LEGISLATIVE PRESENTATION OF

VETERANS SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS AND 

MILITARY ASSOCIATIONS 

HEARING II

Hearing

before the

Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs

House of Representatives

one hundred ninth congress

second session

February 16, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Serial No. 109-34

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

26-288.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

February 8, 2006

 Page

1

1

50

1

54

61

62

63

68

70

203

218

223

4

72

7

82

10

95

13

109

16

119

Legislative Presentation of Veterans Service Organizations 

and Military Associations - Hearing II ....................................

OPENING STATEMENTS

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

Prepared statement of Mr. Buyer .............................................

Hon. Bob Filner ..........................................................................

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD

Hon. Lane Evans ........................................................................

Hon. Jeff Miller ..........................................................................

Hon. Silvestre Reyes .................................................................

Hon. Corrine Brown of Florida .................................................

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

Hon. John T. Salazar .................................................................

Association of the United States Army ....................................

Veterans Widows International Network ................................

National Association of State Veterans Homes .......................

Witnesses

Rose, Lee, Legislative Director, Gold Star Wives of America

 Inc. ..........................................................................................

Prepared statement of Mrs. Lee ...............................................

Barnes, Joseph L., National Executive Secretary, Fleet Reserve Association ....................................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Barnes ...........................................

Lokovic, James E., CMSGT (Ret.), Deputy Executive Director,

 Air Force Sergeants Association ...........................................

Prepared statement of CMSGT Lokovic ...................................

Holleman, Deidre Parke, Legislative Director, The Retired 

 Enlisted Association ...............................................................

Prepared statement of Ms. Holleman .......................................

Norton, Robert F., USA, Col., (Ret.), Deputy Director for Gov-

  ernment Relations, Military Officers Association of America

Prepared statement of Col. Norton ...........................................

(III)
27

132

30

163

32

169

36

176

37

179

40

189

Lopez, John K., Chairman, Association for Service Disabled

Veterans ..................................................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Lopez .............................................

Basher, George, President, National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs ......................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Basher ...........................................

Jackson, Les, Executive Director, American Ex-Prisoners of

 War .........................................................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Jackson ..........................................

Knowles, Ann, President, National Association of County Vet-

  erans Service Officers  ............................................................

Prepared statement of Ms. Knowles ........................................

Jones, Rick, Legislative Director, National Association for

 Uniformed Services ................................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Jones .............................................

(IV)

Rowan, John, National President, Vietnam Veterans of

 America ...................................................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Rowan ...........................................
(1)

HEARING ON LEGISLATIVE PRESENTATION OF

VETERANS SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS AND MILItARY

ASSOCIATIONS HEARING II

Thursday, February 16, 2006

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs,

Washington, D.C.

 The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:30 a.m., in Room 334, 

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

Committee] presiding.

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

Boozman, Filner, Brown of Florida, Snyder, Michaud, Herseth, Berkley, and Salazar.

 The Chairman. Good morning. The Full Committee of the House 

Veterans’ Affairs Committee, February 16, 2006, will come to order. 

I have an opening statement. Lane Evans has an opening statement. 

Mr. Reyes has an opening statement. Mr. Filner.

 Mr. Filner. May I go now?

 Mr. Chairman. Well, Mr. Boozman does not have a -- 

 Mr. Filner. I have a -- 

 Mr. Chairman. -- written opening statement. Three of us have 

a written opening statement which we would like to submit for the 

record.

  [The statement of Chairman Buyer appears on p. 50]

  [The statement of Mr. Evans appears on p. 54]

  [The statement of Mr. Reyes appears on p. 62]

 The Chairman. And we’re anxious to hear from the first panel. Mr.

Filner.

 Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would like to welcome all 

those who are here this morning. The Democrats have appointed a 

new member, Congressman John Salazar from Colorado. We will 
2

welcome him when he arrives.

  So, we thank you. I think we’re in a very difficult situation that,

having read your advanced testimony, is clear to all of you also. The 

budget is clearly inadequate. If you just look at the surface, it fails 

to meet the health care needs of our nation’s veterans by almost one 

and a half billion dollars.

 If you look at the games that are played in the budget where it says 

there are going to be legislative proposals which will bring in almost 

a billion dollars, it over counts the efficiencies supposedly brought to

the VA. It double counts certain entries. There are savings that supposedly come about because of third party collections. All these are 

games. And we should be angry about these games because they are 

being played with the veterans who have given us our democracy.

 They are budgetary games that leave the veterans short by about 

over four billion dollars this year. Over four billion dollars to treat 

the health care needs and to meet the benefits of our nation’s veterans. I think that is disgraceful. I think it should be protested around 

the nation. I think you need to go back to your grassroots.

 The Chairman changed the rules this year so we don’t have the 

grassroots in these meetings. The joint Senate/House meetings have 

been cancelled. I think it’s because the participatory nature of those 

meetings where veterans from around the country feel they are a part 

of the process is not wanted, even as the Congress is talking about 

greater transparency for some of the reforms we may do this year.

 So you need to go back to your members and say engage in this 

process because you have been cut off from participation in these 

hearings. We have to find new ways for them to participate, whether

it’s going to members’ offices, or maybe surround the Capitol until a

budget that’s worthy of veterans gets passed. I think we have to find

creative ways to bring your membership into this process.

 Because Congress members respond to your members, but they 

have to know what is going on. They have to know what this four 

billion dollar short-fall means. They have to know what it means 

for their claims, which are backlogged, and that people coming back 

from Iraq and Afghanistan have to wait months and months for their 

first medical appointment. Some cannot get a dental appointment.

We already have a freeze on nurse hirings in some of the hospitals 

around the nation. So no matter what the administration says in its 

spin, these are not good times. We can change this if you bring in 

your membership to the discussions.

 So let’s do that and let’s eventually produce a budget that is worthy 

of our veterans. Two things I think come through from a lot of your 

testimony. One is the so-called assured funding, mandatory funding. 

We are going to argue about whether the shortfall is four point two 

billion or three point six or one point three. We shouldn’t even have 

those arguments. There should be mandatory (assured) funding for 
3

the health care of our veterans.

 In addition, the biggest third party payment that is still lying on the 

table is for medicare. We have had bills in the past called “medicare 

subvention.” We ought to pursue that in a very much more focused 

way this year. So we are prepared to do that and I thank the Chair. 

Would you just give me one minute to introduce our new member?

John Salazar, is the newest Democratic member of our Committee. 

His district is in rural Colorado and is home for more than 70,000 

veterans. He served, himself, in the U.S. Army from 1973 to ‘76 and 

has a son in the National Guard. So, Congressman, your understanding of veterans’ issues is grounded in your professional and personal 

experience.

 In fact, in the Colorado State House, he was awarded “Legislator 

of the Year” by the United Veterans’ Committee of his state. And 

as a Member of Congress, he was selected to lead the Congressional 

Hispanic Caucus Veterans’ Task Force, which was created to recognize the contributions and unique needs of Hispanics in our Armed 

Forces. We have a lot of work to do, John. I am certain that you will 

hit the ground running and contribute to our progress. Welcome to 

this Committee.

 Mr. Salazar. Thank you.

 The Chairman. Welcome. Thank you. We would like to introduce 

the first panel. Ms. Rose Lee is the Legislative Director for Gold Star

Wives. Ms. Lee is also the current president of Potomac Area Chapter of Gold Star Wives. She is the widow of Colonel C.M. Lee, United 

States Army. He served in Korea and in Viet Nam. He died on active 

duty overseas in 1972.

 Started in 1945 and granted a federal charter in 1980, the Gold 

Star Wives focuses on issues relating to the spouses and children of 

those killed in action. And it’s good to see you once again.

 Also here representing the Fleet Reserve Association is Joseph L. 

Barnes, Retired Navy Master Chief. Mr. Barnes received numerous 

awards and citations. He joined FRA in 1993 as the editor of “On 

Watch”. He was selected to serve as the Fleet Reserve Association’s 

National Executive Secretary in September 2002. FRA supports 

America’s future leaders by annually awarding more than 80,000 

scholarships to deserving students. FRA scholarships are awarded 

to FRA members, their spouses, children, and grandchildren. Welcome.

 Mr. Barnes. Thank you.

 The Chairman. Also next is Chief -- formerly Chief Master Sergeant, James E. Lokovic. Did I pronounce it correctly?

 Mr. Lokovic. Lokovic.

 The Chairman. He is representing the Air Force Sergeants Association as the Association’s Deputy Executive Director and the Director 

of Military and Government Relations. Chief Lokovic served 25 years 
4

in the United States Air Force in numerous state side and overseas 

locations. His last assignment was on the Air Force staff as Chief of 

Enlisted and Professional Military Education. He has worked for the 

Association since January 1994. The Air Force Sergeants Association 

and Airmen Memorial Foundation join together annually to conduct 

a scholarship program to financially assist undergraduate studies of

eligible and dependent children of the Air Force, Air Force Reserve 

Command, and Air Guard Enlisted Members and, those of Active 

Duty, Retired, and Veterans status. Thank you for joining us.

 Representing the Retired Enlisted Association is Ms. Holleman. 

She currently serves as the National Legislative Director of the Association. Before joining TREA she was the Washington liaison for 

the Gold Star Wives of America. And Ms. Holleman focuses on health 

care, financial, and benefit matters for military retirees, veterans,

and active duty, the National Guard, and Reserves, and all the families and survivors. Welcome.

 We also then have Colonel Bob Norton, Retired. He is representing the Officers Association of America. Colonel Norton enlisted as

a private in the United States Army in 1966, completed Officer Candidate School, was commissioned Second Lieutenant in the Infantry 

in August 1967. He served one tour in Vietnam as a platoon leader 

supporting the 196th Infantry Brigade in ICorps in Civilian Affairs. 

We can still use you, you know?

 In 1969 he joined the United States Army Reserve. Colonel Norton 

volunteered on active duty in 1978 and was among the first group

of USAR officers affiliated with the Active Guard and Reserve AGR

program on full-time duty. He served two tours of duty at the Office

of Secretary of Defense. Colonel Norton retired in 1995. With the 

stresses on civil affairs, it’s pretty real. Ms. Lee, we will open with 

you. You are recognized for ten minutes.

STATEMENTS OF ROSE LEE, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, GOLD

 STAR WIVES

 Ms. Lee. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning to all 

of you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the House Veterans’ Affairs 

Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you on 

behalf of all of the Gold Star Wives. My name is Rose Lee. I am a 

military widow and I am here as Chair of Gold Star Wives Legislative 

Committee.

 Behind me is Ms. Smith and in the audience are some Gold Star 

Wives also. Gold Star Wives was founded in 1945 and is a Congressionally-chartered service organization comprised of surviving spouses of military service members who died on active duty or as a result 

of service-connected disabilities.

 I will present to you the collective goals of the Gold Star Wives 
5

with the hopes that they will alert you to certain discrepancies and 

inefficiencies that you may be able to alleviate in your deliberations

this year.

 Too often we feel that survivors, widows and orphans, if you will, 

are overlooked though they shouldn’t be. A couple of years ago I took 

this snapshot of the VA’s mission statement that’s on the VA building 

and it reads “To care for him who shall have borne the battle and for 

his widow and his orphan.” By Abe Lincoln.

  Then just recently I attended the VA budget briefing. This is their

handout. I was glad to hear them say that they convinced OMB

and got the budget increased for 2007. What bothered me is that no 

where in the briefing handout did the words “survivors” or “widows

and orphans” appear. We seem to get lost in the shuffle. We hope

that these oversights will be changed and we are not forgotten.

 I do want to thank the Members of this Committee and the staff for 

your continued support of programs that directly support the well-being of our widows and their families. If there is one message I could 

leave with you today it is that there is never enough communication. 

Yes, there are casualty assistant officers who have a difficult mission

in a difficult time, but they don’t always know about benefits and entitlements managed by the VA or DOD.

 Gold Star Wives sponsors a chat room for many widows following 

9/11. New widows joined this chat room and asked questions about 

benefits. Our widows need our help. We need to examine the coordination process among agencies more closely and work hard to 

prevent these widows and their children from encountering gaps in 

identifying benefits.

 The VA and DOD have co-hosted meetings that focus on improving 

outreach to surviving family members. VA has created a survivor’s 

website that offers communication channels for all service widows 

and widowers. Often widows do not even know where to turn simply to identify their benefits. We participate in this outreach and

applaud these efforts. However, to enhance these efforts Gold Star 

Wives asks your serious consideration of creating an oversight office

for survivors across the VA and DOD to assure improved delivery of 

benefit information and benefits to survivors.

 Unfortunately, the National Defense Authorization Act for 2006 

did not include eliminating the offset to the Survivor Benefit Plan by

the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation. We recognize that 

you must work with your colleagues on the Committee on Armed Services to correct this issue.

 We thank Representative Henry Brown for introducing HR 808, 

sir. And we encourage Congress to provide this real relief for our 

military surviving spouses now. But to illustrate the bad publicity 

that this issue is getting, the New York Times OpEd published an 

article by Attorney Dan Shay on February 13, 2006, just this past 
6

week, in which he wrote, “My brother, Lieutenant Colonel Kevin 

Shay was killed by a rocket attack in Falluja on September 14, 2004. 

He knew the risks when he joined the Marine Corp in 1989. But 

he also thought if anything ever happened to him the United States 

Government would take care of his wife, Amy, and his two children. 

Sadly that’s not the case.” Dan Shay went on to describe the problem 

which prevents his brother’s wife from receiving both SBP and DIC 

without offset.

Current law provides for remarriage at age 57 to retain VA benefits. For those who remarried before that law was enacted, there

was a one year period to apply for reinstatement. Lowering the age 

to 55 would bring this benefit in line with rules for SBP and other

federal survivor programs and opening up the reinstatement period 

with renewed outreach efforts would make survivors aware of their 

eligibility.

