HEARING TO REVIEW THE DEPARTMENT

OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL AND 

PROSTHETIC

RESEARCH PROGRAM

Hearing

before the

Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs

House of Representatives

one hundred ninth congress

second session

June 7, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Serial No. 109-49

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800

Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

u.s. government printing office

washington : 2007

28-125.PDF
Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Steve Buyer, Indiana, Chairman

Michael Bilirakis, Florida Lane Evans, Illinois, Ranking

Terry Everett, Alabama Bob Filner, California

Cliff Stearns, Florida Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois

dan burton, Indiana Corrine Brown, Florida

Jerry Moran, Kansas Vic Snyder, Arkansas

richard H. baker, Louisiana Michael H. Michaud, Maine

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina Stephanie Herseth, South 

Jeff Miller, Florida Dakota

John Boozman, Arkansas Ted Strickland, Ohio

Jeb Bradley, New Hampshire Darlene Hooley, Oregon

Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida Silvestre Reyes, Texas

Michael R. Turner, Ohio Shelley Berkley, Nevada

John Campbell, California Tom Udall, New Mexico

 John T. Salazar, Colorado

JAMES M. LARIVIERE, Staff Director

(II)
CONTENTS

June 7, 2006

 Page

1

 1

3

59

 4

54

5

55

57

6

62

8

41

84

43

95

46

103

Review of the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical and

 Prosthetic Research Program ...............................................

OPENING STATEMENTS

Hon. Steve Buyer, Chairman ....................................................

Hon. Michael H. Michaud .........................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Michaud ........................................

Hon. Henry E. Brown, Jr., ........................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Brown ............................................

Hon. Shelley Berkley .................................................................

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD

Hon. Cliff Stearns ......................................................................

Hon. Stephanie Herseth ............................................................

Witnesses

Perlin, Jonathan B., MD., PhD, MSHA, FACP, Under Secretary for Health, Department of Veterans Affairs .................

Prepared statement of Dr. Perlin .............................................

Kupersmith, Joel, Chief Research and Development Officer, 

 Department of Veterans Affairs ............................................

Blake, Carl, Senior Associate Legislative Director, Paralyzed

Veterans of America ...............................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Blake .............................................

Weidman, Richard, Executive Director, Policy and Government Affairs, Vietnam Veterans of America ........................

Prepared statement of Mr. Weidman .......................................

Niewoehner, Dennis E., Friends of VA Healthcare and Medical Research (FOVA) .............................................................

Prepared statement of Dr. Niewoehner ...................................

 (III)
(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING TO REVIEW THE DEPARTMENT

OF VETERANS AFFAIRS MEDICAL AND PROSTHETIC

RESEARCH PROGRAM

Wednesday, June 7, 2006

House of Representatives,

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Washington, D.C.

 The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 12:37 p.m., in Room 334, 

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Steve Buyer [Chairman of the 

Committee] presiding.

 Present: Representatives Buyer, Brown of South Carolina, Turner, 

Michaud, Berkley, Reyes, Brown of Florida, Stearns, Snyder.

  The Chairman. The full Committee of the House Veterans’ Affairs 

Committee will come to order on June 7th, 2006. Today we are meeting to review the Department of Veterans Affairs medical and prosthetic research programs.

 The hearing will focus on: One, the relevance of VA research to the 

clinical treatment of veterans; two, special research projects identified in the department’s fiscal year 2007 budget submission, Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom initiatives, genomic medicine, and the need for upgrading and modernization of VA

research facilities.

 The VA conducts an extensive array of research and development 

as a complement to its affiliations with medical schools nationwide. 

While these programs are specifically targeted to the needs of veterans, they are intentionally recognized and have made important 

contributions across the spectrum of healthcare.

 The department’s researchers have played key roles in innovating 

and improving artificial limbs, lifts, wheelchairs, establishing better 

treatment for tuberculosis, and developing the cardiac pacemaker, 

the CAT scanner, the MRI, and others.

The first kidney transplant in the United States was performed 

at a VA medical center and so was the first multi-organ transplant. 

VA contributions to medical knowledge have won its scientists many 

prestigious awards.
2

The VA’s Office of Research and Development oversees a broad research program that focuses on biomedicine, rehabilitation, health 

services, and clinical trials. Targeted research centers focus on specific conditions or methods of improving quality care throughout the 

VA.

 Four services organized their efforts in the organization of healthcare systems around the disease and health conditions that are prevalent among veterans, such as the treatments for mental illness, rehabilitation of those who have suffered loss of limb, spinal cord injury 

and traumatic brain injury, organ transplants, and kidney dialysis.

The Committee values the research performed by the VA. While 

veterans are the direct stakeholders in the VA R&D mission, VA research has defined new standards of care that benefit all Americans. 

In the past year alone, dozens of major research findings have been 

reported in scientific literature and in the news media.

 Good research is expensive. The Administration asked for $399 

million for medical and prosthetic research for 2007, $13 million below the preceding year. The Administration relied on federal and 

nonfederal resources such as grants to make up the proposed difference.

 On May 19th, the House passed the Military Construction, Military Quality of Life, Veterans’ Affairs Appropriation Act appropriating $412 million for medical and prosthetic research, the same level 

as last year and a $13 million increase over the Administration’s request.

While that figure is less than this Committee has recommended, 

time will tell if the awards for the federal and nonfederal sources will 

pan out as hoped. Now, we want to discuss that with the first panel.

The Administration’s fiscal year 2007 budget submission identified 

two specific research projects: the OIF/OEF initiative andin the genomic medicine. This initiative will allow all parts of VA’s research 

office to provide new tools for clinicians to treat the physical and psychological pain of these veterans, determine how to improve access to 

healthcare and accelerate applications, especially for PTSD diagnosis 

and treatment, state-of-the-art amputation and prosthetic methods, 

and polytrauma.

 The VA’s Genomic Medicine Program, participation in which is 

strictly voluntary among veterans, will link patients’ genetic information with their existing electronic health record. This will help 

us understand the role of genetics in prevention and cure and potentially even enabling the mass customization of medical treatment.

I am pleased to hear that this program will also address subjects’ 

rights, informed consent, privacy, and ownership of genetic material 

involved with genetic tissue banking.

The program will be administered and overseen by a Scientific Advisory Committee, an Ethical Oversight Committee, and Veterans’ 
3

Advocacy Group. And so we are interested in that, Dr. Watson. That 

is the purpose of your presence.

 Additionally, in March, Secretary Nicholson formed this Advisory 

Committee of internationally-recognized scientists and veterans’ advocates to advise the department on emerging issues in this field of 

medicine.

 We are interested in hearing from the department on how they intend to prioritize these new initiatives against those areas that VA’s 

currently engaged in such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

VA research has long benefited from collaboration with teaching 

schools and other entities, and this Committee has promoted a wider 

use of innovative collaboration in healthcare delivery generally.

 As we enhance how we conduct research and provide care, we must 

be mindful of the infrastructure we rely on. VA’s healthcare and 

research infrastructure continues to age and will require additional 

attention.

 The Appropriations Committee has recently recommended $12 million to begin an effort to modernize and upgrade research facilities to 

ensure the state-of-the-art technology, equipment, and facilities are 

provided to support state-of-the-art research.

And I will note and I appreciate, Dr. Perlin, my visit to the collaborative research facility in Charleston. The Hollings? It is for cancer, 

isn’t it?

  Dr. Perlin. Yes.

  The Chairman. All right. Thank you.

 I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.

 At this time, I will yield to Mr. Michaud for any opening statement 

he may have.

Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I, too, want to welcome each of the witnesses here today on both 

panels and want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing.

The VA has long been at the forefront of needed and innovative 

research. The work performed by the VA helps perhaps the most deserving population in our society -- veterans and their families.

 Breakthroughs have often helped VA and nonveterans alike. VA

medical research is an effort that we all support and all wish to enhance as well. Unfortunately, dollars needed to maintain the quality 

of research are becoming more and more scarce as medical inflation 

and flat funding erodes budgets.

 I look forward to hearing how the VA will prioritize the many research initiatives underway and how VA plans to keep its research 

facilities on the cutting edge of technology.

VA has a responsibility to focus its research so that it will best assist those that it is supposed to help.

 For example, we have, among others, two distinct populations 
4

that need medical research to produce results immediately. Our aging veterans are dealing with end-of-life complications. VA medical 

research can improve the golden years for these veterans. Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom veterans have 

significantly different challenges related to the war in which they 

served. Again, VA research can make breakthroughs and can improve the quality of their lives.

Given the current funding level, I am concerned for the ability of 

VA to fund research that helps VA’s traditional patient base and 

also returning servicemembers. We need to look at greater collaborations, strengthening of bonds between VA and non-VA public and 

private entities. We need to encourage researchers to pursue and win 

grants. But these efforts cannot be a replacement for appropriating 

additional dollars.

We need to do better than flat funding to ensure that VA continues 

to attract the best personnel and stays at the forefront of medical 

research as well. VA research is not an academic endeavor. It is essential for improving the quality of care available to our veterans.

 Lastly, on the front page of today’s Washington Post, there is an 

article entitled Data Theft Affects Most In Military. This data breach 

affected the sensitive personal information of 26.5 million veterans 

and servicemembers.

 In light of this, I would like the VA to address what steps it has 

taken to safeguard sensitive personal information in its research program and what steps it plans on taking to protect the privacy and 

security of the genetic information it obtains as part of its Genomic 

Research Program.

 So, Mr. Chairman, again, I would like to welcome each of the panelists. I look forward to their testimony. And I want to thank you for 

having this very important and meaningful hearing.

  The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Michaud.

 Mr. Brown, you are recognized for an opening statement.

Mr. Brown of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 I also would like to express my thanks to you for holding this very 

important hearing today and thank you to all of you who have agreed 

to testify. I look forward to working with you on appropriate prioritization of the research projects and infrastructure needs in the coming 

years. Again, thank you for being here.

 We have a critical oversight role on this Committee as it relates to 

research. While we tend to focus most squarely on the direct medical 

care the VA provides to our service men and women, research is a key 

mission of the VA, and our veterans have come to rely on the many 

advances that we have developed inside VA’s walls and in collaboration with other public and private entities.

I am eager today to accomplish a few things: Number one, first 

to welcome the new Chief of Research before this Committee, Dr. 
5

Kupersmith; number two, explore the emerging priorities, some of 

which have been laid out in the Administration’s fiscal 2007 budget 

request, and to better understand the practical clinical application 

of the proposed initiatives; and, finally, number three, get a better 

sense of what the research infrastructure requirements will look like 

in the future.

 We are all very aware of the great many successes VA has had in 

the area of research, but today we are taking a somewhat rare opportunity to showcase it.

As I said at the offset, Mr. Chairman, both of us here on this Committee and the veterans we represent have become increasingly aware 

of the fruits of VA’s research efforts. However, I think that the public 

in general has had little exposure to just how much the department 

has contributed to the national research efforts and debate.

 Today Dr. Perlin and Kupersmith will have the opportunity to 

share that in a very public forum.

 Again, I welcome everyone here today and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for doing what has been entitled Innovative Week here in the 

Congress holding a hearing on this very important subject. And I 

yield back the balance of my time.

  The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Brown.

 Ms. Berkley, do you have an opening statement?

Ms. Berkley. If I may, thanks.

The Chairman. Yes.

Ms. Berkley. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Good afternoon, gentlemen. It is always a pleasure to have you, Dr. 

Perlin. I am anxious to hear your testimony, so I am not going to talk 

very long. But I did want to share with you an experience I had and 

have somebody comment on it.

 Since I voted to go into Iraq or give the President authority to go 

into Iraq, I think it is important to be here when our troops come 

home. So whenever I have an opportunity -- it is not very often -- I go 

to Walter Reed and I visit with our troops that have been injured.

 There was one in particular the last time I was there a few months 

back that I visited with. And here is a young man, 24-year-old lieutenant, lost his arm and his leg in an operation in Baghdad and the 

arm and leg that he has remaining are not working.

And when I went into the hospital room, his young wife was by his 

bed and his dad, who is a retired school teacher, was at the foot of his 

bed. And we started talking and, you know, it never fails to amaze 

me how extraordinary these people are. And rather than talking 

to me about what happened to him, he shared with me information 

about the two men that he unfortunately lost in this operation where 

he lost his arm and his leg.

On top of his bed, there was a chalkboard and there were monthly 

goals. And it was like March, sit up; April -- and these may not be the 
6

ones, but close enough -- April, stand up; May, fitted for prosthetic devices. And I walked out of the room feeling that, you know, this kid is 

going places and just a wonderful attitude and a tragedy, however.

Imagine my chagrin when I get the VA budget and the Administration cuts $13 million out of prosthetic research. Now, I understand 

that we have moved that up, so now I think we are flat to where we 

have been in the past. But give me a break.

 I mean, we have people coming home that are catastrophically injured. They are missing arms and legs. The least we could do for 

these people is give them state-of-the-art prosthetic devices and continue this research so that these people can live as normal a life as 

they possibly can and go on to a great future in this country.

Now, I would like an explanation of why we would possibly be provided with a $13 million cut in prosthetic devices when we are getting 

men being blown apart thousands and thousands of miles away from 

home. And that is one of the many cuts that I found particularly 

egregious.

 So I would appreciate if you would address that concern that I have 

because I suspect that this war is going to be with us for many years 

to come and when this war is over, the results of this war are going 

to be with us many, many, many decades later. And are we providing for that and preparing for that, because this is the cost of war. 

Prosthetic devices are as much a cost of war as flak jackets as far as 

I am concerned.

 So I would appreciate that and thank you for coming.

The Chairman. Thank you very much.

Ms. Berkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Anyone else have an opening statement?

 All right. Dr. Perlin, you are now recognized.

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN B. PERLIN, UNDER SECRETARY

 FOR HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

  Dr. Perlin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. 

Good afternoon. Thank you very much for the opportunity to discuss 

VA research.

Accompanying me today are to my far left, Dr. Robert Ruff, Acting 

Director of our Rehabilitation Research and Development Service.

 To my immediate left is Dr. Matthew Friedman, Director of VA’s 

National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder.

At the far right is Dr. Michael Watson, member of the Genomic 

Medicine Program Advisory Committee and Executive Director of the 

American College of Medical Genetics Foundation.

