With four weeks remaining before the election, the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) released its report cards on members of the 110th Congress. Grading was based on legislation that affected veterans and their families.
In the Senate, Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona earned a ‘D’ on the report card, while his Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, finished the term with a ‘B.’ Grades were based on nine votes covering a range of issue including veterans’ health care, the new GI Bill, mental health and support for homeless veterans.
Both of the nominees’ grades were hindered by their attendance. While hitting the campaign trail for potential votes, McCain missed six of the nine votes, while his counterpart, Obama, missed four of the votes.
The IAVA, the largest organization of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, says it is committed to holding elected officials accountable through its nonprofit, nonpartisan 501, the IAVA Action Fund. The advocacy group released the report card on Oct. 6 to educate American voters on the voting records of elected officials and hold them them accountable for their actions regarding the 1.7 million veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The report card scores are based on how often legislators voted in favor of pro-veteran positions that align with the IAVA Action. All of the bills were equally weighted, except the 21st Century GI Bill, which was doubled because it was the IAVA’s top legislative priority.
The latter boded well for Obama, who co-sponsored the bill, but adversely affected McCain, who not only did not support the final version of the bill, but, while fundraising in California, missed the vote. McCain did co-sponsor an alternative bill, which was quickly shot down in the Senate, because it conflicted with Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb’s version of the bill.
Voting against the new GI Bill affected Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who received a ‘C’ on the report card, while his colleague Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, received the highest rating, an ‘A+’.
In the House, Iowa’s freshmen Democrats, Reps. Bruce Braley, District 1, and Dave Loebsack,District 2, joined Harkin at the top with an ‘A+.’ They were closely followed by Reps. Leonard Boswell, D- District 3 and Tom Latham, R- District 4, who received an ‘A,’ and Rep. Steve King, R-District 5, who earned a ‘B’.
The IAVA used 13 votes in the House to assess grades
Showing posts with label chuck grassley. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chuck grassley. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 8, 2008
Monday, July 7, 2008
Iowa Vets Finally Have a Place to Rest in Peace
Since March 2003, 67 soldiers with Iowa ties have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. And now, thanks to the recent dedication of the Iowa Veterans Cemetery (IVC) in Van Meter, Iowa’s latest fallen soldiers will have a final resting place in Iowa, where family and friends can pay their respects.“This cemetery will be a fitting and honorable resting place for veterans who sacrificed so much for our freedom,” Gov. Chet Culver said in a statement prior to the dedication ceremony. “Every day will be Memorial Day and Veterans Day at this place of reverence.”
“The Department is extremely excited about the opening of the cemetery,” Patrick Palmersheim, Executive Director of the Iowa Department of Veterans Affairs, said in a statement. “We are grateful for the support of the Federal [Veterans Administration], Governor Culver, former Governor [Tom] Vilsack, the Iowa Legislature, and all the Veteran service organizations for making this dream a reality.”
The official dedication of the IVC took place Thursday and was attended by a number of Iowa’s political dignitaries, including Culver, Vilsack and Sen. Chuck Grassley, who helped procure $7.6 million from the Department of Veterans Affairs State Cemetery Grant Program for the veterans cemetery.
“Those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for our country deserve a proper place for remembrance in their home state,” Grassley said in a statement earlier this year. “This cemetery will provide family, friends, and fellow Iowans with an opportunity to pay their respects to our fallen soldiers.”
The IVC is the first federally funded construction of a state-owned and –operated veterans cemetery in the state of Iowa. The cemetery serves the veteran population throughout the state and around the country, as there is no state residency requirement to be interred. Honorably discharged veterans are eligible for interment at the cemetery at no cost; the spouse of a veteran can be interred for a cost of $300. Ultimately, the IVC will provide burial space for up to 80,000 burials. Thus far, over 1,000 veterans and eligible dependents have already been determined eligible.
In 2001, a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (USDVA) study identified Iowa as needing a dedicated, state-owned and –operated veterans cemetery. The study counted over 280,000 veterans living in Iowa, with about 92,000 living within a 75-mile radius of Des Moines. This study triggered Iowa’s political leaders to get involved and help procure the necessary funding to help build, maintain and operate the cemetery.
The Iowa Department of Veterans Affairs (IDVA) began fundraising for the cemetery on Veterans Day 2004 with the sale of Bronze and Silver Iowa Veteran Commemorative Medals. In 2005, Iowa’s legislature gave IDVA the authority to “establish and operate” a state veterans cemetery.
Construction of the IVC began in July 2007, on 100 acres of land donated by the Knapp and Kenyon families. The first phase of construction has developed 40 acres that will provide for approximately 20 years of operation.
“It is an honor and privilege to serve as the director of the Iowa Veterans Cemetery,” Director Steve Young said in a statement. “Our goal for this facility is to provide first-class, respectful service so that our veterans and their families will be remembered in perpetuity.”
Friday, May 23, 2008
McCain Dodges Iraq War Funding Vote; Grassley and Harkin Split
Despite President Bush’s threat to veto a war funding bill with congressional add-ons, 25 Senate Republicans broke ranks and voted in favor of passing the bill, which added $97 billion worth of spending on top of the $165 billion earmarked for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan through next spring.
Although the 75-22 vote surpassed Bush’s veto threshold, a war of words did break out on the Senate floor when Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, fired the first shot at his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Obama took issue with McCain on his reluctance to sign on to a new GI Bill amendment proposed by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., which accounts for over $50 billion of the proposed funding.
"I respect John McCain," Obama said, "but I can't understand why he's lining up with the president to oppose this bill," which provides funding and housing allowances for vets at private and public colleges. "There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing, but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them.”
Initially, Obama’s words were lost on McCain, who was not in the chamber and did not vote on the bill. Obama and his Democratic presidential rival, Hillary Clinton of New York, voted in favor of the bill. McCain, who had previously stated he did not support the new GI Bill and offered his own version, missed the vote due to campaign fundraising commitments in California.
Obama’s words eventually did traverse the country and McCain was quick to fire back a response:
"It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of," McCain said in a statement. "If Sen. Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as president, the country would regret his election.”
McCain’s absence did not go unnoticed by the Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who said in a statement yesterday: "America's veterans and military families deserve better than a candidate who is willing to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years, but refuses to take care of them when they come home.”
On the Iowa front, Sens. Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley voted along party lines. Harkin voted in favor of the bill while Grassley held the party line and joined 21 other Republicans in opposition to the funding bill.
"A supplemental appropriations bill is intended to pay for items of necessity like supporting our troops in the war on terrorism, which is something we can all agree on,” Grassley told the Iowa Independent in an email statement. “Instead, the majority decided to throw in everything but the kitchen sink and chose to ignore their own pay-as-you-go philosophy for most of the bill.
"I supported a GI Bill enhancement measure when it was offered as an amendment to another piece of legislation,” Grassley added. “But, because of procedural maneuvering, a GI Bill proposal was wrapped in with a package of unrelated spending and pet projects. It's a shame we weren't afforded the opportunity to give this important matter the separate consideration it deserves. In the end, this bill was riddled with a lot of troubling policy that I couldn't support."
Troubling or not, it remains to be seen what impact McCain’s non-vote will have on his presidential bid as he continues to court voters and fellow veterans. McCain will face his first test on the issue this Memorial Day weekend as Congress breaks for recess and the presidential candidates hit the campaign trail in full stride.
Although the 75-22 vote surpassed Bush’s veto threshold, a war of words did break out on the Senate floor when Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, fired the first shot at his Republican rival, Sen. John McCain of Arizona. Obama took issue with McCain on his reluctance to sign on to a new GI Bill amendment proposed by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., which accounts for over $50 billion of the proposed funding.
"I respect John McCain," Obama said, "but I can't understand why he's lining up with the president to oppose this bill," which provides funding and housing allowances for vets at private and public colleges. "There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing, but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them.”
Initially, Obama’s words were lost on McCain, who was not in the chamber and did not vote on the bill. Obama and his Democratic presidential rival, Hillary Clinton of New York, voted in favor of the bill. McCain, who had previously stated he did not support the new GI Bill and offered his own version, missed the vote due to campaign fundraising commitments in California.
Obama’s words eventually did traverse the country and McCain was quick to fire back a response:
"It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of," McCain said in a statement. "If Sen. Obama would take the time and trouble to understand this issue he would learn to debate an honest disagreement respectfully. But, as he always does, he prefers impugning the motives of his opponent, and exploiting a thoughtful difference of opinion to advance his own ambitions. If that is how he would behave as president, the country would regret his election.”
McCain’s absence did not go unnoticed by the Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, who said in a statement yesterday: "America's veterans and military families deserve better than a candidate who is willing to keep our troops in Iraq for 100 years, but refuses to take care of them when they come home.”
On the Iowa front, Sens. Tom Harkin and Chuck Grassley voted along party lines. Harkin voted in favor of the bill while Grassley held the party line and joined 21 other Republicans in opposition to the funding bill.
"A supplemental appropriations bill is intended to pay for items of necessity like supporting our troops in the war on terrorism, which is something we can all agree on,” Grassley told the Iowa Independent in an email statement. “Instead, the majority decided to throw in everything but the kitchen sink and chose to ignore their own pay-as-you-go philosophy for most of the bill.
"I supported a GI Bill enhancement measure when it was offered as an amendment to another piece of legislation,” Grassley added. “But, because of procedural maneuvering, a GI Bill proposal was wrapped in with a package of unrelated spending and pet projects. It's a shame we weren't afforded the opportunity to give this important matter the separate consideration it deserves. In the end, this bill was riddled with a lot of troubling policy that I couldn't support."
Troubling or not, it remains to be seen what impact McCain’s non-vote will have on his presidential bid as he continues to court voters and fellow veterans. McCain will face his first test on the issue this Memorial Day weekend as Congress breaks for recess and the presidential candidates hit the campaign trail in full stride.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
McCain Faces Looming Showdown Over 21st Century GI Bill
(Update: Dems Shoot Down McCain’s Alternative GI Bill
Senate Democrats held off a Republican ambush to advance its own version of a new GI Bill Wednesday, shooting the amendment down by a 55-42 vote.)
During an election year, there is no such thing as a sure thing in congressional politics. The latest uncertainty surrounds Sen. Jim Webb’s 21st Century GI Bill, which met a temporary setback in the House last week when the legislation, attached to the Iraq War funding bill, was pulled from the floor after members of the Blue Dog Democrats threatened a revolt.
Meanwhile, the plot thickens in the Senate after a dose of presidential politics was thrown into the chamber pot, pitting decorated Vietnam War veterans against each other.
In a bipartisan effort, combat Vietnam veterans Sens. Jim Webb, D-Va., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., have vowed to improve veterans’ education benefits by introducing a bill, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (S. 22), in the Senate that would substantially increase the educational benefits available to servicemembers who have served since Sept. 11, 2001.
At first, fellow combat veteran and prisoner of war Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, remained silent on whether he would support his colleague’s bill, contending he needed more time to study the bill.
The day after a nonpartisan veterans’ advocacy group, Vote Vets, delivered a petition signed by 30,000 veterans to McCain’ Senate office, McCain broke his silence and followed the Pentagon’s lead, which contends the new GI Bill is too generous and will encourage soldiers to leave military service and pursue a college education.
"We are working on proposals of our own — I'm a consistent supporter of educational benefits for the men and women of the military," McCain told ABC News. "I want to make sure that we have incentives for people to remain in the military as well as for people to join the military.”
The latter rationale prompted Wesley K. Clark, the former supreme commander of NATO, and Jon Stoltz, an Iraq war veteran and chairman of VoteVets.org, to pen an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times.
"John McCain needs to be on this bill," Webb said in a statement to The Huffington Post. "I have said to him several times that this is not a political issue -- this is about providing a fair, deserved benefit to our troops. Based on his own military history and how strongly he speaks about the positive contributions of the people who have served, I hope that he will get on board and support this new GI bill."
As promised, McCain joined Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Richard Burr, R-N.C., in unveiling an alternative to the Webb/Hagel bill, the Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment through Education Act.
“We have an obligation to provide unwavering support to our nation’s veterans, and that is precisely what this legislation does,” McCain said in a statement. “Men and women who serve their country in uniform deserve the best education benefits we are able to give them. That is why I am pleased to join with Senators Graham and Burr to announce legislation that significantly enhances the Montgomery GI bill and promotes recruitment and retention which is critical to an All Volunteer Military.”
On the campaign trail Tuesday in Charleston, W.Va., Obama took issue with McCain’s unwillingness to support Webb’s bill.
"John McCain is one of the few senators of either party who oppose this bill because he thinks it's too generous," Obama said. "I could not disagree with him more. At a time when the skyrocketing cost of tuition is pricing thousands of Americans out of a college education, we should be doing everything we can to give the men and women who have risked their lives for this country the chance to pursue their American Dream."
McCain’s campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds quickly fired back in a statement, calling it "absurd" for Obama to question McCain’s commitment to America’s veterans "when Obama himself voted against funding our nation’s veterans, and troops in the field, during a time of war."
On the Iowa front, Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin has signed on to Webb’s bill, namely because it includes more benefits, whereas McCain’s alternative bill imposes benefit limitations. “The GI bill being led in a major bipartisan fashion by Senators Webb and Warner truly supports our service members with the resources they need to improve and complete their education,” Harkin said in a statement to the Iowa Independent. “Other bills seem to set unnecessary benefit ceilings even though we have asked our troops to go above and beyond the call of duty. We should not limit the progress our returning soldiers can make.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has yet to decide upon either of the proposed bills. “Senator Grassley supports improving the GI bill, but has not committed to supporting any particular bill at this time,” Beth Pellett-Levine, Grassley’s press secretary, told the Iowa Independent. “He's looking forward to studying the bill recently put forward by Senators Graham, Burr and McCain as well as the Webb/Warner bill.”
Old vs. New GI Bill: What’s at stake for veterans?
The original GI Bill was signed into law in 1944 by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to help ensure World War II veterans would be able to afford an education. Experts have argued that the GI Bill “reinvented America” after a half-decade of war. A 1988 Congressional study showed that every dollar spent on educational benefits under the original GI Bill added seven dollars to the national economy in terms of productivity, consumer spending, and tax revenue.
Fast forward 64 years to the present wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have produced over 1.5 million veterans. The current educational benefits offered to veterans, when adjusted for inflation and the rise in tuition and cost of living, are far lower than the original GI Bill. Today, after paying a nonrefundable $1,200 contribution from their first year’s military paychecks, troops receive an estimated $1,101 per academic month for up to 36 months, or four years of college.
