Joint Interim Subcommittee on Veterans' Needs

Viewing Veterans' Issues:  A Report to the56th Legislature

by the Joint Interim Subcommittee on Verteran'sNeeds

1997-98

Membership

Subcommittee staff

Sheri S. Heffelfinger, Research Analyst
Eddye McClure, Staff Attorney
Jo Ann Jones, Secretary
Published byMontana Legislative Services Division
Robert B. Person, Executive Director
David D. Bohyer, Director, Office of Research and Policy Analysis
Gregory J. Petesch, Director, Legal Services Office

Table of Contents 
  EXECUTIVESUMMARY
  Issue #1:Public Employer Hiring Preference for Veterans
  Issue #2:Clarification of Veterans' Burial Laws
  Issue #3:Special License Plates
  Issue #4:Conservation Licenses for Legion of Valor Members to Fish
  Issue #5:Permanent Veterans' Needs Committee
  Issue #6:National Guard Education Benefit Program and University Discretionary TuitionWaiver
  Issue #7:Disposition of Cigarette Tax Revenue
  Issue #8:Oversight of Veterans' Services
  Issue #9:World War II Veterans' Memorial
  ENDNOTES

APPENDIX A: Subcommittee bill drafts
APPENDIX B: Subcommittee letters
APPENDIX C: Staff report on veterans' preference laws
APPENDIX D: Agency report on Montana's veterans' nursing homes

AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' NEEDS; APPROPRIATINGFUNDS FOR THE COMMITTEE; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND A TERMINATIONDATE.

  WHEREAS, the Joint Interim Subcommittee on Veterans'Needs created by the 1993 and the 1995 Legislatures provided an importantliaison between state government, veterans' service organizations, andveterans; and
  WHEREAS, the 1995 Joint Interim Subcommittee onVeterans' Needs determined that the continuation of a study Committee wouldbe of great service to Montana veterans.

Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Montana:

  Section 1.  Committee on veterans'needs. (1) There is a committee on veterans' needs. The committee iscomposed of eight members who are appointed as follows:
  (a) four members of the house of representatives,not more than two of whom may be from one political party, appointed bythe speaker of the house; and
  (b) four members of the senate, not more than twoof whom may be from one political party, appointed by the committee oncommittees.
  (2) In case of a vacancy, a replacement must beselected in the manner of the original appointment.
  (3) Members are entitled to salary and expensesas provided in 5-2-302.
  (4) The committee may request staff assistance fromthe legislative services division, which assistance may be provided withinthe limits established by the legislative services division, given otherpriorities and responsibilities.

  (5) Each state agency that provides services or fundingfor a program or services for veterans shall provide assistance and informationupon request of the committee.

  Section 2.  Duties of committee.The committee on veterans' needs shall:
  (1) provide a forum for the study of issues relatedto veterans' needs;
  (2) continue to follow up on the issues identifiedby the 1993 and 1995 joint interim subcommittees on veterans' needs, asneeded;
  (3)  continue to review the continuum of veterans'services available throughout the state and the effects of federal changesand reform efforts;
  (4) study the role of and potential for additionalfederally funded veterans' programs in Montana; and
  (5) report its findings, conclusions, and recommendationsto the 56th legislature.

  Section 3.  Appropriation. Thereis appropriated $10,000 from cigarette tax state special revenue to thelegislative services division for the support of the committee on veterans'needs for the biennium ending June 30, 1999.

  Section 4.  Effective date. [Thisact] is effective July 1, 1997.

  Section 5.  Termination. [Thisact] terminates June 30, 1999.

Approved February 11, 1997

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY  

The 1997 Legislature enacted House Bill No. 19 establishing the JointInterim Subcommittee on Veterans' Needs (Subcommittee). The bill directedthe Subcommittee to examine veterans' issues and report its findings, conclusions,and recommendations to the 56th Legislature.

Funded by a $10,000 appropriation from cigarette tax revenue, the Subcommitteemet three times and spent about $7,000. Meetings were held at Fort Harrisonin Helena, the Montana Veterans' Home (MVH) in Columbia Falls, and theCapitol.

The following provides an executive summary of the Subcommittee's recommendationsand findings. The body of the report provides more detailed summaries ofeach issue, testimony received, and Subcommittee discussion and action.Appendix A provides copies of Subcommittee bill drafts. Appendix B includescopies of Subcommittee letters. Subsequent appendices provide supplementaryinformation.

Final recommendations and positions

The Joint Interim Subcommittee on Veterans' Needs forwards to the 56thLegislature the following recommendations and findings, which are not listedin any particular order:

Issue #1: Public employer hiring preference for veterans

Current statutory language requiring public employers to award additionalpoints for a job applicant's veteran status allows some public employersto avoid using the preference. To address the loopholes, the Subcommitteerecommends that the Legislature enact LC 0070. The bill will tighten thecurrent statutory language and help ensure that public employers applya veterans' preference factor in the initial hiring process.

Issue #2: Clarification of veterans' burial laws

Current statutory language assigning the cost of raising a veteran'sheadstone and deferring burial expenses has resulted in misinterpretationsabout what amount of money must be paid and by whom. To address this, theSubcommittee recommends that the Legislature enact LC 0072. The bill willclarify current law and intent to ensure that an appropriate amount ofmoney is paid by the appropriate entity.

Issue #3: Special license plates

The Legislature should enact LC 0071 to provide special license platesfor Montana National Guard veterans or their surviving spouses and forLegion of Valor members or their surviving spouses.

Issue #4: Conservation licenses for Legion of Valor members to fish

The Legislature should enact LC 0073 to provide that Legion of Valormembers may fish in Montana with only a wildlife conservation license.The license costs $4 for residents and $5 for nonresidents.

Issue #5: Permanent veterans' needs committee

The Legislature should enact LC 0069 to establish a permanent statutoryCommittee on Veterans' Needs. If the Legislative Council's interim restructuringproposal is introduced, veterans' needs should be expressly recognizedand assigned to the interim state administration committee. (A letter fromthe Subcommittee was sent to the Legislative Council's Subcommittee onLegislative Improvement. See Appendix B.)

Issue #6: National Guard education benefit program and universitydiscretionary tuition waiver

The discretionary tuition waiver enacted by the 1997 Legislature forNational Guard members should not be repealed. Although no state highereducation institution has yet funded the waiver, the program has not hadan adequate opportunity to succeed and is an important National Guard recruitmenttool.

Issue #7: Disposition of cigarette tax revenue

The Subcommittee opposes any attempt to de-earmark the 11.11% of thecigarette tax revenue now statutorily allocated to the Department of PublicHealth and Human Services (DPHHS) for the operation and maintenance ofstate veterans' nursing homes.

Issue #8: Oversight of veterans' services

The Legislature should approve the long-range building program requestsand budget proposals for improvements to the state veterans' nursing homesin Columbia Falls and Glendive.

Issue #9: World War II veterans' memorial

The Legislature should approve the Montana Veterans' Affairs Divisionbudget proposal that Montana contribute $66,000--$1 for every World WarII (WW II) veteran from Montana--to help fund a $100 million WW II veterans'memorial in Washington, D.C.

