DPC | June 1, 2007

Senate Oversight Highlights Week of May 21, 2007

“It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents.…” — Woodrow Wilson

Congress has the Constitutional responsibility to perform oversight of the Executive Branch and matters of public interest. This report summarizes highlights from each week’s Senate oversight hearings.

 

Tuesday, May 22, 2007: Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

“Implementing FEMA Reform: Are We Prepared for the 2007 Hurricane Season?”

• With an active hurricane season ahead and the potential threat of a terrorist attack, now is the time to ensure that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is prepared to meet these challenges. 
   
• A new law and internal reforms aim to strengthen FEMA’s ability to respond to both natural disasters and terrorist attacks. 
   
• As a new hurricane season approaches, FEMA remains in transition.

 

 

Tuesday, May 22, 2007: Senate Committee on the Judiciary
“Restoring Habeas Corpus: Protecting American Values and the Great Writ”

 

• Eliminating habeas corpus does not comport with longstanding American legal traditions and is likely unconstitutional.

 

• Eliminating key rights like habeas corpus may be counterproductive in the long-term fight against terrorism.

 

• Suspending habeas corpus has tarnished our international credibility as upholders of the rule of law.

 

 

Tuesday, May 22, 2007: Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship

“Minority Entrepreneurship: Assessing the Effectiveness of SBA’s Programs for the Minority Business Community”

 

• SenateDemocrats are taking the lead on making sure that minority entrepreneurs have an equal opportunity to do business with the federal government and to get the working capital they need for small business growth.

 

• One witness described the ongoing challenges that many minority business owners face when trying to do business.

 

• Another witness testified that, for minority businesses to be successful, the business development program for socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses must be updated in a way that allows business owners to build capacity and create wealth.

 

 

Tuesday, May 22, 2007: Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, Subcommittee on Employment and Workplace Safety

“The MINER Act One Year Later”

 

• New technology has the potential to improve safety in coal mines.

 

• The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) is not sufficiently staffed to meet its requirements.

 

• More progress is needed to ensure the safety of mine workers.

 

 

Wednesday, May 23, 2007: Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Crime and Drugs

“Rising Crime in the United States: Examining the Federal Role in Helping Communities Prevent and Respond to Violent Crime”

 

• Since 9/11, the Bush Administration has drastically reduced federal funding to support local law enforcement. The result? Crime is again on the rise.

 

• While violent crime is still much lower than it was in the early 1990s, evidence suggests that we are at the beginning of a nationwide upward trend.

 

• Local law enforcement agencies have been asked to do more – fighting traditional crime and terrorism – with less.

 

• Local leaders have applauded recent, and urged future, Democratic efforts to restore funding to community policing and other local law enforcement programs.

 

 

Wednesday, May 23, 2007: Senate Committee on the Judiciary
“Ending Taxation without Representation: The Constitutionality of S. 1257”

 

• Senators and witnesses argued that the Framers of the Constitution did not intend for citizens of the District of Columbia to be disenfranchised.

 

• Residents of the District of Columbia had voting rights until 1800, when Congress took those rights away.

 

• Senators and witnesses debated the constitutionality of granting the District of Columbia a vote in the House of Representatives.

 

• The question of voting rights for the District of Columbia touches directly on issues of racial justice.

 

 

Wednesday, May 23, 2007: Joint Economic Committee

“Is Market Concentration in the U.S. Petroleum Industry Harming Consumers?”

 

• Consolidation in the oil industry may allow large companies to control prices without outright collusion.

 

• Underinvestment in the refining industry has contributed to the current spike in gasoline prices.

 

• The oil and refining industry has put up barriers to market penetration of clean, renewable fuels.

 

 

Wednesday, May 23, 2007: Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs
“Hearing on Pending Health Care Legislation”

 

• Benefit timelines should to be modified to address the growing needs to treat mental illnesses, suicide, and traumatic brain injury.

 

• Veterans of modest incomes or located far from VA facilities should not be denied needed benefits to save costs.

 

• Additional efforts to help veterans transition to civilian life and avoid homelessness are needed.

 

 

Thursday, May 24, 2007: Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery

“The Road Home? An Examination of the Goals, Costs, Management and Impediments Facing Louisiana’s Road Home Program”

 

• Louisiana’s Road Home Program has faced numerous challenges and is short nearly $3 billion.

 

• The damage in Louisiana is significantly higher than initial FEMA estimates projected.

 

• Twenty-one months since Hurricane Katrina hit, 120,000 people in Louisiana continue to wait for grant checks to rebuild their homes.

 

 

SEN. LIEBERMAN: Just this morning, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration predicted this hurricane season, which is just 10 days away, will be an active one, with 13 to 17 named storms, with as many as 10 becoming hurricanes. We’ve already had our first named storm – Subtropical Storm Andrea, which formed on May 9th. And, of course, beyond responding to natural disasters, we know we must also be prepared to respond to a catastrophic terrorist attack.

 

…

 

SEN. COLLINS: The 2007 hurricane season starts on June 1, and the widely regarded Colorado State University forecast calls for a “very active season,” with a strong chance of major-hurricane landfalls. This is the ideal time to ask whether or not FEMA is better prepared for potentially significant storms.

 

A new law and internal reforms aim to strengthen FEMA’s ability to respond to both natural disasters and terrorist attacks.

 

SEN. LIEBERMAN: The committee report that followed our investigation contained many recommendations that were adopted last year in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, which Senator Collins and I coauthored. First and foremost, the new law was designed to ensure that a newly strengthened FEMA is the hub of DHS’ efforts to prepare for and respond to disasters of all kinds – including catastrophic events like Katrina. That means that FEMA must be more forward leaning, efficient and proactive. It must be prepared to marshal resources from across the federal government, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations – and even sometimes from our allies abroad – and move quickly when state and local governments are overwhelmed. And DHS must be prepared to fully support those efforts.

 

Our legislation reunited preparedness and response within FEMA so that the officials who have to lead our nation’s response are also responsible for leading our efforts to prepare. The new law also makes the Administrator of FEMA the principal advisor to the President for emergency management and requires FEMA’s senior leadership have the emergency management qualifications necessary for their jobs. While some still call for FEMA to be taken out of DHS, I believe that would be a serious mistake. And I personally will do anything I can to stop such a step backward. Our legislation strengthens FEMA by making it a distinct entity within DHS, similar to the Coast Guard and Secret Service, while bolstering FEMA’s ability to tap into the many other assets within DHS – this would be lost if we separated FEMA from DHS.

 

…

 

SEN. COLLINS: Last year, this committee conducted an in-depth investigation into the flawed response to Hurricane Katrina. We held 24 hearings, interviewed 400 people, and reviewed 838,000 pages of documents. The result was a detailed report and comprehensive legislation, the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act, which became law in October.

 

That Act brought about sweeping changes to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It raised FEMA’s visibility, protected its status and budget within the Department of Homeland Security, gave its Administrator a direct channel to the President, restored the linkage between preparedness and response, strengthened its regional presence, and established multi-agency strike teams to promote rapid and effective action. The horrors of Hurricane Katrina and the universal dissatisfaction with the response of government at all levels necessitated these changes.

 

…

 

R. David Paulison, Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security: The federal response to the 2005 hurricanes was a clarion call for change in disaster response and recovery for the country and all of those involved in emergency management. Based on the many lessons learned, FEMA instituted numerous reforms to improve its ability to respond and recover from disasters. In addition to FEMA’s internal transformation that we embraced to improve the agency, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and FEMA have been working closely with other components within DHS to implement the adjustments included in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act(PKEMRA). The combination of FEMA’s transformation and those changes enacted from PKEMRA are resulting in a new FEMA that is stronger, more nimble and more robust than we were just a year ago.

 

In addition to preparing for the next disaster, FEMA still continues to face post-Katrina challenges.

 

SEN. LIEBERMAN: But FEMA continues to face post-Katrina challenges, including helping tens of thousands of Americans still living in trailers get back on their feet and bringing aid to communities across the Gulf Coast still struggling to rebuild, while simultaneously preparing for the next storm that may strike.

 

As a new hurricane season approaches, FEMA remains in transition.

 

SEN. COLLINS: As a new hurricane season approaches, FEMA remains somewhat in flux. The National Response Plan and the National Incident Management System are still being revised; FEMA’s reorganization is not yet complete; and coordination with other federal partners is still a work in progress.

 

…

 

Michael P. Jackson, Deputy Secretary, Department of Homeland Security: I want to provide you a scrupulously fair assessment of where we are: doing very much better, but still facing significant additional work. In fact, the culture of continuous improvement that we are trying to grow at DHS requires that we be forever constructively impatient to do better, faster. Such is needed not only to contend with Mother Nature, but especially to stay ahead of the terrorist threat to our nation.

 

The disastrous response to Hurricane Katrina involved failures of government at all levels.

 

SEN. LIEBERMAN: When Katrina hit New Orleans and the Gulf Coast in August 2005 –causing the deaths of over 1,500 people, destroying billions of dollars in property and uprooting millions of lives – we watched live on television as a region drowned and our emergency response systems foundered. It was the Department’s first major challenge since it was formed in response to the attacks of 9-11. And while the Coast Guard – a proud division of DHS [Department of Homeland Security] – performed valiantly, rescuing thousands of people stranded on rooftops, the overall response was chaotic and uncoordinated. Following the Katrina debacle, this committee spent eight months investigating what had gone wrong. We concluded that there were failures of government at all levels. We also found that FEMA had never been designed to cope with a catastrophic disaster like Katrina.

 

One witness testified that the roots of FEMA’s problems are decades old.

 

DEP. SEC. JACKSON: Hurricanes Katrina and Rita obviously revealed serious deficiencies at FEMA and at DHS regarding emergency management capabilities. After considerable review, and with experience working for three Presidents, I have personally concluded that FEMA has for decades been inadequately staffed and not properly structured to respond to a truly catastrophic emergency. Our recent failures had, in short, a long incubation. Indeed it is a delusion to think that FEMA ever had a “Camelot Era” in which it was structured to succeed with regard to events of the magnitude of Katrina. So now we know our weaknesses, and DHS has been hard at work for over a year to introduce appropriate discipline and true reform.

 

 

 

Eliminating habeas corpus does not comport with longstanding American legal traditions and is likely unconstitutional.

