Mr. BOOZMAN. Okay. And again, I'm not being argumentative at all. I agree.

Ms. BROWN-WAITE. I understand.

Mr. BOOZMAN. And like I say, I can't imagine a school board not working with somebody, and that would be fine for a couple kids. I mean, I'd envision it that if they're going to finish out that year I'd like for them to stay the next year and be with their friends, and the whole bit.

And you'd have to look at it state by state, but that's the area you'd want to look at is make sure a couple kids, you know, no problem. If you had a situation near a base, or something, where the thing was pretty broad where you could get into a loophole situation where a school district perhaps at 50 or 100 kids without the tax base, you know, they just had to suck it up and pay for it without it, then that would create an unfunded mandate that we'd have to deal with it.

That's the only concern that I have, and I'm not saying that that's even a possibility. Again, I think it's something that can be worked out, but I'd like to know the numbers also. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Hooley.

Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think one of the things if we decide to pass it it would be very easy to add an amendment where the money follows the child. I mean, frequently I know schools will, for whatever reason, a child will transfer out of where they live into a different school, and the money just follows them to that new school.

So I think there's a way that it can be worked out. And again, if we're going to pass this, we can look at some amendments that would take care of that. I understand every school really doesn't want to lose a child, but schools accommodate this situation frequently, and what we don't want to have happen is for somebody to refuse the child to stay in that same school if that's what's best for that child.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Hooley. I want to thank our very distinguished panel for their testimony, and we appreciate you taking the time and the effort to be here. Thank you.

I'd like to welcome our second panel to the witness table, if they could make their way. If you wouldn't mind, please stand. I would say to our distinguished witnesses, we are extremely grateful that you've taken the time to be here, and I think by doing this, you protect yourselves in terms of your situation. If you wouldn't mind standing and raising your right hand.

[Witnesses sworn.]

The CHAIRMAN. I'd like to introduce our second panel, beginning with Ms. Tammy Kimmel, who is an accountant and military spouse from Killeen, TX. While in Killeen, she started her own business, First Impressions Resume Service, and also worked preparing taxes. And we will get into her testimony momentarily.

Mr. Jason Burris serves in the Oregon National Guard and will be introduced by Ms. Hooley, who is his representative. Ms. Hooley, if you wouldn't mind at this point.

Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, for holding this hearing today on Public Sector Compliance with

the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act-a lot of words.

It is important that we ensure that our servicemembers and their families are treated with the respect that they deserve. I'm honored to be joined by fellow Oregonian and constituent Corporal Jason Burris, who is here to testify on his experience with USERRA compliance at the U.S. Postal Service.

Corporal Burris is from Woodburn, Oregon, has been a member of the National Guard since 1998 and is currently assigned to E Troop 1 of the 82nd Cavalry. Corporal Burris is a dedicated, hard working American who worked at the post office located in Woodburn, Oregon, and one weekend a month and two weeks a year trained hard for the defense of this nation just like hundreds of thousands of other patriotic Americans.

In this case, however, that patriotism cost him his job. I am happy that Corporal Burris is able to join is today and look forward to his perspective and problems with USERRA compliance in the public sector. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Hooley. I want to thank both Ms. Kimmel and Mr. Burris for traveling so far to testify before the committee and for their willingness to testify on issues of importance to servicemembers and their families.

I also ask unanimous consent that a statement by Mrs. Sarah Hayhurst be placed in the record. Without objection, so ordered. [The statement of Sarah J. Hayhurst appears on p. 111.]

The CHAIRMAN. The statement is included in all of your hearing folders, and I hope you take the time to read it. Ms. Hayhurst is an Army spouse who has given to the committee a written statement about the problems she experienced with termination of a residential lease in the Fort Hood area, and the committee appreciates her willingness to provide that information to us.

We'll also hear from Mrs. Judithe Hanover Kaplan, who holds a Bachelor of Science degree in nursing from the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center, a Ph.D. from the University of California, Berkeley, and is a graduate of the University of Washington Law School.