Issue #1Public Employer Hiring Preference for Veterans 

Recommendation:Current statutory language requiring public employers to award points fora job applicant's veteran status allows some public employers to avoidusing the preference. To address the loopholes, the Subcommittee recommendsthat the Legislature enact LC 0070. The bill will help ensure that publicemployers apply a veterans' preference factor in the initial hiring process.  

Issuesummary

Veterans' preference issues involve how public employers treat veteranswho apply for jobs. Montana law enacted in 1989 requires public employersusing a scored procedure in the initial hiring process to add points toan applicant's score if the applicant is a veteran. An employer is notrequired to apply the points if the applicant fails to score at least 70%.According to testimony received, some public employers avoid the preferencelaw by not using a scored procedure or by using a scoring method that virtuallyensures that the applicant will not attain at least a 70% score.

During the 1997 legislative session, Representative Chris Ahner (R-Helena)introduced House Bill No. 410 to close the veterans' preference law loopholes.The Montana Women's Lobby, a statewide coalition, opposed the bill becauseit applied the preference to promotions. Amendments were offered to applythe preference only to initial hiring.

However, as other unrelated preference issues became contentious, aprimary supporter of HB 410, Representative Bob Pavlovich (D-Butte), requestedthat the bill be tabled to avoid the possibly that the bill would be amendedto repeal the entire law. Consequently, the Committee on House Businessand Labor tabled the bill. ^*

Staff Attorney Eddye McClure provided the Subcommittee with a backgroundpaper on veterans' preference laws, which is provided at Appendix C.

The Subcommittee initially chose not to identify veterans' preferenceas a study topic. ¹Nevertheless, at the Subcommittee's second meeting, testimony providedduring public comment raised the need to tighten veterans' preference laws,and the Subcommittee took up the issue during its final meeting on August18, 1998.

Summary of testimony

The following is an abbreviated summary of testimony received on veterans'preference issues.

March 23, 1998

Mr. Charles Miller, legislative coordinator for the Vietnam Veteransof America, during public comment, requested that the Subcommittee addveterans' preference to its agenda for the next meeting. Mr. Miller testifiedthat Montana State University(MSU)-Bozeman uses a “check, plus, minus”procedure to evaluate job applications and maintains that this proceduredoes not constitute a “scored procedure”. Ms. McClure explained that thescored procedure is defined in statute as a numerical scoring process.Mr. Miller further testified that MSU-Bozeman does not apply the veterans'preference law when hiring for its 1,100 classified positions.

Mr. Ed Croucher, superintendent at the Eastern Montana Veterans' Home(EMVH) in Glendive, stated that to deny veterans who have been called toduty and forced to leave job opportunities a preference for hiring whenthey come back is wrong. He urged the Subcommittee not to hide behind fearsof “waking up the sleeping giant”. State agencies, he said, should notbe allowed to avoid the law when the Legislature's intent was to providea preference.

Mr. Jim Jacobsen, administrator of the Montana Veterans' Affairs Division,Montana Department of Military Affairs (DMA), agreed that the veterans'preference law is toothless. However, he reminded the Subcommittee of the1997 legislative battles on preference and stated that it would be worseif the veterans' preference statute was lost entirely. ²

August 18, 1998

Mr. Miller again summarized the issue of public employers, particularlyMSU- Bozeman, circumventing the intent of the veterans' preference lawby not using a numerically scored procedure.

Mr. Jacobsen favored tightening the veterans' preferance law. However,Mr. Jacobsen pointed out that two groups would likely be vehemently opposedto a stronger law--the University System and the Montana Women's Lobby.Each had opposed HB 410 in the 1997 legislative session.

Mr. Croucher said that the veterans now returning from rotations ofactive duty are encountering a different working environment and shouldbe afforded the same opportunity as past veterans, which they are not gettingwhen employers avoid the preference law.

Mr. Hal Manson, representing the American Legion, said that Montanahad a strong preference law for many years. However, in 1983, the SupremeCourt reversed the law based on an action taken by a disabled person. The1989 Legislature enacted the current law but provided no enforcement provisions.Mr. Manson said that the American Legion supported HB 410 and urged theSubcommittee to support a similar bill in the upcoming session.

Mr. Larry Longfellow, representing the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Mr.Len Johnson, representing the Marine Corps League, and Mr. Dick Baumburger,a veteran, each urged the Subcommittee to introduce veterans' preferencelegislation to tighten the current law.

Ms. Polly Latray-Holmes, director of the federal Veterans' EmployeeTraining program in Montana, provided the Subcommittee with the followinginformation:

.  Montana'scurrent law allows public employers to avoid veterans' preference in twoways: 

  -  by making the initial hiringtest too hard so that no applicant can attain the minimum of a 70% score,which exempts the employer from having to apply preference points; and

  -  by using a plus-check-minus scoringprocedure rather than a numerically scored procedure, which also exemptsthe employer from having to apply preference points.

.  The changesmade by HB 410 would have closed the loopholes. Also, the amendments proposedin the Business and Labor Committee addressed the concerns of the MontanaWomen's Lobby. 

.  Basedon a survey of state agencies, 50% of state agencies apply veterans' preferencepoints, while the other 50% do not. 

.  Some stateshave much stronger veterans' preference laws than Montana's law; some stateshave weaker laws. 

Subcommittee discussion and action

Representative Dorothy Simpson (D-Florence) moved that the Subcommitteerequest and introduce a bill based on HB 410, including the amendmentsoffered. The motion passed. ³

Issue #2Clarification of Veterans' Burial Laws

Recommendation:Current statutory language assigning the cost of raising a veteran's headstoneand deferring burial expenses has resulted in disagreements over how muchshould be paid and by whom. To address this, the Subcommittee recommendsthat the Legislature enact LC 0072. The bill will clarify current law andintent to ensure that an appropriate amount of money is paid by the appropriatecounty.  
 

Issue summary

Current statutory language has created confusion about the following:(1) what amount of money a county is required to pay as its share of thecost for shipping and raising a veteran's headstone; (2) which county isthe county of residence when a veteran dies in a public or private residentialcare facility and, therefore, is responsible for burial costs; and (3)whether current law governing veterans' burial covers other forms of interment.

Headstone costs: Federal law entitles a veteran to a free VeteransAdministration (VA) headstone, but leaves the family responsible for thecosts of shipping and raising the headstone. To assist the families, statelaw provides that the veteran's county of residence must pay up to $70for the cost of shipping and raising the headstone and that, after thecounty pays the first $30 of the costs, the state will pay up to $40 ofthat cost. However, section 10-2-501(11), MCA, states that the “countytreasurer may withhold an amount of the county total monthly remittanceto the state treasure equal to the actual cost paid, up to $40, for theshipping and raising of each headstone”. This language has been misinterpretedby some counties to mean that the county is not required to pay the first$30 of actual costs.

County of residence issue: Section 10-2-501(4), MCA, specifiesthat when a veteran dies, the veteran's county of residence must pay upto $250 to defer the veteran's burial expenses. Sometimes, a veteran ina public or private nursing home dies and it is unclear which county isthe veteran's county of residence--the county where the veteran died orthe county in which the veteran was a resident before entering the residentialcare facility? Although other statutes govern how residency is to be determined,some counties are misinterpreting the law and not paying their appropriateshare of the burial costs.

