U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

87–681PS 2003

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS BUDGET

REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHT CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

FEBRUARY 11, 2003

Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs

Serial No. 108–3

(
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

TERRY EVERETT, Alabama

STEPHEN E. BUYER, Indiana

JACK QUINN, New York

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

JEFF MILLER, Florida

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

JEB BRADLEY, New Hampshire

BOB BEAUPREZ, Colorado

GINNY BROWN-WAITE, Florida

RICK RENZI, Arizona

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

LANE EVANS, Illinois

BOB FILNER, California

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

VIC SNYDER, Arkansas

CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ, Texas

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

SILVESTRE REYES, Texas

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California

TIM RYAN, Ohio

PATRICK E. RYAN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director

(II)
(III)

C O N T E N T S

February 11, 2003

Page

Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2004 .............. 1

OPENING STATEMENTS

Chairman Smith ...................................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement of Chairman Smith ........................................................ 73

Hon. Lane Evans, ranking democratic member, Full Committee on Veterans’

Affairs .................................................................................................................... 3

Hon. Steve Buyer, chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations .. 11

Prepared statement of Congressman Buyer ................................................... 86

Hon. Henry E. Brown, Jr., chairman, Subcommittee on Benefits ....................... 14

Hon. Ciro D. Rodriguez ........................................................................................... 15

Prepared statement of Congressman Rodriguez ............................................ 92

Hon. Michael Michaud ............................................................................................ 19

Prepared statement of Congressman Michaud .............................................. 97

Hon. Bob Filner ....................................................................................................... 21

Prepared statement of Congressman Filner ................................................... 98

Hon. Bob Beauprez .................................................................................................. 23

Hon. Rick Renzi ....................................................................................................... 25

Hon. Ginny Brown-Waite ........................................................................................ 26

Hon. Rob Simmons, chairman, Subcommittee on Health .................................... 28

Hon. Cliff Stearns, prepared statement of ............................................................. 103

WITNESSES

Bollinger, John, Deputy Executive Director, Paralyzed Veterans of America .... 40

Prepared statement of Mr. Bollinger, with attachment ................................ 122

Cullinan, Dennis M., National Legislative Director, Veterans of Foreign Wars 43

Prepared statement of Mr. Cullinan ............................................................... 137

Gaytan, Peter S., Principal Deputy Director, Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission, The American Legion ............................................................ 58

Prepared statement of Mr. Gaytan ................................................................. 148

Jones, Richard, National Legislative Director, AMVETS .................................... 41

Prepared statement of Mr. Jones .................................................................... 131

Norton, Colonel Robert F., USA (ret.), Co-Chair, Veterans Committee, The

Military Coalition ................................................................................................. 60

Prepared statement of Coloner Norton ........................................................... 162

Principi, Hon. Anthony J., Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs, accompanied by Hon. Robert H. Roswell, M.D., Under Secretary for Health,

Department of Veterans Affairs, Hon. Vice Admiral Daniel L. Cooper, USN

(ret.), Under Secretary for Benefits, Department of Veterans Affairs, Eric

Benson, Acting Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs, Hon. Tim S. McClain, General Counsel, Department of Veterans Affairs, and Hon. William H. Campbell, Assistant Secretary for Management, Department of Veterans Affairs ......................................................... 5

Prepared statement of Secretary Principi ...................................................... 106

Violante, Joseph A., National Legislative Director, Disabled American

Veterans ................................................................................................................ 38

Prepared statement of Mr. Violante ............................................................... 114

Weidman, Richard, Director of Government Relations, Vietnam Veterans of

America ................................................................................................................. 56

Prepared statement of Mr. Weidman ............................................................. 139
Page

IV

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Statements:

Air Force Sergeants Association ...................................................................... 170

U.S. General Accounting Office ....................................................................... 183

Written committee questions and their responses:

Chairman Smith to Department of Veterans Affairs .................................... 195

Congressman Simmons to Department of Veterans Affairs ......................... 232

Congressman Evans to Department of Veterans Affairs .............................. 236, 257
(1)

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

BUDGET REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’ AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 334,

Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith (chairman of the committee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Smith, Buyer, Stearns, Simmons,

Brown of South Carolina, Miller, Boozman, Bradley, Beauprez,

Brown-Waite of Florida, Renzi, Evans, Filner, Snyder, Rodriquez,

and Michaud.

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN SMITH

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to welcome all of you to today’s

hearing, and I say thank you for coming out to members of the

panel—we have three panels today—and to the members of the

committee on both sides of the aisle.

Today, our Nation is poised to engage in another war to secure

our freedoms, freedoms won and protected for over 200 years by

millions of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines. We examine the

fiscal year 2004 budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs. As

the second largest agency in the Federal Government, the VA employs over 220,000 people, most of them outside of Washington, DC,

with an operating budget that will top $60 billion in 2004. VA programs touch millions of lives each year with benefits and services

designed to rehabilitate those veterans injured from their service,

and to help all veterans transition into healthy and productive

post-service careers.

This year, about 2.7 million veterans will receive disability compensation or pension payments from the VA through the Veterans

Benefit Administration. In addition, over 500,000 surviving

spouses, children, or parents of veterans will receive benefits.

Today, more than 3 million GI Bill home loan programs, home

loans, are guaranteed by the VA, and 250,000 more are added each

and every year, helping to make home ownership more affordable

for former servicemembers and for their families. VA operates six

life insurance programs with more than 2.1 million policies, and

administers the servicemembers group life insurance and veterans

group life insurance programs, which provide coverage to 3 million

veterans, active duty military reservists, guardsmen, and their

families.
2

Since 1944, the GI Bill College Educational Program has provided assistance to almost 21 million veterans. Legislation in the

107th Congress substantially increased the basic benefit by about

46 percent. VA has seen an increase in GI Bill utilization. More

than 200,000 veterans will receive education and training under

the GI Bill this year.

VA also contains the National Cemetery Administration, which

operates 124 national cemeteries. About 100,000 veterans and family members are interred each year, and VA also provides

headstones and markers for another 300,000 deceased veterans.

Under the auspices of the Veterans Health Administration, VA

runs the largest integrated health care network in the world. This

year, VA will provide comprehensive medical services to more than

4.5 million veterans. VA health care is among the safest and most

innovative in the world, having won numerous awards in recent

years. At the same time, VA manages the largest medical education program in the country and will train more than 80,000

health care professionals this year. In fact, more than half of all

physicians practicing in the United States today received at least

part of their medical training through the VA.

Finally, the VA’s medical research programs are world class, with with a $1 billion budget. Their cutting-edge research in prosthetics, post-traumatic stress disorder, Hepatitis C organ transplant, and hundreds of other crucial areas are world renowned.

I say all this because people in Washington are often in the habit

of talking only about what is wrong, and rarely point out what is

being done right. VA has much to be proud of, particularly under

the leadership of Secretary Anthony Principi. In fact, the highly respected Weekly National Journal recently looked at the entire Bush

cabinet and gave all of them grades. Secretary Principi was one of

only four in the cabinet to receive an A. And I would point out that

many, many fine things were said about him in that article, but

the headline, I think, said it all, ‘‘A Standout.’’ And Mr. Secretary,

you indeed have been a standout. A true veteran’s advocate and a

combat decorated veteran himself, Secretary Principi has been the

most effective Secretary ever to run this department. And I have

been in here on this committee for 23 years, and I do believe that

with all of my heart.

President Bush made an inspired choice when he chose Secretary

Principi, whose reputation for personal integrity, intellectual honesty and professional persuasiveness are well earned. I am proud

to have the honor of working with him on behalf of our Nation’s

veterans.

Although there is much to be proud of, we do have some challenges as we look ahead at this budget. The VA budget submitted

for fiscal year 2004 begins another budget debate, in many ways,

similar to ones that have occurred for many years. For those of us

on the committee, I would like to put this budget in historical perspective. The Department of Veterans Affairs budget is primarily

divided into two components, Veterans Health Administration, and

the Veterans Benefits Administration, and one small component,

the National Cemetery Administration.

The Veterans Benefit Administration is expected to provide more

than $33 billion in entitlement programs to more than 3 million
3

veterans and spouses next year. Although the budget proposes almost no increase in funding for VBA, it projects that the Secretary’s ambitious performance objectives related to the quality and

timeliness of benefit decisions will be met in most categories. If

these projections hold up, the Secretary, Admiral Cooper, and all

those who have worked so hard to make it happen, deserve a great

deal of praise.

The budget proposed by the National Cemetery Administration

looks a little bit less promising. The NCA operates 124 national

cemeteries, only 61 of which are fully operational. NCA has opened

eight new cemeteries in the last 15 years, with five more expected

to be opened in the next three. The budget projects good progress

in opening these five new cemeteries, which Congress directed the

VA to open in the Millennium Act. Unfortunately, the budget provides almost no additional funds to address the nearly $300 million

maintenance backlog at VA’s aging and closed secretaries. Last

year we received a comprehensive and authoritative study of all

the VA’s national cemeteries, and the results were less than satisfying. Capacity remains uneven across the country, and many national cemeteries need significant repairs. And hopefully, working

with the Secretary, we can do better.

Finally, the budget for Veterans Health Administration has been

and remains the most vexing and contentious part of the VA’s

budget year in and year out. Looking back over the last 5 years,

only one administration budget projected a match between health

care funding and the expected need, and it turned out that that

funding for that year was short by at least a half a billion dollars.

For the past 23 years that I have been in Congress and a member of this committee, the administration’s proposed budgets, Republicans and Democrats alike, have all been starting points, not

ending points, in determining funding to meet the health needs of

our veterans around in this country. This year, I would respectfully

submit, is no exception.

I would like to now turn to my good friend and colleague, Mr.

Evans, for any opening comments he might have.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LANE EVANS, RANKING DEMOCRATIC MEMBER, FULL COMMITTEE ON VETERANS’

AFFAIRS

Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Three months ago today,

our Nation paid respect to all veterans. Three months ago today,

the President spoke at Arlington National Cemetery on Veterans

Day. He joined with all of us in celebrating the contributions of our

veterans throughout the country. America must and will keep its

word to those men and women who have given us so much. Veterans have been promised good health care when they are sick and

disabled. They must be treated with fairness and respect.

Today, Mr. Secretary you will propose that the sacrifices of 50

percent service-connected veterans are no longer enough to receive

the VA inpatient, long-term health care. I disagree. The VA has a

funding shortfall of nearly $2 billion this year. There is no request

for more funds. We are told access to VA care has improved because there are more community-based clinics. How many veterans

are awaiting more than 30 days for a clinic appointment? We are
4

told of unprecedented efforts to improve VA/DOD cooperation. Tell

us instead about the results and improved delivery of benefits and

services to our veterans.

Congress is asked to provide $225 million in funding for CARESrelated construction that is not yet identified. No funding is requested, however, for already identified CARES construction needs

at the Chicago Westside. Plans have been made to close inpatient

care at Lakeside, but no funding requested for Westside inpatient

care construction. Costs of higher education continues to skyrocket,

but there is no proposed improvement in GI education benefits for

our men and women serving in uniform. VA has reported $280 million is needed to restore national cemeteries to national memorials.

These funds have not yet been requested. The budget fails to adequately honor to fully value veterans’ health care, for our Nation’s

veterans. This budget does not keep faith with our Nation’s veterans. It does not adequately fund the benefits and services this Congress has authorized on behalf half of a grateful nation.

Mr. Secretary, my admiration for you is not lessened. I cannot,

however, support your request.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

If members do have statements, we can submit them for the

record. During the course of the hearing, since we do have three

very long panels, we will operate under the 5-minute rule, and that

goes for the Chairman as well.

I would like to welcome our first witness today, our good friend,

the Honorable Anthony Principi, Secretary of Veterans Affairs. I

am sure most people in this room know the Secretary’s background.

However, for those who don’t, especially for our new members, here

are some of the highlights of this career:

Prior to his nomination, Mr. Principi, Secretary Principi was

president of QTC Medical Services, Inc., a group of professional

service companies providing independent medical administration

services and examinations.

Before this, he was senior vice president at Lockheed-Martin,

and partner in the San Diego law firm of Luce, Forward, Hamilton

& Scripps. Secretary Principi has worked on national policy issues

and has held several executive level positions in Federal government. He chaired the Federal Quality Institute in 1991, and was

chairman of the Commission on Service Members and Veterans

Transition Assistance established by Congress in 1996. He also has

no trouble getting around Capitol Hill, having served as chief counsel and staff director of both the Senate Armed Services and Veterans’ Affairs Committees.

A graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, and a combat-decorated Vietnam veteran, Secretary Principi first saw active

duty above the destroyer USS Joseph B. Kennedy. He also commanded a river patrol unit in Vietnam’s Mekong Delta.

Secretary Principi, you have served our Nation proudly and well,

and we welcome you and look forward to your testimony.
5

STATEMENT OF HON. ANTHONY J. PRINCIPI, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, ACCOMPANIED BY HON.

ROBERT H. ROSWELL, M.D., UNDER SECRETARY FOR

HEALTH, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, HON. VICE

ADMIRAL DANIEL L. COOPER, USN (RET.), UNDER SECRETARY FOR BENEFITS, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, ERIC BENSON, ACTING UNDER SECRETARY FOR MEMORIAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

HON. TIM S. McCLAIN, GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF

VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND HON. WILLIAM H. CAMPBELL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF

VETERANS AFFAIRS

Secretary PRINCIPI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr.

Evans, members of the committee. It is a pleasure and a privilege

to be here this morning. I thank you for the opportunity to present

and discuss the Department’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2004

with the members of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

I believe you can be proud of your unbroken record of advocacy

for veterans and your oversight over VA stewardship of our Nation’s programs for the men and women who defended our freedom.

As you indicated, Mr. Chairman, we have so much to be proud of.

We have many challenges ahead of us, but I think all of the

progress that had been made over the years long before I came to

the VA is because of the support and the advocacy that this committee has given to the VA and the veterans we have the privilege

to serve. And when I say ‘‘your’’ in the last sentence, I refer to you

both collectively and individually on both sides of the aisle.

The budget that we are submitting sets forth clear priorities.

However, priorities necessarily call for choices. And where difficult

choices are necessary, I have made them, and our budget identifies

and acknowledges them. Comparing the proposed 2004 budget to

2003 is difficult, because in the fifth month of this fiscal year, we

do not have an appropriation; we are on a continuing resolution.

When I make comparisons to 2003, I will use the amounts proposed

by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees because those

are the amounts we hope to get. And again, I thank the members

of this committee for their advocacy in getting us this increased appropriation. We hope that that will be resolved very soon in conference and to the President for signature.

If the Congress ultimately provides less funding, the increases I

discuss this morning will be greater because they will be compared

to a smaller base. But just as we would then have greater increases

in 2004, so would we have greater challenges in 2003. This is a

good budget in absolute terms, in percentage terms and in comparative terms. First the numbers.

In absolute terms, the President requests a total of 63.6 billion,

33.4 billion for entitlement program, and 30.2 billion for discretionary spending. It will fund treatment for more higher priority

veterans than ever before. In 2004, we will be treating 2 million

more veterans than we did when we went to open enrollment in

1996.

In comparative terms, the President is asking for a greater percentage increase for VA than he is asking for any other department

of our government. For our dominant discretionary programs, VA
6

will commit an additional $2 billion to veterans’ health care. In

percentage terms, this represents an increase of 7.7 percent above

what we hope to receive this year, and a 21.4 percent increase over

the past 2 years. Approximately 500 million will come from increased insurance collections and co-payments, and 1.5 billion will

come from increased appropriation of taxpayer dollars. In addition, the budget shows approximately $950 million

through management efficiencies. This committee frequently reminds me that VA leaves hundreds of millions of dollars on the

table through procurement and not collecting insurance collections,

and has encouraged and supported efforts to improve VA’s business

practices. I wholeheartedly agree with you. I believe that just in

pharmaceuticals alone, by greater sharing and cooperation between

DOD and VA, my procurement experts estimate that we can save

$460 million over a period of time. That is a lot of money that we

are leaving on the table, money that is not available to increase the

reach of health care for our Nation’s veterans.

Through better business practices, through better procurement

reform, we can save dollars that can be used to provide more

health care to veterans, and that is what we intend to do. That is

why I established our business oversight board, directed construction of an information technology enterprise architecture, chartered

a procurement reform task force to identify areas where we can

standardize our procurement practices and do more national contracting, and placed a high priority on improving our collection of

co-payments and insurance payments. We only collect 40 percent of

the bills we send to insurance companies. We have submitted a

proposal to direct HMOs to pay bills that we submit to them. To

date, HM Os have refused to pay for the cost of care for those who

are enrolled in HMOs. That is why I am comfortable with an aggressive, ambitious, but achievable goal for management

efficiencies.

I will not hide from the fact that this budget assumes that VA

will continue to sharpen the focus of our care on those veterans

identified by Congress as having the highest priority, the serviceconnected disabled, the reason the VA was established. That is our

primary mission, to care for him who shall have borne the battle.

The lower income people left few options for health care and have

to turn to the VA because they may not have insurance. They may

be unemployed. And those who need our specialized programs, spinal cord injury, blind rehabilitation, and mental health. We project

that we will treat 167,000 more of these veterans in 2004 than we

expect to treat in 2003.

These veterans are my highest priority and have the highest priorities and stature. If someone took a bullet in Vietnam or in the

Persian Gulf, or is somehow disabled by virtue of their military

service, then I believe we must—we must give them the highest

priority for care. They certainly have earned it and they certainly

deserve it. There is no higher moral obligation in this country than

to care for those who indeed have borne the battle.

With these increases, as I indicated, VA will care for 2 million

more patients than we treated in 1996, when Congress made the

decision to make every veteran eligible for, but not entitled to, comprehensive health care, including ambulatory care and prescription
7

drugs. I acknowledge that my recent decision to suspend additional

enrollment of veterans in the lowest statutory priority group, priority group 8, set VA on a course through unchartered waters. I will

monitor our outcomes very carefully to ensure that we don’t overshoot the mark in bringing demand for care and resources into line

so that we meets the expectation of veterans who enroll the 6.8

million and give them timely high quality care.

My enrollment decision does not mean that VA believes that

higher income, nondisabled veterans are unimportant. They are

very important. We have worked very closely with H H S to break

down the barriers between Medicare and VA. Secretary Thompson

and I have agreed in concept to a new program called VA Plus

Choice so that any priority 8 veterans who cannot enroll in the VA

can get their care from VA by enrolling in a VA+Choice program.

And for the first time in history, Medicare will reimburse the VA

for the cost of their care. I think that is a landmark decision. It

came about by the pressure from Members of Congress and the veterans service organizations who believe that we were being shortchanged. I think this is a good program. I am hopeful that Dr.

Roswell and his team will be able to work out the details of

VA+Choice over the next several months and put the program into

place at the beginning of the new fiscal year.

In addition to maintaining VA’s high standard for medical care,

the budget the President submitted to Congress will fund the Veterans Benefits Administration’s continued progress toward achieving my goal of benefit decisions in 100 days, with no more than

250,000 cases in our working inventory. We are making progress,

but we still have a long way to go. I am hopeful that we will

achieve that goal later this year.

The budget also funds the activation of four new national cemeteries, the most aggressive schedule since the Civil War. And we

will—a fifth cemetery we have requested activation funds—I am

sorry—advanced planning funds so that we can open that cemetery

in 2005.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Evans, members of this committee, I appreciate your advocacy and I look forward to working with you in the

challenging months ahead, and thank you very much for this

opportunity.

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

Secretary PRINCIPI. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I didn’t introduce

the members of my team. May I do that, please? I am sorry.

Admiral Cooper to my far left is our Under Secretary of Benefits;

Dr. Roswell, our Under Secretary of Health; Bill Campbell to my

immediate right is our Assistant Secretary of Management; Eric

Benson is our acting Under Secretary of Memorial Affairs; and Tim

McClain is our general counsel.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And thank you for

your presentation.

[The prepared statement of Secretary Principi appears on p. 106.]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Evans asked to speak out of order for a

moment.

Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was remiss in my remarks not to mention the AFGE union folks today. They are as

much stakeholders in this battle, Mr. Secretary. If they could all
8

raise their hands so we can see how many are here, that would be

helpful. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just make a couple of observations. I noticed, and I mentioned this to some of my colleagues earlier today,

that in addition to reading the VA’s budget, which is a very detailed analysis of not only programs but also costs and estimates,

also read the Independent Budget, which I think has been provided

almost 2 decades, the 17th year, as they point out, by the VSOs,

including the four, AMVETS, paralyzed veterans, disabled American veterans, and VFW. It provides I think an additional very fine

blueprint of services or the lack of them within the VA.

A couple of good points are made about access to clinics. It points

out that the VHA conducted a survey in July of 2002, which revealed 310,000 veterans waiting for medical appointments, half of

whom must wait 6 months, and that the number dropped 235,869.

The National Journal article points out that the benefits and the

waiting time, as well as the backlog, which we all spoke about repeatedly, have dropped precipitously, although it is not cleaned up

or cleared up, at least we are making progress. So I think the management of the VA is improved markedly, and we thank you for

that.

I am concerned about a number of things. The mental health

issue, for example. The Independent Budget makes the point, and

I frankly concur with it, about the capacity issue which we envisioned in legislation we passed last year so there is uniformity and

even-handedness of mental health being provided to our veterans.

I think there are almost 500 million service-connected veterans

who have a mental impairment—500,000. Sorry. 500,000. More exactly 454,000, for mental disability. And yet, from VISN to VISN,

medical care center to medical care center, there are gaps. And I

wonder if you might address that. And Dr. Roswell, I see you might

want to take that one. And also the issue of homelessness, which

is a very high priority to this committee on both sides of the aisle.

You know, we want to end homelessness within 10 years. That

was the thrust of our bill. We want to know what resources are

needed to do it. We laid out a plan, a blueprint, if you will, in our

Homeless Veterans Assistance Act. Touch on that, please, and use

the timer, if you would, for all of us just to get through, and then

we will do a second round if we can.

If you could do those two first, Dr. Roswell and Secretary

Principi.

Dr. ROSWELL. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure

to be here before the committee again.