 

SEN. LEAHY: It is urgent that we restore our legal traditions and reestablish this fundamental check on the ability of the government to lock someone away without meaningful judicial review of its action…. Justice Scalia wrote in the Hamdi case: “The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive.” The remedy that secures that most basic of freedoms is habeas corpus. It provides a check against arbitrary detentions and constitutional violations…. The elimination of basic legal rights undermines, not strengthens, our ability to achieve justice. It is from strength that America should defend our values and our way of life. It is from the strength of our freedoms, our Constitution, and the rule of law that we can prevail. We can ensure our security without giving up our liberty.

 

…

 

Donald J. Guter, Rear Admiral, U.S. NAVY (RET.); Dean, Duquesne University School of Law:[H]abeas corpus [i]s a fundamental right that had been suspended temporarily during the War Between the States and during World War II. As we know, each of those wars ended after four years and the equilibrium between security and civil liberties was restored. One key difference in today’s struggle is that there is no foreseeable end to terrorism.

 

…

 

Orin S. Kerr, Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School: …a majority of the current Justices – specifically, Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer – views Guantanamo Bay as part of the United States for habeas purposes. They indicate that a majority of the current Justices likely would hold that the writ of habeas corpus must therefore extend to Guantanamo Bay as a matter of constitutional law. If so, the writ or its equivalent must be made available to the detainees…. Congress cannot withdraw the writ unless it provides an “adequate and effective” alternative remedy, Swain v. Pressley, 430 U.S. 372 (1977), or else Congress suspends the writ “in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion.”U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 2. Because there is broad agreement that Congress has not suspended the writ under the Suspension Clause, the key question is whether Congress’s alternative means of judicial review of executive detention are “adequate and effective.”…

 

If the detainees have some rights, the extent of those rights may hinge on where individual detainees were captured, how long they have been held, and the status of ongoing military operations at the time judicial review is sought…. [T]he D.C. Circuit can only inquire as to two questions when reviewing the CSRT’s decisions: (i) whether the status determination of the Combatant Status Review Tribunal (CSRT) with regard to such alien was consistent with the standards and procedures specified by the Secretary of Defense for Combatant Status Review Tribunals (including the requirement that the conclusion of the Tribunal be supported by a preponderance of the evidence and allowing a rebuttable presumption in favor of the government’s evidence); and (ii) to the extent the Constitution and laws of the United States are applicable, whether the use of such standards and procedures to make the determination is consistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States…. The CSRT procedures do not resemble those of a trial. The detainee is not represented by an advocate, and the detainee’s access to evidence is sharply limited. As a result, judicial review limited to whether the status determination complied with the rules for CSRTs is not the same as judicial review of whether the detainee is in fact an enemy combatant…. If Congress does not restore habeas rights at Guantanamo Bay, there is a significant possibility that its removal of habeas jurisdiction over the detainee claims at Guantanamo Bay will be held to violate the Suspension Clause of the Constitution.

 

Eliminating key rights like habeas corpus may be counterproductive in the long term fight against terrorism.

 

ADM. GUTER: The stripping of habeas was an historic and monumental misstep that continues to take us down a path that leads us away from our values and the image we have earned as a nation that promotes and lives by the rule of law….Director of the CIA, General Michael V. Hayden, USAF [U.S. Air Force]… [said] “Speaking as the director of an agency whose officers are on the front lines of this war, I can tell you that it won’t be won strictly by killing and capturing terrorists. Operations like that are necessary, and we will continue to do them aggressively, effectively, and within the law.” But defeating terrorism, he said, means “winning the ideological side of this war, the war of ideas. We must defeat the worldview responsible for producing terrorists who hate America and the principles that we and our partners uphold.”

 

I want to pose a question at this point. How can we “win the ideological side of this war, the war of ideas” with the policies we have adopted since 9-11, policies that are in opposition to our own ideologies, political ideas, and values? Even former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld questioned whether our tactics and policies are creating more terrorists than we are killing and capturing. And worst of all, the recent study of the mental health of our own Soldiers and Marines indicates that we are eroding their ethics and values. How can we win a war on terror when we are losing the hearts and minds of our own fighting men and women?...

 

[Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs)] allow secret and hearsay evidence; evidence acquired through “enhanced interrogation techniques”; lawyers are not permitted to assist the accused; and review is then limited to whether the government has followed its own flawed procedures. Yet these procedures provide the basis for indefinite incarceration. If that is not enough to condemn this entire construct, we have the most recent reports that, after a unanimous finding that a detainee is not an enemy combatant, hearings are repeated again and again until a detainee is classified, to the satisfaction of Pentagon reviewers, as an enemy combatant….

 

[E]very time I venture outside our borders, I now consider how we have structured our laws in the United States. In this uncertain world of terrorism, I worry not so much about my physical safety as about whether some country might try to detain me in like manner by bringing allegations that I am then not permitted to challenge in a fair hearing…. In discarding habeas corpus, we are not nibbling around the edges of our valued civil liberties; we are throwing overboard one of our core principles – the right to challenge detention for life without charge…. As we limit the rights of human beings, even those of the enemy, we become more like the enemy. That makes us weaker and imperils our valiant troops, serving not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but around the globe.

 

Suspending habeas corpus has tarnished our international credibility as upholders of the rule of law.

 

WILLIAM H. TAFT, IV, Of Counsel, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP:Before the enactment of the Military Commissions Act (MCA) last year, detainees were entitled under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the relevant authorities to have the lawfulness of their detention reviewed after filing petitions for habeas corpus. The benefits of this displaced procedure were considerable, not so much for the detainees in Guantanamo – none of whom was released by a court – as for establishing beyond argument the legitimacy of holding persons who continued to present a threat to the United States as long as the terrorists continue to pursue their war against us. It should be recalled, in considering this question, that the Supreme Court has on two occasions affirmed the lawfulness of detaining persons captured in the conflict with al Qaeda and the Taliban as long as they pose a threat to the United States….

 

Many detainees freely state that they would try to harm the United States if they are released. Others are known to be members of al Qaeda, have been captured while attacking our troops, or are otherwise known to pose a threat to us….Judicial review of such cases should be relatively uncomplicated when compared with the voluminous trial and appellate records involved in most habeas cases. In the event, however, that a court were to be presented with a case that raised serious questions about the lawfulness of detention, surely those questions should indeed be carefully considered, and no institution is better equipped by experience to do that than a court….

 

It is often said that the war with the terrorists calls for new approaches, melding traditional law enforcement procedures with the law of war. Guantanamo is a good example of this. The detainees there are held pursuant to the law of war, but the term of their detention is so long and indeterminate that it has many of the characteristics of a criminal punishment. The fact that each terrorist has made an individual choice to fight us, rather than being conscripted by his government, reinforces this criminal law perspective. Extending habeas review to determine the lawfulness of detaining the terrorist combatants, as has not been done in previous wars for enemy prisoners, seems to me an appropriate acknowledgement of the new situation that the conflict with the terrorists has created for us.

 

Suspension of habeas corpus hampers needed oversight that makes bureaucracies more effective.

 

Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, Professor, Stanford Law School: Congress and the American people have confronted major security threats without eviscerating the writ of habeas corpus. In rare circumstances, when Congress has explicitly suspended the writ in accordance with the Constitution, it has done so with limited scope and for limited durations…. The writ of habeas corpus has acted as a check on executive power in a surprising array of historical circumstances, involving citizens as well as aliens, enemy combatants on U.S. territory, and enemy combatants outside the U.S. but within its functional jurisdiction…. MCA’s habeas-stripping provisions reflect little attention to balancing the interests of the state with those of accused individuals, and even less attention to the multiple ways in which those provisions can erode accountability, and public perceptions of legitimacy at home and abroad. By eviscerating external checks on the detention of aliens accused of being enemy combatants, the MCA engenders perceptions abroad that the U.S. detainee process is unfair….

 

[T]he absence of some external check on bureaucratic performance permits, and even encourages, a variety of pathologies. In the past, such pathologies have given rise to nuclear safety violations, the destruction of the Space Shuttle Challenger, biased regulatory rules, and mistaken detentions. Even when decision makers possess laudable motivations, the pressures and constraints that organizations face can distort the work of executive agencies…. [A]bsence of external review makes it easier for some decision makers to promote appealing impressions of their effectiveness by subtly downplaying errors when they do occur, and for still others to simply fail to correct mistakes that cannot be reliably discovered without an external check….

 

[N]either the MCA nor the Defense Department’s implementing regulations have established a credible system auditing detainee decisions to manage the risks created as a result of restrained external review…. MCA was justified primarily on the basis of facilitating our government’s efforts to detain individuals captured on foreign battlefields or actively undertaking terrorist operations, the literal terms of Section 1005 actually confer exceedingly vast powers to detain a far different pool of people…. [This] may permit the creation of a massive unaccountable detention system that could be used against any one of the millions of U.S. lawful permanent residents who have left their homelands.

 

The suspension of habeas rights effects more than just the Guantanamo detainees.

 

SEN. LEAHY: The Military Commissions Act rolled back these protections by eliminating that right, permanently, for any non-citizen labeled an enemy combatant. In fact, a detainee does not have to found to be an enemy combatant; it is enough for the government to say someone is “awaiting” determination of that status. The sweep of this habeas provision goes far beyond the few hundred detainees currently held at Guantanamo Bay, and includes an estimated 12 million lawful permanent residents in the United States… [who] could be brought in for questioning, denied a lawyer, confined, and even tortured. Such a person would have no ability to go to court to plead his or her innocence – for years, for decades, forever…. The Justice Department said it is true even for someone arrested and imprisoned in the United States.

 

 

 

Senate Democrats are taking the lead on making sure that minority entrepreneurs have an equal opportunity to do business with the federal government and to get the working capital they need for small business growth.

 

SEN. KERRY: Over the last ten years minority business enterprises accounted for over 50 percent of the two million new businesses started in the United States….Although minorities make up 32 percent of our population, minority business ownership is only 18 percent of the population…. The average gross receipts of minority firms was $162,000 which was considerably lower than the $448,000 average gross receipts of non-minority firms…. These disparities are why we need federal contracting programs like 8(a) and its business counseling counterpart, 7(j).

 

…

 

SEN. CARDIN: …I am somewhat surprised that there isn’t a greater acknowledgement of the problems that are out there for the current programs, and the challenges of the budget score of your agency. We are trying to work together to help minority businesses, and it would be helpful if we had more specific direction from SBA [Small Business Administration] as we try to improve the programs. It just comes down, Mr. Chairman, to the need for the special office within SBA to deal with minority businesses, so that we have a focus on this issue.

