U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

61–587 PDF 2010

S. HRG. 111–623 

PENDING LEGISLATION HEARING 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 19, 2010 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

PATTY MURRAY, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, (I) Vermont 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

JIM WEBB, Virginia 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina, Ranking 

Member 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM E. BREW, Staff Director 

LUPE WISSEL, Republican Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 19, 2010 

SENATORS 

Page 

Akaka, Hon. Daniel K., Chairman, U.S. Senator from Hawaii ........................... 1 

Burr, Hon. Richard, Ranking Member, U.S. Senator from North Carolina ....... 27 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Murray, Hon. Patty, U.S. Senator from Washington ........................................... 28 

Brown, Hon. Scott, U.S. Senator from Massachusetts ......................................... 31 

Brown, Hon. Sherrod, U.S. Senator from Ohio ..................................................... 33 

Begich, Hon. Mark, U.S. Senator from Alaska ..................................................... 36 

WITNESSES 

Pamperin, Thomas J., Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program Management, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department 

of Veterans Affairs; accompanied by Richard J. Hipolit, Assistant General 

Counsel; and Walter A. Hall, Assistant General Counsel ................................ 2 

and 

Jesse, Robert, M.D., Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Health, 

Veterans Health Administration; accompanied by Richard J. Hipolit, Assistant General Counsel; and Walter A. Hall, Assistant General Counsel ........... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Additional views ............................................................................................... 12 

Response to post-hearing questions submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Akaka ... 20 

Jefferson, Hon. Raymond, Assistant Secretary of Veterans’ Employment and 

Training Service, Department of Labor; prepared statement .......................... 23 

Response to post-hearing questions submitted by: 

Hon. Daniel K. Akaka ............................................................................... 25 

Hon. Patty Murray .................................................................................... 26 

de Planque, Ian, Deputy Director, Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission, The American Legion ............................................................................ 39 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Tarantino, Tom, Legislative Associate, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of 

America; prepared statement .............................................................................. 46 

Hilleman, Eric A., Director, National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign 

Wars ...................................................................................................................... 52 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54 

Response to post-hearing questions submitted by Hon. Patty Murray ........ 61 

Weidman, Richard, Executive Director for Policy and Government Affairs, 

Vietnam Veterans of America; accompanied by Alan Oates, Chairman, 

Agent Orange/Dioxin and Other Toxic Exposures Committee ......................... 63 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 64 

Response to post-hearing questions submitted by Hon. Patty Murray ........ 70 

APPENDIX 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten E., U.S. Senator from New York; prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 81 

Greene, Hon. William P., Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims; prepared statement ................................................................................ 82 

Paralyzed Veterans of America; prepared statement ........................................... 85 

Rossie, John Paul, Executive Director, Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans 

Association; prepared statement ......................................................................... 88 

Page

IV 

Wells, CDR John B., USN (Ret.), Director of Legal and Legislative Affairs, 

Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Association; prepared statement ........... 90 

Wilson, John L., Assistant National Legislative Director, Disabled American 

Veterans; prepared statement ............................................................................. 97 

Boland, Rev. Michael M., Administrator, President & CEO, Catholic Charities 

of the Archdiocese of Chicago; letter .................................................................. 107 

Ryan, Norbert R., Jr., USN (Ret.), President, Military Officers Association 

of America; letter ................................................................................................. 108 

National Coalition for Homeless Veterans; letter ................................................. 109 

The Military Coalition; letter .................................................................................. 111 

Corporation for Supportive Housing, National Alliance to End Homelessness, 

Volunteers of America, Common Ground, Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), National Policy and Advocacy Council on Homelessness; letter ... 113 

(1) 

PENDING LEGISLATION HEARING 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 2010 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 

418, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Akaka, Murray, Brown of Ohio, Begich, Brown 

of Massachusetts, and Burr. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF DANIEL K. AKAKA, CHAIRMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

Chairman AKAKA. The hearing of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs of the U.S. Senate on pending health and benefits legislation 

will come to order. Aloha. 

Today we will look at legislation pending before the Committee. 

The bills on the agenda reflect the desire among members of both 

parties to better serve the veterans who have served us so well. As 

we begin this legislative cycle, I will briefly note the progress the 

Committee has already made in this Congress. 

Last October, advance funding legislation from this Committee 

was enacted to finance VA health care 1 year ahead of the regular 

appropriations process. This was a major change and one long overdue. Earlier this month, the President signed the Caregivers and 

Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act. This new law creates a 

program to support the caregivers of wounded warriors. It will also 

improve health care for veterans in rural areas, help VA adapt to 

the needs of women veterans, and strengthen VA’s workforce. At 

this point, we must focus on proper implementation. 

Turning to the agenda before us, I will leave it to the witnesses 

and the various Members on this Committee to talk in more detail 

about the bills. I will note briefly a series of small and technical 

bills that I introduced. While they will likely not garner much attention this morning, they are a direct result of Committee oversight of VA’s claims benefits process. 

These bills address specific problems involving VA pension, survivor benefits, claims for veterans who are unable to understand 

and complete an application, and judicial review. 

While we work with the administration to fully attack the claims 

process, it is my hope that these small but important steps will improve the quality and timeliness of benefits decisions. 

Finally, I note that there are bills on the agenda that carry significant mandatory costs which trigger PAYGO issues. We are 

2 

working with CBO to get firm numbers on those costs, but it is important to be aware of the challenges of moving legislation that has 

mandatory spending. 

I offer my thanks again to my colleagues and to the witnesses 

who are here. 

I want to welcome our witnesses and thank you for being here 

today. Secretary Jefferson, as I believe you have been advised, you 

will not be permitted to testify today since the Department’s testimony was not received until shortly before 5 o’clock yesterday, over 

31 hours late. Given this late submission, I was inclined to exclude 

Labor’s participation and that of other witnesses who did not comply with Committee rules since the Members have not had the opportunity to review the testimony. I do not suppose that you are 

directly responsible for this situation. [Laughter.] 

But as the designated witness, you have to be the one to hear 

the Committee’s concerns and carry them back to the Secretary 

and his top managers. If the Department is to participate in the 

legislative process, there must be at a minimum timely submission 

of testimony on pending legislation. 

Other witnesses, including the VA, were able to review and comment on a large list of pending legislation and testimony that was 

submitted by the Committee’s deadline of Monday at 9:30 a.m. I 

will be following up to learn exactly what happened with respect 

to today’s hearing and to identify ways to keep this problem from 

occurring again. 

Moving on, we have VA witnesses Tom Pamperin, Associate Deputy Under Secretary for Policy and Program Management, Veterans Benefits Administration; Dr. Robert Jesse, M.D., Principal 

Deputy Under Secretary for Health at the Veterans Health Administration. They are accompanied by Richard J. Hipolit and Walter 

Hall, both assistant general counsels for VA. 

I thank you all for being here this morning. Mr. Pamperin, you 

may begin with your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. PAMPERIN, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY 

UNDER SECRETARY FOR POLICY AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY 

RICHARD J. HIPOLIT, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL; AND 

WALTER A. HALL, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL 

Mr. PAMPERIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning. I 

am pleased to be here today to provide the VA’s views on pending 

legislation. 

I will not be able to address a few of the bills on today’s agenda 

because we did not have sufficient time to develop and coordinate 

the administration’s position and cost estimates, but with your permission we will provide that information in writing for the record. 

Those bills are S. 3286, S. 3314, S. 3325, S. 3330, S. 3348, S. 3352, 

S. 3355, S. 3367, S. 3368, S. 3370, and Senator Burr’s draft bill to 

improve VA’s multifamily transitional housing program. Similarly, 

for most of the bills I will address today, we request permission to 

provide cost estimates for the record at a later date. 

Chairman AKAKA. We will look forward to those for the record. 

Mr. PAMPERIN. Very good. 

3 

VA supports S. 3107, the cost-of-living adjustment. Current economic assumptions project no increase in the cost of living. If that 

assumption holds true, there would be no benefit costs associated 

with this bill. 

While VA cannot support a number of bills in their present form, 

we can support them with modification and would be glad to work 

with the Committee on them. 

S. 1866 would extend eligibility for burial in a national cemetery 

to the parents of certain veterans. On October 8, 2009, VA provided 

testimony to the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorials Affairs, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, on a similar 

bill, H.R. 761. At the request of that committee, VA provided technical assistance clarifying the impact of the provisions of the bill. 

The amended bill, which addresses VA concerns, was incorporated 

into H.R. 3941. 

S. 3192, the Fair Access to Veterans Benefits Act of 2010, would 

require the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to extend ‘‘for 

such time as justice may require’’ the 120-day period for appealing 

a board decision. 

Although the VA supports extension of the 120-day appeal period 

under certain circumstances, we have several concerns. Because 

the bill would not limit the length of time that an appeal period 

could be extended, appellants could potentially be able to appeal to 

the board at any time after it was issued—even decades later—as 

long as good cause was shown. 

To avoid these and other potential problems resulting from an 

unlimited appeal period and retroactive application, the administration is developing a proposal that would take a more focused 

approach. 

S. 3234, the Veteran Employment Assistance Act, would create 

programs aimed at improving employment, training, and placement 

services furnished to veterans, especially those serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. 

Section 8 of the bill would authorize VA, in consultation with 

DOL and the Department of Interior, to establish a program to 

award grants to States to establish a veterans conservation corps. 

VA supports efforts to expand volunteer and employment opportunities for veterans. However, VA does not support the provision 

of these services through grant programs unless funds are expressly appropriated for that purpose. 

VA does not support S. 1780, the Honor America’s Guard and 

Reserve Retirees Act, which would deem certain persons who have 

otherwise performed qualifying active duty to have been on active 

duty for purposes of VA benefits who are entitled under Chapter 

1223 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code to retired pay. Active service is 

the foundation for providing VA benefits. In recent years, the 

Guard and Reserve have played an important role in the Nation’s 

overseas conflicts. Virtually all those who served in recent conflicts 

were called to active duty and qualify for benefits. This bill, however, would extend the same status to those who were never called. 

S. 1939, the Agent Orange Equity Act, would expand the category of veterans who are afforded the presumption of service connection for exposure to Agent Orange. Agent Orange was not 

sprayed overseas and did not affect high-altitude airplanes. 

4 

Although it is not part of today’s agenda, the administration is 

developing an administrative proposal to would cover many health 

care, benefits, and management issues. The VA’s proposal will include proposals to change voc rehab, promote greater efficiency, 

and permit extension of the delimiting date for education, and provide Veterans Group Life Insurance to those insured for less than 

the maximum amount. 

I would turn it over to Dr. Jesse. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Pamperin. 

Now we will receive the testimony of Dr. Jesse. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT JESSE, M.D., ACTING PRINCIPAL DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR HEALTH, VETERANS HEALTH 

ADMINISTRATION; ACCOMPANIED BY RICHARD J. HIPOLIT, 

ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL; AND WALTER A. HALL, ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL 

Dr. JESSE. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. It is my pleasure to appear before you for 

the first time today as the Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Health, and I am pleased to be here with Mr. Pamperin 

to discuss three bills on the agenda that pertain specifically to Veterans Health Administration. 

I do not yet have a clear position on S. 3325, which would prohibit collection of co-payments for telehealth or telemedicine visits 

of veterans, and I request permission to provide views and cost estimates for the record at a later date. 

S. 2751 would designate the VA medical center in Big Spring, 

TX, as the George H. O’Brien, Jr., Department of Veterans Affairs 

Medical Center. We defer to Congress in the naming of Federal facilities in honor of individuals, and we thank the Committee for 

honoring distinguished veterans like Mr. O’Brien and the like. 

S. 3035, the Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury Care Improvement 

Act of 2010, would require the Secretary to submit to Congress a 

report on the feasibility and advisability of establishing a Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center or Polytrauma Network Site for VA 

in the northern Rockies or the Dakotas. 

VA shares the Committee’s concern for providing treatment facilities for polytrauma in this region. We heard the concerns raised 

earlier this month by Ms. Karen Bohlinger, the Second Lady of 

Montana, and the challenges she and her son have faced in receiving accessible care for TBI. We were heartened to hear that her son 

is receiving good care in Seattle, and we believe their experience 

may be made a little easier with the enhancement of a Polytrauma 

Support Clinic Team VA is establishing in Fort Harrison, MT. This 

VA facility will have a strong telehealth component and meets the 

needs and the workload volume of veterans with mild to moderate 

Traumatic Brain Injury in Montana, the Dakotas, and northern 

Rockies. 

Since we have already conducted an evaluation of the needs for 

TBI facilities in the northern Rockies and Dakotas and we are already taking action to improve both access to care and quality of 

care available in the region, VA believes that further legislation is 

not necessary. 

5 

I would like to say further that VA is planning to spend about $13 million over the next 10 years to staff and maintain the enhanced Polytrauma Support Clinic Team at Fort Harrison, and I 

would be pleased to provide the Committee with more detailed information about our findings and decisions regarding the needs of 

veterans in the northern Rockies and Dakota region. 

S. 1940 would require the Secretary to complete a study of the 

effects on children of exposure of their parents to herbicides used 

in support of military operations in the Republic of Vietnam during 

the Vietnam era. Mr. Chairman, VA supports a greater scientific 

understanding of the effects on children of parents exposed to herbicides in Vietnam. However, VA is unable to support S. 1940 because it would be extremely difficult at this time to assemble data 

that would result in a scientifically valid conclusion. The challenges 

of such a study include developing methods and techniques to track 

and locate subjects across multiple generations and account for diverse health effects. We believe it would be very difficult to identify, locate, and obtain consent of enough participants to render 

any findings valid. Moreover, such a study would take more than 

1 year to complete. 

These are concerns we have about this legislation, and I hope 

they may help explain why VA believes that the study S. 1940 

would require is not currently feasible. We estimate the costs of 

conducting the study would be approximately $6.3 million over 5 

years. 

This concludes my statement, and I would be pleased to answer 

any questions you or the Committee might have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pamperin and Dr. Jesse follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS J. PAMPERIN, ASSOCIATE DEPUTY UNDER SEC- RETARY FOR POLICY AND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINIS- TRATION

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to be here today to provide the Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) views on pending legislation. Also testifying this morning is Dr. 

Robert Jesse, Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Health, Veterans Health 

Administration, and accompanying us are Assistant General Counsels Richard J. 

Hipolit and Walter A. Hall. 

I will not be able to address a few of the bills on today’s agenda because we did 

not have sufficient time to develop and coordinate the Administration’s position and 

cost estimates, but with your permission we will provide that information in writing 

for the record. Those bills are S. 3286, S. 3314, S. 3325, S. 3330, S. 3348, S. 3352, 

S. 3355, S. 3367, S. 3368, S. 3370, and Senator Burr’s draft bill to improve VA’s 

multifamily transitional housing program. Similarly, for most of the bills that I will 

address on today’s agenda, we request permission to provide cost estimates for the 

record at a later date. 

S. 1780

S. 1780, the ‘‘Honor America’s Guard-Reserve Retirees Act,’’ would deem certain 

persons (namely, former members of the National Guard or Reserves who are entitled under chapter 1223 of title 10, United States Code, to retired pay for nonregular service or who would be entitled to such retired pay but for their age) who have 

not otherwise performed ‘‘qualifying active duty service’’ to have been on active duty 

for purposes of VA benefits. 

Under current law, a National Guard or Reserve member is considered to have 

served on active duty only if the member was called to active duty under title 10, 

United States Code, and completed the period of duty for which he or she was called 

to service. Eligibility for some VA benefits, such as disability compensation, pension, 

and dependency and indemnity compensation, requires a period of ‘‘active military, 

naval, or air service,’’ which may be satisfied by active duty, or by certain periods 

of active duty for training and inactive duty training during which the serviceVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:54 Nov 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\111TH HEARINGS\61587.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
6 

member becomes disabled or dies. Generally, those periods are: (1) active duty for 

training during which the member was disabled or died from disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line of duty; and (2) inactive duty training during which 

the member was disabled or died from an injury incurred or aggravated in line of 

duty. 

S. 1780 would eliminate these service requirements for National Guard or Reserve members who served in such a capacity for at least 20 years. Retirement status alone would make them eligible for all VA benefits, despite not having served 

on active duty or in active service or, if called to active duty, not having served the 

minimum active-duty period required for eligibility. 

VA does not support this bill. Current benefits eligibility is based either on active 

duty or a qualifying period of active service during which a member was physically 

engaged in serving the Nation in an active military role. Active service is the foundation for providing VA benefits. In recent years, the National Guard and Reserves 

have played an important role in our Nation’s overseas conflicts. Virtually all those 

who served in recent conflicts were called to active duty, which qualifies them as 

Veterans and provides potential eligibility for VA benefits. This bill, however, would 

extend the same status to those who were never called to active duty and did not 

suffer disability or death due to active duty for training or inactive duty training, 

and hence do not have active service. VA would be obligated to provide compensation and health-care for disabilities resulting from injuries incurred in civilian activities, as well as from diseases that develop, during the 20 years that count toward 

retirement, regardless of any relationship to actual active duty or training drills. 

Providing compensation and other VA benefits based solely on retirement status 

would be inconsistent with VA’s mission of providing benefits to Veterans who 

earned them as a result of active service. 

Statutes already authorize memorial benefits (burial in national cemeteries, burial flags, and grave markers) to this group of individuals. Therefore, S. 1780 would 

not provide any additional benefit related to the National Cemetery Administration 

(NCA), nor would it present any additional budget concerns related to the benefits 

NCA provides. 

S. 1866

S. 1866 would extend eligibility for burial in a national cemetery to the parents 

of certain Veterans, provided that VA determines that space is available in open national cemeteries and that the Veteran does not have a spouse, surviving spouse, 

or child who has been buried or who, if deceased, would be eligible for burial in a 

national cemetery under 38 U.S.C. § 2402(5). Although the bill is apparently intended to apply to the parents of deceased Veterans, as drafted it would also apply 

to the parents of living Veterans, as well as to the parents of servicemembers and 

other individuals eligible for burial in national cemeteries. Currently, only parents 

who are eligible in their own right as a Veteran or spouse of a Veteran are eligible 

for burial in a national cemetery. While VA cannot support this bill as currently 

drafted, we would support this bill if it were modified to allow for burial of parents 

only in cases involving the death of an unmarried and childless servicemember who 

died due to combat or training-related injuries. 

On October 8, 2009, VA provided testimony to the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorials Affairs, House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, on a similar 

bill, H.R. 761. At the request of that Committee, VA provided technical assistance 

clarifying the impact of provisions of the bill. The amended bill, which addressed 

VA concerns, was incorporated into H.R. 3949 as section 303, the ‘‘Corey Shea Act.’’ 

The House of Representatives passed that bill on November 3, 2009, and it was sent 

to the Senate and referred to this Committee. 

As VA testified regarding H.R. 761, the primary reason we do not support S. 1866 

is our concern that, by extending eligibility for national cemetery burial to parents, 

this bill would reduce the number of gravesites available for Veterans, who have 

served our Nation. We believe that preserving sufficient burial space for Veterans 

should take priority over extending burial eligibility to others. 

We also note that the definition of ‘‘parent’’ in 38 U.S.C. § 101(5) is broad enough 

that more than two individuals could qualify for burial as the parent of a particular 

Veteran. Birth parents, adoptive parents, step parents, and foster parents could be 

eligible for burial under this bill as currently drafted. 

Furthermore, the Secretary already may permit the burial of a Veteran’s parents 

in a national cemetery. Section 2402(6) of title 38, United States Code, which permits the Secretary to designate ‘‘other persons or classes of persons’’ as eligible for 

burial, authorizes the Secretary to permit the burial of parents in a national cemetery. In 2007 and 2008, the Secretary approved two separate requests for the burial 

7 

of a parent in the same grave as an unmarried, childless servicemember who died 

as a result of wounds incurred in combat. Neither deceased servicemember had a 

spouse or child who was buried or would be eligible for burial in a national cemetery. 

VA would support legislation adopting similar burial eligibility criteria for parents 

to address the small number of compelling cases in which an unmarried servicemember without children dies due to combat or training-related injuries. By using 

Department of Defense Casualty Offices’ records, VA would be able to determine 

whether a deceased servicemember died as a result of combat or training-related injuries and whether the servicemember has a surviving spouse or child eligible for 

burial. This narrower proposal, to extend to parents eligibility for burial in the same 

gravesite with their child, would allay our concern that extending eligibility to parents would reduce the number of national cemetery gravesites available for Veterans. VA would, therefore, support a modified version of S. 1866 to formally and 

publicly recognize the ultimate sacrifice of fallen servicemembers and the unique 

burden of their surviving parents without negatively impacting burial access for 

qualified Veterans. VA would be glad to provide technical support should the Committee request it in order to modify the bill. 

If S. 1866 as currently drafted were enacted, VA would incur estimated costs of 

$27,000 in the first year, $180,000 over five years, and $462,000 over ten years. 

S. 1939

S. 1939, the ‘‘Agent Orange Equity Act of 2009,’’ would expand the category of 

Veterans who are afforded a presumption of service connection for certain diseases 

by 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a) and a presumption of exposure to certain herbicide agents 

by section 1116(f). It would essentially change the category from Veterans who 

served in the Republic of Vietnam during a specified period to Veterans who served 

in the vicinity of the Republic of Vietnam during that period, including the inland 

waterways of, ports and harbors of, the waters offshore, and the airspace above the 

Republic of Vietnam. It would also extend the presumptions to Veterans who served 

on Johnston Island during the period from April 1, 1972, through September 30, 

1977, or who received the Vietnam Service Medal or the Vietnam Campaign Medal. 

All of these changes would be effective as of September 25, 1985. 

Under VA’s regulation implementing section 1116, 38 CFR § 3.307(a)(6)(iii), ‘‘service in the Republic of Vietnam’’ includes service in the waters offshore and service 

in other locations if the conditions of service involved duty or visitation in the Republic of Vietnam. While the presumption of herbicide exposure already extends to 

Veterans with duty or visitation on the ground in Vietnam or on its inland waterways, S. 1939 would greatly increase the number of Veterans eligible for service 

connection of the diseases presumed associated with herbicide exposure to include 

many Veterans whose service would not have placed them at risk of exposure to 

herbicides. Those who would be included under the bill include Veterans who served 

aboard naval vessels operating on open offshore waters far from the coastline of 

Vietnam; Veterans who served on high altitude jet aircraft flying missions over Vietnam airspace; Veterans who served on Johnston Island in the Pacific Ocean between 

April 1, 1972, and September 30, 1977, where unused herbicide agents were stored 

and ultimately disposed of; and Veterans who served in Thailand, Laos, or Cambodia, or the airspace above those nations, in support of the war effort in Vietnam. 

VA does not support this bill. The intended purpose of legislation codified at 38 

U.S.C. § 1116 was to provide a presumption of herbicide exposure for Veterans who 

may have been exposed to tactical military herbicide use within the Republic of 

Vietnam and to provide presumptive service connection for certain diseases associated with this potential exposure. Extensive aerial spraying of Agent Orange and 

other herbicide agents in Vietnam between 1962 and 1971 is well documented. This 

tactical herbicide use was aimed at destroying enemy food crops, removing jungle 

cover from enemy positions, and providing defoliated free fire zones around U.S. 

bases to discourage enemy attacks. Because of the difficulty of determining which 

military units or individual servicemembers may have been directly exposed, the 

presumption was extended to all Veterans who served within the country or on its 

inland waterways. Any of these Veterans may have been exposed, and that justifies 

extending the presumption to them. However, the same cannot be said of the categories of Veterans who would be added by this bill. 

Herbicides were not sprayed over the open offshore waters of Vietnam, and highaltitude jet aircraft had no contact with the herbicides sprayed by low-altitude propeller-driven cargo planes. On Johnston Island, herbicides were stored in a remote 

fenced-in security area with limited access for military personnel. Receipt of the 

Vietnam Service Medal or Vietnam Campaign Medal for war effort support in ThaiVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:54 Nov 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\111TH HEARINGS\61587.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
8 

land, Laos, or Cambodia is not related to the potential for exposure to tactical herbicide use in Vietnam itself. 

S. 1939 would thus provide a presumption of herbicide exposure to Veterans who 

were not exposed to tactical military herbicide use. This would create an inequity 

in that Veterans who were not exposed would be afforded the same favorable presumption as those who were or may have been exposed. S. 1939 would essentially 

change the basis for the presumption from service in an area of documented herbicide use to any service that supported the war effort in Southeast Asia. 

In summary, VA does not support this bill because it would expand the presumption of herbicide exposure to categories of Veterans who were not exposed to the tactical herbicides used in Vietnam. It would undermine the original Congressional intent of providing health care and disability compensation to deserving Veterans 

whose diseases are presumptively associated with herbicide exposure during Vietnam service. 

S. 1940

S. 1940 would require the Secretary to complete a study of the effects on children 

of exposure of their parents to herbicides used in support of military operations in 

the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era. While VA supports a greater scientific understanding of the effects on children of parents exposed to herbicides in 

Vietnam, VA does not support S. 1940 because it would be extremely difficult at this 

time to assemble data for such a study that would result in a scientifically valid 

outcome. 

In 2008, the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM’s) Committee to Review the Health Effects in Vietnam Veterans of Exposure to Herbicides conducted a preliminary assessment of the question of paternally mediated, trans-generational effects and suggested that epidemiologic studies of adult offspring would be difficult. The challenges of such a study include developing methods and techniques to track and locate subjects across multiple generations and accounting for diverse health effects. 

Viewing the proposed study that would be required by S. 1940 in light of the 

IOM’s findings, we believe that identifying, locating, and obtaining consent to participate from the offspring of Vietnam Veterans and the adult offspring of the Vietnam-era Veterans that would be needed for comparison would be very difficult. As 

we are unaware of any directory or listing of Vietnam Veterans’ children, the logistics of this study would require a multi-year effort inconsistent with the one-year 

timeframe the bill would require for reporting on VA’s findings. Even with a successful effort to contact and enroll appropriate individuals into the proposed study, 

there would most likely not be a sufficient number to allow for scientifically valid 

estimates of the trans-generational effect of paternal exposure. 

For these reasons, VA believes that the study and report that S. 1940 would require are not feasible. We estimate that the cost of conducting the study would be 

approximately $6.3 million over five years. 

S. 2751

S. 2751 would designate the VA medical center in Big Spring, Texas, as the 

George H. O’Brien, Jr., Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center. Mr. O’Brien 

was awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions in battle in Korea and, following 

service, volunteered at the VA medical center in Big Spring. He died in 2005. We 

defer to Congress in the naming of Federal property in honor of individuals. 

S. 3035

S. 3035, the ‘‘Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury Care Improvement Act of 2010,’’ 

would require the Secretary to submit to Congress a report on the feasibility and 

advisability of establishing a Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center or Polytrauma Network Site for VA in the northern Rockies or the Dakotas. 

VA shares the concern for providing treatment facilities for polytrauma in this region and has already completed an assessment of need. VA has determined that an 

enhanced Polytrauma Support Clinic Team with a strong telehealth component at 

the Ft. Harrison, Montana, VA facility would meet the needs and the workload volume of Veterans with mild to moderate Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) residing in 

the catchment area of the Montana Healthcare System. It would also facilitate access to TBI rehabilitation care for other Veterans from the northern Rockies and 

the Dakotas through telehealth. However, establishment of a Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center or Polytrauma Network Site, which would focus on the treatment of 

moderate to severe TBI, is not feasible or advisable in this area based on the needs 

of the population served. Because of the action already being taken by VA, this bill 

is not necessary, and we do not support it. 

9 

The estimated cost of staffing the Polytrauma Support Clinic Team at Ft. Harrison would be $1 million in the first year, $6.1 million for five years, and approximately $13 million over 10 years. 

Mr. Chairman, we would be pleased to provide the Committee with more detailed 

information about our findings and decisions regarding the northern Rockies and 

the Dakotas. 

S. 3107

S. 3107, the ‘‘Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2010,’’ 

would provide an increase for the rates of disability compensation and dependency 

and indemnity compensation by a percentage commensurate with the annual Social 

Security cost-of-living adjustment, effective December 1, 2010. 

VA supports this bill, which is consistent with the President’s FY 2011 budget request. This legislation is necessary to guard the affected benefits against any eroding effects of inflation. The worthy recipients of these benefits deserve no less. 

Current economic assumptions project no increase in the cost-of-living. If that assumption holds true, there would be no benefit costs associated with this bill, nor 

would there be an administrative cost. 

S. 3192

S. 3192, the ‘‘Fair Access to Veterans Benefits Act of 2010,’’ would require the 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) to extend ‘‘for such time as 

justice may require’’ the 120-day period for appealing a Board decision to the Veterans Court upon a showing of good cause. It would apply to a notice of appeal filed 

with respect to a Board decision issued on or after July 24, 2008. It would require 

the reinstatement of any ‘‘petition for review’’ that the Veterans Court dismissed as 

untimely on or after that date if, within 6 months of enactment, an adversely affected person files another petition and shows good cause for filing the first petition 

on the date it was filed. 

Although VA supports the extension of the 120-day appeal period under certain 

circumstances, VA has several concerns with this bill. Because the bill would not 

limit the length of time the appeal period could be extended, appellants would potentially be able to appeal a Board decision at any time after it was issued—even 

decades later—as long as good cause is shown. This would create great uncertainty 

as to the finality of Board decisions, which could burden an already overburdened 

claim-adjudication system and create confusion as to whether a VA regional office, 

the Board, or the Veterans Court has jurisdiction over a claim. 

Petitions for relief under the ‘‘good cause’’ provision could potentially add hundreds of cases to the Veterans Court’s docket, which could increase the processing 

time for all cases in the court’s inventory. The reinstatement of already dismissed 

untimely appeals could add even more cases. In view of the open-ended and retroactive nature of the provision, the potential number of new appeals is impossible 

to quantify, but it might be enormous. 

To avoid these and other potential problems resulting from an unlimited appeal 

period and retroactive application, the Administration is developing a proposal that 

would take a more focused approach. It would permit the Veterans Court to extend 

the appeal period for up to an additional 120 days from the expiration of the original 120-day appeal period upon a showing of good cause, provided the appellant files 

with the Veterans Court, within 120 days of expiration of the original 120-day period, a motion requesting extension. The proposal would ameliorate harsh results 

in extreme circumstances, e.g., if a claimant were mentally incapacitated during the 

entire 120-day appeal period, but by limiting how late an appellant could request 

extension and how long the period could be extended, would not unduly undermine 

the finality of Board decisions, which is necessary for efficient administrative functioning. Placing an outer limit on the appeal period would maintain the purpose of 

the rule of finality, which is to preclude repetitive and belated readjudication of Veterans’ benefits claims. 

In addition, the proposal would be applicable to Board decisions issued on or after 

the date of enactment and to Board decisions for which the 120-day period following 

the 120-day appeal period has not expired as of the date of enactment. It would provide a generous approach but one that is carefully crafted so as not to unduly increase the court’s caseload and delay Veterans’ receipt of timely final decisions on 

their appeals. 

We estimate that enactment of VA’s legislative proposal as contemplated would 

result in no significant costs or savings. 

10 

S. 3234

S. 3234, the ‘‘Veteran Employment Assistance Act of 2010,’’ would create programs aimed at improving employment, training, and placement services furnished 

to Veterans, especially those serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. 

Section 3(b) of the bill would require the Small Business Administration, VA, and 

the Department of Labor (DOL) to assess the efficacy of establishing a Federal direct loan program for small business concerns owned and controlled by Veterans 

and to submit to Congress a report on the assessment within 180 days of enactment. 

VA has no objection to this provision. 

Section 7 of the bill would provide benefits for apprenticeship and on-the-job 

training (OJT) under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Section 7 would provide for payment of 

a monthly benefit to individuals pursuing full-time programs of apprenticeship or 

other OJT, using a graduated structure similar to that applicable for such training 

under other VA educational assistance programs, including the Montgomery GI BillActive Duty (MGIB-AD) and Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR) programs and the PostVietnam Era Veterans Educational Assistance program. Section 7 also would amend 

current law to include apprenticeship or other OJT training programs as approved 

programs of education for purposes of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. 

Pursuant to section 7, for each of the first 6 months of an individual’s pursuit of 

an apprenticeship or other OJT program, the individual would be paid 75 percent 

of the ‘‘monthly benefit payment otherwise payable to such individual’’ under chapter 33. For the second 6 months of such pursuit, the individual would be paid 55 

percent of such amount, and for each of the following months the individual would 

be paid 35 percent of such amount. In addition, this bill would authorize payment 

to such individuals of a monthly housing stipend equal to the monthly amount of 

the basic allowance for housing payable for a servicemember with dependents in pay 

grade E–5 residing in the military housing area that encompasses all or the majority portion of the ZIP code area in which the individual resides. We note that, unlike 

the monthly housing stipend authorized under 38 U.S.C. § 3313(c), this section contains no provision requiring payment of reduced amounts of such monthly stipend 

in cases where individuals’ aggregated active-duty service is less than 36 months. 

For each month an individual receives a benefit under this bill, VA would charge 

the individual’s entitlement at a rate that reflects the applicable percentage (i.e., 75, 

55, or 35 percent, as appropriate). 

The amendments made by section 7 would take effect as if included in the enactment of the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (Title V, Public 

Law 110–252). That is, the effective date would be August 1, 2009. 

VA supports allowing individuals who qualify for the Post-9/11 GI Bill to receive 

benefits for OJT and apprenticeship training, subject to Congress’s identifying offsets for any additional costs. However, VA cannot support enactment of this section 

as drafted. 

The bill would provide a monthly assistance benefit, plus a monthly housing stipend amount to trainees. This would be in addition to any wages a trainee may receive. Further, as noted, this bill provides that the monthly benefit would be equal 

to a percentage ‘‘of the monthly benefit payment otherwise payable’’ to an individual 

under chapter 33. However, unlike the MGIB-AD, which provides for monthly payments of educational assistance other than monthly housing stipends, no ‘‘monthly’’ 

benefits are payable to a student or trainee under the Post-9/11 GI Bill. VA’s payment of educational assistance under 38 U.S.C. § 3313 (for actual charges of an individual’s tuition and fees) is made directly to the institution of higher learning on 

a lump-sum basis for the entire quarter, semester, or term. Thus, it is unclear to 

what monthly benefit the provision refers in order to determine the amount of any 

payment to an individual. 

If enacted, this bill would take effect as if it had been included in Public Law 110– 

252, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008. VA would have to 

manually re-work all apprenticeship and OJT cases for individuals wishing to elect 

to receive assistance under the Post-9/11 GI Bill for training that occurred on or 

after August 1, 2009. VA is currently programming a new payment system to implement the provisions of the Post-9/11 GI Bill. Full deployment of the new system is 

expected by December 2010. Incorporating new rules for the payment of benefits for 

apprenticeship and OJT training, as proposed, would require system changes that 

could not be accommodated, at the earliest, until after that date. Such changes 

would delay deployment of the new system and require VA to continue processing 

claims on a manual basis. 

Section 8 of the bill would authorize VA, in consultation with DOL and the Department of the Interior, to establish a program to award grants to States to estabVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:54 Nov 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\111TH HEARINGS\61587.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
11 

lish a ‘‘veterans conservation corps’’ (corps). Each State corps would be established 

within, or in affiliation with, the ‘‘veterans agency’’ of the State and would provide 

Veterans with volunteer and employment opportunities in conservation projects that 

would provide for training, education, and certification in environmental restoration 

and management fields. These projects would include: (1) restoring natural habitat; 

(2) maintaining Federal, state, or local forest lands, parks and reserves, as well as 

other reservations, water, and outdoor lands; (3) maintaining and improving urban 

and suburban storm water management facilities and other water management facilities; and (4) carrying out hazardous materials and spills response, energy efficiency and other environmental maintenance, stewardship, and restoration projects. 

Each corps, in order to incorporate training, education, and certification into the 

volunteer and employment opportunities afforded Veterans, would consult with: (1) 

State and local workforce investment boards; (2) local institutions of higher education, including community colleges; (3) private schools; (4) State or local agencies, 

including State employment agencies and State forest services; (5) labor organizations; (6) business involved in the environmental industry; and (7) such other entities as the Secretary of Veterans Affairs considers appropriate. 

In order to assist Veterans enrolled in the program to obtain employment in the 

fields of environmental restoration and management, the corps would partner with 

one-stop centers, State and local workforce investment boards, and other State agencies. The corps would also assist Veterans, in conjunction with State and local workforce investment boards, to identify appropriate employment opportunities in their 

local communities that would use the skills developed while in the Armed Forces 

and facilitate internships or job shadowing. The corps would assist with, or provide, 

referrals for obtaining benefits available to Veterans and match Veterans with conservation projects that would be aligned with each Veteran’s goals. 

The grant amount that could be awarded to a State under the conservation corps program established by section 8 could not exceed $250,000 in any year. 

Each State receiving a grant to establish a Veterans conservation corps program 

would be required to submit a report on the performance of the Veterans conservation corps in that State to VA and the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and Veterans’ Affairs. These reports would include a description of how the 

grant amount was used and an assessment of the performance of the corps, including a description of the Veterans’ labor market in that State for the current and 

previous year. 

VA supports efforts to expand volunteer and employment opportunities to Veterans, particularly with respect to environmental restoration and management. 

However, VA does not support the provision of these services through grant programs unless funds are expressly appropriated for this purpose. If each of the 50 

States received the maximum grant, we estimate that $12.5 million would be needed annually. VA does not currently have a mechanism for awarding such grants and 

managing such grant programs, but DOL has extensive expertise and experience in 

managing grants to States. DOL’s Veterans’ Employment and Training Service 

(VETS) currently manages grants to States to provide employment services and outreach to Veterans at one-stop centers. The purpose and requirements of this bill appear to be a very good match with the current functionality of the VETS program. 

Section 9 of the bill would authorize VA, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans’ Employment and Training, to establish a center of excellence to support research, development, planning, implementation, and evaluation of methods for educational institutions to give academic credit for military experience and training to certain Veterans (those discharged or released from service 

within 48 months of application for admission to such institutions or those who were 

members of the reserve components of the Armed Forces). 

Acting through the center of excellence, VA would award grants to, or enter into 

contracts with, eligible institutions to achieve the purposes of the center. An eligible 

institution for this purpose would be defined as any partnership that meets such 

requirements as VA promulgated and consists of an institution of higher education 

(IHE) and one or more of the following entities: (1) a community college; (2) a university teaching hospital; (3) a military installation, including a facility of the National Guard; (4) a VA medical center; and (5) a military medical treatment facility. 

VA could not award a grant or contract in an amount less than $2 million or more 

than $5 million. 

To receive a grant or contract, an institution would be required to submit to VA 

an application for this purpose. VA would give priority to applicants who include 

as a partner an IHE or other educational institution that: (1) affords appropriate 

recognition to military experience and training in screening candidates; (2) has a 

practice of, or would establish a practice of (if proposing such a practice, would include with the application a review of such a plan by a professional organization) 

12 

giving academic credit for military experience and training; (3) has established a 

professional development and delivery system using evidence-based practices; or (4) 

has demonstrated experience working with the Department of Defense or VA. 

Each eligible institution receiving a grant or contract would be required to use 

it for one or more of the following purposes: (1) to develop or implement a plan to 

modify programs of education and admissions programs at IHEs to give academic 

credit to the Veterans and members described above; (2) to develop standards for 

the identification of military experience and training in individuals applying for enrollment at IHEs; (3) to train professors, educators, and instructors at IHEs on the 

means of best teaching students at such institutions with military experience and 

training; (4) to develop curriculum for IHEs that are appropriately tailored to individuals with military experience and training; (5) to develop admissions and recruitment guidelines for IHLs to attract Veterans and members described above and afford them recognition for military experience and training in their admissions processes; and (6) to establish a program, a method, or standards to be utilized by IHLs 

for assessing the education and training during the pursuit of a program of education and at the completion of such program. 

Because the grants are to be used for admissions policies, recruitment, granting 

of prior credit, instruction of professors and other teaching staff, modifying the institution’s existing programs of education, and suggesting modifications to curriculum, 

VA believes that the Department of Education, in consultation with VA and DOL, 

is best positioned to establish the center of excellence for the purposes of these 

grants. Therefore, we do not support enactment of this section. 

Section 11 would require DOL, in consultation with VA and the Departments of 

Defense and Health and Human Services, to establish a program to enable 

transitioning military members to build on the technical skills learned during military service to help them enter public health fields. VA defers to DOL regarding this 

program. 

VA’S LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL

Although it is not on today’s agenda, the Administration is developing a legislative proposal that would cover many health, benefits, and management issues. The 

legislative proposal would include provisions to: (1) revise vocational rehabilitation 

and education benefits to increase the utility of incentives for employers to provide 

on-the-job training to Veterans with service-connected disabilities; (2) promote 

greater efficiency in the approval of educational programs; (3) permit extension of 

the delimiting date for education benefits for a beneficiary serving as the primary 

caregiver of a seriously injured Veteran; and (4) provide Veterans Group Life Insurance participants who are insured for less than the maximum amount the opportunity to purchase additional coverage and make permanent the current authority 

to extend Servicemembers’ Group Life Insurance coverage for two years to Veterans 

who are totally disabled when they leave service. 

This concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to entertain any 

questions you or the other Members of the Committee may have. 

THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 

Washington, July 30, 2010. 

Hon. DANIEL K. AKAKA, 

Chairman, 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am pleased to provide the Committee with the views of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on twelve of the thirteen bills listed in 

your May 21, 2010 letter. In addition, we are providing cost estimates for two bills 

about which we testified at the Committee’s May 19, 2010, hearing but for which 

we were unable to develop cost estimates in time for that hearing. We will provide 

views and costs on S. 3486 to the Committee in a separate letter. 

S. 1780

As we previously testified, VA does not support S. 1780, the ‘‘Honor America’s 

Guard-Reserve Retirees Act,’’ which would deem certain persons (namely, former 

members of the National Guard or Reserves who are entitled under chapter 1223 

of title 10, United States Code, to retired pay for nonregular service or who would 

be entitled to such retired pay but for their age) who have not otherwise performed 

‘‘qualifying active duty service’’ to have been on active duty for purposes of VA beneVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:54 Nov 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\111TH HEARINGS\61587.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
13 

fits. If S. 1780 as currently drafted were enacted, VA would incur estimated benefit 

costs of $957.5 million during the first year, $6.0 billion for 5 years and $15.5 billion 

over 10 years. Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) administrative costs are estimated to be $50.0 million the first year, $73.2 million over 5 years, and $110.9 million over 10 years. In addition to VBA administrative costs are IT costs, which are 

estimated to be $2.2 million the first year, $2.4 million over 5 years, and $3.3 million over 10 years. In addition to VBA administrative costs are minor construction 

costs, which are estimated to be $8.5 million the first year, $8.5 million over 5 years, 

and $8.6 million over 10 years. 

S. 1939

As we also previously testified, VA does not support S. 1939, the ‘‘Agent Orange 

Equity Act of 2009,’’ which would expand the category of Veterans who are afforded 

a presumption of service connection for certain diseases by 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a) and 

a presumption of exposure to certain herbicide agents by section 1116(f). If S. 1939 

as currently drafted were enacted, VA would incur estimated benefit costs of $25.4 

billion the first year, $38.8 billion for 5 years, and $57.4 billion over 10 years. VBA 

administrative costs are estimated to be $184.5 million the first year, $1.0 billion 

over 5 years, and nearly $2.4 billion over 10 years. 

S. 3234

S. 3234, the ‘‘Veteran Employment Assistance Act of 2010,’’ would create programs aimed at improving employment, training, and placement services furnished 

to Veterans, especially those serving in Operation Enduring Freedom or Operation 

Iraqi Freedom. We testified that VA does not object to section 3(b), relating to the 

establishment of a direct loan program for small business concerns owned and controlled by Veterans; that VA does not support section 7 as drafted, despite supporting the intent of allowing individuals who qualify for the Post–9/11 GI Bill to 

receive benefits for on-the-job and apprenticeship training, subject to Congress identifying offsets for any additional costs; that, although VA supports efforts to expand 

volunteer and employment opportunities to Veterans, we do not support section 8 

unless funds are expressly appropriated for providing such services through grant 

programs; that we do not support section 9, relating to methods for educational institutions to give academic credit for military experience and training to certain Veterans; and that VA defers to the Department of Labor regarding section 11, relating 

to enabling transitioning Servicemembers to build on the technical skills learned 

during military service to help them enter public health fields. The analysis below 

provides cost information for S. 3234. 

