[House Hearing, 109 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT HEARING TO REVIEW PREVIOUS FISCAL
YEAR AND LOOK AHEAD TO THE UPCOMING YEAR
HEARING I
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans Affairs,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in Room 334, Cannon
House Office Building, Hon. Steve Buyer [Chairman of the Committee]
presiding.
Present: Representatives Buyer, Brown of South Carolina, Miller,
Bradley, Brown-Waite, Filner, Snyder, Michaud, Herseth, Berkley,
Salazar.
The Chairman. Good morning. I would like to welcome everyone here this
morning. Get the doors for me, thank you.
By way of housekeeping, between 10:45 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., there will be
a question of consideration, so it looks like we will have one 15-minute
vote. After this vote, we will then move to approximately one hour of
debate on the rule, the Federal Election Integrity Act of 2006. That
will occur approximately between 12:15 and 12:45, and would be the
second series of votes. Just to let everyone know.
I would like to welcome the new commanders here. You are beginning a
year of well-earned opportunity after many years of faithfully serving
veterans within your organization. I look forward to a constructive and
positive year ahead.
Last November, after meeting with your organizations at Carlisle
Barracks, just north of the Gettysburg Battlefield, I announced a
decision to enhance the way the Committee develops its budget views and
estimates.
This decision was to reform the way we gather the views of veterans'
service organizations and military service organizations. Your members
have a great store of invaluable insights that deserve even greater
consideration.
As a Subcommittee Chairman, I saw myself how the process of hearings
held after we had submitted our views and estimates for the VA to the
Budget Committee had effectively, for years, silenced your voice by
positioning the testimony of VSOs and MSOs after the fact. The status
quo I didn't believe was working for veterans, because it made you a
critic after the fact, so we changed that process.
Last February, before we developed the fiscal year 2007 views and
estimates, the Committee heard from 19 VSOs and MSOs, some of whom we
had not heard from before. And it was powerful. It represented a
significant increase in access to this Committee at a key point in the
budget cycle.
When I discussed accelerating these budget and legislative hearings into
February, I also said that we wanted to meet again in September to
review the fiscal year just ending and to look forward to the next year.
The timing of a September hearing is auspicious because the
administration is now beginning to develop its next year budget request.
I compliment the former American Legion National Commander, Tom Bock,
because he championed to me the Legion's approach--that the American
Legion felt that they had separated themselves from other veterans
groups by presenting their information to the Committee in the fall, as
the administration was developing its request. That approach made a lot
of sense, and we have adapted and augmented it.
The Armed Services Committee receives the testimony from the Chairman
and the Joint Chiefs in the spring, prior to budget views and estimates,
and then they bring back the Chairman and the Joint Chiefs in the fall,
for a look-back/look-ahead. And I think adapting that same process will
be very important.
As we look at the budget cycle, you can see that we have opened up this
access to the congressional and the administration's budget process at
uniquely responsive points in the cycle. So, what we have today is the
opening of the Fiscal Year 2008 budget process.
This is a war budget. The country is at war and faces severe demands on
its fiscal resources. Yet this is also a budget cycle that reflects a
decade of unprecedented growth and support for veterans. The VA budget
has nearly doubled in ten years. Reflecting that support, VA has earned
a reputation for high-quality health care.
I can also recall, when I first arrived here in Congress, in 1993 and
1994, there were flatline budgets in the VA, and I can also recall some
horrific cases where appropriators took money out of the VA to fund
other domestic programs. We have not seen that in the last 12 years. A
nearly doubled budget, and quality product do not, however, mean there
are not significant challenges.
The VA Secretary before this Committee took ownership of the budgetary
process that we exposed had flaws in the inputs within the modeling. It
was reflected in his strong fiscal year 2007 funding. Yet, a perennial
challenge to us is the ghost population that moves in and out of the VA
health care system. Sometimes using the VA, sometimes opting for
TRICARE, sometimes using their HMO, they move in and out of the systems.
Simply plugging a few numbers into a capitation spreadsheet does not
address this type of complexity. Discretionary funding gives us the
responsiveness to do correctly that which is hard; that which is
difficult, but which must be done right.
Comparatively, a quote, ``assured,'' or mandatory health care funding
model, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would cost nearly a
half a trillion dollars over ten years--half a trillion. That would be
a costly experiment. In contrast, the strong discretionary budgets of
the past decade, have proven responsive to change. With strong funding,
we should expect good programs.
Yet, the seamless transition of servicemembers entering the VA system is
still not where it should he. Last month, Secretary Nicholson, Chairman
Boozman, Mr. Salazar and I went to Kuwait, Iraq and Germany to assess
the continuum of health care from the medic, or a Navy corpsman, all the
way to level 4 medical facility. We were impressed by the quality of
care and the total integration and teamwork within the armed services.
Yet, between DoD and VA we still have a gap. Wounded GIs arriving at
Landstuhl Medical Center minutes after we arrived had paper medical
records on their chests. Largely because of the Pentagon's foot-
dragging, the VA and DoD still do not have a truly interoperable system
of electronic medical records. That is not seamless, and we can do
better.
The recent theft of personal data belonging to millions of veterans has
shown the utter necessity that VA and every government agency with
sensitive data must have centralized management over information
technology, information policy, and information security. IT is the
organization's central nervous system.
I appreciate the work of Mr. Filner, and all members of this Committee
in the many hearings that we held, exposing part of the problems. But
we have also moved toward a solution, and I want to thank the bipartisan
work this Committee had done.
I appreciate those of you who worked also with us on this issue, and I
am also disappointed with those who said that it was too hard, and it
was outside of their lane. Because we all have to accept, in this one.
And with regard to the organizations, if you are outraged by the lapses
in security and unnecessary risks to your members and our veterans, then
join with me in dislodging the status quo and doing the right thing for
our veterans.
Many of you also cited the disability claims backlog in in your written
testimony. This issue is the elephant in the room. The total backlog
exceeds 800,000 and is climbing. I compliment the Task Force on
Accountability that I formed. I will be meeting with them here within
the next 10 days. Some of your organizations are members of this task
force. I formed this task force to examine issues across the VA--not
just VBA--that can improve the claims process. Timely and accurate
claims decisions are as important to America's veterans as the delivery
of high-quality care.
Some, though, think that if we bring lawyers into the process that it
will solve the problem. I am apprehensive, but I want to be a good
listener, and I want to hear from all of you on that issue, because the
Senate has passed the measure, and have given it a top priority for us
as we negotiate these bills here. And so Mr. Filner and I, and members
of the Committee, need to hear your views.
So ladies and gentlemen, these issues are not going away. They are at
the heart, and my top three priorities as Chairman right now, are number
one, caring for veterans who have the service-connected disabilities,
those with special needs, and the indigent; two, ensuring a seamless
transition from military service to the VA. It is a very encompassing
issue. And I agree with the VFW's testimony. It is a lot more than
just computer systems. And third, providing veterans every opportunity
to live full and healthy lives.
These are my top priorities, and I look forward to hearing yours.
Before we begin, on behalf of the Committee's members and staff, I
extend appreciation for the enduring contributions made by your
membership, your auxiliaries and your families. You make a great
difference in the tone and tenor of our own country. We are at war in
two theaters and still have responsibilities globally. Our men and
women in uniform are performing their duty magnificently. They are
coming home with the simple expectation that we will be there for them.
It is up to all of us to help these returning servicemembers transition
back into civilian life.
The VA has its structure, but personal contact, which is your strength,
plays a tremendous role. When you put your arm around the young lance
corporal just back from--you name the province, name the country--you
are also at the tip of the spear, and you can help them in many ways.
The intangible is also equally as important as the tangible. So I want
to thank you.
[The statement of Mr. Buyer appears on p. ]
The Chairman. I now recognize Mr. Evans. If he has an opening
statement, it will be submitted into the record. I now recognize the
acting Ranking Member, Mr. Filner, for his statement.
Mr. Filner. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I ask to put my full statement
in the record.
The Chairman. No objection. So ordered.
Mr. Filner. And I do associate myself with your comments on this
Committee's work, and hopefully the Congress's work on cyber security in
the VA. We had millions of veterans worried, scared, about what would
happen, and I think we came out with a better policy at the end. I hope
the House and the Senate will act on it.
However, I cannot associate myself with remarks on the role of the VSOs
in that process. I am glad you are here today. Better late than never.
The Chairman said the timing is `` auspicious'' that you are here.
Well, it is auspicious because all your members are not here with you,
which, during the joint hearings that we have had for many, many years,
people felt a part of the process, and your membership is now not part
of the process.
We are also at a very inauspicious time. We haven't passed this year's
budget, the coming fiscal year's budget yet for the nation. So, to hear
your views on next year, when nobody here is thinking about the budget
process next year, is not at all timely. The enhancement that you would
bring is by being involved at the beginning, middle, and end of the
process; not at some strange time when Members are not thinking of next
year's budget.
You ought to have a chance for your membership to see this Committee in
action. That is what democracy is all about. We should work with you
to make the scheduling changes, so you have a larger impact, and have
your members here with you.
What troubles me right now about our process, aside from the way you
were excluded from it, is that you have to trudge up here at any time of
the year, hat in hand, begging for money. I am sure I am not the only
one who finds this is not just ironic but shameful. It is long past
time to place all veterans' funding where it belongs, in the mandatory
category, so that each year the Department of Veterans Affairs knows how
much it will have and can forecast and plan better.
More importantly, veterans of all generations can have greater assurance
that their health care will be there when they need it. The Chairman
called it, the "war budget." Yes, we are at war, and taking care of our
veterans is part of the cost of war, and should be included in any war
budget.
A bill written by Lane Evans, of which many of us are proud cosponsors,
would provide funding to meet increased medical inflation and responsive
to enrollment numbers. And those numbers should include all eligible
veterans. We must bring back into the VA health care fold those
veterans whom this administration is now barring. It is more than a
quarter million, so far, many of whom are combat decorated, who have
health problems deemed unrelated to their service, and who might be
unable to afford private health care. They too deserve to use the
system established for veterans and shouldn't be excluded simply because
they make a modest or even higher income. When they took the oath, we
didn't ask how much money they made. Their good health shouldn't be
incumbent upon some arbitrary income level now.
Congress intended that this be a temporary management tool for the
Secretary, for a single budget cycle, not to be perpetual as this
administration seems to intend.
The assurances that come with mandatory funding would be in stark
contrast to the embarrassing charade we call the budget process today,
and to the current system of care, under which this administration is
not dropping its effort to make veterans pay more for their care, rather
than asking for needed resources. It makes thousands wait longer than
they should for clinical appointments. It is failing to appropriately
address the mental health requirements of servicemembers returning from
Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as past generations of veterans, thumbing
its nose at the statutory requirements of long-term care and the needs
of our older veterans.
The administration has aldo sought cuts in traumatic brain injury care
at the height of a war that is producing more brain-injured veterans
than ever before. And we are failing to commit adequate staff and
resources to the counseling programs.
All this, as I said previously, as the VA has turned away a quarter
million veterans who wanted to enroll.
The supplemental request last year illustrated just how flawed the
process is. VA had to request around $3 billion more to cover expenses
not in the 2005 and 2006 budgets that we passed. The Secretary told us,
in this hearing room, that the reason that they messed up is because
their formulas did not take into account that we had a war going on.
The Independent Budget, which many of you are involved in, knew exactly
what the figure ought to be, knew what the administration should have
given, and what the Congress failed to make up for. And today, we have
the VA rightfully touted in many ways for the exceptional quality of its
clinical care and use of technology. It has come a long way from some
of the stereotypical images of the '60s or '70s, of many patients
waiting and dirty wards, receiving substandard care from uncaring
providers.
It is now on the cutting edge of health care in this country and in the
world, and that is very commendable. But that system should not have
delayed care, rationing of care, or any problems with access or quality.
We do have the resources as a nation to adequately fund health care for
those who have borne the battle and have given us our freedom.
I am pleased that virtually all the organizations here today support the
passage of mandatory funding for veterans' health care, and I can assure
you that we will continue to press for this in the next Congress.
Let me just say one word on the so-called ``core veteran issue.'' I
don't know if that is the same ``ghost population'' that Mr. Buyer
referred to, but some have claimed that there are two classes of
veterans: those that are core veterans and others. Sure, there are
veterans that have a greater need for VA services and should have a
higher priority. We will always keep that in mind and fight for that.
But all veterans should have access to VA health care. A veteran who
scaled the cliffs of Normandy, or who walked point in the jungles of
Vietnam, or who endured the frozen reservoirs of Korea, or served in the
Persian Gulf and was fortunate enough not to be wounded or disabled is
just as much a veteran as any other veteran, even if his health care
needs are not as a result of that service, and no matter what their
income is. That veteran deserves access to our health care system, and
we--certainly on this side--will fight for that.
There are a lot of other issues that you are going to talk about today.
I have referred to them in my longer statement that is part of the
record. Let me make just one last comment.
We have an administration that says ``support our troops,'' ``support
our troops,'' and we all do. Supporting of troops means to support
them when they come home, also. Right now, in my medical center in San
Diego, we have almost a thousand veterans on a waiting list. If you
come home from Iraq and Afghanistan, you may wait a year for a dentist
or some other specialty treatment. If you have PTSD, you may have not
recognized it, DoD may not have recognized it, VA hasn't recognized it,
the family hasn't recognized it, and we are going through the same
process of having veterans with mental scars that are not treated, as we
did with Vietnam.
We have veterans coming back with PTSD, their families not understanding
it, family violence, domestic quarrels, drinking, drug abuse, loss of
jobs, homelessness, suicides. Hundreds of suicides of those coming back
from Iraq and Afghanistan. That is a tragedy. We should never have
allowed the Vietnam vets not to be properly cared for, and we still have
a chance to rectify that mistake, no matter how long ago it was, but we
are repeating the same error today.
Our budget is $80 billion for the VA. Our national budget is $3
trillion. Our debt is $8 trillion. We have enough money in this
country to care for all of those who have returned from battle, whether
it is from Iraq, Afghanistan, or World War II. Let us do the job right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Mr. Filner appears on p. ]
The Chairman. Thank you. All members who have an opening statement may
submit it for the record.
Today, we will hear from several commanders, presidents, and
representatives of veterans' service organizations. First, representing
the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States is the Commander-in-
chief, Gary Kurpius. Did I get it right, Commander?
Mr. Kurpius. Yes, thank you.
The Chairman. Commander Kurpius was elected in August 31, 2006, at the
VFW's 107th national convention. He is the first member to be elected
to this office from the state of Alaska. Commander Kurpius served the
United States Army from 1967 to 1969. In Viet Nam, he served with the
541st Transportation Company, providing convoy security throughout the
central highlands. He was awarded the national Defense service medal,
the Vietnam service medal with four bronze stars, and the Republic of
Vietnam service medal.
In 1970, Commander Kurpius joined VFW Post 1539 in Babbit, Minnesota,
where he became a life member in 1976. He earned the title of All-
American Post Commander in 1977, and in 1983 was named All-American
District Commander.
Commander Kurpius transferred to VFW Post 9785 in Eagle River, Alaska in
1985, and is currently a life member of the VFW Post 9365.
Congratulations on this appointment.
Mr. Kurpius. Thank you.
The Chairman. Representing Amvets, the National Commander, Tom McGriff.
Commander McGriff was elected National Commander of Amvets on August 20,
2006, at the organization's 62nd national convention in Reno, Nevada.
He joined the United States Navy in 1959, and was assigned to the USS--I
am not going to get this right--
Mr. McGriff. Tiru.
The Chairman. Say it again?
Mr. McGriff. Tiru.
The Chairman. Tiru. What is Tiru?
Mr. McGriff. Tiru is an extinct fish that swam the ocean.
The Chairman. Is a what?
Mr. McGriff. It is an extinct fish.
The Chairman. An extinct fish? But it tastes really good? All right.
Dr. Snyder--all right, I will go with the doctor's opinion. Wow, and
this was a submarine?
Mr. McGriff. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. It didn't bother any of you that you were on an extinct
fish?
Mr. McGriff. All submarines at that period of time were named after
fish.
Mr. Filner. Yes, but not after extinct fish.
The Chairman. Yeah, but what about extinct ones? Were you the only one
that had that distinction?
Mr. McGriff. No, there were several. There were several.
The Chairman. Wow. Well, this was a World War II diesel-electronic
submarine based in Pearl Harbor.
Mr. Filner. Also extinct.
The Chairman. Yeah, we don't have those diesels anymore.
He patrolled the coast of the Philippines, Hong Kong, and Japan,
receiving the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for his role in
skirmishes in the disputed islands in the Taiwan Strait. Commander
McGriff was subsequently assigned to the USS Ethan Allen, the nation's
first-in-class Polaris submarine, which was armed with 16 nuclear
missiles.
He is a life member of Post 76. He has held many leadership positions
at national, state, and local levels of Amvets. He joined Amvets in
1991, after spending more than 30 years in the United States Navy.
Congratulations.
Mr. McGriff. Thank you.
The Chairman. Speaking for the Disabled American Veterans is the new
National Commander, Bradley S. Barton. Commander Barton, a native of
Indiana, enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in 1966. In 1968,
while serving as a member of the third Battalion 26th Army regiment, the
Battle of Keh Sanh during the Vietnam War, he was severely wounded when
shrapnel from an enemy mortar severed his spinal cord.
As results of his wounds, he was medically separated from the Marine
Corps in August, 1968. Following his retirement, Commander Barton
earned his BS degree from Indiana University in 1973, and his law degree
from Indiana University in 1982. Commander Barton has also been very
active in the DAV since joining the Indianapolis chapter three in 1975.
He is a recipient of the DAV's Department of Indiana Meritorious
Occupation Achievement Award in 1979, and was named by Indiana
governor's Handicapped Hoosier of the Year for 1979.
He is also a member of several other veterans' organizations. Commander
Barton is currently membership Chairman of the DAV Chapter one in
Portland, Oregon, where he and his wife live.
Testifying on behalf of National Commander of the Blind Veterans of
America, Larry Belote, is Dr. Thomas Zampieri. Doctor served active duty
as a medic in the United States Army in 1972 to 1975. Upon completing
physician assistant training, he served from September 1978 to August
2000 as an Army National Guard physician assistant, retiring as major.
