[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 4360; H.R. 592; H.R. 1030; H.R. 4165; H.R. 4183; H.R. 628; H.R.
1424; H.R. 1911, AND A DRAFT BILL TO EXTEND INCREASED DEPENDENCY AND
INDEMNITY COMPENSATION PAID TO SURVIVING SPOUSES OF VETERANS WHO DIE
FROM ALS, AND A DRAFT BILL TO PERMIT APPELLANTS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE
BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS VIA PICTURE AND VOICE TRANSMISSION FROM
LOCATIONS OUTSIDE THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-39
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
41-244 WASHINGTON : 2021
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
MARK TAKANO, California, Chairman
JULIA BROWNLEY, California DR. PHIL ROE, Tenessee, Ranking
KATHLEEN M. RICE, New York Member
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania, Vice- GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
Chairman AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, American
MIKE LEVIN, California Samoa
MAX ROSE, New York MIKE BOST, Illinois
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire DR. NEAL DUNN, Florida
ELAINE G. LURIA, Virginia JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
SUSIE LEE, Nevada JIM BANKS, Indiana
JOE CUNNINGHAM, South Carolina ANDY BARR, Kentucky
GILBERT RAY CISNEROS, JR., DAN MEUSER, Pennsylvania
California STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
COLLIN C. PETERSON, Minnesota CHIP ROY, Texas
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, GREG STEUBE, Florida
Northern Mariana Islands
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois
ANTHONY BRINDISI, New York
Ray Kelley, Democratic Staff Director
Jon Towers, Republican Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
ELAINE LURIA, Virginia, Chairwoman
GIL CISNEROS, California MIKE BOST, Illinois, Ranking
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, Member
Northern Mariana Islands GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
COLIN ALLRED, Texas STEVE WATKINS, Kansas
LAUREN UNDERWOOD, Illinois GREG STEUBE, Florida
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
----------
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
Page
H.R. 4360; H.R. 592; H.R. 1030; H.R. 4165; H.R. 4183; H.R. 628;
H.R. 1424; H.R. 1911, And A Draft Bill To Extend Increased
Dependency And Indemnity Compensation Paid To Surviving Spouses
Of Veterans Who Die From Als, And A Draft Bill To Permit
Appellants To Appear Before The Board Of Veterans' Appeals Via
Picture And Voice Transmission From Locations Outside The
Department Of Veterans Affairs................................. 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Honorable Elaine Luria, Chairwoman............................... 1
Honorable Mike Bost, Ranking Member.............................. 2
Honorable Gil Cisneros, U.S. House of Representatives, (CA-39)... 4
Honorable Julia Brownley, U.S. House of Representatives, (CA-26). 4
Honorable Antonio Delgado, U.S. House of Representatives, (NY-19) 5
Honorable Anthony Gonzalez, U.S. House of Representatives, (OH-
16)............................................................ 6
Honorable Ted Yoho, U.S. House of Representatives (FL-03)........ 7
Honorable Michael Waltz, U.S. House of Representatives (FL-06)... 8
,Honorable Ro Khanna, U.S. House of Representatives (CA-17)...... 9
WITNESSES
Mr. Ronald Burke, Executive Director, Pension & Fiduciary
Service, Veterans Benefits Administration...................... 9
Prepared Statement........................................... 31
Accompanied by:
Ms. Kimberly McLeod, Deputy Vice Chairman, Board of Veterans'
Appeals
Mr. Shane L. Liermann, Assistant National Legislative Director,
Disabled American Veterans..................................... 15
Prepared Statement........................................... 38
Mr. Brian Dempsey, Government Affairs Director, Wounded Warrior
Project........................................................ 17
Prepared Statement........................................... 43
Mr. Patrick Murray, Deputy Director, National Legislative
Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars.............................. 19
Prepared Statement........................................... 47
Ms. Ashlynne Haycock, Deputy Director, Policy & Legislation,
Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors....................... 21
Prepared Statement........................................... 50
STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD
The Honorable Andy Kim, (NJ-03).................................. 55
Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA).............................. 55
The American Legion (TAL)........................................ 58
H.R. 4360; H.R. 592; H.R. 1030; H.R. 4165; H.R. 4183; H.R. 628; H.R.
1424; H.R. 1911, AND A DRAFT BILL TO EXTEND INCREASED DEPENDENCY AND
INDEMNITY COMPENSATION PAID TO SURVIVING SPOUSES OF VETERANS WHO DIE
FROM ALS, AND A DRAFT BILL TO PERMIT APPELLANTS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE
BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS VIA PICTURE AND VOICE TRANSMISSION FROM
LOCATIONS OUTSIDE THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
----------
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
U. S. House of Representatives,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:31 a.m., in
Room 210, House Visitors Center, Hon. Elaine Luria [Chairwoman
of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Luria, Cisneros, Sablan,
Underwood, Bost, Bilirakis, and Steube.
Also Present: Representative Brownley.
OPENING STATEMENT OF ELAINE LURIA, CHAIRWOMAN
Ms. Luria. Good morning. I call this legislative hearing to
order. Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess at any time.
I would like to welcome you all to the Subcommittee on
Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs legislative hearing,
where we will hear testimony on ten pieces of legislation. The
vast majority of these proposals are bipartisan in nature,
something that is a hallmark of this Committee.
As chair of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and
Memorial Affairs, I have heard from veterans and their families
on the importance of getting timely and accurate decisions on
their claims for VA benefits. I have heard how devastating it
can be for a veteran and their family when they are victims of
fraud. Without pause, I know that Congress and the VA must do
more to serve our veterans and protect them from fraudulent
practices. I am grateful to my colleagues for their bipartisan
efforts to work towards this goal.
One example of this is Representative Brownley's bill, H.R.
592, the Protect Veterans from Financial Fraud Act, which would
provide parity in protecting veterans who are victims of fraud.
Each year, countless veterans have their benefits stolen by
their fiduciary, but for some veterans they cannot recoup their
benefits from the VA unless their fiduciary manages ten or more
veterans due to a bureaucratic loophole; Ms. Brownley's bill
puts an end to this disparity.
I am a proud original cosponsor of Representative Khanna's
bill, H.R. 4183, Identifying Barriers and Best Practices Study
Act. This bill helps identify barriers and benefit disparities
between veterans who served in the Guard, Reserve, and active
duty, and special programs such as those who served in the
nuclear field.
For any barriers identified, this bill also requests
recommendations for overcoming those barriers, so we can ease
the pathway to benefits for those veterans.
I also want to thank all of our witnesses for being here
today; we look forward to hearing your testimony.
With that, I would like to recognize Ranking Member Bost
for his opening statement. Mr. Bost, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
OPENING STATEMENT OF MIKE BOST, RANKING MEMBER
Mr. Bost. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank
everyone for joining us here today to discuss some of these
important pieces of legislation that will be before the
Subcommittee. The bills on today's agenda are intended to
address issues that are very important to veterans and their
families.
One of the bills is H.R. 628, it would allow Members to
help constituents who simply want to understand the status of
their claim for benefits. This bill would permit certain full-
time congressional staffers to look up the status of veterans'
claims on VA's claim system, but only, only if the veterans has
given the staffer permission. This access will provide
congressional employees with an insight needed to quickly
verify that the VA is working on the veteran's case and to
provide a status update to the constituents.
Moreover, the staffer would be able to confirm the VA has
received important documents such as the veteran's claim form
or private medical records.
Back in my district, I am approached constantly by veterans
who would like to know where their claim is and where it is at
in the process.
I employ a full-time caseworker--actually, I have two--
whose sole responsibility is to work on constituents'
assistance in their VA claims, and both of them are disabled
veterans, so they understand how difficult this can be to deal
with. You know, frequently this means that the caseworker is
writing to VA on behalf of veterans just to find out what is
going on with their case.
It can be very frustrating to wait weeks for the VA to get
back to us when a VA employee can access this information
within minutes.
Representative Yoho would cut through the red tape and
allow Members from the offices to provide veterans with
immediate feedback. I look forward to discussing H.R. 628 and
how it will help our constituents and serve our veterans.
Another bill, H.R. 1424, would require VA National
Cemeteries to allow the display of battlefield crosses, which
is a monument that depicts a fallen servicemember by an
inverted rifle with a helmet and dog tags on top and a pair of
combat boots at the bottom. Many of us have seen this symbol.
This is an image that every man and woman who has ever worn the
uniform knows and, unfortunately, knows it too well.
In 2017, a VA employee misinterpreted the VA's policy and
removed a battlefield cross from the Ohio Western Reserve
National Cemetery because it was a weapon or the symbol of a
weapon. In response to the veterans and congressional concerns
over the incident, the Department reinstated the monument and
clarified the cemetery can display this image. However, this
bill is necessary to codify this clarification and ensure that
VA does not ban this sacred image again.
I support this bill and appreciate Representative
Gonzalez's leadership on this issue.
Additionally, we will be discussing H.R. 1911, which will
be introduced by Representative Waltz. This bill will make
numerous changes to the VA and DoD benefits for surviving
spouses. Today, I would like to focus on the provisions that
would allow surviving spouses to continue to receive dependency
and indemnity compensation or DIC should they remarry,
regardless of age.
We owe a solemn date to the men and women who laid down
their lives in defense of our country and, for those that have
made the ultimate sacrifice, our Nation has a responsibility to
take care of their families. For that reason, the VA provides
DIC to survivors to make up for the loss of income that results
from the veteran's death, but can never make up for the death
itself.
Currently, only surviving spouses who are over the age of
57 are able to continue receiving DIC if they are remarried.
This is similar to other Government surviving benefits such as
Social Security, Civil Service programs, in which the survivor
is able to retain their benefits even if they remarry after a
certain age. I am interested in learning more about whether it
would be appropriate for a DIC to be the first Government
survivor program to remove this restriction.
I know many of my colleagues here today have worked hard on
their proposals. I look forward to discussing how these bills
will improve the lives of our veterans and their families.
And, with that, I yield back. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Bost.
For the first panel we will hear testimony from the Members
who introduced some of the legislation before us today. First,
we have Representative Cisneros from California, who sits on
this Subcommittee; and, next, we have Representative Brownley,
also from California, who chairs the Subcommittee on Health.
Welcome to you both.
Without objection, several of our colleagues will join us
for today's hearing: Representative Delgado from New York,
Representative Gonzalez from Ohio, Representative Yoho from
Florida, and Representative Waltz, also from Florida.
With that, I now recognize Representative Cisneros for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE GIL CISNEROS
Mr. Cisneros. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for providing a
hearing on my legislation, H.R. 4748, the Justice for ALS
Veterans Act. I was proud to introduce this bill with my
colleague Congressman Fitzpatrick, Chairman of the
Congressional ALS Caucus, and want to sincerely thank him for
his leadership on this devastating disease. Our legislation
would help ease the financial stress surviving family members
face when a veteran who is diagnosed with ALS dies.
ALS, also known as Lou Gehrig's disease, affects nerve
cells in the brain and spinal cord. This disease progresses
quickly, eventually preventing the victims from being able to
walk, write, speak, or even breathe on their own. Members of
the military are twice as likely to develop ALS, with one in
six ALS patients having served. No cure exists, no definitive
explanation for its cause, but what we do know is that the
disease is always fatal and devastating for the entire family
involved.
One such family is that of Marine Corps veteran George
Vasiloff, who was diagnosed with ALS in September 2013. The VA
rated him as 100 percent disabled as of November 2013. Less
than 2 years later, he died, leaving behind is wife, Jan, and
two children.
Under current law, Jan is not entitled to increased
dependency and indemnity compensation, despite caring for her
husband's service-connected disability until the day he died.
Currently, an eligible survivor of a veteran affected with a
service-connected disability only qualifies for increased DIC
if the service-connected disability was rated a total
disability for a continuous period of at least 8 years
immediately prior to death. But with a 2-to-5-year life
expectancy, veterans with ALS do not live long enough to meet
the eligibility criteria.
The Justice for ALS Veterans Act of 2019 would correct this
injustice by extending the increased DIC payment to surviving
spouses of veterans who die from ALS regardless of how long the
veteran had the disease prior to death.
Watching a loved one's life tragically cut short by ALS
takes incredibly strength and courage. No one should have to
take on the emotional and financial burden of this disease
alone, especially not family of our veterans, who are twice as
likely to develop ALS as those who had not served.
This is a commonsense, bipartisan legislation supported by
the Paralyzed Veterans of America, the Wounded Warrior Project,
and the ALS Association.
I thank the Committee for holding this hearing and urge
that it be marked up with deliberate speed.
With that, I yield back my time.
Ms. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Cisneros.
I apologize for the initial mistake. Each Member presenting
their bill will be given 2 minutes due to the large amount of
legislation that we will be considering today.
And I next recognize Ms. Brownley for 2 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE JULIA BROWNLEY
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, and the
Subcommittee for considering my legislation, the Protect
Veterans from Financial Fraud Act, to ensure that every veteran
who has served our country so bravely receive the benefits they
have earned and deserved, and for Congress to fulfill America's
promises.
As you know, the VA assigns fiduciaries to assist more than
177,000 veterans or their family members with managing their VA
benefits. These are our most vulnerable veterans who are unable
to manage their own financial decisions because of their age or
their health conditions. A fiduciary helps to ensure that a
veteran's benefits are used in the best interests of the
veteran, and the fiduciary is a critically important role at a
time when the veterans need their assistance the most.
Under Federal law, VA has the authority to remove a VA-
appointed fiduciary who has misused or stolen a veteran's
benefits. In fact, in fiscal year 2019, sadly, 975 fiduciaries
were removed based upon a finding of misuse.
When a fiduciary steals a veteran's benefits, this directly
takes away money from a veteran and can result in the inability
to pay for basic necessities such as housing and food. But,
perhaps even more importantly, a fiduciary has stolen a
veteran's dignity. VA can only reissue these benefits to their
veterans if their fiduciary manages VA benefits for at least
nine other veterans. This ten-or-more rule prevents VA from
making all veterans whole when they have been taken advantage
of by those entrusted to care for their finances at a very
vulnerable time in their lives.
My bill would ensure that all veterans in VA's fiduciary
program can recover misused or stolen benefits. To not restore
these benefits because someone else abused their
responsibilities, in my opinion, is truly inexcusable and it
must stop.
Both VA and our VSOs support extending these protections to
all beneficiaries in the fiduciary program, and I urge my
colleagues to support this bill to correct this cruel injustice
and ensure that every veteran is fully protected from any fraud
or abuse, and I am happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Madam Chair, for the time, and I yield back.
Ms. Luria. Thank you, Ms. Brownley.
And, Mr. Delgado, you are now recognized for 2 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE ANTHONY DELGADO
Mr. Delgado. Thank you, Chairwoman Luria and Ranking Member
Bost, for the opportunity to testify today about my bill, the
Improving Benefits for Under-Served Veterans Act, legislation
to better understand the needs of our Nation's veterans.
Throughout the years, our armed forces have become
increasingly diverse, with more women and minority groups
serving our country. In fact, in my district alone there are
more than 40,000 veterans, nearly 10 percent of which are
women, a trend that will only increase in the coming years.
Female veterans are also the fastest-growing segment of the
homeless veteran population, and in 2016 the suicide rate of
women veterans was nearly twice the suicide rate of non-veteran
women.
This summer, I visited a number of veterans organizations
and facilities in Upstate New York, including the Samaritan Day
Top Village in Ellenville, the Catskill VA Clinic, and the
Albany Stratton VA, to better understand the health care needs
of women veterans and learned that many female and minority
group veterans are unaware of their entitled benefits, leaving
critical benefits unused.
My legislation, the Improving Benefits for Under-Served
Veterans Act, would direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to
publish a report on veterans' benefits, disaggregating by sex
and minority group status. This would help Congress and the VA
better understand which benefits these groups are utilizing
and, importantly, which benefits they are not utilizing.
This forward-looking report will also allow Congress and
the VA to foresee trends and needs in veterans' benefits and
better understand how to serve them in the future.
I am grateful to the House Veterans' Affairs Committee for
all of its hard work and what will become the Deborah Sampson
Act, which if enacted would be the most comprehensive
legislation helping to serve women servicemembers, and I am so
happy it includes the Improving Benefits for Under-Served
Veterans Act.
I thank the Committee for the opportunity to speak on this
important issue. I yield back my time.
Ms. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Delgado.
Mr. Gonzalez, you are now recognized for 2 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE ANTHONY GONZALEZ
Mr. Gonzalez. Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to speak to you today about the first piece of
legislation I introduced as a Member of Congress, H.R. 1424,
the Fallen Warrior Battlefield Cross Memorial Act.
Battlefield cross memorials commemorate the service of
fallen soldiers who have given their lives in service to our
country. And, as Strongsville VFW Post Commander Tim Zvoncheck
puts it, it is imperative that this custom continues to be
displayed for as long as the sons and daughters of this Nation
are willing to give their lives in its defense.
I am proud to carry on the work of my predecessor,
Congressman Jim Renacci, who introduced a version of this bill
last Congress. As combat veteran Michael Kuhn from Massillon
explained to me, the battlefield cross encapsulates so many of
the most important things to a combat vet: his rifle, his
boots, his tags, and, most of all, his fallen comrade. It is
extremely important for us to have those things wrapped up in
one memorial for us to kneel to, grieve with, and talk to our
brothers in arms that have died the ultimate death.
The presence of a battlefield cross memorial in a national
cemetery has been a noncontroversial, time-honored tradition
since at least the Civil War. However, in the fall of 2017,
battlefield cross memorials in Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan
were abruptly removed. A VA employee mistakenly said it was
because they violated administration policy by depicting a
replica of a rifle. This is a significant mischaracterization
of the policy's intent.
After pressure from veterans and widespread local support,
the VA returned these memorials to their sites, but the future
of the battlefield cross memorials remains uncertain. The bill
codifies protections for battlefield cross memorials, securing
their placement in national cemeteries across the country.
One of the greatest champions for this cause was Elton
Boyer, president of the 555th Honors Detachment in my district.
He passed away this weekend, but it was Elton's mission to
erect a battlefield cross at the Ohio Western Reserve National
Cemetery in Seville, Ohio using the spent brass from military
funerals. My bill protects his work, clarifying that no
administrative policy change can allow the removal of this
memorial.
Thank you to the Subcommittee for holding a hearing on H.R.
1424. I urge passage of this legislation by the Committee at
the earliest possible opportunity.
Thank you.
Ms. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez.
Mr. Yoho, you are now recognized for 2 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE TED YOHO
Mr. Yoho. Chairman Luria, Ranking Member Bost, and
Committee Members, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to
testify on the bill H.R. 628, the WINGMAN Act, which is an
acronym for Working to Integrate Networks Guaranteeing Member
Access Now. This bill is a simple, commonsense bill that allows
the VA to focus on claims without having to act as the
middleman when Congress needs to access a document in their
database. This bill has had strong bipartisan support for the
last three Congresses and has passed the House unanimously
twice, and I look forward to it passing again.
We spend--as Congressman brought up, we spend probably 56
percent of our time in district and here in DC with veterans'
cases, and we are honored to do that, and this bill, the
genesis came out of the frustration of veterans and their
caseworkers that there has got to be a better way or quicker
way that we can facilitate the VA and the caseworkers. And I
understand the VA has some concerns with this bill and that
many people in the room have echoed them, so I would like to
take a moment to address some of their biggest concerns.
First, privacy. I, like everyone else in this room, believe
that privacy is utmost and that is the number one concern. We
are on a secure server, the same kind of security that the VA
has, and so those databases are protected. We only are asked to
do this by a veteran that has come to us and says can you help
us with our claim. They have filled the privacy form, we filled
that out, we access the same VA system.
And it is not to interfere, it is read-only access, so that
we can peek in and say this is the status of your claim and
this what you--maybe you didn't fill out the form right, you
didn't dot the I, you didn't cross the T, or you didn't sign
it, and these are things that we can expedite it because, as we
have heard, sometimes these cases take weeks, if not months, I
have heard some up to 6 months to a year, and this is a way to
expedite it and it is focused on the veteran's customer
service.
We are not looking to create jobs or take jobs away from
the VA or the VSOs or any veteran organizations, we are looking
to facilitate and give customer service to our veterans. And we
appreciate the bipartisan support that we have had, and we look
forward to working with you. And I appreciate the opportunity
to come here and you looking at this and putting your eyes on
it, because the bottom line is we have got to take care of our
veterans, they have given us the liberties and freedoms we
have, and I thank you for the time.
Ms. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Yoho.
I now recognize Mr. Waltz for 2 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE MICHAEL WALTZ
Mr. Waltz. Thank you, Chairwoman Luria and Ranking Member
Bost, for hosting today's legislative hearing.
Earlier this year, along with Representative Seth Moulton
and Don Bacon, I introduced H.R. 1911, the Sergeant First Class
Brian Woods Gold Star and Military Survivors Act. This
legislation is named in memory of a Green Beret that I had the
honor of serving with, who was killed in Afghanistan in 2009. I
am thankful to Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith and
Ranking Member Mac Thornberry for including several provisions
of this legislation in the House mark of this year's Defense
authorization bill, and I am confident that they will be
retained in conference. Therefore, the focus of my testimony
will be on Sections 3 and 6 of this legislation.
And let me first state, I fully support eliminating the
SBP/DIC offset; however, my legislation addresses a separate
aspect of these two benefit programs for surviving spouses. You
know, we all know that the families of our servicemembers wait
for their loved one's safe return, often anxiously waiting to
hear from them once more. Unfortunately, for some what they
hear is the chilling knock on their door from a chaplain. It
changes them forever and it makes them part of the Gold Star
family.
Under current law, if a Gold Star spouse remarries, as
Representative Bost mentioned, prior to turning 55, they lose
their SBP; if they remarry after turning 55, the SBP continues
uninterrupted. For the DIC, a Gold Star spouse loses those
benefits if they remarry prior to turning 57. I don't know
where these numbers come from, but that is the law. I would
like to highlight under a quirk of the law, Section 1311(e) of
U.S.C. 38, surviving spouses who remarry after age 57 receive
both SBP and DIC in full. Colleagues, this makes no sense.
My legislation simply allows surviving spouses to continue
to move forward with their lives, allow them to remarry free of
fear for losing their benefits owed to them for their family's
noble sacrifice. Instead, we now have spouses trying to move
forward with the next phase of their lives and they should not
be penalized.
As a combat veteran and a Green Beret, this is personal for
me. This is also a strategic issue for our volunteer military.
We are 18 years into the war on terror, I firmly believe we are
only in the beginning stages of a multi-generational war. This
is a team effort on these constant deployments, and they are
constantly deciding whether to continue to deploy.
The bottom line is, if our family support starts cracking,
the entire foundation of our modern military is in trouble. I
ask this Committee to favorably report this important
legislation.
Thank you.
Ms. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Waltz.
I now recognize Mr. Khanna for 2 minutes.
STATEMENT OF HONORABLE RO KHANNA
Mr. Khanna. Thank you, Chairwoman Luria, for your
leadership on so many issues. It has really been a pleasure
working with you on H.R. 4183. We need more veterans like you
in Congress and this Subcommittee is fortunate to have you as
its chair.
I would also like to thank Congresswoman Aumua Amata and
Congressman Cisneros, who sit on this Subcommittee, for their
co-sponsorship of this bill.
The Identifying Barriers and Best Practices Act will
require the GAO to look at disability and pension data over the
last decade to identify what, if any, barriers exist for these
veterans and provide recommendations for overcoming those
barriers.
Veterans who have served in groups such as pilots, air
crew, drivers, and Special Forces report difficulty in
establishing pensions, service-connection, and medical
treatment for injuries occurred while serving. We have heard
this happens because, for them to continue service, they avoid
documenting their injuries.