 We thank Representative Michael Bilirakis for introducing HR

1462, which will make equitable changes in the law. There are inequities among several payments for child survivor that need immediate attention. The SBP child option applies now only to survivors of 

deaths after November 24, 2003. We seek this benefit to be linked

to October 7, 2001, the beginning of the Global War on Terror, as are 

other survivor benefits.

 Similarly, the additional monthly $250 child DIC payment per 

family only applies to survivors of deaths after January 1, 2005. This 

too should be linked to October 7, 2001. We thank Representative 

Michael Michaud for introducing HR 1573, which provides for this 

additional payment to families. It makes no sense, however, that the 

survivors of those who died first should be prohibited from accessing

a benefit given to survivors of those who died later in the same war.

 There is another grievous oversight concerning the $250 child DIC. 

The program evaluation of benefits study recommended that surviving spouses with dependent children receive the $250 for five years

instead of the two years that is currently provided. An amount should 

be indexed for inflation to avoid a devaluation of the benefit.

 Unfortunately, these recommendations were ignored. The $250 

child DIC is the only DIC benefit that doesn’t receive the cost of living adjustment. We wish to thank those of you who did try to include 

a COLA in legislation for the $250 child DIC. But, please, we ask you 

to continue to work on it until it is given the rightful COLA.

CHAMPVA doesn’t carry with it a dental plan. Gold Star Wives 

seeks for widows and all CHAMPVA beneficiaries the ability to purchase a voluntary dental insurance plan similar to the TRICARE program for military service retirees’ dental care. Gold Star Wives recommend Congress fix this and provide a dental plan for CHAMPVA

beneficiaries.

 We request Congress to review how the DIC rate is established, 
7

which is currently a flat rate of $1,033. The SBP is calculated at 55

percent of retired pay as if the member had retired for total disability 

on the date of death. We recommend that the DIC be calculated in 

a similar manner at 55 percent of the disabled veterans 100 percent 

disability compensation. We believe this would help alleviate growing financial difficulties of widows from wars prior to this conflict who

are receiving only DIC.

 In conclusion, we do not want our widows to be forgotten whether they are experiencing their losses in the Global War on Terror 

over the past five years or whether they are members of the so-called

Greatest Generation and experienced their loss many years ago during World War II.

 I thank this Committee for using this hearing as one more avenue 

of awareness and education and for giving me an opportunity to share 

my thoughts and the goals of Gold Star Wives. We will be happy to 

work with the Committee on any of these initiatives. Thank you.

 The Chairman. Ms. Lee, I should note that your boss walked in 

while you were testifying.

 Ms. Lee. Oh, I’m glad she did. Our boss is our national president, 

of course, and her name is Joan Young and she is from Florida. I’m 

glad she’s here. Another Gold Star Wife. We have a couple of young 

widows also from this current Global War on Terror and one of them 

is Vivianne Wertzel and another young one is with one of the other 

groups and her name is Jennifer McCullum. And I do appreciate 

them being here as well.

 The Chairman. Thank you. Well let me have an opportunity to tell 

your boss that we enjoy working with Ms. Lee.

  [The statement of Rose Lee appears on p. 72]

 The Chairman. Mr. Barnes.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. BARNES, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE

 SECRETARY, FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION, ACCOMPA-

 NIED BY CHRIS SLAWINSKI, NATIONAL SERVICE OFFICER,

 AND JOHN DAVIS, DIRECTOR OF LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS

 Mr. Barnes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It’s a pleasure to be here 

this morning. Greetings to the distinguished Members of the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to present FRA’s recommendations on the Fiscal Year 2007 Department of Veterans’ Affairs Budget 

on behalf of Edgar Zerr, FRA’s National President.

 Accompanying me today are Chris Slawinski, our National Service 

Officer and John Davis, FRA’s Director of Legislative Programs.

 FRA’s top legislative agenda issue is full funding and access to 

health care for all beneficiaries in the DOD and VA health care systems. This issue is important to every member of our association, 
8

their families, and survivors.

 FRA appreciates the increased funding in the Fiscal Year 2007 

budget, particularly for VA health care and other key accounts. This 

marks significant progress over last year’s budget request and follows emergency supplemental appropriations that were necessary at 

the end of the last fiscal year.

 Our members are very concerned about the discovery of inaccurate 

projections and faulty models used to prepare previous budgets, and 

GAO findings about the methods used to project management efficiency savings. FRA is also concerned about the assumptions used 

in preparing the budget. The budget request assumes Congressional 

approval of a $250 enrollment fee and significantly higher prescription co-pays for priority seven and eight beneficiaries. As the distinguished Committee knows, this is not a new proposal and FRA

strongly opposes the establishment of these increases.

VA health care funding must be adequate to meet the needs of the 

growing number of veterans seeking services from the VA. Many 

from Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom and the budget must be based on realistic and sound projections.

 Military retirees pay an annual enrollment fee for TRICARE prime 

enrollment and some believe that a similar fee, detailed above, should 

be authorized for access to VA health care services. The TRICARE

fee assures access to DOD health care services while priority seven 

and eight veterans, who would pay the VA enrollment fee if approved, 

will remain at the bottom of the priority list for VA health care benefits and still be forced to wait long periods for access to care.

 As part of your views and estimates to the House Budget Committee, FRA urges the Committee to support budget allocations to eliminate the need for the enrollment fee, the prescription co-pay increase, 

and vital funding for other important VA programs including medical 

research.

 The Association also appreciates Ranking Member Evans’ testimony before the Budget Committee on Funding for Health care and 

other VA Benefits. FRA believes that adequately funding health care

and other programs for veterans, their families and survivors, is part 

of the cost of defending our nation and ensuring our freedoms.

 The VA suspended enrollments for priority eight -- priority group 

eight in 2003. And FRA urges that sufficient resources be authorized

to allow resumption of the enrollment process for all veterans.

 FRA supports the authorization of medicate reimbursements as an 

alternative to the enrollment fee and higher pharmacy co-pays. A

significant number of veterans enrolled in the VA health care system

have paid into medicare, yet the VA is not authorized to receive reimbursements for providing services to these veterans. Why this has 

not been authorized is perplexing to our membership and FRA urges 

that this concept be thoroughly researched.
9

 Injured combat veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan should be immediately processed into the VA system. This is also important for 

personnel retiring from military service with service-connected disabilities. Electronic medical records, plus expanded and improved 

coordination between DOD and VA will ensure seamless transitions 

for these personnel.

 FRA strongly supports adequate funding for medical and prosthetic research and is concerned that the budget for these -- about the 

budget for these programs and that it relies on partnering initiatives 

with other institutions. Ensuring sufficient funds to maintain VA’s

world-class research program is very important.

 Mr. Chairman, our members appreciate your support to modernize and enhance the MGIB to include much needed changes to guard 

and reserve benefits. FRA believes that Congress should raise MGIB

benefits to the average cost of a four year public college or university

education. Unfortunately benefits now cover only about 60 percent of

current tuition expenses at these institutions.

 FRA also believes that Congress should restore and sustain education benefits to members of the selected reserve to 47 percent of basic

benefits as authorized when the MGIB was established in 1984. The

reserve MGIB should also be transferred from Title 10 to Title 38 to 

allow better accountability and improved processing.

 There are thousands of senior enlisted personnel who entered service during the Veterans’ Education Assistance Program period or 

VEAP era from 1977 to 1985. They are seeking an opportunity to 

sign up for the MGIB and these personnel include about 14,000 Navy 

personnel and nearly 5,000 Marines. FRA urges authorization of an 

open enrollment period to provide an opportunity for them to sign up 

for the MGIB. This is a major issue within the career senior enlisted 

communities.

 Finally, some additional priority concerns from our members. FRA

continues its advocacy for full concurrent receipt of military retired 

pay and VA disability payments for all disabled retirees and appreciates Vice Chairman Representative Michael Bilirakis’ leadership on 

this issue.

 The Association supports legislation to shift the effective paid-up 

date from 2008 to 2006 for military survivor benefit plan participants

who have paid premiums for 30 years and are 70 years of age. Additionally, the Association supports legislation that would authorize 

the elimination of the SBP offset to DIC.

 And last, FRA strongly supports sorely needed reform of the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act. Mr. Chairman, 

in closing allow me to again express the sincere appreciation of the 

Association’s membership for all you, the Members of the Veterans’ 

Affairs Committee, and the professional staff do for our nation’s veterans. Our legislative team stands ready to assist you and your staff 
10

at any time and I stand ready to answer any questions you may have. 

Thank you.

  [The statement of Joseph L. Barnes appears on p. 82]

 The Chairman. Mr. Lokovic.

STATEMENT OF CMSGT JAMES E. LOKOVIC (RET.), DEPUTY

 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AIR FORCE SERGEANTS ASSOCIA-

 TION

 Mr. Lokovic. Mr. Buyer, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Filner, and especially 

a long-time friend, absent member and former Air Force Sergeant, 

Mr. Bilirakis, and Members of the Committee. Good morning. I am 

honored to represent the leadership of the Air Force Sergeants Association and its 130,000 members. This morning I look forward to 

working with the Committee and throughout the year as we work 

toward the fiscal year 2007 budget.

 Mr. Buyer, I congratulate you and the other Committee Members 

for your service to our nation. You are men and women on both sides 

of the aisle that don’t have to do this. And yet you step up to do it to 

fulfill this nation’s commitment to those who care enough to serve,

and I salute each of you.

 This morning I want to speak to you on behalf of those who can’t 

get involved in the policy that governs VA programs and who are only 

indirectly involved in implementing them, currently serving members of our Armed Forces. Having listened to other panels before this 

Committee and having spoken with others who will appear before 

you today and in the future, we too are concerned about some of the 

primary focus items that you are working on, such as full VA health 

care funding, seamless transition efforts, and the accelerated adjudication of the claims process.

 At this point let me mention simply one item that we mentioned in 

our written statement: an example of the need to have a good solid 

handoff between the Department of Defense health care system and 

the VA health care system. And the example we gave was of an Airman who was wounded during the course of military duty, but was 

able to stay in until retirement. He went through numerous medical 

operations and procedures and then when applying for VA transition 

benefits after he separated ended up having to redo all of these tests

again and all of the procedures again, wasting taxpayer’s money. We 

have seen great promise in this area, and we need to continue working on the seamless records and the handoff between DOD and the 

VA.

 You have received our full written statement which I know you will 

consider. However, this morning the remainder of my remarks will 

be restricted to educational benefits, specifically the Montgomery GI
11

Bill, something appreciated by all commissioned and enlisted alike, 

and important to their well-being.

  The Montgomery GI Bill is a program that is generous in its benefit

but which is administered using rules that are unfair to young service members. It’s on their behalf that I ask you to listen to them and 

to make some changes in policy and administration that would cost 

very little but that would be good for those who serve for the military 

services themselves and for the nation as a whole.

 This morning I would assert that the Montgomery GI Bill is a benefit that is poorly administered and rarely made available in full. In

fact many aspects of the program discourage its use. Fortunately this 

Committee can greatly improve the program without significant additional obligation of funds.

 One problem is the enrollment payroll reduction procedure is illogical and drives many service members away. Young service members 

are given a one-time irrevocable decision to enroll in the Montgomery 

GI Bill at basic military training. They are automatically enrolled 

unless they identify themselves to the TIs and say they don’t want to 

be in the program. This is at a point that military members are making relatively little money to begin with. Simply put, their choice is 

do I want to sacrifice $100 of pay each month for the first 12 months

of my career?

 While this policy of payroll avoidance may be a boon for the Department of Defense, it’s a non-sensible way to offer this important 

program which can affect the rest of their lives. And this is important 

because many members simply cannot afford the monetary sacrifice

at that point of their careers when they are being paid relatively little. 

And many members turn down enrollment because they just joined 

the military, deciding to forego education for the time being. And 

many of them later regret the decision and tell us that they would 

enroll if given a second opportunity. However, the program as currently administered does not offer a second chance.

 Non-commissioned members in particular turn the program down 

in fairly great numbers, three to five percent each year, since they

pay twice as much proportionally as commissioned officers. I don’t

make this point to point out commissioned officers versus enlisted

or otherwise, but simply to point out that it all comes out during the 

first year. And we could clearly fix that by allowing all enrollees,

whether commissioned or enlisted, to enroll in the program at any 

point during the first two years and to stretch out the period of the

payroll deduction to a two-year period.

 I can’t tell you, Mr. Chairman, how many young airmen tell us 

later on that they regret having made the decision they made at basic 

training but feeling that they were forced into doing so.

Current service members are plagued by old policies. Those who 

turn it down, as Mr. Barnes said, the old Veterans’ Educational As-
12

sistance Program, absolutely deserve an opportunity to enroll in the 

Montgomery GI Bill. VEAP was a poorly counseled, relatively inadequate program. I must note that so many military members declined 

enrollment in the old VEAP program, perhaps hundreds of thousands, 

that there are still over 15,000 serving in the Air Force alone, and Mr. 

Barnes mentioned a couple of the other services. Probably around 

50,000 in all services are still on duty. And are now getting ready to 

end their careers with no transitional education benefit.

 Representative Camp’s HR 269 and a couple of other bills would 

correct this situation. According to Mr. Camp’s staff during the 

108th Congress the CBO scored this program at $170 million over a 

ten-year period for all eligible members to go into this program.

 As you might expect, since then the pool of eligibles is declining 

daily. The fix would be to support this legislation and open all enrollees or perspective enrollees, commissioned and enlisted alike, an 

opportunity and open window to enroll in the Montgomery GI Bill. 

Certainly it would help a lot. We believe we should give these patriots a chance to get into the GI Bill. Goodness knows that they have 

certainly earned it.