Application of burial laws to all forms of interment: Only theterm “burial” is used in the laws specifying that counties must pay upto $250 to defer expenses. Thus, some counties have interpreted this tomean that the $250 expense must be paid only if the veteran is buried.

Summary of testimony

Mr. Jacobsen testified about the importance of resolving the veterans'burial issues. The following summarizes the information provided by Mr.Jacobsen either in testimony or in discussions with staff:

Headstone costs

.  Approximately1,200 Montana veterans die each year, and each is entitled to a free VAheadstone. 

.  Countiesincur costs only when the VA headstone is placed at the grave site. Until1995, a county did not have to pay more than $30. The 1995 Legislatureenacted House Bill No. 20 to raise the limit on county costs to $70 andto provide that the state must pay up to $40 of costs incurred above thefirst $30. (See section 10-2-501, MCA.) 

.  The lawis confusing, but most counties appropriately interpret the law. However,a few do not. ⁴ 

County of residence responsible for burial expenses

.  Some countiesare confused about how to determine a veteran's county of residence (andthus which county is responsible for paying burial costs) for a veteranwho dies in a federal or private nursing home in a county other than thecounty of the veteran's former residence. For example, when a veteran diedat the VA nursing home in Miles City, Custer County would either have topay burial expenses or get involved in a dispute with the veteran's formercounty of residence over who should pay the costs. Mr. Jacobsen said thathe has had to referee these disputes. 

Application of laws to all forms of interment

.  Most countiespay the $250 burial expense even in cases in which the veteran is cremated.However, some counties do not, maintaining that the statute requiring thecounty to make the payments applies only in cases in which the veteranis actually buried. 

Subcommittee discussion and action

Senator Barry “Spook” Stang (D-St. Regis) asked whether anyone had eversuggested that the state pick up the full cost of raising headstones andinterment. Mr. Jacobsen answered not to his knowledge.

Senator Stang moved that the Subcommittee introduce legislation to clarifythe veterans' burial laws, substituting the term “interment” for “burial”,defining “residence” for determining payment responsibilities, and clarifyingthat counties are responsible for paying the first $30 of costs for shippingand raising a veteran's headstone. The motion carried unanimously. ⁵Issue#3Special License Plates 

Recommendation:The Legislature should enact LC 0071 to provide special license platesfor Montana National Guard veterans or their surviving spouses and forLegion of Valor members or their surviving spouses.  

Issue summary

Special license plates issues were considered as two separate proposals:(1) as a request forwarded by the Montana National Guard Officers and EnlistedAssociations for National Guard veteran plates; and (2) as a request forwardedby Representative Pavlovich to provide special license plates for Montana'sfive Legion of Valor members.

Under current law, special license plates related to military serviceare available for active National Guard members, former prisoners of war,disabled veterans, reservists, survivors of the Pearl Harbor attack, veteransof the armed services (with a decal representing the veterans' particularbranch of service), and recipients of the Purple Heart medal. In most cases,surviving spouses are also eligible for the plates. (See section 61-3-332,MCA.)

National Guard veteran license plates

Current law provides special license plates for active National Guardmembers. The plates display an “NG” decal and are available at no cost.

Special license plates are also available to veterans. The plates displaythe word “VETERAN” along with a decal of the veteran's branch of service.The veteran plates cost $10. ^*

However, retired National Guard members are no longer eligible for the“NG” plate for active members and may not necessarily be eligible for the“VETERAN” plate.

The Montana National Guard Officers and Enlisted Associations requestedthat the Subcommittee support legislation to provide for National Guardveteran plates, which would be the same plate as the “VETERAN” plate, exceptwith an “NG” decal.

Legion of Valor license plates

The Legion of Valor is an organization incorporated by an act of Congressfor recipients of the nation's two highest decorations for valor--the CongressionalMedal of Honor and the three Crosses. The three Crosses include the DistinguishedService Cross, the Navy Cross, and the Air Force Cross. Recipients of thesedecorations may join the Legion of Valor by paying membership fees. TheMedal of Honor is awarded for conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity atrisk of life above and beyond the call of duty. The Crosses are awardedfor extraordinary heroism. The Legion of Valor has a nationwide membershipof approximately 800. Five members live in Montana. ⁶

Summary of testimony

National Guard veteran plates: Mr. Roger Hagan, representingthe Montana National Guard Officers and Enlisted Associations, asked theSubcommittee to sponsor legislation providing for National Guard veteranplates. In his written testimony, Mr. Hagan stated that the plates “wouldprovide an additional source of funding for our very important cemeterieswhile providing our guard members an opportunity to proudly display theircurrent or former membership in Montana's organized militia”. ⁷

Legion of Valor plates: Representative Pavlovich asked the Subcommittee to recognize Legion of Valor members by requesting legislation providing Legion of Valor special license plates. ^8 *

Agency testimony: Mr. Dean Roberts, administrator of the MotorVehicle Division of the Montana Department of Justice, testified that theDivision's computer system is very old and that a new special plate wouldrequire that 32 additional programs be written. He added that the Divisiondoes not have the staff to maintain the current system. Therefore, he said,to do the work, the Division would hire a consultant, which would costan estimated $18,570. He said the Division wanted to support veterans andwould seek ways to lower the fiscal impact. ⁹

Fiscal notes

National Guard veteran plates: A draft fiscal note prepared bythe Department of Justice Motor Vehicle Division assumed that about 800people would be eligible to receive the plates, that about 100 would applyin the first year, and that there would be about 15 new applicants and100 renewals each subsequent year. The estimated consulting costs werea one-time cost of about $18,570. Anticipated revenue for the cemeterieswould be about $600 in FY 2000 and $1,090 in FY 2001. State general fundrevenue would amount to about $100 in FY 2000 and $15 in FY 2001. The fiscalnote also estimated that county general fund revenue would be about $300in FY 2000 and $45 in FY 2001. ¹⁰

Legion of Valor plates: A similar draft fiscal note preparedfor the Legion of Valor plates showed estimated production costs of $18,280for required computer programming changes. Estimated revenue, based onan assumption of five Legion of Valor members in Montana, was as follows:for the veterans' cemeteries, $30 in FY 2000 and $50 in FY 2001; for thestate general fund, $5 in FY 2000 and $0 in FY 2001; and for the countygeneral funds, $15 in FY 2000 and $0 in FY 2001. ¹¹

Ms. Brenda Nordland, assistant Attorney General, Montana Departmentof Justice, asked the Subcommittee to allow surviving spouses to purchasethe plates as well. She also testified that the Legion of Valor plates,for so few people, pushes the Department of Justice to the breaking pointin terms of practicality. ¹²

Subcommittee discussion and action

National Guard veteran plates: Senator Dale Mahlum (R-Missoula)reported that he received correspondence from many surviving spouses andemphasized the importance of including them in the legislation.

Representative Simpson expressed concern as a former member of the HouseTransportation Committee and said that the anticipated cost of the specialplates would not be well received by the Transportation Committee.

Senator Don Hargrove (R-Belgrade) asked about using existing veterans'plates for National Guard veterans. Mr. Hagan emphasized that the purposeof the plates was to display pride in National Guard service.