During this time, he was involved in several military training programs
and schools, and is currently employed as the national director of
government relations at BVA. He was awarded his Ph.D. in political
science from Lacrosse University earlier this year. So congratulations.
Representing the Noncommissioned Officers Association of United States
of America is Sergeant Gene Overstreet, NCOA's President. Sgt. Maj.
Overstreet entered the Marine Corps in June 1966. He served with the
third Marine division in Viet Nam. Sgt. Maj. Overstreet also served as
the Marine Corps recruit Depot in San Diego as a junior drill
instructor, senior drill instructor, series gunnery Sergeant, and chief
instructor.
Reassigned to drill instructor school, he was an instructor, drill
master, and chief instructor. He was later selected as the twelfth
Sergeant Major in the Marine Corps in April 1991, and assumed the post
on June 28, 1991. Sgt. Maj. Overstreet retired from the Marine Corps
June 1995. He joined NCOA as vice president, membership recruiting, on
May 1st, 2001, and accepted the position as president August 22 of 2003.
Welcome to all of you. Before we begin, we would like to-- do all of you
have written testimony?
[All nod their head in the affirmative.]
Do you submit that written testimony into the record?
All acknowledge in the affirmative. Without objection, it will be
received in the record. So ordered.
On procedural rules, each of you will have 10 minutes to present your
testimony. I will give you great latitude to get that in. And in
fairness, recognize others also are seeking to testify here today. So
when you see the light go off, just you will know what to do, and try to
wrap up your statement. And then membership will serve under the five-
minute rule.
The VFW Commander, welcome, and you are recognized.
STATEMENTS OF GARY KURPIUS, COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS
OF THE UNITED STATES; ACCOMPANIED BY TOM MCGRIFF, NATIONAL COMMANDER,
AMVETS; BRADLEY S. BARTON, NATIONAL COMMANDER, DISABLED AMERICAN
VETERANS; TOM ZAMPIERI, PH.D., DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS,
BLINDED VETERANS ASSOCIATION; SGT. MAJ. H. GENE OVERSTREET, USMC
(RETIRED), PRESIDENT-CEO, NON COMMISSIONED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
STATEMENT OF MR. GARY KURPIUS
Mr. Kurpius. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Buyer, Ranking Member Filner,
distinct members of this Committee.
As this nation's largest organization of combat veterans, the Veterans
of Foreign Wars of the U.S. is dedicated to helping one another, working
as a team, and doing what is right for all who have worn the uniform in
the past, as well as for all who proudly wear it today.
I have charged the VFW with a mission of putting veterans first. It is
a mission you well understand. This Veterans Affairs Committee is the
only Congressional Committee with a distinct constituency. You serve
not the government or private business, but actual men and women, men
and women who bravely served this country, protecting everything that
America stands for. It is an important mission. It is a sacred
mission. It is one that must be taken seriously.
Looking back over the last year, I see many good things, but there have
also been some huge bumps in the road. First, let us look at the good.
After the funding problems of the previous fiscal year, in which VA ran
out of money due to poor budgetary modeling, the administration stepped
forward and recommended a sufficient amount of money for veterans'
programs.
Also, as your Committee formulated the budget recommendations, we were
pleased that you listened to what we had to say. You used our funding
levels from the Independent Budget as part of your baseline. We didn't
get everything that we wanted, but it was a very good step, and we
appreciate the serious consideration you gave to our views and your
demonstrated commitment in moving them forward.
Despite the Committee's and Administration's attention, VA still does
not have its budget for a fiscal year that begins in a few days. This
unfortunately is nothing out of the ordinary. It has been the better
part of a decade since VA has had a budget on time. This is a major and
continuous failure of Congress.
Mr. Chairman, you rightly want VA to operate more like a business, using
best practices to efficiently care for veterans in a cost-effective way.
Yet, how is VA to operate that way when the managers can't properly plan
for the coming year? No business, let alone one as large as the VA, can
function without knowing their budget. Yet year after year, Congress
asks VA to do that. That is directly at odds with how all of us want
the VA to operate.
We have in the past called for changes to VA funding mechanism. The
discretionary process as currently implemented does not work the way it
should. How can we accept that? If this Congress is going to fail to
live up to its obligation to provide VA sufficient money on time, then
we need to modify the current funding process. One of the highest
priorities of the VFW is the health care and well-being of those men and
women returning from conflicts overseas. While the battles are ongoing,
the actual individuals fighting are constantly changing, and each day
sees the creation of hundreds of new veterans. We have long argued that
their care is part of the ongoing cost of war. That fulfillment of that
cost--a national obligation--is what this Committee is charged with
overseeing.
One of the VFW's greatest concerns is the mental health of these
returning servicemembers, and the effects it can have on their families.
VA claims that they are making substantial progress in this area, but it
is something that needs to be continuously monitored. Making sure that
these men and women get the counseling and services they need to
transition back into society and to lead productive lives has a big up-
front cost, but it is something that, if left unchecked, will create
many more problems down the road. Many of these problems, such as
homelessness or mental illness, are things that no veteran should suffer
from, especially because we can tackle it today.
Another important area that deserves increased attention is care related
to blast injuries. We must redouble our efforts in prosthetic research
and servicing, and also on VA polytrauma centers.
We also strongly believe that more research and time must be spent on
traumatic brain injuries. We must learn more about these injuries and
be mindful that some of these symptoms might not appear immediately. We
must be attuned to any long-term physical or mental impairments that
these blasts create. We must give these servicemen and women every tool
they need to heal and become whole.
That the VFW can come before this Committee year after year after year,
emphasizing the need for a seamless transition is a disappointment. I
am not sure that we can even point to signs of progress. What is being
done? Where are the roadblocks? Mr. Chairman, We need you, using the
oversight powers of this Committee, to give us answers to these
questions. We know that you share our frustration, and we urge you to
make this a priority for the coming year.
What we are asking for, though, isn't just the mere ability of VA
computers being able to speak to DoD's computers. That is certainly an
essential part, but it is more about giving these men and women a hand,
and a seamless transition back into a productive society, with the
skills and training they need to be the leaders of tomorrow. That is
going to require emphasis on education and training for real-world jobs.
At a hearing earlier this year, I am told that you offered to look into
improving the benefits provided under the Montgomery GI Bill, but as of
today, nothing has been passed into law. As we look ahead, it is
important that we focus on the benefits being provided to our
reservists, especially as they continue to carry a large share of the
burden of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. These men and women are
fighting as Active Duty troops. We need to give them a benefit that
recognizes their contributions by allowing them to take their MGIB
benefits with them when they separate. In this regard, we applaud your
introduction of H.R. 6096, the Disabled War Families Education Act of
2006.
Another important area that is integral to a seamless transition is an
effective vocational rehabilitation office. The influx in service-
disabled veterans creates new challenges, especially when it comes to
vocational rehabilitation and employment. A truly effective program will
be focused on a goal of avoiding disability-related unemployability
later in life, and that will allow the disabled veteran to build a
career to provide for him or her as well as the veteran's family. We
envision a program that will create skills that will help these heroes
who have sacrificed body and mind, to overcome these obstacles over a
lifetime of employment, not just to launch them with a few years of
jobs.
Unfortunately, I must turn to an issue which has taken up much of this
Committee's time, and which is of utmost concern for our 2.4 million
members. The recent failure of VA to adequately secure veterans'
sensitive financial and medical data is disgraceful. To say that we are
disappointed with the leadership of VA is an understatement. It is
especially distressing for our servicemembers fighting overseas to know
that they and their families may be financially harmed because of
mishandling of sensitive personal data. The last thing they need to be
worrying about on the battlefield is if their families are going to be
okay, and if their credit is going to be ruined by a bunch of thieves.
This is why we are very disturbed by the withdrawal of the
Administration's offer to provide one year of credit monitoring
services. It is outrageous that the government would not err on the
side of caution with potentially 27 million veterans and family members
at risk, and a litany of data breaches coming to light. We of the VFW
are most gratified with how seriously this Committee has taken the
problem, and that your series of hearings have focused on getting to the
root of the problem and providing permanent solutions. We would urge
that you not relent in this most important effort. Looking forward, VA
needs flexibility, the ability to adapt and change as technology
transforms. This Committee clearly needs to exercise rigorous oversight
of VA to ensure that these sorts of disgraceful problems do not occur in
the future, but oversight does not automatically mean micromanagement.
As we look forward, another major challenge confronting VA for the
coming year, as has been the case for a number of years now, is the
ineffective operation of the Veterans Benefits Administration. The
claims backlog is a persistent problem, something my predecessors have
highlighted every time they come before this Committee. That I can still
sit here, citing an ever-growing number of cases highlights VA's
inability to develop and implement a proper plan to tackle this problem.
VFW witnesses have always stressed that VBA's problem is, at its core, a
problem with the quality of their decisions. By their own measurement,
VBA commits serious errors on over 100,000 cases every year. These are
not minor errors; they can affect the quality of the future lives of
veterans and their families. VBA has no plan to address this problem,
and we urge you to make it a focus of your oversight this year. Despite
best efforts and intent, VA has been unable to manage its caseload, and
the backlog swells daily. As the number of pending claims increases, the
difficulties of managing the backlog and implementing solutions
increases.
VA tells us that it takes several years for a new employee to get up to
speed with the adjudication process. There are many complexities and
technicalities, which make immediate mastery difficult. Speed and
accuracy come with practice. Yet, there is little continuity of funding
within VBA.
What is the goal to make VA better? What are the plans? It isn't just
enough to throw money at these issues, a sentiment I am sure you on this
Committee share. But, the problems VA faces do, by and large, relate to
funding. We're not asking you to throw money into a pit. Instead, we
ask for VA to be run efficiently with proper oversight. That is not too
much to ask. Above all, veterans must come first.
Before I conclude, I would like to discuss one related issue that is
before your Committee, the Veterans Choice of Representation Act. This
bill would allow veterans to hire lawyers when first filing a disability
compensation claim, something that they're prevented from doing now. At
first blush this sounds like a great idea, but it is something that the
VFW is greatly concerned with. In fact, at our recent National
Convention, our membership voted in strong opposition to this proposal.
Before embarking on the path which has brought me to this office, I
served as a service officer in Alaska for over twenty years. It is a
profoundly rewarding job, and one that I look back on with great
fondness. There's a lot of satisfaction in helping a disabled comrade
get treatment and compensation for his or her injuries. I fear that
passage of this bill would dramatically change the non-adversarial
relationship for the worse. The system, while not perfect, is intended
to serve veterans sympathetically and efficiently at this initial level.
This law, we fear, would result in less timely service of claims, and
would provide program administrators with justification to ratchet back
the service and assistance they provide, harming veterans who choose not
to or cannot afford to spend money on a lawyer.
The problem with the current system and the backlog is not because of
the lack of legal representation, but because a lack of funding. The
numbers we toss around for funding or caseload aren't just numbers.
They are real people, people who have worn the uniform of this great
nation, their survivors and their dependents. It is sometimes hard to
keep this fact in mind. That is exactly why I've charged my
organization with putting `` Veterans First.'' Everything the VFW does,
and everything that this Committee undertakes must be done with this in
mind.
I challenged the great men and women of the VFW to put `` Veterans
First,'' and I charge you with the same, for they are who we truly
serve, and who we must put first in our hearts and priorities.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today, and I will be happy
to respond to any questions you may have.
[The statement of Gary Kurpius appears on p. ]
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony. That was our
second bell. I will recess the Committee and we will return after this
one vote to take up testimony. The Committee stand in recess for about
15 minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Miller. [Presiding] I call this hearing back to order, taking over
the chair in the absence of the Chairman, who had to go to Energy and
Commerce to make a vote. He will be back sometime a little later. We
appreciate your indulgence, as we all had to go to a vote.
Next up, Amvets' National Commander, Mr. Tom McGriff, the man who spent
many a day aboard a submarine named after an extinct fish. You are
recognized, sir.
STATEMENT OF TOM MCGRIFF
Mr. McGriff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee.
Earlier this month, we paused to remember those who lost their lives on
September 11th. The attacks against the World Trade Center, the
Pentagon, and the failed attempt in Pennsylvania began a new era in
American history. Since that horrible day, this nation has been engaged
in a different kind of war. When our troops return home with physical,
psychological wounds, we have a great moral obligation to care for them.
I sincerely believe that an elected official has no greater duty than to
provide for those who have bravely defended our nation, and our
freedoms. Mr. Chairman, the focus of today's hearing is to look at what
the Committee has accomplished this year, and look ahead to next year.
We certainly thank the Committee for its work in passing measures aimed
to restrict protest at military funerals, enhance servicemen's life,
provide veterans with a COLA, improve veterans' housing, and strengthen
the VA's information technology, and other matters.
But I think it is more important to look at where we are today and
examine the areas that need to be improved. I will focus my remarks on
four issues: assured funding, veterans' mental health, the claims
backlog, and the veterans' attorney legislation.
First with assured funding. Every time we send our young men and women
into combat, we are asking them to make a huge sacrifice. Their lives
and their health care are the real follow-up cost to any war. The VA
budget for fiscal year 2007 was a step in the right direction, but it
does not go far enough to meet the needs of all veterans. Members of
Congress touted that this is the first year the Independent budget has
been used to tabulate the VA's budget.
I ask why? The Independent budget has been in existence for over 20
years, and has proven time and time again to be the most accurate
estimate of VA's funding requirements. If you are to be serious about
meeting the needs of veterans, use the Independent budget figures in
fiscal year 2008.
Veterans' health care is an ongoing cost of war, and should be treated
as such. Access to quality health care has been compromised by budget
shortfalls, rising medical costs and a sharp increase in demand for
services. The current discretionary funding formula pits VA against
other agencies and billions in pork barrel projects. We believe the
system needs to be fixed through assured funding.
Contrary to some beliefs, Congress would not lose oversight if assured
funding was put in place. Congress would retain its supervision of VA
programs and additionally, VA would still be held accountable for how
its funds are being spent and how well its programs are managed. In
fact, most federal health care programs are funded through mandatory
funding. Isn't it only fair to put our nation's sick and disabled
veterans on the same level as these other entitlements?
Second, our veterans' mental health services. Operation Enduring
Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom have resulted in the deployment of
hundreds of thousands of troops since 2002. Approximately one third of
returning military personnel will need mental health treatment. For
those who served in Iraq, 35 percent requested mental health services
one year after deployment. We have learned from past conflicts that war
has long-lasting psychological effects. But getting a handle on PTSD
and other disorders is tremendously difficult. The effects vary for
each person. Some never show symptoms, others show them immediately.
Unfortunately, VA has had an uneven record of service to veterans with
mental health needs. VHA must invest resources in programs that aid
patients' recovery rather than managing and treating symptoms. VA
should develop a continuum of care that includes case management,
rehabilitation, peer support, work therapy, and other support services
with an overarching goal of recovery. Additionally, VA must work hand-
in-hand with DoD to help returning servicemembers get their mental
health treatment.
We applaud Congress for putting into place special safeguards to ensure
VA gives priority to veterans with idle illnesses. But more needs to be
done. I encourage this Committee to continue its efforts to help VA
assist veterans on the long road to recovery.
Third, our claims backlogs. The VA continues to experience challenges
processing veterans' disability compensation and pension claims. The
backlog is at a critical stage, with significant errors numbering
100,000 per year. The average claim takes more than six months to
complete, and appeals of denied claims can take as long as three years.
Also, many experienced claims processors are reaching retirement age.
According to VBA, it takes two to three years of experience for claims
processors to achieve a fully productive level of expertise. Currently,
about half of VBA's staff has 3 years or less of decision-making
experience. VBA needs to tackle this problem now, and Amvets believes
VBA is capable of reducing backlogs and improving error rates, but only
if and when new technology, better training, more staff, and real
accountability is implemented. That takes time and money. Not budget
cuts and staff reductions, which have been proposed in recent budgets.
In fact, Amvets is so passionate about looking at claims and other VBA
challenges, we are hosting a National Symposium for the Needs of Young
Veterans in mid-October. The Symposium's goals are to reach a consensus
on the key problems facing veterans, offer solutions that will modify
the system, and suggest how to enhance benefits for the National Guard
and Reservists. In November 2006, the Symposium will publish an action
plan that will prioritize the steps needed to provide a modern benefits
program and an effective delivery system. If you are concerned about
the future of veterans' benefits in America, I encourage you to support
us in this endeavor and study our action plan. I am confident the
symposium will provide Congress and VA with a report that will improve
the system now and into the 21st century.
Lastly, the Veterans Choice of Representation Legislation. Amvets has
serious concerns about the House and senate bills. As you know, the
Senate passed their version with a number of veterans benefits
enhancements attached to it. We support the added language now
contained in the Senate bill, except the attorney provision.
VSOs provide, free of charge, excellent representation to any veteran,
member or not, within the community. Amvets has specially trained
representatives stationed around the country to assist veterans wanting
to file a claim. We have access to the VA system, know exactly who to
contact, and are acquainted with the people who make the decisions. We
feel we provide a greater and more efficient service than any lawyer
could.
If attorneys are allowed into the system, it would overturn veterans'
protections that have been in place since the Civil War. It will not
improve the procedure, or make it more efficient; just the opposite
would be true. The benefits system was designed to be an open, informal
process. Adding lawyers to the mix will create a potentially hostile
situation between the veteran and the VA. Furthermore, the VA can't
handle lawyers. Most lawyers do not have an understanding of veterans
law, the vast VA bureaucracy, or even know what is rightfully due to the
veteran. VA will no doubt be bombarded with calls from legal aids
wanting to know exactly how the VA works and how to navigate the system.
VBA is financially strapped as it is, and claims backlogs continue to
grow without this added burden.
I suggest the Committee explore ways to reduce pending cases by fixing
staff shortfalls, improving training programs, and holding claims
processors accountable for the quality of their work. This is what is
going to reduce the backlog, not attorneys.
