U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

98–645 2016

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2214, H.R. 1380, 

H.R. 2706, H.R. 2691, H.R. 303, H.R. 1338, H.R. 

1302, H.R. 2605 AND H.R. 1384 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY 

ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 24, 2015 

Serial No. 114–28 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

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


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Vice-Chairman 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

RALPH ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

LEE ZELDIN, New York 

RYAN COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, American 

Samoa 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida, Ranking 

Minority Member 

MARK TAKANO, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

KATHLEEN RICE, New York 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JON TOWERS, Staff Director 

DON PHILLIPS, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL 

AFFAIRS 

RALPH ABRAHAM, Louisiana, Chairman 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

LEE ZELDIN, New York 

RYAN COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

DINA TITUS, Nevada, Ranking Member 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records 

of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs are also published in electronic form. The printed 

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to 

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting 

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process 

is further refined. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Wednesday, June 24, 2015 

Page 

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2214, H.R. 1380, H.R. 2706, H.R. 2691, H.R. 

303, H.R. 1338, H.R. 1302, H.R. 2605 and H.R. 1384 ....................................... 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Ralph Abraham, Chairman ..................................................................................... 1 

Dina Titus, Ranking Member ................................................................................. 2 

Jeff Miller, Chairman, Committee of Veterans Affairs ........................................ 3 

WITNESSES 

Hon. Raul Ruiz ......................................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Bill Johnson, U.S. House of Representatives ............................................... 8 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 28 

Mr. David R. McLeachen, Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Disability Assistance, VBA U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ......................................... 10 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 30 

Accompanied by: 

Mr. Matthew Sullivan, Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Finance and 

Planning and CFO, National Cemetery Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

And 

Mr. David Barrans, Assistant General Counsel, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Mr. Zachary Hearn, Deputy Director for Claims, Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Division, The American Legion .......................................................... 17 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 57 

Mr. Paul R. Varela, Assistant National Legislative Director, Disabled American Veterans ........................................................................................................ 19 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 64 

Mr. Aleks Morosky, Deputy Director, National Legislative Service, Veterans 

of Foreign Wars .................................................................................................... 20 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 73 

Ms. Diane Zumatto, National Legislative Director, AMVETS ............................. 22 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 78 

Mr. Chris Neiweem, Legislative Associate, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans 

of America ............................................................................................................. 23 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 83 

FOR THE RECORD 

Statement of Jeffrey Swanson, PhD and Richard Bonnie, LLB .......................... 89 

Statement of Lesley Witter, Senior Vice President, Advocacy for the National 

Funeral Directors Association ............................................................................. 97 

Statement of Brigadier General (RET) Stephen N. Xenakis, MD ....................... 100 

Hon. Bob Lata, U.S. House of Representatives ..................................................... 103 

Hon. Bill Shuster, U.S. House of Representatives ................................................ 103 

Mr. Blake C. Ortner, Deputy Government Relations, Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America .................................................................................................. 108 

Hon. Gus M. Bilirakis, Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial 

Affairs .................................................................................................................... 110


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 2214, H.R. 

1380, H.R. 2706, H.R. 2691, H.R. 303, H.R. 1338, 

H.R. 1302, H.R. 2605 AND H.R. 1384 

Wednesday, June 24, 2015 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL

AFFAIRS, 

Washington, D.C. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m., in Room 

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Ralph Abraham [chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Abraham, Titus, Lamborn, Brownley, 

Zeldin, Ruiz, Costello, Bost, Miller, Bilirakis, and Walz. 

Dr. ABRAHAM. Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for your patience. This subcommittee will come to order. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RALPH ABRAHAM 

Before we begin, I would like to ask unanimous consent that our 

colleagues Representatives Bilirakis and Walz be allowed to sit at 

the dais, make opening statements and ask questions. I understand 

that Chairman Miller has been delayed, but when he arrives that 

he would also be allowed to sit at the dais, make an opening statement and ask questions. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Again, thank you for being here today. I appreciate you all waiting, we had votes, to discuss this legislation opinion before the subcommittee concerning disability examinations, honoring deceased 

veterans, fiduciary reform, concurrent receipt survivor claims, the 

appeals backlog, and other veterans issues. 

This afternoon, we have nine important pieces of legislation before us. I will focus my remarks on H.R. 2214, the Disabled Veterans Access to Medical Exams Improvement Act of 2015, which I 

am proud to have introduced. 

Many veterans undergo a VA medical examination in support of 

their application for disability benefits. The problem is that there 

are not enough VA examiners to perform these evaluations in a 

timely manner. 

In 2003, Congress gave VA temporary authority to contract with 

outside physicians to perform disability examinations. This has 

helped reduce the backlog, but that authorization expires at the 

end of this year. Section 2(a) of H.R. 2214 would extend this temporary authorization through December 31st, 2017. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
2 

H.R. 2214 includes another provision which would make it easier 

and convenient for veterans to schedule these examinations. Veterans in rural areas like the 5th District of Louisiana, which I represent, often have to travel many miles to see a VA facility, in 

order to see a VA examiner or a disability examination. It is especially difficult to schedule these examinations if the veteran needs 

to see a specialist such as a cardiologist or an orthopedic surgeon. 

My bill would make it easier for VA to arrange for the veteran 

to get a disability examination by permitting licensed physicians to 

conduct these examinations anywhere in the United States as long 

as they are a doctor under current VA contract. 

Enabling contract specialists to conduct more examinations will 

also free up VA doctors to devote more time to treating veterans 

rather than conducting disability examinations. 

Finally, the bill would expand a pilot program that authorizes 

the VA to use contract physicians in some regional offices. Section 

2(c) would allow this pilot to continue in 15 regional offices. The 

bill would also establish a criteria VA should use when selecting 

which regional offices should participate in the pilot program. 

As a doctor and a veteran, I know how important this bill is and 

I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense legislation. 

With that said, I am eager to discuss each of the nine pieces of 

legislation before us here today and I am grateful to my colleagues 

who have introduced these bills and to our witnesses for being here 

to discuss them with us. I look forward to a productive and meaningful discussion. 

And I would like to take a minute and share that, while I intended to be present for the entire hearing, a last-minute scheduling has come up and I will have to leave a little early, so you 

will have to excuse me. And I want to emphasize that I appreciate 

the witnesses that took the time to come here today and share 

their views. I will carefully read the transcript and review everyone’s testimony as the subcommittee continues to consider these 

bills. 

I will now yield to my colleague Ranking Member Titus for any 

opening statements she may have. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER DINA TITUS 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If you have to step out 

early, does that mean I get to be in charge? 

Dr. ABRAHAM. I am afraid not. 

Ms. TITUS. Oh, okay. Well, thank you for holding the hearing 

today and for your work on these bills. 

As the Chairman said, we are examining nine bills that are all 

important to our nation’s heroes, and so I would like to commend 

the sponsors for their hard work in support of our veterans. 

First, I would like to highlight H.R. 2691, the Veterans Survivors 

Claims Processing Automation Act. The bill would provide VA with 

the authority to initiate and pay a survivor’s claim without receipt 

of a formal application if they have enough evidence available to 

process that claim. This makes common sense and lessens the burden on families during the time of their distress. 

H.R. 1384, the Honor Americas Guard Reserve Retirees Act, 

which was introduced by Representative Walz of Minnesota, who is 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
3 

a member of the full committee and with us here today, is a bill 

that would grant honorary veterans status to retired members of 

the Guard and Reserve who have completed 20 years of service. It 

is time that we gave them this recognition. 

Lastly, I want to discuss my legislation, H.R. 2706. This is the 

Veterans National Remembrance Act. This bill would bring an end 

to an inequity for more than 1.8 million veterans and their families 

spread across 11 states, located mostly in the West where distances 

are long and population centers are small. These states represent 

places that do not have a true national cemetery. The state with 

the largest veterans population that is not served by a national 

cemetery is my home state of Nevada, which is home to over 

230,000 veterans, 155,000 of whom reside in Las Vegas. 

Southern Nevada has a very nice maintained state cemetery, but 

our nation’s veterans fought for our nation, not for a state, and 

they deserve the opportunity to be buried in a national cemetery 

without requiring their families to have to drive long distances to 

visit their grave sites. 

My legislation would require every third national cemetery to be 

built in those states with large unserved veteran populations. I believe this gets us on track to eventually serve these veterans who 

have been overlooked, despite the fact that the NCA has 131 national cemeteries with plans to build several more. 

I would like to note, however, unfortunately and to my great disappointment, the absence of one bill that I requested twice to appear on the committee’s agenda and that is H.R. 1598, the Veterans Spouses Equal Treatment Act, our work today is focused on 

improving the benefits process for our nation’s heros, but while we 

are doing that we are ignoring the fact that there are veterans who 

are being prevented from accessing the benefits they have already 

earned. It is not right and I believe our committee is missing a 

chance to correct this inequity. 

Last year, under the leadership of Chairman Runyan, we included the bill in a legislative hearing and we got only positive 

comments back from the VSO community and the VA. 

As this group of bills, though, that we are considering moves forward, I intend to work with all the members. I think it is thoughtful legislation. And I thank the witnesses who are here today for 

your assistance in making them better. So I look forward to hearing your testimony and I yield back. 

Dr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Ms. Titus. 

Chairman Miller, thank you for being here today. You are now 

recognized to discuss your bill. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MILLER 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate 

you holding this hearing and I want to talk about H.R. 1380. It expands the eligibility for a medallion provided by the VA which signifies the veterans status of a deceased individual. These medallions are inscribed with the word, ‘‘Veteran,’’ across the top and the 

branch of service at the bottom. 

Now, under current law, this medallion may be affixed to a privately purchased headstone or marker and is furnished upon request for eligible veterans who died on or after November 1st of 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
4 

1990. H.R. 1380 would amend the law to authorize VA to provide 

this medallion for any veteran regardless of the veteran’s date of 

death. 

For nearly 40 years, VA has administered various programs to 

provide headstones or marker options for veterans. These programs 

have changed over time, which has caused some confusion for veterans and for their families. Sometimes VA has provided allowances for private headstones, but at other times these allowances 

were not provided. 

In 2009, VA began providing a medallion as a retroactive benefit 

for veterans who died after the 31st of October in the year 1990. 

This date was chosen because from November 1st, 1990 through 

September 11th, 2001 VA did not pay a benefit for the purchase 

of a private headstone or marker for veterans who were qualified 

for interment at a national or state veterans’ cemetery. 

The medallion has proved to be very much appreciated by the 

veterans and by their families. And this bill would provide this 

benefit to every veteran regardless of the date of his or her death. 

These medallions will ensure that future generations are able to 

identify the final resting place of our nation’s warriors and to continue to remember and honor the sacrifice and service of these 

heros. 

I want to ask each of you to support H.R. 1380. And, Mr. Chairman, thank you again, Ms. Titus, for holding this hearing, and I 

yield back. 

Dr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RAUL RUIZ 

Dr. Ruiz, would you like to speak about you bill? 

Dr. RUIZ. Yes, absolutely. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ms. Ranking Member, for holding 

this hearing and including my bill, the Veterans Survivors Claims 

Processing Automation Act. 

This simple, commonsense legislation will provide VA the statutory authority to expedite payment of certain survivor benefits to 

eligible family members upon the death of a veteran. 

When a beloved family member passes away, it is time for family, for reflection and for grieving survivors to have the time and 

privacy to mourn however they choose, it is not a time for paperwork or bureaucracy. Mourning family members have enough to 

deal with upon the death of cherished veterans and we should no 

longer make navigating the VA bureaucracy part of that coping 

process. The law should not force veterans’ loved ones to take time 

away from their family, file a formal claim, and wait months on 

end anxiously to access needed survivor benefits the veteran has 

already earned. 

