[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET OF THE VETERANS BENEFIT
ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE
AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
of the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2012
__________
Serial No. 112-44
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
73-289 WASHINGTON : 2013
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida BOB FILNER, California, Ranking
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado CORRINE BROWN, Florida
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida SILVESTRE REYES, Texas
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
BILL FLORES, Texas BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
BILL JOHNSON, Ohio JERRY McNERNEY, California
JEFF DENHAM, California JOE DONNELLY, Indiana
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan JOHN BARROW, Georgia
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
ROBERT L. TURNER, New York
Helen W. Tolar, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
______
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado JERRY McNERNEY, California,
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York Ranking
MARLIN A. STUTZMAN, Indiana JOHN BARROW, Georgia
ROBERT L. TURNER, New York MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine
TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
February 16, 2012
Page
Oversight Hearing On Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Of The Veterans
Benefit Administration, National Cemetery Administration, And
Related Agencies............................................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Chairman Jon Runyan.............................................. 1
Prepared Statement of Chairman Runyan........................ 34
Hon. Jerry McNerney, Ranking Democratic Member................... 3
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jerry McNerney.................... 35
WITNESSES
Ms. Diana Rubens, Deputy Under Secretary for Field Operations,
Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs........................................................ 4
Prepared Statement of Ms. Rubens............................. 36
Accompanied by:
Mr. Jamie Manker, Chief Financial Officer, Veterans
Benefits Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs
Hon. Steven Muro, Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs, National
Cemetery Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs... 6
Prepared Statement of Hon. Muro.............................. 42
Accompanied by:
Mr. Ron Walters, Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary
for Memorial Affairs, Deputy Under Secretary for
Finance and Planning, National Cemetery Administration,
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Hon. Max Cleland, Secretary, American Battle Monuments Commission 16
Prepared Statement of Hon. Cleland........................... 45
Executive Summary of Hon. Cleland............................ 48
Hon. Bruce E. Kasold, Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims............................................ 22
Prepared Statement of Hon. Kasold............................ 49
Executive Summary of Hon. Kasold............................. 52
Jeffrey Hall, Assistant National Legislative Director, Disabled
American Veterans.............................................. 27
Prepared Statement of Mr. Hall............................... 52
Executive Summary of Mr. Hall................................ 59
Diane Zumatto, National Legislative Director, AMVETS............. 29
Prepared Statement of Ms. Zumatto............................ 60
Executive Summary of Ms. Zumatto............................. 62
QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD
Letter and Post-Hearing Questions From: Hon. Jerry McNerney,
Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee on Disability
Assistance and Memorial Affairs - To: Ms. Diana Rubens, Deputy
Under Secretary for Field Operations, Veterans Benefits
Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs............ 63
Post-Hearing Questions From: Hon. Michael H. Michaud, Member,
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs -
To: Ms. Diana Rubens, Deputy Under Secretary for Field
Operations, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs............................................ 65
Post-Hearing Response From: Ms. Diana Rubens, Deputy Under
Secretary for Field Operations, Veterans Benefits
Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs To: Hon.
Jerry McNerney, Ranking Democratic Member, Subcommittee on
Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs and Hon. Michael H.
Michaud, Member, Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and
Memorial Affairs............................................... 65
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET OF THE VETERANS BENEFIT
ADMINISTRATION, NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION, AND RELATED AGENCIES
----------
Thursday, February 16, 2012
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance
and Memorial Affairs,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jon Runyan,
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Runyan, Lamborn, Buerkle,
Stutzman, Turner, McNerney, Barrow, Michaud, and Walz.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN JON RUNYAN
Mr. Runyan. Good morning, everyone and I want to welcome
everyone to this hearing on the budget for fiscal year 2013 as
it pertains to the Veterans Benefit Administration, National
Cemetery Administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims, and American Battle Monuments Commission.
Last year this Subcommittee held its first hearing of the
112th Congress and I made my intentions and hopes clear that as
Chairman of this Subcommittee, my priority would be a laser
focus on tackling the size of the backlog of claims for
disability benefits.
Over the past year, the VA has demonstrated their desire
and commitment to be partners in bringing the VA into the 21st
Century, as reflected in the 2013 budget. I support the VA's
goal of completing 1.4 million disability compensation and
pension claims, marking an increase of 36 percent over 2011.
I can assure the administration that this Subcommittee will
vigorously pursue the necessary oversight to ensure this goal
becomes a reality for all of our Nation's veterans.
In these uncertain and turbulent economic times, it is the
duty of all of us here and those that we represent to ensure
that benefits earned by our Nation's heroes are administered as
efficiently and timely as possible.
Justice delayed is justice denied and benefits delayed are
benefits denied. To this end, I note the forthcoming role out
of the VBMS program, which I believe signifies a turning point
for the claims backlog. In addition to the VBMS program, the VA
has also recently launched several pilot programs, and
consolidated its pension and fiduciary programs.
However, technology alone will not solve the issues
pertaining to the backlog. It is our solemn responsibility to
remain vigilant. We will continue to oversee these programs to
ensure that they are operating efficiently, while also serving
the needs of our Nation's veterans.
Although VA continues to emphasize its initiatives in the
area of people, progress, and technology, it is important that
VA follow through on these programs while not forgetting its
primary goal of providing timely, quality benefits to our
veterans.
A second major area I'd like to discuss involves the final
resting grounds of our Nation's veterans. The National Cemetery
Administration provides the invaluable role of serving veterans
and their families during this burial process and maintaining
our national shrines and cemeteries.
However, like every human institution, mistakes and
oversights are made from time to time. In November, the NCA
self-reported to this Committee of misalignment of a row of
head stones at the Fort Sam Houston National Cemetery. Families
of those affected were notified and a nationwide audit began.
Initial reports from the audit, which are still ongoing,
have identified similar issues of at least five other national
cemeteries in just the first phase of the audit. These errors
appear to have a common origin that they all occurred during
raise and realignments projects performed by outside
contractors.
The reason this is relevant to a budget hearing is because
in most of these cases, the contractors' work was approved and
payment made without adequate oversight of review to ensure the
quality and accuracy of the work done. Because of an omission
of fiscal oversight, the work has to be done right the second
time, and a nationwide audit at great expense.
Statistically, less than 60 percent of discrepancies
reported after auditing almost 1.5 million grave sites computes
to a tiny fraction of one percent. The NCA, however, is not in
the business of percentages and statistics. They're in the
business of providing the final resting place of honor and
dignity for our national heroes.
While I commend the NCA's initiative and quick response in
identifying and addressing the situation, I must reiterate my
resolve that no mistake going forward will be acceptable. We
owe it to our veterans and their families to get it right the
first time, every time. Anything less, regardless of the
statistics, is unacceptable.
Toward this end, I want to ensure that America's most
valuable memorials to its honored dead have the necessary
amount of resources and institutional oversight going forward
to prevent such problems from occurring. While we must do so
mindful of the budget deficit crisis we have at hand, we must
continue to ensure that the sacred grounds are well prepared
for current and future generations of veterans and their
families.
Finally, it is my hope that the NCA continues to move
closer to near universal veteran access to burial options
around this Nation.
This hearing will also take a look at the budgets of the
Court of Appeals for veterans claims and the American Battle
Monuments Commission. While I do not anticipate many
controversial issues within these budgets, I would like to
express my hope that they too reflect the trying times we face,
and will strive for increased efficiency over waste and better
performance over tradition solely for tradition's sake.
And I appreciate everyone's attendance at this hearing and
I will now call on the Ranking Member, Mr. McNerney, for any
opening comment.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Jon Runyan appears in
the Appendix]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JERRY MCNERNEY,
RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER
Mr. McNerney. Should I try the mic? Good morning. It's
still pretty loud. Is that acceptable?
Well, good morning and welcome to our hearing this morning.
Thank you all for extending both panels and the witnesses. I
want to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing today. The
goal to these hearings is to examine the various fiscal--it's
kind of echoing in here--to examine the various fiscal year
2013 budget requests of the agencies over which the Disability
Assistance and Memorial Affairs Subcommittee has jurisdiction
of those organizations who were identified by the Chairman.
But they also receive many major benefit services and
protections for our Nation's veterans, their families and
survivors, raising from pension compensation and burial
benefits to ensuring appellate rights to maintaining our
national shrine requirements both here and abroad.
I look forward to hearing how these benefits and services
will be administered with the optimum level of efficiency and
effectiveness within the new budget request. Today's hearing is
an important one. As all of you know, Congress is working hard
to balance our budget and reduce the deficit, while at the same
time provide earned and needed benefits to our veterans and
their families.
The overall fiscal 2013 VA budget requested is $143
million, of the totals, department budget requests, 76.3
million or 54.4 percent is designated for mandatory funding to
pay for and administer benefits to veterans, their families,
and survivors.
So this Subcommittee has the largest stack of the VA pie.
This represents a 16.2 increase in the 2012 level of $70.6
billion. This shows the administration is committed to
supporting our troops and our veterans. It's not just a slogan.
Like many of the DSOs and other stakeholders who represent
our veterans, one of my top priorities is to continue to
address the glacial nature of the claims processes and
suspended challenges of accuracy and accountabilities. It's a
disgrace that we have such a large claims backlog, and it's an
insult to the veterans who have served our Nation. And we're
going to continue to work with the VA to make sure that we
reduce that backlog. There's no valid reason why we are still
processing claims with 20th Century technology and paradigms.
And I really mean early 20th Century technology.
I agree with Secretary Shinseki, that we need to get our
claims processing under control to deliver these benefits in
the 21st Century in a better and focused manner. Getting the
claims right the first time and don't sacrifice quality for
quantity.
The VA reports that it's making progress on this front, and
the budget seems to support that commitment, particularly on
the IT front. However, I don't want to confuse activities on
the one hand with progress on the other. Further, I don't want
the VA to place the problems of new technology at the top of a
flawed system, because that will just make--that will just
result in inaccuracies being rendered more quickly.
Comprehensive reform is what we need here.
Finally, I also want to know more about the budgetary
implications of the contacts with the ACS Incorporated to
develop hundreds of thousands of pending claims. With that, I
look forward to hearing from all the witnesses today. And I
particularly want to thank the VSO members of the independent
budget for your diligence, commitment in helping to ensure that
the VA's budget is sufficient to meet the needs of our
veterans. I welcome the opportunity to work closely with all of
you, and with all of my colleagues, to make sure that the needs
of our veterans, those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and
those that are in previous conflicts are met. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Jerry McNerney appears in
the Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. We're going to try and get these mics working.
One, two, three, four. Is that good? Thank you.
At this time, I'd like to welcome the first panel to the
table. First, we have Ms. Diana Rubens, the Deputy Under
Secretary for Field Operations for the Veterans Benefits
Administration. She is also accompanied by Mr. Jamie Manker,
the CFO of the Veterans Benefits Administration.
And next, we welcome the Honorable Steve Muro, the Under
Secretary for Memorial Affairs of the National Cemetery
Administration. And he is accompanied by Mr. Ronald Walters,
the Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Finance and
Planning in the National Cemetery Administration.
All of your complete written statements will be entered
into the hearing record, and with that, Ms. Rubens, we will
start with you for your oral testimony.
STATEMENT OF DIANE RUBENS, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR FIELD
OPERATIONS FOR THE VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION,
ACCOMPANIED BY JAMIE MANKER, CFO OF VETERANS BENEFITS
ADMINISTRATION; HONORABLE STEVEN MURO, UNDER SECRETARY FOR
MEMORIAL AFFAIRS OF THE NATIONAL CEMETERY ADMINISTRATION,
ACCOMPANIED BY RONALD WALTER, ACTING PRINCIPAL DEPUTY UNDER
SECRETARY FOR FINANCE AND PLANNING IN THE NATIONAL CEMETERY
ADMINISTRATION
STATEMENT OF DIANE RUBENS
Ms. Rubens. Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney,
Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
discuss the fiscal year budget for the Veterans Benefits
Administration. As you mentioned, Chairman Runyan, I'm
accompanied by Jamie Manker, our Chief Financial Officer.
Under the leadership of Secretary Shinseki, we're working
to transform VA into a 21st Century organization, that is
people centric, results driven and forward looking. We've
disciplined ourselves to understand that successful execution
of our vital mission requires that we continually improve our
stewardship of the resources entrusted to us by Congress.
Accountability and efficiency are practices consistent with
our philosophy of leadership and management. Approximately 97
percent of the nearly 77 billion in appropriated funds
requested for VBA are for direct payments to veterans, their
dependents, and their survivors. The remaining three percent is
dedicated to administering VBA's benefits programs.
VBA's budget request also directly supports VA's three key
priorities: Improving access to benefits and services,
eliminating the claims backlog and improving decision accuracy
to 98 percent, and ending veteran homelessness in 2015.
The disability claims workload from the newest generation
of returning war veterans, as well as from veterans of earlier
periods, continues to increase. The growth of disability claims
volume is driven by a number of factors, including our
successful outreach efforts, increased demand as a result of
ten years at war, and improved access to benefits through joint
VA and DoD pre-discharge programs.
Other major factors include the Agent Orange presumptive
disabilities, the aging of our veteran population, new
regulations for processing certain claims related to Gulf War
service, traumatic brain injuries, Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder, and the impact of a difficult economy.
The complexity of that workload also continues to rapidly
increase as veterans claim greater numbers of disabilities, and
the nature of those disabilities become increasingly complex.
Last year, the number of disabilities claimed by veterans
who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan averaged 8.5 issues per
claim, a dramatic difference when we look at veterans of
earlier eras. Wherein, in World War II, we saw veterans claim
an average of 2\1/2\ disabilities, and even the more recent
Gulf War conflict veterans who claimed 4.3 disabilities per
claim.
I would tell you that even with this unprecedented workload
increase, VBA has achieved a 15 percent increase in output over
the last four years, completing over one million disability
claims in each of the past two years.
VBA recognizes that it must do all it can to simplify and
expedite the claims process for our veterans and beneficiaries.
We're committed to and are actively pursuing comprehensive
improvements to the process, to the systems used to access and
for our employees to deliver those benefits and services. We
know we must do better, and that's why we're undergoing this
large scale transformation.
In 2013, general operating expense budget request of $2.2
billion is vital to that transformation strategy that will
drive our performance improvements. VBA does plan to process a
record 1.4 million compensation claims in 2013, and we're
pursuing transformational changes that will enable us to meet
those emerging needs of veterans and their families.
This transformation plan is a series of tightly integrated
people, process and technology initiatives. The people focused
initiatives recognize that our employees are the key to the
success, that we're strengthening the expertise of our
workforce by changing the way we are organized and trained to
do the work.
A new standardized operating model is being implemented in
all regional offices, beginning this year, that incorporates a
case management approach to claims processing. Additionally,
process improvement initiatives have been pursued through a
design team concept to support the transformation of business
processes.
Using design teams, VBA is conducting rapid development and
testing of process changes, automated processing tools, and
innovating incentives in the workplace to ensure that the
changes will be actionable and effective before they're
implemented nationally.
Some initial process improvements include quality review
teams, a simplified rating and notification process, rules
based calculators, and disability benefits questionnaires.
We're also pursuing technology initiatives, key to our
transformation, ending the reliance on the out-moded paper
intensive process, that often thwart timely and accurate claims
processing. VBA will deploy technology solutions that improve
access, drive automation, reduce variance and enable faster and
more efficient operations.
Our transformation plan includes the following major
technology initiatives: The Veterans Relationship Management
initiative, our eBenefits Portal, and the Veterans Benefits
Management System.
We appreciate the opportunity to provide additional
information on the budget request, and to share with you the
progress we are making in transforming the delivery of benefits
and services for our veterans, their families, and survivors.
We recognize there's still a tremendous amount of work to be
done. I assure you of our commitment to achieving fundamental
and dramatic improvements that will expedite the delivery of
benefits; improve quality; and ensure we're providing timely,
accurate, and comprehensive information and assistance to all
those we serve.
I'm happy to respond to any questions you or Members of the
Subcommittee might have.
[The prepared statement of Diana Rubens appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Ms. Rubens, and with that, we'll
recognize the Under Secretary, Mr. Muro for his oral testimony.
STATEMENT OF STEVE MURO
Mr. Muro. Thank you, Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member
McNerney, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for asking
me to provide an overview of the fiscal year 2013 budget for
the National Cemetery Administration.
A hundred and fifty years ago this July, Congress
authorized President Abraham Lincoln to purchase grounds for
the use of national cemeteries. From that day to this, we, and
all the cemeterians who preceded us have considered ourselves
the keepers of a sacred trust. Our mission of honoring veterans
and their families with a final resting place and national
shrines has not changed significantly since President Lincoln's
time, but the technology, and the expectation of operations of
national cemeteries certainly have.
Currently, we are conducting a self-initiated audit of the
entire inventory of 3.1 million grave sites. Phase I of the
examination of 1.4 million grave sites is underway in sections
where raise and realign projects were completed by contractors.
As a result, we have reset or replaced 119 headstones and
markers, and relocated eight remains. We acknowledged this
problem immediately, we reached out to the affected families,
and we corrected the errors.
We then set forth Phase II of the audit, to examine 1.7
million of the rest of the grave sites. We expect to complete
this review in 2012, and we will share our findings with you.
I will make no excuses for these mistakes, but I would like
to tell you about the procedures we have and are putting in
place to minimize these types of errors.
First, we have implemented stricter accountability
procedures for remains introduced this last spring. Secondly,
we are requiring the contractors to keep the headstones and
markers at the grave sites during renovation. And third, we are
hiring contracting officer representatives at each of our five
memorial service network offices to provide additional
oversight.
I want to again express our regret over these errors, and I
emphasize our continuous commitment to providing excellent
service to the veterans and their families. And that brings me
to the budget for FY13.
The President's budget request of 372 million for NCA's
discretionary programs, allows us to meet an increasing demand
for benefits and services while maintaining outstanding
customer service.
Of this amount 258 million is included for operation and
maintenance. This includes nearly 32.9 million for projects to
raise, realign, and clean headstones and markers, and repair
sunken graves. 9.6 million is requested for major construction
and 58 million for minor construction.
The requested budget moves us down the path towards our
2015 target of providing nearly 95 percent of the veterans with
a burial option in a national, state, or tribal veteran's
cemetery within 75 miles of their home. The budget continues
our initiative to build columbarium-only satellite cemeteries
in five urban locations. We are requesting funding for the New
York City area in FY13.
The budget provides for a new rural burial initiative, that
will provide 132,000 currently unserved veterans in eight
states with a convenient burial option. These National
Veteran's Burial Grounds will be in public or private
cemeteries, but owned and managed by the National Cemetery
Administration. The budget request also includes 46 million for
the Veterans Cemetery Grants Program to construct and improve
state and tribal cemeteries.
In support of the goal to end veteran's homelessness, NCA
will provide employment opportunities through a new paid
apprenticeship program for our homeless veterans. We also
remain committed to hiring veterans returning from Iraq and
Afghanistan.
Since 2009, we have hired 257 veterans from these
conflicts. Today, 73.5 percent of NCA employees and 80 percent
of my cemetery directors are veterans. NCA's budget request for
2013 will help end homeless veterans, and increase veteran's
access to benefits they have earned. Your continued support
will enable us to build on recent improvements, and the
appearance and operation of our national cemeteries, and to
serve our veterans as well as they have served us. Thank you
and I'm ready for any questions.
[The prepared statement of Steve Muro appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you very much and we'll begin the
questioning round.
Mr. Muro, since 2001, with the raise and realignment and in
the contracts and/or they were paid for by ACE NCA, how many of
those were contracted and/or paid for, and how many of them
have been completed since `01?
Mr. Muro. We have about 90 cemeteries that had raise and
realign projects, and of those 90, I would say about 40 percent
of them have a completed project, and we've audited those and
are double-checking the audit to make sure we're accurate with
what we did.
We have ongoing projects right now that we are managing and
reviewing, and we're actually revising some of the procedures
to ensure that they don't take the headstones off the grave.
Mr. Runyan. That was my next question, to make sure you
were implementing lessons learned----
Mr. Muro. Yes.
Mr. Runyan. --in that manner.
Ms. Rubens, other than encouraging our VSOs to reach out to
our veterans by making some of its own initiatives to encourage
veterans enroll in eBenefits, what has the VA done to help
bolster that sign-up?
Ms. Rubens. Chairman Runyan, we've actually taken a number
of initiatives to pursue access to eBenefits. Obviously we're
very much partnered up with our VSOs. But we have also worked
with hiring opportunities and job fairs that we've held to
encourage applicants to sign up for eBenefits.
As part of our national call center script, when veterans
call looking for information about their claims, we will also
encourage them to take advantage of the opportunity that
eBenefits has, and actually have the ability now to enroll
callers into our eBenefits system there on the phone. At every
opportunity where we do outreach efforts, stand-downs, we do
those same kinds of efforts to ensure that they're signing up
for eBenefits.
And, of course, as part of the VOW Act, as we begin to
implement that, coming through a TAP Program will be mandatory
for all servicemembers as they're departing from service.
That's actually the easiest and fastest way for us to enroll
them. We will be working to encourage them and require them to
also put that CAC Card in the reader and get them assigned up
for an eBenefits account right there before they ever get out
of service.
Mr. Runyan. Is there a current reach back to the DoD to get
our current veterans transitioning or is that part of the
process already?
Ms. Rubens. That's part of the process, as they're coming
through and getting any kind of transition briefing, we'll
encourage them to sign up. We are also using our Servicemembers
Group Life Insurance sign-up as the opportunity for when
they're going in and establishing that, to also establish their
eBenefits account.
And we're very closely engaged with every bit of outreach,
DoD and ensuring that we have opportunities to get them access
to eBenefits.
Mr. Runyan. I know the Ranking Member commented a little
bit on continuing to hire people, and making sure that we're
not repeating the same mistakes that we have in the past. But
other than the VBMS, how is the VA planning to achieve its goal
of 1.4 million compensation claims in 2013? Because that's a
big number you're trying to tackle. I believe we've said we're
going to actually process more than we take in this year?
Ms. Rubens. Our goal is to begin to process more than we
take in, yes, sir. Ranking Member McNerney's points, I think
were right on and lined up with our transformation plan, in
terms of, you can't just automate the process we've got. We
recognize we need to make changes in the process.
That is why the component around the process, changes are
so important, looking for things that we can change, ensuring
that they are, if you will, lined up to take even better
advantage of technology, but recognizing we can't just automate
the way we do business today and expect a better outcome.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you. That's all I have right now for this
witness. I'll recognize the Ranking Member.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Rubens, you
mentioned early in your testimony that there's eight disability
claims, eight disabilities per claim, whereas in past
conflicts, there were four in the earlier Gulf War and two in
World II, what do you mean by eight disabilities per claim?
What is that? What would an example of that be?
Ms. Rubens. Certainly. So it may be that at the end of
World War II when a serviceman or a veteran when they were
applying got out, they might have applied for two separate
conditions, a knee condition and a shoulder condition.
Our discharging Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are now, when
they apply, coming in and claiming, an average of 8\1/2\
conditions. And so it may be that knee and that shoulder, but
it also might include a TBI and PTSD and an ankle and a back.
And so there are a lot more individual decisions on each
veteran's claim, that as we review their records, we're having
to make in terms of identifying the occurrence in service,
connecting the occurrence to the current condition and
providing a disability rating.
Mr. McNerney. And so you have to make decisions on each
disability independently basically?
Ms. Rubens. Yes, sir.
Mr. McNerney. That's a lot of work. So the independent
budget recommends that the VA add forty FTEs to the Board of
Appeals. As you know the BVA has its own backlog which looks
like 800 days or 880 days, yet the VA's budget flatlines the
general administration account for the VBA.
In light of the recent CVAC's Freeman versus Shinseki
decision, it's going to allow beneficiaries to appeal the VBA's
appointment of a fiduciary, which is going to add to that
backlog. So I'm a little concerned about that.
Are more FTEs needed or how are we going to address this
critical backlog?
Ms. Rubens. Sir, I'm going to tell you that as we look at
the Freeman decision, the first part of that appeal will come
to the Veterans Benefits Administration to make a decision. I
will take, for the record, the need of the Board to add any FTE
because I'm not familiar with what their current staffing needs
might be.
We've not yet seen within VBA tremendous influx from that
Freeman decision, but are watching very closely to ensure we're
attuned to what we might get from those appeals.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I'm going to follow-up on this
fiduciary issue a little bit. I was at the hearing last week,
and it was just very stark. And I know that there's no
maleficence, it's just that there's a miscommunication or
something.
One of the things that came up was the effectiveness of the
Western Hub centralization effort, excuse me, and the ethicacy
of the VA's audit process, it seems that this program gets
short-shrift at the VA, and the results due to the
beneficiaries. What is the level of funding of the VA's
fiduciary program?
Ms. Rubens. Mr. McNerney, I'm going to defer that to my
friend, the CFO, Jamie Manker.
Mr. McNerney. Well, when you're looking that up, what are
the performance measures of the VA fiduciary program?
Ms. Rubens. Yes, thank you. I can talk to the performance
measures for our fiduciary program.
As our responsibility for oversight for that veteran who
may be incompetent to handle his or her funds, it is proposed
by a rating specialist, as a result of the information we
received from the medical doctors, we will provide them due
process, and make a final determination that they'll be in need
of a fiduciary. And then the fiduciary hub in Salt Lake, for
instance, will get the final decision that the veteran needs to
have a fiduciary established.
They have 45 days to do an initial visit and assign and
appoint an initial fiduciary. When we do that, we will have
already released the initial payment. If there's a retroactive
payment due to that veteran, we'll wait until we get a
fiduciary appointed to ensure those funds are appropriately
disbursed.
Excuse me. We also have a process that requires follow-on
field exams from every one to three years, to ensure that
fiduciary continues to adequately disburse those funds.
During that time, we'll also conduct an annual accounting
of the records to ensure the funds are being appropriately
disbursed. And so we've got the 45 day mark for an initial
appointment, and the follow-up field exams within 120 days.