One last point I will mention, Mr. Chairman, is the yearly VSO
testimony. As you know, the VSOs traditionally presented our agenda
before a joint meeting of Veterans Affairs in the springtime. Last
year, joint hearing were dissolved in favor of a full Committee hearing,
but it was held just days after the President released his budget
proposal. This is clearly not enough time to review a budget as complex
as the VA's. While funding for VA is one of Amvets' top priorities, our
annual testimony addresses issues that go above and beyond the matters
of just the budget.
I am certain the Committee wants complete and accurate views from the
veterans community when it looks at the agenda items for a new Congress,
which is why we ask these important hearings continue next year. But
please schedule them in March, so we can provide you with a thorough
assessment from our organization.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, Amvets looks forward to working with you and
the Committee to ensure the earned benefits of America's veterans are
strengthened and improved. This concludes my testimony. Thank you again
for the opportunity to appear here before you today, and I will be happy
to answer any questions that you may have.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. McGriff. We appreciate your testimony.
[The statement of Tom McGriff appears on p. ]
STATEMENT OF BRADLEY S. BARTON
Mr. Miller. We will move to Bradley Barton, National Commander,
Disabled American Veterans. Commander, you are up.
Mr. Barton. Mr. Chairman, members of the Veterans Affairs Committee, on
behalf of the more than 1.3 million members of the Disabled American
Veterans, I am honored to appear before you today to discuss the state
of Veterans Affairs for the current fiscal year and upcoming year.
For more than 30 years, I have been active in supporting DAV's mission
of building better lives for our nation's disabled veterans and their
families. And since my retirement from the legal profession, fulfilling
that mission has been a full-time job for me. My fellow disabled
veterans have placed their confidence in me as the National Commander,
to carry their message to Congress and to the American people, and I
will not let them down.
As the current fiscal year draws to a close, we hear from VA officials
around the country that health care funding shortfalls continue to
hamper their ability to care for sick and disabled veteran. They are
unable or unwilling to hire the needed medical staff in large part
because of problems with their current budget process. But just days
before the new fiscal year, the VA still does not have an appropriations
bill. For years, the DAV has voiced our concerns that the current
budget process is a failure. It fails to serve veterans, it fails to
serve the VA, and it fails the American taxpayer.
It is impossible for the VA to plan for the coming fiscal year, when it
does not know what its budget will be, or when it will get its
allocation. And that is no way to run the second largest federal
agency, with the country's largest integrated health care system.
The VA simply cannot function properly under those conditions. Although
the proposed VA budget for fiscal year 2007 comes close to the levels
recommended by the DAV and other co-authors of the Independent Budget,
an additional $2 billion in discretionary funding is needed. We are
also very concerned about another tightfisted budget for fiscal year
2008, and its impact on the needs of our nation's veterans.
For years, the DAV has been fighting to make sure that veterans' health
care is adequately funded, and that those funds are available on the
first day of the new fiscal year. Chairman, I call upon you to join the
DAV and the entire veterans community in an open and frank discussion of
the current VA appropriations process, and how that process might be
improved to better serve our nation's sick and disabled veterans.
I will now turn my attention to an issue of great importance to the DAV,
and those veterans seeking benefits from the VA. Recently, the Senate
passed S. 2694, which would permit attorneys to charge veterans for
services rendered in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of
their VA claims. There are also two bills in the House that would allow
attorneys to charge veterans a fee to represent them. H.R. 4914,
introduced by Congressman Lane Evans, and H.R. 5549, introduced by
Congressman Jeff Miller.
The DAV firmly believes that allowing attorneys to charge a fee to
represent veterans would not be in the best interests of the veterans,
and would be detrimental to the VA as well. As an attorney and a
veteran, who has considerable experience with the VA claims process, it
is difficult to see how allowing attorneys to charge for their services
will improve the situation.
What ails the VA claims system has nothing to do with who veterans
choose to represent them. The real issues are the timeliness and
accuracy of the decisions handed down by VA claims workers. I can
understand why some attorneys advocate changing the system, and some
veterans honestly believe that they would receive better representation
by attorneys. But empirical data from the Board of Veterans' Appeals
tells that attorneys have a lower average allowance rate than veterans'
service organizations.
Veterans who fought for our country should never have to fight their
government to get the benefits a grateful nation has provided for their
sacrifices and service. Congress itself intended that these benefits be
provided with a minimum of difficulty. It is important to understand
the differences between the VA process and litigation. In the VA
process, its employees counsel veterans on their eligibility for
benefits. The VA will assist the veteran in completing and filing the
relatively informal application for benefits. The VA also takes the
initiative to advance the claim through the process, and Congress placed
the duty on the VA to ensure that all laws and regulations pertinent to
the case are faithfully applied.
Admittedly, the VA has often fallen short. The VA sometimes denies
veterans claim erroneously, even arbitrarily. Veterans sometimes do
have to fight the bureaucracy to obtain what they are clearly due.
However, regular involvement of lawyers in the claims system would turn
the informal pro-veteran process into a formal, legalistic, and more
adversarial one.
The VA would have to devote a whole legion of employees just to review
attorney fee agreements, for example. And the overall increase in
administrative costs might have to be paid for by reducing veterans
services elsewhere. A far better use of the VA's already limited
resources would be to hire more claims workers, and provide intensive
training to improve the quality, as well as the timeliness, of
decisions.
The VA also must enforce uniform quality standards through more
effective management, and exercise real accountability at all levels.
More timely medical examinations and better information sharing between
the Veterans Benefits Administration and the VA health care facilities,
are also needed.
Only when the VA has taken these steps, and Congress provides the
necessary resources, will veterans receive the level of service they
deserve. The VA's objective and its duty is to provide timely, accurate
decisions on veterans' claims. As you know, Congress deliberately
designed the VA administrative claims process to be non-adversarial, and
veteran-friendly. Disability compensation and other benefits for
veterans and their families should go to the intended beneficiaries, not
lawyers.
By passing a measure allowing lawyers to charge for claims assistance,
this Congress would be admitting that it is unable to perform its
oversight role to ensure that the VA claims system works as intended.
The argument that veterans should have a choice to be represented by a
lawyer ignores the intent of Congress that the VA provide all entitled
claimants with all benefits affordable under the law.
As an attorney, I know firsthand how lawyers are trained, and how they
think and react in the legal arena. Believe me, this is not what you
want for the VA claims process. Enactment of these bills would
profoundly change the claims process to the detriment of the veteran.
We believe there is a potential for wide-ranging, unintended
consequences, that will benefit neither veterans, nor the government.
DAV delegates to our national convention in Chicago, August 12 through
15, unanimously passed the resolution opposing passage of this
legislation. The DAV does not stand alone in its opposition to these
bills. This legislation is also opposed by the veterans of foreign wars
of the United States and Amvets, and several other military and veterans
organization. And I remind you, the VA itself is opposed to this ill-
advised change in the law.
We therefore call upon the members of this Committee to oppose the
legislation that would remove the restriction on lawyers charging a fee
to prepare, present, and prosecute claims for veterans' benefits.
And on another very important matter, Chairman, I hope that you will
give serious consideration to the DAV's request to present our national
legislative agenda to a joint session of the House and Senate Veterans
Affairs Committees on February 27, 2007.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my testimony. Thank you for allowing me
this opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the Disabled American
Veterans to share our views on the state of Veterans Affairs. Thank you
also for all that your Committee has done, and all that you will do for
veterans in the future.
[The statement of Bradley S. Barton appears on p. ]
STATEMENT OF THOMAS ZAMPIERI, PH.D.
Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Barton. We appreciate your testimony today.
And continuing to move along, because we have a pretty healthy list, we
would like to ask the director of government relations for the Blinded
Veterans Association, BVA, Dr. Thomas Zampieri, if you would please
proceed.
Dr. Zampieri. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman and members of the House Veterans
Affairs Committee, on behalf of the Blinded Veterans Association, we
appreciate this opportunity to present our views today, and a look-back
at 2006, and the priorities for 2007.
This year, BVA has become increasingly frustrated by the lack of
significant changes in the VA's ability to provide a full continuum of
blind outpatient rehabilitative services. Before getting into that,
though, I want to bring up a couple cases that have caused us a great
deal of alarm.
Recently, we found out that we are starting to find individuals in
different medical hold companies in different locations around the
country. OIF and OEF servicemembers who have had severe eye injuries,
or have in some cases been blinded in combat have been put in medical
hold companies, and the VA has never been notified of their existence.
We recently found a 22-year Navy corpsmen who had been in the Navy
reserves, who was down at Camp Lejeune, and he was down there in medical
hold for four months. He was discharged September 8 back to his
hometown in Ohio, and his instructions were, `` When you get home, find
the closest VA hospital and try to get an eye clinic appointment.''
We also found an active-duty Army Sergeant Major at Fort Bragg, North
Carolina, who had had traumatic brain injury, and was legally blind.
And much to our surprise, we found him on ABC evening news when they
were doing the story about the reduction in funding for the traumatic
brain injuries Center at Walter Reed. Well, surprise, we found that
that he has also never been referred to the VA, even though he is about
to be discharged in October.
And then yesterday, I find an individual, an Air Force servicemember out
in Colorado who was blinded in July, was discharged recently home to
California. Again, the VA was never notified.
These cases should begin to demonstrate our complete lack of confidence
in the seamless transition, and makes me wonder what kind of complete
disconnect there is between DoD and VA. We hear here frequently about
how we have placed case managers at DOD facilities from the VA, and the
VA comes in and testifies about how they are able to track these
individuals, and these are just three examples, and I could give you
about eight more, of cases that we recently have found that have fallen
through the cracks.
In regards to traumatic brain injury, which I mentioned, this is a
serious problem that is going to be confronting everyone. As of January
14, 2006, DOD reported over 11,852 of the returning wounded
servicemembers had been exposed to IED blasts, or other types of
explosion. With this came the report that over 1800 servicemembers are
now diagnosed with traumatic brain injury from Walter Reed. They admit
that this is the signature injury of this war. And the complications
from blast-related injuries can be anywhere from mild, to moderate, to
severe.
In our case, we are extremely worried because epidemiological research
studies have shown that about 24 percent of all TBI patients have visual
disorders. Some of these are extremely subtle, but they can have a
major impact on the individual. Blurred vision, double vision, problems
with distance, being able to read and interpret print; all these things
can affect them long-term.
We are concerned about the lack of screening of those at risk of TBI,
and would urge this Committee to ensure that both DoD and VA medical
staff have training on identification, diagnosis, and appropriate
management of TBI.
We also supported fully the Senate defense appropriations of $19
million, the amendment that was approved recently, and hope that the
House will also approve this.
Recently, Harvard and Columbia Universities took a look at where we are
headed at, and the estimated cost of medical treatment for TBI
servicemembers. In the next 20 years, the VA could face $14 billion in
estimated expenses associated with traumatic brain injuries.
We also are concerned we found recently, between March of 2003 and April
of 2006, that Walter Reed Army medical center has now publicly admitted
that 16 percent of all servicemembers evacuated from Iraq had eye
injuries; that they had treated over 670 soldiers with either blindness
or moderate to severe visual injuries, and that the naval national
Medical Center had operated on over 360 Navy or Marine Corps personnel
who had had eye injuries.
Much our surprise though, they refused to provide this information to
the Department of Veterans Affairs, even though we had a meeting out
there a couple of weeks ago, because they said, `` We have concerns over
HIPAA, so we don't want to release these individuals' names, Social
Security numbers, and information to the VA.''
It is just astounding to us, not only from a standpoint of that
statement, but also that the VA's computer system won't be able to
access their inpatient medical records, because the computer systems
currently, at this stage, can only access four things, which are
outpatient type of items such as pharmaceuticals, outpatient labs, and
some other information.
We wonder where this is going. For the full continuum of care, Blinded
Veterans Association has constantly worked with this Committee, and with
the VA, on trying to get improved resources for blinded veterans, and
especially those older veterans who have age-related visual impairments.
The GAO testified in front of this Committee in July 22, 2004, saying
that the VA needed more additional outpatient resources, for the full
continuum of care. The VA visual impairment advisory board has examined
and looked at this issue internally since then. They have made
recommendations. The VA did an internal GAAP analysis, which looked at
what current services were available, and they found in the middle of
all this, with the large numbers of returning casualties with eye
injuries, that 80 VA medical centers currently, according to the VA's
own internal GAAP analysis, have no basic outpatient blind services for
veterans.
Only 14 medical centers in the entire system can provide the full scope
of advanced blind rehabilitative services. The VA visual impairment
advisory board also looked at the financial projections for expansion of
low vision services, and issued a report in November of 2005, that the
total costs to implement a cost effective outpatient blind
rehabilitative services would be less than $14 million. To this date,
though, only one new outpatient program has been established since July
22, 2004, when GAO testified before this Committee.
We would strongly like to urge that this Committee pass H.R. 3579, the
blind rehabilitative outpatient specialist, that this bill would provide
would make a substantial step towards the right direction in providing
more outpatient services at VA medical centers.
Currently, three out of the four VA polytrauma centers didn't have a
blind specialist on their staff, even though they are supposed to have
full multidisciplinary staff at those centers. Until just recently,
this spring, did they hire any of these individuals.
There are two programs that help not only would with the traumatic brain
injuries screening, but also with the older, aging population with
visual impairments. One is a VISOR program, which is a Visual
Impairment Services Outpatient Rehabilitative program. And the other
one is a low-vision optometry program; Visual Impairment Centers To
Optimize Remaining Sight, called VICTORS. Both of these programs are
outpatient programs. They are operated with the intent of being able to
not only provide the full scope of services for outpatients, but also to
be able to provide follow-up care for those veterans who need further
care.
Most of these programs are extremely cost effective, and yet we have
been unable to get the funding to establish 18 of these programs, which
would be $9.5 million. We wonder, then, when we hear about the robust
budget, where the money is?
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to testify here today on
these critical issues, and will be happy to answer any questions that
you have.
[The statement of Tom Zampieri, Ph.D., appears on p. ]
STATEMENT OF SGT. MAJ. GENE OVERSTREET
Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Doctor. We'll move along to the Non-
Commissioned Officers Association of America. Sergeant Major Gene
Overstreet. Sergeant Major.
Sgt. Maj. Overstreet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members
of the Committee. We are pleased to be here before you today, before
this Committee, and to share some of our perspectives on the VA, as we
look forward and look back. Thank you for implementing our written
record into the testimony, sir.
The association is grateful for you holding this hearing. We think it
evidences the genuine concern, as you look at the programs and resources
provided by the VA. We also think that it weighs the future financially
for the years in the future accordingly. This must be done to ensure
that the resources and priorities are in place to honor this nation's
institutional commitment to those who have served in the military.
Please note that I emphasize for the VA to honor all our nation's
commitment to those who have served. All those who have served. We
cannot forget the service and sacrifices of our earlier generations, as
well as that are serving today.
The honoring of the commitment to the military members and their
families, and our survivors, with appropriate benefit health care, all
the way from when they separate or when they go on active duty, all the
way to the gravesite.
As you can see today, I am joined by a lot of veterans here. I had the
opportunity to introduce the President of the United States a couple of
years ago at Arlington Cemetery. And I said to him and all those great
veterans that were watching that preceding, that `` You know, I have a
friend in San Diego. He is a retired Marine. He is a Sergeant Major.
And every time he introduces himself, he will tell you that he is a
Marine. He will tell you that he is retired. But the very next word
out of his mouth, he will tell you that he is still serving.'' Sir,
ma'am, if you look around this room, all these veterans are still
serving. We have a lot of veterans across this great country that are
still serving, and that is why I say let us honor all those who have
served in the past.
As we enter the second session of the 109th Congress, the nation's
military force has more servicewomen and men deployed in the war on
global terror, and more military forces from the Reserve and Guard
members on active duty, for longer periods of time, of any time since
World War II. Most of them have deployed more than once. As a matter
of fact, if the Chairman was here, he would suggest, after he went over
there, most of them have served three, and even on their fourth tour, as
they go. And every one of them, every enlisted member, who will hold
their right hand and swear to affirm the words of the military oath of
enlistment--simple words, but very profound--to provide the very essence
of service for every military man and woman, other ultimate declaration;
these 12 words: `` to support and defend the Constitution of the United
States.''
I would submit to you, sir, that nowhere in there--and I've said this
before and I will say this again--that there are any qualifying remarks
in there about `` if resources are available,'' or `` if we had the
money to take care of you.''
I would also suggest to you, sir, every time, from the newest recruit,
to that Sergeant Major, or colonel, or general, that retires at the
other end, I would suggest to you that they think, when they raised
their hand and say those words, that they are going to get the best
equipment, and the best training that this nation can offer. I would
also say to you, sir, if one of them should fall in the line of duty,
that this institution will support those veterans, from a grateful
nation, for them and their survivors, regardless of what that is. Like
you and every veteran in this room today knows the freedom enjoyed by
all Americans has a price, this nation's commitment to care for them who
have borne the battle, their widow and their orphans; I would suggest to
you, sir, that is the payment.
Today, we focus on a look-back and a look-forward, to meet the needs of
America's veterans as we move forward in time. First of all, sir, I
would suggest to you that productivity enhancements of information
technology and artificial integration are still not online to work
benefit claims. The claims backlog will further extend the claim
timeline for processing. Sir, we need to hire a full-time employee to
fill our perceived void. Those timelines continue to get longer and
longer for claims processing all the time.
The IT, we want to put a Band-Aid on this. It is not going to take a
Band-Aid. We fully recognize that it is going to take two to three
years to properly implement that. We think that that is going to happen.
The bottom line is taking care of real live veterans. That is the bottom
line. We suggest that you need to do this. Obviously, there is no
great need or a super-duper IT program that manages efficiencies and
productivity. The issue right now is a process of the high-volume of
claims that we receive. As you know, we got more guard, more reserve,
more whatever. The war is still going on. We recognize that the board
remands and blue water navy OA claims, anticipated blue water navy DIC
claims, and other veterans appeal actions. Let us stop penalizing the
veterans for the untimely final claim processing, because of management
SNAFUs associated with the department's IT program.
