Hearing

before the

Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs

House of Representatives

one hundred ninth congress

second session

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Serial No. 109-63

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

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

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

u.s. government printing office

washington : 2007

REVIEW PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR

AND LOOK AHEAD TO THE UPCOMING

YEAR — HEARING I

SEPTEMBER 20, 2006

30-382.PDF
Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Steve Buyer, Indiana, Chairman

Michael Bilirakis, Florida Lane Evans, Illinois, Ranking

Terry Everett, Alabama Bob Filner, California

Cliff Stearns, Florida Luis V. Gutierrez, Illinois

dan burton, Indiana Corrine Brown, Florida

Jerry Moran, Kansas Vic Snyder, Arkansas

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

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

Jeff Miller, Florida Dakota

John Boozman, Arkansas Ted Strickland, Ohio

Jeb Bradley, New Hampshire Darlene Hooley, Oregon

Ginny Brown-Waite, Florida Silvestre Reyes, Texas

Michael R. Turner, Ohio Shelley Berkley, Nevada

John Campbell, California Tom Udall, New Mexico

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California John T. Salazar, Colorado

JAMES M. LARIVIERE, Staff Director

(II)
CONTENTS

September 20, 2006

 Page

1

 1

69

4

73

78

79

81

82

86

91

92

18

108

50

153

43

137

10

93

47

145

Review Previous Fiscal Year and Look Ahead to the Upcoming 

Year – Hearing I ...............................................................

OPENING STATEMENTS

Chairman Buyer .........................................................................

Prepared statement of Chairman Buyer ...................................

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

Prepared statement of Mr. Filner ..............................................

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD

Hon. Corrine Brown ....................................................................

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

Hon. Ginny Brown-Waite ............................................................

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

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

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

Hon. Tom Udall ...........................................................................

Witnesses

Barton, Bradley S., National Commander, Disabled American 

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

Prepared statement of Mr. Barton .............................................

Davis, John R., Director, Legislative Programs, Fleet Reserve 

Association ...............................................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Davis ...............................................

Irvin, Louis, Executive Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America ..............................................................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Irvin ................................................

Kurpus, Gary, Commander-in-Chief, Veterans of Foreign Wars 

of the United States ................................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Kurpus ............................................

Lee, Rose Elizabeth, Chair, Government Relations Committee, 

Gold Star Wives of America, Inc. ...........................................

Prepared statement of Ms. Lee ..................................................

(III)
15

101

58

169

24

124

40

133

54

164

21

115

Witnesses (continued) 

McGriff, Tom National Commander, AMVETS ........................

Prepared statement of Mr. McGriff ...........................................

Morin, Paul A., National Commander, American Legion ........

Prepared statement of Mr. Morin ..............................................

Overstreet, Sgt. Maj. H. Gene, USMC (Ret.), Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States ...................

Prepared statement of Sgt. Maj. Overstreet ..............................

Poulter, Tom, National Commander, Military Order of the Purple Heart of the U.S.A., Inc. ...................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Poulter ............................................

Rowan, John, National President, Vietnam Veterans of America ..............................................................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Rowan .............................................

Zampieri, Thomas, Ph.D., Director of Government Relations, 

Blinded Veterans Association .................................................

Prepared statement of Dr. Zampieri ..........................................

Page

(IV)
(1)

REVIEW PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR AND LOOK AHEAD TO 

THE UPCOMING YEAR — HEARING I

Wednesday, SEPTEMBER 20, 2006

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs,

Washington, D.C.

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

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

the Committee] presiding.

  Present: Representatives Buyer, Brown of South Carolina, Miller, Bradley, Brown-Waite, Filner, Snyder, Michaud, Herseth, Berkley, Salazar.

The Chairman. Good morning. I would like to welcome everyone 

here this morning. Get the doors for me, thank you.

 By way of housekeeping, between 10:45 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., there 

will be a question of consideration, so it looks like we will have one 

15-minute vote. After this vote, we will then move to approximately 

one hour of debate on the rule, the Federal Election Integrity Act of 

2006. That will occur approximately between 12:15 and 12:45, and 

would be the second series of votes. Just to let everyone know.

 I would like to welcome the new commanders here. You are beginning a year of well-earned opportunity after many years of faithfully 

serving veterans within your organization. I look forward to a constructive and positive year ahead.

 Last November, after meeting with your organizations at Carlisle 

Barracks, just north of the Gettysburg Battlefield, I announced a decision to enhance the way the Committee develops its budget views 

and estimates.

 This decision was to reform the way we gather the views of veterans’ service organizations and military service organizations. Your 

members have a great store of invaluable insights that deserve even 

greater consideration.

 As a Subcommittee Chairman, I saw myself how the process of 
2

hearings held after we had submitted our views and estimates for the 

VA to the Budget Committee had effectively, for years, silenced your 

voice by positioning the testimony of VSOs and MSOs after the fact. 

The status quo I didn’t believe was working for veterans, because it 

made you a critic after the fact, so we changed that process.

Last February, before we developed the fiscal year 2007 views and 

estimates, the Committee heard from 19 VSOs and MSOs, some of 

whom we had not heard from before. And it was powerful. It represented a significant increase in access to this Committee at a key 

point in the budget cycle.

 When I discussed accelerating these budget and legislative hearings into February, I also said that we wanted to meet again in September to review the fiscal year just ending and to look forward to 

the next year. The timing of a September hearing is auspicious because the administration is now beginning to develop its next year 

budget request. I compliment the former American Legion National 

Commander, Tom Bock, because he championed to me the Legion’s 

approach—that the American Legion felt that they had separated 

themselves from other veterans groups by presenting their information to the Committee in the fall, as the administration was developing its request. That approach made a lot of sense, and we have 

adapted and augmented it.

 The Armed Services Committee receives the testimony from the 

Chairman and the Joint Chiefs in the spring, prior to budget views 

and estimates, and then they bring back the Chairman and the Joint 

Chiefs in the fall, for a look-back/look-ahead. And I think adapting 

that same process will be very important.

 As we look at the budget cycle, you can see that we have opened 

up this access to the congressional and the administration’s budget 

process at uniquely responsive points in the cycle. So, what we have 

today is the opening of the Fiscal Year 2008 budget process.

 This is a war budget. The country is at war and faces severe demands on its fiscal resources. Yet this is also a budget cycle that 

reflects a decade of unprecedented growth and support for veterans. 

The VA budget has nearly doubled in ten years. Reflecting that support, VA has earned a reputation for high-quality health care.

I can also recall, when I first arrived here in Congress, in 1993 and 

1994, there were flat-line budgets in the VA, and I can also recall 

some horrific cases where appropriators took money out of the VA to 

fund other domestic programs. We have not seen that in the last 12 

years. A nearly doubled budget, and quality product do not, however, 

mean there are not significant challenges.

 The VA Secretary before this Committee took ownership of the 

budgetary process that we exposed had flaws in the inputs within 

the modeling. It was reflected in his strong fiscal year 2007 funding. 

Yet, a perennial challenge to us is the ghost population that moves 
3

in and out of the VA health care system. Sometimes using the VA, 

sometimes opting for TRICARE, sometimes using their HMO, they 

move in and out of the systems.

 Simply plugging a few numbers into a capitation spreadsheet does 

not address this type of complexity. Discretionary funding gives us 

the responsiveness to do correctly that which is hard; that which is 

difficult, but which must be done right.

Comparatively, a quote, “assured,” or mandatory health care funding model, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would cost 

nearly a half a trillion dollars over ten years—half a trillion. That 

would be a costly experiment. In contrast, the strong discretionary 

budgets of the past decade, have proven responsive to change. With 

strong funding, we should expect good programs.

Yet, the seamless transition of servicemembers entering the VA system is still not where it should he. Last month, Secretary Nicholson, Chairman Boozman, Mr. Salazar and I went to Kuwait, Iraq and 

Germany to assess the continuum of health care from the medic, or a 

Navy corpsman, all the way to level 4 medical facility. We were impressed by the quality of care and the total integration and teamwork 

within the armed services.

 Yet, between DoD and VA we still have a gap. Wounded GIs arriving at Landstuhl Medical Center minutes after we arrived had paper 

medical records on their chests. Largely because of the Pentagon’s 

foot-dragging, the VA and DoD still do not have a truly interoperable 

system of electronic medical records. That is not seamless, and we 

can do better.

 The recent theft of personal data belonging to millions of veterans 

has shown the utter necessity that VA and every government agency 

with sensitive data must have centralized management over information technology, information policy, and information security. IT

is the organization’s central nervous system.

 I appreciate the work of Mr. Filner, and all members of this Committee in the many hearings that we held, exposing part of the problems. But we have also moved toward a solution, and I want to thank 

the bipartisan work this Committee had done.

 I appreciate those of you who worked also with us on this issue, 

and I am also disappointed with those who said that it was too hard, 

and it was outside of their lane. Because we all have to accept, in this 

one.

 And with regard to the organizations, if you are outraged by the 

lapses in security and unnecessary risks to your members and our 

veterans, then join with me in dislodging the status quo and doing 

the right thing for our veterans.

 Many of you also cited the disability claims backlog in your written 

testimony. This issue is the elephant in the room. The total backlog exceeds 800,000 and is climbing. I compliment the Task Force 
4

on Accountability that I formed. I will be meeting with them here 

within the next 10 days. Some of your organizations are members of 

this task force. I formed this task force to examine issues across the 

VA—not just VBA—that can improve the claims process. Timely and 

accurate claims decisions are as important to America’s veterans as 

the delivery of high-quality care.

 Some, though, think that if we bring lawyers into the process that 

it will solve the problem. I am apprehensive, but I want to be a good 

listener, and I want to hear from all of you on that issue, because 

the Senate has passed the measure, and have given it a top priority 

for us as we negotiate these bills here. And so Mr. Filner and I, and 

members of the Committee, need to hear your views.

 So ladies and gentlemen, these issues are not going away. They 

are at the heart, and my top three priorities as Chairman right now, 

are number one, caring for veterans who have the service-connected 

disabilities, those with special needs, and the indigent; two, ensuring 

a seamless transition from military service to the VA. It is a very 

encompassing issue. And I agree with the VFW’s testimony. It is a 

lot more than just computer systems. And third, providing veterans 

every opportunity to live full and healthy lives.

 These are my top priorities, and I look forward to hearing yours.

 Before we begin, on behalf of the Committee’s members and staff, 

I extend appreciation for the enduring contributions made by your 

membership, your auxiliaries and your families. You make a great 

difference in the tone and tenor of our own country. We are at war 

in two theaters and still have responsibilities globally. Our men and 

women in uniform are performing their duty magnificently. They 

are coming home with the simple expectation that we will be there 

for them. It is up to all of us to help these returning servicemembers 

transition back into civilian life.

 The VA has its structure, but personal contact, which is your 

strength, plays a tremendous role. When you put your arm around 

the young lance corporal just back from—you name the province, 

name the country—you are also at the tip of the spear, and you can 

help them in many ways. The intangible is also equally as important 

as the tangible. So I want to thank you.

[The statement of Mr. Buyer appears on p. 69]

The Chairman. I now recognize Mr. Evans. If he has an opening 

statement, it will be submitted into the record. I now recognize the 

acting Ranking Member, Mr. Filner, for his statement.

Mr. Filner. Thank you Mr. Chairman, and I ask to put my full 

statement in the record.

The Chairman. No objection. So ordered.

Mr. Filner. And I do associate myself with your comments on this 

Committee’s work, and hopefully the Congress’s work on cyber secu-
5

rity in the VA. We had millions of veterans worried and scared, about 

what would happen, and I think we came out with a better policy at 

the end. I hope the House and the Senate will act on it.

 However, I cannot associate myself with remarks on the role of 

the VSOs in that process. I am glad you are here today. Better late 

than never. The Chairman said the timing is “auspicious” that you 

are here. Well, it is auspicious because all your members are not here 

with you, which, during the joint hearings that we have had for many, 

many years, people felt a part of the process, and your membership is 

now not part of the process.

 We are also at a very inauspicious time. We haven’t passed this 

year’s budget, the coming fiscal year’s budget yet for the Nation. So, 

to hear your views on next year, when nobody here is thinking about 

the budget process next year, is not at all timely. The enhancement 

that you would bring is by being involved at the beginning, middle, 

and end of the process; not at some strange time when Members are 

not thinking of next year’s budget. 

 You ought to have a chance for your membership to see this Committee in action. That is what democracy is all about. We should 

work with you to make the scheduling changes, so you have a larger 

impact, and have your members here with you.

 What troubles me right now about our process, aside from the way 

you were excluded from it, is that you have to trudge up here at any 

time of the year, hat in hand, begging for money. I am sure I am not 

the only one who finds this is not just ironic but shameful. It is long 

past time to place all veterans’ funding where it belongs, in the mandatory category, so that each year the Department of Veterans Affairs knows how much it will have and can forecast and plan better.

 More importantly, veterans of all generations can have greater assurance that their health care will be there when they need it. The 

Chairman called it, the “war budget.” Yes, we are at war, and taking 

care of our veterans is part of the cost of war, and should be included 

in any war budget.

 A bill written by Lane Evans, of which many of us are proud cosponsors, would provide funding to meet increased medical inflation 

and responsive to enrollment numbers. And those numbers should 

include all eligible veterans. We must bring back into the VA health 

care fold those veterans whom this administration is now barring. 

It is more than a quarter million, so far, many of whom are combat 

decorated, who have health problems deemed unrelated to their service, and who might be unable to afford private health care. They too 

deserve to use the system established for veterans and shouldn’t be 

excluded simply because they make a modest or even higher income. 

When they took the oath, we didn’t ask how much money they made. 

Their good health shouldn’t be incumbent upon some arbitrary income level now.
6

Congress intended that the authority to deny enrollment to certain 

veterans be used as a temporary management tool for the Secretary, 

for a single budget cycle, not to be perpetual as this administration 

seems to intend.

 The assurances that come with mandatory funding would be in 

stark contrast to the embarrassing charade we call the budget process today, and to the current system of care, under which this administration is not dropping its effort to make veterans pay more 

for their care, rather than asking for needed resources. It makes 

thousands wait longer than they should for clinical appointments. It 

is failing to appropriately address the mental health requirements of 

servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as past 

generations of veterans, thumbing its nose at the statutory requirements of long-term care and the needs of our older veterans.

 The administration has also sought cuts in traumatic brain injury 

care at the height of a war that is producing more brain-injured veterans than ever before. And we are failing to commit adequate staff 

and resources to the counseling programs.

 All this, as I said previously, as the VA has turned away a quarter 

million veterans who wanted to enroll.

The supplemental request last year illustrated just how flawed the 

process is. VA had to request around $3 billion more to cover expenses not in the 2005 and 2006 budgets that we passed. The Secretary 

told us, in this hearing room, that the reason that they messed up is 

because their formulas did not take into account that we had a war 

going on.

 The Independent Budget, which many of you are involved in, knew 

exactly what the figure ought to be, knew what the administration 

should have given, and what the Congress failed to make up for. And 

today, we have the VA rightfully touted in many ways for the exceptional quality of its clinical care and use of technology. It has come a 

long way from some of the stereotypical images of the ‘60s or ‘70s, of 

many patients waiting and dirty wards, receiving substandard care 

from uncaring providers.

 It is now on the cutting edge of health care in this country and in 

the world, and that is very commendable. But that system should 

not have delayed care, rationing of care, or any problems with access 

or quality. We do have the resources as a Nation to adequately fund 

health care for those who have borne the battle and have given us 

our freedom.

 I am pleased that virtually all the organizations here today support the passage of mandatory funding for veterans’ health care, and 

I can assure you that we will continue to press for this in the next 

Congress.

 Let me just say one word on the so-called “core veteran issue.” I

don’t know if that is the same “ghost population” that Mr. Buyer re-
7

ferred to, but some have claimed that there are two classes of veterans: those that are core veterans and others. Sure, there are veterans that have a greater need for VA services and should have a 

higher priority. We will always keep that in mind and fight for that. 

But all veterans should have access to VA health care. A veteran who 

scaled the cliffs of Normandy, or who walked point in the jungles of 

Vietnam, or who endured the frozen reservoirs of Korea, or served 

in the Persian Gulf and was fortunate enough not to be wounded or 

disabled is just as much a veteran as any other veteran, even if his 

health care needs are not as a result of that service, and no matter 

what their income is. That veteran deserves access to our health care 

system, and we—certainly on this side—will fight for that.

 There are a lot of other issues that you are going to talk about today. I have referred to them in my longer statement that is part of 

the record. Let me make just one last comment.

 We have an administration that says “support our troops,” “support 

our troops,” and we all do. Supporting of troops means to support 

them when they come home, also. Right now, in my medical center 

in San Diego, we have almost a thousand veterans on a waiting list. 

If you come home from Iraq and Afghanistan, you may wait a year 

for a dentist or some other specialty treatment. If you have PTSD, 

you may have not recognized it, DoD may not have recognized it, VA

hasn’t recognized it, the family hasn’t recognized it, and we are going 

through the same process of having veterans with mental scars that 

are not treated, as we did with Vietnam.

 We have veterans coming back with PTSD, their families not understanding it, family violence, domestic quarrels, drinking, drug 

abuse, loss of jobs, homelessness, suicides. Hundreds of suicides of 

those coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan. That is a tragedy. We 

should never have allowed the Vietnam vets not to be properly cared 

for, and we still have a chance to rectify that mistake, no matter how 

long ago it was, but we are repeating the same error today.

 Our budget is $80 billion for the VA. Our national budget is $3 trillion. Our debt is $8 trillion. We have enough money in this country 

to care for all of those who have returned from battle, whether it is 

from Iraq, Afghanistan, or World War II. Let us do the job right.

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The statement of Mr. Filner appears on p. 73]

The Chairman. Thank you. All members who have an opening 

statement may submit it for the record.

 Today, we will hear from several commanders, presidents, and representatives of veterans’ service organizations. First, representing 

the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States is the Commander-in-chief, Gary Kurpius. Did I get it right, Commander?

Mr. Kurpius. Yes, thank you.
8

The Chairman. Commander Kurpius was elected in August 31, 

2006, at the VFW’s 107th National convention. He is the first member to be elected to this office from the state of Alaska. Commander 

Kurpius served the United States Army from 1967 to 1969. In Vietnam, he served with the 541st Transportation Company, providing 

convoy security throughout the central highlands. He was awarded 

the National Defense service medal, the Vietnam service medal with 

four bronze stars, and the Republic of Vietnam service medal.

 In 1970, Commander Kurpius joined VFW Post 1539 in Babbit, 

Minnesota, where he became a life member in 1976. He earned the 

title of All-American Post Commander in 1977, and in 1983 was 

named All-American District Commander.

Commander Kurpius transferred to VFW Post 9785 in Eagle River, Alaska in 1985, and is currently a life member of the VFW Post 

9365.

Congratulations on this appointment.

Mr. Kurpius. Thank you.

The Chairman. Representing AMVETS, the National Commander, Tom McGriff. Commander McGriff was elected National Commander of AMVETS on August 20, 2006, at the organization’s 62nd 

National convention in Reno, Nevada. He joined the United States 

Navy in 1959, and was assigned to the USS—I am not going to get 

this right—

Mr. McGriff. Tiru.

The Chairman. Say it again?

Mr. McGriff. Tiru.

The Chairman. Tiru. What is Tiru?

Mr. McGriff. Tiru is an extinct fish that swam the ocean.

The Chairman. Is a what?

Mr. McGriff. It is an extinct fish.

