U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

97–994 2016

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 189, H.R. 216, 

H.R. 245, H.R. 280, AND H.R. 294 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 2015 

Serial No. 114–03 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

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


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Vice-Chairman 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

RALPH ABRAHAM, Louisiana 

LEE ZELDIN, New York 

RYAN COSTELLO, Pennsylvania 

AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, American 

Samoa 

MIKE BOST, Illinois 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida, Ranking 

Minority Member 

MARK TAKANO, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

KATHELEEN RICE, New York 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

JON TOWERS, Staff Director 

DON PHILLIPS, Democratic Staff Director 

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

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

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

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

various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences 

are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process is further 

refined. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Tuesday, January 27, 2015 

Page 

Legislative Hearing on H.R. 189, H.R. 216, H.R. 245, H.R. 280, and H.R. 

294 ......................................................................................................................... 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Jeff Miller, Chairman .............................................................................................. 1 

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

Corrine Brown, Ranking Member .......................................................................... 2 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 31 

Hon. Dr. Ralph Abraham ........................................................................................ 3 

WITNESSES 

Hon. Alan Grayson, Member of Congress .............................................................. 4 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 31 

Mr. David R. McLenachen, Acting Deputy Under Secretary for Disability 

Assistance, VBA, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ................................... 6 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 33 

Accompanied by: 

Dr. Rajiv Jain, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health for 

Patient Services, VHA, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Ms. Susan Sullivan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office 

of Policy and Planning, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

And 

Ms. Kim McLeod, Counsel, Office of General Counsel. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Mr. Joseph A. Violante, National Legislative Director DAV ............................... 18 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 47 

Mr. Aleks Morosky, Deputy Director National Legislative Service, VFW .......... 19 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 53 

Mr. Zachary Hearn, Claims of the Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission, The American Legion ............................................................................ 21 

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

Mr. Blake Ortner, Deputy Government Relations Director, PVA ....................... 22 

Prepared Statement ......................................................................................... 63 

FOR THE RECORD 

Housing Policy Council ............................................................................................ 73 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 189, H.R. 216, 

H.R. 245, H.R. 280, AND H.R. 294 

Tuesday, January 27, 2015 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:31 a.m., in Room 

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Miller [chairman of 

the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Miller, Lamborn, Bilirakis, Benishek, 

Coffman, Wenstrup, Abraham, Zeldin, Costello, Radewagen, Bost, 

Brown, Brownley, Ruiz, Kuster, and Rice. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JEFF MILLER 

The CHAIRMAN. We are here to talk about five pieces of legislation this morning. In the interest of time, I am going to forego a 

lengthy opening statement and just briefly touch on two bills on 

the agenda which I am proud to have introduced before this Congress. 

The first bill is H.R. 280. The language is similar to a bill that 

I introduced last Congress which passed favorably out of this committee. H.R. 280 would provide the secretary with the authority to 

rescind a bonus or performance award from any VA employee when 

the secretary deems it is appropriate. 

Now, to ensure a fair process, the provision would also afford the 

employee an opportunity to have a hearing on the secretary’s decision to recoup their bonus. 

I proposed this legislation last Congress because VA had given 

this committee conflicting statements on whether or not it already 

had the ability rescind bonuses. 

For example, former Secretary Shinseki rescinded the then Phoenix director, Sharon Hellman’s 2013 bonus because it was paid 

based on an administrative error. Notwithstanding this limited authority, VA later confirmed it did not have the ability to rescind a 

bonus that was based on erroneous performance data. 

I believe the ability to recoup a bonus based on that or manipulated performance data is a tool that the secretary needs and that 

the American public would expect. 

Now, the second bill that I have introduced is H.R. 294, The 

Long-Term Care Veterans Choice Act. This would authorize VA for 

three years beginning October 1 of 2015 to enter into a contract on 

agreement with a certified medical foster home to pay for long-term 

care for certain veterans already eligible for VA paid nursing home 

care. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
2 

It would require that an eligible veteran could receive VA home 

health services as a component of such payments. Medical foster 

homes provide a non-institutional, long-term care alternative to 

veterans who prefer a smaller, more home-like and family-style setting than most traditional nursing homes are able to provide. 

The VA has been helping place veterans in medical foster homes 

for more than a decade. VA does not currently have authority to 

pay for a veteran to receive care in a medical foster nursing home 

even if the veteran is eligible for VA paid nursing home care. 

As a result, service-connected veterans who would prefer to receive care in a foster home must pay out of pocket using their own 

personal funds and many are unable to do so because of financial 

constraints. 

Our veterans, particularly those who are service-connected and 

in need of long-term care, deserve to decide for themselves where 

they and how they receive the care they need. And H.R. 294 would 

allow them that opportunity. 

Now, given that the average cost of a medical foster home is approximately half the monthly nursing home cost, H.R. 294 would 

also provide a cost-effective, long-term care option for the department. 

And I would urge my colleagues to support both of these bills 

and look forward to discussing them with our witnesses this morning. 

Ms. Brown has a bill on the agenda that I am proud to be a cosponsor of. And at this time, I will defer to her for her explanation 

and an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER CORRINE 

BROWN 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing today. 

This is the first legislative hearing of the 114th Congress. I look 

forward to this committee in our usual bipartisan fashion being, 

busy in looking at bills that will help our veterans, and assist the 

VA in its effort to accomplish its mission. 

I am especially pleased that my bill, H.R. 216, was included 

today. H.R. 216 was introduced last Congress by the former ranking member and was approved by this committee as part of the advanced appropriation bill. I am looking forward to working with my 

colleagues and stakeholders to move this bill as fast as we can this 

year. 

VA’s financial management process often looks like budgeting-bycrisis. H.R. 216 would provide the framework to assist the VA in 

the steps it has already taken to reform its budget process. It is 

important that everyone have a copy of the rules and by putting 

these processes into statute, we will make sure that they do. Providing a road map each year so that VA, veterans, and Congress 

know where we are going is vital in reforming the VA. 

My bill will ensure that the steps taken to come up with this 

road map are transparent and that all stakeholders are fully engaged in making sure that we provide the resources that we are 

committed to our veterans’ demand. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
3 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for including H.R. 216 today. I am 

looking forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I also want to 

welcome my colleague from Florida, Mr. Grayson, who we joined 

each other in Orlando. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Brown. 

I want to recognize a new Member to the committee that wasted 

no time in introducing a bill that will affect positively the veterans 

of our country, Dr. Abraham, to discuss his bill that is before us 

today, H.R. 245. 

Dr. Ralph Abraham, you are recognized. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RALPH ABRAHAM 

I want to address a bill that I have offered, H.R. 245, to amend 

Title 38, United States Code to codify certain existing provisions of 

law related to effective dates for claims under the laws administered by the secretary of Veterans Affairs and for other purposes. 

This bill is not only important to the veterans of my home state 

of Louisiana but also to millions of veterans nationwide, particularly those who live in rural areas or those who may be unfamiliar 

with the claims process of the VBA, Veterans Benefits Administration. 

The department has devoted much of its time in recent months 

to devising means to cut time out of the claims process in furtherance of its goal to issue rating decisions within 125 days. 

While all stakeholders are in favor of seeking process efficiency, 

we must remain cognizant that this system is at its core meant to 

be veteran friendly. While the appropriateness and the legality, equity of many of VBA’s efforts to issue faster decisions must bear 

further scrutiny, this particular rule change on informal claims and 

inferred claims must be addressed now. 

And H.R. 245 strikes a middle ground between the current operation of VBA and the desired standardization sought by VBA. Essentially my bill would provide that if a veteran sent a handwritten, informal claim to the VA, the department would track the 

claims as of the date of receipt of the veteran’s correspondence. 

The department would still send the veteran a standardized form 

for completion. Provided that the veteran returned the standardized form within 180 days of the date that the department furnished the form to the veteran, the date of the veteran’s original 

submission will continue to be recognized as the veteran’s effective 

date. 

This protects the veteran as it ensures that any departmental 

administrative delay will not negatively affect the veteran’s rights. 

My bill also maintains identification of inferred claims with those 

who have the requisite expertise, who are the trained professionals 

of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I also understand that veterans may have but be unaware of service-connected conditions 

that may be evidence in their medical records but which may be 

absent from their formal claim. 

For example, a veteran might claim a knee injury tied to a bad 

jump but be unaware that a more serious condition such as depression attributable to an event in service is also eligible for compensation and treatment. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
4 

Well, it is my belief that if a claim comes to the Department of 

Veterans Affairs and there is something the department can do to 

assist that veteran, the department should, in fact, assist that veteran. 

There is surely a balance to be struck between department efficiency and veteran-friendly practice. And while I will agree that 

some standardization of process is necessary, it must also be accomplished in a manner that prioritizes the veteran over the bureaucrat. I believe my bill strikes that balance. 

I thank the chairman for including H.R. 245 in our proceedings 

today and I urge my colleagues to support its passage. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Dr. Abraham. 

At this time, I want to welcome our colleague from the 9th District of Florida, Mr. Alan Grayson, who is the sponsor of H.R. 189, 

The Servicemember Foreclosure Protections Extension Act of 2015. 

Mr. Grayson, welcome to the committee. You are recognized for 

five minutes to explain your bill. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ALAN GRAYSON 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member 

Brown. Thank you very much for inviting me to appear before you 

today. 

I look forward to what this committee under the leadership of 

two Floridians will be able to accomplish for our Nation’s veterans 

during the 114th Congress. 

