Testimony
VIETNAM
VETERANS OF AMERICA
Submitted
by
Leonard
J. Selfon, Esq.
Director,
Veterans Benefits Program
accompanied
by
Rick
Weidman
Director,
Government Relations
Before
the
United
States House of Representatives
Committee
on Veterans’ Affairs
Subcommittee
on Benefits
Regarding
Various
Veterans Benefits and
Services-Related
Legislation
H.R.
862, H.R. 1406, H.R. 1435, H.R. 1746,
H.R.
1929, H.R. 2359, H.R. 2361
and
other related issues
July
10, 2001
Vietnam
Veterans of America
Veterans Benefits and Services-Related Legislation
July
10, 2001
Mr. Chairman and other distinguished members of the Committee,
on behalf of Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA), we are pleased to have
this opportunity to present our views with respect to several
important pieces of veterans benefits and services-related
legislation. In this
statement, we will address each proposed bill seriatim.
VVA is most appreciative of your inviting us to testify and to
provide a statement for the record in this matter, as well as and for
your leadership in seeking to improve such a vital VA programs as
those affected by the legislation at issue.
H.R. 862 –
Presumptive Service Connection for Diabetes Mellitus (Type II).
Almost
a decade ago, Congress passed Public Law 102-4, the “Agent Orange
Act of 1991”. See 38
U.S.C. § 1116. The Act
provided the Secretary of Veterans Affairs with the authority to
establish presumptive service connection (i.e., entitlement to
service connection for diseases without the necessity of medical
evidence to establish an etiological nexus between military service
and a current disease) for diseases that have been scientifically
demonstrated to be associated with exposure to the chemical defoliant
Agent Orange, dioxin and other herbicidal agents during military
service in Vietnam. Whenever
the Secretary determines, on the basis of sound medical and scientific
evidence, that a “positive association” exists between such
exposure and the subsequent occurrence of disease, the Secretary shall
prescribe regulations providing that a presumption of service
connection is warranted for such disease.
See 38 U.S.C. § 1116(b)(1).
In making such a determination, the Secretary has been directed
to take into account both reports received from the National Academy
of Sciences (NAS) and “all other sound medical and scientific
information and analyses available to the Secretary.”
38 U.S.C. § 1116(b)(2). The
association between disease and exposure is considered to be positive
if “credible evidence for the association is equal to or outweighs
the credible evidence against such association.”
38 U.S.C. § 1116(b)(3).
Until recently, nine diseases were presumptively considered to
be the result of exposure to herbicidal agents used in Vietnam during
the war: chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne;
Hodgkin’s disease; acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy;
porphyria cutanea tarda; multiple myeloma; non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma;
prostate cancer; respiratory cancers (i.e., cancer of the lung,
bronchus, larynx or trachea); and certain specified soft-tissue
sarcomas. See 38
C.F.R. § 3.309(e). Moreover,
exposure to these agents has been shown to be so detrimental that VA
healthcare, vocational training and a monetary allowance are available
for children of Vietnam veterans who suffer from spina bifida. See Pub. L. 104-204, § 402. In addition, the VA has announced that based upon NAS’s
Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) recent findings, benefits will soon
become available for children of Vietnam veterans who have acute
myelogenous leukemia (AML).
Vietnam Veterans
of America
Veterans Benefits and Services-Related Legislation
July 10, 2001
In April and October, 2000, VVA petitioned the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to promulgate regulations to provide presumptive
service connection for diabetes mellitus (Type II) as the result of
exposure to Agent Orange and other herbicidal agents.
Veterans have been severely affected by this disease for years
without both well-deserved compensatory relief and desperately needed
health care. In its
latter petition, VVA specifically requested the Secretary to add
adult–onset diabetes to the list of diseases that are presumed to be
related to herbicidal exposure during the Vietnam War.
Previously, he had
deferred doing so pending the results of the IOM’s reevaluation of
the relationship between such exposure and the subsequent development
of that disease. In view
of the IOM’s October 11, 2000, announced determination that there
exists “new ‘limited or suggestive’ evidence” of an
association in this respect, it became clear that the time had come
for the VA to establish presumptive service connection for diabetes
mellitus. There was now sufficient medical and scientific evidence to
establish a positive association and a biological mechanism between
exposure to Agent Orange/dioxin and adult-onset diabetes mellitus.
