REVIEW PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR

 AND LOOK AHEAD TO THE UPCOMING 

YEAR — HEARING II

Hearing

before the

Committee on 

Veterans’ Affairs

House of Representatives

one hundred ninth congress

second session

SEPTEMBER 21, 2006

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Serial No. 109-64

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

30-383.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 21, 2006

 Page

1

 1

5

48

137

147

152

13

70

32

117

20

90

37

96

11

61

Review Previous Fiscal Year and Look Ahead to the Upcoming 

Year – Hearing II ..............................................................

OPENING STATEMENTS

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

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

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

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD

Hills, Edmee J., National Chairman, Veterans’ Widows International Network, Inc. ............................................................

Neibert, Doris, President, National Association of State Veterans Homes, and Chief Executive Officer, Veterans Memorial 

Home .................................................................................

Stroup, Ltg. Theordore G. Stroup, Jr., USA (Ret.), Association 

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

Witnesses

Corbett, Gunnery Sgt. Patrick, USMC (Ret.), National President, The Retired Enlisted Association .................................

Prepared statement of Sgt. Corbett ...........................................

Harvey, Gerald, National Commander, American Ex-Prisoners 

of War, as presented by Les Jackson, Executive Director ....

Prepared statement of Mr. Harvey ............................................

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

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

Matz, Maj. Gen. William M., Jr., USA (Ret.), National Association for Uniformed Services ....................................................

Prepared statement of General Matz ........................................

McCauslin, Chief Master Sgt. John R., USAF (Ret.), International President, Air Force Sergeants Association ................

Prepared statement of Chief McCauslin ....................................

(III)
41

121

33

109

44

130

17

79

164

Witnesses (continued) 

McMartin, Darlene, First Vice-President, National Association 

of County Veterans Service Officers ......................................

Prepared statement of Ms. McMartin .......................................

Miller, Kerwin, Director, Office of Veterans’ Affairs, District 

of Columbia, on behalf of the National Association of State 

Directors of Veterans Affairs ..................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Miller ..............................................

Rosenshein, Norman, National Commander, Jewish War Veterans of the USA .....................................................................

Prepared statement of Mr. Rosenshein .....................................

Ryan, VADM Norbert, Jr., USN (Retired), National President, 

Military Officers Association of America ...............................

Prepared statement of Admiral Ryan ........................................

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Letter dated October 6, 2006, from the National Association of 

County Veterans Service Officers ...........................................

(IV)
(1)

REVIEW PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR AND LOOK AHEAD TO 

THE UPCOMING YEAR — HEARING II

Wednesday, SEPTEMBER 21, 2006

U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on Veterans’ Affairs,

Washington, D.C.

 The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:37 a.m., in Room 334, 

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

Committee] presiding.

 Present: Representatives Buyer, Bilirakis, Brown of South Carolina, Boozman, Filner, Snyder, Michaud, Hooley, Berkley, Udall, 

Salazar.

The Chairman. Good morning. The full Veterans’ Affairs Committee will come to order September 21, 2006.

 I would like to welcome everyone, especially the new Commanders 

here today who are beginning a well-earned opportunity after many 

years of faithfully serving veterans within your organizations. I

look forward to a constructive and positive year ahead.

 Last November, after meeting with many of you at Carlisle Barracks just north of Gettysburg Battlefield, I announced a decision 

to enhance the way the Committee develops its budget views and 

estimates.

 The decision was to reform the way we gather the views of veterans 

service organizations and military service organizations, and your 

members have very valuable insights and deserve consideration.

 For years, I saw how the process of hearings were held and much 

of the testimony was received after the Committee did its views and 

estimates. It effectively had silenced the voice of many of the VSOs 

and MSOs because their testimonies would come so late, they then 

became a critic after the fact. The status quo in my opinion was not 

working for veterans and the process has been changed.

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

estimates, the Committee heard from 19 VSOs and MSOs, some of 
2

whom had never been heard from before. This was very powerful. It 

represented a significant increase in access to this Committee at a 

key point in the budget process.

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

then fiscal year.

Yesterday we held the first of these hearings at which eleven VSOs 

and MSO commanders and leaders testified. Their comments were 

substantive and the session was very productive. And I anticipate 

the same here today. You are helping, as Mr. Filner said yesterday, 

to set an agenda, so it is the meshing of our priorities.

 These September hearings are timely because the Administration 

is now also beginning to develop its budget request for next year.

 As I did yesterday, I would like to compliment The American Legion National Commander, Tom Boch, because he championed to me 

the Legion’s approach. The Legion separated themselves from other 

veterans’ groups and MSOs by representing their information to the 

Committee in the fall as the Administration was developing its request.

 This approach is also taken by the House Armed Services Committee whereby they bring in the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs in the 

spring and they also then do it in the fall as a look back, look ahead.

 And so that is what we have also here now adopted on the Veterans’ Affairs Committee doing a spring and fall hearing. Having 

adopted that and augmented it, I think, will be very helpful, and we 

learned that yesterday.

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

access to Congress, and we will take all of this testimony and we will 

also share it with OMB and the VA.

 I consider this a continuation of the war budgets for the VA. The 

country is at war and faces challenges and severe demands on fiscal 

resources. Yet, this is also a budget that reflects a decade of unprecedented growth and support for veterans. The VA budget has 

nearly doubled in the ten years. Reflecting that support, the VA has 

earned a reputation of high-quality healthcare.

And I do recall when I first arrived here the flat- lined budgets for 

the VA and I even recall the horrific cases where appropriators were 

taking money out of the VA to fund domestic programs. One in particular was WIC. I have not seen that in the last twelve years.

 A double budget and a quality product do not, however, mean that 

there are not challenges. The VA’s Secretary has taken ownership 

of his budget and changed the flawed inputs to the model. That was 

reflected in the strong fiscal year 2007 funding.

 Yet, a perennial challenge to us is also what I refer to as the ghost 

population. These are individuals that move in and out of the VA
3

health system and sometimes utilizing other systems, whether it is 

TRICARE or an HMO, they move in and out of these systems and 

they pick and choose. And it is very challenging for us to get the 

numbers right.

 Simply plugging a few numbers into a capitation spreadsheet does 

not address this type of complexity. The discretionary funding gives 

us the responsiveness to do correctly that which is hard, but which 

must be done right.

Comparatively the assured or mandatory healthcare funding model 

according to the Congressional Budget Office would cost nearly half 

a trillion dollars over ten years. That would be a costly experiment 

in my view.

 And in contrast, the strong discretionary budgets of the past decade have proven responsive to change. Yet, with strong funding, 

we should expect good programs. However, the seamless transition 

of servicemembers entering the VA system is not where it should be.

 Last month, Secretary Nicholson, Chairman Boozman, Mr. Salazar, and I went to Kuwait, Iraq, and Germany to assess the continuing healthcare from the combat medic or Navy Corpsmen to all the 

way to a level-four medical facility. We were impressed by the quality 

of care and the total integration and teamwork within the Armed 

Services.

 Yet, as we sit here, we receive testimony from the Department 

of Defense witnesses who like to talk about their electronic medical record. Well, as Mr. Salazar and I were there, as we watched 

them taking the patients off the bus, we saw that “electronic” medical 

record. It was paper strapped to their chests. So it is one thing to 

receive their testimony and then in reality see something much different.

 I am disappointed that DoD did not adopt the VA standard with 

regard to interoperability of electronic medical records, and we will 

continue to work with them. To me, this is not, the seamlessness 

that we are looking for, and we can do much better.

 Also, the recent theft of personal data belonging to millions of veterans has shown the utter necessity that the VA and every government agency with sensitive data must centralize management over 

their information technology, information policy, and information 

security. IT is the organization’s central nervous system.

 And I appreciate those who worked with us on this issue and I am 

disappointed with those who said it was too hard or it was out of their 

lane, but, yet, they were quick to criticize.

 With regard to organizations, if you are outraged by lapses in security and unnecessary risk to your members, I would like for you to 

join this Committee in dislodging the status quo and doing right by 

veterans.

 Next week, Mr. Filner and I will be taking the Committee’s bills 
4

dealing with cyber security to the House floor, and I ask for your assistance in getting the attention of the United States Senate to this 

very important measure.

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

testimony. This issue to me is the big elephant in the room. The 

total backlog exceeds 800,000 and is climbing. And I compliment 

the Committee’s Task Force on Accountability, of which some of you 

are members.

 I formed this task force to examine issues across the VA, not just in 

DVA, to improve claims development. I will be meeting with them 

next week.

 Timely and accurate claims’ decisions are as important to America’s veterans as the delivery of high-quality healthcare.

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

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

listener. And so I need testimony from all of you with regard to 

bringing lawyers into the process.

 I need to know if you support what the Senate has done or do you 

support Mr. Evans’ approach? And we will be asking those questions of all the witnesses today.

 Ladies and gentlemen, the issues in front of us are not going away, 

and I will share with you the top three priorities that I have as Chairman.

 Number one is caring for veterans who have service-connected disabilities, those with special needs, and the indigent; number two, ensuring a seamless transition from military service to the VA; and, 

three, providing veterans every opportunity to live full and healthy 

lives.

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

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

extend an appreciation for the enduring contributions made by your 

members, including the auxiliaries and their families. You make a 

great difference in the tone and tenor of our country.

 We are at war in two theaters and still have responsibilities 

globally. Our men and women in uniform are performing their duties magnificently. They are coming home with a simple expectation that we will be there for them. It is up to all of us to help these 

returning servicemembers transition to civilian life. The VA has the 

structure, but the personal help is your strength and you play a tremendous role.

 So I ask you to put your arm around that young Lance Corporal 

who just came back from the War on Terror and help honor our promise.

 I also want to thank Mr. Filner and other members of the Committee for their hard work this past summer in dealing with the information technology issues.
5

 And at this moment, I will yield to Mr. Filner for an opening statement.

Mr. Filner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 If I may, I think this is the last Full Committee hearing before we 

adjourn.

The Chairman. Oh, you are preempting me.

Mr. Filner. You want to go first?

The Chairman. No, no. I was going to do it after your remarks. We 

can do it together.

Mr. Filner. Okay. This is technically the last meeting both for 

the Ranking Member, Mr. Evans, and our Vice Chair, Mr. Bilirakis.

 These are two great friends of veterans, and we thank Mr. Evans 

for a lifetime of service in not only the Marine Corps but in watching 

over those veterans who came back and making sure they had the 

best.

 Mr. Bilirakis has been on the Committee for 24 years. We do not 

often think of each other as mentors, but I want to thank you for mentoring me. Maybe keeping me in line is a better term.

 Mr. Bilirakis cares so much for the veterans, and he, of course, was 

the leader in the fight to make sure we have the so-called concurrent 

receipt. But he also was pained when this Committee had divisions, 

especially partisan, and he did his best—he has got a tough customer 

here, but he did his best to teach me civility and respect.

 I want to thank you not only for the substantive work you did here 

in the 24 years, because you have a lot of accomplishments to your 

name, but in helping all of us achieve a tone that would be more productive for the veterans. So I thank you, Mr. Bilirakis.

The Chairman. I join the gentleman. When I think of my colleague, Mr. Evans, it is of great pain to see a great man of whose 

body is giving way. And to think that this is the same guy we used 

to elbow for position down in the men’s gym playing basketball. To 

see his condition now, it is really hard.

 And all of us know a loved one who had gone through such great 

pain and it affects us all. And Mr. Evans will be missed on this 

Committee. I do not think he ever forgot his core values shared by 

his family and his parents where he grew up, and polished by the 

United States Marine Corps. And he embraced them and they were 

enduring and they helped guide him here in his service to country.

 And I think the same can be said for Mr. Bilirakis. I will tell you 

what. This little Greek man has got a lot of power behind him too. I

share with Mr. Filner that his kindness and his graciousness are very 

powerful attributes behind a very tough man in negotiations.

 And it can be disarming because he gets in close and then it is like 

he grabs your collar. And you have to let him come in close, but he 

gets your attention and then he has something powerful to say. And 

I think he has earned the respect of many of his colleagues on both 
6

sides of the aisle.

 So, Michael, you are going to be missed. And I want to thank you 

for your service to country not only in the Air Force but also for what 

you have done for so many veterans, what you have done for so many 

widows and children. And so I want to thank you for your years of 

service. You are going to be missed. But if you need me to come 

down there and pick those grapefruit, I will be more than happy to 

get the high ones for you.

Mr. Bilirakis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Bob, Mr. Filner. I

am not sure whether to refer to you as Ranking Member, but friend. I

think that is probably the best title.

 But, you know, many times as you go through the years, people 

ask you what was your crowning moment in the Congress and for 24 

years, you know, how can you think of everything. There are so many 

ups and downs.

