DAV Annual Legislative Report slams Republicans in Congress & the Whitehouse!

[Gimpy]

I have posted below a major portion of the address given at the DAV national Convention in New Orleans. This report shows, without any question, what I have been stateing for a number of years now. That the republicans in Congress, and ESPECIALLY the Bush administration in particular, have abandoned any promises and/or pledges to fully support and assure that disabled veterans and their dependents are adequately and properly cared for with regards to the funding of Veterans Health care and benefits. It Is somewhat lenghty in nature, but it IMPERATIVE that everyone should read this address in order to fully comprehend the nature of the "tactics" and "plans" that these lieing, cheating son-of-a-bitches have employed to undermine and underfund veterans health care and benefit programs! It is apparently OBVIOUS from this report that the REPUBLICANS will NOT help us in the manner they have pledged!
**************************************************
**
DAV Annual Legislative Report **** delivered at the DAV National Convention, August 16 thru 19 2003, by Joseph A. Violante, National Legislative Director of the DAV.


Consistent with our mission and mandates, we were pressing our legislative agenda and following several ongoing initiatives when we resumed our work in Washington following the 2002 National Convention. One issue at the forefront in July was additional money to pay for veterans? medical care. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Secretary Anthony Principi had made projections early in 2002 that he would need an additional $400 million during fiscal year (FY) 2002 to avoid freezing enrollment for VA medical care. Based on those projections, we had an ongoing grassroots campaign urging Congress to provide that amount in the FY 2002 supplemental appropriations bill, which had been reported by the House Appropriations Committee in May 2002. Despite Secretary Principi?s projection, the President had asked Congress for only $142 million in supplemental appropriations for VA medical care. Congress included $417 million for veterans? medical care in the bill it cleared for the President?s signature on July 24, 2002. However, by law the money could not be spent unless the President designated it as emergency spending. The President signed the bill into law on August 2, 2002, but he would only designate $142 million of the amount Congress provided for VA as emergency spending. Consequently, $275 million of the money was never released to VA, though VA had reached the point where it had to freeze enrollment for lower priority veterans, and veterans receiving treatment were waiting for months for medical appointments.

At that time, we were nearing the end of the 107th Congress?a Congress that was deadlocked on most of the domestic issues. The two parties were highly polarized and deeply divided. The Republicans controlled the House with a narrow majority, and, although the Democrats held the Senate with only a one-vote majority, that was sufficient to block much of the Republican agenda. The Bush Administration had turned much of its attention to the escalating dispute with Iraq and the seeming inevitability of war. Legislators were expending much of their efforts on the upcoming congressional elections. With FY 2003 to begin on the first day of October, Congress still showed no signs of an ability to agree on and pass the appropriations bills needed to keep the Government running in the rapidly approaching FY 2003.

This politically charged yet stalemated atmosphere made it easier to stall legislation detrimental to veterans but harder to get good legislation moved toward enactment. Fortunately, the political divisions are not generally as deep in the Veterans? Affairs Committees of the House and Senate, and the air of heightened patriotism was somewhat of a unifying factor that helped us avoid political paralysis on veterans? issues?except those involving substantial expenditures of Federal dollars. Rather than any major disagreements about the level of funding for veterans? programs, it was the larger political disputes that had stalled work on appropriations, although getting adequate funding for veteran? programs is a persistent and formidable annual challenge. Commitment to the President?s agenda and his threat of a veto of the defense authorization bill if it included provisions to remove the prohibition against concurrent receipt of military retired pay and disability compensation made the House Republican leadership intent on blocking or severely limiting concurrent receipt legislation. Our effort to get legislation to change the funding for veterans? medical care from discretionary appropriations to mandatory spending garnered strong bipartisan support in the House Veterans? Affairs Committee, but equally strong opposition in the Administration and House leadership. House Veterans? Affairs Committee Chairman Chris Smith (R. N.J.) was solidly behind the legislation and had on July 26, 2002, introduced H.R. 5250 to fund veterans? medical care through mandatory spending. Although we had support in the Senate on this issue, signals from members of the Senate Veterans? Affairs Committee were not as encouraging. Other of our initiatives and our legislative priority to improve judicial review procedures for veterans seemed on track toward enactment, in the flurry of activity that typically takes place in the final days of the legislative session. Nothing was guaranteed, however, and we still had our work cut out for us, not unlike the typical situation we face year after year.

With the Senate having passed provisions to remove entirely the offsets between military retired pay and disability compensation and the House having passed provisions that would have removed the offset for veterans with 60% or more service-connected disability, the House and Senate, in late July 2002, appointed House members and Senators to serve on a conference committee whose responsibility was to resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The conferees began negotiations during September 2002. On October 10, the same day it voted to authorize President Bush to go to war with Iraq, the House voted 391-0 to instruct its conferees to agree to the Senate?s provisions for full concurrent receipt. That unanimous vote meant that the House leadership and all those members of the House that voted on the motion went on record as supporting full concurrent receipt. At that time, 402 of the 435 House members had cosponsored the stand-alone House bill for concurrent receipt, H.R. 303. On the surface, the prospects for getting some meaningful action on concurrent receipt legislation looked more promising than perhaps they ever had before, despite the fact that the Administration had threatened to veto the defense authorization bill if it included any provisions for concurrent receipt.

Although the House leadership and the lead House conferee, Duncan L. Hunter (R. Calif.), the Vice Chair of the House Armed Services Committee, had voted for the motion instructing House conferees to agree to the Senate provisions, the House conferees not only refused to agree to the Senate provisions, they also refused to agree to their own provisions for partial concurrent receipt as passed by a majority vote of the House in its version of the bill. Because thousands of veterans across the Nation were pressing the Senate to insist on retaining its concurrent receipt provisions in the bill, the Senate did not readily yield to the desires of the House leadership, and negotiations became stalled. The House leadership then decided to delay further action on the negotiations until after the congressional elections to avoid a showdown that would either put the President in the position of vetoing this politically popular legislation or would put House members from the President?s party in the position of voting against veterans just before the election.

While we were expending much effort toward enactment of concurrent receipt legislation, we were still working on a number of other veterans? issues as well. As a result of our efforts, Senator Tim Johnson introduced S. 2903 on September 5, 2002, a companion bill to H.R. 5250 that would provide mandatory funding for veterans? medical care. On October 2, 2002, we testified before the Subcommittee on Health of the House Veterans? Affairs Committee on the extent and effectiveness of VA health care programs for women veterans. We acknowledged VA?s efforts on many fronts to expand and improve health care services for women veterans, but we also noted that there continue to be disparities between the level of services for male and female veterans. Relying on findings from various studies, we made or reinforced specific suggestions for improvement.

In mid October of 2002, we turned much of our attention back to the issue of concurrent receipt. Opponents of concurrent receipt legislation attacked on another front. The VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee inserted provisions in the appropriations bill for VA that would bar VA from deciding any claim for service connection that, if allowed, would entitle the veteran to compensation in addition to retired pay under any newly enacted concurrent receipt legislation. Clearly, powerful political forces were determined and at work to thwart the effect of any legislation on concurrent receipt. We sounded the bugle and led the charge with the full strength of our grassroots power. The response we received from our membership on this threat accounted, in part, for the exceptionally large volume of e-mails sent from our website in October, as I will discuss shortly. Members of Congress received an ear full from angry disabled veterans. This adverse provision in the appropriations bill was never enacted into law.