Representative Simpson moved that the Subcommittee sponsor legislationauthorizing the Department of Justice to issue the special license platesfor National Guard veterans and to include surviving spouses. The motioncarried unanimously. ¹³

Legion of Valor license plates: Representative Simpson notedthat if the fiscal impact of the proposals could be lessened by combiningthe work required for the special plate proposals as stated by the MotorVehicle Division staff, the National Guard veteran and Legion of Valorplates could be included in one bill, which may then have a chance to pass.

Senator Eve Franklin (D-Great Falls) moved that the Subcommittee sponsorlegislation authorizing the Department of Justice to issue the specialplates for Legion of Valor members and their surviving spouses and to combinethe proposal with the National Guard veteran license plates bill. The motioncarried unanimously. ¹⁴

Issue #4Conservation Licenses forLegion of Valor Members to Fish

Recommendation: The Legislature should enact LC 0073 to providethat all Legion of Valor members may fish with only a conservation license.The license costs $4 for residents and $5 for nonresidents. 

Issue summary

As summarized under Issue #3, Legion of Valor members consist of recipientsof the nation's two highest decorations for valor--the Congressional Medalof Honor and the three Crosses. The three Crosses are the DistinguishedService Cross, the Navy Cross, and the Air Force Cross. RepresentativePavlovich requested that free fishing licences be made available to allresident and nonresident Legion of Valor members.

Current law requires that anyone desiring to hunt, fish, or trap inMontana must first purchase a wildlife conservation license. A wildlifeconservation license costs $5 for nonresidents and $4 for residents. Afterpurchasing a wildlife conservation license, a person desiring to fish mustalso purchase a fishing license. (The fishing license may be combined withthe conservation license.) A Class A-resident fishing license costs residentsan additional $13. A Class B-nonresident fishing license costs nonresidentsan additional $45. ^*

Current law also provides for certain exceptions. Under section 87-2-801,MCA, state residents who are 62 years of age or older may fish and huntgame birds with a conservation license issued by the Department of Fish,Wildlife, and Parks (DFWP). Section 87-2-802, MCA, provides that a veteranin a VA or state residential care facility may fish for free if the veterancarries a permit issued by the DFWP and signed by the facility superintendent.

Summary of testimony

Represenative Pavlovich requested that the Subcommittee sponsor legislationproviding Legion of Valor members with a free permit for 3 days of fishingeach year for life. ¹⁵

Ms. McClure reported that in 1997, the Legislature enacted House BillNo. 289, a proposal sponsored by Representative Pavlovich. The bill provideda 4-day free fishing permit for Legion of Valor members attending a conventionheld in Montana in 1997. To implement that program, the DFWP developeda special application and permit. About 20 Legion of Valor members participatedin the 1997 program. ¹⁶

A draft fiscal note prepared by the DFWP estimated that the maximumloss in revenue if all 800 Legion of Valor members took advantage of thefree 3-day annual fishing permit for life would be $19,960. ^17 *

The DFWP indicated that it would attempt to minimize costs by havingthe Legion of Valor organization help administer the program. The DFWP'smain concern was the precedent that would be set for providing speciallicenses for special groups.

The DFWP explained to staff that if a game warden wanted to check ona person's eligibility to be fishing with just the conservation license,the check would be conducted using the latest Legion of Valor membershiplist. ¹⁸

Subcommittee discussion and action

Senator Stang noted that it would be much easier to amend current statute,adding that allowing Legion of Valor members to fish with a conservationlicense all year for only $5 was certainly better than the $50 it wouldcost otherwise for a conservation license and the $45 nonresident fishinglicense.

Senator Mahlum moved that the Subcommittee sponsor legislation to amendsection 82-2-801, MCA (which provides that a Montana resident who is 62years of age or older can fish with a conservation license), to includeLegion of Valor members regardless of age. The motion carried. ¹⁹

Issue #5Permanent Veterans' Needs Committee

Recommendation:The Legislature should enact LC 0069 to establish a permanent statutoryCommittee on Veterans' Needs. If the Legislative Council's interim restructuringproposal is introduced, veterans' needs should be expressly recognizedand assigned to the interim state administration committee. ( Seethe letter on this at Appendix B.)

Issue summary

In 1993, the 53rd Legislature first established the Joint Interim Subcommitteeon Veterans' Needs by passing House Joint Resolution No. 27, a substitutefor a bill to provide $2 million for a new veterans' nursing home in DeerLodge or Silver Bow County. Advocates for the nursing home said that thehome was needed to service veterans' needs in central and southwesternMontana. ^*

Also during the 1993 legislative session, a portion of cigarette taxrevenue was appropriated for the maintenance and operation of state veterans'nursing home facilities, which included the MVH at Columbia Falls and thenew EMVH at Glendive.

To provide oversight of and to examine issues related to veterans' needs,House Joint Resolution No. 27 asked the Joint Interim Subcommittee on Veterans'Needs to study the following: (1) veterans' nursing home and home healthcare and the role of the VA; (2) access to nursing home and other healthcare services for veterans in Montana; (3) the continuum of veterans' servicesto identify gaps and determine the role of federal programs; and (4) statepolicy relating to veterans' services provided by the state.

The HJR 27 Subcommittee met five times, received information on a varietyof topics, forwarded several recommendations, and spent $4,574. The Subcommittee'sfinal report, A Report to the Governor and the 54th Legislature,prepared by Susan B. Fox, Montana Legislative Council, October 1994, summarizesthe Subcommittee's activities and recommendations.

The 54th Legislature (1995) reestablished the Joint Interim Subcommitteeon Veterans' Needs, again by resolution (House Joint Resolution No. 19).The Legislature viewed the Subcommittee as a means to monitor constructionof the new veterans' nursing home in Glendive, address ongoing health carereform issues affecting veterans, and build on the successes of the 1993interim Subcommittee in providing a forum for veterans' concerns. A $10,000appropriation from the earmarked cigarette tax revenue funded the HJR 19Subcommittee.

The HJR 19 Subcommittee met three times and spent just over $7,000.The Subcommittee's final report, Considering Veterans' Needs, preparedby Susan B. Fox, Montana Legislative Services Division, October 1996, summarizesthe Subcommittee's activities and recommendations.

The 55th Legislature (1997) renewed the Joint Interim Subcommittee onVeterans' Needs for a third time, this time by bill. House Bill No. 19included an appropriation of $10,000 from cigarette tax revenue to fundthe Subcommittee's activities and also directed the study summarized inthis report. The 1997 HB 19 interim Subcommittee terminates June 30, 1999.(See Ch. 14, L. 1997.)

Summary of testimony

Public comment: Several regular participants in the Subcommittee'smeetings testified that the Subcommittee provided a valuable forum forveterans' organizations by giving veterans one place to go to bring theirissues to the Legislature, rather than to take issues to individual legislatorsin an unorganized fashion. The testimony also noted the need to have agroup of legislators knowledgeable about veterans' services. Proponentsof a permanent interim committee for veterans' needs included representativesof the Veterans' Affairs Division, the Senior and Long-Term Care Division,the DPHHS, the Montana veterans' nursing homes, and several veteran organizations,including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Disabled Veterans of America,the Vietnam Veterans of America, and the American Legion. ²⁰

Interim restructuring proposal: Ms. Leanne Kurtz, research analyst,Legislative Services Division, presented an overview of a proposal to restructureinterim committees. The Legislative Council is considering the restructuringas a means of providing for a more effective and efficient use of resourcesduring the interim. The restructuring proposal would create six permanentinterim committees. The Legislative Finance Committee, the LegislativeAudit Committee, and the Environmental Quality Council would remain essentiallyunchanged. Each of the six interim committee would have broad jurisdictionin certain topic areas, including oversight of agency rulemaking. The LegislativeCouncil would allocate the study resolutions passed each session amongthe six permanent interim committees, and each committee would then receivea classification based on its assigned workload. The classification wouldreflect the interim committee's required level of activity and budget allocation.Staff support would be provided to no more than two subcommittees of aninterim committee. ²¹

Subcommittee discussion and action

Senator Stang commented that the proposed interim committee restructuringcould result in the interim committees having so many issues that indepthstudy of one issue would be impossible.