My bill, H.R. 189, The Servicemember Foreclosure Protections 

Extension Act of 2015, would extend for one calendar year the foreclosure and eviction protections that currently exist for active-duty 

members of our Military Forces and for veterans who have served 

in our Armed Forces within the previous year. These protections 

are scheduled to expire at the end of 2015 unless we act. 

Historically Section 303 of The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act 

has protected servicemembers from foreclosure and eviction if an 

action is filed during or within 90 days after a period of military 

service. 

Section 2203 of The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 

extended the period of protection from 90 days to nine months. 

And in 2012, Congress in a bill which you authored, Mr. Chairman, extended foreclosure and eviction protections further to one 

year. 

My bill would ensure that this one-year protection period that 

currently exists is extended through the end of 2016. 

Mr. Chairman, as you will recall, we began discussing this provision of law in September of last year after I noticed its omission 

from H.R. 5404, The Department of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authority Act of 2014, which was ultimately signed into law. 

You voiced your general support for the current foreclosure and 

eviction protections, but you stated that you wished to a hold a legislative hearing on the measure prior to moving any extension to 

the floor. 

I am pleased that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse was able to pass 

a clean one-year extension at the end of 2014 that lasts through 

the end of 2015 through the Senate during the closing days of the 

last session of Congress. And I am pleased that you have decided 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
5 

to make an extension into 2016, one of the first pieces of legislation 

to consider before the committee in this Congress, demonstrating 

that not everything in Washington, D.C. has to wait until the last 

minute. 

It is vitally important that we pass H.R. 189. Without this extension, at the end of this year, the period of foreclosure and eviction 

protections currently made available to servicemembers will revert 

from one year all the way back to the original 90-day period. A 

lapse in a full year’s worth of protection would harm our young 

men and women returning from war. 

Almost a year ago, the GAO issued a report entitled 

Servicemembers Civil Relief Act, Information on Mortgage Protections and Related Education Efforts. Page 13 of that report states 

as follows, quote: ‘‘Our analysis of one service source data suggests 

that all military borrowers, SCRA protected or not, had a higher 

likelihood of becoming delinquent in the first year after they left 

active duty than when in the military.’’ 

For example, in the loan level data from the institution that used 

the DMDC database to check the military status of its entire loan 

portfolio, all of its military borrowers had a higher likelihood of becoming delinquent in the first year after they left active duty than 

when in service. And that risk declines somewhat over the course 

of the year, but still remained significant. 

Mr. Chairman, we currently protect recent veterans and soldiers 

from the unfortunate situation just described. Clearly it is a very 

real threat to the well-being of the young men and women who 

serve in the Armed Forces. 

Respectfully I urge this committee to continue to ensure that the 

foreclosure and eviction protections that appear in the current law 

continue to exist in full measure throughout 2016. No soldier 

should ever have to fight abroad and return home only to find that 

home is no longer there. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Grayson. I do appreciate your tenacity and willingness to work with the committee. 

And I appreciate you bringing the legislation forward. 

I will forego a round of questions for Mr. Grayson and I would 

ask that any questions that Members may have of Mr. Grayson be 

submitted for the record. 

And I appreciate you being here today, Mr. Grayson, and you are 

excused. 

Mr. GRAYSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. And I would go ahead and invite the second 

panel to come forward and as you are coming forward to the table, 

we will temporarily recess this hearing and go into our official business meeting because we do, in fact, have a quorum. 

[Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the committee proceeded to other 

business.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. We will bring back the hearing now on 

pieces of legislation. 

Our second panel is at the table. We will hear from David 

McLenachen. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Thank you. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
6 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. Acting Deputy Under Secretary for 

Disability Assistance for the Veterans Benefits Administration of 

the VA. He is accompanied by Mr. Rajiv—— 

Dr. Jain. 

The CHAIRMAN. Jain—— 

Dr. JAIN. Yeah. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. Assistant Deputy Under Secretary 

for Health for Patient Services at VA’s Health Administration; Ms. 

Susan Sullivan, I get that one pretty well, I think, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy at VA’s Office of Policy and Planning; Kim 

McLeod, Counsel of the VA’s Office of General Counsel. 

Thank you all for being here today. I appreciate your attending. 

Deputy Secretary, acting Deputy Under Secretary, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID R. MCLENACHEN, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY FOR DISABILITY ASSISTANCE, VETERANS BENEFITS 

ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIR, 

ACCOMPANIED BY RAJIV JAIN, ASSISTANT DEPUTY UNDER 

SECRETARY FOR HEALTH FOR PATIENT SERVICES, VETERANS HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS; SUSAN SULLIVAN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY FOR POLICY, OFFICE OF POLICY AND PLANNING, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; KIM 

MCLEOD, COUNSEL, OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Good morning, Chairman Miller, Ranking 

Member Brown, and Members of the committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to present VA’s views on several bills that are pending 

before the committee. 

Joining me today are Dr. Jain, Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health and Patient Services; Ms. Susan Sullivan, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary for Policy; and Ms. Kim McLeod, Deputy Assistant General Counsel. 

I want to first thank the committee for the opportunity to testify 

concerning the bill we support. H.R. 294, The Long-Term Care Veterans Choice Act, we strongly support the concepts provided in the 

bill which permits VA to pay for care for veterans transferred to 

medical foster homes and at the same time realize cost savings for 

a more effective manner of care. 

Despite the strong support, we do have a few technical concerns 

with the approach outlined in the bill. We hope to work with the 

committee going forward to ensure VA is able to effectively implement the provisions of the bill. 

We thank the ranking member for her efforts related to H.R. 

216. We are happy to say that VA is undertaking many of the efforts outlined in the bill. 

Over the last few years, VA incorporated forward-looking environmental scanning into our quadrennial strategic planning process. We have been in the process of implementing a planning, programming, budgeting, and execution resource allocation initiative 

modeled after similar efforts used in other federal agencies. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
7 

Under VA’s current organizational structure, the Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning performs the responsibilities described for the proposed chief strategy officer. 

Additionally, to better serve veterans, the department has been 

evaluating our organizational structure as identified in VA’s 2014 

through 2020 strategic plan. 

And through the My VA Task Force, VA has been actively working on addressing organizational, policy, procedural, perceptual, 

and cultural boundaries that could constrain our ability to coordinate, integrate, and deliver benefits and services. 

We appreciate the committee’s attention on the critical topic of 

VA’s strategic planning and are eager to continue to discuss these 

efforts with the committee. 

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

on H.R. 280. We note that this legislation could change laws and 

policies beyond that of our department and as such, we are consulting with other federal government agencies. We will continue 

to coordinate views on this matter and upon completion submit 

them to the committee. 

Finally, we cannot support H.R. 245 because its primary purpose 

appears to be to overrule VA’s recent rule making and maintain 

the concept of informal claims. It would codify current rules that 

make it difficult to identify claims and unintentionally incentivize 

submission of claims in nonstandard formats that frustrate timely, 

accurate, and orderly claim processing. 

Our final rule which is effective on March 24th is crucial to VA’s 

long-term efforts to modernize the claims system for the benefit of 

all veterans. It would eliminate the concept of informal claims and 

replace it with submission of claims in a format more amenable to 

efficient processing while still allowing veterans to receive favorable, effective date treatment similar to what is available today 

under current rules. 

Also, to process veterans’ claims for benefits as accurately and efficiently as possible, VA is moving towards a paperless electronic 

system. An important component of that transition is that claims 

must originate on standardized inputs that can be easily identified 

and contain the core data needed to process the claim. 

We believe that the final rule carefully and comprehensively balances the interest of modernizing the VA claims system with allowing claimants to easily initiate claims and preserve the most favorable effective dates. 

VA strongly opposes H.R. 245 because it would run counter to 

VA’s efforts to assist veterans by improving the efficiency of the 

claims process and would impair our ability to achieve and maintain our backlog reduction. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. We are happy to entertain any questions that you or the Members of the committee 

may have. Thank you. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID R. MCLENACHEN APPEARS

IN THE APPENDIX] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, and thank all the folks for 

being here today. 

I have got a couple issues. I want to, Mr. McLenachen, talk about 

H.R. 280, which is the bonus rescission bill, but I want to ask in 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
8 

a few questions about the current status, if you will, of the 2014 

bonus of former director of the Phoenix VA Medical Center, Ms. 

Sharon Hellman, that was according to the department given in 

error. 

It is my understanding that the recoupment of her bonus from 

2013 has stopped because Ms. Hellman has attempted to appeal 

the recoupment to VA’s debt management center. 

Could you tell the committee, please, what is the status of her 

appeal and under VA’s policy what happens if she loses this appeal 

now that she is no longer an employee of the department? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I will defer to Ms. McLeod to provide you a response to that 

question. 

Ms. MCLEOD. Mr. Chairman, right now once Ms. Hellman requested an appeal of the offset of her salary or the debt that she 

incurred, any offset on her salary had to be stopped and she was 

entitled to a hearing on that debt. 

That hearing goes before a third-party United States Postal Service ALJ who will hear her request and will make a decision based 

on her request. So at this time, the VA is waiting to find out what 

the ALJ has done. 

The CHAIRMAN. If she loses her appeal, how do you recoup the 

bonus that was given in error? 

Ms. MCLEOD. If she loses her appeal, we will issue a debt like 

we already did and we will continue to receive the money back. 

The CHAIRMAN. But she no longer receives a salary from the department. That is how you were doing it. You were recouping it by 

taking it out of her current salary. 

So what is the mechanism then that VA has to recoup that debt? 

Ms. MCLEOD. A debt will be issued and that will go to the essentially Treasury Department who will recoup that like they would 

recoup any debt from a citizen even though she is no longer employed by the VA. 