And I am also very pleased to be able to introduce to the Committee Dr. Joel Kupersmith, VHA’s new Chief of Research and Development, Chief Research and Development Officer.
7

 Dr. Kupersmith joined VA last year after a distinguished career 

as a cardiologist, faculty member, and researcher at the Methodist 

Real Medical Center or Medical School and the Mount Sinai School 

of Medicine, University of Louisville, Michigan State University, and 

serving most recently as the scholar in residence at the Institute of 

Medicine and the American Association of Medical Colleges.

 In fact, he served as well as the Dean of the School of Medicine and 

Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences at Texas Tech University, 

and this is Dr. Kupersmith’s first opportunity to meet with you officially. In a few moments, he will provide testimony to you on the 

Office of Research and Development and the activities within VA’s 

Research Program.

VA research is, as was said, not an academic exercise. It is focused 

around the mission of improving the health and well-being of America’s veterans. As also recognized, the benefits created by VA research 

extend to literally everyone, and I hope we will have the opportunity 

to discuss some of the circumstances that were created that provide 

service to all Americans and, in fact, all citizens of the world.

The VA Research Program has been tremendously productive. It 

has fostered three Nobel laureates and six individual researchers 

were awarded the Lasker Prize which some consider a sort of preNobel type of recognition.

 Before I turn to Dr. Kupersmith, I would like to address an issue 

of great significance to the future of VA research and healthcare and 

that is our plans for genomic research. Genomics is not fantasy. 

Rather genomics supplements what we already know and do today in 

medicine to focus on and improve care to veterans.

 In fact, we already use genomic medicine in patient care in a number of areas. We used genetic testing to identify cancer patients who 

react better to reduced doses of chemotherapy resulting in lower toxicity.

Patients with the gene for abnormal clotting factor are identified 

through testing so that we can reduce the chance for stroke or embolism.

Genetic information allows us to lower the number of drug-induced 

bleeding episodes resulting from warafin, a widely-used drug for thinning blood.

In cancer screening based on molecular, genetic, and proteomic 

tests identifies the disease earlier in many patients, giving us the 

opportunity to save many patients who, in fact, once could not be 

cured.

The first priority of our newly-appointed Genomic Medicine Advisory Committee will be to provide expert counsel on protecting veterans’ privacy. They will also establish a strong ethical foundation for 

VA’s use of genetic information.

Our Committee members who are nationally renowned medical ex-
8

perts in genomic research, bioethics, and disease management will 

assess the potential impact of genomics on existing VA patient care 

services, recommend policies and procedures for tissue collection 

and storage and analysis, and develop a research agenda to optimize 

knowledge and improve patient care and the health of our veterans.

 They will also help us conduct focus group surveys and provide 

other direct contacts with veterans to learn about and appropriately 

address issues of importance to them and their families.

Our integrated research program, our benchmark care quality, and 

our robust Genomic Medicine Program will allow us to maintain our 

leadership in providing veterans with the state-of-the-art care that 

they have earned through their service and sacrifice.

 We recognize, however, that we must construct a strong and ethical foundation, scientific foundation in partnership with veterans and 

their families in order to be successful.

 At this time, I turn to Dr. Joel Kupersmith to provide his testimony 

on the current status of VA research. Thank you.

 Dr. Kupersmith.

[The statement of Jonathan B. Perlin appears on p. 62]

STATEMENTS OF JOEL KUPERSMITH, CHIEF RESEARCH

 AND DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF

VETERANS AFFAIRS; ACCOMPANIED BY ROBERT L. RUFF,

 ACTING DIRECTOR, REHABILITATION RESEARCH AND

 DEVELOPMENT SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

 AFFAIRS; MATTHEW J. FRIEDMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

 NATIONAL CENTER FOR PTSD, DEPARTMENT OF VETER-

 ANS AFFAIRS; AND MICHAEL S. WATSON, MEMBER, GE-

 NOMIC MEDICINE PROGRAM ADVISORY Committee, 

 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN COLLEGE OF MEDICAL

 GENETICS

STATEMENT OF JOEL KUPERSMITH

  Dr. Kupersmith. Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, 

thank you for the opportunity to discuss specifics about VA research 

and share some of my thoughts about our future vision.

Although I was aware of the importance of VA research before I 

took this position, I did not fully appreciate what VA research has 

contributed to veterans and the nation as a whole.

Veterans who returned from World War II with tuberculosis faced 

a bleak future until VA research identified and tested new highly-effective treatments.

Veterans wounded in all wars have benefited from VA’s work to develop the next generation of Seattle Foot and other prosthetics allow 

young men and women to become high-performance athletes.
9

 The quality of life for our aging veteran population is enhanced 

because of CT scanners, MRIs, implantable cardiac pacemakers, a 

vaccine for shingles, and countless other discoveries by VA clinical 

researchers.

VA research nested within a healthcare system used by more than 

five million veterans is a unique national laboratory where research 

is translated into clinical practice daily and effectively. VA clinicians 

also initiate and conduct research projects that are directly relevant 

to the clinical care they provide.

 The written statements includes many examples of what I will 

discuss today, but I would like to highlight one project that shows 

exactly how VA clinician investigators use VA’s unique intramural 

program.

Clinicians have long noted that individuals with schizophrenia 

medicate themselves with tobacco to try to clear their brain abnormality. VA research discovered a gene linked to schizophrenia with 

an additional aspect. It is also linked to the brain center for smoking.

VA research then identified a new drug approved by the FDA for 

experimental use in humans as a possible treatment. It is now in 

phase two trials.

VA clinician researchers note something at the bedside, take that 

observation to the bench, find and test a treatment, move the result 

back to the bedside in a full circle of translation and a unique system 

where research is linked to clinical care.

Each year, we are challenged to meet priorities based on the changing needs of the veterans we serve with high-quality science. For the 

needs of returning Operation Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom 

veterans, VA has responded with the following:

Neurotrauma research, including work related to traumatic brain 

injury, which occurs in approximately 30 percent of injured veterans and spinal cord injury; research related to polytrauma and blast 

injuries; amputation and prosthetic research, including use of futuristic microelectronics, robotics and tissue engineering to create 

lighter, more functional prostheses; many PTSD and other mental 

health projects, collaborations with Department of Defense, Walter 

Reed Army Medical Center, Brook Army Medical Center, and others; 

research about rehabilitation for the visually impaired, burn treatments, hearing loss, natural neural regeneration to return function to 

paralyzed veterans and those with brain injuries; and plans to study 

advanced tissue engineering and the manufacturing of artificial skin 

to accelerate wound healing.

 Regarding our infrastructure, it is crucial that VA investigators 

have the equipment and facilities necessary to conduct cutting-edge 

research in the 21st century. To identify where improvements may 

be needed, the Office of Research and Development has initiated a 
10

comprehensive review of VA’s research facilities, including physical 

and operational infrastructure and major equipment to identify deficiencies and corrective action. The written statement provides details of this project.

 In conclusion, the vision for VA research is simple. VA research 

has made substantial contributions to the health and well-being of 

veterans and the nation and can do so in the future. We must constantly make certain that our research meets the needs of veterans, 

is of the highest scientific merit, and adheres to the strictest standards of human subject protection.

The goal is to quickly and efficiently translate research into clinical 

care and thereby address the pressing needs of our veterans.

 Thank you for this opportunity.

  The Chairman. Thank you very much for all of you being here today.

 In my years here in Congress, I have served on three Committees 

that have had oversight jurisdiction over health research from the 

Armed Services Committee with the military health delivery system. 

I serve on the Health Subcommittee of Energy and Commerce and 

now this Committee.

And Congress has been very careful with all three Committees not 

to direct. We will send you the funds, but we are not the experts. We 

have our areas of interest, but we turn it you, the experts, to make 

competent decisions and come up with a series of prioritizations.

 I am going to ask this question though. When I use the term veteran centric research, how would you interpret that? I am going to ask 

two of you, Dr. Perlin and Dr. Kupersmith. How would you define 

veteran centric research?

Dr. Perlin. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding this 

hearing and asking that very central question.

Veteran centric research is research that in my estimation improves the health and well-being of veterans. It allows us to focus 

specifically on those issues that are unique to the veteran experience 

which, of course, is predicated on military service and military occupational health exposures. It also is predicated on the issues that are 

concentrated in the veteran population that we serve.

 As you know, our population -- while veterans at large do generally 

better than the average American, the veterans who come to VA for 

healthcare happen to be older, sicker, and poorer. In fact, they have 

three additional physical diagnoses and one additional mental health 

diagnosis.

 And as 49 percent are over age 65, you see very quickly in that demographic that there are certain vulnerabilities conferred upon the 

population. Chronic illness and age as a mechanism of frailty become 

two central areas.

 So military occupational health exposures, those things unique to 
11

combat service and military service, and those things that are concentrated in the veteran population which we serve are the things 

that I define as relevant to veterans as veteran centric.

The Chairman. Dr. Kupersmith.

Dr. Kupersmith. Yes. I think it is the spectrum of the issues and 

conditions that are related to returning veterans of current wars and 

the issues and conditions related to the aging veteran population as it 

passes through middle age to older age. And this includes a spectrum 

of mental health, rehabilitation research, prosthetics, and so forth.

We have an insight, I think, that others may find it more difficult to have because most of our investigators are clinician scientists 

who are actually taking care of patients and have direct knowledge of 

what conditions they face. So I think this gives us added insight into 

dealing with veteran centricity.

The Chairman. The reason I ask that question is that we have a VA

system today that is much different than it was a decade ago. The 

reason I make this comment is VA research, I believe, needs to be 

veteran-centric and it cannot be all things to all people.

 In other words, you cannot let the - whatever physical ailments or 

whatever may depreciate the human body from a nondisabled veteran, a category seven or eight who is very similar to people in the 

normal population, cannot drive VA research.

That is the reason we here in Congress fund NIH and have doubled 

NIH funding. And I want to make sure that with our centric meaning 

we are focusing on every war having different types of injuries and 

ailments. And so when I use the term veteran centric research, that 

is what I think of.

Our polytraumas, the blast injuries, the brain trauma, continuing 

on spinal cord, all these things to me, yes, are combat related, but 

there are also some workplace injuries that are unique by what we do 

and the environment in which our servicemembers work. And I want 

to make sure that in our priorities and how you come to judgment, 

you keep that in mind.

 Mr. Michaud, any questions you may have.

Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

 A couple of questions. The National Vietnam Veterans’ Longitudinal Study was mandated by statute. The report was supposed to be 

due to Congress no later than October 1, 2004. It is now approaching 

two years since that report is due.

In light of the mandate and the law, when will we be able to see 

results from that report?

Dr. Perlin. Well, thank you, Mr. Michaud, for your focus on this 

incredibly veteran centric research in the terms that our Chairman 

just described.

 The National Vietnam Veterans Longitudinal Study is the product 

of a cohort that has been followed over a long period of time. Dr. 
12

Matthew Friedman, who is here with me today, was one of the early 

founders of the preceding study that gave rise to NVVLS.

As I believe you may know, the Committee may know, the study 

was stopped by the Office of the Inspector General after significant 

cost overruns.

I think that within the department, there is an absolute commitment to understanding the needs both in terms of mental health 

needs and the physical health outcomes of Vietnam era veterans, 

but there are significant questions about the power of the remaining 

cohort’s data to answer those questions.

There have been briefings to members and staff serving this Committee, and they have discussed a number of alternative approaches 

both with respect to Vietnam veterans as well as other veterans in 

terms of looking at health outcomes and PTSD in particular.

 One is the use of a Vietnam Era Twin Registry which allows one to 

compare environmental and genetic exposures and be able to understand both risk and outcomes. Another is something that we have 

today, but, frankly, we did not have when NVVLS was initiated, and 

that is the electronic health record.

So rather than being able only to focus on a small group of veterans 

that sadly diminishes over time, one can actually look at an entire 

population or sample of that population and look at all health outcomes. And these are proposed mechanisms to get to the intent of 

that legislation.

Dr. Matthew Friedman has been very closely involved with this 

study, and I turn to Dr. Friedman to offer any additional comments.

Mr. Michaud. Are the results forthcoming?

Dr. Perlin. It is in a bit of a holding phase after the Inspector 

General’s investigation of the study. And I would say to you again 

that there are methodologic issues with the size of the cohort that is 

left to be able to offer significant insight.

 I would think that one could get to those answers as well through 

use of electronic health records for the Vietnam Era Twin Study, and 

I would ask Dr. Friedman perhaps to elaborate on that.

Dr. Friedman. Good day.

As Dr. Perlin has indicated, the NVVLS was discontinued based on 

the background that he has given you. So what I would like to review 

with you are the goals of the study which were to really understand 

the longitudinal course of PTSD, the severity of the problem, and 

one of the unique questions in the NVVLS that was not addressed 

in the earlier National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment Study, the 

relationship between PTSD and physical health.

 So after the study was discontinued, the Secretary of VA asked Dr. 

Perlin and his staff to look at alternatives. And the two alternatives 

that he has mentioned, which I will go into a little more detail about, 

have been the Vietnam Era Twin Registry and this very exciting OIF 
13

Prospective Pre-deployment, Post-deployment Study.

The Vietnam Era Twin Registry is actually a remarkable database. 

There are now about 4,000 monozygotic and dizygotic twins. Most 

importantly, 1,700 of them are discordant for service in Vietnam. 

What that means is that -- and these are all males, so that is -- one 

brother was in Vietnam. The other brother was not.

The sample has been surveyed twice, once in 1987 and once in 

1997. And two very important findings have been published from 

this study. One concerns the chronicity of PTSD, and the other concerns brain imaging among Vietnam veterans.

With regard to chronicity, there was a robust dose response curve, 

showing that the more severe the combat exposure, the greater the 

likelihood of PTSD. And among the Vietnam veterans with severe 

exposure, their PTSD remained highly chronic ten years later. So 

obviously a continued follow-up is important.

 Another very important study from this cohort was some of the 

brain imaging work, looking at hippocampal volume which is one 

of the structures of the brain that seems to be affected and altered 

among people with PTSD.

So this is a very valuable research. As you all know, in animal 

research, one of the things any investigator does is they use inbred 

genetic strains so that you can control for whatever variability a different genetic endowment might have. We can control for that with 

the Vietnam Era Twin Registry.

 So this is a very extraordinary cohort in which we can follow medical problems, look at risk factors, resilience factors, et cetera. So this 

is one option that is being looked at very, very carefully right now.