My bill would authorize the VA to initiate and pay survivor benefits without requiring a formal claim as long as sufficient evidence 

exists on record to process survivor benefits. This additional authority will allow the VA to proactively disburse survivor benefits 

if they have the information they need without forcing bereaved 

families to file a formal claim and wait for the VA claims process 

to unfold. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
5 

Eligible benefits include funeral and burial expenses, survivor 

pension paid to low-income surviving spouses or unmarried children, and dependency benefits for survivors of veterans who died 

from service-connected ailments. 

When a veteran dies, survivors often rely on these benefits to 

stay afloat during an already difficult time. This legislation will 

give survivors their benefits quicker and reduce the risk of financial harm to grieving family. This bill is a simple, practical solution 

that will make a difference for veterans’ families, which is why it 

has the support of veterans in my district and VSOs represented 

here today. 

The VA has explicitly requested this authority in their fiscal year 

2016 budget request and concluded that it would not increase mandatory costs. 

I look forward to working with veterans, VSOs and the VA to advance this legislation and engage on recommendations that all of 

you may have. And I urge my fellow subcommittee members to 

stand up for veteran families and cosponsor this cost-neutral bill, 

advancing it to the floor, and show veterans’ survivors the support 

that they really have. 

Thank you. I yield back my time. 

Dr. ABRAHAM. Dr. Ruiz, thank you. 

Mr. Bilirakis, would you like to discuss your bill? 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. I want 

to thank you and the ranking member, and members of the Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Committee, and thank you 

for tendering this great bill. Thank you for holding this very important hearing and for the opportunity to discuss my bill, H.R. 303, 

the Retired Pay Restoration Act. 

Prior to 2004, existing laws and regulations dictated that a military retiree could not receive both payments from the DoD and the 

VA. Through the enactment of the Concurrent Retirement and Disability Payments Programs authorized within fiscal year 2004, the 

NDAA, those who are 100-percent disabled were able to receive 

both earned benefits for the first time ever. And I will add that my 

father worked on this bill for many, many years. He was vice chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee. 

Since then, the law has expanded the eligibility, allowing more 

retirees to receive both benefits, both payments, like those with the 

20 or more years of service and a 50-percent or higher disability 

rating through the VA. The program established a system which 

gradually phased in these payments through 2014, which is when 

these retirees would be receiving both payments in full. 

While our efforts have made great strides towards resolving this 

issue, much more needs to be done. Statistics reveal that there are 

still nearly 550,000 military retirees who may be eligible to receive 

both military retire pay and a VA disability compensation, but are 

unable to do so under the current guidelines of this program. 

In short, this means that there are 550,000 veterans, Mr. Chairman, who are currently being denied the benefits they are entitled. 

Given their unwavering sacrifice to this great nation, I firmly believe we must provide the benefits they have earned. This is unacceptable and this is why I continue to advocate for the Retired Pay 

Restoration Act, which, again, my father sponsored during his time 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
6 

in Congress and worked on so many years and was successful, but 

we have got to do more now. We have to include everyone. 

H.R. 303 would serve to ensure that our nation’s veterans are not 

negatively affected by having their military retirement pay deducted by the amount of their disability, their VA disability compensation. Many have rightly argued that this represents an injustice for veterans having one earned benefit pay for the other, I 

think it is very unfair. 

Every Congress I am encouraged by the immense bipartisan support for my bill, the Retired Pay Restoration Act. Last Congress, 

H.R. 303 received a total of 107 bipartisan cosponsors. This is a 

clear testament that both sides of the aisle recognize that this is 

an issue that needs to be rectified. We have the support from the 

veterans and the organizations that work closely with them. 

I greatly appreciate the support from our witnesses today, especially from the VSOs that came to testify before this committee. It 

is clear that there is a need to do more and what we need as a nation to do in repaying the brave men and women for their sacrifice. 

Military retirement pay and service-connected disability compensation are two completely different benefits, one does not diminish the merits of the other. It is our responsibility to give our veterans what has been earned through service to God and country. 

The question now is, what are we going to do about it? H.R. 303 

is the clear answer. 

I urge all my colleagues to show your support for our nation’s 

heros by cosponsoring and supporting this bill. Let’s get this done 

for our veterans, our true heros. 

And I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for actually including 

this in the hearing today. 

Dr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Bilirakis. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. It is very important, one of my top priorities. 

Thank you. 

Dr. ABRAHAM. Mr. Walz, would you like to discuss your bill? 

Mr. WALZ. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And to you and the 

ranking member, thank you for holding this hearing and bringing 

up important legislation, and also thank you for the role-modeling 

you do of working together to further the cause of our veterans in 

a bipartisan manner, it means a lot. 

I am going to speak on the Honor Americas Guard and Reserve 

Retirees Act. For some of you in here this is like the movie Groundhog’s Day, it is over and over and over. I thank those members in 

here, many of you have voted for this bill on numerous occasions. 

A unique thing has happened since 2010, the House has voted 

in favor of this with no opposition every single time. We have included it in the NDAA and, unfortunately, it dies in the Senate. We 

have done everything we can to work on this. We have seen this 

happen before with the Clay Hunt Suicide Act where one senator 

can derail it. And so I have appealed to their sense of duty, I have 

appealed to their sense of honor and now I may turn to shaming 

them if they don’t do this one this time, because this is very frustrating. 

For the new members, what this bill does is it takes our Guard 

and Reserve forces, those women and men who have served honorably, flying helicopters, shooting artillery, infantry soldiers, service 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
7 

and support. In many cases, they are the trainers. These are the 

senior NCOs who spent 20 years as E–6, E–7, trained troops and 

deployed in support of floods, in support of tornados, in hurricanes. 

They have done their state service and in many cases they have 

done federal service in less than 179 days and not in Title 10. 

I have been with many of them when we did three-month-long 

stints north of the Arctic Circle in Norway, training military winter 

operations. So they have done that. 

These are the folks that are held to the exact same standards on 

Army physical fitness, on weapons qualification, on schooling. They 

do their 20 years, they retire, and you know what we do? We give 

them benefits that they have earned. We give them medical benefits, we give them educational benefits, we do all of those things. 

The one thing we do not do is we do not allow them to call themselves veterans. 

This piece of legislation does not add one financial benefit, it does 

not change what they get, what it changes is their ability to call 

themselves a veteran, because these folks now technically have to 

refer to themselves as military retirees. Technically, they cannot 

use the medallion you heard the chairman talk about putting on 

there. 

And for those who say, well, what is the big deal? The big deal 

is this is about honor. We work hard to say we respect your service. 

These are folks that simply want to have the ability to put a veterans’ license plate on their car, maybe wear a hat that says Army 

veteran, something, and understand that they gave that service 

and the recognition is for them. They don’t want to have to mince 

and talk about it and say, well, yeah, I did 20 years and, yeah, I 

was the First Sergeant of the Guard Unit and, yeah, most of these 

7s I trained went to Iraq and fought nobly and all of that, and we 

don’t do it. 

The push back, if you look, and I want to thank all the veterans 

service organizations who have supported this, the only opposition 

comes from the VA, and the VA’s point is that we are redefining 

veteran. I would say to them is we are clarifying it because of your 

misinterpretation of what that term meant. 

It has been looked at from every angle, it has been hashed over 

by CBO. Everyone agrees it is not going to add a cost, it rectifies 

a wrong, it is supported by our veterans’ groups. 

And this is a group of folks, we understand very clearly, when 

someone is wearing a combat infantry badge or something, there 

is a status given amongst veterans to this. If someone does 20 

years or they have reached a certain rank, there is a sense of status that goes along with this. We are putting 280,000 of your constituents in the situation of served this nation for 20 years or more, 

did everything right, did everything that was asked of them, met 

all the standards, and now we can’t call them veterans. 

I have to tell you, when I first introduced this, I thought this was 

a slam dunk, we would rectify it and fix it, and it has gone to die 

an ugly, dishonorable death of no one standing up over there and 

putting their name on it of who is holding it up and who is stopping it. If you have got a problem with it, and I know it is not 

going to come from here, I am preaching from the choir, but I want 

us to sing loudly together. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
8 

Let’s just finish this one. It doesn’t cost us anything, it does the 

right thing. It will make a lot of people appreciate it. And I got to 

tell you, at a time our veterans need to know that we hold faith 

with them, they need to know that the country holds faith with 

them and there are certain things we can do. And there is a whole 

list of really good things here and I think we should do them all, 

but let’s hammer this one through. 

And I would encourage all of you, go back home, if you can, and 

talk a little bit, you will find these folks on the streets. And the 

biggest thing about this is, the biggest surprise is, most people had 

no idea this was the rule. And I have a whole bunch of people who 

accidentally didn’t know and now they feel like they did something 

wrong because they have been calling themselves veterans for this 

time. That is just wrong. This can be fixed, it is easy. It is in the 

NDAA. 

But, Chairman, I thank you and the ranking member. Send a 

strong message to bring back again and, against all odds, maybe 

they will hear us. 

So with that, I thank you for this, encourage your support, and 

I yield back. 

Dr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Walz, well said. 

It is an honor today to be joined by our colleague Mr. Johnson 

of Ohio at the witness table and I appreciate you being here, Mr. 

Johnson. You used to serve as the chairman of the Subcommittee 

on Oversight and Investigation, so I am sure it is a little bit different from the view down there. 

Mr. Johnson, you are now recognized, sir. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. BILL JOHNSON 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Chairman Abraham and Ranking 

Member Titus and members of the subcommittee. I really appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today on H.R. 2605. That 

is important legislation that I introduced to reform the Department 

of Veterans Affairs fiduciary program. 

As many of you know, as the chairman just mentioned, I served 

as the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee chairman on the 

House Veterans Affairs Committee for the 112th Congress. An investigation into the VA’s fiduciary program by my subcommittee at 

that time revealed shocking behavior on the part of the VA’s hired 

fiduciaries and gross malfeasance on the part of the VA to address 

those issues. 

Some fiduciaries entrusted to manage the finances of our nation’s 

heros who were unable to do so themselves were caught abusing 

this system by withholding funds, embezzling veterans’ money, and 

other egregious actions. 

Furthermore, I chaired an Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing on February 9th, 2012 that exposed many of the 

VA’s fiduciary program policies do not correspond with actual practices. 

For instance, the VA claims to have a policy stating preference 

for family members and friends to serve as a veteran’s fiduciary. 

However, the investigation into the fiduciary program revealed instances where this is not the case. In one instance, the VA arbiVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:11 Sep 07, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\98-645.TXT PAT

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
9 

trarily removed a veteran’s wife who had served as her husband’s 

fiduciary for ten years and replaced her with a paid fiduciary. 

There are also many honest and hardworking fiduciaries that experience difficulty performing their duties due to the bureaucratic 

nature of the VA’s fiduciary program. We owe it to America’s heros 

to provide them with a fiduciary program that is more responsive 

to the needs of the veterans it is supposed to serve. 

I also had the opportunity to participate in this subcommittee’s 

follow-up hearing on the fiduciary program earlier this month. It 

was disheartening to hear that some of the same issues from 2012 

are ongoing today. 

Additionally, while the VA issued a proposed rule to modernize 

the fiduciary program in January, 2014, the VA has yet to issue 

the final rule. 

For these reasons, I am proud to sponsor H.R. 2605, the Veterans Fiduciary Reform Act. 

This important legislation initially introduced in 2012 was drafted based on problems uncovered from O&I’s hearing and investigation, as well as valuable input from veterans’ service organizations 

and individuals who have experienced difficulties with the program 

firsthand. It is designed to transform the VA’s fiduciary program 

to better serve the needs of our most vulnerable veterans and their 

hardworking fiduciaries. And, most importantly, it will protect veterans in the program from falling victim to deceitful and criminal 

fiduciaries. 