Section 3(b) of the bill would require VA, in conjunction with the Small Business 

Administration (SBA) and the Department of Labor, to prepare and submit to Congress a report on the efficacy of establishing a Federal direct loan program for small 

business concerns owned and controlled by Veterans. Because SBA already runs a 

similar program, we would ask that they take the lead in preparing the report, and 

our efforts would be limited to staffing the report to existing offices. Accordingly, 

we estimate that section 3(b) would not result in additional costs to VA. 

Section 7 of the bill would provide benefits for apprenticeship and on-the-job 

training under the Post–9/11 GI Bill. VA estimates that section 7 would result in 

mandatory costs of $154.5 million during the first year, $806.6 million over 5 years, 

and $1.7 billion over 10 years. 

Section 8 of the bill would authorize VA, in consultation with the Department of 

Labor and the Department of the Interior, to establish a program to award to states 

grants to establish a ‘‘veterans conservation corps.’’ VA estimates benefit costs for 

section 8 would be $12.5 million during the first year, $62.5 million over 5 years, 

and $125 million over 10 years. 

Section 9 of the bill would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in consultation with the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Veterans’ Employment and Training, 

to establish a center of excellence to support research, development, planning, implementation, and evaluation of methods for educational institutions to afford academic credit for military experience and training to certain Veterans. VA estimates 

that section 9 would result in administrative costs of $587 thousand for the first 

year, $4.6 million over 5 years, and $10.7 million over 10 years, as well as information technology costs of $49 thousand the first year, $107 thousand over 5 years, 

and $183 thousand over 10 years. 

S. 3286

S. 3286 would require VA to commence, within 120 days, a 2-year pilot program 

to assess the feasibility and advisability of awarding grants to state and local govVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:54 Nov 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\111TH HEARINGS\61587.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
14 

ernment agencies and nonprofit organizations to assist Veterans in submitting 

claims for VA benefits with the intent of reducing the time required by VBA to process such claims. The assistance provided to Veterans under these grants would include collecting evidence in support of a claim, submitting the claim to VBA, and 

other matters as determined by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. 

VA supports measures that would provide assistance and information to Veterans 

and other claimants to obtain the benefits to which they are entitled. However, VA 

does not support this bill because it is unnecessary. Claimants already have access 

to an extensive network of state, county, and service organization offices that currently provide these services. Furthermore, the bill would provide for grants to governmental entities that are already established and funded to assist Veterans in filing their claims, e.g., state and county Veterans service offices. 

VA has other concerns about the bill. VA would not be able to commence the pilot 

program within the 120-day period mandated by the bill because of the time required to develop and publish regulations setting out the grant program, including 

grant criteria and requirements. Also, the bill would not authorize appropriations 

from which to make the grants. If additional funds are not authorized, the expense 

of grants and staff necessary to administer the program would come out of existing 

resources. The cost of the proposed pilot program cannot be estimated because the amount 

of grant funding to be provided would be solely at the discretion of the Secretary. 

S. 3314

S. 3314 would require VA and the Appalachian Regional Commission to jointly 

carry out a program of outreach to Veterans who reside in the Appalachian region 

for purposes of increasing access and use by Veterans of Federal, state, and local 

Veterans benefits programs and increasing awareness of, and eligibility for, such 

programs. 

VA supports the objective of improving outreach to Veterans and other potential 

claimants, but does not support this bill because it would mandate outreach to only 

one geographic area and because it is unnecessary in light of VA’s ongoing efforts 

to provide outreach in this area. 

VA is currently making special efforts to provide medical care and access in the 

Appalachian region. Throughout the states and counties within this region, VA has 

set up an extensive and diverse array of rural initiatives, including Outreach Clinics, Community-Based Outpatient Clinics, expanded Care Coordination Home Telehealth initiatives, and the use of unscheduled Mobile Medical Units to perform assessments and physicals at events. 

VA has also taken aggressive steps to ensure awareness of the facilities, initiatives, and benefits available to Veterans. Examples include partnering with states 

such as Maryland to use unoccupied offices in rural areas to conduct mental health 

assessments and provide services; collaborating with rural community health centers, such as the community health center in Harrisonburg, Virginia, to increase enrollment and improve coordination of care; and activating rural health literacy outreach, such as in the Asheville, North Carolina, area, where events were held or 

scheduled in an area covering the 20 counties of Western North Carolina. This is 

only the beginning. VA plans to continue its outreach efforts to Veterans and their 

families in this region. Because of VA’s substantial outreach efforts to Veterans in 

this region, we do not believe this bill is necessary and thus do not support it. However, VA would be happy to meet with the Committee to discuss the special needs 

of Appalachian Veterans. 

VA cannot estimate costs for this program without additional information because 

it is unclear to what extent VA would need to enter into contracts for the outreach 

that this bill would mandate. 

S. 3325

S. 3325 would authorize VA to waive the imposition or collection of copayments 

for telehealth and telemedicine visits of Veterans. The mission of VA’s Telehealth 

program office is to expand access to care for Veterans through telehealth technologies. Telehealth is a new modality of care. We believe it would be inappropriate 

to waive copayments for Veterans who receive telehealth services at a VA facility 

while Veterans who see their VA provider in person in the same facility would be 

charged a copayment. 

VA is examining the impact of copayments for care provided by video telehealth 

in a patient’s home. A video consultation into the home is used to provide remote 

case management, health promotion/disease prevention, enhancement of patient 

self-management, and early recognition of deleterious symptoms and signs of patient 

15 

deterioration from chronic disease conditions. The use of video consultation into the 

home is analogous to that of telephone call for which no co-payment is required, and 

not comparable to a clinic visit. 

Recent VA experience demonstrates that co-payments for home-telehealth may 

have resulted in a reduced use of this intervention. To ensure convenient and costeffective care to populations of patients who will otherwise delay care and incur 

larger costs from emergency room visits and hospital admissions VA will take the 

appropriate action to waive or modify copayments for in-home video telehealth care 

for Veterans. Because VA already has the authority to waive or modify the imposition of co-payments for such care, legislation is not required. 

VA estimates a revenue loss of $2 million in the first year, $17.7 million over 5 

years and $83.4 million over 10 years if VA stops collecting copayments for all telehealth visits. 

S. 3330

S. 3330, the ‘‘Veterans’ Health and Radiation Safety Act of 2010,’’ would require 

VA to report to Congress annually on low-volume programs (defined as programs 

that treat 100 patients or fewer annually) at VA medical facilities. The report would 

have to include the Secretary’s evaluation and findings with respect to such programs. Additionally, S. 3330 would require employees working at VA hospitals 

where radioactive isotopes are used to receive training on recognizing and reporting 

medical events. Hospitals failing to provide this training would be prohibited from 

using radioactive isotopes for a period of time determined by the Secretary. Lastly, 

the bill would require VA to evaluate non-government medical services contractors 

through weekly independent peer reviews, written evaluations, and other evaluations VA determines are appropriate. A contracting officer would be required to review and consider the results of these evaluations before VA renews any contracts 

with non-government medical services contractors. 

We are aware of a very unfortunate lapse that occurred at a brachytherapy program at one of our facilities. We testified about this incident before the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs on July 22, 2009. On May 3, 2010, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a report on this incident with five recommendations. 

Specifically, the OIG recommended that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) 

standardize, to a practical extent, the privileging, delivery of care, and quality controls for the procedures required to provide this treatment. This has been accomplished. Standardized procedures have been developed, and site visits have verified 

that they are uniformly in place at all facilities and that steps have been taken to 

ensure that patients who received low radiation doses in the course of 

brachytherapy are evaluated to ensure that their cancer treatment plan is appropriate. We have contacted all Veterans who were potentially impacted for follow-up 

testing and monitoring at other VA and private facilities and are reviewing the controls that are in place to ensure that VA contracts for health care comply with applicable laws and regulations. Where necessary, we will make organizational and/or 

procedural changes to bring this contracting effort into compliance. A template that 

outlines basic requirements for all contracts is currently in development. 

The OIG also recommended that senior VA leadership meet with senior Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission leadership to determine if there is a way forward that will 

ensure the goals of both organizations are achieved. VA is currently working to arrange this meeting. Finally, the OIG recommended that VHA work with the OIG 

to develop a list of documents that should routinely be provided to the OIG when 

an outside agency is notified of a possible untoward medical event. VHA will work 

closely with the OIG to meet this recommendation. 

We appreciate the intent behind S. 3330, but for a number of reasons we do not 

support it. First, we note that section 2 would require the Secretary to submit annual reports to Congress on low volume programs. However, the definition of a ‘‘program’’ is not clear. Any treatment ‘‘program’’ could be defined so narrowly that no 

facility treats 100 patients or more per year in a particular program or so broadly 

that almost every program includes more than 100 patients annually. Moreover, 

treatment quality is not always related to patient volume or patient volume just 

within a given VA facility. Many VA facilities have on staff specialist providers who 

also work elsewhere in the community. If all care provided by a specialist is combined, the volume can be, and many times is, significantly more than can be accounted for just within VA workload. In addition, standard credentialing, privileging, and review of quality of care are required at every facility regardless of the 

size of a program. 

All procedures that are performed and all medical care that is provided at any 

VA facility involve quality assessment and oversight. The first procedure each year 

16 

has precisely the same quality assessment requirements as the last, whether the annual procedure total is 5, 50, or 500. Further, each procedure is performed by a fully 

credentialed and privileged physician. Instead of the requirement to provide an annual report on ‘‘low volume’’ programs, we would like to work with Congress to identify what information would be useful for Congress to receive annually. 

The mandatory training that would be required by section 3 would apply to all 

VHA staff and would not be limited to staff directly involved in the use of radioactive materials. Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations already require all 

staff involved in the use of radioactive materials to have training and facilities to 

provide evidence of that training. Competency and training requirements for staff 

are based upon their defined duties and risks associated with those duties. In VHA, 

radiation safety training and education are provided annually, through the VA 

Learning Management System, to all staff involved in the use or handling of radioactive material. This includes all contract staff or physicians working in VA Nuclear 

Medicine services as a condition of their authorization to practice at a VA medical 

center. The definition of a medical event and reporting requirements are taught to, 

and reviewed annually with, all Nuclear Medicine technologists and physicians. 

VA’s National Health Physics Program provides a mechanism to ensure that the 

training provided is completed as required by VA policy. In addition, VA currently 

supports and trains all staff in reporting any untoward events or potential events 

consistent with guidance provided by the National Center for Patient Safety and the 

facility safety programs. As a result, many of the requirements of section 3 are duplicative of current VA policy. 

The requirement in section 4 to obtain weekly independent peer reviews of all 

medical services provided pursuant to a contract, and written evaluations of the 

services carried out by the supervisor or manager of the employee providing the 

services, is excessive and would add unwarranted cost in staff time spent procuring 

and developing the reports. The requirement to undertake peer reviews each week 

may be ineffective if the number of procedures in a week is insufficient to carry out 

a statistically valid review. The requirement for additional reporting and oversight 

of all medical services provided by contract, most of which have not reported adverse events, would be a waste of resources. Given current VA procedures related 

to peer review and reporting, some of the provisions in this bill are not necessary. 

We are available to meet with Committee staff to discuss these issues in more 

detail. 

While VA appreciates the Committee’s focus on this issue, we believe that these 

additional measures are not necessary in view of the above regulatory requirements, 

safeguards, and training. VA estimates that costs for this bill, if enacted, would be 

$64.2 million for the first year, $347.5 million over 5 years, and $770.5 million over 

10 years. 

S. 3348

S. 3348 would require that certain misfiled documents be treated as motions for 

reconsideration of decisions of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board). A document 

so treated would be a document that expresses disagreement with a Board decision, 

is filed with the Board or the VA agency of original jurisdiction within 120 days 

after the Board issues the decision, and is filed by a person who is adversely affected by the Board decision but has not timely filed a notice of appeal with the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court). Such a document would not be treated as a motion for reconsideration if the Board or the agency of original jurisdiction determines that the document expresses an intent to appeal the Board decision to the Veterans Court and forwards the document to the 

Veterans Court, and the court receives the document within 120 days after the 

Board issued the decision. 

VA objects to the bill for two reasons. First, it would require the Board to decide 

motions for reconsideration of decisions without any meaningful basis for such reconsideration. This is because the bill would allow reconsideration of previously 

final decisions based on nothing more than a mere expression of disagreement, rather than based on the current reconsideration standard of obvious error of fact or 

law. Second, by requiring VA to make an initial determination as to whether a notice of appeal was filed in a case, the bill would place VA in the unprecedented position of determining whether a particular case falls within the jurisdiction of the Veterans Court, a superior tribunal. The additional activity that S. 3348 would require 

could potentially burden an already overburdened adjudication system and introduce uncertainty as to the finality of Board decisions. 

We believe that legislation recently proposed by VA that would authorize the Veterans Court to extend the 120-day period for appealing a Board decision on a showVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:54 Nov 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\111TH HEARINGS\61587.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
17 

ing of good cause presents a better solution for appellants who are unable to correctly file a notice of appeal of a Board decision. Under VA’s proposal, the Veterans 

Court would determine whether the facts and circumstances of a particular case justify an extension of the statutory time period for filing an appeal, and the Board 

would not have to decide a case a second time with no clearly discernible benefit 

flowing to the Veteran. 

Concerning costs, the Board processes between 800 and 900 motions for reconsideration each year at a cost of approximately $587,000. The Board cannot predict the 

number of motions for reconsideration it would have to decide each year under the 

bill because the proposed standard involves too many variables. However, because 

S. 3348 would potentially treat all expressions of disagreement filed within the 120- 

day period for appealing a Board decision as motions for reconsideration, it is reasonable to conclude that the number of such motions decided would increase significantly along with VA’s costs in issuing such decisions. 

S. 3352

S. 3352, the ‘‘Veterans Pensions Protection Act of 2010,’’ would liberalize the existing exemption in section 1503(a)(5) of title 38, United States Code, by excluding 

from income, for purposes of determining eligibility for VA pension, payments regarding reimbursement for expenses related to: accident, theft, loss, or casualty loss; 

medical expenses resulting from such causes; and pain and suffering related to such 

causes. The exemption for payments received to reimburse Veterans for medical 

costs and pain and suffering is an expansion of the current exclusions. 

VA opposes excluding from countable income payments received for pain and suffering because such payments do not represent a reimbursement for expenses related to daily living. The proposed treatment of such payments would be inconsistent with a needs-based program. We believe that payments for pain and suffering are properly considered as available income for purposes of the financial 

needs test for entitlement under section 1503. 

VA does not oppose the remaining provisions of this bill, exempting reimbursement for accident, theft, loss, casualty loss, and resulting medical expenses, subject 

to Congress identifying offsets for any additional costs. 

Because current law excludes from pension income calculations reimbursements 

from any casualty loss, there would be no benefit costs associated with the provisions relating to accident, theft, loss, or casualty loss. VA lacks sufficient data to 

determine potential benefit costs associated with the provisions relating to medical 

costs and pain and suffering. 

VA estimates there would be no additional administrative or full-time employee 

costs associated with this bill. 

S. 3355

S. 3355, the ‘‘Veterans One Source Act of 2010,’’ would require VA to establish 

and maintain an interactive Internet Web site that provides information on the benefits, resources, services, and opportunities provided by VA, other Federal agencies, 

and other sources. 

VA supports the objective of S. 3355. However, VA has already collaborated with 

the Department of Defense (DOD) in the creation of a joint eBenefits Internet portal 

in response to the recommendations of the President’s Commission on Care of America’s Returning Wounded Warriors (Dole/Shalala), made in March 2007. This new 

Web site (www.ebenefits.va.gov) provides Servicemembers, Veterans, family members, and care providers a single transparent access point to online information 

about benefits, services, and other resources. It provides a consolidated catalog of 

links to existing information on VA, DOD, and other Federal and state agency Web 

sites concerning benefits, services, and related resources. Obtaining a Defense SelfService log-on account in order to access eBenefits has recently become mandatory 

for all Servicemembers and allows them to carry their eBenefits account through 

their life cycle and concurrently allows VA and DOD to regularly update benefitrelated information. Because the eBenefits portal meets the intent and nearly all 

of the requirements of S. 3355, VA believes this bill is unnecessary. 

Much of the information the bill would call for is available now in the eBenefits 

portal. Current topics include compensation, pension, health care, education benefits, home loans, financial services, employment assistance, reemployment rights, 

memorial benefits, Social Security benefits, DOD programs, state benefits, and Veterans Service Organizations. The eBenefits portal offers quick access to online application tools and other assistance to claimants. Secure access capabilities allow for 

personalization of content and services. 

18 

Self-service capabilities the eBenefits portal offers include the ability to apply for 

many benefits online, to check the status of compensation and pension claims, to 

apply for a home loan certificate of eligibility, to view VA e-health records, and to 

access and retrieve official military personnel records. Access to blogs and online 

communities is also provided. 

In committing to the eBenefits portal, VA and DOD have already undertaken a 

multi-year project that will continue to add self-service transactional capabilities 

and to enlarge and refine online access to benefits, services, resources, and opportunities for Servicemembers, Veterans, family members, and caregivers. Some of these 

features will include the ability to: opt into the VA/DOD virtual electronic lifetime 

health record; transfer Chapter 33 (Post–9/11 GI Bill) benefits to dependents; 

change an address in both VA and DOD systems of records; communicate personally 

via a messaging center; receive automatic notification of benefits; view information 

on, and apply for, all VA benefits; and self-select to receive state benefit information. VA is confident that the capabilities of the eBenefits portal will meet the objectives of S. 3355. 

Funding for the eBenefits portal in FY 2010 is approximately $7.4 million, which 

includes contract support, operating costs, and FTE. VA estimates that overall operating costs, contract support, and FTE will be $12 million in FY 2011. The estimated cost for the capabilities required by the bill that are not included in the 

eBenefits portal is $1.1 million. This estimate includes costs for the following features: an animated virtual user guide; resources for caregivers (currently provided 

at a minimal level); information on discounts for veterans; facilitation of ride sharing for appointments; memorial notices; opportunities for volunteering; and information on community events. 

S. 3356

Section 1 of S. 3356 would increase from 23 to 26 years the maximum age of eligibility for children to obtain medical care under the Civilian Health and Medical Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs (CHAMPVA). VA supports the intent 

behind S. 3356 to extend eligibility for coverage of children under CHAMPVA until 

they reach age 26 so that eligibility for coverage of children under CHAMPVA will 

be consistent with private sector coverage under the health care reform laws. However, we note that the language of section 1, as written, would not make CHAMPVA 

coverage fully consistent with the private sector because it would change only the 

reference to a child’s age, but maintain all other eligibility criteria for children covered by CHAMPVA intact. If the Committee’s intent is to make CHAMPVA coverage 

fully consistent with the private sector, VA provides the following language: 

Section 1781(c) of title 38 is amended to read as follows: 

‘‘(c)(1) Notwithstanding clauses (i) and (iii) of section 101(4)(A) of this 

title, except as provided in paragraph (2), for purposes of this section, a 

child, who is eligible for benefits under subsection (a), shall remain eligible 

for benefits under this section until his or her twenty-sixth birthday, regardless of his or her marital status.’’ 

‘‘(2) Before January 1, 2014, a child will not be eligible for the extended 

eligibility under this subsection if the child is eligible to enroll in an eligible 

employer-sponsored plan (as defined in section 5000A(f)(2) of the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986).’’ 

‘‘(3) This subsection shall not be construed to limit eligibility for coverage 

of a child described in section 101(4)(A)(ii) of this title.’’. 

S. 3356 as written would not extend eligibility because it does not address the definition of ‘‘child’’ under 38 U.S.C. § 101, so the estimated cost of implementing the 

bill is $0, as no additional beneficiaries would be covered. The estimated cost of implementing the alternative language provided above, which would extend eligibility 

under CHAMPVA without regard to the age and school status limits in 38 U.S.C. 

§ 101(4)(A)(i) and (iii), and the 101(4)(A) requirement to be unmarried, would be 

$64.8 million in FY 2011, $383.0 million over 5 years, and $955.8 million over 10 

years. 

VA defers to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration regarding section 2 of S. 3356. 

S. 3367

S. 3367 would increase from $8,911 to $31,305 the maximum annual rate of pension for two disabled Veterans married to one another when both are in need of regular aid and attendance currently prescribed by section 1521(f)(2) of title 38, United 

States Code. This bill would have the effect of amending the law governing imVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:54 Nov 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\111TH HEARINGS\61587.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
19 

proved pension to prospectively establish a pension rate for two Veterans married 

to one another, both of whom are in need of aid and attendance, at the rate that 

would have been payable had 38 U.S.C. § 1521(f)(2) been amended in 1998 to provide a $600 increase for each Veteran, rather than a single $600 increase for the 

two Veterans, and the increased rate had subsequently been adjusted by annual cost 

of living adjustments. VA supports this bill as an equitable approach to meeting the 

needs of severely disabled Veterans, subject to Congress identifying offsets for the 

additional costs identified below. However, VA has a technical concern with this bill. 

It would update in accordance with current pension rates only one of the rates specified in section 1521(f)(2). The multitude of other pension rates prescribed by section 

1521 would continue to be those that were in effect years ago. To avoid confusion, 

should Congress decide to amend one of the rates prescribed by section 1521(f)(2), 

it should also update all the other rates prescribed in section 1521 to account for 

past cost-of-living adjustments. 

Because there are only 74 pension awards for two Veterans married to one another and both in need of regular aid and attendance, VA estimates the cost of this 

bill, if enacted, would be $733,000 in the first year, $3.7 million over 5 years, and 

$8 million over 10 years. VA has determined that there would be no additional administrative or full-time employee costs associated with this bill. 

S. 3368

S. 3368 would authorize certain individuals and organizations to sign an application for VA benefits on behalf of claimants under 18 years of age, mentally incompetent, or physically unable to sign the application form. 

VA does not support this bill because it is unnecessary and would place Veterans, 

their family members, and VA at a higher risk for abuse and fraud. First, VA regulations currently provide a process for initiating a claim without a traditional signature. Section 3.2130 of title 38, Code of Federal Regulations, requires VA to accept 

a signature by mark or thumbprint if appropriately witnessed or certified by a notary public or certain VA employees. This alternate process enables claims to be 

filed by persons unable to sign an application. Second, a claimant unable to sign 

an application for benefits due to mental deficiency will likely be found incompetent 

to handle his or her own VA benefit payments, which requires VA to appoint a fiduciary, who would be qualified to sign application forms for the claimant. Allowing 

persons not appointed as VA fiduciaries to file claims for incompetent claimants 

would increase the risk that VA benefits would be diverted from claimants. For 

these reasons, we do not support S. 3368. 

VA estimates that there would be no benefit costs or administrative costs associated with this bill. 

S. 3370

S. 3370 would amend 38 U.S.C. § 5105(a), which directs the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs and the Commissioner of Social Security to jointly prescribe forms for use 

by survivors of members and former members of the uniformed services to apply for 

benefits under both chapter 13 of title 38, United States Code, and title II of the 

Social Security Act. Under section 5105(b), when an application on such a form is 

filed with either VA or the Social Security Administration (SSA), it is deemed to 

be an application for benefits under both chapter 13 of title 38 and title II of the 

Social Security Act. Accordingly, applicants for survivor benefits need file only one 

of the prescribed forms with either agency to apply for such benefits at both 

agencies. 

The bill would authorize but no longer require VA and SSA to jointly prescribe 

forms to apply for survivor benefits and, more significantly, require VA and SSA to 

interpret an application made on any form indicating an intent to apply for survivor 

benefits filed with either agency as an application for benefits under both chapter 

13 of title 38, United States Code, and title II of the Social Security Act. Requiring 

VA and SSA to accept as an application for survivor benefits any application that 

indicates an intent to file for such benefits without regard to the application form 

would be inconsistent with the concept embodied in 38 U.S.C. § 5101(a) that a claim 

for veterans benefits must be made by filing a claim ‘‘in the form prescribed by the 

Secretary.’’ This requirement serves the beneficial purpose of ensuring that a claim 

contains sufficient information as specified in the claim form to permit VA to efficiently adjudicate the claim. Permitting the filing of ‘‘any form’’ to constitute a claim 

for survivor benefits would condone use of a multitude of forms (for example, a VA 

Form 21–4138, Statement in Support of Claim), that might provide only minimal 

information and require inefficient follow up inquiries from VA. Such a procedure 

20 

would be inconsistent with VA’s efforts to improve the efficiency of claim adjudications. For this reason, VA does not support S. 3370. 

We estimate that there would be no cost associated with S. 3370. 

S. 3377

S. 3377 would convert VA’s multifamily transitional housing loan guarantee program into one that would instead provide direct loans to qualified organizations. 

Under current subchapter VI of chapter 20, title 38, United States Code, the Secretary is authorized to guarantee not more than 15 loans, or an aggregate amount 

of $100 million, for multifamily transitional housing projects. This bill would terminate the Secretary’s authority to issue any new guarantees under section 2051, but 

would require the Secretary to make at least five direct loans to qualified organizations that plan to develop multifamily housing projects. The source of funds for the 

program would be the Multifamily Transitional Housing Loan Program Revolving 

Fund, established under section 1(b) of the bill. 

VA does not support enactment of S. 3377. VA spent the better part of a decade 

testing the model and trying to make the multifamily transitional housing loan 

guarantee program work. During that time, the marketplace repeatedly revealed 

that there was a strong need for more programs that provide low-cost housing, including those offering supportive services for Veterans returning to gainful employment. There were three main reasons why organizations did not seek project financing through the VA program, which led them to try to instead find funding from 

other Federal, state, and local programs: (1) a lack of available operating subsidies 

(i.e., formerly homeless veterans cannot pay enough rent to generate sufficient 

project revenue to cover operating expenses and support services); (2) the debt repayment requirement (many local government entities offer either low-interest, interest-only, deferred, and/or forgivable debt products, which are more appealing to 

project sponsors than the VA loan guarantee program); and (3) the large project size 

requirement (large projects are difficult to site, and there is a growing trend towards developing mixed-tenancy projects). In addition, other sources of funding 

needed to create housing are almost exclusively tied to non-transitional housing. 

Persons living in transitional housing are normally still considered homeless. 

Additionally, we have concerns how the program would be implemented, as it is 

not clear that the program structure would be consistent with other existing legislation, such as the Federal Credit Reform Act. Furthermore, the provision that would 

authorize the Secretary to delegate to a State or local government entity the authority to approve a loan might constitute an unconstitutional delegation of Federal authority. The statutory language should make clear that a delegation of approval authority to a State or local government entity remains subject to the Secretary’s continuing supervision. 

VA’s 2011 Budget includes $4.2 billion to prevent and reduce homelessness among 

Veterans—over 3.4 billion for medical services and nearly $800 million for specific 

homeless programs. 

VA estimates that this bill would not create any demand for multifamily transitional housing direct loans, but would result in administrative expenses of $1.05 

million in year one, and $7.8 million over 10 years. If direct loans were made, they 

would likely be very expensive given the anticipated terms and conditions on the 

underlying loans. Therefore, it is not clear that Federal credit assistance is the most 

efficient or effective means of achieving the policy objective. 

S. 3486

S. 3486 would repeal the prohibition on collective bargaining with respect to compensation of VA employees other than rates of basic pay. We will provide the Committee with formal written comments on this bill in a separate letter. 

The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no objection to 

the submission of this report from the standpoint of the Administration’s program. 

Sincerely, 

ERIC K. SHINSEKI. 

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA TO

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Question 1. Can you please share any current studies by VA on exposure of Blue 

Water Navy Veterans to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War? 

Response. Because of concerns about Blue Water Navy Veterans, the Veterans 

Health Administration (Office of Public Health and Environmental Hazards) conVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:54 Nov 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\111TH HEARINGS\61587.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
21 

tracted with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in December 2009, to evaluate potential exposure of Blue Water Navy personnel to herbicides used during the Vietnam 

War. The IOM Committee will determine, if possible, comparative risks for longterm health outcomes comparing Vietnam Veteran ground troops, Blue Water Navy 

personnel, and other ‘‘era’’ Veterans who served in this period at other locations. 

IOM’s report is due by Summer 2011. 

Question 2. Senator Klobuchar recently introduced S. 3355, the Veterans One 

Source Act of 2010. Is VA currently in need of additional authorities to implement 

the type of Web site contemplated by Senator Klobuchar in her legislation? 

Response. S. 3355 calls on VA to establish a single Web site to expand and consolidate online information related to the important benefits, resources, services and 

opportunities available to our Veterans, their families, caregivers and survivors. VA 

does not require additional authorities to implement an interactive Web site as suggested in S. 3355. In 2007, VA and DOD began collaborating to create a single, 

transparent access point for Servicemembers, Veterans, their families, and caregivers. VA and DOD launched the joint eBenefits web portal in July 2009. This portal provides users access to online information about benefits, services, and other 

resources as a ‘‘one-stop shop’’ to fulfill an important need. It provides a consolidated catalog of links to existing information on VA, DOD, and other Federal and 

State agency Web sites concerning benefits, services, and related resources. The portal provides interactive tools, consistent with the intent of the legislation, which 

suggested interactive features to enhance personalization. 

VA believes the online self-service capability to Servicemembers and Veterans provided by eBenefits meets the intent of the bill. Users can retrieve copies of their 

military records, view their VA disability compensation and pension claim status, 

obtain or submit an application for home loan certificate of eligibility and access 

MyHealtheVet. Every user is provided with all the necessary resources that are 

uniquely adapted to their specific needs and circumstances. The portal is aggressively updated every quarter to further enhance ease and usability. Future releases 

will include an easy change of address functionality and secure messaging with VA’s 

health professionals. 

VA is eager to continue the open dialog with our many stakeholders on how to 

further enhance eBenefits capabilities. For example, VA is already working to enhance outreach to Veterans and their families by providing important information 

about Veterans’ benefits available from other State and Federal agencies. Another 

outreach effort involves peer-to-peer networking—a critical method for many of our 

Veterans to communicate. Communication with, and support from, internal and external stakeholders will continue to be key to our success as eBenefits moves forward. Our intent is for eBenefits to become the premier online self-service portal 

for Servicemembers and Veterans. 

Question 3. This question also relates to S. 3355. What steps is VA taking to use 

social media—such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube—to engage with todays vets, 

and how successful has VA been? 

Response. Since Fall 2009, VA has made a concerted effort to reach and converse 

with a younger community of Veterans through the use of social media, to include 

Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Flickr, and blogs. Currently, VA has the fastest growing Facebook page among all Cabinet-level agencies—with more than 30,000 fans? 

Many who have joined in since Veterans Day (over 1,000 fans per week). VA is also 

rapidly expanding into the popular world of Facebook in other ways. Each administration (VHA, VBA, and NCA) now has its own page for topic-specific conversations, 

as do more than a dozen VA medical centers—and there are plans underway to 

launch a page for each medical center to monitor and update. 

VA is on similar good footing with Twitter. VA now has four separate official 

Twitter feeds—one for the Department and each of the administrations. Since Veterans Day 2009, VA’s primary Twitter feed has gained 4,500 followers—a respectable number among Cabinet-level agencies. While more than a dozen VA medical 

centers have active Twitter feeds, VA has begun—as with Facebook—to open accounts for each medical center in 2010. In January, 2010 VA also launched its first 

official Twitter feed for a VA principal, as Assistant Secretary Tammy Duckworth 

is now engaging with the public via her own VA Twitter account. Primarily, Ms. 

Duckworth ‘‘tweets’’ about pursuing a Ph.D. with her GI Bill benefits in a way to 

encourage other warriors to pursue and finish higher education. 

VA has also embraced video and photo-sharing media with the use of YouTube 

(videos) and Flickr (photos). VA has begun posting each segment from its Emmy 

award winning news magazine program, The American Veteran, on YouTube while 

showcasing a selection of them on the VA homepage. At the same time, VA has a 

separate YouTube channel dedicated to health care and administered by VHA, 

22 

which has posted more than 90 videos, has 1,500 subscribers, and more than 83,000 

views. Recently, VBA posted ‘‘team photos’’ of their Regional Processing Centers in 

a ‘‘thank you’’ to the hard working teams. While posted, the photos received over 

17,000 ‘‘hits.’’ 

In terms of blogging, VA has plans to launch an online communications hub in 

2010, which will feature a central VA blog, topical blogs, and have a section for 

guest pieces—submitted by both the VA staff as well as the public. Until the launch, 

VA has been spreading its important messages via other blog sites—with pieces 

published at the White House Blog, Military.com, and The Huffington Post. 

For this year’s outstanding on-line outreach efforts to Veterans, VA’s Office of 

Public Affairs’ work has been written about and recognized in both the Washington 

Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/08/AR20100408 

05128.html) and the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-allensmith/vet-bloggers-storm-americ b 467186.html). 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Dr. Jesse. 

Mr. Pamperin, can you please elaborate on VA’s statement that 

S. 1939 would make many veterans whose service during the Vietnam War would not have placed them at risk of exposure to herbicides eligible for presumption of a service connection? 

Mr. PAMPERIN. Sir, I would be happy to. Tactical herbicide was 

used to defoliate trees. We already provide for presumptive service 

connection for naval personnel and Air Force personnel who were 

in brown water where we can demonstrate that they were ashore 

or even if they transited for only a very short time in Vietnam. But 

many of these ships were hundreds of miles away from the shore. 

In fact, a very senior naval officer told me when he was working 

for VA that when he was a submarine commander, they would 

make it a point to go inside the tactical zone so that they could get 

the Vietnam Service Medal. They were submerged at the time. 

So we do not believe that herbicide would have extended hundreds of miles offshore, nor would it have affected high-altitude 

aircraft. 

Chairman AKAKA. As a follow-up question, do you have an estimate on the number of veterans who would become eligible under 

this legislation? 

Mr. PAMPERIN. We have a limited amount of information. When 

the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that the Vietnam 

Service Medal warranted the Agent Orange presumptive, we did a 

cost analysis. The Navy was not able to give us a list or a definitive 

number of military personnel that were affected. However, what 

they did tell us was, given the known deployment of ships, they estimated naval people who would be affected at about 800,000. In 

terms of Air Force, we have not done that kind of study, but we 

can get back to you on it. 

Chairman AKAKA. Dr. Jesse, I believe that expanding the use of 

telehealth solutions is important as it increases access to care for 

veterans, especially those in rural areas. I know VA has not had 

an opportunity to officially comment on the bill sponsored by Senator Begich, but perhaps you can speak generally. Do you know if 

the Department realizes any savings by expanding the delivery of 

care through telehealth? 

Dr. JESSE. Sir, I do not think I can speak to that directly, but 

we could get back to you for the record on that. I am sorry. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you. 

[Items were not received by the Committee by the deadline for 

printing.] 

23 

Chairman AKAKA. Secretary Jefferson, what insights can you 

offer on the employment situation among individuals who have 

been separated from service for more than 10 years? 

Mr. JEFFERSON. Well, sir, we know that the age of veterans with 

the highest unemployment rate are those 20 through 24, and for 

those veterans as they get older, the rate is much more aligned 

with the average unemployment rate for Americans. 

Having said that, we are always looking at ways that we can 

reach out to any cohort of veterans to provide them better services 

or any services which can be customized to their unique situation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAYMOND M. JEFFERSON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the Committee: I am 

pleased to appear before you today to discuss legislation pending in this Committee. 

The Veterans’ Employment and Training Service (VETS) proudly serves Veterans 

and transitioning Service Members by providing resources and expertise to assist 

and prepare them to obtain meaningful careers, maximize their employment opportunities and protect their employment rights. 

I am deeply humbled to have the privilege of serving our Nation as the Assistant 

Secretary for Veterans’ Employment and Training. Secretary Solis has been an incredible source of guidance and support, and has made Veterans and VETS one of 

her top priorities. Our programs are an integral part of Secretary Solis’s vision of 

‘‘Good Jobs for Everyone,’’ and her commitment to help Veterans and their families 

get into the middle class and maintain stability. 

First let me describe what the Veterans’ Employment and Training Service at the 

Department of Labor does. We have four main programs that we are working to improve: 

• The Jobs for Veterans State Grants; • The Transition Assistance Program Employment Workshops; • The Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Program; and • The Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. 

Your letter of invitation indicates you are seeking input on a significant number 

of bills at this hearing and you want me to specifically provide my views on S. 3234, 

the proposed ‘‘Veteran Employment Assistance Act of 2010. I am also providing comments regarding S. 3314, which would carry out a program of outreach for Veterans’ 

who reside in Appalachia Because the other bills are under the purview of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), I defer to the VA and will restrict my comments 

to S. 3234 and S. 3314. 

S. 3234

The Veteran Employment Assistance Act of 2010, S. 3234, is intended to ‘‘improve 

employment, training, and placement services furnished to Veterans, especially 

those serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom, and for 

other purposes.’’ The Department of Labor supports the goals of the Veteran Employment Assistance Act of 2010. 

This comprehensive legislation will address the unique needs of our Veterans who 

have been struggling to find work and to keep their jobs. The legislation fills a critical need. This bill will help our Veterans gain the additional skills they need to 

participate in today’s modern economy. It will provide them the opportunity to start 

their own businesses, if they choose to. And, it encourages employers at all levels 

to recognize that those who’ve given much in the service of their country have much 

to offer to a prospective employer. 

Much in S. 3234 if enacted would significantly help the Veteran community. I 

would like to highlight some of the key provisions of this bill. 

The Veterans Business Center Program established in Section 3 of the bill would 

provide entrepreneurial training and counseling to Veterans. As we all know, small 

business is the main driver of job creation in our country. Veterans make ideal entrepreneurs, they have the discipline, maturity and life experiences to take on the 

tremendous challenges that small business ownership entails. Targeting entrepreneurship programs to this community makes sense. If enacted and fully funded, we 

would be pleased to work with SBA on this initiative. 

Section 5 requires all new state employees, Disabled Veterans Outreach Program 

specialists (DVOP) and Local Veterans Employment Representatives (LVER) to be 

24 

trained by the National Veterans’ Training Institute (NVTI) within a one year period from the date of hire. Current law requires it be done in three years. Those 

employed before enactment of S. 3234 would have to be trained within one year following enactment unless they have already been trained. We believe that this training needs to be provided as soon as practicable. However, these individuals are not 

always hired at the same time and, depending on the number of new hires, there 

may not be sufficient new hires to fill a class. 

Section 6 adds a new section 4216 to Chapter 42 of title 38 United States Code, 

that requires the Assistant Secretary for Veterans’ Employment and Training 

(ASVET) provide a monthly training subsistence allowance to a Veteran who is enrolled in a full time employment and training program. Covered Veterans would include those who do not qualify for VA’s educational and training assistance under 

Title 38, have been unemployed for four consecutive months, and can complete the 

training program. 

The Department notes this section establishes an entitlement to this assistance, 

which is a concern in light of the long-term financial challenges the Nation faces. 

The assistance would be available without regard to the financial need of the Veteran or the need for training to enhance his or her employment prospects. 

The Department also notes that Veterans receive priority of service within the 

wide array of training programs currently available through the DOL-funded OneStop Career Center system. Moreover, Pell Grants and other financial assistance 

may also be available for unemployed veterans, including eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits, as well. 

In the event this legislation is enacted and appropriations are provided, the Department would need to address several issues prior to its implementation, including: 

• Developing a system of certification and payment; 

• Determining options to include employment specialists in One-Stop Career Centers certifying Veterans; and 

• Develop a payment system, which would include collaborating with the Department of Defense to ascertain payment amounts under section 403 of title 37, United 

States Code. 

The Department believes the training allowance program’s highest priority should 

be those eligible Veterans who, without this benefit, would be unable to obtain the 

training necessary to find a good job. It should be reserved for those who truly need 

it or have significant barriers to employment. 

Section 9 establishes within the VA a Center of Excellence where the ASVET 

would have a consultative role to establish a system of affording academic credit for 

military experience and training under certain circumstances. This recognition of 

military experience and training should be useful in preparing a resume and establishing capabilities with prospective employers. Additionally, it may also be helpful 

if the Service Member is applying to a college or vocational institution. These institutions want information on the Service Member’s military training and experience, 

as well as how this might relate to the civilian world. 

Current law codified at 38 U.S.C. § 4212(d) requires certain Federal contractors 

to report data on their workforce and on certain Veterans in their employ. This is 

accomplished by filing a VETS 100A Report with DOL. Section 10 of this bill would 

require DOL to publish the VETS 100A Reports on the Internet. DOL supports this 

provision. However, the Committee should recognize that some contractors might 

believe that certain reported data, in particular data on the total number of new 

hires, should not be made available to their competitors. 

There are many other components to S. 3234 and we would like to work with the 

Committee to ensure that this legislation effectively achieves its intended goals. 

S. 3314

S. 3314 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Appalachian Regional Commission to carry out a program of outreach for Veterans who reside in 

Appalachia. While the Department of Labor is not tasked with anything in S. 3314, 

we would like to provide information on our rural initiative. 

VETS is developing an innovative national initiative that will allow us to greatly 

improve outreach to rural Veterans and provide them access to better programs, 

services and information, as well as connection to a wide variety of services. VETS 

understands that successful employment is inextricably linked to other quality-oflife issues, so this initiative will also offer access to these other important services. 

VETS has reached out to the Corporation for National and Community Service and 

Service Nation to create a partnership that will serve as the basis for this initiative. 

25 

Our goal is to begin a demonstration pilot in 2010 that will provide lessons on how 

VETS can create a scalable model for national roll-out. 

The core service envisioned is for DOL VETS to work with existing non-government networks and state government organizations to launch a pilot program to 

reach Veterans. The outreach team may offer in-person, internet, and/or phone 

based intake for self -registration to schedule a volunteer visit. The volunteer team 

will contact the Veterans, check on how their careers are going, and if needed, making them aware of additional support available from DOL, and potentially other government organizations. 

VETS intends to leverage capacity from Veteran Service Organizations and state 

and local based volunteer organizations to provide the outreach services. These volunteers will be directed and closely managed by the Federal Government through 

our state Director of Veterans’ Employment and Training (DVET) and our Federal 

partners. 

We believe this initiative complements the outreach efforts envisioned in S. 3314. 

CONCLUSION

Every day, we are reminded of the tremendous sacrifices made by our servicemen 

and women, and by their families. One way that we can honor those sacrifices is 

by providing them with the best possible services and programs our Nation has to 

offer. Secretary Solis and I believe strongly that Veterans deserve the chance to find 

good jobs. 

I again thank this Committee for your commitment to our Nation’s Veterans and 

for the opportunity to testify before you. I would be happy to respond to any questions. 

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. AKAKA TO

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE

Question 1. It has been suggested that services to Veterans could be improved by 

converting DVOPs and LVERs from state to Federal positions. What are your 

thoughts? 

Response. Disabled Veterans Outreach Program specialists (DVOPs) and Local 

Veterans Employment Representatives (LVERs) currently provide employment services as part of an extensive Department of Labor (DOL) funded One-Stop Career 

Center system. We are not aware of any study that has been conducted that indicates that the employment services would be improved if the staff providing those 

services were Federal rather than State employees. 

Such a change would be highly disruptive to the current service-delivery framework and fundamentally change the way employment services are currently delivered to Veterans. DVOPs and LVERS are integrated within the State’s One-Stop 

Career Center system so that they can assist Veterans in accessing the full range 

of workforce services available at the State and local levels, consistent with changes 

made after the enactment of the Jobs for Veterans’ Act (JVA), Public Law 107–288, 

in November 2002. As the emphasis has been on focusing the delivery of services 

at the State and local levels in order to link Veterans’ employment services to State 

and local labor market needs, Federal staff lack experience and expertise in this 

area. In addition, considerable administrative challenges would need to be overcome 

to effectuate the conversion from State to Federal positions, including complications 

arising from the transition of employees from State to Federal pay and benefits 

structures. This change could also have considerable costs. Some specific considerations include: 

• Transfer of Employees: Numerous personnel issues would have to be addressed. 