  Another problem is the GI Bill benefit is not the same for all enrollees. Matters such as the ability for the

buy-up option where you can pay a little bit more and get additional 

coverage only applies to those that came in under the original bill and 

not those that transitioned under two earlier windows for those that 

were once enrolled in the VEAP program.

 Another problem is the GI Bill has such restrictions that the government budgets each year based on the belief that less than half of 

the military members will ever use their GI Bill. And that is true 

because of the restrictions on its use. For example, while on active 

duty it cannot be used for the cost of books, tuitions, and fees. It’s 

parceled out on a monthly basis and is insufficient to cover the costs

for advanced, accelerated, or laboratory courses.

  A fix to that would be to allow military members to spend portions

of their GI Bill benefit as they need it. They earned the benefit, they

ought to be able to spend it as they need it as they use up the portion 

that they have, the amount that they have. There should be no artificial limits on which aspects of education they can spend the money

on. And what a great military service incentive this would be.

 Another problem is that under the -- 

The Chairman. Mr. Lokovic.

 Mr. Lokovic. Yes.

 The Chairman. I’m sorry. We have a vote and a possible pending 

vote thereafter. How many minutes do you have left?

 Mr. Lokovic. About one.

 The Chairman. All right. Let’s go ahead and complete your testimony and then we will break. We have about nine minutes to the 
13

vote, so please proceed.

 Mr. Lokovic. Okay, sir. The fix under the program would be to allow members to transfer a portion of their benefits after the 12th year

of service. My point here that I was going to develop is that transferability can be a government incentive, something smart for both the 

government and the member if you make it at a career point.

 And the last point was made by Mr. Barnes. And that is that to tie 

the value of the program to educational inflation without going into

details. I ask the Committee to seriously consider these items that 

I have mentioned in my testimony. Most of them could be implemented with minimal or no cost to the American taxpayer. But they 

would take large steps toward making the program more user friendly, more equitable, and of more benefit to the nation. And again, Mr.

Chairman and Committee Members, thank you for your service and 

for this opportunity to address the Committee.

  [The statement of CMSGT James E. Lokovic, (Ret.) appears on p.

95]

 The Chairman. Thank you. The Committee will stand in recess. 

We should be back by 11:30, I hope. We will stand in recess.

  [Recess.]

STATEMENT OF DEIDRE PARKE HOLLEMAN; LEGISLATIVE

 DIRECTOR, THE RETIRED ENLISTED ASSOCIATION

 Ms. Holleman. Thank you for returning. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Filner, it is always an honor for TREA to speak on the issues and concerns facing today’s and tomorrow’s veterans and their families.

 As we all know this is a crucial time for our country. We are waging a war on terror both at home and abroad. There are additional 

service members deployed in numerous hot spots throughout the 

world. And the veterans who have protected us throughout history 

in both hot and cold wars are getting older and in more need of their 

nation’s help.

 TREA is a nationwide VSO whose members have served a career 

in the enlisted ranks of our military or are doing so at this time. The 

services and benefits that are the provenance of the Department of

Veterans Affairs and this Committee are crucial to them so that they 

will be able to live the life in their retirement years that they have so 

justly earned.

 TREA is grateful to everyone who has worked to create these benefits and to make sure that they are implemented in an efficient and

fair way. We must start with the statement that TREA was pleased 

and relieved at the realistic top-line figure that the Administration

put in the budgetary request for VA health care this year. It is a far 

more sensible and workable amount then what had been previously 
14

requested.

 We are also pleased that the President has exempted the VA from 

his across-the-board cuts then most of the federal government is dealing with. During this time of increased medical needs and returning veterans more, not less, focus is needed on the VA’s health care 

system.

 Of course we do not agree with all of the Administration’s proposals. For the last several years TREA has been firmly opposed to the

proposed imposition of a $250 enrollment fee for veterans presently 

enrolled in category seven and eight. And we are opposed to it again 

this year. This proposal is unwise and unfair for several reasons. 

First of all this was not the veterans were promised when the enrolled 

at the urging of the VA. Secondly, veterans in seven and eight do not 

have priority to be seen or access standards for care. Therefore, they 

are the equivalent of space available. There is no guarantee.

 However, everyone in this room knows that if you start charging 

a yearly fee and beneficiaries will predictably and rightful demand

the care that they are paying for. Rather then lessening the work requirements of the VA it will most likely increase them. The VA predicts that 325,000 beneficiaries will leave category seven and eight

in the coming fiscal year. We presume that that number is primarily

based on the expectation that many present enrollees will drop out 

rather then pay the yearly fee. That is not an appropriate way to 

lessen one’s case load. And we believe the ones who will remain will 

be predictably more demanding. So it is not an effective way either.

 Additionally, the VA states in their proposal that they expect or 

hope to collect Three Billion Dollars in

third-party insurance claims, OHI. TREA is doubtful, as we know 

the Chairman is, that they will be able to reach that goal. In the past 

they have not been very successful in collecting private insurance 

claims. But if this is a serious goal for them, then beneficiaries in

category seven and eight should be the main source of such insurance. These veterans cannot depend on the VA for all their health 

care and so are much more likely to have plans that the VA may look 

to for collections.

 Numerous people, both on this Committee and at the VA, believe 

the veterans chose to enroll in category seven and eight to get the 

drug benefit. That is correct. The new medicare part D benefit, once

it settles down, should cause a drop in enrolled veterans looking to 

obtain service. The new drug plan will have several advantages for 

them. They can use their civilian doctor’s script. They can have them 

filled near their home. They do not have to deal with long waits. If

we are correct, the concern about the costs of category seven and eight 

should subside without unfair and unpopular steps being taken.

  TREA is also firmly against the Administration’s proposal to raise

the pharmacy co-pay to $15, a 30-day script for category seven and 
15

eight. Last year the VA raised it’s co-pay from $7.00 to $8.00 and I

assure you it caused great consternation at many of members. These 

veterans are not being petty or cheap. They are on fixed incomes and

many of them need numerous daily medications. TREA assures you 

that practically doubling the co-pay would be disastrous to many of 

our members. We hope this Committee will once again oppose this 

proposal.

 The VA is, as you have heard and read before, tasked not only to 

care for the he who has borne the scars of battle but also his widow 

and orphan. TREA was very pleased that Congress increased SGLI

to $400,000 as well as increasing the death gratuity to $100,000 last 

year for our recent widows. Thank you so much for these improvements. But as you well know, TREA and all the members of the 

coalition and the alliance last year worked hard to try and end the 

SBP/DIC offset that Ms. Lee spoke of.

 Of course, we are well aware that this is not the Committee of jurisdiction. But we know of your focus and concern for military widows. We also know that many of you are also on the Armed Services 

Committee as well as this Committee. Therefore, we urge all of you 

to convince your colleagues that this is the time to finally correct this

unfair situation.

 Although we know it is a great deal to ask TREA also wants this 

Committee to take on more work. It is, as my colleagues have said, 

it is crucial to look towards improving and modernizing the Montgomery GI Bill. The select reserve Montgomery GI Bill must keep 

up with the improvements and modifications that you have been adding to the active duty program. But that has not happened. We are 

expecting more and more from a reserve component but we have not 

improved this program.

 TREA believes that this is due to the split of the program between 

Title 10 for the reserve components bill and Title 38 for the active 

duty program. If you had jurisdiction of both programs under Title 38 coordination would be much easier and changes allowing the 

guard and reserve to continue to use their benefits after leaving the

service would become more likely. The reserve program is a stepchild 

in Title 10. It would find its proper home here.

 As has been suggested by the representative from MOAA in his 

written testimony, we still have a long way to go before we reach our 

goal of a seamless transition from the status of active service to that 

of veteran. The VA has been recently rightfully praised for its new 

electronic medical records program. And DOD is now moving out 

their new ALHTA program. But we are still concerned as to whether 

these programs will be able to talk to each other. It is crucial that 

they do and TREA hopes that you will continue to push to require the 

technological improvements needed to improve health care for the 

entire life of our servicemember. We must also continue to strive for 
16

a single and comprehensive exit examination. This will be a great 

help for both departments and even more of an advantage for the 

servicemember.

 There are many more suggestions in our written testimony and we 

would be grateful if you would consider all of them. We all share a 

love and admiration for our servicemembers, our veterans, our military retirees and their families and survivors. Because they have 

served and dared we can live in freedom and argue public policy issues. TREA is grateful for all the efforts and time the Members of 

this Committee and their staff have dedicated to making the VA the 

best that it can be. We believe that adoption of our suggestions would 

make its service even more effective. We thank you for your time and 

attention. I would be honored to try and answer any questions you 

might have.

  [The statement of Deidre Parke Holleman appears on p. 109]

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Colonel Norton.

STATEMENT OF COLONEL ROBERT F. NORTON, USA (RET.),

 DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, MILI-

 TARY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA

Colonel Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Filner. On behalf of the 360,000 members of the Military Officers Association of

America I am very pleased with this opportunity to appear before you 

today to present our legislative agenda for veterans.

 Mr. Chairman, before I began though, -- I know Vice Chairman 

Bilirakis is not here,--but I would like to add my voice for the public record to thank him in particular for his years of service to this 

nation both in uniform as well as a Member of this Committee and 

a Member of Congress. “Big Mike” Bilirakis has been an unbelievable leader and advocate for veterans over a long career. He was for 

many, many years the junkyard dog on concurrent receipt. And he 

was relentless in pursuing that goal when no one else even considered that it could ever get done. So I just want to say to him, even 

though he is not here, thanks for his great service to the Committee 

and to the Congress of the United States.

  I would ask that my prepared statement be entered in the official

record of this hearing.

 The Chairman. Hearing no objection, so ordered. Do all members of 

the first panel have written statement, they would like to submit for

the record? All answered in the affirmative. Hearing no objection,

so ordered.

Colonel Norton. MOAA appreciates the Committee’s commitment 

to overhauling the VA’s methodology for projecting resource requirements for the VA health care system. The VA continues to understate 
17

demand, including demand from the more than half million veterans 

of the War on Terror in addition to active duty veterans. Those half 

million are from the National Guard and reserve.

 Two weeks ago a new GAO report concluded that the VA’s projections for so-called management efficiencies are based on false premises. In effect, the GAO is saying that the VA uses ENRON accounting 

techniques to build some of its cost-saving projections. MOAA fully 

supports this Committee’s intention to oversee reform of the nuts and 

bolts of the VA’s health care budget building process.

  For the coming fiscal year MOAA is pleased to see a significant

increase in the medical services budget. This is an important first

step in matching resources to the rising demand for care. MOAA

continues to support the President’s task force report recommendation that the VA health care system should be fully funded either my 

mandatory means or by any other means that will accomplish the 

objective.

 MOAA continues its opposition to proposed user tax fees for certain veterans in priority groups seven and eight. And we recommend 

that Congress again reject them for the fourth year in a row. A nation that spends $2 billion a week to prosecute the war should assure 

the small minority of citizens who defend us against terror that they 

should not have to pay for their access to VA care.

 Mr. Chairman, MOAA greatly appreciates the Committee’s leadership in pressing the VA and the Department of Defense in accelerating accomplishment of seamless transition initiatives. Congress 

needs an aggressive Committee for seamless transition and we applaud you for taking on this very challenging task.

 Seamless transition may be a buzzword for some, but it has deadly 

serious consequences for those who go into harms way, our future 

veterans. At the most recent meeting of the Veterans’ Disability 

Benefits Commission Army Captain Marc Giammatteo told the story

that speaks to the heart of this issue. After undergoing 30 surgeries at Walter Reed to repair his severe wounds from combat he took 

convalescence leave in his home town. While there he experienced 

a medical problem with his surgery and attempted to check into the 

local VA facility. There he was turned away. VA officials said that

they couldn’t treat him since he was on active duty.

 Seamless transition is not just about computers talking to each 

other and abstract plans and policies, but about our nation’s volunteers during a very critical moment in their lives as they transition 

from active military service into veteran status. Getting this right, 

Mr. Chairman, has enormous implications for future health care and 

benefits delivery in the VA and for the Department of Defense as it

prepares our warriors to go into harms way.

  DOD recently announced the fielding of its new electronic medical

record system known as AHLTA that my colleague Ms. Holleman 
18

mentioned. The question that needs to be asked is whether this system can talk to the VA’s own system, VISTA. 

 My prepared statement addresses a number of seamless transition 

initiatives that MOAA feels must be a high priority for the Committee and Congress as well as the Armed Services Committee overall. 

MOAA recommends that this Committee and the Armed Services 

Committee conduct a joint hearing on seamless transition.

  Before turning to benefits, I want to briefly address two other VA

health care issues. First we are concerned about the adequacy of the 

VA’s construction and research budget. In recent visits to VA polytrauma centers in Tampa and San Antonio, MOAA leaders learned 

that funds are needed to continually upgrade these facilities and to 

enable cutting edge research and technological innovation. With the 

proposed cut in the construction budget and inadequate research 

funding MOAA is concerned that our severely wounded veterans will 

not get the care and rehabilitative services they will need for decades 

to come. We urge the Committee’s attention to this issue.

 Second, the budget request recognizes the growing need to provide 

robust mental health care services in the VA and we urge continued 

emphasis on this critical funding need.

  Turning now to benefits, I want to associate MOAA with other military and veterans’ organizations regarding the need to beef-up the 

disability claims processing system. The VA budget estimate projects 

it will handle about 900,000 claims this year alone. MOAA strongly 

recommends the Committee endorse needed increases in full-time 

equivalent positions, training and technology improvements.

 Finally, I want to address the need to enact a Montgomery GI Bill 

that reflects the sacrifice of all members of our fighting force. We

call this initiative a “Total Force Montgomery GI Bill for the 21st 

Century.”