The CHAIRMAN. Retirement pay? 

Ms. MCLEOD. I am not sure, but I can take that back and bring 

it—— 

The CHAIRMAN. You have taken no formal position on H.R. 280, 

but I would like to know if, in fact, the secretary, if it is correct, 

that the secretary does not have the authority to rescind a bonus 

once it is given; is that correct? 

Ms. MCLEOD. Have a very limited authority right now. To the extent an administrative error occurs, the agency can recoup money 

based on an administrative error. We have no other formal process 

to recoup performance awards. 

The CHAIRMAN. What happens if there is criminal activity and 

somebody is charged with a crime, does the VA then have the ability to go back and recoup the bonus? 

Ms. MCLEOD. Not that I am aware of, but we could certainly take 

that back and get back to the committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Would that be an appropriate tool for the VA to 

have because it appears from press reports and information that 

we have gathered that a crime may have been committed? And it 

is stunning to me that the VA does not have the ability to go in 

and recoup a bonus if a crime has been committed. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
9 

Ms. MCLEOD. I am not able to answer that for the department 

at this point. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you very much. 

One question about H.R. 245, Mr. McLenachen. One of the VSOs 

presented a note in their written testimony that the rule making 

suggests there would be a change in VA’s treatment of inferred 

claims, that is claims reasonably raised by the contents of a veteran’s record. 

Previously if a veteran had a condition secondary to a condition 

claimed or even an unrelated condition that could be reasonably 

raised by the record, the veteran would be entitled to service connection if a nexus to his service was found. 

Under the rule making set to take effect in March, it appears it 

would not. This system, I would hope is supposed to be pro veteran 

and I want to pose a hypothetical. And you can answer hopefully 

whether or not VA would adjudicate this claim under the rules. 

A veteran files a formal claim for an elbow disability which he 

alleges is due to a fall he suffered while in boot camp. The veteran 

is scheduled for a VA examination to assess his elbow disability 

and arrives for the exam in a wheelchair. And it is clearly evident 

that both of the veteran’s legs have been amputated. 

The military service records in the veteran’s VA file reflect that 

the veteran was injured in an explosive blast during deployment to 

Afghanistan and sustained a traumatic injury to both legs for 

which he received a Purple Heart. 

Under the new rule making, would the VA adjudicate a claim for 

the right and left leg disabilities if the veteran only formally filed 

for his elbow condition? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Mr. Chairman, I think there may be a misunderstanding regarding the final rule that we issued. We did not 

propose a policy change in this particular area. We currently adjudicate all claims to include secondary matters and ancillary benefits that arise that are within the scope of the claim that is filed. 

So we did not propose a change to that. What was in the final 

rule was intended merely as a clarification regarding current policy. To directly answer your question, if it is determined at that examination and in adjudication of the claim that the conditions that 

were noted were within the scope of the claim that was filed, we 

would adjudicate that as a claim that is pending, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Brown. 

Ms. BROWN. I just have one quick question, Ms. McLeod, I guess. 

Do you know whether any of the federal agencies have the authority to recoup bonuses? 

Ms. MCLEOD. To my knowledge, no other federal agencies have 

that power to do that. 

Ms. BROWN. Yes. I yield back my time. I have no other questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Lamborn. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

And also in connection with Ranking Member Brown’s bill, I 

would like to ask will the future years’ veteran program be made 

available online to the public? I know it is discussed internally 

within the VA, and that is for any one of you. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
10 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Good morning. 

With the current legislation, it doesn’t specify whether that is 

publicly available or not. The similar programs in Department of 

Defense and DHS do not provide those publicly. They do provide 

them to the Congress. I would assume that this would be implemented the same way. 

Mr. LAMBORN. What if the bill isn’t passed for whatever reason? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. The programming, the future years’ veteran plan 

is an internal tool and would remain as an internal tool. It informs 

our budget process but is, you know, separate from that. So we 

would continue to use it in that manner. 

Mr. LAMBORN. So the only way it would be made available to the 

public would be if this legislation were to pass under current VA 

policy? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Under current policy, yes. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Brownley, no questions? 

Ms. BROWNLEY. No questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Benishek. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess I don’t understand what is the objection to H.R. 216 by 

the VA. I mean, it seems to me we would like to have transparency 

in this process of planning for the budget and the VA. 

What is the downside? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Thank you for your interest in strategic planning 

in the department. 

We do support the intent of the bill. We are right now evolving 

a lot of our processes, the planning, programming, budgeting, and 

execution process. We are in about our fourth year of going through 

that cycle. 

Basically the objection is we think that it is too early to codify 

it in statute. We would really like to get the processes a little bit 

more mature before we know what is really going to work in the 

long term. 

So we are doing pretty much everything that is in H.R. 216. It 

is the matter of how it is officially codified giving us the ability to 

continue to mature those processes over time. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Is there some reason that we shouldn’t be aware 

of what you are doing? I just don’t understand the reasoning. 

I mean, that is not a very good answer as far as I can tell, Ms. 

Sullivan, as to why Ms. Brown’s idea of making sure that we are 

all aware of what is going on is a bad idea. I just don’t understand 

your answer. I mean, we expect it to change with time. So I just 

don’t understand that objection, but I guess that is the answer that 

we have. 

I yield back the remainder of my time. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Ms. Kuster. 

Ms. KUSTER. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Abraham. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Yes, questions for Mr. McLenachen. 

Your written testimony does represent VA’s adamant opposition 

to H.R. 245 which in pertinent part seeks to preserve the ability 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
11 

of veterans to establish dates of claim at the point where the veteran opts to pursue a disability claim. 

One of our president stakeholders has noted in written testimony 

that VA’s recent rule making on standard claims, an appeals form 

will, quote, ‘‘create a division between veterans with internet access 

and those without internet access.’’ 

You have also noted that VA, quote, ‘‘receives an enormous volume,’’ end quote, of informal claims. 

Considering the opposition to your rule making by the several 

VSOs present today, I find it difficult to overlook the fact that VA 

through its rule-making process ought to unilaterally roll back decades worth of pro-veteran policy regarding establishment of effective dates. 

This is a ploy to make the VA’s job easier and has the effect of 

taking monetary benefits from veterans who have earned them. 

Please explain how you can possibly describe your rule making 

as, quote, ‘‘maintaining a pro-veteran process that is acceptable,’’ 

end quote, when you will be making it harder for so many veterans, to use your words, quote, ‘‘an enormous volume,’’ end quote, 

of veterans without internet access to establish an effective date at 

the point where the veteran opts to pursue a disability claim. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Thank you, sir, for the question. And I am 

glad I have an opportunity to address this concern. 

I want to be very frank with the committee that this was an opportunity to demonstrate to you how the rule-making process can 

really work to help veterans at the same time as helping VA. I assure you this is not a ploy by VA in any way. 

When we issued our proposed rule, what we did is we proposed 

to incentivize the filing of electronic claims through our e-benefits 

system. That is what we initially proposed to do. 

And in the rule-making process, we received comments saying essentially you are moving too fast. The primary concerns were that 

we were treating, just as you just suggested, we were treating 

paper claims differently than electronic claims. And we hadn’t accounted for that and we were not providing the same effective date 

treatment for paper claims as electronic claims. 

So what we did is we completely revamped the rule. What we 

proposed is not in our final rule. What is in our final rule is that 

we treat paper claims exactly the same as electronic claims for effective date purposes. 

Secondly, we removed informal claims, but what we really did is 

we replaced it simply with, as one of the commenter suggested, 

why don’t you just come up with a standard informal claim form. 

That is essentially what we did, sir. 

We have an intent to file form which is a one-page document 

that does exactly the same thing as informal claims. It is just that 

it is on a standard form. 

And I submit to each and every one the Members of the committee that your constituents deal with standard forms every day 

of their lives in every situation where they encounter private and 

public entities, just not at VA. 

And so when we talk about striking the proper balance, sir, we 

really believe that we have done that in the rule-making process. 

We replaced the informal claim process with what we are now callVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:53 Feb 23, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\97-994.TXT PAT

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
12 

ing intent to file. A one-page document can be submitted in three 

different ways and this is how you address the issue of people that 

don’t have internet access. 

We have gone so far as to make it even more liberal to file an 

intent to file form. The reason is under current law, you have to 

identify the disability, your symptoms. That is required by a court 

decision and we implemented that decision in our procedures. 

Well, under the new regulations, we are not going to do that. All 

you have to do on this form is three things, tell us whether you 

want compensation pension or a survivor’s benefit; two, provide us 

your identifying information; and, three, sign the form, either you 

or your representative. And that will establish your effective date. 

Three ways you can do it. You can pick up the phone and call 

one of our call centers. You can walk into one of our offices and 

somebody will fill out the form for you and third you can start an 

electronic claim and when you start that electronic claim, it preserves the effective date for you. 

So to address all of those concerns, sir, that you just mentioned, 

we did that in the final rule. So the only thing that is left is there 

is a one-page standard form. We essentially did what the commenters said, create a form for informal claims, and that is what 

we did. 

So that really strikes that balance that you mentioned, sir, when 

you were describing your bill was the balance between allowing VA 

to easily identify claims and quickly process them versus spending 

resources needlessly trying to figure out whether something is a 

claim or not. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. But what you have done is you have converted 

that informal claim all of a sudden to a standardized formal document and that resets the time clock for this veteran. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Sir, it does the same thing as current rules 

for informal claims. It establishes an effective date. So you come 

into us and you say I want to apply for compensation. And if you 

walk in, we have an employee that is going to sit there and type 

that information in for you. 