 And I oftentimes talk about where a few us a banded together and 

stuck to our guns and helped to tear down that wall and tear down 

communism in the Soviet Union along with President Reagan. And 

I feel very proud of that.

 But I talk mostly about veterans and our work for veterans. I

am very proud of it and very proud to have worked with you 

gentlemen. Obviously the best honor to me would be to continue 

with concurrent receipt to do something so we can complete that completely.

 But an easier chore, Mr. Chairman, and I mentioned this to you 

just before we started, you know, over the years—and forgive me, I

did not plan to do this, but since you sort of opened up the door—over 

the years, we have heard and we have read about, you know, America 

and how great it has become and how much of that greatness is due 

to the GI Bill, the men and women who came out of World War II and 

because of the benefits of the GI Bill were able to educate themselves 

and have contributed so very much to make this country really what 

it is. And that opportunity under the Montgomery GI Bill is there 

and it is even a much better opportunity in that sense.

 But I go back to the VEAP prospect where I remember when I was 

going through basic training and I was a noncom, noncommissioned 

officer, enlisted men. But when I was going through basic training, 

and if somebody had approached me at that time and said, Mike, you 

have got to make a decision whether you contribute out of your very 

spare, very, very spare income as an airman basic and choose this 

educational opportunity that will take place years from now, hell, I

mean, I just wanted to get through basic training. I would not have 

wanted to make or been able to make a very intelligent decision at 

that point in time.

 And I do feel that there is so many who are faced with that same 

sort of thing and passed up that opportunity. And I would dearly 
7

love to see this Congress—I am reminded my VEAP Bill has been 

introduced, but that is besides the point. We are not going to be 

able to do anything with it this Congress. But my point here is that 

I think really that there is some way that we can take a look at that.

 And I know when I got out, the payment, full payment for education was $110 a month and that was supposed to take care of tuition 

and books and everything else. Well, obviously I had to go to work 

full time in order to be able to get through school. But it was a motivational factor to have that $110.

 So maybe we can look at things of that nature, Mr. Chairman and 

Mr. Filner, and I would feel awfully good if I read some day in this 

next Congress or so that that has been addressed in some way to give 

these young people an opportunity that was really available to them, 

but they were not really legitimately, adequately able to consider in 

a very serious tone.

 Having said that, thank you very much. It has been wonderful 

working with all of my fellow veterans over the years. God bless 

you.

Mr. Filner. Thank you, sir.

[The statement of Bob Filner appears on p. 48.]

The Chairman. Thank you, Michael.

 Anyone else want to make any opening statements?

Mr. Filner. I would yield to anybody else for any comments on our 

Vice Chair.

 Let me just say a few words, if I might, Mr. Chairman.

 In the spirit of Mr. Bilirakis, I think we are trying to create here an 

agenda for the coming year, and we will work together on that.

 We certainly worked together on this Committee to come out with 

good cyber security protection for the veterans, and that bill will be 

on the floor, as I understand it, next week. We will try to pressure 

the Senate to look at it.

 We disagree on some other things, but I do not think any of us on 

this Committee disagree that our first role is to enhance the life and 

quality of our veterans who have given us so much. We may have 

different ways to get there.

 This process, Mr. Chairman, that you started, I think we may want 

to look at and maybe try to get the benefits that you suggested with 

the benefits that we had when the rank and file from VSO members 

were able to be in the room and see their government in action or in 

inaction, whichever.

I think we have to figure out how to combine those two goals of trying to make sure the testimony comes at a relevant point and people 

feeling a part of the process and not excluded from it.

 As you know, Mr. Chairman, one of the top priorities on this side 

is to end the practice of veterans’ organizations coming almost hat 
8

in hand begging for money. This is not only wrong in terms of the 

contract that we have with veterans, but it is a shameful kind of position.

 The only way we get out of that, and I think most of the VSOs agree 

with this, is through mandatory or assured funding, that we do not 

dispute every year a billion here, three there, two billion, everybody 

is pointing fingers at one another, that we have a source of funding 

that is guaranteed by law.

 We can talk about the cost of that. There are different estimates 

than what we have heard this morning, but I think we have to get 

there because what we have now is at least a quarter of a million, 

veterans barred from being enrolled in the VA system.

 We have folks coming back from Iraq and Afghanistan, who have 

to wait many, many months, if not more than a year for certain appointments or who cannot get the mental health assistance that they 

need. We have to have a better system, and I look forward to working with you to do that.

 The budget process in the last few years, as the Chairman said, 

has led to a doubling of the absolute dollars for the VA. But if your 

needs are escalating faster than the money and the costs are escalating faster than the income, you are falling behind no matter what the 

absolute dollars say. And we are falling behind here.

 The Administration, for example, has kept up efforts to try to make 

veterans pay more for their care rather than asking for additional resources from the Congress. Thousands of people are waiting for clinical appointments. I have a thousand veterans waiting for their first 

appointment in San Diego, in the San Diego Medical Center. That is 

disgraceful.

 We are not meeting the mental health needs. We saw what happened in Vietnam when we neglected those problems. Up to a half 

of the homeless on the street tonight are Vietnam vets. It is a disgrace that we have allowed this to happen. And, yet, we are repeating the same mistakes with those coming back with post-traumatic 

stress disorder from Iraq. They go through the same pattern, domestic violence, problems in the family, problems on the job, alcohol, drug 

abuse, homelessness, suicide.

 Thirty years after Vietnam or 35 years, we know how to deal with 

this. It is a question of resources.

 The Administration has not met its statutory requirements for 

long-term care as our veterans age. They have sought cuts in traumatic brain injury care at the height of a war that is producing more 

brain injuries than ever before. We have vacancies whether in nursing or counseling or other specialties all around the country. So we 

have to do better.

 The VA is a basically sound system. That is why we care so much 

about it. It has certainly improved, as the Chairman said, from sub-
9

standard care of several decades ago. It is now on the cutting edge 

of healthcare in many areas and, in fact, the world. But if we have 

delayed care or rationing of care or veterans unable to access it, we 

are not doing our job.

 I am glad that you care about the quality. Many of you have supported this Independent Budget, which I take as my Bible during the 

budget process, to try to make sure we have the resources that we 

need.

 Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you in the future. I

am not sure whether we will have another Mr. Bilirakis with us next 

year. I hope so. But we have a lot of work to do, and I look forward 

to working with you to complete that job.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Filner.

[The statement of Bob Filner appears on p. 48]

The Chairman. Today we will hear from several of the Commanders and Presidents, and representatives of veterans services organizations and military service organizations. So I shall now introduce 

them to my colleagues.

 First representing the Air Force Sergeants Association is Chief 

Master Sergeant John McCauslin?

Chief McCauslin. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. He is the Air Force Sergeants Association’s International President. The Chief currently is serving his second term as 

International President. He joined the Air Force in June 1955.

 The Chief has served in a variety of medical-related positions at 

Air Force installations worldwide. During his career, he was selected as a Senior Enlisted Advisor for the Fifth Air Force in Japan and 

the Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Commander of the United States 

Air Forces Europe in Ramstein, Germany. He served 32 years in 

the United States Air Force.

 Representing the Retired Enlisted Association is the National 

President, Patrick Corbett. Mr. Corbett was elected President September 1st, 2006. He has held many positions within TREA including member of the Board of Directors and the Second Vice President 

and First Vice President.

 Mr. Corbett enlisted in the United States Marine Corps in 

1957. During his 23 years of service, he served two tours in 

Vietnam. In 1980, he retired from the United States Marine Corps.

 Why don’t I just call you Gunny?

Sergeant Corbett. Beg your pardon, sir?

The Chairman. You are Gunny?

Sergeant Corbett. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. You look like a Gunny.

 I mentioned this yesterday. There is something about you 

guys. They dip you and you all look alike. You all act alike. You 
10

all talk alike. And then you are like a Gunny for life. That is a tremendous compliment because a lot of people rely on Gunnies.

 He is the father of three adult children with four grandchildren, 

and resides in Pennsylvania.

Speaking for the Military Officers Association of American is the 

National President, Vice Admiral Norb Ryan. Admiral Ryan assumed the position in September 2002. In 1967, having barely gotten through the Naval Academy—oh, I am sorry. Kelly must have 

made a mistake there.

 Kelly picking on you, Norb?

Ms. Craven. [Majority Counsel] No.

The Chairman. I apologize.

 He did graduate from the Naval Academy with distinction and 

was designated a Naval Aviator in 1968. Admiral Ryan has numerous operational and sea duty assignments including Command of 

the Squadron at Wing level culminating with Commander of Patrol 

Wings, U.S. Pacific Fleet Commander, and Commander of the Task 

Force 12. He has directed the Navy’s Office of Legislative Affairs 

and was also Chief Personnel for the United States Navy.

 Admiral Ryan is a graduate of George Washington University with 

a Master’s in Science Degree, Personnel Administration, of the National Security Program at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy 

School of Government. And before retiring, as I said, he was the 

52nd Chief of Naval Personnel.

 We will also then hear from Mr. John Lopez of the Association for 

Service Disabled Veterans. He has been Chairman since 1985. Mr. 

Lopez is a Marine who was disabled while in service in Korea. His 

career has been frequently interrupted by physical relapse due to his 

military service and injuries.

 Mr. Lopez has developed several socioeconomic smaller business 

programs for major corporations, and he initiates disabled veteran 

entrepreneur programs with the U.S. Small Business Administration 

and Bank of America.

 Mr. Lopez is Chairman of the U.S. Congress Advisory Committee 

on the Study of the Needs of Service-Disabled Veteran Entrepreneurs 

and Co-Chairman of the National Task Force for Veterans Entrepreneurial Development.

 We welcome all of you. Before you begin, do each of you have written testimony you would like to be submitted for the record?

All answering in the affirmative, your written testimony will be 

entered into the record. Without objection, so ordered.

 Each of you will have ten minutes to testify. The Committee will operate under the five-minute rule. And I will grant you 

latitude. So when you see the light come on after your ten minutes, 

try to summarize and move toward the end of the testimony to be 

courteous to each of the witnesses.
11

Chief, we will begin with you.

STATEMENTS OF CHIEF MASTER SGT. JOHN R. MCCAUSLIN, USAF (RET.) INTERNATIONAL PRESIDENT, AIR 

FORCE SERGEANTS ASSOCIATION; GUNNERY SGT. PATRICK CORBETT, USMC (RET.), NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

THE RETIRED ENLISTED ASSOCIATION; VADM. NORBERT RYAN, JR., USN (RET.), NATIONAL PRESIDENT, 

MILITARY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA; JOHN 

K. LOPEZ, CHAIRMAN, ASSOCIATION FOR SERVICE DISABLED VETERANS

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. MCCAUSLIN

Chief McCauslin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished 

Committee members.

 On behalf of our 130,000 members of the Air Force Sergeants Association, thank you for this opportunity to offer the views of our members on future priorities for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

 AFSA represents active duty, Guard, Reserve, retired, and veteran enlisted Air Force members and their families around the 

world. Your continuing effort toward improving the quality of their 

lives has truly made a real difference and our members are forever 

grateful.

 Since my time here today is very brief, I will restrict my comments 

to just a few of the areas covered in my written statement, which I

hope will be entered in its entirety into the written record.

 Today the demands of military service are increasing, non-traditional education programs are evolving, and the efficacy of the Montgomery GI Bill to support actual education programs is diminishing.

 As a member of the Military Coalition and Partnership for Veterans’ Education, the Air Force Sergeants Association strongly endorses the need for a better GI Bill that meets the needs of all those 

who wear the uniform, yet is robust enough to assist the individual 

services in their recruiting efforts.

 Our members eagerly await this Committee’s future proposals regarding the Montgomery GI Bill and hope that any new benefit proposal more closely meets the actual cost of obtaining an education, 

eliminates the current $1,200 fee to participate, and allows expenditure of that benefit in greater amounts to accommodate the cost of a 

broad range of accelerated and advanced courses.

 I also ask the Committee to keep in mind that there are thousands 

of servicemembers currently on active duty who did, for whatever 

reason, enroll in either the Veterans Educational Assistance Program, otherwise known as VEAP, or the Montgomery GI Bill.

 Time is truly running out for Congress to provide servicemembers 
12

from the VEAP era an enrollment opportunity, and the vast majority have already retired from us. As of 1 July last year, all actively 

serving who enlisted in this time frame were eligible to retire.

 Being mindful that the principal purpose of educational assistance 

programs is to assist veterans in their transition back into the civilian workforce, we urge your Committee to act quickly to at least provide a transitional education benefit for the relatively few remaining 

VEAP-era enlisted members.