For example, there could be a significant number of DVOPs and LVERs who would 

not want to convert to Federal status since seniority is not transferable from State 

to Federal personnel systems. 

• Salary Structure: Currently, each State sets its own pay scale. In many States, 

where the Federal pay grade is much greater than their associate State pay scale, 

fixing the DVOP or LVER pay scale to a particular entry grade level will most likely 

make these new Federal positions very attractive. However, in at least a dozen 

States, higher current State compensation levels would render Federalizing their positions unattractive to incumbents, and the conversion could result in the loss of employees unwilling or unable to accept less pay. 

26 

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. PATTY MURRAY TO

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, VETERANS’ EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING SERVICE

Secretary Jefferson, you have brought a level of energy and creativity to your job 

that I think is real benefit to Veterans. So I thank you for that and for working 

with my staff and me on my Veterans’ employment bill. Since you were unable to 

read your testimony this morning, I would like to ask you a few questions about 

the Veterans’ employment bill. 

Question 1. What are some of the Veterans’ employment hurdles that you are seeing within DOL-VETS? 

Response. There are a number of hurdles that impact our Veterans in today’s job 

market. Some of these are: 

• While emphasis and attention on Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic Brain Injuries are critically important to the care of our Service Members and 

Veterans, it has some spillover effects in the employment arena, specifically in 

terms of stigma. Some employers may be hesitant to hire a Veteran because of the 

mistaken belief that they may present management challenges or pose a risk to fellow employees. • Many recent Veterans have seen multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan, 

which has made it much harder for them to transition back into the workforce. Veterans are also playing catch-up with their peers in regards to networking and civilian workforce experience due to their time in the service. These shortfalls translate 

into difficulty in marketing themselves to employers. • There may be a lack of knowledge by hiring managers of the value proposition 

of the Veteran. These managers may not realize how the military skill sets translate 

into the skills needed on the job. 

Question 2. What best practices have you seen with regards to transitioning Veterans to the civilian job market? Where are the shortfalls? 

Response. Among the best practices in helping Service Members’ transition to civilian life are predictive assessments, mental peak-performance training, knowledge 

of current and future employment trends, stress reduction techniques, defining and 

communicating one’s value proposition, creating a network, learning how to assimilate into a civilian work environment, and career/life planning. 

In addition, the Department of Defense (DOD) and each of the military services 

strive to assist Service Members as they separate from active duty or demobilize 

and return to their civilian life and jobs. Active duty members participate in formal 

pre-separation counseling and transition assistance programs when they are preparing for discharge. 

Through DOD’s Transition Assistance Program (TAP), the Department of Labor 

(DOL) also helps returning Veterans learn how to market their unique skills and 

experience to potential employers. DOL provides the TAP employment workshops, 

which consist of comprehensive two and one-half day sessions where participants 

learn about job searches, career decisionmaking and current occupational and labor 

market conditions. Practical exercises are conducted in resume writing and interviewing techniques. Participants are also provided an evaluation of their employability relative to the job market and receive information on the most current Veterans’ benefits. Components of an employment workshop include: career self-assessment; resume development; job search and interview techniques; U.S. labor market 

information; civilian workplace requirements; and documentation of military skills. 

National Guard and Reserve commanders also provide information and assistance 

to their members when they demobilize, so their members know how and where 

they can receive help if they need it. DOL supports this effort through our participation in the Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program. 

The shortfalls in this area are the same as those described previously in the answer to question #1. 

Question 3. What best practices have you seen within government agencies when 

it comes to hiring Veterans, especially those that are service-connected disabled? 

How could we expedite the hiring process to create more opportunities? 

Response. The agencies with the most success in hiring Veterans have established 

a dedicated resource to this effort. All agencies covered under Executive Order 

13518 have established Veteran Employment Program Offices. 

A best practice is to make use of special noncompetitive hiring authorities such 

as the Veterans Recruitment Act (VRA) and the thirty percent or more disabled Veteran hiring authority. In addition, there are several resources available to provide 

work place accommodations for Veterans with disabilities, including: 

• Job Accommodation Network (JAN): This DOL-funded program is the leading 

source of free, expert, and confidential guidance on workplace accommodations and 

27 

disability employment issues. JAN offers one-on-one guidance on workplace accommodations, the Americans with Disabilities Act and related legislation, and self-employment and entrepreneurship options for people with disabilities, including disabled Veterans and Service Members. 

• Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP): This DOD program provides assistive technology and services to people with disabilities, Federal managers, 

supervisors, and IT professionals. CAP increases access to information and works 

to remove barriers to employment opportunities by eliminating the costs of assistive 

technology and accommodation solutions. 

• America’s Heroes at Work: This DOL outreach and anti-stigma campaign educates America’s employers about the simple on-the-job accommodations and steps 

they can take to help Veterans with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and Traumatic 

Brain Injury to excel in their careers. This program is the result of strong collaboration with DOD, the Department of Veterans Affairs, and other Federal agencies and 

stakeholders. 

We defer to the Office of Personnel Management on the question of expediting the 

Veterans hiring process for positions within the Federal Government. 

Question 4. How do you think rolling the grant programs for Conservation Corps 

and Energy employment would work within the confines of DOL-VETS? 

Response. As we understand the Conservation Corps and Energy Employment 

sections of S. 3234, the Veteran Employment Assistance Act of 2010, we believe that 

both establish grant programs to the States. These appear to be similar in function 

to the grants currently awarded by the Department of Labor through the Jobs for 

Veterans State Grants programs. We would appreciate the opportunity to further 

discuss with your staff the similarities to current grants programs and the possible 

adjustments needed to the programs. 

Chairman AKAKA. Dr. Jesse, if Senator Casey’s bill were enacted 

today, do you believe the Department would be prepared to implement it? Or do you believe further guidance from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would be required? 

Dr. JESSE. Sir, I am sorry. I am not sure which bill that is. 

Chairman AKAKA. Yes, this has to do with the Veterans Health 

and Radiation Safety Act of 2010, S. 3330. 

Dr. JESSE. Sir, we do not have comments on that prepared. 

Chairman AKAKA. All right. Thank you very much. 

Now I am going to call on our Ranking Member for any comments he has. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, RANKING MEMBER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA 

Senator BURR. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I apologize to 

our witnesses that I was a few minutes late. Traffic in Washington 

is a little unpredictable at about 9:30. I would ask that my opening 

statement be included in the record, and I will let the Chair go to 

others for questions. I prefer to wrap up. 

Chairman AKAKA. Your statement will be included in the record. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Burr follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, RANKING MEMBER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to our witnesses. 

We have an extensive legislative agenda before us today—20 bills in total, one 

which I introduced last week along with Chairman Akaka, Senator Durbin, and 

Senator Burris—S. 3377. 

This legislation would improve the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Multifamily Transitional Housing Loan program and direct the use of $48 million in previously appropriated money going forward. 

The original loan program, established in 1998, was intended to encourage development of transitional housing coupled with supportive services. 

28 

However, it was considered too rigid by community providers, who wanted greater 

flexibility in the loan terms and greater freedom to provide other living options— 

such as permanent housing—within the project being financed. 

Only one loan was actually made to Catholic Charities, who operates the St. Leo 

Campus for Veterans in Chicago, Illinois. 

S. 3377 is based, in part, on St. Leo’s experience in meeting its operational and 

resource challenges. 

Specifically, my bill gives VA the authority to issue loans directly to community 

providers. The advantage of direct loans is the greater flexibility VA will have in 

customizing loans to meet providers’ unique needs. 

Mr. Chairman, last fall you and I agreed to work together to find a constructive use for the original $48 million that was appropriated for the homeless loan program twelve years ago. I was told then by the Congressional Budget Office that 

amending the original program was the only way to do it. 

I look forward to working with you, Senator Burris, and other Committee Members as we move forward. 

I’m going to spend the remainder of my statement, Mr. Chairman, talking about 

a problem that we seem to be discussing at every hearing... namely, this Administration’s apparent lack of responsiveness for the Committee’s oversight and legislative responsibilities. 

First, a quick compliment. The Administration’s testimony for this hearing was 

on time. I’m hoping it is the beginning of a new trend. 

With that said, the testimony only has views on 9 of the 20 bills on today’s agenda, with a promise to provide views on the others at a later time. Although I understand it’s tough to clear views on bills introduced within the last week, I’m skeptical 

we’ll get them anytime soon. Here’s why: 

Last October we had a hearing, like today’s, on pending legislation. On the agenda was a bill proposing comprehensive improvements to end veterans’ homelessness. 

We didn’t get views on that bill until March. 

Continuing... last month the Chairman and I sent a letter to Secretary 

Shinseki reminding him that we had yet to receive responses to 216 of the 347 questions submitted following the Committee’s February budget hearing. 

After VA’s weekly updates that responses to our questions were imminent . . . 

and the latest communication was to expect answers by last Friday, May 14 . . . 

still, nothing. Rather, we received a letter from Secretary Shinseki stating that the 

questions are ‘‘under review’’ by the Office of Management and Budget. 

We were also promised responses last Friday to questions submitted by Committee members after hearings on October 8, October 21, November 11, March 3, 

and March 24... still, nothing in from the Administration. 

Mr. Chairman, in a week or so, the Senate is expected to consider supplemental 

appropriations legislation that includes very important funding for our troops and 

veterans. I submitted several questions relevant to this legislation. Despite the urgent need for us to act quickly, the Administration still has not responded. 

There are many other unanswered budget questions that bear directly on policy 

that is the subject of several of the agenda items today. Yet we have nothing. 

We still have no 5-year plan from the Administration to end homelessness; no 

idea what legislative authorities VA thinks it needs to accomplish that goal; and no 

idea how VA’s budget request for next year and the advance year of 2012 fits within 

the overall plan. 

Mr. Chairman, we are completely adrift here. This Committee cannot conduct its 

oversight and legislative functions without full cooperation from the Administration. 

We’re talking about programs to improve the lives of veterans. 

Clearly, voicing our concerns over these issues hasn’t worked . . . . I’m committed to working with you, Mr. Chairman, in finding a solution because we simply 

cannot do our jobs adequately without the VA’s full cooperation. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman AKAKA. At this time let me call on Senator Murray for 

any comments or questions she may have. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATTY MURRAY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON 

Senator MURRAY. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Before I ask questions, I do want to talk for a minute about a bill that 

is before the Committee this morning. It is the Veteran Employment Assistance Act of 2010, and Secretary Jefferson just spoke to 

29 

the issue of high unemployment for men and women who have 

been serving us in Iraq and Afghanistan. 

We are seeing a lot of our Nation’s most dedicated and disciplined workers coming home, and they cannot find a job. They do 

not have an income to provide stability and do not have work that 

provides critical self-esteem and pride as they transition home. So, 

last month I introduced the Veteran Employment Assistance Act to 

help those veterans transition from the battlefield into the working 

world. 

It is a bill that is really designed to make sure that our veterans 

do not have to go from fighting to keep us safe to fighting just to 

get an interview, which is what I heard from many of them as we 

spoke. It includes new business opportunities, it expands some of 

our existing programs, and I think really builds a bridge for our 

veterans into family-wage jobs. It does include an expansion of the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill to include job training and apprenticeship programs. This is something our veterans are telling me is very important to them. 

In this bill we set up a Veterans Business Center within the 

Small Business Administration so veterans can begin to get some 

skills and capital to begin to build their own small businesses. We 

expand some innovative programs like the Conservation Corps Program in Washington State, and we provide our National Guard soldiers with the transition they deserve at a time when they are seeing repeated service in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is hindering 

many in their ability to keep a job or get a job when they return. 

I think this is really an important bill right now as our economy 

is beginning to turn. I think we have got to take some very real 

comprehensive steps to make sure that the men and women who 

served us are getting jobs and employment as they come home and 

are part of our economic recovery as well. 

This is a bill I have worked long and hard on, and I really appreciate your including it today, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank Senators Mark Begich and Sherrod Brown, who are cosponsors, and I 

look forward to working with you to get it through the Committee. 

Secretary Jefferson, I want to ask you about it today and to ask 

you what you are hearing regarding some of the hurdles that our 

veterans are seeing as they come home and try to get a job back 

in the civilian world. 

Mr. JEFFERSON. Senator, first let me just say that this is a very 

helpful bill and a bill that is very timely—the fact that it provides 

additional skills for veterans, the fact that it promotes entrepreneurship and the opportunity for veterans to create their own businesses, and also it promotes increased hiring by employers. I just 

wanted to say up front that we strongly support the goals of this 

legislation. 

We hear a lot of things from veterans. One of the things first is 

that their preparation for transition to meaningful careers after 

leaving the service needs to be enhanced, and that is one of the 

reasons that, for the first time in 17 years, we are completely modernizing and transforming our Transition Assistance Program and 

making the emphasis there on acceleration. 

A second thing that we are doing is we are working to change 

the cultural conversation in this country so that employers are 

30 

aware of the tremendous benefits that veterans have to offer. I am 

not sure, Senator, if you and the other members have had the 

privilege of seeing the last March issue of Fortune magazine, but 

it says, ‘‘The new face of business leadership in America,’’ and it 

is a veteran. We are engaging with major organizations such as 

Fortune to tell that story. 

We are also doing significant engagement with employers and 

business associations. This afternoon, for example, we are speaking 

to Business Executives for National Security. One of the major associations representing the top CEOs in America want to help veterans and servicemembers, and we are going to talk to them about 

why they should hire a veteran, how to hire a veteran. So, we want 

to form a partnership with them. 

So we have a lot of things happening. Veterans want access to 

meaningful careers. They want preparation for those careers. They 

want to have the skills and the training so once they obtain those 

careers they are retained and they are assimilated into that new 

culture. We want to work with you and all of the Members on this 

Committee and your staff to look at ways that we can maximize 

the impact of this bill. 

Senator MURRAY. I really appreciate that, and I have to say that, 

having worked on this bill along with a lot of veterans and hearing 

their stories, I think we incorporated into our legislation a lot of 

things we can do legislatively to help them. I am looking forward 

to its passage. 

I agree with you that culturally we need to see a change, too. I 

was astonished at how many veterans told me that they leave the 

word ‘‘veteran’’ off their resume today because they believe their resume goes to the bottom of the stack, which is so disheartening to 

me. 

Mr. JEFFERSON. Yes. 

Senator MURRAY. They have tremendous skills, and oftentimes 

they do not know how to write their skills on a resume or they are 

worried that an employer will not hire them. And I hope to help 

create a culture for them to be able to transition and write their 

skills so the business world sees them, but more importantly so the 

business world recognizes the tremendous skills they have. 

Mr. JEFFERSON. Senator, if I may say, there are three specific 

things that you just alluded to or mentioned specifically in your 

comments which are exactly what we are doing and are exactly 

what needs to be addressed. 

The first you talked about was preparation—having them be able 

to produce cover letters and resumes that get them in the door. 

That is one. 

Number 2 relates to the conversations we are having this afternoon with Business Executives for National Security, the relationship with Fortune magazine, changing the cultural conversation so 

CEOs are aware of the value of hiring veterans. 

The third is something we are doing next month: developing a relationship with the Society of Human Resource Managers—speaking at their national conference where there will be, I believe, 

10,000 human resource professionals to communicate to about the 

value of hiring a veteran, how to find veterans, how to translate 

their resumes, and how to retain them once they are on board. 

31 

We look at all elements of the equation and make targeted interventions to obtain better results. 

Senator MURRAY. Well, thank you. I am delighted to work with 

you on that. 

Mr. JEFFERSON. We are excited about it, Senator. Thank you. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you very much. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

Senator Brown? 

STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT BROWN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator BROWN OF MASSACHUSETTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, it is good to be back, and thank you for your leadership once again. I will be bouncing back and forth. I have a couple 

of other hearings to attend, but I wanted to come and obviously 

support you and the efforts you are continuing. 

Mr. Pamperin, much of today’s hearing is about increasing benefits for our veterans, and I am wondering if you could just tell me 

what benefits you feel might be at risk at this point in time. Any 

specific issues we need to focus on that we are missing or that are 

falling through the cracks? 

Mr. PAMPERIN. Benefits that are currently being delivered that 

might be taken away? 

Senator BROWN OF MASSACHUSETTS. Right, things that you are 

saying, ‘‘You know what? We have got to keep our eye on this.’’ 

Mr. PAMPERIN. We would be glad to give you a more extensive 

response in the future. My concern is that the Nation clearly—— 

Senator BROWN OF MASSACHUSETTS. Can I interrupt just for a 

second? I may have kind of thrown that out there. I guess what I 

am concerned with is making better use of current law, things that 

we have in place that we may not be exhausting properly, we may 

not be getting the full benefit of. For example, in Massachusetts, 

we are very active in veterans issues. We have the Welcome Home 

Bonus. We have re-employment rights. We have anti-discrimination opportunities. We have a one-stop shop for all of our returning 

veterans pre- and post-mobilization. 

Is there anything that we are doing or the veterans have now for 

benefits that you need my help on or the Chairman’s help on to 

kind of push through the door back to the veterans? 

Mr. PAMPERIN. Well, sir, taking off on Senator Murray’s concerns 

and Mr. Jefferson’s comments, clearly we have veterans preference, 

and I think to have that re-emphasized to people not only in the 

Federal Government but, again, something that honors the service 

of people who have served now for 8 years in conflict. Beyond that, 

I would ask that I be able to provide additional—— 

Senator BROWN OF MASSACHUSETTS. Well then, I will go to Richard. What I would like to get, with the Chairman’s blessing, is if 

there is something you need help with; I would like to know that, 

too. It is great to implement new programs, but we have a lot of 

programs right now that are not being fully exhausted. So, if there 

are some that you are aware of and you say you need some congressional or senatorial support, please let us know through the 

Chairman, number 1. 

Sir, did you want to add to that? 

32 

Mr. HIPOLIT. I just wanted to mention that the Secretary is very 

concerned right now about making sure our adjudication process 

works efficiently, and we are looking at various ideas to assure 

that veterans get their benefits as quickly as possible through the 

adjudication process. So, there may be ideas that come out of that 

review that we might need legislative help with. We would be sure 

to advise the Committee if that was the case. 

Senator BROWN OF MASSACHUSETTS. I can tell you, as somebody 

who is a JAG, serving also in this new capacity and my prior life 

as well, one of the top efforts that our office works on is veterans 

benefits—trying to put a benefit with a veteran. And I have to be 

honest with you, the red tape is just unbelievable. For the average—I have been doing it 30 years. I am an officer now, and sometimes I pull my hair out. What about the Private Snuffy or, you 

know, the new sergeant that is back and has some very serious 

issues. Where do they turn and how? So I am kind of concerned 

about the process and how we are streamlining, updating, and cutting down the time, cutting down the anxiety, making sure—so 

that is kind of where I would like to focus. 

Mr. Hilleman, if you could talk to me about—I know there are 

remote location issues in terms of providing VA benefits, VA services. Where does the VA stand on leveraging private sector support 

to improve access in those regions that really do not have it? I am 

sorry. Mr. Pamperin, do you have any knowledge on that? 

Mr. PAMPERIN. If we are talking with respect to the claims process, we will be shortly providing the field with work sheets that 

they can take to their family physicians to provide the kind of medical evidence we need for evaluation purposes. If you are referencing outreach kinds of activities, we work very closely with the 

National Association of County Veterans Service Officers. They are 

a great source of assistance to claimants. The biggest disadvantage 

that they have is that typically they are not recognized as the 

power of attorney, so, therefore, we end up with privacy issues. 

But, generally speaking, getting the information out to them, 

again, working with the National Service Organizations, working 

with the Bureau of Indian Affairs with Indians out West of what 

kind of benefits they are entitled to are things that we are trying 

to do to expand the information flow to veterans. 

We are also working closely with Veterans Health Administration to try and reduce the complexity and the burden of claims 

processing by leveraging, to the extent possible, the medical evidence we already may have since so many of the veterans are being 

cared for in our facilities. To the extent possible we wish to avoid 

the necessity of having to have them come in for examinations 

when the information we need to rate may very well be in their 

treatment record. 

Senator BROWN OF MASSACHUSETTS. Thank you. I know my time 

is up. Thank you for jumping in and answering that. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Brown. 

Now Senator Brown from Ohio. 

33 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHERROD BROWN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO 

Senator BROWN OF OHIO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Aloha and thank you for the work on all of this legislation we are 

talking about, particularly a shout out to Senator Murray for the 

Veteran Employment Assistance Act. We are all pretty incredulous 

when we see the barriers for veterans’ employment, and we clearly 

need to do more. When I do hearings, particularly in Appalachia, 

but anywhere in my State—and the Chairman has been gracious 

enough to allow us to have an official hearing in my State—I am 

amazed each time at the difficulties that veterans too often face. 

I want to talk for a moment about the Appalachian Outreach Improvement Act, the legislation I have introduced, S. 3314, that 

grew out of the hearings we did in—well, one in the Dover-New 

Philadelphia area of Ohio a couple of years ago, but more recently 

in Cambridge and eastern Appalachian Ohio. I am disappointed VA 

has not had the time to develop their comments for the hearings 

today about that bill. I look forward to figuring out how we can 

move on this. 

It is straightforward. It would provide the authority to VA to 

form a partnership, in this case with the Appalachian Regional 

Commission, to help increase the number of veterans that get the 

benefits they are entitled to. The VA knows veterans, and ARC 

knows Appalachia. Putting them together makes sense. Half this 

Committee represents a swatch of Appalachia, an area that spans 

the southwestern counties of New York to the northeastern portion 

of Mississippi. The Ranking Member represents part of Appalachia, 

Senator Isakson from Georgia, Senator Wicker from Mississippi, 

Senator Graham. Senator Rockefeller probably knows more about 

veterans in Appalachia than anyone. Senator Specter, Senator 

Webb, and I also represent parts of Appalachia. 

These Senators can attest to the testimony I heard at our Committee field hearing last month from Dr. Rich Greenlee of Ohio 

University. He is a veteran. He is dean of Ohio University’s Eastern Campus in Belmont County on the Ohio River across from 

West Virginia. He testified, ‘‘Military veterans have been found to 

be less likely than the general population to seek mental health 

services due to perceived stigma. Combine this with the Appalachians’ resistance to seeking mental health treatment or help of any 

kind, and the combination of the two cultures—one military, the 

other regional affiliation—and it is highly unlikely that Appalachian veterans will voluntarily seek help.’’ We can look at the 

numbers of veterans we estimate in Appalachian Ohio, and the 

number who have sought any kind of help or even registered—gone 

into local veterans service offices or registered with the State. We 

know that situation all too well. 

I look forward to working with the Committee on improving the 

percentage of VA-eligible veterans who apply for and receive VA 

benefits. In addition to Appalachian areas—and that is why this is 

larger than just Senator Burr’s State and my State and the other 

Senators on this Committee I mentioned. My home State has, of 

course, non-Appalachian rural areas like Wapakoneta and Piqua, 

industrial centers like Dayton and Cleveland. Veterans live in 

downtown Columbus. They live on Main Street in Defiance. They 

34 

live on farmland in Ashtabula. But that begs the comment that we 

cannot just have a one-size-fits-all approach to our outreach to veterans who have come from many different backgrounds and live in 

very different communities. We can just look on this Committee, 

from Honolulu, HI, to Holyoke, MA, to Hanford, WA, to Hebron, 

OH, to Hamilton, AK, to Hilton Head, NC, where every one of 

these communities is different. This one-size-fits-all outreach does 

not seem to be working so well, as we need to embrace veterans, 

whether it is for her small business program or for anything else 

that we need to do for education or health care benefits. 

So, I guess my only question for Mr. Pamperin is: should outreach be a line item? Or maybe more generally, what do you suggest we do? You said you have not had time to look at my legislation. That is fine for now. But what do we need to do to have better 

outreach? I know you have a Web site. I know you do some onesize-fits-all national things. But how do we do this in a way that 

really does reach these communities around this table and around 

this country? 

Mr. PAMPERIN. Sir, I am pleased to let you know that the Secretary has created a Benefits Assistance Service that stood up just 

this month whose sole function is outreach and the coordination of 

outreach. And I will clearly take this back, you know, as a concern 

of the Committee to make sure that we do the kind of focused outreach that is needed based upon geography, cultural make-up, or 

traditions. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Brown. 

Senator Burr? 

Senator BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Jefferson, I will show you the same love today OMB provided 

you to come to this hearing. 

Mr. JEFFERSON. How are you doing, sir? 

Senator BURR. Mr. Pamperin, in your testimony, you indicate VA 

would be submitting a legislative proposal in the near future. Now, 

I did not see anything in your description of it relating to homelessness, so let me turn to Dr. Jesse. Does the administration require 

legislative changes as part of its overall homelessness program? 

Dr. JESSE. I do not think so at this point. Right now, as you 

know, homelessness is one of Secretary Shinseki’s major initiatives. 

It is probably his top initiative, not just to reduce homelessness but 

to eliminate it. And there are significant forces being marshaled toward that end, both at very high levels within his office as well as 

within the VHA, to address homelessness, not just about providing 

housing but for trying to address the fundamental issues related to 

that. 

Senator BURR. Are those in the fiscal year 2011–12 advance 

funding requests anticipated or required changes in the law to release funding for homeless veterans’ programs? 

Dr. JESSE. From my perspective, I do not see that it does at this 

point, but I do not think we should preclude asking for that. 

Senator BURR. Can anybody tell me when the Committee would 

be wise to expect legislation to come from VA? 

Mr. HIPOLIT. I was in touch with the Office of Management and 

Budget yesterday, and they are assuring us they are going to clear 

our bill for submission. 

35 

Senator BURR. I hope they do better than they did with Mr. Jefferson’s testimony today. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HIPOLIT. They are telling me they expect to clear it today, 

in fact, so hopefully we will be getting it up very shortly. 

Senator BURR. Dr. Jesse, in our second panel, Mr. Weidman will 

testify in support of my bill, but he had some criticism of the Office 

of Management and Budget, arguing that OMB’s permanent bureaucracy has been opposed to the program from the onset. What 

has been your experience as it relates to the oversight of the 

program? 

Dr. JESSE. I apologize, but I do not think I can really speak to 

that. 

Senator BURR. Well, have you had an opportunity to look 

through the bill that I have introduced with Senator Akaka, Senator Burris, and Senator Durbin? 

Dr. JESSE. We do not have comments cleared for that, sir. 

Senator BURR. Do you have any personal comments you would 

like to make other than the comments of the Office of Management 

and Budget? 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. JESSE. Well, I—— 

Senator BURR. Let me just say I wholeheartedly endorse the Secretary’s commitment to homelessness. Let me tell you, OMB does 

not give a shit about homelessness. If they did, this problem would 

be solved. The Secretary is genuine and passionate about ending it. 

But if OMB is going to design the program, it is not going to get 

solved. 

I am not soliciting an answer. I am not asking a question. I am 

making a statement that I hope all of you let penetrate. If we are 

going to solve this problem, we cannot wait for somebody down the 

street to come up with another bureaucratic solution to a problem 

that keeps veterans on the streets. We can go home and feel good 

about the fact that we put a shelter over their head. But if OMB 

is not willing to release the program to work with the wrap-around 

services, provide that veteran everything they need to end permanent homelessness, it is not going to happen. 

So, you know, let us quit fooling ourselves. You might send to the 

Secretary—he is the only one that can have a conversation with 

OMB. If OMB is the one that we need to pull up here and not VA, 

then, for goodness’ sakes, tell the Chairman and we will start pulling OMB in. 

Mr. Pamperin, in a recent opinion, Posey v. Shinseki, a judge 

from the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims provided this 

observation about what happens when an individual tries to appeal 

to the court, but mistakenly sends his or her notice of appeal to a 

VA office: ‘‘It has become clear to me that VA somewhat routinely 

holds correspondence from claimants that it determines sometime 

after receipt are Notices of Appeal to the court. As a result, in far 

too many cases the court receives the Notice of Appeal from VA 

only after the 120-day appeal period has expired, permitting 

the Secretary then to move to dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction.’’ 

36 

First of all, can you give us an idea of how frequently a Notice 

of Appeal mistakenly is sent to the VA rather than the court? 

Mr. PAMPERIN. No, sir. I am aware that it does happen periodically, but in terms of a hard number, I do not have such a number. 

Senator BURR. What policies are in place for dealing with a Notice of Appeal that has mistakenly been sent to the VA? 

Mr. PAMPERIN. The letter is to be returned to the veteran and 

advised as to where he should file it. 

Senator BURR. Has a written guidance been provided to VA’s 

staff on these policies? And if so, can the Committee have a copy 

of that written policy? 

Mr. PAMPERIN. Sir, I do not know specifically, but I will bring 

your request back and we will provide you with the instructions 

that have been provided. 

[Items were not received by the Committee by the deadline for 

printing.] 

Senator BURR. Do you know if VA staff is following these policies? 

Mr. PAMPERIN. The VA routinely conducts site surveys of its regional offices—each regional office once every 3 years—and an assessment of the performance of the office in terms of compliance 

with instructions is included in that. I do not recall in the last couple-3 years a specific reference that that has been identified as an 

issue. 

Senator BURR. Last question, Mr. Chairman. 

Do you think that more should be done to protect the appeal 

rights of veterans who mistakenly send their notice to the VA 

versus to the court? 

Mr. PAMPERIN. Yes, sir. I think that there are legitimate occasions when the 120-day hard and fast rule needs to be adjusted. 

Senator BURR. Well, given that you cannot cite an instance lately, I will be more than happy to supply you with some instances 

that you can look back at. 

I thank the Chair. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Burr. 

Senator Begich. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARK BEGICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

Senator BEGICH. Mr. Chairman, I am just going to make some 

general comments. Then I have four questions which I do not think 

you will be able to respond to right now, but I want to put them 

in, because I have to preside here in a few minutes. They are in 

regards to a piece of legislation that Senator Grassley and I introduced, S. 3325, which is on the issue of co-payments for telehealth 

and telemedicine. 

Obviously, there is a reason why we have introduced it. In Alaska, we see more and more individuals—not only veterans but in 

other areas—utilizing telemedicine and telehealth as a way to do 

prevention as well as kind of maintenance on some of the health 

care that is necessary. So what we have found, at least some of our 

information—I want to give these questions to you so you can get 

back to me, whoever the right person is. And, Ray, I wanted to get 

to some employment issues here, but I do not have them right now. 

37 

Mr. JEFFERSON. I could always talk about our rural veterans outreach initiative. 

Senator BEGICH. I know. I know, and I greatly appreciate your 

work there. 

So, let me ask if I can—again, if you can answer these, great; if 

you cannot, I would like you to take them for the record and get 

back to me. So, what is the plan for the VA in expanding their telehealth/telemedicine program? I want to get a sense of what that 

plan is now and into the future. That is the first question. 

Second, what is the average co-payment for someone who does 

currently use telehealth services? I do know this: in rural communities, if they can use telehealth/telemedicine, the odds are they 

will not then fly and pay $1,000 to get from a village or a small 

community to an area where they need those services. They can 

use the technology that is available. So I want to get an understanding of that. 

What data points or what information and studies have you done 

in relationship to—I am familiar with some, so I wanted to see if 

you have some in your own reports—in regards to the costs of a 

co-pay or someone who is paying a co-pay using telemedicine or 

telehealth versus someone who is not. In other words, what is the 

variation of utilization? I think I can answer just based on some 

Indian Health Service systems that use telehealth, and it has been 

a positive step, but I am curious if the VA has done something. 

And then what of the rural veterans utilize—when I say rural 

America, of course, including Alaska—telehealth and telemedicine? 

And what are the outreach efforts in getting folks to understand 

how to utilize that system? 

I think we are in a unique situation in Alaska because telecommunications is a critical piece and literally life-and-death linkage that we have for villages where you cannot just get in the car 

and drive down the street and find a hospital or a clinic. So, we 

use it in a very unique way, in some cases pioneered some of this 

technology through the VA—actually it was through the Indian 

Health Service where we have really pioneered some of it. So, I am 

curious if any of those questions can be answered now. If not, I do 

not want to burn up the time, and I do not want you to have to 

get in trouble with OMB, whatever that rule is. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. JESSE. Actually, I do not think any one of those questions can 

be answered briefly, but we would be happy to come and brief you 

in the future or to submit for the record, if you would prefer. 

Senator BEGICH. If you could submit for the record, then we can 

drive from there. In other words, a lot of this is kind of data points 

of trying to get an understanding of where we are going. 

[Items were not received by the Committee by the deadline for 

printing.] 

Dr. JESSE. I will say that we are very committed to the expansion of telehealth. As a cardiologist in my prior job, we actually extensively used home monitoring. I know that through a series of 

recalls of implantable devices a couple years ago, we estimated that 

we saved 25,000 office visits through the ability to monitor patients 

at home using the home-based monitoring for their implantable 

devices. 

38 

Senator BEGICH. You have just given the reason why the VA 

should support our legislation, because less co-pays or no co-pays 

mean people utilize it, which ultimately saves on the bottom line. 

We read more recently, especially on DOD, the Defense Department, what they are seeing in increased costs of health care. 

So, the more we can utilize this technology—it is a powerful tool, 

I think, and potentially cost saving, which you just gave a great 

example. 

Dr. JESSE. We agree fully. Dr. Petzel, the Under Secretary, one 

of his key initiatives is the expansion of telehealth. So it is a matter of getting the numbers down, the specific numbers, which I cannot give you right now. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. If you could get those, that would be great. 

Again, for the record it would be great, and then we will drive it 

from there. If we think we need additional data, we will ask. Then, 

obviously, we are anxious to get the VA’s opinion on this legislation 

sooner than later: how they will view it and if they have concerns 

with it. We want to work through those. 

With my last few seconds, Ray, I just want to say the piece of 

legislation that Senator Murray is the primary sponsor on, I think 

some of that, as you read through it, I know you will see some of 

our efforts from field hearings that we had in Alaska; you will kind 

of see that trickle through. 

Mr. JEFFERSON. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. And I hear more and more about the job classification issue, which I think has some huge potential in making 

sure that people who are in the military who are spending 6, 8, 10 

years, becoming great electricians, that we can get them doing the 

job right when they walk out the door as an example, or a paramedic. So I just am anxious, and I know Senator Murray is as a 

prime sponsor of that legislation, to be working with your office on 

seeing how to accelerate that. 

Mr. JEFFERSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator BEGICH. I do not know if you have any—— 

Mr. JEFFERSON. Well, we are very excited about that, too, sir, 

and there are two new initiatives which we are going to be launching that speak exactly to the points you raised. The first is an initiative that we are doing with the Job Corps. That will be for veterans 20 through 24. It will help them—it will provide a fully funded, all-expense-paid, transportation-paid program where they will 

get training, they will get a license or certificate—a credential. 

They will get a job, and they will get up to 2 years of post-employment support to make sure they are retained in that job. 

Senator BEGICH. Excellent. 

Mr. JEFFERSON. That is one of our interventions for the population of veterans with the highest unemployment. We are very excited about that. 

And, second, although we were not mentioned in the rural outreach component of the bill, we also have a major new initiative 

which we are calling our Rural Veterans Outreach Initiative. We 

are very excited about that. What we have learned from this Committee and what we have seen from the trip to Alaska, really illuminated our development of the concept. We are basically going to 

be partnering with the Corporation for National Community ServVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:54 Nov 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\111TH HEARINGS\61587.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
39 

ice, partnering with ServiceNation, leveraging veteran volunteers 

in rural America, training them to get boots on the ground in rural 

America and educate veterans on the programs and the services 

that they have available to them. And as we develop that delivery 

system and broaden it nationwide, we would like to see how we can 

work with our partners and close friends at VA to create more 

services and make it a more robust program. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Ray. And as you get 

those items ready to be kicked off, obviously we would love to 

know. 

Mr. JEFFERSON. Yes. 

Senator BEGICH. I know Senator Murray would love to know how 

those kick off, and for me personally how we can be supportive of 

those efforts at reaching out to the unemployed veterans of our 

country. 

Mr. JEFFERSON. Yes. We look forward to working with you, and 

we will need your assistance. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I apologize. I have to go preside, but I really appreciate the opportunity to comment on the legislation. Thank you. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Begich. 

Secretary Jefferson, I want to thank you for your offer to work 

with the Committee to improve some of the provisions and the 

measures before us this morning, and I want you to know that I 

intend to take you up on that as we proceed through the legislative 

process. 

Mr. JEFFERSON. Yes, sir. 

Chairman AKAKA. I want to thank all of the witnesses on our 

first panel for being here this morning. Thank you very much. 

Now I would like to welcome the witnesses on our second panel: 

Ian de Planque, Deputy Director, Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation, at the American Legion; Tom Tarantino, Legislative Associate 

for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America; Eric Hilleman, National Legislative Service Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars; and 

Rick Weidman, Executive Director for Policy and Government Affairs at the Vietnam Veterans of America. He is accompanied by 

Alan Oates, Chair of the VVA National Agent Orange and Toxic 

Substances Committee. And, Mr. Tarantino, like Secretary Jefferson on the previous panel, because of the lateness of IAVA’s submission of your testimony, you will not be permitted to present testimony, but I will provide Members the opportunity to ask you 

questions. 

Mr. de Planque, will you please begin with your testimony? 

STATEMENT OF IAN DE PLANQUE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, VETERANS AFFAIRS AND REHABILITATION COMMISSION, THE 

AMERICAN LEGION 

Mr. DE PLANQUE. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

Ranking Member Burr, and Members of the Committee. I want to 

thank you on behalf of The American Legion for the opportunity to 

provide comments on the broad spectrum of legislation before the 

Committee today. This legislation offers important help to veterans 

in many areas. 

40 

S. 1939 and 1940 provide further aid to our veterans of the Vietnam War and their children. 

Legislation such as S. 3314 and S. 3325 will provide much needed outreach and benefits to the growing community of rural veterans in America and veterans in non-traditional urban areas. 

S. 3348, S. 3368, and others will help veterans and their families 

in dealing with the complexities and the sometimes confusing system of veterans benefits. And there are many other worthy pieces 

of legislation on the agenda today. 

Importantly, a bill stands before the Committee addressing one 

of the most critical issues facing many veterans today: the issue of 

unemployment. S. 3234, the Veterans Employment Assistance Act 

of 2010 is a comprehensive bill that will address education, employment, and training needs. Iraq and Afghanistan veterans face unemployment levels of as high as 30 percent, with up to a quarter 

million unemployed veterans from those two theaters combined. 

While the landmark Post-9/11 GI Bill provided many important 

educational benefits to American veterans, some areas of learning 

were left behind, which this legislation should remedy. Previously, 

important training such as vocational schools, apprenticeships, and 

on-the-job training programs were not given the same equity as institutions of higher learning. These programs fulfill an equally vital 

role in job preparedness. 

Furthermore, the legislation calls for small business training and 

counseling and creates pilot programs and otherwise seeks to help 

veterans market their military training in the civilian sector. 

The American Legion believes that the skill set a veteran receives through military training with the concurrent work ethic, 

quality standards, and determination for mission accomplishment 

make the American veteran the most highly-qualified candidate for 

employment. These servicemembers have already demonstrated 

their abilities to master any task, and any civilian employer should 

expect no less. 

No veteran should face unemployment given their training and 

history of service. That veterans face such high unemployment 

numbers is deeply troubling. The American Legion has stressed 

that more must be done to find jobs for these veterans, particularly 

within the Government agencies, such as the VA, where overall 

veteran employment is roughly 39 percent. 

In areas such as the National Cemetery Administration, who recently stated that they have fulfilled 100 percent of their outside 

contracts under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act to 

veteran-owned businesses, many of those to disabled veteranowned businesses, we can find a model for what should be going 

on for our veterans. The American Legion applauds this initiative 

and encourages finding more ways for other agencies to follow that 

model. 

Several pieces of legislation were submitted at late deadline. In 

order to properly address these pieces of legislation, we would ask 

to submit testimony on these bills for the record. 

Thank you for allowing the American Legion to provide testimony today, and we would be happy to answer any questions you 

or the Committee may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. de Planque follows:] 

41 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF IAN DEPLANQUE, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, VETERANS AFFAIRS

AND REHABILITATION COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the Committee: Thank you for 

this opportunity for The American Legion to present its views on the broad list of 

veterans’ legislation being considered by this Committee. 

S. 1780: HONOR AMERICA’S GUARD-RESERVE RETIREES ACT

This bill would deem certain service in the Reserve components as active service 

for purposes of laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. Specifically, 

this bill addresses National Guard and Reserve component servicemembers and 

their the classification of service under Title 10 of the United States Code for the 

purposes of their status with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 

The American Legion has no position on this legislation. 

S. 1866

This bill provides for the interment of the parents of certain deceased servicemembers. The bill would address the eligibility of parents of certain deceased veterans for interment in national cemeteries. This bill would apply to servicemembers 

who at the time of the parent’s death do not have a spouse, surviving spouse, or 

child who have been interred, or who, if deceased, would be eligible to be interred, 

in a national cemetery. 

The American Legion has no position on this legislation. 

S. 1939: AGENT ORANGE EQUITY ACT OF 2009

The purpose of this bill is to amend title 38, United States Code, to clarify presumptions relating to the exposure of certain veterans who served in the vicinity 

of the Republic of Vietnam. As frequently stated in the past, The American Legion 

strongly supports the extension of presumption of exposure to Agent Orange for veterans who served on naval vessels located in the territorial waters of Vietnam 

(known as Blue Water Navy veterans) but did not set foot on land in Vietnam. 

The Institute of Medicine (IOM), in Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2008, 

specifically stated that the evidence it reviewed makes the current definition of Vietnam service for the purpose of presumption of exposure to Agent Orange, which essentially limits it to those who actually set foot on land in Vietnam, ‘‘seem inappropriate.’’ Citing an Australian study on the fate of the Agent Orange contaminant 

TCDD when sea water is distilled to produce drinking water, the IOM committee 

stated that it was convinced that such a process would produce a feasible route of 

exposure for Blue Water veterans, ‘‘which might have been supplemented by drift 

from herbicide spraying.’’ (See IOM, Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 2008, p. 

564; July 24, 2009.) The IOM also noted that a 1990 Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention study found that non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a classic Agent Orange 

cancer, was more prevalent and significant among Blue Water Navy veterans. The 

IOM subsequently recommended that, given all of the available evidence, Blue 

Water Navy veterans should not be excluded from the group of Vietnam-era veterans presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange/herbicides. 

The American Legion submits that not only does this latest IOM report fully support the extension of presumption of Agent Orange exposure to Blue Water Navy 

veterans, it provides scientific justification for this current legislation, which admirably seeks to correct the grave injustice faced by Blue Water Navy veterans. The 

American Legion strongly supports this legislation. 

S. 1940

The purpose of this bill is to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to complete, 

and report to the congressional veterans’ committees on, a study of the effects on 

children of their parents’ exposure to herbicides used in support of U.S. and allied 

military operations in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era, to include 

but not limited to multiple sclerosis and asthma. 

The American Legion’s longstanding position with regard to the health effects of 

herbicides such as Agent Orange has been to aggressively facilitate an understanding of these effects and help ensure that veterans and their families are properly treated and compensated for the effects of such exposures. With regard to the 

effects of a parent’s exposure on their offspring, The American Legion acknowledges 

the progress to date. 

Namely, in 1996, President Clinton and VA Secretary Jesse Brown asked Congress to pass legislation providing health care, monthly disability compensation, and 

vocational rehabilitation to the children of Vietnam veterans suffering from the seriVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:54 Nov 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\111TH HEARINGS\61587.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
42 

ous birth defect spina bifida, which has been linked to the veterans’ exposure to 

Agent Orange. Congress passed the legislation, marking the first time our Nation 

had ever compensated the children of veterans for a birth defect associated with 

their parent’s exposure to toxic chemicals during their military service. 

In 2003, Congress, with the support and endorsement of The American Legion, 

authorized with the passage of the Agent Orange Veterans’ Disabled Children’s Benefits Act, the expansion of these benefits to children with spina bifida of certain veterans who served at or near the demilitarized zone in Korea between September 1, 

1967 and August 31, 1971, because Agent Orange is known to have been sprayed 

in that area. 

