2001-2002 ANNUAL REPORT of the
DISABLED AMERICAN VETERANS
by
JOSEPH A. VIOLANTE
NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR
for presentation to
THE 81ST NATIONAL CONVENTION
DALLAS, TEXAS
AUGUST 10-14, 2002 WEB MASTER NOTE:
 CLICK HERE TO GO DIRECTLY TO
THE SPECIFIC TOPIC OF D.A.V.'S REPORT ON
CONCURRENT RECEIPT
NATIONAL COMMANDER GEORGE H. STEESE,
JR., AND DISTINGUISHED DELEGATES:
How things can change in the short span of a year’s time.
I brought you last year’s report with all the optimism
of a promising future in a new millennium and with a
bright outlook from surpluses in the Federal budget.
I report to you this year against the backdrop of a world
that has markedly changed from when I reported to you
last year. The turbulent events of this year have
impacted greatly on all our lives. They most certainly
heightened our appreciation for our men and women in
uniform. However, it remains to be seen whether they
will substantially impact on our quest to build better
lives for America’s disabled veterans.
At this point, some of the signs are encouraging;
others are not so encouraging.
Franklin Roosevelt said: “Those who have enjoyed
such privileges as we enjoy forget in time that men
have died to win them.” As disabled veterans, we
also know all too well that our Government tends to
forget that young men and women have sacrificed
their health and suffer life-long disabilities to
preserve our freedoms and protect our Nation.
No other country on earth could have rooted out
an entrenched terrorist enemy in its home territory
protected by a host government as we Americans did
in the war in Afghanistan. Without a strong military,
we would have been helplessly paralyzed by the events
of September 11, 2001. We could not have responded
rapidly and effectively, and we could not have
curtailed further terrorist acts.
Without young men and women willing to serve,
we could not have a strong military. Our debt to
them is beyond calculation and expression in terms
of dollars, and whether we repay that debt to them
as veterans should never depend on its cost in dollars,
especially as long as we are among the most
prosperous nations on earth because of their
willingness to serve. We are the envy of the world,
and we owe it to those who are and have been willing
to lay their lives on the line in the service of their
country.
In the DAV, we fulfill our organizational responsibility
only if we refuse to let our Government conveniently
forget that our most compelling national obligation
and the most important part of our national debt is our
debt to disabled veterans.
As our Nation stood in shock at the terrorist attacks,
and as the actions of our Armed Forces dominated
the national news, the DAV’s leaders swung into action
on a variety of fronts to assist our comrades in need.
The attack on our homeland brought the DAV’s
legislative agenda for our Nation’s defenders more to
the forefront. Congress seemed more acutely aware
of our responsibility to veterans, but the detrimental
effect the attacks had on our economy has made
improvements in veterans’ programs a greater
challenge because of the decreasing availability
of funds.
Here, I report to you on the legislative activities that
have taken place since the end of last year’s report,
in this environment of increased patriotism and
national awareness, but also under circumstances
of a declining national economy, falling government
revenues, increased defense spending, and
increasing projected budget deficits. Before I detail those activities, let me acknowledge,
on behalf of the entire legislative staff, those who
played essential and valuable roles in our effort.
National Commander Steese and his outstanding
group of National Officers took our message to
Congress and across the country. We are particularly indebted to National
Adjutant Art Wilson for the key direction and
fiscal support he gives to our legislative activities
and to DAV Washington Headquarters
Executive Director Dave Gorman for his insight
and encouragement. We continue to profit from the counsel we receive from
Past National Commander Oliver Meadows and the
members of the Interim Legislative Committee—Gene
Murphy, Tommy Tomlinson, Al Linden, and Donald
Peek, Jr. Our National Service Officers continue to
be our best source of feedback on the practical effects
of existing law and the need for improvements in
veterans’ programs. Of course, I must acknowledge
the dedication and professional work of those who
assist me every day with numerous and complex issues,
those on DAV’s Legislative Staff in Washington.
