<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:26288.wais]
HEARING ON LEGISLATIVE PRESENTATION OF
VETERANS SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS AND MILITARY
ASSOCIATIONS HEARING II
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2006
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in Room 334,
Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Steve Buyer [Chairman of the
Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Buyer, Brown of South Carolina, Miller,
Boozman, Filner, Brown of Florida, Snyder, Michaud, Herseth, Berkley,
and Salazar.
THE CHAIRMAN. Good morning. The Full Committee of the House
Veterans’ Affairs Committee, February 16, 2006, will come to order. I
have an opening statement. Lane Evans has an opening statement.
Mr. Reyes has an opening statement. Mr. Filner.
MR. FILNER. May I go now?
MR. CHAIRMAN. Well, Mr. Boozman does not have a --
MR. FILNER. I have a --
MR. CHAIRMAN. -- written opening statement. Three of us have
a written opening statement which we would like to submit for the
record.
[The statement of Chairman Buyer appears on p. 50]
[The statement of Mr. Evans appears on p. 54]
[The statement of Mr. Reyes appears on p. 62]
THE CHAIRMAN. And we’re anxious to hear from the first panel.
Mr. Filner.
MR. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would like to welcome
all those who are here this morning. The Democrats have appointed a
new member, Congressman John Salazar from Colorado. We will welcome
him when he arrives.
So, we thank you. I think we’re in a very difficult situation
that, having read your advanced testimony, is clear to all of you also.
The budget is clearly inadequate. If you just look at the surface,
it fails to meet the health care needs of our nation’s veterans by
almost one and a half billion dollars.
If you look at the games that are played in the budget where
it says there are going to be legislative proposals which will bring
in almost a billion dollars, it over counts the efficiencies supposedly
brought to the VA. It double counts certain entries. There are
savings that supposedly come about because of third party collections.
All these are games. And we should be angry about these games because
they are being played with the veterans who have given us our democracy.
They are budgetary games that leave the veterans short by about
over four billion dollars this year. Over four billion dollars to
treat the health care needs and to meet the benefits of our nation’s
veterans. I think that is disgraceful. I think it should be
protested around the nation. I think you need to go back to your
grassroots.
The Chairman changed the rules this year so we don’t have the
grassroots in these meetings. The joint Senate/House meetings have
been cancelled. I think it’s because the participatory nature of
those meetings where veterans from around the country feel they are a
part of the process is not wanted, even as the Congress is talking
about greater transparency for some of the reforms we may do this year.
So you need to go back to your members and say engage in this
process because you have been cut off from participation in these
hearings. We have to find new ways for them to participate, whether
it’s going to members’ offices, or maybe surround the Capitol until a
budget that’s worthy of veterans gets passed. I think we have to find
creative ways to bring your membership into this process.
Because Congress members respond to your members, but they have
to know what is going on. They have to know what this four billion
dollar short-fall means. They have to know what it means for their
claims, which are backlogged, and that people coming back from Iraq
and Afghanistan have to wait months and months for their first medical
appointment. Some cannot get a dental appointment. We already have
a freeze on nurse hirings in some of the hospitals around the nation.
So no matter what the administration says in its spin, these are not
good times. We can change this if you bring in your membership to the
discussions.
So let’s do that and let’s eventually produce a budget that is
worthy of our veterans. Two things I think come through from a lot of
your testimony. One is the so-called assured funding, mandatory
funding. We are going to argue about whether the shortfall is four
point two billion or three point six or one point three. We shouldn’t
even have those arguments. There should be mandatory (assured) funding
for the health care of our veterans.
In addition, the biggest third party payment that is still lying
on the table is for medicare. We have had bills in the past called
"medicare subvention." We ought to pursue that in a very much more
focused way this year. So we are prepared to do that and I thank the
Chair. Would you just give me one minute to introduce our new member?
John Salazar, is the newest Democratic member of our Committee.
His district is in rural Colorado and is home for more than 70,000
veterans. He served, himself, in the U.S. Army from 1973 to ‘76 and
has a son in the National Guard. So, Congressman, your understanding
of veterans’ issues is grounded in your professional and personal
experience.
In fact, in the Colorado State House, he was awarded "Legislator
of the Year" by the United Veterans’ Committee of his state. And as a
Member of Congress, he was selected to lead the Congressional Hispanic
Caucus Veterans’ Task Force, which was created to recognize the
contributions and unique needs of Hispanics in our Armed Forces. We
have a lot of work to do, John. I am certain that you will hit the
ground running and contribute to our progress. Welcome to this
Committee.
MR. SALAZAR. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN. Welcome. Thank you. We would like to introduce
the first panel. Ms. Rose Lee is the Legislative Director for Gold
Star Wives. Ms. Lee is also the current president of Potomac Area
Chapter of Gold Star Wives. She is the widow of Colonel C.M. Lee,
United States Army. He served in Korea and in Viet Nam. He died on
active duty overseas in 1972.
Started in 1945 and granted a federal charter in 1980, the
Gold Star Wives focuses on issues relating to the spouses and children
of those killed in action. And it’s good to see you once again.
Also here representing the Fleet Reserve Association is Joseph
L. Barnes, Retired Navy Master Chief. Mr. Barnes received numerous
awards and citations. He joined FRA in 1993 as the editor of "On
Watch". He was selected to serve as the Fleet Reserve Association’s
National Executive Secretary in September 2002. FRA supports America’s
future leaders by annually awarding more than 80,000 scholarships to
deserving students. FRA scholarships are awarded to FRA members, their
spouses, children, and grandchildren. Welcome.
MR. BARNES. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN. Also next is Chief -- formerly Chief Master
Sergeant, James E. Lokovic. Did I pronounce it correctly?
MR. LOKOVIC. Lokovic.
THE CHAIRMAN. He is representing the Air Force Sergeants
Association as the Association’s Deputy Executive Director and the
Director of Military and Government Relations. Chief Lokovic served
25 years in the United States Air Force in numerous state side and
overseas locations. His last assignment was on the Air Force staff
as Chief of Enlisted and Professional Military Education. He has
worked for the Association since January 1994. The Air Force
Sergeants Association and Airmen Memorial Foundation join together
annually to conduct a scholarship program to financially assist
undergraduate studies of eligible and dependent children of the Air
Force, Air Force Reserve Command, and Air Guard Enlisted Members and,
those of Active Duty, Retired, and Veterans status. Thank you for
joining us.
Representing the Retired Enlisted Association is Ms. Holleman.
She currently serves as the National Legislative Director of the
Association. Before joining TREA she was the Washington liaison for
the Gold Star Wives of America. And Ms. Holleman focuses on health
care, financial, and benefit matters for military retirees, veterans,
and active duty, the National Guard, and Reserves, and all the families
and survivors. Welcome.
We also then have Colonel Bob Norton, Retired. He is
representing the Officers Association of America. Colonel Norton
enlisted as a private in the United States Army in 1966, completed
Officer Candidate School, was commissioned Second Lieutenant in the
Infantry in August 1967. He served one tour in Vietnam as a platoon
leader supporting the 196th Infantry Brigade in ICorps in Civilian
Affairs. We can still use you, you know?
In 1969 he joined the United States Army Reserve. Colonel
Norton volunteered on active duty in 1978 and was among the first
group of USAR officers affiliated with the Active Guard and Reserve
AGR program on full-time duty. He served two tours of duty at the
Office of Secretary of Defense. Colonel Norton retired in 1995. With
the stresses on civil affairs, it’s pretty real. Ms. Lee, we will
open with you. You are recognized for ten minutes.
STATEMENTS OF ROSE LEE, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, GOLD
STAR WIVES
MS. LEE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to
all of you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the House Veterans’ Affairs
Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you on
behalf of all of the Gold Star Wives. My name is Rose Lee. I am a
military widow and I am here as Chair of Gold Star Wives Legislative
Committee.
Behind me is Ms. Smith and in the audience are some Gold Star
Wives also. Gold Star Wives was founded in 1945 and is a
Congressionally-chartered service organization comprised of surviving
spouses of military service members who died on active duty or as a
result of service-connected disabilities.
I will present to you the collective goals of the Gold Star
Wives with the hopes that they will alert you to certain discrepancies
and inefficiencies that you may be able to alleviate in your
deliberations this year.
Too often we feel that survivors, widows and orphans, if you
will, are overlooked though they shouldn’t be. A couple of years ago I
took this snapshot of the VA’s mission statement that’s on the VA
building and it reads "To care for him who shall have borne the battle
and for his widow and his orphan." By Abe Lincoln.
Then just recently I attended the VA budget briefing. This
is their handout. I was glad to hear them say that they convinced OMB
and got the budget increased for 2007. What bothered me is that no
where in the briefing handout did the words "survivors" or "widows
and orphans" appear. We seem to get lost in the shuffle. We hope
that these oversights will be changed and we are not forgotten.
I do want to thank the Members of this Committee and the staff
for your continued support of programs that directly support the
well-being of our widows and their families. If there is one message
I could leave with you today it is that there is never enough
communication. Yes, there are casualty assistant officers who have
a difficult mission in a difficult time, but they don’t always know
about benefits and entitlements managed by the VA or DOD.
Gold Star Wives sponsors a chat room for many widows following
9/11. New widows joined this chat room and asked questions about
benefits. Our widows need our help. We need to examine the
coordination process among agencies more closely and work hard to
prevent these widows and their children from encountering gaps in
identifying benefits.
The VA and DOD have co-hosted meetings that focus on
improving outreach to surviving family members. VA has created a
survivor’s website that offers communication channels for all service
widows and widowers. Often widows do not even know where to turn
simply to identify their benefits. We participate in this outreach
and applaud these efforts. However, to enhance these efforts Gold
Star Wives asks your serious consideration of creating an oversight
office for survivors across the VA and DOD to assure improved
delivery of benefit information and benefits to survivors.
Unfortunately, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2006
did not include eliminating the offset to the Survivor Benefit Plan by
the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation. We recognize that you must
work with your colleagues on the Committee on Armed Services to correct
this issue.
We thank Representative Henry Brown for introducing HR 808,
sir. And we encourage Congress to provide this real relief for our
military surviving spouses now. But to illustrate the bad publicity
that this issue is getting, the New York Times OpEd published an article
by Attorney Dan Shay on February 13, 2006, just this past week, in which
he wrote, "My brother, Lieutenant Colonel Kevin Shay was killed by a
rocket attack in Falluja on September 14, 2004. He knew the risks when
he joined the Marine Corp in 1989. But he also thought if anything
ever happened to him the United States Government would take care of
his wife, Amy, and his two children. Sadly that’s not the case."
Dan Shay went on to describe the problem which prevents his brother’s
wife from receiving both SBP and DIC without offset.
Current law provides for remarriage at age 57 to retain VA
benefits. For those who remarried before that law was enacted, there
was a one year period to apply for reinstatement. Lowering the age to
55 would bring this benefit in line with rules for SBP and other
federal survivor programs and opening up the reinstatement period
with renewed outreach efforts would make survivors aware of their
eligibility.
We thank Representative Michael Bilirakis for introducing
HR 1462, which will make equitable changes in the law. There are
inequities among several payments for child survivor that need
immediate attention. The SBP child option applies now only to
survivors of deaths after November 24, 2003. We seek this benefit
to be linked to October 7, 2001, the beginning of the Global War on
Terror, as are other survivor benefits.
Similarly, the additional monthly $250 child DIC payment per
family only applies to survivors of deaths after January 1, 2005.
This too should be linked to October 7, 2001. We thank Representative
Michael Michaud for introducing HR 1573, which provides for this
additional payment to families. It makes no sense, however, that
the survivors of those who died first should be prohibited from
accessing a benefit given to survivors of those who died later in the
same war.
There is another grievous oversight concerning the $250 child
DIC. The program evaluation of benefits study recommended that
surviving spouses with dependent children receive the $250 for five
years instead of the two years that is currently provided. An amount
should be indexed for inflation to avoid a devaluation of the benefit.
Unfortunately, these recommendations were ignored. The $250
child DIC is the only DIC benefit that doesn’t receive the cost of
living adjustment. We wish to thank those of you who did try to
include a COLA in legislation for the $250 child DIC. But, please, we
ask you to continue to work on it until it is given the rightful COLA.
CHAMPVA doesn’t carry with it a dental plan. Gold Star Wives
seeks for widows and all CHAMPVA beneficiaries the ability to purchase
a voluntary dental insurance plan similar to the TRICARE program for
military service retirees’ dental care. Gold Star Wives recommend
Congress fix this and provide a dental plan for CHAMPVA beneficiaries.
We request Congress to review how the DIC rate is established,
which is currently a flat rate of $1,033. The SBP is calculated at
55 percent of retired pay as if the member had retired for total
disability on the date of death. We recommend that the DIC be
calculated in a similar manner at 55 percent of the disabled veterans
100 percent disability compensation. We believe this would help
alleviate growing financial difficulties of widows from wars prior to
this conflict who are receiving only DIC.
