U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

82–246 2014

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 813; H.R. 806; 

AND A DRAFT DISCUSSION BILL ‘‘TO AMEND 

TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO DIRECT 

THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO 

SUBMIT TO CONGRESS A FUTURE-YEARS VETERANS PROGRAM AND A QUADRENNIAL VETERANS REVIEW, TO ESTABLISH IN THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS A CHIEF 

STRATEGY OFFICER, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES’’ 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2013 

Serial No. 113–30 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

( 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

ii 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS 

JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman 

DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee 

BILL FLORES, Texas 

JEFF DENHAM, California 

JON RUNYAN, New Jersey 

DAN BENISHEK, Michigan 

TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas 

MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada 

MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

PAUL COOK, California 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine, Ranking 

CORRINE BROWN, Florida 

MARK TAKANO, California 

JULIA BROWNLEY, California 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

RAUL RUIZ, California 

GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, California 

ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire 

BETO O’ROURKE, Texas 

TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota 

HELEN W. TOLAR, Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records 

of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs are also published in electronic form. The printed 

hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to 

prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting 

between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process 

is further refined. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

iii 

C O N T E N T S 

July 17, 2013 

Page 

Legislative Hearing On H.R. 813; H.R. 806; And A Draft Discussion Bill 

‘‘To Amend Title 38, United States Code, To Direct The Secretary Of 

Veterans Affairs To Submit To Congress A Future-Years Veterans Program 

And A Quadrennial Veterans Review, To Establish In The Department 

Of Veterans Affairs A Chief Strategy Officer, And For Other Purposes’’ ....... 1 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Hon. Jeff Miller, Chairman, .................................................................................... 1 

Prepared Statement of Chairman Miller ........................................................ 31 

Hon. Michael Michaud, Ranking Minority Member ............................................. 3 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Michaud ............................................................ 32 

Hon. Julia Brownley, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on Health ..... 5 

Hon. Jackie Walorski, Prepared Statement only .................................................. 33 

WITNESSES 

Robert D. Snyder, Acting Assistant Secretary for the Office of Policy and 

Planning, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs ................................................ 6 

Prepared Statement of Mr. Snyder ................................................................. 34 

Accompanied by: 

Ms. Helen Tierney, Executive in Charge for the Office of Management 

and Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Mr. Duane C. Flemming, Director, Policy Analysis and Forecasting, 

Office of the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary for Health, Veterans Health Administration, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs 

Carl Blake, National Legislative Director, Paralyzed American Veterans of 

America, on behalf of the Independent Budget co-authors ............................... 19 

Prepared Statement of Mr. Blake ................................................................... 36 

Accompanied by: 

Mr. Adrian Atizado, Assistant National Legislative Director, Disabled 

American Veterans 

Joy Ilem, Deputy National Legislative Director, Disabled American 

Veterans 

Mr. Ray Kelley, Director, National Legislative Service, Veterans of 

Foreign Wars 

Ms. Diane Zumatto, National Legislative Director, AMVETS 

Louis J. Celli, Jr., Director, National Legislative Division, The American 

Legion .................................................................................................................... 21 

Prepared Statement of Mr. Celli, Jr. .............................................................. 41 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

(1) 

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 813; H.R. 806; 

AND A DRAFT DISCUSSION BILL ‘‘TO 

AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO 

DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS TO SUBMIT TO CONGRESS A FUTURE-YEARS VETERANS PROGRAM AND A 

QUADRENNIAL VETERANS REVIEW, TO ESTABLISH IN THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS A CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES’’ 

Wednesday, July 17, 2013 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, 

Washington, D.C. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in Room 

334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Miller [Chairman of 

the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Miller, Roe, Runyan, Wenstrup, Cook, 

Walorski, Michaud, Takano, Brownley, Kirkpatrick, Ruiz, Kuster, 

O’Rourke, Walz. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MILLER 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. Welcome to this morning’s legislative hearing. 

We are going to hear testimony today on three particular pieces 

of legislation. The first bill is an outstanding bill that I introduced 

along with Ranking Member Mike Michaud. It is H.R. 813, Putting 

Veterans Funding First Act of 2013; second, 806, a bill introduced 

by Ms. Brownley; and the third bill is a bill I, again, have joined 

with the Ranking Member in introducing, the Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Planning Reform Act for 2013. 

First let me focus my opening remarks on H.R. 813. As most of 

my colleagues are aware, just over four years ago, we started providing VA’s medical care budget one year in advance. And, of 

course, the reason behind the law that directed this change in practice was pretty simple. A full year appropriations bill for VA had 

been enacted on time in only four of the prior 20 years. 

According to VSOs and VA officials, delayed appropriations inhibited the ability of program administrators to plan effectively. So 

the hiring of doctors and nurses was being delayed, medical equipment purchases were being put off, and veterans experienced unacceptable wait times for medical appointments due to rationing. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

2 

By providing the medical care budget in advance, no longer 

would funding for VA’s health system be held hostage to the gridlock that we have grown accustomed to here in the Nation’s capitol. 

I had hoped that things would improve in the intervening years, 

but, unfortunately, not much has changed. We are still lurching 

forward with stop-gap funding measures and periodic threats of 

shutdowns of the government. 

So when I introduced the Putting Veterans Funding First Act 

earlier this year, all of government was operating under a CR or 

a continuing resolution. It was not until March, nearly six months 

into the fiscal year, when a full-year appropriation was finally enacted. 

So although VA health care was protected, the other 14 percent 

of VA’s discretionary spending was being held in limbo, things like 

VA’s information technology systems, claims processing, facility 

construction, medical research projects, veterans’ cemeteries. Fullyear funding for all of these items was in doubt until the very end. 

Here we are yet again with a status of next year’s appropriation 

bills in the air. There is no agreed upon budget framework. The 

House and the Senate are miles apart on our appropriations measures and the Administration has even issued a veto threat on the 

House passed funding bill for VA for reasons that have nothing to 

do with the bill itself. 

Once more, political calculations having nothing to do with our 

veterans are putting our collective support for funding for their 

benefits and services at risk. I think we would all agree that our 

veterans deserve better than this. 

So I listened carefully to the statements of support on the floor 

for advanced appropriations during debate on the fiscal year 2014 

VA MilCon bill. Members from both parties spoke in high praise, 

one touting, quote, ‘‘Absolute peace of mind and no worries,’’ end 

quote, brought to veterans through the advanced appropriations 

process. 

I heard another hail it as a, quote, ‘‘Platform for long-term planning and investment,’’ quote. And still another lauded it as providing, quote, ‘‘Timely and predictable resources,’’ end quote. And 

I agree with those statements wholeheartedly. They apply equally 

to the accounts that H.R. 813 seeks to fund in advance. 

Each of those areas requires advanced planning for staffing, 

equipment or contract services, all of that is made more difficult 

when there is no certainty of what the full year funding level will 

be. So Putting Veterans Funding First would end the uncertainty 

by ensuring VA has its full discretionary appropriation well before 

its fiscal year begins. 

And I am grateful for the support the bill has garnered across 

a wide spectrum of veterans’ organizations. It is entirely consistent 

with the protections afforded to veterans’ funding in law that currently exists today. VA is exempt from sequester and it receives 86 

percent of its discretionary funding already in advance. H.R. 813 

just goes that extra mile. 

So in the face of dysfunction that exists at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, this is one area where we can continue to get it 

right. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

3 

I want to thank my colleagues who have already supported the 

bill. I would ask those who have not, to join us in truly putting veterans’ funding first. 

And I want to recognize now my good friend and Ranking Member from Maine, Mike Michaud, for his opening statement. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MILLER APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX]

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL MICHAUD 

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding 

this very important hearing this morning. 

The three measures before us looks at planning, funding, and 

oversight. Individually, each measure is very beneficial, but when 

we look at it together, they provide an analytic and transparent 

framework for VA, Congress, and other stakeholders. 

They ensure requested resources are sufficient to meet the current and future needs of veterans. They also ensure that these resources achieve the best outcome for veterans. 

I want to thank the Chairman for bringing forward his bill, H.R. 

813. I believe that in order to extend advanced appropriations for 

the remaining VA discretionary account, we must have strong confidence that the underlying budget projections are appropriate 

within a long-term context. 

The context must include a forward-looking strategy with goals 

and objectives and a five-year plan with expected outcomes, milestones, and resources. There must be a greater visibility for Congress into the assumptions, definitions, and details then that provides the top-line appropriation accounts. 

This information will ensure us that all VA’s missions are identified, planned, and executed. This will also give us insight into any 

tradeoffs VA may make between resources and outcomes and enable us to better oversee whether the VA is meeting its stated goals 

with executed resources. 

Before we budget and appropriate dollars, we must plan in programs. This is a nutshell of my bill, the Department of Veterans 

Affairs Budget Planning Reform Act of 2013. My bill will codify VA 

planning, program, budgeting, and evaluation or PPBE system. 

The PPBE is best practices currently used by leading corporations, 

important segments of our Federal Government as well. 

For planning, it looks at the strategic level by means of a quadrennial veterans’ review, the QVR, that periodically assesses the 

changing environment. The QVR ensures VA is in a position to 

meet the evolving needs of our veterans. 

For programming, it aligns resources and efforts with a strategic 

direction by means of a five-year program. This lays out the path 

and outcomes and resources to get there. The five-year program 

looks beyond a single year’s budget and next year’s forecast and 

forces the VA to accurately and fully account for the taxpayers’ dollars that is provided to the VA. It would provide Congress a vital 

tool that we need to use to assess the effectiveness of VA in meeting its responsibility. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

4 

The bill designates a chief strategy officer to ensure that the 

planning and programming phases of the process receives equal 

consideration with the budget and execution phases. 

All these stages must be in place to create a mechanism that will 

better ensure that the VA budget provides the resources tailored to 

the missions of the department and that the need for these resources is fully defensible. 

The bill does not graft Department of Defense or Department of 

Homeland Security policies on to the VA. This bill uses these agencies as a model, but it is crafted to meet the unique needs of veterans and the VA. 

DoD is significantly larger than VA, has a different mission and 

has over 50 years of experience operating under a PPBE system. 

There is no expectation that the VA can or should match what DoD 

does today. It is a principle of long-range planning and programming that the VA should adopt, not the 8,500 DoD program elements or their resources intensive approach. 

My bill recognizes VA’s current efforts and intended to support 

these efforts while making sure Congress has access to the information we need to do our job. For the last few years, VA has experienced a period of budget growth and has been led by a secretary 

who supports analytic and transparent budget development, but we 

cannot expect these conditions to be permanent. 

We should use the opportunity we have today to build a lasting 

framework to enable VA to meet its mission today and tomorrow. 

Fiscal constraints must come and leadership will transcend. We 

must prepare now for VA to meet the challenges, codify a VA PPBE 

system in statutes to ensure continuance in good times and during 

bad times. 

I recognize that PPBE mechanism is a change in the way VA has 

done financial management. Change is hard, but everyone will be 

comfortable with this change. But change is necessary if we are to 

position the VA to meet its responsibilities and fulfill its mission 

in the coming years. Change is necessary if we are to perform our 

responsibility as Congress. 

My bill, and the bills before us today, acknowledges that the status quo is no longer acceptable and this acknowledgment requires 

that we take action. 

So I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your help and support 

with my bill and in having the Committee look at the broader picture of VA budgeting and planning. 

And with that, I yield back. And I would ask unanimous consent 

that my full remarks be entered into the record. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAUD APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX]

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, all Members will have five 

legislative days with which to revise and extend their remarks. 

Ms. Brownley, I would like to recognize you to discuss your bill, 

H.R. 806. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

5 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JULIA BROWNLEY 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you, Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Michaud, for holding this important Full Veterans’ Affairs 

Committee legislative hearing today. 

H.R. 806, the Veterans Healthcare Improvement Act, was the 

very first bill that I introduced as a new Member of the 113th Congress. I am grateful that the Full Committee is considering this important legislation. 

As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Health, I believe it 

is, as we all do, I believe it is vitally important to ensure adequate 

funding for veterans’ health care programs. 

I am sure the Committee knows in 2006, 2007, and 2008, the 

prior Administration’s budget request for VA health care was not 

sufficient to meet the needs of our veterans. The funding shortfall 

in those years forced Congress to provide supplemental appropriations to ensure the VA would have sufficient funds to continue to 

provide basic health care services to our Nation’s veterans. 

In 2009, Congress passed the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act which provided for advanced appropriations for Veterans Health Administration programs. It also ensured 

the accuracy of the Administration’s advanced budget request. 

Congress also included a requirement for the GAO to review the 

accuracy of the Administration’s advanced budget projections. Pursuant to this law, the GAO issued reports reviewing the 2011 and 

2012 advanced appropriations request for veterans’ health care. It 

is my understanding that the 2013 report will soon be issued. 

The GAO report has helped Congress and this Committee to 

evaluate the accuracy of the Administration’s budget projections. It 

also ensures the VA is functioning based off of accurate information. And most importantly, this GAO review has provided Congress with third-party neutral assurance that the VA would not 

run out of money for veterans’ health care. 

Unfortunately, this GAO reporting requirement is scheduled to 

sunset at the end of the calendar year. While the GAO reviews 

have largely confirmed that the current Administration is budgeting sufficient sums for veterans’ health care, I am concerned that 

without this review, future budget projections could be inaccurate 

and risk our ability to adequately meet the health needs of our 

men and women veterans. 

We owe it to our current and future veterans to ensure the VA 

never again runs low on resources to provide health care to our veterans. They risked their lives to serve our country. Our job is to 

ensure that we take care of them at home. 

Allowing this GAO review to sunset puts veterans’ health care in 

jeopardy. We cannot take that risk. With the draw-down of forces 

in Afghanistan, we will soon see a huge increase in the number of 

veterans accessing VA health care. Now is not the time to eliminate the GAO review. 

That is why in February, I introduced H.R. 806, which makes 

permanent the requirement for GAO to review the accuracy of advanced appropriation requests for veterans’ health care. 

Passage of my bill will help Congress continue to evaluate the accuracy of the budgeting process and most importantly ensure our 

Nation’s veterans receive vital health care services. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

6 

I am profoundly grateful for the service and sacrifices made by 

all of our Nation’s veterans and their families. As Members of this 

Committee, it is our duty to ensure veterans always receive the 

benefits they need in a timely and efficient manner. 

Again, I would like to thank the chair and the Ranking Member 

and the Members of this Committee for considering this important 

legislation. I would also like to thank all of the veteran service organizations here today who fight every day on behalf of our Nation’s veterans. 

I look forward to discussing this legislation further and happy to 

answer any questions. And I yield back the rest of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Brownley. I appreciate the comments that you have made on H.R. 806. 

I want to welcome our first panel to the table today. Mr. Robert 

Snyder is the Acting Assistant Secretary for the Office of Policy 

and Planning for the Department of Veterans Affairs. He is joined 

by two individuals. Ms. Helen Tierney is with him and Mr. Duane 

Flemming is with him as well. 