Webb’s version of the new GI Bill will waive the $1,200 buy-in component, extend time to use benefits from 10 to 15 years, and will change the benefit proposal to pay for any public university and most private colleges -- capping benefits at the rate of the most expensive public university in the state. Moreover, the bill will add $1,000 a year for books and supplies and a stipend to cover cost-of-living expenses (based on DoD’s Basic Housing Allowance rate for E-5 w/dependent and zip code of the college/university).
Veterans attending a public university or select private college in Iowa will receive up to $5,935 based on the tuition cap at the most expensive public university, the University of Iowa. After adding in the living allowance and the $1,000 for books and supplies, veterans will receive an average yearly stipend of $7,674. Ironically, this is $2,226 less than veterans receive through the current GI Bill, but Iowa has the fourth lowest in-state tuition rate, and the intent of the new GI Bill is to provide certainty to veterans transitioning from the military to college, so they don’t have to worry about rising tuition costs outpacing their education benefits.
Another problem with the current GI Bill has to do with structural and bureaucratic delays, which have discouraged some veterans from using their benefits. National Guardsmen and Reservists, including those who have served multiple combat tours, typically receive only a fraction of their GI Bill benefits. Moreover, 30 percent of troops who pay the nonrefundable $1,200 contribution do not end up using the GI Bill at all. These veterans have paid the government $230 million, but received nothing in return.
On the other hand, Keith Pedigo, the Veterans Affairs associate deputy undersecretary for policy and program management, issued a warning last week that meeting an Aug. 1, 2009, effective date for the benefits increases in the new GI bill would be extremely difficult, because the proposal calls for the maximum benefit to be different in each state, payments would have to be processed manually, rather than automatically, Pedigo said.
“VA does not now have a payment system or the appropriate number of trained personnel to administer the program,” Pedigo said in a statement, predicting it would take two years to develop a payment system to provide the new benefits.
Pedigo also warned of fundamental unfairness in a proposed housing allowance that would be based on where a school is located, rather than where a student lives, which could encourage veterans to enroll in online learning programs offered by schools in high-cost areas.
Despite President George W. Bush’s threat to veto the new GI Bill in its current form, both the House and Senate expect to vote on the legislation before the summer recess.
Senate Democrats held off a Republican ambush to advance its own version of a new GI Bill Wednesday, shooting the amendment down by a 55-42 vote.)
During an election year, there is no such thing as a sure thing in congressional politics. The latest uncertainty surrounds Sen. Jim Webb’s 21st Century GI Bill, which met a temporary setback in the House last week when the legislation, attached to the Iraq War funding bill, was pulled from the floor after members of the Blue Dog Democrats threatened a revolt.
Meanwhile, the plot thickens in the Senate after a dose of presidential politics was thrown into the chamber pot, pitting decorated Vietnam War veterans against each other.
In a bipartisan effort, combat Vietnam veterans Sens. Jim Webb, D-Va., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., have vowed to improve veterans’ education benefits by introducing a bill, the Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act of 2008 (S. 22), in the Senate that would substantially increase the educational benefits available to servicemembers who have served since Sept. 11, 2001.
At first, fellow combat veteran and prisoner of war Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, remained silent on whether he would support his colleague’s bill, contending he needed more time to study the bill.
The day after a nonpartisan veterans’ advocacy group, Vote Vets, delivered a petition signed by 30,000 veterans to McCain’ Senate office, McCain broke his silence and followed the Pentagon’s lead, which contends the new GI Bill is too generous and will encourage soldiers to leave military service and pursue a college education.
"We are working on proposals of our own — I'm a consistent supporter of educational benefits for the men and women of the military," McCain told ABC News. "I want to make sure that we have incentives for people to remain in the military as well as for people to join the military.”
The latter rationale prompted Wesley K. Clark, the former supreme commander of NATO, and Jon Stoltz, an Iraq war veteran and chairman of VoteVets.org, to pen an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times.
The White House has voiced concern on the bill, arguing that if returning troops are offered a good education, they will choose college over extending their service. This is as offensive as it is absurd.Webb downplayed the political implications of the bill and made a plea for McCain to join the other 54 senators, including his Democratic colleagues Barack Obama of Illinois and Hillary Clinton of New York, who have already signed on to the new GI Bill.
First, it is morally reprehensible to fix the system so that civilian life is unappealing to service members, in an attempt to force them to re-up. Education assistance is not a handout, it is a sacred promise that we have made for generations in return for service.
Second, falling military recruitment numbers are just as serious as retention problems. To send the message that this nation will not help you make the most of your life will dissuade a large number of our best and brightest from choosing military service over other career options.
"John McCain needs to be on this bill," Webb said in a statement to The Huffington Post. "I have said to him several times that this is not a political issue -- this is about providing a fair, deserved benefit to our troops. Based on his own military history and how strongly he speaks about the positive contributions of the people who have served, I hope that he will get on board and support this new GI bill."
As promised, McCain joined Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Richard Burr, R-N.C., in unveiling an alternative to the Webb/Hagel bill, the Enhancement of Recruitment, Retention, and Readjustment through Education Act.
“We have an obligation to provide unwavering support to our nation’s veterans, and that is precisely what this legislation does,” McCain said in a statement. “Men and women who serve their country in uniform deserve the best education benefits we are able to give them. That is why I am pleased to join with Senators Graham and Burr to announce legislation that significantly enhances the Montgomery GI bill and promotes recruitment and retention which is critical to an All Volunteer Military.”
On the campaign trail Tuesday in Charleston, W.Va., Obama took issue with McCain’s unwillingness to support Webb’s bill.
"John McCain is one of the few senators of either party who oppose this bill because he thinks it's too generous," Obama said. "I could not disagree with him more. At a time when the skyrocketing cost of tuition is pricing thousands of Americans out of a college education, we should be doing everything we can to give the men and women who have risked their lives for this country the chance to pursue their American Dream."
McCain’s campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds quickly fired back in a statement, calling it "absurd" for Obama to question McCain’s commitment to America’s veterans "when Obama himself voted against funding our nation’s veterans, and troops in the field, during a time of war."
On the Iowa front, Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin has signed on to Webb’s bill, namely because it includes more benefits, whereas McCain’s alternative bill imposes benefit limitations. “The GI bill being led in a major bipartisan fashion by Senators Webb and Warner truly supports our service members with the resources they need to improve and complete their education,” Harkin said in a statement to the Iowa Independent. “Other bills seem to set unnecessary benefit ceilings even though we have asked our troops to go above and beyond the call of duty. We should not limit the progress our returning soldiers can make.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has yet to decide upon either of the proposed bills. “Senator Grassley supports improving the GI bill, but has not committed to supporting any particular bill at this time,” Beth Pellett-Levine, Grassley’s press secretary, told the Iowa Independent. “He's looking forward to studying the bill recently put forward by Senators Graham, Burr and McCain as well as the Webb/Warner bill.”
Old vs. New GI Bill: What’s at stake for veterans?
The original GI Bill was signed into law in 1944 by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to help ensure World War II veterans would be able to afford an education. Experts have argued that the GI Bill “reinvented America” after a half-decade of war. A 1988 Congressional study showed that every dollar spent on educational benefits under the original GI Bill added seven dollars to the national economy in terms of productivity, consumer spending, and tax revenue.
Fast forward 64 years to the present wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which have produced over 1.5 million veterans. The current educational benefits offered to veterans, when adjusted for inflation and the rise in tuition and cost of living, are far lower than the original GI Bill. Today, after paying a nonrefundable $1,200 contribution from their first year’s military paychecks, troops receive an estimated $1,101 per academic month for up to 36 months, or four years of college.
Webb’s version of the new GI Bill will waive the $1,200 buy-in component, extend time to use benefits from 10 to 15 years, and will change the benefit proposal to pay for any public university and most private colleges -- capping benefits at the rate of the most expensive public university in the state. Moreover, the bill will add $1,000 a year for books and supplies and a stipend to cover cost-of-living expenses (based on DoD’s Basic Housing Allowance rate for E-5 w/dependent and zip code of the college/university).
Veterans attending a public university or select private college in Iowa will receive up to $5,935 based on the tuition cap at the most expensive public university, the University of Iowa. After adding in the living allowance and the $1,000 for books and supplies, veterans will receive an average yearly stipend of $7,674. Ironically, this is $2,226 less than veterans receive through the current GI Bill, but Iowa has the fourth lowest in-state tuition rate, and the intent of the new GI Bill is to provide certainty to veterans transitioning from the military to college, so they don’t have to worry about rising tuition costs outpacing their education benefits.
Another problem with the current GI Bill has to do with structural and bureaucratic delays, which have discouraged some veterans from using their benefits. National Guardsmen and Reservists, including those who have served multiple combat tours, typically receive only a fraction of their GI Bill benefits. Moreover, 30 percent of troops who pay the nonrefundable $1,200 contribution do not end up using the GI Bill at all. These veterans have paid the government $230 million, but received nothing in return.
On the other hand, Keith Pedigo, the Veterans Affairs associate deputy undersecretary for policy and program management, issued a warning last week that meeting an Aug. 1, 2009, effective date for the benefits increases in the new GI bill would be extremely difficult, because the proposal calls for the maximum benefit to be different in each state, payments would have to be processed manually, rather than automatically, Pedigo said.
“VA does not now have a payment system or the appropriate number of trained personnel to administer the program,” Pedigo said in a statement, predicting it would take two years to develop a payment system to provide the new benefits.
Pedigo also warned of fundamental unfairness in a proposed housing allowance that would be based on where a school is located, rather than where a student lives, which could encourage veterans to enroll in online learning programs offered by schools in high-cost areas.
Despite President George W. Bush’s threat to veto the new GI Bill in its current form, both the House and Senate expect to vote on the legislation before the summer recess.
Friday, April 18, 2008
Iowa Guard Stretched Thinner With Latest Deployment to Iraq
About 250 members of an Iowa Air National Guard unit, the 132nd Fighter Wing, will be deployed this week to support troops in Iraq, the Department of Defense announced this week. The deployment is the 132nd's second since Operation Iraqi Freedom began, and they are expected to spend about two months in the Persian Gulf region.
The deployment comes at a time when Iowa National Guard units have been stretched thin, placing stress on Iowa’s civilian soldiers and families. “Six years of war and more than 10,000 mobilized soldiers and airmen leaves no doubt we are an organization that is stretched and stressed,” Iowa National Guard Adjunct General Ron Dardis said in his “Condition of the Guard” address to the General Assembly in February.
“We see it in the faces of our warriors sent off on their second, and in some cases, third deployments since 9-11; we see it in our families, asked to endure lengthy and in some cases repeated separations; and we see it in returning soldiers and airmen, struggling to reintegrate with their families and routines of their daily lives,” Dardis said.
“Ladies and Gentlemen: this is what keeps me awake at night. I worry so much for the health and well-being of our soldiers and airmen and their families,” Dardis said. “We are trying to assist in every way possible and yet it never seems like enough.”
The Des Moines-based fighter wing is no stranger to flying in the Middle East region. About 400 members of the unit were deployed to the Persian Gulf in 2005 to launch F-16 missions over Iraq, and the unit was deployed six times to Turkey and Kuwait between 1992 and 2002 to patrol "no-fly" zones set up over Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War to protect Kurds in the north and Shiite Muslims in the south from the Baghdad government led by Saddam Hussein.
The deployment comes at a time when Iowa National Guard units have been stretched thin, placing stress on Iowa’s civilian soldiers and families. “Six years of war and more than 10,000 mobilized soldiers and airmen leaves no doubt we are an organization that is stretched and stressed,” Iowa National Guard Adjunct General Ron Dardis said in his “Condition of the Guard” address to the General Assembly in February.
“We see it in the faces of our warriors sent off on their second, and in some cases, third deployments since 9-11; we see it in our families, asked to endure lengthy and in some cases repeated separations; and we see it in returning soldiers and airmen, struggling to reintegrate with their families and routines of their daily lives,” Dardis said.
“Ladies and Gentlemen: this is what keeps me awake at night. I worry so much for the health and well-being of our soldiers and airmen and their families,” Dardis said. “We are trying to assist in every way possible and yet it never seems like enough.”
The Des Moines-based fighter wing is no stranger to flying in the Middle East region. About 400 members of the unit were deployed to the Persian Gulf in 2005 to launch F-16 missions over Iraq, and the unit was deployed six times to Turkey and Kuwait between 1992 and 2002 to patrol "no-fly" zones set up over Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War to protect Kurds in the north and Shiite Muslims in the south from the Baghdad government led by Saddam Hussein.
In their upcoming deployment, the airmen of the 132nd Fighter Wing will launch F-16 aircraft over Iraq to attack enemy forces and search for improvised explosive devices, Lt. Col. James Freese, the wing's executive officer, said in a statement. The Iowa Guard's F-16 aircraft are armed with radar-guided missiles, heat-seeking missiles and laser-guided bombs. The detachment headed to the Gulf includes pilots, mechanics, and specialists in aviation electronics, weapons and other technical areas.
"We've been gearing up for this for quite some time, at least two or three months. We are fully trained and ready to go do it," Tech. Sgt. Todd Fee, 33, a weapons systems specialist, told the Des Moines Register.
About 1,000 members of the Iowa National Guard are now on active duty. The number includes about 550 in Iraq, 50 in Afghanistan, 330 in Kosovo and 90 in the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt. Since the September 2001 terrorist attacks, about 11,000 Iowa Guard members have been on active duty.
“We are going to do what we are asked to do, and hopefully come home safely,” Staff Sgt. Jacob Hermanson, an F-16 crew chief, told the Register. He said he expects to work 12 hours a day, seven days a week in Iraq.
Iowa Delegation Steps up Efforts to Give Guard Greater Voice
Recognizing the strain the multiple deployments have placed on civilian soldiers, members of the Iowa delegation, except Republican Rep. Steve King, sent a letter to the House and Senate Armed Services Committee yesterday, asking them to enhance the functions of the National Guard Bureau so that the National Guard has a voice in decisions made by the Pentagon leadership.
“As you well know, the National Guard is serving our country at an unprecedented level,” the delegation wrote in the letter. “Lengthy and multiple deployments are placing great strains on National Guard troops and families, as well as on National Guard equipment and readiness levels.”