The bill proves our democracy still works. A constituent of
mine, Jerry Kromrey from Sunnyvale, California, who served in
the U.S. Air Force Reserves, literally attended every monthly
town hall of mine. Each time he raised this issue and as a
result of his advocacy, we are now having this legislative
hearing in the U.S. House Veterans' Affairs Committee and
thanks to Chairwoman Luria's leadership.
I want to thank the many veterans service organizations who
are supportive of this bill. I would also like to thank Sam
Frianco, who GAO has sat on the Subcommittee, has really been
instrumental in making this bill happen in this hearing today.
So, thank you, Sam.
I hope we can move this bill out of the Subcommittee and
this bill becomes law, so that we can make sure that all our
veterans get the treatment and care they deserve, and that
their disabilities are addressed.
I yield back and welcome any questions.
Ms. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Khanna.
We will now move to Panel 2. I will introduce the Members,
but you are welcome to go ahead and come forward to the table.
For our second panel we have Mr. Ronald Burke, Executive
Director of Pension and Fiduciary Service of the Veterans
Benefits Administration. He is accompanied by Ms. Kimberly
McLeod, Deputy Vice Chairman of the Board of Veterans' Appeals.
So, welcome to Mr. Burke and Ms. McLeod. And, Mr. Burke,
you are first recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF RONALD BURKE
Mr. Burke. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Luria, Ranking
Member Bost, and Subcommittee Members. Thank you for providing
VA the opportunity to discuss several VA-related bills
currently pending in Congress. In this testimony, I will be
providing views from the Department of Veterans Affairs on
pending legislation.
VA supports H.R. 1030, and also supports H.R. 592, if
amended. We would like to provide technical assistance to
clarify language in both bills.
VA has no objection to H.R. 1424, as the National Cemetery
Administration allows for display of fallen soldier memorials.
VA does not oppose H.R. 4183, but notes concerns with data
being available from DoD, and making comparisons between
military components that have different statutory requirements
for service.
VA cites concerns with Section 6(b) of H.R. 1911. This
section resumes payment of DIC to surviving spouses remarried
prior to age 57 even prior to enactment. This poses a
significant administrative burden in identifying and locating
potential beneficiaries whose names and whereabouts would need
to be determined.
VA also cites concerns with the Justice for ALS Veterans
Act of 2019, as it creates disparity of benefit entitlement
surviving spouses of veterans who passed away from other
progressive diseases, such as cancer, in less than the 8-year
period.
VA does not support H.R. 4165. The data collection in this
bill is not necessary for the administration of veterans'
benefits and adds to the claimant's burden. Further, this bill
would create a significant administrative hardship, as VA would
be required to update all application forms to capture this
data.
VA does not support H.R. 628. This bill improperly
conflates the concept of access to claims records with the
concept of recognizing individuals to act as agents and
attorneys in the VA benefits claims process. This bill requires
that VA provide each claimant an opportunity to permit a
congressional employee access to their records, which are
stored behind VA's firewall. This is unnecessary, as there are
long-standing methods for Congress to obtain the consent of a
VA claimant to disclose information. This bill would provide
congressional staff with greater access to VA records than is
provided to VA employees, whose access is limited to only
records required to perform their duties. In effect, this bill
exempts congressional staff from all FISMA requirements, which
would be unprecedented.
Additionally, VA would need to redesign its systems to
allow more than one Representative per veteran or claim, which
would require extensive time, monetary expense, and manpower.
VA would also have to track and adjust for changes in
congressional seats to ensure that access is revoked timely and
to inform veterans of such changes.
The bill also limits VA from obligating or spending more
than $10 million for the purposes of this bill. VA estimates
$145.8 million would be required for implementation. These
funds and resources could instead be utilized to support other
system improvements such as automation.
While VA appreciates the intent of H.R. 4360, VA does not
support this bill. The provisions of this bill are duplicative
of recently passed laws. VA concurs that expeditious resolution
of erroneous reporting is essential; however, VA has already
implemented robust procedures to do so, and partners with
various credit agencies to repair credit when an error is
discovered.
VA continues to work on standardizing notifications and
tracking metrics.
VA has concerns as it relates to reviewing the information
regarding dependents. In certain situations, it may not be
appropriate for VA to provide a veteran with information about
debts incurred by a dependent, such as when Federal tax
information of dependents is utilized.
VA is also working on several initiatives designed to
reduce or eliminate opportunities for overpayments to occur.
For example, we are utilizing new or existing data-matching
agreements with other Federal and state agencies.
Additional overpayment reduction could be achieved if
Congress were to enact VA's fiscal year 2020 legislative
proposal, which allows access to FTI for contractors who work
in VA systems. This will allow VA to continue modernization and
automation efforts by moving FTI into current systems.
Finally, VA supports the use of virtual technology to
enable veterans to participate in their appeals hearings
without the need for travel to a specific VA hearing location,
and would also appreciate a minor clarification of existing
law. However, VA does not support the language in this draft
bill without amendments.
As written, the draft language would specifically exclude
non-disability compensation appeals from the option to conduct
virtual hearings. This exclusion would be arbitrary,
complicated, and would not help to serve veterans who are in
need of these emerging technologies. Ms. Kim McLeod is here
from the Board to discuss this draft bill and will be happy to
take your questions.
VA appreciates Congress' support for our veterans and their
survivors, and looks forward to working with you and your staff
to provide any technical support you may request. And I am
sorry for going over the 5 minutes.
[The prepared statement of Ronald Burke appears in the
Appendix]
Ms. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Burke, for your testimony, and we
will now begin the question portion of the hearing. I recognize
myself for 5 minutes. And that was a perfect sequitur, because
I wanted to ask Ms. McLeod specifically about the draft
legislation relative to the tele-hearings for VBA processes.
And, Ms. McLeod, can you speak to the challenges and
successes you have had with the telehealth pilot, and do you
think that this program can be easily expanded?
Ms. McLeod. Thank you for the question this morning.
So, yes, so far, we have started phase one of the testing
of virtual hearings or tele-hearings at the Board. We started
on July 26th and we went through September 30th. During that
time, we held about 73 virtual hearings.
What we saw was that for the most part the veterans loved
it; the veterans service organizations and other private bar
attorneys also loved it. It allowed our most remote veterans to
have access to hearings and not have to travel, sometimes hours
and hours away, to get to a regional office to hold a hearing.
We have also had several homebound veterans who could not
travel without going through some extensive hardship to get to
an RO to have a hearing.
And so this just opens up the aperture for those veterans
to have hearings and to really choose how they want to hold
their hearings with the Board and our judges.
We believe that once we have the full integration of the IT
system with our current new caseload system, we will be able to
offer this as an option, and we believe it is really going to
allow us to bring down our backlog with virtual hearings.
Ms. Luria. Well, thank you. And it sounds like it has been
quite successful as a pilot and we will look to reviewing the
recommended changes for this legislation, and see what could or
should be incorporated prior to its introduction.
I would also like to speak to Mr. Burke specifically about
H.R. 592, the Protect Vets from Financial Fraud Act, introduced
by Ms. Brownley.
Specifically with that legislation, I have a hard time
understanding why we would protect veterans from fiduciary
fraud only in the case where the fiduciary serviced ten or more
veterans. Can you provide a breakdown between the number of
veterans who have fiduciaries in each group, like how many
fiduciaries are responsible for ten or more, is that a normal
circumstance, and how many are responsible for fewer than that?
Mr. Burke. Yes. Thank you for that question.
We have about 177,000 veterans that are in the fiduciary
program with approximately 170,000 distinct fiduciaries. So the
predominance of the representation is less than ten per
fiduciary.
That said, VA does support this bill, with the exception of
some wording that we would like to work with the Committee on.
As written right now, we would recommend strongly that the
language be changed from the date misuse was found to the date
misuse occurred. If we stick with the wording that exists now,
we will disadvantage some of those veterans that are served by
fiduciaries in the very sense that there is a different process
currently and, if we were to change the wording in the bill
itself to the date the misuse occurred, it would allow us upon
enactment of the bill to actually treat veterans the same way
whether it was the ten count or less than ten.
Ms. Luria. Thank you. And thank you for those
recommendations, we will look at that for further incorporation
and consideration in the bill.
I now recognize Mr. Bost for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bost. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Burke, just real quickly, in your testimony, though you
are in agreement with it, you said the 1424 is unnecessary
because VA has an existing policy that allows for displaying of
the battlefield cross in VA cemeteries; however, isn't it true
the VA can change that policy at any time to prohibit those
monuments?
And in fact this legislation was prompted by VA's attempt
in three different cemeteries to remove the memorial, and the
only reason they went back is because there was a public
outcry.
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir. What I would say is you are correct
that VA does currently have a policy; VA could change the
policy, we have no intention to; therefore, we have no
objection to this bill.
Mr. Bost. Right. Hopefully, for the future, that people
understand exactly what that monument is and what symbol is.
So, Ms. McLeod, you touched on this a little bit, but can
you please give details to what security measures are in place
to protect veterans' sensitive information from being
improperly accessed at a Board tele-hearing?
Ms. McLeod. Well, sure. The Board and the VA currently uses
for the virtual hearings the same platform that VHA uses for
the telehealth appointments, and so we follow all of the
regular IT protocols, standards, and regulations for securing
our platform. That is very important to us, it has been very
important to VHA, as they have been using the telehealth
platform for the last at least 2 years, and we believe their
privacy on the health side and the medical appointment side is
as important as the hearing side.
So that is very important that we maintain the level of
security for veterans, and so we are following all of the IT
standards and protocols for that.
Mr. Bost. Okay. At what point do you think that--let me
clarify this on what I am asking. At what point do you think
that we are going to be as comfortable with the teleconference
as we are sitting face-to-face? Are we to that point already,
or we have still got some bugs to work out, or not?
Ms. McLeod. So the only thing we are working out at this
point is the integration between our new IT scheduling system
for hearings and the telehealth platform. We were using a
generation one platform during the testing phase, but our
generation two is going to be integrated, and we believe at
that point we will be fully ready, you know, for full
implementation.
In fact, great stories of veterans who are either homebound
or VSOs who, instead of pick up all their veterans and
traveling 2 hours to the nearest RO, are now holding virtual
hearings out of their office and they don't have to travel with
the veterans who sit, you know, waiting patiently, of course,
all day at the RO 2 hours away from their home.
So we believe it is a game changer, and veterans and
veterans service organizations are really looking forward to
opening virtual hearings at the Board.
Mr. Bost. Yes, I think everybody is. I hope that we move as
fast as possible, but make sure that we are secure as possible.
Ms. McLeod. Absolutely, sir.
Mr. Bost. Mr. Burke, regarding H.R. 4165, the VA states it
does not collect private citizens' information on veterans such
as minority group member status, when VA has no business and no
need to do so. However, your testimony also mentions the VA
Minority Veterans Report, which provides a comparison of
benefits usage among minority and non-minority veterans. Can
you clarify the information that VBA collects on the minority
status of veterans?
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir. Thank you for that question.
Right now, the data referenced in the testimony is data
that is collected on a voluntary basis. So the data itself is
not representative of the aggregate of the veterans that we are
serving. And so, in order to enact the bill as written, you
know, our position is that we don't need that information to
administer the delivery of benefits.
What we do publish, again, is information that is submitted
to us or collected on a voluntary basis; there is no mandatory
collection. And our concern would be that putting out
information without the total picture, without it having full
context, may misrepresent the intent of collecting the data to
begin with.
Mr. Bost. Thank you.
With that, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Bost.
I now recognize Mr. Cisneros for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cisneros. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
I want to ask you about the Justice for ALS Veterans Act of
2019, H.R. bill 4748. In the VA's testimony, it states that the
VA understands the intent of the bill and recognizes the
important step in caring for surviving spouses. Regarding the
Justice for ALS Veterans Act, what has been the VA's experience
in treatment of this aggressive disease?
Mr. Burke. So, as you said, sir--thank you for the
question--so, as you said, this is a terribly debilitating and
progressive disease. This is one that VA takes seriously. But
with respect to the bill itself, while we support the intent,
our concern is merely about two points. It is we want to make
sure that we are not creating disparity between this
progressive disease and others such as cancer.
And the other thing, that the bill would need some
clarification on would just be a clarification in the bill
itself that talks to whether or not the surviving spouse would
need to be married for 8 years continuously before. We think
with the progressive nature of the condition it could be
problematic if the bill was not clarified on that 8-year
requirement.
Mr. Cisneros. In regard to other aggressive diseases, would
the VA support legislation that included other aggressive
diseases such as cancer, as you mentioned?
Mr. Burke. Again, on this specific one we are supportive of
the ALS, except for the fact that it seems to draw a disparity
between other conditions, and we would like to see all the
progressive conditions treated in a similar manner.
Mr. Cisneros. And so, if the disparity was removed, the VA
would support that type of legislation?
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cisneros. All right. And in regard to the spouse, you
know, being married, if that clarification was made more clear,
would the VA also continue to support the legislation?
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir. We think without clarifying the 8-year
requirement it could be problematic and actually go against the
intent of the proposed legislation.
Mr. Cisneros. All right. With that, I yield back my time.
Ms. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Cisneros.
Mr. Sablan, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Burke, again, I will come back to you. Do you know how
many veterans are under fiduciary care in the Northern Mariana
Islands?
Mr. Burke. I would like to take that one for the record. I
have overarching aggregate numbers, but not specifically for
the areas--
Mr. Sablan. Okay. So--
Mr. Burke [continued]. --you are referencing, but we can
get that.
Mr. Sablan [continued]. --when you do that, could you also
please tell me what kind of systems are in place to protect
veterans, both in the inconus [phonetic] as they call it or in
the mainland and in the territories?
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir. And I can speak to that briefly now.
And we will certainly follow up with the specific information
about your area so we can get you those numbers.
What I will tell you is that we have a very aggressive
approach to treating allegations of misuse in our fiduciary
program. We have steps in place to ensure that we are quick in
removing a fiduciary and reappointing when misuse is determined
and found. We have processes in place that would allow us to
reimburse any money that was misused by a fiduciary.
In fact, when a fiduciary currently that has 10 or more
individuals is alleged of misuse, not only will we look at the
misuse for the individual that was, you know, that raised the
alarm, but for all veterans under that fiduciary's care.
In fact, we do that whether the fiduciary has 1 under their
care or none. So we do have a misuse process. We do internal
investigative steps to ensure that we are reappointing a solid,
dependable, reliable, trustworthy fiduciary and restoring
benefits--
Mr. Sablan. Okay. And that's--
Mr. Burke [continued]. --with the--
Mr. Sablan [continued]. --standard throughout the country?
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir. That is correct.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you.
Mr. Burke. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sablan. Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Sablan.
I would like thank Mr. Burke and Ms. McLeod for your
testimony today. And we will move onto the third panel.
[Pause]
Ms. Luria. And while the third panel takes their seat, I
will go ahead and make introductions.
Appearing before us today is Shane Liermann, Assistant
National Legislative Director of the Disabled American
Veterans. We also have Mr. Brian Dempsey, Government Affairs
Director of the Wounded Warrior Project, as well as Patrick
Murray, Deputy Director at the Veterans of Foreign Wars, and
finally Ashlynne Haycock, Deputy Director of Policy and
Legislation at the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors.
Thank you all for joining us today.
[Pause]
Ms. Luria. Mr. Liermann, I will recognize you first for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF SHANE LIERMANN
Mr. Liermann. Thank you.
Chairwoman Luria, Ranking Member Bost and Members of the
Subcommittee, on behalf of DAV's more than 1 million members,
we thank you for the opportunity to present our views at
today's legislative hearing.
Our written testimony addresses all of the bills and
discussion drafts. However, my oral remarks will highlight just
a few of these.
Madam Chair, dependency and indemnity compensation or DIC
is paid to surviving spouses when a veteran's death is
determined to be service-connected. An additional DIC monthly
payment, currently $280, is paid when a veteran was 100 percent
disabled for 8 consecutive months prior to death. This is
commonly referred to as the DIC kicker.
H.R. 4748, the Justice for ALS Veterans Act of 2019 would
extend the DIC kicker to surviving spouses of veterans who died
from ALS regardless of how long the veteran was service-
connected for the condition prior to death.
VA regulations recognize ALS as a presumptive service-
connected disease and due to its progressive nature is
automatically rated at 100 percent disabling once service-
connection is granted. ALS is a completely consuming disease
process, eventually taking away the ability to walk, dress,
write, speak, swallow and even breath. The average life
expectancy for a person with ALS is 2 to 5 years.
DAV supports H.R. 4748 as it will extend the DIC kicker to
survivors of veterans who cause of death is ALS. The
aggressiveness of ALS leaves many veterans totally
incapacitated and reliant on family members and care givers,
and even in the best scenarios generally does not allow life
expectancy past 8 years.
Madam Chair, currently there are approximately 60,000
pending hearings before the Board of Veterans' Appeals. We are
concerned about this backlog of hearings and the time it adds
to the overall appeals process. The Appeals Modernization Act
changed statutory requirements for the appeals process which
provides only 2 options for a hearing before the board: 1, a
hearing in person at the Board of Veterans' Appeals; and, 2, a
video conference hearing at a VA facility where the secretary
has provided a suitable location and equipment to conduct such
hearings.
Recently, the board established a pilot program that
provides appellants the opportunity to attend a video
conference hearing from any location rather than traveling to
their local VA regional office or another VA location that has
suitable facilities.
In September the board pilot program reported an attendance
rate of over 65 percent, which is roughly an increase of 15
percent over the usual hearing attendance rate. The board noted
that a video hearing was conducted for a paralyzed veteran from
their own home, so the veteran did not have to travel 175 miles
to attend a video hearing at the St. Petersburg VA Regional
Office.
This legislation would amend the statute to allow
appellants to have a video hearing at a location selected by
the appellant via a secure internet platform established and
maintained by the VA. DAV would support legislation that
provides an additional option for video hearings as this would
increase the efficiency and timeliness of the appeals process.
DAV, however, would recommend, as has been noted, an
amendment to the draft to allow all appeals before the board to
have this additional option.
In reference to H.R. 628, the Wingman Act, DAV does not
have a resolution on this bill and does not support or oppose
the legislation. We recommend that covered congressional
employees be provided training, VA accreditation or similar
certification and have safeguards in place to ensure that a
veteran can be made whole in any instance of unintended harm.
VSOs, agents, and attorneys are required to complete VA
mandated training and become accredited in order to be
recognized by VA as being capable of assisting claimants with
their affairs before VA. Covered congressional employees should
meet the same standards of required VA training and
accreditation. This will provide an increased knowledge of VA
processes and provide accountability.
If a covered congressional employee provides information,
advice or their lack of timely action causes financial harm to
a veteran or a claimant, a process should be in place to ensure
the veteran will be made financially whole.
Madam Chair, this concludes my testimony. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or Members or the
Subcommittee may have.
[The prepared statement of Shane Liermann appears in the
Appendix]
Ms. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Liermann.
Mr. Dempsey, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN DEMPSEY
Mr. Dempsey. Thank you.
Good morning, Chair Luria, Ranking Member Bost, and
distinguished Subcommittee Members. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify at today's hearing and offer Wounded
Warrior Project's views on legislation under your
consideration.
My name is Brian Dempsey and I have the privilege of
representing Wounded Warrior Project as a government affairs
director here in our Washington, D.C. office, and my testimony
is informed by thousands of engagements with warriors across
the country and overseas who have used programs and services
delivered by our team and partners.
The written testimony you have received reflects Wounded
Warrior Project's views on each of the bills before you, but
for today's hearing I will focus on 3 that we believe are most
aligned with the way our organization is serving the community.
First, we are pleased to support H.R. 592, the Protect
Veterans From Financial Fraud Act and what it proposes to do
for veterans who need a heightened degree of support to manage
their financial affairs.
Our organization's independence program helps warriors with
high needs navigate public and private support programs to help
them achieve meaningful levels of activity, purpose and
independence in their daily lives. Many in this program can
attest that the fiduciary program has been successful in
helping them manage the money they receive from VA.
However, we know that some veterans enrolled in this VA
program have been the victim of fiduciaries who have taken
advantage of positions of trust to personally benefit at their
veteran's expense. The Protect Veterans From Financial Fraud
Act would remove an arbitrary barrier that currently limits
some veterans from recouping lost benefits as a result of fraud
and abuse, and we believe provides a necessary and overdue
improvement to a system that must work as efficiently as
possible for the most vulnerable warriors.
Wounded Warrior Project is also pleased to support H.R.
4183, the Identifying Barriers and Best Practices Study Act.
Our benefits services officers would share that some of the
largest barriers to supporting National Guardsmen, reservists
and even some special operations personnel who suffered
injuries and illnesses in combat are poor injury reporting
procedures and challenges with retention and accountability of
their service records. These shortcomings create a variety of
obstacles for VSOs to help them file for their disability
benefits.
As an example, a Missouri veteran struggling with
homelessness recently reached out to Wounded Warrior Project
for assistance, including help with securing VA disability
benefits. In 2004, this veteran was assigned to an air guard
unit out of Kansas, tasked with flying injured and killed in
action soldiers out of the middle east to Germany and
subsequently stateside. He discharged in 2005 and his unit
reports that there are no records of the flights in which he
participated nor can they find his records.
He was subsequently diagnosed with PTSD and major
depressive disorder, but due to lost records he has been
unsuccessful in establishing service-connection after multiple
attempts. He has lost his house, his family, he is now
divorced, and still resides in a homeless shelter in Kansas
City, Missouri, where fortunately Wounded Warrior Project staff
have been working diligently to help him secure compensation
for his injuries.
While the Identifying Barriers and Best Practices Study Act
may not provide immediate relief to veterans like this, we
believe the bill would help validate many of the anecdotal
stories we can share from the field, and we would be pleased to
hear GAO recommendations for how to improve the care and
benefit system for those who are struggling to achieve outcomes
that match their sacrifices.
Finally, Wounded Warrior Project is pleased to support H.R.
4360, the VA Overpayment Accountability Act. One of the
benefits of being a VSO is having the ability to work with VA
systems such as the Veterans Benefits Management System and VA
Share Platform that allow us to monitor our veterans' claims
file for adverse actions that could negatively impact the
warriors we serve.
One of those actions is debt recoupments that most veterans
aren't even aware they are responsible for. There is not enough
information or transparency from VA to help veterans understand
their duties in scenarios like these.
Unfortunately, not every veteran will benefit from the
vigilance of a VSO or personally track their responsibility for
follow up when VA makes an erroneous overpayment. We believe
this bill can mitigate the associated risks.
Over a third of the post-9/11 wounded, ill and injured
warriors who registered with Wounded Warrior Project carry more
than $20,000 in debt, excluding mortgages, and when the domino
effect of inaction begins to harm their credit or when VA
withholds payment that they depend on, trouble can manifest in
many ways.
Our organization recognizes that physical and mental health
are often built from the foundation that includes financial
security, and we believe the VA Overpayment Accountability Act
would correct shortcomings in the benefit system that place
veterans at unnecessary risk.
While further improvements to the system can still be made,
such as policies to address the burden of debt repayment when
it becomes necessary, we are pleased to support this bill and
the steps it takes to protect veterans' credit.
In closing, I wish to express Wounded Warrior Project's
support for other initiatives being considered by the
Subcommittee today, including those that take care to address
issues being faced by women veterans, minority veterans, and
veteran families. Our statement for the record reflects more
thoughts on these bills, but we are pleased that others on
today's panel can speak to the merits of these important pieces
of legislation.
We appreciate the opportunity to testify and we thank you
for allowing us to be part of this very important work as we
care for and serve those who have served our Nation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Brian Dempsey appears in the
Appendix]
Ms. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Dempsey.
I now recognize Mr. Murray for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK MURRAY
Mr. Murray. Chairwoman Luria, Ranking Member Bost, and
Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the VFW thank you for
the opportunity to testify on legislation pending before the
Subcommittee.