Specifically, the Veterans Fiduciary Reform Act would require a 

credit and criminal background check each time a fiduciary is appointed, and allow veterans to petition to have their fiduciary removed if problems arise. It would also decrease the potential maximum fee a fiduciary can receive to the lesser of three percent or 

$35 per month, similar to Social Security’s fiduciary program. This 

will help discourage those who enroll as VA fiduciaries with only 

a profit motive in mind. 

Importantly, H.R. 2605 would enable veterans to appeal their incompetent status at any time. Additionally, it would allow veterans 

to name a preferred fiduciary such as a family member. 

This legislation also addresses the requirement of fiduciaries to 

obtain a bond. While proper in some settings, it is inappropriate 

when it causes unnecessary hardship such as a mother caring for 

her veteran son. This legislation would require the VA to consider 

whether a bond is necessary and if it will adversely affect the fiduciary and the veterans he or she serves. 

H.R. 2605 would also direct the VA’s Under Secretaries for 

Health and Benefits to coordinate their efforts to ensure that fiduciaries caring for their loved ones are not overly burdened by redundant requirements. 

Lastly, this bill aims to simplify annual reporting requirements. 

Currently, the VA does not have to review a fiduciary’s annual accounting and, when it does, it places an onerous burden on those 

fiduciaries who are serving out of love, not for monetary gain. This 

bill will implement a straightforward annual accounting requirement and give VA the opportunity to audit fiduciaries whose accounting is suspect. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
10 

These significant changes would strengthen the VA’s standard 

for administering the fiduciary program and increase protection for 

vulnerable veterans. Requiring background checks and lowering 

the fee a fiduciary can charge would also increase scrutiny of potential fiduciaries and help root out potential predators. 

This legislation also adds a layer of protection for veterans with 

fiduciaries by incorporating the ability for veterans to petition to 

have their fiduciary removed and replaced. 

I am proud that this legislation has passed the House of Representatives twice now, both in 2012 and in 2013 as part of larger 

legislation. Unfortunately, this important legislation has not been 

considered by the Senate and, therefore, the VA’s fiduciary program is still in urgent need of reform. 

Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus, thank you again for 

the opportunity to speak on this important legislation and these 

issues. I am hopeful that this legislation will again be favorably 

considered by the Veterans’ Affairs Committee and this time become law. Our veterans were willing to sacrifice everything to 

serve our nation and they deserve to receive the care, the benefits 

and the respect that they have earned. 

And with that, I yield back. Thank you. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF BILL JOHNSON APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 

Dr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Johnson. We appreciate it. Thank 

you for bringing forth this bill and speaking at today’s subcommittee hearing. 

We will forgo any questioning at this time and any question that 

anyone may have for our colleagues may be submitted for the 

record. 

I now invite our second panel to the table. Mr. David 

McLenachen, the Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Disability Assistance of the Veterans Benefits Administration. He is accompanied by Mr. Matthew Sullivan, Deputy Under Secretary for Finance and Planning, and Chief Financial Officer for the National 

Cemetery Administration. And Mr. David Barrans, Assistant General Counsel of the Department of Veterans Affairs. We thank you 

all for being here. 

Mr. McLenachen, you are now recognized for five minutes, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID R. McLENACHEN, ACTING DEPUTY 

UNDER SECRETARY FOR DISABILITY ASSISTANCE OF THE 

VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, ACCOMPANIED BY 

MATTHEW SULLIVAN, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER 

FOR THE NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION, AND 

DAVID BARRANS, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus 

and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to 

present VA’s views on several bills that are pending before the 

committee. 

Joining me today from the Department of Veterans Affairs is Mr. 

Matthew Sullivan, Deputy Under Secretary for Finance and PlanVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:11 Sep 07, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\98-645.TXT PAT

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
11 

ning for the National Cemetery Administration, and Mr. David 

Barrans, Assistant General Counsel. 

Mr. Chairman, we recognize the need for a more streamlined appeal process and appreciate the opportunity to comment on H.R. 

1302, the VA Appeals Backlog Relief Act. However, the Department does not support this bill because we believe the appeal timeliness should be improved through comprehensive reform of the appeal process rather than imposing a statutory deadline for one 

stage of that process. 

We would like to work with the committee to consider legislative 

reforms that will actually streamline the process, such as our proposal as fiscal year 2016 budget to expand the Board of Veterans’ 

Appeals authority to conduct an initial review of evidence submitted during an appeal without remanding to VBA. 

Regarding H.R. 1338, the Dignified Interment of Our Veterans 

Act of 2015, while the intent behind requiring this study is positive, we are concerned that the study may be unnecessary or premature at this time. VA is more than willing to work with the committee to gather responsive information on unclaimed remains of 

veterans, but we feel we can accomplish this without legislation. 

We are pleased to support H.R. 1380, which would extend eligibility for a medallion furnished by VA to signify a veteran’s status 

regardless of the date of the veteran’s death. However, we would 

like to work with the committee to address a few technical concerns 

about the language in the bill. In particular, to ensure the provision of medallions does not disrupt the historic landscape of our national cemeteries. For this reason, we suggest amending the bill to 

allow provision of medallions for those who served during or after 

the first World War. 

Mr. Chairman, we acknowledge that members of the National 

Guard and Reserves have admirably served this country and in recent years have played a very important role in our nation’s national defense. Nonetheless, we cannot support H.R. 1384, the 

Honor Americas Guard Reserve Retirees Act, because it would represent a departure from active service as the foundation for veterans status. It would also conflict with the definition of veteran 

in 38 U.S.C. Section 101 and cause confusion about entitlement to 

VA benefits. 

We strongly support the provisions of H.R. 2214, the Disabled 

Veterans Access to Medical Exams Improvement Act, your bill, Mr. 

Chairman, that would extend VA’s authority to contract for compensation and pension examinations and authorize physicians to 

conduct these examinations in any state. 

These provisions are essential to VA’s goal of ensuring the timely 

adjudication of disability compensation claims. However, we oppose 

provisions in the bill that would limit our contract examination authority to 15 regional offices and prescribe the criteria for selecting 

those regional offices. 

To ensure the timeliness of claim processing now and in the future, VA requires the authority to conduct contract examinations at 

as many regional offices as it considers appropriate. 

We cannot support H.R. 2605, the Veterans Fiduciary Reform 

Act of 2015, because it would, among other things, create disincentives for recruiting paid and volunteer fiduciaries and generally 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
12 

add complexity that VA cannot address without additional resources. 

For example, the bill would limit fiduciary fees to three percent 

of the monthly benefits paid to a fiduciary on behalf of a beneficiary or $35, whichever is lower. This would make it difficult for 

VA to find a fiduciary in cases where there is no qualified family 

member, friend or care provider who is willing to serve without a 

fee. Also, the bill’s accounting and auditing requirements would 

add burden of fiduciaries, 90 percent of whom are volunteers, and 

would not significantly improve VA’s oversight. 

As outlined in detail in my written statement, we are concerned 

that several other provisions in the bill would be inconsistent with 

our efforts to transform this important program. 

Mr. Chairman, at this time the Department does not have views 

on two bills that are subject of today’s hearing, the Veterans National Remembrance Act and the Veterans Survivors Claims Processing Automation Act. We will continue to coordinate views on 

these matters and upon completion submit them to the committee. 

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. We are happy to 

entertain any questions that you or the members may have. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID R. MCLENACHEN APPEARS

IN THE APPENDIX] 

Dr. ABRAHAM. All right. Thank you for your remarks. I will begin 

the questioning, Mr. McLenachen. 

Please explain why the VA is advocating for the authority to use 

this contract examination in more than 15 regional offices. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Without a doubt, as you mentioned in your 

opening statement, this is a very, very important issue for the department. If we are going to timely decide disability compensation 

claims, the ability to get an exam quickly, a good quality exam 

quickly, is critical to making that decision within 125 days. If we 

do not have the available exam resources through the contract option, it makes it very difficult to accomplish that important goal. 

Dr. ABRAHAM. Okay, thank you. And of course you are the witness. Regarding H.R. 1380, please explain why the VA supports expanding the eligibility for a medallion that is furnished by the VA 

in order to signify the person’s status as a veteran, but only for veterans who served on active duty on or after April 6th, 1917. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Mr. Chairman, that is Mr. Sullivan’s area of 

expertise, I will defer to him on that. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, we strongly support the goal to expand eligibility for the medallion to veterans. Our request is to 

amend the bill language to provide this expansion of eligibility for 

the medallion for those veterans who had a qualifying period of 

service on or after April 6th, 1917, which is the date that the U.S. 

interred World War I. We make this request because there is significant impact that this bill could have on the landscape of our national cemeteries, especially our historic national cemeteries, and 

our ability to maintain the historic headstones and markers, and 

the ability for VA to comply with our National Historic Preservation laws and regulations. 

There are 115 national cemeteries out of our 132 that are currently on Federal Historic Register and those could be significantly 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
13 

impacted by the expansion of this eligibility to all veterans, including those that had a period of service before the April 6th, 1917. 

Secondly, we think that by setting that eligibility date with the 

period of qualifying service for April 6th, 1917, our data shows that 

we would still be able to cover the majority of those otherwise eligible veterans that have been denied this benefit. Fully 91 percent, 

which is a vast majority of those applicants that have been denied 

and would have otherwise been eligible because they died before 

19—I am sorry, before 1990 would now become eligible because 

their period of qualifying service would have taken place on or 

after November 1st, 1917. 

Dr. ABRAHAM. Mr. McLenachen, you state that a significant factor contributing to the delay in certifying appeals to the Board of 

Veterans Appeals is that the claimants may identify additional 

supportive evidence after filing a substantive appeal and before the 

appeal is certified to the VBA, in what percentage of the cases does 

that occur? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. I don’t have that precise information with me, 

but I would be happy to provide that to you for the record, sir. 

Dr. ABRAHAM. Okay, that will be fair enough. And I will of course 

stay with you. 

In your testimony again, Mr. McLenachen, you raised concerns 

that the study mandated by H.R. 1338 may be premature. Isn’t it 

appropriate for the VA to study the changes NCA has implemented 

since the enactment of the Dignified Burial and Other Veterans 

Benefits Improvement Act of 2012 in order to better evaluate 

whether additional modifications may be required? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes, that is true, but I will again defer to Mr. 

Sullivan, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, again, we do strongly support that 

goal of ensuring that the unclaimed veterans’ remains receive dignified burials and memorialization. And we appreciate the intent 

of the bill to study the scope of issues related to that matter. However, we believe that our time and resources right now are better 

spent on implementing those existing authorities that we have, especially those new authorities that you mentioned that we received 

through that Dignified Burial and Other Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of 2012. 

We have taken significant actions to implement those authorities 

and to facilitate the timely interment of unclaimed veterans’ remains. I have just implemented recently two new programs, one to 

provide reimbursement for the cost of casket and urn to those third 

parties who had to expend those costs in the interment of unclaimed veterans’ remains, as well as to provide a cost—I am sorry, 

provide reimbursement for the cost of transportation and other funeral expenses for the interment of unclaimed veterans’ remains, 

again, better interred in our national cemeteries. 

We think that with some time, especially to capture some data 

to look at the effectiveness of these programs, assess the efficacy 

of those programs in facilitating the interment of unclaimed veterans’ remains, we may be able to identify the sources of delay, as 

well as collect more information data that could be used to inform 

such efforts in the future. 