Moreover, the delegation highlighted the National Guard’s shifting role from a strategic reserve to operational. We are concerned that Pentagon policies and culture have not shifted accordingly,” the delegation wrote. “Unfortunately, while National Guard soldiers are increasingly being utilized along with active duty forces, we have seen the Pentagon often make decisions that directly impact the National Guard without properly consulting the National Guard or incorporating their requests.”
Last year, Congress passed the National Guard Empowerment Act, which included a number of provisions that would ease the strain on state Guard units, members and their families. Moreover, Congress has proposed a bill, the National Guard Empowerment and State-National Defense Integration Act of 2008, which would address other provisions not included in last year’s bill.
Some key provisions of the latter bill include: making the chief of the National Guard Bureau a full member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as well as designate several key Air Force and Army positions for National Guard members, give the National Guard a formal role in identifying equipment needs, and protect the National Guard’s lead role in domestic response.
To help illustrate the delegation’s concerns, the delegation used the recent deployment of the 1st Battalion, 133rd Infantry of the Iowa National Guard to highlight the disconnect between the DOD and the National Guard, and of the need for reform. The 133rd was deployed to Iraq in the spring of 2006 and was originally scheduled to return home in April 2007, but had its tour of duty extended as part of last year’s troop surge. When the Pentagon lengthened their tour of duty, the Guard members learned of this extension through the media and family members, instead of through the proper chain of command.
“This improper notification caused much unneeded stress and anxiety for them and their families,” the delegation wrote. “Currently, members of the 133rd, along with National Guard soldiers from other units, are still waiting to receive the Post Deployment & Mobilization Respite Absence benefit that they have been promised by the DOD. It has been over six months now since the last affected Iowa National Guard unit returned home from Iraq, and the Pentagon has still not made a decision about how to pay these troops for this benefit that they have been promised.”
Moreover, the delegation is concerned that the Pentagon may ignore requests from the National Guard that troops be paid in a lump sums, but instead require the National Guard to bring troops back onto active duty and give them days off. “We are troubled by this, because we have heard concerns from the National Guard that days of paid leave will be less beneficial to troops than a one-time payment, and that bringing troops back onto active duty will be an administrative burden for National Guard leadership and will be disruptive for demobilized troops,” the delegation wrote.
“Our National Guard members are going above and beyond the call of duty in the War on Terror,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, a member of the Senate National Guard Caucus, said in a statement. “They deserve a seat at the table with all the branches of the military.”
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Iowa Vets, Military Families Urge Latham and Grassley: ‘Invest in America, Not Endless War in Iraq’
While some Iowans lined up to pay Uncle Sam on National Tax Day, others lined up to voice their concern about how their taxes are being spent. Veterans, military families and community leaders joined other concerned Iowans gathered outside the downtown Des Moines Post Office Tuesday to urge Rep. Tom Latham, Sen. Chuck Grassley and the rest of Iowa’s congressional delegation: ‘Invest in America, Not Endless War in Iraq.’
"As thousands of Iowans head to the post office today to file their taxes, many of us want answers from our Congressional delegation about how much longer we will continue to spend over $10 billion a month of our national treasure in Iraq while shortchanging critical priorities here at home, like education and housing for our families,” Kathleen McQuillen, Iowa program coordinator for American Friends Service Committee, said in a statement. “For what we spend in just one day in Iraq, nearly 35,000 four-year university scholarships could be funded. For what we spend in just one day in Iraq, we can help nearly 6,500 families with housing.”
“With the war in Iraq now in its 6th costly and bloody year, with over a half a trillion dollars spent, over 4,000 U.S. troops lost, and nearly 30,000 others wounded – an enormous human and financial toll has already been paid by the American people and our troops on the ground,” James Mowrer, Iraq war veteran and Iowa director of VoteVets.org, said in a statement. “It makes no sense to continue spending billions of our hard earned dollars each week in Iraq keeping our troops stuck in the crosshairs of a religious, sectarian civil war with no realistic and comprehensive plan to redeploy. But most importantly, we must never forget the sacred obligation that we owe to our veterans.”
The war in Iraq could end up costing $3 trillion when factoring in combat and other long-term related costs, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who argues in his new book, "The Three Trillion Dollar War" that the Iraq war has contributed to the U.S. economic slowdown and is impeding an economic recovery.
“A new CBS News-New York Times poll found that 89% Americans believe the war Iraq has contributed to the economic downturn here at home, yet Rep. Latham and presidential candidate Sen. John McCain are still 100% behind same failed Bush policies that led to both the downward economic spiral and the endless, costly War in Iraq,” Don Brown, vice president of South Central Iowa Federation of Labor AFL-CIO, said in a statement.
“Meanwhile, healthcare for our children, veterans, and seniors is being neglected,” Brown said. “For what is spent during one week in Iraq, 800,000 children could get health insurance for an entire year. It’s time to offer our troops and their families the best kind of support: bring them home safe.”
The effort to urge the Iowa congressional delegation to reprioritize tax expenditures was organized by Americans United for Change, which released the following video on the economic impact of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Cost of War (produced by Americans United for Change)
Related Commentary: “Lest We Forget…It’s the War, Stupid!”
"As thousands of Iowans head to the post office today to file their taxes, many of us want answers from our Congressional delegation about how much longer we will continue to spend over $10 billion a month of our national treasure in Iraq while shortchanging critical priorities here at home, like education and housing for our families,” Kathleen McQuillen, Iowa program coordinator for American Friends Service Committee, said in a statement. “For what we spend in just one day in Iraq, nearly 35,000 four-year university scholarships could be funded. For what we spend in just one day in Iraq, we can help nearly 6,500 families with housing.”
“With the war in Iraq now in its 6th costly and bloody year, with over a half a trillion dollars spent, over 4,000 U.S. troops lost, and nearly 30,000 others wounded – an enormous human and financial toll has already been paid by the American people and our troops on the ground,” James Mowrer, Iraq war veteran and Iowa director of VoteVets.org, said in a statement. “It makes no sense to continue spending billions of our hard earned dollars each week in Iraq keeping our troops stuck in the crosshairs of a religious, sectarian civil war with no realistic and comprehensive plan to redeploy. But most importantly, we must never forget the sacred obligation that we owe to our veterans.”
The war in Iraq could end up costing $3 trillion when factoring in combat and other long-term related costs, according to Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz, who argues in his new book, "The Three Trillion Dollar War" that the Iraq war has contributed to the U.S. economic slowdown and is impeding an economic recovery.
“A new CBS News-New York Times poll found that 89% Americans believe the war Iraq has contributed to the economic downturn here at home, yet Rep. Latham and presidential candidate Sen. John McCain are still 100% behind same failed Bush policies that led to both the downward economic spiral and the endless, costly War in Iraq,” Don Brown, vice president of South Central Iowa Federation of Labor AFL-CIO, said in a statement.
“Meanwhile, healthcare for our children, veterans, and seniors is being neglected,” Brown said. “For what is spent during one week in Iraq, 800,000 children could get health insurance for an entire year. It’s time to offer our troops and their families the best kind of support: bring them home safe.”
The effort to urge the Iowa congressional delegation to reprioritize tax expenditures was organized by Americans United for Change, which released the following video on the economic impact of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Cost of War (produced by Americans United for Change)
Related Commentary: “Lest We Forget…It’s the War, Stupid!”
Monday, April 7, 2008
Grassley Keeps Dogging White House to Hire Vets
During his 27-year tenure in Washington, D.C., Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has been a tireless advocate and watchdog when it comes to accountability. Whether protecting whistle-blowers or probing televangelists to divulge their tax records, the ranking Republican of the Senate Finance Committee has no reservations about sticking his nose into other people's business, and now he’s set his sights on the White House, urging President George W. Bush to “ramp up his administration’s efforts” in hiring recent combat veterans for federal jobs.
Grassley first assumed the role of headhunter for veterans Feb. 27, when he sent a letter urging t
he president to establish a goal that 10 percent of new hires in all federal departments and agencies be veterans.
“You proposed in your State of the Union Address to extend federal veterans preference in hiring to the spouses of service members, which is one piece of what needs to be done to lessen the strain on military families that have sacrificed so much for this country,” Grassley wrote. “However, it is essential that federal departments and agencies do a better job of using the authorities given to them by Congress by proactively seeking out and recruiting veterans, particularly those who have served recently in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
To make his case, Grassley cited the most recent data published in fiscal year 2006 by the Office of Personnel Management, which found a wide range of discrepancies among federal departments and agencies. The Air Force led the pack with 46.4 percent of its personnel made up of veterans, while the Federal Trade Commission finished last with 1.6 percent.
“While some disparity is to be expected, the wide variety suggests that some departments and agencies have a much more successful approach to recruiting and hiring veterans,” Grassley wrote.
Grassley asked for and received a written response by April 1 from the Bush administration.
In an attempt to assuage Grassley’s concerns, Karl Zinsmeister, assistant to the president for domestic policy, wrote that the president "wholeheartedly agrees” with Grassley, in that “our nation owes a special debt of gratitude to those who have put themselves in harm’s way on its behalf, and to their families.”
“His State of the Union Address highlighted the need for Federal government hiring preferences to be extended to spouses as well as veterans,” Zinsmeister wrote. “This simple step will help alleviate the lower-than-average employment rates for military spouses.”
Zinsmeister's letter described the administration’s outreach efforts to veterans, namely the Department of Veterans and the Veterans Affairs Nation Veterans Employment Program: “…These multiple efforts have yielded significant results: the percentage of veterans employed in the Federal non-Postal workforce currently 25 percent – well above a 10 percent goal.”
Zinsmeister assured Grassley that the Bush administration is “continuing to implement the recommendations of the Ineragency Task Force on Returning Global War on Terror Heroes, which will likely continue the great success our veterans have had in seeking employment in the Federal government.”
However, Zinsmeister’s response did not assuage the concerns of Grassley, who responded to Bush in a letter Wednesday. “The response lacked much substance and the central request of my letter remains unaddressed.” Grassley wrote. “I am aware of the current figures from the OPM on the employment of veterans in the federal government overall. However, the overall figures hide a wide disparity between various departments and agencies in terms of their success in recruiting and hiring veterans.”
Grassley reiterated his call for a commitment to establish a minimum goal that 10 percent of new hires in all federal departments and agencies be veterans. “More than one-third of federal departments are not currently meeting that goal, according to the most recent data from OPM, and well over half of independent agencies fall short,” Grassley wrote.
Grassley, citing a report, voiced a concern that 18 percent of recent returning combat veterans are unemployed.
Moreover, he criticized Zinmeister’s initial response to his concerns. “I am disappointed that your staff’s response to my previous letter attempted to change the subject and ignore my request,” Grassley wrote. “I ask that you now provide me with a clear response on whether or not you will make such a commitment.”
Grassley end his letter with a new deadline: “As there has already been ample time to consider these issues, I look forward to your reply no later than April 11, 2008.”
Originally posted on "Iowa Independent"
Grassley first assumed the role of headhunter for veterans Feb. 27, when he sent a letter urging t
he president to establish a goal that 10 percent of new hires in all federal departments and agencies be veterans.“You proposed in your State of the Union Address to extend federal veterans preference in hiring to the spouses of service members, which is one piece of what needs to be done to lessen the strain on military families that have sacrificed so much for this country,” Grassley wrote. “However, it is essential that federal departments and agencies do a better job of using the authorities given to them by Congress by proactively seeking out and recruiting veterans, particularly those who have served recently in Iraq and Afghanistan.”
To make his case, Grassley cited the most recent data published in fiscal year 2006 by the Office of Personnel Management, which found a wide range of discrepancies among federal departments and agencies. The Air Force led the pack with 46.4 percent of its personnel made up of veterans, while the Federal Trade Commission finished last with 1.6 percent.
“While some disparity is to be expected, the wide variety suggests that some departments and agencies have a much more successful approach to recruiting and hiring veterans,” Grassley wrote.
Grassley asked for and received a written response by April 1 from the Bush administration.
In an attempt to assuage Grassley’s concerns, Karl Zinsmeister, assistant to the president for domestic policy, wrote that the president "wholeheartedly agrees” with Grassley, in that “our nation owes a special debt of gratitude to those who have put themselves in harm’s way on its behalf, and to their families.”
“His State of the Union Address highlighted the need for Federal government hiring preferences to be extended to spouses as well as veterans,” Zinsmeister wrote. “This simple step will help alleviate the lower-than-average employment rates for military spouses.”
Zinsmeister's letter described the administration’s outreach efforts to veterans, namely the Department of Veterans and the Veterans Affairs Nation Veterans Employment Program: “…These multiple efforts have yielded significant results: the percentage of veterans employed in the Federal non-Postal workforce currently 25 percent – well above a 10 percent goal.”
Zinsmeister assured Grassley that the Bush administration is “continuing to implement the recommendations of the Ineragency Task Force on Returning Global War on Terror Heroes, which will likely continue the great success our veterans have had in seeking employment in the Federal government.”
However, Zinsmeister’s response did not assuage the concerns of Grassley, who responded to Bush in a letter Wednesday. “The response lacked much substance and the central request of my letter remains unaddressed.” Grassley wrote. “I am aware of the current figures from the OPM on the employment of veterans in the federal government overall. However, the overall figures hide a wide disparity between various departments and agencies in terms of their success in recruiting and hiring veterans.”
Grassley reiterated his call for a commitment to establish a minimum goal that 10 percent of new hires in all federal departments and agencies be veterans. “More than one-third of federal departments are not currently meeting that goal, according to the most recent data from OPM, and well over half of independent agencies fall short,” Grassley wrote.
Grassley, citing a report, voiced a concern that 18 percent of recent returning combat veterans are unemployed.
Moreover, he criticized Zinmeister’s initial response to his concerns. “I am disappointed that your staff’s response to my previous letter attempted to change the subject and ignore my request,” Grassley wrote. “I ask that you now provide me with a clear response on whether or not you will make such a commitment.”
Grassley end his letter with a new deadline: “As there has already been ample time to consider these issues, I look forward to your reply no later than April 11, 2008.”
Originally posted on "Iowa Independent"
Monday, January 14, 2008
Donors Beware: Some Veterans Charities Shortchanging Wounded Troops
One of the hidden costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is caring for the wounded troops returning from these theaters. In May 2007, the Department of Defense reported 25,090 wounded troops in Iraq since the wars began in March 2003. To help shoulder these costs, a number of veterans charities have raised millions of dollars to help care for the wounded.