Training of all involved in the VBA claim process, to include initial
development of claims, reviewing the claims, submitting the process,
reviewing telephone representatives and service; Make sure that they are
accurate in giving good information. Train to me to qualify-able
standards. We must do this to reduce the backlog. NCOA does not
believe that the VA is adequately funded to complete its mission.
Veterans sick in VA health care and services for the first time are well
above projections. The war is not ended. More veterans are expected.
NCOA recognizes the fragmentation as it occurs in health care.
Scheduling delays, past attempts to disenfranchise veterans from user
fees, higher co-pay, locking out veterans. Systems are signal of an
underfunded discretionary health system. NCOA believes that it is time
to make the VA health care system mandatory funding.
Clearly, pressing issues for the VA today is their budget, and their
staff. We all understand that and know that. We need to establish
long-overdue Medicare plus choice programs. NCOA has not forgotten the
2002 vision of the Department of Veterans Affairs to bring subvention
funding. Nor have we forgotten the envisioned income stream from TRICARE
for medical reimbursement of non-service-connected health care by
medical retirees, and possible dependants where feasible.
It is time to review these efforts and enhance the funding capability of
the VHA. Secure maximum reimbursement from insurance programs for those
served by the VA health care system. Health care appointments, quality
standards, for those returning from OIF and OEF, have not really been a
hard difficult to secure appointments for entering the health care
system. However, there is a severe shortage of mental health care staff
managing existing patients. Far less returning from OIF OEF veterans,
who are required specifically as it is related to PTSD or other mental
health, shortage of mental health bed spaces for PTSD, substance abuse,
alcohol abuse, drugs, suicide; there is a severe shortage of those.
Homeless veterans are a raising number of veterans being identified as
homeless in America. Recent numbers project as much as 190,000.
Whereas, we are going to have a shortfall not to be able to take care of
that many veterans.
You know, only a couple of years ago, we were arguing that it was less
than 150,000. Within a year and a half, now, we are over 190,000. What
a shame. Growing numbers from OEF are part of those numbers, as well,
and that is really pushing the numbers up. That is evidence by the
report from the GAO.
As we conclude today, sir, recently in--certainly not our last
recommendation--Mr. Chairman, and members of the House Veterans, we
place before you two concerns for your support as the VA moves forward.
First, VA needs to secure its role in the medical research and
development for programs designed for seriously war-injured--I say
again, seriously war-injured. These programs would include research
into the evolving new medical intervention and treatment of traumatic
brain injuries, and rehabilitation models for brain injuries.
You may not want to hear this, but NCOA strongly is convinced that the
administration in the VA should be an advocate for those medical
research to pursue stem cell research for amputees, spinal cord injury,
and nerve cell functional integration.
We suggest unless you do that, some veterans are going to be left
behind. Second, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, NCOA believes
that your efforts are needed to convince the Armed Forces Service
Committee to revisit the health care record problem. VA has developed a
nationally acclaimed computerized patient records system. It is a great
system. The VA model could be tweaked for additional military data to
include toxic exposures to meet DoD requirements, and all of the other
requirements that they have. We have a good model on the ground right
now that we know that works. Rather than someone creating their own
paradigm that don't link up to the VA, and we can't even transfer the
records from one to the other, and that is, you know, we're leaving a
lot of people out of the system like that.
We think, let us take a system that is a proven system, and develop it
for both, because we think it will work for both. They have an
effective medical record that can be communicated around the block or
around the world at the same time. What does this do for seamless
transition? This makes a seamless transition much easier and much more
seamless than it has ever been before.
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Committee, NCOA thank you for
this time, and appreciates the invitation to appear before you.
[The statement of Sgt. Maj. Overstreet appears on p. ]
The Chairman. [Presiding] Thank you very much.
The members were going to be in session until probably very late on the
29th, which is next Friday, which means a lot of the Committees are
doing markups on a lot of different bills and trying to gain access to
the floor prior to the 29th, so I just want to let you know why members
are not here, and coming and going. We are having a markup on NIH, in
the Commerce Committee, which I am also a member, so I apologize for my
absence.
I had, last night, the opportunity to read your testimonies. And let me
compliment you on the substantive nature of your testimony, and also the
oral presentations. We, in our negotiations at the moment with the
Senate on pending bills, I have to go deep and into a narrow lane,
quickly.
So as I understand, let me make sure I can get this correct. With
regard to the issue on attorney representation in the claims process,
VFW opposes? Is that correct?
Mr. Kurpius. Correct.
The Chairman. Amvets opposes?
Mr. McGriff. Correct.
The Chairman. DAV opposes?
Mr. Barton. Wholeheartedly.
The Chairman. All right, that is not an undecided. Wholeheartedly
opposes?
Mr. Barton. Opposes, yes.
The Chairman. Okay. And Mr. Barton, your organization? I am sorry,
Mr. Barton opposes. Dr. Zampieri?
Dr. Zampieri. We oppose it.
The Chairman. Blind Veterans opposes. NCOA?
Sgt. Maj. Overstreet. We do not oppose it, sir.
The Chairman. ``We do not oppose,'' that is a double negative, Sergeant
Major. Do you support Larry Craig's position, the Senate position?
Sgt. Maj. Overstreet. We support the legislative position.
The Chairman. Okay, you support the legislative position.
All right, now let me go to the testimony of the four that oppose. With
regard to a bill, Mr. Evans' bill that would--let me get the accurate
language. Mr. Evans' approach would be an attorney could enter the
process after a notice of disagreement has been issued. Would that
change the position of the VFW at all? Would you still oppose?
Mr. Kurpius. Still opposed.
The Chairman. Amvets?
Mr. McGriff. Amvets is still opposed, sir.
The Chairman. DAV?
Mr. Barton. We are still opposed, sir.
The Chairman. Wholeheartedly?
Mr. Barton. Wholeheartedly. Emphatically. Definitely, we are opposed.
The Chairman. All right, that is a lot of adjectives. I got it.
Blinded veterans?
Dr. Zampieri. We would probably support that part of it.
The Chairman. Okay, so if you went with the Evans approach, then you
would support? All right, that is important for us to know.
Sergeant Major, that didn't change your position at all, I know. If you
are hard over on that one, then you would also support the Evans
approach; would that be correct?
Sgt. Maj. Overstreet. Correct.
The Chairman. All right. With the witnesses on the second panel, I
have to go down the same questions, so please prepare for that.
There was a question at the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and
Memorial Affairs when they held an oversight hearing, on the operations
at the Board of Veterans Appeals. The past president of the National
Organization of Veterans Advocates stated, and I quote, `` As
unsophisticated persons, claimants almost invariably lack the skills to
determine what evidence they need to produce. What they need is a set
of skills that experienced lawyers acquire.''
Now, from this statement, I believe the assertion here is that veterans
and survivors are unsophisticated, and require an attorney in order to
receive the benefits from the VA, and that the system today has become
too complex and adversarial. So I would like to know about your
comments with regard to this quote. VFW?
Mr. Kurpius. No, I take exception to that quote completely, if that is
in reference to the veteran or the veteran's family seeking the
entitlement, or towards the representation that we provide. That is not
a true statement. We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, all the
organizations, on training our personnel for representation. And it is
in a non-adversarial position. The attorneys would only clog up the
system so much more.
And I would like to make a statement. We just had our legislative
conference here. And we charged the hill, let us say, with them, and
they made visits to many of the offices. And the lack of knowledge, let
us say, on the individuals who will be deciding this; they weren't
really up to speed on the issue. So if this does come forward, I would
certainly like to see this go to hearings first, if this ever is going
to be acted upon. We have some real concerns with this because the
people were not even aware of it, a lot of the Congressional people.
The Chairman. Amvets?
Mr. McGriff. Mr. Chairman, Amvets is very proud of its Veterans Service
Officer organization. Across this country, we have men that, that is
their life. Their life is veterans serving veterans. They are fully
aware of the ins and outs, and the ways to go through the bureaucracy of
the VA. And their only goal is to get that veteran what may be due to
him. And this is at no charge to the veteran or the veteran's family.
And we spend eight hours a day, five days a week, 52 weeks a year,
serving that veteran.
I don't think you can take a brand-new Jones & Jones Law firm and have
him equally represent a veteran as well as a veterans service Officer
can do it.
The Chairman. If a requirement was added that an attorney would have
some form of certification with regard to the veterans, with the
practice, would it matter?
Mr. McGriff. I don't think so--yes, it would matter. Let me re-answer
that. Yes, it would matter if they had a certification. And there
again, we get into the problem of getting the VA to certify them, and
then there is going to be a cost, a delay, and a time of staff that is
not necessary. Let us take that money to certify them, and hire more
VSOs.
The Chairman. DAV?
Mr. Barton. I would suggest that perhaps lawyers don't really have the
skills to maneuver the VA claims process. I am an attorney and I speak
with some experience in the area. I knew a lot more about the VA and
the claims process as a disabled veteran than I ever knew as an
attorney. Perhaps attorneys would aid them in presenting their
evidence, but I think the empirical data from the Board of Veterans'
Appeals demonstrates that attorneys do not possess any special skills to
make them any more successful than our outstanding group of national
service officers with the DAV. And I think it would be a disservice to
the veteran community to have to pay for representation to obtain
benefits he has already paid the price for in his service and sacrifice
for our country.
The Chairman. Blinded Veterans Association?
Dr. Zampieri. Yeah, we are concerned with, as my distinguished
colleagues here said, in that, you know, I don't come to this with a
legal background, but I do come at it from the standpoint of a medical
background, where specialists are better at taking care of things than a
generalist, depending on the particular problem. And when you get
individuals who are going to be quote, `` vying for business,'' then
you know, the free-market system works very well in individuals being
able to target an audience, so to speak, and get people to sign up for
services without fully realizing that their legal representative is
well-qualified in that area.
And our claims benefits officers do a tremendous job of assisting
veterans with their initial claims, and are very successful in helping
them through the process. And we would have strong reservations about
ensuring that there is strong oversight and safeguards in regards to who
is exactly going to be allowed to do this.
You know, the analogy I use is the plastic surgeon doing one thing, and
a dermatologist trying to do the same procedure, they are just not
trained the same way. And there is a lot of risk out there, and I have
followed what has happened with the asbestos situation, and I think
anyone who has looked at the horror stories out there, where individuals
have cherry-picked large numbers of claims that they figured would have
the best payout, and have manufactured things in order to try to get
large class-action suits settled, makes us very worried and suspicious
of what might happen with this situation.
The Chairman. Given your prior testimony that you would support the
Evans approach, if Congress were to adopt that approach, would you
advocate that the court require some particular types of certification,
or hours of training by a lawyer, in order to practice in that process?
Dr. Zampieri. Yes, I think so. Because it would be at least a
safeguard in making sure that the individual has met certain standards
before trying to accept cases.
The Chairman. Okay. NCOA?
Dr. Zampieri. Before being able to try and take cases, the individual
have to have met certain standards.
Sgt. Maj. Overstreet. Sir, I think our concern is with the veterans
themselves. They are to have the option. It is kind of like being--
going to article 15; do you have opportunity for counsel? Who are you
going to get that counsel from? Chances are you are going to get it
from the first sergeant, you are going to get it from the gunny, you are
going to get it from the sergeant major. You are going to get it from
someone in the pipeline, that is raised in the pipeline, that understand
that.
However, before you go before the Commander, you have the opportunity to
go seek counsel, legal counsel, either military or other. That is their
option. We kind of see us sort of as the same way. Okay, you can go to
the VSO. We have VSOs, we think they do a great job. We are not
suggesting that in the least. However, if the veteran is not satisfied
with the VSO that he has, or with any VSO he talks to, we believe that
he ought to have that option to go seek counsel otherwise.
Now, as far as their training goes, and as far as what they will be able
to do, maybe we need to hold that up to the light and see just how far
they can represent this veteran in his claimeth or whatever, to get it
through the process.
However, when it comes down to that veteran, we think they ought to have
that option, though.
The Chairman. Did all of you present your views and opinions to the
Senate before they voted on this measure?
Sgt. Maj. Overstreet. We did not, sir.
The Chairman. You didn't?
Sgt. Maj. Overstreet. No, sir.
The Chairman. Blind Association did? DAV did? Amvets? VFW?
Mr. Barton. Yes, sir.
Mr. McGriff. I don't believe so.
Mr. Kurpius. They knew that we opposed them, but we did not have an
opportunity to present it to them at the time. They know now that we do
oppose it, now.
The Chairman. Well, all right.
Last comment I have, Sergeant Major, when we were in the theater with
the secretary and Mr. Salazar, and Dr. Boozman, the Marine Corps is
still doing something right. You can spot a gunny from a distance.
Every time I would meet one and walk up to him--there is a cookie-cutter
going on out there. I mean, whatever you are doing to these guys, they
are built right, they sound right, they are leaders, and they are very
impressive in the field. So I extend my complements.
Sgt. Maj. Overstreet. Thank you.
The Chairman. Whatever the basis that you laid continues.
Mr. Filner?
Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your introduction
of these gentlemen. As you read their biographies, it shows us why we
are here. And you could have done the same thing for every man and
woman in the audience, and I appreciate knowing a little bit about their
background. Even the extinct fish one. So thank you for that.
The Chairman gave me a good model, so I will just proceed the same way
with another issue, that is, however you want to define `` assured,''
or `` mandatory funding.'' And as I heard all of you, again, you were
all for it. VFW? Yes?
Mr. McGriff. Absolutely.
Mr. Filner. DAV?
Mr. Barton. Yes, we are.
Mr. Filner. Wholeheartedly?
Mr. Barton. Wholeheartedly.
Mr. Filner. Okay.
Dr. Zampieri. Yes.
Sgt. Maj. Overstreet. Yes, sir.
Mr. Filner. Thank you. So all of these organizations are for mandatory
funding. And I think you have all been through the so called "budget
process." Whoever said it is like watching sausage made had it right.
It is not a very pleasant process. It puts the veterans' organizations
in a sort of a begging situation, which should never be. We should beg
you to allow us to help. But I think we have to get out at it. You
know, we have these arguments about numbers; $2 billion, $4 billion, $1
billion--if we had a formula that everybody accepted, and it was
applied, we would be far better off.
Chairman Buyer suggested it would cost a lot of money. I am not sure
there is agreement on those figures, but I would not let that dissuade
me right now. As I said earlier, when you have a $3 trillion budget and
an $8 trillion deficit, several billions or even tens of billions more
for veterans is not out of our ability, and we should do that.
I thank all of you for talking about mental health. It is an incredibly
important area. We seem to have knowledge of how to deal with the
physical trauma, but I think the mental trauma is still one that we
don't, as a society, or even as a VA, I think want to admit. We know
that is as debilitating as any physical injury. We have to have not
only mandatory counseling, but outreach to the families, and a culture
change which says, `` Hey, it is all right to admit that. You have to
confront it, and deal with it.''
Out in San Diego, which I represent, the Vietnam vets had started a
process which has now culminated in something called the Veterans
Village, which basically institutionalizes the standdowns. It brings
everybody into a secure environment--they started off with just 30 beds.
They will be up to 200 soon, and then 400. Of course, that doesn't
begin to deal with the problem, but they give many veterans security and
safety in terms of housing and comfort, medical, legal, mental health,
job counseling, dental, is all brought into one unit, and we have a
chance to make sure that these brave young men and women can make a
recovery.
It doesn't matter what we thought about the Vietnam War, it doesn't
matter what we feel about the Iraq war. When veterans come home, we
have to make sure they are served. We know how to do it! As moving as
the Vietnam vets' program is out in San Diego--it serves 400--we may
have 200,000 homeless veterans. We should never have to say ``
homeless,'' and `` veteran'' in the same sentence. This nation has
failed, I think, in that area.
Lastly--I want to give a chance for Mr. Michaud for questions--everybody
said, `` accountability.'' That is our job. And you may have used
different words for it, such as `` quantifiable standards,'' to deal
with the claims, for example. This Committee should be working far more
in an oversight capacity. As I said to the Chairman many times, the
process of oversight during the data theft was a model of how the
Committee should work. We worked bipartisanly, we worked strenuously.
We became knowledgeable, and we held people accountable. I think that
is what we have to do in all areas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Michaud?
Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the
panelists, as well.
Because mild traumatic brain injury is not often diagnosed, many
veterans with that condition do not receive treatment. What do you see
as the urgent need to deal with this issue? And the long-term need that
we must do to address TBI? Any one of the panelists?
Dr. Zampieri. Let me take a shot at that. I think that talking to the
providers at Walter Reed and over at that Bethesda Naval Medical Center,
you know, the proposal is four things. One is that, you know, you need
to start educating VA and DoD providers, and being able to, in the
history, being able to find those individuals who have been at high risk
for explosions or blast injuries. And then in the screening process,
educate the providers who are front-line people, and looking for the
subtle types of problems that can manifest themselves. And especially
in regards to--there is a new syndrome out there, Post Trauma Visual
Syndrome, PTVS. And these subtle findings wouldn't be routinely picked
up.
And so the second part of this is having screening centers with
individuals who have had the appropriate training and experience, and be
able to start to track those individuals, and screen them, and then
provide not only care--for example, with a low-vision VA optometrist--
but then provide follow-up.
And then the fourth part of this is the research part, which is looking
at what types of treatments work best. And you know, collecting that
information, and then working towards future better results and
improvements, and therapies.
Mr. Michaud. My second question, quickly, is since we haven't passed
the budget, have any of the VSOs heard from VA staff, regarding the
effect that is having right now; i.e., that they are delaying hiring a
vacant position, or they are not providing services in a timely manner
because they don't know what their budget is going to be? Have you
heard any feedback from the field?
Mr. McGriff. Very little feedback, Congressman. I think what you do is
when they don't have a budget in hand, as in everything gets put on
hold, new hires and things like that get it on hold. But if you really
think about it, though, the pay raises that have been authorized, they
go ahead and go through. So therefore, you have immediately started in
a negative situation. And so then you have to be very careful of your
spending on a continuum-type budget. And so yeah, it does put a strain
on the system. It puts one that is felt all the way down the line.
Mr. Kurpius. Yes, we have heard that matter of fact, the FTE may even
be cut on the BVA side, so there is a real negative there on that
aspect.