Veterans around the world applaud your Committee’s and Congress’ decision to once again reject the Administration’s proposed 

$250 user fee to receive their promised VA healthcare. Our feeling 

has been and continues to be that such an enrollment fee should be 

applied only prospectively; that is, for people who have not yet begun 

their military service. Current veterans should not be charged a fee 

for access which earlier Congresses determined was not appropriate.

 It goes without saying that we could do a lot to improve the handoff of veterans from military to veteran status, from DoD to the 

VA. Transferability of information is the most critical element in 

that whole seamless transition process. The VA and DoD have two 

distinctly different electronic record keeping systems, but only the 

VA’s system allows transferability of medical information globally.

 Advances have been made toward seamless DoD/VA transition, but 

it is important for Congress to resolve the VA/DoD medical records 

situation. Without your leadership, this situation will go unresolved 

and veterans will not be receiving the best care they truly deserve.

And, finally, for most veterans, contact with the VA begins with 

the claims process. On a daily basis, the VA’s current claims backlog totals several hundred thousand, as Congressman Filner alluded 

to, and this is an unacceptable number. It is going to take money, 

thoughtful planning, proper training, and innovative ideas to break 

through what seems to be an insurmountable problem.

 AFSA encourages your Committee to support departmental plans 

to reduce pending cases with one caveat. We absolutely disagree 

with any plans to reduce the number of claims processing personnel.

 Technology is not going to solve this problem; people will. And 

Congress should flatly reject any plan that reduces the number of 

personnel in this area until that backlog is cleared up.

 The recent recall of two retired judges to assist the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for veterans’ claims is exactly the type of smart resource 

use that we feel will help the Department reduce this unprecedented 

number of pending claims.

 Before I conclude, I want to take a moment to recognize an extraordinary individual who has been a long-standing member of your 

Committee and will be retiring at the end of this year, a friend and 

member of the Air Force Sergeants Association, Mike Bilirakis from 

the 9th District in Florida.
13

 On behalf of veterans everywhere, we thank you, sir, for your leadership and most importantly your tenacity to fight for what you feel is 

right and for what veterans and their family members truly deserve.

 You will be missed by all of us, but you leave a body of work that 

will long outlast all of us. It has been an honor and a true pleasure 

for our association to have been able to work with you for these past 

24 years.

 We wish you, your wife, Evelyn, and your entire family the very 

best in years to come.

 In conclusion, it is imperative in peacetime or in war that veterans know their needs will be taken care of. Once they have served 

honorably and they need help, we believe their care and assistance 

becomes the responsibility of the nation that they served.

 On behalf of all AFSA members, we appreciate your efforts to ensure that our nation does just that. And as always, we are ready to 

support this Committee in matters of mutual concern.

 Thank you, sir.

The Chairman. Thank you very much.

[The statement of John R. McCauslin appears on p. 61]

The Chairman. Mr. Corbett.

STATEMENT OF PATRICK CORBETT

Sergeant Corbett. Mr. Chairman, Acting Ranking Member Filner, 

and members of this Committee, it is always an honor for The Retired 

Enlisted Association to testify about the needs and concerns of American veterans, military retirees and their families and survivors.

 It is a particular honor for me, the new National President of 

TREA, to testify before this Committee on what has happened in the 

last year and what we hope the future will bring.

 The Retired Enlisted Association is a veterans service organization 

founded over 40 years ago to represent the needs and points of view of 

enlisted men and women who have dedicated their careers to serving 

in all the branches of the United States Armed Forces, active duty, 

National Guard and Reserves, as well as members who are doing so 

today.

 When we look at what has happened this year and what should 

happen next, we seem to have started down many roads and have not 

come to the end of any of them. Indeed, many of these paths will 

always have to be worked on and improved. It is just part of how an 

enormous organization works.

 The main duties of the VA are basically the same year in and year 

out. They are to provide first-class healthcare for those who have 

kept us free, to accurately and quickly provide the financial support 

owed to veterans by the United States government, to provide for the 
14

widows and orphans who have lost their loved ones due to his or her 

service to our country, and to make sure there are appropriate resting places and funeral honors for those who have served.

 But which of these issues are most in need of work from year to 

year varies. In the past few years, our concerns have centered on 

sufficient funding to provide first-rate healthcare to all qualified veterans who needed and earned it. Of course, in this time of war, this 

must still be our primary concern.

 Since the disastrous shortfall in 2005, all of Congress agreed with 

you that adequate funding for the VA healthcare is essential. You 

added a critical supplement to cover the shortfall of the VA’s budget 

request. And this year, VA request corrected some of the past year’s 

mistakes.

Is this year’s budget sufficient? Of course not. How could it 

be? But it is much better than in the past, and we thank you. The 

budget needs to be covered. The two-year program for all veterans 

returning home from Afghanistan and Iraq, it must cover various 

expense to treat and rehabilitate our wounded warriors.

 It must cover the medical needs of veterans who preserved our 

freedom and safety in the past. And we should never forget that it 

must cover the nursing home cares, the needs of many of our greatest 

generation who are now reaching the time in life when they need this 

type of care.

 Looking back at this past year, we are very grateful to note you 

refused to implement the proposed $250 yearly enrollment fee and 

sharp drug co-pay increases for those veterans presently enrolled in 

category seven and eight.

 We expect that when looking towards next year, there will be a 

similar proposal, and we hope that you once again say no. We know 

that some of you on this Committee are in favor of this proposal, but 

TREA is firmly opposed.

 Numerous of our members really rely on this program that was established at a time in their lives when getting new medical coverage 

is close to impossible. They are living on a fixed income. The proposed increase would be financially crippling to them. We believe 

you will hold firm and protect these former warriors now that they 

need protection themselves.

 But beyond healthcare, there are other critical needs in the VA, and 

this is what I would like to focus on now. These include increasing the 

IT security throughout the VA, working to improve the speed, consistency, and accuracy of VA disability determination, and thereby the 

present dramatic backlog, and, finally, creating a seamless transition 

between DoD and the VA for all veterans.

 It has become dramatically clear to the whole nation this year that 

the VA must make major improvements in its IT security. TREA is 

well aware that our Committee’s Chairman has been trying to get VA
15

to focus on this problem for a year.

 The theft of a VA computer and hard drive with personal information of approximately 22 million veterans and an additional computer 

theft from the VA contractor has certainly gotten their attention.

 This Committee must make sure that the VA stays focused on making these necessary improvements.

 We hope that House Resolution 5835, this Committee’s bipartisan 

bill, will pass before the end of this session. This bill would go far in 

not only to correcting the VA’s IT problems, it would make the VA an 

up-to-the-minute leader in IT security. And the proposed fellowship 

for talented people in this field would hopefully keep the VA on the 

cutting edge in the future.

With the VA putting out fires in the fields of medical care and IT security, there has been little discussion recently about the continuing 

problem in the area of disability claims determination. These delays in decision making and the inconsistency of the decisions around 

the country have made veterans doubt that they are being treated 

fairly.

 This problem has gone on for years and has not been solved. And 

with more and more complicated injuries to be dealt with, it is obviously a problem that needs to be solved now.

 What is clearly needed is more and better trained people doing this 

work. There also needs to be better supervision around the country 

so a decision on various types of disabilities will be the same in all 

VISNs.

 Following the direction of Congress, the VA is supposedly trying 

to get disabled veterans to apply for benefits in six areas of the country where payments are dramatically lower than in the rest of the 

country. What is found to be service-connected in one VISN is not 

service-connected in another.

 Percentages granted vary for the same injury. This needs to be 

corrected through constant training and regular supervision. Then 

hopefully cases could be decided quickly and correctly. There would 

be fewer appeals and the backlog would go down.

 We hope that this Committee will make sure this push will continue in the future.

 For years, TREA and Congress has called on the VA and the DoD to 

create a seamless transition from being a member of the U.S. Armed 

Forces to being a veteran. And large steps forward have been made, 

but we still do not have a seamless transition.

 The two medical records systems of the VA and the DoD do not talk 

to each other and this is a must. We need to finally have one medical 

examination to be used by two departments. It would finally create 

a seamless transition. It will save time, money, and aggravation. It 

would make healthcare better. It would make IT more secure and 

make disability determinations accurate and fast. It would help im-
16

prove all these problem areas.

 Of course, the numerous bills that we hope can still be passed by 

the 109th Congress, that includes Representative Filner’s House Resolution 2747 and Representative Bilirakis’ House Resolution 1462.

 House Resolution 2747 would modernize the insurance plan for 

disabled veterans by using today’s actuarial charts rather than those 

from 1941.

 House Resolution 1462 would allow DIC recipients to remarry at 

age 55 rather than the present 57 without losing their payments.

 Both programs are not expensive, but they would greatly help a 

small group of very deserving people who have been overlooked.

 As I said in my written testimony, if one looks at the VA bills passed 

so far this year, you would think it has been a very calm town. How 

wrong you would be. With last year’s enormous shortfall and this 

year’s IT theft, it has been a terribly busy year.

 TREA members know how much the members of the Committee had to do to protect our veterans and personnel security. Thank 

you. We hope 2007 will be a year where we can work together to 

improve the future and not just deal with disasters.

We hope the VA healthcare grows to provide first-class service for 

all our beneficiaries. We hope that both the quality of disability decisions and the size of the backlog improves. We hope IT security 

becomes the best in the Federal government. And we can reach 

these goals by working together.

 This year, we will be losing some of our strongest advocates. Both 

Representative Lane Evans and Representative Michael Bilirakis 

will be leaving the House at the end of the session. All TREA members thank both men for all they have done for this nation’s veterans 

and their loved ones. They have been remarkable and steadfast advocates for us, and we will forever be grateful to you both. We will 

miss working with you in the future.

 Thank you very much for your attention, and I will be happy to try 

to answer any questions you might have.

[The statement of Patrick Corbett appears on p. 70] 

The Chairman. We have currently three votes in front of us. The 

previous question adopted the rule on H.R. 4830 and the suspension 

vote dealing with the Military Personnel Financial Services Protection Act. So it is a 15 followed by two fives.

 And, Admiral, I hate to interrupt your testimony. So if we could 

go ahead and recess right now and then come back after the vote and 

then receive your testimony rather than bifurcating it. Would that 

be all right?

Admiral Ryan. Okay.

The Chairman. All right. The Committee will stand in recess. We 

will reconvene around quarter to ten till twelve.
17

[Recess.]

The Chairman. The House Full Committee will come back to order.

 We now recognize Admiral Ryan.

STATEMENT OF NORBERT RYAN, JR.

Admiral Ryan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Filner. I am honored to be here today representing our 360,000 

members of the Military Officers Associations of America. Like my 

colleagues, I use that word honored with a great deal of sincerity.

 I do not think there is a higher calling for a member or a staff person than serving on this Committee. And I know that Mr. Evans is 

here in spirit and Congressman Bilirakis was here earlier. Those 

two gentlemen exhibited that higher calling, sense of higher calling, 

and the Military Officers Association deeply appreciates their servant leadership and their personal example. They have impacted 

on hundreds of thousands of lives, and we are deeply grateful for 

their service.

 MOAA is also grateful to the Committee for adding needed resources to the VA healthcare system. But like my colleagues, we remain 

concerned, as you are, that the VA continues to underestimate demand.

 The bottom line is when veterans do get their appointments, the 

quality of care is among the highest in the nation, as you said, Congressman Filner, but they should not have to wait months for that 

care.

 As the Chairman mentioned, we are reminded over and over that 

we are a nation at war, so it is imperative that we fund the VA system accordingly. Just as this nation is stepping up to the plate to 

pay the enormous cost of the War on Terrorism, they must also step 

up and fully fund the healthcare system that serves the needs of our 

wounded warriors and all other veterans the VA has agreed to treat.

 To properly fund the VA, we need to get our facts and data 

straight. MOAA has three recommendations to do this.

 First, we recommend that the VA continue its work to overhaul its 

demand projection model which, as you all know, fails to adequately 

recognize that all returning Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation 

Iraqi Freedom veterans are eligible to enroll for up to two years with 

no questions asked.

 Second, the VA budget should be built to meet the VA’s own 30-day 

access standard. What is the point of having access standards if the 

budget is not built to meet them?

 And, third, we recommend the Committee continue to carefully 

consider the veterans’ Independent Budget for the next fiscal year, 

fiscal year 2008. The Independent Budget has consistently been a 
18

very reliable projection of the true demand and cost of care.

 MOAA like the Committee, is particularly concerned about the care 

and rehabilitation of our most severely wounded men and women. I

have recently visited the Tampa VA Polytrauma Rehabilitation 

Center. The quality of care is impressive, but the facility, particularly some of the buildings are bursting at the seams.

