    [House Hearing, 106 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                    VIEWS OF VETERANS' SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                       SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,
                      VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND INTERNATIONAL
                                   RELATIONS

                                     of the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                               GOVERNMENT REFORM

                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 18, 1999

                                   __________

                                Serial No. 106-9

                                   __________

           Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

         Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/reform

                                     ______

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    67-052                     WASHINGTON : 1999

                         COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

                         DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman
    BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York         HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
    CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland       TOM LANTOS, California
    CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut       ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
    JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    STEPHEN HORN, California             PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                PATSY T. MINK, Hawaii
    THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia            CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
    DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana           ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington,
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana                  DC
    JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida             CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
    STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio           ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
    MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South     DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
        Carolina                         ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
    BOB BARR, Georgia                    DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
    DAN MILLER, Florida                  JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
    ASA HUTCHINSON, Arkansas             JIM TURNER, Texas
    LEE TERRY, Nebraska                  THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
    JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    DOUG OSE, California                             ------
    PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin                 BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JOHN T. DOOLITTLE, California            (Independent)
    HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

                          Kevin Binger, Staff Director
                     Daniel R. Moll, Deputy Staff Director
               David A. Kass, Deputy Counsel and Parliamentarian
                          Carla J. Martin, Chief Clerk
                     Phil Schiliro, Minority Staff Director
                                     ------

    Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International
                                   Relations

                    CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut, Chairman
    MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana              ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         TOM LANTOS, California
    JOHN M. McHUGH, New York             ROBERT E. WISE, Jr., West Virginia
    JOHN L. MICA, Florida                JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
    DAVID M. McINTOSH, Indiana           THOMAS H. ALLEN, Maine
    MARSHALL ``MARK'' SANFORD, South     EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
        Carolina                         BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    LEE TERRY, Nebraska                      (Independent)
    JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois               JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho

                                   Ex Officio

    DAN BURTON, Indiana                  HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
                Lawrence J. Halloran, Staff Director and Counsel
                    Robert Newman, Professional Staff Member
                    Marcia Sayer, Professional Staff Member
                            Jonathan Wharton, Clerk
                        David Rapallo, Minority Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hearing held on March 18, 1999...................................     1
    Statement of:
        Robertson, Steve, director, National Legislative Commission,
          the American Legion; Dennis Cullinan, director, Legislative
          Services, Veterans of Foreign Wars; David Woodbury,
          national service director, AMVETS; Richard Wannemacher,
          Jr., associate national legislative director, Disabled
          American Veterans; Rick Weidman, director of Government
          Relations, Vietnam Veterans of America; and Paul Sullivan,
          executive director, National Gulf War Resource Center......    11
    Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
        Cullinan, Dennis, director, Legislative Services, Veterans of
          Foreign Wars, prepared statement of........................    26
        Filner, Hon. Bob, a Representative in Congress from the State
          of California, prepared statement of.......................     4
        Robertson, Steve, director, National Legislative Commission,
          the American Legion, prepared statement of.................    14
        Sullivan, Paul, executive director, National Gulf War
          Resource Center, prepared statement of.....................    77
        Wannemacher, Richard, Jr., associate national legislative
          director, Disabled American Veterans, prepared statement of    44
        Weidman, Rick, director of Government Relations, Vietnam
          Veterans of America, prepared statement of.................    61
        Woodbury, David, national service director, AMVETS, prepared
          statement of...............................................    36

                    VIEWS OF VETERANS' SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 18, 1999

                      House of Representatives,
           Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans
                  Affairs, and International Relations,
                                Committee on Government Reform,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 8:32 a.m., in
    room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher
    Shays (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Present: Representatives Shays, Souder, Mica, Terry,
    Blagojevich, and Sanders.
        Staff present: Lawrence J. Halloran, staff director and
    counsel; Robert Newman and Marcia Sayer, professional staff
    members; Jonathan Wharton, clerk; David Rapallo, minority
    counsel; and Earley Green, minority staff assistant.
        Mr. Shays. We are going to call this hearing to order.
        Good morning. Our early start today is one measure of the
    importance the subcommittee places on the views of national
    veterans' service organizations. Before the crush of meetings
    and votes overtakes the day, and before our agenda fills for
    the year, we feel it is essential to hear from those who served
    in our country's armed forces and whose daily mission is to
    help others who did the same.
        In previous hearings, the General Accounting Office, the
    Inspector General, and representatives from the Department of
    Veterans Affairs described the many challenges confronting a
    department managing a $43 billion in health, compensation, and
    other benefit programs for more than 25 million veterans and
    their families. They mentioned chronic claim processing delays,
    uncertain health-care quality protections, inaccurate data
    systems, and budget inequities within and between regions.
        Our witnesses today bring a unique perspective to these
    issues. They risked their lives and helped make the United
    States of America the great Nation it is today. It is a
    perspective which provided invaluable to our work and the Gulf
    war veterans' illnesses, and one I know will inform and improve
    our continuing VA in Defense Department oversight.
        Welcome to all of you, and we look forward to your
    testimony.
        What I would like to do is to invite my colleague, Robert
    Filner, from California--he serves on the Veterans Affairs
    Committee and is, I believe, the ranking member--the Benefits
    Subcommittee, an important subcommittee for the issues we are
    dealing with, so I would like to invite him to make a
    statement.
        Then I am going to swear you in, and then we are going to
    hear from you all.
        Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I do appreciate
    your courtesy to allow a Member of the minority to have a quick
    statement. I would like to submit my full statement for the
    record. Second, I want to thank you for all your work in the
    last Congress, and in the coming Congress, on the Persian Gulf
    war illness. You have brought us, more than anyone, closer to
    the truth on this issue. We still have a ways to go, but I
    appreciate your courage and your leadership on this issue.
    Last, your oversight on this issue is very important. You will
    hear from organizations who have put together, not only a
    budget guideline for us to go by, but, of course, their
    lifelong commitment and their organizations' commitment to
    veterans is unquestioned, so when they speak, it is good for us
    to listen. I thank you for providing the forum for them.
        Most of the organizations--I think all the organizations
    before you--have endorsed what is called the Independent Budget
    for the Year 2000, and several played a role in putting that
    budget together. What their budget provided in a very succinct,
    professional, and convincing manner, what do we need to make
    sure that we fulfill our contract with our Nation's veterans?''
    They concluded that the President's budget was woefully
    inadequate, that approximately $3 billion more was needed just
    to keep even with the present budget. Many of us on the
    Veterans Affairs' Committee agreed with them. The budget, as
    submitted by the President, left the VA healthcare system
    drastically underfunded, in danger of actual collapse. The
    budget for the GI bill is far short of realistic needs and
    failing as a readjustment benefit and as a recruitment
    incentive. Desperately needed staffing increases included in
    the budget appear to be phony, little more than ``shell
    games.'' The National Cemetery system has been underfunded for
    years, and the money needed for the most basic repairs and
    upkeep is unavailable.
        These are drastic problems. This is no way to treat those
    who have made sure that we have a country that is worthy of
    defense. Veterans have been wronged by this budget, and now it
    is time for Congress to right that wrong.
        We need, Mr. Chairman, to unite as a Congress, to unite as
    both parties, to unite with these organizations, to make sure
    an adequate budget is passed by this Congress.
        I think I use a dirty word here, but the ``caps,'' with
    respect to Veterans Affairs, have to be broken. There is no way
    that we can do justice if we are going to stay within the caps
    that were given to us. There is an urgency and frustration in
    the budget and in the testimony of these gentlemen in front of
    you that I have not heard before.
        They are telling us that they have done more than their
    fair share to balance our budget, and now they expect us to be
    their advocates. They are reminding us that America is safe and
    free only because of the hardships and sacrifices that they
    have suffered.
        Let me just read you one statement, Mr. Chairman, from the
    independent budget.

        As the administration and Congress develop budgets and
    policies for the new millennium, we urge them to look up from
    their balance sheets and into the faces of the men and women
    who risked their lives to defend our country. We ask them to
    consider the human consequences of inadequate budgets and
    benefits denials for those who answered the call to military
    service.

    I take that to heart.
        They have outlined what is needed for healthcare, the GI
    bill, the benefits package, for Persian Gulf war veterans, Mr.
    Chairman. The funding, for example, in the budget that was both
    presented by the President and most likely will come out of
    Congress as it exists now, does not adequately fund the
    legislation for Persian Gulf war veterans that you put forward
    and was passed by the House and the Senate last year. Without
    that money, the VA system will not be able to absorb the
    additional Persian Gulf war veterans who will be eligible for
    healthcare under the new law that you led the fight for.
        So we have a lot of work to do. I appreciate your kindness
    and courtesy, your courage, your leadership, Mr. Chairman. We
    have to do right by these veterans.
        [The prepared statement of Hon. Bob Filner follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.008

        Mr. Shays. Thank you, Congressman Filner. Let me just say,
    this is--I never think of this as a majority or minority. You
    are an equal partner in this process and have been very
    helpful, and I really thank you for being here.
        Mr. Blagojevich is on his way and just wants to make sure
    that we get started.
        So I am going to introduce our witnesses. Mr. Steve
    Robertson, director, National Legislative Commission, the
    American Legion; Mr. Dennis Cullinan, director, Legislative
    Services, Veterans of Foreign Wars; Mr. David Woodbury,
    national service director, AMVETS; Mr. Rich Wannemacher, Jr.,
    associate national legislative director, Disabled American
    Veterans; Mr. Rick Weidman, director of Government Relations,
    Vietnam Veterans of America; and Mr. Paul Sullivan, executive
    director, National Gulf War Resource Center.
        I would invite our witnesses to stand and we will
    administer the oath in this committee, and then we will hear
    your testimony. Thank you.
        [Witnesses sworn.]
        Mr. Shays. For the record, all of our witnesses responded
    in the affirmative.
        It is very nice to have Congressman Terry from the great
    State of Nebraska. I always love watching them play football
    among other things.
        Mr. Terry. So do I--[laughter.]
        Mr. Shays. If we could just start in the manner I called
    you. And we are going to hear all your testimony. We don't have
    a light up there. We have a timer here. Let me just tell you
    our restraints. Our restraint is that technically we are
    supposed to adjourn by 9:30. We can go on a little beyond, but
    we are going to be having a top-secret briefing on our defense
    system and one that they have requested that we not have
    hearings during that time, but we can run over a little bit.

     STATEMENTS OF STEVE ROBERTSON, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE
      COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION; DENNIS CULLINAN, DIRECTOR,
    LEGISLATIVE SERVICES, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS; DAVID WOODBURY,
     NATIONAL SERVICE DIRECTOR, AMVETS; RICHARD WANNEMACHER, JR.,
      ASSOCIATE NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN
       VETERANS; RICK WEIDMAN, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS,
       VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA; AND PAUL SULLIVAN, EXECUTIVE
              DIRECTOR, NATIONAL GULF WAR RESOURCE CENTER