With regard to mental health, we take that very seriously. That

is a major condition highly prevalent in the veteran population. We

do have a plan this year to significantly expand the way we do case

management of the more seriously mentally ill patients. We have

recently implemented a model of care called the Mental Health Intensive Case Management Program that is a community-based,

interdisciplinary program that addresses the most seriously mentally ill patients, but allows them to live independent of an institutional care setting. That, coupled with the newer atypical

antipsychotic drugs has really allowed us to achieve a much higher

functional level and quality of life for veterans with serious mental
9

illness. I am pleased to report that over the next 24 months we will

be opening an additional 24 new mental health intensive case management programs to greatly expand our capacity to provide serious mental illness care. We are also working with our Serious Mental Illness Advisory Committee to look at other ways we can expand care in a noninstitutional setting.

I would say, as a matter of note, that the CARES process that

looks at our capacity and projects its needs in 2012 and 2022 projected a much lower than anticipated level of outpatient mental

health services. Because we had strong reservations about the serious need for outpatient mental health, we actually pulled those

data and are currently reanalyzing them in concert with an actuary, an external consultant, and our serious mental illness committee to better determine that. So I think you will be very pleased

with the progress with mental health across the VA.

With regard to the homeless program, a lot has been done. One

of the problems has been looking at people’s ability to submit

grants timely and of sufficient merit that we can make an award.

This year, we are providing $750,000 in technical assistance to people who wish to submit a grant for a per diem program or a homeless program. We are also adding 21⁄2 million dollars to improve life

safety concerns in existing facilities. In addition to that, this year

we have extended and will continue into 2004 dental care benefits

for homeless veterans at an estimated annual cost of between 12

and $13 million. We have also made $5 million available through

a cooperative venture with the Department of Health and Human

Services and HUD. So, a great deal is going on with our outreach

to homeless veterans.

Secretary PRINCIPI. I would just add that the two components,

the treatment component which I think is very important to address the underlying medical behavioral concerns that veterans

have, and every year for the past couple of years, we have added

about $100 million to the base. So we are about 1.3, $1.4 billion

in treatment for those with chronic mental illness and other types

of problems. I hope that by the end of this fiscal year, we will add

1,500 to 2,000 new beds through the grant and per diem program.

And that will address the special populations of those with mental

illness as well as women veterans, because we see a sizeable number of women veterans who are homeless, and we have to address

their concerns as well.

The CHAIRMAN. I notice in the long-term health care issue, especially the number of beds; last year the indication was we needed

about 17,000 over the next decade to accommodate a growing need.

If my understanding is correct, we will see a cutoff of about 5,000.

What could be done on that, Mr. Secretary?

Secretary PRINCIPI. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate your

concerns about long-term care, and of course we are trying to balance the needs in the long-term care area with the acute care

needs and the outpatient care needs, the homeless care needs, and

with a constrained resources we are really trying to pursue expanding the noninstitutional care programs. We have found that many

veterans, elderly veterans would like to stay in their own home

rather than be institutionalized in a nursing home, and we have

lacked comprehensive noninstitutional care programs to allow that.
10

So our budget proposes to increase the non-institutional care programs so that we can reach many, many more veterans, increase

our funding to the State homes, nursing homes as well. But it is

an issue that we need to work with you to ensure that we are addressing the long-term care needs of our veterans.

The CHAIRMAN. Ranking Member Evans.

Mr. EVANS. Mr. Secretary, you indicated that about 40 percent

of the insurance, only 40 percent of the insurance is coming back

to pay for the VA clinics and so forth. What can we do to improve

that?

Secretary PRINCIPI. I think it is a multifaceted approach. First,

I would say, Mr. Evans, and I know you are very concerned about

this as I am. I think we have made some good progress over the

past 2 years. In 2002, we achieved 112 percent of our goal in collections from insurance companies. In 2003, at this point in time, we

are slightly over $400 million, 96 percent of our goal, with a third

of the year gone. I believe we can hopefully achieve our goal in

2003.

For 2004, we have got a lot of work ahead of us. We have got

to—first of all, we have to identify veterans who have insurance.

Sometimes we are not very good at getting that insurance information from veterans. We need to do better. We need to do a better

job of installing software that enables us to better process, more accurately do coding and billing, which we are doing, and more training. There are so many different areas of this program that we

need to improve. But we have a new revenue office, and their responsibility is to maximize our collections. We have the legislation

proposed to require HMOs to pay the VA for the cost of care. So

I think it is a combination of things.

Dr. Roswell, do you want to add anything to that?

Dr. ROSWELL. Well, I certainly agree with the Secretary.

Let me point out, Mr. Evans, that in addition to the inability to

collect from HMOs, for which we have proposed a legislative remedy, we also are required to bill Medicare for the full cost of care

in order to be able to collect from a Medigap insurer for veterans

who have Medicare. And that artificially lowers our collection ratio.

So while 40 percent collections on billed services sounds like an

abysmal collection record, in fact, it is not comparable to the industry standard, because we are forced to bill Medicare and HMOs

knowing full well that we can’t collect. I think the legislative initiatives will greatly rectify those problems.

I would also point out that the 2003 collection goal has been increased this year by a full 34 percent. So, being just at 96 percent

of that goal represents a remarkable increase over last year’s collection effort of over $1.1 billion.

Mr. EVANS. I understand your son is here, Mr. Secretary.

Secretary PRINCIPI. I am sorry, sir?

Mr. EVANS. I understand your son is here today, and I am sure

you would like to recognize him.

Secretary PRINCIPI. That is my son, John. He is my youngest of

three sons. The other two are in the military overseas, and John

is probably going to join them shortly. So I appreciate his being

here and I appreciate your recognizing him. Thank you, Mr. Evans.

The CHAIRMAN. Chairman Buyer.
11

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE BUYER

Mr. BUYER. Before I begin, Captain Benson, we are well aware

of your son having experienced combat in Enduring Freedom and

his loss in an aircraft accident. And having a son myself, I can’t

sympathize, I can only empathize. And we have you in our

thoughts when you lose a son.

Mr. Secretary, I am in deep struggle over this whole issue on eligibility reform. And I feel as though I am almost exhausting my

breath, so I will talk to anybody who will listen. So when I tried

to share with the new colleagues of what Congress intended to do

back in 1996 and where we are today, you know, I just said enough

is enough. Facts are stubborn things. You can shade it, you can

color it, you can spin it, you can use rhetoric. But facts are very

stubborn things. I want to welcome all the members and whoever

in the community wants to go back to the record. Look on the July

18, 1996, the report, the committee report when we did eligibility

reform. It is fascinating. You see, the GAO and the CBO were

warning Congress about the eligibility reform, but Congress

wouldn’t listen, as if this committee itself had its own ideas. Even

PVA, interesting, when you read and hear PVA’s testimony, it stated that there wouldn’t be a run on the system. Shocking!

They kept using quotes back then called the new demand. The

new demand. Let me read something out of this. I am curious

about your comment. You see, back then I guess Congress said,

well, we don’t like what CBO and the GAO are testifying to, so

maybe just in case if we are wrong, let us make sure that we give

some tools to the Secretary.

So, what was the intent of Congress? We said that with respect

to the, quote, new demand, which nobody could really estimate

what this new demand was going to be when we did eligibility reform, said, therefore, the reported bill gives VA, you, new tools,

both to limit demand consistent with available funding and to discourage veterans from seeking VA care simply to fill an occasional

need not met by private health plans.

Boy, that is pretty clear. This committee wrote that as legislative

intent. Yet, you know, members will attack you; yet, we opened the

door, veterans rush in, GAO warned us. GAO warned us and gave

us their testimony—gave us their testimony and said this is going

to happen. And as a matter of fact, Congress, when you open that

door and if you don’t fund it, you are going to force the Secretary

to make tough choices, who may even then have to, quote, ration

care, and everybody opens with their criticism, even the critic that

lurks in the shadow and has no courage.

So, let me ask this question, Mr. Secretary. How many of those

veterans out there, seven out of ten, six out of ten, nine out of ten,

have a private health plan, who then are also category 7 or category 8, making a run on the system and placing in jeopardy the

priority of care to a disabled veteran?

Secretary PRINCIPI. Certainly almost 50 percent of the veterans

in categories 7 and 8 who come to us for care have Medicare coverage as well as—okay. So, 53 percent of us are coming to us for

drugs only, and roughly 50 percent are enrolled in Medicare. And

the number who are enrolled in insurance companies—do you have

that figure?
12

Dr. ROSWELL. It is a substantial number. Over 80 percent of the

total number of veterans have other insurance. When we have actually done reliance data to look at how many veterans rely in total

on the VA health care system for the entirety of their health care

needs, it is a very small percentage. It is limited primarily to category 1, those veterans with a service connection disability 50 percent or greater.

Mr. BUYER. Many are making the runs for the medication. Is

that correct, Mr. Secretary?

Secretary PRINCIPI. That is correct.

Mr. BUYER. It is also, we note in here—this is reading right from

the record: ‘‘it is critical to note that H.R. 3118, like existing law,

would not permit the VA simply to serve as a veterans’ drug store,

providing medications, prosthetic devices, and other medical care

prescribed by a private physician who has no affiliation or contractual relationship with the VA.’’ That was Congress’s intent, for you not to be the drug store. So,

Mr. Secretary, when you get a chance—and I know you have got

a lot on your plate—go back and read this. This is very interesting

reading about Congress’s intent when we passed this law and

where we are today and how the VSOs are trying to turn this into

something that was not envisioned by Congress. I yield back.

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Snyder.

Mr. SNYDER. Mr. Filner?

[The prepared statement of Congressman Filner appears on p.

98.]

The CHAIRMAN. I would just observe to the committee that unless

you wanted to yield to Mr. Filner, when the gavel goes down, whoever is here, we go in order. That is standard operating procedure

on every committee of the House.

Mr. SNYDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn’t want to offend— Bob doesn’t have anything to do now that his cell phone can’t operate during committee hearings. So. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.

And Mr. Chairman, I want to say I sometimes get discouraged

by what happens on committees when the committee reports come

out from the staff because both sides seem to be—put out a rapidly

parsed document. But this seems to be a really good document, and

I appreciate the staff’s effort.

Mr. Secretary, I don’t know if you have seen this, but it was put

out by the committee staff. But on page 3 of this committee report,

which you probably haven’t seen, it says—and it was talking about

the budget: In response to questions from staff of the committee,

VA has conceded that it will be hard pressed to deliver timely care

to all enrolled veterans with the funds requested in the 2004

budget.

Do you agree with that, hard pressed to deliver timely health

care to all enrolled veterans with the funds requested in the 2004

budget?

Secretary PRINCIPI. No, I don’t think so. I think with the—if we

get the appropriation that we expect for 2003, with the plus up of

$1.1 billion, and our request for 2004 with the policies that are in

them, I believe that we can eliminate the backlog by the end of this

fiscal year, the waiting time, so that every veteran who comes to
13

VA will be seen by a primary care doctor within 30 days, a specialist within a reasonable time thereafter, 45 days or whatever is appropriate within the community. And I believe that the combination of the increase, we achieve our goals in medical care cost recovery, our efficiencies, that the combination, we would be able to

do it. Tough, but I think we can get there.

Mr. SNYDER. There are a fair number of ifs there. One of the

challenges we have is that we all have our own sources, obviously

the committee staff does. And, you know, when you talk about

management efficiencies, it is just hard to believe that there hasn’t

been a determined effort in the last decade to do a lot of these

management efficiencies and somehow it is going to be achieved

this fiscal year when it wasn’t in others. And that is part of the

challenge. But I appreciate your efforts.

Secretary PRINCIPI. But I just don’t think we have made a

bonafide effort. I mean, I think we have tried, but there is so much

more that can be done.

Mr. SNYDER. I understand. The issue of requiring payment from

HMOs. And, you know, HMO, it is like we have created a new

three-letter curse word in the last few years in this country. But

to—and I am not a member of an HMO. But if I as a veteran sign

up for an HMO, I do it with the understanding that I have probably a limited group of private doctors for me to go and seek health

care, and probably the same with regard to a list of hospitals.

And if we pass legislation that says that the VA can go after

HMOs, essentially, you know, this contractual agreement between

the HMO and the veteran, isn’t that going to distort the pricing

that HMOs are basing their—whether or not—I mean, I would

think it would have to be an increase in HMO insurance rates if

it turns out the Federal government can say, yeah, all your veteran

members, we are going to go—we are going to give you additional

costs if they choose to come to us rather than go to their primary

care network of the H MO.

Secretary PRINCIPI. Let me ask Dr. Roswell.

Dr. ROSWELL. The point is well taken. I think that we would not

seek full reimbursement for a network provider rate. We would

seek a discounted rate for out-of-network care. But many times a

veteran of necessity because of limited abilities is forced to leave

the HMO coverage and seek care from the VA. And——

Mr. SNYDER. All HMOs—and I don’t mean to beat a dead horse

here. I am just concerned about pricing of H MOs. We can try to

do one thing to help your financial problem, and insurance affordability is a tremendous problem in this country. But I mean, HMOs

and primary care places, they do have clauses in terms of emergency and that kind of thing. But that is not what you are talking

about, I don’t think. I think you are talking about somebody decides that, by choice, I am not going to go to Dr. X down the way

because there is a co-pay, and I can get my drugs cheaper. I am

going to come to the VA. And you end up hospitalizing them, and

then you go into the HMO when it was not an emergent situation.

I think that is a different situation. Is it not?

Secretary PRINCIPI. I would hope if our rates are comparable to

other providers in the PPO, as Dr. Roswell said, a discounted rate,
14

then there shouldn’t be any—I would think there should be no increase in insurance premiums. That is my hope.

Mr. SNYDER. See, I guess my family practice background is coming out here. My dealings with insurance companies is they don’t

just magnanimously step forward and say, you are right, we are

going to send you a whole lot of money when we are under no legal

obligation to do so.

Secretary PRINCIPI. Well, that is what has happened. And they

have said—they have collected the premiums from veterans and

they have sent the veterans to get care from the VA, including

their prescriptions. And then we bill them, and they deny payment.

Mr. SNYDER. I understand. The issue on the long-term care

beds—and I understand, I applaud your efforts to try to come up

with what is best for the veteran and the veteran’s family needs,

whether it is home health care or supportive services or whatever

it is, not just an institutional bed. But part of your—the part

that—Mr. Chairman asked about the 5,000 beds, though. It is also

a 70 percent—I mean, you are just establishing a cutoff, are you

not, from those who would be eligible? What is current law versus

what you would like to do with regard to eligibility? It is not just

graciously we are stepping forward to find the best kind of care.

We are going to cut some people clearly off. Are we not?

Secretary PRINCIPI. Well, first of all, anybody who is currently in

a nursing home bed, that bed is not going to be taken away.

Dr. ROSWELL. Just to briefly capsulize it. The eligibility reform

legislation that Mr. Buyer referred to creates the uniform health

care benefits that is available to all enrolled veterans. Long-term

care is not a part of that uniform health care benefit. It is offered

by the Secretary on a discretionary basis as resources permit. Currently, law also requires and actually mandates that 70 percent

service-connected veterans or greater who require long-term care

have that provided by the VA.

We propose with the policy changes in the 2004 budget to honor

that requirement to provide any and all long-term care for 70 percent service-connected veterans, but to begin to look at a full continuum of care for veterans with less eligibility.

Mr. SNYDER. My time is up. So the 70 percent is, in terms of eligibility, there is no change? You are not proposing a change?

Dr. ROSWELL. No.

Mr. SNYDER. Okay. That is helpful. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield? It is my understanding that the law also prescribed 13,500 beds. So there is a loss

there.

Secretary PRINCIPI. That is correct.

Dr. ROSWELL. That provision of the law would not be met.

The CHAIRMAN. So that is a challenge we face going forward.

Thank you, Dr. Snyder. Chairman Brown.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming today and to

enlighten us on some of the needs around the Nation and some of

the ways you are going to be addressing those needs.

My question is, and I know you made real progress in implementing short-term recommendations of the 2001 Claims Processing Task Force, but I am concerned about the medium and long-
15

term recommendations. How much more money would VBA need in

2004, for example, to hire nurses and other medically-trained individuals to work on compensation claims, to establish a more permanent claims training cadre and to outbased rating specialists at

70 of the largest VA medical centers?

Secretary PRINCIPI. Mr. Chairman, we would need an additional

$30 million, approximately $30 million to bring on the additional

staff, the RNs, and to have outplacement at our medical centers.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has concluded?

Mr. Rodriguez.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CIRO D. RODRIGUEZ

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me, first of

all, thank you, Mr. Secretary, because I know—and I really believe

that you have been out there doing and working hard for our veterans, and I do want to thank you for the hard work that you do.

And I guess I am just going to appeal to you and to appeal to the

administration and to—on the Republican side, is that we really

need to—because, once again, The Washington Post talked about

an 11 percent increase. And, once again, I felt, my God, you know,

it is about time. And then I looked at the numbers, and I know

that almost, what, 3.2 billion come from the veterans themselves

in terms of co-payments and that kind of thing.

Somehow we need to—and once again, I am going to ask, you

know, because I am not the one voting for the tax cut. So I am

going to ask you, as a priority item, you know, when you look at

voting out there, we need to see, maybe the Republicans can meet

with the administration here, see if we can get some additional resources for our veterans. We know that the numbers are going to

just increase because they are reaching that age. So I don’t know

what else—because I know the Democratic side didn’t do it, and

you guys are presenting a good, you know, presentation in terms

of the numbers being there. But you know that they are not there.

So we have got to see how we can work together to make this

happen.

You know, you are saying that it was never meant to provide

prescriptions, the VA. Well, Mexico was never there to provide our

prescriptions, but people are going there because there is a need

and they can’t afford it. And I have got buses going from San Antonio to buy prescriptions in Mexico. And so wherever they are going

to get it, they are going to try to get that access to health care. And

so I wanted to touch base with you briefly and just appeal to you

in that area, see what you can do. Because, and once again, I am

not going to vote for that tax cut because I don’t think that that

is a priority when we have got too many other items on the agenda.

And I hope you think seriously about that when you do that, and

just ask to maybe put the squeeze on the administration, whatever.

I know we tried to do it when we had our secretary there. And I

have to admit, he wasn’t half of what you have turned out to be,

and you have been a great person and so I want to thank you.

[The prepared statement of Congressman Rodriguez appears on

p. 92.]
16

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. In the area of mental health, you mentioned 24

new programs. How many hospitals do we have out there? Three

hundred something total hospitals?

Secretary PRINCIPI. 163 hospital, 664 outpatient clinics.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. How widespread is case management for the

mentally ill? You mentioned 24. I don’t have any idea what that

means.

Dr. ROSWELL. Case management is a widely used technique in

our——

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. I know about the technique. I am a social worker; I am a case worker by profession, and I was a mental health

care worker. So I need to know the numbers and how widespread

that actually is when you say 24.

Dr. ROSWELL. 24 is in addition to the current one. This particular

model of care, the mental health intensive case management, has

currently been used primarily in larger metropolitan areas where

there is a greater density of veterans who need that care. We believe it has great applicability and are expanding it. I don’t know

the exact number.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. You don’t know the exact number of actual case

workers or how many they are going to be serving?

Dr. ROSWELL. The typical MHICM program serves approximately

30 clients. So, 24 times 30 would be the additional capacity through

this new program.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. So we are looking at a very minimal expansion

in comparison to what the need is.

Dr. ROSWELL. That is correct. The expansion is incremental. We

don’t anticipate that that is going to be sufficient. That is why we

are looking at another case management model that is not as resource intensive as the MHICM model, and our serious mental illness problem.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. But I want to stress the fact that those case

models are still more cost effective than actual 24-hour placements.

So that, in the long term, we are saving money. And we are also— it is a quality-of-life issue. So I really believe in the case work

model concept.

Dr. ROSWELL. You are absolutely correct. I totally agree with

you. I have been told that we have 71. So the 24 would bring the

total to 95 programs. And again, that won’t meet the entire need.

But we also need to recognize that this particular model of care

may not be applicable in certain settings where the prevalence of

serious mental illness is not concentrated, which is why we are

working with the serious mental illness committee as well as an

external consultant to begin to look at how we can expand case

management beyond these intensive management programs to

other settings.

The Secretary mentioned we have over 600 outpatient clinics.

Mental health is a significant component of most of those, and we

are working to expand that in all of those locations as well.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Secretary, I know we haven’t talked about

this, but that 112/Project, those projects that we denied that had

occurred in the 1960s and 1970s, where we have identified about

40 something projects that had impacted veterans that we used a

combination of chemicals and other stuff on our own troops. We
17

had identified about 5,000 veterans that had been impacted. Where

are we at on that?

Secretary PRINCIPI. That is exactly right, Mr. Rodriguez. We

have identified 3,100 letters to veterans identified by DOD. We

know that there were 134 tests, 48 confirmed as conducted. And to

date we, VA—DOD has provided the VA with over 5,000. And of

the 5,000 names we have, we have correct addresses for about

3,000. We have sent them letters. We are continuing to try to track

down the other veterans so that we can advise them to come on in

for an examination.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. And I want to ask just maybe, Mr. Chairman,

that maybe we can follow up, because it is a very critical issue. It

is an issue that for 2 decades we kept—we were not aware of it.

It was not exposed until last year.

The CHAIRMAN. I am glad the gentleman raised the issue. We

plan on a series of follow-ups. You may recall at the hearing that

we did have, many of us were disappointed that letters went out,

but there was no comprehensive and aggressive follow-up. And

those who were doing the presenting obviously weren’t even around

in most cases. They were in grammar school or elementary school

at the time. We have also thought of inviting Secretary McNamara,

who approved the program, and we may still try that. He has been

on television, so he is certainly visible, to give an accounting. What

was going on in the thinking at the time that would put our men

and women in harm’s way with real live chemical agents. Some

were not; there are substitutes, but many of them were. And I

mean, looking back, it seems unconscionable, but maybe there was

a thought process there.

So the gentleman raised a good question, and we will follow up.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr. Secretary,

thank you very much, and thank you for what you are doing for

our veterans. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Arkansas, Mr. Boozman.

