<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:30383.wais]
REVIEW PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR
AND LOOK AHEAD TO THE UPCOMING
YEAR -- HEARING II
Thursday, September 21, 2006
House of Representatives
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:37 a.m., in Room 334,
Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Steve Buyer [Chairman of the
Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Buyer, Bilirakis, Brown of South Carolina,
Boozman, Filner, Snyder, Michaud, Hooley, Berkley, Udall, Salazar.
The Chairman. Good morning. The full Veterans' Affairs Committee
will come to order September 21, 2006.
I would like to welcome everyone, especially the new Commanders here
today who are beginning a well-earned opportunity after many years of
faithfully serving veterans within your organizations. I look forward
to a constructive and positive year ahead.
Last November, after meeting with many of you at Carlisle Barracks
just north of Gettysburg Battlefield, I announced a decision to enhance
the way the Committee develops its budget views and estimates.
The decision was to reform the way we gather the views of veterans
service organizations and military service organizations, and your
members have very valuable insights and deserve consideration.
For years, I saw how the process of hearings were held and much of the
testimony was received after the Committee did its views and estimates.
It effectively had silenced the voice of many of the VSOs and MSOs
because their testimonies would come so late, they then became a critic
after the fact. The status quo in my opinion was not working for
veterans and the process has been changed.
Last February, before we developed the fiscal year 2007 views and
estimates, the Committee heard from 19 VSOs and MSOs, some of whom had
never been heard from before. This was very powerful. It represented a
significant increase in access to this Committee at a key point in the
budget process.
When I discussed accelerating these budget and legislative hearings in
February, I also said that we wanted to meet again in September to
review the fiscal just ending and look forward to the next then fiscal
year.
Yesterday we held the first of these hearings at which eleven VSOs and
MSO commanders and leaders testified. Their comments were substantive
and the session was very productive. And I anticipate the same here
today. You are helping, as Mr. Filner said yesterday, to set an agenda,
so it is the meshing of our priorities.
These September hearings are timely because the Administration is now
also beginning to develop its budget request for next year.
As I did yesterday, I would like to compliment The American Legion
National Commander, Tom Boch, because he championed to me the Legion's
approach. The Legion separated themselves from other veterans' groups
and MSOs by representing their information to the Committee in the fall
as the Administration was developing its request.
This approach is also taken by the House Armed Services Committee
whereby they bring in the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in the spring and
they also then do it in the fall as a look back, look ahead.
And so that is what we have also here now adopted on the Veterans'
Affairs Committee doing a spring and fall hearing. Having adopted that
and augmented it, I think, will be very helpful, and we learned that
yesterday.
As we look at the budget cycle, you can see that we have opened the
access to Congress, and we will take all of this testimony and we will
also share it with OMB and the VA.
I consider this a continuation of the war budgets for the VA. The
country is at war and faces challenges and severe demands on fiscal
resources. Yet, this is also a budget that reflects a decade of
unprecedented growth and support for veterans. The VA budget has nearly
doubled in the ten years. Reflecting that support, the VA has earned a
reputation of high-quality healthcare.
And I do recall when I first arrived here the flat- lined budgets for
the VA and I even recall the horrific cases where appropriators were
taking money out of the VA to fund domestic programs. One in particular
was WIC. I have not seen that in the last twelve years.
A double budget and a quality product do not, however, mean that there
are not challenges. The VA's Secretary has taken ownership of his
budget and changed the flawed inputs to the model. That was reflected
in the strong fiscal year 2007 funding.
Yet, a perennial challenge to us is also what I refer to as the ghost
population. These are individuals that move in and out of the VA health
system and sometimes utilizing other systems, whether it is TRICARE or
an HMO, they move in and out of these systems and they pick and choose.
And it is very challenging for us to get the numbers right.
Simply plugging a few numbers into a capitation spreadsheet does not
address this type of complexity. The discretionary funding gives us the
responsiveness to do correctly that which is hard, but which must be
done right.
Comparatively the assured or mandatory healthcare funding model
according to the Congressional Budget Office would cost nearly half a
trillion dollars over ten years. That would be a costly experiment in my
view.
And in contrast, the strong discretionary budgets of the past decade
have proven responsive to change. Yet, with strong funding, we should
expect good programs. However, the seamless transition of
servicemembers entering the VA system is not where it should be.
Last month, Secretary Nicholson, Chairman Boozman, Mr. Salazar, and I
went to Kuwait, Iraq, and Germany to assess the continuing healthcare
from the combat medic or Navy Corpsmen to all the way to a level-four
medical facility. We were impressed by the quality of care and the total
integration and teamwork within the Armed Services.
Yet, as we sit here, we receive testimony from the Department of
Defense witnesses who like to talk about their electronic medical
record. Well, as Mr. Salazar and I were there, as we watched them
taking the patients off the bus, we saw that "electronic" medical
record. It was paper strapped to their chests. So it is one thing to
receive their testimony and then in reality see something much
different.
I am disappointed that DoD did not adopt the VA standard with regard
to interoperability of electronic medical records, and we will continue
to work with them. To me, this is not, the seamlessness that we are
looking for, and we can do much better.
Also, the recent theft of personal data belonging to millions of
veterans has shown the utter necessity that the VA and every government
agency with sensitive data must centralize management over their
information technology, information policy, and information security.
IT is the organization's central nervous system.
And I appreciate those who worked with us on this issue and I am
disappointed with those who said it was too hard or it was out of their
lane, but, yet, they were quick to criticize.
With regard to organizations, if you are outraged by lapses in
security and unnecessary risk to your members, I would like for you to
join this Committee in dislodging the status quo and doing right by
veterans.
Next week, Mr. Filner and I will be taking the Committee's bills
dealing with cyber security to the House floor, and I ask for your
assistance in getting the attention of the United States Senate to this
very important measure.
Many of you also cited the disability claims backlog in your written
testimony. This issue to me is the big elephant in the room. The total
backlog exceeds 800,000 and is climbing. And I compliment the
Committee's Task Force on Accountability, of which some of you are
members.
I formed this task force to examine issues across the VA, not just in
DVA, to improve claims development. I will be meeting with them next
week.
Timely and accurate claims' decisions are as important to America's
veterans as the delivery of high-quality healthcare.
Some think that if we bring lawyers into the process, that will help
solve the problem. I am apprehensive, but I want to be a good listener.
And so I need testimony from all of you with regard to bringing lawyers
into the process.
I need to know if you support what the Senate has done or do you
support Mr. Evans' approach? And we will be asking those questions of
all the witnesses today.
Ladies and gentlemen, the issues in front of us are not going away,
and I will share with you the top three priorities that I have as
Chairman.
Number one is caring for veterans who have service- connected
disabilities, those with special needs, and the indigent; number two,
ensuring a seamless transition from military service to the VA; and,
three, providing veterans every opportunity to live full and healthy
lives.
These are my priorities and I look forward to hearing yours.
Before we begin, on behalf of the Committee's members and staff, I
extend an appreciation for the enduring contributions made by your
members, including the auxiliaries and their families. You make a great
difference in the tone and tenor of our country.
We are at war in two theaters and still have responsibilities
globally. Our men and women in uniform are performing their duties
magnificently. They are coming home with a simple expectation that we
will be there for them. It is up to all of us to help these returning
servicemembers transition to civilian life. The VA has the structure,
but the personal help is your strength and you play a tremendous role.
So I ask you to put your arm around that young Lance Corporal who just
came back from the War on Terror and help honor our promise.
I also want to thank Mr. Filner and other members of the Committee for
their hard work this past summer in dealing with the information
technology issues.
And at this moment, I will yield to Mr. Filner for an opening
statement.
Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If I may, I think this is the last Full Committee hearing before we
adjourn.
The Chairman. Oh, you are preempting me.
Mr. Filner. You want to go first?
The Chairman. No, no. I was going to do it after your remarks. We
can do it together.
Mr. Filner. Okay. This is technically the last meeting both for
the Ranking Member, Mr. Evans, and our Vice Chair, Mr. Bilirakis.
These are two great friends of veterans, and we thank Mr. Evans for a
lifetime of service in not only the Marine Corps but in watching over
those veterans who came back and making sure they had the best.
Mr. Bilirakis has been on the Committee for 24 years. We do not often
think of each other as mentors, but I want to thank you for mentoring
me. Maybe keeping me in line is a better term.
Mr. Bilirakis cares so much for the veterans, and he, of course, was
the leader in the fight to make sure we have the so-called concurrent
receipt. But he also was pained when this Committee had divisions,
especially partisan, and he did his best-- he has got a tough customer
here, but he did his best to teach me civility and respect.
I want to thank you not only for the substantive work you did here in
the 24 years, because you have a lot of accomplishments to your name,
but in helping all of us achieve a tone that would be more productive
for the veterans. So I thank you, Mr. Bilirakis.
The Chairman. I join the gentleman. When I think of my colleague,
Mr. Evans, it is of great pain to see a great man of whose body is
giving way. And to think that this is the same guy we used to elbow for
position down in the men's gym playing basketball. To see his condition
now, it is really hard.
And all of us know a loved one who had gone through such great pain
and it affects us all. And Mr. Evans will be missed on this Committee.
I do not think he ever forgot his core values shared by his family and
his parents where he grew up, and polished by the United States Marine
Corps. And he embraced them and they were enduring and they helped guide
him here in his service to country.
And I think the same can be said for Mr. Bilirakis. I will tell you
what. This little Greek man has got a lot of power behind him too. I
share with Mr. Filner that his kindness and his graciousness are very
powerful attributes behind a very tough man in negotiations.
And it can be disarming because he gets in close and then it is like
he grabs your collar. And you have to let him come in close, but he
gets your attention and then he has something powerful to say. And I
think he has earned the respect of many of his colleagues on both sides
of the aisle.
So, Michael, you are going to be missed. And I want to thank you for
your service to country not only in the Air Force but also for what you
have done for so many veterans, what you have done for so many widows
and children. And so I want to thank you for your years of service.
You are going to be missed. But if you need me to come down there and
pick those grapefruit, I will be more than happy to get the high ones
for you.
Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Bob, Mr. Filner. I am
not sure whether to refer to you as Ranking Member, but friend. I think
that is probably the best title.
But, you know, many times as you go through the years, people ask you
what was your crowning moment in the Congress and for 24 years, you
know, how can you think of everything. There are so many ups and downs.
And I oftentimes talk about where a few us a banded together and stuck
to our guns and helped to tear down that wall and tear down communism in
the Soviet Union along with President Reagan. And I feel very proud of
that.
But I talk mostly about veterans and our work for veterans. I am very
proud of it and very proud to have worked with you gentlemen. Obviously
the best honor to me would be to continue with concurrent receipt to do
something so we can complete that completely.
But an easier chore, Mr. Chairman, and I mentioned this to you just
before we started, you know, over the years-- and forgive me, I did not
plan to do this, but since you sort of opened up the door-- over the
years, we have heard and we have read about, you know, America and how
great it has become and how much of that greatness is due to the GI
Bill, the men and women who came out of World War II and because of the
benefits of the GI Bill were able to educate themselves and have
contributed so very much to make this country really what it is. And
that opportunity under the Montgomery GI Bill is there and it is even a
much better opportunity in that sense.
But I go back to the VEAP prospect where I remember when I was going
through basic training and I was a noncom, noncommissioned officer,
enlisted men. But when I was going through basic training, and if
somebody had approached me at that time and said, Mike, you have got to
make a decision whether you contribute out of your very spare, very,
very spare income as an airman basic and choose this educational
opportunity that will take place years from now, hell, I mean, I just
wanted to get through basic training. I would not have wanted to make
or been able to make a very intelligent decision at that point in time.
And I do feel that there is so many who are faced with that same sort
of thing and passed up that opportunity. And I would dearly love to see
this Congress-- I am reminded my VEAP Bill has been introduced, but that
is besides the point. We are not going to be able to do anything with
it this Congress. But my point here is that I think really that there
is some way that we can take a look at that.
