better friend. thank you very much for your courage and your testimony here today. i yield back. >> thank you, ranking member kirkpatrick. mr. jules camp, you have five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. it seems like i was here a few minutes ago, and i do appreciate having more time to discuss these. i appreciate the testimony. my name is tim jules camp. mr. fugate, i hope i pronounced your name correctly. mine is often misspelled as well. a little follow-up on your particular situation one thing i've seen lacking in my few years of congress is accountability. systems do fail, people do fail. i'm curious with your particular situation, you described it in your testimony, in written and oral testimony. has the va followed up with you after the fact and determined, yes, this is where we failed in

this system? i mean, i see a number of things, obviously electronic medical records didn't happen and i'll have a follow up question for mr. mini and other items in that vein. did the va ever contact you after this or after your testimony and say, hey, this is where we failed? this is the doctor. this is where the system failed for you? >> no. no one -- no one ever from -- that i can recall explained to me where the failure occurred or held themselves accountable or provided an apology. i've stuck with the va, and i've had great medical care and met and became friends with a lot of medical professionals within the va, but the system clearly,

clearly failed in my case. and no one ever has explained to me what happened. >> do you still travel 2 1/2 hours to the va care center for your current va care or you found one closer that they would let you or did you move? can you describe that more? i come from a rural district. plenty of veterans have to drive 100, 200, 300 miles one way for care often they could get next door almost literally. the va says, no, you have to drive. i'm just curious your particular situation. >> i moved out to california to go to school. california state monterey bay, luckily, there is a va, a branch of the palo alto system right

next to my campus so that was very helpful for me. i've came back home to eastern kentucky to spend some time with my family, and we now have a branch of sorts. it's an office and a medical facility. they don't -- i can't get my medications there, i still have to travel or get them by mail. so i've seen improvements and -- in trying to get centers, branches into rural areas. >> yeah. appreciate that. and i appreciate your testimony today. my follow-up question, electronic medical records which has been plaguing the va and the d.o.d. attempting to communicate about it often happens in the private world, they actually do

communicate, it's a fairly regular process, but the va and the d.o.d. cannot do that it's my understanding. can you explain the situation that occurred with travis, would that likely occur if a veteran walks in and says here's my medical records, is that still the situation in many cases? >> yes, it is. travis is one of the unique individuals because he did have a copy of his health records, but i spent 21 years in the navy as a core man in the medical field. once i retired from there, i went to work for the va. so i can tell you right now d.o.d. health records, they're not being transferred into the va health care system. if you take a young '03-11 marine that gets injured, and gets surgery in lundstuhl, when

he gets back home and he goes into a va health care system and the doctor will ask him, what surgeries did you have? he's not going to know the names of these surgeries. so right there, the va has to start from scratch and build a health profile on him. if there was a transfer of those health records or a joint health record, the va could access his d.o.d. health records and see exactly what surgeries he's had, what medications he's on or therapies he's needed. that's where the benefit would come into play. not everyone was as fortunate as travis to actually have a copy. some of the injured show up at the va with nothing. no documentation at all. >> thank you, mr. minney. i yield back, mr. chairman. thank you. >> mr. tacano. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. huelskamp, that last

question brought up some very, very bitter memories. i mean, my first -- one of my first committee hearings was about this issue of the medical records not being able to be transferred from d.o.d. into vista, and i can barely contain the anger i feel about this situation. and the millions and millions of dollars that have been spent trying to solve this situation. and here in the interim months between my first hearing and now that there seems to be no way to bridge this gulf between the two departments. it's bad enough to see a casualty of war, but it's even worse to see that casualty of war, you know, made even more

tragic by this systemic failure between these two departments. i don't know what to do about this. i mean, it is frustrating to be a member of congress and not be able to say, fix this thing, and have it fixed. that being said, i do want to say to mr. fugate and is it mr. kebble or kibble? kebble? that i'm proud to have started the first deaf caucus in the congress. i'm one of the co chairs. it has put me in touch with the disabilities committee. one of the useful things that's come out of that is we've made a commitment to have an intern from the deaf community, from gallaudet university. it's my belief that some of the disabilities communities are not well represented by advocates on the hill, compared to all the other very strongly represented interests here. and i want to ask mr. fugate, you're a young man, getting your

information at cal state i'm proud to call you a californian now. have you given much thought to what direction your life might take at this point? >> i was really excited after having the opportunity to speak here back in 2009. it was -- it felt great to be heard. but as the year went on, and then a couple more years passed, and things didn't happen, it was very discouraging. so i was really happy that i had picked a career in computer science where i could talk to computers, instead of asking people for help. computers are much easier to talk to. they give you the answers i wanted.

so -- my path is in technology. >> well, i'm wondering if there might be some individuals in your capacity, the same situation, that might be willing to incompetent turn on the hill, to be able to kind of be a constant reminder to members about just what are the challenges. mr. minney, if there might be a way to have a pipeline of veterans in this situation, might facilitate that. this is going to take a long -- i mean, it's been several -- i don't know how much time it's taken to get attention focused on d.o.d. and the veterans affairs department, the va on this records issue, the health records issue, it seems like

it's going to take us several more months if not years of focus. might it not be helpful to have a way to get some of these service members to intern or even to have staff positions here on the hill? >> i think it would be an absolute wonderful thing to have a few blind veterans here up on the hill for the simple fact as members of congress are walking the halls, their staff, or even individuals from the outside coming in, if they see the blind veteran maneuvering the halls, getting around and seeing that, you know, that their disability isn't hindering them from being an active member of society or the community, then i'm all for having some blind veterans doing internship here on the hill. and i would advocate for that. >> mr. kimmel, do you think that

we could understand -- members might understand your struggles with websites if we had to upgrade our systems to be able to accommodate blind interns, blind veteran interns here on the hill? if our systems had to have the kind of software that would make it possible for them to work here and advocate on behalf of their brothers and sisters in arms? >> there is no question about it that it would help, there are some serious issues that have to be overcome first, is that some of the legacy software that the va uses, no matter how much work you do on it, will be accessible for screen reader, okay? >> it would be valuable for someone to sit down and evaluate the process of using a website or even just the documents, okay? to do that.

as we look at it a little bit, though, is right now, i think that the va doesn't even have -- i think they're self-audited as far as if a web page is useable. okay? the automation systems are fine. and that may give you an indication that it's, quote, unquote, accessible. but until you have someone who sits down and uses a screen reader with it, i don't think you're going to have very good results. >> thank you. mr. chairman? >> mr. row -- dr. row, tennessee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'd like to introduce someone before i start. timothy dennis is here. this is foster youth shadow day. tim, if you would stand up. he spent six years in foster care in tennessee and he's here,

as many of his other friends are, with the hill today. let's give him a round of applause. [ applause ] >> phil row speaking. travis, i remember your testimony very well, and i remember you being here and it was powerful then, it's powerful now. thank you for coming back. i'm your neighbor just south of you in east tennessee, where in kentucky are you from? >> i'm from a small town in knot county, kentucky, border virginia, the closest city to me, the people recognize is hazard, kentucky. >> so you're hazard? i know exactly where you live then. first of all, i appreciate your testimony, and one of the things you brought up is extremely important, five years ago, last year, we had the va and d.o.d.

come in, and they just burned a billion dollars, a billion. we're worried about 3 million. we burns a billion trying to make the d.o.d. and the va health care records speak to each other. and they can't they quit. so $3 million is nothing, i've been to great lakes, illinois, twice to look at the system, where they tried to get it to interact, it hasn't worked, i don't know, travis, whether you're finding that information out, but it was certainly nice if they had found that information, whether it prevented what happened to you, no one, only god knows that, it would have been nice if the doctor would have had all the information available to be able to make those decisions. by the way, when you go to california, don't let them mess you up, you're just fine being from kentucky out there in california. and also, i think, mr. keeble, i

think what you said, tomorrow i go back, i'm a veteran as you are, as all of you are, i'm going back to vietnam tomorrow on a codel. what you said when you made your testimony, it's the right thing to do is absolutely correct. not because you have to do these things. because it's the right thing to do. one of the things i do every year, we have about january, february, we have our sight impaired folks come to the hill. and i go to my condo and i put a blindfold on for an hour, and i try to walk around my condo, which is very small, and get around. let me tell you it isn't easy. we need to do everything we can for our veterans who are sight impaired. i agree with you whether it's service connected or not. if there are veterans, i have a question that may be better for the next panel. i'm going to have to miss it. glaucoma and diabetic retinopathy are potentially blinding diseases that are a

problem. what procedures or processes are in place as far as you know to ensure that veterans with advanced sight threatening eye diseases have been seen by an ophthalmologist? >> i had trouble hearing you, sir? >> what procedures or processes are in place to ensure that veterans with advanced sight threatening eye diseases have been seen by an ophthalmologist? do you know that in the va system? >> i know that once they're diagnosed with the first stages, they're put on like a screening program, where they monitor it, three months, six months, but then that's really all that they can do is monitor it, because macular degeneration, there is medication to slow the progress, but there's no cure. glaucoma, medications, no cure. so the only thing they can do is monitor it.