The Chairman. An extinct fish? But it tastes really good? All right. 

Dr. Snyder—all right, I will go with the doctor’s opinion. Wow, and 

this was a submarine?

Mr. McGriff. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. It didn’t bother any of you that you were on an extinct fish?

Mr. McGriff. All submarines at that period of time were named 

after fish.

Mr. Filner. Yes, but not after extinct fish.

The Chairman. Yeah, but what about extinct ones? Were you the 

only one that had that distinction?

Mr. McGriff. No, there were several. There were several.

The Chairman. Wow. Well, this was a World War II diesel-electronic submarine based in Pearl Harbor.

Mr. Filner. Also extinct.

The Chairman. Yeah, we don’t have those diesels anymore.
9

 He patrolled the coast of the Philippines, Hong Kong, and Japan, 

receiving the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal for his role in skirmishes in the disputed islands in the Taiwan Strait. Commander 

McGriff was subsequently assigned to the USS Ethan Allen, the 

Nation’s first-in-class Polaris submarine, which was armed with 16 

nuclear missiles.

 He is a life member of Post 76. He has held many leadership positions at National, state, and local levels of AMVETS. He joined 

AMVETS in 1991, after spending more than 30 years in the United 

States Navy. Congratulations.

Mr. McGriff. Thank you.

The Chairman. Speaking for the Disabled American Veterans is the 

new National Commander, Bradley S. Barton. Commander Barton, 

a native of Indiana, enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in 

1966. In 1968, while serving as a member of the third Battalion 26th 

Army regiment, the Battle of Keh Sanh during the Vietnam War, he 

was severely wounded when shrapnel from an enemy mortar severed 

his spinal cord.

 As results of his wounds, he was medically separated from the Marine Corps in August, 1968. Following his retirement, Commander 

Barton earned his BS degree from Indiana University in 1973, and 

his law degree from Indiana University in 1982. Commander Barton 

has also been very active in the DAV since joining the Indianapolis 

chapter three in 1975. He is a recipient of the DAV’s Department 

of Indiana Meritorious Occupation Achievement Award in 1979, and 

was named by Indiana governor’s Handicapped Hoosier of the Year 

for 1979.

 He is also a member of several other veterans’ organizations. Commander Barton is currently membership Chairman of the DAV Chapter one in Portland, Oregon, where he and his wife live.

 Testifying on behalf of National Commander of the Blind Veterans 

of America, Larry Belote, is Dr. Thomas Zampieri. Doctor served active duty as a medic in the United States Army in 1972 to 1975. Upon 

completing physician assistant training, he served from September 

1978 to August 2000 as an Army National Guard physician assistant, 

retiring as major.

 During this time, he was involved in several military training programs and schools, and is currently employed as the National director of government relations at BVA. He was awarded his Ph.D. in 

political science from Lacrosse University earlier this year. So congratulations.

Representing the Noncommissioned Officers Association of United 

States of America is Sergeant Gene Overstreet, NCOA’s President. 

Sgt. Maj. Overstreet entered the Marine Corps in June 1966. He 

served with the third Marine division in Vietnam. Sgt. Maj. Overstreet also served as the Marine Corps recruit Depot in San Diego as 
10

a junior drill instructor, senior drill instructor, series gunnery Sergeant, and chief instructor.

 Reassigned to drill instructor school, he was an instructor, drill 

master, and chief instructor. He was later selected as the twelfth 

Sergeant Major in the Marine Corps in April 1991, and assumed the 

post on June 28, 1991. Sgt. Maj. Overstreet retired from the Marine 

Corps June 1995. He joined NCOA as vice president, membership 

recruiting, on May 1st, 2001, and accepted the position as president 

August 22 of 2003.

 Welcome to all of you. Before we begin, we would like to— do all of 

you have written testimony?

[All nod their head in the affirmative.]

 Do you submit that written testimony into the record?

All acknowledge in the affirmative. Without objection, it will be 

received in the record. So ordered.

 On procedural rules, each of you will have 10 minutes to present 

your testimony. I will give you great latitude to get that in. And in 

fairness, recognize others also are seeking to testify here today. So 

when you see the light go off, just you will know what to do, and try 

to wrap up your statement. And then membership will serve under 

the five- minute rule.

 The VFW Commander, welcome, and you are recognized.

STATEMENTS OF GARY KURPIUS, COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, 

VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES; 

TOM MCGRIFF, NATIONAL COMMANDER, AMVETS; 

BRADLEY S. BARTON, NATIONAL COMMANDER, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS; TOM ZAMPIERI, PH.D., 

DIRECTOR OF GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, BLINDED 

VETERANS ASSOCIATION; SGT. MAJ. H. GENE OVERSTREET, USMC (RET.), PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NON COMMISSIONED OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA

STATEMENT OF GARY KURPIUS

Mr. Kurpius. Thank you, Mr. Chairman Buyer, Ranking Member 

Filner, distinct members of this Committee.

 As this Nation’s largest organization of combat veterans, the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S. is dedicated to helping one another, 

working as a team, and doing what is right for all who have worn the 

uniform in the past, as well as for all who proudly wear it today.

I have charged the VFW with a mission of putting veterans first. It 

is a mission you well understand. This Veterans Affairs Committee is 

the only Congressional Committee with a distinct constituency. You 

serve not the government or private business, but actual men and 
11

women, men and women who bravely served this country, protecting 

everything that America stands for. It is an important mission. It is 

a sacred mission. It is one that must be taken seriously.

 Looking back over the last year, I see many good things, but there 

have also been some huge bumps in the road. First, let us look at the 

good. After the funding problems of the previous fiscal year, in which 

VA ran out of money due to poor budgetary modeling, the administration stepped forward and recommended a sufficient amount of money 

for veterans’ programs.

 Also, as your Committee formulated the budget recommendations, 

we were pleased that you listened to what we had to say. You used 

our funding levels from the Independent Budget as part of your baseline. We didn’t get everything that we wanted, but it was a very good 

step, and we appreciate the serious consideration you gave to our 

views and your demonstrated commitment in moving them forward.

 Despite the Committee’s and Administration’s attention, VA still 

does not have its budget for a fiscal year that begins in a few days. 

This unfortunately is nothing out of the ordinary. It has been the 

better part of a decade since VA has had a budget on time. This is a 

major and continuous failure of Congress.

 Mr. Chairman, you rightly want VA to operate more like a business, using best practices to efficiently care for veterans in a cost-effective way. Yet, how is VA to operate that way when the managers 

can’t properly plan for the coming year? No business, let alone one 

as large as the VA, can function without knowing their budget. Yet 

year after year, Congress asks VA to do that. That is directly at odds 

with how all of us want the VA to operate.

 We have in the past called for changes to VA funding mechanism. 

The discretionary process as currently implemented does not work 

the way it should. How can we accept that? If this Congress is going to fail to live up to its obligation to provide VA sufficient money 

on time, then we need to modify the current funding process. One of 

the highest priorities of the VFW is the health care and well-being 

of those men and women returning from conflicts overseas. While 

the battles are ongoing, the actual individuals fighting are constantly 

changing, and each day sees the creation of hundreds of new veterans. We have long argued that their care is part of the ongoing cost 

of war. That fulfillment of that cost—a National obligation—is what 

this Committee is charged with overseeing.

 One of the VFW’s greatest concerns is the mental health of these returning servicemembers, and the effects it can have on their families. 

VA claims that they are making substantial progress in this area, 

but it is something that needs to be continuously monitored. Making 

sure that these men and women get the counseling and services they 

need to transition back into society and to lead productive lives has 

a big up-front cost, but it is something that, if left unchecked, will 
12

create many more problems down the road. Many of these problems, 

such as homelessness or mental illness, are things that no veteran 

should suffer from, especially because we can tackle it today.

 Another important area that deserves increased attention is care 

related to blast injuries. We must redouble our efforts in prosthetic 

research and servicing, and also on VA polytrauma centers.

 We also strongly believe that more research and time must be spent 

on traumatic brain injuries. We must learn more about these injuries 

and be mindful that some of these symptoms might not appear immediately. We must be attuned to any long-term physical or mental 

impairments that these blasts create. We must give these servicemen and women every tool they need to heal and become whole.

 That the VFW can come before this Committee year after year after year, emphasizing the need for a seamless transition is a disappointment. I am not sure that we can even point to signs of progress. 

What is being done? Where are the roadblocks? Mr. Chairman, We 

need you, using the oversight powers of this Committee, to give us 

answers to these questions. We know that you share our frustration, 

and we urge you to make this a priority for the coming year.

 What we are asking for, though, isn’t just the mere ability of VA

computers being able to speak to DoD’s computers. That is certainly 

an essential part, but it is more about giving these men and women a 

hand, and a seamless transition back into a productive society, with 

the skills and training they need to be the leaders of tomorrow. That 

is going to require emphasis on education and training for real-world 

jobs.

 At a hearing earlier this year, I am told that you offered to look 

into improving the benefits provided under the Montgomery GI Bill, 

but as of today, nothing has been passed into law. As we look ahead, 

it is important that we focus on the benefits being provided to our 

reservists, especially as they continue to carry a large share of the 

burden of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. These men and women 

are fighting as Active Duty troops. We need to give them a benefit 

that recognizes their contributions by allowing them to take their 

MGIB benefits with them when they separate. In this regard, we 

applaud your introduction of H.R. 6096, the Disabled War Families 

Education Act of 2006.

 Another important area that is integral to a seamless transition 

is an effective vocational rehabilitation office. The influx in servicedisabled veterans creates new challenges, especially when it comes to 

vocational rehabilitation and employment. A truly effective program 

will be focused on a goal of avoiding disability-related unemployability later in life, and that will allow the disabled veteran to build a 

career to provide for him or her as well as the veteran’s family. We 

envision a program that will create skills that will help these heroes 

who have sacrificed body and mind, to overcome these obstacles over 
13

a lifetime of employment, not just to launch them with a few years 

of jobs.

 Unfortunately, I must turn to an issue which has taken up much 

of this Committee’s time, and which is of utmost concern for our 2.4 

million members. The recent failure of VA to adequately secure veterans’ sensitive financial and medical data is disgraceful. To say that 

we are disappointed with the leadership of VA is an understatement. 

It is especially distressing for our servicemembers fighting overseas 

to know that they and their families may be financially harmed because of mishandling of sensitive personal data. The last thing they 

need to be worrying about on the battlefield is if their families are 

going to be okay, and if their credit is going to be ruined by a bunch 

of thieves. This is why we are very disturbed by the withdrawal of 

the Administration’s offer to provide one year of credit monitoring 

services. It is outrageous that the government would not err on the 

side of caution with potentially 27 million veterans and family members at risk, and a litany of data breaches coming to light. We of the 

VFW are most gratified with how seriously this Committee has taken 

the problem, and that your series of hearings have focused on getting 

to the root of the problem and providing permanent solutions. We 

would urge that you not relent in this most important effort. Looking 

forward, VA needs flexibility, the ability to adapt and change as technology transforms. This Committee clearly needs to exercise rigorous 

oversight of VA to ensure that these sorts of disgraceful problems do 

not occur in the future, but oversight does not automatically mean 

micromanagement.

 As we look forward, another major challenge confronting VA for the 

coming year, as has been the case for a number of years now, is the 

ineffective operation of the Veterans Benefits Administration. The 

claims backlog is a persistent problem, something my predecessors 

have highlighted every time they come before this Committee. That 

I can still sit here, citing an ever-growing number of cases highlights 

VA’s inability to develop and implement a proper plan to tackle this 

problem.

VFW witnesses have always stressed that VBA’s problem is, at its 

core, a problem with the quality of their decisions. By their own measurement, VBA commits serious errors on over 100,000 cases every 

year. These are not minor errors; they can affect the quality of the 

future lives of veterans and their families. VBA has no plan to address this problem, and we urge you to make it a focus of your oversight this year. Despite best efforts and intent, VA has been unable 

to manage its case load, and the backlog swells daily. As the number 

of pending claims increases, the difficulties of managing the backlog 

and implementing solutions increases.

VA tells us that it takes several years for a new employee to get up 

to speed with the adjudication process. There are many complexities 
14

and technicalities, which make immediate mastery difficult. Speed 

and accuracy come with practice. Yet, there is little continuity of 

funding within VBA.

 What is the goal to make VA better? What are the plans? It isn’t 

just enough to throw money at these issues, a sentiment I am sure 

you on this Committee share. But, the problems VA faces do, by and 

large, relate to funding. We’re not asking you to throw money into a 

pit. Instead, we ask for VA to be run efficiently with proper oversight. 

That is not too much to ask. Above all, veterans must come first.

 Before I conclude, I would like to discuss one related issue that is 

before your Committee, the Veterans Choice of Representation Act. 

This bill would allow veterans to hire lawyers when first filing a disability compensation claim, something that they’re prevented from 

doing now. At first blush this sounds like a great idea, but it is something that the VFW is greatly concerned with. In fact, at our recent 

National Convention, our membership voted in strong opposition to 

this proposal. Before embarking on the path which has brought me 

to this office, I served as a service officer in Alaska for over twenty 

years. It is a profoundly rewarding job, and one that I look back on 

with great fondness. There’s a lot of satisfaction in helping a disabled 

comrade get treatment and compensation for his or her injuries. I

fear that passage of this bill would dramatically change the non-adversarial relationship for the worse. The system, while not perfect, 

is intended to serve veterans sympathetically and efficiently at this 

initial level. This law, we fear, would result in less timely service 

of claims, and would provide program administrators with justification to ratchet back the service and assistance they provide, harming 

veterans who choose not to or cannot afford to spend money on a 

lawyer.

 The problem with the current system and the backlog is not because of the lack of legal representation, but because a lack of funding. The numbers we toss around for funding or case load aren’t just 

numbers. They are real people, people who have worn the uniform of 

this great Nation, their survivors and their dependents. It is sometimes hard to keep this fact in mind. That is exactly why I’ve charged 

my organization with putting “Veterans First.” Everything the VFW

does, and everything that this Committee undertakes must be done 

with this in mind.

 I challenged the great men and women of the VFW to put “Veterans First,” and I charge you with the same, for they are who we truly 

serve, and who we must put first in our hearts and priorities.

 Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today, and I will be 

happy to respond to any questions you may have.

[The statement of Gary Kurpius appears on p. 93]

The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony. That was 
15

our second bell. I will recess the Committee and we will return after 

this one vote to take up testimony. The Committee stand in recess 

for about 15 minutes.

[Recess.]

Mr. Miller. [Presiding] I call this hearing back to order, taking over 

the chair in the absence of the Chairman, who had to go to Energy 

and Commerce to make a vote. He will be back sometime a little 

later. We appreciate your indulgence, as we all had to go to a vote.

 Next up, AMVETS’ National Commander, Mr. Tom McGriff, the 

man who spent many a day aboard a submarine named after an extinct fish. You are recognized, sir.

STATEMENT OF TOM MCGRIFF

Mr. McGriff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee.

 Earlier this month, we paused to remember those who lost their 

lives on September 11th. The attacks against the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the failed attempt in Pennsylvania began a 

new era in American history. Since that horrible day, this Nation 

has been engaged in a different kind of war. When our troops return 

home with physical, psychological wounds, we have a great moral 

obligation to care for them.

I sincerely believe that an elected official has no greater duty than 

to provide for those who have bravely defended our Nation, and our 

freedoms. Mr. Chairman, the focus of today’s hearing is to look at 

what the Committee has accomplished this year, and look ahead to 

next year. We certainly thank the Committee for its work in passing measures aimed to restrict protest at military funerals, enhance 

servicemen’s life, provide veterans with a COLA, improve veterans’ 

housing, and strengthen the VA’s information technology, and other 

matters.

 But I think it is more important to look at where we are today and 

examine the areas that need to be improved. I will focus my remarks 

on four issues: assured funding, veterans’ mental health, the claims 

backlog, and the veterans’ attorney legislation.

 First with assured funding. Every time we send our young men 

and women into combat, we are asking them to make a huge sacrifice. 

Their lives and their health care are the real follow-up cost to any 

war. The VA budget for fiscal year 2007 was a step in the right direction, but it does not go far enough to meet the needs of all veterans. 

Members of Congress touted that this is the first year the Independent budget has been used to tabulate the VA’s budget.

 I ask why? The Independent budget has been in existence for over 

20 years, and has proven time and time again to be the most accurate 

estimate of VA’s funding requirements. If you are to be serious about 
16

meeting the needs of veterans, use the Independent budget figures in 

fiscal year 2008.

Veterans’ health care is an ongoing cost of war, and should be 

treated as such. Access to quality health care has been compromised 

by budget shortfalls, rising medical costs and a sharp increase in demand for services. The current discretionary funding formula pits 

VA against other agencies and billions in pork barrel projects. We 

believe the system needs to be fixed through assured funding.

Contrary to some beliefs, Congress would not lose oversight if assured funding was put in place. Congress would retain its supervision 

of VA programs and additionally, VA would still be held accountable 

for how its funds are being spent and how well its programs are managed. In fact, most Federal health care programs are funded through 

mandatory funding. Isn’t it only fair to put our Nation’s sick and 

disabled veterans on the same level as these other entitlements?

 Second, our veterans’ mental health services. Operation Enduring 

Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom have resulted in the deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops since 2002. Approximately 

one third of returning military personnel will need mental health 

treatment. For those who served in Iraq, 35 percent requested mental health services one year after deployment. We have learned from 

past conflicts that war has long-lasting psychological effects. But getting a handle on PTSD and other disorders is tremendously difficult. 

The effects vary for each person. Some never show symptoms, others 

show them immediately.

 Unfortunately, VA has had an uneven record of service to veterans 

with mental health needs. VHA must invest resources in programs 

that aid patients’ recovery rather than managing and treating symptoms. VA should develop a continuum of care that includes case management, rehabilitation, peer support, work therapy, and other support services with an over arching goal of recovery. Additionally, VA

must work hand-in-hand with DoD to help returning servicemembers 

get their mental health treatment.

 We applaud Congress for putting into place special safeguards to 

ensure VA gives priority to veterans with idle illnesses. But more 

needs to be done. I encourage this Committee to continue its efforts 

to help VA assist veterans on the long road to recovery.

 Third, our claims backlogs. The VA continues to experience challenges processing veterans’ disability compensation and pension 

claims. The backlog is at a critical stage, with significant errors 

numbering 100,000 per year. The average claim takes more than six 

months to complete, and appeals of denied claims can take as long as 

three years.

 Also, many experienced claims processors are reaching retirement 

age. According to VBA, it takes two to three years of experience for 

claims processors to achieve a fully productive level of expertise. Cur-
17

rently, about half of VBA’s staff has 3 years or less of decision-making 

experience. VBA needs to tackle this problem now, and AMVETS believes VBA is capable of reducing backlogs and improving error rates, 

but only if and when new technology, better training, more staff, and 

real accountability is implemented. That takes time and money. Not 

budget cuts and staff reductions, which have been proposed in recent 

budgets.

 In fact, AMVETS is so passionate about looking at claims and 

other VBA challenges, we are hosting a National Symposium for the 

Needs of Young Veterans in mid-October. The Symposium’s goals 

are to reach a consensus on the key problems facing veterans, offer 

solutions that will modify the system, and suggest how to enhance 

benefits for the National Guard and Reservists. In November 2006, 

the Symposium will publish an action plan that will prioritize the 

steps needed to provide a modern benefits program and an effective 

delivery system. If you are concerned about the future of veterans’ 

benefits in America, I encourage you to support us in this endeavor 

and study our action plan. I am confident the symposium will provide 

Congress and VA with a report that will improve the system now and 

into the 21st century.

