My Mother and Father In-Law both helped me clean every room in the house. When my daughter and I left the house, it looked 100% better than when we had moved into it. I had to pay the whole months rent for March even though I would only be living there half of the month. We left Killeen, Texas, on March 13, 2004 and drove to Lewiston, Idaho. On April 2, 2004, the Folkerson's rented the house and said that I had to pay 8 days of rent for April because the people who rented the house wouldn't be moving in until the 8th of April. They also told me that I owed them $663.04, so they were keeping the entire $550.00 deposit and that I should send an additional $113.04. Of the $663.04, 373.71 were for cleaning, pest spraying and painting walls. As I have already stated, the house was cleaner than when we moved in, the walls needed painted when we moved in (as stated on the Lease Condition Report) and the house was pest free as far as we could tell. I agree with the charges of $15.00 for replacement for light bulbs and a new furnace filter. The remaining $274.33 covered the 8 days of April rent, a utility fee of $50.00 to show the house after I left, and a $35.00 mowing and trimming fee. My Father In-Law mowed the yard the day before we left for Idaho. To summarize, I was charged $373.71 for cleaning and maintenance that I don't believe was necessary and $274.33 for the prorated April rent and reletting charges. The Folkerson's also said they had forgotten to charge us a reletting fee of $300.00. Our Lease Contract stated the reletting fee is $200.00. They said if I paid the $113.04 they wouldn't charge the reletting fee. I paid the $113.04 for the eight days rent because I wanted to put an end to it. I didn't want to have to pay another $300.00. I felt that they were making me feel that if I kept asking questions they were going to try to charge me the extra money.

On April 5, 2004 I received a call from CPT Downing, the Charlie Company Acting Commander. He said that Ben had been injured. He said that he was shot on April 4, 2004, in his left shoulder. He had been sent to Germany where he was undergoing surgery. CPT Downing said I would be hearing from Ben within the next couple of days. I was so grateful for my in-laws and the support they gave to me and Carey Anne. It made it a lot easier being with my husband's family when I got the news that he had been injured. I know if I had been in Killeen, that I would have been alone, with no support and an almost 3 month old baby. I was glad that I had moved to Idaho and had the support of my family. Ben was sent to Andrews Air Force Base, and then sent back to Darnell Army Hospital, where he was released. He has fully recovered and is going back to Iraq on or around the 20th of June.

It was very hard trying to cope with the fact that my husband was getting deployed to Iraq and having to deal with the landlords about our lease. Military families need to be able to terminate a lease when a service member is deployed. I hope that you understand a little more that this is a problem that needs to be addressed. I don't want to see another military spouse have to go through unnecessary problems because they can't terminate a lease when their spouse has deployment orders.

Thank you for your time. I appreciate your attention to this matter at hand, and allowing me to submit my statement about the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

Testimony of U.S. Representative James P. McGovern

H.R. 4477, the Patriotic Employer Act of 2004

House Committee on Veterans Affairs

June 23, 2004

Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Evans, members of the committee, I

appreciate this opportunity to testify before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs today as it considers legislation that pertains to the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA). Specifically, I am here to discuss legislation I introduced, H.R. 4477, which promotes the rights and responsibilities of employers and employees under USERRA. I am pleased that Ranking Member Evans and Representative Bradley join me as original cosponsors of this legislation.

Since September 11, 2001, over 373,000 National Guardsmen and Reservists have been placed on active duty. Not since World War II have so many National Guardsmen and Reservists been called to active duty. They and their families face many burdens in service to their country.

One burden faced by the men and wonen of the National Guard and Reserves is their employment status upon return from active duty. The uncertainty of their activation and period of time away from their jobs also severely affects their employers, a situation that has been compounded by extended deployments. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has estimated that 70% of military reservists called to active-duty work in small or

medium-size companies.

In an effort to assist National Guardsmen, Reservists, and their employers, the National Committee for Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) was

established to address potential problems arising among the nation's employers. Trained ESGR employers manage to solve roughly 95% of the cases where problems have arisen

when a Reserve or Guard member returns to his or her workplace through an informal process - without the Department of Labor having to get involved.

What about the other 5 percent? According to the ESGR, many of the problems facing this five percent of cases grew out of a lack of understanding of the rights and responsibilities of employers and their returning employees. H.R. 4477 seeks to address the small percentage of employers who do not fully understand or who are unaware of

USERRA.

H.R. 4477 is a simple, straightforward bill. It seeks to promote understanding between employees and employers when it comes to their rights and obligations under USERRA. H.R. 4477 would require the Department of Labor to produce a poster

similar to the Family and Medical Leave poster – for employers to post at work sites.