 

…

 

SEN. TESTER: I think that there needs to be a concerted effort on the part of SBA across the board – particularly in Indian Country – to educate folks. I hope that the SBA sees some sort of urgency – I do – as far as education and letting people know [about small business programs]. There’s a reason why there isn’t the kind of investment in Indian Country that there ought to be, and we need to determine what that is so that we can move forward. There are people with good ideas all over, and I would hope that you’d make it a priority.

 

One witness testified about the ongoing challenges that many minority business owners face when trying to do business.

 

MR. ANTHONY W. ROBINSON, PRESIDENT, MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND: The plight of the minority entrepreneur is brought into stark relief when he is faced with having to survive in the marketplace without the various minority contracting programs mandated by federal, state and local laws in jurisdictions across the nation. An analysis performed by the Urban Institute compared jurisdictions where race-conscious programs were in place with those without such programs. Disparity was markedly greater in jurisdictions where there were no goals programs in place. Moreover, it is clear that ending or curtailing minority contracting programs causes real and immediate harm.

 

Another witness testified that, for minority businesses to be successful, the business development program for socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses must be updated in a way that allows business owners to build capacity and create wealth.

 

MR. BILL MIERA, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, FIORE INDUSTRIES, INC.: One major obstacle we faced was contract bundling. We previously won two consecutive contracts as a prime… [but] high-level decision makers within the agency decided to bundle our contract. In order for us to continue on the project, we were forced to team with another prime [a large business] and we had to be the subcontractor. Our team won the contract but the new large prime eliminated our contract by adding a surcharge of nearly 40 percent on our work…. The contract cost taxpayers $450,000 a year in increased expenses in order to save approximately $50,000 in administrative costs. This is a false economy that also fails to account for decreases in performance by the prime [contractor] due to the only competitor being eliminated and decreases in innovation as most patents come from small business not large.

 

 

 

New technology tested by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) can improve safety in coal mines.

 

JEFFREY KOHLER, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR MINING, NIOSH: NIOSH researchers… successfully miniaturized a mass sensor that enabled a person-wearable dust monitor (PDM) to be built into a miner’s cap lamp…. The PDM is superior to the existing technology used to determine a miner’s exposure to respirable coal dust…. Access to real-time data allows for the prevention of overexposures that lead to the development of Coal Workers’ Pneumoconiosis (commonly referred to as “Black Lung” disease). Current technology does not provide this key information until days or weeks after the exposure has occurred.

 

Rock dust is applied to coal mine surfaces to prevent coal dust explosions, and if sufficient dust is applied, an inert mixture between the two dusts is achieved. The percentage of inert material in the mixture is specified by current regulation. However, a determination of this percentage by an MSHA [Mine Safety and Health Administration] inspector or mine operator requires taking a sample and sending it to a distant lab for analysis, which can take several days. The coal dust explodibility meter developed by NIOSH and jointly tested by NIOSH and MSHA researchers will allow an immediate or real-time determination by mine operators, or MSHA inspectors, of whether an inert ratio has been achieved.

 

MSHA is understaffed and lacks a plan to deal with an aging inspector workforce.

 

DENNIS O’DELL, Administrator, Department of Health and Safety, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA: The ranks of inspectors have been diminished over the years and we can expect further reductions as more of MSHA’s long-time inspectors leave the profession as they reach retirement age. GAO [Government Accountability Office] identified this anticipated problem in 2003, yet GAO reports again in 2007 that MSHA still does not have a plan in place to address the anticipated retirements of its inspectors…. As the number of inspectors have decreased, MSHA’s field office specialists including ventilation specialists and its electrical and roof control support staff have been forced to carry out routine mine inspections. These specialists must be returned to their areas of expertise. The only way to accomplish this is to hire an adequate number of inspectors that will permit the specialists to focus on the job they are trained to do. In addition, the agency must move immediately to train a sufficient number of inspectors to perform these technical tasks in the future.

 

While some steps have been taken to improve safety, best practices need to be expanded to all mines and more progress is needed.

 

S.L. BESSINGER, ENGINEERING MANAGER, SAN JUAN COAL COMPANY: We are very pleased that the MINER Act has strengthened the Nation’s mining research capabilities through creation and funding of a permanent Office of Mine Safety and Health within NIOSH…. In the long term, this will be one of the most important life-saving accomplishments of the MINER Act. Recent events highlight the need for increased and sustained funding to support basic research, and development of technology that the industry needs to continue to improve the safety of our industry.

 

…

 

MR. O’DELL: Very little has changed in the last year concerning the ability to communicate with and locate trapped miners. While we have learned more about this technology and understand that much is available, very few operators have taken advantage of it. Communication systems and tracking devices are areas that MSHA must pursue more aggressively….

 

We are also troubled by MSHA’s failure to undertake action to facilitate the creation of additional mine rescue teams…. The existing mine rescue team structure is spread too thin. It takes a lot of time and much practice for any mine rescue team to function well…. Miners cannot afford to wait any longer for the training of new teams to begin.

 

 

 

Increases in federal funding for local law enforcement led to dramatic decreases in crime throughout the mid to late 1990s.

 

SEN. BIDEN: More than a decade ago, we faced a… violent crime crisis. We overcame that crisis by supporting local law enforcement with the tools and resources they needed to prevent crime whenever possible and to punish crime whenever necessary. We passed the most sweeping anti-crime bill in our history and created the Community Oriented Policing Services Program – the COPS program.

 

…
 

Thomas J. Nee, President, National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO): [COPS], together with the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) and the Byrne Memorial Fund, gave state and local law enforcement the necessary funding to truly assist their efforts to keep our nation’s communities safe. These justice assistance programs… contributed countless resources to help combat crime, from assisting with the hiring and retention of over 118,000 police officers to serve in local communities, to paying for overtime, equipment, training, and allowing for the development of innovative partnerships with communities to fight crime.

 

…

 

SEN. BIDEN: And it worked – crime rates fell for eight straight years. Violent crime dropped 26 percent; the murder rate dropped 34 percent. The Government Accountability Office has documented the success of these anti-crime measures and a recent Brookings Institute study found that the COPS program was one of the most cost-effective programs for combating crime. In fact, the Brookings Institute found that for every dollar spent on COPS, we save six to twelve dollars for the public overall.

 

…

 

OFFICER NEE: According to the “More Cops = Less Crime” evaluation, the effects of the COPS grants from fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 1999 on violent crime during that 1995-2000 period were substantial. During that time, approximately $2 billion was provided nationally in hiring grants and over $3.6 million was provided in innovative grants to cities with populations over 10,000. Nationwide, police departments in these cities reported that occurrences of violent crimes decreased by well over 150,000 between 1995 and 2000. During this period, Phoenix, Arizona received $23.5 million in COPS hiring grants and $2.34 million in COPS innovative grants. Phoenix law enforcement estimates that these funds helped reduce reports of violent crime by over 1,500 incidents and reduced overall crime by 7,679 incidents. Los Angeles, California received nearly $194 million in COPS grants and $2.3 million in COPS innovative grants between fiscal years 1994 and 1999. During this time, violent crimes were reduced by 10,500 incidents and overall crime in the city by 53,435 incidents.

 

Since 9/11, the Bush Administration has drastically reduced federal funding to support local law enforcement. The result? Crime is again on the rise.

 

SEN BIDEN: For the first time in more than a decade, crime is on the rise. The 2005 FBI Uniform Crime Report found that murders are up 3.4 percent – the largest percentage increase in 15 years – with 16,692 murders in 2005 – the most since 1998. The report also found that other types of violent crime, including forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, rose 2.3 percent.

The Police Executive Research Forum’s recent study of crime in 56 cities found that over the past two years homicides increased more than 10 percent nationwide and more than 20 percent in many major cities. I am troubled by these trends but, quite frankly, I am not surprised. The federal government has taken its focus off street crime since 9/11, asking law enforcement to do more with less. The Administration has understandably dedicated vast federal resources to counterterrorism, but it has done so at the expense of law enforcement, our communities are suffering the consequences.

 

…

 

OFFICER NEE: Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, NAPO has witnessed steep declines in the funding levels for these critical law enforcement assistance programs. In fiscal year 2002, the funding level for Department of Justice [DOJ] law enforcement assistance grant programs was at $3.831 billion. In fiscal year 2005, the funding level for these programs was at $1.851 billion. While we have seen moderate increase in this funding level in fiscal years 2006 and 2007, the fiscal 2007 level of $2.3 billion is still $1.5 billion less than what these programs received five years ago.

 

…

 

SEN. BIDEN: The President has killed the COPS hiring program and drastically cut Justice Assistance Grants [JAG]. The President has also re-directed 1,000 FBI agents from crime to counterterrorism and, as a result, violent crime investigations by the FBI are down by 60 percent. Fewer police on the street preventing crime and protecting communities means more crime – it’s as simple that.

 

…

 

OFFICER NEE: It is not a coincidence that community policing was at its best and national crime rates were at their lowest when federal support for programs such as COPS, the Byrne Fund, and LLEBG was at its highest. It is also no coincidence that the steep reduction in federal support for these programs corresponds with the increases in violent crime rates nationwide.

 

While violent crime is still much lower than it was in the early 1990s, evidence suggests that we are at the beginning of a nationwide upward trend, especially in mid-sized cities and amongst youth offenders.

 

Mark Epley, Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General, Department of Justice: Observed increases in violent crime are sharpest in medium-sized cities. No change is observed among the largest cities…. For example, while the United States experienced a 2.4 percent increase in the murder rate in 2005… the Northeast experienced a 5.3 percent increase in the murder rate at the same time the South experienced a 0.8 percent increase and the West experienced a 1.7 percent increase in the murder rate. Similarly, while the United States experienced a 2.9 percent increase in the robbery rate, the Midwest experienced a 7.3 percent increase in the robbery rate at the same time the Northeast experienced a 2.9 percent increase, the West a 1.0 percent increase, and the South a 1.9 percent increase in the robbery rate. In 2005, there was a 5.7 percent increase in the number of homicides in U.S. cities as distinguished from rural and suburban areas. Cities between 100,000 and 249,999 experienced a 12.4 percent increase and cities between 50,000 and 99,999 experienced an 11 percent increase, while cities over 1,000,000 experienced a 0.6 percent increase and cities between 10,000 and 24,999 experienced a decline of 0.9 percent.