Only additional scientific and medical studies, though, can determine the full 

ramifications of the effects on children of their parents’ exposure to herbicides. Studies of the type called for in this legislation can help establish the associations necessary to allow the VA to provide entitlement to all benefits due to the child or children of any veteran exposed to a Vietnam-era herbicide agent, in any location, including those outside of Vietnam, where herbicides were tested, sprayed, or stored. 

The American Legion supports this legislation. 

S. 2751

This bill would designate the Department of Veterans Affairs medical center in 

Big Spring, Texas, as the George H. O’Brien, Jr., Department of Veterans Affairs 

Medical Center. 

The American Legion has no position on this piece of legislation. 

S. 3035: VETERANS TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY CARE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2010

Under the provisions of the bill, VA would establish an official VA Polytrauma 

Rehabilitation Center in the Northwestern area of the United States within Veteran 

Integrated Service Network (VISN) 19. Additionally, a report on the Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center would determine the levels of care of the VA medical centers in 

VISN 19, the differences of Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) treatment between urban 

and rural areas, as well as a study to determine if TBI conditions are worsened by 

living in an urban environment. 

VA designed Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers to address the many unique and 

multiple injuries faced by servicemembers in Iraq and Afghanistan who are surviving improvised explosive device (IED) blasts. VA Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers provide treatment through multi-disciplinary medical teams including Cardiologists, Internal Medicine, Physical Therapist, social work and Transition Patient 

Case managers and much more specialty medical service areas, to help treat the 

multiple injuries. Currently, VA maintains four VA Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers in Richmond, VA; Minneapolis, MN; Palo Alto, CA and Tampa, FL. In February 

2010, VA also announced funding for a new Polytrauma Center to be built in San 

Antonio, TX. As advances in battlefield medicine and evaluation continue to evolve, 

it is also important that VA continue to expand its network of care closer to the 

veteran and his or her family’s community. 

The American Legion has not historically advocated for specific locations for VA 

medical centers, Community-Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs), or Vet Centers due 

to competing funding and state interests. However, The American Legion’s Resolution 220 on rural health care clearly urges VA to improve access to quality primary 

and specialty health care services for veterans living in rural and highly rural areas. 

Furthermore, The American Legion believes that veterans should not be penalized 

or forced to travel long distances to access quality health care based on where they 

choose to live. 

The American Legion has long advocated for improvements for one of the ‘‘signature wounds’’ of Iraq and Afghanistan, Traumatic Brain Injury. The American Legion supports the provision in this bill for research and evaluation of TBI treatment 

between the urban and rural areas. Further, The American Legion urges this Committee to examine the possibility of including and funding additional areas of TBI 

study and emerging treatments in the private sector such as Hyperbaric Oxygen 

Therapy (HBOT) and the Mt. Sinai Hospital’s Brain Injury Screening Questionnaire. 

The Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis, MN, conducted a study on 

Hyperbaric Oxygen treatment for Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury in January 

2010. This study found a significant benefit from hyperbaric oxygen treatment to 

improve brain metabolism and its ability to recover from injury. The findings were 

recently published in the Journal of Neurosurgery. Additionally, the study showed 

that cells need oxygen to fuel metabolism for cellular growth and repair. After a 

Traumatic Brain Injury, there’s a direct correlation between clinical outcome and 

the degree to which a brain’s metabolism is restored. Dr. Gaylan Rockswold, who 

43 

conducted the study stated. ‘‘In previous research we learned that the brain’s energy 

is improved and maintained with hyperbaric oxygen treatment, but this study confirms that hyperbaric oxygen treatment has a major impact in terms of increased 

energy production.’’ The American Legion encourages this Committee to work closely with the medical community to ensure our Nation’s veterans continue to receive 

the highest in quality and type of care for TBI. 

Additionally, Mt. Sinai developed a Brain Injury Screening Questionnaire. DOD’s 

TBI screening questions were initially developed by the Defense and Brain Injury 

Center (DVBIC), modified by VA and refined and adopted by DOD. In April 2007, 

VA began implementing similar TBI screening questionnaires for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans to be administered by health care providers at VA Medical Center facilities. DOD and VA both use a four-question test but Mt. Sinai uses 100 questions 

through the Brain Injury Screening Questionnaire. The American Legion remains 

concerned that the private sector uses a 100 question screening test while DOD and 

VA only use a four-part questionnaire. 

The American Legion also recommends examining the establishment of a toll-free 

number for servicemember and veteran patients, their families, clinicians, veteran 

service organizations and other Federal, state and local organizations to ask questions or receive literature on evaluation, diagnosis and treatment of TBI. In addition, within this call center, a TBI registry could be created to track the statistics 

of servicemembers afflicted with TBI and those servicemembers from DOD and VA 

who are receiving treatment. 

S. 3107: VETERANS COMPENSATION COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 2010

The purpose of this bill is to increase, effective as of December 1, 2010, the rates 

of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans. The amount of increase shall be the same percentage as the percentage by 

which benefit amounts payable under title II of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

401 et seq.) are increased effective December 1, 2010. 

The American Legion supports this annual cost-of-living adjustment in compensation benefits, including dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) recipients. It 

is imperative that Congress annually considers the economic needs of disabled veterans and their survivors and provide an appropriate cost-of-living adjustment to 

their benefits, especially should the adjustment need to be higher than that provided to other Federal beneficiaries, such as recipients of Social Security. 

S. 3192: FAIR ACCESS TO VETERANS BENEFITS ACT OF 2010

The purpose of this bill is to address recent rulings by the courts regarding equitable tolling and how that affects veterans filing claims within the court system. Equitable tolling is a doctrine or principle of tort law: a statute of limitations will not 

bar a claim if despite use of due diligence the plaintiff did not or could not discover 

the injury until after the expiration of the limitations period. 

Under 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a), an appellant has 120 days from the date the notice 

of a final decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) is mailed to file a notice 

of appeal (NOA) to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC). 

From 1998–2008, previous precedential decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Bailey) had permitted equitable tolling by the CAVC 

for the 120 day time period under § 7266(a). The Supreme Court, however, in Bowles 

v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007), made it clear that the timely filing of a NOA in a 

civil case is a jurisdictional requirement and that courts have no authority to create 

exceptions. The Supreme Court further concluded that only Congress can make such 

exceptions. 

In Henderson v. Shinseki, the CAVC ultimately dismissed the veteran’s appeal because he had missed the 120 day deadline by 15 days. The veteran argued that his 

service-connected mental disorder, rated 100 percent disabling, caused him to miss 

the deadline. While Mr. Henderson’s appeal was pending at the CAVC, the Supreme 

Court rendered its decision in Bowles, in which it stated that ‘‘the timely filing of 

a notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional requirement,’’ and thus cannot 

be waived. The Court also stated that it had no authority to create equitable exceptions to jurisdictional requirements. 

On July 24, 2008, the CAVC ruled in a 2–1 decision that the holding in Bowles 

prohibited it from using equitable tolling to extend the 120-day appeal period set 

forth in § 7266(a). The CAVC determined that Congress had ‘‘specifically authorized’’ 

it to conduct ‘‘independent judicial appellate review’’ of the BVA, and that well-settled law established that its cases were ‘‘civil actions.’’ Starting from that premise, 

the CAVC concluded that § 7266(a) was a notice of appeal provision in a civil case, 

44 

and that it was jurisdictional and could not be equitably tolled. Accordingly, the 

court ruled that the Federal Circuit’s precedent in Bailey was effectively overruled, 

and it dismissed Mr. Henderson’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 

Mr. Henderson subsequently filed a timely appeal of the CAVC decision with the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On December 17, 2009, the 

Federal Circuit affirmed the decision of the CAVC dismissing the veteran’s appeal 

for lack of jurisdiction. 

The Federal Circuit decision in Henderson, citing the Supreme Court decision in 

Bowles, has made it quite clear that equitable tolling in veterans’ appeals at the 

Federal court level is prohibited. Senator Arlen Specter (PA) recently introduced 

S. 3192, the Fair Access to Veterans Benefits Act, to require the CAVC to consider 

if a veteran’s service-connected disability would have made it difficult or impossible 

for him or her to meet a deadline for filing an appeal. 

Resolution No. 32, adopted by The American Legion at the 2008 National Convention, specifically supports legislation to extend the 120-day CAVC appeal deadline 

to one year following the BVA final denial of an appeal. Given the specific intent 

of this resolution, measures which would extend the period of time available for veterans to file with the CAVC are supported by The American Legion. Particularly 

in the case of certain veterans whose service-connected disabilities may impact their 

ability to timely file appeals to the court, measures such as this bill have the potential to positively impact the ability of those veterans to achieve justice within the 

system of benefits claims adjudication. 

The American Legion supports this bill. 

S. 3234: VETERANS EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2010

The American Legion strongly supports S. 3234 and regards this comprehensive 

new bill as an important means of addressing the education, employment, and training needs of veterans. If enacted, S. 3234 would improve employment, training, and 

placement services furnished to veterans, especially those serving in Operation Iraqi 

Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. 

The problem is clear: the unemployment rate for all veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan stands at 14.7 percent, while for OIF/OEF veterans between the ages of 18 to 

24 it is 30.2 percent. The total number of unemployed veterans of the two wars is 

about 250,000. This legislation would provide these veterans with the training and 

additional skills they need in order to acquire gainful employment in today’s marketplace. 

This bill contains several provisions that The American Legion has been advocating for some time. For example, under the current Post-9/11 GI Bill, vocational 

schools, apprenticeships and on-the-job training programs are not given the same 

equity as Institutions of Higher Learning (IHLs). But, not all veterans desire to attend IHLs. Many veterans prefer forms of employment that do not require a college 

degree and/or may require employment as quickly as possible for personal or family 

reasons. S. 3234 would expand GI Bill education benefits to include apprenticeship 

and training programs, so that veterans can get the licenses and certificates they 

need for new high-potential careers in an expeditious manner. 

In addition, the legislation calls for small business training and counseling, and 

creates pilot programs to help veterans market their military training more effectively in the civilian sector. The Act also addresses training requirements for new 

Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program Specialists and Local Veterans’ Employment 

Representatives, who play such an important role in helping veterans overcome employment barriers and become more marketable. 

In sum, The American Legion strongly supports S. 3234, because it touches all the 

bases in addressing key challenges faced by unemployed and underemployed veterans. No mission is more critical at this time in our history—given the Nation’s 

involvement in two wars and the uncertain economic situation—than enabling 

America’s veterans to have a seamless transition from military service to the civilian workforce. Toward that end, The American Legion is committed to working together with Congress, Federal agencies and the private sector to ensure that America’s veterans are provided with the highest level of service and employment assistance. 

S. 3314

The American Legion supports this piece of legislation because it will serve to increase use of medical care services to those residing in the Appalachia Region. We 

also believe collaboration between both VA and the Appalachian Regional Commission will help with the seamless transition process as servicemembers return to 

their respective communities. 

45 

H.R. 2879, the Rural Veterans Health Care Improvement Act of 2009, would establish Rural Health Centers located in three regions of the country, to include the 

Eastern Region, Central Region, and Western Region. In addition, The American Legion’s position on H.R. 2879 included an increase of the presence of these Centers 

due to the vastness of rural areas. We also stated that the reason for the increase 

included lack of access of medical facilities, lack of medical professionals, and the 

ability to address the issues of women veterans, as well as homeless veterans. In 

the case of this bill, we believe other Center(s) should be established to assist with 

accommodation of veterans residing in the Appalachia Region. 

In contracting with public or private organizations to provide information, advice, 

and technical assistance, as stipulated in section (c) and (d) of the bill proposal, it 

is the contention of The American Legion that VA maintain proper oversight of each 

contract that provides medical care, utilization of facilities and resources, education 

of veterans’ employment rights, and provision of technical assistance to veteranowned businesses, to ensure veterans are represented as intended by order of the 

mission statement as set forth by President Lincoln; ‘‘To care for him who shall 

have borne the battle and for his widow, and his orphan.’’ 

S. 3325

The American Legion concurs with this piece of legislation and its proposal to prohibit collection of copayments for Telehealth or telemedicine. Further, it is The 

American Legion’s contention that veterans should not be penalized due to their 

geographical residence preferences. Regarding the subject of copayments, it is the 

discretion of each VA Medical Center director to collect a copayment. As such, oversight should ensure that these copayments are assessed consistently and not subject 

to regional variations. 

The American Legion supports the insertion of 1722B. Copayments: prohibition on 

collection for Telehealth or telemedicine visits of veterans into Chapter 17, Title 38. 

S. 3368

The purpose of this bill is to provide the ability of legally designated representatives to sign claims on behalf of veterans or their dependent children eligible for 

benefits in certain circumstances such as when issues of legal majority, mental competency, and/or physical disability prevent the beneficiary from signing such forms 

themselves. This is well intentioned legislation that, with proper oversight, could 

offer benefit to veterans and their families in certain circumstances. 

Veterans can suffer from some disabilities that greatly limit their ability to complete activities of daily living such as competency or ability to properly execute the 

necessary paperwork required in the filing of claims. There already exist provisions 

within VA law to provide for responsible parties to manage affairs for veterans 

when they are not capable of managing those affairs for themselves. Under the 

present system, appointed fiduciaries as well as designated powers of attorney are 

authorized to perform some actions on behalf of the veteran, almost always to their 

benefit. 

It is important to recognize however, the necessity of proper oversight in situations such as this. Veterans in need of the provisions of this legislation are in many 

ways the most vulnerable of veterans. Dedicated oversight is necessary to ensure 

that the veterans affected, most of whom have little ability to protect themselves 

in such situations, are not subject to being taken advantage of by unscrupulous individuals or institutions. While some veterans do indeed require an advocate to act 

on their behalf to ensure they receive the benefits to which they are entitled, it is 

equally important to ensure that the rights of those veterans are not infringed upon. 

As acting on behalf of the veteran is essentially similar to being a designated fiduciary on behalf of the veteran, it is important to point out some of the concerns 

about the existing fiduciary system. In previous testimony before the House Veterans’ Affairs Subcommittee on Disability and Memorial Affairs, The American Legion noted that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a report in 

February 2010, ‘‘Improved Compliance and Policies Could Better Safeguard Veterans’ Benefits’’. This report recommended VA ‘‘strengthen Fiduciary Program policies for monitoring fiduciaries, improve staff compliance with program policies, 

evaluate alternative approaches to meet electronic case management system needs 

and evaluate the effectiveness of consolidating 14 western Fiduciary Program units.’’ 

In that testimony, The American Legion recommended authorizing personnel solely 

to administer the Fiduciary Program to ensure this program remains the priority 

and expertise of the personnel assigned to the Fiduciary Program. Similarly, specifically tasked personnel assigned to ensuring that those signatories acting on behalf 

of veterans deemed not capable of signing the proper paperwork by themselves 

46 

would seem important to protecting these veterans and ensuring that they are not 

taken advantage of. 

Under conditions that ensure that the rights of the affected veterans are being 

protected, and with proper oversight, The American Legion supports this legislation. 

S. 3348

This bill would provide for appeals misfiled to the Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA) to be treated as a motion for reconsideration if the VA fails to forward the appeal properly to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) within the proper 

period of time. The veteran must have filed an appeal to the VA within the 120 days 

after the notification of a decision by the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) required 

to appeal a claim to the CAVC. 

The bill is predicated on the fact that many veterans, unfamiliar with the structure of the veterans’ claims benefits system, may mistakenly file an appeal to the 

VA, rather than the CAVC, after the claim has been finally adjudicated at the BVA. 

In proper legal procedure, a veteran disagreeing with a decision of the BVA has 120 

days after receiving notification of that decision to appeal the claim to the Court. 

The veteran may also file for a motion for reconsideration within the VA. 

Many veterans are unaware that the CAVC and VA are in fact separate entities. 

Therefore, veterans mistakenly file their intent to appeal to VA rather than the 

CAVC as would be the proper procedure. This legislation would offer protection to 

veterans who file in error in cases such as this. 

In keeping with the spirit of the uniquely pro-claimant system of veterans’ compensation benefits adjudication, this legislation can serve as a safety net for veterans already confused by a complex system such as the system for the adjudication 

of veterans benefits. The American Legion by resolution supports the extension of 

the 120 day period of eligibility to file an appeal to the CAVC to a period of one 

year. This position is predicated upon the need for a system that protects the rights 

of veterans who face challenges in the appeals system. The American Legion supports this legislation. 

As always, The American Legion thanks this Committee for the opportunity to 

testify and represent the position of the over 2.5 million veteran members of this 

organization. We hope that we not only express what is in the best interests of our 

members, but also of the totality of veterans in this country. We stand ready to answer any questions or clarify any positions for this Committee, whether orally or 

in writing, and to address any future issues such as the Committee should require 

of us. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. de Planque. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tarantino, Legislative Associate 

for Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TOM TARANTINO, LEGISLATIVE ASSOCIATE, 

IRAQ AND AFGHANISTAN VETERANS OF AMERICA (IAVA) 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Committee, on behalf of 

Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America’s one hundred and eighty thousand members and supporters, thank you for inviting me to testify at this hearing to share 

our members’ views of on these important issues. 

My name it Tom Tarantino and I am a Legislative Associate with IAVA. I proudly 

served 10 years in the Army beginning my career as an enlisted Reservist, and leaving service as an Active Duty Cavalry Officer. Throughout these ten years, my single most important duty was to take care of other soldiers. In the military they 

teach us to have each other’s backs. And although my uniform is now a suit and 

tie, I am proud to work with this Congress to continue to have the backs of America’s servicemembers and veterans. 

47 

Bill # Bill Name Sponsor Position 

S. 1780 Honor America’s Guard-Reserve Retirees Act ............................................................ Lincoln Support 

S. 1866 Corey Shea Act ........................................................................................................... Kerry Support 

S. 1939 Agent Orange Equity Act of 2009 .............................................................................. Gillibrand Support 

S. 1940 Study herbicide exposure on children of Vietnam veterans ...................................... Gillibrand Support 

S. 2751 Designate a TX VA Medical Center as George H. O’Brien, Jr., VAMC ....................... Cornyn No Position 

S. 3035 Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury Care Improvement Act of 2010 ............................. Baucus Support 

S. 3107 Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2010 ............................. Akaka Support* 

S. 3192 Fair Access to Veterans Benefits Act of 2010 .......................................................... Specter Support 

S. 3234 Veteran Employment Assistance Act of 2010 ............................................................ Murray Support* 

S. 3348 Allow reconsideration of misfiled BVA appeals ......................................................... Akaka Support 

S. 3314 Outreach to veterans who reside in Appalachia ....................................................... Brown Support 

S. 3325 Prohibit the collection of copayments for telehealth visits ...................................... Begich Support 

S. 3368 Authorize certain individuals to sign VA claims on behalf of vets .......................... Akaka Support 

S. 3352 Veterans Pension Protection Act of 2010 (Tester) ..................................................... Tester Support 

S. 3286 Grants to agencies to assist with VA claims ............................................................ Specter No Position 

S. 3330 Veterans’ Health and Radiation Safety Act of 2010 ................................................. Casey Support 

S. 3355 Veterans One Source Act of 2010 .............................................................................. Klobuchar Support 

S. 3367 Increased pension for married vets with aid and attendance ................................. Akaka Support 

S. 3370 Changes to joint DIC and Social Security application .............................................. Akaka No Position 

S. DRAFT Expansion of VA multi-family transitional housing program .................................... Burr Support 

* IAVA has offered several technical recommendations for improving these bills. 

S. 1780: HONOR AMERICA’S GUARD-RESERVE RETIREES ACT (LINCOLN)

IAVA supports S. 1780, which grants full veteran status to members of the reserve components who have 20 or more years of service and do not otherwise qualify 

under current laws. This legislation expands the definition of the word veteran to 

recognize servicemembers who served their country honorably for over two decades 

in the Guard and Reserve but were never called to active duty. We believe when 

someone takes the oath to defend this country, wears the uniform and serves that 

oath faithfully they have earned to be considered a full veteran and the benefits 

that go with it. 

S. 1866: COREY SHEA ACT (KERRY)

IAVA supports S. 1866, the Corey Shea Act, which allows parents of fallen servicemembers to be buried in a national cemetery with their unmarried or childless 

sons and daughters. Many veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan are killed in their 

youth and never had the opportunity to start their own family. If the VA deems 

there is available space and the parent wants to be interred with their child should 

be allowed to do so in a national cemetery. As Denise Anderson, whose son Corey 

Shea was killed in Mosul in 2008, said in her testimony to House Veterans’ Affairs 

Committee last year, ‘‘If you decide to pass this, it would give me some peace in 

my life to which I can pay more attention to my husband and daughter, who I feel 

I have been neglecting. I could finally be able to move forward in my life just knowing I could spend eternity with my son.’’ 

48 

S. 1939: AGENT ORANGE EQUITY ACT OF 2009 (GILLIBRAND)

IAVA supports S. 1939, the Agent Orange Equity Act. This bill expands the number of Vietnam veterans who qualify for presumption of service connection for diseases associated with exposure to Agent Orange. We believe that all veterans exposed to the deadly herbicide should be granted these presumptions. Agent Orange 

didn’t discriminate between Brown and Blue Water, neither should the VA. 

Few if any of our members will be affected by S. 1939. However, exposure to toxic 

chemicals while serving in combat is a harsh reality for many Iraq and Afghanistan 

veterans. We are grateful that the VA just announced broad service connection presumptions for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans exposed to toxic burn pits and other 

hazardous chemicals. We believe that our brothers and sisters from the Vietnam 

War should have been extended the same treatment. It’s long overdue that we afford them the benefits that they have earned. 

On a technical note, since Vietnam Service Campaign Medals were not authorized 

for Vietnam until seven years after the war began, IAVA encourages the Committee 

to fully examine whether including Armed Forces Expeditionary Medals (Vietnam) 

along with Vietnam Medals are an appropriate criteria for eligibility for these presumptions. Furthermore, we would request that the Committee evaluate the potential affect of changing the current statutory language from ‘‘active service’’ to 

‘‘served’’ and whether it would require re-litigation of claims. 

S. 1940: STUDY ON THE EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO HERBICIDES ON CHILDREN OF

VIETNAM VETERANS (GILLIBRAND)

IAVA strongly supports S. 1940, which requires the VA to complete a study of the 

effects of Agent Orange on the children of Vietnam veterans. The VA has already 

acknowledged that there is a link between some birth defects and exposure to Agent 

Orange, such as spina bifida. IAVA believes the VA must complete an exhaustive 

study to identify any additional diseases or conditions that the children of Vietnam 

veterans are suffering from due to their parent’s service. 

S. 2751: DESIGNATE A TEXAS VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER AS

GEORGE H. O’BRIEN, JR., VAMC (CORNYN)

IAVA has no position on S. 2751. 

S. 3035: VETERANS TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY CARE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2010 (BAUCUS)

IAVA supports S. 3035, which requires the VA to conduct a needs assessment on 

whether veterans living in the Northern Rockies or the Dakotas, suffering from 

Traumatic Brain Injuries, have access to quality VA health care. 

S. 3107: VETERANS’ COMPENSATION COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 2010 (AKAKA)

IAVA fully supports S. 3017, the Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act, which ensures that critical veterans benefits are adjusted to keep up with 

inflation. However, we believe that these benefits should have an automatic annual 

COLA increase and should not be dependent on passage through Congress. 

S. 3192: FAIR ACCESS TO VETERANS BENEFITS ACT OF 2010 (SPECTER)

IAVA supports S. 3192, the Fair Access to Veterans Benefits Act, because it will 

accept late appeals from veterans who miss VA deadlines for good cause. Korean 

war veteran David Henderson was medically discharged for a service-connected injury after being diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. In 2002 he applied for an 

increase to his VA disability rating and the VA denied that request. During the 120- 

day appeal period Mr. Henderson was hospitalized due severe back pain and a psychotic break forcing him to file his appeal 15 days late. 

Before Henderson’s application for benefits, a doctor’s note stating that he was 

medically incapable of turning the paperwork in on time would have been sufficient 

for the VA accept his appeal late. However, a recent Supreme Court case ruled that 

extending filing deadlines was unacceptable under current law. The Supreme Court 

decided that because the appeals deadline was set by Congress, and could not be 

extended, regardless of the circumstances. 

IAVA believes that the deadline should have been extended for Mr. Henderson in 

his case. We also believe that veterans suffering from service-connected illnesses 

should be given the opportunity to extend VA deadlines if they prove that acute effects of their disability made them incapable of filling on time. 

49 

1Spring 2010 GI Bill Benefit Processing, http://gibill.va.gov/spring2010.htm. 

S. 3234: VETERAN EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2010 (MURRAY)

IAVA fully supports S. 3234, the Veterans Employment Assistance Act of 2010, 

the first comprehensive veterans job bill since the new GI Bill. America’s newest 

veterans face serious employment challenges. The process of returning to civilian 

life is complicated by the most severe economic recession in decades. Many Iraq and 

Afghanistan veterans, leaving the active-duty military, find civilian employers who 

do not understand the value of their skills and military experience. As a result, unemployment rates for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are staggering. 

S. 3234 will greatly aid unemployed veterans by: 

• Expanding the new GI Bill to include training at vocational schools and the 

pursuit of apprenticeships and on-the-job training (OTJ); 

• Providing a subsistence allowance for unemployed veterans enrolled in full-time 

employment and training programs; 

• Assisting veteran owned small business owners with entrepreneurial training, 

Federal procurement assistance and greater outreach; 

• Requiring public disclosure of the number of veterans hired by Federal contractors with contracts over $100,000 (VETS–100); 

• Demanding more accountability from state employees who are assigned to assist 

unemployed veterans find jobs (DVOPs/LVERs); 

• Creating a grant to encourage states to establish a veterans conservation corps; 

• Establishing a college center of excellence to help veterans receive more academic credit for their military experience and training; 

• Studying DOD Transition Assistance Programs (TAP); and 

• Funding a number of pilot programs to help recently separated veterans use 

their military skills and training to find meaningful employment. 

This is such an urgent bill for America’s veterans that I will comment on each 

of its separate provisions. 

VOCATIONAL TRAINING UNDER THE NEW GI BILL

‘‘After approximately 30 interviews and temporary positions 

I chose to attend school under the new GI Bill.’’—IAVA Vet 

The new GI Bill is the greatest investment in veterans and their families since 

World War II and it couldn’t have come at a better time. Veterans, facing tough economic times and high unemployment rate, are flocking to universities across the Nation, making themselves more marketable in the job market. The Post-9/11 GI Bill 

has enabled over 250,000 students 1 to attend first-rate colleges and universities. 

‘‘This was a huge disappointment to me when I found out my schooling was not covered under the new GI Bill. . . . I am a mechanic by vocation; there are no 

4-year degree programs for people like me.’’—IAVA Vet 

Unfortunately, a significant number of veterans have been short-changed under 

the new GI Bill. Apprenticeships, on-the-job training and vocational programs are 

excluded from the new GI Bill. IAVA strongly supports the provision in S. 3234, 

which would include vocational training programs, apprenticeships and on-the-job 

training (OTJ) in the new GI Bill. Veterans pursuing vocational training should not 

be penalized for going to a strictly vocational school. The WWII GI Bill sent over 

8 million veterans to school. More than half of those veterans were not seeking a 

college degree; they participated in some type of vocational training program. Unfortunately, nearly 16,000 modern veterans pursuing vocational training will not be 

able to access the new GI Bill. 

On a technical note, IAVA recommends modifying section 7 of this bill to include 

a definition of an approved program of apprenticeship and not reference other programs. We believe this definition should mirror the Chapter 30 definition (38 U.S.C. 

3002(3)(c)(i)). We also believe that the section allowing vocational programs under 

the new GI Bill should include approved programs under 38 U.S.C. 3452(f). This 

mirrors the current rules under the new GI Bill and 38 U.S.C. 3452(c) which is the 

definition of approved programs used by Chapter 30 of the Montgomery GI Bill. 

Last, IAVA believes that including vocational programs in the new GI Bill is just 

one piece of a broader, more comprehensive effort to upgrade the new GI Bill. We 

look forward to working with the Chairman and Ranking Member as they develop 

their comprehensive new GI Bill upgrades legislation. 

50 

2Gerry Gilmore, ‘‘Pentagon Improves Services for Transitioning Servicemembers, Families,’’ 

American Forces Press Service, May 19, 2008: http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle 

.aspx?id=49927. 3 Joseph C. Sharpe, Jr., Deputy Director of the American Legion National Economic Commission, Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, ‘‘U.S. 

Department of Veterans Affairs/U.S. Department of Defense Cooperation in Reintegration of NaEMPLOYMENT TRAINING ASSISTANCE

‘‘I have had to move my family 2–3 times in search for employment. . . . 

I have had LOTS of difficulty finding employment’’—IAVA Vet 

We believe that the employment training assistance program will greatly help veterans struggling to find employment by offering GI Bill-like incentives to complete 

job-training programs. S. 3234 creates a monthly subsistence allowance for veterans 

enrolled full time in an approved employment training program. Veterans would receive a monthly subsistence allowance equal to the monthly living allowance provided under the new GI Bill. In order to be eligible a veteran would have to be unemployed for more than 4 consecutive months and no longer qualify for the GI Bill 

or vocational rehabilitation. Last, it would provide a veteran up to $5,000 in relocation expenses to participate in this program. 

SMALL BUSINESS HELP

‘‘Navigating through the maze of red tape to A) start a business and B) get it registered as a Disabled Veteran-Owned Business. . . . A small business owner wears 

a lot of hats, and the soft skills acquired through military experience are not 

enough. I needed some real hands-on experience or time with a mentor to help create a successful enterprise.’’—IAVA Vet 

The Veterans Business Center (VBC) program proposed in S. 3234 will fund a 

number of grants to help small business owners grow and mature their businesses. 

The program will provide matching grants of $150,000 to approved groups who wish 

to become an official VBC. These VBCs will be responsible for providing direct education, counseling and development to veteran owned small businesses. The VBC 

program will also provide grants to help increase access to capital, assist in contract 

procurement and outreach to service-disabled veteran owned small businesses. Last, 

the VBC program will be responsible for hosting a biannual veterans’ entrepreneurial development summit. 

While we think the VBC program will be an incredibly helpful program to veteran-owned small businesses, we recommend a few minor modifications. First, we 

believe that the matching grant designed to help establish each VBC should be increased to $200,000. Second, the director of the VBC program should be given the 

flexibility to offer grants less than the full amount, in the event the organization 

requesting to become a VBC can’t match the full amount. Last, we believe the VBC 

should include in their training programs how to ‘‘deployment-proof’’ a business for 

veteran owners who are still members of the National Guard or Reserves. 

‘‘During my deployment I had to totally shut the doors on my construction 

business. It put my family in a very difficult position’’—IAVA Vet 

TRANSITION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (TAP) AND DISABLED TRANSITION

ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS (DTAP)

‘‘Once I learned how to translate my skills into civilian-speak, I found I was in 

high demand and very competitive for several good positions.’’—IAVA vet 

Servicemembers approaching separation can take advantage of the Transition Assistance Program (TAP). The program provides employment and training information as well as a variety of counseling programs. The Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Transportation, and Labor partner to conduct three-day workshops 

where servicemembers learn interview skills, tips for job searches and how to prepare civilian resumes and cover letters. The program has shown some effectiveness: 

according to the Department of Labor,2 servicemembers who participate in TAP find 

their first post-military job three weeks faster. S. 3234 would require a complete 

study and recommendations to improve the TAP program. 

Utilization of TAP is regrettably low. The Marine Corps is the only branch of service that requires its members to sign up for TAP briefings, but attendance is still 

not mandatory. The Department of Defense has established a goal of 85% participation across the services,3 yet only 60–65% of all separating active-duty serviceVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:54 Nov 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\111TH HEARINGS\61587.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
51 

tional Guard and Reserve,’’ June 24, 2008: http://veterans.house.gov/hearings/Testimony.aspx 

?TID=32446&Newsid=260&Name=%20Joseph%20C.%20Sharpe,%20Jr. 4 Ibid. 

5Women Veterans in Transition Pilot Research Study by Business and Professional Women’s 

Foundation, ‘‘Building Strong Programs and Policies to Support Women Veterans,’’ p. 2: http:// 

www.bpwusa.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=5383. 6Department of Labor, ‘‘Employment Situation of Veterans: 2007,’’ April 10, 2008, p. 3: http:// 

www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/vet.pdf. 7http://www.sba.gov/contractingopportunities/index.html 

8 38 U.S.C. 4212. 

members attend the TAP employment seminars.4 In the National Guard and Reserves, the usage rates are even lower: only 30 percent of all separating Reservists 

or National Guardsmen attend some portion of TAP.5 In addition, all aspects of TAP 

are not always available and the time constraints of troops’ demobilization process 

can make attending a TAP session difficult, if it is available at all.6 To encourage 

greater participation, the Department of Defense launched TurboTap.org in 2007. 

This Web site allows active-duty and reserve servicemembers access transition resources on their own time, including information on military and VA benefits and 

employment assistance. There is still much to be done to achieve the 85% participation target. 

FEDERAL CONTRACTING

‘‘I ended up getting a job with a company that is contracted out by the government 

and is unionized. So everyone is understandable and supports my actions with the 

military.’’—IAVA Vet 

The Federal Government is the world’s largest buyer of goods and services, with 

purchases totaling over $425 billion each year.7 With this level of spending the Federal Government can leverage its purchasing power to require potential contractors 

to increase veterans hiring. Current Federal law mandates Federal contracts over 

$100,000 ‘‘take affirmative action to employ’’ veterans.8 These contractors are required to publish job openings with the state job banks and to annually report the 

number of veterans they have retained by submitting a VETS–100 form to the Department of Labor. These contractors are also prohibited from discriminating 

against veterans. 

Unfortunately, the data collected from VETS–100 forms is aggregated and only 

partially published in the Department of Labor VETS annual report. IAVA is 

pleased to see that S. 3234 would require these forms to be publicly reported, allowing interested parties to review whether contractors are actually following through 

on these contracting requirements. The public disclosure of these forms should create healthy competition between contractors on which contractor hired more veterans. IAVA would love to see companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin make 

these statistics part of their bids for the next big defense contract. 

OTHER TECHNICAL NOTES

§ 9: Center of Excellence in Reforming Higher Education—In order to ensure this 

noble program is successful we recommend Including the Secretary of Education in 

the planning process along with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Assistant 

Secretary of Labor for Veterans’ Employment and Training. 

S. 3348: ALLOW RECONSIDERATION OF MISFILED APPEALS (AKAKA)

IAVA supports this bill, which would streamline the process of appealing a disability claim and would not penalize veterans for misfiling a notice of appeal. 

S. 3314: OUTREACH TO VETERANS WHO RESIDE IN APPALACHIA (BROWN)

IAVA supports this bill, which requires the VA to conduct outreach to veterans 

who reside in Appalachia. However, we feel that the VA must prioritize outreach 

nationally and we recommend that they include a distinct line item in their annual 

budget request specifically for outreach programs. 

S. 3325: PROHIBIT THE COLLECTION OF COPAYMENTS FOR TELEHEALTH VISITS FOR

VETERANS (BEGICH)

IAVA supports this bill, which would prohibit the VA from collecting copayments 

for telehealth and telemedicine visits. Since it is impossible for the VA to place brick 

and mortar buildings near every veteran in the United States, veterans who live in 

52 

rural areas should not be charged if a medical professional could not see them in 

person. 

S. 3368: TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS TO SIGN VA CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF

CLAIMANTS (AKAKA)

IAVA strongly supports this common sense draft bill that will allow an authorized 

individual to sign on behalf of a veteran who is a minor, physically unable or declared mentally incompetent. Incapacitated veterans should not have to fight 

through bureaucratic red tape to get their paperwork moving. 

S. 3352: VETERANS PENSION PROTECTION ACT OF 2010 (TESTER)

IAVA supports this bill, which would expand the amount of reimbursements that 

veterans and their dependents are forced to claim as income relating to eligibility 

for pension claims. 

S. 3286: VA PILOT PROGRAM TO PROVIDE GRANTS TO STATE AND NON-PROFIT AGENCIES

TO ASSIST CLAIMS DEVELOPMENT (SPECTER)

IAVA has no position 

S. 3330: VETERANS’ HEALTH AND RADIATION SAFETY ACT OF 2010 (CASEY)

IAVA supports this bill that aims to improve training for VA employees and contractors in the use of low-level radiation therapies. 

S. 3355: VETERANS ONE SOURCE ACT OF 2010 (KLOBUCHAR)

IAVA supports this bill that intends to create an interactive one stop for veterans 

to learn about and access their benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

S. 3367: INCREASE IN PENSION FOR MARRIED VETERANS WHO BOTH REQUIRE AID

AND ATTENDANCE (AKAKA)

IAVA supports this bill, which would increase the rate of pension for a household 

with married disabled veterans requiring regular aid and attendance. 

S 3370: CHANGES THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE VA AND SOCIAL SECURITY TO PROVIDE

A JOINT APPLICATION FOR DIC AND SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS (AKAKA)

IAVA has no position. 

S. DRAFT: EXPANSION OF THE VA’S MULTI-FAMILY

TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROGRAM (BURR)

IAVA supports this bill, which would improve and expand on the VA’s multi-family transitional housing program. 

Chairman AKAKA. Mr. Hilleman. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC A. HILLEMAN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS 

Mr. HILLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Burr, Senator 

Murray, thank you on behalf of the 2.1 million men and women of 

the Veterans of Foreign Wars and our Auxiliary for this opportunity to be represented here today. Given the large number of 

bills, I will limit my remarks to two or three issues the VFW would 

like to highlight for today’s hearing. 

The VFW believes one unemployed veteran is one too many. The 

number of unemployed veterans has skyrocketed to over a million. 

The remarkable young men and women who put their lives on the 

line for our Nation deserve much better. Congress needs to invest 

in the future of those who have invested in America by providing 

them with the training, skills, and opportunities for a chance at the 

American dream. We applaud Senator Murray for her legislation 

and for standing up and fighting to put America’s veterans back to 

work. 

53 

The VFW enthusiastically supports S. 3234, Veteran Employment Assistance Act of 2010, which seeks to address the rampant 

unemployment among recently separated OIF and OEF veterans. 

It is a comprehensive approach to addressing veterans’ unemployment. This bill invests in American small business, veterans’ employment services, on-the-job training, and apprenticeship programs. Further, it capitalizes on existing military skills and develops programs that place veterans in comparable career tracks. 

Through studies, this bill seeks to understand the barriers facing 

transitioning servicemembers while understanding the successes of 

Guard and Reserve units in re-employing their own members. The 

values of American veterans in our Nation’s workforce cannot be 

understated. 

Former servicemembers know how to work as a member of a 

team to creatively solve problems. They are trained to lead and 

know how to perform in unforgiving circumstances. They realize 

the repercussions of their conduct and understand the decisions 

they make have an impact on their organization. Veterans are 

punctual, professionally dressed at all times, lead healthy lifestyles, and are extremely trustworthy, motivated self-starters. 

Many veterans are technologically savvy and proficient with the 

use of computers. The battlefield of today requires a grunt to do 

much more than just point and shoot. They are civic-minded and 

willing to go the extra mile, and are committed, loyal employees. 

We ask Congress to help us market the inherent value of America’s 

veterans. 

Senator Akaka, your soon-to-be-released upgrades to the GI bill 

will also help put veterans back to work. With the advent of the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill, hundreds of thousands of veterans will and are 

improving their career trajectory through education. Their success 

is a direct result of this Committee’s dedication and action to improving the lives of America’s veterans. 

The VFW believes a number of changes need to be made to the 

Post-9/11 GI Bill to address the needs of servicemembers and their 

families. The original bill provided training, apprenticeships, and 

vocational training for World War II veterans. The Post-9/11 GI 

Bill should also provide the same opportunity to seek careers in the 

skilled trades. The VFW supports standardization, simplification, 

and restructuring of all education programs with an eye toward equitable benefits for equitable service. The bill continues to serve as 

a strong tool in putting veterans back to work. 

Further, we recognize that Congress alone cannot solve this epidemic of unemployment among our Nation’s veterans. We urge 

Congress to encourage America to do her part for these veterans 

and help put them back to work. We need corporate America, union 

groups, Government agencies, law makers, and veterans groups to 

place America’s veterans at the front of the employment line. 

If I may, Mr. Chairman, the VFW would like to amend our written testimony to reflect for the record that S. 3368, a bill to amend 

Title 38 of the U.S. Code, to authorize certain individuals to sign 

claims filed with the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on behalf of 

claimants. 

While these regulations in CFR 3.155 currently allow VA to accept the filing of an informal claim on behalf of a veteran by a 

54 

Member of Congress, a duly authorized representative or a ‘‘next 

friend,’’ in practice VA has not recognized or treated a duly authorized representative’s or a next friend’s signature as evidence 

enough to initiate the claim. The VFW remains cautious that this 

authority be treated carefully to avoid fraud by an unscrupulous 

spouse, health care provider, or nursing home official. 

This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any of 

your questions, and thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hilleman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIC HILLEMAN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE

SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES

Chairman Akaka, Ranking Member Burr and Members of the Committee: Thank 

you for the opportunity to provide testimony on pending veterans’ health and benefits legislation. The 2.1 million men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars 

of the U.S. and our Auxiliaries appreciate the voice you give them at this important 

hearing. 

S. 1780, HONOR AMERICA’S GUARD-RESERVE RETIREES ACT

The Honor America’s Guard-Reserve Retirees Act would recognize and authorize 

veteran-status to military retired members of the National Guard and Reserves who 

were never called to active duty but have served in other capacities for twenty or 

more years. The nation military cannot function without the Guard and Reserve. A 

large number of the Reserve Component members who have been called to serve in 

OEF/OIF qualify as veterans. However, some reservists’ soul mission is to prepare 

other guard and reserve members for deployment, while never accruing qualifying 

active duty time to be classified as a veteran. For many servicemembers this is an 

issue of honor and pride in recognition of their service and sacrifice. VFW supports 

passage of this bill. 

S. 1866, A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ELIGI- BILITY OF PARENTS OF CERTAIN DECEASED VETERANS FOR INTERMENT IN NATIONAL

CEMETERIES. 

VFW is happy to support legislation to allow parents of deceased veterans to be 

interred with their child in a national cemetery. The current conflicts find that 

many young men and women are often without a surviving spouse or child to share 

their final resting place. Allowing a parent to be buried with the veteran provides 

some comfort and closure fitting of this special bond. We understand that the bill 

gives the VA the authority to determine if there is space available at the gravesite 

of the veteran. We ask that carful discretion be used to make this determination, 

as many national cemeteries near capacity for burial needs of veterans. It is important to preserve the dignity of our national cemeteries. 

S. 1939, AGENT ORANGE EQUITY ACT OF 2009

VFW strongly supports the Agent Orange Equity Act, which would expand presumptions related to exposures for veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam 

and supporting missions. Current law requires Vietnam veterans to prove ‘‘boots on 

the ground’ in order to qualify for presumptions of service-connection for herbicideexposure related to illness. S. 1939 would expand the law so that Blue Water navy 

veterans and every other servicemembers awarded the Vietnam Service Medal who 

deployed to land, sea or air in the Republic of Vietnam are fully covered by the 

Agent Orange laws Congress passed in 1991. 

This issue has been the subject of much litigation and wrangling of words and 

intent. It is our belief that Congress did not intend to exclude those veterans from 

compensation based on geographic lines. VA made this unilateral decision and has 

clearly chosen to ignore recommendations made by the Institutes of Medicine (IOM), 

the reviewing body that provides biannual reports linking scientific evidence with 

herbicide exposure. In fact, in 2009 IOM noted, ‘‘Given the available evidence, the 

Committee recommends that members of the Blue Water Navy should not be excluded from the set of Vietnam-era veterans with presumed herbicide exposure.’’ 

(http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12662&page=656) 

The VFW believes it is time to amend the law and allow those veterans suffering 

from residual effects of Agent Orange to be compensated. This bill, when enacted 

will make it easier for VA to process claims of Vietnam veterans that suffer from 

55 

illness linked to toxic exposures that are already identified in the law. We urge Congress to pass this legislation quickly and compensate those veterans suffering as it 

is long overdue. 