 The second option which is, as Dr. Perlin indicated was not on the 

screen when the NVVLS was first thought about, is a pre-deployment 

study that is being done mostly at Ft. Lewis and Ft. Hood where at 

this point in time, over 1,500 men and women have been evaluated 

with respect to neurocognition, because that was a big concern following the first Gulf War, and given our concerns about traumatic 

brain injury, it is obviously a very important concern following these 

current wars. They have also been assessed regarding pre/post-deployment psychological factors including depression, anxiety disorders and PTSD.

So over 1,500 men and women have been assessed prior to deployment. And what is really important, they have been assessed shortly 

after their return and will be assessed longitudinally into the future. 

We can really look at the longitudinal course. Also several hundred 

Guard and Reserve men and women are also in this cohort. So this is 

a very, very valuable cohort.

So at this point in time, VA sees these two studies as preferable 

options to the NVVLS.

Mr. Michaud. Could you provide the Committee, Dr. Perlin, with 
14

the list of research that VA is currently doing, what you would like 

to do as far as research, and what you are doing collaboratively with 

other areas as far as research in this area? If you can provide that 

information to the Committee.

Dr. Perlin. Yes, sir. We would be happy to provide that.

The Chairman. Could the gentleman be just a little more specific 

with regard to which area.

Mr. Michaud. I am interested in all the research that the department is doing, if they have a list.

Dr. Perlin. We would be happy to provide a summary of all of the 

research programs. And I believe you were also seeking the collaborative activities specifically about mental health as well, the focus?

Mr. Michaud. Yes, as well. I am trying to understand better what 

you are doing and to make sure that the research is prioritized.

 My last question, if I might, Mr. Chairman, is, if you look at what 

is happening, almost 30 percent of the patients admitted to Walter 

Reed Hospital has a brain injury, and I know it is very difficult to try 

to diagnose brain injury, if you could very briefly tell me what the VA 

is doing to improve diagnostic and screening for brain injuries.

Dr. Kupersmith. Yes. We have an RFA that we have just on that 

topic. And our projects that we have received span the spectrum from 

imaging to make a better diagnosis, various kinds of therapy, various 

other diagnostic techniques, biomarkers, cellular studies to see if we 

can come up with some basic treatments for it, and a variety of other 

projects that span from basic science to clinical.

So we are anticipating to fund these about the end of this year, and 

we will be very heavily into this area.

Dr. Perlin. If I might just elaborate on your question in that you 

have identified a significant issue which is head trauma and brain 

injury.

The very significant trauma that someone experiences with other 

multiple traumas is very obvious. And, of course, one appreciates 

very quickly that the individual sustained brain injury.

I believe what you may also have been alluding to are the concussive injuries that some may experience that are very subtle in terms 

of detection. Frankly, VA, DoD, no one at this point has a gold standard for diagnosing very subtle brain injuries, yet it is fairly clear 

there are some individuals who experience a minor concussion and do 

have some cognitive disruption. It is unknown what the duration of 

that is. It is unknown what the best recovery strategies are.

What is clear is that all of us in all segments need to be better at 

diagnosing it and that specifically is one of the areas of research both 

of Department of Defense and Walter Reed as well as VA in this request for applications.

The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Brown, you are recognized for five minutes.
15

Mr. Brown of South Carolina. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Dr. Perlin, we have had several veterans come to my office that 

have ALS and they brought statistics that shows that it is a disproportionate number of pilots that flew over, I guess, Vietnam and the 

Gulf that have, you know, come down with ALS.

 And I was just wondering if you were doing more in your research 

to try to find a cure for ALS and could you give us an update of where 

we are on that research.

Dr. Perlin. Well, thank you, Chairman Brown.

This is a tremendously important observation is that the rates of 

amyotrophic lateral sclerosis or Lou Gehrig’s Disease were found initially to be higher in pilots. And then subsequent research actually 

found that there were higher rates in military at large.

And so this is an area of a very specific enterprise, and I am going 

to ask Dr. Kupersmith to elaborate on that.

Dr. Kupersmith. We have a number of projects related to ALS. It is 

certainly a focus of our interest. And as Dr. Perlin mentioned, there 

have been reports of increased incidence with various wars and with 

the military as a whole.

 So this is an area of interest. I do not have a list of projects here, 

but can certainly provide you with such a list.

Mr. Brown of South Carolina. Well, I guess that kind of leads me 

to my next question, is how you establish in your funding the priorities, you know, which area has more funding or more attention put 

than other areas. How do you go about establishing prioritization 

and where those monies will be addressed or directed?

Dr. Perlin. Let me start that question and then I will ask Dr. Kupersmith to add to that, is that we have a rubric called designated 

research areas. And these research areas range from those things 

that are absolutely central to the combat experience, brain injury and 

multiple trauma and sensory injuries, central nervous system injuries, spinal cord injuries and the accompanying bone loss and degenerative diseases and rehabilitation.

 Those are the designated research areas. A lot of these overlap. If 

you have mental illness, of course, you do not get a bye, you do not 

get a pass from physical disease. In fact, it may be worse. We have 

areas that focus on the mental health and well-being in the context 

of these other areas.

 And so we actually have a list of designated research areas and we 

try to take a look within the dollars that you appropriate to us for VA

research to make sure that we are doing as good a job possible as in 

the words of Chairman Buyer, being better and veteran-centric.

At a time of conflict as we are in now, in fact, the budget increases 

from 66.8 to $74.9 million in the 2005 to 2007 period focusing on just 

these sorts of issues.

 We also look at the experience. As Dr. Kupersmith said, the very 
16

clinicians who are taking care of veterans and servicemembers are 

also the researchers. So one of the most important things about the 

VA research is that we are not NIH. We are not all things to all 

people. It is not our aspiration to be that.

And as you may know, I served a brief tenure as the Acting Chief 

of Research and Development and my litmus test was, “show me that 

the work is relevant to the care of veterans.” And this is our litmus 

test.

 And the great value of VA in contrast to virtually anywhere else 

is that the clinicians caring for veterans go back to the laboratory, 

whether it is basic science or clinical research, armed with the picture of veterans experiencing illness, needing help improving their 

health and well-being and generate the questions. And they bring 

forward that knowledge from the bench, from the laboratory, from 

the research studies to the patient care.

 Dr. Kupersmith.

Dr. Kupersmith. Yes. And I would like to elaborate, give you an example of that. It has been the observation that disabled individuals, 

paraplegics for example, have obesity as both apparently a metabolic 

problem and a problem related to their level of activity.

So we have an RFA on that very topic. This is a clinician’s observation, very relevant to the VA, very veteran centric, that we turn 

around. And then as we have the research projects, we have ways 

of translating those directly to the patient by several of our research 

implementation programs.

And I think the VA has really been a pioneer in part because the 

clinical and the research enterprise are together in how to implement 

the findings of research to the bedside.

So whatever observations that are made in research in obese, disabled individuals, we can translate directly to the bedside. And this 

has a tremendous impact. These metabolic conditions have a tremendous impact on their long-time survival. So it is just an example of 

that.

Mr. Brown of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is 

expired, but just one further question to follow-up on that.

 I know that in the Medic University and the VA, they have a cooperative research lab there, the Thurman and Nagesi Heart Center.

 And I was just wondering with ALS, are we partnering with anybody in the private sector to try to find a cure for this terrible disease?

Dr. Perlin. Let me ask Dr. Ruff. Dr. Ruff actually wears two hats. 

He is our Chief of Neurology. He is also the Acting Chief of Rehabilitation Research and Development.

 Dr. Ruff.

Dr. Ruff. Let me address ALS first. ALS is a chronic degenerative 

condition that comes under the auspices of neurology and also under 
17

the auspices of rehabilitation.

 From the clinical side, we are working with to try and enhance the 

treatment of people with ALS so that people with ALS are able to get 

treated on spinal injury units when they have advanced to the point 

of becoming functionally totally dependent for care.

 The VA researchers are -- there are several research projects that 

are jointly funded by the VA and NIH looking at the mechanism of 

neurodegeneration associated with ALS. And these are projects that 

are funded through -- most of them are funded through basic science. 

Some are through rehab.

 But one thing I would just like to say without taking too much 

time is that one of the things that I personally found very exciting 

and very encouraging about what is going on in the VA is that walls 

that existed between clinical service, research, and within research 

are coming down so that we are directing our efforts towards veteran 

problems rather than being stuck in specific silos.

 And I think that Dr. Perlin and Dr. Kupersmith have had a great 

deal of influence in terms of trying to get a more integrated approach 

so that there is integration of clinical and research activities and integration within the clinical services.

With respect to the question that was raised about detection of 

brain injury, this is a very difficult and serious problem. Minimal 

traumatic brain injury is something that is being recognized as a serious problem for people in the Middle East right now in OIF, OEF.

 The PDRECCs, which are the Parkinson’s Disease Research and 

Education Clinical Centers, are working with Department of Defense 

to explore the utility of a very simple but sophisticated test of all faction as a means of early detection of brain injury and sensitive detection of brain injury.

The nerves that are involved in smell are very fine. They go through 

a screen-like structure at the base of the skull and they are very easily damaged in head injury. And so it may be possible to use those 

changes in smell as a way of picking up otherwise very subtle brain 

injury.

 Thank you.

The Chairman. Dr. Ruff, I would ask you to be responsive to Chairman Brown’s question on whether you have any knowledge whether 

you are partnering with any outside private entities with regard to 

ALS.

Dr. Ruff. Yes. We are working with Paralyzed Veterans of America which has a strong interest in ALS. There is also the ALS Foundation. We do not have any direct grants with the ALS Foundation, but 

I met with people from that foundation in order to try and make sure 

that what we are doing is relevant to their needs and our needs.

The Chairman. Mr. Brown.

 Ms. Berkley, you are now recognized.
18

Ms. Berkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have three different 

questions on three different issues, the first directed to Dr. Kupersmith.

 I listened to your testimony and this 24-year-old lieutenant that I

spoke of when I did my opening statement, when I left Walter Reed, I

invited him to come to Las Vegas when he was well enough to get out 

of the hospital. And he is coming.

 So the good news is that he is well enough to come to Las Vegas 

with his wife. And I want to be able to look this kid in the face when 

I see him.

You mentioned in your testimony about cutting-edge research and 

I so regard and respect what you are doing, but are you going to be 

able to do cutting-edge research with a $13 million cut in prosthetic 

research?

 And perhaps Dr. Perlin would like to -- I do not care who answers, 

but I want to make sure you get enough resources so you can do your 

job, so I can do my job with my veterans.

Dr. Kupersmith. Yes. We are looking at how to essentially make 

cuts in certain areas and certain programs. For example, we are 

evaluating our centers to see that they are being productive, that 

they are leveraging money the way they should, and that they actually are doing what is set out. This is something that all research 

institutions do. But that is one way that we are looking at trying to 

conserve some resources for other areas which are important.

Certainly we have an extensive program in prosthetics. I think we 

have probably led the country in prosthetic research.

Ms. Berkley. And you can continue this with a $13 million cut?

Dr. Kupersmith. Well, we calculated -- 

Ms. Berkley. Do you want a $13 million cut? Do you want the 

money back?

Dr. Kupersmith. Well, we have calculated a certain number of projects less based on that, but we will be looking at how to conserve resources in other ways, particularly looking, as I said, at our centers. 

We are making a review of our cooperative studies program centers 

and other similar endeavors.

Dr. Perlin. If I might, let me thank all members of this Committee 

for your support of VA research as demonstrated in the increase of 

resources for the research program.

 Second, let me note that when we provide services to veterans who 

need a prosthetic device, that does not come out of the research budget. That comes out of the prosthetics budget. And I want to again 

thank this Committee for your support and leadership in ensuring 

that we have those resources.

In 2005, we spent $1.039 billion on prosthetics and assistive devices. That was increased by 188 million for this year’s budget of 1.227 

billion. And the budget that you have supported adds another 160 
19

million in 2007 to bring that to 1.387. So I can assure every injured 

servicemember they will have the state-of-the-art device.

 As to the research, if I might, this is an area of tremendous focus. 

Again, the test is veteran centricity, whether it is limb loss prevention, prosthetics engineering, abilities to make the devices more effective, less damaging, the ability to provide rehabilitation, socialization, to advance techniques.

Right now a lot of prosthetics sit on the end of a limb. We have tissue engineering laboratories that will seek to create a different sort of 

interface, to actually allow people greater function. The list goes on 

and on. And Dr. Kupersmith makes no exaggeration saying the VA

is the leader in the prosthetic device research.

Ms. Berkley. No doubt. I just want to make sure you have got the 

resources to do the job that we have tasked you with.

Dr. Perlin. Thank you.

Ms. Berkley. All right. The second question or second query. As 

you know, we have been talking for the last couple of years about the 

Nevada Cancer Institute partnering with the VA in Nevada.

After two years of being at cross purposes and hearing two different stories from the VA and the Nevada Cancer Institute, I took it 

upon myself to bring both parties into my office this past week when 

we were home for our Memorial Day break.

 And, of course, Ken Clark, the VISN 22 Director, came in, John 

Bright. Both men I have tremendously high regard for and I have 

worked very closely with them. We also had Heather Muran and 

other people from the Nevada Cancer Institute there.

It seems as if we have broken through whatever issues there were, 

but can I ask you to please keep on this and report back to me so I 

know that we are on board because I do not want to be talking to 

you about this two years from now and we have not moved from, you 

know, the starting line on this issue.

And I agree with you 100 percent that there should be a separate 

VA healthcare system. I have not been fighting the last several years 

for a VA hospital clinic and outpatient clinic and long-term care facility for my veterans exclusive of anything else because I do not agree 

with you.

 But on the other hand, when we have an opportunity to partner 

with a state-of-the-art group like the Nevada Cancer Institute, I

would like to do this if it is a benefit to the veterans.

 So are you going to keep in touch with me and let me know what 

is happening?

Dr. Perlin. Absolutely. I appreciate your help in bringing folks 

together. I have spoken with both Ms. Muran a number of times as 

well as Mr. Clark. And they understand the ways in which they can 

partner and they are excited about the potential for collaboration.

Ms. Berkley. Now, they talked about a number of things in my 
20

conference room. Can you check with Ken Clark and make sure that 

we are going forward? And, you know, it seems like just a series of 

miscommunications. Have you already done that?

Dr. Perlin. Yes. In fact, Congresswoman, I am pleased to report 

that I have spoken to Mr. Clark the issues related to -- 

Ms. Berkley. I am pleased to hear it.