Dr. ABRAHAM. Okay, thank you. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
14 

Ms. Titus. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just ask Mr. Sullivan some questions about national 

cemeteries and the 11 states that don’t currently have them, most 

of them in the West. I wonder if under the current policy the way 

it is defined of how you locate cemeteries if you anticipate that 

there will be a national VA cemetery in any of those 11 states that 

don’t have one now? Now, I am not talking about a rural initiative, 

I am talking about a regular national veterans’ cemetery. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, Congresswoman. We have a long-held, established policy on establishment of new national cemeteries. It is a 

database policy based upon the distribution of the veteran population across the United States. It is our belief that through this 

strategy to serve the greatest densities of veteran population that 

are currently unserved by locating national cemeteries in those 

areas allows us to provide broad access and increased access for 

veterans to a burial option in a national or state veterans’ cemetery. 

Ms. TITUS. So do you think there will be a national cemetery in 

any of those 11 states ever because of the way the formula is construed that has been so long held? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Congresswoman, I believe that right now our plan 

does not allow us—our plan does not have any national cemeteries 

in those 11 states, but I can’t state whether in the future we may 

adjust those policies to place a national cemetery in one of those 

11 states. 

As you are aware, because we are focusing on that strategy to 

provide the greatest population densities of unserved veterans with 

a burial option, we are targeting, you know, four new national cemetery establishments within the next three years. Those are in 

southern Colorado, western New York, Omaha, Nebraska, and 

Cape Canaveral, Florida. 

We do also have plans again to implement our rule initiative, 

which would put a national cemetery presence in those states, 

eight of those states that you mentioned. Those states that do not 

currently have a national cemetery and do not have—are not already served 100 percent by an existing state veterans’ cemetery 

or a neighboring national cemetery. So we do have some plans to 

try to address the rural populations in those eight states and we 

believe that as we continue to implement that plan we will be able 

to continue to increase that access for rural veterans. 

Ms. TITUS. Well, those states that you mentioned that are getting 

another federal cemetery already have one and the 11 states in the 

west don’t have any. Are there any state cemeteries that have 

achieved national shrine status? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Of the 11 state cemeteries that we visited to conduct our compliance review program audits, none have achieved 

the national shrine status yet. But again, of the 11 that we did 

visit, we did have five that were completely—I am sorry, were compliant with our operational standards and measures that did not 

require corrective action plans. And of the six that did not fully 

comply with our standards and measures, they were provisionally 

compliant with corrective action plans in place. And since our visits, 83 percent of those action plans have been completed, bringing 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
15 

most of those state veterans’ cemeteries into compliance with the 

same operational standards and measures, those national shrine 

standards that we hold for our national cemeteries. 

Ms. TITUS. Are you all doing any kind of survey of veterans to 

see if they would prefer to be buried in a federal national cemetery 

as opposed to a state cemetery? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, Congresswoman. In 2014, we conducted our 

first survey of satisfaction with state and tribal veterans’ cemeteries. We have conducted that for 13 years for our national cemeteries, but 2014 was our first year for the state and tribal veterans’ 

cemeteries. And the data suggests that the state and tribal veterans’ cemeteries are comparable to our national cemeteries. Fully 

97 percent of respondents to the state and tribal veterans’ cemeteries survey responded that they were satisfied with the overall 

quality of service, the overall satisfaction rate with our state and 

tribal veterans’ cemeteries. That closely mirrors the 98-percent satisfaction rate that we have with our national cemeteries. 

Ms. TITUS. Don’t you think those results are skewed? When you 

ask people if they are satisfied with a state cemetery, that is a 

whole lot different from asking veterans out there who aren’t using 

the state cemetery would they go a national cemetery if one existed. That is like asking somebody eating ice cream, do you like 

ice cream. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, Congresswoman. In an effort to try to get at 

what you are asking about, we did ask those next of kin that had 

a loved one buried in a state or tribal veterans’ cemetery within the 

last year and who had also visited a national cemetery some questions to better understand the experience of those that are experiencing the state and tribal veterans’ cemeteries. 

For those respondents, they again overwhelmingly responded 

that the experience at the state and tribal veterans’ cemeteries was 

comparable to the national cemetery. Eighty six percent when 

asked, based upon their visits, did the appearance of the state or 

tribal veterans’ cemetery, was that comparable to a national cemetery, they said agreed or strongly agreed that, yes, it did. Seventy 

nine percent agreed or strongly agreed that the state or tribal veterans’ cemeteries, the quality of service was comparable to that of 

a national cemetery. Again, 79 percent also agreed or strongly 

agreed that the honor of being interred at a state or tribal veterans’ cemetery was comparable to that of a national cemetery. 

And when asked, if they had the choice, would they have rather 

interred their loved one in a national cemetery versus that state 

or tribal cemetery, only 14 percent agreed or strongly agreed that 

they would have. 

So we believe that the state and tribal veterans’ cemeteries are 

providing the high quality of care that we expect at our national 

cemeteries. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. ABRAHAM. Thank you. 

Mr. Bost. 

Mr. BOST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I have just got a few 

questions. 

Mr. McLenachen, is that correct? The 1384, the question I have, 

you said that there are many places where the change in that vetVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:11 Sep 07, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\98-645.TXT PAT

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
16 

eran’s description would mess with other law; is that correct, is 

that basically what you said? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes, that the core feature of the states that 

govern veterans’ benefits and all the services that the Department 

of Veterans Affairs provides, as well as their benefits programs, is 

based upon that core concept of veteran status and it has always 

been tied to active duty military service, with the exception of National Guard or Reservists who are disabled or die while they are 

doing their active duty for training or inactive duty for training. 

Mr. BOST. And forgive my ignorance here. As a Marine veteran, 

I had always thought that if they served so many months in an active status they do get the veteran? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes. So this bill concerns individuals who 

have had non-regular service for a period of 20 years until they 

reach the point of retirement from Reserve or National Guard service. So we are talking individuals who have had no active duty 

service and have not been disabled while they were doing their 

training in the Reserves or National Guard, they have only had 

non-regular service. 

Mr. BOST. Okay, all right. And then the other question is in regards to the medallions. The date—and I am sure that, Mr. Sullivan, you are going to want to answer this—let me ask specifically, 

because it has to do with my district. We have a veterans’ cemetery 

that was established by Abraham Lincoln in Illinois. It obviously 

falls under that situation where it is a historical site. What exactly 

are your concerns with that? Is it for the tombstone, the defacing 

of the tombstone? Or kind of explain to me, if you could. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, Congressman. We are concerned with 

affixing a bronze medallion, based upon the size, it can be a small, 

medium or large one, affixing a bronze medallion to headstones 

and markers that in many cases could be over a hundred years old 

that are in these cemeteries, many of them which are Civil War era 

cemeteries. So we do think that there could be some issues with 

complying with laws and regulations that govern that, as well as 

doing damage to these historic headstones and markers. 

Mr. BOST. So that is the reason for your suggestion of the date 

of the first day of the first World War; is that correct? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. If we did set the eligibility date on or 

after April 6th, 1917, in terms of having a period of qualifying service at that time, that we would be able to avoid most of those concerns because they would most of the time be headstones or markers or in cemeteries that are more recently established or placed 

into the ground. 

Mr. BOST. The first national cemetery was established in what 

year, do you know? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. I am sorry, I would have to provide that response 

for the record. 

Mr. BOST. Okay, if you could just find it at some point, because 

I am trying to figure out do we have an idea of a total how many 

cemeteries this would affect that do not receive them, you know, 

I mean, how many are on the historical register. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes. We do have 115 of the 132 current national 

cemeteries that are on the National Register of Historic Places. 

Mr. BOST. Okay. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
17 

Mr. SULLIVAN. And we also have the additional 33 soldier slots 

burial sites that would most likely be under those historic preservation requirements. 

Mr. BOST. Repeat that one more time, I am sorry. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. The 33 burial lots, the soldier slots, Confederate 

monument sites, again mostly from that Civil War era and before 

then, that would be again subject to these historic preservation 

laws and regulations that would be at risk we think with this medallion benefit. 

Mr. BOST. Okay, thank you. 

I yield back. 

Dr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Bost. 

All right. Thank you, gentlemen, you are excused. 

And I now recognize our final panel of witnesses today. Mr. 

Zachary Hearn, the Deputy Director for Claims Veterans Affairs 

and Rehabilitation Division at the American Legion; Mr. Paul 

Varela, the Assistant National Legislative Director for the Disabled 

American Veterans; Mr. Aleks Morosky, the Deputy Director of the 

National Legislative Service at the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the 

United States; Ms. Diane Zumatto, the National Legislative Director of AMVETS; and Mr. Christopher Neiweem, the Legislative Associate at the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. 

I thank you all for being here. We thank you for your hard work 

and certainly being advocates for veterans. 

Mr. Hearn, we will start with you. Five minutes, sir. 

STATEMENTS OF ZACHARY HEARN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR 

CLAIMS VETERANS AFFAIRS AND REHABILITATION DIVISION, THE AMERICAN LEGION; PAUL R. VARELA, ASSISTANT 

NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN 

VETERANS; ALEKS MOROSKY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN 

WARS; DIANE ZUMATTO, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, 

AMVETS; CHRISTOPHER NEIWEEM, LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATE, IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA 

STATEMENT OF ZACHARY HEARN 

Mr. HEARN. Good afternoon, Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus and members of the committee. 

On behalf of National Commander Mike Helm and the over two 

million members comprising the American Legion, I am pleased to 

offer remarks regarding pending legislation. 

The slate of bills offered covers a wide range of topics, proof that 

the impact of the Department of Veterans Affairs and its benefits 

are due to the wide-ranging needs of the veterans community, 

many of whom have physical and emotional scars related to their 

service in the armed forces. 

H.R. 303, the Retired Pay Restoration Act, entitles military retirees with a disability rating less than 50 percent to receive their VA 

disability payment concurrent with their military retirement. The 

unfortunate truth is that the current structure establishes two 

classes of veterans, those that receive a military retirement and 

those that do not. If a veteran retires from the military and has 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
18 

less than a 50-percent disability rating, the veteran cannot receive 

the disability payment concurrent with military retirement. 

The concept of VA disability is to compensate the veteran for loss 

of wages due to a disability incurred in service. If a veteran’s disability is offset in the military retirement and that doesn’t yield the 

same result, then it is clearly not beneficial to the veteran, nor 

does it properly compensate for the condition. 

The American Legion fully supports veterans receiving their full 

disability compensation associated with their dedicated service and 

support H.R. 303. 

VA’s battle with its backlog of claims is well known and VA 

should be commended in its efforts to reduce the backlog. However, 

in its attempt to eliminate its backlog, it appears that it has traded 

one difficulty for another. 

On June 7, 2010, VA’s Monday morning workload report indicated over 192,000 appealed claims were awaiting adjudication. 

Five years later, that figure has exploded to exceed 305,000 claims, 

an over 58-percent increase. 

Although H.R. 1302, does not eliminate the backlog of appeals, 

it does expedite the manner that the claims are to be certified to 

the Board. Over the past year, the VBA has kept in close contact 

with us regarding the impending onslaught of cases to be reviewed 

at the Board. As a result, the American Legion recently authorized 

the hiring of additional staff to support the incoming cases requiring American Legion representation. 

Through passage of H.R. 1302, cases will no longer languish at 

the regional offices awaiting certification for well over a year, and 

we support passage of H.R. 1302. 

Beginning with the scandal in Phoenix last summer, the American Legion began conducting outreach events throughout the nation to assist veterans attempting to gain access to their earned 

benefits. During the events, we also meet with VA Medical Center 

leaders to discuss concerns surrounding their facility. 