The VFW supports the VA Overpayment Accountability Act and
has some recommendations to improve it. This legislation would
improve VA's debt collection process, limit the authority of VA
to recover overpayments caused by its own errors, and improve
due process.
Many veterans who were never indebted to VA have had
erroneous information submitted to consumer reporting agencies
due to VA's mistakes. It is unconscionable for a veteran to
receive a negative credit rating as a result of VA's error.
According, the VFW supports legislation that requires VA to
implement safeguards to prevent the submission of false
information and to make corrections in a timely manner.
Furthermore, the VA was pleased to review and offer
feedback in the crafting of new, more simply worded letters of
potential VA debts. We also request that VA collaborate with
and inform VSOs regarding any updates to the standardized
format of debt letters.
Due process requires that debt notices following
overpayments are clear and provide concise information about
the steps a veteran must take in order to resolve any
outstanding debts.
The VFW also urges this Subcommittee to incorporate
provisions that would grant additional safeguards and more
flexibility within the debt repayment system.
The VFW supports the Protect Veterans From Financial Fraud
Act of 2019. This legislation would ensure that VA repays the
misused benefits of veterans with fiduciaries. This is a
commonsense bill that protects our most vulnerable veterans.
Individuals assigned to help a fiduciary--individuals assigned
a fiduciary need help and financial protection. And anyone who
mistreats, preys upon or otherwise causes them harm must be
held accountable and full restitution must be made.
Abusing the health and financial welfare of veterans in
need must be punishable by law. Therefore, the VFW recommends
imposing criminal and financial penalties on individuals found
to prey upon veterans for personal gain.
The VFW supports the Identifying Barriers and Best
Practices Study Act and has a few recommendations to improve
it. This legislation will require the GAO to conduct a study on
VA disability and pension benefits provided to members of the
National Guard and Reserves.
In the years since the terrorist attacks of September 11th,
2001, the Guard and Reserve have faithfully answered the call
to service. DoD has increasingly relied upon these components
for missions at home and overseas.
Unfortunately, these servicemembers face unique challenges
when applying for VA benefits. Guard and Reserve members
frequently have trouble obtaining medical records which tend to
be scattered and incomplete. VA disproportionally denies
reservists and guardsmen benefits because they can't establish
a condition that is service-connected.
The VFW recommends this Subcommittee authorize a study on
benefits provided to members of the Guard and Reserve for the
entirety of the global war on terror, not just the 10 year
period.
Furthermore, the VFW encourages the Subcommittee to require
VA to keep this data tracking as an ongoing analysis during the
application and enrollment for benefits, not just simply for a
specified amount of time.
Additionally, the VFW supports the Improving Benefits for
Underserved Veterans Act to further identify disparities in
usage of VA benefits. This legislation would assist VA in
ensuring that all veterans use the benefits to which they're
entitled, and that access to health care and outcomes remain
consistent across all demographics.
Additional knowledge about the VA population and who is
using care and benefits will help identify where gaps occur and
where resources can be targeted.
The VFW supports the draft legislation to permit appellants
to appear in disability compensation cases before the Board of
veteran Appeals by picture and voice from locations other than
VA facilities.
Emerging VA programs such as Telehealth and Project Atlas
already utilize similar remote technology and veterans have
found these programs incredibly convenient. This legislation
would undoubtedly improve access for veteran appellants and
would permit a greater number of veterans to attend their own
hearings.
Now the VFW thinks this is an important provision, but
urges the Subcommittee to ensure that adequate internet
security measures are implemented to prevent data breaches and
safeguard sensitive information.
Finally, the VFW supports the Veterans' Spouse Equal
Treatment Act. The VFW believes that all veterans and their
families deserve to be treated with dignity and respect, and
the statutory language of Title 38 should be updated to conform
to recent Supreme Court decisions.
Chairwoman Luria, Ranking Member Bost, Members of the
Subcommittee, this concludes my testimony. I would be more than
happy to answer any questions that you or any of the Members
may have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Patrick Murray appears in the
Appendix]
Ms. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Murray.
I now recognize Ms. Haycock for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ASHLYNNE HAYCOCK
Ms. Haycock. Chairwoman Luria, Ranking Member Bost, and
distinguished Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity
to speak on behalf of the surviving families of our Nation's
fallen heroes.
Ending the penalty on remarriage for surviving military
spouses is one of the top legislative priorities for TAPS. We
are incredibly thankful to Representatives Waltz, Moulton and
Bacon for bringing it to the forefront this year. Preventing
surviving spouses from maintaining benefits upon remarriage
prevents them from being able to fully move forward with their
lives and maintain financial security for themselves and their
families. Many have children to consider and so commit to long-
term relationships or engagements instead of legally
remarrying.
The average age of a military widow in the post 9/11 era is
25. They should not have to wait 32 years to legally remarry.
Under current law, surviving spouses can legally remarry at
age 57 and maintain all benefits except health care. If they
choose to remarry after 57, they are no longer subjected to the
SBP-DIC offset or widow's tax and receive both benefits in
full. The age 57 is arbitrary and leaves spouses waiting for
years or decades to legally remarry.
In one case, a surviving spouse who asked to remain
anonymous was widowed in her 30s with young children. In her
mid-40s she met her second chance who was also an Army
Lieutenant Colonel. After a couple of years, they got engaged,
but still have 7 more years before they actually get married.
Her fiance believes that taking her benefits away is
disregarding her late husband's sacrifice and his nearly 20
years of service.
She also asked me to make the Committee aware of his
situation. He got married while on leave from Afghanistan many
years ago. They had 2 children and were only married for 4
years. When it came time to PCS, she filed for divorce as she
did not want to leave her home. He served well over 20 years.
She receives 12 percent of his retired Lieutenant Colonel's
pension for life, even if she remarries.
In this case we hold former spouses in higher regards than
we do those who have made the ultimate sacrifice. Many military
spouses wanted to share their story with us, but asked to
remain anonymous because in addition to the remarriage penalty,
there's also a Federal statute that prevents them from holding
themselves out to be married. The clause is incredibly vague
and arguably VA could take away their benefits because they co-
habitats.
While very few people have actually lost benefits due to
this clause, surviving military spouses in long-term
relationships live in fear of being investigated because
someone turned them in for holding themselves out to be
married. The clause and Federal statute should be removed
because, honestly, it's archaic.
TAPS also believes that several other provisions should be
considered as well so as to fully restore benefits for
remarried spouses. TAPS would like to see surviving military
spouses able to retain education benefits upon remarriage. The
Fry scholarship is one of the most important benefits we have
given surviving spouses.
Education benefits provide surviving spouses additional
financial freedom. As we know, military spouses are one of the
most unemployed and underemployed populations. Due to frequent
moves, careers become difficult to maintain and it's almost
impossible to fully vest in their own retirement, which is why
the SBP benefit is so important.
After the death of their servicemember, many choose to
follow their own dreams and pursue a career such as going into
mental health, teaching or nursing. Just because they find love
again does not mean they should not be afforded the same
economic opportunities. We have seen time and time again the
importance of our investment into the GI Bill and this should
be no different.
In addition, it is not just financial benefits that
survivors lose upon remarriage. It's access to all of the
abilities to be their children's guardians in the eyes of DoD
and Tricare. They do not have access to any Tricare records or
referrals.
The story of Kaanan Mackey-Fugler, whose husband died in
2010 and who legally remarried in 2017 illustrates this point.
She was fine with giving up the financial benefits, but never
thought it would jeopardize her ability to take care of her
children.
In June 2018, her youngest daughter, Hannah, was
hospitalized after having flu like symptoms and losing 20
pounds in 2 weeks. She was only 9 years old at the time. She
was diagnosed with Type 1 Diabetes. Tricare needed new HIPPA
forms every time they talked to Kaanan because they did not
view her as her child's legal guardian. Kaanan tried to change
her daughter's primary care doctor in the system only to learn
she no longer had access to it. She had to physically mail
forms as she no longer had electronic access to her children's
Tricare.
Minor children do not have their own accounts and Kaanan
does not have an account because she's no longer in DEERS. As
her daughter obviously has a long-term debilitating condition
and needs a lot of medical care, yet she cannot help her child
and has to wait weeks for referrals instead of being able to do
it electronically. Just because she has remarried does not make
her any less her children's only living parent.
TAPS request the Committee pass legislation that would end
the hold yourself out to be married clause, reinstate education
benefits for remarried spouses, and restore access to
electronic medical records for those who are guardians of minor
children in addition torestoring the SBP and DIC for remarried
spouses.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I look
forward to answering any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Ashlynne Haycock appears in the
Appendix]
Ms. Luria. Thank you, Ms. Haycock, and thank you to all of
the witnesses for being here today.
I will now move on to the question portion of the hearing,
and I recognize myself for 5 minutes for questions.
The first question for Mr. Dempsey and Mr. Murray as you
both discussed this in your testimony. Can you provide an
example of how the VA might provide erroneous or derogatory
information to a consumer reporting agency due to their own
error? And do you believe that negative credit reporting might
produce extreme hardship, especially for lower income veterans?
Mr. Murray. Ma'am, the credit reporting that is erroneously
done causes years of sometimes financial hardship that if
anybody who has had to do it knows it is a pretty burdensome
process to chase those down and get the appropriate records.
Having VA assist in that as actively as they can is something
that can help ease that burden for veterans. Doing it on your
own is a tough process.
We recommend in this legislation adding some flexibility of
kind of preventing VA from automatically reporting if the
overpayment is under dispute, some flexibility so that there's
a little bit of time for the veteran who may have had that
erroneous overpayment notification to put a hold on that while
the situation gets adjudicated before it gets sent to the
reporting companies.
Ms. Luria. And I think that you also made some
recommendations specifically about the notification process to
veterans so that they were better informed and could more
clearly understand the debt to the VA. Can you comment on that?
Mr. Murray. Yes, ma'am. We do thank VA that we were allowed
as a collaborative effort to help to clarify the debt
notification process. We hope that it can always improve so
that clear and concise notification about what is owed and why
that overpayment might have been made, the processes for
rectifying that, maybe a payment plan or, you know, what steps
need to be taken, those are things that we think is vitally
important so that it's not as simple of a notification that
they receive that is too confusing.
Ms. Luria. Thank you and thanks for your work on that.
Mr. Dempsey, did you have more to add?
Mr. Dempsey. Only a minor bit. I would share many of Mr.
Murray's comments as well. And, you know, to the point of
improving the process of notifying a veteran, I would say that
the typical process typically relies on regular mail these
days. There's typically not a phone call, e-mail, and mail
typically goes to the last known address which as we know
veterans, like others, move around, and given the short window
of time that this typically takes place relying on an older
mail system, you know, would require an improvement. But I
would obviously commend VA for efforts that they're already
undertaking to improve the process.
Ms. Luria. So on that, can you comment on the e-notice that
is outlined in the bill?
Mr. Dempsey. I can't specifically recall what the text of
the bill says, but I would support, you know, initiatives to
improve information technology systems that would support the
process.
Ms. Luria. Thank you.
Mr. Murray, again, in your written testimony you mentioned
that the Wingman Act does not adequately safeguard veterans'
privacy. Can you describe the potential impact on veterans'
privacy if the appropriate privacy controls are not put in
place if this act were to be implemented?
Mr. Murray. Absolutely.
So the VFW accredits about 2500 veteran service officers
across the country, and our collective organizations it's
thousands. And they go through rigorous training with privacy
safeguards in place so that, you know, something that a lay
person might not recognize is a disclosure of sensitive
information without training, without just the knowledge of
what it is they're actually looking at. While it sounds like
something that's a very easy, let me just look up your file and
tell you where it's at, you are actually looking at someone's
medical information. Without the proper training and just even
letting them know what you can and can't say to your office
mates or your, you know, your boss, whatever it might be,
things like that could disclose information that the patient
might not want even if they did ask you to look at their file.
We recommend that while this sounds like a great idea, a
little bit of training would make it even better so that
everybody's collective staffs would know exactly what they're
doing so that they aren't harming themselves or the patient
they are looking after.
Ms. Luria. Thank you.
And Mr. Liermann, I believe you also mentioned this in your
written testimony. Do you have any additional feedback on the
Wingman Act and whether it would be helpful or potentially
harmful to the privacy of veterans?
Mr. Liermann. Thank you.
Not so much as interest to the privacy of the veteran, more
of we want to make sure that veterans and their claimants would
have certain safeguards or protections.
So, as Mr. Murray said, training really is a bit part of
this. We want to make sure if this does move forward they are
provided the same level and types of trainings that VSOs,
attorneys and claims agents are so, 1, not only do they
understand privacy issues, but more importantly, they
understand exactly what it is they are looking at because it is
not as simple as just opening up VBMS and knowing the status.
You really have to understand what has been submitted, the
process, where it is.
So we just want to make sure that if this does move
forward, adequate training is provided just to make sure they
are not providing any information or misinformation that may
harm a veteran.
Ms. Luria. Thank you. And I believe I'm out of time for
this round. So I will pass it to Mr. Bost for 5 minutes of
questioning.
Mr. Bost. Thank you, Chair.
My first question is for Ms. Haycock. Does TAPS have any
recommendations for the way that H.R. 1911 could be amended to
better serve surviving family members?
Ms. Haycock. Sure. So because parts of the bill do fall
under DoD we know that some of the health care provisions that
we recommend as far as access to records would fall under them,
we do believe that they could also include a provision to allow
surviving spouses to co-habitate, so removing the hold yourself
out to be remarried clause, as well as including provisions to
allow surviving spouses to maintain education benefits upon
remarriage.
Mr. Bost. Okay. So the next question I have is for the
whole panel.
Can you each describe the extent to which that your
organization received any consultation prior to the roll out of
the board's telehearing program? And then also any suggestions
you might have for the roll out that might even improve it or
speed the process up.
Mr. Liermann, I guess you can--
Mr. Liermann. Oh, thank you.
Yes. DAV was invited and provided all of that information
before it was rolled out. We have an office at the Board of
Veterans' Appeals, our national appeals office, and they were
involved from day one with the process, understood it. They
have participated in several of these hearings. And we are
getting positive feedback from our office that it is being very
effective, especially as has been noted for veterans who have
limited access to VA facilities due to distance or their
disabilities.
Mr. Bost. Okay. Mr. Dempsey.
Mr. Dempsey. At the risk of, you know, misstating the
amount of engagement that Wounded Warrior Project receives, I
can't, you know, determine whether or not we were engaged at
that stage. But what I would say is that the majority of
assistance we are providing with veterans is at the pre-board
of appeals stage, Board of Veterans' Appeal stage. So I would
limit it to that for now.
Mr. Murray. Sir, the VFW also has an office at the Board of
Veterans' Appeals, and much like my colleagues said, we were
involved in some of the initial origins of this. And we would
encourage to expand this for rural and veterans effected by
distance and their disabilities to every extent practical.
Mr. Bost. You probably weren't affected, so that--yeah.
So, okay. Now I have got a question also on the Wingman
Act. The reason I am asking this is, is you are not opposed to
the legislative office having the ability. You are just
requesting that some education goes along with it; is that
correct?
Mr. Murray. Sir, recently we went out to Montana where one
of the initial Project Atlas sites is and worked with center
tester staff and went through a modified training course so
that his staff knew exactly how to handle constituents and
cases like this.
We would be more than happy to provide some kind of a
framework for training. It is really--we don't want just the
average lay person to be able to open up someone's file and
provide the wrong information and send a veteran off to the
wrong place. Training and education would make that something
that we could get behind.
Mr. Liermann. And you are correct. We do not oppose the
legislation, but training really is the big key. Personally,
having represented veterans for 21 years, there is a lot of
information contained within the file. You really need to
understand not only what you are reading, but what you are
relaying because some of the information you relay or the
advice you give could actually be detrimental.
So we just want to make sure that there is a lot of
training and even possibly an accreditation or certification
process that holds some accountability for them so that way we
all know they are trained, they are educated, and they are
providing good service to veterans.
Mr. Bost. Mr. Dempsey.
Mr. Dempsey. Yes. I would echo a lot of the statements of
my colleagues here at the table, while adding that we clearly
support the intent of providing the best possible constituent
services for veterans and non-veterans alike, and that our
reservations about the bill are mostly focused just on training
and staff turnover for organizations that have VSO service
officers across the country. There is a lot more capacity to
absorb any staff turnover or ensure that, you know, anyone
representing a veteran is adequately trained.
And while I have no doubt that several member offices would
be able to provide great service through covered congressional
staff in the event that there is turnover or just, you know,
staff that may not be as good at the job they have been
expected to perform, just that, you know, the Wingman Act may,
you know, provide help and support for many, but maybe at the
possible exposure of risk in other situations.
Mr. Bost. And I appreciate that. And my time is expired,
but I want to just quickly say that my--I guess I am blessed
better than most because my 2 case workers that work are both
themselves disabled veterans and were VSOs as well. And I have
watched, and it is kind of like when you come to this place,
the acronyms that flow out and you have got to know what those
acronyms are and--because sometimes I have to slow them down
and say, okay, now give me the full word, so.
But thank you. I yield back.
Ms. Luria. Thank you, Ranking Member Bost.
I now recognize Mr. Sablan for 5 minutes.
Mr. Sablan. Yeah. Thank you very much to all of you for
what you do for our veterans.
Mr. Murray, VFW is the only VSO we have in the Northern
Mariana's, and while they are organized, they are probably
loosely organized. I stand to be corrected. But I think while
they do provide help to other veterans, no one in the
organization has actually received formal training on how to
help veterans on the different aspects of a case that they may
have.
And having said that, I had a wounded warrior fellow in the
office, but I don't--I doubt also that that fellow was given
enough training to handle complex veterans' cases. But I will
reach out to someone in the VA for more training for my veteran
case worker.
Mr. Liermann, my goodness, no one could say better, explain
better how sad and difficult it is for someone who has ALS to
say their remaining life span they have, and it is unfortunate
for those that are service-connected. But I understand. Thank
you also for your service.
So as you know veterans who serve in the reserve unit
report having harder times getting their disability benefits. I
will tell you from personal experience, sir, that at my request
the only record the Army had of my service was the 3 days I had
at Fort Jackson in processing. I never served basic in AIT. I
never served weekend trainings. I never served the annual
trainings, although I was in the local legislature and I missed
2 annual trainings because we are in the appropriation process
during the summers.
But do you think that Mr. Connor's [phonetic] view of the
Identifying Barriers and Best Practices Study Act is helpful to
better evaluate the hurdles that many of the veteran's face?
Mr. Liermann. I think it will be helpful in potentially
addressing the different MOSs and different types of military
jobs versus their types of disabilities. Yes.
As far as identifying barriers between active duty and
reserve or guard, we are pretty confident we already know there
is a big difference because the was regarding service-
connection for both of those is completely different. So we
already know there is going to be a difference noted in the
report if you compare somebody who solely was in the guard or
reserves for inactive duty or active duty for training, but
never went on active duty versus someone who spent their entire
enlistment or career on active duty. So there will be a
difference noted in that type of a comparison.
Mr. Sablan. All right, which is why I tell many of our
reservists who get deployed or our National Guard who get
deployed that don't sign that piece of paper getting
deactivated unless you think that all of your health conditions
have been addressed by the Department of Defense because once
you sign that paper and you move towards the VA, it is a whole
new world out there.
And so let me ask anybody who may have, I don't have very
much time, but I know how impactful VA debt can be for veterans
and how long it takes for the VA to correct it.
So can you tell me in a few words how important it is for
the VA to get debt management actions and corrections right,
please?
Mr. Liermann. Oh, absolutely. It's a big issue. And part of
the--one of the biggest issues, and we testified at a hearing
about this a few weeks ago, the way they notify a veteran is
extremely confusing or the person who has the debt. First, they
send out a letter from the VA Regional Office of Jurisdiction
advising that there may have been an overpayment made without a
lot of specific information.
Then 30, 60 or 90 days later, they may get a debt letter
from the debt management center telling them you owe us
$10,000, and if you don't start paying it now, we are going to
take what you have.
So I think a lot of the process that gets really confusing
is all of the information required isn't in one notice and it
is not easily given to them as was mentioned via email or even
through e-benefits.
Mr. Sablan. I don't have too much time left. Anybody want
to take a quick stab? No? All right. That is fine. Well, thank
you, everyone, for being here today.
And how do I get my records besides--more than the 3 days
that I have got? Do you have any idea?
Mr. Dempsey. I would be happy to work with you and--
Mr. Sablan. Yeah.
Mr. Dempsey [continued]. --connect you with folks on our
board--
Mr. Sablan. It took me a long time to get it. I finally got
it from Kansas or Louisville or someplace. But it is--that is
all they have.
Mr. Dempsey. I would--
Mr. Sablan. I never actually in any of the training that I
participated in.
Mr. Dempsey. Sir, I would be happy to follow up with you.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Luria. Thank you, Mr. Sablan.
We can continue with a second round of questions. So, Mr.
Sablan, if you have more questions, we will get back to you in
a few minutes.
Okay. So, Ms. Haycock, I wanted to recognize that you are
the surviving daughter of Army Sergeant First Class Jeffrey and
Air Force Senior Airman Nicole Haycock, and thank you for your
willingness to testify today and the work that you do to assist
survivors.
So you have mentioned several issues, and thank you for
bringing up some that I was not aware of and that we will
continue to investigate, you know, how we can make a remedy to
some of these policies that seem inequitable, especially about
remarriage of surviving spouses.
Just if you could take a minute today, can you talk about
what is the most common thing that you are hearing from
surviving spouses, you know, amongst we have talked about SBP-
DIC offset, the specific remarriage clauses, but, you know, can
you just take a few minutes to talk about, you know, what's the
most pressing issue that you hear today from surviving spouses?
Ms. Haycock. The widow's tax far and away is the number 1
priority for TAPS and several other organizations. It has been
an 18-year fight. My mom was actually on the government
relations committee for Gold Star Wives for many years before
she passed herself. So I have been fighting this fight since I
was 10 years old.
It is a huge priority for us, and it became even more
crucial this year when there were the changes to the tax laws
that caused the kiddie tax issue. And the kiddie tax issue,
which of course put surviving children in a over 30 percent tax
bracket this year, mostly--so not all surviving families would
be made whole by ending the widow's tax, but a bulk would
because the child option only exists to help families with
minor children who were offset.
So there would still be families, especially those with
remarried spouses or those who were never married who would
still be subjected to the kiddie tax if we don't fix both. But
those are the two big bills that we have been really pushing in
this space. They are long overdue. And we know that the kiddie
tax was an unintended consequence, but we look forward to
seeing it get done this year.
Ms. Luria. Well, I appreciate that feedback. And, you know,
as mentioned earlier when we discussed these, the current NDAA
does fix the SBP-DIC offset and we are working very hard to fix
the kiddie tax issue. I introduced a bill, H.R. 2481 which was
incorporated in the Secure Act which passed almost unanimously
in the House and we are waiting for the Senate to look at that
bill and hopefully move that forward. And they have also
considered separate legislation.
So we are working very hard to close the loop on that and
make sure that we get that across the finish line because I
have had groups of surviving spouses, a group of widows in
Virginia Beach who sat down and came to me and said, why are my
taxes more, and I know that we have to fix this.
And so thank you for continuing to be such a strong
advocate for all of the families and the children who are
affected by this. And we look forward to continuing to work
with you to remedy these things that we think should be
corrected.
So thank you for being here.
With that, I am complete with my questions.
Mr. Bost, do you have any further questions for the panel?
Mr. Bost. Just the only question I would have, and I know
it is a draft bill so you, I think, Mr. Liermann, you mentioned
4748. If it is, it just got that number, that it would be the
one that deals with Lou Gehrig's Disease. Is that the number
that you have?