Dr. Zampieri. That has been our experience, as well. We are getting
reports from VA facilities across the country that they are having
difficulty in meeting their staff needs because of resources available
to them, which translates to slower service for veteran population.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Ms. Herseth?
Ms. Herseth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having this
oversight hearing. I appreciate the written testimony that all of you
have provided, and I know that in many of these written statements, and
perhaps in your earlier testimony, you reiterated your various
organizations' support for modernizing the Montgomery G.I. Bill, and as
the Ranking Member of the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee, we think
has started to lay some very important groundwork, reaching out to all
of you, some of the field hearings that Mr. Boozman and I have held,
including one in Arkansas earlier this spring; Dr. Snyder's involvement
as a member of the Armed Services Committee as well, in undertaking that
challenging task, but one that I think is very important, particularly
for improving those educational benefits for our active duty military,
as well as the National Guard and reservists who have been deployed at
much higher rates, as you know.
I just have a couple of quick questions. And the first is on
transportation reimbursement for your members. I am hearing even more
not only representing many veterans who are in rural areas, but the
significant costs associated with traveling for specialized care. And
so if you could address that issue, as well as the VR&E program, we have
had a number of hearings, as you know, about recommendations to improve
that program, specifically, move from, you know, refocusing the program
on employment rather than on education. And so has your membership
noticed a difference in the VR&E program, and can you provide us with
any additional recommendations to improve that program?
If you could start with the transportation reimbursement issue, and then
if we don't have time because of votes, if maybe you could just submit
any comments you would like to share in writing to the Committee with
regard to VR&E, in addition to what may have been in your written
statements?
Sgt. Maj. Overstreet. Ma'am, I am from San Antonio Texas. We have a
great VA hospital in the San Antonio area. However, that is the furthest
one south that we have. All of those veterans that are south of San
Antonio, all the way into the valley area, what we call the valley, has
to pay their own way to get up to San Antonio to do their appointments.
We have a couple of buses that try to run there. All the organizations
provide transportation. We provide volunteers, we provide all of those.
However, if it is on the day, your point is on the day where we have no
transportation, the bus is broke, or we don't have a volunteer to drive
it, obviously that appointment gets set to ask. You probably know
already the scheduling problem with the VA to get into the hospital, as
far as that.
So, here is a veteran that can't get there. Whereas, if we did have
some kind of reimbursement for transportation and stuff like that, it
would make it a lot easier for that veteran to schedule his appointment,
schedule his transportation, and be there in a timely manner. So there
is some problems with that. I suggest if there is a way that we could
reimburse their transportation, we would support that.
Dr. Zampieri. Yeah, we would support an increase in the travel
allowance for those veterans that had to travel, you know, long
distances for the outpatient services. You know, the $.11 a mile
reimbursement rate doesn't cover much when the price of gas is $2.90 a
gallon.
Mr. McGriff. And you also had a great differential, also, in what the
IRS or federal rate is for mileage, plus what the VA is for mileage. It
is a vast difference--it is that big. And a lot of this is caused by
the fluctuating gas prices and transportation costs that everybody
encounters. But the big difference between the 46 and a half cents and
the $.11, it grabs you. And that is what a lot of veterans have to
depend on, is the VA reimbursement rate, and it is too low.
Mr. Barton. The DAV recognizes, back in the 1980s when there was a
dramatic change in the transportation for veterans to go to the hospital
for care, and that is when we came up with our program of the van
transportation network. We have transported nine and a half million
veterans since we began our program in 1987. But yeah, anything you
could do to improve that situation would greatly be appreciated by
everyone.
Mr. Kurpius. The veterans of foreign wars would certainly support an
increase in the transportation costs for our veterans, to get back and
forth for the medical exams and treatment.
The Chairman. Ma'am?
Ms. Herseth. I think in light of the time--well, I did put that other
question on the VR&E program, but I think that has been addressed to a
degree in the written statements, and anything else you would like to
add would be helpful. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Two things to cover. Every war, we find something that is out of the
norm that we then have to address. And TBI is the big one in front of
us with the present conflict. To let you know, on the forefront, trying
to get ahead of this one, I have been working with the services on
protective issues, and that is the helmet issue, and inserts.
The Commandant of the Marine Corps, in working with the Commandant, he
made the executive decision that to give the Marines the choice. We, as
a society, even though some had financed some studies, we really don't
know. But some of these inserts--to give you an idea, if you take that
insert and you cut it in half, and you look at the inside, it almost
looks like a human cell, and it is built to absorb energy.
So, as we put all that body armor, you know, the front and side plate,
shoulder plate, neck plate, groin plate, you put on that brand-new
helmet that we've got them, and they strap it on with that football
strap; and that blast comes in and we have got them sitting in a vault
on wheels. There is nothing to absorb that energy, and that energy goes
to where it can be absorbed, and part of it goes up the face, and you
get those maxillofacial injuries, and the eye injuries that we talked
about. And the ear injuries. Then, part of it is absorbed by the
brain, so we end up with these traumatic brain injuries.
So our research with regard to the brain injuries and that care, but
also on the protective side. We are a smart people, and that helmet out
there is the best in the world on ballistics, and it helps them in a
crash. But can we build a helmet that doesn't compromise ballistic
protection, and can give them the blast protection? I don't know. But
it is worth a try. And so I want all of you to know, that is where I am
going, as we look at the other question.
So I will speak with the VA. I want to work with you. I appreciate your
testimony and focus on that issue, and the work that we're doing at the
polytrauma centers. I know you join me in the kudos to the men and
women out there who are caring for those patients.
I agree with Mr. Filner in his comments --I am really proud of the
Committee. We did eight hearings in a six-month time frame. Pretty
hard on VA, on the IT issues, and we have got a product. That product
goes to the House floor next week. So I would ask for all of your
support and advocacy of our product as we then take that up with the
Senate. As you know, last year, we had passed an IT Bill, and there are
no questions on this Committee; it is a bipartisan issue. The Senate
didn't necessarily agree with us, and we ended up in a bad spot. So
please, as we go into this, and you formulate your Independent Budget,
please address a focus on those IT issues. And we want to work with
you. Okay?
Ms. Herseth?
Ms. Herseth. Well, I know we are running close on a vote, but I would
just want to comment for the record, we have to be very clear on the
costs we save in what we do to enhance the quality of care, the
rehabilitative care, beyond 90 days, for these young and men and women
suffering traumatic brain injuries, because improvements are necessary.
I have a constituent who is now getting care in a private facility, and
there were worries that because he hadn't made so much progress after 90
days, even though he wasn't getting his physical therapy every day, even
that he wasn't getting any occupational therapy, no speech therapy, he
has made more progress in 45 days at a different facility, a non-VA
facility. And the cost savings that we can realize, not only the
quality of care that he deserves, but the cost savings of not having a
long-term care situation for these young men and women is very important
as we look at the next budget.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. This panel is now excused. The
Committee will stand in recess. We will reconvene at a quarter after
one.
[Recess]
The Chairman. The Veterans Affairs Committee of the House will come to
order.
Now I introduce panel two. Here representing the Military Order of the
Purple Heart of the United States is Tom Poulter, their National
Commander. Commander Poulter enlisted in the United States Army in
February 1967 and was commissioned as a second lieutenant of armor in
1968. He served in Vietnam as a tank platoon leader with the first
Battalion 69th armor, and was assigned to the fourth infantry division
in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. In November 17, 1969, after battle
with a company-sized enemy force of the 24th North Vietnamese Army
regiment near the Cambodian border, Commander Poulter was wounded in
action by an AK-47 round by the enemy during an NVA counter attack,
while he was dismounted and consolidating his platoon's objective.
Commander Poulter is an active member of the Sonoma County Chapter 78 of
the Military Order of the Purple Heart located in Santa Rosa,
California, where he became a member in 1994. He is a past Commander of
his local chapter, the Department of California, and the Commander of
region six, that includes Guam, Hawaii, California, Arizona, Nevada, and
Utah. Thank you for being here, and congratulations.
Speaking on behalf of The Paralyzed Veterans of America is Mr. Randy
Pleva. Speaking for him is Louis Irvin. Is it Pleva, is that how he
pronounces it, though?
Mr. Irvin. It is Pleva.
The Chairman. Mr. Irvin is PVA's Executive Director. Mr. Irvin served
the United States Navy as a fire control technician, and received a
combat action ribbon during operation Desert Storm. He suffered a
spinal cord injury that ended his military career in 1992, became a
member of PVA in 1994, and began to serve PVA as the National Service
Officer the same year. Four years later, he was appointed to PVA's
national Board of Directors, and in 1999, was accepted to the position
of executive director of PVA's San Diego chapter in California.
Representing the Gold Star Wives is Ms. Rose Elizabeth Lee. Rose is the
widow of Colonel Lee of the United States Army, who served in Korea and
Vietnam. Colonel Lee died on active duty overseas in 1972. In 1978,
Rose was appointed Gold Star Wives' Washington representative, and has
been active through most of that time. Rose is Gold Star wives'
National President from 1991 to 1993, and chaired the Board of Directors
from 1998 to 2002. She just served as Potomac area chapter president
from June, 2004 to 2006. All her work with Gold Star Wives is
voluntary, and her mission is to train the new young widows to become
involved with legislative work. Rose has appeared representing the Gold
Star Wives before this Committee for a number of years.
And I understand that your National President, Ms. Joanne Young, is here
in the audience today?
Ms. Lee. Yes.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your attendance, and I thank you,
and I welcome you both. I also understand that it is your charter that
does not permit Ms. Young to testify, and that is why Rose Lee is
testifying on your behalf. Would that be accurate, ma'am? That is
accurate? All right, thank you.
Here representing the Fleet Reserve Association, representing their
National President is Edgar Zerr, is Mr. John Davis, director of
legislative programs. Mr. Davis this, a former Marine, served in the
artillery unit in the early 1980s, and later received a direct
commission to serve in the Army National Guard. He joined the Fleet
Reserve Association team as director in February 2006.
You know, I am looking for your vast bio for the Vietnam Veterans of
America, and I just cannot find it. Mr. President, you have testified
before this Committee, and we have enjoyed working with you. I just
hate to be redundant, it is so vast. So I will not bore everyone. You
are such a humble man that you have restrained me from reading your bio.
Next, our final witness will be the new National Commander of the
American Legion, Paul Morin of Massachusetts, was elected National
Commander on August 31, 2006. The Commander is a Vietnam veteran of the
United States Army, and an active member of post 337 in Massachusetts.
He has served as department Commander, and as member of the national
commissions, including Children and Youth, Foreign Relations, Public
Relations, and Convention. He has chaired the Veterans Affairs and
Rehabilitation commission, as well as the Legislative Employment
commissions, and served on the Legislative Council and commission.
He was honored in 2001 by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Tony
Principi, with the Secretary's Award for his service to our nation's
veterans while President of the National Associative State Veterans
Homes. In 2002, he was awarded Outstanding Citizen of the Year by the
Samson World War II Navy veterans, and in 2004, received the outside
award from Massachusetts Veterans Service Officers' Association. On
March 31, 2005 he received the distinguished citizens award from the
Grand Lodge Order of the Elks.
So congratulations to all of you, and thank you for being here. Do all
of you have written testimony you seek to submit before the Committee?
All acknowledge in the affirmative. Do you offer such testimony?
All acknowledge in the affirmative, so testimony will be received
without objection. So ordered.
Each of you will be recognized for 10 minutes, and we will give
latitude, and we will start with you, sir. Mr. Poulter, of the Purple
Heart Association.
STATEMENTS OF TOM POULTER, NATIONAL COMMANDER, MILITARY ORDER OF THE
PURPLE HEART; LOUIS IRVIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF
AMERICA; ROSE E. LEE, CHAIR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS COMMITTEE, GOLD STAR
WIVES OF AMERICA, INC.; JOHN R. DAVIS, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS,
FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION; JOHN ROWAN, National President, VIETNAM
VETERANS OF AMERICA; MR. PAUL MORIN, NATIONAL COMMANDER, THE AMERICAN
LEGION
STATEMENT OF TOM POULTER
Mr. Poulter. Chairman Buyer, Acting Ranking Member Filner, members of
the Committee, ladies and gentlemen, I am Tom Poulter, National
Commander of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. It is an honor to
appear before this distinguished body on behalf of the members of the
Military Order of the Purple Heart. As you are aware, our order is very
unique in that among service organizations, the only one, because our
membership is comprised entirely of combat-wounded veterans who shed
their blood on the battlefields of the world while serving in the armed
forces of our country.
I am accompanied today by National Adjutant Bill Bacon, National Service
Director Jack Leonard, and National Legislative Director Herschel Gober.
I have turned in a written testimony, and I will make my comments very
brief, Mr. Chairman, but this Committee is extremely important to the
Military Order of the Purple Heart and our members. We look to you to
represent the veterans of our country and to ensure that all members of
Congress understand that America must keep its promises to those men and
women who have served and are now serving in uniform, if we are to
maintain a viable military and continue to enjoy the freedoms that we
have. Veterans have earned their entitlements and benefits, often as
part and parcel of the contract that each had with this government.
Veterans benefits are not a gift. They are not a welfare program. They
are earned from service to country. They must not be diminished in any
way.
The first point I would like to make is--and it has been covered several
times--is the adequate funding for the VA health administration. The
Military Order of the Purple Heart is on record as supporting the
Independent Budget, which is developed and submitted to Congress by the
Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans
of America, and the Amvets, American Veterans.
I am the fourth National Commander of the Military Order of the Purple
Heart in a row to again stress that our number one priority must remain
the adequate, or assured funding for the VA health administration. The
Military Order of the Purple Heart joins our fellow veterans' service
organizations in urging Congress to find a long-term solution for once
and for all to the annual funding crisis at the VA. VA deserves a
budget system that will deliver funds to them on time, to allow for
long-term planning. While the ongoing war on terror, and our
servicemembers returning home from war with medical conditions requiring
treatment at our VA hospitals, the VA must have the capability to meet
their medical and emotional needs. The funding problem was
demonstrated, of course, last year when the need to provide a
supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 2005 surfaced, along with the
need to amend the fiscal year 2006 budget. So it is really important,
and I think it has been mentioned by every other veterans' service
organization that we get a fix on this.
And the number two item is that the award of the Purple Heart medal to
those POWs who died in captivity. While the award of the Purple Heart
medal to those POWs who died in captivity is not under the purview of
this Committee, the Military Order of the Purple Heart believes that
those military personnel who suffered hardships, wounds, or illnesses,
including starvation, brutality, slave labor, and a lack of medical
care, while held in POW camps, and then they died in those camps as a
result of this internment, should be considered as combat casualties,
and eligible for the award of the Purple Heart medal. Our order has
supported legislation that was introduced to both Houses of Congress,
that would authorize the posthumous awarding of the Purple Heart medal
to these veterans.
Language in the House version of the 2007 national Defense authorization
is currently in conference committee, and the Military Order of the
Purple Heart request that members of this Committee urge the conferees
to retain this provision in the final act.
Next point is retired pay restoration. The Military Order of the Purple
Heart is very pleased that Congress enacted legislation that authorizes
some military retirees with 20 or more years of service to concurrently
receive, without penalty or offset, both their full of military retired
pay, and any VA compensation to which they are entitled. Our position
is that all those eligible for concurrent receipt should receive it.
And going along with that, the Combat-Related Special Compensation,
known as CRSC, our order supports the legislation to provide for the
additional payment of CRSC to former members of the military who were
retired medically, serving less than 20 years of active military service
because they had to be retired on a medical basis, and they are awarded
the Purple Heart medal. A lot of the veterans' organizations ask why we
push those. A lot of our members are in that category. And so CRSC is
very, very important to the members of our order.
Fifth point is the Survivor Benefit Plan, SBP, and the Dependency and
Indemnity Compensation, DIC. SBP was an investment by the member with
their own money. The Military Order of the Purple Heart supports
language in Senate bill 2766, and the 2007 Defense Authorization Act,
which, if enacted, will repeal the reduction of survivor benefit plan
annuities by the amount of the dependency and indemnity compensation,
and will change the effective date of the paid- up coverage for SBP,
bringing it forward from October 1 of 2008 to October 1 of this year,
2006. Survivors of retirees who died but elected to pay into SBP, and
survivors of members who died on active duty, should receive both SBP
and DIC, without the current dollar-for-dollar offset.
This bill is now in the conference Committee. We request that you urge
your colleagues who are serving on the Committee to adopt the Senate
language of S. 2766.
Another point that I wanted to make was on the Stolen Valor Act. The
Military Order of the Purple Heart supported House Bill 3352, and S.
1998, addressing stolen valor. It is unfortunate, especially with our
country engaged in ongoing conflicts, that we have these imposters out
there who fully and knowingly misrepresent their service. Not a matter
of inflating your resume, it is a matter of lying, and misrepresenting
your total service, and any of the military awards that they have
received. This is not just an occurrence now and then, but is
regrettably becoming a huge problem.
This legislation would provide fines and imprisonment for those
wannabees who dishonor the medals for valor and Purple Heart medal, and
those brave men and women who have legitimately received these metals.
The Senate passed Senate Bill 1998 two weeks ago on September 7, and we
would urge the House to do the same. These phonies are taking benefits
away from those who have earned them. Some received VA disability for
no service that they ever had. They get license plates, including the
Purple Heart license plate from the DMV, where they don't have the
people that are trained to look at a DD 214, or a certificate, and it is
a big problem. Now, that particular bill in the House of course was
introduced by Congressman John Salazar, and it has been in the House
Judiciary Committee since July of 2005, last year.
The Military Order of the Purple Heart will continue to seek legislation
that would authorize military exchange and commissary privileges for all
recipients of the Purple Heart medal. This would recognize the
sacrifices of those servicemembers who have given so much for our
country.
The National Purple Heart Recognition Day. As most of you are aware,
the Badge of Military Merit, which is the predecessor of the Purple
Heart medal, was established by General George Washington on August 7,
1782. This is the oldest decoration in the United States. It is the
oldest decoration in the world given to the common soldier. Next year
on August 7, 2007, the Military Order of the Purple Heart is celebrating
its 225th anniversary of this decoration at our 75th national convention
in New Windsor, New York, which is a historic entombment center, and the
last encampment of George Washington's army.