In conclusion, we do not want our widows to be forgotten
whether they are experiencing their losses in the Global War on
Terror over the past five years or whether they are members of the
so-called Greatest Generation and experienced their loss many years
ago during World War II.
I thank this Committee for using this hearing as one more
avenue of awareness and education and for giving me an opportunity to
share my thoughts and the goals of Gold Star Wives. We will be happy
to work with the Committee on any of these initiatives. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN. Ms. Lee, I should note that your boss walked
in while you were testifying.
MS. LEE. Oh, I’m glad she did. Our boss is our national
president, of course, and her name is Joan Young and she is from
Florida. I’m glad she’s here. Another Gold Star Wife. We have a
couple of young widows also from this current Global War on Terror
and one of them is Vivianne Wertzel and another young one is with
one of the other groups and her name is Jennifer McCullum. And I
do appreciate them being here as well.
THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Well let me have an opportunity
to tell your boss that we enjoy working with Ms. Lee.
[The statement of Rose Lee appears on p. 72]
THE CHAIRMAN. Mr. Barnes.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. BARNES, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE
SECRETARY, FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPA-
NIED BY CHRIS SLAWINSKI, NATIONAL SERVICE OFFICER,
AND JOHN DAVIS, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS
MR. BARNES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a pleasure to be
here this morning. Greetings to the distinguished Members of the
Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to present FRA’s
recommendations on the Fiscal Year 2007 Department of Veterans’
Affairs Budget on behalf of Edgar Zerr, FRA’s National President.
Accompanying me today are Chris Slawinski, our National
Service Officer and John Davis, FRA’s Director of Legislative Programs.
FRA’s top legislative agenda issue is full funding and access
to health care for all beneficiaries in the DOD and VA health care
systems. This issue is important to every member of our association,
their families, and survivors.
FRA appreciates the increased funding in the Fiscal Year 2007
budget, particularly for VA health care and other key accounts. This
marks significant progress over last year’s budget request and follows
emergency supplemental appropriations that were necessary at the end
of the last fiscal year.
Our members are very concerned about the discovery of inaccurate
projections and faulty models used to prepare previous budgets, and GAO
findings about the methods used to project management efficiency
savings. FRA is also concerned about the assumptions used in preparing
the budget. The budget request assumes Congressional approval of a
$250 enrollment fee and significantly higher prescription co-pays for
priority seven and eight beneficiaries. As the distinguished Committee
knows, this is not a new proposal and FRA strongly opposes the
establishment of these increases.
VA health care funding must be adequate to meet the needs of
the growing number of veterans seeking services from the VA. Many from
Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom and the budget must be
based on realistic and sound projections.
Military retirees pay an annual enrollment fee for TRICARE
prime enrollment and some believe that a similar fee, detailed above,
should be authorized for access to VA health care services. The
TRICARE fee assures access to DOD health care services while priority
seven and eight veterans, who would pay the VA enrollment fee if
approved, will remain at the bottom of the priority list for VA
health care benefits and still be forced to wait long periods for
access to care.
As part of your views and estimates to the House Budget
Committee, FRA urges the Committee to support budget allocations to
eliminate the need for the enrollment fee, the prescription co-pay
increase, and vital funding for other important VA programs including
medical research.
The Association also appreciates Ranking Member Evans’
testimony before the Budget Committee on Funding for Health care and
other VA Benefits. FRA believes that adequately funding health care
and other programs for veterans, their families and survivors, is part
of the cost of defending our nation and ensuring our freedoms.
The VA suspended enrollments for priority eight -- priority
group eight in 2003. And FRA urges that sufficient resources be
authorized to allow resumption of the enrollment process for all
veterans.
FRA supports the authorization of medicate reimbursements as
an alternative to the enrollment fee and higher pharmacy co-pays. A
significant number of veterans enrolled in the VA health care system
have paid into medicare, yet the VA is not authorized to receive
reimbursements for providing services to these veterans. Why this
has not been authorized is perplexing to our membership and FRA urges
that this concept be thoroughly researched.
Injured combat veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan should be
immediately processed into the VA system. This is also important for
personnel retiring from military service with service-connected
disabilities. Electronic medical records, plus expanded and improved
coordination between DOD and VA will ensure seamless transitions for
these personnel.
FRA strongly supports adequate funding for medical and
prosthetic research and is concerned that the budget for these --
about the budget for these programs and that it relies on partnering
initiatives with other institutions. Ensuring sufficient funds to
maintain VA’s world-class research program is very important.
Mr. Chairman, our members appreciate your support to modernize
and enhance the MGIB to include much needed changes to guard and
reserve benefits. FRA believes that Congress should raise MGIB
benefits to the average cost of a four year public college or
university education. Unfortunately benefits now cover only about
60 percent of current tuition expenses at these institutions.
FRA also believes that Congress should restore and sustain
education benefits to members of the selected reserve to 47 percent
of basic benefits as authorized when the MGIB was established in
1984. The reserve MGIB should also be transferred from Title 10 to
Title 38 to allow better accountability and improved processing.
There are thousands of senior enlisted personnel who entered
service during the Veterans’ Education Assistance Program period or
VEAP era from 1977 to 1985. They are seeking an opportunity to sign
up for the MGIB and these personnel include about 14,000 Navy personnel
and nearly 5,000 Marines. FRA urges authorization of an open enrollment
period to provide an opportunity for them to sign up for the MGIB.
This is a major issue within the career senior enlisted communities.
Finally, some additional priority concerns from our members.
FRA continues its advocacy for full concurrent receipt of military
retired pay and VA disability payments for all disabled retirees and
appreciates Vice Chairman Representative Michael Bilirakis’ leadership
on this issue.
The Association supports legislation to shift the effective
paid-up date from 2008 to 2006 for military survivor benefit plan
participants who have paid premiums for 30 years and are 70 years of
age. Additionally, the Association supports legislation that would
authorize the elimination of the SBP offset to DIC.
And last, FRA strongly supports sorely needed reform of the
Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act. Mr. Chairman, in
closing allow me to again express the sincere appreciation of the
Association’s membership for all you, the Members of the Veterans’
Affairs Committee, and the professional staff do for our nation’s
veterans. Our legislative team stands ready to assist you and your
staff at any time and I stand ready to answer any questions you may
have. Thank you.
[The statement of Joseph L. Barnes appears on p. 82]
THE CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lokovic.
STATEMENT OF CMSGT JAMES E. LOKOVIC (RET.), DEPUTY
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE SERGEANTS ASSOCIA-
TION
MR. LOKOVIC. Mr. Buyer, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Filner, and
especially a long-time friend, absent member and former Air Force
Sergeant, Mr. Bilirakis, and Members of the Committee. Good morning.
I am honored to represent the leadership of the Air Force Sergeants
Association and its 130,000 members. This morning I look forward to
working with the Committee and throughout the year as we work toward
the fiscal year 2007 budget.
Mr. Buyer, I congratulate you and the other Committee Members
for your service to our nation. You are men and women on both sides
of the aisle that don’t have to do this. And yet you step up to do it
to fulfill this nation’s commitment to those who care enough to serve,
and I salute each of you.
This morning I want to speak to you on behalf of those who
can’t get involved in the policy that governs VA programs and who are
only indirectly involved in implementing them, currently serving
members of our Armed Forces. Having listened to other panels before
this Committee and having spoken with others who will appear before you
today and in the future, we too are concerned about some of the
primary focus items that you are working on, such as full VA health
care funding, seamless transition efforts, and the accelerated
adjudication of the claims process.
At this point let me mention simply one item that we mentioned
in our written statement: an example of the need to have a good solid
handoff between the Department of Defense health care system and the VA
health care system. And the example we gave was of an Airman who was
wounded during the course of military duty, but was able to stay in
until retirement. He went through numerous medical operations and
procedures and then when applying for VA transition benefits after he
separated ended up having to redo all of these tests again and all of
the procedures again, wasting taxpayer’s money. We have seen great
promise in this area, and we need to continue working on the seamless
records and the handoff between DOD and the VA.
You have received our full written statement which I know you
will consider. However, this morning the remainder of my remarks will
be restricted to educational benefits, specifically the Montgomery GI
Bill, something appreciated by all commissioned and enlisted alike, and
important to their well-being.
The Montgomery GI Bill is a program that is generous in its
benefit but which is administered using rules that are unfair to young
service members. It’s on their behalf that I ask you to listen to them
and to make some changes in policy and administration that would cost
very little but that would be good for those who serve for the military
services themselves and for the nation as a whole.
This morning I would assert that the Montgomery GI Bill is a
benefit that is poorly administered and rarely made available in full.
In fact many aspects of the program discourage its use. Fortunately
this Committee can greatly improve the program without significant
additional obligation of funds.
One problem is the enrollment payroll reduction procedure is
illogical and drives many service members away. Young service members
are given a one-time irrevocable decision to enroll in the Montgomery
GI Bill at basic military training. They are automatically enrolled
unless they identify themselves to the TIs and say they don’t want to
be in the program. This is at a point that military members are making
relatively little money to begin with. Simply put, their choice is do
I want to sacrifice $100 of pay each month for the first 12 months of
my career?
While this policy of payroll avoidance may be a boon for the
Department of Defense, it’s a non-sensible way to offer this important
program which can affect the rest of their lives. And this is important
because many members simply cannot afford the monetary sacrifice at
that point of their careers when they are being paid relatively little.
And many members turn down enrollment because they just joined the
military, deciding to forego education for the time being. And many
of them later regret the decision and tell us that they would enroll
if given a second opportunity. However, the program as currently
administered does not offer a second chance.
Non-commissioned members in particular turn the program down
in fairly great numbers, three to five percent each year, since they
pay twice as much proportionally as commissioned officers. I don’t
make this point to point out commissioned officers versus enlisted or
otherwise, but simply to point out that it all comes out during the
first year. And we could clearly fix that by allowing all enrollees,
whether commissioned or enlisted, to enroll in the program at any
point during the first two years and to stretch out the period of the
payroll deduction to a two-year period.
I can’t tell you, Mr. Chairman, how many young airmen tell us
later on that they regret having made the decision they made at basic
training but feeling that they were forced into doing so.
Current service members are plagued by old policies. Those who
turn it down, as Mr. Barnes said, the old Veterans’ Educational
Assistance Program, absolutely deserve an opportunity to enroll in
the Montgomery GI Bill. VEAP was a poorly counseled, relatively
inadequate program. I must note that so many military members
declined enrollment in the old VEAP program, perhaps hundreds of
thousands, that there are still over 15,000 serving in the Air Force
alone, and Mr. Barnes mentioned a couple of the other services.
Probably around 50,000 in all services are still on duty. And are now
getting ready to end their careers with no transitional education
benefit.
Representative Camp’s HR 269 and a couple of other bills would
correct this situation. According to Mr. Camp’s staff during the 108th
Congress the CBO scored this program at $170 million over a ten-year
period for all eligible members to go into this program.
As you might expect, since then the pool of eligibles is
declining daily. The fix would be to support this legislation and open
all enrollees or perspective enrollees, commissioned and enlisted
alike, an opportunity and open window to enroll in the Montgomery GI
Bill. Certainly it would help a lot. We believe we should give
these patriots a chance to get into the GI Bill. Goodness knows that
they have certainly earned it.
Another problem is the GI Bill benefit is not the same for
all enrollees. Matters such as the ability for the buy-up option where
you can pay a little bit more and get additional coverage only applies
to those that came in under the original bill and not those that
transitioned under two earlier windows for those that were once
enrolled in the VEAP program.
Another problem is the GI Bill has such restrictions that the
government budgets each year based on the belief that less than half
of the military members will ever use their GI Bill. And that is true
because of the restrictions on its use. For example, while on active
duty it cannot be used for the cost of books, tuitions, and fees.
It’s parceled out on a monthly basis and is insufficient to cover the
costs for advanced, accelerated, or laboratory courses.
A fix to that would be to allow military members to spend
portions of their GI Bill benefit as they need it. They earned the
benefit, they ought to be able to spend it as they need it as they use
up the portion that they have, the amount that they have. There should
be no artificial limits on which aspects of education they can spend
the money on. And what a great military service incentive this would
be.
Another problem is that under the --
THE CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lokovic.
MR. LOKOVIC. Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN. I’m sorry. We have a vote and a possible
pending vote thereafter. How many minutes do you have left?
MR. LOKOVIC. About one.
THE CHAIRMAN. All right. Let’s go ahead and complete your
testimony and then we will break. We have about nine minutes to the
vote, so please proceed.
MR. LOKOVIC. Okay, sir. The fix under the program would be
to allow members to transfer a portion of their benefits after the
12th year of service. My point here that I was going to develop is
that transferability can be a government incentive, something smart
for both the government and the member if you make it at a career
point.
And the last point was made by Mr. Barnes. And that is that
to tie the value of the program to educational inflation without going
into details. I ask the Committee to seriously consider these items
that I have mentioned in my testimony. Most of them could be
implemented with minimal or no cost to the American taxpayer. But
they would take large steps toward making the program more user
friendly, more equitable, and of more benefit to the nation. And
again, Mr. Chairman and Committee Members, thank you for your service
and for this opportunity to address the Committee.