And I know when I got out, the payment, full payment for education was
$110 a month and that was supposed to take care of tuition and books and
everything else. Well, obviously I had to go to work full time in order
to be able to get through school. But it was a motivational factor to
have that $110.
So maybe we can look at things of that nature, Mr. Chairman and Mr.
Filner, and I would feel awfully good if I read some day in this next
Congress or so that that has been addressed in some way to give these
young people an opportunity that was really available to them, but they
were not really legitimately, adequately able to consider in a very
serious tone.
Having said that, thank you very much. It has been wonderful working
with all of my fellow veterans over the years. God bless you.
Mr. Filner. Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you, Michael.
Anyone else want to make any opening statements?
Mr. Filner. I would yield to anybody else for any comments on our
Vice Chair.
Let me just say a few words, if I might, Mr. Chairman.
In the spirit of Mr. Bilirakis, I think we are trying to create here
an agenda for the coming year, and we will work together on that.
We certainly worked together on this Committee to come out with good
cyber security protection for the veterans, and that bill will be on the
floor, as I understand it, next week. We will try to pressure the
Senate to look at it.
We disagree on some other things, but I do not think any of us on this
Committee disagree that our first role is to enhance the life and
quality of our veterans who have given us so much. We may have
different ways to get there.
This process, Mr. Chairman, that you started, I think we may want to
look at and maybe try to get the benefits that you suggested with the
benefits that we had when the rank and file from VSO members were able
to be in the room and see their government in action or in inaction,
whichever.
I think we have to figure out how to combine those two goals of trying
to make sure the testimony comes at a relevant point and people feeling
a part of the process and not excluded from it.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, one of the top priorities on this side is
to end the practice of veterans' organizations coming almost hat in hand
begging for money. This is not only wrong in terms of the contract that
we have with veterans, but it is a shameful kind of position.
The only way we get out of that, and I think most of the VSOs agree
with this, is through mandatory or assured funding, that we do not
dispute every year a billion here, three there, two billion, everybody
is pointing fingers at one another, that we have a source of funding
that is guaranteed by law.
We can talk about the cost of that. There are different estimates
than what we have heard this morning, but I think we have to get there
because what we have now is at least a quarter of a million, veterans
barred from being enrolled in the VA system.
We have folks coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan, who have to wait
many, many months, if not more than a year for certain appointments or
who cannot get the mental health assistance that they need. We have to
have a better system, and I look forward to working with you to do that.
The budget process in the last few years, as the Chairman said, has
led to a doubling of the absolute dollars for the VA. But if your needs
are escalating faster than the money and the costs are escalating faster
than the income, you are falling behind no matter what the absolute
dollars say. And we are falling behind here.
The Administration, for example, has kept up efforts to try to make
veterans pay more for their care rather than asking for additional
resources from the Congress. Thousands of people are waiting for
clinical appointments. I have a thousand veterans waiting for their
first appointment in San Diego, in the San Diego Medical Center. That is
disgraceful.
We are not meeting the mental health needs. We saw what happened in
Vietnam when we neglected those problems. Up to a half of the homeless
on the street tonight are Vietnam vets. It is a disgrace that we have
allowed this to happen. And, yet, we are repeating the same mistakes
with those coming back with postt-raumatic stress disorder from Iraq.
They go through the same pattern, domestic violence, problems in the
family, problems on the job, alcohol, drug abuse, homelessness, suicide.
Thirty years after Vietnam or 35 years, we know how to deal with this.
It is a question of resources.
The Administration has not met its statutory requirements for long-
term care as our veterans age. They have sought cuts in traumatic brain
injury care at the height of a war that is producing more brain injuries
than ever before. We have vacancies whether in nursing or counseling or
other specialties all around the country. So we have to do better.
The VA is a basically sound system. That is why we care so much about
it. It has certainly improved, as the Chairman said, from substandard
care of several decades ago. It is now on the cutting edge of healthcare
in many areas and, in fact, the world. But if we have delayed care or
rationing of care or veterans unable to access it, we are not doing our
job.
I am glad that you care about the quality. Many of you have supported
this Independent Budget, which I take as my Bible during the budget
process, to try to make sure we have the resources that we need.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you in the future. I am
not sure whether we will have another Mr. Bilirakis with us next year.
I hope so. But we have a lot of work to do, and I look forward to
working with you to complete that job.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Filner.
[The statement of Bob Filner appears on p. ]
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The Chairman. Today we will hear from several of the Commanders and
Presidents, and representatives of veterans services organizations and
military service organizations. So I shall now introduce them to my
colleagues.
First representing the Air Force Sergeants Association is Chief Master
Sergeant John McCauslin?
Chief McCauslin. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. He is the Air Force Sergeants Association's
International President. The Chief currently is serving his second term
as International President. He joined the Air Force in June 1955.
The Chief has served in a variety of medical-related positions at Air
Force installations worldwide. During his career, he was selected as a
Senior Enlisted Advisor for the Fifth Air Force in Japan and the Senior
Enlisted Advisor to the Commander of the United States Air Forces Europe
in Ramstein, Germany. He served 32 years in the United States Air
Force.
Representing the Retired Enlisted Association is the National
President, Patrick Corbett. Mr. Corbett was elected President September
1st, 2006. He has held many positions within TREA including member of
the Board of Directors and the Second Vice President and First Vice
President.
Mr. Corbett enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in 1957.
During his 23 years of service, he served two tours in Vietnam. In
1980, he retired from the United States Marine Corps.
Why don't I just call you Gunny?
Sergeant Corbett. Beg your pardon, sir?
The Chairman. You are Gunny?
Sergeant Corbett. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You look like a Gunny.
I mentioned this yesterday. There is something about you guys. They
dip you and you all look alike. You all act alike. You all talk alike.
And then you are like a Gunny for life. That is a tremendous compliment
because a lot of people rely on Gunnies.
He is the father of three adult children with four grandchildren, and
resides in Pennsylvania.
Speaking for the Military Officers Association of American is the
National President, Vice Admiral Norb Ryan. Admiral Ryan assumed the
position in September 2002. In 1967, having barely gotten through the
Naval Academy-- oh, I am sorry. Kelly must have made a mistake there.
Kelly picking on you, Norb?
Ms. Craven. [Majority Counsel] No.
The Chairman. I apologize.
He did graduate from the Naval Academy with distinction and was
designated a Naval Aviator in 1968. Admiral Ryan has numerous
operational and sea duty assignments including Command of the Squadron
at Wing level culminating with Commander of Patrol Wings, U.S. Pacific
Fleet Commander, and Commander of the Task Force 12. He has directed
the Navy's Office of Legislative Affairs and was also Chief Personnel
for the United States Navy.
Admiral Ryan is a graduate of George Washington University with a
Master's in Science Degree, Personnel Administration, of the National
Security Program at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of
Government. And before retiring, as I said, he was the 52nd Chief of
Naval Personnel.
We will also then hear from Mr. John Lopez of the Association for
Service Disabled Veterans. He has been Chairman since 1985. Mr. Lopez
is a Marine who was disabled while in service in Korea. His career has
been frequently interrupted by physical relapse due to his military
service and injuries.
Mr. Lopez has developed several socioeconomic smaller business
programs for major corporations, and he initiates disabled veteran
entrepreneur programs with the U.S. Small Business Administration and
Bank of America.
Mr. Lopez is Chairman of the U.S. Congress Advisory Committee on the
Study of the Needs of Service-Disabled Veteran Entrepreneurs and Co-
Chairman of the National Task Force for Veterans Entrepreneurial
Development.
We welcome all of you. Before you begin, do each of you have written
testimony you would like to be submitted for the record?
All answering in the affirmative, your written testimony will be
entered into the record. Without objection, so ordered.
Each of you will have ten minutes to testify. The Committee will
operate under the five-minute rule. And I will grant you latitude. So
when you see the light come on after your ten minutes, try to summarize
and move toward the end of the testimony to be courteous to each of the
witnesses.
Chief, we will begin with you.
STATEMENTS OF CHIEF MASTER SGT. JOHN R. MCCAUSLIN, INTERNATIONAL
PRESIDENT, AIR FORCE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION; GUNNERY SGT. PATRICK
CORBETT, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, THE RETIRED ENLISTED ASSOCIATION; NORBERT
RYAN, JR., NATIONAL PRESIDENT, MILITARY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA;
JOHN K. LOPEZ, CHAIRMAN, ASSOCIATION FOR SERVICE DISABLED VETERANS
STATEMENT OF JOHN R. MCCAUSLIN
Chief McCauslin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished
Committee members.
On behalf of our 130,000 members of the Air Force Sergeants
Association, thank you for this opportunity to offer the views of our
members on future priorities for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
AFSA represents active duty, Guard, Reserve, retired, and veteran
enlisted Air Force members and their families around the world. Your
continuing effort toward improving the quality of their lives has truly
made a real difference and our members are forever grateful.
Since my time here today is very brief, I will restrict my comments to
just a few of the areas covered in my written statement, which I hope
will be entered in its entirety into the written record.
Today the demands of military service are increasing, non-traditional
education programs are evolving, and the efficacy of the Montgomery GI
Bill to support actual education programs is diminishing.
As a member of the Military Coalition and Partnership for Veterans'
Education, the Air Force Sergeants Association strongly endorses the
need for a better GI Bill that meets the needs of all those who wear the
uniform, yet is robust enough to assist the individual services in their
recruiting efforts.
Our members eagerly await this Committee's future proposals regarding
the Montgomery GI Bill and hope that any new benefit proposal more
closely meets the actual cost of obtaining an education, eliminates the
current $1,200 fee to participate, and allows expenditure of that
benefit in greater amounts to accommodate the cost of a broad range of
accelerated and advanced courses.
I also ask the Committee to keep in mind that there are thousands of
servicemembers currently on active duty who did, for whatever reason,
enroll in either the Veterans Educational Assistance Program, otherwise
known as VEAP, or the Montgomery GI Bill.
Time is truly running out for Congress to provide servicemembers from
the VEAP era an enrollment opportunity, and the vast majority have
already retired from us. As of 1 July last year, all actively serving
who enlisted in this time frame were eligible to retire.
Being mindful that the principal purpose of educational assistance
programs is to assist veterans in their transition back into the
civilian workforce, we urge your Committee to act quickly to at least
provide a transitional education benefit for the relatively few
remaining VEAP-era enlisted members.
Veterans around the world applaud your Committee's and Congress'
decision to once again reject the Administration's proposed $250 user
fee to receive their promised VA healthcare. Our feeling has been and
continues to be that such an enrollment fee should be applied only
prospectively; that is, for people who have not yet begun their military
service. Current veterans should not be charged a fee for access which
earlier Congresses determined was not appropriate.
It goes without saying that we could do a lot to improve the handoff
of veterans from military to veteran status, from DoD to the VA.
Transferability of information is the most critical element in that
whole seamless transition process. The VA and DoD have two distinctly
different electronic record keeping systems, but only the VA's system
allows transferability of medical information globally.
Advances have been made toward seamless DoD/VA transition, but it is
important for Congress to resolve the VA/DoD medical records situation.
Without your leadership, this situation will go unresolved and veterans
will not be receiving the best care they truly deserve.
And, finally, for most veterans, contact with the VA begins with the
claims process. On a daily basis, the VA's current claims backlog
totals several hundred thousand, as Congressman Filner alluded to, and
this is an unacceptable number. It is going to take money, thoughtful
planning, proper training, and innovative ideas to break through what
seems to be an insurmountable problem.
AFSA encourages your Committee to support departmental plans to reduce
pending cases with one caveat. We absolutely disagree with any plans to
reduce the number of claims processing personnel.
Technology is not going to solve this problem; people will. And
Congress should flatly reject any plan that reduces the number of
personnel in this area until that backlog is cleared up.