 Lastly, the Veterans Choice of Representation Legislation. AMVETS has serious concerns about the House and senate bills. As you 

know, the Senate passed their version with a number of veterans benefits enhancements attached to it. We support the added language 

now contained in the Senate bill, except the attorney provision.

VSOs provide, free of charge, excellent representation to any veteran, member or not, within the community. AMVETS has specially 

trained representatives stationed around the country to assist veterans wanting to file a claim. We have access to the VA system, know 

exactly who to contact, and are acquainted with the people who make 

the decisions. We feel we provide a greater and more efficient service 

than any lawyer could.

 If attorneys are allowed into the system, it would overturn veterans’ protections that have been in place since the Civil War. It will 

not improve the procedure, or make it more efficient; just the opposite would be true. The benefits system was designed to be an open, 

informal process. Adding lawyers to the mix will create a potentially 

hostile situation between the veteran and the VA. Furthermore, the 

VA can’t handle lawyers. Most lawyers do not have an understanding of veterans law, the vast VA bureaucracy, or even know what is 

rightfully due to the veteran. VA will no doubt be bombarded with 

calls from legal aids wanting to know exactly how the VA works and 

how to navigate the system. VBA is financially strapped as it is, and 

claims backlogs continue to grow without this added burden.

 I suggest the Committee explore ways to reduce pending cases 

by fixing staff shortfalls, improving training programs, and holding 
18

claims processors accountable for the quality of their work. This is 

what is going to reduce the backlog, not attorneys.

 One last point I will mention, Mr. Chairman, is the yearly VSO testimony. As you know, the VSOs traditionally presented our agenda 

before a joint meeting of Veterans Affairs in the springtime. Last 

year, joint hearing were dissolved in favor of a full Committee hearing, but it was held just days after the President released his budget 

proposal. This is clearly not enough time to review a budget as complex as the VA’s. While funding for VA is one of AMVETS’ top priorities, our annual testimony addresses issues that go above and beyond 

the matters of just the budget.

 I am certain the Committee wants complete and accurate views 

from the veterans community when it looks at the agenda items for a 

new Congress, which is why we ask these important hearings continue next year. But please schedule them in March, so we can provide 

you with a thorough assessment from our organization.

 In closing, Mr. Chairman, AMVETS looks forward to working with 

you and the Committee to ensure the earned benefits of America’s 

veterans are strengthened and improved. This concludes my testimony. Thank you again for the opportunity to appear here before 

you today, and I will be happy to answer any questions that you may 

have.

Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. McGriff. We appreciate your testimony.

[The statement of Tom McGriff appears on p. 101]

STATEMENT OF BRADLEY S. BARTON

Mr. Miller. We will move to Bradley Barton, National Commander, Disabled American Veterans. Commander, you are up.

Mr. Barton. Mr. Chairman, members of the Veterans Affairs Committee, on behalf of the more than 1.3 million members of the Disabled American Veterans, I am honored to appear before you today 

to discuss the state of Veterans Affairs for the current fiscal year and 

upcoming year.

 For more than 30 years, I have been active in supporting DAV’s 

mission of building better lives for our Nation’s disabled veterans and 

their families. And since my retirement from the legal profession, 

fulfilling that mission has been a full-time job for me. My fellow disabled veterans have placed their confidence in me as the National 

Commander, to carry their message to Congress and to the American 

people, and I will not let them down.

As the current fiscal year draws to a close, we hear from VA officials around the country that health care funding shortfalls continue 

to hamper their ability to care for sick and disabled veteran. They 

are unable or unwilling to hire the needed medical staff in large part 
19

because of problems with their current budget process. But just days 

before the new fiscal year, the VA still does not have an appropriations bill. For years, the DAV has voiced our concerns that the current budget process is a failure. It fails to serve veterans, it fails to 

serve the VA, and it fails the American taxpayer.

It is impossible for the VA to plan for the coming fiscal year, when 

it does not know what its budget will be, or when it will get its allocation. And that is no way to run the second largest Federal agency, 

with the country’s largest integrated health care system.

 The VA simply cannot function properly under those conditions. 

Although the proposed VA budget for fiscal year 2007 comes close to 

the levels recommended by the DAV and other co-authors of the Independent Budget, an additional $2 billion in discretionary funding 

is needed. We are also very concerned about another tightfisted budget for fiscal year 2008, and its impact on the needs of our Nation’s 

veterans.

For years, the DAV has been fighting to make sure that veterans’ 

health care is adequately funded, and that those funds are available 

on the first day of the new fiscal year. Chairman, I call upon you 

to join the DAV and the entire veterans community in an open and 

frank discussion of the current VA appropriations process, and how 

that process might be improved to better serve our Nation’s sick and 

disabled veterans.

 I will now turn my attention to an issue of great importance to the 

DAV, and those veterans seeking benefits from the VA. Recently, the 

Senate passed S. 2694, which would permit attorneys to charge veterans for services rendered in the preparation, presentation, and prosecution of their VA claims. There are also two bills in the House that 

would allow attorneys to charge veterans a fee to represent them. 

H.R. 4914, introduced by Congressman Lane Evans, and H.R. 5549, 

introduced by Congressman Jeff Miller.

The DAV firmly believes that allowing attorneys to charge a fee to 

represent veterans would not be in the best interests of the veterans, 

and would be detrimental to the VA as well. As an attorney and a 

veteran, who has considerable experience with the VA claims process, it is difficult to see how allowing attorneys to charge for their 

services will improve the situation.

 What ails the VA claims system has nothing to do with who veterans choose to represent them. The real issues are the timeliness and 

accuracy of the decisions handed down by VA claims workers. I can 

understand why some attorneys advocate changing the system, and 

some veterans honestly believe that they would receive better representation by attorneys. But empirical data from the Board of Veterans’ Appeals tells that attorneys have a lower average allowance rate 

than veterans’ service organizations.

Veterans who fought for our country should never have to fight 
20

their government to get the benefits a grateful Nation has provided 

for their sacrifices and service. Congress itself intended that these 

benefits be provided with a minimum of difficulty. It is important to 

understand the differences between the VA process and litigation. 

In the VA process, its employees counsel veterans on their eligibility 

for benefits. The VA will assist the veteran in completing and filing 

the relatively informal application for benefits. The VA also takes the 

initiative to advance the claim through the process, and Congress 

placed the duty on the VA to ensure that all laws and regulations 

pertinent to the case are faithfully applied.

 Admittedly, the VA has often fallen short. The VA sometimes denies veterans claim erroneously, even arbitrarily. Veterans sometimes do have to fight the bureaucracy to obtain what they are clearly 

due. However, regular involvement of lawyers in the claims system 

would turn the informal pro-veteran process into a formal, legalistic, 

and more adversarial one.

 The VA would have to devote a whole legion of employees just to 

review attorney fee agreements, for example. And the overall increase in administrative costs might have to be paid for by reducing 

veterans services elsewhere. A far better use of the VA’s already 

limited resources would be to hire more claims workers, and provide 

intensive training to improve the quality, as well as the timeliness, 

of decisions.

 The VA also must enforce uniform quality standards through more 

effective management, and exercise real accountability at all levels. 

More timely medical examinations and better information sharing 

between the Veterans Benefits Administration and the VA health 

care facilities, are also needed.

 Only when the VA has taken these steps, and Congress provides 

the necessary resources, will veterans receive the level of service they 

deserve. The VA’s objective and its duty is to provide timely, accurate 

decisions on veterans’ claims. As you know, Congress deliberately 

designed the VA administrative claims process to be non-adversarial, 

and veteran-friendly. Disability compensation and other benefits for 

veterans and their families should go to the intended beneficiaries, 

not lawyers.

 By passing a measure allowing lawyers to charge for claims assistance, this Congress would be admitting that it is unable to perform its oversight role to ensure that the VA claims system works 

as intended. The argument that veterans should have a choice to be 

represented by a lawyer ignores the intent of Congress that the VA

provide all entitled claimants with all benefits affordable under the 

law.

As an attorney, I know firsthand how lawyers are trained, and how 

they think and react in the legal arena. Believe me, this is not what 

you want for the VA claims process. Enactment of these bills would 
21

profoundly change the claims process to the detriment of the veteran. 

We believe there is a potential for wide-ranging, unintended consequences, that will benefit neither veterans, nor the government.

 DAV delegates to our National convention in Chicago, August 12 

through 15, unanimously passed the resolution opposing passage of 

this legislation. The DAV does not stand alone in its opposition to 

these bills. This legislation is also opposed by the veterans of foreign 

wars of the United States and AMVETS, and several other military 

and veterans organization. And I remind you, the VA itself is opposed to this ill-advised change in the law.

 We therefore call upon the members of this Committee to oppose 

the legislation that would remove the restriction on lawyers charging 

a fee to prepare, present, and prosecute claims for veterans’ benefits.

 And on another very important matter, Chairman, I hope that you 

will give serious consideration to the DAV’s request to present our 

National legislative agenda to a joint session of the House and Senate 

Veterans Affairs Committees on February 27, 2007.

 Mr. Chairman, this completes my testimony. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to appear before you on behalf of the Disabled 

American Veterans to share our views on the state of Veterans Affairs. Thank you also for all that your Committee has done, and all 

that you will do for veterans in the future.

[The statement of Bradley S. Barton appears on p. 108]

STATEMENT OF THOMAS ZAMPIERI

Mr. Miller. Thank you, Mr. Barton. We appreciate your testimony today. And continuing to move along, because we have a pretty 

healthy list, we would like to ask the director of government relations 

for the Blinded Veterans Association, BVA, Dr. Thomas Zampieri, if 

you would please proceed.

Dr. Zampieri. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman and members of the House 

Veterans Affairs Committee, on behalf of the Blinded Veterans Association, we appreciate this opportunity to present our views today, 

and a look-back at 2006, and the priorities for 2007.

 This year, BVA has become increasingly frustrated by the lack of 

significant changes in the VA’s ability to provide a full continuum 

of blind outpatient rehabilitative services. Before getting into that, 

though, I want to bring up a couple cases that have caused us a great 

deal of alarm.

Recently, we found out that we are starting to find individuals in 

different medical hold companies in different locations around the 

country. OIF and OEF servicemembers who have had severe eye injuries, or have in some cases been blinded in combat have been put in 

medical hold companies, and the VA has never been notified of their 

existence.
22

 We recently found a 22-year Navy corpsmen who had been in the 

Navy reserves, who was down at Camp Lejeune, and he was down 

there in medical hold for four months. He was discharged September 

8 back to his hometown in Ohio, and his instructions were, “When 

you get home, find the closest VA hospital and try to get an eye clinic 

appointment.’’

 We also found an active-duty Army Sergeant Major at Fort Bragg, 

North Carolina, who had traumatic brain injury, and was legally 

blind. And much to our surprise, we found him on ABC evening news 

when they were doing the story about the reduction in funding for the 

traumatic brain injuries Center at Walter Reed. Well, surprise, we 

found that he has also never been referred to the VA, even though he 

is about to be discharged in October.

And then yesterday, I find an individual, an Air Force servicemember out in Colorado who was blinded in July, was discharged recently 

home to California. Again, the VA was never notified.

 These cases should begin to demonstrate our complete lack of confidence in the seamless transition, and makes me wonder what kind 

of complete disconnect there is between DoD and VA. We hear here 

frequently about how we have placed case managers at DOD facilities from the VA, and the VA comes in and testifies about how they 

are able to track these individuals, and these are just three examples, 

and I could give you about eight more, of cases that we recently have 

found that have fallen through the cracks.

 In regards to traumatic brain injury, which I mentioned, this is a 

serious problem that is going to be confronting everyone. As of January 14, 2006, DOD reported over 11,852 of the returning wounded 

servicemembers had been exposed to IED blasts, or other types of 

explosion. With this came the report that over 1800 servicemembers 

are now diagnosed with traumatic brain injury from Walter Reed. 

They admit that this is the signature injury of this war. And the 

complications from blast-related injuries can be anywhere from mild, 

to moderate, to severe.

 In our case, we are extremely worried because epidemiological research studies have shown that about 24 percent of all TBI patients 

have visual disorders. Some of these are extremely subtle, but they 

can have a major impact on the individual. Blurred vision, double vision, problems with distance, being able to read and interpret print; 

all these things can affect them long-term.

 We are concerned about the lack of screening of those at risk of 

TBI, and would urge this Committee to ensure that both DoD and VA

medical staff have training on identification, diagnosis, and appropriate management of TBI.

 We also supported fully the Senate defense appropriations of $19 

million, the amendment that was approved recently, and hope that 

the House will also approve this.
23

 Recently, Harvard and Columbia Universities took a look at where 

we are headed at, and the estimated cost of medical treatment for 

TBI servicemembers. In the next 20 years, the VA could face $14 billion in estimated expenses associated with traumatic brain injuries.

 We also are concerned we found recently, between March of 2003 

and April of 2006, that Walter Reed Army medical center has now 

publicly admitted that 16 percent of all servicemembers evacuated 

from Iraq had eye injuries; that they had treated over 670 soldiers 

with either blindness or moderate to severe visual injuries, and that 

the naval National Medical Center had operated on over 360 Navy or 

Marine Corps personnel who had eye injuries.

 Much our surprise though, they refused to provide this information 

to the Department of Veterans Affairs, even though we had a meeting 

out there a couple of weeks ago, because they said, “We have concerns 

over HIPAA, so we don’t want to release these individuals’ names, 

Social Security numbers, and information to the VA.’’

 It is just astounding to us, not only from a standpoint of that statement, but also that the VA’s computer system won’t be able to access their inpatient medical records, because the computer systems 

currently, at this stage, can only access four things, which are outpatient type of items such as pharmaceuticals, outpatient labs, and 

some other information.

 We wonder where this is going. For the full continuum of care, 

Blinded Veterans Association has constantly worked with this Committee, and with the VA, on trying to get improved resources for 

blinded veterans, and especially those older veterans who have agerelated visual impairments.

The GAO testified in front of this Committee in July 22, 2004, saying that the VA needed more additional outpatient resources, for the 

full continuum of care. The VA visual impairment advisory board 

has examined and looked at this issue internally since then. They 

have made recommendations. The VA did an internal GAAP analysis, which looked at what current services were available, and they 

found in the middle of all this, with the large numbers of returning 

casualties with eye injuries, that 80 VA medical centers currently, 

according to the VA’s own internal GAAP analysis, have no basic outpatient blind services for veterans.

 Only 14 medical centers in the entire system can provide the full 

scope of advanced blind rehabilitative services. The VA visual impairment advisory board also looked at the financial projections for 

expansion of low vision services, and issued a report in November 

of 2005, that the total costs to implement a cost effective outpatient 

blind rehabilitative services would be less than $14 million. To this 

date, though, only one new outpatient program has been established 

since July 22, 2004, when GAO testified before this Committee.

 We would strongly like to urge that this Committee pass H.R. 3579, 
24

the blind rehabilitative outpatient specialist, that this bill would provide would make a substantial step towards the right direction in 

providing more outpatient services at VA medical centers.

Currently, three out of the four VA polytrauma centers didn’t have 

a blind specialist on their staff, even though they are supposed to 

have full multidisciplinary staff at those centers. Until just recently, 

this spring, did they hire any of these individuals.

 There are two programs that help not only would with the traumatic brain injuries screening, but also with the older, aging population with visual impairments. One is a VISOR program, which 

is a Visual Impairment Services Outpatient Rehabilitative program. 

And the other one is a low-vision optometry program; Visual Impairment Centers To Optimize Remaining Sight, called VICTORS. Both 

of these programs are outpatient programs. They are operated with 

the intent of being able to not only provide the full scope of services 

for outpatients, but also to be able to provide follow-up care for those 

veterans who need further care.

 Most of these programs are extremely cost effective, and yet we 

have been unable to get the funding to establish 18 of these programs, 

which would be $9.5 million. We wonder, then, when we hear about 

the robust budget, where the money is?

 Mr. Chairman, we appreciate the opportunity to testify here today 

on these critical issues, and will be happy to answer any questions 

that you have.

[The statement of Tom Zampieri appears on p. 115 ]

STATEMENT OF SGT. MAJ. GENE OVERSTREET

Mr. Miller. Thank you very much, Doctor. We’ll move along to the 

Non-Commissioned Officers Association of America. Sergeant Major 

Gene Overstreet. Sergeant Major.

Sgt. Maj. Overstreet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished 

members of the Committee. We are pleased to be here before you today, before this Committee, and to share some of our perspectives on 

the VA, as we look forward and look back. Thank you for implementing our written record into the testimony, sir.

 The association is grateful for you holding this hearing. We think 

it evidences the genuine concern, as you look at the programs and 

resources provided by the VA. We also think that it weighs the future 

financially for the years in the future accordingly. This must be done 

to ensure that the resources and priorities are in place to honor this 

Nation’s institutional commitment to those who have served in the 

military.

 Please note that I emphasize for the VA to honor all our Nation’s 

commitment to those who have served. All those who have served. 

We cannot forget the service and sacrifices of our earlier generations, 
25

as well as that are serving today.

 The honoring of the commitment to the military members and their 

families, and our survivors, with appropriate benefit health care, all 

the way from when they separate or when they go on active duty, all 

the way to the grave site.

 As you can see today, I am joined by a lot of veterans here. I had 

the opportunity to introduce the President of the United States a 

couple of years ago at Arlington Cemetery. And I said to him and all 

those great veterans that were watching that preceding, that “You 

know, I have a friend in San Diego. He is a retired Marine. He is a 

Sergeant Major. And every time he introduces himself, he will tell 

you that he is a Marine. He will tell you that he is retired. But the 

very next word out of his mouth, he will tell you that he is still serving.” Sir, ma’am, if you look around this room, all these veterans are 

still serving. We have a lot of veterans across this great country that 

are still serving, and that is why I say let us honor all those who have 

served in the past.

 As we enter the second session of the 109th Congress, the Nation’s 

military force has more servicewomen and men deployed in the war 

on global terror, and more military forces from the Reserve and Guard 

members on active duty, for longer periods of time, of any time since 

World War II. Most of them have deployed more than once. As a 

matter of fact, if the Chairman was here, he would suggest, after he 

went over there, most of them have served three, and even on their 

fourth tour, as they go. And every one of them, every enlisted member, who will hold their right hand and swear to affirm the words of 

the military oath of enlistment—simple words, but very profound—to 

provide the very essence of service for every military man and woman, other ultimate declaration; these 12 words: “to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.’’

 I would submit to you, sir, that nowhere in there—and I’ve said 

this before and I will say this again—that there are any qualifying 

remarks in there about “if resources are available,” or “if we had the 

money to take care of you.’’

 I would also suggest to you, sir, every time, from the newest recruit, 

to that Sergeant Major, or colonel, or general, that retires at the other 

end, I would suggest to you that they think, when they raised their 

hand and say those words, that they are going to get the best equipment, and the best training that this Nation can offer. I would also 

say to you, sir, if one of them should fall in the line of duty, that this 

institution will support those veterans, from a grateful Nation, for 

them and their survivors, regardless of what that is. Like you and 

every veteran in this room today knows the freedom enjoyed by all 

Americans has a price, this Nation’s commitment to care for them 

who have borne the battle, their widow and their orphans; I would 

suggest to you, sir, that is the payment.
26

 Today, we focus on a look-back and a look-forward, to meet the 

needs of America’s veterans as we move forward in time. First of 

all, sir, I would suggest to you that productivity enhancements of information technology and artificial integration are still not online to 

work benefit claims. The claims backlog will further extend the claim 

time line for processing. Sir, we need to hire a full-time employee to 

fill our perceived void. Those time lines continue to get longer and 

longer for claims processing all the time.