>> travis, one other thing before i have to leave, your comment here and your testimony, i'm disappointed after the past three years while on the d.o.d. side, they have over 23 jourks eye injured records in the industry but today the va has one veteran's record. they have not set this up, because instead of having the clinical contractors at d.o.d. who are already doing the work, the va is waiting for the contract to be settled before getting started. it's now four years ago you were here. i recently had a chance to talk to harold rogers to ensure this isn't delayed any longer. thank you nor that information right there. we'll find out from the next panel. and the three of you, all of you sincerely, thank you for your service to our country.

>> thank you. thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you for holding this hearing. great to have you all here again. travis, i know my colleague gave a kind introduction and associated you and i together as friend, but i think harry truman was right. i know you've got a companion at your side. if you need a friend, get a dog. i'm honored, there's no one i'd rather stand with, i say that, it's not often you get the opportunity we're going to discuss the intent of congress, the spirit and the letter of the law. today you have the folks in the room that wrote the law. we've got the person in the room that advocated for the funding and we worked together. i'm reminded and i had it here, i pulled it up. you would probably appreciate this, travis. here was a "usa today" story that said a military service center finding new treatment for combat eye injuries has been delayed for a year because of an ongoing squabble of who will pay 5 million to get it started

according to interviews. that was january 28th, 2009. we hear this. mr. tacano asked how long this issue of electronic records is going on and seamless transition. from my perspective, my entire adult life we've advocated for this, both when it was in the military and after. it's an important point. i think it's important to note here because it was mentioned here, a february 2013 new england journal of medicine story made this clear, in the private sector, 12.2% of physicians use electronic records meaningfully. don't try and pretend that there's time for some magic bullet. that's nonsense, too. the issue is not trying to set up some paradigm that the private sector is doing this and we're not. we're failing in getting this done here. our purpose is to get this right. i would ask travis on this. is your goal to have the vision center of excellence up and running and doing what it's supposed to do and getting this

care or is your goal to go to the private sector and get this care? >> my goal is to have the -- i care deeply about the va and all the care they provided, recreational care therapy, mental health counseling. i recently came back to kentucky to help my parents who are getting up there in the years address some of their medical issues. and they were unable to manage their care in the private sector. it was too complicated. i couldn't imagine trying to go

into the private-sector, to be honest with you. and one of the selling points when i'm telling young men and women about my military experience is that you can avoid the private sector when it comes to medical care. it's so freeing to know that i can just take the bus to the va and be around people who know me and care about me and understand my issues. >> this is an important point because we need to really be careful because fee for service issues are absolutely fair issues. there's a role for that and a goal for that. but these core mission issues especially on the issues of vision impairment and different things, you're not going to get off the hook by not fixing what's here. and i'm angry too that this communication is not working. i sat in this interview back in 2009 demanding we get this right. i think collectively together when there's a role and a mission and a purpose one that's working for people like travis and other veterans we need to

get that right. i agree and dr. rose on this. this is not a funding issue. they have got to get it figured out. i represent the mayo clinic and they tell me the vista system in the va is the best medical record in the world. we have that. d.o.d. has the other one. when we have our two biggest bureaucracies siloed up, you cannot separate travis and these warriors and their injuries from the war that we fought. now we've got the problem of a turf battle finding out who's going to institute it, who's going to put it in. tom gagliano is an absolute expert about this. i have an eye center but i don't have any computer, i can't get going. we have the opportunity to avoid the flippant answers of what it's going to do, dig down, get the accountability on this, get this thing up and running

because as travis came to me and told me, his goal is to get back and do the things you enjoy doing, get back into technology, get that little place sometime. you did say tennessee. i have to give that to dr. row. we can do that. i would appeal to my colleagues. so i would appeal to my colleagues, let's let the data, let's let the oversight, let's drive this and get this going. we chose to do the vision center of excellence fully knowing it was the best chance to do that mr. minney, mr. kebbel and mr. fugate asked us to do. now let's get it work. i yield back. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chair men. gentlemen, thank you very much for being here. i'm dan benecheck from michigan. i'm a physician as well with mr. roe and i worked within the va system for 20 years as a consultant.

i have a couple of questions four all. mr. fugate let me ask you this question, it sounds from your testimony that you're not quite happy with the care you're getting from the va right now. is that correct? what could the va be doing? it seems to me you're checking in with them periodically and that's about all you're doing, is that correct? >> it's tough for me because i'm very satisfied and happy with the medical professionals in the community that i deal with, that i work with when i go to the va. it's failures in the system and that, that are causing, that bother me. >> what could the va be doing for you now that they are not doing?

what would you -- is there something you would like the them to do? it seems you're not having that close of a communication with the va over this, you know, tragedy, your loss of sight. it seems to me that there should be some ongoing help to you to get your life in order as best as it can be. are you getting anything like that from the va now? >> yes. absolutely. i go to mental health meetings regularly. identify been involved with the recreational departments. >> what would you like them to be doing that they are not doing. >> currently they are doing fine by me. it's that they failed and i could see a little bit. i had some vision, some very useful vision and it was their failure in handling me when i

transferred from the d.o.d. to the va that led to me losing that remaining vision, and my care is fine now. what i hope to do now is to prevent other soldiers, veterans from being hurt further by a failed transition between the d.o.d. and the va. >> right. right. mr. minney, do you have any comment on that question? what could the va be doing besides avoiding issues like mr. fugate talks about? and the whole reason for this testimony here. >> the biggest challenge i see that can be fixed once again is communication across the board. the two agencies need to communicate better.

it needs a more seamless transition so that no one gets lost in the system. when i was injured, my injuries required me to get surgery from a german hospital. so i had five eye surgery from a german hospital. lundstuhl fit me there but when my unit was looking for me, they couldn't tell them where i was at. once they discovered where i was at, i had already left holmberg. back to lundstuhl, my unit and my family were looking in who will holmberg. by the time i made it back to lundstuhl i was back in bethesda

naval hospitalment same thing with the purple heart. my purple heart was delivered by the u.p.s. man because it went from hamburg to lundstuhl to bethesda. everything was a month behind because no one was communicating. its tracking. they need better tracking. that's where i would see improvements being made. >> mr. kebbel, i was intrigued by your statement here about the lack of or the difficulty for a blind person to get through the va website and i guess i'm really not familiar with the technology that involves the blind to deal with the computer, and i guess there's a big lack in the ability of the va to communicate with the blind veteran. could you just elaborate on that a little bit more than your testimony before? >> yeah. i'll be glad to do that. let me just go back in history a little bit and down scale the situation a little bit instead of at a government level.

i'll be at the city level in the level of san lucas. i had an opportunity to sit with their i.t. department and discuss what that means to us. and the next thing is once the i.t. department had the concept of what to do, i sat down and performed training for the city employees to give them a basic understanding on why we need accessibility and why we need properly tagged elements. okay. once i was able to do that, okay, the city employees were 100% in. so i think right now, what i see the problem is, is that we understand what needs to be done, but nobody really understands why it should to be done. >> all right. well, i know why it should to be done, mr. kebbel and i appreciate you being here to tell us. thank you for your testimony. i'm out of time.

>> mr. o'rourke from the state of texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the witnesses for being here. i wanted to begin my comments and then ask a question to mr. fugate. you know, in the beginning of your comments you talked about being here five years ago in 2009, and implied in that was, you know, what difference did your testimony then make, what progress have we made since then? what's the value of your appearance here today? i want to tell you from my perspective you have focused my attention on this problem. i've learned many thing today that i did not know before today's hearing. i'm a new member of congress, this is my first session in congress. my first session as a member of this committee. and i am now resolved as i know the rest of this committee is in ensuring that we correct the

mistakes that were made in your individual case and the larger systemic problems that today's hearing has uncovered in these vision centers of excellence and other problems for those who are sight impaired and are working with the va. so i first want to begin by thanking you and telling you what you're doing today is very powerful, very impactful and it set up some excellent questions that this committee will then ask the va. you're helping us to hold the va accountable. i wanted to tell you that. i want you to be aware of a bill we authored this session of texas, hr 3045, which would require the dod to provide every transitioning service member with a portable electronic record so that they have that, they own it, they can bring it to their visit with a va doctor, they can bring to it their visit with a private medical doctor, they can just have it and