[The statement of CMSGT James E. Lokovic, (Ret.) appears on
p. 95]
THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you. The Committee will stand in recess.
We should be back by 11:30, I hope. We will stand in recess.
[Recess.]
STATEMENT OF DEIDRE PARKE HOLLEMAN; LEGISLATIVE
DIRECTOR, THE RETIRED ENLISTED ASSOCIATION
MS. HOLLEMAN. Thank you for returning. Mr. Chairman,
Mr. Filner, it is always an honor for TREA to speak on the issues and
concerns facing today’s and tomorrow’s veterans and their families.
As we all know this is a crucial time for our country. We are
waging a war on terror both at home and abroad. There are additional
service members deployed in numerous hot spots throughout the world.
And the veterans who have protected us throughout history in both hot
and cold wars are getting older and in more need of their nation’s help.
TREA is a nationwide VSO whose members have served a career in
the enlisted ranks of our military or are doing so at this time. The
services and benefits that are the provenance of the Department of
Veterans Affairs and this Committee are crucial to them so that they
will be able to live the life in their retirement years that they have
so justly earned.
TREA is grateful to everyone who has worked to create these
benefits and to make sure that they are implemented in an efficient and
fair way. We must start with the statement that TREA was pleased and
relieved at the realistic top-line figure that the Administration put
in the budgetary request for VA health care this year. It is a far
more sensible and workable amount then what had been previously requested.
We are also pleased that the President has exempted the VA from
his across-the-board cuts then most of the federal government is dealing
with. During this time of increased medical needs and returning
veterans more, not less, focus is needed on the VA’s health care system.
Of course we do not agree with all of the Administration’s
proposals. For the last several years TREA has been firmly opposed
to the proposed imposition of a $250 enrollment fee for veterans
presently enrolled in category seven and eight. And we are opposed
to it again this year. This proposal is unwise and unfair for several
reasons. First of all this was not the veterans were promised when
the enrolled at the urging of the VA. Secondly, veterans in seven and
eight do not have priority to be seen or access standards for care.
Therefore, they are the equivalent of space available. There is no
guarantee.
However, everyone in this room knows that if you start
charging a yearly fee and beneficiaries will predictably and rightful
demand the care that they are paying for. Rather then lessening the
work requirements of the VA it will most likely increase them. The
VA predicts that 325,000 beneficiaries will leave category seven and
eight in the coming fiscal year. We presume that that number is
primarily based on the expectation that many present enrollees will
drop out rather then pay the yearly fee. That is not an appropriate
way to lessen one’s case load. And we believe the ones who will
remain will be predictably more demanding. So it is not an effective
way either.
Additionally, the VA states in their proposal that they expect
or hope to collect Three Billion Dollars in third-party insurance
claims, OHI. TREA is doubtful, as we know the Chairman is, that they
will be able to reach that goal. In the past they have not been very
successful in collecting private insurance claims. But if this is a
serious goal for them, then beneficiaries in category seven and eight
should be the main source of such insurance. These veterans cannot
depend on the VA for all their health care and so are much more likely
to have plans that the VA may look to for collections.
Numerous people, both on this Committee and at the VA, believe
the veterans chose to enroll in category seven and eight to get the
drug benefit. That is correct. The new medicare part D benefit, once
it settles down, should cause a drop in enrolled veterans looking to
obtain service. The new drug plan will have several advantages for
them. They can use their civilian doctor’s script. They can have
them filled near their home. They do not have to deal with long
waits. If we are correct, the concern about the costs of category
seven and eight should subside without unfair and unpopular steps
being taken.
TREA is also firmly against the Administration’s proposal to
raise the pharmacy co-pay to $15, a 30-day script for category seven
and eight. Last year the VA raised it’s co-pay from $7.00 to $8.00
and I assure you it caused great consternation at many of members.
These veterans are not being petty or cheap. They are on fixed
incomes and many of them need numerous daily medications. TREA
assures you that practically doubling the co-pay would be disastrous
to many of our members. We hope this Committee will once again oppose
this proposal.
The VA is, as you have heard and read before, tasked not only
to care for the he who has borne the scars of battle but also his
widow and orphan. TREA was very pleased that Congress increased
SGLI to $400,000 as well as increasing the death gratuity to $100,000
last year for our recent widows. Thank you so much for these
improvements. But as you well know, TREA and all the members of the
coalition and the alliance last year worked hard to try and end the
SBP/DIC offset that Ms. Lee spoke of.
Of course, we are well aware that this is not the Committee
of jurisdiction. But we know of your focus and concern for military
widows. We also know that many of you are also on the Armed Services
Committee as well as this Committee. Therefore, we urge all of you to
convince your colleagues that this is the time to finally correct
this unfair situation.
Although we know it is a great deal to ask TREA also wants
this Committee to take on more work. It is, as my colleagues have
said, it is crucial to look towards improving and modernizing the
Montgomery GI Bill. The select reserve Montgomery GI Bill must keep
up with the improvements and modifications that you have been adding
to the active duty program. But that has not happened. We are
expecting more and more from a reserve component but we have not
improved this program.
TREA believes that this is due to the split of the program
between Title 10 for the reserve components bill and Title 38 for the
active duty program. If you had jurisdiction of both programs under
Title 38 coordination would be much easier and changes allowing the
guard and reserve to continue to use their benefits after leaving the
service would become more likely. The reserve program is a stepchild
in Title 10. It would find its proper home here.
As has been suggested by the representative from MOAA in his
written testimony, we still have a long way to go before we reach our
goal of a seamless transition from the status of active service to
that of veteran. The VA has been recently rightfully praised for its
new electronic medical records program. And DOD is now moving out
their new ALHTA program. But we are still concerned as to whether
these programs will be able to talk to each other. It is crucial that
they do and TREA hopes that you will continue to push to require the
technological improvements needed to improve health care for the
entire life of our servicemember. We must also continue to strive for
a single and comprehensive exit examination. This will be a great help
for both departments and even more of an advantage for the
servicemember.
There are many more suggestions in our written testimony and we
would be grateful if you would consider all of them. We all share a
love and admiration for our servicemembers, our veterans, our military
retirees and their families and survivors. Because they have served
and dared we can live in freedom and argue public policy issues. TREA
is grateful for all the efforts and time the Members of this Committee
and their staff have dedicated to making the VA the best that it can
be. We believe that adoption of our suggestions would make its
service even more effective. We thank you for your time and
attention. I would be honored to try and answer any questions you
might have.
[The statement of Deidre Parke Holleman appears on p. 109]
THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Colonel Norton.
STATEMENT OF COLONEL ROBERT F. NORTON, USA (RET.),
DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, MILI-
TARY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
COLONEL NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Filner. On
behalf of the 360,000 members of the Military Officers Association
of America I am very pleased with this opportunity to appear before
you today to present our legislative agenda for veterans.
Mr. Chairman, before I began though, -- I know Vice Chairman
Bilirakis is not here,--but I would like to add my voice for the
public record to thank him in particular for his years of service to
this nation both in uniform as well as a Member of this Committee and
a Member of Congress. "Big Mike" Bilirakis has been an unbelievable
leader and advocate for veterans over a long career. He was for many,
many years the junkyard dog on concurrent receipt. And he was
relentless in pursuing that goal when no one else even considered that
it could ever get done. So I just want to say to him, even though he
is not here, thanks for his great service to the Committee and to the
Congress of the United States.
I would ask that my prepared statement be entered in the
official record of this hearing.
THE CHAIRMAN. Hearing no objection, so ordered. Do all
members of the first panel have written statement, they would like to
submit for the record? All answered in the affirmative. Hearing no
objection, so ordered.
COLONEL NORTON. MOAA appreciates the Committee’s commitment to
overhauling the VA’s methodology for projecting resource requirements
for the VA health care system. The VA continues to understate demand,
including demand from the more than half million veterans of the War
on Terror in addition to active duty veterans. Those half million are
from the National Guard and reserve.
Two weeks ago a new GAO report concluded that the VA’s
projections for so-called management efficiencies are based on
false premises. In effect, the GAO is saying that the VA uses ENRON
accounting techniques to build some of its cost-saving projections.
MOAA fully supports this Committee’s intention to oversee reform of
the nuts and bolts of the VA’s health care budget building process.
For the coming fiscal year MOAA is pleased to see a
significant increase in the medical services budget. This is an
important first step in matching resources to the rising demand
for care. MOAA continues to support the President’s task force
report recommendation that the VA health care system should be fully
funded either my mandatory means or by any other means that will
accomplish the objective.
MOAA continues its opposition to proposed user tax fees for
certain veterans in priority groups seven and eight. And we
recommend that Congress again reject them for the fourth year in a
row. A nation that spends $2 billion a week to prosecute the war
should assure the small minority of citizens who defend us against
terror that they should not have to pay for their access to VA care.
Mr. Chairman, MOAA greatly appreciates the Committee’s
leadership in pressing the VA and the Department of Defense in
accelerating accomplishment of seamless transition initiatives.
Congress needs an aggressive Committee for seamless transition
and we applaud you for taking on this very challenging task.
Seamless transition may be a buzzword for some, but it has
deadly serious consequences for those who go into harms way, our
future veterans. At the most recent meeting of the Veterans’
Disability Benefits Commission Army Captain Marc Giammatteo told the
story that speaks to the heart of this issue. After undergoing 30
surgeries at Walter Reed to repair his severe wounds from combat he
took convalescence leave in his home town. While there he experienced
a medical problem with his surgery and attempted to check into the
local VA facility. There he was turned away. VA officials said that
they couldn’t treat him since he was on active duty.
Seamless transition is not just about computers talking to
each other and abstract plans and policies, but about our nation’s
volunteers during a very critical moment in their lives as they
transition from active military service into veteran status. Getting
this right, Mr. Chairman, has enormous implications for future health
care and benefits delivery in the VA and for the Department of Defense
as it prepares our warriors to go into harms way.
DOD recently announced the fielding of its new electronic
medical record system known as AHLTA that my colleague Ms. Holleman
mentioned. The question that needs to be asked is whether this system
can talk to the VA’s own system, VISTA.
My prepared statement addresses a number of seamless transition
initiatives that MOAA feels must be a high priority for the Committee
and Congress as well as the Armed Services Committee overall. MOAA
recommends that this Committee and the Armed Services Committee conduct
a joint hearing on seamless transition.
Before turning to benefits, I want to briefly address two other
VA health care issues. First we are concerned about the adequacy of
the VA’s construction and research budget. In recent visits to VA
polytrauma centers in Tampa and San Antonio, MOAA leaders learned
that funds are needed to continually upgrade these facilities and to
enable cutting edge research and technological innovation. With the
proposed cut in the construction budget and inadequate research funding
MOAA is concerned that our severely wounded veterans will not get the
care and rehabilitative services they will need for decades to come.
We urge the Committee’s attention to this issue.
Second, the budget request recognizes the growing need to provide
robust mental health care services in the VA and we urge continued
emphasis on this critical funding need.
Turning now to benefits, I want to associate MOAA with other
military and veterans’ organizations regarding the need to beef-up the
disability claims processing system. The VA budget estimate projects
it will handle about 900,000 claims this year alone. MOAA strongly
recommends the Committee endorse needed increases in full-time
equivalent positions, training and technology improvements.
Finally, I want to address the need to enact a Montgomery GI
Bill that reflects the sacrifice of all members of our fighting force.
We call this initiative a "Total Force Montgomery GI Bill for the 21st
Century."
The issue is quite simply this: our forces in the field deploy
and fight as a team, active duty, National Guard and reserve, but their
educational benefits are not synchronized according to the service
they perform nor are they optimized as Congress intended to support
recruiting, retention and readjustment outcomes. For example,
mobilized members of the Guard and reserve are not authorized any
readjustment benefit under the Montgomery GI Bill when they complete
their service contracts. That is simply not right. And it’s not
right that the reserve Montgomery GI Bill has dwindled in value, as
my colleague from the Fleet Reserve Association had said. It’s
dwindled to just 29 cents to the dollar compared to the active duty
program.
My written statement goes into some detail on this issue, but
it boils down to two basic recommendations. First, the reserve
Montgomery GI Bill programs that are housed in Title 10 should be
transferred to Title 38 so that future benefits can be correlated
with the active duty GI Bill.
Second, Congress needs to authorize a readjustment benefit for
mobilized reservists and guard members who serve their nation on
active duty in the War on Terror. Mr. Chairman, we are very grateful
to you, to Ranking Member Evans, and to other members of this Committee
on both sides of the aisle for your interest in and support of a Total
Force Montgomery GI Bill. We urge the Committee to work with the Armed
Services Committee to enact this initiative.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that all of us
here on this first panel work together as colleagues and partners in
the military coalition. We testify together before a number of
Committees on Capitol Hill. And all of the issues that they have
addressed here we would like to associate ourselves with in MOAA.