Mr. BOOZMAN. You alluded to the fact that the VA is not—certainly doesn’t want to get into the prescription-only business, and

yet the reality is, is that we have. You mentioned the 50 percent,

50 percent plus, basically, access the VA for prescription drugs. So

we have got a situation where, you know, individuals are pretty

smart. They have figured out a way to beat the system, and really,

you know, are very pleased with their primary care physicians and

Medicare or whatever, and then again have gone around the

system.

So I really feel like—and I don’t—I don’t know how we address

this, but I do feel like that is an underlying cost that we do have

to address. What it is doing is making it such that we have—Medicare in itself is—actuarially has more problems than Social Security, by about three times. So it is forcing us to basically have dual

systems for several million people.

Secretary PRINCIPI. Well, I will let Dr. Roswell expand. But I can

say it is an internal struggle. Obviously, we want to meet the veterans needs for prescription drugs, you know, something that they

cannot receive by just being an American, but by virtue of being

a veteran, we can get them those prescription drugs at a very, very

low co-payment. We are concerned that where that would lead. Ob-
18

viously, we would like to maintain, we need to maintain a comprehensive health care system that is balanced between primary

care and acute care, and we are concerned that if we just become,

quote, a drug store, the cost associated with that, where it will take

the VA away from its primary mission of comprehensive care.

And see, there are lots of issues that we need to address with regard to this, but I appreciate your concerns, and the fact that many

veterans are pleased with their primary care docs, and we are

making them get on a waiting list to see another doc before they

can get their prescriptions. It is one of those issues we are working

with.

Dr. ROSWELL. I would just add that I think the Secretary and I

share your fundamental concern that we can’t become a prescription provider for all Americans. I think Mr. Buyer made that point

when he referenced the 1996 committee intent. I would point out

that the Secretary has made a concerted effort over time to refocus

the system on exactly what you are talking about, and that is

meeting the comprehensive total health care needs of our core veteran constituency. He did that with the enrollment decision he announced on January 17th of this year.

That enrollment decision said we can’t continue to accept all veterans, particularly those who are only seeking primarily prescription drugs. He reinforced that with the introduction of this budget,

which has significant policy changes that further discourage casual

users from simply seeking prescription drugs.

Secretary Principi also did that with the work he has done with

Secretary Thompson to introduce the VA+Choice product, which actually allows the system to be accessed by veterans who have Medicare benefits and otherwise wouldn’t get it. But it is a capitated

program or an HMO-like product, which requires the veterans who

enroll in that product to receive their entire comprehensive Medicare health benefit from the VA, not just prescription drugs. So

Secretary Principi has addressed your concerns and has consistently shown policy direction to move the system back to meeting

the comprehensive needs of veterans and not simply being a supplemental policy for Medicare eligible veterans.

Mr. BOOZMAN. Right. I would like for us maybe to consider

maybe a study where you did—maybe both, where perhaps they

came and had—you know, they are on a medicine, they get a good

physical. If the medicine hasn’t changed, you know, they don’t need

additional medicines or whatever, then at that point then—and

again, I am just thinking out loud. Maybe have a hybrid of the system now. So I am not saying that we need to cut off the prescription benefit. It does seem like at times it is a little bit—I know it

makes it harder for the veteran, and maybe that cuts down use.

On the other hand it is an expense also.

The other thing I would like for you to comment on real quickly

is we have had some illusions as to that perhaps we are not doing

enough. Under your watch, under President Bush, can you kind of

compare the increase in the budget that we have had compared to

the previous Secretary?

Secretary PRINCIPI. Well, I think we are doing very, very well. I

don’t know all of the figures. I do know when we went to open enrollment in 1998 when the law became effective, the VA’s budget
19

was zero, increased to—there was no proposed increase; and then

the following year I think was nine-tenths of 1 percent. So, I recognize that we struggle to keep up with the demand, but that we are

doing very well. I am told that the Bush average for 3 years is 7

percent, and President Clinton’s average was 4.5 percent. So I

guess we are a little higher.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Can I follow up on that question?

The CHAIRMAN. Time is expired. Just make it 30 seconds, if you

would.

Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Real quickly. Like the 11 percent that is there,

it is out of VA copayments, and so sometimes it is misleading. So

I would just ask that you look at it real closely.

Secretary PRINCIPI. Well, I hope it is not misleading, and I know

the 11 percent is compared—because we don’t have an appropriation in 2003, the 11 percent increase is the 2004 request compared

to the President’s request in 2003. Clearly we include copayments,

and that started with the previous administration. When the Congress said that the insurance premiums and the copayments can

stay with the VA, it then became part of the appropriation, and it

has always been that way since I think 1998 or 1997 when Congress made that change.

The CHAIRMAN. Recognize the gentleman from Maine, Mr.

Michaud.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL MICHAUD

Mr. MICHAUD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and I can relate

to, Congressman, your discussion about the—going to Mexico and

buses for prescription. In Maine we do the same thing, but we have

busloads going to Canada to buy a prescription, because it is much

cheaper than here in the United States.

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here. I have several questions I would like to ask, and I will submit some in writing,

because I know I will not have the time to get them all out, and

primarily, most of them deal with the so-called management

efficiencies.

Before I got elected to Congress, I spent 22 years in the Maine

legislature. The bulk of my time in the Senate has been on the Appropriations Committee, and I also was able to serve on Governor

King’s so-called Productivity Realization Task Force, which was

looked at to save State dollars, which is made up of both legislators

and people from—individuals from the private sector.

And that is where I have a lot of concerns when I hear about

management efficiencies, because we found out that they are not

there, and that is what some of my questions now will be relating

to.

I know the VA has renewed the focus on A–76 competitive

outsourcing for specific functions in areas, and it is estimated that

in fiscal year 2004, VA will realize a potential saving of $138

million.

My questions, Mr. Secretary, are, do the saving estimates include

the cost of study, analysis, for each targeted position? Do the savings estimates include the cost of training and integrating the contract winners into the VA positions?
20

My third question is, the Inspector General reviews are critical

of VA contracting practices regarding effectiveness, accountability,

and accuracy, and how much larger will we need to grow the VA

contracting force to accommodate the increased responsibility of

analyzing functions for possible outsourcing?

And my last question at this time is what studies have been done

on the long-term effect of outsourcing to the human resource investment on an organization culture? As I stated, we have found

a lot of flaws in Maine, and I have that same skepticism when I

hear you are looking at management efficiency, particularly to the

tune that you are talking about.

Secretary PRINCIPI. I appreciate your question. I have often said

and will continue to say that I believe the VA has one of the finest

workforces in government, and I think our mission sets us apart,

especially in the health care and benefits area. People see their

grandfather, father, uncle, mother, in the VA medical beds, and

that is not to say we shouldn’t look at competitive outsourcing. We

should, thoughtfully, in areas where we can be more efficient. That

is not to say by looking that we will automatically outsource it, but

it has identified efficiencies that we can make internally in government, and we have that responsibility. We are the stewards of the

public trust, and we owe that to the taxpayers, but to do it

thoughtfully and not to destroy morale in the process, because I believe sincerely in the VA workforce.

And I know what you are saying about management efficiency.

What we have proposed is a little bit more than 3 percent of the

VA discretionary budget, and I think any business needs to look at

how they can be more efficient. This committee, on both sides of

the aisle members have said, Mr. Secretary, you need to reform

your procurement initiatives, and I agree with them. Some of the

products we buy from hundreds of different of manufacturers, and

if we had national contracting, we could drive the price down. I

mean, you can leverage your sheer size and purchasing power, and

be mindful of small business and disadvantaged businesses. So I

think there is more we can do. But we will proceed on the competitive outsourcing very thoughtfully.

Mr. MICHAUD. And I appreciate that, but you haven’t answered

my specific question.

Secretary PRINCIPI. I am sorry.

Mr. MICHAUD. Which I will submit in writing, plus additional

questions as well, because to talk about it in general terms—that

is what we did in Maine, and when we went down to looking for

specifics as far as will they save taxpayers’ dollars, the answer was

no. In a lot of cases they actually would have cost additional dollars. And in some of the areas when we looked, in the particular

areas where they are looking at outsourcing where they said they

are able to outsource, they never even provided the service. So that

is why I am really——

Secretary PRINCIPI. I understand.

Mr. MICHAUD (continuing). Skeptical of the whole outsourcing

initiative.

Secretary PRINCIPI. I would certainly agree with you that the A– 76 process is a very burdensome, burdensome process and needs to

be reformed.
21

Dr. Roswell, do you want to—— Dr. ROSWELL. I just want to point out that the competitive

sourcing requirement is to evaluate the potential gains from

outsourcing, not necessarily to outsource.

Currently we are looking at our laundries, and one of the things

that has impressed me is that critically looking at our laundry operations with an eye to outsource—that has actually allowed us to

achieve internal efficiencies to make those laundries more efficient.

So the process is looking and doing an evaluation, not necessarily

inevitably does it lead to outsourcing, and in fact I think the gains

that come through the competitive sourcing process—we are trying

to understand the best in industry and how we can replicate that.

And if we can’t achieve that industry benchmark, then we have to

make a determination about outsourcing.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bradley.

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank

you, Secretary Principi, not only for your service to your country

but your very forthright testimony today.

My question: You made a tough decision on priority 8 veterans.

Had you not made that decision, what were your projections for enrollment going ahead into the future?

Secretary PRINCIPI. Clearly, with the uncontrolled growth, we

would have been over 9 million enrolled veterans by 2012. More

than half of the growth in our enrollment is in the priority 8. So

it shows a very, very dramatic increase in that category of veterans.

I am reminded that we project that almost 42 percent by 2012

would be category 8 veterans.

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you. I have nothing further at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Filner.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB FILNER

Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Secretary.

Mr. Chairman, I ask for unanimous consent that I may put my

opening remarks in the record——

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered.

[The prepared statement of Congressman Filner appears on p.

98.]

Mr. FILNER. As always, it is good to have you here. You are not

in an enviable position, in that you have a commitment to our veterans, and yet you have to work within certain budget realities,

some of which you have been given whether you like them or not.

And so you have your job, we have our job. I don’t have to accept

those figures that you have to accept, although I will never say

that your commitment is less than anybody else’s. You are working

under certain rules.

By the way, in all the tough decisions that you have made, I

don’t think you have ever referred to veterans as ‘‘making a run

on the system’’ as one of the members of our committee did today.

I find that extremely offensive. We have veterans who may be in

different categories but who have served our Nation, and many of

them are poor, many of them do not have access to other medical

care, and to refer to them as making a run on the system is an insult to them and an insult to this Nation.
22

I am sorry that Dr. Roswell felt he had to play to that and talk

about ‘‘casual users.’’ These are real people who have real needs,

and they are going to try to get them met. And they are our veterans, and if we can meet them, we should; to call them casual users

or making a run on the system is an insult.

As I said, Mr. Secretary, you have your job, and I have my job.

You called yours a good budget. I would have preferred that you

say you made the best budget within the constraints that you have.

Let me tell you what I am going to be fighting for. I am going to

be fighting for the Independent Budget that we are going to hear

testimony about later. I think it is a professionally arrived-at set

of numbers. It doesn’t just say, give us more. It tells us specifically

the amount of funding we are going to need for each part of the

budget, how much is going to decrease the waiting time, et cetera.

I am going to use that as my Bible as we try to go through this

budget process.

I am upset that new priority 8s are excluded. I understand the

realities, but I don’t think we should exclude anyone who is a veteran from our system. We are a rich Nation that can find those resources, and I am going to be fighting for them. I am not going to

call them making a run on the system.

We are about to send young men and women into the Gulf

again—as I was saying before. I believe a member of this committee made an insulting remark but I praise that same member for

his service in the Gulf, and we are about to send young men and

women into that area.

We have had several hundred thousand of our veterans who have

Persian Gulf War illness. We don’t know the cause, and we don’t

know the cure, and yet we are sending our young men and women

right back, maybe for the same fate. We should have been in the

last decade devoting far more resources to figuring that out, and

I think we have to keep working on that and not shy away from

that area.

Contracting out is something I am going to fight, because in the

workforce that you have, that you complimented, contracting out

would, disproportionately affect certain groups, including disabled

veterans, including women, including ethnic minorities, and we

have got to be very conscious of what we do there. I think that contracting out the whole thing is a fraud on the Nation. And although, as you said, the system allows you to find efficiencies,

there are far more things that you cannot quantify that our public

employees give us. Contracting out dismisses certain of their great

benefits that just can’t be quantified.

Lastly, and I say this especially for the freshmen in the room

today, we have a group of people in the audience who are national

heroes. They were veterans of World War II who happen to have

been born and raised in the Philippines. Would the Filipino World

War II veterans please stand for a minute?

Thank you.

More than 50 years ago, my colleagues, the Congress saw fit to

take away benefits that these veterans had as American soldiers,

and many of us have been fighting for a long time to try to restore

those benefits. This committee and this House passed last year a

bill to restore VA health benefits. The Chairman supported that.
23

The Secretary supported that. The administration supported that.

We passed it. Unfortunately, the Senate didn’t have time at the

end of their session to deal with it.

I am going to introduce that bill today, with Chairman Simmons’ support and the bipartisan support of members on this committee

in this Congress. I hope we can pass that bill very quickly, as we

did it last time.

Unfortunately, your budget didn’t have any provision for $12 million for this year for those health care benefits. If you would let me

know if we pass that bill, how are you going to deal with that $12

million?

Secretary PRINCIPI. It will be absorbed within our medical care

budget. So I supported it last year. I intend to support it again this

year, and if it becomes law, we will—the Filipino American veterans will get their care.

Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and we are going to fight

for that. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Beauprez.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB BEAUPREZ

Mr. BEAUPREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Principi,

thank you for coming today. And I want to acknowledge, once

again, the commitment, the contribution you personally have made

to this country, but especially the contribution you have made in

providing this country with three of its young soldiers, two of them

already overseas, as you acknowledge, your third headed there.

Mr. Benson, you have my sympathy and my gratitude as well.

I am going to assume that for gentlemen such as yourselves that

this goes way beyond a job, certainly way beyond admiration for

our veterans. It is indeed, I am sure, very, very personal for you,

and I acknowledge and appreciate that.

I want to get to two questions, and I will set the stage a little

bit by acknowledging also that health care seems to me to be an

industry that evolves perhaps as rapidly as any industry that we

have out there, and I am going to assume that that goes for whether or not we are providing health care to veterans or to the private

sector. And I have a little bit of experience of what has gone on

in the private sector, having served on the board of a hospital as

it tries to keep up.

I appreciate some of the efforts that it appears to me that you

are making: improved outpatient therapy; making very, very difficult decisions such as your enrollment fee; addressing the copay

question as it relates to prescription drugs; the efficiencies in management and procurement efforts that I see evidence of in your report and in your budget.

My question would be—or my questions would be in this regard:

I appreciate knowing where we are at and the difficulties that you

have in meeting the very immediate objectives, but thinking of

where do we go from here, would you address, if you would, please,

because I know at my hospital at least—and I think relative to the

VA—you are looking for other partnerships, strategic alliances,

ways that you can become ever more efficient in providing quality

service, improved quality service, but doing so with less resources,

dollars—especially if you can do that.
24

Are there alliances, and specifically with the DOD, that perhaps

you might want to address? And secondly, I know that in the world

I come from, capital construction for both maintenance and new

construction is an ever-present issue. I would like you to address

the numbers in this budget and the adequacy or inadequacy of

those numbers.

Secretary PRINCIPI. The construction budget. Clearly, I think it

is critically important that the VA stay on the leading edge of the

changes, the profound changes that are taking place in health care

in this Nation. You know, medical advances, new technologies, telemetry, telemedicine, drug therapy, are just redefining health care

from the medical center to the ambulatory center to the home. It

is just extraordinary to me what has begun. And the VA has been

on the leading edge, and I don’t take credit for it. My predecessors

deserve a lot of the credit as well for moving VA to become a more

patient-focused health care system instead of a hospital-centric

system.

We need the hospital, of course, but we also recognize that we

can keep a lot of patients out of the hospital and treat them with

drugs and treat them—have their surgeries in ambulatory centers.

So I think it is very, very important that we stay—manage our

health care system to treat patients and not just infrastructure.

I think our strategic alliances with medical schools are very, very

important. I sometimes get concerned that they get out of balance

and that they need to be in balance and that the medical schools

and the VA derive equally from that partnership. I think that partnership has been good for American medicine, medical research,

and for the VA, but times have changed and we need to work on

that.

And clearly with DOD, we have barely begun to break down the

barriers separating the two Departments. So much more can be

done. We talked about the Gulf War, just making sure we have access to medical records in a timely matter, seamlessly, electronically, so we have a good database from the time a servicemember

enters the military, so that we can provide care. We know their

health at any given point in time. Sharing of VA-DOD medical centers, you know, more mergers like we see in Albuquerque and Elmendorf and Tripler and Nellis Air Force Base where we work

closely together.

And in procurement, I just think these two systems are so large,

if we combine our procurement activities, I mean combine them,

both procurement and distribution, we can save hundreds of millions of dollars that stays with the VA, stays with DOD, and we

can provide better health care.

Please address the——

Dr. ROSWELL. I think the Secretary has really been very effective

in moving the Department towards better collaboration with DOD.

We now have a Joint Executive Council and a Health Executive

Council. Already those councils have established a uniform rate

schedule for shared services at any location between DOD and VA

anywhere in the Nation. We have a program now that actually

takes DOD physicians who may not be needed during peacetime

and assigns them to VA facilities.
25

This year we have had four cardiovascular surgeons on active

duty in the United States Army working on veterans in VA hospitals. It has been a wonderful agreement. It has enhanced readiness, but it has also has served veterans.

We have a governance structure we are looking at for integrated

facilities. We actually have three representatives from the Department of Defense on our CARES program, the Capital Asset Realignment that is looking at restructuring our system to make sure

that we don’t miss any opportunity to work more collaboratively

with DOD. And we have done a tremendous amount with information technology, moving both the VA information system and the

DOD information system to a common platform so that very soon

we will be able to share medical records from active duty personnel

directly with VA at any point in care in either system.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Renzi.

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In my opinion, we just endured a little bit of a tirade from one of our members who classified

the entire contracting out system as a fraud on our Nation. Yes or

no, would you classify the entire group of health care providers and

caregivers as frauds who we contract out to? Just yes or no.

Secretary PRINCIPI. Absolutely not.

Mr. RENZI. They are an integral part of what we do as far as contracting out; isn’t that right?

Secretary PRINCIPI. That is correct.

Mr. RENZI. So the entire system is not a fraud. It needs to be

fixed. But when we jump on other members for some words and

then we go to extremes, we just end up fighting one another.

Let me read you a letter that I received from Walter Dutton. He

is a vet in Casa Grande, Arizona where many of our veterans go

daily to Mexico for their prescription drugs. And he writes: In addition to traveling that far, when we were drafted for the Korean

War we struck a deal to enter military service at lower wages than

any other working poor. We endured whatever risks and hardships

may come along, and we kept the enemy away from our gates. In

return, a grateful Nation would remember our sacrifices and provide first-class veterans’ benefits.’’

At the VA clinic in Casa Grande, Arizona where he goes for

health care, the doctor quit a year ago, and there has been no doctor since. The essence of your workforce and of a good team and

any championship football coach you meet will tell you they win

the championship in the off season recruiting good players or good

horses, so you don’t beat a dead mule across the finish line.

I ask you, then, within the programs and the monies that are

made available, what type of recruiting programs for nurses—even

though we are facing a nursing shortage and even though you are

competing against the hospitals to pull those nurses away from

you—what kind of doctor recruitments are we looking at, tuition

waivers, tax credits, scholarship programs, DOD doctor transfers to

our veterans—to build the best workforce, you have got to have the

best recruiting program, coach. Go ahead.

Secretary PRINCIPI. I think we do. We are continuing—I don’t

know about that situation in Casa Grande. We will certainly look

into that. But we are continually on the front lines trying to recruit

the best and the brightest to the VA health care system, either di-
26

rectly or through our affiliates with the medical schools. We have

a new pay proposal that we are working on for our physicians to

simplify and make our salaries, our compensation for physicians,

much more competitive with the private sector. I hope to have that

proposal—pay proposal to the Hill.

This committee and the Senate committee have worked hard on

nurse recruitment initiatives, better compensation, scholarship programs. I think the whole—I think we are trying to attack it, Congressman, on several different fronts, because you are absolutely

right; you need to recruit, but you also need to retain them at the

back end.

Mr. RENZI. Thank you. As part of a small business plan, if you

know you need a thousand doctors, you back into it. Any kind of

accomplishment in life that we are going for, you begin at the end,

right? You back into where you want to be. So any kind of a plan,

a detailed recruiting plan, of how you are going to do this is an absolutely integral part to building this kind of workforce.

I am grateful. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. RENZI. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Unless you have additional questions.

Mr. RENZI. No.

The CHAIRMAN. You bring out a very good point about recruitment. The Independent Budget points out, and we all know this,

that the VA has the largest number of nursing staff, LPNs and registered nurses, probably in the world—55,000— but, very disturbingly, that 35 percent of the VA’s registered nurses will be eligible

to retire in 2005.

Last Congress we passed legislation which the President signed

that had a number of very strong provisions dealing with nursing,

including a commission.

What is the VA doing in that, because we are very concerned

that all of a sudden those very crucial caregivers will no longer

exist, or at least in the numbers we need?

Secretary PRINCIPI. The Nursing Commission has been established. You know, they are meeting. We are getting recommendations from them, and we certainly will look at all of those recommendations. We have increased the salary rates, the scholarship

programs. You know, we have a crisis of nursing in the Nation. It

is not just the VA, it is across the Nation. You know, folks are not

going into the nursing profession like they did before, both male

and female, and that is of concern to the VA. And that was one of

the reasons for the VA Nursing Commission. So we certainly will

be mindful of the fact that not only nurses, but many of our people,

are approaching retirement age and that we need to have a workforce succession plan to ensure that we have that continuity and

we can fill that vacuum when folks decide it is time to move on to

the golf course and not the VA.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Ms. Brown-Waite.

Ms. BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr.