They are: Deputy National Legislative Director
Rick Surratt, Assistant National Legislative Director
Joy Ilem, Associate National Legislative Director
Brian Lawrence, and Legislative Support Specialists
Lisa Bogle and Caren Wooley.
Beneficial legislation for veterans is the product of
teamwork. None of us alone can accomplish what
all of us working together can accomplish. The
stronger the team, the better the chance of success.
I say with confidence that the DAV’s grassroots
lobby is one of the strongest. My sincere thanks
go out to our Benefits Protection Team Leaders who
organize our grassroots networks and orchestrate
our grassroots campaigns. Our Auxiliary
grassroots participants supercharge our grassroots
lobbying by DAV members.
Our Auxiliary leadership has increased its focus
on and participation in our legislative campaigns,
and we owe much of our success to the diligent
efforts of our Auxiliary members. To increase
the effectiveness of our grassroots lobby, many
DAV and Auxiliary members have signed on to
our DAV “Commander’s Action Network,” or “DAV
CAN,” where they are in the ready position for
rapid action when called upon by the National
Legislative Staff. We currently have 5005 members
in this special group of veteran activists.
To everyone who contributes to the DAV’s
legislative efforts, I extend my sincere gratitude.
Amid much anxiety and many uncertainties
about America’s future economic strength
and the availability of Federal funding, we
have been largely successful in getting
beneficial legislation enacted for disabled
veterans because of our teamwork, persistence,
and dedication to purpose.
As we were preparing for last year’s National
Convention, we were continuing to follow the
annual budget process and other ongoing issues of
concern to our members.
On July 10, 2001, we testified before the
Benefits Subcommittee of the House Veterans’
Affairs Committee regarding several bills.
Among the bills more important to our members
that we testified on were H.R. 862, H.R. 1406,
H.R. 2359, and H.R. 2361. We supported
H.R. 862, a bill to add type-2 diabetes to the
statutory list of diseases for which service
connection may be presumed in the case of veterans
exposed to herbicide agents in Vietnam.
We also supported H.R. 1406, a bill to improve and
expand provisions for presumptive service
connection for undiagnosed or poorly defined
illnesses occurring in Persian Gulf War veterans.
We recommended that Congress extend the time
for application of the presumption. We opposed
a provision in H.R. 2359 that would have authorized
VA to pay life insurance proceeds to other than the
designated beneficiary if that beneficiary did not
claim the proceeds within a set time.
We supported provisions for a cost-of-living
increase for compensation and related benefits
in H.R. 2361.
On July 19. 2001, we testified before the Senate
Veterans’ Affairs Committee on a number of bills.
Of primary concern to us was S. 739, The Heather
French Henry Homeless Veterans Assistance Act.
Discussing the causes and problems of
homelessness among veterans, and its solutions,
we supported S. 739, which included a variety
of measures to improve and coordinate programs
for assisting homeless veterans.
During the final months of the 1st Session of the
107th Congress, we testified before the House
Veterans’ Affairs Committee and some of its
subcommittees on five additional occasions.
Among the more important bills, we testified
further on bills to improve assistance to homeless
veterans, H.R. 2716 and H.R. 936.
Other issues involved the provision of service dogs
for disabled veterans, improvements in the
administration of health care programs for veterans,
the capacity of the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA) to play a supportive role in response to major
terrorist attacks, and reform of the rules on
eligibility for burial in Arlington National Cemetery.
During this same period, we were continuing our
campaign for legislation to authorize concurrent
receipt of military retired pay and disability
compensation, as well as following work by Congress
on the fiscal year (FY) 2002 appropriations bill for
VA programs. In late July of 2001, we alerted our
grassroots of a ruse by some in Congress to avoid
action on real concurrent receipt legislation.
The House leadership was proposing provisions for
concurrent receipt that would be included in the
defense authorization act to replace popular
freestanding concurrent receipt bills, H.R. 303
and S. 170.
While most other organizations embraced this move
in the House, we made it clear to our members that
these new provisions only gave the illusion of
authorizing concurrent receipt while in effect doing
nothing at all to authorize it.
