Riveting Veterans Testimony This AM on Capitol Hill
By: Lowell
Published On: 3/13/2007 3:01:16 PM
One great thing about living in the Washington, DC area is that anytime you want, you can simply hop on the Metro and ride up to Capitol Hill. Which is exactly what I did on this beautiful spring day. Specifically, I trekked up to the Cannon House Office Building, Room 334, to hear testimony by veterans and veterans' experts before the House Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs. In stark contrast to the 70-degree, sunny weather outside, the testimony I heard today was not beautiful in any way.
Instead, I sat there and listened to painful story after painful story about how our nation sent these brave young men and women into harm's way in Afghanistan and Iraq, then basically treated them like second-rate citizens when they got home. I found it painful to hear story after story about how the mantra of "support the troops" is not observed when they get home from combat. I found it painful to hear story after story about servicemen forced to fend for themselves, even those with brain injuries or other problems that left them almost completely incapable of doing so. Hell, even a completely healthy person, let alone someone who's lost a limb or is suffering from severe post-traumatic stress disorder, would have trouble navigating this bureaucratic monstrosity. With that, here's some of the most powerful testimony I heard today.
In April 2004, Brady Van Engelen sustained a severe gunshot wound to the head while in Iraq. Today, Mr. Van Engelen has recovered sufficiently to serve as Associate Director at the Veterans for America. His testimony today was powerful, describing the "bureaucratic maze that is outpatient care at Walter Reed," how he entered the Physical Evaluation Board process in May 2004 but didn't hear back until December 2004, and how "if it weren't for my persistence, I would have gone unnoticed for months." Mr. Van Engelen testified that while at Walter Reed, "there was no outreach on behalf of the VA to inform me of benefits for myself and for my family." Obviously, as Mr. Van Engelen pointed out, "this is not acceptable." Nor is it acceptable, Mr. Van Engelen pointed out, that "service members from my generation are becoming increasingly disenfranchised with a system that our government promised would help us heal and rehabilitate." In sum, Mr. Van Engelen posed the important question: "What is owed those who serve?" His answer? "More than service members and veterans are receiving now."
More powerful testimony came from Stephen L. Robinson, Director of Veterans Affairs at Veterans for America. According to Mr. Robinson, a Gulf War veteran and a recognized expert on Gulf War Illness and chemical and biological weapons exposures, the current issue isn't about "mice and mold, or inadequacies with one hospital," but about "a systematic failure in both the Department of Defense and the Department of Veterans Affairs programs designed to address the medical and overall readjustment needs of war veterans." In addition, Mr. Robinson discussed how "we do not have an adequate understanding of the unique needs specific to our newest generation of veterans." For instance, Mr. Robinson noted that there are no unique programs for female veterans, such a female-only group therapy sessions where women could feel free to discuss sensitive issues they would not talk about in front of men. In addition, Mr. Robinson talked about a Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) compensation claims system that is "completely broken," that "takes six months to decide original claims," and that has a "total backlog of claims" as of 2/17/07 of 558,000, with that number highly likely to grow. Not good, to put it mildly.
Ann Knowles of the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers noted that "the most frightening statistic" is that as low as 23% of veterans suffering from major depression, anxiety, or PTSD are getting help. Ms. Knowles stated that this "is a ticking time bomb that will eventually blow up in our faces."
Linda J. Bilmes of Harvard University recommended a "complete revamp of they system in basically every way." That includes, she said, a shift in culture where the wounded veteran gets the benefit of the doubt, not the runaround, for a change. Ms. Bilmes said that we will be paying the price for disabilities from "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and "Operation Enduring Freedom" (the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in other words) "for at leaat the next forty years." She estimated that there were more than 800,000 new claims to the VBA in 2006, and that there could be another 1.6 MILLION more in 2007 and 2008. Currently, Ms. Bilmes estimated, the VBA "has a backlog of more than 600,000" pending claims," with the average time to process claims an astonishing 177 days! In the end, Ms. Bilmes recommended that we "think outside the box" for solutions, including having the VBA "accept and pay all disability claims by returning...soldiers at face value - and then audit a sample of them." Just like the IRS, in other words. In addition, the VBA should simplify the 0-100 ranking system for grading disabilities, should "shift its focus away from claims processing and onto rehabilitat[ion] and reintegration of veterans," and "should enact Senate Bill 117, the Lane Evans Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act of 2007, sponsored by Senators Obama and Snowe."
David Bertoni of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) presented findings from a new study by GAO entitled, "Veterans' Disability Benefits: Processing of Claims Continues to Present Challenges." The report states, in understated bureaucratize, that the "VA continues to face challenges in improving service delivery to veterans." I hope the Federal government feels a greater sense of urgency on this issue than is conveyed by the language of this report.
Patrick Campbell of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America asserted that, once again, the VA "has grossly underestimated the demand for their services," and asserted that "trying to treat and care for soldiers and veterans on a limited budget and limited oversight only has one logical conclusion - poor care." Mr. Campbell stated bluntly, "Soldiers fight for their country, they should not be made to fight for their benefits when they come home."
Finally, Jon Soltz of VoteVets.org delivered impassioned testimony in which he asked, "why I was good enough to go and fight and risk my life for this country, but not good enough to deserve and explanation as to why my VA hospital was closing." Mr. Soltz had a great line about this whole situation: "what I find so sadly funny is that a few rats did in one day what we veterans haven't been able to do for years - get America's attention." Soltz noted that "the nature of this war lends itself to more mental trauma, because you are in a 360 degree battlefield, where you feel truly unhted." And he demanded, "No more excuses. No more delays. We veterans deserve nothing less."
Let's just hope that the Congress is listening and that it will take action - not just bandaid, feel-good "solutions" either - to remedy this terrible situation right away. Frankly, it's a national disgrace and there's no excuse for failing to deal with it immediately.
Comments
Thank-you for reporting on this (hereinva - 3/13/2007 3:58:06 PM)
Yes, thanks. (PM - 3/13/2007 4:02:21 PM)
My pleasure. (Lowell - 3/13/2007 4:16:13 PM)
That was some powerful testimony this morning on an extremely important issue!
Another example (Teddy - 3/13/2007 6:05:56 PM)
is what a republican functionary a year or more ago said to me, when I mentioned to him what Paul Sullivan had told me repeatedly: there is a rising flood of returning veterans with what we used to call battle fatigue and the military does not seem to be able to deal with the numbers. The response? Something to the effect that these were "young guys" who had never had to deal with any problems or stress before and would "get over it"--- i.e., they were malingering. Not one srop of sympathy, not one remote idea of what modern war does to people. The usual republican emphasis on bottom line costs, money over people.
The truth is that this whole mess is one more evidence that the entire republican conservative philosophy is a chronic failure. It has completely flunked the course as an intelligent system of government and cannot be trusted in any way. It must be replaced. And not, I think, by the old 20th century brand of so-called liberalism, but by a much broader, people-oriented philosophy. We are no longer in a subsistence economy of the Middle Ages, and not even Adam Smith and the mysterious workings of the free market can be relied upon. You cannot really run government "like a business" in today's crowded, science-based world.
That response goes along with the whole (Catzmaw - 3/13/2007 6:37:23 PM)
muy macho chest-thumping silver-back gorilla theory of human relations which is based not on reality but on the idea of projecting strength above all. No compassion, no understanding, no empathy - it's disgraceful. These are real people we're sending into that meat-grinder, not a bunch of automatons.