For the annual----
Mr. McNerney. These aren't qualitative or quantitative
performance measures that you're describing? You're describing
how the system works, and I think that's great, it's a--you
know, I need to know that as well. But how--is there any way in
place to judge the quality of the performance of the
fiduciaries?
Ms. Rubens. I would tell you that our annual accounting
reviews is set to look at the quality, if you will, of the
disbursement that that fiduciary does on behalf of that
veteran.
And so if we find discrepancies within the bank accounts
from the veteran and the expenditures as we have set up for how
those funds should be disbursed, we will raise that to a higher
lever review.
I will also tell you that the accounting reviews that we
do, looking at how that fiduciary is managing that money, is
also reviewed by a quality review staff from the Pension and
Fiduciary Service to ensure as we're doing oversight to the
fiduciaries, we're looking to make sure that they are applying
the appropriate rules to ensure those funds are disbursed
appropriately.
Mr. McNerney. Okay. Well, what I would recommend is a
systematic quality review program, so that you can come in here
and say, well, here's our quality measures next year when you
give us this presentation.
Ms. Rubens. Absolutely. And I will tell you that the
Pension and Fiduciary Service, having been stood up last year,
is working closely with us out in the field to ensure that
we've got the best guidance, the best training, and make sure
that we're focused on the best quality outcomes to protect that
veteran.
Mr. Manker. Mr. McNerney, to answer your question, we have
roughly 673 FTE dedicated to the fiduciary program, as well as
three million dollars in non-pay activity for that, so the pay
associated was 673 FTE and then three million additional
dollars.
Mr. McNerney. Okay. Well, we need--continue to need to work
on revising this program.
Ms. Rubens. And, sir, we'd be happy to come in and talk
with your staff at any time about the quality review process
that we've got in place to ensure a good oversight of the
veterans' funds as well as a review of our process.
Mr. McNerney. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. McNerney. Mr. Stutzman.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to you
all for your work and what you do. And it's obviously very,
very important for our veterans, as well as for our country.
But I'd like to talk just a little bit or ask a couple of
questions about--to Mr. Muro. Is that--that's a bad echo, is
there a way to--it's still too loud? All right. I'm just going
to turn the microphone off.
Mr. Muro, the situation in--at Fort Sam Houston, National
Cemetery in Texas, you obviously were over it, you ordered the
audit, and what went with the original raise and realignment
done there? And who did that project?
Mr. Muro. Thank you for the question, Congressman. The
project was started in 2001 or 2002, by a contractor that was
hired to do the raise and realign work in a flat marker
section. We had staff that was overseeing the contract, to
ensure the work was done, and it appears that they missed 47
stones that were placed one off in that row.
Mr. Stutzman. So the misalignment of headstones, that was
discovered in 2001?
Mr. Muro. No, it was discovered in October of 2011.
Mr. Stutzman. 2011?
Mr. Muro. Yes. The new director that arrived at Fort Sam
Cemetery was auditing the sections with the new maps and
updating them, and he came across the error and he immediately
notified us. And then we put a plan in place to notify Congress
and the family members, and we made the corrections.
Mr. Stutzman. When was that correction actually taken? And
has that been completed?
Mr. Muro. Yes. It was completed, I believe, in October. We
contacted the family members and we hired a funeral director to
be present if the family so desired to do the relocation of the
full remains.
The remains were actually second interments that were
completed after the renovation. And all of that has been
corrected.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you. Ms. Rubens, what feedback have you
received on the use of the disabilities benefits questionnaires
thus far?
Ms. Rubens. Thus far, there are largely DBQs being used
internally by VHA doctors. At this point, we've got a limited
number of them that have been out and released from the public
for any length of time.
Over the last year, we did over 500,000 DBQs within VHA and
have seen an improvement of five days in terms of the
timeliness to return exams. VBA and VHA did some joint training
last Fall to ensure the awareness of the DBQs, the how to use
them has been out there.
Largely, I would tell you that they've been received
favorably, and any kind of, I'll say, constructive criticism,
we've worked to incorporate into making improvements, not only
to the paper forms, but as we look to find a way to get them
into an electronic environment as well.
Mr. Stutzman. What kind of--how do you encourage veterans
to--how do they know that the DBQs are available? Do you have a
doctor, do you have other ways they communicate to them? And
also, is there an on-line access for them?
Ms. Rubens. We are. So for the first three DBQs that were
made available, they were associated with the three new
presumptive conditions that we did last year as part of the
Agent Orange addition of ischemic heart disease, Parkinson and
the Leukemias. They were incorporated into the external facing
Fast Track System that was out there for any Vietnam era
veteran that wanted to apply for one of those three
disabilities, as a result of the exposure to Agent Orange.
As we move forward, we are looking at how best to
incorporate those into our electronic environment, which will
also be available then through eBenefits, and our on-line
application process as we look forward to the spring to get
VONAPP Direct Connect established and incorporated to that on-
line accessibility.
Mr. Stutzman. Are you seeing any interest from veterans
using eBenefits?
Ms. Rubens. We are seeing interest in veterans using
eBenefits. We have over 1.3 million users signed up today. I
will tell you that we look at not only eBenefits as an access
channel, but also our telephone structure.
What we've seen since `09 is an increase in contacts, up
from over 9 million to up over 14 million, whether it's on-line
access through eBenefits, whether it's through our telephone
system. And so we are seeing more contact from veterans.
Mr. Stutzman. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Stutzman. Mr. Barrow?
Mr. Barrow. I thank the chair. First off, I want to
apologize to the witnesses and to my colleagues in my tardiness
this morning, it's because I'm double booked this morning. And
unlike a United States Senator, I can't be in two places at
once. I'm still trying to work on tri-location, much less bi-
location.
Second, I want to acknowledge the presence of our next
panel of a real American hero, and a hero of mine, and a fine
public servant, the Secretary of the American Battle Monuments
Commission, former Senator Max Cleland, a great friend of mine.
I would be remiss if I didn't--he's a panel all unto himself
coming up. And with that, Mr. Chairman, what I want to do is
yield the balance of my time to the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee in deference to his rank, and the fact that he's
been here from the beginning of this hearing.
Mr. Runyan. Well----
Mr. McNerney. I thank the gentleman from Georgia, I didn't
know it was that rank, sir.
Ms. Rubens, I'd like to explore the claims processing
initiative involving the ACS, Incorporated, which is a private
contractor.
A recent project on government oversight, also known as
POGO, had a study that issued--that it issued on 9/11--on 9/13/
11 indicating that contractors cost more than Federal
employees. On average, it says the contractors are paid 1.83
times as much as Federal employees. And, in fact, the claims
processing contractors are the most expensive, in this case,
for claims assistance and examination work at 57,000 compared
to 75,000 for contractors doing the same job.
So why is it necessary for us to go to private contractors
for this sort of work, and could you elaborate on that, please?
Ms. Rubens. Ranking Member McNerney, I will profess my
ignorance about the study to which you refer, but I will tell
you that the ACS contract for us, really is to help us address
the backlog as VBA is working through several items.
I would point to the increasing receipts that we are
continuing to see; the fact that we have this burgeoning
workload, and quite frankly, the opportunity for us to use a
short-term help as we move through a transformation to offset
any training deficit that we see, as we build new skill sets in
our own employees.
It's meant to do a rapid development of roughly 300,000
claims from increased claims for benefits, to initial
compensation claims, pension claims, as well as dependency
issues.
We are also taking advantage of this contract to encourage
veterans to sign up for eBenefits. We are also using ACS to
look at our processes to ensure that we're using the most
efficient process. And so it is around several areas that we
think that the short-term one year contract will help us as we
move through transformation to encourage our resources to be as
effective and efficient as they can, in an effort to most
timely and accurately serve veterans.
Mr. McNerney. So it sounds like you're looking at this as a
temporary situation?
Ms. Rubens. Yes, sir.
Mr. McNerney. And you mentioned a number, 300,000 claims,
so that's sort of your goal, and I'd like to see that number
remain, that number--or get smaller, not get bigger.
Ms. Rubens. And that actually is a high water mark, sir, as
we work with ACS to get that development done in those four
areas. We are looking for an opportunity to help as we move
through transformation to see what kinds of technology they
use, to see what good ideas they might have, and incorporate
that into the system that we have. This is only a one year shot
in the arm, if you will.
Mr. McNerney. And during that time, you're going to be
training--it's kind of almost like out-sourcing, you're going
to ask them to train our--your employees, your Federal
employees; is that right?
Ms. Rubens. No, sir. They're doing the development for us.
We provided them some initial training, to help them understand
our process, and have had one person on the ground with ACS to
ensure quality reviews are done of the work that they're
completing. But they are then going to provide those ready-for-
decision claims back to us, and our employees will make those
decisions using our systems, using our own technology.
Mr. McNerney. But you're not--you said you're using them as
an opportunity to look at what technology might be used to
improve your own processes.
Ms. Rubens. And use any ideas that they might have
developed to help improve our VBMS system, and our VRM system
to ensure that we've got the best tools in the hands of our
employees.
Mr. McNerney. So you're training them, and then they're
going to train our folks as well. Is there any reverse
training? Are they going to be training our folks at all?
Ms. Rubens. No, sir. And we train them in our process. They
largely built their own system. We've got somebody on the
ground to make sure that the development work, the gathering of
evidence, if you will, that they're doing in association with
these claims, meets the quality and the requirements that we
need then to make a good decision for our veteran.
Mr. McNerney. Okay. Well, we're going to keep an eye on
that. That's----
Ms. Rubens. Yes, sir.
Mr. McNerney. There's a lot of opportunity there for abuse
and there's a lot of opportunity for gain as well. So thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you. And I think I have a few more
questions. So we'll start a second round pertaining to VBMS. Do
you have an approximate date of the nationwide roll-out coming
this year, or excuse me, in `13?
Ms. Rubens. Thank you, Chairman Runyan. We will begin--as
you know, we've got Phase I that was released in Providence,
and we've got Phase II that went to Salt Lake last Fall. Phase
III is scheduled for release in May of this year. We will then
begin a phased roll-out to the Nation in July, after we finish
testing, user acceptance testing, make sure it does all that we
would like it to do.
Because of the concern about the volume of work that we've
got, we want to make sure that we don't throw everybody into a
state of change at once, and so it will be a phased roll-out
through the end of 2012, and through 2013, as we get it into
each and every regional office.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you. And my next question again is for
the Under Secretary Muro. There's two categories that both
receive increases in your budget. I'd like you to define what
they are. You have personal services and other accounts, and
the rationalization behind them?
Mr. Muro. The increases in our budget are for increased
workload. We're increasing FTE, to cover the expected interment
workload and contract funding for the expansion and maintenance
of the amount of graves that we're going to maintain.
We completed 117,000 burials this past year. We expect to
do 119,000 plus in 2013, so there is a growth in acreage
maintained, and a growth of graves maintained. With all that
maintenance, and with all the workload, we're only increasing
by 4 FTE.
Mr. Runyan. Well, and talking about workload, obviously the
audit you're undertaking is a tremendous lift. Where is that
fitting into your budget? And are we going to have to address
this again next year as you continue to dig through that
process?
Mr. Muro. No, because the workload s picked up by the
cemetery directors as part of their oversight responsibilities.
We're requiring the directors to actually go out with their
foremen with maps, and the ledgers, and walk all the graves. So
it's not an increased FTE or workload, we're doing the audit
completely in-house.
Mr. Runyan. Okay. That's all I have. Mr. McNerney, do you
have anything else?
Mr. McNerney. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have one single
question.
Concerning the use of flat-fast track for the Agent Orange
claims, is this being effective, is it--how much does it cost,
and do you plan on using it for any other purpose? Ms. Rubens?
Ms. Rubens. Yes, sir, Ranking Member McNerney, I will have
to take the costs for the record and come back to you with that
information.
Mr. McNerney. Sure.
Ms. Rubens. We have seen a great deal of our Nehmer Agent
Orange Veterans utilize that Fast Track System. I will need to
bring you the specific numbers for the record.
Mr. McNerney. Are they finding it satisfactory?
Ms. Rubens. I think that they are. The challenge, of
course, is it's--when they bring all the things that we need
and they put it into the electronic system, it'll go much more
quickly. If they, for instance, still require a medical
examination, we'll still need to do that for them, to ensure
that we've got all the relevant information to make the
decision.
Mr. McNerney. And do you plan on sort of expanding the use
of that system if it's successful in the operating----
Ms. Rubens. The concepts behind the Fast Track System have
been incorporated in a lot of ways to, I would say not only our
VBMS system, but our Veterans Relation Management System, as it
incorporates the VONAPP Direct Connect on-line application
process, enhancing the ability for a veteran or a servicemember
as we get ready to roll out that compensation application later
this spring, that we'll put it into a, I'm going to use,
TurboTax-like environment that is a question and answer, to
ease the burden of applying for benefits.
So that if there are sections of an application, that they
don't need to complete, it will skip those and walk them
through only the information that we need.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. McNerney. Mr. Barrow, do you
have anything further?
Well, with that, on behalf of the Subcommittee, I thank all
of you for your testimony and we do look forward to working
with you as we take care of our national heroes, whether
they're fallen and deceased, or they're currently with us in
the administration. So I thank you and you're excused.
I'd like to ask our second panel to come to the table. We
welcome the Honorable Max Cleland, the Secretary of the
American Battle Monuments Commission.
STATEMENT OF MAX CLELAND
Mr. Cleland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Runyan. Sir, thank you very much for being here, and
you are recognized for your oral testimony.
Mr. Cleland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
those kind words from the gentleman from Georgia. We thank you
very much. Thanks.
I thought I was going to be on a panel with the DAV. I was
going to say that the DAV gave a half a million dollars to our
World War II Memorial fund-raising campaign, and I thought the
AMVETS were going to be here. If they're in the audience, I'd
just like to recognize them for their national service
foundation contribution. They give a carillon each year to each
one of our commemorative cemeteries abroad.
I would like to also say that--echoing the comments of the
Ranking Member that I was head of the VA in the 20th Century,
back when putting claims processing, the GI Bill compensation
and pension benefits on a computer was a new idea. I'm kind of
glad hearing the challenges of our VA friends, that I'm not the
head of the VA now. I'm glad I'm a former head of the VA.
I'm the Secretary of America's commemorative agency, the
American Battle Monuments Commission. We commemorate through
commemorative cemeteries and markers in fourteen different
Nations, American battles from the Mexican War, the Spanish
American War, World War I, and World War II, that's basically
our mission.
We maintain commemorative cemeteries, 24 of them, and we
maintain 25 markers throughout the world. We have three markers
or memorials in the United States. One is the East Coast
Memorial, marking the names of the missing from World War II in
the coastal waters of the Atlantic. That's located in Battery
Park in Manhattan.
We have a commemorative memorial marking the loss of life
of the names of the missing, and the names of the missing from
the Pacific waters, the coastal waters of the United States.
And we have a memorial at the Punch Bowl Cemetery. The cemetery
is run by the VA, but we have a memorial there.
And we have the names of the missing from the Nimitz
theater of operations from World War II, Korea, and Vietnam.
Soon we'll be dedicating the battle maps and pavilions for the
Vietnam War. We will be dedicating this year a marker, a
memorial, in Pusan, Korea marking the American participation in
the Korean War, sixty years after the truce. So we are still
engaged in marking America's battles.
Our budget has declined about five percent over the last
couple of years, so we're losing money and people. We're still
able to do our job of commemoration, but it's getting tighter
and tighter. So with that, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to open the
discussion for questions.
[The prepared statement of Max Cleland appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, and I guess I'll start right there,
and I know I asked you this question last year, and I commend
you for your leadership again, because I know you're requesting
a $2 million cut in your overall FY13 budget. And I commend you
for that aspect of being fiscally conservative, but at the same
light, are we--again, I'll ask quick, are we able to maintain
this in the long term or are we creating a bigger problem down
the road?
Mr. Cleland. We're not severely conservative. We can----
Mr. Runyan. But again, you just said you had budget
shortfalls.
Mr. Cleland. We can do our job. But this can't go on
forever, Mr. Chairman. I told our appropriations Subcommittee
on the House side last year, that when it came to that point
where we couldn't do our job, then I would be ranting and
raving on his desk and on yours about that. Because I can't be
a participant, and you can't be a participant in something
where the American Battle Monuments Commission can't do its
job.
But there are ways with which we can tighten up and we're
doing that. I think in terms of, shall we say, deferred
maintenance, we have a better handle on what we need to do with
our memorial--commemorative memorial cemeteries and our markers
than we've ever had, and we're able to deal with that. We have
controls put in place for major construction projects that only
I can approve, and we are also very sensitive about not messing
up what has already been there. We call it our historical
assets program. Making sure that we don't paper over or screw
up history.
So we're all right. We're okay. But this five percent cut
every two years can't go on forever, because ultimately we
wouldn't be able to do our work.
Mr. Runyan. And going down that same line, and you want to
talk about the foreign currency fluctuations account, obviously
with the volatility of the dollar against other currencies, are
we in the same boat on that line also?
Mr. Cleland. We're okay. We don't know whether the European
Union is going to disband. We don't know whether the euro is
going to explode. That's why we have about, I don't know, a 10
to $15 million foreign currency account with the Department of
Treasury, so that if a really great weirdness breaks out in
France, Luxemburg, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands, and so
forth, we can handle it. We can adjust it. So we have about 15
million in the foreign currency account.
The dollar seems to be okay. It's the euro that's in
trouble now, so. But we were able to monitor that, and we have
flexibility to handle that, so I think we're good in terms of
the foreign currency account. I really don't anticipate any
problem with that.
Now, if the euro just goes belly up, all those European
Nations start their own currency, if we get in trouble, we'll
be back to you.
Mr. Runyan. In dealing with modernizing how we do this,
what kind of resources are you doing, say Web site, mobile
phone apps to, I guess, educate the people?
Mr. Cleland. Well, you put your finger on it. One of the
problems of growing up in the 20th Century is that you're
pretty much stuck in the 20th Century. So I, myself, have had
to adjust to the 21st Century, and the incredible technology
available out there, the worldwide technology, through the
Internet, Facebook, Twitter and so forth, in which you
communicate or can communicate with people.
So we have brought on, in terms of telling our story, what
I call a Web guru, someone who--a young person who really
understands that world, and I'm getting educated.
We have a Facebook page, and as we monitor that Facebook
page daily, we get our usage going up, more and more people are
hearing about us. We're also going into interactive videos,
where right now we have up on our Web site, an interactive
video about the Normandy Invasion and the taking of the cliffs
at Pointe du Hoc. But we hope to have over the next few years,
about forty some odd interactive videos.
So that if you're sitting somewhere in the world and have
access to the Internet, you can access our Web site, and learn
the story of these American battles in forty different
locations.
We have the, shall we say, the timeline, or the theme of
World War I already coming up in the next few months on our Web
site. And we have the commemoration of World War I, which is
big in Europe, it may not be big here, but it's big in Europe.
World War I started a hundred years ago come August 2014. So we
are heavily engaged with those countries that were heavily
engaged in that, France, Belgium, and England, with our World
War I commemorations, and our World War I commemorative
cemeteries.
We are more and more putting stuff online, on Facebook, and
more and more reaching out to people. That is the cutting edge
of what we're trying to do. So we can--we're doing that, we're
able to do that, and that's an initiative we're able to
execute.
Mr. Runyan. I have one final question, and it seems that at
some point, there's going to be people pounding on the table
like yourself saying we need help. I ask that question right
here, in the anticipation and creation of the United States
memorial at the UN Cemetery in Korea, what do you anticipate
coming down the pipeline there as a cost factor?
Mr. Cleland. Well, it's just about $300,000, we can handle
that. We've already got the design. We're planning it for a
dedication some time this summer. We've got that one in our
budget, we're okay on that.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cleland. It'll be at Pusan, Korea, as a matter of fact,
sir. And the only UN cemetery that the United Nations has. Out
of the eleven Nations that fought the Korean War, ten have a
memorial there. We don't. And we want to correct that, and
that's what we do, and we will do that this summer, and we can
handle it within our budget. We've already planned for it.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you very much. Mr. McNerney?
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join my
colleague in--from Georgia in congratulating the current
panelist for your service and current service as well. And I'm
also glad to hear that you're not severely conservative.
So at our budget hearing last year, you mentioned that the
American Battle Monuments Commission had an effort to
standardize its operations across all the cemeteries. Can you
give us a little update on that effort?
Mr. Cleland. The gut part of that, sir, is what we call our
new financial management system. If anybody says to you, we're
going to put in a new computer plan, run. Don't walk, run. But
we had to because the other financial management system really
wasn't a financial management system. It was held together by
adhesive tape and chewing gum, and it was going to pot real
fast.
So we have a brand new financial management system, which
is standardizing our financial management at every one of our
locations, whether it's central office here in Arlington or our
commemorative cemeteries.
So, you know, garbage in/garbage out. The challenge of this
new system is that we make sure that people know how to use it,
so we have to become a little bit more user-friendly with it,
but that happens with any computer system. Ultimately, however,
that becomes the backbone by which we manage effectively and
efficiently, and in terms of accountability, the entire
worldwide system. So that's the backbone of it.
I would say another part of it, too, is that we have
centralized, I have centralized the operations in Paris with
the implementation of five regional directors, which then
relate to our twenty-four superintendents, all of which happen
to be, believe it or not, retired military veterans.
So we feel that organizationally, we pretty much got a
handle on it now. And financially, we've got a world class 21st
Century financial management system now. And as we go through
the peaks and valleys of bringing both those new systems in,
we'll get better and better, and we're able to account to you
and to the country better.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. You've mentioned the time spans of
fifteen to twenty years to get projects completed. What's your
target timeline to fully complete the renovations to
accommodate the state-of-the-art interpretive exhibits?
Mr. Cleland. Our whole focus on that has been adjusted due
to the access to the Internet which we're now doing. We are
going to do some interpretive centers, like at Cambridge,
England, and at Sicily--Rome in Italy. I would say we'll
complete about five of those over the next four or five years.
However, in two years, we should have all of our commemorative
cemeteries up with some interpretive capability.
For instance, we don't have to build brand new, shall we
say boxes at a particular cemetery, we can use some of the
existing buildings. For instance, at Meuse-Argonne, which is
the biggest cemetery in Europe from World War I, we're using an
existing building and making sure we provide some interpretive
capability there. The French like that because they want to
capitalize on the tourism coming for the World War I
Centennial.
But at most other sites, we don't need a big box, we don't
need even a minor adjustment, we just need to make sure that
there's some interpretive capability there.
So I would say, sir, that in the space of two years, all of
our commemorative cemeteries will have some capability of
interpreting the battles and why that cemetery is there. And
within the space of five years, we should have all of our
boxes, all of our major new interpretive centers up and
running.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. I'm going to yield back.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. McNerney. Mr. Walz.
Mr. Walz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Runyan. We've been having that problem all day.
Mr. Walz. Thank you. It wasn't just me. Well, thank you for
coming, and as I'm sure my colleagues said, I'll echo those
sentiments, thank you to your service----
Mr. Cleland. Thank you.
Mr. Waltz. --both in uniform and as we've said here, and I
would like to point out I know we certainly--began the flagship
of the VA health care system since that multi-trauma center in
Minneapolis, Minnesota that was built during your time as VA
Secretary. So as someone who understands legacy, someone who
understands many years later and several wars later, that that
facility has continued to serve our veterans. And so I, for
one, certainly rest assured knowing you're out there protecting
the sacred grounds for our families and for future generations.
Mr. Cleland. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Walz. I also appreciate listening to the Chairman's
questions, Senator, your candidness about making this work, and
I think that at least helps us know where the line is at, to
know that when you tell us you can't sustain this for years,
because looking at your plan of 15 to 20 year projects,
whatever, we've got to make sure there's a consistency in that
funding to allow you to do that.
Mr. Cleland. Right.
Mr. Walz. So I for one, I have no questions, other than
just to say thank you for this, leave it to your expertise and
I--having you as the guardian certainly makes me sleep well at
night, so----
Mr. Cleland. Thank you.
Mr. Walz. --with that, I yield back.
Mr. Cleland. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Walz, and I do have one more
question, and we'll go through the Members again if they do.
But concerning some of our cemeteries in places like Tunisia
and Mexico City, what is the state of security for those that
are interred there, our American veterans that are buried
there?
Mr. Cleland. Tunisia. I never thought that I would have to
give an award for courage to a foreman who kept a cemetery
going when the tanks and machine guns were right outside the
gate. And he kept it going, and he kept the employees paid, and
I've personally given him an award for courage and merit for
keeping that going. I never thought I'd ever have to do that in
terms of a cemetery foreman. But in that case, in Tunisia, I
did.
We are actually not only in good shape in Tunisia, with a
great leadership team, but we are actually doing about a
million dollar's worth of improvements there in Tunisia. During
the, shall we say, the revolution, we were okay. As a matter of
fact, we worked closely with the State Department because if
the State Department had to evacuate, they were going to land
their helicopters on our grounds. So I never realized that I'd
ever have to plan for an evacuation of anybody, but in Tunisia,
we had to go through all that process.
Our grounds were not invaded. They were not put upon, and
our foreman and our team there kept it all together, and for
which, we've honored them.
In terms of Mexico City, we had to reduce not because of
any disturbance or whatever, but it went from about two acres
to one acre, we consolidated our operations. And we lean on the
background information from the Army that took it over in 1851
after the Mexican War, then it was run by the State Department,
then we took it over.
So we are okay in terms of Mexico City. They'll soon have
in the next couple of years, some interpretive capability. And
these are soldiers, a small number of soldiers, 750 in
commingled remains there from the Mexican War, but we have a
good cemetery and a good cemetery leader there.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you for that. Mr. McNerney, anything
further?
Mr. McNerney. I have nothing else.
Mr. Runyan. Mr. Walz?
Mr. Walz. No.