Mr. Liermann. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bost. Okay. When we were talking earlier, and I think
this is a very large concern because I think all of us see the
problem and really want to deal with it as well as the VA
themselves. But do you not have the same concerns that let's
say somebody that has a fast, aggressive cancer, they don't
qualify, but yet someone under this law would then say, but if
they have ALS would?
Mr. Liermann. Well, that is a big concern and that is
something that we discussed internally, how do you separate the
differences of those out.
Now speaking about just ALS, ALS is a very unique disease
process within the VA community for the fact that it is the
only presumptive that applies to all veterans regardless of
time, service, or generation or exposures. So given that it is
a unique disease process as a presumptive, and that it is an
automatically 100 percent disability due to the severity of it,
we support that because we know it is not going to be much
longer.
As far as other diseases and other disease processes, that
is something that, yes, we are willing to consider and discuss.
Right now I would be badly armed if I tried to engage that
completely. But, yes, that is something that we would be open
to discuss.
Mr. Bost. Right. And that is kind of where we--the concerns
probably all of us have are wanting to make sure that we get
the right numbers together. We want them to be provided for. We
don't want to just all of a sudden pull a rug out that all of a
sudden, oh, well, you weren't diagnosed long enough for your
surviving spouse to--you know, that's a problem. That's a real
problem, especially if it is due them.
So hopefully we can all work together to try to figure out
some kind of answer there. Of course, then you have to come up
with the offset to try to figure out that as well. That is kind
of our responsibility, so.
Mr. Bost. With that I yield back.
Ms. Luria. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bost.
Since there are no more questions, we will conclude this
hearing. I want to thank the Members of both panels for your
participation today as well as all of the other Members who
attended to present testimony on their bills that are under
consideration.
All Members will have 5 legislative days to revise and
extend their remarks, including extraneous materials.
Without objection the Subcommittee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Ronald Burke
Good morning, Chair Luria, Ranking Member Bost, and Subcommittee
Members. Thank you for providing us the opportunity to discuss the
Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) commitment to providing all
Veterans, their families, and survivors with timely, accurate, and fair
decisions on their benefits claims and appeals. I want to thank the
Subcommittee for considering legislation on critical issues such as
debt management, remedying fiduciary misuse, and expanding access to
telehearings before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board), among other
important topics. In this testimony we are providing background
information on many of our ongoing efforts and strategies for
addressing these important issues, so that we can provide context for
our analysis of the proposals before the Subcommittee today.
H.R. 592
H.R. 592, the ``Protect Veterans from Financial Fraud Act of
2019,'' would ensure that VA repays the misused benefits of Veterans
with fiduciaries and provides an appeals process for determinations of
Veterans' mental capacity. VA supports this bill if amended and can
provide technical assistance.
Section 2 would authorize VA to reimburse all beneficiaries in the
fiduciary program who have experienced benefits misuse by a fiduciary,
regardless of the number of individuals the fiduciary served. VA
supports extending such protections to individuals whose fiduciaries
served fewer than ten Veterans. However, VA has concerns about the
applicability date of the provision. As written, this paragraph would
require the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) to determine the
misuse date of the funds and would have to follow a different
reimbursement process depending on if the funds were misused prior to
or on/after the effective date of the bill. VA recommends that this
language be changed to, ``(b) Application - The amendments made by
subsection (a) shall apply with respect to the misuse of benefits by a
fiduciary discovered on or after the date of the enactment of this
Act.'' Benefit costs for section 2 are estimated to be $3.5 million in
2021, $19.2 million over five years, and $43.1 million over ten years.
Section 3 would provide appeal rights in accordance with chapters
71 and 72 of title 38, United States Code, for determinations made by
VA regarding mental competence for VA benefits purposes. VA believes
that this provision is unnecessary, as these determinations are already
appealable in accordance with chapters 71 and 72 of title 38. In
addition, a beneficiary found to be incompetent can submit medical
evidence to VBA at any time and request that VA find the beneficiary
competent.
H.R. 628
H.R. 628, the Working to Integrate Networks Guaranteeing Member
Access Now (WINGMAN) Act, would require VA to provide a permanent,
full-time congressional staffer designated by a Member of Congress with
remote, read-only access to VBA's electronic records of the Member's
constituents. The bill states that no more than two staffers of the
Member may be designated. Staffers designated under this provision must
satisfy the requirements to be recognized by VA as an agent or attorney
but may not actually be recognized as an agent or attorney to assist
Veterans with their benefits claims. VA may not impose any other
requirements before treating a designated staffer as a covered
congressional employee authorized to electronically access VBA's
records.
VA opposes this bill for several reasons. First, it improperly
conflates the concept of access to claims records, which is addressed
in chapter 57 of title 38, United States Code, with the concept of
recognizing individuals to act as agents and attorneys in the
preparation, presentation, and prosecution of benefits claims before
VA, which is addressed in chapter 59 of title 38.
The purpose of VA's recognition is to ensure that claimants for VA
benefits have responsible, qualified representation in the preparation,
presentation, and prosecution of claims for Veterans' benefits. The
laws governing recognition do not address the issue of access to
claimants' records, which are governed separately by privacy and
information security laws. Instead, the provisions in chapter 59 of
title 38, United States Code, and VA's implementing regulations address
the regulation and oversight of persons providing representation before
VA, including the ethical standards of professional conduct for
representatives, requirements for continuing legal education, and
whether fees may be charged in a particular case. Making congressional
staffers' access subject to the criteria for recognition as an agent or
attorney would subject them to provisions that are not relevant to
their official duties as congressional staffers.
In providing remote read-only access to VBA records to a Veteran's
agent or attorney, VA requires satisfaction of different criteria that
are unrelated to, and without regard for, the individual's status as
being ``recognized.'' Although VA does provide read-only electronic
access to recognized attorneys and agents who meet other relevant
qualifications, the requirement that a congressional employee satisfy
the criteria for recognition as an agent or attorney would have no
logical relationship to the goals of ensuring access in a manner that
is efficient, effective, and appropriately safeguards the security of
the records. Incorporating a new proposed section in chapter 59, which
pertains solely to claims representation, and requiring congressional
staffers to satisfy the same criteria required by VA for recognition of
agents and attorneys can only create confusion about ``recognition'' in
general and the role of congressional staffers in the claims process.
Moreover, making the requirements for congressional employees to gain
access to claimant records a function of VA's recognition program would
unnecessarily complicate the operation of that program.
This bill includes a requirement that VA provide to each Veteran
who submits a claim an opportunity to permit a covered congressional
employee access to all of his or her records through direct access to
VBA databases. This is unnecessary from a privacy or confidentiality
perspective as there are longstanding methods, such as authorizations
to release information, for Congress to obtain the consent of a VA
claimant to disclose information to a congressperson and their staff.
Moreover, the bill appears to impose a new burden on VA to contact
every Veteran to ``provide them an opportunity to permit'' access to
VBA databases by a congressional staffer. This requirement would delay
the Veteran's claim since VA would be required in many cases to send
additional letters to claimants to solicit their consent. Further, it
imposes a significant burden on VA to modify claims forms and corporate
systems to track these consents. The extent of this burden would be
partially dependent on if, and when, a congressional seat was to change
hands. In those cases, VA would be required to resolicit consent with
regard to the staffers of the newly selected Member of Congress because
the Veterans' decision to authorize access to their VA records could
change based on who is holding the congressional seat.
Furthermore, based on the current capabilities of VA systems, this
bill, if implemented, would provide congressional staff who assist
constituents of a Member of Congress with greater access to VA records
than is provided to a VA employee. Under the Privacy Act, Federal
employees may access private records only when necessary to perform
their duties. This bill would impose no similar restriction on access
by congressional staff. This generally means that a Veteran's record
could be accessed by the congressional employee at any time without
being targeted to the particular Veteran's specific needs. From a
privacy and information security standpoint, granting congressional
staff unrestricted access to the private information of Veterans and
other VA claimants who have permitted such access with the
understanding that it would be used to provide claim assistance could
have serious unintended negative consequences for Veterans and their
families who have entrusted VA with their personal medical and other
information.
Similarly, although a Veteran's authorization or consent to
disclose information to a congressional staffer under the Privacy Act
and other applicable confidentiality laws would provide sufficient
authority for VA to provide access to VBA databases, the WINGMAN Act
confuses the Veteran's or other VA claimant's right to control the
appropriate disclosure of information with their ability to control the
access or available means to disclose the information. The bill removes
the read-only form of congressional staff access from under the
information security requirements of the Federal Information Security
Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA), the E-Government Act of 2002, 38
United States Code (U.S.C.) chapter 57, subchapter III, Information
Security, and security baseline standards required by the National
Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In effect, this
legislation exempts congressional staff access to broad VBA databases
from all requirements for VA to provide information security. Such an
exemption from Federal information security requirements would be
unprecedented.
Additionally, VA would be required to address serious technological
obstacles to implement this bill. Currently, the VBA system provides
access to one representative per Veteran or claim and for only the
records of a Veteran who has specifically authorized access. To
implement the WINGMAN Act, VA would need to redesign its system
architecture to allow more than one representative per Veteran or
claim, which would require extensive time, monetary expense, and
manpower. Absent such system changes, in order to provide the type of
electronic access to congressional staff contemplated by the bill, VA
would have to displace the electronic access of current
representatives-Veterans Service Organization representatives, private
attorneys, and claims agents-causing substantial administrative burdens
on VA and hardships on those representing Veterans and the Veterans
they represent, while also interfering with the relationship between
Veterans and their representatives.
Due to the above-described limitations on VA systems, the only way
VA could provide the access contemplated by this bill in the near term
would be if the bill language is modified to permit VA to provide
congressional staffers with unfettered access to all Veterans'
electronic claims records, as opposed to limited access based on power
of attorney code, which would obviously be harmful to the privacy of
Veterans who had not consented to or permitted such access, in
violation of the existing privacy laws, and beyond the scope of the
current version of the subject bill.
In addition, the bill prohibits VA from obligating or expending
more than $10 million for the period of fiscal years 2019 through 2022
for the purposes of this bill. However, VA estimates that, for the
period of fiscal years 2020 through 2022, implementation will require
VA to expend an estimated $145.8 million.
H.R. 1030
H.R. 1030, the ``Veteran Spouses Equal Treatment Act,'' would amend
provisions of title 38, United States Code, relating to VA's
recognition of marriages as valid.
Current section 101(3) and (31) of title 38, U.S.C., limit the
definitions of ``surviving spouse'' and ``spouse'' for purposes of
title 38 to only a person of the opposite sex of the Veteran. The
language in these provisions is substantively identical to the language
in section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), 1 U.S.C. Sec. 7,
which the Supreme Court, in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744, 775
(2013), declared to be unconstitutional because it discriminates
against legally-married, same-sex couples. On September 4, 2013, the
United States Attorney General informed Congress that the President had
directed the Executive Branch to cease enforcement of sections 101(3)
and (31) of title 38 to the extent that those provisions preclude the
recognition of legally-valid marriages of same-sex couples. Pursuant to
this direction, VA is no longer enforcing the title 38 provisions to
the extent that they require a ``spouse'' or a ``surviving spouse'' to
be a person of the opposite sex. Therefore, VA supports this bill as a
means to amend the law to be consistent with the Supreme Court's
decision and current practice.
VA supports the general intent of section 2(b) of the bill to
revise the criteria for determining the validity of a marriage. Section
103(c) of title 38, United States Code, which provides that, in
determining whether or not a person was a spouse of a Veteran,
``marriage shall be proven as valid for the purposes of all laws
administered by the Secretary according to the law of the place where
the parties resided at the time of the marriage or the law of the place
where the parties resided when the right to benefits accrued,'' is
specific to title 38 and is different than the standard used by nearly
all other Federal agencies, including the Department of Defense.
However, while VA supports the bill's intent to change to the current
marriage-validity criteria, VA is concerned that the marriage-validity
criteria in section 2(2) of the bill may be overly restrictive. For
example, VA notes that the bill is silent as to the applicability of
tribal law to marriage validity. Under section 103(c), tribal law would
be considered as ``the law of the place where the parties resided.''
However, VA would only consider the law of the ``State'' in determining
if a marriage is valid for the purpose of Veterans' benefits. This
could lead to the exclusion of some couples with valid marriages under
tribal law. VA welcomes the opportunity to work with the Committee on
this bill.
Since VA is currently using the amended definition to define
marriage, no costs or savings are associated with the proposed bill.
H.R. 1424
H.R. 1424, the ``Fallen Warrior Battlefield Cross Memorial Act,''
would provide that VA may not prohibit the display of the ``Fallen
Soldier Display'' in any national cemetery, subject to standards
established by the Secretary. The bill defines the ``Fallen Soldier
Display'' as a ``memorial monument in honor of fallen members of the
Armed Forces that may include a replica of an inverted rifle, boots,
helmets, and identification tag.''
VA has no objection to the passage of H.R. 1424 in its current form
because it allows VA to exercise discretion to establish standards for
the display of these monuments, which VA refers to as ``fallen soldier
displays.'' However, we believe the legislation is unnecessary because
VA has an existing policy that allows for acceptance of such memorials
and includes standards, such as those related to size and construction
materials, that allow these monuments to be displayed in a manner that
would enhance the appearance and operation of the national cemeteries.
In recent years, VA has noted an increased interest in donations of
the fallen soldier display to several national cemeteries. However,
review and acceptance of these donation offers was inconsistent across
cemeteries, based on varying interpretations of the National Cemetery
Administration's (NCA) long-standing policy, established to facilitate
a reflective and peaceful atmosphere for visitors, that prohibits
acceptance of donations of military equipment or implements of war in
VA national cemeteries as well as NCA guidelines that restricted
acceptance of memorials featuring actual or realistic replicas of
ordnance.
Upon review, NCA determined that the familiarity of the fallen
soldier display and its particular use of a rifle was sufficient to
warrant an exception from the established policy, with some additional
guidelines regarding size and construction of the monument. For
example, NCA policy notes that the fallen soldier display may be a
three-dimensional replica or it may be an engraved image on a stone.
The policy also includes specifications regarding size and construction
materials. These requirements ensure a consistency in appearance,
durability of the monument, and ease of maintenance for cemetery
personnel.
VA estimates that VA would not incur any significant additional
cost if H.R. 1424 were enacted because VA already has statutory
authority to accept donations of monuments to VA. Maintenance for
donated memorials is part of VA's overall operational expenses for the
national cemeteries.
H.R. 1911
Section 6 of H.R. 1911, the ``SFC Brian Woods Gold Star and
Military Survivors Act,'' would expand the population of eligible
beneficiaries for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) benefits
by permitting VA to continue recognizing an individual as a surviving
spouse for purposes of DIC, despite remarriage, regardless of the
individual's age at the time of remarriage. Under current law, an
individual will no longer be recognized as a surviving spouse for
purposes of DIC if that individual remarries prior to the age of 57.
VA cites concerns with the provisions in section 6 of the bill that
would require VA, within one month of the bill's enactment, to resume
DIC payments to surviving spouses who previously remarried before age
57. VBA would experience a significant administrative burden related to
identifying and locating all surviving spouses whose benefits were
terminated due to remarriage before the age of 57. VBA does not
maintain current contact information for surviving spouses whose
benefits were previously terminated. Confirming the beneficiary's
whereabouts would involve substantial outreach efforts and resource
investment. Further, while we believe the provision for resumption of
benefits necessarily must be construed to apply only to persons
previously found entitled to DIC, that limitation is not expressly
stated in the bill.
Benefit costs associated with section 6 are estimated to be $7.2
million in 2021, $43.7 million over five years, and $109.4 million over
ten years.
VA defers to the Department of Defense regarding the remainder of
this bill.
H.R. 4165
H.R. 4165, the ``Improving Benefits for Underserved Veterans Act,''
would require that, not later than 180 days after the date of
enactment, the Secretary shall publish a report regarding Veterans who
receive benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. The report
would be required to contain data disaggregated by sex and minority
group status. ``Minority group member'' is defined in section 544(d) of
title 38 of the United States Code as an individual who is: Asian
American, Black, Hispanic, Native American (including American Indian,
Alaskan Native, and Native Hawaiian); or Pacific-Islander American.
VA does not support the bill, as currently written. Under section 1
of the bill, the title, ``Improving Benefits for Underserved Veterans
Act,'' implies VA is not adequately serving certain groups of Veterans.
Without empirical data to support this assertion, VA suggests amending
the language from ``Underserved Veterans'' to ``Minority Veterans'' or
``Minority and Women Veterans.''
With respect to programs administered by VA, VA already publishes
data regarding minority and women Veterans. Regarding gender, the
Department added several gender tables to the Annual Benefits Report
2018, available online at https:// www.benefits.va.gov/ REPORTS/abr/
docs/2018-abr.pdf, for most business lines, and VA will continue to add
additional gender information to the report as appropriate. Regarding
minority group usage of benefits, the Department, specifically the
National Center for Veterans Analysis and Statistics (NCVAS),
periodically produces a report that addresses benefit usage by minority
groups. The latest version can be found at https:// www.va.gov/
vetdata/docs/ SpecialReports/ Minority--Veterans--Report.pdf.
Therefore, the Department does not need additional guidance from
legislation.
Moreover, typically, VA does not collect private citizen
information (sex and minority group member status) when we have no
business need to do so. Generally, VA cannot and should not collect
information unless there is a legitimate government interest or need.
The Privacy Act of 1974, which protects information held by the Federal
government that pertains to individuals, requires agencies to maintain
``only such information about an individual as is relevant and
necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency required to be
accomplished by statute or by executive order,'' 5 U.S.C. Sec.
552a(e)(1). Historically, it has been VA's policy to gather data
(demographic or identifying data) only when necessary to determine
benefit eligibility.
In addition, it is unclear what data elements Congress is seeking
to meet this requirement. Moreover, VA is concerned about the value of
and the public perceptions gained from publishing aggregate benefits
data without the proper context also being provided. For example,
merely providing counts of Hispanic Veterans in receipt of disability
compensation would not prove valuable unless other comprehensive
comparative analyses were conducted, taking into account variables such
as Veteran population, geography, culture, age, etc.
While VA supports efforts to improve the delivery of benefits to
minority Veterans, the aim and title of the bill, as well as the
reporting requirements contained in the bill, are unclear. VA does not
support this bill since this data collection is not necessary for the
delivery of benefits to Veterans.
H.R. 4183
H.R. 4183, the ``Identifying Barriers and Best Practices Study
Act,'' would require the Government Accountability Office (GAO), not
later than 36 months after the bill's enactment, to complete a study on
disability and pension benefits provided to Reserve Component (RC)
members. In conducting the study, GAO would review various quantitative
and qualitative data between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2018,
and would provide Congress a preliminary report not later than 18
months after the date of the enactment of this bill.
VA does not oppose the bill, which aims to identify barriers and
best practices as it pertains to the administration of compensation and
pension benefits for RC members. However, VA has concerns with section
2, paragraph (a)(2).
Paragraph (a)(2)(A) would require a comparison of disability
percentages between RC members and Veterans who served in the regular
components of the Armed Forces. VA notes concerns on this approach as
many RC members have prior active duty service for which service-
connected injuries or illnesses were incurred. It is not clear how such
comparisons, without delineating such prior service, will be
meaningful. Further, in comparing grant and denial rates between these
cohorts, as stipulated in paragraph (a)(2)(D), VA notes the statutory
requirements (see 38 U.S.C. Sec. 101(21) through (27)) necessary to
establish Veteran status for purposes of receiving service-connection
for a claimed disability for a RC member, whose duty involves part-time
duty, versus those Veterans who performed full-time duty in the Armed
Forces.
Further, paragraph (a)(2)(C) of the bill would require a comparison
by military occupational specialty (MOS) such as pilots, special
forces, and Veterans who underwent diving or flight physicals. VA notes
that such data elements are not stored in its corporate databases, and
any efforts to conduct such analyses would require labor-intensive
reviews of individual claims records in order to ascertain the
Veteran's MOS. VA defers to the DoD on the availability of lists of
service members and Veterans who served in a certain MOS.
H.R. 4360
H.R. 4360, the ``VA Overpayment Accountability Act,'' would require
VA to correct erroneous information submitted to consumer reporting
agencies, provide certain notifications to persons who are entitled to
benefits under a program administered by VA who incur debts to the
United States due to participation in that program, track certain
metrics relating to debts arising from participation in a VA benefits
program, and conduct an audit of erroneous payments.
While VA appreciates the intent of this bill and is continuing to
work with Committee staff to mature VA debt management, VA does not
support this bill in its current form. We believe some provisions are
duplicative of current laws, such as the Energy and Water, Legislative
Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations
Act of 2019, enacted September 21, 2018, the Veterans Benefits and
Transition Act of 2018, enacted December 31, 2018, and the Economic
Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act, enacted May 24,
2018.
Further, other provisions present technical and implementation
issues as detailed below. Regarding Section 2 (a), which would require
VA to correct erroneous reporting to consumer reporting agencies, we
concur that expeditious resolution of erroneous reporting is essential;
however, VA has already implemented robust procedures to do so.
In accordance with the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996
(DCIA), VA submits debt information to consumer reporting agencies.
When we discover our characterization of the debt to be erroneous, we
use the Online Solution for Complete and Accurate Reporting (eOSCAR) in
partnership with Equifax, Experian, Innovis and Transunion to
electronically and expeditiously repair Veteran credit. Where the need
is immediate, we also provide Veterans with a letter addressed to their
creditor explaining the error.
While VA is authorized to use third-party debt collectors, the
Department remains steadfast in using only VA employees or those of the
Treasury for those debts referred pursuant to the DCIA to service
Veteran debts. Therefore, 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5320(b), as proposed to be
added by this bill, would not be applicable to the Department.
VA appreciates the efforts this Congress is making to ensure
erroneous reporting is corrected and has engaged with consumer
reporting agencies to find solutions to mitigate derogatory credit
reporting by third party medical providers using private collection
agencies. On January 29, 2016, VA established the Veteran credit repair
hotline for medical-related credit concerns. Currently, Transunion,
Equifax, and Military.com have this hotline (877-881-7618) posted on
their websites. Experian provides this number to those customers who
contact them, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is adding
the information to their website.
Regarding Section 3(1) and 3(3), which would require VA to improve
information technology to allow for Veteran notification of debts
incurred, VA is already required to provide this notification. VA
continues to make progress in creating notifications to Veterans who
receive more financial assistance than they are entitled to by law, to
include providing more standardized electronic and standard mail
notifications. Due to the complexity of VA's enterprise and the number
of systems involved in delivering healthcare, benefits, and services to
Veterans and beneficiaries, VA tracks the amounts, ages, averages and
other statistical attributes of overpayments independently in each
Administration. We are working to improve our systems, so Veterans will
be able to view their debt online within the next year.
The Veterans Health Administration (VHA) is developing an
electronic option to permit viewing of monthly Patient Medical
Statements via the MyHealtheVet portal. We expect Veterans will be able
to view or print their medical patient statements electronically via
the portal within the next 3-4 months. By early to mid-2020, VBA
anticipates launching the option for Veterans to opt-in to receive
electronic correspondence. This project will initially encompass
disability compensation and pension overpayments and later extend to
all VBA lines of business. We intend to send electronic correspondence
initially to Veterans who have opted in; however, some correspondence
may remain solely in hard copy form to meet statutory requirements
related to certain notifications. Ultimately, we intend to bring all
debt together in one location by calendar year 2022.
VA has concerns with Section 3(2), Review of Information Regarding
Dependents, which would require VA to allow a ``person entitled to a
payment from the Secretary under a benefits program administered by the
Secretary'' the ability to review ``information relating to dependents
of that person.'' In certain situations, it may not be appropriate for
VA to provide a Veteran with information about debts incurred by a
dependent. While VA routinely discloses information that affects the
payment or potential payment to a claimant, such as the number of
dependents, we recommend editing this section to require sharing of
only information that pertains to the Veteran, not beneficiary
information that is not about the Veteran, such as Federal Tax
Information (FTI) of dependents.