S. 1940, A BILL TO REQUIRE VA TO CARRY OUT A STUDY ON THE EFFECTS ON CHILDREN

OF EXPOSURE OF THEIR PARENTS TO HERBICIDES USED IN SUPPORT OF THE UNITED

STATES AND ALLIED MILITARY OPERATIONS IN THE REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM DURING

THE VIETNAM ERA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 

VFW supports the intent of this legislation. While we are not aware of any scientific evidence connecting Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and asthma in children to parental exposure to herbicides, we support any study that seeks to obtain available research and evidence of associations between diseases in children of Vietnam veterans. We believe that the public, exposed veterans, and VA all benefit by the 

knowledge obtained by such studies. 

S. 2751, A BILL TO DESIGNATE THE DEPARTMENT OF VA MEDICAL CENTER IN BIG

SPRINGS, TX, AS THE GEORGE H. O’BRIEN, JR., DEPARTMENT OF VA MEDICAL

CENTER

VFW along with the Department of Texas VFW supports this legislation to honor 

George Herman O’Brien—a decorated veteran, Medal of Honor recipient, and a longtime member of the Big Springs, Texas, and community. Major O’Brien began his 

career of service in the Merchant Marines in 1946, then joined the U.S. Marine 

Corps in 1950, and his ladder years volunteering among his fellow veterans at the 

Big Springs VA Medical Center. He died in March 2005; in November 2008, a statue 

of his likeness was unveiled at the medical center in his honor. It is only fitting 

that his final tribute be renaming the VA Medical Center in Big Springs as the 

George H. O’Brien, Jr. Medical Center. 

S. 3035, VETERANS TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY CARE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2010

VFW supports Senator Baucus’ bill that would require a report on establishing 

a Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center or Network site in the northern Rockies or Dakotas. Polytrauma care is provided to veterans and returning servicemembers with 

injuries to more than one physical region or organ system. One of which may be 

life threatening and/or results in physical, cognitive, psychological, or psychosocial 

impairments and functional disability. 

As of April 2007, VA has treated over 350 OEF/OIF servicemembers in their inpatient units. The vast majority of these patients have been on active duty at the time 

of admission to a center and sustained a trauma injury while in combat. Most of 

these patients are then discharged and receive very specialized follow-up care at a 

Polytrauma Network Site, or other VA facility in the Polytrauma System of Care. 

VA’s Polytrauma System of Care includes four Polytrauma Rehabilitation Centers 

and 21 Polytrauma Network Sites. None of which are located in North Dakota, 

South Dakota, Idaho, Montana, eastern Washington or Wyoming. These States have 

among the highest per capita rates of veterans with injuries from military service 

in Iraq and Afghanistan. VFW believes that the number of discharged servicemembers living in the area warrants a report for capacity of care, but insists that 

it go hand in hand with VA’s ability to support the center with a full staff and retention of professional consultants and specialties related to polytrauma. 

S. 3107, VETERANS’ COMPENSATION COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 2010

VFW is pleased to support the annual cost-of-living adjustment to the rates of disability compensation, clothing allowance, and DIC. As in the past, the adjustment 

is linked to the rate of increase of the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Social Security benefit. Last’s year COLA bill passed into law, but no increase was given due 

a struggling economy and the decline in the CPI. 

We urge Congress to approve a COLA for 2011, as the benefit provides for the 

daily needs of over 3.5 million veterans and their dependents living on fixed incomes. VFW believes that COLA and all benefits earned by our heroes are an ongoing cost of war. The payment of disability compensation is a central mission of VA, 

and should remain available and not be diminished by inflation. Even a small increase makes a positive impact in the lives of veterans and their dependents. 

S. 3192, FAIR ACCESS TO VETERANS BENEFITS ACT OF 2010

VFW supports this bill, which would provide some flexibility in the equitable tolling of timelines for the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, and for other purposes. We believe that this bill creates flexibility in favor of veterans within the claims appeal 

56 

process. The current 120-day deadline to file an appeal to the US Court of Appeals 

for Veterans Claims (CAVC) does not leave room for veterans that may have unique 

circumstances due to medical or mental health problems. An example of this is the 

David Henderson case. Because he suffers from paranoid schizophrenia, he was unable to meet the 120-day deadline and was denied the right to appeal to the CAVC. 

This is but one of many instances where a veteran was unable to file a timely 

appeal due to reasons of a mental condition. Subsequently, he was denied the ability 

to have his appeal heard by the appropriate appellate body. We applaud the change 

that this legislation makes in granting veterans, of past and present leeway in the 

appeals process. It provides a just and equitable system for those who have suffered 

due to circumstances beyond of their control and ensures they have their day in 

court. 

S. 3234, VETERANS EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2010

The VFW enthusiastically supports this legislation, which seeks to address the 

rampant unemployment among recently separated OIF/OEF veterans. It addresses 

multiple sectors that impact veterans’ employment. The following is a section by section break out of the provisions of the bill. 

Section 3, establishes a Veterans Business Center (VBC) Program under the authority of Small Business Administration (SBA) in consultation with the Secretary 

of Labor. This program expands the grants and funding available to the growing 

number of centers and universities that provide entrepreneurial development, counseling, education, and mentoring to veteran entrepreneurs. This provision would authorize $10 million in fiscal year (FY) 2010 and $12 million in FY 2011 for these 

veteran business centers. The VBC Director, established under this program, will 

allocate grants to centers meeting the established performance benchmarks while 

matching grant dollars received. Grants will be broken into two categories, ‘‘initial 

grants’’ and ‘‘growth funding grants.’’ Business centers in areas where the population of veterans exceeds the national median or the population of OIF/OEF veterans exceeds the national median will be given priority for grants. 

This section also provides business centers a total of $4.5 million for FY 2011 and 

FY 2012 for three specific grant types to the tune of $1.5 million each. The VBC 

Director would be charged with issuing individual grants up to $75,000 annually to 

develop programs locating capital—increasing funding for local veterans owned businesses, providing procurement assistance for Federal contracting, and offering service-disabled veterans-owned business development programs specific to the injured 

veterans. 

Finally, section 3 commissions a joint report, between SVA and VA, regarding the 

Direct Loan program. This report would focus on the feasibility of establishing a direct loan program for veteran-owned small businesses. 

The VFW continues to support additional financial tools, education, training and 

assistance for veteran entrepreneurs. Small businesses remain the engine of our 

economy, while veteran entrepreneurs are a unique subset of that engine. The same 

drive, tenacity, and dedication that make our Nation’s servicemembers and our military successful are the same intangibles that propel them in the private sector. 

VFW believes that many veteran entrepreneurs would benefit greatly from the 

training, networking, and assistance in navigating the provisions this bill promotes. 

Despite an uncertain economic climate, the number of veterans starting business 

and growing businesses is likely to increase. This legislation will help to ensure 

those veterans and disabled veterans have access to essential services to growing 

a successful business. Further, Veterans Small Business development is essential to 

combating unemployment among veterans. Veteran entrepreneurs are more likely 

to hire other veterans, knowing the value of military service. 

Section 4, requires biannual reporting to Congress by the Administrator of the 

Interagency Task Force for Veterans and Service Disabled Veterans Owned Small 

Business. The VFW supports the formation and reporting of the Interagency Task 

Force. 

Section 5, shortens the deadline from three years to one year, for Disabled Veterans Outreach Program Specialist (DVOPS) and Local Veterans’ Employment Representatives (LVER), to meet the prerequisite training requirements. This legislation requires DVOPs and LVERs to educate other one-stop center staff about the 

nature of their work, while requiring them to learn about the other programs available through the one-stop delivery system. Failure to comply with the required 

training deadline would result in forgoing a percentage of the Federal grants that 

fund the state DVOP and LVER programs. 

The DVOPs and LVERs are often the first and only contact a veteran may have 

with a representative assisting them with veteran specific employment services. The 

57 

VFW believes that this contact must be as personalized and helpful to the veterans 

as possible. This legislation encourages higher levels of competency among DVOPs 

and LVERs earlier in their careers. By shortening the deadline from three years to 

one year to complete training, this increases the likelihood that a veteran will be 

meeting with a knowledgeable representative. Further, the DVOP and LVER positions have historically suffered from high turnover among staff. This high turnover 

reinforces the need for constant and continual training. The one-year deadline seeks 

to meet this need. 

Section 6, would create a new program under Chapter 42 of Title 38, providing 

assistance to unemployed veterans seeking training or financial relocation assistance to pursue employment. This legislation authorizes $100 million annually to pay 

veterans a monthly living stipend at the rate of E–5 with dependents, Basic Housing Allowance (BHA). A veteran unemployed at four months or more, who was not 

in receipt of other VA education/training assistance, would qualify for six months 

of BHA to pursue a qualified education, training, or apprenticeship program. Additionally, a veteran could access a onetime grant of up to $5000 toward moving expenses for a DOL recognized training program or position within the training program. Finally, DOL will be required to submit an annual report outlining the usage 

and demographics of this program. 

This legislation will provide numerous veterans with the financial support to seek 

training and assist them with relocation expenses. Veterans at any point in their 

careers would be encouraged to retool and retrain to support their families, while 

also meeting the needs of a dynamic labor market. All too often guard and reserve 

members return home from military service only to find viable hometown industries 

and previous employers have closed or moved on. Often veterans experience a midcareer break in employment and need further education or training to reenter the 

work force-this bill guarantees an investment in our veterans’ competitive American 

industries. 

Section 7, accomplishes the VFW’s goal of equitably realigning Chapter 30, Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) programs into Chapter 33, the Post-9/11 GI Bill. This legislation would provide a mechanism to authorize and assist veterans in pursuing approved apprenticeship or on-the-job-training programs. It would provide a monthly 

benefit to veterans in addition to a housing allowance equal to the BHA rate of an 

E–5 with dependents while an enrolled veteran. The monthly compensation and 

charge to entitlement would be used at the rate of 75 percent for the first six 

months, 55 percent for the second six months, and 35 percent for any remaining 

months of training. 

The VFW believes a number of changes need to be made to the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill 

to address the needs of today’s servicemembers and their families. The original G.I. 

Bill provided training apprenticeships and vocational training for World War II veterans. The Post-9/11 G.I. Bill should also provide veterans the same opportunity to 

seek careers in skilled trades. The VFW supports the standardization, simplification 

and restructuring of all education programs, with an eye toward equitable benefits 

for equitable service, to include: 

• Remaining Chapter 30 programs (lump sum payments, vocational training, distance learning) should be moved into Chapter 33. 

• Title 10, Section 1606, the Guard and Reserve Select Reserve GI Bill, needs to 

reflect the Chapter 33 scale. 

• Chapter 35 survivors and dependent educational benefits should also be comparable to Chapter 33. 

• Ultimately, phaseout Chapter 30 and Chapter 34; simplifying benefits based on 

Chapter 33. 

Furthermore, the VFW believes that members of the National Guard and Reserve 

who serve under Title 32 U.S.C., Active Guard Reserve program, should have their 

service recognized under Chapter 33. By virtue of their status, approximately 45,000 

veterans who serve our country under Title 32 do not receive credit toward accruing 

benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, even though their service was often in support 

of Federal initiatives. All military men and women should be rewarded equally. 

The VFW also supports allowing veterans who attend on-line universities to be 

eligible for the Post-9/11 GI Bill, and therefore, draw an equitable living stipend. 

Veterans often decide to attend online universities through necessity—family and 

work obligations, service-connected disability limitations, as well as financial restrictions that prevent them from becoming traditional, on-campus students. Veterans 

enrolled in online universities today receive no cost of living stipend. The VFW 

wants to see this inequity fixed. 

Section 8, would establish a ‘‘veterans conservation corps’’ grant program. Grants, 

up to $250,000, would be awarded to States for the purpose of maintaining local 

58 

parks, lands, reserves, and other outdoor spaces. States would be required to establish partnerships with one-stop centers, universities, labor organizations, and veterans’ service organizations to promote veterans in employment and volunteer opportunities in their communities. 

The VFW continues to support collaborative and innovative programs to invest in 

communities and put veterans to work. This program has the potential to put veterans to work and give them practical experience organizing communities to care 

for the environment while developing and marketing ‘green’ industries in a given 

area. 

Section 9, would establish grants for research, development, planning, implementation, and evaluation of military credit to count toward higher education. This section directs the VA and DOL to collaborate and establish grants, ranging from $2 

million to $5 million. Eligible institutions, such as colleges, military facilities, medical centers, and other programs would bridge the gap between military service and 

careers. 

We are extremely supportive of translating transferable military skill into college 

credit or careers. This grant program has the potential to target specific military 

occupational specializations (MOS) and place those individuals on the fast track toward certifications and degrees in current or closely related fields. We have long 

maintained, if you can drive a truck through the toughest spots in Iraq and Afghanistan, you should be able to drive a truck in the U.S. The same holds true for many 

electronics, mechanical, and technical fields. 

Section 10, would require the Secretary of Labor to publicize on the internet information reported by contractors to be in compliance with veterans employment requirements. We support the continued oversight and transparency that Congress 

and the Administration has sought to establish in government. 

Section 11, would establish a grant program, entitled ‘‘Military Pathways Demonstration Program,’’ focused specifically on putting military medical personnel and 

information technology (IT) personnel directly into the work force and education programs of their respective skill areas. The annual authorization of $10 million would 

direct DOL and VA to develop a competitive grant program to test servicemembers’ 

transition into MOS related fields in the health care and IT sectors. 

The VFW strongly supports strengthening the gaps that exist between military 

specialization and the civilian counterpart industries. This grant program would 

make targeted links into corporate America in IT and the health care industries. 

It would seek to connect companies, organizations, and institutions of learning for 

the betterment of servicemembers. Once paths and bridges are successfully built 

into training and employing veterans in specific fields, this program can be broadened to other skill sets and industries. The cutting edge of both the IT and medical 

fields are in the hands of servicemembers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Allowing them 

to translate this skill and real world application into the private sector benefits the 

individual veteran and America’s industries. 

Section 12, establishes a grant program for energy-related industry, much like 

that of Section 11 of this bill. The annual authorization of $10 million would develop 

a competitive grant program for states to collaborate with labor organizations and 

the energy industry to develop training and apprenticeship programs. The VFW 

strongly supports developing public-private partnerships to place America’s veterans 

onto viable career trajectories. 

Section 13, would authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) 

to establish a grant program to transform military medics into community emergency medical service personnel under the existing ‘‘Rural emergency medical service training and equipment assistance program.’’ Rural employment is one of the 

areas hardest hit by the economic downturn. Further, guard and reserve members 

often reside in these areas and due to frequent deployment have had difficulty reconnecting with employment upon their return. This legislation allows many veterans to seek training and employment in their respective community. The VFW 

supports this grant expansion under HHS. 

Section 14, directs the Secretary of the Department of Defense to designate military housing construction projects for a pilot program to utilize approved veterans 

apprenticeship programs. This pilot would span FY 2011 to 2015, requiring DOD 

to utilize veterans enrolled in DOL qualified apprenticeship programs. 

The VFW applauds the effort to promote Federal contracting and utilization of 

veterans’ contractors in Federal procurement. This pilot has the potential to improve 

the DOD’s adherence to the 3 percent contracting goal, while developing veterans’ 

apprenticeship in the construction trades. This bill seeks to establish a geographic 

dispersion of this pilot catalyzing veterans’ employment in the construction trades 

nationwide. 

59 

Section 15, directs DOL and DOD to study and report to Congress on the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) with an eye toward improving services to veterans. 

The study would take into account the needs of veterans and the Armed Forces, assess current costs and programs, and recommend programming and activities to improve TAP as well as serving local veterans residing near military installations. 

TAP has long served as the sole means of providing a springboard for separating 

servicemembers. While TAP has been successful at providing a wealth of information in a short timeframe to separating servicemembers, it is often seen as more of 

a ‘checked-box’ for separating troops. The VFW supports improving these programs 

to better inform and prepare servicemembers reentering civilian life. 

Section 16, directs the Secretary of Defense to study the National Guard Employment Enhancement Program of the Washington State National Guard. This study 

would examine this program and make recommendations to expand or authorize 

similar programs throughout the country. 

We support the study of employment programs among guard units. Many of the 

local best practices can be shared and translate nationally to help ease the reintegration of Guard and Reserve members. Nearly 40 percent of the troops deployed in support of OIF/OEF are Guard and Reserve units from across the Nation, 

many of whom are frequently seeking new employment and reemployment. The successes of employing these veterans translates into much more than just jobs, it improves the quality of life of many military families as well as the American 

economy. 

VFW thanks Senator Murray for introducing this comprehensive employment bill 

and urges Congress to move quickly on this legislation to put American heroes back 

to work. 

S. 3286, TO REQUIRE VA TO CARRY OUT A PILOT PROGRAM ON THE AWARD OF GRANTS

TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS TO

PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO VETERANS WITH THEIR SUBMITTAL OF CLAIMS TO THE VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION (VBA)

This bill is designed to increase effectiveness of outreach to veterans as it directs 

the Secretary to carry out a pilot program on the awarding of grants to State and 

local government agencies and non-profit organizations that assist veterans with 

their claims. 

The VFW has always encouraged and supported increased awareness of benefits 

and services provided by VA to veterans. We believe that all veterans and their survivors should have access to up-to-date information about services and benefits for 

which they may be eligible. However, since the success of this initiative will result 

in increased claims submissions to VA, we urge that funding for VBA adjudication 

keep pace with increases in the number of claims filed as a result of greater outreach at the local level. 

We also encourage substantial outreach efforts at the local and state level be 

made on behalf of National Guard and Reserve members and would like to see additional language which specifies oversight by Congress regarding use of funds granted to state and local governments who perform outreach services. VFW also encourages effective training of those reaching out to veterans’ to ensure that funds are 

being spent properly and services explained properly. 

S. 3314, TO REQUIRE VA AND THE APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION TO CARRY OUT

A PROGRAM OF OUTREACH TO VETERANS WHO RESIDE IN APPALACHIA, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES

The VFW supports legislation that would require VA and the Appalachian Regional Commission to carry out a program of outreach for veterans who reside in 

Appalachia. The Appalachian Regional Commission is the region extending from 

Mississippi to New York, through 13 states, 420 counties, and 205,000 square miles 

and encompassing 24.8 million people. Historically, Appalachia has faced chronically 

high rates of poverty, unemployment, substandard housing, low educational levels 

and poor health care. The military/veteran population residing in the area is often 

unaware of the benefits provided by VA or other local, county, and state veterans’ 

services. Combine that with scant access to care, varying support services, and problems finding transportation to VA appointments over long distances further isolates 

this population of veterans. We can all agree continued outreach is needed, but more 

importantly follow-up care and essential services is central to improving the quality 

of life for these veterans. 

VFW applauds section 1 (c) (Projects) which requires VA and the Appalachian Regional Commission to enter into agreements, provide technical assistance, award 

grants or contracts to state and local governments, veterans service organizations 

60 

and businesses to increase the number of individuals providing services to veterans 

and their families. We look forward to working with the communities of Appalachia 

and encourage Congress to appropriate proper funding to continue offering comprehensive education and outreach to Appalachian veterans. 

S. 3325, TO AMEND TILE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO AUTHORIZE THE WAIVER OF THE

COLLECTION OF COPAYMENTS FOR TELEHEALTH AND TELEMEDICINE VISIT OF VETERANS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

The VFW strongly supports this legislation, which would exempt disabled veterans from paying copayments for telehealth and telemedicine visits. By waving copayments we encourage the use of this cost effective service, which connects the specialist via telecommunications to the veteran. 

The VFW applauds VA as being a leader in this new area of health care. Care 

Coordination General Telehealth (CCGT) uses telehealth technologies to make diagnoses, manage care, perform check-ups, and actually provide care to veterans. The 

use of video technologies makes it possible for veterans, many of whom live in rural 

or remote areas, to come to VA’s community-based outpatient clinics and connect 

to a specialist or other practitioner who may be in a hospital hundreds or even thousands of miles away. Offering this special service is a wonderful use of technology 

and resources. Therefore, we are happy to offer our support for this enhanced health 

care service with the exclusion copayments by our veterans. 

S. 3348, TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR THE TREATMENT

AS A MOTION OF RECONSIDERATION OF A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF VETERANS’ APPEALS OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SUCH DECISION MISFILED WITH VA

The VFW supports this legislation as it addresses the ambiguity involved with informal notices of disagreement or motions to reconsider an appeal. Currently, if a 

veteran formally communicates with the VA regarding their dissatisfaction with 

their case or the decision rendered, the VA must make a choice. This bill allows any 

written expression of disagreement, by the veteran, with a Board of Veterans Appeals BVA decision to be treated as a motion received by the BVA within the 120 

appeal period—as a formal motion to reconsider. 

S. 3352, VETERANS PENSIONS PROTECTION ACT OF 2010

This legislation would protect pension payments from including insurance settlements of any kind from the calculation amount in determining pension. Further, 

this bill would require VA to make determinations on the fare market value and 

replacement value of any assets claimed for exclusion under the insurance 

settlement. 

The VFW supports the intent of this legislation, but cannot support this language. 

We believe that this bill would require VA to make further determinations regarding replacement value in the cases of insurance settlements. The current pension 

threshold for a veteran without dependents is $11,830 annually. In order to exclude 

any income resulting from an insurance settlement from factoring against the 

$11,830, VA would need to further examine the values associated with the insurance settlement. These additional decisions will further delay and complicate a relatively simple benefit. 

We would suggest, this legislation be rewritten to accept any insurance settlement 

as excluded from the calculation of pension. It is likely this will achieve the noble 

goal of aiding a veteran in serious financial distress, while allowing them to replace 

the loss or damaged property. This also prevents VA from expending more resources 

to develop other pension claims. 

S. 3355, VETERANS ONE SOURCE ACT OF 2010

The VFW currently has no formal position on this legislation. 

S. 3367, TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO INCREASE THE RATE OF PENSION

FOR DISABLED VETERANS WHO ARE MARRIED TO ONE ANOTHER AND BOTH OF WHOM

REQUIRE AID AND ATTENDANCE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

VFW supports the increase in aid and attendance rates for married couples. This 

bill corrects a drafting mistake in Public Law 105–178, Section 8206, which increased the aid and attendance rates for veterans receiving VA pension who were 

in need of aid and attendance; but failed to provide the same increase to married 

couples in receipt of the same benefits. The change will provide an additional $825 

dollars, bringing the amount of pension of a wartime veteran couple in line with 

61 

what their peers receive. VFW believes that this change is long overdue and asks 

Congress to enact this bill quickly. 

S. 3368, TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS TO SIGN CLAIMS FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ON BEHALF OF CLAIMANTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

The VFW cannot support this bill, as we believe it to be duplicative of VA’s regulations, CFR 3.155. Current VA regulations allow for the filing of an informal claim 

on behalf of a veteran by a Member of Congress, a duly authorized representative 

or a ‘next friend.’ Further, we believe that this bill may increase the opportunity 

for fraud by an unscrupulous spouse, health care provider, or nursing home official 

to initiate a claim without the knowledge or consent of the otherwise competent veteran. We also have concerns that the bill does not specify the level of proof a family 

member must provide to VA to establish that the claimant is mentally incompetent 

or physically unable to sign a form. We believe that this will impose another burden 

on VA as well as create an opportunity for fraud. 

S. 3370, TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO IMPROVE THE PROCESS BY

WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL FILES JOINTLY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND DEPENDENCY AND

INDEMNITY COMPENSATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

VFW supports this legislation, which adds clarity to VA’s interpretation of law regarding the award of Social Security and DIC. Currently, Social Security has the 

ability to provide electronic notifications to VA in the event of a survivors spouse 

seeking survivors’ benefits. This bill would give VA the authority to accept any documentation or electronic transmission as proof of eligibility in the death of a veteran. 

DRAFT BILL, TO AMEND TITLE 38, U.S.C., TO IMPROVE THE MULTIFAMILY TRANSITIONAL

HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS BY REQUIRING

THE SECRETARY OF VETERAN AFFAIRS TO ISSUE LOANS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF, REHABILITATION OF, OR ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR MULTIFAMILY TRANSITIONAL

HOUSING PROJECTS INSTEAD OF GUARANTEEING LOANS FOR SUCH PURPOSES, AND

FOR OTHER PURPOSES

The VFW supports this legislation, which would transform the VA’s multifamily 

transitional housing loan grant program into a direct lending program for the same 

purpose. This program has been underutilized since its inception in 1999, yielding 

only one guarantee loan. The emphasis President Obama and Secretary Shinseki 

have placed on combating veterans’ homelessness requires every available tool. This 

program could have a real impact in ending homelessness among veterans. 

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. PATTY MURRAY TO

ERIC HILLEMAN, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS

Question. Do you think it would be best to try and centralize all GI Bill Benefit 

programs under one umbrella and how would you envision that taking place? 

Response. Yes, the VFW believes a number of changes need to be made to the 

Post-9/11 G.I. Bill to address the needs of today’s servicemembers and their families. 

The original G.I. Bill provided training apprenticeships and vocational training for 

World War II veterans. The Post-9/11 G.I. Bill should also provide veterans the 

same opportunity to seek careers in skilled trades. The VFW supports the standardization, simplification and restructuring of all education programs, with an eye toward equitable benefits for equitable service, to include: 

> Remaining Chapter 30 programs (lump sum payments, vocational training, distance learning) should be moved into Chapter 33. 

> Title 10, Section 1606, the Guard and Reserve Select Reserve GI Bill, needs to 

reflect the Chapter 33 scale. 

> Chapter 35 survivors and dependent educational benefits should also be comparable to Chapter 33. 

> Chapter 34, VR&E programs need to be updated and in parity with Chapter 33. 

> Ultimately, phaseout Chapter 30 and Chapter 34; simplifying benefits based on 

Chapter 33. 

Remaining Chapter 30 programs (lump sum payments, vocational training, distance learning) should be moved into Chapter 33: 

• Include Title 32 AGR eligibility as qualifying active duty time for the Chapter 33. 

• Allow citified Vocational Programs (non-degree granting institutions) to qualify 

for ‘‘approved programs.’’ 

62 

– Living allowance, tuition, and the books stipend should be available for 

these programs. 

– Students attending public vocational programs should not have to pay out 

of pocket and private vocational schools should get the same benefits as private 

colleges. 

• Allow OJT/Apprenticeship programs to qualify for Chapter 33. 

– Living allowance rates should be based on the zip code of the program. 

– The living allowance should be tiered like the MGIB (first six months at 

75%, second six 55%, and 35% for the remainder of the program). The rate 

should be based on BAH, with eligibility charged at the percentage received. 

– The book stipend should be available the first year paid in six month increments to cover tools, dues, and programs supplies. 

• Allow a veteran to take multiple test/certifications under the $2000 testing cap 

of Chapter 33. 

– If the veteran exceeds the $2,000 cap then s/he should be charged a percentage of monthly eligibility based on the national average BAH. 

– Students should receive up to $2,000 worth of reimbursement for multiple 

test/certifications without a charge to entitlement. 

• Distance learners need living allowance based on their residency at a percentage of BAH. 

– Fix living allowance of Chapter 33 to reflect the percentage break down like 

that of MGIB. 

• Pay a living allowances based on Full time, 75% time or 50% time tiers to make 

rates simpler to understand and greatly reduced the number of over and underpayments and charge eligibility accordingly. 

Title 10, Section 1606, the Guard and Reserve Select Reserve GI Bill, needs to 

reflect the Chapter 33 scale. 

• Move this program out of Title 10, create a Guard/Reserve benefit at the rate 

of 30 percent, reflecting the existing sliding scale currently used for accrued benefits 

under Chapter 33. 

Chapter 35 survivors and dependent educational benefits should also be comparable to Chapter 33. 

• All Chapter 35 programs should reflect the mechanisms of payment under 

Chapter 33. 

– Tuition, fees, and books should be compensated at the same rate. 

– Eligibility and authorized programs should be identical to Chapter 33. 

Chapter 34, VR&E programs need to be updated and in parity with Chapter 33. 

• Remove the Delimiting Date for VR&E. 

• Increase VR&E’s Educational Stipend to Reflect Chapter 33. 

• Additional Assistance for Veterans with Dependents under VR&E. 

• Jump Start VR&E Enrollment. Eliminate the second determination, accept and 

support all eligible veterans who make the initial qualification for the program. 

• Measure Veterans Long-Term Employment under VR&E. 

– Currently, the measure of success is the number of veterans gainfully employed for a period of 60 days after completing a VR&E program. Such a shortterm measurement limits the VR&E program to short-term goals instead of 

properly helping disabled veterans succeed for life. 

Ultimately, phaseout Chapter 30, Chapter 32, and Chapter 34; simplifying benefits based on Chapter 33. 

• All VA education programs should be unified and reflect equitable benefits for 

qualified recipients. 

• With the more generous benefit of Chapter 33, and the fast approaching date 

of veterans only eligible for Chapter 30, Chapter 30 should be eliminated. 

– The same holds true for Chapter 32 (VEAP). Vietnam era veterans who are 

still eligible for Chapter 32 are also most likely eligible for Chapter 33 and more 

likely to utilize the new GI Bill. 

• Chapter 34 each survivor should be compensated at the same rate available 

under Chapter 33. Thus, making Chapter 34 no more than a description of eligibility for Chapter 33 as a survivor. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Hilleman. 

And now we will receive the testimony of Mr. Weidman. 

63 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD WEIDMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

FOR POLICY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA; ACCOMPANIED BY ALAN OATES, 

CHAIRMAN, AGENT ORANGE/DIOXIN AND OTHER TOXIC EXPOSURES COMMITTEE 

Mr. WEIDMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity for us to present our views here today, and I, too, will 

limit oral remarks to just a couple of bills. 

The first is S. 1780. Perhaps Colonel Bob Norton from MOAA 

said it best when he said, ‘‘Same hostile fire, same benefits.’’ That 

precept applies to this bill. There are many other elements of services and benefits that are available to veterans that we need modification in the Guard and Reserve legislation to make sure that 

that precept is honored, ‘‘Same hostile fire, same benefits.’’ 

S. 1939, the Agent Orange Equity Act, is something that is long 

overdue. We are in the 35th year since the formal end of the war, 

and we still are not yet in the final stretch in terms of delivering 

justice to those men and their families who were harmed by virtue 

of military service by exposure to Agent Orange and other toxins 

in Vietnam or elsewhere in the world. The Agent Orange Equity 

Act would extend the presumption that was wrongfully denied by 

the VA more than 10 years ago. 

The Institute of Medicine, in its most recent study in the strongest language possible, in their biennial review said that there was 

no valid scientific reason for excluding the Blue Water Navy people. I want to repeat that: there was no valid scientific reason for 

excluding the Navy people. 

The Secretary heard that and empanelled a special—contracted 

with the IOM to empanel a special group of scientists that began 

work at the beginning of this month; and on May 3, VVA, both Mr. 

Oates and I, testified and met with that panel as they were considering that. 

One of the key things is that the Australians have completed 

three complete epidemiological studies of their veterans of everybody who served in their Armed Forces during the Vietnam War, 

and they are working on a fourth. In the third completed study, 

they discovered that Navy vets had higher cancer rates of all sorts, 

particularly those conditions that would emanate from exposure to 

Agent Orange, than the Army folks, and they could not figure it 

out. They then contracted with the University of Queensland, a 

worldwide respected institution, to look at this issue, and they zeroed in on desalinization and discovered that the desalinization actually had the perverse effect of concentrating the dioxin. Agent 

Orange is not water soluble. It is water-suspensible, and people 

came out into the gulf, close in to shore, much closer than VA 

would have you believe. 

Yankee Station was a particular point off the coast of Vietnam. 

What most of those who were supporting the effort in Vietnam, 

particularly supporting the carriers, would try to keep more or less 

on that point and head in toward shore; and when they got in too 

close, they turned around and came back in order to launch and 

receive aircraft. As a result and because the South China Sea is 

very shallow, a lot of this reached the ships with desalinization. 

64 

VA claimed that this was a poor study, that it was poor science. 

They never have said why. And it is, in fact, a peer-reviewed study. 

It has been peer-reviewed and written about in numerous scientific 

journals. It conforms to World Health Organization standards. Not 

only that, VA has not done—they have had 35 years to do an epidemiological study of those of us who served in Southeast Asia and 

they still have not even had something on the drawing boards, one. 

Two, they have had the opportunity now for 7 years to replicate 

the University of Queensland study and see whether it would be 

validated or not validated. That is what science is all about, and 

VA has not done that. 

In addition to that, VA currently is not funding a single scientific 

effort out of the Office of Research and Development that deals 

with the long-term adverse health impact of exposure to Agent Orange and other toxins in Vietnam. As a result of that, there is not 

any science to review. 

What the Institute of Medicine process does under the law that 

this Committee took the lead on getting passed through Congress, 

the Agent Orange Act of 1991, the Institute of Medicine can only 

review the science that is done by others. But the Federal Government is not funding any science to look at either Vietnam veterans, 

those who served in the Southeast Asia theater of operations, or 

our progeny. So, we also strongly favor S. 1940 because it starts 

the ball rolling in that direction of forcing VA to look at this whole 

question of progeny—not just children but also grandchildren. 

There are a number of other very positive bills, and I hope we 

get some questions about Senator Murray’s act. Senator Murray, I 

thank you for your leadership in introducing this comprehensive 

bill. We have some specific comments as to how it may possibly be 

improved. 

I thank the Chair for our opportunities. Mr. Oates and I would 

be glad to answer any questions. Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weidman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD WEIDMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, POLICY AND

GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA AND ALAN OATES, CHAIR, 

VVA NATIONAL AGENT ORANGE & TOXIC EXPOSURES COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Burr, and other distinguish members of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, thank you for allowing us to appear here today. 

We appreciate you giving Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) the opportunity to 

express our views in regard to the important pending proposed legislation before 

this Committee today. 

S. 1780—HONOR AMERICA’S GUARD-RESERVE RETIREES ACT—A BILL TO DEEM CERTAIN

SERVICE IN THE RESERVE COMPONENTS AS ACTIVE SERVICE FOR PURPOSES OF LAWS

ADMINISTERED BY THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS. 

Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) favors enactment of this proposal. As should 

be readily apparent to all, the Reserves and National Guard have become integral 

and indispensable part of our Nation’s Armed Forces, vital to our overall total force 

that enables our military to meet the stresses and strains of fighting global war on 

terrorists. This proposed legislation is just one more step in recognizing that ongoing contribution of those who serve in this manner, and is needed step toward treating their service in an equitable manner after their term of service is completed. 

VVA thanks Senators Lincoln, Hutchison, and Snowe for their leadership on this 

issue. 

65 

S. 1866—A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ELIGI- BILITY OF PARENTS OF CERTAIN DECEASED VETERANS FOR INTERMENT IN NATIONAL

CEMETERIES

VVA favors enactment of this legislation. It has no cost to the government, does 

not require further use of National Cemetery lands beyond that already required for 

interment of the servicemember. It will mean a great deal to the relatively few parents who will be affected to be interred with their lost servicemember. 

S. 1939—AGENT ORANGE EQUITY ACT OF 2009—TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES

CODE, TO CLARIFY PRESUMPTIONS RELATING TO THE EXPOSURE OF CERTAIN VET- ERANS WHO SERVED IN THE VICINITY OF THE REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM, AND FOR

OTHER PURPOSES. 

VVA reiterates our strong support for passage of S. 1939 the Agent Orange Equity Act, and the companion bill in the House of Representatives, H.R. 2254. VVA 

particularly thanks Senator Gillibrand of New York for introducing this proposed 

legislation. We must do whatever needs to be done, in this thirty fifth year since 

the end of the Vietnam war, to ensure that these veterans receive some measure 

of justice as soon as possible. 

In the latest biennial update pursuant to the Agent Orange Act of 1991, the panel 

of the Institute of Medicine (IOM), of the National Academies of Science (NAS), unequivocally reiterated that there was no valid scientific reason for the exclusion of 

so-called ‘‘Blue Water’’ Navy veterans from the presumption of exposure to Agent 

Orange and other harmful toxins present in South Vietnam during the war. It is 

clear that the study performed by the University of Queensland regarding the desalination plants on board Australian ships at the time is directly applicable to 

American Navy personnel. Not only did the desalination plants on the American 

vessels work in exactly the same manner as those on Australian ships, they were 

manufactured and installed by the same company. The methodology for creating 

fresh water for both the boilers and for drinking, cooking, etc. actually had the perverse effect of concentrating dioxin in the ‘‘cleansed’’ water that was then ingested 

by the fliers and sailors on board. 

It is important to note that the reason that the Australian government commissioned this study is that the Third Epidemiological Study of Australian Veterans of 

Vietnam showed that their Navy personnel actually had higher rates of cancers and 

other diseases thought to be caused by exposure to dioxin than their Army personnel. This prompted the government of Australia to commission the Queensland 

study. 

Let me reiterate that the Australians have completed three epidemiological studies of all of their citizens who served in their Armed Forces during the Vietnam 

War, and they are now starting on a fourth such study. When they found anomalies, 

they then commissioned further studies to discover why. That is what responsible 

democracies do when it is alleged or suspected that their citizens who placed their 

lives on the line in defense of country have been harmed by said service. 

The United States government has done no such epidemiological study of our veterans. 

Even more egregiously, the VA Office of Research & Development currently does 

not fund a single study related to the long term adverse health care effects on our 

veterans or their progeny of exposure to Agent Orange and other toxic substances 

in Vietnam. 

When the VA challenged the Australian study on Navy veterans and desalinization before the IOM meeting specifically considering the matters of American ‘‘blue 

water’’ Navy veterans’ potential exposure to dioxin on May 3, 2010 as being ‘‘bad 

science’’, the VA officials could not say how or why it was bad science. When the 

scientists on the IOM panel asked the VA if they had done an epidemiological study 

similar to the three such studies done by the Australians, the VA had no response. 

When the same scientists on that panel asked the VA officials if they had funded 

an attempt to replicate the acclaimed and peer reviewed work of the study of Australian Navy desalination plants done by the University of Queensland, the VA had 

no real response except to say that they had failed to do so. 

Further, that same VA Office of Research & Development (ORD), funded at an 

annual rate of more that a half a billion dollars, has yet to contract for completion 

of the replication of the landmark National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study 

(NVVRS) thereby making it a robust longitudinal study that will serve as a statistically valid national mortality and morbidity study for Vietnam veterans. From the 

testimony given in another Committee earlier this month, and in statements made 

to the General Accountability Office (GAO) and reflected in their testimony on this 

subject, ‘‘Progress & Challenges in Completing the National Vietnam Veterans LonVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:54 Nov 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\111TH HEARINGS\61587.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
66 

gitudinal Study’’ (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10658t.pdf ) on May 5, 2010, it is 

clear to us at VVA that the staff of the ORD and of VHA does not intend to make 

a good faith effort to complete this study properly. 

It is clear to us that the VA ORD intends to act in a way that is plain unethical 

in regard to research that involves human subjects, and threatens to violate the assurances of confidentiality given to the original participants in the NVVRS twenty 

five years ago. That will guarantee that most reputable scientific institutions will 

not bid on completing this study given the way in which VA wishes to violate the 

original rules guaranteed in the Institutional Review Board rules for the study set 

at the onset of the original study, and that the veterans who originally participated 

will likely not do so again given the VA’s bad faith effort to change the ground rules, 

and renege on assurances of confidentiality. 

What does all of this mean in relation to the bill S. 1939 that you have before 

you for consideration? What it means is that there was no valid scientific reason 

for VA to exclude the ‘‘blue water’’ Navy veterans from the presumption in the first 

place. Further, it means that the permanent bureaucracy of the VA continues to do 

everything it can to prevent any decent scientific research to be funded by the 

United States government into the long term health care effects of exposure to 

Agent Orange on American who served in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War, 

or our children, or our grandchildren. 

It is clear that the right thing for that VA bureaucracy to do would be to recommend to the Secretary that he declare all of the ‘‘blue water’’ Navy veterans covered under presumption immediately, reverse course, and honestly try and successfully complete the NVVLS, and start to fund proposals to examine the epigeniological impact of exposure to dioxin and other toxins on second, third, and 

fourth generations of the progeny of Vietnam veterans, as well as the impact on the 

veterans themselves. 

However, while it is clear as to what the right and just and honest thing to do 

is in this situation, it is highly unlikely that these leopards will change their spots 

and start to act decently. Therefore in regard to action by the Executive branch, we 

can only hope that Secretary Shinseki, who we do believe to be a good, honest, and 

decent man, will do the right thing despite the recommendations of the permanent 

ORD staff. 

The veterans involved have been done a great injustice. That injustice needs to 

be made right. Early enactment of the Agent Orange Equity Act will provide such 

justice for many veterans who are now suffering and dying as a result of the harmful exposure to Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. We urge this distinguished 

Committee and the Senate to take the necessary steps to pass this bill as soon as 

possible. 

S. 1940—A BILL TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO CARRY OUT A

STUDY ON THE EFFECTS ON CHILDREN OF EXPOSURE OF THEIR PARENTS TO HERBICIDES USED IN SUPPORT OF THE UNITED STATES AND ALLIED MILITARY OPERATIONS

IN THE REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM DURING THE VIETNAM ERA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 

Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) also thanks Senator Gillibrand for sponsoring this very important bill requiring the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to perform a study on the effects of Agent Orange and other toxins used in Vietnam on 

the children of veterans so exposed. Perhaps the most emotional issue for our membership is the clear suffering of what we believe is an extraordinary rate of birth 

anomalies and abnormally high rates of disease and adverse health care conditions 

in the children, and in the grandchildren, of Vietnam veterans. We do urge that this 

distinguished committee consider amending the language of this bill to direct this 

study to also review the extent of such conditions in the grandchildren and greatgrandchildren of veterans exposed to Agent Orange and other toxins in Southeast 

Asia, or veterans so exposed elsewhere in the world where these chemicals were 

used by the United States military during that same period. 

This will provide a starting point for assembling the evidence that may be available regarding these high rates of disease and conditions in this population. VVA 

does caution, however, that since there has been a consistent policy, particularly in 

the past eight years, of not providing any Federal funding for original science in this 

area that there may not be nearly enough peer reviewed scientific work for the VA 

to review. Therefore, VVA urges that early passage of S. 1940 be followed up by 

steps to ensure that there are funds available specifically for original scientific studies into the effect of dioxin and other toxins on the progeny of Vietnam veterans. 

VVA has been working on just such a proposal and looks forward to discussing 

these issues and working with you, your distinguished colleagues, and your able 

67 

staff, Mr. Chairman, to bring forth a proposal that will accomplish this and other 

purposes. 

S. 3035—VETERANS TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY CARE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2010, TO REQUIRE A REPORT ON THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A POLYTRAUMA REHABILITATION CENTER OR POLYTRAUMA NETWORK SITE OF DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS IN

THE NORTHERN ROCKIES OR DAKOTAS AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

Traumatic Brain Injury suffered by our troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has become so relatively common that its acronym, TBI, is becoming almost as infamous 

as PTSD. While this affliction is not new; it has only been so codified because of 

the carnage caused by IEDs, (Improvised Explosive Devices), another acronym that 

has been incorporated into the dialect of war. The Veterans Administration and the 

military medical system is already screening all returning troops for mild to moderate cases of TBI; to varying degrees of effectiveness. Those whose brain injuries 

are more serious are quite obvious to clinicians. 

VVA does not object to the intent or the specifics of this proposed legislation/ 

project. We would suggest that it incorporate an element that takes into account 

PTSD, which is often present when there is either polytrauma or TBI. 

Further, VVA recommends that this project be coordinated with the Montana National Guard, which has become the singular model of how to effectively de-stigmatize and more effectively treat PTSD in those who choose to remain in the Guard/ 

Reserves or active duty forces, as well as in general. Further, since this is the most 

rural military force that the United States has fielded since World War I, it is certainly appropriate that the VA start developing new models of how to deal with returning troops closer to their home, which is so often not in a major urban area. 

This would seem to be as good a place to start as anywhere, particularly because 

of the leadership of the Montana National Guard. 

S. 3107—VETERANS’ COMPENSATION COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 2010, TO

AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR AN INCREASE, EFFECTIVE

DECEMBER 1, 2010, IN THE RATES OF COMPENSATION FOR VETERANS WITH SERVICECONNECTED DISABILITIES, AND THE RATES OF DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION FOR THE SURVIVORS OF CERTAIN DISABLED VETERANS, AND FOR OTHER

PURPOSES. 