refer to it as they've needed it. you've given us a poignant example of why that is so badly needed. i'll say we have co-sponsors that include the chairman of this committee, members from both parties we welcome additional support but as you continue to advocate on this issue and mr. minney and mr. kebbel as well we certainly encourage you to make sure members are aware we have a bill that's partly a solution to some of these problems. you, mr. fugate, offered some good advice when asked what you would ask other veterans to do who might be in your situation. you know, you said that working within the va you found to be helpful versus working within the private sector. let me also just say i appreciate your even handed description of very much a services. you talked about providers both on the physical and mental

health side who were there to help you. the great quality care that you got once you got in, despite the unfortunate decision that was made initially. so i really appreciate that. what else, because besides influencing this committee and the va, i think there's a wider public that's listening to your remarks today. the veteran who is returning from afghanistan today, who has sight impairment, what is your advice to that veteran? what would you like them to keep in mind? >> i would hope that they would understand that the va is there for them, it's a veteran community. i've enjoyed sitting in the waiting rooms and meeting veterans from past wars and their wives and their families and having coffee with them from down the hall while we're

waiting. it's a community. and the system is slow and you have to reach really deep to find the patience sometimes to allow the system to turn, the system is not turning fast enough. the people in the va aren't out to get you, they are not against you. the system just is turning too slow. people care deeply about the returning veterans. >> thank you for saying that and thank you for finding the good within the system that we can build upon while recognizing the frustration that you and others have with parts of the system that do not work. mr. kebbel, i'm about out of time, i may ask you some questions following the hearing but i did want to follow up on a point that you're make about inaccessibility on the va's website and really make sure that this committee is also

doing everything it can. mr. walls leaned over earlier during your testimony and asked is this committee's website fully compliant and accessible to you and others who are sight impaired and i think the answer we received from staff initially is it is not. we need to do our part to make sure we're not just blaming the va and not just holding them accountable which we should do but holding ourselves accountable. you mentioned the library of congress as an example of a federal agency that's doing it right. i'm going to have to give my time back to the chairman but i would like to follow up with you after the hearing to find other agencies in the federal department who is doing the job the right way and see what we can learn from them. i want to thank you and mr. minney for being here. and with that, mr. chair, i'll yield back. >> thank you, mr. chair, and thank you too, to our witnesses

here today both for your courage and for articulating the problem and i want to join my colleague mr. o'rourke and his comments because i want you to understand, i'm also a new s member of congress, a new member of this committee and mr. fugate when you say people care deeply within the va, but the system is slow, this has been our experience within the united states congress. people care deeply but the system is very slow. i want to revisit a letter that being i led with my colleagues, a bipartisan letter that we wrote last summer, july 22, 2003, to secretary of defense chuck hagel and secretary of veterans affairs, eric shinseki, where we raised our concerns about the vision centers of excellence and asked for information to get a

sense, sometimes around here it's difficult to even get the information about where things stand because obviously we have colleagues on both sides of the aisle that came before us that cared deeply about creating this vision center of excellence. and one of the parts of the response that i find troubling, this is dated january 4, 2014, this is from secretary shinseki, is that there seems to be a number of positions that are open. the va contributed 6.6 full-time equivalent employees for the vision center. that doesn't sound very many to me given the scope of this project. 2.6 are currently filled. four are in the hiring process. and then this is also the case with the hearing center of

excellence, four ftes of which one position was filled and three were in the hiring process. and i don't know if anyone on this panel can help us with this, but i do want to convey to you as mr. o'rourke has that you have focused our attention on this issue and that we intend to press this case forward, because the very purpose of setting up the vision center of excellence is to address these concerns. we have so many new veterans from iraq and afghanistan with sight impairment from the war and then ageing veterans with sight issues. could you comment on, if you know, any member of the panel, what is the current progress and do you think there are

sufficient resources, including people power, to address these concerns about registering the people into the system, and the computer issue that you've raised? mr. minney? >> well, i know the last word that we've got was on the va side there is a blind rehab specialist position that is -- they are interview for, and then the va side will have all of their ftes filled. but now they are looking, they are putting bids out for contractors. my question is, the inception was in 2009. >> what's taken so long? >> contractors yet. >> yes. >> there was $6.9 million that was budgeted for the va side for 2.6 employees between 2010 and

2014. i would like to have that salary, $6.9 million split between 2.6 employees over four years. so my question, i don't know where that funding went. >> right. >> that's what i would like. >> i also think the comment was well taken about the funds that are returned to the treasury, it's a fine thing in this world to be frugal, we don't see a lot of that around here, but the point is how can funds be returned to the treasury if there are issues like this that remain unresolved and not addressed. so, i'm going to close my time and i just want to thank you for coming, and i also want to join dr. roe in addressing. i have a constituent here from berlin high school who is joining us in the back of the

room, foster, not child but young person, here to learn about congress. mr. fugate, i think you have a bright future and i can just hope and pray that you might choose to address it to resolving the computer issues at the va. so, thank you for joining us. >> thank you. before the panel leaves, i would like to have mr. handle discuss an issue that mr. o'rourke raised relative to the compliance of this committee's website. >> thank you, chairman. to your question, sir, the committee's website does use a reader, and it's called browse loud which is an element of the 508 compliance. so, have you folks at the panel been able to access that? >> could you say the name again please? >> browse aloud. >> i have not used it.

>> then we'll get with you after this and you can make sure it does address your needs. >> can i make a comment on that? >> please. >> there are standard screen reading software that blind folks use and when you introduce a screen reader that a blind person isn't accustomed to using, it's hard to expect that they will be able to interact with your -- the information the way that they are accustomed to interacting with the information on other web pages. so in my opinion, a custom screen reading solution for a webpage isn't adequate. >> can i address this?

this is terry kebbel. the problem with an automated system is it is designed by someone with a script who says this is what it's supposed to do. i would say most of the time it's probably accurate, okay? but there's a lot of times where it will look at a tag and there will be a description of the tag or the label and the label will say, button. well, it passes. it passes the test. but the button -- i don't know what the button does, okay? is it a button for searching something? is it a blue button that we're talking about? is it a button that sends me nowhere? okay. so, yes, it will pass the test. but is it effectively labelled? is it effectively described? you can probably go to the form fields website on the va

website and look at the link and i bet it will pass the inspection. i bet every one of those links will pass inspection but every one of those links are numericalily described. there's no description what that form is. you can use it but yes as i spoke earlier you need someone to sit down and evaluate it who uses the screen every day, either jaws or voice over or whatever screen reader you're using. if it's designed correctly any other screen reader would be able to address that. >> mr. takano and then we need to move to the second panel. >> very briefly, mr. chairman. i appreciate you and your staff are going to work with mr. kebbel after the hearing but could we not share this information with the house administration committee and our counterparts in the senate? i think it's important the entire institution of the congress, every member's website should be able to accommodate blind veterans and the blind community in general.

>> certainly will do that and this is the same system, i think, that is on the house va committee that the library of congress uses as i understand it, but i think there's always room for improvement and we'll certainly look at that. i want to thank you all so much for coming and testifying here today. i really appreciate your service to our country. mr. kebbel? >> as a vietnam veteran what i've heard concerns me, okay, because we're talking about all the young veterans coming back. what concerns me about us vietnam veterans is agent orange. okay? i had a catastrophic heart failure that led to a heart transplant that i felt was led to agent orange that led to my blindness. there are a lot of us vietnam veterans out there that are dying without any health care right now, okay, and i have

concern about that and i don't think we addressed that. thank you. >> thank you very much. appreciate your service to our country all three of you. thank you very much. now we'll move to the next panel, the second panel. i now invite the second panel to the witness table. on our second panel we'll hear from dr. maureen mccarthy. deputy chief of patient care services for the veterans health administration and miss lorraine landsfree, deputy chief information officer for product development of va's office of information technology. they are accompanied by dr. mary lawrence, deputy director of the vision center of excellence and mr. pat sheehan, director of va's 508 compliance office.

i think we'll continue the -- for committee members, we'll continue the process of stating your name so those that are vision impaired in the audience can know who is speaking. i would ask the panel to do the same. dr. mccarthy, your complete written statement will be made a part of the hearing record and you're now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. good morning chairman coffman, ranking member kirkpatrick and members of the committee. i appreciate the opportunity to discuss the department of veterans affairs contributions

to the vision center of excellence and the care and services provided to veterans with visual impairments. i'm accompanied by dr. mary lawrence deputy director of the vision center of excellence. vce was established in january of 2008. in october of 2009 a d.o.d. and va memorandum of understanding defined the roles and responsibilities of the departments and the establishment and operation of the bce. vce's efforts are directed at improved vision health, optimized readiness and enhanced quality of life. the act also required the implement jays of the defense and veterans eye injury and vision registry. the vision registry collects longitudinal data on eye injuries, guides research and clinical education, promotes

best practices, and informs policy for the treatment of eye and vision related injuries for service members and veterans. i am pleased to share that the vision rej dwgistry is on sched and on budget. vce has achieved many significant accomplishments since its inception. vce has identified and addressed 33 process improvement opportunities through the monthly vce hosted worldwide ocular trauma video teleconferences which connect providers across the continuum from combat support hospitals and coalition providers to va poly trauma centers. it has also led the way to initial inclusion to fox protection eye shields in first

aid kits and attempting to expand them into individual first aid kits. in addition vce in collaboration with va rehab services has design an educational pamphlet geared towards in patient teams in hospitalized assist with transitions. mr. chairman, the consequences of vision injuries to our service members and veterans will be with us for decades to come. therefore, va will continue to partner with dod to provide eye care providers, clinical care practitioners, and researchers to have access to the information needed to develop strategies that will enhance and improve patient care outcomes. mr. chairman, this concludes my testimony. i am prepared to answer any questions you may have. next, i would like to introduce the deputy chief information office for product development to address issues related to 508 compliance.