We thank you again, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Filner, and Members of
this Committee for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to
your questions.
[The statement of Colonel Robert F. Norton, USA (Ret.) appears
p. 119]
THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Colonel Norton, please
pass my regards to Evan O’Brien and my appreciation for his leadership
role in the efforts to modernize the GI Bill. Don’t know what it is
going to look like. Don’t know what we are going call it. But we are
going to be judicious and we are going to put our efforts toward this.
It’s easy to say, well, we will just move it from Title 10 to Title
38 and take their jurisdiction and move it over here. It’s a little
harder than that. I did have a good meeting between Chairman Larry
Craig and the Secretary and myself and I raised this issue and asked
him to speak with his counterpart Secretary of Defense about this.
So putting it on their radar screen was important and we will circle
back. And we are going to begin our efforts. But this is a lift.
I just want you to know that. I think you understand that.
COLONEL NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And if I could just
add that this issue is identified in the veterans’ Independent Budget.
All the major veterans service organizations endorse it. The military
coalition endorses it. And the higher education associations are
behind it as well.
THE CHAIRMAN. Well it’s a good coming together about the same
time. Before it came to me from you, it came to me from Colonel
Jim Lariviere because he is the deputy commander of marine reserve
division. And so he has been sending his warriors overseas and he
told me about his tank company. And the platoons that he sends and
they then round out that active duty tank platoon. And then when
they come back there is an inequity in the benefit.
And so Jim was the first to bring it to my attention. So
it’s all percolating out there. So I wanted to let you know that.
I wanted to ask Ms. Lee, the VA came and shared with me the
survivors website -- while in its development stage. What is your
feedback that you are hearing? Have you also been working with them?
Ms. Lee. Yes, sir. Chairman Buyer, I am glad you brought
the subject up. It is really a big help to the girls. And we do
periodically remind them to go to the website because sometimes when
they are in the chat room and they ask each other a question or they
ask a question that they cannot answer, and I am one of the elder ones
who is able to monitor the chat room to answer questions. And so that
is one of the jobs that I have imposed upon myself to remind them that
they should go to the chat room and remind them who are the casualty
assistant officers that they should go to also for information. And
also if they were not able to contact their regular casualty assistance
officer to go the headquarters for their casualty assistance.
But the website, getting back to it, it’s excellent and we do
get good feedback on that. Very much so. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN. Yes. I was really pleased they are doing that.
So you are highlighting that communication especially at difficult
moments. Family members and friends can come in and they can help at
difficult and challenging moments.
MS. LEE. That is right.
THE CHAIRMAN. Thanks for that response.
MS. LEE. Yes. But I might add though that there are always
new widows joining the chat room and it’s a constant battle to keep
them informed of what are the various benefits are and to remind them
of the different sources such as the website and their casualty
assistance officers. And unfortunately on occasions some of the
widows have said that their casualty assistance officers have had other
obligations. It is a collateral duty for them. And so oftentimes I
do hear, on rare occasions, I should say now, I hear that there are
some ladies who don’t have contact with their casualty assistance
officers. That is when I give them the name of the headquarters
contact person so that they do get information through that source.
THE CHAIRMAN. Okay. I brought this issue up yesterday to each
panel and so I am going to do it with your panel and I will do
it with the next panel, because I want you to engage publicly.
And that is this great concern I have about individuals that
were called to active duty out of the IRR and decided not to
show up for duty. And it appears as though that, I could be
wrong, but it appears as though the Department of Defense will
not move to court martial them. And they may do administrative
discharges. And then if you move to administrative discharge
you only have so many types of discharges which you could
receive.
And my great fear is, and I do not desire at all, on behalf of
the country, to have an individual receive a general discharge
because its quick and its easy, yet they could be able to access
very similar benefits from the VA that our honorable discharge
veterans could receive. So I am just putting it on everybody’s
radar screen. Go back and have that discussed and we want to
send a message to the Department of Defense and more importantly
also to the commanders in the field and those JAG officers doing
their counsel.
MS. LEE. Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN. I also wanted to raise it when Dr. Snyder is
here from military personnel. Yes.
MS. LEE. Could I just say one more thing?
THE CHAIRMAN. Uh-huh.
MS. LEE. I found out that every single widow reacts differently.
Each person has a different personality and some will be able to
on their own debate go to a survival website or find out
information. Others are asking the other widows questions about
how did this go for you, what did you do, and did you get this or
did you get that, and what was the cost of the funeral, things
of that sort. Those kinds of questions come up. So each person
is an individual and they have their own way of looking at these
problems that they face when they become newly widowed.
THE CHAIRMAN. Okay.
MS. LEE. It is difficult for them.
THE CHAIRMAN. I would encourage you also, the IT issues are
issues that we have been focusing on in the Committee. They are
very important to the seamless transition issues. And making
sure that the VA goes to a one it architecture. It is one of
our challenging issues. This is very helpful to us, receiving
all this testimony for our business meeting and then we have to
prepare our letters on the budget views and estimates. We
haven’t done it like this before. And this has been extremely
helpful to us.
But I wanted you to know that as we go through the budget and
we do our puts and our takes and buy backs and all kinds of
things we have to do, the IT is extremely important. So even
though the Administration, as we are moving them to
go, didn’t adopt what we had recommended with regard to a centralized
system, they are moving to what they call their federated approach
whereby they are still empowering the CIO and he will be responsible
for the transfer of the assets, meaning the hardware and personnel
and dollars with regard to that, but not on the development side for
now.
And in order to do that and to perfect the system under the one
architecture we are going to have to buy in some things. So
moving to the data processing centers is going to cost about
$60 million. We have got 127,000 PCs out there that aren’t
going to be able to run on the new software operating systems.
So these are nuts and bolts things, you know, that -- it’s not
glamorous. Right? But it’s what we need to do to perfect
the system so that we can provide timely care with the highest
quality possible and ensure that people have that access.
These are really important issues and not everyone has touched
IT. And I just wanted to bring that on everyone’s radar
screen. Mr. Filner, you are now recognized.
MR. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for
your testimony. I think it reflects a deep understanding of
your membership and a commitment to their well being. It
shows through in every sentence that you say. So thank you
very much.
My sense is that everything you asked for is within the
capability of this nation. We can get estimates, I would say
four to five billion dollars above what we are talking about,
in the budget. That sounds like a lot of money. But we have
a two and a half trillion dollar budget, as Colonel Norton
pointed out. We are spending two billion a week on war. So,
a couple weeks of the war would pay for almost everything you
are talking about. And we have to consider this a cost of
war. It should be part of that budget. We are going to look
at supplemental budgets that don’t have to operate under any
budgetary rules. And that is how we should look at the VA
budget.
You have asked for nothing that this nation cannot do, but I
don’t think it’s going to be done, and we have to look at
that reality. I think the fix is in. The President
understated what he needs, so we will bump it up a little bit
to show how we really care for the veterans. But there is
something more going on here, and I think we have to be less
nice here, less polite. We are talking about, you know, real
people with real problems and life and death issues in many
cases.
I think this Administration is purposely trying to downsize as
opposed to expanding the reach of the VA. In their budget
requests at both TRICARE and with the VA enrollment fees they
are saying, "Oh, there is going to be more than 200,000 people
forced out. Great news. We save money." I mean that is just
an insult to the veterans of this nation that we are going to
joyously celebrate the forcing out of hundreds of thousands of
either military retirees or veterans from the health system.
I think we should be boasting about bringing people in.
Instead we are boasting about forcing them out.
The VA Secretary sat here last week, I think, and said "It
wouldn’t be a hardship, these enrollment fees." In the next
sentence says "200,000 will be forced out." I mean, come on.
That is not reality. It is a hardship. That is why they
will be forced out. And we shouldn’t stand for it. I don’t
think this Committee or this Congress will. But that is part
of the game that is being played in the President’s budget.
The Chairman talks repeatedly about "Core Veterans." I think
what he is saying is that sevens and eights should not be
served by this Veterans Administration. I don’t think that
is a good response to the problems we have. To save money
by forcing veterans out of the system is not the approach
that this nation ought to take.
So we have some real problems, and I think you have to adopt
some new strategies to deal with them. Your membership has
got to be told squarely what is going on--that we are probably
$4.2 billion under where we should be just to keep things
going as they are. This Congress and this President aren’t
going to put that back in. They will put some in to show that
they are listening to you. It won’t be anywhere near what
is needed.
But I think this Congress and this President will respond to
the veterans if they take political action, political action
that is going beyond just coming to a hearing, which they are
not even allowed to do anymore, or writing a letter. They
have got to physically meet their Congress person in an
informed way. I think there ought to be demonstrations,
whether in Washington or around the country. I think you have
to make some noise. I think the time to be polite is over.
The fix is in on this stuff.
We don’t have by accident a Secretary who was a political hack
basically, put in charge of the VA. He is going to respond to
a downsizing imperative. I don’t think it’s an accident that
we changed Chairmen of this Committee. For the same reason.
So, you all have to get, I think, a little bit madder and a
little bit more direct, a little bit less polite.
Because you are not going to get what you deserve going the
way we are going. And I think we have to make some noise.
Anybody have any reaction or are you going to join me in making
noise?
THE CHAIRMAN. Dr. Snyder, you are now recognized.
DR. SNYDER. I think Mr. Michaud was a head of me, Mr. Chairman.
I think I came in after he did. Oh, all right. I appreciate
you all’s presence here today. And I will just be brief
because I know we have another panel. But I am one of those
people who, while my total amount of active duty time was only
21 and a half months back in the late ‘60’s, Marine Corp IT
enlistment and early release.
Actually early release to go to begin college a summer term.
I was able to get 45 months of GI Bill. And I didn’t pay in
$100 a month. You know, I just, as a veteran was entitled to
it and at some point the Congress said instead of 36 months,
there is a lot of people going on to graduate school, let’s
make it 45 months which is effectively five school years.
And it was very, very helpful. And so I appreciate not only
you all mentioning that, but you going into some detail in
these presentations, both orally and in your written statements.
And some of the things you talk about are complex when you have
one portion of our population eligible for the GI Bill is under
the jurisdiction of this Committee, another part of the
population is eligible under the Armed Services Committee, of
which I am also a member. And then you have people who, if
they are activated for lengths of time they are accruing GI
Bill benefits as an active duty personnel member. And to say
there are some complexities here -- and I think that the
inertia has been that we haven’t moved as robustly as we --
anywhere near what we ought to frankly. And so I hope that you
all’s statements will add to that and I appreciate that. I
would be interested in hearing more from you personally on some
of the thoughts that you have had. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN. Mr. Michaud.
MR. MICHAUD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too want to thank the
panel for your written testimony as well as your comments.
It’s very refreshing to continue to see you out there, each of
you, actively fighting for our veterans in this country. And
if it wasn’t for your active voice clearly Congress wouldn’t
be doing anything more than what is in the budget. But because
you are here today and because of your membership that is out
there continuing to remind us not only of those who have served
this country and the commitment that we owe veterans and their
survivors, but it also keeps us abreast of what is actually
going on out there in the field. So I really appreciate your
taking the time to come here today to fill us in. Mr. Chairman,
I have no questions. I think they did a great job in their
written testimony as well as their oral remarks. So, thank
you.
DR. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN. Yes. Thank you. Dr. Snyder.
DR. SNYDER. I want to say one thing.
THE CHAIRMAN. Absolutely.
DR. SNYDER. On the issue, let’s see several of you mentioned
medical research and the Chairman has mentioned it in the past
also. Let’s see, Colonel Norton, I think I have your statement
here. And I am sorry I missed your presentation. But you
mentioned medical research in your written statement. I don’t
know if you did that in oral presentation.
But we had a discussion with Dr. Perlin about that here this
week. And you called hence in fact that the budget shows a $17
million increase in the 06 level based on whether they get
non-federal sources. The challenge though, and I think where
they’re running into problems is that it’s my understanding that
the medical research inflation rate is about three point seven
percent per year. And so if there is an actual increase in
nominal dollars of $17 million we are probably going to result
in just right round $60 million or a little less in a real
dollar cut to medical research.
So if we adopt the President’s number just like it is, as it is,
and assume that they are able to pull in additional NIH money,
which may be difficult problematic this year because that number
is not being plused up robustly, you know, it’s not like they are
going to take a corner of the brick to cut off. What is going
to get cut to save that almost $60 million in real dollars will
be personnel and research. And I hope that it’s something that
this Committee will draw a line and appreciate your drawing
attention to it. Yeah, you are back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN. What we have staff drilling into before we can
deliver these fees and estimates for the budget by next week,
is the increase that the VA medical research has been receiving
from outside grants. So they sort of came to us and said we
don’t need as much money from you because we also have gotten
this much of an increase. I just want you to know we are
working to drill down that number. So publicly it appears as
though that it would be a decrease and you bring it to our
attention. But it appears as though that they are getting an
increase from outside sources. But we want to do the math and
make sure its right. And I appreciate you raising our attention,
Dr. Snyder. But I just want to let you know that is happening
right now as we speak.
