S. 495, the Careers for Veterans Act of 2013. 

Our Nation’s veterans have sacrificed tremendously in service to our country, and 

we have an obligation to support them upon their separation from the Armed 

Forces. This Administration has supported that obligation repeatedly through the 

years, and OPM has been a proud partner in the efforts to employ greater numbers 

of veterans in the Federal workforce. While OPM believes that S. 495 is a well-intended bill, it is important to highlight existing work being carried out to employ 

veterans with the Federal Government. 

Presently, when applying for Federal employment, veterans may take advantage 

of special hiring authorities for veterans. For example, a veteran applying for Federal employment may do so under the Veterans’ Recruitment Appointment (VRA). 

It is an excepted authority that allows agencies to appoint eligible veterans without 

288 

competition at any grade level up to and including GS–11 or equivalent. VRA provides the opportunity for eligible veterans to train for two years in a position. Additionally, the Veterans Employment Opportunity Act of 1998 (VEOA), a competitive 

service appointing authority used when filling permanent, competitive service positions, affords veterans the opportunity to compete with current Federal employees. 

Veterans who are 30 percent or more disabled may be appointed non-competitively. 

Disabled veterans may also use Schedule A appointing authority for an excepted 

service appointment. Finally, disabled veterans who are eligible for training under 

the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) vocational rehabilitation program may enroll for training or work experience at an agency under the terms of an agreement 

between the agency and VA. 

In addition to the special hiring authorities, veterans have also been subject to 

targeted outreach by the Administration. As part of these efforts, on November 9, 

2009, President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13518, Employment of Veterans in the Federal Government, which establishes the Veterans Employment Initiative (VEI). The VEI is a strategic approach to helping the men and women who 

have served our country in the military find employment in the Federal Government. Under the VEI, OPM and partner agencies developed the Government-wide 

Veterans’ Recruitment and Employment Strategic Plan for FY 10–12, an important 

tool in the implementation of the President’s Executive Order. The plan outlined 

strategies the Federal Government subsequently used to improve employment opportunities for veterans in the executive branch. Presently, the Veterans’ Recruitment and Employment Strategic Plan for FY 13–15 is under development. Additionally, Veteran Employment Program Offices have been established in the 24 agencies 

covered under Executive Order 13518. Further, OPM has created the Feds Hire 

Vets Web site to provide a single point for providing veterans’ employment information to veterans, their families, and hiring managers. OPM has also created a Government-wide marketing campaign on the value of our veterans and toolkits were 

provided to Federal agencies to aid in their efforts to hire veterans. Finally, OPM 

conducted the Veterans Employment Symposium which provided essential learning 

to human resources professionals and hiring managers. This symposium was followed by web-based training applications in the areas of veterans’ appointing authorities and veterans’ preference. 

OPM has worked with other agencies on the implementation of the VOW (Veterans Opportunity to Work) To Hire Heroes Act of 2011 (‘‘the VOW Act’’). The VOW 

Act, which requires Federal agencies to treat active duty servicemembers as veterans, disabled veterans, or preference eligibles for purposes of appointment in the 

competitive service when these servicemembers submit a certification of expected 

discharge or release from active duty under honorable conditions along with their 

applications for Federal employment, was passed in the last Congress and is another tool in assisting veterans in obtaining Federal employment. 

The efforts of OPM and other Federal agencies, through the Council on Veterans 

Employment, to employ veterans in Federal service are already paying dividends. 

In FY 2012, veterans accounted for 28.9 percent of all new hires in the Federal Government which is the highest percentage of veteran new hires in the past twenty 

years and exceeds FY 2011 which was the previous all-time high. Additionally, the 

number of veterans in Federal employment has steadily grown from 25.8 percent 

of the Federal workforce in FY 2009 to 29.7 percent in FY 2012. Since FY 2009, 

263,754 new hires in the Federal Government have been veterans. 

OPM welcomes efforts that support employment of veterans, and is actively engaged with agencies to increase the number of veterans in the Federal workforce. 

This Administration’s efforts in this regard are already showing results in numbers 

well beyond the goals set forth in S. 495. We are concerned that the planning and 

reporting requirements contained in the legislation would increase the workload for 

agencies and detract from efforts already underway. OPM looks forward to continuing to work with this Committee on legislation that aims to assist veterans in 

obtaining employment following their service for our country as members of the 

Armed Forces. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROLYN N. LERNER, SPECIAL COUNSEL, 

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony on behalf of the Office 

of Special Counsel (OSC) in connection with today’s legislative hearing. OSC protects the merit system for over 2 million civilian employees in the Federal Government. Congress has tasked OSC with four distinct mission areas. First, we protect 

289 

Federal employees from prohibited personnel practices, especially retaliation for 

whistleblowing. Second, we provide a safe and secure channel for employees to disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and threats to public health or safety. Third, we enforce 

the Hatch Act, which keeps the Federal workplace free from political coercion and 

improper partisan politics. Finally, we are the primary enforcement agency for Federal sector claims under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment 

Rights Act (USERRA). 

USERRA protects the civilian employment and reemployment rights of those who 

serve the United States in the Armed Forces, including the National Guard and Reserves. OSC plays a critical role in enforcing USERRA and helps to fulfill Congress’ 

directive that the Federal Government serve as a ‘‘model employer’’ under the law. 

This is especially important because the Federal Government is the largest civilian 

employer of National Guard and Reserve members. 

OSC receives referrals from the Department of Labor for representation of servicemembers and prosecution of USERRA violations. In addition, in August 2011, OSC 

took on new responsibilities for USERRA enforcement under a ‘‘Demonstration 

Project.’’ Under the project, OSC investigates over half of all Federal sector 

USERRA claims. OSC recently piloted a novel, expeditious and low-cost approach 

to resolving USERRA cases by using alternative dispute resolution. OSC has 

achieved a 100% success rate using mediation to resolve servicemembers’ claims. 

S. 6—‘‘PUTTING OUR VETERANS BACK TO WORK ACT OF 2013’’ 

OSC strongly supports S. 6, the ‘‘Putting Our Veterans Back to Work Act of 

2013.’’ Section 303 of S. 6 clarifies OSC’s authority to subpoena the attendance and 

testimony of witnesses, as well as the production of documents from Federal employees and agencies. This provision is necessary to assist OSC in determining whether 

a servicemember is entitled to relief. This section also sets forth a streamlined and 

more efficient process for enforcement of subpoenas against Federal executive agencies or their employees by order of the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Explicit authority under Title 38 to issue subpoenas to Federal employees and agencies 

will assist OSC in protecting rights of servicemembers. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA

Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the Committee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank you for the opportunity to 

present our views on the broad array of legislation impacting the Department of 

Veterans Affairs (VA) pending before the Committee. These important bills will help 

ensure that veterans receive appropriate benefits in a timely manner. 

S. 6, THE ‘‘PUTTING OUR VETERANS BACK TO WORK ACT OF 2013’’ 

PVA supports S. 6, ‘‘Putting Our Veterans Back to Work Act of 2013’’ which would 

amend the ‘‘VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011’’ to extend this career assistance program through March 31, 2016. This program is available for veterans that are unemployed and have exhausted other educational and career assistance benefits. 

Since the start of the program, July 1, 2012, the number of veterans participating 

in the program fell short of the anticipated enrollment. Although a large number 

of veterans have applied and qualified for the program, many have not used the 

program. 

The VA and the Department of Labor, Veterans Employment and Training Service (VETS) must increase outreach to the veterans that have applied for this program. A career counselor can help a veteran decide on the best application of this 

program to compliment the job skills previously obtained in the military. After discussing options with a counselor, a veteran may decide not to use the program and 

relinquish the certificate allocated for that veteran. Thus, allowing another veteran 

to receive employment training. 

The bill includes a requirement for the VA to establish a single Web-based employment portal for veterans to access this information. Additional outreach will be 

needed to reach those veterans not dependent on the internet for their source of information. The VA should strive to fill every available slot for this unique program 

to help unemployed veterans. 

S. 200

PVA does not oppose S. 200, which would amend Title 38, United States Code, 

to authorize the interment of individuals that served in combat support in the KingVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00293 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN
290 

dom of Laos between February 28, 1961 and May 15, 1975 in cemeteries controlled 

by the VA National Cemetery Administration. 

S. 257, THE ‘‘GI BILL TUITION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2013’’ 

PVA supports S. 257, the ‘‘GI Bill Fairness Act of 2013.’’ This legislation would 

require public institutions to charge the in-state tuition and fees rate to veterans 

who use the GI Bill at that institution when the veteran did not originally reside 

in that state. Although many institutions have changed their policies to allow a veteran to attend a public institution at the instate rate, some continue charging veterans an out-of-state rate for those who once lived in another state before entering 

service. This legislation will address this shortcoming. 

S. 262, THE ‘‘VETERANS EDUCATION EQUITY ACT OF 2013’’ 

PVA supports S. 262, the ‘‘Veterans Education Equity Act of 2013,’’ which would 

assist veterans using the GI Bill that have been paying tuitions and fees above the 

GI Bill amount designated for that state. Many veterans have accumulated thousands of dollars in debt for tuition and fees over the amount paid by the GI Bill. 

This legislation will allow the veteran to continue in the program of their choice 

without accumulating extra financial dept. 