        Mr. Robertson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am going to try to summarize my statement. I would
    request that my full statement be submitted for the record.
        Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shays. Yes?
        Mr. Robertson. My full statement be submitted----
        Mr. Shays. Yes----
        Mr. Robertson [continuing]. For the record, and I will try
    to summarize----
        Mr. Shays. Yes. I am going to wait until my colleague gets
    here to make sure that we make it official that it will be in
    the record, but it--[laughter]--will be.
        Mr. Robertson. OK, sir.
        Mr. Shays. Thank you.
        Mr. Robertson. I am going to summarize my remarks so that
    we can open up the discussion for dialog.
        The last time I took an oath like that, it wound up 20
    years of military service, so I get a little edgy when I have
    to raise my hand.
        Mr. Chairman, the American Legion appreciates this
    opportunity to present testimony on critical issues facing
    agencies and programs within your jurisdiction.
        It is important to remember that the costs of war and peace
    go on long after the guns are silenced, the treaties are
    signed, the dead are buried, and the parades are over. It is
    our service members that take an oath of allegiance to support
    and defend the Constitution at the risk of personal safety.
    They endure many hardships and sacrifices to fulfill that
    promise. What awards and benefits this Nation provides them
    should reflect its gratitude for dedicated service. Medals and
    ribbons are appropriate, but do not heal the mental and
    physical scars of war or make a broken body whole.
        Turning to issues of national security, the first area
    deals with Tricare, DOD's newest version of military healthcare
    delivery. Mr. Chairman, this single issue represents one of the
    biggest lies ever told to service members. If you retire from
    the armed forces, you and your dependents will receive medical
    care from the military, at no cost, for the rest of your lives.
        In 1973, I was commissioned in the U.S. Air Force. This
    promise was made to me and, in fact, was a practiced policy.
    Now, military retirees are allowed to participate in a
    federally subsidized healthcare program called Tricare. The
    degree of healthcare coverage military retirees and their
    dependents receive is based on how much money they are willing
    to--or in many cases, able to--pay.
        As radical as paying for an entitlement seems, they are
    only allowed to participate in this program until they become
    Medicare-eligible. Once they become Medicare-eligible, they are
    ineligible for Tricare. At a point in their lives when demands
    for quality healthcare are the greatest, they lose the very
    healthcare system that they have depended on for the vast
    majority of their adult lives.
        The American Legion is not surprised to hear about the
    recruiting and retention problems of the Armed Forces. After
    all, your best recruiters are your alumni. Should you decide to
    hold hearings on Tricare. The American Legion is prepared to
    participate and offer some workable solutions.
        Mr. Chairman, the next issue is concurrent receipt. The
    American Legion sees this issue as among the greatest
    inequities in the Federal Government. Under current law, if a
    military retiree has a VA service-connected disability, the
    veteran loses $1 of military longevity retirement pay for every
    VA compensated dollar received.
        Military retirees are the only Federal retirees penalized
    in this manner. Concurrent receipt represents a bean-counter's
    compensation concept, not the thanks of a grateful Nation.
        Turning now to the area of veterans' affairs, I must
    express the disappointment in the President's budget request
    for fiscal year 2000 for the VA. The entire veterans' community
    agrees that it is inadequate. The American Legion supports the
    Veterans Affairs Committee's views and estimates to add $1.9
    billion and hope that Members will demand the budget resolution
    reflects such an increase.
        Although VA funding is not directly under your
    jurisdiction, there are three funding mechanisms that need your
    attention: the Medical Care Collection Fund [MCCF], the
    Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation [VERA], and Medicare
    Subvention. All three of these programs directly impact
    veterans' healthcare funding systems. Again, the American
    Legion would welcome the opportunity to participate in any
    hearings you hold.
        Another issue deals with legislation enacted last Congress
    to amend title 38 of the United States Code and now denies due
    process to a small percentage of veterans. Without the benefit
    of congressional hearings, Congress chose to deny some veterans
    their right to receive a service-connected disability rating
    for a medical condition related to their service in the Armed
    Forces. I can't help but notice the picture of Representative
    former-Chairman Brooks up there with his cigar in his hand.
        The group that I am talking about, the American Legion
    adamantly opposes the decision to deny a select group of
    veterans with tobacco-related illnesses their right to receive
    service-connected disability, should they be able to prove that
    it is connected with their military service. This needs to be
    repealed. It was wrong; it was unethical. It was immoral; it
    was flat wrong to do that.
        Another area of great concern is the long-term healthcare
    for both military retirees, their dependents, and veterans. The
    long-term care for military retirees, their dependents, and
    veterans is basically nonexistent. And it is very ironic that
    today, one of your other subcommittees is holding a hearing on
    long-term care for Federal employees, and there is nobody from
    the military there to represent them.
        In the area of international relations, the American Legion
    has two areas of concern--the administration's certification of
    Vietnam and the Orderly Departure Program.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify
    today. I hope that this is just the first of many appearances
    before your committee.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Robertson follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.017

        Mr. Shays. Thank you very much. You covered a lot in 6
    minutes. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Dennis Cullinan.
        Mr. Cullinan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and
    members of the subcommittee and concerned Members of Congress.
        On behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign
    Wars, I would express our deep appreciation for inviting us to
    participate in today's important hearing.
        Mr. Chairman, in preparation for this hearing, in
    discussions with your staff, I asked what it was that I should
    address here today. And it was suggested to me that I should
    talk about those things that truly trouble us, as an
    organization, an organization of veterans' advocates--the
    things that wake us up at 3 a.m.--and those are some of the
    things that I intend to discuss here today.
        Securing sufficient funding for the VA medical care system
    has now taken on such a note of urgency that if we fail in this
    regard, its continuing existence as a viable healthcare
    provider for veterans is very much in doubt. Similarly,
    inadequate funding continues to undermine the effectiveness of
    the Veterans Benefits Administration, and veterans are
    suffering as a consequence.
        The administration's proposed fiscal year 2000 budget for
    the Department of Veterans Affairs would be devastating to our
    Nation's veterans. If the Congress does not step forward and
    increase the funding provided for this purpose, VA's ability to
    provide quality, timely, accessible healthcare for veterans
    will do irreparable harm.
        The VFW hears daily complaints of increasing waiting times
    for veterans to see a specialty provider, such as an orthopedic
    doctor or a dermatologist. This is happening throughout the
    country. More egregious in the specific, however, is the 1-year
    wait for hip replacement surgery in Ann Arbor, and the 1-year
    wait for dentures in Maine, and the 1-year wait for dermatology
    appointments in New Orleans.
        Then there is the veteran in Louisiana who is 50 percent
    service-connected, has a significant skin condition, and cannot
    get a dermatology appointment for 7 months. A 100 percent
    service-connected disabled veteran in a private nursing home
    under VA contract in Rhode Island since Korea for his service-
    connected condition, was told that VA could no longer afford
    the cost of keeping him there, and that he could afford to pay
    for his own care, himself. His removal from the home was only
    halted through VFW intervention.
        A New Jersey veteran in a VA nursing home for 15 years was
    threatened with expulsion. This was due to cost-driven mission
    change to eliminate all long-term care. Once again, it was only
    VFW intervention that prevented him from being thrown out.
        These are only a few of the examples of the tragic,
    nationwide epidemic, an epidemic of increased waiting times and
    delays in getting appointments which, in these examples, can
    only be interpreted as a denial of care. And it will get worse,
    this year and next, because of this proposed budget, if the
    Congress doesn't act.
        Mr. Chairman, you are, of course, familiar with the
    numbers, the statistics, but this is a situation--this is a
    human tragedy in the making, a human tragedy that needs to be
    addressed before more veterans suffer, wrongly and for no good
    reason.
        There are other issues to be addressed--the aging veteran
    population. As you know, Mr. Chairman, at this point in time,
    long-term care is not mandated under law and because of cost-
    driven mission changes like the one I cited just earlier, long-
    term care capability is being steadily eroded, eliminated from
    the Department of Veterans Affairs. This, in the face of a
    rapidly aging population, just at a time when our World War II
    veterans need such care, the VA's already limited capability is
    being diminished. This is wrong.
        Another area of concern--waiting times to receive
    treatments in specialty clinics continues to get worse. Calls
    from veterans have indicated, for instance, more than a 1-year
    delay to receive dentures in Network 1 and more than a 1-year
    delay to receive orthopedic surgery in Network 11. We have also
    seen an increase in the number of calls received about
    obtaining timely appointments in clinics such as cardiology,
    dermatology, podiatry, ophthalmology, and a variety of other
    specialty clinics. Pharmacy waiting times have worsened over
    the past year. Calls about 1- and 2-hours' waiting times to
    receiving medications are commonplace. Waiting times are
    increasing because staff has been reduced, and the outpatient
    workload has increased. With staffing reductions to take place
    in the near future, this problem will surely get worse.
        And then there are other upcoming challenges; you
    referenced it briefly earlier. The VA is about to undertake
    treating veterans suffering from hepatitis C, and they have to
    do this. This is the only correct and right thing to do, but
    the money to pay for it isn't there. This can only result in
    tragedy, if not remedied.
        Emergency room care is another issue. Right now, there are
    veterans who would go for emergency room care--service-
    connected veterans--who would seek emergency room care outside
    of VA, and VA won't cover the costs, even if it is for their
    service-connected problem.
        And a newer horizon--you discussed Persian Gulf briefly
    earlier. Persian Gulf is an issue which has yet to be resolved,
    although much progress has been made in the right direction.
    But this augers for future challenges. In this day and age,
    there are going to be more and more small conflicts. And with
    these small conflicts, they will have their own particular
    problems. A tough thing to meet, and the last thing we need is
    a reduction of funding.
        I would also say here, addressing the issue of the caps,
    the VFW, of course, salutes the action in the Senate Budget
    Committee the day before yesterday, in providing an additional
    $1.1 billion in discretionary money for VA. Of course, VA
    hardly has that money at this point in time, and we only urge
    that the House follow suit.
        In fact----
        Mr. Shays. Could I ask, is that--you said $1.1 million?
        Mr. Cullinan. Billion.
        Mr. Shays. Billion; I am sorry--$1.1 billion. But is that
    above the President's budget or above----
        Mr. Cullinan. That is above the----
        Mr. Shays. Or above the baseline----
        Mr. Cullinan. Yes, that is above----
        Mr. Shays [continuing]. That we had last year, or we are in
    this year?
        Mr. Cullinan. It is above the baseline. It is above the
    baseline.
        Mr. Shays. So it is significantly more than----
        Mr. Cullinan. Although----
        Mr. Shays. Yes.
        Mr. Cullinan [continuing]. In spending authority.
        The point I would make here, though, is even more is
    required. The independent budget has identified the need for
    about $3.2 billion. Nonetheless, we salute the fact that they
    took the initiative to go that far, and we ask that the House,
    now, even go further.
        The Veterans Benefit Administration continues to encounter
    serious problems in its ability to render quality, timely
    decisions in the adjudication of veterans' claims for benefits,
    especially those for compensation. Contributing to these
    problems is the escalating amount of appeals--now slightly over
    100,000--to be processed in those offices, primarily in
    response to the number of remands from the Board of Veterans
    Appeals.
        We are absolutely convinced that inadequate staffing is now
    the root cause of the Veterans Benefit Administration quality
    problems. Statistics confirm this supposition. The VBA has gone
    from 13,856 employees in fiscal year 1992 to approximately
    11,200 presently, a 20 percent reduction in less than 6 years.
        What is immediately required is an infusion of additional
    employees to replace normal attrition. And I would add to that
    that they need to be carefully trained employees who have the
    inclination and the intellectual wherewithal to undertake that
    highly rigorous calling.
        The ``Fiscal Year 1999 Veterans' Independent Budget and
    Policy'' document provides justification for an increase of 500
    employees in the compensation and pension service. Congress
    must now immediately act and provide the necessary appropriated
    funding to reverse the deleterious employee reduction in VBA,
    if we hope to have any further success toward achieving the
    goal of timely and proper claims adjudication for veterans.
        Once again, this is not simply a matter of statistics, but
    it is a human tragedy that needs to be addressed.
        Mr. Chairman, and members of the subcommittee, this
    concludes my written statement. Once again, I will thank you
    for having included us in this important forum, and I will, of
    course, be happy to respond to any questions you have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cullinan follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.025