Dr. Perlin. -- VA research policies. And I think there is common 

understanding and enthusiasm.

Ms. Berkley. Great. The third thing and very quickly, I know 

in your opening statements, you were talking about the VA’s plan 

for a genetic database with information on potentially millions of VA 

patients. And obviously we all know that raises several privacy concerns, ethical concerns.

 In light of the latest issue with the theft of 26 million veterans’ personal information, what are you going to do to keep this information 

out of the hands of healthcare and insurance companies and what 

safeguards are you going to implement to ensure that the veterans’ 

genetic health information remains private and a floppy disk does not 

go home with some idiot employee?

Dr. Perlin. I want to thank you for asking this very important 

question -- 

Ms. Berkley. You are welcome.

Dr. Perlin. -- because it needs addressing. And with the Chairman’s permission, if I could have a moment to answer this.

Mr. Brown of South Carolina. [Presiding] I would just identify 

that her time has expired, Dr. Perlin, but you certainly may continue 

if you would.

Dr. Perlin. Well, thank you because I know everyone is curious 

about this.

 First, I want to make very clear the point that the circumstances 

that occurred are tragic and should never have nor should they ever 

occur again.

 Let me assure as well, the Secretary, Deputy, entire leadership 

team, every VA employee takes this very, very seriously.

 As a third point, I want to also make very clear this did not involve 

VA’s electronic health records, VHA health data, or anything within 

VHA. These were departmental administrative data resources.

The reason I make this distinction is because in the health setting, 

all of us have an ethos that really focuses on the privacy of patients, 

the privacy of health information. This dates back to the Hippocratic 

oath which actually includes keeping private a patient’s health information.

 So, in fact, in the health setting, in the health administration, we 

start with an advantage. We start with an ethos that is directed at 

security of health information. And that is not sufficient though. We 

actually have a significant amount of policy within the healthcare 
21

setting as relates to things like HIPPA and privacy laws. And it is 

not just that policies exist. We are also inspected and there is significant oversight in this area.

 That oversight includes in the clinical area the Joint Commission 

which has an entire chapter devoted on patient privacy and information security. It includes our own internal inspection process, the 

SOARS process, Systematic Oversight Assessment and Review System, which is like an internal IG. And, of course, the Inspector General also surveys on CAHP reviews our protection of security.

In the area of research, there are handbooks that derive from the 

departmental policy, significantly amplified by those things unique to 

healthcare that I have mentioned that require different levels of data 

security, different data systems, different system of records, different context, different training requirements, and different oversight 

that are added to again by policy for data protection in the research 

context.

 The Genomic Program is one element that provides the opportunity for research and insight. Another element is simply for treatment. 

Today there are 14,000 genetic tests that are available. And, in fact, 

they allow us to choose better medications for mental illness. They 

allow us to prevent horrible drug toxicities.

 For instance, for 299 out of 300 kids with childhood leukemia, 299 

will do well. One out of three hundred will die. That outcome is 

something that is avoidable with genetic information, with one of the 

tests that is, in fact, available today, and we can know that.

 We have a good track record in the health system of keeping private very sensitive information, information about mental illness, information about substance use, information about infectious disease, 

HIV as an example, sexually transmitted diseases. These are things 

we keep private.

And it would be on that background that in the clinical context, this 

privacy would be secured and it would be in the context of the additional oversight provided by institutional review boards and accreditation of VA research programs and the human subjects protections, 

the Office of Research Oversight, that any data would be generated in 

the Genomics Program with the additional oversight of the Genomics 

Advisory Program that Dr. Watson might wish to speak to, and the 

additional ethical oversight, the veteran input, the service organization input, and what I hope is ever more vigilant management.

Ms. Berkley. But when you embellish on this answer, I mean, I appreciate that, but with all the track record, the ethos that goes back 

to the Hippocratic oath, with all the oversight and the regulations 

and the handbooks, we still ended up with an employee taking these 

records home.

 How do you protect against something like that?

Dr. Perlin. Let me again distinguish. The track record of the 
22

health system -- 

Mr. Brown of South Carolina. Dr. Perlin, I hate to interrupt this 

proceeding, but the five minutes has been ten minutes now and we 

must have other folks that want to ask questions. And I know this is 

an important subject. 

Maybe Ms. Berkley can have a private meeting with you to discuss 

these issues.

Ms. Berkley. You are always welcome in my office.

Mr. Brown of South Carolina. Sorry to interrupt you, Ms. Berkley, 

but we must proceed on.

 Mr. Stearns.

Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate that 

because like many members, I have another appointment and I did 

want to come here to talk to you.

And I really had a question like Ms. Berkley mentioned, but I would 

like to go a little bit more definitive in this.

 Is the genetic information encrypted? Just yes or no. Just yes or 

no.

Dr. Perlin. You are asking a question about clinical information or 

research information. The answer is -- 

Mr. Stearns. The research information that you have collected on 

veterans, is it encrypted?

Dr. Perlin. Well, we have not collected any for this specific program yet.

Mr. Stearns. Okay.

Dr. Perlin. So it is a theoretical question.

Mr. Stearns. So right now you do not have any information on 

genetic -- 

Dr. Perlin. We have genetic information.

Mr. Stearns. When a veteran comes in, when a veteran comes in, 

he signs a form and he or she signs this form and you can do tests and 

automatically if you have blood samples, you have a lot of information on that veteran including his genetics.

Dr. Perlin. Yes. Health information -- 

Mr. Stearns. So the question is, is that information that you collect, which can be tied to its genetics, is that encrypted?

Dr. Perlin. No. It exists behind a firewall.

Mr. Stearns. Okay. And what is this firewall?

Dr. Perlin. A firewall is a system to prevent unauthorized use of 

data, unauthorized use of data.

Mr. Stearns. But let us say someone got access through that firewall, then it is legible? It is not encrypted?

Dr. Perlin. Yes, for a single record.

Mr. Stearns. Okay. Do you have someone identified who is a Chief 

Security Officer?

  Dr. Perlin. Let me answer that in two ways. First, within VA, 
23

VHA, we have individuals at every medical center who deal with patient privacy because it is that significant an issue.

Mr. Stearns. So there is a Chief Security Officer at every medical 

facility?

Dr. Perlin. There is an Information Privacy Officer. The other is 

that VA as of about two and a half years ago centralized the information in a cyber security program. And so, in fact, for the architecture 

of the entire system, there is a central oversight of cyber and information security.

Mr. Stearns. And where is that geographically located?

Dr. Perlin. That is right here in Washington.

Mr. Stearns. Okay. So in Washington, we have all the genetic 

information collected? Is that true?

Dr. Perlin. No, no, no. I thought you were referring to the cyber 

security offices here in Washington.

Mr. Stearns. So what is collected here in Washington? All that 

information?

Dr. Perlin. Well, no. Nothing exists here in Washington. There is 

clinical information at each medical center.

Mr. Stearns. No. But I am talking about the genetic information is 

at various hospitals throughout the country; is that correct?

Dr. Perlin. All clinical information -- 

Mr. Stearns. Yeah, correct.

Dr. Perlin. -- is at hospitals through the country.

Mr. Stearns. And in each one of these hospitals, there is a Chief 

Security Officer?

Dr. Perlin. There is an information privacy person. There may be 

one that supervises two consolidated facilities.

Mr. Stearns. Would that same person be the one that was supposed to protect the information that got lost, the 26 million?

Dr. Perlin. No.

Mr. Stearns. It is a different person?

Dr. Perlin. We are talking about health information within the 

Veterans Health Administration.

Mr. Stearns. So they are not combined?

Dr. Perlin. They are not. The information that was lost was a 

departmental administrative data set.

Mr. Stearns. Okay. And the information that we are talking about 

is in a different -- 

Dr. Perlin. One hundred percent -- 

Mr. Stearns. -- under a totally different -- 

Dr. Perlin. -- totally different.

Mr. Stearns. -- security?

Dr. Perlin. Yes.

Mr. Stearns. And with its own Security Chief, Information Privacy 

Officer?
24

Dr. Perlin. Again, if I might distinguish, there are Privacy Officers 

that are germane to health.

Mr. Stearns. Right.

Dr. Perlin. There are Information Security Officers that oversee 

system intrusion, et cetera. The Privacy Officers would establish and 

enforce the policy for protection of health information and adjudicate 

questions about access.

Mr. Stearns. Okay. Is that a policy that you have with this Security Officer? Is that ever audited by you and management or anyone 

else?

Dr. Perlin. The privacy of patient records is absolutely audited. 

Every Joint Commission inspection requires an audit of protection of 

patient privacy. The CAHP reviews -- 

Mr. Stearns. And is that audit inside or out? Is it people from outside the VA or is that people within the VA who audit it?

Dr. Perlin. Well, the Joint Commission is entirely outside. The 

Inspector General, of course, reports to the President.

Mr. Stearns. Okay. So in answer to Ms. Berkley’s question, you 

do not think what happened to the administrative information could 

ever happen to this hospital clinical genetic information, could never 

occur?

Dr. Perlin. Well, let me answer this way, is that as we go forward 

in constructing what will be a relational data set, let me assure you 

that while we believe our systems are very secure, while we believe 

our ethos is different, there are clearly some lessons, wider lessons.

 If a data set exists free-standing, which is not how the electronic 

health record works, it brings together a bunch of information that 

is visible for that moment that someone is looking at the screen from 

different sets, that any data set that exists free-standing is encrypted 

and secure, that is a lesson.

We believe that our systems are good, but I would be inappropriately assertive if I were to say that we did not learn some lessons 

that we would apply, and this is a focus area of attention within an 

entirely different system of records.

Mr. Stearns. Let me just conclude, Mr. Chairman.

 What is one of the greatest lessons that you have learned from that 

information that was lost that applies to your information privacy of 

this health information? What is one lesson, the greatest lesson that 

you learned?

Dr. Perlin. Congressman, that is a fantastic question and it comes 

down to this, which is that however hard the systems are, however 

strong the policies are, however the great the oversight is, we cannot 

make up for human error.

 That is where the ethos of healthcare helps us focus on the “warmware,” and we will be coming forward with a number of policies to 

work on the warm ware, the people, to understand what their respon-
25

sibilities are and the context of the privilege that they operate in in 

providing healthcare to veterans.

 And with that, whatever the strength of the hardware protections we place, whatever the strength of the oversight, whatever the 

strength of the polices, all of the forcing functions, human error is 

still possible.

And we want to create systems that are as resistant as possible, 

but we also want to work on the way people think about this and 

make sure that every last person, even in the Veterans Health Administration, which has not experienced this type of data loss, even 

in that, understands that it’s their individual responsibility as part of 

the privilege of serving veterans.

Mr. Stearns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Stearns, for your contribution.

Ms. Brown, you are now recognized for five minutes.

Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Dr. Perlin, you and your staff, we are very lucky to have you in the 

position. The veterans are very lucky to have you with your credentials. And, you know, I am very impressed with your commitment to 

the veterans and making sure that they get quality care.

 In this light, I am concerned as what was raised earlier that the 

Bush Administration has sent us two budgets in a row that cut appropriation dollars, in 2006 by nine million and 2007 request by $13 

million.

 In light of this request, how important is recruitment of physicians 

and other medical health people, retention as a priority of the VA?

Dr. Perlin. Thank you, Ms. Brown, for just a tremendously important question.

 The research dollars allow us not only to perform the research in 

the interest of improving the health and well-being of veterans, but 

because the researchers are the very same clinicians and subspecialists who provide the care, it is tremendously important. It is one of 

the reasons that many people decide to come to VA.

 They come for the mission of serving veterans. They come for the 

model of care that we practice. They come for the ability to really be 

at the top of the field in terms of advancing the knowledge. And so it 

is tremendously important in terms of recruiting the best and brightest for the care of veterans.

Ms. Brown of Florida. Yes. And I know it is not because of the pay 

that you get, but it is because of the commitment that you have. And 

I think that is important.

 Second question, I was watching the news yesterday where the veterans organization is suing the VA. And I am going to look at filing a 

friend of the court because I think that there is major problems with - 

and we have been discussing that - regarding the 26 million veterans 

and servicemen, the policies and procedures of the Office of Research 
26

and Development. You have explained that.

But what about the other additional procedures and concerns? You 

talked a little bit about that, but can you assure us today that we will 

not later learn that some of that information pertaining to VA medical records was lost?

 When we heard from the Secretary last week, I was very concerned 

that it could be others out there that could have taken information 

and we just happened to find out about this particular data. Go 

ahead.

Dr. Perlin. I am sorry. Congresswoman, this absolutely positively 

was not veterans’ electronic health records. This was departmental 

data, administrative data, not veterans’ health records.

Ms. Brown of Florida. So you are assuring me that I will not 

find out later that any veterans’ health records are just floating out 

there?

The Chairman. Will the gentle lady yield for a second?

Ms. Brown of Florida. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. The leadership of the Committee have worked together to lay out a series of hearings in the month of June that is just 

being announced and one of those -- I know Chairman Reyes just left 

-- the Subcommittee on Health along with the Ranking Member Michaud will be holding a specific hearing with Dr. Perlin to cover the 

very same issues that you are covering.

Ms. Brown of Florida. Okay.

The Chairman. And I am sure that you will be able to go into great 

depth -- 

Ms. Brown of Florida. All right.

The Chairman. -- at that Subcommittee hearing. I wanted the 

gentlelady to know.

Ms. Brown of Florida. Well, thank you.

 And so then I will just follow-up that I have a letter for you, Dr. 

Perlin. I have had a couple of meetings on the issue that we have 

about the VA clinic in Jacksonville. And we have had two meetings 

and I am requesting a third that we will have here in Washington.

 I know in Washington, a million here and a million there is not any 

real dollars. But my city, we have spent over $3 million trying to accommodate the Veterans Administration.

 And the people that you have sent down are arrogant. They are 

basically -- you know, I am trying to be nice, but that is not something 

that this gentle lady is used to being. I just need a meeting with 

someone that is not just -- do not care anything about, you know, the 

veterans. You know, it is just not working in a manner that is acceptable to me, the city, or the veterans who are calling me.

And in Orlando it has been 25 years and we still do not have a hospital. And I am not going to have this happen in Jacksonville.

  Dr. Perlin. Well, Congresswoman, I may be the other person in 
27

the room who is equally frustrated at the inability for all of us to get 

together. It is our desire to serve the veterans that are in Jacksonville.