 

…

 

OFFICER NEE: It is beginning to appear that 2005 was not an anomaly, but rather the start of a terrible trend. Reports of violent crime nationwide surged by nearly 4 percent in the first half of 2006 when compared with the same six months of 2005. This includes a drastic, almost 10 percent increase in the number of robbery offenses, an approximate 1.5 percent rise in murder offenses, and an increase of over 1 percent in aggravated assaults.

 

…

 

Colonel Rick S. Gregory, Chief of Police, New Castle County, DELAWARE:A recent article in theUSA Today entitled “Youth Gangs Contribute to Rising Crime Rates” (May 15, 2007) stated, “increasing violence among teenagers and other youths appears to have contributed to a nationwide crime spike….” This trend is only the beginning of what is sure to continue for the indefinite future.

 

…

 

James Alan Fox, Ph.D., Lipman Family Professor, Criminal Justice, Northeastern University:The recent upturn in youth violence was anticipated years ago. Even while rates of crime were falling in the 1990s, criminologists warned about the potential for another wave of youth and gang violence ahead, a not-so-perfect storm combining an upward trend in the at-risk youth population with a downward trend in spending on social and educational programs to support youth.

 

Local law enforcement agencies have been asked to do more – fighting traditional crime and terrorism– with less.

 

OFFICER NEE: America’s state and local law enforcement are being disregarded by the current Administration. They are being passed over for critical funding to assist them in performing their roles in combating and responding to crime and terrorism….

 

Advocates of these reductions argue that state and local law enforcement are not losing critical funding; rather, agencies are receiving assistance funds through Homeland Security programs. However, [Department of] Homeland Security [DHS] grants provide only limited funding for law enforcement personnel initiatives. They are also distributed through the states, while the COPS grants go directly to law enforcement agencies, giving them more flexibility in deciding where and how to use the funds to meet their communities’ needs the best. More often than not, the funds most needed by local law enforcement agencies are those that can be used to hire new officers, retain officers, and obtain new equipment.

 

Nevertheless, law enforcement has seen a steady decline in Homeland Security funds as well. As of fiscal year 2007, the three primary DHS programs – the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and the Urban Area Security Initiative – have been slashed by almost 50 percent from fiscal year 2003 levels, when these programs received more than $3 billion in funding. Yet law enforcement’s role in homeland security has not diminished along with the funding.

 

Together, DOJ and DHS law enforcement assistance programs have seen a total decrease of $2.03 billion in funding between fiscal years 2004 and 2007. This sharp, steady decline in funding has occurred despite the fact that state and local law enforcement continue to assume more duties to protect communities against terrorist threats, continue to fight against drugs and domestic crime, and endure pressing state budget constraints.

 

Without enough federal funding to both, local law enforcement agencies are forced to choose fighting terrorism over fighting traditional crime.

 

OFFICER NEE: Today, local police departments, already undermanned due to a lack of resources to hire new officers, must place officers into Drug, Gang and Terrorism Task Forces, as well as protect critical infrastructure during periods of heightened national threat advisory levels, often at the expense of street patrols.

 

Phoenix, Arizona law enforcement agencies have had to redeploy officers and resources to fixed structure protection, such as water treatment facilities, Arizona Public Service power stations, and airports, among other infrastructure. While these resources are being shifted away from community policing, Phoenix is seeing record increases in violent crime. Just between 2005 and 2006, the city saw a nearly 5 percent increase in its violent crime rates, including a 4.5 percent rise in homicides and an over 6 percent rise in aggravated assault….

 

Law enforcement in Los Angeles, California has seen a substantial amount of resources - officers and funding - shifted to homeland security details…. However, the Los Angeles Police Department has limited funds to hire new officers. When the department is mandated to redeploy officers to protect infrastructure, staff terrorism task forces, and take on counterterrorism duties, patrol units suffer. Over the past several years, although L.A. has seen a decrease in the overall level of violent crimes, including murder, it has seen a significant increase in gang-related homicides and violent crimes. Los Angeles police attribute this to the lack of resources the police department has to cover the holes in community policing and gang deterrence caused by new terrorism prevention duties….

 

The New York City Police Department (NYPD) has lost over 4,000 officers since 1999. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the city has been on high alert and its police department has dedicated over 1,000 police officers to counterterrorism activities. Officers assigned to street patrol are being trained in terrorism prevention in addition to their usual training, adding to their responsibilities while patrolling New York City streets. Despite these additional duties and training, New York City police officers are some of the lowest paid law enforcement officers in the nation. Low salaries and no premium pay for the added terrorism responsibilities are the primary sources for low officer retention rates and the City’s inability to recruit and retain new officers. The NYPD no longer has the funds or personnel to have officers completely dedicated to either terrorism prevention or community policing. The city, whose police department is now also a counterterrorism force, is short thousands of officers and is barely able to retain the officers it has today.

 

Local leaders have applauded recent, and urged future, Democratic efforts to restore funding to community policing and other local law enforcement programs.

 

Douglas H. Palmer, Mayor, Trenton, New Jersey; President, United States Conference of Mayors:We commend the new Congress for increasing funding for COPS and the JAG program – the first time in years that the programs were not cut – and urge that both programs be fully funded in Fiscal Year 2008.

 

The Conference of Mayors has adopted policy which calls for the reauthorization of the COPS program, and we commend Chairman Biden for sponsoring S. 368, which would provide $1.15 billion annually. I know that the bill has already been approved by the full Judiciary Committee – and I urge Senate passage so that it can soon be signed into law. As this bill moves forward, we hope that it will contain a number of elements supported by our policy including:

 

–Funding for the hiring or re-deployment of additional officers, with a continued emphasis on community oriented policing in and around schools;

 

–Significant retention funding beyond the initial three years of the program for officers where local fiscal conditions require continued support;

 

–Much needed flexibility to pay overtime so long as it results in an increase in the number of officers deployed in community oriented policing;

 

–A significant increase in the per-officer funding limitation;

 

–Significant support for crime-fighting technology including: improved public safety communications and crime mapping; expansion and replacement of facilities necessitated by the hiring of additional officers; and crime solving technologies including crime lab improvements and DNA backlog reductions; and

 

–Support for the criminal justice system including efforts to increase community prosecutions.

 

…

 

dr. Fox:Smart crime fighting involves a balanced blend of enforcement (from community policing to identifying illegal gun markets), treatment modalities (from drug rehab on demand to community corrections and post-incarceration services) as well as general and targeted crime prevention (from family support to summer jobs for high-risk youth)…. The choice is ours: pay for the programs now or pray for the victims later.

 

 

Senators and witnesses argued that the Framers of the Constitution did not intend for citizens of the District of Columbia to be disenfranchised.

 

SEN. LEAHY: The Bush Administration contends that Congress lacks the authority to authorize congressional representation for the residents of the District of Columbia. As one of our witnesses will point out today, the purpose of the District Clause in the Constitution was to ensure federal authority over the nation’s capital “not to deprive citizens living there of their rights of citizenship.” In my view, disenfranchisement of American citizens living in our nation’s capital is contrary to the genius of the Framers. Our Founders established a republican form of government and that system that has been perfected for more than 200 years.

 

…

 

SEN. HATCH: America’s founders might not have foreseen the District becoming the major population center it is today. But while they did not affirmatively provide in the Constitution for District representation, I do not believe they negatively denied Congress the power to do so.

 

…

 

REP. CHRIS CANNON: There is no historical basis for concluding that the Framers intended to disenfranchise residents of the nation’s capital, and in my view the District Clause of the Constitution gives Congress the necessary authority to restore voting rights to those residents….

 

In order to understand the District portion of this legislation, it is important to take a historical perspective. At the time of our nation’s founding, the Framers provided for a federal district to house the seat of the federal government. This was done to ensure that the nation’s capitol would be insulated from undue influence of the states and that its security would not be left in the hands of any one state. Denying District of Columbia residents the right to vote in elections for the House of Representatives was not necessary, or even relevant, to further these purposes. And contrary to the claims of some, there is no indication in the ratification debates that the Framers intended such disenfranchisement….

 

The Framers’ failure to focus closely on this issue may well have stemmed from the fact that there was no District of Columbia at the time the Constitution was ratified. At that time, the Framers had prescribed only the District’s purpose and the limitations on its geographic size. Even its location had not been selected. Many municipalities, including Trenton, New Jersey, Yorktown, Virginia and Reading, Pennsylvania vied for the honor. It was not until Congress passed the Residence Act that the site that is now the District of Columbia was selected as the seat of the federal government. For all the Framers knew, the capital would be located in the middle of an existing state—thereby allowing the residents of the District to continue voting in that state, as residents of federal enclaves do today….

 

Opponents of this legislation argue, however, that the Framers meant to exclude District residents from voting by providing in Article I, Section 2 that members of the House are chosen “by the people of the several States.” But that language was not chosen because of an intention to deny democracy to residents of the nation’s capital. Rather, the ratification debates indicate that this language resulted from two decisions made in the course of those debates: the decision that the House would be elected by the “people of the several States,” as opposed to by the state legislatures; and the decision to allow voting qualifications to be set at the state, rather than the federal, level. At no point during the debates over these issues did anyone mention the residents of the newly-conceived federal district – let alone suggest that they would be deprived of the fundamental, individual right to voting representation.

 

Witnesses contended that the current proposal is unconstitutional because only states can elect members of the House of Representatives.

 

JOHN P. ELWOOD, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE: If the citizens of the District are to have voting representation in the Congress, a constitutional amendment is essential; statutory action alone will not suffice. This is the case because provisions for elections of Senators and Representatives in the Constitution are stated in terms of the states, and the District of Columbia is not a state….

 

The numerous explicit provisions of the constitutional text; the consistent construction of those provisions throughout the course of American history by courts, Congress, and the Executive; and the historical evidence of the Framers’and ratifiers’ intent in adopting the Constitution conclusively demonstrate that the Constitution does not permit the granting of congressional representation to the District by simple legislation.