DR. SNYDER. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. I think the number
in the President’s budget is $1.650 billion total in research,
which is a $17 million increase with a $1.633 billion from the
preceding year. If everything goes as they want and they get
the additional dollars in real dollars it’s a substantial cut
in their ability to deliver services because of the three point
seven percent inflation rate.
THE CHAIRMAN. But what I am saying is that perhaps does not
take into account all of the increase in research dollars that
they are presently receiving. And which we want to understand.
So it would appear as though you say well, there is a cut in
medical research. Well, perhaps not.
DR. SNYDER. Well, I am just going by the budget numbers.
THE CHAIRMAN. Right. I understand.
DR. SNYDER. That one point six five billion in the President’s
budget includes all of the outside money. I think the budget
number, my staff may know, I think it’s $399 million is actual
federal dollars that are coming to the VA in research. So the
one point six five zero billion assumes that they will meet
their mark as far as getting other outside monies. Now, maybe
they will do even better then that.
THE CHAIRMAN. I think they are going to do even better.
DR. SNYDER. Well, they are not showing us that. What they
are telling us they are estimating they are going to get $17
million more. And we are to do the President’s budget number
and assume that they will get the $17 million more will still
mean a $50 to $60 million cut in actual services. But I am
glad you are looking into that.
THE CHAIRMAN. I think you all have been very cautious with
regard to Administration assumptions. So, that is why I
wanted --
DR. SNYDER. That is why I want to work with the gentleman on
the medical research.
THE CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you very much for your
testimony and I would enjoy working with you. This panel is
now excused. If the second panel could please come forward.
First Mr. John Rowan is the National President of Vietnam
Veterans of America. Mr. Rowan I commend you and the work of
your organization, and what you are presently doing to return
the remains of our missing in action from Vietnam.
Mr. Rowan was elected National President of Vietnam Veterans
of America at the organization’s twelfth national convention
in Reno, Nevada. Mr. Rowan served as the Chairman of the
VVA’s conference of the state council presidents and three
terms on the organization’s board of directors. He is President
of VVA’s New York State Council. He served as a linguist in
the United States Air Force Security Service during the Vietnam
War. VVA is the nation’s only congressional chartered veterans
service organization dedicated to the needs of Vietnam war hero
veterans and their families.
Representing the Association of Service Disabled Veterans is
Mr. John K. Lopez. He’s been Chairman since 1985. The
Association emphzsizes economic participation for service
disabled and prisoner of war veterans. He sponsored eight
business development legislative acts in the California
legislature and ten in the United States Congress, all of which
are now public laws. Mr. Lopez is a veteran of the United
States Marine Corps and was disabled in service while in Korea
as a Sergeant. His career has been frequently interrupted by
physical relapse due to his military service injuries, but he
keeps on coming. Mr. Lopez is also Chairman of the SDV Group,
Incorporated and the Service Disabled Veterans Business
Association.
Next we will hear from Mr. George Basher, President, National
Association for the State Directors of Veterans Affairs. He
was appointed director of the New York State division of
Veterans Affairs in March, 1999, by Governor George Patacki.
The Division serves as the State’s advocate for veterans and
their families. He also serves on the board of directors
for the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans. Earlier
this year he was appointed by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs
to the 15 member Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans. The
director received his army commission in 1969 and served three
years in the Ordinance Corps, including a year in Vietnam where
he commanded the 78th Ordinance Detachment.
Representing the American Ex-Prisoners of War is Mr. Les
Jackson, their Executive Director. Mr. Jackson is present
-- strike the word "present". Mr. Jackson is here to present
the testimony of National Commander Gerald Harvey. Mr. Jackson
has been serving as the Executive Director of the American
Ex-Prisoners of War since April of 2001. He qualified for
membership on April 24, 1944, after being captured by no fewer
than 200 of Hitler’s army recruits from a basic training camp
only a few hundred yards from where his B-17 had crashed.
Mr. Jackson, I am sure you have quite a story to tell with
regard to such an event and encourage you to contact the Library
of Congress, if you have not. Please tell your story so that
America and others -- will you do that?
MR. JACKSON. Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. The veterans’ history
project will be enriched by your story. If you would like, what
I will do is I will have Mr. Lariviere be in touch with you
immediately after the hearing and we will let you know how you
can work that with the Library of Congress so your story may be
placed on the official record.
MR. JACKSON. The kind of encouragement I need.
THE CHAIRMAN. Very good. Next we will hear from Ms. Ann Knowles
as President of the National Association of County Veterans
Service Officers. She served Sampson County, North Carolina as
its veterans service officer since 1983. Veterans service
officers perform a unique and valuable service to all of our
nation’s veterans. They are a link between the veteran and the
federal VA system advising veterans, helping them process claims
applications, keeping both veterans and public officials at the
state and local levels up-to-date on veterans issues and
services. I believe this is the first time the National
Association of County Veterans Service Officers has been invited
to present testimony at these hearings and we welcome you.
Finally, we will hear from Mr. Rick Jones, the Legislative
Director for the National Association for Uniformed Services.
Mr. Jones joined NAUS as the legislative director on
September 1, 2005. He is an Army veteran who served as medical
specialist in the Vietnam War era. His assignments include
duty at Brooke General Hospital, U.S. Army in San Antonio,
Texas; at the Fitzsimmons General Hospital in Denver, Colorado;
and Moncrief Community Hospital in Columbia, South Carolina.
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Without objection your written
statements, if all of you have one -- all acknowledged in the
affirmative. Your written statements will be entered into the
record. We will begin with you, Mr. President Rowan Vietnam
Veterans of America.
STATEMENT OF JOHN ROWAN, NATIONAL PRESIDENT,
VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA, ACCOMPANIED BY
RICHARD WEIDMAN, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELA-
TIONS
MR. ROWAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Members of the
Committee. I want to thank you for allowing us to testify this
afternoon. First, Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud your call for
a real GI Bill that would be like the one that we had back in
World War II. When I was teaching as an urban studies professor
I used to teach that program as being one of the best pieces of
social legislation ever put out by this Congress and which
created the middle-class that we know in the United States
today. Without it there would have been no middle-class.
The VVA has a very simple agenda this year. First, funding for
veterans’ health care and other veterans’ services, especially
the comp and pension system in VA. Second, accountability in
each of the above arenas. And third, outreach to inform veterans
as to what their benefits are.
In VVA’s testimony for the record we give breadth and scope to
these issues and to the following issues: the POWs which is
still our highest priority, post traumatic stress disorder, women
veterans health, agent orange and other toxic exposures,
increased employment and training programs, increased business
opportunities for veteran-owned businesses, homeless veterans,
comp and pension reform, and a bold legislative agenda to do
what must be done to assist the new generation of veterans.
Under funding, the cost of caring for veterans, as was mentioned
earlier, is part of the continuing cost of our national defense
and we must keep that in mind at all times. The VA can do a
better job if it’s assured of an adequate budget for veterans
health care. The current discretionary system just does not
work. Last July, Congress was in an uproar over the shortfall.
The VA acknowledged an $800 plus million hole for Fiscal Year
‘05. The VSO’s won’t say to the VA we told you so, but we told
them so.
Mr. Chairman, we want to thank you for your strong and decisive
leadership in resolving that crisis. Again this year we believe
the Administration’s budget request is short by at least two
point three billion dollars. And four point two billion would
be needed to reopen the system to priority eights.
As VVA has said before, we would be discussing a budget eight
to ten billion dollars greater had the VA’s health care budget
not been flat-lined for four years as eligibility reform was
opening the system to hundreds of thousands of deserving
veterans.
There is no doubt that we will all suddenly discover that there
is not enough money at the VA hospitals to last until October,
2006. The bad news is the good news is wrong. The continuly
increasing burden on the health care system is not just caused
by the influx of veterans of the fighting in Iraq and
Afghanistan, but because Vietnam veterans are getting sicker at
an earlier age with diseases and maladies that can be traced
back to our service in southeast Asia. These service-connected
illnesses will pose serious long-term fiscal problems for the
VA that must be addressed. We challenge Congress here and now
to form a bipartisan group to meet, study the issues and
options, hold hearings, and recommend legislation that would
fundamentally change the way in which veterans health care is
funded now, this year, for the ‘07 budget.
A fair funding formula can be arrived at. One that won’t bust
the budget, but one that recognizes our nation’s obligations to
veterans as an on-going cost of national defense that must be
keyed to medical inflation and the per capita use of the VA
health care system.
We are also concerned about the compensation side of the house.
More than half a million veterans’ claims have been in various
stages of adjudication for more than six months. Congress must
demand an accounting why it takes upwards of two and a half
years to adjudicate claims. We need accurate adjudication.
The IG report of May 6, 2005, documented the poor training of
adjudicators and the inordinate pressure to decide cases with
incomplete data. Congress must demand that the VA not only
develop but put into practice a real strategy for unclogging
the system.
We also need greater accountability. We applaud you,
Mr. Chairman, for your task force on accountability and for
including the VSOs in this effort. Budget reform must be
accomplished hand-in-hand with real changes in how VA senior
managers and middle managers and line staff perform. Give
at-a-boys and bonuses to those who have earned them to managers
and workers using objective criteria, but VA must give warnings
and sanctions to those who have not done their jobs well.
Better management and training and competency best taste --
excuse -- competency based testing is needed if efficiency and
effectiveness is to be increased.
We have a need for expanded outreach. According to the census
bureau there are 25 million veterans in the United States and
only one-fifth in any interaction with the VA. Many are eligible
for compensation for several maladies incurred during their
military service and yet far too many of them are unaware of the
benefits to which their service entitles them.
The VA has an obligation to reach out to all veterans to ensure
to the maximum extent possible that they know what benefits
they have earned and that they know how to access these benefits.
In VVA’s 2006 legislative agenda and policy initiatives, which
I hope you all have gotten and if you haven’t we will make sure
we have them to you, we discussed several other priorities,
including the following major issues.
The National Vietnam Veterans Longitudinal Study must be done as
required by Public Law 106-419. The utter contempt that the VA
has shown and continues to show for the law and for the will of
Congress must not be allowed to continue. We must ask you to
fully investigate this mess of the VA’s creation and force the
completion of the NVVLS at an early date. The Congress and all
of us need the results of this study in order to quantify the
health status of Vietnam veterans so that the VA can accurately
forecast their future needs.
This study should also provide the VA and the Congress with the
framework for forecasting the needs of those brave Americans
serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere today. VA urges
the early passage of HR 4259, the Veterans’ Right to Know
Commission Act, as well as action by this Committee to secure an
extension of health care for those veterans who are exposed to
biological weapons, chemical weapons, as well as harmful
stimulants and decontaminates during SHAD and Project 112.
Lastly, we need an additional 250 full-time permanent staff at
the VA centers, the Vet centers, to properly assist OIF/OEF Vets
and their families with the PTSD problems that are coming home
from Iraq and Afghanistan.
Mr. Chairman and the Committee, VVA thanks you and all the
distinguished Members of this Committee on both sides of the
aisle for your leadership, your service to veterans, and for all
of your hard work. I would be pleased to answer any questions
you may have. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. John Rowan appears on p. 132]
THE CHAIRMAN. Will you please hold for a second? We need to
wait for Mr. Filner, here. All right. Mr. Lopez, please, you
may proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF JOHN K. LOPEZ, CHAIRMAN, ASSOCIATION
FOR SERVICE DISABLED VETERANS
MR. LOPEZ. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member, Members of the Committee. The Association for Service
Disabled Veterans continues to focus on rehabilitation as an
alternative to improving the quality of life of our veteran.
It has been nearly six years since the U.S. Congress first
provided support for the service disabled and prisoner of war
veteran enterprise initiative by enacting Public Law 106-50 and
Public Law 108-183.
The Administration followed that direction by invoking
Presidential Executive Order 13360, directing aggressive and
immediate implementation of those laws and specifying actions
to be taken.
Those activities took place in October 2004 and since that time
the frustration has continued. For example, when Public Law
106-50 was enacted the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council
contended that the main intent of the legislation by Congress
was unclear and therefore the required establishment of a
program for service-disabled veterans did not exist.
Subsequently, the legislative intent of the United States
Congress has ben variously interpreted by regulators due to the
necessity for inserting and parsing of the required language,
statements, and references to existing regulations and public
laws. This bureaucratic obfuscation has the effect of confusing
and impeding the effort to increase the participation of the
service-disabled veteran in government procurement and
contracting opportunities.
H.R. 3082 The Veteran Owned Small Business Promotion Act,
clarifies and reemphasizes the intent of the U.S. Congress. The
intent is a splendid example of the concern and focus of the
Committee’s response to the veteran’s need for rehabilitation
and transition assistance.
H.R. 3082 gives specific authority to the Department of
Veterans’ Affairs to confirm the eligibility of service disabled
veteran businesses and to accept direct responsibility for the
provision of benefit to the veteran, especially the service
disabled veteran. It puts the task to that agency specifically
established for the purpose of serving those who have borne the
battle.