>> thank you. good morning, chairman and members of the committee. we appreciate the opportunity to discuss veterans affairs work to improve access to information technology resources, provisionally impaired veterans, stakeholders and employees. accompanying me today is mr. pat sheehan, director of our 508 program office. since 2001 this office has provided validation testing on va websites and applications using a combination of automated tools and manual auditing. the latter of which is performed by users who have a disability including those with a visual impairment. when va identifies nonconforming applications or website, section 508 staff work with relevant parties to correct or remedy accessibility issues. as critical as it is for us to improve our existing web sites, it's as important to ensure all future applications and websites are in compliance with 508.

this helps us ensure accessibility is planned for and built in up front rather than trying to inspect it in the future. we also provide training to va system content creators providing them with the tools and the know-how to make va information 508 conformant. we have made tremendous pract e progress. we improved performance from 16% in november to 95% today. and we will continue to pursue and aggressive strategy to ensure access to all covered systems and electronic information. we're also committed to working with our veteran stakeholder groups. va will attend the upcoming national conference to review recent updates to frequently used applications and websites with bv a stakeholders and work with them to identify ways that usability can be improved even in areas where we are technically already 508

conformant. mr. charp, this concludes by prepared remarks and we look forward to answering any questions you may have. thank you. . . >> thank you. are there further remarks? dr. mccarthy? this is mike coffman. according to your testimony there were 23,664 unique patients enrolled in the vision registry. how many of those patients were enrolled by the department of defense and how many from the veterans administration? >> mr. coffman, that's an important question. the entry of the data was primarily done by the department of defense. you heard mention that there was one person entered by va and that was to test the systems. i want to explain the reg stis just for a minute if i could. the registry is seated at the department of defense, and so it is set up to take information

more directly from the department of defense for service members who do receive eye injuries. okay. va set up the architecture for the registry and over 50% of it was used by the department of defense in order to enter their service members' data into it. va has to go through a two-step process to enter the data into the registry. it's typical with cancer registries and all kinds of registries of that sort that information is harvested from a particular medical record, placed in a repository and then entered into the registry. va has a contract that you may have heard is currently out for bid. the bids closed june 9th for the completion of the data entry into the registry -- well, first into the repository to go into the renl industry.

so two-step process for va is under way. we did look at how many veterans -- let me rephrase that, how many people who have been treated in the va because some active duty service member have been through our blind rehab program. how many people have actually been treated at the va that already have data in the registry, and currently there are at least 2,400 veterans who have data in the registry but you're accurate that data was entered by -- >> if we can just go back to the question, and that is that i get the department of defense -- because they're going to have the service connection ones as folks are out processing in active duty, so they're going to enter that in. but this registry is also for nonservice connected veteran eye issues, is it not? >> it's about eye injuries. >> so whether it's service connected or not service connected, it's about veteran eye injuries, and so -- but the

fact remains, you haven't entered in a single person, so what it tells me is you're not participating. >> i understand why you say that, and it is regrettable that none have been entered, but the framework is in place. the target date for the registry to be functional is by the end of fy '15, and so the fact that the contract is out for bid at this point is progress, and we're looking forward to data being entered by the end of the fiscal year. >> well, we had a lot of those definitions of progress last night before the full committee, and it's disconcerting. miss landsfield, in va's february 2014 response to a letter i wrote in october 2013, i was told that va had not awarded a data abstraction contract due to contracting delays. what were those delays, and have the problems that caused them

been corrected? >> that's actually probably better answered by dr. mccarthy. >> and, mr. coffman, i am not aware of the exact delays. willed be happy to take that for the record and get back to you. before the hearing i did ask if we could find a time line for the process of the contract awards and what the delays were. i don't have that at this point, but we will get back with you. >> okay. mike couffman again p . according to a memo from the assistant secretary of information and technology, all vai.t. software was required to be compliant with section 508 by january 2013. is all va software compliant at this point in time? >> at this point in time, it's not -- we've not achieved 100% conformance with the 508 standard. we have made significant progress since that time. >> what percentage are you at --

this is mike coffman again, and i want to remind people to identify themselves for this hearing before they speak. what percentage are you at right now? >> mr. sheehan, would you like to take that? >> yes. this is pat sheehan, thank you. the percentage is difficult for me to address right now because the software that we're looking at, particularly on the web and particularly the software that we look at as far as applications are concerned, are pretty much in development. i think the important point that i want to make here is that the process that -- what we're doing with the software is working through the processes that we've established so that we can build software in at the beginning of the software life cycle and through -- >> so i think the simple answer would be you're not compliant at this point in time. thank you very much. ranking member kirkpatrick. >> dr. mccarthy, i'd like to go

back to your description about the vce. so it's housed at the do d, but does the va have access to the records? >> yes, there would be the opportunity for a va provider to access that record. >> and does that happen? >> at this point i'm going to defer to dr. lawrence on that question. >> yes, ranking member kirkpatrick. the registry is designed so that eventually individual providers from dod or va will be able to access the information in the registry on their individual patients and identify data on other patients. so they could, for example, put in some criteria that may be characteristic of a patient they're seeing and look at identified data and look at the outcomes of that identified data

to inform the provider and the patient -- >> i appreciate that. my concern is suppose that military member transitions out today, goes to a doctor tomorrow, technically in the va system. will that doctor be able to see that person's records regarding the eye injury that were service connected? >> this is dr. mccarthy speaking. there are multiple opportunities for va doctors to be able to access records from the department of defense in our cprs record system screen there's an opportunity to use a web-based interface in order to have access to those records. >> so i'm still not clear what your answer is. would that doctor be able to see that patient's military medical records the day after they transition out? >> it's my understanding that if those records are electronic, those records can be accessed,

and most of the records are electronic at this point. >> do you know what percentage? >> i do not have that number, but we could check with dod and get back with you. >> okay. so then the va's portion of this is just eye injuries, not necessarily military connected, and that's where your contracting out to have somebody enter that information? >> what we're contracting for is for someone to go through our cprs records and pull out information such as eye exams, data from those exams, visual acuity, treatment intervention that is were made, so that over time progress can be tracked by the individual but looked at collaboratively. that's the point of the registry. >> i have a question about the funding. dr. mccarthy, again, this is ann kirkpatrick, your testimony notes a total of $6.9 million that the va has budgeted for the center from fiscal year 2010 to

fiscal year 2014. has the funding been consistent each year, and can you provide a year-by-year breakdown of the funding over the past five years? >> thank you, ranking member kirkpatrick. this is dr. mccarthy speaking. the $6.9 million was allocated in a cumulative amount from fy '09 to 2014, so really over a five, six-year period. there was an initial ramping up of salary dollars but in addition kind of fencing of the money for contracting to enter the data that we're talking about from that medical record into the repository. that money has kind of been kept separate, but the money that has been used over time, and i will be happy to provide those dollars for you for the record if you'd like, that is a gradual increase over time as salaries

have increased and functions have increwsed. >> thank you, dr. mccarthy. i would like to see the breakdown, the year-by-year breakdown since the funding started, and then how much is set aside for the contractor, and thank you, ranking member. i yield back. >> thank you, ranking member kirkpatrick. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i can't believe it takes five years to get this thing going. what's the story with that? i mean, apparently it's not even all staffed up yet, this center of excellence. why is it taking five years? the entire second world war was four years for us. >> this is dr. mccarthy speaking. i would like to respond. there have been processes involved in getting this set up. the joint executive committee,

va, dod -- >> five years? >> they set a target for the registry to be functional. >> but five years seems like a really long time. >> i appreciate that. >> well, let me get to something a little more pertinent. dr. mccarthy, it's come to my attention that there's many issues with our veterans with their eye diseases, glaucoma, it was brought up earlier, this diabetic ret nop think, macular degeneration. the blinding eye conditions that if left untreated will lead to blindness and it's very prevalent in our aging veterans population. so what procedures are in place to ensure that veterans with these eye diseases are seen by an ophthalmologist? >> sir, this is dr. mccarthy speaking again. what i would be happy to tell but is some of the processes we