During October 2002, we followed other veterans? legislation as it moved through the legislative machinery. On October 23, 2002, the President signed H.R. 4085, the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2002, which became Public Law 107-247. This legislation provided a cost-of-living adjustment of 1.4% for disability compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, and the annual clothing allowance. Congress cleared two other veterans? bills for the President?s signature in October 2002.

In October 2002, we reached a new record in our grassroots lobbying. On October 30, 2002, in one single day, 8,592 e-mail messages were sent to members of Congress from the DAV Internet website. During the month of October, 72,858 e-mails were sent via our website in support of our legislative efforts. Those numbers represent only the e-mail messages sent from our website. They do not include all the e-mails our grassroots sent directly to congressional offices, and do not include telephone calls, letters, and facsimile messages.

Much of this grassroots activity was in response to our legislative alerts about the House?s apparent moves to kill concurrent receipt legislation. On October 29, 2002, the DAV sent a sharply-worded letter to Congressman Duncan Hunter regarding his actions to stall or kill concurrent receipt legislation. In our letter, we pointed out that he was among the 402 House members who had cosponsored H.R. 303, which would authorize concurrent receipt of military retired pay and disability compensation. We noted that the Senate had voted unanimously to include in the defense authorization bill provisions similar to H.R. 303 which would entirely remove the offset between military retired pay and disability compensation. We observed that he was among the 391 House members who voted unanimously to instruct House conferees to agree to the Senate provisions for concurrent receipt, but that he led House conferees who not only refused to agree to the Senate provisions, but also would not even agree to the House-passed measure that would remove the injustice for a fraction of affected military retirees. We conducted a special mailing to the 5,757 DAV and Auxiliary members residing in Representative Hunter?s congressional district in California. We included a copy of our letter to the congressman and urged recipients to personally contact Representative Hunter to register strong objections to his key role in action to stall, diminish, or kill provisions authorizing concurrent receipt legislation.

Although the stalling of the defense authorization bill was a calculated strategy by a House leadership determined to keep the concurrent receipt legislation from moving forward, stalling of the appropriations bills for VA and most of the remainder of the Federal Government was a result of the congressional leadership?s inability to fashion appropriations acceptable to a majority in both chambers. The House and Senate could not agree on a concurrent budget resolution, only the second time that has occurred since the existing budget process was enacted in 1974. With the beginning of FY 2003 on October 1, 2002, none of the 11 non-defense appropriations bills had been passed by Congress. To prevent a shutdown of VA and most of the Federal Government, Congress cleared a continuing resolution on September 30, 2002, and the President signed it on that day. That resolution authorized funding to keep the Government running until October 4, 2002. Five more continuing resolutions were to follow to keep the Government running, and we did not get permanent appropriations legislation until February 20, 2003. Congress was in near total stalemate.

On November 7, 2002, the President signed Public Law 107-287, the Department of Veterans Affairs Emergency Preparedness Act of 2002 and Public Law 107-288, the Jobs for Veterans Act. Public Law 107-287 directs the establishment within the VA of centers, programs, and means to address illnesses arising from the use of chemical, biological, or radiological weapons or devices posing threats to the public health and safety. We had provided our views on this legislation in an April 10, 2002, congressional hearing. Public Law 107-288 entitles veterans and certain veterans? spouses to a priority for certain job training programs funded by the Department of Labor, imposes affirmative action requirements for Federal contractors, and establishes other procedures to improve employment, training, and placement services for veterans. We had testified in support of this legislation in an April 18, 2002, congressional hearing.

After the elections on November 5, 2002, in which the Republicans were able to retain their majority in the House and gain control of the Senate for the upcoming 108th Congress, the 107th Congress returned on November 12 for a ?lame duck? session to finish work on essential legislation. The conferees for the defense authorization bill scrapped both the House and Senate provisions for concurrent receipt and agreed to other provisions that had been passed by neither chamber in their respective versions of the bill. The new provisions established a special compensation program to be administered by the Department of Defense under which disabled veterans who retired from the Armed Forces with 20 or more years of service would be compensated for certain of their service-connected disabilities in addition to and at the same rate as their VA disability compensation. This special compensation would be paid for disabilities that were from combat wounds for which the Purple Heart Medal was awarded or from service-connected disabilities rated 60% or higher that were incurred either as a direct result of armed conflict, while engaged in hazardous service, in the performance of duty under conditions simulating war, or through an instrumentality of war. After passage by the House on November 12 and the Senate on November 13, the President signed the bill on December 2, 2002, and it became Public Law 107-314.

This legislation fell short of what the DAV was seeking, but it is a tribute to the strength of our grassroots lobbying. Congress passed it after years of inaction, or insincere action, on the issue and despite the entrenched opposition of the President, from which he relented and signed the measure. For years, many have seen Government opposition to concurrent receipt legislation as an immovable stone wall. With a major commitment from the DAV and the work of other organizations, we succeeded in moving it, but we have not moved it far enough to fully remedy this injustice against some of our most deserving disabled veterans. Whether this legislation was a partial victory or a partial defeat, be assured that the battle is not over.

On November 18, 2002, after extensive amendments and negotiations, Congress cleared for the President?s signature S. 2237, the Veterans Benefits Act of 2002. The President signed this bill on December 6, 2002, and it became Public Law 107-330. This comprehensive piece of veterans? legislation combined provisions from several separate bills to improve benefit programs and made several changes in law sought by the DAV.

One provision in the Act fulfilled DAV Resolution 208, supporting legislation to override an unfair and unduly narrow VA regulation governing eligibility for special monthly compensation on account of service-connected loss of a breast by a female veteran. In legislation enacted in November 2000, Congress had authorized special monthly compensation for ?anatomical loss of one or both breasts.? In the regulations issued to implement this law, VA required loss of all breast tissue to qualify for special monthly compensation. The DAV opposed this rule, arguing that regulations governing payment of special monthly compensation for anatomical loss of other bodily parts did not require complete loss of the anatomical part but rather substantial loss the practical consequences of which are the same as complete loss. When VA refused to change its rule, we urged Congress to enact legislation to override the rule. Congress agreed, and in this Act, provided that loss of 25% or more of breast tissue or a history of radiation treatment of breast tissue would qualify for the added compensation.

Congress included three other important provisions in Public Law 107-330 as a result of DAV recommendations and intense lobbying. These three provisions concerned improvements in procedures for review of VA claims decisions by Federal appellate courts. The first gave the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit jurisdiction to consider a wider range of legal issues in veterans? appeals from decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), formerly the Court of Veterans Appeals. Before this change, the legal bases on which veterans could challenge these CAVC decisions were much more limited. The second change modified the standard under which CAVC reviews factual findings by the Board of Veterans? Appeals (BVA). The purpose of this change was to require CAVC to conduct a more thorough review and to reverse BVA factual findings that are inconsistent with the benefit-of-the-doubt rule, which mandates a finding in favor of the veteran unless the evidence supporting denial is stronger than the evidence supporting a grant. The third change required CAVC to order VA to pay Equal Access to Justice (EAJA) fees in cases represented by DAV and other non-attorney practitioners where such fees would be payable if the representative had been an attorney. The courts had interpreted the law as requiring VA to pay these fees only if the veteran?s representative was an attorney. These three changes satisfied DAV Resolutions 30, 213, and 217.