Section 4 would require VA to conduct a benefit error audit, and
then submit to committees of Congress a plan and description of
resources required to align information systems to ensure errors
identified are not the result of or caused by the lack of communication
among information systems. VBA has numerous independent systems for the
many benefits provided (Compensation, Education, Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment, etc.). None of these systems currently
have the capability to delineate the amount of debt due to the
Veteran's lack of/delayed response or VA benefit error. Funding and
development time allotment would be required for both system
enhancements and system integration, as well as to fund additional
staff for training and operations.
We estimate an upfront IT improvement cost of $1.75 million, with
roughly $500,000 annually thereafter for sustainment, and related FTE
costs of roughly $90,000 in the first year and $20,000 annually
thereafter ($5.5 million over an 8 year period - please note these
estimates are very preliminary, high-level, and would be subject to
change if this legislation is enacted). VBA does not track nor have a
metric to measure the degree to which vacant positions impact the
frequency of errors that result in overpayments of benefits.
VA has been working with the Committee staff on these important
issues and looks forward to continuing to work with the Committee for
the benefit of Veterans.
Justice for ALS Veterans Act of 2019
The Justice for ALS Veterans Act of 2019 would entitle surviving
spouses of Veterans who died of service-connected amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis (ALS) to an additional $246 per month in DIC. Under current
law, the higher rate of DIC is only payable if the Veteran was rated
totally disabled for a continuous period of at least eight years
immediately preceding death.
VA has concerns with this bill. VA understands the intent of the
bill - to ensure payment of the increased monthly DIC benefit to the
surviving spouse due to the difficult and progressive nature of ALS -
and recognizes this as an important step in caring for surviving
spouses. However, VA notes the potential disparity of treatment related
to other progressive diseases that may result in death in less than the
eight-year period, such as cancer. Furthermore, clarification would be
needed to determine if the bill would still require that the surviving
spouse meet the marriage requirement (eight years immediately preceding
death) to qualify for the increased benefit under this proposal.
Board Telehearings Bill
Under current law, the Board of Veterans Appeals may hold hearings
either in person at its principal location, or through picture and
voice transmission at a VA facility where VA has provided suitable
equipment and facilities. 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7107(c). This bill would 1)
amend current law to permit such hearings to be conducted over a secure
internet platform established and maintained by VA; 2) limit virtual
hearing use to only disability compensation appeals; and 3) provide
specific VA reporting requirements for appeals hearings at the Board
that utilize remote technologies.
VA does not support this bill unless amended. VA supports the use
of virtual technology to enable Veterans to participate in their
appeals hearings without the need for travel to a specific VA hearing
location and also supports clarifying language in current law to codify
emerging practices for the use of virtual hearing environments.
However, the Board does adjudicate non-disability compensation appeals
originating from VBA, as well as appeals from VHA, NCA, and the Office
of General Counsel. These types of appeals would be specifically
excluded from using virtual hearing technology under this draft
language. It is not clear if this limitation is a drafting error or is
intended. VA is also supportive of specific reporting requirements, but
expresses preference for reporting this information through the
existing Annual Report process, as opposed to providing a partially
redundant Congressional report. The Board also seeks clarification for
reporting on statistical outcomes of cases heard, as this would
establish a broad reporting requirement without clear guidance as to
specific intent.
The technology needed for virtual hearings already exists, so no
additional development cost would be incurred by the Department. Costs
associated with the reporting requirements proposed in this legislative
draft would be de minimis and also part of existing operations.
This concludes my testimony. We appreciate the opportunity to
present our views on these bills and look forward to working with the
Subcommittee.
Prepared Statement of Shane L. Liermann
Madame Chair, Ranking Member Bost and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting DAV (Disabled American Veterans) to testify
at this legislative hearing of the Subcommittee on Disability
Assistance and Memorial Affairs. As you know, DAV is a non-profit
veterans service organization comprised of over one million wartime
service-disabled veterans that is dedicated to a single purpose:
empowering veterans to lead high-quality lives with respect and
dignity. DAV is pleased to offer our views on the bills under
consideration by the Subcommittee.
H.R. 592, Protect Veterans from Financial Fraud Act of 2019
This bill would amend title 38, United States Code, Sec. 6107(b)
by clarifying the procedures to reissuance benefits to a beneficiary
with a fiduciary when there is negligent failure by the Secretary and a
misuse of benefits by a fiduciary.
Currently title 38, United States Code, Sec. 5501A notes the
beneficiary is entitled to a notice of the proposed adverse decision, a
hearing, opportunity to present additional medical evidence, and a
witness to the hearing. This bill would clearly add the right to appeal
adverse or negative decisions.
DAV strongly supports both amendments of this bill as they are in
agreement with DAV Resolution No. 363, calling for improvement of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Fiduciary Program. It suggests
improvements to the VA Fiduciary Program by creating a better
monitoring system, a timely dispute resolution system when
beneficiaries make complaints, initiation of investigations based on
suspected reports of fiduciary fraud rather than putting the burden of
proof on the vulnerable veteran, and assignment of an outside agency,
such as VA Office of Inspector General, responsibility for
investigating complaints of VA employees who work in the VA Fiduciary
Program and Fiduciary Hubs.
Our most vulnerable veterans must be protected from abuses of
fiduciaries and negligent failures by the Secretary and be given the
right to appeal adverse competency decisions.
H.R. 628, Working to Integrate Networks Guaranteeing Member Access Now
Act
H.R. 628 would allow veterans submitting a claim for benefits, to
permit a covered congressional employee in the office of the Member of
Congress representing the district where the veteran resides to have
access to all of the records of the veteran in the databases of the
Veterans Benefits Administration.
The covered congressional employee would have read-only access to
the electronic records, similar to accredited veteran service
organizations (VSO) and the covered congressional employee would not be
considered an attorney or agent.
Recommendations
DAV does not have a resolution on this issue; however, we are
concerned that this access could lead to negative consequences for
veterans and their families, therefore, we recommend that covered
congressional employees be provided training, VA accreditation or
similar certification, and have safeguards in place to ensure that a
veteran can be made whole.
1. Training. If a covered congressional employee in the office of
the Member of Congress will have access to a veteran's or claimant's
electronic claims folders and be advising veterans and claimants on
their claims and appeals, they need to be trained to lessen the
potential for misinformation. Accredited VSOs, agents, and attorneys
all must go through a training and accreditation process which includes
VA's Training, Responsibility, Involvement and Preparation of Claims
(TRIP) training and VA's Talent Management System (TMS). Covered
congressional employees need to be required to complete the same level
of training as accredited VSOs, agents, and attorneys.
2. Accreditation. As a covered congressional employee in the office
of the Member of Congress will be providing claims and appeals
information to a veteran or claimant, they need to be held to the same
standard as VSOs, agents, and attorneys. An accredited representative
is an individual who has undergone a formal application and training
process and is recognized by VA as being capable of assisting claimants
with their affairs before VA. Accredited representatives may also work
for state or county government entities.
As the covered congressional employee will be providing assistance
to veterans and claimants already represented by VSOs, agents, and
attorneys, we are concerned that if the congressional employee is not
adequately trained or accredited they may provide information or advice
counter to their duly appointed representatives.
3. Making Veterans and Claimants Whole. If actions or delayed
actions by an accredited VA representative cause financial harm to a
veteran or claimant, they retain liability insurance to ensure that a
veteran or claimant is made whole if there is a loss of benefits or
other financial harm. We are concerned that if a covered congressional
employee provides information, advice, or their lack of timely action
causes financial harm to a veteran or claimant, the veteran or claimant
will not be made financially whole.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Gravel v. United States, held ``that it
is literally impossible, in view of the complexities of the modern
legislative process, with Congress almost constantly in session and
matters of legislative concern constantly proliferating, for Members of
Congress to perform their legislative tasks without the help of aides
and assistants; that the day-to-day work of such aides is so critical
to the Members' performance that they must be treated as the latter's
alter ego; and that if they are not so recognized, the central role of
the Speech or Debate Clause . . . will inevitably be diminished and
frustrated.'' Therefore, the Court held ``that the Speech or Debate
Clause applies not only to a Member but also to his aides insofar as
the conduct of the latter would be a protected legislative act if
performed by the Member himself.''
Although the Constitution's Speech or Debate clause provides
Members of Congress and their aides immunity to lawsuits arising out of
protected legislative actions, providing assistance to veterans and
claimants on VA claims and appeals would not be protected legislative
actions, thus, we are concerned on how a veteran will be made
financially whole if the covered congressional employee is liable.
H.R. 1030, Veteran Spouses Equal Treatment Act
H.R. 1030 would amend the definition of a spouse and surviving
spouse in title 38, United States Code, Sec. 101 paragraphs (3) and
(31) by striking the phrase ``of the opposite sex.'' This bill would
codify VA's current mandate and practice of recognizing spouses of the
same sex without regard to a veteran's state of residence.
Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defined
``marriage'' and ``spouse'' for purposes of Federal law to preclude
recognition of marriages of same-sex couples. On June 26, 2013, the
Supreme Court held, in United States v. Windsor, that Section 3 of DOMA
violates the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution by discriminating
against same-sex couples who are lawfully married under state law.
For purposes of VA benefits, title 38, United States Code, Sec.
101(3) and Sec. 101(31) define ``surviving spouse'' and ``spouse'' as
persons ``of the opposite sex.'' These definitions (codified separately
from DOMA) were not specifically addressed in the Supreme Court's
Windsor decision. On September 4, 2013, the United States Attorney
General announced that the President had directed the Executive Branch
to cease enforcement of title 38, United States Code, Sec. Sec. 101(3)
and 101(31), to the extent they preclude provision of veterans'
benefits to same-sex married couples.
This announcement allowed VA to administer spousal and survivors'
benefits to same-sex married couples, provided their marriages met the
requirements of title 38, United States Code, Sec. 103(c). It states,
``[i]n determining whether or not a person is or was the spouse of a
Veteran, their marriage shall be proven as valid for the purposes of
all laws administered by the Secretary according to the law of the
place where the parties resided at the time of the marriage or the law
of the place where the parties resided when the right to benefits
accrued.'' As such, prior to Obergefell, this provision precluded VA
from recognizing a veteran's same sex marriage where both the veteran
and the veteran's spouse resided in a state that did not recognize
same-sex marriage at the time of the marriage, and at the time when the
claimant's right to benefits accrued, i.e., when the claimant became
eligible for benefits or the date of claim, consistent with GC
Precedent Opinion 4-2014.
On June 26, 2015, the Supreme Court held in Obergefell v. Hodges
that the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution requires a state
to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to
recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their
marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-state.
In order to protect these existing benefits for veterans and
spouses from future legal challenges or changes in interpretation of
existing practices, DAV supports H.R. 1030, which is consistent with
our mandate to resist any efforts to deprive disabled veterans or their
dependents of benefits already provided by VA. This bill would codify
the U.S. Supreme Court's holdings in Windsor and in Obergefell and is
consistent with VA's current practice of recognizing same sex marriages
without regard to a veteran's state of residence.
H.R. 1424, the Fallen Warrior Battlefield Cross Memorial Act
H.R. 1424 would amend title 38, United States Code, Sec. 2403 for
the Secretary to permit the Fallen Soldier Display, also known as the
battlefield cross. The bill defines the Fallen Soldier Display as a
memorial in honor of fallen members of the Armed Forces that may
include a replica of an inverted rifle, boots, helmets, and
identifications tags.
Battlefield crosses were created to honor the fallen. A deceased
soldier's rifle is planted, barrel-first, into their boots (or, in some
cases, the ground) and their helmet is placed atop the rifle. Like all
things military, this cross is part of a long-standing tradition that
has evolved since its first use on the battlefields of the American
Civil War. This tradition has found its way into the United States Army
Field Manual. Under the Memorial Section, the battlefield cross is
advised to be displayed during memorials and demonstrations are
provided.
VA initially banned the battlefield cross as it violated their rule
about realistic replicas of weapons within National Cemeteries. However
at the September 5, 2018, House Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on
Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs hearing, Matthew Sullivan,
NCA Deputy Under Secretary for Finance and Planning, indicated that VA
does not support the Fallen Warrior Battlefield Cross Memorial Act as
it would not allow VA any discretion to establish standards for the
display of these monuments, which VA refers to as ``fallen soldier
displays.'' VA has an existing policy that includes standards, such as
those related to size and construction materials that allow these
monuments to be displayed in a manner that would enhance the appearance
and operation of the national cemeteries. These standards may be
rendered unenforceable under this bill as currently drafted.
DAV does not have a resolution on this issue; however, we would not
oppose enactment of H.R. 1424.
H.R. 1911, the SFC Brian Woods Gold Star and Military Survivors Act
This bill would strengthen and expand various benefits affecting
the survivors of those killed on active duty and disabled veterans who
have died due to a service-connected condition.
Section 2 would allow survivors of a deceased military member or
veteran to continue to have access to on-base facilities once they
remarry if they have dependent children. Currently, once a surviving
spouse remarries they lose all commissary and exchange privileges. This
bill would allow those who still have guardianship of dependent
children of the deceased service member to retain their entitlement to
use commissary stores and Morale, Welfare, and Recreation (MWR)
facilities to the same extent and on the same basis as surviving
spouses that have not re-married. While DAV does not have a resolution
specific to this issue, we would not oppose its enactment.
Section 3 would allow surviving spouses of service members who die
while on active duty to continue to receive their Survivor Benefit Plan
(SBP) should they re-marry before the age of 55. Under current law, a
surviving spouse of veteran or service member who is in receipt of SBP
would lose their benefits if they choose to re-marry before the age of
55. This section would eliminate this bar to benefits. DAV does not
have a resolution specific to this issue but would not oppose its
enactment.
Section 4 would direct the Pentagon to pay the transportation costs
of remains for those killed in the line of duty to their hometown for
memorials or services and then to a national cemetery for internment.
If a service member passes away while overseas, the Pentagon will only
pay for transportation costs to the hometown or a National Cemetery but
not both. However, many surviving loved ones choose to have a memorial
service or funeral in their hometown prior to internment at a National
Cemetery. This provision would require the Department of Defense to
transport the remains for the fallen service member from Dover AFB, to
the hometown, and then to their final resting place in a National
Cemetery if requested by the surviving family members. DAV does not
have a resolution specific to this issue, but would not oppose its
enactment.
Section 5 would amend the existing child care service assistance
program for civilian providers to include providers serving survivors
of service members that die in the line of duty. Currently, this
program only gives financial assistance to civilian child care
providers of active duty service members and government employees. DAV
does not have a resolution specific to this issue, but would not oppose
its enactment.
Finally, Section 6 would remove the bar of Dependency Indemnity
Compensation (DIC) benefits to the surviving spouses of veterans who
have re-married prior to the age of 57. We consider this bar unduly
punitive when you consider that Federal employee survivors, who are in
receipt of Civil Service Retirement System, a similar benefit to DIC
and veterans who are signed up for the SBP, both allow the surviving
spouse to remarry at 55 without loss of benefits. Section 6 would allow
a spouse of a service member who died while on active duty to continue
to receive their DIC benefits even if the surviving spouse re-marries.
DAV strongly supports this provision in accordance with Resolution No.
360, which supports legislation to improve and reform DIC benefits for
survivors to include reducing the age that surviving spouses can re-
marry without losing their survivor's benefits.
H.R. 4165, the Improving Benefits for Underserved Veterans Act
This bill would require the VA to publish a report regarding
veterans who receive VA benefits disaggregated by sex and minority
group status. This report would include those benefits administered
through the Transition Assistance Program.
DAV does not have a resolution on this issue; however, we are
concerned with the potential reliability of such a report. The VA does
not currently track information regarding sex or minority group status
and would have to rely on either diagnostic code ratings or be required
to review every veteran's case to determine the sex or minority group
status.
H.R. 4183, the Identifying Barriers and Best Practices Study Act
H.R. 4183 would require the Comptroller General to conduct a study
on disability and pension benefits provided to members of the National
Guard and members of reserve components for the period of January 1,
2008, to December 31, 2018.
This bill would require comparisons between the National Guard and
members of the reserve to those who served in regular components. The
comparisons would include:
The percentage of each group of veterans with service-
connected disabilities;
The number of veterans in each group with each disability
rating;
The number of veterans in each group with a service-
connected disability for pilots, special forces, veterans who
participated in the Personnel Reliability Program, veterans who
underwent flight physicals and who have muscular-skeletal or mental
health conditions.
The bill would further require the identification of barriers for
members of the National Guard and members of the reserve components in
obtaining disability benefits.
DAV does not have a resolution on this issue; however, such a
report will indicate a difference on disability benefits provided to
members of the National Guard and members of reserve components versus
those who served in the regular Armed Forces, because the statutory
requirements for service-connection for those who served in the regular
Armed Forces versus members of the National Guard and members of
reserve components are very different.
For those who served in the regular Armed Forces, VA will award
service-connection for a chronic disease or the residuals of an injury
incurred coincident with service. For members of the National Guard and
members of the reserve components VA will award service-connection from
an injury or covered disease, while performing active duty for training
or inactive duty training with a line of duty determination. However,
when a member of the National Guard and members of the reserve
components are called to active duty, their disabilities and injuries
will be considered as the same as those serving in the regular Armed
Forces.
H.R. 4360, the VA Overpayment Accountability Act
H.R. 4360 would amend Chapter 53 of title 38 to add a new section
requiring the Secretary to correct any erroneous information submitted
to consumer reporting agencies including information submitted by a
third party collection agency. It would further require the Secretary
to notify the beneficiary of VA's request for correction.
The bill would require VA to improve its information technology to
allow beneficiaries to receive notice of any debts through electronic
means such as VA's eBenefits system to include any successor programs.
This improvement would include adding the ability to track all payments
made to beneficiaries, the average debt incurred, as well how
frequently waivers of debt or relief are granted. This bill would
further require the Secretary to provide reports regarding VA's errors
made in payment of benefits.
DAV supports H.R. 4360 as it is in accord with DAV Resolution No.
108, calling for reforms relating to recovery of debts by the VA and
would bring necessary reforms to the VA collection and reporting
processes. Erroneous reporting to consumer reporting agencies can have
serious negative consequences for veterans and their families and this
bill would provide protections and corrections to credit reporting.
Discussion Draft, the Justice for ALS Veterans Act of 2019
This draft legislation would extend increased dependency and
indemnity compensation (DIC) paid to surviving spouses of veterans who
die from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), regardless of how long
the veterans had ALS prior to death.
Currently, title 38, United States Code, Sec. 1311(a)(2) allows an
additional DIC monthly payment of $246 to survivors in the case of a
veteran who at the time of death was in receipt of or was entitled to
receive compensation for a service-connected disability that was rated
totally disabling for a continuous period of at least eight years
immediately preceding death. This is commonly referred to as the DIC
``kicker.''
This proposed legislation would amend the statute to provide the
DIC kicker to a survivor of a veteran whom the Secretary determines
died from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) without regard for how
long the veteran had such disease prior to death.
Per the ALS Association, ``once ALS starts, it almost always
progresses, eventually taking away the ability to walk, dress, write,
speak, swallow, and breathe, and shortening the life span.'' They
acknowledge the average life expectancy for a person with ALS is two to
five years. VA regulations recognize ALS as a presumptive service-
connected disease and due to its progressive nature is automatically
rated at 100 percent disabling once service-connected.
DAV would support legislation to extend the DIC kicker to survivors
of veterans whose cause of death is ALS as it is in agreement with DAV
Resolution No. 360, calling for improvement and reform of DIC benefits.
The aggressiveness of ALS leaves many veterans totally incapacitated
and reliant on family members and caregivers and even in the best
scenarios, generally does not allow life expectancy past eight years.
Discussion Draft, Board of Veterans' Appeals TeleHearings
This proposed legislation would permit appellants to appear in
disability compensation cases before the Board of Veterans' Appeals
(Board) by video from locations other than VA facilities.
Title 38, United States Code, Sec. 7107 (c)(2) allows appellants
to choose a hearing before the Board at their principal location or a
video hearing at a VA facility where the Secretary has provided
suitable facilities and equipment to conduct such hearings.
This proposed legislation would amend the statute to allow
appellants to have a video hearing at a location selected by the
appellant via a secure internet platform established and maintained by
the Secretary. This proposal would also require the Secretary to
provide biannual reports to the Congress on the number of hearings held
under the proposed provision as well as the number of cancellations.
Starting in August of this year, the Board has established a pilot
program, the ``Board of Veterans' Appeals Tele-Hearing.'' The Board's
user guide states their mission, ``the tele-hearing conference system
will provide an opportunity for Veterans to attend a Video conference
hearing from any location, rather than traveling to their local
regional office.''
The presiding Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) has the ability to control
all aspects of the hearing as well as allowing witnesses from locations
other than the appellant's. A voice recording, not a video recording,
is made of the hearing for transcription. As of September 19, 2019, the
Board reported that 94 such hearings were scheduled, 62 were conducted,
four failed and 25 cancelled or opted for a different type of hearing.
The Board noted that a tele-hearing was conducted for a paralyzed
appellant from their home so they did not have to travel 175 miles to
attend a video hearing at the St. Petersburg VA Regional Office.
As the pilot program of the Board has shown to increase appellant
hearing participation, it will also increase the efficiency and
timeliness of requested hearings. This aligns with DAV Resolution No.
017, calling for meaningful appeals processing reform. DAV would
support legislation to amend the statute to allow appellants to have a
video hearing at a location selected by the appellant via a secure
internet platform established and maintained by the Secretary.
Madame Chair, this concludes my testimony on behalf of DAV. I would
be happy to answer any questions you or other members of the
Subcommittee may have.
Prepared Statement of Brian Dempsey
Chair Luria, Ranking Member Bost, and distinguished members of the
House Committee on Veterans' Affairs Subcommittee on Disability
Assistance and Memorial Affairs - thank you for the opportunity to
present Wounded Warrior Project's positions and perspectives on key
issues and legislation before the Subcommittee.
Wounded Warrior Project (WWP) is transforming the way America's
injured veterans are empowered, employed, and engaged in our
communities. Since our inception in 2003, we have grown from a small
group of friends and volunteers to an organization of nearly 700
employees spread across the country and overseas delivering over a
dozen direct-service programs to warriors and families in need. As part
of our mission to connect, serve, and empower wounded warriors and
those who support them, we are continually engaging with those we serve
and commit ourselves to capturing an informed perspective on the
challenges this community faces. We are pleased to share that
perspective for this hearing on pending legislation.
H.R. 592, the Protect Veterans from Financial Fraud Act
Many in our nation maintain a deep respect for those who have
served and sacrificed; however, there are others who seek to leverage
positions of trust for their personal gain and benefit. The Department
of Veterans Affairs' (VA) Fiduciary Program connects veterans who are
unable to manage their financial affairs with fiduciaries who can
supervise VA income and ensure that their veteran-beneficiary's debts
are paid. Although VA enforces strict standards for fiduciaries and
conducts thorough investigations to determine their fitness to serve,
fraud and abuse still occur. A significant consequence of that fraud on
many occasions is that veterans do not receive benefits they are
entitled to and become exposed to risks associated with not paying
bills.
Under current law, VA can re-issue benefits to a veteran when their
benefits are misused by a fiduciary who manages benefits for 10 or more
veterans. There is no similar authority for VA to re-issue benefits to
a veteran whose funds were misused by a fiduciary that manages benefits
for fewer than 10 veterans. The Protect Veterans from Financial Fraud
Act would remove this inequity and create parity for all veterans who
have been the victim of fraud or abuse by a VA-recognized fiduciary.