Secretary, you weren’t here when I unloaded on Dr. Roswell. We

have a very long waiting period in Florida for—— Mr. FILNER. Before Mr. Renzi leaves, if you thought that was a

tirade, you haven’t seen a tirade!
27

The CHAIRMAN. Regular order. The Chair will just note, I ask

that the members—all of us have to live by the rules. Mr. Buyer

did not put on his mike when references were made to him. I don’t

think you crossed the line, because you talked about a disagreement on policy. Obviously we never want to attack members personally. Hopefully both sides of the aisle will adhere to that; normally 99.9 percent of the time we do. And the same goes to the administration. I think this has been a very dignified hearing. Members who may have some disagreements with the administration— I know I have a few, we all do—we are discussing it, I think, with

a great deal of comity, and that is the way it ought to be.

So I would hope that there would be no outbursts. Let us adhere

to the rules. That is why they are there, so that debate can be

facilitated.

Ms. Brown-Waite of Florida.

Ms. BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It also

gave me the opportunity to clear my throat.

I told Dr. Roswell last week that we have 18-month waiting periods in my district for people to get into a clinic. If you are patterning the VA+Choice plan after the Medicare+Choice plan, it is going

to not work in all areas. So I would ask, number one, are you patterning it after the Medicare+Choice plan?

Dr. ROSWELL. It follows the Medicare guidelines for +Choice programs. We recognize that many of the Medicare+Choice programs

have been unsuccessful, particularly in certain areas, and that is

why we are working very closely with Health and Human Services

Secretary Thompson and Tom Scully, the Administrator of CMS, to

try to craft a somewhat different approach that will address the

needs.

In contrast to areas where +Choice programs have been unsuccessful, the +Choice program that VA will operate will use VA providers who are very interested in serving veterans, and I think that

may be the key difference.

Ms. BROWN-WAITE of Florida. If I may continue, Mr. Chairman,

the problem is that there are lots of areas where Medicare+Choice

doesn’t exist and you don’t have contract providers. So we are going

to have the same backup of the system that you have now. That

is just totally unacceptable. So what are you going to do for those

areas that are already underserved where there are no

Medicare+Choice—where there is no Medicare+Choice availability

right now and the chances of getting a VA +Choice aren’t very

good?

I can tell you that the doctors don’t participate in

Medicare+Choice, because in certain areas of various States, they

are not reimbursed as much as in other areas, and yet their costs

are the same.

Secretary PRINCIPI. Well, I think the—well, first, we will not implement the VA +Choice program until such time as the backlog—

the waiting list is over. We cannot meet guidelines, HHS guidelines

on access and timeliness until such time as we ensure those on the

waiting list are done. And Florida clearly is an area where we have

great demand.

Secondly, I think the difference is that we are going to be using

VA physicians, and I believe that we are more cost-effective than
28

the private sector and I believe that the capitated rate that we will

receive, risk adjusted, will allow us to take care of those veterans

and be reimbursed from HHS. So I would hope that the fact that

we are a closed system, we are using VA physicians, will allow us

to meet the demand.

Now, we will phase this in over time to make sure that it is

working, working well. We will go back to HHS if we have to make

some refinements as we go along. That is my hope.

Dr. ROSWELL. Ms. Brown-Waite, if I can also add, please be assured that no veteran on a waiting list in your district will need

to access a VA +Choice program. Every veteran currently enrolled

will remain enrolled and be eligible for the full health care benefit.

As soon as we receive a 2003 budget, we have plans in place to aggressively address the waiting list, including those in Florida,

where the intervenor allocation will increase the funds available by

approximately 12 percent to allow the network director to execute

the plan to eliminate those waiting lists. And with that full House-Senate mark, with the additional $1.1

million that we hope to receive in 2003, we are committed to eliminating those waits.

Ms. BROWN-WAITE of Florida. One last question. VA currently allows for aging in place, are veterans to go into an assisted living

facility? Do you have any plans in the current budget that you have

proposed here to allow reimbursement for other than ALFs; for example, adult care home? Many States—they are called by different

names in different States. It is an individual residence that older

people can go to to make sure that they—that they are receiving

their medication, that they are supervised. And this may be also

a way of saving money, because they are less expensive than the

ALF. Certainly lots of people are depending on their ADLs and

ALF is an appropriate placement for them, but also you have the

availability of some care homes.

Dr. ROSWELL. You know, it is a fascinating area and it is an area

we are very interested in. Currently we don’t have statutory authority to place veterans in an ALF or a care home. What we have

done, though, is create a new care coordination office that this year

will actually add 15,000 veterans to a care coordination program

using interactive technologies. Our goal is to help veterans work

with other resources to get less costly housing where there is assistance with activities of daily living, and then to use the authority we have to put interactive technologies in care homes, in ALFs,

to provide the medical component that is needed for those veterans,

and we have made a commitment for 15,000 veterans to be enrolled

in such programs this year.

The CHAIRMAN. Before I go on to Chairman Simmons, I would

like to announce—a few members have some additional questions,

as do I—but we would like to have a lightening round, if you will,

perhaps 3 minutes or less, after Chairman Simmons gets his full

5.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROB SIMMONS, CHAIRMAN,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH

Mr. SIMMONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Apologies for being

late. My airplane got stuck in the snow this morning. That was the
29

bad news. The good news is it didn’t get stuck in the snow on landing. It was before it took off, so we had a late departure.

Without objection, I would like to submit some questions for the

record.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered.

(See p. 232.)

Mr. SIMMONS. As I reviewed the VA budget, I looked at it as actually having a lot of good news, although I came in late at this

hearing. It sounds to me like I am hearing quite a bit about the

bad news, but I think that there is good news, and I think there

is good news from the standpoint of health care. We just have to

simply focus on some of the positives, like a 7.7 increase in funding, elimination of some of the copays, which I think is good news,

and then see how we can work with some of the aspects of this proposal that is not so good news. Increased collection rates are good

for you. Maybe they are not so good for the veterans. So we will

have to take a look at that and do the balancing act. And reducing

waiting periods is good news in my view. Increasing certain copays

is probably not so good.

So I think from the standpoint of veterans’ health care, there are

a lot of positives in here, and I think it is an opportunity for the

Health Subcommittee to get into this budget in greater detail and

really give our Members the opportunity to dig a little deeper and

really get a sense of what is here and what we can do with it. I

look forward to that.

I agree with my colleagues on prescription drugs. We have got

to get some forward motion on prescription drugs, and I think that

is going to be an agenda item for the subcommittee.

VA-DOD sharing, excellent progress on that, but there is a lot

that we can do. I have heard stories already about CAT scanners

that have been bought by the military and bought by VA within

5 miles of each other. These are very expensive pieces of equipment, and that should stop.

The CARES report—I look forward to seeing that. I think everybody probably does. So we will hold our breath on that.

I would like to make a comment on competitive sourcing or

outsourcing. Some of my colleagues have said it already. People in

my experience go to work for the VA because they love the job and

they love veterans, and I guess I would be interested in looking at

some of the proposals. But if it is a question of taking a whack at

some of the people who work for VA, then I think we have to be

very careful. These are dedicated people, and they are committed

to what they are doing. I have seen in State government and elsewhere where attempts to create efficiencies by removing dedicated

public servants has backfired, so I would be cautious about that.

My question goes to the issue that was brought out in a recent

GAO report, the efforts to strengthen the link between resources

and results within the Veterans Health Administration, VHA. They

say here that the VHA’s budget formulation planning processes are

centrally managed but not closely linked, that the resources distribution to VHA health care networks is mostly formulaic, determined by the district of veterans being served, which we understand.
30

But then they go on to say in the detailed text that up to fiscal

year 2003, VHA’s budget was prepared centrally and reflected an

incremental approach, primarily taking prior years’ appropriations,

making adjustments, and then adding on.

You know, this is kind of the traditional way of Federal budgeting, in my view, and I have seen it in many different venues. I

don’t look at last year’s numbers. You make an educated guess on

what next year’s numbers are going to be, and you add on to them.

And I think what the GAO is saying in this report is the linkage

between projects and the linkage between planning are not as tight

as they should be. Does VHA, or does VA have a plan to look at

the GAO report and its recommendations to try to create efficiencies in this fashion?

Secretary PRINCIPI. Certainly will. I am not familiar with that

GAO report, but I certainly will take a look at it. Perhaps Dr.

Roswell can comment on some of the specifics in it.

Dr. ROSWELL. Well, certainly, our approach to budgeting uses a

process called VERA, or Veterans Equitable Resource Allocation,

that specifically looks at the patients treated in a particular region,

as actually we are required to by law.

We have made some significant refinements to that VERA process, going from 2 capitation rates to a full 10 capitation payment

rates. We also recognize that we have had to provide supplemental

funding in certain regions of the care, because certain areas manage much more complex and costly patients, and we have implemented a high-cost 1 percent reinsurance provision that should

eliminate the need for supplemental funding.

This year the increase in 2003 with the full House-Senate mark

would vary from a low of a 5 percent increase, which barely reflects

the pay raise, to a high of almost 13 percent, which reflects where

we have had significant growth, such as in areas like Florida.

Mr. SIMMONS. Okay. I appreciate that response. And again, what

the GAO report—and it was published in December of 2002—is

suggesting that the VA, VHA, is using a traditional form of budget

request which is built on last year’s budget, and as we all know,

it is typical, but it is not efficient. Mr. Beauprez and others have

mentioned that they would like to see some more businesslike approaches to budgeting, and I think that is where efficiencies can be

found. So I will be looking at that a little more closely.

My time is up. I am interested in the concept of mandatory funding. I am not sure that the Secretary is prepared to respond to that

question at this point in time, but I believe that some Members of

the committee are going to be pursuing that issue, and I look forward to working with Mr. Filner to come up with a bipartisan

agenda for the Health Subcommittee and for hearings so that we

can pursue some of these issues this spring and summer. Thank

you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chairman Simmons.

Just to go very briefly now with a quick round with all the members, I notice in the budget that for the homeless transitional housing program, the recommendation is that it go from a guarantee to

discretionary. I would strongly urge that not be even be thought.

We thank you for the good work you are doing on that. You have

begun to, to make that program work, and we are very happy with
31

that. Please don’t go to discretionary. We know what will happen

then.

Earlier, Dr. Roswell, in response to Mr. Boozman, you were talking about providing for some priority 8 veterans a capitated payment, which in a way is a form of mandatory funding. In the last

Congress, I introduced legislation along with Lane and many others, for a mandatory funding scheme, believing that VA health care

isn’t broken but the funding mechanism is broken. There isn’t a

sustainable means to provide that all-important funding to our veterans. As you yourself pointed out, Mr. Secretary, we are, what, 5

months into the fiscal year, and you are still operating on a shoestring in terms of not knowing what the budget is going to be. We

just dodged a major bullet with the $700 million across-the-board

Senate amendment, which I know you and I and the VSOs lobbied

extremely hard to keep funding at $23.9 billion for fiscal year 2003.

Seven hundred million, I don’t know what you would have done.

That would have been catastrophic.

But to take a snapshot and work out a formula that is real and

transparent, and to figure out how to fund veterans going forward

seems to me to be a prudent way of doing business.

Dr. Roswell, you indicated a philosophical commitment to it in

our hearing 2 weeks ago. Of course, the details are all important.

How might you respond today to that? Mr. Secretary, I know it is

under consideration.

Secretary PRINCIPI. Well, certainly.

The CHAIRMAN. I know the Presidential task force is looking at

it as well. The system of funding, not VA itself, the funding mechanism is broken. You are in competition with all these different

groups for the appropriations.

Secretary PRINCIPI. Well, certainly, Mr. Chairman, no disagreement that it has been a struggle balancing resources with demand,

and there are some fundamental policy issues that need to be decided upon.

My only—my major concern I think with the mandatory spending plan is tying a very dynamic health care system to a rigid formula and whether—and I am not smart enough to know all of the

unintended consequences that could result from that, because

health care changes so dramatically. For example, AIDS therapy,

as we know, is very, very costly, and perhaps if you tie it to a rigid

formula, the VA would be underfunded to care for the very, very

expensive treatment that would go with certain kinds of illnesses.

So we could possibly be underfunded.

On the other hand, some medication, some drugs, could come

along that could dramatically cut the costs of health care, and

therefore perhaps we might be overfunded.

So I think we need to take into consideration how we can apply

a rigid formula to both the changes in health care as well as the

demographics of the veteran population?

Also construction, as you know—and you have fought, everyone

on this committee I believe has fought—the fact that our capital

construction program has been deficient over the previous years.

And so if you have a formula that says we are going to get 120 percent of a base year without taking into consideration the tremendous resources that might be needed in the future as we go
32

through this CARES process to make sure that we have the dollars

for construction.

So I think there are some issues there, but the underlying thrust

of ensuring that we are adequately funding for the people that

Congress determines that they want us to care for is an issue.

The CHAIRMAN. With all due respect, there would be an immediate increase in the short-term, intermediate and long term.

Maybe there would be less funding because on a capitated basis the

numbers might go down. But it seems to me when you do this on

an annual basis, we will get it right, even if the formula coming

under the blocks the first year may not be absolutely perfect. Right

now the discretionary scheme is shortchanging our veterans. At

least that is my belief.

Mr. Evans.

Mr. EVANS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to go back

to the A–76 process, because it disturbs me in terms of which way

this Administration seems to be going. This President’s management agenda says that they are launching a new recruitment Web

site which will assist the VA in addressing, quote, ‘‘identified

human capital shortages.’’ I think that means jobs and people.

And this plan to compete 52,000 jobs over the next 5 years, such

as laundry, food, and sanitation services—with the estimated savings as much as $3 billion over 5 years—these are people, who are

going to lose—many of the people perhaps standing here today,

they are going to lose their homes, their jobs and their families,

and their communities are going to be hurt as well. And I just find

it disturbing that we aren’t looking for how we create 52,000 new

jobs. It seems like the emphasis is on getting rid of jobs and getting

rid of the workers.

And I will give you one example. As you may know—I am sure

you do, Mr. Secretary—janitorial uniforms are one of the most expensive things that you can buy, because you have to change them

every 2 or 3 days. You can make those products in America, you

can make them in Galesburg, IL, my own district.

Laundry service workers. These folks don’t have the legal representation that high-powered lawyers can bring to them. And I

just think that these are people who need to be involved within the

process, and I know, Mr. Secretary, you will be open to that.

But I just want to emphasize that this is a lot of jobs that are

going to be lost, and the janitorial uniforms could be made in

Galesburg, IL for the same amount of money or less, I believe.

And it is not only the A–76 process. It is also the loss of goodpaying manufacturing jobs, and particularly in the Northeast and

Midwestern area.

So I appreciate your emphasis on trying to do what you can, but

it just seems to me to be a misguided priority to let these jobs go

and let these communities go as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Chairman Buyer.

Mr. BUYER. Thank you. I don’t fear the process for government

to look at thyself. Bringing business practices and principles to government should not be a radical concept. There are some times during the A–76 process if the government—I remember this in the

mid-1990s. Actually, the government could manipulate the numbers so that the local bid fails, the government bid fails, and so we
33

asked for a good look into the A–76 process. And, Lane, you and

I are on the Armed Services Committee and went at that in the

1990s. But for us to look inwardly, my gosh, you have got 63 laundry facilities, 60 government-owned, government-operated facilities,

3 owned and contract-operated facilities, 108 total VA laundry services. I mean, for us to look at things like that, we ought to look

at it.

Secretary PRINCIPI. I agree.

Mr. BUYER. I don’t fear that. I’m not afraid to ask questions like

why does the VA have its own law enforcement training facility?

We are going to look at that.

The other thing I just wanted to reiterate and make a point,

again, the facts of the record don’t frighten me. What maybe frightens some members of the committee is how wrong we got it. We

have to acknowledge that Congress didn’t get this right in the eligibility reform, that Congress and this committee did not listen to

the forecasts of CBO and GAO, and we got it wrong. And we created an expectation in the veterans’ community.

Now, when I tour the VA facilities in Florida, like I did a few

weeks ago, and there is an outpatient clinic that you have created

down there, and the expectation was that it would serve 3,000 and

12,000 are trying to get in, that is making a run.

So we have created this problem and we want to work with you.

And I applaud you. This committee gave you the tools, and you are

exercising the right to use them. And now what? We want to criticize you? That is crazy.

I am going to ask one question, though, of you, because the next

panel that is testifying is going to testify on the Independent Budget. Have you had an opportunity to look at this document?

Secretary PRINCIPI. Briefly, yes.

Mr. BUYER. I love to look at mission statements and guiding

principles. You see, there is a word game going on here, and I

think it is more than just semantics. You give your testimony to

us, and you are very careful. You used the word ‘‘eligibility’’ you

see, that is not what the veteran’s service organizations do. They

use the word ‘‘entitlement.’’ So in the guiding principles, they will

say veterans must not have to wait for benefits for which they are

entitled. Who is going to disagree with that? But they are very

clever using the word ‘‘entitled.’’ You use the word ‘‘eligible.’’

Will you explain to me what your sense is here? Why does somebody use the word ‘‘entitled’’ versus you use the word ‘‘eligible’’?

Secretary PRINCIPI. Well, I used the word ‘‘eligible,’’ because that

is the statutory construct, if you will, for VA health care.

Mr. BUYER. Congratulations.

Secretary PRINCIPI. Congress did not create an entitlement and

never has created an entitlement for VA health care.

Mr. BUYER. Mr. Secretary, that is the right answer. I yield back.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields.

Secretary PRINCIPI. I mean, I don’t know how else to—I am stating what the law is. I am not taking—that is what——

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Filner.

Mr. FILNER. Glad you got the right answer. No wonder you got

an A from National Journal.
34

Let me just briefly in the second round, Mr. Chairman, say one

word about the contracting out situation, which several of us have

discussed. And in absentia, I would like to say to Mr. Renzi—what

I said in my earlier statement—I think a fraud has been perpetrated, in the notion that the benefits of privatization can be

strictly measured on a quantitative basis and a bottom-line kind of

situation. As Mr. Simmons pointed out, what do you say about morale? What do you say about commitment? What do you say about

energy that you want to give to veterans?

In addition, many of the private contractors that we are comparing with don’t provide health insurance or pensions or any of the

other benefits. So sure, they are going to be cheaper. We have

something in this country that no other country has ever tried in

our various—well, I was about to say ‘‘entitlements,’’ but I guess

I shouldn’t say that.

Our postal service, our Veterans Administration, try to reach

every single person that is eligible, if I can use that phrase. That

is, we don’t just take off the ones that can be treated with little

cost or ones you make a profit off of. We try to do everybody. And

that is the greatest thing about America, whether it is the postal

service or the VA or anything; we have eliminated class distinctions and economic distinctions. We don’t say if you live in a rural

area, you don’t get postal service. We try to serve all.

Of course, you can’t compete with somebody whose goal is to

make a profit, because they are going to do the ones that you make

money off of. And we try to do everybody, and I think that is a

great benefit of the United States, and we ought to keep to that

principle.

I do want to just underline what the Chairman said about the

mandatory proposal. It seems, Mr. Secretary, you leave some leverage now. You are an ‘‘A’’ Cabinet member. You know, you were

straining a little with that problem of what is wrong with a rigid

formula. You can change the formula every year to take into account what your costs are in treating the average person. Actuarially, you can determine that. That is what insurance companies do.

That is what you do in your estimates, you figure out what it costs.

So each year you figure that cost out and that is all you have to

do. It seems to me you should be fighting for mandatory health

care funding. You are committed to our veterans. This would get

you out of this incredible problem.

Let us get to a mandatory system based on a formula that is relevant to the costs that you have, and if AIDS has gone up or drugs

have gone down, the formula reflects that.

I hope you would be a fighter for that and not try to oppose it.

And I hope we get an official position on that proposal. I think the

Chairman deserves that. This is an important item, and we believe

in it passionately. It is not just something that we are doing for political purposes, and so I hope we have a legitimate discussion on

it.

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Brown-Waite.

Ms. BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Thank you very much.

Mr. Secretary, have you computed the impact to the VA if we do

pass a prescription drug plan for seniors? How many fewer veterans will use the VA as—because, admittedly, so many of them are
35

for prescription drugs. Have you computed the impact that it will

have on the VA?

Secretary PRINCIPI. I don’t know if we have any. I will defer to

Dr. Roswell. But it is hard to predict without knowing precisely

what the prescription drug benefit would look like. As you know,

currently—although the co-pays could rise. Currently, $7 per

month per prescription is a very generous benefit; and I doubt that

we will see a Medicare prescription plan that approaches that.

Therefore, I would think that the suppression—the demand would

be very low. I don’t think we would see much change unless it is

a very generous benefit.

Dr. Roswell?

Dr. ROSWELL. I agree with the Secretary. The likelihood that a

Medicare prescription drug benefit would be anywhere near as

comprehensive or as robust as VAs is a remote possibility, which

means there would still be demand. We have costed out what a

prescription drug benefit would cost if applied to veterans currently

not using the VA.

Let me remind you, there are 25 million veterans in this Nation.

Six million are currently enrolled, leaving 19 million unenrolled.

For every million veterans who would use the VA for prescription

drugs, our appropriation requirement would increase by approximately $1 billion a year, which is why we have significant reservations about providing a prescription-drug-only benefit. But certainly, as other members of the committee have expressed, it is

something that we are willing to further explore.

Secretary PRINCIPI. We have one of the finest pharmacy benefit

management programs in the country; and I think it is a model,

if you will, for the rest of the country in developing a prescription

plan. We have been able, with the national formulary, with our

consolidated mailout program, to dramatically keep our costs in

check. Over the past 4 years our costs per prescription have remained flat, about $12 per prescription. I think that is remarkable.

We use a lot of generic drugs; and all of that has helped us to be

good stewards and watch our dollars, how we spend them.

Ms. BROWN-WAITE of Florida. One other quick question. Have

there been any studies on the real impact of the fact that, as I see

it in my district, there is a duplication of services? People go to

their primary care and they go to the VA. That is a cost. That is

a cost that drives up the cost of health care for both Medicare, for

private pay, and for the VA. Have any studies ever been done on

that issue?