Dr. Kaplan has developed educational programs as a nurse and aeromedical staging specialist for the Air Force and is a graduate of the Air War College.

If we can begin with Ms. Tammy Kimmel.

TESTIMONY OF TAMMY M. KIMMEL, MILITARY SPOUSE, KILLEEN, TX; JASON BURRIS, CORPORAL, OREGON NATIONAL GUARD; AND JUDITHE HANOVER KAPLAN, FORMER COLONEL, U.S. AIR FORCE RESERVE

TESTIMONY OF TAMMY M. KIMMEL

Mrs. KIMMEL. I would like to thank Chairman Smith and all the committee members for this opportunity to contribute to the hearing on the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. My name is Tammy Kimmel. My husband is SFC James Kimmel. He has served in the Army for 21 years.

Last summer we were sent to Fort Hood so my husband could participate in the UFTP training with the 2nd Squadron, 6th U.S.

Cavalry. This training was expected to last no longer than one year, and then we would PCS with the entire unit to Illesheim, Germany.

In August of 2003, we signed an 11-month lease on a home with Colonial Real Estate and Property Management. The lease had a PCS clause in it allowing us to get out of the lease for a PCS move and pay a $45 administration fee.

On March 31st, I gave Colonial a 60-day moving notice and turned in my husband's PCS orders for Germany. Three office staff members told me that I would not be released from the lease. They told me that a new law was passed in December of 2003 that said only the active duty service member would be released.

They said that I was still responsible for the entire term of the lease. I reminded them that we had a PCS clause in our lease. Their response was the new law supersedes all previous laws and contracts. They continued on to say they have tried to find a way around this, but there's nothing they can do.

They said their business could be closed if they violate a federal law. I told them they were wrong, and that's not what the law says. I told them I would go to the Fort Hood legal office. Again, their response was that JAG had already contacted them regarding other families they had done this to, and they don't care what JAG says because JAG has their own interpretation of the law.

Mrs. Cooney gave me a copy of part of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act with parts of section 305 and 308 highlighted and said that those sections pertain to a PCS move. They gave me a list of four things that I could do to get out of the lease.

The first would be to go to a court and apply for protection under the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act. They also said they could contact the owner and see if she would let me out of the lease, or I could find my own renters for the property, or I could pay the remaining rent, 85 percent of the remaining rent for the months we were breaking the lease, and then they would start the process of renting the property.

I refused to do any of these things. I was appalled that a law that was meant to product us servicemembers was used against us at a time that we needed it the most. That same day I found an article in the Army Times titled, "Law Weaves Stronger Safety Net on Leases and Evictions."

I contacted the writer of the article and informed her of our situation. She encouraged me to go to the legal office. She also contacted our rental agency regarding their position on this law. The rental agency referred her to their company attorney, who said that he was under the understanding that they do release families for a PCS move.

She informed him our situation. Over the next week there were several calls between myself, the Army Times Reporter, the Colonial Real Estate attorney, and eventually, on April 7, they left a message for me on my voice mail that stated they had found a way to let me out of the lease, that there would be no more problems, and I would be released the same as my husband.

Even now, after we've moved out of the house, we have ongoing problems with the real estate management company. All this has created enormous stress on our family. It's very stressful to com

plete a military move, especially overseas. This move to Germany is our third in four years.

I hope that this problem can be resolved and that other families don't have to go through this type of stress. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Kimmel appears on p. 116.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony and for being here.

If you could proceed, Mr. Burris.

TESTIMONY OF JASON BURRIS

Mr. BURRIS. Chairman Smith and members of the committee, thank you for inviting me to testify here today. In the fall of 2000, I was employed with the U.S. Postal Service, and when I went to attend my monthly drill IDT approximately 30 days after the beginning of my employment with the Postal Service, I was injured in the course of training to where I was unable to move my arm and was unable to report to work for two days.