Wounded Warrior Project supports the Protect Veterans from
Financial Fraud Act. Many warriors who participate in our Independence
Program - a long-term, community-based support program available to
warriors living with a moderate to severe traumatic brain injury,
spinal cord injury, or other neurological condition that impacts
independence - use fiduciaries to manage their VA benefit payments and
would benefit from a system that better protects their assets should an
unfortunate circumstance arise. This legislation would help minimize
financial hardship on defrauded veterans and provide relief when
looking to find a replacement fiduciary.
H.R. 628, the Working to Integrate Networks Guaranteeing Member Access
Now Act, or the WINGMAN Act
Members of Congress have a long history of advocating for
constituents who face delays when seeking VA benefits. As every veteran
claim is unique, many member offices feel compelled to carefully review
a constituent's VA case file in order to provide the best possible
assistance.
There is no authority under current law for VA to provide expedited
access to a veteran's claim file to a Member of Congress. To provide
such access, the WINGMAN Act would authorize VA to give a veteran the
option of allowing VA to provide read-only access to his or her file to
their Member of Congress. A designated ``covered congressional
employee,'' whose responsibilities would have to include assisting
constituents with Federal agency case work, would be required to meet
VA criteria for recognition as an agent or attorney in order to access
the read-only claims file.
Under the changes proposed by the WINGMAN Act, veterans would
conceivably have an easier time working with their Member of Congress
to resolve issues related to their VA benefit claims. WWP agrees with
this aspirational goal but cautions against its practical
implementation. New Members of Congress may assume office with staff
unfamiliar with a complex VA benefit process, just as more seasoned
members may be affected by staff turnover. Having easy access to claims
files and the ability to work with VA congressional liaisons will
afford more opportunities for covered congressional staff to learn,
understand, and navigate the claims process; however, there are risks
associated with creating more opportunities for these employees to
provide misguided claims advice, misinterpret nuanced details in the
claims file, inadvertently misplace personally identifiable
information, or hamper interactions with highly trained service
officers at veteran service organizations or state-level veterans'
agencies who may have stricter standards to adhere to in order to
remain certified as agents. For these reasons, WWP does not urge
passage of the WINGMAN Act at this time.
H.R. 1030, the Veteran Spouses Equal Treatment Act
In June 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court held in United States v.
Windsor that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (1 U.S.C. Sec.
7), which defined the term ``marriage'' for purposes under Federal law
as ``only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and
wife,'' was unconstitutional. Given Windsor's scope, which was limited
to the Defense of Marriage Act, other state and Federal laws -
including those that govern veterans' benefits - were not immediately
affected. The Veteran Spouses Equal Treatment Act was first introduced
shortly thereafter in order to bring alignment between the Windsor
holding and veterans' benefits laws.
Under current law, VA defines a ``surviving spouse'' as ``a person
of the opposite sex'' along with other criteria. Similarly, a
``spouse'' is defined as a person ``of the opposite sex who is a wife
or husband.'' The Veteran Spouses Equal Treatment Act would strike ``of
the opposite sex'' in the definition of a surviving spouse and, for
living spouses, refers to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 103 for marriage references
while striking ``who is a husband or wife.'' The bill would further
amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 103 to require VA to recognize a marriage based
on the law of the State where the marriage occurred or, if it occurred
outside a State, a lawful marriage that could have entered into under
the laws of any State.
Wounded Warrior Project supports the Veteran Spouses Equal
Treatment Act. Although VA provides clear guidance at https: //
www.benefits.va.gov/ persona/lgbt.asp to explain to veterans that the
agency will recognize all same-sex marriages without regard to a
veteran's state of residence, this legislation would remove any doubt
that veterans' spouses will receive equal treatment under the laws
governing VA benefits.
H.R. 1424, the Fallen Warrior Battlefield Cross Memorial Act
Wounded Warrior Project's mission to honor and empower wounded
warriors brings our focus to providing free programs and services for
warriors and advocating for their current and long-term health and
wellness. Within this context, we also recognize the need to
memorialize those veterans who are no longer with us. For some who
share this view, the ``Battlefield Cross'' has become a fitting
memorial in VA's national cemeteries.
Under current law, VA has regulatory discretion to develop and
maintain memorial areas for veterans in national cemeteries. In the
relatively recent past, VA exercised its discretion to prohibit
realistic looking depictions of firearms in ``Fallen Soldier Displays''
(the Battlefield Cross). More recently, VA updated its policy to allow
an exception for the Fallen Soldier Display. The Fallen Warrior
Battlefield Cross Memorial Act would create a statutory obligation to
continue a special exception for the Fallen Soldier Display subject to
standards established by VA.
Wounded Warrior Project supports the Fallen Warrior Battlefield
Cross Memorial Act. This legislation offers a healthy balance between
VA's interest in properly maintaining national cemeteries while
preserving the ability of local communities around the country to
continue using the Battlefield Cross to memorialize the veterans and
soldiers who gave the ultimate sacrifice for our nation.
H.R. 1911, the SFC Brian Woods Gold Star and Military Survivors Act
The SFC Brian Woods Gold Star and Military Survivors Act proposes
several amendments to Title 10 U.S. Code that WWP was unable to
adequately review with the Department of Defense or the House Committee
on Armed Services staff prior to this Subcommittee hearing. For these
reasons, WWP is not able to provide a position on the bill at this
time.
H.R. 4165, the Improving Benefits for Underserved Veterans Act
The Improving Benefits for Underserved Veterans Act would create
new reporting requirements for VA to help identify minority veteran
groups who are or who may be underserved by VA services and benefits.
The bill lists women veterans as well as Asian, Black, Hispanic, Native
American, and Pacific-Islander American veterans as groups that would
be subjects of the new reporting requirements.
Wounded Warrior Project appreciates the need to monitor and assess
the needs of the veteran population which is why we invest in
developing the nation's largest and most comprehensive survey of Post-
9/11 veterans and service members. According to survey data gathered
for our 2018 survey, WWP has several salient points to share that
inform our position on the Improving Benefits for Underserved Veterans
Act.
Women veterans not using VA as their primary health care
provider report higher rates of difficulty accessing VA (51% compared
to 44% of male veterans not using VA as primary)
Across race/ethnicity, veterans who do not use VA as
their primary care health provider reported the same top reasons why:
bad prior experience, VA care is difficult to access, too much trouble
or red tape, don't think VA health care would be as good as that
available elsewhere, and don't trust VA
Black or African American (73%) and Hispanic (72%)
veterans reported utilizing VA as their primary health care provider at
a higher rate than White (67%) veterans
Across gender and race/ethnicity, similar rates of
veterans have VA health care coverage (75%-79%)
As these results begin to illustrate\1\, there are veterans who are
underserved by VA's programs and services - but that there is also
demographic parity in many instances. While we appreciate the desire to
have more data to explore these issues further, we would rather see the
staff hours and resources required to gather the information for these
proposed reporting requirements be utilized to serve these identified
populations. Additionally, any reports generated by this proposal would
only reflect information about who has reached out to VA for care or
benefits, and would not necessarily reflect who is being underserved
when one considers all who have chosen not to engage with VA. Outreach
to these underserved population groups may be a better use of resources
as it would actively engage a population which is known to be
underserved. While we appreciate the intent and support the Improving
Benefits for Underserved Veterans Act, WWP would rather see VA
resources used for outreach to connect with underserved populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ WWP prepared this specific data after being engaged by the U.S.
Government Accountability Office in January 2019. GAO indicated that it
was undertaking a review of whether VA provides quality and culturally
appropriate care for minority veterans, to include making
recommendations on how VA can structure its next generation electronic
health record system to collect data on quality and patient experience
data by race and ethnicity. [Source of mandate: P.L 115-141
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018. H. Rpt. 115-188 to Accompany
H.R. 2998, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 4183, the Identifying Barriers and Best Practices Study Act
One of the largest barriers that WWP national service officers face
when supporting current and former special operators and other United
States Special Operations Command personnel who suffered injury or
illness in combat is locating official documentation of their injuries
in service. Similarly, the process for documenting injuries for Guard
and Reservists could be improved to help veterans establish service-
connection for their injuries later in life.
While many issues surrounding this population should be left to the
Department of Defense, the Identifying Barriers and Best Practices
Study Act proposes to have the U.S. Comptroller General develop a
three-year study of disability and pension benefits that were provided
to veteran members who served in special missions, such as pilots and
divers, and who served on reserve components of the Armed Forces while
on active duty. This report would also seek to identify common barriers
that Guard and Reservists face when applying for VA disability
benefits, including documentation of injuries incurred while serving.
Wounded Warrior Project supports the Identifying Barriers and Best
Practices Study Act. Lack of medical evidence from service and the
difficulties of working with the military to retrieve any available
documents inform our perspective from an anecdotal point of view. We
are confident that a Government Accountability Office report addressing
how these populations are interacting with VA's benefit system will
validate our beliefs and experiences, and we urge stakeholders to
consider additional policies to help assist them as the report is being
developed.
H.R. 4360, the VA Overpayment Accountability Act
In support of our mission to honor and empower our nation's
wounded, ill, and injured veterans and service members, WWP recognizes
that physical health and mental wellness are often built from a
foundation that includes financial security. VA disability compensation
offers significant relief to many veterans, but the peace of mind that
compensation offers can be interrupted when payments are unexpectedly
withheld and credit is harmed. For veterans managing bills and other
obligations, disruptions to expected income can quickly become a
significant stressor.
According to WWP's 2019 Annual Warrior Alumni Survey, nearly all
(97.1%) warriors who have registered for WWP programs and services
carry some amount of debt. Among warriors with debt, excluding
mortgages on primary residences, about a third (31.2%) pay less than
$1,000 per month on total household debt they owe, and another 36.7
percent make monthly payments ranging from $1,000 to less than $2,500
(36.5% in 2018). However, more than half (54.4%) of warriors with debt
owe $20,000 or more, excluding mortgages. In this context, we believe
many of our warriors are at a heightened risk of being placed in the
precarious position of being unable to pay bills and having their
credit score damaged if VA benefits are withheld because of a previous
erroneous overpayment by VA.
The VA Overpayment Accountability Act would address this problem
through three distinct components. First, if VA determines that it has
delivered erroneous information to a credit agency, it would be
required to work with the credit agency to remove the erroneous
information from a veteran's credit report. A similar process would
ensue if VA has delivered erroneous information to a debt collector
that subsequently reports to a credit agency. Second, the bill proposes
IT improvements relating to debt notification and metrics tracking
focused on debt, debt averages, and requests for debt relief. Third,
the bill would require an audit of erroneous payments to determine the
frequency of errors and whether, or to what degree, vacant positions at
the Veterans Benefits Administration affect the frequency.
Wounded Warrior Project supports the VA Overpayment Accountability
Act. This bill would provide adequate retrospective and prospective
protection of veterans' credit scores in the event of an overpayment
and mitigate the risk of potential hardship on veterans. While we
maintain an interest in seeing policies that would ease the burden of
debt repayment in instances when VA must recoup overpayment, this is a
sound proposal in its current form.
H.R. --------, a draft bill to extend increased dependency and
indemnity compensation paid to surviving spouses of veterans who
die from ALS
According to the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) Association,
approximately 5,000 Americans are diagnosed with ALS each year. The
incidence of ALS is two per 100,000 people, and it is estimated that at
least 16,000 Americans may be living with ALS at any given time - and
research sadly shows that military veterans, regardless of branch or
era of service, are nearly twice as likely as non-veterans to develop
ALS\2\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ALS Association at http:// www.alsa.org/ als-care/veterans/
military-white-paper.html.
Once ALS starts it almost always progresses, eventually taking away
the ability to walk, dress, write, speak, swallow, and breathe, and
shortening the life span. How fast and in what order this occurs is
very different from person to person. While the average survival time
is three years, about 20 percent of people with ALS live five years, 10
percent will survive 10 years and 5 percent will live 20 years or
longer.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ALS Association at http:// www.alsa.org/ about-als/ facts-
you-should-know.html.
Under current law, VA can pay an additional monthly allowance of
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) to surviving spouses of
veterans who die from a service-connected disability if that disability
was rated as totally disabling for continuous period of at least eight
years immediately preceding death. This draft bill proposes to remove
the eight-year criteria for spouses of veterans who died of service-
connected ALS.
Wounded Warrior Project supports this draft legislation because it
recognizes that the tragically accelerated disease process of ALS keeps
many deserving spouses from receiving important DIC benefits that they
should otherwise be entitled to.
H.R. --------, a draft bill to permit appellants to appear before the
Board of Veterans' Appeals via picture and voice transmission from
locations outside the Department of Veterans Affairs
Under current law, veterans are limited to two types of hearings
during their appeal before the Board of Veterans' Appeals: (1) in-
person hearings at the Board's principal location, or (2) by picture/
voice transmission at a facility where VA has provided suitable
equipment and facilities. Under this draft legislation, VA would
continue to initially offer these types of hearings, but a veteran
would gain the ability to request a hearing at a place of their own
choice provided there is a secure internet platform established and
maintained by VA that protects sensitive personal information from a
data breach. Reporting requirements are included to track success rates
and cancellations.
Wounded Warrior Project supports this draft legislation. The Board
of Veterans' Appeals has been diligently working through a backlog of
appeals for years, and efforts like this that reduce the likelihood of
hearing cancellations should help more veterans receive timely
consideration of their appeals.
CLOSING
Wounded Warrior Project thanks the Subcommittee on Disability
Assistance and Memorial Affairs, its distinguished members, and all who
have contributed to the discussions surrounding today's hearing. We
share a sacred obligation to serve our nation's veterans, and WWP
appreciates the Committee's effort to identify and address the issues
that challenge our ability to carry out that obligation as effectively
as possible. We are grateful for the invitation to testify and stand
ready to assist when needed on these issues and any others that may
arise.
Prepared Statement of Patrick Murray
Chairwoman Luria, Ranking Member Bost, and members of the
Subcommittee, on behalf of the women and men of the Veterans of Foreign
Wars of the United States (VFW) and its Auxiliary, thank you for the
opportunity to provide our remarks on legislation pending before this
Subcommittee.
H.R. 4360, VA Overpayment Accountability Act
This legislation would improve the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) debt collection process, limit the authority of the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to recover overpayments caused by VA errors, and
improve the due process afforded veterans with respect to such
recovery. The VFW supports this legislation and has a recommendation to
improve it.
The VFW understands that benefits overpayments must be recouped
from veterans in order to ensure that VA programs are properly
administered. However, many veterans who were not indebted to VA have
had erroneous derogatory information submitted to consumer reporting
agencies due to a VA mistake. It is unconscionable for a veteran to
receive a negative credit rating as a result of VA's erroneous
submission of information. Furthermore, correcting inaccurate credit
reports entails a lengthy and burdensome procedure. Accordingly, the
VFW supports legislation that requires VA to implement safeguards to
prevent the erroneous submission of information to consumer reporting
agencies, and to correct this information in a timely manner.
The VFW appreciates VA's acknowledging the importance of
collaboration with the veterans service organization community
regarding benefits or potential debts. The VFW was pleased to review
and offer constructive feedback in the crafting of new, more simply
worded letters and notices regarding potential VA debts. We also
request that VA collaborate with and inform veterans service
organizations regarding any updates to the standardized format of debt
letters. Due process requires that debt notices following overpayments
are clear and provide concise information regarding the steps a veteran
must take in order to resolve any outstanding debts in a timely manner.
Finally, the VFW urges this Subcommittee to incorporate into this
legislation the additional safeguards of subsections (a), (b), and (c)
of section 3 of S. 805, Veteran Fairness Act of 2019. These provisions
would grant additional protections to veterans concerning debt
repayment and would provide more flexibility concerning the timing of
repayment.
H.R. 592, Protect Veterans from Financial Fraud Act of 2019
The VFW supports this legislation, which would ensure that VA
repays the misused benefits of veterans with fiduciaries. This is a
common sense bill to protect some of our most vulnerable veterans.
Veterans assigned a fiduciary need help and financial protection, and
any individual who mistreats, preys upon, or otherwise causes them harm
must be held accountable, and restitution must be made to make the
veteran whole.
To further protect vulnerable veterans, the VFW recommends
including a provision in this legislation to impose criminal and
financial penalties on individuals found to maliciously prey on
veterans for any financial gain, not just fiduciary fraud. Abusing the
health and financial welfare of veterans in need must be punishable by
law. The VFW supports legislation that protects all veterans from any
individual who commits financial malfeasance, sets substantial
penalties for doing so, and ensures veterans receive any owed
compensation as a result of the crime.
H.R. 1030, Veteran Spouses Equal Treatment Act
The VFW supports this legislation, which would align the definition
of ``spouse'' in title 38, United States Code, with the Supreme Court's
ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. The statutory language of title 38
should be updated to conform to recent Supreme Court decisions
regarding the Federal recognition of same-sex marriage. The VFW
believes that all veterans and their families deserve to be treated
with dignity and respect.
H.R. 4165, Improving Benefits for Underserved Veterans Act
This legislation would direct VA to publish a report regarding
veterans who receive benefits under laws administered by the Secretary,
disaggregated by sex and minority group member status. The VFW supports
this legislation and has a recommendation to improve it.
According to recent Department of Veterans Affairs data, more than
1.6 million veterans are women, which is roughly nine percent of the
total veteran population. The percentage of women veterans has
increased since the start of the Global War on Terrorism, and is
expected to grow in the near future. Although VA has made vast
improvements to address the needs of women veterans, more work is
needed to ensure that female veterans utilize benefits at the same rate
as males, especially in health care. More specifically, our members
have routinely stated that VA must improve privacy at women's health
clinics, access to gender-specific health care, prenatal and maternity
care, mental health care to treat military sexual trauma, and targeted
outreach to women to ensure that no veteran is left to wonder what
benefits she is eligible to receive. Accordingly, the VFW believes that
the future needs of women veterans can only be met through continued
research and studies specifically tailored toward women veterans.
Similarly, minority veterans face challenges when accessing VA
benefits, particularly with health care. According to VA's Office of
Research and Development, health care is distributed unevenly in the
United States. Minority populations often receive less care or care of
lesser quality compared to their Caucasian peers. The minority veteran
population makes up 22 percent of all veterans and accounts for over 34
percent of the women veteran population. Unequal health outcomes faced
by racial and ethnic minorities include higher rates of chronic
illnesses such as diabetes and high blood pressure, higher rates of
cancer, and mental illness diagnosis. These disparities are ubiquitous
within the entire American health care system and are still prevalent
within VA, where many financial barriers to receiving care are
minimized. Therefore, more research is required to understand and
eliminate racial and ethnic disparities in the VA health care system.
A study on veterans who receive VA benefits, disaggregated by sex
and minority group member status will help identify disparities in
usage of VA benefits. The VFW recommends that this Subcommittee
authorize a study to determine the cause of such disparities in
addition to overall VA benefits usage. This will assist VA in ensuring
that all veterans use the benefits to which they are entitled, and that
access to health care and health outcomes remain consistent across all
demographics.
H.R. 4183, Identifying Barriers and Best Practices Study Act
This legislation would require the Government Accountability Office
to conduct a study on VA disability and pension benefits provided to
members of the National Guard and Reserve components of the armed
forces. The VFW supports this legislation and has a recommendation to
improve it.
In the years since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001,
National Guard and Reserve forces have consistently answered the call
to service. The Department of Defense has increasingly relied upon
these components for national security missions at home and overseas.
Unfortunately, these service members face unique challenges when
applying for VA benefits. National Guard and Reserve component members
frequently have difficulty obtaining medical records, which tend to be
scattered and are often incomplete. VA disproportionately denies
reservists and guardsmen benefits because they cannot establish that a
condition is service-connected due to missing Line of Duty (LOD)
determinations. An LOD determination is an administrative tool for
determining a member's duty status at the time of injury, illness,
disability, or death, and is the gateway to VA benefits.
A comprehensive study on disability benefits provided to members of
the National Guard and Reserve components will help identify barriers
to filing successful claims and will ensure that these veterans receive
the VA benefits to which they are entitled. The VFW recommends that
this Subcommittee authorize a study on disability and pension benefits
provided to members of these components for the entire period of the
Global War on Terrorism. Furthermore, the VFW encourages this
Subcommittee to require VA to conduct an ongoing analysis of
application for benefits and enrollment for members of the National
Guard and Reserve components.
H.R. 628, Working to Integrate Networks Guaranteeing Member Access Now
(WINGMAN) Act
This legislation would authorize congressional employees to easily
access veterans' sensitive information with few restrictions. The VFW
does not support this legislation.
Firstly, while we agree there should be a more efficient way for
congressional constituent services staff to assist veterans, there are
current privacy controls in place to limit access to veterans' records,
and those controls must be preserved under any expansion of access due
to the complexities of the compensation and benefits process. The VFW
insists that the authorized congressional staff be required to obtain a
VA-specific privacy release from veterans they seek to assist before
accessing records for those veterans.
Secondly, access to veterans' records and any resulting action by
the Department of Veterans Affairs due to congressional involvement
must be shared with whomever holds power of attorney for such veterans.
Doing so would mitigate duplication of efforts and ensure that
congressional staffers are not abusing or otherwise exceeding their
authority.
Lastly, VA must have a tracking system to ensure that congressional
employees are assisting only their own congressional constituents.
There are level-sensitive restrictions on most VA employees and
accredited service officers, preventing access to files for which
expressed consent has not been granted. These restrictions must extend
to any proposed accredited staffers as well.
H.R. 1424, Fallen Warrior Battlefield Cross Memorial Act
The VFW supports this bill, which would require the Department of
Veterans Affairs to permit fallen soldier displays in VA national
cemeteries.
Two years ago, VFW members from VFW Post 3345 in Strongsville,
Ohio, erected a battlefield cross by the Ohio Western Reserve National
Cemetery chapel as a sign of respect for their fallen comrades. They
were later disheartened to learn that the former director improperly
removed the memorial, claiming that it depicted violence. To VFW
members, all of whom have deployed into harm's way in a foreign land,
the battlefield cross bears a sacred significance and is used to honor
and remember our brothers and sisters who have made the ultimate
sacrifice in service to our nation.
The VFW is pleased that VA reversed the Ohio Western Reserve
National Cemetery director's decision and issued a notice to all
national cemetery directors entitled ``Acceptance of Donations
Featuring the Fallen Solider Display,'' which makes clear VA's policy
to allow the display of the battlefield cross at any VA national
cemetery. VFW Post 3345 members report that the unfortunate Ohio
Western Reserve National Cemetery incident was resolved within three
days and has not reoccurred. To prevent similar incidents in the
future, the VFW supports legislation that safeguards a veteran's right
to honor fallen brothers and sisters.
H.R. 1911, SFC Brian Woods Gold Star and Military Survivors Act
This bill would expand survivors' benefits for spouses and children
of service members who die in the line of duty. The VFW has
consistently advocated for the expansion of child care benefits for
military and veteran families, and encourages this Subcommittee to do
everything it can to ensure that survivors receive adequate support and
assistance. Additionally, the VFW supports section 4 of this
legislation, which would provide for the transportation of remains of
fallen service members to no more than two locations if the second
location is a national cemetery.
Draft Legislation to Permit Appellants to Appear in Disability
Compensation Cases Before the Board of Veterans' Appeals by Picture
and Voice Transmission from Locations Other Than Facilities of the
Department of Veterans Affairs
The VFW supports this draft legislation, which would permit
appellants in disability compensation cases before the Board of
Veterans' Appeals to appear remotely by picture and voice transmission
from locations other than VA facilities. VA programs such as Telehealth
and Project Atlas already utilize similar remote access technology,
which many veterans find incredibly convenient.
Currently, veterans may appear remotely from one of roughly 65
locations in Board of Veterans' Appeals cases. This legislation would
undoubtedly improve access for veteran appellants in disability
compensation cases and would permit a greater number of veterans to
attend their own hearings. The VFW also strongly urges this
Subcommittee to ensure that adequate internet security measures are
implemented in order to prevent data breaches and safeguard sensitive
personal information.