We saw this as a ploy and a way for members of
Congress to claim support for concurrent receipt by
pointing to their vote for this purely symbolic measure
without having to vote for real concurrent receipt
legislation, which would cost the Government
a substantial sum.
Despite the massive grassroots campaign by our
members, this provision was eventually enacted, and
left the matter of concurrent receipt unresolved.
Our efforts were not without benefit, however. The
thousands upon thousands of e-mails and other
forms of contact with Congress focused attention
so much on this issue, that Congress was unable
to simply enact this symbolic legislation and
thereby avoid facing the matter.
Our frank advice to our members about the
deceptive nature of this congressional action
armed them with enough information to
confront their legislators and prevent members of
Congress from walking away from this issue
without real action.
In our grassroots campaign, our
members relied heavily upon
e-mails sent through our legislative
action service on DAV’s Internet website.
Based in part on the large volume of
e-mails sent
via the DAV website to Congress
regarding concurrent
receipt, the DAV was chosen to be the
first named by Capitol Advantage to
receive its award for superior
knowledge and proficiency in use of
the Internet for grassroots lobbying,
or “cyberadvocacy.”
Many well-known advocacy organizations
and public interest groups use
Capitol Advantage’s CapWiz service for
grassroots lobbying. As the first to
be recognized for this achievement
and as the initial recipient of this
award from Capitol Advantage, DAV gained
the prestige and exclusive status of
being the inaugural member of the
“CapWiz Honor Roll.”
We also mounted a successful grassroots
effort to foil a bill to combine
Veterans Day with Election Day.
With veterans’ strong opposition clearly
expressed, the bill never gained sufficient
support to be moved forward in Congress.
On December 15, 2001, the House passed H.
Res. 298 by a vote of 415-0. This
resolution expressed the sense of the
House of Representatives that Veterans Day
should continue to be observed on November
11 and separate from any other Federal holiday
or day for Federal elections or national
observances.
In addition, we urged Congress not to
enact legislation to extend medical copayments
beyond their scheduled ending date.
This campaign forestalled statutory extension
of the copayments. After a typical hard-fought
battle to obtain adequate funding for veterans’
programs, the President signed, on November 26,
2001, the VA appropriations bill for FY 2002,
which provided substantially increased funding,
but, as is typical, did not fully meet the
funding levels sought by DAV and the three
other veterans organizations that make
resource recommendations each year in The
Independent Budget.
In the final months of 2001, our statistics
showed that, on average, approximately
80,000 e-mails were being sent to government
officials through the DAV website every 6
months. Obviously, many more contacts were
being made by telephone, facsimile, personal
visits, and regular mail.
These contacts obviously led to many successes
and, on the whole, proved effective in our
quest for favorable legislation.
Several other pieces of veterans’ legislation
were enacted near the end of the 1st Session
of the 107th Congress.
Public Law 107-94, the Veterans’
Compensation Rate Amendments of 2001,
increased the rates for
compensation and related benefits by
2.6 percent effective December 1, 2001.
Public Law 107-95, the Homeless
Veterans Comprehensive Assistance
Act of 2001, included a number of
provisions to achieve a national
goal of ending homelessness
among veterans.
One of the more comprehensive acts
for disabled veterans was Public
Law 107-103, the Veterans
Education and Benefits Expansion
Act of 2001.
This law contained several
benefit improvements sought by
the DAV. It repealed the estate
limitation for mentally
incompetent veterans. It restored
the presumption that Vietnam
veterans were exposed to herbicides,
increased specially adapted
housing and automobile grants
for severely disabled veterans,
and increased
the plot allowance and the burial
allowance for service-connected
veterans. In addition,
it removed the 30-year limitation
on the time for presuming
service connection for respiratory
cancer as related to herbicide
exposure, expanded and improved
provisions for service connection
of undiagnosed and poorly defined
illnesses in Persian Gulf War
veterans, liberalized provisions
for entitlement to nonservice-
connected pension, authorized
bronze markers for already
marked graves of veterans
buried in private cemeteries,
increased
home loan guaranty amounts
and extended the Native American
home loan program, and increased
education allowances for survivors
and dependents and those
eligible under the Montgomery GI Bill.