Included is concern for th total family. The age-old adage
that, "Beside every successful man stands a woman", pales in
significance when compared to the role of wives, mothers,
sisters, and daughters who care for those service disabled and
prisoner of war veterans that are enhancing their rehabilitation
through the ownership and management of businesses. At the same
time, at the very same time hey are assisting them in their
business.
Besides the enormous burden of caring for the service disabled
veterans’ life-long disabilities, incurred in sacrifice for the
well being of all the free world, these women are vested
participants in the daily management of he service disabled
veteran enterprise. Without their participation the service
disabled veteran enterprise is surely doomed to failure. For
too long has this extraordinary contribution gone unrecognized
and the unique investment of vested women gone uncompensated.
Present legal interpretation states that the legal entitlement of
the service disabled veteran enterprise ceases when the service
disabled veteran owner dies or is incapacitated, leaving the
significantly invested vested woman with a practically totally
devalued business. The actual vested woman role as a de facto
partner and the enabling force in the enterprise is discarded.
This is an unacceptable disposition of the accomplishments of the
service disabled veteran and the sacrifice of the vested woman,
disgracing the responsibility of the nation for the sacrifices of
the veterans’ unique initiative. HR 3082 will alleviate this
injustice and provide for service disabled veteran business
succession.
In the words of one vested woman, "Women have stood by too long
while our disabled veteran loved ones have taken abuse and
disrespect for their sacrifice for this nation while they struggle
with their own rehabilitation. That will now stop."
It is estimated that over 2,500,000 women are integral in the
operation of the service disabled veteran enterprise and over 15
million women in all veteran owned businesses.
HR 3082 also clarifies the misconception that veterans’
entrepreneurship and the proposed at are a socioeconomic
development initiative or a cultural inequity panacea. HR 3082
is a specific contribution to that continuing obligation or our
nation to rehabilitate those veterans that have sacrificed for
our nation’s security and prosperity.
The service disabled veterans government service and his incurred
misery is unique. There is no justification for requiring that
service disabled veteran indemnification and rehabilitation be
adjusted to the conduct of any other socioeconomic program.
Future generations of American military heroes will be forever
indebted to the Congress, and especially the 109th Congress,
for their commitment to honor and support those killed, maimed,
and tortured in the continuing struggle to provide security and
prosperity fo the people of this world. Those Iraqi Afghanistan
veterans returning from harms way are experiencing a far
different outreach from others who have served, and that is a
tribute to the conscience of the Members of the U.S. Congress.
The 25 million veterans of our nation thank the Chairman and
Ranking Members of the Committee and Subcommittees. The
500,000 grandmothers, 12 million wives, 6 million granddaughters
and their dogs that are direct stakeholders and beneficiaries of
veteran’s entrepreneurial investment and the 30 million employees
of veteran enterprises thank the U.S. Congress for the
compassionate and responsible --
THE CHAIRMAN. John, can we include cats?
MR. LOPEZ. Just dogs. That have demonstrated -- that is pretty
funny -- in the development of veterans entrepreneurship. We ask
that the Congress enact HR 3082 expeditiously and that the
Congress stay acutely engaged in a process of verifying that the
intent of veteran entrepreneurship development legislation is
implemented. Thank you for your attention. I will be pleased
to answer any questions the members may have.
[The statement of Mr. John Lopez appears on p. 163]
THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lopez. Mr. Basher.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE BASHER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF STATE DIRECTORS OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS
MR. BASHER. Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the
Committee, as President of the National Association of State
Directors of Veterans Affairs I think you for the opportunity
to testify and present the views of our state directors of all
50 states, commonwealths and territories.
As the nation’s second largest provider of services to
veterans, spending over $3.5 billion annually, state
governments’ role continues to grow. We believe it is
essential for Congress to understand this role and to 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 continuously
striving to be more efficient in delivering services to
veterans.
Under health care benefits and services 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.
We support the opening of additional community based outpatient
clinics. We would like to see the new priority CBOCs deployed
rapidly with appropriate VA medical center funding.
We recommend an in-depth examination of long-term care and
mental health services. The CARES Commission review did not
include long-term are 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 needs and continue the study currently being
done on mental health care needs, to include gap analysis
clearly identifying where service are lacking. The CARES report
recognized state veterans homes asa critical component of
veterans’ long-term health care and a model of cost-efficient
partnership between federal and state governments. These state
nursing care facilities and domiciliaries bear over half of the
national long-term health care workload for our infirm and aging
veteran population. Forty-eight states provide care for more
than 27,500 veterans in 120 homes. We urge you to continue to
oppose proposals that jeopardize the viability of our state
veteran homes. State taxpayers have supported the homes through
its 35 percent share of construction costs with an understanding
that the federal government would continue to make its
contribution through per diem payments. The federal government
should continue to fulfill its important commitment to the
states and ultimately to the individual veterans in need of
care.
MR. FILNER. Has Mr. Chairman finished talking to his staff so
we may continue?
MR. BASHER. NASDVA continues its strong support for the state
home construction grant program. 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 ‘07 be increased to $115 million. Re-ranking of
projects should be eliminated once a project is established a
priority one project with state matching funds available.
Since 1977, state construction grant requests have consistently
exceeded Congressional appropriations for the program. According
to the ‘06 priority list of pending home applications there are
80 projects in the priority one group with state matching funds
of $226 million committed and a federal match of $420 million.
Any grant moratorium only exacerbates an already underfunded
program, where the fiscal year ‘06 appropriation was only $85
million.
The success of VA’s efforts to meet its current and future
long-term care needs of veterans is contingent on resolving the
current mismatch between demand and available funding. We
recommend this issue be included in any long-term care study
undertaken.
We support full reimbursement fo care in state veteran homes for
veterans who have 70 percent or more service-connected disability
or who require nursing home care because of a service-connected
disability. Currently community homes are paid are paid the full
daily cost of care but if that same veteran was in a state
nursing home they would only receive the federal per diem.
We support increase in per diem to provide one-half of the
national average annual cost of care in a state veterans’ home.
Today it’s less than 25 percent. We support VA medicare
subvention.
We recommend that VA implement a medicare subvention program
similar to the unrealized VA Advantage Program. Working with
the Department of Health and Human Services this program would
allow a priority group eight veterans aged 65 and older to use
their medicare benefits to obtain VA health care. VA would
receive medicare payments to cover costs. It’s an HMO concept
we have supported in the past. However, we are concerned about
he delay in implementation of a pilot. It was our understanding
two years ago that this program would be available to veterans
within a few months and another year has now passed without
implementation.
We also request continued protection of the federal supply
schedule for VA and DOD pharmaceuticals. We support continued
efforts to reach out to veterans. This should be a partnership
between VA and the state Departments of Veterans’ Affairs.
While growth has occurred in VA health care due to improved
access to CBOCs, many areas of the country are still short
changed due to geography and/or due to veterans lack of
information and awareness of their benefits. VA and state
directors must reduce this inequity by reaching out to veterans
regarding their rights and entitlements. We support
implementation of a grant program that would allow VA to
partner with state directors 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.
Under compensation and pension, we support consideration of a
greater role for state directors in the overall effort to
manage and administer claims processing, regardless of whether
the state uses state employees, veterans service organizations,
or county veterans service officers. Recent studies regarding
claims processing have all noted that VA needs to make better
use of the assets of the state and local government to assist
in claim processing. The claim processing task force is one
example. Additionally, as noted in the recent VA Inspector
General’s Report, "Veteran access to competent claim assistance
is still very much an accident of geography." Effective
advocacy for veterans from an initiation of a claim to VA
decision can improve sufficiency and timeliness of the claims.
Numerous studies indicate well developed claims produce better
outcomes for veterans in a shorter time at a lower cost to VA.
State directors, nationally chartered VSOs and county veteran
service officers have the capacity and capability to assist VA.
State directors can be an effective partner with VA to
establish and achieve higher performance standards in claims
preparation. State directors could assume a role in more
effective and comprehensive training programs, certification of
service officers, to ensure competence and technical proficiency
in claims preparation. We can support VA in its duty to assist
without diminishing our role as advocates.
For all the reports and testimony to the contrary, VBA has not
been very successful in making effective use of the state,
county, service officers systems of service auditors and
counselors. We further recommend the establishment and
enforcement of uniform training programs, performance measures
for all personnel involved in the preparation of claims.
Under burial and memorial benefits, we recommend an increase in
the plot allowance for all veterans to $1,000 per interment,
it’s currently $300. And we strongly support an increase in
funding for the state cemetery grant program, a new federal
state national cemetery administration grant program could be
established to support state costs.
We also support efforts to diminish the national disgrace of
homelessness among veterans. State directors would prefer an
active role in allocating and distributing per diem funds for
homeless veterans to non-profit organizations ensuring greater
coordination, fiscal accountability, and local oversight of
the services provided. We also strongly support improving upon
and providing seamless transition to help our service members
transition into civilian life.
We support the expansion of the Transition Assistance Program
and efforts need to be made to maximize the integration of
services provided by DOD, VA and state and local governments.
It must be recognized that no single agency can adequately meet
the transition needs of our returning service members.
We strongly support veterans’ preference with regard to
employment. We support full implementation of existing programs
and laws with regard to veterans’ preference to ensure our
returning veterans have every opportunity available in their
transition into civilian life. We also support incentives to
businesses that hire veterans.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the
Committee, we respect the important work that you have done to
improve support to veterans who have answered the call to
serve our nation. The National Association of State Directors
of Veterans’ Affairs 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 VA
in the delivery of services and care to our nation’s veterans.
This concludes my statement and I am ready to answer any
questions you may have. Thank you.
[The statement of Mr. George Basher appears on p. 176]
THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Basher. Mr. Jackson,
you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF LES JACKSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
AMERICAN EX-PRISONERS OF WAR
MR. JACKSON. I want to talk as fast as the three gentlemen on
my right. I don’t have as much to say. Chairman Buyer,
Ranking Member Evans, distinguished Members of the Veterans --
House Veterans’ Affairs Committee and guests.
I welcome the opportunity to again speak on behalf of American
Ex-Prisoners of War. We are deeply grateful for all that the
Congress and the Veterans Administration has done for POWs
over the last 30 years. As you know, prior to that POWs were
an invisible part of the veteran population. It has been
incorrectly stated that we preferred it that way out of shame
over being captured. This is not true. We are proud to have
lost our liberty while defending the right of all Americans
to be free. We were so happy to be free we simply wanted to
again get to enjoy our homes and our families and get back to
raising -- starting a new career. As a result, we made few
requests upon the government at that time.
Public awareness about the plight of aging POWs generally was
reawakened when the plight of the Americans held for months
and years in North Vietnam. Max Cleland, was the VA
Administrator at that time, and he later became Senator from
Georgia. He took the lead in correcting the country’s failure
to remember POWs form the earlier wars, including World War II.
VA then immediately took steps to identify all POWs receiving
benefits, health benefits and disability benefits. Congress
responded and directed VA to conduct a review of all policies
and procedures relative to POWs and established a POW Advisory
Committee to review and evaluate VA and Congressional matters
as they relate to POWs.
Over the last 30 years many presumptives were established to
simplify the procedures by which POWs could obtain needed
disability benefits and medical care. The ongoing research
conducted on POWs by the National Academy of Sciences provided
the basis for these ongoing Congressional studies for VA. At
present most of the long-term health problems causally
related -- associated with the brutal and inhumane treatment
of being captive have been identified and made presumptive.
We urge Congress to act on the several remaining medical
conditions identified in certain legislation. The first of
these is chronic liver disease. It is simply a clarification
of a current presumptive, cirrhosis of the liver. The
National Academy of Sciences has stated in writing that more
currently reflects their findings. Cirrhosis is simply the
final stages of chronic liver disease.
The second is diabetes. It has already been established for
Vietnam veteran exposed to certain chemicals and other factors.
POWs similarly were exposed to adverse factors while captured
and are causally related to diabetes.
Third, osteoporosis. This is directly related to absence of
the calcium needed to maintain bone structure, a common
situation for POWs. This condition becomes apparent after
a bone breaks.
Adjudicators typically already decide these claims for POWs.
Making it a presumptive simplifies the process for
adjudicators as well as POWs alike.
HR 1588 introduced by Representative Mike Bilirakis and
S. 1271 introduced by Senator Patty Murray cover these
presumptives. We ask the full Committee to support these
bills.
We call to your attention that these bills have virtually
no increase cost to any of these -- many of these proposed
presumptives. Costs are more than offset by rapidly
diminishing numbers of POWs already on the disability rolls
or favorably acted upon by VA adjudicators via a longer
process of evaluation.
Also I want to include -- recognize the fact that Congressman
Filner has introduced HR 2369, which awards a Purple Heart
to every POW who died while in captivity. We urge the
support of the Committee for these bills. The American
Ex-Prisoners of War appreciates the opportunity to share our
views with you.
[The statement of Mr. Les Jackson appears on p. 176]
THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Jackson, for your testimony.