Currently, many posters are available on the Department of Labor's website,

(http://www.labor.gov/elaws/posters.htm).

H.R. 4477 would not create additional paper work or burden employers with difficult Labor Department requirements. In fact, H.R. 4477 is an effort to educate employers and keep them from unknowingly breaking existing law.

As this committee is aware, many employers across the country do not know about USERRA, or they are only vaguely aware of it. By not complying with USERRA, however, employers put themselves at risk of facing Labor Department investigations. By educating employers and employees before USERRA could be violated, employers will save themselves costly litigation, potential fines, and public embarrassment. I am quite sure that this committee would agree with my belief that our small and medium-size companies do not need to put themselves at risk of a Labor Department investigation.

Let me briefly share with you how I came to introduce H.R. 4477. I was contacted by a constituent who is a member of the Massachusetts ESGR. He suggested that simply altering USERRA to require its posting would solve many of the problems that he had seen arise between employers and returning Reservists and Guardsmen. He described how many employers are not fully aware of their responsibilities under USERRA, and why many employees are afraid to exercise their rights, even though those rights are protected by USERRA. In posting USERRA and familiarizing themselves with the law, employers and employees will gain a deeper understanding of USERRA and preferably work out any potential conflicts before employees are activated.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank both Ranking Member Evans and

Representative Bradley for being original cosponsors of this bipartisan legislation. I appreciate their support, and the dedication they have shown to the men and women of the National Guard and Reserves. In fact, Representative Bradley and I share constituents who are members of the 94th Regional Readiness Command, in particular the New Hampshire and Massachusetts Army Reservists assigned to the 94th Military Police Company headquartered in Londonderry, New Hampshire, and I know he cares deeply about the 94th and its families.

I would also like to acknowledge the work done by Geoffrey Collver of the Democratic Staff of the House Committee on Veterans Affairs. He worked closely with me and my staff in investigating this problem, and H.R. 4477 reflects his hard work.

Again, thank you for having me here today. I am grateful for the opportunity to

testify on H.R. 4477, and I look forward to the Committee acting affirmatively on this

bill.

Written Statement of Mrs. Tammy Kimmel
House Committee on Veterans Affairs

June 23, 2004

I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to tell my story and present this statement regarding the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act.

In August of 2003 my husband and I signed an 11-month lease on a property with Colonial Real Estate and Property Management in Killeen, Texas. My husband is SFC James Kimmel Jr. He has been an enlisted service member with the Army for 21 years. He was sent to Fort Hood for UFTP training with the 2d Squadron 6th U.S. Cavalry. This training was expected to last no longer than 1 year and then we would PCS to Illesheim, Germany. The lease that we signed had a PCS clause in it allowing us to get out of the lease for a PCS move and only pay a $45.00 administration fee.

On Wednesday, March 31, I went to the Colonial Office and wrote up a 60 day "Notice of Intent to Vacate" and turned in my husband's PCS orders. Three office staff members starting talking to me all at once they were telling me that I could not be released from the lease. They were all telling me different things I could do and handing me paperwork, so it's difficult to say everything that was said to me. The office staff informed me that because of the new "Servicemembers Civil Relief Act" that was passed in December of 2003 they could no longer let the spouse out of a lease early. The office staff said that only the active duty military member would be released from the lease. I reminded them that we had a PCS clause in our contract. The response was "the new law supercedes all previous laws and contracts". They continued on to say they have tried to find a way to let people out of the lease but there is nothing they can do because their business could be closed if they violate the federal law. I told them I was going to go to the legal office at Fort Hood and they said that JAG had already contacted them regarding other families that they have 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 the following list of things I could do:

1. Go to court and prove that it is a hardship for me not to be able to go with my husband at the time he moves to Germany.

2. They could contact the owner of the property to see if she would let me out of the lease. 3. I could find my own renters for the property and pay a $100.00 administration fee for breaking the lease early.

4. I could pay 85% of the rent for the two months remaining on the lease and then Colonial would start the process of renting the property.

I refused to do any of these because I believed their interpretation of the law was incorrect. I am totally appalled that a law that is meant to protect service members was used against us when we needed it the most. The special provisions in our lease state “$45.00 admin fee will be charged on all ETS, PCS moves. $100.00 admin fee will be charged on all early move-outs except ETS, PCS and when the re-letting fee is charged"

On March 31 I found an article in the April 5th Army Times titled “Law Weaves Stronger Safety Net on Leases, Evictions". I contacted the writer of the article, Karen Jowers, and informed her