The recent recall of two retired judges to assist the U.S. Court of
Appeals for veterans' claims is exactly the type of smart resource use
that we feel will help the Department reduce this unprecedented number
of pending claims.
Before I conclude, I want to take a moment to recognize an
extraordinary individual who has been a long-standing member of your
Committee and will be retiring at the end of this year, a friend and
member of the Air Force Sergeants Association, Mike Bilirakis from the
9th District in Florida.
On behalf of veterans everywhere, we thank you, sir, for your
leadership and most importantly your tenacity to fight for what you feel
is right and for what veterans and their family members truly deserve.
You will be missed by all of us, but you leave a body of work that
will long outlast all of us. It has been an honor and a true pleasure
for our association to have been able to work with you for these past 24
years.
We wish you, your wife, Evelyn, and your entire family the very best
in years to come.
In conclusion, it is imperative in peacetime or in war that veterans
know their needs will be taken care of. Once they have served honorably
and they need help, we believe their care and assistance becomes the
responsibility of the nation that they served.
On behalf of all AFSA members, we appreciate your efforts to ensure
that our nation does just that. And as always, we are ready to support
this Committee in matters of mutual concern.
Thank you, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
[The statement of John R. McCauslin appears on p. ]
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The Chairman. Mr. Corbett.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK CORBETT
Sergeant Corbett. Mr. Chairman, Acting Ranking Member Filner, and
members of this Committee, it is always an honor for The Retired
Enlisted Association to testify about the needs and concerns of American
veterans, military retirees and their families and survivors.
It is a particular honor for me, the new National President of TREA,
to testify before this Committee on what has happened in the last year
and what we hope the future will bring.
The Retired Enlisted Association is a veterans service organization
founded over 40 years ago to represent the needs and points of view of
enlisted men and women who have dedicated their careers to serving in
all the branches of the United States Armed Forces, active duty,
National Guard and Reserves, as well as members who are doing so today.
When we look at what has happened this year and what should happen
next, we seem to have started down many roads and have not come to the
end of any of them. Indeed, many of these paths will always have to be
worked on and improved. It is just part of how an enormous organization
works.
The main duties of the VA are basically the same year in and year out.
They are to provide first-class healthcare for those who have kept us
free, to accurately and quickly provide the financial support owed to
veterans by the United States government, to provide for the widows and
orphans who have lost their loved ones due to his or her service to our
country, and to make sure there are appropriate resting places and
funeral honors for those who have served.
But which of these issues are most in need of work from year to year
varies. In the past few years, our concerns have centered on sufficient
funding to provide first-rate healthcare to all qualified veterans who
needed and earned it. Of course, in this time of war, this must still
be our primary concern.
Since the disastrous shortfall in 2005, all of Congress agreed with
you that adequate funding for the VA healthcare is essential. You added
a critical supplement to cover the shortfall of the VA's budget request.
And this year, VA request corrected some of the past year's mistakes.
Is this year's budget sufficient? Of course not. How could it be?
But it is much better than in the past, and we thank you. The budget
needs to be covered. The two-year program for all veterans returning
home from Afghanistan and Iraq, it must cover various expense to treat
and rehabilitate our wounded warriors.
It must cover the medical needs of veterans who preserved our freedom
and safety in the past. And we should never forget that it must cover
the nursing home cares, the needs of many of our greatest generation who
are now reaching the time in life when they need this type of care.
Looking back at this past year, we are very grateful to note you
refused to implement the proposed $250 yearly enrollment fee and sharp
drug co-pay increases for those veterans presently enrolled in category
seven and eight.
We expect that when looking towards next year, there will be a similar
proposal, and we hope that you once again say no. We know that some of
you on this Committee are in favor of this proposal, but TREA is firmly
opposed.
Numerous of our members really rely on this program that was
established at a time in their lives when getting new medical coverage
is close to impossible. They are living on a fixed income. The
proposed increase would be financially crippling to them. We believe
you will hold firm and protect these former warriors now that they need
protection themselves.
But beyond healthcare, there are other critical needs in the VA, and
this is what I would like to focus on now. These include increasing the
IT security throughout the VA, working to improve the speed,
consistency, and accuracy of VA disability determination, and thereby
the present dramatic backlog, and, finally, creating a seamless
transition between DoD and the VA for all veterans.
It has become dramatically clear to the whole nation this year that
the VA must make major improvements in its IT security. TREA is well
aware that our Committee's Chairman has been trying to get VA to focus
on this problem for a year.
The theft of a VA computer and hard drive with personal information of
approximately 22 million veterans and an additional computer theft from
the VA contractor has certainly gotten their attention.
This Committee must make sure that the VA stays focused on making
these necessary improvements.
We hope that House Resolution 5835, this Committee's bipartisan bill,
will pass before the end of this session. This bill would go far in not
only to correcting the VA's IT problems, it would make the VA an up-to-
the-minute leader in IT security. And the proposed fellowship for
talented people in this field would hopefully keep the VA on the cutting
edge in the future.
With the VA putting out fires in the fields of medical care and IT
security, there has been little discussion recently about the continuing
problem in the area of disability claims determination. These delays in
decision making and the inconsistency of the decisions around the
country have made veterans doubt that they are being treated fairly.
This problem has gone on for years and has not been solved. And with
more and more complicated injuries to be dealt with, it is obviously a
problem that needs to be solved now.
What is clearly needed is more and better trained people doing this
work. There also needs to be better supervision around the country so a
decision on various types of disabilities will be the same in all VISNs.
Following the direction of Congress, the VA is supposedly trying to
get disabled veterans to apply for benefits in six areas of the country
where payments are dramatically lower than in the rest of the country.
What is found to be service-connected in one VISN is not service-
connected in another.
Percentages granted vary for the same injury. This needs to be
corrected through constant training and regular supervision. Then
hopefully cases could be decided quickly and correctly. There would be
fewer appeals and the backlog would go down.
We hope that this Committee will make sure this push will continue in
the future.
For years, TREA and Congress has called on the VA and the DoD to
create a seamless transition from being a member of the U.S. Armed
Forces to being a veteran. And large steps forward have been made, but
we still do not have a seamless transition.
The two medical records systems of the VA and the DoD do not talk to
each other and this is a must. We need to finally have one medical
examination to be used by two departments. It would finally create a
seamless transition. It will save time, money, and aggravation. It
would make healthcare better. It would make IT more secure and make
disability determinations accurate and fast. It would help improve all
these problem areas.
Of course, the numerous bills that we hope can still be passed by the
109th Congress, that includes Representative Filner's House Resolution
2747 and Representative Bilirakis' House Resolution 1462.
House Resolution 2747 would modernize the insurance plan for disabled
veterans by using today's actuarial charts rather than those from 1941.
House Resolution 1462 would allow DIC recipients to remarry at age 55
rather than the present 57 without losing their payments.
Both programs are not expensive, but they would greatly help a small
group of very deserving people who have been overlooked.
As I said in my written testimony, if one looks at the VA bills passed
so far this year, you would think it has been a very calm town. How
wrong you would be. With last year's enormous shortfall and this year's
IT theft, it has been a terribly busy year.
TREA members know how much the members of the Committee had to do to
protect our veterans and personnel security. Thank you. We hope 2007
will be a year where we can work together to improve the future and not
just deal with disasters.
We hope the VA healthcare grows to provide first-class service for all
our beneficiaries. We hope that both the quality of disability
decisions and the size of the backlog improves. We hope IT security
becomes the best in the federal government. And we can reach these
goals by working together.
This year, we will be losing some of our strongest advocates. Both
Representative Lane Evans and Representative Michael Bilirakis will be
leaving the House at the end of the session. All TREA members thank
both men for all they have done for this nation's veterans and their
loved ones. They have been remarkable and steadfast advocates for us,
and we will forever be grateful to you both. We will miss working with
you in the future.
Thank you very much for your attention, and I will be happy to try to
answer any questions you might have.
[The statement of Patrick Corbett appears on p. ]
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The Chairman. We have currently three votes in front of us. The
previous question adopted the rule on H.R. 4830 and the suspension vote
dealing with the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act.
So it is a 15 followed by two fives.
And, Admiral, I hate to interrupt your testimony. So if we could go
ahead and recess right now and then come back after the vote and then
receive your testimony rather than bifurcating it. Would that be all
right?
Admiral Ryan. Okay.
The Chairman. All right. The Committee will stand in recess. We
will reconvene around quarter to ten till twelve.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. The House Full Committee will come back to order.
We now recognize Admiral Ryan.
STATEMENT OF NORBERT RYAN, JR.
Admiral Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Filner. I am
honored to be here today representing our 360,000 members of the
Military Officers Associations of America. Like my colleagues, I use
that word honored with a great deal of sincerity.
I do not think there is a higher calling for a member or a staff
person than serving on this Committee. And I know that Mr. Evans is
here in spirit and Congressman Bilirakis was here earlier. Those two
gentlemen exhibited that higher calling, sense of higher calling, and
the Military Officers Association deeply appreciates their servant
leadership and their personal example. They have impacted on hundreds
of thousands of lives, and we are deeply grateful for their service.
MOAA is also grateful to the Committee for adding needed resources to
the VA healthcare system. But like my colleagues, we remain concerned,
as you are, that the VA continues to underestimate demand.
The bottom line is when veterans do get their appointments, the
quality of care is among the highest in the nation, as you said,
Congressman Filner, but they should not have to wait months for that
care.
As the Chairman mentioned, we are reminded over and over that we are a
nation at war, so it is imperative that we fund the VA system
accordingly. Just as this nation is stepping up to the plate to pay the
enormous cost of the War on Terrorism, they must also step up and fully
fund the healthcare system that serves the needs of our wounded warriors
and all other veterans the VA has agreed to treat.
To properly fund the VA, we need to get our facts and data straight.
MOAA has three recommendations to do this.
First, we recommend that the VA continue its work to overhaul its
demand projection model which, as you all know, fails to adequately
recognize that all returning Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi
Freedom veterans are eligible to enroll for up to two years with no
questions asked.
Second, the VA budget should be built to meet the VA's own 30-day
access standard. What is the point of having access standards if the
budget is not built to meet them?
And, third, we recommend the Committee continue to carefully consider
the veterans' Independent Budget for the next fiscal year, fiscal year
2008. The Independent Budget has consistently been a very reliable
projection of the true demand and cost of care.
MOAA like the Committee, is particularly concerned about the care and
rehabilitation of our most severely wounded men and women. I have
recently visited the Tampa VA Polytrauma Rehabilitation Center. The
quality of care is impressive, but the facility, particularly some of
the buildings are bursting at the seams.
I have seen worried family members sleeping in a lounge chair that
cannot fit into the room out in the passageway. I have seen the modern
equipment that they need to help rehabilitate and heal these veterans
out in the passageway because they cannot fit it into the room. We have
got to innovate and find a way to accommodate this new technology.
We strongly recommend that the Committee make funding for traumatic
brain injury, spinal cord injury, PTSD, prosthetics, blinded vet care,
research and family counseling a priority going forward. We applaud the
Committee for continuing to champion the cause of seamless transition.
Last spring, Army Captain Mark Giammatteo who underwent 30 surgeries
at Walter Reed to repair combat injuries, testified before the Veterans
Disability and Benefits Commission. He stated while on convalescent
leave in his hometown, he experienced a medical problem and attempted to
check into the local VA facility, but the VA official said they could
not treat him since he was on active duty.
Seamless transition must include interoperable medical records as you
both gave examples of. So far, DoD and the VA health systems can only
talk to each other in limited ways.
The President has signed an Executive Order saying that we ought to
have common health records, and it was signed in August. We have got to
get on with it.
We agree with the Chairman that the VA has got a good start on this,
but we hope you all will continue to get DoD and VA in the same room and
ask them to come out with a solution in the shortest time possible. And
it will take some jaw boning to get that done.