We will be seeking sponsors, cosponsors, in support of legislation to
establish a National Purple Heart Recognition Day, which will honor this
anniversary and those members, past and present, who have been awarded a
Purple Heart medal.
Mr. Chairman, will you sponsor this legislation, and seek cosponsors?
We would be very honored if you would do that.
In conclusion, I would like the members of the Committee to recall the
quotes of two very famous Americans. First of all, General Douglas
MacArthur once said, and I quote, `` The soldier, above all other
prayers, for peace. For it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the
deepest wounds and scars of war.''
And then, President John F. Kennedy said, and I quote, `` Let every
nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any
price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose
any foe, in order to assure survival and success of liberty.''
The Military Order of the Purple Heart supports all of our brave
warriors, both male and female, who serve and fight to protect our
freedoms in the global war on terrorism.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I will be pleased to
answer any questions from the members of the Committee.
[The statement of Tom Poulter appears on p. ]
STATEMENT OF LOUIS IRVIN
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony. Mr. Irvin?
Mr. Irvin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. On
behalf of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, as the new Executive
Director I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today.
In my statements today, I will highlight some issues that have been
submitted in our written testimony.
In May, the House of Representatives approved the fiscal year 2007
appropriations bill that will fund $25.4 billion for VA medical
services. Although this does not quite meet the recommendation levels
of the Independent Budget, we are glad to see that Congress and the
Administration have made a reasonable effort this year to meet the needs
of the VA health care system. We protected appreciate this Committee
and Congress rejecting the proposed enrollment fee and increased
prescription drug copayments recommended by the Administration.
Congress also approved legislation in previous years to establish eight
priority enrollment groups for VA health care. We believe veterans in
category eight should be allowed access to the VA health care system.
Also, veterans with catastrophic disabilities were allowed to enroll in
category four, even though their disabilities were non-service-
connected, and regardless of their incomes. However, they would still be
required to pay all fees and copayments.
PVA believes because of the nature of their disabilities, they require a
lot of care and lifetime of services. Many times, VA is not only the
best resource; it is the only resource for a veteran with a spinal cord
injury. These veterans should not have to pay the fees and copayments
necessary to receive these specialized services.
PVA was pleased that the Committee recommended a significant increase in
funding for medical and prosthetics research in its budget views and
estimates. Unfortunately, the appropriations bill only provided an
increase of 13 million, for a total of 412 million. Research is an
essential mission for our nation's health care system. VA research is
still grossly underfunded in comparison with the growth rate of the
federal research efforts.
One area we remain concerned about is funding for construction projects.
The appropriations bill provides nearly 1.15 billion less than the
Independent Budget recommendations for major construction. The bill
also provides no funding for the new spinal cord injury center in
Milwaukee, Wisconsin, or funding for the replacement medical center in
the Denver, Colorado area.
We would also identify the Committee that in the Denver area, there is a
new spinal cord injury Center to be identified with that medical center.
The appropriations bill also provides 295 million less than the
recommendations for minor construction. Many VA facilities require
significant upgrades and overhauls. The VA appropriations Subcommittees
in the House and Senate insert language in their VA funding reports for
fiscal year 2001 requiring VA to establish centers of excellence to
conduct research in the field of neurodegenerative diseases prevalent in
the veterans population. VA identified two fields of inquiry for these
centers: Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis. The VA then
established the Parkinson's disease research and education clinical
Center, and the multiple sclerosis centers of excellence.
In 2001, these centers represent a successful strategy to focus the
Veterans Health Administration on systemwide service and research
expertise to address the critical care segments of the veteran
population.
Earlier this year, the Senate approved S-2694, that would make permanent
the authorization of these centers. We urge the Committee to adopt
legislation which would codify these centers in Title 38.
PVA is also concerned that the VA continues to experience a serious
shortage of qualified board-certified spinal cord injury positions. In
some VA hospitals, the recruitment of a new chief of service has been
prolonged, with acting chiefs assigned for indefinite periods of time.
We are even more concerned about the continuing shortages of nurses,
particularly in the spinal cord injury units.
PVA believes that basic salary for nurses who provide bedside care to
these spinal cord injured veterans is too low to be competitive with the
community hospitals in the area. This leads to high attrition rates as
these nurses seek better pay in the community. Recruitment and
retention bonuses have been an effective tool for several SCI centers.
Unfortunately, these are localized efforts by individual VA medical
facilities. We believe the veterans health administration should
authorize substantial recruitment incentives and bonuses to retain these
highly professional and qualified nurses.
PVA calls on Congress to conduct more oversight on the VA health care
administration in meeting its nurse staffing requirements for the SCI
units, as outlined in VHA directive 2005-001.
PVA is also concerned with recent trends to reduce the ability of the VA
to provide long-term care to the aging veterans population. The
Veterans Millennium Health Care Act benefit, public Law 106-117,
required VA to maintain its 1998 VA nursing home average daily census
mandate of 13,391 beds. VA's average daily census for VA nursing homes
is projected to decrease to a new low of 9795 beds, in fiscal year 2006.
The VA is ignoring the law, serving fewer and fewer veterans in its
nursing home care program. PVA strongly feels that any repeal of the
capacity mandate will adversely affect veterans, and a step towards
allowing VA to reduce its current nursing home capacity. This is not a
time for reducing VA nursing home capacity, with the increased number of
veterans looming on the horizon for long-term care.
Furthermore, we urge the Committee to conduct an aggressive oversight to
ensure the VA is fully funding statutory obligations to provide long-
term care. PVA would like to offer a view improvements to benefits
provided by VA. PVA members are the number one beneficiary for the
special adaptive housing grant, and the automobile adaptive grant. For
both the special adaptive housing grant and the automobile grant, we
believe an automatic annual adjustment indexed to the rising cost of
living should be applied. Furthermore, the Independent Budget
recommendations recommends the adaptive automobile grant should increase
to 80 percent of the average cost of a new vehicle, to meet the original
intent of Congress, in creating that legislation. The House of Veterans
Affairs Subcommittee on economic opportunity considered H.R. 4791
earlier this year. We hope this Committee will move this legislation
forward.
We have also identified some critical issues for fiscal year 2008, as
requested by you, Mr. Chairman. The Independent Budget for veterans'
service organizations recently began planning for fiscal year 2008 by
developing some critical issues.
First, we believe the adequate funding for veterans health care is
essential, as mentioned by my associates. We continue to stress the
need for budget process reform, removing VA health care funding from the
discretionary process, and making it mandatory.
Second critical issue is mental health care. It has become more
apparent that many servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan
are experiencing psychological disorders. It is imperative that we do
not allow these men and women to slip through the cracks.
Third, as previously mentioned, we have serious concerns about the
construction and infrastructure. VA construction projects have suffered
in recent years as a result of a moratorium on new construction
resulting from the Capital Assessment Realignment Enhancement Services,
the CARES process. This has also left a significant backlog of critical
maintenance and infrastructure upgrades. We hope that this Committee
and Congress will devote serious attention to the infrastructure needs
of VA in the upcoming year.
Once again, this year the claims backlog is one of our critical issues.
We have appreciated this Committee's efforts in recommending an increase
in 200 full-time employees for direct compensation to improve the claims
process. Unfortunately, the military quality of life and Veterans
Affairs appropriations bill does not include additional funding to allow
the VA to hire these staff.
Another continuing issue for the Independent Budget is the seamless
transition of servicemembers. The seamless transition includes not only
health care services, but benefits as well. We are advocating for a
single electronic health record for all transitioning servicemembers, to
ensure that VA and the military can best provide their health care needs
when necessary. We believe the VA electronic health record is the
standard that should be set for all federal health care records.
Finally, Congress should continue to invest much needed resources in the
National Cemetery Administration. With new national cemeteries opening
this year and next, we must ensure that the National Cemetery
Administration can properly maintain these national shrines. In the
end, all veterans and their family members should be provided a
dignified setting in their national or state veteran's cemeteries.
PVA appreciates the opportunity to present our views today, and I will
be more than happy to take any questions. Thank you.
[The statement of Louis Irvin appears on p. ]
STATEMENT OF MS. ROSE LEE
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony.
Ms. Lee, you are now recognized.
Ms. Lee. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Representative Filner, and
members of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. I would like to thank
you for the opportunity to submit testimony to you on behalf of all Gold
Star Wives to review last year and look forward to this coming year. My
name is Rose Lee. I am a widow, and the chair of the Gold Star Wives
Committee on Government Relations.
I wish to thank many Gold Star Wives for attending this hearing today
who are in the audience. You have already acknowledged Joan Young, our
National President. We also have Martha Didamo, our Chairman of the
Board. And then we have some members of the Government Relations
Committee, which included three of the newer widows of the Iraq war. And
then of course, our members of the Potomac Chapter, our local chapter.
They are all back here, and I just want to let them know that we
appreciate them being here.
The Gold Star Wives of America Inc. was founded in 1945, and is a
congressionally-chartered service organization comprised of surviving
spouses of military servicemembers who died while on active duty, or as
a result of a service- connected disability. We could begin with no
better advocate than Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, newly-widowed, who helped
make Gold Star Wives a truly national organization. Mrs. Roosevelt was
an original signer of our certificate of incorporation as a member of
the Board of Directors.
Thank you for this opportunity, and for your continued support of
programs that directly support the well-being of our servicemembers,
widows, and their families. Gold Star Wives applaud the efforts of this
Committee, knowing that together we can continue to make a difference in
the lives of this group, a group that no one would choose to voluntarily
to be a part of. It is imperative that the difficulty of the sacrifice
of our husbands' lives be mitigated to the degree possible by providing
support for the survivors.
There are many issues still pending before the Congress that mean a
great deal to the membership of Gold Star Wives. As we are moving
forward, now is the time to close out some of these legislative issues.
Gold Star Wives has no greater priority than to eliminate the offset to
the Survivors Benefit Plan, SBP, dollar for dollar by the amount of the
Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, DIC, stipend.
You are well familiar with this topic. We have been addressing this
issue for several years, and I want to thank Representative Henry Brown
for introducing H.R. 808 on this issue.
In essence, a servicemember's disability results in voiding or reducing
the benefits that a servicemember purchased from the SBP. While this is
an issue being addressed in conference of the fiscal year 2007 National
Defense Authorization Act, we urge you as individuals, and as the
Committee together, to encourage your colleagues to make this right.
DIC is within your jurisdiction. All we are seeking is to assure that
survivor benefit plan annuities for those eligible will not be reduced
by the amount of dependency and indemnity compensation, to which they
are separately entitled.
This is an issue from last year. It is a current issue. We would urge
your help that this not become an issue for next year, but be resolved
in this session of Congress.
We have been pleased with the interest in the House, and by
Representative Bilirakis in particular, in providing for decreasing the
remarriage age for retention of survivors benefits to age 55. You will
recall that the current public law permits surviving spouses who remarry
after reaching age 57 to retain their VA survivor benefits. It also
provided for a one-year period to apply for reinstatement for those who
remarried before the law was signed, but that period expired in
December, 2004.
Because the retroactive period was limited to one year, and outreach was
limited, many eligible survivors may not have been aware of their
eligibility to be reinstated. Mr. Bilirakis's H.R. 1462 is a bill that
we need to focus on now to address these issues. It is time to get it
done.
We have testified before this Committee previously, and before the
Veterans Disability Benefits Commission, for a review of the DIC
program, to ensure that all veterans' survivors are covered adequately,
and have equity with other federal and military survivor benefits.
There are some widows dependent only on their monthly DIC check, living
below the poverty level. Current DIC is set at $1033 monthly, which is
only 41 percent of the disabled veterans compensation paid by the VA.
Survivors of federal workers have their monthly annuities set at 55
percent of the disabled retirees' compensation. We seek to raise DIC
payments to 55 percent of the current VA disability compensation. That
would improve the DIC payments to $1316 monthly.
As you can see, we are not seeking exorbitant amounts. We are simply
seeking fairness across the government, to modestly help deserving
survivors. Therefore, we again ask the Committee for a review of the
DIC program.
Recently I received this letter, and it reads, quote, `` Thank you for
the requested DIC review. Since my benefits began in 1957, which was
before the SBP was in effect, it seems that the increases in DIC have
not progressed as have other survivor programs. The cost of living has
increased so much, it is extremely difficult to keep up with it. At age
79, I am still working, trying to pay debts, and wondering how to pay
the undertaker. If there is any way we, who are dependent upon DIC
survivors benefits can be of assistance in the execution of this review,
please inform us. Sincerely,'' unquote.
There are inequities among payments for the child survivors that need
attention. The additional monthly $250 Child DAC payment per family
only applies to survivors of deaths after January 1, 2005. This should
be linked to October 7, 2001. We thank Representative Michael Michaud
for introducing H.R. 1573, which provided for this additional payment to
families. It makes no sense that the survivors of those who died first
should be prohibited from accessing a benefit given to survivors of
those who died later in the same war. Thanks to representative Shelley
Berkley for introducing the amendment, which was approved by the House,
to include a COLA for the $250 DIC allowance per family. The lack of
COLA has dropped the value of the allowance to about $240 this year. We
would request the Committee to assure that these inequities be
corrected.
We also seek to provide a dental plan to beneficiaries of the civilian
health and medical program of the Department of Veterans Affairs, CHAMP
VA. With no coverage now, Gold Star Wives seeks for widows and all
CHAMP VA beneficiaries the ability to purchase a voluntary dental
insurance plan. There are a few other issues that need attending that
have been brought to your attention previously. There are widows whose
husbands died in a VA hospital due to wrongful VA hospital care, who
receive only DIC, without any other VA benefits under title 38 U.S. Code
1151. We urge the Committee to support the measures necessary to allow
these widows to be entitled to the CHAMP VA benefit.
We are seeking legislation to remove the disabled under age 65 part B
penalties and interest for late enrollment to CHAMP VA, and promote a
feasibility study to convert VA facilities to long-term care facilities,
which would welcome widows and widowers.
The Chairman. Mrs. Lee, if you could summarize just a little.
Ms. Lee. Yes. I have just a very little, Mr. Buyer, thank you.
Surviving spouses who are on active duty should be able to use the
educational benefit derived from her deceased husband while still
serving on active duty. Currently, the active-duty widow must resign
from the military in order to use the derived educational benefit under
chapter 35.
Not in my written testimony is something about mental health. It is an
issue affecting widows and children. It has become more prevalent
recently. I have heard from new widows about this more and more. VA's
vet centers provide counseling, which is wonderful, but it is not always
nearby. TRICARE does not provide grief counseling, either.
Finally, Gold Star Wives supports the creation of an office for
survivors with the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department of
Defense, to ensure improved delivery of benefits, information, and
benefits to survivors.
In conclusion, we want neither our widows nor their children to be
forgotten. We can understand and encourage your intention to the needed
services of the servicemembers served our country, who may return
wounded, who may gave his life. When the latter occurs, we want you
never to forget the family he leaves behind. They have made their own
personal lifelong sacrifice. We ask again to show the spirit of this
nation by not forgetting these widows, unfortunately whose numbers grew
daily, and their children.
I thank this Committee for opening this opportunity to hear us again,
and allow for further awareness of issues facing survivors daily. We
will be happy to continue to work with the Committee and give our time
and resources on all issues impacting survivors.
Thank you, sir.
[The statement of Rose Lee appears on p. ]
STATEMENT OF JOHN R. DAVIS
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Davis, you are recognized.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, the members of
the Fleet Reserve Association appreciates this opportunity to review the
past fiscal year and look ahead to the next year. The FRA extends
sincere gratitude for the concern, and progress to date generated by the
Committee in protecting, improving, and enhancing benefits that are
truly deserved by our nation's veterans.
FRA appreciates Chairman Steve Buyer and the House Majority Leader
meeting with FRA National President, Ed Zerr, in June, to discuss the
data security problem at the Department of Veterans Affairs. One of the
more worrying aspects of the case is that the data theft was not
reported to the Secretary for two weeks. It was originally reported
that less than 50,000 names were stolen when in fact, a theft of
personal information from the home of a VA employee included more than
26 million veterans, and more than 2 million active duty personnel.
Even though the data was recovered and apparently not accessed, the VA
and congressional oversight Committee should continue to pursue
improvements in the data security at VA. We hope that data theft
security is not like a shooting star in the legislative arena that is
very bright in the beginning, and then quickly burns out and everyone
forgets about it. Even more recent theft apparently indicates that data
security at the VA is going to be an ongoing concern with veterans, with
the news that a computer containing information on up to 38,000 veterans
treated over the last four years at two VA medical centers in
Pennsylvania is missing from the Virginia office of a VA contractor.
If there is any silver lining in this episode, is that upon learning the
computer was missing, the VA took immediate steps to notify the
appropriate senior VA leadership, congressional offices, Committees,
VA's office of Inspector General, and other law enforcement authorities,
including the FBI and Department of Homeland Security.
FRA appreciates the efforts of the House of Veterans Affairs Committee
and its Senate counterpart for their tireless efforts to improve data
security at the Department of Veterans Affairs.
FRA fully supports the legislative effort of this Committee that
culminated in Chairman Buyer's introducing and the full Committee
approving H.R. 5835. The bill aims to create more accountability at the
VA for data security. It would create an Office of Undersecretary of
Information Security, and would require the VA to report to Congress any
data theft, and would provide credit monitoring and fraud remuneration
for affected individuals.
Additionally, the bill would require a study on using personal
identification numbers, rather than Social Security numbers for veterans
benefits. The full House should expedite passage of this important
legislation as soon as possible to give the Senate an opportunity to
pass this legislation for the President's signature before the end of
the 109th Congress.
FRA is mindful that legislation alone cannot fully remedy an internal
bureaucratic culture that gives data security a low priority. But FRA
believes the public expects, and the veterans community demands, that it
is now time for Congress to do their part to help correct this problem.
FRA strongly supports adequate funding for DoD and VA health care
resource sharing in delivering seamless, cost effective, quality
services to personnel wounded while participating in Operation Enduring
Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, other veterans, servicemembers,
reservists, military retirees, and their families. That is why FRA
supports the recent executive order to require federal agencies who
channel health care to work together to implement a standardized
electronic health record.