        Mr. Shays. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Woodbury.
        Mr. Woodbury. Mr. Chairman, AMVETS----
        Mr. Shays. Could you move the mic closer to you, and I
    think push it down a little bit.
        Mr. Woodbury. OK.
        Mr. Shays. And it won't stay down. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Woodbury. Can you hear me all right?
        Mr. Shays. It worked fine.
        Mr. Woodbury. We appreciate the opportunity to join you
    this morning and provide testimony in support of your oversight
    responsibilities concerning National Security, Veterans
    Affairs, and International Relations issues.
        Now, Mr. Chairman, at a time in our history when
    unemployment is approaching record lows, the economy is strong,
    and, for the first time in several decades, the national debate
    seems increasingly focused on what to do with budget surpluses,
    Americans generally may be content with their circumstances.
    One can reasonably argue that, indeed, times are good. They
    are, unless you happen to be in the military or a veteran
    seeking healthcare or other benefits to which you may be
    legally entitled. From their perspective, they sense that
    America's gratitude for their service, patriotism, and
    sacrifice may be a thing of the past.
        We believe that, as a matter of urgent priority, your
    agenda for the 106th Congress ought to embrace the precept that
    without national security, there can be no long-term Social
    Security. National security is underwritten by the men and
    women in uniform today and the veterans who preceded them. Were
    it not for their selfless, dedicated, and professional
    commitment to our Nation through military service, the freedoms
    we enjoy might be significantly diminished. ``What have you
    done for me lately?'' seems to be a question many have
    difficulty answering today. We seem incapable of recognizing
    that today's military personnel, like the millions of veterans
    who preceded them, maintain a 24-hour vigil around the world in
    defense of America's freedoms. Their personal sacrifices today,
    and throughout our history, seem now to go unnoticed and
    unappreciated.
        We are at peace today, thanks to our historically strong
    military posture. Yet, even in the absence of war, we have
    forces positioned around the world ready to respond to national
    tasking. Whenever this Nation calls, they answer. And yet when
    they call out for assistance, seemingly very few hear their
    plea. The message veterans are hearing loud and clear is that
    they are no longer important--the national agenda has other
    more vital issues with which to deal.
        Mr. Chairman, within the very broad continuum of oversight
    responsibilities with which your committee is tasked, it seems
    to us there are several related issues. For example, we do not
    believe it is coincidental at a time when America is enjoying
    unprecedented prosperity, that defense preparedness is down,
    personnel retention within the military is down, and vital
    programs, keyed to helping those veterans whose sacrifices
    helped to get us to this preeminent international position
    continue to receive benign neglect. These trends are troubling.
    The message to both our active-duty military and veterans alike
    is that their service, patriotism, and sacrifices are no longer
    valued to the degree they once were. We believe this message
    has to be reversed.
        The Report of the Congressional Commission on
    Servicemembers and Veterans Transition Assistance is now a
    matter of public record. It discusses a number of key issues
    affecting both active duty military and veterans which we
    believe deserve careful review and action from the 106th
    Congress.
        Separately, AMVETS, in partnership with the Disabled
    American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the
    Veterans of Foreign Wars has introduced its Independent Budget
    for Fiscal Year 2000. It identifies a funding shortfall in the
    Department of Veterans Affairs budget in excess of $3 billion,
    compared to the Clinton/Gore fiscal year 2000 submission.
        As you are aware, the House Committee on Veterans Affairs
    recently recommended a $1.9 billion increase to the
    administration's VA budget, and while we commend Chairman Stump
    for the leadership and support he continues to provide, this
    recommendation still leaves us at least $1 billion short of the
    funds required to sustain VA's programs at an adequate level.
        We believe we cannot continue to ignore our
    responsibilities to provide the support our veterans have
    earned. We need to fully fund VA at the level required to
    fulfill its mandate and, continue to hold its leadership
    accountable for the stewardship of those funds allocated.
        The Clinton budgets have historically ignored this
    commitment. It is time to correct that problem. Failure to do
    so will result in a continuing downward spiral in VA's ability
    to deliver quality healthcare and other benefits which veterans
    have earned and have a right to expect.
        Finally, Mr. Chairman, there is the issue of America's
    national security. We need to pay attention to the lessons of
    history. Every time we have failed to sustain a strong, capable
    military, war has been the result. Americans today should be
    deeply concerned by the news that the military services are
    losing their people, are failing to achieve their recruiting
    goals, and are unable to man ships, aircraft, and other weapon
    systems at acceptable operating standards due to funding
    shortages.
        Considering recent reports that China may now have both the
    technology and means to deploy nuclear weapons, that the more
    subtle threat of international terrorism is increasingly
    possible, and that the threat of chemical and/or biological
    agents is rising, our way of life continues to be very much at
    risk.
        America may be at peace, but considering events around the
    world, it is, at best, an uneasy international environment in
    which we live.
        For these reasons, we strongly support recent initiatives
    to increase DOD funding levels. We need to sustain our
    investment in national defense. The price is not too great for
    the value received.
        Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony. I will be happy
    to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Woodbury follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.065

        Mr. Shays. Thank you.
        I just want to recognize the presence of our ranking
    member, Mr. Blagojevich, and, also, Mr. Sanders.
        And what we will do is, keep on going and hear our
    testimony. So, Mr. Wannemacher, you are up.
        Mr. Wannemacher. Thank you very much, and I want to say
    that we really appreciate the opportunity to appear here before
    you. I am pleased to appear before you and present the views of
    more than 1 million men and women who are disabled veterans
    from all wars.
        On the critical issues facing the Department of Veterans
    Affairs, many challenges confront VA today, and we appreciate
    the opportunity to discuss them with you.
        One of those challenges is the institution of the
    appropriate measures to address the unique problems of our
    Persian Gulf war veterans. Mr. Chairman, you have already
    devoted a great deal of attention to that effort, and we
    especially want to take this opportunity to express our
    appreciation and commend you for your leadership on this issue.
        In many ways, VA is an agency in crisis. While some of the
    problems are complex and difficult to overcome, others are
    susceptible to relatively straightforward, practical solutions,
    but have been neglected for various reasons. Whether simple or
    complex, the problems and their causes, in most instances, are
    well defined, but the remedies are either held hostage by
    politics of the Federal budget or depend on the will of VA
    management to take decisive action.
        Unquestionably, insufficient funding must bear a major
    share of the blame for the current sad state of veterans'
    programs. Regrettably, as obvious as it is that many of VA's
    woes are directly or indirectly consequent to degradation of
    years of inadequate resources, the administration's fiscal year
    2000 budget provides no relief. Indeed, the recommended funding
    for healthcare is so insufficient that it only pushes VA closer
    to the precipice. That reality has become undeniable. While
    they are not unanimous in their assessment of the extent of the
    shortfall, your colleagues on the Veterans Affairs Committee
    recognize the problem.
        With inadequate resources, VA is already rationing
    healthcare and denying or delaying urgently needed services to
    a large number of veterans.
        If Congress does not substantially increase appropriation
    for healthcare, VA medical center directors will be forced to
    do some of the following things--and they will have to do them
    in Vermont, Connecticut, Nebraska, California, and Illinois:
    eliminate entire primary care teams; discontinue healthcare for
    thousands of sick and disabled elderly veterans who are
    currently enrolled and depend on this healthcare as their only
    source of healthcare; to terminate or furlough thousands of VA
    medical care employees across the country; close entire VA
    medical centers; discontinue contract nursing home care; shut
    down hospice care units; and discontinue kidney dialysis for
    service-connected veterans and other eligible veterans.
        We also note that VERA has been given a bad name--
    especially in the Northeast--since its inception. But the more
    the inadequacy of the budget, the worse the name is going to
    become, because all that VERA is, is the distribution system of
    the budget.
        For medical care, the administration has requested a budget
    authority of $18.1 billion, which includes $17.306 billion for
    appropriated funds, and then relies on $749 million to be
    collected for the treatment of non-service-connected medical
    conditions.
        The independent budget, which Congressman Filner so
    eloquently referred to, is an annual alternative assessment,
    compiled by the DAV, PVA, AMVETS, and Veterans of Foreign Wars,
    and we have calculated--as you have just heard from my
    colleague--a $3 billion deficit. Regardless of that amount of
    inadequacy, the impact in practical terms is shocking, partly
    attributed to both the immediate effects of the budget and
    partly because of the cumulative effects of past budgets that
    did not provide the resources necessary to maintain the system
    at the current service levels. For well over a decade, VA has
    been faced with the dilemma of ever-increasing demand for
    medical care and perennial inadequate budgets.
        VA has never been able to meet its target for third-party
    reimbursement. In fact, the best year that they did was in 1996
    when they received 35 percent of what they had projected. In
    hearings before the House Veterans Affairs Committee last
    month, Dr. Garthwaite identified that currently this year, they
    are not going to meet their budget requests for third-party
    reimbursement. Now we inflate the projections, and the VA is
    really going to suffer.
        Also suffering is the prosthetics budget, which is frozen
    again this year at $319 million. This is $56 million below what
    the IB had recommended and is incorporated in that $3.2 billion
    budget that the independent budget recommended.
        Mr. Shays. I am going to ask you to speak maybe for 2 more
    minutes?
        Mr. Wannemacher. OK.
        Mr. Shays. Thanks.
        Mr. Wannemacher. The budget also reflects that one of the
    most critical issues facing VA is hepatitis C. The VA estimates
    that there is $135.7 million in new healthcare spending that
    will occur in the year 2000. We applaud the administration for
    taking this step of discovery, however, the budget does not
    provide any new funding. Given the new challenges and the
    potential for hepatitis C epidemic represents, there must be a
    measure of comprehensive process to identify, treat, and
    educate all veterans who may be at risk for this disease. A
    registry of infected veterans would permit VA to track outcomes
    and keep veterans notified of new developments. VA must monitor
    its facilities and ensure that they follow the proper treatment
    modalities.
        This will conclude my remarks, and I thank you very much
    for the opportunity.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wannemacher follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.040

        Mr. Shays. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Weidman.
        Mr. Weidman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate the
    opportunity for Vietnam Veterans of America to share some of
    our concerns with you and your distinguished colleagues here
    this morning.
        I would just second everything my colleagues had to say
    about the budget.
        The budget is so woefully inadequate, one doesn't even know
    how to comment on the irresponsibility of this administration
    submitting such a woefully inadequate budget.
        I am reminded of a story repeated to me by a wonderful
    woman who is a national VA voluntary services coordinator for
    our colleagues at the Jewish war veterans. She told us a story
    that her father had told her often about adequate funding and
    resources for whatever it is you are trying to accomplish.
        There was a man in his village in Lithuania who decided
    that, in order to economize, he would feed his horse a little
    bit less every day. And that way, the horse wouldn't notice.
    When he got down to one straw a day, the horse died.
        It is not too precipitous to say that the VA system is
    literally being starved to death. You can go to any VA medical
    center in the country and see the effects of the budget cuts
    that my colleagues have so eloquently pointed out in some
    detail.
        But I would urge you, not only to go to the VA medical
    centers in your district, but you can go right up to North
    Capitol here and try and explain to veterans at the VA medical
    center here in Washington why it is that we are building an
    atrium which will not add one whit--not add one whit--to the
    quality of care or the range of services in medical care
    available to them. At the same time, VA is cutting back on
    prosthetics in that hospital, with people unable to get what
    they need, and at the same time that the rehabilitation staff
    and physical therapy staff have been reduced by almost 50
    percent. This is a tough one. You can try and explain to them
    it is a different part of the budget, but that is not what the
    veteran sees. So the need for additional resources is clear and
    apparent and pressing at this point.
        Within the context of these budget cuts it becomes, then,
    also, a convenient excuse about why they are not doing other
    things that they should be doing.
        Having said that, Vietnam Veterans of America believes
    strongly that VA needs to make some fundamental changes in how
    it allocates those dollars, and that begins with a ``mind set''
    of the entire veterans' benefits and services structure. At the
    VA medical system, in particular, it begins at the front door.
    When you tell people who are not familiar with this system,
    that no one asks when you walk through the front door of a VA
    hospital in detail, ``What did you do in the war, Dad? What did
    you do in the war, Mom?'' They are astonished, because they
    believe that the VA system is there to, in fact, to address the
    needs of veterans, as veterans. It simply does not happen.
        A glaring example of that would be hepatitis C. Another
    would be the maladies of DU exposure and perhaps heavy-metal
    poisoning that the Gulf war veterans have suffered through.
        What we are advocating here, and what we have talked with
    Dr. Keyser and Dr. Garthwaite about--and will continue to
    press--is for VA to be VA. The mission doesn't really change.
    The means of accomplishing that mission changes, but the
    mission, from our point of view, is veterans' healthcare and
    not a general hospital system that happens to be for veterans
    and ``let's see what we can do for those poor old guys and poor
    old gals.'' It is a covenant that we made between the people of
    the United States and the men and women who placed their life
    and limb on the line in defense of the Constitution of the
    United States that cannot be--it is that sacred. It is that
    fundamental to our democracy that we honor that.
        But one way of honoring that covenant is to make sure we
    utilize our resources the best, and that begins with the
    military history that documents all of the things that one may
    have been subject to, given the time one served, what era,
    where one served, what branch of service, and what one actually
    did. That can be easily, and with virtually no expense, within
    3 to 6 months, put on all of the computers and done at intake,
    as everybody comes into the VA system, to pick up on their
    neuro-psychiatric problems, to pick up on yellow fever for
    World War II vets, strongliodies and melioidosis among Vietnam
    veterans, et cetera.
        Why is this important, and what does this have to do with
    money? We churn people back and forth through this system
    simply because we do not focus on ``wellness,'' which takes
    into account the entire human being.
        I want to just comment on two other things--or three
    things--that are productive lines of inquiry that I would
    suggest that you and your distinguished colleagues, Mr.
    Chairman, address during the remainder of this year.
        The first has to do with the battlefield as a ``hazardous
    workplace.'' All too often, we have not thought of it that way.
    That would get into agent orange and other adverse health
    impacts for those of us who served in Vietnam--but in every
    battlefield, not just in the Gulf war, but every battlefield in
    the future, given the exotic weapons, will become more and more
    a ``toxicological'' soup. The efforts to understand what we are
    getting into, and the effect on our troops and personnel, as
    well as on the civilian populace, is something that we believe
    DOD has not adequately addressed. And the time to address it is
    before you deploy the weapons, as well as going back and not
    deny, deny, obfuscate, for the men and women who have already
    been exposed.
        So we would urge you to follow through with that because,
    frankly, it doesn't matter whether it is the retinopathies that
    veterans suffer are due to post-traumatic stress disorder or
    whether they are due to exposure to agent orange or one of the
    other chemicals we were exposed to in Vietnam.
        Second is the whole area of zeroing in on the Ranch Hand
    study, in particular. They are differing, widely and
    dramatically, from their own protocol and the way in which they
    are carried out; the pace is being deliberately slowed down, we
    believe, and there are significant issues there where we would
    be pleased to work with your staff.
        And last, but not least, is the issue of studies. I know
    that your jurisdiction may not cover HHS and others at this
    point, but it would be worth zeroing in on ``where are research
    dollars being spent?'' The problem for Vietnam veterans is that
    the alliance and the Ranch Hand study is that it is too small a
    sample size. We need to initiate other studies that can be
    turned around relatively quickly, such as following up on the
    National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment study, et cetera. NIEHS
    needs to put resources in that.
        And last, but not least, in that regard, Mr. Chairman, is
    take a look at how VA uses its research dollars. The research
    dollars are not there in order to just to benefit the medical
    schools, although they may, as a commitment to the primary
    mission of VA. The research dollars should be there in order to
    look into and better treat the needs of veterans, as veterans.
    But very few of those research dollars are being used to deal
    with agent orange, post-traumatic stress disorder, DU, et
    cetera, and other kinds of maladies that are specific and
    particular to veterans, as veterans.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this time. And I look
    forward to answering any questions you may have, sir.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Weidman follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.053