It establishes it in our systems and you get the same effective 

date that you would get under the informal claims process. There 

is absolutely no difference. The only distinction is it is either a 

walk in submitted on the standard paper form or you start it electronically. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. How long will it take the VA then to respond or 

process that informal claim on the standardized form once they get 

it? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Whether we are talking about informal claims 

today or intent to file under the new rules, that is not a claim. 

What happens is that that preserves the effective date if the claimant comes in within a year and files a claim. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. And if they receive an informal letter? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. No. We have a statutory obligation when we 

receive an informal claim, and we will under the intent to file process, we have a statutory obligation to provide the claimant the application form. 

So let’s assume that you called the call center and you say I want 

to file for compensation. The call center logs in that intent to file. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
13 

It preserves your effective date and we have an obligation to send 

the proper application form and tell the claimant everything they 

have to do to complete that application. That is a statutory obligation today and it will be under the final rule. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Rice, do you have any questions? 

Miss RICE. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have one quick one. In your testimony, you said 

the primary intent of this bill appears to be to overrule VA’s current rule making? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Does it offend you that Congress would attempt 

to overrule your rule making? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. No, sir, not at all. And let me just suggest 

to—— 

The CHAIRMAN. No. That is all I needed was—— 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Okay. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. Just a yes or no. It appeared that 

you might have your feathers ruffled just a little bit and I didn’t 

want that to be the case. 

Mr. Costello is gone. Mr. Bost is gone. 

Dr. Wenstrup. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. McLenachen, I understand the department has some issues 

with 294, H.R. 294, some technical issues with that, and you might 

have some suggestions for us on that Long-Term Veterans Choice 

Act. 

And I think we all look forward to discussing some of those technicalities with you, but really what I am asking today is will you 

give us the assurance that you will work with us in a very timely 

fashion on those, on any technical corrections you may have so that 

we can move forward in a very timely fashion? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Yes. Dr. Jain has a particular interest in 

doing that with you, so I will let him address it. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Okay. Thank you. 

Dr. JAIN. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. 

And I really want to thank Chairman Miller for really authoring 

this bill and also for the committee for considering it. 

Just these are minor issues in some ways, but they could be challenging and we really want this program to function really well for 

our veterans. 

For example, there is a term used in the bill for transfer to 

homes. And for many clinicians, that could mean that this will require an admission to a hospital bed before the veteran becomes eligible for this benefit, so rather than being directly admitted from 

the veteran’s home to the foster home. So that is just one issue. 

The other issue is the word contracts and we believe that there 

are some of our foster home operators that may have challenges 

with the contracting process. It can be pretty lengthy and complicated. So if there is a way to tweak some of that language, those 

are the only issues that we are talking about. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. You mean a simpler contract of some type, is 

that—— 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
14 

Dr. JAIN. Or perhaps defining the agreements a little bit better, 

but I will defer to my counsel who may be able to clarify that issue. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Doctor. 

Ms. MCLEOD. We would have to take that back and bring it back 

to the committee, but we are happy to work with you all on that. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. I appreciate it. Thank you. 

And I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Ruiz, do you have any questions? 

Mr. RUIZ. NO, SIR. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bilirakis, you are recognized. 

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

Mr. McLenachen, I want to get back to H.R. 216, Ms. Brown’s 

bill. I want to follow-up on Dr. Benishek’s questions. 

Again, the VA indicates its support for the principles and concepts of H.R. 216, but it hasn’t embraced looking at those principles 

in statute. And, again, I want to give you another opportunity. 

Why not in statute with respect to the legislation’s requirement 

for VA to submit resource estimates over a five-year horizon that 

are in line with the department’s goals and objectives for various 

programs? What is the problem with embracing the concept in statute if you agree with it in principle? And, again, you know, DoD 

does it. Why not the VA? 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. I will defer to Ms. Sullivan on that because 

she is really the expert in this area. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay. Ms. Sullivan, please. 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Again, thank you in general for the support for 

the concept in the bill. 

Again, we are still kind of working on it. DoD has had decades 

to put that process in place, work the process, and make sure everybody understands the pieces. We are in our fourth year. I think 

we need to work more and come and give you more information on 

what that process is and the types of things that we are working 

through. 

There are several areas in the bill. The programming the future 

years’ veteran plan is one, some of the issues there or the concerns 

are you kind of putting it together with the budget. Those are two 

separate processes. We don’t want to confuse the two or constrain 

future budgets from what is in the five-year plan. 

Some of the other areas looking at the quadrennial review, what 

that looks like for VA is very different from what that looks like 

for DoD or DHS. We actually take their quadrennial reviews as 

input to us. So there are some pieces on how we look at how those 

processes in those other departments really apply to VA. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay. Well, would you agree to work with Ms. 

Brown on this particular issue? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Absolutely. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I mean, accountability is so very important. These 

are taxpayer dollars. And, you know, Ms. Brown is a fellow Floridian and we care about our veterans first. 

So would you agree to work with her and possibly invite me in 

the meeting as well because I think we need to get this done for 

our veterans? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Absolutely. Happy to work with the committee. 

Mr. BILIRAKIS. All right. Very good. Thank you. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
15 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Sullivan, you said you have been working on 

it for four years. Do you think that putting that force of law behind 

it might encourage you to move a little quicker in establishing 

what Ms. Brown is trying to accomplish? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. For some of these, they are annual processes, so 

it still is going to take one cycle per year. That can’t go any faster. 

We did do a lot with the strategic plan that we developed that 

came out last year in 2014 and we will start on our next cycle for 

the strategic plan. Again, that is a four-year cycle in itself. Obviously anything in legislation is going to get attention. I don’t know 

if that will help mature the process any faster. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would hope it would. If it is in law, I would 

hope that it would encourage you to move quicker. I think Ms. 

Brown has got a great idea and it is something that everybody on 

this committee can get behind and support. 

I mean, we give you enough time to do it without putting it in 

law and you still come forward opposing, agreeing with the concept, 

but opposing putting it in statute. And it is hard for some of us to 

understand that. 

Mr. Coffman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And, Ms. McLeod, on House Bill 280, it is my understanding that 

Secretary McDonald has no position on that bill right now. Am I 

correct in that? 

Ms. MCLEOD. That is correct. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Okay. That really surprises me because he came 

onboard to clean up the VA from the scandals of its past that seem 

to continue to this day. 

And so if I understand the bill right—first of all, in your testimony earlier, you made the statement that VA’s only ability to 

claw back a bonus is if there has been an error and that it should 

have been—it was never authorized or for the amount that it was 

authorized for. Am I correct in that? 

Ms. MCLEOD. Essentially, sir, yes. The only ability right now is 

a very narrow one when there has been an administrative error 

committed. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Yeah. So we have had incidents that are wellknown today in the VHA system where management was complicit 

in a coverup involving appointment wait times. And those same 

managers were given bonuses based on a false reporting of performance where veterans suffered from that. 

Then the situation in my district where we have a hospital half 

built, hundreds of millions of dollars over budget, years behind 

schedule, along with other hospitals that have some of the same 

problems that are currently being built, major construction projects 

by the VA. 

The individual in charge of those projects within the leadership of the Veterans Administration received over $60,000 in bonuses 

since 2009, Glenn Haggstrom. So, you know, clearly he didn’t meet 

the criteria of the goals that were established. 

And so what you are saying is there is no mechanism under current law to claw back bonuses from somebody who clearly didn’t 

meet when new information comes out and they clearly didn’t meet 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
16 

the goals that were expressed as a requirement to get the bonus 

or criminal conduct was committed during that period of time, that 

there was no mechanism to claw back and current law of that 

bonus. I am correct in that, right? 

Ms. MCLEOD. You are correct. 

Mr. COFFMAN. And so we have a secretary of the Veterans Affairs that can’t make a decision on something so obvious. I mean, 

I think it is just extraordinary. And what it says to me and what 

it says to the veterans of this country is nothing has really 

changed, nothing has really changed in the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

And I want you to take the message back to the secretary that 

he ought to make a decision on that and the decision ought to be 

to support this bill. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Brown. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a question for 

Ms. Sullivan. 

I am a little confused. Did I hear you correctly that you are concerned with forward protection separate from the budget? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. I am sorry. Can you repeat the question? 

Ms. BROWN. Concerned with keeping the forward year protections separate from the budgetary process. 

Ms. SULLIVAN. So the five-year look at the resource allocation is 

a tool that informs the budget. There is some concern if those are 

both out together that those future year projections would set expectations for future year budgets and not provide some of the 

flexibility to deal with emerging priorities, so almost setting that 

in stone for the five years out and not being able to go through the 

budget formulation process. 

Ms. BROWN. Well, I think that is what we want. We want to 

know what are the plans? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. As a plan, as long as it is able to then be adjusted 

during the budget cycle, not laying—for us to see five years in the 

future and lay that kind of in stone, it is a planning tool to look 

at those outward projections but not something that—again, the 

perception that that would then be the budget for that future year. 

There still is the budget process as a separate process. 

Ms. BROWN. Why wouldn’t you be able to adjust it if it is just 

a planning tool? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. I think the look now is whether or not those that 

are receiving it are able to, you know, kind of give us that flexibility as we go into the budget formulation cycle to look back and 

say, well, four years ago, you said it was going to be this and now 

you are coming in with this budget. So, again, it is a planning tool. 

It informs the budget. 

Ms. BROWN. I understand that but as you plan, different factors 

come. Maybe we will get additional veterans in certain categories 

or, you know, it is lots of factors that is going to affect that. But 

I think what we are trying to do is to see your road map so that 

we can have some idea as to your planning process also. 

Ms. SULLIVAN. I understand. 