 The IT, we want to put a Band-Aid on this. It is not going to take 

a Band-Aid. We fully recognize that it is going to take two to three 

years to properly implement that. We think that that is going to happen.

 The bottom line is taking care of real live veterans. That is the bottom line. We suggest that you need to do this. Obviously, there is 

no great need or a super-duper IT program that manages efficiencies 

and productivity. The issue right now is a process of the high-volume 

of claims that we receive. As you know, we got more guard, more 

reserve, more whatever. The war is still going on. We recognize that 

the board remands and blue water navy OA claims, anticipated blue 

water navy DIC claims, and other veterans appeal actions. Let us 

stop penalizing the veterans for the untimely final claim processing, 

because of management SNAFUs associated with the department’s 

IT program.

 Training of all involved in the VBA claim process, to include initial 

development of claims, reviewing the claims, submitting the process, 

reviewing telephone representatives and service; Make sure that 

they are accurate in giving good information. Train to me to qualifyable standards. We must do this to reduce the backlog. NCOA does 

not believe that the VA is adequately funded to complete its mission. 

Veterans sick in VA health care and services for the first time are 

well above projections. The war is not ended. More veterans are 

expected. NCOA recognizes the fragmentation as it occurs in health 

care. Scheduling delays, past attempts to disenfranchise veterans 

from user fees, higher co-pay, locking out veterans. Systems are signal of an underfunded discretionary health system. NCOA believes 

that it is time to make the VA health care system mandatory funding.

Clearly, pressing issues for the VA today is their budget, and their 

staff. We all understand that and know that. We need to establish 

long-overdue Medicare plus choice programs. NCOA has not forgotten the 2002 vision of the Department of Veterans Affairs to bring 

subvention funding. Nor have we forgotten the envisioned income 

stream from TRICARE for medical reimbursement of non-serviceconnected health care by medical retirees, and possible dependants 

where feasible.

 It is time to review these efforts and enhance the funding capabil-
27

ity of the VHA. Secure maximum reimbursement from insurance 

programs for those served by the VA health care system. Health care 

appointments, quality standards, for those returning from OIF and 

OEF, have not really been a hard difficult to secure appointments for 

entering the health care system. However, there is a severe shortage of mental health care staff managing existing patients. Far less 

returning from OIF OEF veterans, who are required specifically as it 

is related to PTSD or other mental health, shortage of mental health 

bed spaces for PTSD, substance abuse, alcohol abuse, drugs, suicide; 

there is a severe shortage of those.

 Homeless veterans are a raising number of veterans being identified as homeless in America. Recent numbers project as much as 

190,000. Whereas, we are going to have a shortfall not to be able to 

take care of that many veterans.

 You know, only a couple of years ago, we were arguing that it 

was less than 150,000. Within a year and a half, now, we are over 

190,000. What a shame. Growing numbers from OEF are part of 

those numbers, as well, and that is really pushing the numbers up. 

That is evidence by the report from the GAO.

 As we conclude today, sir, recently in—certainly not our last recommendation—Mr. Chairman, and members of the House Veterans, 

we place before you two concerns for your support as the VA moves 

forward. First, VA needs to secure its role in the medical research 

and development for programs designed for seriously war-injured—I

say again, seriously war-injured. These programs would include research into the evolving new medical intervention and treatment of 

traumatic brain injuries, and rehabilitation models for brain injuries.

 You may not want to hear this, but NCOA strongly is convinced 

that the administration in the VA should be an advocate for those 

medical research to pursue stem cell research for amputees, spinal 

cord injury, and nerve cell functional integration.

 We suggest unless you do that, some veterans are going to be left 

behind. Second, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, NCOA

believes that your efforts are needed to convince the Armed Forces 

Service Committee to revisit the health care record problem. VA

has developed a nationally acclaimed computerized patient records 

system. It is a great system. The VA model could be tweaked for 

additional military data to include toxic exposures to meet DoD requirements, and all of the other requirements that they have. We 

have a good model on the ground right now that we know that works. 

Rather than someone creating their own paradigm that don’t link 

up to the VA, and we can’t even transfer the records from one to the 

other, and that is, you know, we’re leaving a lot of people out of the 

system like that.

 We think, let us take a system that is a proven system, and develop 
28

it for both, because we think it will work for both. They have an effective medical record that can be communicated around the block or 

around the world at the same time. What does this do for seamless 

transition? This makes a seamless transition much easier and much 

more seamless than it has ever been before.

 Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Committee, NCOA

thank you for this time, and appreciates the invitation to appear before you.

[The statement of Sgt. Maj. Overstreet appears on p. 124]

The Chairman. [Presiding] Thank you very much.

 The members were going to be in session until probably very late 

on the 29th, which is next Friday, which means a lot of the Committees are doing markups on a lot of different bills and trying to gain 

access to the floor prior to the 29th, so I just want to let you know 

why members are not here, and coming and going. We are having 

a markup on NIH, in the Commerce Committee, which I am also a 

member, so I apologize for my absence.

 I had, last night, the opportunity to read your testimonies. And let 

me compliment you on the substantive nature of your testimony, and 

also the oral presentations. We, in our negotiations at the moment 

with the Senate on pending bills, I have to go deep and into a narrow 

lane, quickly.

 So as I understand, let me make sure I can get this correct. With 

regard to the issue on attorney representation in the claims process, 

VFW opposes? Is that correct?

Mr. Kurpius. Correct.

The Chairman. AMVETS opposes?

Mr. McGriff. Correct.

The Chairman. DAV opposes?

Mr. Barton. Wholeheartedly.

The Chairman. All right, that is not an undecided. Wholeheartedly 

opposes?

Mr. Barton. Opposes, yes.

The Chairman. Okay. And Mr. Barton, your organization? I am 

sorry, Mr. Barton opposes. Dr. Zampieri?

Dr. Zampieri. We oppose it.

The Chairman. Blind Veterans opposes. NCOA?

Sgt. Maj. Overstreet. We do not oppose it, sir.

The Chairman. “We do not oppose,” that is a double negative, Sergeant Major. Do you support Larry Craig’s position, the Senate position?

Sgt. Maj. Overstreet. We support the legislative position.

The Chairman. Okay, you support the legislative position.

 All right, now let me go to the testimony of the four that oppose. 

With regard to a bill, Mr. Evans’ bill that would—let me get the accu-
29

rate language. Mr. Evans’ approach would be an attorney could enter 

the process after a notice of disagreement has been issued. Would 

that change the position of the VFW at all? Would you still oppose?

Mr. Kurpius. Still opposed.

The Chairman. AMVETS?

Mr. McGriff. AMVETS is still opposed, sir.

The Chairman. DAV?

Mr. Barton. We are still opposed, sir.

The Chairman. Wholeheartedly?

Mr. Barton. Wholeheartedly. Emphatically. Definitely, we are opposed.

The Chairman. All right, that is a lot of adjectives. I got it. Blinded 

veterans?

Dr. Zampieri. We would probably support that part of it.

The Chairman. Okay, so if you went with the Evans approach, then 

you would support? All right, that is important for us to know.

 Sergeant Major, that didn’t change your position at all, I know. If 

you are hard over on that one, then you would also support the Evans 

approach; would that be correct?

Sgt. Maj. Overstreet. Correct.

The Chairman. All right. With the witnesses on the second panel, I

have to go down the same questions, so please prepare for that.

 There was a question at the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance 

and Memorial Affairs when they held an oversight hearing, on the operations at the Board of Veterans Appeals. The past president of the 

National Organization of Veterans Advocates stated, and I quote, “As 

unsophisticated persons, claimants almost invariably lack the skills 

to determine what evidence they need to produce. What they need is 

a set of skills that experienced lawyers acquire.’’

 Now, from this statement, I believe the assertion here is that veterans and survivors are unsophisticated, and require an attorney in 

order to receive the benefits from the VA, and that the system today 

has become too complex and adversarial. So I would like to know 

about your comments with regard to this quote. VFW?

Mr. Kurpius. No, I take exception to that quote completely, if that 

is in reference to the veteran or the veteran’s family seeking the entitlement, or towards the representation that we provide. That is not 

a true statement. We spend hundreds of thousands of dollars, all the 

organizations, on training our personnel for representation. And it 

is in a non-adversarial position. The attorneys would only clog up the 

system so much more.

 And I would like to make a statement. We just had our legislative 

conference here. And we charged the hill, let us say, with them, and 

they made visits to many of the offices. And the lack of knowledge, 

let us say, on the individuals who will be deciding this; they weren’t 

really up to speed on the issue. So if this does come forward, I would 
30

certainly like to see this go to hearings first, if this ever is going to be 

acted upon. We have some real concerns with this because the people 

were not even aware of it, a lot of the Congressional people.

The Chairman. AMVETS?

Mr. McGriff. Mr. Chairman, AMVETS is very proud of its Veterans Service Officer organization. Across this country, we have men 

that, that is their life. Their life is veterans serving veterans. They 

are fully aware of the ins and outs, and the ways to go through the bureaucracy of the VA. And their only goal is to get that veteran what 

may be due to him. And this is at no charge to the veteran or the 

veteran’s family. And we spend eight hours a day, five days a week, 

52 weeks a year, serving that veteran.

I don’t think you can take a brand-new Jones & Jones Law firm and 

have him equally represent a veteran as well as a veterans service 

Officer can do it.

The Chairman. If a requirement was added that an attorney would 

have some form of certification with regard to the veterans, with the 

practice, would it matter?

Mr. McGriff. I don’t think so—yes, it would matter. Let me re-answer that. Yes, it would matter if they had a certification. And there 

again, we get into the problem of getting the VA to certify them, and 

then there is going to be a cost, a delay, and a time of staff that is 

not necessary. Let us take that money to certify them, and hire more 

VSOs.

The Chairman. DAV?

Mr. Barton. I would suggest that perhaps lawyers don’t really have 

the skills to maneuver the VA claims process. I am an attorney and I

speak with some experience in the area. I knew a lot more about the 

VA and the claims process as a disabled veteran than I ever knew as 

an attorney. Perhaps attorneys would aid them in presenting their 

evidence, but I think the empirical data from the Board of Veterans’ 

Appeals demonstrates that attorneys do not possess any special skills 

to make them any more successful than our outstanding group of 

national service officers with the DAV. And I think it would be a disservice to the veteran community to have to pay for representation 

to obtain benefits he has already paid the price for in his service and 

sacrifice for our country.

The Chairman. Blinded Veterans Association?

Dr. Zampieri. Yeah, we are concerned with, as my distinguished 

colleagues here said, in that, you know, I don’t come to this with a 

legal background, but I do come at it from the standpoint of a medical 

background, where specialists are better at taking care of things than 

a generalist, depending on the particular problem. And when you get 

individuals who are going to be quote, “vying for business,” then you 

know, the free-market system works very well in individuals being 

able to target an audience, so to speak, and get people to sign up for 
31

services without fully realizing that their legal representative is wellqualified in that area.

And our claims benefits officers do a tremendous job of assisting 

veterans with their initial claims, and are very successful in helping 

them through the process. And we would have strong reservations 

about ensuring that there is strong oversight and safeguards in regards to who is exactly going to be allowed to do this.

 You know, the analogy I use is the plastic surgeon doing one thing, 

and a dermatologist trying to do the same procedure, they are just 

not trained the same way. And there is a lot of risk out there, and I

have followed what has happened with the asbestos situation, and I

think anyone who has looked at the horror stories out there, where 

individuals have cherry-picked large numbers of claims that they figured would have the best payout, and have manufactured things in 

order to try to get large class-action suits settled, makes us very worried and suspicious of what might happen with this situation.

The Chairman. Given your prior testimony that you would support 

the Evans approach, if Congress were to adopt that approach, would 

you advocate that the court require some particular types of certification, or hours of training by a lawyer, in order to practice in that 

process?

Dr. Zampieri. Yes, I think so. Because it would be at least a safeguard in making sure that the individual has met certain standards 

before trying to accept cases.

The Chairman. Okay. NCOA?

Dr. Zampieri. Before being able to try and take cases, the individual have to have met certain standards.

Sgt. Maj. Overstreet. Sir, I think our concern is with the veterans 

themselves. They are to have the option. It is kind of like being—going to article 15; do you have opportunity for counsel? Who are you 

going to get that counsel from? Chances are you are going to get it 

from the first sergeant, you are going to get it from the gunny, you 

are going to get it from the sergeant major. You are going to get it 

from someone in the pipeline, that is raised in the pipeline, that understand that.

 However, before you go before the Commander, you have the opportunity to go seek counsel, legal counsel, either military or other. 

That is their option. We kind of see us sort of as the same way. Okay, 

you can go to the VSO. We have VSOs, we think they do a great job. 

We are not suggesting that in the least. However, if the veteran is 

not satisfied with the VSO that he has, or with any VSO he talks to, 

we believe that he ought to have that option to go seek counsel otherwise.

 Now, as far as their training goes, and as far as what they will be 

able to do, maybe we need to hold that up to the light and see just how 

far they can represent this veteran in his claim or whatever, to get it 
32

through the process.

 However, when it comes down to that veteran, we think they ought 

to have that option, though.

The Chairman. Did all of you present your views and opinions to 

the Senate before they voted on this measure?

Sgt. Maj. Overstreet. We did not, sir.

The Chairman. You didn’t?

Sgt. Maj. Overstreet. No, sir.

The Chairman. Blind Association did? DAV did? AMVETS? 

VFW?

Mr. Barton. Yes, sir.

Mr. McGriff. I don’t believe so.

Mr. Kurpius. They knew that we opposed them, but we did not 

have an opportunity to present it to them at the time. They know 

now that we do oppose it, now.

The Chairman. Well, all right.

 Last comment I have, Sergeant Major, when we were in the theater 

with the secretary and Mr. Salazar, and Dr. Boozman, the Marine 

Corps is still doing something right. You can spot a gunny from a 

distance. Every time I would meet one and walk up to him—there is 

a cookie-cutter going on out there. I mean, whatever you are doing 

to these guys, they are built right, they sound right, they are leaders, 

and they are very impressive in the field. So I extend my complements.

Sgt. Maj. Overstreet. Thank you.

The Chairman. Whatever the basis that you laid continues.

 Mr. Filner?

Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your introduction of these gentlemen. As you read their biographies, it shows 

us why we are here. And you could have done the same thing for 

every man and woman in the audience, and I appreciate knowing a 

little bit about their background. Even the extinct fish one. So thank 

you for that.

 The Chairman gave me a good model, so I will just proceed the 

same way with another issue, that is, however you want to define 

“assured,” or “mandatory funding.” And as I heard all of you, again, 

you were all for it. VFW? Yes?

Mr. McGriff. Absolutely.

Mr. Filner. DAV?

Mr. Barton. Yes, we are.

Mr. Filner. Wholeheartedly?

Mr. Barton. Wholeheartedly.

Mr. Filner. Okay.

Dr. Zampieri. Yes.

Sgt. Maj. Overstreet. Yes, sir.

Mr. Filner. Thank you. So all of these organizations are for man-
33

datory funding. And I think you have all been through the so called 

“budget process.” Whoever said it is like watching sausage made had 

it right. It is not a very pleasant process. It puts the veterans’ organizations in a sort of a begging situation, which should never be. We 

should beg you to allow us to help. But I think we have to get out at 

it. You know, we have these arguments about numbers; $2 billion, $4 

billion, $1 billion—if we had a formula that everybody accepted, and 

it was applied, we would be far better off.

Chairman Buyer suggested it would cost a lot of money. I am not 

sure there is agreement on those figures, but I would not let that 

dissuade me right now. As I said earlier, when you have a $3 trillion budget and an $8 trillion deficit, several billions or even tens of 

billions more for veterans is not out of our ability, and we should do 

that.

 I thank all of you for talking about mental health. It is an incredibly important area. We seem to have knowledge of how to deal with 

the physical trauma, but I think the mental trauma is still one that 

we don’t, as a society, or even as a VA, I think want to admit. We 

know that is as debilitating as any physical injury. We have to have 

not only mandatory counseling, but outreach to the families, and a 

culture change which says, “Hey, it is all right to admit that. You 

have to confront it, and deal with it.”

 Out in San Diego, which I represent, the Vietnam vets had started 

a process which has now culminated in something called the Veterans Village, which basically institutionalizes the standdowns. It 

brings everybody into a secure environment—they started off with 

just 30 beds. They will be up to 200 soon, and then 400. Of course, 

that doesn’t begin to deal with the problem, but they give many veterans security and safety in terms of housing and comfort, medical, 

legal, mental health, job counseling, dental, is all brought into one 

unit, and we have a chance to make sure that these brave young men 

and women can make a recovery.

 It doesn’t matter what we thought about the Vietnam War, it 

doesn’t matter what we feel about the Iraq war. When veterans come 

home, we have to make sure they are served. We know how to do 

it! As moving as the Vietnam vets’ program is out in San Diego—it 

serves 400—we may have 200,000 homeless veterans. We should 

never have to say “homeless,” and “veteran” in the same sentence. 

This Nation has failed, I think, in that area.

 Lastly—I want to give a chance for Mr. Michaud for questions—everybody said, “accountability.” That is our job. And you may have 

used different words for it, such as “quantifiable standards,” to deal 

with the claims, for example. This Committee should be working far 

more in an oversight capacity. As I said to the Chairman many times, 

the process of oversight during the data theft was a model of how the 

Committee should work. We worked bipartisanly, we worked strenu-
34

ously. We became knowledgeable, and we held people accountable. I

think that is what we have to do in all areas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Mr. Michaud?

Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. I want to 

thank all the panelists, as well.

 Because mild traumatic brain injury is not often diagnosed, many 

veterans with that condition do not receive treatment. What do you 

see as the urgent need to deal with this issue? And the long-term 

need that we must do to address TBI? Any one of the panelists?

Dr. Zampieri. Let me take a shot at that. I think that talking to the 

providers at Walter Reed and over at that Bethesda Naval Medical 

Center, you know, the proposal is four things. One is that, you know, 

you need to start educating VA and DoD providers, and being able to, 

in the history, being able to find those individuals who have been at 

high risk for explosions or blast injuries. And then in the screening 

process, educate the providers who are front-line people, and looking 

for the subtle types of problems that can manifest themselves. And 

especially in regards to—there is a new syndrome out there, Post 

Trauma Visual Syndrome, PTVS. And these subtle findings wouldn’t 

be routinely picked up.

 And so the second part of this is having screening centers with 

individuals who have had the appropriate training and experience, 

and be able to start to track those individuals, and screen them, and 

then provide not only care—for example, with a low-vision VA optometrist—but then provide follow-up.

 And then the fourth part of this is the research part, which is looking at what types of treatments work best. And you know, collecting 

that information, and then working towards future better results and 

improvements, and therapies.

Mr. Michaud. My second question, quickly, is since we haven’t 

passed the budget, have any of the VSOs heard from VA staff, regarding the effect that is having right now; i.e., that they are delaying 

hiring a vacant position, or they are not providing services in a timely 

manner because they don’t know what their budget is going to be? 

Have you heard any feedback from the field?