        Mr. Shays. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Sullivan.
        Mr. Sullivan. Chairman Shays, members of the subcommittee,
    on behalf of the 56 member organizations of the National Gulf
    War Resource Center, I appreciate the opportunity to testify
    today regarding matters important to the Gulf war veteran
    community.
        Mr. Chairman, every day Gulf war veterans are reminded of
    the fact that the Gulf war rages on in Iraq with 1 million
    Iraqis dead, plus the fact that another Gulf war rages in the
    homes of more than 110,000 veterans here in America. More than
    1 million United States troops are serving, or have served, in
    the Gulf war. More than 110,000 of those claim illnesses
    related to the war. An unexpectedly high number of 235,000 Gulf
    war veterans have sought healthcare at the Department of
    Veterans Affairs since 1991.
        There are long-term consequences to war, and the war
    against Iraq is no different--only the many types of new toxic
    exposures are different. Here is what veterans want to know,
    Congressmen.
        ``Why are my family, my friends, and I ill? How, when, and
    where can I get the right medical treatment for my toxic
    contamination? Who will cover the costs, especially if the VA
    healthcare budget is underfunded? Finally, how can we prevent
    such needless tragedies in the future?''
        Due to failures at the Departments of Veterans Affairs and
    the Department of Defense, Gulf war veterans were given the
    burden of being forced to show we were ill and to show we were
    exposed to toxins. Specific evidence--a lot of it revealed by
    this subcommittee--shows Gulf war veterans are seriously ill at
    higher rates than non-deployed veterans.
        More to the point, according to the Department of Veterans
    Affairs data, as of January 1, 1999, Gulf war veterans who
    served in the Gulf region between 1990 and 1991 are 39 percent
    more likely to have a service-connected disability than those
    of the era who did not deploy. The future appears ominous,
    Congressmen. Veterans who served from 1990 to 1991 in the Gulf
    war are 53 percent more likely to have filed a claim. This may
    mean many more VA claims are in the pipeline.
        The military now admits widespread toxic exposures to
    depleted uranium, hundreds of thousands; chemical warfare
    agents, 100,000; oil well fire pollution, hundreds of
    thousands; pesticides, hundreds of thousands; and military-
    administered experimental drugs, more than 100,000--plus more
    poisons.
        Mr. Chairman, I will focus on only 4 subjects out of the 15
    points listed in our written testimony, and I ask that it be
    entered into the record.
        The first subject that deserves your full attention is the
    immediate implementation of Public Law 105-277. Mr. Chairman, I
    am going to digress for a minute--and on behalf of the Gulf war
    veterans, Congressman Sanders, Congressman Filner, we thank
    you. That is now the law of the land.
        Implementing the Public Law is our top priority for 1999.
    President Clinton signed the Persian Gulf War Veterans Act of
    1998 into law on October 21, 1998. It orders the VA to sign an
    agreement with the National Academy of Sciences within 60 days
    to investigate the more than 30 toxins associated with the
    illnesses and to study the illnesses more prevalent among Gulf
    war veterans. The VA has failed to enter into that agreement.
    The VA's behavior results in delays in new medical research,
    new treatment programs, new claims filings, timely adjudication
    of claims, and the granting of service-connection to disabled
    veterans. In short, no healthcare.
        Under-explored areas of toxic research include: depleted
    uranium, oil well fires, chemical warfare agents, experimental
    shots and pills, pesticides, and synergistic combinations of
    these. Areas of more prevalent adverse outcomes among veterans
    include Lou Gehrig's disease and other neurological disorders,
    cancers, immunological disorders, reproductive disorders, and
    birth defects among the children of Gulf war veterans.
        On December 8, 1998, the VA asked the Department of Justice
    to review the new law. On March 12, 1999--Congressmen, I have
    great news, the Department of Justice advised the VA that
    Public Law 105-277 is valid and effective. Now the law must be
    implemented.
        We believe the VA must fund outreach about the new law to
    veterans and those assisting veterans with filing claims. The
    Resource Center stands ready to assist the VA with that
    outreach.
        The Resource Center is not alone in our support for the new
    law. The independent budget, endorsed by more than 50 veterans'
    groups, also calls for the immediate and full implementation of
    the new law.
        The second subject, Mr. Chairman, that merits your
    immediate attention is the Resource Center's support for
    funding of private research as well as research by the CDC, VA,
    and DOD. Three weeks ago Congressman Sanders and 16 Gulf war
    veterans groups attended the CDC conference in Atlanta. The
    Resource Center believes that appropriate CDC research should
    be funded--not discussed--that Gulf war veterans and our
    advocates should participate in all research review panels,
    that more conferences should be held, and that Gulf war
    veterans should be included in future conferences.
        Because the Gulf war rages on today in Iraq, with more than
    1 million Iraqi dead, the best Government and private-sector
    research is needed now into the many toxic exposures present in
    the Gulf. This will improve medical care, improve toxic
    detection and protection doctrine and training, plus improve
    the Government's tarnished reputation among Gulf war veterans.
        Our third subject that merits your attention is the VA
    budget. We believe the VA needs $3.2 million more than what was
    proposed by the administration and $1.3 billion more than what
    was approved by the House Veterans Affairs Committee.
        Since the current economic boom has created a Federal
    budget surplus, the VA budget cap should be lifted.
        Gulf war veterans are deeply concerned about underfunding
    at the VA. This is because under Public Law 105-277, more than
    235,000 Gulf war veterans--out of 1.2 million eligible--are
    entering an already overburdened VA healthcare system. Flat-
    lining appropriations during the war, while expenses soar and
    the number of patients demanding care increases, is a recipe
    for disaster.
        Our fourth subject is that we hope you hold additional
    hearings on anthrax and depleted uranium.
        We understand you announced hearings for March 24 on the
    experimental anthrax vaccine. Gulf war veterans have a lot of
    questions about that, and we hope that your hearings will
    address that.
        In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, after legislative victory was
    declared with the passage of Public Law 105-277, Gulf war
    veterans thought the VA would get the message and start
    addressing this issue with vigor. With their delays, it is
    clear the VA still doesn't get it.
        The new law and our efforts on behalf of veterans may all
    be in vain unless there are ongoing congressional hearings,
    unless Public Law 105-277 is implemented, unless vigorous,
    unbiased research is funded, unless the VA has full funding for
    healthcare, and unless there is extensive outreach to Gulf war
    veterans.
        Finally, the Resource Center strongly believes that
    research delayed or not funding equals healthcare denied for
    more than 100,000 sick Gulf war veterans. How long must we
    wait, twisting in the wind, sick, and dying? How long? How
    long, Mr. Chairman?
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6397.060

        Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Sullivan.
        Let me just get some housekeeping out of the way, first,
    before I go into our questions.
        I ask unanimous consent that all members of the
    subcommittee be permitted to place any opening statement into
    the record, and that the record remain open for 3 days for that
    purpose. And without objection, so ordered.
        I further ask unanimous consent that all witnesses be
    permitted to include their written statement in the record. And
    without objection, so ordered.
        Let me say, at the outset, it is wonderful to have all of
    you here and to have you put on the record what we need to know
    and what we need to focus on. And say that this committee--as
    you know, but stating this for general conversation--we don't
    appropriate and we don't authorize. We look at programs for
    waste, fraud, and abuse. But we have an advantage the other
    committees don't have. One is that we have an interdisciplinary
    look; we have VA and DOD. And, frankly, I asked to chair this
    committee and brought VA with us--because it was under the
    other committee I chaired--so that we would have the advantage
    of looking at, for instance, Mr. Weidman, your point that we
    need to track a veteran, a soldier, sailor, Air Force, Marine
    record from day one. And that when they get in the VA, the
    first question that should be asked is, ``What did you do in
    the service?''--and go from there.
        And so we can rightly apportion, then, work with the
    authorizing committees to have them become law or have them be
    appropriations, and that is, in fact, what we did with the
    whole issue of our look at the Gulf war illnesses. So we are
    interdisciplinary and we can look at.
        And the other thing is that we are going to sometimes
    offend the service organizations, because we don't know your
    organization as closely as say the veterans do or the DOD does,
    but, in that, we are going to break out of the box. For
    instance, I might ask a question of, ``Why don't we just give a
    veteran a card?'' And I know some of you don't like that, but I
    am going to want that dialog. And that they can go to any
    hospital in the world and get the best healthcare. Now I know
    there are answers to that. I know that the hospitals focus in
    on the special needs of veterans, and I know that you want to
    know there is a place, and I know those other questions, but I
    am going to want that kind of dialog as well.
        Mr. Blagojevich is going to start the questions off. We are
    going to, obviously, just keep moving because we don't want to
    have a break and then have to have you come back.
        Mr. Blagojevich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have a question for the whole panel, and it is a very
    broad question. I think it is probably a good way to start out.
        And what I have noticed as a common theme, irrespective of
    what war the veteran fought in is that there seems to be two
    factors that you guys are lamenting: insufficiency of funding
    and lack of access to healthcare, which are, I think from a
    moral perspective, very troubling.
        If you can just briefly, anybody in the panel, or as many
    of you that would like, tell us about how we got in this
    position and why that happened.
        Shall I just isolate somebody or do one of you want to
    volunteer?
        Mr. Wannemacher. Well, I would just say that, as you
    recognized, it doesn't matter which war you are in, we all
    became disabled or have--because of our economics--become
    eligible for VA healthcare. Whether it be VA pensions or VA
    compensation, all of us are eligible for VA education benefits.
    And we all fought different wars for the same purposes, and
    that was to keep America free. None of us went to war as a
    Republican or a Democrat. We all went to serve that American
    flag that sits behind you. And the inadequacy is in my written
    statement and in my oral statement, also.
        The consistent inadequacy of the budget has caused the
    Veterans Administration to be trying to stay ahead. And now
    they are at a point where they have reached a wall. The
    efficiencies have been taken away within the VA. There are
    still some efficiencies that might be able to be found, but as
    veterans' age, consistently age, they need healthcare, and the
    budget just hasn't kept up with that.
        Mr. Robertson. The American Legion agrees with that. The
    escalating cost of healthcare in the private sector has just
    driven the price through the ceiling. And year after year,
    after year, after year, after year, the veterans' organizations
    kept saying, ``You are falling behind; you are falling behind.
    You are a dinosaur system, and the rest of the world is out
    here in this type of managed care healthcare.''
        The problem is, is at one time, the VA healthcare system
    was probably ``the example'' of medical care in the country. We
    are affiliated with 107 medical schools. This is a teaching
    institution for the future generations of healthcare providers.
    And we are watching this system implode on itself.
        And everybody is saying, ``Well, you know, we will just
    throw a little bucks this way and a little bucks that way, and
    it will pacify them for another year.'' We have gotten to the
    point where veterans are being said, ``You have got to leave a
    long-term care facility, and we will drop you off at the
    homeless shelter.''
        We are at a point when veterans come back from a war like
    the Persian Gulf and say, ``We are sick; we need help. We need
    medical attention.'' And you are telling us, ``Prove to us you
    are sick.''
        My God, let's talk logic here. That is not difficult to
    understand. If you send me halfway around the world, and I come
    back and say, ``I am sick,'' you have an obligation to take
    care of me. I did your job; now you do yours.
        Mr. Woodbury. There is a more fundamental reason, I think,
    sir. VA and DOD are easy marks in the appropriation process. If
    you are trying to make a ``bogey'' in some other program that
    may be more political expedient, you can get the money from
    DOD; you can get the money from VA, and you don't have the
    advocacy in that appropriation forum that you have here. And I
    think that is one reason we got ourselves in this position in
    the first place.
        Mr. Weidman. It is the public conception that VA does
    everything for all veterans that people have that make it an
    issue that becomes difficult to address. So if you feed that
    horse a little bit less and a little bit less each year, and
    the VA hospital is still down the road, and you haven't gotten
    the message out that veterans quite literally are dying albeit
    because they are denied needed care under, ``cost savings,'' VA
    denies that is happening. And it is true, people aren't turned
    away, but, you know, ``they use euphemism'' about
    reorganization.
        One of my favorites is they reorganized the Alcohol and
    Drug Treatment Program in Albany, Stratton VA Medical Center.
    What ``reorganization'' was, they closed the program there and
    have a van every 2 weeks to take somebody 200-miles-plus to
    Batavia. And folks who were ready to dry out and get clean
    weren't going to wait 2 weeks. Therefore, they discontinued the
    van because nobody used it. It is that kind of euphemism of not
    denial of care.
        And make no mistake about it; the savings mean services
    denied to veterans, and I think that is how, little by little,
    we slipped into the point where the horse is just about to die.
        Mr. Cullinan. I would just add to that. I agree with my
    colleague's apocryhal tale of the horse and the straw. And it
    doesn't just pertain to funding. It pertains to the
    efficiencies and the reductions and the realignments that have
    been going on in the VA for over 10 years now, perhaps 20
    years.
        It is an ongoing--it has happened gradually, slowly. We
    have protested; we protested, but seldom were we heeded.
        Mr. Sullivan. Congressman, I would quickly answer that by
    saying the public and many Members of Congress--I have met with
    them--are under some bizarre false impression that the Gulf war
    ended. There is a war going on, and when a war like World War
    II or Vietnam ends, that doesn't mean that since the soldiers
    are home, they are suddenly healthy and everything is done.
    There is a public impression that the day the war is declared
    over that there is closure. That is not true with war.
        And the main thing I would like to impress upon the Members
    here is that the Gulf war is continuing; we are bombing them
    every day, and it is the most insane, moral outrage to consider
    cutting veterans' benefits and healthcare while our troops are
    dropping bombs and getting shot at and breathing in DU and
    receiving experimental anthrax shots. It is insane.
        Mr. Blagojevich. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Shays. Mr. Terry.
        Mr. Terry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I have a short statement that will lead into a question
    that, really, you hinted or stated in your statement, Mr.
    Chairman, and that is, ``What is the future role of the VA
    hospitals?''
        Let me just say that I am not a veteran, but I am here
    because I am very interested in the issues. I truly believe
    that, even though there was no law passed, but this Government
    made promises of healthcare. We need to uphold that promise
    that was in the recruiting propaganda that you were given, the
    promises that you were given when you made that oath. One of
    the tasks I have assigned myself is to try and uphold that.
        Again, that may require that we think out of the box on
    occasion. How do we do that? If the No. 1 goal is to ensure
    half the healthcare, my first question is going to be exactly
    what the chairman raised. Does that necessarily mean a separate
    healthcare physical system? Do we need the brick and the mortar
    of the VA hospital? And let me tell you, I have taken your
    advice. I visited our VA hospital; we have a great one in
    Omaha, NE. A guy I have coffee with almost every morning that
    has heart problems that is connected to--that is a service-
    connected disability--moved back to Omaha from Texas because he
    thought our facility was one of the best in the area or in the
    Nation.
        But I also hear, in visiting our VA facility, that they are
    becoming more like a regular hospital with their administrative
    duties, and having to fill out codes. What I am saying is, in
    many ways, they are operating like the University of Nebraska
    Hospital that is only 10 blocks away. So my first question is,
    why do we need a separate system if our goal is to ensure
    healthcare?
        Mr. Cullinan. Mr. Terry, I would just say, first of all,
    some of our best friends through the years have been non-
    veterans in the Congress, so you should know that.
        Mr. Terry. Good, and I appreciate that.
        Mr. Cullinan. And I will briefly address--really, what you
    have introduced here is a complete separate hearing or
    hearings.
        Mr. Terry. Yes.
        Mr. Cullinan. What I would say, though, off the cuff, is
    that, first of all, VA has a very special mission and a very
    special expertise--caring for combat, disabled veterans. You
    know, through the years, they have been in the forefront in
    everything from trauma injury to prosthetics to certain
    pharmacological concerns for veterans serving from, you know,
    tropical maladies. So there is that issue.
        Then there is another point. If it weren't for the
    Department of Veterans Affairs, do we really believe that would
    somehow keep the cost down to the system? Do we really believe
    that private providers would somehow fill the gap for VA? We
    don't think so, both from the perspective of cost and from the
    perspective of those specialty areas.
        You know, let's face it, if it weren't for the Department
    of Veterans Affairs, I mean we would still have 100-pound
    wheelchairs and probably wooden prosthetics. The reason for
    that is, is that years ago, there was no money in it so the
    private sector didn't pursue it. And that is true of a host of
    other areas as well, so it is important.
        Does VA have to change the way it does business? Yes, of
    course it does, and it is starting to do that. There is some
    pain and some trauma, in a metaphorical sense. But we also--
    along with the complaints that we hear, we hear from veterans
    who like the fact that there is now an outpatient clinic,
    reasonably within access to their home.
        Mr. Robertson. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Congressman, in answer to
    your question, if Desert Storm had produced the ``mother of all
    ground actions'' and our guys had been exposed to chemical and
    biological agents that required long-term care, name me the
    private hospital that would like 100,000 troops showing up at
    their doors with diseases that maybe they don't know how to
    take care of. You are talking about a system that is the backup
    to the Department of Defense, that when it is time for the
    balloon to go up and the DOD people deploy overseas and fight
    on the battlegrounds and serve at field hospitals, there is not
    a whole lot of private physicians that are going to want to
    walk away from their practice and their 3 o'clock tea times to
    go fight in the Persian Gulf.
        So I think that there is a real mission that you need to
    look at that is very valuable that the VA provides, and that is
    the backup to the Department of Defense.
        In answer to your question, Mr. Shays, about the credit
    card--you have a system like that, and it is called
    ``Medicare,'' and it is not working very well either.
        Mr. Weidman. I would just add, Mr. Terry, to that entire
    issue, that if VA truly addresses the needs of veterans'
    healthcare in a full and holistic way, then we need VA.
        You may know already, sir, that over $1.2 billion is
    already contracted out in medical services by VHA. I suspect
    that number is going to go up dramatically in the future.
        The real question at the heart of what you are talking
    about is changing the power of relationships between the VA
    versus the veteran who walks through the front door. That is
    our interest. And if it took something like that in order to
    change that ``power relationship'' between the individual
    veteran who seeks care, then maybe that is the way to, at
    least, look to proceed. But the real question here--is VA
    hospital system, Veterans Health Administration, currently
    addressing the needs of veterans, as veterans?
        What I am talking about that, incidentally, is that all too
    often when a veteran walks into a VA hospital in Omaha or
    anyplace else in this country, they are regarded as a
    supplicant, as a supplicant, and not as a veteran who is
    deserving of dignity and respect--or at least are made to feel
    that way by certain staff.
        It is always remarkable to me how many people get good
    treatment at the VA healthcare system, given how messed up the
    system is and anatomizing in many ways. Contrary to people
    preserving their dignity in the very way in which it is set up.
    And if you can change that ``power relationship'' and have
    quality assurance within the VA to focus on the needs of
    veterans, as veterans, then, by all means, you absolutely need
    a separate VA healthcare system.
        Mr. Wannemacher. Just a short--the DAV did an analysis
    comparing Medicare and VA. We took the $17 billion that VA has
    and the appropriation from Medicare and we showed--our
    executive director, Dave Gorman, did a commentary. ``In Modern
    Healthcare,'' February 12, Mr. Gorman said there is a real good
    reason why the Federal Government just can't even afford to
    provide the same healthcare that the VA does.
        One thing that wasn't mentioned--it was mentioned about
    being an educator in that, but the research that VA provides,
    also, is for the American economy. There would be, you know, we
    have already discovered the pacemaker, the CAT scan, the
    virtual elimination of tuberculosis--things that wouldn't have
    happened without the Veterans Administration, just like there
    would be a lot of advances that wouldn't have happened without
    the space program. And to say that the Veterans Administration
    should just go away like a bad penny is completely unwarranted.
        And I agree with what was said, too--many of our strongest
    advocates aren't veterans. You hear the rhetoric that, ``Well,
    the Congress isn't doing the right thing because there is a
    decreasing veteran population.'' I don't believe that; we don't
    believe that.
        Mr. Sullivan. Congressman, if I may answer your question. I
    am considered a very, very harsh critic of the VA. The Resource
    Center has been very, very vigorous in attacking the VA for not
    doing what they are supposed to do to help out Gulf war
    veterans.
        That said, there are some people at the VA who really care
    and who really work hard. And we have gone more to being
    harshly critical to keeping them honest in their work. And
    toward that end, the VA is actually looking into radioactive
    depleted uranium toxic waste contamination among Gulf war
    veterans. A lot of that came about as the work of the publicity
    of this committee. That is something that only the VA can do.
    Who else is going to breath in lung-fulls of radioactive toxic
    waste on a battlefield in a foreign country?
        The second is the vet centers--that is a beautiful VA
    program that is a legacy of Vietnam veterans that opened up the
    door for readjustment counseling for combat veterans of the
    Gulf war when they came back. With that program, we may see
    reductions, the saving of lives, because people had someplace
    to go to talk about their war experiences.
        That is something that only the VA is going to do, and it
    is a moral and legal contract. So we may criticize the VA, up
    and down until tomorrow, but it is something that we need, and
    it has to be there because we are still fighting a war right
    now.
        Mr. Shays. Let me tell you how I am going to suggest we
    continue. Obviously, each member is really not going to be able
    to ask a lot of questions. We really have six excellent
    witnesses. The purpose of this first hearing is to kind of just
    introduce the issues, just to expose us. Be assured, we are not
    going to recommend or do anything without extensive research
    and involvement with your organizations, as it relates to the
    VA.
        We are really trying to determine what our agenda should
    be. Should we focus in on what the hospitals do? Should there
    be a different system, a combined system? I mean, obviously, we
    all agree on the funding issue. So I just want to make that
    point.
        The other point I am going to make is that I am going to
    leave at 10 o'clock, but I am going to give the gavel to any
    Member who is going to stay--be it a Republican or Democrat,
    and we can close the hearing with a Democrat, for instance.
        Bernie, you may want to go on for awhile, and I will just
    give you the gavel, but, also, acknowledge that Mr. Filner is
    here, and since he is not an official member of this committee,
    he is just having to wait until the end if he does want to ask
    questions. But his involvement in this issue is paramount, and
    we will be inviting him to participate in any future hearings
    we have.
        Also, may I just acknowledge the presence of Mr. Mica, who
    chairs the committee I used to chair, which has HHS. And so he
    gets involved in this issue, and we will be sharing some work
    with him as well--and Mr. Souder, who serves, I think, on both
    committees as well.
        Mr. Sanders.
        Mr. Sanders. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And we welcome Mr. Filner and congratulate him for his
    outstanding work that he has done for veterans.