S. 294, THE ‘‘RUTH MOORE ACT OF 2013’’ 

PVA supports S. 294, the ‘‘Ruth Moore Act of 2013.’’ According to reports, sexual 

assault in the military continues to be a serious problem, despite several actions by 

the Department of Defense (DOD) to combat the issue, including required soldier 

and leader training. As the military works to reduce the threat and incident of military sexual trauma (MST), it is important that victims of MST, both women and 

men, have the ability to receive care from the VA and receive timely, fair consideration of their claims for benefits. This is particularly important given the number 

of MST occurrences that go unreported. While current policies allowing restricted 

reporting of sexual assaults should reduce the number of incidents which have ‘‘no 

official record,’’ it can still be anticipated that there are those who will not report 

the incident out of shame, fear of reprisals or stigma, or actual threats from their 

attacker. To then place a high burden of proof on the veteran, who has experienced 

MST to prove service-connection, particularly in the absence of an official record, 

would add further trauma to an already tragic event. 

One particular recommendation that PVA would like to make about the proposed 

language is a clarification of what constitutes a ‘‘mental health professional.’’ We 

would hope that the intent of this legislation is not to limit ‘‘mental health professionals’’ to only VA health care professionals. 

S. 373, THE ‘‘CHARLIE MORGAN MILITARY SPOUSES EQUAL TREATMENT ACT OF 2013’’ 

PVA has no formal position on S. 373, the ‘‘Charlie Morgan Military Spouses 

Equal Treatment Act of 2013.’’ 

S. 430, THE ‘‘VETERANS SMALL BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY AND PROTECTION ACT OF 2013’’ 

PVA supports S. 430, the ‘‘Veterans Small Business Opportunity and Protection 

Act of 2013.’’ This legislation would recognize the surviving spouse of a deceased 

service-disabled veteran who acquires the ownership interest in a small business of 

the deceased veteran as such veteran, for purposes of eligibility for VA service-disabled small business contracting preference, for a period of 10 years after the veteran’s death. This 10 year continuation applies only if such veteran was either 100 

percent disabled or died from a service-connected disability. In situations where the 

veteran was less than 100 percent disabled and did not die from a service-connected 

disability the eligibility will continue for 3 years. This 3-year period is necessary to 

continue conducting business that has been awarded and under contract. This time 

period allows the surviving spouse to develop plans for the future of the business, 

or plan for the sale of the business. 

S. 492

PVA supports S. 492, a bill to amend Title 38, United States Code, to require 

states to recognize the military experience of veterans when issuing licenses and 

credentials to veterans without requiring additional training. This Federal legislation is necessary to encourage state license and certifying agencies to acknowledge 

the years of training and performance veterans may have had in specific career 

fields. Although some states have recognized this professional training and experiVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00294 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN
291 

ence provided by the Federal Government, most have not. This unwillingness to license or certify qualified veterans can burden the veteran with years of classroom 

and on the job training before the veteran is allowed to work in a specific field with 

full pay. This bill will require states to become more active in the process of certifying qualified veterans. 

S. 495, THE ‘‘CAREERS FOR VETERANS ACT OF 2013’’ 

PVA supports S. 495, the ‘‘Careers for Veterans Act of 2013.’’ This legislation combines several issues from other bills previously introduced in the Senate. Those 

issues are surviving spouses’ ownership and continuation of receiving Federal contracts for a business that was owned by a service-disabled veteran, and the requirement of states to issues licenses or credentials in employment trades that a veteran 

is qualified for and has received training and experience while in the military. 

The bill also requires the Sectary of Labor to provide each veteran’s one-stop center with a list of Web sites and applications that are beneficial for veterans searching for employment. S. 495 also directs each Federal agency to development a fiveyear plan to hire qualified veterans with a total employment goal of 10,000 veterans 

hired in the five year period. PVA supports this legislation and when it is fully implemented, it will help many veterans with their transition to the civilian work 

force. 

S. 514

PVA supports S. 514, a bill to amend Title 38, United States Code, to provide additional educational assistance under the current Post-9/11 Educational Assistance 

to Veterans programs, who are pursuing a degree in high-demand occupational 

fields such as engineering, math, or an area that leads to employment in a highdemand occupation. This will eliminate the financial barrier that could arise as a 

veteran pursues the field of their choice with a STEM focus (science, technology, engineering, or math). Often special programs of these educational fields may cost 

above an individual state’s allowance of the GI Bill. This will accommodate veterans 

who study in STEM fields. 

S. 515

PVA supports S. 515, a bill to amend Title 38, United States Code, to extend the 

Yellow Ribbon G.I. Education Enhancement Program to cover recipients of the Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry scholarship. This will allow public and private contributions for educational assistance to the child of an individual who dies 

in the line of duty while serving on active duty on or after September 11, 2001. 

S. 572, THE ‘‘VETERANS SECOND AMENDMENT PROTECTION ACT’’ 

Regarding S. 572, the ‘‘Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act,’’ PVA has no 

formal position on this legislation. 

S. 629, THE ‘‘HONOR AMERICA’S GUARD-RESERVE RETIREES ACT OF 2013’’ 

Paralyzed Veterans of America supports S. 629, the ‘‘Honor America’s Guard-Reserve Retirees Act.’’ This bill incorporates ‘‘veteran’’ into the Guard and Reserve 

community. PVA supports recognizing and honoring all servicemembers, Guard or 

Reserve, for their faithful and honorable service in defending the United States of 

America. Serving in a volunteer force should be credited to the servicemember, not 

discounted through no fault of their own, because they were never activated. 

S. 674, THE ‘‘ACCOUNTABILITY FOR VETERANS ACT OF 2013’’ 

PVA supports S. 674, the ‘‘Accountability for Veterans Act of 2013’’ which will require prompt responses from the Department of Defense, the Social Security Administration and the National Archives and Records Administration when the Secretary 

of Veterans Affairs requests information necessary to adjudicate benefits claims. It 

is unfortunate that legislation is required in order for government agencies to 

promptly provide information to adjudicate a veteran’s claim. PVA also supports the 

reporting requirement that will allow better oversight and should identify trends in 

timeliness of agency responses. 

S. 690, THE ‘‘FILIPINO VETERANS FAIRNESS ACT OF 2013’’ 

PVA has no official position on S. 690, the ‘‘Filipino Veterans Fairness Act.’’ That 

being said, we have concerns about the provisions of the legislation that address the 

$0.50-on-the-dollar benefit rate that has long been included in Title 38 U.S.C for 

292 

non-resident Filipino veterans. It is our understanding that the legislation would 

eliminate this benefit rate from statute. This rate was established to reflect the fact 

that the standard-of-living in the Philippines is significantly less than in the United 

States. This rate was determined to reflect equitable and fair compensation for Filipino veterans who served alongside U.S. veterans, but who are not U.S. citizens. We 

see no reason why this rate should be changed (a position supported by the Department of Veterans Affairs in the past). 

S. 695, THE ‘‘VETERANS PARALYMPIC ACT OF 2013’’ 

PVA supports S. 695, a bill that would reauthorize the Paralympics program that 

has partnered with the VA to expand sports and recreation opportunities to disabled 

veterans and injured servicemembers. We believe that this has certainly been a 

worthwhile program as the need for expansion of these activities is necessary. We 

appreciate the role that the Paralympics have played in this expansion. 

PVA believes that much progress and enhanced cooperation has resulted from the 

Paralympics Program and its partnership with VA. Under this program, PVA has 

witnessed improved coordination between our organization, USOC-Paralympics, and 

other veterans’ and community-based sports organizations that has enhanced existing programs and advanced development of new programs in communities that previously had not been served. The overall performance of the partnership between 

PVA, the USOC-Paralympics and the Department of Veterans Affairs has successfully produced an increased number of sports and recreation opportunities for disabled veterans. 

S. 705, THE ‘‘WAR MEMORIAL PROTECTION ACT OF 2013’’ 

PVA has no formal position on S. 705, the ‘‘War Memorial Protection Act of 2013.’’ 

S. 735, THE ‘‘SURVIVOR BENEFITS IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2013’’ 

PVA supports, S. 735, the ‘‘Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of 2013’’ to extend 

the initial period for increase dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving 

spouses, to extend benefits for children of certain Thailand service veterans born 

with spina bifida, and conduct a pilot program on grief counseling for surviving 

spouses of veterans who die while serving on active duty in the Armed Forces. 

S. 778

PVA has no specific position on the proposed legislation that would allow the VA 

to issue identification (ID) cards to veterans. While we can certainly see the merits 

of veterans having ID’s that specifically indicate their status, we wonder what 

verification mechanism would be devised to determine whether or not a person is 

in fact a veteran. Would the VA require a person to apply for the ID card and include a copy of his or her DD214 for verification purposes? We question whether 

or not the VA can handle the additional administrative burden that might come 

with implementation of this legislation. 

S. 819, THE ‘‘VETERANS MENTAL HEALTH TREATMENT FIRST ACT OF 2013’’ 

While PVA understands the concepts outlined in S. 819, the ‘‘Veterans Mental 

Health Treatment First Act,’’ we oppose this proposed legislation. We believe that 

this legislation tries to draw attention to a concept that the VA ought to be focused 

on already—the health and wellness of sick and disabled veterans. But this focus 

should not be at the expense of the veteran. We cannot argue with the importance 

of proper and effective treatment to address the mental health issues that veterans 

may face. However, we believe this legislation would simply force near term treatment on veterans in order to save the VA, and by extension the Federal Government, money paid out in compensation in the long term. 