Ms. BROWN. We clearly need to get together. Thank you. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
17 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Sullivan, if I could follow-up on what Ms. 

Brown was just asking. Shouldn’t Congress have the ability to look 

at year two, three, four, and five to help determine how you arrived 

at the current budget year request? Again, what is the fear that 

VA has to putting a five-year plan out to the public? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. I will have to take back some of the details, but, 

again, the other departments who do this, that is not public information. We are trying to, you know, look at similar processes to 

DoD and DHS. We obviously share our strategic plan and our planning processes. We do consult with Congress and the VSOs on 

doing that. 

The CHAIRMAN. I serve on the Armed Services Committee and we 

get a five-year budget picture. I just don’t understand what VA’s 

problem is with giving Congress the information on which you base 

your current year’s budget proposal on. 

Ms. SULLIVAN. At this point, we are still maturing that process. 

I don’t know if it is—— 

The CHAIRMAN. How long will that process take to become mature? 

Ms. SULLIVAN. I can’t answer that. I am sorry. I will have to take 

that back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. I would like an answer. 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Okay. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Radewagen, do you have any questions? 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN. No, I don’t, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Brown, one final question. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. And then we will go to the third panel. 

Ms. BROWN. To my understanding NASA does the forward budget and they make theirs public. 

Ms. SULLIVAN. I will have to look into that. Thank you. 

Ms. BROWN. Congress gave advance appropriations to VA. We do 

it and, you know, I was very involved and very instrumental in 

making sure that VA got advanced appropriations. What we are 

saying is we want to be a part of that planning process. 

Ms. SULLIVAN. Appreciate that. Yes, we will come and meet with 

you and provide some more information and work with you on that. 

Ms. BROWN. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yeah, I think it would be a good idea that we 

have you come back and talk with the entire committee about Ms. 

Brown’s legislation. I think we would all be interested in knowing 

where the fear is from VA with making those numbers available 

to Congress. 

I want to thank you all for being here today. 

And we have got a third panel, so the second panel is excused 

and I would invite our third panel to please come to the witness 

table. 

As they are coming forward, joining us today is Mr. Joe Violante, 

National Legislative Director for Disabled American Veterans; 

Aleks Morosky, Deputy Director of the National Legislative Service 

of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States; Mr. Zachary 

Hearn, Deputy Director for Claims of the Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission for The American Legion; and Mr. Blake 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
18 

Ortner, the Deputy Director of Government Relations for Paralyzed 

Veterans of America. 

I appreciate you all being here. All of your complete written 

statements will be made a part of the record. 

Mr. Violante, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH A. VIOLANTE 

Mr. VIOLANTE. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Brown, Members of the committee, DAV appreciates the opportunity to testify before this committee on the various bills under consideration. 

H.R. 216 would establish new planning and budgetary processes 

and make changes affecting VA’s ability to develop and implement 

budgets and strategic plans. The bill directs the secretary to submit 

to Congress a future years’ veterans’ program and a quadrennial 

veterans’ review modeled on similar procedures for DoD and Homeland Security. The legislation would also establish the new position 

of chief strategic officer. 

Mr. Chairman, for decades, DAV and our partners in the Independent Budget have pointed out mismatches in funding for VA 

programs which became evident in last year’s scheduling scandal 

and access crisis. 

This legislation would help to address this problem by adding 

more transparency and rigor to VA’s budget and planning process. 

DAV generally supports this legislation, although we do have a few 

concerns. 

First, the legislation must make clear that both the quadrennial 

review and the future years’ veterans’ program are made publicly 

available when they are delivered to Congress. 

Second, the bill gives OMB some ability to constrain VA’s planning by setting guidance on the overall resources available to VA. 

It is vital that any long-range strategic planning process produce 

honest assessments of veterans’ needs and the cost to meet them. 

Third, the bill does not make clear how the chief strategic strategy officer will interact with VA’s chief financial officer or the 

under secretaries. This might add a new dimension of bureaucracy 

that could complicate rather than improve budgeting. 

Finally, we are concerned about the potential of diminishing the 

influence of veteran stakeholders when setting out VA’s long-term 

missions and priorities. 

H.R. 245 would reestablish certain safeguards for veterans who 

currently file informal claims. Under a VA rule that will take effect 

in March, claimants will no longer be able to file informal claims 

through written communications establishing only an intent to file 

a claim process that must be completed on standardized forms. As 

a result, veterans may lose some accrued benefits. 

The bill seeks to remedy this situation by requiring that claimants who send written communications to VA indicating an intent 

to file a claim would be considered an informal claim and would 

have up to 180 days to complete the required forms to protect their 

effective date. 

DAV supports the purpose of this provision. However, we strongly recommend that the informal claim period be restored to a full 

year, same as the new intent to file a claim procedure to ensure 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
19 

that all veterans who file claims are treated equitably regardless 

of how they file them. 

DAV supports H.R. 294. Some severely disabled veterans who 

are unable to live independently at home choose to reside in more 

intimate home-like alternatives to a nursing home called medical 

foster homes. While some veterans cannot afford medical foster 

homes, other veterans who can are required by law to pay the full 

cost out of their own pockets. Many of them are service connected 

veterans who could choose to live in a more expensive nursing 

home setting fully paid for by VA. 

This measure would give VA a three-year authority to pay for 

veterans who want to reside in a VA approved medical foster home, 

saving tax payers money. However, despite the laudable aim of this 

measure we do not believe its goal will be successfully achieved unless Congress fixes VA’s authority to use provider agreements. 

Since VA currently is unable to use its provider agreements authority to pay for medical foster homes, the alternative is to use 

contract vehicles. 

The cost of the burdensome reporting and auditing requirements 

inherent in federal contracting, we believe some medical foster 

home providers would not be willing or capable of entering into 

complex contracts with VA. We urge the committee to pass these 

bills and we pledge to work with you and your staff to address our 

concerns. That concludes my testimony, I will be happy to answer 

any questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Morosky, you’re recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ALEKS MOROSKY 

Mr. MOROSKY. Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, on 

behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of 

the United States and our auxiliaries, I would like to thank you for 

the opportunity to testify on today’s pending legislation. 

The Service Member Foreclosure Protection Extension Act: The 

VFW supports this legislation which would continue for one year 

the extension of the period that veterans are protected from mortgage sale or foreclosure following their military service from 9 to 

12 months. The VFW believes that veterans should be afforded the 

maximum opportunity to gain financial stability when transitioning 

from active duty to civilian life without the threat of losing their 

homes. 

A January 2014 GAO report found that military borrowers were 

at a higher risk of mortgage delinquency in the first year after 

leaving active service. But with these protections in place we are 

more likely to resolve those delinquencies than others. Accordingly, 

the VFW believes that the one-year protection window should not 

only be extended, but we urge Congress to make this policy permanent. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Planning Reform 

Act: This legislation would require VA to estimate and report to 

Congress its budgetary needs for four fiscal years. It would also establish a quadrennial veterans’ review to ensure VA has a strategy 

to meet the future needs of our nation’s veterans. The VFW strongly agrees that VA should constantly analyze veterans’ needs and 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
20 

develop a strategy that will enable it to address such needs, not 

just today and tomorrow, but for years to come. 

The quadrennial review concept has been successful for DOD in 

prioritizing its strategic pillars to ensure it is able to protect America and advance our interests abroad. The VFW supports the concept of a quadrennial veterans’ review, but we do not believe VA 

should prioritize veterans’ benefits. 

VA benefits and programs are vital to the veterans they serve. 

One benefit is not more important than the other and should not 

be treated as such. Instead, we suggest the quadrennial review 

analyze the fiscal demands of the full range of programs and capabilities. This would ensure VA adjusts its programs to fit emerging 

trends and maximizes its finite resources to meet veterans’ needs. 

The bill would also require VA to conduct a study to ensure its 

functions and organizational structure are effective, efficient, and 

economical. The VFW applauds Secretary Robert McDonald for realizing the VA’s organizational structure needs to change. 

In November he announced the My—VA Initiative to, among 

other things, reorganize the department’s structure to better meet 

veterans’ needs. VFW believes the VA should be given the opportunity to fully implement Secretary McDonald’s reorganizational 

initiative. 

H.R. 245: This bill makes two significant changes. First, the bill 

codifies the effective date for a claim to include the date VA receives an informal claim. This is a much needed provision that will 

provide clear understanding for a claimant’s effective date of claim. 

The second provision places a 180-day time limitation on veterans who have filed an informal claim to complete and return VA 

Form 21–526 to VA. The VFW opposes this provision. Current law 

provides claimants a full year to complete and return the application form other under circumstances. The VFW believes there 

should be parity between existing law, and recommends that claimants are afforded a full year to submit their formal claim. This does 

not place an additional burden on VA and will not count towards 

the time the claim takes to be adjudicated. 

H.R. 280: The VFW supports this legislation. Employees receive 

bonuses as an incentive in recognition for superior work performance. But if a bonus is found after the fact to be awarded to an 

employee who manipulated data, put veterans at risk of harm, or 

in some other way defrauded the Government to receive that 

bonus, the Secretary should have the authority to recoup the bonus 

amount. 

The Long Term Care Veterans Choice Act: The VFW supports 

this legislation which would allow enrolled veterans in nursing 

home care to transfer into adult foster home care at their request. 

Currently, veterans who choose to live in adult foster homes must 

do so at their own expense. To grant VA the authority to reimburse 

adult foster homes would provide veterans with an additional residency choice potentially improving the quality of life for those who 

would prefer this option. 