VVA supports this legislation. Disabled veterans and their families fall victim to 

the rising costs of living no less so than anyone else. S. 3107 would increase the 

current levels of disability compensation, additional compensation for dependents, 

the VA clothing allowance and the various rates of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC). The percentage of increase would be equivalent to the percentage 

of the cost of living adjustment (COLA) for Social Security beneficiaries, and would 

become effective as of December 1, 2010. These COLA increases are absolutely necessary to ensure that veterans and their dependents receive meaningful benefits, 

and to prevent them from falling through inflationary cracks. 

S. 3192—FAIR ACCESS TO VETERANS BENEFITS ACT OF 2010

While VVA is in general in favor of speeding up the process of adjudicating veterans’ claims, there may well be some instances whereby, through no fault of the 

veteran, the time for appeal to the Court of Veterans Appeals should be extended 

in the interest of justice. Therefore, VVA favors passage of this proposal. 

S. 3234—VETERAN EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2010, TO IMPROVE EMPLOYMENT, 

TRAINING, AND PLACEMENT SERVICES FURNISHED TO VETERANS, ESPECIALLY THOSE

SERVING IN OPERATION IRAQI FREEDOM AND OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM, AND

FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 

Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) strongly endorses the clear good intent of 

this effort at a comprehensive act, and generally endorses much of what is in each 

of the major titles of this proposed legislation. 

There are significant flaws in the section 3 outline for veterans’ business centers, 

including a confusing mix of grants for various purposes to the proposed centers, 

and no overall outline of how the Small Business Administration (SBA) is to develop 

the organizational capacity to support such centers. Certainly there is nothing in 

the experience of the last five or six years that should lead anyone to believe that 

that SBA has any particular organizational capacity to much of anything at all beyond the Patriot Loans for veteran business owners or would be business owners. 

Further, the history of trying to secure matching funds for such endeavors is certainly less than salutary. None of the veteran business centers funded via any FedVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:54 Nov 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\111TH HEARINGS\61587.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
68 

eral entity that we are aware of actually was able to produce matching funds in the 

past decade. 

Section 5 of the proposed Act, requiring that all DVOPs and LVERs veteran staff 

in the state workforce development agencies attend training within two years of 

being hired will require additional funding of about $2.8 million dollars per year for 

the next two years to implement. One can argue that this is a much needed and 

excellent proposal, and a good investment in these staff members who will be 

trained, that can only help them do a better job for all persons served by the state 

workforce development agencies, including veterans. 

However, this title begs the question of holding the state workforce development 

agencies accountable for what is done and/or not done for veterans returning from 

OIF/OEF, disabled veterans, and veterans at risk of being homeless. Without real 

measures of effectiveness placed upon the state workforce development agencies 

that are directly tied to financial awards/rewards, experience strongly suggests that 

the states will not suddenly change their behavior and stop treating the DVOP/ 

LVER program as anything but a ‘‘cash cow’’ and continue to give lip service only 

to veterans who are desperately seeking assistance in securing a job. The problem 

with this section is that it appears to take significant action while not fundamentally changing anything. Therefore it betrays the returning warriors. 

The only responsible action if the Congress is serious about wanting to really help 

returning veterans get meaningful assistance to getting a job is to Federalize the 

DVOP and LVER positions, and make them employees of USDOL, training and requiring them to actually work with employers to place veterans into decent jobs that 

pay a living wage. 

Sections 6 through Sections 16 all have significant promise, particularly the sections that redirect some significant Workforce Investment Act (WIA) funds toward 

veterans (although more such funds should be re-directed). 

The central question that this proposal does not address is how to get the management of the One Stop Centers to be motivated to let their staff that is supposed 

to deal with veterans full time actually do their job, and support them in doing that 

job. Without a dramatic change in this behavior on the part of management and supervisory personnel in the state agencies, none of the rest of the titles in this legislation will work because there will be no effective workforce staff to match the potential veterans up with the possible training and job opportunities. 

Mr. Chairman, VVA stands ready to work with you, your colleagues, and your 

staff to develop some possible mechanisms that will work and provide better services to returning veterans from the current conflict. 

S. 3286—A BILL TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO CARRY OUT A

PILOT PROGRAM ON THE AWARD OF GRANTS TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

AGENCIES AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO VETERANS

WITH THEIR SUBMITTAL OF CLAIMS TO THE VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 

One of the primary reasons for the ‘‘backlog’’ of claims at the Veterans Benefits 

Administration (VBA) is the poor development, preparation, and presentation of 

claims that are actually submitted to the VBA for adjudication. The problem is that 

there are just not enough properly trained and supervised preparers of such claims. 

This pilot program has the potential to make a significant difference in both the accuracy of claims adjudicated, and the increased speed in which reasonable decisions 

can be rendered when claims are properly presented in a uniform organized manner. 

S. 3314—TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND THE APPALACHIAN

REGIONAL COMMISSION TO CARRY OUT A PROGRAM OF OUTREACH FOR VETERANS

WHO RESIDE IN APPALACHIA, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 

Additional outreach, education, and assistance to veterans and their families who 

reside in this very poor and much under-served region can only be a help in assisting these deserving veterans and their families to be accorded the benefits, rights, 

compensation, and services which they have earned by virtue of military service to 

country. VVA favors enactment of this bill. 

S. 3325—TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO AUTHORIZE THE WAIVER OF COPAYMENTS FOR TELEHEALTH OR TELEMEDICINE VISITS OF VETERANS, AND FOR OTHER

PURPOSES. 

VVA favors waiving of copayments for services delivered utilizing this new methodology for delivery of care in neuropsychiatry and counseling both because it enVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:54 Nov 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 H:\111TH HEARINGS\61587.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
69 

tails much less use of VA resources per patient contact, and because there have 

been no good clinical studies in the U.S. of the efficacy and effectiveness of this new 

modality for delivery of counseling services. VVA further urges the Congress to 

press VA to perform good clinical studies as to the effectiveness of various treatment 

modalities using this new technology, and to do so before we invest too many more 

tens of millions of dollars in fancy gear for teleconferencing or for so-called virtual 

reality treatment modalities. All use of such technology must be subjected to the 

same rigorous evidence based medical precepts that should govern the rest of VA 

delivered medical care. 

S. 3330—VETERANS HEALTH AND RADIATION SAFETY ACT OF 2010, TO MAKE CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF MEDICAL FACILITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT

OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 

VVA favors not only much more rigorous controls and quality assurance for use 

of nuclear medicine, but particularly favors much more stringent quality assurance 

on the too many services currently contracted out by the VHA to the private sector, 

often needlessly and without systematic review as to whether these services could 

be more effectively and efficiently provided by full time VHA personnel. 

S. 3335—VETERANS ONE SOURCE ACT OF 2010, TO PROVIDE FOR AN INTERNET WEB SITE

FOR INFORMATION ON BENEFITS, RESOURCES, SERVICES, AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR

VETERANS AND THEIR FAMILIES AND CAREGIVERS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES. 

The VA has done such a consistently poor job of outreach and education of veterans and their families as to what benefits, services, and entitlements that accrues 

to them by virtue of the veterans’ military service to country that the need for such 

a bill as this is virtually self-evident. VVA favors the intent of this proposal, and 

commends Senator 

Klobuchar for taking the initiative to introduce this comprehensive legislation. 

S. 3367—TO INCREASE THE RATE OF PENSION FOR DISABLED VETERANS WHO ARE MARRIED TO ONE ANOTHER AND BOTH OF WHOM REQUIRE REGULAR AID AND ATTENDANCE, AND OTHER PURPOSES. 

VVA strongly favors this bill, which will correct an unintended consequence of 

other legitimate restrictions which had the perverse effect of greatly penalizing disabled veterans who are married to one another, and need aid and attendance in 

order to survive. 

S. 3370—TO IMPROVE THE PROCESS BY WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL FILES JOINTLY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND DEPENDENCY AND INDEMNITY COMPENSATION, AND FOR OTHER

PURPOSES. 

VVA strongly favors this bill and any other proposal that has the effect of reducing redundancy, red tape, and making it easier for veterans and survivors to access 

their legitimate benefits and services, which were earned by virtue of the veteran’s 

military service to country. 

MULTIFAMILY TRANSITIONAL HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM—SENATOR BURR

In regard to possible improvements in the multifamily transitional housing loan 

program, VVA favors significant expansion of this program beyond five loans. We 

have been stuck at no more than five loans since this program was first enacted 

as a loan guaranty program in 1998. The animus of the permanent bureaucracy at 

the Office of Management & Budget (OMB) to this program from the outset continues to be a classic study in the irrationality of a runaway and virtually unaccountable fourth branch of government. Initially the OMB opposition was because 

it was a loan guaranty program, and therefore less subject to tight control by the 

OMB bureaucracy. 

Whether this move to change this from a loan guaranty program to a direct loan 

program is due to finally acceding to bureaucratic wishes, or simply a reflection of 

a very different reality in the private capital markets due to financial problems of 

the last few years, we do not know. However, we do know that if this program is 

worth doing, and we believe it is, then after being in existence for more than a decade it must be expanded beyond something that can and is used for the benefit of 

only one or two private investors. 

This program in an expanded form is very much needed if we are to virtually 

eliminate, or at least to dramatically reduce, homelessness among veterans within 

the next five or six years. 

70 

Mr. Chairman, VVA again thanks you for this opportunity to express our views 

here today, and will be pleased to answer any questions you or your colleagues may 

have. 

RESPONSE TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. PATTY MURRAY TO

RICHARD WEIDMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, POLICY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, 

VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA

Question. Recognizing that DVOPS and LEVRs are state employees, how do you 

think Congress can create better opportunities for these critical personnel? 

Response pending. 

[Items were not received by the Committee by the deadline for printing.] 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Mr. Weidman. 

This question is for all of the panelists. I think we all agree that 

today’s list of pending bills represents a broad agenda to help VA 

adapt to the changing needs of veterans and their families. However, I think it is important to ask you about what is not being discussed at this time. 

So, my question to the panel is: is there an important issue 

among your membership that we have not discussed today? Mr. 

de Planque? 

Mr. DE PLANQUE. Two things that I would note, Mr. Chairman, 

and thank you for the question; and we touched on this briefly in 

our oral statement earlier. There is a bill that is addressing veterans unemployment, but we are not specifically looking at VA’s 

own hiring practices of veterans and if there are ways to enhance 

that to increase the size of the workforce. It varies within agency, 

within VA. The Cemetery Administration, for example, has 71 percent veterans employed, the Veterans Health Administration is 

around 26 percent, and the overall is around 39 percent. So the 

American Legion believes strongly that those numbers should be 

higher. 

We do not have any specific legislation on the agenda today in 

terms of enhancing and examining whether or not we are meeting 

the needs of the women veterans who are coming out into the veteran population now, the women servicemembers, and that is another key concern. 

There are a lot of initiatives. There are a lot of programs that 

have been going forward, and VA has been doing a very, very good 

job on that. But we want to make sure that the oversight is there 

to ensure that the needs of those veterans are being met as well. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. de Planque. 

Mr. Hilleman? 

Mr. HILLEMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is quite a large 

question. This hearing today touches on nearly everything that VA 

and this Committee deal with. The one thing that I thought was 

absent from this hearing, which cannot be encompassed by one 

hearing or even by multiple hearings, is the claims backlog. This 

Committee has done tremendous work in trying to do the oversight 

necessary to bring down that backlog, and we want to encourage 

this Committee in every effort that it can to address the backlog. 

We realize there is no simple fix, sir, but working with this Committee, the veterans organizations, and VA, we think that in due 

time we can see that trend corrected. 

Thank you. 

71 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you, Mr. Hilleman. 

Mr. Weidman? 

Mr. WEIDMAN. That is indeed a large question, Mr. Chairman, 

but I thank you for the opportunity. 

VA does not have an extramural research program. Every one of 

the National Institutes of Science breaks their budget into basically 

two halves: one is Office of Intramural Research, those who work 

for the institute full-time; and Extramural Research, which then 

makes funds available to scientific institutions and universities all 

over the country. 

VVA is deeply committed to increased medical research in this 

country and is the only veterans organization to be a member of 

Research America, which is a broad coalition that pushes hard for 

increases in budget at NIH, AHRQ, CDC, et cetera. 

But VA does not award contracts outside, and, frankly, all of the 

research area at VA needs significant overhaul in terms of scientific ethics—and I can get into that, why we believe that—trying 

to crack Institutional Review Board guarantees of confidentiality 

on the National Vietnam Veterans Longitudinal Study, which they 

still have not even contracted out, much less completed. So, that 

whole area really needs to be looked at. 

The second has to do with accountability and that corporate culture, particularly within the VHA and VBA, is still not there. We 

believe in Secretary Shinseki. We believe he is striving mightily to 

transform that corporate culture into one where people are held accountable, particularly managers. But there is such a long way to 

go for, number 1, accountability and, number 2, VHA in particular 

is more opaque today than it was 10 years ago, and we need to reverse that and start to open up and let the sunshine in to what 

is happening with all of those many, many billions of dollars that 

you and your distinguished colleagues on this Committee and in 

the Senate have passed to have an unprecedented increase in that 

budget. Yet we do not know what is happening, and it is not translating necessarily into what we would need. 

Last, but not least, is transformational change when it comes to 

how we approach employment and building a true national strategy for addressing veterans employment. 

All of the things in Title 38 are predicated on there being a functioning public labor exchange. But we no longer have a national 

public labor exchange, period. It just simply does not exist. So, we 

need to rethink how we are actually going to deliver services to the 

individual veteran, whether they be on the Big Island in Hawaii or 

whether they be in northern Maine or whether they be in a remote 

village in Alaska. We need to rethink that entire paradigm and design something for the 21st century because, frankly, the pace of 

deterioration of the public labor exchange has left us high and dry. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Tarantino? 

Mr. TARANTINO. Senator, before I get into it, I would just like to 

take the opportunity to thank you, the Committee, and your staff 

for allowing me to be here today. Many of our members as well as 

our staff are still serving in the military, and the work that you 

have done over the past few years has had a real direct impact on 

72 

their lives. So, I would like to thank you for having their backs and 

for continuing to have their backs in the future. 

To address the question, Senator, the one thing that I was a little surprised not to see is something addressing the disability 

claims backlog. I echo the comments of Mr. Hilleman. You know, 

I think we are seeing that this is being fought on several fronts. 

There is the technology piece I think the VA is working on right 

now, and we are encouraged by the progress of the VBMS and 

VRM. So, we ask Congress to hold the VA to their stated goals and 

to their deadlines to make sure that we do not feel like Charlie 

Brown with the football, as we seem to have every year that the 

VA comes out and makes promises. 

We see that there are echoes of a cultural shift within the VA— 

talking about changing the work credit system—and we encourage 

the Committee to continue to press the VA into making those cultural shifts and do not allow them to become complacent. 

I think there are things that we can do, that this Committee can 

do to streamline the overall process. I think that S. 3348 is a great 

example of that, a small procedural change that we can do to cut 

the red tape that Senator Brown had talked about earlier: small 

procedural changes like fast-tracking certain disabilities, like sending a Notice of Appeal with the Notice of Decision, cutting 60 to 

120 days out of the process. That can be done legislatively, what 

we have all talked about in this room. We have been talking about 

them for years. And given the statements that have come out of the 

VSO community, the Senate and the House, and the veterans community over the last year or two, I think we have an opportunity 

this year to address these issues. So, we are hoping to see in the 

next legislative hearing very soon a bill that encompasses some of 

these changes. 

Thank you. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

Before I call on Senator Burr, I would like to ask you, Mr. Oates, 

whether you have a comment on this question. 

Mr. OATES. Thank you, Chairman. The committee that I deal 

with, which is the Agent Orange and Other Toxic Exposures Committee in the VVA, has several issues. One of those not mentioned 

here is the issue regarding Vietnam veterans and the combined exposures that they were exposed to. The Agent Orange Act of 1991 

established that the IOM, through the Veterans Agent Orange 

Study, would look at the issue of herbicides and their components. 

However, the Vietnam veterans were exposed to much more than 

that. 

In Operation FLYSWATTER, they were exposed to organic 

phosphates in the form of malathion where the planes flew over 

every 9 to 11 days, over the major troop areas, and sprayed them 

with an insecticide, malathion, which has been shown to cause Parkinson’s disease and other neurological diseases. Nothing has been 

done in regard to Vietnam veterans to look at the combined 

exposures. 

Another example of combined exposures in Vietnam veterans is 

the issue of taking the chloroquine pill, which is an inhibitor of an 

enzyme that helps you metabolize neurotoxins. And we were taking 

73 

the pill that limited the ability of your body to get rid of neurotoxins at the same time we were being exposed to neurotoxins. 

So there are a lot of issues with combined exposures that our 

committee is concerned with, trichloride ethylenes that were used 

in all types of solvents in Vietnam, and especially in the Navy. 

The other issue that the VVA committee is concerned about is in 

regards to the Blue Water Navy, in regards to—I think we can see 

it in the gulf oil spill. When Agent Orange was sprayed and the 

herbicides other than Agent White, which was a water-soluble 

one—they used diesel fuel to spray these. They were mixed with 

diesel fuel. And, of course, one of the major areas where these were 

sprayed were along the rivers that the Viet Cong would use to 

bring in supplies. A large quantity of this was sprayed on these rivers. You can see by the oil spill in the gulf how fuel and oil quickly 

can move and how far it can move, and being suspended in the diesel fuel and not being water-soluble, that is one of the ways that 

the dioxins got out to the Blue Water Navy folks, and we are concerned with that. 

Birth defects is a big issue with our committee. We firmly believe 

that when you send a servicemember into harm’s way, because of 

the battlefield toxins and those toxins that are not on the battlefield, you are also sending the future generations of these servicemembers’ offspring into harm’s way, and we think that that needs 

to be dealt with. 

As I listened to the testimony of the VA earlier and they indicated that in 1940 it was too difficult, it brought me back to my 

1st Infantry Division that I served with in Vietnam, and the motto 

of the 1st Infantry Division was, ‘‘No mission too difficult, no sacrifice too great. Duty first.’’ And I think that would be a good motto 

to take back in dealing with 1940. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

I just want to note that we have a hearing planned for next 

month on the backlog, so that is why I wanted to hear from you 

about things that have not been mentioned. So, thank you very 

much, Senator Burr, for your questions. 

Senator BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Rick, you said in your testimony in relation to S. 3377, and I 

want to quote you, ‘‘The animus of the permanent bureaucracy at 

the Office of Management and Budget to this program from the 

outset continues to be a classic study in the irrationality of a runaway and virtually unaccountable fourth branch of government.’’ 

Mr. WEIDMAN. You stated that quite well, sir. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BURR. If you cannot tell, I am having my own problems 

with the Office of Management and Budget as well. 

Moving forward, though, how can we prevent this from happening again? 

Mr. WEIDMAN. You could start by making sure that—talk to Mr. 

Orszag about ensuring that his agency follows the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act or veterans preference in their hiring. 

The Office of Management and Budget has less than 1 percent veterans on their permanent staff, and the last time we checked, they 

had zero disabled vets. For that to happen in Washington, it cannot 

74 

happen by accident. It can only happen as a result of a conscious, 

ongoing, systematic animus toward employing people who have 

served our Nation while in the military and who have been disabled as a result. So that is the first place to start. 

The second is—I do not know how you do this. I was involved in 

the passage of the original bill more than 10 years ago, and it was 

designed then to bring private capital into the problem of getting 

adequate transitional housing for homeless veterans. There was 

some concern about it so we reduced the number from ten to five 

loans, and the Office of Management and Budget put an analyst on 

it, Ms. Toni Hustead, who was the head of the area that dealt with 

veterans at that time. She got it totally confused with the direct 

loan program by the Department of Agriculture, so they said the 

cost of the $100 million loan guarantee was going to be $68 million, 

which we said that is preposterous. You are comparing apples and 

oranges. You are comparing direct loans to a very, very poor population to a loan guaranteed to people who have demonstrated expertise in large projects and bringing—financing and bringing to 

fruition large projects that will be self-sustaining. 

We finally had an extraordinary meeting at VA where VA people 

were actually arguing on our side against OMB that we were correct and that they should score it much lower. I think CBO scored 

it at $8 million over the life of the program, the 10-year life of the 

program. In the end, everybody was excited that OMB acceded that 

we were correct, though I was watching Ms. Hustead. While everybody else is buzzing and talking, I said, ‘‘Let me ask a key question. Toni, are you going to change your mark?’’ She smiled and 

said, ‘‘No, I am not.’’ Therefore, the mark stayed at $62 million and 

delayed another 2 years us getting that bill enacted. And then they 

did not allow any loans for the first 6 years of the program. Now 

they want to flip it over and make it a direct loan. 

First, we do not object to that, but what we do object to is not 

accessing capital asset markets in a reasonable way to bring to 

bear the problem of adequate housing, and particularly adequate— 

well, both adequate transitional and adequate permanent housing 

for low-income and formerly homeless people; and, second, artificially limiting a program that is clearly designed to thwart the will 

of the Congress. We have a real problem with that, irrespective of 

administration, and it needs to be straightened out because that is 

what I would call an unaccountable fourth branch of government 

who makes decisions, gainsaying in some cases both the executive 

branch political appointees and the Congress. Nobody can seem to 

hold them accountable. We have a problem with that, sir. We 

fought to protect the Constitution, and we do not see a fourth 

branch of government anywhere in the Constitution. 

Senator BURR. Let me duly note that I have been as critical of 

every Office of Management and Budget before this one, so I am 

not singling this one out for some unique treatment. 

Do any of you have any suggestions as it relates to S. 3377, as 

to how it can be improved to accomplish the end goal of making 

sure we maximize transitional housing opportunity? 

Mr. WEIDMAN. I would not limit it to five. Expanding the criteria 

and having the Secretary publish criteria of people who are creditworthy and have a history of bringing to fruition large projects is 

75 

a reasonable and prudent thing to do, but there is no reason at this 

late date to limit it to five because that field is not that limited 

anymore, and you literally have hundreds upon hundreds of skilled 

providers out there who have transitional housing programs with 

services that are working. We need more options for people to be 

able to get financing, to create even more projects in high-need 

areas. 

Senator BURR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you, Senator Burr. 

Senator Murray? 

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

Tom, I wanted to start with you. First of all, I want to thank you 

and the IAVA for all your help working with my staff as we developed the veterans employment bill. I do have a few questions about 

the vocational and on-the-job section of the bill, and I do know that 

about 16,000 veterans are trying to get vocational training, yet 

they cannot access the new GI bill as it currently stands. Those are 

really the groups that we are trying to focus on within this legislation, and I wanted to ask you if you could explain to the Committee 

some of the gaps that we are seeing with the current vocational 

benefits program for our veterans. 

Mr. TARANTINO. Well, thank you very much, Senator. To start 

off, we only really need to look at history to explain why this is so 

important. Over half of the people that used the World War II GI 

bill did not use it for a 4-year degree. They used it for vocational 

training, for on-the-job training. They used it to build an educated 

workforce. And what we are seeing in this population of veterans 

is something similar. You are looking at the practical issues of people who want to obtain a vocational career and who cannot do that 

because of a technical issue with the GI bill. If I wanted to get a 

commercial trucking license, I can do that at Clark Community 

College, but I cannot do that at the AAA School of Trucking. So it 

is an almost laughable omission in the original bill, and this is one 

of the things we aim to fix. 

Also, we are looking at a population of highly skilled workers 

that are coming out of the military such as combat medics, mechanics, truck drivers who can drive anything from a tank to, you 

know, an 18-wheeled vehicle; but when they leave the military, 

they are barely able to drive an ambulance in the civilian world. 

They have to start over from scratch. They have to start over as 

apprentice mechanics after sometimes 15 years. 

So, by allowing these on-the-job training and apprenticeships, by 

allowing vocational schools into the GI bill, we are in the back end 

correcting something that we need to correct ultimately with our 

military vocational and certification program. We are allowing veterans to transition into a world more laterally so that a senior noncommissioned officer can translate into a civilian position that reflects their service and their level of expertise. 

Senator MURRAY. I assume you are hearing from a lot of veterans 

who are facing those kinds of barriers, as I have been. 

Mr. TARANTINO. Every day we hear it through our GI bill Web 

site. We hear it over the phones. We hear veterans all over the 

country who call us and say, you know, ‘‘I want to go get my EMT 

license, but I do not have a community college or university near 

76 

me. What am I going to do?’’ I unfortunately have to tell them they 

have to wait or they have to move, which, I mean, if someone told 

me that, I would probably want to punch them in the face. 

So, I hear their frustrations every day; and I thank you for including them in this bill. 

Senator MURRAY. Yes, and I would just say for the Committee’s 

knowledge, the veterans I have talked to, they tell me how their 

peers who graduated with them from high school or community college many years ago went off into the regular civilian work world, 

got work experience, on-the-job training, paid for by their employers. They went into the service, went to Iraq or Afghanistan, had 

the same kind of training by the military, came back and now they 

are required to go back to school, which is not covered by the GI 

bill. 

So, this is to me a real issue that we need to address, and that 

is why I have included it in this bill. I want to thank you for your 

help with that. 

Mr. TARANTINO. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator MURRAY. Eric, I want to thank you and the VFW, too, 

for your support and work with us on this. I know that GI bill 

equality is very important to the VFW, too, and I wanted to ask 

you what changes would the VFW like to see made to the Guard 

and Reserve Select Reserve GI bill. 

Mr. HILLEMAN. The Guard and Reserve Select Reserve GI bill is 

commonly referred to as Chapter 1606, I believe. That group of individuals has never activated outside of their military training or 

outside of their vocational training in uniform. That group of individuals is currently paid for by DOD under that program, which 

creates an interesting relationship with the rest of the GI bill 

where that section of the program languishes under DOD’s willingness to fund. 

One of the suggestions that the VFW has maintained is that if 

that program were put on parity at the rate of 30 percent to the 

current GI bill, it would fit with the structure that Senator Webb 

put forward in graduating and rewarding equitable service with equitable benefits. So, we would probably advocate for 30 percent for 

them across the board. 

Senator MURRAY. OK. Thank you. 

Ian, I want to thank you and the American Legion for their support of this, too. In your testimony you mentioned the Disabled 

Veterans Outreach Program Specialists and Local Veterans Employment Reps, the DVOPs and LVERs. What are the shortfalls 

you see of the training support for those groups? 

Mr. DE PLANQUE. Thank you, Senator. The main problems that 

we are seeing in terms of outreach and reaching into the civilian 

sector, it is that the programs as they exist now, these programs 

are very good, they are very important for getting the veterans 

overcoming the barriers and getting them marketable working on 

the local level. It is not robust enough in the present system. The 

ability to translate the skills, as was mentioned earlier, translating 

the skills from the military sector to equitable civilian sector skills, 

there is not a reconciliation between them right now. Therefore, 

with the bill and with enhancing that, particularly with reaching 

toward the disabled veterans as you are going into the outreach, 

77 

being able to take those skills, translate them across and have an 

understanding between that on the local level, because the local 

level is the easiest level to access those veterans. That is—what 

things seem on the national level or in a larger scope may be there, 

but it is not translating down to the local level as much, which is 

what we would like to see enhanced. 

Senator MURRAY. All right. Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I do 

have some additional questions. If I could submit them for the 

record, I would really appreciate it. 

Chairman AKAKA. Yes. 

Senator MURRAY. Thank you. 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much, Senator Murray, for 

your questions. 

Let me just ask this one. Mr. Tarantino, would you like to comment on my bill to clarify that the failure of VA to notify—and this 

is a notification issue—to clarify that the failure of VA to notify a 

veteran promptly of a filing error to forward the document to the 

court should not deprive a veteran of the right of review or appeal, 

and that is S. 3348. 

Mr. TARANTINO. Well, thank you, Senator. IAVA completely supports this bill. Our number 1 priority this year is to reform the disability claims process and that includes the appeals process. When 

a veteran tries to file an appeal, it is incredibly—when a veteran 

tries to file anything with the VA, it is an incredibly confusing 

process, especially with the appeals process. They have been dealing with their regional office for anywhere, you know, from 6 

months to 2 years, and so it is only logical that they would go directly to where they know. 

The fact that the VA would deny an appeal because of their own 

inefficiencies is absolutely ridiculous, so I think this bill fixes an 

error that I think we can all agree should not be there. And it corrects an injustice. I think it is little things like this, little procedural changes that allow the claims process and the appeals process to enter into the modern world, which are going to be critical 

toward reducing the backlog long term. We talk about this backlog, 

we talk about numbers, and I think a lot of my colleagues here 

have used this analogy. It is like talking about a fever but ignoring 

the disease. The disease is not the backlog. The disease is a VA 

process that was developed when the world moved at the speed of 

mail and when the world did not hold expectations of customer 

service, information access, and efficiency which we hold today. I 

think S. 3348 is a great example of one of those small changes that 

we can make to bring that system more into the modern world and 

do what we are supposed to be doing, which is to provide our veterans with meaningful benefits that they deserve. 

So, I thank you very much, Senator, for putting this bill forward. 

Chairman AKAKA. Senator Begich has submitted a bill that 

would eliminate co-payments when veterans use telehealth services. This is a question on telehealth. For all of the witnesses here, 

how do your members feel about using telehealth solutions? Mr. 

de Planque? 

Mr. DE PLANQUE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Telehealth is one of 

the important steps in reaching out particularly to rural veterans 

or veterans who do not have as much access. So, if a veteran has 

78 

an opportunity to access the benefits that they otherwise would not 

be able to access because of geography, then it is an improvement 

for them, and that is something we consider important. 

We have a growing segment of rural veterans in America. It is 

a growing segment of the population. And many of those veterans 

have no qualms whatsoever about accessing telehealth. Telehealth 

would be a great respite, certainly better than driving 250 miles to 

try to get to a medical center. So, if there is anything that can 

make it easier to have access to those benefits, that would be an 

improvement. 

Chairman AKAKA. Mr. Hilleman? 

Mr. HILLEMAN. Mr. Chairman, our members are pleased to have 

the opportunity to use telehealth because without telehealth in 

some areas, there is nothing, or there is a drive for 500 miles to 

the nearest local medical facility. So, we have long maintained that 

telehealth is a very affordable way for individuals to access health 

care, and we think if employed properly it would be a more costeffective benefit to VA across the board. 

Chairman AKAKA. Mr. Weidman? 

Mr. WEIDMAN. Mr. Chairman, we are very much in favor of using 

telehealth, particularly for remote locations like some of the outer 

islands or many areas in Alaska, but also in rural areas. 

The one thing we would caution, however, is VA’s pell-mell rush 

into telehealth for telecounseling, if you will, for neuropsychiatric 

counseling. We have only been able to find two clinical studies that 

proved the efficacy of this, and both of them by the same individual, an academic, a respected academic out of Toronto, Canada, 

but none in the U.S. So, on many of the things that VA is rushing 

pell-mell into that sound great—like virtual reality and teleconferencing to supplant in-person traditional cognitive therapy and 

pharmacological therapy—we would caution that they need to do 

clinical studies before we commit tens of millions of dollars and 

structure things on something that may not prove out over the long 

run to be as effective as we hope. It is promising, but we need to 

do the studies. 

So, we endorse it generally, but would caution that we need to 

have clinical studies to find out how well is it actually working for 

different kinds of veterans. 

Chairman AKAKA. Mr. Tarantino? 

Mr. TARANTINO. Thank you, Senator. I think it is important to 

note that, at least of our members, you know, you do not use telehealth because it is just such a great user experience and it is really cool; you use telehealth because you have to. You use telehealth 

because it is impractical for the VA to build a brick-and-mortar 

building in every community in America, as much as that would be 

awesome, but just does not make any sense. It is both logically and 

fiscally unsound for a veteran to drive 8 hours just to get a blood 

test. So, we are forced to use telehealth; so we think this is an excellent idea. We think it is something that the VA needs to look 

into. 

I do echo Mr. Weidman’s concerns, but we fully support the bill, 

and we do not think that veterans should be penalized and charged 

for being forced to use a method that the VA otherwise would have 

seen them for. 

79 

Chairman AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

In closing, I again thank all of our witnesses for appearing today. 

I look forward to working with all Members of this Committee as 

we develop legislation based on today’s hearing for a markup. As 

I said in my opening statement, moving legislation with significant 

mandatory scores will prove difficult. As Chairman, I am committed to ensuring that this Committee does all it can to ensure 

that veterans receive the benefits and services which they have 

earned through their service to this Nation, and I pledge my continued support for this goal as we move forward. 

I want to thank you because we know that to do it well we need 

to work together on all of this, and I look forward to that, too. 

So this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(81) 

A P P E N D I X 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, Thank you for holding this hearing today on the Agent Orange Equity Act of 2009, legislation that I have introduced to ensure benefits for hundreds 

of thousands of Navy veterans who are afflicted with devastating health effects due 

to Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam. Since 2002, they have been shut out of VA 

care for Agent Orange related illness and this legislation corrects that injustice. 

We know that during the Vietnam War, the United States Military sprayed more 

than twenty million gallons Agent Orange, an herbicide used to remove foliage that 

was providing cover for many enemy fighters in Vietnam. We also know that this 

toxic chemical has had an often tragic effect on many of our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines who served in Vietnam. They have been subjected to increased 

rates of cancer and other diseases and a study conducted by the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention reported that the rate of non-Hodgkins lymphoma in Vietnam veterans is fifty-percent higher than the general population. 

There is a large body of science that supports the claim that sailors who were 

serving in the waters around Vietnam were exposed to levels of Agent Orange. However, since 2002 the VA has enforced an exclusive policy that bars individuals who 

cannot provide orders requiring ‘‘boots on the ground’’ in Vietnam from receiving 

coverage for Agent Orange. This policy fails to take into account the amounts of 

Agent Orange contamination that existed in waterways in and around Vietnam, as 

well as Agent Orange carried by drifting winds over ships in the vicinity of where 

it was being sprayed. In 2005 article in the Journal of Law and Policy, Dr. Mark 

Brown, the Director of the Environmental Agents Service for the VA, wrote that 

there is no scientific basis for excluding individual who served in close proximity to 

mainland Vietnam. 

It is clear that Agent Orange exposure did not stop at the water’s edge, and the 

current VA policy regarding Navy veterans is wrong. To highlight how absurd the 

‘‘boots on the ground’’ rule is, even personnel who were stationed on Johnston Island 

and handled Agent Orange where it was stored and incinerated do not have the 

same access to benefits as those who served in-country. 

This legislation honors the sacrifice of all Vietnam veterans, regardless of whether 

they served on land or at sea, by expanding presumptive Agent Orange benefit coverage. This bill will clarify the law and restore the intent of Congress to provide 

benefits to veterans who served, among other places, on Johnston Island, waterways, ports, harbors, waters offshore, and air spaces above Vietnam, Navy veterans 

who were onboard ships or aircraft and who spent time on the ground transporting 

barrels of Agent Orange, and those who served on ships close to shore who were 

inadvertently sprayed by drifting winds that carried Agent Orange. 

We owe it to our Vietnam veterans to pass this legislation. This legislation is supported by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Vietnam Veterans of American, and other 

organizations that join in our shared commitment to ensuring that our Nation’s veterans are not denied the benefits that they have earned in the line of duty. 

Mr. Chairman, our veterans who have already sacrificed so much cannot wait any 

longer, nor do they deserve to wait. Each day that we delay passage of this bill, 

Vietnam veterans continue to become ill and die before they are able to receive benefits. Because of the urgency of this issue, I request that your committee mark-up 

this legislation and expeditiously report it favorably to the floor for consideration 

by the full Senate. 

82 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM P. GREENE, JR., CHIEF JUDGE, 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for inviting me, as 

Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (the Court), 

to comment on the Committee’s May 19, 2010, Legislative Agenda. Consistent with 

the Court’s long-standing practice, I will not comment on proposals pertaining to 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) policy matters involving the provision of specific veterans benefits. Having the responsibility of conducting judicial review of 

VA’s adjudication of benefits claims, the Court’s position is best expressed in our 

decisions that may address those matters. I simply assure the Committee that the 

Court will continue to strive to decide all appeals as fairly and efficiently as possible 

under whatever laws Congress and the President decide upon. 

I will, however, briefly address those bills that pertain to the filing of a notice 

of appeal (NOA), and consequently to the jurisdiction of the Court: S. 3192 and 

S. 3348. My statements, however, are not offered as an endorsement or denouncement of any of the legislative proposals. Rather, they are offered to emphasize, as 

appropriate, some factors that Congress may wish to consider when making its legislative determinations. 

I. THE VETERANS BENEFITS APPELLATE PROCESS

As background, it is worth recalling that the appellate process for individuals 

seeking veterans benefits from VA has two distinct venues: administrative and judicial. Within VA, a VA regional office generally processes the claim and renders the 

first decision. When a claimant is dissatisfied with that decision, he or she may, 

within a specified period of time, appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board). 

If the claimant is dissatisfied with the Board decision, he or she may seek reconsideration by the Board or, again within a specified period of time, may seek judicial 

review of the Board decision by appealing to the Court. 

The adjudication process within VA is designed to be paternalistic. Throughout 

the VA proceedings, the claimant and the Secretary work together to ensure that 

claimants may obtain benefits to which they are entitled by law. The Secretary 

must affirmatively assist a claimant by liberally reading the scope of the claim, 

gathering evidence to substantiate the claim, advising the claimant of what is needed to substantiate the claim, and providing the claimant with a medical examination 

when needed. 

Decisions on claims at the VA regional office are subject to one review on appeal 

by the Secretary. The Board conducts that review if the claimant files an appeal 

to the Board within one year after the RO decision. The Board reviews the claim 

anew, without giving deference to the initial decision, and ultimately renders the 

final decision for the Secretary of VA. If the claimant seeks to appeal to the Court, 

he or she, like other persons seeking judicial review of agency decisionmaking, 

leaves the administrative process and enters the judicial appellate arena. In the judicial appellate process, the parties are viewed equally, and the claimant-appellant 

generally has the burden of demonstrating that the Board decision is either clearly 

erroneous or that there is some procedural error that prejudiced a favorable VA adjudication of the claim. If dissatisfied with a decision from the Court, an appellant 

has the right to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. If no 

relief is achieved at that level, the last resort is to seek review by the Supreme 

Court of the United States. 

Through the Veterans Judicial Review Act of 1988, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims was cast into the unique role of a national court providing exclusive judicial review of final VA decisions. The paternalistic agency adjudication of 

VA claims becomes subject to independent judicial scrutiny to ensure that all of the 

laws and regulations governing VA benefits are fully implemented and applied. 

How a claimant may bring an appeal before the Court is one area that has undergone significant inspection and change since the Court opened its doors twenty 

years ago. Recognizing the distinctiveness of the types of appeals that come to the 

Court and the parties that bring them, and acknowledging the fact that historically 

many appellants who seek review at the Court come without legal representation, 

the Court and Congress have made efforts to ensure that the Court is accessible and 

navigable to all seeking judicial review. Relative recent legislation that authorizes 

legal representation of veterans during the VA adjudication process may change expectations that these appellants will be unrepresented when filing their Notices of 

Appeal. 

83 

II. THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

All Federal appellate courts require as a first step for appellate review, the timely 

filing of an NOA. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure (FRAP) (which are the 

rules from which this Court initially modeled its Rules of Practice and Procedure) 

govern the filing of appeals in Federal civil and criminal cases. Under FRAP 4, appeals involving the United States as a party (e.g., the Secretary of VA) must be filed 

within 60 days after judgment. Where the United States is not a party, the time 

period is shortened to 30 days after judgment. Both provisions allow for the appellant to move for a 30-day extension of the filing of the NOA upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. 

The FRAP rules governing notices of appeal were in existence when the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims was established. Because of the unique nature 

of appeals and the special class of appellants, Congress provided veterans and their 

families a 120-day period in which to file an NOA with the Court. No doubt, this 

60-day increase over the norm for filing appeals in other Federal courts was an expression that these potential appellants should be afforded ample opportunity to 

present their appeals. With the Board required to provide the veteran with notice 

of the decision and specific information on how and where to file an appeal to the 

Court, that intent for the most part has been fulfilled. 

The time to file an appeal has gradually broadened over the past 20 years with 

the 1993 enactment of the Court of Veterans Appeals Improvement Act, which applied a postmark rule to the receipt of notices of appeal, and with the application 

of equitable tolling to the filing period in 1998 (See Bailey v. West 160 F.3d 1360 

(Fed. Cir. 1998)). 

The postmark rule was adopted by Congress in direct response to the Court’s dismissal of appeals where the NOA was mailed before the 120-day statutory timeframe, but received by the Court after that deadline. When that change was being 

contemplated by Congress, the Court’s then Chief Judge, Frank Nebeker, identified 

to Congress what he thought were the advantages of a bright-line deadline for filing 

appeals and possible justifications for not adopting the postmark rule. Judge 

Nebeker identified the following issues for Congress’ consideration in contemplating 

adoption of the postmark rule: the judicial resources that would need to be spent 

in determining the legibility of a postmark; the need to develop a body of case law 

on postmark-related issues; the relatively few number of prospective appellants that 

would be impacted; the desirability of finality in the appellate system; and the userfriendly nature of a bright-line standard for veterans. 

As we know, Congress considered these factors and ultimately decided to enact 

the postmark rule. Our case law demonstrates that many of the factors identified 

by Chief Judge Nebeker did indeed result, and our case law developed a robust body 

of law relating to postmarks. Certainly some delay was added to the overall system; 

but likewise, appeals were heard by the Court that would otherwise have been dismissed. 

In 1998, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in Bailey 

v. West that the time limit for appealing a VA Board decision was subject to the 

doctrine of equitable tolling. This case law broadened the jurisdictional landscape 

by allowing the Court to entertain an appeal received after the 120-days where extraordinary circumstances beyond the appellant’s control prevented a timely appeal. 

Similarly, a defective pleading within the time period or misfiling at a VA regional 

office or at the Board could be a basis for invoking the doctrine of equitable tolling. 

The statute governing the appeal process, 38 U.S.C. § 7266, did not allow for the 

extension of the 120-day window, but the practice at the Court for the next 10 years 

was to determine whether there was any basis to apply the doctrine of equitable 

tolling to NOAs received after the 120-day period. That changed when the Federal 

Circuit, in Henderson v. Shinseki, 589 F.3d 1201, (Fed. Cir. 2009), overruled Bailey 

and pronounced in light of Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007), that equitable 

tolling of the time in which to file an NOA was not permitted. Senate bills S. 3192 

and S. 3384 are offered to respond to that case law. 

As Congress considers refining the manner in which an NOA may be filed and 

accepted or received by the Court, I join in former Chief Judge Nebeker’s sentiment 

that a bright line rule for filing notices of appeal would promote efficiency and finality in the appellate process. Regardless of the outcome however, the Court will apply 

the law as efficiently and fairly as possible. Will a change allow some appellants 

to have their appeals considered on the merits when they otherwise would be dismissed as untimely? Yes. Will it delay the time in which all veterans wait to have 

their appeals heard? Probably somewhat. Will it result in benefits for those appellants? Who knows. Will it prompt the need for a new body of law to be developed 

surrounding this issue? Certainly. Will it blur the line between the agency and the 

84 

Court? Perhaps. Will it confuse individuals who want to appeal our decisions to the 

Federal Circuit, where filing deadlines are more strictly enforced? Perhaps. 

It is for Congress to weigh these factors and determine the course it deems best. 

I do offer the following specific technical comments on the two bills that address 

NOAs to the Court. 

III. S. 3192

Regarding S. 3192, I offer the following comments: 

Title: I recommend that the title be amended to clearly indicate that it is tolling 

the time for filing an appeal, rather than tolling the timing of review (for example: 

‘‘Tolling of time for filing notice of appeal of final decisions of the Board of Veterans’ 

Appeals.’’) 

Section 2(a)(2): Before the decision in Henderson, supra, the Court’s case law permitted the time for filing an appeal at the Court to be tolled if the Court found that 

the delay was due to ‘‘extraordinary circumstances’’ or for certain defective filings. 