Mr. McGriff. Very little feedback, Congressman. I think what 

you do is when they don’t have a budget in hand, as in everything 

gets put on hold, new hires and things like that get it on hold. But 

if you really think about it, though, the pay raises that have been 

authorized, they go ahead and go through. So therefore, you have 

immediately started in a negative situation. And so then you have 

to be very careful of your spending on a continuum-type budget. And 

so yeah, it does put a strain on the system. It puts one that is felt all 

the way down the line.

Mr. Kurpius. Yes, we have heard that matter of fact, the FTE may 
35

even be cut on the BVA side, so there is a real negative there on that 

aspect.

Dr. Zampieri. That has been our experience, as well. We are getting 

reports from VA facilities across the country that they are having difficulty in meeting their staff needs because of resources available to 

them, which translates to slower service for veteran population.

Mr. Michaud. Thank you. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Ms. Herseth?

Ms. Herseth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having this 

oversight hearing. I appreciate the written testimony that all of you 

have provided, and I know that in many of these written statements, 

and perhaps in your earlier testimony, you reiterated your various 

organizations’ support for modernizing the Montgomery G.I. Bill, and 

as the Ranking Member of the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee, 

we think has started to lay some very important groundwork, reaching out to all of you, some of the field hearings that Mr. Boozman 

and I have held, including one in Arkansas earlier this spring; Dr. 

Snyder’s involvement as a member of the Armed Services Committee 

as well, in undertaking that challenging task, but one that I think is 

very important, particularly for improving those educational benefits 

for our active duty military, as well as the National Guard and reservists who have been deployed at much higher rates, as you know.

I just have a couple of quick questions. And the first is on transportation reimbursement for your members. I am hearing even more not 

only representing many veterans who are in rural areas, but the significant costs associated with traveling for specialized care. And so if 

you could address that issue, as well as the VR&E program, we have 

had a number of hearings, as you know, about recommendations to 

improve that program, specifically, move from, you know, refocusing 

the program on employment rather than on education. And so has 

your membership noticed a difference in the VR&E program, and can 

you provide us with any additional recommendations to improve that 

program?

 If you could start with the transportation reimbursement issue, 

and then if we don’t have time because of votes, if maybe you could 

just submit any comments you would like to share in writing to the 

Committee with regard to VR&E, in addition to what may have been 

in your written statements?

Sgt. Maj. Overstreet. Ma’am, I am from San Antonio Texas. We 

have a great VA hospital in the San Antonio area. However, that is 

the furthest one south that we have. All of those veterans that are 

south of San Antonio, all the way into the valley area, what we call 

the valley, has to pay their own way to get up to San Antonio to do 

their appointments. We have a couple of buses that try to run there. 

All the organizations provide transportation. We provide volunteers, 

we provide all of those. However, if it is on the day, your point is on 
36

the day where we have no transportation, the bus is broke, or we 

don’t have a volunteer to drive it, obviously that appointment gets set 

to ask. You probably know already the scheduling problem with the 

VA to get into the hospital, as far as that.

 So, here is a veteran that can’t get there. Whereas, if we did have 

some kind of reimbursement for transportation and stuff like that, it 

would make it a lot easier for that veteran to schedule his appointment, schedule his transportation, and be there in a timely manner. 

So there is some problems with that. I suggest if there is a way that 

we could reimburse their transportation, we would support that.

Dr. Zampieri. Yeah, we would support an increase in the travel 

allowance for those veterans that had to travel, you know, long distances for the outpatient services. You know, the $.11 a mile reimbursement rate doesn’t cover much when the price of gas is $2.90 a 

gallon.

Mr. McGriff. And you also had a great differential, also, in what 

the IRS or Federal rate is for mileage, plus what the VA is for mileage. It is a vast difference—it is that big. And a lot of this is caused 

by the fluctuating gas prices and transportation costs that everybody 

encounters. But the big difference between the 46 and a half cents 

and the $.11, it grabs you. And that is what a lot of veterans have to 

depend on, is the VA reimbursement rate, and it is too low.

Mr. Barton. The DAV recognizes, back in the 1980s when there 

was a dramatic change in the transportation for veterans to go to 

the hospital for care, and that is when we came up with our program 

of the van transportation network. We have transported nine and a 

half million veterans since we began our program in 1987. But yeah, 

anything you could do to improve that situation would greatly be appreciated by everyone.

Mr. Kurpius. The veterans of foreign wars would certainly support 

an increase in the transportation costs for our veterans, to get back 

and forth for the medical exams and treatment.

The Chairman. Ma’am?

Ms. Herseth. I think in light of the time—well, I did put that other 

question on the VR&E program, but I think that has been addressed 

to a degree in the written statements, and anything else you would 

like to add would be helpful. Thank you.

The Chairman. Thank you very much.

Two things to cover. Every war, we find something that is out of 

the norm that we then have to address. And TBI is the big one in 

front of us with the present conflict. To let you know, on the forefront, 

trying to get ahead of this one, I have been working with the services 

on protective issues, and that is the helmet issue, and inserts.

 The Commandant of the Marine Corps, in working with the Commandant, he made the executive decision that to give the Marines 

the choice. We, as a society, even though some had financed some 
37

studies, we really don’t know. But some of these inserts—to give you 

an idea, if you take that insert and you cut it in half, and you look at 

the inside, it almost looks like a human cell, and it is built to absorb 

energy.

 So, as we put all that body armor, you know, the front and side 

plate, shoulder plate, neck plate, groin plate, you put on that brandnew helmet that we’ve got them, and they strap it on with that football strap; and that blast comes in and we have got them sitting in a 

vault on wheels. There is nothing to absorb that energy, and that energy goes to where it can be absorbed, and part of it goes up the face, 

and you get those maxillofacial injuries, and the eye injuries that we 

talked about. And the ear injuries. Then, part of it is absorbed by the 

brain, so we end up with these traumatic brain injuries.

 So our research with regard to the brain injuries and that care, but 

also on the protective side. We are a smart people, and that helmet 

out there is the best in the world on ballistics, and it helps them in a 

crash. But can we build a helmet that doesn’t compromise ballistic 

protection, and can give them the blast protection? I don’t know. But 

it is worth a try. And so I want all of you to know, that is where I am 

going, as we look at the other question.

 So I will speak with the VA. I want to work with you. I appreciate 

your testimony and focus on that issue, and the work that we’re doing 

at the polytrauma centers. I know you join me in the kudos to the 

men and women out there who are caring for those patients.

 I agree with Mr. Filner in his comments—I am really proud of the 

Committee. We did eight hearings in a six-month time frame. Pretty 

hard on VA, on the IT issues, and we have got a product. That product goes to the House floor next week. So I would ask for all of your 

support and advocacy of our product as we then take that up with the 

Senate. As you know, last year, we had passed an IT Bill, and there 

are no questions on this Committee; it is a bipartisan issue. The Senate didn’t necessarily agree with us, and we ended up in a bad spot. 

So please, as we go into this, and you formulate your Independent 

Budget, please address a focus on those IT issues. And we want to 

work with you. Okay?

 Ms. Herseth?

Ms. Herseth. Well, I know we are running close on a vote, but I

would just want to comment for the record, we have to be very clear 

on the costs we save in what we do to enhance the quality of care, 

the rehabilitative care, beyond 90 days, for these young and men and 

women suffering traumatic brain injuries, because improvements are 

necessary. I have a constituent who is now getting care in a private 

facility, and there were worries that because he hadn’t made so much 

progress after 90 days, even though he wasn’t getting his physical 

therapy every day, even that he wasn’t getting any occupational therapy, no speech therapy, he has made more progress in 45 days at a 
38

different facility, a non-VA facility. And the cost savings that we can 

realize, not only the quality of care that he deserves, but the cost savings of not having a long-term care situation for these young men and 

women is very important as we look at the next budget.

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Thank you very much. This panel is now excused. 

The Committee will stand in recess. We will reconvene at a quarter 

after one.

[Recess]

The Chairman. The Veterans Affairs Committee of the House will 

come to order.

 Now I introduce panel two. Here representing the Military Order 

of the Purple Heart of the United States is Tom Poulter, their National Commander. Commander Poulter enlisted in the United States 

Army in February 1967 and was commissioned as a second lieutenant of armor in 1968. He served in Vietnam as a tank platoon leader 

with the first Battalion 69th armor, and was assigned to the fourth 

infantry division in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. In November 

17, 1969, after battle with a company-sized enemy force of the 24th 

North Vietnamese Army regiment near the Cambodian border, Commander Poulter was wounded in action by an AK-47 round by the 

enemy during an NVA counter attack, while he was dismounted and 

consolidating his platoon’s objective.

Commander Poulter is an active member of the Sonoma County 

Chapter 78 of the Military Order of the Purple Heart located in Santa 

Rosa, California, where he became a member in 1994. He is a past 

Commander of his local chapter, the Department of California, and 

the Commander of region six, that includes Guam, Hawaii, California, Arizona, Nevada, and Utah. Thank you for being here, and congratulations.

 Speaking on behalf of The Paralyzed Veterans of America is Mr. 

Randy Pleva. Speaking for him is Louis Irvin. Is it Pleva, is that how 

he pronounces it, though?

Mr. Irvin. It is Pleva.

The Chairman. Mr. Irvin is PVA’s Executive Director. Mr. Irvin 

served the United States Navy as a fire control technician, and received a combat action ribbon during operation Desert Storm. He 

suffered a spinal cord injury that ended his military career in 1992, 

became a member of PVA in 1994, and began to serve PVA as the 

National Service Officer the same year. Four years later, he was 

appointed to PVA’s National Board of Directors, and in 1999, was accepted to the position of executive director of PVA’s San Diego chapter in California.

 Representing the Gold Star Wives is Ms. Rose Elizabeth Lee. Rose 

is the widow of Colonel Lee of the United States Army, who served 

in Korea and Vietnam. Colonel Lee died on active duty overseas in 
39

1972. In 1978, Rose was appointed Gold Star Wives’ Washington 

representative, and has been active through most of that time. Rose 

is Gold Star wives’ National President from 1991 to 1993, and chaired 

the Board of Directors from 1998 to 2002. She just served as Potomac 

area chapter president from June, 2004 to 2006. All her work with 

Gold Star Wives is voluntary, and her mission is to train the new 

young widows to become involved with legislative work. Rose has appeared representing the Gold Star Wives before this Committee for a 

number of years.

 And I understand that your National President, Ms. Joanne Young, 

is here in the audience today?

Ms. Lee. Yes.

The Chairman. Thank you very much for your attendance, and 

I thank you, and I welcome you both. I also understand that it is 

your charter that does not permit Ms. Young to testify, and that is 

why Rose Lee is testifying on your behalf. Would that be accurate, 

ma’am? That is accurate? All right, thank you.

 Here representing the Fleet Reserve Association, representing 

their National President is Edgar Zerr, is Mr. John Davis, director 

of legislative programs. Mr. Davis this, a former Marine, served in 

the artillery unit in the early 1980s, and later received a direct commission to serve in the Army National Guard. He joined the Fleet 

Reserve Association team as director in February 2006.

 You know, I am looking for your vast bio for the Vietnam Veterans 

of America, and I just cannot find it. Mr. President, you have testified 

before this Committee, and we have enjoyed working with you. I just 

hate to be redundant, it is so vast. So I will not bore everyone. You 

are such a humble man that you have restrained me from reading 

your bio.

Next, our final witness will be the new National Commander of the 

American Legion, Paul Morin of Massachusetts, was elected National 

Commander on August 31, 2006. The Commander is a Vietnam veteran of the United States Army, and an active member of post 337 in 

Massachusetts. He has served as department Commander, and as 

member of the national commissions, including Children and Youth, 

Foreign Relations, Public Relations, and Convention. He has chaired 

the Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation commission, as well as the 

Legislative Employment commissions, and served on the Legislative 

Council and commission.

 He was honored in 2001 by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Tony 

Principi, with the Secretary’s Award for his service to our Nation’s 

veterans while President of the National Associative State Veterans 

Homes. In 2002, he was awarded Outstanding Citizen of the Year 

by the Samson World War II Navy veterans, and in 2004, received 

the outside award from Massachusetts Veterans Service Officers’ Association. On March 31, 2005 he received the distinguished citizens 
40

award from the Grand Lodge Order of the Elks.

 So congratulations to all of you, and thank you for being here. Do 

all of you have written testimony you seek to submit before the Committee?

All acknowledge in the affirmative. Do you offer such testimony?

All acknowledge in the affirmative, so testimony will be received 

without objection. So ordered.

 Each of you will be recognized for 10 minutes, and we will give 

latitude, and we will start with you, sir. Mr. Poulter, of the Purple 

Heart Association.

STATEMENTS OF TOM POULTER, NATIONAL COMMANDER, MILITARY ORDER OF THE PURPLE HEART OF THE

U.S.A., INC.; LOUIS IRVIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA; ROSE ELIZABETH LEE, 

CHAIR, GOVERNMENT RELATIONS COMMITTEE, GOLD 

STAR WIVES OF AMERICA, INC.; JOHN R. DAVIS, DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE PROGRAMS, FLEET RESERVE ASSOCIATION; JOHN ROWAN, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA; AND PAUL A. MORIN, 

NATIONAL COMMANDER, AMERICAN LEGION

STATEMENT OF TOM POULTER

Mr. Poulter. Chairman Buyer, Acting Ranking Member Filner, 

members of the Committee, ladies and gentlemen, I am Tom Poulter, National Commander of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. 

It is an honor to appear before this distinguished body on behalf of 

the members of the Military Order of the Purple Heart. As you are 

aware, our order is very unique in that among service organizations, 

the only one, because our membership is comprised entirely of combat-wounded veterans who shed their blood on the battlefields of the 

world while serving in the armed forces of our country.

 I am accompanied today by National Adjutant Bill Bacon, National 

Service Director Jack Leonard, and National Legislative Director 

Herschel Gober.

 I have turned in a written testimony, and I will make my comments 

very brief, Mr. Chairman, but this Committee is extremely important 

to the Military Order of the Purple Heart and our members. We look 

to you to represent the veterans of our country and to ensure that all 

members of Congress understand that America must keep its promises to those men and women who have served and are now serving in 

uniform, if we are to maintain a viable military and continue to enjoy 

the freedoms that we have. Veterans have earned their entitlements 

and benefits, often as part and parcel of the contract that each had 

with this government.
41

Veterans benefits are not a gift. They are not a welfare program. 

They are earned from service to country. They must not be diminished in any way.

The first point I would like to make is—and it has been covered 

several times—is the adequate funding for the VA health administration. The Military Order of the Purple Heart is on record as supporting the Independent Budget, which is developed and submitted to 

Congress by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Disabled American Veterans, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the AMVETS, American 

Veterans.

 I am the fourth National Commander of the Military Order of the 

Purple Heart in a row to again stress that our number one priority 

must remain the adequate, or assured funding for the VA health administration. The Military Order of the Purple Heart joins our fellow 

veterans’ service organizations in urging Congress to find a long-term 

solution for once and for all to the annual funding crisis at the VA. 

VA deserves a budget system that will deliver funds to them on time, 

to allow for long-term planning. While the ongoing war on terror, 

and our servicemembers returning home from war with medical conditions requiring treatment at our VA hospitals, the VA must have 

the capability to meet their medical and emotional needs. The funding problem was demonstrated, of course, last year when the need to 

provide a supplemental appropriation for fiscal year 2005 surfaced, 

along with the need to amend the fiscal year 2006 budget. So it is 

really important, and I think it has been mentioned by every other 

veterans’ service organization that we get a fix on this.

 And the number two item is that the award of the Purple Heart 

medal to those POWs who died in captivity. While the award of the 

Purple Heart medal to those POWs who died in captivity is not under the purview of this Committee, the Military Order of the Purple 

Heart believes that those military personnel who suffered hardships, 

wounds, or illnesses, including starvation, brutality, slave labor, and 

a lack of medical care, while held in POW camps, and then they died 

in those camps as a result of this internment, should be considered 

as combat casualties, and eligible for the award of the Purple Heart 

medal. Our order has supported legislation that was introduced 

to both Houses of Congress, that would authorize the posthumous 

awarding of the Purple Heart medal to these veterans.

 Language in the House version of the 2007 National Defense authorization is currently in conference committee, and the Military 

Order of the Purple Heart request that members of this Committee 

urge the conferees to retain this provision in the final act.

 Next point is retired pay restoration. The Military Order of the 

Purple Heart is very pleased that Congress enacted legislation that 

authorizes some military retirees with 20 or more years of service 

to concurrently receive, without penalty or offset, both their full of 
42

military retired pay, and any VA compensation to which they are 

entitled. Our position is that all those eligible for concurrent receipt 

should receive it.

 And going along with that, the Combat-Related Special Compensation, known as CRSC, our order supports the legislation to provide 

for the additional payment of CRSC to former members of the military who were retired medically, serving less than 20 years of active 

military service because they had to be retired on a medical basis, 

and they are awarded the Purple Heart medal. A lot of the veterans’ 

organizations ask why we push those. A lot of our members are in 

that category. And so CRSC is very, very important to the members 

of our order.

Fifth point is the Survivor Benefit Plan, SBP, and the Dependency 

and Indemnity Compensation, DIC. SBP was an investment by the 

member with their own money. The Military Order of the Purple 

Heart supports language in Senate bill 2766, and the 2007 Defense 

Authorization Act, which, if enacted, will repeal the reduction of survivor benefit plan annuities by the amount of the dependency and 

indemnity compensation, and will change the effective date of the 

paid- up coverage for SBP, bringing it forward from October 1 of 2008 

to October 1 of this year, 2006. Survivors of retirees who died but 

elected to pay into SBP, and survivors of members who died on active 

duty, should receive both SBP and DIC, without the current dollarfor-dollar offset.

 This bill is now in the conference Committee. We request that you 

urge your colleagues who are serving on the Committee to adopt the 

Senate language of S. 2766.

 Another point that I wanted to make was on the Stolen Valor Act. 

The Military Order of the Purple Heart supported House Bill 3352, 

and S. 1998, addressing stolen valor. It is unfortunate, especially 

with our country engaged in ongoing conflicts, that we have these imposters out there who fully and knowingly misrepresent their service. 

Not a matter of inflating your resume, it is a matter of lying, and misrepresenting your total service, and any of the military awards that 

they have received. This is not just an occurrence now and then, but 

is regrettably becoming a huge problem.

This legislation would provide fines and imprisonment for those 

wannabees who dishonor the medals for valor and Purple Heart medal, and those brave men and women who have legitimately received 

these metals. The Senate passed Senate Bill 1998 two weeks ago on 

September 7, and we would urge the House to do the same. These 

phonies are taking benefits away from those who have earned them. 

Some received VA disability for no service that they ever had. They 

get license plates, including the Purple Heart license plate from the 

DMV, where they don’t have the people that are trained to look at a 

DD 214, or a certificate, and it is a big problem. Now, that particu-
43

lar bill in the House of course was introduced by Congressman John 

Salazar, and it has been in the House Judiciary Committee since July 

of 2005, last year.

 The Military Order of the Purple Heart will continue to seek legislation that would authorize military exchange and commissary 

privileges for all recipients of the Purple Heart medal. This would 

recognize the sacrifices of those servicemembers who have given so 

much for our country.

 The National Purple Heart Recognition Day. As most of you are 

aware, the Badge of Military Merit, which is the predecessor of the 

Purple Heart medal, was established by General George Washington 

on August 7, 1782. This is the oldest decoration in the United States. 

It is the oldest decoration in the world given to the common soldier. 