The VFW strongly believes that all non-VA care services should 

be provided in conjunction with proper care coordination. The VHA 

medical foster home procedures handbook requires an interdisciplinary VA home care team to provide the veteran with primary care, 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
21 

regularly communicate with the foster home caregiver, and monitor 

the care provided with frequent unannounced visits. The VFW feels 

that these would ensure adequate care coordination and recommends that the care coordination policies outlined in that document should be made permanent by adding them to the language 

of this legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, and I will be happy 

to answer any questions you or other Members of the Committee 

may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Hearn, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ZACHARY HEARN 

Mr. HEARN. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Brown, and Members of the committee. On behalf of 

National Commander Helm and the 2.4 million members of The 

American Legion, we are honored to speak this morning regarding 

proposed bills impacting our nation’s veterans. 

Based on the slate of bills for consideration The American Legion 

supports the following bills. 

H.R. 189, the Service Member Foreclosure Protection Act of 2015. 

H.R. 216, the Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Planning 

and Reform Act of 2015. 

H.R. 245, H.R. 280. 

H.R. 289 addresses alternative solutions to veterans incapable of 

independent living. Currently, The American Legion does not have 

a position pertaining to this bill, however, we are continuing to consider the solutions the bill provides. A complete discussion of The 

American Legion’s position can be found in our written testimony 

that you have before you today. 

The American Legion supports H.R. 245. In recent years the Veterans Benefits Administration has taken steps to improve its efficiency in the adjudication of claims. One much publicized effort 

was the virtual transformation in the claims process. Another effort 

was the VA’s issuance of regulations that would change a decades 

old policy regarding the submission of informal claims. The American Legion opposes this change. 

Historically, veterans were permitted to submit written correspondence to VA indicating their intent to file a claim for disability benefits. This process did not require a specified form, it 

simply required a written communication indicating a desire to file 

for disability benefits for a particular condition. 

In September 2014 VA issued regulations that would go into effect in March 2015 that would eliminate the informal written claim 

as a marker for an effective date of benefits. Instead, veterans were 

directed to submit claims electronically, orally to a VA employee, 

or through a new VA form to protect the earliest possible effective 

date. 

Veterans who name the benefit they seek in a written communication to the VA are punished because that communication under 

the new regulations would not protect the earliest effective date. 

What really is happening is that the BVA is using the new regulations to artificially reduce the number of pending claims. It is 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
22 

counterintuitive for veterans to not mention the benefit that they 

seek. 

Compelling veterans to file via electronic means could be detrimental. The National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics 

reported the average male veteran was 64 years old in 2011, and 

the census bureau reports that less than half of Americans over 65 

years old have access to the Internet. 

If a sizable portion of the veteran population does not have regular access to the means necessary to file and then complete application, is VA adequately serving the veteran population? It should 

be mentioned that the issue of expediency on the front end of the 

claims process isn’t the only reason why VA pursued this policy. 

Another justification for this process was that a number of inferred claims hadn’t been recognized by VA at the regional offices. 

It was only when a claim was appealed to the Board of Veterans 

Appeals that a BVA judge recognized the nature of the claim. 

VA’s requirement for the standardized form suggests that instead 

of embracing its responsibility to properly train its employees, VA 

opted to advocate its responsibility to both its employees and the 

veteran community through removing the policy altogether. Ultimately, VA’s policy pertaining to the electronic submission of 

claims will have a deleterious effect upon effective dates. 

If veterans, regardless of age, do not have access to the Internet 

then they may have to endure additional steps to file a claim losing 

their effective date, and ultimately the payment of their disability 

benefits. 

H.R. 245 codifies a longstanding practice of VA permitting informal claims without the requirement of a standardized form or electronic submission. Moreover, it permits veterans to maximize the 

benefits earned through their dedicated service to this nation. 

Again, on behalf of National Commander Helm, and 2.4 million 

members that comprise The American Legion, we thank the committee for hearing our testimony today. And I will be happy to answer any questions that this Committee may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Hearn. Mr. Ortner, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF BLAKE ORTNER 

Mr. ORTNER. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Brown, and 

Members of the committee, Paralyzed Veterans of America would 

like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today on the legislation before the committee. PVA supports H.R. 189. It is our belief 

that the extension of this foreclosure protection should have been 

included with other extenders that were passed in the 113th Congress and that was inadvertently left out. 

PVA generally supports the intent, however, we have concerns 

regarding H.R. 216, similar to those expressed in 2013 when PVA 

testified on similar draft legislation. This legislation establishes 

new planning and budgeting processes as well as study and make 

organizational changes affecting VA’s ability to develop and implement budgets and strategic plans. Our concerns are similar to 

those expressed by the panel today. 

Long range strategic planning is vitally important and VA does 

and must continue to do this. VA annually prepares and submits 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
23 

to Congress and the public a performance and accountability report 

to show how well VA’s strategic goals are being met. In addition, 

VA’s annual budget submission lays out in great detail the programs and policies designed to achieve VA’s strategic goals. VA 

also supports two dozen ongoing advisory committees to provide 

outside perspective and Congress has authorized commissions and 

task forces to look at major issues. 

It is not yet clear how or if the creation of a quadrennial veterans’ review would improve on these ongoing strategic planning 

processes. Similarly, it is not clear whether the creation of a future 

years veterans’ program would lead to either more transparent or 

more accurate budgets or appropriations. And based on Ms. Sullivan’s testimony, transparency does not appear to be a goal. 

There are also questions about the creation of the new Chief 

Strategy Officer. The language of the legislation gives the CSO significant independence in overseeing all planning and programing 

throughout VA. Would the CSO have overlapping authority with 

the under secretaries? How would the CSO and the CFO interact 

during preparation of VA’s budget? Are they co-equal? And how 

would disagreements between them be settled? Would this lead to 

greater harmony or conflict within VA’s budget formulation process? 

We also have questions about the role of veterans’ service organizations and the development of the QVR. As organizations with 

great experience and expertise in dealing with veterans, will this 

Board consultation process dilute our input? VSOs are not idle 

stakeholders. We are concerned about putting us on par with less 

interested, informed, and involved stakeholders during the consultation process. Although we do have questions about this legislation, I want to emphasize we have no questions about the sincere 

intentions and aims of the sponsors to this legislation. 

PVA supports H.R. 245 to codify existing provisions of law relating to effective dates of claims, in particular the informal claim 

procedures. Because the veterans may not realize the intricacies of 

claiming benefits, some may submit claims on their own which 

might simply consist of a letter presenting their case. PVA welcomes provisions requiring the Secretary to provide a claims application form when the informal claim is received, but agree that the 

informal claim continue with the same weight of law, unbiased consideration, and receipt date had it been a formal claim. 

PVA is not opposed to provisions of H.R. 280 and believes giving 

the Secretary some kind of leverage to hold senior staff more accountable is valuable. However, it is critical that the Secretary not 

enjoy any sort of carte blanche authority to strip bonuses. Concerning the time frame, PVA does not believe that this authority 

should continue in perpetuity, but be of sufficient length to ensure 

that behavior discovered in the future can be acted upon. Let us 

also be very clear, we do not feel that this limit should apply in 

cases of clear fraud or criminal activity. 

A second concern regards the rights of the employee for a review 

of the recoupment. PVA is not certain a hearing with the Secretary 

is the best or most fair venue for the review as it would establish 

the Secretary as the arbiter of his or her own decision. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
24 

PVA generally supports H.R. 294 regarding the transfer of veterans to non-VA adult foster homes. PVA believes that VA’s primary obligation involving long-term support services is to provide 

veterans with quality medical care in a healthy and safe environment. It is PVA’s position that adult foster homes are only appropriate for disabled veterans who do not require regular monitoring 

by licensed providers, but rather have a catastrophic injury or disability and are able to sustain a high level of independence. 

When these veterans are transferred to adult foster homes, care 

coordination with VA specialized systems of care is vital and the 

veteran must be regularly evaluated by specialized providers 

trained to meet the needs of their specific conditions. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement and I would be happy to answer 

any questions. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ortner, very much and I would 

like to go ahead and yield for questions to the Chairman of the Sub 

Committee, Dr. Abraham. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ortner, your testimony on H.R. 245 noted that as VA tries to reduce its claims’ backlog there is a risk that the department will look for methods to 

avoid claims that are difficult to complete. I am very concerned by 

the state of affairs as ‘‘difficult claims’’ may be those of our most 

serious, severely disabled veterans. Would you elaborate, please, on 

this concern that you and I share a bit more about how the 2015 

goal to eliminate the claims’ backlog may actually create reverse 

incentives for VVA to strategize methods to avoid hard claims? 

Mr. ORTNER. Yes, sir, I think in our full testimony we discuss a 

little bit about the concerns of both trying to avoid some of those 

claims that are possibly more difficult. And the informal claim is 

one of those that you definitely run into a problem with because 

of the requirement to collect the evidence. Probably of greater concern is the risk of those claims being pushed off as we discussed 

in a hearing last week have to do with becoming grounds for more 

appeals. 

So I think that is our concern. I think the stress or the sword 

of Damocles hanging over the heads regarding the 2015 requirements can potentially push people into trying to speed things along 

or trying to avoid those issues that may complicate them meeting 

that goal. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you. One more question. Mr. Violante, your 

testimony recommend that the informal claim period be expanded 

beyond that which is currently set forth in H.R. 245 and extend to 

a full year. Tell me again why your organization believes that that 

full year is necessary as opposed to the 180 days. 