Public Law 107-135, the Department of Veterans
Affairs Health Care Programs Enhancement Act
of 2001, expanded VA’s authority to recruit and
retain nurses, authorized consideration of
regional differences in the cost of living for
income determinations for medical care purposes,
mandated that VA maintain specialized medical
programs at specified levels, authorized service
dogs for veterans with certain disabilities,
authorized chiropractic care for veterans, and
authorized major medical facility construction.
Again, despite our disappointment in lawmakers’
failure to enact meaningful concurrent receipt
legislation during the 1st Session of the
107th Congress, our efforts were otherwise
fruitful, and, in the 2nd Session, we
continue unabated our drive for concurrent
receipt legislation. Improving the delivery
of health care to veterans and improving the
efficiency of VA’s health care delivery system
is another area of ongoing
attention.
With the yearly ordeal of obtaining adequate
appropriations for medical care, DAV began
a new push in 2002 to have VA medical care
funded as a mandatory program under the budget
rather than through discretionary spending.
Changing veterans’ medical care from a
discretionary to a mandatory program would
alleviate a number of problems. With funding
at sufficient levels mandated by law rather
than funding being subject to the politics
of the annual appropriations process,
service-connected veterans would be guaranteed
the health care they need, and medical
facility directors could better plan their
programs with advance knowledge of what
resources they will have available. Inadequate
funding would no longer require the
rationing of medical care, and veterans would
be able to obtain clinic appointments in a
timely fashion.
In January 2002, we provided testimony to
the President’s Task Force to Improve Health
Care to our Nation’s Veterans regarding
coordination of health care services by VA
and the Department of Defense (DOD).
While we acknowledged that efficiencies could
be realized from VA and DOD sharing their
health care resources, we stated our adamant
opposition to merger of VA and DOD health
care systems.
We reminded the Task Force that veterans
deserve a health care system devoted solely to
caring for their needs, and we stated our
position that veterans’ health care programs
should be funded under a mandatory spending
account rather than as a discretionary
item in the Federal budget.
We stated just as forcefully our opposition
to the President’s recommendation that
Congress enact legislation to require veterans
with dual eligibility for medical care
to choose either VA or DOD and not be
permitted to use both systems.
In testimony before the Health Subcommittee
of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee,
we commented on various initiatives by the
military to better address prevention and
treatment of illnesses stemming from combat
and unique exposure of service members
to environmental hazards.
When it convened in January 2002, one of
the first major tasks of the 2nd Session
of the 107th Congress was to begin work
on the Federal budget for FY 2003.
This process formally began when the President
submitted his proposed budget in February.
On the President’s budget proposal for VA,
we testified before the House Veterans’ Affairs
Committee on February 13, 2002, and before
the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee on
the following day.
In addition to recommending higher funding levels
for VA programs than the amounts requested in
the President’s budget, we urged the
Committees to act on several of our
recommendations in The
Independent Budget to improve the benefit programs,
the benefit delivery system, and the appellate
processes for veterans. Of course, National
Commander Steese’s statement on February 27,
2002, to the House and Senate Veterans’
Affairs Committees presented our views on the
VA budget and other issues important to disabled
veterans.
In observing that inadequate resources were
requiring VA to ration veterans’ health care,
he called upon Committee members to work for
substantial increases in the appropriations
for medical care and made the case
for legislation to change veterans’ health care
to a mandatory program. He emphasized the
injustice in the offset between military
retired pay and veterans’ disability
compensation and renewed his call that the
Committee members reinforce their work
for concurrent receipt legislation.
During our Midwinter conference, many of you also
pressed the DAV’s legislative priorities upon
your legislators.
On March 7, 2002, health care sharing between VA
and DOD was once again the issue when we
testified before a joint hearing of the Military
Personnel Subcommittee of the House Armed
Services Committee and the Health Subcommittee
of the House Veterans’ Affairs Committee.