First, we would point out that the legislation calls for a ‘‘pre-evaluation’’ of the 

veteran exhibiting symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) to determine if the condition might be related to his or her service. This implies a step the 

disability claims process should already be taking. Furthermore, it calls for the Secretary to prescribe regulations dictating what constitutes a relationship to military 

service—a concept already addressed in Title 38 U.S.C. and the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

Second, the legislation requires the veteran to delay his or her right to file a claim 

while participating in the program. While we can certainly see the benefit of a veteran participating in a comprehensive treatment program, we see no reason why he 

or she should not still be able to file a claim concurrently. Otherwise, the process 

simply is delayed a year. And while we understand the argument that a veteran 

293 

would receive a stipend under this program, we do not believe that this is an acceptable method of offsetting the broad range of benefits, along with compensation, associated with adjudication of a claim. Furthermore, depriving a veteran of his or her 

entitlement to compensation may actually have the unintended effect of providing 

a financial disincentive to participate in rehabilitation and treatment. 

S. 863, THE ‘‘VETERANS BACK TO SCHOOL ACT OF 2013’’ 

PVA supports S. 863, the ‘‘Veterans Back to School Act of 2013.’’ This legislation 

will repeal the current time limitations on the eligibility for use of educational assistance and extend eligibility to 10 years after the veteran starts using the program. Section 3 of the bill ‘‘Veterans Education Outreach Program’’ would authorize 

funding to institutions of higher learning to establish an office for a veterans’ education outreach program. To participate in the program an institution must have a 

minimum of 50 veterans enrolled and match the funding amount provided by the 

VA from non-Federal funds. Upon passage of the Post-9/11 GI Bill, Secretary 

Shinseki’s public remarks were that he was pleased that young veterans can now 

attend the finest colleges and universities in the Nation. Our challenge (the VA’s 

and the learning institutions) is to insure they stay in school. This new group of 

students, many returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, are non-traditional students 

with non-traditional issues and problems. This legislation should provide on-campus 

counseling for veterans by veterans, along with support and assistance. The function 

of fostering communication among veteran students may be the key that helps veterans address this next chapter of life after the military. 

S. 889, THE ‘‘SERVICEMEMBERS’ CHOICE IN TRANSITION ACT OF 2013’’ 

PVA supports S. 889, the ‘‘Servicemembers’ Choice in Transition Act of 2013.’’ 

S. 893, THE ‘‘VETERANS COMPENSATION COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 2013’’ 

PVA supports S. 893, the ‘‘Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act 

of 2013,’’ that would increase, effective as of December 1, 2013, the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) for the survivors of certain disabled veterans. This would include increases in wartime disability compensation, additional 

compensation for dependents, clothing allowance, and dependency and indemnity 

compensation for children. 

While our economy continues to struggle, veterans’ personal finances have been 

affected by rising costs of essential necessities to live from day to day and maintain 

a certain standard of living. 

S. 894

PVA supports S. 894, a bill to amend Title 38, United States Code, to extend expiring authority for work-study allowances for individuals who are pursuing programs of rehabilitation, education, or training under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to expand such authority to certain outreach services provided through congressional offices. 

S. 922, THE ‘‘VETERANS EQUIPPED FOR SUCCESS DURING TRANSITION ACT OF 2013’’ 

PVA supports S. 922, the ‘‘Veterans Equipped for Success Act of 2013.’’ This legislation creates a comprehensive employment program that will benefit many veterans by getting them started in the work place, or helping some get back into the 

workplace. The three year pilot program will enroll 50,000 eligible veterans. The VA 

will designate the cities, minimum of four geographic areas, which will be available 

for this program based on veterans’ unemployment rates for an area. The program 

will provide living wages for the veteran with medical care provided by the VA. The 

legislation specifies that the veteran worker should not be used in place of a fulltime employee, or to replace a full time employee that is out on sick leave or has 

left the organization. This program will be a large undertaking for the VA and the 

Department of Labor along with helpful oversight from Congress. Employment programs for unemployed veterans have been created in the past, but for various reasons were not successful or properly funded. In this period of a slow economy, this 

can be a program of tremendous importance for helping many veterans learn job 

skills and eventually get into the workforce. 

294 

S. 927, THE ‘‘VETERANS OUTREACH ACT OF 2013’’ 

PVA supports S. 927, the ‘‘Veterans Outreach Act of 2013.’’ With the large number 

of veterans currently in the United States, and the expectation that this number 

will increase with the current drawdown of the military, outreach becomes critical 

to ensuring those who have earned benefits are aware of their availability. 

However, PVA is concerned with funding the grants for the outreach. Too often 

additional programs are required of VA with no additional appropriations being provided. It would be unfortunate if Veterans Outreach suffered similarly. While there 

is a requirement for state entities to provide 50-percent matching funds, grants are 

provided to other entities including non-profits. With the current restrained fiscal 

environment, PVA is concerned that this will be another good idea that is never fulfilled due to funding shortfalls. 

S. 928, THE ‘‘CLAIMS PROCESSING IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2013’’ 

PVA generally supports the current draft of S. 928, the ‘‘Claims Processing Improvement Act of 2013’’ with a few concerns. First, Section 103 requires that the 

Secretary ‘‘shall not make fewer than two attempts to obtain the records,’’ which 

may be interpreted by VA that they are only required to make two attempts. This 

may also permit a decision that only one attempt is necessary if a second would be 

futile. This wording provides a great deal of subjectivity to the VA in an area that 

they have been continually challenged to improve. 

With regards to Section 201, understanding that the purpose of this legislation 

is to reduce the backlog, PVA is not supportive of legislation that abridges due process in any way. PVA believes proposing a shorter filing period for Notices of Disagreement from 1 year to 6 months is unacceptable. A year gives the veteran the 

time to obtain any additional evidence to support the claim, particularly if it is a 

severely disabled veteran who can often face long hospital stays or rehabilitation. 

Seeking additional medical information can be a lengthy process. Furthermore, the 

‘‘good cause’’ exception to the proposed 180-day period could actually result in much 

more dispute and litigation because of the broadness of the accepted circumstances 

of ‘‘physical, mental, educational and linguistic limitation.’’ There may be an alternative that would allow claimants to waive the longer filing period if they are sure 

the needed medical information can be quickly obtained. 

PVA supports Section 202 with regards to video conferencing. As long as there 

is the ability to request an in-person hearing that the Board would be required to 

honor, we believe this will benefit both the claimant and the Board. At the Veteran 

Service Organization forums held by the Board, there has been an ongoing emphasis 

on holding video conferences whenever possible to reduce time lost for no-shows. Additionally, the grant rate for video versus in-person hearings is the same. In fact, 

PVA has encouraged service officers to hold video conference hearings and the vast 

majority of PVA hearings are now held via video conference. 

Under Section 305 paragraph (c), the proposed legislation supports PVA’s position 

on the Accepted Clinical Evidence Initiative. We are concerned VA may downplay 

the effectiveness by under-reporting it. The single 15-month pilot took place only at 

the St. Paul Regional Claims office, which doesn’t have a significant backlog, reducing the likelihood of large amounts of data to report. PVA believes VA should have 

to expand the pilot before reporting on it to allow examination of its true efficacy. 

Large urban areas or rural areas would benefit most. For example, as of May 6, 

2013, St. Paul has 9,553 veterans waiting, with 2,447 waiting more than 125 days 

and 346 waiting more than one year with an average wait time of 110 days. This 

is compared to Houston with 36,044 veterans waiting, with 26,331 waiting more 

than 125 days and 14,480 waiting more than one year with an average wait time 

of 419 days; or San Diego with 28,467 veterans waiting, with 19,435 waiting more 

than 125 days and 7,666 waiting more than one year with an average wait time 

of 319 days. 

S. 930

PVA has no formal position on S. 930. 

S. 932, THE ‘‘PUTTING VETERANS FUNDING FIRST ACT OF 2013’’ 

PVA is pleased to see this legislation put forward by Sen. Begich and fully supports it. This legislation, similar to H.R. 813, the ‘‘Putting Veterans Funding First 

Act of 2013,’’ introduced by House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs Chairman Jeff 

Miller (R-FL) and Ranking Member Mike Michaud (D-ME), requires all accounts of 

the VA to be funded through the advance appropriations process. It would provide 

protection for the operations of the entire VA from the political wrangling that ocVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00298 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN
295 

curs as a part of the appropriations process every year. We would also like to see 

the Committee consider legislation similar to that introduced by Representative 

Brownley in H.R. 806, the ‘‘Veterans Healthcare Improvement Act’’ that permanently establishes the Government Accountability Office’s reporting requirements as 

a part of VA advance appropriations. 

S. 935, THE ‘‘QUICKER VETERANS BENEFITS DELIVERY ACT OF 2013’’ 

PVA supports S. 935, the ‘‘Quicker Veterans Benefits Delivery Act of 2013.’’ PVA 

has consistently recommended that VA accept valid medical evidence from non-Department medical professionals. The continuing actions of VA to require Department 

medical examinations does nothing to further efforts to reduce the claims backlog 

and may actually cause the backlog to increase. 