Senator Hargrove commented that the functions of the committees as theynow exist would continue, which would mean more issues for fewer but largercommittees. He said that larger committees may tend to be more inefficientbecause the committee would spend more time on an issue that could otherwisebe more efficiently handled by a smaller committee.

Senator Stang noted that if each of the 6 proposed interim committeescreated 2 subcommittees, there would still be 12 subcommittees and somestudies would not be funded. Senator Stang also commented that the proposalhad some good points. He urged the Subcommittee to move forward with abill to make the veterans' needs committee permanent so that the LegislativeCouncil would know how serious the Subcommittee is about at least makingveterans' needs an integral part of one of the committees proposed underthe restructuring.

Senator Stang moved that the Subcommittee sponsor a bill to establishthe Committee on Veterans' Needs as a permanent statutory interim committee.The motion carried unanimously.

Representative Simpson and Senator Mahlum stated that the Subcommitteeneeded to make a definite statement that it considers veterans a specialportion of the citizens of Montana and that the Subcommittee wants veterans'interests specifically represented. The Subcommittee agreed to have staffprepare and send a letter to the Legislative Council's Subcommittee onLegislative Improvement to express the Subcommittee's desire to see veterans'needs expressly acknowledged and assigned to the proposed interim committeeon state administration rather than to a health or welfare committee. (Seethe letter at Appendix B.)

Subcommittee members also agreed that $10,000 from cigarette tax revenuewas an appropriate funding source for the permanent Committee on Veterans'Needs. ²²Issue # 6

National Guard Education Benefit Program andUniversity Discretionary Tuition Waiver

Recommendation:The discretionary tuition waiver program established by the 1997 Legislaturefor Montana National Guard members should not be repealed. The programhas not had an adequate opportunity to work, is important as a NationalGuard recruitment incentive, and should remain in statute so that eachuniversity can determine whether it will provide the waiver.  

Issue summary

The 1995 Joint Interim Subcommittee on Veterans' Needs requested HouseBill No. 17 to provide a scholarship program for members of the MontanaNational Guard as a recruitment incentive. Introduced by RepresentativePavlovich, the bill appropriated a total of $1,140,000 from the state generalfund to the DMA to administer the scholarship program.

The House Appropriations Committee amended the bill by removing theappropriation and changing the scholarship program to an “education benefitprogram”. The program provided that the DMA would set certain criteria(according to the statutory provisions), select qualified Guard members,and recommend that they receive a tuition waiver. The bill also authorizedthe Board of Regents to provide the waiver, but only if funding was available.

House Bill No. 17 was amended several more times, with a free conferencecommittee working out the final language. Ultimately, HB 17 was passedand approved and provided for the following new statutory language amongprovisions governing other Board of Regents' discretionary fee waivers:

  If funds are available after the waivers providedfor in subsection (2) [which lists other discretionary tuition and feewaivers], the regents may waive tuition for up to 5,000 credits each academicyear in accordance with the national guard education benefit program providedfor in 10-1-121. ²³

In unrelated action, the Legislature also passed a bill extending thelife of the Joint Committee on Postsecondary Education Policy and Budget(Ch. 225, L. 1997).

Staffed by the Legislative Fiscal Division and extended until July 1,2005, the Postsecondary Education Committee consists of eight legislatorsand provides budget and planning information to the Board of Regents, reviewsand assesses the effectiveness of the University System in meeting goalsand long-range plans, and studies University System funding and accounting. ²⁴

This interim, the Postsecondary Education Committee reviewed the University System's discretionary tuition and fee waivers. Among the waivers examined was the waiver for the National Guard education benefit program. ^25 *

At its March 1998 meeting, the Postsecondary Education Committee votedunanimously to introduce legislation repealing the discretionary tuitionwaiver for members of the National Guard. ²⁶

Summary of testimony

Montana National Guard strength, recruitment, and retention issues

At the March 23, 1998, Subcommittee meeting, representatives from theDMA briefed Subcommittee members on National Guard personnel strength levelsand recruitment and retention issues.

Retired Brigadier General Gary Hindoien, Montana Air National Guard(ANG), reported that the personnel strength of the ANG looked healthy,but certain career specialty positions were difficult to keep filled withtrained personnel. General Hindoien provided written testimony showingpersonnel strength levels ranging from a low of 88.9% to a high of 96.5%.However, General Hindoien explained that he expected that the ANG wouldexperience declining personnel levels due not only to lengthy trainingschools but also to the increasing frequency and length of federal activations.General Hindoien requested that the Subcommittee promote funding for recruitmentand maintenance of ANG participation because, currently, Montana providesno state benefits for National Guard participants. ²⁷

Colonel Jim Dwyer, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel, Montana ArmyNational Guard (ARNG), reported that for the ARNG to become a force structurepriority for federal funding and training, it must recruit an additional300 members in the next 2 years. He said that the only recruitment incentivesavailable are the federally provided programs and that state incentives,such as a tuition fee waiver, would enhance the Guard's recruitment efforts.Colonel Dwyer also explained that the educational institutions view thetuition waiver as a loss of revenue and that the final provisions in HB17 placed the education benefit program at the end of the tuition waiverfood chain. Responding to Subcommittee questions, Colonel Dwyer noted thatif Montana's National Guard units are taken away by the National GuardBureau, the State of Montana will be the loser. He explained that fewerNational Guard members will mean fewer personnel to respond to a stateemergency. ²⁸

Major Joseph Foster, recruiting and retention manager, ARNG, testifiedthat the education benefit program has not been used, that no funds havebeen made available by a higher education institution for the program,and that the Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education has never supportedthe program. Major Foster reported that the ARNG is at 77% of its authorizedstrength, the same as 1 year ago, that recruits are being lost to statesthat do provide some type of state incentive program, and that it was imperativefor Montana to demonstrate the ability to fill its units; otherwise, theNational Guard Bureau will reduce Montana's authorized strength levels.Major Foster presented written testimony showing the success of New York'seducational scholarship program and information about recent unit deactivationsin Montana, force structure changes, and recruiting data. The data showedthat Montana's recruiting efficiency rating is high. Major Foster notedthat the issue is not that Montana recruiters are not doing their jobs ^*

In response to questions, Major Foster indicated that the DMA wouldprefer to have a funded educational scholarship program rather than relyon a discretionary fee waiver by the Board of Regents. ²⁹

Actions of the Joint Committee on Postsecondary Education Policyand Budget: At the August 18, 1998, meeting of the Subcommittee, Mr.Hagan informed the Subcommittee of the Postsecondary Education Committee'svote to introduce legislation repealing the discretionary tuition waiver.Mr. Hagan asked the Subcommittee to ask the postsecondary education committeeto reconsider its actions. Mr. Hagan provided a copy of testimony thathe had presented to the Postsecondary Education Committee and stated thatthe National Guard Associations did not believe that the tuition waiverhad been given adequate opportunity to work. He reminded the Subcommitteethat the waiver had added no cost to the Board of Regents' budget.