The DAV had testified on and supported several other beneficial provisions that Congress included in Public Law 107-330. It was the major veterans? bill for the year and wrapped up legislation for veterans in the Second Session of the 107th Congress.

Though it was one of our priorities, we ended the year without legislation to change funding for veterans? medical care from discretionary to mandatory. Despite the strong commitment from the Chairman of the House Veterans? Affairs Committee and many of his colleagues, the unified support of the other major veterans? organizations, and the pressing need to guarantee funding adequate to operate this program, we were unable to overcome determined opposition by the House leadership and the Administration. Our efforts did succeed in bringing this issue to the forefront and laying the groundwork for continuing our campaign for this legislation in the 108th Congress, although it will again face fierce opposition by those in government who want to retain the power to control what level of funding goes to medical care for veterans. With that power, they have shortchanged veterans in the past, and will probably continue to do so until funding levels are mandated by law.

Nonetheless, 2002 was a successful year for us. Against some strong resistance, we were able to improve judicial review procedures for veterans, and we made other improvements in veterans? programs despite the gridlock in Congress on most other areas of legislation. Against the strongest resistance from the House leadership and the Administration, we achieved for some disabled veterans relief from the unfair prohibition against concurrent receipt of military retired pay and disability compensation. We had tremendous participation by our grassroots lobby. Over the DAV Internet website alone, our grassroots sent 194,173 e-mails to members of Congress and the President, and untold numbers contacted legislators directly by e-mail, letter, telephone, and personal office visits. With our strong grassroots and determination, we defied an unfavorable climate for growth and continued good progress on the legislative front.

Unfortunately, we did suffer the loss of a major ally near the end of the 107th Congress. With the tragic death of Senator Paul Wellstone (D. Minn.) in an airplane crash on October 25, 2002, we lost a true friend of disabled veterans. When the question involved what was right for veterans, Senator Wellstone never had any question in his mind what was right and what side of the issue he was on. He was always on the side of what was right for veterans. He never hesitated to join the fray when veterans? issues were concerned, and he never retreated in the face of opposition to our cause.

At the end of a Congress, all bills not enacted go to the trash bin. However, the 108th Congress convened with unfinished business from the 107th Congress. More than a quarter of FY 2003 had already passed without permanent appropriations legislation for FY 2003 because the 107th Congress could never come to agreement on the remaining 11 appropriations bills. The 107th Congress had passed only defense and military construction appropriations. As I noted, the budget process had broken down to the point that legislators could only agree to keep the rest of the Government running by enacting temporary measures. The Government was operating on funding provided by the fifth consecutive measure when the new Congress convened on January 7, 2003. On January 10, the President signed another continuing resolution to keep the Government running until January 31. We were continuing to watch the ongoing debate closely to ensure veterans did not become victims as a consequence, but we also hit the ground running to continue our legislative agenda in the 108th Congress. Unlike a new Congress, we do not begin with a ?clean slate? but continue to push our legislative agenda as determined by mandates from our membership in the form of resolutions adopted at the previous DAV National Convention and as required by our National Constitution and Bylaws.

The House Veterans? Affairs Committee began scheduling hearings very soon after Congress convened. The first hearing on January 29, 2003, was an oversight hearing to examine the VA health care system?s capacity to meet the current demand for medical care. Congressional oversight is arguably as important as its lawmaking and appropriations functions. Once Congress enacts legislation to create a program and appropriates money to operate that program, its responsibility does not end. Committees are charged with overseeing executive branch implementation of programs to ensure that congressional intent is carried out, that resources are used appropriately to achieve program purposes, and that the programs are fully serving the purposes for which they were created. Apparently, the Committee conducted this hearing with an intention to set the stage for the reintroduction of remedial legislation for the persistent problem of resources inadequate to meet increasing demand for veterans? medical care. Our testimony pointed to the necessity for such legislation. We told the Committee that persistent inadequate appropriations in the face of increased demand had brought the VA medical care system to the brink of a crisis that can no longer be ignored. We reminded the Committee that, despite the work of veterans? advocates and members of Congress to obtain the funding really needed to provide timely, quality care to veterans seeking it, the political appropriations process had repeatedly left veterans shortchanged. In essence, we argued that, with the problem well-defined and indisputable, an effective solution was unavoidable if this valuable resource and veterans were not to be abandoned. To be effective, any solution must directly address the root cause of the problem. With the cause undebatable, it followed that the solution was to mandate funding levels by law and remove them from the appropriations process where funding levels were at the mercy of competing political goals rather than according to sound fiscal decisions.

On February 5, 2003, we were back before the House Veterans? Affairs Committee to testify on the current state of employment programs for veterans. Here again, we pointed to deficiencies in the programs that diminish their effectiveness, leaving some veterans without appropriate assistance and leaving higher unemployment rates among disabled veterans. We recommended legislative measures to strengthen veterans? training and employment services in ways that will aid disabled veterans in overcoming the disadvantages they have in obtaining and maintaining suitable civilian employment and careers.

February is also the month in which we typically testify on the President?s budget proposal for veterans? programs. Under the timetable of the Federal budget process, the President submits in February of each year his budget request for the following fiscal year. That event formally begins congressional deliberations on the budget, and a hearing by the House Veterans? Affairs Committee typically follows close on its heels to receive testimony from government and veterans? organization witnesses. The Senate Veterans? Affairs Committee conducts its hearing on the budget, and the appropriations subcommittees hold hearings a short time later. In coordination with our partners in The Independent Budget, we testify to present our views of the President?s budget proposal and our alternative and additional recommendations for resources, efficiency improvements, and program enhancements.

Though Congress uses the President?s budget as a basis for its own decisions on funding levels, it may or may not accept the President?s recommendations. Nonetheless, the President?s recommendations for programs administered by executive branch agencies do carry a certain amount of authoritative weight, and Congress must have sufficient reason to provide more or less money for a given program than the President represents as necessary. Historically, the president?s budget recommends lower funding levels than are actually needed to maintain satisfactory levels of service for veterans. To employ the combined resources of several major veterans? organizations and for unity to more effectively and convincingly counter the presidents? budgets, the DAV joined forces some 18 years ago with AMVETS, the Paralyzed Veterans of America (PVA), and the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States (VFW). We have published our own independent budget for 17 consecutive years. With responsibility for major areas of the budget corresponding to benefit programs, medical care, construction, and veterans? cemeteries divided among the four organizations, we prepare, present, and press for a budget based on our own objective assessment of the real resource needs of veterans? programs. Each year, numerous other veterans? organizations, military associations, and various professional associations add their endorsement to The Independent Budget. The Veterans? Affairs Committees and others in Congress have accepted The Independent Budget as a credible, reliable, and authoritative document on which to base decisions about funding levels and program policies.