  The issue is quite simply this: our forces in the field deploy and

fight as a team, active duty, National Guard and reserve, but their

educational benefits are not synchronized according to the service

they perform nor are they optimized as Congress intended to support recruiting, retention and readjustment outcomes. For example, 

mobilized members of the Guard and reserve are not authorized any 

readjustment benefit under the Montgomery GI Bill when they complete their service contracts. That is simply not right. And it’s not 

right that the reserve Montgomery GI Bill has dwindled in value, 

as my colleague from the Fleet Reserve Association had said. It’s 

dwindled to just 29 cents to the dollar compared to the active duty 

program.

 My written statement goes into some detail on this issue, but it 

boils down to two basic recommendations. First, the reserve Montgomery GI Bill programs that are housed in Title 10 should be transferred to Title 38 so that future benefits can be correlated with the
19

active duty GI Bill.

  Second, Congress needs to authorize a readjustment benefit for

mobilized reservists and guard members who serve their nation on 

active duty in the War on Terror. Mr. Chairman, we are very grateful to you, to Ranking Member Evans, and to other members of this 

Committee on both sides of the aisle for your interest in and support 

of a Total Force Montgomery GI Bill. We urge the Committee to work 

with the Armed Services Committee to enact this initiative.

 Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to say that all of us here on 

this first panel work together as colleagues and partners in the military coalition. We testify together before a number of Committees on 

Capitol Hill. And all of the issues that they have addressed here we 

would like to associate ourselves with in MOAA.

 We thank you again, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Filner, and Members of 

this Committee for the opportunity to testify and I look forward to 

your questions.

  [The statement of Colonel Robert F. Norton, USA (Ret.) appears

on p. 119]

The Chairman. Thank you very much. Colonel Norton, please pass 

my regards to Evan O’Brien and my appreciation for his leadership 

role in the efforts to modernize the GI Bill. Don’t know what it is 

going to look like. Don’t know what we are going call it. But we are 

going to be judicious and we are going to put our efforts toward this. 

It’s easy to say, well, we will just move it from Title 10 to Title 38 and 

take their jurisdiction and move it over here. It’s a little harder than 

that. I did have a good meeting between Chairman Larry Craig and 

the Secretary and myself and I raised this issue and asked him to 

speak with his counterpart Secretary of Defense about this. So putting it on their radar screen was important and we will circle back. 

And we are going to begin our efforts. But this is a lift. I just want 

you to know that. I think you understand that.

Colonel Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And if I could just 

add that this issue is identified in the veterans’ Independent Budget.

All the major veterans service organizations endorse it. The military 

coalition endorses it. And the higher education associations are behind it as well.

The Chairman. Well it’s a good coming together about the same 

time. Before it came to me from you, it came to me from Colonel Jim 

Lariviere because he is the deputy commander of marine reserve division. And so he has been sending his warriors overseas and he told 

me about his tank company. And the platoons that he sends and they 

then round out that active duty tank platoon. And then when they 

come back there is an inequity in the benefit.

  And so Jim was the first to bring it to my attention. So it’s all percolating out there. So I wanted to let you know that.
20

 I wanted to ask Ms. Lee, the VA came and shared with me the survivors website -- while in its development stage. What is your feedback that you are hearing? Have you also been working with them?

 Ms. Lee. Yes, sir. Chairman Buyer, I am glad you brought the 

subject up. It is really a big help to the girls. And we do periodically 

remind them to go to the website because sometimes when they are 

in the chat room and they ask each other a question or they ask a 

question that they cannot answer, and I am one of the elder ones who 

is able to monitor the chat room to answer questions. And so that is 

one of the jobs that I have imposed upon myself to remind them that 

they should go to the chat room and remind them who are the casualty assistant officers that they should go to also for information. And

also if they were not able to contact their regular casualty assistance 

officer to go the headquarters for their casualty assistance.

 But the website, getting back to it, it’s excellent and we do get good 

feedback on that. Very much so. Thank you.

The Chairman. Yes. I was really pleased they are doing that. So 

you are highlighting that communication especially at difficult moments. Family members and friends can come in and they can help at 

difficult and challenging moments.

Ms. Lee. That is right.

The Chairman. Thanks for that response.

Ms. Lee. Yes. But I might add though that there are always new 

widows joining the chat room and it’s a constant battle to keep them 

informed of what are the various benefits are and to remind them of

the different sources such as the website and their casualty assistance officers. And unfortunately on occasions some of the widows

have said that their casualty assistance officers have had other obligations. It is a collateral duty for them. And so oftentimes I do hear, 

on rare occasions, I should say now, I hear that there are some ladies 

who don’t have contact with their casualty assistance officers. That

is when I give them the name of the headquarters contact person so 

that they do get information through that source.

The Chairman. Okay. I brought this issue up yesterday to each 

panel and so I am going to do it with your panel and I will do it with 

the next panel, because I want you to engage publicly. And that is 

this great concern I have about individuals that were called to active 

duty out of the IRR and decided not to show up for duty. And it appears as though that, I could be wrong, but it appears as though the 

Department of Defense will not move to court martial them. And 

they may do administrative discharges. And then if you move to administrative discharge you only have so many types of discharges 

which you could receive.

 And my great fear is, and I do not desire at all, on behalf of the 

country, to have an individual receive a general discharge because its 

quick and its easy, yet they could be able to access very similar bene-
21

fits from the VA that our honorable discharge veterans could receive.

So I am just putting it on everybody’s radar screen. Go back and have 

that discussed and we want to send a message to the Department of 

Defense and more importantly also to the commanders in the field

and those JAG officers doing their counsel.

Ms. Lee. Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. I also wanted to raise it when Dr. Snyder is here 

from military personnel. Yes.

Ms. Lee. Could I just say one more thing?

The Chairman. Uh-huh.

Ms. Lee. I found out that every single widow reacts differently. 

Each person has a different personality and some will be able to on 

their own debate go to a survival website or find out information.

Others are asking the other widows questions about how did this go 

for you, what did you do, and did you get this or did you get that, and 

what was the cost of the funeral, things of that sort. Those kinds of 

questions come up. So each person is an individual and they have 

their own way of looking at these problems that they face when they 

become newly widowed.

The Chairman. Okay.

Ms. Lee. It is difficult for them.

The Chairman. I would encourage you also, the IT issues are issues 

that we have been focusing on in the Committee. They are very important to the seamless transition issues. And making sure that the 

VA goes to a one it architecture. It is one of our challenging issues. 

This is very helpful to us, receiving all this testimony for our business 

meeting and then we have to prepare our letters on the budget views 

and estimates. We haven’t done it like this before. And this has been 

extremely helpful to us.

 But I wanted you to know that as we go through the budget and we 

do our puts and our takes and buy backs and all kinds of things we 

have to do, the IT is extremely important. So even though the Administration, as we are moving them to

go, didn’t adopt what we had recommended with regard to a centralized system, they are moving to what they call their federated 

approach whereby they are still empowering the CIO and he will be 

responsible for the transfer of the assets, meaning the hardware and 

personnel and dollars with regard to that, but not on the development 

side for now.

 And in order to do that and to perfect the system under the one 

architecture we are going to have to buy in some things. So moving 

to the data processing centers is going to cost about $60 million. We 

have got 127,000 PCs out there that aren’t going to be able to run on 

the new software operating systems.

 So these are nuts and bolts things, you know, that -- it’s not glamorous. Right? But it’s what we need to do to perfect the system so that 
22

we can provide timely care with the highest quality possible and ensure that people have that access. These are really important issues 

and not everyone has touched IT. And I just wanted to bring that on 

everyone’s radar screen. Mr. Filner, you are now recognized.

Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you all for your 

testimony. I think it reflects a deep understanding of your membership and a commitment to their well being. It shows through in every 

sentence that you say. So thank you very much.

 My sense is that everything you asked for is within the capability of 

this nation. We can get estimates, I would say four to five billion dollars above what we are talking about, in the budget. That sounds like 

a lot of money. But we have a two and a half trillion dollar budget, as 

Colonel Norton pointed out. We are spending two billion a week on 

war. So, a couple weeks of the war would pay for almost everything 

you are talking about. And we have to consider this a cost of war. It 

should be part of that budget. We are going to look at supplemental 

budgets that don’t have to operate under any budgetary rules. And 

that is how we should look at the VA budget. 

 You have asked for nothing that this nation cannot do, but I don’t 

think it’s going to be done, and we have to look at that reality. I think 

the fix is in. The President understated what he needs, so we will

bump it up a little bit to show how we really care for the veterans. 

But there is something more going on here, and I think we have to 

be less nice here, less polite. We are talking about, you know, real 

people with real problems and life and death issues in many cases.

 I think this Administration is purposely trying to downsize as opposed to expanding the reach of the VA. In their budget requests 

at both TRICARE and with the VA enrollment fees they are saying, 

“Oh, there is going to be more than 200,000 people forced out. Great 

news. We save money.” I mean that is just an insult to the veterans of this nation that we are going to joyously celebrate the forcing 

out of hundreds of thousands of either military retirees or veterans 

from the health system. I think we should be boasting about bringing 

people in. Instead we are boasting about forcing them out.

 The VA Secretary sat here last week, I think, and said “It wouldn’t 

be a hardship, these enrollment fees.” In the next sentence says 

“200,000 will be forced out.” I mean, come on. That is not reality. It 

is a hardship. That is why they will be forced out. And we shouldn’t 

stand for it. I don’t think this Committee or this Congress will. But 

that is part of the game that is being played in the President’s budget.

 The Chairman talks repeatedly about “Core Veterans.” I think 

what he is saying is that sevens and eights should not be served by 

this Veterans Administration. I don’t think that is a good response to 

the problems we have. To save money by forcing veterans out of the 

system is not the approach that this nation ought to take.
23

 So we have some real problems, and I think you have to adopt some 

new strategies to deal with them. Your membership has got to be 

told squarely what is going on--that we are probably $4.2 billion under where we should be just to keep things going as they are. This 

Congress and this President aren’t going to put that back in. They 

will put some in to show that they are listening to you. It won’t be 

anywhere near what is needed.

 But I think this Congress and this President will respond to the 

veterans if they take political action, political action that is going beyond just coming to a hearing, which they are not even allowed to do 

anymore, or writing a letter. They have got to physically meet their 

Congress person in an informed way. I think there ought to be demonstrations, whether in Washington or around the country. I think 

you have to make some noise. I think the time to be polite is over. 

The fix is in on this stuff.

 We don’t have by accident a Secretary who was a political hack basically, put in charge of the VA. He is going to respond to a downsizing imperative. I don’t think it’s an accident that we changed Chairmen of this Committee. For the same reason. So, you all have to get, 

I think, a little bit madder and a little bit more direct, a little bit less 

polite. Because you are not going to get what you deserve going the 

way we are going. And I think we have to make some noise. Anybody 

have any reaction or are you going to join me in making noise?

The Chairman. Dr. Snyder, you are now recognized.

Dr. Snyder. I think Mr. Michaud was a head of me, Mr. Chairman. I think I came in after he did. Oh, all right. I appreciate you 

all’s presence here today. And I will just be brief because I know we 

have another panel. But I am one of those people who, while my total 

amount of active duty time was only 21 and a half months back in the 

late ‘60’s, Marine Corp IT enlistment and early release.

 Actually early release to go to begin college a summer term. I was 

able to get 45 months of GI Bill. And I didn’t pay in $100 a month. 

You know, I just, as a veteran was entitled to it and at some point the 

Congress said instead of 36 months, there is a lot of people going on 

to graduate school, let’s make it 45 months which is effectively five

school years. And it was very, very helpful. And so I appreciate not 

only you all mentioning that, but you going into some detail in these 

presentations, both orally and in your written statements.

 And some of the things you talk about are complex when you have 

one portion of our population eligible for the GI Bill is under the jurisdiction of this Committee, another part of the population is eligible 

under the Armed Services Committee, of which I am also a member. 

And then you have people who, if they are activated for lengths of 

time they are accruing GI Bill benefits as an active duty personnel

member. And to say there are some complexities here -- and I think 

that the inertia has been that we haven’t moved as robustly as we 
24

-- anywhere near what we ought to frankly. And so I hope that you 

all’s statements will add to that and I appreciate that. I would be interested in hearing more from you personally on some of the thoughts 

that you have had. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Mr. Michaud.

Mr. Michaud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too want to thank the 

panel for your written testimony as well as your comments. It’s very 

refreshing to continue to see you out there, each of you, actively fighting for our veterans in this country. And if it wasn’t for your active 

voice clearly Congress wouldn’t be doing anything more than what is 

in the budget. But because you are here today and because of your 

membership that is out there continuing to remind us not only of 

those who have served this country and the commitment that we owe 

veterans and their survivors, but it also keeps us abreast of what is 

actually going on out there in the field. So I really appreciate your

taking the time to come here today to fill us in. Mr. Chairman, I have

no questions. I think they did a great job in their written testimony 

as well as their oral remarks. So, thank you.

Dr. Snyder. Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Yes. Thank you. Dr. Snyder.

Dr. Snyder. I want to say one thing.

The Chairman. Absolutely.

Dr. Snyder. On the issue, let’s see several of you mentioned medical research and the Chairman has mentioned it in the past also. 

Let’s see, Colonel Norton, I think I have your statement here. And 

I am sorry I missed your presentation. But you mentioned medical 

research in your written statement. I don’t know if you did that in 

oral presentation.

 But we had a discussion with Dr. Perlin about that here this week. 

And you called hence in fact that the budget shows a $17 million increase in the 06 level based on whether they get non-federal sources. 

The challenge though, and I think where they’re running into problems is that it’s my understanding that the medical research inflation

rate is about three point seven percent per year. And so if there is 

an actual increase in nominal dollars of $17 million we are probably 

going to result in just right round $60 million or a little less in a real 

dollar cut to medical research.