 

JONATHAN TURLEY, SHAPIRO PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC INTEREST LAW, GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY LAW SCHOOL: Despite the best of motivations, the bill is fundamentally flawed on a constitutional level and would only serve to needlessly delay true reform for District residents. Indeed, considerable expense would likely come from an inevitable and likely successful legal challenge -- all for a bill that would ultimately achieve only partial representational status. The effort to fashion this as a civil rights measure ignores the fact that it confers only partial representation without any guarantee that it will continue in the future. It is the equivalent of allowing Rosa Parks to move halfway to the front of the bus in the name of progress. District residents deserve full representation….

 

Permit me to be blunt, I consider this Act to be the most premeditated unconstitutional act by Congress in decades…. It is certainly time to right this historical wrong, but, in our constitutional system, it is often more important how we do something than what we do. This is the wrong means to a worthy end. However, it is not the only means and I encourage the Members to direct their considerable efforts toward a more lasting and complete resolution of the status of the District of Columbia in Congress.

 

…

 

Kenneth R. Thomas, Legislative Attorney, American Law Division, Congressional Research Service:…it is difficult to identify either constitutional text or existing case law which would support the extension by Congress of the power to vote in the full House to the District of Columbia Delegate. Further, that case law that does exist would seem to indicate that not only is the District of Columbia not a “state”for purposes of representation, but that congressional power over the District of Columbia is not a sufficient basis to grant congressional representation. However, it is clear that there is a constitutionally sufficient route to granting the District of Columbia voting representation in the House, and that is by amending the Constitution.

 

Senators presented evidence that Congress has repeatedly enacted legislation treating the District of Columbia as if it were a state.

 

SEN. LEAHY: Congress has repeatedly acted to treat the District of Columbia as a “State”for various purposes. Examples of these actions include a revision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that broadened Article III diversity jurisdiction to include citizens of the District even though the Constitution only provides that federal courts may hear cases “between citizens of different States.”Congress has also been allowed to treat the District as a “State” for purposes of congressional power to regulate commerce “among the several States.” The Sixteenth Amendment grants Congress the power to directly tax incomes “without apportionment among the several States” but has been interpreted also to apply to residents of the District.

 

…

 

SEN. HATCH: On numerous occasions, the Supreme Court has approved Congress’application to the District of duties or privileges normally reserved for states. These include the application of direct taxes, court jurisdiction in diversity cases, and regulation of commerce. In each of these and other instances, the Court has not viewed the word states so narrowly as to trump Congress’ explicit and exclusive power to legislate for the District. I do not believe we should do so here.

 

Senators and witnesses argued that granting the District of Columbia a vote in the House of Representatives is constitutional.

 

SEN. HATCH: I acknowledge, as Judge Wald put it in her prepared statement, that this is a close and difficult constitutional question. There are legitimate arguments on both sides. And, I must note, there are both liberal and conservative legal experts on both sides. That said, the commitment of America’s founders to representative government, their grant of complete authority over the District of Columbia to Congress, their failure to prohibit District representation in the House, and both congressional and judicial precedent combine to satisfy me that S. 1257 rests on sufficiently firm constitutional ground.

 

…

 

Patricia Wald, Former Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: I would be less than candid if I did not say up front that you have before you a close and difficult constitutional question. We are, in my view, faced with two pieces of constitutional text, both in Article I dealing with the Legislative power of the United States, either one of which, read alone, could lead one to a quick conclusion, albeit different ones, as to whether the bill is constitutional. Those two sentences must, of course, be read together and in the further context of other controlling principles embedded in the Constitution, with a purpose to harmonize them, if that is possible….

 

Congress is the legislative sovereign of the District; at the same time it is the sole source of all legislative power of the national government. If it decides under its current Article I, Section 2 composition (about which there can be no controversy) to confer a limited franchise on District residents as part of its duty to provide for their welfare and this exercise infringes no structural balance between the union and the states or dilutes no civil rights of any U.S. citizens, I believe it is entitled to a reasonable presumption of constitutionality under the Federalist approach. Of course no one can guarantee how the third branch will rule; acknowledgedly there are conflicting signals in their past jurisprudence though no directly contrary precedent that I know of on this precise issue. In such a landscape, Congress is justified in concluding the balance tilts in favor of recognizing for D.C. residents the most basic right of all democratic societies, the right to vote for one’s leaders.

 

…

 

Mark L. Shurtleff, Attorney General, State of Utah: Countless legal scholars from across the political spectrum, including Whitewater special prosecutor Kenneth Starr and PATRIOT Act architect Viet Dinh, agree with our assessment of the Voting Rights Act’s constitutionality. Dinh calls the District of Columbia’s lack of representation“a political disability with no constitutional rationale.”

 

Residents of the District of Columbia had voting rights until 1800, when Congress took those rights away.

 

REP. CANNON: In fact, there was no discussion at all during the Constitutional Convention, and almost none in the state ratification debates, as to the voting rights of the new District residents, likely because it was assumed that the states donating the land for the District would provide for the voting rights of the residents of the ceded land. Indeed, from 1790-1800, District residents continued to vote in congressional elections in Maryland and Virginia. It was not until 1800, when the District became subject to complete federal control, that residents of the District lost their voting rights.

 

…

 

MR. Shurtleff:In conclusion, the Framers of the Constitution did not intend to deprive residents of the nation’s capital of their fundamental right to vote. Indeed, for approximately 10 years after the District’s creation in 1791, residents continued to vote for the Maryland and Virginia congressional delegations. Their subsequent loss of this representation came not as a result of any constitutional provision, but from an act of Congress. What Congress taketh away, Congress can give again. The Constitution’s District Clause gives Congress plenary and exclusive power to legislate for the District. This sweeping authority allowed Congress to create the District’s system of local government in the 1970s, and it allows Congress to provide voting representation in the House today.

 

The District of Columbia’s fight for any representation in Congress is coupled with Utah’s efforts for fair representation.

 

SEN. HATCH: Mr. Chairman, S. 1257 would correct two injustices by giving Utah the additional House seat that many in my state believe we deserved following the 2000 census and giving the half a million Americans living in the District full House representation.

 

…

 

MR. Shurtleff: The District of Columbia is seeking to right a longstanding wrong. The District’s local budget and laws are subject to congressional approval. Its residents pay federal income taxes, go to war and serve on federal juries. Yet it has had no voting representation in Congress for more than 200 years, and remains the only democratic capital in the world with no voice in the national legislature. Utah’s fight, a more recent one, is against under-representation. The Beehive State missed receiving a fourth House seat by just 857 people in the 2000 census, despite having more than 11,000 missionaries living overseas and uncounted by census takers. North Carolina, by contract, had 18,360 overseas members of the military counted and received the additional seat.

 

The question of voting rights for the District of Columbia touches directly on issues of racial justice.

 

Charles J. Ogletree, Jr., Jesse Climenko Professor of Law, Executive Director, Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, Harvard Law School: As you may know, the Houston Institute just completed a major conference reflecting on the 150th anniversary of the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, one of the truly painful blots on our nation’s past. You will recall that this decision, handed down across the street from here, held that the rights of citizenship did not apply to a certain group of people, in this case African-Americans. It is awkward but necessary for me to remind you that many of our citizens currently denied the full right to equal representation (and thus equal voting rights) in the District of Columbia are not only the symbolic but actual descendants of Dred Scott and of the people affected by that 150-year-old Supreme Court decision that bore his name…. Today, Washington, D.C. is inhabited significantly by the descendants of slaves. It is them to whom we are continuing to deny full citizenship.

 

The President’s lack of support for the voting rights of the citizens of our nation’s capital is incompatible with his push for democratic rights for the citizens of Iraq.

 

SEN. LEAHY: In 2005, President Bush praised the Iraqi people for exercising their democratic right to vote, and noted that “by participating in free elections, the Iraqi people have firmly rejected the anti-democratic ideology of the terrorists… [a]nd they have demonstrated the kind of courage that is always the foundation of self-government.” Unfortunately, the President does not speak so enthusiastically about voting rights for the American citizens living literally in his backyard. The United States is the only democracy in the world that denies a portion if its citizens full representation. That is wrong. It is well past time for us to correct this unfair and undemocratic practice.

 

Senator Hatch asserted that granting the District of Columbia a vote in the House of Representatives will not lead to Senate representation as well.

 

SEN. HATCH: This bill should not be seen as a step toward either statehood or Senate representation for the District of Columbia. America’s founders wisely concluded that the nation’s capitol should not be one of its constituent states. James Madison said this was an indispensable necessity. And while the House represents people, the Senate represents states, which have equal suffrage in that body. As such, while the District’s population supports House representation, its status as a district does not justify Senate representation and I would not support changing that.

 

 

Mergers in the oil industry have increased, not reduced, prices and created market conditions that allow the large companies to control prices.

 

THOMAS MCCOOL, Director, Center for Economics, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE: Petroleum industry consolidation plays a role in determining gasoline prices too. The 1990s saw a wave of merger activity in which over 2,600 mergers occurred in all segments of the U.S. petroleum industry…. Anecdotal evidence suggests that mergers may also have affected other factors that impact competition, such as vertical integration and barriers to entry. Econometric modeling we performed of eight mergers showed that, after controlling for other factors including crude oil prices, the majority resulted in higher wholesale gasoline prices – generally between 1 and 7 cents per gallon. While these price increases seem small, they are not trivial – according to FTC’s [Federal Trade Commission] standards for merger review in the petroleum industry, a 1-cent increase is considered to be significant. Additional mergers occurring since 2000 are expected to increase the level of industry concentration further.

 

…

 

DIANA MOSS, VICE PRESIDENT AND SENIOR FELLOW, AMERICAN ANTITRUST INSTITUTE: Merger reviews could probably be improved within the existing framework of the antitrust agency guidelines. Rigorous approaches to market definition should clearly identify refining bottlenecks. Theories of competitive harm should consider how a merger affects the firm’s ability and incentive to adversely affect prices or output. Here, it is particularly important to consider not only horizontal theories of harm, but vertical ones, including the possibility of vertical foreclosure. It may be the case – as in electricity markets, for example – that manipulation of even small amounts of strategic refining capacity may result in very profitable anticompetitive price increases. Thus, small market shares may not necessarily mean small market power.

 

The refining industry has underinvested in increased capacity and safety but is making record profits.

 

SEN. SCHUMER: I don’t understand how an industry that makes tens of billions per year can still have rusty refining plants that constantly break down. I don’t know of any other business where the ratio of profits to infrastructure breakdowns is as high. And I don’t know any other industry where an equipment breakdown in one company benefits every other company by raising prices.