Let me thank you for your trying to bring together all of the different people and the city and VA to make it work out. I have some 

information and maybe it would be good for you and I to get together 

and just compare our notes on what is needed.

I think it will take both of our work to get things together, but our 

goal is the same, to make sure that we have the clinic sized adequately with adequate parking, able to provide the care to your veterans 

there in Jacksonville.

Ms. Brown of Florida. Any time.

Dr. Perlin. Thank you.

Ms. Brown of Florida. Thank you.

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Thank you.

 Dr. Watson, I have a series of questions for you. What is your role 

at the American College of Medical Genetics?

Dr. Watson. I am the Executive Director of the American College 

of Medical Genetics. I am a Board Certified Medical Geneticist by 

training.

The Chairman. And you are a member of the Genomic Committee?

 Dr. Watson. Yes, recently appointed. The group has yet to meet, 

so I cannot express any opinions of theirs yet. However, I can express 

my own and those of the genetics community.

The Chairman. And as you go to this Committee, what are your 

priorities?

Dr. Watson. Well, certainly to -- well, there are multiple, frankly. 

I think the opportunity that the VA system offers is tremendous for 

both the veterans and for genetics.

 Genetics is really a translational medicine area of practice now. 

It is not this research box that sits, that people think of as a basic 

science entity. It is not necessarily always hardcore, standardized 

clinical service.

It is using the best systems we have, and certainly the VA has 

one of the best electronic medical records systems available where 

we are now able to really validate what we do in genetics and across 

the spectrum of healthcare. And I think that is the benefit of these 

systems.

 Much of what we practice in medicine today is not well validated 

and there are many questions as to whether we actually know what 

we should be doing all the time. And the opportunity to use an electronic medical record to inform us about what is the best of multiple 

options that might be available to us when we manage a particular 

condition is significant.

The ability to use the systems to educate physicians who by and 
28

large have not been exposed to much genetics, it has broken lose tremendously over the past decade.

So our ability to bring point of care education through electronic 

systems is tremendous and to really get at the chronic diseases which 

I think the veterans allow us to really get at in genetics. And we have 

done pretty well in rare diseases, you know, the things that have 

very powerful genetics behind them. But the chronic disease side has 

been quite difficult to get at.

And I think first starting with a population that has certain environmental or other exposure factors that increase their chances of 

particular diseases being expressed makes them a very valuable resource for understanding the chronic diseases, and then to really be 

able to develop how we practice because genetics is going to be an 

ongoing evolutionary area of practice. We will learn as we go as we 

have for the past 30, 40 years.

The Chairman. Describe what pharmacogenomic profiling is.

Dr. Watson. Pharmacogenomic profiling is really -- it is going to be 

more than I think what people think it is today. Today when we talk 

about pharmacogenetics, we do a test to determine whether or not 

somebody is going to metabolize a particular drug in the way that we 

would expect them to to get the response that we expect from having 

been treated.

 We know that many people may have an enzyme defect that does 

not allow them to metabolize that drug appropriately so that we can 

then determine whether that drug is right for that person. We can 

also use it to determine whether or not dosing is the issue for that 

particular person.

 I think what -- that is sort of the classic model, I think, of pharmacogenetics today. But I think where it is going is something that Dr. 

Perlin alluded to which is the Gleevac story in CML where based on 

the molecular nature of an abnormality that led to a particular condition, we now have molecular treatments that target the very specific 

molecular abnormality that led to that disease.

 And I think that is a very personalized directed kind of pharmacogenetic approach that is not -- there is not a lot of it available right 

now. Probably three, four drugs that very directly target a molecular 

structure. That is an acquired abnormality of the genetic material, 

different than pharmacogenetics now which is an inherited defect in 

an enzyme that does not allow you to metabolize a particular drug as 

most people might.

The Chairman. All right. Now, let us go to the tough question, and 

that is how we balance our interests - and we will go to the beginning 

- how we balance our interests to be veteran centric in our research 

while being cognizant of something that is on the cutting edge that is 

so beneficial to our general population. Right? I mean, that is what 

we have here.
29

At the same time, because it could leverage into tremendous benefit to us and you have to make a decision here, Dr. Kupersmith, 

with regard to limited dollars, everybody is in competition for them. 

Okay? So I am curious here as we do our balancing test. Let me yield 

to you.

Dr. Perlin. Mr. Chairman, that is a terrific question. First, I 

would have to say that it is not a question if genetic medicine is coming. It is coming. As Dr. Watson said there is right now the ability to 

choose medications, and certain patients’ pain medicines do not work 

as well. So in most African-Americans, metabolism of pain-relieving, 

opiate-type drugs is faster and pain dosing is typically under-dosed.

But to the second part of your question, how is this specifically veteran centric? Well, this is really the window to understand how some 

people may be differentially susceptible to nerve gas or pyridostigmine bromide or development of PTSD or the treatment.

In fact, I might ask Dr. Friedman to talk about some of the advances in psychopharmacology, treatment for mental health based 

on genetic differences.

Do you want to elaborate on that as we talked yesterday?

Dr. Friedman. Well, I mean, everyone is different. Everyone is 

different genetically. That is one of the reasons why the Twin Study 

is such an important resource. They are different in terms of how 

exposure to combat trauma might affect them. Are they going to be 

resilient and be able to do just fine or are they going to be quite vulnerable and develop PTSD or other kinds of problems?

 We really feel that the question of resilience is one of the most important questions in the PTSD field. We have studies, collaborative 

studies at Ft. Bragg right now trying to understand what are the molecular differences as well as the psychobiological difference between 

people who are resilient and people who are not.

 As Dr. Watson said and Dr. Perlin emphasized earlier, these studies also have implications in terms of who is going to be a good candidate for what treatment, whether it is a pharmacological treatment 

or a psychotherapeutic treatment.

The Chairman. I know we have Dr. Snyder here, but let me finish 

this. I use the word balance, but there are also tradeoffs. So when 

you propose to us a decrease in funding and then appropriators would 

come back and we put that back in. Somewhere you are making some 

judgments and you are making some judgments here to say, okay, we 

are going to decrease our research on heart disease. Maybe you made 

that judgment. I can only do supposition to say well, maybe that is 

where NIH is pushing over there; therefore, we can go here.

 I am trying to get into the analysis of your professional judgment. 

Dr. Kupersmith, what are you doing here? How are you making these 

judgments to say, okay, Dr. Watson, we like what you are doing, we 

are going to make some investments here? A decision was made. You 
30

made a priority judgment. You testified on this before, Dr. Perlin. 

So now Dr. Kupersmith, how are you carrying this out? Let us know 

where the puts and takes are.

Dr. Kupersmith. Let me just first say that this is not a choice between doing research in heart disease and doing research in genomics. I am a cardiologist. Genomics is the future treatment of heart 

disease. The very same pharmacogenomics that Dr. Watson was 

talking about has already applied in some ways to heart disease in 

the use of anticoagulants and other drugs.

 So this I see as the future of caring for patients with heart disease 

just as you raised that example. And if we are to look at the future of 

what is the best way that we can improve the care of veteran patients 

with heart disease, the judgment here is that this is going to be at the 

forefront.

 So I think that that is part of it. I also think that this is ultimately 

the most veteran centric kind of research that we can do because it 

involves the genetic makeup of our veteran populations and how that 

relates to the diseases we have.

As you know, there has been a tremendous amount of work looking 

at exposures to various insecticides and other agents. It is not a bad 

hypothesis that this has a genetic basis, that some people are more 

susceptible and, therefore, have symptoms from it or diseases from it 

so that it is another area where we can make advances where there 

has been really, I think, road blocks to getting ahead in that area of 

research.

 There are many, many - we can go through the entire spectrum of 

diseases in this way.

The Chairman. Dr. Snyder, Dr. Watson has to take off. If you have 

a question on genetics, genomics, he is our man.

Mr. Snyder. I do not. I do not for Dr. Watson. I do for Dr. Perlin.

The Chairman. My last question then on this topic is, as you make 

these budgetary decisions here, what are you asking for? I mean, 

what did you ask for, Dr. Kupersmith?

Dr. Kupersmith. In terms of genomics?

The Chairman. Yeah, in terms of genomics.

Dr. Kupersmith. Yes. Well, this is our -- 

The Chairman. With regard to dollars. How much in dollars are 

you now putting toward this?

Dr. Kupersmith. There are a number of items of cost that are related to this. We are embarking on a pilot study over next year to 

determine how we are going to collect the samples, how we are going 

to ask for consents. For example, how we ask for consents has a tremendous impact on budget.

So we have not established the final dollar, just to say that this is 

collection of blood and possibly other tissues which has a limited expense and a number of other aspects to it where the expense may not 
31

be as large as one thinks.

 One of the ways we are going to cope with this is to decrease less 

productive research. And as I said before, looking at our centers is 

one of the ways of doing this.

But I think that we need to establish the banking of this and many 

other features of this. We need to work with the Advisory Committee 

to look at how the consents should be done, what we are going to do 

to assure special privacy for this.

This is probably not the kind of information that should be available the way the rest of the medical record is. We do this in some 

ways with psychiatric information. So there are many, many questions about this that we are going to be looking at our Advisory Committee to ask before we can give you the final on that.

The Chairman. Dr. Kupersmith and Dr. Watson, as you proceed on 

this, this is an area of interest also at NIH. And we do that funding. 

So we are laying appropriate dollars there?

So let me go back to the statement of being all things to all people. 

When trying to remain centric, taking care of those injuries and diseases specifically related to that military service, at the same time, 

you have something here that helps the general population of a country and a world really.

What of limited dollars do we begin to take away at the same time 

we want to press those bounds? We want to be good listeners to you. 

Okay? And I want you to work with Mr. Michaud and Chairman 

Brown as we formulate this, as we go into next year’s budget.

Dr. Perlin, you may say to us here is our budget, this is our ongoing research, this here, this is so valuable, your Committee may come 

back and lay down something specific. We do not really do that. We 

do not really come in here and go, okay, we are going to lay specific 

dollars on a specific disease. But we want to be open to you.

 Dr. Kupersmith. So much of what we have done in research has 

benefited everyone, probably most of it. And treatment of tuberculosis, one of the first great veterans’ projects, veterans’ research projects. This is directed at veterans. This is our purpose. If it helps 

other people, that is obviously an added advantage and it will help 

other people.

Our research in prosthetics, our research in traumatic brain injury 

will help automobile accident victims in this country. So all of our 

research does that. But I think it is really important to think of this 

as a -- at least we think of it as a veteran centric intervention. And 

I think the future will be for veterans to get a tremendous amount of 

benefit from this.

The Chairman. Dr. Snyder.

Mr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding 

this hearing.

I am sorry I was unable to be here for the first part of it. I may ask 
32

you some questions that have already been covered.

To bring this home, this business about research, for me, I was 

reminded just these last few weeks, Dr. Perlin. My wife and I had a 

baby 15 days ago, two weeks. He was a big boy, nine pounds, seven 

ounce boy. And we ended up having to have a C section partly because of his size.

And I called up my 90-year-old aunt and told her about we had a 

nine and seven ounce baby boy. And she told me when she had her 

first son like 60 some years ago, she said I did not think anybody 

could have a bigger baby than Johnny who was nine pounds, five 

ounces. But she said that the labor was terrible, the delivery was 

terrible. After he was born, she had to spend 13 days in the hospital. 

The whole experience was so bad she did not think she would ever 

want to have another kid again.

Well, so my wife goes in. We try laboring for a while. Doctor said 

it is not cutting it. We have the C section. We are home in three 

days. That is not just an accident. You and I know that. And it is 

because of the great work that has been done by researchers through 

the years and said here is how we do it and here is how we prevent 

these terrible problems.

 So I think what you all are working on is so important. I have several questions I want to ask.

The Chairman. Dr. Watson, you may be excused if you like, if you 

need to leave. Thank you.

Dr. Watson. Thank you.

The Chairman. Dr. Snyder.

Mr. Snyder. Thanks. The issue of when you set the number in the 

budget, in the President’s request, whether it is for this past year or 

the years to come, this whole issue of the biomedical research inflation rate, it is estimated, I think, at five and a half percent for fiscal 

year 2005 and a little bit lower than that, a little over four percent for 

fiscal year 2006, which has reduced in real dollars the VA research 

budget over those two years by almost $40 million.

 Now, shouldn’t we when we are doing this, in fairness to everyone, 

the veterans, to you, to researchers, to the Congress, shouldn’t we 

start out and say our baseline budget includes an inflationary increase so we will be talking in terms of real dollars from the get-go? 

Shouldn’t that be the way we do this?

Dr. Perlin. Well, first, Dr. Snyder, congratulations on your new 

baby.

Mr. Snyder. Thank you.

Dr. Perlin. And I am glad the results of research are what they 

are.

I am, I believe, the first M.D., Ph.D. Under Secretary or Chief 

Medical Director of the Veterans Health Administration. I am a researcher and I believe passionately in research.
33

Mr. Snyder. I know you do. I know you do.

Dr. Perlin. The budget was purposefully a lean budget. It was also 

a budget that looked at the needs of veterans and said, okay, what is 

veteran centric, where are our priorities. It is a budget that actually 

raises the amount of focus on those things that are directly veteran 

centric.

I think one of the things that whatever the budget line is, and let 

me acknowledge this Committee for your robust support not only of 

the request but your acknowledgement of the importance of VA research by recommending additional funds, whatever the investment 

that the American taxpayer on their behalf, you help us make in VA 

research, it is leveraged substantially.

 One of the things that I think is testament to that is that the seed 

money that is provided actually pays back a 150 percent return on 

investment. For example, in 2006, this year, $412 million will actually provide a core of research activity that allows investigators to 

bring in, if my number is correct, Dr. Kupersmith, $662 million of 

additional cost of research.

Mr. Snyder. But that leads to my second question, Dr. Perlin. I

will accept what you said. The budget was purposefully lean. The 

budget was purposefully lean. And I would contend this is the wrong 

time in our history given both our economic competition and the jobs 

of the future and the technology of the future but also as a nation at 

war, that this is the wrong time to be “purposefully lean” in the VA 

research budget.

My second question, Dr. Perlin, is this. When you talk about leveraging funds, other parts of the budget are held constant also. NIH 

budget, which you do not have anything to do with, it is held constant 

in the President’s proposal also.