Ms. Knowles, you are now recognized.
STATEMENT OF ANN KNOWLES, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY VETERANS SERVICE OFFICERS
MS. KNOWLES. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Committee, it is truly my honor to be able to present this
testimony before you today. As President of the National
Association of County Veterans Service Officers, I am
commenting on three things. Recommendation for the creation
of a new federal, state, and local government partnership to
provide outreach to veterans and their dependents; the
development of standardized training for county veterans
service officers; recommendation for claims development
improvement.
The National Association of County Veterans Service Officers
is an organization made up of local government employees. Our
members are tasked with assisting veterans and their dependents
in applying for benefits with the VA. We exist to serve
veterans and partner with the national service organizations
and the VA to serve veterans. Our Association focuses on
outreach, standardized training, and claims processing. We
are an arm of the government, not unlike the VA itself in
service to the nation’s veterans and their dependents.
Our workforce represents approximately 2,400 government
employees available to partner with VA to help speed the process
of claims development and transition by military personnel back
to civilian life. Upon discharge, the service man or woman
becomes a veteran who returns to the local community. When
health issues become apparent and help is needed, the most
visible and accessible assistance is your County Veterans
Service Officer.
As we sit here today discussing the needs of the veterans
across this great land, it soon becomes apparent that there
are many areas that need attention. Outreach and claims
processing improvements are essential if we are to fulfill the
obligation proclaimed by Abraham Lincoln "To care for him who
shall have borne the battle and for his widows and his
orphans." That is our focus and that is our passion.
The year 2005 brought much needed changes and additions to the
veterans’ laws. And the National Association of County
Veterans’ Service Officers commends Congress on your
ccomplishments of 2005. However, there is much more that
remains to be done in the arena of unmet needs.
I would like to take a few minutes to address our legislative
priorities beginning with outreach. Outreach efforts must be
expanded in order to reach those veterans and dependents that
are unaware of their benefits and to bring them into the system.
Nearly two million poor veterans and their impoverished widows
are likely missing out on as much as $22 billion a year in
pension benefits from the U.S. government. But the VA has had
only limited success in finding them according to the North
Carolina Charlotte Observer.
Widows are the hardest hit. According to VA’s own estimate only
one in seven, only one in seven of the survivors of the nation’s
deceased veterans who likely could qualify for pensions actually
get the monthly checks. Veterans and widows are unaware that
the program exists. They simply don’t know about it and the VA
knows that many are missing out on the benefits. "We obviously
are here for any veteran or survivor who qualifies," says a VA
pension official. "There are so many of them we don’t know who
they are or where they are." The VA’s own report of 2004
recommended that the agency improve its outreach efforts with
public service announcements and pilot programs. While it made
limited efforts to reach veterans or the widows through existing
channels, it is difficult to determine whether such efforts have
been successful.
Nonetheless, VA’s estimate of the program shows the potential
pool of poor veterans and widows without the pension has
remained unchanged for four years. A VA report estimated an
additional 853,000 veterans and 1.1 million survivors,
generally widows, could get the pensions but don’t. Of all
those likely eligible only 27 percent of the veterans and 14
percent of widows receive the money. It’s obvious there is a
great need for outreach into the veterans’ community and the
local CVSO is the advocate closest to the veterans and their
widows. Therefore, NACVSO is supporting House Bill 4264 and
companion bill, Senate 1990 introduced by Congressman Mike
McIntyre and Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina that would
allow Secretary Nicholson to provide federal and state, local
grants and assistance to state and county veterans’ service
officers to enhance outreach through veterans and their
dependents.
Secondly, standardized training for CVSOs. Across the United
States there are approximately 3,000 state and county veteran
service officers who are required by the state and local laws
to assist veterans and their dependents in applying for
benefits from the VA. The laws of the states are inconsistent
in the requirements for employment of service officers, their
training requirements and their accreditation process. Some
states have a very strict detailed training program with an
accreditation test that must be passed. They also include a
continuing education process that must be met each year to
maintain accreditation, and in some cases, to maintain
employment.
This is in contrast to other states that have little or no
training and do not have an accreditation program. If the
state law is a "shall operate a county veterans service
office" versus a "may operate a county veterans office" there
very well could be a big difference on how the county veterans
offices are funded and operate. Depending on where in this
country one may go there are great disparities on how the
offices are funded, operated, and the level of staff training.
Most county veterans offices operate on bare bone budgets by
their respective counties. To overcome these deficiencies in
the service to veterans across the country a method of
standardized training must be established. To enhance
training we must also have a reliable accreditation process,
a method to maintain that accreditation, and a means to track
current status of accredited service officers. Seventy-five
percent to ninety-five percent of all claims filed through
the regional offices across this country are filed by a county
and state veterans service officer. We are the ones that sit
at the table across from the veterans on a daily basis.
Finally, claims development. NACVSO sees the role of county
veterans service officers as one of advocacy and claims
development in concert with the veteran or dependent at the
grassroots level. Where the initial claim is prepared and
the necessary supporting documentation is gathered from
veterans or dependents, private medical sources, county, state
public records, VA medical center, and reviewed for
completeness. This complete package is passed off to a state
or a national service officer for review and presentation to
the VA regional office of jurisdiction. Any hearings or
additional records required would be obtained by this
organization in concert with the CVSO of record.
The majority of the CVSOs have the capability of electronic
filing. We currently are able to perform many electronic
activities with other agencies and institutions. NACVSO
strongly believes for the CVSO to have access to the VA’s
electronic files would greatly improve the claims process, speed
veterans’ awards, and help eliminate the loss of files as well
as enhance VA’s own record keeping.
Currently the partnership between the VA and CVSOs based upon
eligibility criteria that includes training and accreditation
has allowed us access to certain screens on SHARE and MAP-D,
which are the VA’s computerized claims process and development
systems. Even with this limited access we still must use the VA
office regional phone units to get information on appeals and
ratings. Expansions of remote access to include VACOLS, RBA
2000, CPRI and eventually Virtual VA systems must become a high
priority if there is to be the ultimate electronic claims
development. All of this would increase productivity and be an
additional way to speed the processing of veterans claims to
reduce the inventory.
On behalf of the National Association of County Veterans Service
Officers I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity
to share these thoughts with you. It is truly an honor for us to
be a part of this process. Now I would be glad to entertain any
questions.
[The statement of Ms. Ann Knowles appears on p. 179]
THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you Ms. Knowles. Mr. Jones, you are now
recognized.
STATEMENT OF RICK JONES, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES
MR. JONES. Chairman Buyer, Mr. Filner, Mr. Michaud, Members of
the Committee, Major General Bill Matz, NAUS President, sends his
regrets. He is in Tampa, Florida, today at a meeting of the
Veterans Disability Benefits Commission where he serves at the
request of President Bush.
On behalf of the nationwide membership of the National
Association for Uniformed Services, I am pleased to present our
legislative priorities. First and foremost, NAUS urges the
Committee’s support to ensure veterans have access to quality
health care at VA. NAUS applauds the Committee in its effort
to lead Congress on the discovery of funding shortfalls found
in last year’s budget and for taking action to shore up VA’s
financial troubles.
NAUS also appreciates your work, Mr. Chairman, in seeing that
VA was exempted from the one percent across the board cut made
in appropriations for the current year.
Mr. Chairman, the provision of quality timely care is
considered one of the most important benefits afforded veterans.
We urge the Committee to fully fund VHA and we endorse The
Independent Budget recommendation of $32.4 billion without
increased fees and co-pays for total medical care.
Mr. Chairman, for several years certain veterans have been
prohibited from enrollment in VA’s health care system under
a decision made by the Secretary on January 17, 2003. NAUS
urges the Committee to review this policy and provide a measure
of relief to allow at least medicare eligible veterans to gain
access to VA’s prescription drug program. As a result of VA’s
decision to restrict new enrollments, a great number of veterans,
including medicare eligible veterans, are denied access to VA.
NAUS recognizes that VA fills and distributes more than 100
million prescriptions annually to five million veteran patients.
As a high volume purchaser of pharmaceuticals VA is able to
secure a significant discount on medication purchases.
Enrolled veterans can obtain prescription paying $8.00 for each
30 day supply. However, veterans not enrolled for care before
January 2003 are denied an earned benefit that similarly
situated enrolled veterans are able to use.
NAUS asks the Committee to consider legislation that would allow
medicare eligible veterans to get a break on prescription drug
pricing. What we recommend is to give medicare eligible
veterans currently banned from the system and paying retail
prices, or using the newly established Part D program, access to
the same discount provided VA in their purchases of
prescriptions. Providing the discount would not cost the
government a cent. Medicare eligible patients would pay the same
price the VA pays. And these veterans would see value restored
and returned in a benefit each earned through military service.
It looks like a win-win.
Mr. Chairman, despite VA’s best efforts to deliver benefits to
entitled veterans, the workload of the Veterans Benefits
Administration continues to increase. As of mid-February VBA
had more than 500,000 compensation pension claims pending
decision, an increase of nearly 70,000 from this time last year.
NAUS does not see the problem as something that cannot be
overcome. A stronger VA budget would provide for the hiring
and training of claims adjudicators and the investment in
appropriate technology to overcome the backlog and get the
program back on track.
Mr. Chairman, the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee has an
excellent record of oversight on administrative efforts to
improve the seamless transition for service members as they
leave military service and become veterans. Providing a
seamless transition is especially important for the most
severely injured patients. No veteran leaving military service
should fall through the bureaucratic cracks in this transition.
NAUS requests that the Committee continue to schedule oversight
hearings to push for progress. NAUS compliments VA and DOD for
following through on establishing benefit representatives at
military hospitals. This is an important step and can often
help reduce the amount of frustration inherent in the separation
process.
Mr. Chairman, our troops with limb loss is a matter of national
concern. Improved body armor, better advantages in battlefield
medicines have reduced fatalities, however, injured soldiers
are coming back oftentimes with severe, grievous physical
losses. NAUS encourages Congressional decision makers to
ensure that funding for VA’s prosthetic research is adequate
to support the full range of programs needed to meet current
and future health challenges facing wounded veterans. The need
is great.
Lieutenant Colonel Paul Pasquina, chief of physical medical and
rehabilitation at Walter Reed says, "About 15 percent of the
amputees at Walter Reed have lost more than one limb." And
according to Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Gamble, chief of amputee
clinic, about one-third of the amputations done on recently
injured service members have involved upper extremities because
of the type of munitions used by our enemy.
In order to help meet the challenge, VA research requires
funding for continued development of advance prostheses that
will perform more like normal limbs. NAUS would also like to
see better coordination between VA and the Department of Defense
Advanced Research Projects Agency in the development of
prosthetics that are readily adaptable to aid amputees. NAUS
looks forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, to see that
priority is given for these brave men and women with special
needs.
Mr. Chairman, more than 50 years ago Army psychiatrists reported
that psychiatric casualties in combat are as inevitable as
gunshot and shrapnel wounds in warfare. At VA Secretary
Nicholson reports VA is seeing about 12 percent of returning
troops for PTSD examination. And about 40,000 OIF/OEF soldiers
are showing symptoms of PTSD and are currently in some process
of treatment.
Beyond the number of new veterans from OIF and OEF, VA provides
treatment for some type of mental health service to more than
833,000 of the nearly five million veterans who received VA
care in fiscal year 2004. NAUS urges the Committee to push VA
to develop a working approach that leads to more effective early
intervention and to healing. Secretary Nicholson said he
supports that in his testimony.
NAUS appeals to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs to approve an
annual COLA adjustment. To prevent inflation from eroding
disability compensation and disability and indemnity
compensation. We urge you, because this decision is in your
hands, to be generous and liberal in the cost of living
adjustment.
NAUS thanks you, Mr. Chairman, for stating your interest in a
total force framework for a new GI Bill for education. We look
forward to working with you to develop a veterans education
assistance program that provides benefits based on a continuum
of service and includes members of the National Guard and
Reserve.
We appreciate your leadership in traumatic injury insurance.
This new and very necessary program is much appreciated by those
who actually need the funds. These brave men and women and
their families deserve nothing less. And we appreciate your
effort on their behalf.
NAUS encourages the Committee to closely review permitting
medicare eligible veterans to use their medicare entitlement for
care at local VA medical facilities. We support medicare
reimbursement.
And Mr. Chairman, we ask the Committee to play an active role
in helping to move concurrent receipt forward. We recognize
it’s not in your jurisdiction. But we recommend the Committee
work to extend concurrent receipt to include individuals
medically discharged from service prior to achieving 20 years
of service.
Mr. Chairman, you and your Committee Members have made progress.
We thank you and your excellent staff. Again, NAUS deeply
appreciates the opportunity to present our Association’s
priorities on veterans’ health and benefits. Thank you, sir.
[The statement of Mr. Rick Jones appears on p. 189]
THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I will also bring to your
attention as I have done with other panels with regard to the
general discharges. You were present, I think, when you heard
me bring that to your attention. I just want to make sure that
you take that back to your membership so that the Pentagon gets
the right message on how these individuals should appropriately
be handled. Ms. Knowles.