The agencies, including the VA, will coordinate with the Department of
Defense so that the clinical information can be interchanged
efficiently. A standardized electronic health record will make sharing
information between health care providers more cost effective for
everyone, and will eliminate the cost of record duplication.
FRA also supports H.R. 4992, sponsored by Representative Kelly of New
York. This Bill changes the law to allow the VA to bill Medicare, which
will enable veterans to use Medicare coverage to help them pay their
bills at a VA hospital. It is puzzling to our members why this program
has not been given serious consideration and enacted long ago.
With regard to the VA medical and prosthetic research, the VA is widely
recognized for its effective research program, and FRA continues to
strongly support adequate funding for medical research, and for the need
of the disabled veterans. The value of both programs within the
veterans community cannot be overstated. Noteworthy is the fact that
the fiscal year 2007 proposed a budget for medical and prosthetic
research shows only a slight one percent increase in the most successful
aspect of all VA medical programs. FRA is concerned about relying on
other government agencies to help support and fund important research
related to disabled veterans.
FRA endorses recommendations from the Committee on the budget to convert
veterans health care count from discretionary spending to mandatory
spending. FRA understands the jurisdictional and other challenges
associated with this issue, and believes that veterans' health care is
as important as other federal benefits funded in this manner.
Regardless of the methods used, the association supports any efforts to
help assure full funding for VA health care, to ensure care for all
beneficiaries.
I would like to talk a little bit about claims processing. Claims
processing delays are a continuing concern. VA can promptly deliver
benefits to entitled veterans only if it can process and adjudicate
claims in a timely and accurate fashion. Given the critical importance
of disability benefits, VA has a paramount responsibility to maintain an
effective delivery system, taking decisive and appropriate action to
correct any deficiencies, as soon as they are evident. As stated in our
February testimony, VA has neither maintained the necessary capacity to
match and meet its claims workload, nor correct its systematic
deficiencies that compound the problem of inadequate capacity.
Rather than making headway and overcoming the chronic claims backlog and
consequent protracted delays in claims disposition, VA has actually lost
ground on the problem. The backlog of pending claims is growing
substantially larger. And now even the Court of Appeals of the veterans
claims is experiencing a growing backlog of cases.
FRA commends the Chairman for his statement at the December 8, 2005 year
in on VBA claims processing, and agrees that, `` the increase in
disability claims can be directly related to the increase in U.S.
military operations abroad. Doing more with less is not a strategy for
success.''
An increase in staffing levels within the VBA claims processing system
is essential to moving forward to reduce this backlog.
FRA appreciates Chairman Buyer's and the Committee's interest in the
MGIB reform, and it supports provisions in the Senate version of the
NDAA that allows reservists to draw benefits up to 10 years after
leaving the reserves. Currently, only active-duty members can draw
benefits after service.
The Montgomery G.I. Bill is important, and aids in the recruitment and
retention of high-quality individuals for service in the active and
reserve forces, assists in the readjustment of servicemen and women to
civilian life after they have completed military service, extends the
benefits of higher education to servicemen and women who are not able to
afford higher education, and enhances the nation by providing a better-
educated and productive workforce.
Double-digit education inflation is dramatically diminishing the value
of MGIB. Despite recent increases, benefits fall well short of the
actual costs of education at a four-year public college or university.
In addition, thousands of career servicemembers who entered service
during the VEEP era, but declined to enroll in that program--in many
cases because of government advice, from government officials--have been
denied an MGIB enrollment opportunity.
In addition, the nations active duty guard and reserve forces are
effectively being integrated under the total force concept, and
education benefits under the Montgomery G.I. Bill should be restructured
accordingly.
FRA supports the total force Montgomery G.I. Bill for the 21st century.
The FRA supports integration of active and reserve forces program. The
MGIB program under the title 38 is very, very important, and will
provide an inequity of benefits for services performed, enable improved
administration, and facilitate accomplishments of statutory purposes
intended by the Congress for the MGIB. Currently, mobilized reservists
must leave behind MGIB benefits upon separation unless the separation is
for disability.
I would like to talk a little bit about the cemetery, National Cemetery
Administration. FRA is grateful for the Committee for recommending an
additional 14 million in NCA operations and maintenance, and an
additional 16 million in NCA construction for 2007. As part of the
veterans education benefits act of 2001, the government is to provide
grave markers to veterans whenever requested, even if there is another
marker on the grave. However, as written, the law only applies to
burials after December 27, 2001. FRA supports H.R. 3082, which would
repeal this expiration, and expand application options for veterans
buried in private cemeteries.
FRA is thankful to this Committee, Congress, and the President of the
United States, for approving H.R. 5037, the Respect for America's Fallen
Heroes Act.
We appreciate that, and with that I will end my testimony, and wait for
any questions of stop thank you.
[The statement of John R. Davis appears on p. ]
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Representing the Vietnam Veterans of America is National President John
Rowan, who was elected at VVA's 12th national convention in Reno,
Nevada. He enlisted in the United States Air Force in 1965, two years
after graduating from high school in Queens, New York, went to language
school, where he learned Indonesian and Vietnamese. He served with the
Air Force 6990 security squadron in Vietnam and Okinawa, in helping
direct bombing missions. After his honorable discharge, he began
college in 1969, receiving a BA in political science from Queens
College, and a Masters degree in urban affairs at Hunter College.
He recently retired from his job as the investigator for New York City's
Comptrollers Office. Prior to his election as VVA's National President,
he served as VVA's veterans service representative in New York City, and
he was a founding member and the first resident of VVA's chapter 32 in
Queens.
National President Rowan, you are recognized.
STATEMENT OF JOHN ROWAN
Mr. Rowan. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Buyer and
Ranking Member Filner, and distinguished members of the Committee. On
behalf of the members and families of the Vietnam Veterans of America is
my privilege today to offer our comments concerning what has been
accomplished in the arena of Veterans Affairs during fiscal year 2006,
what remains to be done in waning days of this fiscal year, and what
needs to be addressed by this Committee in fiscal year 2007.
First, let me review the simple and straightforward legislative agenda
of VVA. First, to secure adequate resources to properly administer the
network of services that our nation's veterans have earned. This
includes a more adequate sum for operation of VA medical centers and
other vital health care functions. It also included increasing the
number of adjudicators in the compensation and pensions system, and
counselors and vocational rehabilitation and education.
Second, we ask that you and your colleagues take action to greatly
enhance the accountability of all employees in the VA, but especially
managers and political appointees. This would include being held
accountable for accurate adjudication decisions as opposed to just
moving files forward in the C&P services that appears to be the case
now. It is also ensuring that contracts are drawn in such a manner as to
systematize the reporting of contracts and unit cost, with an eye
towards getting the most goods and services for the least expenditure of
each taxpayer dollar. It would also include greater accountability in
regard to access to medical and other services, as well as clinical
outcomes.
Third, we ask that you take steps to greatly enhance outreach by the VA
to inform veterans of the earned benefits at the VA and elsewhere in the
federal government.
We have had some movement in the first two, and unfortunately, nothing
in the third.
As to what did happen this year, VVA commends you on your activism in
tackling some of the issues of critical importance to veterans,
particularly our newest veterans. You have sought to give real meaning
to the term, `` seamless transition,'' have forced the active
cooperation between the VA and the Department of Defense in providing
assistance to newly-minted veterans transitioning from active duty. You
have also pushed the VA to greatly improve the way it conducts its
business in regard to information technology, and you have rejected the
office of management and budget notion that the co-pay for prescription
drugs be increased, and a user fee be imposed on certain veterans who
avail themselves of the VA health care system.
We don't need to belabor the whole laptop computer theft problem; just
to know the VVA supports and applauds your legislative initiative to
resolve these deficiencies within the VA, and we hope that that becomes
successful, and we will work to push the Senate on this legislation.
However, numerous initiatives that have been started have yet to be
completed. These include cutting the enormous backlog of cases awaiting
adjudication by personnel of the Veterans Benefits Administration. We
know the undersecretary of Veterans Affairs for Benefits Cooper is
focusing on this problem. We hope his fate will not be the same as that
of the former Secretary Principi, whose goal to significantly cut this
backlog was defeated by the backlog.
It is interesting to note, too, that IOM report on PTSD talked about the
fact that the VA needed to totally utilize its own methods for
adjudication of C&P exams in PTSD, which unfortunately would lengthen
some of the process, and would also require more assistance on the VHA
side.
VVA maintains that if the VBA is to make a permanent dent here, it needs
more adjudicators who are well-trained, can pass a rigorous competency-
based examination, and are properly supervised. And these adjudicators
must endeavor to get it right the first time. Quality control is of
essence, here. We think that you will find that most veterans are okay
with the DNC process itself. What they are upset about is how long it
takes before a decision is rendered and-or lack of sharing the reasons
for rejection in a clear manner if the claim is denied.
VVA thanks you and your colleagues on both sides of the aisle for taking
action that led appropriators in the House to add onto the amount slated
for the veterans' medical care system, for research, and especially, for
adding additional adjudicators and VRE&E specialists. We really want to
thank you, Congressman. We know you took a big initiative on getting
the additional FTE on the VBA side.
About the only thing that could be said good about the VBA is that their
computer systems are so bad that nobody can probably steal information
from them. And it is pretty unbelievable how different it is between
VHA and VBA. One is getting awards, and the other is totally useless,
and unfortunately, a significant amount of hunting needs to be put on
that level. And with the IT programs, hopefully, it is nice to have
somebody in charge, but if they don't have the funding, they are going
to be in trouble.
Assured funding is still an issue with us, and we urge and hope that a
bipartisan effort will be made to rectify the situation the next
Congress. We hope that like minds from both sides of the aisle can come
together to grapple with this issue with input from the veterans'
service organizations, propose a legislative solution. Any solution of
course must contain provisions for accountability. This is likely an
initiative for the 110th Congress, unfortunately.
We hope that the current Congress will address and pass appropriate
legislation to permit veterans to secure legal representation when
filing claims for disability and compensation before the Veterans
Benefits Administration, as was passed in the Senate. We know that some
have expressed views that such a bill will only make adversarial a
process that should be cooperative. We believe the process is already
adversarial. I have served as a service rep for three years, and I
believe that to be the case.
Others worry the passage of this bill will herald the demise of
veterans' service organizations. I really don't think it is going to
happen.
We have no complaints with the people who are doing the veterans service
rep work out there, service officers. They are doing yeoman work. I
have never seen an under-worked service officer, ever. In fact, what
the problem is, we don't have anywhere near enough of them. Especially
if we really try to reach out to the veterans to explain to them what
their rights are, and unfortunately, many of them do not know what their
rights are.
I know there are some concerns, and I think we can deal with those,
about what kind of attorneys we are going to have in here. Having gone
through the Social Security process with my son who had to file for
disability, we had to incur an attorney on that process, because
otherwise we would never have made it through it. And I think that
those kinds are the same kinds of attorneys that are going to do the
same kind of work for veterans that they do on the side of Social
Security, which is where you can look to see how that system will or
will not work.
We also applaud Mr. Thompson of California and Mr. Rehberg of Montana,
who long have been in favor of H.R. 4259, the Veterans Right to Know
Act. This bill would create and empower commission to look into the
testing of chemical and biological weapons, to determine if health
issues suffered by veterans who participated in these tests might have
been caused by toxic exposures to these tests. We know that
jurisdiction of this bill is in the armed services Committee, but you,
Chairman Buyer, and ranking Democratic Member Filner have significant
weight with that Committee.
We also ask that you hold a hearing, or just take action to extend the
authority of the VA to provide a full physical with national protocol
for all veterans who participated in any chemical or biological weapons
research, such as Project 112, Project SHAD, or any other activities by
any branch of the federal government.
Similarly, we urge you to take steps to extend such authority for such
examinations for those exposed to Agent Orange and other toxins in the
Vietnam theater of war.
Regarding PTSD--and I am running out of time--in regard to Congressman
Filner's remarks earlier, we know how to treat it. We believe we do.
The problem is we don't have the funding for it. And it is not just the
new folks coming home. And certainly, they are a big part of this
problem. The real problem is still Vietnam veterans. Many veterans we
are finding as they retire out, and come home and don't have to be
workaholics anymore, a lot of things that they were able to hide in a
box for the last 40 years come back to haunt them.
Secondly, they sit at home and what do they see on TV? A war very
similar to the one they saw where people are blowing them up on every
given day, and we see death all around us, and it just brings back all
kinds of things.
The other thing, too, is that many people did not file claims of PTSD
because they were afraid of the stigma, which is an issue we even have
with the new veterans. And that may have been inhibiting them for all
these years. Now, when they are retired, they don't have to worry about
losing their jobs if people think they are crazy. And it is a real
issue, and I think it is going to be a real issue of getting the newer
veterans to come in and get treated. At least they know what it is. We
didn't.
The other thing is secondary PTSD for the children and families of
veteran. In Australia, they treat the children of Vietnam veterans up
to the age of 35 now for secondary PTSD, because one of the studies they
did found that an extraordinary suicide rate amongst the children of
Vietnam veterans over there.
There are many other issues that we would push for, including the
Montgomery G.I. Bill, as many of the others had put forward. We also
believe that we are concerned about--I really listened, being coming
after, listening to the blinded vets really intrigued me. Many Vietnam
veterans, because of their agent orange-related diabetes disabilities,
are going to have vision problems, and they are already having vision
problem, and it really disturbs me to listen to my colleague from
Blinded Vets telling me how poorly the VA is handling vision issues.
And I can tell you as a service rep, I have had a lot of retinopathy
cases, you know, watching veterans in their 50s and 60s go blind.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you members of the Committee.
[The statement of Michael Walcoff appears on p. ]
STATEMENT OF PAUL MORIN
The Chairman. Thank you Mr. Rowan. Commander?
Mr. Morin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, for this
opportunity to be here representing the American Legion and its 2.7
million members. I would like to take this opportunity to introduce the
National President of the American Legion Auxiliary, JoAnn Cronin, and
the National Commander of the Sons of the American Legion, Earl
Ruttkofsky, with five national vice commanders who represent the
Crossroads of America--
The Chairman. Could I have you and the gentleman change seats?
Mr. Rowan. Sure.
Mr. Morin. Thank you for them much.
Mr. Rowan. You are welcome.
Mr. Morin. With young American servicemembers continuing to answer the
nation's call to arms in every corner of the globe, you must now more
than ever work together to honor their sacrifices. As veterans of
global war on terrorism return home, they are turning to the VA not only
for health care, but also for assistance in transitioning back to
civilian world. In order for that to occur, veterans' service
organizations must be afforded the opportunity to present testimony
before the Committees that oversee the operations of the Department of
Veterans Affairs. Mr. Chairman, while I am thankful for the activity to
address this esteemed body, the American Legion is extremely
disappointed in your decision to cancel the joint hearings with the
Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Historically, the Veterans Affairs
Committee in both the House--in both Houses has been an example of
bipartisan progress. However, that seems to be quickly fading norm.
Legionnaires from all over the country have traditionally traveled to
Washington DC to attend the Commanders' Joint Hearing, and to visit with
their congressional delegation to express their concerns for veterans'
issues.
We owe it to the brave men and women who have served, and who are now
serving, to work together to ensure VA is funded at levels that will
allow all enrolled, eligible veterans to receive quality health care in
a timely manner. As National Commander of this great organization, I
stand ready to work with you to accomplish these goals.
In an effort to provide a stable and adequate funding process, the
American Legion fully supports assured funding for veterans' medical
care. Under the current discretionary funding method, VA health care
funding has failed to keep pace with medical inflation and the changing
needs of veterans population. VA has been forced to ration care by
denying service to eligible veterans. VA has had to forgo the
modernization of many of its facilities, and purchase of necessary
state-of-the-art medical equipment.
VA is subject to an annual funding battle for limited discretionary
resources, and Congress has had to provide emergency funding to cover
budgetary shortfalls. Additionally, the current discretionary funding
process leaves the VA facilities' administrators without a clear plan
for the future.
The American Legion urges this Committee to support legislation that
would establish a system of capitation-based funding for VHA. The
Veterans' Health Administration is now struggling to maintain its
national dominance in the 21st century. Health care, with funding
methods that were developed in the 19th-century. No other modern health
care organization could be expected to survive under such a system. The
American Legion believes that the health care rationing for veterans
must end.
It is time to guarantee health care funding for all veterans. The
American Legion believes that Congress should allow the VA to bill,
collect, and retain third-party reimbursement from Medicare, on behalf
of Medicare-eligible veterans. Nearly all veterans pay into Medicare
for their entire working lives. However, when they are most likely to
need medical services from the hospital system designed specifically for
them, they must turn elsewhere because VA cannot bill Medicare. This is
wrong, and I urge you to join in the fight to correct this injustice.
Additionally, all third-party reimbursements, copayments, and
deductibles, should be added to the budget, not counted as an offset
against it. The American Legion firmly believes that making the VA
Medicare provider, and designating the VA medical care, as mandatory
funding items within the federal budget, will enable the VA to fulfill
its mission to care for those who have borne the battle.
The American Legion is disappointed in the slow progress in the local
advisory panel--better known as LAPS--process, and the CARES initiative
overall. Both stage one and stage two of the process included two
scheduled LAP meetings at each of the sites to be studied, with a whole
process scheduled to conclude on or about February 2006. It wasn't till
April 2006, after nearly a seven-month hiatus that Secretary Nicholson
announced a continuation of the service at the Big Spring, Texas. And
like all other sites, it had only been through stage one. Seven months
of silence is no way to reassure veterans community that the process is
alive and well. The American Legion continues to express concerns over
the apparent short-circuiting of LAPS, and the silence of its
stakeholders.
The American Legion urges Congress to hold the VA accountable, and to
ensure that those locations that are still waiting final decisions, and
address as soon as possible. Veterans in Las Vegas, Orlando, New
Orleans, Denver, and Biloxi, deserve to know the future of their health
care delivery system.