On February 11, 2003, we appeared before the House Veterans? Affairs Committee to present the views of DAV and The Independent Budget on the FY 2004 budget for veterans? programs. Incidentally, for the first time in memory, we ironically still did not at that time have an appropriation enacted for the fiscal year in which we were in, FY 2003. In our testimony, we deviated from the tradition under which the DAV covers the needs of the benefit programs primarily, to address in some detail another issue of major concern to DAV members?the crisis facing the veterans? medical care system. We reinforced our earlier testimony about the need for legislation to make funding for the VA?s medical care system mandatory. We stated our opposition to proposals in the President?s budget to shift more of the costs of veterans? medical care from the government to veterans themselves by increasing co-payments and imposing an annual $250 enrollment fee upon certain veterans. We restated our position that veterans should be required to pay for no part of the benefits provided to them by a grateful nation. Among the other proposals in the President?s budget, we also opposed one recommending legislation to prohibit consideration of the effects of alcohol abuse, due to disabilities such as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), in determining service connection and the disability rating to be assigned. An increased incidence of alcohol abuse in veterans suffering from PTSD results from their use of alcohol as self-medication to escape the deep psychological distress associated with that disorder, and the same occurs with other psychiatric disorders. After the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with DAV?s challenge to VA?s interpretation of existing law as barring compensation for the effects of alcohol abuse under these circumstances, the Administration, through VA?s budget, began seeking legislation to bar compensation.

Pointing out that the President?s budget request included an uncharacteristically low number of recommendations for legislation to improve benefit programs, we presented the Committee with 20 legislative recommendations of The Independent Budget to improve or expand veterans? benefit programs. We also recommended specific process improvements and added funding for certain activities in VA?s benefits delivery system to make it more efficiently and effectively serve veterans. In addition, we made recommendations to improve appellate processes for veterans. Generally, the DAV, the other veterans? organizations, and members of the House Veterans? Affairs Committee saw the President?s budget as deficient and unacceptable insofar as it proposed to impose higher and additional fees upon veterans for medical care.

After the series of continuing resolutions that began in September 2002 and continued into February 2003 to keep the Government running, Congress enacted a single bill consolidating the 11 remaining FY 2003 appropriations bills, and the President signed it into law on February 20. As a result of the support gained through lobbying by The Independent Budget partners and other major veterans? organizations, Congress not only exempted veterans? medical care and other administrative expenses of VA from the across-the-board cuts imposed on almost all other discretionary appropriations to keep spending near the limits sought by the President, but increased medical care funding above the FY 2002 amount by $2.5 billion and above the President?s request by more than $1 billion. Congress also increased the appropriation for the administrative expenses of operating the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) above the FY 2002 amount and the amount the President requested.

On February 25, 2003, during our 2003 Midwinter conference in Arlington, Virginia, National Commander Heath took the DAV?s message to a joint session of the House and Senate Veterans? Affairs Committees. Commander Heath forcefully articulated the Nation?s obligation to disabled veterans, the corresponding merits of their programs, and the need to provide the resources necessary to care for their needs. He again made the compelling case for funding veterans? medical care through direct spending mandated by law. Similarly, he urged the Committees to provide VA the resources necessary for it to overcome quality and timeliness problems in claims processing that principally resulted from unwarranted past staff and funding reductions. Of course, the unresolved issue of legislation to end the unjust offset between military retired pay and disability compensation prompted admonishments from the Commander for Congress to act decisively, completely, and promptly to end this sad chapter of mistreatment of some of America?s most deserving disabled veterans. Commander Heath reminded the members of the Committees about another injustice, the 2-year limitation on payment of benefits to a survivor that were due a beneficiary at death, or ?accrued benefits.? He called on them to enact legislation to remove the unjust limit on accrued benefits and to increase the rates of or otherwise improve a range of other benefits and services that were in need of monetary or other adjustments to make them meet their intended goals.

On February 26, the day following Commander Heath?s presentation, we appeared before the Senate Veterans? Affairs Committee to present our views on the FY 2004 budget, where we again made our case for funding above the President?s request and on a range of budget-related issues. On February 27, the House Veterans? Affairs Committee submitted its ?Views and Estimates? to the House Budget Committee. The Views and Estimates is a report in which the Veterans? Affairs Committee sets forth its assessment of the resources that will be required in the budget for the upcoming fiscal year to operate veterans? programs. The House Veterans? Affairs Committee recommended, among other increases, a $2.2 billion increase over the President?s request for veterans? medical care, and nearly a $3 billion increase overall. The Senate?s March 6, 2003, Views and Estimates made smaller, but similar, recommendations for appropriations above the President?s request. Meanwhile, work on a budget resolution that would call for deep cuts in spending on veterans? programs was underway in the House Budget Committee.

As we entered March 2002, war with Iraq was all but imminent. While the politicians were making patriotic speeches and offering high praise for America?s military, some were preparing their own assault on veterans? programs. On March 12, 2002, the House Budget Committee debated its budget resolution for FY 2004. To lower government spending to accommodate the loss of revenue from the President?s proposed $726 billion tax cut, which the Congressional Budget Office projected would result in $1.8 trillion in budget deficits over the next 10 years, Budget Committee Chairman Jim Nussle (R. Iowa) presented a draft resolution that included increases in spending on defense and homeland security but called for across-the-board cuts in all domestic spending other than Social Security and unemployment programs. Under the Nussle plan, veterans? programs would have been cut approximately $25 billion over the next 10 years. To carry out these cuts, the Veterans? Affairs Committee would be required to make changes in the laws to reduce or eliminate programs. During 14 hours of debates on the resolution, the Budget Committee, voting strictly along party lines, defeated by a vote of 22 to 19 an amendment offered by Representative Darlene Hooley (D. Ore.) to restore funding to veterans? programs. Again by a vote strictly along party lines, the Committee defeated by a vote of 22 to 17 an amendment offered by Representative Chet Edwards (D. Tex.) that would have included funding to pay for legislation to authorize concurrent receipt of military retired pay and disability compensation. With cuts in veterans? programs included, the 24 Republican members of the Budget Committee voted for the resolution, and the 19 Democrats voted against it. The Committee therefore reported the resolution on March 17 for a vote by the entire House. This disheartening betrayal of America?s veterans on the eve of the war with Iraq, and our major grassroots campaign to defeat it, set the stage for the heartening and dramatic showdown that followed between the congressional leadership and veterans? supporters in Congress.

House Veterans? Affairs Committee Chairman Chris Smith along with Michael Bilirakis (R. Fla.), Rob Simmons (R. Conn.), Charles W. ?Chip? Pickering, Jr. (R. Miss.), Walter Jones (R. N.C.), and Rick Renzi (R. Ariz.) refused to bend to strong coercion by the House leadership to vote for the resolution with cuts in veterans? programs included. Without their votes, the House leadership could not amass a majority, and the Republican budget plan, with the tax cuts, was doomed. Against extreme pressure from their own leadership and the Budget Committee Chairman, Congressman Smith and these members forced a concession from Budget Committee Chairman Nussle not to cut veterans? programs. Under House rules, the budget resolution could not be amended at that point, but it faced certain defeat on the House floor if the demands of these holdouts were not met. Chairman Nussle committed, in exchange for their votes, to accept the Senate?s budget for veterans? programs when the Senate and House met in conference to work out the differences between their two versions of the resolution. The Senate budget resolution made no cuts in veterans? mandatory programs or discretionary programs and called for $1.8 billion above the President?s budget request for discretionary spending, primarily funding veterans? medical care. With the votes of these six holdouts, the House passed its budget resolution on March 21, 2003, by a narrow margin of 215 to 212 with the language calling for the cuts still included but with the promise of the House Budget Committee Chairman to abide by the Senate provisions rather than those in the resolution just passed by the House. The first battles of the war with Iraq had just begun the day before.