Mr. Snyder, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. SNYDER 

Mr. SNYDER. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Michaud, distinguished Members of the Veterans’ Affairs Committee, thank you 

for your unwavering commitment to veterans and for this opportunity to testify on three bills related to VA’s strategic planning, 

programming, and budgeting efforts. 

In addition to the other two VA witnesses, let me also acknowledge the veteran service organizations here today. Their insights 

are always appreciated. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask that my written statement be included for 

the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. SNYDER. With the support of this Committee, we have improved our planning and resource allocation processes, but we 

know we can do better. 

In regards to H.R. 813, Putting Veterans Funding First Act of 

2013, the bill would extend the authority for advanced appropriations to all of VA’s discretionary accounts effective in 2016. Such 

a proposal needs to be considered by the Administration as part of 

an across the government review of the advantages and disadvantages, not only for VA, but potentially for other departments and 

agencies. 

Only in the context of a broad review could the Administration 

offer an opinion on making such a change. We cannot, therefore, 

offer a position on H.R. 813 at this time. 

We very much appreciate the concern for veteran services reflected in the proposal and look forward to working with the Committee on how to best maintain the provision of benefits and services in light of fiscal uncertainty. 

In reference to H.R. 806, the bill would establish a permanent requirement for an annual report by the comptroller general on the 

department’s medical budget submissions. Congress established a 

temporary requirement in the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

7 

VA does not support making these reports permanent. VA has 

expanded the information presented in the budget justification volumes each year in order to be more transparent and to include additional information sought by Congress. 

VA believes this information, as well as continuing congressional 

oversight and engagement by GAO, will ensure the transparency of 

VA’s medical budget process. 

In regards to the draft bill entitled Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Planning Reform Act, VA greatly appreciates the concepts in the bill as they have much in common with current VA initiatives. 

For instance, VA has initiated a planning, programming, budgeting, and execution framework modeled after similar efforts used 

in other Federal agencies. 

The department has embarked on its own quadrennial strategic 

planning process or QSPP, which we believe is consistent with the 

aims of the bill to formalize the strategic planning effort that will 

drive the five-year programming process and the near-term budget 

development. 

The final results of our first QSPP, a new VA strategic plan for 

2014 to 2020, will be published with the President’s 2014 budget 

submission. We have already had productive briefings on the development of that plan with your staff, and will continue that dialogue 

as we finalize the plan. 

VA’s QSPP includes an environmental scanning and analysis 

phase and has some of the same general goals as the Department 

of Defense quadrennial defense review, although we believe an attempt to replicate the scope of the QDR is not appropriate for the 

VA. 

The quadrennial veterans review proposal would also require a 

broader role for VA in developing a national veteran strategy. VA 

believes that its emerging work in futures analysis has the same 

intent as the QVR proposal, but a national veteran strategy would 

require broad analysis and policy development that would go well 

beyond VA. 

VA has also been working towards building a multi-year programming capability. The secretary signed the future years veterans’ plan covering the fiscal years 2015 to 2019 on April 30th, 

2013 to document the results of our first true programming effort. 

While we believe the intent of section 2 of the bill will be met 

by our emerging PPBE process, we do have reservations about a 

mandate to publish specific dollar and FTE projections beyond the 

budget submission. 

We look forward to working with the Committee to address your 

oversight requirements in this process. 

Section 3 of the draft bill would also require the designation of 

a chief strategy officer. VA strongly supports the bill’s intent as 

these areas that are listed in the bill are being performed by the 

Office of Policy and Planning. 

However, VA is hesitant to codify those responsibilities in statute 

because they may restrict our ability to tailor them as required in 

the future. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

8 

Finally in regards to section 4, VA has conducted self-evaluations 

and implemented numerous organizational changes in the office of 

the secretary and throughout VA. 

For example, organizations were established within my office, the 

Office of Policy and Planning, to build the same capabilities that 

this proposed legislation intends to codify. 

VA recognizes there is always more to do, but believes our existing planning processes are adequate to consider organizational 

changes. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these three important bills. We appreciate the Committee’s attention to these critical 

topics as we work together to better serve our Nation’s veterans. 

Mr. Chairman, we look forward to your questions. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. SNYDER APPEARS IN

THE APPENDIX]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Snyder, for your testimony. We appreciate you being here with us today. 

You cited in your testimony a need for an across the board government-wide review of the advantages and disadvantages of advanced funding as outlined in Mr. Michaud’s and my legislation. 

Needless to say, I am discouraged by that comment, and I guess 

from a little historical perspective, I want to know, what across the 

government review was done prior to the advanced funding for VA 

medical care being enacted. 

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with what research was done before that legislation was submitted. I would be 

happy to take that and get that for the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it was well over three-quarters of the funding and it appears that there is an issue with the Administration 

to go forward with the rest of those dollars. And it is much smaller 

than what we are talking about today. 

So I am trying to figure out 86 percent of VA’s discretionary 

budget is already advanced and now we are talking about 14 percent. So why the push back on 14 percent? 

Mr. SNYDER. Well, Mr. Congressman, we certainly do appreciate 

the congressional support for the VA’s advanced appropriations for 

medical care accounts. They have enabled multi-year medical budget planning and have ensured uninterrupted medical services for 

our veterans. 

However, the proposal to expand VA appropriations to all of our 

discretionary accounts does need to be considered by the Administration for its impact, the precedent that it sets on other agency departments. 

The CHAIRMAN. But isn’t the precedent, I mean, isn’t that already set? We have done that. I think we clearly say that funding 

for veterans’ programs is separate and, I mean, it is protected from 

sequester. 

There are unique differences between the funding at the Department of Veterans Affairs and all other agencies within the U.S. 

Government. And I am trying to figure out why the push back on 

14 percent. 

Mr. SNYDER. Again, Mr. Chairman, that is a—— 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

9 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let me do this. Let me quote the President 

at the bill signing. Quote, ‘‘At this very moment, the VA is operating without a budget, making it harder for VA medical centers 

and clinics to deliver the care our vets need. It is frustrating for 

VA employees and it is frustrating for our veterans who pay the 

price when budgets are delayed. This is inexcusable, it is unacceptable, and it is time for it to stop,’’ end quote. 

So what about the sentiment the President expresses does not 

hold true for the other accounts? 

Mr. SNYDER. Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this Committee 

is eager to get a position on 813. But until the Administration conducts this across the government review, we cannot offer a position 

on it. 

The CHAIRMAN. So today it is not inexcusable, it is not unacceptable, or it is excusable and it is acceptable and we do not have to 

stop the budgetary issue. I do not know. 

I may be alone in what I am trying to figure out, but, you know, 

we took a huge swing at advanced funding for VA. And all of a sudden we are trying to protect this 14 percent. 

It is frustrating when there is no full-year budget to manage the 

claims processing system, a system that we have all talked about, 

the massive delays that exist within that system, the veteran cemetery system, you know, the information technology systems as we 

move forward. 

And just to hear, we have got to do a government-wide review 

of the impacts to look at the precedent which has already been set. 

But with that, Mr. Michaud, you are recognized. 

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

And thank the panelists for being here today. 

You had mentioned that the current strategic planning is—you 

have adopted some other, I assume, the Department of Defense 

type model, but specifically as it relates to the VA, you have modified that proposal. 

My question is, are you, when you talk about PPBE, how are 

your current PPBE efforts being received across VA and within VA 

leadership? 

Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Congressman, for the opportunity to 

comment on that. 

In fact, we actually looked at DoD, DHS, NASA, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for examples of 

models that we could look at. But as you mentioned, we do have 

to modify it to meet VA’s needs, requirements, mission, and culture. And that is where we are working. 

We feel that we have matured the process. We have done one 

programming cycle, meaningful programming cycle. We feel it is 

demonstrating the value to internal stakeholders of the department 

and we believe that those stakeholders are bought in so that their 

momentum and support for PPBE will transcend this Administration. 

Mr. MICHAUD. You said you believe they are bought in. Are they 

widely and actively embracing the PPBE? 

Mr. SNYDER. Yes, Congressman, they are. In fact, the reviews of 

our fiscal year 2015 budget proposal were based upon the programming decision memorandum that the secretary signed in April. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

10 

Mr. MICHAUD. Okay. 

Mr. SNYDER. So that has been reinforced. 

Mr. MICHAUD. To follow-up on Chairman Miller’s comment on, in 

your testimony, you indicated that an across the board review, the 

advantages and disadvantages of advanced appropriation. 

Who within the Administration is looking at that across the 

board review? 

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Congressman, I appreciate that you are anxious 

to get our position on this. I would like to take that request for the 

record and get back to you. 

Mr. MICHAUD. So is the short answer no one is looking at it? 

Mr. SNYDER. Sir, the short answer is I do not know—— 

Mr. MICHAUD. Okay. 

Mr. SNYDER. —and need to get back to you on the record. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Because if I remember correctly, the President actually supported mandatory funding during the campaign. And he 

made it clear that it would be in his budget when he presented it 

to Congress which he did not. It was because of the VSOs that we 

actually were able to get the advanced appropriation for VHA. 

So it is consistent with what he said he wanted to do, so that 

is why I am kind of curious on who in the Administration is, you 

know, taking this review, if it is really being reviewed at all, which 

I, quite frankly, doubt that anyone in the Administration is doing 

that. 

The other question that I have when you look at the, you know, 

the new framework and codifying some of the stuff that you are 

currently doing now, whether it is PPBE efforts or other areas, administrations change and if you look at what is happening over at 

VA recently with a lot of people resigning and retiring over at the 

department, my big concern is the fact that, you know, it is not 

going to be consistent. 

And as Members of Congress, you look at the Department of Veterans Administration, the second largest Federal agency in the 

Federal Government, and we have got to have something, I think, 

in writing as we deal with VA’s budget that will give us the information that we need so we can analyze whether or not the VA is 

going in the right direction, number one, as well as whether or not 

we can look long term to make sure that our veterans are getting 

the appropriate services that they need. 

And so, that is why I am kind of a little concerned that you do 

not want to codify it in statute, so when it should be, actually you 

should be embracing that because you are not going to be there, 

you know, for the duration of VA and the needs for our veterans. 

And so, I would like you to elaborate a little bit more why you 

are kind of hesitant to codify this into statute because it looks like 

you are doing some of it right now anyway, but you are not going 

to be there forever. 

Mr. SNYDER. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify our position. 

We certainly appreciate the Committee’s intent behind this proposed legislation and your support for PPBE. Before codifying in 

statute, we just feel like we should do our jobs and codify in directive, internal directive, followed up by implementing guidance in a 

handbook. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

11 

And before we could do that, we had to mature the process to a 

point that we could codify that. We have gone through enough now 

that we think we can write that directive and we think we need 

one more cycle of the programming effort before we can codify the 

implementing instructions in handbook. 

Again, we do think these efforts will transcend and have the buyin to continue beyond the current Administration. It is not that we 

do not want to codify. We would like to codify ourselves before it 

is put in statute. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Okay. Thank you. 

I see my time has run out, but can you do it within three years, 

yes or no? 

Mr. SNYDER. Yes. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Okay. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Snyder, you’re accompanied by Ms. Tierney. 

Ms. Tierney, you’re the Executive in Charge for the Office of 

Management and Chief Financial Officer. Would you be the person 

doing the government-wide review or would you be involved in it 

in one way or another? 

Ms. TIERNEY. Sir, I would participate in it, but this is the Office 

of Management and Budget will be doing the review. 

The CHAIRMAN. And how would you participate? 

Ms. TIERNEY. I would advocate the VA position. 

The CHAIRMAN. And that position is what? 

Ms. TIERNEY. I am not able to comment on that at this time. 

The CHAIRMAN. And again, now you just said, Mr. Snyder, that 

you couldn’t have a position until you did a government-wide review. 

Ms. Tierney, you just said your job was to advocate VA’s position. 

If you—how can you advocate a position you don’t have until after 

the review is done? 

Ms. TIERNEY. Thank you, Chairman. 

When the review starts, I anticipate that VA will be involved in 

that review. 

The CHAIRMAN. And you will be advocating VA’s position? 

Ms. TIERNEY. Sir, yes, that is what I would do for VA, absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. And so VA will have a position before the review 

is complete? 

Ms. TIERNEY. Chairman, I believe that is correct, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Mr. Runyan? 

Mr. RUNYAN. Thank you, Chairman. 

I just want to not even ask a question, but give you a real-life 

scenario that I’ve experienced personally in my own district dealing 

with specifically the portion of the budget that is not advanced appropriated. I had an opportunity, a little over a year ago, to go to 

one of my CBOCs in the district, and going through the tour, 

empty room sitting there, had all been done, ready to take on a 

new X-ray machine which was already paid for and ready to be delivered, but the fact that the IT budget wasn’t advanced appropriated, they were waiting on the wire to be ran down the wall to 

hook the X-ray machine to the computer. 

We talk about access to care and we are arguing whether we are 

going to advance appropriate 14 percent of the budget and you’re 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

12 

holding up the ability for us to see seniors—see veterans and take 

care of them. 

I just wanted to point that out to kind of validate the Chairman’s—the Chairman’s position on this, and with that, I’ll yield 

back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Brownley? 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I just—and thank you, Mr. Snyder. 

I wanted to sort of follow-up on your testimony vis-a-vis the VAO 

reporting and your statement about it—you don’t support that it be 

permanent. 

Is there any aspect of the legislation that could be changed to 

garner your support on this particular legislation? 

Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

I think I’ll defer to Mr. Flemming to respond to that. 

Mr. FLEMMING. Thank you, Congressman—woman for that question. 

We believe that the engagements that we have had historically 

with GAO have been productive and beneficial to VA, and we think 

that we benefit most when the reviews are of a focused nature. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Okay. And so you’re saying that you would prefer to look at different issues within the report, is that what you’re 

saying? 

Mr. FLEMMING. Congresswoman, I would say that—— 

Ms. BROWNLEY. I mean the question was how would you—is 

there any way that you would change it that would garner your 

support? 

Mr. FLEMMING. The reviews have—the temporary engagement of 

GAO with these reviews have been beneficial for VA. They have 

improved the transparency of the VA budget to include additional 

information that hadn’t been included in our budget submissions 

and we continue to look forward to working with GAO on the—increasing the transparency of our budget submission. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. And would you agree that in the past reports, 

correcting false assumptions in the calculations was beneficial to 

veterans’ health care? 

Mr. FLEMMING. Congresswoman, I would say that the—as in 

the— noted in the GAO reports, that medical care budgeting is as 

recognized by GAO as inherently complex from the long lead time 

that is required to develop our budget, and the budget reflects the 

best assumptions at the time we make that first budget. 

And through the iterative process, we have the opportunity to revisit those assumptions and with more recent experience, we are 

able to further refine and improve our budget estimates. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you. 

Would you agree that with the draw down of forces in Afghanistan and we are going to have many more veterans returning, 

many more veterans returning with more medical issues probably 

in the history of our country, that some of those assumptions may 

change and the accuracy of those assumptions are very, very important in terms of anticipating a much greater number of veterans 

returning. I mean, I strongly believe that in some sense we are 

going to be tested about how well we serve our returning veterans 

coming back from Afghanistan with so many medical issues. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

13 

Do you believe that that accuracy is important? 