We have visited rural locations such as Clarksburg, West Virginia and Harlingen, Texas, and urban locations such as Los Angeles and Philadelphia. Regardless of location, whether urban or 

rural, a common complaint is that VA is unable to recruit medical 

professionals. The American Legion insists that VA’s inability to 

recruit medical professionals should not hamper a veteran’s adjudication of a benefit. 

H.R. 2214 provides VA the ability to enter into contracts with 

private physicians to conduct medical disability examinations. 

Through passage of this bill, Congress will be able to provide the 

tools to VA to conduct the compensation and pension examinations 

in a timely fashion, and have the veteran gain access to the benefits earned through their dedicated service. 

Again, on behalf of National Commander Mike Helm and the 

over two million members of the nation’s largest veterans service 

organization, we thank you for the invitation to offer our testimony 

and I will be happy to answer questions posed by the committee. 

Thank you, Chairman. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF ZACHARY HEARN APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 

Dr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Hearn. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
19 

Mr. Varela, five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL R. VARELA 

Mr. VARELA. Good afternoon, Dr. Abraham, Ranking Member 

Titus and members of the subcommittee. DAV appreciates the opportunity to discuss the merits of the bills before us today. 

I will begin with two bills that are fully supported by DAV, H.R. 

303 and H.R. 2691. 

H.R. 303 would repeal the unfair offset currently imposed upon 

longevity military retirees when they are rated less than 50 percent for service-connected disabilities. This legislation would bring 

parity with their longevity retiree counterparts that are authorized 

to receive their full military retirement and VA disability compensation when they are rated greater than 50 percent for serviceconnected disabilities. 

H.R. 2691 would improve and streamline claims processing for 

survivors. The bill would allow a claim to be registered with the 

VA when a survivor notifies the VA of a veteran’s passing. In instances where the record contains sufficient information to award 

survivor’s benefits, VA would be authorized to make such an 

award. 

We are pleased to see the introduction of these two bills in the 

114th Congress and look forward to working together to see these 

legislative initiatives enacted into law. 

For H.R. 2214, DAV supports the provisions of the bill expanding 

VA’s authority to enter into contracts with private physicians to 

conduct medical C&P examinations from 12 VA regional offices to 

15, and extends the program until December 31st, 2017. We also 

urge the subcommittee to consider the merits of removing the cap 

placed on the number of VA ROs that can utilize contract examinations and make it available to all VO ROs as a means to improve 

claims processing. 

For the following bills, H.R. 1338, 1380, 2706, DAV has no resolution from our membership pertaining to the issues identified 

within these bills, but would not oppose passage of the legislation. 

For H.R. 1384, 2001, 2605, DAV has no resolution pertaining the 

issues outlined within these bills and takes no position. 

Finally, H.R. 1302. DAV opposes H.R. 1302 in its current form. 

The bill would require to certify appeals no later than one year 

after the date VA receives the VA Form 9. The bill seeks to reduce 

the amount of time an appellant must wait for VBA to certify an 

appeal to the Board of Veterans Appeals, also known as the Board. 

We recognize the sponsor’s intention to shorten this lengthy appeals process. However, the bill could create unintended adverse 

consequences for appellants. Requiring VBA to meet a hardened 

time limit raises several concerns. 

First, the purpose of VBA’s certification process is to ensure that 

all administrative and adjudicative procedures have been completed locally before an appeal is forwarded to the Board. VBA performs this record review to ensure that all issues have been properly addressed and that outstanding appeals for interrelated issues 

have not been overlooked. The purpose is to avoid unnecessary 

Board remands. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
20 

If VBA were forced to meet a one-year arbitrary certification 

deadline, errors and oversights would likely occur even more frequently and ultimately bring harm to appellants. VBA’s staff may 

be compelled to simply certify these appeals without performing a 

thorough record review to meet this mandated deadline. This could 

result in increased Board remands, further delaying the appeals 

process. 

Second, if an appeal requested a hearing before the Board and 

conjunction with an appeal and made that selection on the VA 

Form 9, the bill as written suggests that VBA must certify the appeal to the Board with or without conducting the hearing. As it 

stands today, an appeal cannot be certified if it carries an outstanding hearing request. 

On January 2nd, 2015, DAV testified before this subcommittee 

regarding the appeals process and provided Congress with several 

recommendations to improve this process that were to strengthen 

the decision review officer program, create a new fully developed 

appeals pilot program, improve the rating board decision notification process. Although we appreciate the sponsor’s intentions, for 

the reasons outlined above, DAV must oppose the bill in its current 

form. 

Many of the issues plaguing VBA are resource related. Quite 

simply, VBA’s personnel-to-workload ratio has been mismatched for 

quite some time in its attempt to do more with less. Consider that 

in the fiscal year 2016, VSO, independent budget recommendations, DAV and our VSO counterparts called for an additional 1,700 

additional FTE for VBA, 850 as full-time employees, and 850 as 

two-year temporary employees. The Administration only requested 

770 new FTE. VBA needs the people and the resources to keep up 

with the work. Dr. Abraham, Ranking Member Titus and members 

of the Subcommittee, we look forward to working together to identify practical solutions to better VBA’s appeals process. This concludes my testimony and I’m prepared to answer any questions you 

may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Paul R. Varela appears in the Appendix] 

Dr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Varela. Mr. Morosky, you have 

five minutes for the Veterans of Foreign Wars. 

STATEMENT OF ALEKS MOROSKY 

Mr. MOROSKY. Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus and 

Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the men and women of 

the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and our auxiliaries, I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to offer our 

thoughts on today’s pending legislation. 

The VFW strongly supports the Retired Pay Restoration Act 

which would allow all military retirees to receive VA service-connected disability compensation without forfeiting any portion of 

their retirement pay commonly known as concurrent receipt. Military retirees with service-connected disabilities do not enjoy the 

same earning potential as non-disabled retirees. Therefore, the 

VFW believes it is critical that all disabled retirees are able to collect both benefits without offset in order to grant them true parity 

with their non-disabled counterparts. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
21 

The VA Appeals Backlog Relief Act would require VA regional offices to certify all appeal forms to the Board of Veterans Appeals 

no later than one year after receiving them. In the past, we’ve seen 

how placing unsteady time constraints on VA’s processes can lead 

to employees and managers making bad decisions in an effort to 

meet the timeline. 

While the VFW agrees with the intent of this legislation, we 

would recommend this effort be studied as a pilot before full implementation across the department. 

The VFW supports the Dignified Interment of Our Veterans Act 

of 2015, which calls for a study of NCA’s interment process of unclaimed remains to include the estimated number of unclaimed remains that VA processes, and the overall effectiveness of the procedures used to communicate with funeral directors and medical examiners. 

The VFW believes that every effort must be made to ensure that 

all veterans receive dignified burials, including those with no next 

of kin. The VFW supports H.R. 1380. Currently, VA may furnish 

a medallion for placement on a private marker for veterans who 

died on or after November 1, 1990. This bill rightly expands this 

honor to all veterans, regardless of the date of their death. 

The VFW strongly supports the Honor America’s Guard and Reserve Retirees Act. Many who serve in the Guard and Reserve are 

in positions that support the deployments of their active duty comrades, making sure the unit is fully prepared when called upon. Although many of these men and women serve at least 20 years and 

retire from the Reserve component, they are not considered veterans according to the letter of the law. This bill will finally grant 

these Guard and Reserve retirees the recognition they deserve. 

The VFW supports the Disabled Veterans Access to Medical Examinations Improvement Act which would extend the authority of 

VA to contract with non-VA physicians to perform disability examinations set to expire at the end of the year. By extending the authority through 2017, this bill would continue to provide VA with 

the necessary tools to maximize veterans’ access to medical care by 

freeing many VA physicians from the added responsibility of conducting disability evaluations. 

The VFW supports the intent of the Veterans Fiduciary Reform 

Act of 2015, protecting veterans from fraudulent fiduciaries. Providing them an appeal process to have a new fiduciary appointed 

and ensuring that veterans are capable of managing their own finances is critical. 

However, it is unclear to the VFW whether or not due process 

would be violated by the provision that would help the Secretary 

to appoint a fiduciary prior to the determination of incompetency. 

This would be countered due process provision in 38 CFR Paragraph 3.353(d) and (e) which provides for the presumption of competency prior to the court order or competency hearing. We look 

forward to working with Congressmen Johnson to ensure the intent 

of this bill is realized and that veterans’ due process is fully protected. 

The Veterans National Remembrance Act, this legislation would 

place states that do not currently have a national cemetery at the 

top of the priority list for future cemetery development. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
22 

The VFW supports NCA’s analytical system of identifying locations that have a need for veteran burial options which currently 

sets thresholds at 80,000 veterans within a 75 mile radius. We feel 

this allows NCA to accurately align their resources with demand. 

The VFW would support this bill if it were amended to place all 

locations that qualify or will qualify for a national cemetery on a 

priority list that grants preference to states that currently do not 

have a national cemetery when all other factors are equal. 

The VFW looks forward to working with Congresswoman Titus 

to find a compromise that will bring national cemeteries to states 

that do not have one, while ensuring that all veterans’ burial needs 

are met. 

And finally, the VFW supports the Veterans Survivors Claim 

Processing Automation Act, which would allow VA to pay benefits 

to veterans’ survivors who have not filed formal claims so long as 

there is sufficient evidence in the veterans’ record to establish eligibility. 

The VFW believes that in no instance should a survivor be made 

to fill out unnecessary paperwork or resubmit evidence when adequate documentation is already on file. We also believe, however, 

that the survivor should have the opportunity when providing notification of the veteran’s death to submit necessary documents that 

may not be contained in the records such as the death certificate 

without the need to file a formal claim. 

Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus, this concludes my 

statement and I’m happy to answer any questions you or the other 

members of Committee may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Aleks Morosky appears in the 

Appendix] 

Dr. ABRAHAM. Thank you Mr. Morosky. I will apologize. I have 

got to go (indiscernible). 

Mr. BOST. Ms. Zumatto, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DIANE ZUMATTO 

Ms. ZUMATTO. Dr. Abraham and Representative Titus, I am just 

going to jump right in. The Retired Pay Restoration Act, AMVETS 

fully supports this legislation, both retirement pay and disability 

compensation are earned. They are two separate categories, and we 

believe that both should be received. This has been a longstanding 

goal of AMVETS, and also the Military Coalition. 

VA Appeals Backlog Relief Act, AMVETS does not support this 

legislation. 

The Dignified Interment of Our Veterans Act of 2015, AMVETS 

does support the intent of this bill, however, we do have several 

reservations which I outlined in my written testimony. So I won’t 

repeat those now. 

H.R. 1380, AMVETS is very supportive of this legislation, which 

eliminates the current date of death requirement with one exception, and that is for historic cemeteries headstones. I am a trained 

historic preservationist, and so I am pretty well aware of not only 

the laws that you have to comply with, but also the intent of preserving a historic site the way it is and not adding new things to 

it. So we totally agree with NCA on that point. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
23 

The Honor Americas Guard and Reserve Retirees Act, this is like 

the Representative Wall says, we have been working on this for 

years. You know, these people wore the same uniform that those 

of us on active duty did. They did the same jobs that we did, and 

I always use the example of my own experience. I did one threeyear tour in the Army, and I am considered a veteran. But I know 

people who spent 25, 30, 40 serving in National Guard and they 

do not have the right to call themselves veterans. It just doesn’t 

make sense. So we believe that it is the right thing to do and we 

would really like to see this come to fruition. 

The Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, AMVETS does 

support this legislation. The Disabled Veterans Access to Medical 

Exams Improvements, we also support this legislation. We think 

there are several benefits, which I did include in my written testimony. We have not taken a position on the H.R. 2605, although it 

is interesting that just a day or so ago somebody was giving me an 

example of a veteran who was essentially a prisoner of the person 

who was his fiduciary. So we do, you know, we think there is work 

to be done here, but I didn’t really have a chance to fully review 

that piece of legislation. So at this point, I can’t really take a position. 