S. 938, THE ‘‘FRANCHISE EDUCATION FOR VETERANS ACT OF 2013’’ 

PVA supports the draft legislation ‘‘Franchise Education for Veterans Act of 2013’’ 

which would amend Title 38, United States Code, to allow certain veterans to use 

funding from educational assistance provided by the Department of Veterans Affairs 

for franchise training. Many veterans are using their Post-9/11 GI Bill to begin, or 

continue their education to prepare for future careers. This unique benefit will help 

hundreds of thousands of veterans as they complete their education and move into 

career positions in government or private sector. For those that choose not to attend 

college, owning a business franchise can allow a veteran to provide for themselves 

and their families. Since every franchise has a training program to prepare the future business owner for achieving success, PVA supports the concept of using the 

veterans’ earned benefit, Post-9/11 GI Bill, to help pay for this valuable and required training. The VA should require certain standards of a training program and 

a history of the parent corporation’s success in their field of business along with a 

pattern of successful franchises. This scrutiny of the training and a review of the 

business plan of the franchise would be necessary to eliminate organizations that 

obtain their profits from selling franchises rather that providing a product or service 

that has a market demand. 

S. 939

PVA fully supports this legislation. The claims process is significantly complicated 

and it is noted that VA often does not properly forward the Notice of Appeal to the 

Board. This legislation will permit a Notice of Appeal incorrectly sent to VA instead 

of the Court to be considered as a motion for reconsideration by the Board. This is 

the fair thing to do where the intent of the veteran clearly was to appeal. 

PVA would once again like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to submit 

our views on the legislation considered today. Enactment of much of the proposed 

legislation will significantly enhance the benefits services available to veterans, servicemembers, and their families. We would be happy to answer any questions that 

you may have for the record. 

S. 944, THE ‘‘VETERANS’ EDUCATIONAL TRANSITION ACT OF 2013’’ 

As with S. 257, PVA supports S. 944, the ‘‘Veterans’ Educational Transition Act 

of 2013.’’ Because of the unique nature of military service, Veterans deserve an instate tuition and fees rate when using the GI Bill at public institutions even when 

the veteran did not originally reside in that state. 

PVA would once again like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to submit 

our views on the legislation considered today. Enactment of much of the proposed 

legislation will significantly enhance the health care services available to veterans, 

servicemembers, and their families. We would be happy to answer any questions 

that you may have for the record. 

296 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RELIGIOUS ACTION CENTER OF REFORM JUDAISM

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RESERVE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES

AND RESERVE ENLISTED ASSOCIATION OF THE UNITED STATES

INTRODUCTION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Reserve Officers Association (ROA) and the Reserve Enlisted Association (REA) would like to thank the 

Committee for the opportunity to submit testimony. ROA and REA applaud the ongoing efforts by Congress to address issues facing veterans and serving Reserve 

Component members such as veteran status, employment challenges, improvements 

to the education program, claims processing and more. 


612apRAC.eps
297 

Reservists are unique as veterans; warriors who, when separated from active 

duty, are still subject to recall. This creates a different set of challenges for this 

group, atypical from nonaffiliated veteran concerns. 

Though contingency operations in Afghanistan are winding down, currently there 

are still high levels of mobilizations and deployments for Guard and Reserve members, and many of these outstanding citizen soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and 

Coast Guardsmen have put their civilian careers on hold while they serve their 

country in harm’s way. As we have learned, they share the same risks as their counterparts on the battlefield in the Active Components. Over 875,000 Guard and Reserve servicemembers have been activated since September 11. Of these one-third 

have been mobilized two or more times. The United States is creating a new generation of combat veterans that come from its Reserve Components (RC). It is important, therefore, that we do not squander this valuable resource of experience, nor 

ignore the benefits that they are entitled to because of their selfless service to their 

country. 

Yet there is a group of serving Reserve Component members who have prepared 

these war veterans, who are not recognized as veterans themselves. Many of these 

Guard and Reserve members don’t qualify for veteran status, because their active 

duty periods are not long enough. ROA and REA thank the Committee for including 

Senator Pryor’s bill S. 629, ‘‘Honor America’s Guard-Reserve Retirees Act of 2013,’’ 

to be included in this hearing. 

Unfortunately, unemployment continues to run about 10 percent higher for younger Guard and Reserve members than for non-affiliated veterans. ROA and REA 

would like to work with this Committee to develop employment solutions that would 

focus on this age group. 

ROA and REA endorse S. 629 (Pryor), S. 6 (Reid), S. 257 (Boozman), S. 262 (Durbin), S. 294 (Tester), S. 430 Heller, S. 515 (Brown), S. 572 (Burr), S. 674 (Heller), 

S. 695 (Boozman), S. 705 (Burr), S. 735 (Sanders), S. 819 (Burr), S. 893 (Sanders), 

S. 894 (Sanders), S. 922 (Sanders), S. 927 (Sanders), S. 928 (Sanders), S. 863 

(Blumenthal). 

The Associations don’t necessarily object to legislation that is excluded from this 

list. 

RESERVE ASSOCIATION’S AGENDA SUMMARY

Employer Support: 

• Continue to enact tax credits for health care and differential pay expenses for 

deployed Reserve Component employees. 

• Provide tax credits to offset costs for temporary replacements of deployed Reserve Component employees. 

• Support tax credits to employers who hire servicemembers who supported contingency operations. 

Employee Support: 

• Permit delays or exemptions while mobilized of regularly scheduled mandatory 

continuing education and licensing /certification/promotion exams. 

• Seek a credentialing process to recognize military skills 

• Continue to support a law center dedicated to USERRA/SCRA problems of deployed Active and Reserve servicemembers. 

Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA)/Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act (SCRA): 

• Improve SCRA to protect deployed members from creditors that willfully violate 

SCRA. 

• Fix USERRA/SCRA to protect health care coverage of returning servicemembers 

and family for pre-existing conditions, and continuation of prior group or individual 

insurance. 

• Encourage Federal agencies to abide by USERRA/SCRA standards. 

• Ensure USERRA isn’t superseded by binding arbitrations agreements between 

employers and Reserve Component members. 

• Make the states employers waive 11th Amendment immunity with respect to 

USERRA claims, as a condition of receipt of Federal assistance. 

• Make the award of attorney fees mandatory rather than discretionary. 

Veterans Affairs: 

• Calculate years of service for disability retired pay for Reserve Component 

members wounded or injured in combat under section 12732 of U.S.C. Title 10. 

• Extend veterans preference to those Reserve Component members who have 

completed 20 years in good standing. 

298 

• Make permanent Reserve Component VA Home Loan Guarantees. • Eliminate the 3/4 percent fee differential between Active Component and Reserve Component programs on VA Home Loan. • Support burial eligibility for deceased gray-area retirees at Arlington National 

Cemetery. • Continue to seek timely and comprehensive implementation of concurrent receipt for disabled receiving retired pay and VA disability compensation. 

INCLUDING RESERVE RETIREES WHO HAVE EARNED VETERAN STATUS

Many Guard and Reserve servicemembers have served admirably for 20 plus 

years and qualify for retirement without having been called to active duty service 

during their careers. The Pentagon estimates there are just under 290,000 in this 

group. At age 60, they are entitled to Reserve military retired pay, government 

health care, and other benefits of service, including some Veterans’ benefits. Yet 

current law denies them full standing as a Veteran of the Armed Forces. Both ROA 

and REA support Senator Pryor’s bill S. 629, Honor America’s Guard-Reserve Retirees Act of 2013 to correct this injustice. It is the right thing to do! 

Reserve Component members, as defined in law, who have completed 20 or more 

years of service are military retirees and eligible once reaching 60 years of age for 

all of the active duty military retiree benefits. Conversely they are not considered 

to be ‘‘Veterans’’ if they have not served the required number of uninterrupted days 

on Federal active duty (defined as active duty other than for training). Yet over 20 

years they have sacrificed much in family and civilian employment opportunity and 

at a minimum have served more than seven years on duty over weekends and annual duty. 

Serving Reserve Component members focus on numerous things such as the mission at hand, the job, training and development, the troops, going where needed, 

and other responsibilities, but not much thought is given by individuals to making 

sure they had the right kind of duty orders to qualify as a Veteran upon retirement. 

Those Reserve Component members that have been called to serve in Operation 

Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom or Operation New Dawn have undoubtedly qualified as Veterans. Yet, there are many others who stand in front of 

and behind these men and women—preparing them and supporting them—individuals that are also ready to deploy but because of their assigned duties may never 

serve in that capacity. Nevertheless they serve faithfully. 

Twenty or more years of service in the Reserve forces and eligibility for Reserve 

retired pay should be sufficient qualifying service for full Veteran status under the 

law. 

This issue is a matter of honor for those, who through no fault of their own were 

never activated, but served their nation faithfully for 20 or more years. 

Hurtles 

Seemingly, the biggest hindrance to passing S. 629 to grant Veterans status, is 

the misconception that passage would have unintended consequences, causing this 

group of Veterans to receive benefits that they would not otherwise qualify for. The 

pending legislation would change the legal definition of ‘‘Veteran’’ so that proper acknowledgment and recognition that comes with the designation of ‘‘veteran’’ would 

be made. BUT it would NOT change the legal qualification for access to any 

benefits. 

Each veteran benefit has a different set of qualifications because each was created 

at a different time. Every time Congress passes new legislation that is signed into 

law authorizing new Veteran benefits, the eligibility requirements are determined 

for that specific benefit. Veteran status depends on which Veteran program or benefit you are applying for. Thus S. 629’s language does not generate unintended 

consequences. 

Some have suggested moving such language out of Title 38. If that were to happen, a specific group would be classified as second-class veterans. Such a result 

would not grant these admirable men and women the honor they deserve for their 

20 years plus service, but denigrate it. 

No Cost 

Reserve Component members with 20 years or more service without qualifying 

consecutive active duty time, will not be given special access to Veterans Affairs 

(VA) disability rating. Currently if they are injured while on military orders in the 

line of duty, they are already eligible for a VA disability rating and VA health care. 