have in place. for instance, a patient who has diabetes is at risk for diabetic retinopathy. we use telemedicine and photographs of the retina of every patient with diabetes are taken and read by an optometrist or an ophthalmologist and if needed that patient is referred to an ophthalmologist for care, but it's part of the routine screening for diabetics. in addition, patient was glaucoma are followed regularly in our eye clinics, and you mentioned one other disease, i'm sorry. >> macular degeneration. >> and macular degeneration is a tragedy. we have ophthalmologists carefully following people with mack car degeneration. i can't speak to the screening -- >> i have a concern because, you know, i worked at a va hospital,

and, you know, it's tough to staff many of these clinics with ophthalmologists. they have a hard time keeping people. are you aware of any of the procedures for hiring local ophthalmologists for staffing va centers on a part-time basis. are you familiar with any of that? >> i'm a former chief of staff from a va facility in salem, virginia, and it was our experience there we do z try to hire full-time ophthalmologists, or we would ask for people to come in on a contract basis because we were an academic facility. we had a strong partnership with the university of virginia, and we were able to recruit people effectively there, but i'm aware that other institutions do have contracts for folks to be hired. >> i'm somewhat concerned because some of my friends are ophthalmologists that work at the va, and they're concerned the fact that the va limits their ability to work at the va

because once they reach a certain dollar amount, then they can't work anymore for the year, and so -- because they think, well, it may be more cost-effective to have a full-time ophthalmologist within the va but they don't have any full-time ophthalmologist so the patient travels 250 miles to milwaukee to get to see the ophthalmologist. so they say, well, you can't pay them more because it would be more efficient to hire a full-time ophthalmologist but yet they don't hire a full-time ophthalmologist so the patient just goes without, whereas if they just would allow him to work there a little longer, he could continue to provide the care and not have the patient go to milwaukee. i don't understand the reasoning for that rule. if you say that it's more efficient to hire a full-time ophthalmologist, then hire a full-time ophthalmologist. so it seems like it's a catch-22 problem. >> it does, and i can respond -- >> let me ask another question.

apparently i've also heard in order to improve the access to eye care that they're having like eye technicians do some of the work rather than physicians, some of the screening work. you mentioned, you know, screening the retinal pictures. you know, it concerns me when, you know, people other than physicians are providing care. how do we know those people are trained properly? do you know what the status of that situation is? >> yes, sir. this is dr. mccarthy speaking again. i can talk about the training for teleretinal imageers or i can talk about a typical eye doctor appointment in which there are other nonphysician people that are involved that might check visual acuity or might be involved in checking -- >> but i'm talking about things that physicians typically do. i'm always concerned about the

quality of care when physicians aren't doing the things that they're supposed to do. sorry. i guess i'm out of time. maybe we can further that later. >> we'll discuss it later. thank you, sir. >> mr. takano, state of california. >> thank you, mr. chairman. dr. mccarthy, just help me, where is this -- where is your center located? physically? >> the vision center of excellence. i'm going to defer to dr. lawren lawrence. >> dr. mary lawrence. the vision center of excellence has two locations in the national capital region. one our headquarters is at walter reed national military medical center in ba these da and we have an office in crystal city, arlington, virginia, and we also have a small office at madigan army medical center in tacoma, washington. >> and walter reed sunday the aegis of the dod, but this

center for visual excellence -- one of them is located at walter reed, is that right? >> yes, sir. this is dr. mccarthy again. the vision center of excellence is a joint effort between dod and va, and of the centers of excellence, dod authorized navy to be involved with this. so it's a partnership between the navy on behalf of dod with va. >> that clears up something. i have been to walter reed and saw the center, and so i thought is that the same center? nevertheless we're still having problems with the registry being populated. the registry is waiting for the contracts to be filled and you're saying by the end of fiscal 2015 is when we expect this registry work to be done or begin? >> no, sir. dr. mccarthy again. the registry contract is out for bid at this point. it's on the streets and we'll have the bids in by mid june, and we expect it to be awarded, and the data entry to start by

the end of the fiscal year. >> okay. all right. you're saying -- and i want to clarify a question, the answer to miss kirkpatrick's question about a provider being able to access at service member's records once they leave service, go to the va. so even without the registry being populated, you're saying that the entire record is still theoretically accessible if it's electronic. if it exists in electronic form at dod, the medical provider on the va side should be able to access it overnight or, you know, the next day? >> it's actually realtime. it's not exactly instantaneous. i have to say it does take some time but i would like to yield to lorraine to see if she could say more about that. >> on how interoperability works.

>> a service member leaves defense, next day he sees a va doctor. can that va doctor access the record? >> as long as it's an electronic record, then yes. as was stated earlier, most of the records in dod now are in electronic form in their health records system. i guess the daylight there or the gap there is between interop raekt and seamless interoperaability. if it's dod data, essentially you have to push a button to say go fetch it and bring it to me. it's not stored locally as part of the va system, and that's what a lot of the work recently has been about is to go from interoperaability to seamless interoperaability. so as you're conducting a clinical work flow, that the information that you need is there hand in hand with the step

you're zog. >> i have a couple more questions. it has to do with accounting for diversity. i know that in certain ethnic groups, asians in particular, that glaucoma can show up much earlier in a patient. do you have procedures in place to be able to accommodate the different health needs among service members according to their ethnicity. >> there is an office of health care and diversity. i would like to yield to them. i would like to take that for the rornd and get back to you. >> i appreciate that. related to mr. kebbel's -- he raised the question of agent orange and its connection to his blindness. is there anything being done to deal with this agent orange population we're going to have to address from the point of view of any kind of preventative

work we can do? >> this is one i would have to take for the record. i don't have an answer for that. >> okay. >> i can talk about agent orange in general but not specifically related to blindness. >> i would like to address that issue and we can deal with that later in written form. >> okay. >> the state of texas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. this for dr. mccarthy, some of these questions you may have answered and they may be repetitive but i'm new to this and i want to make sure i fully understand this. you mentioned january '08 was the start date for the initiative for the eye injury and vision registry. >> i mentioned -- i'm sorry, this is dr. mccarthy. i mentioned that the act that established it was january 2008. >> that's when it became law? >> yes, sir. >> okay. and then the funding was

appropriated the next year? >> i don't have the date of the funding. i can tell you the date that the mou was signed between dod and va and that was october 2009. >> and the backup i received shows that at least $5 million of that funding has been spent, and i hope i'm speaking about the same pot of money. there was a total of $6.9 million appropriated, $5 million has been spent. what has that $5 million been spent on. >> let me back up. >> in the plainest terms possible because we're limited on time. >> i'm sorry. again, this is dr. mccarthy. we have $2.8 million of that $6.9 million set aside for the contract, so that brings us to $4.1 million. the $4.1 million has been used for salaries for individuals as we ramped up the employment over the past five years, and in addition to education and training events and i would yield to dr. lawrence for more details about that, if you like. >> not just yet.

thank you though. you in responding to an earlier question about how long it's taken, you said it's regrettable, but that you also mentioned we're on schedule and we're on budget. so when this became law in january of '08 and when the funding was appropriated in the year thereafter, was it always understood that june 9 of 2014 was when we would go out to bid or make a decision on closing those bids? >> it's dr. mccarthy again. actually, it was always understood that by the end of fiscal year 2015 the renl industry would be operational. >> okay. thank you. and it does seem like a very long time. d it was compared to the amount of time we spent in world war ii. and i'd like to take one that we had as an example today from mr. fugate. based on his testimony from '09 to the extent that you're

familiar with it and his testimony today, do you have anything to offer in response to concerns that he raised or the specific case study that he's offered and how we are or have not yet learned from it and are or are not yet able to provide the kind of care that might have provided for a better outcome in mr. fugate's case? >> this is dr. mccarthy again, and i'm happy to be in touch with mr. fugate after the hearing and i'd be interested in offering support in that way. i do want to mention the 33 process improvement activities that were identified as part of the vision center of excellence calls in which the people in the field and the people at vision center of excellence and the people at the polytrauma centers have worked together to try and solve those kind of communication issues. >> okay. and that might be good for myself and the entire committee to understand from your

perspective mr. fugate's specific case and how that case in 2014 might be handled differently, and how the interoperability between dod, records, and medical recommendations and decisions and those in the va might provide for a better outcome or might not, where we still have some ground to make up, and so i think it's very important for us if nothing else to learn from his specific case and ensure it is not repeated, and i think you could probably agree with me on that. and then for miss land freed and the section 508 issues, i think this discussion is happening within the larger context of the american public's and congress' frustration with lack of accountability within the va, and so, again, just looking at the backup and all of the chances that the va had to come into compliance, the waivers that were issued to allow the va to remain out of compliance, the fact that on some of the most critical issues like the ability to fill out a va form that mr.