The Veterans Survivors Claim Processing Automation, we support that. I think Representative Ruiz was right on with what he 

said. You know, when you are in the grieving process, the last 

thing you want to be doing is trying to figure out what forms do 

I have to fill out and all of that. So if all the information was already available to the VA, hey, then let’s go ahead and expedite. 

The Veterans National Remembrance Act. You are passionate. I 

have to say that. I am not sure if this, you know, bill—we are not 

going to support it the way it is right now. We think so far the 

process that NCA is using is moving things forward. When that 

starts to fail, then you know, I think we should find another—a 

new way to figure out how to do this. And I guess that is the last 

one, so that concludes my testimony, and I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF DIANE ZUMATTO APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 

Mr. BOST. Thank you Ms. Zumatto. And for five minutes, Mr. 

Neiweem, you’re recognized. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS NEIWEEM 

Mr. NEIWEEM. Thank you, Chairman Bost, Ranking Member 

Titus and distinguished members of the Subcommittee. On behalf 

of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, our nearly 400,000 

members and supporters, thank you for the opportunity to share 

our views on these important bills today. And it is refreshing to see 

a fellow Illinois veteran in the chair, Mr. Chair. 

H.R. 2214, we support this legislation which would expand examination authority for physicians that examine veterans’ claims for 

disability compensation. Too often veterans continue to wait for 

long periods of time to receive decisions on their claims for disability compensation. Extending examination authority and extending contracts with licensed physicians will ensure efficiency in this 

process and will go a long way to eliminating redundant medical 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
24 

examinations. This bill will aid VA in its goal to provide veterans 

timely and accurate medical examinations. We strongly support 

this. 

In 2013 IAVA strongly pushed down on VA to eliminate the disability claims backlog, and this is the kind of legislation that will 

continue to move the ball forward, and we are appreciative that it 

was introduced. 

H.R. 1380. This legislation would provide flexibility regardless of 

the date of death of an individual to be eligible to receive a medallion or other device that signifies status. Strongly support the legislation. I am glad Chairman Miller was introducing it and put it forward. 

We understand H.R. 2001 has been removed from the docket 

today. Happy to allow our position to be submitted for the record 

and look forward to discussing it at a future date. 

H.R. 303. This legislation would express a sense of Congress that 

military retired pay should not be offset or otherwise cut back because a veteran also earned, emphasis on earned, disability compensation. This bill would also remove the phase-in periods for concurrent receipt and for individuals who are retired or separated 

from military due to a service-connected disability, make them eligible for the full concurrent receipt of disability compensation and 

either retired pay or CRSC. Let’s keep in mind that these veterans, 

especially those that are eligible for CRSC, have sustained injuries 

in combat. These are the last individuals that should be the targets 

of federal savings. IAVA strongly supports this legislation and 

many of our members have deployed not once, not twice, not three, 

but even four times and continue to step up. So we want to make 

sure that we are guarding against that. Appreciate the legislation. 

H.R. 1338. This bill would require the Secretary of VA to study 

and report to Congress in a few key topic areas that relate to the 

issue of veteran burial and interment in national cemeteries and 

under the authority of NCA. This requirement would extend to 

identifying how many unclaimed remains exist in estimated figures. The bill would additionally require VA—current VA procedure to be the subject of review and further examine how those 

policies comport with state and local laws to allow the Secretary of 

VA to administer in this area. 

The last key provision would require recommended legislative or 

administrative actions that can improve the way our government 

handles the remains of our veterans as we work to ensure they 

have a dignified final resting place, and we strongly support the 

legislation. 

Looking at H.R. 1302. The legislation requires that a (indiscernible) certify a veteran appeal submission within one year of receipt. 

In a time when too many veterans again continue to feel that the 

VA claims process moves at a glacial pace, we support legislative 

requirements that mandate timely action, especially as we look at 

the current statistics with 520-day waits for remands in the appeals process. We’ve got to continue to double down and make this 

a focus so we can get this right. 

Turning to H.R. 2605, the administration of VBA benefits to fiduciaries serving our veterans is a very technical and difficult task, 

and we greatly respect the work of the department to that end. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
25 

And this bill is seeking to make it work better. Our goal in this 

topic is to achieve the balance of ensuring the benefits are being 

paid and administered in such a way that accurately supports the 

veterans and their fiduciary, while at the same time not burdening 

them with excessive barricades to getting that support. 

This bill would clarify the rules of fiduciaries to include a process 

by which temporary fiduciaries may be appointed to veterans. The 

bill would also provide a comprehensive set of reforms to supervise 

fiduciaries and clarify how investigations and the results of those 

actions should be administrated. This includes recourse for overpayments and the misuse of funds. The support Congress has given 

disabled veterans and the collaboration with VSOs to that end, and 

especially in the years since the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, has 

been strong. We have some of the strongest benefits now than at 

any time in history. However, the complexity of those benefits will 

require congressional oversight and perennial stakeholder input. 

H.R. 1384. Simply put, this does not create any new benefits that 

would allow—but would rather allow our Reserve and Guard service members who serve on orders that are currently outside the 

scope of what classifies them as veterans be given that title in law. 

This is has been a longstanding TMC goal with our partners and 

allies of the veteran community, and IAVA joins Rep. Walz and our 

allies at TMC in supporting this bill. And since the Groundhog Day 

reference is already used, I will use an original one. This issue is 

as perennial as the dress. Every single year we come back to it. 

The House passed it. We have got to get it done. We have got to 

get this right. I yield back, and I’m happy to answer any questions 

you may have. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHRIS NEIWEEM APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX] 

Mr. BOST. Thank you. And thank you to all of the panel. And we 

are going to go ahead and open up to questions. And I am going 

to yield myself five minutes. If I could, Mr. Morosky, in your written testimony you stated that although the VFW supports the intent of House resolution 2605, it has concerns about the provisions 

authorizing appointment of a temporary fiduciary prior to the determination of incompetency. Can you kind of expand there with 

the concerns that you might have? 

Mr. MOROSKY. Sure, Mr. Chairman. And I want it to be clear 

that this bill does a lot of things and the VFW supports all the 

other provisions of this bill. I mean, you know, allowing the beneficiary to request an appointment of a new fiduciary without interruption, you know, requiring VA to conduct audits and investigate 

and report wrongdoing, these are all good things. It was just that 

one provision that was brought by one of our staff attorneys, and 

it was brought to our attention that if the Secretary were to appoint or produce a fiduciary on a temporary basis, and I believe the 

language is for 120 days prior to the determination of incompetency, then it could be in conflict with another portion of the code 

which provides for the presumption of competency prior to the 

court order. So we would be happy to work with the sponsor. 

Mr. BOST. Yes, I was going to ask you if have—what suggestions 

you might have. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
26 

Mr. MOROSKY. And we would be happy to work on the sponsor 

with that, and you know, so that we can support this bill. 

Mr. BOST. One question I also have for the whole panel, I know, 

Ms. Zumatto, you said that for historical purposes, and it is a concern of mine, I mean, all of us want our veterans to be honored to 

the best possible point. My question is with the other members of 

the panel, would a date change that it would be First World War 

to protect the integrity of the headstones of those veterans that 

served before be in agreement or is there concerns that is out there 

from any of your organizations? 

Mr. MOROSKY. The American Legion obviously supports honoring 

the veterans in the way that you had mentioned, Chairman. I don’t 

believe anybody at the American Legion has the preservation skills 

that my colleague here does in dealing with historical markers. So 

I do understand somewhat of what she says, but we obviously we 

fully support providing that or sending an earlier date, but at the 

same time we don’t want to create a situation where we are damaging materials as suggested by our colleague. 

Mr. BOST. Anyone? Okay. Thanks. Mr. Hearn, you stated that 

the Legion supports House Resolution 1302, please describe how it 

would expedite the appeals process if the VA were required to certify a VA Form 9 within one year of receipt? 

Mr. HEARN. Thank you. As it stands now, I believe according to 

the most recent Monday morning workload reported, you are looking at somewhere 16 to 18 months getting close to 2 years before 

the average claim is getting sent up. I think I said 620 days. 

Knocking it down to 365 days is really three times the amount that 

VA has promised its veterans that they would adjudicate the original claim. Since VA is no longer taking informal claims, I guess 

they will have extra things to do, they will be able to handle that. 

Again, the staffing issue might be something that we need to examine a little bit closely. But the fact that you have cases languishing 

there for close to a year or over a year, I am sorry, to be certified 

to the Board. These are veterans in some cases that may be nearing homelessness, that are homeless, that are over 75, may have 

terminal illness. We need to get these claims adjudicated. I contacted the Board of Veterans Appeals this morning, and while nobody could provide me a hard date as far as American Legion cases 

were concerned, rough estimation is 500 veterans per year that the 

American Legion alone represents would be directly impacted on 

annual basis. 

Mr. BOST. Okay. Thank you. With that, I recognize Ranking 

Member Titus for any questions she may have at this time. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you very much. Mr. Sullivan mentioned that 

the VA had conducted a non-scientific poll of the people who use 

state and tribal cemeteries. I don’t know how many people were in 

that sample, but I would ask all of you, have you polled your members and asked them the question that if a national cemetery were 

available, would you rather be buried in the national cemetery or 

in a state cemetery. Just go down the row. 

Mr. MOROSKY. I would just say, Madam Ranking Member, that 

we need to do that. That is a great question. We have not polled 

our membership. And that is a great question, and we can look at 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
27 

doing a flash poll on that and ascertain that information for future 

use. 

Ms. TITUS. That would be great. Thank you. 

Ms. ZUMATTO. We have not polled our members, but as you saw 

in the written testimony, I did finally get to a couple of state cemeteries recently. And honestly I noticed almost a family feeling while 

I was there. The people that live around these cemeteries refer to 

it as their cemetery. They take a lot of pride in them. And because 

they are such an integral part of the communities, the sense that 

I got is the folks that—the veterans that are living there, yeah, 

they are very happy to be buried in the state cemetery. But no, we 

have not asked that question of our members. 

Ms. TITUS. I imagine the people who live in Boulder City, that 

little community of few people outside of Las Vegas, do like that 

cemetery and do like to be buried there, but that is really not the 

question. Yes? 

Mr. NEIWEEM. We have never conducted a poll, Congresswoman. 

But we have heard from people who have called us up and from 

veterans from states who don’t have one, and have told us, you 

know, we think that it would be nice if we did. Of course, they all 

have state cemeteries but they would also like a national cemetery 

as well. We think that maybe one solution to this would be to just 

increase transparency of the process. I mean, you did just ask the 

gentlemen from NCA if there was going to be a national cemetery 

any time soon in any of those 11 states, and, you know, he couldn’t 

really give you an answer. Maybe if there were more transparency, 

if veterans from those states knew where they fell on the list, it 

would sort of increase satisfaction a little bit more just knowing 

that where they fell in the priority. 

Mr. VARELA. Ranking Member, I would like to take that question 

for the record just to be sure. The history of this issue goes back 

probably before I got up here to our legislative staff. I don’t remember that coming up. I haven’t heard it mentioned, but I will bring 

it back and find out if that is also an option. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. 

Mr. HEARN. Ranking Member, similar to Paul, I will take this 

back to the American Legion who handles this in his portfolio and 

see if I can get an answer for you. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you very much. 

Mr. HEARN. You are welcome. 