 So if we adopt the President’s number just like it is, as it is, and assume that they are able to pull in additional NIH money, which may 

be difficult problematic this year because that number is not being

plused up robustly, you know, it’s not like they are going to take a 

corner of the brick to cut off. What is going to get cut to save that almost $60 million in real dollars will be personnel and research. And 

I hope that it’s something that this Committee will draw a line and 

appreciate your drawing attention to it. Yeah, you are back. Thank 

you, Mr. Chairman.
25

The Chairman. What we have staff drilling into before we can deliver these fees and estimates for the budget by next week, is the 

increase that the VA medical research has been receiving from outside grants. So they sort of came to us and said we don’t need as 

much money from you because we also have gotten this much of an 

increase. I just want you to know we are working to drill down that 

number. So publicly it appears as though that it would be a decrease 

and you bring it to our attention. But it appears as though that they 

are getting an increase from outside sources. But we want to do the 

math and make sure its right. And I appreciate you raising our attention, Dr. Snyder. But I just want to let you know that is happening right now as we speak.

Dr. Snyder. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. I think the number 

in the President’s budget is $1.650 billion total in research, which is 

a $17 million increase with a $1.633 billion from the preceding year. 

If everything goes as they want and they get the additional dollars 

in real dollars it’s a substantial cut in their ability to deliver services 

because of the three point seven percent inflation rate.

The Chairman. But what I am saying is that perhaps does not take 

into account all of the increase in research dollars that they are presently receiving. And which we want to understand. So it would appear as though you say well, there is a cut in medical research. Well, 

perhaps not.

Dr. Snyder. Well, I am just going by the budget numbers.

The Chairman. Right. I understand.

Dr. Snyder. That one point six five billion in the President’s budget includes all of the outside money. I think the budget number, 

my staff may know, I think it’s $399 million is actual federal dollars 

that are coming to the VA in research. So the one point six five zero

billion assumes that they will meet their mark as far as getting other 

outside monies. Now, maybe they will do even better then that.

The Chairman. I think they are going to do even better.

Dr. Snyder. Well, they are not showing us that. What they are 

telling us they are estimating they are going to get $17 million more. 

And we are to do the President’s budget number and assume that 

they will get the $17 million more will still mean a $50 to $60 million 

cut in actual services. But I am glad you are looking into that.

The Chairman. I think you all have been very cautious with regard 

to Administration assumptions. So, that is why I wanted -- 

Dr. Snyder. That is why I want to work with the gentleman on the 

medical research.

The Chairman. All right. Thank you very much for your testimony 

and I would enjoy working with you. This panel is now excused. If 

the second panel could please come forward. First Mr. John Rowan is 

the National President of Vietnam Veterans of America. Mr. Rowan 

I commend you and the work of your organization, and what you are 
26

presently doing to return the remains of our missing in action from 

Vietnam.

 Mr. Rowan was elected National President of Vietnam Veterans of 

America at the organization’s twelfth national convention in Reno, 

Nevada. Mr. Rowan served as the Chairman of the VVA’s conference 

of the state council presidents and three terms on the organization’s 

board of directors. He is President of VVA’s New York State Council. He served as a linguist in the United States Air Force Security 

Service during the Vietnam War. VVA is the nation’s only congressional chartered veterans service organization dedicated to the needs 

of Vietnam war hero veterans and their families.

 Representing the Association of Service Disabled Veterans is Mr. 

John K. Lopez. He’s been Chairman since 1985. The Association 

emphzsizes economic participation for service disabled and prisoner 

of war veterans. He sponsored eight business development legislative acts in the California legislature and ten in the United States 

Congress, all of which are now public laws. Mr. Lopez is a veteran of 

the United States Marine Corps and was disabled in service while in 

Korea as a Sergeant. His career has been frequently interrupted by 

physical relapse due to his military service injuries, but he keeps on 

coming. Mr. Lopez is also Chairman of the SDV Group, Incorporated 

and the Service Disabled Veterans Business Association.

 Next we will hear from Mr. George Basher, President, National 

Association for the State Directors of Veterans Affairs. He was appointed director of the New York State division of Veterans Affairs 

in March, 1999, by Governor George Patacki. The Division serves as 

the State’s advocate for veterans and their families. He also serves on 

the board of directors for the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans. Earlier this year he was appointed by the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to the 15 member Advisory Committee on Homeless Veterans. 

The director received his army commission in 1969 and served three 

years in the Ordinance Corps, including a year in Vietnam where he 

commanded the 78th Ordinance Detachment.

 Representing the American Ex-Prisoners of War is Mr. Les Jackson, their Executive Director. Mr. Jackson is present -- strike the 

word “present”. Mr. Jackson is here to present the testimony of National Commander Gerald Harvey. Mr. Jackson has been serving as 

the Executive Director of the American Ex-Prisoners of War since 

April of 2001. He qualified for membership on April 24, 1944, after

being captured by no fewer than 200 of Hitler’s army recruits from 

a basic training camp only a few hundred yards from where his B17 had crashed. Mr. Jackson, I am sure you have quite a story to 

tell with regard to such an event and encourage you to contact the 

Library of Congress, if you have not. Please tell your story so that 

America and others -- will you do that?

Mr. Jackson. Yes.
27

The Chairman. Thank you very much. The veterans’ history project will be enriched by your story. If you would like, what I will do is 

I will have Mr. Lariviere be in touch with you immediately after the 

hearing and we will let you know how you can work that with the Library of Congress so your story may be placed on the official record.

Mr. Jackson. The kind of encouragement I need.

The Chairman. Very good. Next we will hear from Ms. Ann Knowles 

as President of the National Association of County Veterans Service 

Officers. She served Sampson County, North Carolina as its veterans

service officer since 1983. Veterans service officers perform a unique

and valuable service to all of our nation’s veterans. They are a link 

between the veteran and the federal VA system advising veterans, 

helping them process claims applications, keeping both veterans and 

public officials at the state and local levels up-to-date on veterans issues and services. I believe this is the first time the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers has been invited to present

testimony at these hearings and we welcome you.

 Finally, we will hear from Mr. Rick Jones, the Legislative Director for the National Association for Uniformed Services. Mr. Jones 

joined NAUS as the legislative director on September 1, 2005. He 

is an Army veteran who served as medical specialist in the Vietnam 

War era. His assignments include duty at Brooke General Hospital, U.S. Army in San Antonio, Texas; at the Fitzsimmons General 

Hospital in Denver, Colorado; and Moncrief Community Hospital in 

Columbia, South Carolina.

 Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. Without objection your written 

statements, if all of you have one -- all acknowledged in the affirmative. Your written statements will be entered into the record. We will 

begin with you, Mr. President Rowan Vietnam Veterans of America.

STATEMENT OF JOHN ROWAN, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA, ACCOMPANIED BY

 RICHARD WEIDMAN, DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELA-

 TIONS

Mr. Rowan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the Members of the 

Committee. I want to thank you for allowing us to testify this afternoon. First, Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud your call for a real 

GI Bill that would be like the one that we had back in World War II. 

When I was teaching as an urban studies professor I used to teach 

that program as being one of the best pieces of social legislation ever 

put out by this Congress and which created the middle-class that we 

know in the United States today. Without it there would have been 

no middle-class.

 The VVA has a very simple agenda this year. First, funding for 

veterans’ health care and other veterans’ services, especially the 
28

comp and pension system in VA. Second, accountability in each of 

the above arenas. And third, outreach to inform veterans as to what 

their benefits are.

 In VVA’s testimony for the record we give breadth and scope to 

these issues and to the following issues: the POWs which is still our 

highest priority, post traumatic stress disorder, women veterans 

health, agent orange and other toxic exposures, increased employment and training programs, increased business opportunities for 

veteran-owned businesses, homeless veterans, comp and pension reform, and a bold legislative agenda to do what must be done to assist 

the new generation of veterans.

 Under funding, the cost of caring for veterans, as was mentioned 

earlier, is part of the continuing cost of our national defense and we 

must keep that in mind at all times. The VA can do a better job if it’s 

assured of an adequate budget for veterans health care. The current 

discretionary system just does not work. Last July, Congress was in 

an uproar over the shortfall. The VA acknowledged an $800 plus million hole for Fiscal Year ‘05. The VSO’s won’t say to the VA we told 

you so, but we told them so.

 Mr. Chairman, we want to thank you for your strong and decisive 

leadership in resolving that crisis. Again this year we believe the 

Administration’s budget request is short by at least two point three 

billion dollars. And four point two billion would be needed to reopen 

the system to priority eights.

 As VVA has said before, we would be discussing a budget eight to 

ten billion dollars greater had the VA’s health care budget not been 

flat-lined for four years as eligibility reform was opening the system

to hundreds of thousands of deserving veterans.

 There is no doubt that we will all suddenly discover that there is 

not enough money at the VA hospitals to last until October, 2006. 

The bad news is the good news is wrong. The continuly increasing 

burden on the health care system is not just caused by the influx of

veterans of the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan, but because Vietnam veterans are getting sicker at an earlier age with diseases and 

maladies that can be traced back to our service in southeast Asia. 

These service-connected illnesses will pose serious long-term fiscal

problems for the VA that must be addressed. We challenge Congress 

here and now to form a bipartisan group to meet, study the issues 

and options, hold hearings, and recommend legislation that would 

fundamentally change the way in which veterans health care is funded now, this year, for the ‘07 budget.

 A fair funding formula can be arrived at. One that won’t bust the 

budget, but one that recognizes our nation’s obligations to veterans 

as an on-going cost of national defense that must be keyed to medical 

inflation and the per capita use of the VA health care system.

 We are also concerned about the compensation side of the house. 
29

More than half a million veterans’ claims have been in various stages 

of adjudication for more than six months. Congress must demand 

an accounting why it takes upwards of two and a half years to adjudicate claims. We need accurate adjudication. The IG report of 

May 6, 2005, documented the poor training of adjudicators and the 

inordinate pressure to decide cases with incomplete data. Congress 

must demand that the VA not only develop but put into practice a 

real strategy for unclogging the system.

 We also need greater accountability. We applaud you, Mr. Chairman, for your task force on accountability and for including the VSOs 

in this effort. Budget reform must be accomplished hand-in-hand 

with real changes in how VA senior managers and middle managers 

and line staff perform. Give at-a-boys and bonuses to those who have 

earned them to managers and workers using objective criteria, but 

VA must give warnings and sanctions to those who have not done 

their jobs well. Better management and training and competency 

best taste -- excuse -- competency based testing is needed if efficiency

and effectiveness is to be increased.

 We have a need for expanded outreach. According to the census 

bureau there are 25 million veterans in the United States and only 

one-fifth in any interaction with the VA. Many are eligible for compensation for several maladies incurred during their military service 

and yet far too many of them are unaware of the benefits to which

their service entitles them.

 The VA has an obligation to reach out to all veterans to ensure to 

the maximum extent possible that they know what benefits they have

earned and that they know how to access these benefits.

 In VVA’s 2006 legislative agenda and policy initiatives, which I

hope you all have gotten and if you haven’t we will make sure we 

have them to you, we discussed several other priorities, including the 

following major issues.

 The National Vietnam Veterans Longitudinal Study must be done 

as required by Public Law 106-419. The utter contempt that the VA

has shown and continues to show for the law and for the will of Congress must not be allowed to continue. We must ask you to fully 

investigate this mess of the VA’s creation and force the completion 

of the NVVLS at an early date. The Congress and all of us need the 

results of this study in order to quantify the health status of Vietnam 

veterans so that the VA can accurately forecast their future needs.

 This study should also provide the VA and the Congress with the 

framework for forecasting the needs of those brave Americans serving in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere today. VA urges the early 

passage of HR 4259, the Veterans’ Right to Know Commission Act, as 

well as action by this Committee to secure an extension of health care 

for those veterans who are exposed to biological weapons, chemical 

weapons, as well as harmful stimulants and decontaminates during 
30

SHAD and Project 112.

 Lastly, we need an additional 250 full-time permanent staff at the 

VA centers, the Vet centers, to properly assist OIF/OEF Vets and 

their families with the PTSD problems that are coming home from 

Iraq and Afghanistan.

 Mr. Chairman and the Committee, VVA thanks you and all the 

distinguished Members of this Committee on both sides of the aisle 

for your leadership, your service to veterans, and for all of your hard 

work. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

Thank you.

  [The statement of Mr. John Rowan appears on p. 132]

The Chairman. Will you please hold for a second? We need to wait 

for Mr. Filner, here. All right. Mr. Lopez, please, you may proceed 

with your testimony.

STATEMENT OF JOHN K. LOPEZ, Chairman, ASSOCIATION

 FOR SERVICE DISABLED VETERANS

Mr. Lopez. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Ranking 

Member, Members of the Committee. The Association for Service 

Disabled Veterans continues to focus on rehabilitation as an alternative to improving the quality of life of our veteran. It has been 

nearly six years since the U.S. Congress first provided support for the

service disabled and prisoner of war veteran enterprise initiative by 

enacting Public Law 106-50 and Public Law 108-183.

 The Administration followed that direction by invoking Presidential Executive Order 13360, directing aggressive and immediate implementation of those laws and specifying actions to be taken.

 Those activities took place in October 2004 and since that time the 

frustration has continued. For example, when Public Law 106-50 

was enacted the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council contended 

that the main intent of the legislation by Congress was unclear and 

therefore the required establishment of a program for service-disabled veterans did not exist.

 Subsequently, the legislative intent of the United States Congress 

has ben variously interpreted by regulators due to the necessity for 

inserting and parsing of the required language, statements, and references to existing regulations and public laws. This bureaucratic 

obfuscation has the effect of confusing and impeding the effort to 

increase the participation of the service-disabled veteran in government procurement and contracting opportunities.