Mr. Runyan. Well, Mr. Secretary, I thank you for your
service on every level. I appreciate you coming in and being
honest and straight-forward and giving us the heads up that
you'll be pounding on that table some time in the near future
so----
Mr. Cleland. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Runyan. --thank you and you're excused.
Mr. Cleland. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Runyan. I now would like to welcome Chief Justice Bruce
Kasold of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims. We appreciate your attendance today and you are now
recognized for five minutes for your oral testimony.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE E. KASOLD
Mr. Kasold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be
before you today and your Committee. I will present a summary
of my testimony here and at the same time submit my written
statement for the record.
The fiscal year 2013 budget request by the United States
Court of Appeals for Veterans' Claims is $32,480,000. It comes
in two separate parts. If you'll recall, one part is for the
courts' operations, which is $29,754,000, and the other part is
for the veterans consortium pro bono program, which is 2.7
million, and that's just a flow-through our budget and
appropriation.
The overall request is 1.7 million above the FY12
appropriation. The court is one of the busiest Federal
appellate courts based on the number of appeals filed and
decided per judge. We currently have six active judges with one
permanent and two temporary authorizations still vacant. We
have six senior judges, all of whom have been recalled to serve
this past year, and they perform about a quarter of the
workload of the rest of the judges.
In response to our heavy case load, we've identified ways
to gain efficiency, while preserving for all veterans the right
to a full and fair decision on their appeals. The measures we
have employed include making administrative adjustments and
hiring some temporary staff to assist chambers in providing
prompt judicial review; and adjusting the tasks assigned to our
central legal staff attorneys to allow them to concentrate
their efforts on the pre-briefing conferencing that was
established by my predecessor, Chief Judge Greene, and to
assist our recalled senior judges.
We streamlined the decision process for cases where the
parties are both represented by counsel and are fully briefed,
and we continue to adapt our electronic case management case
filing system.
Above all, I can assure you that being down three judges,
it's the tireless effort and focus of our active judges, our
six senior judges, and everybody at the court, that has allowed
us to continue to function as efficiently as we have.
We continue to encourage the appointment of a commission to
evaluate the costs and benefits of the unique two-tiered
Federal appellate review system that we have for veteran's
benefit decisions, and I've said more in my statement that I
submitted, and I can answer questions as we go further.
We remain the only Federal appellate court in a leased
commercial office building, to my knowledge. We are, however,
mindful of the budget constraints faced by Congress and this
Committee, however, we strongly urge that if Federal
courthouses are going to be built, that the Committee authorize
and ultimately appropriate funds for our courthouse, but we
understand the dynamics perhaps of this year, and we'll stay on
top of that as best we can.
One thing I would like to report on to you, I have
mentioned before, that there were two areas of unprogrammed
delay that I identified fairly soon after becoming chief judge.
One was the number of cases that were in the chambers and how
long it was taking to get them out, and I'm pleased to report
that that number is significantly down. Virtually all cases are
being decided within 30 days of going to chambers, unless
they're at panel, or stayed for cases at panel.
The other area was the number of cases that had finished
the briefing, finished the conferencing, and were waiting for
our central legal staff to prepare the memorandum that went
with the case to chambers. That number was in the neighborhood
of 700, and that's down below 400 now. So we've made some
improvements on that. Also, the number of cases in the court
over 18 months is significantly down. The total number of cases
actually in the court is also down somewhat.
So, we've identified some areas that we could work on. I
think we're finally squeezing out as much as we can though. We
know that there are two nominees pending; there were three, as
you know--one pulled out. I believe they're going to have a
hearing in March, and we anxiously await their appointment. And
with that, Mr. Chairman, I'll turn it over for questions.
[The prepared statement of Chief Justice Bruce E. Kasold
appears in the Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you. The one, and you probably anticipate
this being the first question, but nearly all of the additional
funding you've requested is for the contribution of the court's
retirement fund.
Can you explain in more detail why you feel that such a
substantial increase to the fund is necessary?
Mr. Kasold. Yes. First, in preparing my first budget as
Chief Judge I went back and looked at the requests made for the
fund in our budget requests--and at the end of the year, there
was always a million or odd dollars being added. As you know,
we have statutory authorization to use funds that have not been
expended, to keep the retirement fund at a fully funded level.
This past year, we ended up adding a little bit more than a
million dollars.
With that--and I mentioned last year that we'd taken a look
at the process and noted that the actuaries are required to
evaluate the amount of money in the fund, and compute increases
over the future at a five percent rate. We're actually getting
a .025, rate increase. This means that on $20 million, a little
bit more than that, but about $20 million, you have a million
dollar shortfall at the beginning of the next fiscal year every
single time that happens.
The second thing we did was review the number of estimates
that were used to determine the participants in the program. We
discussed them, and we refined them to try and reduce the
amount of money that would go in at the end of the year to
bring the retirement fund up to full funding.
Now, full funding basically means that at the end of the
fifteen-year term of a judge, what would be the amount of money
necessary to pay the judges' retirement until their death. It
will continue to adjust over time, obviously, depending on the
death rate, whether there are survivor benefits, whether there
are increases to salaries, whether there's inflation or not
inflation, so it will continue to adjust depending on the full
funding picture at that time.
So over the fifteen-year term, you put in the funds to
bring it to that point for full funding. And there are
adjustments. I'm just trying to bring transparency to the
budget, if you will, to identify the amount that it takes to
keep the retirement fund at full funding, and reduce the amount
needed at the end of the year.
It doesn't mean we won't need more funding at the end of
the year, because there are a whole lot of estimates that go
into this. So we will look again at the end of the year, but
I'm anticipating that at the end of 2013--actually I'm
anticipating at the end of this year, any shortfall will be
less, because I think last year we were already adjusting for
the five percent interest rate differential.
And I'm anticipating at the end of 2013 that we would have
a much significant smaller number to transfer over, if
anything.
Mr. Runyan. What steps has the court taken to promote more
efficiency in the operations to help cut costs?
Mr. Kasold. Well in the costs?
Mr. Runyan. And to help cut costs.
Mr. Kasold. To help cut costs. One example would be in its
expenses. The court had been on a three-year program of
replacing its computer equipment. We delayed that one year. So
there's an area where somewhere in the neighborhood of $300,000
to $400,000 has been delayed.
At the same time, however, we have additional expenses that
we've identified in the COOP Arena. Our COOP Arena is not
programmed to permit participation off site, and on site--it
only allows for fourteen people. So, to take care of the COOP
issue, we have asked for funding. Is that an area you could
delay? You could, I suppose--it depends on how much you want to
support the COOP program.
So you had some offset, some savings in the computer arena,
some offsets in the other arena. I think the increase that you
see in here for the court, outside of the judge's fund, is
about a half a million dollars as I recall, and it's directly
related to the compensation for the employees and the normal
step increases, the participation that might occur in the
Thrift Savings Program, which is an estimate you have to make,
and just the normal increases, the health insurance, any cost
that could go with that. There is no other increase in this
budget, other than that judge's fund.
Mr. Runyan. And one last question. In your capacity as the
Chief Judge, what are your observations about the overall
efficiency of the veteran's consortium pro bono program?
Mr. Kasold. I can speak to the program in that I think it's
helpful. Over 60 percent of the cases filed at court are still
pro se. But about 25 percent are pro se as it goes through the
process, and the pro bono consortium, I believe, is responsible
for assisting on that.
On actual dollars, I don't get into or look at that. It
flows through our budget over to legal services, if I'm not
mistaken, down into the consortium, and I defer to them coming
in and explaining their particular program. But I think that
they have been very helpful in that the number of pro se cases
goes from 60% down to 20%.
I know they have an extensive training program because all
the judges--we support that, and they have training programs
throughout the Nation. Some of our travel expenses, by the way,
are for judges going out to the training program to speak to
them, to let them know how important the program is.
Mr. Runyan. Okay. Thank you. Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you. Thank the witness for
appearing before us today.
You noted a down tick in appeals of at least 400 cases,
fewer than last year. Could you explain that reduction?
Mr. Kasold. I think it's a consequence of the number of
decisions at the Board, and the number, in particular, of
denials at the Board. I haven't gone into the actual Board
numbers to study them, but there appears to be a direct
relation to those decisions from the Board that are negative,
obviously, and the appeals to the court.
Whether or not there was a greater--we've talked
analytically--whether or not there's a greater effort by the
Board to remand before they come up to court, I don't know that
for sure. In fact, I've got a meeting tentatively scheduled in
March with the Secretary and members of the Bar and the court,
to discuss some of those particular issues. But I believe it's
the number at the Board.
They also had, if I'm not mistaken, a hiring freeze at the
Board, and I think they were reduced a team or two, and that
would affect the numbers of decisions that they produce.
Mr. McNerney. Is the Court still remanding 50 to 60
percent?
Mr. Kasold. About--well----
Mr. McNerney. I think----
Mr. Kasold. I think it's higher than that overall. The
conferencing program that was established two or three years
ago is working very, very well, resulting in a remand of about
50 percent of all the cases where you have representation of
counsel and the matter goes through that conferencing program.
On top of that, you have the cases remanded by a judge. So it's
about 70, 75 percent by the end of the day.
We have about a 50 percent remand rate, which is agreed to
by the parties, by the Secretary who reviews it and agrees to a
remand. The Secretary, well actually his representative, his
counsel agrees to those remands, and they go back.
Then you have the rest of the cases that go into chambers
and you have a number of them. And the total number remanded, I
believe, is still around 70 percent. I didn't specifically look
at it before coming, but I believe it's still around 70 percent
of the overall cases.
Mr. McNerney. So that number hasn't changed in the last few
years?
Mr. Kasold. I'll get back to your staff to confirm it, but
I believe it's still about 70 percent. The 50 percent has not
changed, that one I do know, and I believe the chambers are
still about the same. So the total is about 70, but I will
confirm it back with staff, sir.
Mr. McNerney. Well, with the down tick in appeals, do you
still believe that it's necessary to add two additional judges
as currently authorized?
Mr. Kasold. My understanding is that the request for judges
and the need for judges was premised on the continued growth of
claims at VA, which I understand is going to 1.4 million. If
those claims get appealed to the Board, and the Board gets the
staffing to make the decisions, you get increased decisions
from the Board, and I would anticipate that the appeals to the
court would continue to grow.
I'll also say that we cannot do what we're doing now
without the recall of our senior judges. When you look at that
particular program--they actually are retired, but we have
recalled them all. If you take them off the table, the numbers
that I've given you are going to go up significantly.
Part of the program changes that we made and that I
mentioned before--about the unprogrammed delays--was a
reduction in the type of briefing that was done internally by
our central legal staff before sending cases into the chambers.
That shift allowed a number of our central legal staff to
assist the senior judges and prepare the cases that they have.
And we've also directed them to review these cases ahead of
time, so that when the senior judges come on board, they're
ready to go and process cases. And so that's been an efficiency
also that we've added.
But it really comes down to one of those policy calls. When
you have a senior judge who is retired, as long as they
continue to come back, you're going to get productivity from
them--about a quarter of the case load. If they were to retire,
we've lost----
Mr. McNerney. They will retire.
Mr. Kasold. We have six active judges. We absolutely need
seven, in my view. And then if we get any increase in these
cases, the additional judges that are authorized, I believe,
will be needed.
Now, that, as you recall, is a temporary authorization.
They have to be filled by the end of this year. And even if
filled, they will go away when the next two judges retire from
the court, and that, as I understand it, was for the court and
the Committee to review the continued need of nine judges
versus the seven that are permanently authorized.
So I think it's a good plan. And I think if we get the two
judges--I know definitely the one filling the permanent
position--if we get the two, I think it'll be good for the
court.
We still have about 4,000 cases in the court. Now, a lot of
those in the court are in the processing phase. But before
judges, we have about 400 cases pending.
And so if you think the flow is kind of steady now, you're
going to have about 400 cases in that pending decision arena,
and each judge does in the neighborhood of 200 to 250 per year
give or take, depending on how difficult they are.
Mr. McNerney. Okay. Well, thank you. Yield.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. McNerney. Mr. Walz, nothing?
Mr. Walz. Nothing.
Mr. Runyan. I actually have one more question, just going
back to talking about the two additional justices being
authorized.
Aside from staff, and obviously their position, is there
any other fluctuation in the court's budget by bringing them
on?
Mr. Kasold. We have budgeted for the last two years, if I'm
not mistaken, for these additional chambers. Judge Greene
retired the year before, so we were budgeting for two
additional chambers. Frankly, this past year, we budgeted for
three chambers that have not been filled.
You're talking about three judges, three secretaries, and
four clerks, so it's eighteen people, and we returned about
three and a half million dollars from our budget last year. So
the budget is there for the fully staffed chambers.
Obviously, this fiscal year, we will be returning funds
again because we'll have half of the year or maybe two-thirds
of a year or maybe three-quarters of a year or maybe a whole
year where we don't fund those particular chambers. So we have
requested the funding for them.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you. Anything further?
I guess that's all we have. Again, thank you for your
testimony. We thank you for your service in making sure we get
our veterans taken care of, and appreciate you coming and your
testimony here today. So you're excused.
Mr. Kasold. Thank you very much. On behalf of the Board of
Judges, and all the court, we really appreciate the support
from Congress. It's been very good. Thank you very much.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you.
And finally, I would like to invite the witness of our last
panel to the table. First, we have Mr. Jeffery Hall, who's the
Assistant National Legislative Director for Disabled American
Veterans, who will be followed by Ms. Diane Zumatto, the
National Legislative Director for AMVETS. Mr. Hall, we will
start with you. You're recognized for five minutes for your
statement.
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY HALL, ASSISTANT NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR FOR DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS, AND DIANE ZUMATTO,
NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR FOR AMVETS
STATEMENT OF JEFFREY HALL
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to you and
Ranking Member McNerney, and other Members of the Subcommittee.
On behalf of the DAV and it's 1.4 million members, I'm pleased
to be here today to offer DAV's views and recommendations
regarding the budget for FY2013 as it relates to veterans'
benefits programs, judicial review, and the Veterans Benefits
Administration.
Mr. Chairman, VBA is now in the third year of their latest
effort to transform its outdated and inefficient claims
processing system into a modern rules-based digital system.
Over the next year, we will begin to see whether their
strategies to transform the people, processes, and technologies
will finally result in a cultural shift away from focusing on
speed and production, to a business culture of quality and
accuracy. Which is the only way to truly get the backlog under
control.
Although we have been very pleased with VBA's increased
collaboration with VSO stakeholders, we urge this Committee to
provide constant and aggressive oversight of the many
transformation activities taking place throughout this year.
Perhaps the most important initiative is the new Veterans
Benefits Management System, or VBMS, which will begin rolling
out in June with full deployment planned to occur by the end of
2013. As VBA works to complete, perfect, and deploy this vital
new IT system, it is absolutely crucial that sufficient
resources are provided and protected.
We note that the budget for VBMS drops down from $148
million in FY2012 to $128 million in FY2013. We hope the
Committee will thoroughly examine whether that level of funding
is sufficient.
In order to sustain VBA's transformation efforts during
FY2013, DAV recommends maintaining current staffing levels in
most business lines. Given the large increases in claims
processors over the past few years, we believe that VBA's focus
should now be on properly training new and existing employees,
which is why we're concerned about recent reports from the
field, indicating that VBA is already short on training
dollars, and cutting back on challenge training done through
its centralized academy.
Yet, at the same time, we've heard that VBA is instituting
a new round of mandatory overtime for compensation service
employees, which at time and a half would have significant cost
implications. We hope the Committee shares our concerns and
will look into these reports to ensure that VBA's focus remains
on quality and accuracy and not just production.
Mr. Chairman, the VR&E budget proposal for FY2013 does
request funding for approximately 150 new counselors designated
for expansion into the integrated disability evaluation system,
and for the VetSuccess on campus program. And we support both
of these increases and programs. However, in order to reach the
target of having one counselor for 125 veterans served, they
will need approximately 195 additional counselors for FY2013,
in order to meet the projected workload increase.
DAV also recommends a staffing increase for the Board of
Veterans Appeals. Although the Board is currently authorized to
have 544 full-time employee equivalents, its adopted budget for
FY2012 only supports 532. And for FY2013, the budget requests
would further reduce that to 527 full-time employee
equivalents.
In looking at historical appeal rates, and the rising
number of original compensation claims, DAV recommends that the
Board of Veterans Appeals be given sufficient funding for an
authorized workforce in FY2013 of at least 585 full-time
employee equivalents.
Mr. Chairman, DAV also recommends that Congress this year
finally enact legislation to repeal the inequitable requirement
that veterans military longevity retirement paid be offset by
an amount equal to their disability compensation if rated less
than 50 percent.
We also recommend that Congress eliminate the SBP and DIC
offset. This offset is inequitable because there is no
duplication of benefits since payments under the SBP and DIC
programs are made for different purposes.
And finally, Mr. Chairman, DAV strongly recommends that
Congress and VA come together to determine the most practical
and equitable manner of providing compensation for non-economic
loss and loss of quality of life suffered by service-connected
disabled veterans, and then move expeditiously to implement
this new component.
The Institute of Medicine, congressionally mandated
Veterans Disability Benefits Commission, as well as the Dole-
Shalala Commission all recommended the current disability
benefit system be reformed, and include non-economic loss and
quality of life loss as factors in compensation.
Both the Canadian and Australian disability compensation
programs already do that, and it is time that we did the same
for the brave Americans who have suffered permanent
disabilities affecting their entire lives in service to this
great Nation. Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement, I'll
be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Jeffrey Hall appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. Hall. Ms. Zumatto, you're now
recognized for five minutes for your statement.
STATEMENT OF DIANE ZUMATTO
Ms. Zumatto. Good morning, Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member
McNerney, and Congressman Walz. I thank you for this
opportunity to share AMVETS' recommendations in what we believe
to be the most financially responsible way while ensuring the
quality and integrity of the care and benefits earned by
American veterans.
In light of this Nation's unresolved fiscal crisis, AMVETS
has concerns about the potential reductions in VA spending,
which will seriously impact our veterans, their families, and
survivors. That being said, my main focus today will be the NCA
or National Cemetery Administration.
The single most important obligation of the NCA is to honor
the memory, achievements, and sacrifices of our veterans, who
so nobly served in this Nation's armed forces. These acts of
self-sacrifice by our veterans obligate America to preserve,
rehabilitate, and expand our national cemetery system as
necessary.
These venerable and commemorative spaces are part of
America's historic material culture. They are museums of art
and American history. They are fields of honor and hallowed
grounds, and they deserve our most respectful stewardship.
The sacred tradition of our national cemeteries spans
roughly 150 years back to the time when the earliest military
graveyards were situated at battle sites, at field, or general
hospitals, and at former prisoner-of-war sites.
The NCA currently maintains stewardship of 131 of the
Nation's 147 national cemeteries, as well as 33 soldiers' lots.
Since 1862, when President Lincoln signed the first legislation
establishing the National Cemetery concept, more than three
million burials have taken place in national cemeteries, which
are currently located in 39 states and Puerto Rico.
As of late 2010, there were more than 20,021 acres of
historic landscape, funerary monuments and other architectural
features included within established NCA sites. VA estimates
that of the roughly 22.4 million veterans alive today, that
approximately 14.4 percent of them will choose a national or
state veteran's cemetery as their final resting place.
With the transition of an additional one million
servicemembers into veterans status over the next twelve
months, this number is expected to continue rising until
approximately 2017.
The NCA, which is the Nation's largest cemetery system
invested an estimated $31.4 million into the national shrine
initiative from 2011 funding in its efforts to improve the
appearance of our national cemeteries. While a NCA survey
conducted in October 2011, indicated that progress continues to
be made in reaching its performance measures, more needs to be
done.
In order to adequately meet the needs for interment, grave
site maintenance and related essential elements of separate
cemetery operations, AMVETS recommends $280 million for the
NCA's operation and maintenance budget in FY13 with an annual
increase of 20 million until the national shrine commitment
goals regarding the height and alignment of headstones and
markers and the appearance of grave sites are reached.
Finally, AMVETS calls on the administration and Congress to
provide the resources needed to meet the sensitive and critical
nature of the NCA's mission, and to fulfill the Nation's
commitment to all veterans, who have served their country so
honorably and faithfully.
The State Cemetery Grants Program compliments the NCA's
mission by establishing grave sites for veterans in areas
unable to fulfill veteran burial needs. In FY2011, the State
Grants Program budget was $46 million, and it funded sixteen
cemeteries, including establishing five new ones. AMVETS
recommends an increase to $51 million for 2013, in order to
meet the rising demands, which should peak in 2017.
Since burial benefits were first introduced in 1917, they
have continually evolved, and this process needs to continue in
order to--in order for this benefit to meet 21st Century needs
and expenses. Benefits should be split into two categories,
veterans within the accessibility model, and those outside the
accessibility model.
Plot allowances as well as burial benefits for both service
and non-service-connected veterans need to be increased to meet
rising costs. And that's the end of my statement.
[The prepared statement of Diane Zumatto appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Runyan. Thank you very much and I'll begin the round of
questioning with Mr. Hall actually.
In your experience, is it true that it takes a new VSR a
full two years to be able to work independently with both the
speed and accuracy, and is this because of inadequacies in VA's
training program, or the complexity of the subject matter?
Mr. Hall. I believe--yes, it takes approximately two years
for that person to become at the fully trained level to perform
those duties, an additional two years for an RVSR. But looking
specifically, I believe it's a combination, but the complexity
of the material, there's a lot that goes into being a VSR, a
lot that goes--a lot more that goes into being an RVSR.
So I would say that while it's shared jointly between the
complexity of the job itself, and the training, we just want to
ensure the training that is being provided is adequate and
appropriate, one, for the position, and two, for the level of
experience of the individual.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you. And I know we've brought this up in
a few hearings in the last month in talking about metrics and
how we measure a lot of different things. What factors would
you ask the VBA to emphasize if they were to initiate a
scientific study to determine the workforce necessary to
effectively manage its rising workload? What are those factors?
Because obviously both sides of the equation have different
responses to that.
Mr. Hall. Well, we--they have to look at people and
processes first. And again, there's a lot of things going on in
transformation in VBA right now. A lot of good initiatives
going on.
If they're going to measure it, they have to be able to
have a system. We think VBMS will do this later on down the
road to be able to aggregate data and best practices, things
like that, discovery of error, the STAR program is another
major aspect to a quality review to be able to identify error
trends and such.
The quality review team, something that we're learning
something more about now, will also be able to help VBA
identify those problem areas.
Mr. Runyan. And as we roll out VBMS, do you believe there
will be a significant effect on the backlog and what warning
signs would you give the VA as this happens. What do you see
coming down the road as we try to roll this out in this
transitional period?
Mr. Hall. First, let me say that we really appreciate the
collaboration that VBA has demonstrated towards the VSOs,
especially with something as important, probably the most
important initiative going on in VBA right now, which is the
VBMS.
We will--we hope that they continue that outreach and
collaboration with the VSOs. Do we think that it'll have an
immediate impact on the backlog? Probably not, not an immediate
one. Because it's such a complex system. And again, remember,
we are talking about completely changing how they approach
claims and how they process claims. VBMS being a paperless
system, there's so many things that are involved with that.
So I would say first and foremost, they must always have
the stakeholders, VSO and stakeholders involved into the
collaboration process, whether it's during the development and
implementation periods as they have been doing. We can offer
expertise along the way to help them in problem areas or
identify certain things that might be able to be changed before
it gets to the full implementation phase, and then maybe not be
able to be changed.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you. Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hall, what do
you think of the VA's goal of 125 days at 98 percent accuracy?
Mr. Hall. It's an ambitious goal.
Mr. McNerney. Do you think it's achievable?
Mr. Hall. But it's an attainable goal, I think.
Mr. McNerney. You think it's achievable--attainable?
Mr. Hall. I think it's--it is achievable. There's just so
many things that can affect what is going on right now. Because
we're pushing VA to reduce the backlog of claims. Our clients,
your constituents, the veterans they serve, everybody's
concerned about the backlog, let's reduce the backlog. And it's
not as simple as reducing the backlog.
There's no one in VBA right now that doesn't want to reduce
the backlog. However, having an ambitious goal in front of you
of 125 days when I think it's in the past year, that's
increased or out of the roughly 900,000 claims that are pending
right now, roughly 600,000 are over 125 days. That's not far
off of where we were from a year ago.
So--but I also know that it's not as simple as looking at
it saying well you haven't made any progress on the backlog.
The accuracy is equally important. If VA--if VBA puts it out
there and says 125 days, 98 percent accuracy, we believe that
they can achieve it. But right now it's just simply too
difficult to tell where they're going to be a year from now
without the full implementation of things like VBMS, which is
going to have a major impact, eBenefits, VRM, those things will
all have a major impact. So right now it's just too soon to
tell where they're going to be.
Mr. McNerney. Is the funding in the budget adequate to
continue to improve that backlog?
Mr. Hall. Overall. I think the biggest concern as I had
mentioned earlier, the biggest concern is in the transformation
process. I'm not sure about the overall budget, whether it's
adequate or it's not adequate. But the VBMS or the IT really, I
don't want to just limit it to VBMS, because it's the overall
IT.
But looking, if there's any cuts in that or a reduction I
should say in the budget, we would encourage you as well, we're
going to be looking at it. We just received it. To look and see
where--why that money's been reduced and is that going to have
a significant impact, especially adversely on the ability to
complete these IT initiatives, which will then come back to
whether or not the backlog can be reduced.
Mr. McNerney. Do you have any final recommendations for
what the VA should be doing to reform and modernize its claim
processing system?
Mr. Hall. We think that they're doing a lot of great
things, as I mentioned. So I think they need to keep moving
forward. With so many--again, with so many different things
that they do have in motion right now, a simple recommendation
would be to continue working, primarily working towards their
goal, but also including VSO stakeholders into the process at
the earliest stage and throughout the process, and not just
picking certain aspects of where they reach out to us. Because
it has a major affect again on whether or not that we can offer
guidance, advice, expertise in the process.