In the majority of circumstances these individuals will have other full-time employment in the private sector or as a civilian government employee. Therefore almost all have health care insurance through their employer, and have no need to 

299 

rely on VA health benefits. Upon reaching 60 years of age they will be eligible for 

TRICARE, and at age 65 for TRICARE for Life. 

REDUCING GUARD AND RESERVE UNEMPLOYMENT

Employers view USERRA as a negative incentive and would like to see positive 

encouragement to hire veterans. Reauthorizing the VOW to Hire Heroes Act is a 

good step, but does not address the problems faced by Guard and Reserve members. 

For younger Guard and Reserve members unemployment continues to run at about 

10 percent higher than non-affiliated veterans. For the most part those between 18 

to 24 years old are from the Reserve Component, who in April had an unemployment rate over 14 percent. 

After 10 years of war, employers are more comfortable hiring unaffiliated veterans, than those who could be recalled to active duty and with a future risk of an 

operational call-up once every five years. It is just easier not to hire Guard and Reserve members. 

While this may be a violation of the USERRA, stealth discrimination can easily 

occur if you do not tell the Reserve Component veteran that their military career 

is why they were not hired. Additional positive incentives are needed for this group 

of veterans. 

Notwithstanding the protections and antidiscrimination laws in effect for veterans 

and serving members, it is not unusual for members to lose their jobs due to time 

spent away while deployed. Sometimes employers are going out of business, but 

more often it is because it costs employers money, time, and effort to reintroduce 

the employee to the company. 

Incentives of various types would serve to mitigate burdens and encourage businesses to both hire and retain Reservists and veterans. Examples include providing 

employers—especially small businesses—with incentives such as cash stipends to 

help pay for health care for Reservists up to the amount DOD is contributing. Small 

businesses are more likely to hire Guard and Reserve veterans if they could afford 

to hire temporary replacements. A variety of tax credits could be enacted to provide 

such credit at the beginning of a period of mobilization or perhaps even a direct subsidy for costs related to a mobilization such as the hiring and training of new 

employees. 

Small Business hiring of Guard and Reserve members 

Deployment of Guard and Reserve members has the hardest impact on small businesses. Such businesses are the backbone of the American economy, and are expected to do the majority of the hiring in the near future. The Small Business Administration defines a small business (depending on the industry) as a business 

with fewer than 500 employees. A micro-business is defined as having fewer than 

10 employees. 

ROA and REA support initiatives to provide small business owners with protections for their businesses while a Reserve Component employee is on deployment. 

Employer care plans should be developed in a way that will assist with mitigation 

strategies for dealing with the civilian workload during the absence of the servicemember employee and lay out how the employer and employee would remain in contact throughout the deployment. 

If a Reserve Component small business owner is killed in the line of duty, ROA 

and REA support legislation that would extend veteran entitlements to the surviving spouse as long as she or he maintain a controlling interest. 

Recognition of Active Duty experience for civilian employment 

There is an ongoing challenge on how to convert military skill sets into credited 

experience that would be recognized by civilian employers and provide longevity 

credit during a licensing or credentialing process. Cross-licensing/credentialing 

would ease the burden of having to acquire new licenses/credentials in the private 

sector after having gained experience to perform such duties during military service. 

ROA and REA encourage the implementation of certifications or a form that 

would inform employers of skills potential veteran and servicemember employees 

gained through their military service. 

The Associations are concerned about suggested language that would require ‘‘no 

less than 10 years’’ of experience in a Military Occupation Specialty before such certification could be earned. Many active duty contracts are of a much shorter duration, and experience should not be measured by a calendar. Like educations institutions that provide accreditation for military professional experience, state tests 

should evaluate the amount of experience of an individual. 

300 

EDUCATION

Education improves a veteran’s chance for employment, and many returning combat veterans seek a change in the life paths. There is still room for more improvement in the Post-9/11 GI Bill that in the long run can make the program more effective and increase utilization. 

Issues that student veterans have raised to ROA and REA in which we recommend include the following: 

• Seek in-state tuition for non-resident veterans 

• Establish dedicated and well-trained officers for student veterans to speak with 

via a call center. 

• Allow institutions to give more funds to students with stronger merit and needbase under the Yellow Ribbon Program. 

• Extend Yellow Ribbon Program to Fry scholarship recipients. 

• Align the VA’s work-study program for students to work as guidance officers at 

their institutions to aid other student veterans, to be matched up with institution’s 

academic calendar. 

• Safeguard and implement a long term plan for sustaining the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

– Ensure transferability benefits are protected. 

– Guarantee that any future changes to the program that could have negative 

effects on benefits will grandfather in current beneficiaries. 

• Pass legislation to disallow institutions including benefits in need-based aid formulations. 

• Transferring jurisdiction of Montgomery GI Bill for Selected Reserve to Veteran 

Affairs committees. 

One of the most significant problems that link all issues pertaining to the Post9/11 GI Bill is the lack of effectively trained customer service representatives. One 

of the many examples came from two of our members that are married, both serving 

in a Reserve Component. They wanted to transfer their benefits to their children, 

but were told that only one parent can register the children in the DEERS system 

and therefore only one of the parents could transfer the benefits. After going 

through a couple back channels ROA found out that the couple needed to go to a 

DEERS office and request an ‘administrative’ account for the purposes of transferring benefits. 

There are many stories similar to this one which causes unnecessary stress on 

the families, some of whom give into the system and give up the benefit because 

either they are given incorrect and/or incomplete information or the hassles involved 

are not deemed worthwhile. 

It is absolutely necessary that our servicemembers, veterans and families have 

the ability to access accurate and timely information. ROA and REA urge Congress 

to insist on the VA and education institutions to properly and effectively train their 

personnel. 

CONCLUSION

ROA and REA appreciate the opportunity to submit testimony. ROA and REA 

look forward to working with the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee on solutions 

to these and other issues. We hope in the future for an opportunity to discuss these 

issues in person with committee members and their staff. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CAROLYN W. COLVIN, ACTING COMMISSIONER, 

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

Thank you, Chairman Sanders, for giving me the opportunity to discuss S. 674, 

the Accountability for Veterans Act of 2013. I appreciate this opportunity to discuss 

several ways in which we help the men and women who have served our Nation. 

The Social Security Administration (SSA) historically and proudly has been a ‘‘cando’’ agency. The services we provide to our Nation’s veterans illustrate our deep 

commitment to assisting those in need. I applaud you, Senator, for leading the Committee’s efforts in helping the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) improve the 

processing of disability compensation applications. 

For my statement today, I will focus specifically on the provision in the S. 674 

that would require covered agencies, including SSA, to provide VA with information 

necessary to process a VA claim within 30 days after such information is requested 

by VA. The vast majority of the information we provide VA is medical records that 

we gather during the processing of the veterans’ claims for Social Security disability 

benefits. 

301 

1The current delays in processing VA requests are due to situations in which there are paper 

files that need to be mailed from another SSA location, such as a local field office or hearing 

office, to the NRC. As we have shifted from paper to electronic files, any delays should be further reduced as we can access electronic files instantaneously. 

While the purposes and eligibility criteria for VA and Social Security disability 

programs differ significantly, the process of determining disability in both programs 

hinges on medical information provided to adjudicators. Thus, we recognize that 

having complete and timely medical records is vitally important to both programs. 

We are proud of the work that we are doing with VA to help ensure veterans get 

the benefits due them, and we greatly value our mutually beneficial partnership 

with VA. 

In March, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) testified before this Committee on VA’s disability compensation claims process. In its testimony, GAO created the impression that we do not promptly reply to the requests for medical 

records that we receive from VA. That impression is simply wrong. As the data 

show, we place a high priority on the requests we receive from VA and work very 

hard on responding to them timely. 

In FY 2012, we received nearly 33,000 requests for medical evidence from VA. On 

average, we responded to those requests in less than a week. We currently have no 

pending requests that are older than 90 days. For the first quarter of fiscal year 

2013, we received over 9,600 requests for medical evidence from VA. On average, 

we responded to those requests in less than a week, with only four cases taking 

longer than 60 days, and we responded to all of them in less than 90 days.1 Moving 

forward, we should be able to comfortably and consistently meet the requirement 

in S. 674 if it were enacted. However, even without a statutory requirement, I can 

assure you that we will continue to work hard to assist our Nation’s veterans and 

VA. 

We have taken several steps to ensure that we continue to respond timely to VA’s 

requests. We centralized our process in our National Records Center (NRC) in Independence, Missouri. The NRC receives all requests and provides all records. If the 

requested records are in a paper file located in a different facility, the NRC requests 

the file, photocopies the medical records from it, and sends them to VA. By completely centralizing our process, we have greater control over these requests and ensure timely responses to all of them. We have also established processes to expedite 

Agent Orange and homeless veterans’ cases; on average, we send these records in 

two days or less from the date we receive the requests. 

We also maintain good and regular communications with VA about requests for 

information. SSA had previously asked VA to follow up on requests for medical 

records after 60 days, but that timeframe was recently reduced to 20 days for a first 

followup and 35 days for a second followup. Finally, we developed a tracking system 

to ensure that we do not overlook a single case and have designated a staff person 

to serve as VA liaison in our NRC facility. Our NRC liaison tracks status and folder 

location for any request over 35 days old and explains any delays to VA. 

We continue to work with VA to streamline the medical records request process. 