 H.R. 3082 The Veteran Owned Small Business Promotion Act, clarifies and reemphasizes the intent of the U.S. Congress. The intent

is a splendid example of the concern and focus of the Committee’s 

response to the veteran’s need for rehabilitation and transition as-
31

sistance.

  H.R. 3082 gives specific authority to the Department of Veterans’

Affairs to confirm the eligibility of service disabled veteran businesses and to accept direct responsibility for the provision of benefit to the

veteran, especially the service disabled veteran. It puts the task to 

that agency specifically established for the purpose of serving those

who have borne the battle.

 Included is concern for th total family. The age-old adage that, 

“Beside every successful man stands a woman”, pales in significance

when compared to the role of wives, mothers, sisters, and daughters 

who care for those service disabled and prisoner of war veterans that 

are enhancing their rehabilitation through the ownership and management of businesses. At the same time, at the very same time hey 

are assisting them in their business.

 Besides the enormous burden of caring for the service disabled 

veterans’ life-long disabilities, incurred in sacrifice for the well being of all the free world, these women are vested participants in the 

daily management of he service disabled veteran enterprise. Without 

their participation the service disabled veteran enterprise is surely 

doomed to failure. For too long has this extraordinary contribution 

gone unrecognized and the unique investment of vested women gone 

uncompensated.

 Present legal interpretation states that the legal entitlement of the 

service disabled veteran enterprise ceases when the service disabled 

veteran owner dies or is incapacitated, leaving the significantly invested vested woman with a practically totally devalued business. 

The actual vested woman role as a de facto partner and the enabling 

force in the enterprise is discarded.

 This is an unacceptable disposition of the accomplishments of the 

service disabled veteran and the sacrifice of the vested woman, disgracing the responsibility of the nation for the sacrifices of the veterans’ unique initiative. HR 3082 will alleviate this injustice and 

provide for service disabled veteran business succession.

 In the words of one vested woman, “Women have stood by too long 

while our disabled veteran loved ones have taken abuse and disrespect for their sacrifice for this nation while they struggle with their

own rehabilitation. That will now stop.”

 It is estimated that over 2,500,000 women are integral in the operation of the service disabled veteran enterprise and over 15 million 

women in all veteran owned businesses.

  HR 3082 also clarifies the misconception that veterans’ entrepreneurship and the proposed at are a socioeconomic development initiative or a cultural inequity panacea. HR 3082 is a specific contribution

to that continuing obligation or our nation to rehabilitate those veterans that have sacrificed for our nation’s security and prosperity.

 The service disabled veterans government service and his incurred 
32

misery is unique. There is no justification for requiring that service

disabled veteran indemnification and rehabilitation be adjusted to

the conduct of any other socioeconomic program.

 Future generations of American military heroes will be forever indebted to the Congress, and especially the 109th Congress, for their 

commitment to honor and support those killed, maimed, and tortured 

in the continuing struggle to provide security and prosperity fo the 

people of this world. Those Iraqi Afghanistan veterans returning 

from harms way are experiencing a far different outreach from others who have served, and that is a tribute to the conscience of the 

Members of the U.S. Congress.

 The 25 million veterans of our nation thank the Chairman and 

Ranking Members of the Committee and Subcommittees. The 

500,000 grandmothers, 12 million wives, 6 million granddaughters 

and their dogs that are direct stakeholders and beneficiaries of veteran’s entrepreneurial investment and the 30 million employees of 

veteran enterprises thank the U.S. Congress for the compassionate 

and responsible -- 

The Chairman. John, can we include cats?

Mr. Lopez. Just dogs. That have demonstrated -- that is pretty 

funny -- in the development of veterans entrepreneurship. We ask 

that the Congress enact HR 3082 expeditiously and that the Congress stay acutely engaged in a process of verifying that the intent 

of veteran entrepreneurship development legislation is implemented. 

Thank you for your attention. I will be pleased to answer any questions the members may have.

  [The statement of Mr. John Lopez appears on p. 163]

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lopez. Mr. Basher.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE BASHER, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

 ASSOCIATION OF STATE DIRECTORS OF VETERANS

 AFFAIRS

Mr. Basher. Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Committee, as President of the National Association of State Directors of 

Veterans Affairs I think you for the opportunity to testify and present 

the views of our state directors of all 50 states, commonwealths and 

territories.

 As the nation’s second largest provider of services to veterans, 

spending over $3.5 billion annually, state governments’ role continues to grow. We believe it is essential for Congress to understand 

this role and to ensure we have the resources to carry out our responsibilities. We partner very closely with the federal government in order to best serve our veterans. And as partners we are continuously 

striving to be more efficient in delivering services to veterans.
33

  Under health care benefits and services NASDVA supports the

Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced Services, CARES, process. 

We were generally pleased with the report and recommendations 

made in the final plan. We also support the process for planning at

the remaining 18 sites and the direction it will move VA as a national 

system. We urge that capital funding required for implementation 

be included over a reasonable period of time to enable these recommendations to be realized.

 We support the opening of additional community based outpatient 

clinics. We would like to see the new priority CBOCs deployed rapidly with appropriate VA medical center funding.

 We recommend an in-depth examination of long-term care and 

mental health services. The CARES Commission review did not include long-term are or mental health services, but did recommend 

further study of both areas. To that end, we again ask that a study 

be done to thoroughly examine veterans’ long-term care needs and 

continue the study currently being done on mental health care needs, 

to include gap analysis clearly identifying where service are lacking. 

The CARES report recognized state veterans homes asa critical component of veterans’ long-term health care and a model of cost-efficient

partnership between federal and state governments. These state 

nursing care facilities and domiciliaries bear over half of the national 

long-term health care workload for our infirm and aging veteran population. Forty-eight states provide care for more than 27,500 veterans in 120 homes. We urge you to continue to oppose proposals that 

jeopardize the viability of our state veteran homes. State taxpayers 

have supported the homes through its 35 percent share of construction costs with an understanding that the federal government would 

continue to make its contribution through per diem payments. The 

federal government should continue to fulfill its important commitment to the states and ultimately to the individual veterans in need 

of care.

Mr. Filner. Has Mr. Chairman finished talking to his staff so we

may continue?

Mr. Basher. NASDVA continues its strong support for the state 

home construction grant program. The annual appropriation for this 

program should be continued and increased. Based on the reduction 

in funding in fiscal year 2006, we recommend that the amount in ‘07

be increased to $115 million. Re-ranking of projects should be eliminated once a project is established a priority one project with state 

matching funds available.

 Since 1977, state construction grant requests have consistently exceeded Congressional appropriations for the program. According to 

the ‘06 priority list of pending home applications there are 80 projects 

in the priority one group with state matching funds of $226 million 

committed and a federal match of $420 million. Any grant morato-
34

rium only exacerbates an already underfunded program, where the 

fiscal year ‘06 appropriation was only $85 million.

 The success of VA’s efforts to meet its current and future long-term 

care needs of veterans is contingent on resolving the current mismatch between demand and available funding. We recommend this 

issue be included in any long-term care study undertaken.

 We support full reimbursement fo care in state veteran homes for 

veterans who have 70 percent or more service-connected disability or 

who require nursing home care because of a service-connected disability. Currently community homes are paid are paid the full daily 

cost of care but if that same veteran was in a state nursing home they 

would only receive the federal per diem.

 We support increase in per diem to provide one-half of the national 

average annual cost of care in a state veterans’ home. Today it’s less 

than 25 percent. We support VA medicare subvention.

 We recommend that VA implement a medicare subvention program similar to the unrealized VA Advantage Program. Working 

with the Department of Health and Human Services this program 

would allow a priority group eight veterans aged 65 and older to use 

their medicare benefits to obtain VA health care. VA would receive

medicare payments to cover costs. It’s an HMO concept we have supported in the past. However, we are concerned about he delay in 

implementation of a pilot. It was our understanding two years ago 

that this program would be available to veterans within a few months 

and another year has now passed without implementation.

 We also request continued protection of the federal supply schedule for VA and DOD pharmaceuticals. We support continued efforts 

to reach out to veterans. This should be a partnership between VA

and the state Departments of Veterans’ Affairs. While growth has 

occurred in VA health care due to improved access to CBOCs, many 

areas of the country are still short changed due to geography and/or 

due to veterans lack of information and awareness of their benefits.

VA and state directors must reduce this inequity by reaching out to 

veterans regarding their rights and entitlements. We support implementation of a grant program that would allow VA to partner with 

state directors to perform outreach at the local level. There is no 

excuse for veterans not receiving benefits to which they are entitled

simply because they are unaware.

 Under compensation and pension, we support consideration of a 

greater role for state directors in the overall effort to manage and administer claims processing, regardless of whether the state uses state 

employees, veterans service organizations, or county veterans service 

officers. Recent studies regarding claims processing have all noted

that VA needs to make better use of the assets of the state and local 

government to assist in claim processing. The claim processing task 

force is one example. Additionally, as noted in the recent VA Inspec-
35

tor General’s Report, “Veteran access to competent claim assistance 

is still very much an accident of geography.” Effective advocacy for 

veterans from an initiation of a claim to VA decision can improve sufficiency and timeliness of the claims. Numerous studies indicate well

developed claims produce better outcomes for veterans in a shorter 

time at a lower cost to VA.

 State directors, nationally chartered VSOs and county veteran service officers have the capacity and capability to assist VA. State directors can be an effective partner with VA to establish and achieve 

higher performance standards in claims preparation. State directors 

could assume a role in more effective and comprehensive training 

programs, certification of service officers, to ensure competence and

technical proficiency in claims preparation. We can support VA in its

duty to assist without diminishing our role as advocates.

 For all the reports and testimony to the contrary, VBA has not 

been very successful in making effective use of the state, county, service officers systems of service auditors and counselors. We further

recommend the establishment and enforcement of uniform training 

programs, performance measures for all personnel involved in the 

preparation of claims.

  Under burial and memorial benefits, we recommend an increase in

the plot allowance for all veterans to $1,000 per interment, it’s currently $300. And we strongly support an increase in funding for the 

state cemetery grant program, a new federal state national cemetery 

administration grant program could be established to support state 

costs.

 We also support efforts to diminish the national disgrace of homelessness among veterans. State directors would prefer an active role 

in allocating and distributing per diem funds for homeless veterans 

to non-profit organizations ensuring greater coordination, fiscal accountability, and local oversight of the services provided. We also 

strongly support improving upon and providing seamless transition 

to help our service members transition into civilian life.

 We support the expansion of the Transition Assistance Program 

and efforts need to be made to maximize the integration of services 

provided by DOD, VA and state and local governments. It must be 

recognized that no single agency can adequately meet the transition 

needs of our returning service members.

 We strongly support veterans’ preference with regard to employment. We support full implementation of existing programs and laws 

with regard to veterans’ preference to ensure our returning veterans 

have every opportunity available in their transition into civilian life. 

We also support incentives to businesses that hire veterans.

 In conclusion, Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the 

Committee, we respect the important work that you have done to 

improve support to veterans who have answered the call to serve our 
36

nation. The National Association of State Directors of Veterans’ Affairs remains dedicated to doing our part, but we urge you to be mindful of the increasing financial challenge that states face, just as you

address the fiscal challenge at the federal level. We are dedicated to

our partnership with VA in the delivery of services and care to our 

nation’s veterans. This concludes my statement and I am ready to 

answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

  [The statement of Mr. George Basher appears on p. 176]

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Basher. Mr. Jackson, 

you are now recognized.

STATEMENT OF LES JACKSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

 AMERICAN EX-PRISONERS OF WAR

Mr. Jackson. I want to talk as fast as the three gentlemen on my 

right. I don’t have as much to say. Chairman Buyer, Ranking Member Evans, distinguished Members of the Veterans -- House Veterans’ Affairs Committee and guests.

 I welcome the opportunity to again speak on behalf of American 

Ex-Prisoners of War. We are deeply grateful for all that the Congress 

and the Veterans Administration has done for POWs over the last 30 

years. As you know, prior to that POWs were an invisible part of the 

veteran population. It has been incorrectly stated that we preferred 

it that way out of shame over being captured. This is not true. We 

are proud to have lost our liberty while defending the right of all 

Americans to be free. We were so happy to be free we simply wanted 

to again get to enjoy our homes and our families and get back to raising -- starting a new career. As a result, we made few requests upon 

the government at that time.

 Public awareness about the plight of aging POWs generally was 

reawakened when the plight of the Americans held for months and 

years in North Vietnam. Max Cleland, was the VA Administrator 

at that time, and he later became Senator from Georgia. He took 

the lead in correcting the country’s failure to remember POWs form 

the earlier wars, including World War II. VA then immediately took 

steps to identify all POWs receiving benefits, health benefits and disability benefits. Congress responded and directed VA to conduct a review of all policies and procedures relative to POWs and established 

a POW Advisory Committee to review and evaluate VA and Congressional matters as they relate to POWs. 

 Over the last 30 years many presumptives were established to simplify the procedures by which POWs could obtain needed disability 

benefits and medical care. The ongoing research conducted on POWs

by the National Academy of Sciences provided the basis for these ongoing Congressional studies for VA. At present most of the long-term 
37

health problems causally related -- associated with the brutal and 

inhumane treatment of being captive have been identified and made

presumptive.

 We urge Congress to act on the several remaining medical conditions identified in certain legislation. The first of these is chronic

liver disease. It is simply a clarification of a current presumptive,

cirrhosis of the liver. The National Academy of Sciences has stated 

in writing that more currently reflects their findings. Cirrhosis is

simply the final stages of chronic liver disease.

 The second is diabetes. It has already been established for Vietnam veteran exposed to certain chemicals and other factors. POWs 

similarly were exposed to adverse factors while captured and are 

causally related to diabetes.