We again supported the concept of cooperation
and sharing of some resources between VA and DOD
but opposed any move to merge the two systems
into one.
While the challenges and funding crises
facing veterans’ health care programs occupied
much of our time, we also moved aggressively
forward on other issues on our legislative agenda.
We worked closely with staff in the House to
craft legislation to improve the appellate
processes for veterans.
On March 20, 2002, Congressman Lane Evans (D-Ill.)
introduced H.R. 4018, the Veterans Judicial Review
Improvement Act of 2002.
This bill would change the level of scrutiny
the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans
Claims (CAVC) gives decisions of the Board of
Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) so that CAVC would be
required to reverse BVA factual findings that
are inconsistent with the benefit-of-the-doubt rule.
It would provide authority for CAVC to enter a
default judgment against VA in a case where VA
fails to timely file a pleading or briefs with
CAVC.
It would expand the jurisdiction of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
to include all questions of law, require
expeditious treatment of cases remanded by CAVC to
BVA or by BVA to VA field offices, and provide
authority for CAVC to order interim benefits
when BVA or a VA field office does not decide a
remanded case within 180 days. It would
authorize CAVC to extend the time allowed for
filing a notice of appeal for certain equitable
reasons. As soon as this bill was introduced,
we launched a grassroots campaign to get support
and cosponsorship from other members of Congress.
To date, the bill has 58 cosponsors.
April 2002 was a busy month for congressional
hearings. On April 10, 2002, we appeared
before the Health Subcommittee of the House
Veterans’ Affairs Committee to testify on
bills to establish within VA emergency
preparedness centers, rapid response capabilities
for assistance to local health care authorities,
research, and education and training for
response to bio-terrorism.
We observed that VA, with its nationwide
health care system, is an excellent health
care resource to have in reserve for national
emergencies, but we also noted that VA would need
additional appropriations to allow it to prepare
for this part of its mission.
In an April 11, 2002, hearing before the Benefits
Subcommittee of the House Veterans’ Affairs
Committee, we testified about four bills to
make changes in various benefit provisions.
Among the provisions of
interest to disabled veterans were improvements
to VA life insurance programs. We supported
a change in law to base premiums for
Service-Disabled Veterans’ Insurance (SDVI)
on modern mortality tables rather than the
1941 mortality table now prescribed by law,
a change in law to increase the face value of
Veterans’ Mortgage Life Insurance (VMLI) from
$90,000 to $200,000, and repeal of a provision
in law that now requires termination of VMLI
coverage at age 70.
On April 16, 2002, we testified before the VA, HUD,
and Independent Agencies Subcommittee of the
House Appropriations Committee on the
President’s VA budget proposal, where we again
made a strong pitch for changing VA health care
to a mandatory program.
On April 18, 2002, we presented testimony to
the Benefits Subcommittee of the House Veterans’
Affairs Committee on H.R. 4015, a bill to
improve employment, training, and job
placement services for veterans. On April 24,
2002, we testified in support of a bill
containing additional authority and funding to
enable VA to undertake additional construction
for improvement, renovation, and modernization
of medical facilities most in need of this
construction.
In April 2002, we also launched a grassroots
campaign to get support in the Senate for S. 2079,
a bill that Veterans’ Affairs Committee
Chairman Senator John D. Rockefeller, IV (D-W.Va.)
introduced at our request.
This bill contained some of the same provisions
contained by H.R. 4018 to improve appellate
processes for veterans, and is one of DAV’s top
legislative priorities.
On May 2, 2002, we went before the Senate Veterans’
Affairs Committee to testify on S. 2079 and 26
other separate bills covering a wide range
of issues. Noteworthy among these 26 other
bills were provisions in S. 1113, S. 2025,
S. 1408, S. 1561, S. 2187, S. 1576, S. 1905,
S. 2003, S. 2043, S. 2044, S. 2074, S. 2205,
S. 2209, S. 2228, S. 2229, S. 2231,
and S. 2237.