 So does it not give kind of a false sense of security to those of us who 

read these things very quickly when we read, oh, this is going to help 

us to leverage other funds? Oh, by the way, the funds that we are 

going to try to leverage, they are being held constant also and sooner 

or later, somebody has got to take a hit or the purposefully lean idea 

is not going to be carried out.

Dr. Perlin. Well, let me rephrase. That was a poor choice of words. 

A better choice is we wanted to be as responsible in assuring that the 

dollars were maximized for veteran centric research.

And I think the track record is is that investment actually begets 

a continuing increase in extramural funding and that year over year, 

2007 over 2006, 2006 over 2005, there are significantly more external 

dollars that are brought in to augment the entire VA research portfolio.

Mr. Snyder. By external, you are including dollars from NIH and 

other federal research?

Dr. Perlin. Yes, I am.
34

Mr. Snyder. Well, I think I made my point. Those budgets have 

also been drawn “purposefully lean” and so it is going to be harder for 

you to leverage that.

 My time is up. I had actually several other things.

 What is the state of VA research facilities? We have some money 

that was spent recently. It is for some new square footage in Arkansas, the VA there. It is very nice. But my concern is this. Upgrading 

facilities takes money. Good research takes good modern facilities.

We have got this lean budget going on. Are we having problems? 

Are we going to have to take money out of personnel in order to do 

research facilities or are we going to ignore expansion and modernization of research facilities in order to keep our personnel up? What 

is the status of research facilities and does the Committee need to do 

a better job of looking at square footage and kind of the bricks and 

mortar of research?

Dr. Kupersmith. Well, I appreciate that question and appreciate 

the money that I think the Committee has indicated it wishes to 

spend on that.

 First of all, there is clearly an issue throughout the VA system with 

our research infrastructure. It needs improvement in many areas. I

do want to say, though, just briefly that while that is true, the quality 

of the research is outstanding.

Mr. Snyder. I agree with that. I agree with you.

Dr. Kupersmith. What we are doing is, first of all, we are gathering 

together all of the information that has already been provided to us 

on our research facilities over the past few years. We are organizing 

that information.

 We have sent a questionnaire to research facilities concerning the 

status of their research. We are going to have a number of site visits 

before the end of the year. We have a group out of the Gainsville VA 

that we have detailed to do this, to make a number of site visits to 

look at the correlation of the information we have with what is happening actually in a number of facilities.

 And we intend to survey our 75 major research facilities over the 

next three years after that. We will have a report in early 2007 on 

this initial phase that will essentially look at what we are going to 

have to do.

Mr. Snyder. I hope that the report, and I assume it will be, will be 

very straightforward with us and will not kind of get lost in the budgetary year stuff of, oh, yeah, we do not really need this.

 I mean, the Committee - I am sure I speak for the Chairman -- we 

just want to know what you need and what you can live with and 

what has just absolutely got to be improved.

Dr. Kupersmith. You know, I make site visits as one of my jobs. It 

is more informal site visits to see a facility and the first thing they 

show me are research facilities that are dated. So I understand that 
35

we have to really look at this.

 And that is why we are doing these site visits ourselves, to really 

get our own look at this and not just what people’s impressions may 

be. You know, as honest impressions as they are that we want to look 

at this carefully.

Mr. Snyder. Dr. Perlin, given that anyone out there who follows 

this business and is paying attention to where your budget number is 

on research and paying attention to where we are with facilities and 

so on, you all, you know, are always competing with the private sector 

for good clinical staff, good research staff, those delightful people that 

do both research and clinical work.

 What kind of a message does it send in terms of your recruitment 

and trying to recruit somebody to stay with you for ten or fifteen or 

twenty years when we kind of play -- I do not know, whatever the 

metaphor is -- Russian roulette or something each year that, well, 

our budget is going to be lean this year, some people may be cut, some 

people may not be cut, we are hoping the Congress, nudge, nudge, 

wink, wink, we are hoping the Congress will add some money so that 

nobody will actually get cut? Doesn’t this have a negative impact 

on the way you do your recruiting and retention of physicians when 

those top-rated researchers that you are trying to keep and recruit 

for your facilities?

Dr. Perlin. In fact, we want to bring forward each year an entire 

budget that is responsible and meets the needs. We want to make 

sure that -- and I testified earlier before you arrived that when I was 

the Acting Chief of Research and Development, my litmus test was 

that we lived the mission of VA research, improving the health and 

well-being of veterans.

We have the stewardship responsibility as well which is to make 

sure that the research that is conducted is valuable. And the Chairman said veteran centric. With all that in mind, we continue to have 

a growing overall research budget. In fact, within the research budget, we make priorities. In any budget, one makes priorities.

And one of the priority areas has been career development awards 

to attract today’s emerging stars as both the researchers and clinicians for veterans. And this budget, budgets that proceed show an increasing number of career development awards just for that purpose 

of attracting and recruiting.

 We also do want productive researchers, researchers who can 

compete intramurally and extramurally demonstrating that their 

research by all merit review is the best research that can possibly 

be done to answer and address those questions that are relevant to 

improving veteran health.

Mr. Snyder. I agree with that. The question is, with additional 

funds, could you do more top-flight research that meets that standard? And I think that you could.
36

 But the last question I want to ask has to do with your discussion 

and your written statement on neurotrauma. And I was struck by 

what you say here, that traumatic brain injury accounts for almost 

25 percent of combat casualties.

 Is that 25 percent of all casualties or those that are hospitalized?

Dr. Perlin. I would have to get you that number.

Dr. Kupersmith. Yeah. Dr. Ruff may know that offhand.

Mr. Snyder. That seemed a little high to me for 25 percent of all 

combat casualties. I would have thought there would have been a lot 

of superficial shrapnel.

Dr. Perlin. Well, maybe the way I can come to that is that -- and 

we will check on the exact -- but one of the statistics that is absolutely 

incredible is that if you are injured in combat and you make it to a 

critical support hospital at the front lines, you stand over 98 percent 

chance of survival. As you have seen, the injuries are multiple and 

often include that.

 Let me ask Dr. Ruff if -- 

Mr. Snyder. Well, let me get to my question. The Chairman is being very patient here, if I might.

 My question is this. So in your statement, you say 25 percent of 

combat casualties in both Iraq and Afghanistan are traumatic brain 

injuries. And I appreciate your accentuating that because that is so 

important to those veterans and to their families.

 And then in your written statement, you say 85 letters of intent to 

submit a research proposal were received indicating a high level of 

interest amongst our investigators. Complete proposals will be reviewed in the next several months and we plan to fund as many highquality projects as the budget will allow, as the budget will allow.

Dr. Perlin. Yes.

Mr. Snyder. And so my question and my comment would be, if you 

review those 85 and you conclude you can only fund -- or that there is 

only 30 there that are worth funding, you have plenty of extra money, 

you are going to fund the 30, that is fine.

 My concern is you review those 85 and say, you know, 73 of those 

are top-flight research, but we only have funding this year for 42. I 

am just making up numbers. I think that the Committee would be 

concerned. I think the Veterans’ Committee would be concerned. I 

think those families would be concerned if -- unless you would be very 

straightforward with this as this process goes along, if you come back 

to us and said, if we had additional monies, you know. Maybe Mr. 

Snyder was right. We could have used additional money because we 

could then fund this additional ten, fifteen, or twenty proposals that 

would meet our standard for top-flight research because this is so 

important to the future livelihood and quality of life of these veterans 

and their families.

 And I was really struck. I mean, I appreciate your candor. As the 
37

budget will allow. Well, budgets are set by this Congress and I will 

want to know if you come back to us and say we could have funded 23 

more top-flight research projects with good personnel if you had given 

us more money because you make the proposal, but eventually we do 

the appropriations.

 And so I hope you will share with us that information so that we 

can -- 

The Chairman. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Snyder. I am finished, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your indulgence.

The Chairman. This is an area where -- I will choose the word collaboration -- this is a great area of collaboration for research between 

Dr. Perlin and DoD.

Dr. Perlin. Yes.

The Chairman. And that is what you need to do is have that kind 

of conversation because these are active-duty patients. You know, 

you have them, Dr. Snyder, in your responsibilities on the Personnel 

Subcommittee. And you make those decisions on medical research 

in DoD.

I mean, this is an area, when you talk about the funding of combat 

casualty neurotrauma, this is one that should be a cooperative effort, I would think, between VA and DoD, Dr. Snyder. Would you 

concur?

Mr. Snyder. Yeah, absolutely. And it is to everyone’s interest that 

it be well funded, I mean, because we want to be able to look back five 

and ten, fifteen years from now just like I look back on my Aunt Lois 

and her 60-year-old pregnancy, that we look back and say look at the 

remarkable things that we did.

But when I see we are only going to do what the budget allows 

when this Committee, I think -- I think the Congress will be very receptive if you said, you know, we could really do some more top-flight 

research in traumatic brain injury to help these 25 percent of our 

injured veterans.

The Chairman. Let me bring up the area that I had a conversation 

with Dr. Perlin about. So I want you to hear this, Dr. Kupersmith. 

And it deals with the helmet.

Dr. Kupersmith. Yeah.

The Chairman. So Vic Snyder is over there on the Armed Services 

Committee and we are doing everything we can to give him that body 

protection. So generally in the past when you have that blast, part of 

the blast is absorbed by the body.

Now we give them the body armor and they have got on that new 

kevlar helmet that is strapped onto the head. When the blast comes 

in, it hits the extremities and part of the force goes up the face. You 

get maxillofacial injuries. You get blindness, severe traumas to the 

eyes, takes off part of the nose. And when the force goes up into the 
38

helmet, it cannot escape and we end up with all this traumatic brain 

injury.

And so, number one, what I am hopeful here is when you look at 

this combat casualty neurotrauma research that you also do not look 

and say are we not also contributing to a problem here. We saved the 

torso and lose the brain. And should this helmet have vents in it or 

some type of vent system to allow part of that force to go out?

 And I am not a doctor. I am not one of these. But I am just saying common sense is saying to me if we can put a man on the moon, 

we can try to figure out how to provide some relief to a force causing 

brain trauma.

So I just throw that back to you. And I will work with you, Vic, on 

something like this.

Dr. Kupersmith. Let me just first say that our collaboration with 

DoD in many ways -- I can just speak about the research area -- has 

increased enormously just since I have been there, but it began to 

increase well before. And we are collaborating in this, in burns, in 

prosthetics, in many, many other areas.

 And we certainly consider this very high on our agenda, at the top 

of our agenda to collaborate with the Department of Defense in these. 

And certainly a collaboration that could evolve in the future is to look 

at our data on traumatic brain injury in the veterans some years 

later and what sort of armor, what is one’s approach to armor, taking 

that in light.

So those are a number of research areas that we can get into. I 

think our funding line is usually about 25 percent. And we will certainly look at these projects and I think -- 

Mr. Snyder. I am sorry, sir. I did not know, 25 percent -

Dr. Kupersmith. On a usual RFA, we fund about 25 percent of the 

research projects that come in.

Mr. Snyder. Oh, okay.

Dr. Kupersmith. We consider of high enough scientific merit to 

fund. We do not know how it will come out on this. So when we do 

know, what we can do in our own sphere is to try to, as I said before, 

obviously save money in other areas so that we can provide more 

here.

This is our highest priority. There is no question about that. Perhaps in future budget submissions, some of this will be reflected, but 

that is essentially how we can work with it at this point.

Mr. Snyder. Well, but I appreciate -

Dr. Kupersmith. Can I add one more thing to my answer?

Mr. Snyder. It is the written statement here that says as the budget will allow, so that is where my question was coming from.

Dr. Kupersmith. Okay.

Mr. Snyder. Yeah. You are welcome to augment.

  Dr. Kupersmith. I just want to make the point, and Dr. Ruff made 
39

this point also -- it is very important -- we are looking upon this as 

taking on a problem and we are going to do this more and more in research, not looking at whether it is health services research or basic 

or clinical. This is a problem we want to address. We want to address 

it from the cellular level through to the health system level that we 

study. And I want to make that point.

Mr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your indulgence.

The Chairman. Dr. Perlin, if you could get back to me. I am sort 

of struggling with really where do I really need to go? Do I need to 

go over to material command at DoD to say I want you to study the 

helmet?

 If you have an idea here on who I need to touch or how we need to 

fund or how we want to examine - if you have your studies out there 

- I know you are going to be looking at other things. But if we have a 

helmet - if, in fact, there is body armor with this - we are contributing 

to a problem here, I really do not know who to go to to examine this 

issue. I really do not.

Dr. Perlin. You raise an important issue that the rate of survival 

from a forward injury is now greater than ever before. And that is a 

good thing. But the injuries that are sustained are brutal. The body 

armor saves lives.

 But as you have seen when you visited at Walter Reed, you have 

learned that the trauma is multiple. It can lead to amputation, spinal cord injury, brain trauma, loss of vision, loss of hearing, all of the 

mental health issues that are associated with that tragic loss.

 And that is the challenge of today’s patient and that is where VA

is investing its resources, areas like polytrauma. In fact, there are 

projects that look at mechanisms of traumatic brain injury, the skull 

interface with the helmet.

In DoD, there is a colonel I know who has been doing some work 

to try to advance the helmet recognizing that the percussive injury 

occurs twice, once with the explosion and once with the repercussion 

with the helmet itself just as you have identified.

The Chairman. Dr. Ruff, you passed that note. Do you know the 

name of the colonel? Will you get it to the Committee? Do you know 

who is doing this specific type of repercussion research?

Dr. Ruff. I do not know the name of the colonel, but I know that 

there are three projects that we are looking at that look at the skull 

interface to the source of the pressure, basically what you are talking about in terms of the helmet, how the pressure is delivered and 

how the pressure is dissipated in terms of what effect that has on the 

brain.

So that is being looked at in animal models. We are not doing it 

with people. There are some people I would like to do it with, but that 

is not ethical.
40

Dr. Perlin. Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Yes.

Dr. Perlin. I might suggest, Mr. Chairman, we might want to have 

a closed joint briefing with the DoD and these folks because some of 

the stuff we talk about probably ought to be in a closed session in 

terms of what are the vulnerabilities of our armor.

The Chairman. All right. We will do that.

If you will be in touch with the Committee, Dr. Ruff, I would appreciate that.

 Thank you very much for your testimony and for the judgments 

that you are making. This panel is now excused.

All members of the Committee will have five legislative days to 

enter their statements into the record.