And again, I would just say that VBA leadership, while we
appreciate their collaboration that they're demonstrating at
this particular level at the headquarters level, we want to
ensure that that also occurs all the way down to the VA
regional office level.
And just finally on that, speed and production in this
cultural shift, it must happen. Equal weight has got to be
given, at least equal weight has to be given to quality and
accuracy, as it is being given to speed and production.
Otherwise, they may just end up with short-term gains, but miss
out on the long-term reform necessary.
Mr. McNerney. Ms. Zumatto, thank you for your contribution
in the independent budget, and for your in-depth analysis of
the National Cemetery Administration. Do you believe the NCA
has sufficient funds to carry out its mission?
Ms. Zumatto. I certainly hope that they do. We are
recommending some increases. I--as you probably know, I don't
have a wealth of expertise. I'm fairly new in this area, and it
might be more beneficial to step back and perhaps provide a
more in-depth answer, you know, to you in writing after the
fact.
Mr. McNerney. That's acceptable. I yield back.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Mr. McNerney. Mr. Walz, do you have
anything?
I actually have one more question for Ms. Zumatto.
Pertaining to your statistical analysis of the grave sites that
we're going to need, and you'll probably have to respond to
this in writing also, but as the Under Secretary said in his
testimony, they like to keep them close to home, in a kind of
a--on a more regional basis.
Where are we lacking in those abilities? And obviously
yours was nationwide, and I'm sure there's some areas that, you
know, we could look into, where we could really give direction
to the Cemetery Administration to really look at that as you
can anticipate through your VSOs and knowing where people live
and where they reside, and where they would actually like to
be--would like to be buried. So I'd appreciate if you could get
that to us.
Ms. Zumatto. Okay. I can do that.
Mr. Runyan. Thank you very much. Mr. McNerney, anything
further?
Mr. McNerney. Yeah. I'd like to reserve the right to submit
questions to the VA for later response.
Mr. Runyan. Without objection, so moved.
Do you have a closing statement?
Then on behalf of the Subcommittee, I would thank both of
you for your testimony, and we look forward to working with you
on the future on these issues. And you are both excused.
I would like to conclude this budget hearing by recognizing
the reality of times laid before us. We face a deficit crisis
and we must act to be prudent stewards of our budget for
generations yet born to ensure the survival of our common
American values. But this should not and will not come at the
expense of our Nation's heroes and the sacrifices they made to
ensure we remain strong and the freest country on the face of
the Earth. I'll stand ready to work with both sides of the
aisle fulfilling this commitment, as we move forward for the
remainder of this session.
I ask unanimous consent that all Members have five
legislative days to revise and extend their remarks, and
include extraneous material. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
I thank the Members for their attendance today and this
hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:59 a.m. the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jon Runyan, Chairman
Good morning. I want to welcome everyone to this hearing on the
budget for fiscal year 2013 as it pertains to the Veterans Benefit
Administration, National Cemetery Administration, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims, and American Battle Monuments Commission.
Last year this Subcommittee held its first hearing of the 112th
Congress and I made my intentions and hopes clear that as Chairman of
this Subcommittee my priority would be a laser focus on tackling the
size of the backlog of claims for disability benefits.
Over the past year VA has demonstrated their desire and commitment
to be partners in bringing the VA into the 21st century, as reflected
in the 2013 budget. I support VA's goal of completing 1.4 million
disability compensation and pension claims, marking an increase of 36%
over 2011. I can assure the administration that this Subcommittee will
vigorously pursue the necessary oversight to ensure this goal becomes a
reality for all of our Nation's veterans.
In these uncertain and turbulent economic times, it is the duty of
all of us here and those we represent to ensure benefits earned by our
Nation's heroes are administered as efficiently and timely as possible.
``Justice delayed is justice denied'' and benefits delayed, are
benefits denied. To this end, I note the forthcoming roll out of the
VBMS program, which I believe signifies a turning point for the claims
backlog. In addition to the VBMS program, VA has also recently launched
several pilot programs, and consolidated its pension and fiduciary
programs.
However, technology alone will not solve the issues pertaining to
the backlog. It is our solemn responsibility to remain vigilant. We
will continue to oversee these programs to ensure that they are
operating efficiently while also serving the needs of our Nation's
veterans. Although VA continues to emphasize its initiatives in the
area of people, process, and technology; it is important that VA follow
through on these programs while not forgetting its primary goal of
providing timely, quality benefits to veterans.
A second major area I'd like to discuss involves the final resting
grounds of our Nation's veterans. The National Cemetery Administration
provides the invaluable role of serving veterans and their families
during the burial process and maintaining our National shrines and
cemeteries.
However, like every human institution, mistakes and oversights are
made from time to time. In November NCA self reported to this Committee
the misalignment of a row of head stones at the Ft. Sam Houston
National Cemetery. Families of those affected were notified and a
nationwide audit was begun. Initial reports from that audit, which is
still ongoing, have identified similar issues at at-least 5 other
National Cemeteries in just the first phase of this audit. These
``errors'' appear to have a common origin in that they all occurred
during raise and realignments projects performed by outside
contractors.
The reason this is relevant to a budget hearing is because in most
cases the contractors' work was approved and payment made without
adequate oversight or review to ensure the quality and accuracy of the
work done. Because of an omission of fiscal oversight the work has to
be done right the second time and a nationwide audit at great expense
conducted. Statistically, less than 60 discrepancies reported after
auditing almost 1.5 million grave sites computes to be a tiny fraction
of 1%.
NCA however is not in the business of percentages and statistics;
they are in the business of providing a final resting place of honor
and dignity for our Nation's heroes.
While I commend the NCA's initiative and quick response in
identifying and addressing the situation, I must reiterate my resolve
that no mistake going forward will be acceptable. We owe it to our
veterans and their families to get it right the first time, every time.
Anything less, regardless of the statistics, is unacceptable.
Towards this end, I want to ensure that America's most valuable
memorials to its honored dead have the necessary amount of resources
and institutional oversight going forward to prevent such problems from
reoccurring. While we must do so mindful of the budget deficit crisis
at hand, we must continue to ensure these sacred grounds are well
prepared for current and future generation of veterans and their
families. Finally, it is my hope that NCA continues to move closer to
near universal veteran access to burial options around this Nation.
This hearing will also be taking a look at the budgets of the Court
of Appeals for Veterans Claims and the American Battle Monuments
Commission (ABMC). While I do not anticipate many controversial issues
within these budgets, I would like to express my hopes that they too
reflect the trying times we face and that will strive for increased
efficiency over waste and better performance over tradition solely for
tradition's sake.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jerry McNerney,
Ranking Democratic Member
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you for holding
today's hearing.
The goal of today's hearing is to examine the various FY2013 budget
requests of agencies over which the Disability Assistance and Memorial
Affairs Subcommittee exercises jurisdiction, including the U.S.
Department Veterans Affairs' Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and
National Cemetery Administration (NCA); the Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims (CAVC); and the American Battle Monuments Commission
(ABMC).
These organizations oversee many major benefits, services and
protections for our Nation's veterans, their families, and survivors--
ranging from providing compensation, pension and burial benefits to
ensuring appellate rights, to maintaining our National Shrine
requirements both here and abroad. I look forward to hearing how these
benefits and services will be administered with the optimal levels of
efficiency and effectiveness with the new budget request.
Today's hearing is an important one. As all of you know, Congress
is working hard to balance our budget and reduce the deficit while at
the same time provide earned and needed benefits to veterans and their
families.
The overall FY2013 VA budget request is $140.3 billion. Of the
total Department Budget request, $76.3 billion (54.4%) is designated
for mandatory funding to pay and administer benefits to Veterans, their
families and survivors. This represents 16.2% increase from the 2012
level of $70.6 billion. This Administration has shown that supporting
the troops and our veterans is not just a slogan--it's a commitment.
Like many of the VSOs and other stakeholders who represent our
veterans, one of my top priorities is to continue to address the
glacial nature of the claims process and the systemic challenges of
accuracy and accountability. It is a disgrace that we have such a large
claims backlog, and it is an insult to the veterans who have served our
Nation. There is no valid reason that we are still processing claims
with 20th Century technology and paradigms.
I agree with Secretary Shinseki that we need to get our claims
process under control to deliver these benefits in a 21st century,
veteran-focused manner. Get the claim right the first time, and don't
sacrifice quality for quantity.
The VA reports that it is making progress on this front and the
budget seems to support its commitment, particularly on the IT front.
However, I don't want VA to confuse activity with progress. Further, I
don't want VA to place the promise of new technologies on top of flawed
systems because that will just result in inaccurate decisions rendered
more quickly. Comprehensive reform is in order. Finally, I also want to
know more about the budgetary implications of the contract with ACS,
Inc. to develop hundreds of thousands of pending claims.
With that, I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses
today. I particularly thank the VSO members of the Independent Budget
for your diligence and commitment in helping to ensure the VA's budget
is sufficient to meet the needs of our Veterans.
I welcome the opportunity to work closely with you and all of my
colleagues to make sure that the needs of our Veterans, those returning
from Iraq and Afghanistan, and those of the Veterans from our previous
conflicts, are met.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Prepared Statement of Diana Rubens
Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney, and members of the
Subcommittee: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the fiscal year
(FY) 2013 budget for the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA). I am
accompanied today by Mr. Jamie Manker, VBA's Chief Financial Officer.
We appreciate the strong collaboration and partnership between VBA and
this Subcommittee, the full Committee and the entire Congress. We look
forward to continuing our joint efforts to enhance the delivery of
benefits and services to our Nation's Veterans.
The employees of the Veterans Benefits Administration are
privileged to have the incredibly important mission of helping
Americans fulfill the Nation's commitment to our Servicemembers and
Veterans, who so courageously serve and sacrifice on our behalf. In
carrying out its responsibilities, VBA has adopted and embraced the
Department's newly established core values of Integrity, Commitment,
Advocacy, Respect, and Excellence - appropriately captured in the
phrase ``I CARE''. Our workforce includes more than 20,000 employees,
50 percent of whom are Veterans themselves, and 30 percent of whom have
service-connected disabilities.
VBA manages an integrated program of benefits and services,
administered through a nationwide network of 57 regional offices,
including offices in Puerto Rico and the Philippines. The benefits
include compensation for Veterans with service-connected disabilities;
dependency and indemnity compensation for certain Veterans' survivors;
pension for war-time Veterans and their survivors; vocational
rehabilitation and employment services; educational and training
assistance; home-loan assistance; fiduciary activities providing estate
protection services for Veterans unable to manage their own funds;
information and assistance through personalized contacts and outreach
programs to separating Servicemembers and other special groups of
Veterans; and life insurance programs.
Under the leadership of Secretary Shinseki, we are working to
transform VA into a 21st Century organization that is people-centric,
results-driven, and forward-looking. We have disciplined ourselves to
understand that successful execution of our vital mission requires that
we continually improve our stewardship of the resources entrusted to us
by the Congress. Accountability and efficiency are practices consistent
with our philosophy of leadership and management.
Of the Department's $140.3 billion budget request for 2013, 53
percent, or nearly $75 billion, is designated for mandatory funding of
benefits programs administered by VBA. Our request supports these
programs and identifies the performance levels expected to be achieved,
ensuring that every dollar of the budget is being used wisely and
effectively to help improve the lives of Veterans, their families, and
their survivors.
Approximately 97 percent of the approximately $77 billion in
appropriated funds requested for VBA are for direct payments to
Veterans and their dependents and survivors. The remaining three
percent is dedicated to administering VBA's benefits programs. VBA's
budget request also directly supports VA's three key priorities:
improving access to benefits and services; eliminating the claims
backlog (defined as claims pending longer than 125 days) and improving
decision accuracy to 98 percent in 2015; and ending Veteran
homelessness in 2015.
VBA recognizes it must do all it can to simplify and expedite the
claims process for our Veterans and beneficiaries. We are committed to
- and actively pursuing - comprehensive improvements to the processes
and systems Veterans use to access and employees to deliver those
benefits and services. We know we must do better - that's why we are
undergoing this large-scale transformation.
The 2013 General Operating Expense budget request of $2.2 billion
is vital to the transformation strategy that drives our performance
improvements. Technology resources include $92 million to support the
Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS), a comprehensive solution
that integrates a business transformation strategy to address people
and process with a paperless claims processing system. Technology
resources also include $111 million to support the Veterans
Relationship Management initiative, including development of self-
service and technology-enabled interactions that provide access to
information and the ability to execute transactions at the place and
time convenient to the Veteran in every aspect of benefits and services
we deliver to Veterans.
VBA plans to process a record 1.4 million compensation claims in
2013, and we are pursuing transformational changes that will enable us
to meet the emerging needs of Veterans and their families. Through the
resources provided in the President's 2013 Budget, VA is committed to
improving the quality of life for our Nation's Veterans, their
dependents, and survivors.
VBA Transformation Plan
VBA's transformation is demanded by a new era, emerging
technologies, the latest demographic realities, and our renewed
commitment to today's Veterans. In the face of dramatically increasing
workloads, VBA must deliver first-rate and timely benefits and services
- and they must be delivered with greater efficiency. VBA is
aggressively pursuing its Transformation Plan, a series of tightly
integrated people, process, and technology initiatives designed to
improve Veterans' access, eliminate the claims backlog, and achieve our
goal of processing all claims within 125 days with 98 percent accuracy
in 2015.
VBA's Transformation Plan is based on more than 600 ideas solicited
from our employees, Veterans Service Organization partners, and other
stakeholders, including this Subcommittee and your staffs. After
evaluating a multitude of innovative ideas, we focused on the 40 most
promising, tested, and measured initiatives for inclusion in our
Transformation Plan. As we design, test, further evaluate, and
implement these initiatives, VBA is closely tracking current metrics
(e.g., number of claims pending over 125 days, claims production,
quality of rating decisions, decision timeliness, etc.) to assess
results and, if necessary, adjust our efforts. We are also working to
expand what we measure to more clearly show the impact of the
Transformation Plan, both at local and national levels. VBA's
Implementation Center, established at VBA headquarters as a program
management office, is streamlining the process of transformation by
ensuring new ideas are approved through a governance process, and that
implementation and training are carefully planned and executed
utilizing a comprehensive change management approach. This allows us to
focus on implementing initiatives that will achieve the greatest gains,
without degrading current performance.
People-Focused Initiatives
Our employees are the key to our success. We are strengthening the
expertise of our workforce by changing the way we are organized and
trained to do the work. A new standardized operating model is being
implemented in all regional offices beginning this year that
incorporates a case-management approach to claims processing. Distinct
processing lanes are being established based on the complexity and
priority of the claims and employees are assigned to the lanes based on
their experience and skill levels. Integrated, cross-functional teams
work claims from start to finish, facilitating the quick flow of
completed claims and allowing for informal clarification of claims
processing issues to minimize rework and reduce processing time. More-
easily rated claims move quickly through the system in a designated
lane, and the quality of our decisions improves by assigning our more
experienced and skilled employees to the more complex claims. The new
operating model also establishes an Intake Processing Center at every
regional office, adding a formalized process for triaging claims and
enabling more timely and accurate distribution of claims to the
production staff in their appropriate lanes. We predict that our
people-focused initiatives will contribute to a 15-20 percent
improvement in productivity and 4 percent improvement in quality.
At VBA we are increasing the productivity of our workforce and the
quality of our decisions through national training programs and
standards. Our redesigned and expanded 8-week centralized Challenge
Training Program for new claims processors has achieved dramatic
results. On completion of the training, employees work significantly
faster and at a higher quality level. Trainees from the most recent
class averaged 1.33 cases per day with 98 percent accuracy, compared to
the legacy Challenge curriculum, following which trainees averaged one-
half case per day and 60 percent accuracy. Our training and technology
skills programs continue to deliver the knowledge and expertise our
employees need to succeed in a 21st Century workplace.
Process-Improvement Initiatives
VBA has established a ``Design Team'' concept to support the
transformation of its business processes. Using Design Teams, VBA is
conducting rapid development and testing of process changes, automated
processing tools, and innovative incentives in the workplace to assure
that changes will be actionable and effective before they are
implemented. The goal of our Design Teams is to implement, execute, and
measure an improved facet of our operating model with a mindset toward
increasing productivity and improving quality towards our goal of 98
percent accuracy. We are focusing on streamlining processes and
eliminating repetition and rework in the claims process while
delivering optimal service. We expect our process initiatives to
contribute to a 15-20 percent increase in productivity and a minimum
four percent improvement in claims quality as it relates to current
processing initiatives. As we continue to find new, promising
initiatives, these estimates could change.
Initial process improvements include:
Quality Review Teams: We are transforming our local quality
assurance process, establishing dedicated teams of quality review
specialists at each regional office. These teams will evaluate decision
accuracy at both the regional office and individual employee levels,
and perform in-process reviews to identify and eliminate errors at the
earliest possible stage in the claims process. The quality review teams
are comprised of personnel trained by our national quality assurance
(Statistical Technical Accuracy Review or ``STAR'') staff to assure
local reviews are consistently conducted according to national
standards. An initial focus of these teams is to reduce medical
examination errors, which currently represent 36 percent of our benefit
entitlement quality errors. In addition to quality improvements, the
need for reexaminations will be minimized, thereby reducing claims
processing time in 39-day increments for every reexamination avoided.
Simplified Rating Decision and Notice: In January 2012, we
implemented a new claims processing initiative developed by our first
Design Team that will result in meaningful improvements in the service
we provide to our clients. The new decision notification process will
streamline and standardize the communication of claims decisions.
Veterans will receive one simplified notification letter in which the
substance of the decision, including a summary of the evidence
considered and the reason for the decision, are all rendered in a
single document. Design-Team testing of this initiative at the St. Paul
Regional Office resulted in productivity increases of 31 percent, while
sustaining a 90-percent accuracy rate, and reductions of 14 days in
average processing time.
Rules-Based Calculators: This initiative provides a new automated
employee job-aid that uses rules-based programming to assist decision
makers in assigning an accurate service-connected evaluation. These new
calculators will significantly contribute to improvements in rating
quality and consistency. Calculators that are currently being used by
claims processors include:
1. Hearing loss calculator: Generates stand-alone paragraphs for
use in rating decisions.
2. Special monthly compensation (SMC) calculator: Determines the
total SMC award based on disabilities input by the decision-maker.
3. Evaluation builder: Helps assign correct evaluations and
generates text to explain a disability grant as well as criteria for
the next higher rating.
Disability Benefits Questionnaires: This month we plan to release
68 more Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs) to the public,
bringing the total number of DBQs publicly available to 71. DBQs are
templates that solicit the medical information necessary to evaluate
the level of disability for a particular medical condition. Currently
used by Veterans Health Administration examiners, the release of these
DBQs to the public will allow Veterans to take them to their private
physicians, facilitating submission of fully developed claims packages
for expedited processing.
VBA will continue reviewing the initial 600 ideas for process
improvements to ensure all potentially valuable transformation actions
are evaluated. We will also continue our quest for additional new and
innovative ideas to further transform our claims processes.
Technology Initiatives
Key to VBA's transformation is ending the reliance on the outmoded
paper-intensive processes that thwart timely and accurate claims
processing. VBA will deploy technology solutions that improve access,
drive automation, reduce variance, and enable faster and more efficient
operations. VBA's planned digital, paperless environment will also
enable greater exchange of information and increased transparency to
Veterans, the workforce, and our stakeholders. We know that 73 percent
of our Veterans prefer to interact with VA online. We are therefore
taking a multichannel approach to improving access that includes online
communications, social media, and telecommunications, to ensure
Veterans get the information and assistance they need. Our strategy
includes active stakeholder participation (Veterans Service Officers,
State Departments of Veterans Affairs, County Veterans Service
Officers, and Department of Defense (DoD)) to provide digitally ready
electronic files and claims pre-scanned through online claims
submission. This will be accomplished through electronic data sharing
and utilizing a stakeholder portal.
Our Transformation Plan includes the following major technology
initiatives that are expected to improve access and contribute to an
additional 15-20 percent increase in productivity and a four percent
improvement in claims quality.
Veterans Relationship Management Initiative (VRM): VRM engages,
empowers and serves Veterans and other claimants with seamless, secure,
and on-demand access to benefit and service information. VRM is
transforming VBA's National Call Centers through the introduction of
new Veteran-friendly technologies and features. In October 2011, VA
deployed Virtual Hold technology. During periods of high call volumes,
this system enhancement allows callers to leave their name and phone
number instead of waiting on hold for the next available operator, and
the system automatically calls them back in turn. Over 800,000 return
calls have been made through the Virtual Hold system since November
2011. This represents an acceptance rate for callers of 47 percent,
exceeding the industry standard of 30 percent, and our successful re-
connect rate is 92 percent.
Since launching Virtual Hold, the National Call Centers have seen a
31 percent reduction in the dropped-call rate. In December 2011, VA
deployed Scheduled Callback technology, allowing callers to make an
appointment with us to call them at a specific time. Since deployment,
over 200,000 scheduled callbacks have already been processed. The J.D.
Power and Associates client-satisfaction scores for our National Call
Centers indicated a nine-point uptick in overall satisfaction for those
callers that utilized the Virtual Hold option (from 731 to 740). In
addition, there was a 15 percent uptick in the ``promptness in speaking
to a person'' attribute score for the month of December 2011.
VRM also deployed a pilot of our new ``Unified Desktop''
technology. This initiative will provide National Call Center agents
with a single, unified view of VA clients' military, demographic, and
contact information and their benefits eligibility and claims status
through one integrated application, versus the current process that
requires VA agents to access up to 13 different applications. This will
help ensure our Veterans receive comprehensive and accurate responses.
eBenefits Portal: eBenefits, the joint VA/DoD client-services
portal for life-long engagement with Servicemembers, Veterans, and
their families, is a fundamental component of the VRM initiative. Our
life-long engagement begins with the Servicemember's entry into
military service and extends throughout his or her lifetime - and
includes access for Veterans' survivors. The eBenefits portal provides
users with self-service options and greater access to VA information at
the time and method of their choosing. In September 2011, VA and DoD,
in a collaborative partnership, registered its one-millionth user on
eBenefits. Current eBenefits enrollment exceeds 1.2 million users,
representing a 450-percent increase since January 2011. This year, DoD
is making enrollment in the eBenefits portal mandatory for all
Servicemembers upon entry into military service.
The eBenefits portal provides an online capability to check the
status of a claim or appeal; review the history of VA payments; request
and download military personnel records; secure a certificate of
eligibility for a VA home loan; generate letters to verify Civil
Service employment preference eligibility; and numerous other benefit
actions. We continue to aggressively expand and update on-line self-
service and access capabilities. We are engaging our Veterans Service
Organization partners in registering Veterans for eBenefits accounts.
In 2012, Servicemembers will complete their Servicemembers' Group Life
Insurance applications and transactions through eBenefits. Enhancements
scheduled in 2012 will also allow Veterans to view their scheduled VA
medical appointments, file benefits claims online in a ``Turbo Claim''
like approach and upload supporting claims information that feeds our
paperless claims process. In 2013, funding supports enhanced self-
service tools for the CHAMPVA and VetSuccess programs, as well as the
Veterans Online Application for enrolling in VA healthcare. eBenefits
can be accessed via https://www.ebenefits.va.gov.
Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS): VBA will implement VBMS
- the cornerstone of VA's claims transformation - beginning in 2012 and
plans to complete its nationwide deployment to all regional offices in
2013. It is a comprehensive solution achieved through a business
transformation strategy for process and people within a paperless
claims processing system. Achieving a paperless claims processing
system will result in higher quality, greater consistency, and faster
claims decisions. The system will also achieve significant cost savings
through the reduction of manual and paper-based processing
requirements. VBMS will move VBA's internal, paper-based process to an
automated system that integrates streamlined claims processes, rules-
based processing, and Web-based technology. In January 2011, VA began
processing some claims using VBMS and a pilot team at the Providence
Regional Office. VA expanded VBMS to a team working at the Salt Lake
City Regional Office in May 2011, and added functionality to support
more claims and more claim types. This expansion also added system
users and provided access to local VA Medical Centers and Veterans
Service Organizations. This testing clearly demonstrated the value of
the paperless VBMS process, reducing claims processing time to an
average of 115 days. During 2012, VBA plans to deploy VBMS to
additional regional offices. Funding requested in the 2013 budget
supports expansion of VBMS to all regional offices and development and
deployment of enhanced functionalities.
Homeless Veterans Outreach and Initiatives
VBA is actively contributing to VA's plan to prevent and end
Veterans' homelessness by 2015. VBA currently has 20 full-time Homeless
Veterans Outreach Coordinators (HVOCs). In 2013, VBA will hire 200
additional HVOCs to support this priority goal. The role of the
additional HVOCs will be twofold: 1) Provide case-management services
to homeless Veterans and assure expedited processing of their claims;
and 2) Conduct extensive outreach to at-risk Veterans and their
families in a proactive effort to prevent homelessness.
It is projected that the increased staff in 2013 will accelerate
services for an estimated 43,000 Veterans and their families by
decreasing the frequency and duration of their episodes of
homelessness. The resources will also assist Veterans and their family
members maintain safe and permanent housing, get connected to
employment opportunities, and improve their overall healthcare status.
VBA is also actively engaged in ending Veteran homelessness through
its Loan Guaranty Program, which makes VA properties available for
permanent housing and shelter for homeless Veterans and Veterans at
risk for homelessness. Under the Homeless Shelter Program, we have made
over 200 properties available to non-profit and faith-based
organizations since inception of the program in 1991 - including four
homes sold to shelters in 2011, two of which serve only homeless female
Veterans. VBA recently launched two new homeless initiatives.
Properties Available to Non-Profits and Veterans allows homeless
Veterans and non-profit organizations to purchase VA-acquired
properties at a discount (up to 75 percent) for permanent or
transitional housing. The Distressed Homes Initiative offers VA
properties that require extensive repairs to qualified non-profits at
an even steeper discount (up to 90 percent).