Draft Legislation, Justice for ALS Veterans Act of 2019
This draft legislation would extend increased dependency and
indemnity compensation paid to surviving spouses of veterans who die
from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), regardless of how long the
veterans had such disease prior to death. Although the VFW cannot
support this draft legislation, we recommend that this Subcommittee
consider legislation that would grant a similar exception for surviving
spouses or family members of veterans who die from service-connected
diseases or injuries.
Prepared Statement of Ashlynne Haycock
The Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS) is the national
nonprofit organization providing compassionate care for the families of
America's fallen military heroes. TAPS provides peer-based emotional
support, grief and trauma resources, grief seminars and retreats for
adults; Good Grief Camps for children; and casework assistance,
connections to community-based care, online and in-person support
groups, and a 24/7 resource and information helpline for all who have
been affected by a death in the Armed Forces. Services are provided
free of charge.
TAPS was founded in 1994 by Bonnie Carroll following the death of
her husband in a military plane crash in Alaska in 1992. Since then,
TAPS has offered comfort and care to more than 85,000 bereaved
surviving family members. For more information, please visit TAPS.org.
TAPS receives no government grants or funding.
Chairman Luria, Ranking Member Bost, and distinguished members of
the House Veterans Affairs Committee, the Tragedy Assistance Program
for Survivors (TAPS) thanks you for the opportunity to make you aware
of issues and concerns of importance to the families we serve, the
families of the fallen.
While the mission of TAPS is to offer comfort and support for
surviving families, we are also committed to improving support provided
by the Federal government through the Department of Defense (DoD), the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Department of Education (DoED),
Department of Labor, state governments, government contractors, and
local communities for the families of the fallen - those who fall in
combat, those who fall from invisible wounds and those who die from
accidents, illness or disease.
TAPS was honored to enter into a new and expanded Memorandum of
Agreement with the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2017. This
agreement formalizes what has been a long-standing, informal working
relationship between TAPS and the VA. The services provided by TAPS and
VA are complementary, and in this public-private partnership each will
continue to provide extraordinary services through closer
collaboration.
Under this agreement, TAPS continues to work with surviving
families to identify resources available to them both within the VA and
through private sources. TAPS will also collaborate with the VA in the
areas of education, burial, benefits and entitlements, grief counseling
and other areas of interest.
H.R 1911- SFC Brian Woods Gold Star & Military Spouses Act
One of the top 3 legislative priorities for TAPS in 2019 is
allowing surviving military spouses to remarry and retain benefits. The
SFC Brian Woods Gold Star & Military Spouses Act addresses some of the
issues related to remarriage. In addition, TAPS would like to highlight
other issues related to remarriage that have not been brought up before
the committee.
Many surviving military spouses opt not to remarry after the death
of their service member because the loss of financial benefits would
have a negative impact on them, especially those with children. Many
choose to cohabitate instead of legally remarrying to retain their
benefits. If a surviving spouse waits until age 57 to remarry, not only
do they retain benefits but they are no longer offset. In 2013 the
United Kingdom eliminated the remarriage penalty for surviving spouses.
Remarried Surviving Military Spouses
Surviving military spouses who choose to remarry lose virtually
everything afforded to them by the service and ultimate sacrifice of
their service member spouse, this includes their healthcare, DIC, SBP,
education benefits, military ID cards, etc. While they choose to
remarry for a second chance at love, surviving military spouses should
not have to pay this penalty. They would much rather have their spouse
back.
The average age of a surviving spouse is 25 years old. They should
not have to wait 32 years to get remarried, if they choose to, in order
not to lose the benefits their spouse earned in service to their
country.
Here are just some of the testimonials TAPS has received from
surviving military spouses who have chosen to remarry, and what it
would mean to them to have these benefits restored:
``I was 22 years old when my husband, 1LT Jonathan Rozier, was
killed in a firefight in Baghdad. I was always afraid of remarriage
because I never wanted to lose the ability to care and provide for
myself or my child - these are things that America gave us when
Jonathan died. I decided to remarry when I was 11 years out from my
first husband's death. It was a hard and terrifying decision to sign
away the healthcare, the education benefits and the monetary
compensation. I never understood why the price of my husband's life
changed because I remarried. Widows should retain their VA benefits
regardless of remarriage because the life exchanged for those benefits
does not change when or if a widow decides to remarry.''
``The military spouse gives up their lives to spend by their
husband's side. Their career is often put on hold to move and be there
for the kids during training and deployments. When tragedy strikes the
benefits are what we rely on to make up for the years of career we
lost. We shouldn't be penalized for moving forward with our lives,
years later. I chose to live my life as my late husband asked me to do.
I shouldn't be penalized financially because I chose to live and
love.''
``If we were civilians and entitled to a benefit from our spouses'
work we would not forfeit those benefits if we remarried yet we lose
everything. Many of us have lost our loved ones in our mid 20's and
they are asking us to stay widowed for the rest of our lives. That is
unfair and unrealistic. Several of us will not remarry out of fear of
losing, so we lose out on the legal benefits of our new relationship
based on the fear of losing the benefits of our deceased loved one.''
Surviving Military Spouses Who Remarry After Age 57
If a surviving military spouse waits until age 57 to remarry, not
only do they retain their survivor benefits they are exempt from the
Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) - Dependency and Indemnity Compensation
(DIC) offset. Current Federal law requires a $1 reduction in SBP
annuity for each $1 received in DIC.
On December 16, 2003, the Veterans' Benefits Act of 2003, P.L. 108-
183, repealed the DIC offset for widows/widowers who remarry after the
age of 57. On July 19, 2007, three widows sued the U.S. government,
arguing that the Act applies equally to the DIC offset of SBP. On
August 26, 2009, in Sharp versus the United States, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that widows/widowers who
remarry after age 57 must receive full SBP and DIC payments without an
offset.
The ruling created two distinct classes of widows/widowers affected
by the SBP-DIC offset, those who remarry after age 57 and those who do
not. If a surviving spouse does not remarry after age 57 their SBP
continues to be offset.
Unremarried Surviving Military Spouses
Many military surviving spouses have long term relationships but
choose not to legally remarry because they financially cannot afford to
due to the remarriage penalty. They may have 20 year engagements, have
children with their new significant others, some even have commitment
ceremonies but being legally married is not something they can do as
the benefits do not outweigh the consequences.
We know that military spouses are the most unemployed or
underemployed population due to frequent moves and everything that
comes with the military lifestyle. This does not change because they
become widowed. Adding to this reality are additional layers of grief,
helping children grieve, and becoming the only parent in many cases. It
makes it significantly harder for a spouse who was already unemployed
to then go back to work.
Many military spouses are unable to fully vest in their own
retirement and were banking on the retirement of their spouse as a
joint venture. They struggle with wanting to find a new normal and a
second chance at love and making the best financial decisions for them
and their families. In addition, choosing not to remarry has other
negative impacts on their family as they can be viewed as ``living in
sin'' by family and churches. Because the VA can take away benefits
from surviving military spouses for ``holding themselves out to be
married'' all of the stories we are sharing here will be unattributed:
``Not being able to remarry without losing everything has left me
with hard choices that have broken my heart. My fiance's family has
disowned us for ``living in sin''- this includes my fiance's 3 adult
daughters. For practical reasons, I can't remarry. I have too much to
lose. However, it is a punch in the stomach that the reason for this is
the government has decided my sacrifice - the loss of my husband - no
longer matters if I remarry. The 19 years and 9 months he served, the
overseas moves, the constant disruptions to our family, the delay of
any education or career pursuits for myself, the absence of sound
mental health help for my husband, all become meaningless to the
government if I remarry. My husband's sacrifice would become forgotten
just as I would be. On principle, I can't live with that. But, that
principle (and my practical needs) costs me dearly in the relationship
with my fiance's family. I'm surprised he even chooses to stay with me
sometimes. It is a lot to ask of him.''
``Disallowing spouses to maintain the benefits earned during their
marriage supports the archaic notion that a woman will/should be
supported by the next man. It ignores the fact that they knowingly
contributed to the success of the family they intended to keep, and
forces them into a position where they must stay alone, or rely on
someone else to commit to the burden of support that their husband
fulfilled. Removing benefits with remarriage signifies that their
previous contribution was worthless. The benefits we received were
earned through commitment to the military. Our contribution should not
be regarded as less based on relationship status.''
``At the time of my husband's death, we had been married for 18
years, all served on active duty. His military career was all I'd ever
known and our family's only financial future. Multiple deployments and
overseas moves greatly limited my ability to work. When he died, I
found myself raising 3 kids alone without the means to financially
support them myself. Giving up his benefits for a choice of remarriage
is not something I feel that I could ever do. Not only did he serve for
those benefits, I served alongside him too. His benefits are also my
benefits and the only retirement plan that I have.''
TAPS strongly supports ending the remarriage penalty for all
surviving spouses. We would also like to address our views on ending
the ``Hold yourself out to be married'' clause, electronic medical
record access for surviving military spouses, and adding education
benefits to the bill.
Hold Yourself Out to be Married
A top priority for TAPS and The Military Coalition (TMC) survivor
committee is the removal of the ``hold yourself out to be married''
clause within the definition of surviving spouse and the removal of the
term ``opposite sex'' in Title 38 U.S. Code, section 101, paragraph 3.
According to 38 U.S. Code Sec. 101 Paragraph 3:
(3) The term ``surviving spouse'' means (except for purposes of
chapter 19 of this title) a person of the opposite sex who was the
spouse of a veteran at the time of the veteran's death, and who lived
with the veteran continuously from the date of marriage to the date of
the veteran's death (except where there was a separation which was due
to the misconduct of, or procured by, the veteran without the fault of
the spouse) and who has not remarried or (in cases not involving
remarriage) has not since the death of the veteran, and after September
19, 1962, lived with another person and held himself or herself out
openly to the public to be the spouse of such other person.
We believe this language unduly penalizes surviving military
spouses and may cause them to lose their survivor benefits. Many
military widows/widowers choose not to remarry to protect their
survivor benefits. Instead, some choose to live together with their
boyfriend or girlfriend without marriage but still live in fear of
losing their benefits.
TAPS has collected stories from surviving military spouses that
helps illustrate this issue. Here are just a few of their personal
testimonials:
``I have been engaged to my boyfriend since June 2011. We have not
married due to the penalty nor do we live in the same household because
I am in fear of common law marriage if we lived together. We have been
together for 14 years. He has been very supportive in my decision to
not remarry. I made this decision so that I do not have to work full
time and have more time to spend with my daughter. Being so young it
has been difficult over the past 15 years. I am now 35 years old, still
unmarried and with no other children.''
``I was widowed when I was 24. The single most pervasive issue I
have faced besides losing my husband, has been the knowledge that I
will not be able to remarry without losing eligibility for my health
insurance/access to crucial mental health services that I have relied
on at places such as Home Base and the Vet Center in Boston. After my
husband's death, I chose to return home to live near my family in the
North Shore of Massachusetts. This is not an easily affordable place to
live, and even with a bachelor's degree and a 9-5 job, I depend very
heavily on my monthly DIC allotment to help me survive. I do not have
an extravagant lifestyle; I do not own a car, I have a condo, and I am
in love with a man I cannot afford to marry, because despite how hard
he works, his income would not cover the losses that marriage would
bring to my life. As I approach my mid 30's, I feel that my
relationship is valued less by others in our community because we are
not married. It feels infantilizing to always have to refer to my 33-
year-old partner, as a `boyfriend' because to call him anything else
threatens my ability to live comfortably and independently near my
family and my husband's resting place.''
``I won't remarry because it affects what I can provide for my
children but it's greatly awkward to have to tell people the man I have
3 children and one more on the way that he is just a boyfriend. I think
he also feels a little less important without the `husband' title and
some part of me yearns to be a wife again, but this penalty would hurt
financially. I think it also affected me when I started dating. Having
to make it clear I would not be able to remarry probably discouraged
some type of men. As a woman, being married isn't everything but it's
sure a part of a feeling of being whole again.''
``I have been a widow for 10 years this coming Christmas Day. I
have been in a relationship with my boyfriend for 6 years now. Though
he has asked, I've asked him to `postpone' his proposal as I do not
want to risk losing my VA Benefits. It's unfortunate that I have to
choose money over love, but it is being stuck between a rock and a hard
place as the VA benefits are my source of income and healthcare. And
though he would be able to provide for me, I have 3 children that I
still provide for so it would not be fair to him to have to compensate
if I lost my benefits. Therefore, we choose not to marry at this time.
Do I think it's fair? No. My husband fought and died for, well, a lot.
And to make sure his family was secured in the event of his death
brought him comfort on his deployments. He was taken from me. I didn't
leave him. I don't think it's fair that I would lose everything my
husband fought and died for simply because I want to move forward with
my life. Those benefits are owed to me. And though I'm not the type of
person to feel entitled to anything, the truth is I am. My husband died
under the U.S. Government's watch.''
``At the time of my husband's death, we had been married for 18
years, all served on active duty. His military career was all I'd ever
known and our families only financial future. Multiple deployments and
overseas moves greatly limited my ability to work. When he died, I
found myself raising 3 kids alone without the means to financially
support them myself. Giving up his benefits for a choice of remarriage
is not something I feel that I could ever do. Not only did he serve for
those benefits, I served alongside him too. His benefits are also my
benefits and the only retirement plan that I have.''
``I'm engaged with a plan to get married next year. My fiance is
nervous to even set a date because he feels guilty of me losing my
benefits. My son has no security legally without Chris and I being
married. I have made my will so that Chris will become his legal
guardian if something happens to me. It's scary living in a way where
there's no foundation, because we're not able to build one with the way
our benefits are set up. It feels like we're `playing house'.''
Access to Children's Medical Records
In addition to losing financial benefits, ID cards and TRICARE for
themselves, surviving military spouses lose access to electronic
medical records and referrals for their children. The referrals have to
be physically mailed as opposed to being able to immediately access it.
In addition, they no longer have access to the electronic records.
Minor children do not have their own accounts, its under their parents'
account. If the parent is no longer in the system under TRICARE the
remaining parent cannot access them.
The story of Kaanan Mackey-Fugler is representative of so many
surviving military spouses who have remarried and been hit with the
penalties to their children. Had she known that her daughter was going
to be diagnosed with T1 diabetes and almost die, and she could not
access any of her medical records, she may have waited to legally
remarry (her words). Here is her story:
``June of 2018, my then 9-year-old daughter was admitted to ICU in
DKA and diagnosed with T1 diabetes. While at the hospital I learned
that Tricare would not speak to me. Why? Because as their only living
parent I needed to sign a new HIPPA form as their guardian to allow me
to talk to someone. That was only the beginning of what I would
encounter since that day! My status as their only living parent did not
change only my marital status. Let that sink in; while my child is in
critical condition in ICU I had to fill out a new HIPPA form just to
have someone that would speak to me!"
``The next was trying to change her PCM from one that had left her
in a room for 4 hours and doing no tests on her that could have
prevented my daughter from almost dying. After trying to log on to the
website to change her PCM, I discovered I no longer had access to her
``privilege'' information to be able to access, change, or even view
referrals. I called DMDC and was told that I'm no longer privileged to
that information on my minor children. I would have to call, make a
request, and wait for the mail referrals. Once I finally got someone to
help me transfer PCM, I learned that I could only get the referrals for
my children sent to my mail. Why? Because I was no longer granted
access to any of their electronic files through DMDC.''
``After numerous referrals had to go through for nutrition,
dietitian, and an endocrinologist and I had to wait for it to come in
the mail to schedule these things (all of which are specialties and are
backlogged normally) it further put my child behind on adequate
healthcare. Because I was punished by DoD for getting remarried and
giving up my benefits. I was unable to access their Survivor Benefit
Plan online, their MyBenefit portal is no longer something I can
access. If my child needs anything medically I have to hope I can get
someone on the phone after a long wait time hoping they don't
disconnect in the middle of the call and then I have to wait for a
mailed out form to say whether it's granted or not. If they need proof
of anything, I CAN NOT provide them with copies. I can't even get them
a copy showing they have dental insurance because I have no access.''
``I truly just want electronic access to her referrals so I can set
up appointments for specialty doctors and equipment like her insulin
pump and continuous glucose monitor (both of which took over a month to
get a paper copy to send and get these lifesaving things ordered even
though the referral was approved in days.) Further, to be able to
access my children's MyBenefit and to be able to access their survivor
benefit plan through DMDC are all things that my children should have
access to as it's their benefits and as minors they can't access for
themselves. That should not be too much to ask as I am their ONLY
living parent. It shouldn't matter if I'm remarried or not, I am still
the ONLY living parent that these children have left.''
Maintaining Education Benefits After Remarriage
One of the things TAPS would like to see added to the bill is the
inclusion of allowing surviving military spouses to maintain education
benefits after remarriage. As many studies have shown, the GI Bill is
an investment into the future for both the student and the economy.
It's why we have done so much to strengthen it over the past 10 years.
Remarried spouses are no different. They would like the opportunity to
use those benefits to pursue a degree and career. Many may not have had
the opportunity to pursue them while being a military spouse, and if
they are losing all other benefits due to remarriage, they will need
the ability to financially help their family.
``At the time of my remarriage, I had just finished my bachelors
degree and wasn't sure what to do. I had a child who required multiple
doctors and therapy appointments, making going to school hard and
graduate school impossible. I still had time to use my benefits, which
had made it possible for me to return to school as a single parent.
After graduation, I was given the opportunity to serve my community as
a police officer. My plan had always been to go back to school, as I am
now a Ph.D. candidate, and had saved a portion of my education benefits
for that purpose but at the time, I had to make a choice. I could stay
widowed and risk state intervention if I died on duty or I could
remarry to protect my son and lose my benefits. I chose my son. As a
result, the benefits that would have helped me get my masters and
doctorate disappeared, and I have had to pay for it myself. The
assistantship I have barely covers rent and bills, much less anything
extra my son may need.''
TAPS knows that ending the remarriage penalty as a whole will be a
difficult and expensive bill to get done. We believe doing a smaller
bill that handles education benefits, holding yourself out to be
married, and the medical records would be a good foot in the door to
start building support for eventually ending the remarriage penalty,
and would have a huge impact on many surviving military families.
However, we still hope to see pieces of the remarriage penalty
eliminated this year and support built for eventually doing away with
it completely, just like our friends in the UK.
TAPS thanks the committee for starting the conversation on this
important legislation, and thanks Representative Walz & Representative
Bacon for introducing a bill that is a good starting point. We greatly
appreciate your thoughtful consideration of the needs of our nation's
veterans and surviving families.
It is the responsibility of the nation to provide for the support
of the loved ones of those who have paid the highest price for freedom.
Thank you for allowing us to speak on their behalf.
STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD
Honorable Andy Kim
America's veterans deserve America's best. They deserve the best
health care and the best government service.
I introduced the bipartisan VA Overpayment Accountability Act with
Congressman French Hill because sometimes, our veterans do not receive
the best.
Through several programs, the Department of Veterans Affairs
provides monthly payments to veterans and other beneficiaries. Because
the VA often relies on outdated systems to provide those payments,
those recipients sometimes receive overpayments at no fault of their
own.
When this happens, it's the veterans who pay a price. In order to
compensate for their mistake, the VA will withhold payments from
veterans. At a time in which 1.4 million veterans across the United
States are struggling with poverty issues, withholding payment can have
severe consequences for Americans who earned these benefits.
Because there is no limit on how much the VA can ask a vet to
repay, and no limit on how far back it can go to collect the debt,
these sums can impact the credit and financial stability of veterans.
The VA Overpayment Accountability Act aims to fix these issues by
improving VA IT systems that are often the cause of these overpayments.
It also provides credit protections for veterans who are the victims of
overpayments and become targets of unfair VA practices.
As a grateful nation, we should aim to honor our veterans, not send
debt collectors after them because of a failure at the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
Barbara Kim-Hagemann, the State Commander of the Department of New
Jersey Veterans of Foreign Wars said in her endorsement remarks of this
bill, that it is imperative that Congress work to correct, ``harsh
Veterans Administration procedures in recouping benefit overpayments
from veterans who are barely living paycheck to paycheck.''
On behalf of the thousands of veterans that Barbara fights for
every day, and the millions across our country who sacrificed in their
service, I call on the members of this committee to join me and
Congressman Hill in this bipartisan effort to make the VA work and
honor our veterans.
PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA (PVA)
Chairwoman Luria, Ranking Member Bost, and members of the
Subcommittee, Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA) would like to thank
you for the opportunity to submit our views on some of the pending
legislation impacting the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that is
before the Subcommittee. PVA is proud of its rich history and no group
of veterans understand the full scope of care and benefits provided by
the VA better than PVA's members-veterans who have incurred a spinal
cord injury or disorder, such as Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS).
H.R. 592, the ``Protect Veterans from Financial Fraud Act''
PVA supports H.R. 592 which will ensure that every veteran
participating in VA's Fiduciary Program can recover their benefits in
cases of fiduciary misuse and fraud. Studies show veterans are
particularly vulnerable to scams, including those perpetrated by
someone entrusted with their care. Too often we hear about a VA
appointed fiduciary failing to honor the trust given them and illegally
misusing a veterans funds for their own personal gain.
Unfortunately, not all veterans who have VA-appointed fiduciaries
are treated equally under Federal law. If a fiduciary misuses a
veteran's benefits, the VA will remove the fiduciary, but it can only
re-issue stolen benefits to the veteran if the fiduciary manages
benefits for ten or more veterans. According to the VA however, 80
percent of beneficiaries have a one-on-one relationship with their
fiduciary. The ``10 or more'' requirement leaves thousands of veterans
and unable to recoup benefits lost through no fault of their own.
H.R. 592 clarifies existing procedures for the reissuance of
benefits by VA in all cases of negligence or fraud, and adds the right
to appeal adverse or negative decisions. Both actions are consistent
with PVA's efforts to improve the current fiduciary program.
H.R. 628, the ``Working to Integrate Networks Guaranteeing Member
Access Now (WINGMAN) Act''
PVA supports the goal of ensuring veterans receive timely
information regarding the status of their claims. H.R. 628 would allow
veterans submitting a claim for benefits, to permit a covered
congressional employee in the office of the member of Congress
representing the district where the veteran resides to have access to
all of the records of the veteran in the databases of the Veterans
Benefits Administration.
We appreciate that this bill ensures that congressional employees
granted access to such a program undergo the same training and
certification program that VA currently uses to certify veterans
service organization representatives and attorneys representing
claimants. This legislation, however, allows access to a claimant's
information regardless of whether the covered employees are acting
under a power of attorney.
Claims files contain the most private information about that
particular veteran and, often times, information of other individuals
consulted during the claim's development. PVA believes that in the
interest of maintaining strict protection of such private information,
this legislation should be limited to those who hold a power of
attorney. Other logistical issues may also arise in the form of the
added administrative burden on VA of managing the certification process
and tracking users. Certainly we do not want to see resources that
should be applied to adjudicating claims shifted to facilitating
congressional involvement unless it produces a significant increase in
productivity.
H.R. 1911, the ``SFC Brian Woods Gold Star and Military Survivors Act''
PVA supports H.R. 1911, which seeks to improve benefits and
services for the surviving family members of those killed in the line
of duty. If passed, H.R. 1911 would:
Allow survivors that re-married to continue to have
access to on-base facilities if they have dependent children;
Allow surviving spouses of servicemembers who were killed
while on duty to continue to receive Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation (DIC) or military Surrvivor Benefit Plan (SBP) payments
should they re-marry and ensures survivors that re-married before the
bill becomes law are eligible to collect benefits moving forward;
Direct the Department of Defense (DoD) to pay the
transportation costs of remains for those killed in combat back to
their hometown for any memorial services and then to a national
cemetery of the surviving family's choice for final internment (current
law only authorizes one trip); and
Authorize DoD to extend the existing child care service
assistance program (for civilian providers) to survivors of
servicemembers that die in the line of duty.