Speaking of data issues, we strongly support the Committee's
bipartisan bill, House Resolution 5835, to strengthen data security and
protect our veterans in the event of a future data breach. And we will
be there with strong support for your efforts on the floor next week,
Mr. Chairman.
Turning to the benefits, a major priority should be improving the
claims processing including hiring and training new colleagues or new
claims workers to replace retiring workers and upgrade the system to
speed claims operations.
We also recommend greater flexibility in delivering transition
assistance. For example, Guard and Reserve veterans need to get TAP
information near their homes.
As a founding member of the Partnership for Veterans Education, MOAA
believes we need to restructure the GI Bill as soon as possible. All of
my colleagues have addressed it as have you all.
Mr. Chairman, as you know, right now the Army and Marine Corps
Reserves have sent over 280,000 men and women to Iraq and Afghanistan
and have mobilized over 500,000 since 9/11. Yet, they do not have the
same benefits for the GI Bill. Guard and Reserve education benefits have
dropped from about 50 percent of active duty rates in 1985 to 29 percent
since 9/11.
An active duty member who serves two years on active duty and one tour
in Iraq can use his or her GI Bill after separating, but no one who
spends six or eight years in the Guard or Reserve and does two or three
tours in Iraq can. That is just not right, and Reserves know it.
If you look at the recent trend in recruiting for the Army, it is a
very troubling trend. Army Reserve recruiting was 87 percent of goal in
July and 62 percent in August. We believe this is symptomatic of the
fact that this nation has not sent a high enough signal of value,
particularly those who are in the Reserves.
The Guard usually has a great state education benefit as all of you
know in your states, but the Reserves belong to no one as a direct
relative. And I see the Reserves are going to be the ones that first
bring risk to the all- volunteer force, and I think it started in
Reserve recruiting right now.
So we recommend combining the active duty and Reserve GI Bill programs
under Title 38 and scaling the benefits to match duty performed
including equal opportunity for all to use benefits after they have
completed their service obligations.
Mr. Chairman, MOAA appreciates your public statements on this concept,
and we really appreciate the leadership of Congressman Boozman,
Congressman Snyder, and many others on the Committee who have championed
this issue. And we cannot urge action quick enough by the Congress. We
think this is something that is really going to be an Achilles heel for
the all-volunteer force, this weakening and erosion of support as
perceived by the members of the Reserves.
Finally, MOAA believes strongly that we must fix remaining inequities
for survivors of members whose death was caused by service. One
disconnect, as my colleagues have mentioned, is that the DIC widows must
be at least age 57 to retain their VA compensation if they remarry. We
think as a minimum that should be changed to age 55, the same standard
as all other federal survivor programs.
We also urge your leadership in ending the deduction of DIC from
military survivor benefit plan annuities. It is on another Committee,
but you all are the influencers of the Congress and you can help us get
rid of this shameful offset for SBP for those that lose their spouses
due to their disability or in combat.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and members for setting a higher
standard on this Committee and for answering the higher calling.
The Chairman. Thank you, Admiral.
[The statement of Norbert Ryan, Jr. appears on p. ]
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The Chairman. Mr. Lopez, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF JOHN K. LOPEZ
Mr. Lopez. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and Ranking
Member Filner, thank you for your attention and accepting our written
statements for the record.
As you may know, the Association for Service Disabled Veterans is an
organization of disabled and military service veterans devoted to the
rehabilitation of all disabled military veterans to the maximum state of
self-dependency attainable within existing technological and human
resources. Consequently, our focus is directed towards freeing the
service-disabled veteran from the dependency of tax supported assistance
whenever possible.
To that end, service-disabled veterans are extremely grateful to the
accomplishments of the 106th, 107th, 108th, and the 109th Congress under
the leadership of this Committee.
Under the responsible and compassionate leadership of your Chairmen
and Ranking Members, you have established self-employment
entrepreneurship as a viable opportunity for our nation's service-
disabled veterans to live a life of individual dignity and make a
significant contribution to the economic prosperity of our nation.
Public Law 106-50, Public Law 108 - 183 and the pending House
Resolution 3082 and portions of the Reauthorization of the Small
Business Act of 2006 are continuing statements of the intent of the
United States Congress to enable the rehabilitation of those who have
sacrificed their well-being for the prosperity and security of the
United States of America and the free world.
However, there remains the issue of effective implementation of the
intent of Congress due to the lack of compliance by the prime
contractors that receive the vast majority of agency procurement
dollars.
Although required by legislation to subcontract opportunities to
service-disabled veteran owner businesses and to assist in self-
employment rehabilitation, major contractors continue to evade
compliance through various regulatory manipulations. This has had the
dramatic effect of diminishing opportunities since the majority of
procurement dollars are awards to billion dollar prime contractors.
It is requested that the Committee request information regarding the
subcontracting performance and practices of prime contractors of federal
agencies, especially the lack of compliance by the United States
Department of Veterans Affairs and the United States Department of
Defense billion dollar prime subcontractors.
Irrespective of the efforts of the Committee, a feeling persists among
the service-disabled veteran population that the vested interests of the
agency procurement bureaucracy and the influence of special interest
groups is so pervasive that it may require major oversight if we are to
make significant and positive change.
Central to this quandary is the service-disabled veteran perception
that the service-disabled veteran is a powerless stakeholder in the
effort to establish and maintain an effective rehabilitation program for
our nation's service-disabled veteran heros.
Attached to this testimony is a discussion concept that considers the
question of the establishment of a policy of countervailing power for
the serving military person titled Selective Sacrifice. This concept
would reinforce the perception of the serving military that their
sacrifice be actively emphasized and subsequently acknowledged and
honored.
This concept of Selective Sacrifice is a reflection of the advice of
the First President of the United States that the willingness with which
our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how
justified, is directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of
earlier wars were treated and appreciated.
Thank you for your attention. I shall be pleased to answer any
questions you may have.
[The statement of John K. Lopez appears on p. ]
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The Chairman. Mr. Lopez, you need to help me here a little bit. I
want you to articulate a little better for me when you talked about the
quandary and the perceptions that the service-disabled veteran is a
powerless stakeholder.
Will you please articulate that a little further?
Mr. Lopez. Certainly, Mr. Chairman.
The populous views veterans as victims. The Defense Department views
veterans as casualties. And the legislature and the Congress, rather,
and the Administration view veterans as beneficiaries. In none of these
definitions are veterans recognized as participating stakeholders in the
formulation of the policies which govern their lives.
Mr. Filner made a reference earlier today towards enabling veterans to
be more participatory in the legislative process. It was a passing
reference. Perhaps he can elaborate on it. I will not do that for him.
Veterans come before you gentlemen and ladies and they ask you to get
them things, to do things for them. We do not participate in the actual
negotiation, in the actual formulation of those benefits or those needs.
I think it is very imperative if we are continue to retain the
interest, patriotism, allegiance, and concern of our veterans that we
come up with some type of a system whereby they are day-to-day or maybe
even policy-to-policy participants in the actual formulation of
programs.
I think this can be done by when program managers in the Department of
Veterans Affairs meet with senior staff or with your staff and start to
discuss what they are going to do in a particular area of concern that
they include random selected or specifically selected members of
veterans' organizations so that they can be true participants, not
recipients, not reacting at all times.
You have had before you with all of your effort and all your
accomplishments, you have the constant haranguing from the veterans
organizations not willing to accept what you have done for them. And
many times, we consider that to be the ungrateful whining of a
population. What I believe it is, is a population that is really
ignorant on what it is that is being done for them.
The Chairman. Well, you have been responsive to the first part
where you said a powerless stakeholder in the effort to establish. Now
please articulate the second half of that when you use the word to
maintain.
Mr. Lopez. Repeat that, please. I do not --
The Chairman. Well, in your testimony, you have used this
perception among the service-disabled veterans about a powerless
stakeholder in the effort to establish, an effective rehab program for
our nation's disabled heros.
Mr. Lopez. Okay.
The Chairman. Then you also then used the word to maintain. So you
have just articulated for me with regard to establish. Now articulate
is this perception also then in the marketplace?
Mr. Lopez. Yes, sir.
Also, you have existing programs, historical existing programs. Many
of the gentlemen here already testified regarding the direction of those
programs. Not one of them, not one, enunciated their participation in
the formulation of the directions of those programs. And I would like
to hear from them saying that they were invited or any organization that
they were invited to negotiate, discuss what a policy would be and how
it would be formulated.
We do that informally and sometimes formally as we are now with you
because of the Congress' concern and responsibility. We do not do that
when these programs are actually formulated and put into practice. We
take what we get.
The Chairman. We are passing in the night.
Mr. Lopez. Right.
The Chairman. Let us go back here a second. My question is about
this perception of a disabled veteran. See, for this Committee, we
decided to form a separate Subcommittee called Economic Opportunity
because we want veterans to live as full and complete lives as they
possibly can, and to examine those types of programs.
My question to you is, when you testify to us and you say about the
perception of powerless, I have heard what you said about to establish.
My question to you is, in the marketplace, do they feel that they are
also powerless in the marketplace? If you cannot testify to that, then
do not. But just let me know whether you can be responsive to that.
Mr. Lopez. Let me comment to that.
Yes, they feel they are powerless because once they get into the
marketplace, they found that they are overwhelmed by numerous
regulations and interpretations by the bureaucracy which the bureaucracy
maintains is a reflection of the intent of the Congress.
The Chairman. So that is why you used the word ignorance in your
prior statement? Ignorant meaning because they just do not know, so it
is the better outreach to them? What is it? How do we bridge that?
Mr. Lopez. I do not think your Committees, and I am sincere when I
say it, have been-- without you, self- employment, entrepreneurship
would not exist. You have made a tremendous stride in the options of
service-disabled veterans to have a meaningful quality of life.
However, however, it is the implementation where they feel that they
are powerless because you have done your duty. You have taken your
initiative. But when this is applied in the bureaucracy, there is no
payoff. There is no result.
And you can only recollect the fact that we have come to you time and
time again saying fix this, fix that, fix this, fix that because we have
met with frustration in the marketplace, because all the work you did
before, they have reinterpreted that work and said that they will decide
what the interpretation of Congress is, and it is not as you folks feel
is to your benefit.
The Chairman. All right. Thank you.
Mr. Lopez. So that is our frustration.
The Chairman. We cannot even get the VA to hit their standards on
the set-asides let alone the rest of this bureaucracy. This Committee
does not have jurisdiction over all departments of government. I assure
you we would change that from--
Mr. Lopez. I know.
The Chairman. --from a goal to a mandatory standard. But then at
the same time what happens in this town is there is gamesmanship with
regard to these set-asides. So you have got that big dominant player
out there that says, well, I can go after that particular contract. I
will just find me a veteran's owned business that is a front--
Mr. Lopez. Exactly.
The Chairman. --and they become the primary and the big guy is the
sub and they do a little payola. I hate to call it payola, but they
take a cut as the front so they can gain access to a particular
contract. Huge games going on in this town, whether it is through
Alaskan, Indian, any minority set-aside, disabled veteran set-aside.
So you are right. As soon as we make a little change that we feel
like we are making a fix, the fix is out there, too, the gamesmanship
that goes on with the system.
I have to ask this question, and then I want to then yield to Mr.
Filner. I am asking everyone the question about the attorney
representation issue.
I need to know whether you support bringing attorneys into the claims
process or not, whether you support the approach given by the Senate,
which means bring them in, lawyers in at the beginning of a claims
process, that veterans should have that option; or Mr. Evans' approach
meaning you can bring a lawyer in after the notice of disagreement has
been issued. If your association does not take a position, please let
me know that.
Chief.
Chief McCauslin. Thank you, sir.
I was reviewing again the Constitution of the United States, which I
carry with me, and it just reminds me of this one part of the 14th
Amendment that says no person shall be deprived-- any person shall be
deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law
nor deny to any person within this jurisdiction the equal protection of
the law.