Mr. John Nugent, educational program coordinator, DMA, reported thatthe National Guard had been working diligently over the years to provideits student soldiers with the opportunity to underwrite their educationalexperiences. He stated that Montana will be among the bottom 5% of statesin the nation that do not have some form of state tuition assistance forits service members. ^*Mr. Nugent encouraged the Subcommittee to support the DMA's processof trying to ensure the security of the HB 17 education benefit programand discretionary fee waiver. ³⁰

Subcommittee discussion and action

Subcommittee discussion following the DMA presentations at the Marchmeeting centered on the need for the National Guard to provide researchshowing the specific consequences of Montana not funding an educationalbenefit program and emphasized that before Subcommittee members could supportadditional funding for a scholarship program, the Guard needed to makethe program a priority within its own budget process. ^**

Senator Stang said that he would support the scholarship program ifthe DMA made it a priority but would not support the funding for it beingtaken out of the University System budget. Senator Hargrove stated thatit was the DMA's responsibility to prove that the single best recruitingand retention incentive for the National Guard was educational scholarships. ³¹

Noting that the process involved in the Legislature's passage of HB17 was hard fought and fair, Senator Stang moved that staff write a letterto the Postsecondary Education Committee to express the Subcommittee'sobjection to repealing the discretionary tuition waiver for National Guardmembers. The motion carried unanimously. ³²(See the letter at Appendix B.)Issue#7

Disposition of Cigarette Tax Revenue  

TheSubcommittee opposes any attempt to de-earmark the 11.11% of the cigarettetax revenue now statutorily allocated for the operation and maintenanceof state veterans' nursing homes.  

Issue summary

Current law: Under current law, an individual purchasing cigarettespays an 18-cent state excise tax for each package of 20 cigarettes. (Seesection 16- 11-111, MCA.) Of that 18 cents, 11.11% (about 2.4 cents) isearmarked for the operation and maintenance of state veterans' nursinghomes; 73.04% is deposited in the state general fund; and 15.85% is usedfor the long-range building program. (See section 16-11-119, MCA.) Accordingto data from the Legislative Fiscal Analyst Revenue Estimate System, inFY 1998, the total revenue from the cigarette tax was $13.2 million, with$1.45 million allocated to the earmarked fund for state veterans' nursinghomes.

Historical allocation of cigarette tax revenue: Montana firstimposed a cigarette excise tax in 1947. The initial tax rate was 2 centsper pack of 20 cigarettes and was deposited in the state general fund (Ch.289, L. 1947).

In 1951, through Initiative No. 54, the Montana electorate approvedthe sale of limited obligation bonds to pay an honorarium to World WarII veterans and surviving spouses. The initiative earmarked revenue fromthe 2-cent cigarette tax to pay the bond obligations.

In 1957, the Legislature extended the honorarium payments to KoreanWar veterans and surviving spouses, authorized additional limited obligationbonds, and raised the cigarette tax by 1 cent (Ch. 44, L. 1957).

In 1963, the honorarium was again extended, this time to veterans ofWorld War I and their surviving spouses; once again, limited obligationbonds were authorized. The cigarette tax was increased another 2 cents,which was dedicated to pay the bond obligations (Ch. 270, L. 1963).

The Legislature created a long-range building program in 1967 and fundedit with the portion of the cigarette tax revenue remaining after bond obligationswere paid (Ch. 318, L. 1967). The veterans' honorarium bonds were fullypaid off by 1981, and the entire tax, by then 12 cents, was deposited infunds within the long-range building program (Ch. 267, L. 1981).

The cigarette tax rate continued to be increased. The latest increasewas made in 1989, when the tax was raised from 16 cents to 18 cents perpack, with a portion of the increase used to fund a study of locationsfor and to build a new state veterans' nursing home (Ch. 681, L. 1989).

In 1993, the Legislature passed House Bill No. 46, sponsored by RepresentativeJohn Johnson (D-Glendive), earmarking 11.11% of the cigarette tax revenuefor the operation and maintenance of the state veterans' nursing homes(Ch. 548, L. 1993).

Summary of testimony

Mr. Mike Hanshew, administrator, Senior and Long-Term Care Division,DPHHS, testified at the Subcommittee's August meeting that the LegislativeFinance Committee was considering de-earmarking the 11.11% allocation ofthe cigarette tax earmarked for the state veterans' nursing homes. Mr.Hanshew provided a graph showing the fund's income and expenditures sinceFY 1994 and explained that the DPHHS considered the cigarette tax revenueto be a reliable and stable source of funding for the veterans' homes.He requested that the Subcommittee oppose any move to de-earmark the fund. ³³

Subcommittee discussion and action

The Subcommittee directed staff to write a letter to the Governor andthe Legislative Finance Committee expressing opposition to de-earmarkingthe fund and pointing out that the original purpose of the tax, as wellas the intent of the electorate, was that the tax be a funding source forMontana's veterans. ³⁴

Before the letter was drafted, the subcommittee of the Legislative FinanceCommittee (LFC) decided not to move forward with the de-earmarking proposal.Veterans' Needs Subcommittee Chairman Senator Hargrove decided to senda letter to the LFC stating that the Veterans' Needs Subcommittee was gratifiedby the decision. (See the letter at Appendix B.)

Issue #8Oversight of Veterans' Services 

Recommendation:The Legislature should approve the long-range building program and budgetrequests for improvements to the state veterans' nursing homes.  

Issue summary

House Bill No. 19 (Ch. 14, L. 1997) established the Joint Interim Subcommitteeon Veterans' Needs and charged it to “continue to review the continuumof veterans' services available throughout the state and the effects offederal changes and reform efforts” and to “study the role of and potentialfor additional federally funded veterans' programs in Montana”.

Veteran population

Approximately 92,300 veterans and 138,000 veteran family members livein Montana. About 32,700 of Montana's veterans are over 65 years of age,and about 10,100 of Montana's veterans are disabled. ³⁵

Federal facilities

Federal medical facilities in Montana consist of:

.  the VeteransAdministration Medical and Regional Office Center at Ft. Harrison in Helena; 

.  a VA VeteransCenter and Outpatient Clinic in both Missoula and Billings; and 

.  outpatientclinics in Whitefish, Great Falls, Anaconda, and Miles City. 

State coordination of services

The Montana Veterans' Affairs Division under the Governor-appointedBoard of Veterans' Affairs and attached to the DMA coordinates benefitsand services for Montana's veterans. The Division is headquartered in Helena,includes 19.3 FTEs, and has 9 offices statewide. The two state veterans'cemeteries, which include the Montana State Veterans' Cemetery at Ft. Harrisonin Helena and the Eastern Montana State Veterans' Cemetery in Miles City,also fall under the auspices of the Division.

State nursing home facilities

Two state nursing homes provide nursing, domiciliary, and special carefor Montana's veterans.