Mr. VIOLANTE. Well, currently the law allows for one year for a 

veteran to file it. Under their proposed rule change the VA has, 

they would also allow one year from the intent to file a claim for 

a veteran to file his formal appeal. So we believe, number one, one 

year gives a veteran sufficient time. There is a lot of medical problems sometimes that arise that keep him from filing these claims, 

but it would also keep the same time that is in place now as well 

as what VA intends to do with their intent to file. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. Thank you. I have one other question. Mr. Hearn, 

good to see you again, you are on the sub-committee. Your testiVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:53 Feb 23, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\97-994.TXT PAT

VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
25 

mony on H.R. 245 noted that The American Legion does not agree 

with the department’s rule-making as it regards to ‘‘inferred’’ 

claims. Did The American Legion state its opinion to the VA during 

the rule-making process? And, if so, to what extent did dialog occur 

on these concerns? 

Mr. HEARN. The period to comment, I think it opened up in late 

2013, The American Legion submitted their comments regarding 

this issue. I think December 31st was the deadline to submit the 

comments pertaining to this. We have had our concerns about this 

going back over the last 12 months. I have a copy of those comments if you would like to see them. But the VSOs were open and 

VA allowed for these comments to be made and right from the very 

beginning we had concerns and we had very sincere concerns regarding this, and regardless VA continued to move down the path. 

Mr. ABRAHAM. I yield back. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Ms. Brown. 

Ms. BROWN. I think Ms. Brownley has a question. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Ms. Brownley. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Yes, just quickly. I certainly agree with the argument that there should never be a rule that would prevent or delay 

in any way veterans from getting their benefits. And, Mr. Hearn, 

in your testimony it seemed as though, and correct me from the 

other VSOs if I am summarizing incorrectly, but it seems as 

though the issue for most VSOs is about the time frame it is not 

necessarily about the standardized form. 

But, Mr. Hearn, in your testimony you do highlight the issue 

around the informal claim and not going to a standardized form in 

addition to the not going 180 days but going for the full year. So 

could you just describe to me sort of in what form how many informal claims are we getting from veterans at this particular point in 

time and what do they sort of look like? 

Mr. HEARN. An informal claim, it can be submitted on line paper, 

on any sort of document. It is just a level of written correspondence 

to VA indicating that there is an intent to file for a particular medical condition. As far as the numbers I would have to go back and 

get those for you. But the problem with this is that there is a 

standardized form that is ultimately going to be submitted when 

a veteran files the formal claim aspect, it is maintaining the effective date that we have concerns. 

One, when this issue was first brought up, and VA mentioned it 

today, that we use standardized forms in everything. Which is correct, we do. And what they pointed to so much was IRS. Well, tax 

season is just from January 1 through April 15. Veteran season is 

January 1 through December 31st. And so we can’t set up tax prepare or veteran prepare operations in every strip mall and corner 

of America like you see during tax season. It is not realistic. And 

we want to make sure that all veterans have access to receive 

those benefits that they receive and our fear is that if we continue 

down this path that has been proposed that those veterans’ benefits are going to be reduced if not eliminated. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you. And I yield back. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Coffman. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, just a question for all members of 

the panel. On H.R. 280 that involves what we call the calling back 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
26 

of bonuses that were given, either that where we find out that the 

recipient lacked merit for the bonus based on the record of performance after the fact that it was found out or that there was criminality involved during the duration that the bonus was given. What 

H.R. 280 does is it authorizes the Secretary of the VA to be able 

to call back those bonuses. And right now under current law it is 

only if in fact there was an administrative error in awarding the 

bonus the only ability to call back. 

Given the abuses that occurred in the VHA system with the employment wait times where there were instances where management was complicit in that and received bonuses for allegedly 

bringing down the wait times which we know was at the expense 

of our veterans or the construction of veterans hospitals that are 

hundreds of millions of dollars over budget, years behind schedule, 

that the leadership involved in that received bonuses. I would like 

to know if any of you have any reservations on the bill, I would 

like each one of you to state your position. Organization and state 

your position on that legislation. 

Mr. MCLENACHEN. Congressman, DAV does not have an official 

position on that piece of legislation. 

Mr. MOROSKY. Congressman, the VFW supports the legislation. 

We feel like bonuses should be awarded for exceptional performance. Clearly, anybody who is putting veterans at risk, manipulating data, or defrauding the Government is not performing exceptionally and it is a disservice to the American taxpayer and veterans to allow them to keep their bonuses, so we support the legislation. 

Mr. HEARN. Congressman, The American Legion supports it. As 

many know that we established veterans’ crisis command centers 

last year and went out into the field. And for those representatives 

of VA that essentially fraudulently received those bonuses, it is not 

right that they do. Just as was stated earlier, these bonuses should 

be based upon merit, not off of manipulated data. 

Mr. ORTNER. Congressman, the only real concerns PVA had with 

it is that time frame. Do we have a situation where somebody goes 

back 10 years, 12 years? And in our written testimony we do indicate that we are not sure what that time frame should be. But that 

concern and then also just the fact that the Secretary is ruling on 

their own decision in a recoupment review. But other than that, we 

don’t have any significant problems—— 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Ortner, I guess my question then would be to 

you then, but the decision is fairly subjective to begin with. The 

fact that there is criteria that is drawn up in terms of when someone merits a bonus, I mean that is done by the leadership of the 

Veterans Committee. You and I assume you served in the military, 

am I correct in that? 

Mr. ORTNER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. COFFMAN. I know people are going to get bonuses, I mean 

unless they wanted to re-up for a longer period of time, but you 

were written up positively or negatively, and if you did a good job 

you were promoted, if you didn’t do a good job, you were demoted 

or relieved of command or whatever was relative to your position. 

And so here we have a problem of excessive bonuses for people not 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
27 

doing their work. And so what I sense in your position is some reservation about the Secretary’s ability to call back those bonuses. 

Mr. ORTNER. Actually, it is more of a reservation about the justification of the Secretary going back. I think in our discussion 

there was a little concern, especially about the time frame. Do we 

have a Secretary that attempts to recoup a bonus based on a policy 

disagreement, based on a political disagreement, or something like 

that. Which is also why we go into the idea of saying if there is 

a case of fraud or criminal activity, obviously that is a given. 

So that is really our reservation, exactly what are the grounds 

for that, the bonus being recouped. And so you sort of backed up 

our concerns with saying, well, geez, it is kind of arbitrary on 

sometimes how those bonuses are given. So we don’t want to get 

in the situation where it is arbitrary on how they are also pulled 

back due to some other disagreement. 

Mr. COFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Coffman. And I think 

if I am correct, Brigadier General? 

Mr. ORTNER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. Any other comments or questions? Miss Rice. 

Miss RICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ortner, do you have 

an estimate of how many veterans suffering from catastrophic injury or disability would actually be able to benefit from the Long 

Term Care Veterans Choice Act? 

Mr. ORTNER. No, ma’am, I don’t. But I would be happy to take 

that for the record and have our staff look into it. 

Miss RICE. That would be great. And I just have a general question for all of you. In what ways are your organizations able to help 

veterans through this claims process to ensure that they get the 

benefits that they need? 

Mr. VIOLANTE. DAV has a corp of about 270 National Service Officers, about 34 transition service officers. We are located at all the 

VA regional offices as well as some of the military bases where 

military members are coming out. So we are available to them at 

those offices. We also have roughly about 2,000 service officers out 

in the field with chapters and departments that are points of contact that refer them to our national service officers. 

Mr. MOROSKY. Congresswoman, the VFW has similar services. 

We have service officers at each VA regional office. We have representatives at military bases for the benefits at discharge system, 

and we provide those services as well. 

Mr. HEARN. The American Legion has over 3,000 accredited representatives nationwide designed and they are professionally 

trained to help veterans, and we also have representatives at the 

regional offices and at the Board of Veterans Appeals. 

Mr. ORTNER. PVA is similar to the other groups. We have about 

70 service officers which handle claims. Their trained service officers who go through extensive training similar to DAV and the 

other VSOs. And they help all veterans, not just those with catastrophic injuries. 

Miss RICE. I applaud all of your organizations because as you all 

know you are very often the first line of defense for helping your 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
28 

colleagues get the benefits that they deserve, so I thank you all for 

that. And I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Members, any other questions? 

[No response.] 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. With that, we probably will each have questions 

for the record that we will follow up. We thank you for your testimony today. I would ask that all Members would have five legislative days with which to revise and extend their remarks, without 

objection, so ordered. And with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JEFF MILLER

Good Morning, Thank you all for being here today. 

Today we are having a legislative hearing on five pieces of legislation. 

In the interest of time, I am going to forgo a lengthy opening 

statement and just briefly touch on two bills on the agenda which 

I am proud to have introduced. 

The first bill is H.R. 280. 

The language is similar to a bill I introduced last Congress which 

passed favorably out of this committee. 

H.R. 280 would provide the secretary the authority to rescind a 

bonus or performance award from any VA employee when the secretary deems it appropriate. 

To ensure a fair process, the provision would also afford the employee an opportunity to have a hearing on the secretary’s decision 

to recoup their bonus. 

I proposed this legislation last congress because VA had given 

this committee conflicting statements on whether or not it already 

had the ability to rescind bonuses. 

For example, former Secretary Shinseki rescinded then—Phoenix 

Director Sharon Helman’s 2013 bonus because it was paid based on 

an administrative error. 

Notwithstanding this limited authority, VA later confirmed it did 

not have the ability to rescind a bonus that was based on erroneous 

performance data. 

I believe the ability to recoup a bonus based on bad or manipulated performance data, is a tool that the secretary needs, and that 

the American public would expect. 

My second bill is H.R. 294, the Long-Term Care Veterans Choice 

Act. 