It is not a yes or no with Air Force Sergeants Association. I think
we still want to study what is behind it, what is the implications, what
is the cost, and more important, as the last gentleman talked,
regardless of how the law has changed, what is the actual where the
rubber hits the road activity out there where there is a veteran who has
a denied claim.
We certainly do not want the ambulance chasers to be out there and
milk the system. So the bottom line is, no, we do not have a position
yet because we are still studying where we are at with this thing in
mind.
The Chairman. All right. This is coming to us right now.
Chief McCauslin. Yes, sir. Thank you.
The Chairman. So you cannot just study this one to death because -
I just want you to know this-- the Senate has a position. They are
placing pressure upon this Committee to take their position, and I need
to know.
Now, obviously you cannot testify outside your lanes, but I just want
you to know if your association is interested in taking a position, and
you need to let us know pretty soon.
Chief McCauslin. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right?
Chief McCauslin. Certainly.
The Chairman. Mr. Corbett.
Sergeant Corbett. The legislative agenda of our organization is
determined by the resolutions passed at our annual convention. We have
taken no position on this issue of lawyers representing veterans, sir.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Admiral.
Admiral Ryan. Mr. Chairman, we think that the VSOs have more
expertise-- I will be up front on that-- than we do as a military
service organization. But the reason we are reserving our opinion for
right now, I think, is the same reason that the Congress ought to
reserve their opinion, and that is you all do have a higher calling
here, and that first calling is to do no harm.
And I am not sure that, if you take the Senate bill you are going to
do harm, more harm than you are if you keep the lawyer out of that part
of the process because of two things.
Number one, the claims process itself really needs to be improved and,
number two, I think that you have a perfect vehicle to do that with, and
that is ask the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission to include this
as part of their analysis as they look at this claims process and what
can we do to improve it. It is a perfect place to have people really
carefully analyze it before we go and make the situation worse rather
than better.
And so we are reserving our opinion. We know that some of the VSOs
feel very strongly about it in both ways, but we are concerned that
rushing into this is going to do more harm than good if you all are not
convinced personally of the way to go.
The Chairman. Mr. Lopez.
Mr. Lopez. Our members automatically have legal counsel because of
the nature of entrepreneurship. It is one of the requirements. So they
do not look upon this issue in the same way. So we have no opinion on
it.
The Chairman. Well, Admiral Ryan, I dealt with you for years when I
chaired Personnel and negotiated many different provisions which you had
interest in with the Senate.
Admiral Ryan. Uh-huh.
The Chairman. And I recall sometimes when we came to difficult
questions in figuring out how to compromise, how to get to yes so
everybody feels good coming out of the room, DoD, House, Senate,
Administration. Sometimes on these questions, you can also sense that,
right, do those types of things too? But I am being a good listener to
your counsel.
Mr. Filner.
Mr. Filner. Mr. Chairman, since I already gave my opening
statement. I hope you will recognize me after my colleagues. I would
appreciate that.
The Chairman. Very good.
Mr. Brown, Chairman Brown.
Mr. Brown of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to thank the gentlemen for coming and being a part
of this dialogue, and I will reserve questions.
The Chairman. Mr. Michaud.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the panelists for coming before us. I just have one
question if I understood Mr. McCauslin's statement earlier. He had
mentioned as far as paying an enrollment fee, the $250 enrollment fee,
that he is opposed to that proposal, but prospectively might not be
opposed to it.
Is that correct? Do I understand you correctly?
Chief McCauslin. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Michaud. How do the other three MSOs feel about that? I know
you are opposed to the enrollment fee, but prospectively would you also
be opposed to an enrollment fee?
Sergeant Corbett. We are opposed to the enrollment fee, the Retired
Enlisted Association. It will affect some of our members too much
because they are living on a fixed income. They are senior citizens and
it would definitely, definitely hurt them.
Mr. Michaud. Even prospectively?
Sergeant Corbett. Yes, sir.
Admiral Ryan. I have not looked that far out, I am embarrassed to
say, about prospectively. But we are opposed at this time. With the
war going on, we think it sets a terrible signal. Thank you.
Mr. Michaud. Mr. Lopez.
Mr. Lopez. We have not looked into the issue, so we do not have a
clear statement to make to you, sir.
Mr. Michaud. Okay. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Chairman Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I really do not have any questions, but I know myself and Ms. Herseth
really have enjoyed working with you this last year, and we do
appreciate the input and the very thoughtful input. And like I said, we
appreciate you being here. We appreciate all that you represent.
A special thanks to the Air Force Sergeants. My dad was a retired
Sergeant and we were visiting earlier. I said that he would be very
proud of me, and he said, yeah, he'd be proud of you. I did not mean it
in that way. I meant he would be very proud of me that I would be
standing with the Air Force Sergeant representative and have looked at
that-- I lost my dad about ten years ago, but have seen that publication
on his coffee table for many, many years.
And, again, we appreciate all of the things that you are doing for
your membership. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Boozman.
I am equally the proud son of an Army Sergeant.
Dr. Snyder.
Mr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to make a comment. The three of you, Mr. McCauslin, Mr.
Corbett, Admiral Ryan, made very strong and amplified statements about
the GI Bill and the need for improvements. And I think there is a lot
of unity of opinion about that we need to make some major changes to the
whole GI Bill system both for our veterans, but also for our men and
women in the Reserve component.
And Chairman Boozman and I are going to participate in a hearing next
week on the GI Bill. And I think Senator Lincoln is going to testify
also.
But we have just so many things that we need to work on, and I think
what has happened over the last several years is you have so many things
to work on that we do not do anything. And so as time goes by, the
benefit has eroded, particularly for our Reserve component, but,
frankly, for everyone.
And then the worst provision that I know that you talked about, I
think, Admiral Ryan, was this problem that we have now with our men and
women in the Reserve component, the Guard and Reserves. They get
activated. The intent of the current benefit is that they use their GI
Bill benefit while they are in the Reserves.
But if they get activated, they are spending three or four or five
months preparing for service in Iraq, sometimes longer than twelve
months, they are coming back at the end of their-- if they are at the
end of their enlistment and they get out, they have no GI Bill benefit.
The expectation, the way this thing is legislatively designed is
somehow they would attend the University of Baghdad or something while
they are in a war zone. I mean, that is the reality of how that benefit
is set up, and I think it is unconscionable.
But for whatever reasons, it has been difficult to get DoD interested
in doing something about it. That is not under the jurisdiction of this
Committee. It is in the Armed Services Committee.
But I am not sure I am very optimistic that Senator Lincoln's
provision that was attached to the Senate Defense Bill, if that is going
to make it out of conference. We should know that in the next two or
three days. Hopefully it will.
It deals with that specific issue, but we have a lot of issues there
to work on all generated by two things in my view, the increasing cost
of education and the necessity of participating in that education.
We could do so much for our country and for our veterans and our men
and women in uniform if we would really look at improving this benefit
for both the Guard, Reserve, and the active forces.
I appreciate your statements which were more than just a brief note.
You all describe in some detail things that you thought we needed to
work on. So we look forward to those discussions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Filner.
Mr. Filner. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for following up on
Mr. Lopez's statement. It is something that we have not discussed here.
I think I get it, Mr. Lopez, and I am going to keep it in mind as we
move forward. You know, there are attempts to set up Advisory
Committees, and they do not work very well. There has to be something
that gives the sense that there is some participation.
I thank you for bringing that up. I thank the Chairman for allowing
that discussion.
Let me just say to conclude this panel, when we read through your
written testimony, and I thank you for your expertise which is
incredible and helps us understand the issues very clearly-- there is a
unanimity on a lot of issues that should constitute our agenda as a
Committee.
Sometimes, as Mr. Lopez says, people feel like they are begging for
something that is really rightfully theirs. It costs a lot of money.
But the saddest thing for me is the sense that as a nation, we have the
money. It is a question of priorities. We have the money. We are the
richest nation in the history of the world.
Our budget this year was three trillion dollars. The debt that we owe
as a nation is eight trillion dollars. The VA gets 80 billion. Surely
with all those figures, it is within our ability to provide for our
veterans.
We are spending a billion dollars every two and a half days in Iraq.
As the Chairman said, it is a cost of war to deal with our previous
gallant fighting men and women. If we looked at like that, the money
would be available.
As Mr. Lopez quoted President Washington that the knowledge of how we
deal with our veterans is a really important part of the morale of our
active duty.
So we are supporting our troops in Iraq if we treat not only the
servicemembers coming back from Iraq but also those who came back from
Normandy, et cetera. We, as a nation, can do this and we can do it in a
way that involves the people who are affected by it.
Nobody should feel that they are asking us or begging us. We should
beg you for the honor of dealing with those who we made a contract with.
I hope we get into that way of looking at things.
You have not asked for too much. You have asked for what is
rightfully due the veterans of this nation. I hope this Committee
responds and this Congress responds.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
I would like to thank Chairman Boozman and Ranking Member Snyder on
the House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee, who is also on
this Committee, for the joint hearing that you are going to do. And you
have got great expertise here.
I think MOAA is planning on testifying, are you not, and NAUS?
Others, if you get interested, go knocking on their door to be heard.
So give Chairman Boozman a call. Sorry.
If there is not room, please prepare your statements and submit them
for the record. We are trying to do this. It took Sonny Montgomery
seven years to do the GI Bill. Seven years.
So I got criticized yesterday by one of the groups in saying, hey, you
said you would do it, but I have not seen anything. And I about choked,
but it is kind of the atmosphere sometimes.
Chairman Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Mr. Chairman, Jeff is over there, so they can talk to
him about whatever their needs are.
The Chairman. All right. Did you get your home phone number?
Well, thank you very much for your testimony today. And I do want you
to know I embraced something.
Admiral Ryan, you mentioned it. It is something we all need to
embrace and this is the issue of the traumatic brain injuries and what
you saw at the polytrauma centers. And there is something here that I
need to understand a little better and it deals with the case referrals.
They were taking active duty. They are going into the VA. The DoD
then reimburses the VA, but then there are also some patients then that
do not go into our VA polytrauma centers, but end up in a neurotrauma
unit in the private sector, then to be reimbursed under TRICARE.
And I do not completely understand who is getting referred to where
and why. And it is something I want to look at, and I invite you also
to apply your eyes to that one.
We cannot do all things for all people at every one of these
polytrauma centers, and so I am hopeful that these case management
decisions are being made based upon who has what ability to care for
certain injuries.
I am sure that is happening. Maybe it is just having been around this
town for so long. I just want to make sure that those decisions are
being made by competent doctors driving those decisions based on their
diagnosis as opposed to dollars and budgets and costs.
So I am going to look into that, and I invite you to put your eyes on
that one also. And this one is not going to go away so long as the
enemy understands that they can hide and still hurt us. And they have
killed over a thousand just by these IEDs alone.
And these blast injuries are something that we really have not been
able to prepare for and how we care for them not only from the
protective side with what we are able to put in these helmets but also
on research and development and then the medical care.
So I thank you for making that a priority, and we want to work with
you on that.
Mr. Bilirakis, do you have any questions of this panel?
Mr. Bilirakis. No.
The Chairman. No?
Thank you very much for your testimony. This panel is excused.
The second panel may come forward.
Speaking on behalf of the National Association for Uniformed Services
is retired Major General Bill Matz, the President of NAUS. He became
the President of NAUS in January 2005.
General Matz was an Infantry Company Commander in combat in Vietnam
where he was wounded in action during the 1969 TET offensive. He has
served as a Staff Commander of six Army divisions, as Plans Officer for
the Pacific Fleet Amphibious Ready to Go Fleet in Panama during
Operation Just Cause, and Executive Secretary to the Secretary of
Defense. He also in 2005 was appointed by President Bush to the Veterans
Disability Commission.
Representing the National Association of State Directors of Veterans
Affairs is Mr. Kerwin Miller, the Director. Mr. Miller was confirmed as
the first Director of the District of Columbia Office of Veterans'
Affairs in 2003.
