[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 15607-15608]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, AND 
             INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2002

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                        HON. BENJAMIN A. GILMAN

                              of new york

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, July 30, 2001

       The House in Committee of the Whole House on the State of 
     the Union had under consideration the bill (H.R. 2620) making 
     appropriations for the Departments of Veterans Affairs and 
     Housing and Urban Development and for sundry independent 
     agencies,

[[Page 15608]]

     boards, commissions, corporations, and offices for the fiscal 
     year ending September 30, 2002, and for other purposes.

  Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of the 
amendment being offered by my colleague, Mr. Frelinghuysen, to prohibit 
any funds from being used to implement the veterans equity resource 
allocation system.
  VERA was created to correct a perceived inequity in the manner in 
which veterans health care dollars were being distributed across the 
country.
  While a noble effort, VERA was fundamentally flawed in that it did 
not look at the type of care being delivered to veterans in a given 
region. Furthermore, it also failed to consider the effect of regional 
costs of providing health care in its calculations.
  Under VERA, the watchword was efficiency. Deliver the most care at 
the least cost. While ideal for outpatient care, VERA has unfairly 
penalized those VISNs that provide vital services such as substance 
abuse treatment, services for homeless veterans, mental health 
services, and spinal cord injury treatments. Under VERA, these services 
are all deemed too expensive and ``inefficient.''
  VERA was also implemented at a time when the VA budget was 
essentially flat-lined. Thus, VISN directors were not provided 
additional funds to offset the costs of annual pay raises for VA staff, 
and annual medical inflation costs. This was not a problem for those 
directors of VISNs that received money under VERA. However, for those 
directors in VISNs, that were losing money under VERA, it was a double 
hit that crowded out additional funds needed for other vital services.
  It is commendable that the subcommittee was able to find an 
additional $1.2 billion for veterans medical care. Yet, thanks to VERA, 
very little of that money will find its way to the Northeast, where it 
is vitally needed. Instead, it will be sent to those VISNs that have 
already seen increases in funding due to VERA.
  Mr. Chairman, this is simply wrong. The veterans of the Northeast, 
who are older, sicker and less mobile than their counterparts in the 
sun belt should not be unfairly penalized for where they choose to 
live. This amendment starts to correct this problem by terminating 
VERA, a well-intentioned, but poorly executed system that blatantly 
discriminates against those veterans who reside in the Northeast.

                          ____________________