It would authorize VA, for three years beginning on October 1, 

2015, to enter into a contract or agreement with a certified medical 

foster home to pay for Long-Term Care For Certain Veterans already eligible for VA paid nursing home care. 

It would also require an eligible veteran to receive VA home 

health services as a component of such payment. 

Medical foster homes provide a non-institutional Long-Term Care 

alternative to veterans who prefer a smaller, more home—like and 

family—style setting than most traditional nursing homes are able 

to provide. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
29 

Though VA has been helping place veterans in medical foster 

homes for more than a decade, VA does not currently have authority to pay for a veteran to receive care in a medical foster home, 

even if the veteran is eligible for VA paid nursing home care. 

As a result, service-connected veterans who would prefer to receive care in a foster home must pay out of pocket using personal 

funds, and many are unable to do so because of financial constraints. 

Our veterans—particularly those who are service-connected and 

in need of long-term care-deserve to decide for themselves where 

and how to receive the care they need and H.R. 294 would allow 

them that opportunity. 

Given that the average cost of a medical foster home is approximately half the monthly cost of a nursing home, H.R. 294 would 

also provide a cost effective long-term care option for the department. 

I urge my colleagues to support both of these bills and look forward to discussing them with our witnesses this morning. 

Ms. Brown has a bill on the agenda that I am proud to cosponsor, and at this time I’ll defer to her for its explanation and for her 

opening statement. 

Ms. Brown. 

Thank You Ms. Brown. 

I now recognize Dr. Abraham to discuss his bill that is before us 

today, H.R. 245. 

Thank You Dr. Abraham. 

At this time, I would like to welcome to the witness table our colleague from the ninth district of Florida, Mr. Alan Grayson, who 

is the sponsor of H.R. 189, The Servicemember Foreclosure Protections Extension Act of 2015. 

Mr. Grayson, you are now recognized for five minutes. 

Thank You Mr. Grayson. 

We will forgo a round of questions for Mr. Grayson, and any 

questions that anyone may have for our colleague may be submitted for the record. 

On behalf of the committee, I thank you for joining us today and 

for your testimony on your bill. 

You are now excused. 

I now ask our second panel to come to the table. 

On this panel we will hear from Mr. David Mclenachen [MikLen-A-Kin], Acting Deputy Under Secretary For Disability Assistance for the Veterans Benefits Administration at VA. 

He is accompanied by Dr. Rajiv Jain, Assistant Deputy Under 

Secretary for Health for Patient Services at VA’s Veterans Health 

Administration; 

Ms. Susan Sullivan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy at 

VA’s Office of Policy and Planning; and Ms. Kim Mcleod Counsel 

in VA’s Office of General Counsel. 

Thank you all for being here today. 

Mr. Mclenachen, you are now recognized for five minutes. 

Thank You. 

On behalf of the committee, I thank you for your testimony and 

for being here today. 

The second panel is now excused. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
30 

I now invite our third and final panel to the witness table. 

Joining us today on the third panel is Mr. Joseph Violante, the 

National Legislative Director for the Disabled American Veterans; 

Mr. Aleks [Alex] Morosky, the Deputy Director of the National 

Legislative Service for the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United 

States; 

Mr. Zachary Hearn [Hurn], the Deputy Director for Claims of the 

Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission for the American 

Legion; 

Mr. Blake Ortner, the Deputy Director of Government Relations 

for Paralyzed Veterans of America. 

Thank you all for being here today. 

All of your complete written statements will be made part of the 

hearing record. 

Mr. Violante, you are now recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. Morosky, you are now recognized for five minutes. 

Mr. Hearn, you are now recognized for give minutes. 

Mr. Ortner, you are now recognized for five minutes. 

Thank you all for your testimony. 

I will begin with questions. 

On behalf of the committee, I thank each of you for your testimony. 

We look forward to working with you in the future on these bills, 

as well as on a wide range of challenges facing our nation’s veterans. 

If there are no further questions, the witnesses are excused. 

I now ask unanimous consent that statements from the Vietnam 

Veterans of America and the housing policy council be submitted 

for the record. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

And I ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material. 

Hearing no objection so ordered. 

I thank the members and the witnesses for their attendance and 

participation today. 

This hearing is now adjourned. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
31 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER CORRINE BROWN

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding the Committee’s first legislative hearing of 

the 114th Congress. 

I look forward to this Committee, in our usual bipartisan fashion, being busy in 

looking at bills that will help our veterans, and assist the VA in its efforts to accomplish its mission. 

I am especially pleased that my bill, H.R. 216, was included today. 

H.R. 216 was introduced last Congress by former Ranking Member Michaud, and 

was approved by the Committee as part of the advance appropriations bill. I look 

forward to working with my colleagues and stakeholders to move this bill as fast 

as we can this year. 

VA’s financial management process often looks like budgeting-by-crisis. H.R. 216 

would provide the framework to assist the VA in the steps it has already taken to 

reform its budget process. It’s important that everyone have a copy of the rules and 

by putting these processes into statute we’ll make sure that they do. 

Providing a roadmap each year so that VA, veterans, and Congress know where 

we are going is vital in reforming the VA. 

My bill will ensure that the steps taken to come up with this roadmap are transparent, and that all stakeholders are fully engaged in making sure that we provide 

the resources that our commitment to our veterans demands. 

So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for including H.R. 216 today. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses on this, and our other bills, and I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

f 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN GRAYSON

Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Brown, thank you for inviting me to appear 

before you today. I look forward to what this committee, under the leadership of two 

Floridians, will be able to accomplish for our nation’s veterans during the 114th 

Congress. 

As you know, my bill, H.R. 189: the ‘Servicemember Foreclosure Protections Extension Act of 2015’, would extend for one calendar year the foreclosure and eviction 

protections that currently exist for active duty members of our military forces and 

veterans who have served in our armed forces within the past year. These protections are scheduled to expire at the end of 2015. 

Historically, Section 303 of the ‘Servicemembers Civil Relief Act’ (‘‘SCRA’’) (50 

U.S.C. App. 533) has protected servicemembers from foreclosure and eviction if an 

action is filed during, or within 90 days after, a period of military service. Section 

2203 of the ‘Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008’ extended the period of protection from 90 days to nine months. In 2012, Congress—in a bill which you authored, Mr. Chairman—extended foreclosure and eviction protections further to one 

year (see Section 710 of the ‘Honoring America’s Veterans and Caring for Camp 

Lejeune Families Act of 2012’ (P.L. 112–154)). Again, my bill would ensure that the 

one-year protection period that currently exists is extended. 

As you will recall, Mr. Chairman, we began discussing this provision of law in 

September of last year, after I noticed its omission from H.R. 5404: the ‘Department 

of Veterans Affairs Expiring Authority Act of 2014’ which was ultimately signed into 

law. You voiced your support for its extension, but stated that you wished to hold 

a legislative hearing on a measure prior to moving an extension to the floor. I am 

pleased that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse was able to pass a clean one-year extension through the Senate during the closing days of the last session of Congress, and 

I am pleased that you have decided to make this one of the first pieces of legislation 

to consider before the committee this Congress. 

It is vitally important that we pass H.R. 189. Without this extension, the period 

of foreclosure and eviction protections currently made available to servicemembers 

will revert from one year all the way back to the original 90 day period (see Section 

710(d)(3) of P.L. 112–154). On January 28, 2014, GAO issued Report No. GAO–14– 

221 entitled ‘Servicemembers Civil Relief Act: Information on Mortgage Protections 

and Related Education Efforts’. Page 13 of that report states: 

Our analysis of one servicer’s data suggests that all military borrowers—SCRA-protected or not—had a higher likelihood of becoming delinquent in the first year after 

they left active duty than when in the military. For example, in the loan-level data 

from an institution that used the DMDC database to check the military status of 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
32 

its entire loan portfolio, all of its military borrowers had a higher likelihood of becoming delinquent in the first year after they left active duty than when in service, 

with that risk declining somewhat over the course of the year for non-SCRA-protected military borrowers. 

Mr. Chairman, we currently protect recent veterans and soldiers from the unfortunate situation just described; and, respectfully, I urge this committee to continue 

to do so. No soldier should ever have to fight abroad and return home, only to find 

that it is no longer there. 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLER
33 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 1 here 97994.001
34 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 2 here 97994.002
35 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 3 here 97994.003
36 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 4 here 97994.004
37 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 5 here 97994.005
38 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 6 here 97994.006
39 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 7 here 97994.007
40 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 8 here 97994.008
41 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 9 here 97994.009
42 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 10 here 97994.010
43 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 11 here 97994.011
44 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 12 here 97994.012
45 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 13 here 97994.013
46 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 14 here 97994.014
47 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 15 here 97994.015
48 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 16 here 97994.016
49 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 17 here 97994.017
50 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 18 here 97994.018
51 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 19 here 97994.019
52 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 20 here 97994.020
53 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 21 here 97994.021
54 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 22 here 97994.022
55 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 23 here 97994.023
56 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 24 here 97994.024
57 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 25 here 97994.025
58 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 26 here 97994.026
59 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 27 here 97994.027
60 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 28 here 97994.028
61 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 29 here 97994.029
62 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 30 here 97994.030
63 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 31 here 97994.031
64 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 32 here 97994.032
65 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 33 here 97994.033
66 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 34 here 97994.034
67 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 35 here 97994.035
68 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 36 here 97994.036
69 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 37 here 97994.037
70 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 38 here 97994.038
71 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 39 here 97994.039
72 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 40 here 97994.040
73 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 41 here 97994.041
74 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 42 here 97994.042
75 

Æ 


VACREP0180 with DISTILLERInsert offset folio 43 here 97994.043