However, a leading watchdog organization, the American Institute of Philanthropy, released a report last month suggesting that 12 of the 29 charities the organization studied earned a failing grade. The API has instituted a 60 percentile passing threshold, meaning at least 60 cents for every dollar raised is spent directly on veterans and charitable programs. The worst ratings went to the American Veterans Relief Foundation, which passed along 1 cent for every dollar raised, and the National Veterans Service Fund, which passed along 2 cents on the dollar.
There are no laws regulating the amount of money charities spend on overhead. The API report contends that 20 of the 29 charities have mismanaged their resources, whether paying high overhead costs or direct-mail fundraising fees to for-profit consultants. Furthermore, some of the higher overheads are due to six-figure salaries paid out to the charities’ leaders, including Help Hospitalized Veterans (HHV), which the Washington Post reports paid its founder and his wife a combined $540,000 in compensation and benefits last year.
This has drawn the ire of Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who has been a longtime critic of charities that are abusing their tax-exempt status. "Taxpayers are subsidizing that tax exemption," Grassley said in a statement. "Sitting on donors' money or spending too much on contracts and salaries doesn't benefit the public."
Daniel Borochoff, president of the API, also cited HHV, a charity that provides therapeutic arts and crafts kits to the hospitalized veterans, as an egregious example of abuse. The API reported HHV’s income at $71.3 million last year; the charity spent about a third of that on charitable work.
The charity was founded in 1971 by Roger Chapin, 75, who received $426,434 in salary and benefits the past fiscal year. His wife, Elizabeth, 73, received $113,623 in salary and benefits as a “newsletter editor.” The Washington Post reports that HHV, in its tax filings, reported paying more than $4 million to direct-mail fundraising consultants. The group also has run television advertisements featuring actor Sam Waterston, game show host Pat Sajak and other celebrities.
Borochoff points the finger at professional for-profit fundraising consultants and companies that charities hire. “The wool is being pulled over the eyes of the donating public by some F-rated charities,” Borochoff said in a statement while testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Dec. 13, 2007.
“Veterans and other charities often enter into contracts with professional fundraising businesses that may keep (for their profits and expenses) 80 percent or more of the contributions raised,” Borochoff informed the committee. “National Veterans Services Fund (NVSF) filed a 2004 contract with Bee LC that guarantees at least 15 percent of the gross revenues ‘for calling of individuals who have previously donated by telephone via this contract to NVSF.’”
The NVSF’s Web site states that the charity was founded in 1978 and is a not-for-profit organization located in Darien, Conn., that provides case-managed social services and limited medical assistance to Vietnam and Persian Gulf War veterans and their families, with a focus on families with disabled children.
Grassley also testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform at the “Assessing Veterans Charities” hearing. Grassley not only took veterans charities to task, but called for more rigid accountability and congressional oversight for all not-for-profit charities. “We need to ensure that the public continues to have confidence in these institutions,” Grassley said in a prepared statement. “Our veterans need to know that Congress is taking a hard eye at these charities to ensure that veterans are appropriately benefiting from donations.”
“Charities also receive billions of dollars in government grants, contracts and payments. Charities represent a bigger part of the economy than people might realize – just a little under 10 percent of the economy and the work force,” Grassley said in his testimony before recommending a possible solution. “So often, I see problems with charities because there is not in place basic governance – that is, independent, active board members – that are minding the store. Your committee should consider the possibility of requiring basic good governance structures and best practices – similar to those advocated by the Nonprofit Panel and watchdog groups such as the American Institute of Philanthropy – as a requirement for charities that participate in the Combined Federal Campaign or receive federal grants and contracts.”
Despite some of these failing charities, there are some that have helped benefit the wounded warriors returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "In the rush to help, there's a lot of innovative work and good work happening, but there's also a lot of fraud and waste," Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, told the Washington Post. "There's never been a greater need for veterans charities in a generation, and I hope issues like this don't deter people from giving."
Two such groups, the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund (IFHF) and the Fisher House Foundation (FHH), received A ratings by the API.
The IFHF was established in 2003 and has provided close to $60 million in support for the families of military personnel who paid the ultimate sacrifice, and for severely wounded military personnel and veterans. IFHF claims on its Web site that 100 percent of the contributions go towards programs, while all administrative expenses are underwritten by the fund’s trustees. In January 2007, the IFHF completed construction of a $40 million world-class state-of-the-art physical rehabilitation center at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas. The “Center for the Intrepid” serves military personnel who have been catastrophically disabled in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and veterans severely injured in other operations and in the normal performance of their duties.
The Fisher House is a program designed to provide military members and their families with services that meet a need beyond what the DoD and the Veterans Affairs would normally provide. Fisher House donates comfort homes that enable family members to be close to their wounded love ones during hospitalization for an unexpected illness, disease or injury. There is at least one Fisher House at every major military medical center, and the foundation has served more than 10,000 families and has made available nearly 2.5 million days of lodging to family members since the program began in 1990.
Jim Weiskopf, spokesman for Fisher House, told the Washington Post that one reason his charity has had a higher ratio of success and lower overhead is that it does not use direct-mail advertising. "As soon as you do direct mail, your fundraising expenses go up astronomically," he said.
Originally posted on "Iowa Independent"
However, a leading watchdog organization, the American Institute of Philanthropy, released a report last month suggesting that 12 of the 29 charities the organization studied earned a failing grade. The API has instituted a 60 percentile passing threshold, meaning at least 60 cents for every dollar raised is spent directly on veterans and charitable programs. The worst ratings went to the American Veterans Relief Foundation, which passed along 1 cent for every dollar raised, and the National Veterans Service Fund, which passed along 2 cents on the dollar.
There are no laws regulating the amount of money charities spend on overhead. The API report contends that 20 of the 29 charities have mismanaged their resources, whether paying high overhead costs or direct-mail fundraising fees to for-profit consultants. Furthermore, some of the higher overheads are due to six-figure salaries paid out to the charities’ leaders, including Help Hospitalized Veterans (HHV), which the Washington Post reports paid its founder and his wife a combined $540,000 in compensation and benefits last year.
This has drawn the ire of Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who has been a longtime critic of charities that are abusing their tax-exempt status. "Taxpayers are subsidizing that tax exemption," Grassley said in a statement. "Sitting on donors' money or spending too much on contracts and salaries doesn't benefit the public."
Daniel Borochoff, president of the API, also cited HHV, a charity that provides therapeutic arts and crafts kits to the hospitalized veterans, as an egregious example of abuse. The API reported HHV’s income at $71.3 million last year; the charity spent about a third of that on charitable work.
The charity was founded in 1971 by Roger Chapin, 75, who received $426,434 in salary and benefits the past fiscal year. His wife, Elizabeth, 73, received $113,623 in salary and benefits as a “newsletter editor.” The Washington Post reports that HHV, in its tax filings, reported paying more than $4 million to direct-mail fundraising consultants. The group also has run television advertisements featuring actor Sam Waterston, game show host Pat Sajak and other celebrities.
Borochoff points the finger at professional for-profit fundraising consultants and companies that charities hire. “The wool is being pulled over the eyes of the donating public by some F-rated charities,” Borochoff said in a statement while testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Dec. 13, 2007.
“Veterans and other charities often enter into contracts with professional fundraising businesses that may keep (for their profits and expenses) 80 percent or more of the contributions raised,” Borochoff informed the committee. “National Veterans Services Fund (NVSF) filed a 2004 contract with Bee LC that guarantees at least 15 percent of the gross revenues ‘for calling of individuals who have previously donated by telephone via this contract to NVSF.’”
The NVSF’s Web site states that the charity was founded in 1978 and is a not-for-profit organization located in Darien, Conn., that provides case-managed social services and limited medical assistance to Vietnam and Persian Gulf War veterans and their families, with a focus on families with disabled children.
Grassley also testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform at the “Assessing Veterans Charities” hearing. Grassley not only took veterans charities to task, but called for more rigid accountability and congressional oversight for all not-for-profit charities. “We need to ensure that the public continues to have confidence in these institutions,” Grassley said in a prepared statement. “Our veterans need to know that Congress is taking a hard eye at these charities to ensure that veterans are appropriately benefiting from donations.”
“Charities also receive billions of dollars in government grants, contracts and payments. Charities represent a bigger part of the economy than people might realize – just a little under 10 percent of the economy and the work force,” Grassley said in his testimony before recommending a possible solution. “So often, I see problems with charities because there is not in place basic governance – that is, independent, active board members – that are minding the store. Your committee should consider the possibility of requiring basic good governance structures and best practices – similar to those advocated by the Nonprofit Panel and watchdog groups such as the American Institute of Philanthropy – as a requirement for charities that participate in the Combined Federal Campaign or receive federal grants and contracts.”
Despite some of these failing charities, there are some that have helped benefit the wounded warriors returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. "In the rush to help, there's a lot of innovative work and good work happening, but there's also a lot of fraud and waste," Paul Rieckhoff, executive director of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, told the Washington Post. "There's never been a greater need for veterans charities in a generation, and I hope issues like this don't deter people from giving."
Two such groups, the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund (IFHF) and the Fisher House Foundation (FHH), received A ratings by the API.
The IFHF was established in 2003 and has provided close to $60 million in support for the families of military personnel who paid the ultimate sacrifice, and for severely wounded military personnel and veterans. IFHF claims on its Web site that 100 percent of the contributions go towards programs, while all administrative expenses are underwritten by the fund’s trustees. In January 2007, the IFHF completed construction of a $40 million world-class state-of-the-art physical rehabilitation center at Brooke Army Medical Center in San Antonio, Texas. The “Center for the Intrepid” serves military personnel who have been catastrophically disabled in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and veterans severely injured in other operations and in the normal performance of their duties.
The Fisher House is a program designed to provide military members and their families with services that meet a need beyond what the DoD and the Veterans Affairs would normally provide. Fisher House donates comfort homes that enable family members to be close to their wounded love ones during hospitalization for an unexpected illness, disease or injury. There is at least one Fisher House at every major military medical center, and the foundation has served more than 10,000 families and has made available nearly 2.5 million days of lodging to family members since the program began in 1990.
Jim Weiskopf, spokesman for Fisher House, told the Washington Post that one reason his charity has had a higher ratio of success and lower overhead is that it does not use direct-mail advertising. "As soon as you do direct mail, your fundraising expenses go up astronomically," he said.
Originally posted on "Iowa Independent"
Tuesday, November 6, 2007
Bush Signs Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Bill into Law
With the stroke of a pen President George W. Bush signed the Joshua Omvig bill into law, ending a drawn-out political chapter that overcame a procedural hold in the Senate. The bill was introduced in the House by Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa, who named the bill after one of his constituents, Joshua Omvig of Grundy Center. Omvig committed suicide in Dec. 2005 after returning from an 11-month deployment in Iraq.
“By directing the Veterans Administration (VA) to develop a comprehensive program to reduce the rate of suicide among veterans the law will help thousands of young men and women who bravely served our country,” Boswell said in a press release following Bush’s Monday signing. “The Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act not only honors Joshua’s service to his country but ensures that all veterans receive the proper mental health care they need.”
Boswell also had words of praise of praise for Joshua’s parents, who have been relentless advocates for the bill’s passage. “I commend Joshua’s parents, Randy and Ellen Omvig,. While suffering this personal tragedy they went on to help other veterans and their families, and have advocated for improving all mental health services at the VA,” he said.
Boswell’s efforts were picked up in the Senate by fellow veteran, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who helped push the measure through the Senate. "As a nation we cannot stand idly by when the needs of our brave soldiers are not being met," Harkin said. "We have a responsibility to truly support our troops by ensuring they have the services they need during their time in active service, and after they return home."
The bipartisan bill unanimously passed in the House March 21 by a vote of 427-0 before moving on to the Senate where it hit a procedural snag. Led by Harkin the bill was expected to overwhelmingly pass before going into the August recess until it hit a road bump. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. put the bill on hold, citing duplication and second amendment concerns that Harkin called (stronger verb) "bogus." Undeterred, Harkin kept fighting for the bill's passage and solicited fellow Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to help persuade Coburn to lift the hold. The bipartisan effort paid off and the bill cleared the Senate hurdle Sept. 27.
Grassley was pleased Bush signed the bill as well. “Today’s action helps give veterans who are suffering mental anguish a place to turn when all else seems lost,” he said in a statement “These are brave men and women who need to know that there is help out there and they deserve medical treatment just like any other veteran.”
The Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Act (H.R. 327) is designed to help address Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) among veterans by requiring mental health training for Veterans Affairs staff; a suicide prevention counselor at each VA medical facility; and mental-health screening and treatment for veterans who receive VA care. It also supports outreach and education for veterans and their families, peer support counseling and research into suicide prevention. The VA had been implementing a number of these programs, but not in a timely manner, whereas the Joshua Omvig bill mandates these programs and subsequent deadlines as a means of expediting the process for returning veterans.
“By directing the Veterans Administration (VA) to develop a comprehensive program to reduce the rate of suicide among veterans the law will help thousands of young men and women who bravely served our country,” Boswell said in a press release following Bush’s Monday signing. “The Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act not only honors Joshua’s service to his country but ensures that all veterans receive the proper mental health care they need.”
Boswell also had words of praise of praise for Joshua’s parents, who have been relentless advocates for the bill’s passage. “I commend Joshua’s parents, Randy and Ellen Omvig,. While suffering this personal tragedy they went on to help other veterans and their families, and have advocated for improving all mental health services at the VA,” he said.
Boswell’s efforts were picked up in the Senate by fellow veteran, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, who helped push the measure through the Senate. "As a nation we cannot stand idly by when the needs of our brave soldiers are not being met," Harkin said. "We have a responsibility to truly support our troops by ensuring they have the services they need during their time in active service, and after they return home."
The bipartisan bill unanimously passed in the House March 21 by a vote of 427-0 before moving on to the Senate where it hit a procedural snag. Led by Harkin the bill was expected to overwhelmingly pass before going into the August recess until it hit a road bump. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. put the bill on hold, citing duplication and second amendment concerns that Harkin called (stronger verb) "bogus." Undeterred, Harkin kept fighting for the bill's passage and solicited fellow Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to help persuade Coburn to lift the hold. The bipartisan effort paid off and the bill cleared the Senate hurdle Sept. 27.
Grassley was pleased Bush signed the bill as well. “Today’s action helps give veterans who are suffering mental anguish a place to turn when all else seems lost,” he said in a statement “These are brave men and women who need to know that there is help out there and they deserve medical treatment just like any other veteran.”
The Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Act (H.R. 327) is designed to help address Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) among veterans by requiring mental health training for Veterans Affairs staff; a suicide prevention counselor at each VA medical facility; and mental-health screening and treatment for veterans who receive VA care. It also supports outreach and education for veterans and their families, peer support counseling and research into suicide prevention. The VA had been implementing a number of these programs, but not in a timely manner, whereas the Joshua Omvig bill mandates these programs and subsequent deadlines as a means of expediting the process for returning veterans.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
After Long-Fought Battle, Veterans Suicide Prevention Bill Passes
For many combat veterans returning from war, the battle doesn’t end on the battlefield. It continues at home with the mental scars. As soldiers return from duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, many are ill-equipped to deal with emotional issues stemming from deployment, and sensing no other way out, they tragically take their own lives.
Congress, led by the tireless efforts of the Iowa delegation, has taken measures to reduce the high suicide rates among veterans. After a long-fought battle, the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act (H.R. 327) overcame its last congressional hurdle Tuesday when it passed in the House for the second time by a vote of 417-0.
Introduced by Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-3rd District, the bill directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to develop and implement a comprehensive program addressing suicide prevention. The bill is named after Joshua Omvig, from Grundy Center, Iowa, an Iraq War veteran who served in the Army Reserve and took his own life in December 2005 after an 11-month deployment.
“I’m very pleased that both chambers have passed H.R. 327, and it’s now ready to be signed by the President,” Boswell said in a press release. “A recent article in USA Today reported that the number of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans seeking treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from the VA has jumped almost 70 percent in the past year. The time to act is now.”
“I commend Joshua’s parents, Randy and Ellen Omvig, who have suffered this personal tragedy, but have helped endless veterans and their families,” Boswell added. “They have advocated for improving all mental health services at the VA and have assisted countless veterans navigate the VA system.”
Although suicide rates are difficult to confirm and accurately gauge, the VA inspector general in a report last May noted that Veterans Health Administration mental health officials estimate 1,000 suicides per year among veterans receiving care within VHA and as many as 5,000 per year among all living veterans.
"Unfortunately, suicide prevention has become a major part of our responsibility to both active duty and to our veterans," Bob Filner, D-Calif., chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, told the Associated Press. "It's a terrible statistic," he said. "As many Vietnam veterans have now committed suicide as died in the original war. That's over 58,000."
The bill, authored by Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa, is designed to help address PTSD among veterans by requiring the Veterans Administration to develop and implement a comprehensive veterans suicide prevention program, provide 24-hour mental health care services to veterans, and requiring that a suicide prevention counselor be available at every VA facility.
“Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is the hidden combat wound. Veterans suffering from PTSD are often the last to know they have a problem,” Rep. Bruce Braley, D-1st District, said in a statement. “In the past, many veterans returning from war have suffered silently from this illness without the help and support they need.”
“Joshua Omvig’s experience puts a human face to PTSD. His death stands as a stark reminder of the impact PTSD can have on veterans and their families,” Braley added. “Passing the Omvig bill into law is so important because veterans coming home and suffering from PTSD deserve the screening, treatment and resources they need to ensure their long term mental health.”
The bipartisan bill unanimously passed in the House March 21 by a vote of 427-0 before moving on to the Senate, where it hit a procedural snag. Led by the efforts of Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the bill was expected to overwhelmingly pass going into the August recess, until it hit a procedural road bump when Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., put a hold on the bill, citing duplication and second amendment concerns, which Harkin said were “bogus.” Undeterred, Harkin kept fighting for the bill’s passage and solicited fellow Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to help persuade Coburn to lift the hold. Their bipartisan effort paid off, and the bill cleared the Senate hurdle Sept. 27.
Before the vote, Rep. Dave Loebsack, D-Iowa, delivered a speech on the House floor in support of the bill. “I rise today in strong support of the Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Act,” Loebsack said. “This bill was one of the first that I co-sponsored as a new Member of Congress. I did so because I believe that we have a moral obligation to care for those who have worn our country’s uniform. I urge the president to quickly sign it into law so that these vital mental health services can reach our nation’s veterans.”
Originally posted on "Iowa Independent"
Congress, led by the tireless efforts of the Iowa delegation, has taken measures to reduce the high suicide rates among veterans. After a long-fought battle, the Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Prevention Act (H.R. 327) overcame its last congressional hurdle Tuesday when it passed in the House for the second time by a vote of 417-0.
Introduced by Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-3rd District, the bill directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to develop and implement a comprehensive program addressing suicide prevention. The bill is named after Joshua Omvig, from Grundy Center, Iowa, an Iraq War veteran who served in the Army Reserve and took his own life in December 2005 after an 11-month deployment.
“I’m very pleased that both chambers have passed H.R. 327, and it’s now ready to be signed by the President,” Boswell said in a press release. “A recent article in USA Today reported that the number of Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans seeking treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from the VA has jumped almost 70 percent in the past year. The time to act is now.”
“I commend Joshua’s parents, Randy and Ellen Omvig, who have suffered this personal tragedy, but have helped endless veterans and their families,” Boswell added. “They have advocated for improving all mental health services at the VA and have assisted countless veterans navigate the VA system.”
Although suicide rates are difficult to confirm and accurately gauge, the VA inspector general in a report last May noted that Veterans Health Administration mental health officials estimate 1,000 suicides per year among veterans receiving care within VHA and as many as 5,000 per year among all living veterans.
"Unfortunately, suicide prevention has become a major part of our responsibility to both active duty and to our veterans," Bob Filner, D-Calif., chairman of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, told the Associated Press. "It's a terrible statistic," he said. "As many Vietnam veterans have now committed suicide as died in the original war. That's over 58,000."
The bill, authored by Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa, is designed to help address PTSD among veterans by requiring the Veterans Administration to develop and implement a comprehensive veterans suicide prevention program, provide 24-hour mental health care services to veterans, and requiring that a suicide prevention counselor be available at every VA facility.
“Post Traumatic Stress Disorder is the hidden combat wound. Veterans suffering from PTSD are often the last to know they have a problem,” Rep. Bruce Braley, D-1st District, said in a statement. “In the past, many veterans returning from war have suffered silently from this illness without the help and support they need.”
“Joshua Omvig’s experience puts a human face to PTSD. His death stands as a stark reminder of the impact PTSD can have on veterans and their families,” Braley added. “Passing the Omvig bill into law is so important because veterans coming home and suffering from PTSD deserve the screening, treatment and resources they need to ensure their long term mental health.”
The bipartisan bill unanimously passed in the House March 21 by a vote of 427-0 before moving on to the Senate, where it hit a procedural snag. Led by the efforts of Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, the bill was expected to overwhelmingly pass going into the August recess, until it hit a procedural road bump when Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., put a hold on the bill, citing duplication and second amendment concerns, which Harkin said were “bogus.” Undeterred, Harkin kept fighting for the bill’s passage and solicited fellow Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to help persuade Coburn to lift the hold. Their bipartisan effort paid off, and the bill cleared the Senate hurdle Sept. 27.
Before the vote, Rep. Dave Loebsack, D-Iowa, delivered a speech on the House floor in support of the bill. “I rise today in strong support of the Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Act,” Loebsack said. “This bill was one of the first that I co-sponsored as a new Member of Congress. I did so because I believe that we have a moral obligation to care for those who have worn our country’s uniform. I urge the president to quickly sign it into law so that these vital mental health services can reach our nation’s veterans.”
Originally posted on "Iowa Independent"
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Harkin and Grassley Team Up to Push Joshua Omvig Veterans Suicide Bill Through Senate
After a long-fought battle, Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, helped push the Joshua Omvig Suicide Prevention Act of 2007 through the Senate late Thursday night. The heavily bipartisan bill had been obstructed for two months by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Ok., who placed a hold on the bill for reasons Harkin called “bogus.” Harkin received help from Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, who took the leadership role on the Republican side and helped persuade Coburn to lift the hold earlier in the day. The bill now returns to the House of Representatives, where Rep. Leonard Boswell, D-Iowa, the original author of the legislation, will lead the bill through the House, where it had previously passed by a vote count of 423-0.
“I am heartened to see that after many months of talking about preventing suicide among our veterans, Congress finally took action,” Harkin said. “The Omvig family’s patience and selfless determination in seeing this through so other soldiers and families are protected is truly commendable. This is a matter of honoring the memory of their son Josh. And it is a matter of honoring the service and sacrifice of all our men and women in uniform. It is shockingly evident that our veterans urgently need the screening and counseling that this bill would require.”
The Omvig Act directs the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to integrate mental health services into veterans’ primary care and to step up counseling and other mental health services for returning war veterans. It is named after Joshua Omvig, a soldier from Grundy Center Iowa who took his own life after returning from Iraq.
“Our veterans should not have to suffer alone. They may be reluctant to seek help, but they need to know that help is there,” Grassley said. “We also need to make sure that the support mechanisms are in place to help veterans when they do seek help.”
The VA estimates that more than 5,000 veterans take their lives each year. Suicide rates are 35 percent higher for Iraq veterans than for the general population. And the Department of Defense recently reported that the Army is now seeing the highest rate of suicide since the Vietnam War. A study in this July’s issue of “Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health” found that those who have been in combat are twice as likely to commit suicide as men who have not served in a war.
“The memories of combat haunt many of our men and women who have served. We must provide the resources and support to prevent the unnecessary deaths of the men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend our nation,” said Harkin. “I look forward to seeing the President sign this critical bill into law to ensure that programs are in place to meet the needs of veterans.”
Harkin’s efforts to get the Joshua Omvig bill passed received praise on the presidential campaign trail from New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. "Tom Harkin's leadership on this issue in the Senate was essential to its passage,” Richardson said in a press release statement. “I encourage the House of Representatives to follow the leadership of Congressman Boswell and pass this bill. Then, for our veterans' sake, hopefully President Bush will see the error of his ways and sign the bill into law."
Originally posted on "Iowa Independent"
“I am heartened to see that after many months of talking about preventing suicide among our veterans, Congress finally took action,” Harkin said. “The Omvig family’s patience and selfless determination in seeing this through so other soldiers and families are protected is truly commendable. This is a matter of honoring the memory of their son Josh. And it is a matter of honoring the service and sacrifice of all our men and women in uniform. It is shockingly evident that our veterans urgently need the screening and counseling that this bill would require.”
The Omvig Act directs the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to integrate mental health services into veterans’ primary care and to step up counseling and other mental health services for returning war veterans. It is named after Joshua Omvig, a soldier from Grundy Center Iowa who took his own life after returning from Iraq.
“Our veterans should not have to suffer alone. They may be reluctant to seek help, but they need to know that help is there,” Grassley said. “We also need to make sure that the support mechanisms are in place to help veterans when they do seek help.”
The VA estimates that more than 5,000 veterans take their lives each year. Suicide rates are 35 percent higher for Iraq veterans than for the general population. And the Department of Defense recently reported that the Army is now seeing the highest rate of suicide since the Vietnam War. A study in this July’s issue of “Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health” found that those who have been in combat are twice as likely to commit suicide as men who have not served in a war.
“The memories of combat haunt many of our men and women who have served. We must provide the resources and support to prevent the unnecessary deaths of the men and women who have put their lives on the line to defend our nation,” said Harkin. “I look forward to seeing the President sign this critical bill into law to ensure that programs are in place to meet the needs of veterans.”
Harkin’s efforts to get the Joshua Omvig bill passed received praise on the presidential campaign trail from New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. "Tom Harkin's leadership on this issue in the Senate was essential to its passage,” Richardson said in a press release statement. “I encourage the House of Representatives to follow the leadership of Congressman Boswell and pass this bill. Then, for our veterans' sake, hopefully President Bush will see the error of his ways and sign the bill into law."
Originally posted on "Iowa Independent"
Thursday, September 20, 2007
No Legislated Rest for Troops: Webb Amendment
Once again, Republican senators fell in line with the Defense Department and the Bush administration by rejecting a bipartisan amendment that would let soldiers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have at least same time off at home as their latest deployment before they are redeployed. The amendment, sponsored by Sens. James Webb, D-Va., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., failed on a 56-44 vote because a 60-vote super-majority was needed for passage. Wednesday's vote was nearly identical to a previous vote in July.
The Democrats voted along party lines, while six Republicans defected (was Grassley one of them? need to say how he voted somewhere in story), which prompted disappointment on the Democratic side of the aisle. “I was disappointed that the Webb amendment did not pass yesterday," Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa said in a statement to the Iowa Independent. "This amendment would have provided support to our troops by ensuring they didn’t suffer from lengthy deployments without proper dwell time, unless absolutely necessary for our national security. I find it absurd that anyone can stand up there and say they support our troops, but vote against these amendments. Our troops are at a breaking point -- we cannot continue on the path we are on.”
The GOP, including Iowa’s Sen. Chuck Grassley, blocked what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has characterized as a back-door attempt by Democrats to force the Bush administration to draw down troops. Grassley could not be reached for comment but had issued a statement to the Iowa Independent regarding his “no” vote when the amendment first came up for a vote in July. "The last thing politicians in Washington should do is tie the hands of our commanders on the ground by dictating troop rotations," Grassley said. “New troop deployment policies as well as increases to the size of the active duty military should help relieve the stress on our current forces, and the reserve forces in particular -- while maintaining the flexibility and capability to respond to national security needs."
Gates had recommended that Bush veto the proposed legislation before Wednesday’s vote in the Senate, contending the bill would hamstring the Pentagon’s ability to maintain current troop levels in Iraq. "It would be extremely difficult for us to manage that. It really is a back-door way to try and force the president to accelerate the draw-downs," Gates said.
Democrats appeared to have some momentum when Sen. John Warner, R-Va., had voiced his support for the amendment, only to change his mind after a last-minute campaign by the Defense Department and the White House to kill the bill. Warner’s late defection deflated any momentum that had been building, thus ensuring the amendment's second death.
Meanwhile, military personnel and family members are facing uncertainty upon the return of soldiers, not really knowing when they will be redeployed. One of the bill’s co-sponsors, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., pleaded their case on the Senate floor. “We owe it to our troops and their families to adopt a fair policy that ensures predictable rotations, adequate time to be with their families before redeployment, and adequate time for realistic training for the difficult assignments we are giving them,” said Obama, a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.