Secretary PRINCIPI. Not to my knowledge. But I fully agree with

you, there is a cost that concerns me. Everywhere I go in our system, when I ask that question, there is a great deal of redundancy

and overlap in the delivery of care; and it is something that we

really need to work on.

Ms. BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Chairman Simmons.

Mr. SIMMONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Very quickly, reference was made earlier to issues relative to

rural health care and the delivery of service in those rural areas.

I can’t speak for other areas of the country, but the community

clinics have been extraordinarily useful in my State in dealing with
36

issues of rural health care. I represent, believe it or not, a rural

district in Connecticut, the most rural district in the State. I share

the concerns of my colleague that Medicare+Choice has failed us at

a county level in parts of New England because we don’t have

county government, and so the rules that apply for the delivery of

those services elsewhere in the country don’t necessarily apply in

some regions of the country. So I think that whatever approach we

take to that is going to have to take into account the different political and geographic aspects of the country. Is this in track with

what you folks have in mind with your exploration of delivery of

care to veterans in the rural area?

Dr. ROSWELL. Let me reassure you that the VA+Choice program

the Secretary spoke about, I believe it won’t be as precarious as

Medicare+Choice providers. The key to a Medicare+Choice program

operating successfully is local providers being willing to accept payments from the capitated HMO provider. The VA+Choice program

specifically uses VA physicians who have chosen to dedicate their

professional careers to caring for veterans and are salaried employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs. And the receipts that

come from the capitated payments from Medicare don’t go to the

physicians, they go to reimburse the Department for the cost of

their salaries. So the idea that practitioners won’t participate in a

VA+Choice product is erroneous, because they are VA physicians

who want to get involved with and want to provide care to

veterans.

Now, going back to rural health care, I would also point out that

the Secretary has expressed his desire to reexamine the community-based outpatient clinics. We have a new directive that has

been designed to look at their effectiveness, and we are considering

where we may have additional need for expanded capacity in the

CBOCs.

Mr. SIMMONS. I thank you for that answer. To me, those clinics

have been hugely successful, and I think we need to see that go forward.

Secretary PRINCIPI. I think as soon as the appropriation bill is

signed into law we will begin to take a look at some of those that

have already been approved and are on the hold list and begin to

systematically begin to open up new CBOCs across the country

where they are truly needed in a way that we can manage the

growth as well.

Mr. SIMMONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, too, Mr. Secretary. I look forward to working with

you and your staff this session.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chairman Simmons.

Secretary PRINCIPI. The same here, Mr. Simmons.

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the distinguished Secretary and

his very, very able and committed staff for being here. You have

been here in excess of 2 hours. We thank you for that. I would just

say as you part, in answer to Ms. Brown-Waite, we are working on

a concept which we hope to turn into legislation on prescription

drugs so that the VA gets some of that money. If we pass such a

provision for senior citizens, it seems to me that the money ought

to follow the veteran so that you get additional resources in order
37

to do your job. So we would like to consult with you on that and

get your input about what it ought to look like.

Chairman Bilirakis, who is vice chair of this committee but

chairman of the Health Committee on Energy and Commerce, has

made it clear that he wants to work with us on that as well. So,

hopefully, we can craft something.

Again, extraordinarily good job, and thank you.

I would like to welcome our second panel to the witness table.

Our next panel is the authors of the Independent Budget, which

consists of four veteran service organizations: DAV, PVA, AMVETs,

and the VFW.

Joseph Violante, a disabled Vietnam veteran, who will be the

lead off witnesses, was appointed National Legislative Director of

the million member Disabled American Veterans in July of 1997.

A New Jersey native, Mr. Violante joined the Marine Corps in

1969. He served with the 2nd Battalion 4th Marines in Vietnam

and was discharged in 1972 with the rank of sergeant. He attended

the University of New Mexico and received a bachelor’s degree in

history and political science and earned his law degree from the

University of San Fernando Valley College of Law in California.

Mr. Violante was a practicing attorney in Thousand Oaks, California, before moving to Washington, DC, where he then worked as

a staff attorney for the Department of Veterans Affairs’ Board of

Veterans’ Appeals in 1985.

Mr. Violante’s involvement with veterans’ issues reaches beyond

the DAV. He chairs the Legislative Committee of the Federal Circuit Bar Association and previously chaired the Veterans’ Appeals

Committee of the Federal Circuit Bar Association from 1992 to

1996. He is also a member of the VFW and the 3rd Marine Division

Association.

John Bollinger became deputy directive for the Paralyzed Veterans of America in January of 1992. Previously, he served as the organization’s national advocacy director and was responsible for all

civil rights disability issues affecting PVA members. Prior to his

employment at PVA, he worked for the VA from 1972 to 1987.

While at VA, he held a number of positions in the Veterans’ Benefits Department, including veterans’ benefits counselor and management analyst. Mr. Bollinger grew up in Pittsburgh, PA, and is

a veteran of the United States Navy. He was retired in 1970 due

to a service-connected disability.

Richard ‘‘Rick’’ Jones has been the National Legislative Director

of the AMVETS since January of 2001. He is the primary individual responsible for promoting AMVETS legislative agenda, national

security, and foreign affairs goals before the Department of State,

Defense, and Veterans’ Affairs and the Congress. Rick is an Army

veteran who served as a medical specialist during the Vietnam War

era. His assignments included duty at Brooke General Hospital in

San Antonio, Texas; Fitzsimmons General Hospital in Denver, Colorado; and Moncrief Community Hospital in Columbia, South Carolina. Rick completed undergraduate work at Brown University

prior to his Army service and earned a master’s degree in public

administration from East Carolina University in Greenville, North

Carolina, following his military service.
38

And, finally, Dennis Cullinan is the National Director of the veterans’ National Legislative Service for the VFW. Prior to being

honorably discharged from the U.S. Navy in 1970, Dennis served

as an electronics technician aboard the USS Intrepid and completed three tours of duty in Vietnamese waters. After his discharge, Dennis studied abroad with 2 years at Catholic University

in the Netherlands. He later completed his undergraduate education at State University of New York in Buffalo, where he also

received his M.A. degree in English. After several years of teaching

freshman composition and creative writing, Dennis became a member of the VFW Washington office in its National Veterans Service

department. He later advanced to positions in the VFW Legislative

Service department, and became its Director in August of 1997.

STATEMENTS OF JOSEPH A. VIOLANTE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS; JOHN

BOLLINGER, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PARALYZED

VETERANS OF AMERICA; RICHARD JONES, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMVETS; AND DENNIS M. CULLINAN, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, VETERANS OF FOREIGN

WARS

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Violante, if you could begin.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH A. VIOLANTE

Mr. VIOLANTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. On behalf of the Disabled American Veterans, thank you

for providing us this opportunity to address the administration’s

fiscal year 2004 budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs.

Ironically, as we sit here today discussing the fiscal year 2004

proposed budget and its potential impact on VA programs, VA still

does not have a budget for the current fiscal year. Thousands of

veterans, including service-connected disabled veterans, are being

turned away for needed health care services. More than 200,000

sick and disabled veterans wait 6 months or more for a primary

care appointment. The budget process for VA health care is broken.

But I am not telling you anything you don’t already know.

Last year, Mr. Chairman, you and Ranking Member Lane Evans

introduced legislation to remove the uncertainty from the current

budget process and provide a formula to ensure that VA receives

a sufficient level of funding to enable it to provide timely quality

health care to our Nation’s sick and disabled veterans. Mr. Chairman, the introduction of the Veterans Health Care Funding Guarantee Act of 2002 gave veterans new-found hope that their health

care system will be put on a stable financial footing, allowing them

to receive timely, quality health care from VA.

Veterans cannot wait much longer for their government to acknowledge the deficiencies in the current budget process. Perennially inadequate budgets and currently no budget have forced veterans to wait too long for needed health care.

Based on testimony from last month’s hearing on the State of VA

health care, it is clear that the bipartisan leadership of this committee has the solution to this problem. Now is the time for decisive action. Now is the time for the leadership of this committee
39

to move forward with legislation to guarantee funding for the VA

health care system.

Some in Congress have said that we cannot continue to throw

money at the system. Maybe we should be asking ourselves whether we should be sending more young men and women into harm’s

way when we cannot care for those sick and disabled veterans from

our prior war and conflicts.

VA health care is a binding commitment of a generous and grateful Nation. The committee is charged with ensuring that commitment is kept and there are sufficient resources are meet the needs

of our sick and disabled veterans. DAV is disappointed that a guaranteed funding bill has not yet been introduced in this chamber.

However, we remain optimistic, especially with the comments this

morning, that it will soon be introduced. Sick and disabled veterans

as well as the VA caregivers who rely on an adequate budget to

do their jobs effectively count on its introduction.

Mr. Chairman, I apologize for focusing my remarks on health

care. However, my written comments contain our assessment of the

benefit programs, administrative expenses, and judicial review in

veterans’ benefits. Obviously, much of what this committee will

seek to accomplish on behalf of veterans this year will be subject

to what Congress appropriates for veterans’ programs. We urge the

committee to press for a budget that is adequate for existing programs and allows for some improvement in benefits and service for

veterans.

We hope that our independent analysis of the resources necessary for veterans’ programs and our administrative and policy

recommendations are helpful to you, and we sincerely appreciate

the opportunity to present our views and recommendations to the

committee.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and Mr. Evans for introducing H.R. 241 to repeal the 2-year limitation on payments of accrued

benefits. It is one of the recommendations we have in the IB, and

we appreciate that.

In response to Mr. Buyer’s comments earlier, I think at last

hearing we pointed out that, while we did lobby this Congress for

eligibility reform, we also indicated at that time that guaranteed

funding was a necessary and important part of that entire package;

and we didn’t get that. So, to that extent, Mr. Buyer is correct that

Congress dropped the ball on that issue. We hope that we can get

that corrected this time.

And I would disagree that there has been a run on the system.

I think with 27 million veterans at the time when we were doing

eligibility reform and 24 million veterans alive now, that hardly 4

million seeking or receiving care from the system and 6 million enrolled is a run on the system.

Again, I thank this committee for their advocacy on behalf of our

Nation’s veterans.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you, Mr. Violante, for your testimony

and for your great work.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Violante appears on p. 114.]

The CHAIRMAN. I would just note before going to Mr. Bollinger

that utilization rates and an increase is a sign of success. And veterans are voting with their feet by walking through those doors
40

and utilizing those services. But I don’t want to be out of order,

and I want to go right to Mr. Bollinger.

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. BOLLINGER

Mr. BOLLINGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am John Bollinger with PVA, and I am going to focus my remarks this morning on the health care portion of the Independent

Budget for fiscal year 2004.

When VA’s fiscal year 2004 budget first became public a couple of weeks ago, it was touted as being historic, a $1.9 billion increase

to address veterans’ health care needs. Now we have had the opportunity to dig into the detail of that proposed budget and have

a good understanding of what makes up that historic increase, and

we know the administration’s budget will simply not be adequate

to meet the needs of those who need the system.

Unfortunately, most veterans needing health care will gain their

first understanding of this budget not from digging into the details

of it but from digging into their pockets when they are forced to

pay for their needed care. It is clear to us that the administration’s

budget relies far too heavily on management efficiencies and collections from others, including veterans, and not enough on appropriated dollars. The Independent Budget has proposed $27.2 billion in real appropriated dollars for VA health care. These are funds needed to

address a variety of matters, as stated in detail in the Independent

Budget.

One good example is the shortage of nurses across the system.

Although it is a national problem, VA must have the ability to attract and compete for this critical resource. The average VA nurse

is somewhere between 45 and 50 years old, dedicated and caring,

but we will need more than enrollment fees and more than co-pays

to offset the cost of replacing an aging workforce as a generation

of nurses approaches retirement and a generation of veterans approaches old age.

Long-term care for veterans will need more than enrollment fees

and more than co-pays to address the needs of an aging veteran

population. Care at home is an important thing, and we support

that concept, but not at the expense of reducing VA nursing home

beds. Extended care and VA facilities is critically important to

maintain an increase as that population gets older.

The proposed enrollment fees and increases in co-payments may

swell the proposed budget, but they will also chase away many veterans who very much need the system and in some cases rely very

heavily on the system. For many who need VA specialized services,

VA health care is not only the best game in town, it is the only

game in town. Many older veterans retired and on fixed incomes

have sought VA health care because of the rising costs and have

public and private health care plans and insurance. The VA has become their safety net.

The members and endorsers of the Independent Budget strongly

encourage you not to let the VA price itself out of their reach. The

administration has proposed $408 million for research. This is

good, but we are hopeful that your committee will accept the Independent Budget recommendation of $460 million. The continuity,
41

and the strength of VA research is a national resource and critical

to the long-term care of veterans.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Evans, we congratulate you for introducing

legislation last year that would remove VA health care from the

discretionary side of the budget process and making annual VA

budgets mandatory. The lack of consistent funding for VA along

with uncertainty attached to the process fuels efforts to deny more

veterans health care and charge veterans more for the care they

receive.

Mandatory funding legislation can be assigned to ensure that VA

has sufficient resources to meet existing statutory obligations. By

including veterans currently eligible to be enrolled for care, we will

protect the specialized programs VA has developed so well over the

years. We look forward to working with you and giving you every

support to make VA health care a mandatory account as soon as

possible.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, just speaking for—PVA, we don’t want

any new members. We are not looking for new veterans that have

spinal cord injuries to join our organization. But as our Nation continues to prepare for war, let our Congress and our administration

make certain that VA’s health care system will be strong and well

prepared.

And if I can respond further to Mr. Buyer’s concerns. Let us all

remember that eligibility reform was passed in 1996 for a variety

of reasons. As a user of the system and one who went through his

rehab in the VA and as a former VA employee, I can tell you that

the prior system did not work. It was complex, it was complicated,

and it was very difficult to administrate. So for that reason alone

eligibility reform was an important thing for us to do in 1996, and

I congratulate the Congress for doing it.

We support the Secretary’s authority to make decisions on enrollment, but the reason we are here year after year and the reason

we have been here for 17 years is to say, wouldn’t it be nice if he

didn’t have to? Wouldn’t it be nice if VA health care was such a

priority that the Congress and the administration would fund it at

the levels that we are suggesting?

Thank you, sir.

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

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bollinger, with attachment, appears on p. 122.]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jones.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD JONES

Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Evans, and members of the committee, AMVETS is honored to join fellow veteran

service organizations at this hearing on the VA budget request for

fiscal year 2004. We are pleased to provide you our best estimates

on the resources necessary to carry out a responsible budget in the

new year.

AMVETS would like to take a moment, before we begin, to state

clearly that, with our IB partners, we, too, strongly support shifting VA health care funding from discretionary to mandatory. Mandatory funding would give some certainty to health care. VA facilities would not have to deal with the whimsy of discretionary fund-
42

ing, which has truly proven inconsistent and inadequate. We believe that mandatory funding would provide a comprehensive solution to the current funding problem. Once health care funding

matches the actual average cost of care for veterans enrolled in the

system, with an annual indexing for inflation, VA can fulfill its

mission.

Before I address the budget recommendations for the National

Cemetery Administration, which is AMVETS’s primary responsibility in the development of the Independent Budget, I would like to

thank the members for all of their strong leadership and their continued support for veterans. Through your work you represent the

veterans’ voice, and you have distinguished yourselves as willing to

lead the country in addressing issues important to veterans and

their families. We thank you.

Since its establishment, the National Cemetery Administration

has provided the highest standards of service to veterans and eligible family members in the system’s 120 national cemeteries. At the

close of fiscal year 2004, we are hopeful that the system will have

124 national cemeteries, because progress is currently under way

at several sites around the country to complete construction. These

sites include Atlanta, Detroit, Miami, Pittsburgh, and Sacramento.Without the strong commitment of Congress and its authorizing committees and appropriations committees, VA will likely

fall short of burial space for millions of veterans and their eligible

dependents.

The members of the Independent Budget are encouraged by the

administration’s recommended increases in NCA resources for fiscal year 2004. However, it should be recognized that, while the proposal addresses employment increases and equipment needs, it

does not serve to address problems and deficiencies identified in

the Study on Improvements to Veterans Cemeteries, a comprehensive report submitted in 2002 by VA to Congress on the conditions

of each cemetery.

Volume 2 of the Study identifies over 900 projects for gravesite

renovation, repair, upgrade, and maintenance. The total estimated

cost, according to the Study, of completing these projects is nearly

$280 million.

As any public facility manager knows, failure to correct identified

deficiencies in a timely fashion results in continued, often more

rapid deterioration of facilities and, hence, increasing costs related

to necessary repair. The Independent Budget veterans service organizations recommend that Congress and VA work together to establish a timeline for funding these projects based on the severity of

the problems and commit additional funds for maintenance.

Volume 3 of the Study describes veterans cemeteries as national

shrines, saying that one of the most important elements of veterans

cemeteries is honoring the memory of America’s brave men and

women who served in the Armed Forces.

Indeed, Congress formally recognized veteran cemeteries as national shrines in 1973, stating that all national and other veterans

cemeteries shall be considered national shrines as a tribute to our

gallant dead. Many of the individual cemeteries within the system

are truly steeped in history; and the monuments, the markers, the

grounds, all the related memorial tributes represent the very foun-
43

dation of these United States. With this understanding, the

grounds, including monuments and individual sites of interment,

represent a national treasure that deserves to be protected and

nurtured.

Unfortunately, despite NCA’s continued high standards of service

and despite a true need to protect the nurture of this national

treasure, the system has been and continues to be seriously challenged. The current and future needs of the National Cemetery Administration require continued adequate funding to ensure NCA remains world class.

The members of the Independent Budget recommend that Con- gress provide $162 million in fiscal year 2004 for the operation requirements of NCA, the national Shrine initiative, and the backlog

of repairs. We recommend your support for a budget consistent

with NCA’s growing demands and in concert with the respect due

every man and woman who wears the uniform of the United States

Armed Forces. This is an increase of $17.8 million over the administration’s request for next year.

For funding the State Cemetery Grants Program, the members of the Independent Budget recommend $37 million for the new fiscal year. This is an increase of $5 million over the administration’s

proposal. The State Cemetery Grants Program is an important

complement to NCA. It helps States establish gravesites for veterans, and it has become a very attractive program.

At the start of fiscal year 2003, the State Cemetery Grants Program had 11 new cemeteries under design and 13 new cemeteries

in planning. In addition, the program had on hand 37 pre-applications, for a total of $165 million.

The IBVSOs estimate that a budget of $37 million would respond

to demand and help honor veterans.

We also support several new increases in veterans’ benefits regarding burial that have gone untouched for a number of years.

These benefits have eroded over the years, and we list these in our

statement and also in the Independent Budget. We are hopeful

that Congress can take time to take a look at these and enact legislation that would augment these benefits for veterans.

In addition, we would like these benefits indexed for inflation so

that we could avoid future erosion.

This concludes my statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jones appears on p. 131.]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cullinan.

STATEMENT OF DENNIS M. CULLINAN

Mr. CULLINAN. Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the

committee, on behalf of the men and women of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States and our Ladies Auxiliary, I wish

to convey our appreciation for inclusion in today’s important

hearing.

As an organization and as a proud co-author of the Independent

Budget, we are strong advocates for an adequate budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs. While the primary focus of that attention is on actual delivery of health care and benefits for our Nation’s veterans, we cannot afford to forget the importance that con-
44

struction and maintenance plays in the process. If VA does not invest proper amounts of money in its infrastructure, it will have immense repercussions in coming years when patient comfort, safety,

and VA’s ability to modernize equipment and facilities are compromised. Supporting additional funding now will lessen future

burdens on patients and staffs, improve patient and worker safety,

make health care delivery simpler, and even reduce costs in the

long term.

Despite the importance of those factors, we are once again left

with a budget request that falls short of these important goals.

Using the old budgetary methodology, the request calls for $272.7

million and $252.1 million for major and minor construction

projects respectively. That is far short of the $436 million and the

$425 million the IB recommends for those same major and minor

construction projects.

Further, VA’s request for major and minor construction includes

funding for the Capital Assets Realignment for Enhanced Services,

also known as CARES, process, something we believe should be

kept separate. Besides the $183 million earmarked for CARES, VA

requested a paltry $89.3 million for major construction projects.

Our request of $436 million does not include the CARES project.

When we consider the CARES numbers separately, the construction accounts are even more strikingly deficient.

We recognize the difficulty of VA’s position with regard to the

construction budget. VA must often carry out these backlog

maintenances and improvements within the context of the larger

CARES process. Despite this, just as we strongly urge VA to exercise great care in divesting itself of properties until the process is

complete, we also point out that it is essential that construction

and repair continue on existing facilities. The pending status of

CARES has led to the deferral of many basic projects vital to the

sustenance of the VA’s physical plant. VA has identified a number

of high-risk buildings in desperate need of repairs, and the CARES

process should not distract VA’s obligation to protect its assets,

whether they are to be used for current capacity or for future

realignment.

We are greatly concerned with the way that the VA has delayed

major construction projects because of the CARES process. As expressed just now, VA absolutely must continue maintenance and

upgrades to existing facilities for the health of the infrastructure

and for the proper care of our veteran patients.

With respect to the CARES process as a whole, we generally remain supportive. We acknowledge that there are some VA facilities

that are unusable or unnecessary due to the aging infrastructure

as well as the transformation of VA health care into a more outpatient-focused system. If the process truly does enhance services,

then we are truly behind it. VA must ensure that the statistical

model used reflects the particulars of VA’s many specialized treatments to ensure that CARES really does serve the veteran population both now and into the future.

A concern that was particularly problematic in Phase I is the

lack of clear communication. As Phase II begins and rapidly expands the process throughout the country, we must ensure that

veterans—VA’s patients and customers—have a voice in this proc-
45

ess. We simply must know what is going on and what the planning

process is so we can make informed decisions and suggestions.

We urge Congress to enact legislation that would raise the limit

on minor construction projects from $4 million to $10 million. The

current cap inhibits many VA facilities from properly carrying out

construction projects by forcing them to reduce the scope of the

project or to group several small projects in an uneconomical, piecemeal approach. Raising this cap would allow VA to conduct more

essential projects, and we thank you for your efforts in support of

this endeavor in the last Congress.