Despite all, there are still heroes in Congress. Chairman Smith and these House members stood their ground for what was right, against what was easy, what was expected of them as ?team players,? and against the intimidation of their party?s leaders. However, although that was a major battle won through the sheer courage of a few, it was just the first battle in the budget process. It defeated the deep cuts for FY 2004 included in the broad spending plan, but it did not assure the discretionary appropriations ultimately would be set at levels high enough to meet VA?s true needs. That battle is still unfinished.

On March 27, we presented testimony to the Health Subcommittee of the House Veterans? Affairs Committee to state our view that VA has substantial resources to deploy in circumstances of a national emergency arising from an attack with chemical, biological, radiological, or other such unconventional weapons. However, we expressed concerns that VA resources are inadequate to allow it to meet its primary mission of treating veterans and, at the same time, respond to a major national disaster.

On April 9, 2003, we testified about the FY 2004 budget for veterans? programs before the Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies of the House Appropriations Committee. The need for mandatory funding for VA medical care again commanded much of our attention. We also urged the Subcommittee to include in the VA?s appropriations additional money for information technology necessary to modernize VA?s processing of benefit claims and made several other recommendations regarding the resources needed to improve the delivery of benefits and services to disabled veterans.

The following day, April 10, we were before the Subcommittee on Benefits of the House Veterans? Affairs Committee to state DAV?s views on several bills?H.R. 241, H.R. 533, H.R. 761, H.R. 850, H.R. 966, and H.R. 1048. We applauded the introduction of H.R. 241, the Veterans Beneficiary Fairness Act of 2003, by Chairman Smith and Ranking Democratic Member Lane Evans (D. Ill.). This legislation would repeal provisions that only the accrued benefits due a beneficiary for the 2 years preceding the beneficiary?s death may be paid to an eligible survivor and would allow the survivor to receive all retroactive benefits due the beneficiary at death. This bill responds to DAV Resolution 22, and a priority legislative goal of DAV and The Independent Budget. We testified favorably on H.R. 533, The Agent Orange Veterans? Disabled Children?s Benefits Act of 2003, that would extend benefits for spina bifida to children of veterans who were exposed to Vietnam-era herbicide agents in places other that Vietnam. Current law authorizes these benefits based on veterans? exposure in Vietnam, but the Armed Forces is known to have used Agent Orange and other chemicals containing the highly toxic chemical dioxin in locations other than Vietnam. We testified in support of H.R. 761, the Disabled Servicemembers Adapted Housing Assistance Act of 2003, introduced by Congressmen Evans and Smith to make specially adapted housing grants available to persons disabled by military service while they are still in service and without necessity to wait until they are medically discharged to begin the process of obtaining suitable housing. This legislation was introduced at the recommendation of The Independent Budget. While we supported in principle special benefits for former prisoners of war, we expressed some reservations about the wisdom and fairness of the formula in H.R. 850 for paying a special compensation benefit on account of detainment or internment as a prisoner of war. This formula, in our view, does not provide rates of compensation that correspond proportionately to the length of time a former POW was imprisoned. In addition, we strongly objected to another unrelated provision stuck in this bill to prohibit compensation for alcohol abuse that is a manifestation of a service-connected disorder such as PTSD. We observed that H.R. 966, the Disabled Veterans? Return to Work Act of 2003, had a laudable goal, the rehabilitation of veterans disabled by nonservice-connected causes, but advised the Subcommittee that this legislation was not within the scope of any specific mandate from our membership or any general DAV mandate pertaining to benefits based on service-connected disability. We stated our full support for H.R. 1048 that would increase the amount of the grant for specially adapted housing consistent with DAV Resolution 211 and a recommendation of The Independent Budget.

On April 11, 2003, the House accepted the conference agreement on the concurrent budget resolution by a vote of 216 to 211, and the Senate by a vote of 51 to 50. Here, differences along party lines on the tax cut accounted for the close vote rather than disagreements about funding for veterans? programs. In accordance with the agreement between House Budget Committee Chairman Nussle and the six Republican House members who extracted the agreement from the Chairman, the House accepted the Senate provisions on funding for veterans? programs, thereby removing the $25 billion in cuts.

During the month of April, DAV joined with the American Legion and VFW to sponsor veterans? town hall meetings in Missouri, Illinois, Texas, Florida, and New York. With local members of the three organizations, we conducted these meetings to increase awareness about the crisis in veterans? medical care and the need for legislation to solve this crisis. We communicated how such legislation would solve the crisis by removing funding from the uncertainties of the annual appropriations process and guaranteeing adequate resources through permanent provisions of law. The law would mandate that Congress provide the dollars required to fully cover the costs of providing medical care to veterans. With the focus on this issue, we held these meetings to rally the troops and give this issue media exposure near the homes of key congressional leaders.

Out in Springfield, Missouri, we were on the home turf of House Majority Whip Roy D. Blunt. Over in Batavia, Illinois, we were near the home of Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert. Down in Rosenberg, Texas, we were paying a visit to the folks in the congressional district of House Majority Leader Tom DeLay. Back east in St. Petersburg Beach, Florida, we were on the doorstep of Congressman Bill Young, Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. Then, we went up to Syracuse, New York, to take our message to the neighborhood of Congressman James Walsh, the Chairman of the House VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations subcommittee. We invited Congressman Blunt, Congressman Hastert, Congressman DeLay, Congressman Young, and Congressman Walsh to hear the concerns of veterans about the state of VA?s medical care system and the need to fix the funding process. Among them, only Congressman Walsh accepted our invitation and personally attended the town meeting. Staff from other legislators? local offices attended, but Congressmen Hastert and DeLay chose not to participate and were not represented at the meetings in their districts. At each of these meetings, we had good turnouts, ranging from 150 to 300 persons, along with good coverage from the media.

On April 30, 2003, we were again before the Benefits Subcommittee of the House Veterans? Affairs Committee to testify on three bills to improve employment and business ownership opportunities for veterans. We reminded the Subcommittee of the contributions disabled veterans make when given a chance to prove their worth, but we pointed to the disadvantages disabled veterans often have in the competitive job marketplace and the continuing need to find ways to level the playing field so their value and potential contributions to the economy can be fully realized. We supported H.R. 1460, which would permit veterans to use VA?s vocational rehabilitation and educational programs to pursue self-employment and would establish advantages for veteran-owned businesses in the awarding certain government contracts. Similarly, we testified in support of the goals of H.R. 1712, a bill that would improve the means available to Federal agencies to meet goals for awarding contracts to small businesses owned by disabled veterans. We supported H.R. 1716, which would improve on-the-job-training and employment opportunities for veterans.

As another means of drawing attention to and gaining wider support for our effort to get legislation making funding for veterans? medical care mandatory, we mailed letters on May 21, 2003, to all United States Senators urging them to support S. 50, a bill Senator Tim Johnson (S. D.) had introduced at the beginning of the 108th Congress to establish mandatory funding for veterans? medical care programs. We also asked Senators to sign the enclosed pledge to actively support and work for passage of the bill. We are receiving a positive response from this mailing.

On May 22, we testified before the Subcommittee on Health of the House Veterans? Affairs Committee about the state of VA?s long-term care programs. We apprised the Subcommittee of the insufficiency of VA?s budget request for long-term care in view of levels of service mandated by law and in view of a sharply increasing demand for long-term care by an aging veteran population. We opposed VA?s recommendation for legislation to allow it to avoid the levels of care it is obligated to provide under law.