Mr. FLEMMING. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

That is an excellent question, and, yes, I would say that we also 

agree that the assumptions regarding the different characteristics 

of the various cohorts of veterans whom we serve are very important, and we constantly seek to understand the characteristics of 

the returning combat veterans so that we can best prepare to deliver the services that they so need. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Roe? 

Mr. ROE. Thank you, Chairman, for yielding. 

If I look around the room, there were five of us in this room: Mrs. 

Kirkpatrick, Sergeant Major Walz, myself, Mr. Michaud, Mr. Miller. We are here for the advanced props debate that we first started 

when, I guess, Chairman Filner and Ranking Member Buyer were 

sitting in those chairs over there, and I had to be convinced because all of my political background as a mayor and so forth had 

been on a yearly budget. 

I think it’s been wildly successful. I talked to my local VA people 

at home and they loved the advanced appropriations, knowing 

what their budget is going to be for two years. And I was hoping 

that the VA would set the example and model for the whole government. I really think we ought to—many states do a bi-annual 

budget now—Texas is one that comes to mind—and it stops all of 

this silliness we do every—it seems like every other day here. 

We started the budget, again, in the fall and I think the VA— 

I can’t imagine why you wouldn’t embrace that. I can see no logic 

for your reason to oppose what the Chairman just talked about. I 

truly don’t. When something’s working, the VSOs wanted it and it 

turns out that they were absolutely right, it has worked very well. 

So that come September 30, a VA doesn’t know whether they can 

hire a nurse and they know they can now. 

As Jon talked about, I mean how silly is that not having a wire 

ready because of a budget hiccup? So I would like to know why you 

wouldn’t. I haven’t heard a reason yet to just—with all of the 

positives that we know that have happened—and we had this debate, I recall it very well, right in this room and we went through 

on this advanced appropriation—so I’ll turn the floor over to you. 

Mr. SNYDER. Well, Mr. Congressman, thank you. 

Let me clarify, we are not stating that we are opposed to the bill. 

We are stating that we do not have a position today on the bill. 

And, again, this is—we do not have a position until we can—the 

Administration can complete this across-the-government review. 

The implications that this kind of multi-year appropriations would 

have on the rest of the government, besides VA. So, again, we are 

not stating that we oppose the bill. 

Mr. ROE. Let me make sure that I understood what you just said. 

You’re not for it or you’re not against it? 

Mr. SNYDER. We are not taking a position today, sir. 

Mr. ROE. Okay. And the reason you’re not taking a position when 

you know that 86 percent of it works just fine is because of what? 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

14 

Mr. SNYDER. The Administration needing to do an across-the-government review, what those implications mean to other programs 

and other agencies besides the VA. 

Mr. ROE. And when will that be due? When will we have that 

information? Will it be in my fourth or my fifth term? And I am 

in my third term now. 

Mr. SNYDER. Sir, I know this Committee is very eager to get our 

position, but I am not in a position to comment on—to speculate 

on when that timeline might be done for the review. 

Mr. ROE. So it may be infinity? We don’t know when it will be? 

Mr. SNYDER. Sir, I do not know. 

Mr. ROE. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Kirkpatrick? 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Snyder, as Dr. Roe mentioned, I was on the Committee in 

2009 when we authorized the advanced appropriations and it was 

supposed to be a paradigm shift for the VA. And please keep in 

mind that every Member of the Committee wants the VA to operate as efficiently and as effectively as possible because that is what 

our veterans deserve. 

And so you’re here today to tell us that you can’t tell us the advantages or disadvantages of the advanced appropriation paradigm 

shift; is that correct? 

Mr. SNYDER. Congresswoman, let me affirm that we also want to 

work as efficiently and effectively as possible, and we can’t comment on the impacts that the multi-year appropriations has had on 

our medical care accounts. I can defer to Mr. Flemming or Ms. 

Tierney and they can comment. 

Helen, did you want to comment on the effects of the multi-year 

appropriations? 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Excuse me, we—we realize that, but it’s that 

other—that 14 percent that the Chairman talked about that you’re 

not willing to go forward on, and it is puzzling. 

And so I just want to know, are you not seeing improvements in 

that area? 

Mr. SNYDER. We have seen improvements. 

We are very appreciative of the multi-year appropriations that 

we have for our medical accounts. It does enhance our ability to 

plan for our medical budgets. It does ensure uninterrupted services 

for our medical accounts. But we cannot take a position on the extending of those authorizations or appropriations to our other discretionary accounts at this time. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Until you do the government-wide review. 

And whose decision was that, that there had to be a governmentwide review before the VA could take a position? 

Mr. SNYDER. That is the Administration’s position, ma’am. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. The VA Administration—the Presidential—I 

mean—who—what do you mean by the Administration? 

Mr. SNYDER. I really can’t get into the internal decision-making, 

but we are—have been required to take a broad view, a government-wide view of what the implications are on these changes for 

the government at large. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Well, maybe you can answer this for me, 

what exactly do you mean by a government-wide review? Does that 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

15 

mean every—every governmental agency in this country has to report? I mean what exactly does that mean? 

Mr. SNYDER. The Federal Government. The Federal agencies and 

departments will be involved in this review. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Can you tell the Committee which ones? 

Mr. SNYDER. Ma’am, that is really beyond my scope of expertise 

and responsibility. I will be happy to take that question for the 

record. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Well, it is a little frustrating, Mr. Snyder, and 

please excuse my frustration, but I thought the whole point is that 

we are able to serve our veterans, and as Dr. Roe said, how long 

do we have to wait for this? 

But let—let me just condense it in terms of the VA. Has the VA 

started its review, because I am assuming that the VA is going to 

have to report to OMB as part of this government-wide review. 

Suppose agencies haven’t even started this process. How long is 

this going to take? 

Let me just condense the two, what is the VA doing in terms of 

their piece of this review? 

Mr. SNYDER. Congresswoman, until this larger Administration 

review is done, I cannot comment. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. I am sorry, Mr. Snyder, but aren’t you part 

of the larger Administrative review? 

Mr. SNYDER. We will be. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Okay. 

Mr. Chairman, I am frustrated, so I guess I’ll—let me ask one 

other question. 

In terms of your—your strategic planning and—and programming, you said that you modeled that after other agencies. Can you 

tell us what agencies you used to model that? 

Mr. SNYDER. We took lessons learned from other agencies—I 

wouldn’t say that we modeled it—we took the lessons learned from 

various agencies including DoD, DHS, NASA, and others, but we 

really got to modify this to fit the VA. And we found that this is 

more of a change management or a culture change, as opposed to 

a technical solution. 

So we’ve taken lessons learned, pieces from various agencies—I 

think they do well and don’t do well—but we are really trying to 

adopt something that works in our environment and the three Administrations that we support. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Well, to end on a positive note, I commend 

you for that. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. I think for the Committee’s knowledge, this—this 

bill that everybody seems to be focusing on right now, in addition 

to the other two pieces of legislation, it was filed in February. 

The Senate—there is a Senate companion that’s out there and 

VA testified before the Senate two months ago on the bill, and so 

I think what’s frustrating to all of us is that we are still having 

witnesses come to us and tell us there is no position. 

To further expound, we are talking about a, you know, roughly, $150-plus billion dollar budget. This bill deals with about $8 billion 

dollars and for some reason, there is a hang-up and we are going 

to find out what it is from these witnesses or somebody. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

16 

I can’t for the life of me figure out why they would not want to 

jump at the opportunity to expand on what has already been described by many here and many veteran service organizations and 

the Department probably itself, has been widely successful that we 

did the two-year advanced appropriations. 

So I am—I am just as frustrated, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, as you are, 

but we will continue to prod and ask questions. 

Mr. O’Rourke? 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I appreciate your convening this hearing and the work that 

you and the Ranking Member have done, especially your bringing 

these issues to our attention and I fully support H.R. 813. It makes 

a lot of sense. 

I have the sense that you support it, too. I mean the logical conclusion of some of the things that you have said about the 86 percent of the VA’s budget that is working so well would lead me to 

believe that you think this would be a good thing for the rest of 

the VA, the remaining 14 percent, but that you are prevented from 

saying so, unfortunately, by the Administration. 

So, I want to—I want to—we clearly have your unclear statements on 813 that you can’t take a position. 

On 806, you are supportive? 

Mr. SNYDER. No, sir. 

The VA does not believe that those provisions need to be made 

permanent in statute. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. And the VA Budget Planning Reform Act, the 

draft bill, you said you agreed with the intent and the goal, but 

had some problems with some of the means and methods. Are 

there any improvements to that, that you could recommend that 

would lead you to be supportive of it? 

Mr. SNYDER. Again, the main issue with the proposed bill is that 

we think many of those provisions need to be codified by directive 

and internal documentation, and another—at least one more cycle 

of PPBE conducted within the Department before we try to codify 

things in statute. 

PPBE within the VA and the various processes are at various 

places in maturity and we think we need to level that out and get 

more maturity in all phases before that is documented in statute. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. And then for you or for Ms. Tierney, to follow up 

on Mr. Runyan’s anecdote about the facility that has everything except for the cabling or fiber that needs to be run to connect it, 

how—how do you resolve that disconnect right now in the VA when 

you have the advanced appropriations for so much of what VA 

needs and you’re dependent upon something in that other 14 percent that is not there right now? 

How—how widespread are the problems that Mr. Runyan highlighted with his—with his anecdote and how do you resolve them? 

Ms. TIERNEY. Thank you, Mr. Congressman. 

There are, indeed, sometimes disconnects with having advanced 

appropriation and having other parts of the organization under a 

CR. When the budget is eventually passed, we are able to do the 

new work. We are able to do—continue doing the same work that 

we did the year before under a continuing resolution, but it does 

make for some disconnects. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

17 

Mr. O’ROURKE. And the last thing that I’d say is I’ve only been 

here for a little over six months and I have found this Committee 

to work in a very bipartisan fashion, in a very supportive fashion 

of the VA, and I think we all—all of us want to get to the same 

place and deliver the best quality care and service to the veterans 

who served this country. 

And I know that you do and I think you know that our Committee does, and so I think we all want to work cooperatively, but 

it is obviously very frustrating and very difficult when we can’t get 

a clear response on an effort made by the Chairman in this Committee to improve your ability to deliver those services to the veterans. So, hopefully, we can rectify that soon and I want to continue to work cooperatively, but this is, as you’ve heard from everyone, a very frustrating experience, so, thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. O’Rourke. 

And I also would like to clarify the record. My comment about 

eight billion over ten, it’s actually eight billion for one year. 

Mr. Walz? 

Mr. WALZ. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member. 

Thank you all for being here. 

Advanced appropriations was a cause of mine for many years. I 

am proud of the work that we did on it and I think Dr. Roe was 

right; there was some skepticism here because the charge leveled 

was government on autopilot and we wanted to be concerned that 

that wasn’t the case and we wanted to make sure that we got it 

right. 

I guess my frustration, like I stated—there is drama here today 

that doesn’t need to be drama. That is very frustrating and I am 

trying to get at it and I understand the constraints you’re under 

from the Administration’s position. 

If you could take back anything, they don’t need drama in this. 

We are with you. We are there. We are getting this. We want to 

help. 

If there are concerns about this final 14 percent—and Mr. Runyan’s case is exactly right and I’ve heard that from other medical 

facilities—having the two disconnected is just plain stupid and it 

should be in here, one way or another. 

So, I get it that you’re not going to be able to tell us. I get it that 

you’re going to say that, but we’ve got 1,300 Federal and State programs helping veterans. We’ve got 40,000 non-profits in this country. It makes sense to have a rational coordinated plan to use our 

resources wisely to deliver care for veterans; that is all we are trying to get at. 

So I won’t ask where, I know that you’re not going to be able to 

answer, but if you could take back a message. There is no need for 

drama in the service of veterans, help us figure this one out. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Walz. 

Mr. Runyan, did you have any other questions? 

Mr. Michaud? 

Mr. MICHAUD. Just one. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

18 

So, run us through the process, Mr. Snyder. When you come before our Congress, you have to submit your testimony to OMB; is 

that correct? 

Mr. SNYDER. That is correct, Mr. Congressman. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Does OMB have to approve your testimony? Mr. 

SNYDER. They do. 

Mr. MICHAUD. And if they don’t, do you have to modify it to their 

liking? 

Mr. SNYDER. That is correct. 

Mr. MICHAUD. Okay. Mr. Chairman, it might be worthwhile 

maybe in September, to haul OMB in here and see how they are 

coming along with their big vision, how they want the government 

to look at this advanced appropriation, because I am sure by September they will have a lot of progress. 

And maybe we ought to get the timeframe when they started it 

and where they want it to move forward, because I think Tim 

Walz, Congressman Walz is absolutely right. Why OMB does not 

want this is just amazing since it is a small portion of VA budget, 

and if this truly is a top priority of the President, the First Lady, 

then I don’t know why OMB is taking a contrary position of what 

they are at least saying publicly about supporting veterans. 

So, hopefully the Administration will get on the same page, and 

whoever it is over at OMB that wanted the testimony to be 

changed, if it was, in fact, changed, I think we ought to find out 

and see where they are coming with this whole process. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Members, any other questions? 

To the witnesses, thank you so much for being here with us 

today. 

Some of us probably will have some questions that we want to 

submit to you as a follow-up. We would appreciate a timely response. You may or may not be aware this Committee now has a 

site on its Web site, posted ‘‘trials and transparency.’’ It specifically 

deals with the almost 100 requests that we now have from this 

Committee forwarded to the Department of Veterans Affairs that 

we have yet to get an answer for. 

And, again, I think a timely response is within 30 days. So, expect if we don’t get a response that you will join your cadre of 

friends at the central office as stars of ‘‘trials and transparency.’’ 

Thank you. You are excused. 

And as they are moving, if we could ask the second panel to come 

forward. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you to our second panel of witnesses. And I am going to run through this rapidly, but I want to 

thank you for being here today and on behalf of the Independent 

Budget co-authors, we are going to hear from Carl Blake with the 

national—the National Legislative Director of the Paralyzed American Veterans—Veterans of America. Mr. Blake is accompanied by 

Adrian Atizado, the Assistant National Legislative Director at 

DAV; Ray Kelley, the Director of National Legislative Service for 

Veterans of Foreign Wars; and Diane M. Zumatto, the National 

Legislative Director of AMVETS. We are also going to hear from 

Mr. Louis Celli, the Director of the National Legislative Division of 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

19 

The American Legion. With that, again, I say thank you very much 

for being here. 

Mr. Blake, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENTS OF CARL BLAKE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA, ACCOMPANIED BY ADRIAN ATIZADO, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS; JOY ILEM, DEPUTY NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS; RAY KELLEY, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS; DIANE M. ZUMATTO, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE 

DIRECTOR, AMVETS; LOUIS J. CELLI, JR., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIVISION OF THE AMERICAN LEGION. 

STATEMENT OF CARL BLAKE 

Mr. BLAKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Before I begin, Mr. Michaud, I would like to say if you get OMB 

on a panel here in front of you in September, we would really like 

to sit on the dais with you because I am sure we have as many 

questions as you do. 