        And, Mr. Chairman, let me congratulate you for the work
    that you have done over the last several years in Gulf war
    illness.
        Steve, thank you very much for coming to Vermont to be part
    of the Gulf war illness conference that we have. And, Rick,
    thank you very much for your advice on agent orange, and that
    is something that I hope very much, Mr. Chairman--I think there
    is a scandal out there, and I think we should get to it. And,
    Paul, thank you so much for all the great work you have done on
    Gulf war illness. And, Dennis, and, David, and, Robert, I look
    forward to working with you.
        I am the only Independent in the U.S. Congress, so I
    sometimes look at things a little bit different than my
    colleagues, and sometimes a little bit franker than my
    colleagues. Sometimes I say things that I regret having said
    after I say them, but that is----
        Mr. Shays. That just relates to your personality, not--
    [laughter.]
        Mr. Sanders. That is my personality--[laughter]--I know,
    but I can't help it.
        So, let me be as straightforward as I can.
        I consider myself, along with some of the folks up here, to
    be a very strong defender of veterans, and do you know why? I
    happen to be an anti-war Congressman; I vote against the wars.
    But I happen to think that when a man or woman takes the oath
    and goes out and puts their life on the line and does
    everything that is being asked of them, then this Government
    has the moral responsibility of fulfilling its end of the
    bargain. And if it doesn't do that, if that contract between
    the Government and the men and women who put their lives on the
    line is broken, then, this country does not stand for very much
    at all. So, while we can argue about the wisdom of this or that
    war, after the decision is made, it is the moral obligation of
    this Government to stand with the people who are making the
    ultimate sacrifice.
        Now I happen to believe that the way the U.S. Congress, and
    various administrations, have treated veterans is an absolute
    disgrace. At this moment now, I am spending far more time than
    I ever wanted to making sure that the VA hospital in White
    River Junction, VT, has the services that it needs, that it
    treats our people with the minimum standards that are required.
    But I know that problem exists all over the country, and it is
    an outrage.
        Now I think it was Dennis who may have made the point--I
    don't know that--who talked about this problem going on for 10
    or 20 years under the Reagan administration, under the Bush
    administration, under the Clinton administration, OK?
        Now what I have a hard time understanding is that with
    millions of millions of folks in your organizations, with an
    understanding we are all politicians, and when I go home in my
    State and I say, ``Do you think we should treat veterans with
    respect and provide the care they need?'' Everybody says that
    we should. So I don't understand how for 20 years, under
    Republican administrations and under Democratic
    administrations, veterans have not gotten their fair share.
        I don't know if you have not been doing your job. I don't
    know if we have not been doing our job, but somebody has
    screwed up royally. Because I am tired of getting calls from
    veterans in the State of Vermont who tell me that they are not
    getting the care that they need. And Mr. Filner is getting
    those calls; and every Member here is getting those calls.
        Now I want to get back--and here is where I am going to get
    into some trouble. I came in a little bit later and I think,
    David, you were talking. And you were telling me how we need
    that old anti-ballistic missile system to protect us from North
    Korea. Right?
        Or whatever--I may have not gotten the whole point.
        Well, I find it amazing that when we need a few billion
    dollars--and I am not sure that your proposal--your independent
    budget may be too conservative--I would suggest that you need
    more than that. But be that as it may, I find it rather amazing
    that President Clinton is proposing $110 billion more for the
    military over the next 5 years. The Republicans thinks that is
    much too little; they want to put $150 billion into the
    military over the next 5 years. And you are sitting here
    telling us that you need a few billion dollars for the
    veterans.
        So when I go down on the floor today in opposition to the
    ballistic missile system, you know what I am going to say? I am
    going to say, ``Scratch that system and use that money for
    veterans' medical care.''
        And I want to know where your voice was 2 years ago on the
    Balanced Budget Amendment, when we gave tax breaks to
    billionaires. We have $115 billion in tax breaks, most of which
    went to the very wealthy--but apparently we don't have enough
    money for the veterans. We didn't have a few billion dollars to
    make sure that our hospitals were open.
        Now I am glad you are here telling us how important it is
    to have a ballistic missile system. But when I hear the guys
    who make billions off the ballistic missile systems, I don't
    hear them telling us that it is important that we have an
    adequate veterans' care.
        So let me, respectfully, make this suggestion about how we
    can all work better together. I am going to do everything I can
    to go beyond this budget. I don't think that is enough. I don't
    want to get any more calls from veterans in the State of
    Vermont that they are not getting the care. I want more
    outreach, because I think the VA hospital is not outreaching
    enough, bringing in enough veterans.
        I would respectfully make a suggestion that the veterans'
    organizations fight like hell to protect the veterans, in terms
    of the healthcare needs, that we start an investigation about
    agent orange, that we are going to make some progress, finally,
    in dealing with Gulf war illness, that we want to understand
    the scandal of radiation illness and why the VA and the DOD did
    not react appropriately to that, and that we want this
    Government to keep its contract to the veterans.
        As citizens of this country, you have every right in the
    world to give your opinions on defense spending, and so forth
    and so on. But I would hope very much that your focus would be
    on the needs of veterans and work with us on those issues,
    because I don't hear the guys from the DOD and the big
    contracts because Lockheed-Martin doesn't come in here and say,
    ``Worry about the veterans.'' Lockheed-Martin has enough
    lobbyists in here to take good care of themselves.
        So now I have gotten you all angry. Steve, am I crazy?
        Mr. Robertson. No, sir, you are not. And just for the
    record, I want to tell you that the biggest opponents of war
    are sitting at this table. We've been there, done that, got the
    t-shirt, and we adamantly don't like war. But that, also, is
    part of our philosophy in the American Legion, is to maintain a
    strong national defense, to prevent us from doing this again.
        My son just went into the Army Reserves, and I don't want
    to see him going overseas into combat, any more than you do.
    But I think that there is a balance that we have to strike. And
    the American Legion and my colleagues here from the other
    organizations have been fighting. But you have got to remember,
    Congressman, we represent less than 1 percent of the U.S.
    population. And you are right; there is a lot of people that
    aren't in there fighting and battling with us on our side on
    these issues, because we don't impact their lives day in and
    day out. They forget the freedoms that they enjoy were
    purchased with the blood of our comrades and many of ourselves.
    And, you know, it is kind of, you know, ``when you need me, I
    am here; otherwise, get out of my way and don't bother me.''
    That is why, we, as veterans' organizations and military
    service organizations are supposed to be the conscience of this
    country to remind you when the scale is being tipped in the
    wrong direction. And we are screaming. And I will tell you--I
    will be very honest with you, Congressman. When military war
    decorated combat service-connected veterans start showing up in
    homeless shelters instead of long-term care facilities, when
    hospitals are closing around the country and veterans are going
    home to die, you will start hearing more people become
    involved, because it will be family members who are saying,
    ``How can our country reach this level of disrespect for those
    who have won the freedoms and are willing to die tomorrow to
    protect you again?'' And if they call me tomorrow, I will pack
    my bag, and I will be on the next plane if that is what it is
    going to take to keep these freedoms.
        Mr. Sanders. Steve, my question is, what goes on when
    people are proposing tens of billions of dollars in tax breaks,
    right now, and you are here asking for a few billion dollars
    for veterans? And every person up here understands they are
    needed. What is going on?
        Mr. Robertson. The American Legion doesn't--[laughter]--
    endorse tax breaks.
        Mr. Sanders. I am not even asking----
        Mr. Robertson. It is not part of our legislative portfolio.
        Mr. Sanders. No. No, I am not suggesting that you do. But,
    why--why, in your judgment, does that go on, Rick?
        Mr. Weidman. I think it really comes back to that whole
    analogy of slowly starving the horse. Somehow people don't get
    it--as long as we don't close the hospital in my district. The
    administration's budget was the equivalent of closing 26
    hospitals. Some of us suggested to the Veterans Affairs
    Committee that they take the unprecedented step of bringing it
    immediately to the floor and rejecting it, or unanimously,
    sending it back to the President, and said, ``For God's sake,
    send us a serious budget that is going to address the
    healthcare needs of veterans.'' And they did not do it.
        If you take the next step--some of us suggested, privately,
    but not publicly, that you take the step of--if you close some
    hospitals first, instead of reducing all hospitals by little
    bits, starving each one of the facilities. And you closed all
    the hospitals in the budget committee members' district, by
    God, you would have another $10 billion for the system. You
    would, wouldn't you? But because it is by attrition. I think
    that is one element.
        The second thing is that popular conception that I talked
    about before that veterans have too much, that is still driven
    by a lot of people in our society. If you think about it for a
    minute, if any other discrete group of Americans had their
    healthcare costs frozen for 5 years in a row--suppose that the
    Congress had decided to do that for African-Americans, all
    African-Americans, suppose the Congress had tried to do that
    for all women, suppose the Congress had tried to do that for
    everybody of Lithuanian descent, then all hell would have
    broken loose. But somehow, somehow, because it is veterans,
    people think they can get away with it.
        Mr. Mica, I am glad to see is here, because he played an
    extraordinary role in trying to put some teeth back into the
    veterans preferences. The same sorts of remarks that the
    Federal unions made about veterans, they would not dare make
    about any other discreet group of Americans. And Mr. Mica knows
    all too well what I am talking about here. Well, they would
    say, ``We want a quality work force, therefore, we don't want
    veterans' preference.'' Excuse me? The same people you trusted
    with the weapons that could destroy the world, that were worth
    billions of dollars 2 years ago, now aren't worthy of being a
    GS-9? And shuffling papers? Excuse me?
        I mean it is just extraordinary. People deny that there is
    ``veticism'' within their society that is every bit alive and
    well as sexism and racism within this society, but it is there.
        Veterans are for Veterans' Day and for Memorial Day, and in
    between time, those guys with funny hats can take care of
    themselves because they already have too much. We have to
    change that perception.
        Beginning this May, it will be a relatively small effort,
    but a lot of veterans are going to be focusing, the night of
    the 27th or 28th, at a march on Washington, with a view toward
    2000, of really feeling them all up, 1931. And if it takes
    going back to the damn streets to do it, then that is what we
    ought to do in order to crack through this myth. We have been
    marginalized, at the same time everybody is paying a pieoa a
    couple of times a year. And sometimes folks say, ``The only
    good vet is a dead vet.'' That is why they honor us on
    Veterans' Day and Memorial Day, for christ sake. What happens
    in between? And I don't think it is an issue of whether--the
    percentage within this society. I really don't believe it is
    that. One of the finest veterans' advocates I have ever met is
    on your staff, Jim Rader. There is a lot of people walking
    around in Vermont because of Jim's work at the vet center in
    the early 1980's. However, within the context of the society at
    large, there is a Gulf, particularly in the generation in power
    right now, between those of us who went--irrespectively of what
    we thought about the policy--and those of us who did not go.
    And I don't think you have to have served in order to be a
    veterans' advocate, and you and Mr. Filner certainly are
    representative of that. But it is true that, within the
    Congress, when it comes to the nut of where the dough goes,
    suddenly folks aren't there; $1.1 billion the Senate Budget
    Committee finally provided on top of the President's budget.
    And if you take the Medicare inflation rate for the last decade
    and apply the same rate of Medicare and the Federal funding of
    Medicaid, whichever--but a lot of people believe is
    inadequate--the VA budget now would be over $22 billion a year
    for VHA.
        Mr. Shays. Let me just recognize Mr. Mica--but also say, I
    know some of you had an obligation. If you do, feel free to go.
    I know one reason we started it was because of the briefing on
    the floor, but also because some of you had an obligation or
    two.
        I am going to ask Mr. Mica to have the floor. And then,
    Bernie, you know, give you back the gavel if you want to be
    here and if you want to pursue the questioning.
        So, Mr. Mica, you have the floor.
        And I am going to just apologize for leaving, but I have a
    budget meeting that I have to go to, and then I want to try to
    get on the floor to some of that hearing. I have not voted
    against performance of the Defense, and I am leaning close to
    doing that, thinking that we really need to do that.
        So, I will give Mr. Mica the floor.
        Mr. Mica [presiding]. I thank you, Mr. Shays, Mr. Chairman,
    for holding this meeting, and I am really pleased to see that
    we have organized this subcommittee in this fashion. I had
    recommended that to the Speaker and to Mr. Burton and others
    that we have National Security, Veterans Affairs, and
    International Relations because I think that we do need to
    conduct investigations. We do need to conduct oversight, and
    this is a very good beginning.
        So I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for your
    testimony, and I also want to thank you for helping me to get a
    few things passed, although, as you all know, it has been very
    difficult, both on veterans' preference and expanding
    healthcare access for our veterans, our military, and
    dependents.
        The availability of healthcare really disturbs me. Even
    this past weekend, I was the recipient of calls at home for, in
    fact, a veteran who was a survivor of the Bataan death march
    who was not receiving adequate care, who I personally know and
    admire. Those things really disturb me, when someone who--this
    man has literally been through hell and back, and is one of the
    few survivors we have, and to have to grovel for healthcare at
    his age is just shameful for all of us. But, trying to do
    something about this--this is not the only case. I hear it all
    the time from people--the delays, the access to specialty care,
    the waiting lists. Some of them die before they ever get
    treatment or even to proper diagnosis, which disturbs me even
    more. So I think what we need to do is look at how we can
    develop that.
        One of the things that we did try to do was open the
    Federal Employees' Health Benefits Program, which will have a
    small demonstration project. Are there other areas that you
    think we can--and we need some immediate attention. We can't--
    [laughter]--the tendency of Congress is to have a study, a demo
    project--[laughter]--and most of the people die before we get
    to where we want to be. But are there any specific ideas that
    you have that we could address in the very short-term, in this
    session now past, that would bring healthcare immediately to
    these people who are on waiting lists, who need special kinds
    of treatments, both for that type of treatment. Then the other
    area I have a grave concern for is long-term care, because of
    the aging demographics of particularly our World War II and our
    Korean war--some of those veterans. Long-term care is a
    disaster right now in trying to place folks. And sometimes when
    we find the placement, it separates the veteran from the family
    in a very awkward fashion.
        So those are two areas, and maybe you could comment with
    some suggestions.
        Mr. Cullinan. Mr. Mica, for one thing, we are urging that
    the Federal employee benefit package, the pilot you just
    referenced, that should be implemented fully and now. We don't
    see any reason to wait. Can that be accomplished quickly in
    this Congress? Probably not.
        We are looking for additional funding streams outside of
    the conventional appropriations process--Medicare subvention,
    allowing VA to collect and retain Medicare dollars for the care
    it provides for Medicare-eligible veterans for their non-
    service-connected disabilities. Can that be accomplished in
    this Congress? I don't know; I would hope so, but when I say,
    ``I don't know,'' I am really saying, ``I think not.''
        There are any number of areas. Right now VA has opened--
    right now, it has pledged to enroll all seven categories of
    veterans who come to it seeking healthcare. Does VA have the
    money to sustain that? If this administration's budget goes
    forward, without amendment or improvement, no, it doesn't.
    There is something right now. But to sustain that effort, to
    sustain VA and its ability to care for all veterans who want to
    enroll into the system, that is something that we can do right
    now that will be of a measurable benefit to veterans.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        Mr. Robertson. Yes, sir. Under the Medicare subvention,
    Medicare plus choice, why a veteran can't say, ``I am Medicare-
    eligible; I am not service-connected; I am not currently
    entitled to VA healthcare at no cost?'' Why they cannot choose
    the VA healthcare system, as their healthcare provider, is
    beyond me. And could that be done in one Congress? I think
    absolutely. I think that the House Republican leadership in--
    what was it--in 1992, when they came, had their contract with
    America, and showed how much you could do in 100 days.
        Well, I think if you set your mind to it in a bipartisan
    manner, that anything can be accomplished in this chamber. And
    I would strongly encourage that be a quick-fix. That is
    something that I think would last for--be part of a solution to
    your Medicare problems. If you have a managed care system that
    you can put these people into, and it would bring money into
    the VA healthcare system to offset those costs.
        The other thing that is kind of a problem is the MCCF, the
    Medical Care Collection Fund, offsets third-party