In May, after the events in which members of the House leadership had been forced to abandon their plans to make deep cuts in veterans? programs in order to save their budget resolution from defeat, several factors prompted prominent members of the leadership to schedule a news conference in an attempt to quell some of the criticism that ensued and to then deny that their budget would cut veterans? programs. The several factors that put this matter under the public eye included heightened scrutiny of the leadership?s actions on this matter and generally critical coverage by the media, especially the specialty media that covers political issues and Congress. In addition, the information widely disseminated by DAV and other major veterans? organizations exposed the leadership?s actions and brought angry responses from veterans and the public. The unusual rift between a committee chairman and his or her leadership, as occurred between Congressman Chris Smith and the House leadership over the planned cuts in veterans? programs, made this an especially newsworthy issue and increased even more the interest of the media, which began to give it prominent coverage. The town hall meetings and major campaign by the DAV, American Legion, VFW, PVA, AMVETS, and other veterans? organizations to get legislation to guarantee adequate funding for veterans? medical care was seen as a novel approach to the problem and bold effort to take away the discretion of powerful appropriators and the Administration to funnel Federal money to their own priorities and pork barrel projects. This was apparently another factor behind the leadership?s damage control efforts. At the same time, the opposition party began to sense the magnitude of the unpopularity of attempts by the majority party to cut veterans? programs, block concurrent receipt legislation, and block legislation to make funding for veterans? medical care mandatory. The opposition released a barrage of press releases and other communications condemning the leadership?s attacks on veterans? programs.

All of this began to sting the House leadership. The Administration also dispatched its representatives to appear at veterans? functions around the country in an attempt to convince veterans that the President?s budget included large increases in spending for veterans? programs. There were press conferences and counter press conferences on Capitol Hill. On May 20, 2003, members of the House Majority leadership, headed by House Republican Conference Vice Chair Deborah Price from Ohio, held a press conference to tout their support and budget for veterans. Veterans? organization representatives pointedly questioned whether the House budget would include the President?s proposals to increase co-payments and impose a $250 enrollment fee. We were assured that these objectionable measures would not be included. House Budget Committee Chairman Nussle denied that there were any cuts in veterans? programs in the FY 2004 budget. Democratic criticism of the Republican budget for veterans? programs was dismissed essentially as a campaign of misinformation. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D. Calif.) and other minority members who have historically been interested in veterans? issues held a press conference on May 22 to announce their positive alternative agenda for veterans? programs. The centerpiece of the Democratic agenda for veterans was a plan to force a vote on concurrent receipt legislation by filing in the House a motion to discharge the Armed Services committee from further consideration of the concurrent receipt bill. Once filed, a discharge motion becomes a petition for the signatures of other members who support it. It is used to force the House leadership to bring before the House for a vote a bill that has been stalled by the committee to which it was assigned. A majority of the members of the House, 218 members, must sign the petition to force the bill to be called for a vote on the floor.

Although 403 of the 435 total House members had cosponsored the concurrent receipt bill in the 107th Congress and although the Senate passed full concurrent receipt and the House passed concurrent receipt for more severely disabled veterans, the provisions were ultimately stripped from the bill, leaving veterans again feeling betrayed. Thus far this year, 351 House members have cosponsored the concurrent receipt bill, H.R. 303. Despite cosponsorship by such a large majority of House members, the House Armed Services Committee has shown no sign of reporting the bill for a vote by the House. Clearly, not all members who have cosponsored this legislation genuinely support it, or else it would have passed and been enacted into law long ago. It necessarily follows that some cosponsor it just to give the appearance of support to their constituents. The strategy here was to expose those who do not truly support the bill. Any member who has signed on to the bill as a cosponsor should also sign the discharge petition, if he or she genuinely supports the legislation. No House member can be a ?hanging chad? on this matter: the presence or absence of the member?s signature on the petition will reveal, one way or the other, his or her true position on concurrent receipt legislation. Those among the current 351 cosponsors who decline to sign the discharge petition will expose their lack of a real commitment to disabled military retirees. Hopefully, they will then have to answer to you.

Congressman Chet Edwards, a longtime supporter of veterans, and Congressman Jim Marshall (D. Ga.) took the lead in the effort to force a vote on H.R. 303. Congressman Marshall filed his discharge petition on May 23, 2003. As of this writing, 200 Democratic House members, 1 Republican House member, and 1 Independent House member had signed the discharge petition for H.R. 303. You may view the current list of signers on the petition at http://clerk.house.gov/108/lrc/pd/petitions/Dis2.htm.

In addition to support of concurrent receipt legislation, the Democratic plan includes measures to improve medical care for veterans. It would require VA to make healthcare appointments in 14 days. It would block the increases in co-payments and the new $250 annual medical care enrollment fee proposed by the President. It would require payments of $500 monthly to veterans who have disability claims that have been pending more than 180 days. It would make improvements in the Montgomery GI Bill, end the age-62 reduction in survivor benefits for spouses of servicemembers, and pay a $1,000 bonus to those who served in the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

On June 4, 2003, the Senate agreed to an amendment offered by Senator Harry Reid (D. Nev.) to add to the FY 2004 defense authorization bill provisions for full concurrent receipt of military retired pay and disability compensation. The bill must now be taken up by the House. Another important event occurred on that same day with the introduction of a bill by Congressman Lane Evans (D. Ill.) to establish guaranteed sufficient funding for veterans? medical care. This bill, H.R. 2318, will be the new legislative vehicle in the House in the 108th Congress for mandatory funding of veterans? medical care.

On June 11, 2003, we presented testimony to the Benefits Subcommittee of the House Veterans? Affairs Committee on eight bills: H.R. 886, H.R. 1167, H.R. 1500, H.R. 1516, H.R. 2163, H.R. 2164, H.R. 2285, and H.R. 2297. The measures in these bills ranged from changes in the effective date of provisions that authorized dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) for survivors of former POWs to authority for remarried surviving spouses of veterans to be buried in national cemeteries. On the same day, we were before the Health Subcommittee to state our views on four bills related to veterans? health care facilities, in which we reinforced the need for the improvements to facilities as provided in the bills.

To address the issue of adequate funding for veterans? medical care, House Veterans? Affairs Committee Chairman Smith introduced H.R. 2475 on June 16, 2003. As an alternative to mandatory funding, this bill would establish an independent board of experts to determine annually the funding levels necessary. With full access to VA data, the board would produce an annual budget request for veterans? medical care. This budget request would not be subject to review or modification by the President?s Office of Management Budget and would become the President?s budget request. It would, however, not be binding on Congress, and funding levels would still be determined and provided through the discretionary appropriations process. This method for improving the funding mechanism for medical care was one of the two alternatives recommended by the President?s Task Force to Improve Health Care Delivery for Our Nation?s Veterans. Mandatory funding was the other alternative recommended by the Task Force.