“There are scores of anecdotes that bear out the strain on our families,” Obama said. "One woman from Illinois recently wrote my office to tell me how her husband was facing his fourth deployment in four-and-one-half years. She described how her husband had spent so much time in Iraq that, in her words: ‘He feels like he is stationed in Iraq and only deploys home.’ That is not an acceptable way to treat our troops. That is not an acceptable way to treat their families.”
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., an adamant opponent of the Webb/Hagel amendment urged Congress to reject the measure on constitutional grounds. “The Constitution of the United States gives no authority for the Congress of the United States to set lengths of tour or lengths of duty in the military, and I hope we will steadfastly reject this kind of micromanagement, which would create chaos,” McCain said.
Webb rejected McCain’s assertion that the Senate has no role in troop deployments on CNN. “Well, first of all, Senator McCain, who I’ve known for 30 years, needs to read the Constitution. There is a provision in Article I, Section 8, which clearly gives the Congress the authority to make rules with respect to the ground and naval forces. There’s precedent for this."
Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., backed up his Democratic colleague in a press release: “Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says clearly that Congress must ‘make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces,’” said Biden. “This may be the president's war, but it is America's sons and daughters fighting it. Congress must and will do what is necessary to protect them and preserve the readiness of our military to meet any threats to our security.”
The Democrats voted along party lines, while six Republicans defected (was Grassley one of them? need to say how he voted somewhere in story), which prompted disappointment on the Democratic side of the aisle. “I was disappointed that the Webb amendment did not pass yesterday," Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa said in a statement to the Iowa Independent. "This amendment would have provided support to our troops by ensuring they didn’t suffer from lengthy deployments without proper dwell time, unless absolutely necessary for our national security. I find it absurd that anyone can stand up there and say they support our troops, but vote against these amendments. Our troops are at a breaking point -- we cannot continue on the path we are on.”
The GOP, including Iowa’s Sen. Chuck Grassley, blocked what Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has characterized as a back-door attempt by Democrats to force the Bush administration to draw down troops. Grassley could not be reached for comment but had issued a statement to the Iowa Independent regarding his “no” vote when the amendment first came up for a vote in July. "The last thing politicians in Washington should do is tie the hands of our commanders on the ground by dictating troop rotations," Grassley said. “New troop deployment policies as well as increases to the size of the active duty military should help relieve the stress on our current forces, and the reserve forces in particular -- while maintaining the flexibility and capability to respond to national security needs."
Gates had recommended that Bush veto the proposed legislation before Wednesday’s vote in the Senate, contending the bill would hamstring the Pentagon’s ability to maintain current troop levels in Iraq. "It would be extremely difficult for us to manage that. It really is a back-door way to try and force the president to accelerate the draw-downs," Gates said.
Democrats appeared to have some momentum when Sen. John Warner, R-Va., had voiced his support for the amendment, only to change his mind after a last-minute campaign by the Defense Department and the White House to kill the bill. Warner’s late defection deflated any momentum that had been building, thus ensuring the amendment's second death.
Meanwhile, military personnel and family members are facing uncertainty upon the return of soldiers, not really knowing when they will be redeployed. One of the bill’s co-sponsors, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., pleaded their case on the Senate floor. “We owe it to our troops and their families to adopt a fair policy that ensures predictable rotations, adequate time to be with their families before redeployment, and adequate time for realistic training for the difficult assignments we are giving them,” said Obama, a member of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.
“There are scores of anecdotes that bear out the strain on our families,” Obama said. "One woman from Illinois recently wrote my office to tell me how her husband was facing his fourth deployment in four-and-one-half years. She described how her husband had spent so much time in Iraq that, in her words: ‘He feels like he is stationed in Iraq and only deploys home.’ That is not an acceptable way to treat our troops. That is not an acceptable way to treat their families.”
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., an adamant opponent of the Webb/Hagel amendment urged Congress to reject the measure on constitutional grounds. “The Constitution of the United States gives no authority for the Congress of the United States to set lengths of tour or lengths of duty in the military, and I hope we will steadfastly reject this kind of micromanagement, which would create chaos,” McCain said.
Webb rejected McCain’s assertion that the Senate has no role in troop deployments on CNN. “Well, first of all, Senator McCain, who I’ve known for 30 years, needs to read the Constitution. There is a provision in Article I, Section 8, which clearly gives the Congress the authority to make rules with respect to the ground and naval forces. There’s precedent for this."
Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., backed up his Democratic colleague in a press release: “Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says clearly that Congress must ‘make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces,’” said Biden. “This may be the president's war, but it is America's sons and daughters fighting it. Congress must and will do what is necessary to protect them and preserve the readiness of our military to meet any threats to our security.”
Sunday, August 26, 2007
The Iowa Front: Military & Veterans’ Weekly Roundup
Until September, when General David Petraeus releases his report on military progress in Iraq, the political progress in America and Iraq will continue to be stricken with paralysis. To escape the August heat, the Iraqi Parliament broke for vacation until Sept. 4, while the U.S. Congress vacated D.C. for its August recess, as some members return home to face the heat from their constituents.
Meanwhile, our troops continue fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan in a war with no clear objective or end in sight. Tragically, Sgt. 1st Class Scott M. Carney, 37, of Ankeny was killed in Afghanistan Aug. 24, when his Humvee rolled during a convoy operation near Herat. Carney was a member of the Iowa Army National Guard and was the 60th person with Iowa ties to die in the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan since March 2003. Carney was survived by his wife, Jeni, and his 12-year-old twin sons, Jacob and Justin. “Scott died doing what he loved, serving his country and protecting the freedom that we enjoy and providing the people of Afghanistan with the opportunity for freedom,” Carney’s family said in a released statement. (Des Moines Register).
Back home in Iowa, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley has been dogged by voters and anti-war groups all across Iowa during town hall meetings. (see videos below). Fortunately for Grassley and other Congressmen who support the war in Iraq, the Bush Administration equipped them with the perfect defense weapon to fend off unhappy constituents: Gen. Petraeus. In lieu of having to defend Bush’s policies in Iraq, Grassley et. al. merely have to say: “Wait until September...”
Moreover, the anti–war/pro-troop group “No Iraq Escalation” has launched a campaign, “Iraq Summer,” targeting Grassley and Rep. Tom Latham, R-District 4, which focuses on visibility and involves bright red “Support the Troops, End the War,” signs planted all across Iowa.
The “war of words” has also hit the airwaves in Iowa as two groups, "Veterans for Freedom" and "MoveOn.Org," are both on the attack... against one another. "Veterans for Freedom" commercials feature young American soldiers urging people to support the soldiers serving overseas. Meanwhile, other groups are asking voters to call their congressman to ask for an end to the war. Grassley says the ad blitz falls under our constitutional right to freedom of speech, but he believes the negativity is discouraging for troops. "I know from hearing from the people in the battlefield that it's very demoralizing to hear, because they know that the Arabs and the Iraqis are seeing on television what goes on over here," Grassley said. (KTIV, Sioux City)
Like his Gen.-Petraeus response, this feels like a familiar crutch for Grassley. I’ve discussed the war in Iraq with several Iraq war veterans, and not one of them said they felt demoralized by groups calling for a return of troops. Most of them initially respond that they are professionally trained soldiers and aren’t distracted by what’s going on at home, let alone feel demoralized. Furthermore, they all talk about living on “real time” while serving on the ground in Iraq, meaning they’re only concerned with the next five minutes, because that’s the only thing that’s going to keep them alive, not some political argument thousands of miles away.
Sen. Grassley Takes the Heat on Iraq in Small-Town Iowa
Sen. Grassley Attempts to Fend Off Constituents in Southern Iowa
Meanwhile, our troops continue fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan in a war with no clear objective or end in sight. Tragically, Sgt. 1st Class Scott M. Carney, 37, of Ankeny was killed in Afghanistan Aug. 24, when his Humvee rolled during a convoy operation near Herat. Carney was a member of the Iowa Army National Guard and was the 60th person with Iowa ties to die in the war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan since March 2003. Carney was survived by his wife, Jeni, and his 12-year-old twin sons, Jacob and Justin. “Scott died doing what he loved, serving his country and protecting the freedom that we enjoy and providing the people of Afghanistan with the opportunity for freedom,” Carney’s family said in a released statement. (Des Moines Register).
Back home in Iowa, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley has been dogged by voters and anti-war groups all across Iowa during town hall meetings. (see videos below). Fortunately for Grassley and other Congressmen who support the war in Iraq, the Bush Administration equipped them with the perfect defense weapon to fend off unhappy constituents: Gen. Petraeus. In lieu of having to defend Bush’s policies in Iraq, Grassley et. al. merely have to say: “Wait until September...”
Moreover, the anti–war/pro-troop group “No Iraq Escalation” has launched a campaign, “Iraq Summer,” targeting Grassley and Rep. Tom Latham, R-District 4, which focuses on visibility and involves bright red “Support the Troops, End the War,” signs planted all across Iowa.
The “war of words” has also hit the airwaves in Iowa as two groups, "Veterans for Freedom" and "MoveOn.Org," are both on the attack... against one another. "Veterans for Freedom" commercials feature young American soldiers urging people to support the soldiers serving overseas. Meanwhile, other groups are asking voters to call their congressman to ask for an end to the war. Grassley says the ad blitz falls under our constitutional right to freedom of speech, but he believes the negativity is discouraging for troops. "I know from hearing from the people in the battlefield that it's very demoralizing to hear, because they know that the Arabs and the Iraqis are seeing on television what goes on over here," Grassley said. (KTIV, Sioux City)
Like his Gen.-Petraeus response, this feels like a familiar crutch for Grassley. I’ve discussed the war in Iraq with several Iraq war veterans, and not one of them said they felt demoralized by groups calling for a return of troops. Most of them initially respond that they are professionally trained soldiers and aren’t distracted by what’s going on at home, let alone feel demoralized. Furthermore, they all talk about living on “real time” while serving on the ground in Iraq, meaning they’re only concerned with the next five minutes, because that’s the only thing that’s going to keep them alive, not some political argument thousands of miles away.
Sen. Grassley Takes the Heat on Iraq in Small-Town Iowa
Sen. Grassley Attempts to Fend Off Constituents in Southern Iowa
Sunday, August 5, 2007
The Iowa Front: Military & Veterans’ Weekly Roundup
Last night I attended the ceremony at West Branch’s annual Hooverfest honoring Iowa’s 57 soldiers killed in the Iraq War. The event was also intended to pay tribute to the soldiers’ families who have been left behind. Iowa’s commander-in-chief, Gov. Chet Culver, spoke at the ceremony, and the event culminated with a firework show accompanied by contemporary patriotic music. Be sure to read tomorrow’s Iowa Independent for a more detailed write up.
Political/Veterans’ Front
“Legislation Clears Senate to Name Marshalltown Post Office after Fallen Soldier”: One of the fallen soldier honored at the ceremony was Major Scott Nisely, whose public service was recognized by companion bills passed by both chambers of Congress. Legislation to name the Marshalltown Post Office after Nisley cleared the Senate last week. The bill, first introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Bruce Braley, D.-1st Dist., had already passed in the House. The bill now goes to the president to be signed into law.
“This is a fitting tribute to Major Nisely and the welcoming home of his National Guard unit. He was the epitome of a great American and served his country valiantly for nearly 30 years in the military, but his public service didn’t stop there. He also worked for 12 years with the United States Postal Service,” Grassley said in a press release. “I know he is missed by his family, friends, co-workers and fellow Guard members. I hope this will serve as positive reminder of a man who gave so much to his country.”
Nisely’s military service included nearly 25 years with the United States Marine Corps and Marines Corps Reserve during which he achieved the rank of Major. Most recently, he took a significant decrease in rank to serve in the Iowa Army National Guard for close to four years. His public service also includes 12 years with the United States Postal Service.
“Lifelong Republican and Marine Veteran Breaks Ground with "Support the Troops, End the War" Yard Sign”: Americans Against Escalation in Iraq “Iraq Summer” Campaign officially kicked off its "Support the Troops, End the War" yard sign drive in Iowa Monday as part of an ongoing effort to convince Senator Chuck Grassley and U.S. Representative Tom Latham to change course and vote for the safe and responsible redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq. The first yard sign of the 6,000 sign statewide campaign drive was planted in the yard of Dr. Larry Koenig, a lifelong Republican who served in the United States Marine Corps during the Vietnam War. Both his daughter and son joined the United States Army, and his son is still on active duty.
“The current culture of divisiveness is making it hard to end the war,” said Dr. Larry Koenig. “It’s not about being a Republican or a Democrat – it’s about doing the right thing. These signs bring awareness that our troops are in a situation that is not in their best interest or our country’s.”
“It’s wonderful to have someone like Dr. Koenig whose family has given so much for this country standing with us in this effort to bring a safe and responsible end to the war in Iraq,” said Sue Dinsdale, mother of an Iraq war veteran and the Field Director for Iowa’s ‘Iraq Summer’ Campaign.
“We hope Senator Grassley and Congressman Latham get the message that Iowans all of walks of life, of both political parties, are united in calling for an end to this war. These signs are a great way to show neighbors our love and support for our US military - and a great way to show our representatives in Washington that the best way they can show their support for our troops is to vote to bring them home safe.”
“Iraq Summer” is a nationwide, 10-week long campaign with nearly 100 organizers in 15 states and 40 congressional districts to turn up the heat on Republican members of Congress who have opposed setting a timeline to bring a safe and responsible end to the war in Iraq. The effort will culminate with a national “Take a Stand” day on August 28th, when members will have the opportunity to explain their stance on the war to their constituents in a town hall setting.
In Cedar Rapids, Gulf War veteran Joe Stutler, was the first person in eastern Iowa to place a “Support the Troops, End the War” yard sign as part of the campaign. Be sure to read Lynda Waddington’s account of the event in the Iowa Independent.
Political/Veterans’ Front
“Legislation Clears Senate to Name Marshalltown Post Office after Fallen Soldier”: One of the fallen soldier honored at the ceremony was Major Scott Nisely, whose public service was recognized by companion bills passed by both chambers of Congress. Legislation to name the Marshalltown Post Office after Nisley cleared the Senate last week. The bill, first introduced in the House of Representatives by Rep. Bruce Braley, D.-1st Dist., had already passed in the House. The bill now goes to the president to be signed into law.
“This is a fitting tribute to Major Nisely and the welcoming home of his National Guard unit. He was the epitome of a great American and served his country valiantly for nearly 30 years in the military, but his public service didn’t stop there. He also worked for 12 years with the United States Postal Service,” Grassley said in a press release. “I know he is missed by his family, friends, co-workers and fellow Guard members. I hope this will serve as positive reminder of a man who gave so much to his country.”