Principally, both S. 1113 and S. 2025 would
increase the amount of the special pension for
veterans on the Medal of Honor Roll. As a
participant in The Independent Budget,
we supported these bills. Regarding S. 1408,
which would make the income threshold for
medication copayments the same as the
income threshold for determining inability
to defray expenses of medical care, we
reminded the Committee of the DAV’s objection
to medical care or prescription copayments of
any kind.
We urged the Committee to let the temporary
authority for collection of copayments expire
on September 30, 2002. As a reaction to the
September 11, 2001, terrorist attack,
S. 1561, S. 2132, and S. 2187 all contained
provisions to equip VA to participate
in furnishing emergency medical care following
attacks of bioterrorism and similar major
disasters or medical emergencies. While DAV
has no resolution on these issues, we noted
with approval their beneficial goals.
We supported the goals of S. 1576, a bill to
extend to December 31, 2011, special health
care eligibility for veterans who served in
Southwest Asia during the Persian Gulf War.
Observing the beneficial goals of S. 1905, which
would authorize newborn care for children of
enrolled veterans and eliminate the requirement
of at least 90 days internment as a prisoner of
war for eligibility for outpatient dental care,
we voiced our approval of these bills.
We testified in support of S. 2003, a bill to
clarify the prohibition against assignment of
veterans’ benefits to third parties.
This bill was introduced in response to our
concern about practices in which disabled veterans
are enticed to trade their future compensation for
lump sum payments that only amount to a fraction
of the amount of the compensation.
We supported S. 2043, which contained provisions
to add another 5 years to the VA’s temporary
authority for extended and nursing home care
for service-connected veterans. Similarly, we
supported S. 2044, which would increase funding
for, and improve, specialized mental health
services for veterans, and S. 2228 which would
authorize VA to operate up to 15 centers for
mental illness research, education, and clinical
activities. Two of the bills would provide
cost-of-living increases for compensation,
S. 2074 and S. 2229. We supported these bills,
of course.
We also supported S. 2205. This bill provides
that the service-connected loss of half or more
of a breast qualifies as loss of a breast for
purposes of entitlement to special monthly
compensation.
Other provisions would convert the temporary
authority for counseling and treatment of
sexual trauma victims to permanent authority
and would require special reporting from VA to
the Veterans’ Affairs Committees regarding the
health care furnished to women veterans.
Under S. 2209, a new life insurance program
for service disabled veterans would offer up
to $50,000 in coverage at a price comparable
to that of commercial coverage for healthy
persons. This provision is
consistent with DAV Resolution No. 104. In
accordance with a recommendation in The
Independent Budget, premiums for existing
SDVI policyholders would be reduced by
basing them on current mortality experience instead of
1941 mortality tables. We supported
this bill in our testimony.
S. 2231 would increase the amount of the
monthly allowance under the Survivors’ and
Dependents’ Educational Assistance program but
reduce the
duration of the program from 45 to 36 months.
We supported the bill’s provisions to increase
the education allowance but opposed provisions
to reduce the length of the program.
The basis for paying special monthly compensation
for hearing loss would be liberalized by S. 2237.
This bill would also require independent
scientific review of evidence on occupational
hearing loss, particularly acoustic trauma
associated with military service and would require
VA to consider the merits of a presumption of
service connection for hearing loss and tinnitus
as a result of certain military occupations. We
supported this bill as consistent with recommendations by The
Independent Budget.
Meanwhile, our efforts to obtain concurrent receipt
legislation were ongoing. In May, we alerted
our members of a threat by the Administration
to veto the defense authorization bill if it
included provisions for concurrent receipt of
military retired pay and disability compensation.
Thousands of you sent letters to the President.
While we have seen no change in the White House’s
official position, we hope the President
will be persuaded not to veto this bill because
it corrects this longstanding injustice against
military retirees.
On May 14, 2002, we testified in a hearing held
by the National Security, Veterans’ Affairs,
and International Relations Subcommittee of the
House Government Reform Committee. The
Subcommittee wanted to hear about the fairness
of VA’s formula for determining the funding levels
for
its medical facilities, specifically whether the
formula appropriately takes into account the
impact of regional variances in patient
demographics and case mix.