    reimbursements against discretionary funding. Discretionary
    funding was designed to take care of service-connected
    veterans. But what happens under the budget accounting is that
    they reduce the third-party reimbursements rather than add that
    as a supplement, so that VA benefits as they collect more money
    for treating non-service-connected veterans.
        What you are doing now is you are using discretionary
    dollars which are supposed to be healthcare dollars to pay for
    non-service-connected conditions, and that is wrong. That is
    fundamentally wrong.
        Those are two things that I would recommend.
        Mr. Mica. Sir.
        Mr. Wannemacher. The Medicare subvention bill that was on
    the floor last year that Representatives Thomas and Stump had,
    the DAV's--only objection was that VA didn't have an accounting
    system that was going to be able to guarantee that only
    service-connected disabilities were going to be charged. The
    DAV has long endorsed--and the independent budget has long
    endorsed--Medicare subvention, and we call for it again this
    year. And as Steve mentioned, in 100 days, you could get a lot
    of things completed.
        For a short term, you could probably do some things that
    would help the Montgomery GI bill proposal that was made by the
    Transition Commission. There are some good recommendations in
    there, and we support that. We have seen some language that
    there is about $881 million that would have to be appropriated
    to provide an education tool for the Montgomery GI bill. There
    is also some homeless projects. We have seen some language on
    some homeless projects that could assist. It is only about $5
    million needed to enhance Homeless Veterans Reintegration
    Program.
        Those are a couple, and I would be glad to submit some
    others for you.
        Mr. Mica. I would appreciate, actually, all of you
    following up. I will try to get one of my staff assigned to
    that. I no longer chair Civil Service, but we can get one of
    our subcommittee staffers to work with you.
        Did you have anything you wanted to add, then? Then, I am
    going to turn to Mr. Souder.
        Mr. Weidman. I think it could be done in one Congress, Mr.
    Mica.
        But the real problem is, is breaking out of the mind set as
    ``business as usual,'' and people say, well--in fact the
    majority counsel for the House of Veterans Affairs Committee
    said that to me about Vietnam Veterans of America legislative
    agenda. ``This would be great if you were starting over.'' And
    I said, ``Maybe we need to. Have you taken a look at what is
    going on?'' Those aren't hypothetical stories about VA
    hospitals, for instance, in the State of New York, discharging
    homeless veterans after 4 o'clock because they know that the
    State-funded shelters have to take them. I mean those are real
    stories happening in Mr. Lazio's district right now. And we do
    need the drive, and if certainly this committee can help raise
    that conscientious among your colleagues--and I might add, as
    importantly, among the public at large, because even in
    Florida--in your district, Mr. Mica--people think that veterans
    are well-taken care of. They do not understand that veterans
    are not being well-taken care of, that people are literally
    being denied services that are vital, that keep them alive.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you.
        Mr. Sullivan. Congressman, specifically related to Gulf war
    veterans, because the Gulf war is a toxic soup with things that
    folks never dreamed that would be on the battlefield, like
    radioactive toxic waste and mixes of pesticides and
    experimental pills to protect people against chemical warfare
    agents, plus chemical warfare agents--the main thing Gulf war
    veterans are looking for in healthcare is, the VA and DOD have
    acknowledged widespread contamination to radioactive toxic
    waste. At first they said it was nobody; then it was 30; then
    it was 100; then it was 800. Now it is hundreds of thousands,
    Congressman. When will the VA launch a comprehensive program
    into depleted uranium contamination? The stuff is radioactive.
    We are finding depleted uranium now, Congressman, in the semen
    of Gulf war veterans. They want to know ``what does this mean?
    Should I have kids?'' This is right in their face. Gen-X, that
    is my generation, the young folks are asking every morning.
    ``Do we want to have kids?'' I mean that is a healthcare issue
    right in our face that has implications for generations.
        It also has implications on the experimental anthrax shot
    the Pentagon is using. We need to know what kind of health
    effects that has. Veterans want to know, when is the Pentagon
    going to do some new research on this experimental vaccine?
    They love to say, ``Oh, it is FDA-approved.'' There is no FDA
    approval for the use of a vaccine against an unknown biological
    airborne agent. The Pentagon is lying through their teeth. Now
    what we have to find out is, when are we going to get
    healthcare for the known and unknown, or yet to be known, side-
    effects of the use of these experimental vaccines?
        That is what Gulf war veterans want to know in a healthcare
    answer, because the Gulf war was an exotic, toxic soup of
    stuff, and we are waiting for answers, and we are trying to get
    healthcare.
        Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Mica. Thank you, each of you, for your testimony. I
    look forward to working with you. I think this is a good
    beginning and a good opportunity to get an overview, and,
    hopefully, our subcommittee with this new responsibility, can
    be effective. Thank you.
        And I would like to recognize now, the gentleman from
    Indiana.
        Mr. Souder. I thank the chairman.
        One, I wanted just to say up front that I don't believe
    that veterans' benefits ought to be separated or be viewed as
    put in contrast with weapon systems, whether they be anti-
    ballistic missile systems or other strong national defense,
    because the last thing we want to do is have any current
    soldier go into war and not have the best plane, the best
    weapons; that is a nightmare. And as a country--as the
    gentleman from the Legion said--we need to make sure that we
    are protected as best as possible, because our goal is
    ``peace,'' not ``war,'' and as few wounded veterans and as few
    civilians as possible.
        At the same time, a number of these things, if we don't
    address them, if we don't treat veterans fairly, in addition to
    the equity question, when we are in a voluntary military, it
    becomes a problematic question of how we are going to recruit
    if we are not fair. Or are we going to go back to draft days?
    So, it is not only an equity question, it is a practical
    question that we are facing as a Government.
        We all have many cases in our district. I have had a couple
    that have come up to me with an unusual wrinkle, and I
    wondered, first off, if--I have gone through your testimony. I
    saw a couple of references that were tangential to this, but I
    would appreciate it if you can make some allusions here or
    check back, because it may be something we can actually,
    fundamentally, address, in addition to the broader questions
    that you have raised today.
        One veteran--and it has to do not so much with war-related
    injuries, because while the veterans' facilities are tightening
    down and moving to more outpatient, it seems that if it is a
    direct war-related injury, they are still trying to accommodate
    that. But there are many injuries or health problems that come
    up that weren't directly war-related, and then as they try to
    seek outpatient service, what I have been running into, is
    something like what we seen in senior citizens case of almost
    it is requiring a ``spend down'' of any assets that the
    individual has or using those up before they are eligible for
    care, which wouldn't have happened in a veterans' hospital.
        And, in particular, I had one whose wife was working as a
    greeter at Wal-Mart, but because he had another pension, her
    salary as a greeter at Wal-Mart, part-time, put him over the
    cap, where he would lose his benefits if she didn't quit her
    greeting job. And the argument was that his income sources were
    less than the welfare benefits cap, and that veterans aren't
    even up to what a welfare recipient can earn in the
    discretionary income.
        A similar, but a different variation of this--and then if
    you can comment on these--that another veteran came to me the
    other week where we, I think--it is a similar thing on tax cuts
    and economic growth. Most veterans, after they leave the
    military, have other jobs in the society. So they want to make
    sure our society is functioning, that they have those jobs, but
    then that means, often, that they have other benefits they have
    accumulated which bring in pensions in addition to military
    pensions or sources of income.
        And this person was told--he was, I think, in the veterans'
    hospital for 90 days, but because it wasn't long-term care--it
    wasn't war-related, he now had to leave. The problem was, is to
    get the intensive care that he now needed, it was going to cost
    a large amount of dollars. But because he had assets and a
    pension, he was not eligible for the subsidy because he was
    above the so-called income level. Yet, once he paid his home
    health costs of a constant care, that would use up all of his
    income.
        So part of my question here is, do you hear variations like
    this? Because there are two fixes to this, possibly, at a
    minimum could be. One is, is that the cost of the care related
    to your income should be a calculation. A second should be that
    there is no way a veteran should be treated less than anyone
    else in the society, and wherever we have an income test for
    benefit of eligibility, that the veterans ought to be at the
    high-end of any scale like that, not at the low end.
        Mr. Cullinan. Mr. Souder. In the first instance, you are
    referring to a healthcare benefit?
        Mr. Souder. Yes.
        Mr. Cullinan. It is not supposed to work that way. And we
    have a staff who would be glad--[laughter]--more than happy to
    look into it. It is absolutely not supposed to work that way.
        The second instance, you are touching on the issue of long-
    term care. A number of us mentioned earlier, long-term care is
    not mandated under law, and that is the problem. And VA, for
    budgetary reasons, is actually eliminating, paring-down, its
    ability--its already eliminated ability to provide long-term
    care.
        So really the answer is, is to get it mandated under law.
    In other words, we want at least some veterans to be guaranteed
    long-term care, under law. Then, we expect that the
    appropriations support should follow to sustain that.
        You know, second, in the issue--with respect to long-term
    care, there are, given our current budget--what we would prefer
    is, is a guarantee for all veterans long-term care, period.
    Given the current budgetary climate, we are not going to
    realize that soon, so perhaps, then, there are veterans who
    would like to buy into VA as a long-term care provider. We
    would certainly support that effort as well.
        There are certain veterans--if a veteran needs long-term
    care by virtue of a service-connected disability, he or she
    should get it--no co-payments, no means test, nothing. There
    are other veterans, though, who, of course--the veteran
    population is considerably older than the aggregate, than the
    population at large. There are a number of veterans who are
    seeking access to VA's long-term care provider. Right now, they
    are not getting it. As I already mentioned, VA is paring away
    its limited ability to do that. These veterans should be able
    to buy into VA, as a long-term care provider. And there are a
    number of veterans, especially among military retirees, but
    other veterans as well, who are very comfortable with VA and VA
    services. They should have that option.
        Mr. Wannemacher. I would just like to say, Mr. Souder, the
    scenario that you put up, that veteran--right now the VA is
    caring for all categories, whether they are service-connected,
    non-service-connected, multi-millionaires; they can all receive
    healthcare, under the proposal. But what you are referring to,
    that individual that you referred to is classified, because he
    is receiving non-service-connected pension, is classified as a
    category 4. If he exceeded his income, he would be classified
    as a category 7. And, under the current law, categories 7's are
    subject to co-payments, so he would have to pay a co-payment on
    his medical care, and that is probably what the frustration
    was. You know, if my wife works, I am going to be classified as
    a category 7 and, then, not entitled to VA pension and, then,
    be subject to the co-payment.
        And just one thing in your opening statement you said about
    defense and not subjecting veterans to that. There is something
    that you might want to share with your colleagues, that the
    response would be without sacrifices made by veterans, we would
    not have the level of peace and prosperity we enjoy today. The
    President, when he recommended that the virtual integration of
    VA and Department of Defense, when he said that, without
    Defense, there would be no veterans, that is arrogance. That is
    sheer arrogance. This country has to be a backup for DOD. The
    Veterans Administration has to be able to provide the services
    for veterans, and to think that DOD--that veterans owes
    something to DOD is just ludicrous.
        Mr. Robertson. Congressman, the long-term healthcare issue
    is not unique--the problems they are facing are not unique to
    the veterans community. We all know that.
        The American Legion, several years ago--4 years ago--
    developed a plan that we called the GI Bill of Health. And it
    sets up the VA healthcare as a network, in which veterans that
    are entitled to healthcare, i.e., service-connected veterans
    and the other categories of veterans that qualify economically,
    et cetera, would get their healthcare covered by the Federal
    Government. All the other veterans, and their dependents, that
    wanted to use the VA healthcare system could buy into the
    system, just like they would be buying healthcare from Great
    West or Aetna or whoever was selling those policies.
        The idea being that veterans would be willing to pay for a
    system that they wanted, a system that they could depend on in
    their golden years, that there would be options for specialized
    services, that if I wanted to buy into a long-term care
    program, I could pay the VA, at the age of 45, start paying
    them, in the event, that somewhere down the road, my wife and I
    would need to be in a long-term care facility. This seems like
    a logical business-like approach to meeting this problem.
        One of the tragedies that we see in the veterans community,
    is that we get a veteran taken care of in a State veterans'
    home, only to have his wife who he has been married to for 60
    years at the other end of the State in a federally subsidized
    home, and the next time they are going to see each other is at
    a funeral.
        That is a tragedy. On the side of a VA hospital it says,
    ``to care for him who has borne the battle, and for his widow
    and his orphan.'' We are doing a good job in relative terms
    taking care of the veteran, but those other two are completely
    out of the box.
        And maybe it is time to look at a quasi-Federal Government-
    type healthcare system for veterans. Because you remember,
    military retirees--a lot of people forget this--but military
    retirees are veterans, and we have them right now having
    brought battles over in Tricare trying to figure out a place to
    go. And to show you how the Government works, DOD has
    contracted with however many private healthcare companies, for-
    profit companies, to run Tricare, when VA has the same type of
    network already in place. So why are we paying a private-sector
    company to refer people back to military healthcare or back to
    veterans healthcare? That just doesn't make sense. We think
    that there can be some headway made in this area, and maybe
    address some of the long-term care problems.
        Mr. Mica. I thank the gentleman from Indiana.
        And I would like to recognize Mr. Filner, from California.
        Mr. Filner. Thank you, and I thank you for your courtesy.
        Just quickly, a lot of these issues will be moot if a
    budget is not adequate, so I think, you know, we all have to
    focus on the budget at this moment. And I would just--I guess
    in the tradition of Mr. Sanders, be very frank. We all have
    flailed the President's budget--Democrat, Republican, all
    VSO's, bipartisan, nonpartisan--but let's get off--the
    President made a suggestion. Budget, by law and Constitution,
    is Congress. He made his ideas, you guys, in my opinion, have
    to move on band. He kept within, by the way, the budget caps
    that the majority of Congress passed. So, it is not his budget,
    it is really the balanced budget's budget.
        I don't see you flailing at the Veterans Affairs Committee
    budget that just came out. I mean the Legion now supports it,
    which, even by the independent budget, is too small. So I think
    we have to turn our attention to the congressional budget and
    start attacking that and making us accountable.
        Steve, you said your members are only 1 percent of the
    population or--I mean the combined, I guess. Just give me those
    2 million people, and I will pass anything in the Congress. You
    guys have incredible power to deal with this issue.
        As I understand the process--and my colleagues can correct
    me if I am wrong--we have a budget resolution. It will be the
    next stage in this process. It looks to me that the leadership
    of the Congress is committed to keeping within the caps that we
    had previously agreed to, which means that we are $3 billion,
    plus, short of what we need for veterans.
        I think your membership has to demand of their
    representatives--I don't care, Republican, Democrat--that they
    don't vote for that resolution unless there is a $3 billion
    increase for veterans. Because what will happen in the
    politics--and you have been all through this many times--if
    there are no changing of those caps, folks are going to use you
    and give lip service to you. They are going to propose ``X''
    billion dollar increase if we cut the Housing budget, cut the
    EPA budget. So we are all in a completely unattainable
    situation. They are going to pit us, one against another, and
    say, ``Oh, you are not for veterans. You voted to keep the
    EPA.'' And I will make the same argument about the EPA that you
    made about the Defense Department, you know--[laughter]--so
    unless we increase those caps, we are dead, in my opinion. And
    that is coming up next week, I think--at least in the House.
        So I think you have to switch your attention away from the
    President's budget. It has nothing to do with anything right
    now, and say, ``Unless we get $3 billion more in that budget
    resolution to be accountable to you.'' We are all giving lip
    service; everybody is talking the talk. You know, we are all
    for you. But unless they vote against that thing, it doesn't
    mean anything, because there is nothing we can do after that
    vote, except with untenably pitting forces against one another,
    to raise the level of the budget to what we have talked about
    today.
        So, I--that is a political issue; I don't think it is
    partisan, but I think you all have to begin to attack the
    congressional budget--[laughter]--and not the Presidential
    budget, and hold us accountable for that next vote that is
    going to occur.
        Mr. Wannemacher. Congressman, I----
        Mr. Sullivan. Congressman Filner, I would like to be able
    to restate what the Gulf war veterans said.