On the second day, I was called to be informed that my term of employment was being terminated due to failure to report to work due to a non-postal injury. One of my first actions was to call my unit readiness NCO and ask them if what had just happened was, in fact, legal.

And his reply was no, and he put me in touch with the U.S. Department of Labor-VETS. After speaking with them, the U.S. Department of Labor-VETS, I proceeded to file a formal complaint and grievance. And then I also contacted my father, who is a postmaster in the U.S. Postal Service.

He was unaware and had been unaware of any USERRA training or information put out by the post office up to that point. His knowledge of the matter now is largely due to my experience.

The U.S. Department of Labor and VETS investigated the incident, and they came to a conclusion that what the U.S. Postal Service had done was not in violation, and they offered me the change to refer my case to Office of Special Counsel.

I forwarded it to the Office of Special Counsel in the hopes that perhaps it would bring light to the subject that there is no training in place with the Postal Service and that it would help to bring that to light and allow further training and fewer situations of this to occur.

Late this last year the Office of Special Counsel and the U.S. Postal Service have been in contact as far as regards to this. The Office of Special Counsel found that the U.S. Postal Service did indeed violate USERRA in terminating me for a non-postal injury which was military related, and so they've been progressing through settlement status.

The U.S. Postal Service has, in fact, agreed verbally to settle this incident outside of the courtrooms and is quickly coming to a close. The Office of Special Counsel has done an exemplary job in reviewing and investigating this incident with all the information that has been provided them by the U.S. Postal Service, Department of Labor-VETS and myself, and I would lake to thank them greatly.

Again, I'd like to thank you all for inviting me to testify here today and would be more than willing to answer any of your ques

tions.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burris appears on p. 118.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Burris. Dr. Kaplan.

TESTIMONY OF JUDITHE HANOVER KAPLAN

Ms. KAPLAN. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the House Veterans' Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to address you pertaining to my USERRA case. USERRA protection and veterans' employment/reemployment rights are absolutely critical at this time of war with military activations, deployments and employment returns of Reservists and National Guard members.

I'm a former colonel in the United States Air Force Reserve. I joined the Air Force Reserve on August 20, 1990, and was separated from service on March 31, 2003, by mandatory age mandate. I served 12 and a half years, and I loved every minute of it. I'm a disabled veteran resulting from serving during the Gulf War as a battlefield/aeromedical staging nurse.

Additionally, I was recalled to active duty to serve post 9/11 for eight months at Keesler Air Force Base. As a civilian, I'm a nurse with a career spanning 37 years, ten years in management/administration, ten years as a college university professor and the remaining years as an eclectic mental health nurse. I have been successful and high-performing all my life.

On October 26, 1999, I was employed by the Veterans' Affairs Medical Center San Diego as a Title 38 staff nurse/performance improvement consultant. On December 7, 1999, a memo was written for my termination, the day following my presentation of military orders to my supervisor. I was terminated January 14, 2000.

Six weeks passed between initial employment and termination. The reason given for my termination was unavailability. The reason for my unavailability was military service.

Prior to my employment my future supervisor and I discussed my military service and obligations. There was a mutual agreement to try to work with the agency regarding my military responsibilities even though USERRA does not require such an agree

ment.

By December 1999, I had begun implementing a transfer to military IMA status and was being assigned to Headquarters Air Force Pentagon, Office of the Surgeon General at Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, D.C.

This was done as an attempt to prevent scheduling conflicts between my military career and my VA employment. This reassignment would remove me from critical mobility status to planned military duty. My supervisor and I discussed prior to my being hired pending military orders for national medical conference that I had already received. My supervisor approved the orders and attendance at the conference.

My military leadership position was at March Air Reserve Base, California and entailed responsibility for the suicide and violence prevention program and teaching of more than 3,000 Reservists. I attended reserve training two weekends per month and missed one day from work each weekend for preparation wrap-up until I could