kebbel brought to our attention, it seems like not only would that be a benefit to the sight impaired veteran, it would be a benefit to the va to have that information entered there by the veteran himself or herself instead of having to go to a vva office. how do you answer in the plainest terms possible what i feel is very justify frustration at the amount of time that the va has had to get it right and you and mr. sheehan spoke earlier of the processes involved, all the things you got to do which are really lost on me. i think we just really want to know what has taken so long, where is the accountability, when will you be able to assure this committee and the veterans who depend on these services through the web that you will be 100% compliant? >> sure. i'd be happy to address that. we're absolutely committed to making sure that all of the information that veterans need about benefits, about health care available to them, and

everything else that we have to offer is available to them as electronic products through our websites and forms and the memo that was mentioned earlier by the chairman, that was i think a wake-up call in accountability to say there are these waivers out there, what are we doing with them. >> with the chairman's indulgence could i ask you a quick pointed question. give us a date by when every single page on every single va peb site will be 508 compliant? >> the reason we keep talking about the process is that if i was 100% compliant tomorrow, new systems are going to come online, additional forms are going to be added, additional web pages will be added, additional documents are going to be added -- >> this does not build confidence in you and what you're doing and what our veterans can expect. i would hope that you could come back to this committee with a set date and from that date we're 100% compliant and every day there forward we will be

100% compliant. i think that's what we're asking. i don't think it's too much to expect and i think that's what the veterans we serve deserve. with that i yield back to the chair. >> thank you, mr. o'rourke. ranking member kirkpatrick. >> i appreciate your willingness to provide the committee with a year-by-year breakdown of how the money has been spent. you know, that's part of our responsibility on this committee is, mr. chairman, to oversee how taxpayer dollars are being spent. i would ask within that year-by-year breakdown is categorize that and work with committee staff on what categories seem to be appropriate. we'll get that to you. like to have some dialogue with our staff. i'd like to know how much is spent on salaries, on space, how much is spent in other areas just so we've got an idea of how that's being spent, and i thank the panel for being here today and thank you, mr. chairman, for having this meeting. >> our thanks to the second panel.

you are now excused. again, this is mikec offman. today we have had a chance to hear about problems that have led to many years passing while virtually -- i'm sorry, visually impaired veterans continue to be denied equivalent access to va services due to va failures. as such this hearing was necessary to accomplish a number of items. first, to identify the reasoning for va's lack of progress in implementing the vision registry despite years having passed since authorization. second, to receive an explanation on why va has not got its system into compliance with section 508 of the americans with disabilities act, and, third, to determine what steps are being taken to correct these issues and improve the care provided to veterans and their ability to access crucial

information. i ask unanimous consent that all members have five legislative days to revise and extend the remarks and include extraneous material. without objection, so ordered. i would like to once again thank all of the witnesses and the audience members for joining us in today's conversation. with that, this hearing is adjourned. join us later today for a look at education policy. expected topics include early childhood learning to post secondary and beyond. hosted by the education commission of the states, you can watch it live at 2:30 p.m.

eastern on our companion network c-span. the chilean president is in town today. she'll be making remarks at the brookings institution at 4:00 p.m. eastern time. you can watch that live on c-span2. president obama is expected to name his next veterans affairs secretary today. reports indicate that he'll tap bob mcdonald to take the job. mr. mcdonald, both a veteran and former executive for proctor and ganlble. watch the president's announcement live at 4:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. a look at the supreme court here where earlier today justices issued a 5-4 ruling stating that closely held corporations can refuse to offer contraceptive coverage. this was the hobby lobby case. we've been soliciting your reaction to the verdict asking you what your thoughts are. logon to facebook.com/c-span to leave your comments. here are a couple. lisa writing, corporations are

not people. i hope people stop shopping there and show them they can't discriminate against women because of religious belief. meanwhile, diane holding a different view saying, it's wonderful. the supreme court makes the right decision. congrats lobhobby lobby, love i. share your thoughts on the supreme court decision on our facebook page. you had broadcast tv and then cable came along, and then satellite, but what if satellite had said, you know, we're different than cable. we have a slightly different technology, so we're going to take that and not consider ourselves to be what is in law called an mcpd so we don't have to negotiate? but satellite didn't do that. and so why should aerial be able to say we don't have to negotiate for copyrighted material? we have said from the beginning this isn't about being opposed to technology. there's still a technology there

in aerial and maybe there's a business model for it, but that doesn't mean you can evade the law to run a business. >> more about the supreme court decision against aerial with the head of the national association of broadcasters, gordon smith tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators on c-span2. what are the economic impacts of climate change on the wildlife and agricultural industries? panelists from the fishing, forestry, farming, and wile life sectors updated a senate subcommittee recently. montana senator jon tester talked about farming conditions in his home state before the senate's subcommittee on green jobs asked questions to the panelists. this is just over two hours.

i call this hearing of the green jobs and new economy subcommittee to order. just yesterday the president made a historic announcement moving forward with the proposal to tackle the single largest source of climate pollution in the united states, coal fired power plants. this action could not have come too soon. what we're seeing already are real impacts of climate change, impacts that are being felt today on the ground. it's no longer a conversation about hypothetical events or computer models, what might or might not happen in the future. it's a conversation about the real cost to our natural resources in our rural communities and our economy right now.

a few weeks ago the national climate assessment came out with the most up to date review of climate science and particularly focused on the impacts we are already seeing across the united states. this report combines the expertise of dozens the moves pri eminent scientists to conduct a comprehensive review to i am lum nate the climate impacts we are seeing and the type of impacts we can expect to see in coming years. what was notable in that report is how much impact we are already seeing in sectors that are critical to our rural communities and their economies such as farming, fishing, forestry, and hunting. these impacts aren't always straightforward, as we'll hear from some of our witnesses today. climate change is one of many challenges facing these sectors. but it's playing an increasingly important role to making existing challenges even worse. the long-term trend towards warmer and shorter winters is allowing more insects like bark

beetles to survive the cold causing massive tree dioffs in forests and making forests more susceptible to more intense wildfires. for a state like oregon, this trend is very troubling. the warmer, shorter winters are also decreasing the amount of snow pack leaving less water for formers to use during the growing season. in oregon snow melt is a critical component of irrigation water as so little rain falls during the summer months. this year, for example, oregon has seen one of the worst droughts on record after record droughts in 2001, 2010, and 2013. demonstrating the devastation we can expect to see a severe and intense drought become more common. the decrease in snow pack also means our streams are warmer and drier during the summer months which sim packeting fresh water fishing. less snow melt and hotter summers are expected to contribute to a significant

decline in salmon populations. our ocean fishermen have been dealing with the effects of climate change, too. warming oceans are causing fish to migrate and oceans are absorbing much of the carbon dioxide. this causes the water to become more acidic which has had impacts on northwest oyster farmers whose oyster seeds are dying in the more acidic waters. this is why we are holding the hearing today, to hear directly from those who work in these sectors and whose livelihood depend on us taking strong action. the witnesses we have invited here to testify are people who have firsthand experience working in the farming, fishing, and forestry sectors. we also will hear from two minority witnesses who will present their viewpoints as climate change skeptics. i would like to extend gratitude to senator jon tester who is here to speak on this subject not only as a senator from a

state that will be impacted by climate change but as a farmer himself. we'll ask senator tester to speak as soon as the opening statements are completed. with that i'll turn this over to ranking member senator wicker to give his opening remarks. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing. i note it's our first hearing together as a subcommittee. i also want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. first witness and the panel that will follow. as we discuss the impact of climate on farming, fishing, forestry and hunting, we must not neglect the effects that draconian climate regulations would have on these industries. yesterday as part of the president's climate action plan, epa administrator announced a new set of rules to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. these regulations would have little effect on the climate, but the rules would have a negative effect on the

livelihood of all energy users, including farmers, foresters, and fishermen who are the focus of today's hearing. the president's costly regulations mean that farmers who irrigate their crops by pump would face higher utility bills. foresters would pay more for electricity to turn their timber into building materials and paper. product that is are essential to our economy. these industries already face a myriad of challenges in a difficult economic environment, but at what cost are we going to hurt these economic sectors in the pursuit of aggressive but dubious climate regulations? the cost to these industries are assured to go up. the benefits are not. farmers are said to be on the front line of climate change because they are most likely to be affected by altering weather patterns. in a recent scientific peer reviewed study that examined u.s. crop producers' perceptions of climate change, researchers

found there is little belief among farmers that climate change will have a negative effect on crop yields. in fact, in my home state of mississippi, corn and soybean yields are at record high levels. farmers have been managing their crops effectively and adapting to variable climate conditions for generations and generations. this is nothing new. unfortunately, this generation will now have to cope with higher electricity costs because of questionable climate regulations. for farmers who properly manage their land, a changing climate is not the problem. but burdensome regulations that increase the cost of farm production are. america's forests provide many benefits and services to society including clean water, rek rag, wildlife habitat, and a variety of forest products. need we be reminded that carbon dioxide is required for photo synthesis, the process by which these forests use sunlight to grow. plants tend to grow better under conditions of higher co2 levels.

