On behalf of the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs, this letter is to express our strong support for the efforts of the U.S. House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs and its work in advancing bills of great importance to current, past, and future generations of veterans.

We appreciate you holding this important committee hearing on these many issues.  Our positions on these bills are as follows:

H.R. 1197- Prisoner of War Benefits Act

We support an expansion of presumptive service-connection benefits, liberalizing the requisite period of interment, and updating the determination of such presumption for former prisoners of war.  

H.R. 3008 - Rural Veterans Services Outreach and Training Act

We support H.R. 3008 only if it is substantially amended as follows.  The current language of H.R. 3008 is an excellent starting point for continuing a growing dialogue on the need for expanded outreach to our nation’s veterans, though it does not yet reflect the benefits and service delivery system of the majority of the states.  We strongly support the creation of a statutory definition of outreach that ensures a systematic, proactive approach, and we support the definition of outreach as contained in H.R. 3008, which appears to mirror the language contained in S. 1315 as recently passed by the U.S. Senate and now awaiting House action.  We also strongly support the creation of a federal grant program to the States for the provision of outreach.  

However, while we generally support the grant structure, grant amounts, and grant-making process in H.R. 3008, two areas of this bill should be amended to more closely match the variations in the veterans benefits and services delivery system that exist across the 50 states, the territories, and the District of Columbia (hereinafter referred to as “the states”).  

First, while we concur that there is need in many rural parts of the nation to provide outreach to veterans in rural areas, we recognize that many of the nation’s 24 million veterans live in areas that are not rural.  We recently noted with interest the VA’s telephone call outreach campaign to 570,000 of the 1.7 million veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan who have not yet utilized VA services – presumably a mix of rural, suburban, and urban.  Veterans of the early years in the war in Iraq may not be aware of new testing and treatment for brain injury following blast exposure, post-traumatic stress disorder, treatment for the self-medicating but self-defeating effects of substance abuse that may have only recently emerged, and so on.   There is much to be done with regards to providing desperately needed outreach and services to our nation’s veterans, not just in rural areas of the nation, and H.R. 3008 brings us part way to reaching that goal.  

Additionally, in the years following each war, Congress has successively expanded health care and other benefits programs to meet the needs of these warriors, including presumptive service-connection and health care enrollment and specialized treatment for various categories of veterans, including those with exposure to Agent Orange, ionizing radiation, Project 112 including Project SHAD, Gulf War illness, and for veterans who are ex-prisoners of war, purple heart recipients, veterans with service after 1998, and more.  More needs to be done to reach out to these veterans as well, who are also presumably a mix of rural, suburban, and urban.

As it is currently drafted, H.R. 3008 targets the grants exclusively to outreach workers who are employees of counties.  Less than half the states, including Wisconsin, have benefits and outreach workers who are county employees, most typically called county veterans service officers (CVSOs).  The language of the bill as it is currently written could certainly benefit these states.  However, the majority of the states employ a variety of other models to provide services and outreach to their state veterans.

In many of the states, there are service officers who are state agency employees, typically called state service officers, including Tennessee, New Mexico, and Illinois, whose Director of Veterans Affairs, Tammy Duckworth, testified before this subcommittee a few weeks ago about her state’s service state-employee service officers and the need for the creation of an outreach grant.

A number of states contract with veterans service organizations (VSOs) to provide veterans services, like Utah, or with other types of non-profits, like Massachusetts. 

In some states, including in New York, municipalities and other non-county local governments provide direct veterans services and outreach.  

Many states, including Oregon, have a combination of several of these outreach mechanisms.  

The one thing all the states have in common is a state agency led by a director charged to serve all veterans within the geographic borders of the state.  In order to effectively achieve the outreach goals outlined in this bill, it must be amended with language broad enough to cover veterans residing in all areas of the country in ways that are locally effective.

The ability of State DVAs to provide federal outreach funds to reach veterans in the respective states, either through a grant or through a contract, should continue to be allowed as under the original bill.  Therefore, use of the term “non-profits” should be retained. 

To date, NASDVA has supported S. 1314, the Veterans Outreach Improvement Act and the language it contains.  For the reasons noted above, NASDVA and the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers (NACVSO) agreed to recommend that the following language, be included in S. 1314, which we believe more appropriately captures the totality of the nation’s infrastructure available for the provision of outreach to veterans nationwide:

A veterans agency of a State receiving a grant under this subsection may use the grant amount for purposes described in paragraph (1) or award all or any portion of such grant amount to local governments in such State, other public entities in such State, or private non-profit organizations in such State for such purposes.

Of note, the term “non-profit” includes VSOs, which are incorporated under one of the non-profit provisions of 501c of the Internal Revenue Code.

H.R. 3008 is an important step in the right direction, and we appreciate the recognition of the need for more outreach and services by the bill’s author, co-sponsors, and the leadership and members of this subcommittee in allowing today’s hearing on this bill.

H.R. 3795 – You Were There, You Get Care Act

We support the expansion of presumptive service-connected disability benefits to veterans who served in the Gulf War theater of operations and other military operations involving depleted uranium.  We also support the independent medical study to identify other conditions in addition to those already covered under existing laws covering radiation.  

H.R. 4274 - Gold Star Parents Annuity Act of 2007

We support the creation of a stipend to surviving parents who are the recipient of the Gold Star lapel button.

H.R. 5155 - Combat Veterans Debt Elimination Act

We support the prohibition of collections on indebtedness for military service members who die in die of a service-connected disability incurred or aggravated on active duty in a war or combat zone.  

H.R. 5448 - Full Faith in Veterans Act

We support the implementation of new criteria for the service-connection of PTSD that reduces the burden of proof on the veteran and requires the consideration for the inclusion of treatment records that updates the provisions of the disability rating schedule regarding PTSD, traumatic brain injury, and other mental disorders.  

H.R. 5454 – Presumption of service-connection for ALS

Given the growing recognition of an inexplicable association of higher rates of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis among those with military service than those without similar service, we support the presumption of service-connection for ALS for wartime veterans.

H.R. 5954 – Presumption of service-connection for Project 112 veterans

We support the presumption of service-connection for diseases associated with biological, chemical, or other toxic agents for veterans who were participants in Project 112, including Project SHAD, regardless of whether their participation was knowing or unknowing, willing or unwilling.

H.R. 5985 - Compensation for Combat Veterans Act

We support the acceptance of records showing the veteran was entitled to combat zone compensation as proof of combat service of veterans for the purposes of certain veterans benefits.  Given the nature of current military operations, it is highly possible that small groups of military service members may be in combat operations and entitled to combat zone compensation exclusion, which may be the only publicly available evidence of their combat zone participation.  

H.R. 6032 - Wartime disability compensation for certain veterans with Parkinson's disease

Given the growing recognition of an inexplicable association of higher rates of Parkinson’s disease among those with military service than those without similar service, we support the presumption of service-connection for Parkinson’s disease for wartime veterans.