Compensation and Pension Programs
Seventy-eight percent of the total mandatory funding supports
monthly disability compensation and ancillary benefit payments to
Veterans, their families, and their survivors. In addition to providing
benefits to compensate Veterans' for their service-connected
disabilities, the compensation program provides monthly payments to
surviving spouses, dependent children, and dependent parents of
Servicemembers and Veterans who die as a result of injuries or
illnesses related to their military service. In 2013, funding for
compensation for an estimated 4.0 million Veterans and survivors is
projected at nearly $59 billion.
Additionally, VBA will provide an estimated $3.2 billion in income-
based pension benefits to wartime Veterans who are permanently and
totally disabled due to non-service-connected causes or are age 65 or
older. Pension benefits to income-eligible surviving spouses and
dependent children of deceased wartime Veterans who die as a result of
a disability unrelated to military service are projected to total $1.7
billion. More than 517,000 Veterans and survivors will receive pension
benefits in 2013.
Incoming Disability Claims Workload
The disability claims workload from the newest generation of
returning war Veterans, as well as from Veterans of earlier periods,
continues to increase. VBA's annual claims receipts increased 48
percent over the last four years, from 888,000 in 2008 to 1.3 million
in 2011. Receipts in 2011 include nearly 231,000 claims for new Agent
Orange presumptive disabilities. We anticipate total claims receipts
will be 1.2 million in 2012 and 1.25 million in 2013.
The growth in disability claims volume is driven by a number of
factors, including our successful outreach efforts, increased demand as
a result of 10 years at war, and improved access to benefits through
the joint VA and DoD Pre-Discharge Programs: Integrated Disability
Evaluation System (IDES), Benefits Delivery at Discharge (BDD), and
QuickStart. Other major factors include Agent Orange presumptive
disabilities for Veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam; the
aging of our Veteran population; new regulations for processing certain
claims related to Gulf War service, traumatic brain injuries, and post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD); and the impact of a difficult
economy.
IDES ensures seamless service delivery for our wounded, ill, and
injured Servicemembers by addressing the duplicate, time-consuming, and
often confusing and overlapping elements of the VA and DoD disability
processes. Last year, IDES expanded from 21 sites to 139 sites. VBA
currently dedicates 94 Veterans Service Representatives and Military
Services Coordinators to full-time IDES processing, and we
significantly increased rating resources dedicated to IDES (from 45
Rating Veterans Service Representatives (RVSRs) assigned to IDES at the
start of FY 2011 to 126 RVSRs currently assigned). This level of
staffing represents four times the FTE devoted to claims that are
processed under our traditional model. We made major improvements in
service delivery, decreasing processing time in areas of VA
responsibility from 186 days to 104 days. We are on track to reach our
target of processing IDES claims in 100 days. We are also in the
process of integrating vocational rehabilitation and employment (VR&E)
counselors into the IDES process to provide enhanced transition
services. The 2012 budget supports 110 VR&E counselors to be placed at
the busiest IDES sites around the country, and the 2013 budget provides
an additional 90 counselors. In 2013, these counselors will serve
22,000 Servicemembers.
In 2011, VBA allocated significant resources to processing the
approximately 231,000 Agent Orange presumptive claims received,
dedicating our 13 resource centers exclusively to readjudicating over
90,000 previously denied claims for the new presumptive conditions
under the stipulations of the Nehmer court decision. The complexity of
the Nehmer claims processing significantly reduced employee output, as
1,100 Veterans Service Representatives (VSRs) and nearly 1,200 raters
worked these Agent Orange claims in 2011, and their average decision
output was reduced from 2.5 cases per day to one case per day. To date,
over 114,000 Veterans and survivors received over $3 billion in
retroactive benefits for the new Agent Orange presumptives. Although we
are nearing completion of the Nehmer workload, we expect a residual
impact on claims processing timeliness into 2012. Our focus on
processing these complex claims had slowed processing of other claims
and contributed to a larger claims backlog, but it remains the right
thing to do for our Vietnam Veterans, many of whom have waited a long
time for these benefits.
The complexity of the workload also continues to rapidly increase,
as Veterans claim greater numbers of disabilities and the nature of the
disabilities (such as PTSD, combat injuries, diabetes and related
conditions, and environmental diseases) become increasingly complex.
Last year, the number of disabilities claimed by Veterans who served in
Iraq and Afghanistan averaged 8.5, a dramatic difference from Veterans
of earlier eras (e.g., World War II Veterans claimed 2.5 disabilities,
Gulf War Veterans claimed 4.3 disabilities). Even with the
unprecedented workload increases, VBA has achieved a 15 percent
increase in output over the last four years, completing over one
million disability claims in each of the past two years. VBA expects
production levels to continue to increase each year through
transformational process changes and technological advances.
Pension Programs
VA's needs-based pension programs provide economic security to more
than 313,000 wartime Veterans who are permanently and totally disabled
as a result of disability not related to service or are age 65 or
older, and to more than 203,000 survivors. In FY2013, VA expects to pay
over $4.9 billion in pension benefits to these beneficiaries.
VA's consolidation of pension program operations at three Pension
Management Centers (PMCs) in Philadelphia, Milwaukee, and St. Paul,
with a workforce of nearly 1,200 employees, enables it to provide
consistent, high-quality decisions on pension claims. As a result of
the consolidation and other initiatives, the quality of pension
decisions has steadily increased from 2008 to 2011. During this period,
the national accuracy rate for pension entitlement claims improved from
87 percent to 98 percent, while the national accuracy rate for pension
maintenance claims improved from 93 percent to 98 percent. In addition
to maintaining a high quality rate, the PMCs demonstrate the advantages
of moving toward a paperless work environment. In this future work
environment, claims will be imaged and stored in an electronic format,
eliminating the need for hard copy folders, allowing work to be
completed without regard to the physical location of the decision
maker, and allowing multiple individuals simultaneous access to the
electronic record regardless of location.
Fiduciary Program
VA administers a comprehensive fiduciary program for our most
vulnerable beneficiaries who are unable to manage their own funds. VA
appoints and provides oversight of fiduciaries to ensure that
beneficiaries receive the benefits and services they need.
VA has seen a steady increase in the number of beneficiaries who
need fiduciary services. From 2008 to 2011, the number of beneficiaries
in the program increased by 20 percent, and from 2010 to 2011 alone,
beneficiaries in the program increased by over 10 percent. Today, there
are more than 121,000 beneficiaries in the program with a combined
estate value of more than $3.3 billion. This growth has resulted in a
corresponding increase in VBA's fiduciary workload. Since 2008, VA
experienced a 30 percent increase in field examinations, a 22 percent
increase in accounting audits, and a 26 percent increase in the number
of miles traveled by field examiners to conduct initial and follow-up
fiduciary appointment investigations.
In early 2009, VBA initiated a pilot project, under which it
consolidated 14 of its fiduciary activities into the Western Area
Fiduciary Hub, which operates in a near paperless environment. VBA
found that consolidation had a significant positive impact on the
timeliness and quality of fiduciary appointments. Timeliness of initial
appointment field examinations increased by 40 percent, while quality
increased by 8 percent. The hub concept also allowed VBA to more
efficiently allocate resources, resulting in a 6-percent decrease in
miles traveled per field examination. Based upon the pilot results, VBA
deployed the hub concept nationwide, with further consolidation into a
near paperless environment occurring at five new hubs at regional
offices. Full consolidation of VBA's fiduciary activities should be
complete in June 2012. VBA's efforts to convert its fiduciary
activities into regional, paperless processing centers demonstrate the
potential of its ongoing transformation initiatives, which will build
upon these early initiatives.
We continue to identify and develop methods to improve service to
this vulnerable population of beneficiaries. These efforts include
deploying a standardized field examination application, increasing
fiduciary staffing according to a model that ensures that VBA
efficiently deploys its field examiner workforce, developing a new
information technology system for managing VBA's fiduciary workload and
tracking fiduciary activity, development of standardized training for
fiduciary personnel, and development of certification requirements and
internet resources for fiduciaries. VBA has also initiated a complete
revision of its fiduciary regulations to ensure that it has the rules
it needs to meet its oversight obligations.
Concluding Remarks
We appreciate the opportunity to provide additional information on
VBA's 2013 budget request and to share with you the progress we are
making in transforming the delivery of benefits and services for our
Veterans and their families and survivors. We recognize there is still
a tremendous amount of work to be done. I assure you of our commitment
to achieving fundamental and dramatic improvements that will expedite
the delivery of benefits, improve quality, and ensure we are providing
timely, accurate, and comprehensive information and assistance to all
those we serve.
We will continue to promote efficient spending practices, and we
acknowledge the importance of good stewardship of taxpayer dollars to
achieving our mission. We are confident we are on the right path and
making the investments necessary to accomplish the aggressive goals set
for us by Secretary Shinseki.
This concludes my remarks. I am happy to respond to any questions
from you or other Members of the Subcommittee.
Prepared Statement of Steve L. Muro
Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney and members of the
Subcommittee, I am pleased to provide an overview of the Fiscal Year
(FY) 2013 budget for the National Cemetery Administration (NCA). Within
the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), NCA is responsible for
administering burial and memorial programs to meet the needs of
Veterans, their families and survivors. Our responsibilities include:
managing 131 national cemeteries and 33 soldiers' lots and monuments;
furnishing headstones, markers and medallions for the graves of
Veterans around the world; administering the Presidential Memorial
Certificate program; executing the First Notice of Death Program; and,
overseeing the Federal grants program for construction of state and
tribal Veterans cemeteries.
As we move forward into the next fiscal year, we project our
workload numbers will continue to increase. For FY 2013, we anticipate
conducting over 119,000 interments of Veterans or their family members,
maintaining and providing perpetual care for over 3.3 million
gravesites, maintaining 8,700 developed acres, and processing
approximately 350,000 headstone and marker applications. We plan to
meet this demand while maintaining our high level of customer service
to our clients. We are proud of the fact that for the fourth time in a
10-year period, NCA was ranked the best over the Nation's top
corporations and other federal agencies in an independent survey of
customer satisfaction.
VA's burial and memorial programs are funded from both
discretionary and mandatory accounts. Mandatory funding is provided
from the Compensation and Pension account, managed by the Veterans
Benefits Administration (VBA). These funds are used to purchase
headstones, markers, medallions and burial crypts. I will focus my
comments today on the discretionary funding, administered by NCA. The
President's 2013 budget request includes a total of $372 million for
NCA's discretionary programs. Of this amount, $258 million is included
for operations and maintenance of our national cemeteries; $9.6 million
is requested for our Major Construction program; $58 million for Minor
Construction; and $46 million for the Veterans Cemetery Grants program.
The budget request will permit NCA to hire an additional 4 FTE to
address expected increases in burials and to provide contract funding
for additional maintenance requirements.
VA's Fiscal Year 2013 budget outlines the Department's priorities
and NCA continues to move forward to support the Department in
achieving the specific goals of expanding access for our Veterans and
ending Veteran homelessness.
With respect to increasing Veteran access to a burial option, the
FY 2013 budget will enable VA to provide almost 90 percent--or close to
20 million--of the Veteran population with a burial option in a
national, state or tribal Veterans cemetery within 75 miles of their
homes. The budget will allow NCA to continue progress to establish new
national and columbarium-only satellite cemeteries, support states and
tribes in establishing Veterans cemeteries, and implement a new policy
aimed at reaching unserved rural Veterans.
In FY 2011, VA reduced the minimum Veteran population threshold
requirement for building new national cemeteries from 170,000 to 80,000
within 75 miles of a proposed site. As a result of this policy change,
NCA is planning to establish five new national cemeteries in the areas
of Central East Florida; Omaha, Nebraska; Western New York;
Tallahassee, Florida; and Southern Colorado. NCA is actively searching
for land at these locations and expects to request related construction
funding in future budgets. With available resources, NCA will continue
with land acquisition efforts and preliminary design for the five
cemeteries in FY 2013.
The budget also continues to support our urban initiative. NCA
plans to build columbarium-only satellite cemeteries in five urban
locations: Chicago, Indianapolis, Los Angeles, New York and San
Francisco. Construction of these facilities will better serve the urban
core and address concerns raised by NCA's customers regarding time and
distance challenges associated with accessing national cemeteries.
Funding was provided for Los Angeles, San Francisco (design) and
Chicago in prior years. The FY 2013 budget includes funding for the New
York City area and Indianapolis will be included in a future budget
request.
In addition, the FY 2013 budget request will allow NCA to implement
a new policy aimed at reaching unserved Veterans in rural areas that do
not qualify for a national cemetery and where the construction of a
state cemetery is not likely. The budget includes an initiative to
establish a national cemetery presence in eight rural areas where the
Veteran population is less than 25,000 within a 75-mile radius service
area. These National Veteran Burial Lots would be NCA-owned and managed
lots in public or private cemeteries. As a result of this initiative,
an additional 132,000 Veterans will have convenient access to a burial
option in the following states: Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nevada, North
Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin and Wyoming.
NCA will continue its close partnership with the states in FY 2013.
The budget request provides $46 million for the Veterans Cemetery
Grants Program. The grants program provides an important complement to
VA's national cemeteries by further expanding burial access to
Veterans, especially those living in rural areas. FY 2013 funds will
allow NCA to support states in collaboratively meeting high priority
projects that serve Veterans, including those projects submitted by
tribal governments. As part of this program, VA will continue to offer
operating grants to assist states and tribes in achieving and
maintaining standards of appearance commensurate with national cemetery
shrine status. States and tribes are also able to continue their high
level of service to Veterans with the recent Congressional action to
increase the plot allowance to $700, and the subsequent adjustments
based on the Consumer Price Index. These funds, which are administered
by VBA, are available to the states and tribes when they bury a Veteran
and are used to offset operating costs.
Regarding the goal to end Veteran homelessness, NCA will provide
employment opportunities through the establishment of a new, paid
Apprenticeship Training Program serving Veterans who are homeless or at
risk of homelessness. The program will be based on current NCA training
for positions such as Cemetery Caretakers and Cemetery Representatives.
Veterans who successfully complete the program at national cemeteries
will be eligible for full-time permanent employment at a national
cemetery or may choose to pursue employment in the private sector.
The 2013 budget will allow NCA to continue to achieve exceptionally
high performance results. We will process 90 percent of headstone and
marker applications for Veterans buried in locations other than VA
national cemeteries (e.g., private cemeteries, state and tribal
Veterans cemeteries) within 20 days of receiving the request. Ninety-
five percent of gravesites in national cemeteries will be marked within
60 days of an interment.
NCA is committed to maintaining its high level of customer
satisfaction. NCA achieved the top national rating four times in ten
years on the prestigious American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI)
established by the University of Michigan. The Index is the only
national, cross-industry measure of satisfaction in the United States.
We surpassed over 100 other federal agencies, and industry leaders like
Ford, FedEx, and Coca Cola. NCA's internal customer survey confirms
this exceptional level of performance. In FY 2011, 98 percent of
respondents rated the appearance of national cemeteries as excellent
and 95 percent rated the quality of service as excellent. Our 2013
targets for cemetery appearance and quality of service are 99 and 98
percent, respectively.
NCA attributes our success to the development and application of
rigorous operational standards and measures that promote transparency
and accountability, a national focus on training and strategic
planning, as well as the continued support of the President and
Congress. The FY 2013 budget reflects the sustained and significant
investments in national cemeteries provided over the past several
years. The base budget for operations includes nearly $32.9 million for
projects to raise, realign and clean headstones and markers and repair
sunken graves, as part of our ongoing effort to maintain national
cemeteries as national shrines worthy of Veterans' service and
sacrifice. My personal expectation of each employee in NCA is that they
will provide Veterans and their families with outstanding customer
service.
All employees at the National Cemetery Administration are the
custodians of a sacred trust. We strive to be the model of excellence
in the delivery of burial benefits and we are proud of our
unprecedented customer satisfaction scores. We have created a culture
of accountability and continuous management improvement. We know we
have just one chance to get it right. When we make a mistake, we
address it immediately and openly. As you know, we recently became
aware of headstones that were set one gravesite off at Ft. Sam Houston
National Cemetery in Texas that resulted from a contracted gravesite
renovation project. The discovery of these errors, for which we take
full responsibility, led me to direct a system wide audit of all VA
national cemeteries that have undergone gravesite renovations in the
past 10 years. As part of this audit and other due diligence, NCA has
reviewed an estimated 1.3 million gravesites as of January 23, 2012. In
total, 115 headstones and markers were identified as being offset by
one gravesite and needed to be reset, four headstones needed to be
ordered and placed on unmarked gravesites, and eight caskets or urns
needed to be reburied. We have contacted the affected families where
possible, extended our sincere apologies and made the appropriate
corrections. We will review the remaining 1.8 million gravesites at VA
national cemeteries by the end of calendar year 2012, and report our
findings to the Committee. To minimize these errors in the future, we
have improved procedures for the accountability of remains and will
hire certified contracting officer representatives at each of our
Memorial Service Network (MSN) offices to oversee future gravesite
renovation projects.
Our veteran-focused work ethic is no surprise, given that 73.5
percent of NCA employees are Veterans and 80 percent of our cemetery
directors are Veterans. Since January 2009, NCA has hired more than 250
Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom Veterans--almost 50
were hired since June 2011. NCA is also committed to contracting with
small businesses, especially businesses owned by Veterans and service-
disabled Veterans. In FY 2011, NCA far exceeded the Secretary's goals
for awards to small businesses: NCA awarded 77 percent of contracts to
service-disabled Veteran owned small businesses, which was
significantly above the Secretary's target of 10 percent. In addition,
NCA met all goals in every contracting set-aside. We expect to achieve
similar results in FY 2013.
Building upon our success, we look toward the future and the needs
our Veterans will have in the years to come. In 2011, NCA initiated an
independent study of emerging burial practices including ``green''
burial techniques, such as biodegradable urns, underwater cremation
reefs and other environmentally sensitive options, to identify those
that may be appropriate and feasible for planning purposes. The study
will be completed in 2012 and will include a survey of Veterans to
ascertain their preferences and expectations for new burial options.
The completed study will provide comprehensive information and analysis
for leadership consideration of new burial options.
The VA's 2013 Office of Information and Technology (OIT) budget
includes approximately $10 million for operation and maintenance and
$11 million for development projects in support of NCA. These funds
will enable NCA to not only maintain its current network and data
center, but to continue to upgrade its major information technology
systems and processes that will improve quality, minimize the
possibility of error and reduce the time needed to deliver burial and
memorial benefits. As part of our oversight responsibilities and
commitment to transparency, NCA instituted enhanced accountability
measures and maintained our focus on workforce training. NCA shared
these aspects of our success with Arlington National Cemetery and
recently requested that a planning meeting be scheduled to establish
the joint working group recommended by the Government Accountability
Office (GAO). We look forward to sharing best practices with our
Department of Defense partners.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I appreciate your and the
subcommittee's continued support of NCA and its mission as the
custodians of a sacred trust. I am happy to answer any questions. Thank
you.
Prepared Statement of Max Cleland
Introduction
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee . . .
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss the American Battle
Monuments Commission's Fiscal Year 2013 Appropriation Request.
``Time will not dim the glory of their deeds''
Those words of our first chairman, General of the Armies John J.
Pershing, have served as our mantra and are the foundational
inspiration of our strategic plan.
Honoring our Nation's fallen overseas has been our purpose since
the Commission's creation in 1923. We perform this mission by
commemorating service and sacrifice worldwide--at sites entrusted to
our care by the American people. It is our responsibility to honor
America's war dead and missing in action, where they have served
overseas.
ABMC's core mission is one of commemoration - honoring service and
sacrifice by maintaining memorial shrines to our Nation's war dead and
preserving their stories so that time, indeed, does not dim the glory
of their deeds. It is not geography that defines the American Battle
Monuments Commission--it is purpose.
And we execute that mission by providing historical context for why
our overseas monuments and cemeteries were established, why those
memorialized within them died, and the values for which they died.
Those whom we honor deserve nothing less.
We must ensure that the words of British citizen Thomas Gorden were
not prophetic, when he wrote:
Gods and soldiers we adore
In times of danger not before
The danger past and all things righted
God's forgotten and soldiers slighted
Telling Their Story
Maintaining our monuments and cemeteries is and will remain the
Commission's core mission and top priority. But we also have a
responsibility to tell the stories of those we honor.
We have three visitor center projects we expect to award this year
that will enable us to better tell stories of service and sacrifice at
Cambridge American Cemetery in England, Sicily-Rome American Cemetery
in Italy, and at the Pointe du Hoc Ranger Monument in Normandy, France.
At the same time, we recognize our responsibility to prudently
match our interpretive program efforts to fiscal and visitation
realities.
Normandy American Cemetery, whose visitor center was dedicated in
2007, is our most visited site, with one million visitors annually.
Pointe du Hoc receives nearly 500,000 visitors a year. Cambridge and
Sicily-Rome, with their proximity to the major tourist destinations of
London and Rome, have visitation growth potential. Most of our
cemeteries, however, receive far fewer visitors.
We also are sensitive to the Commission's responsibility to
preserve the historic fabric of our sites, in keeping with their status
as important national heritage assets. At sites such as Meuse-Argonne
cemetery in France and Flanders Field cemetery in Belgium, rather than
program new facilities, we will renovate the existing visitor buildings
to accommodate state-of-the-art interpretive exhibits.
Experience also has demonstrated that facility and exhibit design
is a multi-year process--many of our sites might wait 15 to 20 years
before we are able to provide full interpretive services to their
visitors. That is not acceptable.
To ensure that all of our cemeteries have basic interpretive
information available much sooner, we are producing ``temporary''
exhibits that will be deployed within the next 18 months. This is
particularly important for our World War I sites, as we approach the
August 2014 beginning of the World War I Centennial.
Unfortunately, most American and foreign citizens will never have
the opportunity to walk the hallowed grounds of our overseas sites. For
them, our website must become a virtual visitation experience.
Over the next five years, we will produce 18 educational
interactive programs on major U.S. campaigns of the world wars to
supplement the Normandy Campaign and Battle of Pointe du Hoc programs
available now. And this year we will produce a mobile phone app for a
tour of the Pointe du Hoc battlefield that will also be produced in a
web version, the first of many such virtual tours we want to make
available to the public.
We must continue to adapt our message and our products to the
interests and demands of younger generations, for whom these important
heritage sites and timeless lessons must remain relevant. We are
devoting resources to do just that.
Let me now turn to a brief discussion of the work we are doing, and
the work we need to do, in the Pacific.
UN Cemetery Memorial in Korea
The United Nations Memorial Cemetery in Korea (UNMCK) is located in
Pusan, Korea. This site is the only UN military cemetery in the world.
The Korean government has given the United Nations the use of the land
for the cemetery in perpetuity.
Eleven countries have members of their armed forces interred at the
cemetery, including the United States. Most of those nations have
memorials in the cemetery honoring their armed forces--the U.S. does
not.
In 2010, the Commission received an inquiry about creating a United
States Memorial at this UN cemetery. Our Commissioners approved the
project and we will take a design concept to the Commission of Fine
Arts for approval next month. We hope to dedicate the memorial this
summer.
Pacific Memorials
We also will restore four of our existing Pacific memorials.
Honolulu Memorial
The Honolulu Memorial is located within the National Memorial
Cemetery of the Pacific. The memorial and cemetery are located in
Puowaina Crater, an extinct volcano referred to locally as the
Punchbowl because of its shape. The Commission erected the Honolulu
Memorial in 1964 and it was dedicated on May 1, 1966. The Department of
Veterans Affairs administers the cemetery; our Commission administers
the memorial.
With 2010 and 2011 funding, we installed lifts at the memorial to
provide full accessibility, and we are working on a Vietnam battle maps
project we expect to dedicate in November on Veterans Day. Additional
renovation and infrastructure work is budgeted in FY 2012 and FY 2013s.
Cabanatuan Memorial
The Cabanatuan Memorial in the Philippines is located at the site
of the camp and honors those who died during internment. The
Commission, recognizing the significance of this memorial, accepted
responsibility for its operation and maintenance in 1989.
Because it was built as a private memorial, the design was not
approved by the Commission of Fine Arts. We will renovate the memorial
to replace and upgrade cladding materials, address deficiencies in the
memorial text, and make site improvements to include the outbuilding
and restrooms.
Guadalcanal Memorial
The Guadalcanal Memorial was built through the joint efforts of
ABMC and the Guadalcanal-Solomon Islands Memorial Commission. It honors
Americans and Allies who lost their lives during the Guadalcanal
Campaign of World War II (August 1942 to February 1943).
Problems with the memorial are related to its foundation and
encroachment. The Solomon Islands experience intense seismic activity
causing degradation of the granite, gaps at the joints, and cracks and
breakage of the granite tiles. Vandalism is rampant because of the lack
of a fence on the property line. Fencing is required to bring this site
up to ABMC standard.
West Coast Memorial
The West Coast Memorial is located on the grounds of the Presidio
overlooking the entrance to San Francisco Bay. The memorial was erected
in memory of those who met their deaths in the American coastal waters
of the Pacific Ocean during World War II. On the wall are inscribed the
names of 412 Americans whose remains were never recovered or
identified.
A project has been approved to address Americans with Disabilities
Act upgrades and landscaping improvements in FY 2013. Additionally,
consideration is being given to adding an outdoor interpretive panel to
provide historical context for the memorial to visitors.
Manila American Cemetery
The Manila American Cemetery in the Philippines is the Commission's
largest cemetery and our only commemorative cemetery in the Pacific. It
contains 17,201 graves of our military dead of World War II, most of
whom lost their lives in operations in New Guinea and the Philippines.
The headstones, aligned in 11 plots, are set among a wide variety of
tropical trees and shrubbery.
