Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

We very much appreciate the opportunity to present comments for the record on behalf of the more than 250,000 members of AMVETS concerning the issue of well-grounded claims and H.R. 3193, the Duty to Assist Veterans Act of 1999. Neither AMVETS nor myself has been the recipient of any federal grants or contracts during FY2000 or the previous two years.

Historically, the veterans’ claims process established by Congress was quite straight- forward and fairly simple to understand. The Government assumed the responsibility of assisting veterans in gathering the proper and necessary evidence to substantiate their claims. Veterans’ claims needed only to be supported by enough evidence to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim was "well grounded." In this context, the Veterans Administration had a "duty to assist" the veteran in obtaining available evidence to prove the claim. The duty to assist did not relieve the veteran of the burden of proof; it simply obligated the VA to assist the veteran in gathering existing evidence as a service to the veteran. Unfortunately, recent court opinions have challenged this long established principle by arguing that veterans were required to submit sufficient evidence to conclusively establish the well claim criteria before he or she was entitled to Government assistance.

Under the current procedures implemented to comply with the courts’ rulings, the determination of a claim to be "well-grounded" has become a prerequisite to the VA’s duty to assist. We believe this approach defeats the purpose and congressional intent which has served us quite well over time. We believe the VA’s long established responsibility to assist veterans in the claims process should be preserved. If we allow the recent court actions to drive this process, we essentially place the burden upon the veteran to obtain all necessary records and pertinent evidence which might be used to establish the entitlement before any assistance can be provided. The assumption, under this procedure, is that somehow, the veteran will find his or her way through the myriad pitfalls of the fact-finding process and somehow provide the correct evidence to establish that the claim is well grounded. Based on this effort, the VA would then make an initial determination concerning whether the veteran had successfully established a well-grounded claim. A favorable determination would then allow the VA to proceed with efforts to obtain more conclusive evidence to prove these same facts. Essentially, under these procedures, the heretofore simple process of one adjudication is replaced with a cumbersome, time consuming process requiring several reviews before the merits of the actual claim can actually be decided. The process is confusing for the veteran, and places him or her at a disadvantage by further complicating the already daunting task for some of petitioning the federal government for benefits to which they may be legally entitled at a time in their lives where need may be acute. We do not believe this was Congress’ intent. Rather, we believe the original process sought to assist veterans through an advocacy proceeding. The tests applied to adjudicate a claim do not change; only the fact-finding process is altered. Our position is that both the veteran and the government have a joint responsibility in these matters, which the recent court decisions ignore.

The elements of the proposed bill provide the assistance necessary to support veterans in establishing well-grounded claims and essentially reestablish the VA’s duty to assist. The duty to assist provision benefits both the VA and the claimants for two reasons. First, the VA is better equipped to determine which records are pertinent to the claim, and second, in most cases they can more promptly obtain them from government and private sources. Having the VA assist veterans in obtaining evidence is both practical and in keeping with public policy principles underlying veterans benefits. The court-imposed requirement defeats the purpose of the duty to assist provision and, in our view, simply serves to further complicate a process, which for many veterans is already confusing.

As we attempt to ensure our veterans are provided the proper benefits to which they are legally entitled, we believe we must continue to strive for simplicity and efficiency within the fact gathering process. We need to look for ways which avoid further burdening an already overburdened system. Although legislation can certainly define the specific direction Congress may believe is necessary to reestablish the historical principles of the duty to assist, the current dilemma results from the court’s ruling and the VA’s attendant obligation to comply by redefining how it applies the well-grounded policy. We believe the optimal solution would be to reaffirm the previous procedures to which both the VA and veterans had long become accustomed. We do not believe the Court’s interpretation serves any useful purpose. Rather, it serves to further complicate the process with the attendant disadvantage of slowing the claims adjudication procedures.

Our view is that the duty to assist process, which has served veterans well for years ought to be reaffirmed. We do not believe legislation is required to accomplish this so long as the sense of Congress is reflected within the process. We believe Congressional intent already exists and that it is consistent with VA’s earlier procedures to provide the assistance to veterans to which they are entitled. Regrettably, we seem to have transformed a relatively simple process into a more complicated one by virtue of the court-imposed requirement. We believe this Court ruling serves no useful purpose. Rather, it defeats the purpose of the duty to assist provision; is contrary to the intent of Congress; is confusing to both VA and veterans; complicates the process for the VA; and, inappropriately burdens VA claimants seeking benefits.