        We believe the VA needs $3.2 billion more than what was
    proposed by the administration and $1.3 billion more than what
    was approved by the House Veterans Affairs Committee. Since the
    current economic boom created a Federal budget surplus, the VA
    budget cap should be lifted. Flat-lining appropriations during
    war, while expenses soar and the number of patients demanding
    care increases, is a recipe for disaster.

    They might as well just close the VA.
        Mr. Wannemacher. Congressman----
        Mr. Filner. I would hope that the other five would agree
    with you. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Wannemacher. We would agree with that, and we, as you
    know, we had our members--we were in town all this weekend, and
    they were all sent out to talk about lifting the caps. And I
    want to tell you that last year, Congress had no problem
    lifting the caps when Transportation identified a need. They
    took away $15 billion from the VA account. We wouldn't be in
    this situation today if it wasn't for what happened last year.
    So we encourage all of you that are still here, and I hope you
    pass it on that the Veterans Administrations appropriations are
    just inadequate and we need additional resources.
        Mr. Sanders. So you are in agreement with what Paul said--
    --
        Mr. Wannemacher. Absolutely.
        Mr. Sanders [continuing]. In terms of lifting the caps?
        Mr. Wannemacher. Exactly.
        Mr. Sanders. Is that true for all of you?
        Mr. Cullinan. For our part, we are agitating to lift the
    caps. We have our people addressing that specific issue. You
    may have seen in the Congressional Monitor that we were
    specifically saying, ``Raise the caps.''
        Once again, am I optimistic? We are doing the right thing.
    We are agitating to get those caps lifted. Are we going to do
    it?
        Mr. Sanders. OK. One of the reasons----
        Mr. Robertson. Well, I am the odd man out, because the
    American Legion, last October, testified before a joint session
    of the Veterans Affairs Committee and said that we felt that we
    were $1.9 billion low now, on what our current funding levels
    were. And we asked the President's budget to include that
    increase. We have been consistent with that number. We are at a
    point where we are talking about need versus wants.
        We, in our estimation, believe that the $1.9 is a solid
    figure to meet the current needs of the VA. Does it make the
    best VA in the world? No; but what we are talking about is what
    we need to keep from shutting down hospitals and turning people
    away. Do we need additional funding? Yes. And I, you know, the
    $3 billion number is probably a good number to make us whole
    again.
        And the American Legion started our lobbying efforts last
    October before the budgets were even introduced, and we have
    continued that process. We, too, will have people in this next
    week that will be attending a conference here in Washington.
    But we are using the Internet, we are using our magazines and
    our other publications to make sure that everybody understands
    what needs to be done as far as the appropriations process.
        And just for the record--and I don't think I am speaking
    out of the school--and folks from the independent budget can
    correct me if I am incorrect in my statement. But almost every
    year, the independent budget has been around $2 to $3 billion
    increase request, historically, for the last 10 years that I
    can remember.
        I am sorry, go ahead.
        Mr. Cullinan. I know that this isn't quite the forum for
    this. Actually, a number of years ago, the independent budget's
    baseline was adjusted. And, actually, this touches on a
    question that you posited a little while ago, Mr. Sanders. How
    do we get into this past?
        Perhaps we are trying to be too reasonable; I don't know.
    Perhaps we are trying to be all too reasonable. I think that
    you would say that we are. When we adjusted our baseline, the
    situation then, we were about $6 to $7 billion out of whack
    with reality. For the sake of creditability, that baseline was
    adjusted. Was that wrong? I mean you would say, ``Yes.'' I can
    see you----
        Mr. Sanders. I think I would----
        Mr. Robertson. But that is the problem we have had, is that
    we have had two tiers--what we have been asking for versus what
    we have been getting, and that gap has gotten wider over the
    years to where we are at in the situation we are now.
        So, do we all agree that, yes, we need a lot more money?
    You are absolutely right.
        What we are facing right now is what we are going to be
    able to achieve. We are only talking $1.1 billion difference
    between the two groups of numbers that we are throwing out
    here, but the important thing is that it sets the baseline for
    2001. That is the thing I am concerned about. If we wind up
    getting nothing, then we have got--looking at a $4 billion
    request for next year to make up for the shortfall we had this
    year.
        Mr. Weidman. I just wanted to add in, Mr. Filner, that the
    difference between the $1.9 and the $3.2 billion--there is no
    guarantee that the budget committee is going to come up even
    $1.9 billion. What we are looking for is some leadership out of
    the administration. Our executive directors all met with Vice
    President Gore on Tuesday and said, ``You have to do
    something.'' Frankly, we are not getting that leadership out of
    the Secretary of Veterans Affairs that we have every right to
    expect. Images of Nero come to mind. We need to have the
    leadership of the administration. If the administration decides
    to get into this budget battle as a player, those caps can be
    lifted and, frankly, would make the jobs of those of you who
    are pushing for $3 easier. You would have to break the budget
    cap just to $1.9 billion. We need Presidential leadership on
    this. Forty commitments to harms way in the last 6 years. That
    seems to me to merit a response on the part of the President to
    say, ``Gosh, we goofed on the VA budget. We are going to try to
    get into this and raise the caps and do what is necessary in
    order to start down the road toward fixing this problem.''
        Mr. Filner. I thank the gentleman, and the leadership has
    to come from everywhere, because they are not going to be
    broken, even for the $1.9 billion or $1.1 billion that the
    Senate passed anything, unless we have leadership and your
    folks are politically involved at the grassroots.
        Thank you, Mr. Mica.
        Mr. Mica. Well, I want to thank the panelists of the
    various veterans service organizations for being with us today,
    for helping us launch our effort with this subcommittee which,
    again, is entitled National Security, Veterans Affairs, and
    International Relations.
        I think we have had a good airing of some of the challenges
    that face us, and I tend to be an optimist. I think if we all
    work together that we can make some great progress,
    particularly in this time when we are fortunate, as a Congress
    and a Nation, to have a small, annualized surplus. Certainly,
    our veterans should be first in line as a priority of the
    Congress and the country.
        With there being no further business to come before this
    subcommittee this morning, I call this meeting adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 10:32 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]