[House Hearing, 113 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 813; H.R. 806; AND A DRAFT DISCUSSION BILL
``TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS TO SUBMIT TO CONGRESS A FUTURE-YEARS VETERANS PROGRAM
AND A QUADRENNIAL VETERANS REVIEW, TO ESTABLISH IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS A CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES''
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, JULY 17, 2013
__________
Serial No. 113-30
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-246 WASHINGTON : 2014
____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
JEFF MILLER, Florida, Chairman
DOUG LAMBORN, Colorado MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine, Ranking
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida CORRINE BROWN, Florida
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee MARK TAKANO, California
BILL FLORES, Texas JULIA BROWNLEY, California
JEFF DENHAM, California DINA TITUS, Nevada
JON RUNYAN, New Jersey ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona
DAN BENISHEK, Michigan RAUL RUIZ, California
TIM HUELSKAMP, Kansas GLORIA NEGRETE MCLEOD, California
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota
PAUL COOK, California
JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana
Helen W. Tolar, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public
hearing records of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs are also
published in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the
official version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare
both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process
of converting between various electronic formats may introduce
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the
current publication process and should diminish as the process is
further refined.
C O N T E N T S
__________
July 17, 2013
Page
Legislative Hearing On H.R. 813; H.R. 806; And A Draft Discussion
Bill ``To Amend Title 38, United States Code, To Direct The
Secretary Of Veterans Affairs To Submit To Congress A Future-
Years Veterans Program And A Quadrennial Veterans Review, To
Establish In The Department Of Veterans Affairs A Chief
Strategy Officer, And For Other Purposes''..................... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Hon. Jeff Miller, Chairman,...................................... 1
Prepared Statement of Chairman Miller........................ 31
Hon. Michael Michaud, Ranking Minority Member.................... 3
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michaud........................... 32
Hon. Julia Brownley, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on
Health......................................................... 5
Hon. Jackie Walorski, Prepared Statement only.................... 33
WITNESSES
Robert D. Snyder, Acting Assistant Secretary for the Office of
Policy and Planning, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs....... 6
Prepared Statement of Mr. Snyder............................. 34
Accompanied by:
Ms. Helen Tierney, Executive in Charge for the Office of
Management and Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Duane C. Flemming, Director, Policy Analysis and
Forecasting, Office of the Assistant Deputy Under
Secretary for Health, Veterans Health Administration,
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Carl Blake, National Legislative Director, Paralyzed American
Veterans of America, on behalf of the Independent Budget co-
authors........................................................ 19
Prepared Statement of Mr. Blake.............................. 36
Accompanied by:
Mr. Adrian Atizado, Assistant National Legislative
Director, Disabled American Veterans
Joy Ilem, Deputy National Legislative Director, Disabled
American Veterans
Mr. Ray Kelley, Director, National Legislative Service,
Veterans of Foreign Wars
Ms. Diane Zumatto, National Legislative Director, AMVETS
Louis J. Celli, Jr., Director, National Legislative Division, The
American Legion................................................ 21
Prepared Statement of Mr. Celli, Jr.......................... 41
LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 813; H.R. 806; AND A DRAFT DISCUSSION BILL
``TO AMEND TITLE 38, UNITED STATES CODE, TO DIRECT THE SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS TO SUBMIT TO CONGRESS A FUTURE-YEARS VETERANS PROGRAM
AND A QUADRENNIAL VETERANS REVIEW, TO ESTABLISH IN THE DEPARTMENT OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS A CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES''
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:15 a.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Jeff Miller
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Miller, Roe, Runyan, Wenstrup,
Cook, Walorski, Michaud, Takano, Brownley, Kirkpatrick, Ruiz,
Kuster, O'Rourke, Walz.
OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MILLER
The Chairman. Good morning. Welcome to this morning's
legislative hearing.
We are going to hear testimony today on three particular
pieces of legislation. The first bill is an outstanding bill
that I introduced along with Ranking Member Mike Michaud. It is
H.R. 813, Putting Veterans Funding First Act of 2013; second,
806, a bill introduced by Ms. Brownley; and the third bill is a
bill I, again, have joined with the Ranking Member in
introducing, the Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Planning
Reform Act for 2013.
First let me focus my opening remarks on H.R. 813. As most
of my colleagues are aware, just over four years ago, we
started providing VA's medical care budget one year in advance.
And, of course, the reason behind the law that directed this
change in practice was pretty simple. A full year
appropriations bill for VA had been enacted on time in only
four of the prior 20 years.
According to VSOs and VA officials, delayed appropriations
inhibited the ability of program administrators to plan
effectively. So the hiring of doctors and nurses was being
delayed, medical equipment purchases were being put off, and
veterans experienced unacceptable wait times for medical
appointments due to rationing.
By providing the medical care budget in advance, no longer
would funding for VA's health system be held hostage to the
gridlock that we have grown accustomed to here in the Nation's
capitol.
I had hoped that things would improve in the intervening
years, but, unfortunately, not much has changed. We are still
lurching forward with stop-gap funding measures and periodic
threats of shutdowns of the government.
So when I introduced the Putting Veterans Funding First Act
earlier this year, all of government was operating under a CR
or a continuing resolution. It was not until March, nearly six
months into the fiscal year, when a full-year appropriation was
finally enacted.
So although VA health care was protected, the other 14
percent of VA's discretionary spending was being held in limbo,
things like VA's information technology systems, claims
processing, facility construction, medical research projects,
veterans' cemeteries. Full-year funding for all of these items
was in doubt until the very end.
Here we are yet again with a status of next year's
appropriation bills in the air. There is no agreed upon budget
framework. The House and the Senate are miles apart on our
appropriations measures and the Administration has even issued
a veto threat on the House passed funding bill for VA for
reasons that have nothing to do with the bill itself.
Once more, political calculations having nothing to do with
our veterans are putting our collective support for funding for
their benefits and services at risk. I think we would all agree
that our veterans deserve better than this.
So I listened carefully to the statements of support on the
floor for advanced appropriations during debate on the fiscal
year 2014 VA MilCon bill. Members from both parties spoke in
high praise, one touting, quote, ``Absolute peace of mind and
no worries,'' end quote, brought to veterans through the
advanced appropriations process.
I heard another hail it as a, quote, ``Platform for long-
term planning and investment,'' quote. And still another lauded
it as providing, quote, ``Timely and predictable resources,''
end quote. And I agree with those statements wholeheartedly.
They apply equally to the accounts that H.R. 813 seeks to fund
in advance.
Each of those areas requires advanced planning for
staffing, equipment or contract services, all of that is made
more difficult when there is no certainty of what the full year
funding level will be. So Putting Veterans Funding First would
end the uncertainty by ensuring VA has its full discretionary
appropriation well before its fiscal year begins.
And I am grateful for the support the bill has garnered
across a wide spectrum of veterans' organizations. It is
entirely consistent with the protections afforded to veterans'
funding in law that currently exists today. VA is exempt from
sequester and it receives 86 percent of its discretionary
funding already in advance. H.R. 813 just goes that extra mile.
So in the face of dysfunction that exists at both ends of
Pennsylvania Avenue, this is one area where we can continue to
get it right.
I want to thank my colleagues who have already supported
the bill. I would ask those who have not, to join us in truly
putting veterans' funding first.
And I want to recognize now my good friend and Ranking
Member from Maine, Mike Michaud, for his opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Miller appears in the
Appendix]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL MICHAUD
Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding
this very important hearing this morning.
The three measures before us looks at planning, funding,
and oversight. Individually, each measure is very beneficial,
but when we look at it together, they provide an analytic and
transparent framework for VA, Congress, and other stakeholders.
They ensure requested resources are sufficient to meet the
current and future needs of veterans. They also ensure that
these resources achieve the best outcome for veterans.
I want to thank the Chairman for bringing forward his bill,
H.R. 813. I believe that in order to extend advanced
appropriations for the remaining VA discretionary account, we
must have strong confidence that the underlying budget
projections are appropriate within a long-term context.
The context must include a forward-looking strategy with
goals and objectives and a five-year plan with expected
outcomes, milestones, and resources. There must be a greater
visibility for Congress into the assumptions, definitions, and
details then that provides the top-line appropriation accounts.
This information will ensure us that all VA's missions are
identified, planned, and executed. This will also give us
insight into any tradeoffs VA may make between resources and
outcomes and enable us to better oversee whether the VA is
meeting its stated goals with executed resources.
Before we budget and appropriate dollars, we must plan in
programs. This is a nutshell of my bill, the Department of
Veterans Affairs Budget Planning Reform Act of 2013. My bill
will codify VA planning, program, budgeting, and evaluation or
PPBE system. The PPBE is best practices currently used by
leading corporations, important segments of our Federal
Government as well.
For planning, it looks at the strategic level by means of a
quadrennial veterans' review, the QVR, that periodically
assesses the changing environment. The QVR ensures VA is in a
position to meet the evolving needs of our veterans.
For programming, it aligns resources and efforts with a
strategic direction by means of a five-year program. This lays
out the path and outcomes and resources to get there. The five-
year program looks beyond a single year's budget and next
year's forecast and forces the VA to accurately and fully
account for the taxpayers' dollars that is provided to the VA.
It would provide Congress a vital tool that we need to use to
assess the effectiveness of VA in meeting its responsibility.
The bill designates a chief strategy officer to ensure that
the planning and programming phases of the process receives
equal consideration with the budget and execution phases.
All these stages must be in place to create a mechanism
that will better ensure that the VA budget provides the
resources tailored to the missions of the department and that
the need for these resources is fully defensible.
The bill does not graft Department of Defense or Department
of Homeland Security policies on to the VA. This bill uses
these agencies as a model, but it is crafted to meet the unique
needs of veterans and the VA.
DoD is significantly larger than VA, has a different
mission and has over 50 years of experience operating under a
PPBE system. There is no expectation that the VA can or should
match what DoD does today. It is a principle of long-range
planning and programming that the VA should adopt, not the
8,500 DoD program elements or their resources intensive
approach.
My bill recognizes VA's current efforts and intended to
support these efforts while making sure Congress has access to
the information we need to do our job. For the last few years,
VA has experienced a period of budget growth and has been led
by a secretary who supports analytic and transparent budget
development, but we cannot expect these conditions to be
permanent.
We should use the opportunity we have today to build a
lasting framework to enable VA to meet its mission today and
tomorrow. Fiscal constraints must come and leadership will
transcend. We must prepare now for VA to meet the challenges,
codify a VA PPBE system in statutes to ensure continuance in
good times and during bad times.
I recognize that PPBE mechanism is a change in the way VA
has done financial management. Change is hard, but everyone
will be comfortable with this change. But change is necessary
if we are to position the VA to meet its responsibilities and
fulfill its mission in the coming years. Change is necessary if
we are to perform our responsibility as Congress.
My bill, and the bills before us today, acknowledges that
the status quo is no longer acceptable and this acknowledgment
requires that we take action.
So I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your help and
support with my bill and in having the Committee look at the
broader picture of VA budgeting and planning.
And with that, I yield back. And I would ask unanimous
consent that my full remarks be entered into the record.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Michaud appears in the
Appendix]
The Chairman. Without objection, all Members will have five
legislative days with which to revise and extend their remarks.
Ms. Brownley, I would like to recognize you to discuss your
bill, H.R. 806.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JULIA BROWNLEY
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Chairman Miller and Ranking Member
Michaud, for holding this important Full Veterans' Affairs
Committee legislative hearing today.
H.R. 806, the Veterans Healthcare Improvement Act, was the
very first bill that I introduced as a new Member of the 113th
Congress. I am grateful that the Full Committee is considering
this important legislation.
As Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Health, I believe
it is, as we all do, I believe it is vitally important to
ensure adequate funding for veterans' health care programs.
I am sure the Committee knows in 2006, 2007, and 2008, the
prior Administration's budget request for VA health care was
not sufficient to meet the needs of our veterans. The funding
shortfall in those years forced Congress to provide
supplemental appropriations to ensure the VA would have
sufficient funds to continue to provide basic health care
services to our Nation's veterans.
In 2009, Congress passed the Veterans Health Care Budget
Reform and Transparency Act which provided for advanced
appropriations for Veterans Health Administration programs. It
also ensured the accuracy of the Administration's advanced
budget request.
Congress also included a requirement for the GAO to review
the accuracy of the Administration's advanced budget
projections. Pursuant to this law, the GAO issued reports
reviewing the 2011 and 2012 advanced appropriations request for
veterans' health care. It is my understanding that the 2013
report will soon be issued.
The GAO report has helped Congress and this Committee to
evaluate the accuracy of the Administration's budget
projections. It also ensures the VA is functioning based off of
accurate information. And most importantly, this GAO review has
provided Congress with third-party neutral assurance that the
VA would not run out of money for veterans' health care.
Unfortunately, this GAO reporting requirement is scheduled
to sunset at the end of the calendar year. While the GAO
reviews have largely confirmed that the current Administration
is budgeting sufficient sums for veterans' health care, I am
concerned that without this review, future budget projections
could be inaccurate and risk our ability to adequately meet the
health needs of our men and women veterans.
We owe it to our current and future veterans to ensure the
VA never again runs low on resources to provide health care to
our veterans. They risked their lives to serve our country. Our
job is to ensure that we take care of them at home.
Allowing this GAO review to sunset puts veterans' health
care in jeopardy. We cannot take that risk. With the draw-down
of forces in Afghanistan, we will soon see a huge increase in
the number of veterans accessing VA health care. Now is not the
time to eliminate the GAO review.
That is why in February, I introduced H.R. 806, which makes
permanent the requirement for GAO to review the accuracy of
advanced appropriation requests for veterans' health care.
Passage of my bill will help Congress continue to evaluate
the accuracy of the budgeting process and most importantly
ensure our Nation's veterans receive vital health care
services.
I am profoundly grateful for the service and sacrifices
made by all of our Nation's veterans and their families. As
Members of this Committee, it is our duty to ensure veterans
always receive the benefits they need in a timely and efficient
manner.
Again, I would like to thank the chair and the Ranking
Member and the Members of this Committee for considering this
important legislation. I would also like to thank all of the
veteran service organizations here today who fight every day on
behalf of our Nation's veterans.
I look forward to discussing this legislation further and
happy to answer any questions. And I yield back the rest of my
time.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Ms. Brownley. I
appreciate the comments that you have made on H.R. 806.
I want to welcome our first panel to the table today. Mr.
Robert Snyder is the Acting Assistant Secretary for the Office
of Policy and Planning for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
He is joined by two individuals. Ms. Helen Tierney is with him
and Mr. Duane Flemming is with him as well.
Mr. Snyder, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT D. SNYDER
Mr. Snyder. Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Michaud,
distinguished Members of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, thank
you for your unwavering commitment to veterans and for this
opportunity to testify on three bills related to VA's strategic
planning, programming, and budgeting efforts.
In addition to the other two VA witnesses, let me also
acknowledge the veteran service organizations here today. Their
insights are always appreciated.
Mr. Chairman, I ask that my written statement be included
for the record.
The Chairman. Without objection.
Mr. Snyder. With the support of this Committee, we have
improved our planning and resource allocation processes, but we
know we can do better.
In regards to H.R. 813, Putting Veterans Funding First Act
of 2013, the bill would extend the authority for advanced
appropriations to all of VA's discretionary accounts effective
in 2016. Such a proposal needs to be considered by the
Administration as part of an across the government review of
the advantages and disadvantages, not only for VA, but
potentially for other departments and agencies.
Only in the context of a broad review could the
Administration offer an opinion on making such a change. We
cannot, therefore, offer a position on H.R. 813 at this time.
We very much appreciate the concern for veteran services
reflected in the proposal and look forward to working with the
Committee on how to best maintain the provision of benefits and
services in light of fiscal uncertainty.
In reference to H.R. 806, the bill would establish a
permanent requirement for an annual report by the comptroller
general on the department's medical budget submissions.
Congress established a temporary requirement in the Veterans
Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act.
VA does not support making these reports permanent. VA has
expanded the information presented in the budget justification
volumes each year in order to be more transparent and to
include additional information sought by Congress.
VA believes this information, as well as continuing
congressional oversight and engagement by GAO, will ensure the
transparency of VA's medical budget process.
In regards to the draft bill entitled Department of
Veterans Affairs Budget Planning Reform Act, VA greatly
appreciates the concepts in the bill as they have much in
common with current VA initiatives.
For instance, VA has initiated a planning, programming,
budgeting, and execution framework modeled after similar
efforts used in other Federal agencies.
The department has embarked on its own quadrennial
strategic planning process or QSPP, which we believe is
consistent with the aims of the bill to formalize the strategic
planning effort that will drive the five-year programming
process and the near-term budget development.
The final results of our first QSPP, a new VA strategic
plan for 2014 to 2020, will be published with the President's
2014 budget submission. We have already had productive
briefings on the development of that plan with your staff, and
will continue that dialogue as we finalize the plan.
VA's QSPP includes an environmental scanning and analysis
phase and has some of the same general goals as the Department
of Defense quadrennial defense review, although we believe an
attempt to replicate the scope of the QDR is not appropriate
for the VA.
The quadrennial veterans review proposal would also require
a broader role for VA in developing a national veteran
strategy. VA believes that its emerging work in futures
analysis has the same intent as the QVR proposal, but a
national veteran strategy would require broad analysis and
policy development that would go well beyond VA.
VA has also been working towards building a multi-year
programming capability. The secretary signed the future years
veterans' plan covering the fiscal years 2015 to 2019 on April
30th, 2013 to document the results of our first true
programming effort.
While we believe the intent of section 2 of the bill will
be met by our emerging PPBE process, we do have reservations
about a mandate to publish specific dollar and FTE projections
beyond the budget submission.
We look forward to working with the Committee to address
your oversight requirements in this process.
Section 3 of the draft bill would also require the
designation of a chief strategy officer. VA strongly supports
the bill's intent as these areas that are listed in the bill
are being performed by the Office of Policy and Planning.
However, VA is hesitant to codify those responsibilities in
statute because they may restrict our ability to tailor them as
required in the future.
Finally in regards to section 4, VA has conducted self-
evaluations and implemented numerous organizational changes in
the office of the secretary and throughout VA.
For example, organizations were established within my
office, the Office of Policy and Planning, to build the same
capabilities that this proposed legislation intends to codify.
VA recognizes there is always more to do, but believes our
existing planning processes are adequate to consider
organizational changes.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these three
important bills. We appreciate the Committee's attention to
these critical topics as we work together to better serve our
Nation's veterans.
Mr. Chairman, we look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Robert D. Snyder appears in the
Appendix]
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Snyder, for your
testimony. We appreciate you being here with us today.
You cited in your testimony a need for an across the board
government-wide review of the advantages and disadvantages of
advanced funding as outlined in Mr. Michaud's and my
legislation.
Needless to say, I am discouraged by that comment, and I
guess from a little historical perspective, I want to know,
what across the government review was done prior to the
advanced funding for VA medical care being enacted.
Mr. Snyder. Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar with what
research was done before that legislation was submitted. I
would be happy to take that and get that for the record.
The Chairman. Well, it was well over three-quarters of the
funding and it appears that there is an issue with the
Administration to go forward with the rest of those dollars.
And it is much smaller than what we are talking about today.
So I am trying to figure out 86 percent of VA's
discretionary budget is already advanced and now we are talking
about 14 percent. So why the push back on 14 percent?
Mr. Snyder. Well, Mr. Congressman, we certainly do
appreciate the congressional support for the VA's advanced
appropriations for medical care accounts. They have enabled
multi-year medical budget planning and have ensured
uninterrupted medical services for our veterans.
However, the proposal to expand VA appropriations to all of
our discretionary accounts does need to be considered by the
Administration for its impact, the precedent that it sets on
other agency departments.
The Chairman. But isn't the precedent, I mean, isn't that
already set? We have done that. I think we clearly say that
funding for veterans' programs is separate and, I mean, it is
protected from sequester.
There are unique differences between the funding at the
Department of Veterans Affairs and all other agencies within
the U.S. Government. And I am trying to figure out why the push
back on 14 percent.
Mr. Snyder. Again, Mr. Chairman, that is a----
The Chairman. Well, let me do this. Let me quote the
President at the bill signing. Quote, ``At this very moment,
the VA is operating without a budget, making it harder for VA
medical centers and clinics to deliver the care our vets need.
It is frustrating for VA employees and it is frustrating for
our veterans who pay the price when budgets are delayed. This
is inexcusable, it is unacceptable, and it is time for it to
stop,'' end quote.
So what about the sentiment the President expresses does
not hold true for the other accounts?
Mr. Snyder. Again, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this
Committee is eager to get a position on 813. But until the
Administration conducts this across the government review, we
cannot offer a position on it.
The Chairman. So today it is not inexcusable, it is not
unacceptable, or it is excusable and it is acceptable and we do
not have to stop the budgetary issue. I do not know.
I may be alone in what I am trying to figure out, but, you
know, we took a huge swing at advanced funding for VA. And all
of a sudden we are trying to protect this 14 percent.
It is frustrating when there is no full-year budget to
manage the claims processing system, a system that we have all
talked about, the massive delays that exist within that system,
the veteran cemetery system, you know, the information
technology systems as we move forward.
And just to hear, we have got to do a government-wide
review of the impacts to look at the precedent which has
already been set.
But with that, Mr. Michaud, you are recognized.
Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank the panelists for being here today.
You had mentioned that the current strategic planning is--
you have adopted some other, I assume, the Department of
Defense type model, but specifically as it relates to the VA,
you have modified that proposal.
My question is, are you, when you talk about PPBE, how are
your current PPBE efforts being received across VA and within
VA leadership?
Mr. Snyder. Thank you, Congressman, for the opportunity to
comment on that.
In fact, we actually looked at DoD, DHS, NASA, and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for examples of
models that we could look at. But as you mentioned, we do have
to modify it to meet VA's needs, requirements, mission, and
culture. And that is where we are working.
We feel that we have matured the process. We have done one
programming cycle, meaningful programming cycle. We feel it is
demonstrating the value to internal stakeholders of the
department and we believe that those stakeholders are bought in
so that their momentum and support for PPBE will transcend this
Administration.
Mr. Michaud. You said you believe they are bought in. Are
they widely and actively embracing the PPBE?
Mr. Snyder. Yes, Congressman, they are. In fact, the
reviews of our fiscal year 2015 budget proposal were based upon
the programming decision memorandum that the secretary signed
in April.
Mr. Michaud. Okay.
Mr. Snyder. So that has been reinforced.
Mr. Michaud. To follow-up on Chairman Miller's comment on,
in your testimony, you indicated that an across the board
review, the advantages and disadvantages of advanced
appropriation.
Who within the Administration is looking at that across the
board review?
Mr. Snyder. Mr. Congressman, I appreciate that you are
anxious to get our position on this. I would like to take that
request for the record and get back to you.
Mr. Michaud. So is the short answer no one is looking at
it?
Mr. Snyder. Sir, the short answer is I do not know----
Mr. Michaud. Okay.
Mr. Snyder. --and need to get back to you on the record.
Mr. Michaud. Because if I remember correctly, the President
actually supported mandatory funding during the campaign. And
he made it clear that it would be in his budget when he
presented it to Congress which he did not. It was because of
the VSOs that we actually were able to get the advanced
appropriation for VHA.
So it is consistent with what he said he wanted to do, so
that is why I am kind of curious on who in the Administration
is, you know, taking this review, if it is really being
reviewed at all, which I, quite frankly, doubt that anyone in
the Administration is doing that.
The other question that I have when you look at the, you
know, the new framework and codifying some of the stuff that
you are currently doing now, whether it is PPBE efforts or
other areas, administrations change and if you look at what is
happening over at VA recently with a lot of people resigning
and retiring over at the department, my big concern is the fact
that, you know, it is not going to be consistent.
And as Members of Congress, you look at the Department of
Veterans Administration, the second largest Federal agency in
the Federal Government, and we have got to have something, I
think, in writing as we deal with VA's budget that will give us
the information that we need so we can analyze whether or not
the VA is going in the right direction, number one, as well as
whether or not we can look long term to make sure that our
veterans are getting the appropriate services that they need.
And so, that is why I am kind of a little concerned that
you do not want to codify it in statute, so when it should be,
actually you should be embracing that because you are not going
to be there, you know, for the duration of VA and the needs for
our veterans.
And so, I would like you to elaborate a little bit more why
you are kind of hesitant to codify this into statute because it
looks like you are doing some of it right now anyway, but you
are not going to be there forever.
Mr. Snyder. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify our
position.
We certainly appreciate the Committee's intent behind this
proposed legislation and your support for PPBE. Before
codifying in statute, we just feel like we should do our jobs
and codify in directive, internal directive, followed up by
implementing guidance in a handbook.
And before we could do that, we had to mature the process
to a point that we could codify that. We have gone through
enough now that we think we can write that directive and we
think we need one more cycle of the programming effort before
we can codify the implementing instructions in handbook.
Again, we do think these efforts will transcend and have
the buy-in to continue beyond the current Administration. It is
not that we do not want to codify. We would like to codify
ourselves before it is put in statute.
Mr. Michaud. Okay. Thank you.
I see my time has run out, but can you do it within three
years, yes or no?
Mr. Snyder. Yes.
Mr. Michaud. Okay. Thank you.
The Chairman. Mr. Snyder, you're accompanied by Ms.
Tierney.
Ms. Tierney, you're the Executive in Charge for the Office
of Management and Chief Financial Officer. Would you be the
person doing the government-wide review or would you be
involved in it in one way or another?
Ms. Tierney. Sir, I would participate in it, but this is
the Office of Management and Budget will be doing the review.
The Chairman. And how would you participate?
Ms. Tierney. I would advocate the VA position.
The Chairman. And that position is what?
Ms. Tierney. I am not able to comment on that at this time.
The Chairman. And again, now you just said, Mr. Snyder,
that you couldn't have a position until you did a government-
wide review.
Ms. Tierney, you just said your job was to advocate VA's
position. If you--how can you advocate a position you don't
have until after the review is done?
Ms. Tierney. Thank you, Chairman.
When the review starts, I anticipate that VA will be
involved in that review.
The Chairman. And you will be advocating VA's position?
Ms. Tierney. Sir, yes, that is what I would do for VA,
absolutely.
The Chairman. And so VA will have a position before the
review is complete?
Ms. Tierney. Chairman, I believe that is correct, yes.
The Chairman. Okay.
Mr. Runyan?
Mr. Runyan. Thank you, Chairman.
I just want to not even ask a question, but give you a
real-life scenario that I've experienced personally in my own
district dealing with specifically the portion of the budget
that is not advanced appropriated. I had an opportunity, a
little over a year ago, to go to one of my CBOCs in the
district, and going through the tour, empty room sitting there,
had all been done, ready to take on a new X-ray machine which
was already paid for and ready to be delivered, but the fact
that the IT budget wasn't advanced appropriated, they were
waiting on the wire to be ran down the wall to hook the X-ray
machine to the computer.
We talk about access to care and we are arguing whether we
are going to advance appropriate 14 percent of the budget and
you're holding up the ability for us to see seniors--see
veterans and take care of them.
I just wanted to point that out to kind of validate the
Chairman's--the Chairman's position on this, and with that,
I'll yield back.
The Chairman. Ms. Brownley?
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just--and thank you, Mr. Snyder.
I wanted to sort of follow-up on your testimony vis-a-vis
the VAO reporting and your statement about it--you don't
support that it be permanent.
Is there any aspect of the legislation that could be
changed to garner your support on this particular legislation?
Mr. Snyder. Thank you, Congresswoman.
I think I'll defer to Mr. Flemming to respond to that.
Mr. Flemming. Thank you, Congressman--woman for that
question.
We believe that the engagements that we have had
historically with GAO have been productive and beneficial to
VA, and we think that we benefit most when the reviews are of a
focused nature.
Ms. Brownley. Okay. And so you're saying that you would
prefer to look at different issues within the report, is that
what you're saying?
Mr. Flemming. Congresswoman, I would say that----
Ms. Brownley. I mean the question was how would you--is
there any way that you would change it that would garner your
support?
Mr. Flemming. The reviews have--the temporary engagement of
GAO with these reviews have been beneficial for VA. They have
improved the transparency of the VA budget to include
additional information that hadn't been included in our budget
submissions and we continue to look forward to working with GAO
on the--increasing the transparency of our budget submission.
Ms. Brownley. And would you agree that in the past reports,
correcting false assumptions in the calculations was beneficial
to veterans' health care?
Mr. Flemming. Congresswoman, I would say that the--as in
the-- noted in the GAO reports, that medical care budgeting is
as recognized by GAO as inherently complex from the long lead
time that is required to develop our budget, and the budget
reflects the best assumptions at the time we make that first
budget.
And through the iterative process, we have the opportunity
to revisit those assumptions and with more recent experience,
we are able to further refine and improve our budget estimates.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you.
Would you agree that with the draw down of forces in
Afghanistan and we are going to have many more veterans
returning, many more veterans returning with more medical
issues probably in the history of our country, that some of
those assumptions may change and the accuracy of those
assumptions are very, very important in terms of anticipating a
much greater number of veterans returning. I mean, I strongly
believe that in some sense we are going to be tested about how
well we serve our returning veterans coming back from
Afghanistan with so many medical issues.
Do you believe that that accuracy is important?
Mr. Flemming. Thank you, Congresswoman.
That is an excellent question, and, yes, I would say that
we also agree that the assumptions regarding the different
characteristics of the various cohorts of veterans whom we
serve are very important, and we constantly seek to understand
the characteristics of the returning combat veterans so that we
can best prepare to deliver the services that they so need.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Dr. Roe?
Mr. Roe. Thank you, Chairman, for yielding.
If I look around the room, there were five of us in this
room: Mrs. Kirkpatrick, Sergeant Major Walz, myself, Mr.
Michaud, Mr. Miller. We are here for the advanced props debate
that we first started when, I guess, Chairman Filner and
Ranking Member Buyer were sitting in those chairs over there,
and I had to be convinced because all of my political
background as a mayor and so forth had been on a yearly budget.
I think it's been wildly successful. I talked to my local
VA people at home and they loved the advanced appropriations,
knowing what their budget is going to be for two years. And I
was hoping that the VA would set the example and model for the
whole government. I really think we ought to--many states do a
bi-annual budget now--Texas is one that comes to mind--and it
stops all of this silliness we do every--it seems like every
other day here.
We started the budget, again, in the fall and I think the
VA--I can't imagine why you wouldn't embrace that. I can see no
logic for your reason to oppose what the Chairman just talked
about. I truly don't. When something's working, the VSOs wanted
it and it turns out that they were absolutely right, it has
worked very well. So that come September 30, a VA doesn't know
whether they can hire a nurse and they know they can now.
As Jon talked about, I mean how silly is that not having a
wire ready because of a budget hiccup? So I would like to know
why you wouldn't. I haven't heard a reason yet to just--with
all of the positives that we know that have happened--and we
had this debate, I recall it very well, right in this room and
we went through on this advanced appropriation--so I'll turn
the floor over to you.
Mr. Snyder. Well, Mr. Congressman, thank you.
Let me clarify, we are not stating that we are opposed to
the bill. We are stating that we do not have a position today
on the bill. And, again, this is--we do not have a position
until we can--the Administration can complete this across-the-
government review. The implications that this kind of multi-
year appropriations would have on the rest of the government,
besides VA. So, again, we are not stating that we oppose the
bill.
Mr. Roe. Let me make sure that I understood what you just
said.
You're not for it or you're not against it?
Mr. Snyder. We are not taking a position today, sir.
Mr. Roe. Okay. And the reason you're not taking a position
when you know that 86 percent of it works just fine is because
of what?
Mr. Snyder. The Administration needing to do an across-the-
government review, what those implications mean to other
programs and other agencies besides the VA.
Mr. Roe. And when will that be due? When will we have that
information? Will it be in my fourth or my fifth term? And I am
in my third term now.
Mr. Snyder. Sir, I know this Committee is very eager to get
our position, but I am not in a position to comment on--to
speculate on when that timeline might be done for the review.
Mr. Roe. So it may be infinity? We don't know when it will
be?
Mr. Snyder. Sir, I do not know.
Mr. Roe. I yield back.
The Chairman. Mrs. Kirkpatrick?
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Snyder, as Dr. Roe mentioned, I was on the Committee in
2009 when we authorized the advanced appropriations and it was
supposed to be a paradigm shift for the VA. And please keep in
mind that every Member of the Committee wants the VA to operate
as efficiently and as effectively as possible because that is
what our veterans deserve.
And so you're here today to tell us that you can't tell us
the advantages or disadvantages of the advanced appropriation
paradigm shift; is that correct?
Mr. Snyder. Congresswoman, let me affirm that we also want
to work as efficiently and effectively as possible, and we
can't comment on the impacts that the multi-year appropriations
has had on our medical care accounts. I can defer to Mr.
Flemming or Ms. Tierney and they can comment.
Helen, did you want to comment on the effects of the multi-
year appropriations?
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Excuse me, we--we realize that, but it's
that other--that 14 percent that the Chairman talked about that
you're not willing to go forward on, and it is puzzling.
And so I just want to know, are you not seeing improvements
in that area?
Mr. Snyder. We have seen improvements.
We are very appreciative of the multi-year appropriations
that we have for our medical accounts. It does enhance our
ability to plan for our medical budgets. It does ensure
uninterrupted services for our medical accounts. But we cannot
take a position on the extending of those authorizations or
appropriations to our other discretionary accounts at this
time.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Until you do the government-wide review.
And whose decision was that, that there had to be a
government-wide review before the VA could take a position?
Mr. Snyder. That is the Administration's position, ma'am.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. The VA Administration--the Presidential--
I mean--who--what do you mean by the Administration?
Mr. Snyder. I really can't get into the internal decision-
making, but we are--have been required to take a broad view, a
government-wide view of what the implications are on these
changes for the government at large.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Well, maybe you can answer this for me,
what exactly do you mean by a government-wide review? Does that
mean every--every governmental agency in this country has to
report? I mean what exactly does that mean?
Mr. Snyder. The Federal Government. The Federal agencies
and departments will be involved in this review.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Can you tell the Committee which ones?
Mr. Snyder. Ma'am, that is really beyond my scope of
expertise and responsibility. I will be happy to take that
question for the record.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Well, it is a little frustrating, Mr.
Snyder, and please excuse my frustration, but I thought the
whole point is that we are able to serve our veterans, and as
Dr. Roe said, how long do we have to wait for this?
But let--let me just condense it in terms of the VA. Has
the VA started its review, because I am assuming that the VA is
going to have to report to OMB as part of this government-wide
review.
Suppose agencies haven't even started this process. How
long is this going to take?
Let me just condense the two, what is the VA doing in terms
of their piece of this review?
Mr. Snyder. Congresswoman, until this larger Administration
review is done, I cannot comment.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. I am sorry, Mr. Snyder, but aren't you
part of the larger Administrative review?
Mr. Snyder. We will be.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Okay.
Mr. Chairman, I am frustrated, so I guess I'll--let me ask
one other question.
In terms of your--your strategic planning and--and
programming, you said that you modeled that after other
agencies. Can you tell us what agencies you used to model that?
Mr. Snyder. We took lessons learned from other agencies--I
wouldn't say that we modeled it--we took the lessons learned
from various agencies including DoD, DHS, NASA, and others, but
we really got to modify this to fit the VA. And we found that
this is more of a change management or a culture change, as
opposed to a technical solution.
So we've taken lessons learned, pieces from various
agencies--I think they do well and don't do well--but we are
really trying to adopt something that works in our environment
and the three Administrations that we support.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Well, to end on a positive note, I
commend you for that.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. I think for the Committee's knowledge, this--
this bill that everybody seems to be focusing on right now, in
addition to the other two pieces of legislation, it was filed
in February.
The Senate--there is a Senate companion that's out there
and VA testified before the Senate two months ago on the bill,
and so I think what's frustrating to all of us is that we are
still having witnesses come to us and tell us there is no
position.
To further expound, we are talking about a, you know,
roughly, $150-plus billion dollar budget. This bill deals with
about $8 billion dollars and for some reason, there is a hang-
up and we are going to find out what it is from these witnesses
or somebody.
I can't for the life of me figure out why they would not
want to jump at the opportunity to expand on what has already
been described by many here and many veteran service
organizations and the Department probably itself, has been
widely successful that we did the two-year advanced
appropriations.
So I am--I am just as frustrated, Mrs. Kirkpatrick, as you
are, but we will continue to prod and ask questions.
Mr. O'Rourke?
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I appreciate your convening this hearing and the work
that you and the Ranking Member have done, especially your
bringing these issues to our attention and I fully support H.R.
813. It makes a lot of sense.
I have the sense that you support it, too. I mean the
logical conclusion of some of the things that you have said
about the 86 percent of the VA's budget that is working so well
would lead me to believe that you think this would be a good
thing for the rest of the VA, the remaining 14 percent, but
that you are prevented from saying so, unfortunately, by the
Administration.
So, I want to--I want to--we clearly have your unclear
statements on 813 that you can't take a position.
On 806, you are supportive?
Mr. Snyder. No, sir.
The VA does not believe that those provisions need to be
made permanent in statute.
Mr. O'Rourke. And the VA Budget Planning Reform Act, the
draft bill, you said you agreed with the intent and the goal,
but had some problems with some of the means and methods. Are
there any improvements to that, that you could recommend that
would lead you to be supportive of it?
Mr. Snyder. Again, the main issue with the proposed bill is
that we think many of those provisions need to be codified by
directive and internal documentation, and another--at least one
more cycle of PPBE conducted within the Department before we
try to codify things in statute.
PPBE within the VA and the various processes are at various
places in maturity and we think we need to level that out and
get more maturity in all phases before that is documented in
statute.
Mr. O'Rourke. And then for you or for Ms. Tierney, to
follow up on Mr. Runyan's anecdote about the facility that has
everything except for the cabling or fiber that needs to be run
to connect it, how--how do you resolve that disconnect right
now in the VA when you have the advanced appropriations for so
much of what VA needs and you're dependent upon something in
that other 14 percent that is not there right now?
How--how widespread are the problems that Mr. Runyan
highlighted with his--with his anecdote and how do you resolve
them?
Ms. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Congressman.
There are, indeed, sometimes disconnects with having
advanced appropriation and having other parts of the
organization under a CR. When the budget is eventually passed,
we are able to do the new work. We are able to do--continue
doing the same work that we did the year before under a
continuing resolution, but it does make for some disconnects.
Mr. O'Rourke. And the last thing that I'd say is I've only
been here for a little over six months and I have found this
Committee to work in a very bipartisan fashion, in a very
supportive fashion of the VA, and I think we all--all of us
want to get to the same place and deliver the best quality care
and service to the veterans who served this country.
And I know that you do and I think you know that our
Committee does, and so I think we all want to work
cooperatively, but it is obviously very frustrating and very
difficult when we can't get a clear response on an effort made
by the Chairman in this Committee to improve your ability to
deliver those services to the veterans. So, hopefully, we can
rectify that soon and I want to continue to work cooperatively,
but this is, as you've heard from everyone, a very frustrating
experience, so, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. O'Rourke.
And I also would like to clarify the record. My comment
about eight billion over ten, it's actually eight billion for
one year.
Mr. Walz?
Mr. Walz. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member.
Thank you all for being here.
Advanced appropriations was a cause of mine for many years.
I am proud of the work that we did on it and I think Dr. Roe
was right; there was some skepticism here because the charge
leveled was government on autopilot and we wanted to be
concerned that that wasn't the case and we wanted to make sure
that we got it right.
I guess my frustration, like I stated--there is drama here
today that doesn't need to be drama. That is very frustrating
and I am trying to get at it and I understand the constraints
you're under from the Administration's position.
If you could take back anything, they don't need drama in
this. We are with you. We are there. We are getting this. We
want to help.
If there are concerns about this final 14 percent--and Mr.
Runyan's case is exactly right and I've heard that from other
medical facilities--having the two disconnected is just plain
stupid and it should be in here, one way or another.
So, I get it that you're not going to be able to tell us. I
get it that you're going to say that, but we've got 1,300
Federal and State programs helping veterans. We've got 40,000
non-profits in this country. It makes sense to have a rational
coordinated plan to use our resources wisely to deliver care
for veterans; that is all we are trying to get at.
So I won't ask where, I know that you're not going to be
able to answer, but if you could take back a message. There is
no need for drama in the service of veterans, help us figure
this one out.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Walz.
Mr. Runyan, did you have any other questions?
Mr. Michaud?
Mr. Michaud. Just one.
So, run us through the process, Mr. Snyder. When you come
before our Congress, you have to submit your testimony to OMB;
is that correct?
Mr. Snyder. That is correct, Mr. Congressman.
Mr. Michaud. Does OMB have to approve your testimony? Mr.
Snyder. They do.
Mr. Michaud. And if they don't, do you have to modify it to
their liking?
Mr. Snyder. That is correct.
Mr. Michaud. Okay. Mr. Chairman, it might be worthwhile
maybe in September, to haul OMB in here and see how they are
coming along with their big vision, how they want the
government to look at this advanced appropriation, because I am
sure by September they will have a lot of progress.
And maybe we ought to get the timeframe when they started
it and where they want it to move forward, because I think Tim
Walz, Congressman Walz is absolutely right. Why OMB does not
want this is just amazing since it is a small portion of VA
budget, and if this truly is a top priority of the President,
the First Lady, then I don't know why OMB is taking a contrary
position of what they are at least saying publicly about
supporting veterans.
So, hopefully the Administration will get on the same page,
and whoever it is over at OMB that wanted the testimony to be
changed, if it was, in fact, changed, I think we ought to find
out and see where they are coming with this whole process.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Members, any other questions?
To the witnesses, thank you so much for being here with us
today.
Some of us probably will have some questions that we want
to submit to you as a follow-up. We would appreciate a timely
response. You may or may not be aware this Committee now has a
site on its Web site, posted ``trials and transparency.'' It
specifically deals with the almost 100 requests that we now
have from this Committee forwarded to the Department of
Veterans Affairs that we have yet to get an answer for.
And, again, I think a timely response is within 30 days.
So, expect if we don't get a response that you will join your
cadre of friends at the central office as stars of ``trials and
transparency.''
Thank you. You are excused.
And as they are moving, if we could ask the second panel to
come forward.
Mr. Chairman. Okay. Thank you to our second panel of
witnesses. And I am going to run through this rapidly, but I
want to thank you for being here today and on behalf of the
Independent Budget co-authors, we are going to hear from Carl
Blake with the national--the National Legislative Director of
the Paralyzed American Veterans--Veterans of America. Mr. Blake
is accompanied by Adrian Atizado, the Assistant National
Legislative Director at DAV; Ray Kelley, the Director of
National Legislative Service for Veterans of Foreign Wars; and
Diane M. Zumatto, the National Legislative Director of AMVETS.
We are also going to hear from Mr. Louis Celli, the Director of
the National Legislative Division of The American Legion. With
that, again, I say thank you very much for being here.
Mr. Blake, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENTS OF CARL BLAKE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR,
PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA, ACCOMPANIED BY ADRIAN ATIZADO,
DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS; JOY ILEM, DEPUTY NATIONAL
LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS; RAY KELLEY,
DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN
WARS; DIANE M. ZUMATTO, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, AMVETS;
LOUIS J. CELLI, JR., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIVISION OF
THE AMERICAN LEGION.
STATEMENT OF CARL BLAKE
Mr. Blake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I begin, Mr. Michaud, I would like to say if you get
OMB on a panel here in front of you in September, we would
really like to sit on the dais with you because I am sure we
have as many questions as you do.
On behalf of the co-authors of the Independent Budget,
AMVETS, DAV, PVA, and VFW, I would like to thank you for the
opportunity to be here to testify today.
First, let me express our sincere thanks to you, Mr.
Chairman and to Ranking Member Michaud, for taking the lead on
this issue of funding for VA and introducing H.R. 813. It
certainly makes sense.
We've seen the benefits that have been reaped by the
Veterans Health Administration by being removed from political
bickering and partisan fights that have basically hamstrung the
ability to do the work of the Federal Government or of the
Congress.
As such, the Independent Budget wholeheartedly endorses
H.R. 813 and we are committed to work with you and with the
Senate to see this through to final enactment.
Similarly, we would like to thank Ms. Brownley for
introducing H.R. 806, that would make permanent GAO reporting a
requirement. This legislation actually reflects an explicit
recommendation included in the Independent Budget for fiscal
year 2014 and as such, we wholeheartedly endorse that as well.
With regards to the draft bill, the Department of Veterans
Affairs Budget reform--planning Reform Act of 2013, I would
like to thank you, Mr. Michaud, for placing an added emphasis
on the need for meaningful strategic planning with the VA;
however, at this time, the IB has no formal position on
legislation and we do have some concerns that we outline in
greater detail.
First, we are not yet certain that a strategic planning
framework designed specifically for the Department of Defense,
the QDR, and similarly, for the Department of Homeland Security
and the QHS--or QHR, I am sorry--would be appropriate for the
VA. I think the VA sort of outlined that concern as well.
There are obviously fundamental differences between the
missions of the Department of Defense and the VA and also
between DHS and VA. They raised concerns about whether VA
should be required to use the same planning structures and
methods designed specifically to evaluate DoD's future roles in
missions. And while worldwide threats and missions associated
with those threats are always evolving, requiring constant
review and re-evaluation by DoD and DHS, the fundamental roles
and missions of the VA and veterans' policy in general rarely,
if ever, need to shift so quickly or dramatically based on
external events or influences.
And while Presidential elections may often lead to large
swings in national security policy, our Nation's longstanding
commitment to veterans has remained clear and steadfast for 150
years.
Second, it's not clear whether the creation of a future
year veterans' program will lead to either more transparent or
more accurate budgets or appropriations. Although the QDR and
the QHR are readily available online, it does not appear that
the FHDP or FHSP--HSP are similarly available, calling into
question the transparency that might be produced by this
legislation.
In fact, the VA just testified and included in their
testimony that they had submitted this year their first FYVP.
Where is it? Has the Committee seen it? I know we haven't seen
it, so there is already a concern about transparency and doing
a future year veterans' program.
I know the intent of the legislation, I think, is to
overcome that hurdle and if we can be convinced that that were
to be the case, then that would certainly move us towards the
area of support for the legislation, but we still stand with no
position at this point.
Similarly, there are significant unanswered questions
concerning the role of the Office of Management and Budget,
which we've already hashed out in the previous panel. Since the
draft bill requires that the Administration's budget be
consistent with the FYVP budget estimates, would OMB have a
direct or indirect ability to revise or constrain the budget
and appropriations levels contained in the FYVP?
In setting out policy guidance to the individual program
offices, the secretary is required to inform them of resource
levels projected to be available as they make their budget
estimates.
Would these levels come directly or indirectly from OMB? We
already know that on some level that is what happens, but I'm
not sure that this process would necessarily draw that out even
further.
Until these questions and the ones that are included in our
written statement are better addressed and satisfactorily
answered, we will withhold our support for the legislation.
That being said, Mr. Michaud and Mr. Miller, we certainly
appreciate the extreme amount of time that your staffs have
spent with us over the last couple of weeks in hashing out this
legislation in particular, and helping us get a better
understanding of the long-term intent of the legislation. And
we feel confident that if we continue to work together, we can
come to a final agreement that would probably lead us in the
direction of some level of support, but we would still like to
get some better answers to our questions.
That being said, I'd be--we would be happy to answer any
questions that you might have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Carl Blake appears in the
Appendix]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Blake.
Mr. Celli, you are recognized for five minutes.
STATEMENT OF LOUIS J. CELLI, JR.
Mr. Celli. Thank you.
America's veterans deserve sufficient, timely, and
predictable funding for VA programs. We would certainly like to
echo the Chairman's opening comments when he described how the
entire country has watched the budget squabbles and territorial
land fighting of Congress over the last several years.
We are proud to say that this Committee has steadfastly
risen above the fray and maintained a bipartisan spirit of
cooperation between the veterans--with the veterans--with
veterans' programs still suffering from the specter of
government shutdowns, sequestration and a bitterly divided
budget landscape that has led to stopgap continuing resolutions
in the place and passage of real budget legislation.
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Michaud, and distinguished
Members of this Committee, on behalf of Commander Koutz and the
2.4 million members of The American Legion, I thank you and
your colleagues for the work that you do, and especially your
bipartisan dedication for getting it right, for the American
veterans and their families.
My remarks this morning reflect the overview of The
American Legion's full statement for the record, which is
provided as part of our witness testimony. When Congress passed
the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act in
2009, the intent was quite clear, ensure sufficient, timely and
predictable funding to care for those who have worn the
Nation's uniform. The key improvements was the authorization of
Congress to approve investments in medical care for veterans
one year in advance to allow VA to more effectively plan for
the future and ensure veterans would get the quality care that
they have earned. And The American Legion, together with our
VSO partners, aggressively worked with Congress to make this
happen.
Over the past couple of years, The American Legion has come
to recognize how important it has been for VA to be included in
advanced appropriations and certainly sees the wisdom of this
Committee to include the remaining VA accounts in this process.
We also want to be clear about one thing. The advanced
appropriation does not insulate VA or veterans from the total
effects of sequestrations as commonly thought. Future VA budget
authorizations are still subject to budget caps in accordance
with the Budget Control Act, which could reduce the assistance
that we are able to provide our veterans and disabled veteran
population.
So The American Legion strongly supports the passage of
H.R. 813, as it takes yet another important step toward
protecting the promise this country has made to our Nation's
veterans, to care for those who have borne the battle.
While The American Legion is unable to take a formal
position regarding the draft legislation, the Department of
Veteran Affairs Budget Planning Reform Act of 2013, because the
proposal is too new for us to have had the opportunity to
evaluate it through our commission process, and, therefore, do
not have a resolution that speaks to this initiative.
I'd like to touch on a couple of the provisions that we've
highlighted in our testimony and that will be the main topic of
our discussion among our voting members. The American Legion is
a conservative organization, fiscally conservative
organization, that firmly believes in a strong planning
process. We think that the fundamental reason that this
legislation was introduced is sound. That much we support.
When VSOs hear a proposal for yet another commission, I
have to be honest with you, we groan. Because we work day in
and day out with your Committee staff members and commissions
always seem to seek to pull in folks that aren't in the daily
process of working with you and we wonder where do we fit in.
So those are one of the concerns that we have. And we just want
to make sure that we are not developing yet, another paper
tiger, as we've discussed with your staff. So these are some of
the things that our members are going to be discussing.
I want to thank you for inviting The American Legion to
share our thoughts on these positions and these important
pieces of legislation. We definitely look forward to working
together, and we, too, are very frustrated with the VA's
position of not being able to support advance appropriation.
And if we look back at history, we will see that the first time
advanced appropriation was discussed in this chamber, VA also
took no position, yet they seemed to really enjoy the benefits
of that today.
With that, I yield back the remainder of my time. Thank
you.
[The prepared statement of Louis J. Cell, Jr. appears in
the Appendix]
The Chairman. Thank you very much for your testimony.
I'll give myself five minutes for questions.
And if I recall, the President, actually in the '08
election, he ran on advanced appropriation. So there, very
clearly was a position being taken by this current
Administration--albeit he was a candidate at that time-but I
don't remember near the hesitation and most of you at the table
were here during that time.
Does anybody remember the kind of hesitation that we heard
from the first panel? Anybody?
Mr. Blake. Maybe from a Member of Congress, but certainly
not from the Administration.
The Chairman. Mr. Blake, you may recall that when the
original advanced appropriation bill made its way through the
Congress, that both the IT and medical research accounts were
included in the House-passed version of the legislation. Your
testimony regarding these two accounts reaffirms that position.
Explain to us why these two accounts, in particular,
compliment the existing medical care accounts.
Mr. Blake. Well, I think Mr. Runyan clearly sort of laid
out the importance of IT and its role as it relates to health
care, particularly with the way that VA delivers state-of-the-
art health care with its electronic health record and
everything now. And absent, some of the structures in place as
new health care services come online, obviously that could be
negatively impacted on the IT side.
On the research side, you have a lot of overlap where
providers are also researchers and a lot of the work, there is
a lot of crossover, and so you can have an impact on their
daily activities based on the fact that while--while they
deliver care, in some settings they also do research.
So I think--I think, honestly, and we are all on record, I
think, as saying that it makes no sense for all of VA not to be
an advanced appropriated--if they could just get it out of the
political wrangling that is going on every single day here on
the Hill.
The Chairman. If anybody--but, again, Mr. Celli, Mr. Blake,
you can comment from a facility standpoint. I think a strong
argument can be made that with advanced funding of construction
projects, better planning could occur and contracts could be
awarded in a timely fashion with the potential result of being
on time, being on budget, and I think that would be a welcome
change in--in this process, but what are your thoughts on the
construction side?
Mr. Kelley. It could absolutely be very helpful. I don't
know if it's going to make them on time or under budget or on
budget; it would be setting them in the right direction,
though. There is continual overlap. There are layers of these
construction projects that can get delayed because of budget
stops. It's very important for construction to be advanced
appropriated.
Mr. Celli. Now, I would also like to add that the VA saw
fit to try to project what the rest of the Federal Government
was going to do with regard to advanced appropriations, but
with regard to them being able to establish contracts and work
with the small business community in an economic climate that
is just now trying to get back on its feet, the impact that the
VA has when it comes to contracting, especially through
construction, there are billions of dollars that filter into
our communities, and if those dollars can't be counted on by
small businesses that are in the business of working to supply
the government with their needs, then they can't count on
keeping their businesses viable and prosperous either.
So the advanced appropriations gives the VA the opportunity
to be able to plan for these projects, to be able to tell the
contractors that we are going to start a particular project on
a date that we've agreed on and then get them paid in a timely
manner.
The Chairman. Let me read you just a real quick portion of
the President's signing statement.
``The new medical equipment that isn't purchased. The
construction of new facilities and clinics that isn't started.
The new programs for medical care that are delayed.'' So even
the President, I think, in his signing statement--albeit, the
construction side did not apply--I think he is agreeing that
that is a good thing, that we would advance and move in that
direction.
Mr. Michaud?
Mr. Michaud. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
In my closing--opening statement, I mentioned change is
hard and not everyone will be comfortable with the changes, I
know, in the draft legislation, and I think there is also some
misconception about it.
Mr. Celli, you mentioned we will need another commission.
It's not a commission. It's--and I am glad that The American
Legion is looking at fiscal matters because that is what the
whole idea behind this is, is to force VA, Members of Congress,
the VSOs, to look forward, to plan ahead, so that we will not
be wasting money and that is the whole idea, but it's not a
commission.
You also mentioned, Mr. Celli, the concern about the VSOs
and what role they play. Actually, this legislation is very
clear. VSOs will--are called out specifically for their
participation in this process, but it's not only the VSOs and
it shouldn't be only the VSOs as it relates to this process. So
I know that change is hard.
Mr. Blake, you had mentioned in your opening statement
about DoD. The legislation does not require the DoD process for
VA. And as you heard, the VA actually does a similar process--
it's not the model that DoD and DHS has--but it follows some of
the areas that they're focused on, that long-term planning that
has to happen. So it doesn't require them, and it shouldn't
require them, to follow the DoD, the DHS process.
You had mentioned also, Mr. Blake, when you look at future
year program for other departments that are available for
Congress, both DoD and DHS are classified and that information
is not public. So the whole idea behind this is to force VA,
Congress, and veterans' organizations, and other groups to look
forward in their long-term planning.
And I know that change is hard, and I would encourage each
of you to look at what the actual bill, draft bill, does; not
what you anticipated that it might do, because it is something
that hasn't been done before. It's a new approach as it relates
to the Department of Veterans Administration. But the
Department of Veterans Administration, it's the second largest
Federal agency and we got to do a better job in making sure
what finite resources that we have to spend to provide the
services for our veterans and their families, that that
planning is in place and that hasn't been done before.
Unfortunately, we have been dealing with crisis mode after
crisis mode, whether it's dealing with the Veterans Health
Administration, now dealing with the veterans' benefit side, as
far as the backlog, and the whole purpose of this legislation
is to codify some of the stuff that VA is currently doing, but
also to look at that long-term prospective of how we are going
to take care of our veterans and their families long-term, and
it really focuses on thinking outside the box, and that is what
it's all about.
So I would encourage each of you to really look at it, to
work with our staffs as we move forward in this regard, and to
think long-term, as far as where we are going to go to help
support those who wore the uniform protecting this great Nation
of ours.
Now, I know that the realm of budgeting might not be a sexy
topic because we just look at the bottom line, whether they got
the money or not, but we do have to do a much better job in
moving forward in this regard and provide the services that we
need for our veterans.
And just hearing the two testimonies earlier, there is some
misconception about what it does, and what you both said as far
as the commission or DoD process is not actually what the bill
does and that is why I encourage you to continue to work with
our staff so that we can move forward.
And I appreciate all that your individual organizations are
doing to hold the VA accountable, as well as Congress
accountable. I look forward to working with you as we move
forward with the Chairman's legislation, with the advanced
appropriation for all VA because I think it's absolutely the
right way to go, and I feel confident that my colleagues will
agree so also.
As far as OMB, I can't wait to see what they have to do,
and I agree with Mr. Blake, if we do have OMB in here, I
suggest we might want to put them under oath as well so we--so
we can hold them accountable for what they are saying before
this Committee.
So with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my
time.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Dr. Roe, with your indulgence, I would like to recognize
Dr. Wenstrup.
Oh, Dr. Roe?
Mr. Roe. I thank the Chairman, and thank you all for being
here.
And I think the last paragraph of the testimony here from
Mr. Blake, I think pretty much says it all. We believe that our
Nation has no higher obligation than to ensure that the men and
women who have served in our Armed Forces receive all the
benefits and services owed to them in a timely manner. This
legislation will help guarantee that promise is kept. I think
that is all that needs to be said.
And I appreciate, first of all, all of your service, and
then the support that you've given. I think--as I said just a
minute ago, I think that the VSOs that pushed for this, and
four years, ago, I guess, when we had this debate in this very
room, I think it's been a resounding success. Everything that
I've heard at home from our local VA Medical Centers has been
very positive, and I can't imagine why we wouldn't--and Mr.
Michaud has said this and the Chairman has said this, why we
wouldn't just do this.
And I told the secretary, I said I want you to be sure that
this works. I remember having the conversation with him because
I think this can be a model for the entire Federal Government.
It's so big now, why don't we do a lot of advanced props over
two years and then take the second year we are here and fine
tune these things and get it right, instead of having to go
through the same process again and come 30 September, you have
to shut something down because we haven't done our job here.
And think about all this CR and all this nonsense that
we've done, the one shining part of the budget's been the VA
because it hasn't been affected. The money's been appropriated
and ready.
So I don't have any questions. I will certainly yield to
you all, if you want to comment about it, but I appreciate your
testimony and your support for this--for now four years that
I've been here.
The Chairman. Ms. Brownley?
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just wanted to take the opportunity because I haven't
stated so far how much I support your bill today, H.R. 813, and
that is why I am a co-author of the bill. And I certainly
believe it's the right thing for us to do at this moment in
time.
And of course I am focusing a little bit on H.R. 806
because I want to get the bill right and would love to work
with you on that to make that happen, and I think it can be an
important compliment to the direction of H.R. 813.
So, having said that, I will continue to question around
H.R. 806 which leads me to ask a question to Mr. Blake.
And Mr. Blake, I appreciate your testimony and support of
H.R. 806, and I was just wondering if you could expand a little
bit on your testimony and just inform us a little bit about why
the PVA supports making the GAO review permanent.
Mr. Blake. Thank you, Ms. Brownley for that question.
First, it's not just PVA. The Independent Budget, as a
larger entity of the four organizations endorses the
legislation. As I mentioned earlier, it's a specific
recommendation in this year's Independent Budget. You know, I
think we've seen--I can make an argument that we wish GAO would
go even a little farther in their reporting when they've done
their reports on the advanced appropriations.
But every year that they've provided a report, they've
clearly identified where there were deficiencies that existed.
The most glaring has been in non-recurring maintenance which
seems like a small and unsexy thing, but it has a direct
upwards connection to medical care because it's still in the
medical facilities portion and it drives a lot of the larger
funding assumptions and plans for VA, and then, ultimately, it
has an impact on construction and things like that.
So GAO has dug in and found some things and brought to
light issues that the VA--that we would probably never seen
otherwise, or we might have questioned without any real solid
evidence, so they provided us with an opportunity, and we
believe--it seemed like to me, the VA said--and I know it's in
their testimony--that they have had benefit from having an
interaction with GAO and this reporting requirement.
So if they reap the benefit from it, I'm not sure that
there is a downside to continuing to do it. But apparently,
they have--they reaped the benefit, but they don't want to do
it anymore, at least that is the way their statement seemed to
suggest. But from our perspective, it's certainly something
that should be continued.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you.
And Mr. Celli, in your testimony I--I'm not sure that you
stated it, but I think in your written testimony you noted that
The American Legion has really no official position on H.R.
806.
And so I am just curious to know, has the Legion reviewed
the GAO reports and did the Legion find the reports useful in
the past?
Mr. Celli. Thank you, Congresswoman Brownley.
And we have reviewed the GAO reports. We do find them to be
a benefit, and the reason that we weren't able to take a
position at the time is because this is such a new piece of
legislation that we haven't had a chance to put it before our
commission to get a resolution. As a resolutions-based
organization, we carry forth the will of our membership, as do
you with your constituents. I can tell you that, again, as a
predominately, fiscally conservative organization, we like good
things. The GAO report is a good thing. VA being required to
look ahead to spend their money in a prudent manner, to be able
to plan for good programs is a good thing. The American Legion
is always going to support that.
When it comes to officially supporting the bill, we need to
run it through our commission, get a resolution on it, which we
have our annual meeting coming up in the end of August and I am
sure at that time, a lot of the bills, that we weren't able to
take positions on formally will then be codified and we will be
able to tell you one way or the other where we are going to
come down on that.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, sir.
And I yield back the balance of my time.
The Chairman. Mrs. Kirkpatrick?
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My question is really--I want to hear from each member of
the panel, and I thank you for being here today and thank you
for your service and commitment to our veterans.
Regarding the VA's current budget submissions, do you feel
that there is sufficient detail for you to adequately represent
your memberships? And let's start here on the right-hand side
and then just go over to the left. I would just like to hear,
specifically, to--to whatever groups that you are serving.
Ms. Zumatto. Thank you for the question--sorry--I am not
sure that I quite understand what it is that you're looking
for, however.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Do you feel that the current budget
submissions by the VA has adequate detail or would you
recommend that there be additional items of detail put into the
current budget submissions?
Ms. Zumatto. I would say that budget is not my area of
expertise as far as the Independent Budget body is concerned,
but just from my point of view, it does seem that we are
provided with quite a bit of information. I don't know, you
know, what is not being included, per se.
So, at this point, I would just say that, you know, we get
quite a bit of information and we--we appreciate that, and we
just follow every--you know, everything that is happening. We
know what the issues are and we hope that, you know, that the
budget is going to be able to meet the needs of our veterans.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Mr. Celli?
Mr. Celli. Thank you.
And that is an excellent question because the budget is so
massive that I don't think that there is any single
organization, nonprofit organization, veterans' service
organization, that can fully analyze the complete budget. So
what we do is, we end up looking at those portions of the
budget that apply to the programs that we are intimately
involved in.
With respect to that, there is always going to be a level
of detail that we are going to want to ask more questions on
and we've been pretty successful in working directly with the
program offices of the Department of Veterans Affairs to get
the answers we are looking for with regard to their budget
requirements and what it is that they plan to pay for with
those dollars.
Some of the other stuff like construction, I'll let my
colleagues address.
With regard to VDA, with regard to, you know, looking at
specific line items, it really--you know, it's a difficult and
long process which is why, you know, we have hearings on it.
And then we not only look at the VA's budget, then we look at
the proposed budget from each of the chambers. It takes us
quite a bit of time.
So, is there enough detail? You know, yes and no; it really
depends on the line item.
Are there enough hours in the day, you know, to dedicate
solely to looking at the budget? Definitely not.
But overall, to answer your question, we could always use
more detail. More detail and more commitment on behalf of the
budget is always a good thing.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Mr. Blake, you changed my question just
slightly, and I mean it sounds like, yeah, you could use more
detail.
Do you feel like you have a timely response from the VA
when you request more detail on the budget? That is really what
I am trying to get to.
Mr. Blake. That is a wholly different question there. I
thought you were going to ask us first if we thought it was
sufficient in the first place.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Well, please, you can answer that first--
--
Mr. Blake. I was--answer that question.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. Answer that first, but then I'd like to
know if you requested additional detail, yeah.
Mr. Blake. To your question, you know, usually when our
questions get answered, it's in the budget briefings when they
first release it, and we sort of cobble together questions and
then we just spread out over time continuing questions. I can
say that as part of this hearing and this is sort of a bow to
Mr. Michaud's intent, if they are doing long-term planning,
that is something that we would like to see for certain. They
said they are doing it, it's in their testimony, and that was
the first I had heard--I am aware that that is what they are
doing, but I would like to know more detail.
I actually have a little bit of fear because in their
testimony, they also said that they don't want to be mandated
to provide certain types of information. I can see why they
might feel that way because one of our concerns that we outline
in our testimony is that kind of information leading to
benchmarks that don't allow for the proper evaluation in coming
years as part of long-term planning.
So, if there is a--I would say to your question, yes, they
are pretty responsive, for the most part, when we have an issue
that we need to have addressed.
Mrs. Kirkpatrick. But as I understand your answer, you'd
like more detail about the planning?
Okay. My time is expired, Mr. Kelley, so you're off the
hook, and I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Kelley, you're welcome to respond.
Mr. Kelley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think we could probably get better explanation. I think
they give us a pretty good outline, but there are times we will
ask specific--I'll use construction as an example. I'll just
use round numbers. We will appropriate a billion dollars for a
new project, but 100 million of that will be towards that
project. The other 900 million will be paying old projects.
And I need--I--I would like to understand that process a
little bit better. I can't get an answer of how that money is
shifted and shuffled around. So, that--that specifically, sure,
we could use that information to make better decisions, better
long-term planning from that.
The Chairman. Mr. Walz?
Mr. Walz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all for
being here.
As I said earlier, I know they couldn't answer us and I
hear from you guys.
And I think, Carl, you brought up a great point that we
need to be careful about setting the benchmarks that goes back
that are unrealistic in getting this right, but I still feel
like the lack of transparency here makes it harder for you to
do your job of caring for veterans. And so if we push this to
get those answers, anything you can do to make that happen, I
would be grateful for it, too.
So, I believe in this. I believed it the first time around.
I believe it's the right thing to do again, and we--we can
continue to improve upon that process to make sure we don't get
that, you know, budgeting on autopilot without concerns for
changing situations.
So, I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Members, any other--oh, I am sorry. You're--you're hidden
over there.
Mr. O'Rourke, I am sure that you have questions.
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you.
Really, I just actually wanted to afford Mr. Atizado the
opportunity if he wanted to add anything to what the other VSO
representatives have said in response to these questions on how
we improve, both our strategic planning process and the merit
of these three bills here.
Mr. Atizado. Thank you, Congressman.
First of all, under the overarching idea in our testimony
about wanting more transparency and obviously more data, is
really required of us as an organization to determine whether
VA is, in fact, meeting a couple of things: meeting the
veterans' needs, meeting the promises they have made, and
making sure that the money is being spent most efficiently. So,
all these three bills kind of tend toward--tilt towards that
end.
And I just want to reiterate what Carl had mentioned. I
think, Mr. Michaud, you and the rest of the Committee, have
picked up is we--is that we do want to work towards that goal
and we think it's a worthy goal.
To your question, ma'am, about whether there is enough
information, I--I would--I would say this. I don't know if I
would want any more information than what VA provides in its
budget submission, simply because that straddles between
reality, policy, and politics. And I think when we dive into
actual programs and the delivery of services is where the
questions come up as far as the actual data and the limitations
of that data in describing how VA is going to achieve its
purpose.
And I think that is--I think I've said enough, but thank
you.
The Chairman. I appreciate your--your answer to that, and I
want to thank all of the VSO representatives for the work that
you do and the organizations that you represent.
And I also want to note and thank the representatives from
the VA who stayed around to--to listen to your testimony. And
they obviously couldn't say a lot during their panel, but the
fact that they are here to listen as well, I think is important
and significant, so I want to thank them.
And Mr. Chairman, thank you.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. O'Rourke.
As previously stated, all Members will have five
legislative days with which to revise and extend their remarks
and add any extraneous material that they think is necessary.
We do appreciate both panels of witnesses.
Thank you, VA, for staying with us through the second
panel, we appreciate it.
And once again, everybody, to the Members, thanks for being
here.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:47 a.m. the hearing of the Committee was
adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jeff Miller, Chairman
Good morning. Welcome to this morning's legislative hearing. Today
we will receive testimony on three bills. The first is a bill I
introduced along with Ranking Member Michaud, H.R. 813, the ``Putting
Veterans Funding First Act of 2013.'' The second, H.R. 806, is a bill
introduced by Ms. Brownley. And the third is a bill I, again, have
joined the Ranking Member in introducing, the ``Department of Veterans
Affairs Budget Planning Reform Act of 2013.'' I will now focus my
opening remarks on H.R. 813.
As my colleagues are aware, just over 4 years ago, Congress started
providing VA's medical care budget one year in advance. The reason
behind the law that directed this change in practice was simple: a
full-year appropriations bill for VA had been enacted on time in only 4
of the prior 20 years.
According to veterans' organizations and VA officials, delayed
appropriations inhibited the ability of program administrators to plan
effectively. Thus, the hiring of doctors and nurses was delayed,
medical equipment purchases were put off, and veterans experienced
unacceptable wait times for medical appointments due to rationing. By
providing the medical care budget in advance, no longer would funding
for VA's health system be held hostage to Washington gridlock.
I had hoped that things would improve in the intervening years, but
unfortunately not much has changed. We're still lurching forward with
stop-gap funding measures and periodic threats of government shut
downs.
When I introduced the Putting Veterans Funding First Act earlier
this year all of government was operating under a Continuing
Resolution. It wasn't until March, nearly six months into the fiscal
year, when a full year appropriation was finally enacted. So although
VA health care was protected, the other 14 percent of VA discretionary
spending was held in limbo. VA information technology systems, claims
processing, facility construction, medical research projects, veterans'
cemeteries . . . full-year funding for all of these items was in doubt
till the very end.
Well, here we are, yet again, with the status of next year's
appropriations bills up in the air. There is no agreed-upon budget
framework. The House and the Senate are miles apart on appropriations
measures. And the Administration has even issued a veto threat on the
House-passed funding bill for VA for reasons that have nothing to do
with the bill itself. Once more, political calculations having nothing
to do with veterans are putting our collective support for funding of
their benefits and services at risk.
Veterans deserve better from us. I listened carefully to the
statements of support on the floor for advance appropriations during
debate on the FY2014 VA-Milcon bill. Members of both parties spoke with
high praise, with one touting the (quote) ``absolute peace of mind and
no worries'' (end quote) brought to veterans through advance
appropriations. I heard another hail it as a (quote) ``platform for
long-term planning and investment in critical programs,'' (end quote).
And still another lauded it as providing (quote) ``timely and
predictable resources,'' (end quote).
I agree wholeheartedly. But couldn't these same statements be
applied to funding VA's information technology program, the backbone of
the health care system? Or VA's disability claims processing system,
which is trying to surface from a crushing backlog? Or medical facility
construction? Or how about the Nation's veterans' cemeteries? Each area
requires advance planning for staffing, equipment, or contract services
. . . all of that is made more difficult when there is no certainty of
what the full-year funding level will be. The Putting Veterans Funding
First Act would end the uncertainty by ensuring VA has its full
discretionary appropriation well before the fiscal year begins.
I am grateful for the support the bill has garnered across a wide
spectrum of veterans' organizations. I believe H.R. 813 is entirely
consistent with the protections afforded veterans funding in law today.
VA is exempt from sequester, and it receives 86 percent of its
discretionary funding already in advance. H.R. 813 just goes that extra
mile.
In the face of dysfunction that exists at both ends of Pennsylvania
Avenue, this is one area where we can continue to get it right. I thank
my colleagues who have already supported the bill, and ask those who
haven't to join us in truly Putting Veterans' Funding First.
I now recognize the Ranking Member for his statement.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael Michaud
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important legislative
hearing this morning. The three measures before us look at planning,
funding and oversight. Individually, each measure is beneficial.
But when looked at together, they provide an analytic and
transparent framework for VA, Congress and other stakeholders. They
ensure requested resources are sufficient to meet the current and
future needs of veterans. They also ensure that these resources achieve
the best outcomes for veterans.
I want to thank the Chairman for bringing forward his bill, H.R.
813. H.R. 813 would extend the advance appropriations mechanism to the
VA's remaining discretionary accounts. Advance appropriations can
provide fiscal stability during uncertain times.
Advance appropriations also provides VA, Congress, and other
stakeholders with a view of longer-term resource requirements. I
believe that in order to extend advance appropriations for the
remaining VA discretionary accounts, we must have strong confidence
that the underlying budget projections are appropriate within a longer-
term context.
That context must include a forward-looking strategy with goals and
objectives, and a five-year program with expected outcomes, milestones
and resources.
There must be greater visibility for Congress into the assumptions,
definitions, and details than that provided by top-line appropriation
accounts. This information will assure us that all VA's missions are
identified, planned, and executed.
This will also give us insight into any trade-offs VA may make
between resources and outcomes, and enable us to better oversee whether
the VA is meeting its stated goals with executed resources.
Before we budget and appropriate dollars, we must plan and program.
This, in a nutshell, is my bill, the ``Department of Veterans Affairs
Budget Planning Reform Act of 2013.''
Let me explain what this bill does, what it does not do, and why I
believe this is one of the most important bills we will consider as a
Committee.
Let me use an example we can all relate to. When we look to
purchase a house we consider many factors. We consider the purchase
price, we look at all the items that go into determining what our
overall cost will be, from taxes to utilities to maintenance, and so
on.
We gather as much information as we can to assess whether this
investment will be a good one in the years ahead. We look at the
quality of the local schools, the prevalence of crime, and the long-
term trends in our economy that might have an impact on what our house
is worth in the future.
I believe the VA should go through a similar process with regard to
its capabilities to carry out its mission.
My bill would codify a VA planning, programming, budgeting and
evaluation, or PPBE, system. PPBE is a ``best-practice'' currently used
by leading corporations and important segments of our Federal
government.
For planning, it looks at the strategic level by means of a
Quadrennial Veterans Review (QVR) that periodically assesses the
changing environment. The QVR ensures VA is positioned to meet the
evolving needs of veterans.
For programming, it aligns resources and efforts with the strategic
direction by means of a five-year program. This lays out the path, in
outcomes and resources, to get there. The five-year program looks
beyond a single year's budget, and next year's forecast, and forces the
VA to accurately and fully account for the taxpayer dollars provided to
it.
It would provide Congress a vital tool we can use to be assured of
the effectiveness of VA in meeting its responsibilities.
The bill designates a Chief Strategy Officer to ensure that the
planning and programming phases of the process receive equal
consideration with the budget and execution phases.
All these stages must be in place to create a mechanism that will
better ensure that the VA budget provides the resources tailored to the
missions of the Department and that the need for these resources is
fully defensible.
This bill does not graft Department of Defense or Department of
Homeland Security policies onto the VA. This bill uses these agencies
as models but is crafted to meet the unique needs of veterans and the
VA. DoD is significantly larger than VA, has a different mission, and
has over 50 years of experience operating under a PPBE system.
There is no expectation that the VA can, or should, match what the
DoD does today. It is the principles of long-range planning and
programming that VA should adopt, not the 8,500 DoD Program Elements or
their resource intensive approach.
My bill recognizes VA's current efforts, and is intended to support
these efforts while making sure Congress has access to the information
we need to do our job. For the last few years, VA has experienced a
period of budget growth and has been led by a Secretary who supports
analytic and transparent budget development. But we cannot expect these
conditions to be permanent.
We should use the opportunity we have today to build a lasting
framework to enable VA to meet its mission today, and tomorrow. Fiscal
constraints may come, and leadership will transition. We must prepare
now for VA to meet these challenges. Codifying a VA PPBE system in
statute ensures its continuance in good times, and bad.
I am committed to moving forward with this bill. I stand ready to
work with my colleagues on this Committee, and in this Congress, to see
that the very best bill we can produce is enacted. I stand ready to
work with veterans' groups and others as we move forward.
I recognize that a PPBE mechanism is a change in the way VA has
done financial management.
Change is hard. Not everyone will be comfortable with this change.
But change is necessary if we are to position the VA to meet its
responsibilities, and fulfill its mission, in the coming years. Change
is necessary if we are to perform our responsibilities as Congress. My
bill, and the bills before us today, acknowledge that the status quo is
no longer acceptable. This acknowledgement requires that we take
action.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your help and support in with my bill,
and in having the Committee look at the broader picture of VA budgeting
and planning.
I look forward to working with you, the Members of the Committee,
and our veterans, to make sure that VA's financial management process
is not the result of budgeting-by-crisis.
VA needs a financial system that is equal to the task of running
the second-largest Federal agency. This system must also be capable of
meeting the needs of veterans - not only today, but into the future.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
Prepared Statement of Hon. Jackie Walorski
Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, it's an honor to serve on this
Committee.
Thank you for holding this legislative hearing.
Today's hearing is an important opportunity for this Committee, the
VA, and respective veteran organizations to have a frank and open
discussion on strengthening legislative proposals that will have a
significant impact on the services available to the approximately
22,000,000 \1\ veterans in this country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The official Veteran population projection as of September 30,
2011 is 22,676,149 Veterans. http://www.va.gov/vetdata/docs/
SpecialReports/Profile--of--Veterans--2011.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The work of veteran service organizations cannot go unnoticed.
Because of their tireless efforts to find the best care for those who
served and protected the freedoms we cherish, failures that need to be
rectified have been unveiled and opportunities that can be seized upon
have arisen both within Congress and, subsequently, the VA.
The legislation debated today will ultimately ensure funding for
critical veteran services is never delayed due to partisan posturing.
I am proud of this Committee's ability to work together in order to
fulfill our commitment to see the veterans of this country receive the
benefits they have earned.
I look forward to working with my colleagues and our panelists on
this legislation before us.
Thank you.
Prepared Statement of Robert D. Snyder
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Michaud, and Distinguished Members
of the Committee:
Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on three
proposed bills in the area of Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
budgeting and strategic planning. Accompanying me are Helen Tierney,
Executive in Charge for the Office of Management and Chief Financial
Officer, Department of Veterans Affairs and Duane C. Flemming, PMP,
Director, Policy Analysis and Forecasting, Veterans Health
Administration.
The first bill, H.R. 813 would include all VA discretionary
accounts in the advanced appropriation process established in 2009 by
Public Law 111-81, the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and
Transparency Act. The second bill, H.R. 806 would make permanent
special GAO budget review provisions established in that law on a
temporary basis. The third bill, in the form of a draft, has numerous
provisions regarding requirements for supplemental budget submissions
and a ``Future-Years Veterans Program'' report, a quadrennial review,
reviews of VA's organizational structure, as well as prescribing
elements for VA's strategic planning.
On October 22, 2009, President Obama signed into law the Veterans
Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act (Public Law 111-81) into
law. This law allows Veterans' medical care to be funded a year in
advance, and it means that VA is able to receive timely, sufficient,
and predictable medical care funding from year to year. For our
Veterans, this means better access to the medical care we provide at
our 151 hospitals, 827 community-based outpatient clinics, 300 Vet
Centers and 81 mobile outpatient clinics and mobile Vet Centers.
Advance appropriations support the vital healthcare services that VA
delivers to more than six million unique Veteran patients each year.
H.R. 813
The proposed bill, ``Putting Veterans Funding First Act of 2013,''
would extend the authority for advance appropriations provided in the
Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act to all of VA's
discretionary accounts, effective in 2016 and in each fiscal year
thereafter. We appreciate how Congressional support for VA advance
appropriations for our medical care accounts has enabled a multi-year
approach to medical budget planning and ensured continued medical
services for Veterans. The advance medical care appropriation was
designed to ensure continuity of critical medical operations in the
face of fiscal uncertainty.
A proposal to expand VA advance appropriations needs to be
considered by the Administration as part of an across-the-government
review of the advantages and disadvantages of such an approach not only
for VA, but potentially other programs and agencies. Only in the
context of such a broad review could the Administration offer an
opinion on making such a change for the VA. We cannot therefore offer a
position on H.R. 813 at this time. We very much appreciate the concern
for Veterans services reflected in the proposal, and look forward to
working with the Committee on how to best maintain the provision of VA
benefits and services in light of fiscal uncertainties.
H.R. 806
The bill would establish a permanent requirement for an annual
report by the Comptroller General on the Department of Veterans Affairs
medical budget submissions. The bill would require the report be
submitted to the Committees on Veterans Affairs, Budget, and
Appropriations and the VA Secretary no later than 120 days after the
date on which the President submits a budget request. Congress in the
Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and Transparency Act established the
requirement beginning in fiscal year 2011, but on a temporary basis
only through fiscal year 2013.
VA does not support making these reports permanent. VA has expanded
the information presented in the justification volumes each year in
order to be more transparent in the budget request and to include
additional information that has been requested by Congress. VA believes
this information, supplemented by the continuing and ongoing oversight
of VA by Congress, as well as engagement by the General Accountability
Office as charged by Congress, provides ample review of, and
transparency for, VA's budget process.
A draft bill entitled the ``Department of Veterans Affairs Budget
Planning Reform Act
In general, VA believes the draft bill has a great deal in common
with VA's ongoing and planned strategic planning, programming, and
evaluation initiatives. We are excited about this work to make sure
VA's planning and Department-level resource allocation processes are
systematic and look beyond the horizon so that our Nation's Veterans
can be accorded the best benefits, services, and support VA can offer.
We therefore greatly appreciate the concepts put forward in the bill.
We are eager to discuss those efforts with the Committee, but we are
hesitant to lock down these concepts in statute.
Recently, VA began a Planning, Programming, Budget and Execution
(PPBE) initiative modeled after similar efforts used in other Federal
agencies such as the Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
the Department of Homeland Security, and others. VA believes PPBE has
potential to more systematically improve VA's ability to anticipate and
strategically prepare for the future needs of Veterans and their
families. We also believe this effort can better meet the needs of the
VA workforce and buttress their dedication to serve Veterans, as well
as improve resource allocation and enable VA to get the best value for
scarce resources. The PPBE cycle implements a multi-year analytical
framework beginning with fiscal year 2015 to ensure the requirements of
VA's healthcare delivery, benefits, and memorial services are fully
vetted.
There are many elements of the draft legislation that reflect these
PPBE principles, and the direction VA is going in its strategic
planning and programming efforts.
Section two of the bill would require VA to submit annually at or
about the time of its regular budget submission a ``Future Years
Veterans Program'' that would include for the next five years
(including the budget year submitted) estimated expenditures and
proposed appropriations, as well as a VA five-year strategy regarding
the Department's commitment to Veterans and the resources to meet those
commitments.
Section two would also mandate a Quadrennial Veterans Review (QVR),
with the first such review conducted in fiscal year 2017. The bill sets
forth detailed requirements and elements for the conduct of this
review, and ties it to a `national strategy for meeting the Nation's
commitment to Veterans' with a component regarding VA's cooperation
with other Federal agencies, and State, local, and tribal governments.
Consistent with these concepts, the Department has embarked on its
own Quadrennial Strategic Planning Process (QSPP), which we believe is
consistent with the aims of the draft bill to institute a more
formalized strategic planning process to inform and drive the five-year
programming process and the near-term budgeting process. The final
results of our QSPP, a new VA strategic plan for the fiscal year 2014-
2020 timeframe, will be published no later than the President's budget
submission in February 2014. We have already had productive briefings
on the development of that plan with your staff and will continue that
dialogue as we progress in finalizing the plan.
VA's QSPP includes an environmental scanning and analysis phase,
and has some of the same general goals as the Department of Defense's
(DoD) Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). VA is concerned about
expectations that the bill's QVR should be as extensive and detailed as
DoD's QDR. VA believes an attempt to replicate the QDR is not
appropriate for the Department and would have serious staffing and
resource implications.
VA has been working towards building a multi-year programming
capability and established the Office of Corporate Analysis and
Evaluation (CAE) within the Office of Policy and Planning to lead that
effort. The Secretary signed the first Future Years Veterans Plan,
covering fiscal years 2015-2019, on April 30, 2013 to document the
results of our first true programming effort. This effort has in common
the same concepts as the legislation in providing an additional tool
for VA to provide a more strategic longer-term view to ensure that
capabilities are well-defined and balanced with VA's resource requests.
While we believe the general intent of section two will be met with
the emerging PPBE process within VA, we do have significant
reservations about any mandate to publish specific dollar and FTE
projections beyond the budget year. The strategic planning and
programming processes are tools used to align vision and resources to
capabilities, programs, and activities, to be distinguished from VA's
budget formulation process. A requirement to publish the programming-
generated expenditure and appropriation figures along with VA's budget,
as required by the bill, could create confusion between those two
functions. That in turn could limit flexibility in developing and
executing the Department's budget to meet emergent requirements and
opportunities.
As noted above, the QVR would require a broader role for VA in
developing a National Veterans Strategy that identifies and prioritizes
the full range of programs, services, benefits and outcomes regarding
Veterans provided by the federal government. VA believes that its
ongoing development and work in ``futures'' analysis and planning have
common aims with this aspect of the QVR proposal, and will be glad to
discuss this with the Committee, although a National Veterans Strategy
would require broad analysis and policy development that would go well
beyond just the VA.
Section two of the bill also requires the Secretary to provide
annual ``written policy guidance for the preparation and review of the
planning and program recommendations and budget proposals of the
elements of the Department.'' It is current practice for the Secretary
or Deputy Secretary to issue such guidance as necessary elements of
implementing the Department's planning, programming, and budgeting
processes. Therefore, VA believes this provision is unnecessary.
Section three of the draft bill would designate the Assistant
Secretary whose functions include planning, studies and evaluations as
the Chief Strategy Officer of VA. The draft bill goes on to provide in
significant detail the responsibilities of the Chief Strategy Officer.
VA strongly supports the direction set out in this section, as those
areas delineated in the bill are being performed by the Assistant
Secretary for Policy and Planning. However, VA is reluctant to codify
those responsibilities in legislation, so that those responsibilities
can be adjusted as required in the future. VA would like to brief the
Committees on the work of the Office of Policy and Planning as it
relates to the concepts set out in section three.
Section four of the draft bill would require VA to conduct a study
of the functions and organizational structure of the Office of the
Secretary as well as the entire Department. It also would require VA to
engage a contractor to perform a separate parallel review of those same
topics. VA in its day-to-day management continually assesses the
effectiveness and the efficiency of its organizational structures in
serving Veterans and in being good stewards of taxpayer resources. VA
recognizes there is always more to do, but believes our existing
planning processes are adequate to consider beneficial organizational
changes. Additionally, the reviews of the General Accountability Office
and VA's Office of Inspector General provide outside review and counsel
that is always seriously considered by VA.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these three important
bills, and we appreciate the Committee's attention the critical topics
of VA budgeting and strategic planning. They are integral to our drive
to continue improving the health care, compensation benefits, memorial
honors, and other support and services we provide to the Nation's
Veterans.
Prepared Statement of Carl Blake
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Michaud, and Members of the Committee:
Thank you for inviting The Independent Budget veterans service
organizations (IBVSOs) to present joint testimony on pending
legislation designed to improve the budget, appropriations and planning
processes of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). As you know, The
Independent Budget is a comprehensive budget and policy document co-
authored annually by AMVETS (American Veterans), DAV (Disabled American
Veterans), PVA (Paralyzed Veterans of America) and the VFW (Veterans of
Foreign Wars of the United States), and endorsed by dozens of other
veterans organizations.
H.R. 813
It has been almost four years since the IBVSOs, along with our
colleagues in the Partnership for Veterans Health Care Budget Reform,
celebrated passage of Public Law 111-81, the Veterans Health Care
Budget Reform and Transparency Act of 2009. This landmark legislation,
the product of years of work and collaboration among veterans
organizations and veteran leaders in the House and Senate, authorized
one-year advance appropriations for the three medical care
appropriations accounts in the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA):
medical services, medical facilities, and medical support and
compliance (now medical administration). As a result, the VA medical
care budget is now approved up to a year in advance of the start of
each fiscal year, preventing the disruptions that have been regularly
occurring in other federal agencies due to endless budget stalemates
and continuing resolutions.
In the two decades prior to enactment of the law, VA received its
regular annual appropriation before the start of the fiscal year just
four times, creating sustained challenges for administrators striving
to provide timely, quality health care to wounded, injured and ill
veterans. With the enactment of Public Law 111-81, VA now receives its
medical care appropriation on the first day of the fiscal year, and can
plan on that funding level up to a year in advance. By assuring
timeliness and predictability of funding levels, VA health care has
been more effective and efficient in the use of funding provided to
operate VA's medical care facilities and myriad programs.
H.R. 813, the Putting Veterans Funding First Act, introduced by
Chairman Miller and Ranking Member Michaud, would build upon this
success by authorizing advance appropriations for the remaining
discretionary accounts: Medical and Prosthetic Research, General
Operating Expenditures, Information Technology, National Cemetery
Administration, Inspector General, Major Construction, Minor
Construction, State Home Construction Grants, State Cemetery Grants and
Other Discretionary Accounts. In total, the remaining portion of VA's
funding requested outside the advance appropriation process is only 10
to 15 percent of VA's total discretionary funding.
While the enactment of advance appropriations authority for VA
medical care has been successful in helping the VA health care system
operate more efficiently and rationally during budget stalemates, the
remaining VA budget accounts continue to be negatively affected by
unrelated political and partisan fights. For example, although the VA
medical care budget accounts may contain sufficient funding to open a
new outpatient clinic, the fact that VA's IT funding is still provided
through the regular annual appropriations process can mean that
computers or other IT systems might not be available until Congress
completes its work on VA's regular appropriations bills. Similarly,
some of the funding for Medical and Prosthetic Research directly
contributes to clinical care, but it is out of sync with the provision
of medical care funding done through advance appropriations. Thus,
while VA researchers' salaries and benefits (paid by the Medical
Services appropriation) are now secured at day one of a fiscal year,
their awarded research projects may be delayed or interrupted because
that appropriation is not yet approved by Congress.
Moreover, VA construction accounts that fund vital infrastructure
maintenance and improvement projects would also be more efficient if
were provided through advance appropriations. Uncertain funding levels
and delayed contract awards add to overrun costs on important VA
capital projects. Finally, the Veterans Benefits Administration's
ability to address the backlog of pending claims and transform itself
into a modern 21st century organization is hindered by annual budget
fights and endless continuing resolutions. Moreover, because VBA's
reform is heavily dependent on automation and information technology,
its transformation would benefit from the timely and predictable
funding resulting from advance appropriations.
Mr. Chairman, in The Independent Budget for Fiscal Year 2014 we
recommended that Congress debate and consider authorizing advance
appropriations for all VA accounts. Earlier this year, you and Mr.
Michaud introduced H.R. 813 to achieve exactly that goal, and we are
pleased to support this legislation. We believe that our nation has no
higher obligation than to ensure that the men and women who served in
our armed forces receive all the benefits and services owed to them in
a timely manner. This legislation will help guarantee that promise is
kept.
H.R. 806
In addition to extending advance appropriations to all VA accounts,
The Independent Budget recommended that Congress permanently authorize
a role for GAO to monitor and report on VA budget formulation and the
advance appropriations process. Under the provisions of Public Law 111-
81, GAO was required to study and report on the Administration's VA
medical care budget submitted in 2011, 2012 and 2013. In particular,
GAO was required to compare the amounts included in the
Administration's budget submission with the amounts estimated by VA's
Enrollee Health Care Projection Model, the internal actuarial model
that projects VA medical care resource needs.
In the first two years, GAO reported significant findings of
unjustified, questionable changes VA made during the internal budget
development process. For example, in 2011, GAO found that requested
funding for non-recurring maintenance (NRM) was significantly below the
amounts projected by the actuarial model. In 2012, GAO found that VA
was once again proposing to make substantial reductions in budget
requests based upon unverified future savings from planned operational
improvements. The third and final report required under the current
statute is due to be released within the next month and we look forward
to reviewing these findings.
H.R. 806, introduced by Representative Brownley, would make
permanent the requirement that GAO continue to study and report on VA's
budget submissions, also a recommendation called for in The Independent
Budget, and we are pleased to support this legislation.
In addition, we would note that should H.R. 813 be enacted, it
would be necessary to revise H.R. 806 to provide additional flexibility
to enable GAO to study and report on all VA funding provided through
advance appropriations.
Discussion Draft Bill on VA budget and strategic planning reform
The discussion draft bill to be proposed by Representative Michaud,
entitled the ``Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Planning Reform
Act of 2013,'' would establish new planning and budgeting processes, as
well as study and make organizational changes affecting VA's ability to
develop and implement budgets and strategic plans. The draft bill would
establish five new processes to accomplish these purposes.
First, the draft bill, beginning in 2017, would require VA to
conduct a Quadrennial Veterans Review (QVR) every four years, modeled
after the Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and Quadrennial Homeland
Security Review (QHSR) currently required by law. The Quadrennial
Veterans Review would study and report a strategy for meeting the
nation's commitment to veterans and the resources required to meet that
commitment. The QVR is intended to be a futures-based look at
opportunities, challenges, policies and strategies related to meeting
veterans needs. The report would also examine the priorities for
veterans programs and assess the effectiveness of VA's organizational
structure.
The draft bill requires that VA conduct its review in consultation
with other Federal agencies, as well as a wide range of stakeholders,
``including State, local, and tribal government officials, members of
Congress, veterans service organizations, private sector
representatives, academics, and other policy experts.''
Second, the bill would require VA to develop and submit annually a
Future-Years Veterans Program (FYVP), which is modeled after the
Future-Years Defense Program (FYDP) and the Future-Years Homeland
Security Program (FYHSP). The FYVP would lay out a five-year plan for
meeting the nation's commitment to veterans as well as delineate the
resources necessary to meet that commitment. The FYVP would include
five-year estimates of the budget and appropriations levels on a
program element basis in order to ensure that resources properly align
with outcome-based plans and programs. The FYVP would be submitted
concurrent with VA's annual budget submission and the draft bill would
require that it be consistent with funding requests contained in the
Administration's budget submission. The draft bill would also require
that the Future-Years Veterans Program be coordinated with the
Quadrennial Veterans Review, which serves as the foundation for
developing the FYVP's five-year plans.
Third, the draft bill would require the Secretary to annually
provide certain policy guidance to VA planning, programming and
budgeting officials throughout VA responsible for developing individual
program budget recommendations. The policy guidance from the Secretary
would be required to be based on the most recent QVR and FYVP, as well
as estimates of the ``resource levels projected to be available'' in
future years.
Fourth, the bill would create the position of Chief Strategy
Officer (CSO) to be filled by the Assistant Secretary for Policy and
Planning, or if there is a subsequent reorganization, the Assistant
Secretary responsible for agency planning. The CSO would have broad
responsibilities for overseeing the planning, programming, budgeting
and execution functions Department-wide, to include health care,
benefit and cemetery programs. The CSO would have significant
independent authority, reporting only to the Secretary. The CSO's
responsibilities for budgeting would be on the same level as VA's Chief
Financial Officer (CFO), a role designated for the Assistant Secretary
for Management. The CSO would be chiefly responsible for managing the
new QVR, FYVP and policy guidance requirements contained in this draft
bill.
Fifth, the draft bill would require VA to undertake a comprehensive
one-year study of the organizational structure of the Secretary's
office and the Department as a whole. In addition, the draft bill would
require that an independent contractor conduct a parallel study of the
organizational structure of the Secretary's office and of the
Department. The independent study would be included within the report
submitted by the Secretary to Congress.
The discussion draft bill has a number of intended purposes, which
would include the following:
To strengthen VA's capacity to plan for near- and long-
term future needs of veterans;
To ensure that strategic planning is future-looking and
outcome-based;
To create a more unified planning, programming, budgeting
and execution process;
To better align VA's plans with their resource requests;
and
To increase the transparency of VA's planning and
budgeting processes.
The IBVSOs agree that these intended purposes are worthy goals,
generally shared by VA and supported by Congress. However, because the
discussion draft bill has only recently been shared, and is not yet in
final form, we have not had sufficient time to explore a number of
important questions about whether the bill would ultimately be
implemented as intended by its sponsors, whether the proposed
structures and institutional changes would achieve its intended
purposes, or whether there could be any unintended and negative
consequences that could or should be addressed before the bill
advances.
For example, we are not yet certain that a strategic planning
framework designed specifically for the Department of Defense (DOD) and
later adopted by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) would be
appropriate for VA. There are fundamental differences between DOD and
VA (and also between DHS and VA) that raise concerns about whether VA
should be required to use the same planning structures and methods
designed specifically to evaluate DOD's future roles and missions
following the end of the Cold War. The original Quadrennial Defense
Review (QDR) was recommended in 1995 by the Commission on Roles and
Missions of the Armed Forces, following the collapse of the Soviet
Union, the fall of the Iron Curtain over Eastern Europe, and
revolutionary defense and budgetary changes taking place in the United
States during the 1990s. Because the world was being transformed in
fundamental ways, DOD and Congress agreed it was necessary to
comprehensively review and reconsider the nature of future national
security threats, our defense posture and capabilities, and future-
looking strategies and tactics required to protect our nation. The
paradigm shift in national and homeland security that occurred
overnight on September 11, 2001 further emphasized the need for regular
strategic reviews within both DOD and DHS. By contrast, the fundamental
roles and missions of VA and veterans policies rarely, if ever, need to
shift so quickly or dramatically based on external events or
influences.
Another central argument put forth by the Commission for creating a
quadrennial review at DOD was that, ``when Administrations change,
defense planning is subject to a turbulence exceeded only by that
resulting from significant shifts in the international security
environment.'' While presidential elections may often lead to large
swings in national security policy, our nation's longstanding
commitment to veterans has remained clear and steadfast for at least
150 years, going back to Lincoln's 2nd Inaugural Address and his call
to `` . . . care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his
widow, and his orphan . . . .'' Veterans policy evolves over time, not
overnight following elections or as a result of a revolution in a
foreign land.
Of course, long range strategic planning is vitally important and
VA does and must continue to do so. VA's current strategic plan, which
covers the period from FY 2011 to FY 2015, is centered around three
guiding principles: ``people centric,'' ``results-driven,'' and
``forward-looking.'' It lays out four strategic goals, sixteen major
initiatives, and twenty supporting initiatives, and the plan identifies
agency priority goals by fiscal year. VA also annually prepares and
submits to Congress and the public a Performance and Accountability
Report to show how well VA's strategic goals are being met through
regular assessment of objective criteria. In addition, VA's annual
budget submission lays out in great detail the programs and policies
designed to achieve VA's strategic goals, including analyses of
resources dedicated to meeting each goal.
VA also supports two dozen ongoing advisory committees to provide
outside perspectives on specific needs, such as for disability
compensation, education, prosthetics, geriatrics, homeless veterans and
women veterans. Congress has also authorized commissions and task
forces from time-to-time to take comprehensive, in-depth looks at major
issues or challenges, such as in mental health programs, disability
benefits, vocational rehabilitation and health care funding, to name
only a few. It is not yet clear how or if the creation of a Quadrennial
Veterans Review would improve on these ongoing strategic planning
processes. Would it ultimately combine, supplant, or supplement these
activities?
Similarly, it is not clear whether the creation of a Future-Years
Veterans Program would lead to either more transparent or more accurate
budgets or appropriations. Although the QDR and QHR are readily
available online, it does not appear that the FYDP or the FYHSP are
similarly available. Although it is understandable that both DOD and
DHS would keep classified programs' budgeting and planning information
shielded from public view, there appears to be no part of their Future-
Years Programs that is publicly available for review, even for their
many unclassified programs and budgets. As such, we have questions
about whether the information to be included in the FYVP would be
transparent. Furthermore, without the ability to review a Future-Years
Defense (or Homeland Security) Program, we are challenged to determine
how or whether this approach has changed their budgeting processes, and
specifically whether the programs are better aligned with budgets and
long-term plans. We can reasonably conclude, however, that it has not
made it more transparent.
We also have questions about the complexity of the proposed Future-
Years Veterans Program process, both about the level of detail to be
included and whether it would create a more helpful or difficult
process. Although we were not able to see an actual example of a
Future-Years Program document, we were able to locate a 2004 DOD guide
to the structure and codes used in the FYDP. This document was 2,160
pages long and contained more than 8,500 Program Element (PE) codes,
each of which may have associated five-year budget estimates. We
understand and appreciate that VA's budgeting process is significantly
less complex than DOD's, but without the ability to actually see actual
examples of how a Future-Years program would work, and without details
about the number of program or budget lines the FYVP would contain, it
is difficult to ascertain whether this new budgeting element would be
an improvement to the current budgeting process. We also have questions
about how difficult it may be to change out-year numbers at the program
level in a future budget-constrained environment.
Another significant unanswered question concerns the role of the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in this new planning and
budgeting process. Since the draft bill requires that the
Administration's budget be ``consistent'' with the FYVP budget
estimates, would OMB have a direct or indirect ability to revise or
constrain the budget and appropriations levels contained in the FYVP?
In setting out ``policy guidance'' to the individual program offices,
the Secretary is required to inform them of ``resource levels projected
to be available'' as they make their budget estimates; would these
levels come directly or indirectly from OMB?
There are also questions about the creation of a new CSO inside VA.
The language of the draft bill would give the CSO significant
independence in overseeing all, planning and programming throughout VA,
including that done within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA),
the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) and the National Cemetery
Administration (NCA). Would the CSO have overlapping authority with the
Under Secretaries of these administrations? In preparation of the
budget, the CSO also would play a significant role and possess final
approving authority according to the draft bill's language. How would
the CSO and the CFO interact during preparation of VA's budget; are
they co-equal and how would disagreements between them be settled?
Would this lead to greater harmony or conflict within VA's budget
formulation process?
We also have questions about the role of veterans service
organizations in the development of the QVR. The draft bill would
require VA to consult with a wide range of stakeholders, both
governmental and nongovernmental. As organizations that have not only
great interest in veterans policies, but great experience and expertise
in dealing with them, we have concerns about whether this broad
consultation process would dilute our input. While there is always a
role for outside perspectives to ensure fresh thinking within public
agencies, VSOs are not idle stakeholders; collectively we provide
direct assistance to VA and veterans in many areas, and particularly in
representing veterans in their claims for benefits and services. We all
have service officers who work inside VA facilities and behind
information technology (IT) firewalls, playing an integral role in the
claims processing system and serving veterans as attorneys-in-fact. We
are concerned about the bill's potential of diminishing our influence
and putting us on par with less interested, involved or informed
stakeholders during the consultation process.
Although we have important questions about the effects of this
bill, the details of some of its provisions, and how it might be
implemented, we have no questions about the sincere intentions of the
bill's sponsors. We agree that VA's strategic planning and budgeting
processes ought to be consistently and openly aligned to achieve our
shared goals in support of America's veterans. We also agree that more
transparent, honest and detailed information can build greater
confidence in VA, increase the effectiveness and efficiency of veterans
programs, and improve the outcomes for veterans who need support,
services and care. However, planning processes or structures in one
agency are not necessarily appropriate for every other agency. History
shows that Congressional intent is not always faithfully implemented.
For all of the above reasons, we believe it is important to raise and
resolve these questions and concerns now, to help prevent any unwanted
and unintended negative consequences before this draft bill were to
move forward.
Mr. Chairman, we greatly appreciate the meaningful dialogue and
cooperation we have had with the Committee's professional staff on both
sides of the aisle, helping us to better understand this draft bill. We
are grateful for their willingness to work with us to address our
concerns, and we look forward to continuing to work together with the
bill's sponsors in this regard. However, since this issue was not
addressed in our most recent Independent Budget released in February,
2013, and because we still have many unanswered questions about this
draft bill as highlighted by this testimony and our discussions with
staff, we do not have a position on this draft bill.
This concludes our testimony and we would be happy to answer any
questions that you and Members of the Committee may have.
Information Required by Rule XI 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives
Pursuant to Rule XI 2(g)(4) of the House of Representatives, the
following information is provided regarding federal grants and
contracts.
Fiscal Year 2013
No federal grants or contracts received.
Fiscal Year 2012
No federal grants or contracts received.
Fiscal Year 2011
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, administered by the Legal
Services Corporation--National Veterans Legal Services Program--
$262,787.
Prepared Statement of Louis J. Celli, Jr.
America's veterans deserve sufficient, timely and predictable
funding for the programs of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
The entire country has watched the budget squabbles and territorial
infighting of Congress over the last several years. Though this
committee has steadfastly risen above the fray and maintained a
bipartisan spirit of cooperation, veterans' program have still suffered
from the specter of government shutdown, sequestration, and a bitterly
divided budgetary landscape that has led to stop gap continuing
resolutions in the place of the passage of real budgetary legislation.
Chairman Miller, Ranking Member Michaud and distinguished Members
of the committee, on behalf of Commander Koutz and the 2.4 million
members of The American Legion, I thank you and your colleagues for the
work you do and especially your bipartisan dedication to ``getting it
right'' for America's veterans and their families.
The legislation considered by the committee today is focused on
fixing some of the budgetary concerns related to the VA, and helping to
achieve that goal of forward thinking, sufficient, timely and
predictable funding for veterans' programs.
H.R. 806:
To amend title 38, United States Code, to make permanent the
requirement for annual reports on Comptroller General reviews of the
accuracy of Department of Veterans Affairs medical budget submissions,
and for other purposes.
This legislation makes permanent a current requirement for the
Comptroller General to review the accuracy of the Medical Care Budget
Submission, as it relates to the Baseline Health Care Model Projection.
The review is to be submitted to the House and Senate Committees on
Veterans' Affairs, as well as the House and Senate Appropriations
committees, and the Committee on the Budget of the House of
Representatives not later than 120 days after the submission of the
President's budget.
As a resolution based organization that derives its operational
mandate from resolutions passed by membership in regular meetings, The
American Legion has no resolution respective to oversight of the VA
budget submissions by the Comptroller General.
The American Legion has no position on this legislation.
H.R. 813: Putting Veterans Funding First Act of 2013
To amend title 38, United States Code, to provide for advance
appropriations for certain discretionary accounts of the Department of
Veterans Affairs.
When Congress passed the Veterans Health Care Budget Reform and
Transparency Act in 2009, the intent was quite clear: ensure
sufficient, timely and predictable funding to care for those who have
worn the nation's uniform. The key improvement was the authorization of
Congress to approve investments in medical care for veterans one year
in advance to allow VA to more effectively plan for the future and
ensure veterans would get the quality medical care they have earned.
Supported by resolution \1\, The American Legion worked closely with
Congress, and this Committee, to ensure that this legislation passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Resolution No. 313: Support Budget Reform of Annual
Appropriations for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care
Funding
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This goal is still as vital and important as it was four years ago
and The American Legion certainly supports assured funding for VA
through resolution \2\. Daily news stories about the backlog of
disability claims, and the inability of VA and the Department of
Defense (DOD) to come together on plans for a joint electronic health
record, have made it clear that veterans' health care is not the only
component of the budget that needs to benefit from advance
appropriations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Resolution No. 180: Assured Funding for VA Medical Care
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through American Legion analysis, and close working projects
regarding VA programs, we now recognize that many other key VA
accounts, such as the Information and Technology (IT) accounts;
necessary to provide long term planning as VA struggles to implement
technology goals, like a fully electronic operating environment to help
tame the claims backlog, or; the ability to transmit health records
back and forth with the DoD, would benefit from advance appropriations.
The Major and Minor Construction budgets would also benefit from a
longer range planning window, to better understand and project how VA
will meet their growing infrastructure needs, even though they have
routinely slashed funding for construction over the past several years.
The American Legion worked closely with the Veterans Benefits
Administration (VBA) as they grappled with turning the tide of a
massive claims backlog through the looming threat of sequestration,
which held future planning hostage for nearly a year until the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) was able to render their report. And, as
many of the committee members here remember, it took much hounding from
this committee, the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, and Veterans
Service Organizations (VSOs), including The American Legion, to ensure
that the main VBA programs be exempt from sequestration. That looming
threat was potentially devastating to the long term planning needs of
VBA employees seeking to tame the massive backlog. Just as VBA was
attempting to implement a major IT infrastructure change with the
Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS), planners were facing down
an uncertain future because only the already-protected medical care
budgets had the certainty of advanced appropriations to enable long
range planning.
Through the work of the 2,600 American Legion Accredited Veteran
Service Officers, our 10 years of System Worth Saving reports that have
chronicled a decade of VA healthcare and services, and the hundreds of
programs facilitated through thousands of American Legion posts working
on behalf of veterans nationwide, every day, The American Legion has
the ability and resources to assess firsthand the importance of
safeguarding the important initiatives rolling out to meet the needs of
America's veterans. We want this committee to know that we are adamant
about protecting these vital services; whether they are in place to
serve our recently returning service members who are coming back from
fighting two grueling wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or our Vietnam era
veterans facing retirement, or World War II and Korean war veterans
facing the decisions revolving around elder care. Finally, the VA
budgets need to properly reflect the long term planning necessary to
meet expansions of the National Cemetery system, the VBMS and
electronic record projects which affect VBA, VHA and IT, as well as
ongoing Office of the Inspector General (IG) oversight. These programs,
and our veterans, deserve the same benefit of a long term planning
window that the medical care accounts enjoy.
The American Legion strongly supports the expansion of advanced
appropriations to all discretionary accounts of the Department of
Veterans Affairs. Assured funding that supports long term planning is
essential to preventing future backlogs, future breakdowns in benefits
delivery and the smooth IT structure required for seamless transition.
The American Legion supports the passage of H.R. 813.
Draft Legislation: Department of Veterans Affairs Budget Planning
Reform Act of 2013
To amend title 38, United States Code, to direct the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs to submit to Congress a Future-Years Veterans Program
and a quadrennial veterans review, to establish in the Department of
Veterans Affairs a Chief Strategy Officer, and for other purposes.
This legislation, broad in scope, seeks to formalize planning
procedures and develop tools for use, both within VA and by outside but
vital stakeholders such as Congress and VSOs, to determine whether VA
budgeting is on track to meet their goals and deliver benefits and
services to the nation's veterans. The intention of the legislation is
admirable, as more transparency and access to more data is helpful for
all stakeholders to ensure VA is moving forward in the direction that
will best meet the needs of veterans. As The American Legion is a
resolution based, grass roots organization that derives our operational
mandate from our combined membership in the form of resolutions passed
at regular meetings, and the resolutions are silent on the structural
changes this legislation would impose, we cannot support or oppose this
legislation. However the very important concepts outlined in this
legislation merit discussion on a section by section basis, and the
following points should be considered if this legislation moves
forward.
Section I: Simply outlines the title
Section II:
Future-Years Program: This section outlines the mission for VA to
create a ``Future-Years Veterans Program'' to coincide with the annual
budget submission. The Future-Years program would be similar to the
budget, but would also cover expected expenses over a five year period.
The first two years of the Future-Years program would exactly mirror
the budget submission (which presumably would cover two years in
anticipation of advanced appropriations) but would also contain out
year projections to meet the goals of VA in seeing to the needs of the
nation's veterans. This process potentially could be useful to outside
observers, as if VA were to suddenly lower funding from a key project
in one year's budget, and not reflect a down the road increase, it
would immediately raise red flags as to how they still intended to meet
the outcome down the road with drastically reduced funding.
Furthermore, by comparing the Future-Year plans from year to year,
within a brief period, any budgetary legerdemain would presumably
become glaringly obvious. An example of this type of behavior can be
seen with recent underfunding of VA's Construction budgets. Despite the
fact that VA has a Strategic Capital Investment Planning (SCIP) program
to determine long term construction needs, the budget request for Major
and Minor Construction over the past few years were low. As noted by
past National Vice Commander of The American Legion William Schrier
before the Senate Veterans' Affairs Committee \3\, VA's SCIP plan
called for $65 billion in projects over the next ten years, which
should have amortized to approximately $6.5 billion a year in
construction costs, yet VA's own ask was less than $2 billion. This
glimpse into the longer term picture was what prompted The American
Legion to push for more funding for Construction so VA would not fall
behind their SCIP program needs. Sadly, the budget was not increased,
but perhaps with better tools to see the discrepancies, Congress will
also be able to recognize these shortfalls and help adjust VA's budget
upwards when critical goals are in danger of not being met.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Statement of William F. Schrier, Department of Washington on
behalf of The American Legion before the Committee on Veterans Affairs,
United States Senate, February 29, 2012
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quadrennial Veterans Review: This would require, starting in Fiscal
Year (FY) 2017 and every four years thereafter, a review of the
commitments of the United States to veterans and a determination of
what resources are necessary to deliver on those commitments. This
review would be comprehensive in scope, would examine all policies and
strategies, and would require consultation not only within the
Department, but with other governmental bodies, as well as State and
local governments, tribal officials, private sector and academic
concerns, and importantly members of VSOs.
Herein lies a major concern of The American Legion, as the full
role of VSOs is not clearly delineated, and it is unclear what is meant
by re-examining the commitments of the United States to veterans. In
certain cycles, when the blood sacrifices of our nation's veterans are
less prominent on the nightly news, there are forces that rise to
question why we provide compensation to our veterans. Though the
devastating effects of exposure to the chemical defoliant Agent Orange
were only brought to light by the tireless efforts of advocates like
The American Legion, there are those who would roll back the clock on
hard fought gains for those Vietnam veterans who have suffered
devastating effects and terrible disabilities because of exposure. When
the eyes of the nation are not squarely on the wounded veterans, there
are those would question the entire system of VA disability.
The rise of such attitudes and how they might factor in to ``a re-
examination of the commitments of the United States to its veterans''
is deeply troubling to The American Legion. The American Legion
strongly opposes any administrative or legislative proposals to dilute
or eliminate any provision of the disability compensation program \4\.
In order to ensure the voice of those most important to an overview of
VA commitments, the veterans who would be affected, is not lost there
would have to be clearer direction about the nature of VSO involvement
in the evaluation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Resolution 178: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Disability
Compensation, AUG 2012
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Already VSOs contribute greatly to the tools Congress and VA have
at their disposal to evaluate the effectiveness of VA programs. The
American Legion provides annual ``System Worth Saving'' reports on the
effectiveness of health care delivery in the VHA system, as well as
``Regional Office Action Review'' assessments of VBA claims processing.
VSOs are clear experts in VA programs, and their essential role in the
evaluation of VA should be reflected.
Section III: This section would designate a Chief Strategy Officer
(CSO) for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The CSO would be
a principal advisor to the Secretary, and would advise on long
range strategic planning and the implications of such planning.
This would include, but not be limited to, such tasks as cost
estimation, integration of planning, analysis on the planning
and programming phases of the new system, and developing and
executing the Future-Years Program. This would be done to give
this new system appropriate heft and weight within the
Department, and ensure the work of planning the future programs
was not circumvented by other concerns.
Section IV: This section provides for a study on the functions and
organizational structure of the office of the Secretary of
Veterans Affairs and of VA in general. As with any major change
in scope to an organization's long range planning mechanisms, a
study of the existing systems in place is warranted. The study
mandated by this legislation will take place no later than one
year after the enactment of the legislation.
Overall, the importance of ensuring VA has proper tools in place
for long range strategic planning is something The American Legion
supports, even if the mechanism is still under consideration. We are
continuing to study and evaluate the matter, and are working with our
membership and leadership to analyze the legislation as it evolves to
develop a position that reflects what is best for the veterans of
America. We appreciate the Ranking Member's diligence and attention to
VA's resources in bringing the legislation forward, and hope to
continue to work with Mr. Michaud and the committee to ensure the best
outcome for America's veterans.
Because The American Legion is a resolution based organization with
two and a half million voting members, we have not had sufficient time
to thoroughly review all of the components of this legislation, and
plan to do so at our annual convention in Houston, Texas August 27th -
29th, and therefore has no position on the draft legislation at this
time.