Consequently, this new evidence is, at minimum, equal to, or, in our
opinion, outweighs, evidence against such association.
On
May 8, 2001, the VA published a final rule in the Federal Register
that would add diabetes mellitus (Type II) to the list of diseases
that are afforded presumptive service connection as the result of
exposure to Agent Orange. See
66 Fed. Reg. 23,166 (May 8, 2001).
See also 38 C.F. R. § 3.309(e).
Because of the substantial economic impact of this new
regulation (estimated at more than $3 billion dollars over the next
five years due to the large number of Vietnam veterans afflicted with
diabetes mellitus (Type II)), the effective date of the regulation was
established as July 9, 2001 (in conformance with the provisions of the
Congressional Review Act of 1996, 5 U.S.C. § 802).
At
first glance, H.R. 862, which would amend 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(2) by
adding diabetes mellitus (Type II) to the Agent Orange-related
presumptive disease list, would appear to be somewhat moot in light of
the VA’s new regulation. Nevertheless,
VVA urges the swift passage of this legislation to preclude the VA
from removing or curtailing this new disability benefit in the future.
Moreover, we would encourage Congress to add much more to this
bill.
In its May 8, 2001, notice in the Federal Register, the VA addressed two aspects
concerning subsequent awards of presumptive service connection for diabetes mellitus
(Type II). VVA takes exception with the VA’s decision in this respect. First is the issue of
extending this presumption to those service personnel who were exposed to Agent Orange
and other herbicidal agents during their military service, but not actually within the
geographical boundaries of the Republic of Vietnam. Specifically, we are referring to
exposure in the territorial waters of that country and in other locations where there was
documented use of agent Orange (e.g., Panama, Korea and Fort Drum, New York).
Vietnam Veterans of America
Veterans Benefits and Services-Related Legislation
July 10, 2001
Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(3), there is a presumption of exposure to
Agent Orange and other herbicides for any service personnel that actually served in the
Republic of Vietnam. This presumption stems from the difficulties encountered in securing
evidence to demonstrate that an individual was actually exposed. The presumption applies
not only to personnel on the ground during and after aerial spraying, but those individuals
that loaded the aircraft with herbicides or otherwise came into contact with toxic chemicals.
Currently, 38 U.S.C. § 1116 requires that a veteran have served in the “Republic of Vietnam”
in order to be eligible for the presumption of exposure to herbicides. While the VA has
acknowledged that this statute encompasses service on this inland waterways in Vietnam,
38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii) provides that service in the Republic of Vietnam includes service
in offshore waters or other locations only if the conditions of service involved duty or
visitation within the Republic of Vietnam. In a VA General Counsel precedent opinion,
similar language in 38 U.S.C. § 101(29)(A) was determined to mean that service in a
deep-water vessel in waters offshore of the Republic of Vietnam does not constitute service
in the Republic of Vietnam. See VA OGC Prec. 27-97. Since the VA's regulatory definition
of “Service in the Republic of Vietnam”' predates the enactment of § 1116(a)(3) (see former
38 C.F.R. § 3.311a(a)(1)(1990)), the VA general Counsel opined that there is no basis upon
which to conclude that Congress intended to broaden that definition through § 1116(a)(3).
The VA has further rejected offshore coverage due to a lack of evidence that individuals who
served in the waters offshore of the Republic of Vietnam were subject to the same risk of
herbicide exposure as those who served within the geographic boundaries of the Republic
of Vietnam, as well as the notion that offshore service is within the meaning of the statutory
phrase “Service in the Republic of Vietnam. The VA’s one nod to offshore service is the
extension of the presumption of exposure if the ship docked within Vietnam and the veteran
had actually disembarked and stepped ashore.
Extrapolating from the foregoing line of analysis, it is evident that the VA would
also reject presumptive service connection for those who were exposed to herbicidal
agents during their service in other venues, such a Panama, Korea and Fort Drum.
Accordingly, VVA encourages Congress to amend 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(3) to
apply the presumption of exposure not only to service in the Republic of Vietnam, but
also to service in the waters offshore, as well as for anyone serving in any other location
where the use of herbicidal agents has been generally documented.