Mr. Miller completed 28 years of honorable service, active duty, and
Naval Reserve, retiring as a Naval Reserve Commander. He was the first
U.S. Naval Academy graduate to graduate from Howard University School of
Law.
Mr. Miller served as an attorney in the Department of Veterans
Affairs' Office of General Counsel from 1989 to 1998, and received the
Secretary of Veterans' Affairs Outstanding Volunteer Award, as well as
the Special Contributions Award. In 2005, he was appointed to the VA's
12-member Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans.
Testifying on behalf of the Commander, the American Ex- Prisoners of
War, Gerald Harvey, is Les Jackson, Executive Director of the
Washington, D.C. office.
Mr. Jackson has been serving as the Executive Director of the American
Ex-Prisoners of War since April 2001. He qualified for membership on
April 24th, 1944, after being captured by no fewer than 200 of Hitler's
Army recruits from a basic training camp only a few hundred yards away
from where his V-17 happened to make a crash landing.
Representing the National Association of County Veterans Service
Officers is Darlene McMartin, the First Vice President and Second Vice
President, Secretary, and Treasurer of that association which she has
served in the past.
Ms. McMartin served in the United States Army as a member of the
Military Police from 1975 to 1977. She was past First Vice President of
the Iowa Association of County Commissioners of Veterans Affairs and has
served as 7th District Director and President. In May 2004, she was
appointed by the Governor of Iowa as the State Commissioner for the Iowa
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Ms. McMartin is a member of the Walnut Iowa AM-VETs Post 45 and is a
member of Hancock American Legion Post 720 and Auxiliary Post 720 in
which she serves as President of the Auxiliary. She is a lifetime
member of the Disabled American Veterans and Vietnam Veterans of America
as an associate member.
Our final panelist is the National Commander of the Jewish War
Veterans of the United States of America, Norman Rosenshein, a member
since 1970. He has held all the post's offices in Post 63 in Elizabeth,
New Jersey. He has served in the United States Army from 1964 to 1966
on active duty and 1966 to 1970 in standby Reserve.
He was a Specialist Fourth Class and night supervisor for the
Quartermaster School television station at Fort Lee. That is
interesting. He has worked for CBS television and United Video and in
1993 started his own business in television wiring design.
In addition to the Jewish War Veterans, he is Vice President of his
congregation and a member of The American Legion Post 6 of Elizabeth and
Vietnam Veterans of America Chapter 779.
Do all of you have written testimony that you would like to be
submitted for the record?
Mr. Jackson, do you have testimony you would like to be submitted for
the record? Do you have written testimony, Mr. Jackson? Do you have
written testimony, Mr. Jackson?
Mr. Jackson. I have not submitted it yet.
The Chairman. All acknowledge in the affirmative. Without
objection, so ordered. All of your written testimony will be submitted
for the record.
Each of you will be recognized for ten minutes, and the Chair will
grant latitude to you just as I exercised courtesy of your fellow
members on the panel. And the members will abide by the five-minute
rule.
Mr. Jackson, you are now recognized.
STATEMENTS OF GERALD HARVEY, NATIONAL COMMANDER, AMERICAN EX-PRISONERS
OF WAR PRESENTED BY LES JACKSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN EX-
PRISONERS OF WAR; KERWIN MILLER, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON, D.C. OFFICE,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE DIRECTORS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS; WILLIAM M.
MATZ, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES; DARLENE
MCMARTIN, FIRST VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY VETERANS
SERVICE OFFICERS; NORMAN ROSENSHEIN, NATIONAL COMMANDER, JEWISH WAR
VETERANS OF THE USA
STATEMENT OF GERALD HARVEY
Mr. Jackson. I want to apologize up front. I may be stumbling over
my words, and I ask that you please bear with me. My macular
degeneration is progressing.
Chairman Buyer, Ranking Member Filner, distinguished members of the
House of Veterans' Affairs Committee, and guests, we welcome the
opportunity to again speak on behalf of the American Ex-Prisoners of
War. We are grateful for what Congress and the VA have done for former
prisoners of war.
Over the past 30 years, many presumptives were established to simplify
the process for which POWs could obtain needed disability benefits and
medical care. The ongoing research conducted by the National Academy of
Sciences provided the basis for these Congressional and VA actions.
At present, most of the long-term health problems causally associated
with the brutal and inhuman treatment of captivity have been identified
and made presumptives.
We urge Congress to act on the several remaining medical conditions
identified currently in current legislation. The first of these is
chronic liver disease, simply a clarification of a current presumptive,
cirrhosis of the liver. The National Academy of Sciences has stated in
writing this has more accurately reflected their findings. Cirrhosis is
simply the final stages of liver disease.
The second is diabetes. It has already been established for Vietnam
veterans exposed to certain chemicals and other factors. POWs were
similarly exposed to adverse factors in captivity and are causally
related to diabetes.
Third, osteoporosis. This is directly related to the absence of
calcium needed to maintain bone structure, a common situation amongst
POWs. This condition becomes apparent with a bone break. Adjudicators
typically decide these cases for POWs. Making it a presumptive
simplifies the process for the adjudicators and the POWs alike.
House Resolution 1598 introduced by Representative Michael Bilirakis
and Senate 1271 introduced by Senator Patty Murray cover these
presumptives. We call to your attention that there is virtually no
increase in the cost of any of these presumptives. Costs are more than
offset by the rapidly diminishing numbers of POWs already on the
disability rolls.
Other legislation that ex-POWs consider high priority. Senator Harry
Reid introduced Senate 2385 known as the Combat Related Special
Compensation Act. Representative Michael Bilirakis, a long-time
advocate of concurrent receipt legislation, previously introduced the
companion bill House Resolution 1366 in the House. It is currently
before the Armed Services Committee.
This legislation will amend that part of Combat Related Special
Compensation Act, Chapter 61 of the Defense Authorization Act of-- it is
going to amend it to an earlier date of January 1, 2006.
With the current effective date of 2014 and their current advanced
age, it is a statistical probability that World War II military retirees
will not live to receive any of this compensation.
Representative Bob Filner introduced House Resolution 2369 to provide
for the Purple Heart to be awarded to prisoners of war who die in
captivity. We ask the Committee to give their full support to these
bills.
In closing, I want to again express our deep appreciation for
identifying POWs as a high priority and worthy group of the veteran
population.
We are also grateful for VA's ongoing efforts to identify every POW
and take the next step in getting them processed for applicable VA
benefits by adjudicators specifically trained to handle POW claims.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Jackson.
[The statement of Gerald Harvey appears on p. ]
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The Chairman. Mr. Miller.
STATEMENT OF KERWIN MILLER
Mr. Miller. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members
of the Committee.
As a member of the National Association of State Directors of Veterans
Affairs, NASDVA, I thank you for the opportunity to testify and present
the views of the 55 State Directors who represent all 26 million
veterans in this country and around the world.
As the nation's second largest provider for services to veterans,
state governments' role continues to grow. We believe it is essential
for Congress to understand the role and ensure we have the resources to
carry out our responsibilities.
We partner very closely with the federal government in order to best
serve our veterans and as partners, we are continually striving to be
more efficient in delivering services to veterans.
We greatly appreciate the leadership of Chairman Buyer and Ranking
Member Evans and the entire membership of the House VA Committee for
their past support of building upon the Administration's budget and hope
that it continues.
Because of the War on Terror, we are now serving a new generation of
veterans. They are going to need our help as they return to civilian
life. We believe, therefore, that there will be an increased demand for
certain benefits and services and the overall level of healthcare
funding proposed by the Administration must meet that demand while
continuing to serve those veterans already under VA care.
NASDVA supports the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services,
CARES, process. We were generally pleased with the report and
recommendations made in the final plan. We also support the process for
planning at the remaining 18 sites and the direction it will move VA as
a national system. We urge that capital funding required for
implementation be included over a reasonable period of time to enable
these recommendations to be realized.
NASDVA supports the opening of additional Community- Based Outpatient
Clinics, CBOCs. We would like to see the new priority CBOCs deployed
rapidly with appropriate VA medical center funding.
Continued development of CBOCs has greatly improved veterans' access
to all VA healthcare. We continue to encourage rapid deployment of new
priority clinics over the next few years with the corresponding budget
support to the VAMCs. VA needs to quickly develop these additional
clinics to include mental health services.
We encourage the investment of capital funding to support the many
projects recommended by CARES. We support VA contracting out some
specialty care to private-sector facilities where access is difficult.
Likewise, we would like to see the process continue in fiscal year
2007 with sufficient funding in the budget. CBOCs provide better access,
leading to better preventative care, which better serves our veterans.
NASDVA recommends an in-depth examination of long-term care and mental
health services. The CARES Commission review did not include long-term
care or mental health services, but did recommend further study of both
areas. To that end, we again ask that a study be done to thoroughly
examine veterans' long-term care and continue the study currently being
done on mental healthcare needs to include gap analysis, clearly
identifying where services are lacking.
NASDVA continues its strong support for state home construction grant
programs. The annual appropriation for this program should be continued
and increased. Based on the reduction in funding in fiscal year 2006,
we recommend that the amount in fiscal year 2007 be increased to $115
million. Reranking of projects should be eliminated once a project is
established as a priority group one.
The VA has changed the procedures for allocating state home
construction money. The theory is that by allowing partial payments on
projects, the life safety projects applied for, will not be overlooked
and will, therefore, allow other projects to proceed. The real issue is
the amount of money appropriated in light of the amount of projects
applied for.
Currently the Senate has included 85 million in its version of the
budget and the House has included $105 million. The backlog of
applications, however, exceeds $800 million and grows annually.
This year is vital to raise the appropriation as much as possible when
the Committees conference and also to request an increased appropriation
in following years.
The success of VA's efforts to meet the current and future long-term
care needs of veterans is contingent upon resolving the current mismatch
between demand and available funding. We recommend this issue be
included in any long- term care study undertaking.
NASDVA supports full reimbursement for care in state veteran homes for
veterans who have a 70 percent or more service-connected disability or
who require nursing home care because of service-connected disability.
Full reimbursement for cost of care for qualifying veterans in service
veterans homes. The November 1999 Millennium Act requires VA to provide
nursing care to those veterans who have a 70 percent or more service-
connected disability or who require nursing home care because of a
service-connected disability.
VA provides nursing home services through three national programs, VA
owned and operated nursing homes, service veteran homes owned and
operated by the State, and contract community nursing homes.
VA general counsel interpretation of the law allows only contract
community facilities to be reimbursed for full-time cost of care. The
service veteran homes merely receive per diem towards the cost of care,
requiring the veteran to make a co-payment. This is unfair for those
veterans who are eligible for full cost of care, but prefer to reside in
a service veteran home.
NASDVA supports increasing per diem to provide one-half of the
national average annualized cost of care in a service veteran home.
Currently law allows VA to pay per diem up to one-half of the cost of
care each day a veteran is in a service veteran home.
However, in first quarter of fiscal year 2005, VA per diem amounted to
only 31 percent of the average daily cost of nursing home care, which
was $185.56. Only 25 percent of that average daily cost of domiciliary
care, $119.94, in an SVH.
We ask that per diem for both programs be increased to one-half of the
national average annualized cost of providing care as the service
veteran home program is the most effective nursing care alternative used
by VA.
NASDVA also supports VA Medicare subvention. We recommend a veterans'
medication purchase option be implemented for priority group seven and
eight enrollees who also seek to have medications. We request continued
protection of the Federal Supply System for VA and DoD pharmaceuticals.
NASDVA also supports continued efforts to reach out to veterans.
There should be a partnership between VA and the State Departments of
Veterans Affairs. While growth has occurred in VA healthcare due to
improved access to CBOCs, many of the areas of the country are still
short-changed due to geographic and/or due to veterans' lack of
information and an awareness of their benefits. VA and SDVAs must
reduce this inequity by reaching out to veterans regarding their rights
and entitlements.