The chapel, enriched with sculpture and mosaics, stands near the
center of the cemetery. In front of it on a wide terrace are two large
hemicycles. Twenty-five mosaic maps recall the achievements of the
American armed forces in the Pacific, China, India and Burma. On
rectangular limestone piers within the hemicycles are inscribed the
Tablets of the Missing containing 36,285 names. Carved in the floors
are the seals of the American states and territories.
During FY 2010 and 2011, ABMC invested in horticulture projects to
modify existing irrigation and pump systems and replace landscape and
horticulture features. The Manila cemetery requirements beginning in FY
2012 are two-fold: improve the infrastructure of the cemetery and
establish an enhanced interpretation program.
In order to combine interpretation and infrastructure efforts in a
thoughtful process, a master plan was funded in FY 2011 to evaluate the
need for major facility upgrades and to assess current conditions and
infrastructure priorities. The master plan is not complete, but early
indications are that the Commission needs to address serious cemetery
requirements. Two of those requirements will be addressed in FY 2013:
Perimeter Wall: There are serious encroachment and boundary issues
at the cemetery. To protect the cemetery and to address security
concerns, the Commission will replace the current chain link fence
around the site with a robust perimeter wall. Unless marked by a
substantial ``permanent'' wall, local culture ascribes a ``temporary''
definition to the boundary that will continue to subject our
commemorative site to degradation by such intrusions as local highway
projects and infiltration by squatters. The new perimeter wall will be
constructed in FY 2013 and should protect ABMC land from future
intrusion.
Quarters: The existing two quarters are aging and are deficient in
structure (walls are not insulated) and air conditioning (low
efficiency window units). There has been a significant change in the
cemetery environment as a result of high rise building construction,
creating a less desirable living environment. The buildings overlook
the quarters leaving no privacy to the families. Major renovation of
the existing quarters will be costly and unsatisfactory due to this
environment. The two quarters will be moved to a vacant area of the
cemetery grounds, away from the high rise buildings. Quarters design
will be funded in FY 2013.
Interpretation: Although we will not address the interpretive
program at Manila cemetery in FY 2013, I want to mention it briefly.
Manila is the only ABMC cemetery in the Far East where we have the
ability to tell the story of the war in the Pacific. The cemetery
honors by burial and by name on tablets of the missing more than 53,000
service men and women, nearly 24 percent of the 225,000 individuals
honored at ABMC commemorative sites worldwide. The site also provides
the Commission its best opportunity to feature accounts of the
competence, courage and sacrifice of United States Navy and Marine
Corps forces. Our Manila cemetery is an important venue for telling the
World War II story in the Pacific.
Our requirements in the Pacific are extensive. Manila American
Cemetery and our memorials in the Pacific are important elements of
ABMC's worldwide commemorative mission and must receive appropriate
attention and care, as that provided to our sites in Europe. We are
committed to correcting the problems at these Pacific sites in future
budgets.
Appropriation Request
To execute this mission, our Fiscal Year 2013 request is for
$73,600,000 in total budget authority and a 400 Full-Time Equivalent
(FTE) employment level.
The $58.4 million we request for Salaries and Expenses supports
Commission requirements for compensation and benefits; rent and
utilities; maintenance, infrastructure, and capital improvements;
contracting for services; procurement of supplies and materials; and
replacement of equipment. Our Salaries and Expenses request is $2.7
million below the funding provided for FY 2012.
The request to replenish our Foreign Currency Fluctuations Account
under ``such sums as may be necessary'' language is estimated to be
$15,200,000, a reduction of $800,000 from FY 2012. The $15.2 million
will be used to defray losses resulting from changes in the value of
foreign currencies against the U.S. Dollar. The ability to maintain
purchasing power in an uncertain financial environment is critical when
60 percent of our annual appropriation is spent overseas.
We have taken a balanced approach to the projected reduction in our
Salaries and Expenses account. Just over $2.0 million of the $2.7
million reduction will be taken in our Engineering & Maintenance and
Interpretation programs. The other $700,000 reduction will be taken in
Travel and in Services, Supplies and Equipment. This decrease also
implements the Office of Management and Budget Director's September 12,
2011 guidance regarding ``Eliminating Excess Conference Spending and
Promoting Efficiency in Government.''
The Commission requests no increase for Salaries & Benefits. The
reduction in FTE is in line with our actual personnel requirements in
FY 2011, our anticipated requirements for FY 2012, and reflects one of
the results of the Secretary's reorganization plan to streamline the
Commission in 2009. The reduction permits the Commission to fully fund
mandatory overseas compensation expense increases that we incur without
being constrained by Federal pay guidance, and an estimated 0.5 percent
pay increase under the Administration's FY 2013 pay assumptions.
Conclusion
The essence of the Commission's mission success does not change
from year to year: (1) keep the headstones white; (2) keep the grass
green; and (3) tell the story of those we honor.
The Commission's $73,600,000 request will provide the resources
needed to accomplish those core mission requirements, to a level that
our war dead deserve and that the American people have come to expect.
With the support of the Administration and the Congress, we strive
do our part to meet the challenge posed by the poet Archibald
MacLeish--words I have shared with you before but which forever ring
true:
`` . . . We leave you our deaths: give them their meaning ...''
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Sub-Committee, I hope that you have
the opportunity during your travels to visit our commemorative sites.
Those that do never forget the inspiration, the humility--the
gratitude--they felt as they walked those hallowed grounds.
Thank you for allowing me to present this summary of our mission
operations and our appropriation request.
Executive Summary
Total Budget Authority Requested for Fiscal Year 2013
The American Battle Monuments Commission requests $73,600,000 in
total budget authority for fiscal year (FY) 2013 to provide funding for
Salaries and Expenses and the Foreign Currency Fluctuation Account. The
FTE reduction is in line with the actual personnel requirements in FY
2011, anticipated requirements for FY 2012, and reflects one of the
results of the Secretary's 2009 reorganization plan to streamline the
Commission.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2012-FY 2013
($ in thousands) Appropriation Appropriation FY 2013 Request Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries & Expenses $64,072 $61,100 $58,400 ($2,700)
Foreign Currency $16,000 $16,000 $15,200 ($800)
Total $80,072 $77,100 $73,600 ($3,500)
FTE Authorized 409 409 400 (9)
FTE Actual/Estimated 396 400 400 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salaries and Expenses Request
The Commission's FY 2013 budget request for salaries and expenses
of $58,400,000 is $2,700,000 below the funding provided by the
Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 112-74) for FY 2012.
Adjustments to the Commission's budget request are shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2012 Appropriation $61,100,000
Adjustments: Notes
Rent and Utilities, net increase 1 $87,000
Travel ($504,000)
Services, Cemetery Supplies, Equipment, net 2 ($237,000)
decrease
Maintenance and Infrastructure Programs, net 3 ($2,046,000)
decrease
Total Adjustments ($2,700,000)
FY 2013 Budget Request $58,400,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:
\1\ Increase per GSA office space rent estimate net of Utilities
adjustments.
\2\ Net decrease in requirements for Services, Supplies and
Equipment.
\3\ Decrease in Maintenance and Infrastructure Programs at ABMC
cemeteries and monuments due to reduced number of projects in FY 2013.
Foreign Currency Fluctuations Account Request
The Commission's FY 2013 budget request to replenish its Foreign
Currency Fluctuations Account under ``such sums as may be necessary''
language is estimated to be $15,200,000, a reduction of $800,000. This
funding estimate is required to retain the Commission's buying power
against currency losses, primarily against the European Euro.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bruce E. Kasold
MR. CHAIRMAN AND DISTINGUISHED MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE:
I am pleased to appear before you again and to present testimony on
the fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget request and performance plans of the
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. My remarks today
will (1) summarize our budget request, (2) provide an update on the
Court, its caseload, and its Operation Plan, and (3) touch on two
important initiatives I have mentioned in the past - a broad
examination of the structure of federal appellate review of veterans
benefits decisions, and the Veterans Courthouse project.
I. Budget Request
The Court's FY 2013 budget request totals $32,480,700. This request
is comprised of two parts - the Court's necessary operating expenses of
$29,754,700, and a request by the Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program
(Pro Bono Program) for $2,726,000. Since FY 1997, the Pro Bono
Program's budget request has been provided to Congress as an appendix
to the Court's budget request. Accordingly, I offer no comment on that
portion of our budget request.
As to the Court's operating expenses, our FY 2013 request reflects
an increase of $1,710,700 over our FY 2012 appropriation. This increase
results primarily from (1) an increase of $1.443M in the statutorily
required contribution to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Retirement Fund (Retirement Fund or Fund) (see 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7298);
(2) an increase of $455K in payroll compensation and benefits; and (3)
a decrease of almost $190K in the Court's other operation expenses.
As to the Retirement Fund expense, as I noted in my testimony on
the budget last year, upon becoming Chief Judge in 2010 I initiated a
review of the Fund and the Court's past contributions. I noted that our
internal budgeting for this expense routinely had been underestimated,
resulting in an insufficient appropriations request and requiring funds
originally planned for other activities, but not ultimately expended
for those purposes, to be contributed to the Fund at the end of the
year to reduce the unfunded liability pursuant to 38 U.S.C. Sec. 7298.
One reason for the past-years under-budgeting was that estimates were
based on an anticipated average 5% growth in the Fund. In reality,
there was less than .25% growth (the funds are invested in Treasury
instruments), and that alone accounted for a guaranteed shortfall of
about $1M at the end of the fiscal year. The same will occur each year
that the actual interest return is less than the projected.
This low growth performance was taken into consideration in our FY
2012 budget request, although that was only a partial fix. Since
submission of last year's request, with the assistance of the Court's
actuary, we have further refined what is necessary to maintain the
statutorily required funding with the goal of significantly reducing
the need for end-of-year funding from appropriations provided for other
purposes but not used. Our FY 2013 budget request of $3.8M reflects the
funding necessary to maintain, on an actuarial basis, full funding
through FY 2013.
For FY 2013 the Court requests $18.318M for Personnel Compensation
and Benefits, an increase of $455K from FY 2012. The number of full
time employees remains at 127, unchanged from FY 2012. The Court's
appropriations request covers anticipated expenses for employees
including salary, health benefits, insurance, and employee matching
contributions to the Thrift Savings Plan, as well as routine
promotions.
For FY 2013 the Court requests $7.637M for all other operation
expenses (``Other Objects''), a decrease of nearly $190K from FY 2012.
These funds are used to satisfy the Court's daily operations needs, and
cover such expenses as rent, contract services, communication and
utility expenses, equipment, furniture, supplies, subscriptions, travel
and transportation, and printing expenses. These funds will also
support enhancements to our capability to sustain continued operations
in accordance with changes in the Court's Continuation of Operation
Program (COOP) plan.
II. The Court, its Caseload, and its Operations
Since its creation in 1988, the Court has become one of the busiest
federal appellate courts based on the numbers of appeals filed and
decided per judge.
Over the past five years approximately 4,500 appeals and petitions
have been filed annually at the Court, although last year the number of
appeals and petitions dropped to just over 4,000. This likely is
reflective of fewer Board decisions denying benefits, as our history of
appeals generally tracks the rise and fall in the number of Board
decisions that deny benefits. In addition to appeals and petitions
filed, the Court receives hundreds of motions each month, each
requesting that the Court take some action.
In FY 2011, on top of the significant number of motions, the Court,
as a whole, disposed of over 7,500 matters, including over 4,600
appeals, over 2,500 applications for attorney fees and expenses, over
160 petitions, and hundreds of requests for reconsideration or panel
review. Although short one permanent judge due to retirement, and two
additional judges who are authorized if appointed by the end of this
year, the Court has managed to decide more cases than ever before. This
has been the result of 1) tremendous focus and effort by the active and
senior judges and Court staff, 2) additional, temporary hires, and 3)
managerial adjustments to streamline and facilitate the review process.
As I have testified to before, on becoming Chief Judge I examined
our review process and noted two areas of un-programmed delay. One was
the time it took to decide cases once they were assigned for judicial
review, and second was the time it took our Central Legal Staff (CLS)
to prepare case summary and research memoranda in advance of forwarding
cases for judicial review.
With regard to judicial review, it must be recognized that quality
significantly trumps quantity. With a continuous eye on quality, we
also have focused this past year on the number of cases in chambers
pending decision. We made some administrative adjustments and hired
some temporary staff, and I am pleased to report that virtually all
cases assigned to chambers are now being decided within 90 days of that
assignment, not including cases sent to panel or stayed pending
decision in another case that might govern the result.
With regard to the time to prepare cases for judicial review, we
initiated an aggressive review of all pending cases where there was
representation; those with issues fully and adequately briefed were
promptly transferred for judicial review without the case summary and
research memoranda that traditionally had been prepared by CLS
attorneys. I am pleased to report that this has reduced the number of
cases pending preparation for judicial review from a high of over 800
to under 400 by the end of calendar year 2011, and we continue to work
toward a goal of forwarding cases for judicial decision no more than 30
days after the matter is fully briefed by the parties.
With fewer case summary and research memoranda, additional CLS
support was shifted to our Senior Judges. CLS attorneys prepare and
draft cases and orders for the Senior Judges and are able to maintain a
steady flow of work so that the Senior Judges are as productive as
possible throughout their 90-day recall period. At the same time, we
have continued our very successful mandatory conferencing process for
all cases where the appellant is represented. This focus on resource
allocation has proven to be tremendously helpful in reducing the
overall number of cases pending decision by a judge or panel - from 709
at the end of FY 2010 to 388 at the end of FY 2011, and reducing the
number of appeals at the Court over 18 months that are pending judicial
decision from 709 to 170.
We also continue to use and adapt our innovative electronic case
management/electronic case filing system (CM/ECF), which allows us to
receive most documents and issue most orders and decisions
electronically. CM/ECF permits remote 24-hour filing access, reduced
storage space needed for record retention, the opportunity for multiple
users to access records, efficient electronic notification procedures,
and reduced mailing/courier costs - all useful and time saving features
for case processing and management. We still do have paper filing and
orders for self-represented appellants, who in fiscal year 2011
accounted for 54% of the number of appeals at the time of filing, and
24% at termination.
Although our managerial adjustments have been very helpful, I
cannot stress enough the extra effort that all judges and Court staff
have made, and are making, to decide cases. There are limits to how
long one can continue ``game-day'' performance on a daily basis.
Without question, if the number of Board decisions denying benefits
grows significantly, and our appeals do the same, the time to process
an appeal will grow, and only grow faster if our judicial vacancies are
not filled.
III. Examination of the Structure of Federal Appellate Review of
Veterans Benefits Decisions, and the Veterans Courthouse Project
In October 2009, and again in early 2010, I testified before our
authorizing committees and this subcommittee regarding a proposal to
establish a commission to evaluate the process of appellate review of
veterans benefits decisions and to make recommendations on how to
improve that system. Because such an independent commission may well
identify beneficial changes to the current appellate structure that
could result in reduced time to decide an appeal, as well as reduced
time to adjudicate claims below, I again make that recommendation.
Under the unique system of judicial review we currently have, a
party dissatisfied with a decision from our Court may appeal, as of
right, to yet another appellate court before seeking review at the U.S.
Supreme Court. The Court continues to believe that the time is right
for a working group to review this system, critically examine its
strengths and weaknesses, and identify measures that could benefit the
overall appellate process. Specifically, we support and encourage a
commission to weigh the costs and benefits of the unique, two-tiered
federal appellate review system in place for veterans benefits
decisions. With more that two decades of experience in appellate review
of veterans benefits claims, and the resultant seasoned body of case
law, it is time to consider the added value of the second layer of
federal appellate review now in place.
I also want to follow up on the Veterans Courthouse Project. The
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims remains, to my
knowledge, the only federal appellate court housed in a leased
commercial office building. We were very close to receiving
appropriations for the Courthouse in our FY 2010 appropriation, but
circumstances combined to warrant delay. Specifically, the General
Services Administration's estimated cost virtually doubled from the
time of our FY 2010 budget testimony before this committee and passage
of the FY 2010 appropriations bill, and at the same time the Nation's
fiscal crisis was becoming better understood. We remain sensitive to
budget constraints and understand that priorities must be set by
Congress. However, we stand with Congress in its intent to build a
``dedicated courthouse [ ] symbolically significant of the high esteem
the Nation holds for its veterans [that would] express the gratitude
and respect of the Nation for the sacrifices of those serving and those
who have served in the Armed Forces, and their families'' (H.R. 3936)
or ``to provide the image, security, and stature befitting a court that
provides justice to the veterans of the United States'' (S. 1315). And,
we also stand with the many Veterans Service Organizations and veterans
at large who believe if any federal courthouses are to be funded for
construction, their courthouse should be one of them.
IV. Conclusion
On behalf of the judges and staff of the Court, I express my
appreciation for your past and continued support, and for the
opportunity to provide this testimony today.
Executive Summary
The fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget request of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) totals $32,480,700,
which is made up of two separate and distinct parts: (1) $29,754,700
for the Court's necessary operating expenses, and (2) $2,726,000 sought
by the Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program. This request reflects an
increase of $1,710,700 over the FY 2012 appropriation.
The Court is one of the busiest federal appellate courts
based on the number of appeals filed and decided per judge. The Court
currently has six active Judges, with one permanent and two temporary
authorizations vacant. In response to its heavy caseload, the Court has
worked to identify ways to gain efficiency while preserving for all
veterans the right to a full and fair decision on their appeals. The
measures we have employed toward this end include: making
administrative adjustments and hiring temporary staff to assist
chambers in providing prompt judicial review; adjusting the tasks
assigned to our central legal staff attorneys to allow them to
concentrate their efforts on our very successful pre-briefing dispute
resolution program and to assisting our recalled Senior Judges;
streamlining the decision process for cases where the parties both have
legal representation; continuing to adapt our electronic case
management/electronic case filing system; and above all else, relying
on the tireless effort and focus of our active judges, our six recall-
eligible Senior Judges, and each and every member of the Court's staff.
The Court continues to encourage appointment of a
commission to evaluate the costs and benefits of the unique two-tiered
federal appellate review system we have for veterans benefits
decisions.
The Court remains the only federal appellate court housed
in a leased commercial office building. The Court is mindful of budget
constraints but strongly urges that if any federal courthouses are to
be funded for construction, a courthouse for our Nation's veterans
should be among them.
Prepared Statement of Jeffrey C. Hall
Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney and Members of the
Subcommittee:
On behalf of the Disabled American Veterans (DAV) and our 1.2
million members, all of whom are wartime disabled veterans, I am
pleased to be here today to offer our views regarding the fiscal year
(FY) 2013 budget in the area of veterans' benefits.
Mr. Chairman, we are now in the third year of the Veterans Benefits
Administration's (VBA's) latest effort to transform its outdated,
inefficient, and inadequate claims processing system into a modern,
automated, rules-based, and paperless system. VBA has struggled for
decades to provide timely and accurate decisions on claims for veterans
benefits, especially veterans disability compensation, and there have
been numerous prior reform attempts that began with great promise, only
to fall far short of success. Over the next year we will begin to see
whether their strategies to transform the people, processes and
technologies will finally result in a cultural shift away from focusing
on speed and production to a business culture of quality and accuracy,
which is the only way to truly get the backlog under control.
RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Adequate Staffing for the Veterans Benefits Administration
In order to sustain the transformation efforts underway at VBA, the
DAV, as part of The Independent Budget for FY 2013 generally recommends
maintaining current staffing levels in the VBA, with only modest
increases for the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Service and
the Board of Veterans Appeals. Due to substantial support from
Congress, VBA's Compensation Service experienced significant staffing
increases between fiscal years 2008 and 2010, which supported an
increase in the number of claims processed each of those years.
Unfortunately, however, an even larger increase in new and reopened
claims volume contributed to a rising backlog. Historically, it takes
approximately two years for a new Veterans Service Representative (VSR)
to acquire sufficient knowledge and experience to be able to work
independently with both speed and accuracy. It takes an additional
period of at least two years of training to become a Rating Veterans
Service Representative (RVSR) with the skills to accurately complete
most rating claims. As such, the full productive capacity of the
employees hired in recent years are only now becoming evident.
This year VBA will roll out a new operating model for processing
claims for disability compensation, which will change the roles and
functions of thousands of VSRs and RVSRs at Regional Offices across the
country. VBA is also planning to launch new IT systems, including the
Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) and expand the functionality
of their e-Benefits system. Together these transformations are expected
to have a significant effect on the productive capability of VBA's
workforce. While these changes are being fully implemented, and the
effect on workforce requirements analyzed, the Independent Budget
veterans service organizations (IBVSOs) do not recommend an increase in
staffing for VBA's Compensation Service for FY 2013. However, we do
recommend that VBA initiate a scientific study to determine the
workforce necessary to effectively manage its rising workload in a
manner that produces timely and accurate rating decisions.
Moving forward, should there be a decline in personnel dedicated to
producing rating decisions, an increase in claims or the backlog, or
should any of the long-awaited VBA information technology initiatives
fail to produce the projected reductions in processing times for
claims, Congress must be prepared to act swiftly to intervene with the
additional staffing resources.
Staffing Increase for Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Service
The IBVSOs do recommend that funding for VA's Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment Service (VR&E) be increased to
accommodate at least 195 additional full-time employees for the VR&E
Service for FY 2013 and at least nine new full-time employees to manage
its expanding campus program.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted a study in
2009 to assess VR&E's ability to meet its core mission functions. GAO
found that 54 percent of VBA's 57 regional offices reported they had
fewer counselors than needed, 40 percent said they have fewer
employment coordinators than needed and 90 percent reported that their
caseloads have become more complex since veterans began returning from
Afghanistan and Iraq.
VBA's current caseload target is one counselor for every 125
veterans served; however, feedback received by the IBVSOs from
counselors in the field suggested an actual workload as high as one to
145. Based on comparisons with state vocational rehabilitation programs
and discussions with VR&E personnel, even the 1:125 ratio may be too
high to effectively manage VR&E's workload, particularly in providing
service to seriously disabled veterans. However, to reach the 1:125
standard, VR&E needs approximately 195 new staff counselors.
The VA VetSuccess on Campus program places a full-time Vocational
Rehabilitation Counselor and a part-time Vet Center Outreach
Coordinator on college campuses to help the transition from military to
civilian and student life. The President's 2012 budget submission
requested funding to support further expansion of the program beyond
the eight existing sites to nine more campuses: the University of South
Florida, Cleveland State University, San Diego State University,
Community College of Rhode Island, Arizona State University, Texas A&M,
Central Texas, Rhode Island College, and Salt Lake Community College.
The Independent Budget recommends that Congress provide funding for at
least nine additional full-time employees in FY 2013 to manage this
expanding campus program.
Staffing Increase for the Board of Veterans Appeals
The Independent Budget also recommends a staffing increase at the
Board of Veterans' Appeals of at least 40 full-time employee
equivalents (FTEE) for FY 2013. Based on historical trends, the number
of new appeals to the Board averages approximately five percent of all
claims received, so as the number of claims processed by VBA is
expected to rise significantly, so too will the Board's workload rise
commensurately. With the number of claims processed at VBA having risen
to over one million, and projected to rise even higher, it is virtually
certain that the Board's workload will begin to rise even faster.
The Board is currently authorized to have 544 FTEEs; however, its
budget in FY 2011 could only support 532 FTEEs. Expected workload
projections by the Board indicate that the authorized level for FY 2013
should be closer to 585 FTEEs. We are concerned that unless additional
resources are provided to the Board, its ability to produce timely and
accurate decisions will be constrained by an inadequate budget, and
either the backlog will rise or accuracy will fall. Neither of these
outcomes is acceptable. At a minimum, Congress should increase funding
to the Board in order to sustain 585 FTEE in FY 2013.
Dedicated Courthouse for the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to highlight a recommendation in
this year's Independent Budget concerning the United States Court of
Appeals for Veterans Claims. During the 24 years since the Court was
formed in accordance with legislation enacted in 1988, it has been
housed in commercial office buildings, making it the only Article I
court that does not have its own courthouse. The IBVSOs believe that
the Veterans Court should be accorded at least the same degree of
respect enjoyed by other appellate courts of the United States.
Congress previously acted on this in fiscal year 2008 by allocating $7
million for preliminary work on site acquisition, site evaluation,
preplanning for construction, architectural work, and associated
studies and evaluations for the construction of the courthouse. It is
time for Congress to provide the funding necessary to construct a
permanent courthouse in a location of honor and dignity befitting the
Veterans Court and the veterans it serves.
VETERANS BENEFITS RECOMMENDATIONS
The Veterans Benefits Administration provides an array of benefits
to our nation's veterans, including disability compensation, dependency
and indemnity compensation, pensions, vocational rehabilitation,
education benefits, home loan guarantees, and life insurance.
Unfortunately, the failure to regularly adjust benefit rates or to tie
them to realistic annual cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs), can
threaten the effectiveness of these other benefits. For example, the
annual COLAs do not take into account the rising cost of some basic
necessities, such as food and energy. In addition to prudent increases
in a number of specific benefits programs to meet today's rising costs
of living, The Independent Budget includes a number of recommendations
designed to make several existing benefits more equitable for all
veterans, particularly disabled veterans.
Eliminate Remaining Concurrent Receipt Penalties
Today, many veterans retired from the armed forces based on
longevity of service must forfeit a portion of their retired pay,
earned through faithful performance of military service, before they
can receive VA compensation for service-connected disabilities. This is
inequitable: military retired pay is earned by virtue of a veteran's
career of service on behalf of the nation, careers of usually more than
20 years. Entitlement to compensation, on the other hand, is paid
solely because of disability resulting from military service,
regardless of the length of service. Most nondisabled military retirees
pursue additional careers after serving in order to supplement their
income, thereby justly enjoying a full reward for completion of a
military career with the added reward of full civilian employment
income. In contrast, military retirees with service-connected
disabilities do not enjoy the same full earning potential.
In order to place all disabled longevity military retirees on equal
footing with nondisabled military retirees, there should be no offset
between full military retired pay and VA disability compensation.