Surviving spouses should not have to forfeit lifesaving benefits
afforded to them and we support this effort to keep their existing
benefits intact. It's an equity issue as well and repealing the
remarriage penalty would make eligibility requirements for DIC and SBP
consistent with other Federal programs
H.R. 4183, ``Identifying Barriers and Best Practices Study Act''
PVA supports H.R. 4183, which would require the Comptroller General
to conduct a study on disability and pension benefits provided to
members of the National Guard and members of reserve components for the
period of January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2018. Specifically, the bill
would require comparisons between the National Guard and members of the
reserve to those who served in regular components. The comparisons
would include the percentage of each group of veterans with service-
connected disabilities; the number of veterans in each group with each
disability rating; and the number of veterans in each group with a
service-connected disability for pilots, special forces, veterans who
participated in the Personnel Reliability Program, veterans who
underwent flight physicals, and who have muscular-skeletal or mental
health conditions.
H.R. 4165, ``Improving Benefits for Underserved Veterans Act''
PVA supports H.R. 4165, which would require VA to publish a report
regarding veterans who receive VA benefits disaggregated by sex and
minority group status. This report would include those benefits
administered through the Transition Assistance Program. A key to
understanding the health care needs of veterans is first knowing what
services VA offers to veterans, especially women and minority veterans.
With this information Congress can ensure VA has the appropriate
resources to meet the needs of all veterans.
H.R. 4360, the ``VA Overpayment Accountability Act''
PVA supports H.R. 4360, which would amend Chapter 53 of title 38 to
add a new section requiring the VA Secretary to correct any erroneous
information submitted to consumer reporting agencies including
information submitted by a third party collection agency. It would also
require VA to notify the beneficiary of the Department's request for
correction. Too many individuals receiving VA benefits have had their
credit history tarnished by unnecessary mistakes made by debt
collectors. PVA applauds Congress for taking this action to protect our
veterans and their survivors.
Discussion Draft, the ``Justice for ALS Veterans Act of 2019"
PVA gives its strongest endorsement to this proposed Act, which
seeks to expand eligibility for increased DIC paid to the surviving
spouse of a veteran who dies from ALS regardless of how long the
veteran had been receiving VA disability compensation for the disease
prior to death.
Under current law, increased DIC, commonly known as the the ``DIC
kicker,'' is available to an eligible survivor of a veteran with a
service-connected disability rated as totally disabled, which ALS is,
for a continuous period of at least eight years immediately preceding
death. Unfortunately, ALS is a disease that progresses rapidly once it
is diagnosed, and most patients die within three to five years.\1\ Some
veterans may live longer but the mortality rate for the disease is 100
percent and the overwhelming majority of veterans with ALS do not live
long enough to meet the eligibility critera required for the DIC
kicker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Muscular Dystropy Association, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis
(ALS): https:// www.mda.org/ disease/ amyotrophic- lateral-sclerosis
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was the case with George Vasiloff, a veteran of the United
States Marine Corps, and his widow, Jann. George was diagnosed with ALS
in September 2013 and VA rated him as 100 percent disabled for ALS in
November of that year. He passed away from ALS in March 2015. Shortly
thereafter,his wife began to receive DIC benefits but not the kicker
like other surviving spouses because her husband did not live eight
years with ALS.
Jann contacted her congressional representatives in August 2015 and
even met with some of her elected official's staffers. In March 2018,
she contacted the VA Office of Regulation Policy and Management to ask
that requirement be changed since victims of ALS do not generally
survive eight years with this disease. In their response, they
acknowledged the problem and stated that only Congress could change the
rule.
VA's response eventually brought her to PVA and led to the drafting
of this legislation. Jann's effort to pursue passage of this blll is an
honorable one. She would not benefit from it. Her desire is to change
this rule is so future surviving spouses of ALS victims receive the
same DIC benefits that others receive whose veterans have survived for
the required eight years with their service-connected disability before
dying. Again, that survival rate is not attainable for the overwhelming
majority of ALS victims.
The additional assistance afforded through the DIC kicker may not
be a lot of money, currently $280.09, but none of us knows the
circumstances of our veterans' families who are left to cope after this
devastating disease and loss. For some, it could be a car payment, food
on the table, or a utility payment. Few diseases are as catastrophic as
ALS, emotionally, physically, and financially for the entire family.
Surviving families should not be denied a benefit others receive simply
because the service-connected disease their loved one contracted made
it impossible for them to meet a life expectancy of eight years. We
thank Representatives Cisneros and Fitzpatrick for reintroducing this
important legislation, and urge the House to pass it quickly.
Discussion Draft on Board of Veterans' Appeals Telehearings
PVA generally supports this proposed legislation which would amend
Title 38 to permit appellants to appear in hearings before the Board of
Veterans' Appeals (BVA) by video and voice transmission from locations
other than VA facilities. Hearing no shows are a big problem for the
Board and add to large backlogs of cases. However, for many veterans,
it can be very challenging to travel to a VA Regional Office. Use of
telehearings may increase the likelihood of veterans making their BVA
hearings as scheduled. Although it is too early to assess, a
telehearing pilot program started by BVA in August of this year
suggests that this option does indeed produce higher rates of
participation. Also, in order to best preserve the evidence of record
of the ``telehearing,'' VA should be directed to preserve any and all
forms of communication between the veteran, the veteran's
representative, and the Board employees conducting the hearing. This
should include transcription of any chat functions embodied within the
technology used to conduct the hearings or any other communication
methods in addition to the transcribed hearing.
Again, PVA would once again like to thank the Subcommittee for the
opportunity to submit our views on the legislation considered today.
Enactment of much of this proposed legislation will significantly
enhance the benefits available to veterans, service members, and their
families. We look forward to working with the Committee on their
passage and would be happy to take any questions you have for the
record.
THE AMERICAN LEGION (TAL)
H.R.592, ``Protect Veterans from Financial Fraud Act of 2019"
Support
H.R.628, ``Working to Integrate Networks Guaranteeing Member Access Now
(WINGMAN) Act''
Oppose
H.R.1030, ``Veteran Spouses Equal Treatment Act''
No position
H.R.1424, ``Fallen Warrior Battlefield Cross Memorial Act''
Support
H.R.1911, ``SFC Brian Woods Gold Star and Military Survivors Act''
Support
H.R.4165, ``Improving Benefits for Underserved Veterans Act''
No position
H.R.4183, ``Identifying Barriers and Best Practices Study Act''
Support
H.R.4360, ``VA Overpayment Accountability Act''
Support
Draft: Legislation to permit appellants to appear before the Board of
Veterans' Appeals via picture and voice transmission from locations
outside the Veterans Affairs Department.
Support w/amdt
Chair Luria, Ranking Member Bost, and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee, on behalf of our National Commander, James W. ``Bill''
Oxford and our nearly 2 million members, we thank you for inviting The
American Legion to submit the following testimony.
The American Legion is directed by millions of active Legionnaires
who dedicate their time and resources to the continued service of
veterans and their families. As a resolution-based organization, our
positions are guided by more than 100 years of advocacy and resolutions
that originate at the grassroots level of our organization. Every time
The American Legion testifies, we offer a direct voice from the veteran
community to Congress.
H.R. 592 - The ``Protect Veterans from Financial Fraud Act of 2019"
To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure that the Secretary
of Veterans Affairs repays the misused benefits of veterans with
fiduciaries, to establish an appeals process for determinations by the
Secretary of Veterans Affairs of veterans' mental capacity, and for
other purposes.
The VA's Fiduciary Program was established to protect veterans and
other beneficiaries who are unable to manage their financial affairs by
appointing a fiduciary to assist in managing benefit payments.
Currently, the VA can remove the fiduciary if they mismanage or steal a
veteran's benefits but can only re-issue benefits to the veteran if the
appointed fiduciary manages benefits for 10 or more veterans. Under
this current policy, a veteran's only recourse is to sue the fiduciary
in an attempt to recoup the lost or mismanaged funds. There is also no
process to appeal a determination of the need for a fiduciary based on
a veteran's mental capacity.
The American Legion believes that no veteran should be harmed or
put in a financial hardship through no fault of their own. The American
Legion is aware that mismanagement and theft of veteran's funds by
fiduciaries does happen on occasion. When a veterans funds are
mismanaged or stolen by a VA-appointed and vetted fiduciary, the VA
should re-pay the benefit to the veteran. H.R. 592 will require the
Secretary of Veteran Affairs to repay the misused benefits of veterans
with fiduciaries and to establish an appeals process for determinations
of a veterans' mental capacity by the VA. Through Resolution No. 377:
Support for Veteran Quality of Life, The American Legion urges Congress
and the VA to enact legislation and programs within the VA that will
enhance, promote, restore or preserve benefits for veterans and their
dependents.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https:// archive.legion.org/ handle/20.500.12203/5696
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this legislation as currently written.
H.R. 628 - ``The Working To Integrate Networks Guaranteeing Member
Access Now Act'' or the ``WINGMAN Act''
To amend title 38, United States Code, to permit veterans to grant
access to their records in the databases of the Veterans Benefits
Administration to certain designated congressional employees, and for
other purposes.
The WINGMAN Act would permit veterans to grant certain
congressional employees in the office of a member of Congress to have
read-only access to all of the veteran's records in the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) for
the purpose of assisting constituents. A Member may designate up to two
such congressional employees, but the employees may not be recognized
as an agent or attorney with respect to veterans' benefit claims. Funds
under this bill may not be used to design or administer any training
for congressional employees.
The American Legion has more than 3,600 accredited representatives
who assist veterans with their claims located throughout the nation.
These professionals receive regular professional training ensuring they
have the most current understanding of the impact of changes in
statutes, regulations, and case law. It is simply not a matter of
receiving initial training and meeting the requirement of being
accredited, like many professions, it requires on-going, thorough
training. Additionally, veterans are repeatedly advised of their
opportunity to elect to have a Veterans Service Organization (VSO)
represent them in their quest to receive VA disability benefits at no
cost. The American Legion does not have a resolution to support the
enactment of this bill; however, we urge Congress to consider the long-
term ramifications of supporting legislation that requires their own
employees to have a minimal level of understanding in veterans' law
assisting their constituents. To ensure our veterans receive the
assistance they deserve, we highly recommend that a VSO advocate on
their veterans' behalf.
The American Legion opposes this legislation.
H.R. 1030 - ``Veteran Spouses Equal Treatment Act''
To amend title 38, United States Code, to amend the definition of
the term ``spouse'' to recognize new State definitions of such term for
the purpose of the laws administered by the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs, and for other purposes.
The provisions of this bill fall outside the scope of established
resolutions of The American Legion. The American Legion is a resolution
based, grassroots organization that takes positions on legislation
based on resolutions passed by the membership or in meetings of the
National Executive Committee. The American Legion has no current
position on H.R. 1030 dictated by resolution, however, as laws evolve
we expect VA to act in accordance with them.
The American Legion has no current position on H.R. 1030.
H.R. 1424 - ``Fallen Warrior Battlefield Cross Memorial Act''
To amend title 38, United States Code, to ensure the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs permits the display of Fallen Soldier Displays in
national cemeteries.
The proposed legislation would allow the Secretary of VA to display
the ``Fallen Warrior Battlefield Cross Memorial'' at all national
cemeteries. The Fallen Warrior Battlefield Cross Memorial consists of
helmet, rifle (inverted), boots, and identification tags (dog tags)
draped from the rifle. A U.S. Army field manual notes: ``The helmet and
identification tags signify the dead soldier. The inverted rifle with
bayonet signals a time for prayer, a break in the action to pay tribute
to our comrade. The combat boots represent the final march of the last
battle.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ https:// www.milsci.ucsb.edu/sites/
secure.lsit.ucsb.edu.mili.d7/files/ sitefiles/ resources/FM%207-
21.13%20Soldier%27s%20Guide.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The tradition of inverting the rifle into the ground dates back to
the Revolutionary War as a crude way of marking the position of a
fallen soldier. The custom continues to this day; units in theater
traditionally hold a remembrance ceremony in country (as the body is
flown back stateside for burial) to allow the unit to pay last respects
to those killed in action (KIA).
In October 2017, at Ohio's Western Reserve National Cemetery, a
battlefield cross was removed by cemetery officials. The National
Cemetery Administration (NCA) cited the reason for removal as a
violation of the administration's policy regarding monuments depicting
weaponry. The cemetery ultimately decided to restore the cross.
The Fallen Warrior Battlefield Cross Memorial Act (H.R. 1424) would
permit the display of the weapon when accompanying the other items that
make up the Battlefield Cross. NCA currently allows for the display of
the cross, however, it does not specifically mention the Battlefield
Cross. The passage of H.R. 1424 would prevent another NCA cemetery/
official from misinterpreting the policy and disallowing the display of
the Battlefield Cross.
Relevant here is the recent U.S. Supreme Case decision in American
Legion v. American Humanist Association, No. 17-1717, 588 U.S. ------
(2019), dealing with the separation of church and state related to
maintaining the Bladensburg Peace Cross, a World War I memorial shaped
after a Latin cross, on government-owned land, though initially built
with private funds on private lands.\3\ In a landmark victory for The
American Legion, the Court ruled 7-2 that the 40-foot memorial can
remain on public land in Prince George's County, Md., where it has
stood since 1925.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https:// www.legion.org/honor/246061/ legion-wins-
bladensburg-memorial- supreme-court-case
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``This was not just about a single cross,'' then American Legion
National Commander Brett Reistad said of the victory. ``This was about
the right of a community to honor its fallen heroes. And that's why the
World War I veterans of Bladensburg sacrificed their lives, to protect
the freedom of others.''
Additionally, The American Legion supported the same legislation,
as H.R. 4312, during the 115th Congress and testified in support on
September 5, 2018.\4\ Since its creation in 1919, The American Legion
has been dedicated to preserving the memories of our fallen and we will
continue to do so whenever possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ https://archive.legion.org/ bitstream/handle/ 20.500.12203/
11937/ aa007254.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports H.R. 1424 as currently written.
H.R. 1911 - ``SFC Brian Woods Gold Star and Military Survivors Act''
To amend titles 10 and 38, United States Code, to expand certain
benefits for survivors of members of the Armed Forces who die in line
of duty, and for other purposes.
No family of a servicemember ever wants to receive the dreaded
knock at the door informing them that their loved one has paid the
ultimate sacrifice. Dealing with such loss can be a life long struggle,
and every available resource must be at the family's disposal to help
them try to heal. Unfortunately, the loss of a servicemember means a
change in status for the surviving spouse and dependent children which
often leads to loss of certain benefits and access to the military
community they have been a part of.
After the passing of a servicemember, the surviving spouse will
lose access to military installations and on-base facilities such as
the commissary and post exchange. Loss is not only access, but
potentially monetary as well. Under current policy a surviving spouse
is entitled to Dependent Indemnity Compensation (DIC) through the
Department of Veteran Affairs, however, they will lose this benefit if
they chose to remarry prior to age 55. The American Legion believes
that surviving spouses are being unfairly cut off from their military
community, facilities and are being unduly harmed by taking away their
monetary benefits.
Another issue is the transportation of their loved one's remains.
Under current policy all in-theater KIA's are flown to Dover Air Force
Base. The Department of Defense (DoD) will then transport the remains
to a location of the families choosing. The problem is that some
families want to add another location for transport by DoD. An example
would be if the service member is from California, but their wishes
were to be buried at Arlington National Cemetery (ANC), the family can
request the remains be flown to California for a memorial service but
must pay out of pocket to transport their loved one to ANC for burial.
The bill would alleviate the aforementioned issues by:
Allowing survivors that remarry to continue to have
access to on-base facilities if they have dependent children;
Allowing surviving spouses of servicemembers who were
killed while on duty to continue to receive DIC or SBP should they
remarry and ensures survivors that remarried before the bill becomes
law are eligible to collect benefits moving forward;
Directing the Pentagon to pay the transportation costs of
remains for those killed in combat back to their hometown for any
memorial services AND to a national cemetery of the surviving family's
choice (current law only authorizes one trip); and
Authorizing the Pentagon to extend the existing child
care service assistance program (for civilian providers) to survivors
of servicemembers that die in the line of duty.
We can never fully repay the debt we owe to a Gold Star family, but
we can try do what is possible to support them after their loss. The
American Legion, through Resolution 85: Support for Military Quality of
Life Standards, supports H.R. 1911 in its endeavors to address the
issues that reduce the quality of life of America's Gold Star
Families.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ https://archive.legion.org/ handle/20.500.12203/10004
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports H.R. 1911 as currently written.
H.R. 4165 - ``Improving Benefits for Underserved Veterans Act''
To direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to publish a report
regarding veterans who receive benefits under laws administered by the
Secretary, disaggregated by sex and minority group member status.
The provisions of this bill fall outside the scope of established
resolutions of The American Legion. The American is a resolution based,
grassroots organization that takes positions on legislation based on
resolutions passed by the membership or in meetings of the National
Executive Committee. The American Legion has no current position on
H.R. 4165. With no resolutions addressing the provisions of the
legislation, The American Legion is researching the material and
working with our membership to determine the course of action which
best serves veterans.
The American Legion has no current position on H.R. 4165.
H.R. 4183 - The ``Identifying Barriers and Best Practices Study Act''
To direct the Comptroller General of the United States to conduct a
study on disability and pension benefits provided to members of the
National Guard and members of reserve components of the Armed Forces by
the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.
The United States military has increasingly relied on its reserve
components to meet the national security demands during the War on
Terror and the current security environment. This has required
increased commitments from reservists and their families as the nation
has moved from a strategic to an operational reserve. However, those
serving in these reserve components do not receive the benefits they
deserve to account for these increased responsibilities. This is
compounded by the fact that Guard and Reserve veterans have
historically been at a disadvantage when seeking VA compensation and
disability benefits due to poor reporting and documentation of injuries
which occur during a period of reserve or Active Duty for Training
(ADT).
The American Legion believes that all veterans should be afforded
the benefits they have earned regardless of service component and that
veterans should not be hindered in their attempts to gain access to VA
benefits. The American Legion supports legislation to provide the
military reserve components with greater benefits befitting of the
increased role they play in the security of the nation and the greater
commitments they must sustain. H.R. 4183, the ``Identifying Barriers
and Best Practices Study Act'' would direct the Comptroller General of
the United States to conduct a study on disability and pension benefits
provided to members of the National Guard and members of reserve
components of the Armed Forces by the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The American Legion Resolution No. 17: Position on the Operational
Reserve urges Congress to reform the laws and policies governing the
reserve components to provide them programmable sustainability as an
operational force.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ https://archive.legion.org/ handle/20.500.12203/5500
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this legislation as currently written.
H.R. 4360 - ``VA Overpayment Accountability Act''
To amend title 38, United States Code, to improve due process
accorded veterans with respect to recovery of overpayments made by the
Department and other amounts owed by veterans to the United States, to
improve the processing of veterans benefits by the Department of
Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.
VA overpays hundreds of thousands of veterans yearly. During fiscal
year 2018, VA made a total of $1.6 billion in overpayments.\7\ The most
common reasons for overpayments include a change of status in a
veteran's income, dependents, school attendance, military drills, or
incarceration. Most concerning is that a large portion of VA
overpayments are created due to lack of integration between IT systems
used by VA. The overpayment will be forwarded to the Debt Management
Center in Saint Paul, MN, for collection action. If a veteran is
receiving an active benefit, it will be garnished to repay the amount
owed. If the overpayment is not payed, it will be referred to the
Department of Treasury for collection. Due to overpayments by the VA,
thousands of veterans are potentially being placed in financial
hardship situations which might include loss of an active benefit or
damage to a veteran's credit history.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ https://www.militarytimes.com/ news/ pentagon-congress/2019/
09/19/va-concedes-its-debt-collection-systems- leave-veterans-
confused-frustrated/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed legislation contains three key elements that are aimed
at protecting veterans during the overpayment and debt collection
process. Firstly, it introduces measures to correct erroneous
information sent to credit reporting agencies about a debt incurred by
a veteran as a result of their participation in a benefits program.
Secondly, it requires the VA to improve the notification system once a
veteran has incurred a debt and requires tracking of metrics associated
with the overpayment process. Thirdly, it requires VA to conduct an
audit to study the metrics previously mentioned and examine how a
multitude of factors, to include vacancies at VA, contribute to
perpetuating the issue.
The American Legion, through Resolution No. 228: Timely Processing
of Overpayments for Reserve Components and/or Active Duty Pay, supports
efforts to ``place greater emphasis on processing of these
overpayments.''\8\ Debt caused by VA overpayments are a major concern
for The American Legion. Since 1978, The American Legion has retained a
dedicated staff member at the Debt Management Center for the sole
purpose of advocating on behave of veterans and their dependents facing
garnishment. Too often, we have seen unnecessary financial burdens
placed on veterans and their families as a result of bureaucratic
errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ https://archive.legion.org/ bitstream/handle/ 20.500.12203/
5558/ 2016N228.pdf? sequence=4&isAllowed=y
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion most recently testified on this issue on
September 19, 2019, and we are encouraged to see that many of the
recommendations made by the Veteran Service Organization (VSO)
community are included in pieces of legislation like H.R. 4360.\9\ If
passed, this legislation would greatly improve the way VA manages debt
collection while minimizing the negative impact for veterans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ https://www.legion.org/legislative/ testimony/247102/
``preventing-harm-veterans-examining- vas-overpayments-and-debt
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports H.R. 4360 as currently written.
Draft Legislation
To amend title 38, United States Code, to permit appellants to
appear in disability compensation cases before the Board of Veterans'
Appeals by picture and voice transmission from locations other than
facilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
Historically, veterans have had long wait times to go before the
Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) and have suffered from barriers based
on the locations they could go for a hearing. BVA has made great
strides and seeks to reduce the backlog and decide appealed cases in
under 365 days. Among these options to reduce the backlog is to utilize
a video or tele-conferencing option which would allow greater access to
resources to accommodate veterans hearing requests. However, under
current law, the Veterans Law Judge who presides over a given hearing
must do so from inside the BVA building in Washington, D.C., and the
veteran must travel to a VA regional office or local Veterans Health
Administration facility to join the video conference. The veteran's
representative must be with the veteran in person, or at a similar
facility. This places unnecessary burdens on both the veterans and VA
staff.
The American Legion believes that veterans should not be unduly
burdened with cost, time, and physical limitations when attempting to
make their case before a Veterans Law Judge at the BVA. The American
Legion supports legislation that would decrease wait times and remove
barriers for veterans during the appeals process. This draft
legislation would permit veterans to appear in disability compensation
cases before the BVA by picture and voice transmission from locations
other than VA facilities. Through Resolution No. 377: Support for
Veteran Quality of Life, The American Legion urges Congress and the VA
to enact legislation and programs within the VA that will enhance,
promote, restore or preserve benefits for veterans and their
dependents.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://archive.legion.org/ handle/20.500.12203/5696
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion supports this legislation as currently written,
but would strongly encourage the draft legislation be amended to
include all veterans' appeals before the BVA, not just disability
compensation cases. The American Legion believes all veterans and the
VA would greatly benefit from utilizing a video or tele-conferencing
option outside of VA facilities, not just disability compensation
cases. Additionally, the need for security regarding transmission and
atmosphere should be considered as policies for implementation are
developed.
The American Legion supports this draft legislation but strongly
encourages the amendment noted above.
CONCLUSION
Chair Luria, Ranking Member Bost, and distinguished members of the
Subcommittee, The American Legion thanks you for your leadership on
these matters and for allowing us the opportunity to explain the
positions of our nearly two million members. Questions concerning this
testimony can be directed to Mr. Lawrence Montreuil, Legislative
Associate, National Legislative Division at (202) 861-2700, or
[email protected].