NASDVA supports implementation of a grant program that would allow VA
to partner with SDVAs to perform outreach at the local level. There is
no excuse for veterans not receiving benefits to which they are entitled
simply because they are unaware of these benefits.
NASDVA strongly supports an adequate level of funding to allow VBA to
keep pace with the rising backlog of claims. Veterans are now filing a
higher percentage of claims than the earlier conflicts and those claims
have a great number of cases and issues. The backlog continues to grow
and with the continued deployments to combat theaters, there is no
expectation that the number will drop.
NASDVA also supports consideration of a greater role for SDVAs in the
overall effort to manage and administer claims processing regardless of
whether the State uses State employees, veterans service organizations,
and/or county veteran service officers.
NASDVA strongly supports passage of legislation to eliminate the time-
phased concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and service-
connected disability compensation.
We also recommend an increase in the plot allowance to all veterans to
$1,000 per interment. We strongly support an increase in funding for
the State Cemetery Grant Program. New federal/state national cemetery
grant programs could be established to support State costs.
NASDVA supports efforts to diminish the national disgrace of
homelessness among veterans. SDVAs would prefer an active role in
allocating and distributing per diem grants for homeless veterans to
nonprofit organizations which would ensure greater coordination, fiscal
responsibility, accountability, and local oversight of the services
provided.
NASDVA strongly supports improving upon and providing seamless
transition to help our servicemembers transition into civilian life.
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, we respect
the important work that you have done to improve supporting the veterans
who have answered the call to serve our nation.
NASDVA remains dedicated to doing our part, but we urge you to be
mindful of the increasing financial challenge that states face just as
you address the fiscal challenge at the federal level.
We are dedicated to our partnership with the VA in the delivery of
services and care to our nation's veterans.
This concludes my testimony. I stand ready to answer any questions
you may have. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Miller.
[The statement of Kerwin Miller appears on p. ]
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The Chairman. General Matz, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. MATZ
General Matz. Chairman Buyer, Acting Ranking Member Filner, and
members of the Committee, on behalf of the nationwide membership of the
National Association for Uniformed Services, I am pleased to present our
views on the current fiscal year and also to look ahead to the upcoming
year on the programs and policies of, in particular, the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
NAUS firmly believes that despite the funding increases over the
recent past that our VA medical care facilities continue to face serious
challenges both due to medical inflation and the rising numbers of
veterans seeking care within the VA system. And, of course, as my
colleagues indicated, there are also many budget challenges facing VA's
Claims Administration as well.
We believe that the answer to the budget challenge must come from
consistent, well-grounded, common-sense decisions made to scour the
entire budget and find the resources to fund our highest priority needs.
And so it was heartwarming for me to hear from Congressman Filner that
it is a question of priorities, the money is there.
Regarding VA healthcare, as we look back over the past year, we are
pleased to see that the challenge to fund the underfunded Department of
Veterans Affairs did not rely on out-of-pocket healthcare expenses for
many veterans. The leadership of this Committee took action to
recognize that asking sick and disabled veterans to pay for their own
healthcare is not the acceptable answer for the VA funding problems.
The answer to the challenge is to fund the Department so veterans have
access to quality healthcare.
Recently VA presented information that the waiting list for first-time
appointments with VA doctors had fallen to manageable levels. However,
improvements in this area of concern did not necessarily tell the whole
story.
Veterans who have already had their first doctor's appointment are not
part of that calculation. Many of these veterans tell us, and as I have
had the opportunity to get out with the Veterans Disability Commission,
that they are waiting up to nine months for some surgical procedures and
specialty care. And, folks, we all know we can do better than that and
we should.
Mr. Chairman, NAUS appreciates your work in the bipartisan push to
better fund veterans' healthcare and benefits in the coming fiscal year.
Rejecting the fees and the new challenges for veterans and spending more
on care for those returning from battles is warmly welcomed by NAUS.
Prescription drug assistance, Mr. Chairman, we are disappointed that
little consideration has been given to those veterans who have been
prohibited from enrollment in VA's healthcare system under the decision
made by the Secretary on 17 January 2003.
Enrolled veterans can obtain prescriptions, as you are very well
aware, paying $8.00 for each 30-day supply. However, veterans not
enrolled for care before January 2003 are clearly denied an earned
benefit that similarly situated enrolled veterans are able to use now.
What we recommend is to give Medicare eligible veterans currently
banned from the system and paying the higher retail prices or using the
newly established Part D Program access to the same discount provided VA
in their purchase of prescriptions.
The Chairman. Say that again.
General Matz. What we recommend, sir, is to give the Medicare
eligible veterans that are currently banned from the system and paying
the higher retail prices or using this newly established Part D Program
access to the same discount provided VA in the purchase of
prescriptions.
The Chairman. Go ahead.
General Matz. This situation would be a win-win situation. It
would provide the discount. It would not cost the government a cent,
and Medicare eligible patients would pay the same price the VA pays.
The Chairman. You want to do that for all veterans?
General Matz. Yes, and those veterans would see value returned in
the benefit each earned through military service.
The disability claims backlog, sir, NAUS strongly supports efforts to
find a solution to the rising backlog in claims processing. Veterans
coming home from the war, I think we would all agree, deserve quick
response to their claims.
Unfortunately, despite VA's best efforts to deliver benefits to
entitled veterans, the workload of the Veterans Benefits Administration
continues to increase. And, in fact, I think as we all pointed out, VBA
is falling further behind in this area.
And as of September 9th, VBA had 598,000 compensation and pension
claims pending decision, and this is an increase, according to our
calculation and VA's own, of nearly 90,000 from this time just last
year.
In addition, nearly 25 percent of those pending claims have been in
the VA system for more than 180 days. This accumulation of claims within
the system, I know we would all agree, is clearly unacceptable.
Congress and the Administration need to provide a stronger VA budget
for the hiring and the training of claims adjudicators and the
investment in the appropriate technology to overcome this backlog and
get the program back on track.
Regarding the Montgomery GI Bill, NAUS shares a keen interest in
consideration of a total force framework for a new GI Bill for education
to include the members of the Guard and the Reserve. We endorse clearly
a total force approach that meets the needs for all those who wear the
uniform.
And as the members of the Committee know, there is a growing disparity
between Reserve and active duty programs simply because we believe
Reserve benefits under Title 10 are often neglected when program
improvements are made in the active duty Title 38 program.
While the upgrade to a total force Montgomery GI Bill might be
complex, NAUS, as I believe one of my colleagues stated earlier, as a
start that Congress act to place the Guard and the Reserve educational
benefits within the Title 38 GI Bills. Taking this action would
increase the visibility of these earned benefits and it would certainly
help move the Guard and the Reserve education benefits toward the equity
of treatment deserved.
Regarding seamless transition, over the past year, the House Veterans'
Affairs Committee has developed an excellent record of oversight on
administrative efforts to improve the seamless transition of benefits
and services for servicemembers as they leave military service and
become veterans.
And while the GAO reports, just the recent one in June, that DoD and
VA have taken a number of positive steps to increase awareness on the
medical records of servicemembers wounded in these battle operations, it
also reports that VA continues to have difficulties gathering real-time
information from DoD medical facilities.
Now, I would say, sir, that while DoD and VA, are beginning to make
some effort in sharing this electronic health information, much work, as
you know, remains to be done. And I would submit based on what we hear
from the people who come before our Commission and what I hear from my
own members, particularly in the sharing of inpatient documentation, and
we are encouraged to see that the transfer of inpatient documentation
has, in fact, begun.
We are told that soon the DoD and the VA biodirectional health
information exchange will be able to access information stored in ALTA,
which, as you know, is DoD's digitalized medical system, and make it
available to VA.
So we are pleased that the two departments appear to be working to
ensure the sharing of health information both DoD and VA-wide, but we
encourage this Committee as you have in the past to keep the pressure on
them, actually on both these departments.
Concerning research, sir, as Congress moves forward in consideration
of its veterans' research requirements, NAUS encourages a strong effort
to see that critical funding is provided for the VA mission to conduct
medical research, especially in the area of traumatic brain injury,
spinal cord injuries, blindness, and the prosthetic research.
It is essential that research be conducted to guide treatment and
rehabilitation for these individuals with the polytrauma injuries. VA
medical and prosthetic research programs have played a key role in
meeting the current and future health challenges facing veterans with
disabling injuries.
Clearly VA must also make research and treatment of brain injuries as
a high priority. And we agree with members of this Committee that VA
needs to develop better procedures to screen and treat returning
veterans who have brain injury.
As well, care for our troops with limb loss is also a matter of
national concern. And so to meet the challenge, VA research must be
adequately funded to continue its intent on treatment of troops
surviving this war with grievous injuries.
The research program also requires funding for continued development
of advanced prostheses that will focus on the use of prosthetics with
microprocessors that will perform more like the natural limb.
Concerning post traumatic stress disorder, NAUS supports a higher
priority for VA care of troops demonstrating symptoms of mental health
disorders and the treatment for PTSD.
The cost of living adjustments, sir, NAUS is pleased to see that the
House vote of 408 to zero in June to provide a COLA to 209 million
service-connected veterans and survivors. This COLA, as you know,
provided every year since 1976 will prevent the inflation from eroding
disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation that
so many of our veterans and their survivors rely on.
Respect for the Fallen Heros Act, I would like to mention this. NAUS
deeply appreciates this Committee's efforts in the passage of
legislation to stop these protestors from trying to disrupt military
funeral services. The action was prompted by a series of protests where
demonstrators yelled at mourners and made harassing comments about the
U.S. Military. And NAUS was pleased to support enactment of this
measure.
Finally, my last point here, NAUS continues its support of legislation
to authorize Medicare reimbursement for healthcare services provided
Medicare eligible veterans in VA facilities. Medicare subvention will
benefit veterans, taxpayers and the VA. And so we encourage the
Committee to just closely review permitting Medicare eligible veterans
to use their Medicare entitlement for care at local VA medical
facilities.
Mr. Chairman, you and your Committee members, are making great
progress. We thank you for your efforts and we thank you for this
opportunity to come before you today and give you our concerns as to
what we did this past year and what we should look at in the future.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, General Matz.
[The statement of General Matz appears on p. ]
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The Chairman. Ms. McMartin, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF DARLENE MCMARTIN
Ms. McMartin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, it is truly
my honor to be able to present this testimony before your Committee.
As First Vice President of the National Association of County Veterans
Service Officers, I am commenting on the past veterans' legislative
efforts by the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers
and the upcoming year and suggestions for improvements in veterans'
affairs.
The National Association of County Veterans Service Officers is an
organization made up of local government employees. Our members are
tasked with assisting veterans in developing and submitting their claims
to the DVA for adjudication.
We exist to serve veterans and partner with the national service
organizations and the United States Department of Veterans Affairs to
serve veterans. Our association focuses on outreach, standardized
quality training, and claims development. We are an extension or arm of
government not unlike the VA itself in service to the nation's veterans
and their dependents.
The past legislative session, over the past five years, as in the five
years prior, the National Association of County Veterans Service
Officers has concentrated on legislation that would assist the
Department of Veteran Affairs with claims development and the inventory
of pending claims.
We fully supported House Resolution 4264, the Veterans Outreach
Improvement Act of 2005 by Congressman McIntyre of North Carolina, and
its companion bill Senate 1990 by Senator Burr of North Carolina.
There are other bills such as House Resolution 4355, the Rural
Veterans Services Outreach and Training Act by Congressman Wu of Oregon
that we believe to be on the right track to improve services to our
great nation's veterans. We believe that legislation such as this is
what is needed to reduce the backlog of veterans' claims that has
continued to grow in spite of valiant effort of the Department of
Affairs.
In 2002, the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers
testified before the House Subcommittee on Veterans Benefits that
veterans are dying while waiting for their claims to be adjudicated.