In his remarks when introducing S. 3192, Senator Specter identified this proposal 

as a response to Henderson. S. 3192, however, contemplates tolling the time for filing an NOA upon a showing of ‘‘good cause.’’ This standard is not defined in S. 3192 

and may be subject to varying definitions and interpretations. Perhaps the Committee should identify an accepted definition of that term to be included in the bill 

language. Further, in general, ‘‘good cause’’ is a lower threshold than ‘‘extraordinary 

circumstances.’’ Thus, although the stated purpose of S.192 is to restore the status 

quo as it was prior to Henderson, this language may provide even more permissive 

tolling than was in effect prior to Henderson. I do note that there may be a body 

of law addressing good cause that applies to FRAP 4(a). In the other Federal courts, 

an appellant may move for a 30-day extension of time based upon excusable neglect 

or good cause, if the motion is filed within certain timeframes. A similar provision 

would probably not be appropriate because our Court’s liberal construction of what 

constitutes an NOA makes it easier for an appellant to simply file the NOA rather 

than file a motion to later file that NOA. 

Section 2(b)(1) Applicability: S. 3192 Section 2(b)(1) would apply its provisions to 

an NOA filed with respect to a decision of the Board dated on or after July 24, 2008. 

For workload considerations, I would estimate that between July 2008 and now, approximately 13,000 appeals were filed at the Court. Of these, about 400 NOAs were 

dismissed as untimely. Potentially these NOAs could all be re-filed and there would 

have to be a determination made by the Court on whether there was good cause 

for that untimeliness. It is difficult to estimate how many other first time ‘‘good 

cause’’ NOAs could be filed related to Board decisions dated between July 24, 2008, 

and S. 3192’s enactment. 

Section 2(b)(2) Reinstatement: Because in veterans law the term ‘‘petition’’ generally refers to a petition for extraordinary relief, I recommend that this section be 

revised to eliminate use of the term ‘‘petition’’ and instead use ‘‘Notice of Appeal’’ 

or ‘‘notice’’ as appropriate. 

IV. S. 3348

In his statement introducing S. 3348, Senator Akaka identified this proposal as 

a response to Posey v. Shinseki, ___ Vet. App. ___, No. 08–0240 (April 23, 2010). 

Among the judges of the Court, there are differing views on how to address the 

question of misfiled NOAs. In addition to Posey, I would direct the Committee’s attention to other recent cases such as Rickett v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 366 (2010); 

Boone v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 412 (2009); and Kouvaris v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 

377 (2009). 

I urge the Committee to consider whether the title should include the word 

‘‘misfiled’’ when the result is to treat such documents as properly filed motions for 

Board reconsideration? Historically, ‘‘misfiled’’ is interpreted to mean that through 

neglect the potential appellant did not follow the clear instructions by the Board to 

mail the NOA specifically to the Court. 

Creating the fiction of a motion for Board reconsideration when a document clearly is intended as a NOA (but because of the delay in transmitting it must be treated 

as a motion for Board reconsideration) may be problematic. This practice will not 

only add further delay to an already burdened VA system, but will needlessly draw 

on VA’s limited resources. I defer, however, to the Secretary of VA to highlight 

issues he may recognize in that provision, and comment on how he will respond to 

any conflicts this may create within his regulations. 

S. 3348 potentially has an internal conflict because it contemplates applicability 

to a document filed by a person who has not filed an NOA within the period identified in 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a), thus suggesting that VA needs to wait for the period 

85 

to end to determine whether that criteria is met. However, the provision then requires VA to act prior to the expiration of that time and in some instances, forward 

to the Court the document filed at the Board or the agency of original jurisdiction. 

V. CONCLUSION

In conclusion, I assure this Committee that each judge on the Court strives to live 

up to the oath that we took when we were appointed to the bench—to administer 

justice and to faithfully and impartially discharge and perform the duties incumbent 

upon us as judges of a court of law. We appreciate the opportunity to engage in dialog aimed at strengthening and improving the veterans benefits adjudication system 

as a whole. However, we recognize that it is the legislative branch of government 

that must take the steps necessary to create the laws and the executive branch to 

administer the laws, and it is our responsibility to provide judicial review of the implementation of those laws. On behalf of the judges of the Court, I thank the Committee for the opportunity to share our views on this legislative agenda. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, on behalf of Paralyzed Veterans 

of America (PVA), we would like to thank you for the opportunity to submit a statement for the record regarding the proposed legislation. We appreciate the fact that 

you continue to address the broadest range of issues with the intention of improving 

benefits for veterans. We particularly support any focus placed on meeting the complex needs of the newest generation of veterans, even as we continue to improve 

services for those who have served in the past. 

S. 1780, ‘‘HONOR AMERICA’S GUARD-RESERVE RETIREES ACT’’ 

Paralyzed Veterans of America supports S. 1780, the ‘‘Honor America’s Guard-Reserve Retirees Act’’. This bill incorporates ‘‘veteran’’ into the Guard and Reserve 

community. PVA supports recognizing and honoring all servicemembers, Guard or 

Reserve, for their faithful and honorable service in defending the United States of 

America. Serving in a volunteer force should be credited to the servicemember and 

not discounted, by no fault of their own, because they were not activated. 

S. 1866, A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 30, UNITED STATES CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ELIGIBILITY OF PARENTS OF CERTAIN DECEASED VETERANS FOR INTERMENT IN NATIONAL

CEMETERIES. 

Paralyzed Veterans of America supports S. 1866, a bill to amend title 38, United 

States Code, to provide for the eligibility of parents of certain deceased veterans for 

interment in national cemeteries. This legislation would provide eligible parents of 

certain deceased veterans’ burial rights into national cemeteries, due to the servicemember not having a surviving spouse. 

S. 1939, ‘‘AGENT ORANGE EQUITY ACT OF 2009’’ 

PVA supports S. 1939, the ‘‘Agent Orange Equity Act of 2009,’’ which expands the 

presumption related to exposures for veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam and supporting missions. S. 1939 would also expand the law to allow Blue 

Water Naval Veterans and any other servicemembers awarded either the Vietnam 

Service Medal or the Vietnam Campaign Medal to be included for presumption. This 

bill, when enacted, will allow the VA to process Vietnam Veterans claims that suffer 

from illnesses linked to toxic exposure in a fast and more efficient manner. 

S. 1940

PVA supports the intent of this legislation to require VA to carry out a study on 

the effects on children of exposure of their parents to herbicides used in support of 

the United States and allied military operations in the Republic of Vietnam during 

the Vietnam era, and for other purposes. We believe this study will serve as a measure of research to broaden the knowledge of our veterans, VA, and the public communities of the exposure and its causes. 

S. 2751

PVA’s National office has no position on renaming the Department of VA Medical 

Center in Big Springs, Texas as the George H. O’Brien, Jr. Department of VA Medical Center. PVA believes naming issues should be considered by the local community with input from veterans organizations within that community. For construcVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:54 Nov 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\111TH HEARINGS\61587.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
86 

tion projects and the authorization of new facilities, PVA believes that if a demonstrated need exists, VA should establish facilities that will provide the best care 

for veterans in the area. 

S. 3035, ‘‘VETERANS TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY CARE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2010’’ 

PVA supports S. 3035, the ‘‘Veterans Traumatic Brain Injury Care Improvement 

Act of 2010.’’ This legislation would require a report on establishing a Polytrauma 

Rehabilitation Center in the northern Rockies or Dakotas. It also requires the Fort 

Harrison Department of Veterans Affairs Hospital in Lewis and Clark County, Montana, to be evaluated as a potential location for such a Center or site. 

We fully support the expansion of the polytrauma system of care in the VA. Polytrauma care is a critical service provided to veterans and servicemembers who endured multiple traumatic injuries while serving in harm’s way to a body system. 

Any traumatic injury can result in life threatening physical, psychological, cognitive, 

or psychosocial impairments or disability. With more servicemembers returning 

with TBI and catastrophic disabilities every day, the need for this capacity continues to grow. 

S. 3107, ‘‘VETERANS’ COMPENSATION COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 2010’’ 

PVA support S. 317, the ‘‘Veterans’ Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment 

(COLA) Act of 2010.’’ This legislation increases the rates of compensation for veterans with service-connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity 

compensation for certain disabled veterans. As we have done in the past, we oppose 

again this year the provision rounding down the cost-of-living adjustment to the 

nearest whole dollar. 

S. 3192, ‘‘FAIR ACCESS TO VETERANS BENEFITS ACT OF 2010’’ 

Paralyzed Veterans of America supports S. 3192, the ‘‘Fair Access to Veterans 

Benefits of 2010.’’ This legislation would amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the tolling of the timing of review for appeals of final decisions of the Board 

of Veterans’ Appeal. This would provide flexibility in the claims process in favor of 

the veteran under unique circumstances due to medical or mental health problems. 

(An example of unique circumstances would be the case of Henderson. Due to Henderson suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, he was unable to meet the 120 day 

deadline for submitting his appeal and was denied the right to appeal to the United 

States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC)). 

S. 3234, ‘‘VETERANS EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2010’’ 

PVA strongly supports S. 3234, the ‘‘Veterans Employment Assistance Act of 

2010.’’ This legislation addresses the unemployment among recently separated Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF) and Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) veterans serving 

both in an active duty and mobilized status, which reaches out to active duty and 

reserve servicemembers. The bill also includes legislation regarding: business center 

programs, formal reporting to Congress on the productivity of Service Disabled Veterans Owned Small Business’s, shortening the deadline from three years to one year 

for Disabled Veterans Outreach Program Specialist (DVOPS) and Local Veterans’ 

Employment Representatives (LVER) to meet the prerequisite training requirements, integration and improvements to educational benefits, to name a few. 

PVA applauds Senator Murray for introducing this bill and urges Congress to 

move quickly on this legislation that impacts the lives of many veterans whom are 

unemployed. 

S. 3286

PVA supports the intent of S. 3286. This bill is intended to increase the effectiveness of outreach to veterans as it directs the Secretary to commence a pilot program 

on the awarding of grants to State and local government agencies and non-profit 

organizations to provide assistance to veterans with their submittal of claims. We 

believe successful outreach and awareness at the local level will result in an increased submission of claims. Additionally we encourage effective training of the individuals reaching out to veterans’ as a measure of explaining services properly and 

effectively. We also urge that adequate funding for the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) be provided to keep pace with the potential increased number of 

claims filed. 

87 

S. 3314

PVA supports S. 3314, a bill that would require VA and the Appalachian Regional 

Commission to carry out a program of outreach to veterans who reside in Appalachia. The Appalachian Region has faced high rates of poverty, unemployment, substandard housing, low educational levels, and poor health care. The veterans’ population in that area is often unaware of the benefits provided by VA or other local 

or state veterans’ services. The rural geographical location impacts access to care 

and limits finding adequate transportation to VA appointments. We agree that continued outreach is needed, but quality care is paramount to improving the quality 

of life for veterans. 

S. 3325

PVA supports S. 3325, a bill to amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize 

the waiver of the collection of copayments for telehealth and telemedicine visits of 

veterans, and for other purposes. Telemedicine has proven to be a cost effective 

service that connects the specialist via telecommunications to the veteran. It has 

been particularly useful in the rural setting. This is a new era of health care delivery and VA is doing its part in keeping up with technological advances to provide 

innovative solutions to the health care needs of veterans. 

S. 3348

PVA supports S. 3348, to amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for the 

treatment as a motion of reconsideration of decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals of a notice of appeal of such decision misfiled with VA. This bill addresses the 

uncertainty involved with notices of disagreement or motions to reconsider an appeal. The legislation allows any written statement of disagreement from the veteran, with a Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) decision and be treated as a motion 

received by the BVA within the 120 days appeal period, as a formal motion to reconsider. 

S. 3352, ‘‘VETERANS PENSION ACT OF 2010’’ 

PVA supports the intent of this bill, but would like to recommend the legislation 

be rewritten to allow any insurance settlement as excluded from the computation 

of pension. This will assist veterans during financial hardship while affording them 

the opportunity to replace a loss or damaged property. 

S. 3355, ‘‘VETERANS ONE SOURCE ACT OF 2010’’ 

PVA has no formal position on this legislation. 

S. 3367

PVA strongly supports S. 3367, to amend title 38, United States Code, to increase 

the rate of pension for disabled veterans who are married to one another and both 

of whom require aid and attendance. This legislation provides a correction to Public 

Law 105–178, Section 8206, which increases the aid and attendance rates for veterans receiving VA pension but failed to provide the same increase to married couples receiving the same benefit. This bill will provide a long overdue additional $825 

dollars to a veteran couple. 

S. 3368

PVA does not support this bill due to current VA regulation, CFR 3.155, already 

incorporating filing of an information claim on behalf of a veteran by a Member of 

Congress, a duly authorized representative, or a ‘‘next friend.’’ PVA believes there 

would be increased opportunity for fraud in initiating a claim without the knowledge or consent of the veteran. Additionally, there is no specified language of the 

level of proof a family member must provide to the VA that encompasses the claimants’ level of physical capacity or mental incompetence. 

S. 3370

PVA supports S. 3370, to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve the process by which an individual files jointly for social security and dependency and indemnity compensation. This legislation adds clarity to VA’s interpretation of the law 

regarding the award of DIC and Social Security. The legislation would give VA authority to accept any documentation or electronic transmission as proof of eligibility 

in the case of a veterans’ death. 

88 

DRAFT LEGISLATION ON THE MULTIFAMILY TRANSITION HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM

PVA supports this draft bill, to amend title 38, United States Code, to improve 

the multifamily transition housing loan program of the Department of Veterans Affairs by requiring the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to issue loans for the construction of, rehabilitation of, or acquisition of land for multifamily transitional housing 

projects instead of guaranteeing loans for such purposes. This legislation could be a 

particularly useful tool that could impact and end the era of veterans’ homelessness. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN PAUL ROSSIE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

BLUE WATER NAVY VIETNAM VETERANS ASSOCIATION

To the Honorable Members of the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee, Less than 

two weeks ago, I appeared before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs to testify regarding H.R. 2254. That bill is the sister bill to S. 1939. What I emphasized 

in that testimony was the fact that I am fighting to obtain veteran benefits for a 

class of individuals who have been carved out of the whole and are being set aside 

and treated differently from veterans who were often no further from them than a 

few hundred yards. Not because they are really so different that they deserve to be 

denied their earned veteran benefits, but because it is monetarily and administratively convenient the Department of Veterans Affairs to do so. In other words, as 

was brought out in the Haas Case, they are dong this simply because they can! 

These veterans of the Vietnam War are not eligible for health care and compensation benefits because of an irrational decision by the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). VBA contends that since these service men and women were offshore 

or involved in ’secret wars’ in the countries surrounding Vietnam (such as Thailand, 

Cambodia and Laos), they could not have been contaminated by a Chemical Warfare 

agent that may have become part of the ambient air saturation in that entire region 

and whose fingerprint has been found in the fat cells of polar bears. BVA denies 

that the dioxin in Agent Orange could have travelled from the spray nozzles of 

Ranch Hand aircraft to the open waters of the South China Sea. They have held 

onto their absurd position in the face of glaring evidence from global scientific and 

medical research that proves the offshore personnel had the same or higher probability of contamination by dioxin as did many of the soldiers who are receiving 

their veteran health and compensation benefits because of dioxin contamination. 

NO DOCUMENTATION

Let’s set aside for a moment that the VBA is insistent on subscribing to Medieval 

Science as relates to this planet’s water cycle. Let’s ignore for a moment the outright 

lies, broken promises, deceit and intellectual ignorance that has seeped out of the 

office of the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) and which has been noted on 

the public record by Chairman Filner and other members of the House Veterans’ 

Affairs Committee. 

Let’s focus on what the hardest part of my job, as Executive Director of the Blue 

Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Association (BWNVVA) has been over the past 6 

years as we’ve tried to help veterans claim their promised and rightful benefits. The 

majority of veterans being blatantly discriminated against, those who served offshore Vietnam and who served in Thailand, Cambodia and Laos, all have very a 

similar problem. Their service records lack the proper documentation to prove that 

they qualify for the narrow interpretation of the law set forth by BVA policy. It 

might be interesting to note that many of the veterans who receive their benefits 

from the BVA because of their boots-on-ground status also lack this same documentation within their records, but they are never asked to provide it. Any indication that they had their boots-on-ground in Vietnam is enough to qualify them for 

these benefits and no further questions are asked. Additionally, there is a campaign 

of plausible deniability surrounding the existence, use and consequences of hazardous materials. Bullets and bombs are hazardous enough. Chemical, Biological 

and Nuclear (CBN) agents simply add to the depth and complicity of the issue. 

The lack of documentation indicates the lack of a paper trail recording where a 

servicemember was, what their exact duties were, and how and when they moved 

from place to place. No one kept those kinds of records, or such records were destroyed for lack of apparent usefulness. In the instance of those who were assigned 

to Thailand, Cambodia or Laos, many records are either intentionally non-existent 

or hidden under some sort of classification that makes access to them impossible. 

That classification is, at this point in time, nearly 40 years old. What could we have 

possibly done so that, 40 years later, we remain embarrassed to let the truth be 

known? 

89 

I’ll answer that question as I expect it to be answered: ‘‘It is a matter of national 

security and can’t be discussed.’’ Senators of this Committee, it is 40 years later and 

if we committed crimes so heinous that they cannot be known after this much time, 

then this government owes an apology to the citizens of this country and to the 

world for having done them. If it is worse than the dirty laundry we now have hanging on the line, my mind truly stumbles at comprehending it. 

DE ́ JA` VU

Governments and their military leaders must be the slowest learners on the planet. It is happening again. Or, rather, it appears that it is still happening. When our 

children returned from Operation Desert Storm with sicknesses that presented at 

an extraordinarily high rate, and it is almost 20 years after the fact that their 

health care and compensation benefits are just recently being acknowledged and 

made available to them, something is terribly wrong. 

War is ‘wrong’ in the sense that it clearly shows that humans on this planet remain unenlightened. Use of CBN agents during warfare is ‘wrong’ because it reflects 

a total disregard for the wider environment of the world that extends far beyond 

the battlefield. Not documenting involvement of our Armed Forces personnel is 

‘wrong’ because it puts them in a position that they are unable to show the proof 

needed to claim their earned veteran benefits once they leave active duty. We continue to use a system that keeps two sets of books that harms our current and future veterans by removing them, through their oath of secrecy, from the pool of veterans eligible for benefits they may need in their future. 

Will our Special Operation Teams returning from Afghanistan and Pakistan be 

able to claim their benefits for injuries received while on classified missions? Will 

they be able to claim their benefits if they are caught in a friendly fire incident in 

Pakistan as our unmanned aircraft bomb a country we have not declared war on? 

Will the Marines, who, up until a couple months ago, were training at 29 Palms 

with Iranian posers but have recently switched to Pakistani posers, ever be able to 

file for veteran benefits if they are injured in any boots-on-ground operation in Pakistan? 

Senators of this Committee, when will we see this nonsense stop? When will this 

country start thinking of the consequences of its military actions on the veterans 

of the future and be fully prepared to care for those who live through our wars? 

You have an opportunity to put policy into place that will guarantee the VBA will 

honor all our veterans by providing their earned benefits regardless of what future 

war they participate in. You now have the power to restructure the policies of the 

VBA, as well as the DOD, so that we don’t continue to commit the same mistakes 

that result in the problems of lost or missing documentation that I am wrestling 

with today. I think it is time to admit that it is the lies that cause the most harm; 

not the truth. And we are sadly deficient in truth speakers. 

Please help clean up the mess left from the Vietnam War of 40 years ago. And 

please put policy into place so that the veterans of the future can rest assured that 

any benefits that may be available to some will be available to all. Such policy is 

only common sense. And it is only a display of dignity and honor toward those we 

send out around the world to fight the wars we feel we need to have. 

TODAY’S FOCUS

Senate bill S. 1939 is our focus today. It addresses the urgent needs of Vietnam 

veterans who honorably served their country as long ago as 40 years, and who are 

now in desperate need of health care and compensation for diseases found on the 

VA’s list of presumptive diseases attributed to Agent Orange contamination. Those 

diseases are on that list for a reason. They flag the conditions that veterans of the 

Vietnam War display due to dioxin poisoning. Senate bill S. 1939 extends the benefits of health care and compensation to men who served in the direct vicinity of Vietnam who have those identical diseases. Do you actually think it is some fluke of 

Nature that the offshore and near vicinity personnel have those exact diseases? Did 

they all just happen to beat all statistical odds and come down with those conditions 

without the intervention of dioxin? 

It does not matter how they came down with Agent Orange related diseases. It 

does not matter if the wind blew it or the water carried it or it appeared by magic 

on the decks of their ships. What does matter is there has been a concerted effort 

for more than a decade to eliminate the number of personnel that VBA is required 

to pay the bill to care all our Vietnam War veterans. Senators of this Committee, 

that is NOT ACCEPTABLE. 

In the ‘‘Veterans and Agent Orange Update: 2008’’, the Institute of Medicine 

(IOM) opined that there was equal probability for dioxin contamination at sea as 

90 

on land. They recommended that offshore personnel be included in the presumption 

of exposure to herbicides in Vietnam. They stated that recommendation several 

times in that report. They presented an verification by a U.S. expert regarding a 

valid, scientific study done under contract to the Australian Government that describes quite clearly how dioxin-laden water taken into a ship’s water treatment system not only ends up in a ship’s potable water. It also describes quite clearly how 

the heat flash desalination systems on U.S. and Australian ships would amplify the 

toxicity of any dioxin molecules by 400%. This constituted a peer review of the Australian Study and the IOM passed favorable judgment on its conclusions. 

Rather than accepting the IOM’s recommendations, VA Secretary Shinseki ordered an 18-month study that literally duplicates studies already done to show the 

links between dioxin and offshore ships. By doing that, he successfully delayed receipt of health care and compensation benefits to Vietnam veterans by 18 months. 

Senators of this Committee, that is NOT ACCEPTABLE. 

There are absolutely no additional studies required to settle this issue. There only 

remains the passage of S. 1939 to codify a law that was originally written in 1991 

that did include offshore veterans and veterans in the proximity of Vietnam during 

that War. It was a law the VBA finagled its way around. 

If you wait for the duration of those 18-months, you will be presented with an 

IOM report that once again concludes that anyone on the water within the combat 

zone defined by the Vietnam Service Medal offshore Vietnam should be included in 

the presumption of exposure to Agent Orange. 

By not dealing openly and honestly with this problem, all you are doing is pushing a favorable decision in the matter further down the line, either for you to deal 

with later, or for your successor to deal with. I don’t even want to know why. I just 

want you to realize that the longer you delay the more Vietnam veterans with offshore and near vicinity service will die due to your indecision. My recommendation 

to you is to grab this problem by the horns, wrestle it to the ground, and deal with 

it. Why are you so reluctant to settle this issue? What is it that scares this government so deeply that it is willing to ignore proven science and medicine? All we are 

asking for is recognition that we will be given the health care and compensation 

that will allow us to die with dignity and leave this world with less debt piled up 

for our surviving family. The only ones who will be applying for these benefits will 

be those who actually have disabilities from the listed diseases. Between approximately 2002 and now, these personnel have needed to pay for their own medical 

treatment and have watched their homes be repossessed and their families decimated by debt and a loss of basic human dignity. 

Ladies and gentlemen of this esteemed Committee, that is NOT ACCEPTABLE. 

Please pass S. 1939 into law. Thank you for this opportunity to present my thoughts 

and feeling to you as you review pending legislation. 

Respectfully, 

JOHN PAUL ROSSIE, 

Executive Director, 

Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Association. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CDR JOHN B. WELLS, USN (RET.), DIRECTOR OF LEGAL

AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, BLUE WATER NAVY VIETNAM VETERANS ASSOCIATION

S. 1939

Good Morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I appreciate this 

opportunity to present to you today concerning S. 1939. I intend to address my remarks in support of those who have been left behind. Our friends and allies, the 

Australians, who fought beside us on land and at sea in Vietnam and every conflict 

subsequent to Vietnam, have taken the lead in granting Agent Orange benefits to 

those who served outside of the land mass of Vietnam. They have also taken the 

lead in the scientific research in this field, which has recently been validated by our 

own Institute of Medicine. 

By way of introduction, my name is John B. Wells and I am a retired Navy Commander as well as an attorney. I entered the Navy in February 1972 and served 

in the Engineering Department on five Navy ships. I was the Chief Engineer on 

three of those ships. I was also the Executive Officer, second in command, of a ship 

whose mission was to repair other Ships. I have deployed throughout the globe in 

both the Atlantic and Pacific Fleets, serving in the Mediterranean, the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian Ocean, the North Arabian Sea, the Norwegian Sea and the Persian 

Gulf. I retired from the Navy, as a Commander on 1 August, 1994. I graduated from 

91 

Duquense Law School night program with a Juris Doctor approximately 6 weeks 

prior to my retirement. 

In the Navy I was qualified as a Surface Warfare Officer, Officer of the Deck (underway), Combat Information Center Watch Officer, Command Duty Officer, Tactical Action Officer, Navigator, and Engineering Officer of the Watch. I was also 

qualified for command at sea. I received a mechanical engineering subspecialty 

based on significant experience. My ships operated with units of the Royal Navy and 

the Royal Australian Navy. This included NATO exercises, RIMPAC exercises and 

other multi-national exercises and global operations. 

I have testified before the Institute of Medicine’s Seventh Biennial Agent Orange 

committee in 2008 and again before the Institute of Medicine’s Blue Water Navy 

Committee on May 3, 2010. I also testified before the House Veterans Committee 

on May 5, 2010, in support of H.R. 2254, the companion bill to S. 1939. 

It is impossible to provide direct evidence as to the dioxin content of the South 

China Sea and the waters off Vietnam in the 1960′s and 1970′s. Too much time has 

passed to be able to make that determination. The circumstantial case, however, is 

compelling. I believe this circumstantial case will eventually be validated by the 

IOM Blue Water Navy committee but such validation will take many months. While 

I was impressed with the interest and competence of the members of that IOM 

board, I am convinced that this study is neither necessary nor beneficial. As the 

IOM admitted before the House Committee, they only review existing documentation and do not conduct independent research. Testimony before the House Committee on H.R. 2254 established that the only relevant research is the various reports completed by the Australians for the Australian Department of Veterans Affairs. Moving forward with this study, which does not report until the summer of 

2011, will only allow more veterans to die. 

The history of the blue water Navy tragedy begins in Australia. In the late 1990’s, 

the Australian Department of Veterans Affairs noticed a significant number of 

Agent Orange related cancers in Royal Australian Navy veterans who had never set 

foot on land in Vietnam. Dr. Keith Horsley of the Australian Department of Veterans Affairs met Dr. Jochen Muller of the National Research Centre for Environmental Toxicology and the Queensland Health Services (hereinafter NRCET) at a 

conference in Stockholm. Dr. Horsley addressed the phenomena with Dr. Mueller 

who agreed to conduct a study to explore the reasons for this apparent dichotomy. 

Dr. Horsley arranged for funding from the Australian Department of Veterans Affairs and commissioned NRCET to explore the mystery. Their report, entitled the 

Examination of The Potential Exposure of Royal Australian Navy (RAN) Personnel 

to Polychlorinated Dibenzodioxins And Polychlorinated Dibenzofurans Via Drinking 

Water, (NRCET study) was published in 2002. I have talked with the authors of that 

report via telephone and e-mail. My wife, who is a Louisiana notary and paralegal, 

and also an Australian native, traveled to Brisbane to interview the authors of the 

report. 

At about the same time the NRCET report was published, the American Department of Veterans Affairs issued a change to their Adjudication Procedures Manual 

(M21–1 Manual) that deleted those soldiers, sailors and airmen who did not set foot 

on land in Vietnam from the presumption of herbicide exposure. This decision later 

led to the litigation discussed below. 

As a threshold matter, the vessels of both Australian and American origin operated side by side in the waters adjacent to Vietnam. The missions were driven by 

the ship capabilities and not by nationality. There was no tactical differences between the operations conducted by ships of the United States and Royal Australian 

Navy. 

The NRCET study noted that ships in the near shore marine waters collected 

waters that were contaminated with the runoff from areas sprayed with Agent Orange. NRCET Study at 10. The authors later reported to this office that estuary containing the dioxins extended more than three nautical miles from shore. This means 

that the contamination would have extended well past the gun line which was normally located 2000 to 5000 yards from shore. The distilling plants aboard the ship, 

which converted the salt water into potable drinking water, actually enhanced the 

effect of the Agent Orange. NRCET Study at 42. The study found that there was 

an elevation in cancer in veterans of the Royal Australian Navy which was higher 

than that of the Australian Army and Royal Australian Air Force. NRCET Study 

at 13. This was confirmed by the The Third Australian Vietnam Veterans Mortality 

Study (hereinafter 2005 Mortality Study). The NRCET Study at page 35 noted significant concentrations at Vung Tau, an area visited by Australian and American 

ships. Theories that the Agent Orange stopped at the water’s edge are simply preposterous. Congress in enacting the Clean Water Act recognized that pollutants discharged from shore will contaminate the navigable waters, waters of the contiguous 

92 

zone, and the oceans. Anecdotal evidence reports Agent Orange in the waters of the 

rivers which then empty out into harbors and eventfully the estuaranine waters. 

Sailors aboard the HMAS Sydney noted that brown water runoff would go many kilometers out to sea. 2005 Mortality Study at 196. Da Nang harbor was identified as 

a serious Agent Orange ‘‘hot spot.’’ Anecdotal evidence noted that clouds of Agent 

Orange were blown out to sea. Approximately 10–12% of the land area was sprayed 

with Agent Orange. In contrast everyone aboard a ship that distilled contaminated 

water from estuarine sources was exposed. 

The distillers all work on similar principles to produce water (feed water) for the 

boilers and potable water for the ship’s crew. Water is introduced from the sea and 

is passed through the distilling condenser and air ejector condenser where it acts 

as a coolant for the condensers. It is then sent through the vapor feed heater into 

the first effect chamber and into the second effect chamber where it is changed to 

water vapor. Vapor then is passed through a drain regulator into a flash chamber 

and passes through baffles and separators into the distilling condenser where it is 

condensed into water and pumped to the ship’s water distribution system. Sea water 

not vaporized is pumped over the side by the brine pump. Id. This is the same process discussed in the NRCET Study. It was used by American, British and Australian ships. In fact many Royal Australian Navy ships were retired United States 

Navy ships or ships of the same class as the American ships. Those that were not 

of American design were often constructed by the British. They all used the same 

system. This system was used well into the 1990’s. More recently a new system, reverse osmosis, is being adopted, but that did not see service during the Vietnam 

War. 

Potable water was manufactured continuously along with ‘‘feed’’ water for the 

ship’s boilers. It was a constant headache and as a Chief Engineer there were many 

times that I was given round the clock hourly briefings on the status of water. This 

was especially true in southern latitudes such as Vietnam since the higher ambient 

sea water temperatures reduced the efficiency of the distilling process. 

As discussed in the NRCET Study the distilling process enhanced the effect of the 

dioxin. Additionally the dioxin was ingested orally through drinking water, food, 

oral hygiene etc. On land, the dioxin, once sprayed, would become embedded in the 

soil. Since the water systems of the ships would have been thoroughly contaminated, the dioxin would have adhered to piping and continued to contaminate in an 

ever increasing amount. The authors confirmed this in their discussions with my office. The cumulative effect of the contamination would have resulted in a very high 

concentration. It would have taken weeks and perhaps months to completely flush 

the system once the ship moved away from contaminated waters. The Australian 

study confirmed the enhancing effects of the shipboard distilling plants. NRCET 

Study at 42. In other words, the effect was even more pronounced than if the veteran had merely ingested Agent Orange by breathing it or by drinking water from 

a contaminated stream. 

In their publication in the Federal Register, Vol. 73, No. 73, of April 15, 2008, the 

Department of Veterans Affairs complained that the NRCET study was not peer reviewed. Actually it was peer-reviewed and published. The report was presented to 

the 21st International Symposium on Halogenated Environmental Organic Pollutants and POPs in Gueongu Korea on 9–14 September 2001. It was them published 

in Volume 52 of Organohalogen Compounds (ISBN 0–9703315–7–6) which is published by Dr. Jae Ho Yang, Catholic University of Daegu, Korea. Please see http:// 

espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:95837 (last visited June 13, 2008). More importantly, the study was prepared at the request of and for the Australian Department 

of Veterans Affairs who accepted the study. The study was cited in The Third Australian Vietnam Veterans Mortality Study (hereinafter 2005 Mortality Study) published in 2005 by the Department of Veterans’ Affairs and Australian Institute of 

Health and Welfare and resulted in the Department’s consideration of Royal Australian Navy Vietnam Veterans as potentially exposed Vietnam Veterans. The study 

was further reviewed at the request of the Institute of Medicine’s Agent Orange 

Committee, by Dr. Steven Hawthorne of the University of North Dakota. He certified that the NRCET study was scientifically viable and that the conclusions, 

based on Henry’s Law were correct. 

In their Federal Register article, the DVA asserted that: 

‘‘VA’s scientific experts have noted many problems with this study that caution against placing significant reliance on the study. In particular, the authors of the Australian study themselves noted that there was substantial 

uncertainty in their assumptions regarding the concentration of dioxin that 

may have been present in estuarine waters during the Vietnam War.’’ 

93 

This is a blatant misrepresentation of the author’s position. When Dr. Caroline 

Gaus, one of the report’s author was questioned on this point, she replied as follows: 

‘‘The problem referred to in this comment is associated with estimating the 

exposure level of Vietnam Veterans, not with the study’s primary finding 

that exposure to dioxins was likely if (i) drinking water was sourced via distillation and (ii) the source water was contaminated. As highlighted by the 

authors, the exact level of exposure via this pathway is uncertain due to 

the lack of data on contaminant levels in the source water during the Vietnam War. The attempt made by the study to estimate the level of exposure 

serves only as an indication that exposure may have been considerable (and 

depends on the concentrations in the source water). Hence, the problem lies 

in the lack of exposure information, not with the study. The study clearly 

demonstrates that if source water is contaminated, dioxins are expected to 

co-distill with drinking water. 

‘‘This issue is also not related to the study’s quality, but rather highlights 

one of its findings out of context. The study noted that, while increasing 

suspended sediment loads in the source water decrease the co-distillation 

of dioxins, dioxins still co-distill with water at the highest level of suspended sediment in the water tested (i.e. at 1.44 g/L 38% of 2,3,7,8-TCDD 

co-distilled in the first 10% of source water). If 10% of the source water is 

distilled, TCDD would enrich in the drinking water by a factor of almost 

4 compared to the source water. This was confirmed by using water from 

a tropical estuary with naturally high suspended sediment loading, where 

48–60% of TCDD co-distilled with the first 10% of source water. 

‘‘As noted above and in the study itself, estimating the level of exposure 

via this pathway is difficult due to the lack of data on the concentrations 

of dioxins in the source water. The level of exposure would depend strongly 

on the dioxin concentrations in the source water (which would have varied 

from location to location) as well as on the amount and duration of water 

consumed for drinking and/or cooking. 

‘‘The study attempted to provide an estimate on the concentrations of 

dioxins in source water (0.043–0.69 ng/L). While the uncertainty around 

this value is large (approximately in the order of a factor of 10 or more), 

it cannot be determined whether it represents an over- or underestimate 

(which would also depend on location). Hence, it would be difficult to determine whether the level of exposure was similar, higher or lower compared 

to veterans who served on land. However, the study demonstrates that exposure is likely to have occurred if source water was contaminated and suggests that exposure may have been considerable.’’ 

Notably the study Identification of New Agent Orange/Dioxin Contamination Hot 

Spots in Southern Viet Nam Final Report conducted by Hatfield Consultants in 2006 

noted significant hot spots in the land and waters internal to Vietnam, including 

Da Nang harbor. Concentration levels were still significant, over thirty years after 

the end of the war. 

The DVA Federal Register comment contained the curious remark that one had 

to assume that the sailors drank only the contaminated water and only for an extended period of time. That is a safe assumption. All Navy ships, manufacture potable drinking water from sea water. This water is replenished almost daily. These 

ships did not have the capacity to carry potable water throughout the voyage without replenishment via their distillers. These ships patrolled the entire coast of Vietnam and often anchored in harbors to provide gunfire support. To infer that these 

ships never steamed through contaminated waters is naive. Additionally, there was 

no means to transport large quantities of water outside of the reserve potable water 

tanks. Nor was there a long water hose connecting the ship with Hawaii. 

As previously discussed the NRCET study was cited in the 2005 Mortality Study. 

That study was conducted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare for the 

Australian Department of Veterans Affairs. It found a 19% increase in mortality for 

Navy veterans over the Australian population. This is despite the fact that mortality 

among Vietnam veterans as a whole was lower than the general Australian community. In another study, the Cancer Incidence in Vietnam Veterans 2005 (hereinafter 

the 2005 Cancer Study), the Australian Department of Veterans Affairs again cited 

the NRCET study. The 2005 Cancer Study found that Royal Australian Navy veterans had the highest rate of cancer, higher than expected by 22–26%, followed by 

Army veterans, higher than expected by 11–13% and Air Force veterans with a 6– 

8% higher than the expected rate of cancer. Navy and Army veterans showed a 

higher than the expected incidence of cancers of the colon, oral cavity, colon, pharynx and larynx and cancers of the head and neck and gastrointestinal. Whereas 

94 

Navy veterans demonstrated a higher than the expected incidence of gastrointestinal cancer, Army and Air Force veterans showed higher than the expected incidence of Hodgkin’s disease and prostate cancer. The cancers unique to the Navy 

would appear to support the ingestion of the dioxin orally rather than nasally. 

Notably, cancer in Navy veterans could not be attributed to the ship on which 

they served or the time spent in Vietnamese waters. This would indicate, I believe, 

that the contamination of the waters was extensive and the contamination of the 

water storage and distribution system long lasting. Although the passage of time 

as made it impossible to produce direct proof, the circumstantial evidence is certainly compelling, 

The Australians have stepped forward and began granting benefits to those who 

had served (i) on land in Vietnam, (ii) at sea in Vietnamese waters, or (iii) on board 

a vessel and consuming potable water supplied on that vessel, when the water supply had been produced by evaporative distillation of estuarine Vietnamese waters, 

for a cumulative period of at least thirty days. They have defined Vietnamese 

waters as an area within 185.2 kilometers from land (roughly 100 nautical miles). 

In reliance upon the NRCET Study, they began promulgating Statements of Principles, which are similar to our Code of Federal Regulations, covering various cancers. For several years now, Australian Navy veterans have been receiving benefits 

denied to their American counterparts. 

In my testimony before the Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) Committee to Review the 

Health Effects in Vietnam Veterans of Exposure to Herbicides (Seventh Biennial 

Update) in San Antonio Texas in 2008, I discussed the various evidence and urban 

legends concerning the exposure of navy veterans. We provided them with copies of 

the NRCET study, the VA’s Federal Register notice and reclamas by myself and Dr. 

Gaus. The IOM Committee conducted an exhaustive review of the NRCET study 

and requested an independent review by Dr. Steve Hawthorne who is the Senior Research Manager of the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), University of North Dakota. Dr. Hawthorne’s principal areas of interest and expertise include environmental chemistry and analysis, and supercritical and subcritical 

(superheated) fluid extraction. After reviewing the NRCET study, Dr. Hawthorne reported: 

* * * that leaves two questions to be answered: 

1. Is there a physiochemical basis to expect that non-polars (like the 

dioxins) would distill, while polars (like dimethylarsenic acid) do not distill? 

2. Do their experiments confirm expectations based on physiochemical parameters that dioxins distill and DMA does not? 

The answers to both questions are definitely yes. An explanation of these 

results can be based on Henry’s law—i.e., the tendency of a solute to evaporate from water. This tendency is enhanced by high vapor pressure (obviously), but also by low water solubility. Thus, even molecules like 2,3,7,8- 

TCDD that have high boiling points will evaporate from water because 

their solubility is so low. Conversely, molecules like DMA that are very 

soluble in water do not evaporate from water. The fact that non-polar molecules (even those with high boiling points) evaporate from water is wellknown in environmental science, and has been demonstrated to occur with 

a broad range of pollutants such as PCBs, PAHs, organochlorine pesticides, 

as well as dioxins. For example, the EPA estimates that the half-life for 

evaporation of 2,3,7,8-TCDD from a pond is 46 days. The distillation process greatly enhances this process by adding heat and reducing the pressure. 

The experiments described confirm expectations based on Henry’s law that 

dioxins would be concentrated in the distillate, while DMA would not. (The 

formation experiment was inconclusive, but I don’t believe it is important 

to their conclusions.) Assuming that their apparatus mimics ship-board 

units (and that seems reasonable), the increased concentration of dioxins in 

distillate water should be accepted to a reasonable scientific certainty. 

The IOM report accepted the proposition that Navy veterans off the coast were 

exposed and recommended that they be given the presumption of exposure. In their 

recommendation, the IOM committee stated: ‘‘Given the available evidence, the 

Committee recommends that members of the Blue Water Navy should not be excluded from the set of Vietnam-era veterans with presumed herbicide exposure.’’ 

Although the DVA accepted other recommendations from this IOM report, including the extension of benefits for ischemic heart disease, Parkinsons disease and B 

cell leukemia such as hairy cell leukemia. Inexplicably The Department of Veterans 

Affairs refused to accept the IOM report, instead ordering the current ongoing study 

which will be reviewing areas previously addressed by the Agent Orange Committee 

and the Australians. The study was commissioned in February of this year and is 

95 

expected to take 18 months. Meanwhile, our Navy veterans are dying of Agent Orange related diseases. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs has undertaken a project to cover some blue 

water Navy veterans. If a ship entered inland waters, such as a river, the presumption is granted. This is a classic case of doing the right thing for the wrong reason. 

It is doubtful that the distillers, designed to convert salt water to fresh would have 

been operating in the rivers. More importantly, Navy regulations at the time stated 

potable water should not distilled in rivers, streams etc. This project, while covering 

a few more veterans, is a mere extension of the DVA’s irrational ‘‘boots on the 

ground’’ requirement. 

This project is complicated by the difficulty in proving ships locations. Logs are 

not always available and are handwritten. Specific locations are not always identifiable. Locations are often specified by directional bearings and/or ranges to navigational points that may no longer exist or may be called by a different name. Personnel going ashore are never documented unless they are permanently reporting 

to or transferring from the command. The project has resulted in a massive expenditure of time with little reward. 

I would be remiss if I did not address the case of Haas v. Peake, 525 F.3d 1168 

(Fed. Cir. 2008). I filed an amicus brief in Haas which centered on international law 

and the NRCET study. The presumption issue in Haas was a secondary issue. Actually Commander Haas was directly exposed from an airborne cloud. 

The Haas case was primarily decided on administrative law principles dealing 

with rulemaking. In revising their M21–1 Manual, the DVA failed to follow the rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims found that the provision was irrational and not promulgated pursuant to law. The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims had also ruled 

that the Department of Veterans Affairs’s interpretation of the enabling statute, 38 

U.S.C. § 1116, which excluded the Navy veterans, was unreasonable and inconsistent. 

The Federal Circuit excused the VA’s compliance with the rulemaking provisions 

of the APA. Acting on administrative law principles, it also reversed the Veterans 

Court holding that the DVA was not given sufficient deference in the way they interpreted the statute. The Federal Circuit relied upon the ‘‘Chevron doctrine,’’ that 

states ‘‘when an agency invokes its authority to issue regulations, which then interpret ambiguous statutory terms, the courts defer to its reasonable interpretations.’’ 

In a split (2–1) decision, the Federal Circuit held that the DVA was entitled to 

Chevron deference because they found that the phrase ‘‘served in the Republic of 

Vietnam in section 1116 is ambiguous.’’ 

In my amicus brief I raised the argument that the statutory language incorporated the territorial seas. U.S. Navy ships, like their Australian counterparts, 

steamed within the territorial waters of Vietnam. Territorial waters were historically defined as (1) the water area comprising both inland waters (rivers, lakes and 

true bays, etc.) and (2) the waters extending seaward three nautical miles from the 

coast line, i.e., the line of ordinary low water, (oft times called the ‘territorial sea’). 