Congress has previously removed this offset for veterans with service-
connected disabilities rated 50 percent or greater. Congress should
enact legislation to repeal the inequitable requirement that veterans'
military longevity retired pay be offset by an amount equal to their
disability compensation if rated less than 50 percent.
Repeal the DIC - SBP Offset
The current requirement that the amount of an annuity under the
Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) be reduced on account of and by an amount
equal to dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) for survivors of
disabled veterans is inequitable and should be repealed.
A veteran disabled in military service is compensated for the
effects of service-connected disability. When a veteran dies of
service-connected causes, or following a substantial period of total
disability from service-connected causes, eligible survivors or
dependents receive DIC from the Department of Veterans Affairs. This
benefit indemnifies survivors, in part, for the losses associated with
the veteran's death from service-connected causes or after a period of
time when the veteran was unable, because of total disability, to
accumulate an estate for inheritance by survivors.
Survivors of military retirees have no entitlement to any portion
of the veteran's military retirement pay after his or her death, unlike
many retirement plans in the private sector; however, they may
participate in the survivor benefit plan (SBP), which makes deductions
from their spouses military retirement pay to purchase a survivors'
annuity. Upon the military retiree's death, the annuity is paid monthly
to eligible beneficiaries under the plan. If the veteran died of other
than service-connected causes or was not totally disabled by service-
connected disability for the required time preceding death,
beneficiaries receive full SBP payments. However, if the veteran's
death was a result of military service or after the requisite period of
total service-connected disability, the SBP annuity is reduced by an
amount equal to the DIC payment. When the monthly DIC rate is equal to
or greater than the monthly SBP annuity, beneficiaries lose all
entitlement to the SBP annuity.
This offset is inequitable because there is no duplication of
benefits since payments under the SBP and DIC programs are made for
different purposes. Under the SBP, coverage is purchased by a veteran
and paid to his or her surviving beneficiary at the time of the
veteran's death. On the other hand, DIC is a special indemnity
compensation paid to the survivor of a service member who dies while
serving in the military, or a veteran who dies from service-connected
disabilities. In such cases, DIC should be added to the SBP, not
substituted for it. Surviving spouses of federal civilian retirees who
are veterans are eligible for DIC without losing any of their purchased
federal civilian survivor benefits. The offset penalizes survivors of
military retirees whose deaths are under circumstances warranting
indemnification from the government separate from the annuity funded by
premiums paid by the veteran from his or her retired pay. Congress
should fully repeal the offset between dependency and indemnity
compensation and the Survivor Benefit Plan.
Adaptive Housing and Automobile Grants
Service-connected disabled veterans who have impairments or loss of
use of at least one of their hands, feet or eyes may be eligible for
several grants to adapt their housing or automobiles, including the
Specially Adapted Housing Grant and the Automobile and Special Adaptive
Equipment Grants. However, when veterans who have already received
these grants are forced to move to a new home, or stay temporarily in
someone else's home, or need to replace an outdated automobile, they
are restricted in accessing the full benefits of this program. To
remedy this, Congress should establish a supplementary housing grant
that covers the cost of new home adaptations for eligible veterans who
have used their initial, once in-a-lifetime grant on specially adapted
homes they no longer own and occupy. A separate grant should be
provided for special adaptations to homes owned by family members in
which veterans temporarily reside. VA should also be authorized to
provide a supplementary auto grant to eligible veterans in an amount
equaling the difference between their previously used one-time
entitlement and the increased amount of the grant.
Compensation for Quality of Life and Noneconomic Loss:
Mr. Chairman, our nation's 3.2 million service-disabled veterans
rely greatly on VA's disability compensation program as an essential
source of financial support for themselves and their families. However,
a number of recent studies and commissions have all agreed that VA's
disability compensation program does not do enough and should be
revised to compensate for the loss of quality of life and other non-
economic losses that result from permanent disabilities suffered while
serving in the armed forces.
In 2007, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) published a report
entitled, ``A 21st Century System for Evaluating Veterans for
Disability Benefits,'' recommending that the current VA disability
compensation system be expanded to include compensation for noneconomic
loss and loss of quality of life. The IOM report stated that, ``...
Congress and VA have implicitly recognized consequences in addition to
work disability of impairments suffered by veterans in the Rating
Schedule and other ways. Modern concepts of disability include work
disability, nonwork disability, and quality of life (QOL) . . . ''
The congressionally-mandated Veterans Disability Benefits
Commission (VDBC), established by the National Defense Authorization
Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-136), in 2007 also recommended that the,
``... veterans disability compensation program should compensate for
three consequences of service-connected injuries and diseases: work
disability, loss of ability to engage in usual life activities other
than work, and loss of quality of life.'' That same year, the
President's Commission on Care for America's Returning Wounded
Warriors, chaired by former Senator Bob Dole and former Health and
Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala, also agreed that the current
benefits system should be reformed to include noneconomic loss and
quality of life as a factor in compensation.
The IBVSOs concur with all these recommendations and calls on
Congress to finally address this deficiency by amending title 38,
United States Code, to clarify that disability compensation, in
addition to providing compensation to service-connected disabled
veterans for their average loss of earnings capacity, must also include
compensation for their noneconomic loss and for loss of their quality
of life. The Canadian Veterans' Affairs disability compensation program
and the Australian Department of Veterans' Affairs disability
compensation program already do just that. It is now time for our
Congress and VA to determine the most practical and equitable manner in
which to provide compensation for noneconomic loss and loss of quality
of life and then move expeditiously to implement this updated
disability compensation program.
CLAIMS PROCESSING REFORM RECOMMENDATIONS
Over the past decade, the number of veterans filing claims for
disability compensation has more than doubled, rising from nearly
600,000 in 2000 to over 1.4 million in 2011. This workload increase is
the result of a number of factors over the past decade, including the
wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an increase in the complexity of claims
and a downturn in the economy causing more veterans to seek VA
assistance. Furthermore, new presumptive conditions related to Agent
Orange exposure (ischemic heart disease, B-cell leukemia and
Parkinson's disease) and previously denied claims, resulting from the
Nehmer decision added almost 200,000 new claims this year; leading to a
workload surge that will level off in 2012. During this same decade,
VBA's workforce grew by about 80 percent, rising from 13,500 FTEE in
2007 to over 20,000 today, with the vast majority of that increase
occurring during the past four years.
Yet despite the hiring of thousands of new employees, the number of
pending claims for benefits, often referred to as the backlog,
continues to grow. As of February 4, 2012, there were 891,402 pending
claims for disability compensation and pensions awaiting rating
decisions by the VBA, an increase of more than 114,000 from one year
ago, and almost double the 487,501 that were pending two years prior.
The number of claims pending over 125 days, VBA's official target for
completing claims, reached 591,243, which is a 66 percent increase in
one year and more than double the 185,040 from two years ago.
But more important than the number of claims processed is the
number of claims processed correctly. The VBA quality assurance program
is known as the Systematic Technical Accuracy Review (STAR) and is now
available publicly on VA's ASPIRE Dashboard. The most recent STAR
measure for rating claims accuracy for the one-year period ending
September 2011 is 84 percent, about the same level as one year prior,
and slightly lower than several years earlier. However, the VA Office
of Inspector General (VAOIG) reported in May 2011 that based on
inspections of 45,000 claims at 16 of the VA's 57 regional offices
(VAROs), claims for disability compensation were correctly processed
only 77 percent of the time. This error rate would equate to almost
250,000 incorrect claims decisions in just the past year.
Cultural Change Needed to Fix Claims-Processing System:
Under the weight of an outdated information technology system,
increasing workload and growing backlog, the VBA faces a daunting
challenge of comprehensively transforming the way it processes claims
for benefits in the future, while simultaneously reducing the backlog
of claims pending within its existing infrastructure. While there have
been many positive and hopeful signs that the VBA is on the right path,
there will be critical choices made over the next year that will
determine whether this effort will ultimately succeed. It is essential
that Congress provide careful and continuing oversight of this
transformation to help ensure that the VBA achieves true reform and not
just arithmetic milestones, such as lowered backlogs or decreased cycle
times.
One of the more positive signs has been the open and candid
attitude of VBA leadership over the past several years, particularly
progress towards developing a new partnership between VBA and veterans
service organizations (VSOs) who assist veterans in filing claims. The
IBVSOs have been increasingly consulted on a number of the new
initiatives underway at VBA, including disability benefit
questionnaires (DBQs), Veterans Benefit Management System (VBMS), and
many, but not all business process pilots, including the I-LAB at the
Indianapolis Regional Office. Building upon these efforts, VBA must
continue to the reach out to its VSO partners, not just at central
office, but also at each of the 57 regional offices.
In order to drive and sustain its transformation strategies
throughout such a massive organization, VBA must change how it measures
and rewards performance in a manner designed to achieve the goal of
getting claims decided right the first time. Unfortunately, most of the
measures that VBA employs today are based primarily on production
goals, rather than quality. This bias for speed over accuracy has long
been VBA's cultural norm, and it is not surprising that management and
employees today continue to feel a tremendous pressure to meet
production goals first and foremost. While accuracy has been and
remains one of the performance standards that must be met by all
employees, new performance standards adopted over the past two years
appear to have done little to create sufficient incentives to elevate
quality above production.
Over the next couple of crucial years, it will be particularly
important for VBA and Congress to remain focused on the principal goal
of enhancing quality and accuracy, rather than focusing on reducing the
backlog. VBA should change the way it measures and reports progress so
that there are more and better indicators of quality and accuracy, at
least equal in weight to measures of speed and production. In addition,
VBA should develop a systematic way to measure average work output for
each category of its employees in order to establish more accurate
performance standards, which will also allow the VBA to better project
future workforce requirements.
Implementing a New Operating Model for Processing Claims:
As the Veterans Benefits Administration begins to implement a new
operating model for processing claims for disability compensation, it
must give priority to ``best practices'' that have been validated to
increase quality and accuracy, not just speed and production. VBA has
conducted more than 40 different pilot programs and initiatives looking
at new ways of establishing, developing, rating, and awarding claims
for benefits. Dozens of other ideas flowed from individual employees
and regional offices, leadership retreats, and an internal ``innovation
competition,'' leading to new initiatives such as quick pay, walk-in
claims, and rules-based calculators.
In order to test how best to integrate these and other pilots and
initiatives conducted over the past two years, VA established the I-LAB
at the Indianapolis Regional Office to develop a new end-to-end
operating model for claims processing. The I-LAB settled on the
segmentation of claims as the cornerstone principle for designing the
new operating model. The traditional triage function was replaced at
the I-LAB with an Intake Processing Center, staffed with an experienced
claims processor, whose responsibility was to divide claims along three
separate tracks; Express, Core, and Special Ops. The Express lane is
for simpler claims, such as fully developed claims, claims with one or
two contentions, or other simple claims. The Special Ops lane is for
more difficult claims, such as those with eight or more contentions,
longstanding pending claims, complex conditions, such as traumatic
brain injury and special monthly compensation, and other claims
requiring extensive time and expertise. The Core lane is for the
balance of claims with between three and seven contentions, claims for
individual unemployability (IU), original mental health conditions, and
others.
VBA has seen some early indications that productivity could
increase through the use of the new segmentation strategy at the I-LAB;
however, it may still be too soon to judge whether such results would
be reproduced if applied nationally. While the VBA certainly needs to
reform its claims-processing system, it must first ensure that proper
metrics are in place in order to make sound decisions about the
elements of its new operating model.
By the end of 2011, the VBA stood up an Implementation Team to
develop a strategy and plan for implementing the new operating model
for processing claims. With the Secretary's ambitious goal of
processing all claims in less than 125 days with an accuracy rate of 98
percent by 2015, VBA's strategy calls for 2012 to be a year of
transition; full implementation of the new operating model is planned
for 2013; in 2014, the VBA anticipates stabilization and assessment of
the new system; and 2015 is planned as the year of ``centers of
excellence,'' an apparent reference to a future state that will
centralize some VBA activities or functions.
Critical to the success of this implementation strategy will be the
choices made by VBA this year. It will also be absolutely essential for
Congress to provide strong oversight to ensure that the enormous
pressures on VBA to show progress toward eliminating or reducing the
claims backlog does not result in short term gains at the expense of
long-term reform.
Stronger Training, Testing and Quality Control
Mr. Chairman, training, testing, and quality control must be given
the highest priority within the Veterans Benefits Administration if the
current claims processing reform efforts are to be successful. Training
is essential to the professional development of individuals and tied
directly to the quality of work they produce, as well as the quantity
they can accurately produce. However, the IBVSOs remain concerned that
under the rising pressure of increasing workload and backlogs, VBA
managers and employees often choose to cut corners on training in order
to focus on production at all costs. It is imperative that efforts to
increase productivity not interfere with required training of
employees, particularly new employees who are still learning their job.
Furthermore, after employees have been trained it is important that
they are regularly tested to ensure that they have the knowledge and
competencies to perform their jobs. A GAO report published in September
2011 found that a nationwide training curriculum for VBA's Decision
Review Officers (DROs) did not exist despite the fact that 93 percent
of regional managers interviewed supported such a national training
program, as did virtually every DRO interviewed. We would note that
following a recent DRO examination in which a high percentage failed to
achieve acceptable results, the VBA required all DROs to undergo a one-
week training program to enhance their knowledge and job skills. This
is exactly the type of action that should regularly occur within an
integrated training, testing, and quality control program.
In 2008, Congress enacted Public Law 110-389, the Veterans'
Benefits Improvement Act of 2008, which required VBA to develop and
implement a certification examination for all claims processors and
managers. While tests have been developed and conducted for VSRs,
RVSRs, and DROs, the tests for supervisory personnel and coaches have
yet to be completed. VBA cannot accurately assess its training or
measure an individual's knowledge, understanding, or retention of the
training material without regular testing. The IBVSOs believe it is
essential that all VBA employees, coaches, and managers undergo regular
testing to measure job skills and knowledge, as well as the
effectiveness of the training. At the same time, VBA must ensure that
certification tests are developed that accurately measure the skills
and knowledge needed to perform the work of VSRs, RVSRs, DROs, coaches,
and other managers.
One of the most promising developments over the past year is VBA's
new initiative to stand up Quality Review Teams (QRTs) in every
regional office. Developed from a review of the best practices used at
certain high-performing regional offices, the QRT program will assign
full-time, dedicated employees whose sole function is to seek out and
correct errors in claims processing. QRTs will also work to develop in-
process quality control measures to prevent errors before decisions are
made. The IBVSOs strongly support this program and recommend that VBA
make service in a QRT unit a career path requirement for those seeking
to rise to senior positions in Regional Offices or at VBA's
headquarters in Washington, DC.
Mr. Chairman, the only way the VBA can make and sustain long-term
reductions in the backlog is by producing better quality decisions in
the first instance. The only way to institutionalize such a cultural
shift within the VBA is by developing and giving priority to training,
testing and quality control programs.
New Information Technology Systems
After two years of development, VBA's Veterans Benefits Management
System (VBMS) is planned to be rolled out nationally beginning in June
of this year. The VBMS is designed to provide a comprehensive,
paperless, and rules-based method of processing and awarding claims for
VA benefits, particularly disability compensation and pension. The
IBVSOs have been especially pleased with VBA efforts to incorporate the
experience and perspective of our organizations throughout the VBMS
development process. Understanding the important role that VSO service
officers play in the claims process, VBA proactively sought frequent
and substantive consultation with VSOs, both at the national VBMS
office and at the pilot locations. We are confident that this promising
partnership will strengthen VBMS for VBA, VSOs, and most importantly,
veterans seeking VA benefits.
As VBA turns the corner on VBMS development leading to deployment,
it is imperative that Congress provide full funding to complete this
essential IT initiative. In today's difficult fiscal environment, there
are concerns that efforts to balance the federal budget and reduce the
national debt could result in reductions to VA programs, including IT
programs. Over the next year Congress must ensure that the funding
required and designated for the VBMS is protected from cuts or
reprogramming, and spent as Congress intended.
Another key IT component is e-Benefits, VA's online portal that
allows veterans to apply for, monitor, and manage their benefits over
the Internet. With more than 2 million users registered, e-Benefits
provides a web-based method for veterans to file claims for disability
and other benefits that will ultimately integrate that information
directly into the VBMS to adjudicate those claims. As with VBMS, it is
crucial that Congress and the VBA provide e-Benefits full funding in
order to support the ongoing transformation of the claims processing
system.
Additionally Mr. Chairman, the IBVSOs remain concerned about VBA's
plans for transitioning legacy paper claims into the new VBMS work
environment. While VBA is committed to moving forward with a paperless
system for new claims, it has not yet determined how to handle reopened
paper claims; specifically whether, when or how they would be converted
to digital files. Because a majority of claims processed each year are
for reopened or appealed claims and because files can remain active for
decades, until all legacy claims are converted to digital data files,
VBA could be forced to continue paper processing for decades. Requiring
VBA employees to learn and master two different claims processing
systems--one that is paper-based and the other digital--would add
unnecessary complexity and could negatively affect quality, accuracy,
and consistency.
While there are very difficult technical questions to be answered
about the most efficient manner of transitioning to all-digital
processing, particular involving legacy paper files, we believe the VBA
should do all it can to shorten the length of time this transition
takes to complete, and should provide a clear roadmap for eliminating
legacy paper files, one that includes clear timelines and resource
requirements. While this transition may require significant upfront
investment, it will pay dividends for the VBA and veterans in the
future.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement and I would be happy to
answer any questions from you or other members of the Subcommittee.
Executive Summary
VBA AND GOE RESOURCE RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to sustain the transformation efforts underway at VBA, the
DAV and The Independent Budget recommends generally maintaining current
staffing levels for FY 2013 in the Veterans Benefits Administration,
with modest increases for the Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment
Service (VR&E) and the Board of Veterans Appeals.
Increase funding for VR&E to allow 195 new counselors to
reach proper staffing ratios
Increase funding to the Board to allow 585 total FTEE to
keep up with rising workload.
Provide the funding necessary to construct a permanent
courthouse for the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
VETERANS BENEFITS REOMMENDATIONS
Congress should enact legislation to repeal the
inequitable requirement that veterans' military longevity retired pay
be offset by an amount equal to their disability compensation if rated
less than 50 percent.
Congress should fully repeal the offset between
dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) and the Survivor Benefit
Plan (SBP).
Congress and VA should determine the most practical and
equitable manner to provide compensation for noneconomic loss and loss
of quality of life for service connected disabled veterans and move
expeditiously to implement this new component.
CLAIMS PROCESSING REFORM RECOMMENDATIONS
Congress must provide close and continuing oversight of
VBA's transformation of their claims processing system in order to
ensure that it is built on the principal of enhancing quality and
accuracy, rather than simply reducing the backlog by any means.
Congress must fully fund VBA's new IT systems,
particularly the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) and e-
Benefits.
All VBA employees, coaches, and managers should undergo
regular training and testing to measure job skills and knowledge, as
well as the effectiveness of the training.
Prepared Statement of Diane M. Zumatto
Chairman Runyan, Ranking Member McNerney, Congressman Walz and
distinguished members of the subcommittee, as an author of The
Independent Budget (IB), I thank you for this opportunity to share with
you the IB's recommendations in what we believe to be the most fiscally
responsible way of ensuring the quality and integrity of the care and
benefits earned by Americans veterans.
The Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) National Cemetery
Administration (NCA) maintains 131 of the nation's 147 national
cemeteries, as well as 33 soldiers' lots. The 131 NCA operated
cemeteries are composed of approximately 3.1 million gravesites and are
located in 39 states and Puerto Rico. As of late 2010, there were more
than 20,021 acres within established installations in the NCA.
VA estimates that approximately 22.4 million veterans are alive
today and with the transition of an additional 1 million service
members into veteran status over the next 12 months, this number is
expected to continue to rise until approximately 2017. On average, 14.4
percent of veterans choose a national or state veterans' cemetery as
their final resting place. As new national and state cemeteries
continue to open and as our aging veterans' population continues to
grow, we continue to be a nation at war on multiple fronts. The demand
for burial at a veterans' cemetery will continue to increase.
The single most important obligation of the NCA is to honor the
memory of America's brave men and women who have selflessly served in
this nation's armed forces. Many of the individual cemeteries,
monuments, grave stones, grounds and related memorial tributes within
the NCA system are richly steeped in history and represent the very
foundation of these United States.
The Independent Budget veterans service organizations (IBVSOs)
would like to acknowledge the dedication and commitment demonstrated by
the NCA leadership and staff in their continued dedication to providing
the highest quality of service to veterans and their families. It is in
the opinion of the IBVSOs that the NCA continues to meet its goals and
the goals set forth by others because of its true dedication and care
for honoring the memories of the men and women who have so selflessly
served our nation. We applaud the NCA for recognizing that it must
continue to be responsive to the preferences and expectations of the
veterans' community by adapting or adopting new interment options and
ensuring access to burial options in the national, state and tribal
government-operated cemeteries. We also believe it is important to
recognize the NCA's efforts in employing both disabled and homeless
veterans.
NCA Accounts
In FY 2011 the National Cemetery Administration operated on an
estimated budget of $298.3 million associated with the operations and
maintenance of its grounds. The NCA had no carryover for FY 2011. The
NCA was also able to award 44 of its 48 minor construction projects and
had four unobligated projects that will be moved to FY 2012.
Unfortunately, due to continuing resolutions and the current budget
situation, the NCA was not able to award the remaining four projects.
The IBVSOs support the operational standards and measures outlined
in the National Shrine Commitment (PL 106-117, Sec. 613) which was
enacted in 1999 to ensure that our national cemeteries are the finest
in the world. While the NCA has worked diligently improving the
appearance of our national cemeteries, they are still a long way from
where they should be.
The NCA has worked tirelessly to improve the appearance of our
national cemeteries, investing an estimated $39 million into the
National Shrine Initiative in FY 2011. According to NCA surveys, as of
October 2011 the NCA has continued to make progress in reaching its
performance measures. Since 2006, the NCA has improved headstone and
marker height and alignment in national cemeteries from 67 percent to
70 percent and has improved cleanliness of tombstones, markers and
niches from 77 percent to 91 percent. Although the NCA is nearing its
strategic goal of 90 percent and 95 percent, respectively, for height
and alignment and cleanliness, more funding is needed to continue this
delicate and labor-intensive work. Therefore, the IBVSOs recommend the
NCA's Operations and Maintenance budget to be increased by $20 million
per year until the operational standards and measures goals are
reached.
The IBVSOs recommend an Operational and Maintenance budget of $280
million for the National Cemetery Administration for FY 2013 so it can
meet the demands for interment, gravesite maintenance and related
essential elements of cemetery operations. This request includes $20
million for the National Shrine Initiative.
The IBVSOs call on the Administration and Congress to provide the
resources needed to meet the critical nature of the NCA's mission and
to fulfill the nation's commitment to all veterans who have served
their country so honorably and faithfully.
State Cemetery Grant Programs
The State Cemetery Grants Program (SCGP) complements the National
Cemetery Administration's mission to establish gravesites for veterans
in areas where it cannot fully respond to the burial needs of veterans.
Several incentives are in place to assist states in this effort. For
example, the NCA can provide up to 100 percent of the development cost
for an approved cemetery project, including establishing a new cemetery
and expanding or improving an established state or tribal organization
veterans' cemetery. New equipment, such as mowers and backhoes, can be
provided for new cemeteries. In addition, the Department of Veterans'
Affairs may also provide operating grants to help cemeteries achieve
national shrine standards.
In FY 2011 the SCGP operated on an estimated budget of $46 million,
funding 16 state cemeteries. These 16 state cemeteries included the
establishment or ground breaking of five new state cemeteries, three of
which are located on tribal lands, expansions and improvements at seven
state cemeteries, and four projects aimed at assisting state cemeteries
to meet the NCA national shrine standards. Since 1978 the Department of
Veterans' Affairs has more than doubled the available acreage and
accommodated more than a 100 percent increase in burials through this
program.
With the enactment of the ``Veterans Benefits Improvement Act of
1998,'' the NCA has been able to strengthen its partnership with states
and increase burial services to veterans, especially those living in
less densely populated areas without access to a nearby national
cemetery. Through FY 2010, the state grant program has established 75
state veteran's cemeteries in 40 states and U.S. territories.
Furthermore, in FY 2011 VA awarded its first state cemetery grant to a
tribal organization.
The Independent Budget veteran's service organizations recommend
that Congress fund the State Cemetery Grants Program at $51 million for
FY 2013. The IBVSOs believe that this small increase in funding will
help the National Cemetery Administration meet the needs of the State
Cemetery Grant Program, as its expected demand will continue to rise
through 2017. Furthermore, this funding level will allow the NCA to
continue to expand in an effort of reaching its goal of serving 94
percent of the nation's veteran population by 2015.
Veteran's Burial Benefits
Since the original parcel of land was set aside for the sacred
committal of Civil War Veterans by President Abraham Lincoln in 1862,
more than 3 million burials have occurred in national cemeteries under
the National Cemetery Administration.
In 1973, the Department of Veterans' Affairs established a burial
allowance that provided partial reimbursement for eligible funeral and
burial costs. The current payment is $2,000 for burial expenses for
service-connected deaths, $300 for nonservice-connected deaths and a
$700 plot allowance. At its inception, the payout covered 72 percent of
the funeral costs for a service-connected death, 22 percent for a
nonservice-connected death and 54 percent of the cost of a burial plot.
Burial allowance was first introduced in 1917 to prevent veterans
from being buried in potter's fields. In 1923 the allowance was
modified. The benefit was determined by a means test until it was
removed in 1936. In its early history the burial allowance was paid to
all veterans, regardless of their service connectivity of death. In
1973, the allowance was modified to reflect the status of service
connection.
The plot allowance was introduced in 1973 as an attempt to provide
a plot benefit for veterans who did not have reasonable access to a
national cemetery. Although neither the plot allowance nor the burial
allowance was intended to cover the full cost of a civilian burial in a
private cemetery, the recent increase in the benefit's value indicates
the intent to provide a meaningful benefit. The Independent Budget
veterans service organizations are pleased that the 111th Congress
acted quickly and passed an increase in the plot allowance for certain
veterans from $300 to $700 effective October 1, 2011. However, we
believe that there is still a serious deficit between the original
value of the benefit and its current value.