Sadly, this is still going on. The saddest circumstance is that it is
needless and it can be changed for the better.
The relationship between the Department of Veterans Affairs and the
County Service Officers throughout our great nation has traditionally
been professional and mutually advantageous and has developed into a
partnership benefiting the nation's veterans.
The DVA has assisted the CVSOs in providing limited training
opportunities and access to information the DVA holds on our mutual
clients. By a large majority of disability and pension claims, the CVSO
serves as the primary entry point nationwide for the local veteran to
access services offered by the DVA.
Most veterans view the local CVSO as the VA and do not realize the DVA
and the CVSO are not one in the same. And in many ways, we are the VA
to our communities.
NACVSO sees the role of the County Veterans Service Officer as one of
advocacy and claims development in concert with the veteran or dependent
at that grass-roots level. Our members sit across the desk from the
veterans every day. Because of this direct access to our veterans, we
believe we are in the position to assist the DVA in claims development
in an unprecedented way as set forth in House Resolution 616 introduced
by Congressman Baca in 2005.
NACVSO believes that developing a fast-tracking method for submission
of fully-developed claims eases the burden on the DVA's inventory of
pending claims. And NACVSO believes that a pilot program as outlined in
House Resolution 616 would provide relief to the astronomical number of
veterans waiting processing around the nation.
The process begins with a face-to-face, in-depth interview between the
veteran and the CVSO. This initial interview accomplishes many things.
It builds a trust between the veteran and the CVSO and it provides the
veteran with a basic understanding of how the DVA system works.
We believe that this division of responsibility between two arms of
government, the federal and the local, benefit the veteran, the CVSO,
and the DVA, and has the potential to provide clearer understanding for
the veteran of the process of the claims development and how the DVA
system works.
The current and the next legislative session, the future of veterans'
services is in developing the partnership between the NACVSO, the SDVA,
the national service organizations, and the VA. It is the most
important legislation Congress can pass for the veterans and dependents
that are eligible for veterans' benefits.
The CVSOs play a vital role in the veterans advocacy system. The VSO
relationship we would subscribe to would be a full partnership and
cooperation between the VA and all VSOs. The local CVSO is the closest
to the veteran and dependent, and with funding from the VA, the CVSO
would provide services to an increased number of possible beneficiaries.
NACVSO is capable of providing an out-stationed network of over 3,000
FTE to develop well-documented and ready-to- rate claims, help defer
frivolous claims, and increase veterans' satisfaction by providing
timely claim status to the veteran.
Local grants to County Veterans Service Officers to enhance outreach
to veterans and their dependents would also ensure the quality of
training provided to the CVSO meets the highest standards.
NACVSO is available and has the capability to assume the role of
manager and develop tracking and payment controls as defined by the
grant or administrative claiming program guidelines.
Outreach, outreach efforts must be expanded in order to reach those
veterans and dependents that are unaware of their benefits and bring
them into the system. Nearly two million poor veterans or their
impoverished widows are likely missing out on as much as 22 billion in
pensions from the U.S. government. NACVSO believes that we must do
better.
The total number of pension cases fell to 541,000 in fiscal year 2005,
the sixth straight year of declines. The VA's actuary's office report
obtained by Knight Ridder predicts that pension participation is likely
to drop further, losing between 7,000 and 8,000 enrollees a year. At the
same time, the separate 2004 report estimated that an additional 853,000
veterans and 1.1 million survivors, generally the widows, could get the
pension but don't. It is obvious that there is a great need for
outreach into the veterans' community.
We are already present in most communities and stand ready to do our
part to assist the Department of Veteran Affairs in this monumental
task.
Standardized or minimal training requirements, there have already been
some discussions by the VA on this topic. This discussion on the
development of training standards must be moved to the front burner.
NACVSO has been an advocate for standardized training for claims
development. Every veteran should have the right to expect whoever is
helping them is adequately trained and is giving them the very best of
assistance.
The Chairman. Can you summarize, please.
Ms. McMartin. Okay. The latest Monday Morning Report showed there
were 595,512 veterans' C&P claims pending WIPP. This is an increase of
over 87,000 claims in one year. It is unacceptable and it causes an
undue burden on the claimant.
There are two methods to consider in reducing the amount of claims
pending in WIPP. One method is to hire and train significantly more
development clerks, adjudicators, and raters. This would be a costly
avenue to pursue and would take two to four years to be fully effective.
The most cost-effective way to work down the backlog is to have the VA
employees spend less time on each claim. How can that be accomplished?
By the Department of Veteran Affairs in partnership with the NACVSO and
the VSO making a serious effort in providing in-depth training and
guidance of true claims development.
Any rating officer will tell you that it is a pleasure to receive a
new claim that is fully developed, and the National Association of
County Veterans Service Officers stands ready, willing, and able to
assist the VA in developing, piloting, and evaluating the implementation
of a professional claims development course.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity.
The Chairman. Thank you.
[The statement of Darlene McMartin appears on p. ]
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The Chairman. We have a real challenge. We have got four votes
facing us.
What I hope to do here is, Mr. Rosenshein, your testimony has been
submitted for the record and if you could give us a summary, give us a
quick five minutes, it would be absolutely wonderful, so you do not have
to hang around and we could then conclude the hearing.
STATEMENT OF NORMAN ROSENSHEIN
Mr. Rosenshein. Okay. Well, thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman
Buyer, Ranking Member Filner. My testimony is there, so I will narrow
it down.
The basic issues that we have, including what is listed, as everyone
knows, that we have a multi billion dollar shortfall and the present
budget asks you to use this year's budget--
The Chairman. Can you pull the mike a little closer to you, please.
Thank you.
Mr. Rosenshein. Okay? With returning soldiers and demobilized
soldiers, the needs for care will be rising. And even the veterans from
groups World War II, Korea, and Vietnam or our Gulf War veterans are
going to cause our needs to go up, not decrease.
We have seen new kinds of care for all levels of veterans, some
extreme physical wounds that now require long-term care and
rehabilitation. Soldiers are surviving from major injuries that now
require extensive care.
These items are causing us to need more money, and we, as Congressman
Filner just mentioned, prefer not to beg. We would like this to be done
in a mandatory funding method.
We have a different kind of veteran returning from active duty today
than we did before. We have Reservists and National Guard who have just
gone through active service and are returning to their families. The
National Guard and Reservists are now ranging in age from 21 to 60.
The needs of a 21-year old returning and the needs of 60-year-old
returning are very different. We have not truly addressed how we will
change the care they get. Both from a mental point of view and from a
physical point of view, their needs are very, very different.
The present care allocated for women's veterans is totally inadequate
to support the 15 percent of active and returning veterans. At the
present time, there are over 400 wounded female veterans. Doctors,
staff, and facilities have to be made available for these veterans on an
equal basis.
In addition, the Veterans Administration medical research, which has
been one of the greatest arms of the VA from its inception, needs to
continue to get funds, not less. There is no question that this
research fund is what developed all medical things across the country.
The only way this is going to be done from our feeling is to have
joint hearings in the spring so we can go over the recommendations that
we need.
Since time is short, I want to thank first Ranking Member Lane Evans
and Mr. Bilirakis for their many years of service and hopefully will
continue with yours.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. And, again, I want to thank you for the
opportunity for appearing here. And I hope that was short enough for
you.
The Chairman. You will receive the Brevity Award. Thank you.
[The statement of Norman Rosenshein appears on p. ]
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
The Chairman. Real quick question, so we will try to go through
this. Let me know whether your organization has taken a position on the
attorney representation issue within the claims process.
Mr. Jackson.
Mr. Jackson. We have no position.
The Chairman. No position.
Mr. Miller.
Mr. Miller. We have taken no official position.
The Chairman. Thank you.
General Matz.
General Matz. Sir, we do not have an association position, but let
me just-- we--
The Chairman. Hold on.
General Matz. --me and my staff would believe--
The Chairman. Hold on to your thought.
General Matz. Beg your pardon?
The Chairman. Ms. McMartin.
Hold on to that thought.
Ms. McMartin. Yes, we have an official position.
The Chairman. And it is what?
Ms. McMartin. We state the veterans have a right to choose who will
represent their claim to the VA, but it becomes a question of when is
the right time for them to get an attorney.
The Chairman. That is exactly what we are faced with, at the
beginning or--
Ms. McMartin. We feel that it should be at the point when the
veteran's claim is docketed with the BVA. When they receive the docket
number, then at that point in time would be the best time for an
attorney to be involved.
The Chairman. When they receive the docket? Yes.
What about if you took the Evans approach on the notice of
disagreement?
Ms. McMartin. I believe it can be handled by the DRO. It still can
be handled in the local jurisdiction. It should as long as--
The Chairman. You think the docketing is the trigger?
Ms. McMartin. --the local jurisdiction at the RO, we believe it
should be handled by the CVSO, the VSO. At the point of it leaving and
being docketed with the BVA, that is when an attorney should be
involved.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Rosenshein.
Mr. Rosenshein. Yes. Our organization has a resolution we passed
in favor of lawyers representing them. However, what we have requested
in our resolution is that the lawyers be fully qualified which means
some type of method to qualify that they truly understand the needs of
the veteran as opposed to anyone going in. But we want it open to all
veterans.
The Chairman. Would you please submit that resolution to the
Committee?
Mr. Rosenshein. Yes, I will.
The Chairman. General Matz, you had an afterthought.
General Matz. My afterthought was our staff has just looked at
this, sir, and I would just tell you from the staff point, it is not an
association position. I was not prepared to give that.
And, frankly, we have not heard any real concern from our members on
this. I believe it would be better for VA to remain an advocate, a
champion helping veterans, and not get into the attorney adversarial
relationship that might come down the road.
The Chairman. Do you have an opinion on Admiral Ryan's
recommendation since you are a member of the, Claims Commission, for us
to defer and wait until you all take a look at this? Are you looking at
this issue?
General Matz. I agree with that. I agree we should do that, and
that is one of our points in the Commission.
The Chairman. Mr. Filner.
Mr. Filner. Well, we have seven minutes left, so we cannot really
go into very much.
But, you know, I have oftentimes been concerned that many of the
problems lie and the delays lie through inadequately prepared claims,
which means basically getting the service officers involved a lot
earlier.
When we know that about 85 percent of veterans or maybe even more are
not members of any of the service organizations, how do we get to those
85 percent and try to get as many of them coming in even though they do
not belong to the VFW, et cetera, have them come to the VFW or whomever
for assistance with their claims?
Frankly, off the top of my head, I think that goes closer to the
solution than getting an attorney involved. Having said that, I would
yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Chairman Boozman.
Mr. Boozman. Do you have any opinions again based on the attorney,
not on the attorney, but about providing perhaps better education for
those that are giving guidance?
Ms. McMartin. The Department of Veteran Affairs went into
partnership with the NSDVA at the New York office with George Basher.
They had a pilot program to where they utilized claims development,
fully developed claims through an education program, and that was a very
successful program because they fully developed those claims and those
claims went through quicker, faster, were fully more developed. There
was no need to get any other adversarial partner involved in that.
And if we get that education and training to all of our CVSOs out
there, that would help the DVA work their claims, get them in quicker.
They would know they were fully developed when they received them, and
it would speed up the process tremendously.
The Chairman. Ma'am, you are reading from something, so would you
please place your position in writing and please get that to the
Committee and give it to Ms. Craven? Can you do that, please?
Ms. McMartin. I sure will.
[A follow-up letter with their position appears on p. ]
The Chairman. All right. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony and participation and I will
look back, look ahead, and we will see you in the spring.
Thank you. This hearing is now concluded.
[The statement of Edmee J. Hills appears on p. ]
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
[The statement of Doris Neibart appears on p. ]
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
[The statement of Theodore Stroup, Jr. appears on p. ]
[Whereupon, at 1:38 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>