MS. KNOWLES. Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN. There is a reason we asked you to testify here
for your Association for the first time. And you are absolutely
correct. You and your membership are located in every county
in America and our territories. And so you in a lot of
circumstances are the very first person that they see. And as
we were trying to improve this seamless transition and move to
a one IT architecture and you are part of this partnership.
Not only is it you, it’s the Veterans’ Service Offices, and the
state directors, and as we want to move to this architecture
there is this hesitation in the VA to include you as part of
our one architecture. Do you sense that also?
MS. KNOWLES. Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN. Yes. So, I wanted you to come here today. I was
very interested in what your testimony was going to be. I
wanted the Committee to be able to hear it. And I would like
for you to explore that a little more. So the first question
would be, of your counties do you know how many counties in
America -- let me ask it this way -- are all county veteran
service offices computerized?
MS. KNOWLES. No, sir. They are not. Some of your smaller
counties, Mississippi is one that we work with a lot, there is
very few in that state that have computers. They have some.
They are, you know -- as I said, the veterans service office is
the bare bones budget and the counties give the budget. So we
are not high on the priority list to get the equipment. That is
why we do partner with the state. And that is why we feel in
order to move forward we need some help from the VA,
standardized training and electronic equipment in our counties.
THE CHAIRMAN. Mr. Basher, how would you respond to the counties
out there that are saying they are not being properly funded?
MR. BASHER. I think that they run the gambit. Some are very
well resourced. Some, like down -- especially down in the south,
they have very, very limited resources. I know most state
governments struggle to make sure that those counties have
whatever resources are available. I know that in some cases
even VA works to make surplus equipment available to county
organizations and service organizations. But as Ms. Knowles
points out, there is no uniform standards. There is no
performance measures. So it’s very, very hard to capture this
data.
THE CHAIRMAN. All right. But as we move toward standardization,
the goal would be to seek that you be incorporated under the
one architecture. You are the individual, your memberships are
the ones that are in close proximity to our governors.
MR. BASHER. Yes.
THE CHAIRMAN. Right?
MR. BASHER. Yes, sir.
THE CHAIRMAN. So the governors need to make sure they have you
in the budgets. County commissioners need to make sure that they
have you in the budgets. Right? I mean we all have to, we here
in Congress, we end up dealing with all these shortfalls, whether
it’s a township fire department in Homeland Security; whether
it’s making sure that they have access to bulletproof vests. I
mean you can go down the list here and I just want to make sure
that we are going to be able to pull all this together. But too
often there is this, well, we will get the federal government to
pay for it too. And states and localities need to make sure that
they step up to the plate here in their partnership. That’s why
I wanted to make sure that we have a communication between the
counties and the states. President Rowan.
MR. ROWAN. Yes. I would like to just add to that too. In your
discussion, we support it all the time at the state level and in
the county levels in trying to get their budgets in hand. And
we have been trying to explain to these elected officials that in
fact this is an economic development program to them. When each
of these service offices and each of these counties and state
agencies do their job, they bring federal dollars into those
districts. And just as you Congress members go back and forth
trying to bring federal dollars into your district in every way
you can, these programs are probably one of the most efficient
and certainly one of the nicest ways to bring federal dollars
into their district by helping those people who actually live
there.
One of the other things I might point out, however, that disturbs
me in the architecture discussions you had. A year ago I got new
computers for my service officer in the VA regional office in
New York. And we went out to talk to the computer people in the
VA about what we should go buy. They said "Well make sure you
get it that it has Windows 2000." I said, well this is 2004 --
this is 2005. Why don’t I get Windows XP? "Oh, no, we can’t
handle that. You’ve got to get Windows 2000." And I am sitting
here in 2005 saying why am I getting 2000 when I should be
getting XP which is the newest version and the VA wasn’t up to
snuff.
So I hope that when we move forward that we all move forward and
we get up to the modern day technology and that the VA comes into
the fold as well.
THE CHAIRMAN. That will be part of the discussion that will
begin at 3:00 o’clock today on the budget. To make sure that
the CIO, has been empowered, with a lot of support on a
bipartisan basis from this Committee to do this. And now as we
move that hardware over to him, we want to make sure that he
gets those 127,000 computers. You know what I mean? We are
going to be doing this kind of stuff. So this is going to be a
substantial investment.
But I think it will pay great dividends. I am most hopeful.
But we may have this circumstance whereby we are going to
modernize on the hardware on the VA side and then we are going
to turn to the State directors and to the counties. So I just
want to make sure we are all getting on the same page.
Mr. Lopez, please work closely with Dr. Boozman and Ms. Herseth
with regard to your policy initiative which you testified on.
I would encourage that. I will yield right now -- I have one --
all right. Mr. Filner, you are recognized.
MR. FILNER. Again, thank you for your testimony. Your passion
for serving our veterans is very noticeable, and we appreciate
that. I think you heard me say before that the budget proposal
from the Administration and probably what this Committee will
officially submit is an insult to the veterans and does not
handle virtually any of the issues that you discussed today.
I wish we would have a more public debate on that. The
Chairman and I differ on our view of what the VA should be
doing. And we should debate that.
We have a different view of the budget. This Committee for
the second year in a row will not have a public vote on the
budget that we are sending to the House. We do not have the
thousands of veterans from your organization watching what we
do. I think this is all part of an explicit plan to keep that
knowledge from as many people as possible. I think it’s a
disgrace that we’re operating in that way.
You mentioned outreach. And I am talking general terms. We
talked about $4.2 billion short or something. That doesn’t
get to the issues that you all talked about. We are not doing
the outreach that you all want. I will just use the PTSD
situation that many of you are familiar with and you all know.
The Vietnam Vets are too well informed about what happens when
we don’t recognize mental conditions as a VA responsibility when
our vets come home. One-half of the homeless on the street
tonight are Vietnam Vets. We did something wrong there. We are
in danger of repeating the mistake with our young men and women
coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. I will wait until you
finish, Mr. Chairman.
THE CHAIRMAN. Cell phones are not permitted in the Committee
room. Absolutely not.
MR. FILNER. Up to 4050 of the men and women who are coming back
from Iraq and Afghanistan have been estimated to have PTSD. And
yet, we do not have either the resources or, more importantly,
the outreach to the families involved to get them the treatment
that will prevent what the Vietnam Vets have seen and see every
day.
We don’t have outreach to the families so they recognize the
behaviors. We had testimony here from an Army Captain, whose
husband returned from Iraq, who exhibited all the classic
symptoms: domestic violence, nightmares, irrational behaviors,
and they had no idea what was going on. He eventually
committed suicide. They should know what was going on, the
children and the family, so that they could help get treatment.
We should have mandatory evaluations when our young men and
women come back. Too many of those people think that if they
admit some mental situation, it hurts their career or hurts
their self esteem or other people’s view of them, when we know
mental conditions can be more difficult than actual physical
conditions to deal with.
So we are not doing the outreach. In fact we are doing it in
reverse. Our VA has instructed people in the field not to
talk about enrollment procedures and what benefits are
available. We glory in the fact that we are going to kick
hundreds of thousands of people out of VA and TRICARE to save
money. So we are doing just the reverse. And it shows up in
the PTSD situation. We need outreach to families. We need
evaluations of the young men and women coming back. We need
the resources in our local hospitals. We have already
reports of the same things that happened with Vietnam Vets:
homelessness, loss of jobs, suicides, domestic violence.
And we know how to deal with it. That is the tragic thing.
We know how to deal with it! We need the outreach. And the
cost of that, I don’t care what it is, we should be paying it
because we can’t afford not to. It should be part of the cost
of the war and we just get in worse problems down the line if
we don’t handle it now.
So thank you. And I hope you will continue to press our
nation on doing what it should do for our brave veterans,
especially those coming home today.
THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Filner. Mr. Michaud, you are
now recognized.
MR. MICHAUD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too want to thank
the panel for your testimony today. I really appreciate it
and I can associate myself with a lot of your comments,
whether it’s prosthetic research, PTSD, the fact that taking
care of our veterans should be part of he cost of the war,
which I agree with 100 percent. So I really appreciate your
taking the time. I just have a couple of questions,
Mr. Chairman. One actually is to Ms. Knowles. That is the
first time I heard of your organization to be quite frank.
And unless it’s called something different in the State of
Maine, we have a program in Maine called Operation I Served.
I was wondering does your organization call it the same in
each state? And I assume you are located in every state.
MS. KNOWLES. No, sir. We are not. Maine is not a member.
We would really love to have Maine as a member of our
association.
MR. MICHAUD. Great. That is probably why I haven’t heard of
you.
MS. KNOWLES. That is right.
MR. MICHAUD. Thank you. My second question is to Mr. Basher.
When your organization testified before this Committee last
year, we discussed a budget proposal that would have reduced
approximately 85 percent of VA per diem payments to states
veterans’ home. I and many of this Committee were very
concerned about the impact that last year’s proposal would
have had on residents of the state homes. The budget
consideration that we are considering today does not appear
to target the state homes in the same way. My question to
you is what is the most important budget issue for the state
veterans’ homes nationally?
MR. BASHER. If I had to pick the top priority it would be
exactly that. The per diem and stability and predictability
of that. Recognizing that if you change the rules in the middle
of the game we risk going down a very slippery slope of the
whole system coming unglued from unintended consequences. Those
homes are a partnership between state and local governments.
State governments supports it, but without that per diem
payment it doesn’t make it financially tenable.
If it becomes financially untenable then those homes will go
out of business. And if they do go out of business then they
are required to revert to federal ownership and also the states
are liable to repay the federal funds that have advanced for
them. So I don’t think any of us in this room want that to
happen. But what we need to do is continue to work together,
make a stable, predictable system that allows state and federal
government to partner in a way to deliver long-term care,
understand who those people are we are taking care of, and make
sure it’s done in a most cost effective manner. So, long
answer, short question, but, it’s important, sir. Thank you.
MR. MICHAUD. Thank you.
MR. ROWAN. Can I add something to that too? It seems to me
that when we have those situations, if these homes were to
disappear all we would be doing is be transferring these
individuals in many cases over to medicaid. Because the reality
is that is where they would end up. So they would just be
switched into a different pot of money coming out. And usually
a bigger pot coming out of the federal budget at a higher cost.
These state homes run very efficiently as do the VA and all
the other veterans programs we have. So the longer we can keep
these things in veterans run programs we are much better off.
All of us.
MR. MICHAUD. Well, I appreciate your comment. And I also
agree. I can only speak for the state veterans’ homes in the
State of Maine having served in the legislature on the
Appropriations Committee when we worked with the folks in Maine
on the state veterans homes. And you are absolutely right, we
get a good bang for our buck as far as how they are operated
and the cost efficiency.
So, once again, I want to thank each of you for coming here
today. I really appreciate your comments and I yield back the
balance of my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
THE CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Michaud. Mr. Michaud is a very
valuable member of the Committee serving as Ranking Member on
the Health Subcommittee. The timely counsel that 19 veterans
service organizations and military service organizations have
given this Committee has been valuable. And it’s being done
prior to formation of the budget, which has never been done
before. It sounds like common sense, doesn’t it? We can either
take your advice and counsel after we formulate the budget or we
can take it before we do the budget. So this way was pretty
basic.
And I know that some of the organizations, have members that are
coming in March. Some of you may even have. I think that is
wonderful. What we have done here on the Committee is we have
opened up the access. That has never been done before. And
it’s valuable. It’s helpful. It’s insightful. And not only
are we going to do it now, we are going to bring you back in
September. And we are going to do this again in September.
And we are going to mirror exactly what they do on the Armed
Services Committee. I always enjoyed it. This was so helpful
and enriching. We would bring the Chairman and the Joint
Chiefs of Staff in twice, once to formulate the budget, and
then we would do a look back, look ahead in the fall. And that
form of oversight was extremely powerful because then we were
able to say, okay, how are we going. It’s the monitoring. And
are we on track, you know. As we are then moving into the
formulation of then the budget.
So what the Committee has done despite a lot of rhetoric that
has been out there, we have sought to increase your access,
increase your counsel to this Committee, and that has been
accomplished. And I want to thank all of you. And I want to
thank your membership.
So a lot of things historically have happened. We listened to
your counsel ahead of time. Ms. Knowles, your organization has
never testified in this capacity before. And the Vietnam
Veterans of America have never been even offered the opportunity
to testify on the nation’s budget, sitting right next to the
American Legion.
So I want to thank all of you for your testimony. I will finish
with Mr. Jackson. You have a meeting with Colonel Lariviere.
MR. JACKSON. Thank you.
MR. CHAIRMAN. Well, wait a minute. I, Congressman Salazar and
Congresswoman Brown have written statements for the record.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
[The statement of Mr. Salazar appears on p. 70]
[The statement of Ms. Brown of Florida appears on p. 63]
The Chairman. The hearing is now concluded. Thank you very
much.
[Whereupon, at 1:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
<GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>