For example, we collaborated with VA to establish the Veterans Administration Regional Office (VARO) Project. Currently, five VARO sites participate in the project. 

The VARO Project uses a web-based tool that allows VA staff to communicate securely and directly with us. This automated tool significantly improves efficiency. 

We participate in weekly and monthly conference calls with VA headquarters personnel to discuss record requests, including any problems we have encountered and 

any improvements that can be made to the process. 

Our involvement in VA’s disability compensation claims process extends beyond 

supplying medical records. Through numerous verification and exchange agreements, we also provide VA with verification of names and Social Security numbers, 

information about Social Security and Supplemental Security Income benefits, employer reports of earnings from our Master Earnings File, and indicators of death 

reports and prisoner data. VA uses these data for ensuring eligibility and accuracy 

of VA payments. Recently, we have implemented changes to increase the frequency 

of the earnings data exchanges from annually to weekly at the request of VA. 

Again, thank you for your work on these important issues and for this opportunity 

to describe the ways we help Veterans. We are proud of our efforts to reach out to 

the men and women who have served this Nation. We think our partnership with 

VA is very effective. By working together with Congress, we believe both agencies 

will continue to make substantial progress toward providing the world-class service 

that our veterans deserve. 

302 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DAKDUK, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STUDENT VETERANS OF AMERICA

Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for inviting Student Veterans of America to submit written testimony 

regarding pending legislation intended to increase support for military servicemembers and veterans. 

Student Veterans of America is the largest and only national association of military veterans in higher education. Our mission is to provide military veterans with 

the resources, support, and advocacy needed to succeed in higher education and 

after graduation. We currently have over 800 chapters, or student veteran organizations, at colleges and universities in all 50 states that assist veterans in their transition to and through higher education. SVA chapters are organized as four-year 

and two-year public, private, nonprofit, and for-profit institutions of higher learning. 

This diverse and direct contact gives SVA a unique perspective on the needs and 

obstacles faced by our Nation’s veterans as they utilize education benefits in preparation for their future transition into the civilian workforce. 

S. 257, GI Bill Tuition Fairness Act of 2013: 

The Post-9/11 GI Bill pays the highest in-state tuition and fees. Due to military 

obligations, many veterans are unable to establish in-state residency for the purposes of enrolling at a public university or college. Ultimately, this becomes a financial burden that leaves veterans vying for additional financial aid due to out-of-state 

residency status. 

This proposed bill would make all student veterans eligible for in-state tuition at 

public colleges and universities, regardless of their residency status, eliminating the 

need for veterans seeking a post-secondary credential to find full-time employment 

or accrue student loan debt while attending a public institution. 

The protocol for establishing residency for tuition purposes varies across the spectrum of higher education, leaving many recently-separated veterans unable to satisfy strict requirements due to their service in another state. Nuanced policies and 

variability between states and university systems are highly complex and penalize 

veterans with stringent residency requirements they are unable to fulfill due to 

their honorable military service. 

According to a state-by-state landscape analysis conducted by our organization, 12 

states already offer in-state tuition to veterans, 8 states offer conditional waivers 

to veterans under particular circumstances, and another 16 states are currently considering similar legislation. 

State leaders from both sides of the aisle have recognized the financial and social 

benefits veterans bring to their communities. Not only do student veterans diversify 

the landscape of higher education by bringing their unique experiences and perspectives to public campuses, but many veterans will pursue careers within the same 

state post-graduation. 

Veterans who choose to attend public schools, but are unable to qualify for residency status should not have to shoulder the burden of additional tuition fees. We 

are proud to be working with the American Legion on a state-by-state initiative to 

see in-state tuition granted to all veterans. We are also very proud to be aligned 

with both the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) in seeing 

this issue resolved in Congress. We recognize that veterans served our Nation in 

its entirety, not just one state, and as such we hope to see veterans provided the 

opportunity to use their educational benefits in all states without discrimination. 

SVA fully supports S. 257 and hopes the Committee moves quickly to pass this 

legislation. 

S. 262, Veterans Education Equity Act of 2013: 

SVA would like to thank Senator Durbin for his attention to the inequity existing 

within the Post-9/11 GI Bill. While we support the intention of this bill, which seeks 

to address the same issue as S. 257, we cannot support this legislation. 

In an attempt to offset decreasing revenues due to state budget cuts, public colleges and universities have significantly raised the cost of out-of-state tuition. Some 

institutions have inflated out-of-state tuition to over 300% of the in-state tuition 

rate, forcing student veterans who are unable to meet residency requirements to 

fund their education through other means of Federal financial aid, student loans, 

or full-time employment. 

S. 262 proposes to increase compensation received by non-resident veterans attending public colleges and universities. 

SVA stands in agreement with the VFW that it would be irresponsible to place 

additional financial burden on VA and the American taxpayer when we know these 

schools can deliver a quality education at the in-state rate, and stand with the 

303 

American Legion in that S. 262 would encourage inefficiency within the higher education system. SVA thanks Senator Durbin for his serious consideration of the issue 

and looks forward to working with him to support student veterans. 

S. 492, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to require States to recognize 

the military experience of veterans when issuing licenses and credentials to veterans, and for other purposes: 

This bill ensures that professional military personnel have the opportunity to sit 

for licensing exams, allowing veterans the opportunity to successfully translate their 

military expertise and effectively integrate into the civilian workforce. 

SVA stands with VFW and the American Legion in support of this legislation. 

S. 495, Careers for Veterans Act: 

SVA supports S. 495, which incentivizes the private sector to hire and retain veterans, provides veterans with Federal employment opportunities, and extends additional protections for surviving spouses of veteran entrepreneurs. 

S. 863, Veterans Back to School Act of 2013: 

Currently, veterans have 10 years upon separation from the military to use their 

Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) benefit. Military veterans are nontraditional students, 

and often do not enter a higher education environment immediately after military 

service. In fact, many nontraditional students start and stop school at various times 

during their academic careers. By initiating the MGIB clock once the veteran begins 

using the benefit, we provide these nontraditional learners with a better opportunity 

for academic success and ultimately post-graduation employment. Additionally, 

these veterans have made financial contributions to the MGIB. They made the investment to better themselves through higher learning and we have an obligation 

to honor that investment. 

SVA is also pleased to see a veteran outreach component to this bill. By providing 

institutions of higher learning with support to increase outreach efforts, student veterans will ultimately be better served. Programs and services dedicated to veterans 

on campus are absolutely critical to retention, graduation, and post-graduation employment. 

S. 514, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide additional educational assistance under the Post-9/11 educational Assistance to veterans pursuing a degree in science, technology, engineering, math or an area that leads 

to employment in a high-demand occupation, and for other purposes: 

This bill stands to provide additional financial support to student veterans pursuing a degree in the fields of science, technology, engineering, math, or an area 

that leads to employment in a high-demand occupation. SVA has long supported the 

intent of such legislation, seeing as the demand for jobs in these fields are high and 

veterans, with their unique experiences and training, stand to significantly contribute to these industries. 

Because high tuition costs and long paths to graduation are often associated with 

these degrees, SVA supports giving the Secretary the discretion to distribute additional funds to student veterans participating in such programs as deemed appropriate. 

S. 6, Putting Our Veterans Back to Work: 

SVA supports this bill, which focuses on transitioning recently-separated veterans 

and student veterans into the civilian workforce through an extension of the VRAP 

program and additional protections under the Uniformed Servicemembers Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). 

S. 430, Veterans Small Business Opportunity and Protection Act of 2013: 

SVA supports this bill, as well as similar language in S. 495, that would allow 

survivors of veteran entrepreneurs to continue operating their business as if the entity remained veteran-owned. We encourage the Senate to take swift action on this 

either as stand-alone legislation or through S. 495. 

S. 515, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend the Yellow Ribbon GI 

Education Enhancement program to cover recipients of Marine Gunnery Sergeant John David Fry scholarship, and for other purposes: 

As it stands eligible dependents of a servicemember killed in action are excluded 

from additional educational benefits through the Yellow Ribbon Program. S. 515 will 

provide Fry Scholarship recipients the same benefits as other Chapter 33-eligible 

beneficiaries. SVA stands with the VFW and American Legion in strong support of 

this legislation. 

304 

S. 894, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to extend expiring authority for 

work-study allowances for individuals who are pursuing programs of rehabilitation, education, or training under laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, to expand such authority to certain outreach services provided 

through congressional offices, and for other purposes: 

Although SVA did not have adequate time to review the text of S. 894, we do offer 

our support of the legislation’s intention to extend expiring work-study allowances 

for individuals pursuing programs of rehabilitation, education or training. Many 

student veterans use the work-study program as a supplement to pay for their bills 

and other costs not covered by primary VA educational programs. SVA strongly supports the VA work-study program. 

Draft bill, a bill to provide in-state tuition to transitioning veterans: 

SVA did not receive a draft of this bill in time to offer comment; however, we believe that S. 257 is the appropriate and comprehensive way to offer equitable funds 

to veterans using the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

SVA was not provided the text of the following legislation in adequate time to review and offer comment: 

S. 674, Accountability for Veterans Act of 2013 

S. 893, Veterans’ Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013 

S. 928, Claims Processing Improvement Act of 2013 

S. 922, Veterans Equipped for Success During Transition Act of 2013 

Draft bill, Veterans Outreach Act of 2013 

SVA finds the following bills outside the scope of our mission and does not wish 

to offer comment at this time: 

S. 200, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the interment in 

national cemeteries under the control of the National Cemetery Administration 

of individuals who served in combat support of the Armed Forces in the Kingdom of Laos between February 28, 1961, and May 15, 1975, and for other purposes. 