Nisely’s military service included nearly 25 years with the United States Marine Corps and Marines Corps Reserve during which he achieved the rank of Major. Most recently, he took a significant decrease in rank to serve in the Iowa Army National Guard for close to four years. His public service also includes 12 years with the United States Postal Service.
“Lifelong Republican and Marine Veteran Breaks Ground with "Support the Troops, End the War" Yard Sign”: Americans Against Escalation in Iraq “Iraq Summer” Campaign officially kicked off its "Support the Troops, End the War" yard sign drive in Iowa Monday as part of an ongoing effort to convince Senator Chuck Grassley and U.S. Representative Tom Latham to change course and vote for the safe and responsible redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq. The first yard sign of the 6,000 sign statewide campaign drive was planted in the yard of Dr. Larry Koenig, a lifelong Republican who served in the United States Marine Corps during the Vietnam War. Both his daughter and son joined the United States Army, and his son is still on active duty.
“The current culture of divisiveness is making it hard to end the war,” said Dr. Larry Koenig. “It’s not about being a Republican or a Democrat – it’s about doing the right thing. These signs bring awareness that our troops are in a situation that is not in their best interest or our country’s.”
“It’s wonderful to have someone like Dr. Koenig whose family has given so much for this country standing with us in this effort to bring a safe and responsible end to the war in Iraq,” said Sue Dinsdale, mother of an Iraq war veteran and the Field Director for Iowa’s ‘Iraq Summer’ Campaign.
“We hope Senator Grassley and Congressman Latham get the message that Iowans all of walks of life, of both political parties, are united in calling for an end to this war. These signs are a great way to show neighbors our love and support for our US military - and a great way to show our representatives in Washington that the best way they can show their support for our troops is to vote to bring them home safe.”
“Iraq Summer” is a nationwide, 10-week long campaign with nearly 100 organizers in 15 states and 40 congressional districts to turn up the heat on Republican members of Congress who have opposed setting a timeline to bring a safe and responsible end to the war in Iraq. The effort will culminate with a national “Take a Stand” day on August 28th, when members will have the opportunity to explain their stance on the war to their constituents in a town hall setting.
In Cedar Rapids, Gulf War veteran Joe Stutler, was the first person in eastern Iowa to place a “Support the Troops, End the War” yard sign as part of the campaign. Be sure to read Lynda Waddington’s account of the event in the Iowa Independent.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
The Iowa Front: Military & Veterans’ Weekly Roundup
Veterans/Political Fronts
“Don’t ‘Fire” Draws Veteran’s Ire”: Jim Kantaris, a Korean veteran, was more than a little perturbed when he found out his VFW post wouldn’t be able to fire off their guns during a 4th of July parade in Mason City due to the security measures made to accommodate the Clintons. "There's too much political stuff," Kantaris, quartermaster of Post 733, told the Mason City Globe Gazette. "They're making us change 50 years of tradition because of two people. And one of them is a draft-dodger who turned the White House into a whorehouse." Kantaris later apologized for his comments, but the breaking of a 50-year tradition still did not resonate well with fellow VFW members. Read more of Jim Carlson’s article in the Des Moines Register.
“Obama Aims to Quell Defense Doubts”: Sen. Barack Obama kicks of his “Commander in Chief” tour this week in Iowa. A group of military veterans who served in Iraq, including some from Iowa, will campaign in the state this week in support of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. They will be joined by Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration as they cross the state. For more information about the tour and schedule of events, go to the Des Moines Register.
“Golf Program Will Help Vets”: Injured and disabled veterans soon will get the opportunity to develop their swing on the area's newest golf course.Thanks to a new partnership between the Blue Top Ridge at Riverside golf course, the Iowa PGA and the VA Iowa City Health Care System, the Iowa Veterans for Golf four-part program is intended to improve the mental, social, physical and emotional well-being for veterans served by the medical center. (The Press-Citizen)
“Grassley Announces $7.6 Million for Veterans Cemetery in Van Meter”: Sen. Chuck Grassley today announced that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has awarded a $7.6 million grant to create a new State Veterans Cemetery in Van Meter. The new cemetery will be called the Iowa Veterans Cemetery and is the first State Veterans Cemetery in Iowa. Nearly 70,000 veterans and their families live within the service area of this Dallas County Cemetery.
Military Front
“Two Return, One Goes Back: Second Tour of Iraq Separates Pair with Similar Backgrounds”: chronicles two members of the Iowa National Guard’s 833rd Engineer Company, which is scheduled to redeploy to Iraq later this month. Mark McLaughlin and Jason Beatty had become the best of friends while serving in Iraq, but they’ll be separated during this upcoming tour of duty, because Beatty has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Read more about their relationship and struggles in Mark Kilen’s Des Moines Register article.
“Republicans Defeat Troop Readiness Amendment”: A measure that would improve military readiness and require periods of down time for National Guard and reservists returning from Iraq and Afghanistan before redeploying them was defeated Wednesday by a Senate Republican filibuster. At the very minimum, the proposed down-time requirements would be equal to the time of served during previous deployment. Currently, there are no mandated restrictions set by the Department of Defense.
The amendment, S. AMDT. 2012, was introduced by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which is currently being debated in both chambers of Congress. The vote was 56-41 to end debate on Webb's amendment, with 60 votes needed to move to a full up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
After the filibuster succeeded, Webb, a Vietnam War veteran, shared his disappointment on the Senate floor with Republican colleagues: "Today the Republicans decided to filibuster an amendment that goes straight to the well-being of our troops. I deeply regret this move. I would remind my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle that the American people are watching us today. They expect us to take the sort of positive action that might stabilize the operational environment in which are troops are being sent again and again."
“Don’t ‘Fire” Draws Veteran’s Ire”: Jim Kantaris, a Korean veteran, was more than a little perturbed when he found out his VFW post wouldn’t be able to fire off their guns during a 4th of July parade in Mason City due to the security measures made to accommodate the Clintons. "There's too much political stuff," Kantaris, quartermaster of Post 733, told the Mason City Globe Gazette. "They're making us change 50 years of tradition because of two people. And one of them is a draft-dodger who turned the White House into a whorehouse." Kantaris later apologized for his comments, but the breaking of a 50-year tradition still did not resonate well with fellow VFW members. Read more of Jim Carlson’s article in the Des Moines Register.
“Obama Aims to Quell Defense Doubts”: Sen. Barack Obama kicks of his “Commander in Chief” tour this week in Iowa. A group of military veterans who served in Iraq, including some from Iowa, will campaign in the state this week in support of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama. They will be joined by Retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration as they cross the state. For more information about the tour and schedule of events, go to the Des Moines Register.
“Golf Program Will Help Vets”: Injured and disabled veterans soon will get the opportunity to develop their swing on the area's newest golf course.Thanks to a new partnership between the Blue Top Ridge at Riverside golf course, the Iowa PGA and the VA Iowa City Health Care System, the Iowa Veterans for Golf four-part program is intended to improve the mental, social, physical and emotional well-being for veterans served by the medical center. (The Press-Citizen)
“Grassley Announces $7.6 Million for Veterans Cemetery in Van Meter”: Sen. Chuck Grassley today announced that the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs has awarded a $7.6 million grant to create a new State Veterans Cemetery in Van Meter. The new cemetery will be called the Iowa Veterans Cemetery and is the first State Veterans Cemetery in Iowa. Nearly 70,000 veterans and their families live within the service area of this Dallas County Cemetery.
Military Front
“Two Return, One Goes Back: Second Tour of Iraq Separates Pair with Similar Backgrounds”: chronicles two members of the Iowa National Guard’s 833rd Engineer Company, which is scheduled to redeploy to Iraq later this month. Mark McLaughlin and Jason Beatty had become the best of friends while serving in Iraq, but they’ll be separated during this upcoming tour of duty, because Beatty has been diagnosed with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Read more about their relationship and struggles in Mark Kilen’s Des Moines Register article.
“Republicans Defeat Troop Readiness Amendment”: A measure that would improve military readiness and require periods of down time for National Guard and reservists returning from Iraq and Afghanistan before redeploying them was defeated Wednesday by a Senate Republican filibuster. At the very minimum, the proposed down-time requirements would be equal to the time of served during previous deployment. Currently, there are no mandated restrictions set by the Department of Defense.
The amendment, S. AMDT. 2012, was introduced by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which is currently being debated in both chambers of Congress. The vote was 56-41 to end debate on Webb's amendment, with 60 votes needed to move to a full up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
After the filibuster succeeded, Webb, a Vietnam War veteran, shared his disappointment on the Senate floor with Republican colleagues: "Today the Republicans decided to filibuster an amendment that goes straight to the well-being of our troops. I deeply regret this move. I would remind my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle that the American people are watching us today. They expect us to take the sort of positive action that might stabilize the operational environment in which are troops are being sent again and again."
Friday, July 13, 2007
Republicans Defeat Troop Readiness Amendment
A measure that would improve military readiness and require periods of down time for National Guard and reservists returning from Iraq and Afghanistan before redeploying them was defeated Wednesday by a Senate Republican filibuster. At the very minimum, the proposed down-time requirements would be equal to the time of served during previous deployment. Currently, there are no mandated restrictions set by the Department of Defense.
The amendment, S. AMDT. 2011, was introduced by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which is currently being debated in both chambers of Congress. The vote was 56-41 to end debate on Webb’s amendment, with 60 votes needed to move to a full up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
After the filibuster succeeded, Webb, a Vietnam War veteran, shared his disappointment on the Senate floor with Republican colleagues: “Today the Republicans decided to filibuster an amendment that goes straight to the well-being of our troops. I deeply regret this move. I would remind my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle that the American people are watching us today. They expect us to take the sort of positive action that might stabilize the operational environment in which are troops are being sent again and again.”
Webb’s amendment was bound to meet resistance from the GOP rank and file and faced a President Bush veto, who vetoed the 2007 war emergency bill on similar grounds that Congress should not etch into law deployment and down times – which the Bush administration says would curtail commanders’ flexibility on the battlefield. Iowa’s Sen. Chuck Grassley echoed the administration’s steadfast policy in a statement to the Iowa Independent: “The last thing politicians in Washington should do is tie the hands of our commanders on the ground by dictating troop rotations."
"Our troops have been put under tremendous stress and have been asked to do a great deal during the War on Terrorism. The soldiers and their families have answered the call of duty time and time again,” said Grassley, a Republican. “Recently, the Secretary of Defense announced new troop deployment policies as well as increases to the size of the active duty military. This should help relieve the stress on our current forces, and the reserve forces in particular, while maintaining the flexibility and capability to respond to national security needs.”
Praise for the Bush administration’s troop deployment policies was less forthcoming on the other side of the aisle in Iowa. “It is simply unacceptable that our troops’ time at home has often been cut short, depriving them of the time they need to recover from combat, complete additional training and spend precious time with their families,” said Sen. Tom Harkin in a press release. “This systematic abuse of redeploying our troops with little down time has placed enormous stress on our troops and their families, and has brought our Army to its breaking point. Having an established amount of time between deployments is crucial to protecting our troops’ mental and physical well-being and providing some stability and predictability for military families.”
Findings from a Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health in June support Harkin’s claim:
Regarding the mental health issues facing veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health experts have reached a consensus that matters will only worsen unless proactive measures are taken. Webb’s amendment was one of these measures.
Webb, a first-year senator, spoke of frustrations with the politicizing of his legislative action: “Americans are tired of the posturing that is giving Congress such a bad reputation. They are tired of the procedural strategies designed to protect politicians from accountability, and to protect this Administration from judgment. They are looking for concrete actions that will protect the well-being of our men and women in uniform.”
The amendment, S. AMDT. 2011, was introduced by Sen. Jim Webb, D-Va., as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, which is currently being debated in both chambers of Congress. The vote was 56-41 to end debate on Webb’s amendment, with 60 votes needed to move to a full up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
After the filibuster succeeded, Webb, a Vietnam War veteran, shared his disappointment on the Senate floor with Republican colleagues: “Today the Republicans decided to filibuster an amendment that goes straight to the well-being of our troops. I deeply regret this move. I would remind my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle that the American people are watching us today. They expect us to take the sort of positive action that might stabilize the operational environment in which are troops are being sent again and again.”
Webb’s amendment was bound to meet resistance from the GOP rank and file and faced a President Bush veto, who vetoed the 2007 war emergency bill on similar grounds that Congress should not etch into law deployment and down times – which the Bush administration says would curtail commanders’ flexibility on the battlefield. Iowa’s Sen. Chuck Grassley echoed the administration’s steadfast policy in a statement to the Iowa Independent: “The last thing politicians in Washington should do is tie the hands of our commanders on the ground by dictating troop rotations."
"Our troops have been put under tremendous stress and have been asked to do a great deal during the War on Terrorism. The soldiers and their families have answered the call of duty time and time again,” said Grassley, a Republican. “Recently, the Secretary of Defense announced new troop deployment policies as well as increases to the size of the active duty military. This should help relieve the stress on our current forces, and the reserve forces in particular, while maintaining the flexibility and capability to respond to national security needs.”
Praise for the Bush administration’s troop deployment policies was less forthcoming on the other side of the aisle in Iowa. “It is simply unacceptable that our troops’ time at home has often been cut short, depriving them of the time they need to recover from combat, complete additional training and spend precious time with their families,” said Sen. Tom Harkin in a press release. “This systematic abuse of redeploying our troops with little down time has placed enormous stress on our troops and their families, and has brought our Army to its breaking point. Having an established amount of time between deployments is crucial to protecting our troops’ mental and physical well-being and providing some stability and predictability for military families.”
Findings from a Department of Defense Task Force on Mental Health in June support Harkin’s claim:
The challenges are enormous and the consequences of non-performance are
significant. Data from the Post-Deployment Health Re-Assessment, which is
administered to service members 90 to 120 days after returning from deployment,
indicate that 38 percent of Soldiers and 31 percent of Marines report
psychological symptoms. Among members of the National Guard, the figure rises to
49 percent (U.S. Air Force, 2007; U.S. Army, 2007; U.S. Navy, 2007). Further,
psychological concerns are significantly higher among those with repeated
deployments, a rapidly growing cohort. Psychological concerns among family
members of deployed and returning Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring
Freedom veterans, while yet to be fully quantified, are also an issue of
concern. Hundreds of thousands of children have experienced the deployment of a
parent.