We reviewed for the Subcommittee some of the
identified shortcomings in the Veterans Equitable
Resource Allocation (VERA), some of VA’s
efforts to fine tune VERA’s application to
make it more accurately match resources with
workload, and our concerns that the needs
of some service-connected veterans were not
being met because of funding shortfalls across
the Nation. We again took this opportunity to
press for legislation to make veterans’ health
care a mandatory program.
On May 16, 2002, we went before the Oversight
Subcommittee of the House Veterans’ Affairs
Committee to present our views on VA’s
management of medical and prosthetic research
programs. We noted that opportunities to
conduct research attract qualified physicians
and provide an incentive to improve medicine
in ways that ultimately benefit veterans
receiving medical care through VA.
We reinforced the consensus that medical
and prosthetic research is an invaluable asset
to VA, and we noted the necessity for Congress
to continue to appropriate significant funds to
keep the program effective and viable.
On June 6, 2002, we appeared before the
Benefits Subcommittee of the House Veterans’
Affairs Committee to testify about VA’s
progress in implementing recommendations by
the VA Claims Processing Task Force. We
based our testimony about the status of
these reforms and initiatives in VA field
offices on information our DAV National
Service Officers provided.
We noted a number of areas in which VA had
begun to effectively implement recommendations
for improving claims processing.
We also discussed old VA habits of taking
action to make itself look good at the
expense of actually improving its efficiency.
We provided our own recommendations on steps
VA could and should take to improve service to
veterans.
We were back before the Benefits Subcommittee
on June 11, 2002, to give our views on
several bills under consideration.
Generally, these bills contained provisions
pertaining to servicemembers still on active
duty and other administrative provisions
pertaining to veterans’ programs.
None of the bills had provisions
objectionable to us. Similarly, we
posed no objection when we testified before
the Health Subcommittee on June 13, 2002,
on a bill to extend VA health care benefits
to certain members of Filipino military
units that fought along side our Armed
Forces during World War II.
We noted that expanding VA health care
eligibility to this deserving group should
be accompanied by additional appropriations
to cover the added workload, however.
On June 16, 2002, we gave testimony to the
Health Subcommittee on a bill to reform the
process through which VA purchases its medical
care supplies from vendors. We agreed that
the bill’s provisions would yield cost savings
that could be used to provide more medical
treatment to more veterans.
During a June 18, 2002, meeting with President
Bush, National Commander Steese, accompanied
by National Adjutant Art Wilson and Washington
Headquarters Executive Director Dave Gorman,
raised with the President some of our
legislative priorities, including the
importance of concurrent receipt legislation
and the advantages of mandatory funding for
veterans’ health care.
We provided testimony to the Senate Veterans’
Affairs Committee on July 10, 2002, regarding
VA and DOD strategies for furnishing appropriate
health care to veterans who might have been
exposed to environmental hazards during their
military service. Observing that members of the
Armed Forces are subject to exposure to many
potentially harmful and injurious environmental
hazards unique to the military, we emphasized the
necessity for DOD to share information with VA
regarding such exposures and for the two
departments to cooperate fully on identification,
treatment, and prevention regarding exposure to
harmful hazards to minimize the adverse
consequences to our people in uniform.
We made specific recommendations to improve
medical examination and other procedures for
those who may have come into contact with toxins
or other hazardous materials.
We testified in a hearing before the House
Veterans’ Affairs Committee on July 16, 2002,
on the issue of paying for some VA medical care
through reimbursements from the Medicare program.
Although the DAV supports the concept of
reimbursement from Medicare for treatment of
Medicare-eligible veterans’ nonservice-connected
disabilities, we voiced some concerns about
H.R. 4939, the Veterans Medicare Payment Act of 2002.
Namely, we objected to the lack of any
distinction between service-connected and
nonservice-connected disabilities for purposes
of reimbursement.