 Third, osteoporosis. This is directly related to absence of the calcium needed to maintain bone structure, a common situation for 

POWs. This condition becomes apparent after a bone breaks.

 Adjudicators typically already decide these claims for POWs. Making it a presumptive simplifies the process for adjudicators as well as

POWs alike.

 HR 1588 introduced by Representative Mike Bilirakis and S. 1271 

introduced by Senator Patty Murray cover these presumptives. We 

ask the full Committee to support these bills.

 We call to your attention that these bills have virtually no increase 

cost to any of these -- many of these proposed presumptives. Costs 

are more than offset by rapidly diminishing numbers of POWs already on the disability rolls or favorably acted upon by VA adjudicators via a longer process of evaluation.

 Also I want to include -- recognize the fact that Congressman Filner has introduced HR 2369, which awards a Purple Heart to every 

POW who died while in captivity. We urge the support of the Committee for these bills. The American Ex-Prisoners of War appreciates 

the opportunity to share our views with you.

  [The statement of Mr. Les Jackson appears on p. 176]

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Jackson, for your testimony. Ms. 

Knowles, you are now recognized.

STATEMENT OF ANN KNOWLES, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL

 ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY VETERANS SERVICE OFFICERS

Ms. Knowles. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it is truly my honor to be able to present this testimony before 

you today. As President of the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers, I am commenting on three things. Recommendation for the creation of a new federal, state, and local government 

partnership to provide outreach to veterans and their dependents; 
38

the development of standardized training for county veterans service 

officers; recommendation for claims development improvement.

  The National Association of County Veterans Service Officers is an

organization made up of local government employees. Our members 

are tasked with assisting veterans and their dependents in applying 

for benefits with the VA. We exist to serve veterans and partner with

the national service organizations and the VA to serve veterans. Our 

Association focuses on outreach, standardized training, and claims 

processing. We are an arm of the government, not unlike the VA

itself in service to the nation’s veterans and their dependents.

 Our workforce represents approximately 2,400 government employees available to partner with VA to help speed the process of claims 

development and transition by military personnel back to civilian 

life. Upon discharge, the service man or woman becomes a veteran 

who returns to the local community. When health issues become apparent and help is needed, the most visible and accessible assistance 

is your County Veterans Service Officer.

 As we sit here today discussing the needs of the veterans across 

this great land, it soon becomes apparent that there are many areas 

that need attention. Outreach and claims processing improvements 

are essential if we are to fulfill the obligation proclaimed by Abraham

Lincoln “To care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his 

widows and his orphans.” That is our focus and that is our passion.

 The year 2005 brought much needed changes and additions to the 

veterans’ laws. And the National Association of County Veterans’ 

Service Officers commends Congress on your accomplishments of

2005. However, there is much more that remains to be done in the 

arena of unmet needs.

 I would like to take a few minutes to address our legislative priorities beginning with outreach. Outreach efforts must be expanded in 

order to reach those veterans and dependents that are unaware of 

their benefits and to bring them into the system. Nearly two million poor veterans and their impoverished widows are likely missing 

out on as much as $22 billion a year in pension benefits from the

U.S. government. But the VA has had only limited success in finding

them according to the North Carolina Charlotte Observer.

 Widows are the hardest hit. According to VA’s own estimate only 

one in seven, only one in seven of the survivors of the nation’s deceased veterans who likely could qualify for pensions actually get the 

monthly checks. Veterans and widows are unaware that the program 

exists. They simply don’t know about it and the VA knows that many 

are missing out on the benefits. “We obviously are here for any veteran or survivor who qualifies,” says a VA pension official. “There

are so many of them we don’t know who they are or where they are.” 

The VA’s own report of 2004 recommended that the agency improve 

its outreach efforts with public service announcements and pilot pro-
39

grams. While it made limited efforts to reach veterans or the widows 

through existing channels, it is difficult to determine whether such

efforts have been successful.

 Nonetheless, VA’s estimate of the program shows the potential pool 

of poor veterans and widows without the pension has remained unchanged for four years. A VA report estimated an additional 853,000 

veterans and 1.1 million survivors, generally widows, could get the 

pensions but don’t. Of all those likely eligible only 27 percent of the 

veterans and 14 percent of widows receive the money. It’s obvious 

there is a great need for outreach into the veterans’ community and 

the local CVSO is the advocate closest to the veterans and their widows. Therefore, NACVSO is supporting House Bill 4264 and companion bill, Senate 1990 introduced by Congressman Mike McIntyre and 

Senator Richard Burr of North Carolina that would allow Secretary 

Nicholson to provide federal and state, local grants and assistance 

to state and county veterans’ service officers to enhance outreach

through veterans and their dependents.

 Secondly, standardized training for CVSOs. Across the United 

States there are approximately 3,000 state and county veteran service officers who are required by the state and local laws to assist

veterans and their dependents in applying for benefits from the VA.

The laws of the states are inconsistent in the requirements for employment of service officers, their training requirements and their accreditation process. Some states have a very strict detailed training 

program with an accreditation test that must be passed. They also 

include a continuing education process that must be met each year to 

maintain accreditation, and in some cases, to maintain employment.

 This is in contrast to other states that have little or no training and 

do not have an accreditation program. If the state law is a “shall operate a county veterans service office” versus a “may operate a county

veterans office” there very well could be a big difference on how the

county veterans offices are funded and operate. Depending on where

in this country one may go there are great disparities on how the offices are funded, operated, and the level of staff training.

  Most county veterans offices operate on bare bone budgets by their

respective counties. To overcome these deficiencies in the service to

veterans across the country a method of standardized training must 

be established. To enhance training we must also have a reliable 

accreditation process, a method to maintain that accreditation, and 

a means to track current status of accredited service officers. Seventy-five percent to ninety-five percent of all claims filed through the

regional offices across this country are filed by a county and state

veterans service officer. We are the ones that sit at the table across

from the veterans on a daily basis.

 Finally, claims development. NACVSO sees the role of county veterans service officers as one of advocacy and claims development in
40

concert with the veteran or dependent at the grassroots level. Where 

the initial claim is prepared and the necessary supporting documentation is gathered from veterans or dependents, private medical sources, county, state public records, VA medical center, and reviewed for completeness. This complete package is passed off to a 

state or a national service officer for review and presentation to the

VA regional office of jurisdiction. Any hearings or additional records

required would be obtained by this organization in concert with the 

CVSO of record.

  The majority of the CVSOs have the capability of electronic filing. 

We currently are able to perform many electronic activities with other 

agencies and institutions. NACVSO strongly believes for the CVSO

to have access to the VA’s electronic files would greatly improve the

claims process, speed veterans’ awards, and help eliminate the loss of 

files as well as enhance VA’s own record keeping.

Currently the partnership between the VA and CVSOs based upon 

eligibility criteria that includes training and accreditation has allowed us access to certain screens on SHARE and MAP-D, which 

are the VA’s computerized claims process and development systems. 

Even with this limited access we still must use the VA office regional

phone units to get information on appeals and ratings. Expansions of 

remote access to include VACOLS, RBA 2000, CPRI and eventually 

Virtual VA systems must become a high priority if there is to be the 

ultimate electronic claims development. All of this would increase 

productivity and be an additional way to speed the processing of veterans claims to reduce the inventory.

 On behalf of the National Association of County Veterans Service 

Officers I would like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to

share these thoughts with you. It is truly an honor for us to be a part 

of this process. Now I would be glad to entertain any questions.

  [The statement of Ms. Ann Knowles appears on p. 179]

The Chairman. Thank you Ms. Knowles. Mr. Jones, you are now 

recognized.

STATEMENT OF RICK JONES, LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, 

 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES

Mr. Jones. Chairman Buyer, Mr. Filner, Mr. Michaud, Members 

of the Committee, Major General Bill Matz, NAUS President, sends 

his regrets. He is in Tampa, Florida, today at a meeting of the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission where he serves at the request

of President Bush.

 On behalf of the nationwide membership of the National Association for Uniformed Services, I am pleased to present our legislative 

priorities. First and foremost, NAUS urges the Committee’s support 
41

to ensure veterans have access to quality health care at VA. NAUS

applauds the Committee in its effort to lead Congress on the discovery of funding shortfalls found in last year’s budget and for taking 

action to shore up VA’s financial troubles.

 NAUS also appreciates your work, Mr. Chairman, in seeing that 

VA was exempted from the one percent across the board cut made in 

appropriations for the current year.

 Mr. Chairman, the provision of quality timely care is considered 

one of the most important benefits afforded veterans. We urge the

Committee to fully fund VHA and we endorse The Independent Budget recommendation of $32.4 billion without increased fees and copays for total medical care.

 Mr. Chairman, for several years certain veterans have been prohibited from enrollment in VA’s health care system under a decision 

made by the Secretary on January 17, 2003. NAUS urges the Committee to review this policy and provide a measure of relief to allow 

at least medicare eligible veterans to gain access to VA’s prescription 

drug program. As a result of VA’s decision to restrict new enrollments, a great number of veterans, including medicare eligible veterans, are denied access to VA.

  NAUS recognizes that VA fills and distributes more than 100 million prescriptions annually to five million veteran patients. As a high

volume purchaser of pharmaceuticals VA is able to secure a significant discount on medication purchases. Enrolled veterans can obtain 

prescription paying $8.00 for each 30 day supply. However, veterans 

not enrolled for care before January 2003 are denied an earned benefit that similarly situated enrolled veterans are able to use. 

 NAUS asks the Committee to consider legislation that would allow 

medicare eligible veterans to get a break on prescription drug pricing. 

What we recommend is to give medicare eligible veterans currently 

banned from the system and paying retail prices, or using the newly 

established Part D program, access to the same discount provided VA

in their purchases of prescriptions. Providing the discount would not 

cost the government a cent. Medicare eligible patients would pay the 

same price the VA pays. And these veterans would see value restored 

and returned in a benefit each earned through military service. It

looks like a win-win.

  Mr. Chairman, despite VA’s best efforts to deliver benefits to entitled veterans, the workload of the Veterans Benefits Administration continues to increase. As of mid-February VBA had more than 

500,000 compensation pension claims pending decision, an increase 

of nearly 70,000 from this time last year.

 NAUS does not see the problem as something that cannot be overcome. A stronger VA budget would provide for the hiring and training of claims adjudicators and the investment in appropriate technology to overcome the backlog and get the program back on track.
42

 Mr. Chairman, the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee has an excellent record of oversight on administrative efforts to improve the 

seamless transition for service members as they leave military service and become veterans. Providing a seamless transition is especially important for the most severely injured patients. No veteran 

leaving military service should fall through the bureaucratic cracks 

in this transition.

 NAUS requests that the Committee continue to schedule oversight 

hearings to push for progress. NAUS compliments VA and DOD for 

following through on establishing benefit representatives at military

hospitals. This is an important step and can often help reduce the 

amount of frustration inherent in the separation process.

 Mr. Chairman, our troops with limb loss is a matter of national 

concern. Improved body armor, better advantages in battlefield medicines have reduced fatalities, however, injured soldiers are coming 

back oftentimes with severe, grievous physical losses. NAUS encourages Congressional decision makers to ensure that funding for VA’s 

prosthetic research is adequate to support the full range of programs 

needed to meet current and future health challenges facing wounded 

veterans. The need is great.

 Lieutenant Colonel Paul Pasquina, chief of physical medical and 

rehabilitation at Walter Reed says, “About 15 percent of the amputees at Walter Reed have lost more than one limb.” And according 

to Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Gamble, chief of amputee clinic, about 

one-third of the amputations done on recently injured service members have involved upper extremities because of the type of munitions used by our enemy.

 In order to help meet the challenge, VA research requires funding 

for continued development of advance prostheses that will perform 

more like normal limbs. NAUS would also like to see better coordination between VA and the Department of Defense Advanced Research 

Projects Agency in the development of prosthetics that are readily 

adaptable to aid amputees. NAUS looks forward to working with 

you, Mr. Chairman, to see that priority is given for these brave men 

and women with special needs.

 Mr. Chairman, more than 50 years ago Army psychiatrists reported that psychiatric casualties in combat are as inevitable as gunshot 

and shrapnel wounds in warfare. At VA Secretary Nicholson reports 

VA is seeing about 12 percent of returning troops for PTSD examination. And about 40,000 OIF/OEF soldiers are showing symptoms of 

PTSD and are currently in some process of treatment.

 Beyond the number of new veterans from OIF and OEF, VA provides treatment for some type of mental health service to more than 

833,000 of the nearly five million veterans who received VA care in

fiscal year 2004. NAUS urges the Committee to push VA to develop

a working approach that leads to more effective early intervention 
43

and to healing. Secretary Nicholson said he supports that in his testimony.

 NAUS appeals to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs to approve an 

annual COLA adjustment. To prevent inflation from eroding disability compensation and disability and indemnity compensation. We 

urge you, because this decision is in your hands, to be generous and 

liberal in the cost of living adjustment.

 NAUS thanks you, Mr. Chairman, for stating your interest in a 

total force framework for a new GI Bill for education. We look forward to working with you to develop a veterans education assistance 

program that provides benefits based on a continuum of service and

includes members of the National Guard and Reserve.

 We appreciate your leadership in traumatic injury insurance. This 

new and very necessary program is much appreciated by those who 

actually need the funds. These brave men and women and their families deserve nothing less. And we appreciate your effort on their 

behalf. 

 NAUS encourages the Committee to closely review permitting 

medicare eligible veterans to use their medicare entitlement for care 

at local VA medical facilities. We support medicare reimbursement.

 And Mr. Chairman, we ask the Committee to play an active role in 

helping to move concurrent receipt forward. We recognize it’s not in 

your jurisdiction. But we recommend the Committee work to extend 

concurrent receipt to include individuals medically discharged from 

service prior to achieving 20 years of service.