The
second issue of concern is the VA’s position on the retroactivity of
awards of presumptive service connection for Agent Orange-related
diabetes mellitus (Type II). For
years, veterans have been filing claims for service connection for
this disorder with
Vietnam Veterans of America
Veterans Benefits and Services-Related Legislation
July 10, 2001
and without
specific medical evidence of an etiological nexus to toxic exposure.
In 1999, the CAVC handed down a decision wherein it opined that
38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(3)
and 38 C.F.R. § 3.308(a)(6)(iii) authorize the presumption of
exposure only if the veteran has been diagnosed with one of the
VA-approved presumptively service-connected diseases.
See McCart v. West, 12 Vet.App. 164, 168-169 (1999).
The VA quickly embraced this decision, resulting in the denial
of veterans’ claims for service-connection for diseases not on the
presumptive list, even where there was competent medical evidence of
an etiological nexus between exposure to herbicides in Vietnam and the
subsequent onset of the disease.
In our experience, the VA routinely denies such claims,
regardless of any probative evidence submitted in support thereof.
In other words, there is little or no consideration of service
connection on a direct, rather than a presumptive, basis.
VVA strongly supports the restoration of the critical
presumption of exposure vis-à-vis all presumptively
service-connected diseases and those sought on a direct basis through
competent medical evidence. This
is of particular importance with respect to diabetes mellitus (Type
II); a particularly insidious disorder.
If exposure is presumed and the veteran had filed a claim for service connection for
diabetes mellitus (Type II) prior to July 9, 2001 (the effective date of the aforesaid final
regulation on presumptive service connection for that disorder), there is no reason why
the effective date of an award of service connection should not be established retroactively
to the date of the VA’s receipt of the original claim for service connection. See, generally,
38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. The problem is that 38 U.S.C. § 1116(c)(2)
provides that VA regulations promulgated as a result of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs’
conclusion that a positive association exists between exposure to herbicidal agents and
a specified condition or disease “shall be effective on the date of issuance” of the
regulation. In view of 38 U.S.C. 1116(c)(2) and 5110(g), the VA apparently does not
have the authority to provide for a regulatory assignment of an effective date earlier than
the date on which the rule was issued (here, effectively July 9, 2001).
VVA maintains that in order to ameliorate the inequity of delayed recognition
of the impact of service-connected diabetes on the lives of veterans and their families,
Congress should include in H.R. 862 a provision establishing an effective date for
presumptive service connection retroactive to the date of an original claim for service
connection for that disorder. We believe that such a directive would be consistent with
the case of Nehmer v. U.S. Veterans Administration, C.A. No. C-86-6160 (TEH)
(N.D. Cal.) (awards of disability compensation or dependency and indemnity
compensation (DIC) made pursuant to VA regulations issued on the basis of 38 U.S.C.
§ 1116 may, under certain circumstances, be made retroactive to the date of an earlier
claim that was filed before the issuance of such regulations).
Vietnam Veterans of America
Veterans Benefits and Services-Related Legislation
July 10, 2001
There
can be no doubt that veterans who served in Vietnam faced exceedingly
more than the dangers associated with hostile action.
The environment in which they lived, fought and died teemed
with toxic chemicals and endemic diseases.
Much has been accomplished in recognizing this basic truth, but
there is a long way to go. Vietnam
veterans incur diseases of old age many years sooner than those of
similar age who did not serve there. Adult-onset diabetes mellitus,
generally with no prodromal manifestations during service, is a prime
example of this phenomenon. Vietnam
veterans are dying of this disease.
Often, they go without medical treatment because of financial
difficulties. For these
veterans, presumptive service connection not only means receiving
disability compensation, but also entitlement to life-saving VA
medical care.
Most
medical professionals and scientists would agree that we have only
scratched the surface with respect to understanding the long-term
effects of toxic exposures, including dioxin.
Many of the current studies heavily relied on by the IOM and
the VA (e.g., the U.S. Air Force’s Ranch Hand study) are
woefully inadequate to present a true picture of the devastating
effects of such exposure. Findings
are gender biased since most of the populations studied consist
entirely of males. Other
studies extrapolate conclusions merely from the examination of dirt
and fish. More funding
and research is required to even approach the level of understanding
to treat and compensate our suffering veterans.