We believe the cost of treatment for
service-connected disabilities is a
cost of national defense that should be borne
by the Government out of
general tax revenues rather than the veteran’s
Medicare premiums. We repeated our position
that VA should have the money from Medicare
collections in addition to, not in place of,
full appropriations, thereby
permitting VA to use the extra money to improve
its health care delivery beyond what it can do
with the current limited appropriations. Again,
we reminded the Committee that veterans earned
the right to have their health care system
funded as a mandatory program.
On July 25, 2002, we provided for the Benefits
Subcommittee of the House Veterans’ Affairs
Committee DAV’s views on the effectiveness of the
Transition Assistance Program (TAP) and the Disabled
Transition Assistance Program (DTAP). These
programs aid separating servicemembers in
the transition from military service to
civilian life. We noted the beneficial nature
of these programs and recommended that they
be expanded and improved to better serve
a greater number of individuals leaving
military service.
In addition to these many congressional hearings in which we appeared
as witnesses on a broad range of issues, we attended many more where
other witnesses testified on veterans’ issues and attended committee
meetings conducted to mark up bills to be reported to the full House or
Senate for a vote.
As we come to our 81st National Convention this year, we are nearing
the end of the 107th Congress. As is typical, final work on veterans’
legislation is yet to be completed by Congress. While Congress has
agreed upon a supplemental appropriations bill that includes a badly
needed additional $417 million for veterans’ medical care this year,
neither the House nor Senate has a FY 2003 VA appropriations
bill to consider at this time.
The House has passed its annual defense authorization bill,
with provisions included for phased-in concurrent receipt for
veterans retired from the military on longevity with 60
percent or greater service-connected disabilities.
The Senate passed its companion defense authorization bill
with an amendment to authorize full concurrent receipt
for all disabled longevity retired veterans with 20 or more years’
service. A conference committee must now resolve the differences
between
the two bills. Of course, we are pressing to keep the
Senate version, but the fight will be hard. The threat of a
Presidential veto still hangs over this legislation and gives
conferees an excuse to retain the less costly House provision,
or worse, to do nothing. Our initiative for legislation to
make VA health care a mandatory program is well under
way and gaining acceptance and momentum in Congress.
While we have support from the Veterans’ Affairs Committees,
persuading congressional leadership may be a greater
challenge, simply because of the commitment of guaranteed
funding it requires. Work is also proceeding on legislation
urged by the DAV to improve the appellate processes for veterans.
As this legislation is acted on by the Senate, we will intensify our
efforts to get it moved forward in the House, where it has so far
faced some resistance from the majority party.
The House has passed several veterans’ bills, and the Senate
will be considering those bills and ones reported by its own
Veterans’ Affairs Committee in the near future. From
this, we expect to achieve a few more of DAV’s modest
but meaningful legislative goals this year.
Much of our work is undone, but we can see the fruits of
our labor in the distance. Since I last reported to you,
we have traveled far, but we have traveled together.
We still have a considerable distance to tread before we
reach our destination, but we will arrive there, and we
will arrive together. All of us here can then look at each
other with a gleam of pride in our eyes and celebrate for
a short time the accomplishments we achieved together,
working as a team. Then, we must promptly
and deliberately move on, for there is always more
important work waiting in our business of building
better lives for America’s disabled veterans and
their families, and we will not get it done resting on our
laurels. Our pause for celebration is therefore
always a brief one.
We cannot rest until all of America’s wartime disabled
veterans have been cared for.
Our ultimate joy is in achievement for the benefit of
disabled veterans, but we also achieve much in the joy of
toiling together for our common cause.
In the DAV, we face great challenges, but we have
an extraordinary team, bound by the most honorable
principles and noble goals. For the year ahead,
I ask you to help me build and strengthen
our team even more, because the challenges will grow
ever more formidable.
As life itself becomes ever more complex and daunting,
so does our task, but we are driven to do what is necessary
and right, and we are confident in our own abilities.
Many successes in our long, proud history prove that we
are on the right path. Thank you for walking that
path with me to add another good year to our history.
|