 I have seen worried family members sleeping in a lounge chair 

that cannot fit into the room out in the passageway. I have seen the 

modern equipment that they need to help rehabilitate and heal these 

veterans out in the passageway because they cannot fit it into the 

room. We have got to innovate and find a way to accommodate this 

new technology.

 We strongly recommend that the Committee make funding for traumatic brain injury, spinal cord injury, PTSD, prosthetics, blinded vet 

care, research and family counseling a priority going forward. We 

applaud the Committee for continuing to champion the cause of 

seamless transition.

 Last spring, Army Captain Mark Giammatteo who underwent 30 

surgeries at Walter Reed to repair combat injuries, testified before 

the Veterans Disability and Benefits Commission. He stated while 

on convalescent leave in his hometown, he experienced a medical 

problem and attempted to check into the local VA facility, but the VA

official said they could not treat him since he was on active duty.

 Seamless transition must include interoperable medical records as 

you both gave examples of. So far, DoD and the VA health systems 

can only talk to each other in limited ways.

 The President has signed an Executive Order saying that we ought 

to have common health records, and it was signed in August. We 

have got to get on with it.

 We agree with the Chairman that the VA has got a good start on 

this, but we hope you all will continue to get DoD and VA in the same 

room and ask them to come out with a solution in the shortest time 

possible. And it will take some jaw boning to get that done.

 Speaking of data issues, we strongly support the Committee’s bipartisan bill, House Resolution 5835, to strengthen data security and 

protect our veterans in the event of a future data breach. And we 

will be there with strong support for your efforts on the floor next 

week, Mr. Chairman.

Turning to the benefits, a major priority should be improving the 

claims processing including hiring and training new colleagues or 

new claims workers to replace retiring workers and upgrade the system to speed claims operations.

We also recommend greater flexibility in delivering transition 

assistance. For example, Guard and Reserve veterans need to get 

TAP information near their homes.

 As a founding member of the Partnership for Veterans Educa-
19

tion, MOAA believes we need to restructure the GI Bill as soon as 

possible. All of my colleagues have addressed it as have you all.

 Mr. Chairman, as you know, right now the Army and Marine Corps 

Reserves have sent over 280,000 men and women to Iraq and Afghanistan and have mobilized over 500,000 since 9/11. Yet, they do 

not have the same benefits for the GI Bill. Guard and Reserve education benefits have dropped from about 50 percent of active duty rates 

in 1985 to 29 percent since 9/11.

 An active duty member who serves two years on active duty and 

one tour in Iraq can use his or her GI Bill after separating, but no one 

who spends six or eight years in the Guard or Reserve and does two or 

three tours in Iraq can. That is just not right, and Reserves know it.

 If you look at the recent trend in recruiting for the Army, it is a 

very troubling trend. Army Reserve recruiting was 87 percent of 

goal in July and 62 percent in August. We believe this is symptomatic of the fact that this nation has not sent a high enough signal of 

value, particularly those who are in the Reserves.

The Guard usually has a great State education benefit as all of you 

know in your states, but the Reserves belong to no one as a direct 

relative. And I see the Reserves are going to be the ones that first 

bring risk to the all- volunteer force, and I think it started in Reserve 

recruiting right now.

 So we recommend combining the active duty and Reserve GI Bill 

programs under Title 38 and scaling the benefits to match duty performed including equal opportunity for all to use benefits after they 

have completed their service obligations.

 Mr. Chairman, MOAA appreciates your public statements on this 

concept, and we really appreciate the leadership of Congressman 

Boozman, Congressman Snyder, and many others on the Committee 

who have championed this issue. And we cannot urge action quick 

enough by the Congress. We think this is something that is really 

going to be an Achilles heel for the all-volunteer force, this weakening 

and erosion of support as perceived by the members of the Reserves.

Finally, MOAA believes strongly that we must fix remaining inequities for survivors of members whose death was caused by 

service. One disconnect, as my colleagues have mentioned, is that 

the DIC widows must be at least age 57 to retain their VA compensation if they remarry. We think as a minimum that should be 

changed to age 55, the same standard as all other Federal survivor 

programs.

 We also urge your leadership in ending the deduction of DIC from 

military survivor benefit plan annuities. It is on another Committee, but you all are the influencers of the Congress and you can help 

us get rid of this shameful offset for SBP for those that lose their 

spouses due to their disability or in combat.

 Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and members for setting a higher 
20

standard on this Committee and for answering the higher calling.

The Chairman. Thank you, Admiral.

[The statement of Norbert Ryan, Jr. appears on p. 79]

The Chairman. Mr. Lopez, you are now recognized.

STATEMENT OF JOHN K. LOPEZ

Mr. Lopez. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and 

Ranking Member Filner, thank you for your attention and accepting 

our written statements for the record.

 As you may know, the Association for Service Disabled Veterans is 

an organization of disabled and military service veterans devoted to 

the rehabilitation of all disabled military veterans to the maximum 

state of self-dependency attainable within existing technological and 

human resources. Consequently, our focus is directed towards freeing the service-disabled veteran from the dependency of tax supported assistance whenever possible.

 To that end, service-disabled veterans are extremely grateful to the 

accomplishments of the 106th, 107th, 108th, and the 109th Congress 

under the leadership of this Committee.

 Under the responsible and compassionate leadership of your Chairmen and Ranking Members, you have established self-employment 

entrepreneurship as a viable opportunity for our nation’s service-disabled veterans to live a life of individual dignity and make a significant contribution to the economic prosperity of our nation.

 Public Law 106-50, Public Law 108 - 183 and the pending House 

Resolution 3082 and portions of the Reauthorization of the Small 

Business Act of 2006 are continuing statements of the intent of the 

United States Congress to enable the rehabilitation of those who 

have sacrificed their well-being for the prosperity and security of the 

United States of America and the free world.

 However, there remains the issue of effective implementation of 

the intent of Congress due to the lack of compliance by the prime 

contractors that receive the vast majority of agency procurement dollars.

 Although required by legislation to subcontract opportunities to 

service-disabled veteran owner businesses and to assist in self-employment rehabilitation, major contractors continue to evade compliance through various regulatory manipulations. This has had the 

dramatic effect of diminishing opportunities since the majority of procurement dollars are awards to billion dollar prime contractors.

 It is requested that the Committee request information regarding 

the subcontracting performance and practices of prime contractors 

of Federal agencies, especially the lack of compliance by the United 

States Department of Veterans Affairs and the United States Depart-
21

ment of Defense billion dollar prime subcontractors.

 Irrespective of the efforts of the Committee, a feeling persists among 

the service-disabled veteran population that the vested interests of 

the agency procurement bureaucracy and the influence of special interest groups is so pervasive that it may require major oversight if we 

are to make significant and positive change.

Central to this quandary is the service-disabled veteran perception 

that the service-disabled veteran is a powerless stakeholder in the effort to establish and maintain an effective rehabilitation program for 

our nation’s service-disabled veteran heros. 

 Attached to this testimony is a discussion concept that considers 

the question of the establishment of a policy of countervailing power 

for the serving military person titled Selective Sacrifice. This concept would reinforce the perception of the serving military that their 

sacrifice be actively emphasized and subsequently acknowledged and 

honored.

This concept of Selective Sacrifice is a reflection of the advice of 

the First President of the United States that the willingness with 

which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how 

justified, is directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of 

earlier wars were treated and appreciated.

 Thank you for your attention. I shall be pleased to answer any 

questions you may have.

[The statement of John K. Lopez appears on p. 90]

The Chairman. Mr. Lopez, you need to help me here a little bit. I

want you to articulate a little better for me when you talked about the 

quandary and the perceptions that the service-disabled veteran is a 

powerless stakeholder.

 Will you please articulate that a little further?

Mr. Lopez. Certainly, Mr. Chairman.

 The populous views veterans as victims. The Defense Department 

views veterans as casualties. And the legislature and the Congress, 

rather, and the Administration view veterans as beneficiaries. In 

none of these definitions are veterans recognized as participating 

stakeholders in the formulation of the policies which govern their 

lives.

 Mr. Filner made a reference earlier today towards enabling veterans to be more participatory in the legislative process. It was a 

passing reference. Perhaps he can elaborate on it. I will not do 

that for him.

Veterans come before you gentlemen and ladies and they ask you 

to get them things, to do things for them. We do not participate in 

the actual negotiation, in the actual formulation of those benefits or 

those needs.

 I think it is very imperative if we are continue to retain the inter-
22

est, patriotism, allegiance, and concern of our veterans that we come 

up with some type of a system whereby they are day-to-day or maybe 

even policy-to-policy participants in the actual formulation of programs.

 I think this can be done by when program managers in the Department of Veterans Affairs meet with senior staff or with your staff 

and start to discuss what they are going to do in a particular area 

of concern that they include random selected or specifically selected 

members of veterans’ organizations so that they can be true participants, not recipients, not reacting at all times.

 You have had before you with all of your effort and all your accomplishments, you have the constant haranguing from the veterans organizations not willing to accept what you have done for them. And 

many times, we consider that to be the ungrateful whining of a 

population. What I believe it is, is a population that is really ignorant on what it is that is being done for them.

The Chairman. Well, you have been responsive to the first part where 

you said a powerless stakeholder in the effort to establish. Now 

please articulate the second half of that when you use the word to 

maintain.

Mr. Lopez. Repeat that, please. I do not—

The Chairman. Well, in your testimony, you have used this perception among the service-disabled veterans about a powerless stakeholder in the effort to establish, an effective rehab program for our 

nation’s disabled heros.

Mr. Lopez. Okay.

The Chairman. Then you also then used the word to maintain. So 

you have just articulated for me with regard to establish. Now articulate is this perception also then in the marketplace?

Mr. Lopez. Yes, sir.

 Also, you have existing programs, historical existing 

programs. Many of the gentlemen here already testified regarding 

the direction of those programs. Not one of them, not one, enunciated their participation in the formulation of the directions of those 

programs. And I would like to hear from them saying that they 

were invited or any organization that they were invited to negotiate, 

discuss what a policy would be and how it would be formulated.

 We do that informally and sometimes formally as we are now with 

you because of the Congress’ concern and responsibility. We do not 

do that when these programs are actually formulated and put into 

practice. We take what we get.

The Chairman. We are passing in the night.

Mr. Lopez. Right.

The Chairman. Let us go back here a second. My question is about 

this perception of a disabled veteran. See, for this Committee, we decided to form a separate Subcommittee called Economic Opportunity 
23

because we want veterans to live as full and complete lives as they 

possibly can, and to examine those types of programs.

 My question to you is, when you testify to us and you say about 

the perception of powerless, I have heard what you said about to 

establish. My question to you is, in the marketplace, do they feel 

that they are also powerless in the marketplace? If you cannot testify to that, then do not. But just let me know whether you can be 

responsive to that.

Mr. Lopez. Let me comment to that.

 Yes, they feel they are powerless because once they get into the 

marketplace, they found that they are overwhelmed by numerous 

regulations and interpretations by the bureaucracy which the bureaucracy maintains is a reflection of the intent of the Congress.

The Chairman. So that is why you used the word ignorance in your 

prior statement? Ignorant meaning because they just do not know, 

so it is the better outreach to them? What is it? How do we bridge 

that?

Mr. Lopez. I do not think your Committees, and I am sincere when 

I say it, have been—without you, self- employment, entrepreneurship 

would not exist. You have made a tremendous stride in the options 

of service-disabled veterans to have a meaningful quality of life.

 However, however, it is the implementation where they feel that 

they are powerless because you have done your duty. You have 

taken your initiative. But when this is applied in the bureaucracy, 

there is no payoff. There is no result.

 And you can only recollect the fact that we have come to you time 

and time again saying fix this, fix that, fix this, fix that because we 

have met with frustration in the marketplace, because all the work 

you did before, they have reinterpreted that work and said that they 

will decide what the interpretation of Congress is, and it is not as you 

folks feel is to your benefit.

The Chairman. All right. Thank you.

Mr. Lopez. So that is our frustration.

The Chairman. We cannot even get the VA to hit their standards on 

the set-asides let alone the rest of this bureaucracy. This Committee does not have jurisdiction over all departments of government. I

assure you we would change that from—

Mr. Lopez. I know.

The Chairman. —from a goal to a mandatory standard. But then 

at the same time what happens in this town is there is gamesmanship with regard to these set-asides. So you have got that big dominant player out there that says, well, I can go after that particular 

contract. I will just find me a veteran’s owned business that is a 

front—

Mr. Lopez. Exactly.

The Chairman. —and they become the primary and the big guy 
24

is the sub and they do a little payola. I hate to call it payola, but 

they take a cut as the front so they can gain access to a particular 

contract. Huge games going on in this town, whether it is through 

Alaskan, Indian, any minority set-aside, disabled veteran set-aside.