 

The oil and refining industry is blocking market penetration of independent companies and alternative fuels.

 

DENNIS DECOTA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CALIFORNIA SERVICE STATION AND AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR ASOSCIATION: As the oil companies consolidated, they closed or sold off most of their less desirable locations, reducing competition amongst branded and unbranded stations, gaining a stronger grip over the retail market place. Collectively, they also implemented zone pricing throughout the nation. This one tactic allowed the majors to control the retail street price of gasoline more than any other strategy. It stymied true competition and allowed the majors to gain market power. This along with their increase of proprietary gallons and the simple fact they stopped franchising newly constructed stations in the mid-nineties, has all but wiped out competition at the retail level.

 

…

 

SAMANTHA SLATER, Director, Congressional and Regulatory Affairs, RENEWABLE FUELS ASSOCIATION: The greatest challenge the ethanol industry faces to increasing E-85 refueling pumps nationwide remains the resistance from the major oil companies to allow service stations to sell E-85…. Oil companies today do not generally sell E-85, so they lose a sale when a driver pulls into a service station bearing their name and purchases E-85 instead of the gasoline the oil companies supply to the service station. It is not in their best interest financially, then, to permit E-85 to be sold at these service stations…. If an oil company, however, were to grant an exemption and allow a franchise service station to buy E-85 from an outside supplier, the service station would then be required to follow restrictive rules the oil companies say are in place to protect customers, as well as their brand.

 

 

Benefit timelines should to be modified to address the growing needs to treat mental illnesses, suicide, and traumatic brain injury.

 

Sen. Akaka:Two years is often insufficient time for symptoms related to PTSD and other mental illnesses to manifest. In many cases, it takes years for such symptoms to present themselves, and many service members do not immediately seek care.

 

…

 

DR. GERALD M. CROSS, ACTING PRINCIPAL DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY FOR HEALTH: [Through S. 117] veterans would be eligible for hospital care, medical services, nursing home care, and family and marital counseling for any mental health condition identified during that examination, notwithstanding that the medical evidence is insufficient to conclude that the mental health condition is attributable to the veteran’s combat service. Eligibility for medical services needed to treat the veteran’s identified mental health condition would continue for two years, beginning on the date VA begins to provide such services. The bill would not, however, cover any mental health disability found by the Under Secretary for Health to have resulted from a cause other than the veteran’s combat service.

 

Section 202 [of S.117] would require VA to establish an information system designed to provide an elaborate and comprehensive record of the veterans of the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) who seek VA benefits and the benefits they receive. Section 203 would mandate that VA submit a quarterly report to Congress on the effects of participation in GWOT on both veterans and the Department. The first of these reports would be due not later than 90 days after this Act’s enactment. Each quarterly report would include aggregated information on VA health, counseling, and related benefits to GWOT veterans, including information on the enrollment status of GWOT veterans; the number of inpatient stays they experienced and the related cost of that care (by both enrollment status and condition); the number of outpatient visits they experienced and the related cost of such services (again by enrollment status and by condition); and the number of visits to Vet Centers and the related cost of providing them readjustment counseling and services. As we testified on May 9, 2007, this bill’s requirements to compile and frequently report to Congress massive amounts of data, much of which are not currently available, in the detail and manner specified, would force VA to divert considerable resources from our primary responsibilities… collection and tracking the individual-specific data mandated by the bill would require considerably expanded administrative personnel and resources.

 

…

 

CARL BLAKE, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA: [W]e support [S. 117] the requirement that post-deployment medical and mental health screening be conducted within 30 days. We would suggest that it should be done even sooner. PVA has expressed concerns repeatedly that pre-deployment and post-deployment screenings are not being handled properly. In fact, we believe that it should not be a screening, but instead, a full medical evaluation and physical…. PVA also supports the intent of Section 103 of the legislation that requires every service member released from active duty to be given an electronic copy of his or her military records, to include military service, medical, and any other relevant records. We have long felt that electronic transfer of all military service and medical records from the Department of Defense to VA would expedite the claims process.

 

…

 

DENNIS M. CULLINAN, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE SERVICE, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED STATES: This is important because it gives the benefit of the doubt to these veterans for their illnesses and mental health problems they may suffer, and provides them access to these essential services without having to endure the VA disability claims process for access to care beyond their initial two years of eligibility. The bottom line is that if veterans are having problems, under this legislation, they would be cared for….

 

For those suffering from mental health issues – such as PTSD – the symptoms they show might not immediately manifest themselves, or they may need time to come to terms with the knowledge that they need treatment. If they fall outside the two-year window and qualify for health care under category 8, they cannot access VA health care unless they can demonstrate a service connection – a process that takes, on average, six months or more.

 

…

 

JOY J. ILEM, ASSISTANT NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS: [B]ased on our review of VA’s general efforts to meet its workload requirements within those constraints, it is doubtful VA could routinely meet [the requirements of S. 117] within available resources. With respect to the data gathering and reporting requirements of the bill, we believe thousands of staff hours and millions of dollars for other support likely would be necessary to enable VA and DoD to comply with these requirements, assuming they would be able to comply.

 

…

 

SHANNON MIDDLETON, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR HEALTH, VETERANS AFFAIRS, AND REHABILITATION COMMISSION, THE AMERICAN LEGION: [S.117] addresses the need to differentiate veterans who served in OIF and OEF, those who served in both and those who served in neither. The environmental exposures may differ and the combat experiences may differ.

 

…

 

DR. CROSS: VA supports S.383…. many OEF/OIF veterans are non-career military members who are unfamiliar with veterans’ benefits and the procedures for obtaining them. For that reason many fail to enroll in a timely fashion. Providing combat-theater veterans with an additional three years within which to access VA’s health care system would help to ensure that none of them is penalized because of reasons beyond their control or because they have been unable to navigate through VA’s claims system in time. VA estimates the costs associated with enactment of S. 383 to be $14.1 million in FY 2008 and $289 million over a 10-year period. These estimates include both expenditures and lost co-payment revenue….

 

We appreciate the purpose of [S.479]; however, we do not support this bill. It is unnecessary because it duplicates many efforts already underway by the Department. Indeed, many of the bill’s requirements are already being addressed and implemented through VA’s current Mental Health Strategic Plan. The use of adult veterans as peer-counselors in caring for other veterans who suffer from mental health issues is simply not advisable. Data on the efficacy of these types of programs do not reflect favorable results. Although well-intended, we believe such an approach to clinical care lacks scientific support. We strongly believe that VA mental health care services, including counseling, should continue to be provided by our capable, experienced, and appropriately-trained cadre of mental health care professionals. In addition, we do not think the bill’s requirement that we encourage every veteran seeking any type of VA benefit to obtain a mental health assessment is justified, and it may cause veterans to believe they have been stigmatized.

 

…

 

Mr. Blake: PVA fully supports S. 479…. Every PVA chapter designates individual members to pair up with newly injured veterans to help them get through the early stages of their recovery. I know firsthand that being able to talk to someone who has experienced what you have experienced and has dealt with the same problems you are dealing with can help you overcome bouts of depression, sadness, and anger as you first come to grips with your condition. The peer counselor serves as a motivator to get you moving in the right direction.

 

…

 

MS.Middleton: [In suicide prevention f]amily Education and Outreach is significantly important, since family and friends may notice changes in the veteran’s mental health first. The American Legion receives contact from veterans themselves who openly admit they need immediate help because of thoughts of harming themselves. When the family and the veteran know what services are available, it is easier to seek assistance.

 

…

 

Bernard Edelman, Deputy Director for Policy and Government Affairs, VIETNAM VETERNS OF AMERICA: S. 479…attempts to grapple with one of the unfortunate consequences of war. Too many of our young men and women whom we’ve sent off to fight halfway around the globe return markedly different. The lingering trauma of things they’ve experienced haunts them. These memories affect their daily living, and too many succumb to the emotional numbing and hurt. To not support this bill would do a grave injustice to those troops still fighting their demons.

 

…

 

Jerry Reed, Executive Director, Suicide Prevention Action Network USA: A majority of veterans who complete suicide are not currently receiving medical care through the VHA. Therefore, family members and friends of veterans need to recognize the warning signs for suicide and learn about services for their loved ones before it is too late. The VA’s awareness and outreach program must be focused not just on veterans who seek care at the VA, but also on veterans who have returned to their home communities, family members of veterans, and veteran service organizations (VSO)…. While there is no substitute for licensed mental health professionals with respect to diagnosis and treatment of PTSD, depression, and anxiety, it is often fellow veterans who provide the support needed to convince a veteran to visit a licensed professional.

 

…

 

MR. BLAKE: PVA is concerned about the authority provided by Section 4 [S. 1233] of the legislation. We understand that outside facilities and programs can bring some level of expertise to this population of veterans. However, we would hope that the VA would see fit to invest the majority of its resources in improving its own TBI programs, even as it taps into outside expertise…. [W]e think that the legislation also unnecessarily rewrites contracting authority that already currently exists in the fee basis statute. The legislation seems to explain medically unfeasible and geographic inaccessibility in new language, when the VA already has authority to follow these guidelines under fee basis. VA’s non-institutional long-term care programs will be required to assist these younger severely injured veterans who need a wide range of support services such as: personal attendant services, programs to train attendants, peer support programs, assistive technology, hospital-based home care teams that are trained to treat and monitor specific disabilities, and transportation services. These younger veterans need expedited access to VA benefits such as VA’s Home Improvement/Structural Alteration (HISA) grant, and VA’s adaptive housing and auto programs so they can leave institutional settings and go home as soon as possible. PVA also believes that linking these assisted living programs to the poly-trauma centers and possibly the proposed research, education, and clinical care program is a must.

 

…

 

MR. CULLINAN: Improvements in body armor and more rapid and effective medical interventions are resulting in individuals surviving bomb blasts and other concussive injuries that would not have been possible in previous conflicts. Tragically, though, along with amputations many of these survivors now suffer from TBI resulting in varying degrees of cognitive impairment, reduced concentration and ability to focus on more than one thing at a time and emotional distress. This has profoundly negative implications for these injured warriors as well as their families and dependents.