On June 17, 2003, we testified before the full House Veterans? Affairs Committee regarding the final report of the President?s Task Force. The Task Force was created by an Executive Order in May 2001 to identify ways to improve health care delivery to veterans and servicemembers. All in the veterans? community viewed the work of the Task Force as extremely important and eagerly awaited its final report. During the hearing, we immediately directed our testimony to the single most important finding of the Task Force, that inadequate resources is a primary cause underlying problems in VA?s delivery of medical care to our Nation?s veterans. Noting that the Task Force found, ?there is a significant mismatch in VA between demand and available funding,? with the consequence, that this ?imbalance ? if unresolved, will delay veterans? access to care and could threaten the quality of health care,? we supported the Task Force?s suggestion of mandatory funding to resolve the problem, and reiterated our arguments for mandatory funding. We addressed in detail other important findings of the Task Force relating to means to strengthen the program.

During the June 17 hearing on the Task Force report, the VA Deputy Secretary, Dr. Leo S. Mackay, Jr., flatly opposed both of the alternative recommendations of the Task Force to solve the ongoing problems stemming from the mismatch between demand and funding for medical care. The VA opposed the Task Force recommendations although the Task Force was created by and served on behalf of the President. Apparently, the Administration did not anticipate such honest assessments and recommendations and was put in the position of opposing them to avoid losing control over funding decisions. Upon being pressed by Committee members about the need for changes in the funding process, the VA Deputy Secretary attempted to argue that the President?s budget request for FY 2004 included enough money to treat all enrolled veterans. Aware of the clear shortfalls in the President?s FY 2004 budget request, the Committee members showed signs of serious doubt about the validity of VA?s position.

On July 10, we appeared before the Senate Veterans? Affairs Committee to offer the DAV?s views on 19 separate bills with multiple provisions. This hodgepodge of measures to modify programs for veterans and protections for servicemembers prompted detailed analysis from us on many of the provisions most pertinent to disabled veterans. Let me mention some of the more notable bills and provisions of interest to our members. Consistent with DAV Resolution 6, we testified in support of S. 517, which would expand the list of diseases subject to presumption of service connection based on an association with internment as a POW. Consistent with DAV Resolution 67, we testified in support of S. 1131, a bill to increase disability compensation, DIC, and the clothing allowance. We gave our full endorsement to S. 1188, a bill Senator Patty Murray (D. Wash.) introduced in the Senate upon DAV?s recommendation to repeal the 2-year limitation on payment of a deceased beneficiary?s accrued benefits to a survivor and to allow a survivor to continue to prosecute the pending claim or appeal of a deceased beneficiary. Like H.R. 241, its companion bill in the House, this bill satisfies the objectives of DAV Resolution 22. Consistent with DAV Resolution 220, we supported S. 1124, which would increase burial and plot allowances. We also articulated our opposition or concerns about other adverse or potentially adverse provisions in some of these bills.

We are hopeful that the Senate will pass some of the most important measures among those we sought and testified on in this massive hearing. The House Veterans? Affairs Committee has already favorably reported some of the legislation the DAV is seeking this year. The prospects of achieving some of our priority legislative goals look promising.

Less promising is the House appropriations bill that includes funding for VA programs. Contrary to the assurances given by members of the House majority leadership during the May 20, 2003, press conference, the appropriations bill marked up on July 15, 2003, by the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee does include provisions to increase co-payments and impose an enrollment fee. To the extent the Government can charge veterans for medical care, it can reduce the amount of appropriations it must provide and, at the same time, count the projected collections to claim it is increasing the budget. This initial version of the House appropriations bill provides approximately $1.8 billion less for veterans? medical care than the amount in the budget resolution adopted by both the House and Senate. Throughout the appropriations process, we will be working to defeat these adverse measures and we will be pressing for more appropriate levels of funding.

We come to the end of the 12-month period following last year?s DAV National Convention and up to this year?s convention with many issues under consideration and unresolved. We are at the beginning phases of the appropriations debate for the FY 2004 budget, which promises to be contentious as usual. Getting adequate funding for medical care and other discretionary programs will be no small challenge. Projections of immense budget deficits over the next several years complicate our effort to get increased funding. The battle for concurrent receipt legislation also continues. We will continue our determined efforts to get full concurrent receipt legislation enacted.

All of these matters are immersed in a swirl of partisan politics, which is not entirely a bad situation for us. Our issues have become prominent in this partisan debate, and the situation gives us opportunities to get greater attention to our concerns and leverage favorable action. We always confront the natural inertia of Congress and some indifference to veterans? issues among legislators who have other priorities. This heightened political debate works in our favor against the inertia and indifference.

We do face more opposition from the present Administration, which appears to be dead set against concurrent receipt legislation, mandatory funding for VA medical care, and any sufficiently higher appropriations for veterans? programs. When VA?s witnesses testify on bills before the Veterans? Affairs Committees of the House and Senate, they are really messengers bearing the Administration?s position on the legislation under consideration. On almost all legislation that will require additional expenditures of money to improve or expand programs for veterans, VA now testifies in opposition, consistent with the Administration?s overarching goal of reducing, rather than expanding, Federal programs. Because VA witnesses testifying before the Committees regularly so exaggerate the costs of the legislation in attempts to defeat it, VA has lost much credibility with the Veterans? Affairs Committees, but VA is nonetheless the custodian of veterans? programs, and Congress still cannot dismiss its views offhandedly. We still have a substantial burden in overcoming VA opposition to the legislation we seek.

On our journey to obtain legislation beneficial to disabled veterans and their families, we therefore do not stride effortlessly from mountaintop to mountaintop. We reach our summits only by negotiating the rough terrain and obstacles below, and by climbing the steep mountainside against the elements, but we have steadily gained ground, and we have held our ground. To continue to reach our objectives against ever increasing resistance, we will continue to analyze our challenges, and we will take the measures necessary to strengthen our effectiveness and our ability to deal with the political realities of the day and to track events.

One of the means by which we will endeavor to meet the goal in our strategic plan of maintaining the DAV?s preeminent position as an advocate for disabled veterans and their families is the best use of current technology and business practices. In the cultural evolution of humankind from the primitive savage whose virtual entire existence involved daily efforts to obtain food and survive, to today?s highly ordered and civilized society, advancements in civilization coincided with advancements in the means to communicate and record ideas and data, ranging from the development of alphabets, to the invention of the printing press, to the advent of the worldwide web and today?s information age. Our effectiveness depends on the ability to obtain accurate and current information, to quickly and widely disseminate that information, and to have the assets and means for rapid and effective feedback to the sources of the information. In short, the national staff must be able to keep abreast of developments and communicate those developments to our members, and our well-informed members must have the means to timely react with the correct message to legislators or other government officials. To be an effective force, we must be effective at all three points in the cycle.

In addition, not only must we have the best technology to gather, disseminate, and act on information, we must have the best technology to analyze information and rebut the disinformation that is as easily disseminated in today?s political climate. During the year, we have continually reviewed and periodically deployed new information technology to follow government actions, and we continue to review on an ongoing basis our own procedures.

The continuation of veterans? programs depends on the continuing popular support of the American people. That is why Goal 5 of the DAV?s Strategic Plan calls for building both government and public awareness and support for veterans? issues. Therefore, beyond keeping our members aware of developments of concern to disabled veterans, we increased our efforts during the year to attract media attention to veteran issues. Working in collaboration with DAV?s Communications Department staff, we sought out media sources by which we could get our message to the public. Through our efforts and the increased and revived appreciation for our men and women in uniform brought about by the war in Afghanistan, the global war on terrorism, and, most recently, the war and ongoing hostilities in Iraq, we have seen a substantial increase in media interest in and coverage of veterans? issues. At the same time, as I noted, veterans? issues have taken a much more prominent place in the political debates in Washington because of the brazen attempts to make drastic cuts in veterans? programs and the major political backlash against these attempts. This, in turn, has put veterans? issues more in the public eye and increased awareness of the importance of veterans? issues among legislators themselves. Many have come to our defense and condemned the very idea of taking benefits away from veterans, for whatever purpose. Threats of this gravity also serve to wake up the complacent among our own ranks.