On behalf of the co-authors of the Independent Budget, AMVETS, 

DAV, PVA, and VFW, I would like to thank you for the opportunity 

to be here to testify today. 

First, let me express our sincere thanks to you, Mr. Chairman 

and to Ranking Member Michaud, for taking the lead on this issue 

of funding for VA and introducing H.R. 813. It certainly makes 

sense. 

We’ve seen the benefits that have been reaped by the Veterans 

Health Administration by being removed from political bickering 

and partisan fights that have basically hamstrung the ability to do 

the work of the Federal Government or of the Congress. 

As such, the Independent Budget wholeheartedly endorses H.R. 

813 and we are committed to work with you and with the Senate 

to see this through to final enactment. 

Similarly, we would like to thank Ms. Brownley for introducing 

H.R. 806, that would make permanent GAO reporting a requirement. This legislation actually reflects an explicit recommendation 

included in the Independent Budget for fiscal year 2014 and as 

such, we wholeheartedly endorse that as well. 

With regards to the draft bill, the Department of Veterans Affairs Budget reform—planning Reform Act of 2013, I would like to 

thank you, Mr. Michaud, for placing an added emphasis on the 

need for meaningful strategic planning with the VA; however, at 

this time, the IB has no formal position on legislation and we do 

have some concerns that we outline in greater detail. 

First, we are not yet certain that a strategic planning framework 

designed specifically for the Department of Defense, the QDR, and 

similarly, for the Department of Homeland Security and the QHS— 

or QHR, I am sorry—would be appropriate for the VA. I think the 

VA sort of outlined that concern as well. 

There are obviously fundamental differences between the missions of the Department of Defense and the VA and also between 

DHS and VA. They raised concerns about whether VA should be 

required to use the same planning structures and methods deVACREP180 with DISTILLER

20 

signed specifically to evaluate DoD’s future roles in missions. And 

while worldwide threats and missions associated with those threats 

are always evolving, requiring constant review and re-evaluation 

by DoD and DHS, the fundamental roles and missions of the VA 

and veterans’ policy in general rarely, if ever, need to shift so 

quickly or dramatically based on external events or influences. 

And while Presidential elections may often lead to large swings 

in national security policy, our Nation’s longstanding commitment 

to veterans has remained clear and steadfast for 150 years. 

Second, it’s not clear whether the creation of a future year veterans’ program will lead to either more transparent or more accurate budgets or appropriations. Although the QDR and the QHR 

are readily available online, it does not appear that the FHDP or 

FHSP—HSP are similarly available, calling into question the 

transparency that might be produced by this legislation. 

In fact, the VA just testified and included in their testimony that 

they had submitted this year their first FYVP. Where is it? Has the 

Committee seen it? I know we haven’t seen it, so there is already 

a concern about transparency and doing a future year veterans’ 

program. 

I know the intent of the legislation, I think, is to overcome that 

hurdle and if we can be convinced that that were to be the case, 

then that would certainly move us towards the area of support for 

the legislation, but we still stand with no position at this point. 

Similarly, there are significant unanswered questions concerning 

the role of the Office of Management and Budget, which we’ve already hashed out in the previous panel. Since the draft bill requires that the Administration’s budget be consistent with the 

FYVP budget estimates, would OMB have a direct or indirect ability to revise or constrain the budget and appropriations levels contained in the FYVP? 

In setting out policy guidance to the individual program offices, 

the secretary is required to inform them of resource levels projected 

to be available as they make their budget estimates. 

Would these levels come directly or indirectly from OMB? We already know that on some level that is what happens, but I’m not 

sure that this process would necessarily draw that out even further. 

Until these questions and the ones that are included in our written statement are better addressed and satisfactorily answered, we 

will withhold our support for the legislation. 

That being said, Mr. Michaud and Mr. Miller, we certainly appreciate the extreme amount of time that your staffs have spent 

with us over the last couple of weeks in hashing out this legislation 

in particular, and helping us get a better understanding of the 

long-term intent of the legislation. And we feel confident that if we 

continue to work together, we can come to a final agreement that 

would probably lead us in the direction of some level of support, 

but we would still like to get some better answers to our questions. 

That being said, I’d be—we would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. 

Thank you. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARL BLAKE APPEARS IN THE APPENDIX]

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

21 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Blake. 

Mr. Celli, you are recognized for five minutes. 

STATEMENT OF LOUIS J. CELLI, JR. 

Mr. CELLI. Thank you. 

America’s veterans deserve sufficient, timely, and predictable 

funding for VA programs. We would certainly like to echo the 

Chairman’s opening comments when he described how the entire 

country has watched the budget squabbles and territorial land 

fighting of Congress over the last several years. 

We are proud to say that this Committee has steadfastly risen 

above the fray and maintained a bipartisan spirit of cooperation between the veterans—with the veterans—with veterans’ programs 

still suffering from the specter of government shutdowns, sequestration and a bitterly divided budget landscape that has led to 

stopgap continuing resolutions in the place and passage of real 

budget legislation. 

Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Michaud, and distinguished 

Members of this Committee, on behalf of Commander Koutz and 

the 2.4 million members of The American Legion, I thank you and 

your colleagues for the work that you do, and especially your bipartisan dedication for getting it right, for the American veterans and 

their families. 

My remarks this morning reflect the overview of The American 

Legion’s full statement for the record, which is provided as part of 

our witness testimony. When Congress passed the Veterans Health 

Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act in 2009, the intent was 

quite clear, ensure sufficient, timely and predictable funding to 

care for those who have worn the Nation’s uniform. The key improvements was the authorization of Congress to approve investments in medical care for veterans one year in advance to allow VA 

to more effectively plan for the future and ensure veterans would 

get the quality care that they have earned. And The American Legion, together with our VSO partners, aggressively worked with 

Congress to make this happen. 

Over the past couple of years, The American Legion has come to 

recognize how important it has been for VA to be included in advanced appropriations and certainly sees the wisdom of this Committee to include the remaining VA accounts in this process. 

We also want to be clear about one thing. The advanced appropriation does not insulate VA or veterans from the total effects of 

sequestrations as commonly thought. Future VA budget authorizations are still subject to budget caps in accordance with the Budget 

Control Act, which could reduce the assistance that we are able to 

provide our veterans and disabled veteran population. 

So The American Legion strongly supports the passage of H.R. 

813, as it takes yet another important step toward protecting the 

promise this country has made to our Nation’s veterans, to care for 

those who have borne the battle. 

While The American Legion is unable to take a formal position 

regarding the draft legislation, the Department of Veteran Affairs 

Budget Planning Reform Act of 2013, because the proposal is too 

new for us to have had the opportunity to evaluate it through our 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

22 

commission process, and, therefore, do not have a resolution that 

speaks to this initiative. 

I’d like to touch on a couple of the provisions that we’ve highlighted in our testimony and that will be the main topic of our discussion among our voting members. The American Legion is a conservative organization, fiscally conservative organization, that firmly believes in a strong planning process. We think that the fundamental reason that this legislation was introduced is sound. That 

much we support. 

When VSOs hear a proposal for yet another commission, I have 

to be honest with you, we groan. Because we work day in and day 

out with your Committee staff members and commissions always 

seem to seek to pull in folks that aren’t in the daily process of 

working with you and we wonder where do we fit in. So those are 

one of the concerns that we have. And we just want to make sure 

that we are not developing yet, another paper tiger, as we’ve discussed with your staff. So these are some of the things that our 

members are going to be discussing. 

I want to thank you for inviting The American Legion to share 

our thoughts on these positions and these important pieces of legislation. We definitely look forward to working together, and we, too, 

are very frustrated with the VA’s position of not being able to support advance appropriation. And if we look back at history, we will 

see that the first time advanced appropriation was discussed in 

this chamber, VA also took no position, yet they seemed to really 

enjoy the benefits of that today. 

With that, I yield back the remainder of my time. Thank you. 

[THE PREPARED STATEMENT OF LOUIS J. CELL, JR. APPEARS IN THE

APPENDIX]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

I’ll give myself five minutes for questions. 

And if I recall, the President, actually in the ’08 election, he ran 

on advanced appropriation. So there, very clearly was a position 

being taken by this current Administration—albeit he was a candidate at that time–but I don’t remember near the hesitation and 

most of you at the table were here during that time. 

Does anybody remember the kind of hesitation that we heard 

from the first panel? Anybody? 

Mr. BLAKE. Maybe from a Member of Congress, but certainly not 

from the Administration. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Blake, you may recall that when the original 

advanced appropriation bill made its way through the Congress, 

that both the IT and medical research accounts were included in 

the House-passed version of the legislation. Your testimony regarding these two accounts reaffirms that position. 

Explain to us why these two accounts, in particular, compliment 

the existing medical care accounts. 

Mr. BLAKE. Well, I think Mr. Runyan clearly sort of laid out the 

importance of IT and its role as it relates to health care, particularly with the way that VA delivers state-of-the-art health care 

with its electronic health record and everything now. And absent, 

some of the structures in place as new health care services come 

online, obviously that could be negatively impacted on the IT side. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

23 

On the research side, you have a lot of overlap where providers 

are also researchers and a lot of the work, there is a lot of crossover, and so you can have an impact on their daily activities based 

on the fact that while—while they deliver care, in some settings 

they also do research. 

So I think—I think, honestly, and we are all on record, I think, 

as saying that it makes no sense for all of VA not to be an advanced appropriated—if they could just get it out of the political 

wrangling that is going on every single day here on the Hill. 

The CHAIRMAN. If anybody—but, again, Mr. Celli, Mr. Blake, you 

can comment from a facility standpoint. I think a strong argument 

can be made that with advanced funding of construction projects, 

better planning could occur and contracts could be awarded in a 

timely fashion with the potential result of being on time, being on 

budget, and I think that would be a welcome change in—in this 

process, but what are your thoughts on the construction side? 

Mr. KELLEY. It could absolutely be very helpful. I don’t know if 

it’s going to make them on time or under budget or on budget; it 

would be setting them in the right direction, though. There is continual overlap. There are layers of these construction projects that 

can get delayed because of budget stops. It’s very important for 

construction to be advanced appropriated. 

Mr. CELLI. Now, I would also like to add that the VA saw fit to 

try to project what the rest of the Federal Government was going 

to do with regard to advanced appropriations, but with regard to 

them being able to establish contracts and work with the small 

business community in an economic climate that is just now trying 

to get back on its feet, the impact that the VA has when it comes 

to contracting, especially through construction, there are billions of 

dollars that filter into our communities, and if those dollars can’t 

be counted on by small businesses that are in the business of working to supply the government with their needs, then they can’t 

count on keeping their businesses viable and prosperous either. 

So the advanced appropriations gives the VA the opportunity to 

be able to plan for these projects, to be able to tell the contractors 

that we are going to start a particular project on a date that we’ve 

agreed on and then get them paid in a timely manner. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me read you just a real quick portion of the 

President’s signing statement. 

‘‘The new medical equipment that isn’t purchased. The construction of new facilities and clinics that isn’t started. The new programs for medical care that are delayed.’’ So even the President, 

I think, in his signing statement—albeit, the construction side did 

not apply—I think he is agreeing that that is a good thing, that 

we would advance and move in that direction. 

Mr. Michaud? 

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

In my closing—opening statement, I mentioned change is hard 

and not everyone will be comfortable with the changes, I know, in 

the draft legislation, and I think there is also some misconception 

about it. 

Mr. Celli, you mentioned we will need another commission. It’s 

not a commission. It’s—and I am glad that The American Legion 

is looking at fiscal matters because that is what the whole idea beVACREP180 with DISTILLER

24 

hind this is, is to force VA, Members of Congress, the VSOs, to look 

forward, to plan ahead, so that we will not be wasting money and 

that is the whole idea, but it’s not a commission. 

You also mentioned, Mr. Celli, the concern about the VSOs and 

what role they play. Actually, this legislation is very clear. VSOs 

will—are called out specifically for their participation in this process, but it’s not only the VSOs and it shouldn’t be only the VSOs 

as it relates to this process. So I know that change is hard. 

Mr. Blake, you had mentioned in your opening statement about 

DoD. The legislation does not require the DoD process for VA. And 

as you heard, the VA actually does a similar process—it’s not the 

model that DoD and DHS has—but it follows some of the areas 

that they’re focused on, that long-term planning that has to happen. So it doesn’t require them, and it shouldn’t require them, to 

follow the DoD, the DHS process. 

You had mentioned also, Mr. Blake, when you look at future year 

program for other departments that are available for Congress, 

both DoD and DHS are classified and that information is not public. So the whole idea behind this is to force VA, Congress, and veterans’ organizations, and other groups to look forward in their 

long-term planning. 

And I know that change is hard, and I would encourage each of 

you to look at what the actual bill, draft bill, does; not what you 

anticipated that it might do, because it is something that hasn’t 

been done before. It’s a new approach as it relates to the Department of Veterans Administration. But the Department of Veterans 

Administration, it’s the second largest Federal agency and we got 

to do a better job in making sure what finite resources that we 

have to spend to provide the services for our veterans and their 

families, that that planning is in place and that hasn’t been done 

before. 

Unfortunately, we have been dealing with crisis mode after crisis 

mode, whether it’s dealing with the Veterans Health Administration, now dealing with the veterans’ benefit side, as far as the 

backlog, and the whole purpose of this legislation is to codify some 

of the stuff that VA is currently doing, but also to look at that longterm prospective of how we are going to take care of our veterans 

and their families long-term, and it really focuses on thinking outside the box, and that is what it’s all about. 

So I would encourage each of you to really look at it, to work 

with our staffs as we move forward in this regard, and to think 

long-term, as far as where we are going to go to help support those 

who wore the uniform protecting this great Nation of ours. 

Now, I know that the realm of budgeting might not be a sexy 

topic because we just look at the bottom line, whether they got the 

money or not, but we do have to do a much better job in moving 

forward in this regard and provide the services that we need for 

our veterans. 

And just hearing the two testimonies earlier, there is some misconception about what it does, and what you both said as far as 

the commission or DoD process is not actually what the bill does 

and that is why I encourage you to continue to work with our staff 

so that we can move forward. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

25 

And I appreciate all that your individual organizations are doing 

to hold the VA accountable, as well as Congress accountable. I look 

forward to working with you as we move forward with the Chairman’s legislation, with the advanced appropriation for all VA because I think it’s absolutely the right way to go, and I feel confident that my colleagues will agree so also. 

As far as OMB, I can’t wait to see what they have to do, and I 

agree with Mr. Blake, if we do have OMB in here, I suggest we 

might want to put them under oath as well so we—so we can hold 

them accountable for what they are saying before this Committee. 

So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Roe, with your indulgence, I would like to recognize Dr. 

Wenstrup. 

Oh, Dr. Roe? 

Mr. ROE. I thank the Chairman, and thank you all for being 

here. 

And I think the last paragraph of the testimony here from Mr. 

Blake, I think pretty much says it all. We believe that our Nation 

has no higher obligation than to ensure that the men and women 

who have served in our Armed Forces receive all the benefits and 

services owed to them in a timely manner. This legislation will 

help guarantee that promise is kept. I think that is all that needs 

to be said. 