 So you are right. As soon as we make a little change that we feel 

like we are making a fix, the fix is out there, too, the gamesmanship 

that goes on with the system.

 I have to ask this question, and then I want to then yield to Mr. 

Filner. I am asking everyone the question about the attorney representation issue.

 I need to know whether you support bringing attorneys into the 

claims process or not, whether you support the approach given by 

the Senate, which means bring them in, lawyers in at the beginning 

of a claims process, that veterans should have that option; or Mr. 

Evans’ approach meaning you can bring a lawyer in after the notice 

of disagreement has been issued. If your association does not take a 

position, please let me know that.

Chief.

Chief McCauslin. Thank you, sir.

 I was reviewing again the Constitution of the United States, which 

I carry with me, and it just reminds me of this one part of the 14th 

Amendment that says no person shall be deprived—any person shall 

be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law 

nor deny to any person within this jurisdiction the equal protection 

of the law.

 It is not a yes or no with Air Force Sergeants Association. I think 

we still want to study what is behind it, what is the implications, 

what is the cost, and more important, as the last gentleman talked, 

regardless of how the law has changed, what is the actual where the 

rubber hits the road activity out there where there is a veteran who 

has a denied claim.

 We certainly do not want the ambulance chasers to be out there 

and milk the system. So the bottom line is, no, we do not have a 

position yet because we are still studying where we are at with this 

thing in mind.

The Chairman. All right. This is coming to us right now.

Chief McCauslin. Yes, sir. Thank you.

The Chairman. So you cannot just study this one to death because 

- I just want you to know this—the Senate has a position. They are 

placing pressure upon this Committee to take their position, and I

need to know.

 Now, obviously you cannot testify outside your lanes, but I just 

want you to know if your association is interested in taking a position, and you need to let us know pretty soon.

Chief McCauslin. Yes, sir.

The Chairman. All right?
25

Chief McCauslin. Certainly.

The Chairman. Mr. Corbett.

Sergeant Corbett. The legislative agenda of our organization is 

determined by the resolutions passed at our annual convention. We 

have taken no position on this issue of lawyers representing veterans, 

sir.

The Chairman. Thank you very much.

 Admiral.

Admiral Ryan. Mr. Chairman, we think that the VSOs have more 

expertise—I will be up front on that—than we do as a military service 

organization. But the reason we are reserving our opinion for right 

now, I think, is the same reason that the Congress ought to reserve 

their opinion, and that is you all do have a higher calling here, and 

that first calling is to do no harm.

 And I am not sure that, if you take the Senate bill you are going to 

do harm, more harm than you are if you keep the lawyer out of that 

part of the process because of two things.

 Number one, the claims process itself really needs to be improved 

and, number two, I think that you have a perfect vehicle to do that 

with, and that is ask the Veterans Disability Benefits Commission to 

include this as part of their analysis as they look at this claims process and what can we do to improve it. It is a perfect place to have 

people really carefully analyze it before we go and make the situation 

worse rather than better.

 And so we are reserving our opinion. We know that some of the 

VSOs feel very strongly about it in both ways, but we are concerned 

that rushing into this is going to do more harm than good if you all 

are not convinced personally of the way to go.

The Chairman. Mr. Lopez.

Mr. Lopez. Our members automatically have legal counsel because 

of the nature of entrepreneurship. It is one of the requirements. So 

they do not look upon this issue in the same way. So we have no 

opinion on it.

The Chairman. Well, Admiral Ryan, I dealt with you for years when 

I chaired Personnel and negotiated many different provisions which 

you had interest in with the Senate.

Admiral Ryan. Uh-huh.

The Chairman. And I recall sometimes when we came to difficult 

questions in figuring out how to compromise, how to get to yes so 

everybody feels good coming out of the room, DoD, House, Senate, 

Administration. Sometimes on these questions, you can also sense 

that, right, do those types of things too? But I am being a good listener to your counsel.

 Mr. Filner.

Mr. Filner. Mr. Chairman, since I already gave my opening 

statement. I hope you will recognize me after my colleagues. I
26

would appreciate that.

The Chairman. Very good.

 Mr. Brown, Chairman Brown.

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

 I would just like to thank the gentlemen for coming and being a 

part of this dialogue, and I will reserve questions.

The Chairman. Mr. Michaud.

Mr. Michaud. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 I want to thank the panelists for coming before us. I just have one 

question if I understood Mr. McCauslin’s statement earlier. He had 

mentioned as far as paying an enrollment fee, the $250 enrollment 

fee, that he is opposed to that proposal, but prospectively might not 

be opposed to it.

 Is that correct? Do I understand you correctly?

Chief McCauslin. That is correct, sir.

Mr. Michaud. How do the other three MSOs feel about that? I

know you are opposed to the enrollment fee, but prospectively would 

you also be opposed to an enrollment fee?

Sergeant Corbett. We are opposed to the enrollment fee, the Retired Enlisted Association. It will affect some of our members too 

much because they are living on a fixed income. They are senior 

citizens and it would definitely, definitely hurt them. 

Mr. Michaud. Even prospectively?

Sergeant Corbett. Yes, sir.

Admiral Ryan. I have not looked that far out, I am embarrassed to 

say, about prospectively. But we are opposed at this time. With 

the war going on, we think it sets a terrible signal. Thank you.

Mr. Michaud. Mr. Lopez.

Mr. Lopez. We have not looked into the issue, so we do not have a 

clear statement to make to you, sir.

Mr. Michaud. Okay. Thank you.

 I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Chairman Boozman.

Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 I really do not have any questions, but I know myself and Ms. Herseth really have enjoyed working with you this last year, and we do appreciate the input and the very thoughtful input. And like I said, we 

appreciate you being here. We appreciate all that you represent.

 A special thanks to the Air Force Sergeants. My dad was a retired 

Sergeant and we were visiting earlier. I said that he would be very 

proud of me, and he said, yeah, he’d be proud of you. I did not mean 

it in that way. I meant he would be very proud of me that I would be 

standing with the Air Force Sergeant representative and have looked 

at that—I lost my dad about ten years ago, but have seen that publication on his coffee table for many, many years.

 And, again, we appreciate all of the things that you are doing for 
27

your membership. Thank you.

The Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Boozman.

 I am equally the proud son of an Army Sergeant.

 Dr. Snyder.

Mr. Snyder. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

 I just want to make a comment. The three of you, Mr. McCauslin, 

Mr. Corbett, Admiral Ryan, made very strong and amplified statements about the GI Bill and the need for improvements. And I think 

there is a lot of unity of opinion about that we need to make some 

major changes to the whole GI Bill system both for our veterans, but 

also for our men and women in the Reserve component.

 And Chairman Boozman and I are going to participate in a hearing 

next week on the GI Bill. And I think Senator Lincoln is going to 

testify also.

 But we have just so many things that we need to work on, and I

think what has happened over the last several years is you have so 

many things to work on that we do not do anything. And so as time 

goes by, the benefit has eroded, particularly for our Reserve component, but, frankly, for everyone.

 And then the worst provision that I know that you talked about, 

I think, Admiral Ryan, was this problem that we have now with 

our men and women in the Reserve component, the Guard and 

Reserves. They get activated. The intent of the current benefit is 

that they use their GI Bill benefit while they are in the Reserves.

But if they get activated, they are spending three or four or five 

months preparing for service in Iraq, sometimes longer than twelve 

months, they are coming back at the end of their—if they are at the 

end of their enlistment and they get out, they have no GI Bill benefit.

 The expectation, the way this thing is legislatively designed is 

somehow they would attend the University of Baghdad or something 

while they are in a war zone. I mean, that is the reality of how that 

benefit is set up, and I think it is unconscionable. 

But for whatever reasons, it has been difficult to get DoD interested in doing something about it. That is not under the jurisdiction 

of this Committee. It is in the Armed Services Committee.

 But I am not sure I am very optimistic that Senator Lincoln’s provision that was attached to the Senate Defense Bill, if that is going to 

make it out of conference. We should know that in the next two or 

three days. Hopefully it will.

It deals with that specific issue, but we have a lot of issues there to 

work on all generated by two things in my view, the increasing cost of 

education and the necessity of participating in that education.

 We could do so much for our country and for our veterans and our 

men and women in uniform if we would really look at improving this 

benefit for both the Guard, Reserve, and the active forces.
28

 I appreciate your statements which were more than just a brief 

note. You all describe in some detail things that you thought we 

needed to work on. So we look forward to those discussions.

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Mr. Filner.

Mr. Filner. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you for following 

up on Mr. Lopez’s statement. It is something that we have not discussed here.

 I think I get it, Mr. Lopez, and I am going to keep it in mind as 

we move forward. You know, there are attempts to set up Advisory 

Committees, and they do not work very well. There has to be something that gives the sense that there is some participation.

 I thank you for bringing that up. I thank the Chairman for allowing that discussion.

 Let me just say to conclude this panel, when we read through your 

written testimony, and I thank you for your expertise which is incredible and helps us understand the issues very clearly—there is a 

unanimity on a lot of issues that should constitute our agenda as a 

Committee.

 Sometimes, as Mr. Lopez says, people feel like they are begging for 

something that is really rightfully theirs. It costs a lot of money. But 

the saddest thing for me is the sense that as a nation, we have the 

money. It is a question of priorities. We have the money. We are 

the richest nation in the history of the world.

 Our budget this year was three trillion dollars. The debt 

that we owe as a nation is eight trillion dollars. The VA gets 80 

billion. Surely with all those figures, it is within our ability to provide for our veterans.

 We are spending a billion dollars every two and a half days in 

Iraq. As the Chairman said, it is a cost of war to deal with our previous gallant fighting men and women. If we looked at like that, the 

money would be available.

 As Mr. Lopez quoted President Washington that the knowledge of 

how we deal with our veterans is a really important part of the morale of our active duty.

 So we are supporting our troops in Iraq if we treat not only the 

servicemembers coming back from Iraq but also those who came back 

from Normandy, et cetera. We, as a nation, can do this and we can 

do it in a way that involves the people who are affected by it.

 Nobody should feel that they are asking us or begging us. We 

should beg you for the honor of dealing with those who we made a 

contract with. I hope we get into that way of looking at things.

 You have not asked for too much. You have asked for what is 

rightfully due the veterans of this nation. I hope this Committee responds and this Congress responds.

 Thank you.
29

The Chairman. Thank you.

 I would like to thank Chairman Boozman and Ranking Member 

Snyder on the House Armed Services Military Personnel Subcommittee, who is also on this Committee, for the joint hearing that you are 

going to do. And you have got great expertise here.

 I think MOAA is planning on testifying, are you not, and 

NAUS? Others, if you get interested, go knocking on their door to 

be heard. So give Chairman Boozman a call. Sorry.

 If there is not room, please prepare your statements and submit 

them for the record. We are trying to do this. It took Sonny Montgomery seven years to do the GI Bill. Seven years.

 So I got criticized yesterday by one of the groups in saying, hey, 

you said you would do it, but I have not seen anything. And I about 

choked, but it is kind of the atmosphere sometimes.

Chairman Boozman.

Mr. Boozman. Mr. Chairman, Jeff is over there, so they can talk to 

him about whatever their needs are.

The Chairman. All right. Did you get your home phone number?

 Well, thank you very much for your testimony today. And I do want 

you to know I embraced something.

 Admiral Ryan, you mentioned it. It is something we all need to 

embrace and this is the issue of the traumatic brain injuries and 

what you saw at the polytrauma centers. And there is something 

here that I need to understand a little better and it deals with the 

case referrals.

 They were taking active duty. They are going into the VA. The 

DoD then reimburses the VA, but then there are also some patients 

then that do not go into our VA polytrauma centers, but end up in a 

neurotrauma unit in the private sector, then to be reimbursed under 

TRICARE.

 And I do not completely understand who is getting referred to 

where and why. And it is something I want to look at, and I invite 

you also to apply your eyes to that one.

 We cannot do all things for all people at every one of these polytrauma centers, and so I am hopeful that these case management 

decisions are being made based upon who has what ability to care for 

certain injuries.

 I am sure that is happening. Maybe it is just having been around 

this town for so long. I just want to make sure that those decisions 

are being made by competent doctors driving those decisions based 

on their diagnosis as opposed to dollars and budgets and costs.

 So I am going to look into that, and I invite you to put your eyes 

on that one also. And this one is not going to go away so long as the 

enemy understands that they can hide and still hurt us. And they 

have killed over a thousand just by these IEDs alone.

 And these blast injuries are something that we really have not 
30

been able to prepare for and how we care for them not only from the 

protective side with what we are able to put in these helmets but also 

on research and development and then the medical care.

 So I thank you for making that a priority, and we want to work 

with you on that.