The
medical panel of the Institute of Medicine of the national Academy of
Sciences that reported the bi-annual review this past Spring
specifically told VVA, in response to our direct question, that the
lack of ongoing large scale epidemiological studies of Vietnam
veterans and their offspring was a significant detriment to their
work, and prevented them from doing the type of work called for due to
the seriousness of these issues.
VVA calls on this Committee to take the leadership in mandating
a reopening of the “Vietnam Generation study” by the Centers for
Disease Contol (CDC), with proper leadership this time and sufficient
oversight by a civilian advisory panel. VVA also calls on the Congress
to ensure that the so-called Vietnam Readjustment Study, mandated by
the Congress last year, include a full physical with blood serum
dioxin testing.
VVA
also urges the Congress to make available significant funding for
dioxin and “in country effect” studies of possible adverse health
effects of exposure to herbicides and other toxic substances used by
the United States in Vietnam. There needs to be many such studies conducted by respected
independent private researchers proceeding simultaneously in order to
get the answers Vietnam veterans and their families need and deserve
before we are all dead. There is not a single ongoing study funded by
VA at this point, nor any such studies of Vietnam veterans funded by
the National Institutes of Health.
VVA
therefore urges Congress to consider and to pass further legislation
to assist dying and seriously ill veterans who have been so severely
affected by the use of chemicals in Vietnam and other locales.
H.R. 1406
– Gulf War Undiagnosed Illness Act of 2001.
The purpose of this bill is to improve presumptive disability
compensation benefits for veterans who suffer from poorly-defined
illnesses as the result of their service during the Persian Gulf War.
Section 2 of the bill would amend 38 U.S.C. § 1117(a) by
expanding the description of undiagnosed illness for which the VA may
provide compensation to include fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue
syndrome, a chronic multi-symptom illness, or any other poorly-defined
illness (or a combination of poorly-defined illnesses).
Obviously, VVA strongly supports this enhanced description,
since experience has demonstrated that the VA Compensation and Pension (C&P) Service has historically interpreted the existing
statutory language as narrowly as possible.
Section 3 of H.R.
1406 would add subsections (g)(1) and (2) to 38 U.S.C. § 1117 which
would protect the continuation of awards of service-connected
disability compensation for Persian Gulf War veterans who participate
in VA-sponsored medical research projects.
Specifically, the legislation would preclude any medical
information that is directly or indirectly derived from such
participation from being considered in the
process of
adjudicating a claim for the veteran’s entitlement to receipt of
service- connected disability compensation.
While VVA favors this prohibition, we believe that there should
be specific language in the bill to direct the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to take affirmative measures to ensure that VA adjudicators do
not have access to diagnostic or clinical documentation or other
information generated by a veteran’s participation in these studies.
Such language would help to ensure that such information does
not makes it way to the adjudicators and avoid the possibility of its
influencing their benefits determinations.
VVA would also like to take this opportunity to address a few
other important Persian Gulf War healthcare and benefits issues. VVA
vigorously supports H.R. 612 and its Senate counterpart, S. 409,
concerning compensation for Persian Gulf War illnesses.
In its June 28, 2001, testimony before the Senate Committee on
Veterans’ Affairs, VA officials
asserted that there is no need for such legislation, since existing
authorities are sufficient to deal with Gulf War-related claims (e.g,,
service connection on a direct basis).
VVA, however, believes the case to be otherwise.
Passage of this legislation is critical if ailing Gulf War
veterans are to receive the compensation for the broad spectrum of
medical problems as a result of their service in Desert Storm.
It
is VVA’s opinion that the VA has restrictively interpreted the
intent of Congress as embodied in the original legislation passed to
help ill Desert Storm veterans obtain compensation for undiagnosed
illnesses. See the
Persian Gulf War Veterans’ Benefits Act, Pub. L. 103-446.
Apparently, our opinion is shared by former chairman of the House
Veterans’ Affairs Committee, Rep. Bob Stump.
Vietnam
Veterans of America
Veterans Benefits and Services-Related Legislation
July 10, 2001
In
a June 3, 1998, letter to then-VA Secretary Togo West, Chairman Stump
stated, in part:
“…it
has become increasingly apparent to us that the Department is too
narrowly
implementing
the landmark legislation initiated in this Committee to provide
compensation
for these veterans.”