And I appreciate, first of all, all of your service, and then the 

support that you’ve given. I think—as I said just a minute ago, I 

think that the VSOs that pushed for this, and four years, ago, I 

guess, when we had this debate in this very room, I think it’s been 

a resounding success. Everything that I’ve heard at home from our 

local VA Medical Centers has been very positive, and I can’t imagine why we wouldn’t—and Mr. Michaud has said this and the 

Chairman has said this, why we wouldn’t just do this. 

And I told the secretary, I said I want you to be sure that this 

works. I remember having the conversation with him because I 

think this can be a model for the entire Federal Government. It’s 

so big now, why don’t we do a lot of advanced props over two years 

and then take the second year we are here and fine tune these 

things and get it right, instead of having to go through the same 

process again and come 30 September, you have to shut something 

down because we haven’t done our job here. 

And think about all this CR and all this nonsense that we’ve 

done, the one shining part of the budget’s been the VA because it 

hasn’t been affected. The money’s been appropriated and ready. 

So I don’t have any questions. I will certainly yield to you all, 

if you want to comment about it, but I appreciate your testimony 

and your support for this—for now four years that I’ve been here. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Brownley? 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I just wanted to take the opportunity because I haven’t stated so 

far how much I support your bill today, H.R. 813, and that is why 

I am a co-author of the bill. And I certainly believe it’s the right 

thing for us to do at this moment in time. 

And of course I am focusing a little bit on H.R. 806 because I 

want to get the bill right and would love to work with you on that 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

26 

to make that happen, and I think it can be an important compliment to the direction of H.R. 813. 

So, having said that, I will continue to question around H.R. 806 

which leads me to ask a question to Mr. Blake. 

And Mr. Blake, I appreciate your testimony and support of H.R. 

806, and I was just wondering if you could expand a little bit on 

your testimony and just inform us a little bit about why the PVA 

supports making the GAO review permanent. 

Mr. BLAKE. Thank you, Ms. Brownley for that question. 

First, it’s not just PVA. The Independent Budget, as a larger entity of the four organizations endorses the legislation. As I mentioned earlier, it’s a specific recommendation in this year’s Independent Budget. You know, I think we’ve seen—I can make an argument that we wish GAO would go even a little farther in their 

reporting when they’ve done their reports on the advanced appropriations. 

But every year that they’ve provided a report, they’ve clearly 

identified where there were deficiencies that existed. The most 

glaring has been in non-recurring maintenance which seems like a 

small and unsexy thing, but it has a direct upwards connection to 

medical care because it’s still in the medical facilities portion and 

it drives a lot of the larger funding assumptions and plans for VA, 

and then, ultimately, it has an impact on construction and things 

like that. 

So GAO has dug in and found some things and brought to light 

issues that the VA—that we would probably never seen otherwise, 

or we might have questioned without any real solid evidence, so 

they provided us with an opportunity, and we believe—it seemed 

like to me, the VA said—and I know it’s in their testimony—that 

they have had benefit from having an interaction with GAO and 

this reporting requirement. 

So if they reap the benefit from it, I’m not sure that there is a 

downside to continuing to do it. But apparently, they have—they 

reaped the benefit, but they don’t want to do it anymore, at least 

that is the way their statement seemed to suggest. But from our 

perspective, it’s certainly something that should be continued. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you. 

And Mr. Celli, in your testimony I—I’m not sure that you stated 

it, but I think in your written testimony you noted that The American Legion has really no official position on H.R. 806. 

And so I am just curious to know, has the Legion reviewed the 

GAO reports and did the Legion find the reports useful in the past? 

Mr. CELLI. Thank you, Congresswoman Brownley. 

And we have reviewed the GAO reports. We do find them to be 

a benefit, and the reason that we weren’t able to take a position 

at the time is because this is such a new piece of legislation that 

we haven’t had a chance to put it before our commission to get a 

resolution. As a resolutions-based organization, we carry forth the 

will of our membership, as do you with your constituents. I can tell 

you that, again, as a predominately, fiscally conservative organization, we like good things. The GAO report is a good thing. VA being 

required to look ahead to spend their money in a prudent manner, 

to be able to plan for good programs is a good thing. The American 

Legion is always going to support that. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

27 

When it comes to officially supporting the bill, we need to run it 

through our commission, get a resolution on it, which we have our 

annual meeting coming up in the end of August and I am sure at 

that time, a lot of the bills, that we weren’t able to take positions 

on formally will then be codified and we will be able to tell you one 

way or the other where we are going to come down on that. 

Ms. BROWNLEY. Thank you, sir. 

And I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mrs. Kirkpatrick? 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My question is really—I want to hear from each member of the 

panel, and I thank you for being here today and thank you for your 

service and commitment to our veterans. 

Regarding the VA’s current budget submissions, do you feel that 

there is sufficient detail for you to adequately represent your memberships? And let’s start here on the right-hand side and then just 

go over to the left. I would just like to hear, specifically, to—to 

whatever groups that you are serving. 

Ms. ZUMATTO. Thank you for the question—sorry—I am not sure 

that I quite understand what it is that you’re looking for, however. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Do you feel that the current budget submissions by the VA has adequate detail or would you recommend that 

there be additional items of detail put into the current budget submissions? 

Ms. ZUMATTO. I would say that budget is not my area of expertise as far as the Independent Budget body is concerned, but just 

from my point of view, it does seem that we are provided with 

quite a bit of information. I don’t know, you know, what is not 

being included, per se. 

So, at this point, I would just say that, you know, we get quite 

a bit of information and we—we appreciate that, and we just follow 

every—you know, everything that is happening. We know what the 

issues are and we hope that, you know, that the budget is going 

to be able to meet the needs of our veterans. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Mr. Celli? 

Mr. CELLI. Thank you. 

And that is an excellent question because the budget is so massive that I don’t think that there is any single organization, nonprofit organization, veterans’ service organization, that can fully 

analyze the complete budget. So what we do is, we end up looking 

at those portions of the budget that apply to the programs that we 

are intimately involved in. 

With respect to that, there is always going to be a level of detail 

that we are going to want to ask more questions on and we’ve been 

pretty successful in working directly with the program offices of the 

Department of Veterans Affairs to get the answers we are looking 

for with regard to their budget requirements and what it is that 

they plan to pay for with those dollars. 

Some of the other stuff like construction, I’ll let my colleagues 

address. 

With regard to VDA, with regard to, you know, looking at specific 

line items, it really—you know, it’s a difficult and long process 

which is why, you know, we have hearings on it. And then we not 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

28 

only look at the VA’s budget, then we look at the proposed budget 

from each of the chambers. It takes us quite a bit of time. 

So, is there enough detail? You know, yes and no; it really depends on the line item. 

Are there enough hours in the day, you know, to dedicate solely 

to looking at the budget? Definitely not. 

But overall, to answer your question, we could always use more 

detail. More detail and more commitment on behalf of the budget 

is always a good thing. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Mr. Blake, you changed my question just 

slightly, and I mean it sounds like, yeah, you could use more detail. 

Do you feel like you have a timely response from the VA when 

you request more detail on the budget? That is really what I am 

trying to get to. 

Mr. BLAKE. That is a wholly different question there. I thought 

you were going to ask us first if we thought it was sufficient in the 

first place. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Well, please, you can answer that first—— 

Mr. BLAKE. I was—answer that question. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. Answer that first, but then I’d like to know 

if you requested additional detail, yeah. 

Mr. BLAKE. To your question, you know, usually when our questions get answered, it’s in the budget briefings when they first release it, and we sort of cobble together questions and then we just 

spread out over time continuing questions. I can say that as part 

of this hearing and this is sort of a bow to Mr. Michaud’s intent, 

if they are doing long-term planning, that is something that we 

would like to see for certain. They said they are doing it, it’s in 

their testimony, and that was the first I had heard—I am aware 

that that is what they are doing, but I would like to know more 

detail. 

I actually have a little bit of fear because in their testimony, they 

also said that they don’t want to be mandated to provide certain 

types of information. I can see why they might feel that way because one of our concerns that we outline in our testimony is that 

kind of information leading to benchmarks that don’t allow for the 

proper evaluation in coming years as part of long-term planning. 

So, if there is a—I would say to your question, yes, they are pretty responsive, for the most part, when we have an issue that we 

need to have addressed. 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK. But as I understand your answer, you’d like 

more detail about the planning? 

Okay. My time is expired, Mr. Kelley, so you’re off the hook, and 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Kelley, you’re welcome to respond. 

Mr. KELLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think we could probably get better explanation. I think they 

give us a pretty good outline, but there are times we will ask specific—I’ll use construction as an example. I’ll just use round numbers. We will appropriate a billion dollars for a new project, but 

100 million of that will be towards that project. The other 900 million will be paying old projects. 

And I need—I—I would like to understand that process a little 

bit better. I can’t get an answer of how that money is shifted and 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

29 

shuffled around. So, that—that specifically, sure, we could use that 

information to make better decisions, better long-term planning 

from that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Walz? 

Mr. WALZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for 

being here. 

As I said earlier, I know they couldn’t answer us and I hear from 

you guys. 

And I think, Carl, you brought up a great point that we need to 

be careful about setting the benchmarks that goes back that are 

unrealistic in getting this right, but I still feel like the lack of 

transparency here makes it harder for you to do your job of caring 

for veterans. And so if we push this to get those answers, anything 

you can do to make that happen, I would be grateful for it, too. 

So, I believe in this. I believed it the first time around. I believe 

it’s the right thing to do again, and we—we can continue to improve upon that process to make sure we don’t get that, you know, 

budgeting on autopilot without concerns for changing situations. 

So, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Members, any other—oh, I am sorry. You’re—you’re hidden over 

there. 

Mr. O’Rourke, I am sure that you have questions. 

Mr. O’ROURKE. Thank you. 

Really, I just actually wanted to afford Mr. Atizado the opportunity if he wanted to add anything to what the other VSO representatives have said in response to these questions on how we 

improve, both our strategic planning process and the merit of these 

three bills here. 

Mr. ATIZADO. Thank you, Congressman. 

First of all, under the overarching idea in our testimony about 

wanting more transparency and obviously more data, is really required of us as an organization to determine whether VA is, in fact, 

meeting a couple of things: meeting the veterans’ needs, meeting 

the promises they have made, and making sure that the money is 

being spent most efficiently. So, all these three bills kind of tend 

toward—tilt towards that end. 

And I just want to reiterate what Carl had mentioned. I think, 

Mr. Michaud, you and the rest of the Committee, have picked up 

is we—is that we do want to work towards that goal and we think 

it’s a worthy goal. 

To your question, ma’am, about whether there is enough information, I—I would—I would say this. I don’t know if I would want 

any more information than what VA provides in its budget submission, simply because that straddles between reality, policy, and politics. And I think when we dive into actual programs and the delivery of services is where the questions come up as far as the actual 

data and the limitations of that data in describing how VA is going 

to achieve its purpose. 

And I think that is—I think I’ve said enough, but thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate your—your answer to that, and I 

want to thank all of the VSO representatives for the work that you 

do and the organizations that you represent. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

30 

And I also want to note and thank the representatives from the 

VA who stayed around to—to listen to your testimony. And they 

obviously couldn’t say a lot during their panel, but the fact that 

they are here to listen as well, I think is important and significant, 

so I want to thank them. 

And Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

With that, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. O’Rourke. 

As previously stated, all Members will have five legislative days 

with which to revise and extend their remarks and add any extraneous material that they think is necessary. 

We do appreciate both panels of witnesses. 

Thank you, VA, for staying with us through the second panel, we 

appreciate it. 

And once again, everybody, to the Members, thanks for being 

here. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m. the hearing of the Committee was adjourned.] 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

(31) 

A P P E N D I X 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeff Miller, Chairman 

Good morning. Welcome to this morning’s legislative hearing. Today we will receive testimony on three bills. The first is a bill I introduced along with Ranking 

Member Michaud, H.R. 813, the ‘‘Putting Veterans Funding First Act of 2013.’’ The 

second, H.R. 806, is a bill introduced by Ms. Brownley. And the third is a bill I, 

again, have joined the Ranking Member in introducing, the ‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Planning Reform Act of 2013.’’ I will now focus my opening 

remarks on H.R. 813. 

As my colleagues are aware, just over 4 years ago, Congress started providing 

VA’s medical care budget one year in advance. The reason behind the law that directed this change in practice was simple: a full-year appropriations bill for VA had 

been enacted on time in only 4 of the prior 20 years. 

According to veterans’ organizations and VA officials, delayed appropriations inhibited the ability of program administrators to plan effectively. Thus, the hiring 

of doctors and nurses was delayed, medical equipment purchases were put off, and 

veterans experienced unacceptable wait times for medical appointments due to rationing. By providing the medical care budget in advance, no longer would funding 

for VA’s health system be held hostage to Washington gridlock. 

I had hoped that things would improve in the intervening years, but unfortunately not much has changed. We’re still lurching forward with stop-gap funding 

measures and periodic threats of government shut downs. 

When I introduced the Putting Veterans Funding First Act earlier this year all 

of government was operating under a Continuing Resolution. It wasn’t until March, 

nearly six months into the fiscal year, when a full year appropriation was finally 

enacted. So although VA health care was protected, the other 14 percent of VA discretionary spending was held in limbo. VA information technology systems, claims 

processing, facility construction, medical research projects, veterans’ cemeteries . . . 

full-year funding for all of these items was in doubt till the very end. 

Well, here we are, yet again, with the status of next year’s appropriations bills 

up in the air. There is no agreed-upon budget framework. The House and the Senate are miles apart on appropriations measures. And the Administration has even 

issued a veto threat on the House-passed funding bill for VA for reasons that have 

nothing to do with the bill itself. Once more, political calculations having nothing 

to do with veterans are putting our collective support for funding of their benefits 

and services at risk. 

Veterans deserve better from us. I listened carefully to the statements of support 

on the floor for advance appropriations during debate on the FY2014 VA–Milcon 

bill. Members of both parties spoke with high praise, with one touting the (quote) 

‘‘absolute peace of mind and no worries’’ (end quote) brought to veterans through 

advance appropriations. I heard another hail it as a (quote) ‘‘platform for long-term 

planning and investment in critical programs,’’ (end quote). And still another lauded 

it as providing (quote) ‘‘timely and predictable resources,’’ (end quote). 

I agree wholeheartedly. But couldn’t these same statements be applied to funding 

VA’s information technology program, the backbone of the health care system? Or 

VA’s disability claims processing system, which is trying to surface from a crushing 

backlog? Or medical facility construction? Or how about the Nation’s veterans’ cemeteries? Each area requires advance planning for staffing, equipment, or contract 

services . . . all of that is made more difficult when there is no certainty of what the 

full-year funding level will be. The Putting Veterans Funding First Act would end 

the uncertainty by ensuring VA has its full discretionary appropriation well before 

the fiscal year begins. 

I am grateful for the support the bill has garnered across a wide spectrum of veterans’ organizations. I believe H.R. 813 is entirely consistent with the protections 

afforded veterans funding in law today. VA is exempt from sequester, and it receives 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

32 

86 percent of its discretionary funding already in advance. H.R. 813 just goes that 

extra mile. 