 Mr. Bilirakis, do you have any questions of this panel?

Mr. Bilirakis. No.

The Chairman. No?

 Thank you very much for your testimony. This panel is excused.

 The second panel may come forward.

 Speaking on behalf of the National Association for Uniformed Services is retired Major General Bill Matz, the President of NAUS. He 

became the President of NAUS in January 2005.

 General Matz was an Infantry Company Commander in combat 

in Vietnam where he was wounded in action during the 1969 TET

offensive. He has served as a Staff Commander of six Army divisions, as Plans Officer for the Pacific Fleet Amphibious Ready to Go 

Fleet in Panama during Operation Just Cause, and Executive Secretary to the Secretary of Defense. He also in 2005 was appointed by 

President Bush to the Veterans Disability Commission.

 Representing the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs is Mr. Kerwin Miller, the Director. Mr. Miller was 

confirmed as the first Director of the District of Columbia Office of 

Veterans’ Affairs in 2003.

 Mr. Miller completed 28 years of honorable service, active duty, 

and Naval Reserve, retiring as a Naval Reserve Commander. He 

was the first U.S. Naval Academy graduate to graduate from Howard 

University School of Law.

 Mr. Miller served as an attorney in the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Office of General Counsel from 1989 to 1998, and received the 

Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs Outstanding Volunteer Award, as well 

as the Special Contributions Award. In 2005, he was appointed to 

the VA’s 12-member Advisory Committee on Minority Veterans.

 Testifying on behalf of the Commander, the American Ex- Prisoners of War, Gerald Harvey, is Les Jackson, Executive Director of the 

Washington, D.C. office.

 Mr. Jackson has been serving as the Executive Director of the 

American Ex-Prisoners of War since April 2001. He qualified for 

membership on April 24th, 1944, after being captured by no fewer 

than 200 of Hitler’s Army recruits from a basic training camp only 

a few hundred yards away from where his V-17 happened to make a 

crash landing.

 Representing the National Association of County Veterans Service 

Officers is Darlene McMartin, the First Vice President and Second 

Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer of that association which 

she has served in the past.
31

 Ms. McMartin served in the United States Army as a member of 

the Military Police from 1975 to 1977. She was past First Vice President of the Iowa Association of County Commissioners of Veterans 

Affairs and has served as 7th District Director and President. In 

May 2004, she was appointed by the Governor of Iowa as the State 

Commissioner for the Iowa Department of Veterans Affairs.

 Ms. Martin is a member of the Walnut Iowa AM-VETs Post 45 and 

is a member of Hancock American Legion Post 720 and Auxiliary 

Post 720 in which she serves as President of the Auxiliary. She is 

a lifetime member of the Disabled American Veterans and Vietnam 

Veterans of America as an associate member.

Our final panelist is the National Commander of the Jewish War 

Veterans of the United States of America, Norman Rosenshein, a 

member since 1970. He has held all the post’s offices in Post 63 in 

Elizabeth, New Jersey. He has served in the United States Army 

from 1964 to 1966 on active duty and 1966 to 1970 in standby Reserve.

 He was a Specialist Fourth Class and night supervisor for 

the Quartermaster School television station at Fort Lee. That is 

interesting. He has worked for CBS television and United Video 

and in 1993 started his own business in television wiring design.

 In addition to the Jewish War Veterans, he is Vice President of his 

congregation and a member of The American Legion Post 6 of Elizabeth and Vietnam Veterans of America Chapter 779.

 Do all of you have written testimony that you would like to be submitted for the record?

 Mr. Jackson, do you have testimony you would like to be submitted 

for the record? Do you have written testimony, Mr. Jackson? Do 

you have written testimony, Mr. Jackson?

Mr. Jackson. I have not submitted it yet.

The Chairman. All acknowledge in the affirmative. Without objection, so ordered. All of your written testimony will be submitted for 

the record.

 Each of you will be recognized for ten minutes, and the Chair will 

grant latitude to you just as I exercised courtesy of your fellow members on the panel. And the members will abide by the five-minute 

rule.

 Mr. Jackson, you are now recognized.

STATEMENTS OF GERALD HARVEY, NATIONAL COMMANDER, AMERICAN EX-PRISONERS OF WAR, PRESENTED 

BY LES JACKSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN 

EX-PRISONERS OF WAR; KERWIN MILLER, DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF VETERANS’ AFFAIRS, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE DIRECTORS OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS; MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM M. MATZ, USA 
32

(RET.), PRESIDENT, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR UNIFORMED SERVICES; DARLENE MCMARTIN, FIRST VICE 

PRESIDENT, VETERANS LEGISLATION, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY VETERANS SERVICE OFFICERS; 

NORMAN ROSENSHEIN, NATIONAL COMMANDER, JEWISH WAR VETERANS OF THE USA

STATEMENT OF GERALD HARVEY, AS PRESENTED BY 

LES JACKSON

Mr. Jackson. I want to apologize up front. I may be stumbling 

over my words, and I ask that you please bear with me. My macular 

degeneration is progressing.

Chairman Buyer, Ranking Member Filner, distinguished members 

of the House of Veterans’ Affairs Committee, and guests, we welcome 

the opportunity to again speak on behalf of the American Ex-Prisoners of War. We are grateful for what Congress and the VA have 

done for former prisoners of war.

 Over the past 30 years, many presumptives were established to 

simplify the process for which POWs could obtain needed disability 

benefits and medical care. The ongoing research conducted by the 

National Academy of Sciences provided the basis for these Congressional and VA actions.

 At present, most of the long-term health problems causally associated with the brutal and inhuman treatment of captivity have been 

identified and made presumptives.

 We urge Congress to act on the several remaining medical conditions identified currently in current legislation. The first of these is 

chronic liver disease, simply a clarification of a current presumptive, 

cirrhosis of the liver. The National Academy of Sciences has stated 

in writing this has more accurately reflected their findings. Cirrhosis is simply the final stages of liver disease.

 The second is diabetes. It has already been established for Vietnam veterans exposed to certain chemicals and other factors. POWs 

were similarly exposed to adverse factors in captivity and are causally related to diabetes.

 Third, osteoporosis. This is directly related to the absence of calcium needed to maintain bone structure, a common situation amongst 

POWs. This condition becomes apparent with a bone break. Adjudicators typically decide these cases for POWs. Making it a presumptive simplifies the process for the adjudicators and the POWs 

alike.

 House Resolution 1598 introduced by Representative Michael Bilirakis and Senate 1271 introduced by Senator Patty Murray cover 

these presumptives. We call to your attention that there is virtually 

no increase in the cost of any of these presumptives. Costs are more 
33

than offset by the rapidly diminishing numbers of POWs already on 

the disability rolls.

 Other legislation that ex-POWs consider high priority. Senator 

Harry Reid introduced Senate 2385 known as the Combat Related 

Special Compensation Act. Representative Michael Bilirakis, a 

long-time advocate of concurrent receipt legislation, previously introduced the companion bill House Resolution 1366 in the House. It is 

currently before the Armed Services Committee.

 This legislation will amend that part of Combat Related Special 

Compensation Act, Chapter 61 of the Defense Authorization Act of—

it is going to amend it to an earlier date of January 1, 2006.

 With the current effective date of 2014 and their current advanced 

age, it is a statistical probability that World War II military retirees 

will not live to receive any of this compensation.

 Representative Bob Filner introduced House Resolution 2369 to 

provide for the Purple Heart to be awarded to prisoners of war who 

die in captivity. We ask the Committee to give their full support to 

these bills.

 In closing, I want to again express our deep appreciation for identifying POWs as a high priority and worthy group of the veteran population.

 We are also grateful for VA’s ongoing efforts to identify every POW

and take the next step in getting them processed for applicable VA

benefits by adjudicators specifically trained to handle POW claims.

 Thank you.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Jackson.

[The statement of Gerald Harvey appears on p. 117]

The Chairman. Mr. Miller. 

STATEMENT OF KERWIN MILLER

Mr. Miller. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and distinguished 

members of the Committee.

 As a member of the National Association of State Directors of Veterans Affairs, NASDVA, I thank you for the opportunity to testify 

and present the views of the 55 State Directors who represent all 26 

million veterans in this country and around the world.

 As the nation’s second largest provider for services to veterans, 

State governments’ role continues to grow. We believe it is essential 

for Congress to understand the role and ensure we have the resources 

to carry out our responsibilities.

 We partner very closely with the Federal government in order to 

best serve our veterans and as partners, we are continually striving 

to be more efficient in delivering services to veterans.

 We greatly appreciate the leadership of Chairman Buyer and Rank-
34

ing Member Evans and the entire membership of the House VA Committee for their past support of building upon the Administration’s 

budget and hope that it continues.

 Because of the War on Terror, we are now serving a new generation 

of veterans. They are going to need our help as they return to civilian life. We believe, therefore, that there will be an increased demand for certain benefits and services and the overall level of healthcare funding proposed by the Administration must meet that demand 

while continuing to serve those veterans already under VA care.

 NASDVA supports the Capital Asset Realignment for Enhanced 

Services, CARES, process. We were generally pleased with the report and recommendations made in the final plan. We also support 

the process for planning at the remaining 18 sites and the direction 

it will move VA as a national system. We urge that capital funding 

required for implementation be included over a reasonable period of 

time to enable these recommendations to be realized.

 NASDVA supports the opening of additional Community- Based 

Outpatient Clinics, CBOCs. We would like to see the new priority 

CBOCs deployed rapidly with appropriate VA medical center funding.

Continued development of CBOCs has greatly improved veterans’ access to all VA healthcare. We continue to encourage rapid 

deployment of new priority clinics over the next few years with the 

corresponding budget support to the VAMCs. VA needs to quickly 

develop these additional clinics to include mental health services.

 We encourage the investment of capital funding to support the 

many projects recommended by CARES. We support VA contracting out some specialty care to private-sector facilities where access 

is difficult.

Likewise, we would like to see the process continue in fiscal year 

2007 with sufficient funding in the budget. CBOCs provide better 

access, leading to better preventative care, which better serves our 

veterans.

 NASDVA recommends an in-depth examination of long-term care 

and mental health services. The CARES Commission review did not 

include long-term care or mental health services, but did recommend 

further study of both areas. To that end, we again ask that a study 

be done to thoroughly examine veterans’ long-term care and continue 

the study currently being done on mental healthcare needs to include 

gap analysis, clearly identifying where services are lacking.

 NASDVA continues its strong support for State home construction 

grant programs. The annual appropriation for this program should 

be continued and increased. Based on the reduction in funding in 

fiscal year 2006, we recommend that the amount in fiscal year 2007 

be increased to $115 million. Reranking of projects should be eliminated once a project is established as a priority group one.
35

 The VA has changed the procedures for allocating State home construction money. The theory is that by allowing partial payments 

on projects, the life safety projects applied for, will not be overlooked 

and will, therefore, allow other projects to proceed. The real issue is 

the amount of money appropriated in light of the amount of projects 

applied for.

Currently the Senate has included 85 million in its version of the 

budget and the House has included $105 million. The backlog of applications, however, exceeds $800 million and grows annually.

 This year is vital to raise the appropriation as much as possible 

when the Committees conference and also to request an increased 

appropriation in following years.

 The success of VA’s efforts to meet the current and future longterm care needs of veterans is contingent upon resolving the current 

mismatch between demand and available funding. We recommend 

this issue be included in any long- term care study undertaking.

 NASDVA supports full reimbursement for care in State veteran 

homes for veterans who have a 70 percent or more service-connected 

disability or who require nursing home care because of service-connected disability.

 Full reimbursement for cost of care for qualifying veterans in service veterans homes. The November 1999 Millennium Act requires 

VA to provide nursing care to those veterans who have a 70 percent 

or more service-connected disability or who require nursing home 

care because of a service-connected disability.

VA provides nursing home services through three national programs, VA owned and operated nursing homes, service veteran 

homes owned and operated by the State, and contract community 

nursing homes.

VA general counsel interpretation of the law allows only contract 

community facilities to be reimbursed for full-time cost of care. The 

service veteran homes merely receive per diem towards the cost of 

care, requiring the veteran to make a co-payment. This is unfair 

for those veterans who are eligible for full cost of care, but prefer to 

reside in a service veteran home.

 NASDVA supports increasing per diem to provide one-half of 

the national average annualized cost of care in a service veteran 

home. Currently law allows VA to pay per diem up to one-half of 

the cost of care each day a veteran is in a service veteran home.

However, in first quarter of fiscal year 2005, VA per diem amounted to only 31 percent of the average daily cost of nursing home care, 

which was $185.56. Only 25 percent of that average daily cost of 

domiciliary care, $119.94, in an SVH.