 Our second panel, if you could come forward. Our second panel 

represents the veterans service organizations and groups familiar 

with medical research.

The first member of the panel is Mr. Carl Blake, Senior Associate 

Legislative Director for Paralyzed Veterans of America. Mr. Blake is 

a graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point.

 After graduation, he was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in 

the United States Army, assigned to the First Brigade of the 82nd 

Airborne at Ft. Bragg, North Carolina. He was retired from the military in October of 2000 due to a service-connected disability.

Our second member of the panel is Rick Weidman who is Executive Director of Policy & Government Affairs for Vietnam Veterans of 

America. Mr. Weidman served as a medic with the Company C 23rd 

Med, America Division, located with ICOR of Vietnam in 1969.

 Mr. Weidman was part of the staff of VVA from 1979 to 1987, serving variously as Membership Service Director, Liaison, and Director 

of Government Relations. He left VVA to serve in the Administration 

of Governor Uma as Director of Veterans Employment and Training 

in the New York State Department of Labor.

Congratulations on your new title.

Mr. Weidman. Thank you very much, sir.

The Chairman. Our third and final panelist, Dr. Dennis Niewoehner, a Member of the American Thoracic Society and Chief of Pulmonary Section of the VA Medical Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota. He 

is here testifying on behalf of the Friends of VA Research.

 Gentlemen, your written statements, if you have them -- do all 

three of you have written statements? All but one. Rick Weidman, 

do you have a written statement?

Mr. Weidman. Yes, sir.

  The Chairman. All three have written statements. If you offer your 

statements, they will all be submitted for the record, and you each 

are recognized for five minutes for oral testimony.

 Mr. Blake, you are now recognized.
41

STATEMENTS OF CARL BLAKE, SENIOR ASSOCIATE LEGIS-

 LATIVE DIRECTOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA;

 RICHARD WEIDMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, POLICY & 

 GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA; AND DENNIS E. NIEWOEHNER, MEMBER, AMERICAN

 THORACIC SOCIETY, TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF VA RE-

 SEARCH, CHIEF, PULMONARY SECTION, VAMC, MINNEAP-

 OLIS, MINNESOTA

STATEMENT OF CARL BLAKE

Mr. Blake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Michaud, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify today 

on the VA Medical and Prosthetic Research Program.

Before I begin, I would like to introduce someone who is here with 

me. I would like to introduce Mr. Thomas Stripling. He is PVA’s Director for the Research, Education, and Clinical Practice Guidelines 

Program. He is our subject matter expert on these issues at PVA and 

he will be available for questions also.

The Chairman. Please come up here and have a seat.

 Mr. Blake is here testifying. He answers the questions asked. But 

you know what? I do not have the subject area of that -- 

Mr. Blake. I learn quickly, sir.

The Chairman. You had a very good answer. Something you learned 

probably at West Point.

Mr. Blake. It had to do with the IT section, sir -

The Chairman. It was IT.

Mr. Blake. - and not knowing where it was in the IB.

The Chairman. Yes. It was a great question, but this is not a subject area for which I have great expertise, I think. Now you have him 

to your right.

Mr. Blake. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. We have you covered. You are recognized.

Mr. Blake. The VA healthcare system is a unique environment 

combining clinical care, education, and research. VA currently supports approximately 3,800 researchers at 115 VA medical centers.

 According to the VA, nearly 83 percent of these VA researchers are 

practicing physicians. Because of this dual role, VA research often 

immediately benefits patients.

 For example, functional electrical stimulation is a technology using controlled electrical currents to activate paralyzed muscles and is 

being developed at VA clinical facilities and laboratories throughout 

the country.

This technology is now being applied to many PVA members receiving healthcare service and rehabilitation therapy at SCI centers. 

Through this technology, tetraplegic patients have been able to grasp 
42

objects, stand and pivot to assist transfers, and control bladder function. We even anticipate greater capacity for walking short distances.

 Through the system’s scope of primary, secondary, and tertiary 

care as well as long-term care, with multi-disciplinary academic affiliations, the VA brings validation and innovation to the delivery of 

the best care for today’s veterans.

 Perfect examples of this idea are the Parkinson’s Disease Research, 

Education, and Clinical Centers and the MS Centers of Excellence. 

These centers represent a successful strategy to focus the VHA’s system-wide service and research expertise to address two critical care 

segments of the veteran population.

 Since 1997, PVA has worked with VA MS clinicians and administrators as well as with private MS providers and advocates to address 

the then patchwork service delivery by VHA towards veterans with 

MS. While we identified the scope and range of these services, it became very apparent that vital elements indeed did exist.

The designation by VA of two MS Centers of Excellence located 

in Baltimore and Seattle/Portland represents centers without walls 

engaged in marshaling VA expertise in diagnosis, service delivery, 

research and education, and making the same available across the 

country through the hub and spokes’ approach.

PVA supports this approach for both Parkinson’s disease as well as 

multiple sclerosis. In fact, there is a similar approach that is used for 

spinal injury care through the VA.

 We would urge the Committee to consider legislation which would 

permanently authorize these centers because they represent the true 

value of VHA as a national healthcare system’s success story.

 PVA recognizes the fact that much like the greater VA infrastructure, research facilities are aging and in need of repair or renovation. 

For decades, insufficient construction funding has been provided to 

maintain, upgrade, and replace the VA’s aging research facilities. 

The result is a backlog of research sites that need major and minor 

construction funding.

Five years ago, the VA received $25 million specifically for upgrades 

and enhancements to these facilities. However, no specific funding 

has been provided since.

 We do appreciate that this Committee and the House of Representatives earlier this year earmarked $12 million for minor construction at VA research facilities. However, we believe a steadier stream 

of funds must be provided.

We urge Congress to begin investing dedicated funding into the 

rapidly deteriorating infrastructure in which VA clinicians and researchers conduct their daily activities.

 The VA has stated that it will need three years to complete a research facility’s assessment before it can invest new money into its 
43

research infrastructure. However, an assessment was just completed 

in 2003 and we believe that this assessment could be used as the 

baseline for a faster reevaluation so that much needed upgrades are 

not held hostage to this process.

 In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, our greatest concern with the Medical and Prosthetic Research Program is chronic under-funding. VA

research has been grossly under-funded in comparison to the growth 

rate of other federal research initiatives.

Although the Administration’s budget request called for only $399 

million for this account, we appreciate your efforts and the Committee’s efforts to provide the additional funding to the program. However, we believe more can be done.

 In accordance with the recommendations of the Independent Budget, we believe that the Medical and Prosthetic Research Program 

requires $460 million. This would allow the VA to expand the scope 

of many of its research projects and begin upgrading and expanding 

its research infrastructure.

 Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you again for the opportunity 

to testify. And myself and Mr. Stripling will be happy to answer any 

questions that you might have.

 The Chairman. Thank you.

 Mr. Weidman, you are recognized.

[The statement of Carl Blake appears on p. 84]

STATEMENT OF RICHARD WEIDMAN

Mr. Weidman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of Vietnam 

Veterans of America and our National President, I want to thank you 

for this opportunity.

 We also wish to salute you for your continued emphasis on trying to 

get VA to focus on the wounds of war and the maladies and wounds 

of military service per se. It is something that Vietnam Veterans of 

America since our inception has focused upon and something that 

seems to be very difficult.

Just one example, even though it has been on the books now for 

some 24 years, we seem to have difficulty and so does the VA in getting each primary healthcare physician to do something as simple as 

take a military history on each and every veteran whom they see and 

relate it back to what maladies should they be testing that individual for, what other conditions, as an example, frostbite if the person 

served on the ground in Korea.

 The VVA strongly supports increased funding for all parts of VA

and I think it is indisputable and VVA believe it is indisputable that 

VA has made many extraordinary contributions to the world of research and medical research today that have spilled over to the rest 

of medicine and to the rest of the society.
44

 However, we strongly agree and applaud you for saying it has to 

be veteran specific and veteran centric. It will have applications to 

other human beings, but it should be focused on what is it as it is going to directly help improve care at VA.

The Genomic Project that they have underway, in fact, may be useful to the entire nation. If so, we should think of it in light of who 

has the resources. The VA research budget overall is decimal dust, 

I repeat, sir, decimal dust in comparison to the size of the research 

budget at the National Institutes of Health. If it is, in fact, in the 

national interest, and we believe it is, NIH should fund it in whole.

Similarly there are a number of things in our written statement 

that I would draw your attention to having to do with NIH refusing 

to pay admin overhead, et cetera, that we would hope that the Commission would address with your counterparts on the appropriate authorizing Committee.

 Last, and I want to focus the remaining time here on the National 

Vietnam Veterans Longitudinal Study, the unfortunate mischaracterization of the GAO report this morning or this afternoon is something that we cannot let rest. GAO does not tell the Executive Branch 

what to do in any instance. It is, of course, an arm of the Congress.

 It was an administrative decision to stop the NVVLS originally 

taken by the previous Under Secretary who stopped it arguing that 

$17 million was too much to spend on this study. This is the same 

incidentally Under Secretary who was removed for throwing $374 

million down the toilet on hardware and software that did not work 

at Bay Pines, Florida.

 But 17 million was too much money to spend on a longitudinal 

study. We have difficulty with that, sir. The excuse that is given now 

for not continuing and completing the replication as required by Public Law 106-4119 of the National Vietnam Veterans Readjustment 

Study, otherwise known as the National Vietnam Veterans Longitudinal Study, is that they can only find 300 veterans left alive of the 

2,500, 2,500 who were sampled.

 We would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that if only 300 of the 

original 2,500 are alive, then that would merit a press release and if 

indeed not a press conference by this Committee to ask what in the 

world is going on that a statistically valid, random sample of Vietnam 

veterans, 85 percent of them have died since 1985. There is no reason 

in our view for any further delay in moving forward on completing 

the NVVLS.

 Two quick comments on a couple of other studies that Dr. Friedman so ably commented on. The Twin Study does not include any 

African Americans. It does not include any or virtually no Latinos 

and it includes no women whatsoever, whereas, in fact, the database 

for the National Vietnam Veterans Longitudinal Study has oversampled for all three of those groups and would allow us to make 
45

statements about it.

Last but not least on the Twin Study is the Twin Study is really 

right on the borderline of being too small to allow us to make judgments about the overall veterans’ population within the country.

The brain injury work, we certainly applaud and would encourage 

all of that ancillary research to go on, but that does not substitute for 

the NVVLS.

Last but by no means least, I would like to just briefly comment 

that there are a heck of a lot of very curious studies that have been 

funded instead of the NVVLS over the last three years. Let me just 

cite three examples that we can supply to the Committee to be part 

of the record.

 First is PTSD plus electroconvulsive shock treatment with them 

claiming that people were faking symptoms. This came out of the Topeka, Kansas VA Medical Center, but was funded by R&D. The claim 

there was that because reportedly symptomatology went down after 

they informed the veteran that we are going to admit him inpatient 

and for two weeks we are twice a day going to run current through his 

body and put him into electroconvulsive, electrically induced convulsions, that suddenly his reported symptoms went down.

 I would suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that a veteran with chronic 

PTSD, acute PTSD, if you and I informed him that twice a day if he 

reported any more symptoms we were going to take him out in the 

parking lot and beat the bejeebers out of him, then he would stop 

reporting symptomatology. I mean, this is not the kind of research, 

quote, unquote, that we should be reporting.

 Additionally, also at that same medical center, there was a study 

that came to the conclusion that smoking increases your risk of PTSD. 

This struck us as very odd when, in fact, of course, it is the other way 

around. There are other factors that cause and increase your risk 

of getting posttraumatic stress disorder. And smoking is elevated 

among people who have PTSD, but does not increase the risk, at least 

from any reasonable point of view that we can see nor have we ever 

seen any literature whatsoever supporting either of those theses.

Mr. Chairman, we would be glad to answer any questions. We 

thank you once again for your leadership in pushing to make the few 

dollars that VA has on for research and development most relevant 

to America’s veterans and to our service men and women who are 

serving today.

 Thank you very much, sir.

The Chairman. Thank you very much.

 Sir.

[The statement of Richard Weidman appears on p. 95]
46

STATEMENT OF DENNIS E. NIEWOEHNER

Dr. Niewoehner. I am respiratory disease specialist at the Minneapolis VA Medical Center and a Professor of Medicine at the University of Minnesota. While I am a VA employee, I am today testifying 

as a private citizen on behalf of the Friends of VA Healthcare and 

Medical Research, better known as FOVA.

 FOVA is a coalition of over 80 veterans service voluntary health 

and medical professional organizations that support funding for veterans’ health programs. FOVA is especially committed to ensuring a 

strong VA Medical and Prosthetic Research Program.

 So why support VA Research Program? I will give you three reasons. Good science, good physicians, and good care for veterans.

 The VA Research Program produces good science whether it is hepatitis, heart disease, Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, or rehabilitation 

medication. The VA Research Program is producing new approaches 

and new treatments that are published in the leading medical journals.

VA research is peer reviewed. Like our colleagues at the NIH and 

other federal funding agencies, all VA research proposals go through 

a vigorous peer review process to ensure that only the best scientific 

proposals are funded.

The VA Research Program excels in clinical research. And by clinical research, I mean testing therapies in patients, not in test tubes. 

Our laboratory colleagues do an excellent job of generating novel 

ideas from basic research, but somebody has to translate these research ideas into treatments for patients. And the VA Research Program is very good at that task.

 Allow me to provide just one example from my own experience. 

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which is also called COPD or 

emphysema, is a prevalent disease among our veterans and relevant 

to the Chairman’s previous comments, I think, can be viewed as being veteran centric and is one of the most common reasons for hospital admission. Hospital admissions account for more than one-half of 

the total medical costs of treating this terrible disease.

In a trial sponsored by the VA Cooperative Studies Program, we 

demonstrated giving cortisone-like drugs significantly reduced length 

of hospital stay. So by using this treatment, patients get better sooner and the VA medical system saves money.

These findings were published in the New England Journal of Medicine and these findings have been widely incorporated into clinical 

practice both within and without the VA medical system.

The VA Research Program helps attract highly-qualified physicians to serve our nation’s veterans because it provides a unique opportunity to combine a career in clinical medicine with opportunities 

to do research.
47

 For me personally, the research program was a major reason that I

joined the VA and equally important it is also the reason that I have 

remained in the VA medical system for nearly 30 years.