In the face of dysfunction that exists at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, this 

is one area where we can continue to get it right. I thank my colleagues who have 

already supported the bill, and ask those who haven’t to join us in truly Putting 

Veterans’ Funding First. 

I now recognize the Ranking Member for his statement. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael Michaud 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important legislative hearing this morning. The three measures before us look at planning, funding and oversight. Individually, each measure is beneficial. 

But when looked at together, they provide an analytic and transparent framework 

for VA, Congress and other stakeholders. They ensure requested resources are sufficient to meet the current and future needs of veterans. They also ensure that these 

resources achieve the best outcomes for veterans. 

I want to thank the Chairman for bringing forward his bill, H.R. 813. H.R. 813 

would extend the advance appropriations mechanism to the VA’s remaining discretionary accounts. Advance appropriations can provide fiscal stability during uncertain times. 

Advance appropriations also provides VA, Congress, and other stakeholders with 

a view of longer-term resource requirements. I believe that in order to extend advance appropriations for the remaining VA discretionary accounts, we must have 

strong confidence that the underlying budget projections are appropriate within a 

longer-term context. 

That context must include a forward-looking strategy with goals and objectives, 

and a five-year program with expected outcomes, milestones and resources. 

There must be greater visibility for Congress into the assumptions, definitions, 

and details than that provided by top-line appropriation accounts. This information 

will assure us that all VA’s missions are identified, planned, and executed. 

This will also give us insight into any trade-offs VA may make between resources 

and outcomes, and enable us to better oversee whether the VA is meeting its stated 

goals with executed resources. 

Before we budget and appropriate dollars, we must plan and program. This, in 

a nutshell, is my bill, the ‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Planning Reform 

Act of 2013.’’ 

Let me explain what this bill does, what it does not do, and why I believe this 

is one of the most important bills we will consider as a Committee. 

Let me use an example we can all relate to. When we look to purchase a house 

we consider many factors. We consider the purchase price, we look at all the items 

that go into determining what our overall cost will be, from taxes to utilities to 

maintenance, and so on. 

We gather as much information as we can to assess whether this investment will 

be a good one in the years ahead. We look at the quality of the local schools, the 

prevalence of crime, and the long-term trends in our economy that might have an 

impact on what our house is worth in the future. 

I believe the VA should go through a similar process with regard to its capabilities 

to carry out its mission. 

My bill would codify a VA planning, programming, budgeting and evaluation, or 

PPBE, system. PPBE is a ‘‘best-practice’’ currently used by leading corporations and 

important segments of our Federal government. 

For planning, it looks at the strategic level by means of a Quadrennial Veterans 

Review (QVR) that periodically assesses the changing environment. The QVR ensures VA is positioned to meet the evolving needs of veterans. 

For programming, it aligns resources and efforts with the strategic direction by 

means of a five-year program. This lays out the path, in outcomes and resources, 

to get there. The five-year program looks beyond a single year’s budget, and next 

year’s forecast, and forces the VA to accurately and fully account for the taxpayer 

dollars provided to it. 

It would provide Congress a vital tool we can use to be assured of the effectiveness of VA in meeting its responsibilities. 

The bill designates a Chief Strategy Officer to ensure that the planning and programming phases of the process receive equal consideration with the budget and 

execution phases. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

33 

1The official Veteran population projection as of September 30, 2011 is 22,676,149 Veterans. 

http://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/SpecialReports/Profile—of—Veterans—2011.pdf. 

All these stages must be in place to create a mechanism that will better ensure 

that the VA budget provides the resources tailored to the missions of the Department and that the need for these resources is fully defensible. 

This bill does not graft Department of Defense or Department of Homeland Security policies onto the VA. This bill uses these agencies as models but is crafted to 

meet the unique needs of veterans and the VA. DoD is significantly larger than VA, 

has a different mission, and has over 50 years of experience operating under a 

PPBE system. 

There is no expectation that the VA can, or should, match what the DoD does 

today. It is the principles of long-range planning and programming that VA should 

adopt, not the 8,500 DoD Program Elements or their resource intensive approach. 

My bill recognizes VA’s current efforts, and is intended to support these efforts 

while making sure Congress has access to the information we need to do our job. 

For the last few years, VA has experienced a period of budget growth and has been 

led by a Secretary who supports analytic and transparent budget development. But 

we cannot expect these conditions to be permanent. 

We should use the opportunity we have today to build a lasting framework to enable VA to meet its mission today, and tomorrow. Fiscal constraints may come, and 

leadership will transition. We must prepare now for VA to meet these challenges. 

Codifying a VA PPBE system in statute ensures its continuance in good times, and 

bad. 

I am committed to moving forward with this bill. I stand ready to work with my 

colleagues on this Committee, and in this Congress, to see that the very best bill 

we can produce is enacted. I stand ready to work with veterans’ groups and others 

as we move forward. 

I recognize that a PPBE mechanism is a change in the way VA has done financial 

management. 

Change is hard. Not everyone will be comfortable with this change. But change 

is necessary if we are to position the VA to meet its responsibilities, and fulfill its 

mission, in the coming years. Change is necessary if we are to perform our responsibilities as Congress. My bill, and the bills before us today, acknowledge that the 

status quo is no longer acceptable. This acknowledgement requires that we take action. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your help and support in with my bill, and in having the Committee look at the broader picture of VA budgeting and planning. 

I look forward to working with you, the Members of the Committee, and our veterans, to make sure that VA’s financial management process is not the result of 

budgeting-by-crisis. 

VA needs a financial system that is equal to the task of running the second-largest Federal agency. This system must also be capable of meeting the needs of veterans - not only today, but into the future. 

I yield back the remainder of my time. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Hon. Jackie Walorski 

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, it’s an honor to serve on this Committee. 

Thank you for holding this legislative hearing. 

Today’s hearing is an important opportunity for this Committee, the VA, and respective veteran organizations to have a frank and open discussion on strengthening 

legislative proposals that will have a significant impact on the services available to 

the approximately 22,000,000 1 veterans in this country. 

The work of veteran service organizations cannot go unnoticed. Because of their 

tireless efforts to find the best care for those who served and protected the freedoms 

we cherish, failures that need to be rectified have been unveiled and opportunities 

that can be seized upon have arisen both within Congress and, subsequently, the 

VA. 

The legislation debated today will ultimately ensure funding for critical veteran 

services is never delayed due to partisan posturing. 

I am proud of this Committee’s ability to work together in order to fulfill our commitment to see the veterans of this country receive the benefits they have earned. 

I look forward to working with my colleagues and our panelists on this legislation 

before us. 

Thank you. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

f 

34 

Prepared Statement of Robert D. Snyder 

Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Michaud, and Distinguished Members of the 

Committee: 

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on three proposed bills in the 

area of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) budgeting and strategic planning. Accompanying me are Helen Tierney, Executive in Charge for the Office of Management and Chief Financial Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs and Duane C. 

Flemming, PMP, Director, Policy Analysis and Forecasting, Veterans Health Administration. 

The first bill, H.R. 813 would include all VA discretionary accounts in the advanced appropriation process established in 2009 by Public Law 111–81, the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act. The second bill, H.R. 806 

would make permanent special GAO budget review provisions established in that 

law on a temporary basis. The third bill, in the form of a draft, has numerous provisions regarding requirements for supplemental budget submissions and a ‘‘FutureYears Veterans Program’’ report, a quadrennial review, reviews of VA’s organizational structure, as well as prescribing elements for VA’s strategic planning. 

On October 22, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Veterans Health Care 

Budget Reform and Transparency Act (Public Law 111–81) into law. This law allows 

Veterans’ medical care to be funded a year in advance, and it means that VA is able 

to receive timely, sufficient, and predictable medical care funding from year to year. 

For our Veterans, this means better access to the medical care we provide at our 

151 hospitals, 827 community-based outpatient clinics, 300 Vet Centers and 81 mobile outpatient clinics and mobile Vet Centers. Advance appropriations support the 

vital healthcare services that VA delivers to more than six million unique Veteran 

patients each year. 

H.R. 813 

The proposed bill, ‘‘Putting Veterans Funding First Act of 2013,’’ would extend the 

authority for advance appropriations provided in the Veterans Health Care Budget 

Reform and Transparency Act to all of VA’s discretionary accounts, effective in 2016 

and in each fiscal year thereafter. We appreciate how Congressional support for VA 

advance appropriations for our medical care accounts has enabled a multi-year approach to medical budget planning and ensured continued medical services for Veterans. The advance medical care appropriation was designed to ensure continuity 

of critical medical operations in the face of fiscal uncertainty. 

A proposal to expand VA advance appropriations needs to be considered by the 

Administration as part of an across-the-government review of the advantages and 

disadvantages of such an approach not only for VA, but potentially other programs 

and agencies. Only in the context of such a broad review could the Administration 

offer an opinion on making such a change for the VA. We cannot therefore offer a 

position on H.R. 813 at this time. We very much appreciate the concern for Veterans 

services reflected in the proposal, and look forward to working with the Committee 

on how to best maintain the provision of VA benefits and services in light of fiscal 

uncertainties. 

H.R. 806 

The bill would establish a permanent requirement for an annual report by the 

Comptroller General on the Department of Veterans Affairs medical budget submissions. The bill would require the report be submitted to the Committees on Veterans 

Affairs, Budget, and Appropriations and the VA Secretary no later than 120 days 

after the date on which the President submits a budget request. Congress in the 

Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act established the requirement beginning in fiscal year 2011, but on a temporary basis only through fiscal year 2013. 

VA does not support making these reports permanent. VA has expanded the information presented in the justification volumes each year in order to be more transparent in the budget request and to include additional information that has been 

requested by Congress. VA believes this information, supplemented by the continuing and ongoing oversight of VA by Congress, as well as engagement by the 

General Accountability Office as charged by Congress, provides ample review of, and 

transparency for, VA’s budget process. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

35 

A draft bill entitled the ‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Planning 

Reform Act 

In general, VA believes the draft bill has a great deal in common with VA’s ongoing and planned strategic planning, programming, and evaluation initiatives. We 

are excited about this work to make sure VA’s planning and Department-level resource allocation processes are systematic and look beyond the horizon so that our 

Nation’s Veterans can be accorded the best benefits, services, and support VA can 

offer. We therefore greatly appreciate the concepts put forward in the bill. We are 

eager to discuss those efforts with the Committee, but we are hesitant to lock down 

these concepts in statute. 

Recently, VA began a Planning, Programming, Budget and Execution (PPBE) initiative modeled after similar efforts used in other Federal agencies such as the Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of Homeland Security, and 

others. VA believes PPBE has potential to more systematically improve VA’s ability 

to anticipate and strategically prepare for the future needs of Veterans and their 

families. We also believe this effort can better meet the needs of the VA workforce 

and buttress their dedication to serve Veterans, as well as improve resource allocation and enable VA to get the best value for scarce resources. The PPBE cycle implements a multi-year analytical framework beginning with fiscal year 2015 to ensure 

the requirements of VA’s healthcare delivery, benefits, and memorial services are 

fully vetted. 

There are many elements of the draft legislation that reflect these PPBE principles, and the direction VA is going in its strategic planning and programming efforts. 

Section two of the bill would require VA to submit annually at or about the time 

of its regular budget submission a ‘‘Future Years Veterans Program’’ that would include for the next five years (including the budget year submitted) estimated expenditures and proposed appropriations, as well as a VA five-year strategy regarding the Department’s commitment to Veterans and the resources to meet those commitments. 

Section two would also mandate a Quadrennial Veterans Review (QVR), with the 

first such review conducted in fiscal year 2017. The bill sets forth detailed requirements and elements for the conduct of this review, and ties it to a ‘national strategy 

for meeting the Nation’s commitment to Veterans’ with a component regarding VA’s 

cooperation with other Federal agencies, and State, local, and tribal governments. 

Consistent with these concepts, the Department has embarked on its own Quadrennial Strategic Planning Process (QSPP), which we believe is consistent with the 

aims of the draft bill to institute a more formalized strategic planning process to 

inform and drive the five-year programming process and the near-term budgeting 

process. The final results of our QSPP, a new VA strategic plan for the fiscal year 

2014–2020 timeframe, will be published no later than the President’s budget submission in February 2014. We have already had productive briefings on the development of that plan with your staff and will continue that dialogue as we progress 

in finalizing the plan. 

VA’s QSPP includes an environmental scanning and analysis phase, and has some 

of the same general goals as the Department of Defense’s (DoD) Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). VA is concerned about expectations that the bill’s QVR should 

be as extensive and detailed as DoD’s QDR. VA believes an attempt to replicate the 

QDR is not appropriate for the Department and would have serious staffing and resource implications. 

VA has been working towards building a multi-year programming capability and 

established the Office of Corporate Analysis and Evaluation (CAE) within the Office 

of Policy and Planning to lead that effort. The Secretary signed the first Future 

Years Veterans Plan, covering fiscal years 2015–2019, on April 30, 2013 to document the results of our first true programming effort. This effort has in common 

the same concepts as the legislation in providing an additional tool for VA to provide 

a more strategic longer-term view to ensure that capabilities are well-defined and 

balanced with VA’s resource requests. 

While we believe the general intent of section two will be met with the emerging 

PPBE process within VA, we do have significant reservations about any mandate 

to publish specific dollar and FTE projections beyond the budget year. The strategic 

planning and programming processes are tools used to align vision and resources 

to capabilities, programs, and activities, to be distinguished from VA’s budget formulation process. A requirement to publish the programming-generated expenditure 

and appropriation figures along with VA’s budget, as required by the bill, could create confusion between those two functions. That in turn could limit flexibility in deVACREP180 with DISTILLER

36 

veloping and executing the Department’s budget to meet emergent requirements 

and opportunities. 

As noted above, the QVR would require a broader role for VA in developing a National Veterans Strategy that identifies and prioritizes the full range of programs, 

services, benefits and outcomes regarding Veterans provided by the federal government. VA believes that its ongoing development and work in ‘‘futures’’ analysis and 

planning have common aims with this aspect of the QVR proposal, and will be glad 

to discuss this with the Committee, although a National Veterans Strategy would 

require broad analysis and policy development that would go well beyond just the 

VA. 

Section two of the bill also requires the Secretary to provide annual ‘‘written policy guidance for the preparation and review of the planning and program recommendations and budget proposals of the elements of the Department.’’ It is current practice for the Secretary or Deputy Secretary to issue such guidance as necessary elements of implementing the Department’s planning, programming, and 

budgeting processes. Therefore, VA believes this provision is unnecessary. 

Section three of the draft bill would designate the Assistant Secretary whose functions include planning, studies and evaluations as the Chief Strategy Officer of VA. 

The draft bill goes on to provide in significant detail the responsibilities of the Chief 

Strategy Officer. VA strongly supports the direction set out in this section, as those 

areas delineated in the bill are being performed by the Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning. However, VA is reluctant to codify those responsibilities in legislation, so that those responsibilities can be adjusted as required in the future. VA 

would like to brief the Committees on the work of the Office of Policy and Planning 

as it relates to the concepts set out in section three. 