S. 294, Ruth Moore Act of 2013 

S. 373, Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act of 2013 

S. 572, Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act 

S. 629, Honor America’s Guard-Reserve Retirees Act of 2013 

S. 674, Accountability for Veterans Act of 2013 

S. 690, Filipino Veterans Fairness Act of 2013 

S. 695, Veterans Paralympic Act of 2013 

S. 705, War Memorial Protection Act of 2013 

S. 735, Survivor Benefits Improvement Act of 2013 

S. 748, Veterans Pension Protection Act 

S. 819, Veterans Mental Health Treatment First Act of 2013 

Thank you Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, and distinguished Members of the Committee for allowing Student Veterans of America to present our 

views on legislation focused on supporting veterans, military servicemembers, and 

their families. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SERVICE WOMEN’S ACTION NETWORK

Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr and distinguished Members of the 

Committee: Thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony for the 

record and thank you for your continued leadership on veteran’s issues and for convening this hearing today. 

The Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN) is a non-profit, non-partisan veterans led civil rights organization. SWAN’s mission is to transform military culture 

by securing equal opportunity and freedom to serve without discrimination, harassment or assault; and to reform veterans’ services to ensure high quality health care 

and benefits for women veterans and their families. 

305 

We challenge institutions and cultural norms that deny equal opportunities, equal 

protections, and equal benefits to servicemembers and veterans. SWAN is not a 

membership organization, instead we utilize direct services to provide outreach and 

assistance to servicemembers and veterans and our policy agenda is directly informed by those relationships and that interaction. 

SWAN extends opportunities to and promotes the voices and agency of service 

women and women veterans without regard to sex, gender, sexual orientation or 

gender identity or the context, era, or type of their service. 

SWAN welcomes the opportunity to share our views on two bills before the Committee today: S. 294 the Ruth Moore Act of 2013; and S. 373 the Charlie Morgan 

Military Spouses Equal Treatment Act of 2013. 

S. 294

SWAN strongly supports S. 294, the Ruth Moore Act. Veterans who are partially 

or fully disabled from an injury suffered while serving in the military are entitled 

to disability benefits. Currently VA policy requires a veteran applying for disability 

benefits to demonstrate three things: A diagnosis of a medical or mental health 

issue; Proof that an event (stressor) happened while in the service; and a link between the stressor and the medical/mental health issue, provided by a VA examiner. 

The Ruth Moore Act allows a statement from the survivor to be considered sufficient 

proof that an assault occurred. 

SWAN has been advocating for changes to the VA claims process for several 

years. We actively supported the 2010 change to the claims process for PTSDclaims related to ‘‘fear of hostile military or terrorist activity’’ and have provided testimony many times to both House and Senate committees on issues and challenges 

facing women veterans at both the VHA and VBA, and the unique challenges faced 

by veterans filing Military Sexual Trauma (MST) claims. 

According to VA, PTSD is the most common mental health condition associated 

with MST. For women veterans, MST is a greater predictor of PTSD than combat. 

Studies also indicate that sexual harassment causes the same rates of PTSD in 

women as combat does in men. And 40 to 53% of homeless women veterans have 

been sexual assaulted while in the military. The Committee should also be aware 

that this is not just an issue for women veterans, but that many men suffer from 

the effects of military sexual violence. According to the Department of Defense, 12% 

of all unrestricted sexual assault reports are made by men. Simply put, MST has 

negatively affected the entire veterans’ community. 

Veterans who suffer from the debilitating effects of Military Sexual Trauma face 

unique challenges in obtaining disability compensation from the VA. In 2011, SWAN 

and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a Freedom of Information Request with the VA for data on MST claims. The data obtained through litigation 

showed that during FY 2008, 2009 and 2010, only 32.3% of MST-based PTSD claims 

were approved by VBA compared to an approval rate of 54.2% of all other PTSD 

claims during that time. As a point of comparison, data obtained by Veterans for 

Common Sense indicates that 53% of Iraq and Afghanistan deployment related 

PTSD claims through October2011 were approved. 

Looking more deeply at the MST data, SWAN discovered that among veterans 

who had their MST- PTSD claims approved by VA, women were more likely to receive a 10% to 30% disability rating, whereas men were more likely to receive a 70% 

to 100% disability rating. 

These findings indicate that veterans who file a PTSD claim based on MST have 

only a 1 in 3 chance of getting their claim approved. Also, data suggests a strong 

gender bias in VA’s MST PTSD disability ratings process. 

SWAN has presented our data to the VA Secretary Eric Shinseki and to the 

Under Secretary for Benefits Allison Hickey and asked for changes to VA regulations on MST claims. After a series of conversations with SWAN, Undersecretary 

Hickey decided not to change the regulation, but instead issued a memo in 

June 2011 providing further guidance to claims officers and instituting training requirements for processing MST claims. However, examination of both the letter and 

the training revealed it simply reinforced the existing regulation which places a double standard on MST claimants. Recently VA has released statistics that show a 

near miraculous increase in MST claims approvals, presumably due to this training 

memo. Both SWAN and the New York Times have asked to see the data behind 

these numbers and VA has refused to provide it. 

Additional responses from VA on this issue have not been adequate either. At a 

House Veterans’ Affairs subcommittee hearing in 2012, VA admitted that their current regulation had not been applied properly by claims officials and stated they 

would be sending letters to previously rejected MST claimants to offer to re-adjuVerDate Nov 24 2008 22:58 May 08, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00309 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\ACTIVE\061213.TXT PAULIN
306 

dicate their claims, but after a year this has not been accomplished. Most recently 

Allison Hickey testified before Congress that VA was designating one person, specifically a woman, in each regional office as the sole reviewer of MST cases. This 

action by VA clearly demonstrates the inadequacies of their 2011 guidance memo 

and training efforts and reveals more of VA’s MST gender bias in adjudicating MST 

claims. SWAN is extremely concerned that this action will create a bottleneck or 

MST claims, increasing delays in adjudications and creating larger issues for the 

overall claims inventory and backlog crisis. 

The regulation has to change. Even with ‘‘secondary markers’’ the current language fails veterans for a variety of reasons. First, sexual assault and sexual harassment in the military are notoriously under-reported. According to the Pentagon’s 

Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office (SAPRO), 86.5% of sexual assaults 

go unreported, meaning that official documentation of an assault rarely exists. Second, prior to the new evidence retention laws passed in the 2011 National Defense 

Authorization Act, the services routinely destroyed all evidence and investigation 

records in sexual assault cases after 2 to 5 years, leaving gaping holes in MST 

claims filed prior to 2012. Last, the allowance for secondary evidentiary described 

in the regulation does not take into consideration the reality that many victims do 

not report the incident(s) to anyone, including family members, for a variety of legitimate reasons, including shame, stigma, embarrassment, or disorientation associated with sexual trauma. 

Additionally, although sexual assault increases the chance of adverse emotional 

responses and behaviors, it does not mean that all MST claimants will experience 

these symptoms. In fact, SWAN has spoken to many assault survivors who demonstrate changes in behavior that are not included in the regulation, such as improved job performance as a means of coping with the trauma. 

In the MST community, the failures of the VA claims process are well known. 

SWAN has spoken with veterans who suffer PTSD related to both MST and combat—what veterans cynically call the ‘‘double whammy.’’ These veterans chose to 

abandon their MST claims and submit a claim only for combat related PTSD, as 

they felt their combat claim was more likely to be approved, and that the uphill battle to file an MST claim wasn’t worth the agony. 

It is well past time for VA to admit that the current MST claims process is broken. VA’s PTSD policy discriminates against veterans who were sexually assaulted 

or harassed while in uniform by holding them to an evidentiary standard which is 

not only higher than that of other groups of veterans suffering from PTSD, but also 

completely unrealistic for the majority of survivors to meet. It has not been able to 

train its way out of this issue by enforcing a bad regulation, and VA’s recent responses to the crisis are creating more problems than they are solving. 

It is not enough for Congress just to tell VA to improve the regulation. It must 

specifically state what needs to be done. VA has proven they cannot do this on their 

own, they need the help of Congress. Ask any MST survivor and they will tell you 

that the only way to fix this problem is to change the regulation, and that is what 

the Ruth Moore Act does. 

S. 294, the Ruth Moore Act of 2013 amends the current regulation so that it correctly makes the determination of entitlement to service-connected compensation for 

the resulting disability from the in service trauma a question of medical diagnosis 

and not question of evidence, it maintains the existing requirements for a proper 

medical diagnosis, stressor evidence and VA examination, it ends the veteran’s endless quest for hard-to-find ‘‘secondary markers,’’ and prevents MST survivors from 

being further re-traumatized by an adjudication process which implicitly questions 

the veracity of the reported in-service personal assault in the first place. 

S. 373

SWAN strongly supports S. 373, the Charlie Morgan Military Spouses Equal 

Treatment Act of 2013. This bill would change the definition of ‘‘spouse’’ in four 

areas of U.S. Code related to recognition, support, and benefits for married servicemembers and veterans. The changes—including to provisions in Titles 10, 32, and 

38 would ensure that spouses of the same gender are eligible for key military benefits. The bill adds a favorable controlling definition of ‘‘spouse’’ to Title 37 to provide 

greater uniformity of benefits for same-sex spouses. 