 We ask that per diem for both programs be increased to one-half of 

the national average annualized cost of providing care as the service 

veteran home program is the most effective nursing care alternative 
36

used by VA.

 NASDVA also supports VA Medicare subvention. We recommend a veterans’ medication purchase option be implemented 

for priority group seven and eight enrollees who also seek to have 

medications. We request continued protection of the Federal Supply 

System for VA and DoD pharmaceuticals.

 NASDVA also supports continued efforts to reach out to 

veterans. There should be a partnership between VA and the State 

Departments of Veterans Affairs. While growth has occurred in VA

healthcare due to improved access to CBOCs, many of the areas of 

the country are still short-changed due to geographic and/or due to 

veterans’ lack of information and an awareness of their benefits. VA 

and SDVAs must reduce this inequity by reaching out to veterans 

regarding their rights and entitlements.

 NASDVA supports implementation of a grant program that would 

allow VA to partner with SDVAs to perform outreach at the local 

level. There is no excuse for veterans not receiving benefits to which 

they are entitled simply because they are unaware of these benefits.

 NASDVA strongly supports an adequate level of funding to allow 

VBA to keep pace with the rising backlog of claims. Veterans are 

now filing a higher percentage of claims than the earlier conflicts and 

those claims have a great number of cases and issues. The backlog 

continues to grow and with the continued deployments to combat theaters, there is no expectation that the number will drop.

 NASDVA also supports consideration of a greater role for SDVAs 

in the overall effort to manage and administer claims processing regardless of whether the State uses State employees, veterans service 

organizations, and/or county veteran service officers. 

 NASDVA strongly supports passage of legislation to eliminate the 

time-phased concurrent receipt of military retirement pay and service-connected disability compensation.

 We also recommend an increase in the plot allowance to all veterans to $1,000 per interment. We strongly support an increase in 

funding for the State Cemetery Grant Program. New Federal/State 

national cemetery grant programs could be established to support 

State costs.

 NASDVA supports efforts to diminish the national disgrace of 

homelessness among veterans. SDVAs would prefer an active role 

in allocating and distributing per diem grants for homeless veterans 

to nonprofit organizations which would ensure greater coordination, 

fiscal responsibility, accountability, and local oversight of the services provided.

 NASDVA strongly supports improving upon and providing seamless transition to help our servicemembers transition into civilian 

life.

 Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, we 
37

respect the important work that you have done to improve supporting 

the veterans who have answered the call to serve our nation.

 NASDVA remains dedicated to doing our part, but we urge you to 

be mindful of the increasing financial challenge that states face just 

as you address the fiscal challenge at the Federal level.

 We are dedicated to our partnership with the VA in the delivery of 

services and care to our nation’s veterans.

 This concludes my testimony. I stand ready to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Miller.

[The statement of Kerwin Miller appears on p. 109]

The Chairman. General Matz, you are now recognized.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM M. MATZ

General Matz. Chairman Buyer, Acting Ranking Member Filner, 

and members of the Committee, on behalf of the nationwide membership of the National Association for Uniformed Services, I am pleased 

to present our views on the current fiscal year and also to look ahead 

to the upcoming year on the programs and policies of, in particular, 

the Department of Veterans Affairs.

NAUS firmly believes that despite the funding increases over the 

recent past that our VA medical care facilities continue to face serious challenges both due to medical inflation and the rising numbers 

of veterans seeking care within the VA system. And, of course, as 

my colleagues indicated, there are also many budget challenges facing VA’s Claims Administration as well.

 We believe that the answer to the budget challenge must come from 

consistent, well-grounded, common-sense decisions made to scour 

the entire budget and find the resources to fund our highest priority 

needs. And so it was heartwarming for me to hear from Congressman Filner that it is a question of priorities, the money is there.

 Regarding VA healthcare, as we look back over the past year, we 

are pleased to see that the challenge to fund the underfunded Department of Veterans Affairs did not rely on out-of-pocket healthcare 

expenses for many veterans. The leadership of this Committee took 

action to recognize that asking sick and disabled veterans to pay for 

their own healthcare is not the acceptable answer for the VA funding 

problems. The answer to the challenge is to fund the Department so 

veterans have access to quality healthcare.

 Recently VA presented information that the waiting list for 

first-time appointments with VA doctors had fallen to manageable 

levels. However, improvements in this area of concern did not necessarily tell the whole story.

Veterans who have already had their first doctor’s appointment are 
38

not part of that calculation. Many of these veterans tell us, and as 

I have had the opportunity to get out with the Veterans Disability 

Commission, that they are waiting up to nine months for some surgical procedures and specialty care. And, folks, we all know we can do 

better than that and we should.

 Mr. Chairman, NAUS appreciates your work in the bipartisan 

push to better fund veterans’ healthcare and benefits in the coming 

fiscal year. Rejecting the fees and the new challenges for veterans 

and spending more on care for those returning from battles is warmly 

welcomed by NAUS.

 Prescription drug assistance, Mr. Chairman, we are disappointed 

that little consideration has been given to those veterans who have 

been prohibited from enrollment in VA’s healthcare system under the 

decision made by the Secretary on 17 January 2003.

 Enrolled veterans can obtain prescriptions, as you are very well 

aware, paying $8.00 for each 30-day supply. However, veterans not 

enrolled for care before January 2003 are clearly denied an earned 

benefit that similarly situated enrolled veterans are able to use now.

 What we recommend is to give Medicare eligible veterans currently 

banned from the system and paying the higher retail prices or using 

the newly established Part D Program access to the same discount 

provided VA in their purchase of prescriptions.

The Chairman. Say that again.

General Matz. What we recommend, sir, is to give the Medicare 

eligible veterans that are currently banned from the system and paying the higher retail prices or using this newly established Part D

Program access to the same discount provided VA in the purchase of 

prescriptions.

The Chairman. Go ahead.

General Matz. This situation would be a win-win situation. It 

would provide the discount. It would not cost the government a 

cent, and Medicare eligible patients would pay the same price the 

VA pays.

The Chairman. You want to do that for all veterans?

General Matz. Yes, and those veterans would see value returned 

in the benefit each earned through military service.

 The disability claims backlog, sir, NAUS strongly supports efforts 

to find a solution to the rising backlog in claims processing. Veterans coming home from the war, I think we would all agree, deserve 

quick response to their claims.

Unfortunately, despite VA’s best efforts to deliver benefits to entitled veterans, the workload of the Veterans Benefits Administration 

continues to increase. And, in fact, I think as we all pointed out, 

VBA is falling further behind in this area.

 And as of September 9th, VBA had 598,000 compensation and pension claims pending decision, and this is an increase, according to our 
39

calculation and VA’s own, of nearly 90,000 from this time just last 

year.

 In addition, nearly 25 percent of those pending claims have been in 

the VA system for more than 180 days. This accumulation of claims 

within the system, I know we would all agree, is clearly unacceptable.

Congress and the Administration need to provide a stronger VA

budget for the hiring and the training of claims adjudicators and the 

investment in the appropriate technology to overcome this backlog 

and get the program back on track.

 Regarding the Montgomery GI Bill, NAUS shares a keen interest 

in consideration of a total force framework for a new GI Bill for education to include the members of the Guard and the Reserve. We 

endorse clearly a total force approach that meets the needs for all 

those who wear the uniform.

 And as the members of the Committee know, there is a growing disparity between Reserve and active duty programs simply because we 

believe Reserve benefits under Title 10 are often neglected when program improvements are made in the active duty Title 38 program.

 While the upgrade to a total force Montgomery GI Bill might be 

complex, NAUS, as I believe one of my colleagues stated earlier, as 

a start that Congress act to place the Guard and the Reserve educational benefits within the Title 38 GI Bills. Taking this action would 

increase the visibility of these earned benefits and it would certainly 

help move the Guard and the Reserve education benefits toward the 

equity of treatment deserved.

 Regarding seamless transition, over the past year, the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee has developed an excellent record of oversight on administrative efforts to improve the seamless transition of 

benefits and services for servicemembers as they leave military service and become veterans.

 And while the GAO reports, just the recent one in June, that DoD

and VA have taken a number of positive steps to increase awareness 

on the medical records of servicemembers wounded in these battle 

operations, it also reports that VA continues to have difficulties gathering real-time information from DoD medical facilities.

 Now, I would say, sir, that while DoD and VA, are beginning to 

make some effort in sharing this electronic health information, much 

work, as you know, remains to be done. And I would submit based 

on what we hear from the people who come before our Commission 

and what I hear from my own members, particularly in the sharing 

of inpatient documentation, and we are encouraged to see that the 

transfer of inpatient documentation has, in fact, begun.

 We are told that soon the DoD and the VA biodirectional health 

information exchange will be able to access information stored in 

ALTA, which, as you know, is DoD’s digitalized medical system, and 
40

make it available to VA.

 So we are pleased that the two departments appear to be working 

to ensure the sharing of health information both DoD and VA-wide, 

but we encourage this Committee as you have in the past to keep the 

pressure on them, actually on both these departments.

Concerning research, sir, as Congress moves forward in consideration of its veterans’ research requirements, NAUS encourages a 

strong effort to see that critical funding is provided for the VA mission 

to conduct medical research, especially in the area of traumatic brain 

injury, spinal cord injuries, blindness, and the prosthetic research.

 It is essential that research be conducted to guide treatment and rehabilitation for these individuals with the polytrauma injuries. VA

medical and prosthetic research programs have played a key role in 

meeting the current and future health challenges facing veterans 

with disabling injuries.

Clearly VA must also make research and treatment of brain injuries as a high priority. And we agree with members of this Committee that VA needs to develop better procedures to screen and treat 

returning veterans who have brain injury.

 As well, care for our troops with limb loss is also a matter of national concern. And so to meet the challenge, VA research must be 

adequately funded to continue its intent on treatment of troops surviving this war with grievous injuries.

 The research program also requires funding for continued development of advanced prostheses that will focus on the use of prosthetics 

with microprocessors that will perform more like the natural limb.

Concerning post traumatic stress disorder, NAUS supports a higher priority for VA care of troops demonstrating symptoms of mental 

health disorders and the treatment for PTSD.

 The cost of living adjustments, sir, NAUS is pleased to see that the 

House vote of 408 to zero in June to provide a COLA to 209 million 

service-connected veterans and survivors. This COLA, as you know, 

provided every year since 1976 will prevent the inflation from eroding 

disability compensation and dependency and indemnity compensation that so many of our veterans and their survivors rely on.

 Respect for the Fallen Heros Act, I would like to mention 

this. NAUS deeply appreciates this Committee’s efforts in the passage of legislation to stop these protestors from trying to disrupt military funeral services. The action was prompted by a series of protests 

where demonstrators yelled at mourners and made harassing comments about the U.S. Military. And NAUS was pleased to support 

enactment of this measure.

 Finally, my last point here, NAUS continues its support of legislation to authorize Medicare reimbursement for healthcare services 

provided Medicare eligible veterans in VA facilities. Medicare subvention will benefit veterans, taxpayers and the VA. And so we en-
41

courage the Committee to just closely review permitting Medicare 

eligible veterans to use their Medicare entitlement for care at local 

VA medical facilities.

 Mr. Chairman, you and your Committee members, are making 

great progress. We thank you for your efforts and we thank you for 

this opportunity to come before you today and give you our concerns 

as to what we did this past year and what we should look at in the 

future.

 Thank you.

The Chairman. Thank you, General Matz.

[The statement of General Matz appears on p. 96]

The Chairman. Ms. McMartin, you are now recognized.

STATEMENT OF DARLENE MCMARTIN

Ms. McMartin. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, it is 

truly my honor to be able to present this testimony before your Committee.

 As First Vice President of the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers, I am commenting on the past veterans’ legislative efforts by the National Association of County Veterans Service 

Officers and the upcoming year and suggestions for improvements in 

veterans’ affairs.

The National Association of County Veterans Service Officers is 

an organization made up of local government employees. Our members are tasked with assisting veterans in developing and submitting 

their claims to the DVA for adjudication.

 We exist to serve veterans and partner with the national service organizations and the United States Department of Veterans Affairs to 

serve veterans. Our association focuses on outreach, standardized 

quality training, and claims development. We are an extension or 

arm of government not unlike the VA itself in service to the nation’s 

veterans and their dependents.

The past legislative session, over the past five years, as in the five 

years prior, the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers has concentrated on legislation that would assist the Department of Veteran Affairs with claims development and the inventory 

of pending claims.

 We fully supported House Resolution 4264, the Veterans Outreach 

Improvement Act of 2005 by Congressman McIntyre of North Carolina, and its companion bill Senate 1990 by Senator Burr of North 

Carolina.