Regarding the mental health issues facing veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health experts have reached a consensus that matters will only worsen unless proactive measures are taken. Webb’s amendment was one of these measures.
Webb, a first-year senator, spoke of frustrations with the politicizing of his legislative action: “Americans are tired of the posturing that is giving Congress such a bad reputation. They are tired of the procedural strategies designed to protect politicians from accountability, and to protect this Administration from judgment. They are looking for concrete actions that will protect the well-being of our men and women in uniform.”
Grassley Announces $7.6 Million for Veterans Cemetery in Van Meter
Sen. Chuck Grassley today announced that the Department of Veterans Affairs has awarded a $7.6 million grant to create a new State Veterans Cemetery in Van Meter. The new cemetery will be called the Iowa Veterans Cemetery . Iowa Veterans Cemetery is the first State Veterans Cemetery in Iowa . Nearly 70,000 veterans and their families live within the service area of this Dallas County Cemetery .
“Those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for our country deserve a proper place for remembrance in their home state,” Grassley said. “This cemetery will provide family, friends, and fellow Iowans with an opportunity to pay their respects to our fallen soldiers.”
The Department of Veterans Affairs State Cemetery Grant Program is designed to complement the 125 national cemeteries across the country. This state cemetery grant program helps states establish new state veterans cemeteries, and expand or improve existing state cemeteries. To date, the program has helped establish 66 state veterans cemeteries in 35 states.
“Those who paid the ultimate sacrifice for our country deserve a proper place for remembrance in their home state,” Grassley said. “This cemetery will provide family, friends, and fellow Iowans with an opportunity to pay their respects to our fallen soldiers.”
The Department of Veterans Affairs State Cemetery Grant Program is designed to complement the 125 national cemeteries across the country. This state cemetery grant program helps states establish new state veterans cemeteries, and expand or improve existing state cemeteries. To date, the program has helped establish 66 state veterans cemeteries in 35 states.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Grassley Calls for Review of Armed Forces Mental Health Policy
Sen. Chuck Grassley, along with a bipartisan group of Senators, sent a letter to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, calling for an independent review of the personality disorder discharge process in the Armed Forces. The letter was prompted by a story in the Washington Post titled “The War Inside,” which chronicled the struggles of Army Specialist Jeans Cruz, a soldier suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.
“Soldiers are putting their lives on the line to protect us. They deserve to know that if they become injured, physically or mentally, while serving our country they will be cared for upon their return,” Grassley said. “We must learn from cases like Specialist Cruz’s and ensure our men and women in uniform receive this care for all ailments, including mental health disorders
Cruz suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and was given a personality disorder discharge which classified his condition as pre-existing to his combat experience in Iraq This discharge prevents Cruz’s from receiving disability benefits and medical care from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The senators are concerned that this is a widespread problem in the military.
In February of this year, Grassley along with Senator Tom Harkin introduced the Joshua Omvig Veteran Suicide Prevention Act. Omvig was a soldier from Iowa who committed suicide after serving his country in Iraq. The legislation directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to implement a comprehensive program to prevent suicide among veterans. The program will identify symptoms of mental health disorders, encourage veterans to seek help, and train VA employees in the best practices for suicide prevention. The legislation is expected to be considered by the Senate Committee on Veteran’s Affairs.
Here is a copy of the letter sent to Gates:
“Soldiers are putting their lives on the line to protect us. They deserve to know that if they become injured, physically or mentally, while serving our country they will be cared for upon their return,” Grassley said. “We must learn from cases like Specialist Cruz’s and ensure our men and women in uniform receive this care for all ailments, including mental health disorders
Cruz suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and was given a personality disorder discharge which classified his condition as pre-existing to his combat experience in Iraq This discharge prevents Cruz’s from receiving disability benefits and medical care from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The senators are concerned that this is a widespread problem in the military.
In February of this year, Grassley along with Senator Tom Harkin introduced the Joshua Omvig Veteran Suicide Prevention Act. Omvig was a soldier from Iowa who committed suicide after serving his country in Iraq. The legislation directs the Department of Veterans Affairs to implement a comprehensive program to prevent suicide among veterans. The program will identify symptoms of mental health disorders, encourage veterans to seek help, and train VA employees in the best practices for suicide prevention. The legislation is expected to be considered by the Senate Committee on Veteran’s Affairs.
Here is a copy of the letter sent to Gates:
Dear Secretary Gates:
We urge you to conduct a thorough and independent review of the personality disorder discharge process across the Armed Forces. We are concerned over continuing reports from Veterans’ Service Organizations, the media, and individual U.S. service personnel that personality disorder discharges have been implemented inappropriately and inconsistently. There are indications that personality disorder discharges are being used as a tool to discharge expeditiously U.S. service personnel who have service-connected injuries, such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI). Even more troubling is the perception that the U.S. military is using these discharges to avoid disability and medical benefits payments.
The Washington Post deftly illustrated an example of this problem on June 17, 2007, in a piece entitled “The War Inside.” According to the Post—after serving a combat tour in Iraq —Army Specialist Jeans Cruz returned to Ft. Hood, Texas, crippled by the mental anguish of his combat experience. Notes from his medical files indicate “major depression,” and “anger from Iraq, nightmares, flashbacks.” The Army was so concerned that it even went so far as to have Spc. Cruz sign a “Life Maintenance Agreement,” a document stating that he agreed “not to harm himself or anyone else.” But the Army ultimately discharged Spc. Cruz with a “personality disorder,” in essence finding that Spc. Cruz’s medical problems had nothing to do with his service in Iraq
Since personality disorder discharges are considered “pre-existing,” personnel discharged under these provisions cannot collect disability benefits and may not receive medical care from the Department of Veterans Affairs f or these “pre-existing” illnesses. Spc. Cruz experienced this first-hand. On August 16, 2006, Spc. Cruz received a letter from the VA stating that he had been denied disability pay.
To make matters worse, military personnel given a personality disorder discharge who have not fulfilled their service contracts can find themselves forced to repay thousands of dollars in re-enlistment bonuses back to the federal government. This can result in debilitating debt for military personnel and their families—many of whom supported our forces over many years of service and endured significant strain as a result of frequent and protracted combat deployments.
Defense Department records indicate that over 22,500 personality disorder discharges have been processed within the past six years. While this represents a small percentage of overall discharges, their inappropriate use and debilitating impact on personnel once discharged is cause f or grave concern.
Another egregious example of misuse was chronicled by reporter Joshua Korson March 29, 2007, in a piece entitled: “How Specialist Town Lost His Benefits.” A copy of the article is attached for your review. On October 19, 2004, Spc. Jon Town was injured and sustained major loss of hearing in a rocket attack in Ramadi, Iraq. His injuries ultimately resulted in memory loss and depression, ending his military career. But instead of sending Spc. Town through the medical board process—an in-depth medical review of a service member’s fitness that often results in the award of disability payments and allows injured personnel and their families to remain eligible f or medical benefits after active service ends—the command at Ft. Carson, Colorado, elected to give Spc. Town a personality disorder discharge. This action deprived Spc. Town of disability benefits and guaranteed VA care f or his injuries once he was discharged from the Army.
While the Army claims to have thoroughly evaluated and reviewed the Town case, we understand that neither Spc. Town or his fellow soldiers, who were aware of the rocket attack and his resulting injuries, were contacted to discuss the case. Hence in this situation, and we fear potentially in others, the Army review was inadequate and anything but thorough.
Consequently, serious questions remain unanswered about the use, or abuse, of the personality disorder discharge and a chain-of-command that allows the inappropriate use of the discharge to continue even as members of Congress from both parties seek to review the practice and the media points out the glaring inconsistencies in the manner in which the personality discharge is administered.
Like many veterans’ advocates, we are skeptical about an administrative process that suddenly diagnoses military personnel who have long and honorable military careers, such as Spc. Cruz and Spc. Town , with pre-existing personality disorders that reportedly become apparent only after combat service in Iraq and Afghanistan . We are particularly concerned that combat forces at the unit level and above are inadequately equipped to diagnose, treat, and work with personnel assessed with brain-related injuries, and that the mechanisms tasked with handling the discharge process and meeting unit manning requirements are also overwhelmed.
Therefore, we urge you to conduct a thorough and independent review of the personality discharge process and to implement appropriate measures to prevent the repeat of cases like Spc. Cruz’s and Spc. Town’s in the future. We also urge you to support the creation of a Special Discharge Review Board to assist the Board f or Correction of Military Records for each service in reviewing petitions from personnel discharged for personality disorders with honor able service records in Iraq and Afghanistan.
As the Walter Reed Army Medical Center hearings demonstrated, the American people will not tolerate substandard treatment and rehabilitative care for those who have served. As members of the United States Senate, we have an obligation to ensure that our service personnel and their families receive the benefits and care they are entitled to. We are eager to work with the Department of Defense on the issues we have outlined and look forward to hearing from you.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
The Iowa Front: Military & Veterans’ Weekly Roundup
Military Front
Dien Judge reported on Sunday’s Iowa National Guard send-off in Ottumwa: “Amid Fanfare and Emotion in Ottumwa, Guard Company Heads Back to Iraq.”
Iowa lost another son, when Cpl. Llythaniele Fender, 21, was killed in Iraq by an improvised explosive device. Fender was Iowa’s 57th fallen soldier with Iowa ties to have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Read the “Des Moines Register” for more coverage.
Iowa National Guardsmen return to Iowa from tour in Afghanistan and are greeted by families and warning signs outside of Newton: “Desperate Women Ahead.”
“Another Native Iowa Soldier Killed by an IED” on Friday.
Veterans’ Front
“Iowa Veterans Blog” unofficially launched this week. The mission of the new blog is to keep veterans connected to news stories and veterans’ affairs in Iowa, monitor current legislation that affects veterans and their families, provide advocacy tools for veterans and their families, and serve as a home base for veterans to share their stories and experiences with other veterans. The site will officially launch sometime next week, beginning with an outreach campaign to other veterans and respective outlets in Iowa.
Political Front
Sen. Grassley sponsored tax-relief bill for troops.
The Human Rights Campaign kicked off its national “Legacy of Service” tour in Des Moines Tuesday night. The campaign features gay military veterans, who are speaking out against the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy with the intent of replacing it with the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which attempts to eliminate the current discriminatory practices enacted against GLBT soldiers. Read Part I and Part II of the series; stay tuned next week for Parts III and IV.
Dien Judge reported on Sunday’s Iowa National Guard send-off in Ottumwa: “Amid Fanfare and Emotion in Ottumwa, Guard Company Heads Back to Iraq.”
Iowa lost another son, when Cpl. Llythaniele Fender, 21, was killed in Iraq by an improvised explosive device. Fender was Iowa’s 57th fallen soldier with Iowa ties to have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Read the “Des Moines Register” for more coverage.
Iowa National Guardsmen return to Iowa from tour in Afghanistan and are greeted by families and warning signs outside of Newton: “Desperate Women Ahead.”
“Another Native Iowa Soldier Killed by an IED” on Friday.
Veterans’ Front
“Iowa Veterans Blog” unofficially launched this week. The mission of the new blog is to keep veterans connected to news stories and veterans’ affairs in Iowa, monitor current legislation that affects veterans and their families, provide advocacy tools for veterans and their families, and serve as a home base for veterans to share their stories and experiences with other veterans. The site will officially launch sometime next week, beginning with an outreach campaign to other veterans and respective outlets in Iowa.
Political Front
Sen. Grassley sponsored tax-relief bill for troops.
The Human Rights Campaign kicked off its national “Legacy of Service” tour in Des Moines Tuesday night. The campaign features gay military veterans, who are speaking out against the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy with the intent of replacing it with the Military Readiness Enhancement Act, which attempts to eliminate the current discriminatory practices enacted against GLBT soldiers. Read Part I and Part II of the series; stay tuned next week for Parts III and IV.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Grassley Sponsors Tax-Relief Bill for Troops
On Tuesday, U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican of the Senate Finance Committee, introduced the Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act, along with committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont. The measure includes $550 million in tax breaks for service members, veterans, and the employers of mobilized National Guard and reserve members.
“Military service makes taxes complicated and sometimes unfair,” said Grassley. “People shouldn’t suffer a tax hit to serve our country. We need to make sure military men and women have fair treatment under the tax code. It’s a no-brainer.”
The bill addresses a number of issues:
“Military service makes taxes complicated and sometimes unfair,” said Grassley. “People shouldn’t suffer a tax hit to serve our country. We need to make sure military men and women have fair treatment under the tax code. It’s a no-brainer.”
The bill addresses a number of issues:
Originally posted at "Iowa Independent"• It would make permanent a temporary tax provision allowing pay earned in a combat zone, which is not subject to income tax, to still be counted as income solely for the purpose of qualifying for the Earned Income Tax Credit. If troops cannot count untaxed income for that purpose, many would show no taxable income and thus would not qualify for the earned-income credit.
• For survivors, the bill allows the $100,000 death gratuity paid for an active-duty death to be put into an Individual Retirement Account or other tax-deferred retirement plan. The change would encourage survivors to save the money for old age.
• For military retirees who wait a year or longer to have veterans’ disability claims resolved, payments often are retroactive. The bill would make it easier for those with retroactive payments to claim a tax refund, which they would receive because some of their past retired pay would then become tax-free. Current law limits tax refunds to three years from the date of filing a tax claim, which ends up hurting some disabled veterans who, through no fault of their own, have waited far longer than three years to get their benefits. The bill would extend the statute of limitations to one year after a VA disability decision is made.
• When civilian employers make up the difference between civilian pay and military pay of mobilized National Guard and reserve members, the Internal Revenue Service requires special reporting for the differential pay that creates a burden for employers and employees. The bill would allow them to use the normal W-2 form to report income for differential payments and would treat the money as normal wages.
• Small businesses with fewer than 50 employees would get a tax credit for making up the salary of reserve component employees who are called to active duty. The tax credit would be equal to 20 percent of the differential pay, with a cap of $20,000 a year.
• Guard and reserve members called to active-duty for at least 179 days would be able to make penalty-free withdrawals from tax-deferred retirement plans. Current law imposes a 10 percent early withdrawal penalty for withdrawals made before age 59½.
• For three years, qualified mortgage bonds — used by some states to help veterans buy homes — would be available to veterans who are first-time homebuyers. The bond authority is set to expire at the end of the calendar year.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