Ms. TITUS. You know, you mentioned transparency and I think 

that is important. So if we can’t get this old formula changed that 

has been in place for so long and discriminates against veterans 

who live in those 11 states, maybe we can at least work together 

to get a set of standards that need to be met to receive the National Shrine Designation, and if those cemeteries don’t meet it, 

veterans will at least know that they are not being in a place that 

meets that National Shrine standard. So maybe you can help me 

work on that. 

I would just ask you one last little quick question too. It is something I mentioned in my opening statement. If the Supreme Court 

hands down a ruling that strikes down all existing state bans on 

marriage equality, do you think the VA—it is time to change the 

veterans law so that all veterans regardless of their marital status 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
28 

and who they are married to and where they live get the same benefits? 

Mr. MOROSKY. Madam Ranking Member, we support your legislation, supported it previously, and continue to support it. 

Ms. TITUS. I appreciate that a lot. Thank you. 

Mr. MOROSKY. Madam Ranking Member, the VFW believes that 

a veteran is a veteran and all those should be treated equally. 

Mr. BOST. I believe that this was not on the agenda. 

Ms. TITUS. Well, it wasn’t. I mentioned it in my opening remarks, that is why I thought it would be appropriate to. 

Mr. BOST. I don’t think it is appropriate at this time. Thank you. 

Ms. TITUS. That is the problem. You don’t think it is appropriate. 

Thank you anyway. 

Mr. BOST. Thank you to the Ranking Member. And if there is not 

anyone else seeking questions. As there are no further questions, 

I want to thank everyone here today for taking the time to come 

share their views on these nine bills. This is very important to the 

legislative process, and we appreciate your insight and feedback. I 

ask unanimous consent that the written statements provided by 

Representative Latta and Shuster and other submitted statements 

be placed in the hearing record. Without objections, so ordered. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to reserve and extend the remarks, include extraneous 

material on any of all bills under consideration this afternoon. 

Without objection, so ordered. This hearing is now adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:56 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

APPENDIX 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE BILL JOHNSON (OH–06) 

Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you on H.R. 2605, important legislation I introduced to reform the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA’s) Fiduciary 

Program. 

As many of you know, I served as the Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee 

Chairman on the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee for the 112th Congress. An investigation into the VA’s Fiduciary Program by my subcommittee revealed shocking 

behavior on the part of the VA’s hired fiduciaries, and gross malfeasance on the part 

of the VA. Some fiduciaries—entrusted to manage the finances of our nation’s heroes who are unable to do so themselves—were caught abusing the system by withholding funds, embezzling veterans’ money and other egregious actions. 

Furthermore, I chaired an Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee hearing 

held on February 9, 2012, that exposed that many of the VA’s Fiduciary Program 

policies do not correspond with actual practices. For instance, the VA claims to have 

a policy stating preference for family members and friends to serve as a veteran’s 

fiduciary. However, the investigation into the Fiduciary Program revealed instances 

where this is not the case. In one instance, the VA arbitrarily removed a veteran’s 

wife, who served as her husband’s fiduciary for ten years, and replaced her with a 

paid fiduciary. There are also many honest and hardworking fiduciaries that experience difficulty performing their duties due to the bureaucratic nature of the VA’s 

fiduciary program. We owe it to America’s heroes to provide them with a fiduciary 

program that is more responsive to the needs of the veterans it is supposed to serve. 

I also had the opportunity to participate in this subcommittee’s follow up hearing 

on the Fiduciary Program earlier this month. It was disheartening to hear that 

some of the same issues from 2012 are ongoing. Additionally, while the VA issued 

a proposed rule to modernize the Fiduciary Program in January 2014, the VA has 

yet to issue the final rule. 

For these reasons, I am proud to sponsor H.R. 2605, the ‘‘Veteran’s Fiduciary Reform Act.’’ This important legislation, initially introduced in 2012, was drafted based 

on problems uncovered from O&I’s hearing an investigation, as well as valuable 

input from veterans’ service organizations and individuals who have experienced difVerDate Aug 31 2005 13:11 Sep 07, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 Y:\98-645.TXT PAT

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
29 

ficulties with the program firsthand. It is designed to transform the VA’s Fiduciary 

Program to better serve the needs of our most vulnerable veterans and their hardworking fiduciaries. And, most importantly, it will protect veterans in the program 

from falling victim to deceitful and criminal fiduciaries. 

Specifically, the Veterans Fiduciary Reform Act would require a credit and criminal background check each time a fiduciary is appointed, and allow veterans to petition to have their fiduciary removed if problems arise. It would also decrease the 

potential maximum fee a fiduciary can receive to the lesser of 3 percent or $35 per 

month, similar to Social Security’s fiduciary program. This will help discourage 

those who enroll as VA fiduciaries with only a profit motive in mind. 

Importantly, H.R. 2605 would enable veterans to appeal their incompetent status 

at any time. Additionally, it would allow veterans to name a preferred fiduciary, 

such as a family member. 

This legislation also addresses the requirement of fiduciaries to obtain a bond. 

While proper in some settings, it is inappropriate when it causes unnecessary hardship, such as a mother caring for her veteran son. This legislation would require 

the VA to consider whether a bond is necessary, and if it will adversely affect the 

fiduciary and the veterans he or she serves. H.R. 2605 would also direct the VA’s 

Under Secretaries for Health and Benefits to coordinate their efforts to ensure that 

fiduciaries caring for their loved ones are not overly burdened by redundant requirements. 

Lastly, this bill aims to simplify annual reporting requirements. Currently, the 

VA does not have to review a fiduciary’s annual accounting, and when it does, it 

places an onerous burden on those fiduciaries who are serving out of love, not for 

monetary gain. This bill will implement a straight forward annual accounting requirement, and give VA the opportunity to audit fiduciaries whose accounting is 

suspect. 

These significant changes would strengthen the VA’s standards for administering 

the Fiduciary Program, and increase protection for vulnerable veterans. Requiring 

background checks and lowering the fee a fiduciary can charge would also increase 

scrutiny of potential fiduciaries, and help root out potential predators. This legislation also adds a layer of protection for veterans with fiduciaries by incorporating the 

ability for veterans to petition to have their fiduciary removed and replaced. 

I am proud that this legislation has passed the House of Representatives twice 

now—both in 2012 and in 2013 as part of larger legislation. Unfortunately, this important legislation has not been considered by the Senate, and therefore, the VA’s 

Fiduciary Program is still in urgent need of reform. 

Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus, thank you again for the opportunity 

to speak on this important legislation. I am hopeful that this legislation will again 

be favorably considered by the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, and this time become 

law. Our veterans were willing to sacrifice everything to serve our nation, and they 

deserve to receive the care, benefits, and respect that they have earned. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
30 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 98645.001
31 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 98645.002
32 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 98645.003
33 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 98645.004
34 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 98645.005
35 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 98645.006
36 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 98645.007
37 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 98645.008
38 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 98645.009
39 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 98645.010
40 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 98645.011
41 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 98645.012
42 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 98645.013
43 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 98645.014
44 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 98645.015
45 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 98645.016
46 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 98645.017
47 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 98645.018
48 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 98645.019
49 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 98645.020
50 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 98645.021
51 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 98645.022
52 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 98645.023
53 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 98645.024
54 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 98645.025
55 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 98645.026
56 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 98645.027
57 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 98645.028
58 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 98645.029
59 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 98645.030
60 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 98645.031
61 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 98645.032
62 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 98645.033
63 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 98645.034
64 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 98645.035
65 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 98645.036
66 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 98645.037
67 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 98645.038
68 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 98645.039
69 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 98645.040
70 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 98645.041
71 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 98645.042
72 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 98645.043
73 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 44 here 98645.044
74 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 45 here 98645.045
75 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 46 here 98645.046
76 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 47 here 98645.047
77 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 48 here 98645.048
78 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 49 here 98645.049
79 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 50 here 98645.050
80 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 51 here 98645.051
81 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 52 here 98645.052
82 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 53 here 98645.053
83 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 54 here 98645.054
84 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 55 here 98645.055
85 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 56 here 98645.056
86 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 57 here 98645.057
87 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 58 here 98645.058
88 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 59 here 98645.059
89 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 60 here 98645.060
90 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 61 here 98645.061
91 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 62 here 98645.062
92 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 63 here 98645.063
93 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 64 here 98645.064
94 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 65 here 98645.065
95 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 66 here 98645.066
96 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 67 here 98645.067
97 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 68 here 98645.068
98 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 69 here 98645.069
99 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 70 here 98645.070
100 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 71 here 98645.071
101 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 72 here 98645.072
102 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 73 here 98645.073
103 

STATEMENT OF HON. BOB LATTA (OH–05) 

Mr. Chairman, 

I thank you for the opportunity to provide a statement for the record for today’s 

legislative hearing in the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee, that includes strong bipartisan legislation 

I introduced, H.R. 1302, the VA Appeals Backlog Relief Act, which would help expedite the appeals claims process. 

Our great nation is blessed to have the bravest men and women in the world serving in our armed forces and putting their lives on the line every day in order to 

defend the freedoms we hold so dear. The sacrifices they make are incredible and 

it is incumbent upon Congress and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to ensure they receive the timely care and benefits they have earned and deserve upon 

their return home. 

The VA’s lack of timely claims processing, and the massive backlog that has been 

created, has long been a major problem. Thanks to the quality work of this subcommittee, and the full committee, a good deal of progress has been made; however, 

there is still more work to be done, especially on the appeals side. 

As it currently stands at the VA, there are at least 300,000 appeals claims pending, with nearly 60,000 pending VA Form 9’s with an average pending time of well 

over 600 days. In my home state of Ohio, county veterans service officers and veterans service organizations have contacted me regarding the possibility of five to ten 

year wait times on appealed issues, with a major cause of the delay due to the 

lengthy time it takes the local VA Regional Office (VARO), once they have received 

a completed VA Form 9, to certify the case to the Board of Veterans Appeals. In 

response, and with the input of these officers and organizations, I introduced the 

VA Appeals Backlog Relief Act. This important legislation would make it mandatory 

for all appeals claims to be certified to the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) no later 

than 12 months after the VARO receives the completed VA Form 9, which is more 

than ample time to complete this process. 

I commend the Chairman and Ranking Member for their hard work and dedication to helping our nation’s veterans and thank them, and the subcommittee, for including H.R. 1302 as part of this legislative hearing. I would ask my colleagues for 

their continued support of H.R. 1302 so we can better fulfill our obligations to our 

nation’s veterans. 

Thank you. 

Congressman Bob Latta 

f 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL SHUSTER (PA–09) 

Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus and Members of the Subcommittee: 

Thank you for allowing me to testify today on behalf of my bill H.R. 1338, the 

Dignified Interment of Our Veterans Act of 2015. 

The issue of unclaimed veteran remains was first brought to my attention by two 

dedicated community servants from my district, Mr. Lanny Golden and Mr. Ron 

Metros. They catapulted my awareness of the tragic state of thousands of veteran 

remains and the important work being done by selfless volunteers associated with 

organizations like the Missing in America Project whose mission it is to locate, identify, and inter the unclaimed remains of American veterans. 

The Dignified Burial and Other Veterans’ Benefits Improvement Act of 2012 

placed shared responsibility on the Veteran Affairs Administration, veteran service 

organizations, and funeral directors to identify the veteran status of the deceased 

and make every effort to locate the next of kin. Despite the best efforts of these 

agencies, it is estimated that 47,000 unclaimed, uninterred veteran cremains remain 

on shelves collecting dust. The Pennsylvania State Coordinator for the Missing in 

America Project, who is also a licensed funeral director, estimates he has interred 

more than 125 unclaimed cremains from Western Pennsylvania in the last three 

years. We can speculate regarding the reason for this epidemic but we cannot know 

for sure without giving this issue the attention it deserves. 