Next year on August 7, 2007, the Military Order of the Purple Heart 

is celebrating its 225th anniversary of this decoration at our 75th National convention in New Windsor, New York, which is a historic entombment center, and the last encampment of George Washington’s 

army.

 We will be seeking sponsors, cosponsors, in support of legislation to 

establish a National Purple Heart Recognition Day, which will honor 

this anniversary and those members, past and present, who have 

been awarded a Purple Heart medal.

 Mr. Chairman, will you sponsor this legislation, and seek cosponsors? We would be very honored if you would do that.

 In conclusion, I would like the members of the Committee to recall 

the quotes of two very famous Americans. First of all, General Douglas MacArthur once said, and I quote, “The soldier, above all other 

prayers, for peace. For it is the soldier who must suffer and bear the 

deepest wounds and scars of war.’’

 And then, President John F. Kennedy said, and I quote, “Let every 

Nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any 

price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure survival and success of liberty.’’

 The Military Order of the Purple Heart supports all of our brave 

warriors, both male and female, who serve and fight to protect our 

freedoms in the global war on terrorism.

 Mr. Chairman, this concludes my testimony, and I will be pleased 

to answer any questions from the members of the Committee.

[The statement of Tom Poulter appears on p. 133]

STATEMENT OF LOUIS IRVIN

The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony. Mr. Irvin?

Mr. Irvin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. 

On behalf of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, as the new Execu-
44

tive Director I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify 

today. In my statements today, I will highlight some issues that have 

been submitted in our written testimony.

In May, the House of Representatives approved the fiscal year 2007 

appropriations bill that will fund $25.4 billion for VA medical services. Although this does not quite meet the recommendation levels 

of the Independent Budget, we are glad to see that Congress and the 

Administration have made a reasonable effort this year to meet the 

needs of the VA health care system. We protected appreciate this 

Committee and Congress rejecting the proposed enrollment fee and 

increased prescription drug copayments recommended by the Administration.

Congress also approved legislation in previous years to establish 

eight priority enrollment groups for VA health care. We believe veterans in category eight should be allowed access to the VA health care 

system. Also, veterans with catastrophic disabilities were allowed to 

enroll in category four, even though their disabilities were non-service-connected, and regardless of their incomes. However, they would 

still be required to pay all fees and copayments.

 PVA believes because of the nature of their disabilities, they require a lot of care and lifetime of services. Many times, VA is not only 

the best resource; it is the only resource for a veteran with a spinal 

cord injury. These veterans should not have to pay the fees and copayments necessary to receive these specialized services.

PVA was pleased that the Committee recommended a significant 

increase in funding for medical and prosthetics research in its budget views and estimates. Unfortunately, the appropriations bill only 

provided an increase of 13 million, for a total of 412 million. Research 

is an essential mission for our Nation’s health care system. VA research is still grossly underfunded in comparison with the growth 

rate of the Federal research efforts.

 One area we remain concerned about is funding for construction 

projects. The appropriations bill provides nearly 1.15 billion less 

than the Independent Budget recommendations for major construction. The bill also provides no funding for the new spinal cord injury center in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, or funding for the replacement 

medical center in the Denver, Colorado area.

 We would also identify the Committee that in the Denver area, 

there is a new spinal cord injury Center to be identified with that 

medical center.

 The appropriations bill also provides 295 million less than the recommendations for minor construction. Many VA facilities require 

significant upgrades and overhauls. The VA appropriations Subcommittees in the House and Senate insert language in their VA funding 

reports for fiscal year 2001 requiring VA to establish centers of excellence to conduct research in the field of neurodegenerative diseases 
45

prevalent in the veterans population. VA identified two fields of inquiry for these centers: Parkinson’s disease and multiple sclerosis. 

The VA then established the Parkinson’s disease research and education clinical Center, and the multiple sclerosis centers of excellence.

 In 2001, these centers represent a successful strategy to focus the 

Veterans Health Administration on systemwide service and research 

expertise to address the critical care segments of the veteran population.

 Earlier this year, the Senate approved S. 2694, that would make 

permanent the authorization of these centers. We urge the Committee to adopt legislation which would codify these centers in Title 38.

 PVA is also concerned that the VA continues to experience a serious shortage of qualified board-certified spinal cord injury positions. 

In some VA hospitals, the recruitment of a new chief of service has 

been prolonged, with acting chiefs assigned for indefinite periods of 

time. We are even more concerned about the continuing shortages of 

nurses, particularly in the spinal cord injury units.

 PVA believes that basic salary for nurses who provide bedside care 

to these spinal cord injured veterans is too low to be competitive with 

the community hospitals in the area. This leads to high attrition 

rates as these nurses seek better pay in the community. Recruitment and retention bonuses have been an effective tool for several 

SCI centers. Unfortunately, these are localized efforts by individual 

VA medical facilities. We believe the veterans health administration 

should authorize substantial recruitment incentives and bonuses to 

retain these highly professional and qualified nurses.

 PVA calls on Congress to conduct more oversight on the VA health 

care administration in meeting its nurse staffing requirements for 

the SCI units, as outlined in VHA directive 2005-001.

 PVA is also concerned with recent trends to reduce the ability of 

the VA to provide long-term care to the aging veterans population. 

The Veterans Millennium Health Care Act benefit, public Law 106-

117, required VA to maintain its 1998 VA nursing home average daily census mandate of 13,391 beds. VA’s average daily census for VA

nursing homes is projected to decrease to a new low of 9795 beds, in 

fiscal year 2006. The VA is ignoring the law, serving fewer and fewer 

veterans in its nursing home care program. PVA strongly feels that 

any repeal of the capacity mandate will adversely affect veterans, 

and a step towards allowing VA to reduce its current nursing home 

capacity. This is not a time for reducing VA nursing home capacity, 

with the increased number of veterans looming on the horizon for 

long-term care.

 Furthermore, we urge the Committee to conduct an aggressive 

oversight to ensure the VA is fully funding statutory obligations to 

provide long-term care. PVA would like to offer a view improvements 

to benefits provided by VA. PVA members are the number one ben-
46

eficiary for the special adaptive housing grant, and the automobile 

adaptive grant. For both the special adaptive housing grant and the 

automobile grant, we believe an automatic annual adjustment indexed to the rising cost of living should be applied. Furthermore, the 

Independent Budget recommendations recommends the adaptive automobile grant should increase to 80 percent of the average cost of a 

new vehicle, to meet the original intent of Congress, in creating that 

legislation. The House of Veterans Affairs Subcommittee on economic 

opportunity considered H.R. 4791 earlier this year. We hope this 

Committee will move this legislation forward.

We have also identified some critical issues for fiscal year 2008, as 

requested by you, Mr. Chairman. The Independent Budget for veterans’ service organizations recently began planning for fiscal year 

2008 by developing some critical issues.

 First, we believe the adequate funding for veterans health care is 

essential, as mentioned by my associates. We continue to stress the 

need for budget process reform, removing VA health care funding 

from the discretionary process, and making it mandatory.

 Second critical issue is mental health care. It has become more apparent that many servicemembers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are experiencing psychological disorders. It is imperative that 

we do not allow these men and women to slip through the cracks.

 Third, as previously mentioned, we have serious concerns about the 

construction and infrastructure. VA construction projects have suffered in recent years as a result of a moratorium on new construction 

resulting from the Capital Assessment Realignment Enhancement 

Services, the CARES process. This has also left a significant backlog 

of critical maintenance and infrastructure upgrades. We hope that 

this Committee and Congress will devote serious attention to the infrastructure needs of VA in the upcoming year.

 Once again, this year the claims backlog is one of our critical issues. We have appreciated this Committee’s efforts in recommending 

an increase in 200 full-time employees for direct compensation to improve the claims process. Unfortunately, the military quality of life 

and Veterans Affairs appropriations bill does not include additional 

funding to allow the VA to hire these staff.

 Another continuing issue for the Independent Budget is the seamless transition of servicemembers. The seamless transition includes 

not only health care services, but benefits as well. We are advocating 

for a single electronic health record for all transitioning servicemembers, to ensure that VA and the military can best provide their health 

care needs when necessary. We believe the VA electronic health record is the standard that should be set for all Federal health care 

records.

 Finally, Congress should continue to invest much needed resources 

in the National Cemetery Administration. With new National cem-
47

eteries opening this year and next, we must ensure that the National Cemetery Administration can properly maintain these National 

shrines. In the end, all veterans and their family members should 

be provided a dignified setting in their National or State veteran’s 

cemeteries.

 PVA appreciates the opportunity to present our views today, and I

will be more than happy to take any questions. Thank you.

[The statement of Louis Irvin appears on p. 137]

STATEMENT OF MS. ROSE LEE

The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony.

 Ms. Lee, you are now recognized.

Ms. Lee. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Representative Filner, 

and members of the House Veterans Affairs Committee. I would like 

to thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony to you on behalf 

of all Gold Star Wives to review last year and look forward to this 

coming year. My name is Rose Lee. I am a widow, and the chair of 

the Gold Star Wives Committee on Government Relations.

 I wish to thank many Gold Star Wives for attending this hearing 

today who are in the audience. You have already acknowledged Joan 

Young, our National President. We also have Martha Didamo, our 

Chairman of the Board. And then we have some members of the 

Government Relations Committee, which included three of the newer 

widows of the Iraq war. And then of course, our members of the Potomac Chapter, our local chapter. They are all back here, and I just 

want to let them know that we appreciate them being here.

 The Gold Star Wives of America Inc. was founded in 1945, and is 

a congressionally-chartered service organization comprised of surviving spouses of military servicemembers who died while on active duty, 

or as a result of a service- connected disability. We could begin with 

no better advocate than Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, newly-widowed, who 

helped make Gold Star Wives a truly national organization. Mrs. 

Roosevelt was an original signer of our certificate of incorporation as 

a member of the Board of Directors.

 Thank you for this opportunity, and for your continued support of 

programs that directly support the well-being of our servicemembers, 

widows, and their families. Gold Star Wives applaud the efforts of 

this Committee, knowing that together we can continue to make a 

difference in the lives of this group, a group that no one would choose 

to voluntarily to be a part of. It is imperative that the difficulty of the 

sacrifice of our husbands’ lives be mitigated to the degree possible by 

providing support for the survivors.

 There are many issues still pending before the Congress that mean 

a great deal to the membership of Gold Star Wives. As we are moving 

forward, now is the time to close out some of these legislative issues. 
48

Gold Star Wives has no greater priority than to eliminate the offset 

to the Survivors Benefit Plan, SBP, dollar for dollar by the amount of 

the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, DIC, stipend.

 You are well familiar with this topic. We have been addressing this 

issue for several years, and I want to thank Representative Henry 

Brown for introducing H.R. 808 on this issue.

 In essence, a servicemember’s disability results in voiding or reducing the benefits that a servicemember purchased from the SBP. 

While this is an issue being addressed in conference of the fiscal year 

2007 National Defense Authorization Act, we urge you as individuals, and as the Committee together, to encourage your colleagues to 

make this right. DIC is within your jurisdiction. All we are seeking 

is to assure that survivor benefit plan annuities for those eligible will 

not be reduced by the amount of dependency and indemnity compensation, to which they are separately entitled.

 This is an issue from last year. It is a current issue. We would urge 

your help that this not become an issue for next year, but be resolved 

in this session of Congress.

 We have been pleased with the interest in the House, and by Representative Bilirakis in particular, in providing for decreasing the 

remarriage age for retention of survivors benefits to age 55. You 

will recall that the current public law permits surviving spouses who 

remarry after reaching age 57 to retain their VA survivor benefits. 

It also provided for a one-year period to apply for reinstatement for 

those who remarried before the law was signed, but that period expired in December, 2004.

 Because the retroactive period was limited to one year, and outreach was limited, many eligible survivors may not have been aware 

of their eligibility to be reinstated. Mr. Bilirakis’ H.R. 1462 is a bill 

that we need to focus on now to address these issues. It is time to get 

it done.

We have testified before this Committee previously, and before the 

Veterans Disability Benefits Commission, for a review of the DIC program, to ensure that all veterans’ survivors are covered adequately, 

and have equity with other Federal and military survivor benefits. 

There are some widows dependent only on their monthly DIC check, 

living below the poverty level. Current DIC is set at $1033 monthly, 

which is only 41 percent of the disabled veterans compensation paid 

by the VA. Survivors of Federal workers have their monthly annuities set at 55 percent of the disabled retirees’ compensation. We 

seek to raise DIC payments to 55 percent of the current VA disability compensation. That would improve the DIC payments to $1316 

monthly.

 As you can see, we are not seeking exorbitant amounts. We are 

simply seeking fairness across the government, to modestly help deserving survivors. Therefore, we again ask the Committee for a re-
49

view of the DIC program.

 Recently I received this letter, and it reads, quote, “Thank you for 

the requested DIC review. Since my benefits began in 1957, which 

was before the SBP was in effect, it seems that the increases in DIC 

have not progressed as have other survivor programs. The cost of living has increased so much, it is extremely difficult to keep up with it. 

At age 79, I am still working, trying to pay debts, and wondering how 

to pay the undertaker. If there is any way we, who are dependent 

upon DIC survivors benefits can be of assistance in the execution of 

this review, please inform us. Sincerely,” unquote.

 There are inequities among payments for the child survivors that 

need attention. The additional monthly $250 Child DAC payment 

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

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

Michael Michaud for introducing H.R. 1573, which provided for this 

additional payment to families. It makes no sense that the survivors 

of those who died first should be prohibited from accessing a benefit 

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

to representative Shelley Berkley for introducing the amendment, 

which was approved by the House, to include a COLA for the $250 

DIC allowance per family. The lack of COLA has dropped the value 

of the allowance to about $240 this year. We would request the Committee to assure that these inequities be corrected.

We also seek to provide a dental plan to beneficiaries of the civilian 

health and medical program of the Department of Veterans Affairs, 

CHAMP VA. With no coverage now, Gold Star Wives seeks for widows and all CHAMP VA beneficiaries the ability to purchase a voluntary dental insurance plan. There are a few other issues that need attending that have been brought to your attention previously. There 

are widows whose husbands died in a VA hospital due to wrongful VA

hospital care, who receive only DIC, without any other VA benefits 

under title 38 U.S. Code 1151. We urge the Committee to support 

the measures necessary to allow these widows to be entitled to the 

CHAMP VA benefit.

 We are seeking legislation to remove the disabled under age 65 

part B penalties and interest for late enrollment to CHAMP VA, and 

promote a feasibility study to convert VA facilities to long-term care 

facilities, which would welcome widows and widowers.

The Chairman. Mrs. Lee, if you could summarize just a little.

Ms. Lee. Yes. I have just a very little, Mr. Buyer, thank you.

 Surviving spouses who are on active duty should be able to use 

the educational benefit derived from her deceased husband while still 

serving on active duty. Currently, the active-duty widow must resign 

from the military in order to use the derived educational benefit under chapter 35.

 Not in my written testimony is something about mental health. It 
50

is an issue affecting widows and children. It has become more prevalent recently. I have heard from new widows about this more and 

more. VA’s vet centers provide counseling, which is wonderful, but 

it is not always nearby. TRICARE does not provide grief counseling, 

either.

Finally, Gold Star Wives supports the creation of an office for survivors with the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Department 

of Defense, to ensure improved delivery of benefits, information, and 

benefits to survivors.

 In conclusion, we want neither our widows nor their children to 

be forgotten. We can understand and encourage your intention to 

the needed services of the servicemembers served our country, who 

may return wounded, who may gave his life. When the latter occurs, 

we want you never to forget the family he leaves behind. They have 

made their own personal lifelong sacrifice. We ask again to show the 

spirit of this Nation by not forgetting these widows, unfortunately 

whose numbers grew daily, and their children.

 I thank this Committee for opening this opportunity to hear us 

again, and allow for further awareness of issues facing survivors daily. We will be happy to continue to work with the Committee and 

give our time and resources on all issues impacting survivors.

 Thank you, sir.

[The statement of Rose Lee appears on p. 145]

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. DAVIS

The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Lee. Mr. Davis, you are recognized.

Mr. Davis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, the 

members of the Fleet Reserve Association appreciates this opportunity to review the past fiscal year and look ahead to the next year. The 

FRA extends sincere gratitude for the concern, and progress to date 

generated by the Committee in protecting, improving, and enhancing 

benefits that are truly deserved by our Nation’s veterans.

 FRA appreciates Chairman Steve Buyer and the House Majority 

Leader meeting with FRA National President, Ed Zerr, in June, to 

discuss the data security problem at the Department of Veterans Affairs. One of the more worrying aspects of the case is that the data 

theft was not reported to the Secretary for two weeks. It was originally reported that less than 50,000 names were stolen when in fact, 

a theft of personal information from the home of a VA employee included more than 26 million veterans, and more than 2 million active 

duty personnel.

 Even though the data was recovered and apparently not accessed, 

the VA and congressional oversight Committee should continue to 
51

pursue improvements in the data security at VA. We hope that data 

theft security is not like a shooting star in the legislative arena that 

is very bright in the beginning, and then quickly burns out and everyone forgets about it. Even more recent theft apparently indicates 

that data security at the VA is going to be an ongoing concern with 

veterans, with the news that a computer containing information on 

up to 38,000 veterans treated over the last four years at two VA medical centers in Pennsylvania is missing from the Virginia office of a VA 

contractor.

 If there is any silver lining in this episode, is that upon learning 

the computer was missing, the VA took immediate steps to notify the 

appropriate senior VA leadership, congressional offices, Committees, 

VA’s office of Inspector General, and other law enforcement authorities, including the FBI and Department of Homeland Security.

 FRA appreciates the efforts of the House of Veterans Affairs Committee and its Senate counterpart for their tireless efforts to improve 

data security at the Department of Veterans Affairs.

 FRA fully supports the legislative effort of this Committee that culminated in Chairman Buyer’s introducing and the full Committee 

approving H.R. 5835. The bill aims to create more accountability at 

the VA for data security. It would create an Office of Undersecretary 

of Information Security, and would require the VA to report to Congress any data theft, and would provide credit monitoring and fraud 

remuneration for affected individuals.

 Additionally, the bill would require a study on using personal identification numbers, rather than Social Security numbers for veterans 

benefits. The full House should expedite passage of this important 

legislation as soon as possible to give the Senate an opportunity to 

pass this legislation for the President’s signature before the end of 

the 109th Congress.

 FRA is mindful that legislation alone cannot fully remedy an internal bureaucratic culture that gives data security a low priority. 

But FRA believes the public expects, and the veterans community 

demands, that it is now time for Congress to do their part to help correct this problem.

 FRA strongly supports adequate funding for DoD and VA health 

care resource sharing in delivering seamless, cost effective, quality 

services to personnel wounded while participating in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom, other veterans, servicemembers, reservists, military retirees, and their families. That 

is why FRA supports the recent executive order to require Federal 

agencies who channel health care to work together to implement a 

standardized electronic health record.

 The agencies, including the VA, will coordinate with the Department of Defense so that the clinical information can be interchanged 

efficiently. A standardized electronic health record will make shar-
52

ing information between health care providers more cost effective for 

everyone, and will eliminate the cost of record duplication.

 FRA also supports H.R. 4992, sponsored by Representative Kelly of 

New York. This Bill changes the law to allow the VA to bill Medicare, 

which will enable veterans to use Medicare coverage to help them pay 

their bills at a VA hospital. It is puzzling to our members why this 

program has not been given serious consideration and enacted long 

ago.