Importantly, the bill extends dozens of important spousal benefits and support 

programs to same-gender spouses, including coverage under TRICARE insurance, 

an increased housing allowance and survivor benefits, and it closes the benefit gaps 

left after the limited extension of same-sex spousal benefits signed by former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. 

307 

Since the repeal of ‘‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’’ there have been two classes of servicemembers in this country—one that receives the Nation’s full recognition, support 

and benefits and one that does not. The law as it currently stands perpetuates this 

second-class solider syndrome which harms all servicemembers, prevents commanders from taking care of their troops and weakens the force. The integration of 

openly gay servicemembers into the military has been seamless and they continue 

to serve our country well. It is well past time to welcome the spouses and families 

who support them into the ranks as well. 

Again, we appreciate the opportunity to offer our views on these very important 

bills and we look forward to continuing our work together to improve the lives of 

veterans and their families. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLIE HUEBNER, CHIEF OF PARALYMPICS, UNITED

STATES OLYMPIC COMMITTEE

S. 695, THE VETERANS PARALYMPIC ACT OF 2013

Chairman Sanders, Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the Committee, my 

name is Charlie Huebner and I am the Chief of Paralympics, for the United States 

Olympic Committee (‘‘USOC’’). Thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement 

and testify before this Committee in support of S. 695, which extends the authorization for the highly successful, innovative and cost effective partnership between the 

USOC and the Department of Veteran Affairs to provide Paralympic sports and sustainable physical activity opportunities for disabled veterans at the community 

level. 

I would like to thank the sponsors of this legislation, Senators Boozman and 

Begich, as well as the co-sponsors who sit on this Committee, Senator Murray, the 

former Chairman, and Senators Tester, Hirono, and Johanns. I would also like to 

acknowledge are partner organizations that have worked so hard with the USOC 

and the VA to make this program a success. S. 695 is supported by national organizations such as the American Legion, BlazeSports America, the Blinded Veterans 

Association, Disabled Sports USA, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, 

the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the USO and the National Recreation and Parks 

Association, as well as by hundreds of local, community-based organizations such as 

Bridge II Sports in Durham, North Carolina, Challenge Alaska, and Greater Metro 

Parks in Tacoma, Washington. A letter of support from these organizations, among 

others, is attached as Exhibit A. 

Paralympic programs are sports for physically disabled athletes. It was founded 

and exists because of Veterans from World War II. Research has proven that 

Paralympic sport and physical activity is an impactful aspect of successful rehabilitation for disabled Veterans. 

Research-based outcomes from consistent physical activity for disabled Veterans 

include higher self-esteem, lower stress levels and secondary medical conditions and 

higher achievement levels in education and employment. 

At the beginning of U.S. combat operations, the USOC expanded its service to injured members of our Armed Forces and Veterans by providing training, technical 

assistance and Paralympic ambassadors to installations and military medical centers. As combat escalated, Congress reached out to the USOC asking for us to do 

more! 

I applaud the leadership in Congress, which realized that collaboration between 

the public and private sector, between Government agencies, non-profit organizations, and the private business sector could expand expertise and capabilities, and 

program awareness in a cost effective manner. 

The legislation you created in Fiscal Year 2010, allowed the USOC and VA to significantly grow the capabilities and reach of physical activity programming to thousands of disabled Veterans today in communities throughout America. Since 2010, 

the cumulative number of veterans served has been over 16,000. We estimate that 

annually up to 5,000 veterans are being served by our partner organizations, and 

we have made it a priority to increase the numbers of veterans we reach through 

this program. 

The authorization for this program expires at the end of Fiscal Year 2013. It is 

imperative that Congress act to extend the authorization for this program to ensure 

there is no interruption in the services being provided to our disabled veterans, and 

just as importantly, develop enhanced programming in collaboration with the private sector where there are significant needs. 

The USOC, which itself was created by Congress, is one of only four National 

Olympic Committees that manage both Olympic and Paralympic sport. We are one 

308 

of only a handful of National Olympic Committees that are 100% privately funded, 

with our major competitors outspending us often as much as 5-to–1. Innovation, collaboration and cost efficiencies are core to our organizational success and critical to 

this continued USOC and VA partnership. 

Injured military personnel and Veterans are the soul of the Paralympic movement. When discussing the Paralympic Movement, we have two primary objectives. 

One: pursue excellence at the Paralympic Games. As a result of Paralympic Veteran 

role models and ambassadors such as Navy Lt. Brad Snyder, Army Veteran Melissa 

Stockwell, and Marine Veteran Oz Sanchez, the USOC and VA have been able to 

reach millions of Americans with stories of Veteran achievements and excellence. 

Second, and more importantly, the VA and USOC collectively have reached thousands of disabled Veterans and their families with stories of hope, and a roadmap 

to being healthy, productive and contributing members of society. 

With partners such as PVA, IAVA, Disabled Sports USA and USA Hockey to 

name a few, the VA and USOC have created significant, sustainable and cost effective regional and local physical activity opportunities for disabled Veterans to pursue competitive excellence, but most significantly, for a majority of the thousands 

of physically disabled Veterans in the US these opportunities are ways to simply 

re-engage into society by being physically active with their sons, daughters, families, 

and friends. 

It is as simple as skiing with your buddies again, or as one double amputee Army 

Ranger stated ‘‘I want to be able to run with my son.’’ 

This Committee, Congressional leaders, and Veteran and Military organizations 

asked the USOC to lead this effort due to our powerful, iconic, and inspiring brand; 

our expertise in physical activity and sport for persons with physical disabilities; 

and our significant infrastructure of member organizations. We have accepted the 

responsibility and opportunity to serve those who have served us. And because of 

your leadership in developing and providing funding for this USOC and VA partnership, we are able today to report the first phase of significant program success and 

expansion in less than three years of this legislation. Since June 2010, the VA and 

USOC have: 

• Distributed more than 350 grants to community sport organizations to develop 

sustainable physical activity programs for disabled Veterans returning to their 

hometowns. 

• These community programs are investing millions of dollars in private resources, combined with grants from the VA—USOC grant pool, to reach thousands 

of Veterans with a focus on sustainable and consistent physically activity at the 

local level. 

• The VA and USOC have emphasized and led an effort to promote collaboration 

between the DOD, VA and community sport organizations to recognize and enhance 

programmatic and financial efficiencies. To date, grant recipients have collaborated 

and partnered with 85 VA medical centers in 39 states and military treatment facilities across the country. 

• Created the Paralympic Resource Network, an online database of Paralympic 

programs nationally which is designed to link individuals with physical and visual 

disabilities to sports programs in their communities. There are now 340 organizations listed. This is over 35% more than the targeted goal of 250 organizations. 

• Created consistent national and regional training, technical assistance and 

sharing of best practices to expand availability of sustainable programming at the 

community level. 

• Distributed training stipends to over 115 Veteran athletes; 43 of these athletes 

have met the national team standard in their respective sports. 

• Implemented regional and national public relations and communications strategies resulting in major national media campaigns and news stories that have 

reached millions of Americans with stories of Paralympic Veterans as national 

ambassadors. 

• Significantly expanded and implemented, accountability and oversight processes 

that include USOC-led internal audits of grantees, upgraded reporting and monitoring of sub-grantees, consistent USOC site visits and weekly USOC-VA grant 

monitoring calls. 

• Two staff members implementing this program are individuals with physical 

disabilities, one being a Veteran. 

Humbly, we work for an organization that has one of the most inspiring brands 

in the world. A brand that motivates people and organizations to get involved and 

to collaborate. I can’t emphasize the collaboration point enough, because collaboration also leads to significant cost efficiencies and impact! 

309 

Today, more than 350 USOC partner organizations in 46 states and the District 

of Columbia are investing millions in private resources, staff, and facilities to cost 

effectively implement these programs. As part of our commitment to deliver services 

in the most cost efficient manner possible, the USOC has not accepted the 5% allowance for Administrative Costs and has instead contributed its own administrative 

resources to maximize funding. 

One specific new example of USOC—VA innovation, impact, cost-efficiency, collaboration and enhanced awareness was the development of the regional and local 

Valor Games series in Chicago. Through partnership with a USOC leadership organization—World Sport Chicago—the USOC and VA identified a partner that could 

plan, implement, provide a majority of the funding and promote the importance and 

impact at a regional event for physically disabled Veterans with the primary objective and outcome being the connecting of these Veterans to everyday physical activity programs in the region. This was done with limited VA-USOC financial investment and only one USOC staff and one VA staff member involved. 

In closing, the need in this Country is great. More physically disabled members 

of our Armed Forces are returning to America’s communities, urban and rural, as 

heroic Veterans. Many of them are simply trying to reintegrate with their friends 

and families. Some want to compete. The power of sport is one tool in the rehabilitative process that allows for our Nation’s heroes to take a small step to normalcy. 

Research has proven that! 

I would like to thank the Committee, the VA leadership, particularly Secretary 

Eric Shinseki; Assistant Secretary Tommy Sowers, Mike Galloucis, Executive Director of the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Public and Intergovernmental 

Affairs; I would like to especially commend Marine Veteran and VA leader Chris 

Nowak, a physically disabled Veteran who is driving change in collaboration with 

the VA and USOC with a primary focus on impacting Veterans in a cost effective 

manner. Mr. Nowak is a Marine Veteran making a difference! 

I can simply say that you have led a collaborative and cost effective effort. You, 

too, are making a difference. A difference in the lives of those that have given our 

Nation so much! 

310 

EXHIBIT A 


USOCExh1.eps
311 

Æ 


USOCExh2.eps