The MVH in Columbia Falls under the Senior and Long-Term Care Division,DPHHS, consists of a 40-bed licensed domiciliary for assisted living anda 90- bed licensed skilled nursing home.

The EMVH in Glendive, which is state-owned but privately operated underthe Senior and Long-Term Care Division, DPHHS, consists of an 80-bed licensedhome for skilled and intermediate nursing care. Ten beds are used as aSpecial Care Unit for Alzheimer patients and for veterans with other formsof dementia.

Summary of testimony on federal VA programs

Subcommittee members toured the Fort Harrison VA Regional Center andHospital and the MVH in Columbia Falls. The following summarizes the informationreceived during briefings about and tours of the facilities.

Medical care

Mr. Joe Underkofler, director of the Department of Veterans Affairs(DVA), Medical and Regional Office Center, Fort Harrison, provided theSubcommittee with an overview of emerging issues affecting medical careand benefits for veterans in Montana.

Additional outpatient clinics: Mr. Underkofler reported thatone of the VA's largest projects in Montana during the last 2 years hasbeen establishing Community-Based Outpatient Clinics (CBOCs). He said thathis staff is researching establishing two additional CBOCs, one in Havreand another in the Bozeman/Big Timber/Livingston area. New locations mustbe approved by the Senate and House Veterans Affairs Committees of theU.S. Congress. Mr. Underkofler also reported that the American Legion requestedthat a clinic be placed in Glasgow. The DVA is, therefore, consideringwhether to contract for services or establish a CBOC in Glasgow.

Reduction of inpatient services: Recent changes in care deliveryhave reduced inpatient beds. The Miles City VA facility recently closedits 30-bed hospital unit, and the VA hospital at Fort Harrison has, overthe last 4 years, reduced its inpatient beds from 130 to 50. Mr. Underkoflerreported that the use of contract services for nursing care and same-daysurgical procedures has allowed inpatient beds and services to be reservedfor truly ill veterans. The VA hospital at Fort Harrison is using ambulatorycare evaluation (ACE) beds as observation beds so that patients may beobserved and a determination made about whether the patients need the intensityof care offered by the hospital or less staff-intensive outpatient care.Same-day surgery has reduced the number of hospital stays, but, Mr. Underkoflerexplained, this created a new problem by having to send a patient hundredsof miles home immediately after a surgery. Therefore, the VA is using ACEbeds to observe same-day surgery patients overnight and send them homethe next day.

Better diagnostic tools: The VA center has acquired better diagnostictools, which improve the quality of veteran services. These new tools includea spiral CT scanner (which allows three dimensional pictures and is oneof only two in the state), a vascular imaging unit (which means patientsno longer have to be sent to Salt Lake City or Denver for the procedure),a mobile magnetic resonant imaging (MRI) unit (which is at the center 3days a week and avoids the more than $1 million dollar cost of owning andmaintaining an MRI unit), and a mobile mammography unit to improve howfemale veterans are served at the center.

Construction and renovation: Recent renovations at the hospitalinclude the Surgical Addition and Diagnostic Imaging Expansion project,two new operating rooms, a new dental suite, and a new main lobby.

Other improvements: Other improvements at the hospital includea registered nurse dedicated to coordinating medical-related travel arrangementsfor veteran patients, the ability to provide advanced laparoscopic surgeryand vascular stent placement, a cardiac rehabilitation program, outpatientcommunity-based substance abuse treatment programs at either the VA centeror the CBOCs, and inpatient treatment now available at Sheridan, Wyoming,and Grand Junction, Colorado.

Veterans' benefits processing

Mr. Underkofler reported that Montana veterans and their families annuallyreceive about $60 million in federal veterans' benefits. New organizationalstrategies, such as establishing claims processing teams, instituting bettertimelines, automating vocational rehabilitation processing, and creatingbetter communication, have improved benefit claims processing.

Future goals

Mr. Underkofler said that his goals were to have new CBOCs in Havreand the Bozeman/Big Timber/Livingston area by the spring of 1998, to expandservices at the CBOCs, and to ensure that veterans' benefit claims areprocessed within 6 weeks of receipt. ³⁶

Subcommittee discussion on federal VA programs

Subcommittee members questioned the cost-effectiveness of CBOC servicesbut were assured that the services provided through the CBOCs had cut costsin half. Patients are no longer required to travel to Helena for serviceand can be seen more often by community-based medical professionals.

Subcommittee members asked questions about how walk-in services andmedical records were handled at the CBOCs. Mr. Underkofler explained thatpatients must initially have scheduled appointments, but as services ata CBOC are expanded so that a full-time physician is available, walk-inswill be served. Medical records are maintained through a computer linkbetween Fort Harrison and the CBOCs.

Other questions were raised about veterans being able to use their ownpersonal physicians. Mr. Underkofler explained that Glasgow may be thefirst location where that option will be tried. ³⁷

Summary of testimony on state veterans' nursing home facilities

Changing needs: During its March 23, 1998, meeting, the Subcommitteetoured the MVH at Columbia Falls and received a briefing on the historyof the state nursing homes and the needs of veterans at both the MVH andthe EMVH. The briefing identified that the treatment needs of veteransare changing and that the mission and services provided at the state nursinghomes need to change accordingly.

Mr. Patrick Estensen, superintendent of the MVH, provided a writtenreport, which is included at Appendix D. The report provides backgroundon the needs of veterans and the proposals to be forwarded during the 1999legislative session.

Improvements required: At the Subcommittee's final meeting onAugust 18, 1998, Mr. Hanshew presented a summary of the Senior and Long-TermCare Division's key legislative issues.

Required improvements to the MVH in Columbia Falls include:

.  a new 15-bedSpecial Care Unit, which will cost an estimated $1.3 million. Federal moneywould be used to reimburse 65% of the cost, while the 35% state match wouldbe paid with earmarked cigarette tax revenue. 

.  a budgetrequest for adding 1.6 FTEs direct care staff for the home's domiciliary,which would cost $33,000 annually. 

Long-range building improvements required for the EMVH in Glendiveinclude:

.  physicalplant improvements that include lighting for the parking lot, an expansionof the dining/recreation area, and improvements in the Alzheimer SpecialCare Unit. These improvements are included in the Governor's long-rangebuilding request and would cost an estimated $350,000, which would be fundedfrom earmarked cigarette tax revenue. ³⁸ 

Subcommittee discussion and action

The Subcommittee took no specific action on veterans' nursing home issues,but, by consensus, agreed that staff would include in the Subcommittee'sfinal report the Subcommittee's recommendation that the Legislature approvethe budget and long-range building requests for improving the veterans'homes. ³⁹

Issue #9World War II Veterans' Memorial

Recommendation:The Legislature should approve the Montana Veterans' Affairs Division budgetproposal that Montana contribute $66,000 ($1 for each World War II veteranin Montana) to help fund a U.S. memorial for World War II veterans.  

Issue summary

The United States has not yet dedicated a national memorial for veteransof WW II. Efforts are under way to raise the $100 million needed to buildthe memorial, which will be located on the National Capitol Mall betweenthe Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument.

Summary of testimony

Mr. Jacobsen provided the Subcommittee with information about the WWII memorial and requested the Subcommittee's support. Mr. Jacobsen explainedthat $27 million has so far been received from individual donations andthat former Senator Bob Dole, chairman of the WW II Memorial Committee,suggested that each state consider contributing $1 for each WW II participantfrom the state. Sixty-six thousand Montanans served in the military duringWW II.