In
critiquing the VA’s implementing regulation (38 C.F.R. § 3.317),
Mr. Stump noted that:
“VA
regulations implementing that law…effectively limit compensation to
“illness…[which]
by history, physical examination, and laboratory tests cannot be
attributed
to any known clinical diagnosis…in ruling out compensation under PL
103-
446
in any case where the illness in question has been given a diagnosis
is to ignore both
the
nature of the illnesses Congress sought to have the VA compensate as
well as the
philosophy
of benefits adjudication it sought to have the Department apply.”
In
the three years that have passed since Mr. Stump issued this letter,
the VA’s own statistics tell the tale of how the Department has
failed to properly compensate ailing Gulf War veterans.
According to the Veterans Benefits Administration’s Data
Management Office, as of January 2001, the VA was denying undiagnosed
illness claims under PL 103-446 at a rate of approximately 75%. In
other words, three out of four Desert Storm veterans who have filed
undiagnosed illness claims have been denied benefits.
This statistic alone speaks volumes with respect to VA’s
attitude toward the validity of the relationship between service in
the Gulf War and the onset of subsequent poorly defined illness.
Legislation
such as H.R. 612 and S. 409 will alleviate these difficulties by
clearly defining Congress’ intent to ensure meaningful VA benefits
and services for our Gulf War veterans.
We further recommend that the lack of definitive scientific
evidence
Vietnam Veterans
of America
Veterans Benefits and Services-Related Legislation
July 10, 2001
concerning the
onset time of Gulf War-related illness justifies leaving the
presumptive period for service connection for Gulf War illness
indefinitely open. As we have previously testified, there is no
scientific basis whatsoever for placing any type of time limit on the
manifestation of such illnesses.
We also recommend that the Committee hold an oversight hearing
(this Fall, if possible) to examine the health and compensation
ramifications of the latest research into Gulf War illnesses. We
specifically recommend that the Committee request presentations from
the General Accounting Office on their April 2001 report, Coalition
Warfare: Gulf War Allies Differed in Chemical and Biological Threats
and in Use of Defensive Measures (GAO-01-13, April 2001). This
report notes that French Gulf War veterans suffer virtually no
symptoms of Gulf War illness in comparison to their American and U.K.
counterparts. They key difference between the French and U.S./U.K.
approach to chemical/biological defense during the Gulf War was that
the French did not use biological warfare vaccines on their forces.
VVA believes that in light of this GAO finding, and on the basis of
widespread reports of serious adverse reactions among
American military personnel to the anthrax vaccine over the
past three years, that the committee should fully investigate whether
chemical/biological warfare medications may have produced “medical
fratricide” among our Gulf War and later era veterans.
Additionally,
with respect to future funding of Agent Orange, Gulf War, and other
medical research and treatment studies, VVA strongly urges this
Committee to establish (preferably under the auspices of the
Department of Health and Human Services) a peer-review panel that
includes voting representatives of the veteran service
organizations. A potential model for this is the Congressionally
Directed Medical Research Programs (http://cdmrp.army.mil),
which includes patient advocates on its peer-review panels charged
with making decisions about which research or treatment programs will
receive funding in the areas of breast and prostate cancer research,
among others.
VVA
strongly believes that the existing Military and Veterans Health
Coordinating Board (MVHCB) (the entity that currently has jurisdiction
over the Gulf War Illness (GWI) research and treatment funding
program) is both exclusionary and out of touch with the legitimate
concerns of veterans and their family members about the nature, scope,
and direction of research and treatment for toxic battlefield
exposures. For example, the current ratio of GWI research versus
treatment programs is approximately 100 to 1 (i.e., the
MVHCB has funded only two treatment programs over the past seven
years).
Establishing
a veteran-inclusive peer-review panel that examines all past
toxic battlefield exposure issues is the best mechanism for ensuring
both sound scientific results and addressing the legitimate concerns
of veteran-stakeholders. Establishing such an entity within HHS would
ensure that specialized agencies, such as the National
Vietnam Veterans
of America
Veterans Benefits and Services-Related Legislation
July 10, 2001
Institutes
for Environmental Health Sciences, are fully integrated into medical
research and treatment programs involving veterans, something that is
currently not the case. Only by utilizing the full medical resources
of the federal government in a rational, stakeholder-inclusive fashion
can we hope to properly diagnose and treat the medical conditions
afflicting Vietnam, Gulf War, and other post-Cold War veterans.