 There are other bills such as House Resolution 4355, the Rural 

Veterans Services Outreach and Training Act by Congressman Wu of 

Oregon that we believe to be on the right track to improve services to 
42

our great nation’s veterans. We believe that legislation such as this is 

what is needed to reduce the backlog of veterans’ claims that has continued to grow in spite of valiant effort of the Department of Affairs.

 In 2002, the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers testified before the House Subcommittee on Veterans Benefits that veterans are dying while waiting for their claims to be 

adjudicated. Sadly, this is still going on. The saddest circumstance 

is that it is needless and it can be changed for the better.

 The relationship between the Department of Veterans Affairs and 

the County Service Officers throughout our great nation has traditionally been professional and mutually advantageous and has developed into a partnership benefiting the nation’s veterans.

 The DVA has assisted the CVSOs in providing limited training opportunities and access to information the DVA holds on our mutual 

clients. By a large majority of disability and pension claims, the 

CVSO serves as the primary entry point nationwide for the local veteran to access services offered by the DVA.

 Most veterans view the local CVSO as the VA and do not realize the 

DVA and the CVSO are not one in the same. And in many ways, we 

are the VA to our communities.

NACVSO sees the role of the County Veterans Service Officer as 

one of advocacy and claims development in concert with the veteran 

or dependent at that grass-roots level. Our members sit across the 

desk from the veterans every day. Because of this direct access to 

our veterans, we believe we are in the position to assist the DVA in 

claims development in an unprecedented way as set forth in House 

Resolution 616 introduced by Congressman Baca in 2005.

 NACVSO believes that developing a fast-tracking method for submission of fully-developed claims eases the burden on the DVA’s inventory of pending claims. And NACVSO believes that a pilot program as outlined in House Resolution 616 would provide relief to the 

astronomical number of veterans waiting processing around the nation.

 The process begins with a face-to-face, in-depth interview between 

the veteran and the CVSO. This initial interview accomplishes 

many things. It builds a trust between the veteran and the CVSO

and it provides the veteran with a basic understanding of how the 

DVA system works.

 We believe that this division of responsibility between two arms 

of government, the Federal and the local, benefit the veteran, the 

CVSO, and the DVA, and has the potential to provide clearer understanding for the veteran of the process of the claims development and 

how the DVA system works.

 The current and the next legislative session, the future of veterans’ services is in developing the partnership between the NACVSO, 

the SDVA, the national service organizations, and the VA. It is the 
43

most important legislation Congress can pass for the veterans and 

dependents that are eligible for veterans’ benefits.

 The CVSOs play a vital role in the veterans advocacy system. The 

VSO relationship we would subscribe to would be a full partnership 

and cooperation between the VA and all VSOs. The local CVSO is 

the closest to the veteran and dependent, and with funding from the 

VA, the CVSO would provide services to an increased number of possible beneficiaries.

 NACVSO is capable of providing an out-stationed network of over 

3,000 FTE to develop well-documented and ready-to- rate claims, help 

defer frivolous claims, and increase veterans’ satisfaction by providing timely claim status to the veteran.

Local grants to County Veterans Service Officers to enhance outreach to veterans and their dependents would also ensure the quality 

of training provided to the CVSO meets the highest standards.

 NACVSO is available and has the capability to assume the role of 

manager and develop tracking and payment controls as defined by 

the grant or administrative claiming program guidelines.

 Outreach, outreach efforts must be expanded in order to reach 

those veterans and dependents that are unaware of their benefits 

and bring them into the system. Nearly two million poor veterans 

or their impoverished widows are likely missing out on as much as 

22 billion in pensions from the U.S. government. NACVSO believes 

that we must do better.

The total number of pension cases fell to 541,000 in fiscal year 

2005, the sixth straight year of declines. The VA’s actuary’s office 

report obtained by Knight Ridder predicts that pension participation 

is likely to drop further, losing between 7,000 and 8,000 enrollees a 

year. At the same time, the separate 2004 report estimated that an 

additional 853,000 veterans and 1.1 million survivors, generally the 

widows, could get the pension but don’t. It is obvious that there is a 

great need for outreach into the veterans’ community.

 We are already present in most communities and stand ready to 

do our part to assist the Department of Veteran Affairs in this monumental task.

 Standardized or minimal training requirements, there have already been some discussions by the VA on this topic. This discussion 

on the development of training standards must be moved to the front 

burner. NACVSO has been an advocate for standardized training for claims development. Every veteran should have the right to 

expect whoever is helping them is adequately trained and is giving 

them the very best of assistance.

The Chairman. Can you summarize, please.

Ms. McMartin. Okay. The latest Monday Morning Report showed 

there were 595,512 veterans’ C&P claims pending WIPP. This is an 

increase of over 87,000 claims in one year. It is unacceptable and it 
44

causes an undue burden on the claimant.

 There are two methods to consider in reducing the amount of claims 

pending in WIPP. One method is to hire and train significantly 

more development clerks, adjudicators, and raters. This would be a 

costly avenue to pursue and would take two to four years to be fully 

effective.

 The most cost-effective way to work down the backlog is to have 

the VA employees spend less time on each claim. How can that be 

accomplished? By the Department of Veteran Affairs in partnership 

with the NACVSO and the VSO making a serious effort in providing 

in-depth training and guidance of true claims development.

Any rating officer will tell you that it is a pleasure to receive a new 

claim that is fully developed, and the National Association of County 

Veterans Service Officers stands ready, willing, and able to assist the 

VA in developing, piloting, and evaluating the implementation of a 

professional claims development course.

 Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity.

The Chairman. Thank you.

[The statement of Darlene McMartin appears on p. 121]

The Chairman. We have a real challenge. We have got four votes 

facing us.

 What I hope to do here is, Mr. Rosenshein, your testimony has been 

submitted for the record and if you could give us a summary, give us 

a quick five minutes, it would be absolutely wonderful, so you do not 

have to hang around and we could then conclude the hearing.

STATEMENT OF NORMAN ROSENSHEIN

Mr. Rosenshein. Okay. Well, thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Buyer, Ranking Member Filner. My testimony is there, so I

will narrow it down.

 The basic issues that we have, including what is listed, as everyone 

knows, that we have a multi billion dollar shortfall and the present 

budget asks you to use this year’s budget—

The Chairman. Can you pull the mike a little closer to you, 

please. Thank you.

Mr. Rosenshein. Okay? With returning soldiers and demobilized 

soldiers, the needs for care will be rising. And even the veterans from 

groups World War II, Korea, and Vietnam or our Gulf War veterans 

are going to cause our needs to go up, not decrease.

 We have seen new kinds of care for all levels of veterans, some 

extreme physical wounds that now require long-term care and 

rehabilitation. Soldiers are surviving from major injuries that now 

require extensive care.

 These items are causing us to need more money, and we, as Con-
45

gressman Filner just mentioned, prefer not to beg. We would like 

this to be done in a mandatory funding method.

 We have a different kind of veteran returning from active duty today than we did before. We have Reservists and National Guard 

who have just gone through active service and are returning to their 

families. The National Guard and Reservists are now ranging in 

age from 21 to 60.

 The needs of a 21-year old returning and the needs of 60-year-old 

returning are very different. We have not truly addressed how we 

will change the care they get. Both from a mental point of view and 

from a physical point of view, their needs are very, very different.

 The present care allocated for women’s veterans is totally inadequate to support the 15 percent of active and returning veterans. At 

the present time, there are over 400 wounded female veterans. Doctors, staff, and facilities have to be made available for these veterans 

on an equal basis.

 In addition, the Veterans Administration medical research, which 

has been one of the greatest arms of the VA from its inception, needs 

to continue to get funds, not less. There is no question that this research fund is what developed all medical things across the country.

 The only way this is going to be done from our feeling is to have 

joint hearings in the spring so we can go over the recommendations 

that we need.

Since time is short, I want to thank first Ranking Member Lane 

Evans and Mr. Bilirakis for their many years of service and hopefully 

will continue with yours.

 Mr. Chairman, thank you. And, again, I want to thank you for the 

opportunity for appearing here. And I hope that was short enough 

for you.

The Chairman. You will receive the Brevity Award. Thank you.

[The statement of Norman Rosenshein appears on p. 130]

The Chairman. Real quick question, so we will try to go through 

this. Let me know whether your organization has taken a position 

on the attorney representation issue within the claims process.

 Mr. Jackson.

Mr. Jackson. We have no position.

The Chairman. No position.

 Mr. Miller.

Mr. Miller. We have taken no official position.

The Chairman. Thank you.

 General Matz.

General Matz. Sir, we do not have an association position, but let 

me just—we—

The Chairman. Hold on.

General Matz. —me and my staff would believe—
46

The Chairman. Hold on to your thought.

General Matz. Beg your pardon?

The Chairman. Ms. McMartin.

 Hold on to that thought.

Ms. McMartin. Yes, we have an official position.

The Chairman. And it is what?

Ms. McMartin. We state the veterans have a right to choose who 

will represent their claim to the VA, but it becomes a question of 

when is the right time for them to get an attorney.

The Chairman. That is exactly what we are faced with, at the beginning or—

Ms. McMartin. We feel that it should be at the point when the 

veteran’s claim is docketed with the BVA. When they receive the 

docket number, then at that point in time would be the best time for 

an attorney to be involved.

The Chairman. When they receive the docket? Yes.

 What about if you took the Evans approach on the notice of disagreement?

Ms. McMartin. I believe it can be handled by the DRO. It still can 

be handled in the local jurisdiction. It should as long as—

The Chairman. You think the docketing is the trigger?

 Ms. McMartin. —the local jurisdiction at the RO, we believe it 

should be handled by the CVSO, the VSO. At the point of it leaving 

and being docketed with the BVA, that is when an attorney should 

be involved.

The Chairman. Thank you.

 Mr. Rosenshein.

Mr. Rosenshein. Yes. Our organization has a resolution we passed 

in favor of lawyers representing them. However, what we have requested in our resolution is that the lawyers be fully qualified which 

means some type of method to qualify that they truly understand the 

needs of the veteran as opposed to anyone going in. But we want it 

open to all veterans.

The Chairman. Would you please submit that resolution to the 

Committee?

Mr. Rosenshein. Yes, I will.

The Chairman. General Matz, you had an afterthought.

General Matz. My afterthought was our staff has just looked at 

this, sir, and I would just tell you from the staff point, it is not an association position. I was not prepared to give that.

 And, frankly, we have not heard any real concern from our members on this. I believe it would be better for VA to remain an advocate, a champion helping veterans, and not get into the attorney 

adversarial relationship that might come down the road.

The Chairman. Do you have an opinion on Admiral Ryan’s recommendation since you are a member of the, Claims Commission, for us 
47

to defer and wait until you all take a look at this? Are you looking 

at this issue?

General Matz. I agree with that. I agree we should do that, and 

that is one of our points in the Commission.

The Chairman. Mr. Filner.

Mr. Filner. Well, we have seven minutes left, so we cannot really 

go into very much.

 But, you know, I have oftentimes been concerned that many of 

the problems lie and the delays lie through inadequately prepared 

claims, which means basically getting the service officers involved a 

lot earlier.

 When we know that about 85 percent of veterans or maybe even 

more are not members of any of the service organizations, how do we 

get to those 85 percent and try to get as many of them coming in even 

though they do not belong to the VFW, et cetera, have them come to 

the VFW or whomever for assistance with their claims?

 Frankly, off the top of my head, I think that goes closer to the solution than getting an attorney involved. Having said that, I would 

yield back, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman. Chairman Boozman.

Mr. Boozman. Do you have any opinions again based on the attorney, not on the attorney, but about providing perhaps better education for those that are giving guidance?

Ms. McMartin. The Department of Veteran Affairs went into 

partnership with the NSDVA at the New York office with George 

Basher. They had a pilot program to where they utilized claims 

development, fully developed claims through an education program, 

and that was a very successful program because they fully developed 

those claims and those claims went through quicker, faster, were 

fully more developed. There was no need to get any other adversarial 

partner involved in that.

 And if we get that education and training to all of our CVSOs 

out there, that would help the DVA work their claims, get them in 

quicker. They would know they were fully developed when they received them, and it would speed up the process tremendously.

The Chairman. Ma’am, you are reading from something, so would 

you please place your position in writing and please get that to the 

Committee and give it to Ms. Craven? Can you do that, please?

Ms. McMartin. I sure will.

[A follow-up letter with their position appears on p. 164]

The Chairman. All right. Thank you.

 Thank you very much for your testimony and participation and I

will look back, look ahead, and we will see you in the spring.

 Thank you. This hearing is now concluded.

[Whereupon, at 1:38 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
(48)

APPENDIX
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109

Kerwin Miller, Director

Office of Veterans’ Affairs, District of Columbia
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