In order to bring the benefit back up to its original intended
value, the payment for service-connected burial allowance should be
increased to $6,160, the nonservice-connected burial allowance should
be increased to $1,918 and the plot allowance should be increased to
$1,150. The IBVSOs believe Congress should divide the burial benefits
into two categories: veterans within the accessibility model and
veterans outside the accessibility model.
Congress should increase the plot allowance from $700 to $1,150 for
all eligible veterans and expand the eligibility for the plot allowance
for all veterans who would be eligible for burial in a national
cemetery, not just those who served during wartime. Congress should
increase the service-connected burial benefits from $2,000 to $6,160
for veterans outside the radius threshold and to $2,793 for veterans
inside the radius threshold.
Congress should increase the nonservice-connected burial benefits
from $300 to $1,918 for all veterans outside the radius threshold and
to $854 for all veterans inside the radius threshold. The
Administration and Congress should provide the resources required to
meet the critical nature of the National Cemetery Administration's
mission and to fulfill the nation's commitment to all veterans who have
served their country so honorably and faithfully.
Executive Summary
Introduction: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) National
Cemetery Administration (NCA) maintains 131 of the nation's 147
national cemeteries, as well as 33 soldiers' lots. The 131 NCA operated
cemeteries are composed of approximately 3.1 million gravesites and are
located in 39 states and Puerto Rico. As of late 2010, there were more
than 20,021 acres within established installations in the NCA. Nearly
60 percent are yet to be developed and hold the potential to provide
approximately 5.5 million more gravesites, composed of 4.9 million
casket sites and 600,000 in-ground cremation sites. Of these 131
national cemeteries, 71 are open to all interments, 19 can accommodate
cremated remains only, and 41 will perform only interments of family
members in the same gravesite as a previously deceased family member.
VA estimates that approximately 22.4 million veterans are alive
today, and with the transition of an additional 1 million service
members into veteran status over the next 12 months, this number is
expected to continue to rise until approximately 2017. These veterans
have served in both World Wars, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the
Gulf War, Operation Enduring Freedom, Operation Iraqi Freedom,
Operation New Dawn, and hostile conflicts around the world and during
times of peace. On average, 14.4 percent of veterans choose to be laid
to rest in a national or state veterans' cemetery. As new national and
state cemeteries continue to open, as our aging veterans' population
continues to grow, and as we continue to be a nation at war on multiple
fronts, the demand for burial at a veterans' cemetery will continue to
increase.
The most important obligation of the NCA is to honor the memory of
America's brave men and women who have selflessly served in the armed
forces. Therefore, maintaining NCA cemeteries as a national shrine
dedicated to the memory of these men and women is a top priority. In
fact, many of the individual cemeteries within the NCA system are
steeped in history, and the monuments, markers, grounds, and related
memorial tributes represent the very foundation of the United States.
The Independent Budget veterans service organizations (IBVSOs)
would like to acknowledge the dedication and commitment demonstrated by
NCA leadership and staff in their continued dedication to providing the
highest quality of service to veterans and their families. It is in the
opinion of the IBVSOs that the NCA continues to meet its goals and the
goals set by others because of its true dedication and care for
honoring the memories of the men and women who have so selflessly
served our nation. We applaud the NCA for recognizing that it must
continue to be responsive to the preferences and expectations of the
veterans' community by adapting or adopting new burial options and
ensuring access to burial options in the national, state, and tribal
government-operated cemeteries. We also believe it is important to
recognize the NCA's efforts in employing disabled and homeless
veterans.
Topics to be discussed:
1. NCA Accounts: The IBVSOs recommend an Operational and
Maintenance budget of $280 million for the National Cemetery
Administration for FY 2013 so it can meet the demands for interment,
gravesite maintenance and related essential elements of cemetery
operations. This request includes the $20 million for the National
Shrine Initiative. The IBVSOs further call on the Administration and
Congress to provide the resources needed to meet the critical nature of
the NCA mission and fulfill the nation's commitment to all veterans who
have served their country so honorably and faithfully.
2. The State Cemetery Grants Program (SCGP): The Independent Budget
recommends an appropriation of $51 million for the SCGP for FY 2013.
This funding level will allow the SCGP to establish new cemeteries, at
their current rate, that will provide burial options for veterans who
live in regions that currently have no reasonable accessible state or
national cemetery. The IBVSOs further believe this small increase in
funding will help the National Cemetery Administration meet the needs
of the State Cemetery Grant program, as its expected demand will
continue to rise through 2017. Furthermore, this funding level will
allow the NCA to continue to expand in an effort of reaching its goal
of serving 94 percent of the nation's veteran population by 2015.
3. Veterans' Burial Benefits: Congress should divide the burial
benefits into two categories: veterans within the accessibility model
and veterans outside the accessibility model. Congress should increase
the plot allowance from $700 to $1,150 for all eligible veterans and
expand the eligibility for the plot allowance for all veterans who
would be eligible for burial in a national cemetery, not just those who
served during wartime. Congress should increase the service-connected
burial benefits from $2,000 to $6,160 for veterans outside the radius
threshold and to $2,793 for veterans inside the radius threshold.
Congress should also increase the nonservice-connected burial benefits
from $300 to $1,918 for all veterans outside the radius threshold and
to $854 for all veterans inside the radius threshold. Finally, the
Administration and Congress should provide the resources required to
meet the critical nature of the National Cemetery Administration's
mission and fulfill the nation's commitment to all veterans who have
served their country so honorably and faithfully. able
February 9, 2012
The Honorable Representative Jon Runyan, Chairman
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
335 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Chairman Runyan:
Neither AMVETS nor I have received any federal grants or contracts,
during this year or in the last two years, from any agency or program
relevant to the February 16, 2012, House Veterans Affairs Committee
hearing on the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Request for
Fiscal Year 2013.
Sincerely,
Diane M. Zumatto
AMVETS National Legislative Director
Question For The Record
Letter and Post-Hearing Questions for Diana Rubens, Deputy Under
Secretary for Field Operations, Veterans Benefits
Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs From: Hon.
Jerry McNerney, Ranking Democratic Member, Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Services
February 17, 2012
Ms. Diana Rubens
Deputy Under Secretary for Field Operations
Veterans Benefits Administration
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
801 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20420
Dear Secretary Rubens:
In reference to our Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and
Memorial Affairs hearing entitled ``Budget Hearing FY 2013'' that took
place on February 16, 2012, I would appreciate it if you could answer
the enclosed hearing questions by the close of business on Friday,
March 30, 2012.
In an effort to reduce printing costs, the Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, in cooperation with the Joint Committee on Printing, is
implementing some formatting changes for materials for all full
committee and subcommittee hearings. Therefore, it would be appreciated
if you could provide your answers consecutively and single-spaced. In
addition, please restate the question in its entirety before the
answer.
Due to the delay in receiving mail, please provide your response to
Jian Zapata at [email protected], and fax your responses to
Jian at 202-225-2034. If you have any questions, please call 202-225-
9756.
Sincerely,
JERRY MCNERNEY
Ranking Democratic Member
Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs
KR/jz
1. The Independent Budget recommends that VA add 40 FTEs to the
Board of Veterans' Appeals. As you know, the BVA has its own backlog,
with appeals averaging 883 days (over two years). Yet, VA's budget flat
funds the General Administration account under which BVA receives its
funding.
a. In light of the CAVC's recent Freeman v Shinseki decision, which
allows a beneficiary to appeal to the BVA the appointment of the
fiduciary selected by VA (resulting in even more potential appeals),
what is VA doing to address the backlog of appeals at the Board of
Veterans' Appeals in its budget?
b. Are more FTEs for BVA needed?
2. Please elaborate on the claims processing initiative involving
ACS, Inc., a private contractor. A recent POGO (Project on Government
Oversight) study issued on 9/13/11, indicated that contractors cost
more than federal employees. On average contractors are paid 1.83 times
more than federal employees. In fact, claims processors are the most
expensive contractors according to POGO, with average federal annual
compensation for claims assistance and examining work at $57,292,
compared to $75, 637 for contractors doing the same job.
a. Why is this contract necessary?
b. What are the costs associated with the contract with ACS, Inc.
for claims development?
c. How many claims will ACS develop or process?
d. What will happen to current FTEs under the applicable C&P
accounts?
e. Please elaborate on how the contracted employees through ACS,
Inc. are trained within a matter of a few months while VBA employees
are trained over the span of two years?
3. VBMS is slated to receive $128 million this budget cycle.
a. Does this funding level represent a decrease, if so what is the
reason for the decrease?
b. Have all of VA's claims processing legacy systems been properly
interfaced. How will VBMS interface with the Fiduciary Program's case
management system?
4. VA requested funding for additional IDES employees for FY 2013.
a. Is this request level adequate given the amount of resources you
disclose this process requires?
b. Is it adequate given the expect influx of new Veterans returning
from war and expected to file claims?
5. What is the status of the Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record
Initiative?
a. What is the funding level requested?
b. When is roll-out and implementation expected?
6. Will VA continue to use the Fast Track system for Agent Orange
claims?
a. If so, how much will it cost during this budget cycle? Will it
be used for any other purpose?
7. Certain stakeholders informed the Committee that the VBA
Training Academy may not be operational and training for claims
processors has ceased.
a. Is this true?
b. Are VBA training needs adequately addressed in this budget?
8. What is the Stakeholder Enterprise portal (allows VSOs access to
some VA records)?
a. Who has access to it? How is it funded?
b. Will it be expanded to include access for other Veteran
advocates/stakeholders?
Post-Hearing Questions for Diana Rubens, Deputy Under Secretary for
Field Operations, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs From: Hon. Michael H. Michaud,
Member, Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on Disability
Assistance and Memorial Services
1. How often does the VA grant fiduciary power to a trusted family
member who has power of attorney as opposed to a paid fiduciary?
Post-Hearing Response From Diana Rubens, Deputy Under Secretary for
Field Operations, Veterans Benefits Administration, U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs To: Hon. Jerry McNerney, Ranking
Democratic Member, Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on
Disability Assistance and Memorial Services, and Hon. Michael
H. Michaud, Member, Veterans' Affairs, Subcommittee on
Disability Assistance and Memorial Services
Questions from Ranking Member McNerney (CA-11)
Question 1: The Independent Budget recommends that VA add 40 FTEs
to the Board of Veterans Appeals .As you know, the BVA has its own
backlog, with appeals averaging 883 days (over two years). Yet,VA's
budget flat funds the General Administration account under which BVA
receives its funding.
a. In light of the CAVC's recent Freeman v. Shinseki decision,which
allows a beneficiary to appeal to the BVA the appointment of the
fiduciary selected by VA (resulting in even more potential
appeals),what is VA doing to address the backlog of appeals at the
Board of Veterans' Appeals in its budget.
b. Are more FTEs for BVA needed?
Response: VA acknowledges the fiscal constraints facing all
agencies in 2013 and appreciates Congress' approval of an increase in
2012 funds to address the appeals claims workload. BVA historically
receives an average of 5 percent of all compensation claims that VBA
receives. In FY 2011, BVA issued approximately 90 decisions per FTE,
which includes Veterans Law Judges (VLJ) , attorneys, and
administrative support staff,for a total of 48,588 decisions . In FY
2012, BVA projects issuing 47,600 decisions based on the current level
of FTE supported . While additional FTE would result in additional
decisions, VA must allocate its resources with consideration of needs
across the entire Department.
To meet the challenge of the growing appeals workload, BVA has
implemented efficiencies in two key areas: hearings and remands. The
Department also submitted several legislative proposals to improve the
appeals process. These initiatives are discussed more fully below.
With respect to hearings, approximately 25 percent of appellants
before BVA request a hearing before a VLJ. The majority of appellants
request an in-person hearing (e.g., 66 percent in FY 2011). An average
of 75 percent of scheduled in person hearings in FY 2011 took place,
meaning that 25 percent of those Veterans scheduled for hearings did
not appear for the hearing. Data confirms that over the past five
years, the national average show rate for field hearings is 73 percent.
This leaves the VLJ who traveled to the field station with substantial
down time.
The annual hearing schedule depends on demand, and slots are
allocated to field stations well in advance of the beginning of each
fiscal year. In planning for the FY 2012 hearing schedule, BVA
decreased the number of available field hearings offered by 25 percent
in favor of increasing video teleconference (VTC) hearings, which take
place between the VLJ in Washington, DC and the Veteran at his or her
local Regional Office (RO). This results in both monetary and time
savings for VA. VLJs will gain time in the office, with an anticipated
increase in decisional output (ranging from 2 percent to 5 percent)
over the next few years. Additionally, VA will save an estimated
$864,000 in travel costs through 2015.
Remands generate a substantial amount of rework for both VBA and
BVA, which increases workload, while also greatly increasing the delay
for Veterans. In FY 2011, BVA remanded 44 percent of appeals before the
Board (21,464) to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), generally
VBA. Historically, approximately 75 percent of all remands return to
the Board. VLJs determined that 40 percent of FY 2011's remands (8,585)
could have been avoided if the RO properly processed and reviewed the
case in accordance with existing laws and regulations.
BVA has analyzed the data from its Remand Reasons Database
(collecting reasons for remands since 2004) and determined that the top
reason for remand is inadequate medical examinations and opinions. To
reduce the number of remands that are returned to the Board, BVA has
partnered with the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) to develop
training tools and provide direct training to VA clinicians to improve
VA compensation and pension examinations. Additionally, BVA and VBA
have agreed to a mandatory joint training program to aid in
standardizing adjudication across the system, driven by the most common
reasons for remand. BVA has established an interactive training
relationship with VBA's key organizations involved in the appellate
process, i.e., the Systemic Technical Accuracy Review (STAR) staff,
Decision Review Officers, and the Appeals Management Center staff. The
goal of these efforts is to reduce the number of avoidable remands in
the system.
VA has submitted legislative proposals to Congress that would
streamline the appellate process. Specifically, VA has proposed a
provision that would allow BVA to determine the most expeditious type
of hearing for those appellants who requests a hearing before a VLJ.
The proposal includes a ``good cause'' exception for those appellants
who do not desire a video conference hearing. VA has also proposed an
automatic waiver provision, establishing a presumption that an
appellant, or his or her representative, has waived RO consideration of
any evidence he or she files after filing the Substantive Appeal to the
Board. This would eliminate readjudication of the appeal by the Ro in
some cases, in favor of the Board directly addressing the evidence .
Additionally ,VA has proposed reducing the time period to file a Notice
of Disagreement (NOD) from 365 days to 180 days, to ensure timely
processing of appeals and less rework due to stale evidence.
Question 2: Please elaborate on the claims processing initiative
involving ACS , Inc., a private contractor . A recent POGO (Project on
Government Oversight) study issued on September 13,2011, indicated that
contractors cost more than federal employees. On average contractors
are paid 1.83 times more than federal employees. In fact, claims
processors are the most expensive contractors according to POGO,with
average federal annual compensation for claims assistance and examining
work at $57,292,compared to $75,637 for contractors doing the same job.
a. Why is this contract necessary?
Response: The Veterans Benefits Management Assistance Program
(VBMAP) contract was issued as a means to address the current backlog
in VBA claims development workload. The contractor develops claims and
returns them to VA for decision. Secondary purposes included increasing
enrollment in eBenefits, and providing training to VBA employees on
change management and Lean Six Sigma.
VBMAP is a one-year professional services contract to perform
disability claims development. This effort was developed and awarded on
a firm-fixed price basis that only pays the contractor for claims
returned at a 100 percent accuracy rate. The contractor is not paid for
claims not meeting acceptance criteria , and the work is returned to
normal VBA channels for correction or additionalfollow-up as necessary.
The VBMAP contract does not specify the number or type of employees,
but focuses on process automation, expedited actions,and transition/
maintenance in the electronic (vice paper) environment.
b. What are the costs associated with the contract with ACS, Inc.
for claims development?
Response: The VBMAP contract is for $18.6 million for claims
development, eBenefits enrollment , and training to VBA employees on
change management and Lean Six Sigma. $16.4 million is focused on the
claims development task.
c. How many claims will ACS develop or process?
Response: The maximum amount of claims is 357,600.
d. What will happen to current FTEs under the applicable C&P
accounts?
Response: There will be no changes to FTE as a result of the VBMAP
contract.
e. Please elaborate on how the contracted employees through ACS,
Inc. are trained within a matter of a few months while VBA employees
are trained over the span of two years?
Response: The VBMAP contract focuses only on claims development and
only for a narrowly defined type of claims vice the entire scope of
duties of typical VBA employees. Additionally, the VBMAP contractor
breaks the claims development processes into small discrete tasks, and
their employees focus on single segmented tasks that feed back into the
automated work stream . Thus, contractor employees tend to know only
parts of the claims development workflow process. Supervisors and a
dedicated quality control team provide workflow monitoring and
oversight to ensure accuracy of the final products.
Question 3: VBMS is slated to receive $128M this budget cycle.
a. Does this funding represent a decrease , if so what is the
reason for the decrease?
Response: Yes,this funding represents a decrease, which is
attributable to higher levels of investment in VBMS' core
infrastructure and claims processing capabilities completed prior to FY
2013. FY 2013 funding requested will support continuation of national
deployment, scanning, system enhancements, and defect repairs.
b. Have all of VA's claims processing legacy systems been properly
interfaced. How will VBMS interface with the Fiduciary Program's case
management system?
Response: VBMS currently interfaces with the Corporate Database and
the VETSNET suite of applications . VBMS is initially focused on the
establishment, development , and rating sections of the claims process.
VA will evaluate interfaces with fiduciary and other programs as
systems development and requirements gathering continue.
Question 4: VA requested funding for additional IDES employees for
FY 2013 .
a. Is this request level adequate given the amount of resources you
disclose this process requires?
Response: VA is staffed to support the current level of separations
,estimated at 27,000 claims per year. VA and the Department of Defense
(DoD) continue to assess the impact of troop movement and drawdown of
forces to the IDES program. We will continue to monitor resource needs
as part of our overall evaluation of the program.
b. Is it adequate given the expect influx of new Veterans returning
from war and expected to file claims?
Response: VA's estimate of claims receipts is based on available
information. VA and DoD will continue to assess the impact of the
drawdown of forces, as well as the impact of the recent VOW to Hire
Heroes Act of 2011.
Question 5: What is the status of the Virtual Lifetime Electronic
Record Initiative?
Response: Virtual Lifetime Electronic Record (VLER) enables VA and
its partners to proactively provide the full continuum of services and
benefits to Veterans through Veteran-centric processes made possible by
effective, efficient, and secure standards-based information sharing.
VLER is neither an IT program nor an information service provider. VLER
is a multi-faceted business and technology initiative that includes a
portfolio of health, benefits, and personnel information sharing
capabilities ,with four over-arching goals that align to VA Strategic
Plans. They are:
Empower Veterans to securely access and control the use
and dissemination of their health, benefits, and personnel information;
Eliminate material and non-material barriers to
information sharing across the VA enterprise and with external
partners;
Exploit information sharing innovations to ensure that
the VA proactively delivers services and benefits; and
Ensure that Veterans, their families , and other
stakeholders are engaged to better understand their needs and increase
participation in the development and use of VLER-enabled services.
To achieve its goals, VLER efforts are managed in four VLER
Capability Areas (VCAs):
VCA 1- Exchange health information required to support
clinical healthcare between VA , DoD and private providers;
VGA 2 - Expand the exchange of health, benefits ,
military personnel and administrative data in order to support
disability claims adjudication;
VGA 3 - Exchange additional health, benefits, military
personnel and administrative information required to proactively
deliver the full spectrum of benefits and services including, but not
limited to, compensation , housing, education, pension, insurance and
memorials; and
VCA 4 - Provide Service members and Vetera ns the ability
to securely access and control the use and dissemination of their
health, benefits, and personnel information via the eBenefits portal.
a. What is the funding level requested?
Response: VA's FY 13 budget request for VLER is for $52.939
million.
b. When is roll-out and implementation expected?
Response: Each VLER capability area includes multiple projects in
different stages of development. Some projects are in the early stages
of development and will be implemented in FY 2013 and FY 2014. However,
other VLER projects are already delivering valuable benefits. The
following is a sample of VLER projects which have already made major
impacts for millions of Service members and Veterans in numerous ways:
More than 800,000 Servicemembers and Veterans use the
VLER eBenefits portal (VCA-4) to manage their Servicemembers Group Life
Insurance, obtain GI Bill Certificates of Eligibility and access more
than 40 capabilities made available via eBenefits; new capabilities are
being added to eBenefits on a quarterly basis.
``Blue Button'' has been implemented , providing online
self-service downloads for on-demand access to personal health
information to 750,000 active users.
More than 1.6 million Veteran and Servicemember medical
records have been shared via the VLER Bidirectional Health Information
Exchange (BHIE) and Clinical Data Repository/Health Data Repository
(CHOR) projects.
Tens of thousands of Servicemembers and Veterans are
taking advantage of DoD and VAparticipation in the nationwide health
information network (NwHIN) being piloted in 13 areas across the
country.
VLER has impacted thousands of disabled Servicemembers ,
including our most severely wounded, ill, and injured by automating
information management and sharing between DoD and VA in support of the
Federal Recovery Coordinator and Integrated Disability Evaluation
System.
Planned VLER Deliverables:
Making Blue Button self-service downloads of on-demand
personal health information available via eBenefits .
Expanding NwHIN nationwide starting in July 2012, making
health information exchange between VA, DoD, and private sector
available to all Veterans.
Providing VA Compensation and Pension examiners direct
access to existing/legacy DoD health record systems (AHLTA & TMDS).
Incorporating career transition assistance behind
eBenefits portal (resume building, job search, entrepreneurship and
voe/tech training).
Completing automation of the transfer of all required
claims adjudication information between DoD and the VA.
Helping reduce the backlog of disability claims, VLER is
planning to deliver the following in the latter half of FY 2012 and FY
2013:
-- A ``TurboTax like'' web-based forms which
facilitate the collection of specific disability rating schedule
information from DoD, VAand private clinicians performing compensation
and pension (C&P) examinations.
-- Enabling and automating the electronic sharing of rating
schedule information so that systems used by VAto determine a
Servicemember 's or Veteran's eligibility for benefits, and
-- Providing VA C&P clinicians access to the information they
need (from DoD systems) to make it easier and less time consuming to
perform C&P exams for initial applications from active duty and
recently discharged Servicemembers (including mobilized national Guard
and Reservists).
Question 6: Will VA continue to use the Fast Track system for Agent
Orange claims?
Response: Yes,VBA will continue to use the Fast Track system for
Agent Orange claims.
a. If so, how much will it cost during this budget cycle? Will it
be used for any other purpose?
Response: The FY 2013 budget request includes $1.8 million annually
for operations and maintenance. Fast Track will not be used for any
other purpose beyond processing of Agent Orange claims.
Question 7: Certain stakeholders informed the Committee that the
VBA Training Academy may not be operational and training for claims
processors has ceased.
a. Is this true?
Response: No - the Veterans Benefits Academy is in full operation.
The Academy remains the main training site for VBA 's centralized
training for new claims processor (Challenge). The FY 2013 budget
request supports centralized training for more than 1,000 claims
processors. The Academy is also the site of VBA's new supervisor
training classes,which are also supported in the FY 2013 budget
request.
b. Are VBA training needs adequately addressed in this budget?
Response: Yes, VBA's training needs are adequately addressed in the
FY 2013 budget request.
Question 8: What is the Stakeholder enterprise portal (allows VSOs
access to some VA records)?
Response: The Stakeholder Enterprise Portal (SEP) project supports
the long term vision of a 21st Century VA ,which will enable convenient
and seamless interactions between VA and Veterans . SEP will streamline
access to self service capabilities and provide process improvements
for identifying and granting access to VA's business partners and
service providers. Essentially,VA business partners and service
providers, including Veterans Service Organizations ,will be able to
access VA benefits applications through a single online portal/access
point.
a. Who has access to it? How is it funded?
Response: The portal is envisioned as the single entry point for
all external, non-Veteran , stakeholders requiring access to VA self
service applications . SEP is funded under the Veterans Relationship
Management (VRM) Major Initiative.
b. Will it be expanded to include access for other Veteran
advocates/stakeholders?
Response: Yes, expansion will allow access for Veteran advocates
and stakeholders, including Veterans Service Organizations.
Question from Rep. Michaud (ME-2)
Question 1: How often does the VA grant fiduciary power to a
trusted family member who has power of attorney as opposed to a paid
fiduciary?
Response: VA's current workload management system does not track
how many family members hold durable power of attorney (POA) for a
beneficiary and also serve as the beneficiary's Federal fiduciary .
However, VA's fiduciary appointment process always considers the
beneficiary's preference first. If VA cannot qualify the beneficiary's
preference,VA will consider a family member, custodian, care provider,
or any other person willing to provide fiduciary services without
charge. Thus, while the existence of a POA is not criteria for
appointment, it is likely that some current fiduciaries ,the majority
of whom are family members, also hold POA for the beneficiary.
Relying on POAs alone as criteria for appointment of Federal
fiduciaries could prove difficult. POAs often have an expiration date
or other limiting terms, and VA might find it necessary to determine
whether the beneficiary executed the document with full understanding
of its effect. Such determination might unnecessarily complicate and
delay the fiduciary appointment process. Accordingly ,absent the
appointment of the beneficiary's preference, the current significance
of a POA in VA's fiduciary program is that it may help identify an
individual whom the beneficiary trusts regarding financial matters and
might be best suited for appointment.
Regarding paid fiduciaries , as of February 24, 2012, less than
eight percent of the more than 123,000 beneficiaries in VA's fiduciary
program have a paid fiduciary. VA's policy is to find the least
restrictive and most effective method of payment, which is generally a
family member who by law cannot charge a fee for fiduciary services.