Section 1

Questions needing answered.

Testimony has been given by the Authors of HF 3919 and the MDVA which appears to mislead or omits facts presented to the House Veteran Committee which does not align with Task Force meetings, facts discussed or Task Force protocol passed.

1.  It has been stated that the Task Force was a fair representation of Secret War representatives, if so why were the most knowledgable individuals on Secret War operations omitted from the Task Force. There were seven applicants who were not considered for seats on the Task Force, including 2 former CIA Case Officers and the Historian of US Army Special Forces, notably the most knowledgable veterans living today about the subject of the Task Force?  Why only 3 Task Force members with direct knowledge of operations in Laos were chosen to participate, all 10 others were too young to have had any knowledge or direct experience with the Secret War?

2.  It has been repeated that all SGU and irregular forces are included in the new Veteran, defined law 197.448, however ambiguous and confusing text of that legislation was the subject of at least 2 meetings.  If  all irregular veterans were to be included why were only Hmong chosen to participate and all other ethnic Secret War soldiers omitted from the participating in the Task Force.

3.  It was mentioned by MDVA Legislative Director John Kelly that the MDVA General Councils opinion of the CAVWV Analysis and Report was read into the record in meeting 8, actually meeting 7 but the CAVWV report which was the subject of the opinion was never mentioned or discussed in any meetings?  Why was the CAVWV response to that opinion and their Final Statement to the Task Force not discuss in meeting 8 before the final vote on the Protocol.  If the General Council saw fit to review the CAVWV Analysis and Report and submit an opinion  why was this Report not entered into the record and discussed by the Task Force?  It contained valid and experiential facts that addressed all aspects of the Task Forces duties. The CAVWV upon thier review of the opinion found no factual inconsistencies regarding identifying veterans only procedural issues which had no bearing on the Task Force's duties, did the Task Force have a responsibility to address or at least discus this report?

4. Regarding Conflicts of interest. Five Hmong members of the Task Force were assigned seats of which two were legislators who either authored or co authored the legislation of which one served as the Task Forces Chairman. Three Hmong veterans of which one was a US veteran too young to have had any direct knowledge of the war in Laos and two who did have direct knowledge of which one was a child soldier. Nine members were US veterans of which one was the representative of the MDVA and served as Vice Chair. Only 1 had direct knowledge of operations in Laos. Two served outside of Laos with no or very limited knowledge of operations in Laos. All others were either too young or not born to have any experience in Laos.
Only one member was neither Hmong or a Veteran.

5.  When comparing the Task Force protocol  with  HF 3919 and SF 4075 there are critical differences and omissions. Why had this not been mentioned or explained to the House Veteran Committees members?

6. Why the reliance on the National Cemetary Administrations application and approval or denial letters when the NCA representatives testified that many allied veterans were not eligable for NCA benefits and many failed submitting request documentation for benefits? If the MDVA knows many veterans would not qualify for NCA benefits and provides an appeals mechanism for those denied why make the veteran submit two separate applications.  If the MDVA knows certain applicants will be denied as stated in testimony by National Cemetary Administrators when they gave thier presentation to the Task Force why not omit this step altogether. Seems redundant and could possibly confuse an applicant from applying for a second time to the MDVA. 

7.  Why has the "CHAIN OF HONOR" agreed to in the Task Force Protocol and the method often used successfully by the NVA to identify veterans been omitted from HF 3919 and SF 4075?  To date the CAVWV have assisted over 60 applicants using this Chain of Honor methodology of which at least 20 have been accepted and several entered. 

8.  HF 3919 and SF 4075 provides benefits to SGU and irregular soldier that the Minnesota National Guard do not. Was this intentional or an oversight by the authors?
 
9.  The MDVA Representative  testified that there were Eight meetings that examined all aspects of the identity issue. There were in fact seven meetings of which the first was canceled and the following three focused on 197.448, the numerous ambiguities with in it and the benefits it provided,  not the identity issue at all. It was not until after the Walker motion (which failed) was made to return the legislation to the Legislature to remedy all identified ambiguities found in 197.448 that the MDVA introduced a preferred draft protocol for consideration which took up the remaining meetings. The CAVWV Analysis and report was never mentioned in any meetings until the Vice Chair read the MDVA General Councils opinion of that report into the record. The CAVWV response was never mentioned, discussed or entered into the remaining meetings. Task Force  members were not given a chance to discus this important response.

10. Why did the MDVA representative mislead the House Veterans Committee about the Federal WWII Pilipino Scouts recognition and later reversal legislation? Why was this such an important piece of the MDVA's testimony when it was known, mentioned and explained in the CAVWV Analysis and Report which again was never discussed in meetings?

We think these are all important questions needing to be answered and amendments offered before a passage of HF 3919 or SF 4075. 