 Lastly, and I emphasize this point most strongly, the VA Research 

Program is good for veterans. It focuses resources on diseases of high 

prevalence among veterans and evaluates new treatments in a highly 

scientific manner.

 The VA Research Program fosters a culture of inquiry where the 

veterans’ care needs drive the research program and in turn findings 

from the research program drive improvements in veterans’ care. In 

addition, new research findings can be quickly and broadly implemented across the entire VA medical system.

 One dark spot on the shining achievements of the VA Research 

Program is its aging facilities. The subpar research facilities are 

making it increasingly hard to recruit and retain top-flight physician 

researchers in the VA medical system.

 FOVA greatly appreciates the recent congressional efforts to address this issue in the military quality of life, VA appropriations bills. 

However, the problem persists. VA has identified a priority of lists of 

VA labs that are in need of renovation and is committed to executing 

these renovation projects provided Congress provides the funding.

FOVA strongly recommends that $45 million be provided to rehabilitate the existing VA data lab space.

 Mr. Chairman, I think it is clear that the VA research uses its 

resources wisely and efficiently to the betterment of veterans’ healthcare. Thank you for listening to the views and recommendations of 

FOVA, and I would be happy to answer any questions.

[The statement of Dennis Niewoehner appears on p. 103]

The Chairman. Thank you very much to all of you for your testimony.

Mr. Blake, in your testimony, you talked about PVA supporting the 

building of these Centers of Excellence. So let me go specifically to 

the one VA currently operates, the Center for Limb Loss and Prosthetic Engineering in Puget Sound, Washington where investigators 

study amputation prevention, lower limb prosthetic improvement, 

and patient outcome measurements.

 So with that in mind, why should we create a new center which will 

require additional real dollars instead of just perhaps even beefing up 

what we presently have?

Mr. Blake. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the point that I was trying 

to make is that one single center across the VA spectrum given what 

seems to be a fairly significant problem among the newer veterans 

returning is probably not enough to meet the demand for that growing service within the VA system.

 We recognize the importance of that one particular center in pro-
48

viding service and the research it is conducting. But if you spread 

that wealth out a little more, instead of having it in one general area, 

and even though it kind of operates within that hub and spoke approach that I spoke about, you can spread out the different activities 

that are being done to more than one center so that you meet this 

growing population of veterans who are dealing with these particular 

problems.

The Chairman. Have you been to this center?

Mr. Blake. I have not, sir.

The Chairman. Have you, Mr. Stripling?

Mr. Stripling. [Shakes head negatively.]

 The Chairman. Do not worry. I have not either.

Dr. Ruff, have you been there to this center in Puget Sound?

Dr. Ruff. Yes.

The Chairman. I know this is a little out of ordinary. Dr. Ruff, can 

you come forward just a second. Can you tell us about this center in 

Puget Sound. I mean, if the Senate has a proposal over there and 

we have limited dollars, should we really be building more centers 

around the country or beefing up what exists at an existing facility?

Dr. Ruff. The Puget Sound center is a center in rehab research. 

It is one of 15 centers in rehab research. Its mission is shared somewhat by a new center that has been developed in Providence in terms 

of Providence is looking at ways of enhancing prosthetic design, reducing the deficits that people with amputations have.

The Center in Seattle is focusing a little bit more on prevention 

of limb loss and they are coordinating their research activities with 

a podiatry service, clinical podiatry service which leads a program 

called PACT, which is Prevention of Amputation Care Team, which 

is a national program within the VA. That focuses on reducing the 

risk of amputation primarily for older veterans who are at risk due to 

diabetes and peripheral vascular disease.

 The center in Seattle is a research center that coordinates with 

clinical centers, but I think they are talking about a different type 

of center. I think that they were talking about a clinical center for 

prosthetics care maybe to link with the center in Seattle. But I do 

not want to speak -- 

The Chairman. Well, wait a minute. Let me ask Mr. Blake because 

I am confused.

 What are you asking for, Mr. Blake?

Mr. Blake. I would say it would be a broad-based center that has 

both clinical aspects to it as well as research aspects. And we also 

make recommendations so that these centers put a great deal of emphasis on research in terms of performance standards and improving 

the equipment that is being placed out there.

Although we recognize that many of the servicemembers who 

are coming back through places like Walter Reed in particular but 
49

Bethesda or Brooke are receiving high-quality prosthetics, that is being done through a program supported with DoD.

 And the VA needs to get in line with that as well, and these centers 

could kind of align their own prosthetics program with what the DoD

is doing in a very small location to ensure that there is continuity of 

those types of services once those servicemembers are out into the VA 

and receiving their care there and not directly from DoD.

The Chairman. All right. Thank you.

 Thank you, Mr. Weidman.

 Thank you, Dr. Ruff.

 Mr. Michaud, you are recognized.

Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Weidman, thank you for your comments about the NVVLS 

study and the importance of completing the study. I know in the 

past, you have talked about having a separate line item to complete 

the study. I believe it was $25 million to complete the study.

 Should that money come out of the $412 million for research or 

should that be additional resources to complete the study?

Mr. Weidman. First of all, with the indulgence of the Chair, I misspoke earlier. It was not a GAO report. It was an Inspector General’s 

report that was issued September 30th, 2005, but the point still holds. 

The IG has no line authority to cancel or to start anything.

The 25 million, up to 25 million because, frankly, we do not think 

it would take 25 million to complete the study. When the study was 

cancelled in early October of 2003 by Dr. Roswell, they were just on 

the cusp of delivering their first set of deliverables to the VA. It was 

mismanagement incidentally. The IG hit the mismanagement of 

VHA, not Research Triangle Institute.

 Were there some people who did not act all that well at RTI? Sure. 

But that was not the issue. The issue was that VA failed to manage 

the contract.

When we testified, if you recall, Mr. Michaud, we were asking for 

a ten percent raise to the R&D budget. That would bring it up to 

roughly $443 million and we had intended for it to come out of R&D

and not out of patient care dollars.

Mr. Michaud. Thank you.

 Doctor, if we look at the funding for VA research, it is a mix of appropriated dollars plus non-VA dollars.

How should the mix be envisioned for the future? Is there an ideal 

percentage? Are these dollars fungible or are there ideal uses for the 

VA dollars that non-VA dollars are not appropriated or vice versa?

Dr. Niewoehner. Is this -- 

Mr. Michaud. Yes.

Dr. Niewoehner. -- directed towards me? I am afraid I did not 

quite understand the question.

Mr. Michaud. When you look at VA research, there is a mix of dol-
50

lars that is appropriated, that Congress appropriates to VA, but also 

non-VA dollars, such as NIH.

Is there a certain percentage that should be VA specific and, if so, 

what is that percentage between VA dollars and non-VA dollars?

Dr. Niewoehner. Well, the diseases that we are addressing are 

certainly common. Many of the diseases that we are addressing certainly are common to both VA and non-VA patients. I mentioned 

COPD as being a veteran centric disease, but there is obviously a 

huge amount of this disease in the non-VA community as well.

 So I think it is very appropriate that the VA devotes additional 

money towards research into the treatment and prevention of COPD, 

but recognizing that from a broader societal standpoint that everybody will benefit from this.

And I am not sure that I am prepared to put any specific -- I am not 

knowledgeable enough to put a specific number on that.

Mr. Michaud. Thank you.

 Mr. Blake, dealing with the spinal cord injury research, your organization is definitely in the forefront in that particular arena.

 Do you think the VA is doing enough in this area and, if not, what 

do you think the VA should be doing?

Mr. Blake. I think I would like to defer to Mr. Stripling because he 

is intimately involved with that particular program.

Mr. Michaud. Thank you.

Mr. Stripling. Thank you very much for the question, sir. I am 

not sure we ever get to the point where enough has been done on a 

lifetime disease or a lifetime disability.

I think the issue becomes one of being able in the VA system to 

track the kinds of the things that are a repeat problem. So we are 

never going to cure, if you would, as quickly an injury that happens 

in a split second.

But when we see urinary infections continuing to be a problem, we 

see respiratory problems continuing, we see pressure ulcers continuing, we see diabetes continuing, we know we are not doing enough in 

those areas. We need to isolate them as the VA has in various initiatives whether it is QUERI, whether it is rehab R&D, or whether it is 

in their Clinical Affairs Division to see whether we can make some 

progress in those things.

We may not be able to settle the issue of diabetes forever, but we 

make it a manageable condition. We may not be able to completely 

take care of emphysema, but we make it a manageable condition.

Bringing more information into the process, we get better clinical 

outcomes, we get better clinical practice, and we get reduced incidences of those in our area, you know, in our tracking system and we 

know we are making progress.

 So I think that when you have a lifetime condition, there may never 

be enough that can be ever done because the condition is a lifetime. 
51

But there are management issues that any of us would expect and 

any of us would accept as ways of living with that condition, that 

move us from the process of catastrophicness, if you would, to manageability.

 And I think those are what we see now in the outcome studies that 

are being performed across the healthcare system whether in the VA 

population, in the SCI population, or in the civilian populations.

We have a life expectancy now that we can be proud that we have 

created. We have gone from a condition that was not manageable to 

a condition that is survivable to an extent, if you would.

 So I think that we continue to monitor ourselves. We continue to 

see that we get progress in what we are doing. I am not really sure 

we will ever get to the point where we have done enough.

Mr. Michaud. Thank you.

 And once again, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for having this 

hearing.

 And the reason why I asked Dr. Perlin for information on all of 

what they are doing in research and development, because I think 

there is an important aspect of what the VA is doing in R&D as well 

as with DoD, and I was interested in that because I think it is important that they are focused and working together.

 But also as equally as important, I know there is a lot of research 

going out there in the private sector working in different areas. And 

a good example is the University of Maine, which is doing some research which affects the Navy, the Coast Guard and fishermen on 

boats and the speed of the boat and the pounding of the boat on the 

water, as to the impact on the spinal cord.

 So there is a lot of research going out there, and I think it is important with the finite amount of R&D dollars that we have as much 

collaboration not only interagency but also with the private sector to 

try to get the most bang for the buck.

Thank you. I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Thank you very much for the gentleman’s contribution.

Mr. Blake, I know that PVA have been very active in your work to 

establish the two Centers of Excellence for MS, Baltimore and the 

Seattle/Portland facility. And Mr. Brown and Mr. Michaud are considering making that a permanent authorization.

 And I would like to know what do you think that would do? Is that 

something they should be doing or not?

Mr. Blake. Absolutely, sir. I think we make that recommendation. 

We have made it numerous times. I think the reason we make the 

recommendation is the VA is clearly doing great work there.

And the point is, by permanently authorizing, we ensure that due 

to some kind of budgetary whim or some other problem that may 

arise as we talk about here, limitations of dollars, that these centers 
52

do not become victim to cuts that might be necessary just through the 

fact that there is no money available. And by permanently authorizing them, we can protect them in that manner.

The Chairman. To the Friends of the VA, let me thank you for the 

written testimony. Please express my appreciation to whoever put 

all this together. If it was you, congratulations. You did good work.

 One of our challenges, when you come in with your testimony and 

say, well, you should upgrade your research by $45 million, it is not 

how the budgets get broken out. You know, Dr. Perlin sends over 

their medical construction and there is not a specific break-out column. We do not get one from you, Doc, that says, okay, this is the 

medical research construction budget.

I mean, we give dollars to them. Then you have that internal fight 

with regard to how those dollars are spent. And we have not had a 

specific break-out with regard to how we do our budgets. I think you 

know that. So it is hard for us when you go, okay, you tell us there 

should be a specific $45 million. It is not all aligned that way. I just 

want you to know that.

Dr. Perlin. I know.

The Chairman. Okay. We do recognize and are cognizant that 

based off the site visits, he has given his testimony that upgrades 

need to be made. Dr. Perlin is sitting right next to him. I think given 

Dr. Perlin, he would have preferred for him to be here himself. But 

we like Dr. Perlin to bring his team here so he can also hear from his 

team. And I think it is important as he hears from his team we are 

also listening to it too.

 And so I appreciate the time you put in and please extend that to 

your team.

 Mr. Weidman, thank you.

Mr. Blake, congratulations. You are figuring this place out.

Mr. Blake. Thank you, sir.

 Mr. Chairman, could I made one other point real quick -- 

The Chairman. Sure.

Mr. Blake. -- just to clarify on the question about the amputation 

centers? Senator Craig’s proposal, I think, just kind of envisioned 

clinical service centers for veterans who have amputations and their 

needs for prosthetics.

And in our recommendation both before the Senate and in our statement that we brought here to you today, we take that a step further 

by introducing the research component into it because we recognize 

through all the Centers of Excellence and just like through SCI centers the importance of the research aspect and the clinical research 

that goes on as this care is provided.

The Chairman. I have not seen Chairman Craig’s legislation. I do 

not know a lot about it. I have learned more just today. If that is 

what it is, I am a little more attentive. I do not want to create more 
53

research facilities out there and take away from existing facilities.

 Mr. Weidman, you have a closing comment?

Mr. Weidman. No. Just a question, Mr. Chairman. If you would 

entertain at least a link to the Inspector General’s report in question. 

Those reading the record in the future will be confused who is correct 

about the right reading of the Inspector General’s report of September 30th, 2005. If that could be included in the record or at least to 

link it from the House of Veterans’ Affairs web site to the IG’s office? 

I do not know if I am making any sense on that, sir.

The Chairman. Try it one more -- 

Mr. Weidman. Okay.

The Chairman. Come at it one more time.

Mr. Weidman. The Inspector General’s report -- 

The Chairman. Yes.

Mr. Weidman. -- of September 30th, 2005, in regard to the National 

Vietnam Veterans Longitudinal Study -- 

The Chairman. Yes.

Mr. Weidman. -- there was obviously a difference of opinion as to 

what that report said.

The Chairman. Yes.

Mr. Weidman. My question to you, sir, is would you entertain considering having a link from the record of this hearing to that Inspector General’s report so that those reading the record, either other 

members of their staff or the public, in the future have access to it.

The Chairman. Yes. I think the fact, Mr. Weidman, that you have 

now referred to that report, individuals could find it. I prefer not to 

have that part of our hearing record. But the fact that you have mentioned it, those who may read it now know how to refer to it.

Mr. Weidman. Thank you, sir.

The Chairman. Okay? Thank you very much.

 This hearing is now concluded.

[Whereupon, at 3:06 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
(54)

APPENDIX
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110