I would just briefly join in with my colleagues here at the table

in support of mandatory funding for the Department of Veterans

Affairs. It seems to us, too, that it would be a far simpler and better thing to do to simply adjust the formula annually to take care

of the dynamic situation with veterans’ health care, instead of engaging in the annual discretionary battles where we just never

seem to prevail.

I also agree with my colleagues at the table that eligibility reform addresses far more than simply funding issues. At that point

in time before eligibility reform, the veteran was confronted with

such a complex and labyrinthine eligibility system that many eligible veterans were denied the care that they needed and deserved,

And we salute you for what you have done in that regard.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cullinan, thank you very much for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cullinan appears on p. 137.]

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the four authors of this very incisive and remarkable document you have presented to us. Regrettably, I didn’t get to read it until last night, but I read the entire

thing, yellow-highlighted it, and pulled things out.

(A document entitled, ‘‘The Indepependent Budget For Fiscal

Year 2004, A Comprehensive Budget and Policy Document Created

by Veterans for Veterans’’ is retained in committee file.)

The CHAIRMAN. As you have noted in the past, and I think many

of the ideas that you proffer in this very good recommendation or

set of recommendations we did turn into law last Congress, and we

plan on doing the same thing again. I mean, when you speak, we

do listen; and the valuable time you spend giving us your best wisdom is greatly appreciated. I want you to know that.

This is a blueprint for action. It has been in the past. It will be

this year.

I am grateful that you have had an entire section devoted to

mandatory spending and the rationale for it. I think that debate

was necessary. As I think you pointed out, Mr. Violante, when we

did eligibility reform, that was a recommendation that fell off the

charts again.

And if ever there was a year when the inadequacy of the process

has been demonstrated, it is this year. Many months into the fiscal

year, which began on October 1st, we still don’t have a veterans’

budget. And for the Secretary, that is an extremely difficult situation to be in and especially for the veteran beneficiary and user of

health care.
46

I noted in your monologue, you point out what we know on this

committee but more Members of Congress should know, that dollar

for dollar we get the best bang for the buck using VA health care.

And I appreciated your point, which I mentioned to the Secretary

in the conversation earlier, that 67 percent of the enrolled veterans

in fiscal year 2003 were Category sevens, but they accounted, according to your calculations, for about 13.38 percent of the total

VHA medical care budget. We think it is around 12 percent. So the

numbers are order of magnitude, right in the same ballpark.

So there is this sticker-shock mentality that so many Category

sevens are using so much of the health care dollar when indeed

they are not. The ones through sixs still, necessarily so, occupied

the majority of the money.

Let me ask you then, because I appreciate predictability, adequacy and all those points which you have made so eloquently, do

you believe that mandatory funding would positively impact on

Categories one through six, and why?

Mr. VIOLANTE. Yes, I do. In fact, I think the equation would also

positively impact on 7s and 8s. But what it does is it provides a

formula for those veterans who are seeking care from the VA, are

enrolled in the system, and provides a per capita base that is increased with the medical CPI. So it guarantees a source of funding

at least 2 to 3 months, maybe 4 months prior to the fiscal year and

requires the Secretary of the Treasury to provide VA with that

funding at that time on October 1st, allows VA to plan in the

meantime for their needs.

I would also like to point out that in the DOD budget there

seems to be a provision in there to expand the mandatory funding

stream for all military retirees similar to the one that was put in

place for Tri-Care for life for Medicare eligible veterans. So I would

certainly like to see that happen. But I hope we don’t get forgotten

in that equation.

Mr. CULLINAN. Mr. Chairman, we would certainly agree. It would

benefit all veteran users. I mean, right now VA doesn’t get enough

money. They don’t get it in a timely fashion. And mandatory funding would rectify that situation. It would allow the VA planners to

plan, which is something they can’t do very well right now. It

would have systemic benefits.

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that. And the more information you

could provide to us on that, because I seem to be hearing an argument that says if we just curtail enrollment, if we just do this or

that, we inhibit utilization by sevens and eights, somehow we are

out of the problem. And I don’t think that is the case.

I think that we do have a systemic problem, and the mandatory

funding scheme would ensure that the ones through sixs get an enhanced and certainly justified, and you would call it entitlement,

frankly, because I think with service to our country, we can play

semantic games and say, are you eligible, are you entitled. I believe

that veterans are effectively entitled, and ones through sixs have

an absolute entitlement that in terms of budget priorities, so they

should be first among others.

I do have a question, Mr. Cullinan, on the CARES process. I

have been through several BRACs myself. Several of my bases in

my district were on the BRAC list. One of them, Lakehurst, was
47

actually going to be radically downgraded. It does all of the launch

and recovery for our carrier fleet. As a matter of fact, my brother

was a pilot on the Enterprise, was shot off with his A–7 many a

time and every time was safely catapulted and returned. But that

vital work went on at Lakehurst. That was going to be radically

realigned.

It turned out that the basic information that was used to come

to those conclusions was as flawed as it gets by a factor of 300 percent, three times. They said it would cost $97 million to radically

realign, the base and this is the BRAC, the BSET, when they did

their original work, only to find out that it was triple that amount.

My point is, I am concerned, and I assume absolutely goodwill

on the part of the VA people who will be doing this. But mistakes

can be made—big mistakes can be made. I know we will be doing

vigorous oversight to make sure that CARES is done properly, but

we have got to make sure that is not, you know, garbage in, garbage out. If you don’t get the right data calls, you are going to get

the wrong information coming out.

And I agree with you, we have passed bipartisan bills, such as

H.R. 811, the construction budget which was another bite at the

apple, only to go over to our friends on the Senate side who said,

hold on, we are waiting for CARES. And that has happened year

in and year out. So you are absolutely correct that you have many

construction projects that have not been funded owing to waiting

to see what CARES says. So you might want to respond to that

even further.

But we have got to make sure of the information going in so that

we do get an enhancement—we all remember the H word in this— and not just a loss of medical centers or outpatient clinics.

Mr. CULLINAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We are

very concerned that VA is using both adequate and appropriate

statistics in assessing the process. And, to be quite frank, it is very

hard for us to get a handle on what exactly is going into this process. We don’t know. That also touches on our concern that our— the veteran user is not being adequately consulted as well.

I mentioned in my oral presentation or written presentation as

well, VA has a very special mission, or missions, I should say, dealing with specialized services, you know, special care for traumatic

injuries. They have a different patient caseload than is generally

apparent in the private sector. All of these things have to be taken

into consideration.

I would also like to say that the BRAC, the BRACs, those were

devices to do away with. Those were systems designed to actually

reduce facilities. And what they did is they circumvented the political process by doing it in that manner. We would not want to see

CARES used in anything like that. We insist that CARES only be

employed towards enhancement and improving veterans’ health

care and, in fact, making accessible to as many veterans as

possible.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Mr. Evans.

Mr. EVANS. No questions, except to say that I appreciate the

work that you have done on The Independent Budget and for the

mandatory funding legislation.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Evans. Mr. Beauprez.
48

Mr. BEAUPREZ. No questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Filner?

Mr. FILNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, as always, for what you do for this Independent

Budget. It is an incredible amount of work. It is professionally

done. When are you going to have the final draft? Those of us who

read this, like the chairman, need to know if you change anything—because whenever I have tirades around the country, I wave

this and I have got to have good color copies of it because this is

my Bible.

Mr. CULLINAN. Mr. Filner, I am pleased to tell you that it is at

the printer, and the color is outstanding as well as the content.

Mr. VIOLANTE. It should be ready on the 25th.

Mr. FILNER. Fantastic. And, Joe, I appreciate your connecting

what we do here on the Veterans Committee with the morale of our

active duty personnel. When we are deploying our young men and

women, it is important for them to know that they will be adequately treated when they become veterans. This is a really important part of their morale; and I appreciate your seeing that connection and understanding that. We have to see that what we are

doing on this committee is absolutely connected to current events

and not just past history.

The gentleman from Indiana was waving around this budget earlier. And I read it. I think it ought to be ‘‘entitlements’’ anyway,

but what you say is not ‘‘entitlements,’’ you say ‘‘benefits to which

they are entitled.’’ That is the very definition of eligibility. So, I

don’t know what he was talking about. But you recognize that very

clearly.

This is, entitlement by law—which is eligibility. And Dennis, you

talked about ‘‘eligibility reform.’’ I don’t know that in detail, and

apparently a lot of other people don’t. You might want to inform

the gentleman from Indiana the full implications of that and what

it would mean if we went back to the pre-reform days.

Maybe we as a committee ought to review that at some point so

we all know the history and what was improved. I think you ought

to at least take a little presentation to the gentleman from Indiana,

because I learned from what you have said, and it is very important to know that.

You know, I am always giving you advice. You do a wonderful

job here. But you know as well as I do this budget process is governed by politics and not by pure humanitarian or beneficial or

even legal concerns. Unless your folks are making a lot of noise

through the whole process, they are not going to get what they deserve. They shouldn’t have to do it. But if they don’t make the

noise, they are not going to get what they do deserve.

Your folks are in every district, and you keep them well informed. I think you need to name names and take prisoners and

let your Members off the leash. We need to hear them in Washington. I think there is a demonstration tomorrow, in fact, that is as

much aimed at you guys as it is at us. That is, it is grassroots folks

who are not convinced that they are being used by your organizations in a politically effective way.
49

So if you want to respond, that is fine. I have said this a lot of

times to you both in public and in private. You have got a lot of

power. It has got to be used. It has got to be used.

Anyway, thank you so much for what you do.

Were you going to say something, Mr. Bollinger? You are from

Pittsburgh, and I am, too.

Mr. BOLLINGER. Right. I know that. We hear you, and we will be

here in force week after next meeting with all of you, and our members will be here. So—— Mr. FILNER. You have got to bring them back when the conference committee meets, because nobody knows what goes on in

that committee and no fingerprints are left. And that is where the

pressure has got to be.

You know, when we had concurrent receipt—the House voted for

it, the Senate voted for it. We had 400 co-sponsors in the House.

Mr. Bilirakis has worked intensely for years on this. We instructed

our conferees. Then a vote occurred when we were all on our way

to Washington from our districts, when leadership insisted there

would be no votes, but a voice vote occurred, and there was no concurrent receipt. I call that concurrent deceit, and the people who

did that should be identified.

I don’t know what happened, frankly. All of a sudden, it is gone;

and nobody will talk about it. Nobody takes any responsibility.

I think that was an incredible slap at not only the veterans but

the Congress. We said what we wanted, and the conferees just

eliminated it. I thought that was a horrible thing, and we have got

to watch that process intensely.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Bradley.

Mr. BRADLEY. Thank you. But nothing at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Renzi.

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Last week, our chairman was kind enough to have a group come

in, Mr. Violante; and we learned that the disabled vets own over

800,000 small businesses in America. And I realize my question

doesn’t necessarily go towards care directly, but, as we all know,

work is healing. And we felt the passion of one gentleman who

came and testified and spoke of his inability to get Small Business

Administration involved in contracting many of the types of contracts that the government lets, particularly DOD, to the disabled

vets.

And one of the things that struck me and I didn’t get a chance

to ask what I would ask you is, is there a national database available where our disabled veterans plug in and give a short description or a bio on what it is that they are doing as far as the small

business community goes, no matter where they be located anywhere in the world, including Pittsburgh?

Mr. VIOLANTE. Mr. Renzi, I am sorry, I don’t know the answer

to that question. I don’t know of any database out there, but there

may well be, and maybe someone else may know for a fact. But I

don’t.

Mr. RENZI. Sir, do you want to?

Mr. CULLINAN. Yeah. Mr. Renzi, I don’t handle employment

issues. We have a directorship that actually is specific to that area.

But I do know from that gentleman that the Department of Labor
50

has an Internet-based database where information like that is

stored and made available. If it does exactly what you are talking

about, I don’t know. But I know——

Mr. RENZI. It seems to me that so many of our veterans, as we

spoke last week, are hiring veterans and that if we have disabled

veterans coming out of the hospitals, coming out of the therapy sessions and looking to move into small businesses, they are naturally

going to be able to move in with less stress to those businesses that

are owned by disabled. We assimilate to our own types and kinds.

And if we had that national database that could also help not only

our small business community find those disabled veterans in order

to let their contracts, it could also help provide our therapists and

our health care people with where they could probably find more

of an easier employment.

Mr. CULLINAN. Mr. Renzi, as nationally, we have encouraged our

posts—we have about 10,000 nationwide—to help veterans secure

employment. But something at the level of sophistication you are

talking, we don’t have as an organization. We do the best we can.

We tell our local people, hey, give a veteran a hand getting a job

or the training or whatever he needs. But that level of sophistication or organization we simply don’t possess it.

Mr. BOLLINGER. Mr. Renzi, let me add something to that. For

those with catastrophic disabilities, it is not just a matter of dealing with a potential employer. It is a matter of rehabilitation and

health care. And as you think through that whole process, please

don’t forget people with severe catastrophic disabilities, because

their problems begin in the hospital and in the rehab process, not

just when they are trying to get into the employer’s door.

Mr. RENZI. That is well said. Thank you, gentleman.

Mr. FILNER. Mr. Renzi, would you yield for one second?

I am behind you. What you bring up is a very important issue.

We mandated SBA, Small Business Administration, to be doing exactly what you said.

The CHAIRMAN. It was a goal, though. That was the problem.

Mr. FILNER. And they haven’t done it. We set it as a goal. We

had hearings. We have to keep an eye on them. Because you raise

a real important issue, and there are ways to do it, but they

haven’t done it. And the SBA was the key there. So if we can do

some oversight on that, that would be great.

Thank you, Mr. Renzi, for bringing that up.

The CHAIRMAN. I would say for the record that Mr. Renzi and I

and others, and it will be a bipartisan bill, are looking at language,

and he is likely to take the lead on it, that would maybe even establish a mandatory goal. Because as we got from the folks from

the GAO and others who testified, the trendline is in the opposite

direction. Rather than reaching the goal, the contracts that are

being let are going down. They are declining. It is a very negative

trendline. So we need to infuse some kind of discipline to break out

and to make sure.

But thank you for raising it; and thank you, Mr. Renzi, for raising it as well.

Ms. Brown-Waite, and then we go to our chairman.

Ms. BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Thank you.
51

I recently was approached by a person who is a retired official earning about $70,000 a year in pension plus Social Security; and

he said to me, ‘‘you have got to do something to improve veterans’ health care.’’ I said to him, well, tell me a little bit about it; and

he proceeded to tell me that he had to wait a long time to get into

the Veterans Administration. And I said to him, well, I said, I

know that you have the ability to take with you health care into

your retirement. I am sure you did it, because it is a wonderful

buy. Why are you utilizing the Veterans Administration? And the

response was, well, it is the difference between $7 for a prescription and $35 which he would have to pay under his prescription

drug program.

As long as we have this phenomena out there—I know the Federal government prints money, but as long as we have this phenomena out there of people who are going to the VA for the lowcost prescription drugs when truly they can afford the $35 under

their other plan, tell me how we are ever going to care for those

veterans who truly need it. Anyone care to venture a guess?

Mr. CULLINAN. Ms. Brown-Waite, I would have to say that that

would be an exception. It has been our experience that there really

aren’t all that many veterans who are that financially that well off

accessing the system. Are there those who are better off using it?

Yes, there probably are. But still, to us, that doesn’t mean that

other veterans who really need it, need those drugs, those medications should be disenfranchised through the budget process.

Ms. BROWN-WAITE of Florida. But that is part of the problem. I

mean, he is taking someone’s slot who is having to wait. This is

where the duplication of services come in. And is it fair to the person who is now at the 18-month waiting period because this person

is there receiving prescription drugs? He was a veteran. If he needed the services, I would be the first one to say, you know, he should

absolutely be receiving them. But this is a person who has other

health care coverage. And for the difference between the $7 and the

$35 he regularly—because he has to go back for the refills—is duplicating services. How do we set up a system where someone such

as this person—and I know of others since then. How do we make

sure that they are using the other system so the truly needy veterans can get in?

Mr. JONES. Well, one way you can’t do it is the way it is currently done at VA, and that is simply to ask the veteran if he

makes more than the threshold amount. You have to have a database. And for a $70,000 veteran on the VA ledger of data, this fellow is simply someone who is a Category 8 veteran who makes over

$24,000 a year and above the HUD poverty factor now called a VA

poverty factor.

Mr. JONES. VA doesn’t have the data. You need to have that data

if you want to return cash from individuals who can afford the payment. And if this individual, further, has medical care insurance,

you have to Ensure that VA collects from that individual’s insurance provider. VA has a very poor record in that regard, despite

the testimony, given today by Dr. Roswell, of the superb advances

being made in medical care cost recovery.

Mr. BOLLINGER. Ms. Brown-Waite, I am sure there are plenty of

those individuals. I think one thing that we should not forget and
52

that we should by all means remember is a lot of those people go

to the VA because the VA provides good health care. And I know

in the case of those who need specialized services, like spinal cord

injury, 80 percent of our members utilize the VA health care system. We go there because it is good health care, and for many of

our members it is the only health care they can get for such a comprehensive disability that requires a multidisciplinary approach of

care. So they use the system not just for their drugs, but they also

use the system because they provide good health care.

The CHAIRMAN. Chairman Simmons.

Mr. SIMMONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, gentlemen,

for your service to the country, and, I should say, for your continued service to the country by serving our veterans.

I was reading through the Independent Budget, and I noticed in

the guiding principles that the first principle listed involving benefits and waiting for benefits to which they are entitled, was repeated. Is that because it is all about location, location, location?

Are we repeating ourselves, or is that a printer’s error?

Mr. BOLLINGER. I think someone mentioned it is at the printer

now, and hopefully we can take that second one out.

Mr. SIMMONS. I used to be a proofreader for a newspaper so I did

notice that, but you could probably explain it as being a literary

flourish, repeating your most important principle.

Looking a little further at the Independent Budget and at the

budget that was presented to us by VA, there is basically a focus

on numbers and whether the numbers are going up, and that

seems to be our standard. You probably heard my comments to the

Secretary about the issue of simply building on last year’s, without

necessarily shaping next year’s budget to meet next year’s requirements, but also to provide efficiencies within the system.

We all know the horror stories about Federal officials and others

who, in order to maintain their budget, essentially waste money

the last month of the fiscal year, and that has to be a matter of

concern. We all know the stories about medicines and blister packs,

and when you break one of the blister packs you throw the rest

away, even though they are perfectly good.

And so on and so on and so forth.

In reviewing the GAO report called ‘‘Managing for Results: Efforts to Strengthen the Link Between Resources and Results in the

VHA’’, on page 16 they note that certain VHA officials directors,

the network Directors, sign an annual performance agreement with

the Under Secretary for Health, called the Network Performance

Plan, and based on how they do in the course of the year, they may

get a bonus.

The question to all of you: How is this working, in your view, and

have you heard of anybody getting a nonbonus? In other words,

being penalized for not meeting performance standards?

Mr. VIOLANTE. I would have to say it is not working very well.

We have seen the same situation over on the benefits side, and I

think as Mr. Evans pointed out, last year 85 percent of directors

over there were receiving bonuses when we had backlogs, which

just didn’t demonstrate that they were doing their job properly.

And the same does apply over on VHA. And certainly we would

like to see accountability brought into the system, because it
53

doesn’t do veterans any good to have money put into the system

if it is not going to be used properly and if it is just going to be

given out. And obviously, unfortunately, the Federal Government

restricts what type of punishment you can meter out, or salary decreases to employees. It makes it difficult, I think, to do that, and

maybe that can be looked at also as part of this.

Mr. SIMMONS. Well, I thank you for that. Eighty-five percent bonuses sounds pretty routine to me. I always thought a bonus was

for exceptional performance, not routine performance, and if we are

giving bonuses to 85 percent of the people, then that is just another

aspect of their salary package, and I think that is worth a look.

I have a second question before my little green light goes yellow.

If any of the others want to comment on that issue, I would be

happy to hear it, but let me put my second question into the

record. I have always felt that VA did an extraordinary job in research, and as a Vietnam veteran, I have had colleagues who were

burned with napalm, burned with white phosphorous. I have had

people who have had limbs blown off and, you know, overcoming

the tragedy of the injury is one thing, but often a sense that they

really got some pretty good care and that VA research is

exceptional. I notice that we have got about $400 million in this budget for

VA research. The Independent Budget goes higher than that. I

think you add an additional $52 for 460. I wonder if you would

comment on that. Are we doing enough in research?

Mr. BOLLINGER. Mr. Simmons, John Bollinger with PVA. I thank

you for raising that issue. It is one of vital importance to the members of the Independent Budget. VA truly is a national resource

when it comes to research, and just the fact that they do so much

research that focuses on the needs of those with specialized services, so we are very proud of what the VA has done over the years.

It is also a budget that is very fragile in the sense that when you

tinker with it too much, and it doesn’t have continuity and consistency, researchers themselves become—they can’t anticipate. A lot

of these projects are multiyear, and it is very important, we believe, that the administration, Congress, fund research at these appropriate levels.

NIH clearly does a lot as well, infinitely more than VA does. And

a lot of those researchers use that money, but we believe it is critical that they stay and remain VA researchers for the very purpose

that they are doing such good things for veterans specifically.

Mr. SIMMONS. Thank you very much.

And if I could take one more minute, Mr. Chairman, on the issue

of research, where do the PVA and the other groups stand on the

issue of stem cell research and cloning for purposes of spinal cord

and other types of injuries? I have a friend who is in a wheelchair

who had a spinal cord injury many years ago, a gunshot wound,

and he feels that stem cell research and cloning could be the cure.

He is otherwise in perfect health. Where do the organizations stand

on that issue?

Mr. BOLLINGER. Well, PVA is working with the Christopher

Reeve Foundation. Stem cell research has potential. Clearly, there

are a lot of—people who have moral problems with cloning—with

stem cell research, with a lot of things like that.
54

What we are trying to do is look at things that have potential,

and hopefully foundations—VA, NIH, and others—will provide resources for those research projects. We believe very firmly in the

government guidelines that control how those monies are spent.

I would also say things like umbilical cord research has a lot of

potential, and we look forward to making strides there as well.

So my answer to your question would be it has potential, and I

think it is important that our government provide the sources for

researchers to look into it.

Mr. SIMMONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I want to thank our very distinguished witnesses, and just maybe to ask one additional question

or make a comment that you might want to respond to.

I would hope that there would be a very significant wall made,

a wall of separation between what many of us believe, but not everyone, to be ethical stem cell research and not broad-brush it as

if all stem cell research is similar. There is no ethical baggage

whatsoever with adult stem cell research which has, frankly, made

all of the strides, and all of the advances have been made almost

every day, maybe somewhat of an exaggeration, but certainly almost every week there is a major advance made in the area of

adult stem cell research. We are literally walking repair kits, if you

will, as human beings. We can coax our own stem cells and especially those coming from bone marrow to repair the body, so the

promise is extraordinary.

And I think that the debate has been hampered by those who

would use embryonic stem cells, where embryos are created and

then destroyed, so human life is destroyed. And not everyone

agrees with that, but I happen to believe very strongly and passionately that you don’t create human life in order to destroy it.

And the same goes with therapeutic cloning, reproductive

cloning. There is a clear consensus that it ought not happen,

Cloning whereby we clone and kill, again, it I think crosses the line

into an ethical morass that we don’t want to go into.

And Mr. Bollinger, I am glad you mentioned the stem cells that

can be derived from umbilical cords and cord blood, another remarkable breakthrough that gets underfocused upon by the media.

There was just a good article about adult stem cells in the U.S.

News and World Report pointing out that is where the strides are

being made, that is where the clinical application is being made.

I chair the Autism Caucus, believing very strongly that there is

a cure. We haven’t found it yet. I am also chairman of the Alzheimer’s Caucus, also believing in both of those instances that stem

cells derived ethically hold enormous promise. But I think we get

sidetracked and we create a diversion that hampers real medical

research and a cure for many of the existing problems, especially

spinal cord, that will come, I hope and pray, from adult stem cells.

So my hope is that our own budget and the President’s budget,

which clearly is putting more money into NIH and the like, will

hasten the day when we make strides there. So I just say that for

the sake of our distinguished friends here.

Any other comments? Mr. Bollinger?

Mr. BOLLINGER. No.
55

The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank all of you. Again, you have given

us a blueprint, and it will greatly enlighten what we do going forward. Thank you.

I would like to welcome our third panel and ask them to be

seated:

Richard Weidman. Rick serves as National Director of Government Relations on the National Staff of the Vietnam Veterans of

America. He served as a medic with Company C, 23rd Med,

AMERICAL Division, located in I Corps of Vietnam in 1969. He

has served as a Consultant on Legislative Affairs to the National

Coalition for Homeless Veterans and served at various times on the

VA’s Readjustment Advisory Committee, the Secretary of Labor’s

Advisory Committee on Veterans’ Employment and Training, the

President’s Committee on Employment of Persons With Disabilities, and on numerous other advocacy posts in veterans’ affairs.

Mr. Weidman was an instructor and an administrator at Johnson

State College in Vermont in the 1970s, where he also was active

in community and veterans’ affairs. He attended Colgate University and did graduate study at the University of Vermont.

Mr. Peter Gaytan is the Principal Deputy Director of the Veterans’ Affairs and Rehabilitation Commission for the American Legion. Peter attended Wesley College in Dover, Delaware where he

earned a B.A. in political science. He is also a graduate of the Defense Information School, Fort Meade, MD, and earned an associate science degree in public affairs from the Community College of

the Air Force.

In 1991 Mr. Gaytan entered the U.S. Air Force, and after completing initial training, served as Military Protocol liaison with the

435th Airlift Wing at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware. While

serving there he worked with military, diplomatic, and congressional leaders. He is currently serving his sixth year with the

512th Airlift Wing of the U.S. Air Force Reserve as a Public Affairs

Specialist.

Colonel Robert Norton, U.S. Army, retired. He was MOAA’s Deputy Director of Government Relations and responsible for its legislative goals for veterans’ health care and benefits. Today, however,

he is appearing as the cochair of the Veterans’ Committee for the

Military Coalition. After earning his undergraduate degree, he enlisted in the U.S. Army as a private and was commissioned as a

second lieutenant of infantry after completing officer candidate

school.

After a tour of Vietnam as a civil affairs platoon leader with the

196th infantry brigade in I Corps, he transferred to the Army reserve and taught school at the secondary level.

Colonel Norton served in various staff positions with the 356th

Civil Affairs Brigade, U.S. Army Reserve, until he volunteered to

return to active duty in 1978. He served two tours in the Office of

Secretary of Defense. He finished his career as a Special Assistant

to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, Special Operations, Low Intensity Conflict, and retired in 1995.

The CHAIRMAN. Rick, if you could begin.
56

STATEMENT OF RICHARD WEIDMAN, DIRECTOR OF

GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA

Mr. WEIDMAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding

this hearing today and for your leadership, fighting for proper

funding for the veterans’ health care system. Thanks to you,

thanks to Mr. Evans, and all of your distinguished colleagues on

the committee.

We were talking about the core mission of VA earlier today. In

regard to health care, it is to deal with those who have been

harmed by virtue of military service, or he or she who hath borne

the battle and their widows and orphans.

The Secretary of Veterans’ Affairs made the correct judgment

when he took a step towards the very difficult category 8 decision.

People said, why are you all in favor of it? We were not in favor

of it. It was a terrible decision, but it was the only responsible decision to take under the dire financial circumstances, and we applaud the Secretary for having the courage to do it and move

forward.

The real problem is just not enough money, and we will talk

about that here quickly.

In the December meeting with Secretary—Under Secretary for

Health, people asked me, because I was unusually quiet, is this the

Christmas spirit or what is it, Rick? And my reply was, I am very

depressed, because we have failed you at providing adequate resources. This was near the end of a 2-hour meeting, and every single thing on the agenda we were talking about was a distortion in

the medical system that was due to starving the system for resources. In other words, many of the management problems we

can’t get to because there is just flat not enough money. And that

is the mission that we have to do so we can get on with utilizing

it better.

Triage is hard. I did it as a medic, and that is essentially what

the Secretary had to do. And we support him in that very responsible decision. I am going to comment on money in a second. But

we need much greater accountability out of this system before we

throw them too much more money and certainly before we move to

mandatory funding.

In regard to whether or not they provide the proper level of specialized services, whether they are measuring capacity in a way

that makes sense, instead of a ‘‘let us not and say we did,’’ take

a very close look at the bonuses and have clear guidelines as to

why people get bonuses and what they actually did in order to

achieve it.

We need a financial tracking system that works, because if you

ask about how much is spent on X, Y, Z treatment, they can’t tell

you today, and therefore that financial tracking system does not

exist.

The MIS system. The Secretary cannot tell you just by glancing

at a report how many hepatologists he has in any place in the system. Think about that in comparison to the Commandant of the

Marine Corps can’t tell you how many artillery pieces he has at

any location in the world, and he would not be Commandant at

sundown.
57

What we have here is a situation where we have gone awry. We

have had a discussion, argument, et cetera, for the last 31⁄2 years

between—first it was very inadequate versus grossly inadequate

budget for the health care system. And this year we are arguing

against inadequate versus very inadequate. While we very much

appreciate the $1.5 billion increase recommended by the President,

it is not enough; and it is good, in the sense that it is better than

a sharp stick in the eye, but it is not enough to start to restore this

system to where it needs to be, particularly as we have new veterans that—from my lips to God’s ear that it doesn’t happen, but we

do rationally believe it is going to happen, and coming home into

a system that is totally unprepared to take care of them. So our recommendation is $28 billion, which is slightly higher

than the IB budget. And that is straight cash. That does not count

collections. That is straight taxpayer appropriated dollars of just in

excess of $28 billion in order to stay where we are and start to reconstruct organizational capacity. Think of the many thousands of

caregivers, and particularly physicians and allied health care people we have lost since 1996. The system has never bounced back

from the flatline years, and we need to start doing that systematically and ramp up. We need the money ahead of time.

That leads me to the next thing in regard to funding, is VVA is

strongly in favor of mandatory funding and mandatory funding

that is on a capitalized basis based on 1996 figures per capita

with—indexed and compounded for medical inflation for every year

since, and then on into the future. It just has to be that, and then

we can press them to become more businesslike in the future.

If you don’t know how much money you are going to have, how

are you going to ramp up to hire the physicians and allied health

care people that you are going to need in the new fiscal year when

the uncertainty in this case extends to the end of February, almost

halfway through the fiscal year? We need to move to a stable funding phase and one that is based on per capita. We appreciate your

leadership on that in the past, Mr. Chairman, and we certainly will

back you in the future on that and do everything that we can.

One of the things—there is a projection on the per capita basis—

is that for 2004, our understanding is that it is 4.8 versus 5.4. I

would remind the Chair that in the 2002 budget when we ran out

and had to get a supplemental and never did, that the official figure was 3.9 million projected users, when in fact it was 4.6 million

people use the system. But the other 20 percent, since that is a 20

percent gross over the estimate, if you are going on a per capita

basis, where was the other 20 percent of the dough? Where was the

other $5 billion? And we need to move with that.

There are a number of other programs that we commented on in

our written testimony, Mr. Chairman, that I don’t have time for

now but I do want to bring your attention to in preparing for this

hearing, was looking back and researching and found an article in

the New England Journal of Medicine from October 31, 1985 that

talked about a Wall Street Journal article quoting John Cogan and

a former associate OMB director who is quoted in that article, is

if in fact whether taxpaying Americans should continue to pay for

veterans’ care regardless of their income, regardless of whether

their disability was related to service and country; if so, then the
58

taxpayer should recognize that the cost of maintaining current VA

medical care policy with no eligibility restraints will exceed $30 billion by the year 2000.

Now, this was an associate director of OMB under President

Reagan in his first term. We are so far out of whack in what we

are looking at and arguing back and forth, and it is no wonder that

we have waiting lines. It is no wonder that we have physicians

leaving the system and nurses leaving the system because they

can’t practice it properly.

Mr. Chairman, I am over my time. I thank you very much for

your indulgence, sir, and for you holding this hearing today and for

your leadership on so many subjects. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weidman appears on p. 139.]

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Gaytan.

STATEMENT OF PETER S. GAYTAN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, VETERANS AFFAIRS AND REHABILITATION COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION

Mr. GAYTAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to express the views of the 2.8 million members of the American Legion

regarding the Department of Veterans; Affairs fiscal year 2004 veterans’ request. As veterans’ advocates it is our job to ensure that

VA is funded at a level that will not only ensure eligible veterans

timely access to quality health care but also timely adjudication of

benefit claims.

The American Legion believes the level of funding proposed in

the fiscal year 2004 budget request may meet VA’s stated goal of

focusing on the health care needs of VA’s core group of veterans,

those with service-connected disabilities, the indigent and those

with special needs, but it will also lead to over 1.2 million veterans

leaving the system.

Squeezing veterans out of the system is not an effective response

to VA’s inability to treat eligible veterans in a timely manner.

When Congress opened access to the VA health care system in

1996, which was discussed at some length this morning, many veterans believed VA was their best health care option, and many veterans chose to seek their health care from the VA system. Since

CMS does not offer its beneficiaries a substantive prescription program, many Medicare-eligible veterans chose to enroll in VHA, specifically to receive quality health care and access to an affordable

prescription program.

Since DOD, TRICARE and TRICARE for Life require military retirees to make copayments or pay premiums but does not provide

for specialized care such as long-term care, many military retirees

also chose to enroll in VHA.

Veterans continue today to suffer as a result of a system that has

been routinely underfunded and is now ill-equipped to handle the

large influx of veterans waiting to use their services. Veterans

continue to endure interminable waiting times for medical appointments, as well as unacceptably long waiting times for claims

adjudication.

The problems resulting from years of underfunding run even

deeper within the VA health care system. In his first 5 months,
59

National Commander Ronald F. Conley of the American Legion has

visited more than 25 Veterans Affairs’ medical centers, and the information he is hearing directly from the facility staff is less than

encouraging. VAMCs are expressing their concern over the significant increases in their MCCF goals for fiscal year 2003 and what

impact the recent restrictions on enrolling any new priority group

8 veterans will have on their ability to meet these goals.

The American Legion shares their concerns, and we are also concerned about the impact of certain proposals included in the fiscal

year 2004 budget request that seek to generate increased revenue

for VA from the pockets of veterans instead of through the allocation of Federal funds.

The American Legion opposes the decision to deny enrollment to

new priority group 8 veterans. We believe denying veterans access

to VA health care, particularly while the Nation prepares for war,

is the wrong message to send, not only to the members of the allvolunteer force but also to the young men and women who may be

considering a life of service in the U.S. Armed Forces.

The American Legion also opposes the implementation of the

$250 annual enrollment fee for nonservice-connected priority group

7 veterans and all priority group 8 veterans. The American Legion

would urge Congress to reject this proposal, just as it did the administration’s plan last year to charge priority group 7 veterans a

$1,500 deductible.

While the Legion applauds the reduction of the pharmacy copayment for veterans in priority group 2 through 5, we do not support

increasing the pharmacy copay from $7 to $15 for priority group 7

and 8 veterans.

Additionally, we do not support the increase of outpatient primary care copayments from $15 to $20 for all priority group 7 and

8 veterans. The American Legion would rather VA seek reimbursements from CMS for all enrolled Medicare-eligible veterans being

treated for nonservice-connected medical conditions before they try

to balance the budget on the backs of priority group 7 and 8

veterans.

While heartened by the administration’s proposed funding levels,

the American Legion continues to advocate for all MCCF collections

to be added to the budget numbers and not be treated as an offset

to the budget. Let me echo that the American Legion joins the

IBVSOs in support of mandatory spending. We supported it last

year, and, Chairman, we will be right behind any member of this

committee in supporting mandatory spending for VHA again this

year.

The American Legion is greatly concerned by the proposed

straight-line staffing requests for VBA’s Compensation and Pension

Service and for the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. There are longterm workload demands associated with the current backlog of

pending claims that will extend well into fiscal year 2004. VBA acknowledges that there will also be a continued influx of new and

reopened claims based on the enactment of expanded benefit entitlements by the 107th Congress, including the combat-related special compensation pay program, an expectation of additional presumptive diseases and recent precedent decisions of the courts.
60

Despite the fact that the present military buildup has been underway for a number of months, the budget request does not take

into account the involvement of thousands of additional active duty

personnel. VA must be able to provide these men and women timely quality service upon their return to civilian life as veterans, in

addition to its ongoing responsibility to current veterans.

Despite assertions of improved quality decisionmaking, the number of appeals being filed continues to increase, as does a number

of appeals requiring further development, either by the regional offices or by the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. The American Legion

believes these offices will require additional personnel if they are

to achieve the ambitious service improvement goals promised the

Nation’s veterans and their families in this budget request. Discretionary funding for VBA’s 9 business lines total $1.2 billion. While

it provides for an additional 17 full-time employees for the education program, which is much needed, the American Legion is

deeply disturbed by the lack of any increase in staffing for compensation programs.

We believe this will constrain VBA’s ability to address the many

internal and external challenges emerging in fiscal year 2003,

which will have a profound budgetary and operational implication

for the fiscal year 2004 budget. Given the many and varied issues

that VBA is faced with, it is imperative that Congress critically

evaluate the level of discretionary funding requested and whether

this will enable the regional offices to operate efficiently and provide timely quality service that this Nation’s veterans deserve. Individuals currently on active duty must also be assured that VA

will not only be ready and willing to assist them but have the physical capacity to provide quality service without compromising current operations or benefits.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me note that some of the discussions

today just raise some questions, and it seems to me that anyone

who pays into Social Security in America is entitled to Social Security benefits, as anybody, veterans alike, same with citizens who

pay into Medicare are entitled to Medicare. Yet what we have

heard today is that veterans are not entitled to care at the VA, and

the American Legion feels a little differently about that, and maybe

we need to reassess our goals here and see which direction we are

headed. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. We are just reiterating.

Mr. GAYTAN. Several times.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gaytan appears on p. 148.]

The CHAIRMAN. Colonel Norton.

STATEMENT OF COLONEL ROBERT F. NORTON, USA (RET.), COCHAIR, VETERANS COMMITTEE, THE MILITARY COALITION

Colonel NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished

members of the committee for the opportunity to present testimony

on behalf of the Military Coalition. This is the first opportunity

that the Military Coalition has had to present its views before the

full committee, and we really appreciate that.

With me today in the audience is my co-chair on the Veterans’ Committee of the Military Coalition, Ms. Kim Vockel of the Noncommissioned Officers Association of America.
61

The Military Coalition offers a unique perspective on issues affecting the full spectrum of the uniformed services community: active duty, National Guard, Reserve servicemembers, family members, veterans, military retired veterans, survivors and dependents.

We bring together the diverse perspective of 33 organizations with

a collective membership of over 51⁄2 million members, and we are

proud of our record in representing their interests as we speak

with one voice on issues affecting them.

I would like to briefly highlight a few of those key issues for the

2004 VA budget submission on the VA health care and benefit

programs.

First, the Coalition strongly supports full funding for VA health

care for all enrolled veterans. We support the principle that once

the government has agreed to accept a veteran for enrollment in

the VA health care system it has entered into an implicit contractual agreement to provide timely, high-quality care for that veteran. Under that contract the administration should identify and

Congress should enact the necessary funding for timely delivery of

high-quality health care.

The Coalition supports the VA’s plan to essentially test

Medicare+Choice in the VA system, but we caution that those

plans have not fared well in the private sector.

Further, we believe that the committee should endorse the funding necessary to permit the entire VA system to meet Medicare access standards. We continue to support actual Medicare subvention

in the VA: authorizing Medicare funds to be used directly in VA

facilities for the nonservice-connected care of veterans who have

paid into Medicare over a lifetime of work. Let the veteran have

the choice to use his or her Medicare benefit in VA facilities, as has

been the case in the Indian Health Service for many years. VA

Medicare subvention would help alleviate VA’s funding crunch and

allow greater investment in specialty care, infrastructure upgrades,

research and so forth.

On the issue of VA-DOD health care collaboration, the Military

Coalition strongly recommends funding for continued investment in

what has been called a seamless transferable medical record for

young Americans when they enter the service and throughout their

lives.

An example of the need can be seen in the experience of some

110,000 National Guard and Reserve servicemembers currently

mobilized to support the war on terror at home and abroad. When

they complete their active duty service, those who are not already

veterans will earn veteran status, but if the Gulf War is any indication, many will not have entry or separation physicals to document their medical condition, and even those who do will need to

establish a new, separate medical record in the VA for care and

disability determinations.

A seamless transferable medical record is long overdue. Adequate

support for this initiative has far-reaching implications for improved health care delivery in the VA and the DOD health care

system for veterans and servicemembers. It has implications far

into the future for improving the VA claims processing system and

for enabling medical research in both DOD and the VA.
62

Turning now to veterans benefits, the Military Coalition recognizes the improvements made in processing disability claims, but

we believe more needs to be done to ensure fair, accurate and consistent ratings. We urge the committee’s support for adequate

funds to ensure that recent improvements continue until the system is marked not only by improved production but a record of sustained, high-quality ratings.

I want to publicly acknowledge on behalf of the Military Coalition the steadfast leadership of Representative Mike Bilirakis who

has led the charge for concurrent receipt equity for about 20 years

now. Disabled military retired veterans should be allowed to keep

all of their earned retired pay and their VA disability compensation.

The Military Coalition’s statement indicates that immediate

steps should be taken to fairly implement the new special pay for

combat or operationally disabled retired veterans. But, make no

mistake, the Military Coalition, with the active collaboration of our

many partners in the veterans community, is determined to eliminate the dollar for dollar offset of military retired pay by VA disability compensation. With the help of the committee, we will succeed. We ask the committee’s support for that ultimate goal and for

the necessary funding for the VA to support implementation in the

meantime of the new special pay for combat-disabled retirees.

The Coalition appreciates your leadership, Mr. Chairman, and

that of Ranking Member Evans on upgrading the Montgomery GI

bill. We ask the committee’s support for funds to allow those career

servicemembers who entered during the VEAP era, 1977 to 1985,

but turned down that third-rate education benefits program to be

allowed an opportunity to sign up for the Montgomery GI bill. As

the backbone of today’s deployed force, career servicemembers deserve the same chance to say yes or no to the Montgomery GI bill

as all servicemembers who have entered service since July, 1985.

The Coalition continues its active affiliation with the Partnership

for Veterans Education, and we urge that the committee support

indexing or benchmarking the Montgomery GI bill to the average

cost of a 4-year public college education. We also ask for support

in proportionately upgrading the Reserve Montgomery GI bill so

that it catches up to the basic program under Chapter 30.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the Military Coalition strongly urges the

committee’s support for funds to allow retention of dependency and

indemnity compensation for surviving spouses who remarry after

age 55.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present our

views on funding priorities under VA’s budget for 2004.

[The prepared statement of Coloner Norton appears on p. 162.]

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Colonel Norton, for all of

your recommendations, but your final ones on the GI bill, we are

looking very carefully at those. As you know, we tried and succeeded, to an extent, last year in upgrading the benefit provided by

the GI bill. There are a lot of leftover items that we need to capture

in a new bill which we are working on right now. So your very

timely suggestions will be looked at very carefully.
63

Do you have any idea what the costs might be of recapturing

those Vietnam-era veterans that you mentioned? Hundreds of millions? Any idea?

Colonel NORTON. No, not specifically, Mr. Chairman, but I would

point out that when the last VEAP conversion program was conducted about 2 years ago, at that time there were about 116,000

active duty members who had active VEAP accounts and they were

allowed to make an option to sign up for the GI bill but only approximately 2,800 took it. So we don’t believe that the real cost is

going to be that great; but I think the reality is this, that these are

our Nation’s servicemembers who are leading our efforts at home

and abroad—the deployed force—in our war on terror. They should

have the same opportunity as all other servicemembers to have a

one-time opportunity just to say yes or no to the Montgomery GI

bill.

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. Thank you.