 

…

 

MS. ILEM: The neurological, cognitive, and behavioral changes due to TBI are complex, varied, and diverse and may change in severity or develop over time. Longer-term neurological problems often include movement disorders, seizures, headaches, and sleep disorders. Common residual cognitive problems include memory, attention and concentration impairments. Depending on the area of the brain injured, judgment, planning, problem-solving and other executive functioning skills may also be impaired. Visual perception problems and language impairments are usual but often go undiagnosed. Prevalent behavioral issues include personality changes, aggression, agitation, learning difficulties, shallow self-awareness, altered sexual functioning, impulsivity, and social dis-inhibition. Many individuals self-medicate with alcohol to deal with the dis-inhibitory symptoms and disruption to their sleep cycle.

 

…

 

Meredith Beck, National Policy Director,WOUNDED WARRIOR PROJECT: We are also extremely concerned with the method by which the legislation [S. 1233] determines the TBI patient’s eligibility for such a health care benefit. According to the provision as currently written, the Secretary would have the discretion to enter into individual agreements with facilities to provide care based on in part on geographic location, but no care criteria for the participating private facilities are enumerated. Even more importantly, by determining eligibility based on geographic proximity to a VA facility and the discretion of the Secretary for the Department’s ability to provide the necessary services, the legislation will limit the range of patients who can qualify for placement in a private facility and thus not provide the options for care that our warriors and their families are seeking.

 

…

 

DR. JOHN BOOSS, ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF NEUROLOGY: Each veteran who suffers a TBI should receive ongoing individualized, comprehensive and multidisciplinary rehabilitation after inpatient services. Rehabilitation plans that are based upon a comprehensive assessment of the veteran’s physical, cognitive, vocational, and psychosocial impairments, using a multidisciplinary team that includes neurologists (as required by S. 1233), are essential to rehabilitative success. We support the provision in section 3 which requires involving the family and veteran in the development and review of the rehabilitation plan. TBI is a devastating and life-altering event which affects the veteran and his or her family. Families of veterans with TBI need support and education, and should be part of the rehabilitative team to the greatest extent possible.

 

Veterans of modest incomes or located far from VA facilities should not be denied needed benefits to save costs.

 

MR. CROSS: VA suspended the enrollment of new veterans in the lowest statutory enrollment priority (priority category 8 - veterans with higher incomes and no compensable service-connected disabilities) in January of 2003. This action was taken to protect the quality and improve the timeliness of care provided to veterans in higher enrollment-priority categories. VA strongly opposes enactment of S. 1147…. S. 1147 would essentially render meaningless the prioritized enrollment system, leaving VA unable to manage enrollment in a manner that ensures quality and access to veterans in higher priorities. VA would have to add capacity and funding to absorb the additional workload that this bill would entail, and so the quality and timeliness of VA health care to all veterans, including service disabled and lower income veterans, would unavoidably suffer until this capacity is added…

 

…

 

MR. BLAKE: PVA fully supports S. 1147. It is unacceptable that these veterans, many of whom have served in combat, are being denied access to health care simply because the Administration and Congress have been unwilling to provide the necessary funding to reopen the VA health care system to them…. VA estimates that more than 1.5 million category 8 veterans will have been denied enrollment in the VA health-care system by FY 2008. Assuming a utilization rate of 20 percent, in order to reopen the system to these deserving veterans, The Independent Budget estimates that VA will require approximately $366 million in discretionary dollars.

 

…

 

MS. ILEM: Over 1,000,000 veterans have unsuccessfully attempted to enroll in VA health care since the cut-off of new enrollments for Priority 8 veterans occurred in 2003…. [W]ithout a major infusion of new funding, enactment of this bill [S. 1147] would worsen VA’s financial situation, not improve it, and would likely have a negative impact on the system as a whole. We recommend the Committee defer action on this bill until after Congress enacts mandatory, guaranteed or assured funding for VA health care.

 

…

 

MR. EDELMAN: S. 1147… would re-open the VA health care system to Priority 8 veterans. These are veterans with an income of less than $28,000 a year who are not afflicted with a service-connected disability and who agree to make a co-payment for their health care and prescription drugs…. On January 17, 2003, the Secretary made the decision to “temporarily” suspend Priority 8 veterans from enrolling. While this decision may be reconsidered on an annual basis, every budget proposal from the Administration since has omitted funding for Priority 8 veterans not previously enrolled and has attempted to discourage use by and enrollment of those “higher income” veterans.

 

…

 

MS. BECK: many in this room have identified waiting times for appointments, quality of care, and limited resources as just some of the challenges facing the VA. With the addition of relatively higher income, non-service connected veterans, Congress would be placing an additional strain on a system it has called over-burdened and complicated.

 

…

 

MR. CROSS: [S.1146] would amend VA’s beneficiary travel program by making VA pay or reimburse eligible veterans at the same per diem rates and mileage rates that apply to Federal employees using privately owned vehicles for official travel. This section would also repeal existing deductible requirements that apply to the receipt of VA beneficiary travel benefits. Section 3 would require the Secretary, through the Director of the Office of Rural Health, to establish up to five Rural Health Research, Education, and Clinical Centers of Excellence (“Centers”)….

 

Currently, over 92 percent of enrolled veterans reside within one hour of a VA facility, and 98.5 percent of all enrollees are within 90 minutes…. Rural veterans tell us that they are satisfied with the services and high-quality care we are providing to them. This is substantiated by their reporting even higher satisfaction with VA services than their urban counterparts. Moreover, performance measure data indicate that as a result of our intensive efforts to expand services for rural veterans, veterans have access to services much nearer to home. In 1996, VA users of mental health services lived an average of 24 miles from the nearest VA clinic; as of 2006, they now live only 13.8 miles away. In addition, quality of care in the rural environment matches that of urban care on 40 standard measures…. [W]e do not support S. 1146….

 

Like S. 1146, S. 994 would amend VA’s beneficiary travel benefits program by repealing the statutory deductible-requirements and requiring the Secretary to reimburse all beneficiary travel benefits and allowances at the same rates that apply to Federal employees…. we believe the cost of S. 994 would be utterly prohibitive. The cost of this bill would be significantly increased without the buffering effect of deductibles. As you know, deductibles play an important cost-sharing function and help contain costs by discouraging needless travel. Increased funding in the amount this bill would require could be put to better use on the provision of direct patient care to our veterans, particularly on our aging veterans and new cohorts of OEF/OIF veterans.

 

…

 

MR.BLAKE: It is wholly unacceptable that veterans have to live with the 11 cents per mile reimbursement rate that the VA currently provides when all federal employees receive 48 cents per mile. In fact, PVA believes that some of the difficulty in providing care to veterans in limited access areas, particularly rural areas, might be eliminated with a sensible reimbursement rate.

 

…

 

MR. CULLINAN: For many veterans who live far from a VA hospital or community health center, transportation remains the single biggest obstacle to care. Today, disabled veterans are eligible to have only a small fraction of their transportation costs reimbursed.

 

…

 

MS. ILEM: We have donated almost 1,800 vans to VA facilities at a cost exceeding $20 million. These vans and their DAV volunteer drivers and medical center volunteer transportation coordinators have transported nearly 520,000 veterans over 388 million miles. We plan to continue and enhance this program, not only because the VA beneficiary travel rate is so low, but also we have found our transportation network serves as a truly vital link between veterans and crucial VA health care. Its absence would equate to the actual denial of care for many eligible veterans….

 

[G]iven the situations and dislocations of the families of severely injured veterans of OIF/OEF who now are in VA facilities for long-term rehabilitation, DAV hopes Congress also will address and appropriate funding consistent with enabling the immediate family members of these several hundred veterans to be reimbursed their travel and lodging expenses while their loved ones remain incapacitated. These families are suffering greatly and are making extreme sacrifices in relocating to be close to their loved ones, often far from home, without good accommodations, and without any authorized reimbursement for their expenses.

 

Additional efforts to help veterans transition to civilian life and avoid homelessness are needed.

 

MR. CROSS: S. 882 would require the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, to establish and carry out a five-year pilot grant program to assess the feasibility and advisability of using eligible entities to assist members of the Armed Forces in applying for, and receiving, VA health care benefits and services after completion of military service…. VA does not support S. 882 because it is unnecessary and duplicative of ongoing outreach services and seamless transition efforts currently underway by VA and DoD.

 

…

 

MR. CULLINAN: [S. 882] would award grants to organizations who help veterans, especially those with serious wounds, women and members of the Guard and Reserves with applying for benefits and services within VA. Expanding outreach efforts so that all our veterans understand the benefits that they are entitled to….

 

The VFW supports S. 1205. The effectiveness of peer support has been well documented in the wake of the Vietnam conflict. Specifically, for mental health disorders like PTSD and depression, peer-support programs have shown that participation yields improvement in psychiatric symptoms and decreased hospitalizations, the development of larger social support networks, enhanced self-esteem and social functioning, as well as lower services costs.

 

…

 

MR. EDELMAN: {S. 1205 should be rejected because] assisting veterans’ reintegration with peer-support groups is and should be a function of VSOs; organizations should not have to compete for funding for providing veterans’ services.

 

…

 

MS. BECK: [S.882 and S. 1205] would create programs redundant to those already provided by the government or non-profit groups…. WWP would suggest improved coordination and integration among existing organizations and agencies before adding more layers and a review of current services, both governmental and non-profit to determine the best use of limited funds.

 

…

 

MR. CROSS: S. 874 would require the Secretary to provide financial assistance in the form of per diem payments to eligible entities to provide and coordinate the provision of supportive services for very low-income veteran-families occupying permanent housing or transitioning from homelessness to permanent housing…. VA opposes S. 874 as currently configured. We understand there is a high demand for supportive services for these vulnerable low-income veterans and their families who are at risk of becoming homeless. However, it is inappropriate to provide such assistance in the form of per diem payments. We recommend that the bill be modified so that financial assistance is furnished in the form of grants, similar to all other Federal programs that provide financial assistance to entities providing supportive services to homeless persons.

 

…

 

MS. ILEM: we would strongly oppose offsetting the costs associated with S. 874 against other vital VA health care programs. Also, with regard to the health care and counseling services this bill would provide, we are concerned that as well-intentioned as it may be, that a grant under which health care services would be provided by private providers versus VA providers raises questions about cost, quality, continuity and safety.

 

…

 

MR. EDELMAN: Per Diem dollars received by service centers [helping homeless veterans] are not capable of supporting the “special needs” of the veterans seeking assistance. Currently they are receiving less than $3.50 per hour per veteran that the veteran is on site. The work of assisting the homeless veterans who utilize these services goes on long after they have left the service center, a center that is providing a full array of services and case management.