In order to help address this problem, I introduced legislation that requires the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to conduct a study on matters relating to claiming and 

interring of unclaimed veteran remains. The intent of the study is to confirm the 

scope of this problem, uncover any barriers associated with claiming and interring 

veteran remains, and solicit recommendations from the Department of Veterans Affairs on potential program improvements. This is the first step in fixing this issue 

and bringing honor back to our fallen heroes. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
104 

I would be remiss if I didn’t highlight efforts by the Department of Veterans Affairs National Cemetery Administration to bolster outreach efforts over the last year 

and their implementation of new tracking protocols that ensure claimed veterans 

are interred within a timely manner. I’m confident they’ll apply the same level of 

vigor in finding solutions to the obstacles that have yet to be uncovered. 

Lastly, I would like to say thank you to all who have served this great nation and 

ensure that your final resting place be of dignity and honor. We will not forget you. 

f 

PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA

Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus, and members of the Subcommittee, 

Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank you for the opportunity 

to provide our views on pending legislation before the Subcommittee. 

H.R. 303, the ‘‘Retired Pay Restoration Act’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 303, the ‘‘Retired Pay Restoration Act.’’ PVA has always 

strongly supported the repeal of the current inequitable requirement that a veteran’s military retired pay based on longevity be offset by an amount equal to his 

or her VA disability compensation. Veterans are the only group of federal retirees 

that have to surrender a portion of their retirement pay to receive their disability 

compensation. This requirement essentially forces disabled military retirees to fund 

their own disability benefits. 

While this issue has always been about funding, PVA believes this is more about 

fairness. Is it fair that an individual who has done his duty and served 20 years 

of faithful service be penalized because he or she also became disabled during that 

service? PVA does not believe this is fair. 

H.R. 1302, the ‘‘VA Appeals Backlog Relief Act’’ 

PVA supports the intent of H.R. 1302, the ‘‘VA Appeals Backlog Relief Act,’’ and 

sees a level of value in it. We are concerned that there may be some instances where 

the veteran submits additional evidence or information with the substantive appeal 

that may require the VA to do additional development to assist the veteran in substantiating his or her claim. This development might preclude the VA from compliance with the certification deadline in some instances. Unfortunately, PVA does not 

believe this law would be enforced to the point that there would visibly be any significant change. In fact, some veterans’ appeals could be negatively impacted if their 

appeal was certified prior to the receipt of supporting evidence, PVA recommends 

language allowing for an exception for those situations where additional development might be needed. PVA wholeheartedly supports seeking methods to reduce the 

time for certification as some appeals are waiting up to three years to be certified. 

H.R. 1338, the ‘‘Dignified Interment of Our Veterans Act of 2015’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 1338, the ‘‘Dignified Interment of Our Veterans Act of 2015.’’ 

All veterans who have honorably served in the military deserve a proper and dignified interment. Requiring the Secretary to conduct a study on the matters relating 

to the disposition of unclaimed remains is appropriate to ensure that all veterans 

receive the handling and recognition their service deserves. 

H.R. 1380 

PVA supports H.R. 1380 to expand the eligibility for a medallion furnished by the 

Secretary to signify the veteran status of a deceased individual. By removing any 

limitation due to date of death of a veteran, all those who served will be eligible 

for the recognition they earned through their service. 

H.R. 1384, the ‘‘Honor America’s Guard-Reserve Retirees Act’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 1384, the ‘‘Honor America’s Guard-Reserve Retirees Act.’’ We 

believe everyone who raises their hand to support and defend the Constitution of 

the United States should be recognized for their service, to include the Guard and 

Reserve. The mission of many guard and reservists is to facilitate and support the 

deployments of their comrades, so the unit is fully prepared when called upon. Unfortunately, the law does not currently allow those who have served several years 

under non-federal status orders, and are entitled to retirement pay, TRICARE, and 

other benefits, to call themselves ‘‘veterans.’’ These men and women have taken the 

same oath as an active duty servicemember and have made sacrifices that have 

earned the right to call themselves veteran. But at the same time, it is critical that 

these individuals recognize at their retirement that the title of ‘‘Veteran’’ does not 

come with the benefits earned by those who have served on active duty for 20 years. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
105 

This is our only concern, that there will now be a perceived ‘‘double-standard’’ on 

how we treat our ‘‘veterans.’’ 

H.R. 2001, the ‘‘Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act’’ 

PVA has no position on HR 2001, the ‘‘Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act.’’ 

H.R. 2214, the ‘‘Disabled Veterans’ Access to Medical Exams Improvement Act’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 2214, the ‘‘Disabled Veterans’ Access to Medical Exams Improvement Act.’’ VA has had great success with the use of contract physicians. Extending the temporary authority until December 31, 2017 will further support the 

effort to reduce the backlog and then provide additional authority beyond VA’s backlog reduction goal to ensure the ability to maintain the 125 day decision goal. More 

importantly, if VA misses its 2015 backlog reduction target, contracted physicians 

will still be available to continue supporting the process with no additional legislation required. 

H.R. 2605, the ‘‘Veterans Fiduciary Reform Act of 2015’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 2605, the ‘‘Veterans Fiduciary Reform Act of 2015.’’ Often 

beneficiaries languish and even die during the protracted effort to appoint a fiduciary. There have been many iterations of this legislation circulating for the last few 

years; this legislation addresses many concerns that have been expressed on fiduciary services. In particular, this legislation is taking steps to minimize the impact 

on family members who serve as fiduciaries and included a provision for caregivers. 

Efforts to appoint fiduciaries seem to have become worse following the centralization of fiduciary services. When these issues were handled at the regional office 

level, the local field examiners and estate analysts had a more personal awareness 

of beneficiary issues associated with incompetency ratings. Since the onset of centralization, it has become increasingly difficult to assist beneficiaries in situations 

where their welfare may be compromised. Practical options such as supervised direct pay are less likely to be utilized when functional contact between field examiners and rating activities is limited. Rating calculators do not effectively analyze 

the potential danger or lack thereof of paying benefits to beneficiaries who are rated 

as incompetent. 

With regards to notification to claimants, it is important to explain that what is 

needed to challenge a determination of competency is an expression of competency 

from a medical professional that addresses the ability to manage funds. Often documentation to support a negative determination will consist of statements that the 

individual receives help in paying the bills which clearly is an insufficient basis for 

determination. 

H.R. 2691, the ‘‘Veterans’ Survivors Claims Processing Automation Act of 2015’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 2691, the ‘‘Veterans’ Survivors Claims Processing Automation 

Act of 2015.’’ The legislation allows VA to pay benefits to a survivor who for whatever reason didn’t file a claim as long as sufficient evidence of record existed to 

grant the claim. For example, in the case of a veteran who was known to have been 

exposed to Agent Orange and died of lung cancer, the VA could establish entitlement to DIC in the absence of a properly filed claim. In such a case the notification 

of death would become the date of claim. While this may not be the intent of the 

legislation, this could protect a date of claim which could otherwise be untimely and 

will ensure the survivor receives benefits their loved one earned. This is appropriate 

legislation that will pay benefits to a veteran’s survivor as quickly as possible and 

streamline the process. In many cases, the benefits a disabled veteran receives may 

be the only family income. 

One change that PVA would like to see in the language is in Section 2(B)(ii) that 

states ‘‘ . . . the date on which the survivor of a veteran notifies the Secretary of the 

death.....’’ As in many cases with legislation, PVA believes this should read ‘‘survivor 

or duly appointed representative’’ to ensure it is clear that veteran service officers 

or others that may be assisting the survivor can act on their behalf. It may also 

be appropriate to include language referencing VA learning of the death from another federal agency such as the Social Security Administration or the Internal Revenue Service before a survivor may notify VA. Limiting notification to the survivor 

strikes PVA as being too narrowly defined. However, this being said, VA has already initiated a process to automatically begin payment of DIC to the spouse of 

record in cases where the veteran has been rated at 100% for ten years, without 

a requirement for the widow to file a claim. This legislation would better establish 

that process into law. 

H.R. 2706, the ‘‘Veterans National Remembrance Act’’ 

PVA supports H.R. 2706, the ‘‘Veterans National Remembrance Act.’’ With the 

rapid aging of our World War II population and increasing number of daily losses 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
106 

of these heroes, the need for National Cemeteries is increasing. It is critical that 

these veterans have the ability and the opportunity to lie for all eternity with their 

fellow veterans if they and their family so chooses. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, we appreciate your commitment to ensuring that veterans receive the best benefits and care available. We also 

appreciate the fact that this Subcommittee has functioned in a generally bipartisan 

manner over the years. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee as we 

continue to provide the best care for our veterans. 

Information Required by Rule XI 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives 

Pursuant to Rule XI 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, the following information is provided regarding federal grants and contracts. 

Fiscal Year 2014 

No federal grants or contracts received. 

Fiscal Year 2013 

National Council on Disability—Contract for Services—$35,000. 

Disclosure of Foreign Payments 

‘‘Paralyzed Veterans of America is largely supported by donations from the general public. However, in some very rare cases we receive direct donations from foreign nationals. In addition, we receive funding from corporations and foundations 

which in some cases are U.S. subsidiaries of non-U.S. companies.’’ 

f 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. GUS M. BILIRAKIS

Chairman Abraham, Ranking Member Titus, and members of the Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee, 

Thank you for holding this very important hearing and for the opportunity to discuss my bill, H.R. 303, the Retired Pay Restoration Act. 

Prior to 2004, existing laws and regulations dictated that a military retiree could 

not receive both payments from the DoD and the VA. 

Through the enactment of the Concurrent Retirement and Disability Payments 

(CRDP) program authorized within the FY 2004 NDAA, those who are 100% disabled were able to receive both earned benefits for the first time ever. 

Since then, the law has expanded the eligibility allowing more retirees to receive 

both payments—like those with 20 or more years of service and a 50% or higher 

disability rating through the VA. 

The program established a system which gradually phased in these payments 

through 2014, which is when these retirees would be receiving both payments in 

full. 

While our efforts have taken great strides towards resolving this issue, much 

more needs to be done. Statistics reveal that there are still nearly 550,000 military 

retirees who may be eligible to receive both military retired pay and VA disability 

compensation, but are unable to do so under the current guidelines of this program. 

In short, this means that there are 550,000 Veterans who are currently being denied the benefits they are entitled. Given their unwavering sacrifice to this great 

nation, I firmly believe we must provide the benefits they have earned. This is unacceptable, and this is why I continue to advocate for the Retired Pay Restoration Act, 

which my father sponsored during his time in Congress. 

H.R. 303 would serve to ensure that our nation’s Veterans are not negatively affected by having their military retirement pay deducted by the amount of their VA 

disability compensation. Many have rightly argued that this represents an injustice 

for Veterans having one earned benefit pay for the other. 

Every Congress I am encouraged by the immense bipartisan support for my bill, 

the Retired Pay Restoration Act. Last Congress, H.R. 303 received a total of 107 bipartisan cosponsors. This is a clear testament that both sides of the aisle recognize 

that this is an issue that needs to be rectified. 

We have the support from Veterans and the organizations that work closely with 

them. I greatly appreciate the support from our witnesses today; especially from the 

VSOs that came to testify before this Committee. It is clear that there is a need 

to do more in what we—as a nation—do in repaying the brave men and women for 

their sacrifice. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
107 

Military retirement pay and service-connected disability compensation are two 

completely different benefits. One does not diminish the merits of the other. 

It is our responsibility to give our Veterans what has been earned through service 

to God and country. The question now is this: what do we intend to do about it? 

H.R. 303 is the clear answer. I urge all my colleagues to show your support for 

our nation’s heroes by cosponsoring and supporting this bill. Let’s get this done for 

our Veterans. Thank you. 

Æ 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER