[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FY2019 BUDGET: VETERANS BENEFITS
ADMINISTRATION AND THE BOARD OF VETERANS APPEALS
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
JOINT WITH
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
THURSDAY, MARCH 15, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-52
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
35-389 WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
DAVID P. ROE, Tennessee, Chairman
GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida, Vice- TIM WALZ, Minnesota, Ranking
Chairman Member
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado MARK TAKANO, California
BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio JULIA BROWNLEY, California
AMATA COLEMAN RADEWAGEN, American ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
Samoa BETO O'ROURKE, Texas
MIKE BOST, Illinois KATHLEEN RICE, New York
BRUCE POLIQUIN, Maine J. LUIS CORREA, California
NEAL DUNN, Florida KILILI SABLAN, Northern Mariana
JODEY ARRINGTON, Texas Islands
JOHN RUTHERFORD, Florida ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut
CLAY HIGGINS, Louisiana SCOTT PETERS, California
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan
JIM BANKS, Indiana
JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON, Puerto
Rico
Jon Towers, Staff Director
Ray Kelley, Democratic Staff Director
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
JODEY ARRINGTON, Texas, Chairman
GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida BETO O'ROURKE, Texas, Ranking
BRAD WENSTRUP, Ohio Member
JOHN RUTHERFORD, Florida MARK TAKANO, California
JIM BANKS, Indiana LUIS CORREA, California
KATHLEEN RICE, New York
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
MIKE BOST, Illinois, Chairman
MIKE COFFMAN, Colorado ELIZABETH ESTY, Connecticut,
AMATA RADEWAGEN, America Samoa Ranking Member
JACK BERGMAN, Michigan JULIA BROWNLEY, California
JIM BANKS, Indiana KILILI SABLAN, Northern Mariana
Islands
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
----------
Thursday, March 15, 2018
Page
U.S. Department Of Veterans Affairs FY2019 Budget: Veterans
Benefits Administration And The Board Of Veterans Appeals...... 1
OPENING STATEMENTS
Honorable Mike Bost, Chairman, Subcommittee on Disability
Assistance and Memorial Affairs................................ 1
Honorable Elizabeth Esty, Subcommittee on Disability Assistance
and Memorial AffairsRanking Member............................. 2
Honorable Jodey Arrington, Chairman, Subcommittee on Economic
Opportunity.................................................... 3
WITNESSES
The Honorable Cheryl L. Mason, Chairman, Board of Veterans'
Appeals, U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs.................. 4
Prepared Statement........................................... 28
Accompanied by:
Mr. James E. Manker, Jr., Acting Principal Deputy Under
Secretary for Benefits, Veterans Benefits Administration,
U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Lloyd Thrower, Deputy Chief Information Officer, Account
Manager for Benefits, Office of Information and
Technology, U. S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Mr. Matthew Shuman, Director, Legislative Division, The American
Legion......................................................... 6
Prepared Statement........................................... 31
Mr. Shane L. Liermann, Assistant National Legislative Director,
Disabled American Veterans..................................... 8
Prepared Statement........................................... 34
Ms. Lauren Augustine, Director of Policy, Student Veterans of
America........................................................ 9
Prepared Statement........................................... 38
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS FY2019 BUDGET: VETERANS BENEFITS
ADMINISTRATION AND THE BOARD OF VETERANS APPEALS
----------
Thursday, March 15, 2018
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Veterans' Affairs,
Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations,
Washington, D.C.
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 2:01 p.m., in
Room 334, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Mike Bost
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Arrington, Bilirakis, Coffman,
Wenstrup, Banks, Esty, O'Rourke, and Takano.
OPENING STATEMENT OF MIKE BOST, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON
DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bost. All right. Good afternoon. This joint hearing of
the Subcommittees on disability assistance and memorial affairs
and economic opportunity will now come to order.
Before we begin, I want to take a moment to thank my
colleagues, Chairman Arrington and Ranking Member Esty and
Member O'Rourke--Congressman O'Rourke will be along Chairman--
or Ranking Member O'Rourke will be along later--and for working
together to put this hearing together.
The hearing is entitled the ``U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs Fiscal Year 2000--I'm sorry--2019 Budget: Veterans
Benefits Administration and the Board of Veterans' Appeals.''
The president is asking for almost $200 billion for VA,
which is an increase of about $12 billion over last year. This
would be on top of the previous increase in the VA's budget.
Since 2006, the VA's budget has grown 175 percent, while
overall Federal spending increased 54 percent and the GDP grew
by only 40 percent. I believe that the VA must be one of our
Nation's top priorities.
We have an obligation to ensure that the men and the women
who have served our Nation in uniform receive the benefits they
have earned. At the same time, we also owe it to the taxpayers,
some of whom are veterans, themselves, to ensure that every
dollar is spent wisely.
After reviewing the budget, I have several questions that I
want to ask--that I want the VA to answer; for example, the
budget includes a request for 605 more full-time equivalents to
process the VBA appeals, but the budget does not explain
whether these additional FTEs will be assigned to a new appeals
or in the modernized--yeah, easy for me to say--modernized
system, once it is implemented or if they will work on the
appeals of veterans who have been waiting years in the existing
appeals system.
I am also looking forward to the Department providing more
information about the Board's plans to resolve its current
appeals inventory, especially if the RAMP take rate continues
at 3 percent. Now, I know the VA is doing everything within its
power to increase the number of veterans willing to opt-in to
RAMP, but what if that doesn't happen, despite the Department's
best intentions?
I am going to stop right there because we have a full
agenda ahead of us and I want to save the time for questions.
Unfortunately, so you know, I have to step out early for
another appointment. I want to assure you that--all the
witnesses, that I will carefully review the record and let you
know if I need any additional information.
With that, I ask unanimous consent that the written
statements provided for the record be placed into the hearing
record. Without objection, so ordered.
Again, I want to thank the witnesses for being here today
and I want to call on Ranking Member Esty to open--give her
opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH ESTY, RANKING MEMBER,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON DISABILITY ASSISTANCE AND MEMORIAL AFFAIRS
Ms. Esty. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank all
of you for joining us here today.
We are here to focus on the administration's fiscal year
2019 budget proposals for the Veterans Benefits Administration.
Staying focused on veterans' employment, education, and
compensation may admittedly be difficult with all of the other
issues swirling around the VA these days; however, that is our
job and we will do that job in this meeting here today.
We appreciate the Board of Veterans' Appeals' Chairman
Cheryl Mason and the VSO representatives for being here to
offer their perspective and expertise.
As the Ranking Member of the Disability Assistance and
Memorial Affairs Subcommittee, I want to take a moment to
emphasize that the administration's proposal for a compensation
COLA round down is a nonstarter. As has been said many times
before by Members of this Committee, as well as by the VSOs and
our constituents, it is designed to take benefits from veterans
receiving disability compensation to pay for other veteran's
programs. If caring for and compensating veterans is truly our
Nation's priority, then finding the necessary means to pay for
it should also be a priority.
I want to thank the DAMA Chairman, Bost, for sponsoring
H.R. 1328, The American Heroes COLA Act of 2017, which
authorizes the COLA for fiscal year 2019 without a round down,
and I am happy to have joined him as an original co-sponsor. I
look forward to hearing the witnesses' testimony today and to
your answers to our questions.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Bost. Thank you. And I now recognize Chairman Arrington
for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF JODEY ARRINGTON, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY
Mr. Arrington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Esty, for your comments and your leadership and for hosting the
hearing today. I thank everybody testifying for being with us
and for your input and counsel through this process, and for
joining us at this hearing of the Subcommittees on Economic
Opportunity and Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs as
we examine VA's fiscal year 2019 budget request, specifically,
as it pertains to the VBA.
Chairman Bost already outlined the overall fiscal year 2019
VA budget request of nearly $200 billion, which is no small
amount, but I want to focus my thoughts and questions today on
a piece of that that is very important, and that is the
programs within the VBA that are, I believe, often overlooked
but that really go a long way to empower and prepare our
veterans in their everyday lives, and in some cases, I think,
can save money long term because of the ounce of preparation
versus the pound of intervention down the road.
If any of you have met me or attended one of our EO
Subcommittee hearings, you know that I believe, like all of my
colleagues, that veterans and their families deserve the very
best services, benefits, and care that we can provide them, but
you would also note that I feel the same way about the
taxpayers and making sure that they are getting their greatest
return on their investment and not wasting dollars where they
could be better utilized elsewhere for excellent service for
the customer, which is our veteran.
As I mentioned today, I am interested in discussing certain
programs within the VBA that help to transition veterans into a
meaningful and productive civilian life. These are the benefits
such as the GI Bill, vocation al rehab, home loans, and
transition services that do more than send a check every month
to the veteran, but that, instead, empower veterans, as I said,
to lead a more productive and fulfilling life after their
active-duty service. These benefits are estimated at $15.5
billion for fiscal year 2019, yet, unfortunately, the same
programs that administer these benefits are often not given the
same priority and focus as other programs within the VBA, let
alone, the rest of the VA. And in my questions, I will get into
more details about how these programs have expanded in terms of
the veteran need or what I would call ``demand'' and how the
capacity to deliver and meet that need has been flat and in
some cases from a resource standpoint, has declined, even in
this budget. So, I want to get at--because you can argue that
everything is a priority, but if everything is a priority,
nothing is a priority, at least that is my experience.
And so you have got these programs on the VBA side that,
again, if you administer them well, they will, down the road, I
think, have a positive effect, not only for the individual
veteran, but for the entire stakeholder group, including the
taxpayers.
So, I look forward to our discussion today. I thank, again,
the witnesses for being with us this afternoon. I also want to
thank Chairman Bost again and Ranking Member Esty and Ranking
Member O'Rourke for his partnership on the Committee as we
endeavor to serve our veterans.
Chairman Bost, I yield back.
Mr. Bost. Thank you, Chairman Arrington.
I just ask that all other Members waive their opening
remarks, as per the Committee's custom. And now I want to
welcome our witnesses who join us this morning, or this
afternoon, and thank you all for taking the time--
Mr. O'Rourke. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Bost. You know, I was just going to go to you. Would
you be ready to make your opening remarks?
Mr. O'Rourke. I, in the interests of time and also my
tardiness, I would waive my opening remarks.
Mr. Arrington. You know what? It is just like a Texan, Mr.
Chairman, to make a dramatic entrance like that.
Ms. Esty. But then to yield.
Mr. O'Rourke. And then you yield.
Mr. Bost. Okay. Well, our first witness is the Board of
Veterans' Appeals Chairman, The Honorable Cheryl Mason. She is
accompanied by Mr. James Manker, VBA's Acting Principal Deputy
Under Secretary for benefits, and Mr. Lloyd Thrower, the Deputy
CIO, and Benefit Accounts Manager for VA's Office of
Information and Technology.
For our VSO witnesses, first is Mr. Matthew Shuman, the
Director of Legislative Division for The American Legion. Also
joining us today is Mr. Shane Liermann, Assistant National
Legislative Director for the DAV. Finally, we are also joined
by Ms. Lauren Augustine--Augustine, how bout that--Director of
Policy for the Student Veterans of America. I want to remind
all witnesses that your complete written statement will be
entered into the record here today.
Chairman Mason, you are now recognized for 5 minutes to
present the Department of Veterans Affairs testimony.
STATEMENT OF CHERYL L. MASON
Ms. Mason. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairman Bost--I'm
sorry--Bost and Arrington, Ranking Members Esty and O'Rourke,
and distinguished Members of the Subcommittees. Thank you for
the opportunity to testify today in support of the president's
fiscal year 2019 budget, including the fiscal year 2020
advanced appropriations request.
I am accompanied today by Mr. Jamie Manker, acting
principal deputy Under Secretary for benefits to VBA, and Lloyd
Thrower, deputy chief information officer, account manager for
benefits from OIT.
While the unwavering support and leadership of our VA
Committees, Congress passed groundbreaking legislation on VA
accountability, appeals, modernization, the Forever GI Bill,
and personal improvements.
The fiscal year 2019 budget fulfills the president's strong
commitment to all our Nation's veterans by providing the
resources necessary to improve the care and support our
veterans earned through sacrifice and service to our country.
The president's fiscal year 2019 budget requests of $109.2
billion in fiscal year 2019 is an increase of $1.5 billion over
the fiscal year 2018 budget advanced appropriations request and
$121.3 billion in fiscal year 2020 VBA's--for VBA's mandatory
advanced appropriations.
In addition, the budget requests a discretionary funding of
$2.9 billion for VBA and $174.7 million for the Board of
Veterans' Appeals for claims and appeals processing. The budget
request would allow VA to sustain the claims processing
improvements while concurrently focusing on the secretary's
priorities to modernize VA's systems and services, provide
high-quality efficient care and services, and keep up the
latest technology and standards of care.
For the Board, the fiscal year 2019 request of $174.7
million is $19.2 million above the fiscal year 2018 budget and
will sustain the 1,025 full-time equivalent employees who will
adjudicate and process legacy appeals while implementing the
Appeals Modernization Act at the Board.
VBA's fiscal year 2019 budget requests supports the
disability compensation benefits programs for millions of
veterans and their survivors. The budget also reflects a
sustained commitment to deliver 1.3 rating claims and 187,000
higher-level reviews and decrease the amount of time veterans
are waiting for decisions.
In August 2017, the president signed into law, the Veterans
Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017, representing
the most significant statutory change to impact VA claims and
appeals, we have seen in much--in a long time and provided
much-needed reform. The new system, still in the implementation
phase, provides a more efficient claims and appeals process for
veterans. Within VBA's 2019 requests, the $74 million which
will be used for 605 appeals processing FTEs.
Section 4 of the Modernization Act also authorizes the VA
to develop programs to testing assumptions relied upon in
planning; accordingly, VBA launched the RAMP, Rapid Appeals
Modernization Program, in November of 2017. The initiative
allows eligible participants the voluntary option to have their
decisions reviewed to higher-level review or supplemental claim
line, as outlined in the act.
Additionally, the Board is exploring a pilot program that
will allow the Board to make predictions about timelines and
productivity, test assumptions regarding appeals modernization,
streamline processes in anticipation of full implementation,
and find efficiencies.
On August 16th, 2017, the president signed into law, the
Forever GI Bill Act, which is the Harry W. Comery Veterans
Educational Assistance Act of 2017. This includes the most
comprehensive change to GI Bill benefits since the enactment of
the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act in 2008. This
bill provides access and availability to educational benefits
for eligible veterans and fundamentally changes the way we view
the GI Bill.
VA is also proud to be part of the Transition Assistance
Program interagency partnership. In 2017, VA made a strategic
decision to do a complete redesign of that curriculum. Since no
two military-to-civilian transitions are the same, the
redesigned curriculum is personalized to each transitioning
servicemember. VA looks forward to continuing to work with
Department of Defense and Department of Labor and all of our
other partners to improve and streamline TAP.
The Fiduciary Program requests $22 million in the fiscal
year 2019 budget for an additional 225 FTEs to protect benefits
paid to some of the most vulnerable beneficiaries, who, because
of disease, injury, advanced age, and being below the age of
18, are unable to manage VA benefits. There has been an over 60
percent increase in the active beneficiaries from the end of
fiscal year 2011 to the end of fiscal year 2017. The requested
resources will increase the capacity of VA to process
approximately 16,500 field exams.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to
address the fiscal year 2019 budget. The resources will honor
the president's commitment to veterans by providing the high-
quality benefits our veterans have earned. The budget will
support the secretary's efforts to achieve his top priorities.
Thank you for your support, and we look forward to responding
to any questions that you have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Cheryl Mason appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Bost. Thank you, Chairman Mason.
Mr. Shuman, please be--give--start your testimony with
the--for The American Legion, please. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW SHUMAN
Mr. Shuman. Making a promise is easy. Honoring the promises
you made, particularly, in the heated political climate we find
ourselves in, is more difficult.
Chairman Bost, Chairman Arrington, Ranking Members O'Rourke
and Esty, and distinguished Members of the Committee, on behalf
of Denise H. Rohan, national commander of The American Legion,
and our 2 million members, we thank you for the opportunity to
present our position on President Trump's proposed fiscal year
2019 budget for the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The American Legion appreciates the president following
through with the promises he made on the campaign trail to take
care of those who have served the United States in uniform. At
a time when most Federal agencies are experiencing a decrease
in their respective budgets, the VA will hopefully, with
assistance from these two critical Committees, receive a much-
needed increase.
Acknowledging my time before you is short, I will focus on
a few critical topics. 2017 was a productive year for veterans'
legislation. There is now doubt about that, sir. One bill The
American Legion championed in concert with this Committee was
modernizing the appeals process. Now that appeals modernization
is being implemented, we need to be sure the legacy appeals or
the older appeals are not forgotten and given the due process
they deserve.
The American Legion is thankful to see the increase of
funding for the Board of Veterans' Appeals and to maintain the
current 1,000 FTEs and hire an additional 600 employees to
address the appeals modernization reform and focus on the
legacy appeals. Some of these claims are older than I am and
that is simply embarrassing.
Shifting focus, after a veteran's claim has been
adjudicated, they are often eligible for access to the
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program, or also known
as VocRehab. This program provides comprehensive services and
assistance, enabling veterans with service- connected
disabilities and employment handicaps to achieve maximum
independence in day-to-day living, become employable, and
maintain suitable employment.
Our concern is simple. If funding is increased to process
more claims and appeals and those claims are, indeed,
adjudicated, it would increase the applicant pool for VocRehab.
If funding is not increased for VocRehab to hire more staff and
process the eligible applicants, the potential to overload the
applicant pool and the program as a whole, increases
exponentially; therefore, The American Legion would encourage
this Committee to increase funding for the VocRehab program,
which is simply charged with helping veterans become more
productive.
In terms of the GI Bill, let me first thank you, Chairman
Arrington, and the work that your Committee has done to create
and pass the Harry W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance
Act of 2017. There is no doubt this bill will help those who
have served, and The American Legion was and is thankful to be
part of the largest improvement to the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
While reviewing the president's proposed budget, we noticed
he planned to cap the costs of expensive flight- training
programs at institutions of higher learning. The American
Legion understands and applauds the Trump administration or why
the Trump administration has chosen to include this in their
budget request; however, we can only support this provision if
the funds saved from implementing the caps is returned to fund
other programs, such as the GI Bill or bettering the transition
process.
Lastly, and I would be remiss if I didn't mention this, Mr.
Chairman, I sit before you today on the ninety-ninth birthday
of The American Legion, meaning that for 99 years, we have done
exactly what I am doing today: advocating for those who have
selflessly defended and served this great and beautiful Nation
against the evil-doers of the world.
I extend a sincere proceedings from our 2 million members
to each of you for your dedication to veterans and The American
Legion. I can honestly say that we are very much looking
forward to the next 99 years.
Before I end, I will quickly remark, in terms of the COLA
comment that you made earlier, Ranking Member Esty, and that is
exactly the testimony I render this morning, The American
Legion is absolutely opposed to that and stands with you.
In closing, Chairman Arrington, Chairman Bost, Ranking
Members O'Rourke and Esty, and the distinguished Members of the
Committee, The American Legion thanks you for the opportunity
to share with you this afternoon and I am happy to answer in
questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Matthew Shuman appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Bost. Thank you, Mr. Shuman, and happy birthday.
So, Mr. Liermann, you may begin your DAV testimony.
STATEMENT OF SHANE L. LIERMANN
Mr. Liermann. Thank you. Messrs. Chairmen, Ranking Members,
and Members of the Subcommittees, on behalf of DAV, we thank
you for the opportunity to present our recommendations for the
fiscal year 2019 Veterans Benefits Administration and Board of
Veterans' Appeals budget.
I would like to note our funding recommendations were
developed with our partners in the Independent Budget,
Paralyzed Veterans of America, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars
of the United States. Our written testimony contains our
complete recommendations and today, I will briefly discuss a
few of those items.
Overall, we recommend approximately $3.1 billion for VBA
for fiscal year 2019. The administration's budget request for
VBA is approximately $2.9 billion, roughly $200 million less
than our recommendation.
In reference to compensation service personnel, we
recommend 900 additional employees for VBA, requiring an
estimated $92.4 million increase. Of those additional
employees, we recommend 500 to address the pending and future
appeals backlog and workload; another 350 to address non-
rating related work, such as dependency claims; and 50
employees for the fiduciary services.
By comparison, the administration's budget seeks 605
additional employees to implement the new appeals process and
reduce the inventory of pending appeals. We appreciate the
administration's commitment to reducing the large amount of
legacy appeals, however, there is a need to address the
additional staffing for non-rating related work.
In reference to Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment
services, we estimate that they will need an additional 143
employees in fiscal year 2019 for a total direct workforce of
1,585, in order to achieve the 1:125 counselor-to-client ratio.
Counselors manage an active caseload and provide support
services to almost 150,000 participants. This addition of 143
employees would require an increase of $18 million.
We are disappointed by the administration's proposal for a
decrease of $250 million for VocRehab. While we understand this
is partly due to lower pricing for the Transition Assistance
Program, this decrease completely disregards the increased need
of VocRehab services for veterans, even years after they have
separated from service. The administration even acknowledges
that since 2013, participation in VocRehab has increased by 17
percent; however, staffing levels having remained stagnant.
In reference to the Board of Veterans' Appeals, we do not
recommend any additional staffing for fiscal year 2019,
however, it is critical that the Board complete the hiring and
training of new personnel for 2018. With the full
implementation of the Appeals Modernization Act expected in
February 2019, it will be critical for VA and Congress to
carefully and regularly monitor workloads, timeliness, quality,
and other metrics to ensure that the Board is and remains
properly staffed in the future.
Within the administration's proposed budget, there are
several legislative proposals that we find troubling, as they
could have significant negative impact for veterans and their
families. First, we oppose the rounding down of veterans' COLAs
for 10 years. This proposal would reduce veterans' benefits by
$3.1 billion over a 10-year period and reducing veterans'
earned benefits for the sake of budgetary savings is not
consistent with this Nation's sacred obligation to care for
veterans and their families and DAV adamantly opposes this
proposal.
Second, we object to the proposal that seeks to narrow the
Agent Orange presumptives by redefining herbicide agents and
stating they were only used in Vietnam. Currently, herbicide
agents are defined as those containing dioxins, specific acids,
and any other chemical compound currently found in herbicides.
We strongly oppose this proposal to limit disability benefits
based on this narrowing of the definition of herbicide agents.
Third, we oppose the proposal to intentionally increase the
evidentiary threshold before the VA is required to order a
compensation and pension examination.
And, finally, we object to the proposal to eliminate
compensation payments to survivors and the estates of deceased,
named, or class members for Agent Orange presumptive diseases.
Messrs. Chairmen, we thank you for the opportunity this
afternoon. And this concludes my testimony. I would be pleased
to answer any questions you or any Members of the Subcommittee
may have.
[The prepared statement of Shane L. Lierman appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Bost. Thank you, Mr. Liermann.
Ms. Augustine, you are now recognized for the Student
Veterans of America.
STATEMENT OF LAUREN AUGUSTINE
Ms. Augustine. Thank you. Chairmen, Ranking Members, and
Members of the Subcommittees, thank you for inviting Student
Veterans of America to provide testimony on the Department of
Veterans Affairs fiscal year 2019 budget submission. We will
discuss our general concerns with the current budgetary
process, concerns specific to the Forever GI Bill
implementation, and Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment,
VR&E, budget requests, and suggestions to strengthen how VA
supports student veterans.
Concerns with the lack of regular order around the budget
process are consistent talking points within the veteran
advocacy community; nevertheless, the need for predictable
government funding is reiterating. Even with VA's robust
advanced appropriation funding cycle, the step and repeat of
continuing resolutions and looming threats of government
shutdowns leaves student veterans with questions and
uncertainty.
The recently passed Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 is an
appreciated first step towards resolving that uncertainty. And
as the next iteration of funding requirements comes due in the
immediate days, we hope to see continued compromise.
As the budget process does continue, we highly encourage
sufficient support and appropriations for readjustment benefits
largely comprised of economic opportunity programs within the
VA budget. VA's budget request calls for an estimated $15.5
billion in readjustment benefit obligations in 2019 and $16.1
billion in obligations for 2020. This does not include the
discretionary funding requests necessary to administer these
benefits.
While making up only a portion of the VA budget, these
programs are still substantial with billions in annual
appropriations. More importantly, economic opportunity programs
should be thought of as an integral part of the empowering
whole-health model of care VA prioritizes. Programs encompassed
under the economic opportunity umbrella, like the GI Bill and
Home Loan Guaranties are proven success stories.
Specifically looking at the GI Bill, last year SVA released
the National Veteran Educational Success Tracker, NVEST for
short, in partnership with VA. The first of its kind, it
studied 854,000 individual records; every Post-9/11 GI Bill
user from 2009 in the summer of 2015. The NVEST report outlines
the many ways student veterans outperform their peers on
campus, from higher grade point averages, a higher success
rate, and a propensity to obtain degrees in high-demand fields,
the data makes clear: Student veterans are worth the investment
America is making in them.
With that proven success and through increased access to
and participation in these benefits, budget obligations
continue to increase. We, again, encourage the Subcommittees to
think of such programs as an integral part of the whole of VA
when advocating for appropriated funds. A large demand on the
VA's budget related to economic opportunity programs stems from
implementation requirements for the Forever GI Bill.
As the leader of a coalition of over 60 organizations that
helped see Forever GI Bill become law, SVA commends VA and its
dedicated staff for the ongoing public outreach effort to make
those affected aware and to clear dedication to successfully
implementing the new law; however, as detailed in VA's budget
request, VA needs sufficient resources appropriated to fully
implement the Forever GI Bill. Specifically, while we
appreciated the authorized IT funds to help implementation,
these funds have yet to be appropriated. We encourage the
inclusion of such appropriations as soon as possible, given the
decreasing implementation window. Additionally, SVA encourages
including sufficient appropriations to meet VA's expected
staffing needs to address increased oversight and usage
expectations.
A second major program within VA's readjustment benefits is
the VR&E program. We believe it is necessary to meet the
current appropriations needs VA outlined in its budget request;
however, Congress should also address some of the underlying
resource issues and proactively improve the VR&E program. For
example, given the highly individualized nature of the program,
there is a strong need to ensure proper counselor-to-veteran
ratios as mandated in Public Law 114-223, which requires one
full-time employment equivalent for every 125 veterans. We
encourage these Subcommittees to hold VA accountable to that
ratio in their budget request.
SVA is a solution-oriented organization and we appreciate
the willingness to collaboratively address our concerns
alongside the Members of these Subcommittees. Our concerns with
the VA budget request have one common denominator: at present,
the VA's current enterprise structure is lacking a formal
leadership role for economic opportunity programs. To address
that, SVA strongly supports the creation of a new
administration within VA, the veteran economic opportunity
administration, which would include under secretary-level
representation for programs supporting economic opportunities
and transitions of veterans and their families. We feel this
new administration would be a re-focusing of existing resources
that modernizes VA and creates greater accountability for
economic opportunity and transition programs. SVA's detailed
support for this new administration will be the focus of
upcoming testimony on pending legislation.
We thank the Chairmen, Ranking Members, and the
Subcommittee Members for your time, attention, and devotion to
the cause of veterans in higher education. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Lauren Augustine appears in the
Appendix]
Mr. Bost. Thank you, Ms. Augustine.
And I am going to begin the questions. Chairman Mason, your
testimony indicates that the Board is exploring a pilot program
as an extension of RAMP to help expedite certain legacy appeals
prior to the full implementation of the appeals reforms. Can
you please describe why you feel the pilot program will provide
useful information if it is scheduled to begin in October of
2018 when the reform is expected to go live on February 2019,
less than four months later.
Ms. Mason. Certainly, Chairman. The Board is working with
digital service and OIT and our program-management team from
OEI in VA to look very closely at what we can do within a pilot
program to address concerns from both, GAO and this Committee,
about timeliness and productivity, as well as be able to test
how those veterans with going to choose the lanes they are
going to choose. And if we can do so in October of 2018,
beginning of fiscal year 2019, we will be able to pivot very
quickly with our partners to impact any changes we need before
February of 2019.
Mr. Bost. Yeah, that is a pretty quick pivot.
So, also, and if you can, just as brief as you can, but if
Congress increases the Board's budget at the president's
request, how long will it take to address the 155,000 appeals
currently pending at the Board?
Ms. Mason. We don't--we are working on a timeline on that.
As you know, we do start implementation of--plan to start
implementation of the appeals modernization in February of
2019, if not before, with the pilot. That means we are going to
be running both, the direct--both all five dockets at the
board, so we will need to balance the legacy cases, as well as
the 365 lane, which we will be working those veterans' cases
through as quickly as possible. To date, in 2018, the Board has
completed 34,300 decisions for veterans, which is a record
number for us.
Mr. Bost. Okay. According to the president's budget, the VA
projects that the Board will issue 81,000 BVA decisions this
year. Even if this occurs, how is the Board planning to address
its current appeals inventory, given the VA projects that the
Board will receive more than 90,000 appeals during that same
time period?
Ms. Mason. Mr. Chairman, we are on track right now. In
fact, we are running ahead--we are running a little bit over
100 percent for delivery of that 81,000, so I expect to exceed
that 81,000 decisions this year for fiscal year 2018.
As far as going into fiscal year 2019, we are continuing to
streamline our processes and re-engineer things, including the
new interactive decision tool that we are piloting right now
with the Board to speed up decision-rating times. I am also
exploring case-review options for our attorneys which would
allow a quicker case-review time to allow attorneys to get to
decisions quicker, to resolve--and quicker decisions out the
door. So, those things, in addition with the technology
increase that digital services is giving us, which is ongoing,
are the ways we are going to deliver those results.
Mr. Bost. I don't--you are just--I don't see that you are--
you are not breaking even with the numbers the way they look,
and I am hoping you can, I really do. Let me move on.
Mr. Manker, I am going to ask you a question that I asked
the full Committee hearing--I asked you in the full Committee
hearing, but hopefully you will give a better response, because
I think I kind of caught you off guard then.
Mr. Manker. Sure, absolutely.
Mr. Bost. The fiscal year 2019 budget request, an
additional 605 full-time equivalents for FTE--
Mr. Manker. Yes.
Mr. Bost [continued]. --that would dedicate to the VBA
appeals. Will the VA assign these employees to process legacy
appeals or process appeals under the new system?
Mr. Manker. So, the way we will assign the new 605 FTE that
we are getting in our appeals lane is to use just as many as we
need to achieve our 125 days for those that opt-in to or file
an appeal after February of next year. So, any additional FTE
will be used to work legacy appeals.
Additionally, as I look--as you look at our production thus
far, in January of 2017, we stood up an appeals management
office and we took all the FTE that were allotted for appeals
and we focused them solely on appeals. Since we have done, that
we have increased production in the appeals lane by 24 percent.
With the opt-in, we are hoping that we can get many of the
appeals, the legacy appeals to opt-in to the new process; that
is that RAMP process that we talked about.
Mr. Bost. Okay. So, what you are saying is it will be both?
Mr. Manker. That is exactly what I am saying.
Mr. Bost. Okay. Well, I hope, because we would like to see
this move as fast as possible.
I am out of time and I will recognize Ranking Member Esty.
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, again, thank you
all for your hard work and your testimony before us here today.
I want to start--there are a lot of places we could start--
but with Mr. Liermann. You had mentioned concerns about the
Agent Orange exposure. As you may know, I, and others on this
Committee, have been vigorously seeking attention with the
current veterans who are suffering from burn pit and other
toxic exposures. It is an issue of great concern for us, so,
certainly, your comments stood out to me.
Can you amplify a little bit what you think this means for
both, current veterans who may have appeals in the system, but
also what it may mean as we are facing this whole new round of
veterans who are actively asking us to take action before this
becomes a 30-year wait for a new generation of the equivalent
of Agent Orange, if you would, please?
Mr. Liermann. Yes, thank you. The way it is being proposed
in the budget is they want to redefine Agent Orange or
herbicides, specifically only those toxins that have TCDD. They
also want to say that only those toxins cause any of the
presumptive disabilities and they also want to say that that
toxin was only used in Vietnam and nowhere else.
So, by narrowing that scope and redefining, that means that
any veteran who has a disability related to herbicide exposure
outside of Vietnam, such as on at Korean DMZ or Blue Water Navy
or even in Thailand, would no longer be able to claim that
because of the re-definition down. We disagree with that, as I
noted, because the current statute doesn't define it that way.
It defines it as toxins, acids, and chemical compounds found,
and we think it should stay that way, so it doesn't affect any
current veterans receiving benefits and any pending appeals, as
well.
Ms. Esty. Thank you. And I know we hear from the Blue Water
veterans in my district all the time, as well as people who
served in Laos, Cambodia, and who had exposure in other places
where, in theory, we were not actually engaged in activities.
Mr. Shuman, if you--as we are trying to figure out if we
are going to be on track for all of the new appeals, we have
spent a lot of time--the VSO worked very hard to help us on the
moderation--do you have access to the materials that--to VA
leadership as the rollout is happening, to give feedback? And
we would enjoy it and we need it here, but, as well, do you
have access to VA leadership and materials from them about how
this is being processed, how this is being received, so that we
can roll it out in the best way possible and have RAMP actually
be successful?
Mr. Shuman. Well, thank you for the question, ma'am, and
the answer is yes. The American Legion, I think, is meeting
with Ms. Mason rather often. She's probably tired, as we are,
of some of our colleagues, Lou Celli, in particular, but, yeah,
absolutely, we meet with them frequently and get the necessary
information we need in our engaging conversations to make sure
that the program works to its best.
Ms. Esty. What are you finding about outreach? That is
obviously a concern that is, indeed, much of what you as VSOs
do is help provide that outreach. What are you hearing so far?
What do we need to do know about the VA's efforts itself, how
the VSOs fit into that, and what, if any, additional guidance
or resources might be needed from this Committee to assist in
this process?
Mr. Shuman. Well, thank you for that question, as well. I
think that is one area that always can be better improved is
communicating to the veteran community, particularly for the
hundreds of thousands of claims that are currently in process,
trying to figure out, and make sure that they are educated to
make the best decision, whether they need to move over to the
new system or not.
I know we work particularly closely with VA to share that
with our Members and I am sure my colleagues here at the table
do the same as well. I would be happy to answer that a little
bit more in-depth after discussing that with my team to figure
out where they are and exactly what we are hearing from our
Members.
Ms. Esty. Thank you. Because I do think that that is very
important, as if we are going to be successful in this, we need
to be learning what best practices are, which may differ in
different areas and I just wanted to underscore, again, our
concern, which you are going to hear from everyone here about
the legacy appeals. It is very important to move these new
appeals forward, but in fairness to the World War II and Korea
veterans in my district who have been waiting a very long time,
I think we all owe it to them to make sure that those legacy
appeals don't just disappear.
Mr. Shuman. You are right, they deserve it, ma'am.
Ms. Esty. They deserve it. And, again, I want to thank
everyone for their efforts. But we--our veterans served us, and
we need to ensure that we are effectively serving them.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Arrington. [Presiding] I want to thank the Ranking
Member. I will now take 5 minutes for questions and I will
start, Madam Chairman, with you and your team. Thanks for being
here and please feel free to defer to your colleagues if you
think they can better answer the question.
Is the Vocational Rehab Program working?
Ms. Mason. I am going to defer to Mr. Manker on that
question.
Mr. Arrington. Okay. Let me back up. What is the--define
success for the Vocational Rehab Program.
Mr. Manker. So, success for the VocRehab program is
completing--getting a veteran to where they are employable or
can live an independent life is my--
Mr. Arrington. Okay. So, that is education, training,
employment? It is all the above and in terms of services.
Mr. Manker. That's right.
Mr. Arrington. Okay. How is it going? Is the working? Are
we helping our veterans and are they achieving those desired
outcomes?
Mr. Manker. So, from our perspective, I believe so.
Mr. Arrington. What is your perspective; is that something
you just feel in your gut or do you have a scorecard? Do you
have a survey?
Mr. Manker. So, we measure VocRehab as successful outcomes.
I apologize for not having that information in front of me.
Mr. Arrington. That is okay. I didn't warn you about this,
but I just--part of it is I need to do an oversight hearing, we
do--
Mr. Manker. Absolutely.
Mr. Arrington [continued]. --on the VocRehab. We have done
on it on every other program--
Mr. Manker. That's right.
Mr. Arrington [continued]. --and I don't like to get--I am
on the budget Committee and this business of giving money and
talking about money and how to invest money wisely without
having a review, oversight, and re-authorization drives me
crazy. So, I just wanted to get some top line feedback from
you.
Mr. Manker. Absolutely.
Mr. Arrington. Do you have the numbers, and do they
demonstrate that this VocRehab is serving the customer, our
veterans, our disabled veterans.
Mr. Manker. What I would like to do is have Mr. Jack
Kammerer, who is our director for VocRehab, come back and talk
to you about that. But I would like to address--
Mr. Arrington. Do you have a sense that it is working,
though, that in terms of the numbers, do you think they are
there? If I--if the Committee gets those numbers, will they be
positive? Will they show a successful program?
Mr. Manker. Again, from my perspective, yes. We have looked
at the program and there are some veterans that were in the
program for a long time that have basically gone dormant, if
you will, have kind of opted out, not working in the program,
and we have--
Mr. Arrington. Let me just--and I don't mean to be rude,
but--
Mr. Manker. Sure.
Mr. Arrington [continued]. --do you think it is an
important program?
Mr. Manker. I absolutely think it is an important program.
Mr. Arrington. I want everybody that comes to the table to
talk about money to know about the program's effectiveness.
Mr. Manker. Sure.
Mr. Arrington. And if it does work and it is effective and
there is a need, then why are we not giving it the time and
attention and resources the other programs are getting? Because
like I said before in my opening remarks, there is been an
increase in demand by 12 percent, but they have cut the program
$257 million. I recognize that we don't have--even though we
act like we have all the money that we can print, that is not
true; someone will pay the piper one day, probably our kids or
grandkids, but nevertheless, it is about prioritization.
Is this a priority? Is it working? Why are we cutting the
money?
Mr. Manker. So, I am not certain where you are getting the
257--
Mr. Arrington. It is in my notes and if it is wrong, then I
will--I can accept that, too. So, we have talked about flat
line in terms of the staffing and what I have got here is that
the staffing has been requested flat at 1442 for the last 3
years.
Mr. Manker. That's correct.
Mr. Arrington. And the proposed budget includes a $257
million decrease in funds for VR&E. If that is not true, that
is fine, we can move on.
Mr. Manker. Right. I am looking at the delta between 2018
and 2019 of being $59 million and that consists of almost
entirely, the contract efficiencies that we experience in the
TAP program.
Mr. Arrington. Okay. I am going to come back to this, but
let me pivot to another question in the remaining seconds that
I have. If this is working, if it is important, if it is a
priority, then my question is, why have we had the VBA Under
Secretary or the Under Secretary for benefits vacant since
2015? Yikes. Yeah, nobody wants to take that--I don't want to
take that question.
Mr. Manker. Mr. Chairman, I would love to see an Under
Secretary for benefits.
Mr. Arrington. So, let's--you know, look, I mean, I support
this president 100 percent. I think he is doing most of the
right things, but I have got to say, we need the political
leadership. I served in the George W. Bush administration and
if you don't have the political leadership--and I don't care if
it is republican or democrat, those guys play a very important
role in oversight and accountability in driving down the
policies that we are passing that we expect to be done. So, I
am really concerned.
My time is expired, and I don't want to take advantage of
the chair here, but I am going to come back to this issue
because we just had a recent resignation as the deputy Under
Secretary for economic opportunity. I have heard my colleagues
on the other side of the aisle beat this drum and I haven't
chimed in because I'm not sure I agree with all the freeze,
because we need to find savings, efficiencies. We need to do
things that everybody in the country does in their families and
their businesses, but this gives me great pause in terms of the
commitment.
Ms. Mason. Congressman, just really quickly, there is a USB
nominee--
Mr. Arrington. Okay.
Ms. Mason [continued]. --currently. There is a hearing
scheduled for April the 11th.
Mr. Arrington. April the 11th. Okay. So, it has been vacant
a while now, you know, three years, but you have got somebody
in the queue.
Okay. My time is way expired and I promise you, I will give
you guys all the time you need. So, Mr.--my Ranking Member from
the Great State of Texas--
Mr. O'Rourke. You might want to let Mr. Takano go first. I
came after him.
Mr. Arrington. You bet. Mr. Takano, I yield 5 minutes to
you.
Mr. Takano. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yeah, I was happy to see
that close to the requested $30 million for Forever GI Bill IT
implementation is in the budget. Do you feel that the
implementation is proceeding on track and that the funds will
be required to fully implement the bill are available?
Mr. Thrower. Okay. Thank you for the question. I would say
that right now that the implementation is going quite well. We
are--I will, as context, would like to make sure that you
understand that we are implementing--the timing of this was
interesting because we began implementing--the statute was
passed at the same time we were already in the midst of the
very substantial overhaul of education systems with the work to
retire the benefits deliver network. We are--and so we are
balancing. The issue of trying to build the plane while you are
flying it is kind of interesting in dealing with that.
So, we have had a very strong partnership with education
services to identify those specific pieces of the bill that we
need to get in place through systems very quickly in order to
make sure that all the benefits that are in the statute are
implemented properly. We identified those Sections, 501 and
107, as well as correcting a lot of--we are making a lot of
changes to the letters that go out to veterans, so they
understand the ``forever'' part of the Forever GI Bill. We are
implementing those, and we are very much on track of having
these aspects onboard, as needed.
We are--at the same time, we are proceeding--
Mr. Takano. Okay. Mindful of my time, I just want to make
sure we get other folks to weigh in on implementation, so thank
you.
Anybody else here want to make a comment?
Ms. Augustine. Yes, thank you, sir, for the question. I
would like to weigh in on that we.
As was stated in our testimony, we appreciate the VA's
robust outreach efforts as it relates to Forever GI Bill
implementation and their dedication in the budget request to
address their implementation needs. We have been impressed with
their ability--their willingness to have stakeholder engagement
on the implementation process.
I would like to request that the VA be as robust in their
public outreach efforts moving forward. And I would also be
remiss if I did not, again, request that the appropriations
necessary to fully implement the bill, specifically the IT
needs, were appropriated quickly. Most of provisions go into
effect this August and that window is quickly decreasing, so
the appropriated funds are necessary now.
I also would like the VA include in their outreach efforts,
knowledge of why changes are being made, specifically, as it
relates to the VAH payments, so a delineated information about
monthly payments that they are receiving through e-Benefits or
some sort of notification would be very helpful in helping
veterans understand why things are changing, why benefits they
are seeing might be fluctuating. Thank you.
Mr. Takano. Okay. Great. Anybody else?
Okay. Regarding the GI Bill, this is a question to the VA,
do you have any data on how many veterans have applied for GI
Bill restoration and have their funds been restored?
Mr. Manker. So, we have notified over 8,000 veterans that
were affected and thus far, we have restored over 300
entitlements.
Mr. Takano. And do you have a dollar figure for what that
would be?
Mr. Manker. Sir, I'm sorry, I don't have that.
Mr. Takano. It would be great if I could get that dollar
figure.
Mr. Manker. Absolutely.
Mr. Takano. That would be greatly appreciated. I am
extremely disappointed that we are seeing in the Higher Ed
bill, a complete elimination of the 9010 rule. There is no
guard rails at all. The Department of Education is--the
regulatory process is going full speed ahead to give--the GI--
the Inspector General's own report in the Department of Ed is
fearful of what these regulatory rollbacks are going to do in
terms of increasing the for-profit predatory behaviors in the
for-profit higher-ed sector, and I am just very fearful about
what this will mean for liability to taxpayers going forward,
especially because these schools target our veterans.
Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Arrington. Thank you, Mr. Takano.
And now I yield 5 minutes to my Ranking Member from the
Great State of Texas, Mr. O'Rourke.
Mr. O'Rourke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would love to
begin with a question for Mr. Manker, only because I just--we
all just received testimony from the Gold Star Wives--Gold Star
families yesterday, survivors of those who were killed serving
this country, and just had the chance to meet with a few of the
Gold Star Wives in my office just now.
And I want to bring up two issues, which you may or may not
have an answer for, but I at least want to make sure they are
registered with you and that we get to follow up with you and
get a precise answer. One surviving spouse told me how every
year she receives a form in the mail that she has to fill out
and certify that she has not remarried and she said, you know,
as simple as this sounds, there is a shock to the system every
year when we receive this. Is there some way to just, if in the
case that you do re-marry, you can send something affirmatively
to the VA? I am not exactly sure who handles it. You may not
have an answer, but I would love for you to get back to me on
that one.
Mr. Manker. Certainly.
Mr. O'Rourke. And I shared with them that I was going to
see you and that I would raise that.
Mr. Manker. Okay.
Mr. O'Rourke. The other, more generally speaking, for Gold
Star families, what, if anything, does the Office of Survivor
Assistance need in terms of additional resources or authorities
that you do not have already? Again, if you don't have an
answer, let me know, and we will come back to you on it.
Mr. Manker. I absolutely will. I will get back to you on
that.
Mr. O'Rourke. Okay. And then for the VSOs, Mr. Shuman, I
really appreciate your comments on Vocational Rehab. I feel
like a number of us have addressed that. The Chairman has asked
some good questions.
For DAV and Mr. Liermann, on the toxic exposure, I was
struck by how many of the VSOs, from VFW to VVA to IAVA, raised
this issue. And we absolutely have to get it right for all the
reasons that you described, and the more narrowly we define
``exposure,'' the fewer people we are going to be able to help,
the more are going to die without treatment or care from the
Government that put them in harm's way in the first place. So,
I just thought your comments were wonderful and I think they
hit home with all of us.
And Ms. Augustine, you and SVA have just been terrific in
working with Chairman Arrington and me in the Committee on
Economic Opportunity on Forever GI Bill and other issues
involving integration after service. I love your question about
IT. Just in a sentence or two, were you satisfied with the
answer that you received from VBA?
Ms. Augustine. Yes, and we look forward to continuing to
work with them. Thank you.
Mr. O'Rourke. Great. You also mentioned an office of
veteran economic opportunity. And without getting into the
wisdom of whether we move that around, in the big picture,
where are you missing--where does SVA think we are missing
urgency on economic opportunity issues? I know that our
Chairman is doing a wonderful job on this; he has convened a
number of roundtables, with which--that you all participated
in. Where are you missing either resources or urgency or
attention from the VA side of the House right now?
Ms. Augustine. Thank you for that question. As the
Chairman, himself, said, there is generally less attention
given to economic opportunity programs and we feel that is
because it is currently under VBA. And VBA is primarily
focused, as they should be, on disability compensation, as that
is the bulk of their budget.
However, economic opportunity programs are a proactive,
empowering part of the VA's mission that can address many of
the problems and issues facing VHA and VBA farther down the
road, which we think validates the need for its own
administration. It also would allow greater accountability for
the Subcommittee who does a wonderful job bringing attention to
the programs and benefits within economic opportunity. It would
allow greater accountability for you all to have somebody
sitting here to ask these questions and make sure you are
getting somebody you can hold accountable to answer those
answers.
Mr. O'Rourke. Yeah, and just on those three issues, Mr.
Chairman, and Ms. Ranking Member, I just--I think if you all
could be our guides on this issue and help to hold the VA, as
well as the Committee, accountable for follow-through and
delivery. I know the Chairman is really big on accountability
and being able to measure and I like that, and I want to make
sure that as we implement, for example, the Forever GI Bill, as
we work on toxic exposure, and Vocational Rehab, that you all
help us in terms of giving us the feedback on how effective we
have been as a government on these issues. You are doing that
today, but just please continue to do that. We need the help.
So, thank you for your testimony, and I will yield--
Mr. Shuman. Congressman--
Mr. O'Rourke. Yeah, please?
Mr. Shuman. If you don't mind, Mr. Chairman? I will echo
the sentiments from Ms. Augustine. Adding a fourth
administration is critical in making sure that you have
somebody truly to hold accountable.
You will hear next week that the VA and others are opposed
to this idea. Really, having somebody to sit before you, as
long as we can fill that position, and holding them truly
accountable to get real answers and the data that you want, is
supported by The American Legion.
Mr. O'Rourke. Well, and until we do--and it sounds like
there is a lot of wisdom in that and we want to make sure--or I
want to make sure we do the due diligence and hear the full
argument on all sides--I really think we need more hearings
like this with the VBA present and informed, maybe a little
more, you know, I think over time, and maybe some of the
questions we have already asked for the record and we get
responses to, we begin to build a record of commitment or a
record where there are some gaps that need to be filled.
So, just know that I think this Committee is focused on
that and we will follow your lead, and then, perhaps, at some
point, there is somebody specific to hold accountable just for
these issues within the administration. So, I don't think that
is a bad idea. I think when you have that single point of
accountability, you are likely to get better results, so,
thanks.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Arrington. I want to thank the Ranking Member for his
remarks and now I will yield 5 minutes to my colleague from
Colorado, Mr. Coffman.
Mr. Coffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Manker, as you
know, the VA disability compensation system is the single
largest line item in the VA's budget. Over 4 million veterans
annually receive disability compensation and the expenditures
to those with disability ratings are growing at an
unprecedented rate.
When this Committee met with Secretary Shulkin last month,
there was a brief discussion on reducing compensation costs
through treatments, specifically regarding sleep apnea. Can you
elaborate on this?
Mr. Manker. So, the secretary--I will try to echo what he
said at the last hearing. To the extent that medical treatments
have advanced, the need to compensate for the loss of income
earning potential from a disability, we believe may have
changed. So, as we look at the VA's schedule for rating
disability, we want to look at it with this new set of eyes for
a--with a--taking all medical advances into account is really
what he was saying, much more effectively than I just said it
just now.
Mr. Coffman. Okay. So, you think that the statement that
this would also apply to acne, fever, gout, sinus infections,
laryngitis, and other treatable disabilities?
Mr. Manker. So, sir, we are in the throes, as we speak, of
looking at everybody system that is covered by the VA scheduled
rating disability and looking at every component of that
schedule to ensure that we are compensating properly.
Mr. Coffman. Okay. I yield back.
Mr. Arrington. The gentleman yields, and I will now yield 5
more minutes or as much time as she needs, to the Ranking
Member, Ms. Esty.
Ms. Esty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple quick
points to follow up on, on this, I think, really important
discussion about VocRehab. We have talked about it before, but
I think it is important to talk about it in terms of the budget
and priorities and, really, Ms. Augustine, you kind of
underscored some of that as well.
We have an incentive structure right now which calls upon
our veterans and pushes them to prove how disabled they are in
order to get support and then we turn around and, in theory, we
are trying to re-able them or able them, right? And so I think
your point about, that is an inconsistent message and mission.
Perhaps my colleague, Mr. O'Rourke, is right that both of these
programs should not be in the same administration. I think we
should be looking at this a little more closely and thinking
about whether separating the location of those two functions in
different parts of the VA might help in clarifying things. It
is currently a problem, because our point should be to enable
our veterans. And we all need to do a better job on that, and
it is not inconsistent to say that we are going to give you all
the help and support we can and then we are going to get you as
abled as you can be.
So, my second question, actually, for you, Mr.--and is it
Thrower or Thrower?
Mr. Thrower. Thrower.
Ms. Esty. Thrower, okay. I wanted to make sure we are
getting that right.
Mr. Thrower, it is come to my attention that the Blind
Veterans Association is extremely concerned that the--and,
particularly, as we rely more and more on Web sites--the Web
sites are not compliant for those who are visually impaired. We
have laws in this country that apply to all government agencies
and if you think about our blind or visually impaired veterans,
who are increasingly being urged, all of them, to go on to Web
sites, can you tell us, you know, what efforts are being
undertaken to facilitate blind and seeing-disabled--sight-
disabled veterans from being able to access Web sites, as is
required by law.
Mr. Thrower. Well, thank you for the question--not one that
I had expected--but I will say that we have a very robust 508
compliance regimen. We have a series of law--we have a 508
office that reviews all Web sites as they are launched. That is
part of the, sort of the ATO, the authority to operate, sort of
process that we go through.
I do not have any specific statistics on, you know, where
we stand in terms of potentially enabling things that have been
out there a long time, but I do know it is a very serious
matter within OIT in terms of making sure that we are compliant
with all 508 standards.
Ms. Esty. Then, we may follow up with the testimony that is
been shared with us that is finding it not, in fact. You may
get compliance by the people who are designing it, but if the
end-users, the veterans we are here to serve, are not able to
access, we have a problem, right? Whether it is a legal problem
or a functional problem, that is one we need to address, so I
hope we can follow up with you and see--it may meet the
technical definition, but, again, at the end of the day,
visually disabled veterans are not able to access the site,
then, you know, the law is not doing its job and we are not
doing our job.
Mr. Shuman, you are nodding your head yes. Anybody have
experience or can shed some light on this issue?
Mr. Shuman. I don't have particular experience, Ranking
Member, but I will agree with you, it doesn't matter if it is
law. If they are not being able to use it; that really matters.
So, we stand, again, with you. We are doing a lot of standing
today with you, to make sure that these--that all veterans,
regardless of disabilities, are able to access the information
at VA. You brought up a point that just struck me and I was
just agreeing with you, ma'am.
Ms. Esty. Thank you. And--
Mr. Thrower. And I completely agree with you, as well.
Ms. Esty. Sure. So, let's take a look at it.
And the final thing on the VocRehab, I can just tell you
that those ratios make a difference. You know, it is supposed
to be 125:1 on the counselors. I know in my district, we do a
lot of outreach. We have wonderful VSOs; a lot of them serve on
my advisory Committee. We hear all the time how they can't get
in to see somebody from VocRehab, and you have people waiting.
And we do outreach and then they can't get an appointment
and that is the last thing in the world that we want to be
doing. So, let us know if that is a resource question, we need
to know that, or we are not doing our job. We offer this
promise and then we don't, in fact, make it possible for our
veterans.
So, again, thank you for your efforts and I suspect we are
going to have more work to do together. Thank you, and I yield
back.
Mr. Arrington. I want to thank the gentlelady from
Connecticut, and our Ranking Member, Ms. Esty, for her line of
questions. And then I am going to now yield 5 minutes or as
much time as I might consume, which could be a lot of time,
because I have got a lot of questions, but I will respect the
fact that you guys are busy and, again, I do appreciate you
being here. And I am not trying to beat up on anybody, but I
feel like I always end up in that place where I am, you know,
beating up on somebody, Mr. Manker.
But, what is the plan? Let's just speak plainly and
directly. How are you going to compensate for the increase in
caseload--case work, among the VocRehab folks?
Mr. Manker. Sure. One of the things we are looking at, we
have got a pilot at a couple of ROs where we are taking the
administrative burden that the VocRehab counselors face in
filling out the paperwork, making sure that the equipment that
our VocRehab participants need to rehabilitate themselves, make
sure they have that. We have looked at contracting the
administrative portion of that out, so the counselors can
actually focus on that which we have hired them for, which is
to be a counselor.
Mr. Arrington. And you believe that that will compensate
for the 12 percent increase in caseload for these--
Mr. Manker. It certainly will help.
Mr. Arrington. I will tell you that I am not satisfied with
the visibility and the knowledge and of the efficacy of the
program and the sort of workload and how we are going to meet
the new demand.
Mr. Manker. Sure.
Mr. Arrington. It is not crisp enough for me. When I hear
it, I don't get a sense that--I get a sense that you are trying
to throw everything you can at it to try to meet the need, but
it is not strategic--
Mr. Manker. Sure.
Mr. Arrington [continued]. --and it doesn't seem like it is
being prioritized.
I am looking at an org chart. This is the--this is where
you would be here, as the acting deputy Under Secretary.
Mr. Manker. Yes.
Mr. Arrington. And that is a lot of work. That is a lot of
program and people to oversee. And one side is compensation and
pension and on the other side is field operation and then right
here in the middle is the VocRehab and other EO programs.
How much time, approximately, do you think you spend
overseeing each of those three legs of the stool here?
Mr. Manker. So, how much time--
Mr. Arrington. Approximately how much time do you provide
in oversight and management of the compensation and benefits--
Mr. Manker. Sure.
Mr. Arrington [continued]. --and then the field operation
and then EO in the middle?
Mr. Manker. I don't know if I could answer that directly.
What I can tell you is I have directors assigned over each one
of those activities that commit all of their time to ensuring
that the Under-Secretary's vision and my vision are actually
implemented.
Mr. Arrington. And the director, he resigned recently?
Mr. Manker. That was the under--the deputy Under Secretary
for economic opportunity. He actually did not resign; he
retired.
Mr. Arrington. He retired?
Mr. Manker. Yes.
Mr. Arrington. But it is a vacant position?
Mr. Manker. It is a vacant position.
Mr. Arrington. Okay.
Mr. Manker. Right now it is being occupied by our deputy
Under Secretary for benefits parent assistance.
Mr. Arrington. Do you find continuity a challenge for you
in terms of managing for excellence and performance to serve
the customer? Do you find the continuity of leadership or the
lack thereof, a challenge for you?
Mr. Manker. So, all of our deputy Under Secretary positions
and many of our director positions have been in those positions
for years, so--
Mr. Arrington. What about the political leadership?
Mr. Manker. Well, the political leadership, I believe, on
April 11th we will have a new political, so ...
Mr. Arrington. Okay. What--you are a manager--well, I won't
go down that. I think I have exhausted my union speech. I am
not going to wear out Ms. Esty on it.
Mr. Manker. I'm not a manager, I consider myself a leader,
also.
Mr. Arrington. What is that?
Mr. Manker. I said I like to consider myself a leader,
also.
Mr. Arrington. Let me shift gears a little bit on the IT
component, because we have had several hearings where IT has
been a challenge. I know that even in this VocRehab component
of EO, there was--there were 11,000 VR&E participants who were
delayed in receiving their subsistence allowance checks and
that it didn't appear there was much effort to notify them and
reconcile the situation.
So, are you aware of that? Has that been resolved? And is
that IT issue a deeper issue? Can somebody speak to that?
Mr. Manker. Sure. So, I can speak to--so, as the CFO, the
way a pay file is processed is generally it occurs before the
28th of the month. In this case, the VocRehab file, if you
will, started the process, but as soon as it hit the 28th, it
stopped processing.
There should have been some communication that occurred,
and I take that as a, this has never occurred before. We were
slow to respond. We were communicating at the local level. We
should have done more outreach and communication at the
national level.
So, we now have a plan, with respect to VocRehab--or we are
building a plan, anyway--is that should this occur again, which
I don't believe it will, but should it occur again, that we
will be a little more aggressive in the way that we respond.
Mr. Arrington. Is that an organizational management problem
or is that an IT systems problem?
Mr. Thrower. I will say that it is actually--you know,
there were obviously two components to this issue. There was a
system file that did not run properly and oddly enough--
ironically, it did not run properly because we were putting in
a patch to make it run faster and better at the same time. It
was a very unusual circumstance.
The recovery was--actually within two business days, things
were fixed and done and processed properly. The--
Mr. Arrington. My notes say that the participants, after 5
days, still hadn't been contacted. It could be wrong.
Mr. Manker. So, the problem is that it had occurred between
the last two days and on the last two days of the month, no
processing can go through the system.
Mr. Arrington. Sure.
Mr. Manker. So, it was all a timing thing. If we had done
the patch in the middle of the month as opposed to the end of
the month--
Mr. Arrington. Okay.
Mr. Manker [continued]. --that would have been one thing.
Communication, again, I take that as one that we should have
done more aggressively.
Mr. Arrington. Okay. And I accept that, and I don't want to
nitpick you. I guess the real question is, because I have seen
fundamental IT problems where we have spent hundreds of
millions of dollars on updating legacy systems where we could
take something off the shelf, where we have customized where we
should have taken off the shelf or vice- versa and it just--and
we are just spending our wheels and spending a bunch of
taxpayer money and to little avail.
And IT can make us more efficient and effective if we get
it right. Are there IT root causes in the EO area, especially
focused on Vocational Rehab in this instance? Are there some
root IT issues there or is it just a blip on the screen because
of a patch that you should have just da, da, da, da, da.
Mr. Thrower. I will say in this particular instance, this
was blip. It has caused us to actually look at similar
processes across the board to make sure that this doesn't
happen, not only here, but anywhere else.
But at the same time, there are some substantial underlying
things that we are looking to address. We are in an environment
where we do have a lot of legacy systems that we are--that do
hold us back from being as agile as we would like to be; things
like, as I mentioned earlier, the effort to retire the benefits
delivery network that is in the education space, will be a
major milestone in terms of modernizing and updating our
systems so that we are more flexible and more agile.
We have a challenge in that a vast majority of our budget
is spent on operations and maintenance and we are really trying
to work to change that equation, so, yes.
Mr. Arrington. Well, I appreciate your candor. You said
substantial; that gets my attention. And ``waste''--you didn't
use that word to be fair--but money spent on operation and
maintenance, it is not necessary to spend if we could get the
right system in place.
And then it begs the question again, are we giving enough
time and attention and resources to this area because it seems
that when you have got 12 billion new dollars flowing into the
VA and we have had billions upon billions every year and yet
this relatively small, but incredibly important component, of
getting people in a place where they can be self-sufficient and
productive and fulfilled in their lives and contributing again,
that just seems that I would--it is kind of like the TAPs
program. I mean, we spend so much to make these guys and gals
warriors of the best kind and class in the world and then we
spend a fraction to assimilate or re-assimilate and prepare
them for civilian life.
But I get that feeling altogether, really, on the VocRehab
and all these EO programs. I just get a sense that they are
not--and then when I ask about it--and no offense, because you
have got a big portfolio--but I am not so sure that that is too
big.
I am going back now to Ms. Augustine about her comment
about--let me ask the other folks and be fair to get them
involved here, but Mr. Shuman, would you comment on, do you
sense that there is a priority there? And, again, I am not
trying to pick on anybody. Is it a priority? Is it a resource
issue? Is it an organizational structure issue? Is it a
management issue? Is it all the above? I would like for you and
your VSO counterparts to comment and expound on that.
Mr. Shuman. Well, thank you, Chairman, and I am going to go
exactly back to a comment I made earlier. I think this is a
great idea of why creating a fourth administration, what you
are able to do is put an Under Secretary at the head of this
that would work with these fine people to be able to spend and
give the focus that is necessary. I think that will aid this
process going forward and it will just be better.
Mr. Arrington. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Liermann?
Mr. Liermann. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First off, I am a
successful outcome of the VocRehab program.
Mr. Arrington. That is great.
Mr. Liermann. I, personally, went through the program
myself almost 20 years ago and I have the career I have now
because of the time and attention that I received from my
VocRehab counselor.
Mr. Arrington. That is awesome.
Mr. Liermann. But to address the current issue, over the
last 20 years, I have been helping and assisting other disabled
veterans get into these programs to get access to benefits. And
when you look at the current, or at least the last 6 years,
there has not been an increase in any of the staffing in
VocRehab for about the last 6 years, so I think there is a
serious resource issue.
We can't expect the increase of participants to continue to
go up and not increase the number of counselors to provide that
service. We have more positive outcomes--
Mr. Arrington. Are you getting the feedback that there are
bottlenecks in the system as a result or are we just making
that leap based on the numbers that we have of the increase in
demand? That is, maybe they have the capacity. Maybe they had
more capacity and they can absorb this--I don't know--but my
colleague has communicated to me and everyone here that she's
starting to see that in her area, her district, her region of
the country.
Are you seeing it in other places?
Mr. Liermann. Yes, I think there is pockets, Mr. Chairman,
where there are certain regional VA offices that have the
resources available and there are others that might be
overtasked, and so you have one counselor dealing--because the
current rolling average is 136 participants per counselor and
the requirement is 125. So, if you take that average over 50 VA
regional offices around the country or 60, that means that
there are going to be some that are completely overtasked and
there are going to be others that are handling the workload
very well.
So, I think there may be a bottleneck and I really think
there is a resource issue, because it hasn't been addressed by
any administration for the last 6 years.
Mr. Arrington. Ms. Augustine, would you like to comment on
that?
Ms. Augustine. Yes, as I have spoken to already, we are
strongly supportive of a fourth administration; in fact, it is
one of our top policy priorities for 2018. Because of the
reasons you have outlined, there isn't sufficient leadership
there to be accountable to and a champion for these programs.
And we view it as a vital step forward to making sure these
proactive empowering programs get the attention they deserve
and the attention that the American taxpayer has invested into
it.
The only thing I would like to add, which I think addresses
some of the concerns you have both raised, our legal fellow
Cassie has started compiling concerns that she has received
from our student veterans specific to VocRehab and we would be
happy to set up a time to brief you both on concerns that she
has received.
Mr. Arrington. Thank you very much for that kind of and,
thank you, sir, for sharing your personal story of benefitting
from that service, which is a great anecdote for all of us.
I am going to close out here, I promise, but I think you
could add political leadership, oversight, accountability and
enhanced management and attention over areas like this that I
think need it in a budget-neutral way. I don't think you have
to spend more money to do that. We have got $12 billion. It is
about prioritization.
I haven't been doing this long enough to say definitively
that we need to do it, which is why I am asking you all, but my
hunch is we do. I have heard the administration is not
interested, but that is secondhand. So, have you all
communicated with the administration and the leadership of the
VA and what have you received in way of a response?
Ms. Augustine. Yes, we have communicated that a need for
veteran economic opportunity administration is a priority of
ours with the administration and, specifically, with leaders
within VA. And we have received some valid concerns from them
that we look forward to hearing in next week's testimony, which
includes draft legislation on this very topic.
Mr. Arrington. Okay. Well, I look forward to that
discussion, a more focused, but robust discussion about that. I
think we need to have it. I would like for the administration
to buy into that. I am not big on telling management how to
manage. I am into holding management accountable for the lack
thereof and for the lack of the desired outcomes, which is hard
to come by even these days, as I have talked about with my
colleague.
I want to ask you all to tell me where, if we did increase
this money, I mean the resources, where you would find an
offset within the VA. This is--by the way, I am not attributing
this to my colleague; this is all me--but I won't make you do
that, because I don't know that I have heard anybody come to
this table with suggestions on where to cut things that aren't
working for savings that could be reinvested in areas that we
all believe are priorities and we see living proof right in
front of us, except for my friend Mr. Shuman, who did say we
could save some on that flight program by capping and
redirecting.
So, that will be for round two one day when you guys come
back here, but I want everybody at the VA to know as loaning as
I am Chairman of the Economic Opportunity Subcommittee, I want
to know what success is for any program. I want to know if we
are achieving that success. And I want to know where we need to
make additional investment and where we can make additional
efficiencies, and therefore, savings, either to give back to
the taxpayer or to reinvest in areas that are working and to
serve our customer.
Ms. Esty has been very patient to hang in there with me,
and you guys have, too. Thank you for indulging me with all
this. We care about this and we want to get it right. We know
you guys do, too, so let's work to improve the service to our
heroes and to our taxpayers.
So, with that, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have--this is really hard to read to my colleague--5--that
sounds like--it looks like 4--5 legislative days in which to
revise and extend their remarks. Hearing no objection, so
ordered.
[The statement of the American Federation of Government
Employees, AFL-CIO appears on p. ]
[Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the Subcommittees were
adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Prepared Statement of Honorable Cheryl L. Mason
Good afternoon, Chairmen Bost and Arrington, Ranking Members Esty
and O'Rourke, and distinguished members of the Subcommittees. Thank you
for the opportunity to testify today in support of the President's
Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Budget, including the FY2020 Advance
Appropriation (AA) request. I am accompanied today by Jamie Manker,
Acting Principal Deputy Under Secretary for Benefits for Veterans
Benefits Administration (VBA), and Lloyd Thrower, Deputy Chief
Information Officer, Account Manager for Benefits, from VA's Office of
Information and Technology (OI&T). With the unwavering support and
leadership of our VA Committees, the Congress passed groundbreaking
legislation on VA accountability, appeals modernization, the Forever GI
Bill, and personnel improvements. The FY2019 Budget fulfills the
President's strong commitment to all of our Nation's Veterans by
providing the resources necessary to improve the care and support our
Veterans have earned through sacrifice and service to our country.
Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 Budget Request
The President's FY2019 Budget requests $109.2 billion in FY2019, an
increase of $1.5 billion over the FY2018 President's Budget advance
appropriations request for $107.7 billion, and $121.3 billion in FY2020
for VBA's mandatory advance appropriations, including Compensation and
Pensions, Readjustment Benefits, and Veterans Insurance and
Indemnities. In addition, the Budget requests discretionary funding of
$2.9 billion for VBA and $174.7 million for the Board of Veterans'
Appeals (the Board) for claims and appeals processing. The Budget
request would allow VA to sustain the claims processing improvements
implemented over the past several years while concurrently focusing on
the Secretary's priorities to modernize VA systems and services so the
Department can continue to provide high-quality, efficient care and
services, and keep up with the latest technology and standards of care.
The initiatives in our Budget request are consistent with this
priority.
For the Board, the FY2019 request of $174.7 million is $19.2
million above the FY2018 Budget and will sustain the 1,025 full time
equivalent employees (FTEs) who will adjudicate and process legacy
appeals while implementing the Appeals Modernization Act. The Board is
currently on pace to produce over 81,000 decisions in FY2018, a
historic level of production.
Accelerating Processing of Disability Compensation Claims
Since 2013, VA has made remarkable progress toward reducing the
backlog of disability compensation claims pending over 125 days. VBA's
FY2019 Budget request of $2.9 billion would allow VBA to build upon the
gains made in claims processing over the past several years. The Budget
supports the disability compensation benefits program for approximately
4.9 million Veterans and 432,000 survivors. The Budget also reflects a
sustained commitment to deliver 1.3 million rating claims and 187,000
higher-level reviews and decrease the amount of time Veterans wait for
a decision.
To continue improving disability compensation claims processing,
VBA has implemented an initiative called Decision Ready Claims (DRC).
The DRC initiative offers Veterans, Servicemembers, and survivors
faster claims decisions through a partnership with Veterans Service
Organizations (VSOs) and other accredited representatives. These VSOs,
and other accredited representatives, help to ensure that applicants
include all supporting evidence with the claim at the time of
submission, which allows VA to decide the claim within 30 days of
submission. Since the inception of the program, DRCs are being decided
in an average of 10.2 days.
Appeals Modernization
In August 2017, the President signed into law the Veterans Appeals
Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (Modernization Act), which
represents the most significant statutory change to impact VA claims
and appeals and provides much-needed reform. The new system, still in
the implementation phase, provides a more efficient claims and appeals
process for Veterans, with opportunities for early resolution of
disagreements with VA decisions.
In addition, within VBA's FY2019 request, $74 million will be used
for 605 appeals-processing FTEs. This increase would sustain 2,100 FTEs
dedicated to reducing the legacy appeals inventory and reviewing claims
decisions under the Modernization Act.
The request also follows VBA's realignment of its administrative
appeals program under the Appeals Management Office in January 2017, as
part of an effort to streamline and improve performance in legacy
appeals processing. The improved focus and accountability resulting
from this realignment helped increase VBA appeals production by
approximately 24 percent, decrease its appeals inventory by 10 percent,
and increase its appeals resolutions by 10 percent, resolving over
124,000 appeals during FY2017.
In FY2019, the Appeals Modernization project will achieve the
benefit of using Caseflow Certification, a commercially-developed
system, that will help reduce errors and delays caused by disjointed
manual claims processing, and improve the Veteran experience by
enabling transparency of appeals processing and ultimately facilitating
the delivery of more timely appeals decisions.
Section 4 of the Modernization Act also authorizes VA to develop
programs to test assumptions relied upon in planning. Accordingly, VBA
launched the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP) on November 1,
2017. The initiative allows eligible participants with disability
compensation appeals pending with VBA the voluntary option to have
their decisions reviewed in the higher-level or supplemental claim
lanes outlined in the Modernization Act.
With RAMP, VA has already made great strides toward implementing
the new appeals process. After gathering input from VSO partners and
other stakeholders, VA is testing the new process from intake to
issuance of a decision. This includes testing the election opt-in
notice, the new decision notice that meets the requirements outlined in
the statute, as well as internal standard operating procedures.
Additionally, the Board is exploring a pilot program that will
allow VA to make predictions regarding Veteran behavior, resource
allocation, and timeliness in all five options in the new system. The
goal of the pilot is to identify needs and concerns related to full
implementation, and make predictions about timeliness and productivity.
The pilot will test people, processes, and technology to ensure
successful implementation of Appeals Modernization. It will draw on
appeals to the Board from Veterans who receive RAMP decisions, elect to
file a Notice of Disagreement with the Board, and are in the RAMP queue
at the Board. The pilot is likely to begin in October 2018. The goal is
to identify potential issues while operating on a smaller scale. The
Board will engage all stakeholders before launching any pilot. The
pilot will allow the Board to test assumptions regarding Appeals
Modernization, streamline processes in anticipation of full
implementation, and find efficiencies where they exist.
Forever GI Bill
On August 16, 2017, the President signed into law the Harry W.
Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2017 (Public Law 115-
48), nicknamed the ``Forever GI Bill.'' This law includes the most
comprehensive change to GI Bill benefits since enactment of the Post-9/
11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act in 2008. The Forever GI Bill
enhances access and availability to educational benefits for eligible
Veterans through several technical adjustments, calls for investment in
information technology (IT) systems, and fundamentally changes the way
we view the GI Bill. It is known as the Forever GI Bill because of its
most recognized feature - the removal of the 15-year time limitation
for Veterans who transitioned out of the military after January 1,
2013, and eligible dependents, to use their Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits.
The law also restores benefits to Veterans impacted by school closures
since 2015 and expands benefits for certain Reservists, surviving
dependents, and Purple Heart recipients among other improvements. A
number of the provisions of this law were effective upon enactment,
while several others will take effect on August 1, 2018, or at a later
date.
The impact of this statute is that 22 of the law's 34 provisions
require significant changes to IT systems. Currently, OI&T is primarily
focused on a solution for the most comprehensive provisions - Sections
107 and 501 at an estimated cost of $8 million. VA has authorized the
recruitment of 200 temporary field employees to manage the new
workload, and launched an extensive outreach and promotional campaign
to ensure all beneficiaries are aware of the enhancements to GI Bill
benefits.
VA has begun implementing provisions effective on the date of
enactment. On November 15, 2017, VA notified nearly 8,000 beneficiaries
and processed nearly 900 applications to restore entitlement to those
impacted by school closures. VA has also notified nearly 3,200
beneficiaries, under the Reserve Educational Assistance Program, who
lost benefits due to the sunset of the program who can now elect to
have their qualifying active duty service periods credited towards
establishing eligibility under the Post-9/11 GI Bill Program.
Furthermore, VA has informed individuals of the changes to the time
limitation for the GI Bill and will continue communicating with these
beneficiaries. VA is also working to revise regulations, develop
communications plans, and build operational models to implement the 18
provisions that will take effect August 1, 2018.
Transition Assistance Program
VA is proud to be a part of the Transition Assistance Program (TAP)
interagency partnership. We are excited to tell you about our ongoing
efforts to make TAP more holistic, relevant, and beneficial. In FY2017,
VA conducted over 50,000 military installation engagements in support
of transitioning Servicemembers (TSM) and their families. VA is
collaborating with DoD to align TAP offerings with the current Military
Life Cycle framework, which embeds transition planning and preparation
for meeting career-readiness standards throughout a Servicemember's
military career. In FY2017, VA made a strategic decision to do a
complete redesign of the curriculum, exceeding the standard review
requirement. Since no two military to civilian transitions are the
same, the redesigned curriculum is personalized and relevant to each
TSM based on where they are in their transition journey. Through this
process, VA identified targeted areas of focus that have a particular
importance to the TSM population, including (but not limited to) whole
health, gender-specific health, mental health, suicide prevention,
trauma/crisis support, career preparation, education, vocational
rehabilitation, housing, homeless support, and disability benefits.
During FY2016, VA also designed a new curriculum specific to members of
the National Guard and Reserve. The National Guard and Reserve
components have unique needs due to their missions and mobilizations,
and eligibility for VA programs is often more complex to adjudicate.
VA consistently receives high evaluations from Servicemembers who
attend Benefits Briefings I and II, averaging 96-percent satisfaction
on information learned, 96 percent on effectiveness of the
facilitators, and 94 percent on confidence gained from the material.
Together, the partnership has accomplished a great deal, but there is
still much work to be done. VA looks forward to continuing to work with
the Department of Defense (DoD), Department of Labor (DOL), and all of
our partners (Department of Homeland Security (Coast Guard), Office of
Personnel Management, Small Business Administration, and Department of
Education) to continue to improve and streamline TAP for future
transitioning Servicemembers and their families.
VA has collaborated with DoD and DOL, and all of our partners DHS,
CG, OPM, SBA, and ED to define what ``success'' means for TAP. The
agreed definition of success for TAP transitioning Servicemembers
includes either obtaining employment, starting a business, or enrolling
in an educational program. The TAP interagency partners strongly
believe that the impact on Veterans beyond 12 months post-TAP
completion is likely to be influenced by much more than TAP; therefore,
the most valid measures of the effectiveness of TAP should be focused
on the first 12 months post-separation.
The current interagency TAP Evaluation Plan for FY2017-2018,
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), includes a
robust set of assessment methods and tools to evaluate the processes
for TAP delivery, immediate results of program delivery (e.g., whether
separations comply with statute and policy), and the desired systematic
impacts (e.g., Veterans successfully obtain employment, start a new
business, and/or seek additional education).
VA is working with interagency partners to collect feedback on
post-separation outcomes via a post-separation assessment.
Implementation of the assessment will give VA the opportunity to ensure
that TAP is employing the right tactics to help Servicemembers
transition successfully and will allow VA to conduct data-driven
evaluation of the effectiveness of TAP and the long-term impact of
interagency transition services.
Over the last year, VA, with contractor support, developed a survey
protocol for the Post Separation TAP Assessment. To date, VA has
completed cognitive pretesting with Veterans, including VSO partners
and Veteran peer groups to obtain outside input and feedback used to
modify the assessment questionnaire. In February 2018, VA submitted the
long-term assessment instrument to OMB for approval and published the
related notice in the Federal Register.
VA has redesigned the VA Benefits briefings, which are part of the
overall TAP curriculum. In addition to continuing VA's focus on
providing information and access to VA resources for career
preparation, education, vocational rehabilitation, housing, insurance,
and disability benefits, VA has added a focus on whole health and
strengthened material related to health care, mental health, suicide
prevention, and trauma/crisis support. In addition, VA Benefit Advisors
will facilitate live, real-time registration into VA health care and/or
mental health care for all Servicemembers still on active duty status
while participating in TAP. This new facilitated registration allows
the transitioning Servicemembers, who choose to opt in to VA care, the
ability to follow along with the instructor and complete their VA
health care application online through a secure internet connection. VA
health care applications completed by transitioning Servicemembers will
be adjudicated by VA after the date of discharge. This redesigned
curriculum has been pilot tested with Servicemembers at five military
installations and will be deployed worldwide on April 2, 2018.
Fiduciary FTEs
The Fiduciary Program requests $22 million in the FY2019 Budget for
an additional 225 FTEs to protect benefits paid to some of the most
vulnerable beneficiaries who, because of disease, injury, infirmities
of advanced age, or by reason of being less than age 18, are unable to
manage their VA benefits. There has been over a 60-percent increase in
active beneficiaries from the end of FY2011 (approximately 122,000) to
the end of FY2017 (approximately 196,000). The Fiduciary Program has
served more than 211,000 total beneficiaries in FY2017. The number of
beneficiaries is projected to increase approximately six percent each
year. The average age of beneficiaries in the Fiduciary program is
approximately 79 years and over 60 percent of beneficiaries are over
the age of 80. The requested resources will increase the capacity of VA
to process approximately 16,500 additional field examinations.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to address
the FY2019 Budget. These resources will honor the President's
commitment to Veterans by continuing to enable the high-quality
benefits our Veterans have earned. The Budget will support the
Secretary's efforts to achieve his top priorities while ensuring that
VA is a source of pride for Veterans, beneficiaries, employees, and
taxpayers. Thank you for your support.
This concludes my statement. Thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today. We would be pleased to respond to questions
you or the other Members of the Committee may have.
Prepared Statement of Matthew J. Shuman
Chairman Arrington, Chairman Bost, Ranking Members O'Rourke and
Esty, and distinguished members of both Subcommittees, on behalf of
Denise H. Rohan, National Commander of The American Legion; the
country's largest patriotic wartime service organization for veterans
and our 2 million members; we thank you for inviting The American
Legion to present our position on President Trump's proposed FY19
budget \1\ for the Department of Veterans Affairs before you today.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An American Budget: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/
uploads/2018/02/budget-fy2019.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Legion is a resolution-based organization; we are
directed and driven by the millions of active Legionnaires who have
dedicated their money, time, and resources to the continued service of
veterans and their families. Our positions are guided by nearly 100
years of advocacy and resolutions that originate at the grassroots
level of the organization -local American Legion posts and veterans in
every congressional district of America.
The American Legion appreciates President Trump following through
with the promises he made on the campaign trail. At a time when most
Federal agencies are experiencing a decrease in their respective
budgets, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will hopefully, with
assistance from these critical Committees, receive a much-needed
increase.
VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION & BOARD OF VETERANS APPEALS
``Streamlines Delivery of Veteran Benefits. VA provides veterans
and eligible dependents with benefits including disability
compensation, pension, GI Bill, educational assistance, vocational
rehabilitation, and home loan guaranties among others. The Budget
invests $2.9 billion, a 1-percent increase from the 2017 enacted level
for these programs. These benefits directly support the economic
security of veterans and their families, and reflect a greater
commitment to a better future. \2\''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ An American Budget: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/
uploads/2018/02/budget-fy2019.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-An American Budget, Trump Administration's Proposed FY 19 Budget
One of the priorities of The American Legion is to ensure the men
and women who have selflessly served our Nation receive the benefits
they earned while wearing the uniform of the U.S. Armed Forces. There
is no question that 2017 was a successful year for legislation dealing
with and improving the quality of life for veterans. From passing the
accountability and whistleblower legislation that arms the Secretary of
the VA with the ability to terminate defunct employees, reforming the
VA appeals process allowing for disability claim decisions to be
rendered in a more realistic time frame, and passing the Harry W.
Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2017, which was named
after an original author of the G.I. Bill and past national commander
of The American Legion; 2017 was indeed a great and productive year. It
is vital that we keep the momentum moving in a direction that benefits
those who have raised their right hand, taking an oath to defend our
great Nation.
In order to ensure veterans receive the benefits they earned, we
must guarantee that proper funding allocated, setting up VA for
success. The president's proposed budget calls for:
Benefits Claims Processing:
Provide $2.9 billion to Veterans Benefits Administration
(VBA) to process 1.5 million veterans rating claims and 4.5 million
education claims
Hire an additional 225 fiduciary employees to protect
VA's most vulnerable veterans who are unable to manage their VA
benefits
Appeals Reform:
Implement a new appeals process that is clear,
understandable, and provides veterans with choices that best meet their
needs.
Provide the Board of Veterans Appeals (BVA) with $175
million, to support 1,025 full time employees (FTE) to implement reform
and address legacy appeals.
Provide VBA with $74 million to hire 605 FTE to address
appeals
By resolution, The American Legion advocated for the modernization
of the antiquated appeals system, also referred to as ``legacy
appeals.'' The passage and signing of this law, aimed at modernizing
the broken process that had claims in the system for more than a
decade, and in some cases even longer. A new reform bill will provide
three different routes that a veteran can take to receive a judgement,
placing the veteran in control of their claim. Allowing the veteran
control and creating numerous ways for them to file their claim will
allow the VA to render a decision on the veteran's claim within a year.
This was, and remains, a much-needed improvement to an archaic and
dilapidated system.
A concern held by many is how the VA prioritizes and processes
legacy appeals. The American Legion applauds the president's call to
increase funding for this program and establishing the hiring of over
1,000 new FTE that will be able to assist in the processing of the
legacy appeals.
Additionally, prior to a claim decision or judgement being
appealed, an initial claim processing must take place. The American
Legion applauds the president's proposed budget in calling for
increased funding for the VBA to process the 1.5 million veterans
rating claims along with the 4.5 million education claims. Members of
The American Legion understand the need for VBA to process a veteran's
claim within a timely manner, treating them with the respect they
deserve. Providing increased funding will allow VA to process claims
faster and better, to the benefit of the veteran. Processing claims the
correct way will reduce the amount of appeals, essentially reducing the
workload on the VA and the negative impact on the veteran.
VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION & EMPLOYMENT
The Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) Program
provides comprehensive services and assistance enabling veterans with
service-connected disabilities and employment handicaps to achieve
maximum independence in daily living, become employable, and maintain
suitable employment. After a veteran is found to be entitled to VR&E, a
vocational rehabilitation counselor helps the veteran identify a
suitable employment goal and determines the appropriate services
necessary to achieve their goal.
The American Legion is pleased the appeals claims process is being
modernized, and that the president's proposed budget calls for $135.5
million to be allocated for the Board of Veterans Appeals and related
IT initiatives to reduce the pending appeals inventory. Additionally,
we are thankful that $74 million is requested in the president's budget
to hire an additional 605 full-time VBA employees to assist in
decreasing and processing veterans claims.
Once a veteran's claim has been adjudicated, the next step is
approval and access to utilize the VR&E program. However, if the
processing rate of adjudicating claims is increased and no investment
into the VR&E program is made, The American Legion fears the unintended
consequence of increasing the applicant pool for VR&E without
increasing support staff will cause concern.
Between FY11 and FY 16, VR&E applicants rose from 65,239 to
112,115, creating increasing workloads for VR&E counselors tasked with
developing employment goals and services for beneficiaries. The
American Legion recognized the escalating problems associated with
VR&E, and at our 2016 National Convention enacted Resolution No. 345:
Support for Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program Hiring
More Counselors and Employment Coordinators \3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ American Legion Resolution No. 345: https://archive.legion.org/
bitstream/handle/123456789/5663/2016N345.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The combination of the increasing output of claims and appeals
while not increasing the number of program counselors in the Vocational
Rehabilitation and Employment program has the potential to accelerate
the challenge into a full-blown crisis for veterans enrolled in the
program.
The American Legion is thankful and proud to have worked closely
with this Committee and others in Congress to modernize the appeals
process and is appreciative that the president's budget requests the
funding necessary to complete the modernization. We also encourage this
Committee to consider and take into account the impending need to
increase funding for the VR&E program, so we can assist veterans in
finding quality employment.
ENHANCE & EXPAND ACCESS TO POST-9/11 G.I. BILL EDUCATION BENEFITS
The passage of the Harry W. Colmery Veterans Educational Assistance
Act of 2017 mandates the largest improvements to the Post-9/11 GI Bill
since its enactment in 2010. Included in this legislation was a
requirement for VA to make changes and improvements to the VBA IT
program ensuring that original and supplemental claims for educational
assistance under Chapter 33 are adjudicated electronically and that
rules-based processing is used to make decisions on claims ``with
little human intervention.'' The legislation also provided VBA with $30
million in funding to implement the Colmery G.I. Bill.
The American Legion applauds the effort to include $30 million
within the legislation as an IT investment for VBA to better implement
the G.I. Bill reform, but we remain skeptical as to how far $30 million
can be stretched to cover the sweeping improvements of the Colmery G.I.
Bill. Several of the new provisions and implied tasks require work or
oversight that is not currently supported by existing VBA IT systems,
making manual intervention and processing necessary. This could range
from broad requirements to scale the Vet Tech Pilot to sending out
automated letters of eligibility to new G.I. Bill beneficiaries.
The president's proposed budget states, ``the Budget complements
and supports continued implementation of the Harry W. Colmery Veterans
Educational Assistance Act of 2017 (the ``Forever GI Bill'') which
represents one of the most sweeping changes to the Post-9/11 GI Bill
since its inception, expanding access to veterans and eligible
dependents. In addition to the benefit payments, requested funding
would also fund IT investments to effectively implement all provisions
of the new law.'' The American Legion is pleased that the Trump
Administration shared the same concern of the possibility that $30
million would not be sufficient to fully and effectively implement the
Colmery G.I. Bill and requests additional funding for IT at VBA.
Cap Post-9/11 G.I. Bill Flight Training Programs at Public Schools
We are pleased to see a recommendation from the Trump
Administration to cap costly flight training programs at public
universities or other Institutions of Higher Learning (IHL.) The
American Legion supports measures to improve cost control for flight
programs offered by IHL's across the Nation.
In 2015, The Los Angeles Times exposed that some IHL's had
instituted extreme costs for flight fees as there were no caps in place
for public schools. \4\ Since that time, increased oversight from the
Department of Veterans Affairs and State Approving Agencies (SAAs) has
resulted in lowered overall expenditures for flight training from a
height of $79.8 million in 2014to $48.4 million in 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ U.S. taxpayers stuck with the tab as helicopter flight schools
exploit GI Bill loophole - March 15, 2015 http://www.latimes.com/
nation/la-me-adv-gibill-20150315-story.html#page=1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Among the external factors responsible for this reduction was a
100% compliance survey conducted by SAAs in 2015 that resulted in 12
suspensions and withdrawals due to violations of the 85-15 rule. The
mandate to micromanage flight programs is unsustainable, even as
institutions learn to adjust to the requirements while hedging veteran
enrollment. The American Legion believes that a solution is still
necessary to ensure that the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill and the Colmery G.I.
Bill remain an honorable investment of taxpayer funds.
The president's proposed budget would place a cap on the amount the
G.I. Bill would pay for a veteran to receive flight training. The
American Legion supports this action, with one modification: any cost-
savings from capping the G.I. Bill for services rendered from an IHL,
would be utilized for the benefit of veteran's education, employment,
or transition services.
CLOSING
Chairman Arrington, Chairman Bost, Ranking Member's O'Rourke and
Esty, and other members of these critical Committees, The American
Legion thanks you for the opportunity to elucidate the position of the
2 million veteran members of this organization on President Trump's
proposed FY19 budget as it relates to the Department of Veterans
Affairs. For additional information regarding this testimony, please
contact Mr. Matthew Shuman, Director of The American Legion Legislative
Division at [email protected], or (202) 861-2700.
Prepared Statement of Shane L. Liermann
Chairman Bost, Chairman Arrington, Ranking Member Esty, Ranking
Member O'Rourke and Members of the Subcommittees:
Thank you for inviting DAV (Disabled American Veterans) to testify
at this joint hearing of the Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and
Memorial Affairs and Subcommittee of Economic Growth regarding the
fiscal year (FY) 2019 budget submission of the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA). As you know, DAV is a non-profit veterans' service
organization comprised of 1 million wartime service-disabled veterans
that is dedicated to a single purpose: empowering veterans to lead
high-quality lives with respect and dignity.
As you know, DAV is a member of The Independent Budget (IB), and
with our partners, Paralyzed Veterans of America and Veterans of
Foreign Wars of the United States, we jointly develop and issue budget
recommendations each year for VA programs, services and benefits. In
today's testimony, I will highlight DAV's and the IB's budget
recommendations for the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) for
fiscal year 2019 and compare them to the Administration's proposed
budget released in February 2018.
GENERAL OPERATING EXPENSES--VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION
The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) account is comprised of
six primary divisions. These include Compensation, Pension, Education,
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E), Housing and Insurance.
The increases recommended for these accounts primarily reflect current
services estimates with the impact of inflation representing the
grounds for the increase. However, two of the subaccounts-Compensation
and VR&E-also reflect modest increases in requested staffing to meet
the rising demand for those benefits and backlogs of pending workload.
We recommend approximately $3.104 billion for the VBA for FY2019,
an increase of approximately $194 million over the estimated FY2018
appropriations level. Our recommendation includes approximately $92
million in additional funds in the Compensation account above current
services, and approximately $18 million more in the VR&E account above
current services to provide for new full-time equivalent employees
(FTEE).
The Administration's FY2019 budget request for VBA is approximately
$2.9 billion, more than $200 million less than our recommendations.
Below are further details regarding some of the specific
recommendations that result in this disparity.
COMPENSATION SERVICE PERSONNEL
In recent years, VBA has made significant progress in reducing the
claims backlog, which was over 610,000 claims in March 2013. As of
March 3, 2019, the claims backlog is roughly 78,000 claims, a decrease
of 87 percent from its peak, and a decrease of about 18,000 claims
compared to the year prior. VA defines a backlogged disability claim as
one pending over 125 days. Overall, the total pending claims workload
decreased from about 390,000 in January 2017, to just over 328,000
claims today, a decrease of 18 percent in the past year. During that
time, the average days to complete a claim dropped from 119 days last
year to 103 days this January.
However, the trends on accuracy have gone the other direction. In
January 2015, the 12-month issue-level accuracy was approximately 96
percent; today it is down to about 94.5 percent, though it has leveled
off over the past 10 months. The 12-month claim-based accuracy
measurement has dropped from approximately 91 percent in January 2015,
to less than 85 percent today. While it is critical to continue
reducing the backlog and the time it takes to complete a claim, VBA
must refocus on completing claims accurately the first time.
In addition, VBA has a backlog of non-rating related claims, such
as for dependency status changes, that must also be addressed in a
timely manner. While continued advancements in the functionality of e-
Benefits and other IT systems have allowed veterans and their
representatives to directly make dependency changes more quickly, this
non-rating related workload is too often given low priority status in
Regional Offices. VBA must provide the resources and attention
necessary to consistently complete this work in a timely manner.
It is also critical that VBA have sufficient funding for IT
development and maintenance. In particular, VBA must devote additional
resources to stakeholder IT enhancements in order to allow VSOs to more
efficiently submit and review claims they represent. This will not only
provide better service to veterans, it will also reduce some of the
burden and workload that would otherwise fall on VBA personnel.
Another major driver of VBA workload is appeals processing. As of
February 28, 2018, there are approximately 462,000 pending appeals of
claims decisions at various stages between VBA and the Board of
Veterans Appeals (Board), with approximately 306,000 requiring further
processing at VBA Regional Offices.
Last year, Congress approved the Veteran Appeals Improvement and
Modernization Act (P.L. 115-55) in order to help streamline the appeals
process and provide better, timelier decisions for veterans. In
November, VBA began early implementation of the law through the Rapid
Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP) pilot that invites veterans with
pending appeals to opt into the new system through either the Higher
Level Review or Supplemental Claim option. RAMP may have the effect of
redirecting some workload from the Board back to VBA, however, once
implemented, the new law will also eliminate many of the current appeal
processes that take place at the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ),
such as Statements of Case, and Form 9 Certification.
Over the past several years, VA has requested, and Congress has
provided, additional funding to increase staffing at VBA to address the
claims backlog. However, there have not been commensurate increases in
funding to address the backlog of appeals pending inside VBA.
For FY2019, we recommend an additional 900 FTEE for VBA, requiring
an estimated $92.4 million increase in funding. Of those new FTEE, 500
should be allocated to the Compensation Service to address the pending
and future appeals workload; another 350 should be allocated to address
the growing backlog of non-rating related work such as dependency
claims; and 50 should be allocated to the Fiduciary program to address
increased workload in recent years, particularly related to veterans
participating in VA's Caregiver Support programs.
The Administration's FY2019 budget requests an additional 605 FTEE
to implement the new appeals process and reduce the inventory of
pending appeals. We support the Administration's commitment to reducing
the large amount of legacy appeals while also implementing the new
appeals system. We concur with VA's proposed increase in additional
FTEE.
We are concerned, however, that the Administration is not
requesting any additional FTEE for non-rating related work, such as
dependency claims. A concerted effort will need to be undertaken to
reduce these non-rating issues as veterans should not have to wait 12
months or longer to have dependents added to or removed from their
benefits.
A July 2015 VA Inspector General report on the Fiduciary program
found, ``. Field Examiner staffing did not keep pace with the growth in
the beneficiary population, [and] VBA did not staff the hubs according
to their staffing plan..''
Last year we recommended 100 additional FTEE to address this
problem, however since VBA reallocated an additional 51 FTEE to the
Fiduciary program this fiscal year, then we had to reduced our
recommendation to 50 new FTEE for FY2019.
In recognition that the program has experienced a 73 percent growth
since 2011, and staffing has not kept up with the needs of the program,
the Administration requested an additional 225 FTEE for FY2019 for the
Fiduciary program. We concur with this increase as these veterans can
be among the most vulnerable beneficiaries in VBA.
Finally, we would note that as the Veterans Appeals Improvement and
Modernization Act of 2017 continues to be fully implemented, including
RAMP, VBA must develop more accurate workload, production and staffing
models in order to accurately forecast future VBA resource
requirements.
VR&E SERVICE PERSONNEL
The Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Service (VR&E), also
known as the VetSuccess program, provides critical counseling and other
adjunct services necessary to enable service disabled veterans to
overcome barriers as they prepare for, find, and maintain gainful
employment. VetSuccess offers services on five tracks: re-employment,
rapid access to employment, self-employment, employment through long-
term services, and independent living.
An extension for the delivery of VR&E assistance at a key
transition point for veterans is the VetSuccess on Campus program
deployed at 94 college campuses. Additional VR&E services are provided
at 71 select military installations for active duty service members
undergoing medical separations through the Department of Defense and
VA's joint Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES).
Over the past four years, program participation has increased by an
estimated 16.8 percent, while VR&E staffing has risen just 1.8 percent.
VA projects program participation will increase another 3.1 percent in
FY2019, and it is critical that sufficient resources are provided not
only to meet this rising workload, but also to expand capacity to meet
the full, unconstrained demand for VR&E services.
In 2016, Congress enacted legislation (P.L. 114-223) that included
a provision recognizing the need to provide a sufficient client-to-
counselor ratio to appropriately align veteran demand for VR&E
services. Section 254 of that law authorizes the Secretary to use
appropriated funds to ensure the ratio of veterans to Vocational
Rehabilitation Counselors (VRC) does not exceed 125 veterans to one
fulltime employment equivalent. Unfortunately, for the past three
years, VA has requested no new personnel for VR&E to reach this ratio.
In order to achieve the 1:125 counselor-to-client ratio established
by Congress, we estimate that VR&E will need another 143 FTEE in FY2019
for a total direct workforce of 1,585, to manage an active caseload and
provide support services to almost 150,000 VR&E participants. At a
minimum, three-quarters, of the new hires should be VRCs dedicated to
providing direct services to veterans. This would require an increase
of $18 million for FY2019.
We are disappointed by the Administration's proposal for a decrease
of $257 million for VR&E for FY2019. While we understand this is partly
due to lower pricing for the Transition Assistance Program (TAP) for
those separating from service, this disregards the increased need of
VR&E services veterans may require many years after separation. The
Administration acknowledges that since 2013, participation in this
program increased by 17 percent and noted a rolling average counselor
to caseload ratio of 136.4, however, their budget request fails to
request additional FTEE to move closer to a 1:125 counselor-to-client
ratio.
GENERAL ADMINISTRATION
The General Administration account is comprised of ten primary
divisions. These include the Office of the Secretary, the Office of the
General Counsel, the Office of Management, the Office of Human
Resources and Administration, the Office of Enterprise Integration, the
Office of Operations, Security and Preparedness, the Office of Public
Affairs, the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, and the
Office of Acquisition, Logistics, and Construction, and the Veterans
Experience Office (VEO). This marks the first year that the VEO has
been included in the divisions of General Administration.
Additionally, a number of the divisions reflect changes to the
structure and responsibilities of those divisions. For FY2019, we
recommend approximately $355 million, an increase of more than $25
million over the FY2018 estimated level. This increase primarily
reflects an increase in current services based on the impact of
uncontrollable inflation across all of the General Administration
accounts.
BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS
With the enactment of the Veterans Appeals Improvement and
Modernization Act (P.L. 115-55), the Board in 2018 will be developing
and implementing the new appeals system scheduled to begin in February
2019. Once fully implemented, the Board will operate five separate
dockets concurrently, which will require new training and new IT
functionality to manage this workload. The Board has presented its
implementation plans to Congress and must adhere to the timelines laid
out in order to finalize new regulations and prepare its workforce. In
addition, sufficient IT resources must be provided to the Board to
complete development of new workload management tools.
Once the new appeals system is stood up in 2019, overall workload
coming into the Board is expected to begin leveling off, or perhaps
begin to decrease, as veterans take advantage of the expanded options
to resolve appeals at the AOJ level. Thus, it is too early to project
whether the Board will require more or less resources in its future
state.
For FY2018, the Board is projecting that it will produce 81,000
decisions, the highest total in the Board's history, though there will
still remain a significant backlog of appeals in the pipeline to the
Board. VA's budget submission for FY2018, requested funding to increase
FTEE levels to 1,050, continuing staffing increases in recent years to
expand capacity and allow the Board to address both the backlog of
legacy appeals and the transition to the new appeals system.
For FY2019, we do not recommend any additional staffing increases
at the Board; however, it is critical that the Board complete the
hiring and training of new personnel as rapidly as possible. Further,
it will be critical for VA and Congress to carefully and regularly
monitor workload, timeliness, quality and other metrics to ensure that
the Board is and remains appropriately staffed in the future.
For FY2019, the Administration is requesting a budget of $175
million, an increase of $8.7 million over FY2018 funding. The increase
is to allow for use of carryover funds for personnel costs and to
continue to fund the additional staff to be hired in 2018. We are
pleased with these proposed increases as it reflects the
Administration's commitment to reducing legacy appeals and to be
properly prepared for the implementation of the Appeals Modernization
Act.
ADMINISTRATION'S PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Within the Administration's VA budget request were legislative
proposals on several topics that we find troubling because it could
have significant negative consequences for veterans and their families.
We oppose the following proposals:
Clarify Evidentiary Threshold for Ordering VA
Examinations:
VA seeks to amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 5103A(d)(2) to clarify the
evidentiary threshold at which VA, under its duty to assist obligation
in Sec. 5103A, is required to request a medical examination for
compensation claims. We oppose this proposal would raise the threshold
for obtaining medical evidence and make it more difficult to receive
favorable claims decisions. While this proposal estimates it would save
the Federal government over $900 million in ten years, it does not
reflect the amount of rightful compensation that would be lost to
veterans nor does it contemplate the additional resources necessary to
resolve an increase of appeals on claim denials.
Elimination of Payment of Benefits to the Estates of
Deceased Nehmer Class Members and to the Survivors of Certain Class
Members:
VA seeks to amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1116 to eliminate payment of
benefits to the estates of deceased Nehmer class members and to
survivors of certain class members when such benefits are the result of
presumptions of service connection established pursuant to Sec. 1116
for diseases associated with exposure to Agent Orange and certain other
herbicide agents. This proposed legislation would deny veterans'
families benefits that would have otherwise been due to their deceased
veteran family member as a result of exposure to these toxic chemicals
while in service. We oppose any such legislation.
Clarify Chemicals at Issue for Purposes of Presumptive
Service Connection for Veterans Serving in the Republic of Vietnam:
VA seeks to amend 38 U.S.C. Sec. 1116 to define the harmful
chemicals, specifically Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD), used in
herbicides by claiming those were only used in Vietnam. Herbicides with
TCDD were used outside of Vietnam and suggesting otherwise appears to
be an attempt to save money at the expense of disabled veterans. We
strongly oppose this proposal to limit disability benefits based on the
location of herbicide exposure.
Mr. Chairmen, this concludes my testimony on behalf of DAV. I would
be happy to answer any questions you or other members of the
Subcommittees may have.
Prepared Statement of Lauren Augustine
Chairmen Arrington and Bost, Ranking Members O'Rourke and Esty, and
Members of the Subcommittees:
Thank you for inviting Student Veterans of America (SVA) to submit
our testimony on the fiscal year 2019 budget submission of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). With over 1,500 chapters
advocating on behalf of over one million student veterans in schools
across the country, we are pleased to share the perspective of those
directly impacted by the budget request concerning these Subcommittees.
Established in 2008, SVA has grown to become a force and voice for
the interests of veterans in higher education. With a myriad of
programs supporting their success, rigorous research on ways to improve
the landscape, and advocacy throughout the Nation, we place the student
veteran at the top of our organizational pyramid. As the future leaders
of this country, fostering the success of veterans in school is
paramount in their preparation for productive and impactful lives.
We will discuss our general concerns with the current budgetary
process' impact on student veterans, concerns specific to VA's budget
request, and suggestions to strengthen how VA supports student
veterans.
The Current Budget Process
Concerns with the lack of regular order around the budget and
appropriations processes are consistent talking points among the larger
veteran advocacy community, and even more broadly throughout
Washington; nevertheless, the need for consistent and predictable
government funding is more than worth reiterating. Even with VA's
robust advance appropriation funding cycle, the step-and-repeat of
continuing resolutions and looming threats of government shutdowns
leave student veterans with many questions and uncertainty, with recent
examples demonstrating the timeliness of these discussions \1\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Emily Wax-Thibodeaux, 11,000 disabled student veterans left
without rent and expense money due to computer glitch, THE WASHINGTON
POST, Feb. 2, 2018, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/
2018/02/02/11000-disabled-student-veterans-left-without-rent-and-
expense-money-due-to-computer-glitch/?utm--term=.4cf294f50380. Natalie
Gross, Here's what a government shutdown could mean for GI Bill users,
MILITARY TIMES, Jan. 19, 2018, https://www.militarytimes.com/education-
transition/education/2018/01/19/heres-what-a-government-shutdown-could-
mean-for-gi-bill-users/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student veterans and their families frequently interact with
multiple government agencies, which makes the need for reliable
government funding an issue that transcends the silos of VA. The
recently passed Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 is an appreciated first
step towards resolving that uncertainty.
As the next iteration of funding requirements comes due in the
immediate days, assuming it is not resolved by the time of today's
hearing, we hope to see continued bipartisan compromise. We also
applaud the full Committee's continued commitment to ensure VA's
budget, and the programs and services veterans use across government,
remains a priority for the whole of Congress.
Readjustment Benefits and Education Services in VA's Budget Request
Through a combination of funding sources, the majority of which is
newly appropriated funds, VA's budget request calls for an estimated
$15.5 billion in Readjustment Benefits obligations in 2019 and $16.1
billion in Readjustment Benefits obligations in 2020 \2\. This does not
include discretionary funds necessary to administer these benefits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Budget. FY2019
Budget Submission. Available: https://www.va.gov/budget/products.asp
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Largely comprised of the education benefits Education Services
manages, Readjustment Benefits serve as some of the most proactive and
empowering benefits available to veterans and their families.
Readjustment benefits equip veterans to return to the civilian
workforce as the leaders and problem-solvers upon which the future of
our country's economic prosperity desperately depends.
Through increased access to and participation in these benefits,
budget obligations continue to increase. We encourage the Subcommittees
to think of Readjustment Benefits as an integral part of the whole of
VA when advocating for appropriated funds- a macroeconomic net benefit
in the truest sense of the concept. While healthcare and disability
compensation make up part of VA's foundational services, Readjustment
Benefits are also a cornerstone of VA's foundation.
As noted during our State of Student Veterans of America delivered
at the 2018 SVA National Conference \3\, the original GI Bill opened up
higher education to all Americans. Prior to 1944, if you were trying to
go to school in America, it would have been difficult; less than seven
percent of Americans in 1944 had a bachelor's degree at the time. The
GI Bill changed that by educating 49 percent of returning World War II
veterans from Europe and the Pacific.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Jared Lyon, Defining Our Future: Today's Scholars, Tomorrow's
Leaders, Jan. 5, 2018, https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/defining-our-
future-todays-scholars-tomorrows-leaders-jared-lyon/
?trackingId=KSFliL2kVl8OVnbMoFiu1g%3D%3D
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These amazing women and men returned to the college campuses on the
GI Bill and led the democratization of higher education \4\. The
Readjustment Benefits in place today build on that storied history.
They are at the core of what VA does best for veterans and this
country; we strongly encourage Congress to remember the importance of
Readjustment Benefits and Education Services when defining priorities
and aligning resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vocational Rehabilitation and Education (VR&E) in VA's Budget Request
The VR&E program provides services to veterans with service-
connected disabilities to prepare, find, and maintain employment.
Currently, VR&E rehabilitation services provide veterans five tracks to
employment, including employment through long-term services. This track
largely focuses on the necessary training and education needed to meet
a veteran's employment goals \5\. According to VA's budget request, the
VR&E program will see an increase in program participation and
administration resource needs over the next two years \6\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Eligibility and
Entitlement, VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND EMPLOYMENT (VR&E), https://
www.benefits.va.gov/vocrehab/eligibility--and--entitlement.asp.
\6\ U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Budget. FY2019
Budget Submission. Available: https://www.va.gov/budget/products.asp
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVA is currently tracking concerns student veterans express with
the VR&E program to better understand how the program could be
strengthened. A theme throughout the concerns collected so far rests
largely with the large caseloads Vocational Rehabilitation Counselors
(VRC) must manage, the inconsistent VRC decisions, and frequent
turnover of VRCs \7\. We believe it is necessary to meet the current
appropriations demand that VA outlined; however, Congress should also
address some of the underlying resource issues \8\ that are
contributing to those concerns and proactively improve the VR&E
program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Paul R. Varela, ``A Review of VA's Vocational Rehabilitation
and Employment Program,'' HOUSE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, July 8, 2015, https://
www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-114hhrg98685/pdf/CHRG-114hhrg98685.pdf
(turnover discussion on pg. 18).
\8\ Benjamin L. Krause, J.D., National Association of Veterans
Program Administrators (NAVPA) Statement for Hearing - ``A Review of
VA's Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment Program,'' HOUSE
COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS, July 8, 2015, https://archives-
veterans.house.gov/submission-for-the-record/mr-benjamin-l-krause-jd.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the highly individualized nature of the program, there is
strong need to ensure proper VRC to veteran ratios as mandated in
Public Law 114-223, which requires one full-time employment equivalent
(FTEE) for every 125 veterans \9\. It is unclear if those ratios are
being met and we encourage these Subcommittees to hold VA accountable
to that ratio in their budget request. We strongly urge this Committee
to encourage VA to increase the capped pay of VRCs \10\ to match higher
salary caps of similar Department of Education positions to aid in the
turnover of VRCs \11\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Continuing Appropriations and Military Construction, Veterans
Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017'' Public Law
114-223, https://www.congress.gov/114/plaws/publ223/PLAW-
114publ223.pdf.
\10\ Glassdoor, US Department of Veterans Affairs Vocational
Rehabilitation Counselor Salaries, https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/US-
Department-of-Veterans-Affairs-Vocational-Rehabilitation-Counselor-
Salaries-E41429--D--KO34,69.htm (Indicating range of salaries from
$49,799-$95,000 based on salary reports and statistical methods).
\11\ See generally National Association of Veterans' Program
Administrators, 2017 NAVPA Legislative Agenda, http://www.navpa.org/
2017-navpa-legislative-agenda/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Forever GI Bill Implementation in VA's Budget Request
Last summer, SVA led a coalition of more than 60 organizations to
pass the most expansive higher education legislation in nearly a
decade, and also the largest improvement of the Post-9/11 GI Bill-the
Forever GI Bill. Signed into law on August 16, 2017, the Forever GI
Bill - officially titled the Harry W. Colmery Veterans Education
Assistance Act \12\ - made history \13\ thanks to this Committee and
the current congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Harry W. Colmery Veterans Education Assistance Act of 2017.
Pub. L 115-48. 16 August 2017. Available: https://www.congress.gov/
bill/115th-congress/house-bill/3218
\13\ Gross, Natalie (2017). Military Times. ``Trump signed the
`Forever GI Bill.' Here are 11 things you should know'', https://
www.militarytimes.com/education-transition/education/2017/08/16/trump-
signed-the-forever-gi-bill-here-are-11-things-you-should-know/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Forever GI Bill includes dozens of provisions that increase
access to higher education, reduce inequities within the benefit, and
turn the GI Bill into a benefit of service far beyond the current
generation. Thirteen of the law's provisions are already in effect and
benefiting student veterans across the country; the majority of the
law's provisions will take effect this August. While SVA was proud to
work alongside many members of these Subcommittees and their staffs to
pass the Forever GI Bill, we remain concerned about the law's
successful implementation, which must include sufficient appropriations
and continued vigilance to the implementation process \14\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Hubbard, William, Testimony for Legislative Hearing on the
Topic Of ``An Update on the Implementation of the Forever GI Bill,''
Dec. 12, 2017, HOUSE COMMITTEE ON VETERANS' AFFAIRS SUBCOMMITTEE ON
ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, http://docs.house.gov/meetings/VR/VR10/20171212/
106695/HHRG-115-VR10-Wstate-HubbardW-20171212.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SVA commends VA and its dedicated staff for the ongoing robust
public outreach effort to make those affected aware and a clear
dedication to successfully implementing the Forever GI Bill. However,
as detailed in VA's budget request \15\, VA needs sufficient resources
appropriated to meet that goal. Specifically, while we appreciated the
Forever GI Bill's language authorizing funds to meet some of the IT
needs to implement the new law, these funds have yet to be
appropriated. We encourage the inclusion of such appropriations to meet
that need as soon as possible given the short implementation window
student veterans are facing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Budget. FY2019
Budget Submission. Available: https://www.va.gov/budget/products.asp
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, several of the provisions - such as the benefit
restoration for school closures - require new oversight
responsibilities that cannot be automated. Others, such as the Purple
Heart expansion, are likely to result in increased GI Bill usage. These
increased oversight functions and expected growth in usage, and
implementing the law generally, will require new staff to keep
processing times from increasing. SVA encourages including sufficient
appropriations to meet VA's expected staffing needs.
Strengthening VA to Support Student Veterans
SVA is a solution-oriented organization and we appreciate the
willingness to collaboratively address our concerns alongside the
members of these Subcommittees. Our concerns with VA's budget request
have a common dominator: at present, VA is lacking formal leadership on
behalf of economic opportunity programs. To be clear, this is not a
lack of leadership due to personality, but instead a void of a
sufficient leadership role for such programs in VA's current enterprise
structure.
Economic opportunity programs, largely comprised of readjustment
benefits, should be thought of as an integral part of the empowering,
whole health model of care VA prioritizes. Programs encompassed under
the economic opportunity umbrella, like the GI Bill and home loan
guarantees, are proven success stories that not only benefit veterans
but the larger American economy.
Specifically looking at the GI Bill, last year SVA released the
National Veteran Education Success Tracker (NVEST) \16\ in partnership
with VA, which focuses on outcomes of student veterans and demonstrates
the return on investment of student veterans. The first of its kind, it
studied 854,000 individual records - every Post-9/11 GI Bill user from
2009 until the summer of 2015 - and showed the success of student
veterans on campus.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Cate, C. A., Lyon, J. S., Schmeling, J., & Bogue, B. Y.
(2017). National Veteran Education Success Tracker: A report on the
academic success of student-veterans using the Post-9/11 GI Bill.
Washington, D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NVEST \17\ report outlines the many ways student veterans
outperform their peers on campus. From higher grade point averages, a
higher success rate, and a propensity to obtain degrees in high demand
fields, the data makes clear student veterans are worth the investment
America has made in them through the GI Bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is for these reasons SVA strongly supports the creation of a new
administration within VA, named the Veteran Economic Opportunity
Administration, that would include Undersecretary-level representation
for programs supporting economic opportunities and transitions of
veterans and their families. We feel this new administration would be a
refocusing of existing resources that modernizes VA and creates greater
accountability for economic opportunity and transition programs. SVA's
detailed support for this new administration will be the focus of
upcoming testimony on pending legislation.
We thank the Chairmen, Ranking Members, and the Subcommittees
members for your time, attention, and devotion to the cause of veterans
in higher education. As always, we welcome your feedback and questions,
and we look forward to continuing to work with these Subcommittees, the
House Veterans' Affairs Committee, and the entire Congress to ensure
the success of all generations of veterans through education.
[all]