 

Veterans should be allowed to use alternative health care providers when VA services or facilities are deficient.

 

SEN. CRAIG: [S. 815 is] to ensure that those who receive care at VA have confidence in that care. And if they don’t have confidence, we should consider some recourse for them….

 

At the current rate of Congressional funding, it will take us 9 more years to fund all of the new construction on VA’s list today. That doesn’t include any new applications that will come in. I fear that if we don’t begin to transition to a more non-institutional approach to care, we may find ourselves 15 years from now, staring at 30,000 state home beds wondering what to do with half of them….

 

I believe we should begin to establish non-institutional care programs to compliment the current institutional program. In this way, we will be able to offer veterans a less restrictive alternative long-term care setting while supporting the idea of aging gracefully in the home with one’s family.

 

…

 

MR. CROSS: S. 815 could lead to the undoing of the VA health-care system – a world-class health care system – as we know it today. For this fundamental reason, we must oppose this bill. We also have other concerns. The proposal would fragment the care of our veterans. VA would no longer have a complete record of all the care a covered veteran has received. This could lead to VA duplicating care already provided in the private sector or providing care that conflicts with what the veteran is receiving in the private sector.

 

…

 

MR. BLAKE: [S. 815] may be well intentioned, the potential unintended consequences far outweigh any benefit that this bill might provide. There would almost certainly be a diminution of established quality, safety and continuity of VA care if veterans were to leave the system. It is important to note that VA’s specialized health care programs, authorized by Congress and designed expressly to meet the needs of combat-wounded and ill veterans, such as the blind rehabilitation centers, prosthetic and sensory aid programs, readjustment counseling, poly-trauma and spinal cord injury centers, the centers for war-related illnesses, and the national center for post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as several others, would be irreparably affected by the loss of service-connected veterans from those programs…. As a consequence of enactment of this bill some service-connected veterans might seek care in the private sector as a matter of personal convenience; however, they would lose the many safeguards built into the VA system through its patient safety program, evidence-based medicine, electronic medical records and medication verification program.

 

…

 

MR. CULLINAN: [T]here are certainly cases where contract care is appropriate. Indiscriminate use of it in place of utilizing VA’s own health care resources, however, is misguided….Fee-basis care is more expensive than that of VA, and we believe that it would do great harm to those veterans who elect to stay in the high-quality VA health care system by taking away funding for the system as a whole…. Although this legislation, introduced by Senator Craig, aims to expand the coverage available to veterans, it would only dilute the quality and quantity of the services provided to new and existing veterans today and into the future.

 

…

 

MS. ILEM: In light of the escalating costs of health care in the private sector, VA has, to its credit, done an excellent job of holding down costs by effectively managing its in-house health programs and services for veterans. While as a consequence of enactment of this bill some service-connected veterans might seek care in the private sector as a matter of personal convenience, they would lose the many safeguards built into the VA system through its patient safety program, evidence-based medicine, electronic medical records and medication verification program…. [W]e could not support a bill that would move VA from a primary provider of health care to an insurer.

 

…

 

MR. EDELMAN: We do not believe the system is inefficient or corrupt. It is at a point in time when the VHA is meeting the needs of the veterans it serves. Besides, one out of every ten VA health care dollars today goes to clinicians and facilities outside the VA system, and through a scheme called Project HERO –the acronym for Healthcare Effectiveness through Resource Optimization -- the VA is attempting to get a better handle on the dollars spent by VA medical centers for care provided outside of the system. We believe that HERO – and S. 815 – would only serve to hurt what has developed into one of the best managed-care systems in the nation.

 

…

 

MS. BECK: [T]he top request of wounded veterans and their families is to have more involvement and choice in their care, and this legislation would certainly help accomplish that goal. However, we are very concerned that, as written, the VA would play no role in the coordination of care for the veterans who choose outside facilities. Without proper management by the VA, such as system could lead to confusion and contradiction among physicians in the provision of care to the wounded. In addition, the legislation does not include any specifics on the implementation of such a large policy shift, and, therefore, the final plan could differ greatly from that sought by Congress.

 

The VA should provide the public an assessment of the quality of its health care facilities.

 

MR. CROSS: S. 692 would require VA to establish a Hospital Quality Report Card Initiative to, among other things, help inform patients and consumers about the quality of care in VA hospitals…. In collecting and reporting this data, the Secretary would have to include very extensive and detailed information (i.e., staffing levels of nurses and other health care professionals; rates of nosocomial infections; volume of various procedures performed, hospital sanctions and other violations; quality of care for specified patient populations; the availability of emergency rooms, intensive care units, maternity care, and specialty services; the quality of care in various hospital settings, including inpatient, outpatient, emergency, maternity, and intensive care unit settings; ongoing patient safety initiatives; and, other measures determined appropriate by the Secretary)….

 

[W]e do not support S. 692 because it is overly prescriptive and largely duplicative of existing activities. As such, we believe this legislation is unnecessary. Relevant information on VA hospital quality is already available to the public through several mechanisms…we are way ahead of the private sector in making our health care system and outcomes data transparent; there exist no bases for comparison with the private sector.

 

…

 

MR. BLAKE: Collecting this information and assessing it without acting on any findings from that information would serve no real purpose. We would hope that the congressional committees will use this information published in these reports each year to affect positive change within the VA. However, we must emphasize that additional resources should be provided to allow the VA to properly compile this information as we believe that this could be a major undertaking.

 

…

 

MR. CULLINAN: This data would be of great service. It would allow veterans to compare the quality of service VA provides, letting them make informed judgments about their health care. It would allow VA to identify areas of improvement, and it would provide essential data for Congress to better use its essential oversight authority.

 

…

 

MS. ILEM: We do note, however, that the purposes of this bill [S. 692] do not cover the grand majority of overall patient care workload in VA health care, namely primary (outpatient) care and extended care services provided in VA’s nursing home care units and its various contracted programs.

 

…

 

MR. EDELMAN: It would also be useful to understand how report cards would be used and reported to improve VHA processes and performance rewards. Would poor grades be dealt with by changes in management? With more funding? How would good grades be rewarded? Such questions should be addressed before requiring a significant new quality measurement program to be installed.

 

 

 

Louisiana’s Road Home Program has faced numerous challenges.

 

ANDY KOPPLIN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LOUISIANA RECOVERY AUTHORITY: As I address the specifics about the Road Home Program, let me put them in the context of some major themes that illustrate the challenges we have faced with our recovery. First, federal investments in our recovery have been generous and unprecedented, but they’ve been late in coming, inequitable based on damages, and insufficient. Second, program implementation responsibilities have been delegated to state-level agencies, largely because the Bush Administration opposed the Baker-Landrieu proposal for a robust federal agency with the mandate [and] the resources commensurate to dealing with the first and third most expensive disasters in American history. Third, the red tape associated with FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency] and HUD [Department of Housing and Urban Development]-funded programs is choking our ability to access federal dollars appropriated by Congress. And fourth, the constant haggling required by state and local officials to secure resources and cut red tape has undermined public confidence and slowed the recovery.

 

…

 

FRANK TRAPANI, President, New Orleans Metropolitan Association of Realtors: The second disaster that we are faced with is the implementation of the Road Home Program. We have heard the architects of the Road Home Program, just this afternoon, differ on its building – whether or not we’re covering wind damage, flood damage, 106,000 people, 137,000 people – and people like Ms. Uddo and Mr. Thomas here are having difficulties relating to the indecision on the part of government.

 

“The problem is we need money.” We either “have money,” or, “We don’t have money”or, “We need to appropriate money.” The numbers are anywhere from “three to four times what’s appropriated,” or, “We have adequate funds.”

 

We’re not instilling confidence in the people who we need to. And the President did say we’d put them back in their homes and help prepare New Orleans as it was prior to the hurricane. We need to repair the damage to the people’s properties– that the failure, again – and we can’t forget, the failure of the levee system, created. Due to a lack of planning, jurisdictional issues – I think it was politics, as someone said -- we have approximately 17,000 people that have received checks, and an estimation of anywhere up to another 120,000 people sitting and waiting for an opportunity to receive the monies that they feel are due them to rectify their housing needs. We’re sitting here with an obvious administrative problem.

 

The Road Home Program is short nearly $3 billion.

 

SEN. STEVENS: What is your plan right now of how much money you need in this fiscal year?

 

MR. KOPPLIN: Well, we believe that about $750 million to $1 billion per month will be awarded going forward over the next six or seven months to meet the current level of applicants that we’ve got.

 

SEN. STEVENS: But you’ve got that money going home, right? You don’t need any help for that? You’ve got that money, right?

 

MR. KOPPLIN: We’ve got $6.3 billion of CDBG [Community Development Block Grants] allocated to it. We’ve got $1.2 billion from FEMA that we cannot use yet because they have not approved it. And with those two, that’s a $7.5 billion budget. We’ve got an estimated projected program cost of $10.4 billion. So we are short right now $2.9 billion. Without reallocating other money into CDBG.

 

The damage in Louisiana is significantly higher than initial FEMA estimates projected.

 

SEN. STEVENS: …[W]hy are you short of money now?

 

MR. KOPPLIN: Because the program criteria were that you had to have major or severe damage, as estimated by FEMA. And it turns out that the 123,000 major or severe-damaged houses that we used as the baseline at Chairman Powell’s request, because it was the best data we had at the time, is short by about 20,000 houses in Louisiana. And the average level of damage is significantly higher than those FEMA estimates projected. We have about 70 percent severe damage in reality, whereas FEMA projected 52 percent severe damage.

 

Twenty-one months since Hurricane Katrina hit, 120,000 people in Louisiana continue to wait for grant checks to rebuild their homes.

 

FRANK SILVESTRI, CO-CHAIRMAN, CITIZENS’ ROAD HOME ACTION TEAM: There are 120,000 people waiting for grant checks, and the program is running out of money. If it wasn’t bad enough before, the thought that, after all this time of waiting, that they might not get their grants or their grants are going to be cut, is eliminating what little hope people have left. Neither the state of Louisiana nor the federal government should let this happen. The people this program was intended to help are hardworking, honest homeowners. They’re determined to rebuild their lives. But they have been stretched to the breaking point. And their greatest enemy right now is time. The longer it takes, the fewer of them will come back, Senator Stevens. Many have come back. Many, many more want to return. But they can’t do it without the money.

DPC