Seaward of that three-mile territorial sea lie the high seas. C.A.B. v. Island Airlines, 

Inc. 235 F. Supp. 990, 1007 (D.C. Hawaii 1964). Most countries now claim a twelve 

mile limit starting at a straight baseline which encompasses the ‘‘fringe’’ of coastal 

islands. A wider area, the contiguous zone, reaches out twelve miles from the outer 

limit of the territorial sea. United States v. Louisiana, 394 U.S. 11, 23 n. 26. (1969). 

Vietnam claimed a 12 mile territorial sea limit, which defines its sovereignty. That 

is consistent with the limitations of the United Nations Convention on the law of 

the Sea Article 3 and the 1958 Treaty on the Territorial Sea and Contiguous Zone. 

Three nautical miles is within the outermost range of the 5′′38 gun mounts of Destroyer type ships used in the Vietnam War. Twelve nautical miles (24,000 yards) 

is beyond the maximum range of the most commonly used shipboard batteries, the 

5′′38 or the 5′′54 naval gun. The same holds true for the 6′′ and 8′′ guns. Only the 

Battleship could provide support beyond 12 miles. 

The enabling statute, 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(1)(A) recognizes a presumption of service 

connection when the veteran manifests an enumerated disease, if the person was 

‘‘a veteran who, during active military, naval, or air service, served in the Republic 

of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 

1975.’’ The threshold factors are the existence of a prescribed disease and service 

in Vietnam. 

In Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U.S. 1, 52 (1906), the Supreme Court held that 

the Mississippi Sound, and by extension the waters surrounding all harbors as inland waters, were under the category of ‘‘bays wholly within [the Nation’s] territory 

not exceeding two marine leagues in width at the mouth.’’ Inland, or internal waters 

are subject to the complete sovereignty of the Nation, as much as if they were a 

96 

part of its land territory. United States v. Louisiana, supra. Thus the presumption 

should apply to any harbor as well as waters landward of the baseline. The territorial waters to include the contiguous zone are also under the control of the sovereign Nation, although innocent passage may not be denied. Id. Subject to the right 

of innocent passage, the coastal state, in this case Vietnam, has the same sovereignty over its territorial sea as it has with respect to its land territory. See, 1958 

Territorial Sea Convention Article 1–2; Law of the Seas Convention, Article 2. Notably, the VA has refused to recognize domestic and international law definitions of 

‘‘inland’’ waters in determining whether or benefits should be granted. 

Thus any time a Navy ship was firing its guns ashore, it would have had to have 

been within the inland or territorial waters of Vietnam. When at anchor in a harbor, 

it was within the inland waters of Vietnam. At all relevant times, the ship was 

within the sovereignty of Vietnam and therefore its crew ‘‘served in the Republic 

of Vietnam.’’ The distance to shore directly corresponds to the maximum range of 

the support of forces ashore. Consequently, most naval units operated close to shore. 

Gunfire missions were often shot from two to three thousand yards of the shore, 

well within the straight baseline which marks the boundary between inland and territorial waters. Many were anchored in Da Nang Harbor. The closer a ship was to 

the coast, the higher the possibility that they steamed through waters contaminated 

with Agent Orange. In the case of the harbor anchorages, the ships were not only 

within the sovereign territory of Vietnam, they were within the inland waters. 

Under both national and international law, most ships served in the Republic of 

Vietnam. The Federal Circuit, in ruling on a petition for rehearing, refused to address the international law arguments stating that Mr. Haas had waived the argument by not presenting it at the Veterans Court. 

After the submission of all briefs and a few days before the May 8, 2008 decision 

was rendered, the Department of Justice, acting on behalf of the DVA submitted a 

supplemental brief based on the erroneous April 15, 2008, Federal Register notice. 

Although the information in that article has since been refuted, there was not sufficient time to respond to the supplemental brief. This left the Court under the impression that the NRCET study had not been peer reviewed, that the Australians 

used different ships and distilling systems, that American ships did not make water 

and that the authors doubted their own study. Those impressions were blatantly 

false, but this was not brought before the Court. Although not a holding of the 

Court, the DVA misrepresentations were discussed in dicta and obviously had some 

impact on the decision. 

While this adversarial ploy was a brilliant tactical move, it was a reprehensible 

act by an agency who claims to stand as a non adversary to care for the veteran, 

his widow and orphan. I am reminded of Justice Black’s dissent in St. Regis Paper 

Co. v. United States, 368 U.S. 208, 229 (1961) ‘‘Our Government should not by picayunish haggling over the scope of its promise, permit one of its arms to do that 

which, by any fair construction, the Government has given its word that no arm will 

do. It is no less good morals and good law that the Government should turn square 

corners in dealing with the people than that the people should turn square corners 

in dealing with their government.’’ 

These men left their homes to go to war. It was an unpopular war, but they went. 

There were teach-ins telling them how to dodge the draft or flee to Canada. But 

they went. When they returned they were spat upon and called the most terrible 

of names. But they went. These men were and are casualties of war. Many have 

died and others are dying. Their names will never go on the Wall, but they are casualties who have had or will have their lives cut short. In the midst of recession 

they are left without medical care. Their families are left without support as they 

pass. These men are heroes and we owe them medical care and a pension. 

Currently Australia recognizes a presumption of exposure for all of those who 

served within the 185.2 kilometer radius of Vietnam for thirty days or more. That 

is roughly the same area as the Vietnam Service Medal area. While I am certainly 

happy that our Allies have taken the step of compensating and treating their Navy 

veterans, as an American, I am somewhat chagrined that we did not immediately 

follow suit. As the leader of the Free World we should take the lead in taking care 

of our veterans. 

As I mentioned earlier, It is impossible to provide direct evidence as to the dioxin 

content of the South China Sea and the waters off Vietnam in the 1960′s and 

1970′s. Too much time has passed to be able to make that determination. The circumstantial case, however, is compelling. The 2005 Mortality Study and Cancer Incidence Study identifies an exposure problem unique to the Navy. The NRCET 

study shows how exposure most probably occurred. The type of cancers developed 

by Australian Navy veterans confirm that exposure did occur. 

97 

S. 1939 is designed to correct years of neglect and degradation. It will restore 

earned benefits to these heroes and ensure that their families will receive a pension 

upon their premature death. It will also implement the recommendations of the 

IOM’s Agent Orange committee. This is not a gift. It is not welfare. It is an earned 

benefit bought and paid for with their health and their lives. I urge this Committee 

to favorably report S. 1939 with a strong recommendation that it be sent to the full 

Senate for expedited passage. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. It is a great personal honor both to appear before you and to represent the Navy heroes of the Vietnam War. God bless our veterans and God bless the United States of America. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN L. WILSON, ASSISTANT NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE

DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Thank you for inviting the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) to provide our views for the record at this important hearing on legislation pending before the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs on 

the eighteen numbered bills and one draft measure under consideration by the Committee today. We appreciate the Committee’s leadership in enhancing the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits programs on which many service-connected 

disabled veterans must rely, and we also appreciate the opportunity to offer our 

views. 

S. 1780—HONOR AMERICA’S GUARD-RESERVE RETIREES ACT

The purpose of this bill would deem the service of a person retired from the National Guard and Reserve as active duty service, when the person qualifies for retired pay for his or her Reserve (non-regular) service or, but for age, would be so 

entitled. This distinction would be for the purposes of extending eligibility for benefits provided through the VA. 

The DAV has no resolution on this matter and it is not within the scope of our 

mission. 

S. 1866—A BILL TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR THE ELIGIBILITY OF PARENTS OF CERTAIN DECEASED VETERANS FOR INTERMENT IN NATIONAL

CEMETERIES

This bill would broaden eligibility for internments in National Cemeteries. In the 

event a parent of a deceased veteran who, at the time of the parent’s death, did 

not have a spouse, surviving spouse, or child who had been interred, or who, if deceased, would have been eligible to be interred in a National Cemetery, this measure would authorize such burial in a National Cemetery. 

While the DAV has no adopted resolution from our membership pertaining to this 

specific matter, we would not oppose passage of this legislation. 

S. 1939—AGENT ORANGE EQUITY ACT OF 2009

The goal of this bill would redefine as geographic parts of the Republic of Vietnam 

such Republic’s inland waterways, ports, and harbors, waters offshore, and airspace 

above, for purposes of the presumption of service connection for diseases associated 

with exposure by veterans to certain herbicide agents while in or near Vietnam. 

This bill would also include as veterans eligible for such presumption those who 

served on Johnston Island during the period beginning on April 1, 1972, and ending 

on September 30, 1977, or those who were awarded the Vietnam Service Medal or 

the Vietnam Campaign Medal. 

In accordance with DAV Resolution 017, our membership has long supported legislation to clarify that military service in the former Republic of South Vietnam for 

purposes of benefits based on exposure to herbicides should include service in the 

waters offshore. Military personnel who served on ships no more distant from the 

spraying of these herbicides than many who served on the Vietnam land mass itself 

have arbitrarily and unjustly been denied benefits of the presumption of their exposure, and consequently the presumption of service connection for herbicide-related 

disabilities. Therefore, DAV supports this legislation and encourages its enactment. 

98 

S. 1940—A BILL TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO CARRY OUT A

STUDY ON THE EFFECTS ON CHILDREN OF EXPOSURE OF THEIR PARENTS TO HERBICIDES USED IN SUPPORT OF THE UNITED STATES AND ALLIED MILITARY OPERATIONS

IN THE REPUBLIC OF VIETNAM DURING THE VIETNAM ERA

This measure would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to complete, and report to the Committees on Veterans Affairs, the results of a study of the effects on 

children of their parents’ exposure to herbicides used in support of U.S. and allied 

military operations in the former Republic of South Vietnam during the Vietnam 

era. 

In delivering the charge to the Institute of Medicine (IOM) Committee to Review 

the Health Effects in Vietnam Veterans of Exposure to Herbicides (Seventh Biennial 

Update), the VA made a request related to the purposes of this bill. The request 

asked the IOM committee to comment on whether effects of herbicide exposure 

might be manifested in veterans’ children at later stages of their development than 

have been systematically evaluated to date or in later generations and on the feasibility of assessing such effects. In its 2008 Veterans and Agent Orange Update report, the IOM Committee reported: 

Developing understanding of epigenetic mechanisms leads this Committee 

to conclude that it is considerably more plausible than previously believed 

that exposure to the herbicides sprayed in Vietnam might have caused paternally-mediated trans-generational effects. Such potential would most 

likely be attributable to the TCDD contaminant in Agent Orange. Consequently, this Committee recommends that laboratory research be conducted to address and characterize TCDD’s potential for inducing epigenetic 

modifications. As the offspring of Vietnam veterans grow older, the possibility of a parental effect on the incidence of adult cancers, cognitive problems, and other diseases of maturity are of increasing interest. While information concerning the applicability of epigenetic mechanism to TCDD is 

being gathered, the Committee further recommends innovative epidemiologic protocols be developed to address the logistically challenging task of 

determining whether adverse effects are being manifested in the adult children and grandchildren of Vietnam veterans. 

Further, enactment of this bill would be consistent with both the VA Secretary’s 

decision in September 2009 as well as the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

recent oversight hearing to examine the feasibility and circumstances of recommencing the 1980’s-era National Vietnam Veterans Longitudinal Study (NVVLS). 

DAV National Resolution No. 252 urges congressional oversight and Federal vigilance to provide for research, health care and improved surveillance of disabling 

conditions resulting from military toxic and environmental hazard exposures. Research conducted by the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Defense 

(DOD), VA and other Federal departments and agencies, has focused on associations 

linking toxic and environmental exposures with subsequent health status of veterans, and in the case of Vietnam veterans, some of their children. We urge Congress to actively oversee its established mechanism of delegation to the National 

Academy of Sciences and VA to determine validations of, and develop equitable compensation policy to support, environmentally exposed veterans and those whose children are affected. 

S. 2751—A BILL TO DESIGNATE THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER IN BIG SPRING, TEXAS, AS THE GEORGE H. O’BRIEN, JR., DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL CENTER

This measure would designate the Department of Veterans Affairs medical center 

in Big Spring, Texas, as the ‘‘George H. O’Brien, Jr., Department of Veterans Affairs 

Medical Center.’’ DAV adopts no resolutions on matters such as these. This is a 

local issue and would be handled by a local Chapter or Department of the DAV; 

therefore, DAV has no position on this matter. 

S. 3035—THE VETERANS TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY CARE IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2010

If enacted, this bill would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to provide a 

report to Congress on the feasibility and advisability of VA’s establishment of a 

Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center or Polytrauma Network Site of the VA in the geographical area of the northern Rockies and Dakotas. The bill would require the report within 180 days of enactment. The bill describes required elements that would 

be addressed in the report, including adequacy of existing facilities available to polytraumatically-injured veterans within this frontier region; a comparative assessment 

99 

of rehabilitation programs’ effectiveness in urban versus rural and frontier regions; 

assessment of the cost of living and financial stresses of frontier life; and, an assessment of therapies to prevent or remediate neurologic conditions secondary to Traumatic Brain Injuries and whether such therapies can be interrupted by the stresses 

of urban life. 

As indicated in the findings section of the bill, VA has established polytrauma rehabilitation centers in four locations [and has announced a fifth location in San Antonio, Texas] and has designated other polytrauma network sites in each Veterans 

Integrated Service Network. Injured veterans in this particular six-state area might 

need to travel to Minneapolis, Minnesota or Palo Alto, California to receive specialized care for their polytrauma needs. Alternatively, they would need to travel significant distances to other urban areas such as Seattle or Denver to receive private 

care at VA or DOD expense. Several studies have shown that nearly half of our 

Armed Forces serving in Iraq and Afghanistan emanate from rural areas; thus, 

these wars are producing numbers of polytraumatically injured veterans from rural, 

remote and frontier regions. 

Consistent with DAV Resolution No. 241, adopted at our most recent National 

Convention in Denver, Colorado, focused on gaining proper care for veterans with 

Traumatic Brain Injury (often accompanied by polytrauma), we support the purposes of this bill and appreciate the intentions of its sponsors. Nevertheless, we 

would anticipate that should VA open such a specialized center in a frontier location 

such as Ft. Harrison, Montana or Cheyenne, Wyoming based on findings in the report required by the bill, VA’s recruiting and retaining the types and variety of 

highly specialized providers might become a significant barrier to the maintenance 

of quality of care in such a technologically-advanced activity. The existing polytrauma centers all maintain vigorous affiliations with university schools of medicine, of other health professions and of the health sciences in general. They conduct 

significant biomedical and prosthetic research focused on polytrauma and its 

sequelae. There is no school of medicine in Montana, Wyoming, Idaho or eastern 

Washington. Also we would be concerned about the efficiency of such a center because of the generally low absolute numbers of polytrauma cases who may continue 

to reside in that frontier region. We would ask the Committee to consider amending 

the required elements of the report to add a census of the existing polytrauma veteran population continuing to reside in this five-state area, with an assessment of 

their service needs and their current providers. 

Our decades of experience with VA’s spinal cord injury (SCI) centers would demonstrate that tens of thousands of SCI veterans in fact relocated their residences 

either temporarily or permanently in many cases in order to be nearer that vital 

VA service for them. VA maintains 23 SCI centers, all located in urban and academic environments. 

We have been made aware that many families of polytraumatically injured veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan service, many from rural areas, also are relocating 

to be nearer to VA’s existing polytrauma sites of care and the specialized medical 

and surgical resources attendant to these centers. These are tragic but perhaps unavoidable consequences of severe disability caused by war. 

S. 3107—VETERANS’ COMPENSATION COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT ACT OF 2010

If enacted, this measure would direct the Secretary of VA to increase the rates 

of veterans’ disability compensation, additional compensation for dependents, the 

clothing allowance for certain disabled veterans, and dependency and indemnity 

compensation for surviving spouses and children as of December 1, 2010. These increases would be required to be at the same percentage increase as benefits provided under title II (Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) of the Social Security Act, on the same effective date. 

This Nation’s first duty to veterans is to provide for the rehabilitation of its wartime disabled. In accordance with DAV’s Resolution No. 072, we support enactment 

of legislation that provides a realistic increase in VA disability compensation rates 

to bring the standard of living of disabled veterans in line with that which they 

would have enjoyed had they not suffered their service-connected disabilities. 

While Congress passed similar legislation last year, veterans received no increase 

as a result of the general downturn in the economy. Despite this downturn, many 

items did increase in cost. Veterans generally find themselves in more vulnerable 

economic status than their peers who did not serve in the military and feel the loss 

of such annual increases more keenly than many others. We therefore urge Congress to ensure veterans are provided increased compensation to meet their daily 

needs. 

100 

S. 3192—FAIR ACCESS TO VETERANS BENEFITS ACT OF 2010

The stated goal of this bill is to extend the 120-day limit for the filing of an appeal 

to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) after a final decision of the 

Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA), upon a showing of good cause for such time as 

justice may require. Such an extension would be applicable to appeals of final Board 

decisions issued on or after July 24, 2008. 

The DAV supports legislation to allow for equitable tolling of the appeal period 

for claims before the VA and Court decisions. We note in DAV Resolution No. 226 

that Congress created a benevolent system for the administration of veterans’ benefits and services that is both ex parte and nonadversarial before the VA. Additionally, the law previously provided for equitable tolling of the appeal if a veteran was 

physically or mentally incapacitated and unable to file the appeal within the allotted time period, although this provision was seldom found in the veteran’s favor. 

In many circumstances, the laws also provided for equitable tolling of an appeal 

should a veteran incorrectly send a request to appeal to the VA Regional Office 

(VARO) or to the BVA instead of the Court. DAV supports this legislation and encourages its enactment. 

S. 3234—VETERAN EMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE ACT OF 2010

This multifaceted legislation would seek to help our veterans receive training in 

order to become gainfully and equitably employed. 

Section 3 would amend the Small Business Act to direct the Administrator of the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) to establish a program, headed by a Director, 

which designates veterans’ business centers to provide entrepreneurial training and 

counseling to veterans in areas in which the number of veterans, especially veterans 

of Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF), exceed the national 

median. In addition, it requires the Director to establish a program of grants to veterans’ business centers to provide Federal procurement assistance to small businesses owned and controlled by veterans, and develop outreach programs to create 

or further develop service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses. It also authorizes the Director to hold biennial veterans entrepreneurial development summits. 

DAV has no resolution on this matter but would not be opposed to its favorable 

consideration. However, we submit that such programs must focus equally on veterans of all eras, with no emphasis on a veteran from one conflict over that of another since all were in harm’s way and all are deserving of equal consideration and 

support. 

Section 5 would reduce from three years to one year the period for completion of 

training of new Disabled Veterans’ Outreach Program (DVOP) specialists and Local 

Veterans’ Employment Representatives (LVERs). 

While a shortened training program may mean more specialists being fielded 

sooner to provide such critical services to this important population, we must express our concern. A shortened training program may have the unintended consequence of specialists not having achieved full proficiency in their area of expertise 

and thus providing less than satisfactory employment counseling and placement 

services to veterans. In accordance with DAV Resolution No. 048, we would recommend Congress provide adequate funding and permanency of staff, and training 

including for the National Veterans Training Institute, Small Business Administration, DVOPs, LVERs, and Homeless Programs. 

Section 6 would direct the Secretary of Labor to provide a training subsistence 

allowance for each month that an unemployed veteran is enrolled in a full-time employment and training program that is offered by an eligible training provider and 

teaches a skill connected to a career in an in-demand industry. 

Although DAV does not have a resolution on this matter we would not be opposed 

to its favorable consideration. 

Section 7 provides for the use of veterans’ post-9/11 educational assistance for the 

pursuit of apprenticeships and on-job training. 

The DAV, in accordance with DAV Resolution No. 002, supports limited dual entitlement to vocational rehabilitation and employment under Chapter 31, and the 

Post-9/11 Education Assistance Program under Chapter 33 (GI Bill) in order to ensure that disabled veterans are not forced to choose the lesser of two available benefits. Programs such as these were set in place to provide veterans some recompense 

for their service and sacrifice, particularly those who were disabled as a result of 

their service. The current disparity between the more financially lucrative subsistence allowances of the new GI Bill will ultimately force service-connected disabled 

veterans with employment deficits to either utilize the Chapter 31 program (which 

is not as financially helpful as Chapter 33) in order to obtain the often critical vocational rehabilitation services available only under Chapter 31, or opt out of this proVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:54 Nov 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\111TH HEARINGS\61587.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
101 

gram in order to provide subsistence for their families. We hold that veterans should 

not be placed in such an untenable position. Our Nation’s first duty to veterans is 

the rehabilitation and welfare of its service-connected disabled. Precedent has already been set in that the Montgomery GI Bill currently allows veterans to use both 

its benefits and those of Chapter 31 on a limited basis. Therefore, DAV supports 

this legislation and recommends its enactment. 

Additionally, pursuant to DAV Resolution No. 047, we recommend that Congress 

make the Chapter 33 Post-9/11 GI Bill available to pay for all necessary civilian license and certification examination requirements, including necessary preparatory 

courses. In accordance with this resolution, we note that the DOD provides some 

of the best vocational training in the Nation for its military personnel. It has established measures and performance standards for every occupation within the Armed 

Forces. These occupational standards meet or exceed the civilian license or certification criteria but many former military personnel, certified as proficient in their 

military occupational career, are not licensed or certified to perform a comparable 

job in the civilian workforce. A January 14, 1999 study by the Congressional Commission on Servicemembers’ and Veterans’ Transition Assistance identified several 

military professions in which civilian credentialing is required for employment in 

the private sector. We therefore recommend that this legislation be modified to also 

make the Chapter 33 Post-9/11 GI Bill available to pay for all necessary civilian license and certification examination requirements, including necessary preparatory 

courses as a means to increase the civilian labor market’s acceptance of the occupational training provided by the military and improve the post-service employment 

opportunities for veterans. 

Section 8 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish: (1) a program to award grants to states to establish a veterans’ conservation corps to give 

veterans volunteer and employment opportunities under state conservation projects; 

and, (2) a center of excellence of methods for educational institutions to afford academic credit to veterans for previous military experience and training. 

Section 9 would amend the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 to direct the Secretary of Labor to establish: (1) information technology military pathways demonstration programs to enable veterans to build upon technical skills learned in the 

military when entering into the civilian information technology workforce; and (2) 

nursing, public health and allied health professional, and physician assistant military pathways demonstration programs to enable veterans to build upon military 

technical skills when entering into civilian positions in those fields. 

Section 12 would require the Secretary of Labor to carry out a veterans’ energyrelated employment program to encourage the employment of veterans in the energy 

industry. 

Section 14 would direct the Secretary of Defense to carry out the Veterans to 

Work pilot program to provide veterans with employment in military construction 

projects. 

Although DAV does not have resolutions from our membership on the specific 

matters entertained in sections 8, 9, 12, and 14, we would not be opposed to their 

favorable consideration. 

Section 15 requires: (1) a report on improvements and enhancements of the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) to better meet the needs of members of the Armed 

Forces and veterans; and (2) a study on a program of transition assistance modeled 

on the Employment Enhancement Program of the Washington National Guard. 

DAV has long held that DOD’s TAP and Disabled Transition Assistance Program 

(DTAP) programs are not adequate in scope or resources to ensure a seamless transition from active duty to veteran status. The transition from military service to civilian life is very difficult for most veterans who must overcome many obstacles to 

successful employment. TAP and DTAP were created with the goal of furnishing 

separating servicemembers with vocational guidance to aid them in obtaining meaningful civilian careers. We therefore support efforts to improve such programs. We 

also ask Congress, in accordance with DAV Resolution 258, to ensure the level of 

funding and staffing is adequate to support the routine discharges per year from 

all branches of the Armed Forces, which has not been the case for some time. Additionally, in accordance with DAV Resolution 134, we recommend Public Law 101– 

510, codified in sections 1141–1150 of title 10, United States Code, which authorized 

TAP and DTAP, be amended to require every National Guard and Reserve member 

who is activated for 12 months or longer be afforded a period of active duty of five 

days, within 90 days of separation, in order to attend TAP and DTAP workshops. 

102 

1 Jia H, Chuang HC, Wu SS, Wang X, Chumbler NR. Long-term effect of home telehealth 

services on preventable hospitalization use. Journal of rehabilitation research and development. 

2009 Jan 1; 46(5):557–66. 

S. 3286—A BILL TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO CARRY OUT A

PILOT PROGRAM ON THE AWARD OF GRANTS TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

AGENCIES AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE TO VETERANS

WITH THEIR SUBMITTAL OF CLAIMS TO THE VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION

If enacted, this bill would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to establish 

a pilot grant program (modeled to the degree practicable on Subchapter II of Chapter 20, title 38, United States Code, authorizing grants for comprehensive service 

centers to aid homeless veterans) to assist veterans in filing claims for VA benefits 

with the Veterans Benefits Administration. Eligible grantee organizations under 

this bill would be limited to State and local governmental agencies and nonprofit 

organizations as determined appropriate by the Secretary. The bill expresses several 

criteria to govern the program, and would limit the program to two years’ duration. 

While DAV has no resolution on the matter, we do have concerns about how such 

a program would work and whether providing funding for such a program would 

be the best use of VA’s limited resources. The legislation does not specify either the 

size or cost of the pilot program. Since there are already thousands of service officers working for States, local governmental agencies and veterans service organizations providing veterans with precisely the assistance contemplated under this legislation, it is not clear what new or additional purpose the pilot would serve. 

S. 3314—TO REQUIRE THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND THE APPALACHIAN

REGIONAL COMMISSION TO CARRY OUT A PROGRAM OF OUTREACH FOR VETERANS

WHO RESIDE IN APPALACHIA

This bill would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Appalachian Regional Commission to carry out a program of outreach to veterans who reside in the 

Appalachian region. The expressed intention of the bill would be to increase access 

and awareness of the eligibility of veterans for Federal, state and local government 

programs that provide compensation and other benefits for service in their military 

service who reside in the Appalachian region. 

While we have no resolution from our membership supporting the specific purposes of this bill, we note that VA has an outreach program in place as part of its 

overall mission. We are therefore concerned that contracting out such services may 

not only dilute the expertise VA has developed in its delivery of services and benefits to veterans and may instead divert critical funds that can best be utilized inhouse to more costly contracted entities for delivery of the same services. 

S. 3325—TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO AUTHORIZE THE WAIVER OF THE

COLLECTION OF COPAYMENTS FOR TELEHEALTH AND TELEMEDICINE VISITS OF VETERANS

This measure would amend section 1722A of title 38, United States Code, to prohibit the VA from collecting a copayment for any service provided by VA under its 

telephone care program, also called VA Telehealth or telemedicine visit of a veteran 

under the laws administered by VA. 

This Committee is well aware that the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) 

has invested heavily in telehealth under the broader notion of care coordination. 

Telehealth, or telemedicine, is the use of telecommunications and information technology to provide health care when distance separates participants. For decades, 

telemedicine has been considered a means of overcoming barriers to providing rural 

health care. In addition, the American Telehealth Association indicated in a March 

2007 position statement that there is a growing consensus that the supply of health 

care providers across the professions is going to be inadequate to meet the expanding needs for health care of the U.S. population—both in the short term and in the 

long term. Telehealth, while not the entire solution to the problems presented by 

the shortage and maldistribution of health care providers, can make important contributions to alleviating those problems. 

A study published in the Journal of Rehabilitation Research & Development suggests that using information and communication technology to deliver health services, expertise, and information over a vast geographical distance and implementing 

home telehealth modalities may enhance users’ timely accessibility to needed care, 

reduce preventable hospitalization use, and decrease direct and indirect medical 

costs over time.1 In addition, a number of studies have shown that home telehealth 

interventions can improve clinical outcomes for conditions common among SCI paVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:54 Nov 05, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 H:\111TH HEARINGS\61587.TXT SVETS PsN: PAULIN
103 

tients, such as pressure ulcers (Phillips et al. 2001) and diabetes (Joseph 2006; 

Barnett et al. 2007). 

DAV supports this measure according to our Resolution No. 234, calling for legislation to repeal all copayments for military retirees’ and veterans’ medical services 

and prescriptions. However, DAV would like to share some of our concerns regarding telemedicine/telehealth in the VA health care system. 

First and foremost, the 21 Veterans Integrated Service Networks (VISNs) currently have no financial incentive to invest in this important technology. The Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation (VERA) system is the method VA uses to distribute resources among its VISNs. It distributes funds to each VISN based both 

on patient workload, as well as on the complexity of care provided. This system allocated $31.8 billion in general purpose funds during fiscal year (FY) 2009. As this 

Committee is aware, VERA does not currently factor telemedicine and telehealth 

visits into its workload data. 

In addition, according to Dr. Anthony A. Cavallerano, and Dr. Paul R. Conlin, VA 

physicians writing in the Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology in January 

2008, diabetic retinopathy, a condition of the eye resulting from diabetes, is the 

most common cause of visual loss in the United States. These physicians further 

noted that only 60 percent of persons with diabetes receive timely and appropriate 

eye examinations. In FY 2000, Congress recognized the importance of making eye 

care accessible to all veterans when, in Senate Report 106–410 to accompany the 

2001 Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development, and 

Independent Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001 (Public Law 106–271), the Appropriations Committee recommended that VA collaborate with the DOD and the Joslin 

Diabetes Center to implement the Joslin Vision Network. This collaboration created 

a system allowing specialists at a remote location to detect diabetic retinopathy and 

other eye conditions by reviewing images transmitted across a telecommunications 

network. In 2001, VA convened an expert panel to evaluate teleretinal imaging to 

screen for diabetic retinopathy. In a statement regarding the implementation of 

VA’s teleretinal program, this panel said, ‘‘The VHA envisions developing and deploying a nationwide teleretinal imaging system that will be regionalized by VISN 

and will build on the VHA’s robust information technologies for acquiring, transmitting, interpreting, and storing digital retinal images. A similar system for screening 

for [diabetic retinopathy] has been established in the United Kingdom.’’ While the 

program has expanded to assist in providing eye care to almost 20 percent of VA’s 

diabetic veteran population, VA only offers teleretinal imaging at some facilities. In 

FY 2008, VA had these services available at only 130 of its nearly 800 communitybased outpatient clinics (CBOCs). 

In FY 2008, VA provided ambulatory services to a total of 4,901,797 veterans. But 

a telehealth technology allowing health care workers to monitor veterans’ chronic 

diseases while the veteran was at home was used on only 36,400 patients. This is 

less than one percent of all veterans treated on an outpatient basis. 

Under another program, VA provided general telehealth services using real time 

conferencing to an estimated 48,000 veterans, 29,000 of which utilized the services 

for mental health purposes. Adam Darkins, MD, Chief Consultant, Office of Care 

Coordination, in the Office of Patient Care Services, noted that outcomes data for 

tele-mental health have demonstrated a 24.6 percent reduction in hospital admissions and a 24.4 percent reduction in bed days of care when these services are utilized. However, according to the National Rural Health Association, it has been estimated that about 20–23 percent of the U.S. population live in rural areas, but only 

9 to 11 percent of physicians practice in rural areas. Among 1,253 communities designated as Mental Health Professional Shortage Areas in 2007, for example, almost 

75 percent did not have a psychiatrist. For this reason, VA psychiatrists, writing 

in the Journal of Academic Psychiatry in November 2007, recommended ensuring 

competency in telemedicine technologies as part of a curriculum designed to emphasize rural practice in psychiatry residency training. 

Mr. Chairman, the ability of VA medical centers and CBOCs to offer specialty 

services is particularly important to the needs of returning OEF/OIF veterans, many 

of whom return to remote areas with conditions like PTSD or TBI. We offer our observations to ensure progress of telemedicine in the VA into a robust health care 

innovation. For decades, telemedicine has been considered a means of overcoming 

barriers to providing rural health care. According to Dr. Michael Hatzakis et al., a 

VA physician writing in the Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 

in May/June 2003, experimental programs in telehealth were funded through existing grants on Indian reservations, in psychiatric hospitals, in the prison systems, 

and in medical schools between the 1950s and the 1970s. Dr. Hatzakis also noted 

that none have survived, reflecting in part a failure to secure financial self-sufficiency. 

104 

In conclusion, while we have no resolution adopted by our membership dealing 

with the specific matter of telemedicine and telehealth, we believe progress in these 

technologies is an important component of VA health care, especially for rural veterans and new veterans from OEF/OIF. Also, as indicated, our membership is firmly 

opposed to copayments in any form as a condition of access to VA health care. 

Therefore, we would not object to enactment of this bill but ask that the Committee 

use its oversight to examine the lack of financial incentives in the current allocation 

policy that may serve as a barrier to more effective uses of telehealth in VA health 

care. 

S. 3330—VETERANS HEALTH AND RADIATION SAFETY ACT OF 2010

If enacted, this bill would make certain improvements in, and promote safer practices in, the administration of radiation treatments at medical facilities of the VA. 

The genesis of this bill appears to be the recent finding by the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) related to application of prostate brachytherapy in the treatment 

of prostate cancer patients at the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania VA Medical Center, 

when the wrong strength of implanted radioactive seeds was discovered. 

The OIG made five recommendations as follows, all of which VHA’s Under Secretary for Health concurred with: 

(1) VHA’s National Director of Radiation Oncology Programs should have 

sufficient resources, to ensure that VHA provides one high quality standard 

of care for the prostate brachytherapy population. To achieve this end, VHA 

should standardize, to a practical extent, the privileging, delivery of care, 

and quality controls for the procedures required to provide this treatment. 

(2) VHA should take the steps required to ensure that patients who received low radiation doses in the course of brachytherapy be evaluated to 

ensure that their cancer treatment plan is appropriate. (3) VHA should review the controls that are in place to ensure that VA contracts for 

healthcare comply with applicable laws and regulations, and where necessary, make the required changes in organization and/or process to bring 

this contracting effort into compliance. (4) Senior VA leadership should 

meet with Senior NRC leadership to determine if there is a way forward 

that will ensure the goals of both organizations are achieved. (5) VHA 

should work with the OIG to develop a list of documents that should routinely be provided to the OIG when an outside agency is notified of a (possible) untoward medical event. 

Section 2 of this measure would require an annual report on low-volume patient 

programs—specifically, programs with fewer than 100 participants in a calendar 

year—from all VA medical facilities that conduct such low volume treatment programs. Section 3 of the bill would require the VA Secretary to ensure that all VA 

health care employees, including contractor employees, receive appropriate training 

related to the use of radioactive isotopes, on what constitutes a medical event, and 

to whom it should be reported should such an event occur. Failure to provide such 

training would require the Secretary to enforce halting the use of radioactive isotopes at a VA facility until the Secretary deems safety to have been restored. 

The final section of the bill—Section 4—would mandate the VA Secretary establish specific requirements such as independent peer review of such services, written 

evaluations by managers of employees providing such services, and evaluation review prior to extension of any existing contracts with non-government entities to 

provide such services. 

DAV has no specific resolution from our membership with respect to S. 3330; however, we concur with the OIG recommendations that proper training, oversight and 

following all mandates and established procedures for radiation therapies are essential for VA and non-VA contractor health care personnel to ensure patient safety. 

We ask the Committee to provide oversight to ensure VA carries out all of the recommendations made by the OIG in this case. Also, DAV would not object to passage 

of S. 3330 to ensure Congress gains adequate oversight information about smaller, 

‘‘low volume’’ VA treatment programs and ensure that proper training of health personnel administering radioactive isotope treatments is mandated along with appropriate training for identifying and reporting a medical event that could be harmful 

to veterans in VA care. 

105 

S. 3348—TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO PROVIDE FOR THE TREATMENT

AS A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF VETERANS’ 

APPEALS OF A NOTICE OF APPEAL OF SUCH DECISION MISFILED WITH THE DEPART- MENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

This bill would amend current law so that if a veteran submits documents to VA 

that disagree with decisions of the BVA and that are misfiled with the Board within 

120 days of such decisions, those submissions shall be treated as motions for reconsideration of such decisions. 

The law currently provides for equitable tolling, or good cause delays, for veterans 

who miss legal deadlines in circumstances when the veteran was unable to meet the 

deadline due to illness or injury. This legislation seeks to provide similar relief for 

circumstances in which a veteran expresses his disagreement with a decision of 

BVA by sending documentation to the VA Regional Office (VARO) or to the BVA 

within 120 days of the decision instead sending it to the Court. Therefore, consistent 

with DAV Resolution No. 226, DAV supports this legislation and encourages its enactment. 

S. 3352—THE VETERANS PENSIONS PROTECTION ACT OF 2010

This bill would modify subsection 1503(a) of title 38, United States Code, to exempt reimbursements of expenses related to accident, theft, loss, or casualty loss 

from determinations of annual income with respect to VA pensions for otherwise eligible veterans, surviving spouses and children of veterans, thereby allowing these 

individuals to qualify for pension or prevent loss of eligibility for existing pension 

payments, that might occur if such reimbursements were counted as family income. 

DAV has no resolution on this matter. 

S. 3355—THE VETERANS ONE SOURCE ACT OF 2010

This bill would provide for a Web site providing information on benefits, resources, services, and opportunities for veterans and their families and caregivers. 

Specifically, it would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, in collaboration with 

the Secretaries of the DOD, Labor, Education as well as the Commissioners of Internal Revenue and Social Security, the Administrator of the Small Business Administration and other Federal agencies as determined appropriate, to a single source 

Web site detailing the full range of benefits from the aforementioned. 

While DAV does not have a resolution on this matter, we do support efforts to 

simplify access to information about benefits and services for veterans, family members and caregivers. We note that VA already has several ongoing IT projects and 

Internet outreach efforts, as well as new outreach requirements as part of S. 1963, 

the Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010. We would therefore encourage dialog amongst Congress, the VA and other Federal agencies to ensure that new legislation is necessary and supportive of reaching the goals identified 

in the legislation. 

S. 3367—TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO INCREASE THE RATE OF PEN- SION FOR DISABLED VETERANS WHO ARE MARRIED TO ONE ANOTHER AND BOTH OF

WHOM REQUIRE REGULAR AID AND ATTENDANCE

If enacted, this bill would increase the annual nonservice-connected VA pension 

rate for a married couple, each of whom is a veteran in need of regular aid and attendance to $31,305, effective on date of enactment of the bill, an increase of 

$825.00 

Although DAV does not have a resolution from our membership on this specific 

matter, we would not be opposed to its favorable consideration. 

S. 3368—TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO AUTHORIZE CERTAIN INDIVID- UALS TO SIGN CLAIMS FILED WITH THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS ON BEHALF OF CLAIMANTS

This measure would amend Section 5101, title 38, United States Code, by broadening the definition of ‘‘claimant’’ for VA benefits purposes to include provisions to 

enable a person other than the veteran concerned to sign VA claims forms on behalf 

of a veteran in certain circumstances or conditions that serve to prevent a veteran 

from signing necessary forms to execute a claim. Under the bill the person authorized to sign such forms would be court-appointed in the case of mental incompetence 

of the veteran; in the case of a veteran who is a minor, a family member or other 

person responsible for the welfare of the veteran; or a designated institutional manager or official in the case of an institutionalized veteran. Although DAV does not 

have a resolution from our membership, there are circumstances where a veteran 

106 

may be incapable of providing a signature but would be assisted with receipt of benefits, and therefore we are not be opposed to its favorable consideration. 

S. 3370—TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO IMPROVE THE PROCESS BY

WHICH AN INDIVIDUAL FILES JOINTLY FOR SOCIAL SECURITY AND DEPENDENCY AND

INDEMNITY COMPENSATION

This bill would simplify the documentation and application process of a widow or 

widower of a service-connected veteran in filing joint claims for Disability and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) with the VA and for social security benefits with the 

Social Security Administration. 

Although DAV does not have a resolution from our membership on this specific 

matter we would not be opposed to its favorable consideration. 

DRAFT BILL—TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO IMPROVE THE MULTIFAMILY

TRANSITIONAL HOUSING LOAN PROGRAM OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

BY REQUIRING THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO ISSUE LOANS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF, REHABILITATION OF, OR ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR MULTIFAMILY

TRANSITIONAL HOUSING PROJECTS INSTEAD OF GUARANTEEING LOANS FOR SUCH

PURPOSES

If enacted, this draft bill would modify the Multifamily Transitional Housing Loan 

Program in Subchapter VI of Chapter 20, title 38, United States Code, by authorizing VA to issue loans for the construction, rehabilitation, or acquisition of land for 

transitional housing projects rather than VA’s guaranteeing loans for such purposes. 

The bill would also fully utilize $48 million that was originally appropriated in 1999 

for the Multifamily Transitional Housing Loan Guarantee Program and which remains available for obligation. 

The DAV has no resolution on this matter. 

107 


519apBoland.eps
108 


519apMOAA.eps
109 


519apNCHV1.eps
110 


519apNCHV2.eps
111 


519apTMC1.eps
112 


519apTMC2.eps
113 

May 18, 2010. 

Hon. DANIEL K. AKAKA, 

Chairman, 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

Hon. RICHARD BURR

Ranking Member, 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR CHAIRMAN AKAKA AND RANKING MEMBER BURR: The undersigned organizations are writing to express our support for S. 3377, legislation to improve the multifamily transitional housing loan program of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

We are especially appreciative of Senator Burr’s leadership in crafting and introducing this legislation, and for Senator Akaka’s leadership in bringing it before the 

Committee for consideration. 

Homelessness among veterans is a national tragedy. The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) recently reported that on any given night, 131,000 veterans are homeless. While most currently homeless veterans served during prior conflicts or in 

peacetime, the newest generation of combat veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom (OEF-OIF), both men and women, are returning home and 

suffering from war related conditions and a weak economy that may put them at 

risk for homelessness. A growing trend in homelessness among these new veterans 

points to a need to develop a coordinated approach to reduce and ultimately eliminate homelessness among all veterans. 

In 1998, Congress authorized the Multifamily Transitional Housing Loan Guarantee Program (MTHLG) in section 601 of Public Law 105–368. While well-intentioned, this pilot program authorizing the VA to guarantee up to 15 secured loans 

to develop transitional housing fell far short of its potential. Despite the VA’s best 

efforts to run an effective program, only one housing development—the St. Leo 

Campus for Veterans residence in Chicago, IL—was able to successfully utilize this 

program. 

In August 2008, then-Secretary James Peake delivered a final report to your and 

other key Congressional Committees detailing its findings on the MTHLG program. 

In his letter, Secretary Peake announced the VA would not expend any additional 

funding on guaranteeing new projects and noted that significant modifications to the 

program would be needed to ensure its success. Fortunately VA staff worked diligently to evaluate the program and make recommendations for improvement. 

Without Congressional action over $40 million designated to assist homeless veterans will go unspent. S. 3377 would correct this. 

S. 3377 incorporates many of the VA’s prudent recommendations to improve the 

MTHLG that were issued in the Department’s report to Congress. First, the legislation modifies the program in a very important way by allowing the Department to 

issue loans, rather than merely guaranteeing loans, to help produce transitional 

housing. The legislation also wisely creates a revolving fund so that more veterans 

can be assisted as loans are repaid, as property is disposed of, or if Congress should 

decide to directly allocate additional funds to this cause. 

Two other critical provisions grant the Department additional flexibility. By 

granting the Secretary additional authority in the terms and conditions of the loans 

provided under this program, the bill’s sponsors made an astute read of the financial tools that must be made available for successful affordable housing development. By specifically allowing the Secretary to approve other types of spaces to be 

included in multifamily transitional housing projects, the legislation wisely recognizes demand for an array of affordable housing options. In addition, this provision 

allows very beneficial services, such as job training, to potentially be provided on 

site to the benefit of the veteran residents. 

Again, we are deeply grateful for your leadership in introducing and considering 

S. 3377. As you both have repeatedly articulated, our nation’s veterans deserve so 

much. Access to safe and affordable housing for those who have fallen on hard times 

114 

seems to be the least we can do. Please convey our support for this legislation to 

your fellow colleagues on the Committee and throughout the Senate. 

Sincerely, 

CORPORATION FOR SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, 

NATIONAL ALLIANCE TO END HOMELESSNESS, 

VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA, 

COMMON GROUND, 

LOCAL INITIATIVES SUPPORT CORPORATION (LISC), 

NATIONAL POLICY AND ADVOCACY COUNCIL ON HOMELESSNESS. 

Æ