 With regard to the VA medical and prosthetic research, the VA is 

widely recognized for its effective research program, and FRA continues to strongly support adequate funding for medical research, and 

for the need of the disabled veterans. The value of both programs 

within the veterans community cannot be overstated. Noteworthy is 

the fact that the fiscal year 2007 proposed a budget for medical and 

prosthetic research shows only a slight one percent increase in the 

most successful aspect of all VA medical programs. FRA is concerned 

about relying on other government agencies to help support and fund 

important research related to disabled veterans.

 FRA endorses recommendations from the Committee on the budget 

to convert veterans health care count from discretionary spending to 

mandatory spending. FRA understands the jurisdictional and other 

challenges associated with this issue, and believes that veterans’ 

health care is as important as other Federal benefits funded in this 

manner. Regardless of the methods used, the association supports 

any efforts to help assure full funding for VA health care, to ensure 

care for all beneficiaries.

 I would like to talk a little bit about claims processing. Claims processing delays are a continuing concern. VA can promptly deliver benefits to entitled veterans only if it can process and adjudicate claims 

in a timely and accurate fashion. Given the critical importance of 

disability benefits, VA has a paramount responsibility to maintain an 

effective delivery system, taking decisive and appropriate action to 

correct any deficiencies, as soon as they are evident. As stated in our 

February testimony, VA has neither maintained the necessary capacity to match and meet its claims workload, nor correct its systematic 

deficiencies that compound the problem of inadequate capacity.

 Rather than making headway and overcoming the chronic claims 

backlog and consequent protracted delays in claims disposition, VA

has actually lost ground on the problem. The backlog of pending 

claims is growing substantially larger. And now even the Court of 

Appeals of the veterans claims is experiencing a growing backlog of 

cases.

 FRA commends the Chairman for his statement at the December 

8, 2005 year in on VBA claims processing, and agrees that, “the increase in disability claims can be directly related to the increase in 

U.S. military operations abroad. Doing more with less is not a strat-
53

egy for success.’’

An increase in staffing levels within the VBA claims processing 

system is essential to moving forward to reduce this backlog.

 FRA appreciates Chairman Buyer’s and the Committee’s interest 

in the MGIB reform, and it supports provisions in the Senate version 

of the NDAA that allows reservists to draw benefits up to 10 years 

after leaving the reserves. Currently, only active-duty members can 

draw benefits after service.

 The Montgomery G.I. Bill is important, and aids in the recruitment 

and retention of high-quality individuals for service in the active and 

reserve forces, assists in the readjustment of servicemen and women 

to civilian life after they have completed military service, extends the 

benefits of higher education to servicemen and women who are not 

able to afford higher education, and enhances the Nation by providing a better-educated and productive workforce.

Double-digit education inflation is dramatically diminishing the 

value of MGIB. Despite recent increases, benefits fall well short of 

the actual costs of education at a four-year public college or university. In addition, thousands of career servicemembers who entered 

service during the VEEP era, but declined to enroll in that program—

in many cases because of government advice, from government officials—have been denied an MGIB enrollment opportunity.

 In addition, the Nation’s active duty guard and reserve forces are 

effectively being integrated under the total force concept, and education benefits under the Montgomery G.I. Bill should be restructured 

accordingly.

 FRA supports the total force Montgomery G.I. Bill for the 21st 

century. The FRA supports integration of active and reserve forces 

program. The MGIB program under the title 38 is very, very important, and will provide an inequity of benefits for services performed, 

enable improved administration, and facilitate accomplishments of 

statutory purposes intended by the Congress for the MGIB. Currently, mobilized reservists must leave behind MGIB benefits upon 

separation unless the separation is for disability.

 I would like to talk a little bit about the cemetery, National Cemetery Administration. FRA is grateful for the Committee for recommending an additional 14 million in NCA operations and maintenance, and an additional 16 million in NCA construction for 2007. As 

part of the veterans education benefits act of 2001, the government 

is to provide grave markers to veterans whenever requested, even if 

there is another marker on the grave. However, as written, the law 

only applies to burials after December 27, 2001. FRA supports H.R. 

3082, which would repeal this expiration, and expand application options for veterans buried in private cemeteries.

 FRA is thankful to this Committee, Congress, and the President of 

the United States, for approving H.R. 5037, the Respect for America’s 
54

Fallen Heroes Act.

 We appreciate that, and with that I will end my testimony, and 

wait for any questions of stop thank you.

[The statement of John R. Davis appears on p. 153]

The Chairman. Thank you very much.

 Representing the Vietnam Veterans of America is National President John Rowan, who was elected at VVA’s 12th National convention in Reno, Nevada. He enlisted in the United States Air Force in 

1965, two years after graduating from high school in Queens, New 

York, went to language school, where he learned Indonesian and 

Vietnamese. He served with the Air Force 6990 security squadron 

in Vietnam and Okinawa, in helping direct bombing missions. After 

his honorable discharge, he began college in 1969, receiving a BA in 

political science from Queens College, and a Masters degree in urban 

affairs at Hunter College.

 He recently retired from his job as the investigator for New York 

City’s Comptrollers Office. Prior to his election as VVA’s National 

President, he served as VVA’s veterans service representative in New 

York City, and he was a founding member and the first resident of 

VVA’s chapter 32 in Queens.

 National President Rowan, you are recognized.

STATEMENT OF JOHN ROWAN

Mr. Rowan. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Chairman 

Buyer and Ranking Member Filner, and distinguished members of 

the Committee. On behalf of the members and families of the Vietnam Veterans of America is my privilege today to offer our comments 

concerning what has been accomplished in the arena of Veterans Affairs during fiscal year 2006, what remains to be done in waning days 

of this fiscal year, and what needs to be addressed by this Committee 

in fiscal year 2007.

 First, let me review the simple and straightforward legislative agenda of VVA. First, to secure adequate resources to properly administer 

the network of services that our Nation’s veterans have earned. This 

includes a more adequate sum for operation of VA medical centers 

and other vital health care functions. It also included increasing the 

number of adjudicators in the compensation and pensions system, 

and counselors and vocational rehabilitation and education.

 Second, we ask that you and your colleagues take action to greatly 

enhance the accountability of all employees in the VA, but especially 

managers and political appointees. This would include being held 

accountable for accurate adjudication decisions as opposed to just 

moving files forward in the C&P services that appears to be the case 

now. It is also ensuring that contracts are drawn in such a manner 
55

as to systematize the reporting of contracts and unit cost, with an eye 

towards getting the most goods and services for the least expenditure 

of each taxpayer dollar. It would also include greater accountability 

in regard to access to medical and other services, as well as clinical 

outcomes.

 Third, we ask that you take steps to greatly enhance outreach by 

the VA to inform veterans of the earned benefits at the VA and elsewhere in the Federal government.

We have had some movement in the first two, and unfortunately, 

nothing in the third.

 As to what did happen this year, VVA commends you on your activism in tackling some of the issues of critical importance to veterans, 

particularly our newest veterans. You have sought to give real meaning to the term, “seamless transition,” have forced the active cooperation between the VA and the Department of Defense in providing 

assistance to newly-minted veterans transitioning from active duty. 

You have also pushed the VA to greatly improve the way it conducts 

its business in regard to information technology, and you have rejected the office of management and budget notion that the co-pay for 

prescription drugs be increased, and a user fee be imposed on certain 

veterans who avail themselves of the VA health care system.

 We don’t need to belabor the whole laptop computer theft problem; 

just to know the VVA supports and applauds your legislative initiative to resolve these deficiencies within the VA, and we hope that 

that becomes successful, and we will work to push the Senate on this 

legislation.

 However, numerous initiatives that have been started have yet to 

be completed. These include cutting the enormous backlog of cases 

awaiting adjudication by personnel of the Veterans Benefits Administration. We know the undersecretary of Veterans Affairs for Benefits Cooper is focusing on this problem. We hope his fate will not 

be the same as that of the former Secretary Principi, whose goal to 

significantly cut this backlog was defeated by the backlog.

 It is interesting to note, too, that IOM report on PTSD talked about 

the fact that the VA needed to totally utilize its own methods for 

adjudication of C&P exams in PTSD, which unfortunately would 

lengthen some of the process, and would also require more assistance 

on the VHA side.

VVA maintains that if the VBA is to make a permanent dent here, 

it needs more adjudicators who are well-trained, can pass a rigorous 

competency-based examination, and are properly supervised. And 

these adjudicators must endeavor to get it right the first time. Quality control is of essence, here. We think that you will find that most 

veterans are okay with the DNC process itself. What they are upset 

about is how long it takes before a decision is rendered and-or lack 

of sharing the reasons for rejection in a clear manner if the claim is 
56

denied.

VVA thanks you and your colleagues on both sides of the aisle for 

taking action that led appropriators in the House to add onto the 

amount slated for the veterans’ medical care system, for research, 

and especially, for adding additional adjudicators and VRE&E specialists. We really want to thank you, Congressman. We know you 

took a big initiative on getting the additional FTE on the VBA side.

 About the only thing that could be said good about the VBA is that 

their computer systems are so bad that nobody can probably steal 

information from them. And it is pretty unbelievable how different 

it is between VHA and VBA. One is getting awards, and the other 

is totally useless, and unfortunately, a significant amount of hunting 

needs to be put on that level. And with the IT programs, hopefully, it 

is nice to have somebody in charge, but if they don’t have the funding, 

they are going to be in trouble.

 Assured funding is still an issue with us, and we urge and hope 

that a bipartisan effort will be made to rectify the situation the next 

Congress. We hope that like minds from both sides of the aisle can 

come together to grapple with this issue with input from the veterans’ 

service organizations, propose a legislative solution. Any solution of 

course must contain provisions for accountability. This is likely an 

initiative for the 110th Congress, unfortunately.

 We hope that the current Congress will address and pass appropriate legislation to permit veterans to secure legal representation 

when filing claims for disability and compensation before the Veterans Benefits Administration, as was passed in the Senate. We know 

that some have expressed views that such a bill will only make adversarial a process that should be cooperative. We believe the process 

is already adversarial. I have served as a service rep for three years, 

and I believe that to be the case.

 Others worry the passage of this bill will herald the demise of veterans’ service organizations. I really don’t think it is going to happen.

 We have no complaints with the people who are doing the veterans 

service rep work out there, service officers. They are doing yeoman 

work. I have never seen an under-worked service officer, ever. In 

fact, what the problem is, we don’t have anywhere near enough of 

them. Especially if we really try to reach out to the veterans to explain to them what their rights are, and unfortunately, many of them 

do not know what their rights are.

 I know there are some concerns, and I think we can deal with those, 

about what kind of attorneys we are going to have in here. Having 

gone through the Social Security process with my son who had to file 

for disability, we had to incur an attorney on that process, because 

otherwise we would never have made it through it. And I think that 

those kinds are the same kinds of attorneys that are going to do the 
57

same kind of work for veterans that they do on the side of Social 

Security, which is where you can look to see how that system will or 

will not work.

 We also applaud Mr. Thompson of California and Mr. Rehberg of 

Montana, who long have been in favor of H.R. 4259, the Veterans 

Right to Know Act. This bill would create and empower commission 

to look into the testing of chemical and biological weapons, to determine if health issues suffered by veterans who participated in these 

tests might have been caused by toxic exposures to these tests. We 

know that jurisdiction of this bill is in the armed services Committee, 

but you, Chairman Buyer, and ranking Democratic Member Filner 

have significant weight with that Committee.

 We also ask that you hold a hearing, or just take action to extend 

the authority of the VA to provide a full physical with national protocol for all veterans who participated in any chemical or biological 

weapons research, such as Project 112, Project SHAD, or any other 

activities by any branch of the Federal government.

 Similarly, we urge you to take steps to extend such authority for 

such examinations for those exposed to Agent Orange and other toxins in the Vietnam theater of war.

 Regarding PTSD—and I am running out of time—in regard to Congressman Filner’s remarks earlier, we know how to treat it. We believe we do. The problem is we don’t have the funding for it. And 

it is not just the new folks coming home. And certainly, they are a 

big part of this problem. The real problem is still Vietnam veterans. 

Many veterans we are finding as they retire out, and come home and 

don’t have to be workaholics anymore, a lot of things that they were 

able to hide in a box for the last 40 years come back to haunt them.

 Secondly, they sit at home and what do they see on TV? A war very 

similar to the one they saw where people are blowing them up on every given day, and we see death all around us, and it just brings back 

all kinds of things.

The other thing, too, is that many people did not file claims of 

PTSD because they were afraid of the stigma, which is an issue we 

even have with the new veterans. And that may have been inhibiting 

them for all these years. Now, when they are retired, they don’t have 

to worry about losing their jobs if people think they are crazy. And it 

is a real issue, and I think it is going to be a real issue of getting the 

newer veterans to come in and get treated. At least they know what 

it is. We didn’t.

 The other thing is secondary PTSD for the children and families of 

veteran. In Australia, they treat the children of Vietnam veterans up 

to the age of 35 now for secondary PTSD, because one of the studies 

they did found that an extraordinary suicide rate amongst the children of Vietnam veterans over there.

 There are many other issues that we would push for, including the 
58

Montgomery G.I. Bill, as many of the others had put forward. We 

also believe that we are concerned about—I really listened, being 

coming after, listening to the blinded vets really intrigued me. Many 

Vietnam veterans, because of their agent orange-related diabetes 

disabilities, are going to have vision problems, and they are already 

having vision problem, and it really disturbs me to listen to my colleague from Blinded Vets telling me how poorly the VA is handling 

vision issues. And I can tell you as a service rep, I have had a lot of 

retinopathy cases, you know, watching veterans in their 50s and 60s 

go blind.

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you members of the Committee.

[The statement of John Rowan appears on p. 164]

STATEMENT OF PAUL MORIN

The Chairman. Thank you Mr. Rowan. Commander?

Mr. Morin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, for this opportunity to be here representing the American Legion 

and its 2.7 million members. I would like to take this opportunity 

to introduce the National President of the American Legion Auxiliary, JoAnn Cronin, and the National Commander of the Sons of the 

American Legion, Earl Ruttkofsky, with five National vice commanders who represent the Crossroads of America—

The Chairman. Could I have you and the gentleman change seats?

Mr. Rowan. Sure.

Mr. Morin. Thank you for them much.

Mr. Rowan. You are welcome.

Mr. Morin. With young American servicemembers continuing to 

answer the Nation’s call to arms in every corner of the globe, you 

must now more than ever work together to honor their sacrifices. As 

veterans of global war on terrorism return home, they are turning to 

the VA not only for health care, but also for assistance in transitioning back to civilian world. In order for that to occur, veterans’ service 

organizations must be afforded the opportunity to present testimony 

before the Committees that oversee the operations of the Department 

of Veterans Affairs. Mr. Chairman, while I am thankful for the activity to address this esteemed body, the American Legion is extremely 

disappointed in your decision to cancel the joint hearings with the 

Senate Veterans Affairs Committee. Historically, the Veterans Affairs Committee in both the House—in both Houses has been an example of bipartisan progress. However, that seems to be quickly fading norm. Legionnaires from all over the country have traditionally 

traveled to Washington DC to attend the Commanders’ Joint Hearing, and to visit with their congressional delegation to express their 

concerns for veterans’ issues.
59

 We owe it to the brave men and women who have served, and who 

are now serving, to work together to ensure VA is funded at levels 

that will allow all enrolled, eligible veterans to receive quality health 

care in a timely manner. As National Commander of this great organization, I stand ready to work with you to accomplish these goals.

 In an effort to provide a stable and adequate funding process, the 

American Legion fully supports assured funding for veterans’ medical care. Under the current discretionary funding method, VA health 

care funding has failed to keep pace with medical inflation and the 

changing needs of veterans population. VA has been forced to ration 

care by denying service to eligible veterans. VA has had to forgo 

the modernization of many of its facilities, and purchase of necessary 

state-of-the-art medical equipment.

VA is subject to an annual funding battle for limited discretionary resources, and Congress has had to provide emergency funding 

to cover budgetary shortfalls. Additionally, the current discretionary 

funding process leaves the VA facilities’ administrators without a 

clear plan for the future.

 The American Legion urges this Committee to support legislation 

that would establish a system of capitation-based funding for VHA. 

The Veterans’ Health Administration is now struggling to maintain 

its National dominance in the 21st century. Health care, with funding methods that were developed in the 19th-century. No other modern health care organization could be expected to survive under such 

a system. The American Legion believes that the health care rationing for veterans must end.

 It is time to guarantee health care funding for all veterans. The 

American Legion believes that Congress should allow the VA to bill, 

collect, and retain third-party reimbursement from Medicare, on behalf of Medicare-eligible veterans. Nearly all veterans pay into Medicare for their entire working lives. However, when they are most 

likely to need medical services from the hospital system designed 

specifically for them, they must turn elsewhere because VA cannot 

bill Medicare. This is wrong, and I urge you to join in the fight to 

correct this injustice.

 Additionally, all third-party reimbursements, copayments, and deductibles, should be added to the budget, not counted as an offset 

against it. The American Legion firmly believes that making the VA 

Medicare provider, and designating the VA medical care, as mandatory funding items within the Federal budget, will enable the VA to 

fulfill its mission to care for those who have borne the battle.

 The American Legion is disappointed in the slow progress in the local advisory panel—better known as LAPS—process, and the CARES

initiative overall. Both stage one and stage two of the process included two scheduled LAP meetings at each of the sites to be studied, with a whole process scheduled to conclude on or about February 
60

2006. It wasn’t till April 2006, after nearly a seven-month hiatus that 

Secretary Nicholson announced a continuation of the service at the 

Big Spring, Texas. And like all other sites, it had only been through 

stage one. Seven months of silence is no way to reassure veterans 

community that the process is alive and well. The American Legion 

continues to express concerns over the apparent short-circuiting of 

LAPS, and the silence of its stakeholders.

 The American Legion urges Congress to hold the VA accountable, 

and to ensure that those locations that are still waiting final decisions, and address as soon as possible. Veterans in Las Vegas, Orlando, New Orleans, Denver, and Biloxi, deserve to know the future 

of their health care delivery system.

 Upon conclusion of the initial CARES process, then-Secretary Principi called for $1 billion a year for the next seven years to implement 

CARES. The American Legion continues to support that recommendation, and encourages the VA and Congress to move forth with focused intent. The American Legion recommends a separate $1 billion 

for the implementation of CARES in fiscal year 2008.

 Mr. Chairman, the American Legion appreciates the strong relationship we have developed with this Committee. With increasing 

military commitments worldwide, it is important that we work together to ensure that the services and programs offered through the 

VA are available to the new generation of American servicemembers 

who are now returning home. You have the power to ensure that 

their sacrifices are indeed honored with the thanks of a grateful Nation. The American Legion is fully committed to working with each 

of you to ensure that the American veterans receive the entitlements 

they have earned. Whether it is improved accessibility to health care, 

timely adjudication of disability claims, improved educational benefits or employment services, each and every aspect of these programs 

touches veterans from every generation. Together, we can ensure 

that these programs remain productive, viable options for the men 

and women who have chosen to answer the Nation’s call to arms; a 

very honorable profession.

 The brave men and women who are serving in our armed forces 

in Iraq and Afghanistan and throughout the world deserve no less. 

I look forward to working with each of you through the next year to 

improve the lives of all American veterans. Thank you for this opportunity.

 Mr. Chairman, I know of interest to you from your kind meeting 

with me yesterday, Resolution 149 of the Salt Lake convention we 

just concluded, I will read you the “resolved” clause. The American 

Legion’s National convention assembled in Salt Lake City, Utah, August 29 through 31, ‘2006.