scientists have dubbed this effect co2 fertilization. the economic impact of our forests must not be overlooked. forestry in mississippi is a $14 billion industry and supports more than 63,000 full and part-time jobs. healthy, productive, and well managed forests cover more than 60% of my home state. these healthy forests support industry that ploys 25% of mississippi's manufacturing workforce. given the current depressed market for forestry goods, higher prices for electricity would only worsen industry problems. from foresters who properly manage their trees, a changing climate is not the problem, but onerous regulations that increase the cost of forestry production are. and i am struck, mr. chairman and my fellow senators, with the increasing number of academics who are willing to come forward and say, yes, on some of no conventional wisdom they are

skeptics. i ask to put into the record at this point, mr. chairman, a transcript of an interview yesterday afternoon on wtop with dr. peter morrissy, university of maryland professor at the robert h. smith business school. >> without objection. >> and let me just point out in the final minute, mr. chairman. professor morrissy says a lot of this, speaking of the president's new plan, is going to needlessly raise costs but more importantly the president's goal, the amount of carbon dioxide we will save china makes up with additional emissions in only 18 months. he goes on to point out, and i quote, remember, co2 emissions is very different than smog and the environmentalists right now want to confuse that issue saying you certainly don't want smog and asthma and things like that. co2 emissions is about the

greenhouse effect and rising temperatures. asked about the thought that if the u.s. doesn't do something countries like china and india definitely won't, professor morrissy says, well, we are already doing something, and china is not joining us. he says, and i quote, it's a fool's journey into the night to think that setting a good example will cause china to follow. the anchor says, well, we need to do something and the professor says we are doing something but the trick is to do something that matters, that has an effect. the president is touting this as a solution, and it is not. finally, he concludes, we're going to have to deal with the rising sea level whether we do this or not. the question is will we have an economy that can bear what will be the truly large burden, much larger than this one. and so i thank you again, mr. chairman, for holding this

carrying. we should be creating jobs and strengthening the economy, not hindering it. >> thank you. senator sessions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and the conversation is not over. good discussions need to be held. we need to ask ourselves what the true facts are, and we will do so and a growing number of scientists are demonstrating the falsity of many of the allegations that have been made as a result of warming temperatures and climate change. and we simply have to be honest about that. our economy is exceedingly fragile. it's very fragile. the average median income for working americans today is $2,400 below what it was in 2007. we've got fewer people working today than we had in 2007. unemployment remains high, and we simply cannot regulate and

impose costs on american industry to the extent to which they cannot compete in the world market and damage our economy. only a healthy economy and free nations has the environment consistently improved. unhealthy economies in totalitarian countries have the worst record by far of environmental issues. mr. chairman, mr. ashe will testify. i'm pleased in his written statement at least he did not repeat his previous statement before this committee that we're having more frequent and severe storms, flooding, droughts, and wildfires because that's not so. and when i asked him about it, he gave anecdotes. he submitted not one scientific report to justify that statement when many scientific reports reject it. president obama has twice claimed that temperatures are

rising faster than predicted. even over the last ten years he said, and, in fact, temperatures have flattened over the last 15 years well below the average computer models for environmental expectations. all i'm saying is i don't know, maybe this is a temporary pause and some of the climate change that's been projected, maybe temperatures will rise again, but they're not rising like the experts predicted today, and we've got more scientists like dr. smith before us today that will puncture some of the irresponsible statements that are being made about forestry. mr. president, i grew up in the country near reddenberg, alabama. you understand the timber industry. i guess the sawmill was one of the classic big sawmills. i saw logs hauled in front of my

house all the time, but all of that land has been replanted. it's being managed exceedingly well today. farmers are and timber owners are managing better than ever scientifically and each one of those trees as they grow, they suck carbon out of the atmosphere. dead and dying tree emits -- once it dies, it emits carbon back into the atmosphere. so harvesting it and making it this wood, putting it in this building for 100 years has reduced carbon in the atmosphere. wood and forest are one of the very best ways we can reduce co2 in the atmosphere. it just is. so i feel strongly about that. with regard to hunting and wildlife, behind my house was a little creek. i calculated one time i spent a year of my life in and around that creek swimming in it,

playing in it, fishing in it, and you go behind that creek miles of just basically forest, but we saw very few deer and very few turkeys. in alabama today you visit people in my area of the state and talk to friends and you leave their home at night and they'll say, watch out for the deer. deer are everywhere. they're eating people's gardens. they are almost a pest because really i guess better management -- i don't know why. turkey, people hunting better, they're managing their lands better, and we have a clear, without doubt, increase in game in alabama today and i think throughout the rest of the country. so we made a lot of progress. we need to continue to make progress. i look forward to the hearing today and we'll have another hearing in judiciary involving the amending of the first amendment to limit people's

ability to speak out in elections, so i'm going to oppose that in a little bit. so thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate this good hearing. >> thank you, senator. senator inhofe. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i have to tell you, senator sessions, that my wife is up jet because the deer are eating her begonias and you know my wife well enough to know, if she's not happy, i'm not happy, so i have got a stake in this. first of all, i'm glad clay pope is here from oklahoma. i appreciate you're coming. clay, you and i have worked together with frank lucas on some of our small dam rehabilitation projects and looking forward to hearing your testimony, although i have already read it and it won't be able to stay for it. that doesn't mean i don't love you anyway, all right? this is -- all we talk about around here since barbara boxer became chairman of this committee is trying to resurrect, trying to make people leave that the world is coming to an end.

this is the 31st, 31st hearing this committee has had, this committee, i'm talking about the whole committee now, on global warming since senator boxer came in as chairman, and with each one the polling data has declined. i mean, it started off it was a number one or number two issue. the last gallup poll said it was number 14 out of 15. now, i have to say that i know oklahoma's global warming rel lations are no friend of farmers. it's interesting that the title of this hearing is farming, fishing, forestry and hunting. well, farming, you come to oklahoma and talk to farmers and they will tell you this is really a crisis that we're in the middle of right now considering all these regulations. in fact, i'm going to quote tom buchanan. he's president of the oklahoma farm bureau. he told me just yesterday, and this is his quote, they'll have a devastating effect if these regulations go into effect on the farmer's of rural oklahoma. it will be our number one concern and number one issue. that's the oklahoma farm bureau

that is speaking. let me express my concern with the epa's just announced regulations for existing plants, and we understood on new plants, that was a little bit different. that was very, very costly, but existing would be even more so. the figures we have is it would require power plants around the country to reduce their greenhouse emissions by 30% to 2005 levels. we have done our own study for a long period of time going all the way back to right after kyoto was never submitted for ratification and found the cost of it, and this comes from wharton school, comes from mit, kols from charles rivers associate, is between $300 billion and $400 millibillion a. that would be the largest tax increase in history. we know the chamber has come out with the amount of money it will cost in jobs. for decades the environmental left has pushed to enact the cap

and trade and congress has rejected it. we've had this before congress now about 12 times. it has been rejected every single time, and eve time by a larger margin. the if irs was 2003, the mccain lieberman bill. then two years later it was rejected even by a larger amount. so it used to be the number one and now it's the number 14 concern, and it's a very light concern. so regardless, the president is pushing this regulatory thing. we don't have to look any further than obama's model to come up with a conclusion. he talks about his green dream being germany. you and i were just there not long ago, i say to senator sessions, and that country is about three years ahead of news coming through with all these regulations and continuing a war on fossil fuels like our president obama has had since he's been in office, and their costs for electricity now has doubled since they started that program three years ago.