Section four of the draft bill would require VA to conduct a study of the functions 

and organizational structure of the Office of the Secretary as well as the entire Department. It also would require VA to engage a contractor to perform a separate 

parallel review of those same topics. VA in its day-to-day management continually 

assesses the effectiveness and the efficiency of its organizational structures in serving Veterans and in being good stewards of taxpayer resources. VA recognizes there 

is always more to do, but believes our existing planning processes are adequate to 

consider beneficial organizational changes. Additionally, the reviews of the General 

Accountability Office and VA’s Office of Inspector General provide outside review 

and counsel that is always seriously considered by VA. 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these three important bills, and we 

appreciate the Committee’s attention the critical topics of VA budgeting and strategic planning. They are integral to our drive to continue improving the health care, 

compensation benefits, memorial honors, and other support and services we provide 

to the Nation’s Veterans. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Carl Blake 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Michaud, and Members of the Committee: 

Thank you for inviting The Independent Budget veterans service organizations 

(IBVSOs) to present joint testimony on pending legislation designed to improve the 

budget, appropriations and planning processes of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). As you know, The Independent Budget is a comprehensive budget and 

policy document co-authored annually by AMVETS (American Veterans), DAV (Disabled American Veterans), PVA (Paralyzed Veterans of America) and the VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States), and endorsed by dozens of other veterans organizations. 

H.R. 813 

It has been almost four years since the IBVSOs, along with our colleagues in the 

Partnership for Veterans Health Care Budget Reform, celebrated passage of Public 

Law 111–81, the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act of 

2009. This landmark legislation, the product of years of work and collaboration 

among veterans organizations and veteran leaders in the House and Senate, authorized one-year advance appropriations for the three medical care appropriations accounts in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA): medical services, medical facilities, and medical support and compliance (now medical administration). As a result, 

the VA medical care budget is now approved up to a year in advance of the start 

of each fiscal year, preventing the disruptions that have been regularly occurring 

in other federal agencies due to endless budget stalemates and continuing resolutions. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

37 

In the two decades prior to enactment of the law, VA received its regular annual 

appropriation before the start of the fiscal year just four times, creating sustained 

challenges for administrators striving to provide timely, quality health care to 

wounded, injured and ill veterans. With the enactment of Public Law 111–81, VA 

now receives its medical care appropriation on the first day of the fiscal year, and 

can plan on that funding level up to a year in advance. By assuring timeliness and 

predictability of funding levels, VA health care has been more effective and efficient 

in the use of funding provided to operate VA’s medical care facilities and myriad 

programs. 

H.R. 813, the Putting Veterans Funding First Act, introduced by Chairman Miller 

and Ranking Member Michaud, would build upon this success by authorizing advance appropriations for the remaining discretionary accounts: Medical and Prosthetic Research, General Operating Expenditures, Information Technology, National 

Cemetery Administration, Inspector General, Major Construction, Minor Construction, State Home Construction Grants, State Cemetery Grants and Other Discretionary Accounts. In total, the remaining portion of VA’s funding requested outside 

the advance appropriation process is only 10 to 15 percent of VA’s total discretionary funding. 

While the enactment of advance appropriations authority for VA medical care has 

been successful in helping the VA health care system operate more efficiently and 

rationally during budget stalemates, the remaining VA budget accounts continue to 

be negatively affected by unrelated political and partisan fights. For example, although the VA medical care budget accounts may contain sufficient funding to open 

a new outpatient clinic, the fact that VA’s IT funding is still provided through the 

regular annual appropriations process can mean that computers or other IT systems 

might not be available until Congress completes its work on VA’s regular appropriations bills. Similarly, some of the funding for Medical and Prosthetic Research directly contributes to clinical care, but it is out of sync with the provision of medical 

care funding done through advance appropriations. Thus, while VA researchers’ salaries and benefits (paid by the Medical Services appropriation) are now secured at 

day one of a fiscal year, their awarded research projects may be delayed or interrupted because that appropriation is not yet approved by Congress. 

Moreover, VA construction accounts that fund vital infrastructure maintenance 

and improvement projects would also be more efficient if were provided through advance appropriations. Uncertain funding levels and delayed contract awards add to 

overrun costs on important VA capital projects. Finally, the Veterans Benefits Administration’s ability to address the backlog of pending claims and transform itself 

into a modern 21st century organization is hindered by annual budget fights and 

endless continuing resolutions. Moreover, because VBA’s reform is heavily dependent on automation and information technology, its transformation would benefit 

from the timely and predictable funding resulting from advance appropriations. 

Mr. Chairman, in The Independent Budget for Fiscal Year 2014 we recommended 

that Congress debate and consider authorizing advance appropriations for all VA accounts. Earlier this year, you and Mr. Michaud introduced H.R. 813 to achieve exactly that goal, and we are pleased to support this legislation. We believe that our 

nation has no higher obligation than to ensure that the men and women who served 

in our armed forces receive all the benefits and services owed to them in a timely 

manner. This legislation will help guarantee that promise is kept. 

H.R. 806 

In addition to extending advance appropriations to all VA accounts, The Independent Budget recommended that Congress permanently authorize a role for GAO 

to monitor and report on VA budget formulation and the advance appropriations 

process. Under the provisions of Public Law 111–81, GAO was required to study and 

report on the Administration’s VA medical care budget submitted in 2011, 2012 and 

2013. In particular, GAO was required to compare the amounts included in the Administration’s budget submission with the amounts estimated by VA’s Enrollee 

Health Care Projection Model, the internal actuarial model that projects VA medical 

care resource needs. 

In the first two years, GAO reported significant findings of unjustified, questionable changes VA made during the internal budget development process. For example, in 2011, GAO found that requested funding for non-recurring maintenance 

(NRM) was significantly below the amounts projected by the actuarial model. In 

2012, GAO found that VA was once again proposing to make substantial reductions 

in budget requests based upon unverified future savings from planned operational 

improvements. The third and final report required under the current statute is due 

to be released within the next month and we look forward to reviewing these findings. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

38 

H.R. 806, introduced by Representative Brownley, would make permanent the requirement that GAO continue to study and report on VA’s budget submissions, also 

a recommendation called for in The Independent Budget, and we are pleased to support this legislation. 

In addition, we would note that should H.R. 813 be enacted, it would be necessary 

to revise H.R. 806 to provide additional flexibility to enable GAO to study and report on all VA funding provided through advance appropriations. 

Discussion Draft Bill on VA budget and strategic planning reform 

The discussion draft bill to be proposed by Representative Michaud, entitled the 

‘‘Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Planning Reform Act of 2013,’’ would establish new planning and budgeting processes, as well as study and make organizational changes affecting VA’s ability to develop and implement budgets and strategic 

plans. The draft bill would establish five new processes to accomplish these purposes. 

First, the draft bill, beginning in 2017, would require VA to conduct a Quadrennial Veterans Review (QVR) every four years, modeled after the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) currently 

required by law. The Quadrennial Veterans Review would study and report a strategy for meeting the nation’s commitment to veterans and the resources required to 

meet that commitment. The QVR is intended to be a futures-based look at opportunities, challenges, policies and strategies related to meeting veterans needs. The report would also examine the priorities for veterans programs and assess the effectiveness of VA’s organizational structure. 

The draft bill requires that VA conduct its review in consultation with other Federal agencies, as well as a wide range of stakeholders, ‘‘including State, local, and 

tribal government officials, members of Congress, veterans service organizations, 

private sector representatives, academics, and other policy experts.’’ 

Second, the bill would require VA to develop and submit annually a Future-Years 

Veterans Program (FYVP), which is modeled after the Future-Years Defense Program (FYDP) and the Future-Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP). The 

FYVP would lay out a five-year plan for meeting the nation’s commitment to veterans as well as delineate the resources necessary to meet that commitment. The 

FYVP would include five-year estimates of the budget and appropriations levels on 

a program element basis in order to ensure that resources properly align with outcome-based plans and programs. The FYVP would be submitted concurrent with 

VA’s annual budget submission and the draft bill would require that it be consistent 

with funding requests contained in the Administration’s budget submission. The 

draft bill would also require that the Future-Years Veterans Program be coordinated 

with the Quadrennial Veterans Review, which serves as the foundation for developing the FYVP’s five-year plans. 

Third, the draft bill would require the Secretary to annually provide certain policy 

guidance to VA planning, programming and budgeting officials throughout VA responsible for developing individual program budget recommendations. The policy 

guidance from the Secretary would be required to be based on the most recent QVR 

and FYVP, as well as estimates of the ‘‘resource levels projected to be available’’ in 

future years. 

Fourth, the bill would create the position of Chief Strategy Officer (CSO) to be 

filled by the Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning, or if there is a subsequent 

reorganization, the Assistant Secretary responsible for agency planning. The CSO 

would have broad responsibilities for overseeing the planning, programming, budgeting and execution functions Department-wide, to include health care, benefit and 

cemetery programs. The CSO would have significant independent authority, reporting only to the Secretary. The CSO’s responsibilities for budgeting would be on the 

same level as VA’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO), a role designated for the Assistant 

Secretary for Management. The CSO would be chiefly responsible for managing the 

new QVR, FYVP and policy guidance requirements contained in this draft bill. 

Fifth, the draft bill would require VA to undertake a comprehensive one-year 

study of the organizational structure of the Secretary’s office and the Department 

as a whole. In addition, the draft bill would require that an independent contractor 

conduct a parallel study of the organizational structure of the Secretary’s office and 

of the Department. The independent study would be included within the report submitted by the Secretary to Congress. 

The discussion draft bill has a number of intended purposes, which would include 

the following: 

• To strengthen VA’s capacity to plan for near- and long-term future needs of veterans; 

• To ensure that strategic planning is future-looking and outcome-based; 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

39 

• To create a more unified planning, programming, budgeting and execution process; 

• To better align VA’s plans with their resource requests; and 

• To increase the transparency of VA’s planning and budgeting processes. 

The IBVSOs agree that these intended purposes are worthy goals, generally 

shared by VA and supported by Congress. However, because the discussion draft bill 

has only recently been shared, and is not yet in final form, we have not had sufficient time to explore a number of important questions about whether the bill would 

ultimately be implemented as intended by its sponsors, whether the proposed structures and institutional changes would achieve its intended purposes, or whether 

there could be any unintended and negative consequences that could or should be 

addressed before the bill advances. 

For example, we are not yet certain that a strategic planning framework designed 

specifically for the Department of Defense (DOD) and later adopted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be appropriate for VA. There are fundamental differences between DOD and VA (and also between DHS and VA) that raise 

concerns about whether VA should be required to use the same planning structures 

and methods designed specifically to evaluate DOD’s future roles and missions following the end of the Cold War. The original Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) 

was recommended in 1995 by the Commission on Roles and Missions of the Armed 

Forces, following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the fall of the Iron Curtain over 

Eastern Europe, and revolutionary defense and budgetary changes taking place in 

the United States during the 1990s. Because the world was being transformed in 

fundamental ways, DOD and Congress agreed it was necessary to comprehensively 

review and reconsider the nature of future national security threats, our defense 

posture and capabilities, and future-looking strategies and tactics required to protect our nation. The paradigm shift in national and homeland security that occurred 

overnight on September 11, 2001 further emphasized the need for regular strategic 

reviews within both DOD and DHS. By contrast, the fundamental roles and missions of VA and veterans policies rarely, if ever, need to shift so quickly or dramatically based on external events or influences. 

Another central argument put forth by the Commission for creating a quadrennial 

review at DOD was that, ‘‘when Administrations change, defense planning is subject 

to a turbulence exceeded only by that resulting from significant shifts in the international security environment.’’ While presidential elections may often lead to large 

swings in national security policy, our nation’s longstanding commitment to veterans has remained clear and steadfast for at least 150 years, going back to Lincoln’s 2nd Inaugural Address and his call to ‘‘ . . . care for him who shall have borne 

the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan . . . .’’ Veterans policy evolves over 

time, not overnight following elections or as a result of a revolution in a foreign 

land. 

Of course, long range strategic planning is vitally important and VA does and 

must continue to do so. VA’s current strategic plan, which covers the period from 

FY 2011 to FY 2015, is centered around three guiding principles: ‘‘people centric,’’ 

‘‘results-driven,’’ and ‘‘forward-looking.’’ It lays out four strategic goals, sixteen 

major initiatives, and twenty supporting initiatives, and the plan identifies agency 

priority goals by fiscal year. VA also annually prepares and submits to Congress and 

the public a Performance and Accountability Report to show how well VA’s strategic 

goals are being met through regular assessment of objective criteria. In addition, 

VA’s annual budget submission lays out in great detail the programs and policies 

designed to achieve VA’s strategic goals, including analyses of resources dedicated 

to meeting each goal. 

VA also supports two dozen ongoing advisory committees to provide outside perspectives on specific needs, such as for disability compensation, education, prosthetics, geriatrics, homeless veterans and women veterans. Congress has also authorized commissions and task forces from time-to-time to take comprehensive, indepth looks at major issues or challenges, such as in mental health programs, disability benefits, vocational rehabilitation and health care funding, to name only a 

few. It is not yet clear how or if the creation of a Quadrennial Veterans Review 

would improve on these ongoing strategic planning processes. Would it ultimately 

combine, supplant, or supplement these activities? 

Similarly, it is not clear whether the creation of a Future-Years Veterans Program 

would lead to either more transparent or more accurate budgets or appropriations. 

Although the QDR and QHR are readily available online, it does not appear that 

the FYDP or the FYHSP are similarly available. Although it is understandable that 

both DOD and DHS would keep classified programs’ budgeting and planning information shielded from public view, there appears to be no part of their Future-Years 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

40 

Programs that is publicly available for review, even for their many unclassified programs and budgets. As such, we have questions about whether the information to 

be included in the FYVP would be transparent. Furthermore, without the ability to 

review a Future-Years Defense (or Homeland Security) Program, we are challenged 

to determine how or whether this approach has changed their budgeting processes, 

and specifically whether the programs are better aligned with budgets and longterm plans. We can reasonably conclude, however, that it has not made it more 

transparent. 

We also have questions about the complexity of the proposed Future-Years Veterans Program process, both about the level of detail to be included and whether 

it would create a more helpful or difficult process. Although we were not able to see 

an actual example of a Future-Years Program document, we were able to locate a 

2004 DOD guide to the structure and codes used in the FYDP. This document was 

2,160 pages long and contained more than 8,500 Program Element (PE) codes, each 

of which may have associated five-year budget estimates. We understand and appreciate that VA’s budgeting process is significantly less complex than DOD’s, but without the ability to actually see actual examples of how a Future-Years program 

would work, and without details about the number of program or budget lines the 

FYVP would contain, it is difficult to ascertain whether this new budgeting element 

would be an improvement to the current budgeting process. We also have questions 

about how difficult it may be to change out-year numbers at the program level in 

a future budget-constrained environment. 

Another significant unanswered question concerns the role of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in this new planning and budgeting process. Since the 

draft bill requires that the Administration’s budget be ‘‘consistent’’ with the FYVP 

budget estimates, would OMB have a direct or indirect ability to revise or constrain 

the budget and appropriations levels contained in the FYVP? In setting out ‘‘policy 

guidance’’ to the individual program offices, the Secretary is required to inform 

them of ‘‘resource levels projected to be available’’ as they make their budget estimates; would these levels come directly or indirectly from OMB? 