You mentioned the Medicare+Choice and that it has some deficiencies. Would you elaborate on that a bit? Because just in general

terms but not really relevant to the VA, Medicare+Choice is almost

like an idea whose time has come and gone. I know that many of

the providers in my own State have opted out because of inadequate funding from Medicare. They just—you know, when they realized that so many seniors signed up, they had catastrophic endof-life experiences, and that goes for my own parents, whose final

bill from cancer, both of them, was extraordinary, and they were

in a Medicare+Choice that doesn’t even exist anymore. So what are

the pitfalls?

Colonel NORTON. As you indicated, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure

of the specific pitfalls. What we are attracted to and what we find

of interest is that, for the first time in history, the door would be

open, if only slightly, for Medicare funding to be allowed in the

VA—in a ‘pass-through’ situation. And we think that is a plus.

As you heard from earlier witnesses, VA physicians and VA facilities would be delivering the care, not HMOs on the outside, as

we understand the broad concept.

But, in addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I think it is important

to point out that while we endorse the Medicare+Choice plan in the

VA, it seems to us that if this is good enough for Priority Group

8 veterans, those with the lowest priority for access to VA health

care, then there ought to be a conscious investment in meeting

Medicare access standards for all veterans enrolled in the VA

health care system. They ought to be able to get primary care appointments within 30 days.

So if a Medicare+Choice plan is good enough for PG 8s, it ought

to be food enough for all other enrolled veterans. So we see this as

a small window, opening up Medicare. That is a positive thing.

Having the benefit delivered in VA facilities is positive, and we see

it primarily as a test, because our ultimate goal is to see subvention directly opened up into the VA health care system.

The CHAIRMAN. That, too, is one of my goals and shared by many

members of this committee, and we will be doing a Medicare subvention bill. It has been Ways and Means Committee, and in the

past it has been a nonstarter on that committee, which has prime

jurisdiction over Medicare. But we have tried to make the case that
64

veterans are going to be getting their health care somewhere. Why

not within the VA with those dollars following that?

We even did a Part B bill last year that we will try to—my sense

of what we need to be doing on this committee, besides all the specific pieces of legislation, is to make the 108th Congress the year

when we found a sustainable adequate funding source for the VA

and stopped the nickel and diming, however well-intentioned. And

I assume good intentions on the part of everyone, especially on the

part of the appropriators, but they are in a competition for those

discretionary dollars. We have got to find spigots.

Mandatory is, in my view, the most likely to achieve the goal, but

the hurdles to get that enacted—because I have been engaged in

nonstop discussions with our leadership, with the appropriators,

and when you use the word—I am trying to find a word that is not

mandatory, because it seems to frighten people, and they just recoil, but it seems to me that we—you probably have had those conversations as well. We need to get there.

I want to promote a piece of legislation with the right formula,

and hopefully the Presidential Task Force will give us an additional push. Because to me that seems to be—and you might comment on this—an opportunity of a lifetime when you have got a

Presidential Task Force putting its imprimatur on a prescribed

course of action as to how we can fix this. Otherwise, we will be

back next Congress saying there has been a gross underfunding of

our veterans health care and other discretionary programs.

So, I mean, I am poised to go ahead and go all out, and there

are chance—I appreciated that statement you—serious political

capital is being expended here. Part of it I think is the lack of understanding of what the VA does and how it does it on a shoestring, so to speak, relatively speaking. So, you know, just a general statement, you might want to respond to it, but I do think that

we have an opportunity with the Presidential Task Force, second

to none, to finally give—to fire up this idea in whole or in part, and

I hope it is in whole.

Mr. GAYTAN. Mr. Chairman, if you don’t mind, the American Legion has been involved with the PTF since the beginning. Our national adjutant is the chair on that Task Force, and we have been

focusing specifically on the mandatory funding issue and trying to

convince the PTF of what you just said, educating them on exactly

what the VA does. That is the first step is educating them on exactly what the VA does and how the discretionary funding mechanism right now does not allow VA to meet those requirements.

That generates all the discussions in this room, all the bickering

that maybe occurs between different members and even the VSO

community.

We need to back up and reassess the entire package, and it

starts with the funding mechanism. That is why we, the American

Legion, have been promoting heavily the sense of mandatory funding and trying to anticipate the PTF’s support.

I also wanted to add to the VA+Choice issue. The American Legion, while we applauded any sentence that has VA and Medicare

reimbursement in it in a positive way, we backed up a little bit

with the VA+Choice program. Our concern is that with the access

standards that are mandatory with any Medicare reimbursement
65

program, be it through the VA or as it exists outside, there is a requirement for a 30-day window, and with the backlog, as you know,

exists, be it 200,000 or 300,000, whatever the numbers are, you

can’t argue it if it is over 200,000. If somebody says it is 300,000,

I don’t think that difference is huge. When there are 200,000 veterans—they are not numbers, they are veterans waiting to receive

health care nationwide and you are going to implement a program

that has a 30-day window access standard, the success of any program like that is dependent upon the elimination of the backlog.

Until we see the elimination of the backlog, I don’t think the discussion of the VA+Choice program is feasible.

Now I understand it is going to be phased in and it is going to

be regional. If that is the case, if you are going to phase it in and

it is going to be regional, Category 8 in Florida, if it is implemented

in Florida, it will be a +Choice program. A Category 8 in Florida

could receive health care—has to receive health care in that 30-day

window, whereas a Category 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 veteran in a State on the

West Coast is not guaranteed that same access standard.

So we are running into priority problems there, too.

While we welcome, like I said, anything with VA and Medicare

reimbursement in the same sentence, we want to explore that a little bit further, mention the fee-for-service option as it is outlined

in the GI Bill of Health for the American Legion, and we hope to

have some productive conversations with the VA on that program.

Mr. WEIDMAN. There are some problems, and Secretary Principi,

from when he first discussed the program, noted that there were

problems, predominantly with the backlog. But any Medicare reimbursement ought to come over to VA. It is not double-dipping, as

some people have claimed; and, in good faith, I think they just

don’t understand the issue here.

Instead of calling it mandatory funding—and I think, frankly, as

opposed to Medicare reimbursement, getting mandatory funding

through this year should be everybody’s top priority; and VVA, out

of our national conference last summer, we came out with two top

legislative priorities, essentially, 1A and 1B. Number one is mandatory funding for health care or funding that comes any way obligatory is the word I think that we are leaning towards starting to use

now, and the second is vastly increased accountability on the part

of the system beginning with the top managers all across the government, not just in VA, but VA is primarily what we are interested in.

The word obligatory comes from Vietnam Veterans of America.

We have two founding principles. Number one is that never again

shall one generation of American veterans abandon another generation of American veterans; and the second of those principles is

that we hold that there is a covenant—and we use that word advisably—a covenant between the American people and those who take

the step forward pledging life and limb in defense of the Constitution of the United States, not a particular government, not a particular policy, not a particular war or anything else, in defense of

the Constitution, which begins with ‘‘we, the people.’’

And that covenant is, you take the step forward and be prepared

to pay the price, and all too many have paid the price, some the

ultimate price, but where you have been harmed, where you have
66

been lessened by virtue of military service, it is the obligation of

the people of the United States to do everything humanly possible

to make you as whole again as possible, whether you have been

lessened physiologically, psychologically, neurologically, economically, emotionally or spiritually, I might add, although we generally

don’t talk about that, to help make folks whole again, both through

government primarily but also through the community. And if we

move into that, that—using the obligatory, in that sense, Mr.

Chairman, I think maybe people will start to understand a bit

more about why this is not just another mandatory program. It is

an obligatory program between the people and those who have

served and who are serving today.

The CHAIRMAN. Well put. Thank you. Mr. Renzi.

Mr. RENZI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Gaytan, I think you would agree that the record needs to

show that you are wearing your American flag, your lapel pin, in

distress. Is that what you would like to show?

Mr. GAYTAN. Unbeknownst to me, sir. I apologize for that.

Mr. RENZI. It was a message to me, and I want you to know that

I am very privileged to be a son of an American Legionaire. I

gained that privilege through the service of my father, Major General Gene Renzi. I left his care and security when he was a lieutenant colonel, but when I visit my veterans and when I see firsthand

and listen to the testimony that you brought here today, I am reminded very much of my moral obligation to fight tooth and nail

for you.

That said, I had the opportunity to visit with some of my veterans at a transitional home, veterans who are trying to move from

the streets back into normal life; and I noticed that there are some

veterans that will never leave transitional homes. They will be

forced out possibly because of the policies, but they benefit from the

camaraderie, from the team. And I would like to ask as we discuss

homeless veterans where we go with that knowledge that we now

have, that they are back with their unit, they are back with their

comrades, that their quality of life is better, they are happier in

that setting that they are in and how the system tends to move

them out and where we can—could you expand more, Mr.

Weidman?

Mr. WEIDMAN. Yes, I would be happy to, Mr. Renzi.

The obligation here for—towards VA, towards those veterans

who are never going to make it on the outside, we strongly believe

at VVA that it is to make a veteran as independent and fully function as possible. For those of working age, that is to get people to

the point where they can take on and sustain meaningful employment; and we believe all veterans programs should be measured

against that litmus test. Is it cost-efficient and effective, contributing to that final goal?

However, there are some folks who used to be on what they call

back wards at VA hospitals and at particular places like Perry

Point or Bath, New York, who even we knew were never going to

hit the street. They weren’t going to be able to make it without

that supportive setting, not just of the institution but of those other

individuals who shared that watershed life experience with them.

And VA has not provided for that.
67

There is no place in this Nation—they keep saying there is. We

keep saying, will you tell us so we can talk to them—where a veteran can be kept for longer than 105 days. No place. No place. And

so what happens is we bounce them out and then they hit the revolving door, they hit the street, they get picked up and then they

go back again. So that can be taken up much more efficiently and

we believe more effectively with permanent housing.

We believe that the transitional housing in a setting of a 2-year

limit now is an artificial one. It is not required by statute, number

one; and, number two, OMB’s proposal to move that from the mandatory funding side over to the discretionary side means that they

are planning to go after it. Why people would go after a homeless

veterans reintegration program—I mean, who the heck can be

against homeless veterans getting jobs and earning their own way?

And it is the most cost-efficient program at Labor.

But the key point here is that permanent housing is needed for

some veterans, and it may be that permanent group housing is

needed to help people sustain employment after they get it. And it

is smarter for us to do that, because we will have fulfilled the goal

of helping American veterans who have been injured by virtue of

service become taxpayers again; and if we are not doing that, then

something is wrong.

Mr. RENZI. Well said, sir. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman yields?

Mr. RENZI. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank my friend for yielding.

Earlier in the week or last week I met with Elaine Chao, the Secretary of Labor, and on the one hand thanked Labor, because they

I think are committed to the Homeless Veterans Reintegration Program. They asked for a million and a half more, and that is in the

budget. It will go up to 19.5 million from 18. But, let us not forget,

we authorized in the Homeless Veterans Assistance Act $50 million; and I asked her to do everything humanly possible and I

asked the Secretary of VA, Mr. Principi, to try and ratchet that

number up as much as possible. We have to do our part, but it is

hard when we get a budget figure that is at a certain level and the

expectation among the appropriators is, well, that is all they need

or spend or can absorb. So anything we can do to get that 19.5,

even though it is a very modest increase, we ask your help on

doing that as well.

Because I do think we have Secretary Chao’s ear; and her heart,

as she expressed in our meeting with Mr. Ryan and others on our

staff, seems to be very real. She wants to work to eradicate homelessness; and your piece of it, more than anything else, is job

training.

But thank you for bringing that up, because we have got to get

more funding for it.

Mr. WEIDMAN. May I, Mr. Chairman?

The HVRP, it has always puzzled me why people don’t go for it.

It is strictly accountable, it is performance-based, and you have to

deliver or you don’t get the dough again. I mean, I think that is

what some people at Labor and within the Employment and Training Administration and elsewhere don’t like about it. There is accountability built into it, and we get more people into jobs at less
68

cost per head than any other Labor program. Otherwise, they don’t

renew the contract.

Our view is that that is the kind of accountability that needs to

be built into all the Labor programs, number one; and, number

two, to not ratchet that number up in terms of contractors. The excuse given is they don’t have the organizational infrastructure

within the Department of Labor. Our view at VVA is to contract

with some service-connected disabled veteran-owned businesses

and they will help you do their job.

Incidentally, Labor is one of them that in the first three-quarters

of fiscal year 2002 had zero contracts with service-connected disabled veterans, zero, sir. So this would be a place where they could

start.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Weidman. Chairman Simmons.

Mr. SIMMONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, I guess from sessions last year and 2 years ago,

many homeless veterans suffer from post-traumatic stress syndrome, which research at Yale University and elsewhere has shown

is a physical condition, not a mental condition. The brain actually

changes in its chemistry and structure; and, consequently, you

have to address that physical change before you can place the

homeless vet in a home, because they won’t stay. That is the challenge of it. And I think, again, when we talk about research and

the research budget for the Veterans Administration, we have to

have those dollars to do this kind of research, because it is developing all the time.

That being said, I was interested in Mr. Gaytan’s comments or

in his submitted testimony. On page 6, he refers to, again, research

conducted by the VA. Towards the bottom he says, VHA’s fourth

mission is to support DOD during a national emergency. And the

issue of bioterrorism is raised. We have spent all day today talking

about the shortfalls that occur in the budget and the difficulties

that we encounter in administering programs in VA, and yet especially now, especially following Secretary Powell’s speech to the

UN, especially following September 11, we have to also be aware

that VHA has a responsibility for a bioterrorism attack on this

country and on its people.

I wonder if any of the witnesses would like to comment on where

they think the VA is on that topic.

Mr. WEIDMAN. Two comments, one if I may about the research.

We did not mention that in our testimony for good reason, because

we have still—they still are not requiring that a complete military

history—it should be for every veteran that comes to the VA, but

every veteran who is a participant in clinical trials under—funded

under R&D, or the Myricks—there were over a thousand studies

going at the VA facilities on schizophrenia of one sort or another,

and none of them is scientifically valid in our view because they

don’t ask anybody whether or not they were ever exposed to combat

and test whether there is post-traumatic stress disorder going on

at the same time as the schizophrenia and whether there is an impact. So when they test treatment methodology and pharmacological problems, they have ignored a major variable, that they

have not tested against the null factor, and that in our view doesn’t

pass anybody’s litmus test for being proper science.
69

That said—first thing on that. The second thing has to do with

the preparation for the fourth mission. As you no doubt have seen,

Mr. Chairman, the latest issue of the VVA veteran which focuses

on the fourth mission—and some things are good and some things

are not so good. It is our view that taking a military history and

exact locations and knowing what that means and training your

physicians what that means is now more important than ever with

the young people who are likely to come home from overseas. That

is one thing.

The second thing is there simply is not the organizational capacity to deal with any kind of major terrorist attack in this country.

The Secretary admitted that had, in fact, we had 5,000, 3,000,

whatever it is, casualties as the backup system, that the New York

Harbor VA system would have simply collapsed and the civilian

system imploded had there been that many casualties all at once.

And the last thing is that—I would hope that the committee can

ask questions as to why this is, is that there not only are not chemical warfare and biological warfare specialists on call and/or training the rest of the staff at each of the 168 medical centers around

the country, there are no plans to do it. This makes no sense to

us at all. You are going to have people coming in, and the doctors

are not trained to recognize what they are seeing, because these

are specialized treatments.

If this is going to be a veterans health care system, we have to

start being a veterans health care system and dealing with the special things that veterans were exposed to; and, please, God, it never

happen, our civilian population may be exposed to it. But we have

got to be ready, and we are not taking the steps to get there, sir.

Mr. SIMMONS. I thank you for that response; and I just lifted my

eyebrow to the Chairman, because it is a unique challenge that we

have that has not really been brought to the table, I think, in a

way that it should have been.

The CHAIRMAN. Can we yield very briefly?

Mr. SIMMONS. For all the time the Chairman wants.

The CHAIRMAN. We should have asked it earlier, but the Independent Budget did spend and devote some real quality time, beginning on page 1, with the fourth mission and pointed out that the

Secretary himself had said $250 million is needed within the VA

for that function, and he got zilch.

We passed last year the Medical Preparedness Act which would

authorize up to four, hopefully more, medical preparedness centers

to look at chemical, biological and radiological threats, at least one

each; and the appropriators in their original VA-HUD appropriations bill had a specific line item that said no funds will be spent

on implementing this bill, which I found absurd in the extreme at

a time when biological and chemical and radiological, but certainly

the first two, are an imminent threat.

We found—and I don’t want to belabor the point, because the

hearing has gone on long—but when anthrax hit Hamilton Township, New Jersey, as it hit Brentwood, I sat in on those meetings

and heard experts from the CDC and others, very knowledgable

people who didn’t have a clue, to some extent, who certainly didn’t

know whether or not cross-contamination took place, didn’t know

how much Cipro to give for how long, on and on and on, suggesting
70

to me that there was no protocol off the table that could be taken

and looked at to know what to do. And there are, what, 80 or so

different toxins and combinations that could be used, nerve gas,

sarin, smallpox and company, et al., whatever, that could be used

against us militarily as well as against civilians, and we have not

sweated the details in a Manhattan Project-like focus to come up

with what to do if it happens. That is irresponsible.

So these preparedness centers, coupled with, as Mr. Weidman

pointed out, experts who can be counted on—but the experts have

to know what it is they have to do, and I don’t think we have the

answers to that yet. And, hopefully, Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda

and Hezbollah and others don’t know that we don’t know, but I am

sure they do.

That comes down to a money issue as well, and my hope is we

have got to solve the adequate funding issue, but as to the fourth

mission, it is not being done the way it could be or should be, and

so I appreciate you raising that very important question.

Mr. SIMMONS. Would the Chairman yield?

I thank you for that, and I made the comment earlier that it

would be my hope that the Health Subcommittee could put together an agenda where many of our talented colleagues on both

sides of the aisle would have a chance to go after some of these

issues in a little more detail, and I suspect that we will. But I

think this has been an excellent hearing to illustrate some of the

problems that we face, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Any other questions or any other comments from

our panel?

Mr. GAYTAN. Just briefly, I want to mention that the American

Legion does think this is a very important issue. We included it in

this testimony, and our National Commander included it in his full

testimony in September. We have a team of VA&R employees who

make quality review visits, and the Commander himself has been

making facility visits. And this is one issue that he is focusing on,

is the facility’s ability to meet that fourth mission. The fourth mission is a reality. It is something the VA has to do. The funds not

being there is another reality. How do you accomplish the goal

without the funds being provided? This is one other obstacle that

we need to overcome to improve the VA.

One other issue I want to bring up really briefly is the fact that

VA hospitals have a lot of Guard and Reserve employees. And our

commander is also asking at each one of these facilities, how many

employees are in your facility who are Guard and Reserve members

who could be activated? We have numbers on each one of those facilities, and we are going to bring that information to the Chair in

the future, hopefully.

The CHAIRMAN. And I would just remind Mr. Gaytan that your

previous National Commander was here and ready to testify at 10

a.m. on 9/11 when we had to vacate the building because of the

possible threat to the Capitol. So, I mean, we appreciate that. I did

have a question I was going to ask about his visits, because we

could use the information.

Mr. GAYTAN. Yes, sir. My staff is working on this solely for the

next 2 weeks, and it will be to you as soon as possible.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you so much.
71

Mr. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I would just offer a brief comment.

We have been working very closely and participating with the Presidential Task Force on DOD/VA collaboration. As far as I know, in

attending almost every one of these meetings from the outset, this

has not been an interest area for DOD/VA collaboration. As you

know, there are certainly some funding firewalls between VA and

DOD on research of this kind, but certainly in terms of military

medical readiness, the benefit of the civilian population, there has

to be a way to find collaborative opportunities here between the VA

and the Department of the Defense on this very critical national

security issue and the security of individual American citizens.

The CHAIRMAN. Disappointing that it is not happening, but let us

work together to try to ensure that it does. Thank you. Mr.

Weidman.

Mr. WEIDMAN. Just two or three quick things, if I may, Mr.

Chair.

First is, this committee—due to this committee’s leadership, you

passed legislation several Congresses ago that would have required

VA to implement on their automated patient treatment record military history and move forward to do the kind of seamless transfer

of military records into the VA system that we are discussing now.

When they found out that the other body had weakened that in the

final law, they stopped doing anything towards implementing that.

If there is some way that we could revisit that either in appropriations language or in statute this year, that would be terrific.

The second think is in regard to—we talked about bonuses and

lack of accountability. It doesn’t mean it may not be happening

elsewhere, but Admiral Cooper is the only one that we know working with the regional office directors around the country where he

is demanding clear criteria and holding these people accountable,

so that this year, if somebody gets a bonus who is an RO director,

it is for the proper reasons and not just divvying up the spoils, if

you will.

Last but not least, people talked about the nursing shortage and

the need to replace the nursing force. We have suggested, V VA,

over and over and over again that we set up consolidated Federal

government recruiting centers, particularly with the VA, of OPM

and Ms. Kay Coles James—the Honorable Kay Coles James and

Secretary Principi and Secretary Chao and Assistant Secretary

Sarbanes at every place we separate young people from the military. It still doesn’t exist. And this would help us on veterans’ preference, this would help us on recruiting the best people who understand the population they are going to serve, et cetera.

And last but not least, as we move forward into more enhancement of A–76, we would urge the VA as the leadership by example,

the ones who should be practicing leadership by example, to forge

a plan to get the dismal results in terms of contracting with service

disabled veterans-owned businesses up to where it should be; and

now it is nowhere near where it should be.

I thank you so much for your leadership in all these issues, Mr.

Chair.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Weidman; and thank you, all of

you, for your testimony. I look forward to hearing from you again

as we go forward. The hearing is adjourned.
72

[Whereupon, at 2:04 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
(73)

A P P E N D I X
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195

WRITTEN COMMITTEE QUESTIONS AND THEIR RESPONSES

CHAIRMAN SMITH TO DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232

CONGRESSMAN SIMMONS TO DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
233
234
235
236

CONGRESSMAN EVANS TO DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257

CONGRESSMAN EVANS TO DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274

Æ