 Mr. Chairman, you and your Committee Members have made progress. We thank you and your excellent staff. Again, NAUS deeply 

appreciates the opportunity to present our Association’s priorities on 

veterans’ health and benefits. Thank you, sir.

  [The statement of Mr. Rick Jones appears on p. 189]

The Chairman. Thank you very much. I will also bring to your attention as I have done with other panels with regard to the general 

discharges. You were present, I think, when you heard me bring that 

to your attention. I just want to make sure that you take that back to 

your membership so that the Pentagon gets the right message on how 

these individuals should appropriately be handled. Ms. Knowles.

Ms. Knowles. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. There is a reason we asked you to testify here for 

your Association for the first time. And you are absolutely correct. 

You and your membership are located in every county in America and 

our territories. And so you in a lot of circumstances are the very first

person that they see. And as we were trying to improve this seamless 

transition and move to a one IT architecture and you are part of this 

partnership. Not only is it you, it’s the Veterans’ Service Offices, and

the state directors, and as we want to move to this architecture there 
44

is this hesitation in the VA to include you as part of our one architecture. Do you sense that also?

Ms. Knowles. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. Yes. So, I wanted you to come here today. I was 

very interested in what your testimony was going to be. I wanted the 

Committee to be able to hear it. And I would like for you to explore 

that a little more. So the first question would be, of your counties do

you know how many counties in America -- let me ask it this way -- 

are all county veteran service offices computerized?

Ms. Knowles. No, sir. They are not. Some of your smaller counties, Mississippi is one that we work with a lot, there is very few in 

that state that have computers. They have some. They are, you 

know -- as I said, the veterans service office is the bare bones budget

and the counties give the budget. So we are not high on the priority 

list to get the equipment. That is why we do partner with the state. 

And that is why we feel in order to move forward we need some help 

from the VA, standardized training and electronic equipment in our 

counties.

The Chairman. Mr. Basher, how would you respond to the counties 

out there that are saying they are not being properly funded?

Mr. Basher. I think that they run the gambit. Some are very well 

resourced. Some, like down -- especially down in the south, they have 

very, very limited resources. I know most state governments struggle 

to make sure that those counties have whatever resources are available. I know that in some cases even VA works to make surplus 

equipment available to county organizations and service organizations. But as Ms. Knowles points out, there is no uniform standards. 

There is no performance measures. So it’s very, very hard to capture 

this data.

The Chairman. All right. But as we move toward standardization, 

the goal would be to seek that you be incorporated under the one architecture. You are the individual, your memberships are the ones 

that are in close proximity to our governors.

Mr. Basher. Yes.

The Chairman. Right?

Mr. Basher. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. So the governors need to make sure they have you 

in the budgets. County commissioners need to make sure that they 

have you in the budgets. Right? I mean we all have to, we here in 

Congress, we end up dealing with all these shortfalls, whether it’s a 

township fire department in Homeland Security; whether it’s making

sure that they have access to bulletproof vests. I mean you can go 

down the list here and I just want to make sure that we are going to 

be able to pull all this together. But too often there is this, well, we 

will get the federal government to pay for it too. And states and localities need to make sure that they step up to the plate here in their 
45

partnership. That’s why I wanted to make sure that we have a communication between the counties and the states. President Rowan.

Mr. Rowan. Yes. I would like to just add to that too. In your discussion, we support it all the time at the state level and in the county 

levels in trying to get their budgets in hand. And we have been trying to explain to these elected officials that in fact this is an economic

development program to them. When each of these service offices

and each of these counties and state agencies do their job, they bring 

federal dollars into those districts. And just as you Congress members go back and forth trying to bring federal dollars into your district 

in every way you can, these programs are probably one of the most 

efficient and certainly one of the nicest ways to bring federal dollars

into their district by helping those people who actually live there.

 One of the other things I might point out, however, that disturbs 

me in the architecture discussions you had. A year ago I got new computers for my service officer in the VA regional office in New York. 

And we went out to talk to the computer people in the VA about what 

we should go buy. They said “Well make sure you get it that it has 

Windows 2000.” I said, well this is 2004 -- this is 2005. Why don’t 

I get Windows XP? “Oh, no, we can’t handle that. You’ve got to get 

Windows 2000.” And I am sitting here in 2005 saying why am I getting 2000 when I should be getting XP which is the newest version 

and the VA wasn’t up to snuff.

 So I hope that when we move forward that we all move forward and 

we get up to the modern day technology and that the VA comes into 

the fold as well.

The Chairman. That will be part of the discussion that will begin 

at 3:00 o’clock today on the budget. To make sure that the CIO, has 

been empowered, with a lot of support on a bipartisan basis from 

this Committee to do this. And now as we move that hardware over 

to him, we want to make sure that he gets those 127,000 computers. 

You know what I mean? We are going to be doing this kind of stuff. 

So this is going to be a substantial investment.

 But I think it will pay great dividends. I am most hopeful. But 

we may have this circumstance whereby we are going to modernize 

on the hardware on the VA side and then we are going to turn to the 

State directors and to the counties. So I just want to make sure we 

are all getting on the same page.

 Mr. Lopez, please work closely with Dr. Boozman and Ms. Herseth 

with regard to your policy initiative which you testified on. I would

encourage that. I will yield right now -- I have one -- all right. Mr. 

Filner, you are recognized.

Mr. Filner. Again, thank you for your testimony. Your passion 

for serving our veterans is very noticeable, and we appreciate that. I

think you heard me say before that the budget proposal from the Administration and probably what this Committee will officially submit
46

is an insult to the veterans and does not handle virtually any of the 

issues that you discussed today. I wish we would have a more public 

debate on that. The Chairman and I differ on our view of what the 

VA should be doing. And we should debate that.

 We have a different view of the budget. This Committee for the 

second year in a row will not have a public vote on the budget that we 

are sending to the House. We do not have the thousands of veterans 

from your organization watching what we do. I think this is all part 

of an explicit plan to keep that knowledge from as many people as 

possible. I think it’s a disgrace that we’re operating in that way.

 You mentioned outreach. And I am talking general terms. We 

talked about $4.2 billion short or something. That doesn’t get to the 

issues that you all talked about. We are not doing the outreach that 

you all want. I will just use the PTSD situation that many of you are 

familiar with and you all know.

 The Vietnam Vets are too well informed about what happens when 

we don’t recognize mental conditions as a VA responsibility when our 

vets come home. One-half of the homeless on the street tonight are 

Vietnam Vets. We did something wrong there. We are in danger of 

repeating the mistake with our young men and women coming back 

from Iraq and Afghanistan. I will wait until you finish, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Cell phones are not permitted in the Committee 

room. Absolutely not.

Mr. Filner. Up to 4050 of the men and women who are coming 

back from Iraq and Afghanistan have been estimated to have PTSD. 

And yet, we do not have either the resources or, more importantly, 

the outreach to the families involved to get them the treatment that 

will prevent what the Vietnam Vets have seen and see every day.

 We don’t have outreach to the families so they recognize the behaviors. We had testimony here from an Army Captain, whose husband 

returned from Iraq, who exhibited all the classic symptoms: domestic violence, nightmares, irrational behaviors, and they had no idea 

what was going on. He eventually committed suicide. They should 

know what was going on, the children and the family, so that they 

could help get treatment.

 We should have mandatory evaluations when our young men and 

women come back. Too many of those people think that if they admit 

some mental situation, it hurts their career or hurts their self esteem 

or other people’s view of them, when we know mental conditions can 

be more difficult than actual physical conditions to deal with.

 So we are not doing the outreach. In fact we are doing it in reverse. 

Our VA has instructed people in the field not to talk about enrollment

procedures and what benefits are available. We glory in the fact that

we are going to kick hundreds of thousands of people out of VA and 

TRICARE to save money. So we are doing just the reverse. And it 
47

shows up in the PTSD situation. We need outreach to families. We 

need evaluations of the young men and women coming back. We 

need the resources in our local hospitals. We have already reports 

of the same things that happened with Vietnam Vets: homelessness, 

loss of jobs, suicides, domestic violence. And we know how to deal 

with it. That is the tragic thing. We know how to deal with it! We 

need the outreach. And the cost of that, I don’t care what it is, we 

should be paying it because we can’t afford not to. It should be part 

of the cost of the war and we just get in worse problems down the line 

if we don’t handle it now.

 So thank you. And I hope you will continue to press our nation on 

doing what it should do for our brave veterans, especially those coming home today.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Filner. Mr. Michaud, you are now 

recognized.

Mr. Michaud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too want to thank the 

panel for your testimony today. I really appreciate it and I can associate myself with a lot of your comments, whether it’s prosthetic 

research, PTSD, the fact that taking care of our veterans should be 

part of he cost of the war, which I agree with 100 percent. So I really 

appreciate your taking the time. I just have a couple of questions, 

Mr. Chairman. One actually is to Ms. Knowles. That is the first

time I heard of your organization to be quite frank. And unless it’s 

called something different in the State of Maine, we have a program 

in Maine called Operation I Served. I was wondering does your organization call it the same in each state? And I assume you are located 

in every state.

Ms. Knowles. No, sir. We are not. Maine is not a member. We 

would really love to have Maine as a member of our association.

Mr. Michaud. Great. That is probably why I haven’t heard of you.

Ms. Knowles. That is right.

Mr. Michaud. Thank you. My second question is to Mr. Basher. 

When your organization testified before this Committee last year, we

discussed a budget proposal that would have reduced approximately 

85 percent of VA per diem payments to states veterans’ home. I and 

many of this Committee were very concerned about the impact that 

last year’s proposal would have had on residents of the state homes. 

The budget consideration that we are considering today does not appear to target the state homes in the same way. My question to you 

is what is the most important budget issue for the state veterans’ 

homes nationally?

Mr. Basher. If I had to pick the top priority it would be exactly 

that. The per diem and stability and predictability of that. Recognizing that if you change the rules in the middle of the game we risk 

going down a very slippery slope of the whole system coming unglued 

from unintended consequences. Those homes are a partnership be-
48

tween state and local governments. State governments supports it, 

but without that per diem payment it doesn’t make it financially tenable.

  If it becomes financially untenable then those homes will go out of

business. And if they do go out of business then they are required to 

revert to federal ownership and also the states are liable to repay the 

federal funds that have advanced for them. So I don’t think any of us 

in this room want that to happen. But what we need to do is continue 

to work together, make a stable, predictable system that allows state 

and federal government to partner in a way to deliver long-term care, 

understand who those people are we are taking care of, and make 

sure it’s done in a most cost effective manner. So, long answer, short 

question, but, it’s important, sir. Thank you.

Mr. Michaud. Thank you.

Mr. Rowan. Can I add something to that too? It seems to me that 

when we have those situations, if these homes were to disappear all 

we would be doing is be transferring these individuals in many cases 

over to medicaid. Because the reality is that is where they would end 

up. So they would just be switched into a different pot of money coming out. And usually a bigger pot coming out of the federal budget 

at a higher cost. These state homes run very efficiently as do the VA

and all the other veterans programs we have. So the longer we can 

keep these things in veterans run programs we are much better off. 

All of us.

Mr. Michaud. Well, I appreciate your comment. And I also agree. 

I can only speak for the state veterans’ homes in the State of Maine 

having served in the legislature on the Appropriations Committee 

when we worked with the folks in Maine on the state veterans homes. 

And you are absolutely right, we get a good bang for our buck as far 

as how they are operated and the cost efficiency.

 So, once again, I want to thank each of you for coming here today. 

I really appreciate your comments and I yield back the balance of my 

time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Michaud. Mr. Michaud is a very 

valuable member of the Committee serving as Ranking Member on 

the Health Subcommittee. The timely counsel that 19 veterans service organizations and military service organizations have given this 

Committee has been valuable. And it’s being done prior to formation 

of the budget, which has never been done before. It sounds like common sense, doesn’t it? We can either take your advice and counsel 

after we formulate the budget or we can take it before we do the budget. So this way was pretty basic.

 And I know that some of the organizations, have members that are 

coming in March. Some of you may even have. I think that is wonderful. What we have done here on the Committee is we have opened 

up the access. That has never been done before. And it’s valuable. 
49

It’s helpful. It’s insightful. And not only are we going to do it now, 

we are going to bring you back in September. And we are going to do 

this again in September.

 And we are going to mirror exactly what they do on the Armed 

Services Committee. I always enjoyed it. This was so helpful and 

enriching. We would bring the Chairman and the Joint Chiefs of 

Staff in twice, once to formulate the budget, and then we would do 

a look back, look ahead in the fall. And that form of oversight was 

extremely powerful because then we were able to say, okay, how are 

we going. It’s the monitoring. And are we on track, you know. As we 

are then moving into the formulation of then the budget.

 So what the Committee has done despite a lot of rhetoric that has 

been out there, we have sought to increase your access, increase your 

counsel to this Committee, and that has been accomplished. And I

want to thank all of you. And I want to thank your membership.

 So a lot of things historically have happened. We listened to your 

counsel ahead of time. Ms. Knowles, your organization has never testified in this capacity before. And the Vietnam Veterans of America

have never been even offered the opportunity to testify on the nation’s 

budget, sitting right next to the American Legion.

  So I want to thank all of you for your testimony. I will finish with

Mr. Jackson. You have a meeting with Colonel Lariviere.

Mr. Jackson. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman. Well, wait a minute. I, Congressman Salazar and 

Congresswoman Brown have written statements for the record. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered.

  [The statement of Mr. Salazar appears on p. 70]

  [The statement of Ms. Brown of Florida appears on p. 63]

 The Chairman. The hearing is now concluded. Thank you very 

much.

  [Whereupon, at 1:45 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

 
(50)

APPENDIX
51
52
53
54
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
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231