“That although the American Legion does not oppose the concept 

of attorney representation or the lifting of the current restriction on 
61

attorney representation in the VA system, the American Legion is 

opposed to any such measure as that does not include adequate safeguards, including but not limited to fee limits, training requirements, 

and-or competency performance certification requirements, and strict 

agency oversight to ensure the protection of the client.’’

 Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The statement of Paul Morin appears on p. 169]

The Chairman. Commander, how many resolutions did you pass at 

your convention?

Mr. Morin. Two hundred and twenty-two.

The Chairman. Could you get those to me?

Mr. Rowan. Sure, we would be more than happy to.

The Chairman. All right. I would ask that you provide them to me, 

but not make them part of the record. I mean, that is a lot of print. 

But if you could please get those to me, I would appreciate that.

Mr. Morin. I will be more than happy to.

The Chairman. All right, then let us go ahead and start right there, 

now that I know the Legion’s resolution. Let us go down the line here 

with a question that I had asked about attorney representation, faced 

with the language I have that came out of the Senate.

 Purple Heart?

Mr. Poulter. Mr. Chairman, as an organization, we have not taken an official position up to this point. However, as National Commander I think I can speak for our members, and I think that this 

process could really tie the Veterans Administration appeals process 

in a lot of knots. And I have got my own personal feelings that I think 

it is more about lining the pockets of the attorneys, as opposed to taking care of our veterans.

The Chairman. All right. I am going to go down the line so everybody will get to cover this. If we were to go with Mr. Evans’s approach about a lawyer is not permitted until after notice of disagreement, would it change your opinion?

Mr. Poulter. We have National service officers, and they go 

through very extensive training to get their accreditation, through 

the VA. I cannot imagine the amount of training that the attorneys 

would have to go to get online with this whole thing. They would 

have to go through the same training, and it takes a long time to get 

that accomplished.

The Chairman. All right, the question before us is, though, at what 

point would an attorney representation access the system; at the very 

beginning, or at the notice of disagreement? That has no impact upon 

your opinion?

Mr. Poulter. I don’t think at the beginning. I think that, you 

know, if later on, if somebody asked, “You need an attorney?” then 

that would be all right.
62

The Chairman. All right. Mr. Irvin?

Mr. Irvin. Yeah, Paralyzed Veterans supported the Lane Evans 

Bill. But at the same time we provided comment with regards to attorney fees and safeguards, similar to what the American Legion just 

mentioned, with regards to representation. The Senate bill we do not 

support, just because it brings the attorney in, in the first part of the 

claims process. We feel the VA still needs to have a system that provides a duty to assist, does a proper outreach to veterans, and assists 

them with filing their claims.

The Chairman. Ms. Lee? Does your organization have an opinion 

on this?

Ms. Lee. Goldstar wives has not discussed it among our members, 

so I am going to pass on this. Thank you.

The Chairman. Thank you, ma’am. Mr. Davis?

Mr. Davis. We do not have a position either, but we do believe 

that there is a causal relationship between the processing delays, the 

claim delays, and the call for legal representation. And instead of 

addressing the issue directly, of legal representation, we think the 

focus ought to be on fixing up the system so there are less delays, less 

complexity in the system, and that will, we think, reduce the—

The Chairman. You got my agreement on that. Mr. Rowan?

Mr. Rowan. Well, as I pointed out, we are in favor of it, and we have 

been in favor of it. We think a lot of the same arguments were made 

when we talked about instituting the Court of Veterans Appeals.

The Chairman. Okay, let me narrow you here. You favor the Senate’s view on this, or Mr. Evans’s position on this?

Mr. Rowan. Mr. Evans’ opinion is just a version of it. We support 

it all. We have no problem with the lawyers involved, period.

The Chairman. Either of them.

Mr. Rowan. We just think that it opens up a whole access to getting somebody to help the veteran go through what is an onerous 

process.

The Chairman. Commander Morin, I know you are under restrictions with regard to your testimony. Can you go beyond what this 

resolution has said? Can I ask you whether or not you would support 

the Senate approach or the Evans approach?

Mr. Morin. No. We do not support any bill. We support use of 

attorneys within the VA. But what we want to see is restrictions in 

the Bill, that says there shall be a limit on attorney fees, there shall 

be a limit—

The Chairman. Okay, you don’t have to read that to me again.

Mr. Morin. Okay.

The Chairman. What about when they would access the system?

Mr. Morin. Whenever they wish. If they want to wish from the 

beginning to hire a lawyer, and there are these safeguards in place, 

let them go ahead and do it. I mean, to me, as a veteran’s advocate, 
63

and as any veteran service organization, all right, we have an ending service office in all our organizations that is available for free of 

charge. And we would hope that would be the first avenue every vet 

would use.

 But there is also some mistrust to us by our fellow own veterans. 

And if they feel that comfortability of going to a lawyer versus coming to us, so be it. As long as if there are safeguards in the law. And 

I stress that because we don’t want to see in the law saying that the 

VA will regulate what the fees are, or what the educational training 

requirements are.

The Chairman. Not often, and I look back to the 14 years I have 

been here, do we have a situation whereby you are in such complete 

counter, back-azimuth of DAV, VFW, and AMVETS. Why do you 

think that is? Why do you find yourself in a complete opposition to 

them?

Mr. Morin. The wishes of our members at our national convention, 

through a resolution, adopted this. And this is as I have said, I speak 

from a resolution—

The Chairman. All right. In your personal opinion?

 Mr. Morin. Yes?

The Chairman. Why do you think legionnaires are in such complete 

opposition of AMVETS, VFW, and DAV?

Mr. Morin. I think they feel it only opens a process, it opens another door if veterans wish to use it. And our own concern is that there 

are stipulations that the veteran would not be hurt by it.

The Chairman. All right. Mr. Filner?

Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank both panels here today. Your testimony was very helpful. I admire your expertise that comes from both your active duty status and your longtime service to your members. You know the system, inside and out, 

we learn from that, and I appreciate everything you said. Maybe 

with one exception, Mr. Buyer, there is a real unanimity on almost 

every issue. I suspect that we can have a list of 20 or 50 items and all 

of you would agree to it. You have given us the agenda for next year. 

I pledge to Mr. Buyer, whatever position I am in, to work with you to 

try to realize as much of that agenda as we can. There is remarkable 

unanimity on things.

 I want to say to Mr. Poulter: When the Chairman introduces the 

bill to recognize National Purple Heart Day, I want to cosponsor it. 

Congratulations on the 225th anniversary. We look forward to that 

celebration.

 Several of you mentioned the conference of the Defense Authorization bill. I am told that it has concluded, although even as a Congressman, they won’t tell me what the results are until the report is 

published. But I have the sense, in regard to the Purple Heart for the 

POWs who died under non-combat but obviously—in our view—com-
64

bat situations, that they acceded to the Senate position, which set up 

a commission to study it. We will try to get that next year, if that is 

the case. I don’t know that, but that is the impression I got.

 And I don’t know what they did, Ms. Lee, to the SPP-DIC offset 

in that conference, but we will find out, I guess, in a day or so. But 

thank you for being so persisent in following that.

 Mr. Irvin, you know, San Diego’s loss is Washington’s gain. Congratulations on your new position. He didn’t mention in his bio that 

he has also recently married a very beautiful woman, so we congratulate you on that.

 And I want to thank you for your position on the sense of who gets 

services at the veterans’ hospitals, and benefits. By definition, all 

your members are in a high category. But you want the VA to serve 

all veterans, and I appreciate that very much, and thank you for that 

position.

 And the PVA just recently had a 60th anniversary gala, and I was 

at the dinner, and I saw you give awards to Secretary Principi, Secretary Mineta, that were so well deserved. Of course the King, Richard 

Petty, also got an award. But thank you for allowing myself and my 

wife to be a part of that gala. It was a very moving evening. And I

know each of you have those kinds of evenings, and they are all very 

moving, to talk to your members, and to meet them on a more personal basis, and see their dedication to improving the lot of everybody 

around us.

 So thank you all. I look forward to working on it. This was set 

up by the Chairman as a preview for next year. I think we have our 

agenda in front of us, and I look forward to working with you. Ms. 

Lee, go ahead. I am sorry.

Ms. Lee. Yes, regarding the attorney issue that you talked about 

earlier; are survivors included in the bills that are mentioned? Lane 

Evans’ Bill, I hadn’t seen that at all. It is? Okay, thank you. I guess 

we need to get a copy of that. Thank you.

Mr. Filner. I apologize, I just thought you were asking the Chairman. Okay, thank you.

The Chairman. Mr. Brown?

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

certainly thank the members of the panel for being so patient. They 

can understand our schedule, where we get unscheduled votes, and 

we will have one coming up pretty shortly again. But I just wanted 

to just address a couple issues I guess that we brought up, and we appreciate the testimony. And I think Mr. Filner is right. I think that 

you all have given us some criteria for next year’s appropriations if 

we can’t get them done this year.

 But next week, we are going to have a hearing next Thursday at 

10:00 o’clock on PTSD and TBI, and we have got, you know, some 

professionals coming in to give us some insight on that. And then on 
65

the construction bill, this is the first construction bill that we actually passed in about 15 years, and I know we have some problems 

sometimes with partisanship, but it was really great, the way the bill 

was addressed in the Committee, and then went on the floor. And 

normally we have, like, 20 minutes for the proponents, and 20 minutes for the opponents. And both sides talked on the bill, and so it 

passed unanimous, which is kind of unusual for anything to happen 

in the body today.

 But I know we addressed some of those issues that was mentioned 

earlier. The construction at Biloxi at $310 million; in New Orleans, 

100 million; Charleston, 70 million; in Denver, 98 million. And so I

am hoping that the Senate will be able to soon reconcile with them, so 

we can go ahead and get this signed by the President.

 And in that initiative, we are going to need some support from you 

all to help with this. I know there has been a lot of misinformation 

about how we are trying to combine some services between the VA

and local hospitals. And I know in Charleston, we are looking to try 

and combine some services with the VA and the Medical University 

there. Already, there is a lot of sharing of resources. Some 95 percent 

of the doctors that actually treat the patients at the VA hospital come 

from the Medical University.

 And you know the cost of equipment is becoming, you know, exorbitant really to try to have everybody to own one piece. I know we have 

got one imaging piece of equipment now we are trying to coordinate 

between the VA and Medical university, a piece of imaging equipment that actually can go in and identify a cancer cell, and they can 

go in and actually treat just, you know, the damaged cell, and not impact the good cells. But that is a $6 million purchase, and everybody 

in town can’t have one of those.

 We went to New Orleans and actually saw, you know, the VA hospital—went down with Secretary Nicholson, and went to—the VA was 

actually flooded in the basement, but just down the street was, you 

know, of course, LSU Medical Center, Charity Hospital, you know, 

two or three other hospitals all in one row, and probably duplicating 

the same piece of equipment. So we believe that this is going to be a 

system that is going to be able to deliver high quality service by having specialized services available to all the veterans, at one location, 

and be a savings to the taxpayers, too.

 But anyway, every time that we talk about it, even when we passed 

the bill in the House, we made sure that the VA had top priority on 

any of the services being provided.

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

But I just wanted to bring that to your attention, and certainly solicit your cooperation and understanding as we work through this 

process.

The Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Brown.
66

 I would like to make a couple of comments, and I have a question. This deals with the issues on seamless voc rehab and TAP. The 

Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity held several hearings. They 

have also had site visits on these topics. Overall, as with an examination of any system, you find some shortcomings. But measured on 

the whole, what we have learned, the TAP has been a reasonably successful program. The student reviews that we have seen so far have 

been very favorable.

 The seamless transition, I know that VFW had made some comments earlier, they had questioned as to whether or not they could 

actually point to anything that was successful. This one is going to 

be a maintenance issue, for as long as we are involved in these issues. It really is. And I spoke with over 230 cardiac care physicians 

yesterday, and I deal with these issues on the Health Subcommittee 

of Commerce, of course, as we try to bring IT, and try to figure out a 

standard in order to perfect these electronic medical records for our 

country. And trying to do that in a competitive marketplace, not 

easy, I just want you to know. And I tried to share with them the 

challenges of just trying to get DoD and VA to be able to cooperatively 

work together. It was a great disappointment that the Department 

of Defense—in particular, Dr. Winkenwerder—would not turn to the 

VA and use our standard. That was very disappointing to me. I have 

had my challenges with Dr. Winkenwerder. I respect him. He is a 

smart man. We have got to be able to work through this. But if we 

can’t even get it right, how are we going to expect, as a society, for us 

to get it right?

 And I assure you that I do not want the Federal government to select a standard out there. If you want us to get it wrong, government 

can choose a standard. I mean, we are right now in what I would call 

the Beta-VHS war. And I assure you, if you had asked the government to solve that one, we would have had Beta. So I just want you 

to know, there are some big issues that are going on out there.

 I also am very pleased—some of you know, I have worked with the 

Olympic Committee for the last six years; not only in the reorganization of the Olympic Committee. That gave me a lot of great insights, 

and a lot of great contacts. Not only with these great athletes, but 

also the leadership. And to extend that into the Paralympic movement, and bring those veterans into cooperation with the Olympic 

Committee, there are a lot of great success stories. And I really get 

goose bumps by what is happening out there. We have over 320 of our 

disabled veterans have participated in four of the Paralympic summits. Ten of these athletes have been identified as superior athletes 

at the highest level. So I just wanted to give you an update on that. 

I am really pleased about that progress.

 I do need your help. And it is not just me. It is Mr. Filner, myself, Chairman Brown; this Committee needs your help. We can’t 
67

even hope to perfect seamless transition if we can’t even get the VA

to centralize its information technology architecture. And this is a 

huge challenge. It is very easy to be critical of them, but please, I

am asking you to engage with us in a constructive dialogue whereby 

we can move from the decentralized model to centralized. We can 

preserve incubators of initiative. But we have got to do that, and at 

some point, we have to be able to bring in the software development 

into the centralization, and empower our CIO and CISO. Very, very 

important. And I need your help and assistance to do that.

 So when this Committee moved out last year and wanted to do that, 

we weren’t crazy after all. And the rest of the government is looking. 

And hopefully, we can do this. Mr. Filner and I, next week, will go to 

the floor and we will pass our product that we worked, after our six 

months of effort and oversight, and I am most hopeful that—we were 

stonewalled by the Senate in the last year—they will recognize that 

we have a great investment in this issue, and knowledge, and respect 

that. And I want to work with them.

 They work on issues that we don’t work on. We can’t cover the entire waterfront. As you know, it is a vast enterprise in front of us. So 

there has to be some give-and- take back-and-forth here and between 

the Senate.

 So as we move into the spring, I just ask all of you to help us with 

the IT issues. They are not sexy. They don’t get all the attention. 

You know, they are not feel-good issues. But they are so vital, and 

they are so important. So I am asking for your help and assistance 

in that.

 With regard to adaptive housing, I want to continue to work with 

you. We recognize that we took on those issues to liberalize those 

standards. I know Ms. Herseth has some issues out there. But my 

commitment is, as we go into next year’s bill, is take another look at 

that.

 One of the really good by-products of these hearings that we are 

doing here over the next two days is we take this, we assimilate the 

information, and we create a marker. And with that marker, then 

as I work with OMB and the VA. This is a new process that has not 

been done before.

 And like anything anew, some people don’t like to change. So I embrace what you said, Commander. You don’t like it. But you know, 

what I have done is I embraced exactly what I shared with you yesterday when I had that phone conversation with Commander Bock, 

and he said, “You know, we separated ourselves from the rest, and 

we wanted to put them ahead of time.” I embrace that. And I also 

like that look-back/look-ahead. And that is what we have done here, 

to lay a marker.

 And so I want to thank you for your testimony. We will receive the 

testimony of 21 VSOs and MSOs. And it will be that thick. And I
68

assure you, I will share it with Mr. Portman.

 There was one other—Mr. Filner, if you have anything left I will let 

you go, because I know I have one that is just—

Mr. Filner. Mr. Rowan, I just want to make sure that if he is Mr. 

Buyer, I am Mr. Filner, okay? I want to point out for the record that 

it is the first time in his career—he said it about third sentence to the 

end, the transcript will say it—he wanted to “liberalize the restrictions.” So he is moving in our direction. Thank you so much.

The Chairman. You are not going to make it as a comedian, okay?

 You know, I am drawing a blank. Oh, this is the question I wanted 

to ask, to the American Legion: of your 220 resolutions, did any of 

them address the issue on information management?

Mr. Morin. Yes.

The Chairman. Okay. Well, I will get them all. I just want to make 

sure there were—

Mr. Morin. There were several, and we will have that package to 

you. Yes, there was.

The Chairman. Okay. All right, very good.

 Well, the last thing I would like to say is, is I want to thank you for 

this program. It is really something all of us can do. And that is, we 

do it in many different capacities, and that is embracing our fellow 

veterans and loved ones when they come home. And it is a huge challenge. We all have to do it. I adopted a couple of them when they had 

come home. And so we all do that. Very important.

 So I want to thank you. And so to those individuals that we also 

recognize, whereby the certain concerns that aren’t readily identified 

come up later, we pick that up through our fellowship. And we can 

then circulate them back into the system. So congratulations, Commander. This will be a wonderful program.

Mr. Morin. Thank you.

The Chairman. With that, I want to thank you for your testimony, 

and I appreciate your being here. We will continue our vigilance.

All members have five legislative days to submit any statements 

for the record. The hearing is now adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 3:06 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX

(69)
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92

Rep. Tom Udall (NM-3)

House Veterans Affairs Committee

Oversight Hearing on FY07 and FY08 VA Budget

September 20, 2006

Mr. Chairman, 

 Thank you for holding today’s hearing. Before I began, many 

veterans, both in my district and from National VSOs, have asked 

that I convey to you their great desire to return to the previous 

format and venue of these hearings. They are concerned that they 

will not have the opportunity to give their input on the budget and 

how it affects them. I am certain you have spoken with many of 

these groups and I simply was asked to convey those concerns. 

 Mr. Chairman, I would like to echo the comments of many of 

to day’s witnesses the funding disasters of FY06 were averted 

and FY07 saw more stability in the VA budget, mostly, I believe, 

because our committee looked at the matter practically and 

utilized the advice provided by the Independent Budget, there still 

remain problems. I believe a revised manner for how funding is 

distributed, increased attentiveness by this Congress to authorize 

and appropriate these funds, and, perhaps most important, the 

change to mandatory funding for the VA are much needed and much 

desired changes which would further improve the Department’s 

ability to provide the best services to our Nation’s veterans.

 One of the most vital areas of focus in the upcoming year will be 

those soldiers returning from Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. We 

must ensure that the structure and the capacity exists within the 

VA to give these new veterans the health care, both physical and 

mental, that they will need to heal and transition. Addressing the 

instances of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in our veterans 

is an enormous concern I share with many of my colleagues, and I

believe that we are remiss if we do not make this a large part of our 

discussion during budget considerations for FY08.

 Mr. Chairman, I believe that the VA has made some progress 

from year’s past, but I also believe that we have a very long way 

to go. I hope to see a renewed interest from the VA to creating a 

sound fiscal plan, not only for FY08, but for the future. We cannot 

simply plan each individual year without planning for what may 

come. With thousands of new veterans expected from OEF/OIF, this 

committee should burden itself with these concerns, that way the 

veterans are not burdened.

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196