Upon conclusion of the initial CARES process, then-Secretary Principi
called for $1 billion a year for the next seven years to implement
CARES. The American Legion continues to support that recommendation,
and encourages the VA and Congress to move forth with focused intent.
The American Legion recommends a separate $1 billion for the
implementation of CARES in fiscal year 2008.
Mr. Chairman, the American Legion appreciates the strong relationship we
have developed with this Committee. With increasing military
commitments worldwide, it is important that we work together to ensure
that the services and programs offered through the VA are available to
the new generation of American servicemembers who are now returning
home. You have the power to ensure that their sacrifices are indeed
honored with the thanks of a grateful nation. The American Legion is
fully committed to working with each of you to ensure that the American
veterans receive the entitlements they have earned. Whether it is
improved accessibility to health care, timely adjudication of disability
claims, improved educational benefits or employment services, each and
every aspect of these programs touches veterans from every generation.
Together, we can ensure that these programs remain productive, viable
options for the men and women who have chosen to answer the nation's
call to arms; a very honorable profession.
The brave men and women who are serving in our armed forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan and throughout the world deserve no less. I look forward to
working with each of you through the next year to improve the lives of
all American veterans. Thank you for this opportunity.
Mr. Chairman, I know of interest to you from your kind meeting with me
yesterday, Resolution 149 of the Salt Lake convention we just concluded,
I will read you the `` resolved'' clause. The American Legion's
national convention assembled in Salt Lake City, Utah, August 29 through
31, '2006.
``That although the American Legion does not oppose the concept of
attorney representation or the lifting of the current restriction on
attorney representation in the VA system, the American Legion is opposed
to any such measure as that does not include adequate safeguards,
including but not limited to fee limits, training requirements, and-or
competency performance certification requirements, and strict agency
oversight to ensure the protection of the client.''
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Paul Morin appears on p. ]
The Chairman. Commander, how many resolutions did you pass at your
convention?
Mr. Morin. Two hundred and twenty-two.
The Chairman. Could you get those to me?
Mr. Rowan. Sure, we would be more than happy to.
The Chairman. All right. I would ask that you provide them to me, but
not make them part of the record. I mean, that is a lot of print. But
if you could please get those to me, I would appreciate that.
Mr. Morin. I will be more than happy to.
The Chairman. All right, then let us go ahead and start right there,
now that I know the Legion's resolution. Let us go down the line here
with a question that I had asked about attorney representation, faced
with the language I have that came out of the Senate.
Purple Heart?
Mr. Poulter. Mr. Chairman, as an organization, we have not taken an
official position up to this point. However, as National Commander I
think I can speak for our members, and I think that this process could
really tie the Veterans Administration appeals process in a lot of
knots. And I have got my own personal feelings that I think it is more
about lining the pockets of the attorneys, as opposed to taking care of
our veterans.
The Chairman. All right. I am going to go down the line so everybody
will get to cover this. If we were to go with Mr. Evans's approach
about a lawyer is not permitted until after notice of disagreement,
would it change your opinion?
Mr. Poulter. We have national service officers, and they go through
very extensive training to get their accreditation, through the VA. I
cannot imagine the amount of training that the attorneys would have to
go to get online with this whole thing. They would have to go through
the same training, and it takes a long time to get that accomplished.
The Chairman. All right, the question before us is, though, at what
point would an attorney representation access the system; at the very
beginning, or at the notice of disagreement? That has no impact upon
your opinion?
Mr. Poulter. I don't think at the beginning. I think that, you know,
if later on, if somebody asked, `` You need an attorney?'' then that
would be all right.
The Chairman. All right. Mr. Irvin?
Mr. Irvin. Yeah, Paralyzed Veterans supported the Lane Evans Bill. But
at the same time we provided comment with regards to attorney fees and
safeguards, similar to what the American Legion just mentioned, with
regards to representation. The Senate bill we do not support, just
because it brings the attorney in, in the first part of the claims
process. We feel the VA still needs to have a system that provides a
duty to assist, does a proper outreach to veterans, and assists them
with filing their claims.
The Chairman. Ms. Lee? Does your organization have an opinion on this?
Ms. Lee. Goldstar wives has not discussed it among our members, so I am
going to pass on this. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, ma'am. Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis. We do not have a position either, but we do believe that
there is a causal relationship between the processing delays, the claim
delays, and the call for legal representation. And instead of
addressing the issue directly, of legal representation, we think the
focus ought to be on fixing up the system so there are less delays, less
complexity in the system, and that will, we think, reduce the--
The Chairman. You got my agreement on that. Mr. Rowan?
Mr. Rowan. Well, as I pointed out, we are in favor of it, and we have
been in favor of it. We think a lot of the same arguments were made
when we talked about instituting the Court of Veterans Appeals.
The Chairman. Okay, let me narrow you here. You favor the Senate's
view on this, or Mr. Evans's position on this?
Mr. Rowan. Mr. Evans' opinion is just a version of it. We support it
all. We have no problem with the lawyers involved, period.
The Chairman. Either of them.
Mr. Rowan. We just think that it opens up a whole access to getting
somebody to help the veteran go through what is an onerous process.
The Chairman. Commander Morin, I know you are under restrictions with
regard to your testimony. Can you go beyond what this resolution has
said? Can I ask you whether or not you would support the Senate
approach or the Evans approach?
Mr. Morin. No. We do not support any bill. We support use of
attorneys within the VA. But what we want to see is restrictions in the
Bill, that says there shall be a limit on attorney fees, there shall be
a limit--
The Chairman. Okay, you don't have to read that to me again.
Mr. Morin. Okay.
The Chairman. What about when they would access the system?
Mr. Morin. Whenever they wish. If they want to wish from the beginning
to hire a lawyer, and there are these safeguards in place, let them go
ahead and do it. I mean, to me, as a veteran's advocate, and as any
veteran service organization, all right, we have an ending service
office in all our organizations that is available for free of charge.
And we would hope that would be the first avenue every vet would use.
But there is also some mistrust to us by our fellow own veterans. And
if they feel that comfortablity of going to a lawyer versus coming to
us, so be it. As long as if there are safeguards in the law. And I
stress that because we don't want to see in the law saying that the VA
will regulate what the fees are, or what the educational training
requirements are.
The Chairman. Not often, and I look back to the 14 years I have been
here, do we have a situation whereby you are in such complete counter,
back-azimuth of DAV, VFW, and Amvets. Why do you think that is? Why do
you find yourself in a complete opposition to them?
Mr. Morin. The wishes of our members at our national convention,
through a resolution, adopted this. And this is as I have said, I speak
from a resolution--
The Chairman. All right. In your personal opinion?
Mr. Morin. Yes?
The Chairman. Why do you think legionnaires are in such complete
opposition of Amvets, VFW, and DAV?
Mr. Morin. I think they feel it only opens a process, it opens another
door if veterans wish to use it. And our own concern is that there are
stipulations that the veteran would not be hurt by it.
The Chairman. All right. Mr. Filner?
Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank both panels here
today. Your testimony was very helpful. I admire your expertise that
comes from both your active duty status and your longtime service to
your members. You know the system, inside and out, we learn from that,
and I appreciate everything you said. Maybe with one exception, Mr.
Buyer, there is a real unanimity on almost every issue. I suspect that
we can have a list of 20 or 50 items and, all of you would agree to it.
You have given us the agenda for next year. I pledge to Mr. Buyer,
whatever position I am in, to work with you to try to realize as much of
that agenda as we can. There is remarkable unanimity on things.
I want to say to Mr. Poulter: When the Chairman introduces the bill to
recognize National Purple Heart Day, I want to cosponsor it.
Congratulations on the 225th anniversary. We look forward to that
celebration.
Several of you mentioned the conference of the Defense Authorization
bill. I am told that it has concluded, although even as a Congressman,
they won't tell me what the results are until the report is published.
But I have the sense, in regard to the Purple Heart for the POWs who
died under non-combat but obviously--in our view--combat situations,
that they acceded to the Senate position, which set up a commission to
study it. We will try to get that next year, if that is the case. I
don't know that, but that is the impression I got.
And I don't know what they did, Ms. Lee, to the SPP-DIC offset in that
conference, but we will find out, I guess, in a day or so. But thank
you for being so persisent in following that.
Mr. Irvin, you know, San Diego's loss is Washington's gain.
Congratulations on your new position. He didn't mention in his bio that
he has also recently married a very beautiful woman, so we congratulate
you on that.
And I want to thank you for your position on the sense of who gets
services at the veterans' hospitals, and benefits. By definition,
probably all your members are in a high category. But you want the VA
to serve all veterans, and I appreciate that very much, and thank you
for that position.
And the PVA just recently had a 60th anniversary gala, and I was at the
dinner, and I saw you give awards to Secretary Principi, Secretary
Mineta, that were so well deserved. Of course the King, Richard Petty,
also got an award. But thank you for allowing myself and my wife to be
a part of that gala. It was a very moving evening. And I know each of
you have those kinds of evenings, and they are all very moving, to talk
to your members, and to meet them on a more personal basis, and see
their dedication to improving the lot of everybody around us.
So thank you all. I look forward to working on it. This was set up by
the Chairman as a preview for next year. I think we have our agenda in
front of us, and I look forward to working with you. Ms. Lee, go ahead.
I am sorry.
Ms. Lee. Yes, regarding the attorney issue that you talked about
earlier; are survivors included in the bills that are mentioned? Lane
Evans' Bill, I hadn't seen that at all. It is? Okay, thank you. I
guess we need to get a copy of that. Thank you.
Mr. Filner. I apologize, I just thought you were asking the Chairman.
Okay, thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Brown?
Mr. Brown of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and certainly
thank the members of the panel for being so patient. They can
understand our schedule, where we get unscheduled votes, and we will
have one coming up pretty shortly again. But I just wanted to just
address a couple issues I guess that we brought up, and we appreciate
the testimony. And I think Mr. Filner is right. I think that you all
have given us some criteria for next year's appropriations if we can't
get them done this year.
But next week, we are going to have a hearing next Thursday at 10:00
o'clock on PTSD and TBI, and we have got, you know, some professionals
coming in to give us some insight on that. And then on the construction
bill, this is the first construction bill that we actually passed in
about 15 years, and I know we have some problems sometimes with
partisanship, but it was really great, the way the bill was addressed in
the Committee, and then went on the floor. And normally we have, like,
20 minutes for the proponents, and 20 minutes for the opponents. And
both sides talked on the bill, and so it passed unanimous, which is kind
of unusual for anything to happen in the body today.
But I know we addressed some of those issues that was mentioned earlier.
The construction at Biloxi at $310 million; in New Orleans, 100 million;
Charleston, 70 million; in Denver, 98 million. And so I am hoping that
the Senate will be able to soon reconcile with them, so we can go ahead
and get this signed by the President.
And in that initiative, we are going to need some support from you all
to help with this. I know there has been a lot of misinformation about
how we are trying to combine some services between the VA and local
hospitals. And I know in Charleston, we are looking to try and combine
some services with the VA and the Medical University there. Already,
there is a lot of sharing of resources. Some 95 percent of the doctors
that actually treat the patients at the VA hospital come from the
Medical University.
And you know the cost of equipment is becoming, you know, exorbitant
really to try to have everybody to own one piece. I know we have got
one imaging piece of equipment now we are trying to coordinate between
the VA and Medical university, a piece of imaging equipment that
actually can go in and identify a cancer cell, and they can go in and
actually treat just, you know, the damaged cell, and not impact the good
cells. But that is a $6 million purchase, and everybody in town can't
have one of those.
We went to New Orleans and actually saw, you know, the VA hospital--went
down with Secretary Nicholson, and went to--the VA was actually flooded
in the basement, but just down the street was, you know, of course, LSU
Medical Center, Charity Hospital, you know, two or three other hospitals
all in one row, and probably duplicating the same piece of equipment.
So we believe that this is going to be a system that is going to be able
to deliver high quality service by having specialized services available
to all the veterans, at one location, and be a savings to the taxpayers,
too.
But anyway, every time that we talk about it, even when we passed the
bill in the House, we made sure that the VA had top priority on any of
the services being provided.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. But I
just wanted to bring that to your attention, and certainly solicit your
cooperation and understanding as we work through this process.
The Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Brown.
I would like to make a couple of comments, and I have a question. This
deals with the issues on seamless voc rehab and TAP. The Subcommittee
on Economic Opportunity held several hearings. They have also had site
visits on these topics. Overall, as with an examination of any system,
you find some shortcomings. But measured on the whole, what we have
learned, the TAP has been a reasonably successful program. The student
reviews that we have seen so far have been very favorable.
The seamless transition, I know that VFW had made some comments earlier,
they had questioned as to whether or not they could actually point to
anything that was successful. This one is going to be a maintenance
issue, for as long as we are involved in these issues. It really is.
And I spoke with over 230 cardiac care physicians yesterday, and I deal
with these issues on the Health Subcommittee of Commerce, of course, as
we try to bring IT, and try to figure out a standard in order to perfect
these electronic medical records for our country. And trying to do that
in a competitive marketplace, not easy, I just want you to know. And I
tried to share with them the challenges of just trying to get DoD and VA
to be able to cooperatively work together. It was a great
disappointment that the Department of Defense--in particular, Dr.
Winkenwerder--would not turn to the VA and use our standard. That was
very disappointing to me. I have had my challenges with Dr.
Winkenwerder. I respect him. He is a smart man. We have got to be
able to work through this. But if we can't even get it right, how are we
going to expect, as a society, for us to get it right?
And I assure you that I do not want the federal government to select a
standard out there. If you want us to get it wrong, government can
choose a standard. I mean, we are right now in what I would call the
Beta-VHS war. And I assure you, if you had asked the government to
solve that one, we would have had Beta. So I just want you to know,
there are some big issues that are going on out there.
I also am very pleased--some of you know, I have worked with the Olympic
Committee for the last six years; not only in the reorganization of the
Olympic Committee. That gave me a lot of great insights, and a lot of
great contacts. Not only with these great athletes, but also the
leadership. And to extend that into the Paralympic movement, and bring
those veterans into cooperation with the Olympic Committee, there are a
lot of great success stories. And I really get goose bumps by what is
happening out there. We have over 320 of our disabled veterans have
participated in four of the Paralympic summits. Ten of these athletes
have been identified as superior athletes at the highest level. So I
just wanted to give you an update on that. I am really pleased about
that progress.
I do need your help. And it is not just me. It is Mr. Filner, myself,
Chairman Brown; this Committee needs your help. We can't even hope to
perfect seamless transition if we can't even get the VA to centralize
its information technology architecture. And this is a huge challenge.
It is very easy to be critical of them, but please, I am asking you to
engage with us in a constructive dialogue whereby we can move from the
decentralized model to centralized. We can preserve incubators of
initiative. But we have got to do that, and at some point, we have to
be able to bring in the software development into the centralization,
and empower our CIO and CISO. Very, very important. And I need your
help and assistance to do that.
So when this Committee moved out last year and wanted to do that, we
weren't crazy after all. And the rest of the government is looking.
And hopefully, we can do this. Mr. Filner and I, next week, will go to
the floor and we will pass our product that we worked, after our six
months of effort and oversight, and I am most hopeful that--we were
stonewalled by the Senate in the last year--they will recognize that we
have a great investment in this issue, and knowledge, and respect that.
And I want to work with them.
They work on issues that we don't work on. We can't cover the entire
waterfront. As you know, it is a vast enterprise in front of us. So
there has to be some give-and- take back-and-forth here and between the
Senate.
So as we move into the spring, I just ask all of you to help us with the
IT issues. They are not sexy. They don't get all the attention. You
know, they are not feel-good issues. But they are so vital, and they
are so important. So I am asking for your help and assistance in that.
With regard to adaptive housing, I want to continue to work with you.
We recognize that we took on those issues to liberalize those standards.
I know Ms. Herseth has some issues out there. But my commitment is, as
we go into next year's bill, is take another look at that.
One of the really good byproducts of these hearings that we are doing
here over the next two days is we take this, we assimilate the
information, and we create a marker. And with that marker, then as I
work with OMB and the VA. This is a new process that has not been done
before.
And like anything anew, some people don't like to change. So I embrace
what you said, Commander. You don't like it. But you know, what I have
done is I embraced exactly what I shared with you yesterday when I had
that phone conversation with Commander Bock, and he said, `` You know,
we separated ourselves from the rest, and we wanted to put them ahead of
time.'' I embrace that. And I also like that look-back/look-ahead.
And that is what we have done here, to lay a marker.
And so I want to thank you for your testimony. We will receive the
testimony of 21 VSOs and MSOs. And it will be that thick. And I assure
you, I will share it with Mr. Portman.
There was one other--Mr. Filner, if you have anything left I will let
you go, because I know I have one that is just--
Mr. Filner. Mr. Rowan, I just want to make sure that if he is Mr.
Buyer, I am Mr. Filner, okay? I want to point out for the record that
it is the first time in his career--he said it about third sentence to
the end, the transcript will say it--he wanted to `` liberalize the
restrictions.'' So he is moving in our direction. Thank you so much.
The Chairman. You are not going to make it as a comedian, okay?
You know, I am drawing a blank. Oh, this is the question I wanted to
ask, to the American Legion: of your 220 resolutions, did any of them
address the issue on information management?
Mr. Morin. Yes.
The Chairman. Okay. Well, I will get them all. I just want to make
sure there were--
Mr. Morin. There were several, and we will have that package to you.
Yes, there was.
The Chairman. Okay. All right, very good.
Well, the last thing I would like to say is, is I want to thank you for
this program. It is really something all of us can do. And that is, we
do it in many different capacities, and that is embracing our fellow
veterans and loved ones when they come home. And it is a huge
challenge. We all have to do it. I adopted a couple of them when they
had come home. And so we all do that. Very important.
So I want to thank you. And so to those individuals that we also
recognize, whereby the certain concerns that aren't readily identified
come up later, we pick that up through our fellowship. And we can then
circulate them back into the system. So congratulations, Commander.
This will be a wonderful program.
Mr. Morin. Thank you.
The Chairman. With that, I want to thank you for your testimony, and I
appreciate your being here. We will continue our vigilance.
All members have five legislative days to submit any statements for the
record. The hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:06 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]