There are also questions about the creation of a new CSO inside VA. The language of the draft bill would give the CSO significant independence in overseeing 

all, planning and programming throughout VA, including that done within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) 

and the National Cemetery Administration (NCA). Would the CSO have overlapping 

authority with the Under Secretaries of these administrations? In preparation of the 

budget, the CSO also would play a significant role and possess final approving authority according to the draft bill’s language. How would the CSO and the CFO 

interact during preparation of VA’s budget; are they co-equal and how would disagreements between them be settled? Would this lead to greater harmony or conflict 

within VA’s budget formulation process? 

We also have questions about the role of veterans service organizations in the development of the QVR. The draft bill would require VA to consult with a wide range 

of stakeholders, both governmental and nongovernmental. As organizations that 

have not only great interest in veterans policies, but great experience and expertise 

in dealing with them, we have concerns about whether this broad consultation process would dilute our input. While there is always a role for outside perspectives to 

ensure fresh thinking within public agencies, VSOs are not idle stakeholders; collectively we provide direct assistance to VA and veterans in many areas, and particularly in representing veterans in their claims for benefits and services. We all have 

service officers who work inside VA facilities and behind information technology (IT) 

firewalls, playing an integral role in the claims processing system and serving veterans as attorneys-in-fact. We are concerned about the bill’s potential of diminishing 

our influence and putting us on par with less interested, involved or informed stakeholders during the consultation process. 

Although we have important questions about the effects of this bill, the details 

of some of its provisions, and how it might be implemented, we have no questions 

about the sincere intentions of the bill’s sponsors. We agree that VA’s strategic planning and budgeting processes ought to be consistently and openly aligned to achieve 

our shared goals in support of America’s veterans. We also agree that more transparent, honest and detailed information can build greater confidence in VA, increase 

the effectiveness and efficiency of veterans programs, and improve the outcomes for 

veterans who need support, services and care. However, planning processes or structures in one agency are not necessarily appropriate for every other agency. History 

shows that Congressional intent is not always faithfully implemented. For all of the 

above reasons, we believe it is important to raise and resolve these questions and 

concerns now, to help prevent any unwanted and unintended negative consequences 

before this draft bill were to move forward. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

41 

Mr. Chairman, we greatly appreciate the meaningful dialogue and cooperation we 

have had with the Committee’s professional staff on both sides of the aisle, helping 

us to better understand this draft bill. We are grateful for their willingness to work 

with us to address our concerns, and we look forward to continuing to work together 

with the bill’s sponsors in this regard. However, since this issue was not addressed 

in our most recent Independent Budget released in February, 2013, and because we 

still have many unanswered questions about this draft bill as highlighted by this 

testimony and our discussions with staff, we do not have a position on this draft 

bill. 

This concludes our testimony and we would be happy to answer any questions 

that you and Members of the Committee may have. 

Information Required by Rule XI 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives 

Pursuant to Rule XI 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, the following information is provided regarding federal grants and contracts. 

Fiscal Year 2013 

No federal grants or contracts received. 

Fiscal Year 2012 

No federal grants or contracts received. 

Fiscal Year 2011 

Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, administered by the Legal Services Corporation—National Veterans Legal Services Program— $262,787. 

f 

Prepared Statement of Louis J. Celli, Jr. 

America’s veterans deserve sufficient, timely and predictable funding for the programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The entire country has watched 

the budget squabbles and territorial infighting of Congress over the last several 

years. Though this committee has steadfastly risen above the fray and maintained 

a bipartisan spirit of cooperation, veterans’ program have still suffered from the 

specter of government shutdown, sequestration, and a bitterly divided budgetary 

landscape that has led to stop gap continuing resolutions in the place of the passage 

of real budgetary legislation. 

Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Michaud and distinguished Members of the 

committee, on behalf of Commander Koutz and the 2.4 million members of The 

American Legion, I thank you and your colleagues for the work you do and especially your bipartisan dedication to ‘‘getting it right’’ for America’s veterans and 

their families. 

The legislation considered by the committee today is focused on fixing some of the 

budgetary concerns related to the VA, and helping to achieve that goal of forward 

thinking, sufficient, timely and predictable funding for veterans’ programs. 

H.R. 806: 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to make permanent the requirement for annual reports on Comptroller General reviews of the accuracy of Department of Veterans Affairs medical budget submissions, and for other purposes. 

This legislation makes permanent a current requirement for the Comptroller General to review the accuracy of the Medical Care Budget Submission, as it relates 

to the Baseline Health Care Model Projection. The review is to be submitted to the 

House and Senate Committees on Veterans’ Affairs, as well as the House and Senate Appropriations committees, and the Committee on the Budget of the House of 

Representatives not later than 120 days after the submission of the President’s 

budget. 

As a resolution based organization that derives its operational mandate from resolutions passed by membership in regular meetings, The American Legion has no 

resolution respective to oversight of the VA budget submissions by the Comptroller 

General. 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

42 

1 Resolution No. 313: Support Budget Reform of Annual Appropriations for the Department 

of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care Funding 2 Resolution No. 180: Assured Funding for VA Medical Care 

The American Legion has no position on this legislation. 

H.R. 813: Putting Veterans Funding First Act of 2013 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for advance appropriations for 

certain discretionary accounts of the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

When Congress passed the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act in 2009, the intent was quite clear: ensure sufficient, timely and predictable funding to care for those who have worn the nation’s uniform. The key improvement was the authorization of Congress to approve investments in medical 

care for veterans one year in advance to allow VA to more effectively plan for the 

future and ensure veterans would get the quality medical care they have earned. 

Supported by resolution 1, The American Legion worked closely with Congress, and 

this Committee, to ensure that this legislation passed. 

This goal is still as vital and important as it was four years ago and The American Legion certainly supports assured funding for VA through resolution 2. Daily 

news stories about the backlog of disability claims, and the inability of VA and the 

Department of Defense (DOD) to come together on plans for a joint electronic health 

record, have made it clear that veterans’ health care is not the only component of 

the budget that needs to benefit from advance appropriations. 

Through American Legion analysis, and close working projects regarding VA programs, we now recognize that many other key VA accounts, such as the Information 

and Technology (IT) accounts; necessary to provide long term planning as VA struggles to implement technology goals, like a fully electronic operating environment to 

help tame the claims backlog, or; the ability to transmit health records back and 

forth with the DoD, would benefit from advance appropriations. The Major and 

Minor Construction budgets would also benefit from a longer range planning window, to better understand and project how VA will meet their growing infrastructure needs, even though they have routinely slashed funding for construction over 

the past several years. 

The American Legion worked closely with the Veterans Benefits Administration 

(VBA) as they grappled with turning the tide of a massive claims backlog through 

the looming threat of sequestration, which held future planning hostage for nearly 

a year until the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was able to render their 

report. And, as many of the committee members here remember, it took much 

hounding from this committee, the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs, and Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs), including The American Legion, to ensure that 

the main VBA programs be exempt from sequestration. That looming threat was potentially devastating to the long term planning needs of VBA employees seeking to 

tame the massive backlog. Just as VBA was attempting to implement a major IT 

infrastructure change with the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS), 

planners were facing down an uncertain future because only the already-protected 

medical care budgets had the certainty of advanced appropriations to enable long 

range planning. 

Through the work of the 2,600 American Legion Accredited Veteran Service Officers, our 10 years of System Worth Saving reports that have chronicled a decade 

of VA healthcare and services, and the hundreds of programs facilitated through 

thousands of American Legion posts working on behalf of veterans nationwide, 

every day, The American Legion has the ability and resources to assess firsthand 

the importance of safeguarding the important initiatives rolling out to meet the 

needs of America’s veterans. We want this committee to know that we are adamant 

about protecting these vital services; whether they are in place to serve our recently 

returning service members who are coming back from fighting two grueling wars 

in Iraq and Afghanistan, or our Vietnam era veterans facing retirement, or World 

War II and Korean war veterans facing the decisions revolving around elder care. 

Finally, the VA budgets need to properly reflect the long term planning necessary 

to meet expansions of the National Cemetery system, the VBMS and electronic 

record projects which affect VBA, VHA and IT, as well as ongoing Office of the Inspector General (IG) oversight. These programs, and our veterans, deserve the same 

benefit of a long term planning window that the medical care accounts enjoy. 

The American Legion strongly supports the expansion of advanced appropriations 

to all discretionary accounts of the Department of Veterans Affairs. Assured funding 

that supports long term planning is essential to preventing future backlogs, future 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER

43 

3Statement of William F. Schrier, Department of Washington on behalf of The American Legion before the Committee on Veterans Affairs, United States Senate, February 29, 2012 

breakdowns in benefits delivery and the smooth IT structure required for seamless 

transition. 

The American Legion supports the passage of H.R. 813. 

Draft Legislation: Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Planning Reform 

Act of 2013 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

to submit to Congress a Future-Years Veterans Program and a quadrennial veterans 

review, to establish in the Department of Veterans Affairs a Chief Strategy Officer, 

and for other purposes. 

This legislation, broad in scope, seeks to formalize planning procedures and develop tools for use, both within VA and by outside but vital stakeholders such as 

Congress and VSOs, to determine whether VA budgeting is on track to meet their 

goals and deliver benefits and services to the nation’s veterans. The intention of the 

legislation is admirable, as more transparency and access to more data is helpful 

for all stakeholders to ensure VA is moving forward in the direction that will best 

meet the needs of veterans. As The American Legion is a resolution based, grass 

roots organization that derives our operational mandate from our combined membership in the form of resolutions passed at regular meetings, and the resolutions 

are silent on the structural changes this legislation would impose, we cannot support or oppose this legislation. However the very important concepts outlined in this 

legislation merit discussion on a section by section basis, and the following points 

should be considered if this legislation moves forward. 

Section I: Simply outlines the title 

Section II: 

Future-Years Program: This section outlines the mission for VA to create a ‘‘Future-Years Veterans Program’’ to coincide with the annual budget submission. The 

Future-Years program would be similar to the budget, but would also cover expected 

expenses over a five year period. The first two years of the Future-Years program 

would exactly mirror the budget submission (which presumably would cover two 

years in anticipation of advanced appropriations) but would also contain out year 

projections to meet the goals of VA in seeing to the needs of the nation’s veterans. 

This process potentially could be useful to outside observers, as if VA were to suddenly lower funding from a key project in one year’s budget, and not reflect a down 

the road increase, it would immediately raise red flags as to how they still intended 

to meet the outcome down the road with drastically reduced funding. 

Furthermore, by comparing the Future-Year plans from year to year, within a 

brief period, any budgetary legerdemain would presumably become glaringly obvious. An example of this type of behavior can be seen with recent underfunding of 

VA’s Construction budgets. Despite the fact that VA has a Strategic Capital Investment Planning (SCIP) program to determine long term construction needs, the 

budget request for Major and Minor Construction over the past few years were low. 

As noted by past National Vice Commander of The American Legion William 

Schrier before the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee 3, VA’s SCIP plan called for 

$65 billion in projects over the next ten years, which should have amortized to approximately $6.5 billion a year in construction costs, yet VA’s own ask was less than 

$2 billion. This glimpse into the longer term picture was what prompted The American Legion to push for more funding for Construction so VA would not fall behind 

their SCIP program needs. Sadly, the budget was not increased, but perhaps with 

better tools to see the discrepancies, Congress will also be able to recognize these 

shortfalls and help adjust VA’s budget upwards when critical goals are in danger 

of not being met. 

Quadrennial Veterans Review: This would require, starting in Fiscal Year 

(FY) 2017 and every four years thereafter, a review of the commitments of the 

United States to veterans and a determination of what resources are necessary to 

deliver on those commitments. This review would be comprehensive in scope, would 

examine all policies and strategies, and would require consultation not only within 

the Department, but with other governmental bodies, as well as State and local governments, tribal officials, private sector and academic concerns, and importantly 

members of VSOs. 

Herein lies a major concern of The American Legion, as the full role of VSOs is 

not clearly delineated, and it is unclear what is meant by re-examining the commitVACREP180 with DISTILLER

44 

4 Resolution 178: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Disability Compensation, AUG 2012 

ments of the United States to veterans. In certain cycles, when the blood sacrifices 

of our nation’s veterans are less prominent on the nightly news, there are forces 

that rise to question why we provide compensation to our veterans. Though the devastating effects of exposure to the chemical defoliant Agent Orange were only 

brought to light by the tireless efforts of advocates like The American Legion, there 

are those who would roll back the clock on hard fought gains for those Vietnam veterans who have suffered devastating effects and terrible disabilities because of exposure. When the eyes of the nation are not squarely on the wounded veterans, there 

are those would question the entire system of VA disability. 

The rise of such attitudes and how they might factor in to ‘‘a re-examination of 

the commitments of the United States to its veterans’’ is deeply troubling to The 

American Legion. The American Legion strongly opposes any administrative or legislative proposals to dilute or eliminate any provision of the disability compensation 

program 4. In order to ensure the voice of those most important to an overview of 

VA commitments, the veterans who would be affected, is not lost there would have 

to be clearer direction about the nature of VSO involvement in the evaluation process. 

Already VSOs contribute greatly to the tools Congress and VA have at their disposal to evaluate the effectiveness of VA programs. The American Legion provides 

annual ‘‘System Worth Saving’’ reports on the effectiveness of health care delivery 

in the VHA system, as well as ‘‘Regional Office Action Review’’ assessments of VBA 

claims processing. VSOs are clear experts in VA programs, and their essential role 

in the evaluation of VA should be reflected. 

Section III: This section would designate a Chief Strategy Officer (CSO) for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The CSO would be a principal advisor to the Secretary, and would advise on long range strategic planning and the implications 

of such planning. This would include, but not be limited to, such tasks as cost 

estimation, integration of planning, analysis on the planning and programming 

phases of the new system, and developing and executing the Future-Years Program. This would be done to give this new system appropriate heft and weight 

within the Department, and ensure the work of planning the future programs 

was not circumvented by other concerns. 

Section IV: This section provides for a study on the functions and organizational 

structure of the office of the Secretary of Veterans Affairs and of VA in general. 

As with any major change in scope to an organization’s long range planning 

mechanisms, a study of the existing systems in place is warranted. The study 

mandated by this legislation will take place no later than one year after the enactment of the legislation. 

Overall, the importance of ensuring VA has proper tools in place for long range 

strategic planning is something The American Legion supports, even if the mechanism is still under consideration. We are continuing to study and evaluate the matter, and are working with our membership and leadership to analyze the legislation 

as it evolves to develop a position that reflects what is best for the veterans of 

America. We appreciate the Ranking Member’s diligence and attention to VA’s resources in bringing the legislation forward, and hope to continue to work with Mr. 

Michaud and the committee to ensure the best outcome for America’s veterans. 

Because The American Legion is a resolution based organization with 

two and a half million voting members, we have not had sufficient time to 

thoroughly review all of the components of this legislation, and plan to do 

so at our annual convention in Houston, Texas August 27th – 29th, and 

therefore has no position on the draft legislation at this time. 

Æ 

VACREP180 with DISTILLER