Mr. Jacobsen explained that Montana's 1991 Legislature appropriatedfrom the state general fund $25,000--$5 for every woman veteran from Montana--to help build the National Women in Military Service Memorial at ArlingtonCemetery. ⁴⁰

Subcommittee discussion and action

Subcommittee members expressed support for the memorial and the proposedfunding, which will be included in the House Bill No. 2 budget proposalfor the Montana Veterans' Affairs Division. ⁴¹

L55 8306shpa.

ENDNOTES

Footnote:1^* Thisinformation was provided by interested persons who observed the activitiesof the session. Staff has not researched session standing committee minutes.  Footnote:2 
1. SeeJoint Interim Subcommittee on Veterans' Needs (JISVN), Minutes,Legislative Services Division (LSD), September 11, 1997, p. 17.  Footnote:32. Ibid.,March 23, 1998, pp. 20-22 . Footnote:43. Ibid.,August 18, 1998, pp. 9-13.  Footnote:54. Ibid.,September 11, 1997, pp. 3-4.  Footnote:65. Ibid.,August 18, 1998, pp. 17-18.  Footnote:7^* Thefirst time that the plate is issued, the county keeps $3, the state generalfund gets $1, and the remaining $6 is deposited in a fund for the stateveterans' cemeteries. Each year thereafter, the full $10 is remitted tothe state veterans' cemeteries fund. (See section 10-2-603, MCA.) Footnote:86. TheLegion of Valor was first incorporated in 1955 under Public Law 224; theorganizational name was amended in 1961 under Public Law 87-56. For moreinformation, see the Legion of Valor Internet home page at http://members.aol.com/lvalor1890.  Footnote:97. JISVN,Minutes, LSD, September 11, 1997, p. 15 and Exhibit #8, p. 2.  Footnote:108. Ibid.,p.14.  Footnote:11^* Insubsequent discussions with staff, it was learned that the plates woulddisplay a decal of the decoration received by the member and that the costof the plates would be the same as the $10 charged for the veterans' plates,with the revenue allocation also being the same.  Footnote:129. Ibid.,August 18, 1998, pp. 4-7.  Footnote:1310. Ibid.,Exhibit #3.  Footnote:1411. Ibid.,Exhibit #12.  Footnote:1512.  Ibid. ,pp. 5 and 16.  Footnote:1613. Ibid. ,pp. 4-7 . Footnote:1714. Ibid.,pp. 16-17.  Footnote:18^* Seesections 87-2-201 and 87-2-202, MCA, governing the purchase of the wildlifeconservation licenses and sections 87-2-301 and 87-2-302, MCA, governingfishing licenses.  Footnote:1915. Ibid.,September 11, 1997, p. 14.  Footnote:2016. Ibid.,March 23, 1998, Exhibit #11.  Footnote:2117. Ibid.,August 18, 1998, Exhibit #15.  Footnote:22^* Therewas no discussion of how many Legion of Valor members were expected toactually purchase a license or of the assumptions behind the “loss in revenue”figure used by the DFWP. Footnote:2318. Ibid.,pp. 18-19 and Exhibits #14 and #15.  Footnote:2419.  Ibid., August 18, 1998, p. 19. Footnote:25^* TheMontana Veterans' Home in Columbia Falls serves northwestern Montana, afederal facility in Miles City serves southeastern Montana, and a new statefacility at Glendive serves northeastern Montana.
Footnote:2620.  Comments related to the value of continuingthe Subcommittee and whether it should be renewed are found in the Subcommittee'sMinutes as follows: September 11, 1997, p. 15; March 23, 1998, pp.19-20 and 22; and August 18, 1998, pp. 13- 16. Footnote:2721.  JISVN, Minutes, LSD, August 18,1998, Exhibit #8. Footnote:28

22.  Ibid., pp. 13-16. Footnote:2923.  Section 20-25-421, MCA. Footnote:3024.  Chapter 225, Laws of Montana, 1997. Footnote:3125.  Sandy Whitney, “Student Financial Aid”,Legislative Fiscal Division, December 2, 1997. Footnote:32^* Astaff report on University System fiscal issues is available through theLegislative Fiscal Division.  Footnote:3326.  Joint Committee on Postsecondary EducationPolicy and Budget, Minutes, March 2, 1998, pp. 14-15. Footnote:3427.  JISVN, Minutes, LSD, March 23, 1997,p. 12 and Exhibit #4. Footnote:3528.  Ibid., pp. 13-16 and Exhibit #5. Footnote:36^* Ina subsequent discussion with staff, Major Foster explained that the MontanaARNG needs to fill 2,900 positions in the next 2 years in order to getnew units to replace deactivated or reorganized units. About 2,600 positionshave been filled so far. Major Foster also pointed out that deactivationand force structure changes have resulted in a need to “back fill” units(i.e., replace positions resulting from lost or reorganized units) in Havre,Libby, Billings, Kalispell, and Butte. Also, armories in Whitefish andShelby have been shut down. If positions are not filled within the next2 years, Montana may not get replacement units to back fill the losses.Major Foster also explained that some Guard units are not eligible forfederal recruitment incentives because of unit type and force priority.  Footnote:3729.  Ibid., Exhibit #6. Footnote:38^* Informationprovided by Mr. Hagan and Mr. Nugent to Subcommittee staff indicates that41 states have enacted some form of tuition assistance program for stateNational Guard members as a recruitment incentive. Idaho and Wyoming haveeach had some type of program, but currently do not provide funding. SouthDakota's program provides up to 50% tuition assistance in combination withall other available assistance. North Dakota's program provides up to 100%tuition assistance in combination with all other available assistance. Footnote:3930.  Ibid., August 18, 1998, pp. 3-4. Footnote:40^** Accordingto Mr. Hagan and Major Foster, the DMA is currently engaged in collectingmore specific data and in seeking the Governor's support for a funded educationbenefit program as a National Guard recruitment incentive. Footnote:4131.  Ibid., March 23, 1998, pp. 13-16. Footnote:4232.  Ibid. Footnote:4333.  Ibid., August 18, 1998, pp. 7-8 and Exhibit#4. Footnote:4434.  Ibid. Footnote:4535.  Montana Veterans' Affairs Division, “Servicefor those who Served”, JISVN, Minutes, LSD, September 11, 1997,Exhibit #2. Footnote:4636.  JISVN, Minutes, LSD, September 11,1997, pp. 9-14. Footnote:4737.  Ibid. Footnote:4838.  Ibid., August 18, 1998, Exhibit #4. Footnote:4939.  This recommendation was included as aninstruction to staff during the August 18, 1998, meeting but is not expresslystated in the summary minutes of that meeting. Footnote:5040.  JISVN, Minutes, LSD, March 23, 1998,pp. 16-17 and Exhibit #7; see also Minutes, LSD, August 18, 1998,p. 8. Footnote:5141.  Although the official record of JISVN meetingsdoes not reflect specific discussion, instructions to staff included astatement of Subcommittee support for the WW II veterans' memorial andthe proposed funding. 

Reportof the Subcommittee on Veterans' Needs, November 1998

Provided by Montana Legislative Services