Vietnam Veterans of America
Veterans Benefits and Services-Related Legislation
July 10, 2001
Quite
obviously, VVA enthusiastically supports this legislation. Disabled
veterans and their families fall victim to the rising costs of living
no less so than anyone else. H.R.
2361 would increase the current levels of disability compensation,
additional compensation for dependents, the VA clothing allowance and
the various rates of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC).
The percentage of increase would be equivalent to the
percentage of the cost of living adjustment (COLA) for Social Security
beneficiaries, and would become effective as of December 1, 2001.
These COLA increases are absolutely necessary to ensure that
veterans and their dependents receive meaningful benefits, and to
prevent them from falling through inflationary cracks.
Vietnam Veterans of America sincerely appreciates the
opportunity to present our views on these important pieces of
legislation. We believe
that they addresses matters of vital concern to veterans, their
dependents and the American people.
We look forward to working with this Committee and Congress on
this and other important issues.
Leonard
J. Selfon, Esq.
Director,
Veterans Benefits Program
Leonard J. Selfon, Esq., has served as the Director of VVA’s
Veterans Benefits Program since September, 1999.
In that position, he is responsible for the training and
oversight of more than 400 accredited service representatives
nationwide, and supervises VVA’s representation of veterans and
their dependents before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals and the
Federal courts. In
addition, Leonard serves as a contributing writer and managing editor
of VVA’s publication Veterans Benefits News, which contains
the latest information on legislation, regulations and court decisions
that affect veterans benefits law.
He has also prepared and delivered testimony before Congress
concerning a variety of veterans-related issues.
Between 1991 and 1998,
Leonard served as counsel to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
working as a Senior Appellate Attorney in the VA Office of the General
Counsel. His primary
responsibility was to represent the VA in all aspects of appellate
litigation before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
Upon leaving the VA in October, 1998, Leonard served as a
veterans law consultant to both the Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program
and to members of the private veterans bar.
He has also had experience in the corporate law sector, having
served as legal consultant to a national health insurance carrier.
Leonard is a graduate of the
University of Maryland and the University of Baltimore School of Law.
Richard
Weidman
Director,
Government Relations
Richard
Weidman serves as Director of Government Relations on the National
Staff of Vietnam Veterans of America.
He served as a medic with Company C, 23rd Med,
America Division, located in I Corps of Vietnam in 1969.
Mr.
Weidman was part of the staff of VVA from 1979 to 1987, serving
variously as Membership Service Director, Agency Liaison, and Director
of Government Relations. He
left VVA to serve in the Administration of Governor Mario M. Cuomo
(NY) as Director of Veterans Employment & Training for the New
York State Department of Labor.
He
has served as Consultant on Legislative Affairs to the National
Coalition for Homeless
Veterans, and served at various times on the VA Readadjustment
Advisory Committee, the Secretary of Labor’s Advisory Committee on
Veterans Employment & Training, the President’s Committee on
Employment of Persons with Disabilities on Disabled Veterans, Advisory
Committee on veterans’ entrepreneurship on the Small Business
Administration, and numerous other advocacy posts in veteran affairs.
Mr.
Weidman was an instructor and administrator at Johnson State College
(Vermont) in the 1970s, where he was also active in community and
veteran affairs. He
attended Colgate University B.A., (1967), and did graduate study at
the University of Vermont.
He
is married and has four children.
VIETNAM
VETERANS OF AMERICA
Funding
Statement
July
10, 2001
The national organization Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA) is
a non-profit veterans membership organization registered as a §
501(c)(19) with the Internal Revenue Service.
VVA is also appropriately registered with the Secretary of the
Senate and the Clerk of the House of Representatives in compliance
with the Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995.
VVA is not currently in receipt of any Federal grant or
contract, other than routine allocation of office space and associated
resources in VA Regional Offices and the Board of Veterans Appeals for
outreach and direct services through its Veterans Benefits Program
(service representatives). This is also true of the previous two fiscal years.
For further information, please contact:
Director,
Government Relations
Vietnam
Veterans of America
(301)
585-4000, extension 127
Back to Witness List |