In addition to updating procedures and information technology, we continue to sharpen our own skills, increase our own knowledge, and employ appropriately what we learn. With fixed resources and seemingly limitless issues, we continually dig for efficiencies and examine our priorities to ensure we are getting the most return feasible from the use of our resources. The complexity, intensity, and magnitude of our work make high efficiency a necessity of survival. There is no room for deadwood.

Because a government cannot possibly do everything that all of its citizens request, it is confronted with difficult choices. It must choose to do what is best with the resources it has. What is best involves moral and practical considerations. Under both, caring for those who have made extraordinary personal sacrifices for our Nation and its citizens to protect us from enemies determined to deprive us of our freedoms and prosperity outranks other goals of government, even though those goals may be meritorious themselves. Veterans? programs must remain a national priority. A nation that abandons its warriors once the swords of its enemies lie rusting on the ground dishonors itself and imperils its future.

As indisputable as this principle is, not all in government appreciate the nature of our indebtedness to disabled veterans and our corresponding overriding obligation to care for them first before pursuing other goals. Seeking to shirk that obligation and default on that debt without being held accountable, some politicians have devised such crafty ways to disguise or misrepresent the real nature and consequences of their actions that it may often be difficult for their constituents to know what is genuine and what is false. Fortunately, our enhanced ability to communicate rapidly with large numbers of our members through modern communications technology enables us to fulfill our obligation to tell the real story of what is happening. Despite the difficulties of defeating misinformation and the frustration and disappointment we feel from realizing that some in government would breach the public trust, we must continue to have faith in the superior power of the plain truth, and the DAV must continue to speak it regardless of who may not receive it favorably. If, like some politicians, we shaded the truth, we would diminish our credibility and thus our own strength as advocates. Although we necessarily seek support from legislators and form alliances to achieve our legislative goals, we allow ourselves to become beholden to no one, only our own consciences.

As we look forward to a new year?s growth, we can pursue our course with what we have learned from this year?s experience, and all the productive years of growth before. When those politicians who do not support us feel our heat, they may very well try to use smoke to hide from the light the true nature of their actions. We must continue to effectively confront such politicians with the plain truth. When they tell us that, with all the other pressing government obligations and the decreases in revenues from massive tax reductions, our Nation cannot afford to honor its debt to disabled veterans, we must confront them with the plain truth that no smokescreen can obscure?that veterans are a top priority, that veterans? programs are a continuing cost of national defense, that our citizens will not accept excuses for reneging on our obligation to disabled veterans.

Looking forward, we will therefore meet the increasing challenges of the current political climate through good information technology, honest reasonable advocacy, the plain truth, and the strengths of our determination and shared commitment of our members. We will fulfill our mission by staying clearly focused on that mission and clearly articulating the undeniable merits of our cause.

When you grow taller than the rest, you are more of an obstruction and more of a target for the fury of adverse winds. To remain standing against all opposing forces, even the strongest tree must bend some to the passing winds, but it returns immediately and repeatedly to its straight and upright position. After the fleeting winds are long gone, the grand tree still stands. In the DAV, our trunk is strong and our roots are deep. We are appropriately flexible and adaptable to changing circumstances to achieve our ultimate goals. Even though we may be disabled, we are hardy in spirit, we are enduring, and we are resilient. We have thrived through many long seasons and changing political climates. We have done so because of the rightness of cause, our unwavering resolve to see justice done, and the strong bonds that hold us together for our common purpose.

Thank you for your support during the past year. I ask you to continue your support and participation. Keep the DAV tree growing.

*************************************************

:cd: :cd: :cd: :cd: :cd:

[Gimpy]

flabbergasted that there have been NO responses from the "right-headed" conservatives around here to attempt a justifiable "excuse" for the information contained in this report???

NAW, I guess I'm really NOT surprised at all. Cause there ARE no "excuses" for this HORSESHIT!!!!

:cd: :cd: :cd: :cd: :cd: :cd:

[Gimpy]

More evidence of Congressional & Bush administration deception regarding VA health care & benefits.

Wednesday, August 20, 2003


Veterans plan to exact action at polls
GOP-led House reneges on pledge to pass $3.2 billion for VA medical care
By Dennis Camire / Gannett News Service

WASHINGTON -- Veterans are condemning House Republicans' failure to deliver a $3.2 billion boost for the Veterans Affairs Department that would have shrunk the agency's waiting list for medical care.
"A shameless betrayal" is how AMVETS sums it up.
"A moral outrage," the American Legion said.
"Abominable" is the word from the Non Commissioned Officers Association.
"Veterans have been pushed to the limits," said Joe Violante, national legislative director for Disabled American Veterans. "They're being lied to, and they're not tolerating it."
The broken promise -- the second time in a year Congress has reneged on a pledge to veterans -- has veterans vowing to remember at the ballot box.
"They're saying there has got to be a change made because if there isn't, we're never going to get what we're due," said Richard DeLong, a Vietnam veteran in Lafayette, La.
During April budget debates, the GOP-led House -- under criticism for not putting enough money into VA medical care -- approved a nonbinding budget that promised to increase VA medical spending by $1.8 billion more than the additional $1.4 billion President Bush had requested.
The money would have helped more than 132,000 veterans who wait six months or longer for their first VA doctor's appointment. Although the VA's medical budget has increased $8.3 billion in the past seven years, the agency's spending on each patient has decreased $624.
Last month, House Republican leadership, bowing to Bush administration pressure to curb spending and their own desire for hometown projects, cut the promised $1.8 billion. Of the House Veterans Affairs Committee's 31 members, 20 voted against the bill, including committee Chairman Chris Smith, R-N.J., and top Democrat Lane Evans of Illinois.
The bill's next step is Senate consideration this fall.
"We got fooled, and we got whupped," said Richard F. Weidman, director of government relations for Vietnam Veterans of America. "We are not going to let individual members of this Congress forget this vote."
American Legion national commander Ronald F. Conley said the discouraging part is that the House GOP leadership warned Republicans that pet projects in the bill would be in jeopardy if they didn't vote yes.
"We have the money to pay for a statue of the Roman god Vulcan in Birmingham, Ala. We have money to pay for a bike trail in North Dakota. We have money to fund a Nevada helicopter company that performs Elvis impersonator weddings," Conley said. "And yet we have neither the heart nor the will to ensure that all United States veterans receive the medical care they earned and we owe them."
President Bush may hear more on the issue Tuesday when he is to speak to 13,000 delegates at the American Legion's national convention in St. Louis.
Congress' actions have many veterans talking about political consequences.
"Veterans more and more are beginning to sense a loss of faith and confidence in the administration," said Richard C. Schneider, director of veteran and state affairs for the Non Commissioned Officers Association. "They're no longer willing to be the quiet, accepting veterans that they have been in the past. I think they're actually going to hold some people accountable."
Veterans are talking about increasing turnout at the polls next year, veterans groups say.
************************************************