doubled. it is now three times the cost per kilowatt hour of what we have here in this country. so we know the american people know that the rule will be expensive and it is very alarming we have to do this. you know, to stay within my time frame i'm going to have to submit the whole statement for the record, but i want to get -- if this is true, if we're now in a spell -- in a period of time 15 years where there's been no increase in temperature, now saying this might be the coldest year -- weather of the year, all that is a matter of record, then why is this all of a sudden surfaced as an issue? there's a guy right here, his name is time steyer. he's come out and he's documented he's a mul multibillionaire. he's going to put $100 million into the legislative process to try to resurrect global warming

as an issue. $50 million of this is his own money and he'll raise the other $50 million. and i can tell you right now that it's not going to work. i know it's a lot of money, and this will be going to candidates who are supporting global warming and all of that stuff, so we know that it's going to be -- it's going to have an impact and it is a lot of money, but the people of america won't buy it, and i would say this. i have made an announcement, mr. chairman, and there's a possibility i could be chairing this committee again, that when these regulations are finalized, i'm going to offer a cra, congressional review act, on each one of them because that's the only way that we can have people get on record either supporting or rejecting this, and i have a feeling that we're going to be able to stop it in spite of $50 million. by the way, i ask unanimous consent this article be put in the record at the conclusion of my opening statement. >> thank you. without objection, and your time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> we're now going to hear from senator tester. delighted to have you with us today both in your role as a u.s. senator and observer of effects on the ground in montana and as a generational farmer. >> thank you, chairman merkley and ranking member wicker. i would like to say, i don't know tom steyer from a bar of soap but i would be happy to work with anybody to put some transparency on the dark money that comes into these elections and i know this isn't a hearing about elections and dark money, but if we want to save our democracy, i think that's the first step and i think we could really get to the bottom of a lot of this stuff that's going on as far as influence and political agenda here in washington, d.c. with that -- >> let me react -- since my name was used i can react. yeah, this isn't dark. this is light. this is something everybody knows. it's out there. it's been in all the publications. that means that much to some people and i just want to clarify that. >> thaen let's get rid of that

and the dark money, too. i would appreciate you having me here today along with ranking member wicker. feels like we should be on cross fire, roger, but we'll do it here. look, i'm not a lawyer. i am not a scientist. i am a u.s. senator, but more importantly, i'm a farmer. the impacts of climate change are felt far and wide, and i believe we need to take responsible steps to mitigate the impacts. what those steps are, some came out by thee pa yesterday, some folks have some other ideas. i'm more than happy to listen to them. the epa released a proposal for reduced carbon emissions from existing power plants. they went with the state-based solution. i think that's smart to our problems and i will work to ensure this proposal works for montanans in my home state. i think refusing to act to protect clean air and clean water is not a viable option. i think in the long term and in the short term it's going to cost jobs and a way of life.

as i said a minute ago, i'm a third generation farmer. i farm in north central montana. i have seen the impacts of climate change firsthand. this does not mean i have people that farm the land. this means i do we finished seeding two weeks ago last saturday. this piece of land was homesteaded by my grandfather, and we have farmed it for the last 40 years, my wife and i. my folks, 35 years before that. and my grandparents 35 years before that. for the average american, particularly those of us from rural america the political conversation about climate change seems worlds away. for us, we have had warmer winters. we have had more extreme weather events. and they are already presenting new challenges for our way of life. do i say those statements because i read an article in some magazine? no. i say it because this is what i have seen on the farm. let me give you an example.

my dad farmed from 1943 to 1978 and never got a hailstorm that allowed him to collect more than his premium that he paid for that hail insurance. i've been hailed out four times in the last 35 years. and this month alone, the month -- i should say last month, we're in june now, in the month of may, we have seen severe hailstorms all over the state of montana, totally unregular. totally out of character. these are storms that usually would hit in july or august. they're storms that break out windows in cars. they break fences. golf ball-sized hail or bigger. and we've had them up in my neck of the woods just south of my place, to down in billings. 230 miles south of that. at the turn 1999, 2000, 2001 we've got a reservoir on the place my dad built in the late '40s, when he dug it, it filled up with water. in '99, 2000, 2001 it dried up for the first time ever.

if you take a look at what's going on as far as disaster assistance, and i appreciate some of the comments made by the senators on the rostrum, on how this could affect our timber industry -- i'm talking about the new epa regulations, how this could affect agriculture. in the last two years -- 20 years ago the forest service spent 13% of its budget on fighting fires and i can almost guarantee you that budget 20 years ago was a heck of a lot smaller than it is today and they spent 13% of it. now it's 40%. and they still have to transfer half a billion dollars to cover costs. we're going to spend more than $15 billion on hurricane sandy relief efforts alone. i cannot think of a time we've had a hurricane hit new york. but it did with sandy. i think today's hearing appropriately focused on experiences of farmers, ranchers, sportsmen and women that they're going through. unfortunately the stories are often overlooked, underreported

or not reported at all. as a nation i think we need to start paying attention because these experiences are important if we're going to have a debate here in washington, d.c. and we're going to listen. scientists tell us the climate change will bring shorter, warmer winters, and in montana i see it. when i was younger, frequent bone-chilling winds whipped across the prairies, 30 below for two weeks at a time was not an exaggeration. now, it seems like if we have temperatures below zero, it is the exception. do you want me to cut it off now, by the way? has this been five minutes already? my god. sorry about that. time moves quickly but i think we'd like to hear from you. >> i apologize. i usually don't do this. but changes in the weather are forcing different ways to operate our farm. and to be honest with you, it's -- it's more difficult to figure out how. we haven't had a gentle rain this month of may.

may is our wettest month. i planted -- we finished planting those crops two weeks ago. they're not going to come out of the ground until we get some moisture. this is pretty abnormal. we've had droughts before, but this is -- this is abnormal stuff. the end of bitter winters you think gosh it's less oil you're going to have to heat the house or propane or wood or whatever you're doing, but the fact is those winters and the lack of cold winters has allowed a little beast called the saw fly to show up and if you don't deal with the saw fly by adding another operation to how you -- by swathing your wheat it can take as much of the crop as a hailstorm would. three quarters of it easily. it's time sensitive. combining with the historic drought, and the wildfires, season is longer, it's hotter, and it's rougher. and it costs more money to fight.

these stories -- go down the list and i can just tell you that a couple years ago, we flew into down around by billings, they were having record floods. the next year, same people whose houses were under water one year were being burned out the next. same land. i don't know what's going on. i don't know if the air's getting warmer. i don't know if we're just in a cycle. but i can tell you we can talk about all the things that need to be done here. we can talk about how it's going to impact farmers and ranchers and sportsmen and all that. but if we end up passing on a climate to our kids that doesn't allow our kids to move forward with an economy that helps support, i think we're making a huge mistake. now, last year we had a record crop. i can tell you right now it's going to be a pretty open summer for me if we don't get some rain pretty damn quick.

those kind of variations in weather farmers always talk about as being normal. but this is -- this is above anything that i have ever seen in my 57 years on this place. and by the way, i live within 100 miles of that place till i got this job. so that's where i have spent my entire life. and i have seen things happen in our climate that i have never, ever, ever seen before. maybe it's just happenstance. maybe it's just choice. maybe if we ignore it, it will go away. but i think that if we can put a man on the moon in ten years, we can certainly, going off of 2005 standards, reduce the amount of co-2 going into the air by 30% in 25 years. i don't think it's that much of a stretch. is coal going away? i don't think so. not for a while. by 2030, nearly a third of our

energy will still be coal. and i don't think that's a bad thing. so, mr. chairman, i appreciate you having this hearing, ranking member wicker, you know that i have a tremendous respect for you and i appreciate your contribution to this. i think we have a choice, as people who serve in the senate and the house. we can do nothing, or we can try to find solutions that help drive our economy forward and address issues of climate. if we do nothing, and we're wrong, think about that. just think about that. it means there's going to be a lot of hungry people. with that sobering thought, i will say thank you for the opportunity to testify. i very much appreciate it. i apologize i ran over by damn near double. but such is life. ashe will have to cut his way back. >> senator, thank you very much for your testimony and giving this district, on-the-ground

impression of these effects from hail to fires to new pests, to fewer, as you put it, bone-chilling winds. indeed the point of this hearing was to hear about effects on the ground, and we're going to now have witnesses to take a look across america. really appreciate your giving your sense. thank you. i'd like to invite director dan ashe of the u.s. fish and wildlife service to join us. dan has had a long career in public service. prior to being director he served as services deputy director for policy. as a science adviser and as the chief of the national wildlife refuge system. mr. ashe spent 13 years as professional staff on the former committee on merchant marine and fisheries in the house of representatives. and earned his graduate degree in marine affairs from the university of washington. he is here today to give us perspective on how we can expect to see climate change impacting

our natural resources that are key to sustaining our fishing and hunting economies. it's terrific to have you. welcome. >> thank you, chairman merkley. ranking member wicker. it's a privilege to be here before this subcommittee, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today, really, on behalf of america's sportsmen and women. as americans we are extraordinarily blessed. among these blessings are the natural landscapes and the healthy abundant native fish and wildlife that they support. and today's blessings are largely due to the leadership and foresight of yesterday's hunters and anglers, good people and professional managers who found -- who found the will and the ability to face the great challenges of their day. it may have been a dust bowl in the 1930s, or pesticide use in

the -- in the '50s and '60s. and wetlands destruction in the '70s and '80s. but these women and men found the will and the way to work with congress and others to address those challenges. today i'm really proud of my country and my colleagues in public service. it was in 1990 i was a staff member, committee staff member in the house of representatives. worked with the house merchant marine and fisheries committee, the house science committee and others and this committee in the senate to enact the global climate change research program act. and then a few years ago we worked with our state colleagues and other partners to develop the national fish, wildlife and plants adaptation strategy. and just recently we saw the most recent national climate