Section 2

Unexplained differences between Task Force protocol and HF 3919 -SF 4075 

Task Force Protocol v.s. Introduced Legislation - when comparisons were made critical differences were identified, a complete analysis can be found by visiting the link or audio file below

Section 3

Fixing HF 3919- SF4075 to align with the Task Force Protocol
​adding Minnesota National Guard protections

Section 4

Amendment - Re-framing Minnesota Statute 197.448

Proposed amendment to — Minnesota Statutes §197.448

Proposed Amendment to Minn. Stat. § 197.448, Subd. 1
An act relating to veterans; clarifying the definition of veteran of the Secret War in Laos to promote inclusive recognition of allied service, address Task Force challenges, incorporate ignored expert input, and mitigate equity concerns; amending Minnesota Statutes 2025, section 197.448, subdivision 1.
​
WHEREAS, the Secret War in Laos (February 28, 1961, to May 14, 1975) involved diverse allied forces—including special guerrilla units, irregular forces, Royal Lao Air Force pilots (such as T-28 operators), and other ethnic groups (Hmong, Lao Loum, Lao Theung, Khmer, Thai, Vietnamese, Montagnard)—who supported United States efforts at great personal risk and sacrifice; and
WHEREAS, Minnesota Statutes, section 197.448 (enacted in 2025, Laws 2025, Chapter 30, Article 2, Section 9) expanded veteran recognition for these allies but contains ambiguities in terms such as “operated from a base in Laos” and “irregular forces,” and over relies on the federal Hmong Veterans’ Naturalization Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-207) as a primary proxy, potentially excluding legitimate veterans who staged from adjacent countries (e.g., Thailand for training and missions) or served in non-Hmong capacities; and
WHEREAS, the Veterans of Special Guerrilla Units and Irregular Forces in Laos Advisory Task Force, established under the 2025 law to recommend eligibility criteria and verification protocols, faced significant challenges including initial inability to fill statutory membership leading to delays (first meeting canceled due to incomplete roster), exclusion of highly knowledgeable non-Minnesota residents with direct expertise, imbalanced composition creating conflicts of interest (Hmong legislator as Chair and MDVA representative as Vice Chair controlling direction, majority Hmong-affiliated or legislative members, limited non-Hmong/non-veteran input), procedural issues (rejected motion to return ambiguities to the Legislature for clarification, constrained discussion of external analyses), and suppression of dissent (motion to offer a minority report voted down after majority protocol adoption); and
WHEREAS, the Coalition of Allied Vietnam War Veterans (CAVWV) submitted its “CAVWV Report & Analysis” on Identifying Irregular Veterans of Laos (SGU)” (November 2025) via Task Force member Scott Walker, critiquing circular dependencies, federal process flaws (credibility-based humanitarian decisions not equating military verification, Chenery doctrine violations), exclusion of ~70% non-Hmong forces, and proposing a state “Chain-of-Honor” verification model (sequential corroboration via sworn claimant affidavits), SGU officer confirmations, retired CIA veteran authentication of officer reliability under EO 13526 without classified disclosure, historical consistency checks, board oversight by historians/SGU officers/CIA retirees/legal experts, and antifraud safeguards including perjury penalties, audits, no referee compensation, and cross-corroboration), yet the report was never formally discussed, entered into the official record, or substantively addressed during meetings (though MDVA legal counsel reviewed it and identified no factual deficiencies); and
WHEREAS, these Task Force challenges and the sidelining of CAVWV’s expert input—combined with the original statute’s ambiguities—have complicated verification, risked inequitable access to state benefits (such as veterans’ designations, preference, cemeteries, and honor guards), and limited full honoring of all contributors to U.S. objectives in Southeast Asia; and
WHEREAS, the statute’s two-tier eligibility structure and ethnic/operational limitations may raise constitutional equity concerns under Minnesota Constitution Article I, Section 2 (guaranteeing rights and privileges without deprivation except by due process, interpreted as embodying equal protection principles synonymous with the Fourteenth Amendment), including potential unequal treatment among similarly situated Secret War veterans based on ethnicity, naturalization status, or base location, without sufficient rational basis, thereby risking challenges to the law’s fairness and enforceability; and
WHEREAS, clarifying the definition will enable a fairer, more evidence-based eligibility process, respect the covert nature of operations and scarcity of formal records, incorporate broader expertise such as that provided by CAVWV (including recommendations for independent state verification beyond federal proxies), remedy the inequities identified through the Task Force experience, and better align with constitutional principles of equal protection;

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA:
Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2025, section 197.448, subdivision 1, is amended to read:
Subdivision 1. Definition. “Veteran of the Secret War in Laos” means a Minnesota resident who:
(1) was naturalized under section 2(1) of the federal Hmong Veterans’ Naturalization Act of 2000, Public Law 106-207; or
(1a) was naturalized under any federal immigration relief program for Southeast Asia service in support of the President of the United States foreign policy objectives during the Vietnam War era (February 28, 1961, to May 14, 1975), including Royal Lao Air Force pilots (e.g., T-28 operators) or other allied personnel; or
(2) served honorably in any capacity with a special guerrilla unit, irregular forces, or allied regular or paramilitary forces (including Royal Lao Air Force units and other ethnic groups such as Hmong, Lao Loum, Lao Theung, Khmer, Thai, Vietnamese, and Montagnard)that conducted operations within Laos or operated from a base in Laos or from bases in adjacent countries (including Thailand, Cambodia, or Vietnam) in direct support of operations within Laos, in support of the mutual interests of the President of the United States and The King of Laos between February 28, 1961, and May 14, 1975, and is a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident.
“Honorably” means service without desertion, mutiny, or other disqualifying misconduct, as shown by affidavits, witness statements, historical records, photographs, or other credible evidence acceptable to the commissioner, considering the covert nature of the operations.
Sec. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This section is effective the day following final enactment.

Section 5

 Task Force Conflicts of Interests & Procedural Inequities

Section 6

18 Year Retrospective of Minnesota Asian Communities Legislative History

The Coalition of Allied Vietnam War Veterans is a former 501(c)3 non profit which ceased operating under that IRS status at the end of 2025 which was the 50th anniversary year of the ending of the Vietnam War.
It now operates as a Veteran Fellowship located in the State of Minnesota